2
$\begingroup$

I have a question in reading Polchinski's string theory volume 1.

p12-p13

Given the Polyakov action $S_P[X,\gamma]= - \frac{1}{4 \pi \alpha'} \int_M d \tau d \sigma (-\gamma)^{1/2} \gamma^{ab} \partial_a X^{\mu} \partial_b X_{\mu}$ (1.2.13),

how to show it has a Weyl invariance

$\gamma'_{ab}(\tau,\sigma) = \exp (2\omega(\tau,\sigma)) \gamma_{ab} (\tau,\sigma)$?

Because both $ (-\gamma)^{1/2} $ and $\gamma^{ab}$ give a factor $\exp(2\omega(\tau,\sigma))$, they do not cancel each other

Thank you very much in advance

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ You might consider splitting this up into three questions and including some more of your thoughts on each like where you're stuck. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 3:01
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean split this into three posts? (since the old post already marked as 1) 2) 3)). I have removed questions 2 and 3 for this moment $\endgroup$
    – user26143
    Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ @user26143: Yes, that's what he means. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 1, 2013 at 2:58

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

The transformed action is

\begin{align} \int d\tau d\sigma &\left[-\gamma'(\tau, \sigma)\right]^{1/2} \gamma'^{ab}(\tau, \sigma)\frac{\partial X'^\mu}{\partial \sigma^a}(\tau, \sigma)\frac{\partial X'_\mu}{\partial \sigma^b}(\tau, \sigma) \notag\\ &= \int d\tau d\sigma \left[-[e^{2\omega(\tau, \sigma)}]^2\gamma(\tau, \sigma)\right]^{1/2} e^{-2\omega(\tau, \sigma)}\gamma^{ab}(\tau, \sigma)\frac{\partial X^\mu}{\partial \sigma^a}(\tau, \sigma)\frac{\partial X_\mu}{\partial \sigma^b}(\tau, \sigma) \notag\\ &= \int d\tau d\sigma \left[-\gamma(\tau, \sigma)\right]^{1/2} \gamma^{ab}(\tau, \sigma)\frac{\partial X^\mu}{\partial \sigma^a}(\tau, \sigma)\frac{\partial X_\mu}{\partial \sigma^b}(\tau, \sigma) \end{align} In the first equality, the squared exponential factor inside the square root comes from the identity \begin{align} \det (cA) &= c^n\det A \end{align} for an $n\times n$ matrix $A$. The minus sign in the $e^{-2\omega}$ factor in the transformation of $\gamma^{ab}$ comes from the fact that $\gamma^{ab}$ is the inverse of $\gamma_{ab}$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ @user26143 Sure thing. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 3:19

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.