The Goldman bracket

I was in Stony Brook last week, visiting Moira Chas and Dennis Sullivan, and have been away from blogging for a while; this week I plan to write a few posts about some of the things I discussed with Moira and Dennis. This is an introductory post about the Goldman bracket, an extraordinary mathematical object made out of the combinatorics of immersed curves on surfaces. I don’t have anything original to say about this object, but for my own benefit I thought I would try to explain what it is, and why Goldman was interested in it.

In his study of symplectic structures on character varieties \text{Hom}(\pi,G)/G, where \pi is the fundamental group of a closed oriented surface and G is a Lie group satisfying certain (quite general) conditions, Bill Goldman discovered a remarkable Lie algebra structure on the free abelian group generated by conjugacy classes in \pi. Let \hat{\pi} denote the set of homotopy classes of closed oriented curves on S, where S is itself a compact oriented surface, and let \mathbb{Z}\hat{\pi} denote the free abelian group with generating set \hat{\pi}. If \alpha,\beta are immersed oriented closed curves which intersect transversely (i.e. in double points), define the formal sum

[\alpha,\beta] = \sum_{p \in \alpha \cap \beta} \epsilon(p; \alpha,\beta) |\alpha_p\beta_p| \in \mathbb{Z}\hat{\pi}

In this formula, \alpha_p,\beta_p are \alpha,\beta thought of as based loops at the point p, \alpha_p\beta_p represents their product in \pi_1(S,p), and |\alpha_p\beta_p| represents the resulting conjugacy class in \pi. Moreover, \epsilon(p;\alpha,\beta) = \pm 1 is the oriented intersection number of \alpha and \beta at p.

This operation turns out to depend only on the free homotopy classes of \alpha and \beta, and extends by linearity to a bilinear map [\cdot,\cdot]:\mathbb{Z}\hat{\pi} \times \mathbb{Z}\hat{\pi} \to \mathbb{Z}\hat{\pi}. Goldman shows that this bracket makes \mathbb{Z}\hat{\pi} into a Lie algebra over \mathbb{Z}, and that there are natural Lie algebra homomorphisms from \mathbb{Z}\hat{\pi} to the Lie algebra of functions on \text{Hom}(\pi,G)/G with its Poisson bracket.

The connection with character varieties can be summarized as follows. Let f:G \to \mathbb{R} be a (smooth) class function (i.e. a function which is constant on conjugacy classes) on a Lie group G. Define the variation function F:G \to \mathfrak{g} by the formula

\langle F(A),X\rangle = \frac {d}{dt}|_{t=0} f(A\text{exp}{tX})

where \langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle is some (fixed) \text{Ad}-invariant orthogonal structure on the Lie algebra \mathfrak{g} (for example, if G is reductive (eg if G is semisimple), one can take \langle X,Y\rangle = \text{tr}(XY)). The tangent space to the character variety \text{Hom}(\pi,G)/G at \phi is the first cohomology group of \pi with coefficients in \mathfrak{g}, thought of as a G module with the \text{Ad} action, and then as a \pi module by the representation \phi. Cup product and the pairing \langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle determine a pairing

H^1(\pi,\mathfrak{g})\times H^1(\pi,\mathfrak{g}) \to H^2(\pi,\mathbb{R}) = \mathbb{R}

where the last equality uses the fact that \pi is a closed surface group; this pairing defines the symplectic structure on \text{Hom}(\pi,G)/G.

Every element \alpha \in \pi determines a function f_\alpha:\text{Hom}(\pi,G)/G \to \mathbb{R} by sending a (conjugacy class of) representation [\phi] to f(\phi(\alpha)). Note that f_\alpha only depends on the conjugacy class of \alpha in \pi. It is natural to ask: what is the Hamiltonian flow on \text{Hom}(\pi,G)/G generated by the function f_\alpha? It turns out that when \alpha is a simple closed curve, it is very easy to describe this Hamiltonian flow. If \alpha is nonseparating, then define a flow \psi_t by \psi_t\phi(\gamma)=\phi(\gamma) when \gamma is represented by a curve disjoint from \alpha, and \psi_t\phi(\gamma)= \text{exp} tF_\alpha(\phi)\phi(\gamma) if \gamma intersects \alpha exactly once with a positive orientation (there is a similar formula when \alpha is separating). In other words, the representation is constant on the fundamental group of the surface “cut open” along the curve \alpha, and only deforms in the way the two conjugacy classes of \alpha in the cut open surface are identified in \pi.

In the important motivating case that G = \text{PSL}(2,\mathbb{R}), so that one component of \text{Hom}(\pi,G)/G is the Teichmüller space of hyperbolic structures on the surface S, one can take f = 2\cosh^{-1}\text{tr/2}, and then f_\alpha is just the length of the geodesic in the free homotopy class of \alpha, in the hyperbolic structure on S associated to a representation. In this case, the symplectic structure on the character variety restricts to the Weil-Petersson symplectic structure on Teichmüller space, and the Hamiltonian flow associated to the length function f_\alpha is a family of Fenchel-Nielsen twists, i.e. the deformations of the hyperbolic structure obtained by cutting along the geodesic \alpha, rotating through some angle, and regluing. This latter observation recovers a famous theorem of Wolpert, connected in an obvious way to his formula for the symplectic form \omega = \sum dl_\alpha \wedge d\theta_\alpha where \theta is angle and l is length, and the sum is taken over a maximal system of disjoint essential simple curves \alpha for the surface S.

