Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory, and Strings: Les Houches Session Lxxvi

ÉCOLE DE PHYSIQUE DES HOUCHES – UJF & INPG – GRENOBLE a NATO Advanced Study Institute LES HOUCHES SESSION LXXVI 30 Jul...

Author: Bachas C. (Ed) | Douglas M. (Ed)

25 downloads 851 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

ÉCOLE DE PHYSIQUE DES HOUCHES – UJF & INPG – GRENOBLE

a NATO Advanced Study Institute

LES HOUCHES SESSION LXXVI 30 July – 31 August 2001 Unity from duality: Gravity, gauge theory and strings L’unité de la physique fondamentale : gravité, théorie de jauge et cordes Edited by C. BACHAS, A. BILAL, M. DOUGLAS, N. NEKRASOV and F. DAVID

Springer Les Ulis, Paris, Cambridge

Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Hong Kong, London, Milan, Paris, Tokyo

Published in cooperation with the NATO Scientific Affair Division

ISSN 0924-8099 print edition ISSN 1610-3459 online edition ISBN 3-540-00276-6 ISBN 2-86883-625-9

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York EDP Sciences Les Ulis

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is only permitted under the provisions of the French and German Copyright laws of March 11, 1957 and September 9, 1965, respectively. Violations fall under the prosecution act of the French and German Copyright Laws. © EDP Sciences; Springer-Verlag 2002 Printed in France

Preface The 76th session of the Les Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics was devoted to recent developments in string theory, gauge theories and quantum gravity. As frequently stated, Superstring Theory is the leading candidate for a uniﬁed theory of all fundamental physical forces and elementary particles. This claim, and the wish to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics, have provided the main impetus for the development of the theory over the past two decades. More recently the discovery of dualities, and of important new tools such as D-branes, has greatly reinforced this point of view. On the one hand there is now good reason to believe that the underlying theory is unique. On the other hand, we have for the ﬁrst time working (though unrealistic) microscopic models of black hole mechanics. Furthermore, these recent developments have lead to new ideas about compactiﬁcation and the emergence of low-energy physics. While pursuing the goal of uniﬁcation we have also witnessed a dramatic return to the “historic origins” of string theory as a dual model for meson physics. Indeed, the study of stringy black branes has uncovered a surprising relation between string theory and large-N gauge dynamics. This was cristallized in the AdS/CFT correspondence, which has revived the old hope for a string description of the strong interaction. The AdS/CFT correspondence is moreover a prime illustration of the central role of string theory in modern theoretical physics. Much like quantum ﬁeld theory in the past, it provides a fertile springboard for new tools, concepts and insights, which should have ramiﬁcations in wider areas of physics and mathematics. The main lectures of the Les Houches school covered most of the recent developments, in a distilled and pedagogical fashion. Students were expected to have a good knowledge of quantum ﬁeld theory, and of basic string theory at the level, for instance, of the ﬁrst ten chapters of Green, Schwarz and Witten. The emphasis was on acquiring a working knowledge of advanced string theory in its present form, and on critically assessing open problems and future directions. The lectures by Bernard de Wit were a comprehensive introduction to supergravities in diﬀerent dimensions and with various numbers of supersymmetries. Topics covered include the allowed low-energy couplings, duality symmetries, compactiﬁcations and supersymmetry in curved backgrounds.

xxii

Part of this is older material not easily accessible in the literature, and presented here from a modern perspective. Eliezer Rabinovici lectured on supersymmetric gauge theories, reviewing earlier and more recent results for N = 1, 2 and 4 supersymmetries in four dimensions. These results include the structure of the eﬀective lagrangians, non-renormalization theorems, dualities, the celebrated Seiberg-Witten solution and brane engineering of eﬀective gauge theories. M-theory and string dualities were introduced in the lectures by Ashoke Sen. He reviewed the conjectured relations between the ﬁve perturbative string theories, the maximal N = 1 supergravity in eleven dimensions and their compactiﬁcations. He summarized our present-day knowledge of the still elusive fundamental or “M theory”, from which the above theories derive as special limits. More recent topics include non-BPS branes, where duality is of limited (but not zero) use. Philip Candelas gave a pedagogical introduction to the important subject of Calabi Yau compactiﬁcations. He ﬁrst reviewed the older material, and then discussed more recent aspects, including second quantized mirror symmetry, conifold transitions and some intriguing relations to number theory. Unfortunately a written version of his lectures could not be included in this volume. The holographic gauge/string theory correspondence was the subject of the lectures by Juan Maldacena and by Igor Klebanov. Maldacena introduced the conjectured equivalence between string theory in the near-horizon geometries of various black branes and gauge theories in the large Ncolor limit. He focused on the celebrated example of N = 4 four-dimensional super Yang Mills dual to string theory in AdS5 × S5 , and gave a critical review of the existing evidence for this correspondence. He also discussed analogous conjectures in other spacetime dimensions, in particular those relevant to the study of stringy black holes, and of the still elusive little string theory. Igor Klebanov then concentrated on this duality in the phenomenologically more interesting contexts of certain N = 1 and 2 supersymmetric gauge theories in four dimensions. He reviewed the relevant geometries on the supergravity side, which include non-trivial ﬂuxes and fractional branes, and discussed the gravity duals of renormalization group ﬂow, conﬁnement and chiral symmetry breaking. These results have revived and made sharper the old ideas about the “master ﬁeld” of large N gauge theory. The lectures of Michael Green dealt with some ﬁner aspects of string dualities and of the gauge theory/string theory correspondence. He discussed higher derivative couplings in eﬀective supergravity actions, focusing in particular on the contributions of instantons both in string theory and on the

xxiii

Yang Mills side. His lectures also included some introductory material on Dbranes. Unfortunately a written version of his lectures could not be included in this volume. Andrew Strominger gave a detailed introduction to quantum gravity in a de Sitter spacetime. He discussed in particular whether ideas of holography, that have worked well in anti de Sitter, could also be applied in this case. This was one of the more speculative subjects in the school, but a fascinating one not the least because astrophysical observations seem to indicate that we actually live in an accelerating universe. Finally Michael Douglas gave three lectures on D-brane geometry, and in particular on the problem of classifying all N = 1 string-theory vacua, while Alexander Gorsky discussed N = 1 and N = 2 supersymmetric gauge theories and their relation to integrable models. Nikita Nekrasov lectured on open strings and non-commutative gauge theories. Some more advanced and/or topical subjects were covered in the accompanying series of seminars. Seminar speakers included Laurent Baulieu, Mirjam Cvetiˇc, Frank Ferrari, Dan Freedman, Bernard Julia, Peter Mayr, Soo-Jong Rey, Augusto Sagnotti, Samson Shatashvili, and one of the organizers (C.B.). There was also a lively weekly student seminar and discussion sessions, which contributed greatly to the lively and stimulating atmosphere of the school. Some of the seminar speakers have kindly accepted to contribute to the present volume. In the year that has elapsed since the end of the school there have been further developments in the subject. The pp-waves, which arise as Penrose limits of near-horizon geometries, oﬀer for instance a new line of attack on the important problem of solving string theory in Ramond-Ramond backgrounds. Such developments and others will no doubt make, one day, the present volume obsolete. This is of course no reason for regret – to the contrary we hope that this may happen sooner rather than later, and that the participants of this school will help shape the (non-recognisable?) future form of M theory. Acknowledgements This Les Houches school and the present proceedings were made possible due to the contributions of many individuals and several diﬀerent funding sources. Funding sources included the NATO Scientiﬁc Aﬀairs Division through its Advanced Study Institute program, the European Union through its ´ High-Level Scientiﬁc Conferences program, the Commissariat `a l’Energie Atomique, the Universit´e Joseph Fourier de Grenoble, and two European

xxiv

IHP Networks: “Superstring Theory” (HPRN-CT-2000-00122) and “The Quantum Structure of Spacetime” (HPRN-CT-2000-00131). Among the many people contributing to the success of the school, we should mention - the board of the School and in particular Fran¸cois David, who has worked tirelessly at all diﬀerent stages (funding applications, admissions, running the session, preparation of proceedings) exceeding often the organizers in zeal and energy; - the secretaries Mmes G. D’Henry, I. Leli`evre and B. Rousset (and the other personnel of the school), who helped solve administrative and everyday problems; and last but not least - the lecturers, for their eﬀorts in presenting hard material in a clear and pedagogical fashion, and also for writing up their lecture notes.

Costas Bachas Adel Bilal Michael Douglas Nikita Nekrasov Fran¸cois David

CONTENTS

Lecturers

xi

Participants

xiii

Pr´eface

xvii

Preface

xxi

Contents

xxv

Lecture 1. Supergravity by B. de Wit

1

1 Introduction 2 Supersymmetry in various dimensions 2.1 The Poincar´e supersymmetry algebra . . . . 2.2 Massless supermultiplets . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 D = 11 supermultipets . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 D = 10 supermultiplets . . . . . . . 2.2.3 D = 6 supermultiplets . . . . . . . . 2.3 Massive supermultiplets . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Central charges and multiplet shortening . . 2.5 On spinors and the R-symmetry group HR

3

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

4 5 7 8 9 13 17 19 22

3 Supergravity 3.1 Simple supergravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Maximal supersymmetry and supergravity . . . . . . 3.3 D = 11 supergravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Dimensional reduction and hidden symmetries . . . 3.5 Frames and ﬁeld redeﬁnitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Kaluza–Klein states and BPS-extended supergravity 3.7 Nonmaximal supersymmetry: Q = 16 . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

28 28 32 35 38 43 46 53

4 Homogeneous spaces and nonlinear sigma models 4.1 Nonlinearly realized symmetries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Geometrical quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Nonlinear sigma models with homogeneous target space 4.4 Gauged nonlinear sigma models . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

55 56 61 66 69

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

xxvi

5 Gauged maximal supergravity in 4 and 5 dimensions 5.1 On E7(7) /SU (8) and E6(6) /U Sp(8) cosets . . . . . . . . 5.2 On ungauged maximal supergravity Lagrangians . . . . 5.3 Electric–magnetic duality and E7(7) . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Gauging maximal supergravity; the T -tensor . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

70 72 74 79 84

6 Supersymmetry in anti-de Sitter space 89 6.1 Anti-de Sitter supersymmetry and masslike terms . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.2 Unitary representations of the anti-de Sitter algebra . . . . . . . . 97 6.3 The superalgebras OSp(N |4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 7 Superconformal symmetry 116 7.1 The superconformal algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 7.2 Superconformal gauge theory and supergravity . . . . . . . . . . . 122 7.3 Matter ﬁelds and currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Lecture 2. Supersymmetric Gauge Theories by D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici

137

1 Introduction

141

2 Supersymmetric quantum mechanics 2.1 Symmetry and symmetry breaking . . . . . . 2.2 A nonrenormalisation theorem . . . . . . . . 2.3 A two variable realization and ﬂat potentials 2.4 Geometric meaning of the Witten index . . . 2.5 Landau levels and SUSY QM . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Conformal quantum mechanics . . . . . . . . 2.7 Superconformal quantum mechanics . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

143 151 152 154 158 159 161 164

3 Review of supersymmetric models 3.1 Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Superspace and chiral ﬁelds . . . . 3.3 K¨ ahler potentials . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 F-terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Global symmetries . . . . . . . . . 3.6 The eﬀective potential . . . . . . . 3.7 Supersymmetry breaking . . . . . . 3.8 Supersymmetric gauge theories . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

165 165 167 169 170 170 172 172 173

4 Phases of gauge theories

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

179

xxvii

5 Supersymmetric gauge theories/super QCD 5.1 The classical moduli space . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Quantum moduli spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Quantum moduli space for 0 < NF < NC . . 5.4 Integrating in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Quantum moduli space for NF ≥ NC . . . . . 5.6 NF = NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 NF = NC + 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 Higgs and conﬁnement phases . . . . . . . . . 5.9 Infra-red duality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10 Superconformal invariance in d = 4 . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

6 Comments on vacuum energies in scale invariant theories 7 Supersymmetric gauge theories and string theory 7.1 Branes in string theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Branes in IIA and IIB string theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 The eﬀective ﬁeld theory on branes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Eﬀective D = 4 dimensional systems with N = 2 supersymmetry 7.5 An eﬀective D = 4, N = 1, U (NC ) gauge theory with matter . . 7.6 More pieces of information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Obtaining the dual ﬁeld theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

180 182 185 185 186 190 190 191 192 194 202 207

. . . . . . . .

8 Final remarks

210 210 211 213 216 226 229 233 235 237

Lecture 3. An Introduction to Duality Symmetries in String Theory by A. Sen

241

1 Introduction 2 A brief review of perturbative string 2.1 The spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Compactiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . .

243 theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

245 246 251 254

3 Notion of duality symmetries in string theory 255 3.1 Duality symmetries: Deﬁnition and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 3.2 Testing duality conjectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

xxviii

4 Analysis of low energy eﬀective ﬁeld theory 4.1 Type I–SO(32) heterotic duality in D = 10 . 4.2 Self-duality of heterotic string theory on T 6 . 4.3 Duality between heterotic on T 4 and type IIA 4.4 SL(2, Z) self-duality of type IIB in D = 10 . 4.5 Other examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . on . . . .

. . . . K3 . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

5 Precision test of duality: Spectrum of BPS states 5.1 SL(2, Z) S-duality in heterotic on T 6 and multi-monopole spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 SL(2, Z) duality in type IIB on S 1 and D-branes . . . . . 5.3 Massless solitons and tensionless strings . . . . . . . . . . 6 Interrelation between diﬀerent duality conjectures 6.1 Combining non-perturbative and T -dualities . . . . . 6.2 Duality of dualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Fiberwise duality transformation . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Recovering higher dimensional dualities from lower dimensional ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

260 261 264 268 272 274

276 moduli . . . . . 280 . . . . . 286 . . . . . 296

299 . . . . . . . . 299 . . . . . . . . 299 . . . . . . . . 301 . . . . . . . . 304

7 Duality in theories with less than sixteen supersymmetry generators 305 7.1 Construction of a dual pair of theories with eight supercharges . . 306 7.2 Test of duality conjectures involving theories with eight supercharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 8 M-theory 312 8.1 M-theory in eleven dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 8.2 Compactiﬁcation of M-theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Lecture 4. Les Houches Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity by J. Maldacena

323

1 General introduction

325

2 The correspondence 330 2.1 The ﬁeld ↔ operator correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 2.2 Holography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

3 Tests of the /CFT correspondence 3.1 The spectrum of chiral primary operators . . . . . . 3.1.1 The ﬁeld theory spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 The string theory spectrum and the matching 3.2 Matching of correlation functions and anomalies . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

341 342 342 348 351

xxix

4 Correlation functions 353 4.1 Two-point functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 4.2 Three-point functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 5 Wilson loops 362 5.1 Wilson loops and minimum surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 5.2 Other branes ending on the boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 6 Theories at ﬁnite temperature 369 6.1 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 6.2 Thermal phase transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372

Lecture 5. D-Branes on the Conifold and N = 1 Gauge/Gravity Dualities by I.R. Klebanov, C.P. Herzog and P. Ouyang 1 Introduction

383 385

2 D3-branes on the conifold 388 2.1 Dimensions of chiral operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 2.2 Wrapped D3-branes as “dibaryons” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 2.3 Other ways of wrapping D-branes over cycles of T 1,1 . . . . . . . . 394 3 The RG cascade 397 3.1 Matching of the β-functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 4 The chiral anomaly 402 4.1 The anomaly as a classical eﬀect in supergravity . . . . . . . . . . 403 4.2 The anomaly as spontaneous symmetry breaking in AdS5 . . . . . 405 5 Deformation of (KS) the conifold 410 5.1 The ﬁrst-order equations and their solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 5.2 SO(4) invariant expressions for the 3-forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 6 Infrared physics 6.1 Dimensional transmutation and conﬁnement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Tensions of the q-strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Chiral symmetry breaking and gluino condensation . . . . . . . . .

414 414 416 418

Lecture 6. De Sitter Space by M. Spradlin, A. Strominger and A. Volovich 1 Introduction

423 425

xxx

2 Classical geometry of de Sitter space 427 2.1 Coordinate systems and Penrose diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 2.2 Schwarzschild-de Sitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 2.3 Geodesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 3 Quantum ﬁeld theory on de Sitter space 437 3.1 Green functions and vacua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 3.2 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 3.3 Entropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 4 Quantum gravity in de Sitter space 446 4.1 Asymptotic symmetries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 4.2 De Sitter boundary conditions and the conformal group . . . . . . 447 A Calculation of the Brown-York stress tensor

451

Lecture 7. String Compactification with N = 1 Supersymmetry by M.R. Douglas

455

1 Introduction and the question of vacuum selection

457

2 From ten dimensional geometry to four dimensional eﬀective ﬁeld theory

461

3 D-branes with stringy corrections

466

4 Quantum corrections

470

5 Towards the low energy theory of everything

472

Lecture 8. Lectures on Open Strings, and Noncommutative Gauge Theories by N.A. Nekrasov

477

1 Introduction

479

2 Background independence 2.1 Dolan-Nappi solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Intersecting branes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 T -duality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

480 483 485 485

xxxi

3 BPS algebras 486 3.1 Noncommutative U (1) instantons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 3.2 Higher dimensional instantons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 4 Fermions in the Y background 490 4.1 Fermions in the instanton background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 4.2 The Dirac ﬁeld in the monopole background . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 5 Non-trivial backgrounds 492 5.1 Example: Γ = Z2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 6 Conclusions and outlook

494

Lecture 9. Condensates Near the Argyres-Douglas Point in SU(2) Gauge Theory with Broken N = 2 Supersymmetry by A. Gorsky

497

1 Introduction

499

2 Matter and gaugino condensates

501

3 Dyon condensates 504 3.1 Monopole condensate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 3.2 Charge and dyon condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506 4 The Argyres-Douglas point: How well the theory is deﬁned

508

5 Conclusions

509

Seminar 1. Quantum Field Theory with Extra Dimensions by L. Baulieu

513

1 Introduction

515

2 The ﬁelds

516

3 The action at level

518

xxxii

Seminar 2. Special Holonomy Spaces and M-Theory by M. Cvetiˇc, G.W. Gibbons, H. L¨ u and C.N. Pope

523

1 Introduction

transgression 2 Resolution 2.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Resolved M2-brane . . . . . 2.3 Resolved D2-brane . . . . . 2.4 Other examples . . . . . . .

525

. . . .

527 527 528 529 529

3 Special holonomy spaces, harmonic forms and resolved branes 3.1 Harmonic forms for the Stenzel metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Stenzel metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Harmonic middle-dimension (p, q) forms . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Old G2 holonomy metrics and their harmonic forms . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Resolved cones over S 2 × S 4 and S 2 × CP2 . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Resolved cone over S 3 × S 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 New Spin(7) holonomy metrics and their harmonic forms . . . . . 3.3.1 The old metric and harmonic 4-forms . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The new Spin(7) holonomy metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Applications: Resolved M2-branes and D2-branes . . . . . . . . . .

530 531 531 532 533 533 534 534 534 535 536

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

4 New G2 holonomy metrics 4.1 Classiﬁcation of G2 holonomy spaces with S 3 × S 3 orbits

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

537 . . . . . 537

5 Conclusions and open avenues

541

Seminar 3. Four Dimensional Non-Critical Strings by F. Ferrari

547

1 Introduction 2 Many paths to the gauge/string 2.1 Conﬁnement . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Large N . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 D-branes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Non-critical strings . . . . . . .

549 duality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

550 550 551 552 554

3 Four dimensional non-critical strings 3.1 Four dimensional CFTs as Kazakov critical points 3.2 Instantons and large N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 A toy model example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Exact results in 4D string theory . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Further insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

559 562 564 566 569 571

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

xxxiii

3.5.1 3.5.2

Full proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 Non-perturbative non-Borel summable partition functions . 572

4 Open problems

572

Seminar 4. U-Opportunities: Why is Ten Equal to Ten? by B. Julia

575

1 Classiﬁcations

577

2 Real forms of Lie algebras

581

3 Chaos controlled by symmetry

583

Seminar 5. Exact Answers to Approximate Questions – Noncommutative Dipoles, Open Wilson Lines and UV-IR Duality by Soo-Jong Rey

587

1 Introduction and conjectures

589

2 Flying noncommutative dipole

591

3 Open wilson lines: How and why? 593 3.1 Open Wilson lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 3.2 Generalized star products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 4 Free and interacting OWLs 597 4.1 Free OWLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 4.2 Interacting OWLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 5 Closed strings out of open strings 604 5.1 Open strings as miniature dipoles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604 5.2 Witten’s w -product is Moyal’s m -product . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 5.3 Closed strings as OWLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607

Seminar 6. Open-String Models with Broken Supersymmetry by A. Sagnotti 1 Broken supersymmetry and type-0 models

611 613

xxxiv

2 Scherk-Schwarz deformations and brane supersymmetry

618

3 Brane supersymmetry breaking

620

Seminar 7. On a Field Theory of Open Strings, Tachyon Condensation and Closed Strings by S.L. Shatashvili

627

Seminar 8. Exceptional Magic by S.L. Shatashvili 1 G2 2

(7)

3 Topological twist

643 648 657 661

ORGANIZERS

C. BACHAS, Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, ENS, 24 rue Lhomond, 75231 Paris, France A. BILAL, Institut de Physique, Université de Neuchâtel, 1 rue Breguet, 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland M. DOUGLAS, Department of Physics & Astronomy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019, U.S.A. N. NEKRASOV, I.H.E.S, 35 route de Chartres, 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France F. DAVID, SPhT, CEA Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France

LECTURERS

P. CANDELAS, Mathematical Institute, Oxford University, 24-29 St. Giles, Oxford OX1 3LB , U.K. M. GREEN, DAMPT, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 OWA, U.K. I. KLEBANOV, Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, U.S.A. J. MALDACENA, Jefferson Physical Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.

Laboratory,

Harvard

University,

Physics,

Hebrew

University,

E. RABINOVICI, Racah Institute 91904 Jerusalem, Israel

of

A. SEN, Harish-Chandra Research 211019 Allahabad, India

Institute,

Chhatnag

Road,

Jhusi,

xii A. STROMINGER, Jefferson Physical Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.

