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

New features!

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

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,552 answers , 19,366 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

"gauge fixed world-sheet action"

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
11 views

My question is in reference to the action in equation 4.130 of Becker, Becker and Schwartz. It reads as,

$S_{matter}= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int (2\partial X^\mu \bar{\partial}X_\mu + \frac{1}{2}\psi^\mu \bar{\partial} \psi_\mu + \frac{1}{2}\tilde{\psi}^\mu \partial \tilde{\psi}_\mu)d^2z$

  • Its not clear to me as to why this should be the same as the Gervais-Sakita (GS) action as it seems to be claimed to be. Firstly what is the definition of $\tilde{\psi}$? (..no where before in that book do I see that to have been defined..) Their comment just below the action is that this is related to the $\psi_+$ and $\psi_-$ defined earlier but then it doesn't reduce to the GS action.

  • What is the definition of the "bosonic energy momentum tensor" ($T_B(z)$) and the "fermionic energy momentum tensor" ($T_F(z)$)? I don't see that defined earlier in that book either.

I am not able to derive from the above action the following claimed expressions for the tensors as in equation 4.131 and 4.133,

$T_B(z) = -2\partial X^\mu(z)\partial X_\mu (z) - \frac{1}{2}\psi^\mu(z)\partial \psi _\mu (z) = \sum _{n=-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{L_n}{z^{n+2}}$

and

$T_F(z) = 2i\psi^{\mu} (z) \partial X_{\mu} (z) = \sum _{r=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{G_r}{z^{r+\frac{3}{2}}}$

  • It would be helpful if someone can motivate the particular definition of $L_n$ and $G_r$ as above and especially as to why this $T_B(z)$ and $T_F(z)$ are said to be holomorphic when apparently in the summation expression it seems that arbitrarily large negative powers of $z$ will occur - though I guess unitarity would constraint that.

  • Why is this action called "gauge-fixed"? In what sense is it so?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Dec 23, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by user6818 (955 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 5 like - 0 dislike
  • Consider Wick-rotating the action back from Euclidean signature into Lorentzian: you replace $\partial\rightarrow \partial_+$, $\bar{\partial}\rightarrow \partial_-$ and the fields are replaced by $\psi\rightarrow\psi_+$ and $\tilde{\psi}\rightarrow\psi_-$.
  • The action you wrote has an $N=1$ superconformal symmetry (which, I believe, was one of the first SUSY examples) with generators $T_B(z)$ and $T_F(z)$ (sometimes called $T(z)$ and $G(z)$ respectively). Here $T_B$ is the usual energy-momentum tensor (generator of conformal symmetries), while $T_F$ is the supercurrent (supersymmetry generator). See exercises 4.6 and 4.7 for their derivation ($T_F$ is called $J$ there).
  • The conservation of the energy-momentum tensor gives $\bar{\partial} T=0$ on the worldsheet (the punctured complex plane $z\neq 0$), i.e. $T$ is holomorphic. Recall, that $z=\exp(2(\tau+i\sigma))$, so $z=0$ corresponds to $\tau\rightarrow-\infty$. Similarly, conservation of the supercurrent implies that $T_F$ is holomorphic.
  • To (partially) fix the worldsheet diffeomorphism invariance, one usually considers the conformal gauge: $g_{ab}=h_{ab} e^\phi$, where $g_{ab}$ is the worldsheet metric, $h_{ab}$ the flat metric and $\phi$ the dilaton, which decouples. In the action you wrote, the worldsheet metric is flat, which is the gauge-fixing in this case.
This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Dec 23, 2011 by Pavel Safronov (1,115 points) [ no revision ]
I am getting quite confused as to how they keep shifting between the "+-" notation and the "\alpha \beta" notation. I have seen those 4.6 and 4.7 exercises there in 4.6 they seem to be postulating a "new" definition of what is $T_{++}$ and what is $T_{--}$ and its not clear as to how or why they are related to $T_B(z)$. And what happened to our familar definition of the stress-tensor as $ T_{\mu \nu} = (\partial_{\mu} \phi)\frac{\partial L}{\partial (\partial^{\nu} \phi)} - \eta_{\mu \nu}L $ ?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
What I typed above seems to have gotten completely messed up! Can you kindly be a little more explicit. In 4.6 excersise for example they claim $\delta_{+} (\psi_{-}\partial_{+} \psi_{-} + \psi_{+}\partial_{-} \psi_{+}) = \partial_+(\psi_{+}\partial_{-} \psi_{+}) - \partial_{-} (\psi_{+} \partial_{+} \psi_{+})$ This is not clear to me!

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Everything I am writing seems to get messed up! Can you kindly fill in some more details about those exercises - I have seen them but got lost midway.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@user6818, +- refers to the light-cone coordinates: $x_+ = x_0 + x_1$, $x_- = x_0 - x_1$, which become $z$ and $\bar{z}$ in Euclidean signature. The definition of $T$ is simple: it is the Noether current associated to the $z\rightarrow z+\epsilon(z)$ symmetry. What you see in the book is just a trick for computing it. The formula you write for $T_{\mu\nu}$ is correct, but you should be careful with two things: $\psi$ anticommute and $\eta_{+-}=\eta{-+}=1/2$ (the diagonal entries are zero).

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
good answer, +1. User: your first comment got invalidated because you wrote a quotation mark instead of a dollar in front of the first $T_{++}$ in it. So all maths and non-maths got exactly reverted afterwards. You still had time to edit it and fix it, a few minutes!

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I took the liberty of fixing the Tex, there's got to be a better way...

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:
p$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflow
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
...