This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
]) , J V 4 J 2 V[<(>* ,4>) = \ {a4>* * ^ * <£* * <j> + bcf>* * 4>* * ? 0. The action (6.22) suffers from the contact term divergencies 211 ' 212 ' 213,214 which arise when a pair of X-s collides in a point. This sort of singularities appears already at the tree level. Really, the tree level graphs are generated by solving the classical equation of motion by perturbation theory. For Witten's action (6.22) the equation reads QBA )}
(312)
where the covariant derivative is defined by V^ = 9M> — ig[A,t, (/>]*. g and A are coupling constants and a and b are fixed real numbers. It has been shown in 32 , that the pure complex scalar field theory is one-loop renormalizable only if a = b or b = 0. The purpose of the present analysis is to find the analogous restrictions on a and b in the case of scalar electrodynamics. The action (3.12) is invariant under the following gauge transformations <£i->- 17 * 0 * t/t ,
<£*(->•[/*>**[/*,
A„ H+ U-kA^ * [ / * + -
Ud^z,
where U is an element of the noncommutative 17(1) group 34 . Note that since our fields are in adjoint representation we could consider the theory with two real scalar fields instead of one complex. The Feynman rules for the theory (3.12) are presented in Table 1. Solid lines denote the scalar fields, "in" arrows stand for the field <j> and "out" arrows stand for the field >*.
27
k
Dfivyk) — p-
P kj, u
J
liV
(1-a)^]
Dip) = £ k2, v 4g25'"'[cos(A;i Api + fc2 Ap 2 ) - cos(pi Ap 2 ) cos(fei A fc2)]
k, n P
l
^
^
p
4
2ig(pi - p 2 ) M sin(pi A p 2 )
- 4A2[ocos(pi Ap 2 +P3 Ap 4 ) + 6cos(pi Ap 3 ) cos(p2 AP4)]
k2,v
ki.H
kyP
k
k
2> v
-2igsm(klAk2)[(kl-k2)pS^
+ (k2-k3)li6vp
+
(k3~k1)vSlMPJ
3» P
4# [((^(W - d^dyp) sin(fci Afc2)sin(k3 A A;4) +(<W
k,, a
+ (<W<SP
We do not specify the Feynman rules for ghosts, since they do not contribute to one-loop graphs with the external matter lines. All calculations are performed in Landau gauge a = 0. This is a convenient choice, since in this gauge a great number of graphs do not have divergent parts. One can prove that the theory is gauge invariant on quantum level (cf. 24,25,26,33^ s o o u r r g g ^ g a n c j conclusions are valid for an arbitrary value of a. The above mentioned restriction on a and b can come from one-loop corrections to the 4-scalar and 2-scalar-2-gluon vertices. First we consider one-loop corrections to the 4-point scalar vertex. The graphs that have non zero divergent parts in Landau gauge are presented in Figure 6. Using the dimensional regularization (d = 4 - 2e) we find that the sum of divergent parts of these
28 b.
r
4
e. *>
h Figure 6.
One-loop corrections to the 4-point scalar vertex.
graphs is equal to 4 (47r) 2 e
[(3g4 + 4 A V + A4&2) cos(pi A p2 + p3 A p 4 )
+ (3g4 + 4A4a& + A462) cosfai A p3) cos(p2 A p 4 )] •
(3.13)
The condition of one-loop renormalizability yields a system of two algebraic equations on a and b 3g4 + 4A4a2 + A462 = ca , 3g4 + 4A4a6 + A4&2 = cb , where c is a constant. These equations are self-consistent only in the case a = b. Therefore the renormalizable potential for scalar electrodynamics has the form
vw,*] = « | ({**- *K)2
(3.14)
where {/, g}* = f*g+g*fNote that in contrast to the pure noncommutative complex scalar field theory 32 we do not have the solution 6 = 0. Let us turn to an analysis of one-loop corrections to the 2-scalar-2-gluon vertex. The graphs that have non zero divergent parts in the a = 0 gauge are presented in Figure 7.
ki.H
e. ki.H k 2 ,v
k,,v Figure 7.
One-loop corrections to the 2-scalar-2-gluon vertex.
29
The sum of the divergent parts of these graphs is 12 (47r) 2 e
g 8^ [cos(pi A fci + p 2 A k2) - cos(pi A p 2 ) cos(&i A fc2)] •
(3.15)
Note that the graphs 7c and 7e do contain 4-point scalar vertex and there are terms depending on a and b. However the contributions of these graphs mutually cancel and the sum does not depend on a and b. Therefore, there are no new restrictions on these constants. We see that a counterterm requiring for a cancellation of (3.15) has just the same trigonometric structure as the initial 2-scalar-2-gluon vertex in the action, i.e. this vertex is one-loop renormalizable. Thus the above analysis leads to the conclusion that noncommutative scalar electrodynamics (3.12) is one-loop renormalizable only if the scalar potential has the anticommutator form (3.14).
3.5. Noncommutative
Jsf = 2 Super
Yang-Mills
Theory
The action for the Euclidean noncommutative Af = 2 SUSY Yang-Mills theory reads 74 - 75
S = Jd4x (-IFIIV*F»1'
+ (Z>M0_) * (V„4>+) -iX**VX
• f f V2x^(i?[x^ + L + i [ x ^ - U - y ( [ ^ - , 0 + U 2 ) ,
(3- 16)
where £>M = d^ — iglA^, •]*, L,R = | ( 1 ± T 5 ), cj>± are real scalar fields, \ is a complex four-component spinor a . The action (3.16) is a noncommutative generalization of Euclidean N = 2 SYM theory. A formulation of noncommutative M = 2 supersymmetric theories in terms of superfields was given in 34
Note that the scalar electrodynamics examined in the previous section can be considered as a bosonic part of AT = 2 NCSYM. The identification is evident: <j> and cf>* corresponds to >+ and >_, respectively. Also we should replace A by g and take a — — b = — 1. The fact that fields (j>± are not complex conjugate does not affect the performed calculations. The Feynman rules for the bosonic part of the action (3.16) can be easily obtained from the Feynman rules for scalar electrodynamics (see Table 1) using the above mentioned identification. The Feynman rules for fermion fields are presented in Table 2. a
Note that Af = 2 SYM in Minkowski space contains a complex scalar field.
30
£... >k, H R
i
^
S(v)
= T"» P
-•*-
2
P
-22gr^sin(piAp2)
i
R>
2i9v / 2sin(pi Ap 2 )-R
^
P>
2i 5 v / 2sin(pi Ap 2 )£
Table 2. Feynman rules for fermion fields.
As in the case of scalar electrodynamics we start with the examination of the one-loop corrections to the 4-point scalar vertex. The graphs with fermion loops are presented in Figure 8. The divergencies coming from these graphs b.
£\Z-A
K.l-A « - - •
+
*
Figure 8. One-loop fermion corrections to the 4-point scalar vertex.
are 32
(4TT)2C
9
cos pi
(
A
P2 + P3 A pi) .
(3.17)
Thus, taking into account the contribution (3.13) of the boson graphs we find that the boson and fermion divergencies mutually cancel. The similar result is valid for ordinary N — 2 SUSY Yang-Mills theory where the 4-point scalar vertex is finite at one-loop 134 . Next we calculate one-loop corrections to the 2-scalar-2-gluon vertex. The graphs with fermion loops are presented in Figure 9. The sum of divergent
* t
it
Figure 9. One-loop fermion corrections to the 2-scalar-2-gluon vertex.
31
parts of these graphs is 1 f\
~ TT^T 9 4 <Wcos(pi A
(3.18)
Summing the contributions of the boson (3.15) and fermion (3.18) graphs we get 4 4 (47r)2e• g * ^ [cos(pi Afci+ p2 A k2) - cos(pi A p 2 ) cos(fci A fc2)] . Note that one-loop fermion corrections as well as boson ones restore the trigonometric structure of the initial vertex. So, we conclude that the noncommutative M = 2 D = 4 SYM with the action (3.16) is one loop renormalizable. 3.6. UV/IR
Problem
It is evident that our renormalized 1PI functions do not have the limit £ —> 0. Due to this there is a nontrivial mixing of UV and IR divergencies (see 29 ' 27 for details). It turns out that a type of the UV divergency of the integral corresponding to the Feynman graph in a local model
J mi f(k,p)dk
Juvip) = /
is the same as a type of the IR behavior of the integral corresponding to the Feynman graph in a noncommutative model
JiRfo) = Je^kePf(k,p)dk. For example, the logarithmically divergent integral Juv ~ log A corresponds to a logarithmic singularity log(£|0p|) in Jm, the quadratically divergent integral Juv corresponds to a quadratic singularity (£|#p|) - 2 in Jm, and so on. Indeed, the UV behavior of the Feynman graph is defined by its index of divergence u. For u > 0 one has the asymptotic UV behaviour as A -> oo J ° s v = [ ku-xdk Jo The IR behavior is described by integral
= -A" . w
(3.19)
rOO
J™R = / k^e^dk (3.20) Jo as £ —> 0. This integral is the Fourier transform of the distribution fc"-1
Jfh=ieWu-1) J^l, , IR (£ + i0) w
(3.21) '
v
32
i.e. for w > 0 one has the correspondence with UV behaviour (3.19). To see logarithmic singularities on £ let us note that rA
M
k dk c
L -' ~ Lk^~loiA
(3 22)
-
and the corresponding non local integral is
J
^^ = JWT^dk-
(3 23)
-
The latter integral can be calculated explicitly and the result is J ^ ° = 2irK0(mt\p\)
.
(3.24)
The modified Bessel function K0(z) has an expansion + ln(2) -C + 0(z2)
Ko(z){&) = -ln(z)
where C is Euler constant, i.e. Jj^ (£p) has the logarithmic dependence on £. IR poles appear in the corrections to propagators and can produce IR divergencies in multi-loop graphs even in the massive theories. One has not to worry about logarithms, since in the origin the logarithm is an integrable function. Let us consider several examples. Example 1. One can calculate explicitly the finite part of the tadpole graph in the noncommutative y 4 theory. The answer is given by the sum of (3.7) and (3.6). The behavior of (3.7) in the limit p2 -»• 0 (the same as the limit £ —>• 0) is the following r(2)
..
1Jp
-
^ _
P^O (Cb|) 2 •
This result can be easily obtained from the series expansion of the modified Bessel function K\ (z)
Kl{z) =
~z + \ZHZ) + {\C ~ \ ~ \ b(2) ) Z + °{z3)
where C is Euler constant. Caused by this asymptotic there are problems with an IR behavior of graphs with tadpoles. They produce divergence in the IR region if the number of insertions is three or more (compare with an example of ref. [21] in 2 8 ) . Thus, theories with a real scalar field have problems with infrared behavior 29 ' 27 originated in multi one-loop insertions.
33
Example 2. Another example is a tadpole Fig. 5:e in the case of complex scalar field. The analytic expression for this graph is the following T(P)
( M 2 ) £ f ,d, A +
BcoS2(kAp)
k2+;
(2'
(^+f)(M2r /
ddk
2
2
k +m
+
pi2k/\p
B{H2) 2(2
2
k + m2
(3.25)
Integrating this expression over momentum k we obtain
r(p) =
,d-2(,,2\e2 (M )' (47r)d/2
(-D
r(i-d/2) + (
d/2-l
B
m
47r)d/2
U\0p\\
Kd/2^(2m^\6p\).
For d = 4 the second term is singular when p —> 0. But in the case B = 0 (one of the possible solution of the UV renormalizability) this term disappears and hence there is no IR problem at least at one-loop level. Example 3. In the case of scalar electrodynamics all corrections to the scalar field propagator are presented in Figure 10a,b,c. For a = b (see notations
d.
." / f r .'" T~L/ -p Figure 10.
One-loop corrections to the scalar field propagator.
in the subsection about scalar electrodynamics) the sum of the divergent parts is: 6<72(^2)2£ fd4k
r
a\2
a\2\
/
,„,
.1
(27
1 — cos(2fc Ap) 8g 2 (^ 22\2e ) d4* p k2{p + k)2 (2*)' /
fc2
where p is an external momentum. A quadratic UV divergence here is removed by a mass renormalization. To remove IR poles one has to impose the condition A2 a =
-3g2.
Computing a one-loop correction to the scalar field propagator in the N = 2 d = 4 NC SYM (3.16) we have one more graph presented in Figure lOd. Summing all contributions we have 49
2/ 2\2e f
~ ^>
^k
J (2^)4
l-cos(2A;Ap) 2
k {p+k)
2
p2+2
(ph) 2 1 k2
34
Since all UV divergencies are logarithmic there is no IR poles in the case of X = 2 D = 4 NC SYM theory. All calculations of the one-loop corrections was performed using a dimensional regularization. Now we would like to show that appearance of the IR singularities does not depend on a regularization. Namely, we compute an answer for the tadpole graph in the noncommutative complex scalar field theory using another methods. The expression for this graph is given by (3.25). First, we perform calculations using Pauli-Villars regularization. To do this we rewrite (3.25) in the following form
(p) =
reg,PV
fd4k[A
T ^
+ B cos2 (k A p)]
k2 + m2
d k2 + M2
k2 + M2
with C\ + C 2 = 1 and C\M\ + C2M\ = m 2 . All integrals are finite and we get the following answer
(A+ I ) [MlMl-m2
rre9,Pv(p) = ±
M2+M2-m2
' 2
M\
M lit
+
M2 - m2
(M2+M2-m2)) M2 M\ - m
M2 +
, 2
6
M2-m2 2
M
lit
S
- d-^K^M^epl)
Mf - C2^K1(2M2^\9p\)Sj
.
(3.26)
Note, that for fixed values of M; there is a cancellation of an IR pole l/\p6\2, i.e. the sum of the last three terms has the following asymptotic behavior for small \p6\2 up to a numeric factor m 2 log(2m£|0p|) - d M 2 log(2Mi£|0p|) - C2MJ \og{2M2t,\6p\) . It is easy to see, that one cannot do this calculation for large Mi. To remove a regularization (to take limits Mi -» oo and M2 -> oo) one has to do the standard UV renormalization which corresponds to the UV renormalization of the planar part of this graph. The first two lines in the (3.26) contain these UV divergencies of the tadpole. The non-planar part, i.e. the third line of (3.26), does not require a renormalization. If one takes limit Mi —>• oo and M 2 —> oo than two last terms in
35
the third line of (3.26) go to zero since Kx{z)
~
for
Z —¥ OO .
Therefore, after removing a regularization we are left with the following term
that contains IR pole. The same result is true for the "cut-off" regularization. We have (up to numeric factors) •
reg,A
4 (P) = [°°da /"d * \U+j)
e ^ *
2
2
2
^ + Be{ kAp-a(k +m )
-f
+ Be~
2_«lJ9plf
where A plays the role of a cut-off. For non-planar part we have B
r °° do da r°°
-«™2
(2'
^77
where A
A eff We see that in the limit A —> oo the integral remains finite and it has infrared pole. This is in an agreement with an absence of the pole in (3.26) for fixed regularization and a presence of the pole after the regularization is removed. The mixing of UV and IR divergencies was noted in 29 ' 27 and as well as consistency of noncommutative quantum field theories were discussed in many papers 2 7 - 7 8 in last two years. As it is seen from examples, theories without fermions have IR singularities (usually poles) at one loop level. There is a possibility to avoid appearance of IR singularities for complex scalar field in one special case: B = 0 in our notations. However, it should be checked that this one loop condition is not violated at higher loop levels. In the case of scalar electrodynamics it is possible to avoid an appearance of IR poles imposing additional condition on coupling constant: A2a = —3g2. In 33 the U(l) theory with additional fermion degrees of freedom was analyzed. It was shown that the IR pole modifies the dispersion relation of the photon in the following way
„2
E1 = pz - (NB -
NF)
2
j
7T {ePy
36
where NB and Np are numbers of bosons and fermions in the adjoint representation. In particular, the energy becomes imaginary for NB > Np, indicating that such a theory may suffer from instability. It is surprising that for the pure gauge theory without fermions we have IR poles which are not expected from the UV/IR correspondence found for the scalar models (See 30 for detailed calculations). The most intriguing point is that gauge invariance does not protect from appearence of the IR singularities. However, such singularities have pure noncommutative nature becuase of trigonometric factors in the vertices. This phenomenon is clear technically but not physically. On the other hand supersymmetric theories do not have pole singularities in the IR region and this was shown explicitly in the third example. This became possible thanks to presence of supersymmetry because there is only one coupling constant which can be tuned and one is unable to remove singularities using this constant. Although logarithms are still present in the Af — 2 NC SYM theory, we emphasize that the logarithm function is integrable in the origin and cannot produce non-integrable singularities in multi-loop graphs. Moreover, it seems likely that the theories with vanishing /?-function on the ordinary commutative space are to be free of nonanalytic dependence on 0 in noncommutative case. In particular, one could expect that Af = 4 NC SYM theory should be finite in both UV and IR regions 33 . Therefore, we see that all theories except M = 4 NC SYM theory have no a smooth limit 6 —> 0 in one-loop approximation and some of them have IR poles. This makes the issue of self-consistency of such theories rather questionable. 4. Cubic String Field Theory and Matrix Models 4.1. String Fields as
Functionals
4.1.1. Witten's Realization of Axioms on Space of String Functionals Witten 1 presented realization of the set (2.2c)-(2.2g') in the case when A is taken to be the space of string fields F={*[X(v);c(o-)M
(4-1)
which can be described as functionals of the matter X{a), ghost c(cr) and antighost fields b(a) corresponding to an open string in 26 dimensions with 0 ^ a ^ 7r. For this string field theory QB is the usual open string BRST charge of the form QB = J
dac(a) (TB{O)
+
X
-Tbc(a)\ .
(4.2)
37
TB and Ttc are stress tensors for the matter field and ghosts (see (5.12) and below (5.14)). The star product * is defined by gluing the right half of one string to the left half of the other using a delta function interaction. The star product factorizes into separate matter and ghost parts. For the matter fields the star product is given by
(**$)[X(ff)] = f
J ] dX'(<j)dX"(ir-o)
Y[
S[X\a)
-X"(n-a)}*[X'(a)]$[X"(o)}, X{a) = X'(p)
for
0
X(a) = X"[a)
(4.3) for
^ a ^ n
.
The integral over a string field factorizes into matter and ghost parts, and in the matter sector is given by [*=[
J]
dX
'(°)
II
8[X'{
(4.4)
Performing a Fourier mode expansion of the 26 matter fields X^ through oo
X»{p) = i g + V2rt ^2 < cos(n<7)
(4.5)
n=l
one can consider string field $[X(CT)] b (we consider there only the X-part of string field for simplicity) as depending on the set {xn}, $ = $[{x„}]. Then one can regard $[{£„}] a wave function in the coordinate representation of a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom.
4.1.2. String Functionals as Matrices or Symbols for Operators One can consider string functionals as vector states in the coordinate representation 9[X{a)] = (X(a)|*) .
(4.6)
Our goal is to obtain the mapping from string fields |\P) to matrices |*> <=^ * n , m b
Often we shall omit the space-time index \i.
(4-7)
38
so that | ¥ ) * | * > <=» £ * n , k * k , m ,
(4-8)
k
[m*=*Tr9 = Y,iB*M-
( 4Q )
k
"'
Also we want to find a map from string fields to operators |*) <^=» #
(4.10)
| t f ) * | $ ) <^=> * $ .
(4.11)
with
In other words we look for a map between string functionals and operators 9[X(a)] <=> * ,
(4.12)
such that V[X(a)]*$[X((r)]
<=^> $ $ .
(4.13)
There is an analogy between this map and the relation between operators and their symbols 97 . Using this analogy one can interpret the Witten multiplication as a Moyal product of two functionals. Let us make a discretization of the parameter a, i.e. Oi = | ^ , i = 0 , 1 , . . . ,2n and denote Xi = X(ai). The string field $[X(
= y$(Xo,...,x„_ 1 ,x n ,y n _ 1 ,...r 0 ) x * (Yo, . . . ,Yn-i,X„,X„+i,...
Xz„) dDY0...dDYn-1.
(4.14)
The rule (4.14) looks like the matrix multiplication, only the midpoint Xn plays a particular role. To obtain a matrix let us introduce a lattice ZD in MP . Then our variables Xi will belong to this lattice. If one restricts himself to a finite sublattice then one gets a field $({XLti} , x , {XRti}), where {XLJ} = (Xo,-.. ,Xn-i) corresponds to XL(a), {XRti} = (Xn+1,... ,X2n) corresponds to XR{O) and x = Xn. Denoting multi-indexes a = {XL^} and b = {XR^} one has a matrix field $ab(x). a,b can be enumerated as a, b = 1,... ,N. Therefore, we get a matrix realization 190 of the Witten algebra where the fields are matrices $ab(%) depending on parameter x, the product * is the matrix product ($ * *) o 6 (s) = $ac(x) $cb(x)
(4.15)
39 and the integral is
(4-16)
j $ = Y; Tr ^W •
To find a map (4.7) directly in the continuous case it is useful to consider the half string formalism. 4.1.3. Half-String Functionals In (4.3) and (4.4) * and J are defined in terms of string overlaps. Each string has a preferred point, the "midpoint" a = TT/2. The midpoint divides a string X into left and right halves (XL , XR). The product of two string functionals ^[X1] and *[X"] is zero unless X'R coincides with X'[ in the space-time. So the string field $[X] is considered as a functional $[(XL,XR)] and one has
(*y)(XL,XR) = j
J J dYR(a)$[(XL,YR)}
where
r(YR(a))=YR(n-a). It is useful to perform a separate mode expansion of the left and right pieces of the string. There are different possibilities to do this 1 6 1 ' 1 6 2 ' 1 6 3 ' 1 6 7 (see also 191 192 ' ). One can define the left and right pieces of the string with or without a shift on the midpoint. In the first case one has c oo
XL(a)
= X(a) - X ( f ) = V / 2a 7 ^
x% cos(2n - 1)
(4.18a)
x% cos(2n - l)a ,
(4.18b)
n=l oo R
X (a)
= X{TT -a)-
X ( f ) = Vw
^ n=l
for 0 ^ a ^ §. Note that Xi(a) and XR(cr) obey Neumann boundary conditions at a = 0 and zero Dirichlet boundary conditions at a = | . These coordinates are called 192 "comma" coordinates. An expression for the full open string modes in terms of the modes of the left-half and modes of the right-half is:
X2n-1 = ^ {Xn - Xn) > XZn = - Yl
B
m=l c
Often we shall fix a', here a' = 1.
O
1,
2n,2m-1 (*£ + « £ ) ,
(4-19a) f» £ 1 .
(4.19b)
40
Matrices B2n,2m-i are written explicitly in Appendix 4.1. For the midpoint coordinate one has
Conversely, the center of mass in the "comma" representation is:
Without shift on the midpoint one deals with the following half string coordinates'1: 1(a) = X(a) ,
(4.22a)
r(a) = X(TT - a) ,
(4.22b)
for 0 ^ a ^ | . Note that 1(a) and r(cr) obey Neumann boundary conditions at a = 0 and Dirichlet boundary conditions at a = ^ . One can perform a separated mode expansion of the left and right half-strings choosing an odd/even extension to the interval (f ,7r]. In the first case one left only with odd modes in the Fourier expansions oo
1(a) = A / 2 0
7
Y
W I cos(2n + l)a ,
(4.23a)
r(a) = \f2a' ^ r 2 n + i cos(2n + 1)<J .
(4.23b)
n=0 oo n=l
Relations between the full-string modes and the half-string modes r2„+i and hn+i are X2n+i - j f W i -r-in+i) , x
2n
= r
/ J ^ 2 n , 2 m + l ( W l + r2m+l) m=0
(4.24a) ,
(4.24b)
where matrices X2n,2m+i are written explicitly in Appendix 4.1. Choosing an even extension to the interval (f ,7r] one left himself only with even modes in To avoid misunderstanding we use new letters I, r and xL>Xfl f° r these half-strings coordinates.
41
the Fourier expansions of the left and right half-strings oo
L
7
X ip) = Xo + ^ / 2 ^ Y, *2n cos(2na) ,
(4.25a)
n=l oo
XR{o) =Xo+
^/2o7 £ x t cos(2na) .
(4.25b)
n=l
Relations between the full-string modes and the half-string modes x\n are *2n
= 2 ( X 2 n + X?n) >
*2„-i = -
v
^ |
» ^ 0 ,
an
d X§n
(4.26a)
^ (*£ - X?) + E
B2m 2
- «+! ( ^ m - XL) •
(4.26b)
m=l
4.1.4. Half-String Functionate and Projectors Using for example (4.23a), (4.23b), one can rewrite a string field $[X(CT)] as a functional of the right and left half-string degrees of freedom *[{*2fc+i};{r2fc+i}]. The star product \P * $ in the split string language is given by oo
Y[dS2k+iy[{l2k+l};{s2k+l}}
/
fc=0
x$[{S2fe+1};{r2fc+1}].
(4.27)
Since | d e t X | = 1 (4.242), one can write the string field integral (4.4) as
/ * = / n
J
^
d/2fc x
+ * K*2*+I} ; {'2*+i>i •
^4-28)
fc=0
One can think that {r2k+i} specifies a point K in the discrete set K G K and consider \f[{72fc+i} ; {?"2A+i}] as an infinite dimensional matrix $R,L so that * =• Tr * ,
(4.29)
/ •
(* * *) [{hk+i} ; {r2k+i}} => *LK$KR
•
(4.30)
Since we have divided string into left and right half-strings it is useful following 161>162 to introduce string fields of the form n(°)A°)]=Ml(v)}Mr(
(4-31)
42
For Vz, = V'fl these string fields are rank one projectors. One simple class of them is described by Gaussian functionals il>[l(ff)] ~ exp (~hk+i
Mkj hj+i J .
(4.32)
String field (4.31) in the full string modes basis is rewritten as *[{zn}] = exp {--xnLnmxm\
,
(4.33)
— 2X2ri,2A:+l Mkj -X"2j+l,2m ,
(4.34)
where •^2*+l,2j+l = %Mf.j , L2n,2m
Li2k+l,2m
— L2n,2j+1
=0.
This means that string field of the form (4.33) is factorized when the following conditions on the matrix Lnm are imposed (a) The components Lnm must vanish when n + m is odd. (b) The nonzero components must satisfy L2n,2m
= ^2n,2ft+li2fc+l,2j+1^2j+l,2m
•
(4.35)
Examples of functionals satisfying conditions (a) and (b) are J-'nm
=
onm
and
Lnm = onmn
,
(4.36)
where identity (4.241) is used. 4.2. * in Fock Space 4.2.1. String Fields as Vectors in Fock Space One can regard ${a;„} from the previous subsection as a wave function in the coordinate representation of a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom. From the coordinate space one can make transition to the Fock space. In our case this is the Hilbert space % of the first-quantized string theory. To describe V. let us write the canonical conjugated momentum Pv{(r)
pv
(°) = Mpr+^EKcos n A •
( 4 - 37 )
The canonical commutation relation is [X"(a) ,/*>')] = iS^Si^a') ,
(4.38)
43
where 5(a, a1) is the (5-function satisfying the Neumann boundary conditions on [0,7r]: 8(a,a') = -
^
cosnacosna'
= S(a - a') + 6(a + a') .
(4.39)
77 n = — oo
From (4.38) the commutation relations for modes are found to be
[a^p*] = « T ,
K ,p»m} = i^6n,m .
(4.40)
Now we can introduce the creation and annihilation operators for nonzero modes via M —_*
x„
< - <#
_ < + <*
'p£ » =^ V V2^
•
(4-41)
' n V2 From (4.40) and (4.41) we get the following commutation relations ( a _ m = K , a a = n r W , o .
(4-42)
The state |0,p) is defined as P"|0,p> = PM|0,P> ,
a{J|0,p> = 0 ,
n ^ 1.
(4.43)
A basis for % is given by the set of states of the form a^ni...cCjO,p),
(4.44)
where n > 0, and i is an arbitrary positive integer. Then any state |$) € H can be expanded as |$) = y*dp()(p) + ^ ( p ) a ^ 1 + J 3 ^ ( p ) a 1 1 Q l 1 + •••)|0,p) ,
(4.45)
where the coefficients in front of the basis states have the dependence on the center-of-mass momentum of the string. These coefficient functions are spacetime particle fields. The eigenstates of the position operators Xn\xn) =Xn\xn)
(4.46)
(here and in eq. (4.43) we put hats on x and p despite the fact that we have not put hats in the relations (4.40) and (4.41)) are given by / 1
\xn) =[-)
\ 1/4 e-5"
a:
"-iV5"a:"a"+^a"o"|0)n ,
(4.47)
44
where a n | 0 ) n = 0. Using the completeness of these states oo
/
Y[ \xn)(xn\ dxn = 1
(4.48)
n=l
one gets string functional corresponding to a given vector $ in the space Ti
9[X(a)] = * [{*„}] = IJ<*n|*>
(4-49)
and vice versa
\9) = J9[{xn}]Y[dxn\xn).
(4.50)
4.2.2. Vertices Using (4.50) one can express 204 (see also (4.4) as an operation
* :n®n
205 207
-
) the * operation defined by
-> n.
(4.51)
It is convenient to write the * product of |\£) and |$) using the reflection operator (R\ and 3-string vertex (V3I 123
(4-52)
| * > * | * > 3 = ia3'
(4-53)
in the form
where the subscript 1,2,3 label three interacting strings. One can rewrite (4.53) as |*>*|*>3 = i < ¥ | 2 W 3 > i 2 3 ,
(4-54)
i(*| = i2(R\9h •
(4-55)
where
1. Overlaps |Vjy)e solves the overlap conditions XT{(T) e
- Xr-i(ir
- a) = 0 ,
Pr(
We usually use / and R notations for Vi and V2 respectively.
- a) = 0
(4.56)
45 for a € L, where L denotes the interval [0, f ] and R denotes [ | , ir]. For the zero mode sector of the Fock space T-i we shall use both oscillator and momentum representations. We start with the oscillator representation. 2. Vertex in the zero mode oscillator representation 3-vertex with the zero mode in the oscillator representation can be written in the form 26
(27T)-
\V3) = V3(^
+
ex
p - , E E ^ c < * io)i
VQo)a'i
r,s
23
•
m,n^0
(4.57) Here the strange at the first sight normalization factor has been chosen to cancel unwanted factors in the proceeding expressions. Note that in (4.57) the vacuum |0) is |0) = |0)„£ 0 =
0
|0>„ = |0) 0 ® | 0 ) n > 0
(4.58)
at = a_
(4.59)
n=0,l,-
and an is related with an as On
=
an
sjn
y/n
The vertex functions Vm™ have the following properties: •*• /
v
mn
v
nm
'
2°) cyclic property Vrs where summation is assumed
= y'r+1's+1
(4.60)
mod 3;
and can be expressed as 204 V'" = \ (C + a$-rU' + ar~sU')
,
(4.61)
where a = exp( 2 ^ 1 ), Cmn = (—l)nSmn is the twist operator and the matrices U' and U' = CU' C satisfy the following relations {U'f = {U'f = 1 ,
(£/')* - U' .
(4.62)
Equations (4.61) are equivalent to the fact that the matrix V'TS can be blockdiagonalized in r, s indices by the matrix O satisfying 0~x = O^ :
v = o-1vj}o,
(4.63)
46
with ' C O O V'n = 0 U' 0 . 0 0 U'
o
1 1 1' a* a 1 a a* 1
1
7s
(4.64)
3. Vertex with zero mode in the momentum representation Relation between the zero mode vacuum in the momentum and oscillator representation is |0,p) = |p)o®|0) n > 0 =
h ' exp ( ~ T p 2 + v ^ ° » p - \ (ao)2)|0>o ®|0)n>o •
(465)
One can rewrite (4.57) in the momentum representation for the zero modes
J dp1 dp'dp" 6™ (p1 + p2 + p3) exp
\V3) = j~5
^EE^^-yE^
00 P
o / „ / , am V mn r,s m . n ^ l
|0,p>i
a
n
(4.66)
r,s n > l
The element VQQ is independent of r and we denote it as Voo = —2 log 7, where 7 = -4= . Relations between vertices V and V are v
v
mn
run
2
yrt v m0
Si
vyts
0n
+ 2V0<
•trirs ^raO
-rrlsr v 0m
i/frs
2Vn00 1 1 + <5r 3 1 + 2VOO 2y00+ 1
. y
1 . o ri'00 / vm0 > 1 + I VQC
for
n,m ^ 1 ;
(4.67a)
for
m ^ 1;
(4.67b) (4.67c)
The vertex in the zero momentum space is \V3) = exp f - ± £
£
< t y « n a -t j |o, 0) 123 ,
(4.68)
where V™n can be expressed in the same form as (4.61) 156>204. Vrs = \(C + as-rU + ar-sU) ,
(4.69)
47
where matrices U and U = CU C satisfy the relations analogous to (4.62) (tf) f = U .
{Uf = (Uf = 1 ,
(4.70)
and can be expressed in terms of the entries of U' as 1 Umn = U'mn + \V00 + | J U'm0U'0n ,
m, n > 1 .
(4.71)
Matrix Vs can be block-diagonalized by the matrix O (4.64). | V3) can be explicitly written in terms of the Neumann coefficients as 1 {V } =
*
r
3
(\
( 2 ^ 3 / ^^P^P3
S
(P1 +P2+
P3) ^
2 E
3
3
+ V^7 £
r , s = l mjjl
r=l
E
«-n^m«'-m
\
P r ^ m " ' - ™ + YNo°T,P2
E
°°
|0.P>i23 •
(4-72)
/
The Neumann coefficients AT" represent the effect of conformal transformations fr of the upper half-disks of three open strings (see Sect. 5.2) to the unit disc nm J 2m
(/i } (z) - / i > H ) 2 (4.73)
J 2m
4.3. • in Left-Right
Fock Space
4.3.1. Vertices Overlaps for iV-vertex in terms of half-string coordinates and momentum have the following forms [xH°) - X?-iW] IViv) = 0 ,
a G [O.TT/2) , (4.74)
[ p f {<*) + p f - i W ] IViv) = 0 ,
a e [O.Tr/2) ,
where i = 1,2,... , iV. Using the method developed by Gross and Jevicki 204 one can solve overlaps explicitly 193 and get the following answers for / , V2 and V3: \I) = e-b^b?»\0)L\Q)R
,
|y 2 )
= e-EL16fl6fJ1„n2=i|0)f|0)f
|y 3 )
= e
(4.75) ;
(476)
-EU^Ct1„nL1|0)f|0)f .
(4.77)
48
Here we use "comma" creation and annihilation operators introduced in Appendix 4.2. In 193 the proof of the equivalence of operator formulation of the Witten vertex and comma theory in the case of I and V2 is given. This proof is generalized for 3-vertex in 194 . It is shown that V3 is a solution of comma overlap equations. A more direct proof of the equivalence of the two forms of vertices would be direct calculation of the string vertex operator in corresponding full string modes and half-string modes starting from the functional form (4.17). 4.3.2. * in Half-String Local Basis From (4.75)-(4.77) one sees that "comma" vertices can be written in terms of local variables, for example \V3) = e - n = 1 / ^ f t ( - ) C 1 W n 3 = 1 | 0 ) f |0)f .
(4.78)
This can be seen in a more direct way. To this purpose one can following 165 rewrite conditions (4.56) as single condition using annihilation operator b(a) f b(a) = v W r P ( a )
—
X{a) .
(4.79)
2V7TQ'
The commutator of b(a) and its hermitian conjugate tf (a) is found to be [b(a),bHa')]=S(a,a').
(4.80)
The overlap conditions (4.56) are br(a) = -6 r _i f (7r - a) ,
for
a G L .
(4.81)
In terms of b(a) |V3) has a simple form |V3) = exp\J2J2
=
6XP
U £
dabK^bU^
£dada'bi(cr)Nrs(<j,o-')bl(a')\
The function NTS(a,a') Nrs(a,a')
- a)\ \0)x ® \0)2 (8 \0)3
(4.82)
|0>i ® \0)2 ® \0)3 .
is defined as
= [6r-i,.0L(tT) +8r+1,.eR(ir)]S(n-tT,a')
,
We hope that the use of tf ,b for creation and annihilation operators does not make a confusion with ghost operators.
49 where #L(
for
[TT/2,TV],
(4.83)
The reflector i 2 (i?| and the identity (I\ are the subject for the following relations 165 12(R\br(
{I\tf{a)
= - MRlbU^ir
- a) ,
= -(I\b(n-a)
.
a € L ,
r = 1,2 ,
(4.84) (4.85)
In terms of b(a) one has simple expressions for the reflector and the identity 2
i2(R\ = i(0\
®2<0|exp
r
^L
d/ da b (a)b -i 2
r
r
(TT — a)
Jo
r=l
r = l,2, (4.86)
(I\ = < 0 | e x p [ - ^ j f d a b ( a ) b ( n - a )
(4.87)
.
b(a) and tf (a) can be expanded as
b{a) = b0J-
+ J-
Ylbncos(no")
.
(4.88)
bt cos(ncr) .
(4.89)
n=l
&V) = &o y \ + \lI
£ n=l
The pairs bn , 6+ and an , an are related by the Bogoliubov transformation bn = UaJJ-1
,
6+ = UalU"1 ,
(4.90)
(an ~ ^n)
(4.91)
where U is an operator U
= eXP ( lY,10^ n=l
or bn =
n+1 n-1 a + 2Vn n 2y/H
(4.92)
Note that (4.90) is not a proper Bogoliubov transformation from creation an and annihilation a„ operators to creation bn and annihilation bn operators since the set { ( n - l ) / ( n + l)} is not quadratically summable. See m , Theorem 1 in Section 2. The operator U define a map from the Fock space of initial creation and annihilation operators a\, an to a new space built on the cyclic vector \0) that is the vacuum for the new annihilation operators. To give an operator meaning to (4.91) one can use a dressing procedure (see for example 1 8 2 ) .
50
The zero mode transforms as b0 = \[a'-p
%
-;= x . (4.93) 2v«' The formal relation between \0) and the zero momentum vacuum |0,0) is |C) = e i b ° 2 [ / | 0 , 0 ) .
(4.94)
4.3.3. * in b-Holomorphic Basis A coherent state with respect to b(a) (4.95)
Ko)\f) = f(a)\f) is given by the following formula | / ) = exp
\0).
.Jo The hermitian conjugate ( / | satisfies
(4.96)
(4.97)
(f\bH
J[dfdf] |/>e-/o-*'l/<-)la| = i ,
(4.98)
where the measure is given by ,1 _ TT dfn dfn
[dfd,J
~ 11 2m
J
n=0
where / „ are coefficients in the Fourier expansion and as usual dfn dfn = 2 i dxn dyn . Extremely simple form takes a product of two coherent states if the notation is used for | / L , / A ) denotes |/) with the functions /i,fl(cr) = 0itR(a)f(a), \h , fR) * \9L , 9R) = e~ ' * n*-°M°)
\fL , gR) .
(4.99)
Let us check that \0) satisfies left-right factorization identities (4.34). The Bogoliubov transformations (4.93), (4.92) can be rewritten in the form bo = cosh #o «o + sinh 00 a0 , bn = cosh9 n an + sinh6 n a'n and P) = exp (-^atSijafj
|0,0> ,
(4.100)
51
where the matrix S^ - tanh0j<$y- (i, j = 0 , 1 , . . . ) can be written explicitly Soo = 3 ,
(4.101)
n-1 onm — ——rdnm , n,m>0. n +1 In the coordinate representation (4.100) corresponds to
(4.102) '
exp (y-\xE-1
I^IE"1*)
,
(4.103)
where Erf = S^ Vi + 6i0 Sj0 V2 .
(4.104)
Here we have used that
\x)=exp(--xE~2x-ia^V2E-1x+-ai2j
.
(4.105)
One gets Lij matrix (4.33) of the form
(^ITI^1)
nm=
(E-1—-—E-1\
L
Loo=
=1
(4106)
=SniVnSikjSkmy/m
= Snm .
(4.107)
This concludes the proof of the factorization. 4.3.4. Summary Let us summarize what we presented in this subsection. We have found a realization of * in the string Fock space over vacuum O. This realization has the following nice properties: • O is a projector with respect to the ^-multiplication \0)*\0)
= \0);
(4.108a)
• O does not belong the Fock space; • O satisfies to left-right factorization identities; • There is also the identity operator \I): |I>*|/> = | / > ,
(4.108b)
|I)*|0> = | 0 ) ;
(4.108c)
52
• Vertex has a simple "comma" form (4.82); • The coherent states over this vacuum are multiplied according to a simple formula (4.99). 4.4. General Properties
of Cyclic
Vertices in Sliver
Basis
4.4.1. Properties of Vertex on Sliver In this section we will mostly follow the analysis of Kostelecky and Potting 156 (see also 1 7 0 ) . Let us suppose that 3-vertex operator (4.68) written in terms of the creation and annihilation operators s^ and s can be presented in the form
|Vs> = exp [ -\ £
Y, *& 1 4
s
) |H)123 ,
(4.109)
where |H) is the s-vacuum *|S) = 0 , Vrs obeys the cyclic symmetry (4.60) and (VrsY — Vsr. The cyclic symmetry means that the matrix V has the following form /yll
V21 12
yV
y-12 y21\
V11
V12
21
11
V
(4.110)
V )
Let us assume that reflector (R\ has the form (R\ = i<2| ® 2 (5|exp ( - Ts1nCnms2m
1.
(4.111)
\ m,n
Let us also suppose that the following identities (these identities are the same as identities (4.108a)-(4.108c) from the previous section) take place |S)*|S) = | S ) ,
(4.112a)
|/)*|/)=|J>,
(4.112b)
|S>*|/>=|/>*|2> = |2),
(4.112c)
|/)=ex P |-^4c nm 4J|H) .
(4.112d)
where
53 Using the cyclic symmetry one can prove that (4.112a) leads to VTr = 0 .
(4.113)
Indeed,
i<2| ® 2
|H) 123
= exp(-l4v 1 1 4)|H>3. We will widely use this property in the following calculations. Prom (4.112c) it follows that V12CV21 = 0 ,
V21CV12 = 0 .
(4.114)
Indeed,
2(I\
® i(E\V)u3
= i2<S|exp (
--s2Cs2
x e x p ( - 4 y 1 2 4 - 4 V 2 1 4 - *\V12s£) = 2 (=|exp I --s2Cs2
|3> 123
j exp ( ~ 4 ^ 1 2 4 ) Is)23
= ex P (-i4y 1 2 cy 2 1 4)|H)3, that leads us to the identity V12CV21 = 0. Identity V21CV12 = 0 can be achieved analogously. From (4.112b) it follows that V21CV21CV21 Indeed,
+ V12CV12CV12
= C .
(4.115)
54
2{I\
<E> i(i\V)123
= i 2 (H|exp i--s2Cs2
j exp (--siCsi
j
x exp (-4t> 12 4 - 4v214 - s\v124) |s>123 oc 2 (E|exp ( x exp -\(4V12 a
2 (S|exp
~-s2Cs2 + 4V21)C(V"4
(-\s2Cs2\
oc 2 (H|exp (-\s2Cs2)
+ t> 2 1 4)J exp ( - 4 ^ 4 ) |S>23
exp ( - s ^ C V 2 1 * * - 4 ^ 1 2 4 ) |S>23 exp [ ~ 4 (v21CV21
+ V12) 4 ] |S>23
oc exp
~4 (v21 + vucv12) c (v21cv21 + v12)
oc exp
~ 4 (y21cv 21cv21 + v12cv12cv12) 4
|3>3
|S>3-
Introducing notations L = V12C,
R = V21C
(4.116)
one can rewrite (4.114), (4.115) in the form LR = 0 ,
RL = 0 ,
i 3 + i? 3 = 1 .
(4.117)
This means that we get the projections operators R2 = R and L2 = L. Using the notations (4.116) and taking into account (4.113) one can rewrite CV as
CV3=
0 | R L
L 0 R
R L 0
(4.118)
Let us now suppose that creation and annihilation operators s and sf are related to a and a | v * a the Bogoliubov transformation s = w (a + Sa*) ,
s* = (cr + Sa) w
(4.119)
where w = (1 - S 2 ) - 1 / 2 .
(4.120)
55
Vacua are related via |S) = Det(u>) - 1 / 2 exp (-^SaA
|0) , (4.121)
|0) = D e t ^ J - ^ e x p ( 5 * ^ ) |S) . Let us prove that the vertex given in the a and af basis by (4.57), (4.68) satisfies the cyclic property in the s and st basis. We must note here that the analysis is the same for the case of the zero momentum in momentum representation for the zero mode (4.68) and for the case of oscillator representation for the zero mode (4.57). Reversing the Bogoliubov transformation a = w [s — Ss')
,
a' = (s
sS) w
one can rewrite the 3-vertex in terms of s \V3)=exP(-^VrsaA\0)123 oc exp {-\ar^ oc exp ~
(Vrs - S6rs) asA |S)i 23
(s+ + sS)T {w(V - S)w}TS (a* + Ss)1 |2> 123
(4.122)
where the symbol 5 is understood as SmnSrs. Using (4.270) one can rewrite equation (4.122) as \V3) oc exp (-l8^V"s'^
|S)m ,
(4.123)
where
v = {i-vsy1{v-s).
(4.124)
Since S is diagonal, matrix V given by (4.124) can be diagonalized by the same matrix O that diagonalizes V
V = 0-\\ where (1 - VDS) V£ r . Therefore,
- S)0 ,
(4.125)
1
(VD — S) is the diagonal matrix with the diagonal elements
/ l a
V
- VoSy^Vo
a*\
1 a* a \1 1 1 J
(Vg
0
0
Vg
\ 0
0
0 \ / l 0
vgj
1 1\ a* a 1 \a a* l)
(4.126)
56
where Vg r are given by Vg ={\-CS)-l{C-S)
=C ,
Vj? = (1-US)-1(U-S)
= A,
V%3 = (1-US)-1(U-S)
(4.127)
=A. 2
Note that if [V, S] = 0 then V = V, since C = 1, U2 = 1 and U2 = 1 (4.70), (4.62). Matrices A and A satisfy relations A2 = 1 and A2 = 1. Indeed,
A2 = (i - usyl{u - s){\ - usyl(u - s) = (U- S^U-^U
- S){U - S^U-^U
- 5) = 1 .
Let us prove that if S is twist symmetric [C,S] = 0 then the identity \I) which can be achieved by the Bogoliubov transformation is equal to the state introduced by (4.112d). Indeed, using eq. (4.270) |J) = exp (-^CaA = exp (-\(s*
|0) = exp (-^CaA - sS)w(C - S)w(-Ss
exp (^SaA
|S>
+ « t )'j |2)
oc exp ( - ; U + ( 1 - w(C - S)wS)-1w(C
- S)wsA
|S)
= ex P (^-i S t Cs tj| S) = |/ ) . In the same way it can be shown that (.R| achieved by the Bogoliubov transformation is equal to the one introduced by (4.111). Indeed, 12(-R| = 12 (0| exp
(-a1Ca2)
= i2(=| exp f -aiSai
J exp ( -a2Sa2 J exp ( - o i C a 2 )
=
1 2 (S|
exp i (s - s^S)8 (wTw)rs ( - 5 s f + s)s
=
12(E\
exp (-SlCs2)
,
(4.128)
57 where we have used the notation
Note that twist symmetry lead us to the relations A = CAC and L = CRC. 4.4.2. Equation for Bogoliubov Transformation for Sliver Basis As one can see from (4.113) the matrix 5 should satisfy the following requirement to create the sliver vacuum S C +A+A= 0. Following
156
(4.130)
we impose the constraints [V,SC} = 0.
(4.131)
Commutation relations (4.131) can be rewritten in the form CS = SC
US = SU ,
US = SU .
(4.132)
Let us now solve eq. (4.130): C + (1 - US)-l(U
- S) + (1 - US)-1^
-S)
= 0.
(4.133)
Multiplying (4.133) from both sides with (1 — US) and using the identity (U - S)(l - US) = (1 - US)(U - S)
(4.134)
(C + U + U)(1 + S2-CS)-3S
(4.135)
one gets = 0.
This equation was proposed and solved by Kostelecky and Potting in
156
.
4.4.3. Algebra of Coherent States on Sliver Using the projections L and R, following s = sL + sR ,
sL = ^
sLnen
170
we can split s into L and R parts
,
sR = ^2 sRnfn ,
n
(4.136)
n
where e„ and / „ are the orthonormal basises of the eigenspaces of L and R: e
n ' em
=
Jn ' Jm
Len = e„ ,
L = ^ene^, n
=
"nm >
&n ' Jm — " j
Ren = 0 ,
Lfn=0,
R = Y,f*fi n
•
Jn
=
t> en ,
Rfn = / „ ,
(4.1o7j
(4.138)
( 4 - 139 )
58
Since SL and SR commute, [sin , 4 m ]
= Isfin , 4 m
= 5nm ,
SLn , SRmj
= 0 ,
(4.140)
the Hilbert space is factorized into the Fock spaces of sx, and SR 'Ustr = 'HL®'HR.
(4.141)
In terms of SL,R, the 3-string vertex takes a "comma" form \V3) = exp (sR1s{2 + sR2s[3 + s ^ s ^ ) |S)i2 3 ,
(4.142)
44 = E s L4„-
(4-143)
where
The identity string field and the reflector become \I) = es*si |~) ,
= 12(S|es«lS"+SR2S" .
12(R\
(4.144)
It is convenient to introduce the coherent states ( / L 4 , JRWL are defined as in (4.143)) | / L , SR) = exp ( / L 4 + fRsR) Hh,
|S> ,
(4.145)
h) = exp ( / L 4 + / f i 4 ) |J> .
(4.146)
The multiplication rules for these coherent states are =efRWL\fL,wR)
\h,fR)*\v)L,wR)
,
(4.147a)
Hh , SR) * \wL , WR) = efRWL \fL + WL , wR) ,
(4.147b)
\h , SR) * I{WL , V>R) = eSnWL \h , fR + wR) ,
(4.147c)
Hh , IR) * I{WL , wR) = ef"WLI{fL +WL,fR+ 4.5. Algebra of String
WR)
.
(4.147d)
Operators
4.5.1. Operator Realization of String Functionals There is a general GSM construction operator algebra. Here we show that write an explicit form of a map of the that has the property (4.10), (4.11). fields \An) = sRn\I)
,
which maps an algebra of states to an the comma form of 3-vertex permits to algebra of states to an operator algebra Following 1T0 we introduce the string |4) =4JJ) .
(4.148)
59 They satisfy the canonical commutation relations: (4.149) where [ , ]* denotes the commutator with the star string product [A, £ ] * = A * B - B * A . We also have (4.150)
|A„>*|S> = | S > * | 4 > = 0 . On a linear span of states
|E),
K>*|S>,
K>*lO*|3>,
•••
(4.151)
one can introduce an action of operator A], = |i4j,)*
Aj,|S> = |4>*|S>,
Al\Atl2)*\Z) = AU42>
\Al)*\Al)*\E),
* K> * |H> = i43> * I42) * K> * 1=),
and the operator A n = |A n )* A„|E) = K ) * | E ) = 0 , A n i | A n 2 ) * | S ) = \Ani)*\Atl2)*\=)
,
A „ 3 | A n 2 ) * | ^ n i ) * | E ) = \An3)*\An2)*\Ani)*\E)
,
We see that due to (4.149) and the fact that |I)* acts on the states (4.151) as the identity, A* and A n satisfy the commutation relation for creation and annihilation operators [A n ,Aj„] = S n m .
(4.154)
|S) is a vacuum with respect to A ra , i.e. An|S)=0. Therefore, the linear span (4.151) is naturally embedded in the Fock space 7i representation of (4.154). Next, one can perform a map of a linear span |S),
\E)*\An),
|S)*|Ani)*K2>,
•••
(4-155)
60 to the following conjugated states in the space H
|2> * \An) = » (S|A n , ^ \=|AniAn2 ,
I—/ * \-™-n\ ) * \An2) For a general state of the form \Nk,Mt)
= \Ai1)*---\Atlh)*\S)*\Ami)*---\Ami)
(4.157)
we can consider a map \Nk,M,)=>\Nk)(M,\,
(4.158) i
*•
\Nk)(Mi\ = JJ A^|S)<S| JJ A m . .
(4.159)
This map is consistent with * multiplication of two states in the form (4.157), i.e it defines a morphism. One can check this using (4.147a)-(4.147d). It is convenient to introduce A-coherent states | / ) , and it's conjugate (g\ = <2|e£5-A. ,
|/) = e£/».AL|H) .
(4.I6O)
Using the morphism (4.158) one can write \h JR) = e ' ^ | / ) * | ~ ) * e ' « s « | J ) = e ' ^ l - X - l e ^ = \fL){fR\ . (4.161) Note that this relation is consistent with the trace Tr
(|/L,/*>)
=
|/L,/«>
= e^« .
(4.162)
One can write
i* *> - n ^
IE) * n j ^ iHXHi n -^==mm.
^w
The above construction works for half-string representation as well 165 . In this case using notations of (4.3.2) we introduce the following string fields \A(a)) = 0R(a)bHa) \I) ,
|A+(*r)> - -6R(tr)bH* - a) \I) .
(4.164)
One can check that [\A(a)),\AHa'))]^S(a,a')\I),
(4.165)
We also have \A(a))*\O)
= 0,
\O)*\A*{
= 0.
(4.166)
61
On a linear span of states \0),
\AHa))*\0),
^ V I ) ) * ! ^ ) } * ^ ) ,
...
(4.167)
one can introduce an action of operator A^(cr) = \A^(a))* AHa)\0)
=
\AH
A t ( a i ) | ^ ( a 2 ) > * \0) = \A\a,)) At(a 3 )|At(a 2 )) * \A\a{))
and the operator A(cr) =
* |^(cr 2 )) * |0> ,
* |0> = l ^ f o ) ) * | ^ ( a 2 ) ) * |^t( f f l )) * \Q) ,
|^4(CT))*
A(a)|O) = |^((7)>*|O> = 0 , A(ffl)|A(cr2)> * \0) = |^( f f l )) * |A(a2)> * \0) , A(
We see that due to (4.165) and the fact that \I)* acts on the states (4.167) as the identity, operators A^(a) and A(a) satisfy the commutation relation for creation and annihilation operators [A(a),AV)]=<W)-
(4-170)
\0) is a vacuum with respect to A{a), i.e. A{a)\0)
=0.
Therefore, the linear span (4.167) is naturally embedded in the Fock space % representation of (4.170). Next, one can perform a map of a linear span \0) ,
\
lO)*!^)}*!^)),
...
(4.171)
to the following conjugated states in the space % \0) => (0\ , \0)*\A(a))
=*(0\A(v),
|0>*|^(a!)>*|>l(a 2 )> = • <0|A(ai)A(a 2 ) ,
For a general state of the form \Nn,m({°h
W)))
= 1^Vi)> * • • • \^{on))
* \0) * \A(a[)) * • • •
\A(a'J) (4.173)
62
we can consider a map \Nn,m({a},{a'}))
=> \Nn({a})(Nm{a'})\
,
(4.174)
\Nn{{a})(Nm{a'})\ = f[Ai{ai)\0)(0\f[AW) i
.
(4.175)
i
This map is consistent with * multiplication of two states in the form (4.173). Indeed, \Nn,n'({
= ^, m ^II ( 5 ^- r ^)l A r «.«'(M,{T'})) , P
(4.176)
i
that corresponds to the product \Nn(W}) (Nn,{*'})\
• \Nm({r})
(Nm,{r'})\
.
(4.177)
It is convenient to introduce A-coherent states |/)) A(
,
{(g\A\a) = ((g\0R(a)g(a) .
Explicit form of A-coherent state and it's conjugate is ((g\ = (0\e**SA
,
|/)) = e**^\0)
.
(4.178)
The main observation at 165 is the formula
\h , fR) = e ; IR
^ - ^
A {
° »
* |0> * 4* /(ff)iA(
(4.179)
Using the map (4.174) one can write
(4.180) Using the notations (4.178) one can rewrite (4.180) as \SLJR)
= • I - r ( / L ) » «/fl| .
(4.181)
One can check directly that if
\fL,fR) => \-r(fL)))((fR\, (4.182a) \9L,9R)
=»
\-r{gL))){{g~R\
,
then the product of operators in the r.h.s. of eq. (4.182a) is I - r ( / L ) » {{fR\ • | - r{gL))) ((gR\ = e - / « / « - • ( « ) | - r ( / L ) » ((gR\ ,
(4.183)
that in accordance with (4.99) and (4.181) corresponds to the product of states |/L ; /fi) * \9L ,9R), that proves the correspondence (4.181).
63
The integration of the open string field theory
J\fL,fR) = {I\fL,fR) corresponds to Tr (| - r ( / L ) » ((fR\) = « / R | - r ( / L ) » = eS*f*-W 4.6.
Matrix
.
(4.184)
Realization
String fields A(
A <J
n—l
2
/
2
(4.185)
°°
^ A o + -/^X>« c o s ( 2 m T )>
in terms of {cos(2ncr)}„=o,i,... instead of n—l {cos(n
. . . \0) ,
where the infinitely dimensional vector n denotes (no,ni,...). such states |n)), we have |-r(/)»=
£
(-l)g^^ n
no,ni,... = 0
( /
^,
( / L
;
l ) W l
-"|n)), V n 0 ! n i ! •••
(4.186) In terms of
(4.187)
V
and we get a map \h , / « > < = • I - r(h))) ((/ill ^ = * / » , m ,
(4.188)
/ „ , m = «n| - r ( / i ) » ((/fl|m)) .
(4.189)
where
64
4.7. Ghost
Sector
The ghost sector of the open bosonic string can be described in terms of fermionic ghost fields c(a), b(a) (about bosonization in terms of a single bosonic scalar field 4>(a) see 6.2). To write down the Faddeev-Popov determinant corresponding to the conformal gauge one has to introduce two sets of ghosts (see eq. 3.1.35 in 197 ) c + , b++ and c~, b They satisfy the first order equations, d- c+
= 0,
d+c~
«9_ b++ = 0 , +
= 0,
(4.190)
d+ fo__ = 0 ,
(4.191)
+
i.e. c — C (T + a) and c~ = C~(T - a) and the same for b. The Neumann boundary conditions c + = c~\v=otn ,
b++ = b—1^=0,*-
+
left us with two functions only c — c~ = c, b++ = b
(4.192)
= b, one for the ghost
and one for the antighost field, that satisfy 27r-periodic boundary conditions (^(a + 2TT) = (*{&) ,
b±±(a + 2?r) = b±±(a) .
(4.193)
These Grassmann fields have mode decompositions t^{a,T)
=J2cnein{T±,T)
(4.194)
n
b±±{o,T) = Y,Kein^T±a)
.
(4.195)
n
The ghost creation and annihilation operators satisfy {cn,bm}
= 6n+mi0 ,
{c„ , c m } = {bn,bm}
=0.
(4.196)
The ghost Fock space has a pair of vacua |±) annihilated by cn,bn n > 0. These two vacua satisfy co|-) = l+>
c0|+)=0
&o|+> = |->
6o|-> = 0 .
for
We define the Fock space so that bo,co are hermitian and c£ = c_ n , tfn = 6_„. It follows that (+|+) = (+|co|-) = 0, and similarly ( - | - ) = 0. We normalize the vacua so that (+N+) = <-M-> = 1 •
(4-197)
We will use the ghost vacuum |+) = |0). The ghost number operator is G = J2 [c-nbn - b-ncn] + - [cob0 - b0c0] + -
(4.198)
65
so that the c„ and b„ have ghost number 1 and —1 respectively. The vacua |+) and |—) have ghost numbers 1 and 0 respectively. It is easy to describe the ghost sector in the bosonized language (see Sect. 6.2) using the functional point of view. In this language the star product in the ghost sector is given by (4.3) with an extra insertion of exp(3i>(§)/2) inside the integral and the integration is given by (4.4) with an insertion of exp(—3i
C±{(T)
= ^
C e±n
^ "
b±{a) = ^2 bne±na
= C(<J) ±™b{°) .
(4-199)
= nc{a) ±ib(a)
(4.200)
.
n=—oo
The overlap equations for N-strings are c s (a) + c s - 1 ( c r ) = 0 ,
(4.201)
*'e{
(4-202)
where s = 1,2,... ,N and one has similar equations for b{a) and iri,(a), with the role of coordinates and momenta exchanged. These overlaps can be explicitly solved to give the following formula for the identity \I9*°°t) lI9host)
= M
| )
M
D exp (f>l)"c_„6_nJ
|0> ,
(4.203)
where the midpoint insertions correspond to the bosonized insertions mentioned in the previous subsection. The 3-string vertex \V°hosi) takes the form |y/ f t o s t ) = e x p ^
£
\r, s = l n = l , m=0
CLnV^bs_m\\0), /
(4.204)
66 where the matrices V™n have cyclic symmetry as usually. One can introduce the comma ghost coordinates cr±{cr) — cr(a)±iTrl,
cL(o) = c{a) ,
where
(4.205)
R
c {a) = C(TT - a) ,
(4.206)
for 0 ^ a ^ | . Likewise defined 7rJ(or), &r(cr) and vrj(a-), where r — 1,2; L, R. We choose even extension to the interval [0, |-) for the ghost coordinate cr(a) and conjugate momentum 7r£(cr) and odd extension for the antighost coordinate br(a) and conjugate momentum 7r£(cr):
c r (
(4.207a)
n=l oo
< (a) = br0 + V2 Y, vL cos 2na ,
(4.207b)
n=l OO
r
6 (a) = v ^ Y, J>2„-i s i n ( 2 n - !) f f >
(4.207c)
n=l oo
< ( a ) = V2 J2 4 „ _ ! sin(2n - \)a .
(4.207d)
n=l
Relations between full-string modes and half-string modes for c(a) and cL'R(a) are
co = g (co + c o) . - / | (C2n + C_2„) = 2 {gin + 02n) .
" ^ 1, (4.208)
r=l 2
+ £(-l) r=l
oo P
E m=l
B
'm,2n-i
£2™ ,
n > 1
67 Relations between momentum 7TC(CT) and 717' (c) are
bo = \ K + b20) , -j= {b2n + b-2n) = - (y\n + y22n) ,
n ^ 1, (4.209)
V2
r=l
Relations between 6(a) and bL'R{a) are 2
1
-y= (&2n - b-2n) "
CO
= 2_J2-J r=l
„
(
_1
)
r 2 m
_ 1 - B 2".2m-1 hr2m-\ (4.210)
771=1
- / = (&2n-l ~ &-2n+l) = 2 {h2n-l
+ h\n-l)
•
Relations between momentum 7Tb (a) and -Kb' (cr) are 1 -j= *
2
(c2„ -
C_2n) = X ] r=l
°° z J ( m=l
_ 1
)
r
2 2 m -
l"82"'2™-1
2
2ra-l >
(4.211) 1
- ^ (C2„-1 - C _ 2 n + l ) = - (z2 „_1 + Z | n _ 1 ) .
The inverse relations introduced in Appendix 4.4. Let us introduce the comma ghost modes (see Appendix 4.4) Yn = \ (Vrn + i<) , K = ±(grn+ihrn),
n>l, n>l,
(4.212) (4.213)
with 7L n = 7 ^ and fir_n = fi$ . The zero modes are defined by 75 = 4jc£ and PQ = -75^0. These coordinates satisfy anticommutation relations (see Appendix 4.4) {lrn,Psm}
= 5rs6n+mfi.
(4.214)
Let us now present solutions of overlap equations in the comma coordinates. The comma overlaps for vertices |V$ o s t ) are cf(
(4.215)
^i(")=*CH(")1
(4-216)
68
where j = 1,2,... ,JV. For br(a) and 7r£(cr) one gets similar equations with the relative sign exchanged. These overlaps can be explicitly solved in terms of 7 r and /? r using the procedure of 204 and give the following answer for the identity |/9 ftos «) : \Phost)
= exp ( / ? ^ 7 - n + P-nl-n)
lO)^!^)^ ,
where
%W
= 0• (4.217)
For \V3ghost) one gets
\Vf°st) = exp (plW* + fP_W_* + P>W>« + Pb«l^+IS2*>yZ-n+P-nll-n)
^U\^\ty?
•
(4-218)
In 196 it is shown that the Witten cubic ghost vertices solve the comma overlaps. This shows the equivalence of two theories at the level of vertices. 4.8. Appendix
4-1-
Transition
Functions
between Two
Basis
There are two complete sets of orthogonal functions on [0, f ] cos(2m-l)<x,
m = l,2,...
(4.219a)
n = l,2,...
(4.219b)
or 1,
cos2n<x ,
Using explicit formulae for integrals r/2 / dacos2nacos(2m Jo where l ^
M
7T
- l)a =-—B2n,2m-i 2
= i ( - l ) ~ (
i
r
^ -
5
,
- l
(for n ^ 0)
r
T
T
)
(4.220)
(4.221)
and r'2 / Joo
I
TT/2
7T dcrcos(2n - l)crcos(2m - l)
(4.222)
TV
da cos 2na cos 2ma = -r<S„,m
(4.223)
one can rewrite functions of one set in terms of functions of the other set. This gives explicit relations between full open string modes and the left-half and right-half modes.
69 4.8.1. xn and x^R We can compare (4.18a), (4.18b) and (4.5) to get an expression for the full open string modes in terms of the left-half and right-half modes: m=l
m=l
±
where the matrices A are ^2n-l,m Mn,
=
~~ ^2n-l,m
=
l^n,m
m = ^2n, m = ~ #2n, Jm-1
,
(4.225)
•
(4-226)
One can rewrite (4.224) more explicitly X 2 „-l = \ (a£ - Xn)
n
>
— Y^ ic-i , >' l+m - 1 1 n
K
~
'
^TT
1
\2m + 2 n - l v
771=1
+
(4-227)
>1 >
2 m - 2 n - l ) ( ^
+
^ '
"
^
(4.228)
One can invert (4.224) and write the left-half modes and right-half modes in terms of the full string modes X* = J 2 A m n X n ,
*m=£4L*». 771=1
U>1,
(4.229)
771=1
where ^m,2n-l
=
2^2n-l,m
= t(-1\n+m-l TTK '
=
°n,m ,
^ ((2m - l ) 2 - An2) (2m - 1) '
One can rewrite (4.229) as xhm = x2m-i
+ Y, A1n, 21 x-a ,
(4-231)
(=i
xl = -ar 2 m-i + £ i + , 2/ *2i ,
m >1 .
(4.232)
z=i
Note that A+ = C7A" ,
A+ = ArC .
(4.233)
70
Matrices A* and A± also satisfy the relations A+A+ + A-A'
= 1,
A*A*
A±A±
=0,
= 1.
(4.234)
To check these properties the following identities are useful OO
j
/ _B2n,2k-l
B2m,2k-1
= J^nm
,
(4.235)
fc=l oo
2fc
1
/ „ o—3T-^2n-l,2*-B2fc,2m-l = " T ^ m
(x^,
•
(4.236)
From (4.18a) and (4.18b) one sees that the relationship between x£ and x^) does not involve the zero mode XQ of X.
4.8.2. xn and l2m+i,
r2m+i
Relations between the full-string modes and the half-string modes r2n+i and hn+i are X2n+\ - - (hn+i - r 2 n + i ) , x
2n — - 2_^ X2n, m=0
2m+l (hm+1
(4.237) + ^2m+l) ,
(4.238)
where n
-^2n,2m+l = ^ 2 m + l , 2 n = ~ 2 - B 2 n , 2 m + l ,
¥" 0 i
(4.239)
and Xo,2m+l
= ^2m+l,0 = - v 2 5 o , 2 r a + l •
(4.240)
The useful identity for this matrix is oo
£ x 2 „ + 1 ) 2 J t ( 2 f c ) 2 X 2 f c , 2 m + 1 = (2n + l)2(5„m .
(4.241)
k=0
The matrix
X = (
°
\-^2n, 2A+1
X
^>*A 0
(4.242)
J
is symmetric and orthogonal: X = XT = X~l. One can invert (4.24b) and write the left-half modes and right half modes in
71
terms of the full string modes hk+l = X2k+1 + ^ ^ 2 f c + l , 2 « Z 2 n , n=0
(4.243)
r2k+i = -X2k+i + ^2 ^ 2fc +L 2 " xin •
(4.244)
n=0
4.8.3. xn and x-im One can invert (4.26b) and write the left-half modes and right-half modes in terms of the full string modes 2v / 2o 7 v-^ (-l) f c
L
,inl„
Xo = *o + —^— J2 2 ^ 3 1 X 2 k - 1 '
(4 245)
'
k=l
X«=x0-
*^*L
^
^
-2k-,
,
(4.246)
*=i
xL = x2n + 2J2 B2n,2k-i
,
(4-247)
xfn = x2n - 2 Yl B2n, 2fc-i z 2 *-i •
(4.248)
4.9. Appendix J^.2. Operators
"Comma"
x2k-i
Creation
and
Annihilation
4.9.1. "Comma" Operators (with singled out midpoint) The quantized momentum conjugate to x% , £„ and X(n/2) usual r =
" ~idxl'
v
* = ~ldx~K'
v
=
~idX{*/2)
are defined as
•
Relation with the conventional string momentum pm are given by: _!_1 V^ , + V2 Vn - - p a n - ! + ^ ^ 2 m , n P 2 m - ^ T.R
1
^n - ~ 2 J , 2 n - 1 V
=po •
ST +
2^
AA
^
(-l)n ^ ^ (-1)"
2m,nP2m ~ ^ / ^ y 9 „ _ 1
(4 249)
"
72
The inverse relations read: P2n-1
=Vk-T>%
The creation and annihilation operators for the "comma" modes are denned in the following way g ' h : 1/2
n
~ V2 { 2 J \ I n + * 2 n - r "/ '
(4.251)
K ,^(^)-{ < _,_L_ P: }, where n ^ 1. The vacuum satisfies the relations #|0>L = 0 ,
b%\0)R=0,
n = l,...,oo.
Space of states is U = Uh®HR®UM , where % M is for the midpoint motion. Relations between &^#, 6 ^ # and a* are b
"
=
V (2n - l) 3 /2
Po +
7/f °'2n~1 + T/f ^
Mlm n
'
a2m
~
M2m n a
-
2m ' (4.252)
1
uR
V2 (-I)*"" )
0„ = — ,
_ 1 . 3 / 2 Po--J=
1
1
^
a 2 „ - l + ~T= 2 ^ ™lm, n a2m ~ M 2 m, n a 2 m ' (4.253)
and the corresponding relation for b]£ ,bffl can be achieved by changing an and a}n. These formulae define the Bogoliubov transformation with transformation matrices
g
Ml
""" = iV2? i - 2 » + V / S?i /l!± -""
(4254)
^--5l/^r*~-l/&*-.--
(4255)
Here we use notations of 1 9 2 , where relations between creation and annihilation operators for R/L n-modes and corresponding canonical operators are taken to be an = ~ ' ' ^ n (qn+i-Pn)h For half-strings we use different notations r = 1,2; L,R.
73
The inverse relations are given by: G2n-1 — 0n
,
(-D"
a2n
V^
= -1=-? + Y, Mm,
^2n
£gi
M {
m
(4"256)
M-H
]
)f
b + + M 2 n , m &£ ,
where one defines the combinations b(±)
= -L(bL ±bR)
Let us write the relation between usual vacuum an\0) = 0 for n ^ 0 and vacuum |0)L|0).R. Since a2 n -i|0) = bn~l'|0) = 0, only the combinations bn+' act on |0)x|0)fl to get the a-vacuum |0), namely: |0) = exp (-\b£»
4>n,m b%A |0) L |0) f l
(4.257)
and the matrix
One finds ^
m
=
M^M2 to be
(2n-l)1/2(2m-l)1/2——* f~ 1 / 2 V ~1/2 V 2(n + m - l ) \n-lj \m-lj
(4.258)
4.9.2. "Comma" Operators (without singled out midpoint) The quantized momenta conjugated to Xn > Xn a r e defined in the usual way
'
'
d
Pn=-iJL-
(4-259)
Relation with the conventional string momentum pm are given by 193 :
oon=1
x
P2n = ^ Pin + ( - l ) f ^ 2
(4.260)
#2n2m-l P2m-1
,
n ^ 1.
' m=l
The inverse relations are P2n
= p2n + P2n ,
n ^ 0,
2^/2 f_l)« P2n-1 = —
-Tj—y (p2n + P2n) +
°° 2
^
B
2 m 2 n - 1 ( p 2 m ~ P2m) >
« ^ 1 •
(4.261)
74
Creation and annihilation operators satisfying the commutation relation (4.262)
n >1 can be written in the form
(4.263)
Comma vacuum are introduced as brn\0)r = 0 ,
n £ 1,
(4.264)
where we have the following expressions for br
(4.265)
x {[4 + (2n - l)]a 2 n _i - [4 - (2n - l ) ] 4 „ _ i } , (-1) r+i .21 V- / 2 m - ^ 2n V3
1
^
1 / 2
m=l
2n a 2 m - l
^ 2 m - l 2n Q-1m-\ ~ Slm-\
(4.266)
'
where ^2m-12n
— #2771-1 2n
—
^2n2nx-\
j
S ^ m - l 2n — # 2 m - l In + # 2 n 2 m - l •
(4.267) 4.10. Appendix 4-5. States
Identities
for Coherent
and
Squeezed
In 156 the useful identities are introduced. Det(l - 5 • F ) 1 / 2 ( 0 | exp (x • a + ^a • S • a\ exp (fi-a^ + ^ 1 = exp A • (1 - V • S)-
• n + - A • (1 - V • S)-1
-V- aA |0)
-V-X
Li
+ i/i • (1 - 5 • V)-1 • S -fi
(4.268)
where the dot indicates contraction of indices. If the matrices A, B, and C satisfy A ,
BT = B ,
ACT = CA,
BC = CTB ,
C2 = 4,45
(4.269)
75
then the following identity takes place exp (a^Aa? + a*Ca + aBa) = Det [(1 - C ) e c ] " 1 / 2 exp [a f (l xexp[-a+ln(l-C)a]exp[aB(l-C)-1a] 4.11.
Appendix
4-4-
Ghost Half-String
C)-lAa<]
.
(4.270)
Coordinates
Here we collect some relations for the half-string and full-string ghost modes following 195>196. The inverse relations to (4.208) are 2
(—l)n
°°
cr0 = c 0 + ( - l ) r - V ; l - A r ( c 2 „ - i + c _ 2 n + 1 ) > •K
*—• In n=l
(4.271)
— 1
1
°°
9T2n = ^ | ( C 2 » + C "2«) + ^ ( - l ) 7 " J ) B 2 n,2m-l(C2m-l + C-2m+l) "
• (4.272)
m=l
The inverse relations to (4.209) are
hi = 6 0 + ( - i ) ' - _ 5 3 ^ L ( 6 2 B _ 1 + f c _ 2 n + 1 ) )
(4.273)
71=1 oo
1
y£n = -j=(b2n +fc-2n)+ >/2 ( - l ) p 5 3 S 2 n , 2 m _ 1 (6 2 m _ 1 + 6 _ 2 m + i ) . (4.274) *
m=l
The inverse relations to (4.210) are ^2n-l
=
1 ~/^(&2n-l ~ &-2n+l) ~ v 2 ( - l )
°° r
^
"
#271-1,2m(&2m ~ &-2m) •
m=l
(4.275) The inverse relations to (4.211) are oo
1
22n-l — -/s(c *
2 n
-l
-
C_2n+l) -
V2 (-l)1" 5 ^ 52n-l,2m(C2m m=l
_
C_2m)
.
(4.276) We demand the comma modes to satisfy the anticommutation relations
{°">d!k}=sraSnm-
(4 277)
-
One can check that ^= eg , 4= #£ are conjugate to 4= &g, 4 j 2/£ and likewise 75 ^2n-i a r e conjugate to ^ z ^ .
76
We now introduce equations relating the full-string ghost modes (cn,bn) and the comma ghost modes (7£,/?£). For the full-string modes one gets Co
= -/= (7o + 7o) ,
r=l
*
r=l
v
m=l 2
_ 2
*--T5^TB-»'I«-55:^K-T-.) 2m r=l
m=l
"-,B-1"!mv^ v
and c_„ = c)j, n ^ 1. Equations for bn are the same with transposition 7 ^ /?. The inverse relations are
76
n
= Co + - ( - l )
=
r
Y] r
r ( c 2 n _ l + C_2rJ+l) ,
1 1 °° r~/^(^2ra + 6-2n) + " T ^ - - * - ^ £ ^2n,2m-l(&2n-l + * * m=l
&-2n+l)
1 1 °° ~ — - / ? ( C 2 n - l - C _ 2 n + l ) + ~ 7 = ( — l ) r / J # 2 n - l , 2m{C2n ~ C-2n)
,
Tl ^ 1 ,
m=l
and 7_„ = 7+ , n ^ 1. Equations for /?£ are the same with transposition c ;=± 6.
5. Cubic String Field Theory o n Conformal Language 5.1. Vertex
Operators
By using the language of the conformal field theory (CFT) it is possible to represent each term in the String Field Theory action as some correlation function in CFT on a special two dimensional surface. To specify our notations, let us remind some basic facts concerning two dimensional CFT. A general solution of the equation (<92 - d 2 ) ^ = 0 with
77 Neumann boundary conditions is -
1 V2
^
I>,r)=/+2ayT +i ^
Z
where
— oo < r < oo
V
™
j
'
(5.1)
0 sj a < -IT .
After Wick rotation we can introduce new complex variables z = eTE+t", z = eTE~w'. Note that this variables are coordinates on the upper-half complex plane. The solution (5.1) in this coordinates gets the following form X"(z,z)
= X£{z)+X&z),
(5.2)
where X£(z) = ±x»-l-aY
logz2+i
^ £;Smz1'
and
Xn(z) = XL(z). (5.3)
The similar expansion reads for the ghost-antighost pair c(z), b(z) as
n
n
The Neumann correlation function for X's on the upper half-complex plane is of the from (X"{z,z)X''(w,v)))
= - y i ? " " {log\z-w\2+\og\z-w\2)
.
(5.5)
But for computations it is fruitful to use the traditional shorthand {X»L{z) Xl{w))
= - ^ V
log(z - w) .
(5.6)
Note that this expression is really very formal. For example, when one wants to compute a correlation function involving : e'k-x(z>z) : he encouraged to use the expression (5.5). But if the point (z,z) is on the real axis (i.e. on the boundary of the UHP), then one can write the equality . eik-X(z,z)
.
_ .
e2ik-XL(z)
and use the expression (5.6) to compute correlation functions. Indeed, one can check that these two differently computed correlators are the same while one assumes z = z. In our calculations we will use this trick. The ground state (4.43) is given in terms of conformal fields as the normal ordered exponent: |0,ifc) = : e ifeX (°'°) : |0) = : e2ikXL^
: |0> ,
(5.7)
78
and any term in the string field expansion (4.45) corresponds to the conformal field via
n<
-Qd^x^o)
|0,fc)
e2ik-XL(0)
. |Q)
( 5 g )
If it does not lead to misunderstanding we also drop out subscript "L" and use a traditional shorthand X(z) {X»{z)X»{w)) =
(5.9)
-—rTlo^z-w)
Another useful form of relation (5.6) is X»(z)Xv(w)
-rfv log(^ - w) .
(5.10)
The symbol "~" means that l.h.s and r.h.s are equal up to regular in z — w terms. For ghosts we have the following OPE c(z) b(w) ~ -
1
(5.11)
The stress tensor for the matter fields 1 Tx = - —dX • dX a' has the following OPE Tx{z)Tx{w)
(5.12)
26 2 , + , 2 T2 x(w) + -±-dTx(w) 2(2 — u/)44 f (z — w) z—w 0,
.
(5.13)
The stress tensor for the ghost fields and the reparametrization algebra are T(z) = - 2bdc(z) - ldbc(z) , T(z)b{w)
2
1 ^-*>(w>) H
(z — wy T(z)c(w)
-13 (z-w)i
db(w) ,
(5.15)
z—w
^c(w) +
(z — wy T(z)T(w)
(5.14)
dc(w) ,
(5.16)
z—w
+
(5.17)
'" '
The system has a {/(l) number current j(z) = -bc(z) = J2 J^T ' j(z)b(w)
-b(w) ,
J(z)JM j{z)c{w)
1 (z — w)2 1
c(w) , z—w
(5.18)
(5.19)
79 which charge operator jo counts c = + 1 , b = — 1 charge. The conformal properties of the current depend on the vacuum being chosen. In the SZ/2 invariant vacuum sector (c(z)b(w)) = l/{z — w), then the proper relation is
T (
^)~(^
[Lm,jn]
= - njm+n
+
(7^^ ) '
_3 + — m(m + l)Sm+nfi
(5 20)
'
,
(5.21)
so that j(z) is scale and translation covariant (m = 0 , - 1 ) but not conformal covariant (m = 1). Next commutation relations [Li,j-i]
= jo - 3 ,
[Luj-i}\=
[L-i,h]
= -jo
(5.22)
show the charge asymmetry of the system: JQ = —jo + 3. Consequently, operator expectation values of charge neutral operators will vanish since [j0,O] = qO,
j 0 |0) = 0 ,
(OljJ = - Q < 0 | ,
(5.23)
(0|joC?|0) = -Q<0|O|0) = <0|O|0) .
(5.24)
Only operators which cancel the background charge —3 survive. For example, (c(-zi)c(z2)cCz3)) = ~(zi ~ Z2){z2 - z3)(z3 - zi) . 5.2. Gluing and Conformal
(5.25)
Maps
There is a method that allows one to represent n-string interactions via correlation functions on special Riemann surfaces Rn (the so-called string configuration) /" * 1 * • • • * $ „ = ( K | $ l ) i ® ' • • ® | * n > „ = < * 1 , • • • ,
$n)Rn
Efficiency of this method is a possibility to reduce calculations of correlation functions on n-string configuration to calculations of correlation functions on the upper half-disk, or the upper half-plane using the equality < * ! , . . . , *„> fin = (Fin) o $ ! . . . f W o $ n ) .
(5.26)
The maps Fjf1' (k = 1 . . . n) are defined as follows:
ff>(«/)=(p n o fin))(w),
(5.27a)
-™Mn)-k\(l fln)(w) = e
+ iw\ \ 1 — iwj
2/n
.1-z Pa(z) = i l + zf
W
t
1—z
(5.27b) (71+ 1 where
fi(n) = <
2
n = odd (5.27c)
n+2 n = even
Further we consider only the eases n = 2 and n = 3. The maps ft' can be rewritten in the form fjt' = Tk * o f \(3)\ where T is the operator of rotation over --%-. This property of the maps as it was shown in 208 is very important to have threefold cyclically symmetric vertex. One can be puzzled why we choose different maps P2 and P3 and may think that it gives extra relative factor between the brackets with n = 2 and n = 3. But fortunately this never happens, because Witten's vertex is invariant under the conformal group 209 , so one can choose arbitrary functions P 2 and F 3 .
Figure 11. The maps for Witten's vertex, R3.
We illustrate the maps (5.27) on the Figure 11. Here we have three half discs with two marked points. Into the black point we usually insert the vertex operators corresponding to the states of the string. The grey point is the center of the string (we insert picture changing operators into this point in the cubic superstring field theory). Also on the Figure 11 we illustrate where half discs and marked points maps under the transformations (5.27). Note that the choice (5.27b) of the map nn' from the upper half disc to
81
a sector of disc differs from usual one. But this choice is very convenient for computer calculations, since it should not evaluate powers of negative numbers. The maps for n = 2 have very simple form:
i2\w) = w.
/<*>(«,) = - ^ >
(5.28)
(/ o $) in (5.26) means the conformal transform of $ by / . Let us explain this in more details. If $ is a primary field of conformal weight h, then fo$(z) is given by ( / o *)(«;) = (/'(«;))* $ ( / ( « ; ) ) .
(5.29)
For a derivative of a primary field of conformal weight h one has (/ o d*)(w) = (f'(w))h+1d*(f(w))
+ hf"(w)(f'(w))h-l$(f(w))
.
(5.30)
Since we work with free conformal fields, all the operators in the theory can be constructed as normal product of these free fields. Therefore, we have to know how to find the conformal transformations of the composite operators. Let us illustrate this technique on the example of fee-current. The operators b and c are primary ones with weights 2 and —1 respectively, so (5.29) yields (/ o b)(w) = [ / » ] 2 b(f(w))
and
( / o c)(w) = [ / ' M ] " 1 c(f(w)) . (5.31)
The 6c-current j \ , c is defined by the following expressions jbciw) = - :b(w)c(w): = - lim :b(z)c(w): = — lim I b(z)c(w) z^rw
I , Z —WJ
z-+w y
(5.32) where in the latter equality we have used the OPE of b with c. Now we apply a conformal map / to both sides of the equality (5.32): (f°jbc)(w)
-
- lim z^rw
/ o b{z)f o c{w) -
1 Z— W
y
{5 ]
= - lim {[JTTT «/<*) W(»» - T\) z-*w \ J'(W)
Z — WJ
opj^_ U m (Lg£)l! : 6 ( / ( z ) ) c ( / W ) : z-m; y J (w)
+
[/'(aWM]-1 f(z)-f{w)
1 \ z-w)
= /'M^(/H) + | ^ .
(5-33)
82
So we get the conformal transformation of the composite operator jf,c using only OPE and conformal transforms of the operators from which it is built. This scheme can be applied to find a conformal transform of any composite operator. Show that the stress energy tensor of the bosonic string Tx = — •^jdX- dX changes under conformal transformations as
EXERCISE:
/2\
(/oTx)H = /'2Tx(/) +
g(^-^
(5.34)
Check that
EXERCISE:
o
(/ o d(bc))(w) = f'2d(bc)(f)
/ tin
r
(/ o dbc)(w)
= f2db(f)c(f)
+ 2f"b(f)c(f)
= f'2b(f)dc(f)
\
fill
- f"b(f)c(f)
1 r»2
+ - J— + - i-z , n fill
(f o bdc)(w)
inl
+ - f J— - Lp J ,
+ f"b(f)c(f)
+
n
fl/2
-J—-LJ
For future use we list Taylor's series of maps (5.27) in the origin: f[z\w)
= 1 + 21W + 3
f^(W)
= \1W
tf\w)
= - 1 + 21W - 3
7
V + ^ 7 3 ^ 3 + ? 7 4 ^ 4 + ?^75™5 + 8 8 128
- A73w3
7
+
^
W
S
V + ^3w3 8
+
0(w6), (5.35a) (5.35b)
0{w7)
- ? 7 4 ^ 4 + T^75^5 + 8 128
0(w6).
(5.35c) Here
= I7z ' 5.3. TCalculations
of the Action for Tachyon and Vector
Fields
We want to compute Witten's action
^ - g
^«*,QB*»+
(5.36)
!«#,*,*»
for tachyon and vector string fields $ <-) =
/
d?6k (2») 26
[t(k)Vt(k,w)
+ All(k)V'£(k,w)
+ B(k)VB(k,w)}
,
(5.37)
83
where vertex operators V are of the form Vt(w,k)
:c(z)e2ik-x^:
=
1/2
:c(w)dXt'(w)e2ikx^:
V{f(t«,fc) = i
VB(to,Jfc) = :dc(w)e2ikx^:
(5.38)
.
All the coefficients in (5.37) are chosen in such a way that the reality condition 3>t = 3> for string field produces reality conditions for component fields. 5.3.1. Action of the BRST Charge First of all we need to calculate the action of the BRST charge (4.2) on the vertex operators. The action of the BRST charge on the tachyon vertex is the following: QBVt(w, k) = Res [c(C)T B (0 + bcdc{Q] c(w) = Res c(Q c(w) +
1
a'k2
KC-^)
'^
1 2 +
C-
2ikX(w)
d„
~^—cdc(Oe2ikX{w)
= a'k2dcce2ikX^ = [-a'k2
2ik x e
+
+ 1] cdce2ikX^
cdce2ikX^ .
(5.39)
The action of the BRST charge on the massless vector vertex is the following: QBVJJ(«;,*) = Res [c(()TB(0 Res c(()c(w) i^—w
+
a'k2 + l + (C-z)2
T
-ia'k»
ia'k»
+ bcdc(0] i
-ia'k" (C-w)3
1 QX11 C-z ou
c{w)dX»
02ik-X(w)
2ik x w e
' ( ) + — — cdc(QdX" (, - w
d2cc + dec (a'k2 + l) dX" + cdcdX" cd2ce2ikX^
e «*-*(«0
+ (-a'k2)
cdcdX*
2ik xiw) e
-
a2ik-X(w)
e2ikX^
(5.40)
84
And the action of the BRST charge on the vertex of the auxiliary field is the following: QBVB{w,k)
bcdc{Q]dce2ikx^
= Res [c(QTB(Q +
a'k2 1 (C — w)2 + ( — wo„
= Res c(Qdc(w)
+ (C -
Tcdc(Q
™)2
= cdcde2ikx^
a2ik-X(w)
e2ik-x^ cd2ce2ikx^
+
= dw [cdce 2 i **W] (w) .
(5.41)
It is convenient to rewrite QB$ in the following way d2%k r •j—^
/ +
[t(k)(QBVt)(0,k)+iA^k)(QBVi)(0,k)
B(k)(QBVB)(0,k)]
= f~^[t(k){-a'k2 + VWA^k)
+ l) (n^k2
cdce2ikXM+B'd(cdce2ikXW)
- k»k") cdcdX"e2ifc*(°)l
,
(5.42)
where
B'(k)=B(k)-
5.3.2. Conformal
ik^A^k)
(5.43)
Transformations
The operator for the tachyon field is primary, therefore, its conformal transformation is the following a'^-l
/ovt(w,A;) = [/'H] aK - 1 v t (/H,fc).
(5.44)
85
The operator for the auxiliary field is transformed as follows
= [f'(w)]ak
foVB(w,k)
YB(f(w),k)
'/...MQ
1,1 k
f" J
(5.45)
„t*t...\\„2ik-X(f(w))
The operator for the vector field is transformed in the following way
/»v;(«,i) = [ / W
VJK/M,*)
Fi/ (w)r ! c(/w)e2i xtfW)
'
+
'
• (5-46)
k»VB(w,k)
(5.47)
'' S
FVom (5.46) and (5.45) follows that the operator
V£ ( « , , * ) = V£(u;, A)+
is the primary operator of weight a'k2. It is also convenient to rewrite / o $ in the following form
+ B(p)(foVB)(w,p)] 5.47 f
^ a'
r,lf
.,„'
A
»W
+B' [ dc(f(w)) -
t(p)V»rc(f(w)) a V j^c(f(w))
(/H) 2iP-x(f(w)) _
(5.48)
86 5.3.3. Calculations of Kinetic Terms Substituting (5.48) and (5.42) in the quadratic part of the action (5.36) and expanding the obtained expression we get \J
WB \ » t(p)-pt(k)
+
j ^
(-a'k2
^TB'^l
M (27r)
26/
+ 1) (c(f)cdc{0)) (e2ipX^
t
(c(f)cdc(w)) (e 2ipX(f)
2ikX
^)
e
2ik-X(w)
w—0
\^vk2
+ t(p)— VWA^k)
Ap{p)t(k) (-a'k2
(e2ipX^dXv(0)e2ikX^)
- Jfe"*"] (c(f)cdc(O)) + 1) j(c(/)cdc(0)) (dX^(f)e2ipX^
e2ik-x(o)^
i ^ ( a c ( / ) c a c ( 0 ) ) (e2ip •*<» ew*-*<°>>}
A0(p)B'(k) A i ^£. (dc(f)cdc(w))
(c(f)cdc(w)) (dX0(f) v=0 I
(e2ipX^
J2a>Ap{p)Ap(k)
+ B'(p)
+
<9„ y
f" f
^
2ikX
^)\
e
dXv(0)
(e2ipX^dX„(0) t(k) [-a'k2
2ifcX e
(°')
2ikX e
^)
+ 1] (c(y)cdc(O)) (e2ip-x^
f
x (c{y)cdc{0))
2ik x
- ^)
e
y=f
d_ f" (c{y)cdc(w)) (e2ip-x^ B'{p)B'(k) 8 - — dw y=f, w=o dy
+ yfla~'B'{p)All{k)
e™-xM)
[rj^k2 - k"kv]
x j(c(/)c0c(O)) (dXP(f) e2ip-x^ - i ^-(dc(f)cdc(O))
2ipX e
[rj^k2 - Wkv]
d„V
{e2ipX^dXv{G)e2ikX^)
f"
/'J
y=f
2ik x e
' ^)
87
Using the expressions for OPE (5.10) and (5.11) we obtain the following result f fJ26nH26k
fia'p2
8{p + k)
-J^^ + t(p)B'(k)^
r
7^
(a'k2-l)
f2
[*(P)*(*)f (-«'* +1)
+V2^Jt(p)Afl(k)^
Ap(p)t [k(-a'k2 + 1)) if a' [-k0
-p0]
A0(p)B'(k) (2a'k2 - 1)»Q' [-k0
-p0]
- 2Af,(p)Ap(k) [f"k2 - k»k"} l ~
B'(p)B\k)
{rfv + 2a'k0kv) + a'pPa'pA
in
+ B'(p)t(k)[-a'k2 +
[V'ifc2 - A"*"] ia'p„
+ l] 2/ - jrf2
d„
v
f"
f ' l
2y + 2a'k2Vy=f
^
+ V2a~'B'(p)Ali(k) [rt^k2 - Wkv]
*
v-fy
f"
Using the conservation of momenta and the fact that jfvk2~k^kv tofcMwe obtain
/ T^TIs J ^
[t(-k)t(k)fp-a'k2
x ( 7 7 - 2 / + f2fi)
(5.49)
ia i„pvf * - i
is orthogonal
+ 1] + t(-k)B'(k) (a'k2 - l)
+ 2B'(-fc)B'(fc) [l + (2 - til}
(a'k2 - l)
+ a' (rfvk2 - k»kv) A^(-Jfe)AM(fc)
(5.50)
Recall, that the map f(w) (see also (5.28)) is defined as follows
/(«>) = - - ,
/'H =A,
/ » = "^-
(5-51)
88 Substituting this map in (5.50) and putting ro=Owe get the following expression for the quadratic action
b[t,A^B\-
f d?6k
1 ^aiUJ
U{-k)t{k) [-a'k2 + 1] +B'(-k)B'(k)
(27r)26
(r,^k2 - k»ku)
(5.52)
Av{-k)A„{k)
5.3.4. Calculation of Interaction Here we compute the cubic term of the action (5.36). First, we compute the interaction term for three tachyons. To this end we substitute only the part of the string field $ which is proportional to t(k):
- ( ( $ , $, $)) = - ( / j o $ / 2 o $ / 3 o $) /• d26^
1 3 7
(2TT)
d26k2 26
(2TT)
d26k3 26
wa'fcj-i
(2TT)
26 h
,„'**_! ,,a'*g-l h
h
x t(*i)t(*a)i(* 3 )
= 4/00CF i ( f c l ^ 2 ) ^ ) ( 2 7 r ) 2 6 a '" 3 ^ + f c +9) x
.la'lpl./d'ij-lva'^-l,, , \2a'fcifc 2 +l /l h h U l ~~ /2^
x (/i - f3)2a'kl-k3+1(f2
- h)2a'k*k*+l
.
(5.53)
Substituting the maps (5.35) into this expression and performing simplification one gets
Sint [t] =
1
~tic7^ x
( « i f V ^ 3
J
(2»)» (2*)» '<*> +k2
+ k
\t{kl)t{k2)t{h)1a'k*+a'k*+a'ks-3.
^ (5.54)
Next we compute the term which consists of two vector fields and one tachyon.
89 So, we compute the following odd bracket
«Vt(fci), v£(fc2), v£(* 3 )» = (/i ° Vt(h) h ° W 2 ) /3 ° K(fc3)>
A/-'^-vr'^/r'^(C(/i) cdX«(f3)-l-^dc(h) 2_ ,ia'k\-l
e2ik!-X(fi)
t
- ~ —jh
f'a'kl
h
2iki x e
e2ik2-X(f2)
e2ik3X(h)
(c(/i)c(/ 2 )c(/ 3 ))
h
x {dX»{f2)dXv{h)
cdX^M-^dcih)
-^
e™*-Mh)
e2ik3x(h))
(c(fi)c(f2)dc(f3))
(dX^fi)
KkvMh)dc{h)dc(h))
- V
e2ik^x^
e2ik*x^
e2i'»'x(«)
( e «*i•*(/!) e**2-*(A) e 2*s-x(/s)) (5.55)
Calculation of the correlation functions leads to the following expression
x(f2-h)2a'k2k36(k1+k2
+ k3)
rf" ( / l { 2)( { 3
/l}
- 2a'k$kl(h-h)
+ 2a'kZk2'(f3 - h) + 2 a ' * J * r ( / i - / 2 ) - 2 a ' f c ^ (A_ + a'k'k^h
+f3-
/a) to /1)
h-h
2/2) + a'A^AJ /s - A + ( / 3 - / 1 X / 1 - / 2 )
/3-/2
-o'^*j'(/1+/2-2/3) (/1-/2X/1-/3)
+ a'k^3(f3-f2) (5.56) /2-/3 Performing a simplification of this expression we get the following formula ~r tfc «Co /Co
/ l - /2 +
TOfcO.vw.v^*,,))) =
(2TT)26
a'"
1 3
^ + fc2 + is) fa"" + a'kffi
X / 2 " * ' * V 3 ' a ' % " f2)2a'klk2+1(fl
+ a'k^]
- fs)2a'klk3+1(f2
f^'^
1
~ /3)2«'*^3-l . (5.57)
90 To compute the whole interaction term for the tachyon and two vector fields we need to subtract from (5.57) the same terms with permutation (/i <-> / 2 ) and (/1 «-» / 3 ) . After substitution of the maps (5.35) we get the following action u A^ _ J _ [ d ^ k ^ k ^ k ^ Sint[t, A] = --^-TTZ J ( 27r )26 ( 27r )26 6 ^ + fc2 + *s) x t{k1)All{k2)Av{kz)
W
+a'ktku2
+a'k%k\)1a'k*+a'k*+a'k*
.
(5.58)
The cubic term of the action (5.36) for whole string field $ (5.48) is more complicate. It was computed using the program on Maple, and the answer is the following bmt[
' "'
]
"
9 2 Q /13
J
(2^)26 (2^)26
T
7~ 3 *(fci)t(fc2)i(fc3) - 7 - 1 Apik^A^Xk^fre 1
+
1-
B'(k1)B'(k2)t(k3)+21-1
+a'klk%
+ a'fc{**|)
(5.59)
B'ik^ikfA^tih)
This expression can also be rewritten in ^-representation: Sint{t,Ali,B'}
=
- ^ j d ™ .
+ 2 7 - 1 a ' &1 id^A^Ap
-r7"3ttt-7"1iV"
+ 7 - 1 tB'B'
+ 2^~x
iB'd»A„
(5.59')
At all levels the particle fields <j> in the interaction action are smeared over the distance v/a 7 : <j>{x) = exp[—a'log 7 ^ 9 " ] 4>{x) 5.4. Koba-Nielson
Amplitudes
from
(5.60)
SFT
Let us briefly describe how one can obtain Koba-Nielson tree amplitudes in the Witten string field theory. One starts with the N-point diagram:
\V2) • • • A ^ - 3 ' ) \V2) \AX) • • • | ^ ) .
A**' stands for the propagator of the free string of the number k. the propagators are obtained as a product of zero-mode polynomials inverse of L, which can be represented as the proper time integral /0°° The vertices IV3) are three-string Witten vertices and the vertices specified by the scalar product (see Sect. 4).
(5.61) Usually and the e~TLdT. IV2) are
91
It was proved that the amplitude (5.61) can be presented in CFT language as
J ] (Jdr^
lo{z1)0{z2)j>b{z[)dz[0{z^jb{z^)dz'2
...0{zN) (5.62)
where the correlation functions must be calculated on a surface R (the so-called string scattering configuration). For Witten's vertex the surface R looks like it is sketched in Figure 12.
Figure 12.
The five-point amplitude in the Witten theory.
External strings are semi-infinite rectangular strips of width -K. The internal propagator is a strip of length T, and width 7r. Witten's three-point interaction identifies the first half of one string with the second half of the next string, for all three strings. Although the world sheet action for X^, c and b is quadratic, the complicated geometry of the string configuration makes the calculations non-trivial. The key idea of the conformal technique is to map conformally from the string configuration to the upper half plane, where the propagators are known. The conformal map p{z) which takes the upper-half plane onto the string configuration for a general N-point tree amplitude was given by Giddings and
92 Martinec 36 . The function p(z) satisfies the equation IN-2
f
z
=
\ EI (z ~ zoi) (z ~ zm) N l ^ — — - , z
il ( -
(5-63,
z
r)
T=l
where z$i are complex parameters representing the locations of the singular intersection points, and zr are the asymptotic positions on the real axis of the N external states. The M is a real normalization constant. If one integrates this equation one obtains a map with the following properties: i) logarithmic singularities at the points zT ; ii) ~ (z — zoi) 5 behaviour at the interaction points. The expression (5.62) looks rather similar to the result known from the covariant version of the first quantized approach 200 l | (Jdzi)
{01{z1)02(z2)V\z3)
...Vn-1(zN^1)0N(zN))
,
(5.64)
where the Koba-Nielsen variables Zi for i = 3, • • • , N — 1 are modular parameters and 0(Zi) = c(zi)V(zi) ,
(5.65)
with V(z) a conformal field of dimension one, defined solely in terms of the matter field xM. The amplitude (5.64) can be equivalently rewritten as follows I ] (fa
fdz^(01(z1)02(z2)b(z'3)03(z3)
... 6(^_ 1 )(!? i V - 1 (z n _ 1 )0 J V (z J v)) , (5.66)
where the correlation functions must be calculated on the entire z-plane. To prove the on-shell agreement of the equations (5.62) and (5.66) one has to show that the entire integration region is covered once and the ghost contribution compensates the Jacobian, which occurs in going from proper space time variables {Tj} to the Koba-Nielsen variables z,. The proof of this has been established by Giddings for N = 4 202 and by Samuel and Bluhm for N > 4 203 . 5.5.
Sliver
Rastelli and Zwiebach150 have found a family of string fields generating a commutative subalgebra of the open string star algebra: \n) * \m) = \n + m - 1) .
(5.67)
93 The state \n) is defined by the following requirement for any state \<j>) (n\cj>) = (/„ o 0(0)) , where
(5.68)
158
fn(z) = ^t<m(-tan-1
{z)].
(5.69)
This family of states is called wedge states, because the half-disks representing their local coordinates could be considered as wedges of the full unit disks. For n = 1 the wedge corresponds to the identity state \I) and for n = 2 the wedge corresponds to the vacuum |0). In the n ->• oo limit the map (5.69) is f(z) = foo(z)= t a n " 1 (z)
(5.70)
and this wedge state has the property |S)*|S) = | S ) .
(5.71)
This wedge state is called sliver. It was found158 that the sliver |H) can be written in the factorized form |S) = |S„,) ® \Eg) .
(5.72)
The matter part of (5.72) can be defined using the CFT technique 208 |S m ) ex exp (- i r,^ o"t . 5 • aA |0) ,
(5.73)
where 1
/ dw f dz
y/^Ef
1
2m J 2-Kl Z n u ; m ( 1
+ z 2 ) ( 1 + u;2)(taI1-l(z)_tan-l^)
2
'
(5.74) First Rastelli, Sen and Zwiebach158 have compared numerically the sliver (5.73) with the matter part of the solution found by Kostelecky and Potting 156 (see Sect. 4) and have got an evidence that these two solutions are the same. Later on these two states have been identified by direct calculations 170 . 6. Cubic Super String Field Theory 6.1.
Fermions
The action for the open superstring in the conformal gauge has the form 1
/>oo
rn
r-I
(6.1)
94
Here * is a Majorana spinor and * = * T 7 ° . We introduce the explicit representation of Euclidean Dirac 7-matrices:
^=(?;)• '-CDThe spinor \&M(<7, r) has two components
Performing matrix multiplications in (6.1) and changing the variables we get the following action for fermions
S
= -^~jjd2z \f^ + <WJ •
(6-3)
Since \PM(er, r) is spinor, we can impose the following boundary conditions (the first one can always be reached by redefinition of the fields) ^"(TT.T) = V(TT,T)
^ " ( 0 , T ) = ±^M(0,r) .
,
For "+" the sector is called Ramond (R), and for "—" the sector is called NeveuSchwartz (NS). Therefore, the solution of the equations of motion (merging %p and ip) is of the form
ngZ+r
where r = 1/2 for R-sector, and r = 0 for NS-sector (z is the same as in Sect. (5.1)). Following the ordinary quantization procedure we get the following commutation relations {WM=rr6m+nfi.
(6.5)
The correlation function is (r(zW(w)) = ~rr—. / z—w 6.2. Superghosts,
(6.6)
Bosonization
Consider a general first order action 201 2TT
J
(fzbdc,
(6.7)
95
where b and c denote general conjugate fields of dimension A and 1 — A respectively; they can be either Bose or Fermi fields1. The b , c operator product expansion is 1
c(z)h(w)
e
h(z)c(w)
(6.8)
z—w z—w Here and in the sequel, e = + 1 for Fermi statistics and e = — 1 for Bose statistics. The fields have the following mode expansions and hermitian properties l Z
r ( ) - Z^ z 7n+l-X
'
b z
( ) =E^TX'
C
n ~
C
-»
bj, = eb_„.
n
The OPE (6.8) determines the (anti)commutation relations CmD n + £ OnCm = Om+n,0 •
(6.9)
There are NS and R sectors of the theory, specified by NS
R
bn , n £ Z — A
bre,
c„ , nel
cn , n e | + Z + A
+X
ne|+Z-A
T h e stress tensor and reparametrization algebra are
T(z) = -\bdc{z) T(z)b(w) T(z)c(w)
T(z)T(w)
+ (1 - X)dbc(z) , x
2 {* — w)
b(w) + —i— db(w)
1-A {z - w)
~ - ^ — ^ C2( I B ) +
c/2 ~ , ' „ + - 7lA4 (z — w
(6.10) (6.11)
z—w dc(w) ,
(6.12)
z —w c = e (1 - 3Q 2 ) ,
Q = e(l - 2A) . (6.13)
Special cases are the reparametrization ghost algebra with e = 1, A = 2, Q = — 3 and c = —26; and the local superconformal ghost algebra with e = — 1, A = 3/2, Q = 2 and c = 11. 'The formulae in the end of Sec. 5.1 are a special case of the general formulae presented in this section.
96 The system has a global C/(l) current j(z) = -bc(z) j(z)b(w)
= £
^
,
^ ) j »
~ T ^ p
,
(6-14)
~
b(w) , j(z)c(w) c(w) , (6.15) z—w z—w which charge operator jo counts c = + l , b = —1 charge. The conformal properties of the current depend on the vacuum being chosen. In the SL2 invariant vacuum (c(z)b(w)) = l/(z — w), the proper relation is
T(z)
^)~(^+(J^)fJ'(z)'
[Lm,j„] = -njm+n
+ — m(m + l)<5m+„,o •
^^ (6.16b)
So j(z) is scale and translation covariant (m = 0 , - 1 ) , but not conformal covariant (m = 1). Next commutation relations [£1, j - i ] f = [L-1J1] = -jo ,
[L1J-1] = jo + Q ,
(6.17)
show the charge asymmetry of the system: JQ = —j0 — Q. Consequently, operator expectation values of charge neutral operators will vanish since [jo, 0]=qO,
(0|jof = -Q(Q\ ,
jo|0) = 0 ,
(0\j0O\0) = -Q(O|0|O) = q(0\O\0) . Only operators which cancel the background charge Q survive. The U(l) number current may be used to build a stress energy tensor that reproduces the relation (6.16a)
Tj(z) = - \ H 2 ( * ) + Qdj(z)) ,
(6.18a)
^
(6.18b)
r
H ^
r
~ ^ ~
^
+ ^
,
( 6 - 18c )
2(7^54 + -
Thus the new stress tensor has Cj — 1 - 2 e Q 2 ; the original b , c stress tensor has c = Cj ,
e= 1 ,
(Fermi)
c = cj — 2 ,
£ = —1 ,
(Bose)
97 To reproduce correct central charge in the Bose case one has to add to (6.18a) a proper Fermi system with central charge —2 such that T = Tj+T-2-
(6.19)
More precisely, this has to be Fermi system with A_2 = 1 and Q-2 = - 1 composed of a dimension 1 field T)(z) and dimension 0 field £(z). Now let us discuss bosonization of b , c-system. To this end, we introduce bosonic field (/> such that j(z) = ed<j>{z) ,
(6.20)
This means that the stress energy tensor of the field <j> is of the form T
-£-d
=
The main object in bosonization construction is a normal ordered exponent e9<Mz). it has the following OPEs with stress-energy tensor T^ and [/(l)-current 3 T0(z)e«^) =
+
(z — w)2
j(z)eq^w)
~—i-e«*W z—w
e , 0 ( z ) eq'4>(W)
_ (z _
wyqq'
=>
tf+W+rf
0q
(6.21a)
w \jo,e9+lw)]=qe9+W L J 4tw)
_
,
(6.21b) (6.21c)
So eq^w^ has jo-charge equal to q and conformal weight ^q(q + Q). From (6.21c) it follows that e'*(z) for odd q behaves like anticommuting operator. So the main bosonization formula are Fermi
Bose
c(z) = e^ 2 ) = b(z) = e~*^
e"^ =
c(z) = 7 = 77(z)e*W a
e~ ^
b(z) = 0 = e"*( z )^(z)
The (?j, £)-system has its own conserved current £r). Using this current we can construct a new one, which is called the picture current and is of the form j P { z ) = - d
In Table 3 we collect the assignments of the ghost number n 9 and the picture number np for the conformal operators described above. Let us note that SL(2,R) invariant vacuum has zero ghost and picture numbers.
98 Table 3. Ghost number ng, picture number np and conformal weight h assignments. field
ng
b c
-1 1
0 0
0
9
-1 1 1 -1
1 -1 0 0
eq
f V 7
0
np
h 2 -1 - ^ 9 ( 9 + 2) 0 1 -1/2 3/2
Correlation functions are to be computed in the following normalization *(£(z)cdcd2c(w)e-2*M)
= -2.
It is a good point to note here, that the above expression is written in the so-called large Hilbert space. The problem is that in the bosonization formula we have used only d£ rather then £, therefore, the zero mode £o is not important for bosonization. Moreover the Hilbert space, which can be associated in a standard way with the bosonized superghosts, does not form an irreducible representation of the superghost algebra. One can make it irreducible by excluding the mode £o • In the succeeding sections we will assume this restriction and correlation functions will be normalized as follows (cdcd2c(w) e-2^) 6.3. Problems
with Action
= -2 , in — 1
where
(0| = *(0|£0 •
Picture
The original Witten's proposal 135 for NSR superstring field theory action reads:
Sw =
JA*QNSA
+-
JXA*A*A+
/V(t)¥*Q«* + 2 fv*A*V
.
(6.22) Here QNS and Qn are the BRST charges in NS and R sectors, J and * are Witten's string integral and star product to be specified below. States in the extended Fock space H are created by the modes of the matter fields X^ and i/j'1, conformal ghosts b, c and superghosts ft, 7 :
A= Y, m,j,i
9=
4.Wft...7r-^-c I ...<...C|0)-i,
(6.23)
6 Z+5
£ m, j , i € Z
9AUx)/3i
...lj...bk...cl...a»...rjA)_h.
(6.24)
99 The characteristic feature of the action (6.22) is the choice of the —1 picture for the string field A. The vacuum |0)_i in the NS sector is defined as |0)_i=c(0)e-*< 0 >|0),
(6.25)
where |0) stands for SL(2,R)-invariant vacuum. In the description of the open NSR superstring the string field A is subjected to be GSO+ . The vacuum |i4)_i in the R sector is denned as |A)_i = c ( 0 ) e - ^ ( ° > S A ( 0 ) | 0 > ,
(6.26)
where SA{Z) is a spin operator of weight 5The insertion of the picture-changing operator1200 & •
X = - ^ e-V • dX + cdt, + i 66V 2 * + \ d (^e 2 *)
(6.27)
in the cubic term is aimed to absorb the unwanted unit of the
+ XA*A
= 0 .
Here QB = QNS- The first nontrivial iteration (4-point function) involving the pair of XA * A vertices produces the contact term singularity when two of X-s collide in a point.
6.4. Action in 0 Picture and Double Step Inverse Changing Operator
Picture
To overcome the troubles that we have discussed in the previous subsection it was proposed to change the picture of NS string fields from - 1 to 0, i.e. to replace |0)_i in (6.23) by |0) 140>141. States in the —1 picture can be obtained from the states in the 0 picture by the action of the inverse picture-changing operator Y 200
Y = Acd^e-^iw)
100
with X y = YX = 1. This identity holds outside the ranges kerX(w) and kery(«;) 2 1 9 . These kernels are: kerXiw)
= [o{w) | lira X{w)0{z)
= o)
kerYtw)
= \o(w)
= o) .
I lim Y(w)0(z)
and
This means that kerX(w) and ker Y(w) depend on a point w. In particular, the following statement is true: for all operators O(z), z ^ w the product X(w)0(z) ^ 0. The existence of these local kernels leads to the fact that at the 0 picture there are states that can not be obtained by applying the picture changing operators X and Y to the states at the —1 picture. The action for the NS string field in the 0 picture has the cubic form with the insertion of a double-step inverse picture-changing operator y_ 2 140>141 J; Ss
[Y-2A*QBA+?-
[Y-2A*A*A.
(6.28)
We discuss Y-2 in the next subsection. In the 0 picture there is a variety of auxiliary fields as compared with the —1 picture. These fields become zero due to the free equation of motion: QBA = 0, but they play a significant role in the off-shell calculations. For instance, a low level off-shell NS string field expands as A £* [dk{u{k)cl-\All{k)icla,i_l-\Bll(k)lh J
\
l
>% + ^ ( t j d ^ ! ^ i 4
2
2
j
+ B(k)co + r(Jb)ci 7 i P-1 + • • • [ eifc'x(°'°) |0) .
2
2
(6.29)
Here u and r are just the auxiliary fields mentioned above. The SSFT based on the action (6.28) is free from the drawbacks of the Witten's action (6.22). The absence of contact singularities can be explained shortly. The action (6.28) yields the following equation Y_2(QBA
+ A*A)
=0.
(6.30)
Since operator YL2 is inserted in the mid point in the bulk and A is an operator in a point on the boundary we can drop out Y-2 and write the following equation QBA J
+ A*A = 0.
(6.31)
One can cast the action into the same form as the action (2.7) for the bosonic string if one modifies the NS string integral accounting the "measure" Y-2 : f = JY-2-
101
So the interaction vertex does not contain any insertion leading to singularity. The complete proofs of this fact can be found in 140 > 141 . 142 . To have well defined SSFT (6.28) the double step inverse picture changing operator must be restricted to be a) in accord with the identity k : F_ 2 X = X7_ 2 = Y ,
(6.32)
b) BRST invariant: [QB , F_ 2 ] = 0 , c) scale invariant conformal field, i.e. conformal weight of Y_2 is 0, d) Lorentz invariant conformal field, i.e. Y"_2 does not depend on momentum. The point a) provides the formal equivalence between the improved (6.28) and the original Witten (6.22) actions. The point b) allows us "to move" BRST charge from one string field to another. The point c) is necessary to make the insertion of Y_2 compatible with the ^-product. And the point d) is necessary to preserve unbroken Lorentz symmetry. As it was shown in paper 141 , there are two (up to BRST equivalence) possible choices for the operator Y_2 • The first operator, the chiral one 140 , is built from holomorphic fields in the upper half plane and is given by y_ 2 (z) = - 4 e - 2 * W - i l e-3*cd&
• dX(z) .
(6.33)
The identity (6.32) for this operator reads Y-2(z)X(z)
= X(z)Y.2(z)
= Y(z) .
This F_ 2 is uniquely defined by the constraints a) - d). The second operator, the nonchiral one 141 , is built from both holomorphic and antiholomorphic fields in the upper half plane and is of the form: Y-2(z,z)
= Y(z)Y(z).
(6.34)
Here by Y(~z) we denote the antiholomorphic field 4c(z)d^(z)e~ 2 < t > ^ z \ this choice of Y_2 the identity (6.32) takes the form: Y„2(z,z)X(z)
= X(z)Y_2(z,z)
= Y(z)
For
.
One can find the inverse operators W to YL 2 (z,z) and Y-2{z) W(z,z)Y„2{z,z) W(z)Y_2(z)
k
= 1,
= l,
W{z,z)=X{z)X{z) 2
;
W(z) = X (z) + c^Wiiz)
(6.35a) + a2W2(z)
We assume that this equation is true up to BRST exact operators.
+ a3W3(z) , (6.35b)
102
where Wi(z) = {Q,fi;(z)}, fij is given by fii = (db)d e2
= (02b) e24> ,
ft2
n3 = bd2e2*
(6.36)
and a, are the following numbers ai = _
a2 Q3 = _ (6 3?) 192' = ~48' 96The issue of equivalence between the theories based on chiral or nonchiral insertions still remains open. The first touch to the problem was performed in 210 . It was shown that the actions for low-level space-time fields are different depending on insertion being chosen.
6.5. SSFT in Conformal
Language
As for the bosonic string (see Sec. 5.2) for SSFT calculations it is convenient to employ the tools of CFT 2 0 8 . In the conformal language f and ^-product mentioned above are replaced by the odd bracket ((• • • | • • •)), defined as follows «K_ 2 |Ai,... ,An)) = (Pn o F_ 2 (0,0) A (n) o ^ ( 0 ) . . . / M o = (fjn)oY-2(i,i)fin)oA1(0)...fWoAn{0)) »
, '
An(0)\ n = 2,3.
(6.38)
Rn
Here r.h.s. contains SL(2, E) -invariant correlation function in CFT on string configuration surface Rn described in Section 5.2. Aj (j = 1 , . . . ,n) are vertex operators and {/• '} are given by eq. (5.27b). Y-2 is the double-step inverse picture changing operator (6.34) inserted in the center of the unit disc. This choice of the insertion point is very important, since all the functions fj maps the points i (the middle points of the individual strings) to the same point that is the origin. In other words, the origin is a unique common point for all strings (see Figure 11). The next important fact is the zero weight of the operator Y-2, so its conformal transformation is very simple foY-2(z,~z) = Y-2(f(z),f(~z)). Due to this property it can be inserted in any string. This note shows that the definition (6.38) is self-consistent and does not depend on a choice of a string on which we insert Y-2Due to the Neumann boundary conditions, there is a relation between holomorphic and antiholomorphic fields. So it is convenient to employ a doubling trick (see details in 1 9 8 ) . Therefore, Y-2(z,~z) can be rewritten in the following form1
Y-2{z,z) = Y(z)Y(z*). Because of this formula, the operator Y-2{ z,z) is sometimes called bilocal.
103
Here Y(z) is the holomorphicfieldand z* denotes the conjugated point of z with respect to a boundary, i.e. for the unit disc z* = 1/z and z* = ~z for the upper half plane. From now on we work only on the whole complex plane. Hence the odd bracket takes the form /1(n)oA1(0).../Wo4(0)) .
{{Y^2\AU . . . ,An)) = (Y(Pn(0))Y(Pn(oo))
(6.39) To summarize, the action we start with reads
S[A]
UY-2\A,QBA)) 9l L2
+
\({Y-2\A,A,A))
(6.40)
where g0 is a dimensionless coupling constant 6.6. Free Equation
of
Motion
The aim of this section is to illustrate that the free equation of motion (6.30) obtained from the action (6.40) and the free equation of motion (6.31) are the same1". To this purpose we consider the following GSO+ string field (in picture zero and ghost number one) A = J - ^ ^ L(k)ce2ikX^ - ^B^k^^e™-*^ + r-x(k)dce 2 i k X L ^
+
^A^cdX*e2ikX- (w)
+
^F^(k)cip^iljve2ik-XL^
+ r 2 {k)cd
(6.41)
and show that free equations of motion for the component fields are usual Maxwell equations for the massless vector field plus some relations between the other fields. The (6.41) contains all possible excitations in picture 0 on levels LQ = — 1 and LQ = 0. There are several unexpected properties of this formula: • First, we find that the level LQ = — 1 is not empty — it contains one field u(k); • Second, we find that there are two candidates for the Maxwell field: A^ and 1?M; • Third, we find that there are too many fields as compared with the massless spectrum of the first quantized string. m
In this section we use the convention a ' = 2.
104
As it will be shown in Section 6.8 the field B^ is physical one, while all other fields are auxiliary ones. Let us first examine the equations that follow from QB\A) = 0. We have d26k
u(k) (2k2 - 1) dec + crje^ik • -0 +
\k2dccdX»
+ A^k)
- 1 i ktid2cc +^cd
+ \ crje^ik • tpdX» + ^ d ^ e ^ S X " \k2dcj]e't'i)tl
+ B»(k) + liWd
8
•* ILV
-dm*?4.
02ik-XL(w)
(i/e V )
p2ik-XL(w)
- \cd (yje'V) - J c t / e V * * • dX
(9we 2 *) - ldr1r]e2
8
k2dcc^ij}v
4
- -cd(r] e^ik^ip,,} + -cqe^ik P
4
+ ri(fc)
2
^,/,^/,"
v
• ^ ^
2«*-Xx,(iu)
o
<92cc - dec 2iJfc • 3X + deqe^ik • ip + jd (drjrje2'1')
+ r2(k) -d2cc+2k2dccd(f> + ci]de't'2ik • tp + \d^de2^
8
- -crje^xp • dX - ce^d^ik + -bcdrjrje2
2
2
02ikXL(w)
• ip) 2ik-XL(w)
\d2r]r]^
From {QB, A} = Q one gets the following equations for component fields: u =0, Btl = All ,
r2 = 0 ,
(6.42a)
FM„ = - ih^Av] ,
r1 = --ikllAll
k2A„ = 4ifcMri .
,
(6.42b) (6.42c)
Note that we get Maxwell equation for B^ after excluding n in (6.42c) via (6.42b) k2 B^ = kf, ku Bv .
(6.43)
Eqs. (6.42a) exclude fields u and r2 and (6.42b) leave only one vector field.
105
Now let us present the result of computations of the action (6.40) on the string field (6.41):
f d™k 2
J
(2TT)26
u(-k)u(k)
- ^(-fc)AM(fc) -
ifi M (-fc)5 M (fc)
+ -A p (-fc)B M (fc) - iFM„(-fc)FM„(fc) + - 2ir2(-k)kliBfl(k)
ikllFliV{-k)B„{k)
- 10r2(-fc)r2(fc) - 4n(-fc)r 2 (fc)
One can check that the equations of motion following from this action are precisely the eqs. (6.42). Moreover, free equations of motion following from Qs|.4) = 0 and from Y-IQB\-A) — 0 are the same for any string field A. 6.7. Scattering
Amplitudes
6.7.1. Gauge Fixing Before proceeding with the investigation of tree graphs in the theory with the action (6.40), we should specify a gauge fixing procedure. It is convenient to choose the Siegel gauge 216 b0\A) = 0.
(6.44)
To find the propagator we have to invert the operator Y- 2 Q on the space of states satisfying (6.44). The propagator can be presented in a number of forms: A=
b
fWQ^
Li
= ^WLi
b
iwb-±Q
XJ
LI
+ Qb-^Wbi
= W^
LI
LI
LI
.
(6.45)
LI
One can prove that AY_ 2 Q = 1 in the space (6.44) by a simple calculation based on the following set of equalities: [L,Q} = 0,
6.7.2. ^Point
{b0,Q} = L,
[W,Q} = 0,
[y_ 2 ,Q] = 0 ,
Y_2W = 1 . (6.46)
On-Shell Amplitude
Now we turn to the calculation of the four-boson scattering amplitude in the cubic theory. We shall proceed as close as possible to the analogous calculation in the usual Witten theory. In the bracket representation for two- and threepoint vertices one can write h(i)
lii)
AA = 4ii(V3\ i23(V3\Y$Y$^WQ^\V2)ii\A\U\A1)1\A2)a\A3)3
. (6.47)
106
In comparison with the usual formula (5.61), we evidently find in (6.47) the additional midpoint insertions of Y_l , Y_^ a n d the new propagator (6.45). The string fields \Ar) = X\A) is a field in the —1 picture defined by the expression like (6.29). Taking into account the BRST invariance of the vertices and the on-shell condition for \Ar), we can rewrite eq. (6.47) in the form 1,(0 A4 = 41i(V3| i 23
(6-48)
where one of the two potentially dangerous Y-2's is cancelled by the operator W in the propagator. In the conformal formulation this expression corresponds to r°°
"Wo
dT
r dz dz
-
-
-
-
f^id-p{0^°^bY^-
(6 49)
-
where Z{p) is the Giddings map for N = 4. To be more rigorous we can consider first the regularized expression f dz
°°
/
dT
j2ridp
dz
-
-
-
-
(0i0203C46K.2) ,
(6.50)
with the regularization parameter T . We will prove that: i) the correlation function (6.50) is well-defined in the limit r —> 0; ii) in the limit r —> 0 the correlation function (6.49) after summation over all channels is equal to the Koba-Nielsen amplitude. We will proceed in the same way as described for Witten's diagram in Section 5.4 above. The first step is to move two of the X(0), say X^ and X^ , to the midpoint via the famous rule l " » ( 0 ) - I w ( i ) = {Q,
(6.51)
107
and we find A$ in the form Ai = A° + A\ + A\
(6.52) In the RHS of eq. (6.52) the first term contributes to the Koba-Nielsen amplitude A°A= T d T ^ ^ -
{O^OzOib)
.
(6.53)
The last two terms in (6.52), A\ and A\ , are contact terms with cancelled propagator A\ = (YS^O^OsO^b)
,
(6.54)
and A\ = ( y _ 2 ^ ( 1 ) O i 6 2 6 3 0 4 6 ) •
(6.55) 142
In contrast to the usual calculation (see Appendix A in for details) we have not obtained any singularity in contact terms (see Appendix 6.9.3) so there is no need to look for a regularization to define A4 correctly. Therefore, the limit T —1 0 does exist . Finally note that the amplitudes A\ and A\ after summation over all channels are identically zero. For illustration we will prove this for A\. The explicit formula for A\ in the s-channel reads fOO
A\{s)
=1
C A
A
dTJ^.-^(01(z1)d2(z2)d3(z3)Oi(z4)b(z)mzi)-azoW(z0)). (6.56)
108 In the t-channel we get A\{t)
=J dTJ^-.-^(d2(z1)d3(Z2)0A(z3)01(zi)b(z)((az3)
-
&o))Y(z0)). (6.57)
Making a SL(2, C) transformation of the form z -> z' = Z—^- , z+1
(6.58) '
K
which gives (Zi, Z2,Zz,Zi)
-¥ (z2,Z3,Zi,Zi)
,
and using the fact that OT are anticommuting operators we find that and so the sum of (6.56) and (6.57) is equal to zero. In the oscillator language this corresponds to the cancellation of 4-point contact terms by cyclic symmetry arguments. The term (6.53) is also well-defined in the limit r -> 0 and gives the s-channel contribution in the total Koba-Nielson amplitude 215 ' 217 ' 218 . As in a usual gauge theory the issue of finiteness of 4-point off-shell amplitudes crucially depends on the choice of a gauge. One can use the alternative gauge bo(Y_2A) = 0, which leads to the propagator W(i) -±Y_2Q-± Li
W(i) = W(i) -°- - W(i) y- F_ 2 ^ W(i)Q . Li
LI
(6.59)
Li
LI
In this gauge the NS 4-point function (off-shell NS amplitude) is obviously finite. 6.7.3. N-Point On-Shell Amplitudes Let us start with the example of the 5-point amplitude. From now on we choose the propagator in the form (see eq. (6.45)) A =
hW(i)-bj-W(i)bj-Q,
(6.60)
then the 5-point function is given by the sum of two Feynman graphs 2
3
4
2
3
4
(6.61)
109 where the line with a dot stands for the second term in eq. (6.60). To analyze the graphs of this type, which also appear in N-point amplitudes, we adopt the following regularization
A -* ATur2
b
^e~^W(i)-b^e-^LW(i)e-^Q
= Li
Li
/»00
= bo
/*00
dre-TLW(i)
-b0
Li /»00
dTe-TLW{i)b0
/
dre~TLQ
.
(6.62)
This regularization is a lagrangian one and it's special case was used previously for the 4-point function. Adopting the regularization eq. (6.62) we find that in the limit n -> 0 the operator Q in the second term of (6.61) directly cancels the right-standing propagator thus leading to the diagram with the contact 4-vertex. 2 3 4
W (6.63) According to the Lemma in Appendix 6.9.3 we cannot remove the regularization parameter r 2 in this diagram. However, literally reproducing the arguments of the previous subsection, we conclude that after summation over all the channels these contact terms give zero. Hence we find that only the first graph in (6.61) contributes on-shell. Reproducing once again the arguments of the previous subsection, we finally conclude that the first graph in (6.61) gives the Koba-Nielsen formula. Following just the same device one can analyze any N-point on-shell amplitude and demonstrate the total agreement with the Koba-Nielsen formulae. The off-shell analysis of N-point functions is much more subtle. The key point is the behavior of multi-factor OPEs of the form y_ 2 • W • Y-2 • • • Y-i • 6.8. Restriction
on String
Fields
The aim of this section is to try to reduce the number of excitations appearing in the zero picture string field. Such reductions can be made if we have degenerate quadratic part of the action. But the reduction we describe is not of this sort. In this construction we use only the fact that the expectation value of the operator on the complex plane in super conformal two dimensional field theory is non-vanishing only if it compensates all background charges of the theory.
110
Let us decompose the string field A according to the (^charge q: J\. — y ^ J\q
7
J\q c Vq ,
qez where [jo , Ag] = q Ag
with
j0 = ^- j> d( d4>(() .
(6.64)
The BRST charge QB has also the natural decomposition over (^-charge: QB = QO + QI + Q2-
(6.65)
Since QB2 = 0 we get the identities: Qo2 = 0 , g2
2
=0
{Q0,Qi} and
= 0,
{Qi,Q2} = 0 , (6.66)
{<5o,<32} + <5i2 = 0 .
The non-chiral inverse double step picture changing operator Y-2 has ^-charge equal to —4. Therefore to be non zero the expression in the brackets ((Y^2 \ • • •)) must have (^-charge equal to +2. Hence the quadratic S2 and cubic S3 terms of the action (2.7) read: 5
2 = ~\ Y^((Y-2\A2-q , QoAq)) - \ Yjy-*\Al-* q€l
> QlAq))
q&
-\52((Y-2\A-q,Q2Aq)). 53
= ~\
E
(6.67a)
((y-2\A2-q-q' , Aql,Aq)) .
(6.67b)
q,q'eZ
We see that all the fields Aq , q ^ 0,1, give only linear contribution to the quadratic action (6.67a). We propose to exclude such fields. We will consider the action (6.67) with fields that belong to the space Vo© Vi only. To make this prescription meaningful we have to check that the restricted action is gauge invariant. The action restricted to subspaces Vo and V\ takes the form S2,restricted = -\{{Y.2\A0
, Q2Ao)) ~ ((Y-Mo
-^«r_2L4i,Q04i»,
^3, restricted
=
-{{Y^Ao^AuAx))
.
, Q1A1)) (6.68a)
(6.68b)
111
The action (6.68) has a nice structure. One sees that since the charge Q 2 does not contain zero modes of stress energy tensor the fields A) play a role of auxiliary fields. On the contrary, all fields Ax are physical ones, i.e. they have non-zero kinetic terms. Let us now check that the action (6.68) has gauge invariance. The action (6.40) is gauge invariant under SA = QBA. + [A, A] .
(6.69)
But after the restriction to the space Vb © Vi it might be lost. Decomposing the gauge parameter A over ^-charge A = ^,Aq we rewrite the gauge Q
transformation (6.69) as: SAq = Q0Aq + QiAq-i + Q 2 A,_ 2 + ] T [Ag_,«, A,,] .
(6.70)
Assuming that Aq — 0 for q ^ 0,1 from (6.70) we get SA-2
= <2oA_2 ;
(6.71a)
6A-x
= Q 0 A - i + [ A ) , A _ i ] + QiA_2 + [>li > A_2];
(6.71b)
6Ao
= QoAQ + [Ao , A0] + QiA_i + [Ax, A_i] + Q 2 A_ 2 ;
(6.71c)
SAi
=Q0A1
(6.71d)
6A2
= QxAi + [Ax, Ax] + Q 2 A 0 ;
(6.71e)
SA3
= Q2A1 .
(6.71f)
+ [Ao,A1] + Q1AQ + [A1,A0]
+ Q2A-1]
To make the restriction consistent with transformations (6.71) the variations of the fields A-2 , A-x, A2 and A% must be zero. Since the gauge parameters cannot depend on string fields we must put A_ 2 = A-x = Ai = 0. So we are left with the single parameter Ao, but to have zero variation of A2 we must require in addition Q2A0 = 0. Therefore the gauge transformations take the form 6A0 = Q0A0 + [Ao , A0] , (6.72) 5Ax = QxA0 + [Ax, A0] ,
with
Q2A0 = 0 .
It is easy to check that (6.72) form a closed algebra. It is also worth to note that the restriction Q2A0 = 0 leaves the gauge transformation of the massless vector field unchanged.
112
6.9.
Appendix
6.9.1. Cyclicity Property The proof of the cyclicity property is very similar to the one given in 187 . But there is one specific point — insertion of the double step inverse picture changing operator Y_2 (6.34). So we repeat the proof with all necessary modifications. Let Tn and R denotes rotation by — ^ and — 2TT respectively: Tn(w) =e-^w
R(w) = e-2niw
,
.
These transformations have two fixed points namely 0 and oo. Let us apply the transformation Tn to the maps fjf1' (5.27b) and we get the identities: T„ o / W = / £ £ ,
k
T„o/W=i?o/W,
n = 2,3.
(6.73)
Since the weight of the operator Y_2 is zero and 0 and 00 are fixed points of Tn and R, the operator Yl 2 remains unchanged. Due to SL(2, M)-invariance of the correlation function we can write down a chain of equalities (Y_2 F[n) oA,...
F^
=
OV i ^ "
1
° Oh)
j n n \ o An^f^ o oh)
= (Y-2 Tn o f[n) oAx...Tno
f(nn\ o An^Tn
= e- 2 ; r i / l (y_ 2 F^ n ) o OhF2(n) oA1...
o /(») o Oh)
F | n ) o An.!)
.
(6.74)
In the last line we assume that Oh is a primary field of weight h and use the transformation law of primary fields under rotation: {R o Oh) (w) = e-2*ih Oh (e-^w)
.
Also we change the order of operators in correlation function without change of a sign, because the expression inside the brackets should be odd (otherwise it will be equal to zero) and therefore no matter whether $ odd or even. So the cyclicity property reads ((Y„2\AU...
,An))=e-2*ih»((Y„2\An,A1,...,An_1))
(6.75)
EXAMPLES. NOW we consider some applications of the cyclicity property (6.75). GSO+ sector consists of the fields with integer weights and therefore their exponential factor is equal to 1, while G S O - sector consists of the fields
113
with half integer weights and therefore their exponential factor is —1. Now we give few examples <(y_21.4+ , QB A+))
= «y_ 2 | Q B A+ ,A+)) ,
((Y_2\A-,QBA-))
=-((Y-2\QBA-,A-))
«X-2\A+,A-,A-))
= - ((Y-2\A-
(6.76a) ,
,A+,A-))
(6.76b) = ((Y.2\A-
,A- ,A+)) . (6.76c)
6.9.2. Twist Symmetry The proof of the twist symmetry is similar to the one given in 187 . But there is one specific point — insertion of the operator Y_ 2 . So we repeat this proof here with all necessary modifications. A twist symmetry is a relation between correlation functions of operators written in one order and in the inverse one: <(F_ 2 |0i,... , 0 „ » = ( - l ) ? « y _ 2 | O n ) . . . , Oi» .
(6.77)
We are interesting in this relation for n = 3. 1) Let us consider the following transformations M(w) = e~l*w and I(w) = el0/w. The transformation I has the following properties: J ( z i ) I ( z 2 ) = I(zlZ2)
l(z2'z)
and
= (/(*))^ •
The pair of points 0 and oo is not affected by M and I, therefore the doublestep inverse picture changing operator Y-2 remains unchanged. For the maps (5.27b) we have got the following composition laws /{3> o M = / o / | 3 ) ,
/ 2 (3) o M ^ / o / f
and
/f ) o M = I o f[3) . (6.78)
2) Since there is an identity M o O{0) = e _i7r/l 0(O) we can apply it to (6.77) ((YL2IO1,02 ,03)> = e " E fc' (F_ 2 A{3) o M o O ^ f o M o 02 / 3 (3) o M o 0 3 ) = eiv S ^
{Y_2
f
Q fW
o 0
J
0
f) o02U
/<3> o 0 3 )
= e " S h* (Y-2 /< 3 > o Oi / f ' o C?2 /< 3) o Os>
(6.79)
in the last line we use the invariance with respect to SL(2,R). Let N0dd and Neven be a number of odd or euen respectively fields in the set { 0 i , 0 2 , 0 3 } . After rearranging the fields one gets «y_ 2 |01 , 0 2 ,03» = J*^hl
(-l)N°dd{N*°dd~l)
«K- 2 |03 , 0 2 ,Ol» •
(6.80)
114
3) Since the correlation function is non zero only for odd expression, number N0dd is odd and N0dd — 2m + 1 for some integer m. Also we have an identity JVCTen + N0(id — 3. It's not difficult to check that (-l)"-"^"-1)
=
(_ir
= (
-i)^^ +^
+
^ " -
3
= (_i)JV^
+^ - . (6.81)
Combining (6.80) and (6.81) we get the twist property
«y_ 2 |Oi, o2,03» =fiin2 n3 «y_ 2 |o 3 , o2, 0$ , where
f(-1)^'+! , = < , , | (_l)^+i ,
fl,-
hj£Z
(i.e. GSO+)
(6.82)
1 hj€z+
(i.e. G S O - ) .
EXAMPLES
i) Let A+ = A\ + A2. Each term in A3+ = Al + {AiA\ + A\AX) + A2AXA2
+ (A^
+ AXA22) + A1A2Al
+ A\
should be twist invariant to be nonzero. Therefore we get fii — 1 and !72 = 1ii) Let we have fields A+ and A- = a\ + a2. Using cyclicity property (6.76) one gets 2(A+,ai +a2,ai
+ a2) = (A+aj + a\A+) + (A+a\ + a\A+) + (A+aia2 + a2aiA+)
+ {A+a2a\ + a\a2A+)
.
So we get il+ = 1 and Cl+fliCl2 = 1. If ill = 1 (tachyon's sector) then fl2 = 1 too. Therefore we can consider a sector with 0 = 1 only. 6.9.3. Power-Counting Lemma Lemma 1. Consider an off-shell N-point tree graph with V = N — 2 threestring vertices, and with LQ internal lines corresponding to the usual propagator Ao = i;W and Li internal lines corresponding to W-propagator term ^W^g-. In such a graph there is L = LQ + 2L\, V — LQ and L\ operators b(z), Z{z) and W(z) respectively. Let us denote the power of the leading singularity in the product (b(z))L(Z{z))y-L°(W(z))Ll by s, i.e. L
V-L0
L,
Y[b{zo + ate) J J Z {z0 + atf
J J W (z0 + afc) = - [O1 (z0) + o(e)} ,
n=l
k=l
j=\
where ai,a'j,a'^ are some constants. The amplitude is non-singular if s < 2L, it can contain a logarithmic singularity if s = 2L and it is divergent in the case s > 2L .
115
Proof. Note that we consider only the case when there are no cancelled propagators in the tree or, in other words, all the Q-s from the propagators ^W^Q sit on external legs. Going to the z-plane one can represent the amplitude in the form A=Y\[
^
/ poo
dTn )B(T1,...,TL)
,
(6.83)
where
-n(/£
6(T1,...,r1)=||(^s^
!
x
n=l
x (n °r M n ^ n (*°<) n ^) • (6-84) IN
L
b
V-L0
n=l
\r=l
z
Li
j=l
w
i=l
\
I
In the space of modular variables {Tn} we choose the spherical coordinates: Tn = Tan(il)
,
where r is the radius and Q, is the set of n — 1 angular variables. Then /*oo
T L _ 1 dTdniB(T,n) ,
A=
(6.85)
Jo where B(T, fi) = jB(rai,... , ran). To analyze the question of finiteness of the amplitude A let us estimate the behavior of the integrand TL~1B(T, fi) when r tends to zero. Let us denote by ZQ the common limit of the points zoi and z'oi when r —> 0. If we put e = zoi — ^o for some i then for every j one has: ZQJ = z0 + a^e. In this notation it is possible to write the OPE for the product of the operators b, Z, and W in eq. (6.84) as f[b(wn)
f[Z(zoi)f[W(z'oi)
n= 1
i= 1
= YtO'a(zo)ek°i[(u>n-zoy°-"
i=l
ct
.
n= 1
(6.86) By using eq. (6.86) one can write eq. (6.84) in the form
B{e) = ( ft Or W £ ^ (*) £fc° ft f ^ 7 5 (»» - *)'"" ) • (6-87) \r=l
a
n=l
"
/
116
Because the conformal map defined by equation (5.63) we have
/ | £ ^ ( « * - * ) ' " - ~ *-* + '"- +1 •
(6-88)
In summary we conclude that when e —>• 0, B(e) has a behavior:
\r=l
n=l
a
/
~ r ^ - O ^ B a e * ' J J c*"-.
(6.89)
71=1
If s is the maximal power of singularity for the OPE (6.86) near the point ZQ (one must also put wn — ZQ ~ e in eq. (6.86) then L n=l
and eq. (6.89) takes the form B{e) ~
e-(£-i)£-*
.
(6.90)
Next we change the variables in (6.90) from e to r. As it is obvious from (5.63) when r -> 0 : r ~ e^+1 .
(6.91)
In terms of r eq. (6.90) looks like B ~
T-£+vT2(2£-s)
.
(692)
That is why the entire integrand in (6.85) behaves as Th-\
T-L+v^(2L-s)
= T-l+v^(2L-s)
^
when r ->• 0. From (6.93) we can derive the statement of our Lemma.
^g3^
117
6.9.4. Table of Notations, Correlation Functions and OPE
X£(z)X£(w)
~ -—rf a' 2
log(z - w)
a' 2 if"
dX>i(z)dXv(w)
1 z—w
c(z)b(w) ~ b{z)c(w)
•y(z)P(w)
P(z)y{w) •
£(z)r)(w) ~ ??(z)£(iu) ~
(c(zi)c(z 2 )c(z 3 )) = - ( z x - z 2 )(z 2 - z 3 )(z 3 - zi)
(e-2*(»>> = 1
TB
i> =
2 —W 1 -6 — w
= ——dX
• dX - — dip • \j>
a'
a'
2{z-w)4
dx -v lpdl _ I a / 3 7
Tbc = -Ibdc - 96c
TB(z)rs(w).
+ ,
2
^TBH +
(z-u>)2
-^~arB(w)
TB(Z)7>(«O ~ , 3/2,,?>(™) + — L _ d r F ( » (z — u))'! z—w 5/2 1/2 m , . TP(Z)TF(«J) • ' iu) 3 +—zL— (z — — w TB{w) 7 = Jje*'
7> 7 = T4> + <j> — charge:
7 2 = J7S7je2*
T
ii 1 2iti
-JdCd
=
qAq
QB = ^ -
1 (z-w)2
118
7. Cubic (Super)String Field Theory on Branes and Sen Conjectures 7.1. Sen's
Conjecture
As we have seen in Section 5 there is a tachyon mode in the spectrum of bosonic open string. There is also a tachyon mode in GSO— sector of fermionic string. Normally we impose GSO+ projection on superstring spectrum and obtain tachyon free spectrum. But there are objects in the string theory such as nonBPS branes or brane-anti-brane pairs, which necessarily contain both GSO+ and GSO— sector 144 . Therefore, it becomes important to explore the tachyon phenomenon. The existence of the tachyon mode does not necessarily signify a sickness of the theory, but may simply indicate an existence of a ground state with the energy density lower than in the starting configuration. One can compare this situation with Higgs phenomenon. The Higgs field has a potential looking like a Mexican hat. On the top of the potential the Higgs field has negative mass square, while at the bottom it has positive mass square. To find a new vacuum in the theory of strings one has to be able to calculate the effective tachyon potential, that is a functional on a constant field configuration. Since a non zero constant tachyon field is far away from its on-shell value one has to use an off-shell formulation of string theory to do this. As we know from sections 4-6 string filed theories give such off-shell formulations of the string theory. There are also so-called background independent string filed theories (BSFT) which are also used to calculate the effective tachyon potential 234 - 236 ' 237 . First attempts to find a stable vacuum in the bosonic string using SFT was made by Kostelecky and Samuel 138 . They have computed tachyon potential using level truncation scheme and shown that there is another vacuum, in which there is no tachyonic state. About two years ago A. Sen 233 suggested to interpret tachyon condensation as a decay of unstable D-branes. Let us consider one non-BPS D9-brane. As it is mentioned above the string attached to this brane has a tachyon in the spectrum. For this case, the Sen's conjecture says 144 : (1) The tachyon potential Vc(t) looks like Mexican hat with minimum at the point tc. The difference V(0) — V(tc) is precisely the tension fg of the non-BPS D9-brane. (2) The theory around the new vacuum does not contain any open string excitation. Therefore, this new vacuum can be also considered as a vacuum of a closed string. (3) All D-branes in type IIA (IIB) string theory can be regarded as classical
119 solutions in the open string field theory living on a system of non-BPS D9-branes (or D9-anti-D9-brane pair). In this section we will show how one can use SFT to check these conjectures. We will mainly concentrate on the first conjecture and will say only few words about others. Before proceed let us summarize what was obtained in the literature. The first Sen's conjectures was numerically verified almost in all SFTs listed in the Introduction. In Table below we collect results of the computations of the ratio ( V ( 0 ) - V ( £ C ) ) / T performed in different SFTs using the level truncation scheme. S F T Type Cubic SFT
V(0) -
V(tc)
level
number of the fields
10
102
0.9991
1
1 (exact) 0.944
BI SFT
T
Nonpolynomial SSFT
4
70
Modified Cubic SSFT
2
10
1.058
1
1 (exact)
BISSFT
These results were presented in 148,234,232,183 a n ( j 237 correspondingly. See also 187>188>232 about calculations of the tachyon potential in nonpolynomial SSFT 185 ' 186 and 189 about calculations in the Witten cubic SSFT. One sees that Background Independent SFTs give exact results for the minimum of the tachyon potential. The formulation of Background Independent SFT can be found in 220>234, and for further developments related to tachyon see 223,221,222,224,225,226,235,227,228,229,230,231
The
second
Sen's
conjecture
SFTs238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247
was also a n d
248
por
verified
almost
superstringS
in all
the Solution
representing, for example, a decay non-BPS D9 -> BPS D8 (D8) is a kink (anti-kink) solution. There are also solutions which represent a decay Dp —> Dq. Such solutions can be obtained by combining several kink solutions representing the decay Dp -> D(p - 1). This chain relations between the solutions are called the brane descend relations 144 ' 145 . In the case of the bosonic strings the solution representing a decay Dp —> Dq is called lump solution of codimension (p — q). Below we summarize some numeric results concerning lump solutions. The third conjecture implies that there are different solutions of the equations of motion of the SFT which can be identified with different objects ap-
120 pearing in the string theory. For example, the vortex and kink solutions in the Super SFT represent lower dimensional D-branes (of various types) in IIA (B) theory. Another example is lump solutions in the Bosonic SFT, which also represent lower dimensional D-branes. 7.2. CFT on
Branes
Dp-brane is incorporated into the string field theory by considering boundary CFT. This boundary CFT is constructed by p + 1 bosons Xa(z,z) (a = 0 , . . . ,p) with Neumann boundary conditions and 25 — p bosons X'l(z,z) (i = p+ 1 , . . . ,25) with Dirichlet boundary conditions. But to be able to use vertex operators we need to consider T-dual CFT. This CFT consist of 26 bosons Xfl(z,'z) with Neumann boundary conditions, but part of them is related to Xn(z,~z) by T-duality transformation: Xi(z,z)=XiL(z)+XR(z)
=U
X'i(z,z)=XiL(z)-XR(z).
7.3. String Field Theory on Pair of
(7.1)
Branes
To incorporate more than one brane into string field theory one can use ChanPaton factors. We will consider the string field theory for a pair of Dp-branes. To this end we need to introduce 2 x 2 Chan-Paton factors: 1 0' 0,
p 0
p CD 0
0 0' p 1 0 0' 1 0
denotes a string that begins and ends on the first brane; denotes a string that begins on the first and ends on the second brane; denotes a string that begins and ends on the second brane;
denotes a string that begins on the second and ends on the first brane.
For these matrices the following compositions are true:
'0 A /0 0\
(\
0
o o/ vi oy ~ vo oj '
(7 2a)
i o
(7 2b)
o o = (o i •
'
-
121
The string field is modified in the following way:
• - • " ' • ( J ! ! + -i'!!W.nw:;?
(7.3)
The action is of the form 1 $ Tr | « * , Q B # » + | « 4 , * , *»
9l
9l
\((*W,QB*{1)))
+ \W,QB
+ ^ ( ( * ( 1 ) , Q B $ ( 3 ) ) > + \w,QBci>))
+ i«* (1) ,* (1) ,$ (1) )) +
\{{^M2\^))
2 + \ ( ( ( f W . f ^ H c p . ) + \ ( « * < \ 0 , O + c.p.)
(7.4)
The dimensionless coupling constant g2, is the same as in the action (5.36). The expression (7.4) can be simplified if we employ cyclic symmetry of the odd bracket:
$( 1 ),$( 2 ), < A,«A*1=-4^(($ ( 1 ) ,Q B $ ( 1 ) )) + J(($ (2) J Q B * (2) )> (1) (1) (1) 2 2 2 + u\QB
(7.4') Let us consider the following string fields (7.5a)
* ^
=
/ (2TT)P+1 ^ f c ° ^ V f ( ^ ' ^ ' 2 ^ ) +iui(ka)Vlv
(w,ka,
2^rJ , (7.5b)
(7.5c) where V^ is a primary operator representing the vector field (5.47) and Vt is the tachyon vertex operator. And we introduce additional restrictions blUi(ka) — 0 and blu*(ka) = 0. We are interested in the following action S[6xi,t,Ui]
= —r- l((*(1),QB*{1))) 9o L
• (7-6) + ((f,QB)) + {(*{1},
122
The quadratic action can be easily read from (5.52) and it is of the form
<5 M
*
+1
1
1
f
dP dV '
/J.2 a'A;,
k
r )P+i
- [a'k2a+a'ml
•*Xi(-*)*x'(*)
+ [a'k2a + a'm2b] «,*(-*)«'(*)
- l] t*(-k)t(k)
(7.7)
where m2. = ( ^ ) . To compute the interaction terms we need to know the following correlation functions: ((«Xi(*i)V{,(fci,0), t*(k2)Vt {k2, -&.) =
i6xj(h)t*(k2)t(h)i x (cdX'Ux)
x8(k1
,ia'k\-l J2
c(/ 2 ) c(/ 3 ) e «*i-^(/»)
2 e
.ioc'k\ h
^ - ^ ( / 2 ) e 2i*s-x L (/ 3 )^
k2 + k3) (A - f 2 ) 2 a ' h k * (fl - f 3 ) 2 a ' k ^
+
~~bj
x (fi ~ h) (f2 - h) (f3 - fi) ibj6xj(ki) ria'kk x
J2
— 1 , I a' k\ — l i t
f3
-i a 2ira'
•
, ~lCt
fi — fi
(f2 -
> ^tr'tife / r
l/i - h)
f3)2a'k>k*
/ bj
2~™P
fi - h
(2irr+1a'-^S(ki+k2
t*(k2)t(k3)
2lT
—l
2 f,a'k lf^a'kl-lf,a'kl-lpiry+la,-2±l
Sxj(k1)t*(k2)t(k3)
=
r>a'k\ J\
, t(k3)Vt {k3, ^ T ) ) )
+
t \2a'k\ki. i r
(h - 73)
k3)f;a'kt
t \2a' k2k3+2
(h - h) (7.8)
Substitution of the maps (5.35) into (7.8) leads to the following expression
ibj6x3(ki) 2n x7
i*(A; 2 )i(A;3)(27r) p+1 a'-^J(fci + k2 + k3)
a'k\+a'k\+a'k\-2
(7.9)
123
Now we consider the correlation functions ( ( « * ( * i ) V V ( * i , 0 ) , iu*(k2)VJv {k2 , -^r)
, iuk(k3)Vkv
-8Xi{k1)u*Ak2)uk{h)}[alkh2,a'klfla'kl
=
x /cdX* e2ikl-XLUl)cdXj
{k3 , 5 ^ ) ) )
a'
e2ik2-XL{h)cdXk
e2ik3XL(-hA
.
(7.10)
Using the fact that Ui(ka)bl = u*{ka)bl — 0 we get the following expression 2_ a' x (/s -
/ 1 ' a ' f c ? / 2 ' a '* a 2 /3 a ' * ' (/i - / 2 ) (/ 2 - /s)
5xi(h)u*(k2)uk(kz) _2_ a1
h)
J*
n
(/2 - / 3 ) 5
(-ia')
X (/l - / 2 ) 2 a *1,la (/l - / 3 ) 2 Q ^ ^ (/2 -
2na'
•
/i — h
27ra'
h —h
hf
-^W6^u;{k2)u]{k3)f;a^f,a-klf,a^ X (/i - / 2 ) 2 Q ' * l f c a (/i - /a)2"'*1*8 (/2 -
(7.11)
/3)2Q'fc2fc3
Substitution of the maps (5.35) into (7.11) leads to the following expression ttMxi(fci)u*(k2)UJ(k3)(2ny+1
a'-^6(k1+k2+k3)r'k*+a'k>+a'kl
• (7.12)
Combining (7.9) and (7.12) we get the interaction term of the action (7.6) S3[5Xi,t,Ui] =
2a r v ' '
9o
x
r 2 1 - f dp+ik1dp+ik2dp+ik3
stu
?\
^+fc^+fc3)
J
(2^(2^+1
»6i^x'(fci) 7 a . f c ; + a > t g + a > t g [ 7 - 2 t . ( t 2 ) t ( f c 3 ) _ u*(fe2)ui(jb3)] ,
where 7 = -4= . Let us choose Sxl(x)
(7.13)
to be a constant
*X<(*) = (27r) lH - 1 «x i *(*) and let t, t* and u*, ttj be on mass shell. This simplifies the action (7.13). The
124 whole action S (7.6) is of the form p +l f ddP ~k
1
S[t Ui] =
>
^¥JW
a'kl-a'
)p+i
5
xt*{-k)t(k)
a'kl+a'
i bj S xl
2ita<
2TT
ibidx*
+ 1+
2ira
2TT
a'
<(-*)«'(*).
(7.14)
One sees t h a t the t e r m proportional to Sxi has n a t u r a l interpretation as a shift of mass of the fields t and Uj. B u t we want t o interpret the t e r m with S Xi as a shift of &;. Therefore, we have t o compare two shifts of the mass: one produced by Sxi and another produced by a shift of fy: , u
2
47r a
ibi6xi
2
2bi6V
a
/2
7
(7.15)
2-K
So we get 5
Sx'=i
6V
(7.16)
ira'
This expression can be obtained in a more simple way. Let us consider the following operator product expansion: e2i%j-X'L(z)
e2i£Xl(w)
(z _
= 1
/ Sbjb
= (z-w) z — w)
w^<*
(Sija-
i
e2i^-X'L(z)+2i^X'L
i
!>)
2
( ^ e2i^£h_X L(w)+2i^dX (w)(z-w)+0(z-w)
<2*> e
1 + (s - tu) —
0X*(u;) + 0(z -
wf
7T
(7.17) T h e state |0, b) is generated by the vertex operator Vt(0,
- ^ T ) , there-
fore, the change of this operator under a small shift of bi must be equal t o * X i V £ ( O , ^ ) . So we get ibj
c W e ^ ^ W
ibi
i<56
=
c(w)-^dXJ(w)e^x^
iva 2
-i a' 2
2
ifl>,- . 2 ' —7« 7ra' .a 7 .
2
c(itf)dJf'(tt;)
e^^
( t u )
i 2
7ra'
'
2w a1)
'
(7.18)
125 which is equal to the previously obtained expression up to the vertex operator of the auxiliary field. So we can now identify 6xl by using 5
i6Xl
=
Sbj_ ira'
(7.19)
One sees that up to the sign (that is easily explained) we get the same result as in (7.16). Now we substitute (7.16) or (7.19) into (7.7) and get for the field 8b1 the following action
r
_i
S2[Sbi] = 2TT
2 5
2Q"^ J
(7.20)
(2TT)H-I
2
As a consequence we get the brane's tension: _
1
(7.21)
2
2ir g„a'
7.4. Superstring
2
Field Theory on Non-BPS
D-Brane
To describe the open string states living on a single non-BPS D-brane one has to add G S O - states 144 . G S O - states are Grassmann even, while GSO+ states are Grassmann odd (see Table 6). Table 6.
Parity of string fields and gauge parameters in the 0 picture.
Name
Parity
GSO
Superghost number
•4+
odd
+
1
heZ,
A-
even
-
1
hei+
Weight (h)
Comments
/i > - 1
string
-,h>-2
A+
even
+
0
h e Z, h ^ 0
A_
odd
-
0
heZ+-,h>2
fields
2 gauge
2
parameters
The unique (up to rescaling of the fields) gauge invariant action unifying GSO+ and GSO— sectors is found to be
S[A+,A-] = ±
\{{Y^\A+
+ -({Y-2\A-
,QBA+))
, QBA-))
+ \{iX-2\A+
, A+ , ^ »
- ((Y-2\A+ , A- , A-)) . (7.22)
126
Here the factors before the odd brackets are fixed by the constraint of gauge invariance, that is specified below, and reality of the string fields A± . Variation of this action with respect to A+ , A- yields the following equations of motion" QBA+ + A+ * A+ - A- * AQBA-
= 0, (7.23)
+ A+ * A- - A- * A+ - 0 .
To derive these equations we used the cyclicity property of the odd bracket (6.76) (see Section 6.9.1). The action (7.22) is invariant under the gauge transformations SA+ = QBA+ + [A+, A+] + {A-, A_ } , SA-
= Q B A_ + [A-,A+] + {A+, A_} ,
where [, ] ({ , }) denotes ^-commutator (-anticommutator). To prove the gauge invariance, it is sufficient to check the covariance of the equations of motion (7.23) under the gauge transformations (7.24). A simple calculation leads to S {QBA+
+ A+
* A+ - A-
* A-)
= [QBA+
+ A+ * A+ - A-
* A-
- [QBA- + A+ * A- - A-*A+ 8 {QBA-
+ A+ * A- - A- * A+) =
[QBA-
+
, A+]
, A_] ,
+ A+ * A- - A- • A+ , A+]
[QBA+
+ A+*A+-A-*A-,
A_] .
Note that to obtain this result the associativity of ^-product and Leibnitz rule for QB must be employed. These properties follow from the cyclicity property of the odd bracket. The formulae above show that the gauge transformations define a Lie algebra. 7.5. Computation
of Tachyon Potential
in Cubic
SSFT
Here we explore the tachyon condensation on the non-BPS D-brane. In the first subsection, we describe the expansion of the string field relevant to the tachyon condensation and the level expansion of the action. In the second subsection we calculate the tachyon potential up to levels 1 and 4, and find its minimum. 7.5.1. Tachyon String Field in Cubic SSFT The useful devices for computation of the tachyon potential were elaborated j n 147,146,186 -^ye e m p i 0 y these devices without additional references. "We assume that r.h.s. is zero modulo ker Y_2 •
127
Denote by Hi the subset of vertex operators of ghost number 1 and picture 0, created by the matter stress tensor Tg, matter supercurrent 2> and the ghost fields b, c, d£, 77 and cf>. We restrict the string fields A+ and A- to be in this subspace Hi. We also restrict ourselves by Lorentz scalars and put the momentum in vertex operators equal to zero. Next we expand A± in a basis of LQ eigenstates, and write the action (2.7) in terms of space-time component fields. The string field is now a series with each term being a vertex operator from Hi multiplied by a space-time component field. We define the level K of string field's component Ai to be h + 1, where h is the conformal dimension of the vertex operator multiplied by Ai, i.e. by convention the tachyon is taken to have level 1/2. To compose the action truncated at level (K, L) we select all the quadratic and cubic terms of total level not more than L for the space-time fields of levels not more than K. Since our action is cubic, L < SK. To calculate the action up to level (2,6) we have a collection of vertex operators listed in Table 7. Note that there are extra fields in the 0 picture as Table 7. Vertex operators in pictures —1 and 0 . Level L0 + l
Weight Lo
GSO
0
-1
+
even
u
—
c
1/2
-1/2
-
even
t
ce_*
e*r7
1
0
+
odd
r;
cdcdt,e-2,t>
dc, cd<j>
3/2
1/2
-
odd
Si
cdc/>e~*
Twist
Name
n
Picture — 1 Picture 0 Vertex operators
cTF ,
d {ne't')
bcrje'f', Tide*' 2
1
+
even
Vi
T),
TF<XT*
2
d c,
cTB,
cTiv
2
c T 0 , cd 4>, d2^cdce~2'tl
TF^
bcdc, dcd(f>
dicdcde-2
compared with the picture —1 (see Section 6.4). Surprisingly the level LQ = — 1 is not empty, it contains the field u. One can check that this field is auxiliary. In the following analysis it plays a significant role. Only due to this field in the next subsection we get a nontrivial tachyon potential (as compared with one given in 189 ) already at level ( 1 / 2 , 1). As it is shown in Appendix 6.9.2 the string field theory action in the restricted subspace Hi has Z2 twist symmetry. Since the tachyon vertex operator
128 has even twist we can consider a further truncation of the string field by restricting A± to be twist even. Therefore, the fields ri,Si can be dropped out. Moreover, we impose one more restriction and require our fields to have the (/•-charge (see 6.64) equal to 0 and 1. String fields (in GSO± sectors) up to level 2 take the form0 A+(z) = uc(z) + v1 d2 c(z) + v2 cTB(z) + v3cT^(z)
+ vA
+ v5cd2(j>(z)+v6TFrje'l'(z)+v7bcdc(z)+
cT^z)
v8dcd(j>(z) ,
(725)
D 0(z ]
A-(z) =
v(z) •
7.5.2. Tachyon Potential Here we give expressions for the action and the potential by truncating them up to level (2, 6). Since the field (7.25) expands over the levels 0, \ , and 2 we can truncate the action at levels (1/2, 1) and (2, 6) only. All the calculations have been performed on a specially written program on Maple. All we need is to give to the program the string fields (7.25) and we get the following lagrangians
£(i.D =
u2 + -t2 + 2-ut 4 37
9l*>^ £(2,6) _
9 +
4w
2
(7.26)
u2 + -t2 + (4wi - 2v3 - 8v4 + 8v5 + 2v7) u ^
15 77 i + y u 2 + vl + Yv*
+ 22v
%
+ l0v
e +
8viV3
~~ Mvxvi
+ 24viw5 + 4vx v7 — I6U3V4 + 4vsv5 — 2v$v7 + 12u3i>8 — 52V4U5 — 8V4V7 - 20w4w8 + 8v5v7 + 8v5v8 + (-30v 4 + 20w5 + 30v2) v6 + 4v7v8
+
1 U 372
+
-V\
/40
I —7 u + 4 5 73 V 215 7 3
8O73
25 V2 32
9_ V3 16
4573
^-v2
.
59 32^
+
43 2AV5
+
ZV7]t
4573 29573 -V4 -v3 -
2
"The stringfieldsare presented without any gaugefixingconditions.
(7.27)
129
where 7 = -^ choice
. To simplify the suscceeding analysis we use a special gauge
3V2 - 3^4 + 2«5 = 0
(7.28)
This gauge eliminates the terms linear in VQ and drastically simplifies the calculation of the effective potential for the tachyon field. We will discuss an issue of validity of this gauge in Section 8. The effective tachyon potential is defined as V(t) = —C(t,u(t),Vi(t)), where u(t) and Vi(t) are solution to equations of motion duC = 0 and dViC = 0. In our gauge the equation dV6C = 0 admits a solution i>6 = 0 and, therefore, the tachyon potential computed at levels (2, 4) and (2, 6) is the same. The potential at levels (1/2, 1) and (2, 6) has the following form:
vi|'1)(*) = 9oOi'
1
81 A 2 t -\t 1024 (7.29) 5053 4 t -^2 69120
6)
vil' (t) =
9i<x-
One sees that the potential has two global minima, which are reached at points tc = ± 1.257 at level (1/2, 1) and at points tc = ± 1.308 at level (2, 6) (see also Figure 14 and Table 8).
7.6. Tension of Non-BPS Conjecture
Hp-Brane
in Cubic SSFT and Sen's
To find a tension of Dp-brane following 187 one considers the SFT describing a pair of Dp-branes and calculates the string field action on a special string field. This string field contains a field describing a displacement of one of the S7\ * ~ *• branes and a field describing arbitrary V-' /R\ excitations of the strings stretched between the two branes. For simplicity one can use low-energy excitations of the strings stretched between the branes. The cubic SSFT describing a pair of non-BPS Dp-branes includes 2 x 2 ChanPaton (CP) factors 187 - 198 and has the Figure 13. The system of two non-BPS Dp-branes and strings attached to them.
f 0 u o w i n g form
130
S[A\,A-} = ± \{(X-2\A+ , QBA+)) + l((Y„2\A+ , A+ , A+l JO
+ i((Y-_2|i- , QBA-)) - ((Y-2\A+
,A-,A.
(7.30)
Here g0 is a dimensionless coupling constant. The hatted BRST charge QB and double step inverse picture changing operator Y-2 are QB and Y-2 tensored by 2 x 2 unit matrix. The string fields are also 2 x 2 matrices
(7.31) and the odd bracket includes the trace over matrices. The action is invariant under the following gauge transformations: SA+ = QBA+ + [A+ , A+] + {A- , A_} , (7.32) 5A- = QBA-
+ [A- , A+] + {A+ , A_} .
The fields A± describe excitations of the string attached to the first brane, (2) while A± describe excitations of the string attached to the second one. Excitations of the stretched strings are represented by the fields B± and B*± (see Figure 13). The action for a single non-BPS D-brane (2.7) that we have used above is derived from the universal action (7.30) by setting A± , B± and B± to zero. Note also that we have not changed the value of the coupling constant g0. The "±" subscript specify the GSO sector. Let us take the following string fields A± : A+ = A^
+ B*+ + B+ ,
A- = B*_+B_
where
r dp+lk
/
-> \
,
(7.33)
131
*--=/^«-wv. (*.-*)« (21)Here bi is a distance between the branes, a = 0 , . . . ,p and i = p + 1 , . . . ,9 and VJ, and Vt are vertex operators of a massless vector and tachyon fields respectively defined by V„(A;a,fcj) — -
' 2'
1/2
V.
cax" +
Vt(fca,fci) = - c2ik-ip-
O2ik-XL(0)
(7.34) O2ifc-XL(0)
-r/e*
These vertex operators are written in the 0 picture and can be obtained by applying the picture changing operator (6.27) to the corresponding operators in picture — 1. The Fourier transform of Ai(ka) has an interpretation of the Dp-brane's coordinate up to an overall normalization factor 198 . Further we will assume that blBi(ka) = 0. The action for the field (7.33) depending on the local fields Bi(ka), B,*(fcQ), t(ka), t*(ka) and Ai(ka) is given by S[Ai,Bi,t]
= -i ^((Y^lA^UV1')) 9o L^ 2\AV,B*+ + ((Y({Y-2
,B+))
+ ((Y-2\K,B+)) + ({Y-2\B*_,B-)) - ((r_ 2 |4 1 ) ,s*,£_»]
x [*«+TAA + **(-*)*(*) [ki+(A* dP+1p r dp-
-M
2a'(*2+p2+P.fc+?^7^)
+ I (2*) p + l x [ B ? ( - p - * ) # ( * ) H ^ f f - P "*)*(*)]
MJ'(P) 27ra'v / 2a 7 (7.35)
where 7 = -z^ • Let us now consider the constant field Ai(£) = const, where £Q are coordinates on the brane. Its Fourier transform is of the form Ai(p) = (2ny+1Ai6(p). Let also B^k), B*{k) and t(p), t*(p) be on-shell, i.e.
kl +
6? A2 (27TQ')
= 0
132 and b2
PI +
1
(27ra')
2
= 0.
2a'
In this case the action (7.35) is simplified and takes the form: dp+1k .shell
9o'
*2 +
(2TT)H-1
6?
1
(27ra') 2
2a'
biA*
+
27ra'v'2a'
t*(-k)t(k)
rfP+1fc
+ s2
,E±±
mass shell (2TT)IH-I
6?
k A
ki + (27ra') :
+ 27ra'V2a'
B*(-k)Bj(k)
.
(7.36)
T h e terms proportional to Aj have n a t u r a l interpretation as shifts of masses of the fields t and Bi. We want to interpret the term with Ai as a shift of brane coordinate &,. Therefore, we have t o compare two shifts of the mass: one produced by Ai and another produced by a shift of bi 6(m2)
=
biAi
2bi5V 2
2
a'
A-K
(7.37)
27ra'V2a'
So one gets A% =
-
(7.38)
J6*
7T
This formula determines the normalization of the field Ai. Therefore, we we can introduce the profile of the first non-BPS Dp-brane as Xi (£) = 7r
MO-
Substitution of t h e Aj(£) into t h e first t e r m of t h e action (7.35) yields 5
° = ~
2
/
,E±I /
^
^ ( 0 ^ ( 0
•
(7-39)
T h e coefficient before the integral is t h e n o n - B P S Dp-brane tension fp: f
p =
2
2 2 )£±i 71 a 2
•
(7-40)
ffo "
As compared with t h e expression for t h e tension given in 1 8 7 we have t h e addition factor 4. T h e origin of this factor is the difference in the normalization of the superghosts /?, 7.
133
_2
-1
\l
i t
1
1
\\ 2 i.i
i
fi.2 /-0.4: /
-0.6
/
-0.8 ~1
y
Legenc1 level 1 level 4
Figure 14. Graphics of the tachyon potential at the levels (1/2, 1) and (2, 6). "—1" is equal to the minus tension of non BPS Dp-brane fp = —=TIJ- . 7r29?a'Hi-
Now we can express the coupling constant gl in terms of the tension fp. Hence the potential (7.29) at levels (1/2 1) and (2, 6) takes the form (see also Figure 14)
•UV ( 2i l l )
•eff
( * ) = ^
V £ . . )\t), * _
81 1024 5053 69120
1 , 4
4
4
1 4
(7.41) 2
The critical points of these functions are collected in Table 8. One sees that the potential has a global minimum and the value of this minimum is 97.5% at level (1/2, 1) and 105.8% at level (2, 6) of the tension fp of the non-BPS Dp-brane.
134 Table 8. The critical points of the tachyon potential at levels (1/2, 1) and (2, 6). Potential (4.D •eft
*c=0
V
Vc = 0
4C = ± - 5 — v(
Critical values
Critical points
2 6
. )
Vc fa -0.975 fp
w ±1.257
tc-0
Vc = 0 94
tc = ±
x/75795 «
Vc « -1.058 fp
±1.308
5053
7.7. Test o / A b s e n c e o / Kinetic Vacuum
Terms
Around
Tachyon
In this section we perform calculations of the effective potential at level 0, i.e. we take only low levels fields: dp+lk
/
2ik-XL(w)
— — ^ u(k) U(w, k)\w=Q JP+1 k
,
/
(2^r*(*)TKt)U ,
V(w, k) = c(w)e 1 c(w)2ik
T(«,,A) = --T,(w)e+M
• ip(w) e2ik-XL(w)
_
(7.42) Note t h a t the expression for the tachyon field can be obtained by applying rasing picture changing operator X to the tachyon vertex operator in picture — 1. T h e action in the m o m e n t u m representation is of the form p+1
f dv~ k
1
1
f
t(-k)u(k) - h(-k)t(k)
dP+lp
-^/^'Hfe-p)'(p)«(*>Mte'
[a'kl - 1/2] (7.43)
(P2+k2+kP)
This expression can b e shortly rewritten in t h e ^-representation
S[«.*] = V ^ 5 i r [dP+h 1 37 :2
u(x)u(x)
u{x) t(x) t(x)
~\t{x)
(-a'dada
- 1/2) t(x)
(7.44)
135
where 0(a;) = exp ( - a ' log 7 dada)
(7.45)
The operation " has the following properties • to = *o if to = const, •
/ dx i(x) =
dx t(x),
•
I dx a(x)b(x) = I dx a(x) b(x).
Using the second property we can move " from u(x) on the term i(x)i(x). this one can integrate over u(x) and gets an effective action SeffM =
*
9
1}
(-a'dada
fd^x\-\t{x)
After
- 1/2) t ( x ) - - 4 - 4 f ^ ) 2 (*) • (7.46)
Expanding t(a;) = to + *i(a;) and keeping only terms that are quadratic in t\ and linear in a' we get ^2,shifted\P\
— 2 /
X
'1
10
2
*b,
ti(a;)a'aaaati(x) .
(7.47)
So to vanish the kinetic terms for t\ we have to have to — 1.099, which is not far from the critical value t0 = 1.257 for the minimum of the tachyon potential at level ( | , 1). 7.8. Lump
Solutions
Here we give a brief review of the numeric computations of lump solutions (see review 240 and 2 4 1 ~ 2 4 8 for more details'3). First, let us define what is the lump solution. Let us denote by <J>0 the string field representing the solution of momentum independent equations of motion. In other words, $ 0 is a tachyon condensate. We want to find a lump solution $ of codimension one, which represents a decay D25 —> D24. This means that string field $ is a static configuration depending on one space coordinate, say x25 = x. This configuration has nontrivial boundary conditions $(a;) ->• $0
as
x -> ± 0 0 .
Physically this condition means that we want to have true string vacuum at plus and minus infinity. We expect that the solution is concentrated near the PSee
249 250
'
for relations with p-adic
strings
14 251 252 253 254
'
'
'
'
.
136 origin and, therefore, it distinctly differs from $ 0 only in small domain around the origin. Second, to be able to find a solution numerically we have to have finite number of fields. To this purpose we use level truncation scheme for the computations of the tachyon potential. To find the lump solution authors of the paper 241 proposed to use a modified level truncation scheme. Their idea consists of two steps: (1) We compactify the direction a; on a circle of radius Ry/a'. This allows us to represent component fields (j>i(x) of the string field $(a;) by Fourier series rather than Fourier integral:
^2
(7.48)
(2) We modify the level grading: lvlij(0i,») = - ^ + i V i + l ,
(7.49)
where JVj is oscillator number operator evaluated on the vertex operator corresponding to the field 4>i a n d the normalization of the grading was chosen in such a way that it is equal to 1 on the zero momentum tachyon field. Using this level grading we can define (M, N)-\evel approximation of the action. This means that we get all fields with lvljj ^ M from the string field $ and keep only the terms in the action for which lvl^ ^ N. Third, we have to choose the Hilbert space % in which we are going to find our solution. The analysis performed in 241 shows that without loss of generality we can consider the following reduced space: (7.50)
H ~ ^ m a t t e r ® rlghost © rlmatter (x)
where ^^"atter i s a universal (background independent) Hilbert space'241 gen,24 erated by matter Virasoro generators restricted to the directions x1,... , x" ^ghost is a Hilbert space spanned by all ghost operators and ^matter (x) is a Hilbert space generated by all oscillators a 2 5 . Now consider a simple example of the computations. Let us choose R = \/3 and assume that we have only tachyon field t(x). Since it has to be even we can write t(x) = y2tncos
( -^L== 1
(7.51)
137
The terms tn have the following grading: n2 l v l ^ tn = 1 + — . Now substitution into the cubic action (5.52), (5.59') yields the following expressions at levels (0,0) and ( | , | ) : (7.52a)
0
(7.52b)
27 "3"
where 7 = -4= and V is related to S by formula _ 27r-RvVVol 2 4
(7.53) 2 Tni " 9oa The solution of the equations of motion obtained from (7.52) is presented on the left pane on Figure 15. —
*
W 0.5
0.6
~=
0.4
\
0.4
0.3
\
0.2
\ -3
0.2
01
-2
Vo.1
/
x
2
3
-2
-4
\
/
2
4 X
Figure 15. Plot of t(x) for R = V3 on different levels. On the left pane the solid line represents t(x) at level ( | , | ) . On the right pane the dashed line shows a plot of t(x) at level (^ , ^4-) and solid line shows a plot of t(x) at level (3,6).
One can also compute the ratio of tension of the lump solution and the tension of original D25-brane. One expect that the tension of the lump solution of codimension 1 is equal to the tension of D24-brane. Therefore, we expect that r (lump) TD24
= 1
where
T(lump) =
2
^ ^ f (V($)-V(g 0 )) •
9Za
(7.54)
138
There are several ways to check this equality numerically. We can express the tension of D25 brane through the coupling constant g0 as 147 1 TU25
=
27r2ff2a/13
Substitution in (7.54) yields _ r (lump) _ 7rj25 TD24
2-KRVO1
2TT2 (V($) - V($ 0 ))
TD24
= R (2TT2 V(*)
- 2TT2 V ( * O ) )
•
(7.55)
So, now we can compute the value of r for our approximate solution and check how accurately it approaches unity. Since we know that 27r2V($o) = —1> we can write two expressions for r: rW=ii[27r2V^JV)(*) + l ] )
(7.56a)
r<2> = 2TT 2 J R[V( M ^($) - V ^ J ^ o ) ] •
(7.56b)
By adding more fields one can increase the level and make computations of the solution more and more accurate. Now we present the results of such computations, which were obtained in 241 for radius R = \ / 3 . On the right pane of Figure 15 we present a plot of t(x) at levels ( | , y-) and (3,6). In the Table below one can find the values of r' 1 ) and A2^ depending on the level. Level 11
1)
\3
' 3/
r(D
r (2)
1.32002
0.77377
1.25373
0.707471
(2,4)
1.11278
1.02368
11
1.07358
0.984467
1.06421
0.993855
(1 !} \3
\3
' 3)
'
I!) 3 /
(3,6)
So, it seems that r' 1 ' and A2^ converge to unity from top and bottom correspondingly. 8. Level Truncation and Gauge Invariance 8.1. Gauge Symmetry
on Constant
Fields
In this section we restrict our attention to scalar fields at zero momentum, which are relevant for calculations of a Lorentz-invariant vacuum. The zero-
139
momentum scalar string fields ,4+ and A- can be expanded as oo
oo
A+ = ^2f^i
.4_=J]£ Q T a ,
and
i=0
(8.1)
a=0
where conformal operators $ ; and T a are taken at zero momentum and
i,j
a,b
i,j,k
(8.2) where Mij = « y _ 2 | * i , Q B *,-» ,
Sijfc = « r _ 2 | * i , *,-, **)> .
(8.3a)
?ab = ((Y_ 2 |T a , Q B T 6 » ,
SM = « ^ - 2 | * i , T a , T 6 » .
(8.3b)
For the sake of simplicity we consider the gauge transformations with GSO— parameter A_ equal to zero. The scalar constant gauge parameters {<5Aa} are the components of a ghost number zero GSO+ string field A+ = ^ < 5 A a A + , a .
(8.4)
a
Assuming that the basis {$.,, T^} is complete we write the following identities: QBA+,a = ^ V * Q * i )
(8.5a)
* j * A + l a - A+, a * $j = ^2 Wja$i ,
(8.5b)
i
T6*A+,a-A+,0*T,, = ^ 3 V T
a
.
(8.5c)
a
The variations of the component fields <j>1 and ta with respect to the gauge transformations (7.24) generated by 6Xa can be expressed in terms of the "structure constants" 80 a
6t
= 80P + Sift = (K + S'jaP) a
a
b
= 6xt = d bat 5\
a
SXa ,
.
(8.6a) (8.6b)
The constants V„ solve the zero vector equation for the matrix My: M«V£ = 0
(8.7)
140
and therefore the quadratic action is always invariant with respect to free gauge transformations. In the bosonic case one deals only with the gauge transformations of the form (8.6a) and finds Slja 258 using an explicit form of ^-product in terms of the Neumann functions 204 . In our case it is more suitable to employ the conformal field theory calculations by using the following identity: «y_2|*i, $ 2 * $ 3 » = «y-2|*i, * 2 , *3» •
(8.8)
To this end it is helpful to use a notion of dual conformal operator. Conformal operators {$*, T a } are called dual to the operators { $ j , Tj} if the following equalities hold «r_2|*\*,->>=<^
and
«r_2|f°,T6»=(JV
(8.9)
Using (8.8), (8.9) and (8.5) we can express the structure constants 2lja and 3aba in terms of the correlation functions: fja
= « r _ 2 | $ \ $,-, A+, a » - ( ( r - 2 | $ \ A + , Q , $,-» ,
daba = « K - 2 | f a , Tb, A+, a » - « F _ 2 | f \ A+,a, T 6 » .
(8.10a) (8.10b)
In the next section these formulae are used to write down gauge transformations explicitly.
8.2. Calculations
of Structure
Constants
In Section 7.5.2 we have computed 184 the restricted action (6.68a) up to level (2,6). The relevant conformal fields with 0-charge 1 and 0 are $0 = U = c
^3 = V3= cTni
$ 6 = Vi, = TFT)e+
(8.11a)
$1 = Vi = d2c
$4 = V4 = cT>
$ 7 = V7 = bcdc
(8.11b)
$ 2 = V2 = cTB
2
$ 8 = V8 = dcd(j>
(8.11c)
*S = V6 = cd 4> T0 = ^e*r)
(8.11d)
141
with <j>% — {u, vi,...,
vs} and ta — {t}. For this set of fields we have got
S(2'4) = u2 + i* 2 + {Avx - 2v3 - 8v4 + 8v5 + 2v7) u + Av\ + ^-v\ 77 + v3 + YV*
+ 22V
5
+
10U
8v y
6 +
l 3 ~ 32vlVi + 24^5
+ 4viV7
- I6113W4 + 4:V3v5 — 2v3v7 + 12t; 3 ii 8 — 52t;4?;5 — 81*4^7 - 20u4V8
+ 8v5v7 + 8v5vs + (-30u 4 + 20i;5 + 30u2) v6 + 4v7vs , 0(2,6) 53
M
9 U +
= VW
25 Vl
V2
8 ~V
9
59 3
~ Irf ~ 3 2 *
( 407 „ , 457 3 + I — j p u - 457^1 + -J-V2 215 7 3 j-vh
43 +
2
\
(8.12) 2
V7 l
+
24^ 3 )
457 3 2957 3 + -y-"3 + ^ ^ u 4
807 3 \ 2 - - y - v r j v2 .
,„„„. (8.13)
Here 7 = -4= . There is no gauge transformation at level zero. At level 2 the gauge parameters are zero picture conformal fields with ghost number 0 and the weight h = 1, see Table 7. There are two such conformal fields with 0 (/(-charge be and d
+ 5\2d(l) .
(8.14)
The zero order gauge transformation (6.69) of level 2 fields has the form 60A+(w) = QBk+{w)
= (-6X2 + p\i
+ SXi cT^w)
J d2c(w) + <5Ai cTB(w) + SXi cTin{w)
+ 6X2 cd2(j)(w) - SX2 rie^TF(w) + SXX bcdc(w)
+ SX2 dcd<j)(w) + 1 (<5Ai - 2<5A2) brjdrie2^
.
(8.15)
We see that in accordance with (6.71e) one gets the field $9 = br)dr)e2^ from the sector with q — 2. To exclude this field from the consideration we impose the condition <22A+ — 0, which links parameters SX\ and JA2 appearing in (8.14): Q 2 A+ = i (5\i - 2SX2) br)dr)e2*{w) = 0 ,
<JAi = 2<5A2 = 2SX .
(8.16)
142
We are left with the following zero order gauge transformations of the restricted action on level 2: S0vi = 25X ,
S0V4 = 26X ,
Sovj = 2SX ,
60v2 = 26X ,
S0v5 = 8X ,
80v8 = SX ,
S0V3 = 2<5A ,
S0v6 = —SX ,
5QU — 0 .
(8.17)
Transformations (8.17) give the vector V\ = V1 in (8.6a) in the form V = {0,2,2,2,2,1,-1,2,1}.
(8.18)
One can check that the quadratic action at level (2,4) (8.12) is invariant with respect to this transformation, 9
AC
<5052 = < 5 A ^ ^ V
i
= 0,
(8.19)
or in other words 9-component vector V1 (8.18) is the zero vector of the matrix Mtj defined by (8.12). Now we would like to find the nonlinear terms in the transformations (8.6). At level 2 we have 3)\ = 3] • The dual operators (8.9) to the operators (8.11) are the following $1 = ^-r)dr][l + dbc]e2'l' ,
$ 5 = - J L ^ [ 4 - d2
,
(8.20a) #2 =
** =
6^9r?e20TB'
I 3 = j-[dr]d2T] 48
- &r)dr)]e2^ ,
$ i = -lr]drid
,
~cTFdr)e+,
(8.20b)
<|7 = lr]dr][l + bdc\e2't' , 8
(8.20c)
<£8 = \ndr)bcd^>e2^ ,
(8.20d)
8
o
$0 = ^r]dT][6-d(bc)-2d2
+ l-drld2rie2
,
T ° = \ce4>dr)
.
(8.20e) It is straightforward to check that ((Y-2\&,*i))=&i
and
« r _ 2 | T ° , T„» = 1 .
(8.21)
We find the coefficients 3) in (8.6) up to level (2,4) and this gives the
143
following gauge transformations Sxu = (—-73
+ 327 j vi - - 7 3 w 4 + (-197 3 + 167)^5 3
+ (-y7 it *.
(8.22a)
- 3 2 7 ) v8 SX ,
(8.22b)
= | t SX , - 3 V
27 ,
|-y7
S1V1 =
3
8 \
/
11 ,
4 \
/
17
4 \
3
+ 37J v, + ( - - ^ + 777J -5 + ( - ^ 7 + 37J
(lb3 - b)V8.
+ Siv2
3
+ I 6 7 ) v7 + f ^ 7
O 0
d o
6X ,
oO
(8.22c)
V 0
O
0
Q
- 3 7 ^ 1 - 7 777 7 7 ^"5- -7 7777 «7 + r A <5A , 0 O 3
-
<17 y7
6iv3 =
3
16 \ /17 - y 7 J -1 + ( T 7 16 \
-?73 \ 3
+
r
+
3
(8.22d)
8 \ /17 - 737 ) ^5 + ( y 7
3
8 \ - 737 ) ^7 (8.22e)
<5A ,
y 7 j ^8
K
(8.22f)
777 Vl + -77-7 "4 - -77-7 ^5 - 777 ^7 + 777 «8 SX , 3 3 D D O
"4 $lV5
=
/61 , 7
+
32 \ 25 , 7 Wl + 7 W2
3 -3™ IT ~ y J
/
31 3
16 \
y
" i2~ "
/ 14 ±<± , —7
5 , 481 , 7 3+ 7 U4
16 \ - — 7 ) "7 +
v
IT
52 7
3
+
T3
32 \ SX, T 7 « 8 (8.22g) (8.22h)
<^i«6 = - 777^6 ^A , Ji«7
16 7 u + / 3 87 33 + 16 \
7 j n - y-7 " 2 + 7J7 v U ^ +^v T
+ ( f 73 + § 7 )
«B
3
+ ( 8 7 3 + §77 )J
v
7 + h1673
- — 7 u4 - -3-7] "8 SX, (8.22i)
I"4 dlW8 =
4
3 3
25
w
5
3
3
95
v
3
11
V
777" + -77-7 l - -77-7 2 + — 7 V3 + W7T 4 + T l
3
o
8
12
24
0
3
A V
, v
5 + ^T 7
1 „ SX ,
J (8-22J)
144
where 7 = j±= « 0.770. 8.3. Breaking
of Gauge Invariance
by Level
Truncation
As it has been mentioned above (see (8.7)) the quadratic restricted action (6.68a) is invariant with respect to the free gauge transformation (8.17). In contrast to the bosonic case 258 already the first order gauge invariance is broken by the level truncation scheme. Explicit calculation shows that = — -t26\ + {quadratic terms in Vi} S\ .
#5|first order = $iS2 ' + SoS3 '
(8.23) Note that the terms in the braces belong to level 6 and therefore we neglect them. The origin of this breaking is in the presence of non-diagonal terms in the quadratic action (8.12). More precisely, in the bosonic case the operators with different weights are orthogonal to each other, while in the fermionic string due to the presence of Y-2 this orthogonality is broken. Indeed, the substitution of {
2 = -/ ~ E "*** * TA - \ E 3^ TA TB - 1 Y, M « ^
A,B
s
* = ~\ E S«* * W + E i,j,k
Si
« * + E (SiM + SiAt) VtrA
i
i,A
SiAB P TA TB .
+ E
(8.24a)
i,j
(8.24b)
i,A,B
For the gauge transformations (6.72) with A + in the form (8.14), (8.16) we have 80t = 0 ,
S0TA = 0 ,
(M = - t (JA
and
and
SQW1 = 0 ,
Si TA = (3Att + 3ABTB)
(8.25a)
6X .
(8.25b)
The first order gauge transformation of the action produces the following quadratic in ta terms (6iS2 + <5 o5 , 3 )| t a t i,_ terms fdS2x N
t
dS2x
A
dS3,
dS3, %
\ /
, a b
t t — terms
N
145
Here we take into account that due to (8.25a) " 0 ^3 I contributions from higher levels
=
^ •
(8.27)
The exact gauge invariance means that (8.26) equals to zero. In the presence of non-diagonal terms in £2 we have ^6!TA
= -?M2Att2
- (?tA2AB
+ 3AB3At)tTB
-7AB3BCTATC
. (8.28)
2
Generally speaking, "JAt # 0 and (8.28) contains t term. Therefore, if we exclude fields TA from 52 we break the first order gauge invariance. We can estimate the contribution of higher level fields {TA} to (8.28). Let us consider only t2 terms in (8.26):
^t2 - 7tA 3At A 6X + But 6m = 0 .
(8.29)
One can check that Sitt&oVi = — 1 a n d hence 7tA3At = — §• Therefore, we see that the contribution of the higher levels into equality (8.29) is only 33%. This gives us a hope that the gauge invariance rapidly restores as level grows. For the bosonic case this restoration was advocated at 258 . 8.4. The
Orbits
In this section we discuss the method of checking the validity of gauge fixing condition. Let us consider the simplest case then we have only one gauge degree of freedom and therefore only one gauge fixing condition. For this case one can find orbits of gauge transformations. Using this technique we will analyze the validity of the Feynman-Siegel gauge q used in bosonic SFT computations 150 and the validity of the gauge G ( ^ ) = 3v2 - 3v4 + 2v5 = 0
(8.30)
used in Section 7.5 on level 2 in computations in Super SFT. Since all our computations are based on level truncation scheme our study of the validity of a gauge will be also based on level truncation scheme. The statement that gauge is valid means that for any field configuration {$)} o n e c a n find the gauge equivalent configuration {>'*} such that G((f>") = 0. In general a given field configuration {<$,} defines gauge orbit {^>J(A;
146
c/>l(0;(j)o) —
_
Vi
+
3ij
^(A)
^i(0)
w i t h
dX dta(X) = 3attb(X) dX
with
=
^
;
*°(0) = t g .
(g
3 1 a )
(8.31b)
Here we use notations from (8.5). To write down explicit solutions of (8.31a) and (8.31b) we will use a basis for fa in which the matrices 3 have the canonical Jordan form. 8.4.1. Orbits in Bosonic String Field Theory As a simple example of the gauge fixing in the level truncation scheme let us consider the Feynman-Siegel gauge at level (2,6) in bosonic open string field theory. Here we use notations of 150 . Up to level 2 the string field has the expansion: 4
#=
]C ^#i
with
^ = {*' v>u'w^
( 8 - 32 )
1
and $ ! = c , $ 2 = cTB , $ 3 = \ d2c , $ 4 = bcdc .
(8.33)
Li
The Feynman-Siegel gauge &o$ = 0 restricted to level 2 gives the condition =
GFSm
(8.34)
l
To compute structure constants 3 ji using method described in Section 8.1 one has to know the dual operators to (8.33). One can check that the set f2 = - cdcTB , $ 3 == - dcd2c , $ 4 = - d3cc . 2 6 satisfies the required properties (8.9) $ x =cdc,
((¥,*j))=5ij,
(8.36)
i,3 = !,-•• , 4 .
The gauge parameter at level 2 is: A = £AiAi ,
where
Ai = be
and
(8.35)
5Xi = SX .
147 In this case the vector V1 defined by (8.5) is of the form 0 1/2 -3 -1
V*
(8.37)
The structure constants of the gauge transformation are given by the matrix
3i Jl
— ni = O 3
ffj = «**, 9j ,A1))-
« $ \ Ax, *,•>> .
(8.38)
%
The matrix 2 j has the following entries 1 7 5 16
IFj] =
7
11
l67 21
65 167
29 167
581 256 7
145 , 256 '
15 3 327
715 256
703 256
II 73
r
"27
3 7
(8.39)
"32
31
, 63 , 7 16 7 128 ' where 7 = —%= . This result coincides with the one obtained in eq. (9) of 258 1356 " 128
with obvious redefinition of the fields >\ To solve equation (8.31a) it is convenient to rewrite it in eigenvector basis of matrix 3lj • The characteristic polynomial 7 of the matrix 2lj 819200 335 3584 A 11869696 VZu3 \/3w + T(3,w)=w4 + u + 531441 4782969 324 6561 has the following roots {w} = {-2.565, -0.332, 0.553 ± i 1.226} .
(8.40)
The corresponding four eigenvectors are /
0.131w3 + 1.661w 2 -0.804 w + 4.655\ 0.464 UJ3 + 0.687 w2 - 0.532 w + 2.276
(8.41)
-0.249w 3 - 0.127CJ2 + 0.298w - 1.189
V
1 We solve system (8.31a) in the basis of these eigenvectors and get the following dependence of GFS (8.34) on A (see Figure 16): GFS(X)
= G F S ( 0 * ( A ) ) = [asin(1.23A) + bcos(1.23A)]e°' 553A +
c e-°-
332A
+ d e- 2 - 87A + 2.89 ,
(8.42)
148
^fessa^v
G._a> 300 200 1
100 0
(
-c \
-100
^
'•"<&<&
-^•r~:r Lai t i i a l
1.5
, Figuiv 10.
C/.'i(i/>"(A;)o)) restricted to level 2 in bosonic string field theory.
where a = 1.13Jo - 2.13 u0 + 0.997 u 0 + 0.921 w0 - 0.0861 ,
(8.43a)
b - 0.172*o - 0.939uo - 0.346u 0 + 1.04i«o - 1-49 ,
(8.43b)
c = 0.0466 tn f 0.300 vn - 0.0149 u0 - 0.00958 w0 - 0 74 i ,
(8 43c)
d = - 0 218 *0 + 0.639 u0 + 0.360 u0 - 0.0337 w0 - 0.657
(8.43d)
It is obvious that if one takes an initial data fa = \t0, Vo, u0, <(;t)} such that a — 6 = 0 and r,d ^ 0 then the function GVs(0l(^i
+
451911090176W ^48678440T j [u
+
256 /-\ 4 729 ^ ) »
IOAd. {8M
149
has the following eigenvalues
{CJ} = {0, 0, 0, 0 , -0.608, T)}
where
TJ = ± 3.274 ± i 0.814 .
(8.45)
The the corresponding eigenvectors are
* 1}
" 1 " 0 0 -5.4 0 = 0 0 0 0
'
!
i/2> 0 —
V
0 ' 0 0 39.3 1 2 0 -6 -2
„(3)_
"0" 0 1 7.5 0 0 0 0 0
"
„(4)_
0 1 0 155.6 0 0 0 -18 -8 (8.46)
O.Ollt]3-
^-0.608
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 . 1 7 ^ + 0 . 1 2 77 - 1 . 7 7 '
3
-0.015 rj + 0.022 rf - 0.161] - 0.28 0.5 1 3
0.038 ri + 0.26 r)2 + 0.39 r) - 0.044
(8.47)
1
-0.03 rf + 0.044 rj + r) + 1.95 0 3
0.29 T? + 0.995 rf - 2.27r\ - 7.33 0.12 rf + 0.54rj1 - 0.13 rj - 2.97
The solution of (8.31) yields the following dependence on A of the gauge fixing condition G (8.30)
G(X) = G(4>(\;<j)o)) = [asin(0.814A) + 6cos(0.814A)]e3'27A + [csin(0.814A) + dcos(0.814A)]e^ 327 * + 4.15A + / ,
(8.48)
150
where a = -l.Oouo - 2.81^1,0 + 1.46w2,o - 0.195 u 3i0 •I- 5.82IM,O - 4.81 vr>]0 - 2.13?;7,o + 0.614w8,o - 0.177
(8.49a)
b :--• - 0.406 u 0 - 1-04 u,. 0 + 0.559 v2fi - 0.0754 u3,0 - 0.03 u4,o - 0.59 v5.o - 0.64 v7.0 - 0.155 vs.0 - 0.924
(8.49b)
c ------ ~ 0.0933 u 0 - 1.38'Ui.o + 0.13()u2lo - 0.0174v^ 0 -1-1,06^4,0 - 0.572 v5.0 + 0.166 u7.o - 0.885-<;8:0 -f 0.516
(8.49c)
d =-- -0.0636 uQ + 0.104 u li0 + 0.088 v2fi - 0.0118 u3,„ -(- 0.552?;,,,o - 0.195w5,o + 0.085 u7,o - 0.407v e , 0 - 0.i86
(8.49d)
/ = 0.465 u 0 + 0.939 wi.o + 2.35 v2,a + 0.0867 v3.o - 3.51 v4,o + 2.77W5.0 + 0.56u7,o + 0.563?;8i0 f 1.12
(8.49e)
and U(\,v1i0 ate initial data for the corresponding differential equations (8.31). A simple analysis shows that there are no restrictions on the range of validity of the gauge (8.30). So the gauge condition (8.30) is a valid choice tor the computations of the tachyon potential. The 2-dimensional plot on the Figure 17 corresponds to the special initial data a — b = c —. d ~ 0.
30]
Figure J7.
G(
It is mteiesting to note that there is another gauge which strongly simplifies the effective potential. Namely, this is the gauge v6 = 0. The orbits of this
151 gauge condition have t h e form v6(X) = (1.64 + „ 6>0 ) e - ° - 6 0 8 A - 1.64 . It is evident t h a t this gauge condition is not always reachable and cannot b e used in the calculation of t h e tachyon potential.
Acknowledgments We would like t o t h a n k B. Dragovic, J. Lukierski and I. Volovich for discussions. LA. t h a n k s the organizing committee of the Swieca Summer School, Summer School in Sokobanja, M a x Born Symposium in Karpacz and Workshop "Noncommutative Geometry, Strings and qRenormalization" in Leipzig for warmest hospitality. A.K. would like t o t h a n k E. Kiritsis and the H E P theory group of the University of Crete for the warmest hospitality where the final stage of this work has been done. This work was supported in p a r t by R F B R grant 99-01-00166 and by R F B R grant for leading scientific schools. LA., D.B., A.K. and P.M. were supported in p a r t by INTAS grant 99-0590. A.K. was supported in p a r t by the N A T O fellowship program.
References 1. E. Witten, "Noncommutative geometry and string field theory", Nucl. Phys. B268, 253 (1986). 2. A. Connes, "Noncommutative Geometry", Academic Press (1994). 3. J. Madore, "An Introduction to Noncommutative Differential Geometry and its Physical Applications", 2nd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge University Press (1999). 4. M.A. Markov, JETF 10 1313 (1940); 2 1 , 11 (1951). 5. H. S. Snyder, "Quantized Space-Time", Phys. Rev. 7 1 , 38 (1947). 6. H. S. Snyder, "The Electromagnetic Field in Quantized Space-Time", Phys. Rev. 72, 68 (1947). 7. C. N. Yang, "Are Mesons Elementary Particles", Phys. Rev. 72, 38 (1947). 8. H. Yukawa, "On the Radius of the Elementary Particle", Phys. Rev. 76, 300 (1949). 9. V. L. Averbach and B. V. Medvedev, " On the Theory of Quantized SpaceTime", DAN SSSR, LXIV, 41 (1949). 10. D. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. 9 1 , 1261 (1969). 11. Yu. A. Golfand, Journ. Exp. Th. Phys. 37, 504 (1959). 12. V. G. Kadyschevsky, Journ. Exp. Th. Phys. 4 1 , 41 (1961); V. G. Kadyschevsky, R. M. MirKasimov, N. B.Skachkov, Nuovo Cim. 55A, 233 (1968). 13. I. E. Tamm, In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Elementary Particles, Kyoto, 1965. I.E. Tamm, V.B. Vologodsky, Trudi FIAN, 57, 5 (1972).
152 14. I. V. Volovich, "p-adic String", Class. Quant. Grav. 4, L83 (1987); I. V. Volovich, "Number Theory as the Ultimate Physical Theory", CERN preprint, CERN-TH.4781/87; V. S. Vladimirov, I. V. Volovich and E. I. Zelenov, "P-Adic Analysis and Mathematical Physics", World Scientific (1994); I. Ya. Arefeva, B. Dragovich, P. H. Frampton, I. V. Volovich, "Wave function of the universe and p-adic gravity". Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6, 4341 (1991). 15. J. Wess and B. Zumino, "Covariant Differential Calculus on the Quantum Hyperplane", Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 18B, 302 (1990). 16. I. Ya. Aref'eva and I. V. Volovich, "Quantum group particles and nonarchimedean geometry", Phys. Lett. B268, 179 (1991). 17. S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, J. E. Roberts, "The Quantum Structure of Spacetime at the Planck Scale and Quantum Fields", Commun. Math. Phys. 172, 187 (1995). 18. A. Kempf, "Minimal Length Uncertainty Relation and Ultraviolet Regularisation", Phys. Rev. D55, 7909 (1997). 19. J. Lukierski, "Deformed Quantum Relativistic Phase Spaces — an Overview", hep-th/9812063. 20. T. Yoneya, "On The Interpretation Of Minimal Length In String Theories", Mod. Phys. Lett. A4, 1587 (1989); T. Yoneya, "Space-Time Uncertainty and Noncommutativity in String Theory", Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16, 945 (2001), hep-th/0010172. 21. I.Ya. Aref'eva and I.V. Volovich, "Noncommutative Gauge Fields on Poisson Manifolds", in New Symmetries and Integrable Models, eds. A. Frydryszak, J. Lukierski, Z. Popowicz, World Scientific, 2000, hep-th/9907114. 22. T. Filk, "Divergences in a field theory on quantum space", Phys. Lett. B376, 53 (1996). 23. M. Chaichian, A. Demichev, P. Presnajder, "Quantum Field Theory on Noncommutative Space-Times and the Persistence of Ultraviolet Divergences", Nucl. Phys. B567, 360 (2000), hep-th/9812180. 24. C. P. Martin, D. Sanchez-Ruiz, "The one-loop UV Divergent Structure of U(l) Yang-Mills Theory on Noncommutative i? 4 ", Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 476 (1999). 25. M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, "Renormalizability of Super Yang-Mills Theories on Noncommutative Torus", J. High Energy Phys. 9906, 015 (1999). 26. T. Krajewski and R. Wulkenhaar, "Perturbative Quantum Gauge Fields on the Noncommutative Torus", hep-th/9903187. 27. I. Ya. Arefeva, D. M. Belov, A. S. Koshelev, "Two loop diagrams in noncommutative <j>\ theory", Phys. Lett. B476, 431 (2000), hep-th 9912075. 28. I. Chepelev and R. Roiban, "Renormalization of Quantum Field Theories on Noncommutative R, I. Scalars", hep-th/9911098; I. Chepelev, R. Roiban, "Convergence Theorem for Non-commutative Feynman Graphs and Renormalization", JHEP 0103, 001 (2001), hep-th/0008090. 29. S. Minwalla, M. Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, "Noncommutative Perturbative Dynamics", hep-th/9912072. 30. M. Hayakawa, "Perturbative analysis on infrared aspects of noncommutative QED on R4", hep-th/9912094; M. Hayakawa, "Perturbative analysis on infrared and ultraviolet aspects of noncommutative QED on R ', hepth/9912167; M. Hayakawa, "Perturbative ultraviolet and infrared dynamics
153 of noncommutative quantum field theory", hep-th/0009098. 31. H. Grosse, T. Krajewski, R. Wulkenhaar, "Renormalization of noncommutative Yang-Mills theories: A simple example", hep-th/0001182. 32. I. Ya. Aref'eva, D. M. Belov and A. S. Koshelev, "A Note on UV/IR for Noncommutative Complex Scalar Field", hep-th/0001215. 33. A. Matusis, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, "The IR/UV Connection in the NonCommutative Gauge Theories", hep-th/0002075. 34. S. Ferrara, M. A. Lied, "Some Aspects of Deformations of Supersymmetric Field Theories", JHEP 0005, 008 (2000), hep-th/0002084. 35. M. V. Raamsdonk, N. Seiberg, "Comments on Noncommutative Perturbative Dynamics", hep-th/0002186. 36. J. M. Gracia-Bondia, C. P. Martin, "Chiral Gauge Anomalies on Noncommutative fl4", hep-th/0002171. 37. B. A. Campbell, K. Kaminsky, "Noncommutative Field Theory and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking", hep-th/0003137. 38. I. Ya. Aref'eva, D. M. Belov, A. S. Koshelev, O. A. Rytchkov, "UV/IR Mixing For Noncommutative Complex Scalar Field Theory, I", Phys. Lett. B487, 357365 (2000). "II. (Interaction With Gauge Fields)", Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 102, 11 (2001). In Kharkov 2000, Supersymmetry and Quantum Field Theory 1, p.l, hep-th/0003176. 39. K. Furuta, T. Inami, "Ultraviolet Property of Noncommutative Wess-ZuminoWitten Model", Mod. Phys. Lett. A15, 997-1002 (2000), hep-th/0004024. 40. F. Zamora, "On the Operator Product Expansion in Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory", JHEP 0005,002 (2000), hep-th/0004085. 41. J. Gomis, K. Landsteiner, E. Lopez, "Non-Relativistic Non-Commutative Field Theory and UV/IR Mixing", Phys. Rev. D62, 105006 (2000), hep-th/0004115. 42. A. Armoni, "Comments on Perturbative Dynamics of Non-Commutative YangMills Theory", Nucl. Phys. B593, 229-242 (2001), hep-th/0005208 43. H. O. Girotti, M. Gomes, V. O. Rivelles, A. J. da Silva, "A Consistent Noncommutative Field Theory: the Wess-Zumino Model", Nucl. Phys. B587, 299 (2000), hep-th/0005272; V. O. Rivelles, "Noncommutative Supersymmetric Field Theories", Braz. J. Phys. 31 255-262 (2001), hep-th/0103131; I. L. Buchbinder, M. Gomes, A. Yu. Petrov, V. O. Rivelles, "Superfield Effective Action in the Noncommutative Wess-Zumino Model", Phys. Lett. B 5 1 7 191-202 (2001), hep-th/0107022. 44. S. S. Gubser, S. L. Sondhi, "Phase structure of non-commutative scalar field theories", Nucl. Phys. B605, 395-424 (2001), hep-th/0006119. 45. J. Gomis, T. Mehen, M. B. Wise, "Quantum Field Theories With Compact Noncommutative Extra Dimensions", JHEP 0008, 029 (2000), hepth/0006160. 46. L. Alvarez-Gaume, J. L. F. Barbon, "Non-linear Vacuum Phenomena in Noncommutative QED", Int. J.Mod.Phys. A16 1123-1146 (2001), hep-th/0006209. 47. A. Micu, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, "Noncommutative $ 4 Theory at Two Loops", JHEP 0001, 025 (2001), hep-th/0008057. 48. W.-H. Huang, "Two-loop effective potential in noncommutative scalar field theory", Phys. Lett. B496 206-211 (2000), hep-th/0009067.
154 49. F. Ardalan, N. Sadooghi, "Anomaly and Nonplanar Diagrams in Noncommutative Gauge Theories", hep-th/0009233. 50. M. Chaichian, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, A. Tureanu, "Hydrogen Atom Spectrum and the Lamb Shift in Noncommutative QED", Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2716 (2001), hep-th/0010175 51. L. Bonora, M. Salizzoni, "Renormalization of noncommutative U(N) gauge theories", Phys. Lett. B504, 80-88 (2001), hep-th/0011088. 52. V. V. Khoze, G. Travaglini, "Wilsonian Effective Actions and the IR/UV Mixing in Noncommutative Gauge Theories", JEEP 0101, 026 (2001), hepth/0011218. 53. D. Zanon, "Noncommutative M = 1, 2 super U(N) Yang-Mills: UV/IR mixing and effective action results at one loop", Phys. Lett. B502, 265-273 (2001), hep-th/0012009. 54. C. P. Martin, D. Sanchez-Ruiz, "The BRS invariance of noncommutative U(N) Yang-Mills theory at the one-loop level", Nucl. Phys. B598, 348-370 (2001), hep-th/0012024. 55. P. Ruiz Ruiz, "Gauge-fixing independence of IR divergences in noncommutative U(l), perturbative tachyonic instabilities and supersymmetry", Phys. Lett. B502, 274-278 (2001), hep-th/0012171. 56. B. A. Campbell, K. Kaminsky, "Noncommutativity and Spontaneously Broken Gauge Theories", hep-th/0101086. 57. F. J. Petriello, "The Higgs Mechanism in Non-commutative Gauge Theories", Nucl. Phys. B601, 169-190 (2001), hep-th/0101109. 58. B. A. Campbell, K. Kaminsky, "Noncommutative Linear Sigma Models", hepth/0102022. 59. A. A. Bichl, J. M. Grimstrup, L. Popp, M. Schweda, R. Wulkenhaar, "Perturbative Analysis of the Seiberg-Witten Map", hep-th/0102044. 60. H. O. Girotti, M. Gomes, V. O. Rivelles, A. J. da Silva "The Noncommutative Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model", hep-th/0102101; H.O. Girotti, M. Gomes, A.Yu. Petrov, V.O. Rivelles, A.J. da Silva "The Three-Dimensional Noncommutative Nonlinear Sigma Model in Superspace", hep-th/0109222. 61. Guang-Hong Chen, Yong-Shi Wu, "On Critical Phenomena in a Noncommutative Space", hep-th/0103020. 62. L. Alvarez-Gaume, J. L. F. Barbon, R. Zwicky, "Remarks on Time-Space Noncommutative Field Theories", JEEP 0105 057 (2001), hep-th/0103069. 63. A. Bichl, J. Grimstrup, H. Grosse, L. Popp, M. Schweda, R. Wulkenhaar, "Renormalization of the noncommutative photon self-energy to all orders via Seiberg-Witten map", JEEP 0106, 013 (2001), hep-th/0104097. 64. S. Sarkar, B. Sathiapalan, "Comments on the renormalizability of the Broken Phase in Noncommutative Scalar Field Theory", JEEP 0105, 049 (2001), hepth/0104106. 65. L. Griguolo, M. Pietroni, "Wilsonian Renormalization Group and the NonCommutative IR/UV Connection", JEEP 0105, 032 (2001), hep-th/0104217. 66. Y. Kinar, G. Lifschytz, J. Sonnenschein, "UV/IR connection, a matrix perspective", JEEP 0108 001 (2001), hep-th/0105089. 67. M. ChaicmaiTJTr Presnajder, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, A. Tureanu, "Noncommutative Standard Model: Model Building", hep-th/0107055.
155 68. R. Amorim, J. Barcelos-Neto, "Remarks on the canonical quantization of noncommutative theories", J.Phys. A34, 8851-8858 (2001), hep-th/0108186. 69. I. L. Buchbinder, I. B. Samsonov, "Noncommutative N = 2 Supersymmetric Theories in Harmonic Superspace", hep-th/0109130; I. B. Samsonov, "On Low-Energy Effective Action of Noncommutative Hypermultiplet Model", hepth/0110203. 70. R. J. Szabo, "Quantum Field Theory on Noncommutative Spaces", hepth/0109162. 71. I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones, "Ultra-violet Finiteness in Noncommutative Supersymmetric Theories", hep-th/0109195. 72. G. Arcioni, J. Barbon, Joaquim Gomis, M. Vazquez-Mozo, "On the stringy nature of winding modes in noncommutative thermal field theories", JHEP 0006, 038 (2000), hep-th/0004080. 73. Adi Armoni, Ruben Minasian and Stefan Theisen, "On non-commutative N=2 super Yang-Mills", hep-th/0102007. 74. B. Zumino, "Euclidean Supersymmetry and the Many-Instanton Problem", Phys. Lett. B69, 369 (1977). 75. A. V. Belitsky, S. Vandoren, P. van Nieuwenhuizen "Instantons, Euclidean supersymmetry and Wick rotations", Phys. Lett. B477, 335-340 (2000), hepth/0001010. 76. X. Calmet, B. Jurco, P. Schupp, J. Wess, M. Wohlgenannt, "The Standard Model on Non-Commutative Space-Time", hep-ph/0111115. 77. Branislav Jurco, Lutz Moller, Stefan Schraml, Peter Schupp, Julius Wess, "Construction of non-Abelian gauge theories on noncommutative spaces", hepth/0104153. 78. Yi Liao, "One Loop Renormalization of Spontaneously Broken U(2) Gauge Theory on Noncommutative Spacetime", hep-th/0110112. 79. T. Eguchi and H. Kawai, "Reduction of dynamical degrees of freedom in the large n gauge theory", Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1063 (1982). 80. A. Gonzalez and C.P. Korthals, "Reduced Model for Large-N continuum Field Theories", Phys. Lett. B 1 3 1 , 396 (1983). 81. N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, A. Tsuchiya, "A Large-N Reduced Model as Superstring", Nucl. Phys. B498, 467 (1997), hep-th/9612115. 82. N. Ishibashi, S. Iso, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, "Wilson Loops in Noncommutative Yang Mills", Nucl. Phys. B573, 573 (2000), hep-th/9910004. 83. J. Ambjorn, Y. M. Makeenko, J. Nishimura and R.J. Szabo, "Nonperturbative Dynamics of Noncommutative Gauge Theory", hep-th/0002158; J. Ambjorn, Y. M. Makeenko, J. Nishimura, R. J. Szabo, "Lattice Gauge Fields and Discrete Noncommutative Yang-Mills Theory", JHEP 0005, 023 (2000), hepth/0004147. 84. I. Ya. Aref'eva, I. V. Volovich "The master field for qcd and q deformed quantum field theory", Nucl. Phys. B462, 600 (1996), hep-th/9510210. 85. A. Connes, M. R. Douglas, A. Schwarz, "Noncommutative Geometry and Matrix Theory: Compactification on Tori", JHEP 02, 003 (1998), hep-th/9711162. 86. T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker and L. Susskind, "M Theory as a Matrix Model: a Conjeture", Phys. Rev. D55, 5112 (1997); L. Susskind, "Another Conjecture about Matrix Theory", hep-th/9704080.
156 87. A. Bilal, "M(atrix) theory: a pedagogical introduction", hep-th/9710136. 88. M. R. Douglas, C. Hull, "D-Branes and Noncommutative Torus", JEEP 02, 008 (1998), hep-th/9711165. 89. B. de Wit, J. Hoppe and H. Nicolai, "On the quantum mechanics of supermembranes", Nucl. Phys. B305, 545 (1988). 90. J. Frohlich, G. M. Graf, D. Hasler, J. Hoppe, S.-T. Yau, "Asymptotic Form of Zero Energy Wave Functions in Supersymmetric Matrix Models", hepth/9904182. 91. I. Ya. Aref'eva, A. S. Koshelev, P. B. Medvedev, "On Stable Sector in Supermembrane Matrix Model", Nucl. Phys. B579, 411-436 (2000), hep-th/9911149. 92. W. Taylor, "D-brane field theory on compact spaces", Phys. Lett. B394, 283 (1997), hep-th/96110427; W. Taylor, "M(atrix) Theory: Matrix Quantum Mechanics as a Fundamental Theory", Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 419 (2001), hepth/0101126. 93. A. Konechny, A. Schwarz, "Introduction to M(atrix) theory and noncommutative geometry", hep-th/0012145; A. Konechny, A. Schwarz, "Introduction to M(atrix) theory and noncommutative geometry, Part II", hep-th/0107251. 94. P.-M. Ho, Y.-S. Wu, "Noncommutative Gauge Theories in Matrix Theory", hep-th/9801147. 95. M. Li, "Comments on Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory on a Noncommutative Torus", hep-th/9802052. 96. T. Kawano and K. Okuyama, "Matrix Theory on Noncommutative Torus", hep-th/9803044. 97. M. Berkooz, "Non-local Field Theories and the Noncommutative Torus", hepth/9802069. 98. M. R. Douglas, "Two Lectures on D-Geometry and Noncommutative Geometry", hep-th/9901146. 99. D. Bigatti, "Non commutative geometry and super Yang-Mills theory", hepth/9804120. 100. H. Garcia-Compean, "On the Deformation Quantization Description of Matrix Compactifications", Nucl. Phys. B 5 4 1 , 651 (1999), hep-th/9804188. 101. G. Landi, F. Lizzi, R. J. Szabo, "String geometry and the noncommutative torus", hep-th/9806099. 102. B. Morariu, B. Zumino, "Super Yang-Mills on Noncommutative Torus", hepth/9807198. 103. C. Hofman, E. Verlinde, "U-Duality of Born-Infeld on Noncommutative TwoTorus", JEEP 9812, 010 (1998), hep-th/9810116. 104. A. Konechny and A. Schwarz, "Supersymmetry algebra and BPS states of super Yang-Mills theories on noncommutative tori", hep-th/9901077. 105. J. Madore, "The Fuzzy Sphere", Class. Quant. Grav. 9, 69 (1992). 106. H. Grosse, J. Madore, H. Steinacker, "Field Theory on the q-deformed Fuzzy Sphere II: Quantization", hep-th/0103164. 107. H. Grosse, A. Strohmaier, "Towards a Nonperturbative Covariant Regularization in 4D Quantum Field Theory", Lett. Math. Phys. 48, 163 (1999), hepth/9902138; G. Alexanian, A. P. Balachandran, G. Immirzi, B. Ydri, "Fuzzy CP2", hep-th/0103023.
157 108. S. Aoyama, T. Masuda, "The Fuzzy Kaehler Coset Space with the Darboux Coordinates", hep-th/0109020. 109. J. E. Moyal, "Quantum Mechanics as a Statistical Theory", Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 45, 99 (1949); F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz, D. Sternheimer, "Deformation Theory and Quantization. I. Deformation of Symplectic Structures", Ann. Phys. I l l (1978). 110. F. A. Berezin and M. Shubin, "The Schrodinger Equation", Nauka (1983). (in Russian). 111. F. A. Berezin, "Method of the Second Quantization", Nauka, (1965), (1986). (in Russian). 112. D. Bigatti and L. Susskind, "Magnetic fields, branes and noncommutative geometry" , hep-th/9908056. 113. R. Jackiw, "Physical Instances of Noncommuting Coordinates", hepth/0110057. 114. L. Susskind, "The quantum hall fluid and non-commutative chern simons theory", hep-th/0101029. 115. A. P. Polychronakos, "Quantum Hall States as Matrix Chern-Simons Theory", hep-th/0103013. 116. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, "String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry", JEEP 9909, 032 (1999), hep-th/9908142. 117. Y.-K. E. Cheung, M. Krogh, "Noncommutative Geometry from 0-Branes in a Background B Field", Nucl. Phys. B528, 185 (1998), hep-th/9803031. 118. C.-S. Chu, P.-M. Ho, "Noncommutative Open String and D-brane", hepth/9812219. 119. M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, "Open Strings in a B-field Background as Electric Dipoles", hep-th/9901080. 120. V. Schomerus, "D-Branes and Deformation Quantization", hep-th/9903205. 121. C. S. Chu, P.-M. Ho and Y.-C. Kao, "Worldvolume Uncertainty Relations for D-Branes", hep-th/9904133. 122. M. Anazawa, "DO-branes in a H-field Background and Noncommutative Geometry", hep-th/990505. 123. F. Ardalan, H. Arfaei, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, "Dirac Quantization of Open Strings and Noncommutativity in Branes", hep-th/9906161. 124. K. Okuyama, "A Path Integral Representation of the Map between Commutative and Noncommutative Gauge Fields", hep-th/9910138. 125. Y. Okawa and H. Ooguri, "An Exact Solution to Seiberg-Witten Equation of Noncommutative Gauge Theory", hep-th/0104036. 126. H. Liu, "*-Trek II: * n Operations, Open Wilson Lines and the Seiberg-Witten Map", hep-th/0011125. 127. H. Liu, J. Michelson, "Ramond-Ramond Couplings of Noncommutative Dbranes", hep-th/0104139. 128. R. Gopakumar, S. Minwalla and A. Strominger, "Noncommutative Solitons", hep-th/0003160. 129. S. Minwalla, "Lectures at the Swieca Summer School", Brazil, January 2001. 130. J. A. Harvey, "Komaba Lectures on Noncommutative Solitons and D-Branes", hep-th/0102076.
158 131. N. Nekrasov, A. Schwarz, "Instantons on noncommutative R , and (2,0) superconformal six dimensional theory", Commun. Math. Phys. 198 689-703 (1998), hep-th/9802068; N. A. Nekrasov, "Trieste Lectures on Solitons in Noncommutative Gauge Theories", hep-th/0011095. 132. G.'t Hooft, "Rigorious construction of planar diagram field theories in four dimensional Euclidian space", Comm. Math. Phys. 88, 1 (1983); V. Rivasseau, "Construction and Borel Summability of Planar 4-Dimensional Euclidean Field Theory", Cornm. Math. Phys. 95, 445 (1984). 133. N. N. Bogoliubov and D. V. Shirkov, "Introduction to the Theory of Quantum Fields", third edition, Nauka (1976). 134. S. J. Gates, M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek and W. Siegel, "Superspace or One Thousand and One Lesson in Supersymmetry", The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company (1983). 135. E. Witten, "Interacting field theory of open superstrings", Nucl. Phys. B276, 291 (1986). 136. G. Horowitz, J. Lykken, R. Rohm and A. Strominger, "A purely cubic action for string field theory", Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 283 (1986). 137. G. Horowitz and A. Strominger, "Translations as inner derivations and associative anomalies in open string field theory", Phys. Lett. B185, 45 (1987). 138. V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, "The static tachyon potential n the open bosonic string theory", Phys. Lett. B207, 169 (1988); V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, "The tachyon potential in string theory", DPF Conf., 813 (1988); V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, "On a nonperturbative vacuum for the open bosonic string", Nucl. Phys. B336, 286 (1990). 139. I. Ya. Aref'eva, P. B. Medvedev and A. P. Zubarev, "Nonperturbative vacuum for superstring field theory and supersymmetry breaking", Mod. Phys. Lett. A6, 949 (1991). 140. I. A. Aref'eva, P. B. Medvedev and A. P. Zubarev, "Background formalism for superstring field theory", Phys. Lett. B240, 356 (1990). 141. C. R. Preitschopf, C. B. Thorn and S. A. Yost, "Superstring Field Theory", Nucl. Phys. B337, 363 (1990). 142. I. Ya. Aref'eva, P. B. Medvedev and A. P. Zubarev, "New representation for string field solves the consistency problem for open superstring field", Nucl. Phys. B341, 464 (1990). 143. A. Sen, "Stable non BPS bound states of BPS D-branes", JHEP 08 010 (1998), hep-th/9805019; A. Sen, "Descent relations among bosonic D-branes", Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14, 4061 (1999), hep-th/9902105; A. Sen, "50(32) spinors of type I and other solitons on brane-anti-brane pair", JHEP 09 023 (1998), hep-th/9808141. 144. A. Sen, "Non-BPS States and Branes in String Theory", hep-th/9904207. 145. A. Lerda and R. Russo, "Stable non-BPS states in string theory: a pedagogical review", hep-th/9905006. 146. A. Sen, "Universality of the Tachyon Potential", JHEP 9912, 027 (1999), hepth/9911116. 147. A. Sen, B. Zwiebach, "Tachyon condensation in string field theory", JHEP 0003, 002 (2000), hep-th/9912249.
159 148. N. Moeller, W. Taylor, "Level truncation and the tachyon in open bosonic string field theory", Nucl. Phys. B583, 105 (2000), hep-th/0002237. 149. A. Iqbal, A. Naqvi, "Tachyon Condensation on a non-BPS D-brane", hepth/0004015. 150. L. Rastelli and B. Zwiebach, "Tachyon potentials, star products and universality", hep-th/0006240. 151. W. Taylor, "Mass generation from tachyon condensation for vector fields on D-branes", JHEP 0008, 038 (2000), hep-th/0008033. 152. K. Ohmori, "A Review on Tachyon Condensation in Open String Field Theories" , hep-th/0102085. 153. B. Zwiebach, "Trimming the tachyon string field with SU(1,1)", hepth/0010190. 154. A. Sen, "Fundamental Strings in Open String Theory at the Tachyonic Vacuum" , hep-th/0010240. 155. P. Mukhopadhyay and A. Sen, "Test of Siegel gauge for the lump solution", JHEP 0102, 017 (2001), hep-th/0101014. 156. V. A. Kostelecky and R. Potting, "Analytical construction of a nonperturbative vacuum for the open bosonic string", Phys. Rev. D 6 3 , 046007 (2001), hepth/0008252. 157. L. Rastelli, A. Sen, B. Zwiebach, "String field theory around the tachyon vacuum", hep-th/0012251. 158. L. Rastelli, A. Sen, B. Zwiebach, "Classical Solutions in String Field Theory Around the Tachyon Vacuum", hep-th/0102112. 159. I. Ellwood, W. Taylor, "Open string field theory without open strings", hepth/0103085. 160. I. Ellwood, B. Feng, Y.-H. He and N. Moeller, "The Identity String Field and the Tachyon Vacuum", hep-th/0105024. 161. D. J. Gross and W. Taylor, "Split string field theory. I", JHEP 0108, 009 (2001), hep-th/0105059. 162. D. J. Gross and W. Taylor, "Split string field theory. I F , JHEP 0108, 010 (2001), hep-th/0106036. 163. L. Rastelli, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, "Half-strings, projectors, and multiple D-branes in vacuum string field theory", hep-th/0105058. 164. L. Rastelli, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, "Boundary CFT construction of D-branes in vacuum string field theory", hep-th/0105168. 165. T. Kawano and K. Okuyama, "Open string fields as matrices", hep-th/0105129. 166. L. Rastelli, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, "Vacuum string field theory", hepth/0106010. 167. I. Bars, "Map of Witten's * to Moyal's *", Phys. Lett. B517, 436 (2001). 168. J. R. David, "Excitations on wedge states and on the sliver", hep-th/0105184. 169. D. J. Gross, V. Periwal, "String field theory, non-commutative Chern-Simons theory and Lie algebra cohomology", JHEP 0108, 008 (2001), hep-th/0106242. 170. K. Furuuchi and K. Okuyama, "Comma vertex and string field algebra", hepth/0107101. 171. Y. Matsuo, "BCFT and sliver state", hep-th/0105175; Y. Matsuo, "Identity projector and D-brane in string field theory", hep-th/0106027; Y. Matsuo, "Projection operators and D-branes in purely cubic open string field theory",
160 hep-th/0107007. 172. N. Moeller, "Some exact results on the matter star-product in the half-string formalism", hep-th/0110204. 173. H. Hata and T. Kawano, "Open string states around a classical solution in vacuum string field theory", hep-th/0108150. 174. P. Mukhopadhyay, "Oscillator representation of the BCFT construction of Dbranes in vacuum string filed theory", hep-th/0110136. 175. I. Kishimoto, "Some properties of string field algebra", hep-th/0110124. 176. H. Hata and S. Moriyama, "Observables as twist anomaly in vacuum string field theory", hep-th/0111034. 177. G. Moore and W. Taylor, "The singular geometry of the sliver", hepth/0111069. 178. K. Okuyama, "Siegel Gauge in Vacuum String Field Theory", hep-th/0111087. 179. A. Hashimoto and N. Itzhaki, "Observables of String Field Theory", hepth/0111092. 180. D. Gaiotto, L. Rastelli, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, "Ghost Structure and Closed Strings in Vacuum String Field Theory", hep-th/0111129. 181. L. Rastelli, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, "A Note on a Proposal for the Tachyon State in Vacuum String Field Theory", hep-th/0111153. 182. I. Ya. Aref'eva and P. P. Kulish, "Representations of canonical commutation relations in the limit of infinite volume", Teor. Math. Phys. 17, 3 (1973). 183. I. Ya. Arefeva, D. M. Belov, A. S. Koshelev and P. B. Medvedev, "Tachyon Condensation in the Cubic Superstring Field Theory", hep-th/0011117. 184. I. Ya. Arefeva, D. M. Belov, A. S. Koshelev and P. B. Medvedev, "Gauge Invariance and Tachyon Condensation in Cubic Superstring Field Theory", hepth/0107197. 185. N. Berkovits, "Super-Poincare Invariant Superstring Field Theory", Nucl. Phys. B450, 90 (1995), hep-th/9503099. 186. N. Berkovits, "The Tachyon Potential in Open Neveu-Schwarz String Field Theory", JEEP 0004, 022 (2000), hep-th/0001084. 187. N. Berkovits, A. Sen, B. Zwiebach, "Tachyon Condensation in Superstring Field Theory", hep-th/0002211. 188. P. De Smet, J. Raeymaekers, "Level Four Approximation to the Tachyon Potential in Superstring Field Theory", JEEP 0005, 051 (2000), hep-th/0003220. 189. P. De Smet, J. Raeymaekers, "The Tachyon Potential in Witten's Superstring Field Theory", hep-th/0004112. 190. I. Ya. Aref'eva and I. V. Volovich, "Two-dimensional gravity, string field theory and spin glasses", Phys. Lett. B255, 197 (1991). 191. J. Bordes, Chan H.-M., L. Nellen, Tsou S.-T., "Half-string oscillator approach to string field theory", Nucl. Phys. B351, 441 (1991); Chan H.-M. and Tsun S.T., "String theory considered as a local gauge theory of an extended object", Phys. Rev. D35, 2474 (1987); "Yang-Mills formulation of interacting strings", Phys. Rev. D39, 555 (1989). 192. A. Abdurrahman, F. Anton and J. Bordes, "N-string vertices in string field theory", hep-th/9306029. 193. A. Abdurrahman and J. Bordes, "The relationship between the comma theory and Witten's string field theory", Phys. Rev. D58, 086003 (1998).
161 194. A. Abdurrahman and J. Bordes, "Witten's cubic vertex in the comma theory (I)", hep-th/9902176. 195. F. Anton, A. Abdurrahman and J. Bordes, "Half string oscillator approach to string field theory (ghost sector 2) ", Nucl. Phys. B411, 693 (1994); F. Anton, A. Abdurrahman and J. Bordes, "Half string approach to closed string field theory", Nucl. Phys. B397, 260 (1993). 196. A. Abdurrahman and J. Bordes, "Witten's cubic vertex in the comma theory. II.", RAL-TR-1999-021, Mar 1999. 197. M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten, "Superstring theory", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1987). 198. J. Polchinski, "Introduction to Superstrings", Vols. I and II, Cambridge University Press. 199. C. B. Thorn, "String field theory", Phys. Rept. 175, 1 (1989). 200. D. Friedan, E. Martinec and S. Shenker, "Conformal Invariance, Supersymmetry, and String Theory", Nucl. Phys. B271, 93 (1986). 201. D. Friedan, "Notice on String Theory and Two Dimensional Conformal Field Theory", preprint EFI 85-99 (1986). 202. S. Giddings, "The Veneziano amplitude from interacting string field theory", Nucl. Phys. B278, 242 (1986). 203. R. Bluhm and S. Samuel, "The Off-Shell Koba-Nielsen Formula", Nucl. Phys. B323, 337 (1989). 204. D. Gross and A. Jevicki, "Operator Formulation of Interacting String Field Theory", (I), (II), Nucl. Phys. B283, 1 (1987); Nucl. Phys. B287, 225 (1987). 205. E. Cremmer, A. Schwimmer and C. Thorn, "The vertex function in Witten's formulation of string field theory", Phys. Lett. B179, 57 (1986). 206. S. Samuel, "The physical and ghost vertices in Witten's string field theory", Phys. Lett. B181, 255 (1986). 207. N. Ohta, "Covariant interacting string field theory in the Fock space representation", Phys. Rev. D34, 3785 (1986); Phys. Rev. D35, 2627 (E) (1987). 208. A. LeClair, M. E. Peskin and C. R. Preitschopf, "String field theory on the conformal plane I", Nucl. Phys. B317, 411 (1989). 209. A. LeClair, M. E. Peskin and C. R. Preitschopf, "String field theory on the conformal plane II", Nucl. Phys. B317, 464 (1989). 210. B. V. Urosevic, A. P. Zubarev, "On the component analysis of modified superstring field theory actions", Phys. Lett. B246, 391 (1990). 211. M. V. Green, N. Sieberg, "Contact interactions in superstring theory", Nucl. Phys. B299, 559 (1988). 212. J. Greensite, F. R. Klinkhamer, "Superstring scattering amplitudes and contact interactions", Nucl. Phys. B304, 108 (1988). 213. I. Ya. Aref'eva, P. B. Medvedev, "Anomalies in Witten's field theory of the NSR string", Phys. Lett. B212, 299 (1988). 214. C. Wendt, "Scattering amplitudes and contact interactions in Witten's superstring field theory", Nucl. Phys. B314, 209 (1989). 215. T. Kugo, H. Kunitomo and K. Suehiro, "BRS Invariance of String Vertex on General Ghost Vacuum", Preprint KUNS-864, HE-TH-87/06; Prog. Theor. Phys. 78, 923 (1987).
162 216. A. Hosoya and H. Itoyama, "The Vertex as a Bogolyubov Transformed Vacuum State in String Field Theory", Nucl. Phys. B313, 116 (1989). 217. E. Cremmer and J. L. Gervais, "Combining and Splitting Relativistic Strings", Nucl. Phys. B76, 209 (1974); B90, 410 (1975). 218. W. Siegel, "Covariantly Second Quantized String I and II", Phys. Lett. 151B, 391, 396 (1985). 219. I. Ya. Arefeva, P. B. Medvedev, "Truncation, picture changing operation and space time supersymmetry in Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond string field theory", Phys. Lett. B202, 510 (1988). 220. E. Witten, "On background-independent open-string field theory", Phys. Rev. D46, 5467 (1992). 221. D. Kutasov, M. Marino and G. Moore, "Remarks on Tachyon Condensation in Superstring Field Theory", hep-th/0010108. 222. P. Kraus and F. Larsen, "Boundary String Field Theory of the DD System", hep-th/0012198. 223. D. Ghoshal and A. Sen, "Normalisation of the background independent open string field theory action", JEEP 0011, 021 (2000), hep-th/0009191. 224. S.P. de Alwis, "Boundary String Field Theory, the Boundary State Formalism and D-Brane Tension", hep-th/0101200. 225. M. Marino, "On the BV formulation of boundary superstring field theory", JHEP 0106, 059 (2001), hep-th/0103089. 226. K. S. Viswanathan and Y. Yang, "Tachyon Condensation and Background Indepedent Superstring Field Theory", hep-th/0104099. 227. K. Bardakci and A. Konechny, "Tachyon condensation in boundary string field theory", hep-th/0105098. 228. T. Lee, "Tachyon Condensation, Boundary State and Noncommutative Solitons", hep-th/0105115. 229. G. Arutyunov, A. Pankiewicz and B. Stefanski Jr, "Boundary Superstring Field Theory Annulus Partition Function in the Presence of Tachyons", hepth/0105238. 230. J. Kluson, "Proposal for background independent Berkovits superstring field theory", hep-th/0106107. 231. S. Viswanathan, Y. Yang, "Unorientable Boundary Superstring Field theory with Tachyon field", hep-th/0107098. 232. P. De Smet, "Tachyon Condensation: Calculations in String Field Theory", hep-th/0109182. 233. A. Sen, "Tachyon Condensation on the Brane Antibrane System", JHEP 9808, 012 (1998), hep-th/9805170. 234. A. A. Gerasimov, S. L. Shatashvili, "On Exact Tachyon Potential in Open String Field Theory", JHEP 0010, 034 (2000), hep-th/0009103. 235. S. L. Shatashvili, "On Field Theory of Open Strings, Tachyon Condensation and Closed Strings", hep-th/0105076. 236. Oleg Andreev, "On one loop corrections to the tachyon potentials", hepth/0109187. 237. D. Kutasov, M. Marino, G. Moore, "Some Exact Results on Tachyon Condensation in String Field Theory", JHEP 0010, 045 (2000), hep-th/0009148.
163 238. B. Zwiebach, "A Solvable Toy Model for Tachyon Condensation in String Field Theory", JHEP 0009, 028 (2000), hep-th/0008227. 239. S. Dasgupta and T. Dasgupta, "Renormalization Group Analysis of Tachyon Condensation", JHEP 0106, 007 (2001), hep-th/0010247. 240. K. Ohmori, "Survey of the tachyonic lump in bosonic string field theory", hepth/0106068. 241. N. Moeller, A. Sen, B. Zwiebach, "D-branes as Tachyon Lumps in String Field Theory", JHEP 0008, 039 (2000), hep-th/0005036. 242. Y. Michishita, "Tachyon Lump Solutions of Bosonic D-branes on SU(2) Group Manifolds in Cubic String Field Theory", Nucl. Phys. B614, 26-70 (2001), hep-th/0105246. 243. N. Moeller, "Codimension two lump solutions in string field theory and tachyonic theories", hep-th/0008101. 244. R. de Mello Koch, J. P. Rodrigues, "Lumps in level truncated open string field theory", Phys. Lett. B495, 237-244 (2000), hep-th/0008053. 245. R. de Mello Koch, A. Jevicki, M. Mihailescu, R. Tatar, "Lumps and P-branes in Open String Field Theory", Phys. Lett. B 4 8 2 , 249-254 (2000), hep-th/0003031. 246. J. A. Harvey, P. Kraus, "D-Branes as Unstable Lumps in Bosonic Open String Field Theory", JHEP 0004, 012 (2000), hep-th/0002117. 247. D. P. Jatkar, R. Vathsan, "Stable Solitons in Field Theory Models for Tachyon Condensation", JHEP 0106, 039 (2001), hep-th/0104229. 248. K. Ohmori, "Tachyonic Kink and Lump-like Solutions in Superstring Field Theory", JHEP 0105, 035 (2001), hep-th/0104230. 249. D. Ghoshal and A. Sen, "Tachyon Condensation and Brane Descent Relations in p-adic String Theory", Nucl. Phys. B584, 300-312 (2000), hep-th/0003278. 250. J. A. Minahan, "Mode Interactions of the Tachyon Condensate in p-adic String Theory", JHEP 0103, 028 (2001), hep-th/0102071. 251. L. Brekke, P. G. O. Freund, M. Olson, E. Witten, "Nonarchimedean string dynamics", Nucl. Phys. B302, 365 (1988). 252. I. Ya. Arefeva, B. G. Dragovic, I. V. Volovich, "Open and closed p-adic strings and quadratic extensions of number fields", Phys. Lett. B212, 283 (1988); I. Ya. Arefeva, B. G. Dragovic, I. V. Volovich, "P-adic superstrings", Phys. Lett. B214, 339 (1988). 253. P. H. Frampton, H. Nishino, "Stability analysis of p-adic string solitons", Phys. Lett. B242, 354 (1990). 254. V. S. Vladimirov, "Adelic formulas for gamma and beta functions of one class quadratic fields: applications to 4- particle scattering string amplitudes", mathph/0004017. 255. H. Hata, Sh. Teraguchi, "Test of the Absence of Kinetic Terms around the Tachyon Vacuum in Cubic String Field Theory", JHEP 0105, 045 (2001), hepth/0101162. 256. H. Hata, Sh. Shinohara, "BRST Invaxiance of the Non-Perturbative Vacuum in Bosonic Open String Field Theory", JHEP 0009, 035 (2000), hep-th/0009105. 257. A. Minahan, B. Zwiebach, "Field theory models for tachyon and gauge field string dynamics", JHEP 0009, 029 (2000), hep-th/0008231. 258. I. Ellwood, W. Taylor, "Gauge Invaxiance and Tachyon Condensation in Open String Field Theory", hep-th/0105156.
This page is intentionally left blank
I N T R O D U C T I O N TO S U P E R S T R I N G THEORY
NATHAN BERKOVITS Institute de Fisica Teorica, Universidade Estadual Paulista Rua Pamplona 145, 01405-900, Sao Paulo, SP, BRASIL E-mail: nberkoviQift.unesp.br
In these proceedings, a brief introduction is given to superstring theory and its duality symmetries.
1. Introduction and Motivation Instead of giving references in these proceedings, I will refer the reader to two excellent books for graduate students wanting to study superstring theory which are Superstring Theory (Vols. I and II) by M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz and E. Witten (Cambridge University Press, 1987) and String Theory (Vols. I and II) by J. Polchinski (Cambridge University Press, 1998). There is also a popular book written for a general audience, The Elegant Universe by B.R. Greene (Norton Press, 1999), as well as two colloquia available on the hep-th bulletin board: hep-th 9607067 by J.H. Schwarz and hep-th 9607050 by J. Polchinski. There are various motivations for studying superstring theory, both mathematical and physical. Since I am a physicist, I will only mention the physical motivations. When string theory was discovered in the early 1970's, it was origninally intended to be a model for describing strong interactions. The basic discovery was that by extending the pointlike nature of particles to onedimensional extended objects called strings, one could obtain S-matrix scattering amplitudes for the fundamental particles which contained many of the properties found in scattering experiments of mesons. As will be discussed in section 2, the action for string theory is proportional to the area of a twodimensional worldsheet, as opposed to the action for point-particles which is based on the length of a one-dimensional worldline. Amazingly, the masses and coupling constants of the fundamental particles in string theory are not inputs in the theory, but are instead fixed by consistency requirements such as Lorentz invariance and unitarity. In fact, unlike theories based on point particles, string theory not only predicts the masses
165
166 of the fundamental particles, but also predicts the dimension of spacetime. In the simplest string theory, this dimension turns out to be 26, rather than the experimentally observed spacetime dimension of 4. However, as will be discussed in section 5, it is possible to 'compactify' all but four of the dimensions to small circles, in which case only four-dimensional spacetime is observable at low energies. For open string theory (where particles are represented by one dimensional objects with two ends), the particle spectrum contains a massless 'gluon', as well as an infinite number of massive particles whose masses and spins sit on 'Reggae trajectories'. These Reggae trajectories of massive particles are welcome for describing strong interactions since they are needed for producing scattering amplitudes with the properties seen in experiments. Unfortunately, string theory also predicts fundamental particles which are not needed for describing strong interactions. One of these particles is tachyonic, i.e. its (mass) 2 is negative implying that it travels faster than the speed of light. The presence of such a particle makes the vacuum unstable, which is not acceptable in a physical theory. The resolution of this tachyon problem was found in a series of remarkable discoveries which led to the concept of supersymmetry, a symmetry relating bosonic and fermionic particles. The first discovery was the existence of a new consistent string theory whose spacetime dimension turns out to be 10 rather than 26. The second discovery was that the action for this new string theory depends on a two-dimensional worldsheet containing both bosonic and fermionic parameters, and the action is invariant under a worldsheet supersymmetry which transforms the bosonic and fermionc parameters into each other. The third discovery was that, after performing a projection operation which removes half the particles but leaves a unitary S-matrix, the particle spectrum and interactions of this 'superstring' theory are invariant under a tendimensional spacetime-supersymmetry which transforms bosons into fermions. This projection operation removes the problematic tachyon from the spectrum but leaves the massless gluons, as well as an infinite number of massive particles. Superstring theory also contains fermionic counterparts to the gluon (called the gluino), as well as an infinite number of massive fermions. Another particle which survives the projection operation is a massless spintwo particle called the graviton (as well as its fermionic counterpart, the massless spin-3/2 particle called the gravitino). Although this massless spin-2 particle comes from closed string theory (where particles are represented by onedimensional circles), unitarity implies that the two ends of an open string can join to form a closed string, so these massless spin-two particles are produced in the scattering of gluons. Since the only consistent interactions of massless
167
spin-two particles are gravitational interactions, string theory 'predicts' the existence of gravity. Therefore, without prior intention, superstring theory was found to give a unified description of Yang-Mills and gravitational interactions. Since the energy scale of gravitational interactions is much larger than the energy scale of strong interactions, a unification of these interactions implies that the massive particles predicted by superstring theory contain masses of the order of the Planck mass ( about 1019 GeV), and are therefore unrelated to meson particles found in experiments. So the original motivation for using string theory as a model for strong interactions is no longer viable, assuming that one interprets the massless spin-two particle as the graviton of general relativity. Instead, superstring theory can be used as a model for a unified theory which includes all four of the standard interactions: gravitational, strong, weak, and electromagnetic (the last three are described by a spontaneously broken Yang-Mills theory). The usual obstacle to constructing a quantum unified theory (or even a quantum theory of gravity) is that the Einstein-Hilbert action for general relativity is non-renormalizable. This is easily seen from the fact that the gravitational coupling constant (Newton's constant) is dimensionful, unlike the coupling constant of Yang-Mills theory. So for a scattering amplitude of three gravitons at L loop-order, power counting arguments imply that the amplitude diverges like A 2L where A is the cutoff. The only way to remove this divergence is if there is some miraculous cancellation of Feynmann diagrams. One way to cancel divergences in Feynmann diagrams is to introduce fermions into the theory with the same interactions and masses as the bosons. Since internal loops of fermions contribute with an extra minus sign as compared with internal loops of bosons, there is a possibility of cancellations. If a theory is supersymmetrized (i.e. fermions are introduced in such a manner that the theory is symmetric under a transformation which exchanges the bosons and fermions), then the above conditions are satisfied. The supersymmetrization of gravity is called supergravity, and for a few years, it was hoped that such a theory might be free of non-renormalizable divergences. However, it was later realized that even after supersymmetrizing gravity to a theory with the maximum number of supersymmetries (which is called N=8 supergravity), the non-renormalizable divergences are still present. As already mentioned, the fundamental particles of superstring theory include the graviton and the gravitino (like supergravity), but also include an infinite set of massive bosons and fermions. It turns out that after including the contributions of the infinite massive particles, the non-renormalizable divergences in the loop amplitudes completely cancel each other out. Although the explicit proof of the preceding statement is rather technical, there are var-
168
ious 'handwaving' arguments which are convincing. One of these arguments involves the nature of superstring interactions which are 'smoother' than the interactions of point-particles. For example, the three-point diagram for pointparticles has a vertex where the three external point-particles coincide. But the three-point diagram for closed strings is like a pair of pants, where the two cuffs and the waist are the external strings. Unlike the vertex in a point-particle diagram, there is no singular point on a pair of pants. So superstring theory provides a consistent theory of quantum gravity which, unlike all other attempts, does not suffer from non-renormalizable divergences. However, it requires an infinite set of massive particles which are unobservable in any foreseeable experiment. In addition, the theory includes a set of massless particles such as the gluons and gluinos of super-Yang-Mills and also a scalar massless boson called the dilaton. If superstring theory really describes nature (and is not just a model for a unified quantum theory of gravity and Yang-Mills), these massless particles must become the leptons, quarks, and gluons of the standard model where the masses of the above particles come from spontaneous symmetry breaking. One important unsolved problem in superstring theory is that it is very difficult to give a mass to the dilaton in a natural way, so one needs to explain why noone has observed massless scalars in experiments. Although superstring theory is the only candidate for a renormalizable quantum theory of gravity, only a few researchers worked in this field between 1975 (when it was realized that string theory could not serve as a model for strong interactions) and 1985. One reason for the lack of interest was that there appeared to be different versions of superstring theory (called Type I, Type IIA and Type IIB), none of which resembled very closely the structure of the standard model. In the Type I theory, the gauge group for superYang-Mills was thought to be arbitrary, and in the Type IIA and Type IIB theories, the gauge group had to be abelian. However, in 1985, it was learned that absence of anomalies restricted the gauge group of the Type I theory to be 50(32)/Z 2 . Although this gauge group is not very interesting for phenomenology, it was soon realized that there is another type of superstring theory, called the 'heterotic' superstring (since it combines features of the bosonic string and superstring), which has two possible gauge groups: 5 0 ( 3 2 ) / ^ 2 or E$ x Es (Eg is one of the exceptional groups). The Eg x Es version of the heterotic superstring was very attractive for phenomenologists since it is easy to construct grand unified theories starting from the exceptional subgroup E$. For this reason (and because of peer pressure), the next five years attracted many researchers into the field of superstring theory. However, it was soon clear that without understanding non-perturbative effects, superstring theory would
169
not be able to give explicit predictions for a grand unified model (other than vague predictions, such as supersymmetry at a suitably high energy scale). The problem was that four-dimensional physics depends crucially on the type of compactification which is used to reduce from ten to four dimensions. Although there is a symmetry called T-duality which relates some compactifications in superstring theory, there is a large class of compactifications which are not related by any symmetry. In principle, the type of compactification is determined dynamically, however, the selection of the correct compactification scheme requires non-perturbative information. So, for this reason (and because of problems in finding jobs), many researchers left the field of string theory after 1989 to work in other areas such as supercollider phenomenology. Recently, it has been learned that many non-perturbative features of fourdimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories can be understood without performing explicit instanton computations. Although this had been conjectured in 1977 for N=4 super-Yang-Mills, the conjecture was treated skeptically until 1994 when convincing evidence was presented for the case of N=2 superYang-Mills. One of these non-perturbative features is an '5-duality' symmetry which relates the super-Yang-Mills theory at large values of the coupling constant with a super-Yang-Mills theory at small values of the coupling constant. For N=4 super-Yang-Mills, 5-duality maps the theory at strong coupling into the same theory at weak coupling, while for N=2 super-Yang-Mills, 5-duality maps the theory at strong coupling into a different theory at weak coupling. These 5-duality symmetries are also believed to be present in superstrings and relate superstring theory at large values of the coupling constant with a theory at small values of the coupling constant. 5-duality maps the Type IIB superstring at strong coupling into the same Type IIB superstring at weak coupling, and maps the Type I superstring at strong/weak coupling into the heterotic superstring at weak/strong coupling with gauge group 50(32)/Z2There is also believed to a duality symmetry which maps the Type IIA superstring at strong coupling into a new eleven-dimensional theory called Mtheory, and which maps the heterotic superstring with gauge group E8 x E8 at strong coupling into a version of M-theory with boundaries. M-theory is known to contain the massless particle of eleven-dimensional supergravity (which is the maximum possible dimension for supergravity) as well as massive particles which are still not understood. It is believed to be related to a theory constructed from two-dimensional extended objects called membranes (as opposed to the one-dimensional extended objects called strings). So by studying the perturbative regime of superstring theory where the coupling constant is small, one can use 5-duality symmetry to obtain nonperturbative information where the coupling constant is large. Furthermore,
170
duality symmetries relate the five different superstring theories, suggesting that these five theories can be understood as perturbative vacua of some unique underlying non-perturbative theory which would be the 'Theory of Everything'. This has attracted renewed interest in superstring theory, and there is optimism that by studying M-theory, one will gain a greater understanding of duality symmetries. However, the problem of getting explicit predictions out of superstring theory is probably still far from being resolved. Although S'-duality symmetries may help in understanding superstring theory at very small and very large values of the coupling constants, it is not clear if it will be possible to extrapolate these results to the physically interesting values of the coupling constants which is somewhere between the two extremes. In section 2 of this paper, I will discuss classical relativistic strings. In section 3, I will show how to quantize the relativistic string and compute the spectrum. In section 4, I shall introduce the Type IIA and Type IIB superstrings in the light-cone Green-Schwarz approach. In section 5, I shall discuss compactification and T-duality. In section 6,1 will describe eleven-dimensional supergravity and give a simple argument for the 5-duality symmetry of the Type IIB superstring. 2. Classical Relativistic Strings As is well known, the action for relativistic point-particles moving in D dimensions is given by S = M [
F
drL (X»(T))
= M f " dr yJdTxv-dTx^
(1)
and the equation of motion is MdT (dTx^/^(dTx)2 1 = 0. In the above action, fi = Oto D — 1, M is a dimensionful constant, and L(x) is defined as the length of the path traversed by ^ ( T ) between the times r/ and rp. The momentum is defined by P» = M Q / f L
, = M
fTX>i
,
(2)
so P M P M = M2 where M is identified with the mass of the particle. The above action is invariant under reparameterizations of the worldline, T —> f ( r ) , allowing the gauge choice 3ra;M9rarM = 1. In this gauge, the equation of motion becomes Md^x^ = 0, which has the solution z"(r) where F"P M = M 2 .
=x%+TP>i
171
For a relativistic one-dimensional object with the topology of a closed string (i.e. the topology of a circle), the obvious generalization of (1) is rp
pTF
S=— (•TF rTF
rp
=
/>27r
daA{xll{T,a))
drj
2W
/•27T r^lT
^ f
,
d
- (drX^X^)2
yi^^rX^id^X^X^)
(3)
where T is a dimensionful constant, a is a parameter ranging from 0 to 2TT which measures the position on the circle, d^x1* = dx^/dcr, and A(x) is the area of the cylindrical surface traversed by xM (r, a) between the times T/ and TF- (The formula for the area is easily found by dividing the surface into infinitesimal parallelograms whose sides are given by drdrX11 and dad^x11.) This action is invariant under reparameterization of the world surface, M T -¥ T(T,CT) and a —> d-(r,a), which allows one to choose the gauge 9 r x drXfi = daX^daXf,, and drX^d^x^ = 0. In this gauge, it is easy to show that the equation of motion from (3) is
&TxP =
fix"
(4)
and the momentum is defined by
p =T
r =
dA
" ^^ ) £i
r27T
dadTX
»-
(5)
So the general solution to the equation of motion is x»(T,a)=xZ
+ -TP»+
J2
(o^ew(r+ff)+a^e^-')).
(6)
JV=-oo,jV^0
The gauge-fixing conditions drX^drX,,
- drSfdvXn
= d^BaX^
= 0
(7)
imply that two of the D components of xM can be related to the other D — 2 components and that oo
P»P„ = T 2
£
TV2 (a^atN
+ ai,alN)
(8)
where j=l to D — 2. Since P^P^ gives the (mass) 2 of the string, the mass of the string depends on the a°N and a3N variables, and therefore depends on the way that the string is resonating. Each distinct resonance of the string corresponds to a different particle whose mass can be computed from (8). Although the classical
172
relativistic string has a continuous mass spectrum, the spectrum will become discrete after quantization. Note that T corresponds to the tension of the string since (4) and (5) imply that dTPj = Td^xi where Pj is the momentum density (i.e. Pj = ^ §Q n daPj). In natural units for describing gravitational interactions, T is approximately (1019 GeV) 2 . 3. Quantization of the Closed String In the previous section, it was seen that oo
PP(T,(T)
=TdTa?
= P* + iT
N(a%eiN^+,T)+a%eiN^-^y
£
(9)
N=-oo,N^tO
Using (6) and the canonical commutation relations ^(r.ffj.rfry)]
=i71»"d(a-<7'),
(10)
one finds that o ^ and a^ satisfy the commutation relations [<&.<*&] = ^M+N.OvT
,
[&M,avN] = ^ < W v , o r f " .
(11)
As in the harmonic oscillator, one can define a ground state |0) which is annihilated by a1^ and a^ for N < 0. So using (8), the state
j=l
N>0
2
has (mass) given by the formula of (8), M2 = T2($| £ >
2
(2a>Na>_N + [aL^]
+ 2~ajNalN + [ a i „ , < ] ) |*> .(13)
N>0
Plugging (12) into (13) and using the commutation relations of (11), one finds D-2
2
M = 2T"£J2N
(nN + »ir) + 2T E N& ~ 2)
JV>O i = i
(14)
JV>O
where the second term comes from normal-ordering (as in the ground-state energy of the harmonic oscillator). To compute this normal-ordering term, one uses zeta-function regularization to remove the divergence. This means defining ^ N as the analytic continuation as s -> - 1 of J2 N~s. iV>0
JV>0
This analytic continuation gives
173
Y^ N = -j^,
so the normal-ordering term (which gives M 2 for the ground-
N>0
state) is equal to 2T(2 - D)/12. So when D > 2, the ground-state has negative (mass) 2 and is tachyonic as described in the introduction. This means that the vacuum is unstable, implying that closed string theory is inconsistent. As shown in the following section, this inconsistency is not present in closed superstring theory. Note that the spin-two state in closed string theory is described by l ^ " ) = {a^avx + a^)\0), which has M 2 = 2T(26 - D)/12 using the formula of (14). So when D = 26 this spin-two state is massless and describes a graviton. 4. Type II Superstrings in the Light-Cone Green-Schwarz Approach There are many equivalent descriptions of the Type IIA and Type IIB superstrings, but the only one which will be described in these notes is the formalism of Green and Schwarz in the light-cone gauge. Light-cone gauge means that the constraints of (7) have been used to eliminate two of the spacetime variables so one is left with the variables X3(T, a) for j — 1 to D — 2. Unitarity and Lorentz invariance imply that D = 10 for the superstring, so j takes the values 1 to 8. However, unlike the string theory of the preceding section, the Type II superstring also contains fermionic variables, 8a(T,a) and 9A{T,G), where a and d are the chiral and anti-chiral eight-dimensional spinor representations of SO (8), A is in the d representation for the Type IIA superstring, and A is in the a representation for the Type IIB superstring. The chiral and anti-chiral eight-dimensional spinor representations, a and d, are denned using SO(8) Pauli matrices, a3 &, which satisfy the anti-commutation relations
<&
+ * W d = 2*'*<W
(15)
(j — 1 to 8, a = 1 to 8, and a = 1 to 8). Note that a and a resemble the twocomponent spinor representations of SO(3,l), however in the case of SO(8), they are independently real ((a)* = a and (d)* = d) as opposed to the case of S0(3,l) where (a)* = a. Also, SO(8) spinor indices can be raised and lowered using the trivial metric 8al3 and Sal3. In light-cone gauge, the action for the Type II superstring is given by S=Y where d± —
f
F
dT±da.
dr I
da (d+xjd-xj
+ 6ad_9a + 6Ad+6A)
(16)
174
The equations of motion for xi are the same as before, and the equations of motion for 6a and 6A are d-6a = d+6A = 0, which has the general solution 6a (r, a) = J2b% e iJV(r+CT) ,
6A (r, a) = ^ If, e ^ ' ^
N
.
(17)
N
The anti-commutation relations {6a(T,a),T6f>(j,tT,)}=8af>5(tT-a'),
{9A{T,O),T9B{T,
= 8AB5(a-a')
(18)
imply that {baM,4} = T-^Su+w
,
{bij,bBN] =
T-'S^SM+^O
.
(19)
For the Type II superstring, the ground state |0) is defined to be annihilated by a3N, aJN, bf^ and b^ for TV < 0. To determine the spectrum, one uses the superstring version of the gauge-fixing constraints of (7) which implies that the spectrum for the superstring is given by oo
M 2 = P»P„ =T2
J2
[N2 (a>-N + <°~N)
+ N fab"* + bi~bAN)] .(20)
JV=-oo,AT#0
For a state
i*>=n n (
oc,A=l M>0
the (mass) 2 is
N>0
+" N (2b%ba_N -
{ba_N,b%} + 2bAbAN
- {b*N,b&})]
I*) - (22)
Since
J > 2 [ a i ^ J + ^ / V 2 [&LN,a>N] =52N{b1N,b%}+'£N{bAN,bAr} , 3
j
a
A
the normal-ordering contribution from the aJN and 5 ^ modes is precisely cancelled by the normal-ordering contribution from the b°^ and bjy modes. Therefore, the superstring ground-state has zero mass and the excited states carry 8 2
M = 2T^2 N>0
E
N(n^+njN+m% + rhAy
(23)
j,a,A=l
Actually, there is more than one massless state of the superstring since hitting |0) with b% and/or bA does not change the mass. Since 6Q a n d bA
175
satisfy the same anti-commutation relations as the SO (8) Pauli matrices in (15), the massless state is not a scalar of SO(8) but is actually a 256-component multipletofSO(8). This multiplet is described by the states |0) j *, \0)jA, \0)"k, and |0) a where j , k are SO(8) vector representations and A is the opposite spinor representation of A. The action of 6g a n d bA on these states is defined by
b«\0)jk = af\ofk ,
b%\0)jA =af\0fA ,
b%\0)ak = af\0)jk
b%\Q)aA =
,
af\0)jA (24)
bA\0)jk
= aAA\0)jA
,
bA\0)jA
=
aAA\0)jk
^ | 0 > a * = *AA\0)aA
,
bA\0)aA
= aAA\0)c
Note that b% and bA are anti-commuting, so |0)"' and |0) a are bosonic states while |0) afc and \0)]A are fermionic states. Decomposing |0) J into its symmetric, anti-symmetric, and trace parts, one finds a graviton g3k, a 'Kalb-Ramond' field B]k, and a scalar dilatonfield
176
radius R to compactification on a circle of radius (RT)~1 where T is the string tension. This means that the radius of compactification can always be chosen larger that T ~ 5 ; which has important implications for gravity at the Planck scale since T~2 is approximately 10~ 32 cm. First, note that the wave-function e1*"'*1' should be single-valued when 9 x —> x9 + 2ITR if x9 is a compactified direction. So the momentum P9 must be equal to nR_1 for some integer n. Next, note that x9(r,a + 2n) must equal X9(T, a) + 2irmR where m is an integer which counts the number of times that the closed string winds around the compactified direction. This means that the solution to the equation of motion of (4) is oo
x9{T,a)=x9 + ^R+omR+
(a9NeiN^») + a%eiN^)
£
. (25)
AT=-oo,iV^O
Plugging into the M 2 formula coming from (7), one learns that Ml = (P0)2 - (PO 2
(P8f = P»P» + (P9f = M 2 0 + Q ) 8
2
=
(l)
2
+ ( m TR)2
+ 2T
2 N>0
S
N (n% + n% + m% + m^)(26)
j,a,A=l
where M 9 is the mass measured by a nine-dimensional observer, Mw is the mass measured by a ten-dimensional observer, and the (m TR)2 term comes from the T^daX^daX^ contribution to M 2 0 . It is easy to see from (26) that the nine-dimensional mass spectrum is invariant under switching R with {TR)~l if one also switches momentum excitations n with winding-mode excitations m. Note that T-duality, unlike S-duality discussed in the following secton, does not transform the string coupling constant and can therefore be verified perturbatively. For the Type II superstring, T-duality states that the Type IIA superstring compactified on a circle of radius R is equivalent to the Type IIB superstring compactified on a circle of radius (TR^1. The reason Type IIA and Type IIB switch places is that switching momentum excitations with winding excitations is only a symmetry of the Type II superstring if 9A switches its SO (8) chirality. 6. D = l l Supergravity and iVf-Theory Eleven dimensions is the maximum dimension in which gravity can be supersymmetrized in a consistent manner. The bosonic fields of D = l l supergravity are a graviton CJMN and an anti-symmetric three-form AMNP where M = 0
177
to 10. Although this supergravity theory is not renormahzable, its classical action can be constructed and the bosonic contribution to this action is
Su = ^ J dn x ^teTg (i? + FMNPQ + e
1
'"
" FMl...M4 FM5...MS
FMNpQ)
^MgMioMu
(27)
where A is the gravitatonal coupling constant and FMNPQ = 9[MANPQ} is the field-strength for AMNPAfter compactification on a circle of radius R\o, these fields reduce to the massless bosonic fields of the Type IIA superstring, [g^v, B^u,(f), A^^A^p] where g^ = e-Wg^, g10 io = e 4 */ 3 , £M io = e 4 ^ 3 ^ , i M i , 10 = B^ and A^vp = A^p. With this identification, the Einstein-Hilbert part of the D = l l action j? f d11 x y/det g R reduces to ^ / d10 x e" 2 * ^det g R. This means that the string coupling constant can be absorbed into a redefinition of <j) ->• (f> + log A. After this redefinition, the vacuum expectation value for e* becomes (e^) — A. Since the compactification radius is proportional to 1/310 10 = e 2 ^ 3 , i?io is proportional to A 2 / 3 . Therefore, the Type IIA superstring at weak coupling and low energies (i.e. the massless sector with A -C 1) is equivalent to compactification of D = 11 supergravity on a circle of small radius. However, the Type IIA superstring is a renormahzable theory, so it also makes sense at high energies. This suggests that there is a renormahzable version of D = l l supergravity with massive fields which makes sense at highenergies. This eleven-dimensional theory is called M-theory and it will now be shown how eleven-dimensional Lorentz invariance of M-theory implies a strong-weak duality of the Type IIB superstring. The classical low-energy effective action for the Type IIB superstring (i.e. the classical action for ten-dimensional Type IIB supergravity) is known to contain a classical symmetry called S-duality which transforms the massless bosonic Type IIB fields as: p -»•
-. ,
B^v -> aB^v + bA^v , 9pv
~^ 9HV !
A-^vpu
A^v -»• cB^ + dA^ —> Ap,vp
K^-1)
where p = A + ie~^ and a, b, c, d are integers satisfying ad — bc= 1. When a = d — A(x) = 0 and b = — c = 1, this 5-duality symmetry transforms e"^ to e*, and since (e*) = A, it takes A -4 A - 1 which switches strong and weak coupling. This strong-weak duality symmetry of the classical action
178
can be proven to be a symmetry of the full quantum Type IIB superstring action using the following argument: Suppose one compactifies two of the eleven dimensions of M-theory on small circles of radius Ri and R2. If R\ is identified with the eleventh dimension, this corresponds to a Type IIA superstring with A = (R1/R2)3/2 which is compactified on a small circle of radius R2. By T-duality, this corresponds to a Type IIB superstring with A = (-Ri/i^) 3 / 2 which is compactified on a large circle of radius ( T i ^ ) - 1 But by eleven-dimensional Lorentz covariance of M-theory, one could also have identified R2 with the eleventh dimension. In this case, the M-theory compactification corresponds to a Type IIA superstring with A' = (R2/R1)3/2 which is compactified on a small circle of radius R\. By T-duality, this corresponds to a Type IIB superstring with A' = (.R2/.R1)3/2 which is compactified on a large circle of radius (Ti?i) _ 1 . If Rx -> 0 and R2 ->• 0 with Rx/R2 = C held fixed, the two Type IIB superstrings become uncompactified but their coupling constants remain fixed at the value A = A'~ = C 3 / 2 . Since these two descriptions come from the same compactification of M-theory, the uncompactified Type IIB superstring is invariant under an 5-duality symmetry which exchanges A and A - 1 , and therefore exchanges strong and weak couplings.. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the organizers of the summer school for a very enjoyable week of lectures. This work was financially supported in part by FAPESP grant 99/12763-0, by CNPq grant 300256/94-9, and by Pronex grant 66.2002/1998-9.
SELECTED TOPICS IN I N T E G R A B L E MODELS
ASHOK DAS Department
of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, New York, 14627-0171
Rochester,
In these talks, I discuss a few selected topics in integrable models that are of interest from various points of view. Some open questions are also described.
1. Introduction The subject of integrable models now encompasses a very large area of research involving many seemingly different topics. It is not at all possible to give a detailed exposition of the subject in just a few lectures. Therefore, when the organizers of the Andre Swieca summer school asked me to choose a few topics on which to speak at the school, I agreed with a lot of trepidation. In order to make the lectures self-complete, I, of course, had to start with some basics. The subsequent topics that I talked about, naturally, represent a personal choice according to my interests. There are many other interesting areas that are being pursued by many active groups, but I simply could not have done justice to all, in the limited time available. Similarly, the literature on the subject is vast and it would have been totally impossible for me to even pretend to have a complete list of references. Consequently, I have only chosen a handful of references, for my talks, that I have absolutely used in the preparation of my lectures. I apologize to all whose works I have not been able to mention in my talks or references that I have not been able to list.