Laboratory,

Harvard

University,

B. DE WIT, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Spinoza Institute, Utrecht University, 35P4 CE Utrecht, The Netherlands

SEMINAR SPEAKERS

L. BAULIEU, LPTHE, Université Pierre et Marie 4 place Jussieu, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France

Curie,

M. CVETIC, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, U.S.A.

Tour

University

16, of

D. FREEDMAN, Center for Theoretical Physics, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A. A. GORSKY, ITEP, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia B. JULIA, LPT/ENS, 24 rue Lhomond, 75231 Paris, France P. MAYR, CERN Theory Division, 1211 Genova 23, Switzerland S. REY, Center for Theoretical 151-747 Seoul, Corea

Physics,

Seoul

National

University,

A. SAGNOTTI, Department of Physics, University Roma II, Tor Vergata, Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Roma, Italy S. SHATASHVILI, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, U.S.A.

PARTICIPANTS

D. ABANIN, ITEP, B. Cheremushkinskaya ul 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia A. ALEXANDROV, ITEP, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia D. BELOV, Steklov Mathematical Moscow 117966, Russia

Institute,

Gubkin

St.

8,

GSP-1,

I. BENA, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, U.S.A. D. BERMAN, Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel V. BRAUN, Humboldt University, Physik QFT, Invalidenstr. 110, 10115 Berlin, Germany L. CARLEVARO, Université de Neuchâtel, Institut de Physique, Département de Physique Théorique, Rue Breguet 1, 2002 Neuchâtel, Switzerland N. COUCHOUD, LPTHE, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Tour 16, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France G. D’APPOLLONIO, Dipartimento di Fisica, Sezione INFN, L.go Fermi 2, 50125 Firenze, Italy V. DOLGUSHEV, Tomsk State University, Physics Department, Lenin Av. 36, Tomsk 63050, Russia R. DUIVENVOORDEN, of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Instituut voor Theoretische Fysica, University Valckenierstraat 65, 1018 XE Amsterdam,

A. DYMARSKY, Moscow State University, Physics Faculty, Theoretical Physics department, Vorobevy Gory, Moscow 119899, Russia F. FERRARI, Joseph Henry Laboratories, Jadwin Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, U.S.A.

xiv B. FLOREA, Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, 24-29 St. Giles, Oxford OX1 3LB, U.K. U. GRAN, Department of Theoretical Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg University, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden S. GUKOV, Jefferson Physical Laboratories, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. S. GURRIERI, Centre de Physique 13288 Marseille Cedex 9, France

Théorique

Luminy,

Case

907,

M. HAACK, Martin Luther Universität Wittenberg, Fachbereich Physik, Friedmann Bach Platz 6, 06108 Halle, Germany P. HENRY, LPT, ENS, 24 rue Lhomond, 75005 Paris, France C. HERZOG, Princeton University, Physics Department, Princeton, NJ 08544, U.S.A. V. HUBENY, Department of Physics, 382 via Pueblo Mall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4060, U.S.A. P. KASTE, CPHT, École Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France S. KLEVTSOV, Moscow State University, Physics Faculty, Theoretical Physics Department, Vorobevy Gory, Moscow 119899, Russia A. KONECHNY, University of California Berkeley, Theoretical Physics Group, Mail Stop 50A-501 4BNL, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. I. LOW, Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. D. MALYSHEV, Moscow State University, Physics Faculty, Quantum Statistics and Quantum Field Theory Department, Vorobevy Gory, Moscow 119899, Russia I. MASINA, SPhT, CEA Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, bâtiment 774, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France L. McALLISTER, Stanford University, Department of Physics, 382 Via Pueblo Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, U.S.A. S. MORIYAMA, Department of Physics, Kyoto University, KitashirakawaOiwakecho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan V.S. NEMANI, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Department of Theoretical Physics, Homi Bhabha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400005, India

xv F. NITTI, New York University, Department of Physics, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, U.S.A. D. NOGRADI, University of Leiden, Institute Lorentz, P.O. Box 9506, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands L. PANDO ZAYAS, Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Randall Laboratory of Physics, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120, U.S.A. G. PANOTOPOULOS, University of P.O. Box 2208, Heraklion, Greece

Crete,

Physics

Department,

J. PARK, California Institute of Technology, 452-48 Cal Tech, 1200 East California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125, U.S.A. V. PESTUN, ITEP, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia R. RABADAN, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Departamento De Fisica Teorica C-XI, 28049 Madrid, Spain S. RIBAULT, Centre de Physique 91128 Palaiseau, France

Théorique,

École

Polytechnique,

F. RICCIONI, Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita di Roma “Tor Vergata”, via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Roma, Italy D. ROEST, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands C. ROMELSBERGER, Department of Physics & Astronomy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 136 Frelinghuisen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019, U.S.A. V. RYCHKOV, Princeton University, Mathematics Department, Fine Hall, Washington Road, Princeton, NJ 08544, U.S.A. K. SARAIKIN, ITEP, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia S. SCHÄFER-NAMEKI, DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, U.K. M. SCHNABL, SISSA, Via Beirut 4, 34014 Trieste, Italy G. SERVANT, SPhT, CEA Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France A. SHCHERBAKOV, Theoretical Physics Department, Dnepropetrovsk National University, Naukova St. 13, Dnepropetrovsk 49050, Ukraine M. SMEDBÄCK, Department of Theoretical Physics, Uppsala University, Box 803, 751 08 Uppsala, Sweden

xvi A. SOLOVYOV, Institute for Theoretical Physics, 14 B Metrologicheskaya St., Kiev, Ukraine M. SPRADLIN, Department of Physics, Harvard University, 17A Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. C. STAHN, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge CB3 OWA, U.K. S. ULANOV, Theoretical Physics Department, Dnepropetrovsk National University, Naukova St. 13, Dnepropetrovsk 49050, Ukraine D. VASSILIEV, MIPT, ITEP, St. B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia A. VOLOVICH, Physics MA 02138, U.S.A.

Department,

Harvard

University,

Cambridge,

J. WALCHER, ETH, Zurich, Institute for Theoretical Physics, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland J.-T. YEE, School of Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea A. ZOTOV, ITEP, Ul B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia

LECTURE 1

SUPERGRAVITY

B. DE WIT Institute for Theoretical Physics & Spinoza Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Supersymmetry in various dimensions 2.1 The Poincar´e supersymmetry algebra . . . . 2.2 Massless supermultiplets . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Massive supermultiplets . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Central charges and multiplet shortening . . 2.5 On spinors and the R-symmetry group HR

3 . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

4 5 7 17 19 22

3 Supergravity 3.1 Simple supergravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Maximal supersymmetry and supergravity . . . . . . 3.3 D = 11 supergravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Dimensional reduction and hidden symmetries . . . 3.5 Frames and ﬁeld redeﬁnitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Kaluza–Klein states and BPS-extended supergravity 3.7 Nonmaximal supersymmetry: Q = 16 . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

28 28 32 35 38 43 46 53

4 Homogeneous spaces and nonlinear sigma models 4.1 Nonlinearly realized symmetries . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Geometrical quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Nonlinear sigma models with homogeneous target 4.4 Gauged nonlinear sigma models . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . space . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

55 56 61 66 69

5 Gauged maximal supergravity in 4 and 5 dimensions 5.1 On E7(7) /SU (8) and E6(6) /U Sp(8) cosets . . . . 5.2 On ungauged maximal supergravity Lagrangians 5.3 Electric–magnetic duality and E7(7) . . . . . . . 5.4 Gauging maximal supergravity; the T -tensor . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

70 72 74 79 84

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

6 Supersymmetry in anti-de Sitter space 89 6.1 Anti-de Sitter supersymmetry and masslike terms . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.2 Unitary representations of the anti-de Sitter algebra . . . . . . . . 97 6.3 The superalgebras OSp(N |4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 7 Superconformal symmetry 116 7.1 The superconformal algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 7.2 Superconformal gauge theory and supergravity . . . . . . . . . . . 122 7.3 Matter ﬁelds and currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

SUPERGRAVITY

B. de Wit

1

Introduction

Supergravity plays a prominent role in our ideas about the uniﬁcation of fundamental forces beyond the standard model, in our understanding of many central features of superstring theory, and in recent developments of the conceptual basis of quantum ﬁeld theory and quantum gravity. The advances made have found their place in many reviews and textbooks (see, e.g. [1]), but the subject has grown so much and has so many diﬀerent facets that no comprehensive treatment is available as of today. Also in these lectures, which will cover a number of basic aspects of supergravity, many topics will be left untouched. During its historical development the perspective of supergravity has changed. Originally it was envisaged as an elementary ﬁeld theory which should be free of ultraviolet divergencies and thus bring about the long awaited uniﬁcation of gravity with the other fundamental forces in nature. But nowadays supergravity is primarily viewed as an eﬀective ﬁeld theory describing the low-mass degrees of freedom of a more fundamental underlying theory. The only candidate for such a theory is superstring theory (for some reviews and textbooks, see, e.g. [2]), or rather, yet another, somewhat hypothetical, theory, called M-theory. Although we know a lot about Mtheory, its underlying principles have only partly been established. String theory and supergravity in their modern incarnations now represent some of the many faces of M-theory. String theory is no longer a theory exclusively of strings but includes other extended objects that emerge in the supergravity context as solitonic objects. Looking backwards it becomes clear that there are many reasons why neither superstrings nor supergravity could account I am grateful to Sergio Ferrara, Murat G¨ unaydin, Francisco Morales, Jan Louis, Hermann Nicolai, Peter van Nieuwenhuizen, Soo-Jong Rey, Henning Samtleben, Ergin Sezgin, Kostas Skenderis, Mario Trigiante, Stefan Vandoren and Toine Van Proeyen for many helpful and stimulating discussions. c EDP Sciences, Springer-Verlag 2002

4

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

for all the relevant degrees of freedom and we have learned to appreciate that M-theory has many diﬀerent realizations. Because supersymmetry is such a powerful symmetry it plays a central role in almost all these developments. It controls the dynamics and, because of nonrenormalization theorems, precise predictions can be made in many instances, often relating strong- to weak-coupling regimes. To appreciate the implications of supersymmetry, Section 2 starts with a detailed discussion of supersymmetry and its representations. Subsequently supergravity theories are introduced in Section 3, mostly concentrating on the maximally supersymmetric cases. In Section 4 gauged nonlinear sigma models with homogeneous target spaces are introduced, paving the way for the construction of gauged supergravity. This construction is explained in Section 5, where the emphasis is on gauged supergravity with 32 supercharges in 4 and 5 spacetime dimensions. These theories can describe anti-de Sitter ground states which are fully supersymmetric. This is one of the motivations for considering anti-de Sitter supersymmetry and the representations of the anti-de Sitter group in Section 6. Section 7 contains a short introduction to superconformal transformations and superconformally invariant theories. This section is self-contained, but it is of course related to the discussion in Section 6 on anti-de Sitter representations as well as to the adS/CFT correspondence. This school oﬀers a large number of lectures dealing with gravity, gauge theories and string theory from various perspectives. We intend to stay within the supergravity perspective and to try and indicate what the possible implications of supersymmetry and supergravity are for these subjects. Our hope is that the material presented below will oﬀer a helpful introduction to and will blend in naturally with the material presented in other lectures. 2

Supersymmetry in various dimensions

An enormous amount of information about supersymmetric theories is contained in the structure of the underlying representations of the supersymmetry algebra (for some references, see [1, 3–6]). Here we should make a distinction between a supermultiplet of ﬁelds which transform irreducibly under the supersymmetry transformations, and a supermultiplet of states described by a supersymmetric theory. In this section1 we concentrate on supermultiplets of states, primarily restricting ourselves to ﬂat Minkowski spacetimes of dimension D. The relevant symmetries in this case form an 1 The material presented in this and the following section is an extension of the second section of [6].

B. de Wit: Supergravity

5

extension of the Poincar´e transformations, which consist of translations and Lorentz transformations. However, many of the concepts that we introduce will also play a role in the discussion of other superalgebras, such as the antide Sitter (or conformal) superalgebras. For a recent practical introduction to superalgebras, see [7]. 2.1 The Poincar´e supersymmetry algebra The generators of the super-Poincar´e algebra comprise the supercharges, transforming as spinors under the Lorentz group, the energy and momentum operators, the generators of the Lorentz group, and possibly additional generators that commute with the supercharges. For the moment we ignore these additional charges, often called central charges2. There are other relevant superalgebras, such as the supersymmetric extensions of the antide Sitter (or the conformal) algebras. These will be encountered in due course. The most important anti-commutation relation of the super-Poincar´e algebra is the one of two supercharges, ¯ β } = −2iPµ (Γµ )αβ , {Qα , Q

(2.1)

where we suppressed the central charges. Here Γµ are the gamma matrices that generate the Cliﬀord algebra C(D − 1, 1) with Minkowskian metric ηµν = diag(−, +, · · · , +). The size of a supermultiplet depends exponentially on the number of independent supercharge components Q. The ﬁrst step is therefore to determine Q for any given number of spacetime dimensions D. The result is summarized in Table 1. As shown, there exist ﬁve diﬀerent sequences of spinors, corresponding to spacetimes of particular dimensions. When this dimension is odd, it is possible in certain cases to have Majorana spinors. These cases constitute the ﬁrst sequence. The second one corresponds to those odd dimensions where Majorana spinors do not exist. The spinors are then Dirac spinors. In even dimension one may distinguish three sequences. In the ﬁrst one, where the number of dimensions is a multiple of 4, charge conjugation relates positive- with negative-chirality spinors. All spinors in this sequence can be restricted to Majorana spinors. For the remaining two sequences, charge conjugation preserves the chirality of the spinor. Now there are again two possibilities, depending on whether Majorana spinors 2 The terminology adopted in the literature is not always very precise. Usually, all charges that commute with the supercharges, but not necessarily with all the generators of the Poincar´e algebra, are called “central charges”. We adhere to this nomenclature. Observe that the issue of central charges is diﬀerent when not in ﬂat space, as can be seen, for example, in the context of the anti-de Sitter superalgebra (discussed in Sect. 6).

6

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Table 1. The supercharges in ﬂat Minkowski spacetimes of dimension D. In the second column, Qirr speciﬁes the real dimension of an irreducible spinor in a Ddimensional Minkowski spacetime. The third column speciﬁes the group HR for N -extended supersymmetry, deﬁned in the text, acting on N -fold reducible spinor charges. The fourth column denotes the type of spinors: Majorana (M), Dirac (D), Weyl (W) and Majorana-Weyl (MW).

D 3, 9, 11, mod 8 5, 7, mod 8 4, 8, mod 8 6, mod 8 2, 10, mod 8

Qirr 2(D−1)/2 2(D+1)/2 2D/2 2D/2 2D/2−1

HR SO(N ) U Sp(2N ) U (N ) U Sp(2N+ ) × U Sp(2N− ) SO(N+ ) × SO(N− )

type M D M W MW

can exist or not. The cases where we cannot have Majorana spinors, corresponding to D = 6 mod 8, comprise the fourth sequence. For the last sequence with D = 2 mod 8, Majorana spinors exist and the charges can be restricted to so-called Majorana-Weyl spinors. One can consider extended supersymmetry, where the spinor charges transform reducibly under the Lorentz group and comprise N irreducible spinors. For Weyl charges, one can consider combinations of N+ positiveand N− negative-chirality spinors. In all these cases there exists a group HR of rotations of the spinors which commute with the Lorentz group and leave the supersymmetry algebra invariant. This group, often referred to as the “R-symmetry” group, is thus deﬁned as the largest subgroup of the automorphism group of the supersymmetry algebra that commutes with the Lorentz group. It is often realized as a manifest invariance group of a supersymmetric ﬁeld theory, but this is by no means necessary. There are other versions of the R-symmetry group HR which play a role, for instance, in the context of the Euclidean rest-frame superalgebra for massive representations or for the anti-de Sitter superalgebra. Those will be discussed later in this section. In Table 1 we have listed the corresponding HR groups for N irreducible spinor charges. Here we have assumed that HR is compact so that it preserves a positive-deﬁnite metric. In the latter two sequences of spinor charges shown in Table 1, we allow N± charges of opposite chirality, so that HR decomposes into the product of two such groups, one for each chiral sector. Another way to present some of the results above, is shown in Table 2. Here we list the real dimension of an irreducible spinor charge and the corresponding spacetime dimension. In addition we include the number of

B. de Wit: Supergravity

7

Table 2. Simple supersymmetry in various dimensions. We present the dimension of the irreducible spinor charge with 2 ≤ Qirr ≤ 32 and the corresponding spacetime dimensions D. The third column represents the number of bosonic + fermionic massless states for the shortest supermultiplet.

Qirr 32 16 8 4 2

D D D D D D

= 11 = 10, 9, 8, 7 = 6, 5 =4 =3

shortest supermultiplet 128 + 128 8+8 4+4 2+2 1+1

states of the shortest3 supermultiplet of massless states, written as a sum of bosonic and fermionic states. We return to a more general discussion of the R-symmetry groups and their consequences in Section 2.5. 2.2 Massless supermultiplets Because the momentum operators Pµ commute with the supercharges, we may consider the states at arbitrary but ﬁxed momentum Pµ , which, for massless representations, satisﬁes P 2 = 0. The matrix Pµ Γµ on the righthand side of (2.1) has therefore zero eigenvalues. In a positive-deﬁnite Hilbert space some (linear combinations) of the supercharges must therefore vanish. To exhibit this more explicitly, let us rewrite (2.1) as (using ¯ = iQ† Γ0 ), Q {Qα , Q†β } = 2 (P / Γ0 )αβ . (2.2) For light-like P µ = (P 0 , P ) the right-hand side is proportional to a projection operator (1 + Γ Γ0 )/2. Here Γ is the gamma matrix along the spatial momentum P of the states. The supersymmetry anti-commutator can then be written as ˜DΓ ˜⊥ {Qα , Q†β } = 2 P 0 1 + Γ . (2.3) αβ

˜ D consists of the product of all D independent gamma matrices, and Here Γ ˜ Γ⊥ of the product of all D − 2 gamma matrices in the transverse directions (i.e., perpendicular to P ), with phase factors such that ˜ D )2 = (Γ ˜ ⊥ )2 = 1 , (Γ

˜D, Γ ˜ ⊥] = 0 . [Γ

(2.4)

3 By the shortest multiplet, we mean the multiplet with the helicities of the states as low as possible. This is usually (one of) the smallest possible supermultiplet(s).

8

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

This shows that the right-hand side of (2.3) is proportional to a projection operator, which projects out half of the spinor space. Consequently, half the spinors must vanish on physical states, whereas the other ones generate a Cliﬀord algebra. Denoting the real dimension of the supercharges by Q, the representation space of the charges decomposes into the two chiral spinor representations of SO(Q/2). When confronting these results with the last column in Table 2, it turns out that the dimension of the shortest supermultiplet is not just equal to 2Qirr /4 , as one might naively expect. For D = 6, this is so because the representation is complex. For D = 3, 4 the representation is twice as big because it must also accommodate fermion number (or, alternatively, because it must be CPT self-conjugate). The derivation for D = 4 is presented in many places (see, for instance [1, 4, 5]). For D = 3 we refer to [8]. The two chiral spinor subspaces correspond to the bosonic and fermionic states, respectively. For the massless multiplets, the dimensions are shown in Table 2. Bigger supermultiplets can be obtained by combining irreducible multiplets by requiring them to transform nontrivially under the Lorentz group. We shall demonstrate this below in three relevant cases, corresponding to D = 11, 10 and 6 spacetime dimensions. Depending on the number of spacetime dimensions, many supergravity theories exist. Pure supergravity theories with spacetime dimension 4 ≤ D ≤ 11 can exist with Q = 32, 24, 20, 16, 12, 8 and 4 supersymmetries4 . Some of these theories will be discussed later in more detail (in particular supergravity in D = 11 and 10 spacetime dimensions). 2.2.1 D = 11 supermultipets In 11 dimensions we are dealing with 32 independent real supercharges. In odd-dimensional spacetimes irreducible spinors are subject to the eigenvalue ˜ D = ±1. Therefore (2.3) simpliﬁes and shows that the 16 nonvacondition Γ nishing spinor charges transform according to a single spinor representation of the helicity group SO(9). On the other hand, when regarding the 16 spinor charges as gamma matrices, it follows that the representation space constitutes the spinor representation of SO(16), which decomposes into two chiral subspaces, one corresponding to the bosons and the other one to the fermions. To determine the helicity content of the bosonic and fermionic states, one considers 4 In D = 4 there exist theories with Q = 12, 20 and 24; in D = 5 there exists a theory with Q = 24 [9]. In D = 6 there are three theories with Q = 32 and one with Q = 24. So far these supergravities have played no role in string theory. For a more recent discussion, see [10].

B. de Wit: Supergravity

9

the embedding of the SO(9) spinor representation in the SO(16) vector representation. It then turns out that one of the 128 representations branches into helicity representations according to 128 → 44 + 84, while the second one transforms irreducibly according to the 128 representation of the helicity group. The above states comprise precisely the massless states corresponding to D = 11 supergravity [11]. The graviton states transform in the 44, the antisymmetric tensor states in the 84 and the gravitini states in the 128 representation of SO(9). Bigger supermultiplets consist of multiples of 256 states. For instance, without central charges, the smallest massive supermultiplet comprises 32 768 + 32 768 states. These multiplets will not be considered here. 2.2.2 D = 10 supermultiplets In 10 dimensions the supercharges are both Majorana and Weyl spinors. ˜ D . According to (2.3), The latter means that they are eigenspinors of Γ when we have simple (i.e., nonextended) supersymmetry with 16 charges, the nonvanishing charges transform in a chiral spinor representation of the SO(8) helicity group. With 8 nonvanishing supercharges we are dealing with an 8-dimensional Cliﬀord algebra, whose irreducible representation space corresponds to the bosonic and fermionic states, each transforming according to a chiral spinor representation. Hence we are dealing with three 8-dimensional representations of SO(8), which are inequivalent. One is the representation to which we assign the supercharges, which we will denote by 8s ; to the other two, denoted as the 8v and 8c representations, we assign the bosonic and fermionic states, respectively. The fact that SO(8) representations appear in a three-fold variety is known as triality, which is a characteristic property of the group SO(8). With the exception of certain representations, such as the adjoint and the singlet representation, the three types of representation are inequivalent. They are traditionally distinguished by labels s, v and c (see, for instance [12])5 . The smallest massless supermultiplet has now been constructed with 8 bosonic and 8 fermionic states and corresponds to the vector multiplet of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in 10 dimensions [13]. Before constructing the supermultiplets that are relevant for D = 10 supergravity, let us ﬁrst discuss some other properties of SO(8) representations. One way to distinguish the inequivalent representations, is to investigate how they decompose 5 The representations can be characterized according to the four diﬀerent conjugacy classes of the SO(8) weight vectors, denoted by 0, v, s and c. In this context one uses the notation 10 , 280 , and 350 , 350 , 35 0 for 35v , 35s , 35c , respectively.

