Quantcast
  • 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.

News

Please welcome our new moderators!

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

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

122 submissions , 103 unreviewed
3,497 questions , 1,172 unanswered
4,543 answers , 19,337 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
407 active unimported users
More ...

Proof of S-duality between Type IIB, IIB and Type HO, I string theories

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
15 views

About every source on string theory I've read which do mention S-duality state that: $$\begin{array}{l} \operatorname S:\operatorname{IIB} \leftrightarrow \operatorname{IIB}\\ \operatorname S:\operatorname{HO} \leftrightarrow \operatorname{I} \end{array}$$

However, how does one prove that the Type IIB string theory is self-S-dual and even more bizzarely, that the Type HO string theory is S-dual to the Type I string theory?

asked May 22, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by dimension10 (1,950 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 25, 2014 by dimension10

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

Since S-duality relates a theory at weak coupling to a theory at strong coupling it is in general very hard to rigorously prove that two theories are dual. However, the basic arguments for why it should hold in string theory are given in many text books, see eg chapter 14 in Polchinski or Becker, Becker, Schwarz chapter 8. Here I will just sketch how the relation between type-I and the $SO(32)$ heterotic string theory can be understood.

The first observation is that the massless spectra of the two models agree. Moreover, if we make the identification $$\tag{1} G^I_{\mu\nu} = e^{-\Phi_h} G^h_{\mu\nu} , \qquad \Phi^I = - \Phi^h , \qquad \tilde{F}^I_3 = \tilde{H}^h_3 , \qquad A^I_1 = A^h_1 $$ the low energy effective supergravity actions of the two models match. Since the string coupling constants $g_s^I$ and $g_s^h$ are given as the expectation values of the exponentials of the dilatons $\exp(\Phi^I)$ and $\exp(\Phi^h)$, respectively, the above equations relates the type-I theory at strong coupling to the heterotic theory at weak coupling: $$\tag{2} g^I_s = \frac{1}{g^h_s} . $$ From the relative scaling of the metric in (1) we also see that the string length in the two theories are related by $$\tag{3} l^I_s = l^h_s \sqrt{g^h_s}. $$

As a non-perturbative check we can consider the tension of the type-I D1 brane. The brane is a BPS object, so for all values of the coupling $g_s^I$ the tension is given by the same formula $$ T^I_{D1} = \frac{1}{g_s^I} \frac{1}{2\pi\left(l^I_s\right)^2} = \frac{g^h_s}{2\pi\left(l^h_s\sqrt{g^h_s}\right)^2} = \frac{1}{2\pi\left(l^h_s\right)^2} $$ where I've used relations (2) and (3). But this is equal to the tension of the fundamental heterotic string $$ T^h_{F1} = \frac{1}{2\pi\left(l^h_s\right)^2}. $$ This indicates that it is sensible to identify the strong coupling limit of the type-I D1 brane with the heterotic string.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Olof
answered May 22, 2013 by Olof (210 points) [ no revision ]
The standard (and most straightforward) check is to match the spectrum of massless and fund $\leftrightarrow$ BPS objects, like you've done here. What other checks could one do?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Siva
@Siva: Most direct test that I'm aware of involve states that are protected either by a BPS condition or some other mechanism. There are for example stable non-BPS configurations of D-brane that one can compare in the two theories, see eg hep-th/9910217 which builds on earlier work by Ashoke Sen

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Olof

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:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverflo$\varnothing$
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




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

Your rights
...