# Second derivative of Kahler potential.

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
254 views

Does the following second covariant (in terms of Kahler geometry) derivative of Kahler potential vanish? $$K_{ij}\equiv\nabla_i\nabla_j K=0,$$ $$K_{i^*j^*}\equiv\nabla_{i^*}\nabla_{j^*} K=0?$$ Indices represent complex coordinates ($A_i$ and $\bar{A}_i$) on Kahler manifold.

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2016-06-23 20:24 (UTC), posted by SE-user Kosm

edited Jun 23, 2016

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

The answer is in general No. Take e.g. the Fubini-Study Kaehler potential

$$K~=~\ln D, \qquad D~=~1+ Q,\qquad Q~=~\sum_{k=1}^n z^k \bar{z}^k, \tag{1}$$

with Hermitian metric

$$g_{\imath\bar{\jmath}} ~=~ \partial_{\imath} \bar{\partial}_{\bar{\jmath}}K~=~ \frac{\delta_{\imath\bar{\jmath}}}{D}-\frac{\bar{z}^{\imath}z^{\bar{\jmath}}}{D^2}~=~ D^{-1}\left(\delta_{\imath\bar{\jmath}}-\frac{\bar{z}^{\imath}z^{\bar{\jmath}}}{D}\right), \tag{2}$$

and inverse metric

$$g^{\bar{\imath}\jmath}~=~D(\delta^{\bar{\imath}\jmath}+\bar{z}^{\bar{\imath}}z^{\jmath} ) , \tag{3}$$

and Hermitian Christoffel symbols

$$\Gamma_{\imath\jmath}^{\ell} ~=~ \partial_{\imath}g_{\jmath\bar{k}}~g^{\bar{k}\ell}~=~-\frac{\bar{z}^{\imath}\delta_{\jmath}^{\ell}}{D}-\frac{\bar{z}^{\jmath}\delta_{\imath}^{\ell}}{D}. \tag{4}$$

The covariant derivative of the Kaehler potential is

$$\nabla_{\ell}K~=~\partial_{\ell}K ~=~\frac{\bar{z}^{\ell}}{D}.\tag{5}$$

Now calculate the sought-for quantity

$$\nabla_{\imath}\nabla_{\jmath}K ~=~ \nabla_{\imath}\partial_{\jmath}K ~=~\partial_{\imath}\partial_{\jmath}K -\Gamma_{\imath\jmath}^{\ell}~\partial_{\ell}K ~=~\frac{\bar{z}^{\imath}\bar{z}^{\jmath}}{D^2} ~\neq~0, \tag{6}$$ which does not vanish.

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2016-06-23 20:24 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
answered Jun 19, 2016 by (3,120 points)
Then, as I asked in physics section, in application to supersymmetric theories, $\Box z$ and $\partial z\partial\bar{z}$ terms cannot be used interchangeably (box and partials WRT ordinary spacetime). And I don't understand how to get the latter term, without introducing the $\partial z\partial z$ and $\partial\bar{z}\partial\bar{z}$ terms.

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2016-06-23 20:24 (UTC), posted by SE-user Kosm

 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$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$wThen 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.