10

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Table 3. Massless N = 1 supermultiplets in D = 10 spacetime dimensions containing 8 + 8 or 64 + 64 bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom.

supermultiplet vector multiplet graviton multiplet gravitino multiplet gravitino multiplet

bosons 8v 1 + 28 + 35v 1 + 28 + 35c 8v + 56v

fermions 8c 8s + 56s 8s + 56s 8c + 56c

into representations of an SO(7) subgroup. Each of the 8-dimensional representations leaves a diﬀerent SO(7) subgroup of SO(8) invariant. Therefore there is an SO(7) subgroup under which the 8v representation branches into 8v −→ 7 + 1. Under this SO(7) the other two 8-dimensional representations branch into 8s −→ 8 ,

8c −→ 8 ,

where 8 is the spinor representation of SO(7). Corresponding branching rules for the 28-, 35- and 56-dimensional representations are 28 −→ 7 + 21 , 35v −→ 1 + 7 + 27 , 35c,s −→ 35 ,

56v 56c,s

−→ 21 + 35 , −→ 8 + 48 .

(2.5)

In order to obtain the supersymmetry representations relevant for supergravity we consider tensor products of the smallest supermultiplet consisting of 8v + 8c , with one of the 8-dimensional representations. There are thus three diﬀerent possibilities, each leading to a 128-dimensional supermultiplet. Using the multiplication rules for SO(8) representations, 8v × 8v 8s × 8s 8c × 8c

= = =

1 + 28 + 35v , 1 + 28 + 35s , 1 + 28 + 35c ,

8v × 8s 8s × 8c 8c × 8v

= 8c + 56c , = 8v + 56v , = 8s + 56s ,

(2.6)

it is straightforward to obtain these new multiplets. Multiplying 8v with 8v + 8c yields 8v × 8v bosonic and 8v × 8c fermionic states, and leads to the second supermultiplet shown in Table 3. This supermultiplet contains the representation 35v , which can be associated with the states of the graviton in D = 10 dimensions (the ﬁeld-theoretic identiﬁcation of the various states has been clariﬁed in many places; see e.g. the Appendix in [6]). Therefore this supermultiplet will be called the graviton multiplet. Multiplication

B. de Wit: Supergravity

11

with 8c or 8s goes in the same fashion, except that we will associate the 8c and 8s representations with fermionic quantities (note that these are the representations to which the fermion states of the Yang-Mills multiplet and the supersymmetry charges are assigned). Consequently, we interchange the boson and fermion assignments in these products. Multiplication with 8c then leads to 8c × 8c bosonic and 8c × 8v fermionic states, whereas multiplication with 8s gives 8s × 8c bosonic and 8s × 8v fermionic states. These supermultiplets contain fermions transforming according to the 56s and 56c representations, respectively, which can be associated with gravitino states, but no graviton states as those transform in the 35v representation. Therefore these two supermultiplets are called gravitino multiplets. We have thus established the existence of two inequivalent gravitino multiplets. The explicit SO(8) decompositions of the vector, graviton and gravitino supermultiplets are shown in Table 3. By combining a graviton and a gravitino multiplet it is possible to construct an N = 2 supermultiplet of 128 + 128 bosonic and fermionic states. However, since there are two inequivalent gravitino multiplets, there will also be two inequivalent N = 2 supermultiplets containing the states corresponding to a graviton and two gravitini. According to the construction presented above, one N = 2 supermultiplet may be be viewed as the tensor product of two identical supermultiplets (namely 8v + 8c ). Such a multiplet follows if one starts from a supersymmetry algebra based on two MajoranaWeyl spinor charges Q with the same chirality. The states of this multiplet decompose as follows:  bosons:      1 + 1 + 28 + 28 + 35v + 35c (8v + 8c ) × (8v + 8c ) =⇒ (2.7)    fermions:   8s + 8s + 56s + 56s .

Chiral N = 2 supermultiplet (IIB)

This is the multiplet corresponding to IIB supergravity [14]. Because the supercharges have the same chirality, one can perform rotations between these spinor charges which leave the supersymmetry algebra unaﬀected. Hence the automorphism group HR is equal to SO(2). This feature reﬂects itself in the multiplet decomposition, where the 1, 8s , 28 and 56s representations are degenerate and constitute doublets under this SO(2) group. A second supermultiplet may be viewed as the tensor product of a (8v +8s ) supermultiplet with a second supermultiplet (8v +8c ). In this case the supercharges constitute two Majorana-Weyl spinors of opposite chirality.

12

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Now the supermultiplet decomposes as follows:  bosons: Nonchiral N = 2 supermultiplet (IIA)      1 + 8v + 28 + 35v + 56v (8v + 8s ) × (8v + 8c ) =⇒ (2.8)    fermions:   8s + 8c + 56s + 56c . This is the multiplet corresponding to IIA supergravity [15]. It can be obtained by a straightforward reduction of D = 11 supergravity. The latter follows from the fact that two D = 10 Majorana-Weyl spinors with opposite chirality can be combined into a single D = 11 Majorana spinor. The formula below summarizes the massless states of IIA supergravity from an 11-dimensional perspective. The massless states of 11-dimensional supergravity transform according to the 44, 84 and 128 representation of the helicity group SO(9). They correspond to the degrees of freedom described by the metric, a 3-rank antisymmetric gauge ﬁeld and the gravitino ﬁeld, respectively. We also show how the 10-dimensional states can subsequently be branched into 9-dimensional states, characterized in terms of representations of the helicity group SO(7):  −→ 1  1 −→ 1 + 7 8v 44 =⇒  35v −→ 1 + 7 + 27 28 −→ 7 + 21 84 =⇒ (2.9) 56v −→ 21 + 35  8s −→ 8    −→ 8 8c 128 =⇒ 56  s −→ 8 + 48   56c −→ 8 + 48. Clearly, in D = 9 we have a degeneracy of states, associated with the group HR = SO(2). We note the presence of graviton and gravitino states, transforming in the 27 and 48 representations of the SO(7) helicity group. One could also take the states of the IIB supergravity and decompose them into D = 9 massless states. This leads to precisely the same supermultiplet as the reduction of the states of IIA supergravity. Indeed, the reductions of IIA and IIB supergravity to 9 dimensions, yield the same theory [16–18]. However, the massive states are still characterized in terms of the group SO(8), which in D = 9 dimensions comprises the rest-frame rotations. Therefore the Kaluza-Klein states that one obtains when compactifying the ten-dimensional theory on a circle remain inequivalent for the IIA and IIB theories (see [19] for a discussion of this phenomenon and its

B. de Wit: Supergravity

13

Table 4. Shortest massless supermultiplets of D = 6 N+ -extended chiral supersymmetry. The states transform both in the SU+ (2) helicity group and under a U Sp(2N+ ) group. For odd values of N+ the representations are complex, for even N+ they can be chosen real. Of course, an identical table can be given for negative-chirality spinors.

SU+ (2) 5 4 3 2 1

N+ = 1

N+ = 2

N+ = 3

1 2 (2 + 2)C

1 4 5 (8 + 8)R

1 6 14 14 (32 + 32)C

N+ = 4 1 8 27 48 42 (128 + 128)R

consequences). It turns out that the Q = 32 supergravity multiplets are unique in all spacetime dimensions D > 2, except for D = 10. Maximal supergravity will be introduced in Section 3. The ﬁeld content of the maximal Q = 32 supergravity theories for dimensions 3 ≤ D ≤ 11 will be presented in two tables (cf. Tables 10 and 11). 2.2.3 D = 6 supermultiplets In 6 dimensions we have chiral spinors, which are not Majorana. Because the charge conjugated spinor has the same chirality, the chiral rotations of the spinors can be extended to the group U Sp(2N+), for N+ chiral spinors. Likewise N− negative-chirality spinors transform under U Sp(2N− ). This feature is already incorporated in Table 1. In principle we have N+ positiveand N− negative-chirality charges, but almost all information follows from ﬁrst considering the purely chiral case. In Table 4 we present the decomposition of the various helicity representations of the smallest supermultiplets based on N+ = 1, 2, 3 or 4 supercharges. In D = 6 dimensions the helicity group SO(4) decomposes into the product of two SU (2) groups: SO(4) ∼ = (SU + (2) × SU − (2))/Z2 . When we have supercharges of only one chirality, the smallest supermultiplet will only transform under one SU (2) factor of the helicity group, as is shown in Table 46 . Let us now turn to speciﬁc supermultiplets. Let us recall that the helicity assignments of the states describing gravitons, gravitini, vector and 6 The content of this table also speciﬁes the shortest massive supermultiplets in four dimensions as well as with the shortest massless multiplets in ﬁve dimensions. The SU (2) group is then associated with spin or with helicity, respectively.

14

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

(anti)selfdual tensor gauge ﬁelds, and spinor ﬁelds are (3, 3), (2, 3) or (3, 2), (2, 2), (3, 1) or (1, 3), and (2, 1) or (1, 2). Here (m, n) denotes that the dimensionality of the reducible representations of the two SU (2) factors of the helicity group are of dimension m and n. For the derivation of these assignments, see for instance one of the Appendices in [6]. In the following we will ﬁrst restrict ourselves to helicities that correspond to at most the three-dimensional representation of either one of the SU (2) factors. Hence we have only (3, 3), (3, 2), (2, 3), (3, 1) or (1, 3) representations, as well as the lower-dimensional ones. When a supermultiplet contains (3, 2) or (2, 3) representations, we insist that it will also contain a single (3, 3) representation, because gravitini without a graviton are not expected to give rise to a consistent interacting ﬁeld theory. The multiplets of this type are shown in Table 5. There are no such multiplets for more than Q = 32 supercharges. There are supermultiplets with higher SU (2) helicity representations, which contain neither gravitons nor gravitini. Some of these multiplets are shown in Table 6 and we will discuss them in due course. We now elucidate the construction of the supermultiplets listed in Table 5. The simplest case is (N+ , N− ) = (1, 0), where the smallest supermultiplet is the (1, 0) hypermultiplet, consisting of a complex doublet of spinless states and a chiral spinor. Taking the tensor product of the smallest supermultiplet with the (2, 1) helicity representation gives the (1, 0) tensor multiplet, with a selfdual tensor, a spinless state and a doublet of chiral spinors. The tensor product with the (1, 2) helicity representation yields the (1, 0) vector multiplet, with a vector state, a doublet of chiral spinors and a scalar. Multiplying the hypermultiplet with the (2, 3) helicity representation, one obtains the states of (1, 0) supergravity. Observe that the selfdual tensor ﬁelds in the tensor and supergravity supermultiplet are of opposite selfduality phase. Next consider (N+ , N− ) = (2, 0) supersymmetry. The smallest multiplet, shown in Table 4, then corresponds to the (2, 0) tensor multiplet, with the bosonic states decomposing into a selfdual tensor, and a ﬁve-plet of spinless states, and a four-plet of chiral fermions. Multiplication with the (1, 3) helicity representation yields the (2, 0) supergravity multiplet, consisting of the graviton, four chiral gravitini and ﬁve selfdual tensors [20]. Again, the selfdual tensors of the tensor and of the supergravity supermultiplet are of opposite selfduality phase. Of course, there exists also a nonchiral version with 16 supercharges, namely the one corresponding to (N+ , N− ) = (1, 1). The smallest multiplet is now given by the tensor product of the supermultiplets with (1, 0) and (0, 1) supersymmetry. This yields the vector multiplet, with the vector state and four scalars, the latter transforming with respect to the (2, 2)

B. de Wit: Supergravity

15

Table 5. Some relevant D = 6 supermultiplets with (N+ , N− ) supersymmetry. The states (m, n; m, ˜ n ˜ ) are assigned to (m, n) representations of the helicity group SU+ (2) × SU − (2) and (m, ˜ n ˜ ) representations of U Sp(2N+ ) × U Sp(2N− ). The second column lists the number of bosonic + fermionic states for each multiplet.

multiplet (1, 0) hyper (1, 0) tensor (1, 0) vector (1, 0) graviton (2, 0) tensor (2, 0) graviton (1, 1) vector

# 4+4 4+4 4+4 12 + 12 8+8 24 + 24 8+8

bosons (1, 1; 2, 1) + h.c. (3, 1; 1, 1) + (1, 1; 1, 1) (2, 2; 1, 1) (3, 3; 1, 1) + (1, 3; 1, 1) (3, 1; 1, 1) + (1, 1; 5, 1) (3, 3; 1, 1) + (1, 3; 5, 1) (2, 2; 1, 1) + (1, 1; 2, 2)

(1, 1) graviton

32 + 32

(3, 3; 1, 1) +(1, 3; 1, 1) + (3, 1; 1, 1) +(1, 1; 1, 1) + (2, 2; 2, 2)

(2, 1) graviton

64 + 64

(3, 3; 1, 1) +(1, 3; 5, 1) + (3, 1; 1, 1) +(2, 2; 4, 2) + (1, 1; 5, 1)

(2, 2) graviton

128 + 128

(3, 3; 1, 1) +(3, 1; 1, 5) + (1, 3; 5, 1) +(2, 2; 4, 4) + (1, 1; 5, 5)

fermions (2, 1; 1, 1) (2, 1; 2, 1) (1, 2; 2, 1) (2, 3; 2, 1) (2, 1; 4, 1) (2, 3; 4, 1) (2, 1; 1, 2) +(1, 2; 2, 1) (3, 2; 1, 2) +(2, 3; 2, 1) +(1, 2; 1, 2) +(2, 1; 2, 1) (3, 2; 1, 2) +(2, 3; 4, 1) +(1, 2; 5, 2) +(2, 1; 4, 1) (3, 2; 4, 1) +(2, 3; 1, 4) +(2, 1; 4, 5) +(1, 2; 5, 4)

representation of U Sp(2) × U Sp(2). There are two doublets of chiral fermions with opposite chirality, each transforming as a doublet under the corresponding U Sp(2) group. Taking the tensor product of the vector multiplet with the (2, 2) representation of the helicity group yields the states of the (1, 1) supergravity multiplet. It consists of 32 bosonic states, corresponding to a graviton, a tensor, a scalar and four vector states, where the latter transform under the (2, 2) representation of U Sp(2) × U Sp(2). The 32 fermionic states comprise two doublets of chiral gravitini and two chiral spinor doublets, transforming as doublets under the appropriate U Sp(2) group.

16

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Table 6. D = 6 supermultiplets without gravitons and gravitini with (N, 0) supersymmetry, a single (5; 1) highest-helicity state and at most 32 supercharges. The theories based on these multiplets have only rigid supersymmetry. The multiplets are identical to those that underly the ﬁve-dimensional N -extended supergravities. They are all chiral, so that the helicity group in six dimensions is restricted to SU (2) × 1 and the states are characterized as representations of U Sp(2N ). The states (n; n ˜ ) are assigned to the n-dimensional representation of SU (2) and the n ˜ -dimensional representation of U Sp(2N ). The second column lists the number of bosonic + fermionic states for each multiplet.

supersymmetry (1, 0) (2, 0)

# 8+8 24 + 24

(3, 0)

64 + 64

(4, 0)

128 + 128

bosons (5; 1) + (3; 1) (5; 1) + (1, 1) +(3; 1) + (3; 5) (5; 1) + (1; 14) +(3; 1) + (3; 14) (5; 1) + (3; 27) +(1; 42)

fermions (4; 2) (4; 4) + (2; 4) (4; 6) +(2; 6) + (2; 14) (4; 8) + (2; 48)

Subsequently we discuss the case (N+ , N− ) = (2, 1). Here a supergravity multiplet exists [21] and can be obtained from the product of the states of the (2, 0) tensor multiplet with the (0, 1) tensor multiplet. There is in fact a smaller supermultiplet, which we discard because it contains gravitini but no graviton states. Finally, we turn to the case of (N+ , N− ) = (2, 2). The smallest supermultiplet is given by the tensor product of the smallest (2, 0) and (0, 2) supermultiplets. This yields the 128 + 128 states of the (2, 2) supergravity multiplet. These states transform according to representations of U Sp(4) × U Sp(4). In principle, one can continue and classify representations for other values of (N+ , N− ). As is obvious from the construction that we have presented, this will inevitably lead to states transforming in higher-helicity representations. Some of these multiplets will suﬀer from the fact that they have more than one graviton state, so that we expect them to be inconsistent at the nonlinear level. However, there are the chiral theories which contain neither graviton nor gravitino states. Restricting ourselves to 32 supercharges and requiring the highest helicity to be a ﬁve-dimensional representation of one of the SU (2) factors, there are just four theories, summarized in Table 6. For a recent discussion of one of these theories, see [10].

B. de Wit: Supergravity

17

2.3 Massive supermultiplets Generically massive supermultiplets are bigger than massless ones because the number of supercharges that generate the multiplet is not reduced, unlike for massless supermultiplets where one-half of the supercharges vanishes. However, in the presence of mass parameters the superalgebra may also contain central charges, which could give rise to a shortening of the representation in a way similar to what happens for the massless supermultiplets. This only happens for special values of these charges. The shortened supermultiplets are known as BPS multiplets. Central charges and multiplet shortening are discussed in Section 2.4. In this section we assume that the central charges are absent. The analysis of massive supermultiplets takes place in the restframe. The states then organize themselves into representations of the rest-frame rotation group, SO(D − 1), associated with spin. The supercharges transform as spinors under this group, so that one obtains a Euclidean supersymmetry algebra, (2.10) {Qα , Q†β } = 2M δαβ . Just as before, the spinor charges transform under the automorphism group of the supersymmetry algebra that commutes with the spin rotation group. This group will also be denoted by HR ; it is the nonrelativistic variant of the R-symmetry group that was introduced previously. Obviously the nonrelativistic group can be bigger than its relativistic counterpart, as it is required to commute with a smaller group. For instance, in D = 4 spacetime dimensions, the relativistic R-symmetry group is equal to U (N ), while the nonrelativistic one is the group U Sp(2N ), which contains U (N ) as a subgroup according to 2N = N + N. Table 7 shows the smallest massive representations for N ≤ 4 in D = 4 dimensions as an illustration. Clearly the states of given spin can be assigned to representations of the nonrelativistic group HR = U Sp(2N ) and decomposed in terms of irreducible representations of the relativistic R-symmetry group U (N ). More explicit derivations can be found in [4]. Knowledge of the relevant groups HR is important and convenient in writing down the supermultiplets. It can also reveal certain relations between supermultiplets, even between supermultiplets living in spacetimes of diﬀerent dimension. Obviously, supermultiplets living in higher dimensions can always be decomposed into supermultiplets living in lower dimensions, and massive supermultiplets can be decomposed in terms of massless ones, but sometimes there exists a relationship that is less trivial. For instance, the D = 4 massive multiplets shown in Table 7 coincide with the massless supermultiplets of chirally extended supersymmetry in D = 6 dimensions shown in Table 4. In particular the N = 4 supermultiplet of Table 7 appears in many places and coincides with the massless N = 8 supermultiplet

18

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

in D = 5 dimensions, which is shown in Tables 10 and 11. The reasons for this are clear. The D = 5 and the chiral D = 6 massless supermultiplets are subject to the same helicity group SU (2), which in turn coincides with the spin rotation group for D = 4. Not surprisingly, also the relevant automorphism groups HR coincide, as the reader can easily verify. Since the number of eﬀective supercharges is equal in these cases and given by Qeﬀ = 16 (remember that only half of the charges play a role in building up massless supermultiplets), the multiplets must indeed be identical. Here we also want to brieﬂy draw the attention to the relation between oﬀ-shell multiplets and massive representations. So far we discussed supermultiplets consisting of states on which the supercharges act. These states can be described by a ﬁeld theory in which the supercharges generate corresponding supersymmetry variations on the ﬁelds. Very often the transformations on the ﬁelds do not close according to the supersymmetry algebra unless one imposes the equations of motion for the ﬁelds. Such representations are called on-shell representations. The lack of closure has many consequences, for instance, when determining quantum corrections. In certain cases one can improve the situation by introducing extra ﬁelds which do not directly correspond to physical ﬁelds. These ﬁelds are known as auxiliary ﬁelds. By employing such ﬁelds one may be able to deﬁne an oﬀ-shell representation, where the transformations close upon (anti)commutation without the need for imposing ﬁeld equations. Unfortunately, many theories do not possess (ﬁnite-dimensional) oﬀ-shell representations. Notorious examples are gauge theories and supergravity theories with 16 or more supercharges. This fact makes is much more diﬃcult to construct an extended variety of actions for these theories, because the transformation rules are implicitly dependent on the action. There is an oﬀ-shell counting argument. according to which the ﬁeld degrees of freedom should comprise a massive supermultiplet (while the states that are described could be massless). For instance, the oﬀ-shell description of the N = 2 vector multiplet in D = 4 dimensions can be formulated in terms of a gauge ﬁeld (with three degrees of freedom), a fermion doublet (with eight degrees of freedom) and a triplet of auxiliary scalar ﬁelds (with three degrees of freedom), precisely in accord with the N = 2 entry in Table 7. In fact, this multiplet coincides with the multiplet of the currents that couple to an N = 2 supersymmetric gauge theory. The N = 4 multiplet in Table 7 corresponds to the gravitational supermultiplet of currents [22]. These are the currents that couple to the ﬁelds of N = 4 conformal supergravity. Extending the number of supercharges beyond 16 will increase the minimal spin of a massive multiplet beyond spin-2. Since higher-spin ﬁelds can usually not be coupled, one may conclude that conformal supergravity does not exist for more than 16 charges. For that

B. de Wit: Supergravity

19

Table 7. Minimal D = 4 massive supermultiplets without central charges for N ≤ 4. The states are listed as U Sp(2N ) representations which are subsequently decomposed into representations of U (N ).

spin 1 1/2 0 2 3/2 1 1/2 0

N =1 1=1 2=1+¯ 1 N =3 1=1 6=3+¯ 3 14 = 8 + 3 + ¯ 3 14 = 6 + ¯ 6+1+¯ 1

N =2 1=1 4 = 2 + ¯2 5 = 3 + 1 + ¯1 N =4 1=1 8 = 4 + ¯4 27 = 15 + 6 + ¯6 48 = 20 + 20 + 4 + ¯4 42 = 20 + 10 + 10 + 1 + ¯1

reason there can be no oﬀ-shell formulations for supergravity with more than 16 charges. Conformal supergravity will be discussed in Section 7. In Section 2.5 we will present a table listing the various groups HR for spinors associated with certain Cliﬀord algebras C(p, q) with corresponding rotation groups SO(p, q). Subsequently we then discuss some further implications of these results. 2.4 Central charges and multiplet shortening The supersymmetry algebra of the maximal supergravities comprises general coordinate transformations, local supersymmetry transformations and the gauge transformations associated with the antisymmetric gauge ﬁelds7 . These gauge transformations usually appear in the anticommutator of two supercharges, and may be regarded as central charges. In perturbation theory, the theory does not contain charged ﬁelds, so these central charges simply vanish on physical states. However, at the nonperturbative level, there may be solitonic or other states that carry charges. An example are magnetic monopoles, dyons, or black holes. At the M-theory level, these charges are associated with certain brane conﬁgurations. On such states, some of the central charges may take ﬁnite values. Without further knowledge about the kind of states that may emerge at the nonperturbative level, 7 There may be additional gauge transformations that are of interest to us. As we discuss in due course, it is possible to have (part of) the automorphism group HR realized as a local invariance. However, the corresponding gauge ﬁelds are composite and do not give rise to physical states (at least, not in perturbation theory).

