BRST quantization of string question

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter simic4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quantization String
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the BRST quantization of the bosonic string action as outlined in Polchinski's String Theory, specifically in Chapter 4.2, equations 4.3.1a-c. The user grapples with the legitimacy of employing ghost field equations of motion, d_bar c = 0 and d_bar b = 0, within the action to verify BRST invariance. The conclusion reached is that checking BRST invariance from the alternative action in equation 4.2.3 is more appropriate, as it reveals that the ghost components effectively act as a delta function enforcing the ghost equation of motion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of BRST quantization principles
  • Familiarity with Polchinski's String Theory, particularly Chapter 4.2
  • Knowledge of ghost fields in string theory
  • Concept of Noether's theorem in the context of field theories
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of ghost fields in string theory
  • Explore the derivation of BRST currents from Noether's theorem
  • Investigate the role of conformal gauge in string theory
  • Review the integration of ghost fields in action formulations
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, string theorists, and graduate students focusing on quantum field theory and BRST quantization methods.

simic4
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am confused about the following, I was hoping someone could help:

The context: Polchinski Ch. 4.2, specifically equations 4.3.1a-c

I am verifying the BRST invariance of the bosonic string action (after one has integrated out B, and the weyl ghost),, I notice that one must use the ghost field equations of motion! d_bar c = 0 = d_bar b = 0.

i am not accustomed to being able to use equations of motion inside actions! why is this allowed..? Furthermore,, doesn't this make the whole process of deriving the brst current (eq 4.3.3) from Noether's theorem rather arbitrary?

This problem cannot be totally removed by checking BRST invariance from the "other" action (the action in 4.2.3,, the one before one integrates out B) because for the bosonic part to be invariant, one must assume c holomorphic,, ie d_bar c = 0.

perhaps i am missing a rather subtle point..
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ah indeed,, I think I have it ( all these statements are in conformal gauge):

First off, one should check BRST invariance of the "other" action (the action in 4.2.3,, the one before one integrates out B), this is obviously the more correct way to go: then the only place one must use the equation of motion of c, the ghost, is in the free bosonic part of the action (S_1 in polchinski 4.2.3). However, this is perfectly fine, because one notices that the ghost part, consisting of B, c, and b, is in fact nothing but a delta function (in disguise) enforcing the c equation of motion! this can be seen by integrating out B, then b.. what is left, although perhaps in an uncommon representation,, is a delta function of d_bar c.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K