1
$\begingroup$

I've been looking at David Tong's Lectures on String Theory.

He states that the low-energy effective action of the bosonic string is given by $$S=\frac{1}{2k_0^2}\int d^{26}X\sqrt{-G}e^{-2\Phi}\Big(\mathcal{R}-\frac{1}{12}H_{\mu\nu\lambda}H^{\mu\nu\lambda}+4\partial_\mu\Phi\partial^\mu\Phi\Big)\tag{7.16}$$

If this expression is related to the Polyakov action $$S=-\frac{1}{4\pi\alpha'}\int d^2\sigma\sqrt{-g}g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\alpha X^\mu\partial_\beta X^\nu \eta_{\mu\nu}\tag{1.22}$$

then should it also have a minus sign at the front?

I ask this because if there is a minus sign in front of (7.16) then the kinetic and potential terms of the dilaton field $\Phi$, including the interaction term with the Ricci scalar, have the correct sign for a scalar lagrangian given David Tong's choice of signature $(-1,+1,+1,...,+1)$.

One can argue that the overall sign of the action doesn't matter but in the second paragraph of section 7.3.1 Tong himself worries about the sign of the kinetic term for $\Phi$. Is he wrong to be worried?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ 1. why would it be related to the Polyakov action (or rather, what exactly do you mean by "related" here?)? 7.16 is an action for fields on the bosonic target space, while 1.22 is an action for worldsheet coordinates on the worldsheet. 2. The sign of the action does in general not matter, note that Tong himself writes 1.22 without the minus sign in 7.1 Why exactly do you think it matter here, and why are you asking about 7.16 and not already 7.1? $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented Apr 10, 2020 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ I ask this because if there is a minus sign in front of (7.16) then the kinetic and potential terms of the dilaton field $\Phi$, including the interaction term with the Ricci scalar, have the correct sign given David Tong's choice of signature $(-1,+1,+1,...,+1)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 10, 2020 at 15:46
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "correct sign"? What becomes incorrect using the other overall sign? $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented Apr 10, 2020 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ Shouldn't the kinetic term $\dot{\Phi}^2$ be positive? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 10, 2020 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ Why? See physics.stackexchange.com/q/7285/50583 for a discussion of the irrelevance of the overall sign/scaling of the action in general. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented Apr 10, 2020 at 15:53

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

The two signs are not correlated.

Also: your (Tong's) (7.16) is not in a canonical form where you can immediately determine the positivity of the energy by reading off the sign in the kinetic term. (This is why we make people have positive $\dot\phi^2$ terms in their lagrangians, although as @ACuriousMind mentions the actual sign is arbitrary; it is only important for the energy of a system to have either an upper bound or a lower bound.) And indeed Tong claims (but I didn't check myself) that when you do bring this lagrangian to canonical form by going to Einstein frame, all the kinetic terms are positive.

$\endgroup$

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.