20

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Table 8. Decomposition of the central extension in the supersymmetry algebra with Q = 32 supercharge components in terms of p-rank Lorentz tensors. The second row speciﬁes the number of independent components for each p-rank tensor charge. The total number of central charges is equal to 528 − D, because we have not listed the D independent momentum operators.

D 11

HR 1

10A 1

p=0

p=1

1 [1]

1 [10] 2 [10] 2 [9] 3 [8] 5 [7] (1, 1) +(5, 1) +(1, 5) [6] 27 [5] 63 [4] 135 [3]

10B SO(2) 9

SO(2)

8

U (2)

7

U Sp(4)

6

U Sp(4) ×U Sp(4)

5

U Sp(8)

4

U (8)

3

SO(16)

1+2 [1] 3+¯ 3 [1] 10 [1] (4, 4)

[1] 1 + 27 [1] 28 + 28 [1] 120 [1]

p=2 1 [55] 1 [45]

1 [36] 1+¯ 1 [28] 1+5 [21] (4, 4)

[15] 36 [10] 36 + 36 [3]

p=3

p=4

1 [210] 1 [120] 1 [84] 1+3 [56] 10 [35] (10, 1) +(1, 10)

p=5 1 [462] 1+1 [126] 1+2 [126]

1+2 [126] 3 + ¯3 [35]

[10]

we can generally classify the possible central charges, by considering a decomposition of the anticommutator. This anticommutator carries at least two spinor indices and two indices associated with the group HR . Hence we may write {Qα , Qβ } ∝ (Γµ1 ···µp C)αβ Zµ1 ···µp , (2.11) p

where Γµ1 ···µp is the antisymmetrized product of p gamma matrices, C is the charge-conjugation matrix and Zµ1 ···µp is the central charge, which

B. de Wit: Supergravity

21

transforms as an antisymmetric p-rank Lorentz tensor and depends on possible additional HR indices attached to the supercharges. The central charge must be symmetric or antisymmetric in these indices, depending on whether the (Γµ1 ···µp C)αβ is antisymmetric or symmetric in α, β, so that the product with Zµ1 ···µp is always symmetric in the combined indices of the supercharges. For given spacetime dimension all possible central charges can be classiﬁed8 . For the maximal supergravities in spacetime dimensions 3 ≤ D ≤ 11 this classiﬁcation is given in Table 8, where we list all possible charges and their HR representation assignments. Because we have 32 supercharge components, the sum of the independent momentum operators and the central charges must be equal to (32 × 33)/2 = 528. The results of the table are in direct correspondence with the eleven-dimensional superalgebra with the most general central charges, ¯ β } = −2iPM ΓM + ZMN ΓMN + ZMN P QR ΓMN P QR . {Qα , Q αβ αβ αβ

(2.12)

The two central charges, ZMN and ZMN P QR can be associated with the winding numbers of two- and ﬁve-branes. In order to realize the supersymmetry algebra in a positive-deﬁnite Hilbert space, the right-hand side of the anticommutator is subject to a positivity condition, which generically implies that the mass of the multiplet is larger than or equal to the central charges. Especially in higher dimensions, the bound may can take a complicated form. This positivity bound is known as the Bogomol’nyi bound. When the bound is saturated one speaks of BPS states. For BPS multiplets some of the supercharges must vanish on the states, in the same way as half of the charges vanish for the massless supermultiplets. This vanishing of some of the supercharges leads to a shortening of the multiplet. Qualitatively, this phenomenon of multiplet shortening is the same as for massless supermultiplets, but here the fraction of the charges that vanishes is not necessarily equal to 1/2. Hence one speaks of 1/2-BPS, 1/4-BPS supermultiplets, etcetera, to indicate which fraction of the supercharges vanishes on the states. The fact that the BPS supermultiplets have a completely diﬀerent ﬁeld content than the generic massive supermultiplets makes that they exhibit a remarkable stability under “adiabatic” deformations. This means that perturbative results based on BPS supermultiplets can often be extrapolated to a nonperturbative regime. For higher extended supersymmetry the diﬀerence in size of BPS supermultiplets and massive supermultiplets can be enormous in view of the fact that the number of states depend exponentionally on the number of nonvanishing central charges. For lower supersymmetry the multiplets can be 8 For

related discussions see, for example [23–25] and references therein.

22

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

comparable in size, but nevertheless they are quite diﬀerent. For instance, consider N = 2 massive vector supermultiplets in four spacetime dimensions. Without central charges, such a multiplet comprises 8 + 8 states, corresponding to the three states of spin-1, the eight states of four irreducible spin- 12 representations, and ﬁve states with spin 0. On the other hand there is another massive vector supermultiplet, which is BPS and comprises the three states of spin-1, the four states of two spin- 12 representations and two states of spin-0. These states are subject to a nonvanishing central charge which requires that the states are all doubly degenerate, so that we have again 8 + 8 states, but with a completely diﬀerent spin content. When decomposing these multiplets into massless N = 2 supermultiplets, the ﬁrst multiplet decomposes into a massless vector multiplet and a hypermultiplet. Hence this is the multiplet one has in the Higgs phase, where the hypermultiplet provides the scalar degree of freedom that allows the conversion of the massless to massive spin-1 states. This multiplet carries no central charge. The second supermultiplet, which is BPS, appears as a massive charged vector multiplet when breaking a non-Abelian supersymmetric gauge theory to an Abelian subgroup. This realization is known as the Coulomb phase. In view of the very large variety of BPS supermultiplets, we do not continue this general discussion of supermultiplets with central charges. In later sections we will discuss speciﬁc BPS supermultiplets as well as other mechanisms of multiplet shortening in anti-de Sitter space. 2.5 On spinors and the R-symmetry group HR In this section we return once more to the spinor representations and the corresponding automorphism group HR , also known as the R-symmetry group. Table 9 summarizes information for spinors up to (real) dimension 32 associated with the groups SO(p, q), where we restrict q ≤ 2. From this table we can gain certain insights into the properties of spinors living in Euclidean, Minkowski and (anti-)de Sitter spaces as well as the supersymmetry algebras based on these spinors. Let us ﬁrst elucidate the information presented in the table. Subsequently we shall discuss some correspondences between the various spinors in diﬀerent dimensions. We consider the Cliﬀord algebras C(p, q) based on p + q generators, denoted by e1 , e2 , . . . , ep+q , with a nondegenerate metric of signature (p, q). This means that p generators square to the identity and q to minus the identity. We list the real dimension of the irreducible Cliﬀord algebra representation, denoted by dC , and the values r (equal to 0, . . . , 3), where r is deﬁned by r ≡ p − q mod 4. The value for r determines the square of the matrix built from forming the product e1 · e2 · · · ep+q of all the Cliﬀord algebra generators. For r = 0, 1 this square equals the identity, while for r = 2, 3 the square equals minus the identity. Therefore, for r = 0, the

B. de Wit: Supergravity

23

subalgebra C+ (p, q) generated by products of even numbers of generators is not simple and breaks into two simple ideals, while for r = 1, the full Cliﬀord algebra C(p, q) decomposes into two simple ideals. We also present the centralizer of the irreducible representations of the Cliﬀord algebra, which, according to Schur’s lemma, must form a division algebra and is thus isomorphic to the real numbers (R), the complex numbers (C), or the quaternions (H). This means that the irreducible representation commutes with the identity and none, one or three complex structures, respectively, which generate the corresponding division algebra. Table 9 reﬂects also the so-called periodicity theorem [26], according to which there exists an isomorphism between the Cliﬀord algebras C(p+8, q) (or C(p, q+8)) and C(p, q) times the 16 × 16 real matrices. Therefore, the dimension of the representations of C(p+8, q) (or C(p, q +8)) and C(p, q) diﬀers by a factor 16. Finally the table lists the branching of the Cliﬀord algebra representation into SO(p, q) spinor representations. When r = 0 the Cliﬀord algebra representation decomposes into two chiral spinors. Observe that for r = 2 we can also have chiral spinors, but they are complex so that their real dimension remains unaltered. For r = 2, 3 there are no chiral spinors, but nevertheless in certain cases the Cliﬀord algebra representation can still decompose into two irreducible spinor representations. The last column gives the compact group HR , consisting of the linear transformations that commute with the group SO(p, q) and act on N irreducible spinors, leaving a positive-deﬁnite metric invariant. For r = 0, a group HR should be assigned to each of the chiral sectors separately. Again, according to Schur’s lemma the centralizer of SO(p, q) must form a division algebra for irreducible spinor representations. Correspondingly, the group SO(p, q) commutes with the identity and none, one or three complex structures, which leads to HR = SO(N ), U (N ), or U Sp(2N ), respectively. We note that the results of Table 9 are in accord with the results presented earlier in Tables 1 and 2. We now discuss and clarify a number of correspondences between spinors living in diﬀerent dimensions. The ﬁrst correspondence is between spinors of SO(p, 1) and SO(p − 1, 0). According to the table, for any p > 1, the dimensions of the corresponding spinors diﬀer by a factor two, while their respective groups HR always coincide. From a physical perspective, this correspondence can be understood from the fact that SO(p − 1, 0) is the helicity group of massless spinor states in ﬂat Minkowski space of dimension D = p + 1. In a ﬁeld-theoretic context the reduction of the spinor degrees of freedom is eﬀected by the massless Dirac equation and the automorphism groups HR that commute with the Lorentz transformations and the transverse helicity rotations, respectively, simply coincide. The two algebras (2.1) and (2.3) thus share the same automorphism group. From a

24

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Table 9. Representations of the Cliﬀord algebras C(p, q) with q ≤ 2 and their centralizers, and the SO(p, q) spinors of maximal real dimension 32 and their Rsymmetry group. We also list the dimensions of the Cliﬀord algebra and spinor representation, as well as r = p − q mod 4.

dC

C(p, q)

r

centralizer

dSO(p,q)

HR

1 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 64 64 64

C(1, 0) C(0, 1) C(1, 1) C(2, 0) C(2, 1) C(0, 2) C(1, 2) C(2, 2) C(3, 0) C(3, 1) C(3, 2) C(4, 0) C(4, 1) C(4, 2) C(5, 0) C(5, 1) C(5, 2) C(6, 0) C(6, 1) C(7, 0) C(8, 0) C(9, 0) C(6, 2) C(7, 1) C(7, 2) C(8, 1) C(9, 1) C(10, 0) C(10, 1) C(8, 2) C(9, 2) C(10, 2)

1 3 0 2 1 2 3 0 3 2 1 0 3 2 1 0 3 2 1 3 0 1 0 2 3 3 0 2 1 2 3 0

R C R R R H C R H C R H H C H H C H H C R R H C H C R R R H C R

1 1+1 1+1 2 2 2+2 2+2 2+2 4 4 4 4+4 8 8 8 8+8 16 8+8 16 8+8 8+8 16 16 + 16 16 + 16 32 16 + 16 16 + 16 32 32 32 + 32 32 + 32 32 + 32

SO(N ) SO(N ) SO(N ) U (N ) SO(N ) U (N ) SO(N ) SO(N ) U Sp(2N ) U (N ) SO(N ) U Sp(2N ) U Sp(2N ) U (N ) U Sp(2N ) U Sp(2N ) U Sp(2N ) U (N ) U Sp(2N ) SO(N ) SO(N ) SO(N ) U Sp(2N ) U (N ) U Sp(2N ) SO(N ) SO(N ) U (N ) SO(N ) U (N ) SO(N ) SO(N )

B. de Wit: Supergravity

25

mathematical viewpoint, this correspondence is related to the isomorphism C(p, q) ∼ = C(p − 1, q − 1) ⊗ C(1, 1) ,

(2.13)

where we note that C(1, 1) is isomorphic with the real 2 × 2 matrices. Inspired by the ﬁrst correspondence one may investigate a second one between spinors of SO(p, 1) and SO(p, 0) with p > 1. Physically this correspondence is relevant when considering relativistic massive spinors in ﬂat Minkowski spacetime of dimension D = p + 1, which transform in the restframe under p-dimensional spin rotations. As the table shows, this correspondence is less systematic and, indeed, an underlying isomorphism for the corresponding Cliﬀord algebras is lacking. The results of the table should therefore be applied with care. In a number of cases the relativistic spinor transforms irreducibly under the nonrelativistic rotation group. In that case the dimension of the automorphism group HR can increase, as it does for p = 3 and 10, but not for p = 5 and 9. For p = 3 (or, equivalently, D = 4) the implications of the fact that the nonrelativistic automorphism group U Sp(2N ) is bigger than the relativistic one, have already been discussed in Section 2.3. In the remaining cases, p = 4, 6, 7, 8 (always modulo 8), the relativistic spinor decomposes into two nonrelativistic spinors. Because the number of irreducible spinors is then doubled, the nonrelativistic automorphism group has a tendency to increase, but one should consult the table for speciﬁc cases. The third correspondence relates spinors of SO(p, 2) and SO(p, 1) with p > 1. Again the situation depends sensitively on the value for p. In a number of cases (i.e., p = 2, 3, 4, 6) the spinor dimension is the same for both groups. This can be understood from the fact that the Cliﬀord algebra representations are irreducible with respect to SO(p, 1), so that one can always extend the generators of SO(p, 1), which are proportional to Γ[a Γb] , to those of SO(p, 2) by including the gamma matrices Γa . However, the Rsymmetry group is not necessarily the same. For p = 4 the SO(4, 2) spinors allow the R-symmetry group U (N ), while for SO(4, 1) the R-symmetry group is larger and equal to U Sp(2N ). Therefore theories formulated in ﬂat Minkowski spacetime of dimension D = 3, 4, 5, 6 can in principle be elevated to anti-de Sitter space. For D = 5 the R-symmetry reduces to U (N ), while for D = 3, 4, 6 the R-symmetry remains the same. In the remaining dimensions, D = 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, a single Minkowski spinor can not be elevated to anti-de Sitter space, and one must at least start from an even number of ﬂat Minkowski spinors (so that N is even). For these cases, it is hard to make general statements about the fate of the R-symmetry when moving to anti-de Sitter space and one has to consult Table 9. The fourth correspondence is again more systematic, as it is based on the isomorphism (2.13). The correspondence relates spinors of SO(p, 2)

26

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

and of SO(p − 1, 1). For all p > 1 the spinor dimension diﬀers by one-half while the R-symmetry group remains the same. Observe that SO(p, 2) can be regarded as the group of conformal symmetries in a Minkowski space of p dimensions, or as the isometry group of an anti-de Sitter space of dimension p + 1. This correspondence extends this statement to the level of spinors. It implies that the extension of the Poincar´e superalgebra in D = p spacetime dimensions to a superconformal algebra requires a doubling of the number of supercharges. This feature is well known [27] and the two supersymmetries are called Q- and S-supersymmetry. The anticommutator of two S-supersymmetry charges yields the conformal boosts. Both set of charges transform under the R-symmetry group of the Poincar´e algebra, which plays a more basic role in the superconformal algebra as its generators appear in the anticommutator of a Q-supersymmetry and an S-supersymmetry charge. In the anti-de Sitter context, the spinor charge is irreducible but has simply twice as many components. We return to the superconformal invariance and related aspects in Section 7. It is illuminating to exploit some of the previous correspondences and the relations between various supersymmetry representations in the context of the so-called adS/CFT correspondence [28]. We close this section by exhibiting a chain of relationships between various supermultiplets. We start with an N = 4 supersymmetric gauge theory in D = 4 spacetime dimensions, whose massless states are characterized as representations of the SO(2) helicity group and the R-symmetry group SU (4)9 . Hence we have a ﬁeld theory with Q = 16 supersymmetries, of which only 8 are realized on the massless supermultiplet. This supermultiplet decomposes as follows, (2.14) (±1, 1)p + (0, 6)p + ( 12 , 4)p + (− 12 , 4)p , where p indicates the three-momentum, |p| the energy, and the entries in the parentheses denote the helicity and the SU (4) representation of the states. Multiplying this multiplet with a similar one, but now with opposite three-momentum −p, yields a multiplet with zero momentum and with mass M = 2|p|. As it turns out the helicity states can now be assembled into states that transform under the 3-dimensional rotation group, so that they can be characterized by their spin. The resulting supermultiplet consists of 128 + 128 degrees of freedom. While the states of the original multiplet (2.14) were only subject to the helicity group and 8 supersymmetries, the composite multiplet is now a full supermultiplet subject to 16 supersymmetries and the rotation (rather than the helicity) group. 9 Because this multiplet is CPT self-conjugate, the U (1) subgroup of U (4) coincides with the helicity group and plays no independent role here.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

27

Indeed, inspection shows that this composite multiplet is precisely the N = 4 massive multiplet shown in Table 7. In this form the relevant R-symmetry group is extended to U Sp(8). It is possible to cast the above product of states into a product of ﬁelds of the 4-dimensional gauge theory. One then ﬁnds that the spin-2 operators correspond to the energy-momentum tensor, which is conserved (i.e. divergence-free) and traceless, so that it has precisely the 5 independent components appropriate for spin-2. The spin-1 operators decompose into 15 conserved vectors, associated with the currents of SU (4), and 6 selfdual antisymmetric tensors. The spin-0 operators are scalar composite operators. Furthermore there are 4 chiral and 4 antichiral vector-spinor operators, which are conserved and traceless (with respect to a contraction with gamma matrices) such that each of them correspond precisely to the 4 components appropriate for spin- 32 . These are the supersymmetry currents. Finally there are 20 and 4 chiral and antichiral spin- 21 operators. This is precisely the supermultiplet of currents [22], which couples to the ﬁelds of conformal supergravity. Because neither the currents nor the conformal supergravity ﬁelds are subject to any ﬁeld equations (unlike the supersymmetric gauge multiplet from which we started, which constitutes only an on-shell supermultiplet), it forms the basis for a proper oﬀ-shell theory of N = 4 conformal supergravity [22]. The presence of the traceless and conserved energy-momentum tensor and supersymmetry currents, and of the SU (4) conserved currents, is a consequence of the superconformal invariance of the underlying 4-dimensional gauge theory. The N = 4 conformal supergravity theory couples consistently to the N = 4 supersymmetric gauge theory. Section 7 will further explain the general setting of superconformal theories that is relevant in this context. The oﬀ-shell N = 4 conformal supergravity multiplet in 4 dimensions can also be interpreted as an on-shell massless supermultiplet in 5 dimensions with 32 supersymmetries. Because of the masslessness, the states are annihilated by half the supercharges and are still classiﬁed according to SO(3), which now acts as the helicity group; the R-symmetry group coincides with the U Sp(8) R-symmetry of the relativistic 5-dimensional supersymmetry algebra. Hence this is the same multiplet that describes D = 5 maximal supergravity. This theory has a nonlinearly realized E6(6) invariance whose linearly realized subgroup (which is relevant for the spectrum) equals U Sp(8). The latter theory can be gauged (we refer to Sect. 5 for a discussion of this) in which case it can possess an anti-de Sitter ground state. According to Table 9, a fully supersymmetric ground state leads to a U (4) R-symmetry group. As we will discuss in Section 6, anti-de Sitter space leads to “remarkable representations”. These are the singletons, which do

28

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

not have a smooth Poincar´e limit because they are associated with possible degrees of freedom living on a 4-dimensional boundary. Because the 5dimensional anti-de Sitter superalgebra coincides with the 4-dimensional superconformal algebra, the 4-dimensional boundary theory must be consistent with superconformal invariance. Hence it does not come as a surprise that these singleton representations coincide with the supermultiplet of 4dimensional N = 4 gauge theory. This set-up requires the gauge group of 5-dimensional supergravity to be chosen such as to preserve the relevant automorphism group. Therefore the gauge group must be equal to SO(6) ∼ = SU (4)/Z2 . Indeed, this gauging allows for an anti-de Sitter maximally supersymmetric ground state [29]. Thus, the circle closes. We stress that the above excursion, linking the various supermultiplets in diﬀerent dimensions by a series of arguments, is purely based on symmetries. It does not capture the dynamical aspects of the adS/CFT correspondence and has no bearing on the nature of the gauge group in 4 dimensions. At this stage we thus have to content ourselves with the existence of this remarkable chain of correspondences. Many aspects of these correspondences will reappear in later sections. 3

