Correct Type IIA supergravity action

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ygor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Supergravity Type
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the correct formulation of the Type IIA supergravity action in the String frame, highlighting discrepancies between the versions presented in Polchinski and those by Louis and Micu. Polchinski's action includes terms such as \( F_4 = dC_3 - A_1 \wedge H \), while Louis and Micu redefine \( F_4 \) as \( \hat F_4 = d\hat C_3 - d\hat A_1 \wedge \hat B_2 \). The difference in the Ricci scalar sign is attributed to varying spacetime signature conventions. Ultimately, the actions are deemed equivalent through local field redefinitions and integration by parts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Type IIA supergravity action
  • Familiarity with string theory terminology
  • Knowledge of local field redefinitions in field theory
  • Basic principles of integration by parts in theoretical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of different spacetime signature conventions in supergravity theories
  • Study local field redefinitions and their role in field theory equivalences
  • Examine the mathematical foundations of integration by parts in theoretical physics
  • Explore the derivation and applications of Chern-Simons terms in string theory
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, string theorists, and researchers focused on supergravity actions and their formulations. It provides insights into the equivalence of different action representations and the underlying mathematical principles.

Ygor
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm trying to figure out what the correct form is of the Type IIA supergravity action in the String frame. The peculiar thing is that I'm finding different versions in the literature. Let me state two different ones.

In Polchinski, the action is given by

[tex] S = \frac{1}{2\kappa_{10}} \int_X e^{-2\phi} (R \ast \mathbf{1} + 4 \phi \wedge \ast \phi -\frac{1}{2} H \wedge \ast H) - \frac{1}{2}(F_2 \wedge \ast F_2 + F_4 \wedge \ast F_4) +<br /> - \frac{1}{2} B_2 \wedge dC_3 \wedge dC_3,[/tex]
where
[tex] F_4 = dC_3 - A_1 \wedge H[/tex]

Then in articles by Louis and Micu if find

[tex] \begin{equation}<br /> S = \int \,e^{-2\hat\phi} \big( \frac12 \hat R ^\ast\! {\bf 1} + 2<br /> d \hat\phi \awedge d \hat\phi - \frac12 \hat H_3 \awedge \hat H_3 \big) <br /> - \frac12 \, \big(<br /> \hat F_2 \awedge \hat F_2 + \hat F_4 \awedge \hat F_4 \big)<br /> - \frac12\Big[<br /> \hat B_2 \wg d\hat C_3 \wg d\hat C_3 - (\hat B_2)^2 \wg d\hat C_3 \wg<br /> d\hat A_1 + \frac13 (\hat B_2)^3\wg d\hat A_1 \wg d \hat A_1\Big] \notag ,<br /> \end{equation}<br /> where <br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \hat F_4 = d\hat C_3 - d\hat A_1 \wg \hat B_2\ , \qquad \hat F_2 = d\hat A_1\ ,<br /> \qquad \hat H_3 = d \hat B_2 \notag<br /> \end{equation}[/tex]

Now my question is, which one is correct? (In particular, note the difference in F_4). Moreover, sometimes i see these actions with a minus sign in front of the Ricci scalar. Does anyone know where that comes from?

Note also, that according to Louis and Micu the action can be rewritten by redefining [tex]F_4[/tex] as [tex]\hat C_3\to \hat C_3 + \hat A_1\wedge\hat B_2[/tex] so that it becomes

[tex] \begin{equation}<br /> S = \int \, e^{-2\hat\phi} \left( \frac12 \hat R ^\ast\! {\bf 1} + 2<br /> d \hat\phi \awedge d \hat\phi - \frac14 \hat H_3\awedge \hat H_3 \right) <br /> - \frac12 \, \left(\hat F_2 \awedge \hat F_2 + \hat F_4 \awedge \hat<br /> F_4 \right) + \frac12 \hat H_3 \wedge \hat C_3 \wedge d \hat C_3 \notag , <br /> \end{equation}[/tex]
where [tex]\hat F_4 = d \hat C_3 - \hat A_1 \wedge\hat H_3[/tex]. It thus appears that the F_4 definition as given in Polchinski belongs is associated to a different Chern Simmons term?

I hope anyone can help.

Thanks,

Ygor
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Ygor, your post was over a month ago, so I hope this isn't pointless...

They are equivalent actions, just different ways of writing them.
(1) the sign in from of the Ricci scalar term *may* be due to different spacetime signature conventions (-++...+) vs. (+--...-)...I don't know what conventions they have.
(2) The key to the equivalence of the actions is
(A) the "local field redefinition" [tex]C\rightarrow C+A\wedge B[/tex] is allowed since the field you're redefining,C, only appears with derivatives [tex]dC[/tex] in the initial Louis/Micu action; and
(B) [tex]\int B\wedge dC\wedge dC = -\int dB\wedge C\wedge dC[/tex] by integration by parts and assuming [tex]\int d[...]=0[/tex], a typical assumption in field theories for non-compact dimensions.

Look ok?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K