2
$\begingroup$

I have a doubt about R-R potential in Superstring theory. The known facts are (according many books, for example "Basic Concepts in String Theory" by R. Blumenhagen, D. Lüst and S. Theisen):

  1. in the R-R spectrum of Type IIA string I have a one form $C_1$ and a three form $C_3$;
  2. in the R-R spectrum of Type IIB string I have a zero form $C_0$, a two form $C_2$ and a four (anti)self-dual form $C_4$. So we can say there exist $C_p$ with $p=0,1,2,3,4$ somewhere.
  3. To these forms I can associate a field strength via the usual $F_{n+1}=\mathrm{d}C_n$. Of course I will have $F_5 = *F_5$ where the asterisk is the Hodge dual.

The problem is that going ahead in the study (in the same book but in general wherever there are branes) I found $C_p$ with any $p=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9$.

  1. So, how are these $C_p$ with $p>4$ defined? Simply by some duality with respect of the others?
  2. Consequently and consistently how are their field strength defined? With some Hodge dual?
  3. For instance $F_3=\mathrm{d}C_2$, then I can define $F_7=*F_3$, knowing that $\mathrm{d}F_3=0$ how can I say that $\mathrm{d}*F_3=\mathrm{d}F_7=0$?
  4. Once I got $\mathrm{d}F_7=0$, how can I say $F_7=\mathrm{d}C_6$ globally? Why have I assumed the cohomology to be trivial? or equivalently: is this valid only in flat space?
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe the solution is that $C_p$ and $C_{8-p}$ have the same group content, so I can decide which include in the spectrum. When I construct vertex operator, the only thing that I have are spin filed which I combine with gammas to give the R-R field I want. $\endgroup$ – MaPo Apr 15 '16 at 13:45
1
$\begingroup$

In type II superstrings, the Ramond-Ramond fields comes from bi-spinors formed by the two supersymmetries indices. In RNS for example, they are described by the vertex operator $(\Theta F\tilde\Theta)$, where $\Theta,\tilde\Theta$ are the Spin Field for the left and right movers. It is a know fact that the Spin Fields are the supercharges of the target space, up to picture number changing.

In type IIA we have two supersymmetries with opposite chirality $Q^{\alpha}$ and $Q_{\hat{\beta}}$ so the Ramond-Ramond fields are described by the bi-spinor

$$ (F)_{\hat{\beta}}\,^{\alpha}=F\,\delta_{\hat{\beta}}\,^{\alpha}+ F_{mn}\,(\gamma^{mn})_{\hat{\beta}}\,^{\alpha}+F_{mnpq}(\gamma^{mnpq})_{\hat{\beta}}\,^{\alpha} $$

while for Type IIB we have supersymmetries of same chirality $Q_{\alpha}$ and $Q_{\hat{\beta}}$ so the Ramond-Ramond fields are described by

$$ (F)_{\alpha\hat{\beta}}=F_{m}\,(\gamma^{m})_{\alpha\hat{\beta}}+F_{mnp}(\gamma^{mnp})_{\alpha\hat{\beta}} + F_{mnpqr}(\gamma^{mnpqr})_{\alpha\hat{\beta}} $$

The linearized equations of motion that you get from requiring that the RR vetex operators are representatives of the BRST cohomology is the Dirac equation for the spinorial indices of the bi-spinor $F$ that made up $V_{RR}=(\Theta F\tilde\Theta)$

$$ (\gamma^{m})\,_{\alpha\beta}\,\partial_{m}(F)_{\hat{\gamma}}\,^{\beta}=0 $$

$$ (\gamma^{m})\,^{\hat\alpha\hat\beta}\,\partial_{m}(F)_{\hat{\beta}}\,^{\alpha}=0 $$

$$ (\gamma^{m})\,^{\alpha\beta}\,\partial_{m}(F)_{\beta\hat\gamma}=0 $$

$$ (\gamma^{m})\,^{\hat\alpha\hat\beta}\,\partial_{m}(F)_{\gamma\hat\beta}=0 $$

These equations implies for all the $p$-forms the equations $dF=d*F=0$. Note that there is no gauge potential, only the field strengths (also, no gauge invariance coming from $V\cong V + Q \chi$). This is so because the strings does not source RR fields. When you wrote the $C$'s (the gauge potentials), you made a choice of viewing $dF=0$ as a constraint and $d*F=0$ as an equation of motion, but the theory is symmetrical about this choice. We can see the other way around, $d*F=0$ as a constraint and $dF$ as an equation of motion. The only way to break this symmetry is introducing a source for the RR fields, and there is any source for RR fields in absence of branes.

When you introduced the $C$'s you made a particular choice for describing this theory, that might be convenient or not depending on the possible sources you may add. What is really fundamental are the $F$'s, not the $C$'s. See this to learn more about the hole of gauge potentials in gauge theories.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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