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

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

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,082 questions , 2,232 unanswered
5,353 answers , 22,786 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

  The string Poisson bracket

+ 5 like - 0 dislike
3067 views

Where does the factor $\frac{1}{T}$ ($T$ is the string tension) in this Poisson bracket come from?

$$ \{X^{\mu}(\tau,\sigma),\dot{X}^{\nu}(\tau,\sigma')\} ~=~ \frac{1}{T}\delta(\sigma-\sigma')\eta_{\mu\nu}. $$

I think I can see from remembering the definition of a Poisson bracket (for example in canonical coordinates) why in terms of momentum we have

$$ \{P^{\mu}(\tau,\sigma),X^{\nu}(\tau,\sigma')\} ~=~ \delta(\sigma-\sigma')\eta_{\mu\nu} $$

but I don't see why this factor in the first equation has to be there.

In addition to deriving it by calculation, is there an intuitive physical way how one can see why the factor of inverse tension has to be there, similar to explaining the appearance of the tension in front of the integral in the action by the fact that it costs energy to stretch the world-sheet?

asked Mar 15, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Dilaton (6,240 points) [ revision history ]
Most voted comments show all comments
You might want to also mention what the context of this question is.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user joshphysics
@joshphysics huh? I do not know what you exactly mean. Can you give an answer? I suspect that it is a darn embarassingly simple thing I just dont see ...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
Oh I don't have an answer, I just mean that someone seeing this question may not recognize that it's being asked in the context of string world sheets, so it might help to mention that.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user joshphysics
@joshphysics ah ok, I see. I will do, if I'll get my WLAN running again at home :-/

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
I put the string-theory tag on it as a start.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user David Z
Most recent comments show all comments
@MichaelBrown Maybe ... but I am not too fond of purely dimensional arguments and nothing else ... ;-)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
Agreed. I just didn't know what else it could be. Defering to others on this one. :)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Michael Brown

2 Answers

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

It comes from the normalization of the Polyakov action, \begin{align*} S=\frac{T}{2}\int d^2\sigma\, (\dot{X}^\mu\dot{X}_\mu-{X'}^\mu{X'}_\mu). \end{align*} The canonical momentum is \begin{align*} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{X}^\mu}=T\dot{X}_\mu, \end{align*} and this gives the equal time commutator (or Poisson bracket) that you wrote down, \begin{align*} [X^\mu(\tau,\sigma),\dot{X}^\nu(\tau,\sigma')]=\frac{i}{T}\eta^{\mu\nu}\delta(\sigma-\sigma'). \end{align*} The way I think about this is that as the tension of the string goes to zero, the string becomes less and less classical (alternatively, $T$ plays the role of $1/\hbar$ on the worldsheet).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Matthew
answered Mar 15, 2013 by Matthew (320 points) [ no revision ]
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Matthew Dodelson has already given the main reason in his answer: The string action $S$ (either the Nambu-Goto or the Polyakov action) is proportional to the string tension $T_0$. So the canonical momentum density

$$\tag{$\star$} {\cal P}^{\tau}_I ~:=~\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \dot{X}^{I}}~=~\frac{T_0}{c^2} \eta_{IJ}\dot{X}^{J}$$

becomes proportional to the string tension $T_0$ as well. (The latter equality in ($\star$) is only true with further assumptions. See e.g. B. Zwiebach, A first course in string theory, for details.)

Finally, let us restore the correct factors of speed of light $c$ in the Poisson brackets:

$$\tag{$\star\star$}\{X^{I}(\tau,\sigma),\dot{X}^{J}(\tau,\sigma')\}_{PB} ~=~ \frac{c^2}{T_0}\delta(\sigma-\sigma')\eta^{IJ}.$$

Both sides of ($\star\star$) have now dimension of inverse mass $M^{-1}$. This is a consequence of the following dimensional analysis:

$$[\tau]~=~ \text{dim. of time} ~=:~T,$$

$$[\sigma] ~=~ \text{dim. of length} ~=:~L~=~ [X],$$

$$[c]~=~ \text{dim. of speed} ~=~\frac{L}{T}, $$

$$[T_0] ~=~ \text{dim. of force} ~=~\frac{ML}{T^2},$$

$$[\text{Poisson bracket}] ~=~[\{\cdot, \cdot\}_{PB}] ~=~ \frac{1}{\text{dim. of angular momentum}}~=~\frac{T}{ML^2}. $$

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
answered Mar 15, 2013 by Qmechanic (3,120 points) [ no revision ]
Thanks Qmechanic, I like these additional explanations.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification




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

Your rights
...