Supergravity

In this section we discuss ﬁeld theories that are invariant under local supersymmetry. Because of the underlying supersymmetry algebra, the invariance under local supersymmetry implies the invariance under spacetime diﬀeomorphisms. Therefore these theories are necessarily theories of gravity. We exhibit the initial steps in the construction of a supergravity theory, with and without a cosmological term. Then we concentrate on maximal supergravity theories in various dimensions, their symmetries, and dimensional compactiﬁcations on tori. At the end we brieﬂy discuss some of the nonmaximal theories 3.1 Simple supergravity The ﬁrst steps in the construction of any supergravity theory are usually based on the observation that local supersymmetry implies the invariance under general coordinate transformation. Therefore one must introduce the ﬁelds needed to describe general relativity, namely a vielbein ﬁeld eµa and a spin-connection ﬁeld ωµab . The vielbein ﬁeld is nonsingular and its inverse is denoted by eaµ . The vielbein deﬁnes a local set of tangent frames of the spacetime manifold, while the spin-connection ﬁeld is associated with (local) Lorentz transformations of these frames. The world indices, µ, ν, . . ., and the tangent space indices, a, b, . . ., both run from 0 to D−1. For an introduction

B. de Wit: Supergravity

29

to the vielbein formalism we refer to [30]. Furthermore one needs one or several gravitino ﬁelds, which carry both a world index and a spinor index and which act as the gauge ﬁelds associated with local supersymmetry. For simplicity we only consider a single Majorana gravitino ﬁeld, denoted by ψµ , but this restriction is not essential10 . Hence any supergravity Lagrangian is expected to contain the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian of general relativity and the Rarita-Schwinger Lagrangian for the gravitino ﬁeld, κ2 L = − 12 e R(ω) − 12 eψ¯µ Γµνρ Dν (ω)ψρ + · · · , where the covariant derivative on a spinor ψ reads

Dµ (ω)ψ = ∂µ − 14 ωµab Γab ψ ,

(3.1)

(3.2)

and ωµ ab is the spin-connection ﬁeld whose deﬁnition will be discussed in a sequel. The matrices 12 Γab = 14 [Γa , Γb ] are the generators of the Lorentz transformations in spinor space, κ2 is related to Newton’s constant and e = det(eµa ). Observe that the spinor covariant derivative on ψµ contains no aﬃne connection, as it should [30]. We note the existence of two covariant tensors, namely the curvature ab a (ω) and the torsion tensor Rµν (P ), associated with the spin connection Rµν which carries this name because it is proportional to the antisymmetric part ρ , upon using the vielbein postulate, of the aﬃne connection, Γ[µν] ab Rµν (ω) = ∂µ ωνab − ∂ν ωµab + ωµac ωνb c − ωνac ωµb c , a (P ) = Dµ (ω)eνa − Dν (ω)eµa . Rµν

(3.3)

We note that these tensors satisfy the Bianchi identities, ab D[µ (ω)Rνρ] (ω) = 0 ,

a ab D[µ (ω)Rνρ] (P ) + R[µν (ω) eρ] b = 0 .

(3.4)

It is suggestive to regard eµa and ωµab as the gauge ﬁelds of the Poincar´e group. In that context R(ω) is written as R(M ), so that P and M denote the translation and the Lorentz generators of the Poincar´e algebra. We will use this notation in later sections when discussing the anti-de Sitter and the conformal algebras. Here we will just use the notation R(ω) and deﬁne its contractions with the inverse vielbeine (related to the Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar) by ab (ω) , Rµa (e, ω) = ebν Rµν

ab R(e, ω) = eaµ ebν Rµν (ω) .

(3.5)

10 For deﬁniteness we consider a generic supergravity theory with one Majorana gravitino with an antisymmetric charge-conjugation matrix C and gamma matrices Γa satisa fying CΓa C −1 = −ΓT a . Furthermore Γµ = eµ Γa .

30

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The spin connection can be treated as an independent ﬁeld (ﬁrst-order formalism), which is then solved in terms of its ﬁeld equations, or it can be ﬁxed from the beginning (second-order formalism), for instance, by imposing the constraint, a Rµν (P ) = 0 . (3.6) Such a constraint is called “conventional” because it expresses one ﬁeld in terms of other ﬁelds in an algebraic fashion. For pure gravity the ﬁrst- and the second-order formulism lead to the same result. The constraint (3.6) can be solved algebraically and leads to, ωµab (e) = 12 eµc (Ωab c − Ωb c a − Ωc ab ) ,

(3.7)

where the Ωab c are the objects of anholonomity, Ωab c = eaµ ebν (∂µ eνc − ∂µ eνc ) .

(3.8)

From the spin connection one deﬁnes the aﬃne connection by Γµνρ = eaρ Dµ (ω)eνa , which ensures the validity of the vielbein postulate. With the zero-torsion value (3.7) for the spin connection, the aﬃne connection ab (ω) eρ a ebσ coinbecomes equal to the Christoﬀel symbols and Rµνρ σ = Rµν cides with the standard Riemann tensor. The action corresponding to the above Lagrangian is locally supersymmetric up to terms cubic in the gravitino ﬁeld. The supersymmetry transformations contain the terms, δeµ a = 12 ¯ Γa ψµ ,

δψµ = Dµ (ω) ,

(3.9)

where the gravitino variation is the extension to curved spacetime of the spinor gauge invariance of a Rarita-Schwinger ﬁeld. Extending this Lagrangian to a fully supersymmetric one is not always possible. Usually it requires additional ﬁelds of lower spin, whose existence can be inferred from the knowledge of the possible underlying (massless) supermultiplets of states. When the spacetime dimension exceeds eleven, conventional supergravity no longer exists, as we shall discuss in the next section. Let us now include a cosmological term into the above Lagrangian as well as a suitably chosen masslike term for the gravitino ﬁeld, L

= − 12 e R(e, ω) − 12 eψ¯µ Γµνρ Dν (ω)ψρ + 14 g(D − 2)e ψ¯µ Γµν ψν + 12 g 2 (D − 1)(D − 2) e + · · · (3.10)

As it turns out the corresponding action is still locally supersymmetric, up to terms that are cubic in the gravitino ﬁeld, provided that we introduce an extra term to the transformation rules,

(3.11) δψµ = Dµ (ω) + 12 gΓµ . δeµ a = 12 ¯ Γa ψµ ,

B. de Wit: Supergravity

31

The Lagrangian (3.10) was ﬁrst written down in [31] in four space-time dimensions and the correct interpretation of the masslike term was given in [32]. Observe that the variation for ψµ may be regarded as a generalized covariant derivative, where ωµab and eµa act as gauge ﬁelds11 . Consistency requires that gΓµ satisﬁes the same Majorana constraint as ψµ and . With the conventions that we have adopted this implies that g is real. The reality of g has important consequences, as it implies that the cosmological term is of deﬁnite sign. Hence supersymmetry does not a priori forbid a cosmological term, but it must be of deﬁnite sign (at least, if the ground state is to preserve supersymmetry). This example does not cover all cases, as one does not always have a single Majorana spinor with the speciﬁed charge conjugation properties. Nevertheless the conclusion that the cosmological term must have this particular sign remains, unless one accepts “ghosts”: ﬁelds whose kinetic terms are of the wrong sign. For an early discussion, see [33, 34] and references therein. We should point out that there are situations where a cosmological term is not consistent with supersymmetry. Assuming that the theory has an anti-de Sitter or de Sitter ground state, one may verify whether the Minkowski spinors have the right dimension to enable them to live in these spaces. For instance, a MajoranaWeyl spinor in D = 10 spacetime dimensions has only half the number of components as compared to a spinor in (anti-)de Sitter space of the same dimension. Therefore, simple supergravity in D = 10 dimensions cannot possibly have (anti-)de Sitter ground states. Such a counting argument does not exclude anti-de Sitter ground states in D = 11 spacetime dimensions, because D = 11 Lorentz spinors can exist in anti-de Sitter space. Here the argument may be invoked that no relevant supersymmetric extension of the anti-de Sitter algebra exists beyond D = 7 dimensions [3], but there are also explicit studies ruling out supersymmetric cosmological terms in 11 dimensions [35]. The Einstein equation corresponding to (3.10) reads (suppressing the gravitino ﬁeld), Rµν − 12 gµν R + 12 g 2 (D − 1)(D − 2) gµν = 0 ,

(3.12)

Rµν = g 2 (D − 1) gµν ,

(3.13)

which implies, R = g 2 D(D − 1) .

11 The masslike term in (3.10) is consistent with that interpretation as it can be generated from the Rarita-Schwinger Lagrangian by the same change of the covariant derivative, i.e., − 21 eψ¯µ Γµνρ (Dν (ω) + 12 gΓν )ψρ .

32

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Hence we are dealing with a D-dimensional Einstein space. The maximally symmetric solution of this equation is an anti-de Sitter space, whose Riemann curvature equals Rµνab = 2g 2 eµ[a eν b] .

(3.14)

This solution leaves all supersymmetries intact just as ﬂat Minkowski space does. One can verify this directly by considering the supersymmetry variation of the gravitino ﬁeld and by requiring that it vanishes in the bosonic background. This happens for spinors (x) satisfying

(3.15) Dµ (ω) + 12 gΓµ = 0 . Spinors satisfying this equation are called Killing spinors. Since (3.15) is a ﬁrst-order diﬀerential equation, one expects that it can be solved provided some integrability condition is satisﬁed. To see this one notes that also (Dµ (ω) + 12 gΓµ )(Dν (ω) + 12 gΓν ) must vanish. Antisymmetrizing this expression in µ and ν then yields the (algebraic) integrability condition − 14 Rµνab Γab + 12 g 2 Γµν = 0 . (3.16) Multiplication with Γν yields Rµν − g 2 (D − 1) gµν Γν = 0 ,

(3.17)

from which one derives that the Riemann tensor satisﬁes (3.13). Therefore supersymmetry requires an Einstein space. Requiring full supersymmetry, so that (3.15) holds for any spinor , implies (3.14) so that the spinor must live in anti-de Sitter space. Hence we have seen that supersymmetry can be realized in anti-de Sitter space. We will return to this issue later in Section 6, where we discuss the (super)multiplet structure in anti-de Sitter space. We stress once more that, in this section, we have restricted ourselves to the graviton-gravitino sector. To construct the full theory usually requires more ﬁelds and important restrictions arise on the dimensionality of spacetime. For instance, while minimal supergravity in D = 4 dimensions does not require additional ﬁelds, in D = 11 dimensions an additional antisymmetric gauge ﬁeld is necessary. The need for certain extra ﬁelds can be readily deduced from the underlying massless supermultiplets, which were extensively discussed in the previous section. 3.2 Maximal supersymmetry and supergravity In Section 2 we restricted ourselves to supermultiplets based on Q ≤ 32 supercharge components. From the general analysis it is clear that increasing the number of supercharges leads to higher and higher helicity

B. de Wit: Supergravity

33

representations. For instance, the maximal helicity, |λmax |, of a massless supermultiplet in D = 4 spacetime dimensions is larger than or equal to 1 16 Q. Therefore, when Q > 8 we have |λmax | ≥ 1, so that theories for these multiplets must include vector gauge ﬁelds. When Q > 16 we have |λmax | ≥ 32 , so that the theory should contain Rarita-Schwinger ﬁelds. In view of the supersymmetry algebra an interacting supersymmetric theory of this type should contain gravity, so that in this case we must include λ = 2 states for the graviton. Beyond Q = 32 one is dealing with states of helicity λ > 2. Those are described by gauge ﬁelds that are symmetric Lorentz tensors. Symmetric tensor gauge ﬁelds for arbitrary helicity states can be constructed (in D = 4 dimensions, see, for instance [36]). However, it turns out that symmetric gauge ﬁelds cannot consistently couple, neither to themselves nor to other ﬁelds. An exception is the graviton ﬁeld, which can interact with itself as well as with low-spin matter, but not with other ﬁelds of the same spin [37]. By consistent, we mean that the respective gauge invariances of the higher-spin ﬁelds (or appropriate deformations thereof) cannot be preserved at the interacting level. Most of the search for interacting higher-spin ﬁelds was performed in 4 spacetime dimensions [38], but in higher dimensional spacetimes one expects to arrive at the same conclusions, because otherwise, upon dimensional reduction, these theories would give rise to theories that are consistent in D = 4. There is also direct evidence in D = 3, where graviton and gravitini ﬁelds do not describe dynamic degrees of freedom. Hence, one can write down supergravity theories based on a graviton ﬁeld and an arbitrary number of gravitino ﬁelds, which are topological. However, when coupling matter to this theory in the form of scalars and spinors, the theory does not support more than 32 supercharges. Beyond Q = 16 there are four unique theories with Q = 18, 20, 24 and 32 [8]. Hence the conclusion is that there is a restriction on the number Q of independent supersymmetries, as for Q > 32 no interacting ﬁeld theories seem to exist. There have been many eﬀorts to circumvent this bound of Q = 32 supersymmetries. It seems clear that one needs a combination of the following ingredients in order to do this (for a review, see e.g. [39]): (i) an inﬁnite tower of higher-spin gauge ﬁelds; (ii) interactions that are inversely proportional to the cosmological constant; (iii) extensions of the super-Poincar´e or the super-de Sitter algebra with additional fermionic and bosonic charges. Indeed explicit theories have been constructed which demonstrate this. However, conventional supergravity theories are not of this kind. This is the reason why we avoided (i.e. in Table 5) to list supermultiplets with states transforming in higher-helicity representations. The fact that an inﬁnite number of ﬁelds can cure certain inconsistencies is by itself not new. While a massive spin-2 ﬁeld cannot be coupled to gravity,

34

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Table 10. Bosonic ﬁeld content for maximal supergravities. The p = 3 gauge ﬁeld in D = 10B has a self-dual ﬁeld strength. The representations [1] and [28] (in D = 8, 4, respectively) are extended to U (1) and SU (8) representations through duality transformations on the ﬁeld strengths. These transformations cannot be represented on the vector potentials. In D = 3 dimensions, the graviton does not describe propagating degrees of freedom. For p > 0 the ﬁelds can be assigned to representations of a bigger group than HR . This will be discussed in due course.

D 11 10A 10B 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

HR 1 1 SO(2) SO(2) U (2) U Sp(4) U Sp(4) ×U Sp(4) U Sp(8) U (8) SO(16)

graviton 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

p = −1 0 1 2 2+1 5+1+¯ 1 14 (5, 5)

p=0 0 1 0 2+1 3+¯ 3 10 (4, 4)

1 1 1

42 35 + 35 128

27 [28]

p=1 0 1 2 2 3 5 (5, 1) +(1, 5)

p=2 1 1 0 1 [1]

p=3 0 0 1∗

the coupling of an inﬁnite number of them can be consistent, as can be seen in Kaluza-Klein theory. In this section we review the maximal supergravities in various dimensions. These theories have Q = 32 supersymmetries and we restrict our discussion to 3 ≤ D ≤ 11. The highest dimension D = 11 is motivated by the fact that spinors have more that 32 components in ﬂat Minkowski space for spacetime dimensions D > 11. Observe, however, that this argument assumes D-dimensional Lorentz invariance. As was stressed in [40,41], there are scenarios based on spacetime dimensions higher than D = 11, where the extra dimensions can not uniformly decompactify so that the no-go theorem is avoided. The fact that no uniform decompactiﬁcation is possible is closely related to the T -duality between winding and momentum states that one knows from string theory. The bosonic ﬁelds always comprise the metric tensor for the graviton and a number of (p + 1)-rank antisymmetric gauge ﬁelds. For the antisymmetric gauge ﬁelds, it is a priori unclear whether to choose a (p+1)-rank gauge ﬁeld or its dual (D − 3 − p)-rank partner, but it turns out that the interactions often prefer the rank of the gauge ﬁeld to be as small as possible. Therefore,

B. de Wit: Supergravity

35

Table 11. Fermionic ﬁeld content for maximal supergravities. For D = 5, 6, 7 the fermion ﬁelds are counted as symplectic Majorana spinors. For D = 4, 8 we include both chiral and antichiral spinor components, which transform in conjugate representations of HR . In D = 3 dimensions the gravitino does not describe propagating degrees of freedom.

D 11 10A 10B 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

HR 1 1 SO(2) SO(2) U (2) U Sp(4) U Sp(4)×U Sp(4) U Sp(8) U (8) SO(16)

gravitini 1 1+1 2 2 2+¯ 2 4 (4, 1) + (1, 4) 8 8+¯ 8 16

spinors 0 1+1 2 2+2 2 + ¯2 + 4 + ¯4 16 (4, 5) + (5, 4) 48 56 + 56 128

in Table 10, we restrict ourselves to p ≤ 3, as in D = 11 dimensions, p = 3 and p = 4 are each other’s dual conjugates. This table presents all the ﬁeld conﬁgurations for maximal supergravity in various dimensions. Obviously, the problematic higher-spin ﬁelds are avoided, because the only symmetric gauge ﬁeld is the one describing the graviton. In Table 11 we also present the fermionic ﬁelds, always consisting of gravitini and simple spinors. All these ﬁelds are classiﬁed as representations of the R-symmetry group HR . Note that the simplest versions of supergravity (which depend on no other coupling constant than Newton’s constant) are manifestly invariant under HR . Actually, as we will explain in a sequel, the maximal supergravity theories have symmetry groups that are much larger than HR .

3.3 D = 11 supergravity Supergravity in 11 spacetime dimensions is based on an “elfbein” ﬁeld EMA , a Majorana gravitino ﬁeld ΨM and a 3-rank antisymmetric gauge ﬁeld CMN P . With chiral (2, 0) supergravity in 6 dimensions, it is the only Q ≥ 16 supergravity theory without a scalar ﬁeld. Its Lagrangian can be written as

36

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

follows [11], 1 ¯ M ΓMN P DN (Ω)ΨP − 1 E(FMN P Q )2 L11 = 2 − 12 E R(E, Ω) − 12 E Ψ 48 κ11 √ 1 − 3456 2 εMN P QRST UV W X FMN P Q FRST U CV W X (3.18) √ 1 ¯ R ΓMN P QRS ΨS + 12 Ψ ¯ M ΓN P ΨQ FMN P Q + · · · , − 192 2E Ψ where the ellipses denote terms of order Ψ4 , E = det EMA and ΩMAB denotes the spin connection. The supersymmetry transformations are equal to δEMA = δCMN P δΨM

1 2

¯ ΓA ΨM , √ = − 18 2 ¯ Γ[MN ΨP ] , (3.19) √ N P QR ˆ + 1 2 ΓMN P QR − 8 δM FˆN P QR . = DM (Ω) Γ 288

Here the covariant derivative is covariant with respect to local Lorentz transformation DM (Ω) = ∂M − 14 ΩM AB ΓAB , (3.20) and FˆMN P Q is the supercovariant ﬁeld strength √ ¯ [M ΓN P ΨQ] . FˆMN P Q = 24 ∂[M CN P Q] + 3 2 Ψ 2

(3.21)

The supercovariant spin connection is the solution of the following equation, ¯ M ΓA Ψ N = 0 . ˆ E A − 1Ψ D[M (Ω) (3.22) N]

4

The left-hand side is the supercovariant torsion tensor. Note the presence of a Chern-Simons-like term F ∧ F ∧ C in the Lagrangian, so that the action is only invariant under tensor gauge transformations up to surface terms. We also wish to point out that the quartic-Ψ terms can be included into the Lagrangian (3.18) by replacing the spinˆ connection ﬁeld Ω by (Ω + Ω)/2 in the covariant derivative of the gravitino kinetic term and by replacing FMN P Q in the last line by (FˆMN P Q + FMN P Q )/2. These substitutions ensure that the ﬁeld equations corresponding to (3.18) are supercovariant. The Lagrangian is derived in the context of the so-called “1.5-order” formalism, in which the spin connection is deﬁned as a dependent ﬁeld determined by its (algebraic) equation of motion, whereas its supersymmetry variation in the action is treated as if it were an independent ﬁeld [42]. We have the following bosonic ﬁeld equations and Bianchi identities, RMN ∂M E F MN P Q

=

1 72 gMN

=

1 1152

∂[M FN P QR]

=

0,

FP QRS F P QRS − 16 FMP QR FNP QR ,

√ N P QRST UV W XY 2ε FRST U FV W XY ,

(3.23)

B. de Wit: Supergravity

37

which no longer depend explicitly on the antisymmetric gauge ﬁeld. An alternative form of the second equation is [43] ∂[M HN P QRST U] = 0 ,

(3.24)

where HMN P QRST is the dual ﬁeld strength, √ 1 E εMN P QRST UV W X F UV W X − 12 2 F[MN P Q CRST ] . 7! (3.25) One could imagine that the third equation of (3.23) and (3.24) receive contributions from charges that would give rise to source terms on the right-hand side of the equations. These charges are associated with the “ﬂux”-integral of HMN P QRST and FMN P Q over the boundary of an 8- and a 5-dimensional spatial volume, respectively. In analogy with the Maxwell theory,

the integral H may be associated with electric ﬂux and the integral F with magnetic ﬂux. The spatial volumes are orthogonal to a p = 2 and a p = 5 brane conﬁguration, respectively, and the corresponding charges are 2- and 5-rank Lorentz tensors. These are just the charges that can appear as central charges in the supersymmetry algebra (2.12). Solutions of 11-dimensional supergravity that contribute to these charges were considered in [44–46]. Finally, the constant 1/κ211 in front of the Lagrangian (3.18), which carries dimension [length]−9 ∼ [mass]9 , is undetermined and depends on ﬁxing some length scale. To see this consider a continuous rescaling of the ﬁelds, HMN P QRST =

EMA → e−α EMA ,

ΨM → e−α/2 ΨM ,

CMN P → e−3α CMN P . (3.26)

Under this rescaling the Lagrangian changes according to L11 → e−9α L11 .

