• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

124 submissions , 105 unreviewed
3,647 questions , 1,242 unanswered
4,639 answers , 19,689 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
437 active unimported users
More ...

Derivation of Eq. 7.12 in the review paper of Kraus

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

I'm reading "Lectures on black holes and the $AdS_3/CFT_2$ correspondence" by Kraus.


I don't know how one can obtain Eq.7.12. My stupid question is how to obtain this equation. After this equation, it is stated that "one has to take care to consider only variations consistent with the equations of motion and the assumed boundary conditions". What are the variations consistent with the equations of motion and the assumed boundary conditions? What Krasu says is as follows.

To compute the bulk functional integral, we need to evaluate the bulk action for the solutions which contribute, including boundary counterterms if necessary. For an on-shell solution around the $AdS_{3}$ vacuum, one can evaluate the action at the $AdS_3$ vacuum by using the variation of the action with respect to the boundary metric $g^{(0)}$ and the gauge fields $A^{(0)}, \tilde A^{(0)}$

\begin{equation} \delta S= \int d^2x \sqrt{g}\,\left[ \frac12 T^{ij} \delta g_{ij}+\frac{i}{2\pi} J^{i} \delta A_{i} +\frac{i}{2\pi}\tilde J^{i} \delta \tilde A_{i} \right]~. \end{equation} where the superscript $(0)$ is omitted for brevity. Reexpressing this in complex coordinates of the boundary metric, we obtain:

\begin{equation} \delta S=4\pi i \left(T_{ww}\delta \tau+T_{\bar w\bar w}\delta \bar\tau +\frac{\tau_2}{\pi} J_{w}\delta A_{\bar w}+\frac{\tau_2}{\pi} \tilde J_{\bar w}\delta \tilde A_{w}\right)~. \end{equation}

One can integrate the above equation to get: \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{S}(\tau) & = & - 2 \pi i \tau \big(L_{0} - \frac{c}{24} \big) + 2 \pi i \bar\tau \big(\tilde L_{0} - \frac{\tilde c}{24} \big) \cr && \; - \frac{i\pi}{2} k \big( \tau A_{w}^{2} + \bar \tau A_{\bar w}^{2} + 2 \bar \tau A_{w} A_{\bar w} \big) + \frac{i\pi}{2} \tilde k \big( \tau \tilde A_{w}^{2} + \bar\tau \tilde A_{\bar w}^{2} + 2 \tau \tilde A_{w} \tilde A_{\bar w} \big) \, . \end{eqnarray}

I would like to know the derivation of the last equation.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Nov 18, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Satoshi Nawata (335 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 19, 2014 by dimension10
Was your question answered by Jon? If so, please consider marking it as correct. If you obtained more information from the authors, then consider adding detail to the question, or providing an answer of your own based on your correspondence.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

The answer is quite simple. You should use eqs.(6.8) in the paper. You put them into the last term of eq.(7.11) then, a straightforward integration, I mean something like $\delta\tau\rightarrow\tau$, $\delta A_{\bar w}\rightarrow A_{\bar w}$ and so on, should do the job.

So, let us consider (note that in your post there is a wrong sign)

$$ \delta S=(2\pi)^2 i \left(-T_{ww}\delta \tau+T_{\bar w\bar w}\delta \bar\tau +\frac{\tau_2}{\pi} J_{w}^I\delta A_{I\bar w}+\frac{\tau_2}{\pi} \tilde J_{\bar w}^I\delta \tilde A_{Iw}\right)_{constant}~. $$

(here "constant" means that only the zero mode is retained) and the corresponding eqs.(6.8) in Kraus' review

$$\eqalign{ T_{ww}&=-{k \over 8\pi} +{1 \over 8\pi} A_w^2+{1 \over 8\pi} {\tilde A}_w^2~, \cr T_{{\bar w}{\bar w}}&= -{{\tilde k} \over 8\pi} +{1 \over 8\pi}A_{{\bar w}}^2+{1 \over 8\pi}{\tilde A}_{{\bar w}}^2~, \cr J^I_w &= {i\over 2} k^{IJ} A_{Jw}~, \cr {\tilde J}^I_{{\bar w}}& = {i\over 2} {\tilde k}^{IJ} {\tilde A}_{J{\bar w}}~.}$$

By substitution one has

$$ \delta S = (2\pi)^2 i\left[-\left(-{k \over 8\pi} +{1 \over 8\pi} A_w^2+{1 \over 8\pi} {\tilde A}_w^2~\right)\delta\tau+\left(-{{\tilde k} \over 8\pi} +{1 \over 8\pi}A_{{\bar w}}^2+{1 \over 8\pi}{\tilde A}_{{\bar w}}^2~\right)\delta{\bar\tau}\right.$$ $$\left.+\frac{i\tau_2}{2\pi}k^{IJ} A_{Jw}\delta A_{I\bar w}+\frac{i\tau_2}{2\pi}{\tilde k}^{IJ}{\tilde A}_{J{\bar w}}\delta \tilde A_{Iw}\right]_{constant}.$$

From this you get immediately the result when you note that the variation with respect to the gauge field just cancels out the $\tau_1$ contribution, having ${\bar\tau}-\tau$ that comes from the squared terms, and is recovered upon integration.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Nov 24, 2011 by JonLester (376 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
What would you substitute for the stress-energy tensors $T_{ww}, T_{\bar w \bar w}$ and the currents $J_w, \tilde J_{\bar w}$?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Eqs.(6.8) in the Kraus' review.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I thought plugging 6.8 into 7.11 would give us 7.12. But it does not. How would you explain the relative sign between $A^2_w$ and $\widetilde A^2_w$? Why there are no term like $\tau A_wA_{\bar w}$ even though you have $\tau_2$ in 7.11? –

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I have just expanded the computation in my previous answer.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Thank you very much. But could you explain more elaborately how you obtain from the last equation you wrote to 7.12 in the paper? I have obtained the last equation you wrote before I post this question on the website. I would like to know the gap between this equation and 7.12. I am sorry about my stupid question, but I still don't understand it.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Most recent comments show all comments
If I look at the equation (4.14) in the paper by Kraus and Larsen my suspect that they did a mistake is enforced. At this point the best solution is to get in touch with them.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
OK. Thank you very much.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

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

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights