• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,719 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Connection between the M5 brane and (2, 0) superconformal field theory

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

I have read that the worldvolume theory of the M5 brane is a $(2, 0)$ superconformal field theory (SCFT). But I have also learnt from talks that the $(2, 0)$ theory lacks a Lagrangian description.

There are candidate actions for the M5 brane worldvolume theory, but if one would take any such candidate action, would it contradict the above statement (or is there some caveat about the action being well defined without the Lagrangian being well defined)?

Also, would pushing to get a worldvolume action for the M5 brane OR advances in understanding $(2, 0)$ SCFTs imply some deeper understanding of M theory?

Finally, compactifying a six-dimensional $(2, 0)$ SCFT on a suitable Riemann surface can yield more "familiar" theories, which do have Lagrangian descriptions. How does one explain the fact that a compactification of apparently a non-Lagrangian theory can yield a Lagrangian theory in lower dimensions?

I'd also appreciate if someone can share any pedagogical or at least introductory references about these topics, particularly the advances in the $(2, 0)$ theories.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-08-04 14:38 (UTC), posted by SE-user leastaction

asked Jul 28, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by leastaction (425 points) [ revision history ]
edited Aug 4, 2015 by Dilaton
This is a very interesting question with lots of dimensions and subtleties and implicit errors in the question etc. First of all, (2,0) is just the low energy, deep infrared limit of the dynamics of coincident M5-branes, not "everything" about M5-branes in a generic situation. Second, the non-existence of a Lagrangian description is a conjecture, or a claim about the invalidity of the usual simplest Lagrangians we could guess. The problem is with the self-duality of the 3-form.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-08-04 14:38 (UTC), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
Also, there is no contradiction between the non-existence of a Lagrangian of a full theory, and the existence of a Lagrangian for a dimensionally reduced (compactified, taken to the limit) theory. And yes, the behavior of M5-branes must have some more contrived, bootstrap-like, cubic and higher-order etc. structures that are seeds of those in all of M-theory. There are some hints in the literature, but no complete answer. Each paper about (2,0), and there are lots of them, addresses these questions to one extent or another but there's no known complete answer.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-08-04 14:38 (UTC), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
Thanks for the response @LubošMotl. I don't mean to imply that there is a contradiction between the non-existence of a Lagrangian for a full theory and the existence of one for a compactified theory. But, as a student I only studied the Kaluza-Klein reduction, and in all the standard examples, there is an algorithm connecting the dimensionally reduced action to the uncompactified action. How is the compactification here different? Again, maybe this is a wrong question.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-08-04 14:38 (UTC), posted by SE-user leastaction

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Here are some references:


In particular section 3 and 4 on the question of conformally invariant six dimensional theories with self dual field strengths.

Much more on the (2,0) theories:


In particular section 5.11 on existence of actions and dimensional reduction and section 6 on physical constructions of (2,0) theories and  the relation with M5 branes.

answered Aug 4, 2015 by 40227 (5,140 points) [ revision history ]

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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights