3
$\begingroup$

$H^1(M,\mathbb{Z}_2)$ specifies the 1st cohomology class of manifold $M$ (can be regarded as spacetime) with $\mathbb{Z}_2$ coefficient,

it is often to see that we say the 1st Stiefel Whitney class

$$w_1 \in H^1(M,\mathbb{Z}_2), \tag{1}$$

However, it looks to me that when we discuss the spinor bundle (associated to fermion in physics), we also say that the fermion line is related to $H^1(M,\mathbb{Z}_2).$ For example, on the $d$-torus, we need to specify the spin structure on the torus (a spin manifold, with possibly the choice of $H^1(M,\mathbb{Z}_2)=H^1(T^d,\mathbb{Z}_2)=\bigoplus_d\mathbb{Z}_2$ along each $S^1$-circle direction.) In other words, we may say that roughly

$$\text{periodic and anti-periodic boundary condition of fermions} \in H^1(M,\mathbb{Z}_2),\tag{2}$$

Moreover, one way to understand the fermion moving along a 1-dimensional sub dimensional manifold, may be the spin bordism group generator, say $\eta$, where

$$\Omega^{1,Spin}(pt)=\mathbb{Z}_2,\tag{2},$$

where $\eta$ on a nontrivial 1-dimensional manifold generates the bordism group.

My question: So how are these eq.(1), (2), (3) are related? Or how are they not related? Can one clarify these with examples?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The set of isomorphism classes of spin structures on a spin manifold $M$ is a torsor over $H^1(M, \mathbb{Z}_2)$; what this means is that $H^1(M, \mathbb{Z}_2)$ acts freely and transitively on it, so the two can be identified but not canonically. An identification requires a choice of spin structure to act as the "origin." The $n$-torus happens to have a close-to-canonical choice of spin structure given by the one coming from its Lie group framing, so one can make a close-to-canonical identification in that case.

I don't know how this is related to fermions or spin bordism.

$\endgroup$

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.