• 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.


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

135 submissions , 113 unreviewed
3,828 questions , 1,353 unanswered
4,757 answers , 20,128 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
479 active unimported users
More ...

Matrix geometry for F-strings

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

A stack of N D-branes has the strange property that the traverse D-brane coordinates are matrix-valued. When the matrices commute, they can be interpreted as ordinary coordinates for N indistinguishable objects. But in general they correspond to something classical geometry doesn't describe. In particular this leads to a non-perturbative description of string theory on asymptotically Minkowski spacetime: Matrix Theory.

S-Duality exchanges F-strings and D1-strings. This means this odd "matrix geometry" should happen for F-strings as well. The question is, how can we see it directly, without invoking S-duality?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Dec 11, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Squark (1,705 points) [ no revision ]
I apologize for posting additional questions before carefully reading and replying to the discussion around the answers to my previous questions. This is not out of disrespect to the effort put into writing these answers, for which I am very grateful. This is merely because I suspect the site will be closed in 2 days for which reason I'm shooting all the questions I got.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

Matrix string theory


is indeed an exact description of fundamental type IIA strings (and similarly $E_8\times E_8$ heterotic strings) at any (e.g. weak) coupling where you can explicitly see the off-diagonal degrees of freedom. You could say that this description is was obtained by dualities from the low-energy dynamics of D1-branes and you would be right. However, when properly interpreted etc., it's a description of fundamental strings, too.

The reason why we normally (outside matrix string theory) don't see the off-diagonal degrees of freedom is that these off-diagonal degrees of freedom sit in their ground state for generic quantum states. For D1-branes, which are heavy, you may imagine a stack of several D1-branes which are located at the same point (along the same curve, to be more precise), which subsequently guarantees that the open strings connecting 2 different D1-branes – the off-diagonal modes – are light.

However, if the objects we want to connect are fundamental strings, which are light, the uncertainty principle guarantees that they will not be sitting in a fixed position determined with the accuracy better than $L_{\rm string}$ which is why the description of the perturbations in terms of off-diagonal open strings is impossible.

The asymmetry is particularly obvious in type IIB string theory. Two different D1-branes may be connected by light F1-strings. By S-duality, F1-strings may also be connected by D1-branes. However, D1-branes are heavy and F1-strings' separation is at least a string length. So the mass of the D1-branes connecting two different F1-strings, or two different points of an F1-string, will be much greater than the string mass. So there's no systematic description of physics that would consistently incorporate such massive degrees of freedom: there are many more additional degrees of freedom that are lighter and that should be incorporated before the D1-branes connecting the F1-strings.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Dec 12, 2011 by Luboš Motl (10,238 points) [ no revision ]

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).
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