Bosonic action in M Theory -> IIA Theory

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AlphaNumeric
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    M theory Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between M Theory and IIA string theory, particularly focusing on the process of dimensional reduction and the implications of considering only the bosonic part of the action. Participants explore the nature of M Theory as a bosonic theory and its transition into a fermionic framework in IIA, while questioning the sufficiency of analyzing just the bosonic action.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that various texts and papers discuss converting the bosonic action of M Theory into the action for IIA string theory, but questions why the bosonic part is sufficient given the presence of fermions in IIA.
  • Another participant asserts that while IIA and M Theory are related, they are not fully equivalent and one cannot completely derive one from the other.
  • A different participant clarifies that IIA is derived from compactifying an 11-dimensional theory, specifically mentioning the process of dimensional reduction from 11-dimensional supergravity to IIA's bosonic action.
  • Concerns are raised about the adequacy of focusing solely on the bosonic action, with references to literature that begins with the bosonic action without addressing fermions.
  • It is highlighted that not all objects in IIA, such as D0-branes, can be obtained from the dimensional reduction of 11-dimensional supergravity, and that D0-branes exist in the bosonic sector of IIA.
  • One participant discusses the emergence of an additional dimension in IIA at strong coupling, suggesting that M Theory may be realized in this limit, despite IIA having a fermionic sector that is deemed irrelevant in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between M Theory and IIA, with some asserting a connection through dimensional reduction while others emphasize the limitations of this approach. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of focusing solely on the bosonic action and the role of fermions in IIA.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the relationship between M Theory and IIA, including the limitations of dimensional reduction and the specific characteristics of D0-branes. There is an ongoing uncertainty about the sufficiency of the bosonic action in capturing the full dynamics of IIA string theory.

AlphaNumeric
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
In various textbooks like Polchinski and in papers like Witten hep-th/9503124 they go through the process of starting with the bosonic action (in p-form notation) of M Theory and turning it into the action for IIA string theory.

I understand the process (ie dimensional reduction) which converts one action into another, but I don't understand why looking at just the bosonic part of the action is sufficent, given IIA includes fermions. During the process of compactifying and dimensional reduction the M Theory action splits into various parts, the NS-NS part, the R-R part and the CS part (ie a mixture of NS and R terms). Is it the case that M theory is a purely bosonic theory which then turns into a fermionic one when you reduce to 10 dimensions?

Thanks for any help :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, IIA and M-theory are related, but where have you read that they're equivalent? One cannot fully obtain one from the other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not so much directly equivalent, but that IIA is partly derived from taking an 11 dimensional theory and compactifying it on a circle in one dimension.

For instance, in the http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9503/9503124.pdf he considers the bosonic action for 11 dimensional super gravity, compactifies it and then turns it into the IIA bosonic action. This then shows that they are related through the various transformations (Paragraph starting 'So we need an eleven-dimensional...' on Page 10).

I'm confused why it's okay only to talk about the bosonic part. In the various bits of literature I've read they always start with the bosonic action for the 11 dimensional theory and don't mention fermions at all.

/edit

Actually, have I just got this all muddled up. It's not that M Theory reduces to IIA, but that you can turn 11d super gravity into IIA via dimensional reduction, and that super gravity is the low energy, long distance limit of M Theory, which is an as yet incomplete theory since short distance physics at strong coupling is not yet understood.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not all of the objects in IIA can be obtained by dimensional reduction of ordinary eleven dimensional supergravity. In particular, this is true of D0-branes. Now, it is an R-R gauge boson that couples to D0-branes, so D0-branes are in the bosonic sector of IIA. In the limit of large string coupling g>>1, the spectrum of D0-branes becomes a continuum of light states. This is characteristic of a system acquiring an additional large spacetime dimension. Thus there is an eleventh dimension that appears in IIA for g>>1 that doesn’t appear in the perturbative sector of IIA - the sector in which g<1 when D0-branes don’t appear. Thus M-theory (by which we mean the stringy eleven dimensional supergravity) may be discovered in the strong coupling limit of the bosonic sector of IIA, so - and this is the point - although IIA has a fermionic sector, it's irrelevant for this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Josh. You've pretty much confirmed (with a tweak or two) what I had in my head for how they all sort of mesh together.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
675
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K