Graduate Question about dilaton monopole interaction derivation

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the dilaton monopole interaction as outlined by Gibbons and Maeda, specifically questioning the introduction of the variable ##\Psi## to define ##\Sigma## in their equations. The participant notes that the coefficient of (∇φ)² in equation 2.1 indicates a goal of achieving a dilaton kinetic term with a coefficient of 1. They seek clarification on how ##\Sigma## is derived from ##\Psi##, suggesting that it may involve considering the asymptotic behavior of ##\Psi##. Additionally, they draw parallels between the forms of equations 4.7 and 4.8 with those describing electric charge and electrostatic potential. The inquiry emphasizes the need for a clearer understanding of the derivation process in this context.
user1139
Messages
71
Reaction score
8
TL;DR
Please see below.
I am trying to understand how one derives the dilaton monopole interaction. In "Black holes and membranes in higher-dimensional theories with dilaton fields", Gibbons and Maeda mentioned that one could obtain the dilaton monopole interaction as such:

Dilaton monopole interaction derivation by Gibbons and Maeda.


where the action is given by

The action.


However, I do not understand their reasoning for introducing ##\Psi## to define ##\Sigma## in order to derive Eq. (4.8). Could someone explain it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you look at the coefficient of (∇φ)2 in their equation 2.1, you'll see it's minus the square of the field redefinition factor. So they must be aiming for a dilaton kinetic term with a coefficient of 1.
 
mitchell porter said:
If you look at the coefficient of (∇φ)2 in their equation 2.1, you'll see it's minus the square of the field redefinition factor. So they must be aiming for a dilaton kinetic term with a coefficient of 1.
Still, how do they get ##\Sigma## from ##\Psi##? Did they just consider the asymptotic behaviour of ##\Psi## and define ##\Sigma## as such?
 
4.7, 4.8 are the same form as 4.5, 4.4, which describe electric charge and electrostatic potential. The reasoning would appear to be exactly analogous.
 
This is an alert about a claim regarding the standard model, that got a burst of attention in the past two weeks. The original paper came out last year: "The electroweak η_W meson" by Gia Dvali, Archil Kobakhidze, Otari Sakhelashvili (2024) The recent follow-up and other responses are "η_W-meson from topological properties of the electroweak vacuum" by Dvali et al "Hiding in Plain Sight, the electroweak η_W" by Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Francesco Sannino, Jessica Turner "Astrophysical...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K