Exterior Differential (and its Equivalent Differential Operator) of an Integral 0-Form

+ 5 like - 0 dislike
169 views

I am reading Witten's 1982 paper "Supersymmetry and Morse Theory," and while I am slowly learning the material as I read through the paper, I have come across an equivalence that, while it should be rather basic, I can't seem to show rigorously.

In the paper, Witten defines a (modified) exterior derivative $\text{d}_t$ as

$$\text{d}_t = \text{d} + t\, \text{d} h$$

where

$$h(\phi) = \int_S W(\phi(x)) \, \text{d}x,$$

the region $S$ is a circle with circumference $L$ and $\phi$ is a real-valued function from $S$ to the reals, i.e. $\phi: S \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.

Now, I am having trouble proving to myself that this exterior derivative $\text{d}_t$ is equivalent to the standard differential operator

$$\frac{d}{d \phi} + t L \frac{dW}{d\phi}$$

acting on real-valued functions of the variable $\phi$.

Now, as far as I can tell, Witten is making the identification $d \leftrightarrow \frac{d}{d \phi}$ here for this equivalency. However, given that, I can't seem to get the remaining term $t L \frac{dW}{d\phi}$.

My attempt:

We make the identification $\text{d} \leftrightarrow \frac{d}{d\phi}$, so the last term in the expression for $\text{d}_t$ is simply $\frac{dh}{d \phi}$. So, it should be as simple as evaluating

$$\frac{d}{d\phi} \int_S W(\phi(x)) \, \text{d}x.$$

However, in evaluating this, the trouble I am running in to is that $\phi$ is an arbitrary function that is not necessarily invertible, so I cannot just rewrite the integral as an integral over $\phi$.

I have also tried using the mechanics of exterior derivatives first, but then I run into the issue of evaluating

$$\text{d} \int_S W(\phi(x)) \, \text{d}x,$$ which I'm not so sure where to begin (the exterior derivative is defined on the real line, not on $S$). Possibly, we can commute the derivative, which leaves us with $$\int_S \text{d} (W(\phi(x)) \, \text{d}x).$$ Then, using one of the identities of the exterior derivative yields $$\int_S \text{d} (W(\phi(x))) \land \text{d}x,$$ at which point I think the correct next step would be $$\int_S \frac{dW}{d\phi} \,\text{d} \phi \land \text{d}x.$$

From here, though, it's not quite clear what to do. Do we integrate over the region $S$, taking the integrand (a 2-form) to a 1-form? If so, this leads me to conclude that the result be (something like) $$L \frac{dW}{d\phi} \, \text{d} \phi,$$ which, with the identification, would be $$L \frac{dW}{d\phi} \frac{d}{d\phi},$$ not what we expected.

Where is my reasoning flawed? How do I obtain the result desired?

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2016-01-19 15:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user Sam Blitz

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsOverflo$\varnothing$Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.