6
$\begingroup$

One of the examples that Wikipedia gives of S-duality is the EM duality. Namely that $$ \begin{align} \mathbf{E} &\rightarrow\mathbf{B} \\ \mathbf{B} &\rightarrow -\frac{1}{c^2}\mathbf{E} \quad \text{ or }\quad (E, B) \rightarrow (E \cos \theta - B \sin \theta, B \cos \theta + E \sin \theta) \end{align} $$ or if you prefer $$ F^{\mu \nu} \mapsto{ }^{\star} F^{\mu \nu} \quad{ }^{\star} F^{\mu \nu} \mapsto-F^{\mu \nu}. $$ As far as I understand, an S-duality maps an strongly interactive theory to a weakly interactive one, i.e. generally, $g\mapsto 1/g$. Where can I see this?

I am assuming one would see this at the Hamiltonian/action level but I am a bit lost on how this would work out...

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

You can see it in lots of ways. Here is one of them: Consider the first-order Lagrangian for the Maxwell theory $$L=-\frac{1}{4g^2}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}+\partial_{\mu}\widehat{A}_{\nu}(\star F)^{\mu\nu}.$$ The fields $F^{\mu\nu}$,$\widehat{A}_\mu$ are assumed to be independent and $F^{\mu\nu}$ is not the field strength of a 1-form at this level. Varying this Lagrangian w.r.t. $\widehat{A}_\mu$ will give you the Bianchi identity on $F$, namely $$\partial_{[\mu}F_{\nu\rho]}=0\,,$$ which can be locally solved as $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{[\mu}A_{\nu]}$ for another 1-form $A_\mu$. Plugging this solution back into $L$ will give you the standard second order Maxwell Lagrangian for the $A$ field.

Alternatively, one can vary $L$ w.r.t. $F$ and obtain the so-called duality relation (up to an irrelevant overall factor that can be absorbed into the field $\widehat{A}$) $$F_{\mu\nu}\propto 2g^2\star(\partial_{[\mu}\widehat{A}_{\nu]}):=g^2(\star\widehat{F})_{\mu\nu}.$$ Using this relation, you can see that the first order Lagrangian $L$ becomes the second order Maxwell theory (this time for the dual field $\widehat{A}$) but with the reverse coupling constant, i.e. $$L\propto -\frac{g^2}{4}\widehat{F}^{\mu\nu}\widehat{F}_{\mu\nu}.$$ Thus, you can see that the coupling gets inverted. This justifies why EM duality is a strong-weak one.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer! Could you perhaps explain a bit more explicitly where the duality comes in to play? namely, is $\hat{F}^{\mu \nu} =^{\star} F^{\mu \nu}$ or something analogous? $\endgroup$
    – FriendlyLagrangian
    Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 15:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear @FriendlyLagrangian, unfortunately there was a tedious typo in my first reply and it is related to your comment. I edited my answer and now everything should be clear. $\endgroup$
    – Ozz
    Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ So if I understood you correctly, $F^{\mu \nu} \mapsto *F^{\mu \nu}$ and $*F^{\mu \nu} \mapsto -F^{\mu \nu}$ is a symmetry (I agree). Further more, we can define an object $\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu} \propto -\frac{1}{g^2}*F_{\mu \nu}$ and its dual (using $*^2=-1$). With $\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu} $ we arrive at a second order Maxwell theory but with inverse coupling constant $g$. What is the claim? $\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu} \neq * F^{\mu \nu}$ $\endgroup$
    – FriendlyLagrangian
    Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear @FriendlyLagrangian, yes that is exactly the point. Another way to think about this: Let me switch to standard differential notation for brevity and suppose that we have the duality relation $F=g^2\star\widehat{F}$. If you act on both sides with the differential $d$, you will get $0=d\star d\widehat{F}$ (the Maxwell equation of motion for $\widehat{A}$), simply because $F$ satisfies the Bianchi identity $dF=0$. Now, let's act with $d\star$ on the duality relation. The result should convince you that, under EM duality, one has an ''exchange'' of Bianchi identities with equations of motion. $\endgroup$
    – Ozz
    Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 18:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Regarding the citation, my answer relies on the first-order approach. This is a very basic approach and I cannot really cite one particular reference. I guess you can find the same approach (even for free theories involving different gauge fields in arbitrary number of spacetime dimensions) in any textbook or relevant article :) $\endgroup$
    – Ozz
    Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 18:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.