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 printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

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

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,848 answers , 20,603 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Brane polarisation (Myers Effect/Polchinski-Strassler/KPV)

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
68 views

I have a question about brane polarisation. In the most famous cases I know of--the original giant D2 brane of Myers, the Polchinski-Strassler resolution of the $\mathcal{N}=1^*$ IR singularity, and the KPV metastable state corresponding to an NS5 brane carrying anti-D3 charge, the lower dimensional brane charge carried by the blown up brane is described by a magnetic field strength. For example, in the original Myers calculation, the D0 charge of the D2 brane is given by $\int_{S^2} F \propto N$.

I'm confused because in 1006.3587 Klebanov and Pufu essentially repeat the KPV analysis for an M-theory version of the Klebanov-Strassler solution. Here they add an electric field strength, $F_{01} \propto \mathcal{E}$. They calculate the brane potential in terms of the electric field $\mathcal{E}$, and then preform a Legendre transformation to get the potential in terms of the anti-F1 charge (which they call $p$).

Why do they take a different approach from the other examples of the Myers effect? Are the two equivalent, or different for an important reason that I don't understand?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-02-01 12:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Surgical Commander
asked Jan 31, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by Surgical Commander (155 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Feb 1, 2015

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$\hbar$ysicsOverf$\varnothing$ow
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
...