1
$\begingroup$

What are some good, possibly modern, references for Hanany-Witten brane setups? I know the one of Giveon and Kutasov: Brane Dynamics and Gauge Theories, but I would like to have some more since this one is not super clear to me, beside being a quite old reference. Moreover I would like something that goes straight to the point without being 300 pages long.

Ideally the reference should also discuss how to treat Seiberg like dualities in the brane setup through Hanany-Witten transitions.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a very specific topic and I just want to recommend to reaching out to a professor who has done research in the field. You can also find a very recent paper on this work, and look at the references (that is how I find all of mine). $\endgroup$
    – MathZilla
    Commented Jan 10 at 21:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ or emailing a coauthor on a relevant paper. I feel like I rarely find good answers to "what is the best paper to learn x" online unless x is of pretty broad interest. Would be cool if communities shared this kind of information on a public forum. barring that, could try to find a relevant thesis and hope they cite a good paper or give a good intro themselves. $\endgroup$
    – user34722
    Commented Jan 17 at 5:26

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
+250
$\begingroup$

Sati and Schreiber claim that their hypothesis on the "cohomotopic" foundations of M-theory, implies the ad-hoc rules of Hanany-Witten theory. See section 4.10 of "Differential Cohomotopy implies intersecting brane observables via configuration spaces and chord diagrams".

Maybe their work is a little too modern for your purposes :-) ... but you still might want to see what they say on this topic. Their most recent reference on Hanany-Witten is a 2017 thesis, which at least is a lot more recent that Giveon and Kutasov.

As for Seiberg dualities via Hanany-Witten, Adi Armoni has written a few papers applying them that I found interesting. They aren't reviews, but you could still have a look.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for the answer! I'll take a look to the more formal developments for sure, but I think that the thesis (at least for now) should be enough! The funny thing is that I personally know the author of that thesis but I never looked at it before ahah $\endgroup$
    – Davide Morgante
    Commented Jan 18 at 13:12

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.