(3.27)

This change can then be absorbed into a redeﬁnition of κ11 12 , κ211 → e−9α κ211 .

(3.28)

This simply means that the Lagrangian depends on only one dimensional coupling constant, namely κ11 . The same situation is present in many other supergravity theories. Concentrating on the Einstein-Hilbert action in D spacetime dimensions, the corresponding scaling property is D D gµν → e−2α gµν ,

LD → e(2−D)α LD ,

κ2D → e(2−D)α κ2D .

(3.29)

12 Note that the rescalings also leave the supersymmetry transformation rules unchanged, provided the supersymmetry parameter is changed accordingly.

38

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Of course, this implies that the physical value of Newton’s constant, does not necessarily coincide with the parameter κ2D in the Lagrangian but it also depends on the precise value adopted for the (ﬂat) metric in the ground state of the theory. 3.4 Dimensional reduction and hidden symmetries The maximal supergravities in various dimensions are related by dimensional reduction. In this reduction some of the spatial dimensions are compactiﬁed on a hypertorus and one retains only the ﬁelds that do not depend on the torus coordinates. This corresponds to the theory one obtains when the size of the torus is shrunk to zero. A subset of the gauge symmetries associated with the compactiﬁed dimensions survive as internal symmetries. The aim of the present discussion here is to elucidate a number of features related to these symmetries, mainly in the context of the reduction of D = 11 supergravity to D = 10 dimensions. We denote the compactiﬁed coordinate by x10 which now parameterizes a circle of length L13 . The ﬁelds are thus decomposed in a Fourier series as periodic functions in x10 on the interval 0 ≤ x10 ≤ L. This results in a spectrum of massless modes and an inﬁnite tower of massive modes with masses inversely proportional to the circle length L. The massless modes form the basis of the lower-dimensional supergravity theory. Because a toroidal background does not break supersymmetry, the resulting supergravity has the same number of supersymmetries as the original one. For compactiﬁcations on less trivial spaces than the hypertorus, this is usually not the case and the number of independent supersymmetries will be reduced. Fully supersymmetric compactiﬁcations are rare. For instance, 11-dimensional supergravity can be compactiﬁed to a 4-dimensional maximally symmetric spacetime in only two ways such that all supersymmetries remain unaﬀected [47]. One is the compactiﬁcation on a torus T 7 , the other one the compactiﬁcation on a sphere S 7 . In the latter case the resulting 4-dimensional supergravity theory acquires a cosmological term. In the formulation of the compactiﬁed theory, it is important to decompose the higher-dimensional ﬁelds in such a way that they transform covariantly under the lower-dimensional gauge symmetries and under diffeomorphisms of the lower-dimensional spacetime. This ensures that various complicated mixtures of massless modes with the tower of massive modes will be avoided. It is a key element in ensuring that solutions of the lowerdimensional theory remain solutions of the original higher-dimensional one, which is an obvious requirement for having consistent truncations to the 13 Throughout

these lectures we enumerate spacetime coordinates by 0, 1, . . . , D − 1.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

39

massless states. Another point of interest concerns the nature of the massive supermultiplets. Because these originate from supermultiplets that are massless in higher dimensions, they are 1/2-BPS multiplets which are shortened by the presence of central charges corresponding to the momenta in the compactiﬁed dimension. Implications of these BPS supermultiplets will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.6. The emergence of new internal symmetries in theories that originate from a higher-dimensional setting, is a standard feature of Kaluza-Klein theories [48]. Following the discussion in [49] we distinguish between symmetries that have a direct explanation in terms of the higher dimensional symmetries, and symmetries whose origin is obscure from a higher-dimensional viewpoint. Let us start with the symmetries associated with the metric tensor. The 11-dimensional metric can be decomposed according to ds2 = gµν dxµ dxν + e4φ/3 (dx10 + Vµ dxµ )(dx10 + Vν dxν ) ,

(3.30)

where the indices µ, ν label the 10-dimensional coordinates and the factor multiplying φ is for convenience later on. The massless modes correspond to the x10 -independent parts of the 10-dimensional metric gµν , the vector ﬁeld Vµ and the scalar φ. Here the x10 -independent component of Vµ acts as a gauge ﬁeld associated with reparametrizations of the circle coordinate x10 with an arbitrary function ξ(x) of the 10 remaining spacetime coordinates xµ . Speciﬁcally, we have x10 → x10 − ξ(x) and xµ → xµ , leading to Vµ (x) → Vµ (x) + ∂µ ξ(x) .

(3.31)

The massive modes, which correspond to the nontrivial Fourier modes in x10 , couple to this gauge ﬁeld with a charge that is a multiple of eKK =

2π · L

(3.32)

Another symmetry of the lower-dimensional theory is more subtle to identify14 . In the previous section we noted the existence of certain scale transformations of the D = 11 ﬁelds, which did not leave the theory invariant but could be used to adjust the coupling constant κ10 . In the compactiﬁed situation we can also involve the compactiﬁcation length into the dimensional scaling. The integration over x11 introduces an overall factor L in the action (we do not incorporate any L-dependent normalizations in the 14 There are various discussions of this symmetry in the literature. Its existence in 10-dimensional supergravity was noted long ago (see, e.g. [9, 50]) and an extensive discussion can be found in [18]. Our derivation here was alluded to in [49], which deals with isometries in N = 2 supersymmetric Maxwell-Einstein theories in D = 5, 4 and 3 dimensions.

40

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Fourier sums, so that the 10-dimensional and the 11-dimensional ﬁelds are directly proportional). Therefore, the coupling constant that emerges in the 10-dimensional theory equals 1 L = 2 , 2 κ10 κ11

(3.33)

and is of dimension [mass]8 . However, because of the invariance under diffeomorphisms, L itself has no intrinsic meaning. It simply expresses the length of the x10 -periodicity interval, which depends on the coordinatization. Stated diﬀerently, we can reparameterize x10 by some diﬀeomorphism, as long as we change L accordingly. In particular, we may rescale L according to (3.34) L → e−9α L , corresponding to a reparametrization of the 11-th coordinate, x10 → e−9α x10 ,

(3.35)

so that κ10 remains invariant. Consequently we are then dealing with a symmetry of the Lagrangian. In the eﬀective 10-dimensional theory, the scale transformations (3.26) are thus suitably combined with the diﬀeomorphism (3.35) to yield an invariance of the Lagrangian. For the ﬁelds corresponding to the 11-dimensional metric, these combined transformations are given by15 eaµ → e−α eaµ ,

φ → φ + 12α ,

Vµ → e−9α Vµ .

(3.36)

The tensor gauge ﬁeld CMN P decomposes into a 3- and a 2-rank tensor in 10 dimensions, which transform according to Cµνρ → e−3α Cµνρ ,

C11µν → e6α C11µν .

(3.37)

The presence of the above scale symmetry is conﬁrmed by the resulting 10dimensional Lagrangian for the massless (i.e., x10 -independent) modes. Its purely bosonic terms read 1 (3.38) L10 = 2 − 12 e e2φ/3 R(e, ω) − 18 e e2φ (∂µ Vν − ∂ν Vµ )2 κ10 1 − 48 e e2φ/3 (Fµνρσ )2 − 34 e e−2φ/3 (Hµνρ )2 √ µ −µ 1 + 1152 2 ε 1 10 C11µ1 µ2 Fµ3 µ4 µ5 µ6 Fµ7 µ8 µ9 µ10 , 15 Note that these transformations apply uniformly to all Fourier modes, as those depend on x10 /L which is insensitive to the scale transformation. This does not imply that the Lagrangian remains invariant when retaining the higher Fourier modes, because the Kaluza-Klein charges (3.32) depend explicitly on L. This issue will be relevant in Section 3.6.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

41

where Hµνρ = 6 ∂[µ Cνρ]11 is the ﬁeld strength tensor belonging to the 2-rank tensor gauge ﬁeld. The above example exhibits many of the characteristic features of dimensional reduction and of the symmetries that emerge as a result. When reducing to lower dimension one can follow the same procedure a number of times, consecutively reducing the dimension by unit steps, or one can reduce at once to lower dimensions. Before continuing our general discussion, let us brieﬂy discuss an example of the latter based on gravity coupled to an antisymmetric tensor gauge ﬁeld in D + n spacetime dimensions, L ∝ − 12 E R − 94 E (∂[M BN P ] )2 .

(3.39)

After compactiﬁcation on a torus T n , the ﬁelds that are independent of the torus coordinates remain massless ﬁelds in D dimensions: the graviton, one tensor gauge ﬁeld, 2n Abelian vector gauge ﬁelds, and n2 scalar ﬁelds. The scalar ﬁelds originate from the metric and the antisymmetric gauge ﬁeld with both indices taking values in T n , so that they are parametrized by a symmetric tensor gij and an antisymmetric tensor Bij . The diﬀeomorphisms acting on the torus coordinates xi which are linear in xi , i.e., xi → Oi j xj , act on gij and Bij according to g → OT g O and B → OT B O. The matrices O generate the group GL(n), which can be regarded as a generalization of the scale transformations (3.36) and (3.37). The group GL(n) contains the rotation group SO(n); its remaining part depends on 12 n(n + 1) parameters, exactly equal to the number of independent ﬁelds gij . Special tensor gauge transformations with parameters proportional to Λij xj induce a shift of the massless scalars Bij proportional to the constants Λ[ij] . There are thus 1 2 n(n − 1) independent shift transformations, so that, in total, we have now identiﬁed 12 n(3n − 1) isometries, which act transitively on the manifold (i.e. they leave no point on the manifold invariant). Therefore the manifold is homogeneous (for a discussion of such manifolds, see Sect. 4.1). However, it turns out that there exist 12 n(n − 1) additional isometries, whose origin is not directly related to the higher-dimensional context, and which combine with the previous ones to generate the group SO(n, n). The homogeneous space can then be identiﬁed as the coset space SO(n, n)/(SO(n) × SO(n)). According to the above, 11-dimensional supergravity reduced on a hypertorus thus leads to a Lagrangian for the massless sector in lower dimensions (the massive sector is discussed in Sect. 3.6), which exhibits a number of invariances that ﬁnd their origin in the diﬀeomorphisms and gauge transformations related to the torus coordinates. As already explained, one must properly account for the periodicity intervals of the torus coordinates xi , but the action for the massless ﬁelds remains invariant under continuous GL(n) transformations. Furthermore, all the scalars that emerge from dimensional reduction of gauge ﬁelds are subject to constant shift

42

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

transformations. These scalars and the scalars originating from the metric transform transitively under the isometry group. Since 11-dimensional supergravity has itself no scalar ﬁelds, the rank of the resulting symmetry group in lower dimensions is equal to the rank of GL(n), and thus to the number of compactiﬁed dimensions, i.e., r = 11 − D, where D is the spacetime dimension to which we reduce. In general these extra symmetries are not necessarily symmetries of the full action. In even dimensions, the symmetries may not leave the Lagrangian, but only the ﬁeld equations, invariant. The reason for this is that the isometries may act by means of duality transformations on ﬁeld strengths associated with antisymmetric tensor gauge ﬁelds of rank 12 D − 1 which cannot be implemented on the gauge ﬁelds themselves. In 4 dimensions this phenomenon is known as electric-magnetic duality (for a recent review, see [51]); for D = 6 we refer to [52]. For supergravity, it is easy to see that the scalar manifold (as well as the rest of the theory) possesses additional symmetries beyond the ones that follow from higher dimensions, because the latter do not yet incorporate the full R-symmetry group of the underlying supermultiplet. We expect that HR is also realized as a symmetry, because the maximal supergravity theory that one obtains from compactiﬁcation on a hypertorus has no additional coupling constants (beyond Newton’s constant) which could induce R-symmetry breaking. Therefore we expect that the target space for the scalar ﬁelds is an homogeneous space, with an isometry group whose generators belong to a solvable subalgebra associated with the shift transformations, to the subalgebra of GL(11 − D) scale transformations and/or to the subalgebra associated with HR . Of course, these subalgebras will partly overlap. Usually a counting argument (of the type ﬁrst used in [53]) then readily indicates what the structure is of the corresponding homogeneous space that is parametrized by the scalar ﬁelds. In Table 12 we list the isometry group G and the isotropy group HR of these scalar manifolds for maximal supergravity in dimensions 3 ≤ D ≤ 11. Earlier versions of such tables can, for instance, be found in [9, 50]. A more recent discussion of these isometry groups from the perspectives of string theory and M-theory can be found in, for example [24, 54]. Here we merely stress a number of characteristic features of the group G. One of them is that HR is always the maximal compact subgroup of G. As we mentioned already, another (noncompact) subgroup is the group GL(11 − D), associated with the reduction on an (11 − D)-dimensional torus. Yet another subgroup is SL(2) × SO(n, n), where n = 10 − D. This group, which emerges for D < 10 can be understood within the string perspective; SL(2) is the S-duality group and SO(n, n) is the T -duality group. It also follows from the toroidal compactiﬁcations of IIB supergravity, which has a manifest SL(2) in D = 10 dimensions. The group SO(n, n) is associated with

B. de Wit: Supergravity

43

Table 12. Homogeneous scalar manifolds G/H for maximal supergravities in various dimensions. The type-IIB theory cannot be obtained from reduction of 11-dimensional supergravity and is included for completeness. The diﬀerence of the dimensions of G and H equals the number of scalar ﬁelds, listed in Table 10.

D 11 10A 10B 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

G 1 SO(1, 1)/Z2 SL(2) GL(2) E3(+3) ∼ SL(3)×SL(2) E4(+4) ∼ SL(5) E5(+5) ∼ SO(5, 5) E6(+6) E7(+7) E8(+8)

H 1 1 SO(2) SO(2) U (2) U Sp(4) U Sp(4)×U Sp(4) U Sp(8) SU (8) SO(16)

dim [G] − dim [H] 0−0=0 1−0=1 3−1=2 4−1=3 11 − 4 = 7 24 − 10 = 14 45 − 20 = 25 78 − 36 = 42 133 − 63 = 70 248 − 120 = 128

the invariance of toroidal compactiﬁcations that involve the metric and an antisymmetric tensor ﬁeld (cf. (3.39)). Here we should add that it is generally possible to realize the group HR as a local symmetry of the Lagrangian. The corresponding connections are then composite connections, governed by the Cartan-Maurer equations. In such a formulation most ﬁelds (in particular, the fermions) do not transform under the group G, but only under the local HR group. The scalars transform linearly under both the rigid duality group as well as under the local HR group; the gauge ﬁelds cannot transform under the local group HR , as this would be in conﬂict with their own gauge invariance. After ﬁxing a gauge, the G-transformations become realized nonlinearly (we discuss such nonlinear realizations in detail in Sects. 4 and 5). The ﬁelds which initially transform only under the local HR group, will now transform under the duality group G through ﬁeld-dependent HR transformations. This phenomenon is also realized for the central charges, which transform under the group HR as we have shown in Table 8. We discuss some of the consequences for the central charges and the BPS states in Section 3.6. 3.5 Frames and field redefinitions The Lagrangian (3.38) does not contain the standard Einstein-Hilbert term for gravity, while a standard kinetic term for the scalar ﬁeld φ is lacking. This does not pose a serious problem. In this form the gravitational ﬁeld and the scalar ﬁeld are entangled and one has to deal with the scalar-graviton

44

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

system as a whole. To separate the scalar and gravitational degrees of freedom, one applies a so-called Weyl rescaling of the metric gµν by an appropriate function of φ. In the case that we include the massive modes, this rescaling may depend on the extra coordinate x10 . In the context of Kaluza-Klein theory this factor is known as the “warp factor”. For these lectures two diﬀerent Weyl rescalings are particularly relevant, which lead to the so-called Einstein and to the string frame, respectively. They are deﬁned by eaµ = e−φ/12 [eaµ ]Einstein ,

eaµ = e−φ/3 [eaµ ]string .

(3.40)

We already stressed that the the compactiﬁcation length L is just a parameter length with no intrinsic meaning as a result of the fact that one can always apply general coordinate transformations which involve x10 . Of course, one may also consider the geodesic length, which in the metric speciﬁed by (3.30) is equal to L exp[2φ /3]. In the Einstein frame, the geodesic length of the 11-th dimension is invariant under the SO(1, 1) transformations. After applying the ﬁrst rescaling (3.40) to the Lagrangian (3.38) one obtains the Lagrangian in the Einstein frame. This frame is characterized by a standard Einstein-Hilbert term and by a graviton ﬁeld that is invariant under the scale transformations (3.36, 3.37). The corresponding Lagrangian reads16 LEinstein = 10

1 2 1 1 − 18 e e3φ/2 (∂µ Vν − ∂ν Vµ )2 R(e, ω) − (∂ φ) e − 2 4 µ κ210 1 − 43 e e−φ (Hµνρ )2 − 48 e eφ/2 (Fµνρσ )2 √ µ −µ 1 + 1152 2 ε 1 10 C11µ1 µ2 Fµ3 µ4 µ5 µ6 Fµ7 µ8 µ9 µ10 . (3.41)

Supergravity theories are usually formulated in this frame, where the isometries of the scalar ﬁelds do not act on the graviton.

16 Note that under a local scale transformation ea → eΛ ea , the Ricci scalar in D µ µ dimensions changes according to

R → e−2Λ R + 2(D − 1)D µ ∂µ Λ + (D − 1)(D − 2)g µν ∂µ Λ ∂ν Λ . Observe that gauge ﬁelds cannot be redeﬁned by these local scale transformations because this would interfere with their own gauge invariance.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

45

The second rescaling (3.40) leads to the Lagrangian in the string frame, 1 string L10 = 2 e e−2φ − 12 R(e, ω) + 2(∂µ φ)2 − 34 (Hµνρ )2 κ10 1 − 18 e (∂µ Vν − ∂ν Vµ )2 − 48 e (Fµνρσ )2 √ µ −µ 1 1 10 + 1152 2 ε C11µ1 µ2 Fµ3 µ4 µ5 µ6 Fµ7 µ8 µ9 µ10 . (3.42)

This frame is characterized by the fact that R and (Hµνρ )2 have the same coupling to the scalar φ, or, equivalently, that gµν and C11µν transform with equal weights under the scale transformations (3.36, 3.37). In string theory φ coincides with the dilaton ﬁeld that couples to the topology of the worldsheet and whose vacuum-expectation value deﬁnes the string coupling constant according to gs = exp(φ ). The signiﬁcance of the dilaton factors in the Lagrangian above is well known. The metric gµν , the antisymmetric tensor Cµν11 and the dilaton φ always arise in the Neveu-Schwarz sector and couple universally to e−2φ . On the other hand the vector Vµ and the 3-form Cµνρ describe Ramond-Ramond (R-R) states and the speciﬁc form of their vertex operators forbids any tree-level coupling to the dilaton [18,55]. In particular the Kaluza-Klein gauge ﬁeld Vµ corresponds in the string context to the R-R gauge ﬁeld of type-II string theory. The inﬁnite tower of massive KaluzaKlein states carry a charge quantized in units of eKK , deﬁned in (3.32). In the context of 10-dimensional supergravity, states with R-R charge are solitonic. In string theory, R-R charges are carried by the D-brane states. For later purposes let us note that the above discussion can be generalized to arbitrary spacetime dimensions. The Einstein frame in any dimension is deﬁned by a gravitational action that is just the Einstein-Hilbert action, whereas in the string frame the Ricci scalar is multiplied by a dilaton term exp(−2φD ), as in (3.41) and (3.42), respectively. The Weyl rescaling which connects the two frames is given by, [eaµ ]string = e2φD /(D−2) [eaµ ]Einstein .

(3.43)

Let us now return to 11-dimensional supergravity with the 11-th coordinate compactiﬁed to a circle so that 0 ≤ x10 ≤ L. As we stressed already, L itself has no intrinsic meaning and it is better to consider the geodesic radius of the 11-th dimension, which reads R10 =

L 2φ/3 . e 2π

(3.44)

This result applies to the frame speciﬁed by the 11-dimensional theory17 . 17 This is the frame speciﬁed by the metric given in (3.30), which leads to the Lagrangian (3.38).