2. Historical D e v e l o p m e n t Let me begin with some introduction to the historical development of the subject. Let us begin with the simple, working definition of an integrable model as a physical system that is described by nonlinear partial differential equations, which can be exactly solved. We will make the definition more precise as we go along. There are quite a few systems of equations of this kind that arise in various physical theories. For example, in 0 + 1 dimensions, the Toda lattice is described by the set of equations
179
180
Qi =Pi ,
i=
px
-
PN
=
pa
= e - « . - < 3 . - i ) _ e-(Qa+i-Qa) ^
l,2,...,N
_e-«?2-Qi)
(1)
e-(QN-QN-i) a
= 2 , 3 , . . . , iV - 1
and consists of a chain of N particles on a one dimensional lattice at the coordinates Qi, with P$ representing the conjugate momenta. In 1 + 1 dimensions, similarly, there is the celebrated KdV equation described by du(x,t) dt
du d3u dx dx3
_
.
where u, for example, may describe the height of a water wave from the normal surface. The variables of the KdV equation can be scaled to have arbitrary coefficients in front of all the terms. As a consequence, another form in which the KdV equation is also known corresponds to du
„ du =6u
M
d3u
,„.
+
(3)
dX- W-
In 1 + 1 dimensions, there is also the non-linear Schrodinger equation described by dip(x,t) -
d2ip -
n
, ,,„ , (4)
where K is a constant measuring the strength of the nonlinear interaction and can be both positive or negative corresponding to an attractive or repulsive interaction. There are several other integrable systems in 1 + 1 dimensions, but these two are the ones that have been widely studied. There are fewer integrable systems in 2 + 1 dimensions, which include the Kadomtsev-Petviashvelli (KP) equations and the Davey-Stewartson (DS) equations. One of the most important features that all integrable models have is that they possess soliton solutions to the equations of motion. Solitons are defined as localized, non-dispersive solutions that maintain their shape even after being scattered. Historically, of course, research in this area grew out of J. Scott Russel's observation, in 1834, of a solitary wave travelling for miles maintaining its shape. It was only in 1895 that Korteweg and de Vries gave a mathematical description of such shallow water waves, which is known as. the KdV equation. Being nonlinear and difficult to solve, these equations, however, did not
181
generate a lot of interest. In 1965, Kruskal and Zabusky undertook a "computer" experiment, namely, they wanted to numerically study the evolution of the solutions of the KdV equation. What they found was impressive, namely, when certain solutions of the KdV equation were scattered off each other, they maintained their shape even after going through the scattering region. Kruskal coined the term "solitons" for such solutions in 1969 and the presence of such solutions generated an enormous interest in such systems from then on. 2.1. Non-Dispersive
Solutions
Most physical linear equations have dispersive solutions and the presence of non-dispersive solutions in such systems is quite interesting. To appreciate the origin of such solutions and to see their relation to the nonlinear interactions of the theory, let us analyze the KdV equation, du _
d3u
du
As we have noted, such a system describes shallow water waves, where we can think of u(x, t) as representing the height of the water wave from the normal surface of water. The first term on the right hand side represents the nonlinear term. Let us, for a moment, look at the KdV equation without the nonlinear term, namely, du
=
d3u
(6)
m w-
It is easy to write down the dispersion relation following from this equation, E(k) = k3 .
(7)
This immediately tells us that the phase and the group velocities, associated with a wave packet, in this case, are different, namely, ^phase —
,
— "-
j
^group —
,.
— ""•
-
\°J
Thus, we see that if the KdV equation contained only the linear term on the right hand side, solutions will disperse. On the other hand, let us next assume that the KdV equation does not contain the linear term on the right hand side, namely, du
du
u
m= Tx-
(9)
This is also known as the Riemann equation. This can be solved by the method of characteristics and the solution has the general form u{x,t) = f(x + ut)
(10)
182
which is quite interesting, for it says that the velocity of propagation is directly proportional to the height of the wave. Namely, the higher points of the wave will travel faster than those at a lower height. This is what leads to the breaking of waves etc. However, from our point of view, we see that this has a localizing effect, opposite of what the linear term leads to. The linear and the nonlinear terms, on the right hand side of the KdV equation, therefore, have opposing behavior and if they can balance each other exactly, then, we can have solutions that will travel without any dispersion. The presence of nonlinear interactions, therefore, is quite crucial to the existence of non-dispersive solutions. In the KdV equation, this indeed happens and we have non-dispersive solutions. For example, let us consider
,2 yfi
u{x,t) = 3usech -—(x + vt).
(11)
This gives -r- = - ov2 sech — (x + vt) tanh — (a; + vt) au . s l 4 y/v ,. , \/v . . u —— = — 9v2 sech ——(x + vt) tanh —— (a; + vt) ox 2 2 33
dx3
= - Zv 2 sech — (x + vt) tanh -— (x + vt) + 6v2 sech4 ¥— (x + vt) tanh ^— (x + vt) .
With trigonometric identities, it is easy to check now that du
du
d3u
dt
dx
dx3
holds so that this represents a solution of the KdV equation. From the form of the solution, it is clear that it maintains its shape as it travels (non-dispersive) and such a solution is known as a one soliton solution. One can also construct multi-soliton solutions through what is known as Backlund transformations, which I will not go into.
2.2. Conserved
Charges
Given the KdV equation, one can immediately construct three conserved charges, namely, it is easy to check that
183
Hi =
dxu dxu2
H2 = -
(12)
are conserved under the evolution of the KdV equation. Several people had also constructed up to 13 conserved charges for the system when Kruskal conjectured that the KdV system has an infinite number of functionally independent conserved charges. This was subsequently proved and the conserved charges constructed through the Miura transformation (as well as through the method of inverse scattering). However, in retrospect, the presence of an infinite number of conserved charges associated with a system possessing soliton solutions is intuitively quite clear. As we have noted, solitons scatter through each other maintaining their shape. This implies that there must be conservation laws which prevents the solution from deformations. Since the soliton is an extended solution, there must, therefore, be an infinity of such conservation laws for the solution to maintain its shape through collisions. The important thing is that such a system has an infinite number of conserved charges, which also means that the system is integrable.
2.3. Bi-Hamiltonian
Structure
Integrable systems are Hamiltonian systems. For example, in the case of the KdV equation, we note that if we define {u(x),u(y)}1
= 85{x - y) = — 6(x - y)
(13)
then, the KdV equation can be written in the Hamiltonian form as du
. . , „ ,
d (I
H
d2u\
2
d3u
du
u
M=^ ^ = ^x{r+w)= irx + w-
(14)
However, what is even more interesting is the fact that the same set of equations can also be written in the Hamiltonian form if we define
Mx)My)h =(^
+\(^
+ « £ ) ) *(* - v)
(is)
so that du . . . - ={ u { x
. , H
TT )
2 h
/ d3 = ^
+
I ( d -(-u
+
d\\ u-^u
du = u-
+
d3u — .
(16)
184
Namely, the KdV equation is Hamiltonian with respect to at least two distinct Hamiltonian structures. Representing the two Hamiltonian structures as (operators acting on delta function) Vx
=d
1 (17) o we note that the first structure is what is normally called the Abelian current algebra, while the second structure is known as the Virasoro algebra. As a result, we do not have to worry about these structures satisfying the Jacobi identity, which they do. This is another general feature of integrable models, namely, the Hamiltonian structures of integrable models are generally associated with symmetry algebras. In fact, some of the nonlinear algebras, such as the W algebras, were studied from the point of view of integrable models. Looking at the structure of the two Hamiltonian structures of the KdV equation, it is clear that not only does this system have two distinct Hamiltonian structures, but that that
V2 = d3 + - (du + ud)
V = V2 + aVx
(18)
also represents a genuine Hamiltonian structure (not necessarily of the system). This is a nontrivial statement, considering that a structure must satisfy the Jacobi identity - a nontrivial relation - in order to qualify as a Hamiltonian structure. In this case, it follows from the fact that T>2 is a genuine Hamiltonian structure for any variable u and that 3 V2(u + -a) = V2{u) + aVx . (19) When two Hamiltonian structures have such a relation (namely, if two structures are Hamiltonian, then, a linear combination of the two is also), they are said to be compatible. When a Hamiltonian system can be described by two distinct Hamiltonian structures that are compatible, the system is said to be a bi-Hamiltonian system. The existence of two Hamiltonian descriptions for the same equation, of course, implies that du
m
5H2
^
SH3
This is a prototype of the recursion relation that exists between conserved charges in such systems. One can define a recursion operator 1l = Vl-lV2
(21)
185
which will relate the successive conserved charges as
—f±L =n—^.
22)
ou ou Furthermore, if the two Hamiltonian structures are compatible, one can further show that these conserved charges are also in involution with respect to either of the Hamiltonian structures, thereby proving that the system is integrable. The phase space geometry of integrable systems is quite interesting. These are, of course, symplectic manifolds, but because there are at least two distinct Hamiltonian structures (symplectic structures), these are very special symplectic manifolds. Let us call the two symplectic structures as u\ and u^. Then, on this manifold, one can naturally define a nontrivial (1,1) tensor as S = wf 1 w 2 •
(23)
The evolution of this equation can be thought of as the Lax equation and, therefore, this gives a geometrical meaning to the Lax equation. Furthermore, one can show that if the Nijenhuis torsion tensor, associated with this (1,1) tensor, vanishes, then, the conserved charges will be in involution. Consequently, the vanishing of the Nijenhuis torsion tensor can be thought of as a sufficient condition for integrability in this geometrical description. Let me also note here that since the KdV system has an infinite number of conserved quantities Hn, n — 1,2,..., each of this can be thought of as a Hamiltonian and will lead to a flow as
£=*^-*£-
M
<>
Thus, with every integrable system is a hierarchy of flows and these represent the higher order flows of the system. The entire hierarchy of flows shares the same infinite set of conserved quantities and are integrable. 2.4. Initial
Value
Problem
An interesting question, in connection with these nonlinear integrable systems, is how can one solve the initial value problem. Namely, given the initial values of the dynamical variables, in such systems, how does one determine their values at any later time. In linear systems, we are familiar with techniques such as the Fourier transformation or the Laplace transformation, which help by transforming differential equations into algebraic ones. However, these methods are not very useful in dealing with nonlinear equations. The method that is useful (and, therefore, which can be thought of as the analog of the Fourier transformation in the case of nonlinear equations) is the method of inverse scattering. Let me explain this in some detail.
186
Let us consider the linear Schrodinger equation (&> + ±u(x,t)>)il> =
ty
(25)
where d stands for -^ and u(x,t) is the dynamical variable of the KdV equation. Here t is just a parameter that the potential in the Schrodinger equation depends on and not the evolution parameter of the Schrodinger equation. Since the potential u(x,t) depends on the parameter t, it follows that both ip and A will depend on t as well. However, what Gardner, Greene, Kruskal and Miura observed was that, if u(x,t) satisfied the KdV equation, then, the eigenvalues, A, were independent of t, namely, the evolution is isospectral in such a case, or, At = 0 .
(26)
Furthermore, in such a case, the dependence of tp on t is very simple, namely, V* = - (QUX+CA
rp+ U A + - u J V* •
(27)
In such case, the evolution of the scattering data, such as the reflection coefficient, the transmission coefficient etc, with t is easy to determine and, in fact, take a simple form. Thus, the strategy for solving the initial value problem can be taken as follows. Let us choose the linear Schrodinger equation with the potential u(x,0) and determine the scattering data. Next determine the scattering data at an arbitrary value of t from the simple evolution of the scattering data. Once we have the scattering data for an arbitrary t, we can ask what is the potential, u(x,t), which would give rise to those scattering data. This is essentially the method of inverse scattering. The reconstruction of the potential from the scattering data is done through the Gel'fand-LevitanMarchenko equation, fOO
K(x,y)
+ B(x,y) +
dz K{x,z)B(y
+ z) = 0 ,
y >x
(28)
JX
where i
N
/-oo
B{x) = — /
27r /
dk R(k) eikx + Y
•—
cne-K"x
.
(29)
tl
Here, R is the coefficient of reflection, /t n 's represent the eigenvalues for the bound states and c n 's correspond to the normalization constants for the bound state wave functions. Once the solution of the Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko equation is known, the potential is determined from
187
Let us see explicitly how the method works, in an example. However, let me also note that, while one can, in principle, find a solution to the GLM equation, in practice it may be difficult unless the starting potential were very special. One such class of potentials are solitonic potentials which are known to be reflectionless. In such a case, R =0
(31)
and this makes calculations much simpler. Let us, therefore, consider u(x, 0) = 12 seen2a; .
(32)
We recognize, from our earlier discussion, that this is the one soliton solution of the KdV equation. Such a potential leads to no reflection. It supports only one bound state, for which K= 1,
ip(x,0) = - s e c h x .
(33)
dxi>2(x,0yj
(34)
Therefore, we obtain c(0)=(f
=2.
From the equation for the "time" evolution of the wave function, it is easy to determine that c(t) = c ( 0 ) e - 8 ' = 2 e - 8 t
(35)
so that we have B(x, t) = c(t) e~x = 2 e-8t~x
.
(36)
In this case, the GLM equation becomes, K(x, y,t)+2
e-8t~x-y
dz K(x, z, t) e-u-v~z
+2 /
=0.
(37)
Jx
This determines 2e
K(x,y,t) =
-8t-x-y
1 + e -8t-2x
u(x,t) = 12 dK{P>x) = 12sech2(x + At) . (38) ox This is, of course, the solution that we had determined earlier (corresponding to a specific choice of v) and this explains how the method of inverse scattering works. (It is worth noting here that the inverse scattering method was also independently used by Faddeev and Zakharov to solve the KdV equation.) or,
188
2.5. The Lax
Equation
In some sense, the Lax equation is a formal generalization of the ideas of Gardener, Greene, Kruskal and Miura. Let us consider a linear operator, L(i) that depends on a parameter t through the potential. Let us assume the eigenvalue equation L(t)i/> = \il>
(39)
along with the evolution of the wave function
where B represents an anti-symmetric operator. It follows now that dL(t) , T, ,dip , , sdip
or,
— V + LBrp = \ttp + XBtp = A(V + BLtp at
or,
— ^ = [B,L]0 + A ^ .
(41)
It follows, therefore, that At = 0
(42)
provided % = IB,L).
(43)
This is known as the Lax equation and L, B are called the Lax pair. What this equation says is that the evolution of the linear equation with respect to the parameter t will be isospectral, provided the Lax equation is satisfied (A is commonly referred to as the spectral parameter.). Furthermore, if a Lax pair is found such that the Lax equation yields a given nonlinear equation, then, this says that one can associate a linear Schrodinger equation with it and the method of inverse scattering can be carried out for this system leading to the integrability of the nonlinear system. This is the power of the Lax equation and, as we have mentioned earlier, the geometrical meaning of the Lax equation is that it represents the evolution of a special (1,1) tensor in the phase space (symplectic manifold) of the system. As an example, let us analyze the KdV equation in some detail. Let us note that if we choose,
L(t) =d2 + lu(x,t) 1 B(t) - 4d3 + - (du + ud)
(44)
189 then, with some straight forward computation, we can determine that
[B,L] =
1 6
du
d3u\
dx
dx3J
(45)
so that the Lax equation
d
-k = ™
leads to 1 du
du
d3u\
6 at
dx
dx3J
du d3u (46) dx dx3 We recognize this to be the KdV equation and, having a Lax representation for the equation, then, immediately determines the linear Schrodinger equation associated with it, which we have described earlier, in connection with the method of inverse scattering. This is, however, a general procedure that applies to any integrable model and that is why the Lax equation plays an important role in the study of integrable systems.
du
2.6. Zero Curvature
Formalism
There is an alternate method of representing integrable systems, which brings out some other properties associated with the system quite nicely. Let us continue with the example of the KdV equation and consider the following vector potentials
(l
-c
--c n
A0 =
O
^xx
s» c -f c * \ ' Ox
A, =
VA
c
(47)
Vx
There are several things to note here. First, C = C[u, A] and that the vector potentials belong to the Lie algebra of SL(2, R), namely, Ao, A\ £ SL(2, R). The curvature (field strength) associated with these potentials can be easily calculated and one recognizes that the vanishing of the curvature yields the equations associated with the KdV hierarchy. This is seen as follows. Foi = d0A! - dA0 - [Ao, Ax] = 0
(48)
190
gives ut = Cxxx + ^ (Ou + ud) C - 4XCX .
(49)
For A = 0 and C — u, this coincides with the KdV equation. In general, we can expand in a power series of the form N
C=Y/(W~nCn[u}.
(50)
Substituting this into the equation and matching the corresponding powers of (4A), we obtain C0 = l d3 + ^(du + ud)\Cn=dCn+1
,
n = 0,l,2,...,JV-l
(51)
ut = (d3 + | (du + ud)\ CN . We recognize these as giving the recursion relation between the conserved charges (which we have discussed earlier) as well as the N th equation of the hierarchy. This is known as the zero curvature representation of the integrable system and brings out the recursion relation between the conserved charges, the current algebra etc quite nicely. 2.7. Drinfeld-Sokolov
Formalism
Thus, we see that an integrable model can be represented as a scalar Lax equation as well as a matrix zero curvature condition. The natural question that arises is whether there is any connection between the two. To analyze this question, let us note that the scalar Lax equation for KdV is described by the Lax pair which leads to the linear equations
Li> = (d2 + I u ) V = A^ V
6
^
(52)
= BV = Ud3 + ^ (du + ud)\ The scalar Lax equation can be thought of as the compatibility condition for these two equations when the spectral parameter is independent of t. We note that, while the second equation may appear to be third order in the derivatives, with the use of the Schrodinger equation, the higher order derivatives can, in fact, be reduced. As a result, this pair of equations appears to be at the most quadratic in the derivatives.
191
We know that a second order equation can be written in terms of two first order equations. Keeping this in mind, let us define Ifc = W )
(53)
as well as a two component column matrix wavefunction
•
=
(
$
)
•
< « >
It is clear now that the linear Schrodinger equation 14 = (d2 + ^u\ i/> = \ip can be written in the matrix form as 0
*--»,.,.
(55)
Similarly, the time evolution equation (depending on B) can also be written as a matrix equation of the form ft* - A0
(56)
The compatibility of these two matrix linear equations leads to the zero curvature condition dtA1-dxAo-[Ao,A1]=0.
(57)
These potentials, however, do not resemble the potentials that we studied earlier. However, it is easy to check that the two sets of potentials are related by a global (A is a constant independent of t) similarity transformation. For example, note that
i
) '
(58)
This, therefore, establishes the connection between the two formalisms and tells us how to go from one to the other or vice versa. 3. Pseudo-Differential Operators With the basics of the previous section, we are now ready to discuss some of the integrable models in some detail. The first thing that we note is that the Lax formalism and the Lax pair is quite crucial in the study of integrable models. However, finding a Lax pair, for a given integrable model, seems like a formidable task. This is where the Gel'fand-Dikii formalism comes to rescue.
192
Let us consider a general operator of the form P = J T (H di
(59)
i
where d = -Q- ,
a. = a,i(x) .
(60)
If i > 0, namely, if the operator P only contains non-negative powers of d, then, it is a differential operator (i = 0 term is a multiplicative operator) On the other hand, if i takes also negative values, then, the operator P is known as a pseudo-differential operator (Formally, d~x is denned from dd~x = 1 = d~1d). There are some standard nomenclature in using pseudo-differential operators. Thus, for example, P+ = ( Y^ Oi & )
= • • • + °i 9 + a0
(61)
/ i>0
\ *
and, correspondingly, P- = (^aiz,^) V »
= a1d-1+a2d-2+
••• .
(62)
/ j
By construction, therefore, we have P = P+ + P- .
(63)
We can also define, in a corresponding manner,
(p)>* = ( E a ^ J
(64)
V i J i>k Let us now note the standard properties of the derivative operator, namely, Qigj _ gi+j
91
(65)
f =E(I)/ ( * ) « < -
which holds true for any i, j , positive or negative, where 'i\_ k
i(i-l)(i-2)---(i-k
+ l) k\
1 VO '
1
(66)
and /(*) denotes the k th derivative of the function / . It is worth noting here from the above formulae that positive powers of the derivative operator acting to the right cannot give rise to negative powers of the derivative and vice versa.
193
Using these properties of the derivative operators, we note that we can define a multiplication of pseudo-differential operators. The product of two pseudo-differential operators defines a pseudo-differential operator and they define an algebra. We can define a residue of a pseudo-differential operator to be the coefficient of d _ 1 , in analogy with the standard residue, namely, Residue
P = Res
P = a_i(a;) .
(67)
This allows us to define a concept called the trace of a pseudo-differential operator as Trace
P = Tr
P = j dxRes
P=
J dxa-X(x)
.
(68)
Let us note that, given two pseudo-differential operators, P,P', Res
[P,P'] = (df(x))
.
(69)
In other words, the residue of the commutator of any two arbitrary pseudodifferential operators is a total derivative. This, therefore, immediately leads to the fact that Tr
PP' = Tr
P'P
(70)
since the "trace" of the commutator would vanish with the usual assumptions on asymptotic fall off of variables. This shows that the "Trace" defined earlier satisfies the usual cyclicity properties and justifies the name. Let us also note that, given a pseudo-differential operator
p = Y,aidi
( 71 )
i
we can define a dual operator as
Q = J29~iq-i
(72)
i
where, the qt's are independent of the a^'s. This allows us to define a linear functional of the form FQ(P) = Tr
PQ=
fdxj^ai •*
(73)
i
The Lax operators, as we have seen earlier in the case of the KdV equation, have the form of differential operators. However, in general, they can be pseudo-differential operators. Thus, there exist two classes of Lax operators. Operators of the form Ln = dn + u1dn-1+u2dn-2+
••• +un
(74)
194
are differential operators and lead to a description of integrable models called the generalized KdV hierarchy. On the other hand, Lax operators of the form A„ = dn + u j d " - 1 + . . . + « „ + un+1d~l
+
(75)
correspond to pseudo-differential operators and lead to a description of integrable models, commonly called the generalized KP hierarchy. Let us consider the Lax operator for the generalized KdV hierarchy, for the moment. Thus, Ln = dn +
n
Uld
+ •• •
(76)
+uh
We can now formally define the n th root of this operator as a general pseudodifferential operator of the form (77) i=0
such that (78)
I Ln J — Ln .
This allows us to determine all the coefficient functions, ai(x), iteratively and, therefore, the n th root of the Lax operator. Let us next note that, since -n 1 J n ) Ln = 0
(79)
for any k, it follows that 9Ln dtk
[Ln 1 , Ln
— — [Ln J , Ln
k ^ mn
(80)
defines a consistent Lax equation. This can be seen as follows. First, if k = mn, then, (i|)
=(L-)+=L-
and, therefore, the commutator will vanish and we will not have a meaningful dynamical equation. For k ^ mn, we note, from the structure of the first commutator, that it will, in general, involve powers of the derivative of the forms gn+k-l
gn+k-2 ^
;(90
On the other hand, the terms in the second commutator will, in general, have powers of the derivative of the forms n 6 an- 2, d an—3 ~,
do nn - 4
195
However, if the two expressions have to be equal, then, they can only have nontrivial powers of the derivative of the forms dn-2dn-3^
^ QO
This is precisely the structure of the Lax operator (except for the term with dn~l), which says that the above equation represents a consistent Lax equation. This equation also will imply that du\
~5t
= 0
which is why, often, this constant is set to zero (as is the case in, say, the KdV equation). This result is very interesting, for once we have a Lax operator, the other member of the pair can now be identified with Bk = ( i | )
(81)
+
up to a multiplicative constant. Such a Lax representation of a dynamical system is known as the standard representation. Furthermore, we note that the Lax equation also implies that (82)
(L|)+> dtk It is straight forward to show, using this, that dtkdtmLn
= dtmdtkLn
.
(83)
Namely, different flows commute. This is equivalent to saying that the different Hamiltonians corresponding to the different flows are in involution. Therefore, if we have the right number of conserved charges, the system is integrable. The construction of the conserved charges, therefore, is crucial in this approach. However, we note from
-g^-[{^)+,LR
(84)
that d
i
(Ll)
(85) — Tr LZ = T r + T" = 0 dtk which follows from the cyclicity of the "trace". Therefore, we can identify the conserved quantities of the system (up to multiplicative factors) with Hm = — Tr
(L%
\ ,
m^ln
.
(86)
This naturally gives the infinite number of conserved charges of the system, which, as we have shown before, are in involution. Therefore, in this description, integrability is more or less automatic.
196
3.1. Hamiltonian
Structures
In the Lax formalism, we can also determine the Hamiltonian structures of the system in a natural manner. These are known in the subject as the Gel'fandDikii brackets and they are determined from the observation that the Lax equation looks very much like Hamilton's equation, with (L„ I playing the role of the Hamiltonian and the commutator substituting for the Hamiltonian structure. Analyzing this further, one ends up with two definitions of Gel'fandDikii brackets, which give rise to the two Hamiltonian structures of the system. With the notation of the linear functional defined earlier, they can be written as {FQ(Ln),Fv(Ln)}1=Ti {FQ(Ln),Fv(Ln)}2
(Ln[V,Q}) = Tr
(LnQ (LnV)+
- QLn (VLn)+)
.
The second bracket is particularly tricky if the Lax operator has a constrained structure and the modifications, in such a case, are well known and I will not get into that. It is worth noting that these brackets are, by definition, anti-symmetric as a Hamiltonian structure should be. While the first bracket is manifestly anti-symmetric, the second is not. However, it is easy to see that the second is also anti-symmetric in the following way {FQ(Ln),Fv(Ln)}
=
= Tr
(LnQ (LnV)+
= Tr
{LnQLnV
= Tr
( - (LnQ)+ (-LnV)_
= Tr
( - (LnQ)+ LnV + (QLn)+
= -Tr = -{Fv(Ln),FQ(Ln)}
- QLn
(VLn)+)
- LnQ (LnV)_
- QLnVLn
+ (QLn)+
+ QLn
(VLn)_)
(VLn)_)
VLn)
{LnV(LnQ)+-VLn(QLn)+) .
(88)
Thus, the two brackets indeed satisfy the necessary ant-symmetry property of Hamiltonian structures. Furthermore, it can also be shown (I will not go into the details) that these brackets satisfy Jacobi identity as well and, therefore, constitute two Hamiltonian structures of the system. Without going into details, I would like to make some general remarks about the Lax operators of the KP type. Let us consider a Lax operator of the type A n = dn + Uldn~l + ••• +un+
un+1 d~l+
••• .
(89)
197
This is a pseudo-differential operator, unlike the earlier case, and, as we have already remarked, such Lax operators describe generalized KP hierarchies. In this case, it can be shown that a Lax equation of the form
dAn dtk
(A*) V
, An
(90)
/ >m
is consistent, only for m = 0,1,2. This is, therefore, different from the generalized KdV hierarchy that we have already studied. For m = 0, the Lax equation is called, as before, a standard representation, while for m = 1,2, it is known as a non-standard representation. All the ideas that we had developed for the standard representation go through for the non-standard representation as well and we will return to such an example later. 3.2.
Example
As an application of these ideas, let us analyze some of the integrable models from this point of view. First, let us consider the KdV hierarchy. In this case, we have already seen that L = L2 = d2 + \u . (91) o As we had noted earlier, we note that the coefficient of the linear power of d has been set to zero (which is consistent with the Lax equation). In this case, we can determine the square root of the Lax operator, following the method described earlier, and it has the form, L\
+ - L ^ " 1 - ±uxd~2
= d
+ 1 (tiM - ^
d-3 + • • • .s
(92)
It is easy to check that the square of this operator leads to L up to the particular order of terms. In this case, we have
(iJ)+-
a
(93)
which gives dL \=[(Ll)+1L]=[e,L] dt du OT
'
du (94)
Wr = & •
This is the chiral boson equation and is known to be the lowest order equation of the KdV hierarchy. Let us also note that (it)
-
(LL*)
=d3 + \ud + ^ux =d3 + ^(du + xtd) =
\ B
(95)
198 where B is the second member of the Lax pair for the KdV equation that we had talked about earlier. It is clear, therefore, that
("I-
(96) L + will lead to the KdV equation. Similarly, one can derive the higher order equations of the KdV hierarchy from the higher fractional powers of the Lax operator. We note from the structure of the square root of L that ^ = 4
at
Tr
Li = -!- f dxu(x) .
(97)
Similarly,
^=Jdx\^{uxx-\u2)+^-u2
Tr
72
= ^jdxu2(x).
(98)
Up to multiplicative constants, these are the first two conserved quantities of the KdV hierarchy and the higher order ones can be obtained similarly from the "trace" of higher fractional powers of the Lax operator. Prom the form of the Lax operator, in this case, L = d2 + \u o we note that we can define the dual operators Q = d-2q2 + d^q-i ,
V = d~2v2 + 0 - 1 wi •
(99)
Here qt and Vi are supposed to be independent of the dynamical variable u, so that the linear functionals take the forms FQ{L) = Tr
LQ=-
j dxuqi ,
FV{L) = -
dxuvx .
(100)
s case, we can work out {FQ{L),FV{L)}1
= ^ j dxdyq1{x)v1(y){u(x)My)h
•
(101)
On the other hand, Tr
L[V,Q}=
dx (qiVitX - qi,xvx) = - 2 /
dxqi^vi
(102)
Thus, comparing the two expressions, we obtain {u(x),u(y)}1
= 72 —S(x-y).
(103)
199
We recognize this to be the correct first Hamiltonian structure for the KdV equation (except for a multiplicative factor). The derivation of the second Hamiltonian structure is slightly more involved since the structure of the KdV Lax operator has a constrained structure (the linear power of d is missing). However, the construction through the Gel'fand-Dikii brackets, keeping this in mind, can be carried through and gives the correct second Hamiltonian structure for the theory. Let me note in closing this section that the generalization of the method of inverse scattering as well as the generalization of the Lax formalism (or the Gel'fand-Dikii formalism) to higher dimensions is not as well understood and remain open questions.
4. Two Boson Hierarchy In this section, I will describe another integrable system in 1 + 1 dimensions, which is very interesting. The study of this system is of fundamental importance, since this system can reduce to many others under appropriate limit/reduction. It is described in terms of two dynamical variables and has the form — = {2h + u* — = (2uh + ahx)x
-aux) .
Here a is an arbitrary constant parameter and we can think of h as describing the height of a water wave from the surface, while u describes the horizontal velocity of the wave. This equation, therefore, describes general shallow water waves. This system of equations is integrable and, as we have mentioned, reduces to many other integrable systems under appropriate limit/reduction. To name a few, let us note that, when the parameter a = 0, this system reduces to Benney's equations, which also represents the standard, dispersionless long water wave equation. For a = — 1 and h = 0, this gives us the Burger's equation. When a = 1 and we identify u —
Qx
,
h = qq
q we obtain the non-linear Schrodinger equation from the two boson equations. Similarly, both the KdV and the mKdV equations are contained in this system as higher order flows. Thus, the study of this system is interesting because once we understand this system, properties of all these systems are also known.
200
Conventionally, the two boson equation is represented with the identifications a = 1,
u = Jo ,
h = Ji
(105)
which is the notation we will follow in the subsequent discussions. In these notations, therefore, the two boson equations take the form -—— = (2Ji + JQ - Jo,x)x * ^ l = (2J0J1 + J1,x)x .
(106)
Being integrable, this system of equations can be described by a Lax equation. Let us consider the Lax operator L = d-J0
+ d-1J1
(107)
so that it is a pseudo-differential operator. Let us note that, for this operator, {L2)>1=d2-2J0d ( z , 3 ) ^ = a 3 - 3 j 0 a 2 + 3(Ji + jg -
(108) j0,x)d
and so on. It is now straight forward to compute and show that L, ( L 2 ) ^ ] = - (2Ji + J02 - Jo, x ) x + d-1 (2J 0 Jj + JltX)
.
(109)
It is, therefore, clear that the non-standard Lax equation
# = [* •<*%,]
<"°>
gives as consistent equations the two boson equations. The higher order flows of the two boson (TB) hierarchy can be obtained from
£-[*.<*%]•
(I11)
Of particular interest to us is the next higher order equation coming from dL dt3
.(£3)>J •
(H2)
These have the forms — Jo,xxx — 3 (JQJO,X)X ~ 6 (JoJi)x — (Jo) dt dJx "ST dt = - (*,** + 3 (JoJi)x + 3 {Ji{Ji + Ji - Jo,x)))a
(113)
201
This equation is interesting, for we note that if we set J 0 = 0 and identify J\ = | u , the equations reduce to the KdV equation. That is, as we had mentioned earlier, the KdV equation is contained in the higher flows of the TB hierarchy. Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that this provides a nonstandard representation of the KdV equation, unlike the earlier example where it was described by a standard Lax equation. Given the Lax representation, the conserved charges are easily constructed by the standard procedure from Ln
(114)
Hi = Tr
L=
H2=Tr
L2 = f dxJoJir
(115)
H3 = Tr
L3 = f dx (J? - J 0 ,»Ji +
# „ = Tr so that we have f
dxh
Jitf)
and so on. It is clear that if we set J 0 = 0 and identify Ji = | u all the even conserved charges vanish and the odd ones coincide with the conserved charges of the KdV equation. 4.1. Hamiltonian
Structures
Let us denote the generic Hamiltonian structure associated with this system as
({Jo,Jo}
{Jo,Ji}\
Then, it can be shown that the TB equation has three Hamiltonian structures. But, let me only point out the first two here.
v2 =
2d Jod + d2
a Jo - d2 \ dJx + Jid,
so that we can write the two boson equations as
202
fSH2\ SJo = Vo SH2
(118)
It is now easily checked that, under Jo —> Jo + a, where a is an arbitrary constant, D 2 ->• V2 + aT>i
(119)
which proves that these two Hamiltonian structures are compatible and that the system is integrable (which we already know from the Lax description of the system). Normally, the second Hamiltonian structure of an integrable system is related to some symmetry algebra. To see this connection, in this case, let us redefine (this is also known as changing the basis) 1 (120) J(x) = J0(x) , T(x) = Ji - -Jo,x(x) In terms of these new variables, the second Hamiltonian structure takes the form {J(x),J(y)}2
=
{T(x),J(y)}2
=
2dxS(x-y) J(x)dx6(x-y)
(121)
{T(x), T(y)}2 = (T(x) + T(y)) dj(x
-y) + \ d3J(x - y)
We recognize this as the Virasoro-Kac-Moody algebra, which is the bosonic limit of the twisted N = 2 superconformal algebra. 4.2. Non-linear
Schrodinger
Equation
Since the TB system reduces to the non-linear Schrodinger equation, we can also find a Lax description for that system from the present one. We note that with the identification ,
Jo
J\
-qq
(122)
the Lax operator for the TB system becomes, L = d- j 0 + a _ 1 J i ^d+^+d-'qq = q-1(d =
+
GLG-1
qd-1q)q (123)
203
where we have defined G = q~1 ,
L = d + qd-^q .
(124)
Namely, the two Lax operators L and L are related by a gauge transformation. The adjoint of this transformed Lax operator is determined to be C = D = - (d + qd-1q) .
(125)
It is straightforward to check that both the standard Lax equations
f=N*)+]
<•*>
f -[(*)••*]
< 127 >
and
give rise to the non-linear Schrodinger equation. (However, supersymmetry seems to prefer the second representation.) Furthermore, if we identify q=q=u
(128)
then, the standard Lax equations 8L dt
(129)
and DC give the mKdV equation. Thus, we see that the TB system is indeed a rich theory to study. 5. Supersymmetric Equations Given a supersymmetric integrable system, we can ask if there also exist supersymmetric integrable systems corresponding to it. It turns out to be a difficult question in the sense that the supersymmetrization turns out not to be unique and we do not yet fully understand how to classify all possible supersymmetrizations of such systems. Let me explain this with an example. Let us consider the KdV equation du — = Quux + uxxx at
.
204
Then, a supersymmetric generalization of this system that is also integrable is given by — = 6uux + uxxx - Sipipxx
Z
(13l)
— = 3 (uip)x + ipxxx . Here ip represents the fermionic superpartner of the bosonic dynamical variable u of the KdV equation. It is easy to check that these equations remain invariant under the supersymmetry transformations, 8tjj = eu ,
Su = et/jx
(132)
where e is a constant Grassmann parameter (fermionic parameter) of the transformation, satisfying e2 = 0. We can, of course, determine the supersymmetry charge (generator of supersymmetry) associated with this system and it can be shown that the supersymmetry algebra satisfied by this charge is [Q,Q]+ = 2P.
(133)
This can also be checked by taking two successive supersymmetry transformations in opposite order and adding them. There are several things to note from this system. First, the second Hamiltonian structure associated with this system, T>2, is the superconformal algebra, which is the supersymmetrization of the Virasoro algebra. Second, just as this represents a J V = l supersymmetric extension of the KdV equation, there also exists a second N = 1 supersymmetric extension, c\, — OUUx "r Uxxx
Z
,
(m)
— = 6uipx + tpxxx which is integrable. This second supersymmetric extension was originally discarded as being a "trivial" supersymmetrization, since the bosonic equations do not change in the presence of fermions. However, it generated a lot of interest after it was realized that it is this equation that arises in a study of superstring theory from the point of view of matrix models. Such a supersymmetric extension now has the name -B supersymmetrization. Thus, we see that even at the level of N — 1 supersymmetrization, there is no unique extension of the integrable model. The problem becomes more and more severe as we go to higher supersymmetrizations. For N = 2, it is known that there are at least four distinct "nontrivial" supersymmetrizations of the KdV equation that are
205
integrable. Understanding how many distinct supersymmetrizations are possible for a given integrable equation, therefore, remains an open question. In addition, there are also fermionic extensions of a given integrable model (not necessarily supersymmetric) that are also integrable and there does not exist any unified description of them yet. 5.1. Lax
Description
Since the supersymmetric KdV equation (super KdV) is an integrable system, let us determine a Lax description for it. The simplest way to look for a Lax description is to work on a superspace, which is the natural manifold to study supersymmetric systems. Let us consider a simple superspace parameterized by (x, 6), a single bosonic coordinate x and a single real fermionic coordinate 6, satisfying 92 = 0. Supersymmetry, then, can be shown to correspond to a translation, in this space, of the fermionic coordinate 0. On this space, one can define a covariant derivative
c
= l + "|:
<135>
which transforms covariantly under a supersymmetry transformation and can be seen to satisfy D2 = d . (136) On the superspace, a function is called a superfield and, since the fermionic coordinate is nilpotent, has a simple representation of the form (in the present case) $(x,6>) = V(a;) + 0u(x) .
(137)
The Grassmann parity of the components is completely determined by the parity of the superfield. For our discussion of the super KdV system, let us choose the superfield $ to be fermionic so that we can think of it as the bosonic dynamical variable of the KdV equation and x[> as its fermionic superpartner. In terms of this superfield, the super KdV equations can be combined into one single equation of the form ^
= (I> 6 $) + 3 {D2 (*(£>*))) .
(138)
It is now easy to check that if we choose, as Lax operator on this superspace, L = D* + D$
(139)
(if)+.
(140)
then, the Lax equation dL dt
206
gives the super KdV equation. The structure of this Lax operator and the Lax equation is, of course, such that they reduce to the KdV equation in the bosonic limit, which is nice. It is worth making a few remarks about operators on the superspace. First, a pseudo-differential operator on this space is defined with powers of D. Correspondingly, various decompositions are done with respect to powers of D. Thus, we define super Residue
P — sRes
P = coefficient of D"1 f
super Trace
P
= sTr
P =
(141) dx d6 sRes
P.
The conserved quantities, for the super KdV system, for example, are obtained as Hn = sTr
L^1
.
(142)
These are all bosonic conserved quantities and there is an infinite number of them. They all reduce to the infinite set of conserved charges of the bosonic integrable model in the bosonic limit. The Gel'fand-Dikii brackets can be generalized to this space as well and lead to the correct Hamiltonian structures of the theory. An interesting feature of the Lax description on a superspace is that the same integrable system can be described in terms of a Lax operator that is either bosonic or fermionic. Furthermore, in the supersymmetric models we can define non-local conserved charges from the Lax operator by taking, say, for example in the super KdV case, powers of quartic roots of the Lax operator. Finally, let me also point out that a supersymmetric -B system has fermionic Hamiltonians (conserved charges) with corresponding odd (fermionic) Hamiltonian structures. 5.2. Super TB
Hierarchy
As we have seen, the TB hierarchy consists of two dynamical variables, JQ,JXTherefore, the supersymmetrization of this system will involve two fermionic partners, say V'OiV'i- From our experience with the super KdV system, let us combine them into two fermionic superfields of the forms $o = ipo + 6Jo ,
$ i = ipi + 9Ji .
(143)
With a little bit of algebra, we can check that if we choose the Lax operator L = D2-(D$0)
+ D-1$1
(144)
then, we obtain (L2)>1=Di-2(D$0)D2-2$1D
(145)
207
which gives L,{L2)^]
{D{(D^o)-D(D^0)2-2(D2^)))
=
+ D'1 ((D 4 $i) + 2D2($1(D$Q)))
•
(146)
It is clear, therefore, that the Lax equation
leads to consistent equations and gives 9*o
= -(£> 4 $o) + 2(D$o)(£ 2 $o) + 2(£> 2 $i) (148) 4
2
^ . = (D $ 1 ) + 2 ( ^ ( $ i ( r > * o ) ) ) . The Lax operator as well as the Lax equation (and the equations following from it are easily seen to reduce to the TB equations in the bosonic limit. These, therefore, represent a supersymmetric extension of the TB hierarchy that is integrable. The higher order flows of the hierarchy are obtained from dL
L m dfk = [ >W»]-
^
Once we have the Lax description of the system, we can immediately construct the conserved charges from # n = sTr
Ln=
J cted0sR.es
Ln ,
n=l,2,3,....
(150)
Explicitly, we can construct the lower order conserved charges as
Hi = - Jdxde®! #2 = 2 / d x d 6 (£>$o)$i H3 = 3 f dxd6 ((£>3$o) - {D*i) - (D$0)2)
(151) $i
and so on. Thus, we see that the system has an infinite number conserved charges, which are in involution (follows from the Lax description) and, therefore, is integrable. 5.3. Hamiltonian
Structures
Just like the bosonic system, the super TB equations also possess three Hamiltonian structures, although they are not necessarily local unlike the structures in the bosonic case. Let me only describe the first two here. Defining, as in the bosonic case, a generic Hamiltonian structure as,
208
/{$0,$o} { $ 0 , $ i r
= VS(z - z') = VS(x - x')6(8 - 6')
(152)
V{*l,$o}{*l,*l}, we note that Vi =
-D
-D 0
(153)
as well as -2D - 2D~1$1D-1 + D-1(D2^o)D~1 Vo = -D3 - (D$0)D - D$i£>-
D3 - £>(D$o) + 2 > - 1 * i 2 ? \ - D 2 $ i - ^D2
J (154)
define the first two Hamiltonian structures of the super TB hierarchy. These structures have the necessary symmetry property and it can be checked using the method of prolongation that these structures satisfy the Jacobi identity. They give rise to super TB equation, say for example, through s 5 0 dt = v2 6$o (155) X>i 6H2
/a* \
f Jk\
( Jk\
\~dTJ Although it is not obvious, the second Hamiltonian structure corresponds to the twisted N = 2 superconformal algebra, which can be seen as follows. Let us look at the second Hamiltonian structure in the component variables. Let us define £=2^1.
f = - j j W'o.x-V'i) •
(156)
In terms of these variables, the nontrivial elements of the second Hamiltonian structure take the local form {Jo(x), J0(y)}2 = 2dx8{x - y) {J0(x), A (y)}2 = dx (J0S(x - y)) - d28(x - y) {Ji{x),Ji(y)h
{Mx),ay)h {Jo(x), i(y)}2 Ui(x), t(y)h {Ji(x),ay)h { £ » , ZMh
= (Ji{x) + Ji(y))dxS(x
- y)
=Z8(x-y) =-t8(x-y) = (^(x) + t(y))dx6(x - y) =ax)dx8(x-y) = ~JiS(x
-y) + \dx (J0S(x - y)) - \d2J{x - y).
(157)
209
We recognize this to be the N = 2 superconformal algebra. 5.4. N = 2
Supersymmetry
Although the super TB system that we have constructed, naively appears to have N = 1 supersymmetry, in fact, it does possess a, N = 2 supersymmetry. This is already suggested by the fact that the second Hamiltonian structure of this system corresponds to the N = 2 superconformal algebra. Explicitly, this can be checked as follows. Let us note that the super TB equations, in terms of the redefined components, take the forms ~H7~ = —Jo.xx + dt
2JQJQ x
+ 2J\
x
r\ j
(158)
QI -QJ: = £xx + 2 (£Jo)x
§ =S*x+2(U)x • It is now straight forward to check that this system of equations is invariant under the following two sets of supersymmetric transformations, 6J0 = 2e£ SJj, = 2e£x
S£
K
(159)
= 0 1 e (^o,i 2
—
^l)
and 6J0 =
2et
SJi = 0
k = -i« si = 0 . 5.5. Nonlocal
(160)
Charges
As we have already noted, in supersymmetric integrable systems, in addition to the local bosonic conserved charges, we also have nonlocal conserved charges. Let us study this a little within the context of the super TB hierarchy.
210
Let us recall that the Lax operator for the system is given by L = D2-(D$0)
+
D-1$1
and the infinite set of local, bosonic conserved charges are obtained as Ln ,
Hn=sTr
n=l,2,3,....
(161)
On the other hand, let us also note that in this system, we can also define a second infinite set of conserved charges as Q2n=i=sTr
L ^
,
n = l,2,3,....
(162)
2
There are several things to note from this definition. First of all, unlike the earlier set, these conserved charges are fermionic in nature. Second, they are nonlocal. Let me write down a few lower order charges of this set. Qx = - J dxdd (D-1^) <3| =
-fdz
<9f =
dz
"3
(D-1^)
= - J dz
{D-1^)'
- $0$i -
(D-^Dfco)*!)) (163)
~J
^ {D-1^)3
- {5(D'H1)^1
- 2$o$i - 3(Z?$!)-
- ( D - 1 ^ ) 2 ) (D$0) + {D-1 ((!>*!)*! + ^(DZo)2
- (£>$i)(£> 2 $o)))]
and so on. There are several things to be noted about these charges. First, as we have already mentioned and as can be explicitly seen, these charges are fermionic in nature and are conserved. Second, even though they are defined on the superspace, they are not invariant under supersymmetry (it is the nonlocality that is responsible for this problem). This infinite set of charges satisfies an algebra which appears to have the structure of a Yangian algebra, which arises in the study of supersymmetric nonlinear sigma models, namely,
to> t l to•«i} = Q
=0
1
= ffi
l
2
,Ql}i-
i
2
'«*},= = 2tf
2
{Qi V.
2
(164)
2
{Qs. ,Ql}iL
~-H2
'Olh-
= 1 *+ kH>
i",/fi
= 3H4-
211
and son on. The role of the fermionic nonlocal charges as well as the meaning of the Yangian algebra, however, are not fully understood. 6. Dispersionless Integrable Systems Let us consider again the KdV equation as an example. du _ du d3u dt dx dx3 As we have noted earlier, it is the linear term on the right hand side that is the source of dispersion for the solutions. Let us, therefore, get rid of the dispersive term, in which case, the equation becomes
m = &ud~x
(165)
This is known as the Riemann equation and we see that it corresponds to the dispersionless limit of the KdV equation. Given a nonlinear, bosonic equation, the systematic way in which the dispersionless limit is obtained is by scaling
at -* £di'
di -> edx-
(166)
in the equation and then taking the limit e —> 0. This leads to the dispersionless limit of the original system of equations. It is important to note here that the dynamical variable is not scaled (although in supersymmetric systems, as we will see, it is necessary to scale the fermionic variables to maintain supersymmetry). Let us recall that the Lax description for the KdV equation is obtained from the Lax operator
L = a2 + u through the Lax equation dL
a,=4 (i§)+.
As we will now see, the Lax description for the dispersionless model is obtained in a much simpler fashion. Let us consider a Lax function, on the classical phase space, of the form Up) =p2+u.
(167)
Here p represents the classical momentum variable on the phase space and, therefore, this Lax function only consists of commuting quantities. However, we can think of this as consisting of a power series in p and formally calculate
(i§)+ =
P3 + \up
(168)
212
where the projections are defined with respect to the powers of p. It is now simple to check, with the standard canonical Poisson bracket relations,
{x,p} = l,
{x,x}=0{p,p}
that the Lax equation
f=4{i,(il)+ }
(I69)
leads to the Riemann equation, which is the dispersionless limit of the KdV equation. Thus, we see that given a Lax description of an integrable model in terms of Lax operators, the dispersionless limit is obtained from a simpler Lax description on the classical phase space through classical Poisson brackets. Let us also note that the conserved quantities of the dispersionless model can be obtained from this Lax function as (in this model) tf„ = Tr
L^1
= J dx, Res
L^1
,
n = 0,1,2,...
(170)
where "Res" is defined as the coefficient of the p~x term. All of our discussions in connection with pseudo-differential operators carries through to this case where the Lax function has a polynomial structure in the momentum variables. (When I gave these talks, I had mentioned that the construction of the Hamiltonian structure from the GeFfand-Dikii was an open question. Since then, this problem has been solved and we know now that these can be constructed rather easily from a Moyal-Lax representation of integrable models.) Let me say here that dispersionless models encompasses a wide class of systems such as hydrodynamic equations, polytropic gas dynamics, Chaplygin gas, Born-Infeld equation, Monge-Ampere equation, elastic medium equation etc, some of which show up in the study of string theory, membrane theory as well as in topological field theories. Let us study an example of such systems in some detail, namely, the polytropic gas dynamics. These are described by a set of two equations ut + uux + v~<~2vx = 0 , vt + (uv)x
7 ^ 0,1
=0.
(171)
These equations are known to be Hamiltonian with
^M-!"2-^!))
(172)
213
and V
( 1 7 3)
= \ I nI
so that we can write the polytropic gas equations as
(174)
V ( : ) •
\ 6v J In fact, this system has three distinct Hamiitonian structures, but I will not get into the details of this. Let us next consider a Lax function, on the classical phase space, of the form L=pr-i+u+_^ri_
P-(7-D
.
(175)
Then, it is straight forward to check that the classical Lax equation dL _ 7
dt
7
" {(L^T)>i,La}
(176)
gives rise to the equations for the polytropic gas. The higher order equations of the hierarchy are similarly obtained from
dL U«.{(L-*)SI,L}. dt
(177)
Thus, we see that the polytropic gas dynamics is obtained as a nonstandard Lax description on the classical phase space. (At the time of the school, this was the only Lax description for the system that was known. Subsequently, a standard Lax description has been obtained, which brings out some interesting connection between this system and the Lucas polynomials.) Once we have the Lax description, we can, of course, obtain the conserved quantities from the "Trace". However, in this case, unlike in the case of Lax operators, we observe an interesting feature, namely, the residue can be obtained from expanding around p = 0 or around p = oo. Thus, there are two series of conserved charges that we can construct for this system. Expanding around p — oo, we obtain fl-„+i=C„+iTr
Ln+1~^
,
where C„+i's are normalization constants. charges have the forms
n = 0,1,2,...
(178)
Explicitly, the first few of the
214
dxi ,.7-1
(179)
;« 3 + ( _ 1 ) ( _ 2 ) 7 7 / and so on. On the other hand, an expansion around p — 0 leads to Hn = CnTr
Ln+^
,
(180)
n = 0,1,2,... .
The first few charges of this set have the explicit forms, H0 = I dxv Hx = Jdxuv H2 =
(181)
dx ( —u2v
+ 7(7 -
1)
and so on. The two sets of conserved quantities can, in fact, be expressed in closed forms. Let us also note that if we define two functions as u+X
»7-l
X=A
(7-I)
2
+ _+_
„7-i
X= A
(7-I)
(182)
u+X 2
where A is an arbitrary constant parameter, it can be shown that these two functions generate the two sets of conserved quantities as the coefficients of distinct powers of A. Let me also note that the second Hamiltonian structure for the polytropic gas has the form _ ( dv~t~2 + v^-2d Vo = (7 - 2)du + ud 6.1. Dispersionless
Supersymmetric
0u + (7 - 2)ud\ dv + vd J'
(183)
KdV
Let us recall that the super KdV equation can be described by the Lax operator L = Di + D $
215 and the Lax equation dL 8t=4
(L%
Here,
° = li< represents the covariant derivatiove on the superspace. In trying to obtain the dispersionless limit of this supersymmetric system, let us recall what we have learnt from the dispersionless limit of a bosonic model. We noted that the Lax operator goes over to the Lax function with d —> p. However, our Lax operator, in the supersymmetric case, is described in terms of super covariant derivative D. Therefore, the natural question is what this object goes over to in the dispersionless limit. Let us note that the classical super phase space is parameterized by (x,8,p,pg) . From these we can define a variable n = -(pe+6p)
(184)
whose action on any phase space variable, through the Poisson brackets is {II, A} = (DA),
{n,n} = -2p
(185)
Therefore, it would seem natural to let D —> II in the dispaersionless limit. However, this leads to a serious problem. For example, we know that D2 = d —> p whereas n 2 = 0 since it is a classical fermionic variable. To analyze this problem a little more, let us recall that the dispersionless limit is obtained by scaling dt —> edt ,
d —> ed .
Therefore, since D2 — d, consistency would require that we scale
This implies that the fermionic coordinate needs to be scaled as 0 -» e - 5 0 .
(187)
On the other hand, let us recall that the basic fermionic superfield of the theory is given as $(x,0) = ip + 9u .
(188)
Since the dynamical variable u does not scale and 0 scales, it follows that supersymmetry can be maintained under such a scaling only if ij) ->• e~5 V ,
$ -> e"^ $ .
(189)
216
This shows that, unlike in the bsoonic theory, in a supersymmetric theory, fermions scale in going to the dispersionless limit. With this scaling, we can go to the super KdV equation and note that, in the dispersionless limit, the equation becomes $ t = 3D2 ($(£>$))
(190)
which can be thought of as the super Riemann equation. Obtaining a Lax function and, therefore, a Lax description of a supersymmetric theory reamins an open question. However, through brute force construction it is known that the Lax function L = p2 + i(Z)*) + ^ - ((£>$)2 - 2 $ $ , ) - ^ - * ( £ * ) * .
(191)
leads through the classical Lax equation (the projection is with respect to powers of p)
gives the dispersionless limit of the super KdV equation (super Riemann equation). It is worth emphasizing here that, although the Lax description for afew supersymmetric dispersionless models have been constructed through brute force, a systematic understanding of them is still lacking. The conserved charges can be obtained from this Lax description immediately. Thus,
Hn = Cn Tr L^1
= J dz ($(£>$)" - n^D*)""1*.,,)
(193)
where n = 0 , 1 , 2 , . . . and it is clear that these are bosonic conserved charges. The supersymmetric dispersionless model has the Hamiltonian structure V=-\
(3$£>2 + (D$)D + 2(£>2$))
(194)
which can be recognized as the centerless superconformal algebra. With this Hamiltonian structure, it is straight forward to check that the conserved charges are in involution, {Hn,Hm}
= Jdz6-^VSJ^
=0
(195)
which also follows from the Lax description of the system. Let me note in closing that this supersymmetric model has two infinite sets of nonlocal charges of the forms
217
Fn=
Idz{D-^)n
Gn= f dzQiD-1®)"
(196)
where n = 1,2,... . (Note that Go = .Ho-) These charges have been constructed by brute force, since it is not clear how to obtain nonlocal quantities from a classical Lax function. This remains an open question. Second, of the two sets of nonlocal charges, we see that Fn is fermionic while Gn is bosonic. Furthermore, all these conserved charges satisfy a very simple algebra, {Hn,Hm}
= 0 = {Fn,Hm}
{Fn,Gm}
=0 = {Gn,Gm}
{Fn,Fm}
= nmGn+m_2 •
=
{Gn,Hm} (197)
In connection with dispersionless supersymmetric integrable models, several questions remain. For example, it is not clear how to systematically construct the Lax description for them. It is not at all clear how nonlocal charges can be obtained from a classical Lax function. Neither is it clear what is the role played by these charges within the context of integrability. Acknowledgments It is a pleasure to thank the organizers of the Swieca School for the warm hospitality. This work was supoported in part by US DOE Grant no. DE-FG02-91ER40685. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
A. Das, "Integrable Models", World Scientific (1989). A. Das and W. J. Huang, J. Math Phys. 33, 2487 (1992). J. C. Brunelli and A. Das, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A10, 4563 (1995). J. C. Brunelli and A. Das, Phys. Lett. A235, 597 (1997). J. C. Brunelli and A. Das, Phys. Lett. B438, 99 (1998). J. Barcelos-Neto, A. Constandache and A. Das, Phys. Lett. A268, 342 (2000). A. Das and Z. Popowicz, Phys. Lett. B510, 264 (2001); J. Phys. A34, 6105 (2001). 8. A. Constandache, A. Das and F. Toppan, "Lucas Polynomials and a Standard Lax Representtaion for Polytropic Gas Dynamics", hep-th/0110097.
This page is intentionally left blank
M O N T E CARLO SIMULATION: A R O A D F R O M THEORETICAL MODELS TO E X P E R I M E N T A L OBSERVABLES
R. ZUKANOVICH FUNCHAL Institute de Fisica, Universidade de Sao Paulo, C.P. 66.318, 05315-970 Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil E-mail: [email protected]
This is a crash course that aims to serve as a guide for students who wish to learn the Monte Carlo Simulation Technique and its applications to particle physics. The general ideas about the Monte Carlo Method of Integration is discussed but emphasis is given to the use of Monte Carlo to theoretically predict the value of observables and compare the theoretical prediction with experimental data.
1. I n t r o d u c t i o n A Monte Carlo simulation is a calculation based on any technique which finds an answer to a given problem using random numbers. In principle, the Monte Carlo method can be applied to solve any problem, as long as it can be formulated in a way that random numbers can be used to obtain the solution. The problem to be solved may either be probabilistic or deterministic in nature. In the former case its Monte Carlo formulation is a direct simulation, in the latter one has to find a stochastic system having an expected behavior equivalent to the desired result. Monte Carlo simulations find many different applications in physics, specially when one needs to estimate the value of a multi-dimensional integral for which an analytic answer is unknown. The value of an integral is clearly non-random but it is also a solution to a related stochastic problem. In high energy physics one often wants to compute differential or integral cross-sections involving many particles, which amounts to calculate an integral in a very complicated multi-dimensional space, involving kinematical cuts, angular cuts, etc.. To find the correct algorithm capable of giving a numerical estimate of the integral of interest together with a reliable error estimate in a reasonable amount of time (efficiently) is the great challenge. Simulation of high energy particle collisions by means of the Monte Carlo Method is one of the most important techniques in particle physics, almost
219
220
always it is the only way to make reliable theoretical predictions and compare these predictions with experimental results. 2. Brief Review of Elementary Statistics 2.1. Random
Variables
and Probability
Density
Functions
One learns in elementary statistics that even though the value of a random variable is unpredictable, the probability of a given value or of a range of values, may be well known 1 ' 2 . In the case of a continuous random variable X, one may define the probability density function (PDF) of a; (fixed value), p(x), as p{x)dx = P(x < X < x + dx) ,
(1)
the probability of finding the random variable X within dx of a given value x. Clearly p(x) > 0 is normalized so that its integral over all x is one. This defines completely how X is distributed. Two random variables X and Y are said to be independent when the distribution of X does not depend on the value of Y and vice-versa. A function of a random variable is clearly itself a random variable. Although the PDF describes everything about a random variable, sometimes it is enough to know some numerical parameters which characterize the main features of the random variable, such as its expectation value and its variance. 2.2. Expectation
Value
The expectation value of a random variable X is defined as the average (or the mean) of this variable as +oo
/ where p(x) is the PDF of X. [£1,2:2] then
x p{x)dx ,
(2)
-oo
If X is uniformly distributed in the interval rX2
1 E{X) = -
/
xdx .
(3)
{X2-Xl)JXl
2.3. Variance and Standard
Deviation
The variance of a random variable X is the average of the squared deviation from its mean defined as +00
/
[x - E{X)fp{x)dx -00
,
(4)
221
being cr(X) = y/V(X), the squared root of the variance, called standard deviation. In general, the variance of a sum of random variables is not the sum of the variance of each of the random variables. This is because the variance is not a linear operator as can be seen directly from Eq.( 4). Nevertheless, for two independent random numbers x and y V(x + y) = V(x) +
V(y),
which means that x and y are two uncorrected random numbers. 2.4. Law of Large
Numbers
This law establishes the convergence in probability of random variables into constant values. When a large number of random processes happen, the particularities of each random action practically does not influence the mean result which is no longer random, that is, the random deviations from the mean have no net effect so that the mean becomes stable. This is the physical meaning of the Law of Large Numbers. Suppose we choose n numbers xt randomly with uniform PDF in the interval [ x i , ^ ] and for each Xi we evaluate f(xt). The Law of Large Numbers tell us that the sum of these function values, divided by n will converge to the expectation value of / ,
st/w^srbo £"«*••
<5)
This means that the sum in the the left-hand side of Eq.( 5) is a consistent estimator of the integral in the right-hand side, under certain conditions *'2 it will converge to the exact value of the integral as n —> oo. It is the fact that random variables can behave, under certain conditions, as a constant quantity. That allows us to use them to solve problems and to estimate the precision of the so found results. The standard deviation of the estimate is given by a = y/V(f)/n. The convergence to a certain result as the random sample becomes large is only given with a certain probability, which is an inherent property of the method.
2.5. Central Limit
Theorem
The sum of a sufficiently large number n (in practice n > 6, see FIG. 1) of random variables {X\,X2,... ,Xn} is a random variable X that can be
222
200
^
150
Xl
M
100
Y
50
iC! . i , , , i , , , i . , . i . r\
0
0.2
(e)
300
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
I
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
I
J\
f \
200 100
0.4
0
: 0
J \
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 1. Distribution of the sum of n uniformly distributed random numbers (a) n — 1, (b) n = 2, (c) n = 3, (d) n = 5, (e) n = 6, (f) n = 8, 10 000 random numbers were generated in each case. described by a Gaussian P D F following the normal law 1 ' 2 , p(x)
(x - E{X)f
= 2TT
a(X)
exp
2 a2(X)
(6)
where E(X) and cr(X) are respectively, the expectation value and the standard deviation of X. These quantities depend on the expectation values and variances of the individual distributions. This theorem allow us to build Gaussian random number generators from any kind of random number generator, simply by taking the sum of random numbers. The law of large numbers and the central limit theorem provide the formal foundations for the validity of the Monte Carlo method. 3. The Monte Carlo Technique The class of algorithms that solve problems probabilistically, making use of random numbers, are known by the general name of Monte Carlo algorithms. There are two types of Monte Carlo methods: the direct modeling of a truly random process and the recast of a deterministic problem in probabilistic terms 3 . We will focus here on the latter, which is the one most commonly used
223
in particle physics where we often want to perform multidimensional integrations. The Monte Carlo method provides a way to estimate difficult integrals that may be intractable by ordinary numerical methods such as the "trapezoid rule" or the n-point Gaussian formula 4 . In particle physics this difficulty may arise from the large number of integration variables, from folding a predicted cross section with complicated geometrical factors, kinematical and efficiency cuts, or from both. As a general rule Monte Carlo methods are advantageous whenever the problem involves a large number of dimensions, complicated boundaries or other special conditions which may be difficult to implement in a deterministic algorithm. Perhaps the first major use of the Monte Carlo technique was in solving neutron diffusion problems during World War II for the making of the atomic bomb. Although the advent of high-speed computers greatly encouraged the use of Monte Carlo for solving problems this technique was first used long before the twentieth century. In 1777 Buffon in his "Essai d'Arithmetique Morale", used a hit-or-miss Monte Carlo, known as Buffon's needle, to calculate the value of 7r. The idea is quite simple. Suppose you draw on the floor two parallel line separated by a distance d (see FIG. 2). You now throw a needle of length I on the floor several times, each time the needle crosses one of the boundary lines you count a "hit", otherwise you count a "miss". If the angle between the perpendicular to the lines and the needle is a, 0 < a < 2ir, the needle projection on the perpendicular to the parallel lines is /| cos(a)| and all values of a equally probable so that one has to calculate the average projection. For a given value of a, the probability of a hit is the ratio l\ cos(a)\/d. Clearly the probability that the needle will cross one of the lines, p, is simply p= - /
l\ cos(a)|da = — ,
(7)
so that after a large number of tries, one can estimate it by twice the number of tries divided by the number of hits multiplied by the ratio l/d.
d! * Figure 2. Buffon's needle.
224
One can calculate the accuracy of this method after n tries by recalling that the number of hits follows a binomial distribution with variance np(l —p), considering now / = d, the standard deviation of the hit-or miss Monte Carlo calculation is \ / p ( l — p)/n = 2.37/y/n. This means that to get an uncertainty of about 2% on the value of •K one needs to through about 1 million needles. This is an amusing way to calculate 7r, but it is neither practical nor very accurate. 3.1. Crude Monte
Carlo
The crude Monte Carlo way to calculate 7r, for instance, is the direct application of Eq. (5) to calculate the integral given in Eq. (7). This can be easily done in a computer by choosing randomly n values of a and calculating ^ | cos(a)|/n. This will reduce the standard deviation by a factor of 0.82 with respect to the hit-or-miss way but still convergence goes only as 1/^/n. 3.2. Variance Reduction
Techniques
One of the main advantages of Monte Carlo integration is that its error estimate scales like \j^/n, independent of the dimension of the integral. However the price to pay is that that the integral converges relatively slow to the true value at a rate of 1/^/n. To build efficiency Monte Carlo algorithms it is important to devise ways to speed-up convergence. To improve the crude Monte Carlo method one either has to significantly increase n, which means to perform more calculations increasing the computer processing time, or to diminish the variance V(f) using some smart technique. There are several variance reduction techniques, we will describe the most important ones. For other methods see, for instance, Refs. 7 , s . 3.2.1. Stratified Sampling Here the idea is to choose the random points more uniformly in order to reduce fluctuations. To implement this one splits the full interval of integration into several sub-intervals and choose n; random points in the i—th. sub-interval of volume Vi. Mathematically this is based on the fundamental property of the Riemann integral /•l
I =
ra
p\
dxf{x) = / dxf(x) + / dxf(x) JO
JO
Ja
Explicitly, for the integral / we use the estimate
,
0< a< 1.
(8)
225
where we have sub-divided the interval in j regions of volume Vj, i — 1,2,.., j , and in each region i performed a Monte Carlo integration of rn random points. Now the variance becomes
y
= EjCT^)' 8=1
(10)
%
where
It is clear from the above that if the number of points of each sub-interval is chosen carefully this can lead to a dramatic reduction of V, but it can also increase V if the choice is not appropriate. It can be not trivial to know how to correctly sub-divide the space to calculate arbitrarily complicate multidimensional integrals. It can be shown, nevertheless, that if we perform a uniform stratification (divide the space in equal volumes and choose equal number of points in each volume), this can never increase the variance given in Eq. (10). This is a safe way do stratified sampling, but it may also lead to a negligible improvement in variance. 3.2.2. Importance Sampling The importance sampling technique is really about a change of integration variables in order to force that each point has approximatively the same function value (weight): I = £dxf(x)
= j ^)9(x)dx
= j J^dG(x)
(12)
where
G(x) = f g(y)dy ,
(13)
Jo and g(x) > 0 and normalized to unity in order to be interpreted as a PDF. Suppose now we have a set x\, x?, • •. , xn of n random numbers generated according to the distribution G(x) (not uniformly), in this case, we can now estimate / as: 71
i^i
9
(14)
^
and the statistical error is now given by
V = «fM,
(15)
226
where
'<"»> = £ t ( ^ ) ' - * -
™
If this is done correctly the re-weighted function values become nearly constant and the effective variance is reduced. Since the relevant quantity now if the ratio f/g, it is advantageous to choose g similar in shape to / . What do we do in practice? We choose a g(x) that approximates \f(x)\ reasonably well in shape and such that we can generate random numbers according to G(x). Note that it is dangerous to choose functions g which become zero, or which approach zero quickly. This is on the other hand the only general method for removing infinite singularities (poles) in / , by choosing g with a similar singularity in the same place as / . In multidimensional problems this method should be applied to one dimension at a time. 3.2.3. Control Variates As for the previous method one looks for an integrable function g similar to / , but this time the two functions are subtracted rather than divided / = £ > / ( * ) = j(f(x) - g(x))dx + Jg{x)dx .
(17)
If we know the integral of g the error comes only from the integral of ( / — g) which can, in principle, have a smaller variance than / . This method cannot induce singularities in ( / — g) and g does not need to be inverted analytically as in the Importance Sampling technique. 3.2.4. Adaptive Techniques The great disadvantage of all the variance reduction methods presented up to now is that they require some previous knowledge of the general behavior of the function / to be integrated. In most cases this previous knowledge is simply not available and one needs to use the so called adaptive techniques, where the algorithm learns about the function as it proceeds. An example of such algorithm, widely used in high energy physics, is VEGAS 5 . VEGAS combines the ideas of importance sampling and stratified sampling into an iterative code, which automatically concentrates evaluations of the integrand where it is largest. There are two phases in VEGAS, an exploratory phase and a second phase where the integral is computed with high precision. In the exploratory phase VEGAS starts by subdividing the integration space into a rectangular grid, performing an integration in each
227
sub-space. These first results are then used to adjust the grid for the next iteration, according to where the integral has dominant contributions. VEGAS uses importance sampling trying to approximate the optimal PDF ffOOopt =
rlf(X){
,
(18)
jdx\f{x)\ by a step function. After a few iterations the optimal grid is eventually found and frozen. This ends the exploratory phase. In the second phase VEGAS evaluates the integral with high precision according with the frozen optimized grid. An comprehensive introduction to VEGAS can be found in Ref. 5 , some discussion on how to treat ill-behaved integrands can be found in Ref. 6 . There are many other programs designed for multidimensional integration of a general function / , some information about a few of them can be found in Ref. 3 . 3.3. Monte
Carlo versus Numerical
Quadrature
Here just a brief comment on the advantages of Monte Carlo over classical numerical quadrature methods (trapezoidal rule, Simpson's rule, Gauss rule) when we want to calculate multidimensional integrals. The main point here is that there is always a dimension at which Monte Carlo will converge faster than any numerical quadrature method, since the former converges as l/y/n, independent of the dimension, and the latter converges slower as the number of dimensions increase according to Tab. 1. For more details on this see Refs. 3 ' 4 . Table 1. Comparison among different methods of multidimensional integration from the point of view of the speed of convergence. Here n is the number of points used in each calculation and d is the dimension of the integral. Method
d= 1
d
Monte Carlo
1/V«
1/Vn
Trapezoidal Rule
1/n 2
l/n2/d
Simpson's Rule
1/n4
Gauss Rule
2
1
l/n " "
1
l/n4/d l/n(2m-l)/d
We see that as d increases the number of points that one has to evaluate a function if we use any of the numerical quadrature methods in order have an
228
accurate result also increases. In fact, after d > 5 even the Gaussian method becomes inefficient from the point of view of computer time. In high energy physics we normally deal with integrations in the relativistic phase space of many particles.If one has for instance, k final particles (this can be easily 20 at LEP, 100 at the Tevatron and 1000 at the LHC) to integrate over, the phase space volume element will be proportional to
3fc-4, where the minus 4 comes from <^ 4 '(Sift ~ J2fPf)> t n e delta function which assures that momentum-energy is conserver between the i initial particles and the / final particles. 4. Pseudo-Random Number Generators To solve a problem using Monte Carlo one needs to generate a sequence of random numbers. Truly random numbers are unpredictable, irreproducible and can only be produced by some random physical processes such as a radioactive decay. Fortunately there is a solution to this problem. It is possible to produce in a computer large sequences of pseudo-random numbers using deterministic algorithms. As long as the some requirements are satisfied these numbers can be used in Monte Carlo calculations to produce the same result that truly random numbers would. These computer algorithms which produce pseudorandom sequences are called pseudo-random number generators or simply random number generators (RNG). There are a few general properties that a good RNG must have in order to be reliable for Monte Carlo calculations: • a good distribution; • long period; • repeatability; • portability (machine independence); • good efficiency (be fast). A good random number generator must reasonably represent a known PDF (uniform, Gaussian, etc.). One does not want to build in trends, biases or correlations. One wants fast, machine independent codes that produce very long and reproducible pseudo-random number sequences. You can find some useful cooking recipes of how to generate samples of pseudo-random numbers for some special distributions in Refs. 14>15. A very good review on RNG can be found in Ref. 9 .
229 There are many quality tests one can devise to check a RNG. A report on a number of tests applied to a variety of generators is available in Ref. 13 . But a good general rule is that the final test for a RNG is, in fact, the Monte Carlo calculation we need it for, this is the only test that is relevant ! It is highly recommended to check your Monte Carlo integration with different random number generators. There is no way one can completely and absolutely test a RNG. We will briefly discuss, in what follows, a few popular RNG which can be used to generate uniformly distributed pseudo-random numbers in the interval [0,1]. 4.1. Multiplicative
Linear
Congruential
This generator, suggested by Lehmer in 1951, produces a sequence of at most m integers XQ,X\,... ,xm, is based on the recurrence relation Xi = mod[(aXi-i
+ c), m] ,
(19)
where a and m are relatively prime, x0 is the initial seed, a, c, X\ are integers in [0,m — 1]. One usually implements this by using m = 2t, where t is the number of bits for the integer representation in a machine. As an example take m = 2 4 , a = 3 , c = l and XQ = 2. One can easily use Eq. (19) to compute the sequence: 2,7,6,3,10,15,14,11,2,7,..., which clearly has period equal to 8 < m. The maximal period m is only achieved in some special circumstances 3 ' 9 . Remember the important point: the period has to be much bigger than the number of pseudo-random numbers you are going to need for your Monte Carlo application. The IBM generator R A N D U used in the 60's and 70's was of this type, having a = 65539, c = 0 and m = 2 29 . The R A N F generator one can find in the CERNLIB is also a Lehmer-type generator of period 2 4 6 . These generators have a big drawback: the set (xn, xn+\,... , xn+d-i) of consecutive numbers in d-dimensional space lie in hyperplanes. This feature was discovered by Marsaglia in 1968 10 , it was found that the maximal number of hyperplanes is (d!2 t ) 1 / d , this is only a few hundred hyperplanes for d = 10 and t = 60 and much less if d > 10. These generators are not recommended by today's standards. 4.2.
Lagged-Fibonacci
Here each number of the sequence is obtained by the formula xt — mod[(xi-p
0 Xi-q),
m] ,
(20)
230
where 0 is some arithmetic operation (addition, subtraction, . . . ) , p, q and m are integers. A common choice is Xi = mod [(ZJ_24 + Xi-55), 232] ,
(21)
proposed in the end of the 50's and having period 2 32 (2 55 — 1). This type of generators also suffer from the hyperplane problem mentioned before. Dieter-Ahrens in 1979 proposed to use Xi = mod[(axi-i
+ &Xj_2), m] ,
(22)
instead of Eq. (20) increasing the number of hyperplanes by 2t/d with the right choice of a and b. 4.3. Shift
Register
This generator is based on the recurrence relation Xi — Xi—p © Xi—p-^-q ,
\"d)
where © is the bitwise exclusive o r ( 0 © 0 = l © l = 0, 1 © 0 = 0 © 1 = 1). In the case p = 250, q = 103 the period will be 2 2 5 0 - 1. 4.4.
RANMAR
RANMAR 11 combines a Lagged Fibonacci generator, Si = mod[(si-97
- Sj_33), 2 24 ] ,
(24)
with the sequence n = n-i - 7654321 ,
n-i
> 7654321 ,
(25)
otherwise, r{ = n-! - 7654321 + 2 24 - 3 ,
(26)
into Xi = mod[(Si -n),
224] .
(27)
This generator has period 2 1 4 4 , it is portable and highly recommended. It is also possible, using RANMAR, to generate independently disjoint sequences of pseudo-random numbers.
231
4.5.
RANLUX
Another very good generator by today's standards is RANLUX. It is based on
with xn = sn,cn = 0 if
sn > 0 ,
xn = sn + b, cn = 1 otherwise .
(29) (30)
RANLUX after generating j numbers, discards the following 223 - j as proposed by Liischer12 to avoid correlations between successive vectors of j random numbers. This is also a very good generator by today's standards. 5. Event Generators Collisions between elementary particles at high energies give rise to complex final states, generally having a large multiplicity of particles (hadrons, leptons and photons). The relation between each possible final state and the underlying physics description is hard and can only be implemented via Monte Carlo methods. In general what we want to compute in particle physics is some cross-section (total or partial)
a = j f(ft>)d4>,
(31)
where
££/(&)-•*,
(32)
i
as long as N, the number of points, is large. Here S is the integration volume. In fact, each random point fa is a possible physical configuration of the system, similar to a real physical event. If, for instance, a certain configuration fa belongs to a zero efficiency region (due to kinematical cuts, detector geometry etc.), this is easily implemented simply by setting f(fa) = 0 in the sum in Eq. (32). The use of the Monte Carlo method to compute a for a certain
232
physical process implies the generation of a random sample of "real events", i.e. possible final states completely specified. This is why we call the computer algorithms that perform this task Event Generators. There are a variety of Event Generators available today, they make it possible to simulate all main aspects of physical events by means of Monte Carlo methods, such as hard-process selection, initial-state and final-state radiation, beam remnants, fragmentation, decays etc.. These generated events can than be used to extract physics from direct comparison with experimental data, to help to study the perspectives of future experiments, devise cuts to reveal new physics from background, optimize detector configurations to study certain physics channels and so on. These algorithms permit to collect weighted events in bins describing event distributions just like in actual data collection. One can easily build histograms of event distribution for just about any physical observable, little extra effort is needed to add an extra distribution. Here we will give a general overview of the main ingredients of Event Generators for: • e + e~ collisions; • ep collisions; • pp and pp collisions. Event generators are computer programs typically of 1 to 50 thousand lines of code, generating events that are expected to predict or reproduce the average behavior and fluctuations of real data. They normally have as output some listing for each event giving for each particle produced: the particle type (7r, p, e~, 7, etc.), the particle 4momentum, the particle history (how it was created, where, when, etc.), and so on. At the end of a run, that is, after a simulation of a certain number of events of a given process, they give the computed total cross-section. They can be used to predict event rates and topologies, simulate possible backgrounds, study detector requirements, so we can estimate the feasibility of some experimental searches, devise new analysis strategies, optimize detector design, evaluate acceptance corrections. Ultimately they are a tool to compare theoretical predictions with real data and extract physics from it, see Fig. 3 for a schematic representation of this comparison. 5.1. e+e~
Generators
In Fig. 4 we see a scheme of a typical e+e~ hadronic event that one may want to simulate. The main components of this type of event generators are:
233 MONTE CARLO SIMULATION
EVENT EVENT PRODUCTION
GENERATION
EVENT SIMULATION
EVENT OBSERVATION
(GEANT)
EVENT RECONSTRUCTION
PHYSICS ANALYSIS
Figure 3.
Analysis chain: real life versus Monte Carlo.
matrix element calculations, initial and final state radiation, parton shower, fragmentation and decay. One can divide Standard Model e+e~~ Event Generators in two main types: Electroweak Generators and QCD Generators, in the former events are dominated by electroweak interactions, in the latter by strong interactions. The precision these generators need to have is dictated by theory and experiment: a Monte Carlo generator should not be more accurate than perturbation theory and at least as accurate as experimental measurements. For further details on these type of generators see Ref. 27 . 5.1.1. Electroweak Generators These are generators mainly designed for precision measurements of the electroweak parameters at LEP and SLC e + e~ collision experiments. Here everything is, in principle, completely calculable at any given order of perturbation theory. Theory is well understood and capable of providing
234
Figure 4.
Scheme of a hadronic e+e
event.
unambiguous predictions as accurate as one wishes. One generally requires that to be consider a good electroweak generator the Monte Carlo prediction must agree with data to less than 1%, this means J> 106 events must be generated, so the algorithms must be precise and fast. How to implement radiative corrections at 1-loop and beyond is, in fact, a technical problem. To tackle this problem one may arbitrarily divide the radiative corrections in: electroweak-type corrections and infra-red QED corrections. The electroweak-type corrections are corrections to propagators and vertices which exclude the infra-red QED corrections. They consist of propagator and vertex insertions such as the ones shown in Fig. 5. They can either be implemented by stand-alone programs which give the exact Standard Model prediction at a given order of perturbation theory as a function of the input parameters {Mz, GF, MH, mt, etc.) or by the so-called "QED dressers" where one writes the Born approximation in a particular way transferring most of the effects of the radiative corrections to the numerical value of the parameters. The former give the exact Standard Model predictions, deviations from these predictions can not be modeled in these programs. They are also rather slow. The latter are a very good approximation, they allow to independently vary the Standard Model parameters (such as Mz and Yz) and are fast codes. In any case the electroweak-type interactions do not present any complications to be implemented in a Monte Carlo code.
235
Y/Z
^
Y/Z
\
Y
Y
Y (Z)
^
Y (Z)
Y (Z) _ S
Figure 5.
^z,
Y(Z)
Z
Y
Y (Z)
Y ( Z ) ^ Y ( Z ) ^ Y (Z)
s
S
^ >
S
^(Z) s
Electroweak type corrections.
On the other hand the infra-red-type QED corrections are not so trivial to implement in a Monte Carlo program. They are basically represented in Fig. 6 by the Born Feynman diagram accompanied by a virtual or bremsstrahlung photon. The main characteristic of these corrections is the appearance of infrared divergences in the real and virtual photon cross sections which exactly cancel each other out. The problem in Monte Carlo comes from the fact that we would like to separate final states without a photon (crnt>rem) from final states with a photon (obrem)- We cannot generate these type of events with relative probabilities given by °nbrem = ^ 0 + ^virtual >
(33)
and O-brem = <7soft +
CT
hard .
(34)
since (T^hrem and cr£rem are both divergent. The way to overcome this is to define, instead, a crSOft (to generate events without a photon) and a a w d (to generate events with a photon) as Csoft = (To + C v i r tual + C so ft i
(35)
O-hard = Ohard ,
(36)
and
where one has to introduce a cutoff fco between the "soft" and "hard" bremsstrahlung parts of the phase space. On one hand we want fco to be small since we have to compare our Monte Carlo with experiments that can detect photons of relatively low energy. On the other hand fc0 cannot be too
236
small, otherwise, our Monte Carlo calculation will give rise to a < 0. This is, in fact, a technical problem caused by the fact that we want to compute very precise quantities using the Monte Carlo technique. There are a few ways to solve this situation, the best known technique is the so-called exponentiation.
Figure 6. QED type corrections: 1) virtual, 2) real "soft" and 3) real "hard" photon type corrections.
5-1.2. QCD Generators These generators must simulated the effects of perturbative and nonperturbative QCD. We have a limited knowledge of quark confinement and of the process of fragmentation, these Monte Carlo codes must carry this lack of knowledge and so they are more descriptive than predictive models. No one expect a QCD Monte Carlo to be accurate to the level of 1%. Agreement between data and several Monte Carlo QCD models can be forced by adjusting some parameters a somehow artificial way. The underlying physics being different but the effective result more or less the same. How do we go from the colored quarks, anti-quarks and gluons to the colorless hadronic final states which are experimentally measured in the detectors? The simulation of a hadronic e+e~ event can be divided in three parts: 1) perturbative regime, 2) fragmentation and 3) particle decays. For the first part the theory is well understood, it is calculable in principle, to any given order of perturbation theory. There are two main approaches used by e + e Monte Carlo generators: matrix element calculations and the parton shower. Fragmentation, on the other hand, is a non-perturbative process that has to be modeled. The main techniques used by Monte Carlo codes are: string fragmentation (PYTHIA), independent fragmentation (IS A JET) and cluster fragmentation (HERWIG). We will comment more on this in Sec. 5.3.
237
Figure 7.
5.2. ep
Typical jet structure produced in a e + e~ hadronic event.
Generators
To be able to generate a ep event such as the one that can be visualized in Fig. 8 these type of generators must include: initial and final photon radiation, structure functions, initial state radiation in the parton shower, matrix element calculations for the hard process, final state radiation in the parton shower, fragmentation and decays. For further details on these type of generators see Ref. 2 8 .
5.3. pp/pp
Generators
The components of pp and pp generators are: structure functions, initial and final state radiation, matrix element calculations for the hard process, beam jet structure which include minijets and rapidity gaps (these are non-perturbative effects that have to be modeled), fragmentation and decays. A typical pp event is displayed in Fig. 9. We will describe here the main points for the simulation of perturbative and non-perturbative QCD which are in fact common to the QCD parts of the e + e~ and ep event generators mentioned previously. To model perturbative QCD (as(Q2) small regime) and fragmentation is the main goal of any QCD event generator. For more information see Ref. 22 and references therein.
238
Figure 8.
Scheme of a ep event.
5.3.1. Perturbative QCD Hard QCD processes are those in which there is an invariant momentum transfer squared (Q2) much larger than the characteristic scale A2 of quantum chromodynamics, so that the running coupling constant as{Q2) is small enough for perturbation theory to be relevant. Some examples of such hard processes are e + e~ annihilation at large center-of-mass energies, deep inelastic ep scattering, the production of dileptons and hadronic jets of high invariant mass in pp or pp collisions. Hard hadronic processes are particularly interesting since they probe the structure of matter at very short distances. They provide insight into the transition from perturbative to non-perturbative QCD regime. They are also the main area in which the Standard Model of strong and electroweak interactions can be tested quantitatively using perturbation theory. There are two main methods to perform perturbative QCD calculations in Monte Carlo describing the multijet structure of events. There are two main methods: matrix element and parton shower calculations. Most Monte Carlos algorithms try to combine these two descriptions so that the parton shower
239
Figure 9.
Scheme of a typical pp event.
description sets the sub-jet structure and at the same time recovers the matrix element results for widely separated partons. In the matrix element calculation Feynman diagrams are explicitly calculated order by order. This offers a systematic expansion in orders of as and a powerful machinery to handle multi-parton configurations in the Born level. This is, in principle, the correct way to take into account the exact kinematics, full interference among diagrams and the helicity structure of each contribution to the final process. An important point is that the as calculation can only be done in this way. The drawback here is that calculations become increasingly difficult in higher orders of perturbation theory. In general, QCD Monte Carlo algorithms include the matrix element calculations for the Born term in the case of 2 -* 2, 2 —» 3, 2 —>3 transitions. In some cases up to 1-loop corrections for parton interactions are also included. For e+e~ Monte Carlo event generators complete second order corrections exist. In lowest-order perturbation theory, hard scattering consists of an interaction between partons at the relevant large momentum transfer scale Q2. Although this is enough to describe some broad features of the data, the lowest order treatment is hardly a useful basis for a detailed simulation since higherorder terms are enhanced by large logarithms arising from the singularities
240
Figure 10. Branching Scheme.
of QCD radiative corrections. It turns out that leading logarithms in higher orders can be generated by a classical Markov branching process very suited to the Monte Carlo technique of computer simulation. This is can occur in two ways: in the hard processes that produce outgoing jets of hadrons, these hadrons may be seen as the fragmentation products of jets of partons, each generated from a single, highly virtual timelike parton originating from the hard subprocess. The evolution of such parton cascades may be followed perturbatively until the typical parton virtuality q2 falls from the hard process scale Q2 to some cutoff value QQ, bellow which as(q2) becomes too large for perturbation theory to be valid and non-perturbative hadronization steps in. There will be also parton cascades associated with QCD initial-state bremsstrahlung. The incoming partons at the hard subprocess have large spacelike virtualities, up to order Q2, resulting from parton branching that starts from the relatively soft constituent partons of the colliding hadrons. Here a cutoff Q2, not necessarily the same as the timelike Ql one, may be denned as the earliest point from which we can follow the evolution of a spacelike parton cascade perturbatively. The dynamics prior to this stage must be absorbed into the structure functions that specify the parton distributions in the incoming hadrons when they are probed at scale Q2. These main ideas are contemplated by the parton shower Monte Carlo algorithms. The parton shower way to implement perturbative QCD is based on an improved leading-log (almost next-to-leading-log) approximation, and so cannot be accurate for well separated partons. The idea here is that initial and final state parton showers may be seen as a treelike structure, where successive breaking of one parton into two (q —tqg,g—> gg, g —> qq), an arbitrary
241
number of times, lead to the emergence of complicated multiparton states and to the appearance of multijet events as pictorially described in Fig. 10. There is no explicit upper limit on the number of partons involved in the branching. The probabilities of partons a branching into partons b and c are given by the Altarelli-Parisi evolution equations,
"IT - J dz~^rP^»+c(z) ,
(37)
where z specifies the sharing of momentum between b and c, the three possible 1 -¥ 2 splitting functions Pq-+q+g(z), Pg^g+g(z) and Pg-+q+q-(z) can be found, for instance, in Ref. 17 and t is the evolution parameter * - In (Q^ vol /A 2 ) .
(38)
The structure of initial and final state showers is different as already mentioned above. The latter is timelike. In PYTHIA 20 all partons have masssquared m2 > 0. The parton that emerges from the hard interaction has the largest mass, successively branching into partons with smaller masses and energies, until eventually all partons end up on the mass shell. The initial state parton shower, is spacelike: the sequence of partons leading up from the shower initiator to the parton entering the hard interaction is characterized by Q 2 = - m 2 > 0; only the side branches are timelike. HERWIG 23 , PYTHIA 20 and ISAJET 24 do a backward evolution for the initial state shower, that is, by starting at the hard subprocess and working back to the partons of low virtually that merge into the initial hadrons. These algorithms take the known hadron structure functions into account at each stage of the branching process. The evolution variable Q 2 vol is not the same in all Monte Carlo implementations of the parton shower, for instance, PYTHIA 20,21 performs a mass evolution with Q 2 vol = m 2 an( ^ HERWIG 22,23 an angular evolution with Q 2 vo , = E 2 ( l - cos#), where E is the energy of the branching parton and 6 is the angle between the daughters. In the parton shower branching the conservation of momentum, energy, color, etc., are imposed at each branching. This procedure allows one to include the effects of exact kinematics in the branching process, and of angular correlations due to gluon polarization, which are beyond the scope of the singleparticle evolution equations. One may also incorporate an important class of higher-order correction via a rescaling of the argument of the strong coupling constant as. It was found that color coherence effects, in particular, the destructive interference in the soft gluon emission probability for color connected partons can be correctly accounted for by imposing angular ordering: this is done explicitly by construction in HERWIG 23 and forced in PYTHIA 20,21 by imposing angular ordering at each branching. The angular ordering slows down
242
the multiplicity growth of partons and consequently of hadrons, it also depletes particle production at small x. Color coherence simulated by angular ordering was confirmed by CDF dijet data 3 3 . PYTHIA matches the result of the first shower branching with what is expected from matrix element calculations for three jets. 5.3.2. Fragmentation In order to simulate real events, which after all involve hadrons not partons, one has finally to deal with hadronization. The hadronization of partons is a non-perturbative QCD effect which must be modeled since we do not know how to calculate it from first principles. The phenomenological models of hadronization/fragmentation must represent well the existing data and have some predictive power at high energies. These models are of probabilistic and iterative nature. Three main fragmentation schools exit: independent fragmentation (IF), string fragmentation (SF) and cluster fragmentation (CF). IF is the earliest and most primitive fragmentation model. In IF, it is assumed that the fragmentation of any system of partons can be described as an incoherent sum of independent fragmentation procedures for each parton separately, see Fig. 11. Since the problem factorizes the implementation is straight forward, one uses an iterative picture for each jet separately. IF algorithms are simple, flexible, fast and provide an adequate description of the broad features of the higher-momentum components of hadron jets but they have many parameters to be adjusted. ITERATIVE ANSATZ q,w 'qqi
C
C C
}qlq2 "} q2q3 remainder
Figure 11. IF picture.
IF is based on the Field-Feynman Model 29 , which was designed to reproduce the limited transverse momenta and approximate scaling of energy fraction distributions observed in quark jets. The fragmented quark is combined with an antiquark from a qq pair created out of the vacuum to give a first generation meson with energy fraction z. The leftover quark, with energy fraction (1 — z),
243
is fragmented in the same way, and so on until the leftover energy falls below some cutoff. Scaling follows from the energy independence of the distribution assumed for z, which is known as the fragmentation function. The limited transverse momenta come from the relative transverse momenta of the created qq pair, which are given a Gaussian distribution. The gluon fragmentation is done by splitting a gluon into a quark-antiquark pair, either assigning all the gluon momentum to one or the other with equal probability, or using the g -» qq Altarelli-Parisi splitting function. The weakness of the IF scheme are that the fragmentation of a parton is supposed to depend on its energy rather than its virtuality, the fragmenting parton is usually supposed to remain on its mass shell, leading to violations of momentum conservation that has to be corrected by some rescaling at the end of hadronization. So IF is not Lorentz covariant, and energy, momentum, flavor or color are not explicitly conserved so that it can only be a crude approximation. There is an ambiguity in the way jets are put together. Here gluon jet properties do not automatically follow from those of quarks. Indeed, e+e~~ data disfavor this model, but this approach is still adopted in some of the most widely used Monte Carlo simulation programs such as ISAJET. For simulations where more precise predictions are required dynamical models such as SF and CF, where hadronization is a collective phenomenon involving more than one parton are preferable. This permits a more correct treatment of color, flavor, and momentum conservation also reducing the number of arbitrary parameters. SF is the LUND fragmentation model 30 , it is considered a sort of "standard model of fragmentation". The main idea behind this model is that one assumes that the partons emerging after the hard interaction are connected by a color string. So that the linear confinement of QCD expected a large distances corresponds to a color flux tube being stretched between partons as shown in Fig. 12. This is mathematically represented as a massless relativistic string with a tension of about 1 GeV/fm. The string breaks up into hadron-size pieces through spontaneous qq pair production in its intense color field. SF is in agreement with lattice QCD results, has a well defined space-time picture but has many parameters, especially for flavors. The linear confinement force is introduced by construction, so that the energy stored in the string rises as the distance between partons increases, the string can then break producing a new pair of quark-antiquark. The string may be broken up starting at either the quark or the antiquark end, or both simultaneously, and it proceeds iteratively by qq pair production, just as IF. This mechanism, which is explicitly Lorentz covariant, is understood in terms of tunneling effect. The breaking process continues until we have only on-shell
244 r - ( 1 - 5 ) fm
q
~
~
^
q
Tunneling Effect
Figure 12.
Scheme of the color string mechanism.
hadrons. Quarks and diquarks correspond to string endpoints whereas gluons, correspond to energy and momentum carrying kinks of these strings. The fragmentation of the kinked string leads to an angular distribution of hadrons in e + e~ three-jet final state events that differ from IF predictions and agree with experimental data. Occasionally a pair quark-antiquark is produced at the end of the string giving rise to baryons. SF is used in many Monte Carlo programs such as PYTHIA and FRITIOF. An important property of the parton branching process is the so-called pre-confinement of color, which implies that the pairs of color-connected neighboring partons have an invariant mass distribution that falls rapidly at high masses and is asymptotically Q2 independent and universal 3 2 . This suggests a class of hadronization models, CF models, in which color-singlets clusters of partons form after the perturbative phase of jet development and decay into observed hadrons. CF is also Lorentz covariant, conserves flavor, energy, momentum explicitly, and is somewhat simpler than SF (has fewer parameters). All gluons remaining at the end of the parton shower evolution are non-perturbatively split into qq pairs. These may be grouped into color singlets, usually a quark from one gluon branching and a antiquark from an adjacent gluon forming clusters. The resulting cluster mass spectrum is universal and steeply falling at high masses. Its precise form is determined by the QCD scale A, the perturbative cutoff <3o, and the gluon-splitting mechanism. Typical cluster masses are normally two to three times QQ. The cluster is then allowed to decay isotropically in its rest frame, normally producing two hadrons, according to phase space.
245
The reduced phase space for clusters decaying into heavy mesons and baryons is sufficient to account for the multiplicities of the various kinds of hadrons observed in e + e _ final states. The hadronic energy and transverse momentum distributions agree quite well with experiment without the introduction of any adjustable fragmentation functions. As in SF it describes well the angular distribution in e + e~ three-jet events provided soft gluon interference is taken into account. CF has no clear connection with lattice QCD. CF is used by the Monte Carlo simulation program HERWIG 23 . 5.4. Most Popular
Ready-to- Use Event
Generators
There are a variety of general purpose generators. Here we list some of the most used generators 18 : • COJETS : p-p and p-p collisions; • HERWIG : mostly hadron collisions; • ISAJET : p-p , p-p and e+e~ collisions; • PYTHIA/JETSET : Lund Monte Carlo, multiparticle generator; • LEPTO : Lund Monte Carlo for deep inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering; • TWISTER : QCD high-p T scattering; • FRITIOF : hadron-hadron, hadron-nucleus, nucleus-nucleus interactions; • ARIADNE : Lund Monte Carlo for QCD cascades in color dipole approximation. Some of these generators have also a beyond the standard model version, such as ISASUSY25 which includes SUSY particles to ISAJET and SPYTHIA 31 which includes SUSY particles to PYTHIA. ISAWIG26 is an interface which allows SUSY spectra and decay tables generated by ISAJET to be read into HERWIG. A brief summary of the physics one can study with the most popular event generators ISAJET, HERWIG and PYTHIA is given in Tab. 2. Simple examples of the use of ISAJET, HERWIG and PYTHIA can be found in Refs. 35 > 34 ' 21 , respectively. One important point when doing calculations with ready-to-use Event Generators is to understand their limitations. It is always advisable to cross-check your result with some (semi-)analytical calculation or/and to compare it with the result of a different generator. Remember also that a Monte Carlo Generator result may be crazy for many different reasons such as incorrect theories
246 Table 2. PYTHIA.
Physics
Simulated
Physics Process
by
ISAJET
ISAJET,
HERWIG
HERWIG
PYTHIA
QCD jets
yes
yes
yes
minimum bias
yes
yes
yes
heavy flavor
yes
yes
yes
prompt 7
yes
yes
yes
single W/Z
yes
yes
yes
W/Z
yes
yes
yes
pairs
VV -> VV (heavy H)
yes
yes
yes
SUSY
yes
yes
yes
W'/Z'
no
no
yes
4th generation
yes
no
yes
contact int.
no
no
yes
leptoquarks
yes
no
yes
strongly int.
W/Z
and
no
no
yes
excited fermions
no
no
yes
technicolor
yes
no
yes
baryon number violation
no
yes
no
extra-dimensions
yes
no
no
or formulae or simply due to the wrong usage of the generator by the user. Use common sense: check that you results are reasonable! Finally, if one wants to build one's own event generator one generally needs to be able to generate multiparticle phase space 16 . There are two well known general phase space generators: FOWL and GENBOD. Another tool one often needs in this case is provided by the CERN PDFLIB, there we can access several parameterizations of nucleon, ir and 7 parton density functions 19 . For some general hints on how to build event generators with some simple examples see Ref. 17 . 6. Detector Simulation In order to perform a precise comparison between experimental data and theoretical predictions one need to use the Monte Carlo technique to carry out yet another simulation: the detector simulation. What one actually measures is the final result of the interaction of the particles produced by the hard collision (primary interaction), generated by the Event Generators described in Sec. 5, with the material from which the parti-
247
cle detectors are made of (secondary interactions). To compute this we need to convolute the events generated by the Event Generator with the detector description, including detector material, geometry, calibration and efficiency cuts. When the high energy particles produced in the primary interaction encounter the many layers of detector material, a typical situation for high energy experiments, new particles may be produced due to secondary interactions caused by Bremsstrahlung, pair production, photo-electric effect, Rayleigh effect, Compton collision, multiple scattering, ionisation and J-ray production, generation of Cherenkov light, nuclear interactions, hadronic interactions, etc. Since 1974 the CERN has developed a library known as GEANT 36 containing a series of routines to help in the task of detector simulation. This library, which is the most widely known library for detector simulation, permits to describe a complex detector geometry, attribute a different material/medium to each detector part, do the tracking of particles through the detector and simulate the detector response. Events generated by a external event generator such as PYTHIA or ISAJET can be read into GEANT and the primary particles tracked through the simulated detector setup, taking into account particle interactions with detector material as well as particle decays. GEANT was primary conceived to be used in high energy detector simulation, but for many years it has also been used for other types of simulations such as the simulation of nuclear physics experiments, nuclear reactors, radio-protection equipment and even satellites. The programs which are used for detector simulation generally give as output for each event simulated through the detector, the digitized detector response just like real data. These simulated data can than be processed by a reconstruction program to finally produce distributions of physical observables that can be compared with reality.
7. Conclusions and Remarks These lectures were devoted to present Monte Carlo techniques and some of their use in particle physics. In order to discuss Monte Carlo as a road from theoretical models to experimental observables in particle physics we first had to discuss the general ideas behind the Monte Carlo method. We started this course by giving a brief review of elementary statistics which allowed us to discuss the theoretical basis of the Monte Carlo integration, and in which situations Monte Carlo should be preferred over the various types of classical numerical integration methods. We described some types of Monte Carlo Techniques: hit-or-miss, crude Monte
248
Carlo and various ways to perform variance reduction. Since random number generators are fundamental ingredients for any Monte Carlo code, we spent a little time discussing the main features and drawbacks of pseudo-random number generators, describing some of the most common ones. Finally we tackled the main use of Monte Carlo technique in particle physics: the construction of event generators. We discussed the important points in building e + e~, ep and pp/pp event generators, specially the difference between generators for electroweak precision measurements and QCD generators, which are more of a qualitative kind. Detector simulation, which is also an important use of Monte Carlo in particle physics, in fact, the last step to be able to do a precise comparison between theoretical predictions and data, is briefly mentioned in the last lecture. Hopefully it became clear to the reader that Monte Carlo techniques are very powerful methods that have great number of applications in physics, specially in the domain of high energy particle physics, where in many cases it would be impossible to perform reliable calculations without them. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Walter Jose da Costa Teves for his technical help in making some of the figures used in my lectures and the organizers of the XI Jorge Andre Swieca Summer School on Particles and Fields for inviting me to give this course. I am also thankful to Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientffico e Tecnologico (CNPq) and by Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) for their financial support. References 1. J. M. Hammersley and D. C. Handscomb, "Monte Carlo Methods", London, Chapman and Hall (1979). 2. N. P. Buslenko, D. I. Golenko, Yu. A. Shreider, I. M. Sobol' and V. G. Sragovich, "The Monte Carlo Method; the Method of Statistical Trials", New York, Pergamon Press (1966). 3. F. James, Rep. Prog. Phys. 43, 1145 (1980). 4. P. J. Davis and P. Rabinowitz, "Methods of Numerical Integration", New York, Academic Press (1975). 5. G. P. Lepage, J. Comp. Phys. 27, 192 (1978). 6. T. Ohl, Comp. Phys. Coram. 120, 13 (1999). 7. F. James, J. Hoogland and R. Kleiss, Comp. Phys. Comm. 99, 180 (1997) and references therein. 8. R. Kleiss and R. Pittau, Comp. Phys. Comm. 83, 141 (1994) and references therein.
249 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.
31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.
F. James, Comp. Phys. Coram. 60, 329 (1990). G. Marsaglia, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 61, 25 (1968). G. Marsaglia, A. Zaman and W. -W. Tsang, Comp. Phys. Comm. 60, 345 (1990). M. Liischer, Comp. Phys. Comm. 79, 100 (1994). I. Vattulainen et al., Comp. Phys. Comm. 86, 209 (1995). S. Weinzierl, hep-ph/006269. See the Monte Carlo Virtual Library at http://random.mat.sbg.au.at/links/index.html. D. C. Carey and D. Drijard, J. Comp. Phys. 28, 327 (1978). V. Barger and R. Phillips, "Collider Physics", (Frontiers in Physics), Redwood City, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. (1987). See the CERN Monte Carlo page at http://wwwinfo.cern.ch/asd/cernlib/mc.html. See the CERN program library document page at http://wwwinfo.cern.ch/asdoc/Welcome. ht ml. T. Sjostrand, Comp. Phys. Comm. 82, 74 (1994). See the PYTHIA homepage at http://www.thep.lu.se/ torbjorn/Pythia.html. B. R. Webber, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 36, 253 (1986). G. Marchesini et al., Comp. Phys. Comm. 67, 465 (1992); G. Corcella et al., JEEP 01, 010 (2001). H. Baer et al., hep-ph/0001086. See http://duflot.home.cern.ch/duflot/GDR/outils/isajet/isajetO.html and references therein. See http://www-thphys.physics.ox.ac.uk/users/PeterRichardson/HERWIG/isawig.html. Z. Physics at LEP I, G. Altarelli, R. Kleiss, C. Verzegnassi, eds., CERN 89-08, vol.3. Physics at HERA, W. Buchmiiller, G. Ingelman, eds., DESY 1992, vol. 3. R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. D15, 2590 (1977); Nucl. Phys. B138, 1 (1978). X. Artru and G. Mennessier, Nucl. Phys. B70, 93 (1974); M. G. Bowler, Z. Phys. C l l , 169 (1981); B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, T. Sjostrand, Phys. Rep. 97, 33 (1983); B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, B. Soderberg, Nucl. Phys. B264, 29 (1986); X. Artru, Phys. Rep. 97, 147 (1983). See http://hep.uchicago.edu/cdf/spythia.html. D. Amati, G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. 83B, 87 (1979); G. Marchesini, L. Trentadue, G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 1 8 1 , 335 (1981). See http://www.hep.phy.cam.ac.uk/theory/webber/. See http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/theory/seymour/herwig/herwig63.html. See http://nlc.physics.upenn.edu/nlc/software/generators/isajet.html. See http://wwwinfo.cern.ch/asdoc/geant_html3/geantall.html.
This page is intentionally left blank
RENORMALIZATION IN N O N C O M M U T A T I V E FIELD THEORY
M. GOMES Instituto de Fisica, Universidade de Sao Paulo Caixa Postal 66318, 05315-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
1. Introduction Recently, a great amount of interest has been devoted to the subject of noncommutative field theory. There are various motivations behind such interest. I would like to mention three of them: At very short distances, distances of the order of the Planck length, _33 10 cm, the measurements of the coordinates loose all their meanings, because of the appearance of strong gravitational fields which prevent light or any other signal to transmit information. The heuristic argument leading to this conclusion proceeds as follows *. The measurement of a coordinate with an accuracy a leads an indeterminacy in the momentum of the order of 1/a. An energy of the same order may be transmitted to the system and the corresponding energy-momentum tensor then generates a gravitational field r]^, which is a solution of the Einstein equation R»» ~
\B*)»V
= 87rTM„ .
(1.1)
The more precise the measurement of the coordinates the bigger will be the gravitational field coming from the referred measurement. Whenever this field is so strong as to prevent light or other signs to come out from the region under observation, no operational meaning can be given to the idea of strict localization. Another motivation is related with the ultraviolet divergences of the perturbative approach. In the forties of the last century, due to the difficulties with the infinities of the perturbative series, there was some interest in postulating the existence of a minimum length beyond which nothing effectively could be said. In such situation, the field interactions would be smeared at small distances, thus eliminating the divergences of the perturbative approach.
251
252
The actual proposal dates from 19473, but there are indications that the idea was in the mind of Heisenberg long before2. However, it never became popular and was abandoned after the stupendous success of the renormalization program. More recently, a vigorous interest in noncommutative field theories came from the string theory 4 . It was shown that the dynamics of an open string in the presence of an antisymmetric B field can be described, in certain limits, in terms of a gauge field theory deformed by a Moyal product (see later). A noncommutative space is introduced by postulating the existence of position operators satisfying the algebra [?, qv] = %&>"
(1.2)
M
where 0 " is an antisymmetric matrix, which we will assume commutes with the q's (more general linear algebras have been studied 5 ' 6 but here we will only consider the simplest case proposed in *).
Figure 1.
One loop contribution to the two point function in <j>4 model.
One first remark concerns the entanglement of scales: small distances in one direction imply large distances in the others. Therefore, it is not clear that theories renormalizable in the usual commutative context will preserve this property in noncommutative spaces. Usually, the ultraviolet behavior of a field theory is unrelated to the infrared one. Thus, in massive >4 there are quadratic and logarithmic ultraviolet divergences coexisting with infrared finiteness. In the noncommutative case matters are more subtle. As one example, take the one-loop seagull graph shown in Fig. 1. In the noncommutative case the corresponding amplitude is given by
,4 cos^e^p.) /
The appearance of trigonometric factors is one of characteristics of the noncommutative situation. It provides an oscillating factor which effectively
253
damps the ultraviolet behavior. The integral turns out to be finite but, in a way different from the usual situation, it depends on the external momentum. If this momentum were zero (or if @ were zero) the integral would be quadratically divergent. This argument leads to the conclusion that for small p the integral should behave as
*(4 •
< L4 >
Thus when multiple insertions of this graph are made into a large diagram, they generate non integrable infrared singularities. This feature, known in the literature as the ultraviolet/infrared (UV/IR) mixing, produces the breakdown of the perturbative scheme in many of the renormalizable theories. Noncommutative field theories are nonlocal field models where the nonlocality is a well defined consequence of the noncommutativity. There, it could happen that the ultraviolet divergences do not preserve the nonlocal structure of the bare vertices and the model turns out to be nonrenormalizable even though the theory happens to be renormalizable in ordinary space. Renormalizability do not exhausts the difficulties one mets when formulating noncommutative field theories. We should also verify up to what extent the properties of the usual models are shared by its noncommutative counterparts. In this respect, we would like to mention that the 0(N) symmetry of the noncommutative linear sigma model can not be spontaneously broken for N > 2 while, at least up to one loop, the same does not apply for the noncommutative U(N) linear sigma model when the field ordering of the quartic interaction is gauge invariant 7 . The above comments illustrate some of difficulties posed by the noncommutativity of the underlying space. Another source of problems comes from the fact that ordinary spacetime noncommutative field theories in general display acausal behavior; they could be also nonunitary 8 . A satisfactory, unitary and causal, quantum theory seems to emerge only if the noncommutativity does not affect the time coordinate 9,10,11 . Thus, to evade these kind of problems, we shall restrict most of our discussions to the cases where ©oi = 0. We would like to remark however that in some special limits unitarity may be recovered12. The presence of infrared divergences in ordinary field theory signals that one may be expanding around a point of nonanaliticity of the exact solution. It may indicate the existence of nonperturbative effects that can not be reached by a power series expansion on the perturbative coupling. In such case, two possibilities may be envisaged. One may try resummations to rearrange the perturbative series to get a better behaved expansion. A difficulty in this method is the absence of a perturbative parameter to control different orders of the new series. Another possible procedure is to enlarge the theory with
254
new interactions, which, hopefully, will cancel the UR divergences leading to a new expansion without the mentioned singularities. Both methods have been considered in the literature 13 ' 14 . In fact, it has been argued that the resummation may be efficiently controlled by the the Wilsonian renormalization group 15 , a la Polchinski 16 . On the other side, it has been shown that there exists a special class of theories, namely supersymmetric models, which are natural candidates to be consistent on noncommutative space at least as far renormalization is concerned. The occurrence of the infrared singularities suggests that the usual noncommutative theories may be effective field theories in a range interval which does not include the origin in momentum space 6 . In this lectures, I will discuss this last possibility by considering the cases of the supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model and the Wess-Zumino model. The works in which they are mainly based was done in collaboration with H. 0 Girotti, V. 0 . Rivelles and A. J. da Silva. In section 2, noncommutative field theories are introduced via the Weyl/Moyal correspondence relating classical functions to noncommutative operators. As examples of this construction the real (f>3 model and a U(l) pure gauge theory are considered. In section 3, we present and discuss basic properties of the 0(N) symmetric Gross-Neveu and nonlinear sigma models, which indicate a breakdown of the 1/iV expansions in the noncommutative case. The supersymmetric extension of the nonlinear sigma model to noncommutative space is considered in section 4, where it is proven that it is free of the dangerous UV/IR mixing and, actually, using superspace techniques, that it is renormalizable to all orders of 1/N. Section 5 contains an analysis of the noncommutative Wess-Zumino model. By explicit calculations, it is shown that the model is one-loop renormalizable and contains only mild logarithmic divergences. After that, Ward identities are used to prove that the result holds for an arbitrary finite order. Some good review articles analyzing many aspects of this interesting subject a r e i n
17,18,19.
2. The Weyl-Moyal Correspondence We begin by constructing operators in the above noncommutative space. Weyl20 indicated how can this could be done in a systematic fashion: Introduce the operator T{k) = eik»q" ,
(2.1)
255
which obeys the rules: 1. T*(k) = T(-k)
if q^
=q".
2. T(k)T{k') = T(k + k')e-^k"k'-@'"' which follows immediately after the application of the Baker-Hausdorf formula eAeB=eA+Be^A^
,
(2.2)
for [A, B] = c number. 3. I t T(fc) = (27r)»n M *(*/.)• Following Weyl, in the spirit of Fourier integral, to a classical function (p(x) we may now associate an operator (for notational simplicity dx = dnx and dk = dnk) #
= (2^T
/
dxdk
T(k)eik^"
4>{x) ,
(2.3)
or dk
/
j2^nk)m,
(2.4)
in terms of the Fourier transform <j>(k) of (j)(x), 4>(k)= f dxeikx(j)(x)
.
(2.5)
We may verify that dk —e-ik*Tr[*THk)]
/
.
(2.6)
This formula relates in a very precise way a classical function <j)(x) to a given operator $(). It can be used to construct the so called Moyal product of the classical functions
e - t t ^ ^ r t ^ ) ]
.
(2.7)
/ The Moyal product is a highly nonlocal function involving an arbitrary number
256 of derivatives. In fact, from the definition (2.7) one sees that
M*)*
Mh)Mk2)
(27r)„y (2?r)n y (27r)n e
= lim e i
0
" " ^ ^ My)Mx)
•
(2-8)
We now observe that /,dz0i(z)*02(s)*"-*^n(a;) = Tr[$i$2...$n] ,
(2-9)
Thus, the star product is not modified under cyclical permutation of the fields. Furthermore,
J dxM*) * &(*) = Tr [*i
^
Tr [ 7 ^ ) % ) ]
= JdxfaWhW •
Therefore, the quadratic part of the action of a field theory does not change under the replacement of the ordinary by the Moyal product. Similarly, Jdx Ms) *
MhHMMh) = J ^ Mki)Mk2)Mks)
^
T ^ T r [T (h)T (k2)T (k3)}
(^^)"*^ +fc2+
,
fc3 e ifclA 12
)" '
(2.11)
where we have defined k\ Afc2= |&iMA;2„0'"/ . More generally, we have 21 / dxfaix) * 4>2(x) * ••• * 4>n{x) =
JII T^k M^ih +ha+...+kn) Mh)fa(k2) ... K(kn) exp
-i^AjAij
,
(2.12)
To keep track of the fields ordering at a vertex, it is sometime convenient to introduce a double line notation:
(2-10
257
^ 1
If there are not crossing of lines the graph is said planar, for it can be drawn in a plane. In this situation, up to a phase depending only on the external momenta, it is associated to the same analytic expression as in the commutative case. Otherwise, the diagram is nonplanar and contains oscillatory factors which improve the UV behavior of the Feynman integrals. The next figure illustrates the use of the double line notation for the lowest order radiative correction to the two point function in the
Some simplifications occur whenever some of the fields in (2.12) are equal. In that situation, we may symmetrize on the arguments of those fields so that, in the resulting expression all fields of the same type are equivalent (there is
258
no need to keep track of the initial ordering). Thus, for bosonic theories,
cosfa A k2] MkiWMfafo)
(2.13)
and the same formula holds if all fields are equal (i.e., if >i(x) = <j)2(x)). For a product of four fields we have f 4 dkdx(j>i(x) * (pi(x) *
/
cos
t*1 A k^cos
(2ir)n6 (h + k2 + k3 + h) Mh)Mk2)4>2(k3)Mk4)
t^3 A
ki
\
(2.14)
and
/
/• 4 fife. dx<j>i(x) *
(27r)"<5(A:1+A;2 + fc3+A:4)^(fci)02(fc2)0i(A;3)02(fc4) ,
(2.15)
which, after symmetrization leads to 3 ^C0S ffcl A
/ dx <j>(x) * 4>{x) * 4>(x) * <j){x) = / I I W^
k2 + kl A
^3
+fc2 A £3] + cos [ki Ak2 + ki Ak3 — k2 A k3] + cos [ki A k2 — ki A k3 -k2 A k3}) (2ir)nS(ki +k2 + k3+ k4)j>(ki)4>(k2)4>(k3)4>(k4) .
(2.16)
Peculiar formulas emerge if one consider products of fermionic fields. Thus, for a Dirac Field, denoting by a subscript the Lorentz index,
/
I" 4 dk dxipi (x) * Vi (x) * 1P2 {x) * fa (x) = - / Y[ TT^b s i n [fci (27r)n 6 (ki +k2 + k3 + h) ^ ( k S i i k ^ i k ^ i h )
/
dxipi (x) * fa (x) * tpi (x) * tp2 {x) - i (2Tv)nd(ki+k2
f * dkYl T^pb
sin
A
fo] sin [k3 A k4] (2.17)
ikl hk2 + k3A k4]
+ k3+k4)^i(ki)4>2(kS1(k3)rp2(ki)
and the left hand side of these equations does not vanish.
(2.18)
259 As a simple example illustrating one of the basic aspects of noncommutative field theory, let us consider a real scalar field theory described by the Lagrangian density £ = i d M < W + ^ < £ 2 + !<£*<£*<£•
(2.19)
The momentum space Feynman rules associated to this model are: 1. Scalar field propagator: A
^(P) = 1
(2-2°)
W - •
z
z
p — m 4- it 2. Cubic vertex: igcos(pi AP2) • Let us now compute the first correction to the self-energy of the 4>field.It is given by d4k /
cos2(fcAp) 2
4
2
(2.21)
2
2
(2TT) [(jfc + p) - m p - m ] Introducing Feynman's parameters in the usual way, one arrives at
2
2
rf4fc
f
I =
dx
J JW
2
cos2(fcAp)
[fc 2 -a 2 ] 2 '
(2 22)
'
2
where a = m —p x(l—x).
As cos a — (l + cos2a)/2, we obtain for spacelike
PM
I = II + 1% h
where
= 2(d)m r P - D / 2 ] / ^(« 2 ) D / 2 " 2
(2-23)
1 /• d4fc cos(2fcAp) h
-2jj^r~—^) 4
(2 24)
-
[A: 2 -a 2 ] 2 22
and the last integral may be performed with the help of dnk /
eik*P
(2Tr)n (k2 + M2)x
M"/ 2 ~ A 2 A -!(27r)"/ 2 r[A]
[\/-M2popJ
^n/2-A
(7=p~^p) n / 2 ~ A
where Kx is the modified Bessel function of order x and pop = Therefore, in our case =
lk*Ko(^-4a2pop)
•
(2.25)
p*1pvQliaQv
(2 26)
-
260
For small p this expression diverges logarithmically. Being integrable, such divergence is harmless. However, it indicates the existence of low energy excitations. In the Wilsonian effective action approach, in which a cutoff is introduced no IR singularities appear, it seems necessary to introduce new fields23 as to reproduce the correct IR behavior. The <^ model has been analyzed in 24 , where it was shown that in spite of the UV/IR mixing the model is two-loop perturbatively renormalizable. This has been extended to all orders in the context of the Wilsonian renormalization group 13 . Because of the noncommutativity, special care must be taken when extending theories with local symmetries to the noncommutative setting. As one example we consider the case of a C/(l) gauge theory. If one assumes that the matter field tp transforms like ip(x) -> U(x) * tp(x)
(2.27)
U = (e i A ), = l - H A + ^ - A * A + •••
(2.28)
where
then the gauge field must transform as A'li = U*Ali*U'1
+ ^- {dpU) * U~x . (2.29) l 9 We see that the transformation is similar to the one for the commutative Yang-Mills field. The extension of the pure Maxwell theory to the noncommutative space is given by the action SNCMaxWell(A) = ~ where F^„ = d^A,, - dvA,j, - ig [A,,^,,]^
fdDXF»v
* F„u ,
(2.30)
.
(2.31)
in which
[A„ , Au]t = AI1*AI/-AU*AM For a gauge fixing action of the Lorentz type
SGF = ^JdDx(dflAfi)2
(2.32)
the inclusion of a Faddeev-Popov term SFP = ^ j dDx (g * 5 " I V - <9"ZV * c)
(2.33)
is also necessary. Here D^c = d^c- ig [A^ , c ] t . The total action S = SNC Maxwell + SGF + SFP is highly nonlinear and presents the UV/IR mixing mentioned before. It has been studied separately in 25,23 and also together with the noncommutative U(N) Yang-Mills model in
261
26,27,28,29 There are indications that here also supersymmetry eliminates the dangerous infrared divergences associated with the UV/IR mixing 26 . Interesting enough, these theories are asymptotically free even for N = 1. 3. T h e G r o s s - N e v e u M o d e l In the present lectures, it will be shown that some supersymmetric theories in noncommutative spaces are renormalizable and free of the catastrophic UV/IR mixing. As said before, we will discuss the cases of the susy nonlinear sigma model and Wess-Zumino model. We start by analyzing the Gross-Neveu (GN) model whose supersymmetric version turns out to be the susy nonlinear sigma model. The GN model is specified by the Lagrangian 30 C
9_ 47V ( ^ M ^ ) • are two-components Majorana fields.
=2^^+AN
where V'i,
i = l,...N
(3 1}
-
At this point, I would like to digress a little bit to recall some important points on Majorana fermions. Majorana fermions satisfy V = i'C (from which i/> = V C _ 1 ) , where the charge conjugation matrix satisfies C-SC = -7J
e
CT = -C.
(3.2)
We, therefore, have 1. Contraction of one ip with one ip £W(P)
i
= S(p) = -r-^j
jJ-Af
.
(3.3)
2. Contraction of two ^ ' s : SW = (iPalpfi) = (^a^p)Cp0
= SapCpP = {SC)ai3 •
(3.4)
3. Contraction of two 0's:
% = (Mp) = WxC^jp) = C^Sxp = -(C-'SU
.
(3.5)
The above results are useful to derive Feynman rules associated to Majorana fermions. Let T ^ stand for one of the matrices:
262
a. / , the identity matrix 7M with fi = 0,1,2 in two or three dimensions (in two dimensions 7 2 must be identified with the 7 5 matrix). b. I,
7M, <^ = |[7M,7l,
75 = i 7 V 7 2 7 3
and
7
V,
(3-6)
in four dimensions. Let Va and ipp denote "external" fields. We have
. (3.7)
Thus, for T = / , 7 5 , 7^7 5 the result is twice the first term. In the remaining cases the result is zero (notice that the "current" •ip-y^tfj is zero but
Only in two dimensions the GN model is perturbatively renormalizable. Although perturbatively nonrenormalizable, in 2+1 dimensions the model is I/TV expandable and presents some interesting aspects such as dynamical mass generation. From now on our discussion will be restricted to 2 < D < 4 (whenever necessary we will use 7 0 = a2, 7 1 = ial in D = 2; in D = 3 we may need also 7 2 = ia3) To implement the 1/iV expansion it is usual to introduce an auxiliary field cr and to subtract from (3.1) the term N/4g f (a + jyipip) . The theory can therefore be equivalently written as j
AT
n
C = -i)W--{W)--o2
.
(3.8)
At the quantum level one should integrate over a which can develop a nonvanishing vacuum expectation value (VEV). We replace a by a + M where M is the VEV of the original a. The new Lagrangian is
c=%-$W>- fw - f (MO - ^-/ - YgMa • ( 3 - 9 ) Since, by construction, the field a now has zero VEV, the gap equation M
f dDk
Mi
tn
N
must be obeyed. After a Wick rotation, we should have M M _ f dDkk 2 D kl + M =°2g J {2v) D
<3"n>
263
The ultraviolet divergence in the above integral may be eliminated by a coupling constant renormalization. Indeed, defining the renormalized coupling constant by f dDk
1 _ 1
+
9"m
9
1
[
I (^FfcW
}
the divergence is canceled.
In 2+1 dimension one finds 1
=
9R
/J~|M|
(3.13)
2TT
and therefore only for — — + ^ > 0 it is possible to have M ^ 0. Otherwise M is necessarily zero.
It remains now to compute the propagator for the auxiliary field. It is given by -l/F(p) where W _
2-7
J (2n)D ( i f c 2 - M 2 ) [ ( f c + p ) 2 - M 2 ] '
l
}
The integral in the above expression is divergent but, taking into account (3.10), we get ^
F
KP)
=
(P 2 ~4M 2 )JV f dDk 1 D 2 2 2 J (2ir) ( f c - M ) [ ( f c + p ) 2 - M 2 ] '
*•
;
which is finite for D < 4. We see that the above cancellation of divergences results from a fine tuning between the divergence in the integral in (3.15) and the one in the gap equation. Let us turn our attention to the noncommutative version of the model. By introducing Moyal products we arrive at M-,
SON
1
,-
,,
N
= / L ^ ^ ~ y ^ - ^ * (V' * VO ~
2
N
It can be checked that functional integrating on a leads to a noncommutative version of (3.1) in which the four-fermion interaction is V»j * V>i * i>j * ^Pj • Notice that ipi * xpj * tpi * rpj is another quartic, O(N) symmetric, ordering for the fermionic fields. However, this last possibility does not have a simple 1/iV expansion, as it requires the use of tensorial auxiliary fields.
264
Since the Moyal product does not affect the quadratic part, the propagator for ij) is the same as before. However, in momentum space the cubic vertex has to be multiplied by cos(pi AP2) where p\ and pi are the momenta through the fermion lines. Therefore, the gap equation is not modified whereas for the proper two point function of the
F
+l
. f dDk
(kAp
M = -rg J w^
k-(k + p) + M2
,
2/I
\*-wm+pr-M>]-
.„,„.
(3 17)
-
2
By using cos (fc Ap) — | [ 1 + cos(2/i Ap) the integral in the above expression may be written as a sum of a planar part
i f dDk
k-(k+p) 2
+ M2
2
2 J {2-K)D ( f c - M ) P + p ) 2 - M 2 ]
K
'
and a nonplanar one » f
d k
°
C
2 J (2^ °
,nL
s(2/tA
,
k-(k+p) 2
+ M2 2
, ,„. 2
^(F-M )[(fc;p) -M ]
< 3 " 19 >
Because of the oscillating factor the nonplanar part is UV finite but the planar has the same divergence as in the commutative space. However, because the extra | this divergent parts do not match that of the - term anymore. The model is no longer renormalizable 38 ' 39 . It is worthwhile to remark that, up to the leading order of 1/N, no inconsistency would arise had we employed Dirac instead of Majorana spinors. This is so because in that case the exponentials characteristics of the Moyal product, cancel for the one-loop contribution to the self-energy. Nevertheless, this property does not hold at higher orders of 1/N; the difficulty was just shifted to the next order calculations.
Figure 2. Order 1/N contributions to the self-energy of the ip field. Dashed and wavy lines represent, respectively, the propagators of tp and A fields.
Before embarking into the discussion of the supersymmetric extension of the GN model, we would like to examine the noncommutative version of the
265
nonlinear sigma model. It is described by the Lagrangian density 1 I C = --
N ,
(3.20)
where ipi, i = 1 , . . . , N are real scalar fields and A is the Lagrange multiplier field which implements the constraint
where A\(k),
cos (k /\p) r A A (fc) , {k+p)2-M2
(3.21)
the propagator for the A field, is given by the inverse of
1 f 2 J
dDq
2
(kAq) * (qcos + k) - M 2
(2TT)
C
1 2
2
q - M2
(3.22)
As before, both (3.21) and (3.22) can be written as a sum of planar piece and a nonplanar one. Irrespective of the cosine factors, A^(A;) behaves as (k2f~D/2 when k —t oo and therefore the planar part of (3.21) for large k diverges quadratically. This ultraviolet divergence is partially canceled if one generalizes the definition of I P l diagram to incorporate in the calculation graphs which are not proper with respect the A lines. If this is done one should consider the graph of Fig. 2.b which corresponds to d q cos2 fcA( 1 ,-A ffi\ f d°k ° ( Z) A m ro0o^ 2 2 2 (3 23) / W? W (* + Q) ~ M (q - M2)2 A A ( A ° " Concerning the nonplanar part of (3.21) we notice that it is ultraviolet finite, but diverges quadratically for small momenta. This divergence (UV/IR mixing), which is not present in (3.23), will invalidate the 1/N expansion of the model. _ I A A ( 0 )
4. The Super-symmetric Noncommutative Nonlinear Sigma Model We will show now that the supersymmetric version is however consistent as far as renormalization is concerned 38 . The supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model has been studied in two 3 1 ' 3 2 ' 3 3 , 3 4 ' 3 5 and in three 36 ' 37 spacetime dimensions. The nonlinear sigma model is the supersymmetric partner of the Gross-Neveu model, i. e., supersymmetry blends the two models. To keep supersymmetry under control, it is convenient to use the superspace formulation. The superspace consists of the usual spacetime coordinates and of a two-component
266
Majorana variable, 6i, i = 1,2. The operator
(4-1)
G = Jr+Wfy, d6a T
where 6 = 0 7°, is the generator of the superspace transformation: x* -> x^+ie-y^O 6> -»• 0 + e .
(4.2) (4.3)
Notice that §i = i#2 and #2 = —iQ\. Thus
l
*wa=eawa-
(4 4)
-
M
Therefore eQx = i £7^ 0 and eQfl = e, in accordance with (4.3). We now introduce a N component superfield ^ *,=?;+H,+
\0BFj,
(4.5)
where ip is a N component Majorana spinor and
and
e9 = 0e
(4.6)
we may check that the supersymmetry transformation e Q $ = 5
(4.7)
are given by S
(4.8)
Sip = -i(7 M e)d^ip + Fe
(4.9)
(4.10)
SF = ei pip In the commutative setting, the susy nonlinear sij the action
s-\
JM»;*;,
(4.11)
subject to the constraint N *,** =
9
(4.12)
In (4.11) D2 = \DD, where
°-h-
-MP,
(4.13)
267
is the supercovariant derivative and D = joD. The appendix A contains some important properties of the D operators. In terms of the superfield's components, the constraint (4.12) is equivalent to N
(4.15)
iPiFi = ^ .
(4.16)
(4.14)
The first of these equations is the usual nonlinear sigma model constraint. Introducing a Lagrangian multiply superfield S by S = a + §£ + ^X
,
(4.17)
the constraint may be implemented directly in the Lagrangian. This leads to the action /
dDxd2e
2
2
V
(4.18)
g
As shown in the appendix, after performing the 8's integrations, the Lagrangian takes the form
+ g A V2 - 2 *
~ WW ~ Y
X
"
(4J9)
We now carry out the F integration and, to give a more symmetric form to C, make a "translation" A— > A + 2Ma where M is the vacuum expectation value of a. We get C = --
N
(4.20)
- W M - ^ X - J M V .
It is convenient to redefine A and a so that the new fields have zero vacuum expectation value. Thus making a —> a + M and A —> A + Ao where Ao = (A) we are led to a Lagrangian whose quadratic nonderivative terms are Quadratic
= - y M V
+ g W
+
M
V
~ y
V>$ •
(4-21)
This shows that M is the fermionic mass. We require the bosonic field to have the same mass in order to keep susy unbroken. We therefore have Ao = —2M2.
268
We now consider the terms linear in the auxiliary fields a and A. They are given by linear
= ~ ^np
°
+
2^
~ 2~
(
^
The condition that both a and A have zero vacuum expectation value gives the same gap equation: dDk D
(2TT)
/
i k -M2 2
1 g'
(4 23)
'
After a Wick rotation we obtain the same gap equation as before. Thus, up to here, everything is like the usual non susy Gross-Neveu model.
If Ao ^ - 2 M 2 susy is broken. In such situation the tp field have mass 2 = — (M 2 + A0) and the gap equations for the fields a and A
I
dPk iM (27r)D k2~M2
M g
(4.24)
and /
dPk i D 2 (2n) k + M2+X0
1 g
(4.25)
become clearly incompatible. The possibility M = 0 and Ao < 0 does not lead to consistent theory because the propagator for the a field would diverge.
We shall now proceed to the calculation of the propagators for the auxiliary fields. Besides the kinetic, linear and quadratic terms the Lagrangian density has 2
Lint = ~V2
\
+ 2
(4-26)
Thus we have: Propagator for the A field: —1/Fi(p) where
1 L_ (427) Fi(p) = K [ ^ 2 2 2 2 ( C 2 J (2TT) (k+p) -M k -M " ' Propagator for the a field: In this case there are two graphs that contribute: the seagull and the bubble diagrams. In the effective action they give F2{P) = N I ^ — l 2W J (2TT)C k2~M2
N [-<-*Mfc+?) + M2 J (2w)D [(k+p)2 - M2][k2 - M2] "
l
;
269
The propagator is then - 1 / F 2 . The great difference with respect to the nonsusy situation is that the first term arises from the contribution of the seagull and not of the tadpole graph. Above we have described the points that we want to stress in the usual susy sigma model. We now turn to the noncommutative susy model. It is described by the following action
Fj * (
a * ift * ip
(£ *ip*ip + £*(p*ip)
- - A - — } .
(4.29)
In the preceding Lagrangian we kept the auxiliary field F whose propagator in momentum space is just i. Otherwise, we could have integrated on F as we did before. If this is done one should replace the third and fifth terms in the above action by
— / -(a * a * (fj * (fj + a *
(4.30)
We now list all propagators: 1- ^ field: Aip = Aij(p) =
2. tp field: SF(p) =
id^ - ^ .
jf-M
3. Auxiliary field F: Ap = iSij . 4. Auxiliary field A: A* = — 1/A, where
Plip)
=
N f
^/(0
dnk C
°
s 2 ( f c A p )
2 ^ +' p) ^2 - M ^2" »™ [(Jfe ][fc»2 - M ] •'
(4 31)
"
270
5. Auxiliary field a: ACT = -I/F2, dDk
fM N
where
cos2 (fcAp)
= lw?
k2-M2
f dDk k-(k+p) + M2 2 N I " "DcCo sS 2 ( (fcAp) P) 2 2 J (2TT) ° [(fc + p) - M ][fc2 - M 2 ] (p2-4M2)
y
rf^fc
7 (2TT) D C ° S
2
(
A P}
1 [(fc + p) 2 - M2][fc2 - M 2 ] (4.32)
6. Auxiliary field £. The propagator, S^, is minus the inverse of r./ x
*T
F3(p) = Ar
f dDk
y (2^FC0S
2„
(fcAp)
.
