5
$\begingroup$

I was reading about Calabi-Yau manifolds and thought of this problem. Suppose we consider $Z$ as the zero locus of a degree $n+2$ homogeneous polynomial on $(\mathbb{P}^{n+1}, \omega_{FS})$, where $\omega_{FS}$ is the Fubini-Study metric. Then we know that $Z$ is a Calabi-Yau manifold. All the books/lecture notes prove that $Z$ is a Calabi-Yau manifold by using the Adjunction Formula (so they show that Z has trivial canonical bundle).

My question is that since $Z$ is Calabi-Yau, so it must have a nowhere vanishing holomorphic volume form. How do we explicitly calculate that ?

I know that $\omega_{FS}|_Z$ is $not$ a Ricci-flat K$\ddot{a}$hler metric. So merely restricting the volume form from $\mathbb{P}^{n+1}$ is not the right choice.

Thanks !!

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you want a nowhere-vanishing $(n,0)$-form, or a Ricci-flat Kahler metric? You can write down the first, but as far as I know no one's ever written down an explicit Ricci-flat Kahler metric on a compact Calabi-Yau manifold. $\endgroup$ – Gunnar Þór Magnússon Jun 27 '17 at 7:06
  • $\begingroup$ @GunnarÞórMagnússon Initially, I was thinking about explicit Ricci-Flat Kahler metric, but then I got to know that there are numerical results on approximation of RFK metrics. $\endgroup$ – seeker Jun 28 '17 at 23:46
7
$\begingroup$

For ease of notation, I'll explain how to construct the nowhere-vanishing holomorphic volume form in the case $n = 2$, where the Calabi-Yau hypersurface is a quartic K3 surface. This method generalises for all $n$.

Let's first focus on the affine patch: $$ U = \{ [1 : z_1 : z_2 : z_3] \ \vert \ (z_1, z_2, z_3) \in \mathbb C^3 \} \subset \mathbb{CP}^3.$$ On this affine patch $U$, the hypersurface is defined by a polynomial equation: $$ f_{\rm quartic}(z_1, z_2, z_3) = 0.$$

For each $i \in \{1,2,3 \}$, we define the open subset $$ V_i = \left\{ (z_1, z_2, z_3) \in \mathbb C^3 \ \big\vert \ \frac{\partial f_{\rm quartic}}{\partial z_i}(z_1, z_2, z_3) \neq 0\right\} \subset U.$$ Since $f_{\rm quartic}(z_1, z_2, z_3)$ is non-singular, we have $$ U = V_1 \cup V_2, \cup V_3.$$

Now, observe that $z_2$ and $z_3$ form a set of holomorphic coordinates on $V_1$, by the holomorphic implicit function theorem (with $z_1$ determined holomorphically in terms of $z_2$ and $z_3$). Similar statements hold for $V_2$ and $V_3$.

We can therefore define non-vanishing holomorphic two-forms $\Omega_{V_1}$, $\Omega_{V_2}$ and $\Omega_{V_3}$ on $V_1, V_2, V_3$ respectively: $$ \Omega_{V_1} = \frac{dz_2 \wedge dz_3}{\partial f_{\rm quartic}/\partial z_1}, \ \ \ \ \ \Omega_{V_2} = \frac{dz_3 \wedge dz_1}{\partial f_{\rm quartic}/\partial z_2}, \ \ \ \ \ \Omega_{V_3} = \frac{dz_1 \wedge dz_2}{\partial f_{\rm quartic}/\partial z_3},$$

It is easy to see that $$\Omega_{V_1} = \Omega_{V_2}$$ on $V_1 \cap V_2$. [One can verify this by multiplying the equation $$ \frac{\partial f_{\rm quartic}}{\partial z_1} dz_1 + \frac{\partial f_{\rm quartic}}{\partial z_2} dz_2 + \frac{\partial f_{\rm quartic}}{\partial z_3} dz_3 = 0$$ by $\wedge dz_3$.]

Similarly, $\Omega_{V_2} = \Omega_{V_3}$ on $V_2 \cap V_3$, and $\Omega_{V_3} = \Omega_{V_1}$ on $V_3 \cap V_1$.

So $\Omega_{V_1}$, $\Omega_{V_2}$ and $\Omega_{V_3}$ glue together to define a non-vanishing holomorphic two-form $\Omega$ on the whole of the affine patch $U$.

There remains a possibility that $\Omega$ may vanish, or diverge, on the hyperplane $$ H = \{ [0 : x_1 : x_2 : x_3] \ \vert \ [x_1 : x_2 : x_3] \in \mathbb{CP}^2 \}$$ which is not covered by the affine patch $U$. We must show that this does not happen.

Expressing this in the language of divisors, we know that ${\rm div}(\Omega) = nH$ for some $n \in \mathbb Z$, and our task is to show that $n = 0$. But this is obvious: since $\Omega$ is a meromorphic section of the canonical bundle, which is trivial for the quartic by adjunction, the divisor class ${\rm div}(\Omega)$ is the trivial divisor, hence $n = 0$. [Or if you want to avoid divisors, then just compute what $\Omega$ is after the change of coordinates and you'll see...]


As Gunnar pointed out, finding a Ricci-flat metric on the quartic K3 is a much more difficult problem. As far as I'm aware, my colleagues in string theory only know how to approximate this numerically.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for your crystal clear answer. $\endgroup$ – seeker Jun 28 '17 at 23:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.