46

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

In the string frame, the above result reads L φ e . 2π

(R10 )string =

(3.45)

It shows that a small 11-th dimension corresponds to small values of expφ which in turn corresponds to a weakly coupled string theory. Observe that L is ﬁxed in terms of κ10 and κ11 (cf. (3.33)). From the 11-dimensional expressions, M E10 ∂M = e−2φ/3 ∂10 ,

EaM ∂M = eaµ (∂µ − Vµ ∂10 ) ,

(3.46)

where a and µ refer to the 10-dimensional Lorentz and world indices, we infer that, in the frame speciﬁed by the 11-dimensional theory, the KaluzaKlein masses are multiples of M KK =

1 · R10

(3.47)

Hence Kaluza-Klein states have a mass and a Kaluza-Klein charge (cf. (3.32)) related by (3.48) M KK = |eKK | e−2φ/3 . In the string frame, this result becomes (M KK )string = |eKK | e−φ ·

(3.49)

Massive Kaluza-Klein states are always BPS states, meaning that they are contained in supermultiplets that are “shorter” than the generic massive supermultiplets because of nontrivial central charges. The central charge here is just the 10-th component of the momentum, which is proportional to the Kaluza-Klein charge. The surprising insight that emerged, is that the Kaluza-Klein features of 11-dimensional supergravity have a precise counterpart in string theory [54–56]. There one has nonperturbative (in the string coupling constant) states which carry R-R charges. On the supergravity side these states often appear as solitons. 3.6 Kaluza–Klein states and BPS-extended supergravity In most of this section we restrict ourselves to pure supergravity. However, when compactifying dimensions one also encounters massive Kaluza-Klein states, which couple to the supergravity theory as massive matter supermultiplets. The presence of these BPS states introduces a number of qualitative changes to the theory which we discuss in this section. The most conspicuous change is that the continuous nonlinearly realized symmetry group G

B. de Wit: Supergravity

47

is broken to an arithmetic subgroup, known as the U -duality group. This U -duality group has been conjectured to be the exact symmetry group of (toroidally compactiﬁed) M-theory [54]. The BPS states (which are contained in M-theory) should therefore be assigned to representations of the U -duality group. Here one naively assumes that the U -duality group acts on the central charges of the BPS states and it is simply deﬁned as the arithmetic subgroup of G that leaves the central-charge lattice invariant. However, central charges are in principle assigned to representations of the group HR and not of the group G (although the central charges will eventually, upon gauge ﬁxing, transform nonlinearly under G, via ﬁeld-dependent HR transformations). In most cases, these HR representations can be elevated to representations of G, by multiplying with the representatives of the coset space G/HR (representatives of coset spaces will be discussed in Sects. 4 and 5). In this way, the pointlike (ﬁeld-dependent) central charges can be assigned to representations of G for spacetime dimensions D ≥ 4. Similar observations exist for stringlike and membranelike central charges except that in these cases the dimension must be restricted even further [41]. Another aspect of the coupling of the BPS states to supergravity is that the central charges should be related to local symmetries, in view of the fact that they appear in the anticommutator of two supercharges and supersymmetry is realized locally. Therefore nonzero central charges must couple to appropriate gauge ﬁelds in the supergravity theory. These gauge ﬁelds transform (with minor exceptions) linearly with constant matrices under the group G. Inspection of the tables that we have presented earlier, shows that the gauge ﬁelds usually appear in the G-representation required for gauging the corresponding central charge. Provided that the central charges can be assigned to the appropriate representations of the U -duality group and that the appropriate gauge ﬁelds are available, one may thus envisage a (possibly local ﬁeld) theory of BPS states coupled to supergravity that is U -duality invariant. This theory would exhibit many of the features of M-theory and describe many of the relevant degrees of freedom. The Kaluza-Klein states that we encounter in toroidal compactiﬁcations of supergravity are a subset of the 1/2-BPS states in M-theory. They carry pointlike central charges and they couple to the Kaluza-Klein photon ﬁelds, i.e., the vector gauge ﬁelds that emerge from the higher-dimensional metric upon the toroidal compactiﬁcation. However, they do not constitute representations of the U -duality group, because the central charges that they carry are too restricted. This is the reason why retaining the KaluzaKlein states in the dimensional compactiﬁcation will lead to a breaking of the U -duality group. From the eleven-dimensional perspective it is easy to see why the central charges associated with the Kaluza-Klein states are too restricted, because under U -duality the central charges related to the

48

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

momentum operator in the compactiﬁed dimensions combine with the twoand ﬁve-brane charges (cf. (2.12)) in order to deﬁne representations of the U -duality group. However, conventional dimensional compactiﬁcation does not involve any brane charges. Nevertheless, in certain cases one may still be able to extend the Kaluza-Klein states with other BPS states, so that a U -duality invariant theory is obtained. Such extended theories are called BPS-extended supergravity [40, 41]. The fact that some of the central charges are associated with extra spacetime dimensions (i.e. the charges carried by the Kaluza-Klein states) implies that the newly introduced states (associated with wrapped branes) may also have an interpretation in terms of extra dimensions. In this way, the number of spacetime dimensions could exceed eleven, although the theory would presumably not be able to decompactify uniformly to a ﬂat spacetime of more than eleven dimensions. The aim of this section is to elucidate some of these ideas in the relatively simple context of N = 2 supergravity in D = 9 spacetime dimensions. We start by considering the BPS multiplets that are relevant in 9 spacetime dimensions from the perspective of supergravity, string theory and (super)membranes. In 9 dimensions the R-symmetry group and the duality group are equal to HR = SO(2) and G = SO(1, 1) × SL(2; R), respectively. It is well known that the massive supermultiplets of IIA and IIB string theory coincide, whereas the massless states comprise inequivalent supermultiplets for the simple reason that they transform according to different representations of the SO(8) helicity group. When compactifying the theory on a circle, IIA and IIB states that are massless in 9 spacetime dimensions, transform according to identical representations of the SO(7) helicity group and constitute equivalent supermultiplets. The corresponding interacting ﬁeld theory is the unique N = 2 supergravity theory in 9 spacetime dimensions. However, the BPS supermultiplets which carry momentum along the circle, remain inequivalent as they remain assigned to the inequivalent representations of the group SO(8) which is now associated with the restframe (spin) rotations of the massive states. Henceforth the momentum states of the IIA and the IIB theories will be denoted as KKA and KKB states, respectively. The fact that they constitute inequivalent supermultiplets, has implications for the winding states in order that T -duality remains valid [19]. In 9 spacetime dimensions with N = 2 supersymmetry the Lorentzinvariant central charges are encoded in a two-by-two real symmetric matrix Z ij , which can be decomposed as Z ij = b δ ij + a (cos θ σ3 + sin θ σ1 )ij .

(3.50)

Here σ1,3 are the real symmetric Pauli matrices. We note that the central charge associated with the parameter a transforms as a doublet under the

B. de Wit: Supergravity

49

SO(2) R-symmetry group that rotates the two supercharge spinors, while the central charge proportional to the parameter b is SO(2) invariant. Subsequently one shows that BPS states that carry these charges must satisfy the mass formula, MBPS = |a| + |b| . (3.51) Here one can distinguish three types of BPS supermultiplets. One type has central charges b = 0 and a = 0. These are 1/2-BPS muliplets, because they are annihilated by half of the supercharges. The KKA supermultiplets that comprise Kaluza-Klein states of IIA supergravity are of this type. Another type of 1/2-BPS mulitplets has central charges a = 0 and b = 0. The KKB supermultiplets that comprise the Kaluza-Klein states of IIB supergravity are of this type. Finally there are 1/4-BPS multiplets (annihilated by one fourth of the supercharges) characterized by the fact that neither a nor b vanishes. For type-II string theory one obtains these central charges in terms of the left- and right-moving momenta, pL , pR , that characterize winding and momentum along S 1 . However, the result takes a diﬀerent form for the IIA and the IIB theory as the following formula shows,   12 (pL + pR )δ ij + 12 (pL − pR )σ3ij , (for IIB) ij (3.52) Z =  1 (p − p )δ ij + 1 (p + p )σ ij . (for IIA) L R L R 3 2 2 The corresponding BPS mass formula is thus equal to MBPS = 12 |pL + pR | + 12 |pL − pR | .

(3.53)

For pL = pR we conﬁrm the original identiﬁcation of the momentum states, namely that IIA momentum states constitute KKA supermultiplets, while IIB momentum states constitute KKB supermultiplets. For the winding states, where pL = −pR , one obtains the opposite result: IIA winding states constitute KKB supermultiplets, while IIB winding states constitute KKA supermultiplets. The 1/4-BPS multiplets arise for string states that have either right- or left-moving oscillator states, so that either MBPS = |pL | or |pR | with pL2 = pR2 . All of this is entirely consistent with T -duality [16, 17], according to which there exists a IIA and a IIB perspective, with decompactiﬁcation radii are that inversely proportional and with an interchange of winding and momentum states. Observe that the 1/4-BPS states will never become massless, so that they don’t play a role in what follows. It is also possible to view the central charges from the perspective of the 11-dimensional (super)membrane [57]. Assuming that the two-brane charge takes values in the compact coordinates labelled by 9 and 10, which can be generated by wrapping the membrane over the corresponding T 2 ,

50

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

one readily ﬁnds the expression, Z ij = Z9 10 δ ij − (P9 σ3ij − P10 σ1ij ) .

(3.54)

When compactifying on a torus with modular parameter τ and area A, the BPS mass formula takes the form 2 + |Z MBPS = P92 + P10 9 10 | =

1 √ |q1 + τ q2 | + Tm A |p| . A τ2

(3.55)

Here q1,2 denote the momentum numbers on the torus and p is the number of times the membrane is wrapped over the torus; Tm denotes the supermembrane tension. Clearly the KKA states correspond to the momentum modes on T 2 while the KKB states are associated with the wrapped membranes on the torus. Therefore there is a rather natural way to describe the IIA and IIB momentum and winding states starting from a (super)membrane in eleven spacetime dimensions. This point was ﬁrst emphasized in [58]. This suggests to consider N = 2 supergravity in 9 spacetime dimensions and couple it to the simplest BPS supermultiplets corresponding to KKA and KKB states. As shown in Tables 8 and 10 there are three central charges and 9-dimensional supergravity possesses precisely three gauge ﬁelds that couple to these charges. From the perspective of 11-dimensional supergravity compactiﬁed on T 2 , the Kaluza-Klein states transform as KKA multiplets. Their charges transform obviously with respect to an SO(2) associated with rotations of the coordinates labelled by 9 and 10. Hence we have a “double” tower of these charges with corresponding KKA supermultiplets. On the other hand, from the perspective of IIB compactiﬁed on S 1 , the Kaluza-Klein states constitute KKB multiplets and their charge is SO(2) invariant. Here we have a “single” tower of KKB supermultiplets. However, from the perspective of 9-dimensional supergravity one is led to couple both towers of KKA and KKB supermultiplets simultaneously. In that case one obtains some dichotomic theory [19], which we refer to as BPS-extended supergravity. In the case at hand this new theory describes the ten-dimensional IIA and IIB theories in certain decompactiﬁcation limits, as well as eleven-dimensional supergravity. But the theory is in some sense truly 12-dimensional with three compact coordinates, although there is no 12-dimensional Lorentz invariance, not even in a uniform decompactiﬁcation limit, as the ﬁelds never depend on all the 12 coordinates! Whether this kind of BPS-extended supergravity oﬀers a viable scheme in a more general context than the one we discuss here, is not known. In the case at hand we know a lot about these couplings from our knowledge of the T 2 compactiﬁcation of D = 11 supergravity and the S 1 compactiﬁcation of IIB supergravity.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

51

The ﬁelds of 9-dimensional N = 2 supergravity are listed in Table 13, where we also indicate their relation with the ﬁelds of 11-dimensional and 10-dimensional IIA/B supergravity upon dimensional reduction. It is not necessary to work out all the nonlinear ﬁeld redeﬁnitions here, as the corresponding ﬁelds can be uniquely identiﬁed by their scaling weights under SO(1, 1), a symmetry of the massless theory that emerges upon dimensional reduction and is associated with scalings of the internal vielbeine. The scalar ﬁeld σ is related to G99 , the IIB metric component in the compactiﬁed dimension, by G99 = exp(σ); likewise it is related to the determinant of the 11-dimensional metric in the compactiﬁed dimensions, which is equal to exp(− 43 σ). The precise relationship follows from comparing the SO(1, 1) weights through the dimensional reduction of IIB and eleven-dimensional supergravity. In 9 dimensions supergravity has two more scalars, which are described by a nonlinear sigma model based on SL(2, R)/SO(2). The coset is described by the complex doublet of ﬁelds φα , which satisfy a constraint φα φα = 1 and are subject to a local SO(2) invariance, so that they describe precisely two scalar degrees of freedom (α = 1, 2). We expect that the local SO(2) invariance can be incorporated in the full BPS-extended supergravity theory and can be exploited in the construction of the couplings of the various BPS supermultiplets to supergravity. We already mentioned the three Abelian vector gauge ﬁelds which couple to the central charges. There are two vector ﬁelds Aα µ , which are the Kaluza-Klein photons from the T 2 reduction of eleven-dimensional supergravity and which couple therefore to the KKA states. From the IIA perspective these correspond to the Kaluza-Klein states on S 1 and the D0 states. From the IIB side they originate from the tensor ﬁelds, which conﬁrms that they couple to the IIB (elementary and D1) winding states. These two ﬁelds transform under SL(2), which can be understood from the perspective of the modular transformation on T 2 as well as from the S-duality transformations that rotate the elementary strings with the D1 strings. The third gauge ﬁeld, denoted by Bµ , is a singlet under SL(2) and is the KaluzaKlein photon on the IIB side, so that it couples to the KKB states. On the IIA side it originates from the IIA tensor ﬁeld, which is consistent with the fact that the IIA winding states constitute KKB supermultiplets. From the perspective of the supermembrane, the KKA states are the momentum states on T 2 , while the KKB states correspond to the membranes wrapped around the torus. While it is gratifying to see how all these correspondences work out, we stress that, from the perspective of 9-dimensional N = 2 supergravity, the results follow entirely from supersymmetry. The resulting BPS-extended theory incorporates 11-dimensional supergravity and the two type-II supergravities in special decompactiﬁcation limits. But, as we stressed above, we are dealing with a 12-dimensional theory

52

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Table 13. The bosonic ﬁelds of the eleven dimensional, type-IIA, ninedimensional N = 2 and type-IIB supergravity theories. The 11-dimensional and ˆ = (µ, 9, 10) and M = (µ, 9), 10-dimensional indices, respectively, are split as M where µ = 0, 1, . . . 8. The last column lists the SO(1, 1) scaling weights of the ﬁelds.

D = 11 ˆ µν G Aˆµ 9 10 ˆµ 9, G ˆ µ 10 G Aˆµν 9 , Aˆµν 10 Aˆµνρ ˆ 9 10 , G ˆ9 9, G ˆ 10 10 G

IIA

D=9

IIB

Gµν

gµν

Gµν

0

Cµ 9

Bµ

Gµ 9

−4

Gµ 9 , Cµ

Aµα α Aµν

Aµα9 α Aµν

3

Aµνρ

Aµνρσ

2

α

0 7

Cµν 9 , Cµν Cµνρ φ, G9 9 , C9

α

φ exp(σ)

φ G9 9

SO(1, 1)

−1

here, although no ﬁeld can depend nontrivially on all of these coordinates. The theory has obviously two mass scales associated with the KKA and KKB states. We return to them in a moment. Both S- and T -duality are manifest, although the latter has become trivial as the theory is not based on a speciﬁc IIA or IIB perspective. One simply has the freedom to view the theory from a IIA or a IIB perspective and interpret it accordingly. We should discuss the fate of the group G = SO(1, 1) × SL(2, R) of pure supergravity after coupling the theory to the BPS multiplets. The central charges of the BPS states form a discrete lattice, which is aﬀected by this group. Hence, after coupling to the BPS states, we only have a discrete subgroup that leaves the charge lattice invariant. This is the group SL(2, Z). The KKA and KKB states and their interactions with the massless theory can be understood from the perspective of compactiﬁed 11-dimensional and IIB supergravity. In this way we are able to deduce the following BPS mass formula, MBPS (q1 , q2 , p) = mKKA e3σ/7 |qα φα | + mKKB e−4σ/7 |p| ,

(3.56)

where qα and p refer to the integer-valued KKA and KKB charges, respectively, and mKKA and mKKB are two independent mass scales. This formula can be compared to the membrane BPS formula (3.55) in the 11-dimensional frame. One then ﬁnds that m2KKA mKKB ∝ Tm ,

(3.57)

B. de Wit: Supergravity

53

Table 14. Field content for maximal super-Maxwell theories in various dimensions. All supermultiplets contain a gauge ﬁeld Aµ , scalars φ and spinors χ and comprises 8 + 8 degrees of freedom. In D = 3 dimensions the vector ﬁeld is dual to a scalar. The 6∗ representation of SU (4) is a selfdual rank-2 tensor.

D 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

HR 1 1 U (1) U Sp(2) U Sp(2)×U Sp(2) U Sp(4) U (4) SO(8)

Aµ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

φ 0 1 1+¯ 1 3 (2, 2) 5 6∗ 8

χ 1 1 1 + ¯1 2 (2, 1) + (1, 2) 4 4 + ¯4 8

with a numerical proportionality constant. However, the most important conclusion to draw from (3.56) is that there is no limit in which the masses of both KKA and KKB states will tend to zero. In other words, there is no uniform decompactiﬁcation limit. Therefore, in spite of the fact that we have more than 11 dimensions, there exists no theory with Q = 32 supercharges in ﬂat Minkowski spacetime of dimensions D > 11. 3.7 Nonmaximal supersymmetry: Q = 16 For completeness we also summarize a number of results on nonmaximal supersymmetric theories with Q = 16 supercharges, which are now restricted to dimensions D ≤ 10. Table 14 shows the ﬁeld representations for the vector multiplet in dimension 3 ≤ D ≤ 10. This multiplet comprises 8 + 8 physical degrees of freedom. We also consider the Q = 16 supergravity theories. The Lagrangian can be obtained by truncation of (3.38). However, unlike in the case of maximal supergravity, we now have the option of introducing additional matter ﬁelds. For Q = 16 the matter will be in the form of vector supermultiplets, possibly associated with some non-Abelian gauge group. Table 15 summarizes Q = 16 supergravity for dimensions 3 ≤ D ≤ 10. In D = 10 dimensions the bosonic terms of the supergravity Lagrangian take the form [59], 1 − 12 e e2φ/3 R(e, ω) L10 = κ210 − 43 e e−2φ/3 (Hµνρ )2 − 14 e(∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ )2 , (3.58)

54

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Table 15. Bosonic ﬁelds of nonmaximal supergravity with Q = 16. In 6 dimensions type-A and type-B correspond to (1, 1) and (2, 0) supergravity. In the third column, # denotes the number of bosonic degrees of freedom. Note that, with the exception of the 6B and the 4-dimensional theory, all these theories contain precisely one scalar ﬁeld. The tensor ﬁeld in the 6B theory is selfdual. In D = 4 dimensions, the SU (4) transformations cannot be implemented on the vector potentials, but act on the (Abelian) ﬁeld strengths by duality transformations. In D = 3 dimensions supergravity is a topological theory and can be coupled to scalars and spinors. The scalars parametrize the coset space SO(8, k)/(SO(8)×SO(k)), where k is an arbitrary integer.

D 10 9 8 7 6A 6B 5 4 3

HR 1 1 U (1) U Sp(2) U Sp(2)×U Sp(2) U Sp(4) U Sp(4) U (4) SO(8)

# 64 56 48 40 32 24 24 16 8k

graviton 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

p = −1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + ¯1 8k

p=0 1 1 + ¯1 3 (2, 2)

p=1 1 1 1 1 (1, 1) 5∗

5+1 [6]

where, for convenience, we have included a single vector gauge ﬁeld Aµ , representing an Abelian vector supermultiplet. A feature that deserves to be mentioned, is that the ﬁeld strength Hµνρ associated with the 2-rank gauge ﬁeld contains a Chern-Simons term A[µ ∂ν Aρ] . Chern-Simons terms play an important role in the anomaly cancellations of this theory. Note also that the kinetic term for the Kaluza-Klein vector ﬁeld in (3.38), depends on φ, unlike the kinetic term for the matter vector ﬁeld in the Lagrangian above. This reﬂects itself in the extension of the symmetry transformations noted in (3.36, 3.37),

eaµ → e−α eaµ , 6α

φ → φ + 12α ,

C11µν → e C11µν ,

Aµ → e3α Aµ

(3.59)

where Aµ transforms diﬀerently from the Kaluza-Klein vector ﬁeld Vµ .

B. de Wit: Supergravity

55

In this case there are three diﬀerent Weyl rescalings that are relevant, namely eaµ

= e−φ/12 [eaµ ]Einstein ,

eaµ

= e−φ/3 [eaµ ]string ,

eaµ

= eφ/6 [eaµ ]string .

(3.60)

It is straightforward to obtain the corresponding Lagrangians. In the Einstein frame, the graviton is again invariant under the isometries of the scalar ﬁeld. The bosonic terms read 1 Einstein = 2 − 12 e R(e, ω) − 14 e(∂µ φ)2 L10 κ10 −φ 2 −φ/2 2 3 1 − 4 e e (Hµνρ ) − 4 e e (∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ ) . (3.61) The second Weyl rescaling leads to the following Lagrangian, 1 −2φ = e − 12 e R(e, ω) + 2e(∂µ φ)2 Lstring 10 κ210

− 34 e (Hµνρ )2 − 14 e(∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ )2 ,

(3.62)

which shows a uniform coupling to the dilaton. This is the low-energy eﬀective Lagrangian relevant for the heterotic string. Eventually the matter gauge ﬁeld has to be part of an non-Abelian gauge theory based on the groups SO(32) or E8 × E8 in order to be anomaly-free. Finally, the third Weyl rescaling yields 1 string 2φ 2 1 − L10 = R(e, ω) + 2(∂ φ) e e µ 2 κ210 2 φ 2 3 1 − 4 e (Hµνρ ) − 4 e e (∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ ) . (3.63) Now the dilaton seems to appear with the wrong sign. As it turns out, this is the low-energy eﬀective action of the type-I string, where the type-I dilaton must be associated with −φ. This is related to the fact that the SO(32) heterotic string theory is S-dual to type-I string theory [60]. 4

Homogeneous spaces and nonlinear sigma models

This chapter oﬀers an introduction to coset spaces and nonlinear sigma models based on such target spaces with their possible gaugings. The aim

56

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

of this introduction is to facilitate the discussion in the next chapter, where we explain the gauging of maximal supergravity, concentrating on the maximal supergravities in D = 4, 5 spacetime dimensions. As discussed earlier, these theories have a nonlinearly realized symmetry group, equal to E7(7) and E6(6) , respectively. It is possible to elevate the Abelian gauge group associated with the vector gauge ﬁelds to a non-Abelian group, which is a subgroup of these exceptional groups. The construction of these gaugings makes an essential use of the concepts and techniques discussed here. We start by introducing the concept of a coset space G/H, where H is a subgroup of a group G. Most of this material is standard and can be found in textbooks, such as [61, 62]. Then we discuss the corresponding nonlinear sigma models, based on homogeneous target spaces, and present their description in a form that emphasizes a local gauge invariance associated with the group H. Finally we introduce the so-called gauging of this class of nonlinear sigma models. In this introduction we try to be as general as possible but in the examples we restrict ourselves to pseudo-orthogonal groups: SO(n) or the noncompact versions SO(p, q). The latter enable us to include some material on de Sitter and anti-de Sitter spacetimes, which we make use of in later chapters.