.(j*+2M) /• dDfc
= AT-
- #+ M
[(fc +P ) 2 -M 2 ][fc 2 -M 2 ] 2
2—/(2^ C ° S ( f c A p ) I(fcT
1 p) 2 - M2][fc2 - M 2 ] ' (4.33)
To go from the first to the second line in the above formula we have taken into consideration that the result should be of the form a jf + b; to fix a we then multiply the integral by rf and take the trace; afterwards one use that p • k = |[(p + fc)2 —fc2— p2] and that after a shift of integration only the term proportional to p2 contributes. A graphical representation for these propagators is provided in the next figure Ap
Ap
A* * v v \ ^ v w v
The vertices are the same as before but will have cosines factors: ifipX vertex:
icos(piAp 2 )
(4-34)
arptjj vertex:
—icos(pi AP2)
(4.35)
£V"/>
vertex:
icos(pi Ap 2 )
(4.36)
aipF
vertex:
i cos(pi A p 2 ) •
(4-37)
271
Using the above rules one can verify that in 2+1 dimensions the degree of superficial divergence for a generic graph is d(7) =3-N^,-^Nv-Na-
|jVc - 2NX ,
(4.38)
where No is the number of external lines associated to the field O. Let us examine some of the divergent graphs.
yZ^V y Figure 3.
iT\
V-
1/JV corrections to the ip field self-energy.
In lowest order there are three graphs contributing to the
and
respectively. By adding these expressions, we get ^ ^
=
. / 9 , ro\ f dPk -,(^-M^)y^ F [ ( f c
+p )
cos2(k/\p) 2 _ ^ _ 4 M
2 ]
A
A
(
. ... f c ) .
, , ,„. (4.42)
Individually each of the graphs is quadratically divergent but the sum diverges only logarithmically. This divergence can be eliminated by a wave function renormalization of the
(¥+^M)co^kAP)
~ J (2*)*> [(fc+p) 2 -M 2 p 2 -4M 2 ]
( 4 4 3 )
272
and • f ddPkk
(¥+2M)coSHkAp) ^(fc) \{k + p)2 - M2][k2 - AM2}
(444)
so that f dDk
__. l
~~ ~ J
(p'-M)cos2(kAp) D
(2TT)
2
[(k + p)
- M2][k2 -
Ax(k)
AM2]
.
(4.45)
We see that the leading divergence is canceled and just remains a logarithmic divergence which may be absorbed by a wave function renormahzation of the V field which is the same as in the case of the ip field propagator. Up to this point, the renormahzation is therefore supersymmetric.
I
I
w 4,a Figure 4.
I
I
!
J
f
J
^::.:::| i:::.vl £zzi 4,b
4,c
4,d
Leading order contributions to the three point function
T\^^.
To complete our discussion, we need to examine the N > 2 point functions: Taking the three point function, r \ w , as an example, it can be seen from Fig. 4 that, at leading order, there are two sets of diagrams to be analyzed. The first set contains just the diagram 4a which exhibits three cosine factors. In the other set are grouped graphs which contains five cosine factors, namely, the diagrams 4fe, 4c and Ad. Hence the divergent part of each set of graphs becomes altered with respect to the commutative regime 36 in such a way that it can no longer be absorbed by just a wave function renormahzation of the (p field. In contrast with the commutative situation, a renormahzation for the auxiliary field is also needed. The four point function of the scalar field, Tili2i3i4(pi,P2,P3,P4), receives contribution from the graphs shown in Fig. 5. They are superficially linearly divergent and are so potentially dangerous, as, if needed, the counterterms will not have the form of the vertices present in the original Lagrangian. The
273 amplitudes associated to the graphs of Fig. 5 are (4) a
r _d°k_ J (2n)D
(k + P1)2- M2 (-fc + p 2 ) 2 - M 2
A A (*)
Ax{k+Pl-p3)C(k)
F(4)
dDk
., A
f d°k
Tr
(4.46)
(*)Aff (fc + Pi-ps)C(fc) ,
[ ( y + i / l ) _M 5 « ( f c + P l
(4.47)
P3) (4.48)
5?(fc) C(A), where C(fc) = cos(fc A pi) cos(fc A P2) cos[(A; + pi) A P3] cos[(fc - P2) A P4] .
(4.49)
I 5.
5.c
5.6
Leading order contributions to the four point function of the scalar field ip.
In D = 3 the above integrals are linearly divergent. However, as far as the sum of these amplitudes is concerned, it is readily seen that the leading divergence cancels and that the subleading one vanishes under symmetric integration. These considerations hold irrespective of the presence of the cosine factors in the function C(k). Thus, there is no UV/IR mixing that would eventually give rise to infrared divergences. The above discussion can be generalized to other Green function leading to the conclusion the the susy GN model is one-loop renormalizable. In the sequel, using superspace techniques we shall demonstrate that this result actually holds for arbitrary order 40 . Our starting point is (4.18) in which we assume S has a non zero vacuum expectation value. Thus, replacing S -> S + m where m is the vacuum expectation value of the original S, we obtain the new action / '
xd2e
1
^>j{D2-m)^j
S * [ $j * $j
9 J.
(4.50)
274
Using this expression it is straightforward to verify that the propagator for the basic superfields $ is <*i(pi,0i)*>(P2,02)> = i^^6ij63(p1
-p2)812
,
(4.51)
p\ — m^
where we have introduced the notation 812 = 8(§i — 82)8(61 — 62)- The interaction vertex is given by
= fd2e f
rj?zE*$j*$i
d3k1d3k2 (2TT)6
Afc2)S(-fci -k2,e)$i{ku6)$i{k2,6)
= COS(*I
.
(4.52)
To find the effective propagator for the auxiliary field, let us consider the supergraph shown in Fig. 6, where the wavy and continuous lines are associated to the E field and to the $ propagator. This graph contributes as d3l
?/*W?S
cos 2 (A; A / )
(2TT) 3 (I2 - m 2 ) ((A + I)2 -
m2)
X(k,61)X(-k,92){{D2+m2)812){{D2+m2)812)
,
(4.53)
which may be simplified, if we perform partial integrations, transferring a D2 operator in one line to the others. This frees one of the 8 and, using the results quoted in the appendix we arrive at the expression N f d29 ±{k, 6) (D2 + 2m) Z(-k, 6) I~l (AT2) ,
(4.54)
where
j-i (tf) {
=
'
l f J!L 2 J
cos2(A; A 0
(2TT) 3 (I2 - m2)
((Jfe + I)2 - m 2 )
'
l
;
From (2.25) it follows then
•^-£1
dx 1 - i y/Ak o k (m2 - k2x(l - x)) yjra2 — A;2a;(l — a;) .
x J-K_1/2
(y/4kok(m2-k2x(l-x)))
(4.56)
For large k the last term either exponentially decreases or strongly oscillates; in both cases, its presence in a Feynman integral will lead to a finite result. For practical purposes, the dominant asymptotic behavior is given by
275
Since we are interested just in the UV behavior of the Feynman amplitudes, we find convenient to replace I~1(k2) by the expression i j - i ft*) ~ V ' 32 V - k2 + Am2
(4. 5 8) '
V
which has the same asymptotic behavior at k -> oo as (4.57). Of course, such replacement does not alter the leading UV behavior of Feynman integrals. Proceeding in this way, we obtain
/xsvf Figure 6.
-
j w
Leading contribution to the two point function of the S field.
-
1 16i
D2 — 1m I? 2 - 2m
iV V-fc 2 + 4m2
53 (h - k2) S12 .
(4.59)
We can now fix the superficial degree of divergence for an arbitrary supergraph. Denoting by n and n s the number of internal $ and S lines, we have d(7) = 3L - 2n$ - n E + iVD2 ,
(4.60)
where L is the number of loops and ND2 is the maximum number of D2 factors which turn into loop momenta after the 0 integration. Since, to obtain a nonzero result, one D2 has to be associated to each loop this number turns out to be ND* = n* + n E - L = V - 1 ,
(4.61)
where V is the number of vertices. Thus, from the counting identities, relating the number of external and internal lines no and No and the number vo of lines associated to the field O which ends at the interaction vertex, 2nQ + Na = v0V
(4.62)
276
we obtain d(7) = 2 - JVE - ^
,
(4.63)
By comparison with (4.38), one immediately see that in the superfield language the Feynman graphs present less divergences than the usual ones of the component formalism. Indeed, it follows that there is no quadratic divergences except for vacuum diagrams and, as we shall see shortly, there are neither linear divergences; hence this theory is free of the nonintegrable infrared divergences which spoil the usual perturbative expansions. One should also stress that (4.61) is actually an upper limit on the number of available D2 factors since, after taking one D2 factor for each loop, the number of those that may be converted into momentum must be even. Because we have already discussed the leading 1/iV renormalization problem before we will not consider it here again. Nevertheless the superfield formalism is very powerful allowing us to prove that the model is renormalizable to all orders. We begin this analysis by proving that there are only logarithmic singularities and, therefore, no IR/UR occurs. The first observation is that supergraphs with two external E lines have negative degree of divergence. Indeed, the number of vertices V in such graphs is always even, V — 1 is odd and, then, the number of D2 factors that may be turned into momenta decreases by one from the value specified in (4.61). Hence, these supergraphs are superficially convergent. By the same reason, all supergraphs with two external $ lines are at most logarithmically divergent. Indeed, the number of vertices is also even leading to the conclusion that one of the D2 factors is superfluous and can not be converted into momentum. Thus, the superficial degree of divergence decreases from one to zero. Analogous reasoning applied to the four point function of the $ field shows that there is no overall divergence associated to the ultraviolet behavior of the graph as whole. We may conclude that there are at most logarithmic divergences and, therefore, only a mild integrable infrared singularity will appear. This result is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee that the model is renormalizable.lt still remains to prove that the needed counterterms have the same Moyal product structure of those vertices already present in the original action. Specifically, one needs to show that, at any given order of 1/N, the divergent parts of the supergraphs with two $ and one E external lines generate a counterterm of the form J d 5 z S * $ j * # i . Actually, this result follows from the property cos a\ cos a-i ... cos an =
)
cos (a\ ± a,2 ... ± an) ,
(4.64)
where the sum is taken over all possible combinations of the ± signs. The above expression allows one to demonstrate that for any graph with an arbitrary
277
number of loops there is one planar contribution, i.e., containing a cosine factor depending only on the external momenta. In fact, this result holds for an arbitrary (having any number of external lines) one-loop graph. To see that, consider the one-loop graph depicted in Fig. 7. From (4.64) we extract the following term
Figure 7.
COs[k Api + (k+pi)
One loop graph with n external lines.
Ap2 + ••• + (k+pi
+ ...+
Pn-i)
A pn] ,
(4.65)
which, after taking into account external momentum conservation, turns out not to depend on the loop momentum, as stated. We now assume that the result holds for an arbitrary n-loop graph. We may then increase the number of loops by one unity by joining two external lines through a tree diagram consisting of one line with possibly other external lines attached to it (see Fig. 8). Using the same procedure as in the one-loop case, we can verify again that there is one term whose cosine factor does not depend on the new loop momenta. This proves our statement. 5. The Noncommutative Wess—Zumino Model As yet another example where supersymmetry is essential to prevent a catastrophic UV/IR mixing in noncommutative field theory, we will consider now the four dimensional Wess-Zumino model described by 41 C =
\A{-02)A Zt
+
\B{-02)B £
+ \i>{i @-m)i> + Zi
\F2
+
Zi
+ mGB + g (FA2 - FB2 + 2GAB - iiipA - i^j5ipB)
\G2
+ mFA
£
,
(5.1)
where A is a scalar field, B is a pseudo scalar field, tp is a Majorana spinor field and F and G are, respectively, scalar and pseudoscalar auxiliary fields.
278
Figure 8. (a) An n-loop contribution. The dashed circle stands for an arbitrary graph, (b) The n + 1-loop graph obtained by joining two external lines through a tree structure.
By extending the above model to a noncommutative space one is led to the Lagrangian density C = \A{-d2)A
+ \B{-d2)B
+ \^{i
+ mGB + g{F
@-m)iP+
\F2 + l-G2 + mFA
*A*A-F*B*B+G*A*B+G*B*A
— ip *ip * A — ip * i"f5ip * B) .
(5.2)
The Lagrangian (5.2) was also written using the superspace formalism in 42>43. However, we will work with components fields in order to trace the effects of noncommutativity in the divergent Feynman integrals 14 . The propagators for the A and F fields are obtained by calculating minus the inverse of the matrix p2 m m 1 This gives (see Fig. 9 ) &AA(P)
2
yr
(5.3)
— m 2 + ie
A F F ( P ) =P2&AA(P)
(5.4)
,
&AF(J>) = &-FA{P) = -mAAA(p)
,
(5.5)
whereas the propagators involving the B and G fields have identical expression (i.e., they are get by replacing A by B and F by G). For the ip field we have
279
AAA
(P)
P
AFF
(P)
—- P -
AAF
(P)
p
-
p
A BB (P) AQG (P)
— -p-
A ^ (p)
P_
Figure 9.
Notation for the propagators in the Wess-Zumino model.
The analytical expressions associated to the vertices are:
FA2
vextex:
ig cos (pi Ap2)
,
(5.7)
FB
2
vextex:
-ig cos (pi Ap 2 ) ,
(5.8)
GAB
vertex:
2ig cos (pi A p2) ,
(5.9)
•ipipA vertex:
-ig cos (px Ap 2 ) ,
(5.10)
-ipipB vertex:
-ig75 cos (pi Ap2) .
(5.11)
Due to the oscillating factors provided by the cosines some of the integrals constructed with the above rules will be finite but in general divergences will survive, the degree of superficial divergence for a generic 1PI graph 7 being d( 7 ) = 4 - IAF - IBF -NA-NB-
2NF - 2NG - ^
,
(5.12)
where as before No denotes the number of external lines associated to the O field and IAF and IBF represent the number of internal lines associated to the indicated mixed propagators. In all cases we will regularize the divergent Feynman integrals by using the supersymmetric regularization method proposed in 44
280
Using the above rules it is easy to verify that contributions of the tadpoles add to zero (remember: the tadpoles are not modified by the noncommutativity of the underlying space).
Here we will use the Ward identities to prove that (F) = 0, a result that will important later on. A convenient way to derive the Ward identities is to introduce external sources for all fields. Thus the action is replaced by S = f {C + JAA + JBB + JFF + JGG - irpl>) .
(5.13)
Under a supersymmetry transformation 5A = iaxp ,
(5-14)
6B = ia
(5.15)
6ij>= @(A + j5B)a
+ {F + f5G)a
(5.16)
SF = ia ftp ,
(5.17)
SG = iaj5 ftp ,
(5.18)
it can be checked that the actions associated to the kinetic terms, mass terms and interaction terms are separately invariant. We suppose that the sources are changed in such a way to keep (5.13) invariant, i. e., 8JA = -i{dtf)'fa
(5.19)
8JB = -i{dllri)l5Ya
(5.20)
SJF = irja
(5.21)
SJG=irj^5a
(5.22)
Sv = dM (JF -
T&JG)
7 M a + (JA + iM
a
(5.23)
Thus, modifying the variables of integration by a supersymmetry transformation we get (since the transformations are linear the Jacobian turns out to be constant) 0 = f D[
(SJ0) O ,
(5.24)
where Jo is the external source associated to the field O. Therefore . i 2 , . _, ,, . SZ .„ _. „ . SZ _ . SZ _ - i j j - (9 M ??)T +1 jj~ (d»V)IsT + * jj- V + * JJ-Vls - — [dp {JF - 75Jo)
^
+ JA+
75JB]
=0
(5.25)
281
In a more formal level we suppose that the model has been regularized in such way that these Ward identities preserved (Ref. 44 has provided an explicit susy preserving regularization). Taking the derivative of Eq. (5.25) with respect to 7] (more precisely, applying the operator / dy A, •.) and letting all sources vanish we get (F) = 0 (Notice that by parity conservation (G) = 0). The Ward identities are preserved when the ordinary product is replaced by the Moyal product. This is so because the susy transformations commutes with translations so that
6(A *B) = (5 A) *B + A* {6B) .
(5.26)
Let us now examine the contributions to the self-energy of the A field. The corresponding graphs are those shown in Fig. 10a—lOe. In that figure diagrams a, b and c are quadratically divergent whereas graphs d and e are logarithmically divergent .We shall first prove that the quadratic divergences are canceled. In fact, we have that
k
a
-
/
•
e Figure 10.
One loop graphs contributing to the two point function of the A field.
282
rio.-c(^) = - 9
2
J ^
cos 2 (* A p) {4fc2 + 4* a
- 2Tr[(#+ p/+m)(jt
+ m)]} A(k+p)A(k)
,
(5.27)
where the terms in curly brackets correspond to the graphs a, b and c, respectively. After calculating the trace we obtain j ^
{p-k + m2) cos2(k A p)A{k)A{k+p).
(5.28)
This last integral is, at most, linearly divergent. However, the would be linearly divergent term vanishes by symmetric integration thus leaving us with an integral which is, at most, logarithmically divergent. Adding to Eq. (5.28) the contribution of the graphs lOd and lOe one arrives at r i o a - e ( ^ ) = 8 » 2 / -0^cos2{pAk){p-k)A(k)A(k+p)
.
(5.29)
To isolate the divergent contribution to Fi0a_e(AA) we Taylor expand the 2 coefficient of cos (p A k) with respect to the variable p around p — 0, namely, j ^
cos2(p A fc)^1' (p) [(p • k)A(k)A(k
+ p)] p=0
= 162 / ^ 4
cos2
(P A *) ,}?'k)l3
,
(5-30)
where t^(p) denotes the Taylor operator of order r. Since cos2 (A; A p) = (1 + cos(2fc Ap))/2 the divergent part of (5.30) is found to read 1 1 2 / ^ (5-31) a = i h 9 P , 4 2 2 J (27r) (k - m ) where the subscript £ remind us that all integrals are regularized through the procedure indicated in 44 . In the commutative Wess-Zumino model this divergence occurs with a weight twice of the above. As usual, it is eliminated by the wave function renormalization A = Zx/2Ar, where Ar denotes the renormalized A field. Indeed, it is easily checked that with the choice Z = 1 — I^g2 the contribution (A.4) is canceled. We turn next into analyzing the term containing cos{2k Ap) in (5.30). For small values of p it behaves as p2ln(p2/m2). Thus, in contradistinction to the nonsupersymmetric <j>\ case 23 , there is no infrared pole and the function actually vanishes at p = 0. One may check that at one-loop the B field self-energy is the same as the self-energy for the A field, i. e., T(BB) = T(AA). Therefore the divergent
Tmv (AA) = 2 gV
283
part of T(BB) will be eliminated if we perform the same wave function renormalization as we did for the A field, B = Zll2Br. We also found that the mixed two point Green functions do not have one-loop radiative corrections, T(AF) = T(BG) = 0. The one-loop corrections to the two point of the auxiliary field F are depicted in Fig. 11. The two graphs give identical contributions leading to the result /
HAk ^cos2(kAp)A(k)A(k+p),
(5.32)
whose divergent part is
^ ( M ^ t f / l ^ j p J ^ = »,,>.
(5.33)
involving the same divergent integral of the two point functions of the basic fields. It can be controlled by the field renormalization F — Zx/2Fr, as in the case of A and B. Analogous reasoning applied to the auxiliary field G leads to the conclusion that G = Zxl2Gr. However, things are different as far as the term containing cos(2fc Ap) is concerned. It diverges as ln(p 2 /m 2 ) as p goes to zero. Nevertheless, this is a harmless singularity in the sense that its multiple insertions in higher order diagrams do not produce the difficulties pointed out
• / • • "I
Figure 11.
I • • • ( • • •
I B B m/m a l £
C a wimm
m
One-loop correction to the two point function of the auxiliary field F.
Let us now consider the corrections to the self-energy of the spinorfieldif) which are shown in Fig. 12. The two contributing graphs give
/ /
dAk ^cos2(fcAp)A(fc)A(fc+p)[(#-m)+75(m-#)] dAk -—cos2(k
A p) ft A(k)A(k+p),
(5.34)
so that for the divergent part we get Tniv (V'VO = W2 i> h leading to the conclusion that the spinor field presents the same wave function renormalization
284
Figure 12.
One-loop corrections to the self-energy of the spinor field.
of the bosonic fields, i. e., ip = Zxl2tl)T. As for the term containing cos(2A: Ap) it behaves as fHn(p2/m2) and therefore vanishes as p goes to zero. All one-loop potentially divergent diagrams were examined and the final result is that the theory may be ultraviolet finite by just making a wave function renormalization of the basic and auxiliary fields We shall prove now that no mass and coupling constant counterterms are needed at any finite order of perturbation theory. As in the commutative case, our proof relies heavily on the Ward identities. We start by noticing that from Eq. (2.12) it follows that favJlr^ [d4x 0(x) * 0{x) *•••* 0(x) = n[d*x Ofx) * 0(x) *•••* 0(x) . J o(J(y)J > ' J > „ v n factors
n—1 factors
(5.35) In turns, this enables one to find
L z «=-^Itj^ d , "-i ) ! J M d , <' z l J ] •
(5 36)
-
which looks formally identical to the corresponding relation in the commutative case 44 . Here, Z( J) is the Green function generating functional. By collectively denoting the fields by cp, Z(J) can be cast as Z(J) = JD
f dtx J(j> J ,
(5.37)
where S = J dAxC and C is the regularized Lagrangian.
The derivation of (5.36) is as follows: 9
.JefiJ[C+J4>] i nr.j-.iM
=
1^1 Jf eiJ[c-c i t\r.-r t+J4,] -i-.iM J f ^ ^ S S^ j c ^ ^
^
(538)
dm where Cg = g(F*A*A-F*B*B
+
+ G*B*A-lp*ij;*A-:i!)*ij5ip*B)
G*A*B .
(5.39)
285 Integrating by parts we then arrive at
- % J eiS+ifU J Fd4y D[(I>]-Y9IeiS+i
fH 3AdSm
1
• (5-40)
In terms of the 1PI generating functional T(R), the Legendre transform of the connected Green function generating functional W(J), T{R) = W{J)-
f JoRo
(5.41)
the identity (5.36) becomes
lw-% J „*»,+! I'm?,.
(,42,
By taking the functional derivative with respect to RF and then putting all R's equal to zero we obtain m = T(FA) =o
= Z'1 Tr(FA)
n
,
(5.43)
p*=0
where Tr(AF) is the renormalized 1PI Green function of the indicated fields. We take as normalization conditions those specified in 4 4 . Specifically, r r (i r 'A)| 2 = mr , where mr is taken to be the renormalized mass. Hence, mr = Zm implying that there is no additive mass renormalization. Through similar steps one also finds that gr = Z3/2g, where gr is the renormalized coupling constant. This implies the absence of coupling constant counterterms. We stress the fact that, by exploiting the Ward identities, we have succeeded in generalizing to all orders of perturbation theory the one loop result concerned with the absence of counterterms different from those already present in the original Lagrangian. This result has been re-obtained by using the superspace formalism in 45 . The one and two loops action for the noncommutative Wess-Zumino model has been calculated in 4 6 .
Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by Pundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq).
286
Appendix A. In this appendix we shall collect some properties of the supercovariant operators D = ^ - i 9 0,
(A.l)
D = L-i$>e
(A.2)
= 1°D.
With these definitions it is straightforward to verify the (anti) commutation relations {Qa,
D0} = {Qa,D0}=O
(A.3)
Using these formula, we may define the invariant operator, D2 — ^DD, which has the form D2 = \DD = \ 2 2
eeadda
MUOp^r + iOx-Hs-Wxc+wa? Kr p ' "dea "dea
-\w».-m",'k+T*
= -\Dt>
(A 4)
-
The supercovariant derivatives satisfy DXDD = - 2 * ?>aX Da
(A.5)
DXDD = 2» 0Xa Da
(A.6)
(DD)2
(A.7)
= -4D .
Integration with respect the #'s is defined in the usual way. For convenience, we normalize such integrals so that I d2d 66 = - 2 ,
I d26=
f d2661 = f d2662 = 0 .
(A.8)
With the above definition, one may check that, for an arbitrary superfield
fd26F
= V[D2f]
(A.9)
where the operator V projects its argument at 6 = 6 = 0 i.e., V[0(9,S)] = 0(0,0). The above properties provides a very efficient tool to perform calculations in supersymmetric theories. Thus, for example, with the help of (A.4-A.9), we
287
may be derive that f d 3 x d 2 0 £ $ 2 = i f d3xV{D[{DY,)$2
+ 2Y,$D$]}
= f
d3xV[D2^2
- DS(Z)$)$ + L>E$L>$ + £ £ $ £ > $ + 2 E $ D 2 $ ] =
d?x[-
Xip2 + liup - £(p$ - aipip - 2a
(A.10)
where, to obtain the last equality, we used V[$] = y ,
V[D&] = 7 V = - ^ ,
2
V[D $] = -F , V[DY] = £ ,
P[S] = a ,
V[D$\ = *l> ,
7>[DE] = 7 °C = - f ,
V[D2Y] = - A .
(A.ll) (A.12) (A.13)
To compute Feynman's diagrams in superspace some useful simplifications are &H — 9 ( ^ ~ ^ ) C* ~ ^o)
(A.14)
{hf = o
(A.15)
£>2^- = 1
(A.16)
Sij D S^ = 0
S^ D Sij = 0 .
(A.17)
The general procedure is to integrate by parts (remember: D2 is a differential operator in superspace) "freeing" as many S as possible. Because of the above properties, at the end of this process a nonvanishing contribution must be such that, each loop in superspace has an odd number of D2 operators acting on a single line of the loop. Thus, after separating one D2 for each loop, the the number of the remaining D2 factor must be even. These can be converted into momenta, using (A.7). References 1. S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, J. E. Roberts, "The Quantum Structure of Spacetime at the Planck Scale and Quantum Fields", Commun. Math. Phys. 172, 187 (1995). 2. R. Jackiw, "Physical Instances of Noncommuting Coordinates", talk at School on String Theory, Istanbul, Turkey, 2001, hep-th/0110057. 3. H. Snyder, Phys. Rev. 71, 38 (1947). 4. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, "String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry," JHEP 9909, 032 (1999), hep-th/9908142. 5. P. Kosinski, J. Lukierski and P. Maslanka, "Noncommutative Parameters of Quantum Symmetries and Star Products", hep-th/0012056.
288 6. G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Doplicher, S. Nam and Yun-Seok Seo, "Phenomenology of Particle Production and Propagation in String-Motivated Canonical Noncommutative Sapacetime", hep-th/0109191. 7. B. A. Campbell and K. Kaminsky, "Noncommutative Field Theory and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking", Nucl. Phys. B581, 240 (2000), hep-th/0003137; "Noncommutative Linear Sigma Models", Nucl. Phys. B606, 613 (2001), hepth/0102022; F. J. Petriello, "The Higgs Mechanism in Noncommutative Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B601, 169 (2001), hep-th/0101109. 8. N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, "Space/Time Noncommutativity and Causality", JHEP 0006:044 (2000), hep-th/0005015. 9. J. Gomis and T. Mehen, "Space-Time Noncommutative Field Theories and Unitarity", Nucl. Phys. B591, 265 (2000), hep-th/0005129. 10. L. Alvaxez-Gaume, J. L. F. Baxbon and R. Zwick, "Remarks on Time-Space Noncommutative Field Theories", JHEP 0105, 057 (2001), hep-th/0103069. 11. A. Bassetto, L. Griguolo, G. Nardelli and F. Vian, "On the Unitarity of Quantum Gauge Teories in Noncommutative Spaces", JHEP 0107, 008 (2001), hepth/0105257. 12. H. O. Girotti, M. Gomes, A. Yu. Petrov, V. O. Rivelles and A. J. da Silva, "The Low-Energy Limit of the Noncommutative Wess-Zumino Model", hepth/0101159. 13. L. Griguolo and M. Pietroni, "Wilsonian Renormalization Group and the Noncommutative IR/UV Connection", JHEP 0105, 032 (2001), hep-th/0104217. 14. H. O. Girotti, M. Gomes, V. O. Rivelles and A. J. da Silva, "A Consistent Noncommutative Field Theory: the Wess-Zumino Model", Nucl. Phys. B587, 299 (2000), hep-th/0005272. 15. K. G. Wilson and J. Kogut, Phys. Rep. 12, 265 (1974). 16. J. Polchinski, Nucl. Phys. B231, 269 (1984). 17. V. O. Rivelles, "Noncommutative Supersymmetric Field Theories", Braz. J. Phys. 31, 255 (2000), hep-th/0107022. 18. M. R. Douglas and N. A. Nekrasov, "Noncommutative Field Theory", hepth/0106048. 19. R. J. Szabo, "Quantum Field Theory on Noncommutative Spaces", hepth/0109162. 20. H. Weyl, Z. Physik 46, 1 (1949). 21. T. Filk, "Divergences in a Field Theory on Quantum Space", Phys. Lett. B376, 53 (1996). 22. I. M. Gel'fand and G. E. Shilov, "Generalized Functions", Vol. 1, Academic Press, 1964. 23. S. Minwalla, M. V. Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, "Noncommutative Perturbative Dynamics", JHEP 02, 020 (2000), hep-th/9912072. 24. I. Ya. Aref'eva, D. M. Belov and A. S. Koshelev, "Two-Loop Diagrams in Noncommutative (pi Theory", Phys. Lett. B476, 431 (2000), hep-th/9912075. 25. M. Hayakawa, "Perturbative Analysis on Infrared Aspects of Noncommutative QED on R4, Phys. Lett. B478, 394 (2000), hep-th/9912094; "Perturbative Analysis on Infrared and Ultraviolet Aspects of Noncommutative QED on i? 4 ", hep-th/9912167. 26. A. Matusis, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, "The IR/UV Connection in Noncom-
289 mutative Gauge Theories", JEEP 0012, 002 (2000), hep-th/0002075. 27. L. Bonora, M. Schnabl and A. Tomasiello, "A Note on Consistent Anomalies in Noncommutative YM Theories", Phys. Lett. B485, 311 (2000), hep-th/0002210. 28. M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, "Renormahzability of the Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories on the Noncommutative Torus", JEEP 9906, 015 (1999), hepth/9903107. 29. A. Armoni, "Comments on Perturbative Dynamics of Noncommutative YangMills Theory", Nucl. Phys. B593, 229 (2001), hep-th/0005208. 30. D. Gross and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3235 (1974). 31. O. Alvarez, Phys. Rev. D17, 1123 (1978). 32. E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D16, 2991 (1977). 33. I. Ya. Aref'eva, V. K. Krivoshchikov and P. B. Medvedev, Theor. Math. Phys. 40, 55 (1979). 34. A. D'Adda, P. Di Vechia and M. Luscher, Nucl. Phys. B152, 125 (1979). 35. A. C. Davis, J. A. Gracey, A. J. Macfarlane and M. G. Mithcard, "Mass Generation and Renormalization of Supersymmetric Sigma-Models and Some Other Two-Dimensional Theories", Nucl. Phys. B314, 439 (1989). 36. V. G. Koures andK. T. Mahanthappa, "Renormalization of a (2+1) Dimensional Supersymmetric Nonlinear a model in 1/JV Expansion", Phys. Rev. D 4 3 , 3428 (1991). 37. T. Matsuda "Tadpole Method and Supersymmetric O(N) Sigma Model", J. Phys. G22, 1127 (1996). 38. H. O. Girotti, M. Gomes, V. O. Rivelles and A. J. da Silva, "The Noncommutative Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model", hep-th/0102101. 39. E. T. Akhmedov, P. DeBoer and G. Semenoff, "Noncommutative Gross-Neveu Model at Large N", JEEP 0106:009 (2001), hep-th/0103199. 40. H. O. Girotti, M. Gomes, A. Yu. Petrov, V. O. Rivelles and A. J. da Silva, "The Three Dimensional Noncommutative Nonlinear Sigma Model in Superspace, Phys. Lett. B 5 2 1 , 119 (2001), hep-th/0109222. 41. J. Wess and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B70, 39 (1974); Phys. Lett. B49, 52 (1974). 42. S. Ferrara and M. A. Lledo, "Some aspects of Deformations of Supersymmetric Field Theories", JEEP 0005, 008 (2000), hep-th/0002084. 43. S. Terashima, "A Note on Superfields and Noncommutative Geometry", Phys. Lett. B482, 276 (2000), hep- th/0002119. 44. J. Iliopoulos and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B76, 310 (1974).
290 45. A. A. Bichl, J. M. Grimstrup, H. Grosse, L. Popp, M. Schweda and R. Wulkenhaar, "The Superfield Formalism Applied to the Noncommutative Wess Zumino Model", JHEP 0010:046 (2000), hep-th/0007050. 46. I. L. Buchbinder, M. Gomes, A. Yu. Petrov and V. Rivelles, "Superfield Effective Action in the Noncommutative Wess-Zumino Model", Phys. Lett. B517, 191 (2001), hep-th/0107022.
W H A T IS B E H I N D T H E TRICKS OF DATA ANALYSIS IN HIGH E N E R G Y P H Y S I C S
PHILIPPE GOUFFON Instituto de Fisica, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa Postal 66318, 05315-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil E-mail: pgouffonQij.usp.br
This series of lectures on data analysis in HEP is by no means a complete course of statistics. The intention was to point to common tricks used in data analysis and the errors that come from ignoring the conditions that are assumed when the tricks are applied. Very often, "black box" programs or formulae are used blindly, without knowledge of their restrictions.
1. Introduction In order to go over a few of those tricks, some basic statistics knowledge is required so a summary is given here. This text follows what was presented in the transparencies. The outline of the talks was: • Basics — — — —
Probability x statistics Basic concepts Probability density functions (PDF) Measurement model
• Test of hypothesis • Confidence intervals • Fits — — — —
Maximum Likelihood Least squares Test of hypothesis Confidence intervals
When one reads an experimental article, one finds words like • good fit, good x2 (or bad x 2 ) • upper limit (upper bound) • 95% confidence interval or a 3 a effect
291
292 • • • • • • •
bump d.o.f, degrees of freedom, or a 2 c fit systematics (or statistics) dominated conservative estimate Bayesian approach non Gaussian tails etc...
One can even find these words in theoretical papers, since theoretical calculations do have uncertainties (besides errors). What is the meaning of those words, what are the assumptions behind them, how to read between the lines? 2. Bibliography There are many good textbook on statistics, data analysis. Most of them are not really suited for particle physicists. The following list was used for the preparation of the talks and is divided in decreasing order of complexity. • Hard core statistics - "Advanced Theory of Statistics", Kendall, Stuart., 5th ed, Oxford University Press, NY 1991 This one is for those who like the subject and want to go deep into it. • Related to HEP - "Statistical Methods in Experimental Physics", Eadie et al., North Holland 1971 - "Probability and Statistics in Particle Physics", Frodesen, Skjeggestad, Tofte, Universitetsforlaget 1979 • Crash course, emergency situation - Particle Data Group review (full listing) • Others - BIPM (and NIST) publications and standards 3. The basics In this section, we discuss some basic concepts and models needed to understand the underlying hypothesis on which the data analysis methods are built.
293 3.1. Basic
Concepts
• Random events and random variables - Random events are events that have more than one outcome, which is not predictable. - Random variables are associated with random events, they carry a value (measurement) related to the event. For example, the number of background counts measured by a Geiger-Miiller counter during 5 seconds. Its value is not predictable. • Probability distribution - Related to the probability that a random variable has a given value (discrete) or a value that falls between two limits (continuous). - The distribution reflects the properties of the random events. - The knowledge of the properties of the events allows one, in principle, to derive a probability distribution and thus calculate probabilities. In practice, most of the time one has to do Monte Carlo simulations in order to get a good idea of the distribution and compare it with data. • Independence - A very important concept that is implied in many data analysis methods and ignored, leading to wrong conclusions - Events are dependent when the knowledge of some error on one allows predictions to be made for another event. In other words, two events (and the values associated with them) are independent if a correction made on one does not affect the other. For example, if several laboratories use the same standard of calibration then their measurements are not independent: if the standard is found wrong and re-calibrated, all the values will be changed in a predictable manner. - The independence is measured by the correlation (or covariance). Independent data have a null covariance. The converse is not true, however. - Very often, the so called "systematic" errors (see below) are in fact due to dependence between measured values. 3.2. A Measurement
Model
In order to better understand data analysis and its limits, a simple model for the measurements is very helpful.
294 Let's suppose we want to measure a variable X, associated with a random event, for example the position of a detector. In order to make sense, the measured value must correspond to a so called true value fj, that is the real thing, that will not change during the experiment. If there is not such a true value, as for example, the number of particle with spin up in a sample of N particles, there is still the probability of having n particles in a given state, and this probability is fixed and can be associated with this concept of true value. The next assumption is that it is impossible to measure X without making some error. Error, in this context, is not an experimental wrong doing. It is just that one can't perfectly, with infinite precision, measure a value. The model says that one makes an infinite number of infinitesimal errors, the sum of which, the total error, is e. These e have equal chance of moving the value up or down, none is much larger than the other. Thus, the expected (mean) error is null: (e)=0 and the variance is not:
In this model, each measurement Xi has then a different value: Xi = n + t{ but the average value tends to the true value (i and the variance is a2: (Xi) = (fJ.) + (£;) = fl
((Xi - M) 2 ) = (e2) = ex2 . The main point here is that if we repeat a measurement, we should get different values that can't be guessed. However, if we make an histogram, they should accumulate around fx. This is so because it is very unlikely that most of the errors add up in the same direction, as they have individually the same probability of being positive or negative. In fact, it can be shown that this model leads to a Gaussian distribution with a central value equal to /*, as a consequence of both the Central Limit Theorem and the law of large numbers. If we reverse the reasoning, a non Gaussian histogram of measurements means that al least one the hypothesis is not verified, for example that there is some "error" that dominates. Does it mean that if one repeats the measurements a very large number of times, n will be reached? The answer is no. One limit is the precision of the instrument. Even if the average of the measurements is known to a large
295
precision, the calibration of the instruments becomes a cause of uncertainty that can't be removed by further measurements with the same instruments or different ones calibrated the same way. This has to do with two type of errors (separated just for didactic purpose): the random error, related to precision (how reproducible is a result) and the systematic error, related to the accuracy (how calibrated is the instrument). Systematic errors should be treated as covariance between measurements. An example of this is given at the end, under "error propagation". Finally, the existence of few errors that dominate the measurements can lead to distributions that are not Gaussian (the so called non-Gaussian tails). 3.3. Probability
Density
Functions
Probability Density Functions (PDF), also known as distributions, are functions that show how the values of a random variable are distributed. From them one can calculate expectation values (average), standard deviation, asymmetries, etc. But the main use is to calculate the probability that a random variable will have a value in a given range. This can be used in two ways: as a forecast, to evaluate how many values will happen to be in that range (in order to design an experiment, for example), or to compare it with experimental values to look for anomalies. From the characteristics of one event, it is possible to deduce the PDF that will represent the values of the associated random variable. Any textbook will give the formulas for the binomial distribution, the Poisson distribution, the Gaussian (or normal) distribution so there is no reason to do that here. However, it may be interesting to look at the characteristics of events that correspond to these distributions. Binomial events are characterized by having only two possible outcome, A and B, mutually exclusive (both can't happen at the same time) and complementary (there is no other possibility). The probability of A happening is p, fixed and known. Thus, B has a probability q = 1 — p of happening. Also, there is a known and fixed number of candidates for this event (called trials). The number of successes (NA) is counted, that is, the number of times that one (A) of the two possible outcome happened. One important detail also is that if one outcome happens, it does not affect the probability of that (or the other) outcome happen later. So if all these conditions are met, the event follows a binomial distribution. One example is be the number of events in one histogram bin. It may be binomial because either it falls in the bin or out of it. However, it will only be so if the total number of events is known before and fixed! Poisson events are more subtle to characterize. Very often one uses a limit
296 of the binomial in which the probability of observing the event goes to zero but the number of trials goes to infinity in such a way that the product is finite (it will be the average number of observations). But this does not encompass all the possible Poisson events. In fact, the Poisson distribution gives the probability of finding exactly r events in a given length of some quantity (like time, length, surface, etc..) if the events occur independently from each other at a constant rate (per unit of that quantity). The conditions for Poisson events are: 1) the probability of finding one event is independent of the origin (in the sense of coordinate) chosen, 2) the probability of finding one event is proportional to the length of the interval (p oc XI) and 3) the occurrence of one event has no effect on the others. There 3 conditions must be respected. If not, one may get into wrong results. Such an example is given below. One interesting consequence of the second requirement is that the probability of finding no events decreases exponentially with the quantity. For example, if an event rate is A events/second, then the probability of getting no events is proportional to e~xt. That means that Poisson events tend to come in chunks, many together followed by long intervals without any event. This is easily observed in background radiation, cars along a highway and the well known Murphy's law. An example of mis-identification of what is a Poisson event is discussed in some details in Eadie et al. (p. 53), a false indication of a free quark finding (McCusker, PRL 23(1969)658), which consisted in counting the number of droplets per unit length in a cloud chamber. The probability of a relativistic particle causing condensation by ionization is constant per unit length and if it causes ionization at a given place, it does not change the probability of doing it again anywhere else. This satisfies all 3 conditions above. The first analysis assumed that each interaction created one droplet, so the probability of finding a track with 110 droplets/u.l. when the average was 229 was virtually zero (1.6 10~ 18 ). However, this was questioned by (Adair, PRL 23(1969)1355) with the argument that the ionization process is Poisson, yes, but each interaction yields 4 droplets. This brings the probability of seeing the signal (27.5 ionizations/u.l.) to 6.7 10~ 6 , to be compared with the experimental 1 in 55000. A further analysis, using the fact that the production of droplets is also Poisson with an average of 4 droplets per interaction yields a probability of getting 110 droplets/u.l. or less to 4.7 1 0 - 5 , not significant at all. The final distribution is called a compound Poisson distribution. This example shows how critical it is to properly identify the characteristics of the underlying events that affect the measurements, in order to choose the right distribution.
297 4. Confidence Intervals 4.1.
Introduction
From the measurement model discussed above, if one assumes that there are no systematic errors and if a measurement is repeated many times and histogrammed, the histogram should show a concentration of values in a small region (if the bins are properly chosen). What can be extracted from that histogram? • the number of events N (if it was not known before) • the average of the measurement, x "1
"I
^bins
i=l
j=l
2
• the variance <7 (and standard deviation a) 2 °~ ~
1
L
~TT
N
W 7X /
N-1*-^
i=i
N
x
\i
JV —\2 - X) = —
'
N-l
dl
N
V^ 2 —2 —- > Xil — X
L
N ^
«=i
a is related to the precision of the measurement and represents the RMS value of the random error. The larger iV is, the better x is known:
This indicates an apparently contradictory requirement: in order to improve the result (to lower a^) the random error is necessary. But one must remember that as N increases and thus a^ decreases, there is a point where this so called statistical error becomes smaller than the accuracy of the instrument, which is related to the systematic error, unknown. There is usually no use in improving the result by increasing the number of measurement beyond this point. So, what can be said about Xi and x (and also a and er^)? • we can estimate P(a < Xi < b), the probability of measuring X{ between a and b • we can accept a value Xk as belonging to the same set of values as {x^} (compatibility test) • we can compare the estimated a (precision, resolution) with what we expect (from vendor specifications, Monte Carlo simulation, e t c . ) . If we repeat the experiment over and over again and calculate x and then histogram x, what should we get? Is P(a <x
298
have a theoretical value for /i, the true value of x, how can we compare it to xi and x? =>• We need to discuss intervals. 4.2.
Intervals
An interval [a, b] has a probability contents or a confidence level /? if the probability of finding the value fx in it is /?: ^ ( o < M < &) = /
/(a;)da; = £ .
•/ a
=>• One should know /(a;), the P.D.F. However, if /(a;) is known functionally but its parameters are not, one can get an interval for them: P(fj, + c<x
+ d) — P(x — d < /j, < x — c)
= P =>• a measurement of x yields an interval for /x. Intervals can be one sided or two sided, it depends on what is wanted. For example, the calibration of a weigh scale, for physics, needs a two sided interval, as the important information is whether it is calibrated or not, while for commercial purposes, the interval is single sided, the important information being if the quantity is not less than the marked one. 4.2.1. Example Suppose a density measurement yields d = (1.35 ± 0.33)g/cm3. There are two expected values for that material, /ii — 1.7g/cm3 and fii = 2.0g/cm3. From a cumulative normal distribution table, one gets that a 90% two sided interval goes from — 1.645CT to +1.645
299 (3) 2.0 ± 1.645 x 0.33 = [1.46; 2.54], the interval based on the theoretical value / ^ and the standard deviation from the data (0.33). This interval does not contain the experimental average x — 1.35. It corresponds to an interval that has a 90% probability of measuring x if the true value is fa • All three intervals have the same probability contents (90%). From the distributions, one can compute an interval where the measurements have a probability /3 of falling. In fact there is an infinite number of such intervals (if /? ^ 1) and usually the smallest one is chosen. One must take seriously the meaning of /?: (1 — /?) of the times, x will be out of the interval even if the correct values for the parameters of the distribution are known (and used) A very good example of this fact can be seen in the introduction of the Long Listing of the PDG, in the plots of some published values as a function of the publication date. 4.3. Confidence
Belts
We have seen that from the parameters of a distribution it is possible to compute intervals for measured values and vice versa. In order to build confidence belts, that will define limits on parameters given a measurement, one calculates limits t\ and t2 for a given value 9 of the parameter, varying this parameter 6: 0 = P(ti =
= f2 f(t(6))dt . Figure 1 shows the process of building confidence belts. 5. Test of Hypothesis In the example of intervals above, there were two theoretical values fi\ and fa that were compared with an interval defined by the experimental result. An alternative method of dealing with this problem is the test of hypothesis, described here. 5.1. Basic
Concepts
• Null hypothesis (Ho) This is the hypothesis against which a value is tested, for example, is
300
e2
e 9!
r
v?
t2(Q)
*l(©)
Figure 1. Building a confidence belt (solid lines). Varying 0, one gets the corresponding limits t\(6) and £2(0), shown as a dashed line. Later on, when tmeas if measured, the corresponding limits on 6, B\ and 02 are found (dotted lines).
x = (j, = 4?. Usually, the test is chosen in such a way that the rejection of Ho is the desired result - a theory is never confirmed, it is "not rejected". Alternate hypothesis (Hi) (can be "not i?o") Used when there are two competing possibilities to be tested against each other. Assuming one variable x (called statistics), fi is the space of x values, that is, all the values that x can take. The critical region u (also known as rejection region) is the range of values of x that would invalidate the null hypothesis HQ. Thus, Q — UJ is the acceptance region, in which a value x would not invalidate the hypothesis HQ. The level of significance a, also known as the size of the test, is the probability of rejecting H0 when H0 is true: P(x
€ CJ\H0) = a
301
• The alternative, (1 — /?), is called power of the test: P(x £ w|ffi) = 1 - / 3 or
P(x e il-w\Hi)
= /3
5.2. Errors In an ideal world, one would accept Ho when it is true and reject it when it is false. But this does not happen and it is possible to make mistake, in fact it is impossible not to make them: there are two type of errors defined for a test of hypothesis: • The type I error, also known as loss, is the rejection of HQ when Ho is true. It is related to the level of significance a mentioned above. As soon as a is fixed to a non zero value, then in a of the cases, the value of x will fall in u, forcing the rejection of HQ even though it is true. • The type II error, also known as contamination, is the acceptance (or the lack of rejection) of H0 when HQ is false. It is related to the power of the test /J.Even if the alternate hypothesis is true and Ho is false, there is a chance /? of accepting HoFigure 2 shows the meaning and compromise of a and /?. The choice of a and i
•
'
'
'
'
i
•
•
'
•
i
H,
Figure 2. Plot of a null hypothesis Ho and an alternate Hi probability distributions. When a is defined, it also defines /?, eventhough it is possible to make the critical value different for each.
(3 is very much subjective and depends on how much one may loose (a) or
302
accept a contaminated sample (/?). It is clear that a small value for a in order to minimize the loss will increase the chance of accepting Ho when it is false
5.3. Where is the test of hypothesis
used
Very often, when dealing with situation where a decision has to be made, there is a test of hypothesis hidden, with a level of loss and contamination to be chosen. In Particle Physics, the most common situations are: • Particle identification: in a detector that should separate particles according to some criteria (momentum, mass, dE/dx, ...) there is usually a region of overlap between two particles (/i vs e, p vs w, e t c . ) . The choice of where to set a value below which a particle is called Pi and above which it will be Pi is clearly a question of loss and contamination, thus a test of hypothesis. • Cuts, which are very much like the particle identification: to choose events with a certain physical characteristic (mass, for example). If the region fl — w is small, the loss is large but the purity is improved. • Fits (x2 tests, see later) are also a good example of test of hypothesis. If one uses a standard (5-95)% \ 2 interval to accept a fit, then a — 10% is the risk of rejecting a fit that should have been accepted, the loss that usually one accepts to have in order to avoid accepting bad datasets or the wrong function. However, if one has 100 fits to do, rejecting 10 sets may be too "expensive" and a lower a may be more reasonable. 5.4.
Subtleties
There are several subtleties in the test of hypothesis, which become obvious when one goes into the real world. First, the PDF must be known in order to optimize the test power (the ideal balance between a and /?)• There is the same danger as discussed above, of not knowing the correct nature of the event. There is also the problem of mis-identifying fi and w, thus discarding more events than expected. Very often, the chosen method is simulation. Second, there are several tests and statistics that are available. Which one is the best? There are the power functions, discussed in many text books, that can give some mathematical comfort, but very often only practice will dictate the proper choice. Third, there is a great deal of subjectivity in setting a and j3, as mentioned above. Loss is also called cost and can be counted in $. For example, the
303
quality control in a factory can lead to a production loss (a large) but also to the loss of costumers if too many bad products pass the control (a small). Another example would be nuclear power plants shielding and emergency protection. The risk must be pretty small because the cost of an accident will be astronomical. Finally, a lighter example would be of a young physicist having a result that would not be accepted by a well established theory using a reasonable a value and be perfectly compatible with a new, untested one: he would have to evaluate the risk of breaking his future career against his chance of going to Sweden. What has been discussed above is for a one-dimension variable x. However, there are techniques for 2D, 3D . . . nD (composite hypothesis test) that are available, very similar in concept to what was said above. In dimensions larger than 1, f2 can be made of small disconnected domains, which make tests harder to visualize. A final note: as for the intervals, where events could — and will — fall out of the desired regions, errors I and II are unavoidable, so it is impossible to make a decision based on a test of hypothesis without being wrong a of the time.
6. F i t s One of the most frequent use of statistical methods is to fit curves to data, in order to extract values for the parameters of a model that should represent the data. Together with the values, its uncertainties are also wanted. The sentences above touch many subjects that were discussed before: hypothesis test for values of a model, confidence intervals for values, even the quality of a fit. In what follows, the values obtained in the fit are called estimates and the formulas used are estimators. We will first discuss the so called point estimators, introducing the concept of maximum likelihood and the properties of estimators. Then we will move to the least-squares method (linear and non-linear) and finally to some tests of goodness of fit. Point estimators are "formulas" that give one value (point) from a series of measured values (the data). Examples would be the average, the standard deviation, the skewness, the parameters of a function, etc... There are many estimators for the same quantity. For example, the position of an histogram can be evaluated by the mean, the median or the mode (maximum). Each estimator has its qualities and problems. One of the most frequently used is the maximum likelihood estimator, which we will discuss now. Its properties will be discussed afterwards.
304
6.1. The Maximum
Likelihood
Let's suppose we measure a set of values N {xi}, corresponding to a quantity X whose true value is \i. We use an instrument that is well calibrated and the whole process has an uncertainty (precision) a. According to the simple model described above, the measurement process samples Xi from a Gaussian distribution of average fi and variance a1. If we histogram the data we should get a Gaussian shape distribution, centered around fi with a standard deviation a. Now, in fact, we don't know the values of fi and a (otherwise, why measure X?). How can we extract values from the data, that is, how can we get estimates for these parameters? In order to derive a method (estimator) for that, let's first suppose we know their values and the PDF (in this case a Gaussian, but it could be any distribution, as we will see later in the examples). Let F(£i\0 ) be the PDF of x given the true value of the parameters 9. Here, we use a vector because this discussion can be extended to multidimensional data points, not only ID measurements. Also, 6 is a vector of parameters, in the case of a Gaussian, the vector has two components, the average /x and the standard deviation a. F{xi\6 ) gives the (density of) probability of measuring the data point Xi given the values 0 of the parameters. We could compute the (density of) probability of having measured the set {xl} of N points: N
Now, this is only possible if we know the value of the parameters. But we don't! The concept of maximum likelihood is to state that what has been measured ({xi}) is what was most likely to happen given the real value of n and a. Thus, the method of maximum likelihood consists in maximizing £ with respect to the parameters. The formulas obtained are the maximum likelihood estimators and the values the estimates. For example, in the case above (gaussian),
F(x-i\9)=F(xi\»,o-) = -L^e-hC-^)2
.
V2ira Thus, -,
£
1
1 / « 1 - M \2
1
g 2^ " '
=
\F2SKO = —__
1 I *2-M-,2
y/2ira e
1
e 2^ " ' • • •
2 z-.-=U
„
y/2na ;
1 /^JV-^-,2
e 2^ * '
305
C can be maximized relative to n and o~: N
\n£ = -JVln ( v & ) - I £ d\n£ 0/i
= 0
feliiY
; ^=^E N
n
d\nC xi 2 = 0 ^2 = jj da N Y,( - ft The last equation needs some comments. In statistical books, the denominator for a2 is not N but N — 1. In fact, this formula would be correct if /x was known and we didn't use /Z instead. To use N instead of N — 1 will give values for a that are a little smaller than it should, because p, is a better value for the data that were collected than the true value p . The N — 1 corrects this tendency. This discussion leads to the properties of estimators. 6.1.1. Properties of Estimators Ideally, a good estimator should yield correct values and not be too sensitive to errors in measurements. Let's see what properties an estimator can have and what the maximum likelihood have. (1) Consistency The estimates tend to the correct value as the number of data points (N) increases: 0 -> 0O
when
N -> oo
(P(\§ - 0O\ > e) < rj) .
For example, the law of large numbers with respect to the average. (2) Bias The bias is the difference between the expected value E{6) and the true value 6Q: bN{0) = E{0) -0O = ((0 - 0O)) . An estimator is said to be unbiased if for all N, b^f(0) = 0. An estimator may be asymptotically unbiased if 6jy —> 0 as N increases. This is the case for the maximum likelihood estimate of
306 (a): consistent, unbiased, like:
i!
= ^B
Xi
XI
(b): consistent, biased, like:
(c): inconsistent, unbiased (d): inconsistent, biased
Figure 3. increases.
How bias and consistency
reflects on the P D F when the number of entries JV
(4) Efficiency An estimator is more efficient than another if it has a smaller variance. For example, the variance of teh average is smaller than the variance of the median. In fact, there is only one estimator that has the minimum variance. If one can write the derivative of £ as a function that depends only on the parameter 6 times the difference between the estimator 0 and the parameter, dlnC de
=
A{9)
[e - e]
then the estimator 6 has a minimum variance (and is unique). The variance is
V{0) = { E
dlnC 86 -l
H a ? 2 ) e=ei A(d) For example, in the Gaussian case discussed above, In
r = -*_(,/&)-IWs^V
307
dlnC de
= E: N ~75 JV
vE 1 *- M
"
N
So /t = -^ ^ Z j has a variance CT2/AT and it is the minimum one. However, for the variance a2, it does not work: 6>m£=
N
|
E(^i-M)2
5CT
7V
N because the form is not as required: 8 — *"^XiN **' depends also on the other parameter, \x. The maximum likelihood estimators are consistent and asymptotically unbiased It is possible to get a good estimate of a2 from In C by plotting In C against 9 as seen in figure 4.
Figure 4. Plot of In £ as a function of a parameter. The line situated at — 1/2 below the maximum of In C defines an interval of 2
308
Having found the maximum of InC, the values of 6 that correspond to In CM AX — 0.5 define a la region (68%) and In CM AX — 2 define a 4
Estimators
The least squares (LS) method can be seen as a particular case of the maximum likelihood method, in which the data PDF is a Gaussian. Thus, the LS estimators are consistent and asymptotically unbiased. The general formula
can always be used, even if the data are not Gaussian, but in that case, since they did not come from the maximum likelihood function, the estimators may not have the good properties just mentioned. Least squares are use routinely and usually blindly, leading to wrong results and wrong decisions. It is critical to understand what LS means in order to be able to interpret results correctly. In the following sections, we will discuss in some details: • • • •
straight line fit (to see the passage from maximum likelihood to LS) generalized linear function (with covariance) non linear fits a estimates, \ 2 distribution and test, residuals, etc...
6.2.1. Straight Line Fit Let's suppose that the data have a linear dependence. The model for the fit is yt = a + bx, + Ci where Cj is the error, distributed according to a Gaussian distribution of average H = 0 (no systematic error) and variance of. The likelihood function and its
309 logarithm are then
C(x\a,b)-l['7f^-e~2{
"
i=l V(27r)ai
\n£ =
]
-N\nV^-^\nai-\(jryi-a-bXi)2 \i=l
i=X
°l
)
To maximize C (or l n £ ) is equivalent to minimize Q in the expression (1) above. The solution of the system ^ =0 ^ =0 da db will give the estimators a and b for the line. This system can be written in a matrix notation: MA = D where
»=i
*
k-\
N
Dk = E ^ V Ai
=a
A2-b
The solution is A=M~1D M _ 1 is the covariance matrix of a and b. What would be the meaning of the covariance between a and b (
GaOb
En
5
Ir^x? °t V o\
W
pab is an adimensional number between —1 and + 1 that tells how much a and b are correlated, that is, after the fit, how much changing a will affect b and vice versa (aba — Gab)- For a straight line, it is easy to understand. If
310
the all positive, then if the angular coefficient increases, the linear one will tend to decrease, so the correlation is negative (thus the minus sign in the equation (2)). If the x^s are all negative, an increase of the angular coefficient will lead to an increase of the linear one. And... if the X{ are balanced between negative and positive (with weight 1/of) in such a way that the barycenter is at x = 0, then any change in one coefficient will have no effect on the other. A very interesting aspect of this fit is that M depends only on Xi and
^2ak9k(x)
y=
k=0
where a^ are the parameters we want to fit, gk a function that does not depend on ai and x is a set of independent variables (abscissae) in the case of multidimensional fit. If we make a set of N measurements of j/j at convenient values of £$, we can write the model as 2/1 = a0#oO?i) + a1g1(xi)
+ ••• + aM gM{xi) + ex
2/2 = ao 0oO?2) + ai 9\ {x2) + ••• + aM 9M 0?2) + £2
2/iv = ao 9O(XN) + ax giixw) + ••• + aM 9M{XN)
+ ejv
where e* is the error, from a Gaussian with mean fi = 0 and standard deviation Cfc. This system can be rewritten as (Vi\ 2/2
\ynj
( go{xi)
ai 01(11)
«M5M(^I)
ffo0?2) ai 51(12)
a.M9M{x2)
\9O{XN)
ai#i(zjv) ••• aMgM{xN))
\
f a0 \ a\ \OM/
£2
\ZN)
311
which can be rewritten in a matrix form: Y = XA + e X is called the design matrix because it comes from the model. In this method, we can also introduce the variance matrix of the measurements, where the covariances between values (systematic errors?) can be included:
/*?
v=
012
^13
0~1N\
021
-I
023
02JV
(731
032
V 0AT1
0^2
0~3N 0JV3
Now, the sum of the squares Q becomes
Q = (Y- XA)1 V'^Y - XA) which, when minimized, has the solution A=(XtV-1X)-1XtV~1Y and VJ4 = ( X * V - 1 X ) - 1
is the variance matrix of the fitted parameters A. This is the most general linear fit one can do with correlated data (and uncorrelated data too). Just for information, if we want to estimate confidence intervals for the parameters Ao, assuming the distribution is a Gaussian, it will be a multivariate normal distribution, whose PDF is f(A)
=£exp
-I^-^v-1^-^)
where B is a normalizing factor. 6.2.3. Example (from O.Helene) An experimenter wants to estimate the signal So and the background BQ from 3 measurements: Meas. 1
What was measured only background
Duration h = 10s
Counts 2/i = 5 8
2
signal + background
t2 = 5s
2/2=36
3
signal only (!)
h = 10s
2/3=31
312
(1) Covariance matrix V: using a from a Poisson distribution: a = *Jn and assuming that the measurements are independent: V =
/ 58 0 \ 0
0 36 0
0 \ 0 J 31 /
(2) Design matrix the model is: yield = B0h + Sots + error, where h is the duration of the background measurement time and ts is the duration of the signal measurement time (they could be different)
©-(; 3 <»•(:)• (3) Solution
X*V_1X =
1/58 0 0
10 0
0 1/36 0
0 \ / 10 0 5 1/31 / \ 0
0 \ 5 10 /
_ / 2.419 0.694 \ _
V °- 694
3 920
-
/
v^ _ (x v x) - ^ _Qm
Q 26Q
j
1 = vA = (x'v-ix^x'v-V = ( 52f8 ) (4) Results: B0 = (5.39 ± 0.66) counts/s S0 = (2.88 ± 0.52) counts/s (TBoSo = -0.077 Notes: • The third measurement is not very realistic (no background) but the idea here is to show the potential of the method
313
• This method allows the simultaneous use of the background only and background+signal data, that will give a better estimate of the background: all the information is used! • Also, each measurement is independent of the other, so the covariance between the data is zero. If we subtract the average of the background from the signal+background measurements, the data points would be correlated! • From this analysis the covariance between the fitted signal and the background comes naturally and can be used in further computations. By the way, why is it negative? 6.2.4. Non Linear Least Squares This is unfortunately the most frequent situation and the one most prone to errors. Let's assume we have a generic function F(x,a), not linear in a (here also, x could be a vector). The sum of the squares Q is written as usual
^ (y{ -
F(xi,a)
Q = Y,
2
o-i
However, the system formed by the derivatives, -$*- = 0 will not be linear in the parameters. One has to use numerical methods such as grid search, gradient search, linearization or any minimization recipe (applied directly to Q). One very convenient method now available is the "solver' tool in spreadsheets like MS Excel. Or well known packages like Cern's Minuit. Once the parameters that minimize Q are found, we need the uncertainties. There are two ways of getting them: (1) Like the maximum likelihood method, one can plot Q as a function of one parameter and this time, find the parameter values that will increase Q by one unit to define a 2
_,
f
N
1
dF
3F So
9a
r>
and then invert it. The derivatives must be calculated at the point of minimum Q. It will be the variance matrix for the parameters. This is an approximate method that will give symmetrical uncertainties, even
314
though very often in non linear fits the "error bars" are not symmetrical. The first method will give asymmetrical uncertainties. As mentioned above, non linear fits are tricky. There are several dangers that will hit unexperienced people: (1) Local minima: very often, Q has more than one single minimum. This is easy to understand in the case of a periodical function but it happens also in other cases. The way out is to use the fact that most of the minimization methods are interactive and need a starting guess: repeat the fit starting from different initial guesses and see if it converges to the same solution. (2) Convergence: the iterative process can miss the minimum if the starting point is not chosen very well. Some methods converge faster if the guess is close to the minimum, others if it is far away. Also, the minimum may be very flat so the program may consider it converged even though it is far from the real minimum. This "feature" shows up in the uncertainty of the parameter, which will be very large. A frequent cause of difficulty to reach convergence is a badly built function. A typical example is to fit an exponential F(x) = Ae~Xx + B and considering the fit almost good, decide that adding a constant C in the exponent will be better: F{x) = Ae~Xx+c
+ B
C and A have the same effect on the exponential: they define the amplitude: F(x) = Ae-xce~Xx
+ B = A'e-Xx+C
+B .
A robust fitting program will decrease A while increasing C and then reverse the process and will never converge. A weak program will just crash. The correlation matrix will have a nice —1 at the position PAC ! (3) Bias: if the measurement errors are not Gaussian then a non linear fit may be biased. The way of checking that is by simulation, generating datasets that are fitted and the results compared with the "true value" that in this case is well known. Sometimes the bias can be corrected. (4) Uncertainties: they may be wrongly estimated by the matrix method above. For nonlinear fits, the intervals may be formed by disconnected small intervals or the interval not be symmetrical with respect to the fitted value. These are non Gaussian errors that are hard to deal with
315
in further calculations. Once again, simulation is the right tool to see what the fit gives back. 6.3. The x2 Test and Residuals
Analysis
Both maximum likelihood and least squares methods will give back numbers for the fitted parameters and their uncertainties. What many people forget is that these methods give the answer to what was asked, that is, what parameters will maximize In C (or minimize Q) for the function selected and the assumed PDF. If the question does not make sense, like to fit a constant to a parabola, there will be an answer, probably a correct one, that also does not make sense. In order to evaluate how well the function represents the data after it has been fitted, several methods can be used, of which two will be discussed: the \2 test and the analysis of residuals. However, there is a level 0 method that is often ignored (by black box users at least) but is probably the best for a quick check: plain old plot of the fitted function overlaid on the data. 6.3.1. The x2 Test First of all, what is a x 2 ? If a random variable Zi is normally (Gaussian) distributed with mean fi = 0 and standard deviation a = 1, then N
X%=Y: i-l
is a x
with N degrees of freedom. Its average is (XN) — N and its variance
What is its relation with least squares, to the point that very often we hear the expression "chi squared fit"? Well, the definition of Q above (equation (1)) is a sum of terms of the type I y'~f\x<> j . If • f(xi) is the true value of j / , • the PDF of the errors of yt is a Gaussian with average /i = 0 and variance a\ • of is indeed the variance of yi then Zi = Vi
is normally distributed with mean /j, = 0 and standard deviation a = 1, that is, Q is a x 2 variable with N — p degrees of freedom, p is the number of
316
parameters. There are N - p degrees of freedom because of the N terms in Q, p are not "free" as there were already p data points used in the fit. So, yes, there is a link between the least squares method and the x 2 . If, and only if, the conditions laid above are true, Q is a x 2 random variable. Now, the x2 PDF, shown in figure 5, can be used to perform a test of hypothesis. As 0.125
0.100
0.075
i£ 0.050
0,028
0.000 C
Figure 5. x2 distribution for 10 degreses of freedom. Exclusion regions of 5% on each side are shown
said in the test section, the strength of such a test is to reject an hypothesis. So, Ho will be the function fitted represents well the data, a represents the chance of rejecting this hypothesis when it is true. Usually, a = 10%, 5% on each side. The real meaning of the x2 comes from the fact that it is a random variable, that is, if the measurements axe repeated, they will be slightly different (each data point will fluctuate according to a normal distribution) so the fit will be different (that's the meaning of the uncertainty of the fitted coefficients) and so will be the x 2 - So, even if the true function is the one that is being fitted, once in a while the x 2 will be too high or too low to be accepted, an error type I. • A x 2 that falls between the limits set by the 5% limits on each side will just mean that the hypothesis is not rejected. It does not mean that the function is the good one. • If the x 2 Wis above the upper limit, the hypothesis is rejected. In 5% of the times, this is wrong, that is, this is an accident. If the cost of such an accident is high, one can raise the limit. • If the x 2 is below the lower limit, the fit is too good to be true and should be also rejected.
317
The three cases are standard interpretation and are the right ones IF all the assumptions about the data and the function are correct. Now, let us revisit these cases, but not in the same order: • The x2 is too high. Assuming it is not an accident, which will be true 95% of the time, what can make a x 2 too high? Either a large numerator or a small denominator. Respectively, the function does not represent the data or the uncertainties Oi are underestimated. The two options can be separated by looking at the residuals (see below). It may be also that the error PDF is not a Gaussian and have large tails that allow the values to fluctuate more than the cr* in a Gaussian would allow. • The x2 is too low. Assuming it is not an accident, which will be true 95% of the time, what can make a x2 too low? Either a small numerator or a large denominator. The large denominator is an easy one: uncertainties are overestimated, not unfrequent for conservative experimenters. The small numerator, if not an accident, tells a lot about someone's attitude towards data picking rather than data collecting. The only way of having a small numerator is by removing points that do not behave like expected. No further comments on that except that statistics only works when there is no human interference with the experimental results. Besides removing "bad" measurements, a practice that is often used is data smoothing. If the so called "error propagation" is not properly handled, the effect will be small fluctuations. Data smoothing introduces correlations between the data points and more often than not they are not taken into account. If this is the case, including the covariances in the fit will recover the right value for the X2• The x 2 is in the acceptance region. Well, it is perfectly possible to have an acceptable x 2 with the wrong function if the uncertainties are large enough to accommodate the deviation between the data and the curve. In this case again, the analysis of the residuals can tell a lot.
6.3.2. The Reduced x2 Very often, the reduced x2 (x2ed — X2 lvi where v is the number of degrees of freedom) is used for a quick test. Since the average of the x 2 distribution is equal to the number of degrees of freedom, the expected value for x2red *s o n e Thus the common expression "the x2 is close to one". But how close? As said
318 above, a22 = 2N so
X-red
\j J\f
An acceptable range (~ 95%) for "one" would be interval is not symmetrical, except for large N.
l±2,/£
However, the
6.3.3. The Use of Q to Compare Fitted Functions All that was said up to now is for "serious" statistics, using the value of the X2 as a valid number. However, the x2 c a n D e used even if the uncertainties are wrong or the distribution not Gaussian. In fact, in that case, formally Q is not a, x2- It should not be used for testing purpose (rejecting or accepting a fit), but as a comparison between several possibilities. In that sense, the lower the x2 the better, taking into account the differences of degrees of freedom (a fit of a function of N parameters to N data points will yield a null x2 and basically no information). An increase of the number of parameters to be fitted should decrease the x2 • There is a test of significance for that, called the "Fisher F test", that evaluates how relevant is the additional parameter based on how much the x2 diminishes (the expectation, obviously, is one per additional parameter — one less degree of freedom — so a decrease larger than one per degree of freedom may be significant). A secondary, undesirable effect of increasing the number of parameters is a large increase in the uncertainty of all the parameters.
6.3.4. Residuals The residuals or pull variables measure the difference between the measured value and the fitted value in units of its standard deviation 3 T%
Vi =
F(xi\a) o-i
If the errors are Gaussian and the function is the right one, r^ has a normal distribution with mean zero and standard deviation one. If we make a plot of rj vs Xi, we expect • half the points above zero and half below • 68% within [ - ! ; + ! ] , 95.4% within [-2;+2] a
Some authors use the word residual to designate only the numerator.
319 • since r, are random, each have a 50% chance of being positive (or negative) so it is very unlikely that more than 3 or 4 in sequence be positive (or negative). Thus, we don't expect many points in sequence on the same side of the axis.
From this, it is clear that the points must be scattered around the axis and there should be no pattern like some points above followed by a series below and then again several above. This pattern would indicate that there is a difference of shape between the data and the function, even if the x2 is acceptable, a hint that the standard deviations of the points are overestimated. This plot gives much more information than the regular yi vs X{ plot, as it deals with the differences rather than the absolute value. Also, being normalized by (Tj, point that are far away from the curve but with a corresponding large uncertainty will not show up as an outlier, while a point close to the curve with a tiny uncertainty will be easy to spot and may explain a large x2 • By the way, x2 = I > 2 .
7. "Error" Propagation Once a curve has been fitted to data and parameters extracted, very often these parameters are fed into some calculations in order to finally get to the physical quantity of interest. What to do with the uncertainties? In particular, together with the fit, we get the covariance matrix with the parameters uncertainties and covariances. Formally, to go from the fitted parameters to the final value is called a change of variables but it is more often called error propagation, which is not such a bad expression because if the fit is wrong, the errors (not the uncertainties) will be propagated too. The correct expression would be uncertainties propagation. The procedure is well known to any student so here we will see a more advanced version, that takes care of covariance and even of systematic errors. Let's assume we have a set of N variables Xi with their covariance matrix Vz. This could be the outcome of a fit. Also, we have M functions Fi of these variables Xj, forming a vector F. We compute the matrix elements
r
dFk OXl
320
( Fx (xi,x2,-.. F =
F2(xi,x2,-..
\FM(xi,x2,...
xN)
\
xN)
( dF\ dxx dF2 dxi G =
dF\ dx2 dF2 dx2
dxpj
dFM \ dx\
dFM dx2
dF M BXN
xN)J
dF\_\ 8XN
dF2
I
The covariance matrix for the new variables in vector F is VF = GVzG* Two examples will show what we can get out of this. First, suppose a parabola was fitted to data and now we want to know the interpolated values at two abscissae x± and x2. Then we have F =
ai + a2xi + a3xf a± + a2x2 + a3x2
VF
I"1
=
<7l2
^23
a2\ \^31
CTl3^
oz2
(l X\
°l ) \X\
l X2
\
X2 J
Vi? will be a 2x2 matrix with the covariance between «/j and y2. y\ and y2 are dependent since they came from the same fit. How many people remember that when they use yi and y2 in further calculations? VF = 'J/23/1
The detailed calculations for a^. and o"yiy2 are left to the reader. The second example is about "systematic errors". Let's suppose we have 2 measurements x\ and x2 of a quantity xo- Each has an error 6j, coming randomly from a normal distribution with null average and variance of. e* are independent. The measurements also share a common source of error, Gaussian too, whose average could be null or not, it does not matter here, and variance G\. The value of this error is S for both measurements. Xi can be modeled as a function which is the sum of 4 parts: a constant without error XQ, two random values e, and a random value 5.
321 The measured values are: X\ = X0 + €1 + S X2 = XO + £2 + S .
Thus,
G = (Q V =
v=
0
0 \
(l
l
\
0 a\
0
0
0
0
0 1
\0
0
o2.)
Vi i /
1 0
'°l+°2s 4 + °2s ,
This example shows very clearly why the so called systematic errors are, and should be treated as, covariances. The variance terms of + o\ are what the common practice does, to sum in quadrature the "statistical error" with the "systematic error". The covariance between the measurements is the variance of the common error as8. Conclusion The statistical treatment of experimental data is the only way of extracting the physical quantities that will be compared with predictions or other measurements. Many physicists treat their data with "black box" programs or methods without the knowledge of what goes inside, of what assumptions were made by the designers. This can lead to wrong answers and from that, wrong decisions, wrong discoveries and lots of headaches. These few hours of classes were aimed at calling attention to the underlying assumptions that are common to most of the data analysis practices. A good part of this comes from classes of "Advanced Topics in Statistics", a course offered once a year at the Institute of Physics, University of Sao Paulo. Examples were taken from the notes of this course and should be credited also to V. Vanin and O. Helene.
This page is intentionally left blank
T H E P H Y S I C S OF H A D R O N COLLIDERS
DAN GREEN Fermilab — CMS
Department
"Science is an integral part of culture. It's not this foreign thing, done by an arcane priesthood. It's one of the glories of the human intellectual tradition." Stephen Jay Gould (1990)
1. Questions Unanswered by the SM (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
How do the Z and W acquire mass and not the photon? (Chapter 1) What is MH and how do we measure it? (Chapters 4, 5) Why are there 3 and only 3 light "generations"? (Chapter 6) What explains the pattern of quark and lepton masses and mixing? Why are the known mass scales so different? (AQCD ~ 0.2 GeV (strong interaction field) •C (<j>) ~ 174 GeV (electroweak scale) < MGUT ~ 1016 GeV (Grand Unified scale)
2. Overview The Standard Model (SM) of high energy physics has been one of the great syntheses of the human intellect. It began about a century ago with the discovery
323
324
of the electron, which was the first fundamental pointlike particle discovered. In the last decade, the elusive top quark and the neutrino have been discovered. Thus, the last remaining particle predicted by the SM, but as yet not discovered, is the Higgs particle, whose vacuum field gives mass to all the particles in the Universe. This text concentrates on the search for the Higgs particle at proton-(anti)proton colliders, those accelerators which collide proton and (anti)protons with one another. This Higgs particle is rather weakly coupled to matter. Thus, enormous efforts are required involving going to a new high energy frontier and dealing with greatly increased beam intensities in order to search for this object with the expectation of discovery within a reasonable period of time. The search is to be carried out at collider facilities at major international accelerator complexes. This text concerns itself almost exclusively with the search, as it will be carried out at proton-antiproton and proton-proton colliders. Indeed, there are complementary efforts at electron - positron colliders, but they are outside the scope of this book. The primary materials for this set of lectures is a set of six POWERPOINT "Chapters" posted by the author at the site: http://uscms.fnal.gov/uscms/dgreen with labels 1 through 6. In outline, Chapter 1 concerns itself with a summary of the Standard Model (SM), giving the particles comprising the SM and their interactions. The next four Chapters are concerned with the two initial questions which concern electroweak symmetry breaking and the Higgs boson mass. In Chapter 2 we explore a "generic" general purpose detector which is representative of those in use at proton-(anti)proton colliders. Specifically, we examine the extent to which the SM particles introduced in Chapter 1 can be cleanly identified and measured. The accuracy with which their vector momenta and positions can be measured is very important, as it will influence search strategies for the Higgs. Chapter 3 is concerned with the specific issues of particle production at a proton-(anti) proton collider. The relevant formulae are given that will enable the student to estimate reaction rates for any process. In addition, the COMPHEP program can be used to then refine the initial estimates. However, students are strongly encouraged to start with the 'back of the envelope" estimate before invoking COMPHEP or any other Monte Carlo program. Chapter 4 follows up with a discussion of how recent data taken at such colliders informs on the predictions of the SM. This section is a snapshot of the present state of the art in the physics of high transverse momentum phenomena as explored at hadron colliders. In Chapter 5 we start to venture beyond the bounds of current data. This
325
entire section is devoted to the upcoming search for the elusive Higgs boson. Much of the presentation concerns itself with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) because this facility, slated to become operational in 2006, was specifically designed to search for, and discover the Higgs scalar (spin zero). Nevertheless, we will see that the search may be long and arduous. Finally, in the last Chapter, we return to the remaining ten fundamental questions raised in the first, and listed above. Some hint of theories beyond the SM and their consequences is given. In particular, the possibility that a new symmetry of Nature, a super-symmetry (SUSY) relating space-time and spin, might be discovered in the near future is discussed. 3. Scope The mathematical complexity used here is no more than calculus. However, the concepts used require a good knowledge of quantum mechanics and special relativity with some acquaintance of field theory. Some knowledge of Feynman diagrams will be helpful but not essential, in part because examples are given in the text and because COMPHEP gives diagrams for any process which is specified. Thus, the student should be able to build up experience with Feynman diagrams using the tools supplied here. The intended audience is then very advanced undergraduates in physics or first year graduate students. Too often the wonderful story of the Standard Model is left to be told only to advanced graduate students who wish to pursue this specialty. Surely, this great intellectual structure deserves a wider, but still scientifically literate, audience. Full theoretical rigor has been sacrificed in an attempt to reach a wide and young group of students. 4. Tools In this book we have used a single computational tool extensively both in the examples given in the text proper, and in the problems. The aim was to expand the range of the text from a slightly formal academic presentation to a more interactive mode for the student. The hope was that the student could work the examples given in the text and then be fully enabled to do problems on her own. The COMPHEP program is freeware which is available to do calculations and to make graphs of results. We have taken the approach in the Chapters of first working through the algebra. That way, the reader can make a "back of the envelope" calculation of the desired quantity. Then she can use COMPHEP for a more detailed examination of the question. The web address where the
326
executable code(zipped) — b76i.zip and a users manual (Users_Manual.ps) for COMPHEP are posted by the author at the site given above. The use of Internet archives is rather advanced in high energy physics. One of the best places to search is at the Los Alamos site: http://xxx,lanl.gov. Looking under Physics to High Energy Physics — Experiment allows us to search on new preprints, recent preprints, abstracts or on topics of our choice using the find feature. Another large database of preprints and articles is at http://www-spires.slac.stanford.edu/find/hep. These sites allow you to find and download a host of interesting review articles. In fact, many of the figures used in this text, those not created by the author, were taken from articles pulled off these sites. Below is a short list of other references which may prove useful.
References for the Standard Model Review of Particle Properties, Phys. Rev D. Particles and Fields 50, August 1 (1994). D. Green, Lectures in Particle Physics, World Scientific (1994). J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, "Relativistic Quantum Fields", McGraw-Hill, New York (1965). F. Halzen and A. D. Martin, "Quarks and Leptons", John Wiley, New York (1984). W. Cottingham and D. Greenwood, "An Introduction to the Standard Model of Particle Physics", Cambridge University Press (1998). J. R. Aitchison and A. J. G. Hey, "Gauge Theories in Particle Physics", 2nd ed., Adam Hilger, Philadelphia (1989). C. Quigg, "Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic Interactions", Benjamin/Cummings, Reading, Massachusetts (1983). K. Gottfried and V. Weisskopf, "Concepts of Particle Physics", Vol. 11, Oxford University Press, New York (1986). D. Green, "The Physics of Particle Detectors", Cambridge University Press (2000). K. Kleinknecht, "Detectors for Particle Radiation", Cambridge University Press (1987). T. Ferbel, "Experimental Techniques in High Energy Physics", AddisonWesley Publishing Co., Inc. (1987).
327
F. Sauli, ed., "Instrumentation in High Energy Physics", World Scientific (1992). J .C. Anjos, D. Hartill, F. Sauli and M. Sheaf, "Instrumentation in Elementary Particle Physics", Rio de Janeiro 1990, World Scientific Publishing Co. (1992). C. W. Fabjan and J. E. Pilcher, "Instrumentation in Elementary Particle Physics", Trieste 1987, World Scientific Publishing Co. (1988). C. W. Fabjan and H. F. Fisher, "Particle Detectors", Repts. Progr. Phys. 43, 1003 (1980). V. D. Barger and R. J. N. Phillips, "Collider Physics", Addison-Wesley, New York (1987). G. Altarelli and L. Dilella, "Proton-Antiproton Collider Physics", World Scientific (1989). L. Dilella, "Jet Production in Hadronic Collisions", Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 35, 107 (1985).
Part.
M. Shapiro and J. Siegrist, "Hadron Collider Physics", Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 4 1 , 97 (1991). J. Huth and M. Mangano, "QCD Tests in Proton-Antiproton Collisions", Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science (1993). S. Wimpenny and B. Winer, "The Top Quark", Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science (1996). K. Tollefson and E. Varnes, "Direct Measurement of the Top Quark Mass", Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science (1999). G. Blazey and B. Flaugher, "Inclusive Jet and Dijet Production at the Tevatron", Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science (1999). D. Glenzinski and U. Heinz, "Precision Measurement of the W Boson Mass", 50, 207 (2000). I. Hinchliffe and A. Manohar, "The QCD Coupling Constant", 50, 643 (2000). J. Gunion, H. Haber, G. Kane and S. Dawson, "The Higgs Hunters Guide", Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. (1990). R. Donaldson and J. Marx, "Physics of the Superconducting Supercollider Snowmass 1986", World Scientific Publishing Company (1986). N. Ellis and T. Virdee, "Experimental Challenges in High Luminosity Collider Physics", Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science (1994).
328
"Compact Muon Solenoid", Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC 94-38 (1994). ATLAS Collaboration, Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC 94-43 (1994). P. Fisher, B. Kayser and K. McFarland, "Neutrino Mass and Oscillation", Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science (1999). A. Riotto and M. Trodden, "Recent Progress in B ary genesis", Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science (1999). G. Ross, "Grand Unified Theories", Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co. (1985). D. Bailin and A. Love, "Supersymmetric Gauge Field Theory and String Theory", Institute of Physics Publishing (1994).
LECTURES O N N O N C O M M U T A T I V E THEORIES
SHIRAZ MINWALLA Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
I review the UV-IR mixing in scalar non commutative field theories, solitons in these theories and the construction of theories with space time noncommutaivity (NCOS theories and OM theory).
1. Lecture 1: Perturbative Dynamics 1.1.
Introduction
In this lecture we analyse scalar field theory on a noncommutative space. This lecture closely follows the paper 14 . Related work has appeared in 1 _ 2 6 . For simplicity we focus on the case of the noncommutative lZd. Although noncommutative gauge theories appear in string theory 27 (see 28 and references therein for recent developments), through most of the lecture our discussion will be field theoretic. The underlying lZd is labeled by d noncommuting coordinates satisfying [x»,xv] = iQitv .
(1.1)
Here 0 M " is real and antisymmetric. By a choice of coordinates 0 can be brought to the form /
0 -0i
0! 0
\ .
(1.2)
Thus a 0 matrix of rank r describes a spacetime with | pairs of noncommuting coordinates and d — r. coordinates that commute with all others. The algebra of functions on noncommutative Tld can be viewed as an algebra of ordinary functions on the usual ~Rd with the product deformed to the noncommutative, associative star product, defined by {fa*
= e * ® " " ^ <M2/)>2(*)|y=2=x •
329
(1.3)
330
Thus, we will study theories whose fields are functions on ordinary TZd, with actions of the usual form S = f ddx£[
Rules
For any noncommutative theory, the quadratic part of the action is the same as in the commutative theory, since / ddx(j> *(/> = / ddx
(2.1) d
d
f d xd(j) * <9c/> = / d xd<j>d
(we have dropped total derivatives assuming suitable boundary conditions on 4>). Therefore propagators take their usual form, as in commutative theories.
331
The interactions are modified. We consider a polynomial interaction (perhaps with derivatives) L
5>„ 9 "- 2
(2.2)
n=3
where the powers of the coupling constant g are introduced for convenience, the coefficients an are arbitrary numbers, and the products of <(> are star products. In momentum space the interaction vertex of <j)n has an additional phase factor relative to the commutative theory V(h,k2,...,kn)
= e-i^
,
(2.3)
where ki is the momentum flowing into the vertex through the ith
This is the only modification to the Feynman rules. V is not invariant under arbitrary permutations of ki and so one must keep track of the order in which lines emanate from vertices in a Feynman diagram. (Using momentum conservation, it is easy to see that V(fci,..., kn) is invariant under cyclic permutations of fcj.) One way to keep track of the order of the lines is to view
Graphs
In a planar graph it is always possible to regard momentum as an additional index flowing along the double lines. That is, given an L loop planar graph, the momenta of all lines in the graph may be written in terms of 'momenta' l\,..., li-\-i that flow unchanged along an index line (see Fig. 1) of the graph. Like fundamental U(N) matrix indices, the index line momenta along adjacent edges of a given propagator flow in opposite directions. Therefore, the momentum through any propagator (or external line) in the graph is given by k - lj, where /j and lj are the index line momenta that flow along the adjacent edges
332
of the propagator. Since index line momenta are always conserved, this construction automatically implements momentum conservation at vertices. Note that such a construction is not possible in nonplanar graphs.
Figure 1. A planar graph in double line notation. T h e phase associated with, say, t h e middle propagator is I2 X I3 from the vertex V\ and -I2 x I3 from the vertex V2, adding to zero.
For any vertex of the graph, let the momenta entering the vertex through the n propagators be fci,fe,... ,kn, in cyclic order. Then hi = kt — h2 , &2 = h2 -h3,---,kn = hn - hx , in terms of which ( £ i < ? - h x kj) = lix x h2 +h2 x h3 + ' • • + hn x 'ti • Thus the phase factor at any interaction point may be expressed as the product of n terms, one for each incoming propagator, n
V = JJe - *(''' x,i »-+i) .
(2.5)
3=1
We see that the phase associated with any internal propagator is equal and opposite at its two end vertices, and so cancels. We conclude that the phase factor associated with the planar diagram is V(Pl,P2,...,Pn)=e-iZ«iPiXp>
,
(2.6)
where the sum is taken over all external momenta (in the original variables) in the correct cyclic order. This result is originally due to 1 and this derivation follows n . We note that this phase factor is exactly the one found in 2 8 by computing disk amplitudes in string theory. It is important that this phase factor is independent of the details of the internal structure of the graph. Thus, the contribution of a planar graph to the noncommutative effective action is precisely the contribution of the same graph in the 0 = 0 theory multiplied by V (pi,p2,.. .,p„). Such a 0 dependent
333
phase factor is present in all interaction terms in the bare Lagrangian and in all tree graphs computed either with the bare Lagrangian or with the effective Lagrangian computed with planar graphs. At 0 = 0, divergent terms in the effective action are products of local fields. V (pi,p2,. • • ,pn) modifies these to the star product of local fields. Divergences (due to planar graphs) in the effective action at 0 ^ 0 may therefore be absorbed into redefinitions of bare parameters, if and only if the 0 = 0 theory is renormalizable. We stress that this renormalization procedure is not obtained by adding local counterterms. The added counterterms are of the same form as the original terms in the Lagrangian but they are not local. 2.3. Nonplanar
Graphs
Nonplanar diagrams have propagators that cross over each other, or over external lines as in Fig. 2.
Akj
Figure 2. Two lines crossing in a nonplanar graph.
If, instead of crossing, the two lines in Fig. 2 had met at a (4 point) vertex, the graph would have had an additional phase factor of _ e~ikjxki j ^ w o m c i t, n e n have been planar e-%(.kjXki-kjXki-kixkj+kjXki) (as far as this crossing was concerned). Therefore, any nonplanar graph will have an extra phase e+ikjxki
^2.7)
for each crossing of momenta ki and kj in addition to the phase associated with the ordering of external momenta. The complete phase for a general graph may be written 1 V(p1,p2,...,Pn)e-i^^c^xk^
,
(2.8)
334
where V is as in (2.6), and dj, the intersection matrix, counts the number of times the ith (internal or external) line crosses over the j i h line. Crossings are counted as positive if fcj crosses kj with kj moving to the left.
Figure 3. ways.
The overlaps in a nonplanar Feynman diagram can be chosen in several different
The matrix dj corresponding to a given graph is not unique, since different ways of drawing the graph will lead to different intersections (see Fig. 3). However, all of these yield identical Feynman integrands; the ambiguity corresponds to the fact that the internal momenta ki of the graph are not all independent but are constrained by momentum conservation at each vertex. As the 0 dependence of nonplanar graphs does not factor out of the integral, nonplanar graphs at 0 ^ 0 behave very differently from their 0 = 0 counterparts. For instance, as we will see in section 3, all nonplanar one loop diagrams are finite. The improved convergence of nonplanar graphs is a result of the damping effects of rapid oscillations of internal momentum dependent phase factors in the integrand. Since each nonplanarity in a Feynman diagram results in a new internal momentum dependent phase factor in the Feynman integrand, one is tempted to guess that every nonplanar graph is convergent. More precisely, one might conjecture that, with the exception of divergent planar subgraphs, there are no new divergences associated with nonplanar graphs. This would imply that, after the planar graphs have been renormalized, no further renormalization is needed. In fact, it turns out that nonplanar graphs (with no divergent planar subgraphs) are not all finite in theories with quadratic or higher divergences (including all scalar theories), as we will see in section 5. This would appear to threaten renormalizability of these theories, since the nonplanar counterterms that cancelled these divergences would be complicated functions of 0 and external momenta, and have a very nonlocal and complicated form in position space. At higher orders such counterterms would generate new divergences of increasingly complicated form. It seems unlikely that this process would termi-
335
nate with a finite number of terms written in terms of star products. However, we will interpret these divergences as IR rather than UV divergences and will suggest a procedure to deal with them without introducing counterterms. 3. One Loop in Scalar Field Theory In this section we explicitly compute several one loop nonplanar graphs in >4 theory in four dimensions and <j>3 theory in six dimensions. We find that one loop nonplanar graphs in noncommutative field theories are convergent at generic values of external momenta. This is a consequence of the rapid oscillations of the phase factor eipxk where p is an external momentum and k is the loop momentum. As this phase factor is zero when p M 0 M " vanishes (i.e. when either 0 or pnc , the projection of p onto the noncommutative subspace, vanishes), the nonplanar graph is singular at small |p /x 0 / " / |- Indeed, the effective cutoff for a one loop graph in momentum space is , * where p is some combination of the external momenta in the process. Therefore turning on 0 replaces the UV divergence with singular IR behavior. This effect has interesting dynamical consequences for noncommutative field theories, some of which are explored below. 3.1. Quadratic
Effective
Action
in
We begin with <j>4 theory in four dimensions with the Euclidean action S
= / d 4 a : ( | ( a ^ ) 2 + ^"»V2 + ^ 2 0 * 0 * ^ * ^ •
(3-1)
Consider the 1PI two point function, which at lowest order is simply the inverse propagator T^=p2
+ m2.
(3.2)
In the noncommutative theory, this receives corrections at one loop from the two diagrams of Fig. 4, one planar and the other non-planar. The two diagrams k
k
Figure 4. Planar and nonplanar one loop corrections to r ' 2 ' in 0 4 theory.
336 (which are identical in the 0 = 0 theory up to a symmetry factor) give 2
(2) 1 planar
^ n ) 3(2TT)
r (2)
44
1 nonplanar
2
J
92
=
d4k
r
_
k
<3 3
^
f
({(ITT^
+ TU2
' >
0ikxp
2
k +'
I
The planar diagram is proportional to the one loop mass correction of the commutative theory, and is quadratically divergent at high energies. In order to see the effect of the phase factor in the second integral we rewrite the expressions for the two integrals in terms of Schwinger parameters k2 + m2
J0
The k integrals are now Gaussian, and may be evaluated to yield
r<2>
da 2 = -iL/ f — ~„am a" e 2
2 (2)
_
g2
(3.5)
f da ^_am2_E£E
= J— f — e-
r< )
1 nonplanar
QQ-jr2 I
a2
where we have introduced new notation poq = -PllQlvqv
= \PuQlM
(3.6)
(note that pop has dimension of length squared). In order to regulate the small a divergence in (3.5) we multiply the integrands in the expressions above by exp(—l/(A 2 a)) to get r (2)
=
92
[da
48TT2 7
1 planar r (2)
=
1 nonplanar
92 96^2
-am»-^-
a2
(3.7)
[da
,_'^±
fa2
Therefore,
ifu
-M"'-mH^)+om)
^Inrtanar ~ , 2 \ Kffef? " m 3 to M 1 nonplanar = 7967T
£
+
(3.8)
0(1)
where A
e / / = TTTT-, • IJ 1/A2 + pop
(3-9) '
K
337
In the limit L -> oo, the nonplanar one loop graph remains finite, effectively regulated by the noncommutativity of spacetime. In this limit the effective cutoff L 2 f f = •— goes to infinity when either 0 —> 0 or pnc —> 0. The one loop 1PI quadratic effective action is
? (2)
/
-i«\
p2 + M2 + 96ir2
\
[p°p-\—J \
g2M2
In
96TT2
V 2T
JM2 [pop +
2
2
2
h)
+
4
+ O (ff )
/ (3.10)
/ j 2 \
where M 2 = m 2 + ^ y — ^ ^ r In f ^ J • • • is the renormalized mass. Consider the two cases a)
pop
= Jd4p\
(P2 + M ' 2 ) ^(P)^(-P).
where M' 2 = M 2 + 3 {£*£ - ^ f £ In (K\
(3-n)
- • • . If M is fine tuned to
be cutoff independent, then M' and also S[pj diverge as L —^ oo. b)
p o p ^> i ?e//
and in particular the limit L —> oo. Here Le//
= /''K'
?+M2 +
2 ff2A/f2 M
96TT 2
— 1 m
~S~ > an<^
5rl 9o7r^
In
=
pop
) + ---+0 p o pJ
{g*)) <j>(p)J>(-p) • (3-12) J
The fact that the limit L —>• oo does not commute with the low momentum limit pnc -> 0 demonstrates the interesting mixing of the UV (L ->• 0) and IR (p —• 0) in this theory. We will say more about this below. 3.2. Quadratic
Effective
Action
in (j)3 Theory in d = 6
We repeat the computation performed above for
338
Let Q ( c ^ ) 2 + \m24>2 + §4>*) -
S = Jcfx
(3.13)
As in >4 theory, I?(2) receives contributions both from a one loop planar and a one loop nonplanar diagram (Fig. 5). The contribution of the nonplanar
Figure 5.
Planar and nonplanar one loop corrections to r ( 2 ) in 4>3 theory.
diagram may be written as an integral over Schwinger parameters as
r<2>
daida2
= -JiL. f S
1 nonplanar
2
1 planar
TT3 J
e-™2^^^)-^-^
( t t i + OJ 2 ) 3
1 nonplanar^
(3.14)
' '
The planar graph has a quadratic divergence from the region where both Q'S are small. As above, this divergence is effectively cutoff in the nonplanar graph, producing a (L —r oo) quadratic effective action
S[% = fd6P1-(p2
+ M2
r.2
9
2 8 7T 2 p op
where M is the planar renormalized mass, and
Validity of the 1-Loop
Approximation
Although nonplanar contributions to (3.12) and (3.15) are subleading in g2, they are singular as pnc-^0, and so cannot be ignored. In particular, the nonplanar term significantly modifies S{pj for (jp2 + M2)pop < 0(g2). Since the singular dependence of r j j
. o n o r on pop replaces the divergent
2
dependence of r ' ' on Lat 0 = 0, the leading singularity in r ^ ; n
lanar
at nth
order in perturbation theory is g2n-\- (ln(popM 2 )), n - i (we will study n = 2 in section 5). These higher order contributions are significant when compared
339
to the first order effect only for momenta such that g2n~- (in (p o pM2))n 2
-^—, i.e. for M pop
ft)
< O (e ^ J ( c i s a positive constant). Thus the 1-loop
approximation to r „ o n p l a n a r is both important and valid for 0 ( e - ^ ) < M2(pop) < 0(g2) .
(3.16)
The p dependence can be trusted at low momentum except for nonperturbatively small values of p. 3.4. Stability of the Perturbative Fermions
Vacuum:
with and without
Both (3.12) and (3.15) take the form S[% = [d*p ^Hp)
(3.17)
The constant h is positive for the <^>4 theory in d = 4, but negative for the 4>3 theory in d = 6, leading to a qualitative difference between the dynamics of the two examples. When h is positive, the coefficient of |>(p)|2 in (3.17) is positive for all p. The nonplanar one loop contribution to (3.17) modifies the <j> propagator at small momenta, inducing long range interactions (see the next subsection). When h is negative, the coefficient of |>(p)|2 in (3.17) is negative for momenta so small that [p2 + M2) pop < 0(g2). In order to minimize the effective action, (j>(p) attains a vacuum expectation value, at these low momenta. In other words, the perturbative vacuum is unstable. Since the perturbative vacuum for (/>3 theory is unstable anyway, the observation of the previous paragraph may not seem too dramatic. However, a similar effect occurs in a suitably modified
340
3.5. Poles in the
Propagator
The propagator derived from (3.17) has two poles. The first is the continuation to weak coupling of the zero coupling pole at p2 + m2 — 0, and occurs at p2+m2=0{g2)
.
(3.18)
It corresponds to the fundamental
341
for small g, and the small g corrections lead to exponential decay, but with decay constant of order g. We should stress that all this is only for positive h. Otherwise, the theory is tachyonic and suffers from the instability discussed above. 3.6. Wilsonian
Lagrangian
Consider a Wilsonian action with a cutoff L, of the form Seff(L)
^jd'x^-
( W ) 2 + m2(L)«£2) +
g 2 ( L ) 4
f
( L )
(<^*^).
(3.20)
The statement that the noncommutative >4 theory is renormalizable would normally imply that it is possible to choose the functions Z(L), m(L) and g2 (L) in such a way that a) Correlation functions computed with this Lagrangian have a limit as L—>oo. b) Correlation functions computed at finite Ldiffer from their limiting values by terms of order ^ for all values of momenta. Property b) is manifestly untrue of the noncommutative scalar theories under consideration. While it is presumably possible to choose Z(L), m(L) and g2 (L) in such a way that the L —> oo limit of all correlation functions exists, the various correlation functions (at various values of momenta) do not converge uniformly to their limiting values. As we have seen above, the two point function computed using (3.20) at any finite value of Ldiffers significantly from its L —>• oo value for small enough momentum pnc (for poph2
S[jf(L) = Sef}{L) + jd'x^-dxodx
+ ^idodxf+i^^gx^
• (3.21)
342
X appears quadratically in (3.21) and so may be integrated out, yielding
S'eff(L) = Seff(L) + J ^ W ( _ p ) J -2
pop
96vr
1
(3.22)
pop+ — Li
As we have seen above, Seff leads to the quadratic IPI effective action (3.10) at 0(g2). Therefore, the quadratic IPI effective action at O (g2) resulting from S'eff is r ^4 / ^ P ( 2
s1PJ = j
„2 »
M2
967r2 pop
2 \
^ 92M2
\
(
\
1
(3.23) + •
3.7.
Logarithms
So far the effects we have been discussing arose from what started as quadratic divergences in the commutative theory. These turned into poles, -£— in the noncommutative theory, which we interpreted as the \ P°l e m the Wilsonian action. Logarithmic divergences are more common than quadratic divergences. They occur even when the quadratic divergences are absent as is the case in supersymmetric theories or in gauge theories. They also occur in the scalar theories which we have been discussing. The logarithmic UV divergences in the nonplanar graphs of the commutative theory turn into terms of the form In p o p , which are nonanalytic around p = 0. Rather than a pole, -£— we now have a cut, lnp op, which is also an IR singularity. Unfortunately, we do not fully understand the implications of the logarithmic singularity in (3.12). Consider the Wilsonian effective action at small L. The dynamics of cj> freezes out at these energies (as (j> is massive), and so <j> is effectively classical. \ is a free light quantum field (its four derivative kinetic term is negligible at low energies). The low energy Wilsonian effective action should correctly reproduce the low energy correlation functions of
343
reproduce the logarithm. The correct small Ineffective action must contain new dynamics, absent in (3.21). We see two possibilities for the missing dynamics: a) The classical field (p can couple to two massless particles, resulting in a cut in its two point function. b) The classical field <> / can couple to a low energy conformal field theory, with operators of dimensions of order g2; the logarithm represents the first term in the expansion of
(poprn2)C9
2_i
Clearly, these logarithms need better understanding. We should point out, however, that regardless of the details, just like the poles, they demonstrate an IR singularity due to a UV phenomenon! 3.8. Vertex
Corrections
We end this section with a brief look at the contribution of one loop nonplanar graphs to vertex corrections. The graphs we will compute are logarithmically divergent in the commutative theory, and so will depend logarithmically on pl opi, where pl and p 7 are external momenta. Since we are primarily interested in low momentum singularities, we will ignore all terms regular in pl at pl = 0. In particular, external momentum dependent phase factors that factor out of the integral will be ignored. Noncommutative
_ J _ r dad{3d7 26 W (a + p + j)3
^E_m2(Q+/3+7) K
'
The planar graph is given by the same expression, but with 0 set to zero. The logarithmic divergence of the planar graph is effectively cutoff in the nonplanar graph by L ^ ( r ) = r o * t . Summing up the contribution of the graphs, in
344
Figure 6.
Planar and nonplanar one loop corrections to T^ 3 ' in <j>3 theory.
the limit L —> oo, we find ^3 y s
2 it + ln
y
m
\
/
\mzqot
\m'popj
(3.25)
+ ••
mzr or
Noncommutative <^>4 in /owr dimensions The graphs that contribute to the 1-loop renormalization of the coupling constant in ^>4 theory are shown schematically in Fig. 7.
Figure 7.
Planar and nonplanar one loop corrections to T^ 4 ' in >4 theory.
For small external momenta we find r
„4
T< 4 > = <72
3-2
5
2
7r \
/A2'
\m?
+ ln
1 m* pop
+ ln
1 m* qoq/
345
\m2(q + s) o (q + s)J
\m2(r
+ s) o (r + s) J / (3.26)
For both >4 and <^>3 theories, each nonplanar graph has an effective cutoff \jP o P where P is the combination of external momenta which crosses the loop. 4. A Stringy Analogue Consider the nonplanar one loop mass correction diagram for
Figure 8. tion.
The nonplanar mass correction graph for
Consider, however, the 1-loop open string diagram (called the double twist diagram) that may also be drawn as in Fig. 8. In string perturbation theory we integrate over the moduli of the diagrams. The region of moduli space that corresponds to high energies in the open string loop describes also the tree level exchange of a closed string state as in Fig. 9. It leads to a singularity proportional to — y — , (g is the closed string metric). UV in the open string channel corresponds to IR in the closed string channel. This matches exactly with the behavior of the field theory diagram of Fig. 8, if we identify the closed string metric as being proportional to — Q ^ . In fact this identification is very natural. In 28 , it was emphasized that the analysis of D-branes in the presence of a B field involves two metrics that are related to each other. The noncommutative gauge theory propagating on the brane "sees" the open string metric. The closed string metric governs the propagation of closed string states in the bulk. When the open string metric is the identity
346
Figure 9.
The double twist diagram in the closed string channel.
(as in our lecture), the closed string metric reduces (in the decoupling limit)
to ~a'@lv! This close analogy between a one loop effect in a rather ordinary looking (though nonlocal) field theory and an open string theory is quite surprising, and is not completely understood. It is an indication of the stringy behavior of noncommutative field theories. Other hints of the stringy nature of noncommutative theories are the T-duality symmetry of noncommutative gauge theories on tori, and the dominance of planar graphs in a perturbative expansion at high momentum. We will elaborate on these in section 7. 5. Higher Order Diagrams In this section we examine the effects of noncommutativity in higher order nonplanar diagrams. In subsection 5.1 we find examples of nonplanar diagrams (in scalar field theories) that diverge, and interpret these as IR divergences. In subsection 5.2 we illustrate various other effects of noncommutativity at higher orders in a two loop example. In subsection 5.3 we present the expression for the Feynman integral of an arbitrary noncommutative diagram in the Schwinger parameter representation, and comment on the structural features of this formula. Finally in subsection 5.4, we point out the stringy nature of 'maximally noncommutative' theories obtained by taking G —> oo. 5.1. Persistence
of Divergences
Figure 10.
in some Nonplanar
Graphs
Divergent higher loop graphs in >4 theory.
347
Figure 11. An equivalent way of representing the Feynman integral for the graph of Fig. 10. The mass like vertex v(k) for this graph has been computed in section 3.
Consider the diagram G of Fig. 10 in noncommutative 0 4 theory in four dimensions. This graph has n insertions of the nonplanar one loop mass correction that we have computed in (3.8), and so may equivalently be represented as in Fig. 11, where o2 v(k) = -- „ „
1
s- + less singular . kok H—K 1/ The Feynman integral for the diagram is
(5.1)
The contribution to 1(G) from the infrared singularities of v(k) is proportional to dr knc /
,
,
_1_ \
f L2n~r
In > r
I const
2n < r
oc i
-
(5.3)
(knc is the projection of k on the noncommuting subspace in the case where the rank r of 0 is not maximal). As L —> oo, 1(G) diverges for n > [r/2]. This divergence occurs at small knc, and high qi in the loops of Fig. 10. It is a combination of UV and IR divergence. The presence of an IR divergence in a massive theory is surprising, but is in accord with the other IR phenomena we have seen earlier. If we first integrate over k, the divergence in 1(G) appears like a UV divergence in the integrals over qi. If, however, we first integrate over qi, the divergence appears like an IR divergence in the integral over k. We prefer the latter interpretation, and propose to deal with the divergence in 1(G) in a fashion similar to the standard treatment of IR divergences. We postpone the integral over k and first sum over n to shift the location of the pole in the propagator to be outside the integration region. More specifically, summing the infinite series of increasingly divergent graphs of Fig. 10
348
for all n as in Fig 12, (and also including planar one loop mass corrections) yields
I=
<5-4>
Jm»-
where r^2'(fc) is derived from (3.12) and is given by
As a result, the integral over k in (5.4) is finite (up to a standard UV divergence) . P ^>
^—^
P -^
-e— * o o—+Figure 12. An infinite series of divergent graphs sums up to a single graph with the dressed one loop propagator.
This procedure cannot be used in theories with negative h because the dangerous pole in the propagator is shifted to become tachyonic. Then, the proper procedure is to compute the low energy effective action of the x field and to find its minimum. We will not attempt to perform such a calculation here. We suggest that UV divergences occur only in planar graphs and all other divergences can be treated as IR divergences, yielding finite, physically sensible answers. We have not proved this assertion. It will be very interesting to have an explicit proof of this fact. 5.2. Other Effects at Two Loops In this subsection we examine all two loop graphs that contribute to the self mass of (for simplicity) cf>3 theory in six dimensions. This will illustrate further effect of noncommutativity present in higher order graphs. Noncommutative
349
Figure 13. The two loop contributions to the self mass of commutative 0 3 theory in six dimensions.
Diagrams in the first class reduce to the graph of Fig. 13a at © = 0. These diagrams are members of an infinite set of graphs that correct the propagators in the graphs of Fig. 5, as in the previous subsection. The analysis of these graphs parallels that given in the previous section for the (f>4 theory.
Figure 14. Representatives of the three categories of graphs in noncommutative >3 theory that reduce to the diagram of Fig. 13b at G = 0.
The diagrams that reduce to the graph of Fig. 13b at 0 = 0 fall into three categories, representatives of which are shown in Fig. 14. Fig. 14a shows the single planar graph. The corresponding Feynman integral does not depend on 0 , and evaluates to | times the result for the graph of Fig. 13b in the commutative theory. As in the commutative theory, this graph contains overlapping divergences. These are dealt with in the usual way, by combining it with the counterterm graphs of Fig. 15a and Fig. 15b, whose contributions are also suppressed by a factor | relative to the commutative theory. Thus, as in the commutative theory, the graphs of Figs. 14a, 15a and 15b combine to give a result whose divergence may be cancelled by counterterms.
a) Figure 15.
b)
c)
d)
One loop mass correction graphs with one loop vertex correction counterterms.
Fig. 14b represents a set of three nonplanar graphs, each of which is nonplanar only because an external line overlaps with an internal line. Two of these graphs contain divergent planar vertex correction subgraphs and should
350
respectively be combined with the one loop graphs containing counterterms shown in Figs. 15c and 15d. Once their subdiagrams have been renormalized, these diagrams, as well as the third diagram in this set, are finite, effectively cut off by Leff = - 7 = - At large L e /y, these graphs are all proportional to <74LL* ln(L e //), providing a logarithmic correction to the leading singularity in (3.15). The proportionality of these diagrams to L ^ ln(L e //) (rather than L^y) is a consequence of the fact that fewer counterterms are added in the noncommutative theory than in the commutative theory. The four remaining two loop mass correction graphs, which include the diagram of Fig. 14c, are nonplanar due to the crossing of internal lines. As we will show in the next subsection, these graphs are finite, effectively cutoff by 1/V0 where 9 is the largest eigenvalue of 0^". In contrast to the nonplanar one loop graphs and the graphs considered in the previous paragraph, these diagrams are nonsingular at low momenta, since the effective cutoff is independent of external momenta. This is a consequence of the fact that the noncommutative phase factor responsible for removing the divergence depends only on internal momenta, which are integrated over. 5.3. General Higher Order
Graphs
14
In an appendix of we express the Feynman integral for an arbitrary graph (G) in terms of an integral over Schwinger parameters. Up to overall constants, the result (part of which has been independently reported in 12 ) is
^(Ew)^(p;)/^
„2
-«imi
e
1
X[PG{a,ea) "'"{pal-.*2)
J
p
"
p
"\
P G (°.e 2 ) )
P
»
Here P, S, and A are homogeneous polynomials in {QJ, 0 } , described in terms of graph theoretic properties of G in the Appendix, the phase V (p1) is as in (2.6), and 6a are the eigenvalues of 0 . Four terms in this expression involve the noncommutativity parameter 0 : 1) The first factor V (p1) is the overall phase, present for any graph. It depends on the cyclic order of the external momenta p. This is the sole effect of non-commutativity for planar graphs. 2) The denominator PQ is a homogeneous polynomial in { a j , 0 } (independent of external momenta) of degree L, where L is the number of loops in G. Divergences of a graph are associated with regions of
351
parameter space where PQ —• 0. Crossing internal lines of G give rise to 0 dependent terms in P, and these reduce the rate at which P becomes small when the Q'S are scaled to zero. More precisely, the degree of PQ as a function of 0 is 2/i, where h is the genus of G (with external lines removed), so a graph with superficial degree of divergence u at 0 = 0 will essentially have a superficial degree of divergence w — 2hr for 0 of rank r. Thus, crossing internal lines regulate the divergences with an effective cutoff of order -4= (assume for simplicity that 0 has maximal rank and all its entries are of the same order of magnitude), as for the graph of Fig. 14c. In particular, this effective UV cutoff depends only on 0 and not on the momenta. 3) The exponential factor exp ( - J > ^ ( 5 / J / P G ) M " P ^ ) acts to reduce divergences when an external momentum p crosses an internal line. If the momenta associated with some subgraph Gq of G crossed by p are scaled by p, then the exponential scales as exp(— p o p/p). Thus the exponential cuts off possible divergences associated with Gq, with an effective cutoff i—, as we have seen for the one loop graphs of section 3. As there, this cutoff depends both on 0 and on the momenta and becomes large as p o p —• 0, resulting in the singular IR behavior we have seen previously. 4) The final exponential factor in (5.6) is a phase in the integrand which depends on the Schwinger parameters. This modifies the behavior of finite graphs, but does not seem to affect the convergence of the graph. Using these expressions, it is possible to demonstrate the convergence (at 0 ^ 0) of the Feynman integral associated with G, if G has no divergent planar subgraphs and UJ(GI) < 0, for all subgraphs d of G, where u denotes the degree of divergence of a graph. As we have remarked above, the issue of renormalizability of scalar noncommutative field theories is quite subtle. Some nonplanar graphs are divergent, but we have suggested that the divergence should be viewed as an IR divergence and should be handled appropriately. Therefore, we think it will be quite interesting to prove the renormalizability of these theories to all orders. 5.4. Maximal
Noncommutativity
It is interesting to consider the limit in which we take the noncommutativity parameter 0 to infinity. In this limit the theory is maximally noncommutative. Equivalently, we can hold 0 fixed and scale all the momenta (and masses) to infinity. If the theory had been an ordinary field theory, and it had not had any mass parameters, this would have been the "short distance limit".
352 From (5.6) it may be seen that in this limit the amplitudes (at generic values of external momenta) are dominated by the planar graphs. For nonplanar graphs in which internal lines cross, the polynomial PQ blows up as 0 -> oo. For nonplanar graphs in which external lines cross internal lines, the factor SIJ/PG behaves like a positive power of 0 , so the exponential tends to zero as 6 ->• oo (for generical external momenta). Only planar graphs, which have no 0 dependence apart from the overall phase, survive the 0 —>• oo limit. This observation is extremely interesting. The maximally noncommutative theory, which is obtained in the limit 0 —> oo is given by the planar diagrams only. If (f> is an N x N matrix the theory in this limit is independent of N. In particular, it is the same as the large JV theory. We therefore conclude that in the high momentum or maximal noncommutativity limit, the diagrams become planar and the theory appears to be stringy. In Section 4 we pointed out the close similarity between the singular IR effects in the nonplanar one loop diagram here and in open string theory. The T-duality of noncommutative Yang-Mills theories on a torus is yet another indication of the stringy nature of noncommutative field theories. Finally, in the large 0 limit the theory becomes a string theory. We find it intriguing that these field theories exhibit so many stringy phenomena. 6. Origin of U V / I R Mixing In this section we will give some intuitive explanations for why the noncommutativity of spacetime leads to the surprising mixture of UV and IR. Roughly, very small pulses instantaneously spread out very far upon interacting. In this manner very high energy processes have important long distance consequences. 6.1. Nonlocality
of the Star
Product
We may rewrite the star product (1.3) of two functions in position space as 1 {4>i *
(6.1)
with the kernel K (zi Z2 z)
' '
= i^me2i(z~zir%l{z~Z2Y
•
(6 2)
-
Since \K (z\,z2,z)\ is a constant independent of zi,z2,z, the star product appears to be infinitely nonlocal. However, the oscillations in the phase of K suppress parts of the integration region. We now make this statement more precise.
353
Consider for simplicity the case d = 2 with coordinates [a;, y] — iO. Let fa be a function which has widths of order Aa:1 and A y i in the x and y directions, and assume that it varies slowly over its domain of support. Then, the integral over xi in (8.1) is proportional to
ldxifa{xuvl)ei'^-MB
(6.3)
It is suppressed by phase oscillations if Asili/2-1/1/0 » 1 •
(6-4)
We conclude that (©j * fa)(x,y) samples fa in a width dy-2 « ^ - about y. In a similar way we arrive at the estimates <5y2A l x
"-'
6y{A2x
« 0
(fazA i y
0
(5a;i A 2 a ~ ^ , (6-5)
where A,,,- is the width of
6ty= 0/Ai x
|i<})l*(|)2
A|,
Figure 16. Star product of Gaussian wave packets fa and fa. If fa and fa are nonzero only in the shaded regions of the diagram, (<j>i * fa) is nonzero in the intersection of the dotted regions of the diagram. The clotted regions are constructed as described in the text.
354
For the important special case 4>\ = <j>2 — 4>, where
<Sj, « max ( A,,, — J .
(6.6)
Thus if (f> is nonzero over a very small region of size A
for
Dynamics
Consider, for example, noncommutative <j>z theory (3.13). Classically,
( d 2 - m 2 ) 0 ( x ) = §(«/>*<«(*)•
(6-7)
Given a solution 4>o(x) to the free equation of motion, the corresponding solution to (6.7) is given perturbatively by 4>(x) = M*) - § / ddyG(x - y) {fa * fo) (!/)+•••
(6.8)
where G(x) is the appropriate Green's function. At first order the effective s o u r c e is ^
{<j> *
As demonstrated in the previous subsection, if
of the
Dilaton
As we have argued in section 5.4, noncommutative theories are dominated by planar graphs, and therefore seem stringy as 0 —> oo. Specifically, by the formulae of section 5.3, a noncommutative Feynman diagram of genus h
355
(ignoring external lines) is suppressed relative to a planar graph by the factor of
^
2 '{EWifK '
(6 9)
'
where r is the rank of 0 , whose eigenvalues are {6\, -8\,..., -6r}. The contribution of genus h graphs to the U(N) noncommutative gauge theory is expected to reflect the contribution of genus h worldsheets of the 'noncommutative QCD string', whose dilaton (f> must therefore scale with energy according to
'-*»«h n m •
<"o)
This prediction may be tested3, for the J\f = 4 noncommutative U(N) theory. The string theory dual to N = 4 noncommutative U(N) is IIB theory on the spacetime background described in 2 9 ~ 3 1 . Fields in this background depend on the radial coordinate u (u = 0 at the horizon, u = oo at the boundary), which is identified with the energy scale in the dual field theory, via the UV-IR correspondence. The dilaton dependence in these solutions is indeed
8=1
l
at large u. 7. Lecture 2: 7.1.
Solitons
Introduction
Quantum field theory on a noncommutative space is of interest for a variety of reasons. It appears to be a self-consistent deformation of the highly constrained structure of local quantum field theory. Noncommutative field theories are nonlocal; unraveling the consequences of the breakdown of locality at short distances may help understanding non-locality in quantum gravity. The discovery of noncommutative quantum field theory in a limit of string theory 27 provides new inroads to the subject. Perturbative aspects of noncommutative field theories have been analyzed 1-26 in . This study has thrown up some evidence for the renormalizability of a class of noncommutative field theories, and has revealed an intriguing mixing a
See also
n
.
356
of the UV and IR 14 in these theories. In this lecture we will construct localized classical solutions in some simple noncommutative field theories. We expect these objects to play a role in the quantum dynamics of the theory. We first consider a scalar field with a polynomial potential. A scaling argument due to Derrick32 shows that, in the commutative case, solitonic solutions do not exist in more than 1 + 1 dimensions, as the energy of any field configuration can always be lowered by shrinking. Perhaps surprisingly, for sufficiently large noncommutativity parameter 6, we will find classically stable solitons in any theory with a scalar potential with more than one local minimum. These solitons are asymptotic to the true vacuum, and reach a second (possibly false) vacuum in their core. They cannot decay simply by shrinking to zero size because sharply peaked field configurations have high energies in noncommutative field theories. These solitons are metastable in the quantum theory, but by adjusting parameters in the scalar potential, their lifetime can be made arbitrarily long while their mass is kept fixed. Solutions are found corresponding to solitons in 21 + 1 dimensions or instantons in 2/ dimensions for any /. Our construction of these solutions exploits the connection between noncommutative fields and operators in single particle quantum mechanics. Under this correspondence, the * product maps onto usual operator multiplication, and the equation of motion translates into algebraic operator equations. The noncommutative scalar action can be rewritten as the trace over operators (which can be regarded as oo x oo matrices). This leads to a connection between noncommutative field theories, and zero dimensional matrix models. Next we consider noncommutative U(N) Yang-Mills theory. When expanded around a simple solution of the equations of motion, the action takes the simple quartic form (up to constants and topological terms)
SYM = T-J— f r f 2 ' i ^ r T r ( [ ^ , ^ ] [ $ A , $ , ] ) ,
(7.1)
*9YM J
where $ M are N x N hermitian matrices and all commutators are constructed from the * product. Note that the kinetic term has been shifted away! The usual space-time gauge symmetries act linearly as unitary transformations on the fields $ p , and the $ M = 0 vacuum leaves even local gauge symmetries unbroken. This construction is similar to that of 33 , in which the kinetic term of Witten's string field theory action 34 is shifted away. Indeed, our search for such a construction in noncommutative field theory was motivated by the tantalizing analogy, noted in 14 , between noncommutative field theories and string field theories. The existence of the formulation (7.1) of noncommutative gauge theories strengthens the analogy. We also reproduce, as an illustration,
357
the U(l) instanton solutions of 35 . Rewriting noncommutative fields as the large N limit of matrices, (7.1) is closely related to the IKKT matrix theory 36 . Indeed, our construction is essentially equivalent to that presented by Aoki et.al. 10 in this context. Related observations are also made in 41.2f,37-40 This lecture is organized as follows. In section 8 we describe the action for noncommutative scalar field theory. In section 9 we consider the limit, 0 -> oo, in which the equations simplify considerably. The general solution can be found exactly and is given in terms of quantum mechanical projection operators. In Section 10 we show that there are stable solitons in this limit, as long as the potential has at least two local minima. In section 11 we argue that there are stable solitons at large but finite 9 which can be constructed perturbatively in 0~l. In section 12 we turn to the noncommutative gauge theory where the purely quartic action is constructed. The U{1) instanton solution of 35 is also reproduced. In an Appendix we give an explicit construction, of the leading i correction to the simplest stable soliton of the scalar field theory. 8. The Noncommutative Scalar Action Consider first a noncommutative field theory of a single scalar
E=~Jd2z
{dAd-A + V{4>)) ,
(8.1)
where d?z = dxdy. (We will comment on the generalization to arbitrary dimensions in the appropriate places.) Fields in this non-local action are multiplied using the Moyal star product, ( A * B ) ( « , z ) = e ^ 8 * f l " - a - ' f l » ) A(z,z)B(z',z')\z=z,
.
(8.2)
Note that in the quadratic part of the action, the star product reduces to the usual product. We seek finite energy (localized) solitons of (8.1). These can also be interpreted as finite action instantons in the two-dimensional euclidean theory. We will, however, refer to the solutions as solitons in the following. Since no solutions exist in the commutative limit 6 = 0 32 , we begin our search in the limit of large noncommutativity, 0->oo. It is useful to nondimensionalize the coordinates z-+zVd, z-tzy/0. As a result, the • product will henceforth have no 6; i.e. it will be given by (8.2) with 0=1. Written in rescaled coordinates, the dependence on 0 in the energy is entirely in front of
358
the potential term: E = ^jd2z
Q(cty) 2 + 0V(
(8.3)
In the limit 6 ->• co, with V held fixed, the kinetic term in (8.3) is negligible in comparison to V (<j>), at least for field configurations varying over sizes of order one in our new coordinates. Our considerations apply to generic potentials V(
n^) =2;Uv 2 +E-^U3
<8-4)
We have, of course, abbreviated
9. Scalar Solitons in the 0 — <x> Limit After neglecting the kinetic term, the energy
E=^Jd2zV(
(9.1)
is extremised by solving the equation dV_
(9-2)
S =0d
(9.3)
m2
(9.4)
for a cubic potential and
for a quartic potential. If V(4>) were the potential in a commutative scalar field theory, the only solutions to (9.2) would be the constant configurations
(9.5)
where Aj € {Ai, A2,..., A * } are the various real extrema of the function V (x) b . As we shall see below, the derivatives in the definition of the star product allow for more interesting solutions of (9.2). b
For V{4>) as in (8.4), A; are the real roots of the equation m2x + £] bjxi-1 3=3
= 0.
359
9.1. A Simple Nontrivial
Solution
A non-trivial solution to (9.2) can easily be constructed. Given a function (j>o(x) that obeys (9.6)
(
it follows by iteration that
1 2
TTA 2
2
2
with radial width A (here r = x + y ). The star product of tpA with itself is easily computed by passing to momentum space, i>A(k) = feikx (^A*V^A)
iPA(x)d2x = e " 4 ^ ,
(9.7)
(P) = 7A2 J d2k^A(k)^(p -
k)ei^kf>^-kr
"(A2+^) .
2TTA2
(9.8)
Therefore C0A * V>A)
(X)
=
exp 2
7T A
c
2
|A
2
+
^
-2r 2 A2 +
(9.9)
A2 J
This equation and its solution has also appeared in earlier work involving the Moyal Product. See 4 2 - 4 3 . d T h e added width is actually f» K, the typical momentum in the Fourier transform of the function. For a function of size A with no oscillations, K « ^ . For a function of size A with n oscillations, K & •?• .
360
In particular*5, when A 2 = 1, the gaussian squares to itself (up to a factor of 27r). That is, fo(x) = 2TT VI (x) = 2 e~r2
(9.10)
solves (9.6) and \i(/>o(x) solves (9.2). 9.2. The General
Solution
In order to find all solutions of (9.2) we will exploit the connection between Moyal products and quantization. Given a C°° function f(q,p) on R2 (thought of as the phase space of a one-dimensional particle), there is a prescription which uniquely assigns to it an operator Of(q,p), acting on the corresponding single particle quantum mechanical Hilbert space, U. It is convenient for our purposes to choose the Weyl or symmetric ordering prescription
Of(q,p) = -^Jd2kj{k)e-i^+k^
,
(9.11)
where f(k) = fd2xei{k*q+krri
f(q,p)
,
(9.12)
and [q,p] = i .
(9.13)
With this prescription, it may be verified that
~Jdpdqf(q,p)
= TrnOf ,
(9.14)
and that the Moyal product of functions is isomorphic to ordinary operator multiplication OrOg
= Ofi,g.
(9.15)
In order to solve any algebraic equation involving the star product, it is thus sufficient to determine all operator solutions to the equation in ~}i. The functions on phase space corresponding to each of these operators may then be read off from (9.11). We will now employ this procedure to find all solutions of (9.2). As noted above, any solution to (9.6) may be rescaled into a solution of (9.2). Particular solutions of (9.2) may thus be obtained by constructing operators in % that obey (9.6), i.e. 0\ = 0$. This equation is solved by any e
We note in passing that in the limit A —• 0, (9.9) reduces to 52(x) * S2(x) = . l,s .
361 projection operator in 7i. H possesses an infinite number of projection operators, which can be classified by the dimension of the subspace they project onto. Each class contains a large continuous infinity of operators, each of which, upon rescaling, yields a solution to (9.2). The most general solution to (9.2) hence takes the form 0 = Y,ajPj
(9-16)
3
where {Pj} are mutually orthogonal projection operators onto one dimensional subspaces, with a,j taking values in the set {At} of real extrema of V(x). In order to obtain the functions in space corresponding to the solutions (9.16), it is convenient to choose a particular basis in %. Let \n) represent the energy eigenstates of the one dimensional harmonic oscillator whose creation and annihilation operators are defined by r, g+JE . a = - 7 r ,
„t 9-JP af = - ^ - .
,Qir, (9-17)
Note that a\n) = ^/n\n — 1) and at\n) = \/n + 1 \n + 1). Any operator may be written as a linear combination of the basis operators |m)(n|'s, which, in turn, may be expressed in terms of a and al as \m)(n\=: ±=
e^a
±= :
(9.18)
where double dots denote normal ordering. We will first describe operators of the form (9.16) that correspond to radially symmetric functions in space. As o'a RJ ^-, operators corresponding to radially symmetric wavefunctions are functions of a^a. From (9.18), the only such operators are linear combinations of the diagonal projection operators \n)(n\ = ^j : a^"e _ a a a n : . Hence all radially symmetric solutions of (9.2) correspond to operators of the form O — $^„an| n )( n |; where the numbers an can take any values in the set {A,}. We now translate these operator solutions back to field space. From the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula e-i(kqq+kTp)
_
e -i(ftza+fc 2 a
f
) _
g
- i . _ e-i(kia+kza1)
.
(9.19)
where _ kx + iky
_ kx - iky
2
_
Any operator O expressed as a normal ordered function of a and a*, /jv(a, a1), can be rewritten in Weyl ordered form as follows. By definition,
0 = :fN (a,at) : = J L J
(9.20)
362
Using (9.19), (9.20) may be rewritten as O = j±p
f d2k JN{k) e T e -*(*.»+*.« t ) .
(9.21)
Thus, the momentum space function / associated with the operator O, according to the rule (9.11) is f(k) = e£ fN(k)
.
(9.22)
For the operator On = \n)(n\ we find, using (9.18) and (9.20), that the corresponding normal ordered function ^'(k) = 27re~2~Z/n(^-). (9.22) then becomes
\n)(n\ = J±-)Jd>ke^ Ln ( £ ) e~K^+^)
(9.23)
where Ln(x) is the nth Laguerre polynomial. The field
4>n (r2 =* 2 + 2 / 2 ) = ^ j < P k e = £ Ln (^j e~ik-' = 2(-l)"e-r2L„(2r2) .
(9.24)
Note that 4>o (»*2) is precisely the gaussian solution found in Sec. 3.1. In summary, (9.2) has an infinite number of real radial solutions, given by oo
Y, «« K {r2)
(9-25)
n=0
where >n (r 2 ) is given by (9.24) and each an takes values in {Aj}. In order to generate all non radially symmetric solutions to (9.2), we rewrite (9.1) in operator language, using (9.14) as £=^TrV(CV) •
(9-26)
(9.26) is manifestly invariant under unitary transformations of 0$ and so has a U(oo) global symmetry. In other words, if O is a solution to the equation of motion, so is UOU\ where U is any unitary operator acting on %. A general Hermitian operator (one that corresponds to a real field >) may be obtained by acting on a diagonal operator (i.e. an operator that corresponds to a radially symmetric field configuration) by an element of the U(oo) symmetry group (since any hermitian operator is unitarily diagonalizable). Thus every solution to (9.2) may be obtained from a radially symmetric solution by means of U(oo) symmetry transformations.
363
Therefore solutions to (9.2) consist of disjoint infinite dimensional manifolds labelled by the set of eigenvalues of the corresponding operator. Points on the same manifold can be mapped into each other by U(oo) transformations. Each manifold includes several diagonal operators (radially symmetric solutions). We will have more to say about the moduli space of these solutions in the next section. As all solutions are related to radially symmetric solutions by a symmetry transformation, we will mostly discuss only radially symmetric solutions.
9.3. UV/IR
Mixing
2
Figure 17.
A plot of (j>o{r) versus r. The solution is a blob centred at the origin.
4>n{r), at large n, looks quite different (see Fig. 2). It is a solution of size « yfn that undergoes n oscillationsg in that interval, with oscillation period oc -4= . 4>n (r 2 ) thus receives significant contributions from momenta up to y/n in momentum space. These solutions exemplify the UV-IR mixing pointed out in 14 ; oscillations with frequency \fn produce an object of size y/n (instead of -4^ ) in a noncommutative theory.
'Distinct diagonal operators having the same eigenvalues lie on the same manifold, being related by the "Weyl" subgroup of J7(oo) that permutes eigenvalues. g Using asymptotic formulae for Laguerre polynomials we find
[ 2(-l)»
r < /
(2n2r2)'' 2(~2r2)"
cos(v 2^2r- f )
e~
r2
\f^
r > V2n .
2n
364
Figure 18.
9.4. Generalization
to Higher
A plot of
Dimensions
All considerations of the preceding subsections may easily be generalized to higher dimensions. Consider a scalar field theory in 2/ + 1 dimensions with noncommutativity only in the spatial directions. By a choice of axes, the 21 x 21 dimensional noncommutativity matrix G may always be brought into block diagonal form. In other words, it is possible to choose spatial coordinates Zi, zj (i,j = 1 . . . / ) , in terms of which the non-commutativity matrix ©jj = Oidq , Gy = 0 - j = 0. As before we consider the limit where 0; are uniformly taken to oo and non-dimensionalize zt —> z% \/6l. As in the previous subsections, the kinetic term in the action may be dropped in this limit. Solutions to the equations of motion (9.2) are once again in correspondence with operator solutions to the same equations; the operators in question now acting on % x 7i x ••• x %, I copies of the Hilbert space of the previous subsection. The general solution to (9.2) once again takes the form (9.16) in terms of projection operators on this space. As in the previous subsection, the general solution may be obtained from diagonal solutions via U{oo) rotations. Diagonal solutions to (9.2) are given by
O = 5 > s | n ) (n\ «• ]T an JJ^,. (\Zi\2) , n
n
(9.27)
i
where ft is shorthand for the set of quantum numbers {rn} for the I dimensional oscillator and
365
10. Stability and Moduli Space at 8 = oo In this section we study the stability of the solitons constructed in the previous section. We will also describe the moduli space of stable solitons. 10.1. Stability
at 6 — oo
We wish to examine the stability of the radial solution
<^2) = X>- < M r 2 )
(10.1)
to small fluctuations. Since any U(oo) rotation does not change the energy of our solution (10.1), it is sufficient to study the stability of (10.1) to radially symmetric fluctuations. These are most conveniently parameterized as deformations of the eigenvalues. The energy for an arbitrary radially symmetric state <j> (r2) = X ^ o c « ^ » ( r 2 ) i s
y
n=0
The solution cn = Aa„ is manifestly an extremum of S, as, by definition, Aa; are extrema of the function V(x). Clearly (10.1) is a local minimum of the energy (and so a stable solution) if, and only if, Xan is a local minimum of V(x) for all 0 < n < oo. As an example consider the cubic potential of Fig. 3 with a maximum at A = —1. In this case, all AQTI in (10.1) are either zero or —1. The only stable solution is that for which all Aan = 0, i.e. the vacuum. The solution —
/
0.3
/ /
0.2
^ ^ ° '
/ 2
/ / /
Figure 19.