The combinatorial nature of the Goldman bracket suggests that it might have applications in combinatorial group theory. Turaev discovered a Lie cobracket on \mathbb{Z}\hat{\pi}, and showed that together with the Goldman bracket, one obtains a Lie bialgebra. Motivated by Stallings’ reformulation of the Poincaré conjecture in terms of group theory, Turaev asked whether a free homotopy class contains a power of a simple curve if and only if the cobracket of the class is zero. The answer to this question is negative, as shown by Chas; on the other hand, Chas and Krongold showed that a class \alpha is simple if and only if [\alpha,\alpha^3] is zero. Nevertheless, the full geometric meaning of the Goldman bracket remains mysterious, and a topic worthy of investigation.

This entry was posted in Lie groups, Surfaces and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Goldman bracket

  1. Andy P. says:

    There’s an interesting earlier (ie 1978) paper of
    Turaev entitled “Intersections of loops in
    two-dimensional manifolds”. In that paper, he gives
    an intersection pairing on \pi_1 of a surface (with
    one boundary component; the basepoint is on the boundary) that
    is superficially very similar to the Goldman bracket,
    but actually has rather different, intriguing properties.

    It is a pairing
    \Z \pi_1 \times \Z \pi_1 \rightarrow \Z \pi_1.
    Unlike the Goldman bracket, its values depend strongly on
    the basepoint. However, it interacts very well with
    the group-theory of the surface group. In particular,
    it is actually a biderivation in an appropriate sense. Even
    more interestingly, I noticed when I read Turaev’s paper that
    it interacts well with the derived series of \pi_1. Let
    S_k be the quotient of \pi_1 by the kth term
    of its derived series, so $\latex S_k$ is a k-step solvable
    group. Then Turaev’s bracket descends to a pairing
    \Z S_k \times \Z S_k \rightarrow \Z S_{k-1}. For k=1,
    we have S_{k-1} = 1 and this is just the algebraic intersection
    pairing. For the higher terms, however, we get something new. In
    particular, for k=2 we have S_{k-1} equal to the
    first homology group of the surface, so we get an “intersection pairing”
    on the two-step solvable truncation of \pi_1 with values in
    the group ring of its first homology group!

    I’ve always thought that this should have nice applications
    (maybe to understanding the “solvable” version of the Johnson
    filtration of the mapping class group), but I haven’t yet managed
    to find any…

  2. Andy P. says:

    Let’s try that again and see if I can get the formulas to parse.

    There’s an interesting earlier (ie 1978) paper of
    Turaev entitled “Intersections of loops in
    two-dimensional manifolds”. In that paper, he gives
    an intersection pairing on \pi_1 of a surface (with
    one boundary component; the basepoint is on the boundary) that
    is superficially very similar to the Goldman bracket,
    but actually has rather different, intriguing properties.

    It is a pairing
    \mathbb{Z} \pi_1 \times \mathbb{Z} \pi_1 \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} \pi_1.
    Unlike the Goldman bracket, its values depend strongly on
    the basepoint. However, it interacts very well with
    the group-theory of the surface group. In particular,
    it is actually a biderivation in an appropriate sense. Even
    more interestingly, I noticed when I read Turaev’s paper that
    it interacts well with the derived series of \pi_1. Let
    S_k be the quotient of \pi_1 by the kth term
    of its derived series, so S_k is a k-step solvable
    group. Then Turaev’s bracket descends to a pairing
    \mathbb{Z} S_k \times \mathbb{Z} S_k \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} S_{k-1}. For k=1,
    we have S_{k-1} = 1 and this is just the algebraic intersection
    pairing. For the higher terms, however, we get something new. In
    particular, for k=2 we have S_{k-1} equal to the
    first homology group of the surface, so we get an “intersection pairing”
    on the two-step solvable truncation of \pi_1 with values in
    the group ring of its first homology group!

    I’ve always thought that this should have nice applications
    (maybe to understanding the “solvable” version of the Johnson
    filtration of the mapping class group), but I haven’t yet managed
    to find any…

    • Danny Calegari says:

      Hi Andy – thanks for the comment and the reference! I was not aware of this paper (I guess it is this one), although I knew in a general way that Turaev has done several interesting things with the combinatorics of immersed curves on surfaces. An endlessly mysterious and fascinating subject!

  3. Peter says:

    Hi Danny,

    I’ve been reading about the Goldman form a little bit recently and I found this blog post, which was very nice to read. I had what I assume is a stupid question: In a couple of his papers Goldman restricts to working with closed surfaces of genus g > 1. Do you know why he doesn’t include the torus? My impression is that it has something to do with \pi_1 being abelian, but I don’t know what. Do you know if he has this restriction because the symplectic form (or corresponding Poisson bracket) don’t exist, or because the character variety isn’t as well-behaved?

    A paper that I thought was interesting that uses this Poisson bracket is http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/publdoc.html?pg1=MR&s1=1691437&loc=fromreflist
    A one-sentence summary is that the “deformation quantization of the ring of functions on the character variety of \pi_1 of a surface” has a natural geometric interpretation.

    Peter
    p.s. I was a student in your class on complex curves a few years back (winter of 04-05?), which was a nice class :-)

    • Danny Calegari says:

      Hi Peter – as you say, the issue is with pi_1 being abelian, so there are no “interesting” representations. Although even in this case, if one thinks of H^1 as the “character variety” of representations of pi_1 to R, there is a symplectic form on this space coming from the intersection pairing. At least I think this is why Goldman ignores this case . . .

      best,

      Danny

      (ps I haven’t updated my blog in a long time; I keep intending to get around to it though)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s