Register to reply

Question on dualities

by metroplex021
Tags: dualities, perturbation theory
Share this thread:
Mar7-14, 04:14 PM
P: 127
Hi folks,

I have been trying to get my head around dualities, and hit a stumbling block right away. Duality hypotheses are framed by thinking about perturbative expansions of interaction lagrangians ( at least when thinking about s-dualities). In such expansions, the first term is regarded as the 'classical' term, and what that means in the path integral approach is that the first term corresponds to the classical trajectory permitted by the interaction.

But then its clear the the perturbative expansion in mind in these discussions of duality cannot be the expansion about the interaction coupling and that Feynman diagrams illustrate, because there the first term is the interaction-free term - not the one describing the classically-permitted trajectory of the interacting system. So can someone tell me what I'm missing when people like Sen discuss dualities in terms of these expansions ( see eg here ?!

I appreciate this is going to be really obvious, but any help would be much appreciated!
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on
'Squid skin' metamaterials project yields vivid color display
Team finds elusive quantum transformations near absolute zero
Scientists control surface tension to manipulate liquid metals (w/ Video)

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Please help me compile a list of phenomenal dualities? General Physics 5
Holographic Dualities and the Potential Misdirection of String Theory Beyond the Standard Model 40
Are dualities not just an expression of equivalence in physical theories? Beyond the Standard Model 16
Why string dualities imply unifying M-theory? Beyond the Standard Model 14
Introductory explanation about dualities? Beyond the Standard Model 7