1
/ 1
^1
2
-0.1 -0.2
The
366 On the other hand the field theory with V{<j>) (say, for a quartic potential) graphed in Fig. 4 has stable solitons; these are solutions of the form cp (r 2 ) = IZ^Lo ^c„
Figure 20. A
The stability of
r
I / / =t
i
°°
_^
\
06
\ \
2
\ l
2
Figure 21. Profile of the Gaussian soliton with a false vacuum region (above the horizontal bar) of radius 1.
367
The energy of this soliton is proportional to the vacuum energy density ^-V^ at the 'false' vacuum times the volume of the soliton 6. It is remarkable that the energy of the soliton is completely insensitive to the value of the scalar potential at any point except <> / = A. Thus the mass of the soliton is unchanged if the height of the barrier in V((j)) (between (j> = A and <$> — 0, see Fig. 4) is taken to infinity while V(X) is kept fixed. This is true even though (j>o{r), the solitonic field configuration corresponding to A|0)(0|, decreases continuously from cf> = 2A at r = 0 to tj> = 0 at r = oo! Consider a 2+1 dimensional scalar theory, noncommutative only in space, at infinite 8. Using the correspondence between functions and operators (matrices) described in the previous section, the noncommutative scalar field theory is equivalent to the matrix quantum mechanics of an N x N hermitian matrix H, at infinite TV, with the usual relativistic kinetic term Tr (dtH) , and a potential Tr(V(H)). The amplitude for an eigenvalue of H to tunnel from A to 0 is exponentially suppressed by the area under the potential barrier in Fig. 4, and goes to zero as this area is taken to infinity. Thus the finite mass soliton A|0) (0| is stable, even quantum mechanically, in this limit. The U(oo) symmetry of (9.1) is spontaneously broken by every nonzero solution, <j>{x), of (9.2). As a consequence, every solution has a number of exact zero modes (Goldstone modes) corresponding to small displacements about (j>(x) on the manifold of solutions. As Rnrn = |n)(m| + |m)(n| and Snm = i(|n)(m| — |m)(n|) are the generators of [/(oo), these zero modes are given by the nonzero elements of 8
10.2. Multi
Solitons
In this subsection we will qualitatively describe a part of the moduli space of stable solitons (at 0 = oo) in the simple case of the potential graphed in Fig. 4 with a single non-zero minimum at <^> = A. The stable solitons can be characterized by their 'level' (number of A eigen-
368
values). All stable level one solitons correspond to operators of the form AC/|0> <0|t/+
(10.2)
where U is a unitary operator. As mentioned above, the set of level one solitons span an infinite dimensional manifold parameterized by U(N)/U(N — 1) (for N = oo). The soliton looks very different at different points on the manifold. U = I in (10.2) corresponds to the gaussian blob of Fig. 1. If U happens to be a unitary transformation that maps |0) to |ra), for large m, the corresponding wave function is qualitatively similar to that in Fig. 2. When U = ea z~az is the generator of translations, the operator in (10.2), A|z)(z|, is proportional to the projection operator onto a gaussian centred around z = -h-(x + iy). (Here |Z|2 | \z) = e~ 2 e° Z\Q) is the usual coherent state.) Again, if U corresponds to one of the SL(2, R) operators, we obtain squeezed states; gaussians elongated in the y direction and shrunk in the x direction. And so on. Turn now to solitons at arbitrary level n. All such solitons may be obtained by acting on A (00 + 01 + •• • + 0n-l) by arbitrary unitary transformations. The manifold of solutions thus generated is parameterized by fj/^_n\ ( a n d has dimension dn ss 2nN) where N —• oo. Notice that dn « nd\. This fact has a nice explanation; in a particular limit the manifold of level n solutions reduces to n copies of level 1 solitons very far from each other. This conclusion follows from the observation that the operator that represents n widely separated level one solitons (with centres Zj), for instance M = X^ZJ) (Zj\ (10.3) i is approximately a level n soliton (and exponentially close to a true level n soliton) when \zt — Zj\ —> oo for all i,j. We demonstrate this explicitly below for the case n = 2. Using (z\ — z) = e -2 ' -2 ' , it is easy to check that the kets |z±> =
'Z>±|-*> 2
(10.4) a
^2(l±e- W ) are orthogonal. From (9.16) we conclude that the projector
0*=A(|* + X* + | + |z_)<*_|) _ -
\z)(z\ + | - z)(-z\ A
+ e-^2 (\z)(-z\ + | (l-e-«W)
z)(z\) (1
°-5)
369
corresponds to a level 2 solution. Up to corrections of order e~2^ , Oz is equal to \z)(z\ + | — z)(—z\, the superposition of field configurations corresponding to two widely separated level one solitons h . We conclude that a part of the level n moduli space describes n widely separated level one solitons. We have, so far, worked in the strict limit 9 — oo. The picture developed in this limit is qualitatively modified at large but finite 9, as we will describe in the next section.
11. Scalar Solitons at Large but Finite 8 We have argued that, under certain conditions on V((f>), (9.2) has an infinite number of stable solutions. Each solution has an infinite number of exact zero modes, the Goldstone modes of the spontaneously broken (7(oo) symmetry of (9.1). At finite 9, the kinetic term in (8.3) explicitly breaks this U(oo) symmetry down to the Euclidean group in 2 dimensions. Finite 9 effects may thus be expected to 1. Lift the 9 = oo manifold of solutions to a discrete set of solutions. 2. Give (positive or negative) masses to the U(oo) Goldstone bosons about these discrete solutions. In Appendix A we will argue that, at large enough 9, corresponding to every radially symmetric solution s of (9.2), there is a radially symmetric saddle point of (8.3), that reduces to s as 0 —> oo. It is likely that these are the only saddle points of (8.3). Not all these radially symmetric solutions are stable, however. In fact, it might seem likely that some of the infinite number of zero modes, at 9 = oo, about each solution s, might become tachyonic at finite 9. If this were true, (8.3) would have no classically stable extremum at any finite 9, no matter how large. We will find that is not the case. In subsection 5.1 below we will argue that any small perturbation of (9.1) must preserve the existence of at least one classically stable level one soliton. In subsection 5.2 we will identify this soliton to be the one near the gaussian \(j)0 (r2)-
h
It is curious that the kinetic energy of this field configuration is independent of z indicating that there is no force between the two solitons even to next leading order in i .
370
11.1. Existence
of a Stable
Soliton
For definiteness, through the rest of this section we assume that the potential V(4>) has the shape shown in Fig. 4. In particular, it is positive definite. Let the stable extremum of V occur at $ = A and the unstable extremum at <j> = /3, (A < 0 < 0). Consider, first, (9.1) i.e. the energy functional in the limit where we neglect the kinetic term. We will show that any path in field space leading from the soliton \cj>o (r2) to the the vacuum passes through a point whose energy is larger than ^-V{P). Since the energy of the stable soliton is ^ V ( A ) < ^TTV(/8), every path from the soliton to the vacuum must pass over a barrier ofheighto(^). The energy evaluated on an operator A is £ = ^ T r ( ^ ) ) y
= ^ i > ( c y
n
)
(11.1)
n=l
where c„ are the eigenvalues of A. Since V is positive definite, E>™V(b), (11.2) 92 where b is the smallest eigenvalue of A. Consider a path in field, or operator space, leading from A>o to the vacuum. At the beginning of this path b = A. At its end b = 0. Since A < /? < 0, any smooth path with these endpoints must have a point at which b = /3. At that point E > ^prV((l), as was to be shown. Now include the the kinetic term in (9.1). Barring singular behaviour, this changes the energies of all field configurations by terms of O ( 4- j . For large enough 8, the arguments of the previous paragraph imply that the field configuration that describe the level one soliton at 9 = oo cannot decay to the vacuum. Hence there must exist at least one stable soliton near one of the unperturbed level one solutions. In fact, as we will show in the next subsection, there is a stable soliton near the gaussian A^o (r 2 ). In the Appendix we will present an approximate construction of this solution at large but finite 6. A similar argument demonstrates the existence of at least one stable solution at level n. 11.2. Approximate
Description
of the Stable
Soliton
All level one solutions to (9.2) take the form A£7|0)(0|C/t where U is a unitary operator. We wish to determine the contribution of the kinetic term to the energy of such an operator.
371
The kinetic term in (8.1) for an operator A is On
K=-fTr[a,A][A,<J]. 9
(11.3)
Setting A = XU\0)(0\W we find 92K(U) 2TTA2
= 1 + J ] 2fc \Ukfi\2 - 2 J ] V£TItf*,o ^ + 1 ,o
(11.4)
fc
We expand (11.4) to quadratic order in deviations from U — I. Choose Ui = Uifl for i > 1 as the coordinates for this expansion (|17oo| is determined in terms of Ui as U is unitary). To quadratic order in Ui
^P-
= l + 2±k\Uk? .
(11.5)
As U\ and U\ do not appear in (11.5), they parameterize flat directions of K(U) (to quadratic order). This was to be expected. Any localized extremum of (8.1) has two exact translational zero modes. Infinitesimally, UQI and its complex conjugates act as derivatives on >o (r 2 ), generating these zero modes. Modulo these zero modes, the fluctuation matrix about U = 1 is positive definite. While K(U) has several critical points other than U = I, it has no further local minima. For example, U = U^m\ the unitary transformation that rotates |0)(0| to |m)(m|, is an unstable critical point of K(U) for all m. In fact U — £/' m ' is unstable to decay into U = I. This may be demonstrated by considering the path in field space |a)(o;| where \a) = cosa|0) + sina|m). (11.3) evaluated on such a path is equal to 1 + 2m sin2 a (for m > 1; 1 + 2 sin4 a for m = 1) indicating that the state |m)(m| can decay to |0)(0|. We will now argue that, at large enough 8, the finite 6 saddle point <j>(x,y) of (8.3) that reduces to A|0)(0| as 6-*oo is classically stable. Consider the mass matrix for fluctuations about (j>{x,y). Since any operator may be written as UDW where D is diagonal and U unitary, small fluctuations may be decomposed into radial (fluctuations of D) and angular ones (fluctuations of U). The mass matrix for purely radial fluctuations is 0{9) to leading order, and has been shown to be positive definite in sec. 3.4. The mass matrix for purely angular fluctuations is 0(1) to leading order, and has been shown to be positive definite, modulo the two zero modes. Since angular modes completely disappear from the potential, mixing between radial and angular fluctuations occurs only through the kinetic term, and are also 0(1). These cross terms result in corrections to the eigenvalues of the mass matrix only at O ( | ) . Hence, to leading order in | , the mass matrix is positive. The
372
two zero modes of the angular mass matrix cannot be driven negative by jj corrections as they are exact. A similar argument demonstrates the instability of all other radially symmetric level one solitons (those that reduce to A|n)(n| at 9 = oo) at large enough 0. The considerations of this subsection may easily be generalized to solitons in 2/ spatial dimensions, using the higher dimensional analogue of (11.4): 92K(U) (2TT)'A 2
l + 2$>t/ £>ff
-2^ E^V^^o^o
(11.6)
and (11.5) 92K(U)
=i+»EE*/-E'«
(2TT)'A2
U
SJS
•
(ii-T)
We use the notation of (9.27); k is an I dimensional vector, j runs from 1 to / and i is the basis unit vector in the ith direction; in components in = £;,„. Notice that K{U) in (11.7) is independent of UjQ for all i, a consequence of the exact translational invariance in all 2/ spatial directions. 12. Noncommutative Yang-Mills 12.1. Quartic Action for the U(l)
Theory in Two
Dimensions
Consider the action J where $ is a complex field and ^9YM
[$,$] = $ * $ - # * $ .
(12.2)
The equation of motion following from (12.1) is [*,[M]]=0.
(12.3)
$ can also be viewed as a quantum mechanical operator and $ as it's hermitian conjugate. The commutators in (12.1)-(12.3) are then ordinary operator commutators, and the integral is the trace over the Hilbert space. In the operator representation a simple solution of the equation of motion (12.3) is $ =a ,
# = af .
(12.4)
Let us expand around this solution by defining $ = a + iA2 ,
# = a f - iAz .
(12.5)
373
One then finds, translating back to functions (with \/2 z = q + ip, [a, ] = ds and [a*, ] = —dz), that [#, *] = 1 +
*0*J4 S
- »0*4 2 - [i42, Az] = 1 + tFZ2 .
(12.6)
The operator representation of (12.1) has the manifest U(N = oo) symmetry under which $—>$' = U^$U just as in the scalar field theory. Infinitesimally, <J$=*[*,L],
(12.7)
where t/ = exp iL. When gauged, this is just the usual U{\) gauge symmetry of the non-commutative theory, SA = dL + i[A,L] . The equation of motion (12.3) is Dz Fz-Z = 0 .
(12.8)
The action (12.1) is then (12.9) %M J
the standard two dimensional non-commutative U{\) Yang-Mills action up to constants and topological terms. 12.2. The U(N) Theory
in 21
Dimensions
(12.1) can be generalized to
S =~A*9YM
/ ^ ' z ^ ^ ' T r f [*,,,*,,][**,*,]) ,
(12.10)
J
where fi, v = 1 . . . 2/ and $ M are real N x N matrices. Though we have restricted ourselves to a flat euclidean metric, one can generalise the argument below to the Minkowski metric as well. The equation of motion is (J""[^)[*V,$A]]=0.
(12.11)
We choose complex coordinates such that @ai = iSab, with a, b = 1 . . . /. (12.11) has the solution $ 6 = ab , where a&,(4
=
$-fc = a\ ,
(12.12)
<^>e • Expanding around this solution with $b = ab + iAb
(12.13)
374
one finds
5
= -i^/*'*<'"- e i , >'-
<1214)
As before the manifest U(oo) ® U(N) symmetry corresponds to the noncommutative U(N) gauge symmetry. 12.3. The U(l)
Instanton
The four dimensional non-commutative gauge theory has instanton solutions which are deformed versions of the usual non-abelian instantons. In particular, the U(l) non-commutative theory also has non-singular finite action saddle points 35 . We exhibit the operators $ 0 corresponding to the simplest such E/(l) instanton. The operators $ a corresponding to an anti self dual field strength SabFa$ = 0 (a, b = 1,2), obey [#6,*c] = 0 ,
6al[$a,$l]=2.
(12.15)
In four dimensions, the operators $ a (a = 1,2) live in a Hilbert space generated by the creation and annihilation operators of a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator (See Sec. 3.3). Rather than work in the conventional number basis |ni,ri2), it is convenient to work in Schwinger's angular momentum basis,
(a\)i+m
(a\tm
\j, m) = - ) = = = = - W = y 10,0) , V U + m ) ! V O -m)\ with 0 < j < oo, \m\ < j . The operators J+ = a\ a?. ,
J__ = <4 ai ,
(12.16)
Jz = — la[ oi — a\ 02 J
(12.17)
obey the usual angular momentum algebra. We will find a solution to (12.15) of the form $b = ab £ j > m (1 + CJ) \j,m) (J,m\ = ab + ab ^jm
Cj\j,m)
(j,m\ (12.18)
*5 = 4 > and put it into Hermitian form via a complexified gauge transformation W. The ansatz (12.18) satisfies the holomorphic part of (12.15) for any Cj. For a real Cj, the only condition comes from the equation -Fn = —-P22- Using a
i,2li> m ) = VJ ± m + 1 \j + I , m ± \) ; (12.19)
01,2 b', rn) = y/3±m\j-\,m
Mp | ) ,
375
yields the equation jcj = (j + l ) c J + i . Which has the solution 3
~
(j > 0) .
j(2j + l)'
(12.20)
The complexified gauge transformation W = W^=YjJ-jlpi\3,m) j,m
(12.21)
¥
puts the solution (12.18) into Hermitian form for c = — 1. The field strength then takes the compact form
(12.22) Here J are the angular momentum generators defined in (12.17) and a, the usual Pauli matrices. This solution is exactly the same as the simplest charge one U(l) instanton in 35 . It may be checked that \ Tr F^ = 1. Appendix A. Solutions at Finite 6 In this appendix we will examine radially symmetric saddle points of (8.3) at finite 6. In subsection A.l we study the equation of motion resulting from (8.3) at finite 6, and examine the existence of radially symmetric solutions to these equations. In A.2 we concentrate on a particular solution; the one that reduces to the stable soliton A|0)(0| as 6 is taken to infinity. We present an approximate construction of this soliton at large 6. In A.3 we briefly comment on the generalization of these results to solitons in higher dimensions. Appendix A . l . The Perturbation Relation
Expansion
and a
Recursion
The full equation of motion derived from (8.1) may be written in momentum space as
Hk2) + t^(k>)
= ^-eHk>)
(A.i)
While the LHS of (A.l) is independent of 9, the RHS is of order | , and so is a small parameter at large 8. For notational convenience, we set ^ = d, and
376
Let oo
]Tcn^(A;2)
(A.2)
71=0
be a solution to (A.l). Substituting (A.2) into (A.l), using the recurrence relation for Laguerre polynomials, and equating coefficients of cf>n (A;2), we arrive at the difference equations r
cn + ] T dj 4 " 1 = 2e [n c n _i - (2n + l ) c n + (n + l)c n + i] .
(A.3)
We are interested in finite energy solutions to (9.2), i.e. solutions to (A.3) for which
J2 V(cn) < oo .
(A.4)
n
Since V(0) = 0, (A.4) will be satisfied if the cns approach zero sufficiently fast as n approaches infinity. For such a solution, all nonlinear terms in (A.3) may be neglected at large enough n. At sufficiently large n, n may also be replaced by a continuous variable u, and (A.3) turns into the second order differential equation c(«) = 2ew — - V 2 •
A 5
-
(A.5) is the Schroedinger equation for a zero energy state of a particle in a i potential, ^/e plays the role of Planck's constant, and at small e (A.5) is easily solved in the WKB approximation, yielding c(u) — A-ui
e v ^ " +A+u*
e+v2r
(A.6)
where A± are arbitrary constants. In order that c„ tend to zero at large n, A+ = 0. Thus, for large1 n, c„ « AnS e " v ? .
(A.7)
(A.7) has an undetermined parameter A, the scale of the solution at large n. As (A.3) is a nonlinear equation, A is not an arbitrary parameter, but is determined to be one of a discrete set of values. Given cp and c p + i, the (p+1) equations (A.3) with n — 0 ... p overdetermine the p unknowns cn for n < p. The extra equation constrains the scale A, as we will see in the next subsection. '(A.6) is a good approximation when \cn\
377
Appendix A.2. The Gaussian
Soliton
Corrected
In this section we present an approximate construction of the stable soliton that reduces to the gaussian at infinite 8. Our construction approximates the true solution to arbitrary accuracy at small enough e. We wish to find a solution of (A.3) such that lim c0 = X
(A.8)
lim c m = 0
(A.9)
and
uniformly in m, for m > 1. (A.9) ensures that, on such a solution, (A.3) for n > 1 reduces to c„ = 2e [n c„_i - (2n + l)c„ + (n + l)c n + i]
(A. 10)
for small enough e. It is easy to find an explicit solution to (A.10) that obeys (A.8), (A.9). Consider a function (j)(x,y) that obeys the differential equation (-ed2
+ l)<j> = b(f>0 .
(A.11)
Expanding <j> in the form oo
4>=^2cn
(A. 12)
and imitating the manipulations of section 4.3, we find that cns obey (A.10) for n > 1, but obey co = 2e [a - Co] + b
(A.13)
instead of (A.3) (with n = 0). This relation will fix the free parameter b. (A. 11) is easily solved in momentum space
Using the explicit forms for <j>n{k) and orthogonality of the Laguerre polynomials we find cn = b
f°°
Jo
ee~ xLn{x) dx — i + 2ex
(A.15)
In particular eo = fr / d x
€
X
=bF{e)
where
F{e) = 1 - e + O (e2) .
(A.16)
378
Using (A.16) we conclude that (A.13) and (A.3) (at n = 0) are identical on {c„} if b is chosen such that
bF{e) + J2d>(bF^y-1
= b{F(e) - l) .
(A.17)
We wish to find a solution to (A.17) that obeys (A.8), i.e. (from (A.16)) one for which limb = A. As A + Y]j_, d,-AJ'-1 — 0, such a solution exists, and takes the form b(e) = X(l + Ke + 0(e2))
(A.18)
at small e where K is a number that may easily be determined. In summary, {c„} given by (A.15) with b given by (A.17), (A.18), solve (A.11) for n > 1 and (A.3) (with n = 0). {c„} therefore also approximately satisfy the true difference equations (A.3) for all n as long as \cn\
^oo
-x
But — > b / dxe~x(l-2ex)=b(l-2e) Jo 1 + 2ez y0 Combining (A.19) and (A.20) c0 = b
dx-
OO
Ec«<4e62
.
(A.20)
(A-21)
n=l
establishing (A.9) uniformly in n on our solution. Thus {c„} provides an approximate solution to the full nonlinear difference equations (A.3) for all n at small enough e. Furthermore, from (A.19), this solution has finite energy. As {c„} obey the linearized recursion relation (A.11) and are small at small e, we can conclude, from the previous subsection, that dn takes the form (A.7) for ne > 1. In order to estimate the behaviour of c n (e) for n
t2
+
c„=E(-ir "(^r^^)Tm=n
v
(A.22)
'
This expansion is useful only when the first few terms in the series in (A.22) are successfully smaller, i.e. for ne
379 Appendix A . 3 . Generalization
to Higher
Dimensions
In this subsection we will outline the generalization of the arguments of A.l and the construction of A.2, for the case of the maximally isotropic noncommutativity in 21 dimensions, i.e. a theory with noncommutativity matrix 0 , all of whose eigenvalues are ±i8. It is likely that these arguments can be further extended to generic 0 . We first note that a subset of the diagonal 6 = oo solutions (9.27) are (in non-dimensionalized coordinates) invariant under SO(2l) rotations. These solutions take the form
E ^ V ? * ) ' ^ * ' " ^7?°^ ( r 2 ) "
(A 23)
'
Here
*? I'* = £ N 2 ) = 2 '(-!) J LiJ~1] (r2) •
(A-24)
where Lj ' (r 2 ) is an associated Laguerre polynomial. (A.24) is obtained from (9.27) by repeated use of the identity
m=0
Dj = I
1 is a convenient normalization factor.
When the noncommutativity matrix is maximally isotropic, the kinetic term in (8.3) is invariant under SO(21) rotations of rescaled coordinates. Thus the corrections to an SO(2l) invariant 6 = oo solution, of the form (A.23), are also 50(2/) invariant. Restricting to SO(2l) invariant functions, the arguments of section A.l are easily generalized. Any S0(2l) invariant function takes the form * (A:2) = f ) cjh
(fc2) ; fa (fc2) = -1= VUJ
n=0
(2n)< L™
( y ) e"* . \
(A.25)
J
The equation of motion implies that cj obey the following generalization of (A.3) r
c j + E ^ ^
1
=2e[(J + I - l ) c j _ i - ( 2 J + i)cj + (J + l)c J + i] . (A.26)
j=3
For large J (A.26) and (A.3) are identical, hence all conclusions of section A.l carry over to this case.
380
The perturbative construction of the solution that reduces to the SO(2l) invariant Gaussian proceeds as in section A.2 yielding the approximate result (good for small e) b dj =
,
[°° , x,-1e-xLli-1)(x) , , / dx —-+—— .
, . ._, (A.27)
13. Lecture 3: N C O S and OM Theories 13.1.
Introduction
This lecture is a review of the material presented in 44>45. It has been a long-held belief that open string theories always require closed strings for consistency at the quantum level, due to the appearance of poles in one-loop open string scattering amplitudes 46 . This belief has recently been questioned. Weakly-coupled theories of open strings on D-branes were constructed by scaling to a critical electric field, and S-duality was used to argue that they decouple from closed strings 47 ' 44 . The decoupling was verified, for two through six dimensional branes (IR problems may appear for higher dimensions), by the absence of closed string poles in nonplanar loop diagrams 44 . These simplified string theories thus permit the investigation of mysterious stringy phenomena without the complications of gravity and consequent loss of a fixed background geometry. As the name NCOS theory (Non-Commutative Open String) indicates, they exhibit non-commutativity of space and time coordinates (spacetime noncommutativity was also considered in 48>49,50,5i,52 The corresponding supergravity solutions are studied in 53>54). In five and six dimensions they also provide a non-gravitational ultraviolet completion of Yang-Mills theory. We expect that these theories are part of a web of theories related by duality and compactification. In this lecture we explore a piece of this web by seeking strong coupling duals for all the NCOS theories. In four dimensions it was already argued in 44 (see also 49 ) that the NCOS theory is dual to spatially noncommutative, maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills field theory. In five dimensions we conjecture that the strongly coupled NCOS theory consists of M5-branes with a near-critical three-form field strength. The M5-brane is the boundary of fluctuating open membranes, much as D-branes are the boundaries of fluctuating open strings 55,56 . Near criticality these open membranes become nearly tensionless. This theory — 3o (OM^) '3% (OM): That which captures the underlying nature of reality57, or Open Membrane, according to taste.
381
theory - is described by the gravitationally decoupled dynamics of the light open membranes'1. The M5-brane near a critical three form field, and its compactifications were considered in 58 , however we do not consider the rank four case of that lecture. Decoupled theories with constant C have also been explored by various authors including 58 > 53 . 59 . 60 - 61 . it has been conjectured that just as nonzero B is related to noncommutativity, nonzero C might be related to nonassociativity. However, it is not clear how to make this conjecture precise. We go on to define a large class of new six dimensional non-gravitational theories with light open D-branes among their excitations. Specifically, these are scaling theories on NS5-branes with near critical RR gauge fields of different ranks. This results in the presence of corresponding light branes in the spectrum. These are part of the 3r> web of theories, being related by various dualities on circle compactification. The two-dimensional NCOS theory (see 62>63>64) has the unique feature that the open string coupling is quantized and bounded, G20 = ^ < 1; thus there is no strong coupling limit. However we argue that the two dimensional NCOS theory at weak coupling (large n) is dual to strongly coupled twodimensional U(n) gauge theory with discrete electric flux. We argue that the strong coupling limit of the three dimensional NCOS theory is the SO(8) invariant M2-brane worldvolume field theory.
14. OM Theory In this section we will consider the theory of an M5-brane in the presence of a near critical electric H0i2 field. We will find that in the limit g g ' ' ~ g —> 0, the tension of open membranes stretched spatially in the 1,2 directions is infinitely below the Planck scale. It is thus possible to define a theory of light fluctuating open membranes propagating on the M5-brane, decoupled from gravity. Like the (0,2) theory, 3> theory has no dimensionless parameters, and so is unique and strongly coupled. In fact 3& theory reduces to the (0,2) field theory at low energies. Consider M theory in the presence of N coincident M5-branes with a background worldvolume 3-form field strength #oi2=Mp3tanh/3, k
(14.1)
J u s t as for M-theory, we will interchangeably use the term 3*> theory also for the whole web of non-gravitational theories related via compactifications and dualities to the theory with light open membranes.
382
and an asymptotic metric g»v = Vnu ,
9ij — f2$ij
)
9MN = h 6MN ,
( 14 -2)
with \i,v = 0,1,2, i,j = 3 , 4 , 5 , M, N — 6,7,8,9,11. / and h are constants introduced for later convenience. The nonlinear self duality constraints 65 then determine the other components of H as tf345 = - / 3 M p 3 s i n h / 3 .
(14.3)
The effective tension of a membrane (proper mass per unit proper area) stretched spatially in the 1,2 directions is
M p is the gravitational scale while Meff sets the scale for the proper energies of fluctuations of these open membranes. As #012 is scaled to its critical value (i.e P is taken to 00), —*- ~ e~*~ - • 0 0 , and the fluctuating open membranes decouple from gravity! In order to focus on these light modes we take the limit as M p ~ e 3 —• 00, Meflf fixed. We have judiciously chosen n, v coordinates in (14.2) so that the energy per unit coordinate area of a membrane aligned along the 012 direction is finite. This condition does not fix the i, j coordinate system or equivalently a choice of / in (14.2). We fix this by demanding that a membrane along e.g. 034 has finite energy per unit coordinate area. Since the energy per unit proper area of such a membrane (as measured by gij) diverges like Mp in the limit, this requires a small / : M3 e034 Ml = finite => f2 oc - ^
.
(14.5)
p 1
For later convenience we make the specific choice /2 = 2 # -
(14-6)
p
It is also convenient to choose
h2 = f2 = l^f-
(14-7)
Below we will argue that, with this choice of transverse coordinates, the dimension two scalar operators $ M (normalized to have the usual kinetic term) representing the transverse fluctuations of the 5-brane in the low energy field It is possible that the factor of 2 can be motivated from isotropy of the "open membrane metric"60 but we shall not do so here.
383
theory limit of OM theory, are related to the geomertrical position of the 5brane by a factor of Me3ff ; $ M ~ M e 3 ff X M . In summary, we consider N M5-branes in the 3« limit. Table 1 The 3^ Limit M3
=
^eff
2/3
Hon = M 3 tanh/3
/3->oo
MefF fixed, (/i,i/ 9MN = 0 , l— ,2,
—r-pr-OMN i,j = 3,4,5,
M,TV = 6,7,8,9,11 .)
The resultant 3> theory contains fluctuating open membranes of proper energy 0(Meff), decoupled from gravity. Note that 3o theory has no dimensionless parameters. We will argue below that 3« theory, upon compactification in the 2 direction, reduces to the 4+1 dimensional NCOS theory, and therefore is not a trivial theory, even in the case N — 1. Thus, for simplicity, we will concentrate on the theory of a single 5-brane through the rest of this lecture, although our considerations may be generalized. 15. Review of the N C O S Limit In subsequent sections we will study OM theory compactified on various circles. In particular, we will find a relationship between OM theory and the 4+1 dimensional NCOS theory. In this section we review the NCOS limit in coordinates convenient for present purposes."1 We will also discuss the T-duality of NCOS theories. Consider a Dp-brane with a near critical electric field in the 0,1 = fi, v direction and closed string coupling denoted by gstr- The closed string metric and electric field can be chosen as m
O u r conventions and coordinates here differ from those employed in to elucidate the relation to the S-dual field theory.
44
, which were chosen
384
9pv = 1)\iv ,
9ij = ^ij
,
9MN
= C$MN ,
2 7T Oj'e
F0l = 1 - - ,
(15.1)
with e
G>* = c Vv* ,
G« = c % ,
&»" = -—
e"" ,
G* =
5str
v^ •
(15.2)
The effective tension (energy per unit length) of a string stretched in the 1 direction is J_ (1 _ 27re01F01>) = - i - = — ^ — . (15.3) v 2u V"' / 47ra' 47ra'eff ' a' sets the scale of closed string oscillators, and a'eg the scale for the energy of oscillating open strings. As the electric field is scaled to its critical value, -T— = e —> 0, and the oscillating open strings decouple from gravity. We take a'eff fixed as e —> 0, so that a' oc e —> 0. Open string oscillator states obey the mass shell condition PAVABPB
= ^~
(15.4)
a eff
and so have proper energy pi = O (^r^J as expected. The part of the string sigma model involving transverse coordinates is S=
^I9MN
dXMBxN
= ^~T^ J 8MN 9XMBXN .
(15.5)
Thus correlation functions of the XM fields are finite as a' —> 0, and the dimension one scalar fields cf>M (normalized to have standard kinetic term) in the low energy gauge theory on the NCOS brane worldvolume, are related to the coordinates XM by a factor of ^ 7 ^ ; (j)M ~ £—. Finally, we scale gstr to keep G\ = gstr\l 377- fixed as a' is taken to zero. This limit (the NCOS limit) results in a one parameter family of interacting open string theories, (NCOS theories), labelled by their coupling constant G0 and decoupled from gravity. At low energies, the NCOS theory reduces to S =
=
[d"+1xV^GGAMGBNFABFMN
JZJ
2
2
4(2ir)P- G 0a'J
JEF I d5 x VAMVBNFABFMN J
i.e. it reduces to Yang Mills theory with g\M = (27r)p~2 G20 a'eff
(15.6)
385 Table 2 The NCOS Limit 9in> — V/iv 9ii -
a,es6ij
9MN = —.— $MN Oeff
a eff
a'eft
9str — G0 _
QAB
Q
a' eff
AB
a'
15.1. T Duals of NCOS
Theories
In this section we review the action of T-duality on the NCOS theories for later use". Consider a, p+1 dimensional brane in the NCOS limit of Table 2, wrapped on a circle of coordinate radius R in the pth spatial direction. Performing a T-duality in the pth direction yields a (p— 1) + 1 dimensional brane, at a point on the now transverse pth circle, whose coordinate radius is given by ~
a
R
eff
x
a
a eff
=^r R
(15.7)
= ^i-
The asymptotic value of the string coupling after T-duality, g'str, is given by y/a' 9str — 9str
9str
R
eff
R
GIV^ eff R
a'eff
(15.8)
The asymptotic values of the metric, and the world volume electric field are unchanged by the T-duality, and so may be read off from Table 2. In conclusion, the p + 1 dimensional NCOS theory with scale a'es and coupling G0, wrapped on a circle of coordinate length R in a non-electric direction, is T-dual to a (p— 1) + 1 dimensional NCOS theory with one compact transverse scalar. The (p - 1) + 1 dimensional NCOS theory has scale a'e« and coupling G'02 = * £eff • The coordinate radius of compactiflcation of "This discussion has independently appeared in
386
the transverse scalar is -2^£L °. Notice that the NCOS radius and coupling transform under T-duality exactly as the analogeous closed string quantities transform under the usual closed string T-duality, with a'eff playing the role of a'. 16. Compactification of OM Theory on an Electric Circle Consider 3£ theory compactified on a spatial circle of proper (and coordinate) radius R in one of the 'electric' spatial directions (the direction x2 for definiteness). Since 3^ theory reduces to the (0,2) theory at energies well below Meff, the low energy dynamics of the compactified theory is governed by 4+1 dimensional Yang Mills with g\M ~ R. At higher energies light open membranes wrap the compactification circle to form the light open strings decoupled from gravity. It is natural to guess that this theory is the 5 dimensional NCOS theory with effective string tension -^-,— ~ M| ff i? and open string coupling 2
G20 ~
3
/V,M ~ (RMeff) 2. In this section we will verify that this is indeed the V
a
eff
case. 3»> theory compactified on a spatial circle (say in the 2 direction) of proper radius R, may be obtained as follows. Consider M theory on S1 x R10 (the 5 1 is in the 2 direction) with M5-branes wrapping the circle. Scale all bulk moduli as in Section 2; in particular e012H0l2 = Ml - Me3ff , g^=v^ (ji,v = 0,1,2) , 9ii
=
2M 3 ~M^~ 6ij
(
*' j
= 3 4 5)
' '
'
(16-1)
3
9MN =
2M fr
.3
SMN
(M, N = transverse) ,
M p -»• 00 ,
Meff
fixed.
The dictionary between M-theory and IIA implies that this system is equivalent to a D4-branes in IIA theory with ±r = RMl ,
gstr = (RMP)f
2M 36 9iJ = -MJr ij
,
g^ = r]^
(*',J = 3 , 4 , 5 ) ,
2M3
9MN =
e M 3
2?r a'F01 =a'R
(p, v = 0,1) ,
(16.2) SMN
(M, N = transverse) ,
HQ12 = 1
-
eff
Ml
°The dimension one field (j>p (normalized to have the usual kinetic term) in the low energy gauge theory is compact with radius ~ 4 .
387
In the limit M p -> oo, comparing with Table 2, we find ourselves in the NCOS limit, a' -+ 0 with fixed effective open string tension and open string coupling
Thus the 4+1 dimensional NCOS theory with scale a'eff and coupling G20 may be identified with 2J> theory with scale Meff, compactified on an electric circle of radius R with Meff =
2
3 a
,
i? = G20 v W
.
(16.4)
Va'eff Go The relation between 3> theory and the 5 dimensional NCOS theory is reminiscent of the relationship between M theory and IIA string theory. Notice 4
that the radius of the compactification circle in units of 1/Meff is equal to GJ. Thus, at strong NCOS coupling Kalutza Klein modes are much lighter than Meff and the theory is effectively 6 dimensional. As argued in the previous section, the dimension one scalar field cf)M (normalized to have unit kinetic term) on the worldvolume of the NCOS brane is related to transverse coordinate position, by cf)M ~ -4— . However, the corresponding dimension 2 field 4>M on the OM worldvolume, is related to
17. Compactification of OM Theory on a Magnetic Circle Again consider "& theory compactified on a spatial circle, this time of coordinate radius L (proper radius W -j^p- L) in one of the 'magnetic' spatial directions (the direction x3 for definiteness). As in the previous subsection, the compactified theory at low energies is 4 + 1 dimensional SYM with gauge coupling <7yM ~ L. Indeed, we will see below that the effective 4 + 1 dimensional description of this theory is 4+1 dimensional noncommutative SYM. Since noncommutative SYM is nonrenormalizable in five dimensions, the theory does not have a complete 4+1 dimensional description. 3o theory on a circle provides a completion of 4+1 dimensional noncommutative SYM. Proceeding as in the previous section, we find that the compactified theory may equivalently be described as a D4-brane in IIA theory with parameters
388
9str = f
Ly/m^Mi
eff M
j
,
9nu = V^
(fi,f = 0,1,2) , (17-1)
<*=2^f*«
(.\.;=4>5)>
F45 =
^
.
As in 5 8 , (the parameter e of 58 may be identified with e~2/3 in (17.1)) the decoupled field theory on the D4-brane is maximally supersymmetric U(l) noncommutative Yang Mills (NCYM) with open string metric < V = Vw ,
Gij = (2TT a'Fi5f
M3 —i- 3 d y = % 2Me ff
(17.2)
and noncommutativity ey
ne-
At low energies, the NCYM theory is governed by the Lagrangian
C = - 4 - [d5xV^GGAMGBNFABFMN
(17.4)
where
*-=«!**-/dSi=rt
<17-5'
as expected. 17.1. Compactification
on an Electric
and a Magnetic
Circle
Another interesting compactification which combines the two previous ones is on the circle (x2, x5) ~ (x2, x5) + (2TTL2 , 2nL5). (The following discussion has also appeared independently in 6 8 . See also 52>69>67). Since in the metric g the distances along x6 are scaled to zero, the radius of the circle in the scaling limit is independent of L5. It is given by L2, and therefore a' and the string coupling are as in the compactification on the electric circle. The two form in the noncompact directions is determined as F = § H = 2n L2 H012 dx°dx1 + 2n Ls H345 dx3 dx*. We start by analyzing the situation in directions 0,1. Since the electric field scales to the critical value as in the compactification on the electric circle, the open string metric G and the noncommutativity parameter 0 in these directions are as in that problem, i.e. G scales like -^ and 0 0 1 is finite.
389
In directions 3,4 the situation differs from that in the previous cases. Here g scales like ^ and F is of order one. Since a' is of order ^W, the two p
p
terms in the denominator of G~x + 5^7© = , 2la'F a r e °^ *^ e s a m e order of magnitude. We conclude that the components of G in these directions are of order -^ and that 0 3 4 is of order one. Finally, there is one more noncompact direction. It is straightforward to check that the induced metric along that direction is of order ^ p - and therefore G is also of that order. We conclude that all the components of G are of order -rp- and that 0 0 1 p
and 0 3 4 are of order one. This is similar to the situation with the electric circle except that there is also noncommutativity in the spatial directions; i.e. 0 is of rank four. 18. Near Critical NS5-Brane Theories In this section we will define a series of new six dimensional theories, ODp (Open Dp-brane) theories p , labelled by an integer p where p runs from 15. These are decoupled theories on the world volume of the NS5-brane; the excitations of these theories include light open Dp-branes. These Dp-branes remain light, even in the decoupling limit, due to the presence of a near critical p+1 form Ramond-Ramond potential (NS5-branes with background RR fields were studied by various authors including 7 0 ) . As is well known, all even Dp-branes can end on NS5-branes in the IIA theory and all odd Dp-branes can end on NS5-branes in the IIB theory (when p < 6). Therefore, with an appropriate background RR field such open Dpbranes can be made very light. This is similar to the light open fundamental strings on D-branes in the NCOS theories and the light open membranes of 3% theory, discussed in the previous sections. Our construction of near critical NS5-brane theories can be generalized by turning on several different Ramond-Ramond fields. In these theories the light D-branes carry several charges. We will not analyze these generalized theories in detail in this lecture. The various near critical NS5-brane theories are distinct six dimensional theories but, upon compactification, all lie on the same moduli space. This is similar to the equivalence of the type IIA and type IIB string theories when compactified on a circle and to the equivalence of the IIA and IIB little string theories 71 . As we will argue below, ODp theories are also on the same moduli space as NCOS theories and 3o theory. p
We have learnt of independent related work by T. Harmark (to appear).
390
In order to motivate our construction, consider a D5-brane in IIB theory, in the 5 + 1 dimensional NCOS limit, as given in Table 2. S-dualizing this background yields a scaling limit that defines the ODl theory, a decoupled theory on the world volume of the IIB-NS5-brane, whose excitations are open D-strings. These are light in the decoupling limit because of a near critical background Coi RR potential. Compactifying this theory on tori, T-dualizing, and decompactifying the resultant theories, yields the scaling limits that define the various ODp theories. These scaling limits are summarized in Table 3 below. Table 3 ODp Theories g^v
H,V=
= T)iLV ,
0,l,...p
M,JV = ( p + l ) , . . . 9
9M N = Z&MN ,
a' = ei a'eff „(P)
_
e, ^ 4= £
9str -
,01...v p
c
/-i2
tr 0 (p)
1
_
*-^01...p — (27T)
Gl{p)a'T^
/I
1\
^
1
/-f
^(p+l)...b —
P
(2TT) 4 -P
Gl(p) *T
In the table above a' and g^'r represent the closed string scale and closed string coupling respectively. Note that M, N run over all dimensions transverse to the brane, as well as the brane directions orthogonal to the critical C field. Like the NCOS theories, the ODp theories are labelled by two parameters, the dimensionless G0(j>) a n d a scale a'eff. Below we will comment on the interpretation of these parameters. As an aside we note that in Table 3 we have made use of the fact that the components of the RR potentials on the NS5-branes, which cannot be gauged away are subject to a nonlinear equation similar to that of the three form on the M5-brane. To see that, start with an M5 with a large transverse circle. Then the three form is constrained by that equation. Making the circle small we can interpret the theory as type IIA string theory and the three form is an RR
391 potential, which is subject to the same nonlinear equation. By compactifying some of the directions and using T-duality, a similar equation for the other RR background fields is easily derived. S-dualizing also leads to similar relations on the worldvolume of the D5-brane (see Sec. 6.4 ahead). Consider the ODp limit, with the NS5-brane wrapped on a circle in the p direction, with identification xp ~ xp + 2TTRP. Under T-duality in the p direction, bulk quantities transform in the usual manner. Note, in particular, that the background RR fields change rank under the T-duality transformation Coi...( P -i) = 27ri? p Coi...p ,
Cp...5 = -—~—C(P+i)...5i
(18.1)
27T a'eff
and it is easily checked that the resulting scaling limit is that of the ODq (q = p— 1) theory with unchanged effective scale a'eff, on a circle of coordinate identification xp ~ xp + 2TTRP and dimensionless parameter G0(p_\) given by _ VQ'eff G i(p~l) ~ " ^ o(P) •
a'eff P - ~J^- >
r2 G
R
( 18 - 2 )
Thus, like little string theories, ODp theories inherit the action of T-duality from the underlying string theory. When an ODp theory is compactified on a torus whose metric is not diagonal (in the coordinate system in which the the RR fields are as given in Table 3) the action of T-duality generates RR fields of different ranks. Decompactifying the T-dual torus one obtains the other six dimensional theories with several different RR fields which have referred to above. 18.1.
p=0
The ODO limit contains NS5-branes in the presence of a near critical 1-form gauge field Co = * ,_ (l — | ) , leading to light DO-branes. In contrast to DOp theories with p > 0 (and to NCOS and OM theories), the light excitations of the ODO theory carry a conserved charge. Thus the ODO may be studied in any of an infinite number of super-selection sectors, labelled by DO-brane charge. Since we are in IIA we can lift the NS5-brane to a an M5-brane on a transverse circle with radius and Planck mass
Rn = Q^l V* = £G\0) y/^f 1 3 ,-,0 e2G
, ~ ,2
o(0)aeff
f2
= eR, (18.3)
392 Choosing coordinates in the l l " 1 direction such that (a;11 ~ x11 4- 2nR), the 11 dimensional metric is ds2M = - (dx0)2 + R2U (^= e2 (dx11)2
- Co dxA
+edx2±
- e (dx0)2 - edx11 dx° + edx\.
(18.4)
Rescaling the unit of length by a factor of y/e (so that all lengths are larger, and all masses smaller, by a factor of y/e) the metric, in the limit e —>0, takes the simple form ds2M = - (dx0)2 - dx11 dx° + dx\ .
(18.5)
Note that the compactified direction x11 is light-like. The bulk Planck scale in the new units is equal to MefrIn summary, the OD0 theory with N units of Do-brane charge is a DLCQ compactification of M-theory, (with Planck scale Meff = ; *_ i ) with N o(O) ° eff
units of DLCQ momentum, in the presence of a transverse M5-brane. The periodic light-like coordinate has an identification of radius R ~ GL> y a'eff . The ODp theories for p > 1 (like NCOS theories and 3> theory) have excitations that are open p branes. The presence of the appropriate near critical RR potential keeps these open branes light, in the decoupling limit, provided they are appropriately oriented (branes with the opposite orientation decouple). The counterpart of this statement in the ODO theories, is the fact that that DO number must be positive; i.e. the familiar statement that the discrete momentum around a circle must be positive in a DLCQ compactification.
18.2.
p=l
As pointed out above, the OD1 theory (with parameters G 0 (i), a'eff) is S-dual to the 5+1 dimensional NCOS theory (with parameters G0 , a'eff)- The relationship between NCOS parameters (defined by Table 2) and ODp parameters (defined by Table 3) is <Mi) = i ,
a'eff = a'eff G20.
(18.6)
Notice the formal analogy to the transformation of the closed string quantities a' and gstr under S-duality. Note, of course, that Dl-branes are exactly tensionless when Coi takes its critical value as e01Cn\lt = —^—=•— = ^—-,— . Unsurprisingly, the ul
2-xtG2^.
a',.ff
2jra' r f f e
r
bJi
393 effective tension of Dl-branes in the ODl limit is identical to that of NCOS strings in the S-dual 5+1 dimensional NCOS theory
At low energies the ODl theory reduces to a (5+1) dimensional gauge theory with Yang-Mills coupling g\M = (2ir)3 a'eff G20 = (27r)3a'eff. Instantons in this gauge theory are strings (identified with fundamental strings) in the low energy limit of the ODl theory; these strings consequently have tension ~ -^- . This yields an interpretation for the parameter a ' e s ; it sets the tension for closed little strings in ODl theories. As the tension of a little string is unchanged under T-duality, this statement is true of all the ODp theories. As an aside, consider the 5+1 dimensional NCOS theory, in the limit a'eff—^0, G0 —• oo, gyM held fixed. 0 0 1 = e01 2TTa'es —>0 in this limit, and so (at least naively) the NCOS theory recovers 5+1 dimensional Lorentz invariance in this limit. Open string oscillator states are infinitely massive, and decouple in this limit. Thus we are left with an (apparently) Lorentz invariant 6 dimensional theory, whose low energy limit is Yang Mills theory. It is natural to conjecture that the 5+1 dimensional NCOS theory reduces to the little string theory, in this limit. In terms of the variables of the dual ODl theory, the limit of the previous paragraph is G^i) —»• 0, a'efr held fixed. The conjecture above is thus equivalent to the assertion that the ODl theory reduces to the IIB little string theory as G0(i) is taken to zero at fixed a'eff • It is also tempting to conjecture that the ODl theory with scale a'eff and parameter C?0(i) m a Y be identified with the 5+1 dimensional NCOS theory with scale a'eff = fvf1*- and coupling G0 = G 0 (i)- Since the ODl theory is S-dual o(l)
to the 5 + 1 NCOS, this conjecture amounts to a self-duality conjecture for the 5 + 1 dimensional NCOS theory. The two theories have the same symmetries and reduce to Yang-Mills theory at low energies. We have no further evidence for this conjecture.
18.3.
p=2
Since we are in IIA theory now, we can lift the OD2 limit to M-theory. The scaling limit then involves an M5-brane on a point on the transverse M-theory circle, in the presence of a near critical C012 potential. The Planck length, invariant length of the l l " 1 circle and the C field are given, in terms of OD2
394
parameters, by
Ru = e* G20{2) v G , Ml = :G
1
—-r ,
e°
12
C 0 i2 = ^ M p 3 ( l - | ) .
o(2)a'eff
(18.8) Comparing with Table 1, we find that the OD2 theory is identical to OM 1 theory with M^ff = _ 3 , on a transverse circle, of coordinate length o(2)a
-"
v R = G2o(2) yfi, 'eff • Notice that the tension of a fundamental string in this theory is given by iM. 3 f f R = — i — , confirming the interpretation of a/eff as a scale that sets
*
n
e n
47ra
e ff
the tension of fundamental strings in ODp theories. As a consistency check on some of the dualities described in this lecture, we will relate the 5+1 dimensional NCOS theory (with parameters a'eg and Go), compactified on a circle of coordinate radius R, with a theory on a circle or radius -^ through two different duality chains. a. By T duality. As described in section 3, this leads to the 4 + 1 dimensional NCOS theory with scale a'efr, coupling G02 = * J? "ff and radius —R b. By performing an S-duality, to the OD1 theory, with parameters a'eff = a'effGl, G2,^ = J?? and coordinate radius R. Then performing a T-duality, to the OD2 theory with parameters a'eff = a'eff G\ , C?o(2) = QOR on a circle of radius a °£ ° As argued above, this is 3r> theory, with M3ff = „2fl ,2 , with a transverse circle of coordi" o
a
eff
nate length SL^-, compactified, in an 'electric' direction, on a circle of length —^—i- However, using the formulae of section 4, 3o theory with these parameters on an electric circle is identical to the 4+1 dimensional NCOS theory, with effective scale —r— and coupling constant G2 = G\ j ; ' e f f , on a circle of transverse size ^-^, in agreement with the result of the simple T-duality described in a) above. 18.4.
p=3
Since here we are in the IIB theory, the 0 D 3 theory may be analyzed by performing S-duality. From Table 3 we see that the string coupling g\t'r and the RR 2-form C 45 are both of order one. After an S-duality transformation we find a D5-brane with 5 4 5 = n * ~— of order one, 0;?' = -Ay = 7^— is of order
395 one and a' = a'g^l = e? a'e« G2,^ . The metric is scaled as in Table 3. This is precisely the zero slope limit of 5 8 , leading to a low energy effective NCYM (with spatial noncommutativity of rank 2). The noncommutativity parameter 9 and Yang Mills coupling g\M are given in terms of OD3 parameters by 9 = 2?r G2O{3) a' eff ,
g\M =
(2TT)3
a' eff .
(18.9)
Note that, as for p = 1, the limit G0(3) -»0, a'eff fixed, takes the noncommutativity parameter 9 to zero (naively at least restoring Lorentz invariance) at fixed Yang Mills coupling. Once again, it is natural to conjecture that this limit leads to the IIB little string theory. Of course, noncommutative Yang-Mills in 5+1 dimensions is nonrenormalizable, and so quantum mechanically ill defined. The OD3 theory provides a completion of 6 dimensional NCYM. 18.5. p=4 In M-theory the NS-5brane is an M5-brane at a point on the l l t f t circle. The light 4-branes of the OD4 theory are also M5-branes- these M5-branes are wrapped on the eleventh circle intersecting the transverse M5-brane in the directions 1 . . . 4. The M theory parameters that correspond to the OD4 limit are
Rn = G20(i) v S f f ,
M3p =
j -. ^
( 4 )
<
(18.10)
f f
Note that Rn is of order one. It is easy to check, directly in M-theory, that wrapped 5-branes of the appropriate orientation are light. C01234 = ———Z ZTT (1 - I ) lifts tO Coi234,ll = 2^k7C'01234 = J^sM^ (l - §). (2l)
EG
0(4)
Q
rft
This implies that the 5-branes wrapped on the 01234,11 directions are light with an effective tension T\ A = 2<2n)S> ^eff = (2^F "T2" °^ oro ^ er o n e - (The dual field C5 is of order one and hence only affects the geometry of the the 5 — 11 plane by introducing a relative tilt in the coordinates). 18.6. p=5 Here we are in the IIB theory. The theory has the full 50(5,1) six dimensional Lorentz invariance with <7M„ = 7jM„. As we see from Table 3, the string coupling diverges like t~~i. We are therefore tempted to use S-duality. This converts the NS5-branes to D5-branes with a slope of order one. Superficially, this is the scaling of the little string theory 71 . But since the zero form C is of order
396 one, the string coupling after the S-duality transformation does not go to zero, but continues to diverges like e~5. So we end up with D5-branes with C and a' of order one but with a divergent string coupling. We conclude that this theory is not weakly coupled either before or after the S-duality transformation. This situation has already been encountered in 71 , where the description of D5-brane excitations of the little string theory was shown to be difficult.
19. N C O S Theories at Strong Coupling in Various Dimensions The NCOS theories constructed in 4 4 , 4 7 are open string theories without a closed string sector. String perturbation theory provides an effective description of these theories only at weak open string coupling Ga. It is natural to ask if the NCOS theories have a dual description that is weakly coupled at large G0. Indeed, it has been argued in 44 that the strongly coupled 3+1 dimensional NCOS theory is dual to a weakly coupled spatially noncommutative theory. Further, in section 3 of this lecture we have argued that the strongly coupled 4+1 dimensional NCOS theory is well described by 6 dimensional 3o theory. In this section we will examine the strong coupling behavior of the NCOS theories in 6 or lower dimensions. We will also present a test of the conjectured dual description44 of the 3+1 dimensional NCOS theory. Our conjectures are summarized in Table 4 below.
Table 4 Dimension
NCOS theory at Strong Coupling
1+1
U{n) theory with single unit of electric flux
2+1
50(8) invariant M2-brane theory
3+1
Spatially noncommutative Yang-Mills Theory
4+1
3r> theory
5+1
Self Dual
397
19.1. d=l + l Consider an infinite D-string in IIB theory with background metric, and closed string coupling as in Table 2. q The allowed values of the electric field on the D-string are quantized, and are given by (see for instance Eq 2.4 in 4 4 ) 2Tva'e01F01 y/1 +
(2na')2F2
gstrn .
(19.1)
(19.1) may be rewritten in terms of the quantities defined in section 3.1 as U9str
1- | =
.
(19.2)
y 1 + {ngstrf In the limit ngstr 3> 1 (the near critical limit) e=
rx (ngstr Y From Table 2 we find
i.e
a'eff = a' (ngstr)
•
(19.3)
G20 = - • n
(19.4)
Thus we take the NCOS limit gstr -+ oo ,
a' =
e „ , n2 9str
n, a'eff
fixed
(19.5)
to obtain the 1+1 dimensional NCOS theory with coupling constant Gl = £ and string tension a'eff. Notice that G0 takes discrete values, and is bounded from above. Thus, unlike its higher dimensional counterparts, the 1+1 dimensional NCOS theory is characterized by a discrete (rather than continuous) parameter n, apart from a scale. Further, the 1+1 dimensional NCOS theory cannot be taken to strong coupling. In order to obtain a dual description of this NCOS theory, we S dualize the background described above. We find a theory of n D-strings with a single unit of electric flux, in a spacetime with 9l» = — 9str
,
9str = —
•
(19-6)
gstr
An electric field of the form Foil (I is the identity matrix) on the D-strings is governed by the Born Infeld action for a U(l) field, times an extra factor of n q
This case was discussed in 6 4 as well as 6 3 . The results of this section were developed partly in discussions with I. Klebanov, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas.
398
from the overall trace. In this picture, the value of S corresponding to a single unit of flux may thus be determined from an equation analogous to (19.2), 9 sir
1 - e- =
n
=
1
.
(19.7)
In the limit of interest ngstr -> oo, so | -+ 1 and the background electric field is very far from criticality. Consequently, the open string coupling and metric are equal to the corresponding closed string quantities and a'eff = a!. As a' —> 0, both open string oscillators and gravity decouple, and the D-string world volume theory is 1+1 dimensional U(n) Yang Mills, with a single unit of electric flux, governed by the action
S= ^- /d 2 zv^Tr(^V^-M l
9stT J 2
=
n9st r<X 2
/
r
J d2x Tr {rTrf^F^F^)
.
(19.8)
Prom (19.5), the Yang Mills coupling is
&»=^b7=^k
(19 9)
-
and remains fixed in the scaling limit. Note that this duality predicts that the 1+1 dimensional NCOS theory at the strongest allowed value of open string coupling G\ = 1 is dual to a U(l) gauge theory, and so is secretly a free theory. In summary, 1+1 U(n) Yang Mills with a single unit of electric flux, and gauge coupling g\M has a dual description as a weakly coupled 1+1 dimensional NCOS theory with open string coupling G\ = ^ and effective scale 2
a'eff = 7^2— ! In the rest of this section we will use this duality to study 1+1 dimensional large n U(n) gauge theory (with a single unit of flux) at various energies. As shown in 7 2 , the 1+1 dimensional U(n) theory with a single unit of electric flux reduces to a free U(l) theory at low energies, as the SU(n) part of this theory is massive. The dual weakly coupled NCOS theory also reduces to a free U(l) theory at low energies; indeed it may be used to predict that the mass gap of the SU(n) part of the U(n) theory is J-,— = \l2n^M . For a range of energies above the mass gap, and at large n, the duality derived in this section predicts that the the weakly coupled degrees of freedom
399
of the gauge theory are open strings, with a tension — 1 — = &M.
(19.10)
and effective coupling G% = ^ . Indeed these stringlike excitations are easily identified in the gauge theory. First recall why the SU(n) part of the theory is gapped. Excitations of the SU(n) theory involve excitations of the scalars X1 i.e. configurations involving separated Dl-branes, as the gauge field has no dynamics. However, because of the background electric field, all such excitations cost energy. For instance, a configuration in which a single D-string is taken to infinity (the SU(n) is Higgsed to SU(n - 1) x U(l)), has energy per unit length above that of the vacuum given by the BPS formular
as, in this limit, the electric flux is shared by n — 1 rather than n D-strings. But this tension agrees exactly with that of the NCOS string. Thus an NCOS open string of length L is identified with a configurations of the n coincident D-branes of the gauge theory, in which the background electric flux is shared between n — 1 of the D-strings over a length L. The last remaining D-string is free to fluctuate in the R8 transverse to the D-branes over this segment of length L, but is bound to the branes everywhere else, resulting in an open string of length L with Dirichlet boundary conditions. As with all string theories, the effective coupling of the NCOS theory grows with energy, and at energies much higher than the mass gap, the NCOS strings, (and, therefore, the 'flux' strings of the gauge theory, described in the previous paragraph) are strongly coupled. Indeed, at squared energies much larger than <7yMn, the usual W-bosons of the gauge theory constitute the weakly coupled variables for the gauge theory.
19.2.
d=2+l
IIA theory in the NCOS limit of Table 2 may equivalently be described as Mtheory on a circle of proper radius Rn = gstr Vet" — G\ y/a'eff and a Planck _
1
.
2
1
1
mass M p that goes to infinity M p = g*tr v a ' = Gi a'3 a'®ff . Recall that a D2-brane in IIA theory, with no F flux on its worldvolume, maps to an M2brane at a point on the 1 1 t h circle. The dynamics of the gauge field on such a r
A simple way to check the factors in this formula is to recall that the tension of a (p, 1)
string is j - «/-?•—h 1 and that in 1+1 dimensions g\M
400
2-brane maps to the dynamics of the compact scalar (representing the position of the M2-brane in the l l " 1 direction) on the M2-brane world volume. Now consider a D2-brane with a large electric field, as in Table 2. One may choose to regard F^v instead of AM as the dynamical variable in the Born Infeld action on the D2-brane, if one simultaneously introduces a Lagrange Multiplier field 0 that enforces the constraint dF = 0; 3- / d3x y/- det (gMN + 2n
S =
(27r)
2
5 s t r a'5
a'FMN)
J
+ ljd3x^eMNPdMct>FNP.
(19.12)
The equation of motion that results from varying this action with respect to FMN, specialized to the case of a diagonal metric gMN and a constant background electric field F 0 i, is d
i
•
(19-13)
(2TTa'F01f
The scalar field 0 in (19.13) is dimensionless, and is compact of unit periodicity s 0 = 0 + 1 . In the NCOS limit of Table 2, (19.13) may be rewritten as
<920 =
l
—f= = r-4r~ •
(19.14)
2TrgstrVa' 2-KRU 11 27ri?n0 = X is identified geometrically with the position of the brane in the \\th direction. (19.14) implies that in the presence of a near critical electric field, the M2-brane tilts at an angle of 45 degrees in the 2-11 coordinate plane X 1 1 = x2 .
(19.15)
However, in the NCOS limit, 922 -+0, so that, when angles are measured in terms of physical distances, the M2-brane is oriented almost entirely in the 0,1,11 directions. More precisely, the 2 dimensional NCOS scaling limit has a dual description in terms of an M2-brane extended in the 0,1, directions, and spiraling around the 2-11 cylinder*. Successive turns of the spiral are separated by physical distance AX « 27rV52l#n =2-KG20\fd s
.
(19.16)
The periodicity of
401
The field ip on the worldvolume of the M2-brane, normalized so that its kinetic term is ^ f (fix(dtp)2, is related to the physical displacement X by 3
ip = (2TT)~1 Mp X. Combining this with (19.16) we find that the spacing between successive turns of the spiral in ip space is given by Atp =
Go
(19.17)
a' eff and is finite in the NCOS limit. Interactions between successive windings may be ignored only for energies LJ
G0 —> oo, interactions may be ignored at all energies, and the NCOS theory reduces to the free SO(S) invariant theory of a single M2-brane.
Figure 22. When lifted to M theory, a D2-brane in the 0,1,2 directions with a near critical Foi field is an M2-brane that that fills the 0-1 plane and spirals round the 2-11 cylinder. The pitch of the spiral is related to the open string coupling Ga and goes to infinity at strong coupling.
402
20. Moduli Counting Since this lecture involves branes in Tln in constant background fields, we would like to make a few comments about such backgrounds. We start by considering Dp-branes in TZ10. In the absence of the branes a constant NS B field can be gauged away. When the branes are present such a gauge transformation changes the value of the field strength F at infinity F(oo), since only F + B is gauge invariant. We can either fix the boundary conditions F(oo), and then B is meaningful, or gauge transform B to zero and focus on the background F(oo), or more generally discuss the gauge invariant background F(oo) + B. The situation with M5-branes in TZn is somewhat more interesting. As for D-branes, only T-L(oo) = H(oo) + C is gauge invariant. However, here there is a new element because the field strength H is a constrained field. For a single M5-brane and a small and slowly varying % it has to be selfdual, and for generic values of Ti, which are still slowly varying the condition is more complicated 65 . This equation should also be imposed on the boundary values %(oo) which characterize the problem 58 . This means that the problem of M5branes in flat V}1 depends on (6 x 5 x 4)/(2 x 3!) = 10 parameters, where the factor of 2 arises from this generalized selfduality condition. We now follow these parameters as the M5-branes are compactified on a circle to become D4-branes in type IIA string theory. For simplicity we consider a single M5-brane. The six dimensional three form H field leads to a two form field strength F = § H in five dimensions and a three form. The M5-brane equation relates them and determines one of them in terms of the other 73 . Hence, we can take the degrees of freedom to be ordinary gauge fields with field strength F. For slowly varying fields the dynamics of the D4-brane is well known to be controlled by the Lagrangian L = h(F + B) + CA{F
+ B),
(20.1)
where h is the DBI Lagrangian (for a review see 7 4 ) . The term proportional to the RR field C can be dropped when C is a constant since it is a total derivative. (20.1) is invariant under the electric gauge symmetries 5 A = d\e + Ae SB = - A e .
(20.2)
We note that for constant B and C we are free to specify 20 independent parameters as well as the boundary conditions F(oo). However, only F(oo) + B is gauge invariant and meaningful, and the terms proportional to C do not affect the local dynamics. Therefore the problem is characterized only by 10 parameters, exactly as for its ancestor M5-brane.
403
Let us perform a duality transformation on the Lagrangian (20.1). We do that by viewing F as an independent field and by introducing a Lagrange multiplier V to implement the Bianchi identity for F. The Lagrangian L is replaced by h(F + B) + C A (F + B) - V A dF .
(20.3)
Next, we integrate by parts to replace (20.3) by h{F + B) + (C + dV) A (F + B) .
(20.4)
The Lagrangian (20.4) is invariant under the magnetic gauge symmetries SV = d\m
+Am (20.5)
SC=-Am. The equation of motion of F is algebraic h'(F + B) + C + FD = 0;
FD = dV .
(20.6)
It has a number of consequences: 1. The two field strengths F and F& are the two form and three form which are obtained by dimensional reduction of the M5-brane field H, and B and C are the dimensional reduction of the higher dimensional C field. Here we see explicitly how they are related. As shown in 73 , equation (20.6) is the dimensional reduction of the generalized selfduality equation of 65 . 2. Equation (20.6) can be solved F + B = f (C + FD) and F can be integrated out to express the the theory in terms of the dual variables as Lduai = h (f(C + FD)) + (C + FD)Af(C
+ FD) .
(20.7)
We see that the dual Lagrangian is independent of B and that the dependence on the background RR field C is nonlinear. 3. In (20.1) the constants C are arbitrary, as they multiply total derivative terms. However, they do affect the boundary conditions of the dual variables V. To see that, we should examine (20.6) at infinity ti{F(oo) + B) + C + FD(oo) = 0 .
(20.8)
Clearly, the value of FD(OO) depends on C. As for the electric variables, only C + FD(OO) is gauge invariant and physical. Furthermore, these constants are determined in terms of the electric constants .F(oo) + B. Therefore, the problem is characterized by (5 x 4)/2 = 10 parameters, exactly as for the M5-brane we started with.
404
It is straightforward to repeat this analysis for D3-branes in 1Z10. Here the background depends on (4 x 3 ) / 2 = 6 parameters from the NS B field, which can be interpreted as b o u n d a r y values of the field strength F a t infinity. T h e (4 x 3 ) / 2 = 6 parameters in t h e R R C field multiply total derivative terms and do not affect the dynamics. Hence, the total number of independent gauge invariant two form parameters is six. S-duality transformation can be performed as above except t h a t now FD and C are two forms. Again, equation (20.8) relates the b o u n d a r y values of F and FD in terms of the parameters B and C. A n a t u r a l gauge choice is B = C = 0, and then the b o u n d a r y conditions on the dynamical fields are h'(F(oo)) + * F D ( O O ) = 0. W i t h this choice S-duality exchanges nonzero background electric field with background magnetic field. Another n a t u r a l choice is such t h a t t h e dynamical fields vanish at infinity F ( o o ) = FD(oo) = 0. T h e n t h e NS and t h e R R fields are related by ti(B) + *C = 0. Here S-duality exchanges the related values of B and C. T h e local dynamics depends only on the value of the NS B field, so t h a t S-duality can be described as mapping B —> — *h'{B) (it is straightforward to check t h a t this transformation is a Z 2 transformation).
References 1. T. Filk, "Divergences in a Field Theory on Quantum Space", Phys. Lett. B376, 53 (1996). 2. J. C. Varilly and J. M. Gracia-Bondia, "On the ultraviolet behavior of quantum fields over noncommutative manifolds", Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14, 1305 (1999), hep-th/9804001. 3. M. Chaichian, A. Demichev and P. Presnajder, "Quantum Field Theory on Noncommutative Space-times and the Persistence of Ultraviolet Divergences", hep-th/9812180; "Quantum Field Theory on the Noncommutative Plane with E(q)(2) Symmetry", hep-th/9904132. 4. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, "One Loop Renormalizability of Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories on Noncommutative Torus", JEEP 06, 015 (1999), hep-th/9903107. 5. C. P.Martin, D. Sanchez-Ruiz, "The One-loop UV Divergent Structure of U(l) Yang-Mills Theory on Noncommutative i? 4 ", Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 476-479 (1999). 6. T. Krajewski, R. Wulkenhaar, "Perturbative quantum gauge fields on the noncommutative torus", hep-th/9903187. 7. S. Cho, R. Hinterding, J. Madore and H. Steinacker, "Finite Field Theory on Noncommutative Geometries", hep-th/9903239. 8. E. Hawkins, "Noncommutative Regularization for the Practical Man", hepth/9908052. 9. D. Bigatti and L. Susskind, "Magnetic fields, branes and noncommutative geometry" , hep-th/9908056.
405 10. H. Aoki, N. Ishibashi, S. Iso, H. Kawai, Y. Kitizawa and T. Tada, hepth/9908141. 11. N. Ishibashi, S. Iso, H. Kawai and Y. Kitazawa, "Wilson Loops in Noncommutative Yang-Mills", hep-th/9910004. 12. I. Chepelev and R. Roiban, "Renormalization of Quantum Field Theories on Noncommutative Rd, I. Scalars", hep-th/9911098. 13. H. Benaoum, "Perturbative BF-Yang-Mills theory on noncommutative R ", hepth/9912036. 14. S. Minwalla, M. Van Raamsdonk, N. Seiberg, "Noncommutative Perturbative Dynamics", JHEP 02, 020 (2000), hep-th/9912072. 15. G. Arcioni and M. A. Vazquez-Mozo, "Thermal effects in perturbative noncommutative gauge theories", JHEP 0001, 028 (2000), hep-th/9912140. 16. M. Hayakawa, "Perturbative analysis on infrared aspects of noncommutative QED on R**4", hep-th/9912094; "Perturbative analysis on infrared and ultraviolet aspects of noncommutative QED on R**4", hep-th/9912167. 17. S. Iso, H. Kawai and Y. Kitazawa, "Bi-local fields in noncommutative field theory" , hep-th/0001027. 18. H. Grosse, T. Krajewski and R. Wulkenhaar, "Renormalization of noncommutative Yang-Mills theories: A simple example", hep-th/0001182. 19. I. Y. Aref'eva, D. M. Belov and A. S. Koshelev, "A note on UV/IR for noncommutative complex scalar field", hep-th/0001215. 20. W. Fischler, E. Gorbatov, A. Kashani-Poor, S. Paban, P. Pouliot and J. Gomis, "Evidence for winding states in noncommutative quantum field theory", hepth/0002067. 21. A. Matusis, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, "The IR/UV connection in the noncommutative gauge theories", hep-th/0002075. 22. M. Van Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, "Comments on Noncommutative Perturbative Dynamics," hep-th/0002186. 23. F. Ardalan and N. Sadooghi, "Axial Anomaly in Noncommutative QED on .R4", hep-th/0002143. 24. C. Chu, "Induced Chern Simons and WZW Action in Noncommutative Spacetime", hep-th/0003007. 25. O. Andreev and H. Dorn, "Diagrams of Noncommutative Phi-Three Theory from String Theory", hep-th/0003113. 26. Y. Kiem and S. Lee, "UV/IR Mixing in Noncommutative Field Theory via Open String Loops", hep-th/0003145. 27. A. Connes, M. Douglas and A. Schwarz, "Noncommutative Geometry and Matrix Theory: Compactification on Tori", hep-th/9711162, JHEP 02, 003 (1998). 28. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, "String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry", JHEP 09, 032 (1999), hep-th/9908142. 29. J. Maldacena and J. Russo, "Large N Limit of Non-Commutative Gauge Theories" , hep-th/9908134. 30. A. Hashimoto and N. Itzhaki, "Non-Commutative Yang-Mills and the AdS/CFT Correspondence", hep-th/9907166. 31. S. Das, S. Kalyana Rama, S. Trivedi, "Supergravity with Self-Dual B Fields and Instantons in Noncommutative Gauge Theory", hep-th/9911137.
406 32. G. Derrick, "Comments on Nonlinear Wave Equations as Models for Elementary Particles", J. Math. Phys. 5, 1252 (1964); S. Coleman, "Aspects of Symmetry", Chapters 6 and 7. 33. G. Horowitz, J. Lykken, R. Rohm and A. Strominger, "A Purely Cubic Action for String Field Theory", Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 283-286 (1986). 34. E. Witten, "Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory", Nucl. Phys. B268, 253 (1986). 35. N. Nekrasov and A. Schwarz, "Instantons on noncommutative R , and (2,0) superconformal six dimensional theory", Commun. Math. Phys. 198, 689-703 (1998), hep-th/9802068. 36. N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and A. Tsuchiya, "A Large-N Reduced Model as Superstring", Nucl. Phys. B498, 467-491 (1997), hep-th/9612115. 37. N. Ishibashi, S. Iso, H. Kawai and Y. Kitazawa, "Wilson Loops in Noncommutative Yang Mills", hep-th/9910004. 38. I. Bars and D. Minic, "Noncommutative geometry on a discrete periodic lattice and gauge theory", hep-th/9910091. 39. J. Ambjorn, Y. Makeenko, J. Nishimura and R. Szabo, "Finite N matrix models of noncommutative gauge theory", JEEP 11, 029 (1999), hep-th/9911041. 40. J. Ambjorn, Y. Makeenko, J. Nishimura and R. Szabo, "Nonperturbative dynamics of noncommutative gauge theory", hep-th/0002158. 41. M. Li, "Strings from IIB Matrices", Nucl. Phys. B499, 149 (1997), hepth/9612222. 42. A. Dhar, G. Mandal and S. R. Wadia, "Nonrelativistic Fermions, Coadjoint Orbits of Woo, and String Field Theory At c = 1", hep-th/9207011; "Woo Coherent States and Path-Integral Derivation of Bosonization of Non-Relativistic Fermions in One Dimension", hep-th/9309028; "String Field Theory of Two Dimensional QCD: A Realization of Woo Algebra", hep-th/9403050. 43. D. B. Fairlie, T. Curtright and C. K. Zachos, "Integrable Symplectic Trilinear Interactions For Matrix Membranes", Phys. Lett. B405, 37 (1997), hepth/9704037; D. Fairlie, "Moyal Brackets in M-Theory", Mod. Phys. Lett. A13, 263 (1998), hep-th/9707190; "Matrix Membranes And Integrability", hepth/9709042. 44. R. Gopakumar, J. Maldacena, S. Minwalla and A. Strominger, "S-duality and noncommutative gauge theory", hep-th/0005048. 45. R. Gopakumar, S. Minwalla, N. Seiberg and A. Strominger, (2000), [arXiv:hepth/0006062]. 46. E. Cremmer and J. Scherk, "Factorization of the Pomeraon Sector, and Currents in the Dual Resonace Model", Nucl. Phys. B50, 222 (1972). 47. N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, "Strings in background electric field, space/time noncommutativity and a new noncritical string theory", hepth/0005040. 48. N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, "Space/time non-commutativity and causality", hep-th/0005015. 49. O. J. Ganor, G. Rajesh and S. Sethi, "Duality and non-commutative gauge theory", hep-th/0005046. 50. J. L. Barbon and E. Rabinovici, "Stringy fuzziness as the custodian of time-space noncommutativity", hep-th/0005073.
407 51. J. Gomis and T. Mehen, "Space-Time Noncommutative Field Theories and Unitarity", hep-th/0005129. 52. G. Chen and Y. Wu, "Comments on noncommutative open string theory: Vduality and holography", hep-th/0006013. 53. M. Alishahiha, Y. Oz and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, "Supergravity and large N noncommutative field theories", JHEP 9911, 007 (1999), [hep-th/9909215]. 54. T. Harmark, "Supergravity and space-time non-commutative open string theory", hep-th/0006023. 55. A. Strominger, "Open p-branes", Phys. Lett. B383, 44 (1996), hep-th/9512059. 56. P. K. Townsend, "D-branes from M-branes", Phys. Lett. B 3 7 3 , 68 (1996), hepth/9512062. 57. Mandukya Upanishad, c.a. 700 B.C., see for instance The Principal Upanishads, ed. S. Radhakrishnan, 1953 (Allen and Unwin). 58. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, "String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry", hep-th/9912072. 59. S. Chakravarty, K. Dasgupta, O. J. Ganor and G. Rajesh, "Pinned branes and new non Lorentz invariant theories", hep-th/0002175. 60. E. Bergshoeff, D. S. Berman, J. P. van der Schaar and P. Sundell, "A noncommutative M-theory five-brane", hep-th/0005026. 61. S. Kawamoto and N. Sasakura, "Open membranes in a constant C-field background and noncommutative boundary strings", hep-th/0005123. 62. H. Verlinde, "A matrix string interpretation of the large N loop equation", hepth/9705029. 63. S. Gukov, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, "Dynamics of (n, 1) strings", Phys. Lett. B423, 64 (1998), hep-th/9711112. 64. I. Klebanov, Talk delivered at Lennyfest, Stanford, May 2000. 65. P. S. Howe, E. Sezgin and P. C. West, "Covaxiant field equations of the M-theory five-brane", Phys. Lett. B399, 49 (1997), hep-th/9702008; "The six-dimensional selfdual tensor", Phys. Lett. B400, 255 (1997), hep-th/9702111. 66. C. G. Callan, C. Lovelace, C. R. Nappi, S. A. Yost, "Open Strings in Background Gauge Fields", Nucl. Phys. B288, 525 (1985). 67. T. Kawano and S. Terashima, "S-duality from OM-theory", hep-th/0006225. 68. J. G. Russo and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, "On noncommutative open string theories", hep-th/0006202. 69. J. X. Lu, S. Roy and H. Singh, "((F, £>1), £>3) bound state, S-duality and noncommutative open string / Yang-Mills theory", hep-th/0006193. 70. M. Cederwall, U. Gran, M. Nielsen and B. E. Nilsson, "(p, q) 5-branes in non-zero B-field", JHEP 0001, 037 (2000), [hep-th/9912106]. 71. N. Seiberg, "New theories in six-dimensions and matrix description of M-theory on T**5 and T**5/Z(2)", Phys. Lett. B408, 98 (1997), hep-th/9705221. 72. E. Witten, "Bound States of Strings and p-Branes", Nucl. Phys. B460, 335 (1996), hep-th/9510135. 73. M. Perry and J. H. Schwarz, "Interacting chiral gauge fields in six-dimensions and Born-Infeld theory," Nucl. Phys. B489, 47 (1997), hep-th/9611065. 74. A. A. Tseytlin, "Born-Infeld action, supersymmetry and string theory", hepth/9908105.
This page is intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTION TO PERTURBATIVE QCD*
P. N A S O N INFN, Milan,
Italy
In this lecture notes I give an introduction to perturbative QCD, that should address both theoretical and experimental physics students. I illustrate the basic features of the theory, by discussing few examples in e + e ~ physics, deep-inelastic scattering, and hard production phenomena in hadron collisions.
1. Strong Interactions Strong interactions are characterized at moderate energies by the presence of a single dimensionful scale, of the order of few hundred MeV, a scale that we will call in the following As. No hint to the presence of a small parameter, in which to develop a perturbative expansion, is present in the strong interaction world. Thus, typical cross sections are of the order of 10 millibarns (corresponding roughly to 1/A|), the width of hadronic resonances is of order As, and the size of a baryon is typically of the order of 1/As- This is very much different from the case of electromagnetism and of weak interaction, where all reactions can be viewed as originating from a weakly coupled point-like vertex, the fermion-fermion-photon vertex in electrodynamics, and the four fermion vertex in weak interactions. The development of a model of strong interactions has therefore followed a rather intricate path. Aside from what can be inferred from symmetry properties, S-Matrix models were developed in the 60's, since the general feeling prevailed that it was impossible to describe strong interactions using a field theoretical framework similar to the one used for QED. Dual models, which eventually gave origin to string theories, were discovered precisely in this context, but failed to give a consistent explanation of strong interaction dynamics. 'Lecture notes for the XI Jorge Andre Swieca Summer School, Particles and Fields, January 14-27 2001, Campos do Jordao, SP, Brazil. This notes are an updated and revised version of the lecture notes for the 1997 European School of High-Energy Physics, 25 May - 7 Jun 1997, Menstrup, Denmark, report CERN-98-03.
409
410
2. Motivations for QCD Today we have a satisfactory model of the strong interaction, which is given in terms of a non-Abelian gauge theory. The main motivations for this model are essentially the following. 2.1. Hadron
Spectrum
The hadron spectrum can be completely classified from the following assumptions (1) Hadrons are made up of spin | quarks. The charge and masses of the known quarks are given in table 1. One usually refers to u, d, s, c, b and t as "flavours", and commonly refers to u, d and s as the light flavours, and c, b and t as heavy flavours. Table 1.
Known quarks.
2 Electric Charge = - e
up
charm
top
m =
few MeV
« 1.5 GeV
RJ 170 G e V
Electric Charge =
e
m =
down
strange
bottom
few MeV
few hundred MeV
« 5 GeV
(2) Each quark flavour comes in 3 colours. Thus, quark fields are spinors, and carry a flavour and a colour index: V^V-coiour°Ur(3) The SU(3) symmetry acting on colour is an exact symmetry. (4) Observable hadrons are neutral in colour, in the sense that they are colour singlets under the SU(3) colour group ("singlet" means invariant under the action of the group). The SU(3) group is the group of 3 x 3 complex unitary matrices U with unit determinant U*U = 1,
detU = l ,
(1)
that act on the quark fields according to (2) k
Invariants can be easily formed out of quark-antiquark states
£v*Vi-»• £utMtt = EEuiu ik r^k = 5>^*, 0) ijk
kj
411
which gives us the possibility of forming integer spin color singlet states with a quark and an antiquark. We can form colour singlet also from three-quark states JV'ViVilhfe -•
eiJku
ii'Un'Ukk'ipi'^j>*l>k'
51
ijk
= $VJ"*Vi'Vy^ft'
ijk,i'j'k'
(4)
i'j'k'
where the last equality is a consequence of the identity Y, ^k Uu> Ujj> Ukk> = det U / J " * ' ijk
and det U = 1 for SU(3) matrices. Therefore we have the possibility of forming colour neutral, spin 1/2 hadrons out of three quarks. The most important s
Pin 0
spin l
ft
ft
V+
xr*Q
/ds
ul\
/ds
us^
\svi
sd/
\su
sd",
spin 1/2 P /udd uud\ £
"< d d s
uds
\dss
UUS
>2+
uss, spin 3/2 Figure 1. Hadron spectrum.
hadron multiplets are displayed in fig. 1. Multiplets are classified according their spin, and their transformation properties under the flavour group. Each multiplet contains particles with similar properties. Observe that we need colour if we want a particle like the A + + , which is made of three up quark with the same flavours and same spin, to have similar properties to the £ ° , which has three different flavours. In fact, if we didn't have colour, because of the
(5)
412
Pauli principle, the spatial wave function of the A + + should be antisymmetric, while that of the E° could very well be symmetric. With colour, instead, the colour wave-function itself is antisymmetric, and so there is no problem to have the particle of the multiplet all in a symmetric spin, flavour, and spatial wave-function. It can be shown that in order to form an SU(3) singlet in a system with ng quarks and rig antiquark, we have the constraint nq — riq = n x 3
(6)
with n integer. It is a simple exercise to show that because of this condition observable hadrons must have integer charges. 2.2.
Scaling
Scaling was first observed in deep inelastic scattering experiments at SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, California), around 1968. The deep inelastic scattering process, depicted in fig. 2, is the collision of a lepton
Figure 2.
Deep inelastic scattering.
(an electron in the SLAC case) with a nucleon target, which fragments into a high multiplicity, massive final state. The scattering process kinematics can be defined by the following dimensionless variables ZBJ
Q2
q-p
= » —
y = T—
,~ •
(7)
2p-q k -p where Q2 = —q2. The value ZBJ = 1 corresponds to elastic scattering. In fact M2x = {q + pf = -Q2+m2p
+ 2v = 2v(l-xBi)+m2p
.
(8)
Scaling means that the differential cross section, when expressed in terms of these dimensionless parameters, in the limit of high energy with x and y fixed,
413
scales like the energy in the process, according to its canonical dimension 9
( ) dx dy <* 7T? Q2 • This property is quite remarkable, since the right hand side does not depend upon As, like most moderate energy cross sections, and it looks more like the behaviour one may find in a renormalizable field theory with a dimensionless coupling, like electrodynamics. Even more spectacular scaling phenomena are observed in e+e~~ annihilation, where the total hadron production cross section becomes proportional to the muon pair cross section at high energies. The discovery of scaling phenomena in deep inelastic scattering and in e+e~ annihilation, has given a strong evidence that if a field theory was to describe strong interactions, it had to be weakly coupled at high energies, that is to say, it had to be "asymptotically free". The only known asymptotically free four-dimensional field theories are the non-Abelian gauge theories. It becomes therefore natural to attempt to describe the hadronic forces by using an SU(3) non-Abelian gauge theory, coupled to the colour quantum number. This is also hinted by the fact that the condition of colour neutrality of the hadron spectrum must have a dynamical origin.
2.3.
The QCD
Lagrangian
The QCD Lagrangian reads
F£u = d*K - dvAl - gs E 6 , c fabcA^Al . Sum over repeated Lorentz and colour indices is always assumed. The sum over different flavours is explicitly indicated. The symbols *?• are the SU(3) generators and the /a&c are the structure constant of the ST/(3) algebra. The matrices ta form a complete basis of traceless 3 x 3 matrices. There are 8 such matrices, and therefore there are 8 gluons. The basis is chosen in such a way that Tr (tatb) = hab
(11)
The symbols / are then defined by (square brackets indicate the commutator) [ta,tb]=ifabctc
(12)
I also give the important property (which follows from completeness, tracelessness and relation (11)) £'&*2i = 5 ( * « * * > - | M « ) -
(13)
414
fermion > <
J_ 71
gluon
Fermion-Gluon Vertex (ta)
3-Gluon Vertex (/ a 6 c )
= 4
Figure 3.
Colour Feynman rules for QCD.
Equation 13 is all we need to compute colour factors for Feynman graphs. The colour structure of the Lagrangian may seem complicated at first sight. One simple way to look at it, is to think of quarks as objects having 3 colour states. The gluon can be thought as carrying the combination of a colour and an anticolour, except that out of the nine possible combinations the "neutral" one, formed by the sum of all equal colour-anticolour pairs is subtracted away. Figure 3 shows how to compute colour factors by using this intuitive point of view. The Feynman rules for the QCD Lagrangian are given in fig. 4. The QCD Lagrangian is very similar to the QED Lagrangian. The Feynman rules are also very similar. The most apparent difference is due to the fact that the fermions carry a new quantum number, the color (the indices i,j = 1 , 2 , 3 in eq. (10)). Also the gluons carry a colour related quantum number. Unlike the case of QED, therefore, the gluons are charged, and can emit other gluons.
415
a, a a
P
b,6 _ ca&
P *"
i,n
P
b
= Sab
gap + (l-X)
pap0
2
p + ie p2 + ie
l 2
p + ie k,m _ Hk
i •p — m + ie
= -9sfabc [9a0(p - qV + 9^(q - r)a + T > - p)0]
-ig2sfxacfxbd(ga0gid-ga59^) -iglfxadfxbe{gafig"'s-ga'1'gf") -ig2sfxabfxcd(ga-rg0S-gaSg0")
= gsfabc q° \
= -igstii 7imn
x,n
k,m Figure 4. Feynman rules for QCD.
As in the case of electrodynamics, one defines the strong coupling constant as
9l 4ir
(14)
416
As we shall see in the following, this coupling constant has a strength that depends upon the energy scale fi of the process in which enters. In leading order as =
(15)
— Y
where bo =
llCA-4TFnf —
•
(16)
where TF = 1/2 and CA = N for SU(N) (3 for SU(3)) and nf is the number of flavours. Thus A is the parameter that characterizes the QCD coupling constant.
2.4.
Symmetries
We know that the strong interaction world has a very good symmetry property, the isospin symmetry. Particles in the same isospin multiplet, like the proton and the neutron, or the charged and neutral pions, have nearly the same mass. Furthermore, the Wigner-Eckart theorem can be used to relate decay and scattering processes which are connected by isospin transformations. This symmetry properties must be present in some way in the fundamental QCD Lagrangian, whose fermionic sector is given by
£F = Y. 4f) (W - mf)Sn - gtfjta) $f) •
(17)
f,ij
An isospin transformation acts on the quark field as a unitary matrix
^,(/) _• £ V / / y / ' )
(is)
where / and / ' are restricted to the up and down flavours, and U is a unitary two dimensional matrix. By a simple exercise, one can verify that, in order for the fermionic Lagrangian to be invariant under the isospin transformation, we must have either mu — rrid or mu,md -» 0. The distinction of the two possibilities is a physical one. It can be phrased as follows: if the up and down masses are of the order of the QCD scale A or larger, then they must be nearly equal in order for the isospin symmetry to work. Alternatively, the up and down masses must be much smaller than A. The first possibility is not very appealing from a theoretical point of view. From what we know from the theory of weak interactions, particles belonging to different families have different masses. It would be very hard to justify the fact that two quark flavours have equal masses while all the others are very different. In fact,
417 there is a large body of evidence that favours the second possibility, that is to say, that the up and down quark masses are very small. This fact has a few remarkable consequences, due to the fact that, for small masses, the QCD fermionic Lagrangian has a much larger symmetry than isospin alone. In order to see this fact, let us define left and right-handed field components i>L = ^(1 - 75)^ ,
^=2(l+75)V>
(19)
and substituting ip = ipL+ipR in the fermionic Lagrangian we have (suppressing colour indices) f
(2°)
-5>, (^W+4'W)-
Terms that mix left and right components in the kinetic energy, and terms diagonal in the left and right component of the mass terms are absent because of the following elementary identities 1>L = ^ ( i - ^ s ) ^
V>ft= 2 -( 1 + 7s) i>R
^ L = ^ 2 ( 1 + 75)
^
= ^-(1-75)
(21) (22)
and from the fact that 75 anticommutes with 7M. If we could neglect the fermion masses the Lagrangian would have the large symmetry SUL(N)
x SUfi(iV) x U L (1) x UJI(1)
(23)
where TV is the number of flavours. In fact, the transformation
fl>if) -»• J*h Zf> 1$
U[f'^Ln
_* ei*« Y,t, U'/^
)
(24)
where UL and UR are (independent) matrices of SU(iV), leaves the Lagrangian invariant. The phase factors constitute the two U(l) groups. The isospin symmetry group is a subgroup of the above, also called the vector subgroup, characterized by equal transformation matrices for the left and right components. Besides the isospin transformations, there are other independent symmetry transformations, in which the left and right-handed component transform with matrices that are the inverse of each other. These are called axial transformations (they do not form a subgroup by themselves). In the following, I will only state what happens of all these symmetries, without giving detailed explanations
418
• The vector SU(N) subgroup is realized in the spectrum. It is the observed isospin symmetry. The U(l) vector subgroup is a phase symmetry related to baryon number conservation. • The axial U(l) symmetry does not survive quantization, because of the so-called triangle anomaly. This symmetry is simply not there in the full theory. • The remaining axial transformations are broken symmetries. The Goldstone bosons of these broken symmetries are the pion fields. Goldstone bosons are massless particles, while the pions are not. This is a consequence of the fact that the axial symmetries are only approximate, due to the fact that the quark masses are not strictly zero. Thus, by assuming that the up and down quark masses are small, we explain the presence of isospin symmetry, as well as the lightness of the pions. Other dynamical predictions follow, like relations among the low energy scattering properties of the pions and the pion decay constant. The interested reader can find many good references where to study this subject 1 ' 2 ' 3 .
2.5.
Summary
In summary, by accepting QCD as the fundamental theory of strong interactions we can • Explain the low energy symmetry properties, and give a justification of the observed spectrum. • Explain scaling phenomena at high energies. • Leave Weak interactions in peace. The QCD colour group commutes with the electroweak group SU(2)xU(l). Since the electroweak interactions are less symmetric (they break parity and CP), this guarantees that there is no mixing between electroweak and strong interactions that enhances the parity-violating effects (giving rise, for example, to parity violating interactions of size a w a s instead of aevr/M^y) or flavour changing neutral current effects. • Give a description of the hadronic forces which is similar to electroweak forces, thus opening the possibility of a uniform description of the forces in nature in terms of gauge theories (unification). There are two common points of view among physicists, with regard to QCD. Many believe that QCD is an extremely well established theory, much better established than the Electro-Weak theory. In fact, the Lagrangian is fully
419
specified in term of a single parameter. Remember, in fact, that quark masses have electroweak origin, and are related to the Yukawa coupling and to the electroweak symmetry breaking. In Electroweak theories, on the other hand, we have lots of parameters and quite a few alternatives are possible for the symmetry breaking sector. Others believe that Electro-Weak theories are much better established. In fact, we can compute every accessible phenomenon we like with great accuracy, and seek accurate comparisons with experimental results. On the other hand, in QCD, we are unable to explain rigorously even basic phenomena like colour confinement, and perturbative calculations rely upon unproven assumptions. The first point of view can be stated by simply saying that QCD must be right because we cannot think of anything else that is even plausible as a theory of strong interaction. The second point of view is more humble, and assumes that in order to establish a physical theory one must make testable predictions, and compare them with experiments. Thus, we find that essentially no viable alternative to QCD have been formulated so far, and yet there is a huge ongoing effort in theoretical and experimental physics aimed at testing the predictions of QCD. At low energy, QCD is a strongly interacting theory. Besides the phenomenological results that follow from its symmetry properties, the only known way to perform calculations in this regime is by computer simulation of QCD on a lattice, that is to say on a finite and discretized model of space-time. This approach is bound to improve as time goes by, since people become more and more clever, and computers become more and more powerful. At high energy, in many cases, standard perturbative methods can be applied. In these lectures I will deal mostly with the perturbative applications of QCD. We will see that, even at high energy, the application of perturbative techniques is not straightforward. In fact, we will be able to perform calculations only when the long distance (low energy) part of the process we examine has no or little influence upon the quantity we want to compute. In the following, I will illustrate the basics of perturbative QCD by examining the process of hadrons production via the annihilation of an e + e - pair at high energy. This process is particularly simple, since no strongly interacting particles appear in the initial state. 3. A n Illustration of Asymptotic Freedom We will now introduce the basic features of QCD via the simplest process in which it can be applied, that is to say the production of hadrons in e + e~ annihilation. By studying this process we will illustrate the remarkable property of asymptotic freedom, and its physical implications.
420
We are considering the process depicted in fig. 5. The production of hadrons
> Hadrons
Figure 5.
Electron-positron annihilation into hadrons.
takes place via the production of a virtual photon, or of a real or virtual Z boson. Prom the point of view of QCD, the decay of a virtual photon, or of a W or Z boson, are very similar, and in fact strong corrections to these processes are given by essentially the same formulae. For simplicity, however, we can always think about the decay of a virtual photon. We will begin by attempting to compute the total cross section for the decay of a virtual photon, with a virtuality (q2) much larger then typical hadronic scales. Our attempt will be extremely crude. We will simply use the QCD Lagrangian and the corresponding Feynman rules, and try to compute the cross section order by order in the strong coupling constant. The prediction at zeroth order in the strong coupling comes simply from diagram a of fig. 6.
Figure 6.
Diagrams for the QCD calculation of R(e+e
—• Had.) up to the order as-
It is usually expressed in terms of the ratio of the hadronic cross section
421
divided by the cross section for the production of a /u+/x .(r^hadrons)
pair. It is given by
= 3 E
where / runs over the quark flavour species, and cj is the electric charge of the quark of flavour / in units of the electron charge. The factor of 3 accounts for the fact that there are three colours for each quark. The sum extends to all the flavours that can be produced at the given energy. The formula is valid in all cases when we can neglect quark masses. Near the threshold for heavy quark production one must include a correction factor, which in the general case of a vector boson decay, yelds ^
/
4m 2 /
2m 2 \
,
Corrections of order as to R can be computed in a straightforward way. The relevant contributions come from the interference of the virtual diagram b with diagram a, plus the square of the real emission graphs c + d. There are also diagrams with self-energy on the fermion lines, not shown in the figure, that should be included with the appropriate weight. The result turns out to be completely finite. All ultraviolet divergences that arise in intermediate steps of the calculation cancel among each other. This is a consequence of the fact that the electromagnetic current is a conserved current, and therefore it is not renormalized by strong interactions. Other kind of singularities arise in intermediate steps of the calculation, namely soft and collinear singularities. They all cancel in the total. Their meaning will be discussed further on. The corrected value of R becomes R = Ro(l
+^ ) .
(27)
If we go on, and compute the corrections of order a 2 something new happens. We find ultraviolet divergences that do not cancel, and the result is
^ ^ ^ ( l + ^+fc + ^ o l o g ^ ] ^ ) 2 )
(28)
where M is the ultraviolet cutoff (for those who are familiar with dimensional regularization, the cutoff scale in d = 4 — 2e dimensions is M = fiexp i ) , and 3 3 — 2rif
bo = -
^
.„„.
(29)
422
and nf is the number of light flavours. The divergence is dealt with the usual prescription of renormalization. We define a renormalized charge, function of an arbitrary scale /i, M2 as(fj.) =as + 6 0 log—Y a l
(30)
and express the result in terms of a s ( p ) instead of as. We obtain then R = R0(l
+^
+ c+
-K b0
log —
+ 0{as{nf).
(31)
The formula for R is now finite. The theory of renormalization guarantees that with this procedure we can remove the divergences from all physical quantities. This implies that the one loop divergence of any physical quantity which in lowest order has the value Aa™ must have the form nAb0 log M 2 Q " + 1 . Observe that, as a consequence of this procedure, we end up expressing our results in terms of a coupling constant which is function of a scale. 3.1. Renormalization
Group and Asymptotic
Freedom
I will now give a general and abstract description of the renormalization group and asymptotic freedom. From the following discussion it should be clear that the existence of the renormalization group follows from the property of renormalizability of field theory, and that asymptotic freedom is a possible consequence of the renormalization group. I will not give any technical details on the computation of the renormalization group flow (i.e. of the so called /? function), which can be found in many good textbooks. In field theories we encounter ultraviolet divergences, which in renormalizable theories can be removed by a suitable redefinition of the coupling constants and the fields. In the simplest case of a theory characterized by a single coupling constant, renormalizability can be stated in the following way. A physical quantity G will be given in such a theory as a power expansion in the coupling a (which we will assume to be dimensionless), with possibly UV divergent coefficients. We will write: G = G(a,M, * i . . . a „ ) ,
(32)
that is to say, G depends upon the coupling, the ultraviolet cutoff M, and some invariants si ...sn constructed out of the momenta and masses involved in the process in question. Renormalizability means that I can define a renormalized coupling a r e n Qren = Ct + C\C? + C 2 « 2 + • • •
(33)
423
with a = a(M/fi)
(34)
in such a way that G (a, M,si...sn)
= G (a r e n , H, « i . . . sn) .
(35)
So, the physical quantity can be expressed in term of the renormalized coupling, the finite scale p and the invariants, in terms of a finite function. In other words, all the divergences have been reabsorbed in the renormalized coupling. The finite scale p has to be introduced in order for the dimensionless coefficients Ci to depend upon the dimensional quantity M. We will also write aren = aTen(a,M/p)
,
a = a(aren,M/p)
.
(36)
and G (a(a r e n , M/p), M,si...sn)=G
(areni /i, Si
. . . Sn ) •
(37)
Therefore, renormalizability means that by a redefinition of the coupling of the form (36), eq. (37) holds for all physical quantities. The same redefinition of a makes all physical quantities independent of the cutoff. In the redefinition of eq. (36) we are forced to introduce a scale p. If we change p and a r e n by keeping a and M fixed, the physics remains invariant, because physical quantities, to begin with, are functions of a and M only. Let us study the infinitesimal transformations d£*ren dfi2 that leave a and M fixed. We must have da{a
M//I) ^ ^ oaTen
+
da(a
M/p) dfi2
2=Q
Since physical quantities remain the same under this change, we must also have Cfaren H
£-5 OfJL1
0O!ren
dfj, = 0 .
(39)
Prom equations (38) and (39) we get Jr. 2 aaren
_
_
^
^ ^ " ( " r e n , M/fj) Ojl
_
_
/ i 2 ^ - ^ G ( a r e n , /i. S l • • • sn) Op.
a a(aien,M/p) oaren from which it follows that x2^=/?(aren)
,
^
G(aien,P,si...sn) aaren
(41)
424
where 8 does not depend upon s i . . .sn, M or /z. Observe that /? does not depend upon M, because M does not appear on the right hand side of the second equality of (40), it cannot depend upon si.. .sn because they do not occur on the right hand side of the first equality. Finally, it could only depend upon \i. But /j, is dimensionful, while /3 is obviously dimensionless, and so it cannot even depend upon / j . Using the expression M/n) = a r e „ + cj (M/n)a2ien
+ •••
(42)
we find d_
/?(«re„) = c £ „ M2 « - J Cx (M/p)
+•••
.
(43)
Comparing this equation with eq. (30), we immediately get /3(a re „) = - 6 0 a ? e n + •••
(44)
and therefore ^--2as^)
= ~b0aien+...
(45)
which characterizes the evolution of the coupling constant as a function of the scale /J,. Equation (45) can be also written, at the lowest relevant order d dlogfi2
1 = 60 as(fi)
(46)
which can be easily solved to give 1
as(fj)
=& 0 log4 + ^ - T $
as({M>)
(47)
Without loss of generality, the solution can be written 1 u? 1 2 2 , . 22/A /A2 as(fi) = 60log£r A => t*s(f*)=. 60 ,log/i
(48)
where A plays the role of an integration constant. In QCD, 60 is positive, and eq. (48) makes sense only for /j, > A. One is tempted to infer that A is the value of fi at which the coupling constant becomes infinite. In fact, this identification is superficial. When the coupling constant starts to be large, we can no longer trust the perturbative expansion, and the above equation has been derived only at the lowest order in perturbation theory. It is better therefore to think of A as the scale parameter of the theory which defines the value of as at large scales. In other words, A is defined only through the formula for as(/j,), and this formula has a meaning only for large /x.
425
QED is very similar to QCD in many respects, and one may wander why we never talk about a AQED analogous to the A in QCD. In fact, the basic difference between QED and QCD is the value of b0. We have b D
?
=- ^ >
(49)
a negative value. The expression for the running coupling in QED is then
CKQED ( W
= &riog-^.
(so)
AQED
The expression in eq. (50) makes sense only for \i
*QED(We)
= & r > i oAg - ^ .
(si)
QED
which gives AQED = m e exp (I
QED fro——y I.
(52)
This formula is valid only if all charged fermions have the same mass, equal to me, and the same charge. However, even if one does a more accurate job, the basic result is that AQED is an astronomic scale, and this is the reason why we never talk about it. Notice that this fact indicates that QED cannot be a fundamental theory. The existence of a high scale at which the theory becomes strongly coupled makes it impossible to measure the basic vertex of QED at short distance, which is somewhat of a contradiction, since we assume that we know the local Lagrangian of the theory. We have now discussed the evolution of the coupling constant at the leading order level. The content of the theory of renormalization is much deeper. It states that up to any order in perturbation theory, we can remove all ultraviolet divergences from a physical quantity just by a redefinition of the coupling constant. Furthermore, it states that equation (45) generalizes to all order of perturbation theory, and the right hand side of the equation is free of ultraviolet divergences. In other words ^
^
= -boalW - ha3M - ha'M
where bo, b\, 62, etc., are ultraviolet-finite.
+ •••
(53)
426
Prom eq. (30), we see that as = as{M), that is to say that the original bare as was in fact the running coupling evaluated at the cutoff scale. It is not useful to try to express physical quantities in terms of as evaluated at a scale which differs widely from the scales involved in the physical quantities under consideration. In fact, in this case, large logarithms of the ratio of the physical scale to fi arise in the perturbative expansion, as one cannot trust the truncated (fixed order) result. In order to get a reliable result, one should instead use fi m Q, so that no large logarithms appear in the perturbative expansion. Of course, we do not know the precise value of /J, we should use. We can use /x = Q, fj, = 2Q, n = Q/2, without the possibility of arguing what is the best choice. In practice, a difference in the value of the scale used makes a difference in the result, but this difference is of the order of the neglected terms in the perturbative expansion. This can be easily verified from formula (31) (students are encouraged to try this). It is now tempting to formulate the first prediction of our theory. From the expression of the running coupling, eq. (48), we see that the strong coupling constant is of order 1 when the scale fj, approaches A. It is tempting to set A = 300 MeV, the typical hadronic scale, and then predict that R(MZ)
= Ro(Mz) (l +
Q s
^
z )
] = Ro(Mz)(l
+ 0.046)
(54)
in reasonable agreement with the value measured at LEP. Of course, this example is very sloppy, does not take into account the heavy flavour thresholds, higher order effects, and other important facts. It is however important to remark that, had we measured R/RQ = 1 + 0.08 at LEP, this would have implied A = 5 GeV, a totally unacceptable value. 3.2. Relation among the Couplings Light Flavours
with Different
Number
of
Now I will spend a few words concerning the number of light flavours. In order to make the discussion clearer, let us assume that there is a top quark of 100 GeV, and that all the other quarks are massless. Intuitively, we should then be able to describe the effects of QCD, for scales much below 100 GeV, but still much above A, in a perturbative fashion, forgetting about the existence of the top quark. The formula for e+e~ -»• hadrons contains then b0 evaluated with n / = 5. On the other hand, if the heavy top is really there, the true description of our phenomenon should be given in terms of the theory with top. While up to the order as a top loop never enters our Feynman graphs, at two loops we do have a top loop contribution, represented in the graphs of fig. 7. In spite of the fact that there is not enough energy to produce the top, these graphs do
427
Figure 7. Top loop contribution to e+e
-> hadrons.
contribute. They are always associated to a propagator correction. Neglecting terms suppressed by powers of 1/m^, their effect is simply to multiply as by a factor 1 - a s /(67r)(d + log(M 2 /mj)), where d is a number which depends upon the particular renormalization scheme one uses. This result can also be guessed on the basis of the fact that the UV divergence coming from the top loop must have the same form as the UV divergence coming from any light fermion. We have then R = Ro[ 1 + ^
+ C +7 r 6 o l o g - ^ - - ^ + log_-j
my <»>
With a's we indicated the true (bare) coupling, of the theory in which the heavy quark is taken into account properly, instead of the "fake" theory in which the heavy quark is ignored. The renormalization procedure for the theory including the top requires now the substitution 71 /f 2
a's (/*) = a's + &d log - r « s 2
(56)
where b'0 — (33—2(n/+l))/(127r), and the renormalized formula for R becomes
*=4 + ^ + [ c+ * Mog £-K d+i -£)](^) 2 ) + 0{as{lxf).
(57)
Equation (31) and (57) must be completely equivalent, at least up the order a2s. It turns out that in the commonly used MS renormalization scheme, we have d = 0. In this scheme, the equivalence of the two formulas imply that as(fj,) =a's(n)
for fi = mt.
(58)
428
Therefore, in the MS scheme the relation between coupling constants defined by ignoring a heavy flavour, and the coupling with the heavy flavour included, is simply stated by saying that the two running couplings should coincide for /j, = rrih, where rrih is the mass of the heavy flavour. In practice, we have three useful definitions of the coupling constants. One that ignores the charm quark (and heavier flavours), which has three light flavours, and may be indicated with as3' , one that ignores bottom (as ') and one that ignores top (as ). A plot of the ratios of as3 /as5' and ai /a4 is given in fig. 8. The cou-
. -
1 Dashes: a,(5)/o,(4)
1.05 —
\ \ -
_ / - / •/ • "
Figure 8.
. -
1
Solid: tx,(3)/a,(4)
_ — .
— . v
- —
•
" -
^_ —
/
^^/ /\^^ / ^~'~-~-~^__^ "
—i
1
1—i—i—i
i
i
1
i
i
_
i
i
i
• ' • '
". " "
Ratios of the coupling defined for different values of rif.
plings are correctly matched at the heavy flavour thresholds according to the MS prescription. From the plot, it appears that the couplings for four and five flavours are not very different. This is indeed the case. One should however be careful, because the corresponding value of A is in fact very different. The values used in the figure have A3 = 310 MeV, A4 = 260 MeV and A5 = 170 MeV. A common error is, for example, to use values of A4 where A5 should be used. One should never forget that A is nothing but a parameter in the formula for as. If we change the formula (going for example from one to two loops) the value of A should be changed. Similarly, if we plug in the same value of A in the expression for as and as ', their value would be very different, even for fi = nib, while if we use the appropriate value of A3 and A4 in the corresponding formulas, their value will be identical at that scale.
429 3.3. State of the Art in the Beta Function
and R
The expression of the beta function known today has the form ». s 2 = -b0a2s - bia3s - b2a\ - b3a5s (59) o log fi where the term bi has been computed in ref. 4 , and the term 63 has been very recently computed in ref. 5 . Here I report below only the values of b0 and 61, and the corresponding solution of the renormahzation group equation at the two loop level. This is what is commonly used in most applications. .,2 -,
a
(
l0sl0g
"'V) = 60 log JL
1
bl
Af
(60)
A.« f b0 = 61 =
33 - 2nf 12TT
153 - 19n/ 24TT2
(61) (62)
The reader can verify that the eq. (60) satisfies equation (59) up to terms of order a^. The accuracy of the /? function that is required in phenomenological applications depends upon the accuracy of the calculations one is using. The rule of thumb is the following: • if only the leading strong interaction effect is included (LO calculation), one needs one-loop evolution; • if terms subleading by one power of as are included (NLO calculation), one needs two-loop evolution; • if terms subleading by two powers of as are included (NNLO), one needs two-loop evolution;
Thus, for example, if we use the 0(as) formula for R, that is to say R = Ro(l + as/n), we need to include 1-loop evolution. Similarly, if we have a process that starts at order a2s (like four-jet production in e+e~ annihilation), we need 1-loop evolution. If we include the 0{a2s) term in R, we need to use 2-loop evolution. Notice that the accuracy in the /3 function that we want is always higher than the accuracy in the calculation by one unit. So, the leading term in the /? function is of order two, but it is needed to maintain the accuracy of the result for R, which seems strange: if R is known at order
430
as, why should its derivative needed at order a | ? The answer is that for a large evolution span, an error of order Q | in the derivative can become of order as, because a large evolution logarithm log/Uf/'/xi can compensate a power of as oc 1/log/u/A. Consider the case when the final evolution scale is such that Hf/m « m/A. From the 1-loop renormalization group equation we get: as(fi{) - as(jn) = -60 J^as((i)2d\og^
« o(a2s(»)
log 4 ) ~ 0{as),
(63)
consistently with the fact that in this case as(nf) ^ as{^il^)If the evolution span is small (i.e. if the scale changes by a factor of order one), one does not need an extra power of as in the /? function to match the accuracy of the calculation. Evolution must also be properly adjusted when crossing a flavour threshold. When one uses the 1-loop /? function, the condition a^ n f + 1 '(^) = a' nf )(/f) for \i = 2m, or fi = m/2 are accurate enough. In other words, the matching is done at a scale of the order of the flavour mass. The difference of choosing, for example, n = 2m or \i = m/2, is simply Q(2/X) = a(/i/2) - 2b0a\ log(4)
(64)
and is thus a NLO effect. When using a 2-loop /3 function in the context of an NLO calculation, one must use a matching condition which is accurate up to terms of order o?s. In the MS scheme, this is a ^ 1 ) (p) = a{nl) {n) + 0(a3s)
for
/j, = m
(65)
where we no longer have the freedom of a factor of order 1. Matching conditions appropriate for a 3-loop /? function in the context of a NNLO calculation are given in ref. 6 , and consist in a correction of order a | to equation 65. The radiative corrections to R have been computed up to the order a3s in ref. 7 ' 8 ' 9 , a rather remarkable achievement. The result for nj = 5, expressed in the MS scheme reads iJ = i2b{l + — ( l + 0 . 4 4 8 a s - 1 . 3 0 a | ) }
(66)
where as = as (Q), Q is the annihilation energy. Besides finding applications in e+e~ annihilation physics, this formula has found recently a very interesting application to the determination of as from the hadronic decay of the r lepton 10 . After what we have learned in this section about the ratio R, it should be easy for us to compute the ratio between the hadronic and the leptonic branching ratios of the T, at zeroth order in the strong coupling constant. This is depicted symbolically in fig. 9. From the figure, it is clear that the top and bottom processes only differ by the number of possible final states. Thus,
431
Figure 9.
The ratio between the r hadronic and leptonic width.
the top graph has a factor of 3, because of the three colours. Only an up-antidown, or up-antistrange pair can be produced, since phase space forbids the production of charmed final states. Neglecting the mass difference between the down and the strange, one can see that the Cabibbo angle is irrelevant in this case. Thus, the ratio of the hadronic width to the (for example) electron width is 3 at zeroth order in the coupling constant. As in the case of R, this ratio will receive strong corrections, and the displacement of this ratio from 3 can be used to attempt a determination of the strong coupling constant from r decays. Observe that the value of as at the scale of the r mass is quite large, around 0.35. At LEP1 energy this value is around 0.12. In table 2 (taken from ref. u ) the experimental determinations of as coming from R below the Z peak, R on the Z peak, and tau decays, are reported. All determinations are performed at the relevant scale of the process (thus, for example, the r determination is performed in terms of as(MT)), and then evolved at the Z mass for comparison.
Table 2. Determinations of as from inclusive hadronic decays, taken from ref. n . In the i?p<,ak determination, the error due to uncertainties in the Higgs and top mass, and the error due to QCD uncertainties, are separately specified. Measurements Rr
Q (GeV) 1.777
<*s(Q) 0.323 ± 0.005(exp.)
as(mz) 0.1181 ± 0.0007(exp.) ± 0.0030(th.)
± 0.030(th.) Re+e~ (20 < \ / i < 60 GeV
42
Z peak
91.2
0.175 ±0.028
0.126 ± 0.022 0.124 ± 0.004 ±0.002(M t ,Mtf) t°0Z3i Q C D
432
Notice the rather remarkable agreements among the different determinations. 4. Jets in e"*"e— Annihilation In the discussion of the previous section, we have left aside a few important issues, that can be summarized in the foloowing questions: (1) How can we identify a cross section for producing quarks and gluons with a cross section for producing hadrons? (2) Given the fact that free quarks are not observed, why is the computed Born cross section so good? (3) Are there any other calculable quantities besides the total cross section? We will see in the following that question 1 and 2, although unanswerable in QCD, imply no contradiction. We will also see that, under the same assumptions that make 1 and 2 work, also question 3 has an affirmative answer. Looking at the lowest order formula, we immediately wonder why a formula describing the production of quarks in the final state should also be able to describe the production of hadrons, since we never observe free quarks in the final state. The structure of the perturbative expansion by itself give us a hint of how this may happen. Consider in fact the corrections of order as to the total cross section. They are given by diagrams in which a real gluon is emitted into the final state, and diagrams in which a virtual gluon is exchanged (interfered with a Born graph) as depicted in fig. 10. In the previous section
Figure 10. tion.
Soft gluon emission (left graph) and virtual gluon exchange in e+e~
annihila-
I have just stated that the total of the corrections of order as is finite, and equals a s /7r. I will now show that the individual real contributions (those with a gluon in the final state) are individually infinite. As a consequence
433
of the finiteness of the total, also the virtual ones (those with only the quarkantiquark pair in the final state) must be infinite, with the opposite sign. Let us therefore compute the diagram of fig. 10. We will perform the calculation under the simplifying assumption that the gluon energy is much smaller than the total available energy. It turns out that in this approximation the computation will require very little effort, and the approximation itself contains all the interesting features of the result. It is easy to convince oneself that the colour factors for all contributing diagrams (after squaring and taking the colour traces) are one factor of Cp = 4/3 relative to the Born term (which has a colour factor of 3, equal to the number of colours that can flow in the loop), a result whch is illustrated in the last equality of fig. 3. The amplitude for the Born process is M = u(fc)e"7^(ifc')
(67)
where e is the virtual photon polarization, q is the incoming four momentum, k is the momentum of the outgoing fermion and k' = q — k is the momentum of the outgoing antifermion. Defining M = e"7/1w(*')
(68)
M=u{k)N .
(69)
we have
Consider now the diagram of fig. 10, in which the gluon is emitted from the outgoing fermion. The amplitude is given by Ml=u{k){-i)lai^±^M
.
(70)
Actually we should have also substituted k' = q — k — I in TV, but we are assuming that I is small. Fermion masses are also being neglected, since we assume we are considering a high energy process. Neglecting I in the numerator, and using the identity u(fc)^ = 0, and expanding the denominator (recall that I2 = 0 , k2 = 0) we obtain
Analogously, for the amplitude with the gluon emitted from the outgoing antiquark, we obtain M2 = -]-ftM
(72)
and the total is Mq-qg
= Ml + M2=(£-r^M
(73)
434
which vanishes when contracted with la, as gauge invariance requires. Taking the square (with the extra minus for the gluon projector)
<74
*4.-'iF«*'-
»
From the amplitude square we turn to the cross section by supplying the phase space factor for the gluon " « « = CF92Sv%in
•J w ^ y i
2
( f c .Z)(fc'-0
•
( ? 5 )
At this stage I have also included the coupling constant and the appropriate colour factor. Let us now consider the process in the rest frame of the incoming virtual photon, with q = (q°, 0,0,0), and k = —k'. Let us call 6 the angle that the gluon makes with the fermion direction. We have then
2
*L*i!
=
-
(76)
fo2(l-cos0)(l+cos0)
(k-l){k'-l)
V
'
so that (using as = g2sl{Air)) a
s
_Born
2n°rt
/ rfc0S J „ n „ a <%
J
acos
"
V(l-r~~^ p (i_COs0)(l
^" + cos^)
(7?)
The cross section for producing an extra gluon is therefore divergent in three regions: • when the emitted gluon is in the direction of the outgoing quark (6 = 0) • when the emitted gluon is in the direction of the outgoing antiquark (* = *) • when the emitted gluon is soft (Z° —>• 0). The first two kind of divergences are called collinear divergences, while the last one is called a soft divergence. Both divergences are of infrared (IR from now on) type, that is to say, they involve long distances. In fact, because of the uncertainty principle, we need an infinite time in order to specify accurately the particle momenta, and therefore their directions. Unlike UV divergences, there is nothing like renormalization for the IR divergences. Their meaning is the following: the cross section is sensitive to the long distance effects, like the fermion masses, the hadronization mechanisms, and so on. In fact, if we give a fictitious mass to the gluon, the result becomes convergent, but it will be sensitive to the value of the gluon mass. It was stated in the previous section that the total of the corrections of order Q S to the production of hadrons in e+e~ annihilation is finite, and equals s ^-. It follows that also the virtual corrections must have the same kind of
435
infinities, with opposite sign. If we cutoff these divergences with some method (like dimensional regularization, or by giving a mass to the gluon), and then sum up real and virtual contributions, the divergences cancel, and the left-over is finite and equal to as/ir times the Born cross section, independent of the method we used to regularize the diagrams. This cancellation is a consequence of the Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg theorem 12 ' 13 . Roughly speaking, this theorem deals with divergences that arise because of degeneracy in the final state. For example, the final state with an extra soft gluon is nearly degenerate with the state with no gluons at all, and the state with a quark split up into a quark plus a gluon, with parallel momenta, is degenerate with the state with no radiation at all. The theorem states that the cross section obtained by summing up over degenerate states are not divergent. We are now ready to show, as promised, that point 1 and 2 imply no contradiction. We have in fact shown that if we attempt to compute the cross section for the production of a pair of quark-antiquark alone, while the zeroth order term (the Born term) is finite, the term of order as is infinite, being collinear and soft divergent. This means that a perturbative expansion for this quantity does not work, since the coefficients of the expansion are large (actually infinite). Therefore, even the Born term alone cannot represent the cross section for producing a quark-antiquark pair. Thus, the fact that a final state with a quark-antiquark pair and nothing else is not observed is not in contradiction with perturbation theory, since we have shown that there is no valid perturbative expansion for this quantity. On the contrary, the cross section for producing strongly interacting particles (no matter how many quarks or gluons) remains finite even after perturbative corrections are added. One can show that in fact it remains finite order by order in perturbation theory. Its lowest order approximation is in fact the Born cross section. So, the Born cross section is the lowest order term in a well defined perturbative expansion with infrared finite coefficients, which is just the cross section for producing strongly interacting particles (no matter how many and which types). This is why the Born cross section represents quite accurately the total hadronic cross section. We are now also in the position to answer the third question. We will show that there are quantities which characterize the hadronic final state, that are infrared finite in perturbation theory, and therefore should be calculable in perturbative QCD. 4.1. Sterman-Weinberg
Jets
Sterman and Weinberg14 first realized that one can define a cross section which is calculable and finite in perturbation theory, and characterizes in some way the hadronic final state. The definition goes as follows.
436
We define the production of a pair of Sterman-Weinberg jets, depending on the parameters e and 6, in the following way. A hadronic event in e+e~ annihilation, with centre-of-mass energy E, contributes to the Sterman-Weinberg jets cross section if we can find two cones of opening angle S that contain more than a fraction 1 — e of the total energy E. In other words eE is the maximum energy allowed outside of the cones. An example of Sterman-Weinberg jet event is illustrated in fig. 11. We will now show that the computation
'""•••
z
e*
\l//s
\#^ ^^\
* \
~\ /
Figure 11.
e"
^
E!+E2+E3< EE
Sterman-Weinberg jets.
of the cross section for the production of Sterman-Weinberg jets, in the approximation introduced in the previous chapter, is infrared finite. The various contributions to the cross section (illustrated in fig. 12) are as follows • All the Born cross section contributes to the Sterman-Weinberg cross section, for any e and 6 (fig. 12a). • All the virtual cross section contributes to the Sterman-Weinberg cross section, for any e and S (fig. 12b). • The real cross section, with one gluon emission, when the energy of the emitted gluon 1° is limited by 1° < eE (fig. 12c), contributes to the Sterman-Weinberg cross section. • The real cross section, when 1° > eE, when the emission angle with respect to the quark (or antiquark) is less than d (fig. 12d), contributes to the Sterman-Weinberg cross section. The various contributions are given formally by Born
= (To
(78)
437
Figure 12. Contributions to the Sterman-Weinberg cross-section. Born: (a), virtual: (b), real emission: (c) and (d).
4a C Virtual = — <7o s F
rE dp r
dcos0 — cos2 0
2TT
Real (c) = <7n
Aas£_F 2TT
« i^
4Q
(79)
rE di° r dcosO 2 Jo I Je=o 1— cos 0
^ rdz
r
dcose dcos6
J. r
(80) dcosO 2 - cos 0
(81) / -=- / j -+ / 2 2TT y t £ J°of the J9=0virtual 1 - costerm 0 isJe=n-s 1 the fact that it Observe that the expression fixed by has to cancel the total of the real contribution. Since we are looking only at divergent terms, and since the virtual term is independent of S and e, the expression (79) is fully adequate for our purposes. Summing all terms we get Real (d) = a0—-
4asCF Born + Virtual + Real (a) + Real (b) =
/*7T — S
dcosO = oQ 1 l-cos20
4asCF
E C dl° r dr_
LE
1°
log e log 5' (82) 2TT ie=s Je=s which is finite, as long as e and 6 are finite. Furthermore, as long as e and 6 are not too small, we find that the fraction of events with two Sterman-Weinberg jets is 1, up to a correction of order as.
438
Now we are ready to perform a qualitative step: we interpret the StermanWeinberg cross section, computed using the language of quarks and gluons, as a cross section for producing hadrons. Thanks to this qualitative step, we make the following prediction: at high energy, most events have a large fraction of the energy contained in opposite cones, that is to say, most events are two jet events. As the energy becomes larger as becomes smaller. Therefore we can use smaller values of e and S to define our jets. Thus, at higher energies jets become thinner. It should be clear now to the reader that, by the same reasoning, we could show that the angular distribution of the jets will be very close, at high energy, to the angular distribution one computes using the Born cross section, that is to say, the typical 1 + cos2 0 distribution. These predictions have been confirmed experimentally since a long time. 4.2. A Comparison
with
QED
The alert reader will have probably realized that the discussion given in this section should also apply to electrodynamics. In fact, the Feynman diagrams we have considered are present also in electrodynamic processes, like e+e~ —• H+H~, and they differ from the QCD graphs only by the color factor. Thus, from the previous discussion, we would infer that Sterman-Weinberg jets in electrodynamic processes at high energy do not depend upon long distance features of the theory. For example, they become independent from the /z mass when E~5>\x. Also in electrodynamics, the cross section for producing a (J,+fJ>~ pair plus a photon is divergent, as is divergent the cross section for producing the pair without any photon. In many books on quantum electrodynamics these divergences are discussed, and it is shown that a resolution parameter for the minimum energy of a photon is needed in order to have finite cross section order by order in perturbation theory. In electrodynamics, we can go even farther, and prove that by resumming the whole tower of divergent graphs, the infinite negative virtual correction to the production of a /J,+fx~ pair with no photons exponentiates, and gives a zero cross section. In other words, as it is well known, it is impossible to produce charged pairs without producing arbitrarily soft photons. What is then the difference with QCD? Why cannot we prove similar results in QCD? The difference arises because of the different asymptotic properties of QCD and QED. In QED the coupling becomes smaller at low energy, while in QCD it grows. Thus, when the scale of an emission process approaches a few hundred MeV the coupling constant becomes of order one, and perturbation theory becomes inapplicable. So, the infrared problem in QCD is tightly untangled with the confinement problem, and it seems to be unanswerable in the context of perturbation theory alone. In this sense
439 perturbative QCD is an incomplete theoretical framework. In order to make predictions we need to assume that the soft phenomena characterized by scales of the order of few hundred MeV do not spoil completely the computation of the high energy part of the process. This assumption is consistent with perturbation theory; it is however an assumption, and it cannot be proven using perturbation theory alone. 4.3. Shower Monte
Carlo
Programs
Perturbation theory can be used to compute radiation processes as long as the energies involved are safely above the typical hadronic scales. It is then possible to construct event generator programs that implement the properties of QCD Feynman diagrams for the splitting of partons into more partons, as long as the splitting involves large transverse momentum, and then use some plausible model for last step of the splitting process, in which the partons become hadrons. These programs are generally called shower Monte Carlo event generators 15 ' 16 ' 17 , and are an invaluable tool for experimental physicists. They essentially sum a large class of Feynman graphs, precisely the most collinear and (in some cases) soft-singular ones. In the attempt to describe the full final state, they give up the accuracy that can be obtained in perturbation theory. They are (until now) compatible with QCD only at the leading order in the strong coupling. While the QCD part is quite similar in all of them, for the last step of the final state formation, that is to say the hadronization, they differ widely, since they have to rely on models, like the so called Lund string model or the Herwig cluster model. Hadronization models are tuned to data. Nevertheless, one should not forget that there is very little predictivity in these models, since they are only qualitatively based upon the theory. One can expect in general that the hadronization properties for which the Monte Carlo has been tuned for will be well reproduced by it, but not much more than this. 4.4. More Jet Definitions
and Shape
Variables
The key property of the Sterman-Weinberg jets, that makes them calculable in perturbation theory, is the insensitivity of the jet definition to radiation of soft particles, and to the collinear splitting of an particle into two particles that share its momentum. This insensitivity is necessary to guarantee the cancellation of effects that depend strongly upon long distance phenomena, that is to say, those effects that are infrared divergent when computed in perturbation theory. After the paper of Sterman and Weinberg, it was soon realized that it is
440
not difficult to build a whole class of final state observables that do have the same property of soft and collinear insensitivity, and can thus be computed in perturbation theory, and compared with experimental measurements: thrust, oblateness, the C parameter, jet clusters, the mass of the heaviest hemispheres, etc.. The important thing which is assumed in these definitions is that the same definition must be applied to the final state hadrons by the experimenter that measures this quantity, and by the theorist that computes this quantity in terms of quark and gluons. Only if this condition is satisfied, one can assume that in the high energy limit the computed quantity will agree with the measured one, up to corrections that are suppressed by some inverse power of the energy. One of the first of these infrared safe shape variables is thrust. It is defined by the equation
E Wi • w I t = max *
•..
-
(83)
i
In words, one takes an arbitrary vector (in the centre-of-mass frame of the colliding electron-positron pair) and sums the absolute values of the projection of the momenta of all final state particles onto that vector, normalized to the sum of all absolute values of the hadron momenta. The vector is rotated until a maximum is found. The maximum direction is called the thrust axis, and the value at the maximum the thrust of the event. The maximum value of thrust is one, for a final state of two massless particles in the back-to-back direction. It is easy to check that thrust is an infrared safe shape variables. In fact, a soft emission does not alter the thrust abruptly, since all emitted particles enter weighted by their momenta. Also collinear splitting does not alter the thrust of an event, as one can easily verify. An example of a quantity which is not infrared safe is the total number of particles in the final state, which changes by one unit in case of soft emission. Examples of a quantities which are sensitive to collinear splitting are the axis of the tensor
Sij = Y,PiPl
(84)
i
which were actually used in the past to classify the "jettiness" of an event. A modern, and very clever way to define jets is by clustering 18 . For a given events, one forms the invariant mass of all pairs of particles in the final state. The pair with the smallest mass is merged into a single pseudoparticles, and then the procedure is continued with the pseudoparticles, and it is stopped when the smallest mass of a pair exceeds a given cutoff y x S. One ends up with a definite number of clusters, and one can thus define the cross section for producing two, three, four or more clusters for a given y cut. It is easy
441
to convince oneself that these cross section definitions are infrared safe. Since the computation of these cross sections (in terms of partons) should in first approximation give the correct answer, we see that in perturbative QCD we roughly expect (for not too extreme values of y) that most events will be made up by two clusters, a fraction of order as will be made up by three clusters, and a fraction of order a2 will be made by four clusters. Analogously, we expect thrust to be near one, and its departure from one to be of order as. We also expect that a fraction of events of order as will have thrust well below one. Because of the obvious interest in the determination of as from jet shape variables, a lot of effort has gone in the study of jet and shape variables that are directly proportional to as, which we may call "three-jet sensitive", like the thrust distribution, and the fraction of events with three clusters. There are tens of variables of these kind that have been studied at e + e~ machines. The present state of the art for jet studies in e+e~ machines mainly relies on the calculation of Ellis, Ross and Terrano (ERT) 19 ' 20 , which allows to compute any infrared safe 3—jet shape variable up to the order a2. Various computer programs for the computations of these quantities are available, and many of these quantities have been tabulated 21 . Heavy quark mass effects have also been included in the 3—jets calculation 22 ' 23 ' 24 . Three-jet quantities have been intensively studied at e+e~ machines, The results of LEP1 and SLD have given a quite remarkable contribution to the tests of QCD, and considerably reinforced our confidence in perturbative QCD. Recently, the NLO correction to 4-jet partons production have been computed 25 ' 26 ' 27 ' 28 , allowing thus the computation of any 4-jets shape variable in the form a2s{n2)C + a3s(iJ,2)D(n2/Q2) + ••• . Phenomenological applications have begun to appear recently 29 ' 30 . Fixed order calculations of shape variables distributions are sometimes supplemented with all-order resummation of effects that are enhanced in the limit of thin jets. An example of these effects is visible in eq. 82; when S and e become small, the Oas correction becomes large, because of the large collinear and soft logarithms. These logarithms, called "Sudakov logarithms", are a general phenomenon that happens in QCD and QED when we force a process into a region of phase space where radiation is inhibited. Since soft radiation is infrared divergent, and its divergence cancels againts virtual contributions, when we suppress soft radiation the cancellation becomes unbalanced, and large logarithms appear at all orders in the perturbative expansion. In some cases, these logarithms can be organized and resummed 31 ' 32 ' 33 Hadronization and power corrections are believed to be suppressed as 1/Q, but they are still important at LEP energies. They are usually estimated using Monte Carlo hadronization models. The renormalon inspired model of ref. 34
442
provides an alternative method 35 . 4.5. Thrust as an
Example
Let us focus upon the case of thrust as an example. The thrust distribution has the perturbative expansion
-di=S(l-t) (TQ
+
at
^A(t) L~K 2
+
2TT
M 3 A(*)27r6ologg2 + B ( t ) + O (a ) .
