Urs Schreiber
Aug19-04, 12:01 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I thought all along that there are two different proposals for boundary\nstates of nonabelian gauge fields for superstrings. But it is very easy to\nsee that the one given in\n\nMaeda, Nakatsu, Oonishi:\nNon-linear Field Equation from Boundary State Formalism\nhep-th/0312260\n\nis _the same_ that I considered in hep-th/0407122 .\n\nHere is how to see it:\n\nhttp://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000417.html .\n\nThis answers my question from a while ago. In\n\nhttp://groups.google.de/groups?selm=2mnl5jFokh87U1-100000%40uni-berlin.de\n\nI had written\n\n> Does anyone know if the boundary state given in equation (3.9) of\n> hep-th/0312260 is gauge covariant under A -> U*A*U^-1 + U*(dU^-1)? It is\n> certainly not manifestly so, but probablly there is some subtle effect\nwhich\n> ensures that everything works out right. But it is not transparent to me\n> yet.\n>\n> The only idea I could come up with is to construct a boundary operator in\na\n> similar spirit, but using slightly different techniques. This one does\nturn\n> out to be manifestly gauge covariant. Maybe it amounts to the same as the\n> boundary state considered by the above authors.\n>\n> For more details see\n> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000407.html .\n\nBoy, it\'s so obvious. I should just have taken the time to really think\nabout what Maeda et al\'s expression (3.7) really means when the Grassmann\nvariables are integrated out.\n\nSo Maeda et al\'s boundary state is indeed (relatively manifestly) gauge\ninvariant.\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I thought all along that there are two different proposals for boundary
states of nonabelian gauge fields for superstrings. But it is very easy to
see that the one given in
Maeda, Nakatsu, Oonishi:
Non-linear Field Equation from Boundary State Formalism
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312260
is _the same_ that I considered in http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407122 .
Here is how to see it:
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000417.html .
This answers my question from a while ago. In
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=2mnl5jFokh87U1-100000%40uni-berlin.de
I had written
> Does anyone know if the boundary state given in equation (3.9) of
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312260 is gauge covariant under A -> U*A*U^-1 + U*(dU^-1)? It is
> certainly not manifestly so, but probablly there is some subtle effect
which
> ensures that everything works out right. But it is not transparent to me
> yet.
>
> The only idea I could come up with is to construct a boundary operator in
a
> similar spirit, but using slightly different techniques. This one does
turn
> out to be manifestly gauge covariant. Maybe it amounts to the same as the
> boundary state considered by the above authors.
>
> For more details see
> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000407.html .
Boy, it's so obvious. I should just have taken the time to really think
about what Maeda et al's expression (3.7) really means when the Grassmann
variables are integrated out.
So Maeda et al's boundary state is indeed (relatively manifestly) gauge
invariant.
states of nonabelian gauge fields for superstrings. But it is very easy to
see that the one given in
Maeda, Nakatsu, Oonishi:
Non-linear Field Equation from Boundary State Formalism
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312260
is _the same_ that I considered in http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407122 .
Here is how to see it:
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000417.html .
This answers my question from a while ago. In
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=2mnl5jFokh87U1-100000%40uni-berlin.de
I had written
> Does anyone know if the boundary state given in equation (3.9) of
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312260 is gauge covariant under A -> U*A*U^-1 + U*(dU^-1)? It is
> certainly not manifestly so, but probablly there is some subtle effect
which
> ensures that everything works out right. But it is not transparent to me
> yet.
>
> The only idea I could come up with is to construct a boundary operator in
a
> similar spirit, but using slightly different techniques. This one does
turn
> out to be manifestly gauge covariant. Maybe it amounts to the same as the
> boundary state considered by the above authors.
>
> For more details see
> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000407.html .
Boy, it's so obvious. I should just have taken the time to really think
about what Maeda et al's expression (3.7) really means when the Grassmann
variables are integrated out.
So Maeda et al's boundary state is indeed (relatively manifestly) gauge
invariant.