• 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 , 22,720 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Questions about T- and U- dualities and the non-compact U(1)

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

I'm studying Witten's paper, "String Theory Dynamics in Various Dimensions" (arXiv:hep-th/9503124), and have a few questions from this paper about T- and U- dualities.

On page 3, in the last paragraph, Witten says

...in $d < 10$ dimensions, the Type II theory (Type IIA and Type IIB are equivalent below ten dimensions) is known to have a $T$-duality symmetry $SO(10-d, 10-d; \textbf{Z})$. This $T$-duality group does not commute with the $SL(2, \textbf{Z})$ that is already present in ten dimensions, and together they generate the discrete subgroup of the supergravity symmetry group that has been called $U$-duality.

Question 1 (just to make sure I get this right): From Vafa's lectures (https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9702201), I understand that the T-duality group corresponding to compactification of a Type-II theory on a $d$-torus $T^d$ is $SO(d, d; \textbf{Z})$. So is Witten here referring to a compactification of a $10$-dimensional theory on $T^{10-d}$, i.e. a $(10-d)$-torus, so that there one gets a $d$-dimensional non-compact manifold times a $(10-d)$-dimensional torus?

In the footnote on pages 3-4, Witten says

For instance, in five dimensions, T-duality is $SO(5, 5)$ and U-duality is $E_6$. A proper subgroup of $E_6$ that contains $SO(5, 5)$ would have to be $SO(5, 5)$ itself or $SO(5,5) \times \textbf{R}^*$ ($\textbf{R}^*$ is the non-compact form of $U(1)$), so when one tries to adjoin to $SO(5,5)$ the $SL(2)$ that was already present in ten dimensions (and contains two generators that map NS-NS states to RR states and so are not in $SO(5,5)$) one automatically generates all of $E_6$.

Question 2: Is $\textbf{R}^\star$ the same as $(\mathbb{R}, +)$ described on Stackexchange here? Is the notation standard? Where else can I find it? (Some string theory text?)

Question 3: How do I know whether the proper subgroup of $E_6$ that contains $SO(5,5)$ is $SO(5,5)$ itself or $SO(5,5) \times \textbf{R}^*$? What is the motivation for including $SO(5,5) \times \textbf{R}^*$ in the first place?

Question 4: I understand that the $SL(2)$ being referred to is the S-duality group for Type-IIB in $D = 10$ dimensions (so it is $SL(2, \mathbb{R})$ for Type-IIB SUGRA in $D = 10$ and it is $SL(2, \mathbb{Z})$ for Type-IIB string theory in $D = 10$). But I am confused by the phrase "when one tries to adjoin to $SO(5,5)$ the $SL(2)$ that was already present in ten dimensions...". My question is very silly: why are we trying to adjoin a T-duality group in 5 dimensions with an S-duality group in 10 dimensions in the first place? [Disclaimer: I am fairly certain I have misunderstood Witten's point (and the language) here, so I welcome a critical explanation!]

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-07-31 16:03 (UTC), posted by SE-user leastaction
asked Jul 31, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by leastaction (425 points) [ no revision ]
Those questions are mostly unrelated and this question hence too broad. As for question 2, $R^\times$ or $R^\ast$ are common notations for the group of units of a ring $R$. $\mathbb{R}^\times$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{R},+$ through the logarithm.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-07-31 16:03 (UTC), posted by SE-user ACuriousMind

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