(85)
The first term, proportional to a delta function, is the Born contribution, which corresponds to the production of two back-to-back massless partons. The functions A(t) and B(t) can be computed from the ERT results (they are tabulated in ref. 2 1 ) . The renormalization scale \i is explicitly indicated in the formula. As in the total cross section formula, the explicit scale dependence of the term of order a2s is related to the coefficient of the term of order as. Again, using the renormalization group equation at 1 loop (i.e., das/d\og/j,2 = —boa2,), one can prove that the scale dependence of the above equation cancels up to the order a2,. Of course, if the whole perturbative expansion was included in the right hand side, no scale dependence would survive, since the left hand side is scale independent. However, only terms up to the order a2 are included, and thus one expects a residual scale dependence at order a 3 . Radiative corrections are generally quite large. For example 1 D'I < l - i ) = ± ^ a s ( Q ) ( l + 3as) IT
(o) = 1 . 2 9 a s ( Q ) ( l - 4 . 3 a s )
(86)
1 05 (M2D t) = — a s ( Q ) ( l - 0.025a s ) 7T
where the second quantity is oblateness (for a precise definition, see ref. 2 1 ) , and the third quantity is the difference of the square of the masses of the heavy hemisphere with respect to the light hemisphere, with the hemisphere denned according to the thrust axis. Thus, corrections can be as large as 40% even at LEP1 energies. Because of this, it is mandatory that corrections of even higher orders (a 3 and higher) should be at least estimated and included in the theoretical error. There is no universal method to estimate the theoretical error in this case. A commonly used method is to look at the scale dependence of the result. Since the remaining terms of the perturbative expansion should compensate the scale dependence, they must be at least as large as the scale
443
variation of the truncated result. The scale should be varied in a range around the typical scale of the process. It should not be chosen neither much higher of this typical scale, nor much smaller, since in these cases the perturbative expansion is not well behaved. A common choice is m z / 4 < fi < mz, which accounts for the fact that the typical scale of the process is somewhat below the Z mass. Hadronization effects should also be estimated, and included in the theoretical error. For the observable (1 — t), for example, we can make a naive estimate in the following way. Let us assume that the emission of an extra soft pion in the final state has a probability of order one. This emission takes away from the thrust a value of few hundred MeV (the transverse mass of a soft pion) divided by the total available energy. To fix the numbers, let us say that at LEP we have St = 0.5/90 w 0.0055, assuming a 500 MeV average transverse mass for the pion. The perturbative value of (1 — t) is roughly a s /7r ss .04, increased by the a2s correction to roughly 0.055. Thus St/(1 — t) = 0.1. This means that we can expect that hadronization effects may have a 10% effect in the determination of as from (1 — t). An instructive example of a QCD study at LEP can be found in ref. 36 . Estimates of hadronization corrections are used there to correct the raw data. Theyr typical value is around 10%. Hadronization corrections are estimated by running a shower Monte Carlo with or without the hadronization stage. The corrections are determined by looking at the difference between the two runs, and are then applied to the data. The error on the hadronization corrections are estimated by using different Monte Carlo programs with different hadronization models. It is quite clear that this procedure is quite risky. The QCD stage is in fact similar in all shower Monte Carlo. The hadronization step is different, but it is in all cases tuned to fit the data. This may generate a bias towards determining the same value of as used in the Monte Carlo. The size of the radiative correction is reported in ref. 36 , and thus, the pessimistic reader may use the whole hadronization correction as an error on the determination, if he wishes to do so. Table 3 (from ref. n ) summarizes the determinations of as from event shape variables. In all determinations, NLO calculations are used, together with resummation of soft gluon effects. Power corrections are estimated using Monte Carlo programs. Alternative models for the power suppressed corrections have recently appeared, and have been introduced in phenomenological analysis. In ref. 35 , several shape variables have been examined in the energy range of 7 5 = 14 to 189 GeV. QCD NLO prediction, together with the power correction model of ref. 34 are used to fit the data. I will not try to describe here the features of the
444 Table 3. A summary of measurements of as from shape variables. A a a (M z o)
Q [GeV]
Process e+e-
QS (M z o )
exp.
theor.
0 124 + 0 0 0 9
0.005
+0.008 -0.003
0.002
+0.008 -0.005
0.007
as(Q) 0 161 + 0 0 1 6
22
U.1D1 _ 0 . 0 1 1
U - 1 ^ * —0.006
e+e~
35
+ 0 -000172 u0 . 145 i i o _„
n 19 o+0.008
-
U . i i i O _ 0 QQg
44
0.132 ± 0 . 0 0 8
0.123 ± 0 . 0 0 7
0.003
Z°
91.2
0.121 ± 0.006
0.121 ±0.006
0.001
0.006
e+e-
133
0.113 ± 0 . 0 0 8
0.120 ± 0 . 0 0 7
0.003
0.006
e+e_
161
0.109 ± 0 . 0 0 7
0.118 ± 0 . 0 0 8
0.005
0.006
e+e-
172
0.104 ± 0 . 0 0 7
0.114 ± 0 . 0 0 8
0.005
0.006
e+e-
183
0.109 ± 0 . 0 0 5
0.121 ±0.006
0.002
0.005
e+e~
189
0.110 ±0.004
0.123 ± 0 . 0 0 5
0.001
0.005
e+e
model; it is enough to know that power corrections to shape variables depend upon a universal parameter ao in this model. A summary of the results of this analysis is displayed in figs. 13 and table 4.
Mean Values
Distributions l
0.8
b) ( \
0.6 ;
OL 0.5 '- * average •
0.4
•_
0.3
0.1
•
m A T
<1-T> <MH>
' O \: ^J~-^ K^~J : a, |TTjcr\y \
j
^
0.8
0.12
as(M7)
0.13
\\
"
\
A
0.7 ~ •k
0.6 •
:
: T
i
0.5 0.4
0.11
a)
0.9
/"—X
0.7 •
: ; :
average 1-T • MH, M^ A B T • B w o C
•
\
•
0.08 0.09
0.1
1p J
0.11 0.12 0.13
ccs(Mz)
Figure 13. Simultaneous fits to as and ao using mean values of shape variables (left) and distributions (right).
We observe that the final value is well in agreement with other determinations 11 . Also, to some extent the data supports the universality of the non-perturbative parameter. On the other hand, the value determined from distributions is considerably lower than the value obtained with standard methods (i.e. hadronization corrections with Monte Carlo models). Further-
445
Table 4. Results of the fits to as(Mz) and an(2 GeV) from ref. 35 . fit means
distr.
Comb.
syst.
Th.
as
0.1187
±0.0014
±0.0001
+0.0028 -0.0015
ao
0.485
±0.013
±0.001
+0.065 -0.043
as
0.1111
±0.0004
±0.0020
+0.0044 -0.0031
QO
0.579
±0.005
±0.011
+0.099 -0.071
as
0.1171
+0.0032 -0.0020
ao
0.513
+0.066 -0.045
more, for some shape variables the consistency of the determination is quite poor. Thus, as far as power suppressed corrections are concerned, we can certainly say that they are very poorly understood. Even if we assume a pessimistic attitude with regard to power corrections, one must recognize that LEP results do show a remarkable consistency with perturbative QCD results. In figure 141 try to give an unbias illustration of the comparison of LEP data with perturbative QCD results. In the figure, a deas(Mz) L
Figure 14.
a s ( M z ) NL
Bin-by-bin determination of a s for several different shape variables.
446
termination of as is performed for several shape variables. The determination was performed first using a leading order formula (left plot), and then the full 0(a2s) formula. No hadronization correction was applied to the data. Three values of the renormalization scale were chosen for each variable: p, = m z / 4 , mz/2, and m z . In the figure, parallel bands correspond to these three choices. The errors on the various point are experimental errors. If we had a perfect QCD calculation, e.g. all orders in perturbation theory, and hadronization corrections were truly negligible, we should expect that all experimental point lie (within errors) on a constant line. If we only have a leading order calculation, we expect instead large differences among the various points, that should become smaller and smaller as we include higher order corrections. In the plot, of course, we can only represent the leading and next-to-leading result, since an 0(a3s) calculation has never been performed. It is quite striking to see how, by including the next-to-leading corrections, the various determinations become much closer to each other. It is left to our fantasy to imagine what would happen if we could include the 0(as3) effects. 5. PROCESSES W I T H H A D R O N S IN T H E INITIAL STATE We will now turn to describe the application of perturbative QCD to processes in which hadrons are present also in the initial state, like Deep-Inelastic Scattering (DIS), or the production of some objects of high invariant mass in hadronic collisions. It turns out that cross sections for these processes can be computed and related to each other. In general the cross section for the production of some final state with high invariant mass (which could be made of a heavy weak vector boson, a lepton-antilepton pair, heavy quarks, jets, and the like) will be expressed by the so called improved parton model formula O-HUH2(PI,P2)
= ]T) / dxi dx2 / | f f l ) ( x i , / i ) •&ij(xip1,x2p2,as(fi),n)
f{jH2)(x2,n) .
(87)
A pictorial representation of formula 87 is given in fig. 15. For processes with a single incoming the improved parton model formula is even simpler. For example, in DIS °~H{P)
- ^2 / i
dx H x
fi \ ^^)
Oi(z.M) ,
(88)
J
Formulae (87) and (88) are applicable to inclusive hard processes. By inclusive, we mean that no detailed question on the distribution of the final state hadrons is asked in order to measure the cross section. The generic concept
447 H„
p,
some high p T stuff
Hz, p.
Figure 15.
A graphic representation of the improved parton model formula.
> > A2
Figure 16.
The improved parton model formula for DIS.
of a hard process is better illustrated by examples. We may, for example, require that a very large invariant-mass lepton-antilepton pair (the so called Drell-Yan process) is present in the final state. Or that jets (for example, of the Sterman-Weinberg kind) with large transverse momentum are observed. In the case of DIS, we simply require |<72| to be very large. The recipe for the improved parton model formulae can be summarized in the following points: • An incoming beam made of hadrons of type H is equivalent to a beam of constituents (also called partons), that is to say of quark and gluons, with a longitudinal momentum distribution characterized by the parton density functions (pdf's from now on) f> '(X,/J,). More specifically, given the hadron H with momentunm p, the probability to find in H the parton i with momentum between xp and (x + dx)p is precisely dxfl"'{x,n). The pdf's are universal, that is to say, they do not depend upon the particular process considered. • The short distance cross section d is calculable as a perturbative expansion in as &ij (x1p1,x2p2,as(ii),fi)
-
^af){xrpi,x2p2,n)als(fi)
(89)
448
The lowest order term of this expansion is precisely the cross section one would compute naively at lowest order. For the computation of higher order, a more complex prescription is specified. • The pdf's have a mild dependence upon the scale fi, determined by the Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi equation 37
^A_//*)(*,„) = £ y X > (a.fc),*)/<">(*/*,/,) • (90) Using the above equations, given the pdf's at a specified value of /x, we can compute them at any other value. The functions P are called splitting function, and have a perturbative expansion in powers of as (/i)
P«{*.M,*)
= ^r$\*)
+ ( ^ ) V w + o(<4). (9i)
The functions P^ 0 ' are given in 37 , and the functions P' 1 ) are given in 38>39. The scale /x is arbitrary. The /x dependence in the pdf's is compensate by the /x dependence in the short distance cross section. As in the case of e+e" -> hadrons, the scale \i is taken to be of the order of the typical scales in the process, in order to avoid the appearance of large logarithms to all orders in the short distance cross section. In this way, a truncated expression for the short distance cross section may be used safely. The approach described above gives the cross section in terms of a power expansion in a.s{ii). Since ots{\i) « 1/log/x/A, this means that by increasing the perturbative order at which the computation is performed, one adds corrections which are suppressed by one more inverse power of log /x/A. Corrections which are suppressed by powers of A//x are not included in this approach. Thus, for example, the pdf's describe the longitudinal momentum distribution of the partons. Since the partons are confined in a hadron, one knows that they must also have a transverse momentum of the order of the inverse of a typical hadron size, that is to say 1/A. This transverse momentum is neglected, since it would give rise to power suppressed corrections. In the following I will try to illustrate and justify the improved parton model approach. I will do this in three steps. I will first give a naive argument to show that a somewhat simplified version of formula (87), called the (naive) parton model formula (i.e., not yet improved), should work. The simplifications consist in the absence of the scale /x in the pdf's and in a. Such formula can be used to compute, for example, DIS cross section, or Drell-Yan pair production cross section. The parton model formula predicts correctly the existence of scaling in DIS.
449
In the second step will try to compute QCD corrections in the context of the parton model formula. I will show that this approach does not survive when radiative corrections are included. In the third step we will find a modification of the parton model formula that is consistent with radiative corrections. The main consequence of this improved approach is the appearance of a scale depedence in the pdf's. This scale dependence is at the origin of scaling violation phenomena in DIS. 5.1. The Naive Parton
Model
Formula
The basic parton model ideas are based upon a very commonly used intuitive picture of inclusive high energy scattering of composite systems, when we require a very large momentum transfer. Suppose, for example, that we collide to hydrogen beams, and require that in the final state we find a pair of electrons with large transverse momenta. It is clear that the most likely mechanism for producing such an event is the collision of two electron from the two incoming hydrogen atoms. If the transverse momenta of the electrons are much higher than the hydrogen binding energy, we may think that, to a good approximation, the cross section may be computed from the elementary electron-electron cross section, applied to a beam of incoming free electron. The fact that we want to observe a high transverse momentum scattering implies that the binding of the electrons to the nuclei cannot have an important effect in this case. In other words, the electrons behave as free particles in the collision. Observe that the inclusive character of the reaction, and the presence of high momentum transfer, are both necessary conditions for this approach to be valid. Inclusiveness is needed, because after the two electron collide, the remaining constituent of the original atoms (i.e., the protons in the case of hydrogen) are also found in the final state. The high momentum transfer is instead needed for the reaction to take place in a very short transverse distance. If this was not the case, like, for example, in the case when we look for small angle scattering, the atoms may interact coherently. Or, more simply, if the momentum transfer was of the same size as the typical momentum of the electron in the atom, the binding properties of the system could no longer be neglected. Assuming now that we have ultra-relativistic monochromatic beams of hydrogen atoms of energy E, in order to compute the above cross section we would assume that these beams are equivalent to electron beams with energy Ee = E x me/mp. In reality, even if the atom beams were perfectly monochromatic, the electron beam would not be perfectly monochromatic. The electrons are moving inside the atom, with a typical velocity of the order of the electromagnetic coupling v « a em - A simple exercise in relativistic transformations
450
would show that its energy spread would be of the order vEe. In fact, the electron energy could be characterized by a pdf fe(x), peaked around the value x = me/mp, and a width of order vx. Also the transverse momentum of the electron would be of order vme. However, while the transverse momentum remains invariant under boost, and thus becomes truly negligible at high energy, the spread in longitudinal momentum is amplified by the boost, and it thus scales with the energy. This discussion applies to a boosted, non-relativistic system. We can now try to guess what happens for a relativistic system, in which all constituents have velocities of order 1, and comparable energies. The transverse momenta still remain fixed at high energies. Their pdf's, however, will no longer be peaked around a particular value. Their spread would be of order 1. Knowing that the basic building blocks of our hadronic world are quarks and gluons, we thus expect that for a proton projectile, we will have structure functions for quarks, antiquarks and gluons. We also naively expect the momentum sum rule
L
1
^^]x/fp)(x) = l,
(92)
i
because the total momentum of the incoming projectile must be conserved. We also expect that the proton flavour is conserved. Thus, for example fdx(fM(x)-ft\x))=2.
(93)
Since we know that the proton is a relativistic system, we expect that a good fraction of its energy should be carried by the binding force, that is to say, by the gluons. Thus, the gluon pdf should be sizeable. Based upon these assumptions, we can now compute various high energy processes involving hadrons in the initial state. The rules are simple: compute the cross section you are considering for colliding partons, and then assume that your hadron beam is a beam of partons, with momenta distributed according to the pdf's. Always neglect the transverse momenta of the partons, and their masses. Let us now apply this model to Deep-Inelastic electron scattering. There we collide an electron with a proton. The kinematical variables of the process are usually defined as = k-k',
Q2 = -q2,
S=(k
+ p)2,
xBi = ^ , y = £l£.(94) 2p•q k-p Experimentally, one measures S, y and xBi. One only needs to observe the outgoing electron to obtain these quantities. The process is an inclusive one, q
451
that is to say, no conditions are imposed on the hadronic final state. The variable y has a simple interpretation in the laboratory frame of a fixed target experiment: it is the fractional energy loss of the electron. The corresponding partonic process is the scattering of a charged parton, that is to say a quark or an antiquark, with the electron. The cross section
Figure 17. DIS in the parton model.
for this process is easily computed, by using the standard Feynman rules of electrodynamics d
9
s
„
,
?L = Cc>±-i2«alm{l dy < Q*
+
{l-yY)
(95)
where / runs over all quarks and antiquarks, and c* is the corresponding electric charge. The kinematics is given by p = xp,
s = (k+p)2
= 2k-p,
y=j^4,
(p + q)2^2p-q-Q2
=0.(96)
Observe that eq. 95 is a full cross section, properly normalized, divided by the appropriate flux factors. Now we write, according to the parton model, the hadronic cross section
In order to obtain formula (97) we have only used the composition of probabilities, and the fact that cross sections are invariant for longitudinal boosts. We now observe that p q p - q y = i — = T—~ - y k •p k •p and thus we have
Q2 Q2 x ^Bj = o — = ip— = 2p • q 2p- q
x
.
,no, (98)
452
Observe that y has a simple interpretation also in the centre-of-mass of the electron-quark system, where it is given by y = (1 — cos# e i)/2, and 0ei is the scattering angle of the electron in this frame. In its simplicity, the parton model makes rather striking predictions. First of all, it shows that the DIS cross section scales with energy at fixed xBj and y. Furthermore, the y dependence of the cross section is fully predicted. As we will discuss further on, this y dependence is typical of vector interaction with fermions, and is thus direct evidence of the fact that charged partons are fermions (this is formally expressed by the so called Callan-Gross relation, as we will see in subsequent chapters). The same type of reasoning can be applied also to other processes. For example, in a collision of two hadrons, a quark from one hadron may annihilate with an antiquark from the other hadron, and produce a lepton-antilepton pair, provided there are enough antiquarks in the projectile, like in pion-nucleon collisions, or in proton-antiproton collisions. This is the so-called Drell-Yan process. Its parton model interpretation is illustrated in fig. 18. As before, we
Figure 18. Drell-Yan pair production in the parton model.
define the partonic variables: Pi=xipi,
P2=x2p2,
S = {pi+p2f
= 2pip2
,
Q2 =q2 =2xix2S
. (100)
The partonic cross section is given by
*'
C
'W'
(101)
which is very similar to the cross section for e+e~ -> fJ.+/J.~, except for en extra factor of 1/3 a . According to the parton model interpretation, the hadronic a This comes from the colour average for the initial state quark. Its physical meaning is that, in the average, the probability for the colour of the initial quark to match that of the antiquark is 1/3.
453
cross section is ,<•"> = £
jdXl
dx2 (f^\Xl)
f^\x2)
+ (I o I)) £
J ^
, (102)
for Q2 = s = xi x2 S. The validity of the above formula is restricted to the range where Q2 is large. It is therefore usually written as dQ2
£ J dXl dx2 (//Hl) (m) /i"2) (x2) + (!« [)) 5{x1x2S-Q2)YJcr-^L-
>47ra,
(103)
9Q
Pushing further our parton model interpretation of hard scattering processes, we can go on and compute the cross section for producing high transverse momentum jets, of heavy 66 pairs, of tt pairs, and so on. In these processes, also gluons could enter in the initial state. Not all hadronic processes can be computed in this way. For example, Drell-Yan cross sections, for Q2 approaching typical hadronic scales, cannot be computed. The rule of thumb for deciding if a process is a hard process or not, in the context of the parton model, is to ask whether it is insensitive to the initial transverse momentum of the partons, which is of the order of typical hadronic scales. The parton densities do not carry any information about this quantity. 5.2. Does the Parton
Model Survive
Radiative
Corrections?
We will now try to add perturbative QCD corrections to the Parton Model. As in the case of e+e~~ —>• hadrons, we will find soft and collinear singularities associated to radiation of gluons from final state partons, which we expect to cancel for appropriately defined final states. This is the case, for example, in fully inclusive hadronic final states, like in DIS or in Drell-Yan pair production, or in the production of Sterman-Weinberg jets. A new element that can arise in the case of reactions initiated by hadrons, is the appearance of initial state soft and collinear singularities. We will show that initial state collinear singularities cannot possibly cancel, and thus spoil the Parton Model interpretation of hard processes. Let us thus consider a generic hard process initiated by a hadron, and its parton cross section, which we assume for simplicity to be initiated by a quark = M(p)u(p)
.
(104)
454
Here M. indicates the amplitude for the process, and u is the Dirac spinor. All the complexity of the process is hidden in M, and we don't care about it for the moment. The cross section is obtained by squaring the amplitude, averaging over the initial state spin and colors, and dividing by the appropriate flux factors
*(0)(P) = ]pM®\
Y,
(105)
where N is whatever normalization factor arises from the rest of the amplitude. We want to focus upon the initial state corrections
P-1
= 9.Mip ~ l)7T-h^(P) '(P-02
<*(') .
(106)
where eM(Z) is the polarization vector of the final gluon. We also observe that this may not be the only correction of order as • One may also have a process in which an initial gluon splits into a quark-antiquark pair, and the generated quark gives rise to the reaction
We will assume that this complication does not occur. For example, we may assume that the hard cross section measures some effect due to the difference of the quark content for two different flavours. Since the gluon produces equal number of quarks for all flavours, it could not contribute in this case. In these cases, one says that the cross section is only sensitive to the non-singlet component of the parton densities. We thus concentrate on the non-singlet case now. Further on we will describe how to treat the general case. Experience with the e+e~ case tells us that as / becomes parallel to p we will have a collinear singularity. It is convenient thus to write / in the following way l = (l-z)p
+ lx+
fr
(107)
455
where t] is an arbitrary vector such that rj1 = 0 and T? - p ^ 0. For example, in the centre-of-mass frame of the collision process we can choose
7/ = ( l , 0 x , - l ) . The phase space for the emission of the gluon is d3l
dAl
-
^
p-r)d^dzd?l_L
2
^
- /_ .
,.,
..
.
|l2 u
(109)
2 (2TT)3 1 - z '
which yields, from the on-shell condition for the gluon,
The most singular part of this cross section can be obtained similarly with what was done in the case of e+e~ annihilation. It does not make much sense, in this case, to assume that I is small, and thus the derivation is a little bit more involved. It is nevertheless instructive, so I will report it in the next subsection. People who are willing to accept the result without discussion, can skip it. 5.3. Derivation
of the Singular Part of the Cross
Section
The amplitude in eq. (106), using our kinematic definitions, can be written as 9M(P - I) _ | ^ ~ ( _ ^
)
7/i«(pM0 •
(HI)
When squared, it seems to give rise to terms of order l/l]_. We will see that these terms, however, cancel. The trick is to make careful use the relation l"e^\l) = 0. The singular region is the one when I is collinear to p, that is to say when lj_ vanishes. In this region / « (1 - z)p, and thus p ss 1/(1 — z), up to small corrections. Inserting this expression for p in eq. ( I l l ) will lead to simple Dirac algebra, since by anticommuting / with 7^ we get ZM, which vanishes when dotted into the polarization. We thus write P=
/ (112) 1—z and replace it in eq. (111). The term in £ kills the singularity, and we drop it, since we are only interested in the singular part. We obtain
g, M(p - I) 4-=lf. YuipY^l) ,
(113)
456
which becomes 9.M{p-l)
"
w
.
-i*ii
' ^ ' " ^ ( I )
= 9. M(p - l)-Z^[il-Z){:,h]-h^uip)eAl)
(114)
I'xl
= g.M(p-l)-nil ^V^MO 2
= 9.M(P-1)
<
,
_^1{Z)h^u{p)e,(l),
(115)
where the first step is obtained by anticommuting f and 7^, which we can do as explained before. Then we rewrite I in terms of p. Next, we drop the p" term, since it is in front of the spinor u(p), and thus gives zero, according to the Dirac equation. Finally, we use the anticommutation relation 7^f j . = — f _L7/I + 2/^" In this last form, the singularity appears to be at most of order 1/ |/j_|, so that the amplitude squared will give at most a l/£ ± singularity. The rest is simple algebra. We square eq. (115), replace the gluon spin sum with the transverse projector —g^v, replace the fermion spin averaged product u(p)u{p) with p/2, and obtain 9l ^ M(p - l) ( - 2 < - (1 - z)fx7 M ) \ (-2**1 - (1 -
*)77-L)
(-9^)M^{p-l) ( 4 z 2 | ; i | + 4 z ( l - z)\ll\
= gt^M(S>-l)\
+ 2(1-
= g*^L(l + z*)M(p-l)£MHp-l).
z)2\ll\)M*(p-l)
(116)
To get the cross section, we should multiply the above expression by N/p2, and integrate over the phase space. We obtain *W
"SCF f 2n
2
l> l +d z dl\ j^{to), Zp) -^ ±dz. .,
x - x , .j_
(117)
where
aW(Zp) =
NM(p-l)^zL5M*(p-l)
= NM(p-l)^Mi(p-l).
(118)
457
where we have made use of the relation g^ = Anas • The factor CF = 4/3 arises from the colour algebra. It can be obtained according to the colour Feynman rules of fig. 3, as illustrated in the graphic equation
\ /
"
\
(ii9)
A T \ /.
There we see a factor of 3 arising in the first term, because of the sum over the colour entering the Born amplitude, and a factor of 3 in the second because of the colour loop, the net effect being (3 + l/3)/2 = 4/3. The result obtained so far arises from the real emission of a gluon. Virtual corrections are also present, i.e. a gluon can be emitted and reabsorbed by the same line. 5.4. Effects due to the Emission
of a Collinear
The final result is
a(1) =
a ^ J jff(0)(^ _ ^
\±AdA
Gluon
dz
,
(120)
where the second term in squared parenthesis is due to the virtual corrections. We see that there is a singularity at z = 1 which cancels between real and virtual corrections. The region z —> 1 corresponds to soft gluon emission. Thus, soft singularities cancel. There are also collinear singularities, associated to the small l± region. These do not cancel. We first make the following remark. In the initial amplitudes, the presence of a denominator of the form \/l\ may seem to give rise to divergences like cPlx/l4^. The singularity we find at the end is instead weaker, of order d?l±/l\, because of an l\ we find from the numerator algebra. We can easily convince ourselves that this is a consequence of angular momentum conservation. Vector interaction, in fact, do not change the helicity of a particle. Thus the helicity of the incoming quark must be equal to the that of the outgoing quark. On the other hand, physical gluons have ± 1 helicity. Thus, in the collinear limit, the total angular momentum contributed by spin is not conserved. This gives rise to the extra l\ suppression in the cross section. Also, by dimensional analysis, we see that we cannot expect divergences stronger than dPl±/l\_ in theories with dimensionless coupling constants. In the case of e + e~ —»• hadrons, we made the approximation that z « 1, for simplicity. If we had been more careful, instead of formula (75), we would have obtained a formula similar to eq. (120). There would be, however, a very
458
important difference: in the Born cross section for the real emission, under the integral sign, we would have cr^{p) instead of a^(zp). This property is characteristic of splitting processes taking place in the final state, rather than in the initial state. Figure 19 illustrate this fact. This is the reason why a
""(zP>
«v~.
Figure 19.
Collinear processes in the final and in the initial state.
collinear singularities cancel in the e+e~ —>• hadrons case, and do not cancel in this case. Equation (120) exhibit a rather intuitive property of collinear emission. Since the singularities are due to the fact that the intermediate propagator goes near its mass shell, the intermediate particle travels for a relatively long time and distance. Thus, when it initiates the interaction, it behaves essentially like an on-shell particle, and the phenomenon can be described in probabilistic terms. In other words, the total amplitude squared for the splitting process and the hard scattering, becomes the product of the square of the amplitude for the splitting process, times the square of the amplitude for the hard scattering (i.e., the cross section). The l\ integral is divergent in the lower limit. Its upper limit is instead some scale, of the order of the typical momenta involved in the hard process, which we now call Q. Equation (120) can then be interpreted intuitively in the following way. In a hard process, taking place in a time of order 1/Q (by the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle), an incoming parton is also probed for a time of order 1/Q. In a short period of time, a quantum state may fluctuate into states to which it couples, even if they have energies that differ by an amount of order Q or less. This is what happens to our incoming quark. This also explain why the larger is Q, the more likely is the splitting to take place.
5.5. Failure of the Parton
Model
The presence of collinear divergences tells us that there must be something wrong with the parton model. Of course, we know that divergences, in the real physical world, are never there. In our case, for example, if we introduce the mass of the quark, the divergence goes away. Or, we may use the known fact that at low scale confinement effects take place, and thus put a lower cutoff
459
of order A in the transverse momentum integral. Or again, we may remember that the parton is off-shell in the incoming nucleon, by an amount of order A. This also would act as a cut-off. However, neither of these remedies would really solve the problem. Our cross section would become strongly dependent upon low energy details, like the quark mass, the off-shellness in the nucleon, or confinement effects, while the Parton Model assumes that these details do not count. Furthermore, the physics of these details is low scale physics, and is thus uncalculable in perturbative QCD. We will now show that, in spite of the collinear divergences, the Parton Model can be rescued, provided we accept to make some modifications to the original concept. We begin by introducing some notation. First of all we define
^0)(*> = C - ( T ^ T ) +
<121>
where the notation with the + suffix is called the plus prescription. It specifies that the expression in parenthesis is to be interpreted as a distribution, and its integral against a smooth function f(z) is given by
We then introduce an infrared cutoff A, and rewrite formula 120 as . ( 1 ) = ^ l obg ° 22 jdzP°qq{z)a^{zp), (123) 2TT A where Q is a characteristic scale in the process. Since The corrected partonic cross section can be written as *(p) =
(124)
where Tqq(z,Q2)
= 6(l-z)
+ ^log^P°q(z)
.
(125)
The form of equation (124) hints to a possible way to resque the parton model approach. In fact, it has the form of the parton model cross section, except for the Q2 dependence. It is telling us that we should consider a parton as having a structure, that depends upon the scale at which we are probing it. This becomes even more apparent if we insert the corrected formula in the parton model formula for the hadronic cross section. We just replace p = yp, multiply by the parton density fq{y) and integrate in y: a(p) = Jdydz
fq(y)Tqq(z,Q2)a^(zyp)
.
(126)
460
This formula represents the probablity to find parton q in the hadron, with a fraction y of its momentum, times the probability to find parton q in parton q with a fraction z of its momentum times the cross section for the final parton, with momentum yzp. It is natural to think that if we have an object that can be represented as a beam of constituents, and the constituents can be represented as a beam of subconstituents, the same object can be represented as a beam of subconstituents. Mathematically this works as follows. We insert the identity f dx S(x — yz) in equation 126, and obtain o(p)=
f dxfq (x,Q2)
(127)
where we have defined fq(x,Q2)
= Jdydzfq{y)Tqq{z,Q2)8{x
- zy) .
(128)
We are getting closer and closer to the improved parton model formula. In fact, if instead of using the process scale Q we introduce an intermediate scale yu, the connection becomes even clearer. We can write ff(p) = Jdxfq(x,fi2)a(xp,fj,2)
,
(129)
where a(p) = / ) (p) + g
log ^
J dz i * (z)<7<°) (zp) .
(130)
Equation (129) is easily verified by expanding the product of / and a, neglecting terms of order a2s, and combining the logarithms according to the equation log/i 2 /A 2 + l o g Q 2 / / i 2 = logQ 2 /A 2 . It is the QCD-improved parton model formula we were seeking, and it forms the basis for the application of perturbative QCD to phenomena initiated by hadrons. A considerable difference with the "naive" Parton Model formula is the appearance of a scale fx in the parton densities. Let us summarize we have done so far. We have attempted to compute radiative corrections to a parton process. We have found that these corrections are large, and depend upon unknown low scale dynamics, which is represented here by the cutoff A. However, we have found that these large corrections can be absorbed into a redefinition of the parton densities. The parton densities redefinition does not depend upon the hard process in question: it is universal. The physical cross section can then be defined in terms of these new parton densities. Instead of the partonic cross section, in the QCD-improved parton model formula we have a so called short distance cross section a. This is obtained by subtracting the infrared sensitive (or long distance) part from the
461
partonic cross section. Thus, the short-distance cross section is controlled by high momenta, and is thus calculable in perturbation theory. It is important to choose the scale p of the order of the scale Q of the hard process, in order to avoid the appearance of large logarithms in the perturbative expansion. Of course, our argument was only carried out at leading order in perturbation theory. There is a variety of more complex arguments that show that formula (87) actually holds to all order in perturbation theory. This is called the Factorization Theorem40. We will comment later on its present status. For now, we will assume that the procedure outlined above can in fact be carried out to all orders in the coupling constant. Thus, the short-distance cross section can be given as a power expansion in as. If the scale at which as is evaluated is near the typical scale of the hard process, no large logarithms can appear in the coefficients of the expansion, since all the scales entering in the coefficients are of the same order. Thus, one can improve the accuracy of the short distance cross section by computing higher and higher orders in perturbation theory. The scale /z introduced in this context is called the factorization scale. The scale at which as is evaluated is the renormalization scale, and should be of the same order as the factorization scale. In principle, they can be taken to be different. Here, for simplicity, I will always assume that the renormalization and factorization scales are taken equal. The new pdf f(/i) contains uncalculable long distance effects. It has to be measured, by using formula (87) with some reference hard process, which is typically chosen to be DIS. One then extracts f(fi) at a given scale /i. Its fi dependence is however calculable. In fact, taking the derivative of eq. (128) we get
d log fi'-
fg(X,H2) = ^jdydzfq{y)P°qq{z)8{x-zy) ^Jdydzfq(y,n2)P°q(z)d(x-zy)
+ 0(a2s) ,
(131)
where we have used eq. (125), and dropped higher order terms in as in order to identify / with / in the last step. Equation (131) is the Altarelli-Parisi (AP) equation (or DokshitzerGribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi equation) for the non-singlet case. It is also commonly written in the form
462
where we have dropped the tilde sign, since the "naive" parton density disappears in the improved parton model approach. The AP equation allows us to compute the parton densities at any scale, once we have measured them at an initial scale. Thus, in the improved parton model, predictivity is not lost. As before, the measurement of the pdf's in one process (at one scale) allows one to extend the computation to any scale. 5.6. The Evolution
Equations
in the General
Case
We introduce the following symbolic notation for the AP equation
/*2 5-2/*(/*) = E pa ® *&)'
(133)
where the ® product is defined as /1 <8> h ® ••• fn(x) = / dxi dx2... dxn /1 (xi) hfa) Jo
• • • fn(xn)
• 6 (x - xi x2 ... xn) .
(134)
We have P,(y)
= ^P$\y)
+ (^)2
4 % ) + •••
(135)
where the P>, \y) are given in ref. 37 , and the PL (y) in 38>39. The terms of order a3s are not yet known exactly, although recently approximate expressions have become available41, based upon some partial results 42 ' 43 . Work on an exact calculation is under way 44 . We report below the formulae for the Pi• (y). Its only non-vanishing components are ^?)(») = ^?)(*) = C F ( Y ^ )
,
PW (x) = P$ (x) = Tt (*2 + (1 - x?)
(136)
,
(137) (138)
P$(x)=2CA
l-zj+
+ — — + *(1 - *) + (77; - Z7T- M ( l - z) z V12 6CA (139)
For a derivation of the above formulae similar to the one given in subsection 5.3, the reader can look in Appendix B of ref. 4 5 . For a more intuitive (although less
463
conventional) derivation, the reader can look directly in the original AltarelliParisi paper 37 . We do not report here the higher order P i • (y) functions. Observe, however, that at higher orders the components Pqiqj for i / j and Pqiqj (for any i and j) do arise. Here we limit our discussion, for simplicity, to leading order evolution only. We begin by taking the difference of eq. (133) with itself, for two different quark or antiquark flavour labels i and j . We find »2-^
(/i(M) - fi(ji)) = E
( p ^ ® / * M - pj>< ® / * M ) •
( 1 4 °)
As discussed earlier, if i is a quark (or antiquark), then k can only be the same quark (or antiquark) or a gluon. The gluon contribution cancels among the two terms in parenthesis, and one gets (141) ^ w ( / i ( / i ) ~ / j ( M ) ) = Pqq ® i f i i f i ) ~/j(M)) • Thus, if we have rif light flavours, there are 2nf — 1 independent combinations of the parton densities that evolve independently from each others. They are called non-singlet components. Next, we take the sum of eq. (133) for all quark flavours and antiflavours. We get
J2 djpf'M = YlPik ® Mrf = Y,Y,Pik® /*M + J2 p9 ® fM tyg
i^9
= Pqq®Yl
i^9 k^g
f^)
ijtg
+ 2n f p9 ® /»(/*) •
On the other hand, eq. (133) for the gluon reads £-2/»(/*) = E Pgi ® /*(/*) = E ^ ® / « M + P9S ® /p(M) •
( 142 )
(143)
Thus, defining
(144)
%) = E / ^ ) > i^9
we get the system of equations 2 d / a ( / i ) = Pgq
^ a^
® 5(M) +
PflS
®/s(/i) (145)
2
/ i ^ S ( / i ) = P g g ® 5(/x) + 2nf Pig ® /„(/i) which define the evolution of the so called singlet component S and the gluon. Thus, while the non-singlet components evolve independently, the singlet component mixes with the gluon density in its evolution.
464
5.7. Sum
Rules
We said earlier that we expect our parton densities to satisfy certain sum rules. Thus, for example Jdx[f^(x)-fip)(x)]=2.
(146)
We must make sure that evolution equations do not spoil the sum rules. Since the difference of the quark and antiquark parton densities is a non-singlet component, we have
S-^2jdX[ti\x)-ti\x)]
= dx
/ S Pqq{V) \fjf){Z) ~ f*] {Z)] S{X ~ VZ) dyd2
= g [JPMdv]
jdz [f<*Hz) - /<">(*)] = 0
(147)
because f Pqq{y)dy = 0. Similarly, one can show that the momentum sum rule is also preserved by evolution. 5.8. Scheme
Dependence
There is some ambiguity in the way one defines the parton densities, This ambiguity is best seen as an ambiguity in the type of infrared cutoff one uses. For example, one could give a mass to the quark, or assume it is slightly off-shell. By doing this, the large logarithm does not change, but different finite pieces can arise in the calculation. In the present context we have only looked at the divergent parts. When doing next-to-leading QCD calculation, however, one would like to compute precisely the finite pieces. The reader can find interesting examples in ref. 46 ' 47 and 48 . There the same processes are computed (the Deep-Inelastic and the Drell-Yan cross section), but with different infrared cutoffs. Thus, the finite terms in the various cross sections turn out to be different. However, when expressing the DY cross section in terms of the DI cross section, both approaches yield the same formula. Thus, to some extent, the definition of the parton density is a matter of convention, like the definition of Q S . It has to be specified together with a procedure for the computation of short distance cross section. Today, the so called MS scheme is widely used, and most parton densities are given in the MS scheme. 5.9.
Summary
We summarize what we have learned in this chapter.
465
First of all, by intuitive reasoning, we derived cross sections for high energy inclusive processes, assuming that the transverse momentum of constituents in hadrons was limited to typical hadronic scales. We tried to compute radiative corrections to these formulae, and we found inconsistencies, i.e. uncancelling collinear divergences. With a procedure very similar to renormalization, we showed that the collinear divergences can be factorized into the parton densities. Let us discuss how is the procedure of factorization similar to renormalization. In renormalization, we hide our ignorance of UV effects into a redefinition of the strong coupling constant. Here, we hide our inability to compute IR effects into a redefinition of the parton densities. As a result of this procedure, we find that the parton densities are actually scale dependent. We may think of a hard process as a probe of transverse dimensions and time of order 1/Q- When we probe a constituent at higher and higher values of Q, that is to say for shorter and shorted time, because of the uncertainty principle, we may find it fluctuating into a virtual pair of constituents off the energy shell by an amount of order Q. The larger is Q the larger is the phase space for virtual particles. This is why parton densities evolve with the scale at which they are measured. The original assumption of limited transverse momenta fails in the parton model. We have seen, in fact, that because of initial state radiation, integrals of the form (Pl^/l2^ arise. Roughly, we expect {ID nasj^ll
«a s Q 2 .
(148)
Thus the transverse momentum is not limited, but it is "perturbatively" small, i.e. it is suppressed by a coupling constant factor. 5.10. How Solid is the Factorization
Theorem?
The argument given in this chapter does not certainly pretend to be fully convincing. Thus, we would like to have a more solid proof of this theorem. In the case of the DIS process, such proof exists. It relies upon a clever analytic continuation property of the DIS cross section, that can be used to apply the powerful language of the operator-product expansion (O.P.E.) to the problem. For production processes in hadronic collisions, things are much more difficult. Even in the simplest case, the Drell-Yan process, the factorization theorem has a long controversial history, which was finally settled by the calculation of Lindsay, Ross and Sachrajda 49 ' 50 ' 51 . All-order arguments for factorization
466
have been given in ref. 52 . Today, the factorization theorem is widely accepted in the high energy physics community. 6. Deep Inelastic Scattering Deep-Inelastic Scattering (DIS) is the next-to-simplest QCD process after e+e~ annihilation into hadrons. It is experimentally quite simple, since in order to define the DIS cross section one does not need to introduce jet definitions. It is enough to measure the momentum of the outgoing lepton in order characterize the final state. Deep-Inelastic scattering is also the best place where to measure structure functions, as can be seen from eq. (99). Thus, QCD predictions for hadronic collisions rely upon the experimental determination of structure functions performed at DIS experiments. From a theoretical point of view, DIS (like Re+e-) has also a privileged status. There are in fact good reasons to believe that power corrections in DIS processes behave like 1/Q 2 . This is unlike (for example) jets in e+e~ annihilation, where one expects corrections of the order of 1/Q. Thus, DIS is a good place where to measure as. The most general form of the DIS cross section for electromagnetic processes is given by da dx dy
=
4nalm(S Q4
Mf
i1 ~ y ~ lr~Mi) F2 (x>Q2">+
y2 xFl
(*' g2 ) (149)
where Fi and F\ are called the structure functions for DIS, y corresponds to the variables defined previously, M is the mass of the target nucleon and x = xBi. I will not illustrate the derivation of this formula, which is found in many textbooks. It is a simple consequence of electrodynamics at the lowest order in aem, and of Lorentz invariance. It does not, therefore, contain any dynamical consequence of strong interactions, aside from its symmetry properties. From formula (99), and after what we have said in the previous chapter with regard to the factorization theorem, we can now write down the leading order, QCDimproved parton model formula for DIS da
dy~dx-
2
=
2TT a m
S x
B *sE£±s(i + ( i -VV~V>)Y y)»)y;c?ji(*)g). Qi
(150)
In order to have leading order accuracy, it is sufficient to choose \i « Q. For simplicity, I have chosen \i = Q. From eqs. (149) and (150), neglecting mass effects, we find F2(x,Q) = 2xF1(x,Q)
,
(151)
467
which is the so-called Callan-Gross relation, and
F2(x,Q) = x^cl
(152)
fi{x,Q) •
The Callan-Gross relation is a prediction of the parton model, and it is a consequence of the fact that the only charged partons are fermions. It is however only a leading order prediction. When radiative corrections are included, it is violated. One defines F L = Ft - 2xF\. It is useful to focus now upon the y dependence of the parton model formula. We ha+ve y
p-q = 1 p•k
p • k' p-k
1 — cos 6 2
(153)
and thus y is related to the electron scattering angle 6 in the CM frame of the electron-parton collision (sometimes called the partonic CM frame). The scattering of the lepton on a quark of the same helicity, gives rise to a y dependence proportional to 1, while in the case of a quark of different helicity, the y dependence is (1 — y)2. Thus, in the case of spin-averaged cross sections in electromagnetism, the y dependence is 1 + (1 — y)2. The verification of these properties is a simple exercise with Feynman graphs. The vanishing of the cross section in the backward limit (i.e. y = 1) for the quarks and lepton with opposite helicity has a simple intuitive explanation. The spins of the lepton and the quark are aligned, since their helicities are opposite, and their momenta are opposite. Thus, they have a total angular momentum 1 in the collision direction. Vector interactions conserve helicities. Thus, the quark and lepton will have the same helicity after the interaction. In the case of backward scattering, however, they have opposite momentum, and thus they have opposite total spin. Thus, conservation of angular momentum imposes the vanishing of the backward cross section, which is what the (1 — y)2 dependence predicts. Parity violating processes contribute anti-symmetrically in the exchange of the helicity of the incoming lepton. We expect a (1 — (1 — y)2) = 2(y — y2/2) dependence to be present in this case. Thus, a third structure function appears. For example, in neutrino charged current DIS (i.e. u^N (j, X or v^N —> H+X) we have da dxdy
G2F(S - M 2 )
M2
2TT
(Q2 + MlY
+
xyM2 1 - 2 / S-M2
y2xF?(x,Q2)±(y-y2/2)xF§
F?{x,Q2)
(154)
468
where the sign in front of F3 is chosen positive for 1/, and negative for v interactions. The parton cross section is given by do _G\s dy ~ ir
M% (Q2 + M2^
j 1 \ { \ - yf
same helicities opposite helicities
The neutrino is left handed, and charged current interactions involve lefthanded quarks and their antiparticles, which are right-handed. Thus, when the neutrino scatters off a quarks, we get the constant y dependence; when it scatters off an antiquarks, we get the (1 — y)2 dependece. Because of charge conservation (i.e., the neutrino goes into an electron, and thus gives one unit of positive charge to the quark) only negatively charged quarks or antiquarks can be involved. Thus, for example, for v^p -> n~X, neglecting for the moment a possible charm or bottom parton density in the proton we have da
GlSx *F'-'•"'
dxdy
Ml -""W
[ (
^
Q)
+
^
Q))
+ (1
_
y)2
_(ar> Q)]
^
(156)
-K (Q* + M$,f f
Here we introduce the notation «(*, Q) = fip)(x, Q) ,
d(x, Q) = f{/\x,
Q) ,
etc.
(157)
for the quark densities in the proton. The corresponding densities in the neutron are obtain from isospin symmetry /<>> (x, Q) = d(x, Q) ,
f{dn) (x, Q) = u(x, Q) ,
etc. .
(158)
Thus F™(x, Q) = 2x Ffc(x, Q) = 2x(d(x, Q) + s(x, Q) + u(x, Q))
(159)
F3cc(x, Q) = 2(d(x, Q) + s(x, Q) - u(x, Q)) .
(160)
Similarly, for up —> e+X F2cc(x, Q) = 2(u(x, Q) + s(x, Q) + d(x, Q))
(161)
F£c(x, Q) = 2(-d(x, Q) - s(x, Q) + u{x, Q)) .
(162)
One gets the sum rule / dx [F*p{x, Q) + F£p(x, Q)] = 2 [ dx [u(x, Q) - u(x, Q) Jo Jo + d(x, Q) - d(x, Q) + s(x, Q) - s(x, Q) + • • • ] = 6
(163)
which is called Gross-Llewellyn Smith sum rule, and expresses the fact that there are three quarks in a proton. The phenomenology of DIS scattering is quite complex, and it is really impossible to review it in a satisfactory way in the context of these lectures.
469 Several complications of experimental nature arise, and have to be dealt with properly. When extracting the structure functions F\ or F
faf,(,.q)-fi(,,g)x
^ W
(164)
where, if the Callan-Gross relation was satisfied exactly, one would have R = 0. Different experiments are performed on different targets. The structure functions for a nucleon embedded in a nucleus are distorted (EMC effect). Finally, the size of power suppressed effects (the so called higher twist effects) should be assessed, especially for low Q2 experiments. In the present context I will not try to explain how to deal with these complications. I will instead try to give a rough idea of how the strong coupling constant and the parton densities are extracted from data. The strong coupling constant can be extracted from DIS data using sum rules, like the Gross-Llewellyn Smith sum rule. Sum rules are in fact calculable in perturbative QCD, and the difference from their parton model value can be used to extract as. For the Gross-Lewellyn Smith sum rule
I '
dx[F*p{x,Q)+F»P{x,QJ\
Jo
= 6
1 - 2£ — x (1 + 3.58 ^ + 19 (^-f) •K
\
IT
+ 0(at) - AF
\ TV I
(165)
J
A recent CCFR determination 53 obtains a s (1.73 GeV) = 0.280±S;g$ ->• as(Mz)
= 0.114^°°i> .
(166)
These determinations have the advantage that these quantities have been computed at very high order in perturbation theory 54 , and thus the theoretical error are reduced. Since, however, they are performed at a rather low scale, some estimate of higher twist effects (the A HT ) are necessary. The standard method to measure as in DIS is based upon the fact that the speed of evolution is proportional to as. The logarithmic derivative of the structure functions with respect to Q2 are found therefore to have a strong sensitivity to the value of as. It is convenient to use a non-singlet structure function, in order to avoid uncertainties due to the poor knowledge of the gluon density. Thus, for example, one can use F3 in neutrino scattering 55 . Alternatively, one can use structure functions at very large x. Since gluons are not valence particles, their density is quite soft, that is to say, concentrated at small values of x. In general, there is little gluon content in the hadrons for x > 0.2. Using this fact, one can also use muon data to determine as. A
470 summary of as measurements from DIS is reported in table 5 from ref. n . The Table 5. Determinations of as from DIS data, taken from ref. Gross-Llewellyn Smith sum rule.
Measurements
Q (GeV)
n
.
GLS-sr stands for
Aats(Mz) as(mz)
"s(Q)
exp.
theor.
Theory
o.28o ±S:SS
0 1111 4 + 0 0 0 9 u - * -0.012
±°;°°g
±0.005
NNLO
5
0.214 ± 0 . 0 2 1
0.118 ±0.006
±0.005
±0.003
NNLO
2.96
0.252 ± 0 . 0 1 1
0.1172 ±0.0024
±0.0017
±0.0017
NNLO
DIS, GLS-sr
1.73
DIS, u; xF3 DIS, e/fi; F2
table deserves some comments. First of all, notice that all these determinations are performed at the NNLO level. This has become possible because of recent progress in the computation of moments of the splitting functions at order 56 57 . The heoretical Q 3 42,43 T h i s h a s a i i o w e d NNLO analysis of DIS data precision of these analysis matches that of Re+e-. Comparing tables 5 and 2 we see a remarkable consistency in two different determinations, performed with completely different experimental setups, and at very different scales. Neutrino scattering allows independent access to the quark and antiquark content of nucleons. It is generally carried out on heavy, approximately isosinglet targets. F2 measurements in electromagnetic and charged current experiments give access to the combinations reported in the table 6. In prinTable 6. F2 in various experimental configurations of interest. Fe2p/x
- ( u + u) + \{d + d + s + s)
F%d/x
5 -(u + u + d + d) + f ( s + 5)
pud
d
2(u + u + d + d + 2s)
n
2(u + u + d + d + 2s)
Fid
2(u -u
+ d-d
pud
2{u-u
+
+ 2s) d-d-2s)
ciple, strange and antistrange content could be extracted from neutrino and antineutrino data on isosinglet targets. Or, assuming s — s, we can use the combination 5 / 6 ^ ^ - 3F2ed = x2s. In practice, the strange content is better
471
constrained by looking at charm production in neutrino DIS. The corresponding signal, in the case of v^ scattering, is given by an unlike sign muon pair, one arising from the charged current scattering, and the other from charm decay. Assuming that we have measured the strange content, we have access to the combinations u + u, d + d, u + d and u + d. These quantities are not independent, since the sum of the first two equals the sum of the last two. Thus, one more input is needed. It was usually assumed that u = d. This assumption, supplemented with sum-rule restrictions, is however in conflict with data. In fact, using the flavour sum rules f dx [u(x, Q) - u{x, Q)] = 2 ,
f dx[d{x,Q)-d(x,Q)}
=1 ,
(167)
we obtain
J1^[F^(x,Q)-F^(x,Q)\ /•I
=
i
dx- [u(x, Q) + u(x, Q) - d(x, Q) - d{x, Q)] Jo A
= \ + lJ
dx
Hx>Q)~d>>Q)]
(168)
which, if u = d gives the so called Gottfried sum rule. Experimental measurements of the Gottfried sum favour a negative contribution from the u — d difference. In order to access the u — d difference as a function of x, one has to use different experiments. Drell-Yan pair production in proton-proton collisions is one example. The x integrals of F-i are proportional to a combination of the momentum fraction carried by the quarks and antiquarks. In particular, for example, the integral of F%d gives the total momentum fraction carried by quarks. This quantity is measured to be roughly 0.5. Thus, one expects that a large fraction of the hadron momentum is carried by gluons. This poses a valuable constraint on the gluon density g(x,Q). Prom DIS, the traditional way to determine g(x,Q) is from its influence upon the evolution of the singlet structure functions. This is viable at relatively small values of x, where the gluon density is not small. At large x, however, one needs to rely upon direct methods, since the gluon density is too small there to influence evolution. Direct photon production is one such process. Today's tendency for structure function studies is to perform global fits to a large variety of data samples. One recent description of structure functions
472
fits is given in ref. 5 8 , where many aspects are discussed in detail. The result of these fits is shown in fig. 20.
10
Figure 20.
10 "
10 "
X
10
Parton distributions by the MRST group.
7. QCD in Hadronic Collisions Perturbative QCD applications in hadronic collisions is extremely important, due to the impact it has had in the recent past for the discovery of new particles, and the impact it is going to have in the future for the search of new physics at the LHC. Thus there are essentially two main points of study for QCD at hadron colliders, and they clearly go hand in hand • QCD tests in hard processes • Modeling of particle production processes (computing cross sections for top, higgs, etc.) and computing backgrounds. Unlike the case of e+e~~ annihilation into hadrons, where each event is a hard process, in hadronic collisions most events are soft, even if the CM energy is very high. This is because, even if the colliding energy is high, the momentum transfer involved is not large. However, in the production of very massive particles, or in processes in which particles at high transverse momentum appear, hard momenta are actually present, and we can apply perturbative QCD. As a rule of thumb, when we try to compute a process using the parton model formula, and find that it is dominated by small momenta, this means that we can no longer neglect low energy details, like the off-shellness of the partons inside
473
the colliding hadrons, or their mass. In this case, the process is controlled by long distance dynamics, and cannot be computed using perturbative QCD. 7.1. The Kinematic
Variables for Hadronic
Collisions
Given the two colliding hadron beams, one defines the kinematical variables of any outgoing particles according to the figure below
^
Beam 2
Thus, the transverse momentum k± is the projection of the particle momentum into the transverse plane (the plane orthogonal to the collision axis). The azimuthal angle 4> is defined with respect to the collision axis. One usually defines Transverse energy = E? = sinOE Transverse mass
= m-p = y/k\ + m2
Rapidity
1 , k° + Jfc" = y = - log 2 b A; 0 -A;ll '
The rapidity has the nice property that under a longitudinal boost it is simply translated by the boost angle: y —>• y + log 7. The transverse momentum, and thus the transverse mass, are simply invariant under longitudinal boosts. Thus, these variables are particularly useful to study hard processes, since in general the parton centre-of-mass system for the process will be translated with respect to the hadron CM. For particles of small mass, we have 1, 1 + COS0 d v ~ — log = - log tan 2 ' y 2 6l-cos6» and thus one defines the pseudorapidity
(169)
6 (170) 7] — — log tan 2 It is useful to remember the following formula for the single particle phase space
2l^=2Wd2feTd2/-
(171)
Thus, the single particle phase space is uniform in transverse momentum and rapidity.
474
7.2. Total Cross
Section
The total hadronic cross section is in the range of several lOmb range, and it grows logarithmically with S. This is roughly the inverse of few hundred MeV squared, the characteristic scale of strong interactions. We cannot compute the total cross section using perturbative QCD. Phenomenological models based upon Regge theory are usually employed to describe the data. If we attempted to estimate the total cross section using parton model concept, we would end up computing a parton production cross section integrated over the transverse momentum of the parton. On dimensional ground, this cross section would be divergent at small transverse momenta da
Sk?
1 "K
f dkl
*
aK
J 14 *
1
,., „ . (172)
A*
where the last step follows from the fact that some non-perturbative hadronic scale (for example, the off-shellness of the incoming partons) should act as a lower cutoff of the integral. Thus, perturbation theory, although incapable to give a definite answer, fails precisely at the point when the cross section becomes of the order of the total cross section. 7.3. Typical Inelastic
Processes
The typical inelastic events in hadronic collisions are quite complex. Several hadrons are produced, the average charged multiplicity (nCh) being typically of the order of 30 to 40 per event for Ecm = 600 to 1800 GeV, and it grows logarithmically with energy. Fluctuations in multiplicity are large, of the order of 100%, a typical feature of cascade processes. The transverse momentum distribution of the produced hadrons are characterized by an average transverse mass of the order of few hundred MeV, growing slowly with energy. The produced particles are distributed uniformly in rapidity, the distribution dropping smoothly to zero when approaching the maximum rapidity. 7.4. Looking for Hard Processes
in Hadronic
Collisions
Hadron collider physics is complicated by the fact that interesting events are rare with respect to the common low pT inelastic events. This is immediately understood if we estimate the cross section for the production of a 100 GeV object to be of the order of 10~ 4 G e V - 2 , while the typical inelastic cross section is of the order of 10~ 4 MeV - 2 . We expect roughly 1 hard event every 106 soft ones, and this estimate ignores eventual suppression due to the coupling constant.
475
Furthermore, soft events may look like hard ones, because of fluctuations. Thus, with a multiplicity of 30 and an average pT of few hundred MeV, the average total transverse energy can very well be of the order of tens of GeV. Fluctuations may favour occasionally even larger transverse momenta.
7.5. Jets at Hadron
Colliders
+
Thus, unlike the e e~ case, where above a certain energy all events look like jet events, in hadronic collisions establishing the existence of jets has required the use of an appropriate trigger. In fact, one has to look only at events with a large total transverse energy. If the total transverse energy is larger than the typical value for a soft event, the events show the presence of jets. This was the method followed by the UA2 and UA1 experiments at the CERN SppS collider, to establish the existence of jets in hadronic collisions. It was found there that requiring a transverse energy larger than 70 GeV, most events look like jet events. The description of jet production in QCD follows the lines of the QCDimproved parton model. At the leading order level, in order to compute jet cross section we only need the Born cross sections for parton parton scattering, reported in table 7. The 2-jet inclusive cross section can then be obtained from Table 7. Cross sections for light parton scattering. The notation is p\ p2 -> kl, s = (pi +P2)2, t = (pi-fc)2,u = ( p i - 0 2 dtr d*bn
Process QQ' QQ
QQ' —*•
-+ QQ
gg->
QQ
-> 99
99 —>
QQ
9Q -» 9Q
99
1 i f 4
2
(s +u
2 2J L9 V 1
-> 99
8_ J 2 ]
, S^+P\
5
*?~/
27 &*J
JL 1 t +u
?V
QQ -> QQ
t2
2s 9 2
J_ \± (£±*L 21 [9 V i2
4. i2+u2\ _ J_ i 2 ! P~~) 27 it J
i
1 -L [32 i2+u2 2 2s [27 iu JL \k
2s [6
i2+u2
iu
2s
[
_ 3 t" 2 2+u 2 l
8
-2 i - 2
i U
i2+u2l s2 J
_ 8 3
s
J
- 2 1 -2
U±±|j
£
1^ _1_ £ 1 q _ iu 2 2s 2 ^ °
J2"
i u _ st \
£2
5^J
476
the formula da
= J2dx1dx2f^Hx1^)f^\X2,^^g^d^
(173)
ijkl
that has to be expressed in term of the rapidity and transverse momentum of the quarks (or jets), in order to make contact with physical reality. The two particle phase space is given by d 2
* = 2VW27r6i{Pl+P2~k)2)'
( m )
and using eq. (171), in the CM of the colliding partons, we get d$2=^±-^d2kTdy2S(s-4(k0)2)
.
(175)
Here y is the rapidity of the produced parton in the parton CM frame. It is given by 2/1-2/2 nr?(C. ( ^
y= — 2 —
where 2/1 and y2 are the rapidities of the produced partons in the laboratory frame (in fact, in any frame). One also introduces 2/1 + 2/2 1 , xi 2/o = — » — = - log — , 2 2 x2
s T= -=X!X2 s
.
(177)
We have dxi dx2 = dyo dr .
(178)
We obtain
da = YJdyQ\f^\xu»)ff>\x2^)^g^^2dyd*kT ijkl
(179) * '
which can also be written as ijkl
The variables xi, x2 can be obtained from y\, y2 and pT from the equations 2/1+2/2 ( l g l ) 2/o 2 2/
xT Xl
2/1 - 2 / 2
(182)
2 2pT
(183)
= xT ey° cosh y
yo x2 = xTe~
cosh j/ .
(184) (185)
477
For the partonic variables, we need s = sx\X2 and the scattering angle in the parton CM frame 9, since t = - | ( 1 - c o s 6») ,
u = -|(l+cos0) .
(186)
Since we are neglecting parton masses, rapidity and pseudorapidity are identical, so that the equation y = -log t a n -
(187)
gives us 6. The Born cross section formulae given here predict the production of backto-back jets, with opposite transverse momenta. Details of the jet distributions depend upon the knowledge of the structure functions. However, it has been observed that, to a good approximation, scattering processes with gluon exchange in the t channel dominate, and that they are roughly proportional to each other. More specifically, the gg —> gg, qg —> qg and qq' —»• qq' processes are in the ratio 3 x 3, 3 x 4/3 and 4/3 x 4/3 respectively. This property is exact in the small angle scattering limit, but holds to a good approximation also at large angles. It can be obtained from Table 7, by keeping only the most enhanced terms when t -> 0 (and u —> —s) or when u —> 0 (and t —• — s). The processes with identical particles in the final state have an extra factor of 1/2, but on he other hand have enhanced terms when t —> 0 and when u —»• 0, while those with different particles in the final state have only the t singularity. Thus, at the end, the qq —> qq process at small angle gives the same contribution as the qq' —> qq' process. Using this property the jet cross section simplifies dG
l
dyidy2d2kT
s
2(2TT) 2
F W (VX
U
»)FW(
"^
X 2
^)^-^.
" " ^ d$
(188)
with F^
(Xtli)
= fW {Xj
ri + ijT, f\H) (x, M) -
(189)
Equation (188) gives a definite prediction for the angular dependence of jet production. It can also be written, more explicitly, in terms of xi, x2 and cos0, where 6 is the scattering angle in the rest frame of the partons. da
dxi dxi d cos 8
=FW{xufl)FW{x2jfl)^±%L.
d cos 6
(190)
Early studies of the UAl and UA2 experiments have confirmed this behaviour 59 .
478
Modern studies of jet physics at colliders are performed at the next-toleading level in QCD. Calculations of jets cross sections at next-to-leading level have been available for quite a long time. Comparisons between data and calculation require agreement on a jet definition to be used. Such a definition should be of the Sternian-Weinberg type, that is to say, it should be infrared and coUinear safe. Several algorithms have been proposed to define jets. For the purpose of this lectures, it will be enough to know that the most commonly used definitions make use of a circle of a given radius R in the (jA plane. The circle is moved in the plane until one finds a maximum of the transverse energy deposition inside the circle, and a jet of the given >JJ and ET values is associated with this point. The single inclusive distribution of jets found in this way, as a function of ET, is compared with QCD NLO calculation. An example of a recent measurement of the inclusive jet cross section is given in ref. 6 0 , from the DO collaboration. The inclusive jet cross section is measured in a wide rapidity range. By exploring the high rapidity region, one extends toward smaller values of x the region in the Q2, x plane where parton densities are probed, as shown in the left plot of fig. 21. Jets are defined with the f}<j) cone algorithm, with a radius R — 0.7. The DO results, together with a NLO QCD predictions, are shown in the right plot of fig. 21, showing a remarkable agreement. A more detailed comparison is shown in fig. 22, where 10',
,
HH iXHnchjwt Jet5fitf<* present me.
Figure 21. The reach of the DO inclusive jet analysis in the Q2,x plane for the parton densities (left plot), and the Inclusive jet cross section as a function of ET, in various rapidity bins, versus theoretical predictions (right plot).
the ratio (data - theory)/theory is plotted. Theoretical results are obtained with the program JETRAD 61 , using the CTEQ4 82 (left figure) and MRST58 (right figure) structure functions.
479
0.5 < |n( < 1.0
1.0 < |t)| <. 1.5
_* -
0 -0 4 6 2 1 OS : 04 0 -04 6 2 -
,
,
0.6 < |l)| < 1.0 00aaKa
•
250 ET
WO
(GeV)
i
1
1.5 < |l)| < 2.0
ifft ;..*.-(. 200
-
.. i-
"-
2.0 < l?j| < 3.0
150
*
*
1.0 < |t|| < 1.8
1.5 < | » | < 2.0
0 -04
8 g 8 8
i. | . -L
£-#*»«>#*«»»*##$#S- g
1
0.0 < |t|| < O.S
0.0 < |l)l < 0.5
J50
400
450
500
>0
1 .
.
.
»
100
*
ISO
2.0 < |l,| < 3.0
!
200
210
300
350
400
450
5(
Br (GeV)
Figure 22. Comparison of experimental measurements versus theoretical predictions: CTEQ4HJ (*) and CTEQ4M (o) (left figure); MRSTgf (•) and MUST (o) (right figure).
The shaded band corresponds to one standard deviation on the systematic error. One expects a comparable band for the theoretical error. The data is therefore in good agreement with theoretical predictions, showing a preference for the CTEQ4 sets. Double-inclusive jet cross section (i.e., dijet production) studies at the NLO have also become to appear. CDF has performed a study of dijet production 63 . They look at the ET of one central jet (0.1 < r}\ < 0.7), while the second jet lies in several different pseudorapidity intervals. In this way, the sensitivity to the parton densities at large x is enhanced. Qualitatively the theory gives a good description of data, as can be seen from fig 23. A closer look reveals problems at the quantitative level. Looking at the (data—theory)/theory ratio in the right plot of fig. 23, one sees that no parton density functions set fits the data satisfactorily, especially in the high ET region. We recall that jet studies at the Tevatron is at the frontier of our knowledge on the parton density functions. In fact, the single inclusive jet cross section 64 was found initially to be higher than QCD predictions. Further studies have shown that the excess over perturbative predictions is within the current flexibility in our parametrization of the parton density. It is however interesting to recall the value of studies of this kind. Since the QCD jets parton cross sections drop with a the square of the transverse energy, a contact, 4-fermion interaction (similar, therefore, to weak interactions at low energies) would stick out at sufficiently high ET. In particular, a 4-fermion interaction with a cou-
480
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
E, (GeV)
Figure 23. Dijet cross sections from CDF; ET distribution of one central jet, for the recoiling jet in different rapidity bins (left plot). A comparison if the dijet cross section to theoretical predictions i showin in the rigth plot. The error bars represent the statistical errors, while the shaded band represents the correlated systematic error.
pling constant G, would give rise to corrections to the cross section due to the interference terms with the standard QQD amplitude. On purely dimensional ground, such corrections would be of order G, and would thus overcome the strong interaction at some ET. Thus, high transverse momentum jets studies can be used to put bounds on these kind of interactions. Sometimes, these bounds are called, somewhat improperly, compositeness bounds, since these kinds of 4-fermion interactions would naturally arise in composite models, due to the exchange of heavy composite particles. 7.6. Production
of W, Z, and Drell- Yan
Pairs
From the point of view of perturbative QCD, the production of W, Z and DrellYan pairs are very similar processes. Some graphs contributing at leading, next-to-leading, and next-to-next-to-leading order in the strong coupling are shown in fig. 24. The corrections of order as have been given a long time ago in
0(1)
0(as)
0(ai)
Figure 24. Some graphs contributing to the Drell-Yan partonic cross section in QCD.
refs. 46>47>48) while the a2s corrections have been computed in ref.
65,66
. In order
481
to get acquainted with the kinematics, let us compute the parton cross section for the production of a hypothetic massive vector meson. The amplitude is M = gv(p2)-yltu(p1)
(191)
and the partonic cross section is
a=
h\lIMi
£ |-M|2'
(192)
spin,col.
where we have included a factor of 1/4 for the initial spin average, 1/9 for the initial colour average, l / 2 s to go from an amplitude squared to a cross section, and the one-particle phase space d $ i . We have Y, \M\2 = 3g2Tr\I/ll»(-if2hll} = 12g2s, (193) Spin,col.
and d*i = J ^
~
(2TT)4 6\Pl
+P2-q)
= 2nS ( ( P l + p2f
- M2)
(194)
so that at the end we get 47T2
( 7 = — a8{s-Ml) 2
,
(195)
±
with a = g /(4iv). For W production, the coupling is g = gem/(y/2 sin# w ), and only left handed quarks, and right handed antiquarks, can contribute. We get 2
ow = ^ ~ ^
sin" 2 6W S(s -Ml).
(196)
The full hadronic cross section is then aw=
4 " 2 ) ( * 2 ) + f^fa)
J dan dx2 [(fi^Hx,)
fi"*\x2))
cos2 6C + • • •]
xfirjj-SisxiXi-Ml) (197) 3 sin 0w where one should not forget the appropriate CKM factors. A recent summary of W/Z cross section studies at the Tevatron is given in ref. 6 7 . From the measured ratio aw • B(W -> eu) R (198) ~ az • B(Z -> ee) ' assuming that the ratio of the production cross section is accurately calculable, one can extract B(W -> ev), and from it I V , _ T{W -> eu) ~ B(W-* eu) ' assuming that the eu width is correctly given by the standard model. w
(1
"j
482
7.7. Heavy Flavour
Production
The production of heavy flavour in hadronic collisions involves strong interactions directly. Furthermore, in many cases of interest, the gluon densities play an important role. This is unlike the case of W/Z production, in which the main production mechanism does not involve the strong coupling constant. The search and discovery of the top quark has therefore relied on the whole machinery of perturbative QCD, factorization, and structure function physics. The leading order process is proportional to the square of the strong coupling constant. Next-to-leading (order a3s) calculations for the production of heavy flavour production have been available for a long time. Furthermore, a large amount of work has been performed on resummation of effects enhanced in particular kinematic regions 68 . Since the top is very heavy, one expects that perturbative QCD should work well in this case. In fig. 25, taken from ref. 6 9 , I show a comparison of theoretical predictions with the CDF and DO measurements. CDF data for bottom production has always shown a tendency to be higher than the theoretical predictions, as one can see from fig. 26, a problem that is being actively investigated. A large body of data is available for charm
120
140
160
180
m t (GeV) Figure 25. Top production cross section versus the mass, compared to CDF and DO measurements. The dashed band correspond to an 0 ( o 4 ) calculation, while the solid band includes also soft gluon resummation effects to the subleading logarithmic level.
production. Theoretical calculations are, however, not very reliable in these
483
T
T
Upper theory: m b = 4 . 5 GeV, £i=Mo/ 2 . MRS125 Central theory: m,,=4.75 GeV, fi=fJ.0, MRSA' Lower theory: m b = 5 GeV, ix=Zy.a, MRSA' e-„D°X M o = V(m?+p?) J/i X
10*
£ io2 Data: CDF pp~ -> b+X, Vs=1.8 TeV, |y|
_!_,_
10"
_L
10
Figure 26.
_L
20 p , rain —
30
50
(GeV)
Comparison of bottom cross section calculations versus CDF measurement.
10^
p N c and b cross sections Solid: m„=1.5 GeV, m„-4.75 GeV
Dotted: m = =1.8 GeV, m b =5 GeV Dashed: m„=1.2 GeV, m b =4.5 GeV 0.1
0.2
0.3 E„ (TeV)
0.4
0.5
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Figure 27. Charm and bottom production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at fixed target energies
cases, since the charm mass is only moderately heavy, and thus one cannot safely rely upon perturbation theory. Some results are shown in fig. 27. A recent review of heavy flavour production is given in 68 .
484 8.
Conclusions
In these lectures I have given an overview of perturbative Q C D . As we have seen, the application of perturbation theory in strong interactions is not straightforward, unlike the case of weak interactions and electrodynamics. Nevertheless, a consistent and testable framework for t h e application of perturbation theory in strong interactions can be defined. This framework has been severely tested in e + e ~ , ep, and hadron-collision physics. It is perhaps t r u e t h a t , after the very extensive work performed at L E P 1 and at the SLD, our confidence in perturbative QCD has become quite solid. Testing QCD remains however an important activity, due to the large number of applications t h a t heavily depend upon it. T h e near future in particle physics research is in hadron collider physics, where the application of QCD is more complex. We should not forget, for example, t h a t Higgs production at hadronic colliders is essentially a stong-interaction phenomenon, driven by gluons. T h u s , it is important t o build more confidence upon our ability t o compute hadronic processes.
References 1. M. E. Peskin, ,. Lectures presented at the Summer School on Recent Developments in Quantum Field Theory and Statistical Mechanics, Les Houches, France, Aug 2 - Sep 10, 1982. 2. H. Leutwyler, ,. Lectures given at 30th Int. Universitatswochen fur Kernphysik, Schladming, Austria, Feb 27 - Mar 8, 1991 and at Advanced Theoretical Study Inst, in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder, CO, Jun 2-28, 1991. 3. G. Ecker, ,. To be published in the proceedings of 4th Hellenic School on Elementary Particle Physics, Corfu, Greece, 2-20 Sep 1992 and Lectures given at Cargese Summer School on Quantitative Particle Physics, Cargese, 20 Jul-1 Aug 1992. 4. O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov and A. Y. Zharkov, , Phys. Lett. B 9 3 (1980) 429-432. 5. T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, , Phys. Lett. B 4 0 0 (1997) 379-384, [hep-ph/9701390]. 6. S. A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen and J. A. M. Vermaseren, , Nucl. Phys. B438 (1995) 278-306, [hep-ph/9411260]. 7. S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev and S. A. Larin, , Phys. Lett. B 2 1 2 (1988) 238-244. 8. S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev and S. A. Larin, , Phys. Lett. B259 (1991) 144-150. 9. L. R. Surguladze and M. A. Samuel, , Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 560-563. 10. E. Braaten, S. Narison and A. Pich, , Nucl. Phys. B373 (1992) 581-612. 11. S. Bethke, , J. Phys. G26 (2000) R27, [hep-ex/0004021]. 12. T. Kinoshita, , J. Math. Phys. 3 (1962) 650-677. 13. T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, , Phys. Rev. 133 (1964) B1549-B1562.
485 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.
G. Sterman and S. Weinberg, , Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 1436. T. Sjostrand, , Comput. Phys. Commun. 82 (1994) 74-90. L. Lonnblad, , Comput. Phys. Commun. 71 (1992) 15-31. G. Marchesini et. al, , Comput. Phys. Commun. 67 (1992) 465-508. J A D E Collaboration, W. Bartel et. al, , Z. Phys. C33 (1986) 23. R. K. Ellis, D. A. Ross and A. E. Terrano, , Nucl. Phys. B178 (1981) 421. K. Fabricius, I. Schmitt, G. Kramer and G. Schierholz, , Zeit. Phys. C l l (1981) 315. Z. Kunszt, P. Nason, G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber, ,. Proceedings of the 1989 LEP Physics Workshop, Geneva, Swizterland, Feb 20, 1989, published in Lep Physics, v.l:373-453 (QCD161:L39:1989). G. Rodrigo, M. Bilenky and A. Santamaria, , Nucl. Phys. B 5 5 4 (1999) 257-297, [hep-ph/9905276]. A. Brandenburg and P. Uwer, , Nucl. Phys. B515 (1998) 279-320, [hep-ph/9708350]. P. Nason and C. Oleari, , Nucl. Phys. B521 (1998) 237-273, [hep-ph/9709360]. L. J. Dixon and A. Signer, , Phys. Rev. D 5 6 (1997) 4031-4038, [hep-ph/9706285]. Z. Nagy and Z. Trocsanyi, , Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 3604-3607, [hep-ph/9707309]. J. M. Campbell, M. A. Cullen and E. W. N. Glover, , Eur. Phys. J. C9 (1999) 245-265, [hep-ph/9809429]. S. Weinzierl and D. A. Kosower, , Phys. Rev. D 6 0 (1999) 054028, [hep-ph/9901277]. OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et. al, , Eur. Phys. J. C20 (2001) 601-615, [hep-ex/0101044]. A L E P H Collaboration, ,. ALEPH 2001-042, CONF 2001-026, July 5, 2001, contributed paper to this conference. S. Catani, G. Turnock, B. R. Webber and L. Trentadue, , Phys. Lett. B 2 6 3 (1991) 491-497. S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Turnock and B. R. Webber, , Phys. Lett. B269 (1991) 432-438. S. Catani, L. Trentadue, G. Turnock and B. R. Webber, , Nucl. Phys. B 4 0 7 (1993) 3-42. Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber, , Nucl. Phys. B469 (1996) 93-142, [hep-ph/9512336]. P. A. Movilla Fernandez, S. Bethke, O. Biebel and S. Kluth, , hep-ex/0105059. D E L P H I Collaboration, P. Abreu et. al, , Z. Phys. C54 (1992) 55-74. G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, , Nucl. Phys. B126 (1977) 298. G. Curci, W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, , Nucl. Phys. B175 (1980) 27. W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, , Phys. Lett. B97 (1980) 437. R. K. Ellis, H. Georgi, M. Machacek, H. D. Politzer and G. G. Ross, , Phys. Lett. B 7 8 (1978) 281. W. L. van Neerven and A. Vogt, , Phys. Lett. B490 (2000) 111-118, [hep-ph/0007362]. S. A. Larin, P. Nogueira, T. van Ritbergen and J. A. M. Vermaseren, , Nucl. Phys. B492 (1997) 338-378, [hep-ph/9605317].
486 43. A. Retey and J. A. M. Vermaseren, , Nud. Phys. B 6 0 4 (2001) 281-311, [hep-ph/ 0007294]. 44. S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and M. Zhou, , hep-ph/0108033. 45. M. L. Mangano, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, , Nud. Phys. B 3 7 3 (1992) 295-345. 46. G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis and G. Martinelli, , Nud. Phys. B 1 4 3 (1978) 521. 47. G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis and G. Martinelli, , Nud. Phys. B 1 5 7 (1979) 461. 48. J. Kubar-Andre and F. E. Paige, , Phys. Rev. D 1 9 (1979) 221. 49. W. W, Lindsay, D. A. Ross and C. T. Sachrajda, , Nud. Phys. B 2 2 2 (1983) 189. 50. W. W. Lindsay, D. A. Ross and C. T. Sachrajda, , Nud. Phys. B 2 1 4 (1983) 61. 51. W. W. Lindsay, D. A. Ross and C. T. Sachrajda, , Phys. Lett. B 1 1 7 (1982) 105. 52. J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. Sterman, , Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5 (1989) 1-91. 53. J. H. Kim et. al, , Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 3595-3598, [http: / / a r X i v . org/abs/hep-ex/9808015]. 54. S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren, , Phys. Lett. B259 (1991) 345-352. 55. C C F R Collaboration, W. G. Seligman et. al, , http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9701017. 56. A. L. Kataev, G. Parente and A. V. Sidorov, , Nud. Phys. B 5 7 3 (2000) 405-433, [hep-ph/9905310]. 57. J. Santiago and F. J. Yndurain, , Nud. Phys. B563 (1999) 45-62, [hep-ph/9904344]. 58. A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling and R. S. Thorne, , Eur. Phys. J. C4 (1998) 463-496, [http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9803445]. 59. R. K. Ellis and W. G. Scott, , Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 4 (1989) 131-175. 60. DO Collaboration, B. Abbott et. al., , Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 1707-1712, [hep-ex/0011036]. 61. W. T. Giele, E. W. N. Glover and D. A. Kosower, , Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 2019-2022, [hep-ph/9403347]. 62. H. L. Lai et. al., , Phys. Rev. D 5 5 (1997) 1280-1296, [hep-ph/9606399]. 63. C D F Collaboration, T. Affolder et. al., , Phys. Rev. D 6 4 (2001) 012001, [hep-ex/0012013]. 64. C D F Collaboration, T. Affolder et. al, , Phys. Rev. D 6 4 (2001) 032001, [hep-ph/0102074]. 65. R. Hamberg, W. L. van Neerven and T. Matsuura, , Nud. Phys. B359 (1991) 343-405. 66. W. L. van Neerven and E. B. Zijlstra, , Nud. Phys. B 3 8 2 (1992) 11-62. 67. C D F a n d DO Collaboration, F. Lehner, ,. To be published in the proceedings of 4th Rencontres du Vietnam: International Conference on Physics at Extreme Energies (Particle Physics and Astrophysics), Hanoi, Vietnam, 19-25 Jul 2000. 68. S. Frixione, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, Heavy Flavours II, pp. 609 - 706. World Scientific, 1998. hep-ph/9702287. 69. R. Bonciani, S. Catani, M. L. Mangano and P. Nason, , Nud. Phys. B529 (1998) 424-450, [hep-ph/9801375].
HIGH E N E R G Y COSMIC RAYS
RONALD CINTRA SHELLARD Centra Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rua Dr. Xavier Sigaud 150, 22290-180, Rio de Janeiro, RJ,
Brasil
Departamento de Fisica, Pontificia Universidade Catolica, Rua Mq. Sao Vicente 225, 22451-041, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil E-mail: [email protected]
We review the status of the ultrahigh energy cosmic rays studies, discussing the mechanisms for their production and propagation through space. We look into the strategy to measure those events and describe then a new observatory, which is in construction, to observe those particles, the Pierre Auger Observatory.
1. Historical Introduction The existence of cosmic rays with energies above 1020 eV offers a puzzling problem in high energy astrophysics. The first event of this class of phenomena was observed at the beginning of the 60's by John Lindsay at the Volcano Ranch experiment, in New Mexico 1 ' 2 . Since then, many events were detected, at different sites, using quite distinct techniques 3 ' 4 ' 5,6 ' 7 . If those cosmic rays are common matter, that is, protons, nuclei or even photons, they undergo well known nuclear and electromagnetic processes, during their propagation through space. Their energies are degraded by the interaction with the Cosmic Radiation Background (CMB), way before they reached the Earth 8 ' 9 . After travelling distances of the order of 50 Mpc, their energies should be under 10 20 eV, thus restricting the possible conventional astrophysical objects, which could be sources of them, and those should be easily localized through astronomical instruments. On the other hand, explaining the acceleration of charge particles, on known astrophysical objects, by mean of electromagnetical forces up to energies of 3 x 1020 eV, or even greater, the only ones capable of long range and long periods acceleration, is very difficult. We will discuss in this paper the possible sources for the ultra high energy cosmic rays (uhecr), confronting what one may call conventional or bottomup mechanisms, which attempts to explain the the ultra high energy cosmic rays through the acceleration of charged particles by electromagnetical forces
487
488 in astrophysical objects, to the top-down scenario which invoke new physical process, that is, new particles and forces of nature to explain them. We discuss the techniques for the detection of the uhecr and their limitations and describe the status of the Pierre Auger Observatory, which is being build in Argentina, the largest project at this moment aimed at solving this puzzle. There are excellent reviews on this subject published recently and we urge the reader to go to them for more details 10 - 11 ' 12 ' 13 ' 14 - 15 . 2. The Spectrum of Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays The cosmic ray spectrum, measured at the top of the atmosphere (see figure 1) covers a huge range in energy, going from 10 MeV to energies above 10 20 eV, with a differential flux that spans 31 decades. The techniques to survey this spectrum goes from instruments aboard satellites flights, balloons borne detectors, to counters that monitors the fluxes of neutrons and muons at the Earth surface, and at higher energies to wide area arrays of particle detectors. The spectrum can be divided into four regions with very distinct behavior (see figure 1). The first one, with energies below 1 GeV, have a very distinctive character from the rest of it. Its shape and cut-off is strongly dependent on the phase of the solar cycle, a phenomenon known as solar modulation. Actually, there is an inverse correlation between the intensity of cosmic rays at the top of the atmosphere and the level of the solar activity 16 ' 17 . The region above 1 GeV show a spectrum with a power law dependence, N(E)dE = KE~xdE, where the spectral index x varies as 2.7 < x < 3.2. The region between 1 GeV and the knee region at 4 x 10 15 eV, is characterized by an index x ~ 2.7. These cosmic rays most likely are produced at supernova explosions, its signature being in their chemical composition. When compared with the chemical composition of the solar system, that of the cosmic rays show some striking differences18'19, offering some clue to their origin. The elements carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and those from the iron group have the same relative abundance in the solar system and in the cosmic rays. They are the primary products of supernova explosions. There is a relative excess in the light elements lithium, beryllium and boron, as for those with atomic numbers just below iron. This excess is produced by the nuclear interaction of the primary nuclei, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and other elements including iron, and the atoms and molecules of the interstellar gas, a process known as spallation. The detailed study of the chemical composition of the cosmic rays offer a window to understand the the gas distribution within the galaxy. At the knee (4 x 10 15 eV) the power law index steepens to 3.2 until the so called ankle, at 5 x 10 18 eV. The origin of the cosmic rays in this region is unclear
489 10 4 Fluxes of Cosmic Rays
(1 particle per m 2 -second)
'V
Knee \
0 particle per m*-year)
Ankle (1 particle per km 2 -year)
1
^
^
"^
J
IIIIIMJ
J
lllllllj
I I 111 J
Energy (eV)
Figure 1. The cosmic ray spectrum measured at the top of the atmosphere. Above the energy of 10 9 eV the spectrum shows a power-law behavior. There is a change in slope at the knee (4 x 10 1 5 eV) and at the ankle (5 x 10 1 8 eV). The integrated flux above the ankle is about 1 cosmic ray per km 2 year (data compiled by J. Swordy).
and subject of much conjecture. Above the ankle the spectrum flattens again to an index x ~ 2.8 and this is interpreted by many authors as a cross over from the steeper galactic component to a harder extra galactic source for the cosmic rays 11 ' 13 . We will focus, in this summary, on the cosmic rays with energies above 1019 eV. We show in figure 2, this end of the spectrum, scaled by E 3 , as seen by the experiments, which use different techniques to measure them (figure from 1 2 ). From this class of events one can pick up at least a dozen with energies which exceeds 10 20 eV. An energy of 102° eV corresponds to the classical energy of 16 J, concentrated on a single particle. To have an insight of its meaning, the 100 km or
490
Fluxes of Cosmic Roys
(1 particle per m ' - s e c o n d )
Knee (1 particle per m1—year)
Figure 2. The high energy end of the cosmic ray spectrum measured by different techniques. There is a hint of a second knee at 6 x 10 1 7 eV (from reference 1 2 ) .
so of atmosphere is Lorentz contracted to less than a micron, from the point of view of a particle like this. At this energy, if was a neutron, it would have a decay length of about 860 kpc, allowing it to cover more than ten times the distance from the Center of the Galaxy to the Earth. Actually, if neutrons would be emitted, at these energies, in our neighboring galaxy Andromeda, a substantial amount of them would survive crossing the void to the Milky Way.
3. The Propagation of Cosmic Rays through Space There are two scenarios for the production of the ultra high energy cosmic rays. They are produced either by action of electromagnetic forces, bringing charged particles from rest to their final energies or through the decay of some very heavy exotic object still unknown to us. Protons lose their energy through pion photoproduction reactions with the cosmic microwave background (CMB), leading to an effective cutoff on the distances they can travel, at energies above 5 x 1019 eV. The role of this reaction, 7 + p ->• A(1236) -5- -K + N, was recognized by Greisen, Zatsepin and Kuzmin (GKZ cutoff) 8 ' 9 . The gammas interact with background photons from the CMB, or with infrared or radio waves, leading to similar cutoffs at lower energies. Neutrinos are
491
only known particles capable of crossing the CMB haze, up to cosmological distances, without degrading its energy. We show in figure 3 the degradation in energy of protons with different initial energies as they cross the 2.7 K cosmic
)
i
10°
Figure 3.
i
,
•
•
• •
i
,
i
101 102 103 P r o p a g a t i o n D i s t a n c e (Mpc)
,
i
104
The energy attenuation of particle as the cross the cosmic background radiation
CMB20.
microwave background. The high energy photons crossing the intergalactic space collide with the infrared, optical, CMB and radio waves, producing e + e~ pairs. This is shown in figure 4, where it can be seen that above 3 x 1012 eV their attenuation length is below 100 Mpc, making the Universe quite opaque to energetic photons. Electrons and positrons cannot survive to far at very high energy, they will very quickly radiate their energy away in electromagnetic cascades.
4. The Accelerations Mechanisms There are at least two mechanisms for the acceleration of particles up to high energies. They either undergo a one shot process, in a large distance coherent field, such as those nearby highly magnetized neutron stars or the region of the accretion disks of black holes, or they could be accelerated to very high energies, by large scale shock waves with a turbulent flow of electromagnetic fields, in a sort of cosmic pinball machine. These shock waves travel at speeds
492 5
^
i
i
1^1
i
i
i
i
i
i
*
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
*
i
proton photopion 4
3
O.
2
a o
g w s
1
2 ao o
0
photon+radio
-1 photon+CMBR -2
-3
_l
10
I
I
I
12
I
I
I
14
I
L
I I 1 ' I I I ' I ' I I I
16
18
20
22
24
log10 E (eV) Figure 4. The attenuation length for photons. The upper line (red shift limit) is the distance limit due to the age of the Universe.
close to that of the light. The maximum energy, that can be archived by particles accelerated by these large scale fields, is limited by the requirement that the gyroradius of the particle must be contained in the acceleration region. Thus, &max
— ZeBL
,
where Ze is the charge of the particle, B the magnetic field characteristic of the region and L the length of coherence of the magnetic fields. The diagram in figure 5 shows the typical scales for the dimensions and the magnetic fields of the possible astrophysical sources for the ultra high energy cosmic rays 21 . Prom the Hillas diagram one may identify some astrophysical sources: Neutron stars: Neutron stars are capable of accelerating ultra high energy cosmic rays 14 , however this mechanism is limited by the synchrotron losses that even protons will suffer in small regions.
493
3
6
?9
12"" < IS
*
18 4'
31
l o g ( s i s « , km) Figure 5. Hillas 2 1 ).
Size of astronomical objects versus their typical magnetic field (from A. H.
Active galactic nuclei (AGN): The cosmic rays can be accelerated in AGN, either at the central region or at their radio lobes. At the central regions of the AGN there are powerful engines that give rise to jets and the radio lobes. They are supermassive black holes sipping matter in accretion disks. These black holes beam jets, which create hot spots within the galaxies, as their hit large clouds of gas in the galaxy. It is estimated that the most powerful will accelerate particles above the GKZ cutoff via the first order Fermi mechanism 22 ' 23,24,25 . Here again the most severe limitation to the power of this accelerator comes from the sources of losses due to intense radiation present at the AGNs. Cluster of galaxies: Cluster shocks could be the sites for cosmic rays acceleration, since the accelerated particles can be contained within the cluster. However, the losses due to photopion production during the propagation inside
494 the cluster region limits the energy which can be achieved, to values at most ofl019eV26. Gamma ray bursts: There is speculation that the sources of the high energy transient phenomena, know as gamma ray bursts, and the high energy cosmic rays may be the same 27,28 ' 29 . The gamma ray bursts are distributed isotropically in the sky, however their high frequency argues against a common origin, if they are to be produced within the GKZ bounds 30 . 5. The Decay of Exotic Objects The alternative to the acceleration scenario, or the bottom-up scenario, is to introduce new kind of meta-stable superheavy particles, say the Z particles. This particles, if they exist, must decay into common matter, made of quarks and leptons. There are a few constraints on the nature of these particles: a) their mass must be larger than the highest energy measured in cosmic rays, larger than 3 x 1020 eV. Particles associated to Grand Unified Theories (GUT), in the range of 1024 to 10 25 eV, are natural candidates for those particles; b) the decay should have happened within the region of 100 Mpc radius, so that the charged particles can reach the Earth; c) their production rate density must be compatible with the observed flux of ultra high energy cosmic rays. At least two classes of production mechanism have been discussed in the literature 14 : Ripples in space-time: The annihilation of topological defects were the first mechanisms to be proposed as possible sources of ultra high energy cosmic rays 31 ' 32 ' 33 . The defects are created at the end of the inflationary period and survive until they collapse or annihilate. The decay products are jets of hadrons, mostly pions. They have a predominance of 7-rays and neutrinos and a QCD fragmentation spectrum which is harder than in the case of shock acceleration. There are many proposals that come under the heading of topological defects, like monopoles 34,35 , cosmic strings 36 ' 37 , vortons 38 ' 39 , necklaces of strings and monopoles 34 ' 40 , to name a few. Super heavy archeological particles: The possibility that the UHECR are the products of the decays of supermassive metastable dark matter which would populate the galactic halo, was put forward some time ago 41 ' 42 ' 43 . They would lead to a nearly isotropic distribution of UHECR. Supermassive bound states from string hidden sectors, the cryptons are motivated by string M-theories 44 . In this class of theories there are proposals inspired by supersymmetry 45 , that invoke new stable particles which do not interact with matter and have a high energy threshold in the interaction with the background radiation. As a more radical solution to evade the GKZ limit suggests the possibility that Lorentz invariance could be broken 46 .
495
6. Cosmic R a y D e t e c t o r s The ultra high energy cosmic rays hit the air molecules starting an extensive air shower as the fragments of the first collision hit other nuclei, producing cascades of pions. The neutral pions start an electromagnetic shower of photons, electrons and positrons. The charged ones will strike other atoms or decay into muons and neutrinos or eventually survive until the ground. The extensive air shower can be imagined as a very thin pancake of particles, gammas, electrons, positrons, muons and some hadronic matter, crossing the atmosphere at the speed of light. The atmosphere works as a giant calorimeter, were the Moliere radius is of the order of 76 m, in contrast to the few cm which it is in lead. The core of the disk has a high density of particles which then falls sharply as one get away from it. For cosmic rays at 1020 eV, the lateral density of particles can be, still, above one charged particle per square meter at distances of a few kilometers from the core of the shower. As a rule of thumb one may say that in the shower, for every muon, there is 10 electrons or positrons and about 100 photons. The measurements of the ultra high energy cosmic rays have to determine their direction of arrival, which is reasonably easy to do, their energy, which is moderately easy to achieve and, their chemical composition, which is very difficult. To measure the cosmic rays one may take a snapshot of the cross section of the shower, as it hits the ground. However, as the flux is very low, one has to expose an extensive area, which runs into the hundreds of square kilometers at present to thousands of square kilometers in the next generation of experiments (see below). A typical arrangement consists of measuring stations, with an exposure area of a few square meters, which is sensitive to the amount of particles that transverses it. The stations are spread over a large areas, with a separation between them dependent on the threshold of energy one wants to set in the array. The footprint of a typical 1019 eV shower is about 10 km 2 , so that a separation of 1.5 km between the stations will activate about 10 stations, allowing for a good direction reconstruction. The separation between stations vary among the surface arrays, but are typically on the range between a few hundred meters and a little above 1.5 km. The angular resolution in this sort of array is better than 3°. The detector stations in this class of arrays are either scintillation counters or Cerenkov detectors. Some arrangements use buried scintillation counters to identify the muonic component of a shower. The energy of the shower is identified by the density of charged particles in a ring, at a large distance from the core, typically about 600 m 47 . The correlation between this density and the primary energy is inferred from shower
496
simulation and is quite independent of the primary composition. The identification of the primary chemical composition using surface arrays is difficult, for it relies on subtle differences on the muonic radial distribution in relation to the electromagnetic component of the shower 48 ' 49 . The other technique which has been used to measure the ultra high energy cosmic rays, make use of the light emitted by the fluorescence of the excited nitrogen atoms and molecules along the path of the shower. This light, emitted mostly in the UV region, with wavelength between 300 and 400 nm, can be collected by telescopes standing far away. The yield of photons varies very little with the altitude, about 4.6 photons per meter of electron track of the shower. The intensity of their emission is proportional to the total number of electrons tracks at each stage of the shower, giving a longitudinal profile measurement of the shower development (figure 6). This allows for a direct and more precise measurement of the energy of the shower, without dependence on theoretical models for showers. The direction of the shower is extracted from a geometrical reconstruction of the evolution of the signal. The depth of the
1000 1200 Depth in 9/cm 3
Figure 6.
Longitudinal profile of the Fly's Eye event with energy 3 x 10 2 0 eV (from reference
50\
shower maximum (defined in g/cm 2 ), for a given energy is dependent on the primary composition, so in experiments, if the resolution is sufficiently fine, the measurement of Xmax, the position of maximum development of the shower,
497
will be a discriminator of the nature of the primary cosmic ray. However, fluorescence detectors can only operated in the evenings, when the sky is clear and moonless, which amounts to a 10% duty cycle during the year.
7. The Pierre Auger Observatory The Pierre Auger Observatory was set to focus the region of energies higher than 1019 eV. It is designed to measure very accurately the incoming direction of the cosmic rays and their energy, with an increase in statistics of at least an order of magnitude when compared with any previous detector. It will have, when completed a full sky coverage, with a site in the Southern and another in the Northern Hemisphere. The observatory uses an hybrid technique, combining a ground array, a set of water tanks measuring Cerenkov radiation, with fluorescence light detectors overseeing the entire site.
7.1. The Southern
Site
The location of the Southern site was chosen in 1995, during the first meeting of the Pierre Auger collaboration, which took place at UNESCO, in Paris. Locations at Argentina, Australia and South Africa where visited and analysed by members of the collaboration and a final decision on a location in the Province of Mendoza, in Argentina was chosen51. The Southern site, nearby the city of Malargiie, is set on a very fiat area, larger than 3 000 km 2 at 1400 m above sea level (see map at figure 7). The stations of the ground array for shower detection are set in a triangular grid, with 1.5 km separation between them. This grid spacing is designed to trigger and collect enough information on shower with energies above 1019 eV. This spacing drives also the exposure area of each station. At 1000 m from the core of a shower of 1019 eV the muon density is typically of the order of one particle/m 2 , leading to the design parameter of 102 of exposure area. One of the interesting capabilities of the Auger observatory is its sensitivity to ultra high energy neutrinos 52 . The Earth is opaque to UHE neutrinos 53 , however, they will interact deeply in the atmosphere, in contrast to hadrons or electromagnetic particles. The neutrinos have a small cross section with the matter in the atmosphere, so it has a homogeneous probability to interact at any point of it. The electromagnetic component of the normal showers, with are generated in the atmosphere, are suppressed sharply at slant depths which correspond to zenithal angles of about 60° 5 4 . The estimate of the acceptance of a single eye Fluorescence Detector for the Auger Observatory is shown in fig-8.
498
A '• .ia
\.,.....,,.s [•""
,..l
i.v.i
,
:. v . '..':.-.•:.•,':>,
i.v.-u .towv -•"v"'r"'
: i
- • * " - '
*•
'"
• * »
;
:r-r.
«.
ft^.i
.
""-•• ''.r'-'"&-.-•'" .»i-:--.'
*<*•'*?$ /'.•' . \
"•'
::i;.
; . :• .:..', s
»j&7" ;J«. A»VVI-*.,
• -»
••
x
' "^
r* :
;
" • • ••.- . -
*,VI-
\
•
•
" 4 :'.-:•:.'
r
' y
•' • * ' r - ' . ' , "
*•••*-?.
-
• . . ' . :
Figure 7. Detailed map of the Southern site, near the city of Malargfie (at the southwest cornci of the site polygon). Each dot represents a Cerenkov tank.
7.2. The Surface
Detector
Each station is a cylindrical tank, filled with 12 000 1 of purified water, operating as a Cerenkov light detector. The tanks are manufactured using a rotationally molded technique and made of high density polyethylene, with 12.7 mm thick walls, opaque to external light. The water is contained inside the tank in a liner, a bag made of a sandwich of polyethilene-Tyvek film. The Tyvek film has a high reflectivity to ultraviolet light and its role is to diffuse the UV Cerenkov light within the bag. The light is collected by three 20.3 cm diameter photomultiplier tubes, set in a symmetric pattern on top of the tanks. Each detector is insulated from direct contact with water with a transparent window connecting it to the water environment. The electronics for the detectors are housed in a box outside the tanks and communicate with the central station through a radio WLAN, operating at 915 MHz band. The stations are powered by solar panels and batteries. The time synchronization of the tanks is based on a GPS system, capable of a time
499
- - - - - - >70° - A — >80° 1 H
1 18.0
.
1 18.5
•
1 19.0
•
1 19.5
1
1 20.0
1
Energy (eV)
Figure 8. The neutrino acceptance of the fluorescence detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory. (From reference 5 2 ) .
alignment precision of about 10 ns. Each detector station has a two level trigger, a hardware implemented T l and a software T2. The trigger rate at each station is set to be below 20 Hz, not to saturate the radio bandwidth available. The event trigger (T3) is set at the Central Station combining the triggers of contiguos individual stations. The requirement of the number of stations triggered set the lower energy treshold. Typically, four stations are required for a treshold of 1019 eV. 7.3. The Fluorescence
Detector
The Fluorescence Detector (FD) is composed of 5 eyes in 4 locations. Each eye covers an angle of 180° in azimuth and 30° elevation from the horizon. Three of the eyes are in the periphery of the site, looking inwards, while the other two are at the same location, near the center of the surface array, actually covering an angle of 360°. The first peripheral eye, already built, can be located in the map on figure 7, at the lowest edge of ther array site, at the Cerro Los Leones. We show a picture of this building in figure 10. The windows where the telescopes are located are still sealed in this picture. The other two peripheral eyes are located at the Cerro Coiheco, at the northwestern corner of the site in figure 7, and at Cerro Los Morados in the eastern part of the array.
500
Conm anient m •SPS rmlctma Solar panel cuid ckctronic box
I V e e 8" PM Tubes
Battnry box
Pblyvtfiylaw tank
B. :> >«•$. ' S ^ ^ S i
Whits light diffusing time
12 m'of dc-ionized vjotei
Figure 9. A schematic view of the Cerenkov water tanks, with the components indicated in the igure.
Figure 10. The building of the Fluorescence detector at Los Leones. Each window holds a bay for a telescope. One of the communication towers can be seen at the back of the building.
Each eye has six independent telescopes, with a field of view of 30° x 30°. The fluorescence light is collected by a mirror with a radius of 3.4 m and
501
reflected into a camera, located at the focal surface of the mirror. A schematic view of a telescope is shown at figure 11. The telescopes use a Schmidt optics design to avoid coma aberration, with a diaphragm, at the center of curvature of the mirror, with an external radius of 0.85 m. The advantage of this scheme is to project a point of light in the sky into a reasonably homogeneous spot, at the focal surface, of 0.25° radius. The shape of the telescope mirror is a square with rounded corners of 3.8 x 3.8 m. The radius of the diaphragm can be enlarged to a radius of 1.1 m, by adding a corrector lense annulus at the area with radius between 0.85 m and 1.1 m 58 (see figure 12).
a)
b)
Figure 11. a) Schematic view of the fluorescence telescope. The camera is house at the spherical surface with a radius half of that of the telescope mirror. The light entry is limited by a diaphragm to avoid coma aberration, b) The spot projected in a single pixel by a point of light in the sky. The photons are spread almost homogeneously in the spot.
The camera, which has an area of one square meter, is composed of 440 pixels, each a hexagonal photomultiplier, which monitors a solid angle of (1.5°) 2 projected into the sky. The dead spaces between the photomultipliers is corrected by a device, called the Mercedes corrector56. The operation of the FD is limited to clear nights, with very little moonlight, which in effect, mean a duty cycle a little bit over 10% of the overall running time of the experiment. The SD operates at all times during the year. The electronics of the FD detector was designed to be operated remotely and with flexibility to reprogram the trigger to accomodate non-standard physical processes which may showup. To be able to operate in hybrid mode the absolute time alignment with the Cerenkov water detector must be better than 120 ns. The trigger for each pixel is programmed to have a rate bellow 100 Hz, while a special processor, with a built-in pattern recognition algorithim, keeps
502
•,*}?'•
• ' *.-!,<(*'"
-A
•
-,-*•
•Vr
Figure 12. View of the camera and the diaphragm with the corrector lenses.
l-'Ai'*
• .A
AT-
Figure 13. a) View of the camera from the light entering side. The Mercedes light collectors can be seen as a grid on the front, b) View of the telescope installed in Los Leones. The mirror is split in half, with two mirror techniques options being tested.
the overall trigger rate below 0.1 Hz. An event is triggered whenever a set of 5 contiguous pixels are triggered with a time sequence associated. The pixels are sampled and the signal digitized at every 100 ns. The hybrid mode operation offers a way to cross-calibrate the detectors and improves the energy and angular resolution of the observatory. For showers
503
with energies above 1019 eV (10 EeV), the triggering efficiency is above 90%, while it reaches virtually 100% at 100 EeV. The energy resolution for showers of 10 EeV is estimated to be around 30% for the SD operating alone, improving to better than 20% for the hybrid mode of operation. At 100 EeV the resolution is improved quite a lot, to 15% and 10% respectively. As for the angular resolution at 100 EeV, it is estimated to be 1° for operation with the surface detector alone, but goes down to 0.20° for the hybrid mode. The statistics for the 100 EeV cosmic rays is expected to increase ten-fold in relation to the number of showers measured up to date, in just one year of full operation of the Observatory. 7.4. Engineering
Array
During the year 2001, the first stage of the construction of the Pierre Auger Observatory will be completed. That is the so called Engineering Array (EA) phase. The team working at the site have already laid 40 Cerenkov tanks, set in a hexagonal array, covering an area of 54 km 2 , with two of the tanks, at the center of the array, laying side by side, in order to cross calibrated their signals. This ground array is overlooked by two telescopes sitting on top of the hill of Los Leones, 60 m above the plan of the array. At the moment of writing, the electronics of the tanks are being mounted and before the end of 2001, the whole EA will be operational. The campus in the city of Malargiie is already complete, with a assembly plant for the preparation of the tanks for deployment, water purification and a machine shop for electronics, which is shown in figure 14. The office building which houses the Central Station and offices for the scientists working at the site was inaugurated and is shown in figure 15. 8. Summary and Conclusions We have given a brief review of the current status of research in the field of ultra high energy cosmic rays. The existence of cosmic rays with energy that exceeds 1020 eV is confirmed by experiments using different techniques. These cosmic rays challenge conventional explanations for their production and propagation through space. Acceleration mechanisms, which invoke electromagnetic fields for this, associated to astrophysical objects, do not offer a compelling explanation for the production of these extreme energies particles. On the other hand, the top-down mechanisms appeal to new particles, not yet observed, implying new kinds of physical laws. There is an observatory, now in construction, the Pierre Auger Observatory, which will address these problems, pushing the sensitivity of detectors to higher energies and adding at
504
Figure 14. The Assembly plant of the Observatory used to prepare the tanks for deployment. The water proccessing plant can be seen at the back of the building.
«*^}\&£e
Figure 15. The Central offices building. The large windows room at the top floor is the control center of the Observatory.
least two order of magnitude to statistics of existing events. The first site of this observatory, being built in the Southern Hemisphere, will be particularly sensitive to any peculiar activity associated to the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The construction of the southern observatory is on schedule and has already started taking data (middle of the year 2001).
505
References 1. J. Lindsay, Phys. Rev. Lett, 10, 146 (1963). 2. J. Lindsay, "Proc. 8th International Cosmic Ray Conference", volume 4, page 295 (1963). 3. M. A. Lawrence, R. J. O. Reid and A. A. Watson, J. Phys. G17, 733 (1991). 4. D. J. Bird et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3401 (1993). 5. M. Takeda et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1163 (1998). 6. N. N. Efimov et al, "Proc. Intl. Symp. on Astrophysical Aspects of the Most Energetic Cosmics Rays", M. Nagano and F. Takahara,eds., World Scientific, Singapore (1991). Page 20. 7. S. Yoshida, H. Dai, C. C. H. Jui and P. Sommers, Astrophys. J. 479, 547 (1997). 8. K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748 (1966). 9. G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin, Sov. Phys. JETP Lett. 4, 78 (1966). 10. T. K. Gaisser, F. Halzen and T. Stanev, Phys. Rep. 258, 173 (1995). 11. J. W. Cronin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S165 (1999). 12. M. Nagano and A. A. Watson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 689 (2000). 13. A. V. Olinto, Phys. Rep. 3 3 3 - 3 3 4 , 329 (2000). 14. P. Bhattacharjee and G. Sigl, Phys. Rep. 327, 109 (2000). 15. A. Letessier-Selvon, "Theoretical and Experimental Topics on Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays", astro-ph/0006111 (2000). 16. Malcom S. Longair, High Energy Astrophysics, Vol. 1: "Particles, photons and their detection", Volume 1, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition (1992). 17. M. A. Shea and D. F. Smart, "19th International Cosmic Rays Conference", Volume 4, La Jolla, USA (1985). page 501. 18. J. A. Simpson, Ann. Rev. Astr. and Astrophys. 33, 323 (1983). 19. J. P. Meyer, "19th International Cosmic Rays Conference", Volume 9, La Jolla, USA (1985). page 141. 20. J. W. Cronin, Nucl. Phys. Supp. B 28, 213 (1992). 21. A. M. Hillas, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 22, 425 (1984). 22. P. L. Biermann and P. Strittmatter, Astropart. Phys. 322, 643 (1987). 23. J. P. Rachen and P. L. Biermann, Astron. Astrophys. 272, 161 (1993). 24. P. L. Biermann, J.Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 23, 1 (1997). 25. P. Blasi and A. V. Olinto, Phys. Rev. D59, 023001 (1999). 26. D. Ryu, H. Kang and T. W. Jones, Astropart. Phys. MNRAS 286, 257 (1997). 27. E. Waxman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 386 (1995). 28. E. Waxman, Astrophys. J. 452, LI (1995). 29. M. Vietri, Astrophys. J. 453, 883 (1995). 30. F. W. Stecker, Astropart. Phys. 14, 207 (2000). 31. C. T. Hill, Nucl. Phys. B224, 469 (1983). 32. C. T. Hill and D. N. Schramm, Phys. Lett. B 1 3 1 , 247 (1983). 33. C. T. Hill, D. N. Schramm and T. P. Walker, Phys. Rev. D36, 1007 (1987). 34. V. Berezinsky and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5202 (1997). 35. C. O. Escobar and R. Vazquez, Astropart. Phys. 10, 197 (1999). 36. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 1169 (1981). 37. H. J. M. Cuesta and D. M. Gonzalez, Phys. Lett. B500, 215 (2001). 38. P. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Rev D40, 3968 (1989).
506 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.
53. 54. 55. 56.
L. Masperi and G. Silva, Astropart. Phys. 8, 173 (2000). J. J. Blanco-Pillado and K. D. Olum, Phys. Rev. D60, 083001 (1999). J. Ellis, T. K. Gaisser and G. Steigman. Nucl. Phys. B177, 427 (1981). J. Ellis, G. B. Gelmini, J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos and S. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. B373, 399 (1992). G. A. Medina-Tanco and A. A. Watson, Astropart. Phys. 12, 25 (1999). J. Ellis, J. L. Lopez and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B247, 257 (1990). G. R. Farrar and P. L. Biermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3579 (1998). S. Coleman and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D59, 116008 (1999). A. M. Hillas, Acta Phys. Acad. Sci. Hung. 29 (Suppl 3), 355 (1970). R. Walker and A. A. Watson, J. Phys. G 7 , 1297 (1981). R. Walker and A. A. Watson, J. Phys. G 8 , 1131 (1982). D. J. Bird et al, Astrophys. J. 441, 144 (1995). Auger Collaboration, "The Pierre Auger Observatory Design Report", 2 ed., Auger Note, Fermilab, Batavia (1999). R. C. Shellard, J. C. Diaz and M. G. Amaral, "The acceptance of fluorescence detectors for quasi horizontal showers induced by weakly interacting particles", Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Supp. 97, 247 (2001). R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev. D58, 093009 (1998). A. N. Cillis and S. Sciutto, "Extended air showers and muon interactions", Phys. Rev. D64, 013010 (2001). Max Born and Emil Wolf, "Principles of Optics", Volume 1, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 7 t h edition (1999). C. Aramo, F. Bracci and G. Gallo et al, "The Camera of the Auger Fluorescence Detector", Auger Note GAP-99-027 (1999).
B R A N E SOLUTIONS I N S U P E R G R A V I T Y
K. S. STELLE The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, UK
This review covers p-brane solutions to supergravity theories, by which we shall mean solutions whose lowest energy configuration, in a class determined by asymptotic boundary conditions, contains a (p + l)-dimensional Poincare-invariant "worldvolume" submanifold. The most important such solutions also possess partially unbroken supersymmetry, i.e. they saturate Bogomorny-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) bounds on their energy densities with respect to the p-form charges that they carry. These charges also appear in the supersymmetry algebra and determine the BPS bounds. Topics covered include the relations between mass densities, charge densities and the preservation of unbroken supersymmetry; interpolating-soliton structure; K-symmetric worldvolume actions; diagonal and vertical Kaluza-Klein reductions; the four elementary solutions of D — 11 supergravity and the multiplecharge solutions derived from combinations of them; duality-symmetry multiplets; charge quantization; low-velocity scattering and the geometry of worldvolume supersymmetric (r-models; and the target-space geometry of BPS instanton solutions obtained by dimensional reduction of static p-branes.
1. Introduction Let us begin from the bosonic sector of D = 11 supergravity, 1
in = J dnx | v ^ (R - ^if 4 ] ) + \FW A F[4] A A[3] J .
(1.1)
In addition to the metric, one has a 3-form antisymmetric-tensor gauge potential ;4[3] with a gauge transformation 8A[3] = dA[2] and a field strength F[4] = cL4[3]. The third term in the Lagrangian is invariant under the A[3] gauge transformation only up to a total derivative, so the action (1.1) is invariant under gauge transformations that are continuously connected to the identity. This term is required, with the coefficient given in (1.1), by the D = 11 local supersymmetry that is required of the theory when the gravitino-dependent sector is included. The equation of motion for the A^ gauge potential is d*F[4] + -F[4] A F[4] = 0 ;
507
(1.2)
508
this equation of motion gives rise to the conservation of an "electric" type charge 2 u=
L
(*FW+IAWAFW)
(L3)
'
where the integral of the 7-form integrand is over the boundary at infinity of an arbitrary infinite spacelike 8-dimensional subspace of D = 11 spacetime. Another conserved charge relies on the Bianchi identity
(1-4)
JdMs
where the surface integral is now taken over the boundary at infinity of a spacelike 5-dimensional subspace. Charges such as (1.3),(1.4) can occur on the right-hand side of the supersymmetry algebra,3, 3 {Q, Q} = C (TAPA + TABUAB + TABCDEVABCDE)
,
(1.5)
where C is the charge conjugation matrix, PA is the energy-momentum 11vector and UAB and VABCDE are 2-form and 5-form charges that we shall find to be related to the charges U and V (1.3),(1.4) above. Note that since the supercharge Q in D = 11 supergravity is a 32-component Majorana spinor, the LHS of (1.5) has 528 components. The symmetric spinor matrices CTA, CTAB and CTABCDE on the RHS of (1.5) also have a total of 528 independent components: 11 for the momentum PA, 55 for the "electric" charge UAB and 462 for the "magnetic" charge VABCDE. Now the question arises as to the relation between the charges U and V in (1.3),(1.4) and the 2-form and 5-form charges appearing in (1.5). One thing that immediately stands out is that the Gauss' law integration surfaces in (1.3),(1.4) are the boundaries of integration volumes Ms, M.& that do not fill out a whole 10-dimensional spacelike hypersurface in spacetime, unlike the more familiar situation for charges in ordinary electrodynamics. A rough idea "Although formally reasonable, there is admittedly something strange about this algebra. For objects such as black holes, the total momentum terms on the right-hand side have a welldefined meaning, but for extended objects such as p-branes, the U and V terms on the righthand side have meaning only as intensive quantities taken per spatial unit worldvolume. This forces a similar intensive interpretation also for the momentum, requiring it to be considered as a momentum per spatial unit worldvolume. Clearly, a more careful treatment of this subject would recognize a corresponding divergence in the [Q,Q] anticommutator on the left-hand side of (1.5) in such cases. This would then require then an infinite normalization factor for the algebra, whose removal requires the right-hand side to be reinterpreted in an intensive (i.e. per spatial unit worldvolume) as opposed to an extensive way.
509
about the origin of the index structures on UAB and VABCDE may be guessed from the 2-fold and 5-fold ways that the corresponding 8 and 5 dimensional integration volumes may be embedded into a 10-dimensional spacelike hypersurface. We shall see in Section 4 that this is too naive, however: it masks an important topological aspect of both the electric charge UAB and the magnetic charge VABCDE. The fact that the integration volume does not fill out a full spacelike hypersurface does not impede the conservation of the charges (1.3),(1.4); this only requires that no electric or magnetic currents are present at the boundaries dM%, dM§. Before we can discuss such currents, we shall need to consider in some detail the supergravity solutions that carry charges like (1.3),(1.4). The simplest of these have the structure of p+ 1-dimensional Poincare-invariant hyperplanes in the supergravity spacetime, and hence have been termed "p-branes" (see, e.g. Ref. 4 ) . In Sections 2 and 3, we shall delve in some detail into the properties of these solutions. Let us recall at this point some features of the relationship between supergravity theory and string theory. Supergravity theories originally arose from the desire to include supersymmetry into the framework of gravitational models, and this was in the hope that the resulting models might solve some of the outstanding difficulties of quantum gravity. One of these difficulties was the ultraviolet problem, on which early enthusiasm for supergravity's promise gave way to disenchantment when it became clear that local supersymmetry is not in fact sufficient to tame the notorious ultraviolet divergences that arise in perturbation theory. b Nonetheless, supergravity theories won much admiration for their beautiful mathematical structure, which is due to the stringent constraints of their symmetries. These severely restrict the possible terms that can occur in the Lagrangian. For the maximal supergravity theories, such as those descended from the D = 11 theory (1.1), there is simultaneously a great wealth of fields present and at the same time an impossibility of coupling any independent external field-theoretic "matter". It was only occasionally noticed in this early period that this impossibility of coupling to matter fields does not, however, rule out coupling to "relativistic objects" such as black holes, strings and membranes. The realization that supergravity theories do not by themselves constitute acceptable starting points for a quantum theory of gravity came somewhat before the realization sunk in that string theory might instead be the soughtafter perturbative foundation for quantum gravity. But the approaches of supergravity and of string theory are in fact strongly interrelated: supergravity theories arise as long-wavelength effective-field-theory limits of string theories. b
For a review of ultraviolet behavior in supergravity theories, see Ref. 5 .
510
To see how this happens, consider the cr-model action 10 that describes a bosonic string moving in a background "condensate" of its own massless modes (gMN,
AMN, (f>): I=
4^Jd2z^
[liJdixMdjxNgMN{x)
+ ieiidixMdjxNAMN(x)+a'R{1)
.
(1.6)
Every string theory contains a sector described by fields (gMN, AMN, <j))\ these are the only fields that couple directly to the string worldsheet. In superstring theories, this sector is called the Neveu-Schwarz/Neveu-Schwarz (NS-NS) sector. The cr-model action (1.6) is classically invariant under the worldsheet Weyl symmetry 7y —> A2 (z)jij. Requiring cancellation of the anomalies in this symmetry at the quantum level gives differential-equation restrictions on the background fields (gMN, AMN, (f>) that may be viewed as effective equations of motion for these massless modes. 11 This system of effective equations may be summarized by the corresponding field-theory effective action
=
ie« = I
JdDa-x^-ge' x^l 24. - ^ FMNPFMNP
(D - 26) -
\OL'{R
+ 4V 2 0 - 4(V0) 2
+ O(a')2
(1.7)
where FMNP = dMANP + dNAPM + dPAMN is the 3-form field strength for the AMN gauge potential. The (D — 26) term reflects the critical dimension for the bosonic string: flat space is a solution of the above effective theory only for D = 26. The effective action for the superstring theories that we shall consider in this review contains a similar (NS-NS) sector, but with the substitution of (D — 26) by (D —10), reflecting the different critical dimension for superstrings. The effective action (1.7) is written in the form directly obtained from stringCT-modelcalculations. It is not written in the form generally preferred by relativists, which has a clean Einstein-Hilbert term free from exponential prefactors like e~2<^. One may rewrite the effective action in a different frame by making a Weyl-rescaling field redefinition gMN -¥ ex
=
jd10x
JZgV)e-2
R
( ff (.))
+
^M
. (1.8)
After making the transformation gMN — e
gMN
j
\L-y)
511
one obtains the Einstein frame action, j Einstein
=
j
^
jqfi)
^
^(e) ) _ IVM«/>VM<£ -
^e-*FMNPFMNl
(1.10) where the indices are now raised and lowered with g]^'N. To understand how this Weyl rescaling works, note that under ^-independent rescalings, the connection rMNp is invariant. This carries over also to terms with <> / undifferentiated, which emerge from the ex<^ Weyl transformation. One then chooses A so as to eliminate the e"""2^ factor. Terms with <> / undifferentiated do change, however. As one can see in (1.10), the Weyl transformation is just what is needed to unmask the positive-energy sign of the kinetic term for the (f> field, despite the apparently negative sign of its kinetic term in / s t r l n s . Now let us return to the maximal supergravities descended from (1.1). We shall discuss in Section 6) the process of Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction that relates theories in different dimensions of spacetime. For the present, we note that upon specifying the Kaluza-Klein ansatz expressing ds\ 1 in terms of ds 2 0 , the Kaluza-Klein vector AM and the dilaton <j>, ds2n=e"tl/6ds210+e4
+ AMdxM)2
M= 0,1,...,9,
(1.11)
the bosonic D = 11 action (1.1) reduces to the Einstein-frame type IIA bosonic action 14 jEinstein
=
J
d™x^(e)
J
R
( ff (e)) _ I V M < A V M 0 -
-^e^FMNPQFMNpQ-\e^FMNTMN}+CFFA
^e^FMNPFMNF
,
(1.12)
where TMN is the field strength for the Kaluza-Klein vector AM • The top line in (1.12) corresponds to the NS-NS sector of the IIA theory; the bottom line corresponds the R-R sector (plus the Chern-Simons terms, which we have not shown explicitly). In order to understand better the distinction between these two sectors, rewrite (1.12) in string frame using (1.9). One finds C i n g = / d10x v ^ ) j e - 2 * R ( > > ) + AVM4>VM
TpMNPQ
l
T
-TMN I
I C
~FMNPFMNF t-i -I o \
Now one may see the distinguishing feature of the NS-NS sector as opposed to the R-R sector: the dilaton coupling is a uniform e - 2 * in the NS-NS sector,
512
and it does not couple (in string frame) to the R-R sector field strengths. Comparing with the familiar g~2 coupling-constant factor for the Yang-Mills action, one sees that the asymptotic value e*~ plays the role of the string-theory coupling constant. Since in classical supergravity theory, one will encounter transformations that have the effect of flipping the sign of the dilaton,
Action
and Field
Equations
We have seen that one needs to consider effective theories containing gravity, various ranks of antisymmetric-tensor field strengths and various scalars. To obtain a more tractable system to study, we shall make a consistent truncation of the action down to a simple system in D dimensions comprising the metric gMN, a scalar field
= JDDxV^i
fl-^V^V^-^e^
(2.1)
We shall consider later in more detail how (2.1) may be obtained by a consistent truncation from a full supergravity theory in D dimensions. The notion of a consistent truncation will play a central role in our discussion of the BPS solutions of supergravity theories. A consistent truncation is one for which solutions of the truncated theory are also perfectly good, albeit specific, solutions of the original untruncated theory. Truncation down to the system (2.1)
513
with a single scalar (/> and a single field strength F[nj will be consistent except for certain special cases when n = D/2 that we shall have to consider separately. In such cases, one can have dyonic solutions, and in such cases it will generally be necessary to retain an axionic scalar \ a s we U. Note that in (2.1) we have not included contributions coming from the FFA Chern-Simons term in the action. These are also consistently excluded in the truncation to the single-charge action (2.1). The value of the important parameter a controlling the interaction of the scalar field <> / with the field strength F[n] in (2.1) will vary according to the cases considered in the following. Varying the action (2.1) produces the following set of equations of motion: RMN = 2 dM(t>dN
SMN
e
-2(n-l)\
r°* 1 F
V
.FN-
(2.2a) n — 1
n{D - 2)
„,
F2 gMN]
(2.2b)
VMl (ea*FMl-J"-) = 0
(2.2c)
U
(2.2d)
2n!
2.2. Electric
and Magnetic
Ansatze
In order to solve the above equations, we shall make a simplifying ansatz. We shall be looking for solutions preserving certain unbroken supersymmetries, and these will in turn require unbroken translational symmetries as well. For simplicity, we shall also require isotropic symmetry in the directions "transverse" to the translationally-symmetric ones. These restrictions can subsequently be relaxed in generalizations of the basic class of p-brane solutions that we shall discuss here. For this basic class of solutions, we make an ansatz requiring (Poincare) d x SO(D — d) symmetry. One may view the sought-for solutions as flat d = p + 1 dimensional hyperplanes embedded in the ambient £>-dimensional spacetime; these hyperplanes may in turn be viewed as the histories, or worldvolumes, of p-dimensional spatial surfaces. Accordingly, let the spacetime coordinates be split into two ranges: xM = (a;M,?/m), where x^ (/x = 0 , 1 , . . . ,p = d — 1) are coordinates adapted to the (Poincare) d isometries on the worldvolume and where ym (m = d,..., D — 1) are the coordinates "transverse" to the worldvolume. An ansatz for the spacetime metric that respects the (Poincare) d x SO(D — d) symmetry is 12 ds2 = e^^dxf
dxv n^v + e2B^dym
dyn 5mn (2.3)
H = 0,l,...,p
m=p
+ l,...,D
-1 ,
514
where r = \Jymym is the isotropic radial coordinate in the transverse space. Since the metric components depend only on r, translational invariance in the worldvolume directions xM and SO(D — d) symmetry in the transverse directions ym is guaranteed. The corresponding ansatz for the scalar field
= efil...)in_1 e c ( r ) ,
others zero .
(2.4)
SO(D — d) isotropicity and (Poincare) d symmetry are guaranteed here because the function C(r) depends only on the transverse radial coordinate r. Instead of the ansatz (2.4), expressed in terms of ^4[„_i], we could equivalently have given just the i*j„] field strength: illL.Pn-! = W./.-i3me°(r) .
others zero
•
(2-5)
The worldvolume dimension for the elementary ansatz (2.4),(2.5) is clearly de\ = n — 1. The second possible way to relate the rank n of F[„] to the worldvolume dimension d of an extended object is suggested by considering the dualized field strength *F, which is a (D — n) form. If one were to find an underlying gauge potential for *F (locally possible by courtesy of a Bianchi identity), this would naturally couple to a dso = D — n — 1 dimensional worldvolume. Since such a dualized potential would be nonlocally related to the fields appearing in the action (2.1), we shall not explicitly follow this construction, but shall instead take this reference to the dualized theory as an easy way to identify the worldvolume dimension for the second type of ansatz. This "solitonic" or "magnetic" ansatz for the antisymmetric tensor field is most conveniently expressed in terms of the field strength JF[„J , which now has nonvanishing values only for indices corresponding to the transverse directions: F^as}mn
= A e mi ... mnP - | r r .
others zero
.
(2-6)
515
where the magnetic-charge parameter A is a constant of integration, the only thing left undetermined by this ansatz. The power of r in the solitonic/magnetic ansatz is determined by requiring i*]„] to satisfy the Bianchi identity.0 Note that the worldvolume dimensions of the elementary and solitonic cases are related by dso = de\ = D — de\ — 2; note also that this relation is idempotent, i.e. (d) = d. 2.3. Curvature
Components
and p-Brane
Equations
In order to write out the field equations after insertion of the above ansatze, one needs to compute the Ricci tensor for the metric. 13 This is most easily done by introducing vielbeins, i.e., orthonormal frames,16 with tangent-space indices denoted by underlined indices: 9MN
— e M — e N —T]E.F. •
\£-i)
Next, one constructs the corresponding 1-forms: e - = dxMeM-. Splitting up the tangent-space indices E — (/£, m) similarly to the world indices M = (fi, m), we have for our ansatze the vielbein 1-forms
The corresponding spin connection 1-forms are determined by the condition that the torsion vanishes, deK + w^v A e— = 0, which yields uta- = 0 , B
u^
w m« = e~
^dn
=
e-B^dnA(r)e»
B(r) e ^ - e~B^dm
(2.9) B{r) e^ .
The curvature 2-forms are then given by Rf2f = duj^ + wK^ A ujrr- .
(2.10)
From the curvature components so obtained, one finds the Ricci tensor components R»v = - »W e 2 (^- f i ) U" + d{A'f
Rmn = ~ Smn
(B"
+ dA'B' + d{B'f
+ dA'B' + ^~^-A'
j
+ (2<* + ^ Jg' + iA' J
c
Specifically, one finds S , F m i . . . m „ = r ( n + 1 ) ( e m i . . . m „ q - (n + l)emi...mnP y" Vq/r2); upon taking the totally antisymmetrized combination [qmi ...mn], the factor of (n + 1) is evened out between the two terms and then one finds from cycling a factor ^ ymym = r2, thus obtaining cancellation.
m
516
- ^f-
IdB" + dA" - 2dA'B' + d(A')2 - d{B'f - *B' -*A'\
,
(2.11) where again, d = D — d —.2, and the primes indicate d/dr derivatives. Substituting the above relations, one finds the set of equations that we need to solve to obtain the metric and >:
A" + d(A')2 + dA'B' + Q±H A' =
d 2(D - 2)
,,, ( 2 d + l ) „. d .. B" + dA'B' + d(B')2 + r r 2 dB" + dA" - 2dA'B' + d(A') - d(B') r
r
I
d S2 2{D - 2)
if"'} \Umnj
(2.12) I
{ymyn}
4>" + dA'cj)' + dB'tf + ^ - ^ <j>' = - \ wS2 r 2, where <; = ± 1 for the elementary/solitonic cases and the source appearing on the RHS of these equations is ' L±a
electric:
d = n - l , <; =+1 (2.13)
magnetic: d = D - n - l ,
<;--!.
Solutions
The p-brane equations (2.12),(2.13) are still rather daunting. Before we embark on solving these equations, let us first note a generalization. Although Eqs. (2.12) have been specifically written for an isotropic p-brane ansatz, one may recognize more general possibilities by noting the form of the Laplace operator, which for isotropic scalar functions of r is -ij.' y > = 4>'' + (d + i)r~ V
(2.14)
We shall see later that more general solutions of the Laplace equation than the simple isotropic ones considered here will also play important roles in the story. In order to reduce the complexity of Eqs. (2.12), we shall refine the p-brane ansatz (2.3),(2.5),(2.6) by looking ahead a bit and taking a hint from the requirements for supersymmetry preservation, which shall be justified in more
517
detail later on in Section 4. Accordingly, we shall look for solutions satisfying the linearity condition dAl + dB' =0 .
(2.15)
After eliminating B using (2.15), the independent equations become
17
V20=-i?aS2
(2.16a)
^A'W^f
(2 16b)
'
d(D - 2)(A')» + i d V ) 2 = \iS' ,
(2.16c)
where, for spherically-symmetric (i.e. isotropic) functions in the transverse (D — d) dimensions, the Laplacian is V2> = (j)" + (d + 1) r - 1 ^ ' . Equations (2.16a,b) suggest that we now further refine the ansatze by imposing another linearity condition: f = -^D-^A> . d At this stage, it is useful to introduce a new piece of notation, letting •> * 2dd ° = A - (Dl2j •
(2.17)
( 2 J 8 )
With this notation, equation (2.16c) gives
s- = ^ 12 ,
.
(2 19) a so that the remaining equation for $ becomes S72(j> + ^ ( ^ ' ) 2 — 0, which can be re-expressed as a Laplace equation,*1 V2e&* = 0.
(2.20)
Solving this in the transverse (D — d) dimensions with our assumption of transverse isotropicity {i.e. spherical symmetry) yields e ^ * = H (y) = 1 + -=
k>0,
(2.21)
where the constant of integration 4>, has been set equal to zero here for simplicity: (j),^ = 0. The integration constant k in (2.21) sets the mass scale of the solution; it has been taken to be positive in order to ensure the absence d
Note that Eq. (2.20) can also be more generally derived; for example, it still holds if one relaxes the assumption of isotropicity in the transverse space.
518
of naked singularities at finite r. This positivity restriction is similar to the usual restriction to a positive mass parameter M in the standard Schwarzschild solution. In the case of the elementary /electric ansatz, with ^ = + 1 , it still remains to find the function C(r) that determines the antisymmetric-tensor gauge field potential. In this case, it follows from (2.13) that S 2 = ea*-ldA(C'ec)2. Combining this with (2.16), one finds the relation £ (ec\ = Z^L e - J o ^ V (2.22) or a (where it should be remembered that a < 0). Finally, it is straightforward to verify that the relation (2.22) is consistent with the equation of motion for *[«] =
V2C + C'(C' + dB'-dA'+a<(>')=0
.
(2.23)
In order to simplify the explicit form of the solution, we now pick values of the integration constants to make Aoo = B^ — 0, so that the solution tends to flat empty space at transverse infinity. Assembling the result, starting from the Laplace-equation solution H(y) (2.21), one finds7'13 ds2 = e0 =
#STD=5T
#f£
dx»dxv r)^ + H~*T>=*) dymdym C={
+ 1
'
\ —1 ,
elementar
y/eIectric
(2.24a) ( 2.24b)
solitonic/magnetic
H{y) = 1 + -= , and in the elementary/electric case, C(r) is given by < ° - ^ H - ' .
(2.24c)
(2-25)
In the solitonic/magnetic case, the constant of integration is related to the magnetic charge parameter A in the ansatz (2.6) by k = ^ A. (2.26) 2d In the elementary/electric case, this relation may be taken to define the parameter A. The harmonic function H(y) (2.21) determines all of the features of a pbrane solution (except for the choice of gauge for the A[n_i] gauge potential). It is useful to express the electric and magnetic field strengths directly in terms
519
oiH: 2 Fm^...^^^-7~elil...lln_1dm{H~l) Fni...ra, =
2 T=tmi...mnrdrH
VA
m = d,...,D-l
electric (2.27a)
m = d,...,D-l
:tic , magnetic, (2.27b)
with all other independent components vanishing in either case. 3. D = 11 Examples Let us now return to the bosonic sector of D = 11 supergravity, which has the action (1.1). In searching for p-brane solutions to this action, there are two particular points to note. The first is that no scalar field is present in (1.1). This follows from the supermultiplet structure of the D = 11 theory, in which all fields are gauge fields. In lower dimensions, of course, scalars do appear; e.g. the dilaton in D = 10 type IIA supergravity emerges out of the D = 11 metric upon dimensional reduction from D = 11 to D = 10. The absence of the scalar that we had in our general discussion may be handled here simply by identifying the scalar coupling parameter a with zero, so that the scalar may be consistently truncated from our general action (2.1). Since a2 = A- 2dd/(D - 2), we identify A = 2 • 3 • 6/9 = 4 for the D = 11 cases. Now let us consider the consistency of dropping contributions arising from the FFA Chern-Simons term in (1.1). Note that for n = 4, the F^ antisymmetric tensor field strength supports either an elementary/electric solution with d — n — 1 = 3 {i.e. a p = 2 membrane) or a solitonic/magnetic solution with d = 11 — 3 — 2 = 6 (i.e. a p = 5 brane). In both these elementary and solitonic cases, the FFA term in the action (1.1) vanishes and hence this term does not make any non-vanishing contribution to the metric field equations for our ansatze. For the antisymmetric tensor field equation, a further check is necessary, since there one requires the variation of the FFA term to vanish in order to consistently ignore it. The field equation for A[3] is (1.2), which when written out explicitly becomes r) (^fZZT, T?MUVW\ , _ t _ fuvwx1x2x3X4y1y2y3y4 U M \\l yc P o(A\\2
p P xiX2X3X4-ryiy2y3yi
r
_ n |o i\ — u . \o.i)
By direct inspection, one sees that the second term in this equation vanishes for both ansatze. Next, we shall consider the elementary/electric and the solitonic/magnetic D — 11 cases in detail. Subsequently, we shall explore how these particular solutions fit into wider, "black", families of p-branes.
520
3.1. D = 11 Elementary/Electric
2-Brane
From our general discussion in Sec. 2, we have the elementary-ansatz solution 18 /
ds2
u \ ~ Vs
= h +_ J
/
£ \ Vs
ePdz"^,, + h + _ j
( k\~1 ^4M"A = fiv\ I 1 + ~r J e
dymdym (3.2)
;
other components zero .
electric 2-brane: isotropic coordinates At first glance, this solution looks like it might be singular at r = 0. However, if one calculates the invariant components of the curvature tensor RMNPQ and of the field strength Fm^lti2lJ,3, subsequently referred to an orthonormal frame by introducing vielbeins as in (2.8), one finds these invariants to be nonsingular. Moreover, although the proper distance to the surface r = 0 along a t = x° = const, geodesic diverges, the surface r = 0 can be reached along null geodesies in finite affine parameter. 19 Thus, one may suspect that the metric as given in (3.2) does not in fact cover the entire spacetime, and so one should look for an analytic extension of it. Accordingly, one may consider a change to "Schwarzschild-type" coordinates by setting r = (f6 — k)1^. The solution then becomes: 19 ds2
=(l-^\
3
(-dt2 + da2 + dp2) + ( l - ^ )
AftvX — £nv\ I 1 — -^Q- J ,
df2 + f2dQ27
other components zero ,
*• ' '
electric 2-brane: Schwarzschild-type coordinates where we have supplied explicit worldvolume coordinates x^ = (t,a,p) and where dQ,2 is the line element on the unit 7-sphere, corresponding to the boundary dM8? of the 11 — 3 = 8 dimensional transverse space. The Schwarzschild-like coordinates make the surface f — k1/6 (corresponding to r = 0) look like a horizon. One may indeed verify that the normal to this surface is a null vector, confirming that f = k1^6 is in fact a horizon. This horizon is degenerate, however. Owing to the 2/3 exponent in the 500 component, curves along the t axis for r < klk remain timelike, so that light cones do not "flip over" inside the horizon, unlike the situation for the classic Schwarzschild solution. In order to see the structure of the membrane spacetime more clearly, let us change coordinates once again, setting f = A;1//s(l — i? 3 ) - 1 / 6 . Overall, the transformation from the original isotropic coordinates to these new ones is
521 effected by setting r = k^6R^2/{l solution becomes19 ds2
- R3)1/6.
In these new coordinates, the
= {R2 (-dt2 + da2 + dp2) + 4JfcV3R~2dR2} + k^dtl2. 2
+fcVs [(i _ &)- Vs _ i] [AR- dR
2
2
+ d CI }
(a) (b) (3.4)
A-iiv\ — Rz^liv\ ,
other components zero .
electric 2-brane: interpolating coordinates This form of the solution makes it clearer that the light-cones do not "flip over" in the region inside the horizon (which is now at R = 0, with R < 0 being the interior). The main usefulness of the third form (3.4) of the membrane solution, however, is that it reveals how the solution interpolates between other "vacuum" solutions of D = 11 supergravity. 19 As R —> 1, the solution becomes flat, in the asymptotic exterior transverse region. As one approaches the horizon at R = 0, line (b) of the metric in (3.4) vanishes at least linearly in R. The residual metric, given in line (a), may then be recognized as a standard form of the metric on (AdS)4 x <S7, generalizing the Robinson-Bertotti solution on (AdS)2 x <S2 in D = 4. Thus, the membrane solution interpolates between flat space as R —> 1 and (AdS)4 x S7 as R —> 0 at the horizon. Continuing on inside the horizon, one eventually encounters a true singularity at r = 0 (R -> — oo). Unlike the singularity in the classic Schwarzschild solution, which is spacelike and hence unavoidable, the singularity in the membrane spacetime is timelike. Generically, geodesies do not intersect the singularity at a finite value of an affine parameter value. Radial null geodesies do intersect the singularity at finite affine parameter, however, so the spacetime is in fact genuinely singular. The timelike nature of this singularity, however, invites one to consider coupling a ^-function source to the solution at f = 0. Indeed, the D = 11 supermembrane action, 20 which generalizes the NambuGoto action for the string, is the unique "matter" system that can consistently couple to U = 11 supergravity. 20,22 Analysis of this coupling yields a relation between the parameter k in the solution (3.2) and the tension T of the supermembrane action: 18
k
=w7-
<3-5'
where 1 / ( 2 K 2 ) is the coefficient of y/^gR in the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian and ^7 is the volume of the unit 7-sphere S7, i.e. the solid angle subtended by the boundary at transverse infinity. The global structure of the membrane spacetime 19 is similar to the extreme Reissner-Nordstrom solution of General Relativity.24 This global structure is
522
summarized by a Carter-Penrose diagram as shown in Figure 1, in which the angular coordinates on S7 and also two ignorable worldsheet coordinates have been suppressed. As one can see, the region mapped by the isotropic coordinates does not cover the whole spacetime. This region, shaded in the diagram, is geodesically incomplete, since one may reach its boundaries W+, /H~ along radial null geodesies at a finite afnne-parameter value. These boundary surfaces are not singular, but, instead, constitute future and past horizons (one can see from the form (3.3) of the solution that the normals to these surfaces are null). The "throat" V in the diagram should be thought of as an exceptional point at infinity, and not as a part of the central singularity. The region exterior to the horizon interpolates between flat regions J± at future and past null infinities and a geometry that asymptotically tends to (AdS) 4 x S7 on the horizon. This interpolating portion of the spacetime, corresponding to the shaded region of Figure 1 which is covered by the isotropic coordinates, may be sketched as shown in Figure 2. 3.2. D — 11 Solitonic/Magnetic
5-Brane
Now consider the 5-brane solution to the D = 11 theory given by the solitonic ansatz for F[4j. In isotropic coordinates, this solution is a magnetic 5-brane: 25 2
/
v
/
jfc \
/3
dx»dx r)nv+[l + ^ \ dymdym /i,i/= 0.....5 p V (3 6) =3fce m i ... m 4 P — other components zero. magnetic 5-brane: isotropic coordinates
ds =h+—\ Fmi...m4
u \ ~ 73
As in the case of the elementary/electric membrane, this solution interpolates between two "vacua" of D = 11 supergravity. Now, however, these asymptotic geometries consist of the flat region encountered as r —>• oo and of (AdS)7 x<S4 as one approaches r = 0, which once again is a degenerate horizon. Combining two coordinate changes analogous to those of the elementary case, r = (f3— A;)1/3 and f = k^3(l — R6)~^3, one has an overall transformation
After these coordinate changes, the metric becomes 4R" 2 _, dSll dR2 + (i-Rzyh (i-i?6) 2 /3 magnetic 5-brane: interpolating coordinates
ds2 = R2dxIJ-dxvT]llv+k'2l3
(3.8)
523
const, hypersurface
"throat"
j () spatial infinity
R = const, hypcrsurtace
Only the shaded region is covered by the isotropic coordinates
Kip.uie 1.
Carter-Penrose diagram tor the V = 11 elementary/electric 2-biane solution.
Once again, the suiface r — 0 o R = 0 may be seen from (3.8) to be a nonsingular degenerate horizon. In this case, however, not only do the light cones maintain their timelike orientation when crossing the horizon, as already happened in the electric case (3.4), but now the magnetic solution (3.8) is in
524
Figure 2. The D = 11 elementary/electric 2-brane solution interpolates between flat space at J"^ and (AdS)4 x S7 at the horizon.
fact fully symmetric26 under a discrete isometry R ->• —R. Given this isometry R —> —R, one can, if one wishes identify the spacetime region R < 0 with the region R > 0. This identification is analogous to the identification one naturally makes for flat space when written in polar coordinates, with the metric dsr, , = — dt2 +dr2 +r2d2. However, one must be attentive to the issue of conical singularities in this case. Unlike the case of doubled flat space, where the identification removes a conical singularity with deficit angle 2ir, the R «-» — R identification in the 5-brane geometry introduces a conical singularity; the nonsingular spacetime is the R -H- —R symmetric but non-identified spacetime. This smoothly continued spacetime has an infinite "throat", at the horizon R = 0, and the region covered by the isotropic coordinates may once again be sketched as in Figure 2, except now with the asymptotic geometry in the "throat" region being (AdS)7 xS4 instead of (AdS)4 xS7 as in the case of the elementary/electric solution. The CarterPenrose diagram for the solitonic/magnetic 5-brane solution is given in Figure 3, where the full diagram extends indefinitely by "tiling" the section shown.
525
Figure 3.
Carter-Penrose diagram for the solitonic/magnetic 5-brane solution.
The electric and magnetic D = 11 solutions discussed here and in the previous subsection are "nondilatonic" in that they do not involve a scalar field, since the bosonic sector of D = 11 supergravity (1.1) does not even contain a scalar field. Similar solutions occur in other situations where the parameter a (2.18) for a field strength supporting a p-brane solution vanishes, in which cases the scalar fields may consistently be set to zero; this happens for (D, d) = (11,3), (11,5), (10,4), (6,2), (5,1), (5,2) and (4,1). In these special cases, the solutions are nonsingular at the horizon and so one may analytically continue
526
through to the other side of the horizon. When d is even for "scalarless" solutions of this type, there exists a discrete isometry analogous to the R -» —R isometry of the D = 11 5-brane solution (3.8), allowing the outer and inner regions to be identified.26 When d is odd in such cases, the analyticallyextended metric eventually reaches a timelike curvature singularity at f — 0. When a ^ 0 and the scalar field associated to the field strength supporting a solution cannot be consistently set to zero, then the solution is has a singular at the horizon, as can be seen directly in the scalar solution (2.21) itself (where we recall that in isotropic coordinates, the horizon occurs at r — 0). 3.3. Black
Branes
In order to understand better the family of supergravity solutions that we have been discussing, let us now consider a generalization that lifts the degenerate nature of the horizon. Written in Schwarzschild-type coordinates, one finds the generalized "black brane" solution 27 ' 28 ds2
= -
, Ei
1
E+
4j
,dt2 + Sft*^Wda:«
-A(D-2)|
+^ 7 -
df2
+?2 x^dni^
(3 9)
r black brane: Schwarzschild-type coordinates The antisymmetric tensor field strength for this solution corresponds to a charge parameter A = 2d/y/K(r+r-)d/2, either electric or magnetic. The characteristic feature of the above "blackened" p-branes is that they have a nondegenerate, nonsingular outer horizon at f = r+ , at which the light cones "flip over". At f = r_ , one encounters an inner horizon, which, however, coincides in general with a curvature singularity. The singular nature of the solution at f = r_ is apparent in the scalar cf> in (3.9). For solutions with p > 1, the singularity at the inner horizon persists even in cases where the scalar
527
The generally singular nature of the inner horizon of the non-extreme solution (3.9) shows that the "location" of the p-brane in spacetime should normally be thought to coincide with the inner horizon, or with the degenerate horizon in the extremal case.
4. Charges, Masses and Supersymmetry The p-brane solutions that we have been studying are supported by antisymmetric tensor gauge field strengths that fall off at transverse infinity like r~(d+1\ as one can see from (2.5),(2.25),(2.6). This asymptotic falloff is slow enough to give a nonvanishing total charge density from a Gauss' law flux integral at transverse infinity, and we shall see that, for the "extremal" class of solutions that is our main focus, the mass density of the solution saturates a "Bogomol'ny bound" with respect to the charge density. In this Section, we shall first make more precise the relation between the geometry of the p-brane solutions, the p-form charges UAB and VABCDE and the scalar charge magnitudes U and V (1.3),(1.4); we shall then discuss the relations between these charges, the energy density and the preservation of unbroken supersymmetry. 4.1. p-Form
Charges
Now let us consider the inclusion of sources into the supergravity equations. The harmonic function (2.21) has a singularity which has for simplicity been placed at the origin of the transverse coordinates ym. As we have seen in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, whether or not this gives rise to a physical singularity in a solution depends on the global structure of that solution. In the electric 2-brane case, the solution does in the end have a singularity.26 This singularity is unlike the Schwarzschild singularity, however, in that it is a timelike curve, and thus it may be considered to be the wordvolume of a <5-function source. The electric source that couples to I? = 11 supergravity is the fundamental supermembrane action, 20 whose bosonic part is Source = Qe / d3£ Jv - de^d^ Jw*
+i
dvxN
gMN{x))
e^d^d^d^AuNRix)
(4.1)
The source strength Qe will shortly be found to be equal to the electric charge U upon solving the coupled equations of motion for the supergravity fields and a single source of this type. Varying the source action (4.1) with
528
obtains the (^-function current JMNR(z)
= Qe f S3(z-x(0)dxM A dxN A dxR . (4.2) Jw3 This current now stands on the RHS of the A[3] equation of motion: d(jF{i]
+ ^A[3]AF[t^
= *J[3].
(4.3)
Thus, instead of the Gauss' law expression for the charge, one may instead rewrite the charge as a volume integral of the source, U= f J Ma
V [3] = ^ / 6
-
J0MNd*SMN
,
(4.4)
JMs
where C18SMN is the 8-volume element o n M g , specified within a D = 10 spatial section of the supergravity spacetime by a 2-form. The charge derived in this way from a single 2-brane source is thus U = Qe as expected. Now consider the effect of making different choices of the Ms integration volume within the D = 10 spatial spacetime section, as shown in Figure 4. Let the difference between the surfaces Ms and M's be infinitesimal and be given by a vector field vN(x). The difference in the electric charges obtained is then given by SU= f JMs
£v*J[3] = ^ [
J0MNvRd7SMNR,
(4.5)
«*. JdMs
where Cv is the Lie derivative along the vector field v. The second equality in (4.5) follows using Stokes' theorem and the conservation of the current J[ 3 j. Now a topological nature of the charge integral (1.3) becomes apparent; similar considerations apply to the magnetic charge (1.4). As long as the current Jr3i vanishes on the boundary dMs, the difference (4.5) between the charges calculated using the integration volumes Ms and M's will vanish. This divides the electric-charge integration volumes into two topological classes distinguishing those for which dMs "captures" the p-brane current, as shown in Figure 4 and giving U — Qe, from those that do not capture the current, giving U = 0. The above discussion shows that the orientation-dependence of the U charges (1.3) is essentially topological. The topological classes for the charge integrals are naturally labeled by the asymptotic orientations of the p-brane spatial surfaces; an integration volume Ms extending out to infinity flips from the "capturing" class into the "non-capturing" class when dMs crosses the (^-function surface defined by the current J[ 3 j. The charge thus naturally has a magnitude |<5[p]| = Qe and a unit p-form orientation <5[p]/|Q[p]| that is proportional to the asymptotic spatial volume form of the p-brane. Both the
529
f .
-
>
"
8
y
o
' " Figure 4.
( Different choices of charge integration volume "capturing" the current J[ 3 j.
magnitude and the orientation of this p-form charge are conserved using the supergravity equations of motion. The necessity of considering asymptotic p-brane volume forms arises because the notion of a p-form charge is not limited to static, l a t p-brane solutions such as (2.3),(2.5),(2.6). Such charges can also be defined for any solution whose energy differs from that of a l a t , static one by a finite amount. The charges for such solutions will also appear in the supersymmetry algebra (1.5) for such backgrounds, but the corresponding energy densities will not in general saturate the BPS bounds. For a finite energy difference with respect to a l a t , static p-brane, the asymptotic orientation of the p-brane volume form must tend to that of a static fiat solution, which plays the role of a "BPS vacuum" in a given p-form charge sector of the theory. In order to have a non-vanishing value for a charge (1.3) or (1.4) occurring in the supersymmetry algebra (1.5), the p-brane must be either infinite or wrapped around a compact spacetime dimension. The case of a finite p-brane is sketched in Figure 5. Since the boundary dM of the infinite integration volume M does not capture the locus where the p-brane current is non-vanishing, the current calculated using M will vanish as a result. Instead of an infinite p-brane, one may alternately have a p-brane wrapped around a compact dimension
530 of spacetime, so that an integration-volume boundary dMg is still capable of capturing the p-brane locus (if one considers this case as an infinite, but periodic, solution, this case may be considered simultaneously with that of the infinite p-bra,nes). Only in such cases do the p-form charges occurring in the supersymmetry algebra (1.5) take non-vanishing values.6
s
.f
Figure 5. Finite p-brane not captured by dM, giving zero charge.
4.2. p-Brane
Mass
Densities
Now let us consider the mass density of a p-brane solution. Since the f>-brane solutions have translational symmetry in their p spatial worldvolume directions, the total energy as measured by a surface integral at spatial infinity diverges, owing to the infinite extent. What is thus more appropriate to consider instead is the value of the density, energy/(unit p-volume). Since we are considering solutions in their rest frames, this will also give the value of mass/(unit p-volume), or tension of the solution. Instead of the standard spatial dD~~2Ea surface integral, this will be a d ( D - d - 1 ) £ m surface integral over the boundary dMT of the transverse space. The ADM formula for the energy density written as a Gauss'-law integral (see, e.g., Ref. 16 ) is, dropping the divergent spatial dEf>=* integral, £= f
dP-'-iTT^hnn-dmhl)
,
(4.6)
JdM-r
written for gMN = rjMN+hMN tending asymptotically to fiat space in Cartesian coordinates, and with a,b spatial indices running over the values p. = i = e
If one considers integration volumes that do not extend out to infinity, then one can construct integration surfaces that capture finite p-branes. Such charges do not occur in the supersymmetry algebra (1.5), but they are still of importance in determining the possible intersections of p-branes.21
531
l,...,d— 1; m = d, ...,£> — 1. For the general p-brane solution (2.24), one finds
8k(d+U) Akd
"mn —
. ,„
h>> -
x j "run
_.
d
A(D-2)r and, since d(£ , -d-i)£™ =
J r
j
V
2y
n.(, —
A(D-2)r y m d f t ( £ , - d - 1 ) , one finds
£=l ^ ^ z i ,
r
j
V1*- ' J
d
(4.8)
where fi£)_d_i is the volume of the 5 Z ) _ d - 1 unit sphere. Recalling that k = V*AA/(2d), we consequently have a relation between the mass per unit p volume and the charge parameter of the solution ^ = 2 M W i (49) By contrast, the black brane solution (3.9) has S > 2\$lD-d-i/VA, so the extremal p-brane solution (2.24) is seen to saturate the inequality £ >
2\nD-d_1/Vk. 4.3. p-Brane
Charges
As one can see from (4.8),(4.9), the relation (2.26) between the integration constant k in the solution (2.24) and the charge parameter A implies a deep link between the energy density and certain electric or magnetic charges. In the electric case, this charge is a quantity conserved by virtue of the equations of motion for the antisymmetric tensor gauge field A[n-x], and has generally become known as a "Page charge", after its first discussion in Ref. 2 . To be specific, if we once again consider the bosonic sector of D = 11 supergravity theory (1.1), for which the antisymmetric tensor field equation was given in (3.1), one finds the Gauss'-law form conserved quantity 2 U (1.3). For the p-brane solutions (2.24), the J A/\F term in (1.3) vanishes. The / *F term does, however, give a contribution in the elementary/electric case, provided one picks M.% to coincide with the transverse space to the d = 3 membrane world volume, MST- The surface element for this transverse space is dS^N, so for the p = 2 elementary membrane solution (3.2), one finds U=
f
d^7)Fm012
= Xnr .
(4.10)
Since the D = 11 F^ field strength supporting this solution has A = 4, the mass/charge relation is £ = U = \Sl7.
(4.11)
532
Thus, like the classic extreme Reissner-Nordstrom black-hole solution to which it is strongly related (as can be seen from the Carter-Penrose diagram given in Figure 1), the D = 11 membrane solution has equal mass and charge densities, saturating the inequality £ > U. Now let us consider the charge carried by the solitonic/magnetic 5-brane solution (3.6). The field strength in (3.6) is purely transverse, so no electric charge (1.3) is present. The magnetic charge (1.4) is carried by this solution, however. Once again, let us choose the integration subsurface so as to coincide with the transverse space to the d = 6 worldvolume, i.e. M$ = M$r. Then, we have V=
d E £ ) e f B W F n M r = An4-
f
(4.12)
J dM5T
Thus, in the solitonic/magnetic 5-brane case as well, we have a saturation of the mass-charge inequality: £ = V = \tl4. 4.4. Preserved
(4.13)
Supersymmetry
Since the bosonic solutions that we have been considering are consistent truncations of D = 11 supergravity, they must also possess another conserved quantity, the supercharge. Admittedly, since the supercharge is a Grassmanian (anticommuting) quantity, its value will clearly be zero for the class of purely bosonic solutions that we have been discussing. However, the functional form of the supercharge is still important, as it determines the form of the asymptotic supersymmetry algebra. The Gauss'-law form of the supercharge is given as an integral over the boundary of the spatial hypersurface. For the D = 11 solutions, this surface of integration is the boundary at infinity dMio of the D — 10 spatial hypersurface; the supercharge is then 1 Q= f
r06cVcdE(9)6.
(4.14)
JdMio
One can also rewrite this in fully Lorentz-covariant form, where c/Sfg^ =
Q=
[
TABC^cdX{9)AB.
(4.15)
After appropriate definitions of Poisson brackets, the D = 11 supersymmetry algebra for the supercharge (4.14),(4.15) is found to be given29 by (1.5) Thus, the supersymmetry algebra wraps together all of the conserved Gauss'law type quantities that we have discussed.
533
The positivity of the Q2 operator on the LHS of the algebra (1.5) is at the root of the Bogomol'ny bounds30'26'32 £ >
(2/VA)
U
electric bound
(4.16a)
£ >
(2/VA)
V
magnetic bound
(4.16b)
that are saturated by the p-brane solutions. The saturation of the Bogomol'ny inequalities by the p-brane solutions is an indication that they fit into special types of supermultiplets. All of these bound-saturating solutions share the important property that they leave some portion of the supersymmetry unbroken. Within the family of p-brane solutions that we have been discussing, it turns out 32 that the A values of such "supersymmetric" p-branes are of the form A = 4/iV, where N is the number of antisymmetric tensor field strengths participating in the solution (distinct, but of the same rank). The different charge contributions to the supersymmetry algebra occurring for different values of N (hence different A) affect the Bogomol'ny bounds as shown in (4.16). In order to see how a purely bosonic solution may leave some portion of the supersymmetry unbroken, consider specifically once again the membrane solution of D = 11 supergravity. 18 This theory 1 has just one spinor field, the gravitino ipM. Checking for the consistency of setting tfjM = 0 with the supposition of some residual supersymmetry with parameter e(x) requires solving the equation ^l*=o
=
-^c
= 0
(417)
>
where ipA = eAMi\)M and DAe = DA e- ~
i DAe=
(TABCDE -8SABTCDE) BC
[dA + -LO 4 A TBC]
FBCDE e (418)
x e.
Solving the equation DA e = 0 amounts to finding a Killing spinor field in the presence of the bosonic background. Since the Killing spinor equation (4.17) is linear in e(x), the Grassmanian (anticommuting) character of this parameter is irrelevant to the problem at hand, which thus reduces effectively to solving (4.17) for a commuting quantity. In order to solve the Killing spinor equation (4.17) in a p-brane background, it is convenient to adopt an appropriate basis for the D = 11 T matrices. For
534
the d = 3 membrane background, one would like to preserve SO(2,1) xSO(8) covariance. An appropriate basis that does this is Tx =
(7M®£9,
1(2) ®£m) ,
(4-19)
where 7 P and 1(2) are 2 x 2 SO(2,1) matrices; E 9 and E m are 16x16 SO(8) matrices, with E 9 = E3E4...E10, so E | = l(i6)- The most general spinor field consistent with (Poincare) 3 xS0(8) invariance in this spinor basis is of the form e(x,y) = e2®r](r) ,
(4.20)
where £2 is a constant SO(2,1) spinor and n(r) is an SO(8) spinor depending only on the isotropic radial coordinate r; n may be further decomposed into E 9 eigenstates by the use of | ( 1 ± E 9 ) projectors. Analysis of the the Killing spinor condition (4.17) in the above spinor basis leads to the following requirements 12 ' 18 on the background and on the spinor field t](r): 1) The background must satisfy the conditions 3A'+6B' = 0 and C'ec = 3A'e3A. The first of these conditions is, however, precisely the linearitycondition refinement (2.15) that we made in the p-brane ansatz; the second condition follows from the ansatz refinement (2.17) (considered as a condition on
The specific chirality indicated here is correlated with the sign choice made in the elemen-
535
e^ = 62(81770 by half: the total number of surviving rigid supersymmetries in e(x,y) is thus 2-8 = 16 (counting real spinor components). Since this is half of the maximum rigid number (i.e. half of the 32 for flat space), one says that the membrane solution preserves "half" of the supersymmetry. In general, the procedure for checking how much supersymmetry is preserved by a given BPS solution follows steps analogous to points 1) - 3) above: first a check that the conditions required on the background fields are satisfied, then a determination of the functional form of the supersymmetry parameter in terms of some finite set of spinor components, and finally the imposition of projection conditions on that finite set. In a more telegraphic partial discussion, one may jump straight to the projection conditions 3). These must, of course, also emerge from a full analysis of equations like (4.17). But one can also see more directly what they will be simply by considering the supersymmetry algebra (1.5), specialized to the BPS background. Thus, for example, in the case of a D = 11 membrane solution oriented in the {012} directions, one has, after normalizing to a unit 2-volume, £ ^ { Q a , < 2 / 3 } = -(CT°)a0£+(CT12)a0Uu
•
(4.21)
Since, as we have seen in (4.11), the membrane solution saturating the Bogomol'ny bound (4.16a) with £ = U = U12, one may rewrite (4.21) as 2 ^ j {Qa, Qp} = 2£P0i2
P012 = ^ ( 1 + r 0 1 2 ) ,
(4.22)
where P012 is a projection operator (i.e. P§12 = P012) whose trace is trP 0 i2 = I-32; thus, half of its eigenvalues are zero, and half are unity. Any surviving supersymmetry transformation must give zero when acting on the BPS background fields, and so the anticommutator {Qa, Qp} of the generators must give zero when contracted with a surviving supersymmetry parameter ea. From (4.22), this translates to P012 eoo = 0 ,
(4.23)
which is equivalent to condition 3) above, (1 +£9)770 = 0. Thus, we once again see that the D = 11 supermembrane solution (3.2) preserves half of the maximal rigid D = 11 supersymmetry. When we come to discuss the cases of "intersecting" p-branes in Section 7, it will be useful to have quick tary/electric form ansatz (2.4); one may accordingly observe from (1.1) that a D = 11 parity transformation requires a sign flip of A[3j.
536
derivations like this for the projection conditions that must be satisfied by surviving supersymmetry parameters. More generally, the positive semi-definiteness of the operator {Qa,Qp} is the underlying principle in the derivation 30 ' 26 ' 32 of the Bogomol'ny bounds (4.16). A consequence of this positive semi-definiteness is that zero eigenvalues correspond to solutions that saturate the Bogomol'ny inequalities (4.16), and these solutions preserve one component of unbroken supersymmetry for each such zero eigenvalue. Similar consideration of the solitonic/magnetic 5-brane solution 25 (3.6) shows that it also preserves half the rigid D = 11 supersymmetry. In the 5-brane case, the analogue of condition 2) above is e{x,y) = H~1/12(y)e0O, and the projection condition following from the algebra of preserved supersymmetry generators for a 5-brane oriented in the {012345} directions is Poi2345£oo = 0, where F012345 = §(l + r 0 1 2 3 4 5 ) . 5. The Super p-Brane Worldvolume Action We have already seen the bosonic part of the action for a supermembrane in background gravitational and 3-form fields in Eq. (4.1). We shall now want to extend this treatment to the full set of bosonic and fermionic variables of an important class of super p-branes. This class consists of those branes whose worldvolume variables are just the bosonic and fermionic coordinates of the super p-brane in the target superspace. In the early days of research on super p branes, this was the only class known, but it is now recognized that more general kinds of worldvolume multiplets can also occur, such as those involving higher form fields, requiring a generalization of the formalism that we shall now present. Let us reformulate in Howe-Tucker form the bosonic part of the p-brane action coupled to gravity alone, by introducing an independent worldvolume metric 7^: 33 /HT
= \ JdP+1^ x/-det7 [^d^d^Qmn-ip-l)}
,
(5.1)
where the index ranges are i = 0 , 1 , . . . ,p and m = 0 , 1 , . . . , D—1. The equation of motion following from (5.1) for the worldvolume position variables xm is r
fax™-1*
J(7) d^ + dixedjxT™^ = 0 ,
(5.2)
where {,*}(7) and T™(g) are the ChristofFel connections for the worldvolume metric 7y(£) and the spacetime metric gmn(x) respectively. The 7 field equa-
537
tion is
which states that 7^ is equal to the metric induced from the spacetime metric gmn through the embedding xm(£). Inserting (5.3) into (5.2), one obtains the same equation as that following from the Nambu-Goto form action that generalizes (4.1) /NO = Idp+1£det1/2
(dixmdjxngmn(x))
,
(5.4)
thus demonstrating the classical equivalence of (5.1) and (5.4). Note the essential appearance here of a "cosmological term" in the worldvolume action for p ^ 1. The absence of this term in the specific case of the string, p = 1, is at the origin of the worldvolume Weyl symmetry which is obtained only in the string case. Now generalize the target space to superspace ZM = (xm,6a) and describe the supergravity background by vielbeins EAi{Z) and a superspace (p+1) form B = [ ( p + l ) ! ] _ 1 £ A l . ..EA'+1BAp+1...A1, where EA = dZMEAf are superspace veilbein 1-forms. The superspace world indices M and tangent space indices A run both through bosonic values m,a = 0 , 1 , . . . (D — 1) and fermionic values a appropriate for the corresponding spinor dimensionality. The p-brane worldvolume is a map zM(£) from the space of the worldvolume parameters £' to the target superspace; this map may be used to pull back forms to the worldvolume: EA = d?EA, where EA = diZM'(Z)E$f(z(£). Using these, one may write the super p-brane action in Green-Schwarz form:
I = Jdp+H [I v/=7 [^EfE^at-ip-l)]
where 7 is the traditional shorthand for det 7,j. Writing the super p-brane action in this manifestly target-space supersymmetric form raises the question of how the expected supersymmetric balance of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom can be achieved on the worldvolume. For example, in the case of the D = 11, p = 2 supermembrane 20 , the D = 11 spinor dimensionality is 32, while the bosonic coordinates take only 11 values. Now, in order to compare correctly the worldvolume degrees of freedom, one should first remove the worldvolume gauge degrees of freedom, which thus subtracts from the above account three worldvolume reparameterizations for the £ \ leaving 11 — 3 = 8 bosonic non-gauge degrees of freedom. The fermions are not in fact expected to match this number, because they are expected
538
to satisfy first-order equations of motion on the worldvolume, as opposed to the second-order equations expected for the bosons. But, multiplying by 2 in order to take account of this difference, one would still be expecting to have 16 active worldvolume fermionic degrees of freedom, instead of the o priori 32. The difference can only be accounted for by an additional fermionic gauge symmetry. This fermionic gauge symmetry is called "K symmetry" and its general implementation remains something of a mystery. In some formalisms, it can be related to a standard worldvolume supersymmetry, 34 but this introduces additional twistor-like variables that obscure somewhat the physical content of the theory. The most physically transparent formalism is the original one of Ref. 35 , where the K symmetry parameter has a spacetime spinor index just like the spinor variable 6, but the K transformation involves a projector that reduces the number of degrees of freedom removed from the spectrum by | . Let SzA = dzMEAf and consider a transformation such that Sza = Q,
6za = (l+r)a0K<3(O ,
(5.6)
where «^(£) is an anticommuting spacetime spinor parameter and r =
^b+i/vi
eil
"' i p + 1
K
' • '
E :::
°
( r a i
-°p+l)'
(5 7)
"
where r ai ... Qp+1 is the antisymmetrized product of (p+1) gamma matrices, taken "strength one", i.e. with a normalization factor , *•,, . In order to see the projection property of | ( l - r T ) , let 7y be given by the solution to its field equation, i.e. 7^ = EfEj7]at, from which one obtains T2 = 1, so that | ( l + r ) is indeed a projector. Detailed analysis of the conditions for /t-invariance35 show that the super p-brane action (5.5) is K-invariant provided the following conditions hold:g EA"+1 ...
i) The field strength H = dB = j^y the constraints
EAIHAI...AP+1
satisfies
Haap+i...ai = 0
(5.8a)
Ha^ap-i...ai
(5.8b)
Ha0ap...ai =
~ 0 —}
(r ai ...a p ) a/ g ,
(5-8c)
^Strictly speaking, what one learns from the requirements for K symmetry allows for terms involving a spinor A a on the RHS of Eqs. (5.8a) and (5.9a), but this spinor can then be set to zero by a judicious choice of the conventional superspace constraints. 2 2
539 where we are using a notation in which the spinor indices on (Tai...a )ap are raised and lowered by the charge conjugation matrix (e.g. (r a ) a / g = (F%^7/3). it") The superspace torsion satisfies r)c(aT£)a = 0
(5.9a)
TZP = (TaU
•
(5.9b)
Hi) H is closed. Now observe a remarkable consequence of the conditions (5.8),(5.9) in a maximally supersymmetric theory (e.g. D = 11 supergravity or one of the D = 10 N = 2 superstring theories): in a general background, these constraints imply the supergravity equations of motion. This is a dramatic link between the super p-branes and their parent supergravity theories — these supersymmetric extended objects are, on the one hand, the natural sources for the corresponding supergravities, and on the other hand their consistent propagation (i.e. preservation of K symmetry) requires the backgrounds in which they move to satisfy the supergravity equations of motion. This is a link between supersymmetric objects and the corresponding parent supergravities that is even more direct than that found in quantized string theories, where the beta function conditions enforcing the vanishing of worldvolume conformal anomalies impose a set of effective field equations on the background. For the super p-branes of maximal supergravities, this link arises already at the classical level.h To understand the import of /c-symmetry better, note that in flat superspace, conditions i) and ii) apply automatically. Moreover, in flat superspace, one has EA = {(dxm -i6rmd@)
8am , d6»8D
(5.10)
so that condition Hi), the closure of H, requires
(ddrade)(derabi-b"-ide)
= o.
(5.11)
Noting that the differential d9 is commuting and that for consistency with the H constraints (5.8), one must have (Tahl-b"-1)a^ symmetric in (a/3), it follows that the second factor d6Tabl-b"-1d6 in (5.11) does not vanish of its h
This observation in turn poses an unresolved question. The beta function conditions for vanishing of the string conformal anomalies naturally generate quantum corrections to the effective field equations, but it is not fully understood how the preservation of K symmetry is achieved in the presence of quantum corrections.
540
own accord. Consequently, what one requires for (5.11) to hold is the gamma matrix condition (rap)(a/J(ro6i-6'-iP)74) = o,
(5.12)
where P is a chirality projector that is required if the spinor coordinate 9 is Majorana-Weyl, but is the unit matrix otherwise. Analysis 36 of this constraint shows it to hold in the (D,p) spacetime/worldvolume dimensions shown in Figure 6). The (D,p) cases in which (5.12) holds are also related to the existence of "two-component notations" over the various division algebras E, C,H, Q. Examples of this may be seen in the p = 1, D — 3,4,6,10 superstring cases: in D = 3, the Lorentz group is SL(2, R), while in D = 4 it is SL(2, C) and in D = 6 it is SL(2, H); in D = 10, there is an analogous relation between the Lorentz group and the quaternions ©, although the non-associative nature of the quaternions makes this rather more cumbersome. Writing out the gamma matrix identity (5.12) in these cases using two-component notation makes its proof relatively transparent, as a moment's consideration of the D = 3 case shows, keeping in mind that the d9a fermionic one-forms are commuting, while the SL(2, E) invariant tensor ea/s that would be needed to contract indices is antisymmetric. Similar considerations apply to the p — 0, superparticle cases.36 It should be noted that the superparticle and superstring cases allow for minimal and also extended supersymmetries. This possibility arises because there exist corresponding extended worldvolume multiplets constructed from spinors and scalars alone. An essential import of the K symmetry for the super p-brane actions is that it allows one to gauge away half of the spinor variables, allowing thus gauge choices of the form 9 = (S,0). After this reduction by half in the number of non-gauge fermion worldvolume fields, one can achieve a balance between the worldvolume bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom, as required by the residual unbroken supersymmetry. The counting of degrees of freedom in superstring cases needs a little more care, however, because the bosonic worldvolume degrees of freedom can be split into chiral left- and right-moving modes. For example, in the minimal N = 1 superstring in D = 10, the Majorana-Weyl spinor variable yields superpartners only for one chirality amongst the bosonic modes, while the other chirality modes occur as supersymmetry singlets. In the N = 2 superstrings, however, both chiralities of bosonic modes are paired with spinors. One might find it strange to have an unbroken worldvolume supersymmetry given the fact that the spinor p-brane variables 9a are target-space spinors, but worldvolume scalars. It would seem that a worldvolume supersymmetry should require the presence of spinor fields on the worldvolume. To see how
541
*l 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
0 12
3 4 5
0
0 •
4
0
* «
c
* * * V
9? *
*
*
Figure 6. Sequences of fc-invariant p-brane actions involving worldvolume spinors and scalars only. The four sequences 4>, , 4k, •0> of {D,p) values correspond to solutions to the gamma matrix identity (5.12) and are associated to the division algebras R, C, H, O. There also exist other worldvolume actions, corresponding to the different brane types shown in Figure 7, but these involve worldvolume fields other than the simple scalar-spinor multiplets shown here.
such worldvolume spinors appear, one needs to fix the worldvolume reparameterization symmetry. This may conveniently be achieved using the "static" gauge choice xl((,) = £ J , i = 0 , 1 , . . . ,p. If one now makes a Lorentz transformation in the target spacetime, this gauge condition will generally be broken, so in order to maintain this condition one needs to make a compensating gauge transformation. Splitting the index range after the static gauge choice according to the pattern xm = (xl,xm), rh = p+1,.. .,D — 1, and making a Lorentz transformation with parameters (Llj,Llrh,Lmn), a combined Lorentz transformation and worldvolume reparameterization (with parameter rf(£)) o n the xl variables takes the form 8xi
=r]j(0djXi+Lijxj+Li
(5.13)
Demanding that 6xl = 0 for x1 = £* requires the compensating reparameterization to be given by if = —L^ — Llfhxm. Then the combined transformation for the remaining bosonic variables xm is 5xr>
~Lk jedkx*+L*fixa
-
Lkhxhdkxf'
(5.14)
This combined transformation remains linearly realized {i.e. "unbroken") for a subgroup SO(p, 1) x S O ( - D - p - l ) , but the remaining generators of SO(D — 1,1) become nonlinearly realized. The linearly realized SO(p, 1) becomes the
542
worldvolume Lorentz group, according to which the xm transform as a set of D—p—1 scalars (although they transform as a vector with respect to the remaining SO(D-p-l) factor, which is an "internal symmetry" from the worldvolume point of view). Now consider the effect of the linearly realized SO(p, 1) on the #(£) variables: 69 = -L'j&diB+^Lijr'e
.
(5.15)
The matrices P-7 provide a spinor representation (in general reducible) of the "worldvolume" SO(p, 1) algebra, so that 9 can now be identified, after gauge fixing, as a worldvolume spinor. 35 Similar considerations apply to supersymmetry after K symmetry fixing. Preserving the K symmetry gauge requires a similar compensating K symmetry transformation, causing some of the original target-space supersymmetry to become nonlinearly realized, but leaving still a linearly realized subgroup, which may be identified as the unbroken worldvolume supersymmetry. For the simple p-brane actions that we have been considering in this section, the fraction of unbroken supersymmetry is | . A classic example of a worldvolume supermultiplet with respect to such a worldvolume supersymmetry is provided by the D = 11, p = 2 supermembrane: the xm, rh = 3, . . . , 1 1 and the S residual spinor (32/2 = 16 components) form a worldvolume scalar-spinor multiplet with respect to the unbroken worldvolume supersymmetry. This multiplet contains 8 + 8 bosonic + fermionic degrees of freedom, transforming under 16 unbroken supercharges (it also has an unbroken SO(8) "internal" symmetry). The existence of such a large multiplet of scalars and spinors is a specific feature of the unbroken d — 3, "N = 8" supersymmetry. 6. Kaluza-Klein Dimensional Reduction Let us return now to the arena of purely bosonic field theories, and consider the relations between various bosonic-sector theories and the corresponding relations between p-brane solutions. It is well-known that supergravity theories are related by dimensional reduction from a small set of basic theories, the largest of which being D = 11 supergravity. The spinor sectors of the theories are equally well related by dimensional reduction, but in the following, we shall restrict our attention to the purely bosonic sector. In order to set up the procedure, let us consider a theory in (.D-t-1) dimensions, but break up the metric in Z)-dimensionally covariant pieces: ds2 = e2a{fids2 + e20* (dz+AMdxMf
(6.1)
where carets denote (£>+l)-dimensional quantities corresponding to the (D+
543
l)-dimensional coordinates xM = (xM,z)\ ds2 is the line element in D dimensions and a and /? are constants. The scalar ip in D dimensions emerges from the metric in {D+1) dimensions as (2/3) -1 \ngzz. Adjustment of the constants a and /? is necessary to obtain desired structures in D dimensions. In particular, one should pick /3 = —(D—2)a in order to arrange for the Einsteinframe form of the gravitational action in (D + 1) dimensions to go over to the Einstein-frame form of the action in D dimensions. The essential step in a Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction is a consistent truncation of the field variables, generally made by choosing them to be independent of the reduction coordinate 2. By a consistent truncation, we always understand a restriction on the variables that commutes with variation of the action to produce the field equations, i.e. a restriction such that solutions to the equations for the restricted variables are also solutions to the equations for the unrestricted variables. This ensures that the lower-dimensional solutions which we shall obtain are also particular solutions to higher-dimensional supergravity equations as well. Making the parameter choice /3 = — (D — 2)a to preserve the Einstein-frame form of the action, one obtains
\TlR(9)
^g(R{9)-{D-l){D-2)a2VM^Mv
=
- i e-^-'^^J'j
(6.2)
where T = dA. If one now chooses a 2 = [2(D — 1)(D — 2)]~1, the
.
(6.3)
All of these reduced fields are to be taken to be functionally independent of z. For the corresponding field strengths, first define G[n]
= dB[n^
G [n _!] = dB[n_2] .
(6.4a) (6.4b)
However, these are not exactly the most convenient quantities to work with, since a certain "Chern-Simons" structure appears upon dimensional reduction. The metric in (D+1) dimensions couples to all fields, and, consequently, dimensional reduction will produce some terms with undifferentiated Kaluza-Klein
544
vector fields AM coupling to D-dimensional antisymmetric tensors. Accordingly, it is useful to introduce G( n ] =G [ n ] -[„_!] A^4,
(6.5)
where the second term in (6.5) may be viewed as a Chern-Simons correction from the reduced P-dimensional point of view. At this stage, we are ready to perform the dimensional reduction of our general action (2.1). We find that R(g)-
[«] 1**4***-^***?* 2n!
(6.6)
reduces to I
'-9 1
_Le-2(n-
R-\vMcj>VM(l>~VMipVM
1
I)a
4
e
02(D-n)atfi+a
2n!
J-[2] (6.7)
Although the dimensional reduction (6.7) has produced a somewhat complicated result, the important point to note is that each of the Z)-dimensional antisymmetric-tensor field strength terms G9-, and G? _x, has an exponential prefactor of the form ear^r, where the <j>r, r = (n,n — l) are 50(2)-rotated combinations of if and <j>. Now, keeping just one while setting to zero the other two of the three gauge fields (A[\], B[n_2], Bn-i])> but retaining at the same time the scalar-field combination appearing in the corresponding exponential prefactor, is a consistent truncation. Thus, any one of the three field strengths (•^[2]>G[n-i]iCfni)> retained alone together with its corresponding scalar-field combination, can support p-brane solutions in D dimensions of the form that we have been discussing. An important point to note here is that, in each of the ear^ prefactors, the coefficient ar satisfies
ai = A-
& (Jif
Qif
= A(2?-2)--
2(r-l)(£>-r-l) (2?-2)
(6.8)
with the same value of A as for the "parent" coupling parameter a, satisfying
at =
A
2d(n) d(n) ((D + l)-2)
2(n-l)(£>-n) = A-(0-1)
(6.9)
in D+l dimensions. Thus, although the individual parameters ar are both Dand r-dependent, the quantity A is preserved under Kaluza-Klein reduction for both of the "descendant" field-strength couplings (to G'?L or to G? _ 1 ,) coming from the original term e^fi?,. The 2-form field strength T[2] - dA,
545 on the other hand, emerges out of the gravitational action in D+l dimensions; its coupling parameter corresponds to A = 4. If one retains in the reduced theory only one of the field strengths {F\i}, G[„_i], Gj n ,), together with its corresponding scalar-field combination, then one finds oneself back in the situation described by our general action (2.1), and then the p brane solutions obtained for the general case in Sec. 2 immediately become applicable. Moreover, since retaining only one field strength & scalar combination in this way effects a consistent truncation of the theory, solutions to this simple truncated system are also solutions to the untruncated theory, and indeed are also solutions to the original (D+l)-dimensional theory, since the Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction is also a consistent truncation. 6.1. Multiple Field-Strength Truncation
Solutions
and the
Single-Charge
After repeated single steps of Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction from D = 11 down to D dimensions, the metric takes the form 31 ' 32 ds2u = eis$ds2D
+ ]Te(t°- s <) (ft*)2
(6.10a)
i
hl
= dzi+A[1]+A\l]dzj
,
(6.10b)
where the AlM are a set of (11—D) Kaluza-Klein vectors generalizing the vector AM in (6.1), emerging from the higher-dimensional metric upon dimensional reduction. Once such Kaluza-Klein vectors have appeared, subsequent dimensional reduction also gives rise to the zero-form gauge potentials Al,L appearing in (6.10b) as a consequence of the usual one-step reduction (6.3) of a 1-form gauge potential. We shall also need the corresponding reduction of the P}4] field strength 1 (where hatted quantities refer to the original, higher, dimension) and, for later reference, we shall also give the reduction of its Hodge dual *Fj4]: F [4] = Fni+FfaMS + l F g Aft'AV' + i * g * Ah{AhjAhk %] = es^*F[4]Av + eSi*%]Avi
+ ^eSi'$*F^]Avij
+ ^eSi'k^fF^kAvijk
(6.11a) , (6.11b)
(noting that, since the Hodge dual is a metric-dependent construction, exponentials of the dilatonic vectors <j> appear in the reduction of *f[4]) where the 'Note that the lower-dimensional field strengths Frni include "Chern-Simons" corrections similar to those in (6.5).
546
forms v, Vi, Vij and Vijk appearing in (6.11b) are given by 1 (11-D)! 1 (10-D)l 1
t
hnA...Ahlll-D
ll...«ll_D
C
J42---«11-D
1 ' (8-7?)!
hhl-D (6.12)
hi3A...Ahhl~D
^ 2 7 23
Uy*
ti2 A ... A
, ti* A ... A hhl-D
tijki
.
Using (6.10),(6.11a), the bosonic sector of maximal supergravity (1.1) now reduces to 3 1 ' 3 2 12
iE«*'-*(^]) a -i£^(4]) i<j
2
(6.13)
i
*(<) 2 -^£^(^) 2
+CFFA
where i,j = l,...,ll—D, and field strengths with multiple i,j indices may be taken to be antisymmetric in those indices since these "internal" indices arise in the stepwise reduction procedure, and two equal index values never occur in a multi-index sum. From (6.11), one sees that the "straight-backed" field strengths i*]4], Ffa, F& and F?£ are descendants from F[4] in D = 11. The "calligraphic" field strengths TL-i, on the other hand, are the field strengths for the Kaluza-Klein vectors A%M appearing in (6.10b). Similarly, one also has a set of 1-form field strengths ffl, for the Kaluza-Klein zero-form gauge potentials A]L appearing in (6.10b). The nonlinearity of the original D = 11 action (1.1) in the metric tensor produces a consequent nonlinearity in the (11 — D) dilatonic scalar fields (ji appearing in the exponential prefactors of the antisymmetric-tensor kinetic terms in (6.13). For each field-strength kinetic term in (6.13), there is a corresponding "dilaton vector" of coefficients determining the linear combination of the dilatonic scalars appearing in its exponential prefactor. For the 4-, 3-, 2- and 1-form "straight-backed" field strengths emerging from i*]^ in D = 11, these coefficients are denoted correspondingly a, flj, Ojy and flyjtj for the "calligraphic" field strengths corresponding to Kaluza-Klein vectors and zero-form gauge potentials emerging out of the metric, these are denoted b{ and bij. How-
547
ever, not all of these dilaton vectors are independent; in fact, they may all be expressed in terms of the 4-form and 3-form dilaton vectors a and aiy. 31 ' 32 Sij — Si+Sj — a
bi = —di + a
Sijk — Si + aj+Sk-2a
bij = —Si+Sj .
(6-14) Another important feature of the dilaton vectors is that they satisfy the following dot-product relations: a-a =
2(ll-£>) D-2
a-a. = ^ f _
1
or
ai-Qj = 2dij+
(6-15) 2(6-D) D
^
.
Throughout this discussion, we have emphasized consistent truncations in making simplifying restrictions of complicated systems of equations, so that the solutions of a simplified system are nonetheless perfectly valid solutions of the more complicated untruncated system. With the equations of motion following from (6.13) we face a complicated system that calls for analysis in simplified subsectors. Accordingly, we now seek a consistent truncation down to a simplified system of the form (2.1), retaining just one dilatonic scalar combination 4> and one rank-n field strength combination i<]n] constructed out of a certain number N of "retained" field strengths Fa [n], a = 1 , . . . , N, (this could possibly be a straight-backed/calligraphic mixture) selected from those appearing in (6.13), with all the rest being set to zero. 32 Thus, we let
$=n(t>+$±,
(6.16)
where n-(t>± = 0 ; in the truncation we then seek to set consistently
•
(6.17)
a
where IIx is the projector into the dilaton-vector subspace orthogonal to the retained dilaton direction ft. Setting (j>± = 0 in (6.17) and letting the retained Fa[n] be proportional, one sees that achieving consistency is hopeless unless all the ea"'^ prefactors are the same, thus requiring aa-n — a
V a = 1 , . . . ,N ,
(6.18)
548
where the constant a will play the role of the dilatonic scalar coefficient in the reduced system (2.1). Given a set of dilaton vectors for retained field strengths satisfying (6.18), consistency of (6.17) with the imposition of
(6.19)
a
This equation requires, for every point xM in spacetime, that the combination 5Za°<* C^a[n]) ^e P a r a H e l t o " m t n e dilaton-vector space. Combining this with the requirement (6.18), one has
£ aQ (Fa w ) 2 =anj^ {Fa [n]f .
(6.20)
ot
a
Taking then a dot product of this with ap, one has
E M /3« ( ^ w ) 2 = & 2 E ( F « M ) 2 • a
(6-21)
a
32
Detailed analysis shows it to be sufficient to consider the cases where Map is invertible, so by applying M~l to (6.21), one finds
(^H)2 = « 2 E M ^ E ( ^ [ n ] ) 2 P
,
(6-22)
7
and, indeed, we find that the Fa [„] must all be proportional. Summing on a, one has
one then defines the retained field-strength combination F[n] so that (Fa[n})2 = a2^2Mj(F[n])2 0
.
(6.24)
The only remaining requirement for consistency of the truncation down to the simplified (gMN, (/>, F[nj) system (2.1) arises from the necessity to ensure that the variation of the CFFA term in (6.13) is not inconsistent with setting to zero the discarded dilatonic scalars and gauge potentials. In general, this imposes a somewhat complicated requirement. In the present review, however, we shall concentrate mainly on either purely-electric cases satisfying the elementary ansatz (2.4) or purely-magnetic cases satisfying the solitonic ansatz (2.6). As one can see by inspection, for pure electric or magnetic solutions of these sorts, the terms that are dangerous for consistency arising from the variation of CFFA all vanish. Thus, for such solutions one may safely ignore
549
the complications of the CFFA term. This restriction to pure electric or magnetic solutions does, however, leave out the very interesting cases of dyonic solutions that exist in D = 8 and D = 4, upon which we shall comment later on in Section 8. After truncating down to the system (2.1), the analysis proceeds as in Section 2. It turns out 32 that supersymmetric p-brane solutions arise when the matrix Map for the retained Fa [n] satisfies Ma0
= 4 8
- ^ ,
a 0
(6.25)
and the corresponding A value for F[n] is A = ^
,
(6.26)
where we recall that N is the number of retained field strengths. A generalization of this analysis leads to a classification of solutions with more than one independent retained scalar-field combination. 32 We shall see in Section 7 that the N > 1 solutions to single-charge truncated systems (2.1) may also be interpreted as special solutions of the full reduced action (6.13) containing N constituent A = 4 brane components that just happen to have coincident charge centers. Consequently, one may consider only the N = 1, A = 4 solutions to be fundamental. 6.2. Diagonal
Dimensional
Reduction
of
p-Branes
The family of p-brane solutions is ideally suited to interpretation as solutions of Kaluza-Klein reduced theories, because they are naturally independent of the "worldvolume" x1* coordinates. Accordingly, one may let the reduction coordinate z be one of the xM. Consequently, the only thing that needs to be done to such a solution in order to reinterpret it as a solution of a reduced system (6.7) is to perform a Weyl rescaling on it in order to be in accordance with the form of the metric chosen in the Kaluza-Klein ansatz (6.10), which was adjusted so as to maintain the Einstein-frame form of the gravitational term in the dimensionally reduced action. Upon making such a reinterpretation, elementary/solitonic p-branes in (D + l) dimensions give rise to elementary/solitonic (p-l)-branes in D dimensions, corresponding to the same value of A, as one can see from (6.8),(6.9). Note that in this process, the quantity d is conserved, since both JD and d reduce by one. Reinterpretation of p brane solutions in this way, corresponding to standard Kaluza-Klein reduction on a worldvolume coordinate, proceeds diagonally o n a D versus d plot, and hence is referred to as diagonal dimensional
550
reduction. This procedure is the analogue, for supergravity field-theory solutions, of the procedure of double dimensional reduction22 for p-brane worldvolume actions, which can be taken to constitute the J-function sources for singular p-brane solutions, coupled in to resolve the singularities, as we discussed in subsection 4.1. 6.3. Multi-Center Reduction
Solutions
and Vertical
Dimensional
As we have seen, translational Killing symmetries of p-brane solutions allow a simultaneous interpretation of these field configurations as solutions belonging to several different supergravity theories, related one to another by KaluzaKlein dimensional reduction. For the original single p-brane solutions (2.24), the only available translational Killing symmetries are those in the worldvolume directions, which we have exploited in describing diagonal dimensional reduction above. One may, however, generalize the basic solutions (2.24) by replacing the harmonic function H(y) in (2.21) by a different solution of the Laplace equation (2.20). Thus, one can easily extend the family of p-brane solutions to multi-center p-brane solutions by taking the harmonic function to be H(y) = 1 + T -%-= ka > 0 . a \v-y»\d Once again, the integration constant has been adjusted to make H,
(6.27) = 1 «
loo
0i = 0. The generalized solution (6.27) corresponds to parallel and similarlyoriented p-branes, with all charge parameters Xa = 2dka/y/A required to be positive in order to avoid naked singularities. The "centers" of the individual "leaves" of this solution are at the points y = ya, where a ranges over any number of centers. The metric and the electric-case antisymmetric tensor gauge potential corresponding to (6.27) are given again in terms of H{y) by (2.24a),(2.25). In the solitonic case, the ansatz (2.6) needs to be modified so as to accommodate the multi-center form of the solution: -f*mi...m„
=
—
«
e
mi...ro„pOp /
J
~
_ .j ;
(O.ZoJ
a \y-ya\d which ensures the validity of the Bianchi identity just as well as (2.6) does. The mass/(unit p-volume) density is now v
a
while the total electric or magnetic charge is given by Qo-d-i ^ A a , so the Bogomol'ny bounds (4.16) are saturated just as they are for the single-center
551
solutions (2.24). Since the multi-center solutions given by (6.27) satisfy the same supersymmetry-preservation conditions on the metric and antisymmetric tensor as (2.24), the multi-center solutions leave the same amount of supersymmetry unbroken as the single-center solution. From a mathematical point of view, the multi-center solutions (6.27) exist owing to the properties of the Laplace equation (2.20). From a physical point of view, however, these static solutions exist as a result of cancellation between attractive gravitational and scalar-field forces against repulsive antisymmetrictensor forces for the similarly-oriented p-brane "leaves". The multi-center solutions given by (6.27) can now be used to prepare solutions adapted to dimensional reduction in the transverse directions. This combination of a modification of the solution followed by dimensional reduction on a transverse coordinate is called vertical dimensional reduction 23 because it relates solutions vertically on a D versus d plot.-" In order to do this, we need first to develop translation invariance in the transverse reduction coordinate. This can be done by "stacking" up identical p branes using (6.27) in a periodic array, i.e. by letting the integration constants ka all be equal, and aligning the "centers" ya along some axis, e.g. the z axis. Singling out one "stacking axis" in this way clearly destroys the overall isotropic symmetry of the solution, but, provided the centers are all in a line, the solution will nonetheless remain isotropic in the D — d—1 dimensions orthogonal to the stacking axis. Taking the limit of a densely-packed infinite stack of this sort, one has ^^
feq
j
kdz
_
k
D-2 2
? = Y, ymym v^Ffcr k
=
H) '
artf)
( 6 - 30b )
(6 30c)
'
where f in (6.30b) is the radial coordinate for the D — d—1 residual isotropic transverse coordinates. After a conformal rescaling in order to maintain the Einstein frame for the solution, one can finally reduce on the coordinate z along the stacking axis. After stacking and reduction in this way, one obtains a p-brane solution with the same worldvolume dimension as the original higher-dimensional so•>Similar procedures have been considered in a number of articles in the literature; see, e.g. Refs. 3 7 .
552
lution that was stacked up. Since the same antisymmetric tensors are used here to support both the stacked and the unstacked solutions, and since A is preserved under dimensional reduction, it follows that vertical dimensional reduction from D to D — 1 spacetime dimensions preserves the value of A just like the diagonal reduction discussed in the previous subsection. Note that under vertical reduction, the worldvolume dimension d is preserved, but d = D—d—2 is reduced by one with each reduction step. Combining the diagonal and vertical dimensional reduction trajectories of "descendant" solutions, one finds the general picture given in the plot of Figure 7. In this plot of spacetime dimension D versus worldvolume dimension d, reduction families emerge from certain basic solutions that cannot be "oxidized" back up to higher-dimensional isotropic p-brane solutions, and hence can be called "stainless" p-branes. 13 In Figure 7, these solutions are indicated by the large circles, with the corresponding A values shown adjacently. The indication of elementary or solitonic type relates to solutions of supergravity theories in versions with the lowest possible choice of rank (n < D/2) for the supporting field strength, obtainable by appropriate dualization. Of course, every solution to a theory obtained by dimensional reduction from D = 11 supergravity (1.1) may be oxidized back up to some solution in D = 11. We shall see in Section 7 that what one obtains upon oxidation of the "stainless" solutions in Figure 7 falls into the interesting class of "intersecting branes" built from four basic "elemental" solutions of D = 11 supergravity.
6.4. The Geometry
of {D — Z)-Branes
The process of vertical dimensional reduction described in the previous subsection proceeds uneventfully until one makes the reduction from a (D, d = D — 3) solution to a (D — l,d = .D — 3) solution.15 In this step, the integral (6.30) contains an additive divergence and needs to be renormalized. This is easily handled by putting finite limits ±L on the integral, which becomes f_Ldz(r2+z2)~1/2, and then by subtracting a divergent term 21nL before taking the limit L -> oo. Then the integral gives the expected lnr harmonic function appropriate to two transverse dimensions. Before proceeding any further with vertical dimensional reduction, let us consider some of the specific properties of (D — 3)-branes that make the next vertical step down problematic. Firstly, the asymptotic metric of a (D — 3)brane is not a globally flat space, but only a locally flat space. This distinction Solutions with worldvolume dimension two less than the spacetime dimension will be referred to generally as (D — 3)-branes, irrespective of whether the spacetime dimension is D or not.
553
DA 1 1 •-
o
<
lOi
o2 i i
/
'
^
A i
^
i
0
/
i
'
>
i i
•
*'
&2
A '
y
.
'
^
4 C3T
4/7
c yf
i
/
*'
•
^4/3,1'
. s
' .
i
^
C }
04/3 +4/3 y
5 i/
•
•'
±''
s
i / •
*2 y
'4/3,1 '*
y *2 >
A
• ^
i i
*
•'
•
'/'
/ /
y
,
elementary
^
•
M
"stainless"
solitonic
^V^/w
self-dual Kaluza-Klein descendants
Q
'112 ±
1/2 4
A values
I
vertical reduction trajectories diagonal reduction trajectories
H-
1 0
instanton particle
-+-
-+-
-+3
4
-+-
1
2
string
membrane 3-brane 4-brane
5
-+6
•+•
7
5-brane
<
i
6-brane
Figure 7. Brane-scan of supergravity p-brane solutions (p < (D — 3)).
means t h a t there is in general a deficit solid angle at transverse infinity, which is related t o the total mass density of the (D — 3)-brane. 3 8 This means t h a t any a t t e m p t to stack u p (D — 3)-branes within a s t a n d a r d supergravity theory will soon consume the entire solid angle at transverse infinity, thus destroying the asymptotic spacetime in the construction. In order t o understand t h e global structure of t h e (D — 3)-branes in some
554
more detail, consider the supersymmetric string in D = 4 dimensions. 12 In D = 4, one may dualize the 2-form A^ field to a pseudoscalar, or axion, field Xi s o s u c n strings are also solutions to dilaton-axion gravity. The p-brane ansatz gives a spacetime of the form M4 = M2xT,2, where M2 is D = 2 Minkowski space. Supporting this string solution, one has the 2-form gauge field A^v and the dilaton (p. These fields give rise to a field stress tensor of the form (a2+4)dmKdmKri^
T^(A,
Tmn(A,
,
where a is as usual the dilaton coupling parameter and e~K — H = 1 — 8GTln(r), with r = y/ymym, m = 2, 3. If one now puts in an elementary string source action, with the string aligned along the fi, v — 0,1 subspace, so that Tmn (source) = 0, then one has the source stress tensor ^.(source) = ^ = Jd2£V^lfjdiX^jXve^aH{x-X)
.
(6.32)
By inspection of the field solution, one has Tmn(A, (f>) = 0, while the contributions to TM>/ from the A^v and <j> fields and also from the source (6.32) are both of the form diag(p, — p). Thus, the overall stress tensor is of the form TMN = diag(p,-p,0,0). Consequently, the Einstein equation in the transverse m, n indices becomes Rmn — \9mnR = 0, since the transverse stress tensor components vanish. This equation is naturally satisfied for a metric satisfying the p-brane ansatz, because, as one can see from (2.11) with d = A1 = 0, this causes the transverse components of the Ricci tensor to be equal to the Ricci tensor of a D = 2 spacetime, for which Rmn — ^ gmnR = 0 is an identity, corresponding to the fact that the usual Einstein action, y/—gR, is a topological invariant in D = 2. Accordingly, in the transverse directions, the equations are satisfied simply by by 0 = 0. In the world-sheet directions, the equations become --Rr)»»
= -8KGpV»»
,
(6-33)
or just R=16TTGP,
(6.34)
and as we have already noted, R = Rmm. Owing to the fact that the D — 2 Weyl tensor vanishes, the transverse space S 2 is conformally flat; Eq. (6.34) gives its conformal factor. Thus, although there is no sensible Einstein action in
555
the transverse D = 2, space, a usual form of the Einstein equation nonetheless applies to that space as a result of the symmetries of the p-brane ansatz. The above supersymmetric string solution may be compared to the cosmic strings arising in gauge theories with spontaneous symmetry breaking. There, the Higgs fields contributing to the energy density of the string are displaced from their usual vacuum values to unbroken-symmetry configurations at a stationary point of the Higgs potential, within a very small transverse-space region that may be considered to be the string "core". Approximating this by a delta function in the transverse space, the Ricci tensor and hence the full curvature vanish outside the string core, so that one obtains a conical spacetime, which is flat except at the location of the string core. The total energy is given by the deficit angle 8nGT of the conical spacetime. In contrast, the supersymmetric string has a field stress tensor TtiV(A,
H = l-Y,*GTiln\y-yi\.
(6.35)
i
Consequently, when considered within the original supergravity theory, the indefinite stacking of supersymmetric strings leads to a destruction of the transverse asymptotic space. A second problem with any attempt to produce (D — 2)-branes in ordinary supergravity theories is simply stated: starting from the p-brane ansatz (2.3),(2.6) and searching for (D — 2) branes in ordinary massless supergravity theories, one simply does not find any such solutions. 6.5. Beyond the (D — 3)-Brane Barrier: Reduction and Domain Walls
Scherk-Schwarz
Faced with the above puzzles about what sort of (-D — 2)-brane could result by vertical reduction from a (D — 3)-brane, one can simply decide to be brave, and to just proceed anyway with the established mathematical procedure of vertical dimensional reduction and see what one gets. In the next step of vertical dimensional reduction, one again encounters an additive divergence: the integral f_L dz\n(y2+z2) needs to be renormalized by subtracting a divergent term 4L(lnL —1). Upon subsequently performing the integral, the harmonic
556
function H(y) becomes linear in the one remaining transverse coordinate. While the mathematical procedure of vertical dimensional reduction so as to produce some sort of (D — 2)-brane proceeds apparently without serious complication, an analysis of the physics of the situation needs some care. 39 Consider the reduction from a (D,d = D — 2) solution (a p = (D — 3) brane) to a (D — l,d = D — 3) solution (a p = (D — 2) brane). Note that both the (D — 3) brane and its descendant (D — 2)-brane have harmonic functions H(y) that blow up at infinity. For the (D — 3)-brane, however this is not in itself particularly remarkable, because, as one can see by inspection of (2.24) for this case, the metric asymptotically tends to a locally flat space as r -4 oo, and also in this limit the antisymmetric-tensor one-form field strength Fm = -emndnH
(6.36)
tends asymptotically to zero, while the dilatonic scalar <j> tends to its modulus value >oo (set to zero for simplicity in (2.24)). The expression (6.36) for the field strength, however, shows that the next reduction step down to the (D — 1, d = D — 2) solution has a significant new feature: upon stacking up (D — 3) branes prior to the vertical reduction, thus producing a linear harmonic function in the transverse coordinate y, H(y) = const.+my ,
(6.37)
the field strength (6.36) acquires a constant component along the stacking axis f+ reduction direction z, Fz — -tzydyH
— m,
(6.38)
which implies an unavoidable dependence 1 of the corresponding zero-form gauge potential on the reduction coordinate: A[0](x,y,z)
= mz+x(x,y)
-
(6.39)
From a Kaluza-Klein point of view, the unavoidable linear dependence of a gauge potential on the reduction coordinate given in (6.39) appears to be problematic. Throughout this review, we have dealt only with consistent KaluzaKlein reductions, for which solutions of the reduced theory are also solutions of the unreduced theory. Generally, retaining any dependence on a reduction coordinate will lead to an inconsistent truncation of the theory: attempting 'Note that this vertical reduction from a (D — 3)-brane to a (D — 2)-brane is the first case in which one is forced to accept a dependence on the reduction coordinate z\ in all higherdimensional vertical reductions, such z dependence can be removed by a gauge transformation. The zero-form gauge potential in (6.39) does not have the needed gauge symmetry, however.
557
to impose a z dependence of the form given in (6.39) prior to varying the Lagrangian will give a result different from that obtained by imposing this dependence in the field equations after variation. The resolution of this difficulty is that in performing a Kaluza-Klein reduction with an ansatz like (6.39), one ends up outside the standard set of massless supergravity theories. In order to understand this, let us again focus on the problem of consistency of the Kaluza-Klein reduction. As we have seen, consistency of any restriction means that the restriction may either be imposed on the field variables in the original action prior to variation so as to derive the equations of motion, or instead may be imposed on the field variables in the equations of motion after variation, with an equal effect. In this case, solutions obeying the restriction will also be solutions of the general unrestricted equations of motion. The most usual guarantee of consistency in Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction is obtained by restricting the field variables to carry zero charge with respect to some conserved current, e.g. momentum in the reduction dimension. But this is not the only way in which consistency may be achieved. In the present case, retaining a linear dependence on the reduction coordinate as in (6.39) would clearly produce an inconsistent truncation if the reduction coordinate were to appear explicitly in any of the field equations. But this does not imply that a truncation is necessarily inconsistent just because a gauge potential contains a term linear in the reduction coordinate. Inconsistency of a Kaluza-Klein truncation occurs when the original, unrestricted, field equations imply a condition that is inconsistent with the reduction ansatz. If a particular gauge potential appears in the action only through its derivative, i.e. through its field strength, then a consistent truncation may be achieved provided that the restriction on the gauge potential implies that the field strength is independent of the reduction coordinate. A zero-form gauge potential on which such a reduction may be carried out, occurring in the action only through its derivative, will be referred to as an axion. Requiring axionic field strengths to be independent of the reduction coordinate amounts to extending the Kaluza-Klein reduction framework so as to allow for linear dependence of an axionic zero-form potential on the reduction coordinate, precisely of the form occurring in (6.39). So, provided A[o] is an axion, the reduction (6.39) turns out to be consistent after all. This extension of the Kaluza-Klein ansatz is in fact an instance of Scherk-Schwarz reduction. 40 ' 41 The basic idea of Scherk-Schwarz reduction is to use an Abelian rigid symmetry of a system of equations in order to generalize the reduction ansatz by allowing a linear dependence on the reduction coordinate in the parameter of this Abelian symmetry. Consistency is guaranteed by cancel-
558
lations orchestrated by the Abelian symmetry in field-equation terms where the parameter does not get differentiated. When it does get differentiated, it contributes only a term that is itself independent of the reduction coordinate. In the present case, the Abelian symmetry guaranteeing consistency of (6.39) is a simple shift symmetry A[0] —• A[ 0 ]+const.. Unlike the original implementation of the Scherk-Schwarz reduction idea, 40 which used an Abelian U(l) phase symmetry acting on spinors, the Abelian shift symmetry used here commutes with supersymmetry, and hence the reduction does not spontaneously break supersymmetry. Instead, gauge symmetries for some of the antisymmetric tensors will be broken, with a corresponding appearance of mass terms. As with all examples of vertical dimensional reduction, the A value corresponding to a given field strength is also preserved. Thus, p-brane solutions related by vertical dimensional reduction, even in the enlarged Scherk-Schwarz sense, preserve the same amount of unbroken supersymmetry and have the same value of A. It may be necessary to make several redefinitions and integrations by parts in order to reveal the axionic property of a given zero-form, and thus to prepare the theory for a reduction like (6.39). This is most easily explained by an example, so let us consider the first possible Scherk-Schwarz reduction m in the sequence of theories descending from (1.1), starting in D = 9 where the first axion field appears. 39 The Lagrangian for massless D — 9 maximal supergravity is obtained by specializing the general dimensionally-reduced action (6.13) given in Section 2 to this case: C* = y/=g ]R-\
(flfc)a-i
(^)a-Ie-**+**(fc)a-lea-*(F[4])2
2
_ 1- ? „ . J / ^ 2 A 221 e6Y* ( ^ g > ) ] 4
1^
-±F[4]AFWAA™-F$AF$AA[3]
,
(6.40)
where x = ^pf a n d $=(.
A higher-dimensional Scherk-Schwarz reduction is possible 41 starting from type IIB supergravity in D = 10, using the axion appearing in the SL(2,M)/go(2) scalar sector of that theory.
559 account must still be taken of the Chern-Simons structure lurking inside the field strengths in (6.11),(6.40). In detail, the field strengths are given by *[4]
=^[4]-^3])A^11])-^)A^12])
+ XF$ A^J - F^] AA§ A^J
(6.41a)
l$=F®-i$?AA$>
(6.41b)
F$ =J$+F$?AA$-XF®
(6.41C)
2) 4f=^ [2] ~ [ 2 ]
(6.41d)
^=m-d [2] - ^ [ 2 ] X^} "A"~[l]
J
r(2) _ T ( 2 )
?$=?$ [2] - ^ [ 2 ]
J
,7(12 ^[1]
rtn2)=dx,
(6.41e)
where the field strengths carrying tildes are the naive expressions without Chern-Simons corrections, i.e. Fn] — dA[ n _i]. Now the appearance of undifferentiated x factors in (6.41a,c) makes it appear that a Scherk-Schwarz reduction would be inconsistent. However, one may eliminate these undifferentiated factors by making the field redefinition A§
- • A$+XA§
,
(6.42)
after which the field strengths (6.41a,c) become
F[i]=F[i]-F$AA[H-F$AA$ - dX A A§ A A™ - F g 2 ) A A§ A A$ F
m = Fm +Fli2)
AA
m+d*
AA
m >
(6.43a)
^ 6 - 43b )
the rest of (6.41) remaining unchanged. After the field redefinitions (6.42), the axion field x = A,Q,' is now ready for application of the Scherk-Schwarz reduction ansatz (6.39). The coefficient of the term linear in the reduction coordinate z has been denoted m because it carries the dimensions of mass, and correspondingly its effect on the reduced action is to cause the appearance of mass terms. Applying (6.39) to the D = 9 Lagrangian, one obtains a D = 8 reduced Lagrangian" n I am grateful to Marcus Bremer for help in correcting some errors in the original expression of Eq. (6.44) given in Ref. 3 9 .
560 •^8ss
—
i?4^)2l^)24(#3)2 -^5-*K]s))a-^aWK]23,)a ~12
V
[3]
~
[2)
W/
12
I PI
+mA
[2]
A
^W J
-j«s'!-*"wr)2-ie',*''('p'S,>)a-jei",,'Kr+'~4ii')! - - m 2 e6123 2
+mF$
A 4 $ A A[3] +CFFA
,
(6.44)
where the dilaton vectors are now those appropriate for D — 8; the term CFFA contains only m-independent terms. It is apparent from (6.44) that the fields A, J, .4L and AU have become massive. Moreover, there are field redefinitions under which the fields x, A 0 , and Af] may be absorbed. One way to see how this absorption happens is to notice that the action obtained from (6.44) has a set of three Stueckelberg-type gauge transformations under which A$, A^l and Au transform according to their standard gauge transformation laws. These three transformations are accompanied, however, by various compensating transformations necessitated by the Chern-Simons corrections present in (6.44) as well as by m-dependent shift transformations of x, -4f0i a n d ^ m •> respectively. Owing to the presence of these local shift terms in the three Stueckelberg symmetries, the fields x, .4L and ^4.L may be gauged to zero. After gauging these three fields to zero, one has a clean set of mass terms in (6.44) for the fields A,J, A, J and As one descends through the available spacetime dimensions for supergravity theories, the number of axionic scalars available for a Scherk-Schwarz reduction step increases. The numbers of axions are given in the following Table:
561 Table 1. Supergravity spacetime dimension.
axions
versus
D
9
8
7
6
5
4
•'''axions
1
4
10
20
36
63
Each of these axions gives rise to a distinct massive supergravity theory upon Scherk-Schwarz reduction, 39 and each of these reduced theories has its own pattern of mass generation. In addition, once a Scherk-Schwarz reduction step has been performed, the resulting theory can be further reduced using ordinary Kaluza-Klein reduction. Moreover, the Scherk-Schwarz and ordinary Kaluza-Klein processes do not commute, so the number of theories obtained by the various combinations of Scherk-Schwarz and ordinary dimensional reduction is cumulative. In addition, there are numerous possibilities of performing Scherk-Schwarz reduction simultaneously on a number of axions. This can be done either by arranging to cover a number of axions simultaneously with derivatives, or by further Scherk-Schwarz generalizations of the Kaluza-Klein reduction process. 42 For further details on the panoply of Scherk-Schwarz reduction possibilities, we refer the reader to Refs. 39>42. The single-step procedure of Scherk-Schwarz dimensional reduction described above may be generalized to a procedure exploiting the various cohomology classes of a multi-dimensional compactification manifold.43 The key to this link between the Scherk-Schwarz generalized dimensional reduction and the topology of the internal Kaluza-Klein manifold /C is to recognize that the single-step reduction ansatz (6.39) may be generalized to A[n-\]{x,y,z)
= uj[n_1]+A[n„1](x,y)
,
(6.45)
where W[„_1] is an (ra —1) form defined locally on /C, whose exterior derivative fl[n] = du>[„_i] is an element of the cohomology class Hn(K.,R). For example, in the case of a single-step generalized reduction on a circle S1, one has tyi] = mdz e fl'1(S1,lR), reproducing our earlier single-step reduction (6.39). As another example, consider a generalized reduction on a 4-torus T4 starting in D = 11, setting A[3](x,y,z) = W[3] + A[3](x,y) with fi[4] = dw[3] = mdziAdz2/\dz3/\dz4 € H4(T4,R). In this example, one may choose to write W[3] locally as W[3] = mz\dzif\dz3t\dz±. All of the other fields are reduced using the standard Kaluza-Klein ansatz, with no dependence on any of the Zj coordinates. The theory resulting from this T4 reduction is a D = 7 massive supergravity with a cosmological potential, analogous to the D = 8 theory (6.44). The same theory (up to field redefinitions) can also be obtained 39 by
562
first making an ordinary Kaluza-Klein reduction from D — 11 down to D = 8 on a 3-torus T 3 , then making an S 1 single-step generalized Scherk-Schwarz reduction (6.39) from D = 8 to D = 7. Although the T 4 reduction example simply reproduces a massive D = 7 theory that can also be obtained via the single-step ansatz (6.39), the recognition that one can use any of the Hn(IC, E) cohomology classes of the compactification manifold K, significantly extends the scope of the generalized reduction procedure. For example, it allows one to make generalized reductions on manifolds such as K3 or on Calabi-Yau manifolds.43 For our present purposes, the important feature of theories obtained by Scherk-Schwarz reduction is the appearance of cosmological potential terms such as the penultimate term in Eq. (6.44). Such terms may be considered within the context of our simplified action (2.1) by letting the rank n of the field strength take the value zero. Accordingly, by consistent truncation of (6.44) or of one of the many theories obtained by Scherk-Schwarz reduction in lower dimensions, one may arrive at the simple Lagrangian
£=
R~VM
(6.46)
Since the rank of the form here is n = 0, the elementary/electric type of solution would have worldvolume dimension d — — 1, which is not very sensible, but the solitonic/magnetic solution has d = D — l, corresponding to a p = D — 2 brane, or domain wall, as expected. Relating the parameter a in (6.46) to the reduction-invariant parameter A by the standard formula (2.18) gives A = a2 — 2(D — 1)/(D — 2); taking the corresponding p = D — 2 brane solution from (2.24), one finds ds2 = # * < ^ ) T?MI/ dx»dxv+H%&%
dy2
(6.47a)
0 -2a/A ^ (6.47b) e = H where the harmonic function H(y) is now a linear function of the single transverse coordinate, in accordance with (6.37).° The curvature of the metric (6.47a) tends to zero at large values of \y\, but it diverges if H tends to zero. This latter singularity can be avoided by taking H to be H = const. + M\y\
(6.48)
where M = \m\fK. With the choice (6.48), there is just a delta-function singularity at the location of the domain wall at y = 0, corresponding to the discontinuity in the gradient of H. "Domain walls solutions such as (6.47) in supergravity theories were found for the D = 4 case in Ref. 4 4 and a review of them has been given in Ref. 4 5 .
563
The domain-wall solution (6.47),(6.48) has the peculiarity of tending asymptotically to flat space as \y\ —> oo, within a theory that does not naturally admit flat space as a solution (by "naturally", we are excluding the case a
7. Intersecting Branes and Scattering Branes 7.1. Multiple
Component
Solutions
Given the existence of solutions (6.24) with several active field strengths F£i, but with coincident charge centers, it is natural to try to find solutions where the charge centers for the different F£, are separated. 46 This will lead us to a better understanding of the A ^ 4 solutions shown in Figure 7. Consider a number of field strengths that individually have A = 4 couplings, but now look for a solution where t of these field strengths are active, with centers ya, a = 1 , . . . ,£. Let the charge parameter for Fa be A". Thus, for example, in the magnetic case, one sets
F
m1,...,mn ~ * a e m i ) ... i m „ p
yP +1
.
(7.1)
In both the electric and the magnetic cases, the Xa are related to the integration constants ka appearing in the metric by ka = \a/d. Letting <; = ± 1 in the electric/magnetic cases as before, the solution for the metric and the active
564
dilatonic combinations e^"'^ is given by 1
2
ds
-a
l
d
= H HS^dx^dx^ + J J H£^ dymdyr> 1
e^* =HlJ2Hp~2
^7-2)
3i
Ha
ka =1 + — \y-ya\d
The non-trivial step in verifying the validity of this solution is the check that the non-linear terms still cancel in the Einstein equations, even with the multiple centers. 46 Now consider a solution with two field strengths (-FjL, F?^) m which the two charge parameters are taken to be the same, AQ = A, while the charge centers are allowed to coalesce. When the charge centers have coalesced, the resulting solution may be viewed as a single-field-strength solution for a field strength rotated by ir/4 in the space of field strengths (FLi, F?,). Since the charges add vectorially, the net charge parameter in this case will be A = V2X, and the net charge density will be U = \/2Afi.D_d-i/4. On the other hand, the total mass density will add as a scalar quantity, so £ — £\+£% = 2Afi£>_<j-i/4 = y/2U. Thus, the coalesced solution satisfies £ = 2U/VA with A = 2. Direct comparison with our general p-brane solution (2.24) shows that the coalesced solution agrees precisely with the single-field-strength A = 2 solution. Generalizing this construction to a case with N separate A = 4 components, one finds in the coincident limit a A = 4/N supersymmetric solution from the single-field-strength analysis. In the next subsection, we shall see that as one adds new components, each one separately charged with respect to a different A = 4 field strength, one progressively breaks more and more supersymmetry. For example, the above solution (7.2) leaves unbroken 1/4 of the original supersymmetry. Since the A = 4/N solutions may in this way be separated into A = 4 components while still preserving some degree of unbroken supersymmetry, and without producing any relative forces to disturb their equilibrium, they may be considered to be "bound states at threshold". 46 We shall shortly see that the zero-force property of such multiplecomponent solutions is related to their managing still to preserve unbroken a certain portion of rigid supersymmetry, even though this portion is reduced with respect to the half-preservation characterizing single-component A = 4 solutions.
565
7.2. Intersecting
Branes
and the Four Elements
in D — 11
The multiple-charge-center solutions (7.2) to the dimensionally reduced theory (6.13) may automatically be interpreted as solutions of any one of the higher-dimensional theories descending from the D = 11 theory (1.1). This automatic "oxidation" is possible because we have insisted throughout on considering only consistent truncations. Although all lower-dimensional solutions may automatically be oxidized in this way into solutions of higher-dimensional supergravity theories, it is not guaranteed that these oxidized branes always fall into the class of isotropic p-brane solutions that we have mainly been discussing. For example, in D = 9, one has a two-black-hole solution of the form (7.2), supported by a 1-form gauge potential A}2, descending from the D = 11 gauge potential A^ and also by another 1-form gauge potential, e.g. A2X,, emerging from the metric as a Kaluza-Klein vector field. Upon oxidizing the two-black-hole solution back to D = 11, one finds the solution [HrHv) {-dt2 + dp2 + da2 +
dsl, = Hhv)
A[3] = H^1 (y)dt A dp A da ,
(H2(y)-l)(dt+dp)2}+dymdym]
m — 3 , . . . , 10 ,
wave||2-brane
(7.3)
which depends on two independent harmonic functions H\ (y) and H2 (y), where the ym are an 8-dimensional set of "overall transverse" coordinates. Although the solution (7.3) clearly falls outside the class of p-brane or multiple p-brane solutions that we have considered so far, it nonetheless has two clearly recognizable elements, associated to the two harmonic functions H\{y) and #2(2/)- In order to identify these two elements, we may use the freedom to trivialize one or the other of these harmonic functions by setting it equal to unity. Thus, setting H2 = 1, one recovers
ds^ = Hi(y) [H^iy) {-dt2 + dp2+da2}+dymdym] (7.4) -i4[3] = H
1
(y)dt /\dp Ada ,
m = 3 , . . . , 10 ,
2-brane
which one may recognized as simply a certain style of organizing the harmonicfunction factors in the D = 11 membrane solution 18 (3.2), generalized to an arbitrary harmonic function H{y) <-> H\{y) in the membrane's transverse space. Setting Hi = 1 in (7.3), on the other hand, produces a solution of D — 11 supergravity that is not a p-brane (i.e. it is not a Poincare-invariant hyperplane solution). What one finds for H1 = 1 is a classic solution of General Relativity found originally in 1923 by Brinkmann, 47 the pp wave: ds2n = {-dt2+dp2
+
(H{y)-l)(dt+dp)2}+dymdym (7.5)
A[3] = 0 ,
m = 2 , . . . , 10 ,
pp wave
566
where for a general wave solution, H(y) could be harmonic in the 9 dimensions ym transverse to the two lightplane dimensions {t, p) in which the wave propagates; for the specific case obtained by setting Hi — 1 in (7.3), H(y) •<->• i?2(y) is constant in one of these 9 directions, corresponding to the coordinate a in (7.3). The solution (7.3) thus may be viewed as a D = 11 pp wave superposed on a membrane. Owing to the fact that the harmonic function H2 (y) depends only on the overall transverse coordinates ym, m = 3 , . . . , 1 0 , the wave is actually "delocalized" in the third membrane worldvolume direction, i.e. the solution (7.3) is independent of a as well as of its own lightplane coordinates. Of course, this derealization of the wave in the o direction is just what makes it possible to perform a dimensional reduction of (7.3) on the {p, a} coordinates down to a D = 9 configuration of two particles of the sort considered in (7.2), i.e. the wave in (7.3) has already been stacked up in the a direction as is necessary in preparation for a vertical dimensional reduction. Another point to note about (7.3) is that the charge centers of the two harmonic functions H\ and H2 may be chosen completely independently in the overall transverse space. Thus, although this is an example of an "intersecting" brane configuration, it should be understood that the two components of (7.3) need not actually overlap on any specific subspace of spacetime. The term "intersecting" is generally taken to mean that there are shared worldvolume coordinates, in this case the {t, p} overlap between the membrane worldvolume and the lightplane coordinates. 48 A very striking feature of the family of multiple-component p-brane solutions is that their oxidations up to 5 = 11 involve combinations of only 4 basic "elemental" D = 11 solutions. Two of these we have just met in the oxidized solution (7.3): the membrane and the pp wave. The two others are the "duals" of these: the 5-brane 25 and a solution describing the oxidation to D = 11 of the "Kaluza-Klein monopole". 49 The 5-brane may be written in a style similar to that of the membrane (7.4):
dsl, =Hi(y) [H-1(y){-dt2+dx21 + ...+dx25}+dymdym] (7.6) F[4] = *dH(y) ,
m = 6 , . . . , 10 ,
5-brane
where the H(y) is a general harmonic function in the 5-dimensional transverse space. The Kaluza-Klein monopole oxidized up to D = 11 is the solution ds^ = -dt2 + dx\-\ A[3] = 0
\-dxl+ds\^(y) (7.7a)
567
ds2TN = H{y)dyidyi+H-\y) V x V = VH ,
{d^+V^dyf
,
i = 1,2,3 ,
Taub-NUT
(7.7b)
where ds^N is the Taub-NUT metric, a familiar four-dimensional Euclidean gravitational instanton. The harmonic function H in (7.7) is a function only of the 3 coordinates yl, and not of the coordinate tj), which plays a special role. Generally, the solution (7.7) has a conical singularity on the hyperplane yl = 0, but this becomes a mere coordinate singularity, similar to that for flat space in polar coordinates, providing the coordinate ip is periodically identified. For a single-center harmonic function H(y) = l+k/(\y\), the appropriate identification period for r/> is 4irk. Thus, the Taub-NUT solution naturally invites interpretation as a compactified solution in one less dimension, after reduction ont/i. In the case of the original Kaluza-Klein monopole, 49 the starting solution had 4+1 dimensions, giving rise after compactification to a magnetically-charged particle in D = 4 dimensions. The solution (7.7) has an additional 6 spacelike worldvolume dimensions x\,... ,XQ, so after reduction on the V coordinate one has a magnetically-charged 6-brane solution in D = 10. The relation Aip = 4nk between the compactification period of tp and the charge-determining integration constant k in the harmonic function H of the solution (7.7) gives rise to a quantisation condition at the quantum level involving the magnetic charge of the dimensionally-reduced D = 10 6brane descending from (7.7) and the electric charge of the extreme black hole particle obtained by reducing the pp wave (7.5). This quantisation condition is nothing other than an ordinary quantisation of momentum for Fourier wave components on a compact space, in this case the compact %j} direction. In terms of the electric and magnetic charges U and V of the dimensionally reduced particle and 6-brane, one finds UV = 2-KK\0TI, with n £ Z (where n\0 occurs because the charges U and V as defined in (1.3),(1.4) are not dimensionless). This is precisely of the form expected for a Dirac charge quantisation condition. In Section 8 we shall return to the subject of charge quantisation conditions more generally for the charges carried by p-branes. Let us now return to the question of supersymmetry preservation and enquire whether intersecting branes like (7.3) can also preserve some portion of unbroken rigid supersymmetry. All four of the elemental D = 11 solutions (7.4) - (7.7) preserve half the D = 11 rigid supersymmetry. We have already seen this for the membrane solution in subsection 4.4. As another example, one may consider the supersymmetry preservation conditions for the pp wave solution (7.5). We shall skip over points 1) and 2) of the discussion analogous to that of subsection 4.4 and shall instead concentrate just on the projection con-
568
ditions that must be satisfied by the surviving rigid supersymmetry parameter Coo. Analogously to our earlier abbreviated discussion using just the supersymmetry algebra, consider this algebra in the background of a pp wave solution (7.5) propagating in the {01} directions of spacetime, with normalization to unit length along the wave's propagation direction: 1
length
Poi = I (i+r 01 ) ,
{QaM = 2SPoi
(7.8)
where Poi is again a projection operator with half of its eigenvalues zero, half unity. Consequently, the pp wave solution (7.5) preserves half of the D = 11 rigid supersymmetry. Now let us apply the projection-operator analysis to the wave||2-brane solution (7.3). Supersymmetry preservation in a membrane background oriented parallel to the {012} hyperplane requires the projection condition Poi2£oo = 0 (4.23), while supersymmetry preservation in a pp wave background with a {01} lightplane requires PoiEoo = 0. Imposing these two conditions simultaneously is consistent because these projectors commute, [Poi2,Foi] = 0 .
(7.9)
Since tr(Poi2-fbi) = f'32, the imposition of both projection conditions on e^ cuts the preserved portion of rigid D = 11 supersymmetry down to | . Now, let's consider another example of an intersecting-brane solution, containing as elements a D = 11 membrane, 5-brane pair. The solution is ds2 = H} {y)Hl (y) [H~l{y)H-1 + Hr\y) {dx2)+H^(y) + dym dyr •Fm012 — dm \HX
)
(y) (-dt2 + dx\)
2 JL 5(1)
{dx2 + • • • + dx2)
m = 7,...,10 Fimnp — —^mnpqdqH2 ,
(7.10a) (7.10b)
where as in the wave-on-a-membrane solution (7.3), the harmonic functions Hi(y) and #2(2/) depend only on the overall transverse coordinates. By considering special cases where H2 = 1 or Hi — 1, one identifies the membrane and 5-brane elements of the solution (7.10); as before, these elements are delocalized in (i.e., independent of) the "relative transverse" directions, by which one means the directions transverse to one element's worldvolume but belonging to the worldvolume of the other element, i.e. the directions {2; 3, . . . , 6 } for the solution (7.10). Note that both the membrane and 5-brane elements share the worldvolume directions {01}; these are accordingly called "overall
569
worldvolume" directions. Considering this "intersection" to be a string (but recall, however, that the overall-transverse charge centers of H\ and H2 need not coincide, so there is not necessarily a true string overlap), the solution (7.10) is denoted 2 J_ 5(1). The forms of the wave||2-brane solution (7.3) and the 2 ± 5(1) solution (7.10) illustrate the general structure of intersecting-brane solutions. For a two-element solution, there are four sectors among the coordinates: overall worldvolume, two relative transverse sectors and the overall transverse sector. One may make a sketch of these relations for the 2 J. 5(1) solution (7.10): 0
1
2
X
X
X
X
X
W25 W2T5
3
4
5
6
X
X
X
X
W5T2
7
8
9
10
T25
The character of each coordinate is indicated in this sketch: W2 and W5 indicating worldvolume coordinates with respect to each of the two elements and T2 and T5 indicating transverse coordinates with respect to each of the two elements. Thus, the overall worldvolume coordinates are the W25 coordinates and the overall transverse coordinates are the T25 coordinates. Having established this coordinate classification, the general structure of the intersecting brane metric is as follows. For each element, one puts an overall conformal factor Hi'( ~ (y) for the whole metric, and then in addition one puts a factor Hf1(y) in front of each dx2 term belonging to the worldvolume of the ith element. One may verify this pattern in the structure of (7.10). This pattern has been termed the harmonic function rule.48 This summary of the structure of intersecting brane solutions does not replace a full check that the supergravity equations of motion are solved, and in addition one needs to establish which combinations of the D = 11 elements may be present in a given solution. For a fuller review on this subject, we refer the reader to Ref. 5 0 . For now, let us just check point 3) in the supersymmetrypreservation analysis for the 2 _L 5(1) solution (7.10). For each of the two elements, one has a projection condition on the surviving rigid supersymmetry parameter e ^ : Pon^oo = 0 for the membrane and P013456 too = 0 for the 5-brane. These may be consistently imposed at the same time, because [Poi2,foi3456] = 0, similarly to our discussion of the wave||2-brane solution. The amount of surviving supersymmetry in the 2 ± 5(1) solution is \ , because tr(Poi2-P013456) — 5 " 3 2 .
570
7.3. Brane Probes, Geometry
Scattering
Branes
and Modulus
a-Model
The existence of static configurations such as the wave||2-brane solution (7.3) or the 2 _L 5(1) intersecting-brane solution (7.10) derives from the properties of the transverse-space Laplace equation (2.20) arising in the process of solving the supergravity equations subject to the p-brane ansatze (2.3) - (2.6). The Laplace equation has the well-known property of admitting multi-center solutions, which we have already encountered in Eq. (6.27). Physically, the existence of such multi-center solutions corresponds either to a cancellation of attractive gravitational and dilatonic forces against repulsive antisymmetrictensor forces, or to the fact that one brane couples to the background supergravity fields with a conformal factor that wipes out the effects of the other brane. In order to see such cancellations more explicitly, one may use a source coupling analogous to the D = 11 bosonic supermembrane action (4.1) in order to treat the limiting problem of a light brane probe moving in the background of a heavy brane. 18 ' 51 In this limit, one may ignore the deformation of the heavy-brane background caused by the light brane. The use of the braneprobe coupling is a simple way to approximately treat time-dependent brane configurations. For a p-brane probe of this sort coupled to a D-dimensional supergravity background, the probe action is
Vobe = -TcJdP+^i-detid^d^gmnix))1*
e^3^+Qa
J Afp+1] (7.11a)
ifp+1] = [{p+l)\}-1 d^x^
... d,p+1xm^A^mp+ide^.../\de^
• (7.11b)
The dilaton coupling in (7.11a) occurs because one needs to have the correct source for the D-dimensional Einstein frame, i.e. the conformal frame in which the .D-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action is free from dilatonic scalar factors. Requiring that the source match correctly to a p-brane (probe) solution demands the presence of the dilaton coupling e*q a"'^, where qpr = ±1 according to whether the p-brane probe is of electric or magnetic type and where aa is the dilaton vector appearing in the kinetic-term dilaton coupling in (6.13) for the gauge potential ^4fl+1i, to which the p brane probe couples. As a simple initial example of such a brane probe, one may take a light D = 11 membrane probe in the background of a parallel and similarly-oriented heavy membrane. 18 In this case, the brane-probe action (7.11) becomes just the D — 11 supermembrane action (4.1). If one takes the form of the heavymembrane background from the electric ansatz (2.3),(2.4), and if one chooses the "static" worldvolume gauge £M = a;M, \i = 0,1,2, then the bosonic probe
571 action becomes J p r o b e = - T fd3£ (J-
det {e^My)r]llv + e^(y)d^dvym)
- ec^A
. (7.12)
Expanding the square root in (7.12), one finds at order (dy)° the effective potential V probe = T ( e 3 ^ ) - e c )
.
(7.13)
Recalling the condition (2.22), which becomes just e3A^ = ec^ for the membrane background, one has directly V^,robe = 0, confirming the absence of static forces between the two membrane components. Continuing on in the expansion of (7.12) to order (dy)2 in the probe velocity, one has the effective probe cr-model C b e = - | J
,
(7.14)
but, recalling the supersymmetry-preservation condition (2.17) characterizing the heavy-membrane background, the probe cr-model metric in (7.14) reduces simply to ^rnn _. eA(y)+2B{y)^mn
_ ^mn
(7.15)
i.e., the membrane-probe cr-model metric is flat. The flatness of the membrane-probe cr-model metric (7.15) accords precisely with the degree of rigid supersymmetry that survives in the underlying supergravity solution with two parallel, similarly oriented D = 11 membranes, which we found in subsection 4.4 to have |-32 components, i.e. d = 2+1, N = 8 probe-worldvolume supersymmetry. This high degree of surviving supersymmetry is too restrictive in its constraints on the form of the cr-model to allow for anything other than a flat metric, precisely as one finds in (7.15). Continuing on with the expansion of (7.12), one first finds a nontrivial interaction between the probe and the heavy membrane background at order (dy)A (odd powers being ruled out by time-reversal invariance of the D — 11 supergravity equations). Now consider a brane-probe configuration with less surviving supersymmetry, and with correspondingly weaker constraints on the probe worldvolume cr-model. Corresponding to the wave||2-brane solution (7.3), one has, after dimensional reduction down to D = 9 dimensions, a system of two black holes supported by different A = 4, D — 9 vector fields: one descending from the D = 11 3-form gauge potential and one descending from the metric. Now repeat the brane-probe analysis for the two-black-hole configuration, again choosing a static gauge on the probe worldvolume, which in the present
572
case just becomes £° = t. Again expand the determinant of the induced metric in (7.11). At order (dy)°, this now gives V^be = eA e~^(f), but this potential turns out to be just a constant because the heavy-brane background satisfies A = -y=
m n
= Hback(y)Smn
,
(7.16)
where -Hback is the harmonic function controlling the heavy brane's background fields; for the case of two black holes in D = 9, the harmonic function -Hback has the structure (1 + fc/r6). The above test-brane analysis for two D = 9 black holes is confirmed by a more detailed study of the low-velocity scattering of supersymmetric black holes performed by Shiraishi.52 The procedure is a standard one in soliton physics: one promotes the moduli of a static solution to time-dependent functions and then substitutes the resulting generalized field configuration back into the original field equations. This leads to a set of differential equations on the modulus variables which may be viewed as effective equations for the moduli. In the general case of multiple black hole scattering, the resulting system of differential equations may be quite complicated. The system of equations, however, simplifies dramatically in cases corresponding to the scattering of supersymmetric black holes, e.g. the above pair of D = 9 black holes, where the result turns out to involve only 2-body forces. These two-body forces may be derived from an effective action involving the position vectors of the two black holes. Separating the center-of-mass motion from the relative motion, one obtains the same modulus metric (7.16) as that found in the brane-probe analysis above, except for a rescaling which replaces the brane-probe mass by the reduced mass of the two-black-hole system. Now we should resolve a puzzle of how this non-trivial d = 1 scattering modulus cr-model turns out to be consistent with the surviving supersymmetry. 53 The modulus variables of the two-black-hole system are fields in one dimension, i.e. time. The iV-extended supersymmetry algebra in d = 1 is {QI,QJ}=2SIJH
I = 1,...,N,
(7.17)
where H is the Hamiltonian. A d = 1, N = 1 cr-model is specified by a
573
triple (A1,7,-<4[3]), where M is the Riemannian u-model manifold, 7 is the metric on M and A[3] is a 3-form on M which plays the role of torsion in the derivative operator acting on fermions, Vj = <9t£lVJ , where v\+ \i — Vi\i + \AiikXk. The (T-model action may be written using N = 1 superfields x%0) (where !<(«) = X ^ = Q , A*(t) - ^ \ = 0 ) as 1=-^
I dtde(i-nJDxi—xj + ^AijkDxiDxjDxkj
.
(7.18)
One may additionally 54 have a set of spinorial N = 1 superfields ipa, with Lagrangian —^habipaJ\7tipb, where hat is a fibre metric and V* is constructed using an appropriate connection for the fibre corresponding to the ipa. However, in the present case we shall not include this extra superfield. In order to have extended supersymmetry in (7.18), one starts by positing a second set of supersymmetry transformations of the form Sxl = TJPJDX^ , and then requires these transformations to close to form the N = 2 algebra (7.17); then one also requires that the action (7.18) be invariant. In this way, one obtains the equations I2 = - 1
(7.19a)
N}k = I{m = 0
(7.19b)
-Yktl'il'j = 70
(7-19c)
VJ+'J^) = 0
(7.19d)
0[i(/ m J -4|m|fci])-2/ m [i 9 [m A jfc(]] ) = 0 ,
(7.19e)
where (7.19a,b) follow from requiring the closure of the algebra (7.17) and (7.19c-e) follow from requiring invariance of the action (7.18). Conditions (7.19a,b) imply that M is a complex manifold, with Pj as its complex structure. The structure of the conditions (7.19) is more complicated than might have been expected. Experience with d = 1 + 1 extended supersymmetry 54 might have lead one to expect, by simple dimensional reduction, just the condition V^ Pk — 0- Certainly, solutions of this condition also satisfy (7.19c-e), but the converse is not true, i.e. the d = 1 extended supersymmetry conditions are "weaker" than those obtained by dimensional reduction from d = 1 + 1, even though the d = 1 + 1 minimal spinors are, as in d = 1, just real singlecomponent objects. Conversely, the d = 1 + 1 theory implies a "stronger" condition; the difference is explained by d — 1 + 1 Lorentz invariance: not all d = 1 theories can be "oxidized" up to Lorentz-invariant d = 1 + 1 theories. In
574
the present case with two D = 9 black holes, this is reflected in the circumstance that after even one dimensional oxidation from D = 9 up to D = 10, the solution already contains a pp wave element (so that we have a D = 10 "wave-on-a-string" solution), with a lightplane metric that is not Poincare invariant. Note also that the d = 1 "torsion" A^ is not required to be closed in (7.19). d = 1 supersymmetric theories satisfying (7.19) are analogous to (2,0) chiral supersymmetric theories in d = 1 + 1, but the weaker conditions (7.19) warrant a different notation for this wider class of models; one may call them 2b supersymmetric er-models.53 Such models are characterized by a Kahler geometry with torsion. Continuing on to N = 8, d = 1 supersymmetry, one finds an 8b generalization 53 of the conditions (7.19), with 7 independent complex structures built using the octonionic structure constants 13 <pabc'- Sx* = rfIa%jDx\ 8 b b b b a = 1....7, with (Ia) b = 6ab, (Ia) & - S a, (Ia) c = <Pa c, where the octonion multiplication rule is eae& = — 5ab + tpabcec. Models satisfying such conditions have an "octonionic Kahler geometry with torsion", and are called OKT models. 53 Now, are there any non-trivial solutions to these conditions? Evidently, from the brane-probe and Shiraishi analyses, there must be. For our two D = 9 black holes with a D = 8 transverse space, one may start from the ansatz ds2 = H(y)ds2(E8), Aijk = Uij^deH, where H is a 4-form on E 8 . Then, from the 8b generalization of condition (7.19d) one learns iisabc — fabc and flabcd = — *'Pabcd', from the 8b generalization of condition (7.19e) one learns 8l3didjH = 0. Thus we recover the familiar dependence of p-brane solutions on transverse-space harmonic functions, and we reobtain the brane-probe or Shiraishi structure of the black-hole modulus scattering metric with Hrelative = 1 + 1
TT ,
(7.20)
where fcred determines the reduced mass of the two black holes. 8. Duality Symmetries and Charge Quantisation As one can see from our discussion of Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction in Section 6, progression down to lower dimensions D causes the number of dilatonic scalars <j> and also the number of zero-form potentials of 1-form field strengths to proliferate. When one reaches D = 4, for example, a total of 70 p
We let the conventional octonionic "0" index be replaced by "8" here in order to avoid confusion with a timelike index; the E 8 transverse space is of Euclidean signature.
575
such spin-zero fields has accumulated. In D = 4, the maximal (N = 8) supergravity equations of motion have a linearly-realized H = SU(8) symmetry; this is also the automorphism symmetry of the D = 4, N = 8 supersymmetry algebra relevant to the (self-conjugate) supergravity multiplet. In formulating this symmetry, it is necessary to consider complex self-dual and anti-self-dual combinations of the 2-form field strengths, which are the highest-rank field strengths occurring in D = 4, higher ranks having been eliminated in the reduction or by dualization. Using two-component notation for the D = 4 spinors, these combinations transform as F^i' and FAg,{-,, i,j = 1 , . . . , 8 , i.e. as a complex 28-dimensional dimensional representation of SU(8). Since this complex representation can be carried only by the complex field-strength combinations and not by the 1-form gauge potentials, it cannot be locally formulated at the level of the gauge potentials or of the action, where only an SO(8) symmetry is apparent. Taking all the spin-zero fields together, one finds that they form a rather impressive nonlinear er-model with a 70-dimensional manifold. Anticipating that this manifold must be a coset space with H = SU(8) as the linearly-realized denominator group, Cremmer and Julia 55 deduced that it had to be the manifold E 7 ( +7 )/sU(8); since the dimension of E 7 is 133 and that of SU(8) is 63, this gives a 70-dimensional manifold. Correspondingly, a nonlinearly-realized E 7 ( +7 ) symmetry also appears as an invariance of the D = 4, N = 8 maximal supergravity equations of motion. Such nonlinearly-realized symmetries of supergravity theories have always had a somewhat mysterious character. They arise in part out of general covariance in the higher dimensions, from which supergravities arise by dimensional reduction, but this is not enough: such symmetries act transitively on the cr-model manifolds, mixing both fields arising from the metric and also from the reduction of the D = 11 3-form potential A[3] in (1.1). In dimensions 4 < D < 9, maximal supergravity has the sets of a-model nonlinear G and linear H symmetries shown in Table 2. In all cases, the spinzero fields take their values in "target" manifolds G/H. Just as the asymptotic value at infinity of the metric defines the reference, or "vacuum" spacetime with respect to which integrated charges and energy/momentum are defined, so do the asymptotic values of the spin-zero fields define the "scalar vacuum". These asymptotic values are referred to as the moduli of the solution. In string theory, these moduli acquire interpretations as the coupling constants and vacuum 6-angles of the theory. Once these are determined for a given "vacuum", the classification symmetry that organizes the distinct solutions of the theory into multiplets with the same energy must be a subgroup of the little group, or isotropy group, of the vacuum. In ordinary General Relativity with
576
asymptotically flat spacetimes, the analogous group is the spacetime Poincare group times the appropriate "internal" classifying symmetry, e.g. the group of rigid (i.e. constant-parameter) Yang-Mills gauge transformations. Table 2.
Supergravity a-model symmetries.
D
G
H
9 8 7 6 5 4 3
GL(2,R) SL(3,E)xSL(2,lK) SL(5,R) SO(5,5)
SO(2) SO(3)xSO(2) SO(5) SO(5)xSO(5) USP(8) SU(8) SO(16)
E
6(+6) 7(+7) E 8(+8) E
The isotropy group of any point on a coset manifold G/H is just H, so this is the classical "internal" classifying symmetry for multiplets of supergravity solutions. 8.1. An Example
of Duality
Symmetry:
D = 8
Supergravity
In maximal D — 8 supergravity, one sees from Table 2 that G = SL(3, E) x SL(2, R) and the isotropy group is H = SO(3) xSO(2). We have an ( 1 1 - 3 = 8) vector of dilatonic scalars as well as a singlet Fff and a triplet T\L (i,j,k = 1,2,3) of 1-form field strengths for zero-form potentials. Taken all together, we have a manifold of dimension 7, which fits in precisely with the dimension of the (SL(3,ffi)xSL(2,l))/(S0(3)xS0(2)) coset-space manifold: 8 + 3 - ( 3 + 1 ) = 7. Owing to the direct-product structure, we may for the time being drop the 5-dimensional SL(3,R)/S0(3) sector and consider for simplicity just the 2-dimensional SL(2,K)/SQ(2) sector. Here is the relevant part of the action: 56 rSL(2)
=
fd^V^i
R-\vMoVMa-\e-2°VMXVMX
^^(^-^xVw
(8.1)
where *FMNP* = \/{^yf^)eMNP^^^FXlX2X3Xi (the e ^ is a density, hence purely numerical). On the scalar fields (ff,x), the SL(2,E) symmetry acts as follows: let A = x+i eCT ; then A
a b c d
(8.2)
577
with ab-cd = 1 is an element of SL(2, R) and acts on A by the fractional-linear transformation A -> ^
•
(8.3)
The action of the SL(2,!R) symmetry on the 4-form field strength gives us an example of a symmetry of the equations of motion that is not a symmetry of the action. The field strength F^ forms an SL(2,M) doublet together with G[4]=e"F[4]-XF[i],
(8.4)
i.e., (8.5) One may check that these transform the i*]4] field equation V M (e°FMNPQ+x*FMNPQ)
(8.6)
=0
into the corresponding Bianchi identity, V M *FMNPQ = 0 .
(8.7)
Since the field equations may be expressed purely in terms of F^, we have a genuine symmetry of the field equations in the transformation (8.5), but since this transformation cannot be expressed locally in terms of the gauge potential Aw, this is not a local symmetry of the action. The transformation (8.3),(8.5) is a D = 8 analogue of ordinary Maxwell duality transformation in the presence of scalar fields. Accordingly, we shall refer generally to the supergravity u-model symmetries as duality symmetries. The JF[4] field strength of the D = 8 theory supports elementary/electric p-brane solutions with p = 4 — 2 = 2, i.e. membranes, which have a d = 3 dimensional worldvolume. The corresponding solitonic/magnetic solutions in D = 8 have worldvolume dimension d = 8 — 3 — 2 = 3 also. So in this case, F[4] supports both electric and magnetic membranes. It is also possible in this case to have solutions generalizing the purely electric or magnetic solutions considered so far to solutions that carry both types of charge, i.e. dyons.56 This possibility is also reflected in the combined Bogomol'ny bound q for this situation, which generalizes the single-charge bounds (4.16): £2 > e-^iU+XooVf+e^V2 q
,
(8.8)
I n comparing (8.8) to the single-charge bounds (4.16), one should take note that for F[4i in (8.1) we have A = 4, so 2/\fK - 1.
578
where U and V are the electric and magnetic charges and a^ and Xco are the moduli, i.e. the constant asymptotic values of the scalar fields cr(x) and x(x). The bound (8.8) is itself SL(2, M) invariant, provided that one transforms both the moduli {(JooiXoo) (according to (8.3)) and also the charges (U,V). For the simple case with a^ — Xoo = 0 that we have mainly chosen in order to simplify the writing of explicit solutions, the bound (8.8) reduces to £2 > U2+V2, which is invariant under an obvious isotropy group H = S0(2). 8.2. p-Form
Charge Quantisation
Conditions
So far, we have discussed the structure of p-brane solutions at a purely classical level. At the classical level, a given supergravity theory can have a continuous spectrum of electrically and magnetically charged solutions with respect to any one of the n-form field strengths that can support the solution. At the quantum level, however, an important restriction on this spectrum of solutions enters into force: the Dirac-Schwinger-Zwanziger (DSZ) quantisation conditions for particles with electric or magnetic or dyonic charges. 57 ' 58 As we have seen, however, the electric and magnetic charges carried by branes and appearing in the supersymmetry algebra (1.5) are forms, and the study of their chargequantisation properties involves some special features not seen in the D — 4 Maxwell case. 59 We shall first review a Wu-Yang style of argument, 57 (for a Dirac-string argument, see Ref. 58 ' 60 ) considering a closed sequence W of deformations of one p-brane, say an electric one, in the background fields set up by a dual, magnetic, p = D—p—A brane. After such a sequence of deformations, one sees from the supermembrane action (4.1) that the electric p-brane wavefunction picks up a phase factor ex
P (jfm
j
AMl
--M^dx™A
• • •AdxMp+1)
>
(8-9)
where ^4[p+i] is the gauge potential set up (locally) by the magnetic p-brane background. A number of differences arise in this problem with respect to the ordinary Dirac quantisation condition for D = 4 particles. One of these is that, as we have seen in subsection 4.1, objects carrying p-form charges appearing in the supersymmetry algebra (1.5) are necessarily either infinite or are wrapped around compact spacetime dimensions. For infinite p-branes, some deformation sequences W will lead to a divergent integral in the exponent in (8.9); such deformations would also require an infinite amount of energy, and so should be excluded from consideration. In particular, this excludes deformations that involve rigid rotations of an entire infinite brane. Thus, at least the asymptotic
579 orientation of the electric brane must be preserved throughout the sequence of deformations. Another way of viewing this restriction on the deformations is to note that the asymptotic orientation of a brane is encoded into the electric p-form charge, and so one should not consider changing this p-form in the course of the deformation any more than one should consider changing the magnitude of the electric charge in the ordinary D = 4 Maxwell case. We shall see shortly that another difference with respect to the ordinary D = 4 Dirac quantisation of particles in Maxwell theory will be the existence of "Dirac-insensitive" configurations, for which the phase in (8.9) vanishes. Restricting attention to deformations that give non-divergent phases, one may use Stoke's theorem to rewrite the integral in (8.9): 7 f AMl...Mp+1 dxf/\... (P+1)!• Jw
Adx"
F = FT^i / M^...MP+2 dxM- A . . . AdxM*+* = Q^Mw , (8.10) (P+2)! JMw where Mw is any surface "capping" the closed surface W, i.e. a surface such that dMw = W; $MW 1S then the flux through the cap Mw- Choosing the capping surface in two different ways, one can find a flux discrepancy $Mi — $M2 = $MinM2 = ^.Mtotai (taking into account the orientation sensitivity of the flux integral). Then if Mtotal = .Min.M2 "captures" the magnetic pbrane, the flux ^Mtot^ w^l equal the magnetic charge Q m of the p-brane; thus the discrepancy in the phase factor (8.9) will be simply exp(i<3e<3m)- Requiring this to equal unity gives,57 in strict analogy to the ordinary case of electric and magnetic particles in D = 4, the Dirac quantisation condition
QeQm = 27m ,
n GZ .
(8.11)
The charge quantisation condition (8.11) is almost, but not quite, the full story. In deriving (8.11), we have not taken into account the p-form character of the charges. Taking this into account shows that the phase in (8.9) vanishes for a measure-zero set of configurations of the electric and magnetic branes. 59 This is easiest to explain in a simplified case where the electric and magnetic branes are kept in static fiat configurations, with the electric p-brane oriented along the directions {xMl .. .xMp}. The phase factor (8.9) X then becomes exp(i<5 e § w AM-L...MPR® Ida), where a is an ordering parameter for the closed sequence of deformations W. In making this deformation sequence, we recall from the above discussion that one should restrict the deformations to preserve the asymptotic orientation of the deformed p-brane. For simplicity, one may simply consider moving the electric p-brane by parallel transport around the magnetic p-brane in a closed loop. The accrued phase
580
factor is invariant under gauge transformations of the potential A^iy This makes it possible to simplify the discussion by making use of a specially chosen gauge. Note that magnetic p-branes have purely transverse field strengths like (2.27b); there is accordingly a gauge in which the gauge potential ^4[p+i) is also purely transverse, i.e. it vanishes whenever any of its indices point along a worldvolume direction of the magnetic p-brane. Consideration of more general deformation sequences yields the same result. 59 Now one can see how the Dirac-insensitive configurations arise: the phase in (8.9) vanishes whenever there is even a partial alignment between the electric and the magnetic branes, i.e. when there are shared worldvolume directions between the two branes. This measure-zero set of Dirac-insensitive configurations may be simply characterized in terms of the p and p charges themselves by the condition Qfl\hQu*s = 0. For such configurations, one obtains no Dirac quantisation condition. To summarize, one may incorporate this orientation restriction into the Dirac quantisation condition (8.11) by writing a (p+p)-form quantisation condition Qfl]AQ^
= 2,n , ' P '
ifig|,
neZ,
(8.12)
which reduces to (8.11) for all except the Dirac-insensitive set of configurations. 8.3. Charge Quantisation Reduction
Conditions
and
Dimensional
The existence of Dirac-insensitive configurations may seem to be of only peripheral importance, given that they constitute only a measure-zero subset of the total set of asymptotic brane configurations. However, their relevance becomes more clear when one considers the relations existing between the pform charges under dimensional reduction. Let us recall the relations (6.11) between the field strengths in different dimensions. Now, the electric and magnetic charges carried by branes in D dimensions take the forms
Qe = J (es* *F+K{A))
(8.13a)
Qm=fP,
(8.13b)
where F = dA, F = F+(Chern-Simons modifications) (i.e. modifications involving lower-order forms arising in the dimensional reduction similar to those in the D — 9 case (6.41)) and c is the dilaton vector corresponding to F in the dimensionally-reduced action (6.13). The term K(A) in (8.13a) is the analogue
581
of the term ^[3]AF[ 4 j in (1.3). From the expressions (6.11) for the reduced field strengths and their duals, one obtains the following relations between the original charges in D = 11 and those in the reduced theory: Table 3.
Relations between Q 1 1 and QD.
F
m
Electric Magnetic
Ql1 = Q^ 1 =
[3]
Q?v QS
pijk Ml]
pi]
r
o° QSi>
v
Qm Li Lj
oD
v
Qm Li Lj Lk
where Li = J dzl is the compactification period of the reduction coordinate zl and V = J dn~Dz = 111=7 -k* is the total compactification volume. Note that the factors of Li cancel out in the various products of electric and magnetic charges only for charges belonging to the same field strength in the reduced dimension D. Now consider the quantisation conditions obtained between the various dimensionally reduced charges shown in Table 3. We need to consider the various schemes possible for dimensional reduction of dual pairs of (p,p) branes. We have seen that for single-element brane solutions, there are two basic schemes, as explained in Section 6: diagonal, which involves reduction on a worldvolume coordinate, and vertical, which involves reduction on a transverse coordinate after preparation by "stacking up" single-center solutions so as to generate a transverse-space translation invariance needed for the dimensional reduction. For the dimensional reduction of a solution containing two elements, there are then four possible schemes, depending on whether the reduction coordinate z belongs to the worldvolume or to the transverse space of each brane. For an electric/magnetic pair, we have the following four reduction possibilities: diagonal/diagonal, diagonal/vertical, vertical/diagonal and vertical/vertical. Only the mixed cases will turn out to preserve Dirac sensitivity in the lower dimension after reduction. This is most easily illustrated by considering the diagonal/diagonal case, for which z belongs to the worldvolumes of both branes. With such a shared worldvolume direction, one has clearly fallen into the measure-zero set of Diracinsensitive configurations with Qfli^Q'^5 = 0 in the higher dimension D. Correspondingly, in (D — 1) dimensions one finds that the diagonally reduced electric ( p - 1 ) brane is supported by an n = p+1 form field strength, but the diagonally reduced magnetic (p— 1) brane is supported by an n = p+2 form; since only branes supported by the same field strength can have a Dirac
582
quantisation condition, this diagonal/diagonal reduction properly corresponds to a Dirac-insensitive configuration. Now consider the mixed reductions, e.g. diagonal/vertical. In performing a vertical reduction of a magnetic p-brane by stacking up an infinite deck of single-center branes in order to create the E translational invariance necessary for the reduction, the total magnetic charge will clearly diverge. Thus, in a vertical reduction it is necessary to reinterpret the magnetic charge Qm as a charge density per unit z compactification length. Before obtaining the Dirac quantisation condition in the lower dimension, it is necessary to restore a gravitational-constant factor of K2 that should properly have appeared in the quantisation conditions (8.11),(8.12). As one may verify, the electric and magnetic charges as defined in (1.3),(1.4) are not dimensionless. Thus, (8.11) in D = 11 should properly have been written QeQm = 2-KK^n. If one lets the compactification length be denoted by L in the D-dimensional theory prior to dimensional reduction, then one obtains a Dirac phase exp(iK^l 1 Q e Q m L). This fits precisely, however, with another aspect of dimensional reduction: the gravitational constants in dimensions D and D — l are related by K2D — Ln2D_l. Thus, in dimension D — l one obtains the expected quantisation condition QeQm = 2-KK?D_1n. Note, correspondingly, that upon making a mixed diagonal/vertical reduction, the electric and magnetic branes remain dual to each other in the lower dimension, supported by the same n = p—1 + 2 = p+1 form field strength. The opposite mixed vertical/diagonal reduction case goes similarly, except that the dual branes are then supported by the same n = p+2 form field strength. In the final case of vertical/vertical reduction, Dirac sensitivity is lost in the reduction, not owing to the orientation of the branes, but because in this case both the electric and the magnetic charges need to be interpreted as densities per unit compactification length, and so one obtains a phase exp(iKp2QeQmL2). Only one factor of L is absorbed into K2T-)_1, and one has 2 ; limi_ > oi /« i) = 0. Correspondingly, the two dimensionally reduced branes in the lower dimension are supported by different field strengths: an n = p+2 form for the electric brane and an n = p+1 form for the magnetic brane. Thus, there is a perfect accord between the structure of the Dirac quantisation conditions for p-form charges in the various supergravity theories related by dimensional reduction. The existence of Dirac-insensitive configurations plays a central role in establishing this accord, even though they represent only a subset of measure zero from the point of view of the higher-dimensional theory. Another indication of the relevance of the Dirac-insensitive configurations is the observation 59 that all the intersecting-brane solutions with some degree
583
of preserved supersymmetry, as considered in Section 7, correspond to Diracinsensitive configurations. This may immediately be seen in such solutions as the 2 J. 5(1) solution (7.10), but it is also true for solutions involving pp wave and Taub-NUT elements. 8.4. Counting
p-Branes
As we have seen at the classical level, the classifying symmetry for solutions in a given scalar vacuum, specified by the values of the scalar moduli, is the linearlyrealized isotropy symmetry H given in Table 2. When one takes into account the Dirac quantisation condition, this classifying symmetry becomes restricted to a discrete group, which clearly must be a subgroup of the corresponding G(Z) duality group, so in general one seeks to identify the group G(Z)fli/. The value of this intersection is modulus-dependent, showing that the homogeneity of the G/H coset space is broken at the quantum level by the quantisation condition. Classically, of course, the particular point on the vacuum manifold G/H corresponding to the scalar moduli can be changed by application of a transitively-acting G transformation, for example with a group element g. Correspondingly, the isotropy subgroup H moves by conjugation with g, H —> gHg-1
.
(8.14)
The discretized duality group G(Z), on the other hand, does not depend upon the moduli. This is because the modulus dependence cancels out in the "canonical" charges that we have defined in Eq. (8.13). One way to see this is to use the relations between charges in different dimensions given in Table 3, noting that there are no scalar moduli in D — 11, so the modulus-independent relations of Table 3 imply that the lower-dimensional charges (8.13) do not depend on the moduli/ Another way to understand this is by comparison with ordinary Maxwell electrodynamics, where an analogous charge would be that derived from the action /Max = —1/(4e2)fF™DFcanL"/, corresponding to a covariant derivative •Dp = dft + 'iA^11. This is analogous to our dimensionally reduced action (6.13) from which the charges (8.13) are derived, because the modulus factors ec'*°° appearing in (6.13) (together with the rest of the <j> dilatonic scalar dependence) play the roles of coupling constant factors like e - 2 . If one wants to compare r
Note that the compactification periods L; appearing in Table 3 have values that may be adjusted by convention. These should not be thought of as determining the geometry of the compactifying internal manifold, which is determined instead by the scalar moduli. Thus, the relations of Table 3 imply the independence of the canonically-defined charges from the physically relevant moduli.
584
this to the "conventional" charges defined with respect to a conventional gauge potential Ac°nv = e^A*™, for which the action is -1/4 f F™nvFcom ^, then the canonical and conventional charges obtained via Gauss's law surface integrals are related by Qcan = 2 ^ 2 / d 2 ^ e i j k F ^ 0 k
= 1 1 d 2 ^ e i j k F c o n v 0 k = ±Qconv
. (8.15)
Thus, in the Maxwell electrodynamics case, the dependence on the electric charge unit e drops out in (Jean, although the conventional charge <3COnv scales proportionally to e. The modulus independence of the charges (8.13) works in a similar fashion. Then, given that the discretized quantum duality group G(Z) is defined by the requirement that it map the set of Dirac-allowed charges onto itself, it is evident that the group G(Z), referred to the canonical charges (8.13), does not depend on the moduli. As a consequence of the different modulus dependences of H and of G(Z), it follows that the size of the intersection group G(Z)P\H is dependent on the moduli. The analogous feature in ordinary Maxwell theory is that a true duality symmetry of the theory only arises when the electric charge takes the value e = 1 (in appropriate units), since the duality transformation maps e —» e - 1 . Thus, the value e = 1 is a distinguished value. The distinguished point on the scalar vacuum manifold for general supergravity theories is the one where all the scalar moduli vanish. This is the point where G(Z)C\H is maximal. Let us return to our D = 8 example to help identify what this group is. In that case, for the scalars {a, x), we may write out the transformation in detail using (8.3): e~a —>• (d+cx)2 e~a+c2 ea Xe~" —> (d+cx)(b+ax)e~(r+acea'
(8.16) .
Requiring a,b,c,d € Z and also that the modulus point a^ = Xoo = 0 be left invariant, we find only two transformations: the identity and the transformation a = d = 0, b = —1, c = 1, which maps a and x according to e~a —> e C T +x 2 e _ < r Xe
—> -xe
a
(8.17) .
Thus, for our truncated system, we find just an 52 discrete symmetry as the quantum isotropy subgroup of SL(2, Z) at the distinguished point on the scalar vacuum manifold. This 52 is the natural analogue of the 52 symmetry that appears in Maxwell theory when e = 1. In order to aid in identifying the pattern behind this D = 8 example, suppose that the zero-form gauge potential x 1S small, and consider the 52
585
transformation to lowest order in \- To this order, the transformation just flips the signs of a and x- Acting on the field strengths (-F[4], G[4j), one finds {F[i]iG[4\) —> {-G[i]'F[4\)
( 8 - 18 )
•
One may again check (in fact to all orders, not just to lowest order in x) that (8.18) maps the field equation for i*j4] into the corresponding Bianchi identity: VM{eaFMNPQ+x*FMNPQ)
—• ~VM*FMNPQ
.
(8.19)
Considering this S2 transformation to lowest order in the zero-form x has the advantage that the sign-flip of (j> may be "impressed" upon the a dilaton vector for F[4j: a —> —a. The general structure of such G(Z)(~lif transformations will be found by considering the impressed action of this group on the dilaton vectors. Now consider the SL(3, K)/SO(3) sector of the D = 8 scalar manifold, again with the moduli set to the distinguished point on the scalar manifold. To lowest order in zero-form gauge potentials, the action of SL(3,Z)flH may similarly by impressed upon the 3-form dilaton vectors, causing in this case a permutation of the Si, generating for the D = 8 case overall the discrete group 53 x 52- Now that we have a bit more structure to contemplate, we can notice that the G(Z)r\H transformations leave the (a, Si) dot products invariant.61 The invariance of the dilaton vectors' dot products prompts one to return to the algebra (6.15) of these dot products and see what else we may recognize in it. Noting that the duality groups given in Table 2 for the higher dimensions D involve SL(7V, R) groups, we recall that the weight vectors hi of the fundamental representation of SL(JV, R) satisfy 1 hi-hj = Sij- — ,
N
] T /i; = 0 .
(8.20)
»=i
These relations are precisely those satisfied by ^= a and -4= Si, corresponding to the cases N — 2 and N = 3. This suggests that the action of the maximal G(Z)C\H group {i.e. for scalar moduli set to the distinguished point on the scalar manifold) may be identified in general with the symmetry group of the set of fundamental weights for the corresponding supergravity duality group G as given in Table 2. The symmetry group of the fundamental weights is the Weyl group61 of G, so the action of the maximal G(Z)nH p-brane classifying symmetry is identified with that of the Weyl group of G. As one proceeds down through the lower-dimensional cases, where the supergravity symmetry groups shown in Table 2 grow in complexity, the above pattern persists: 61 in all cases, the action of the maximal classifying symmetry G(Z)tlH may be identified with the Weyl group of G. This is then the group
586
that counts the distinct p-brane solutions 8 of a given type (4.6), subject to the Dirac quantisation condition and referred to the distinguished point on the scalar modulus manifold. For example, in D — 7, where from Table 2 one sees that G - SL(5,E) and H = SO(5), one finds that the action of G(Z)C\H is equivalent to that of the discrete group S$, which is the Weyl group of SL(5, E). In the lower-dimensional cases shown in Table 2, the discrete group G(Z)tlH becomes less familiar, and is most simply described as the Weyl group of G. From the analysis of the Weyl-group duality multiplets, one may tabulate 61 the multiplicities of p-branes residing at each point of the plot given in Figure 7. For supersymmetric p-branes arising from a set of N participating field strengths i*j„], corresponding to A = 4/N for the dilatonic scalar coupling, one finds the multiplicities given in Table 4. By combining these duality multiplets together with the diagonal and vertical dimensional reduction families discussed in Sections 6 and 6.3, the full set of p < (D — 3) branes shown in Figure 7 becomes "welded" together into one overall symmetrical structure. Table 4. F
A 4 4 4 2
M
F
W
F
\3]
F[2]
Examples of p-brane Weyl-group multiplicities.
10 1 1 1
9 1 2 1+2 2
8 2 3 6 6
7
D 6
5 10 15
10 16 40
2
8 12
20 60
40 280 480
4/3 F
W
4 2 4/s
8.5. The Charge
5
4
27 135 45 72
56 756
1080 4320
2520
126 3780 30240+2520
Lattice
For the electric and magnetic BPS brane solutions supported by a given field strength, we have seen above that the Dirac charge quantisation condition (8.12) implies that, given a certain minimum "electric" charge (8.13a), the allowed set of magnetic charges is determined. Then, taking the minimum magnetic charge from this set, the argument may be turned around to show that the set of allowed electric charges is given by integer multiples of the minimum electric charge. This argument does not directly establish, however, s
Of course, these solutions must also fall into supermultiplets with respect to the unbroken supersymmetry; the corresponding supermultiplet structures have been discussed in Ref. 6 4 .
587
what the minimum electric charge is, i.e. the value of the charge unit. This cannot be established by use of the Dirac quantisation condition alone. There are other tools, however, that one can use to fix the charge lattice completely. To do so, we shall need to exploit the existence of certain special "unit-setting" brane types, and also to exploit fully the consequences of the assumption that the G(Z) duality symmetry remains exactly valid at the quantum level. We have already encountered one example of a "unit-setting" brane in subsection 7.2, where we encountered the pp wave/Taub-NUT pair of D — 11 solutions. We saw there that the Taub-NUT solution (7.7) is nonsingular provided that the coordinate V is periodically identified with period L = 47rfc, where k is the charge-determining parameter in the 3-dimensional harmonic function H(y) = l + k/(\y\). Upon dimensional reduction down to D = 10, one obtains a magnetic 6-brane solution, with a charge classically discretized to take a value in the set Qm=rL ,
r € Z .
(8.21)
Given these values for the magnetic charge, the D = 10 Dirac quantisation condition Q e Qm = 27T K]0 n ,
n £ Z ,
(8.22)
or, equivalently, as we saw in subsection 7.2, the quantisation of D = 11 pp wave momentum in the compact ip direction, gives an allowed set of electric charges Qe = _ ^ 1 °
n
,
n € Z .
(8.23)
Li
Thus, the requirement that magnetic D = 10 6-branes oxidize up to nonsingular Taub-NUT solutions in D = 11 fully determines the 6-brane electric and magnetic charge units and not just the product of them which occurs in the Dirac quantisation condition If one assumes that the G(Z) duality symmetries remain strictly unbroken at the quantum level, then one may relate the 6-brane charge units to those of other BPS brane types.' In doing so, one must exploit the fact that brane solutions with Poincare worldvolume symmetries may be dimensionally reduced down to lower dimensions, where the duality groups shown in Table 2 grow larger. In a given dimension D, the G(Z) duality symmetries only rotate between p-branes of the same worldvolume dimension, supported by the same kind of field strength, as we have seen from our discussion of the Weyl-group For details of the duality relations between charge units for different p-branes, see Ref.
588
action on p-branes given in subsection 8.4. Upon reduction down to dimensions -Dred < D, however, the solutions descending from an original p-brane in D dimensions are subject to a larger G(Z) duality symmetry, and this can be used to rotate a descendant brane into descendants of p'-branes for various values of p'. Dimensional oxidation back up to D dimensions then completes the link, establishing relations via the duality symmetries between various BPS brane types which can be supported by different field strengths, including field strengths of different rank. 65 This link may be used to establish relations between the charge units for the various p-form charges of differing rank, even though the corresponding solutions are Dirac-insensitive to each each other. Another charge-unit-setting BPS brane species occurs in the D = 10 type IIB theory. This theory has a well-known difficulty with the formulation of a satisfactory action, although its field equations are perfectly well-defined. The difficulty in formulating an action arise from the presence of a self-dual 5-form field strength, H[5] = *H[5y The corresponding electrically and magnetically charged BPS solutions are 3-branes, and, owing to the self-duality condition, these solutions are actually dyons, with a charge vector at 45° to the electric axis. We shall consider the type IIB theory in some more detail in Section 9; for now, it will be sufficient for us to note that the dyonic 3-branes of D = 10 type IIB theory are also a unit-setting brane species.59 The unit-setting property arises because of a characteristic property of the Dirac-SchwingerZwanziger quantisation condition for dyons in dimensions D = 4r + 2: for dyons (<5e ,Qm ), (Qe ,Qm ), this condition is symmetric:59 QPQW+QPQQ
= 2TT 4r+2 n,
n£Z,
(8.24)
unlike the more familiar antisymmetric DSZ condition that is obtained in dimensions D = 4r. The symmetric nature of (8.24) means that dyons may be Dirac-sensitive to others of their own type," quite differently from the antisymmetric cases in D = 4r dimensions. For the 45° dyonic 3-branes, one thus obtains the quantisation condition \Q[3]\=nV^KllB
,
neZ
(8.25)
where K IIB is the gravitational constant for the type IIB theory. Then, using duality symmetries, one may relate the ^fn KUB charge unit to those of other supergravity R-R charges. Thus, using duality symmetries together with the pp wave/Taub-NUT and self-dual 3-brane charge scales, one may determine the charge-lattice units for "They will be Dirac-sensitive provided one of them is slightly rotated so as to avoid having any common worldvolume directions with the other, in order to avoid having a Diracinsensitive configuration as discussed in subsection 8.3.
589
all BPS brane types. 65,59 It is easiest to express the units of the resulting overall charge lattice by making a specific choice for the compactification periods. If one lets all the compactification periods Li be equal, U = LIIB = L = (27T K2n) * ,
(8.26)
then the electric and magnetic charge-lattice units for rank-n field strengths in dimension D are determined to be 59 AQ e = LD-n~l
,
AQm = L"-1 .
(8.27)
9. Local versus Active Dualities The proper interpretation of the discretized Cremmer-Julia G(Z) duality symmetry at the level of supergravity theory is subject to a certain amount of debate, but at the level of string theory the situation becomes more clear. In any dimension D, there is a subgroup of G(Z) that corresponds to T duality, which is a perturbative symmetry holding order-by-order in the string loop expansion. T duality 66 consists of transformations that invert the radii of a toroidal compactification, under which quantized string oscillator modes and string winding modes become interchanged. Aside from such a relabeling, however, the overall string spectrum remains unchanged. Hence, T duality needs to be viewed as a local symmetry in string theory, i.e. string configurations on compact manifolds related by T duality are identified. Depending on whether one considers (D — 3) branes to be an unavoidable component of the spectrum, the same has also been argued to be the case at the level of the supergravity effective field theory. 67 The well-founded basis, in string theory at least, for a local interpretation of the T duality subgroup of G(Z) has led subsequently to the hypothesis 62 ' 63 that the full duality group G(Z) should be given a local interpretation: sets of string solutions and moduli related by G(Z) transformations are to be treated as equivalent descriptions of a single state. This local interpretation of the G(Z) duality transformations is similar to that adopted for general coordinate transformations viewed passively, according to which, e.g., flat space in Cartesian or in Rindler coordinates is viewed as one and the same solution. As with general coordinate transformations, however, duality symmetries may occur in several different guises that are not always clearly distinguished. As one can see from the charge lattice discussed in subsection 8.5, there is also a G(Z) covariance of the set of charge vectors for physically inequivalent BPS brane solutions. In the discussion of subsection 8.5, we did not consider in detail the action of G(Z) on the moduli, because, as we saw in subsection 8.4, the canonically-defined charges (8.13) are in fact modulus-independent.
590
Since the dilatonic and axionic scalar moduli determine the coupling constants and vacuum ^-angles of the theory, these quantities should be fixed when quantizing about a given vacuum state of the theory. This is similar to the treatment of asymptotically flat spacetime in gravity, where the choice of a particular asymptotic geometry is necessary in order to establish the "vacuum" with respect to which quantized fluctuations can be considered. Thus, in considering physically-inequivalent solutions, one should compare solutions with the same asymptotic values of the scalar fields. When this is done, one finds that solutions carrying charges (8.13) related by G(Z) transformations generally have differing mass densities. Since the standard CremmerJulia duality transformations, such as those of our D = 8 example in subsection 8.1, commute with P° time translations and so necessarily preserve mass densities, it is clear that the BPS spectrum at fixed scalar moduli cannot form a multiplet under the standard Cremmer-Julia G(Z) duality symmetry. This conclusion is in any case unavoidable, given the local interpretation adopted for the standard duality transformations as discussed above: once one has identified solution/modulus sets under the standard G(Z) duality transformations, one cannot then turn around and use the same G(Z) transformations to generate inequivalent solutions. Thus, the question arises: is there any spectrum-generating symmetry lying behind the apparently G(Z) invariant charge lattices of inequivalent solutions that we saw in subsection 8.5? At least at the classical level, and for singlecharge (i.e. A = 4) solutions, the answer 68 turns out to be 'yes'. We shall illustrate the point using type IIB supergravity as an example/.
9.1. The Symmetries
of Type IIB
Supergravity
Aside from the difficulties arising from the self-duality condition for the 5form field strength H^, the equations of motion of the bosonic fields of the IIB theory may be derived from the action
J™ = J
dwx[eR+1-etr(V,M-l^M)-^eH[3]MH[3]-^eH^]
-^ii*(£[4]AdAgJAdA$)].
(9.1)
The 5-form self-duality condition H[5] = *H[5] v
For a detailed discussion of SL(2,IR) duality in type IIB supergravity, see Ref.
(9.2)
591 may be handled in the fashion of Ref. 7 0 , being imposed by hand as an extra constraint on the field equations obtained by varying (9.1). This somewhat hybrid procedure will be sufficient for our present purposes. The matrix M in (9.1) contains two scalar fields: a dilatonic scalar 0 which occurs nonlinearly through its exponential, and an axionic scalar X) which may also be considered to be a zero-form gauge potential; explicitly, one has M=[ The doublet H^
.
(9.3)
contains the field strengths of the 2-form gauge potentials
A[2]:
The action (9.1) is invariant under the SL(2,E) transformations H[3] —• ( A 7 ) - 1 / ^ ] ,
M ^
AMAT
,
(9.5)
where the SL(2,K) parameter matrix is
and the SL(2,E) constraint is ad—be = 1. If one defines the complex scalar field r = X + * e ~^J then the transformation on M can be rewritten as the fractional linear transformation r
—
^
•
(9-7)
Note that since if[5] is a singlet under SL(2,K), the self-duality constraint (9.2), which is imposed by hand, also preserves the SL(2, R) symmetry. Since this SL(2, E) transformation rotates the doublet A%\ of electric 2-form potentials amongst themselves, this is an "electric-electric" duality, as opposed to the "electric-magnetic" duality discussed in the D = 8 example of subsection 8.1. Nonetheless, similar issues concerning duality multiplets for a fixed scalar vacuum arise in both cases. There is one more symmetry of the equations of motion following from the action (9.1). This is a rather humble symmetry that is not often remarked upon, but which will play an important role in constructing active SL(2,E) duality transformations for the physically distinct BPS string and 5-brane multiplets of the theory. As for pure source-free Einstein theory, the action (9.1) transforms homogeneously as A3 under the following scaling transformations: 9^
—• A 2 5 M „ ,
4g> —• A 2 Agj ,
H[6] —> X4H[5] ;
(9.8)
592
note that the power of A in each field's transformation is equal to the number of indices it carries, and, accordingly, the scalars > and \ a r e n ° t transformed. Although the transformation (9.8) does not leave the action (9.1) invariant, the A3 homogeneity of this scaling for all terms in the action is sufficient to produce a symmetry of the IIB equations of motion. It should be noted that the SL(2, E) electric-magnetic duality of the D = 8 example given in subsection 8.1 shares with the transformation (9.8) the feature of being a symmetry only of the equations of motion, and not of the action. The SL(2, ffi) transformations map solutions of (9.1) into other solutions. We shall need to consider in particular the action of these transformations on the charges carried by solutions. From the equations of motion of the 3-form field strength if[3] in (9.1),
d*{MH[3]) =
~H[6]AilH[3]
(9.9)
where $7 is the SL(2, R)-invariant tensor
ft
(910)
=(-l J)'
one finds that the following two-component quantity is conserved:
Qe = J (*(MH[3]) + ^=n(2B[4]AHm-H[5]AA[2]))
.
(9.11)
Under an SL(2,R) transformation, Qe transforms covariantly as a doublet: Qe ->• A<5eBy virtue of the Bianchi identities for the 3-form field strength, one has in addition a topologically-conserved magnetic charge doublet, <2r = / # [ 3 ] ,
(9-12)
which transforms under SL(2, K) as Qm —> (AT)_1<5m, »-e. contragrediently to Qe. The transformation properties of the electric and magnetic charge doublets are just such as to ensure that the Dirac quantization condition Q^Qe 6 2TT/4B Z is SL(2,R) invariant. The overall effect of this standard SL(2, E) symmetry on type IIB supergravity solutions may be expressed in terms of its action on the solutions' charges and on the scalar moduli. This group action may be viewed as an automorphism of a vector bundle, with the scalar fields' SL(2, R)/SO(2) target manifold as the base space, and the charge vector space as the fiber. We have seen in our general discussion of charge lattices in subsection 8.5 that the continuous classical Cremmer-Julia symmetries G break down to discretized G(Z) symmetries that map between states on the quantum charge
593 lattice. In the present type IIB case, the classical SL(2, E) symmetry breaks down to SL(2,Z) at the quantum level. Taking the basis states of the IIB charge lattice to be
e1=(j)
e3=(;),
(9.13)
the surviving SL(2,Z) group will be represented by SL(2,E) matrices with integral entries. As we have discussed above, the discretized duality symmetries G(Z) are given a local interpretation in string theory. In the case of the type IIB theory, this is a hypothesis rather than a demonstrated result, because the SL(2,Z) transformations map between NS-NS and R-R states, and this is a distinctly non-perturbative transformation. Adopting this hypothesis nonetheless, an orbit of the standard SL(2,Z) transformation reduces to a single point; after making the corresponding identifications, the scalar modulus space becomes the double coset space SL(2,Z)\ S L ( 2 > K )/SO(2). 9.2. Active
Duality
Symmetries
Now let us see how duality multiplets of the physically inequivalent BPS states can occur, even though they will contain states with different mass densities. This latter fact alone tells us that we must include some transformation that acts on the metric. We shall continue with our exploration of the continuous classical SL(2, E) symmetry of the type IIB theory. Finding the surviving quantum-level SL(2,Z) later on will be a straightforward matter of restricting the transformations to a subgroup. The procedure starts with a standard SL(2,E) transformation, which transforms the doublet charges (9.11) in a straightforwardly linear fashion, but which also transforms in an unwanted way the scalar moduli. Subsequent compensating transformations will then have the task of eliminating the unwanted transformation of the scalar moduli, but without changing the "already final" values of the charges. Let us suppose that this initial transformation, with parameter A, maps the charge vector and complex scalar modulus (Q,Too) to new values (Q1,^). After this initial A transformation, one wishes to return the complex scalar modulus r^ to its original value Too, in order to obtain an overall transformation that does not in the end disturb the complex modulus. To do this, notice that within SL(2,E) there is a subgroup that leaves a doublet charge vector Q' invariant up to an overall rescaling. This projective stability group of Q' is isomorphic to the Borel subgroup of SL(2, E): Borel
= {(o a - 0 l a ' 6 € K } -
(9 14)
'
594
This standard representation of the SL(2, E) Borel subgroup clearly leaves the basis charge vector e\ of Eq. (9.13) invariant up to scaling by a. For a general charge vector Q', there will exist a corresponding projective stability subgroup which is isomorphic to (9.14), but obtained by conjugation of (9.14) with an element of H = SO (2). The importance of the Borel subgroup for our present purposes is that it acts transitively on the G/JJ = SL(2, E)/S0(2) coset space in which the scalar fields take their values, so this transformation may be used to return the scalar moduli to the original values they had before the A transformation. The next step in the construction is to correct for the unwanted scaling Q' -¥ aQ' which occurs as a result of the Borel compensating transformation, by use of a further compensating scaling of the form (9.8), aQ' —• X2aQ', in which one picks the rigid parameter A such that A2 a = 1. This almost completes the construction of the active SL(2,E). For the final step, note that the transformation (9.8) also scales the metric, g^v —> X2glu/ = a~1g)il/. Since one does not want to alter the asymptotic metric at infinity, one needs to compensate for this scaling by a final general coordinate transformation, x /i
_>
xin
=
0-1/23./!.
The overall active SL(2, E) duality package constructed in this way transforms the charges in a linear fashion, Q —»• AQ', in exactly the same way as the standard supergravity Cremmer-Julia SL(2,E) duality, but now leaving the complex scalar modulus Too unchanged. This is achieved by a net construction that acts upon the field variables of the theory in a quite nonlinear fashion. This net transformation may be explicitly written by noting that for SL(2,E) there is an Iwasawa decomposition A = bh ,
(9.15)
where b € BorelQ< is an element of the projective stability group of the final charge vector Q' and where h 6 HToo is an element of the stability subgroup of Too • Clearly, the Borel transformation that is needed in this construction is just b = (b)^1, leaving thus a transformation h € HToo which does not change the complex modulus TQO . The compensating scaling transformation t of the form (9.8) and the associated general coordinate transformation also leave the scalar moduli unchanged. The net active SL(2,E) transformation thus is just btA = th. Specifically, for Too = Xoo+ie~^°° and a transformation A mapping Q\ = I
) to Q{ = I
) = AQj, the h G HTea group element is
\ °- (tanfy sin 6{i- Xoo) cos Of; tan^j = e0o , /
tan0 s = pjqi ,
(9.16)
595 where the matrix Voo is an element of Borel that has the effect of moving the scalar modulus from the point r = i to the point T^ :
The matrix V^o appearing here is also the asymptotic limit of a matrix V((j>, x) that serves to factorize the matrix M given in (9.3), M = VVT. This factorization makes plain the transitive action of the Borel subgroup on the SL(2,R)/SO(2) coset space in which the scalar fields take their values. Note that the matrix M determines both the scalar kinetic terms and also their interactions with the various antisymmetric-tensor gauge fields appearing in the action (9.1). The scaling-transformation part of the net active SL(2, E) construction is simply expressed as a ratio of mass densities, *fi = — ,
rn?=Q?M£Qi.
(9.18)
This expression reflects the fact that the scaling symmetry (9.8) acts on the metric and thus enables the active SL(2,E) transformation to relate solutions at different mass-density levels m\j. Since, by contrast, the mass-density levels are invariant under the action of the standard SL(2, E), it is clear that the two realizations of this group are distinctly different. Mapping between different mass levels, referred to a given scalar vacuum determined by the complex modulus Too, can only be achieved by including the scaling transformation (9.18). The group composition property of the active SL(2, E) symmetry needs to be checked in the same fashion as for nonlinear realizations generally, i. e. one needs to check that a group operation 0(A, Q) — th acting on an initial state characterized by a charge doublet Q combines with a second group operation according to the rule 0(A2 , AiQ) 0(AuQ)
= 0(A2A1,
Q) .
(9.19)
One may verify directly that the nonlinear realization given by (9.17,9.18) does in fact satisfy this composition law, when acting on any of the fields of the type IIB theory. At the quantum level, the Dirac quantization condition restricts the allowed states of the theory to a discrete charge lattice, as we have seen. The standard SL(2,E) symmetry thus becomes restricted to a discrete SL(2,Z) subgroup in order to respect this charge lattice, and the active SL(2,E) constructed above likewise becomes restricted to an SL(2, Z) subgroup. This quantum-level discretized group of active transformations is obtained simply by restricting the
596 matrix parameters A for a classical active SL(2, E) transformation so as to lie inSL(2,Z). In lower-dimensional spacetime, the supergravity duality groups G shown in Table 2 grow in rank and the structure of the charge orbits becomes progressively more and more complicated, but the above story is basically repeated for an important class of j>-brane solutions. This is the class of single-charge solutions, for which the charges Q fall into highest-weight representations of G. The duality groups shown in Table 2 are all maximally noncompact, and possess an Iwasawa decomposition generalizing the SL(2,R) case (9.15): A = bh
b £ Borel Q , h e ffmoduii ,
(9-20)
where BorelQ is isomorphic to the Borel subgroup of G. Once again, this subgroup acts transitively on the coset space G/JJ in which the scalar fields take their values, so this is the correct subgroup to use for a compensating transformation to restore the moduli to their original values in a given scalar vacuum. As in the SL(2,E) example of the type IIB theory, one may see that this group action is transitive by noting that the matrix M (9.3) which governs the scalar kinetic terms and interactions can be parameterized in the form M = VV#, where V is an element of the Borel subgroup. The operation # here depends on the groups G and H in question; in spacetime dimensions D > 4 w e have VT
,
for H orthogonal
V* = I V*
,
for H unitary
fiV* ,
(9.21)
for H a USp group .
(The D = 3 case in which G = i?8(+8) a n d H = SO (16) needs to be treated as a special case. 71 ) Given the above group-theoretical structure, the construction of active G symmetry transformations that preserve the scalar moduli proceeds in strict analogy with the type IIB SL(2,ffi) example that we have presented. This construction depends upon the existence of a projective stability group 68 ' 71 of the charge Q that is isomorphic to the Borel subgroup of G. This is the case whenever Q transforms according to a highest-weight representation of G. The BPS brane solutions with this property are the single-charge solutions with A = 4. As we have seen in Section 7, BPS brane solutions with A = 4/N can be interpreted as coincident-charge-center cases of intersecting-brane solutions with N elements, each of which would separately be a A = 4 solution on its own. The construction of active duality symmetries for such multiple-charge solutions remains an open problem, for they have a larger class of integration constants, representing relative positions and phases of the charge components.
597
Only the asymptotic scalar moduli can be moved transitively by the Borel subgroup of G and, correspondingly, the representations carried by the charges in such multi-charge cases are not of highest-weight type. The active G(Z) duality constructions work straightforwardly enough at the classical level, but their dependence on symmetries of field equations that are not symmetries of the corresponding actions gives a reason for caution about their quantum durability. This may be a subject where string theory needs to intervene with its famed "miracles". Some of these miracles can be seen in supergravity-level analyses of the persistence of BPS solutions with arbitrary mass scales, despite the presence of apparently threatening quantum corrections, 68 but a systematic way to understand the remarkable identities making this possible is not known. Thus, there still remain some areas where string theory appears to be more clever than supergravity. 10. Non-Compact er-Models, Null Geodesies, and Harmonic Maps A complementary approach 72 ' 73,74 to the analysis of brane solutions in terms of the four D = 11 elemental solutions presented in Section 7 is to make a dimensional reduction until only overall-transverse dimensions remain, and then to consider the resulting nonlinear cr-model supporting the solution. In such a reduction, all of the worldvolume and relative-transverse coordinates are eliminated, including the time coordinate, which is possible because the BPS solutions are all time independent. The two complementary approaches to the analysis of BPS brane solutions may thus be characterized as oxidation up to the top of Figure 7, or reduction down to the left edge Figure 7, i.e. reduction down to BPS "instantons", or p — —1 branes, with worldvolume dimension d = 0. The d — 0 instanton solutions are supported by 1-form field strengths, i.e. the derivatives of axionic scalars, F^x\ = d\- Taken together with the dilatonic scalars accumulated in the process of dimensional reduction, these form a noncompact nonlinear a-model with a target manifold G/JJ1, where G is the usual supergravity symmetry group shown in Table 2 for the corresponding (reduced) dimension D but H' is a noncompact form of the modulus little group H shown in Table 2. The difference between the groups H' and H arises because dimensional reduction on the time coordinate introduces extra minus signs, with respect to the usual spatial-coordinate Kaluza-Klein reduction, in "kinetic" terms for scalars descending from vector fields in the (D + l) dimensional theory including the time dimension. Scalars descending from scalars or from the metric in (D + l) dimensions do not acquire extra minus signs. The change to the little group H' is also needed for the transformation of field
598 strengths of higher rank, but these need not be considered for our discussion of the BPS instantons. The relevant groups for the noncompact cr-models in dimensions 9 > D > 3 are given in Table 5. These should be compared to the standard Cremmer-Julia groups given in Table 2. Table 5. (T-models.
Symmetries
for
BPS
instanton
D
G
H'
9
GL(2,R)
SO(l,l)
8
SL(3,K)xSL(2,R)
SO(2,l)xSO(l,l)
7
SL(5,M)
SO(3,2)
6
SO(5,5)
SO(5,C) USP(4,4)
5
E
6(+6)
4
E
7(+7)
SU*(8)
3
E
8(+8)
SO*(16)
The sector of dimensionally-reduced supergravity that is relevant for the instanton solutions consists just of the transverse-space Euclidean-signature metric and the G/jj' cr-model, with an action
I* = j dDyy/g
(R-^G^im^di^g*
(10.1)
where the (j>A are cr-model fields taking values in the G/jj' target space, GAB is the target-space metric and g'i (y) is the Euclidean-signature metric for the cr-model domain space. The equations of motion following from (10.1) are 1
V9
Vi{V99'3GAB((l>)dj
1 Rij = ^GAB(
(10.2a) (10.2b)
where V» is a covariant derivative; when acting on a target-space vector VA, it is given by ViVA = diVA-TDAE(G)dict>EVD ,
(10.3)
in which TAC(G) is the Christoffel connection for the target-space metric GABThe action (10.1) and the field equations (10.2) are covariant with respect to general-coordinate transformations on the a-model target manifold G/JJ>. The action (10.1) and the field equations (10.2) are also covariant with respect to general y% —> yH coordinate transformations of the domain space. These two
599 types of general coordinate transformations are quite different, however, in that the domain-space transformations constitute a true gauge symmetry of the dynamical system (10.1), while the cr-model target-space transformations generally change the metric GAB(
(10.4)
in which the domain-space metric is assumed to be flat. The
B
(^f)=0
Rij = ^GAB(4,)di^Adj4»B
(10.5a) =0 .
(10.5b)
Now comes the key step 72 in finding instanton solutions to the specialized equations (10.5): for single-charge solutions, one supposes that the cr-model fields ((>A depend on the domain-space coordinates yl only through some intermediate scalar functions a(y), i.e. 4>A{y)=4>A{a{y)).
(10.6)
After making this assumption, the cr-model <j)A equations (10.5a) become 2 W = 0, V72 CT-f- + (cV)(cV) ^^UG)^^ BCK da2 ' da da da while the gravitational equation (10.5b) becomes the constraint
(10.7)
An important class of solutions to (10.7) is obtained by taking V2CT = 0 dV
(10.9a)
+ I - (G)dr ^ -0 flOOM -d-r+Tzc(G) — — - 0 . (10.9b) At this point, one can give a picture of the a-model maps involved in the system of equations (10.8),(10.9), noting that (10.9a) is just Laplace's equation and that (10.9b) is the geodesic equation on G/H', while the constraint (10.8) requires the tangent vector to a geodesic to be a null vector. The intermediate function a(y) is required by (10.9a) to be a harmonic function mapping from
600
the flat (10.4) Euclidean domain space onto a null geodesic on the target space GjH' • Clearly, the harmonic map a(y) should be identified with the harmonic function H(y) that controls the single-charge brane solutions (2.24). On the geodesic in G/H', on the other hand, a plays the role of an affine parameter. The importance of the noncompact structure of the target space manifold G/H', for the groups G and H' given in Table 5, now becomes clear: only on such a noncompact manifold does one have nontrivial null geodesies as required by the gravitational constraint (10.8). The cr-model solution (10.6) oxidizes back up to one of the single-charge brane solutions shown in Figure 7, and, conversely, any solution shown in Figure 7 may be reduced down to a corresponding noncompact cr-model solution of this type. This sequence of cr-model maps is sketched in Figure 8.
Figure 8.
Harmonic map from E ^ to a null geodesic in
G/JJ'.
An extension 73 ' 74 of this cr-model picture allows for solutions involving multiple harmonic maps cra (y). In that case, one deals not with a single geodesic, but with a totally geodesic submanifold of Gjn\ and, moreover, the geodesies generated by any curve in the intermediate aa parameter space must be null. This is the cr-model construction that generates multi-charge solutions, giving rise to intersecting-brane solutions of the types discussed in Section 7. As with the intersecting-brane solutions, however, there are important compatibility conditions that must be satisfied in order for such multi-charge solutions to exist. We saw in subsection 7.2 that, in order for some portion of the rigid supersymmetry to remain unbroken, the projectors constraining the surviving supersymmetry parameter need to be consistent. In the cr-model picture, a required condition is expressed in terms of the velocity vectors for the null
601
geodesies. If one adopts a matrix representation M for points in the coset manifold G//T, the cr-model equations for the matrix fields M(ym) are simply written V* ( M _ 1 di M) = 0 .
(10.10)
Points on the geodesic submanifold with affine parameters aa may be written M = Aexp(^Bac7a)
,
(10.11)
where the constant matrices Ba give the velocities for the various geodesies parametrized by the aa, while an initial point on these geodesies is specified by the constant matrix A. The compatibility condition between these velocities is given by the double-commutator condition 74 [[Ba,Bb],Bc]
= 0.
(10.12)
This condition allows one to rewrite (10.11) as M = A exp ( - i J2 5 } B < " Bc\Wc)
Y[ exp{Baaa)
,
(10.13)
where the first factor commutes with the Ba as a result of (10.12). The matrix current then becomes M-1diM
= YJBadiOa-\ a
J2^B^Bc](^bdiac-acdiab) c>b
,
(10.14)
b
and this is then seen to be conserved provided the aa satisfy V2cra(?/) = 0, i.e. they are harmonic maps from the Euclidean overall-transverse space of the ym into the geodesic submanifold (10.11). The constraint imposed by the gravitational equation is Rij = ^ 53tr(B 0 B 6 )a i (j o a j <7 6 = 0 ,
(10.15)
which is satisfied provided the geodesies parametrized by the aa are null and orthogonal, i.e. tr(BaBb)
=0.
(10.16)
The general set of stationary multi-charge brane solutions is thus obtained in the cr-model construction by identifying the set of totally null, totally geodesic submanifolds of G/ff' such that the velocity vectors satisfy the compatibility condition (10.12).
602
Aside from the elegance of the above
603 solutions t h a t we have discussed appear as Dirichlet surfaces on which open strings can end; for this, we refer the reader t o Ref. 9 . Of course, the real fascination of this subject lies in its connection t o the emerging picture in string t h e o r y / q u a n t u m gravity, and in particular to t h e roles t h a t B P S supergravity solutions play as states stable against the effects of q u a n t u m corrections. In this emerging picture, t h e duality symmetries t h a t we have discussed in Section 8 play an essential p a r t , uniting the underlying t y p e IIA, IIB, Es*-E8 and SO(32) heterotic, and also the type I string theories into one overall theory, which then also has a phase with D = 11 supergravity as its field-theory limit. T h e usefulness of classical supergravity considerations in probing the structure of this emerging "M theory" is one of the major surprises of the subject. Acknowledgments T h e author would like to acknowledge helpful conversations with Marcus Bremer, Bernard de Wit, Mike Duff, Frangois Englert, Gary Gibbons, Hong Lii, George Papadopoulos, Chris Pope, and Paul Townsend. References 1. E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk, Phys. Lett. B 76, 409 (1978). 2. D.N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2976 (1983). 3. J. W. van Holten and A. van Proeyen, "TV = 1 Supersymmetry Algebras in D = 2, £> = 3, D = A mod-8", J. Phys. A 15, 3763 (1982). 4. K. S. Stelle and P. K. Townsend, "Are 2-branes better than 1?" in Proc. CAP Summer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, July 1987, KEK library accession number 8801076. 5. P. S. Howe and K. S. Stelle, "The Ultraviolet Properties of Supersymmetric Field Theories", Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 4, 1871 (1989). 6. P. K. Townsend, "Three lectures on supersymmetry and extended objects", in Integrable Systems, Quantum Groups and Quantum Field Theories (23 r d GIFT Seminar on Theoretical Physics, Salamanca, June, 1992), L. A. Ibort and M. A. Rodriguez, eds., Kluwer (1993). 7. M. J. Duff, R. R. Khuri and J. X. Lu, "String solitons", Physics Reports 259, 213 (1995), hep-th/9412184; 8. M. J. Duff, "Supermembranes", hep-th/9611203. 9. J. Polchinski, "Tasi Lectures on D-branes", hep-th/9611050. 10. E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, Phys. Lett. B 158, 316 (1985); Nucl. Phys. B 261, 1 (1985). 11. C. Callan, D. Friedan, E. Martinec and M. Perry, Nucl. Phys. B 262, 593 (1985). 12. A. Dabholkar, G. Gibbons, J. A. Harvey and F. Ruiz Ruiz, "Superstrings and Solitons", Nucl. Phys. B 340, 33 (1990). 13. H. Lii, C. N. Pope, E. Sezgin and K. S. Stelle, "Stainless Super p-branes", Nucl. Phys. B 456, 669 (1996), hep-th/9508042.
604 14. I. C. Campbell and P. C. West, Nucl. Phys. B 243, 112 (1984); F. Giani and M. Pernici, Phys. Rev. D 30, 325 (1984); M. Huq and M. A. Namazie, Class. Quantum Grav. 2, 293 (1985); ibid. 2, 597 (1985). 15. M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 122, 143 (1983); J. H. Schwarz and P. C. West, Phys. Lett. B 126, 301 (1983); J. H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 269 (1983); P. S. Howe and P. C. West, Nucl. Phys. B 238, 181 (1984). 16. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thome and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco (1973), Box 14.5. 17. H. Lii, C. N. Pope, E. Sezgin and K. S. Stelle, "Dilatonic p-brane solitons", Nucl. Phys. B 371, 46 (1996), hep-th/9511203. 18. M. J. Duff and K. S. Stelle, "Multi-membrane solutions of D = 11 Supergravity", Phys. Lett. B 253, 113 (1991). 19. G. W. Gibbons and P. K. Townsend, Phys. Rev. Lett 71, 3754 (1993), hep-th/9302049; M. J. Duff, G. W. Gibbons and P. K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 332, 321 (1994), hep-th/9405124. 20. E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin and P. K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 189, 75 (1987). 21. E. Witten, "Bound states of strings and p-branes", Nucl. Phys. B 460, 335 (1996), hep-th/9510135; M. R. Douglas, "Branes within branes", hep-th/9512077; P. K. Townsend, "Brane Surgery", in Proc. European Res. Conf. on Advanced Quantum Field Theory, La Londe-les-Maures, Sept. 1996, hep-th/9609217; G. Papadopoulos, "Brane surgery with Thom classes", JHEP 9905, 020 (1999), hep-th/9905073. 22. M. J. Duff, P. S. Howe, T. Inami and K. S. Stelle, "Superstrings in D - 10 from Supermembranes in D = 11", Phys. Lett. B 191, 70 (1987). 23. H. Lii, C. N. Pope and K. S. Stelle, "Vertical Versus Diagonal Dimensional Reduction for p-branes", Nucl. Phys. B 481, 313 (1996), hep-th/9605082. 24. S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press (1973). 25. R. Guven, "Black p-brane solutions of D = 11 supergravity theory", Phys. Lett. B 276, 49 (1992). 26. G. W. Gibbons, G. T. Horowitz and P. K. Townsend, Class. Quantum Grav. 12, 297 (1995), hep-th/9410073. 27. G. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B 360, 197 (1991); M. J. Duff and J. X. Lu, Nucl. Phys. B 416, 301 (1994), hep-th/9306052. 28. M. J. Duff, H. Lii and C. N. Pope, "The Black Branes of M-theory", Phys. Lett. B 382, 73 (1996), hep-th 9604052. 29. J. A. de Azcarraga, J. P. Gauntlett, J. M. Izquierdo and P. K. Townsend, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2443 (1989). 30. G. W. Gibbons and C. M. Hull, Phys. Lett. B 109, 190 (1982). 31. H. Lii and C. N. Pope, "p-brane solitons in maximal supergravities", Nucl. Phys. B 465, 127 (1996), hep-th/9512012. 32. H. Lii and C. N. Pope, "An approach to the classification of p-brane solitons", hep-th/9601089. 33. P. S. Howe and R. W. Tucker, J. Phys. A 10, L155 (1977). 34. I. Bandos, D. Sorokin and and D. V. Volkov, "On the Generalized Action Principle for Superstrings and Superbranes", Phys. Lett. B 352, 269 (1995), hep-th/9502141; I. Bandos, P. Pasti, D. Sorokin, M. Tonin and D. V. Volkov,
605
35. 36. 37. 38.
39.
40. 41.
42. 43.
44. 45. 46.
47. 48.
49. 50. 51.
"Superstrings and Supermembranes in the Doubly Supersymmetric Geometrical Approach", Nucl. Phys. B 446, 79 (1995), hep-th/9501113. E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin and P. K. Townsend Ann. Phys. 185, 330 (1988). A. Achucarro, J. M. Evans, P. K. Townsend and D. L. Wiltshire, Phys. Lett. B 198, 441 (1987). R. Khuri, Nucl. Phys. B 387, 315 (1992), hep-th/9205081; J. P. Gauntlett, J. A. Harvey and J. T. Liu, Nucl. Phys. B 409, 363 (1993), hep-th/9211056. B. R. Greene, A. Shapere, C. Vafa and S-T. Yau, Nucl. Phys. B 337, 1 (1990); G. W. Gibbons, M. B. Green and M. J. Perry, Phys. Lett. B 370, 37 (1996), hep-th/9511080. P. M. Cowdall, H. Lii, C. N. Pope, K. S. Stelle and P. K. Townsend, "Domain Walls in Massive Supergravities", Nucl. Phys. B 486, 49 (1997), hep-th/9608173. J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 82, 60 (1979). E. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, M. B. Green, G. Papadopoulos and P. K. Townsend, "Duality of Type II 7-branes and 8-branes", Nucl. Phys. B 470, 113 (1996), hep-th/9601150. N. Kaloper, R. R. Khuri and R. C. Myers, "On generalized axion reductions", Phys. Lett. B 428, 297 (1998), hep-th/9803066. H. Lii and C. N. Pope, "Domain walls from M-branes", Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 1087 (1997), hep-th/9611079; I. V. Lavrinenko, H. Lii and C. N. Pope, "From topology to generalized dimensional reduction", Nucl. Phys. B 492, 278 (1997), hep-th/9611134. M. Cvetic, "Extreme domain wall — black hole complementarity in N = 1 supergravity with a general dilaton coupling", Phys. Lett. B 341, 160 (1994). M. Cvetic and H.H. Soleng, "Supergravity domain walls", Physics Reports 282, 159 (1997), hep-th/9604090. J. Rahmfeld, Phys. Lett. B 372, 198 (1996), hep-th/9512089; N. Khviengia, Z. Khviengia, H. Lii and C. N. Pope, "Intersecting M-branes and Bound States", Phys. Lett. B 388, 21 (1996), hep-th/9605077; M. J. Duff and J. Rahmfeld, "Bound States of Black Holes and Other p-branes", Nucl. Phys. B 481, 332 (1996), hep-th/9605085. H. W. Brinkmann, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 9, 1 (1923). G. Papadopoulos and P.K. Townsend, "Intersecting M-branes", Phys. Lett. B 380, 273 (1996), hep-th/9603087; A. Tseytlin, "Harmonic superpositions of M-branes", Nucl. Phys. B 475, 149 (1996); I. R. Klebanov and A. A. Tseytlin, "Intersecting M-branes as four-dimensional black holes", Nucl. Phys. B 475, 179 (1996); K. Berndt, E. Bergshoeff and B. Janssen, "Intersecting D-branes in ten dimensions and six dimensions", Phys. Rev. D 55, 3785 (1997), hep-th/9604168; J. Gauntlett, D. Kastor and J. Traschen, "Overlapping branes in M-theory", Nucl. Phys. B 478, 544 (1996). R. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 87 (1983); D. J. Gross and M. J. Perry, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 29 (1983). J.P. Gauntlett, "Intersecting Branes", hep-th/9705011. A.A. Tseytlin, "'No force' condition and BPS combinations of p-branes in eleven dimensions and ten dimensions", Nucl. Phys. B 487, 141 (1997), hep-th/9609212.
606 52. K. Shiraishi, Nucl. Phys. B 402, 399 (1993). 53. G. W. Gibbons, G. Papadopoulos and K. S. Stelle, "HKT and OKT geometries on soliton black hole moduli spaces", Nucl. Phys. B 508, 623 (1997), hep-th/9706207. 54. R. Coles and G. Papadopoulos, "The geometry of one-dimensional supersymmetric non-linear sigma models", Class. Quantum Grav. 7, 427 (1990). 55. E. Cremmer and B. Julia, Nucl. Phys. B 159, 141 (1979). 56. J. M. Izquierdo, N. D. Lambert, G. Papadopoulos and P. K. Townsend, "Dyonic Membranes", Nucl. Phys. B 460, 560 (1996), hep-th/9508177. 57. R. Nepomechie, "Magnetic monopoles from antisymmetric tensor gauge fields", Phys. Rev. D 31, 1921 (1985). 58. C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B 67, 63, 69 (1986). 59. M. Bremer, H. Lii, C. N. Pope and K. S. Stelle, "Dirac quantisation conditions and Kaluza-Klein reduction", Nucl. Phys. B 529, 259 (1998), hep-th/9710244. 60. S. Deser, A. Gomberoff, M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, "Duality, self-duality, sources and charge quantisation in Abelian N-form theories", Phys. Lett. B 400, 80 (1997), hep-th/9702184. 61. H. Lii, C. N. Pope and K. S. Stelle, "Weyl Group Invariance and p-brane Multiplets", Nucl. Phys. B 476, 89 (1996), hep-th/9602140. 62. C. M. Hull and P. K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B 438, 109 (1995), hep-th/9410167. 63. E. Witten, "String theory dynamics in various dimensions", Nucl. Phys. B 443, 85 (1995). 64. M. J. Duff and J. Rahmfeld, "Bound States of Black Holes and Other p-branes", Nucl. Phys. B 481, 332 (1996), hep-th/9605085. 65. J. H. Schwarz, "The power of M-theory", Phys. Lett. B 367, 97 (1996), hep-th/9510086. 66. T. H. Buscher, "A symmetry of the string background field equations", Phys. Lett. B 194, 69 (1987); A. Giveon, M. Porrati and E. Rabinovici, "Target space duality in string theory", Physics Reports 244, 77 (1994), hep-th/9401139. 67. A. Sen, "Electric and magnetic duality in string theory", Nucl. Phys. B 404, 109 (1993), hep-th/9207053; "5L(2, Z) duality and magnetically charged strings", Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 8, 5079 (1993), hep-th/9302038. 68. E. Cremmer, H. Lii, C. N. Pope and K. S. Stelle, "Spectrum-generating symmetries for BPS Solitons", Nucl. Phys. B 520, 132 (1998), hep-th/9707207. 69. J. H. Schwarz, "An SL(2,Z) multiplet of type IIB superstrings", Phys. Lett. B 360, 13 (1995); Erratum ibid. 364, 252 (1995), hep-th/9508143. 70. E. Bergshoeff, C. M. Hull and T. Ortin, "Duality in the type II superstring effective action", Nucl. Phys. B 451, 547 (1995), hep-th/9504081. 71. E. Cremmer, B. Julia, H. Lii and C. N. Pope, "Dualisation of dualities, I", Nucl. Phys. B 523, 73 (1998), hep-th/9710119. 72. G. Neugebaur and D. Kramer, Ann. der Physik (Leipzig) 24, 62 (1969). 73. P. Breitenlohner, D. Maison and G. Gibbons, Comm. Math. Phys. 120, 253 (1988).
607 74. G. Clement and D. Gal'tsov, "Stationary BPS solutions to dilaton-axion gravity", Phys. Rev. D 54, 6136 (1996), hep-th/9607043; D. V. Gal'tsov and O. A. Rytchkov, "Generating branes via sigma-models", Phys. Rev. D 58, 122001 (1998), hep-th/9801160. 75. H. Lii and C. N. Pope, "Multi-scalar p-brane solitons", Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12, 437 (1997), hep-th/9512153. 76. N. Khviengia, Z. Khviengia, H. Lii and C. N. Pope, "Intersecting M-branes and bound states", Phys. Lett. B 388, 21 (1996), hep-th/9605077. 77. K. Becker and M. Becker, "M-theory on eight-manifolds", Nucl. Phys. B 477, 155 (1996), hep-th/9605053. 78. M. Berkooz, M. R. Douglas and R. G. Leigh, "Branes intersecting at angles", Nucl. Phys. B 480, 265 (1996), hep-th/9606139; J. P. Gauntlett, G. W. Gibbons, G. Papadopoulos and P. K. Townsend, "HyperKahler manifolds and multiply intersecting branes", Nucl. Phys. B 500, 133 (1997), hep-th/9702202. 79. P. S. Howe and E. Sezgin, "Superbranes", Phys. Lett. B 390, 133 (1997), hep-th/9607227; P. S. Howe and E. Sezgin, "D = 11, p = 5", Phys. Lett. B 394, 62 (1997), hep-th/9611008; M. Cederwall, A. von Gussich, B. E. W. Nilsson and A. Westerberg, "The Dirichlet Super Three Brane in Ten-Dimensional Type IIB Supergravity", Nucl. Phys. B 490, 163 (1997), hep-th/9610148; M. Aganagic, C. Popescu and J. H. Schwarz, "D-brane actions with local kappasymmetry", Phys. Lett. B 393, 311 (1997), hep-th/9610249; M. Cederwall, A. von Gussich, B. E. W. Nilsson, P. Sundell and A. Westerberg, "The dirichlet super p-branes in ten-dimensional Type IIA and IIB supergravity", Nucl. Phys. B 490, 179 (1997), hep-th/9611159; E. Bergshoeff and P. K. Townsend, "Super D-branes", Nucl. Phys. B 490, 145 (1997), hep-th/9611173. I. Bandos, D. Sorokin and M. Tonin, "Generalized Action Principle and Superfield Equations of Motion for d = 10 D-p-branes", Nucl. Phys. B 497, 275 (1997), hep-th/9701127. 80. I. Klebanov, "Tasi Lectures: Introduction to the AdS-CFT correspondence", hep-th/0009139.
This page is intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTORY LECTURES ON D-BRANES
ION VASILE VANCEA* Institute de Fisica Teorica, Universidade Estadual Paulista Rua Pamplona 145, 01405-900, Sao Paulo, SP, Brasil E-mail: [email protected]
This is a pedagogical introduction t o D-branes, addressed to graduate students in field theory and particle physics and to other beginners in string theory. I am not going to review the most recent results since there are already many good papers on web devoted to that. Instead, I will present some old techniques in some detail in order to show how some basic properties of strings and branes as the massless spectrum of string, the effective action of D-branes and their tension can be computed using Q F T techniques. Also, I will present shortly the boundary state description of D-branes. The details are exposed for bosonic branes since I do not assume any previous knowledge of supersymmetry which is not a requirement for this school. However, for completeness and to provide basic notions for other lectures, I will discuss the some properties of supersymmetric branes. The present lectures were delivered at Jorge Andre Swieca School on Particle and Fields, 2001, Campos do Jordao, Brazil.
1. Introduction The fundamental problem of high energy theoretical physics is to provide us with a description of the intimate structure and interaction of the Nature. At low energies, accessible to particle physics experiments, the accepted models are based on QFT which predicts particle-like excitations of the fields interacting through three fundamental forces: electro-magnetic, weak and strong and through a classical gravitational interaction. Nowadays, it is known that the first three interactions can be unified at intermediate energies and it is believed that at a scale of energy around 1 0 - 3 3 cm, (the Planck length) all the interactions should be consistently described by an unique theory which is unknown yet. There are several arguments in support of the idea that at this scale the excitations (or at least part of them) of the fundamental object of the theory should be string-like rather than point-like and studying such of hypothesis is the object of the string theory. N. Berkovits will review in his lectures at this * On leave from Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj.
609
610
school the problems of field theory and gravity at the Planck scale and the arguments in favor of string theories. For our purpose, it is enough to say that many people consider string (based) theories as the most promising candidate for the final theory of the Nature basically because they predict all particles and interactions among them, including the gravity, from a basic object which is the string. However, due to the largeness of the unification scale, the predictions and the constructions are theoretical; all what is required is that the theory satisfy some internal consistency conditions and reproduce at the low energy limit the known theories, i.e. QFT and gravity. Results that could be decisively connected with phenomenology have not been rigorously obtained yet. Despite many of its conceptual successes, string theories suffer from several serious problems which serve as arguments in favor of criticism against them. One of the drawbacks of strings is that they appear in a too large number of theories, all with equal rights to a theory of everything: Type I, Type IIA, Type IIB, Heterotic 50(32) and Heterotic E% x Eg. All of these theories are supersymmetric and their names are related to the number and type of supersymmetry and of the gauge group. Another problem is that all these theories live in a ten dimensional space-time with one time-like direction. Since the world in which we live has only three space-like directions, one has to explain how the space-time of string theory reduces to the physical one. One way of thinking to the dimensional reduction is by considering that some of the d = 10 space-time directions are compactified. There are some recent progress in this direction, but no completely satisfactory answer is known at present. However, with the discovery of the D-branes six years ago, many revolutionary ideas about string theories and new angles of attack to the old problems have been emerging. The D-branes are extended physical objects discovered in string theories. One type of .D-branes, called BPS-branes, which saturate a relation between supersymmetry and energy, play an important role in establishing relations among the string theories called dualities. By a duality, two string theories are mapped into one another. Since the theories can describe the interactions in different regimes (for example on different compact space-time or in weakstrong coupling limits), they can represent relations among these different limits (of string theories.) This points out towards an unique underlying theory of which limits are described by string theories. This unknown yet theory is called M (or, sometimes £/)-theory and one of its limits is the supergravity in d = 11. Beside their importance in unification of string theories, the D-branes are necessary for their internal consistency. Indeed, in Type II theories there are some massless p-form bosonic fields called Ramond-Ramond (RR) fields
611
after the name of the perturbative sector of string spectra in which they appear. The D-brane are the sources of these fields and carry their charges.In simple situations in which the branes can be considered as hyperplanes, there are similar relations between RR-charges and the topological and the Noether charges encountered in electro-magnetism. However, being extended objects, the D-branes can have more sophisticated topologies, in which case there are topological contributions to the charges. Therefore, the classification of charges is given by an extended cohomology called K-theory rather than by the De Rham cohomology. There are subtle relations in K-theory among different Dbranes and between branes and d — 11 supergravity. BPS as well as non-BPS branes are involved in that and the tachyon fields represent the mechanism that controls the evolution of the system. Beside their crucial role in understanding string theories, the D-branes have been successfully used to explain various supersymmetric and nonsupersymmetric field theories, the entropy of some models of black-holes and, more recently, there have been attempts in understanding some cosmological issues and the hierarchy problem. New developments appear daily on the net, and one of the hot topics is the geometrical structure of space-time and field theories at the Planck scale, which could be non-commutative. The D-branes represent a quickly developing field, where many novelties appear almost each year. There are many fascinating problems in this direction which has been inspiring in both physics and mathematics. However, the purpose of these lecture notes is by far more modest. I am not going to review nor the successes neither the various theories that are based on and that involve the D-branes. To this end, there are many very good references at http://xxx.lanl.gov. The aim of these lecture is to show to particle physics theorists how some basic properties of D-branes have been computed and how field theory techniques can be used to obtain information about branes. By that, I hope that graduate students and researchers will feel more confident and encouraged to read string literature. Also, I would like to provide a background for the more advanced topics in brane theory that will be presented at this school by I. Ya. Arafeva, S. Minwalla and K. Stelle. Due to the pedagogical line that I had chosen and since most of the audience was not familiar with string theory, supersymmetry and supergravity, I focused in my talks on physical properties of bosonic D-branes as as low energy effective action, tension and boundary field description. However, some properties of supersymmetric branes also emerged mostly during the discussion sessions, therefore I added a part in which the same basic properties but for the supersymmetric branes are listed.
612
The structure of these notes is as follows. In Section 2 the basic results of free bosonic string theory are revisited. I will present the massless spectrum of either open and closed bosonic string theory to argue the presence of graviton and other bosonic excitations which will be used in the next sections. In Section 3 we deduce the Born-Infeld action or the low energy action of a Dbrane. I work out in detail the case of the £>25-brane and the sigma model in a general closed string background. This section is based on 10 . In Section 4 we find the tension of the D-branes. In Section 5 we present the microscopic description of D-branes known as the boundary state formalism. In the last Section the same results for supersymmetric branes are presented. There are many references on strings and D-branes and it would be impossible to mention all of them. I have tried to refeer mainly to more advanced lecture notes rather than original papers for pedagogical reasons. The references that I have been used throughout this work have been selecting according to my preference. 2. Review of Basic Results from Free Bosonic String Theory In this section I am going to review some basic results from free bosonic string theory that will be useful in studying the D-branes. This is a textbook material 1 ' 2 ' 4 but it is included here since these ideas might be unfamiliar to some part of the audience. 2.1. Classical
Free Bosonic
String
Theory
The starting point in discussing a classical free string is its action which is proportional to the area described by the string during its evolution in spacetime 1 ' 2 ' 3 . The classical action can be cast in a polynomial form known as Polyakov action which, in the conformal gauge and in the Minkowski background, is given by the following formula
S = -^-J
d2adaX"daXli .
(1)
Here, Ts is the string tension which is related to the Regge slope by the formula Ts = (27ra') and X^ are the string coordinates in D = 26 dimensional spacetime, \i = 0 , 1 , . . . , 25. The world-sheet is parametrized by a time-like parameter T = a0 and a space-like one cr = a1 6 [0, ir]. The two metrics, on the worldsheet S and on the space-time, respectively, are taken to be Minkowskian. The action given by Eq.(l) has the following symmetries: 50(1,25) in spacetime, 50(1,1) on the world-sheet and a residual two-dimensional conformal symmetry 1 ' 2,3 .
613
The variational principle applied to the action (1) gives the following equations of motion dadaX>i{Ta)
= 0
(2)
which hold only if the boundary conditions are satisfied, too. The closed string boundary conditions simply express the fact that the string coordinates are univalued X"(T,
(3)
In the case of the open string, one can impose Poincare invariant or Poincare breaking boundary conditions. They are given by the following relations flnX'V SX^SE
= 0
(4)
= 0 ,
(5)
which are known as Neumann b.c. and Dirichlet b . c , respectively. The topology of the world-sheet depends on the topology of the string. At classical level, the world-sheet of the closed string is equivalent to a cylinder or a twodimensional annulus, while the world-sheet of an open string can be continuously transformed into a disk with the boundary corresponding to the circle. In order to determine the solutions of the equations of motion one can study the variation of the action with fixed string configurations at the initial and final time: 6X^(TI) = SX^fo) = 0. (The boundary conditions may affect the finiteness of the physical quantities derived out of the action but not the solutions of the equations of motion.) For these configurations the boundary conditions are given by the following relations dffX*|CT=o,„ = 0 X"\a=0,n
= ct.
N.b.c.
(6)
D.b.c.
(7)
There is a constraint in the theory, namely that the energy-momentum tensor vanishes. This constraint can be understood by considering the string coupled to a two-dimensional graviton, i.e. on a curved world-sheet, where it arises as the equation of motion of the two-dimensional gravitational potential. However, in the present case it is a condition that should be imposed on the system by hand 1 ' 2 ' 3 and it is give by the relation Ta0 = daX^dfiXp
- ^pd^X^d^X^
= 0.
(8)
The Weyl invariance of the action hap -4 exp A hap implies that the trace of the energy-momentum tensor vanishes Tr Ta0 = T% = 0 .
(9)
614
The relations given by Eq.(8) and Eq.(9) represent strong constraints on the system and in the quantization process they should be implemented at the quantum level. They reflect the fact that string theory is a conformal field theory in two dimensions, a property that determines all the features of bosonic string physics. The solutions of the equations of motion can be found by employing the method of separation of variables. The Fourier expansion of closed string solution is given by X"(r, a) = 3? + 2 a V r + iJj
£
\ ( Q « e " 2 i " ( w ) + <e~2in(T+°})
• (10)
The above relation shows that the most general closed string solution is a linear superposition of right- and left-moving modes with Fourier coefficients a^ and d£, respectively. Here xM and jf represent the coordinates of the center of mass of the closed string and their canonical conjugate momenta, respectively. The boundary conditions of the open string can be chosen either Dirichlet or Neumann on each direction. Therefore, one can have NN, DD, ND and DN solutions of the equations of motion given by N-N:
X»{T,CT)
= xti + 2a'ptlT + 2ia'Y,
D-D:
X"(T,(T)
=
x1
' ^-(J)+y'la
D-N: J f " ( T , f f ) = ^ - i v y
- a^e~inT
-i^2rtp»Y^
J2
cos na , -<e~inT
-a£e-irTsinnr ,
(11)
sin na , (12)
(13)
r€Z'
N-D : X " ( T , a) = y" + i v ^ a 7 J^
~< r
e
~ i r r cosnr ,
(14)
r£Z>
where Z' = Z+l/2. The closed string solution (10) is Lorentz invariant in D = 26 dimensions. The only open string solution which is invariant under 50(1,25) is (11). The other solutions break the Lorentz invariance down to 50(1,p) x 5 0 ( 2 5 - p ) . 2.2. Massless
Spectrum
of Bosonic
Open
String
Let us see what is the particle content of the free bosonic string theory. To this end one has to quantize the string, but care should be taken since the theory is subjected to the constraints (8) and (9). Consequently, not all degrees of freedom are physical. By implementing the constraints at the quantum level
615 one can remove the effect of the non-physical degrees of freedom. One way of doing that is by employing the canonical quantization method which implies that the constraints will appear as operatorial equations in the Fock space of the theory. Their solutions represent the physical states (for more details on the quantization of the string theory through various methods see 1 .) Consider the Lorentz invariant solution of the open string theory ((12), (13) and (14) are quantized in exactly the same way.) The coordinates X^ can be viewed as two-dimensional fields, which have the equal-time commutators given by 'X"{T, a), X"(T,CT')]= i^v5{a
X"(r,(7), X»(T,a')]
- a')
= [ x " ( T , a ) , X"(r,<7')] = 0 .
(15)
(16)
The if0 component of the Minkowski metric generates negative norm, unphysical states which must be removed from the spectrum. One can obtain the commutation relations among the Fourier coefficients by plugging (11) into (15) and (16). The result is [<X]=mrr<W«,o
(17)
[x»,iT]=irr.
(18)
Note that for ^ ^ 0 and v ^ 0 the relations above are the usual commutation relations of linear oscillators scaled by factor of m from which we see that an operators with n > 0 play the role of annihilation operators while for n < 0 they act as creation operators. Therefore, it is possible to define a vacuum state with respect to these operators and to construct the Fock space. There is no n = 0 mode but one define it as being the momenta of the center of mass 1 ' 2 ' 3 . The unphysical states corresponding to the time-like direction of spacetime are removed by the energy-momentum constraints. In order to implement them on the Fock space, one has to write firstly the Fourier expansion of the components of the energy-momentum tensor 1 . The Fourier coefficients of Tap can be expressed in terms of Fourier coefficients of coordinates as follows
^ oo L0 = a'p2 + Y^ a~n ' an >
(19)
n=l
where "•" denotes the scalar product in the Minkowski space-time. The Fourier coefficients of the energy-momentum tensor Lm satisfy an algebra called the
616
Virasoro algebra which has the following form [Lm, Ln] = i(m - n)Lm+n
.
(20)
The Virasoro algebra is the infinite algebra of the generators of the twodimensional conformal group. The existence of this symmetry guarantees that the system is integrable. However, upon quantization one can see that an anomalous term appears in the algebra (20). This term cancels if D = 26. The physical states form a subspace of the Fock space which is defined by acting on the vacuum with the creation operators. The vacuum |0 > is defined by the following conditions |0>=|0>a|p> a£|0>„=0, p"|p>=p"|p>
(21) n
>0
•
(22) (23)
Alternatively, we will use the notation \k > for |0 >. The first two relations just define the vacuum of the linear oscillators. The last relation tells that the vacuum continues to make sense when it is translated. The physical states are defined as being those states of the Fock space that obey the constraints coming from the vanishing energy-momentum tensor. One can show that only half of the Virasoro operators should be imposed on the Fock space since the full set of constraints is incompatible with the Virasoro algebra 1 ' 2,4 . The conditions that define the physical states are Lm\<j)> = 0 ,
m>0
(Lo-l)|0>=O.
(24) (25)
The —1 term in the last equation above comes from the normal ordering of the operator L0. Since the Fourier coefficients of the energy-momentum tensor Lm are expressed in terms of creation and annihilation operators as Eq.(19) shows, one has to normal order them through the quantization process. The normal ordering affects only L0 operator by the —1 term as can be easily checked up. A special class of states are the spurious states. These are states that belong to the equivalence classes of physical states. Two physical states are said to be equivalent if
\4? > ~ \(f> > & 3 IV- >
: \<j>' > = \<j> > + |V> >
(26)
and \ip > is a spurious state, i.e. it satisfies the following equations: (L0 - 1)|V > = 0 < V# > = 0 ,
(27) (28)
617
for any physical state \<j> >. An important example of a spurious state is the one obtained by the action of the operator L_i on the vacuum: |^> = L_1|0>,
(29)
which is used to show the gauge invariance of the vector state as we will see later. Any state that is a linear combination of L_ n operators is a spurious state oo
IV" > = ^ a m L _ m | x m > •
(30)
m
The physical states can be classified according to their mass. The masses are the eigenvalues of the mass operator related to the momentum of the particle by the relativistic mass-shell relation: M 2 = - p 2 . The mass operator is given by the action of LQ — 1 which describes the mass-shell operator. Indeed, from fay + j r a _
n
- a „ - l W > = 0
(31)
it follows that the mass operator is given by the formula
M2 = i f f ] a - n - a „ - l j .
(32)
Let us compute the masses of the first two levels. In the vacuum state there are no contributions from the oscillators and one can see from Eq.(32) that the mass of the vacuum is negative m2 = - 1 , (33) a' where m 2 denotes the eigenvalue of the mass operator. Therefore, the vacuum is a tachyon. The tachyon travels faster than light and can be excited to any negative energy, thus making the theory unconsistent. The presence of tachyon shows that the chosen background of the string theory (i.e. bosonic string), if existed, is unstable. The next states are obtained obtained from vacuum by acting with the creation operators on |0 > c£i|0> •
(34)
Due to the commutation relations given by Eq.(17), the contribution of the oscillators is exactly + 1 so that the mass of the states (34) is m 2 = 0. They are states in the massless representation of the group 50(1,25). Therefore, their physical degrees of freedom are in the vector representation of SO(24)
618
which is the little group of the Lorentz group in D = 26. If we construct the vector \t> = tltc£1\0>,
(35)
we can see that there are equivalent vectors to it, namely \C >=\Z>
+A|V > ,
(36)
where \ip > is the spurious state given in Eq.(29) and A is an arbitrary complex number. Thus, we can interpret Eq.(36) as a U(l) gauge transformation £ " - • £ " + Afc" ,
(37)
where fcM is the momentum of the spurious state. In conclusion, the state |£ > describes a massless photon in D=26 with 24 transverse polarizations. 2.3. Massless
Spectrum
of Bosonic
Closed
String
The classical string has two types of oscillation modes: left and right. The waves that propagate to the left are independent of the ones that propagate to the right. Therefore, in the quantum theory the left and right Fock spaces will be independent and the total Fock space of the closed string will be the their tensor product. Also, the operators split into operators that act on the left-modes and the ones that act on the right-modes, respectively. Upon quantization of the solution given in Eq.(lO) the Fourier modes a and a become operators acting on the right and left Fock spaces. Each of these two sets of operators obeys the algebra (17) and the two algebras are independent 1,2 ' 3 . In order to define the physical states one has to impose the vanishing of the energy-momentum tensor on the total Fock space. Moreover, since the string is closed, there is and extra symmetry that should be maintained at the quantum level, namely the world-sheet invariance under the translation along a. The vacuum of the theory is denned as in the case of the open string |0 > = |0 >a |0 >a \p >
(38)
< | 0 >a = 0
(39)
a{J|0>fi=0, p»\p>=
pf\p>
n>0 .
(40) (41)
The physical states are defined by imposing half of the Virasoro operators on the Fock space as well as the invariance of the world-sheet under the translation
619 along a which is generated by the operator L 0 — L0 l'2 Lm\(t>> = Lm\(j>> = 0 ,
m>0
(L 0 - 1 ) | 0 > = (Lo-1)!»> = 0 (L0 - L0)\4> > = 0 .
(42) (43) (44)
The last condition above implies that the right- and left-modes should come in pairs of equal mass since the operator L 0 is related to M 2 . The spurious states are defined through the following relations (L„ - 1)|V > = 0 (Lo — 1)|V > = 0 < Vl = 0 (Lo - io)|V> > = 0 ,
(45) (46) (47) (48)
where \ip > is an arbitrary physical state. The last relation guarantees that the state to which a spurious state is added to remains invariant under translation by a. One can find the mass operator as in the open string case or by observing that the total mass should be the sum of the left and right mass operators M 2 = Ml + M\ M 2 = — f Y^ (a~n • a n + d_„ • a„) - 2 ) .
(49) (50)
Let us look at the first states in the spectrum. The vacuum state is a tachyon of mass m2 = - l (51) a' with all the consequences that we saw in the case of the open string. The next states are constructed by applying equal number of creation operators on vacuum from left and right sectors as dictated by the level matching condition. The first states are given by ot1av_1\0>
(52)
and it is easy to see that they are massless. In D = 26 there are 26 x 26 such of massless states. They form a tensor in a reducible representation of the group
620
SO (1,25). It splits into irreducible representation as follows
atlav_l\0>
=
a[»lav\\Q>
-»• 5 " "
T r a ^ 1 d ! l 1 | 0 > ->
<> / ,
where <7M", I?'*" and <> / represent the graviton, the antisymmetric (KalbRamond) field and the dilaton, respectively. The identification of the string states with the quantum fluctuations of the corresponding classical fields is justified by two arguments. The first one takes into account the equivalence under the addition of spurious states that is interpreted as gauge transformation. It is easy to see that these transformations are gn»
£*•"
^
gM" + fl/^* + 3"£/»
_> B^
+ dT
4> - >
v
~d e
(53) (54) (55)
which are just the gauge transformation of the classical fields. The second argument relies on the interaction theory and it can be shown that the states above satisfy the correct equations of motion of the corresponding fields. Thus, we may conclude that the masless spectrum of the closed string contains the graviton in D = 26. The appearance of gravity in a natural way is one of the most attractive features of bosonic string theory. However, the theory suffers from three serious drawbacks: the presence of tachyon, the absence of fermions and the high dimensionality of space-time. The first two problems can be solved by introducing the world-sheet supersymmetry and constructing a superstring theory. It can be shown that one can obtain a space-time supersymmetric theory in the light-cone gauge which is also free of tachyon 1,2 . In the same time the number of space-time dimensions is reduced from D = 26 to D = 10. The price to be paid is that there are now five consistent superstring theories. However, there are strong hints that all these theories are actually different limits of an unique underlying theory unknown at present 2 . The other problem, namely reducing the spacetime dimensionality from ten to four in a natural (dynamical?) fashion is unsolved up to day.
2.4.
Exercises
Exercise 1 Starting from the bosonic string action (1) find the Neumann and Dirichlet
621
boundary conditions using Green's theorem in two dimensions: / dxdy(dxQ - dvP) = [
Pdx + Qdy .
(56)
Exercise 2 Prove any of the solutions of the open string with N-N, D-D, N-D and D-N boundary conditions and the closed string solution by using the method of separation of variables. Exercise 3 Starting from equal-time commutator (15) show that the operators a satisfy the algebra (17) and that the coordinates and the momenta of the center of mass of string satisfy the relation (18). Exercise 4 Show that the total momentum of the open string defined as P?otai= [ doip£+da°P?, (57) Jc where C is an arbitrary curve on the world-sheet from the boundary a = 0 to a = -K, is conserved. 3. Bosonic D-Branes.
Effective Action
In this lecture I am going to introduce the D-branes and to discuss their physical degrees of freedom following2'4. Also, I will present the way in which the background field method is applied in order to obtain the Born-Infeld effective action of D-branes (see 2 ' 4 ' 6 ). 3.1. Definition
of Bosonic
D-Branes
By definition, a bosonic D-brane is an extended physical object on which bosonic open strings can end 2 ' 4 . As we saw in the previous lecture, the momentum of the open string should be conserved and it is a reasonable to assume that the momentum does not flow away through the ends of the string. However, when the open string ends on a D-brane, the situation is different. Indeed, there can be an exchange of momentum between the string and the brane through the end of string that is in contact with the brane. Therefore, it is the momentum of the full system that should be conserved. Another immediate consequence of introducing branes in string theory is that the Lorentz invariance is now broken. The word "physical" in the definition means that the branes are characterized by more than their geometry and topology and that they have some
622 physical properties like tension and charge as we shall see in the next lectures. The real motivation for introducing the D-branes was that in the spectrum of Type I and Type II superstring theories there are some bosonic fields which are described by p-forms in D = 10 dimensions. At that time it was not known what could have been the sources of such of fields and it was discovered by Polchinsky that the .D-branes were the sought for objects 7 . It follows from the definition of the .D-branes that the open strings that end on them must have Dirichlet boundary conditions on the directions transversal to the branes and Neumann boundary conditions on the directions tangent to the brane. Indeed, there is nothing that can stop the string of sliding on the world-volume of the brane. In the simplest case a ZJp-brane is a hypersurface embedded in the D — 10 space-time where p indicates that it has p space-like directions. If the D-brane is situated at the a = 0 end of string then the boundary conditions are given by the following relations N.b.c. d„Xa\a=0 = 0 ,
a = 0,l,2,...p,
(58)
i
t=p+l,...,9.
(59)
D. b. c.
i
X \a=0=x ,
Actually, by computing the spectrum of the open strings ending on the branes we can find the degrees of freedom of the brane, that is the fields that live on the world-volume. We are interested in the massless degrees of freedom which will not change the energy of the brane. They are given by the strings with both ends on the brane. The other strings will contribute with an energy proportional to the stretching of the string. For example, the strings between two branes will contribute with the following stretching energy 2 ' 4 Y2 m2 = — ^
.
(60)
The relation above can be obtained by considering the T-duality of the theory 2 ' 4 but it can also be established from dimensional arguments. In order to find the massless degrees of freedom we take the solution of the string equations of motion with Dirichlet boundary conditions at the two ends in the transverse directions (12) and Neumann in the tangential directions (11). After quantizing them as in the previous section we discover that the massless states are given by a i i 10 > ,
a = 0, l , . . . , p
a!_i|0> ,
i =p+l,...,25.
(61)
The first set of states describes an 50(1,p) photon Aa(£) while the second one is associated to an 50(25 — p) massless vector $*(£). The components of the latter are associated to the breaking of the translational symmetry along
623
the transverse directions X1 and are interpreted as the fluctuations around the classical localization of brane in the transverse spacetime. By £ we denoted the coordinates on the world-volume of the £)-brane. Actually, the fields $*(£) represent a particular embedding of the .D-brane in spacetime. In general, the corresponding degrees of freedom are the embedding functions X^ (£) of the world-sheet volume in the target space. In the above case we have considered the simplest situation in which the brane was flat and its tangential directions were parallel to some of the directions of spacetime. Thus, a Dp-brane breaks the space-time symmetry of the theory as follows 50(1,25) - • 50(1,p) x 5 0 ( 2 5 - p )
(62)
and consequently its massless degrees of freedom are given by the set {A°(0,x»(0}. 3.2. Effective
Action
of
Dp-Branes
It is possible now to find the dynamics of the Dp-bran e in the low energy limit. Indeed, in this limit the degrees of freedom of the brane are the classical fields found in the previous section. One should look for an action describing the dynamics of these fields and we end up with the effective field theory of the brane. Recall that the degrees of freedom of the branes were found in terms of open strings ending on them. In order to have a description consistent with two dimensional string theory, one should stick on the conformal invariance of string in the new background in which the Dp-branes are present ( 2 ' 4 ). Without the conformal invariance the two dimensional theory will not describe a physical theory. This requirement is the same for strings in any arbitrary background and it is implemented as follows. The string theory in a general background contains couplings between strings and the background fields. However, these coupling terms break in general the conformal invariance. In order to find those configurations which preserve the two dimensional conformal invariance, one treats the background fields as coupling constants and the sought for configurations can be found by solving the equation Pr = 0 ,
(63)
where fir is the beta-function of any background field T 1>2. One way to compute the beta-functions is by using the background field method (see 8 ' 9 .) We are going to show how this method is applied to obtain the low energy action of Dp-branes following ( 10 ). In a background containing Dp-branes the open strings couple with the brane degrees of freedom {Aa(£)7 X M (£)}. Beside them, there may be other
624
massless fields in the background like, for example, the closed string fields g^vjB^pjCJ). If the theory is supersymmetric, then massless fermions are also present. Each of these background fields will have a beta-function that must vanish if the two-dimensional theory that describes strings is to be conformal. Z)25-brane in a flat b a c k g r o u n d To understand how the beta-functions are computed, let us consider firstly a simpler situation in which we have a £>25-brane that fills the whole space-time and no closed string fields in the background. The only background fields are A**(X). The photon couples with one dimensional world-line or, equivalently, with dimensionless charges like in electrodynamics. Therefore, in order to couple it with the string which has a two-dimensional world-sheet, we have to put some "electric charges" at the ends of the open strings (which are just points) and to couple the photon with these charges in the usual way. Actually, this explains the presence of the 1/(1) field on the world-volume of the brane as being generated by the charges at the end of the open string. Let us consider both the space-time and the world-sheet Euclidean and map the world-sheet to the complex upper-half plane with z — r + ia. The U(l) field couples on the boundary of the world sheet and the total action is given by the formula
5
= d ? L d2zd°x*dax»+i
L drA^x> •
™
where A^ has been rescaled to include a 2na' factor and the U(l) charge has been taken 1. Choose a background field X^{T, a) that is a solution of the equations of motion and of boundary conditions that are derived from Eq.(64) above. Now expand the fields X(T, a) arround this solution. One obtains the following set of equations X»(T,a)=X»(T,cr)+{»(T,a) Dj"(r,(r) = 0
(65) ,
drX" + iF£dTX '\BE
=0,
where • = d% + d\ is the Laplacean on the Euclidean world-sheet, FM„ = V[Mvl„] and VM = d/dX11. The full information on the field is contained in the fluctuation ( around the background X 8>9>n. Introducing (65) in the action (64) we obtain the expansion arround the background solution. We consider only slow varying fields FM„. This condition allows us to disregard higher derivatives of F like V2F, V 3 F , . . . . The expanded action takes the form
S [X + C] = S[X] + ^f^d2z
(daX»da<;» + ldaCdaC,
+ • • •)
625
+ \ F^dTC
+ I VpF^Cfdre
+ • • •) •
(66)
We look for the one loop beta-function. This is given by the one-loop counterterm with one external leg dTX of the interaction term in (64), that is i [
drA&X*
-4 A5/[X] = -±— [
dTY^X* .
(67)
The value of the corresponding one-loop Feynman diagram is AS/[X] = - ~
J dT^„FliVdTX*G'»'(TS)\T^T,
,
(68)
where G is the Green's function computed on the boundary a = 0 in the point r. Thus, it is the solution of the following problem ^-j
UG„v(z, z') = - S^Siz - z')
dvG^
+ iF*dTGvx\dv
= 0.
(69) (70)
One can find the explicit form of the Green's function by using the method of images 11 and it is given by the following relation Gfj,v = a'
^lnlz-^l + 2^Y^I) ^ - ^ ^ ( f ^ f ) h (*-*') (71)
where we have used the notation
(5)
= 4 ; (*-%,.
(72)
When F = 0 Eq.(71) reduces to the known Green's function in the absence of U(l) field. The Green's function on the boundary is G^(T
4 ^
= - 2a' In A(l - F)~l ,
(73)
where A is a short distance cut-off. The beta-function of the field A*1 is given by applying the definition and it should vanish in order to have a conformal invariant theory " M = A ^ = V ^
( 1 - ^ = 0 .
(74)
The effective action is the action from which the Eq.(74) can be defined through the variational principle, i. e. the action which has the equations of
626
motion given by Eq.(74). Actually, there is no such of action 11 and therefore one has to find an equation that is equivalent to (74). Such of equation is X""(F)#? = 0 ,
(75)
M
10
for any invertible matrix x "(F). Now after some algebra , one can show that the sought for equation of motion is V ' d e t a + F ) (1 - F \ l ft = 0 ,
(76)
which can be derived from a non-polynomial action called Born-Infeld action given by the integral of LBi
5 = exp ± T r l n ( l + F ) = [det(l + F ) ] .
(77)
The above Lagrangian describes the effective action of the massless states of the open string in a background that contains an (7(1) gauge potential that couples with the boundary of the world-sheet. According to D-brane interpretation this is the effective action of a D25-brane. D25-brane in closed string background The situation can be complicated further to include other fields in background. Since all the fields should come from the string spectrum, we may include other massless or massive string fields. Let us consider a background in which the graviton, the dilaton and the Kalb-Ramond two-form field do not vanish. The action for the open string contains the following terms S = Sg + SB + 5 0 + SA
(78)
where -^l^zgtiV{X)daX^daXv
S9 = SB = - - ^ ^
s =
f
z
(Pzta^BliV{X)daX^dpXv
a
+
* -L>\/ (- \ ') ^ ^ w ^ L
/ #zA^X)drX» sA = -± 7 JdT,
dT
a mx)
(79)
(- \ )
,
27TQ JdT,
where ea/3 is the two-dimensional antisymmetric symbol, h is the determinant of the two-dimensional metric hap which at the tree-level is Minkowski, at one-loop is cylindric, etc. and R^ is the two-dimensional curvature. The background field A^ is treated as a coupling constant as in the previous example. In order to have a conformal invariant field theory in two-dimensions,
627
the beta-function of it should vanish. The beta-function can be computed using the same method as above. The field X1* is chosen to satisfy the free field theory with interaction with the Kalb-Ramond and U(l) gauge-potential on the boundary. The world-sheet is the same as in the previous case. The equations of motion and the boundary conditions that are obtained from the sigma-model (78) are given by the following relations ( 9 ' u ) -H^daX}' daX"
gHda + T^daX^ +
=0
a „ X " - i(B + F)£d T X"|„=o = 0 ,
(80) (81)
where H^vp — 3V[p.BM„] .
(82)
The contribution to the compensating term, at one-loop, gives the following beta-function of A*1 u tf=W(B
+ FK [9-{B
+
+ l- (B + F) M „ HvX»
Ff\ll
B +F g-(B + Ff
+ I V 0 ( B + F ) M V . (83) Xp
Z
The invertible matrix that generates a variational equation from the equations that imposes the conformal invariance on the system is Xllv
= {g-{B + F)Xl
.
(84)
The Born-Infeld effective action is given by the following relation Seff ^
f d^Xei*
[det {g + B + F)]1/2
(85)
from which one obtains the following equation of motion e-i [det(5 + B + F)]1* (g-(B
+ F)\l
ft
= 0.
(86)
The ~ means that the action is given up to some dimensional constant. This constant is necessary in order to make the left hand side of (85) an action and from dimensional arguments one sees that it should have the dimension of the brane tension T. .Dp-brane effective action The Born-Infeld action of the low energy effective field theory of a generic .Dp-brane can be obtained as in the two examples above. Actually, one can easily adapt the action (85) to serve this purpose. To this end, note that in
628
the case of the .Dp-branes the fields will interact with the (p + l)-dimensional world-volume. As was discussed at the beginning of this section, A^ are fields living on the world-volume, therefore they will depend on the world-volume coordinates £. The rest of the fields live in the full space-time, but they interact with the world-volume through some "world-volume projected" components. This projection is given by the pull-back of the embedding X M (£) of the worldvolume into the space-time. We denote by "these fields. Then the Born-Infeld action is given by SDp = -Tp f 6p+1 £ e~* [gab + Bab + 2na'Fab] * * ,
(87)
where Tp is the tension of the brane, the pull-back of the fields are gab
=daX»dbX»gilv
Bab = daX^dbX"B^
(88)
4> =
(89)
6B = 6( ;
(90)
M
=
-J-7C.
Only the combination Bab + 2Tra'Fab
(91)
is invariant under both gauge transformations, which explains the presence of the pull-back of the Kalb-Ramond field in the action, even if it does not couple directly with the world-volume of the Dp-bra,ne. The factor e~t> =
5s-
J
(92)
is proportional with the inverse of the string coupling. Therefore, by varying the dilaton expectation value, one can study the dynamics of D-branes in different regimes. This situation is familiar from string theory in which the coupling constant is dynamical. If we take Fab = Bab =
S = -TpJtP+1£y/§.
(93)
629
3.3.
Exercises
Exercise 1 Calculate the expansion in (66). Exercise 2 Find the Green's function for the two dimensional Laplace operator from
S=f- I d2zd$d$
(94)
and put the appropriate boundary conditions. Exercise 3 Find the Green's function for the following problem J^OG(z,z') = -5(z-z') d C T G(z,z')| a E = 0
(95)
on the upper half-plane (z =• T + ia). Exercise 4 Using the Fourier transformation of the Green's function in the upper halfplane
G{z z ) =
> ' \ Z ^ r [eHplk"''1+e-lpl('+)]
find G^(T
<w
-> T') on the boundary.
Exercise 5 Prove the following identity
(> - n > S = V» (
^ -(
^ V*^ (
^ , (97,
where PvA = VvF^{l-F%l 4. Bosonic D-Branes.
.
(98)
Tension
In this section we are going to compute the tension of the D-branes by computing the interaction amplitude in the string theory and then comparing it with the field theory computations.
630 4.1. String
Computation
The D-branes interact by exchanging closed strings in various quantum states in analogy with the interaction between particles that exchange some other (virtual) particles. There is some response in the brane to the exchange of closed string excitations and this response should be proportional to the tension of the brane. The quantity that measure the intensity of the exchange of closed string states is the exchange amplitude. We are going to do this computation at the tree level in perturbation string theory because we want to compare latter the result with the corresponding calculations in the low energy limit field theory. Since in this limit only massless quanta participate to the interaction, we have to take into account only the effects produced by these string modes. One way to do these computations is to interpret the tree level Feynman diagram for closed strings as one-loop diagram for open strings. Let us see how this is done. At tree level, a closed string emitted at the moment r = 0 propagates along the cylinder an interval T. Therefore, the horizontal coordinate of the cylinder is 0 < T < T and the periodic one is 0 < a < n, the space-like parameter of the closed string. However, the same cylinder can be interpreted as an open string of length 0 < a < -K that propagates on a loop in the time 0 < r < T. In this case the horizontal coordinate of the cylinder is parametrized by a. Then the two amplitudes in closed string and open string description (called also channels) should be equal. To have the same cylinder in the two cases, the parameters (r, a) of the closed and open strings should be adjusted in such of way that the interval T parametrized by r in closed string channel be equal to -K parametrized by a in open string channel, which gives f = TT/T. The amplitude in the open string channel The one-loop vacuum amplitude in QED is given by the logarithm of the partition function A = ln(Zvac)
(99)
and it can be calculated by using the Coleman-Weinberg formula that can be obtained as follows4. Start with the logarithm of the partition function for a scalar field given by the following relation 2,4 \n(Zvac)
= - \ Tr In (D + m 2 ) = - ^ j - ^
Tr In (fc2 + m 2 ) ,
(100)
where d is the number of the dimensions of space-time, Vd is the volume in which the field is contained and (k2 + m 2 ) / 2 = H is the Hamiltonian of the
631
field. Then use the following following property of the In function lnx = - l i m /
f°°
rit
—e~ix.
(101)
By inserting (101) into (100) one obtaines the Coleman-Weinberg formula for a scalar field
When one integrates on the circle, the two orientation of it are taken into account, that is why we have to divide the integrand of (102) by a factor of 2. The relation (102) has the interpretation of the free energy. We are going to apply now the formula (102) to the modes of the open strings that move on the circle parametrized by 2TTT at one-loop. We know from the second section that the Hamiltonian of the open string is given by H = L0 - 1 = a' (fc2 + M 2 )
(103)
where the Virasoro operator LQ is given by the relation L 0 = a ' f c 2 + a ' - - — - x + V a-n • an . (Z7ra'r '—' v
'
(104)
n=i
The term proportional to the distance Y2 between the branes is due to the stretching energy of the string. Then the amplitude for the open string modes can be computed by applying directly the formula (102). This is possible since the string can be viewed as a collection of scalar fields in two-dimensions. Then the sought for amplitude is given by the following relation A=
/ Jo
^Tre-2^0"1) . 2r
(105)
or, by plugging (104) into (105) A
=
f00 dJL Jo T
[
x Vp+1 P+1
J
dP+ dp+1k
* e - W * » e-£r (27r)P+!
e*rr T, L - 2 - r E S . , - - - - - 1 . L J (106)
The factor of 2 disappeared from the denominator since we allow the interchange of the orientation of open string and each orientation gives and equal contribution to the amplitude. Note in (105) the expression of the mass-shell condition ( • + m2)<£ = 0 o (L 0 - l)\
632
To compute the r.h.s. of (106) we note that it factorizes into an integral over k and the trace over the oscillation modes. The integral is Gaussian and from it we will obtain the factor (STTVT)-2^1 .
(107)
- 2
Also, by computing the trace of k' in the parallel directions to the worldvolume of the brane, the volume Vp+i of the brane is obtained. We use the following normalization relation < k\k' > = 2n6(k - k') 1 V ' (108) Vp+1 =(2Try+16'>+1(0). The trace over the oscillators can be computed in the basis of the operators a_ n and an o
Tr e
fi
--i
oo 25
= JJ Y[ Tr e^™--""" oo
25
oo
= II I I J2
<m\e-2*Tna-»a»\m>
71=1 / i = 0 m = 0
oo
/
1
\
26
= II (r^^j n=l ^
(109) '
where a^a n |m > = m\m >. The trace above includes the contribution of the non-physical degrees of freedom. To remove them, one should pick-up a gauge. In any covariant gauge, the non-physical degrees of freedom are taken account of by the Fadeev-Popov ghosts. Without writing their explicit contribution we give the final form of the amplitude A = Vp+1(te*a')-'P C - T - ^ e - ^ [/i(e—)]"24 . (110) Jo T We see that the effect of the ghosts is to reduce the number of space-time dimensions by two, i.e. to the transverse directions. This can be also done by solving firstly the constraints, which will leave the theory in the light-cone gauge 1 . The function fi is denned as oo
h(q) = q**l[(i-
(in)
n=l
and under a modular transformation of its variable r -> I
(112)
633 it transforms in the following way /i(e-"/T) = V f / i ( e - " ) which is the modular transformation property of the function
(113) fi(q).
The amplitude of closed string massless modes Now we would like to identify in the amplitude (110) the contribution of the closed string modes which interest us. To this end, we note that in the limit r —»• oo, i.e. when the circle of the cylinder opens, the world-sheet becomes a long and thin strip. In order for a mode of the open string to travel the loop, it should be light since it has to reach across a long distance. Thus, in this limit the light modes of the open string dominate the amplitude. In the limit r —> 0, the open string is in the UV regime since the radius of the circle is small and the string modes have to travel short distances in making the loop. However, this limit is the long-distance of the closed string. Indeed, by making a reparametrization of the string length (a conformal transformation) that does not change the area of the cylinder while it makes it radius small, we see that the length of the cylinder goes as Yl
( U 4 ) Ye ~* °° ' for any scale unit e = r —>• 0, where YQ is the distance between branes. Yi is the apparent length of the cylinder as viewed by the string modes. In the closed string channel, the closed string modes have to travel this distance between branes and therefore this is the UV limit of closed strings in which its light modes have a major contribution. All we have to do now is to make the modular transformation of the cylinder parameter r given by (112) and to make the expansion of f\ function in r —> 0 limit
[fde-™)]2^
=
= ^ c n e - 2 ™ * " - 1 ) = e 2 " + 24 + 0(e~2**) .
(115)
n=0
Each term in the power expansion corresponds to the trace of closed string modes with mass a'M2 - 2 - = 2(n-l). (116) The first term is the contribution of the tachyon and we are only interested in the second term which represents the contribution of the closed string massless modes. The sought for interaction amplitude is given by the following relation A = Vp+12^(^a')n-pG25-p(Y)
(117)
634
where the Green's function in the transverse directions to the world-volume of the brane is given by the relation G25.P(Y)
= 2 - 2 7 r ^ r Q ( 2 5 -p) - l ) r 2 + p - 2 5 .
(118)
Here, T (§(25 — p) — l) is the Gamma-function. 4.2. Field Theory
Computations
The amplitude that has been obtained in (117) describes the interaction of the £>p-branes via the exchange of closed string massless modes. We saw in the second section that these modes are identified with the quanta of the gravitational, dilaton and Kalb-Ramond fields. We saw in the previous section that the low energy effective field theory that describes the .Dp-brane dynamics is given by a Born-Infeld action. This action was obtained by requiring the conformal invariance of the open strings in the background that contains a jDp-brane. This idea can be applied to string field in any background. The result will be, as in the case of the Z?p-brane, an effective action that describes the dynamics of the background fields. Not all background fields will preserve the conformal invariance of the string theory but only those ones that satisfy the vanishing beta-function condition which is identified with the equations of motion of the classical fields. In a general background that contains only <j>, G^v and B^v fields, the effective action of them is given by the following a-model action
-a?/'
R + 4£>M0P"0 -
(119)
±HllvpH'»">
where H is the field-strength of B
and D^ is the space-time covariant derivative 1 ' 2 . The action (119) can be obtained by using the background field method exposed in the previous section. Its equations of motion are equivalent to the conformal condition 12
& = a% = C = °>
(
°)
where all the fields are treated as coupling constants and open string fields are absent from the background. The action (119) describes the dynamics of the fields we are interested in in the bulk. However, before computing the interaction amplitude from it, we would like to decouple the dilaton from the curvature in order to benefit from
635
the results of general relativity. The effective action in (119) is known as being in the string frame, and we want to write it in the Einstein frame by making the following rescaling of the metric g^v-e
e G^v ,
(121)
where (j>o is the v.e.v. of the dilaton. In order to find the quantum amplitude we go to the linearized form of the action (119). To this end, we expand the the background field around their classical values 4>
=
(122)
where fc0 is the gravitational coupling constant and the expansion parameter. Then we set all the v.e.v. to zero with the exception of n^. In order to construct the Feynman diagrams that describe the interaction between fields and branes we must know the coupling constants between these fields and the Dp-branes. The coupling constant are given by the interaction term which is the linearized form of the effective action of the brane. We recall that in the string frame it is given by the relation SBI
= ~ Tp
f
+ Bab
+ 2TTQ' F a 6 ) ]
V
*
.
(123)
To the leading order in the the gravitational coupling, the interaction between fields and branes has the form [- det (nab + k0 (hab + Bab + 2 W F o 6 ) ) ] 1 / 2 = - + -
Ko
haa + O (K20) . (124)
We see that the antisymmetric tensors decouple and the only contribution is from dilaton and graviton. Then the linearized action of the fields that interact with the .Dp-brane, in the Einstein frame, have the following form l Jint —
n
-Jd™Xj=-g(R-^ D^D"^
(125)
, •
IK,
for the bulk action and 5BJ int
= -JJL f dP+l Ze*^*
y/^tetg7b.
Ko J
- Scl -Tpf
d*+1 € ( ^ 0
+ 5^) +
O(K0)
,
(126)
where Sci is the classical action. Since we are interested in the classical effects we are going to compute the tree level amplitude. The brane acts as sources of fields which propagate from one brane to the other. Now let us compute the propagators.
636
The linearized part of the graviton interaction is given by the following Lagrangian + \dxhldvhv»
Cint = - \dxhld»K
- ^dxh^dxh"v
+
l
-dxh»dxK
(127)
with the gauge gauge invariance V
—» V
+ 9^,
+ 0„f„ .
(128)
Since there are gauge degrees of freedom, one has to fix the gauge by adding a gauge breaking term which can be chosen to be (129)
2 where
(130) The gauge fixed Lagrangian is the sum between (127) and (129) 1 Ls% int
gauge
fixed — t^int
-\dxh£dxK"
Wh^h^
r •t-'C —
• (131)
By integrating by parts to put in evidence the propagator and adding the dilaton part we obtain the following relation 2 - - ^ < V C T d hXa +
ri^rf^+T)*"7^
Sint
-~2^ld2"X\2Kv
\+**Y (132)
By definition, the propagators are given by the functional derivatives of the action with respect to the fields S2S.,int ^\iv,\a
(133)
— hu„=a
£> = -
0
Sint
5
(134) 6=0
It is easy to write down the propagators for the graviton and the dilaton 2 W * (") = - 2 «o (rpXrT D(K)
=
-6K%-
.2
-
+ rfn^
- ^ ^ V " ) ^
,
(135) (136)
637
The currents necessary to write down the values of the Feynaman diagrams can be read off the action linearized action (126) and are simply the coefficients of the fields U = P-^TP5^ T - ~ T X v J '""' pd± i ^ - o2 ^ ^ M \ n0
(137) fOT
V, » £ P
intherest
With the currents and the propagators we can calculate the amplitude which is given by the following relation A=*§TlVp+1.
(138)
If we compare the amplitude obtained from string calculations (117) with the amplitude computed from field theory (138) we obtain
y p+1 H (47rV) n - p G25_P(F) = ^ ° Tl Vp+1 .
(139)
The value of the Green's function that enter the l.h.s. of the relation (139) is found in r.h.s. in the momentum space
G25-P(Y) = 4 - •
(14°)
The rest of the terms in (139) give us an equation from which we can determine the tension of the brane
2*4
( 4 7 r V ) U - p = Tp2.
(141)
We note that there exist a relation between the tension of different branes given by the following relation
(^f) 2 = 4 7 r V 4.3.
(142)
Exercises
Exercise 1 Compute the integral over p's in (106). Exercise 2 Compute the trace in (109). Exercise 3 Construct the corresponding trace for fermionic oscillators and compute it.
638
Exercise 4 Show the r.h.s. of (124). Exercise 5 Find the action (132). 5. Boundary State Description of Bosonic £)p-Branes The tree level diagram in closed string theory describes the following phenomenon: a closed string is generated from the vacuum, it propagates a certain interval of time and then it is annihilated again in the vacuum. One can sandwich this diagram between two states which will be inserted in the position of the ending circles of the cylinder, i. e. on the boundary of the world-sheet. Such of states that describe the creation and annihilation of the closed strings are called boundary states. In the previous paragraph we encountered cylinder diagrams which described the interaction between two -Dp-branes at tree level. It is then natural to ask if there is any boundary state that could be interpreted as a Dp-brane? The answer is yes. Such of boundary state represents a microscopic description of the brane in terms of closed string modes 15 ' 16 . We recall that the open string boundary conditions that define a Dp-brane are given by the following relations d<,X*\a=o=0,
a=
0,l,...,P0
Xi
l=o=yi > i=p+l,...,25. To pass to the closed string boundary condition, one has to interpret the cylinder as tree-level diagram in closed string sector like in the previous section. The relations (143) take the following form dTX%=0 = 0, a = 0,l,...,p 144 ., ) i l x \T=0 =y , *=P + I,...25. If we want to interpret the Dp-braxies as boundary states, then we must implement the boundary conditions (144) in the Fock space of perturbative closed string. This is done by interpreting the string coordinates as operators dTXa\T=0\B>=0 i
,
i
(X \T=o-y )\B>=0,
a = 0,l,...,p i=p+l,...25.
The equation (145) define the boundary state \B >. To find its solution we expand the string operators in terms of oscillation modes using the solution of the equations of motion given in Section 2 ~
/
°°
| £ [a£e-2in
639 which act on the closed string vacuum |0 > = |0 >« |0 >a\p>
•
(147)
The equations (145) take the following form K
+ d°_„)| J B> = 0
{a* - a*)\B V „
>=0
n>\
( 1 4 g )
p a |J5 >
=0
(xi-yi)\B>
=0.
It is worthwhile to note that (148) are not the only conditions that should be imposed on the Hilbert space. Actually, we have to produce physical boundary states, and therefore the negative norm state should be excluded from the solutions of (148). This can be achieved by taking into account the BRST invariance of the theory which is encoded in the right and left-moving BRST operators Q and Q, respectively. The BRST invariant state must satisfy {Q + Q)\B>=0
(149)
which allows us to factorize the boundary state in \B>=
\BX > \Bgh > .
(150)
The ghost contribution to the boundary states is defined in terms of the modes of ghost and antighost fields by the following equations (c n + C-n)\Bgh > = 0 (bn - b-n)\Bgh
>=0.
(151
We are not going to enter into the details of the BRST quantization and we refer the reader to 15 . A simpler system In order to find the solutions to (148) we take a look at a simpler model, a single oscillator and its copy with the following boundary conditions (a±tf)\b>
= 0
(152)
(a+±a)|6>=0.
We know that the coherent states of the single oscillator satisfy the following relations a\a > = a\a > t \a> = e a o | 0 >
(153) .
640
The first thing we can try is to replace the phase a by an operator that depends on the operator a). The simplest phase is this operator itself multiplied by an unknown phase number, and thus the boundary state \b > can be written as | 6 > = e/at5t|0> .
(154)
The phase / cand be determined by plugging (154) into (153) from which we get / = ± 1. Bosonic Dp-brane solution It is now straightforward to compute the solution to (148). To this end we recall that the creation operators of string modes are given by <+ = ^c?_n
,
n >0
(155)
and that the string is actually a collection of oscillators. The last two equations in (148) will just localize the state in the transverse space and thus will give a delta-function factor. The boundary states has the following general form
\BX> = NpSP-'ix* - j , ' / A e - ± ° - - 5 - a - j |0 >a |0 > a \p = 0> , (156) where Np is a normalization constant that should be determined. S has the following form S = (r1ab, - Sij)
.
(157)
For completeness we write down the ghost contribution (15) Bgh > = exp J2
{c-nb-n
~ b-nC-n)
71=1
( ^ ^ • J J ^
\q = 1> \q = 1>
(158)
'
where the ghost ground state is defined by the following equations cn\q = 1 > = 0 ,
n>l
bn\q = 1 > = 0 ,
m>0.
(159)
In any physical gauge we do not have to worry about the unphysical degrees of freedom of string theory. An example of such of gauge is the light-cone gauge where one deals only with the physical degrees of freedom of strings at the cost of loosing the Lorentz invariance. In the case of eq. (156) the light-cone gauge implies summation over the 24 transverse directions on which the metric is Euclidean.
641
Computation of Np In order to have a complete knowledge of the Dp-br&ne state we have to compute the normalization constant Np. This can be done by comparing the interaction amplitude computed in the closed string channel with the result obtained from the open string channel. In the previous section we obtained the following result in the open string channel * / - r ^ e - ^ I / ^ e - ) ] " 2 4 . (160) Jo T In the closed string channel we are at one-loop level. When computing the amplitude we have to care only about the propagator of closed strings between two boundary states Aopen
Adosed
= Vp+l{^a')-
= - - TrlogZo = - - TrlogD = < BX\D\BX
> .
(161)
The closed string propagator can be written in complex coordinate on the Euclidean world-sheet as 1 D=^-[
z1"-1 z1*-1
~
.
(162)
where LQ and LQ are the zero mode Virasoro operators for right/left modes of closed string given by LQ
= -T P + 2_^ a-n • an "51
T
a
LQ
— — p
-2
V*
(163)
-
+ 2_^ °—n • an • 71=1
The propagator (162) has the property that it propagates states that satisfy the mass-shell conditions (L 0 — l)\4> > = {LQ — 1)\4> > = 0 . The amplitude (160) factorizes in a trace over zero modes and a trace over oscillators. Similar computations were performed in the previous section and we have found the following values of the two factors A0 = Vp+1 (2TT2a't)
Ai
oo
/
1
25-p
2
\
_„2
e5^r 24 z i
(164)
=n(r^) .
where the contribution of the ghosts has already been taken into account. Here, the following notations have been used \z\ = e-7*1 ,
dzdz = -ne-2irtdtda
.
(165)
642
Now we put everything together and obtain the interaction amplitude in the closed string channel
-4,closed
iV2 F p+1 — (2W) >r,
Tr
a'-K
.„
,X_M=Z
f°°
* J
—TU 2 dr
12_E+i
_X2J_
e
r,
,
^LN1~24
w [/!(eOj
(166) This result should be compared with (160). To this end we perform a modular transformation t —> 1/r /°° - r 1 2 " ^ e " ^ [ ^ ( e ^ ) ] ' 2 4 . (167) Jo T Finally, by comparing (160) with (167) we obtain the following value of the normalization constant Aopen
= Fp+1
(STTV)"^
TP
NP = ~ , 2
(168)
where Tp is the brane tension obtained in the previous section. For further details concerning the boundary state approach to the Dp-brane we refer to the pedagogical lecture notes 15,16 ' 17 . In the original papers 18 ' 19 the relation between the normalization of the boundary states and the tension of D-branes was established while in 20 the D-brane states were constructed in the RNS formalism. This approach gives a good control on the .D-branes in the limit where it applies. It is useful for microscopic descriptions of branes as is the case of an alternative formulation of .D-branes at finite temperature in the framework of thermo field theory proposed in 21-22>23.
5.1.
Exercises
Exercise 1 Construct the propagator (162). Argue its form. Exercise 2 Using (163) in (162) obtain (164). 6. Dp-Branes in Type II Theories In this section we are going to review basic topics on supersymmetric D-branes. Some of these ideas will be used in the following lectures at this school. However, due to the lack of time and space and because of the complexity of the topics, we are giong to be rather quick. We refeer the interested sudents to the very good reviews 4 ' 2 ' 15 ' 16 ' 24 .
643 6.1. Closed RNS
Superatring
The bosonic string theory presented above suffers from some serious drawbacks as the presence of tachyons in the perturbative spectrum and the absence of fermions. One way to introduce the fermions in string theory is through supersymmetry which is a symmetry of the original classical theory that transforms the bosons into fermions and vice-versa. Prom a pragmatic point a view, it is known from field theory that supersymetry can cure the divergencies. The supersymmetry can be constructed either by supersymmetrizing the worldsheet fields (Ramond-Neveu-Schwarz) or by constructing the target-space action (Green-Schwarz). The two constructions are equivalent in the light-cone gauge. The equivalence is based on the modular symmetry and is implemented by the Gliozzi-Scherk-Olive projection which projects out of spectrum half of the states of RNS string. What is left is a theory with space-time supersymmetry equivalent to GS string. Through the GSO projection the tachyon is killed so that the vacua of superstrings are stable 1 ' 2 . Classical closed superstring The action of the superstring in the RNS formulation is 5 = - ^ 7 / d2a {daX"daXli
- i^padail>li)
,
(169)
where to each bosonic field X" (a) it is associated a two-dimensional Majorana fermionic field ?/>^(<7) with A = 1,2. The Dirac matrices in two dimensions can be chosen imaginary 1 and by definition they should satisfy the following algebra { p ° V } = -2tjafl.
(170)
The action (169) has the Poincare symmetry in target-space, super-Weyl invariance in two-dimensions and supersymmetry. The supersymmetry transformations mix the bosonic and fermionic variables and are given by the following relations dX* = lip" tyM = - i pa da X* e ,
(171)
where e is a infinitesimal constant Majorana spinor in two-dimensions that parametrizes the supersymmetry transformations. The following supercurrent corresponds to the supersymmetry Ja = \p&paVQ&Xti.
(172)
644
As in the pure bosonic case, the system is subject to constraints. The constraints are the equations of motion for the two-dimensional supergravity fields (graviton and gravitino) if a general world-sheet metric is considered. However, in the superconformal gauge in which the action (169) is written, they should be imposed by hand and they have the following form Ta0 = dax"df,Xp + l- Vpiad^ - \ Va0 (d^ X^Xp +%-Vpada^,\ = 0 Ja = 0 .
(173) (174)
Also, the super-Weyl transformations imply that T° = 0
(175)
paJa = 0 .
(176)
It is easy to show that the equations of motion from (169) are the twodimensional wave equation and the Dirac equation, respectively dadaX>i = 0
(177)
(PdaV
(178)
=0 •
The topology of the string determines the boundary conditions that should be imposed on the bosonic coordinates. For fermionic coordinates, the boundary conditions are determined from both topology of world-sheet and the supersymmetry. For bosonic coordinates, the boundary conditions are the same as in eq.(3) for closed string and eq.(5) for open string, respectively. For fermions, there are two boundary conditions that can be imposed either after the fermions performs a complete period on the closed string or at the two ends of the string for open strings. These boundary conditions simply state that the spin of the fermion can flip. Since we focus on the closed strings, the boundary conditions are given by the following relations V>"(T,
= +V M (T,CT)
V>"(ro- + TT) = - ^ M ( r , a )
R b.c.
(179)
NS b.c. .
(180)
One can use the powerful techniques of complex analysis and of conformal fied theories in two dimensions to study the superstring if we map the cylinder into the comples plane C* z = e 2 *'-*) = ew ,
(181)
645
from which we can see that the boundary conditions can be written in the following form ^{e2niz)
= -ip»{z)
^{e2wiz)
= +^{z)
R b.c. NSb.c.
(182) (183)
To prove the relations above, one uses the periodicity on the cylinder of the holomorphic (and antiholomorphic) fermions. Massless spectrum of the closed superstring In order to identify the excitations of the massless fields, one has to quantize the superstring. One can apply exactly the same methods used for the bosonic string 1,2 . We are going to use the canonical quantization for pedagogical reasons. The bosonic coordinates X^(a) were quantized in Section 2. To quantize the fermionic coordinates we note that the left- and right-moving modes on the closed string are independent. Consequently, in the complex plane, the solutions to the Dirac equation decompose into holomorphic and anti-holomorpic parts. The Fourier decomposition of the holomorphic part is given by the following relations
V{z)
= £
6^-r-1/2 ,
(NS)
(185)
r£Z'
where Z' = Z + 1/2 . Similar expressions hold for anti-holomorphic part. The holomorphic and anti-holomorphic sectors describe the left- and right-moving modes, respectively. The coefficients of the expansion in (185) are interpreted as operators acting on the Fock space which is given by the tensor product of left-and right modes |left >
(186)
The interpretation of coefficients in terms of creation and annihilation operators is given by their algebra which can be obtained from the postulated anti-commutator relations among fermionc fields1'2 { < , < } = Trsm+n,0, { O r } = »rtfr+.,0,
(R)
(187)
(NS)
(188)
646
and similarly for right-moving modes. Prom the relations above we see that one can have 6m+nfi = 1 in the Ramond sector. Thus, the states OIQ\0 > are in the massless representation of the Clifford algebra
K,<«} = » r .
(189)
This means that the ground state in the R-sector is a spinor. The super-Virasoro of the theory is lost through quantization but one can show that the anomaly that appears can be cancelled if the dimension of the space-time is D = 10. In ten-dimensions, the background spinor from the R-sector can have both ± chiralities and it is a Majorana-Weyl spinor which we denote by \A+ > and \A~ >, respectively, where A are spinor indices of Spin(8) transversal group. The above analysis can be repeated verbatim for the right-moving sector. Due to the tensor product structure of the Fock space (186) we can have background spinors of different chiralities in the two sectors. Therefore, we can classify the closed superstrings in Theory Type IIA Type IIB
Ground state \A+ > ® \A~ > \A+ >
(190)
The Type IIA is not chiral, i.e. the vacua in the two sectors have opposite chirality while the Type IIB theory is chiral since the two vacua has the same chirality. (The sign between the two spinors is relative.) We can quantize the system along the same line as in the bosonic case, but we are not going to present the details here. They can be found in the textbooks 1,2 . The mass operators in the holomorphic sector, necessary to classify the spectrum of the superstring, are given by the following relations
iM 2 = £ a ' : n < + X > 6 L r & * - i , n>0
\M2 = Y,a-n< + Y,nd-n<, n>0
(R)
(191)
(NS)
(192)
r>0
n>0
where a' = 1 and the indice i = 1,2,...,8 labels the transverse directions (light-cone gauge.) The one-half factor from the JVS-sector comes from the normal ordering of the super-Virasoro operator. In the .R-sector its value is zero. The states are constructed by acting with the creation operators on the vacuum. We are interested in space-time supersymmetric states which is the observed supersymmetry, rather than in the world-sheet supersymmetric states. To obtain the target-space spectrum, we have to perform the GSO projection
647
onto the world-sheet vector space. This projection is represented by the GSO operator (-)F under which the bosonic fields XM are even and the fermionic ones ip11 are odd [R F ,X"]=0,
{(-)F,r} = 0-
(193)
These properties determine the operator F up to a sign which is fixed by asking that in the open superstring spectrum the photon be invariant under the GSO projection. The GSO operator is represented by r = r° • • • r8 R ^ " " ^ G = {-)F+1
= (-)-><>
,
(R) ,
(194) (NS)
(195)
in the two sectors of holomorphic spectrum. Here, T% are the Dirac matrices in D = 10 dimensions. With these conventions, the states that are odd under the action of the GSO operators are projected out. In the light cone gauge the massless spectrum of the closed superstrings is given by the product between the left- and right-moving states classified according to the three representations of the 50(8) group (the little group of 50(1,9)), namely 8 V , 8 + , 8_ as follows (8 V © 8+)j ® (8 V © 8 ± ) r ,
(196)
where the subscripts 1 and r stand for left- and right-moving modes, respectively. T y p e H A massless s p e c t r u m The non-chiral closed superstring has the following spectrum (8 V © 8+)l
® (8 V © 8_) r
= (1 + 28 + 3 5 V ) J V S - J V S © (8 V +
© (8+ + 56_)jvs-fl © (8_ + 56+)R-NS
,
56V)R-R
(197)
The states from NS — NS and R — R sectors are bosonic since they are either a product of two bosonic states, or a product of two spinor states while the states from the NS — R and R — NS sectors are fermionic being products of a bosonic and a fermionic state. The number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom match and this is the first indication of the existence of supersymmetry 1 . The numbers in the brackets indicate the irreducible representations of the 50(8) group. According to it, the bosonic states can be identified with the excitations of the dilaton, Kalb-Ramond field and gravitational potential >, B^v^g^ in the NS - NS sector and with the excitations of an one-form and a three-form fields AM and AM„P, respectively, in the R — R sectors.
648
Type IIB massless spectrum The chiral closed superstring has the following spectrum (8 V © 8+)! ® (8 V © 8_) r = (1 + 28 + 35V)NS-NS
© (8_ +
56+)NS-R
© (1 + 28 + 3 5 + ) * - *
© (8_ + 56+) fl _jvs ,
(198)
The bosonic fields that correspond to the massless irreducible representations in the Type IIB theory are the dilaton, Kalb-Ramond field and gravitational potential <j>, B^, g^v in the NS — NS sector and a scalar field, a two-form field and a self-dual four-form field x> A^ and A+vpa in the R- R sector. The self-duality of the four form field means that the field strength is equal to its Hodge dual. As we can see from (197) and (198) above, the graviton appears in the two theories. Also, by GSO-projection the tachyon has been removed since it is and odd state under the action of (—)F operator. The theories are free of anomalies in D = 10, free of tachyons and contain fermions. Beside the fundamental interactions, some other interactions mediated by p-form fields are predicted. In four dimensional space-time such of interactions cannot be written since there is not enough room to accomodate the higher rank p-forms. Indeed, a three-form in four dimensions has the same number of components as a twoform, and a four-form as a one-form or a vector. Thus, no new gauge potentials can be constructed. The Type II theories have N = 2 supersymmetry in D = 10, corresponding to the two generators of opposite or equal chirality. Let us note in the end that there are three more string theories known as Type I, Heterotic SO (32) and Heterotic E% x E%. The Type I theory contains opens strings. Therefore, it has just N = 1 supersymmetry. The heterotic theories are supersymmetric just in one of the sectors (left or right). The dilaton, Kalb-Ramond and gravitational fields are common to all these theories, but the p-forms differ from one theory to another. For more details, we refer the reader to 1>2'4. Spin operators and space-time supercharges All the nice features of the superstrings come from the new symmetry, the supersymmetry that has been introduced in (171). The supersymmetry is implemented at the quantum level by the supercharge operators. Let us review how they can be constructed 1 ' 2 . In the complex world-sheet variables, the superstring theories are described by superconformal field theories (SCFT). These field theories are well known. They have nicer properties than field theories in four dimensions since there are an infinite number of symmetries in two-dimensions (Virasoro) that give a good control of the
649
S-matrix. Using the techniques of SCFT, one can show that the spinor ground states in the i?-sector can be obtained by acting with some operators called spin operators Sf(z) and S^(z) on the vacuum of the iVS-sector in both left- and right-moving sectors 2 ' 4 . The spin operators transform as space-time spinors which justify their names and there are 32 of them. One fundamental object in conformal field theory is the operator product expansion (OPE) which encodes all the information about the theory since it is equivalent with the comutation relations. For the S and 5 fields, the basic OPE's are with the fermionic fields ip"(z)S(w)
~ (z-tu)-*rMS(ti;)
(199)
V (z) S(w) ~ (z - w)~ i r" S(w) ,
(200)
where T^ are the Dirac matrices and ~ means that the irregular terms are discarded. The contour integral of fermion-emission operators are just the supercharges Q = i^- S{z) ,
Q = - I y S(z) .
(201)
This way of understanding the supercharges will be useful later when we will analyse the supersymmetries preserved by the D-branes. 6.2. Type II Supersymmetric
D-Branes
As in the case of the bosonic string theory, the D-branes in the superstring theory are defined by a mixed Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions on the open superstring world-sheet. The fermionic boundary conditions should be compatible with the supersymmetry (171). If we pass to complex coordinates on the Euclidean complex plane z = exp(r + ia) the whole set of boundary conditions can be written as follows2'24 « • =**•!'-.»
(202)
dxl =-ax i | / m 2 = 0 for bosonic coordinates, and 4>a=r\lmz = 0,
V>a = - t f ° | j m * = o ,
^
= - ^ i / m z = 0,
# =fU,=o,
(R)
(NS)
(203)
(204)
for fermionic coordinates, where a = 0 , 1 , . . . ,p and i = p + 1 , . . . , 9 . In general, the presence of such of extended objects in superstring theory will break the original symmetries. We saw that in the bosonic theory
650
where the Poincare symmetry was broken. In the supersymmetric case Dbrane breaks the space-time symmetry down to SO(l,p) x 50(9—p). We may ask what happens with the supersymmetry? In order to have some conserved supersymmetry we need supercharges that leave the vacuum invariant, or equivalently, spin fields. Since they satisfy the OPE (200) it is easy to see that at the boundary there will be some relations that should be imposed on the spin fields in order to mantain the compatibility between the boundary conditions (204) and the OPE (200). These relations represent the boundary conditions for spin fields and one can show that they transform S into S and vice-versa2'24 S = U(p)S.
(205)
One can look for an operator II(p) that is constructed from Dirac matrices since the spin operators transform as spinors in D — 10. By introducing (205) into (200) one can show that II(p) should satisfy the following relations 2,24
[n (p) ,r a ] = o,
{n ( p ) ,p} = o.
(206)
Such of operator exists, and has the following form
n (p) = i 9 - p r 1 ir p + 1 r 1 1 r p + 2 • • • r n r 9 ,
(207)
where
r n = r°r1---r9.
(208)
Since II(p) maps left spin operators to right spin operators, it should flip the chirality for Type IIA spin operators and leave it invariant for Type IIB spin operators. This chirality is flipped for p even, and left unchanged for p odd. Therefore, we have the following supersymmetric (or BPS) £>-branes Theory
Dp-branes
Type IIA
p = 0,2,4,6,8
Type IIB
p = -1,1,3,5,7,9
(209)
The p = — 1 brane makes sense only in the Euclidean space-time where it is interpreted as a soliton. p = 9 is a degenerate case in which the string can propagated freely in the bulk of space-time and it is consistent only in Typel theory where some auxiliary construction should be done. We can see in this way that the Dp-brane break the supersymmetry of the background and only half of it is preserved. Some other configurations of BPS-branes can be imagined which break the supersymmmetry to 1/2, 1/4,... of the original number of supercharges. There are also non-BPS branes which do not preserve any supersymmetry at all, but discussing these topics is out of the scope of these lectures (see 2>4,i5,i6,24^
651
6.3. Some Properties
of the
D-Branes
The supersymmetric D-branes can be treated in the similar fashion as the bosonic ones studied in the previous sections. Besides their tension, they are characterized by other physical quantities as RR charges and supersymmetry. We are going to review the basic properties of BPS-branes in what follows. Tension and charge of D-brane The tension of the brane is computed from the exchange of the massless modes of the closed strings. The difference from the bosonic case lies in the fact that there is a two-form field in the RR sector whose excitations should be taken into accout. The details of the computations are given in 2 (see also 4 ' 24 ) and the result is Tp2 =
_L (4*V)3-» ,
(210)
where K is the Newton's constant in ten dimensions. The tension of the brane equals its RR charge-density e p . The RR p-form field couples with the brane as the point-like particle couples with the gauge potential in four dimensions. The coupling can be electic-like or magnetic-like, i. e. with the strength-form field or with its dual. For example, the electric-like interaction term is given by the Wess-Zumino action ep+1 [dp+1ZAP+1
(211)
in the simplest situation when the topology is kept simple. Here, the integral is over the world-volume of the brane and Ap+1 is the pull-back of the RR field on the world-volume of the brane. e p is the RRcharge of the D-brane and can be calculated by integrating the dual of the field strength on a sphere in the transverse space arround the brane Ep+l
= I
*-F8-P •
(212)
lS»JSO-P
The magnetic charge can be computed similarly as <77_p = /
Fp+2 .
(213)
JSP+2
In Eq.(212) and Eq.(213) the rank of the forms have been written explicitely. We recall that in order to perform the integration, the dimension of the manifold on which we integrate and the rank of the integrated form should be equal (see also K. Stelle's lecture notes at this school.) The electric and magnetic charges of the £)-branes can be quantized following Dirac's prescription e P +i 97-p 4TT
_
n 2
(214)
652
where n is an integer number. It is important to note that the parallel BPS-branes do not feel any force among them since the contribution of the NSNS and RR sectors is equal and of opposite sign. However, for branes at angles the situation is different and for some values of relative angles and distances tachyons appear in the system 28 . Effective action The effective action of the BPS D-branes can be calculated by using the same method as in the bosonic case. The difference comes from the RR field which for a hyperplanar static brane has only one component coupling with the brane. However, this action would describe only the bosonic sector of the theory. In order to obtain a supersymmetric low energy action, one has to generalize it to include the space-time supersymmetry. The supersymmetric action was obtained in 37 . There is some subtelty involved in this generalization, given by the fact that the fermionic space-time variables are twice in number than necessary. Consequently, one has to impose another local fermionic space-time symmetry called k—symmetry, known from the supersymmetric generalization of particles and strings 1 ' 2 . This symmetry will ensure the correct space-time degrees of freedom for the fermionic coordinates. The bosonic part of the effective action contains two terms called DiracBorn-Infeld action and Wess-Zumino action which have the following forms SDBI
Swz
= TP f
= Tpfdr»tA*
™'F A ( ^ )
* •
5
(215)
(216)
Here, the space-time fields are pulled-back on the world-volume of the £)-brane. In the Wess-Zumino action, the exponential should be expanded to saturate the dimension of the integral. This is because the fields are expressed by differential forms. The higher dimensional terms give zero contribution. The Dirac-BornInfeld term has properties similar to the effective action of the bosonic D-brane. As was discussed in Section 3, it generalizes the geometric action, i.e. that is proportional to the volume of brane trajectory, to a background with nonvanishing fields. The generalization of DBI-action to non-abelian potentials Aa(£) is not understood yet. Let us discuss the Wess-Zumino term. It is interpreted as the term that generalizes the coupling of the brane with the RR (p+ l)-form fields and should be calculated by expanding the exponential as discussed above. The objects A(M) and .4(7") are topological invariants that characterize the tangent bundle over the space-time manifold, decomposed into the normal bundle Af to the
653
brane world-volume and the tangent bundle T to it. This invariant is called roof-genus or Dirac genus of the bundle and it is defined in terms of the Chern classes. For a vector bundle E, the definition of the roof-genus is
where An = c 1 (L n ). Here, ci is the first Chern class of the bundle Ln which is a line bundle. One can expand the roof-genus in terms of Pontryagin classes A{E) = l-±Pl(E)+---
,
(218)
where Pn(E)
= (-l)nc2n(E®RC)
(219)
is the n-th Potryagin class of the vector bundle E tensored with the complex numbers field C. More intuitively, the roof-genus can also be expressed in terms of the curvature of the 2-form JR -4(£)
= 1+
(4^^TrjR2+'"
(220)
which defines the Dirac genus as a sum of invariant polynomials in the curvature form 40 . The Wess-Zumino action generalizes the coupling of a point-like charge with a gauge potential to a higher dimensional object coupled to the (p + l)-form. Since the D-brane is an extended object, it may assume various topologies in a given background. Therefor, the coupling terms should be topological invariants to guarantee that the formulation of the theory does not change when going from one topology to another. This is how the topological invariants in the action can be roughly explained. In the case of a point-like particle wecannot see all these complications due to the trivial topology of the particle. 6.4.
Exercises
Exercise 1 Prove (183) starting from (180). Exercise 2 Show that, for the superstring in trivial background, the GSO operator (—)F projects out the tachyon from the spectrum. Exercise 3 Argue that the electric and magnetic charges of a £>-brane statisfy the quantization condition (214).
654
7. Discussions In these notes we have argued that there are extended objects in string theory called D-branes which exhibit, beside a geometric structure, physical properties as tension and, for supersymmetric branes, charges. We have derived the effective action of the bosonic D-branes and we have given a microscopic description of them. Also, we have briefly mentioned some of the properties of the supersymmetric BPS-branes. The material presented in these lectures is in some sense "classic". We have not discussed any of the more advanced and new results, part because of the extended background material needed to understand these topics which is unfamiliar to many students and partly because of the lack of time. However, there are some exciting ideas which we are going to review briefly now. B P S £>-brane dualities We have seen above that the D-branes appear in three of the five string theories. In Type IIA and Type IIB, the dimension of the world-volume of the brane is odd, respectively even. However, by compactifying the worldvolume of, say, a Type IIA Dp- brane, on a circle of radius R and taking the limit R —> 0, one obtaines a manifold with the dimension p. If this manifold is identified with the world-volume of a D(p— l)-brane we have a map from Type IIA branes to Type IIB branes. This is a basic way to establish relations among string theories by using branes, relations called dualities. Actually, there are technical details in constructing the dualities. There are several types of them and in the last years there have been done many works in this field41. World-volume action of B P S D-branes In Section 3 we derived the low energy limit of the action of bosonic Dbranes and in Section 6 we discussed its generalization to supersymmetric branes. As was already mentioned, it is not very clear how to generalize the action to non-abelian gauge potential. This is an important line of research, and works have been done recently (for a review see 43 .) The problems are related to ambiguities in the definition of the expansion of the determinants of strength-tensor for non-abelian fields. Also, it is not known how to construct a polynomial and local action for .D-branes that host a self-dual form field on the world-volume. Most of the studies have been devoted to low energy limit of the D-branes. The higher energy form of the action for them is unknown. Non-commutativity When the Born-Infeld action is generalized to N parallel Dp-branes, the
655
coordinates on the world-volume of the branes become non-commutative functions. This motivated many works on non-commutativity of both branes and strings 44 . The gauge field on the world-volume is U{N) non-commutative gauge theory and the corresponding low energy action is a non-commutative Born-Infeld action. The implications of non-commutativity of space-time physics are currently under intense investigation. N o n - B P S branes In the last two years there has been an incresing interest in the D-branes that do not preserve any supersymmetry of the background (see the following pedagogical reviews 35>33>34. I n brane-antibrane pair (for more than one pair and non-parallel branes see 36 ) there is a tachyonic field that cannot be elliminate through the usual GSO projection. Its effective potential display a local minimum in which it was conjectured that the system reaches a stable state. The evolution to this state is called decayment. By this process nonBPS branes can be obtained from brane-anti-brane pairs and vice-versa, but the dimension of the branes at the beginning and at the end of the process are different. This is a new type of interaction between branes. Since the tachyons are off-shell states, the best tool to investigate the decayment is string field theory. (For references on tachyon physics in D-brane theory see 4 5 ) . Classification of branes The study of non-BPS branes led to some unexpected applications of mathematics: the classification of brane charges was shown to be given by the topological K-theory of the fibre bundles 48 . This construction was extended to M-theory in 52>53. Also, a tentative to include the massive branes in the K-theory framework wos done in 5 4 . More recently, more general D-brane solutions suggested the derived categories as the most appropriate framework for describing the brane charges and decayment 55 . Treating D-branes within the framework of string field theory suggests more algebraic structure behind brane physics. We cannot end this section without mentioning two revolutionary results in theoretical physics introduced by D-branes: the Maldacena's conjecture and the sub-millimeter extra dimensions. The first one represents a first explicit proposal and tool of mapping between field theory and gravity. The second theory proposes a solution to the hierarchy problem based on the idea that the Standard Model is localized on a three brane while the gravity lives in the bulk of a five dimensional space-time (see, for example 57 - 58 ' 60 and 61>62.) There are many more things that could be said about D-brane theory and many other interesting topics that have been investigated recently. The physics
656 of Z?-branes is far from being understood, but it is clear t h a t £>-branes have been helping us t o reveal some of t h e structure of t h e most interesting models of the high energy physics and it is likely t h a t their role will not be less important in future.
Acknowledgments I would like t o t h a n k t o M. C. B . Abdalla, N. Berkovits, C. T . Echevarria, A. L. Gadelha, V. D. Pershin, V. O. Rivelles, W. P. de Souza, K. Stelle, B. Vallilo and to all those t h a t have been attended these lectures for their stimulating discussions. Also, I am grateful to H. Kogetsu who pointed out an error in t h e first version of the paper.
References 1. M. B. Green, J. Schwarz, E. Witten, " Superstring Theory", Cambridge University Press (1989). 2. J. Polchinski, "String Theory", Cambridge University Press (1999). 3. N. Berkovits, Lectures at this school. 4. C. V. Johnson, hep-th/0007170. 5. E. Kiritsis, hep-th/9709062. 6. A. Abouelsaood, C. G. Callan, C. R. Nappi and S. A. Yost, Nucl. Phys. B280, 599 (1987). 7. J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4724 (1995) [hep-th/9510017]. 8. L. Alvarez-Gaume and M. A. Vazquez-Mozo, hep-th/9212006. 9. A. A. Tseytlin, A. A. Tseytlin, J. Math. Phys. 42, 2854 (2001) [hep-th/0011033]. 10. C. G. Callan, E. J. Martinec, M. J. Perry and D. Friedan, Nucl. Phys. B262, 593 (1985). SI ALTII TOTI! Chiara Nappi, etc.. 11. C. G. Callan, C. Lovelace, C. R. Nappi and S. A. Yost, Nucl. Phys. B288, 525 (1987). 12. C. G. Callan, C. Lovelace, C. R. Nappi and S. A. Yost, Phys. Lett. B206, 41 (1988). 13. C. G. Callan, C. Lovelace, C. R. Nappi and S. A. Yost, Nucl. Phys. B308, 221 (1988). 14. L. Alvarez-Gaume, D. Z. Preedman and S. Mukhi, Annals Phys. 134, 85 (1981). 15. P. Di Vecchia and A. Liccardo, hep-th/9912161. 16. P. Di Vecchia and A. Liccardo, hep-th/9912275. 17. M. R. Gaberdiel, Class. Quant. Gray. 17, 3483 (2000) [hep-th/0005029]. 18. M. Frau, I. Pesando, S. Sciuto, A. Lerda and R. Russo, Phys. Lett. B400, 52 (1997) [hep-th/9702037]. 19. P. Di Vecchia, M. Frau, I. Pesando, S. Sciuto, A. Lerda and R. Russo, Nucl. Phys. B507, 259 (1997) [hep-th/9707068]. 20. M. Billo, P. Di Vecchia, M. Frau, I. Pesando, S. Sciuto, A. Lerda and R. Russo, Nucl. Phys. B526, 199 (1998) [hep-th/9802088] 21. I. V. Vancea, Phys. Lett. B487, 175 (2000) [hep-th/0006228].
657 22. M. C. Abdalla, A. L. Gadelha and I. V. Vancea, Phys. Lett. A273, 235 (2000) [hep-th/0003209]. 23. M. C. Abdalla, A. L. Gadelha and I. V. Vancea, hep-th/0104068. 24. C. P. Bachas, hep-th/9806199. 25. J. H. Schwarz, hep-ex/0008017. 26. A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 94, 35 (2001) [hep-lat/0011073]. 27. J. H. Schwarz, hep-th/9908144. 28. S. P. de Alwis, Phys. Lett. B 4 6 1 , 329 (1999) [hep-th/9905080]. 29. M. M. Sheikh Jabbari, Phys. Lett. B420, 279 (1998) [hep-th/9710121]. 30. H. Arfaei and M. M. Sheikh Jabbari, Nucl. Phys. B526, 278 (1998) [hepth/9709054]. 31. H. Arfaei and M. M. Sheikh Jabbari, Phys. Lett. B394, 288 (1997) [hepth/9608167]. 32. P. K. Townsend, hep-th/9901102. 33. A. Sen, JHEP 9808, 010 (1998) [hep-th/9805019]. 34. A. Sen, hep-th/9904207. 35. A. Lerda and R. Russo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 1 5 , 771 (2000) [hep-th/9905006]. 36. I. V. Vancea, JHEP 0104, 020 (2001) [hep-th/0011251]. 37. M. Aganagic, C. Popescu and J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B393, 311 (1997) [hepth/9610249]. 38. P. K. Townsend, hep-th/0004039. 39. P. K. Townsend, hep-th/9712004. 40. H. B. Lawson, Jr. and M.-L. Michelson, "Spin Geometry", Princeton University Press (1989). 41. P. C. West, hep-th/9811101. 42. M. J. Duff, hep-th/9912164. 43. A. A. Tseytlin, hep-th/9908105. 44. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP 9909, 032 (1999) [hep-th/9908142]. 45. A. Sen, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 1251 (2000). 46. A. Sen, Prepared for "29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP 98)", Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 23-29 Jul 1998. 47. A. Sen, hep-th/9904207. 48. E. Witten, hep-th/0006071. 49. E. Witten, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16, 693 (2001) [hep-th/0007175]. 50. K. Olsen and R. J. Szabo, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3, 889 (1999) [hepth/9907140]. 51. K. Olsen and R. J. Szabo, Nucl. Phys. B566, 562 (2000) [hep-th/9904153]. 52. D. Diaconescu, G. Moore and E. Witten, hep-th/0005091. 53. D. Diaconescu, G. Moore and E. Witten, hep-th/0005090. 54. I. V. Vancea, hep-th/9905034. 55. C. I. Lazaroiu, JHEP 0106, 064 (2001) [hep-th/0105063]. 56. M. R. Douglas, hep-th/0011017. 57. J. L. Petersen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14, 3597 (1999) [hep-th/9902131]. 58. P. Di Vecchia, Fortsch. Phys. 48, 87 (2000) [hep-th/9903007]. 59. K. Skenderis, Led. Notes Phys. 541, 325 (2000) [hep-th/9901050]. 60. P. Di Vecchia, hep-th/9908148.
658 61. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, N. Kaloper and J. March-Russell, hepph/9903239. 62. S. M. Carroll, hep-th/0011110.
PHYSICS AT H A D R O N COLLIDERS
J. W O M E R S L E Y Co-spokesman, D0 Experiment, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510, E-mail: [email protected]
U.S.A.
These lectures are intended as an introduction to the experimental study of hadronhadron processes, including detectors, analysis issues, and physics results. They form a personal survey of what's important, what's new, what's topical, and where there are problems.
Rather than attempting to summarize and duplicate my lectures in these proceedings, I have chosen to make the lectures themselves available on the web. This provides access to all the material as it was presented, which I believe is likely to be more useful. The contents of each lecture are outlined below. Lecture 1 • A brief introduction to hadron accelerators • Collider detectors and technologies • QCD physics, which is responsible for the bulk of the high px cross section at hadron colliders • Experimental issues in QCD (jet algorithms, jet energy scale) • Jet cross sections Lecture 1 is available as a PDF file at: http://dOserver1.fnal.gov/users/womersley/brazill.pdf Lecture 2 • Other jet measurements (jet characteristics, separating quark and gluon jets) • Colour coherence • Searches for quark substructure • Weak Vector boson production
659
660
• • • • •
Photon production Heavy flavour production The strong coupling constant as Hard diffraction Concluding remarks
Lecture 2 is available as a PDF file at: http://dOserver1.fnal.gov/users/womersley/brazil2.pdf
Lecture 3
• • • • • • • • •
History of searches for the top quark Top quark production and decay Top discovery at the Tevatron Top mass measurement in lepton+jets, dilepton and all-hadronic final states Cross section measurement Electroweak single top production tt spin correlations W helicity in top decays Top as a way to search for new physics
Lecture 3 is available as a PDF file at: http://dOserver1.fnal.gov/users/womersley/brazil3.pdf
Lecture 4
• • • • • • • • • • •
The Higgs mechanism and mass in the universe Higgs search at the Tevatron in Run 2 Silicon detectors and fo-tagging Motivation for physics beyond the standard model Supersymmetry Squark/gluino and chargino/neutralino searches Gauge mediated supersymmetry SUSY Higgs sector Technicolor Extra dimensions Concluding remarks
Lecture 4 is available as a PDF file at: http://dOserver1.fnal.gov/users/womersley/brazil4.pdf
661
If any difficulties are encountered when attempting to access these files, please contact me by e-mail. These lectures made use of material generously provided by many people, too numerous to list here. Thank you all; any inaccuracies or misinterpretations are mine alone. I would also like to acknowledge the organizers of the XI Jorge Andre Swieca Summer School on Particles and Fields for their financial support, and thank them and the staff of the Hotel Leao da Montanha for arranging a very well-run and enjoyable school. I must also thank my fellow lecturers (who succeeded in educating me!) and all of the students for their enthusiastic participation; this is what truly makes a summer school successful.
This page is intentionally left blank
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
NAME A.Das Adilson Jose da Silva Alejandro Gutierrez Rodrigues Alexandre Guimaraes Rodrigues Alexandre Leite Gadelha Aline Barros BARROS Alvaro de Souza Dutra Alysson Fabio Ferrari Anderson Andre G.A. Ribeiro Andrey Bytsenko Anna Gabriella Tempesta Antonio Cesar Aguiar Pinto Antonio Edson Goncalves Antonio Soares de Castro Brenno Carlini Vallilo Carlos Alberto Gomes de Almeida Carlos Frajuca Carlos Pena Garay Carlos Tello Echevarria Ciro Cervellini Yajima Clovis Jose Wotzasek D. Green Edivaldo Moura Santos Edson Akira Asano IFUSP Eduardo Salvador Tututi Hernandez Erica Ribeiro Polycarpo Everton Murilo Carvalho de Abreu Fernando Girotto Fernando Marroquim Flavio Gimenes Alvarenga Gilvan Augusto Alves Horacio Oscar Girotti I. Vancea I. Ya. Arefeva 663
INSTITUTION Rochester U. IFUSP UAZ IFUSP IFT UFRJ UNESP-GUAR UFRGS UFFRGS UEL UNESP UFF UEL UNESP-GUARA IFT UFPB IFUSP IFIC IFT IFUSP UFRJ FERMILAB IFUSP UMSNH UFRJ UNESP-GUARA USP UFRJ UFES CBPF UFRGS IFT/UNESP Steklov Math.
664
Ivens Martins Carneiro Jair Valadares Costa Jean Paulo Spinelly da Silva Jorge Abel Espichan Carrillo Jose Antonio Santiago Garcia Jose Lauro Strapasson K.S. Stelle Leandro da Rold Leonardo Andres Funes Leonidas Sandoval Junior Luciano Barosi de Lemos Luiz Claudio Marques de Albuquerque Luiz Cleber Tavares de Brito M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia M. Gomes M. Novello Marcelo Brasil Silva Marcelo de Moura Leite Marcia Moutinho Marian Zdrazil Mauricio Bernardino Magro Miguel Gustavo de Campos Batista N. Berkovits Nadja Simao Magalhaes Nami Fux Svaiter Nazira Abache Tomimura Onofre Rojas Santos Oscar Jose Pinto Eboli Oswaldo Gomes P. Nason Pedro Galli Mercadante Philippe Gouffon Prakash Mathews Rafael de Lima Rodrigues Renata Zukanovich Funchal Ricardo Ivan Medina Bascur Ricardo Moritz Cavalcanti Rodrigo C. Sanchez Ronald Cintra Shellard Rubens Freire Ribeiro
IFUSP UFF UFPB UFRN UNAM IFT Imp. College MDP University CCT/FEJ IFUSP IFUSP IFUSP U. Valencia IFUSP CBPF IFT/UNESP ITA CBPF USA IFUSP UFF IFT/UNESP IFUSP CBPF UFF IF/UFF IFT CSN CERN IFUSP IFUSP IFT/UNESP UFPB IFUSP EFEI IFUSP CAB CBPF UFPB
665
S. Minwalla Sergio Moraes Lietti Tabares Lourdes Del Valle Tatiana da Silva Victor de Oliveira Rivelles Vilson Tonin Zanchin Vladimir Pershin W.J. Womersley Werner Krambeck Sauter William Alexandre L. de Castro Wilson Hugo Cavalcante Preire
Harvard U. IFUSP MDP University UFRJ IFUSP UFSM IFT FERMILAB IFT/UNESP UFPB
P 3r I i cI e s and F i e l d s Gilvan A. Alves, Oscar J. P. Eboli and Victor 0. Rivelles (eaum)
The Jorge Andre Swieca Summer School is a traditional school in Latin America well known for the high level of its courses and lecturers. This book contains lectures on forefront areas of high energy physics, such as collider physics, neutrino phenomenology, noncommutative field theory, string theory and branes.
ISBN 981-238-021-3
www. worldscientific.com 4986 he
9 "789812"380210"