4.1 Nonlinearly realized symmetries As an example consider the n-dimensional sphere S n of unit radius which we may embed in an (n+1)-dimensional real vector space Rn+1 . The sphere is obviously invariant under SO(n + 1), the group of (n + 1)-dimensional rotations. Such invariances are called isometries and G = SO(n + 1) is therefore known as the isometry group. A homogeneous space is a space where every two points can be connected by an isometry transformation. Clearly the sphere is such a homogeneous space as every two points on S n can be related by an SO(n + 1) isometry. However, the rotation connecting these two points is not unique as every point on S n is invariant under an SO(n) subgroup. This group is called the isotropy group (or stability subgroup), denoted by H. Obviously, for a homogeneous manifold, the isotropy groups for two arbitrary points are isomorphic (but not identical as one has to rotate between these points). It is convenient to choose a certain point on the sphere (let us call it the north pole) with coordinates in Rn+1 given by (0, . . . , 0, 1). From the north pole, we can reach each point by a suitable rotation. However, the north pole itself is invariant under the SO(n) isotropy group, consisting of the following orthogonal matrices embedded

B. de Wit: Supergravity

57

into SO(n + 1), 

∗ ··· ∗  ... ∗ ... h= ∗ ··· ∗ 0 ··· 0

 0 ..  ., 0

h∈H.

(4.1)

1

Therefore, if a rotation g1 ∈ G, with G = SO(n + 1) maps the north pole onto a certain point on the sphere, then the transformation g2 = g1 · h will do the same. Therefore points on the sphere can be associated with the class of group elements g ∈ G that are equivalent up to multiplication by elements h ∈ H from the right. Such equivalence classes are called cosets, and therefore the space S n is a coset space G/H with G = SO(n + 1) and H = SO(n). The sphere is obviously just one particular example of a homogeneous space. Every such space can be described in terms of appropriate G/H cosets based on an isometry group G and a isotropy subgroup H. A parametrization of the cosets of SO(n + 1)/SO(n), which assigns a single SO(n + 1) element to every coset, is thus equivalent to giving a parametrization of the sphere. It is not diﬃcult to ﬁnd such a parametrization. One ﬁrst observes that every element of SO(n + 1) can be decomposed as the product of 0 αi , (4.2) g(α) = exp −αj 0 with some element of H. Here i, j = 1, . . . , n. In view of various applications we extend our notation to noncompact versions of the orthogonal group, so that we can also deal with noncompact spaces. The noncompact groups leave an indeﬁnite metric invariant. For SO(p, q) we have a diagonal metric with p eigenvalues +1 and q eigenvalues −1 (or vice versa as the overall sign is not relevant). Using the same decomposition as in (4.1), we choose this metric of the form diag (η, 1), where η is again a diagonal metric with p (or q) eigenvalues equal to −1 and q − 1 (or p − 1) eigenvalues equal to +1. Elements of SO(p, q) thus satisfy η 0 η 0 −1 T g , (4.3) g = 0 1 0 1 so that the metric η is obviously H-invariant. The coset representative (4.2) satisﬁes the condition (4.3), provided that αi = ηij αj .

(4.4)

When η equals the unit matrix, we are dealing with a compact space. When η has negative eigenvalues the matrix (4.2) is no longer orthogonal and the

58

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

space will be noncompact18 . Let us mention some examples. For η = −1 we have the hyperbolic space19 SO(n, 1)/SO(n), for η = (−, +, · · · , +) we have the de Sitter space SO(n, 1)/SO(n − 1, 1), and for η = (−, · · · , −, +), we have the anti-de Sitter space SO(n − 1, 2)/SO(n − 1, 1). In this way we can thus treat a variety of spaces at the same time. However, note that η, which eventually will play the role of the tangent-space metric, is “mostly plus” for de Sitter, and “mostly minus” for the hyperbolic and the antide Sitter space. This aspect will be important later on when comparing the curvature for these spaces. The elements g(α) ∈ G deﬁne a representative of the G/H coset space, and therefore a parametrization of the corresponding space. Of course, the coset representative is not unique. We have decomposed the generators of G into generators h of H and generators k belonging to its complement; the latter have been used to generate the coset representative. In our example, the latter are associated with the last row and column of (4.2), so that they satisfy (schematically), [h, h] =

h,

[h, k] = [k, k] =

k, h.

(4.5)

The ﬁrst commutation relation states that the h form a subalgebra. The second one implies that the generators k form a representation of H, which ensures that in an inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of a point invariant under H, the coordinates αi rotate under H according to that representation. In the more general case the third commutator may also yield the generators k. When they do not, the homogeneous space is symmetric. Obviously the above relations involve a choice of basis; the generators k are deﬁned up to additive terms belonging to elements of the algebra associated with H.

18 Noncompact

groups are not fully covered by exponentiation, such as in the coset representatives (4.2), because there are disconnected components. We also note that, in the noncompact case, there are other decompositions than (4.1), which oﬀer distinct advantages. We will not discuss these issues here. 19 We are a little cavalier here with our terminology. Also the de Sitter and anti-de Sitter spaces are hyperbolic, as we shall see later (cf. (4.10)), but they are pseudo-Riemannian. We reserve the term hyperbolic for the Riemannian hyperbolic space. Unlike the de Sitter and anti-de Sitter spaces the former spaces are double-sheeded. In general, coset spaces where H is the maximal compact subgroup of a noncompact group G, have a positive or negative deﬁnite metric and are thus Riemannian spaces.

B. de Wit: Supergravity Let us now proceed and evaluate (4.2),  δji + αi αj cos α2− 1 α   g(α) =   α − sin α αj

59

 sin α αi α    ,  cos α

(4.6)

where α2 = ηij αi αj . Obviously the space is compact when η is positive, because in that case the parameter space can be restricted to 0 ≤ α < π. This corresponds to the sphere S n . In all other cases the parameter space is obviously noncompact and the sine and cosine may change to the hyperbolic sine and cosine in those parts of the space where α2 is negative. Observe that the appearance of η in the above formulae is the result of the fact that the generators k are normalized according to tr(ki kj ) = −2 ηij . One may choose a diﬀerent parametrization of the cosets by making a diﬀerent decomposition than in (4.2). Diﬀerent parametrizations are generally related through (coordinate-dependent) H transformations acting from the right. We may also chose diﬀerent coordinates, such as, for instance20 , y i = αi

sin α , α

so that the coset representative reads  ± 1 − y2 − 1 i i  δj + y y j y2  g(y) =    −yj

(4.7)

 y

i

± 1 − y2

    

(4.8)

where, depending on the sign choice, we parametrize diﬀerent parts of the space (for the sphere S n , the upper or the lower hemisphere). For the sphere the range of the coordinates is restricted by y 2 = Σi (y i )2 ≤ 1. Note that the n × n submatrix in (4.8) equals the square root of the matrix δji − y i yj . One may use the coset representative to sweep out the coset space from one point (i.e. the “north pole”) in the (n+1)-dimensional embedding space. Acting with (4.8) on the point (0, . . . , 0, 1) yields the following coordinates in the embedding space, Y A = (y i , ± 1 − y 2 ) . (4.9) 20 The

coordinates (y i , ± 1 − y 2 ) are sometimes called homogeneous coordinates, because the G-transformations act linearly on these coordinates. Inhomogeneous coordinates are the ratios y i / 1 − y 2 .

60

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Using (4.3) one then shows that the coset space is embedded in n + 1 dimensions according to ηij Y i Y j + (Y n+1 )2 = 1 .

(4.10)

Since the g(y) are contained in G one may examine the eﬀect of G transformations acting on g(y), which will induce corresponding transformations in the coset space. To see this, we multiply g(y) by a constant element oG ∈ G from the left. After this multiplication the result is in general no longer compatible with the coset representative g(y), but by applying a suitable y-dependent H transformation, oH (y), from the right, we can again bring g(y) in the desired form. In other words, one has g(y) −→ oG g(y) = g(y ) oH (y) .

(4.11)

Hence the eﬀect is a change of coordinates y → y in a way that satisﬁes the group multiplication laws. The inﬁnitesimal transformation y i → y i = y i + ξ i (y) deﬁnes the so-called Killing vectors ξ i (y). Writing oG ≈ 1 + gˆ ˆ and oH ≈ 1 + h(y), we ﬁnd the relation, ˆ . g g(y) − g(y) h(y) ξ i (y) ∂i g(y) = ˆ

(4.12)

We return to this result in the next section. Applying this construction to the case at hand, one ﬁnds that there are two types of isometries. One corresponding to the group H, which changes the coordinates y i by constant rotations. The other corresponds to n coordinate dependent shifts, (4.13) δy i = i 1 − y 2 , where the i are n constant parameters. As the reader can easily verify, both types of transformations take the form of a constant G transformation on the embedding coordinates Y A which leaves the embedding condition (4.10) invariant. Coset representatives can be deﬁned in diﬀerent representations of the group G. The most interesting one is the spinor representation. Assume that we have a representation of the Cliﬀord algebra C(p, q). The representation transforms (not necessarily irreducibly) under SO(p, q) generated by the matrices 12 Γij , but in fact it transforms also as a spinor under SO(p, q + 1), as one can verify by including extra generators equal to the matrices 1 2 Γi . Consequently we can deﬁne a representative of SO(p, q + 1)/SO(p, q) in the spinor representation, g(α) = exp[ 12 Γi αi ] = cos(α/2) 1 + i

sin(α/2) i α Γi , α

(4.14)

B. de Wit: Supergravity

61

√ with α deﬁned as before, α2 = αi αi , and {Γi , Γj } = −2ηij 1. This construction can applied as well to cosets of other (pseudo-)orthogonal groups. In terms of the coordinates y i the representative reads g(y) =

1 2

y i Γi √ 1+y+ 1−y 1+ √ · 1+y+ 1−y

(4.15)

One can act with this representative on a constant spinor, speciﬁed at the north pole, i.e. we deﬁne ψ(y) = g −1 (y) ψ(0). The resulting y-dependent spinor ψ(y) is a so-called Killing spinor of the coset space. We shall exhibit this below. Obviously, similar results can be obtained in other representations of G. 4.2 Geometrical quantities Geometrical quantities of the homogeneous space are deﬁned from the leftinvariant one-forms g −1 dg, where g(y) ∈ G, so that the one-forms take their value in the Lie algebra associated with G. It is convenient to use the language of diﬀerential forms,but by no means essential. The exterior derivative dg(y) describes the change of g induced by an inﬁnitesimal variation of the coset-space coordinates y i . The one-forms g −1 dg are called left-invariant, because they are invariant under left multiplication of g with constant elements of G. The signiﬁcance of this fact will be clear in a sequel. Because the g’s themselves are elements of G, the one-form g −1 dg takes its values in the Lie algebra associated with G. Therefore the one-forms can be decomposed into the generators h and k, introduced earlier, i.e., g −1 dg = ω + e ,

(4.16)

where ω is decomposable into the generators h and e into the generators k. Hence e deﬁnes a square matrix, with indices i that label the coordinates and indices a that label the generators k. These one-forms e are thus related to the vielbeine of the coset space, which deﬁne a tangent frame at each point of the space. The one-forms ω deﬁne the spin connection21 , associated with tangent-space rotations that belong to the group H. Equation (4.16) is of central importance for the geometry of the coset spaces. As a ﬁrst consequence we note that the spinor ψ(y), deﬁned with the help of the representative (4.15) at the end of the previous subsection, satisﬁes the equation, d + ω + e ψ(y) = 0 . (4.17) 21 Observe that in supergravity we have deﬁned the spin connection ﬁeld with opposite sign.

62

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Upon writing this out in terms of the gamma matrices, one recovers precisely the so-called Killing spinor equation (cf. (3.15)). Let us now proceed and investigate the properties of the one-forms ω and e. In general it is not necessary to specify the coset representative, as diﬀerent representatives are related by y-dependent H transformation acting from the right on g, i.e., g(y) −→ g(y) h(y) ,

h(y) ∈ H .

(4.18)

This leads to a diﬀerent parametrization of the coset space. It is straightforward to see how ω and e transform under (4.18) (ω + e) −→ h−1 (ω + e)h + h−1 dh .

(4.19)

This equation can again be decomposed (using the ﬁrst two relations (4.5) in terms of the generators h and k, which yields ωi

−→ h−1 ωi h + h−1 ∂i h ,

ei

−→ h−1 ei h .

(4.20)

Obviously, ω acts as a gauge connection for the local H transformations. Furthermore it follows from (4.27) that ωi and ei transform as covariant vectors under coordinate transformations, i.e. yi ωi

−→ y i + ξ i , −→ ωi − ∂i ξ j ωj − ξ j ∂j ωi ,

ei

−→ ei − ∂i ξ j ej − ξ j ∂j ei .

(4.21)

We can also deﬁne Lie-algebra valued curvatures associated with ωi and ei , Rij (H) = ∂i ωj − ∂j ωi + [ωi , ωj ] , Rij (G/H) = ∂i ej − ∂j ei + [ωi , ej ] − [ωj , ei ] .

(4.22)

Introducing H-covariant derivatives, we note the relations [Di , Dj ] = −Rij (H) , Rij (G/H)

= Di ej − Dj ei .

(4.23)

The values of these curvatures follow from the Cartan-Maurer equations. To derive these equations we take the exterior derivative of the deﬁning relation (4.16), (4.24) d(g −1 dg) = −(g −1 dg) ∧ (g −1 dg) , or, in terms of ω and e, d(ω + e) = −(ω + e) ∧ (ω + e) .

(4.25)

B. de Wit: Supergravity

63

Decomposing this equation in terms of the Lie algebra generators, using the relations (4.5), we ﬁnd Rij (H) = −[ei , ej ] ,

Rij (G/H) = 0 .

(4.26)

Note that the vanishing of Rij (G/H) is a consequence of the fact that we assumed that the coset space was symmetric (see the text below (4.5)). As we already alluded to earlier, the ﬁelds ei can be decomposed into the generators k and thus deﬁne a set of vielbeine eia that specify a tangent frame at each point in the coset space. In the context of diﬀerential geometry the indices i are called world indices, because they refer to the coordinates of a manifold, whereas the indices a, b, . . . that label the generators k are called tangent-space indices (or local Lorentz indices in the context of general relativity). Because the generators k form a representation of H, this group rotates the tangent frames. Usually the group H can be embedded into SO(n) (or a noncompact version thereof) and leaves some target-space metric invariant (we will see the importance of this fact shortly). The quantity ωi thus acts as the connection associated with rotations of the tangent frames, and therefore we call it the spin connection. These aspects are easily recognized in the examples we are discussing, because the group H was precisely the (pseudo)orthogonal group. Hence, using the same matrix decomposition as before, we ﬁnd explicit expressions for the vielbein and the spin connection,   ωi (y) dy i ei (y) dy i . (4.27) g −1 dg =  i −ei (y) dy 0 From (4.8) one readily obtains ωiab

=

eia

=

1 − y2 a b b a 1∓ y δi − y δi , y2 1 yi y a δia + 2 ± −1 , y 1 − y2

(4.28)

where, as before, indices are raised and lowered with η. Note that ωiab is antisymmetric in a, b, which follows from the (pseudo)orthogonality of H. The inverse vielbein reads ya y i eai = δai + 2 ± 1 − y 2 − 1 . (4.29) y Furthermore, the curvatures introduced before, are readily identiﬁed with the curvature of the spin connection and with the torsion tensor. From the

64

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Cartan-Maurer equations, explained above, we thus ﬁnd in components, ab Rij (ω) = 2 ea[i ebj] ,

Di eja − Dj eia = 0 .

(4.30)

To deﬁne a metric gij one contracts an H-invariant symmetric rank-2 tensor with the vielbeine. The obvious invariant tensor is ηab , so that gij = ηab eia ejb .

(4.31)

When there are several H-invariant tensors, there is a more extended class of metrics that one may consider, but in the case at hand the metric is unique up to a proportionality factor. In the parametrization (4.28) one obtains for the metric and its inverse, gij = ηij +

yi yj , 1 − y2

g ij = η ij − y i y j .

(4.32)

Given the fact that we have already made a choice for η previously, a “mostly plus” metric requires to include a minus sign in the deﬁnition (4.31) for the hyperbolic and anti-de Sitter spaces. This sign is important when comparing to spheres or de Sitter spaces. From the vielbein postulate, we know that the aﬃne connection is equal to Γijk = eak Di eja , from which we can deﬁne the Riemann curvature. For the examples at hand, this leads to Γijk = y k gij .

(4.33)

Because the torsion is zero, the connection coincides with Christoﬀel symbol. Because ωi diﬀers in sign as compared to the spin connection used in ab Section 3.1, the Riemann tensor is equal to minus the curvature Rij (ω), c l upon contraction with ηac ek eb , and we ﬁnd the following result for the Riemann curvature tensor, Rijk l = −gki δjl + gkj δil ,

(4.34)

where gij is the metric tensor deﬁned by (4.31). Thus the curvature is of deﬁnite sign, but we stress that this is related to the signature choice that we made for the metric, as we have discussed above. The Riemann curvature (4.34) is proportional to the metric, which indicates that we are dealing with a maximally symmetric space. This means that the maximal number of isometries (equal to 12 n(n + 1)) is realized for this space. All coset spaces have isometries corresponding to the group G. The diﬀeomorphisms associated with these isometries are generated by Killing vectors ξ i (y), which we introduced earlier. Combining (4.12) with (4.16), we obtain, g g(y) − ˆh(y) . (4.35) ξ i (y) (ωi (y) + ei (y)) = g −1 (y)ˆ

B. de Wit: Supergravity

65

Decomposing this equation according to the Lie algebra, we ﬁnd ξ i (y) ei (y) = ˆ h(y) = where ˜ h(y) ˜ g(y)

˜ g(y) , ˜ , −ξ i (y) ωi (y) + h(y)

(4.36)

g −1 (y) gˆ g(y) , H −1 . = g (y) gˆ g(y) =

(4.37)

G/H

ˆ The contribution h(y) is only relevant for those quantities that live in the tangent space. Now we return to the observation that the left-invariant forms, from which e and ω were constructed, are invariant under the group G. Therefore, it follows that e and ω are both invariant as well. Moreover, we established (cf. (4.11)) that the G-transformation acting on the left can be decomposed into a diﬀeomorphism combined with a coordinate-dependent H-transformation. Therefore, the vielbein e and the spin connection ω are invariant under these combined transformations. Since the metric is Hinvariant by construction, it thus follows that the metric is invariant under the diﬀeomorphism associated with G. Hence, δgij = Di ξj (y) + Dj ξi (y) = 0 ,

(4.38)

where ξi = gij ξ j and ξ i is the so-called Killing vector deﬁned by (4.36). For the vielbein and spin connection, which transform under H, we ﬁnd ˆ ∂i ξ j ej + ξ j ∂j ei + [ei , h(y)] = j j ˆ ˆ ∂i ξ ωj + ξ ∂j ωi + ∂i h(y) + [ωi , h(y)] =

0, 0.

(4.39)

Rij (H) ξ j .

(4.40)

˜ In terms of h(y) these results take a more covariant form, ˜ ∂i ξ j ej + ξ j Dj ei + [ei , h(y)] = ˜ Di h(y) =

0,

Combining the ﬁrst equation with the ﬁrst equation (4.36) yields Rij (G/H) ξ j + [ei , ˜ g(y)]G/H = 0 .

(4.41)

Observe that both terms vanish separately for a symmetric space. The diﬀeomorphisms generated by the Killing vector ﬁelds will give rise to the group G. This follows from (4.12). Let us label the generators of the group G by indices α, β, . . . , and introduce structure constants by gγ . [ˆ gα , ˆ gβ ] = fαβγ ˆ

(4.42)

66

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The Killing vectors and the corresponding H-transformations then satisfy corresponding group multiplication properties, ξβj ∂j ξαi − ξαj ∂j ξβi

=

˜β ] = ˜α , h [h

fαβγ ξγi , ˜γ + ξ i ξ j Rij (H) . fαβγ h α β

(4.43)

One can consider ﬁelds on the coset space, which are functions of the coset space coordinates assigned to a representation of the group H. On such ﬁelds the isometries are generated by the operators, ˜α . −ξαi Di + h

(4.44)

On the basis of the results above one can show that these operators satisfy the commutation relations of the Lie algebra associated with the isometry group G. To show this we note the identity ˜α )(−ξ i Di + h ˜β ) = ξ i ξ j (Di Dj − Rij (H)) + h ˜α h ˜β (−ξαi Di + h β α β ˜ ξj + h ˜ ξ j ]Dj . (4.45) +[ξαi (Di ξβj ) + h α β β α 4.3 Nonlinear sigma models with homogeneous target space It is now rather straightforward to describe a nonlinear sigma model based on a homogeneous target space by making use of the above framework. One starts from scalar ﬁelds which take their values in the homogeneous space, so that the ﬁelds φi (x) deﬁne a map from the spacetime to the coset space. Hence we may follow the same procedure as before and deﬁne a coset representative V(φi (x)) ∈ G, which now depends on n ﬁelds. Subsequently, one uses the analogue of (4.16), to deﬁne Lie-algebra valued quantities Qµ and Pµ , (4.46) V −1 ∂µ V = Qµ + Pµ , where Qµ is decomposable into the generators h and Pµ into the generators k. Obviously one has the relations Qµ (φ) = ωi (φ) ∂µ φi ,

Pµ (φ) = ei (φ) ∂µ φi .

(4.47)

The above expressions show that Qµ and Pµ are just the pull backs of the target space connection and vielbein to the spacetime. The local H transformations depend on the ﬁelds φ(x) and thus indirectly on the spacetime coordinates. Therefore one may elevate these transformations to transformations that depend arbitrarily on xµ . Under such transformations we have V(φ) → V(φ) h(x) .

(4.48)

B. de Wit: Supergravity

67

By allowing ourselves to perform such local gauge transformations, we introduced new degrees of freedom into V associated with the group H. Eventually we will ﬁx this gauge freedom, but until that point V will just be an unrestricted spacetime dependent element of the group G. After imposing the gauge condition on V(x) one obtains the coset representative V(φ(x)). From (4.48) we derive the following local H-transformations, Qµ (x) Pµ (x)

−→ h−1 (x) Qµ (x) h(x) + h−1 (x) ∂µ h(x) , −→ h−1 (x) Pµ (x) h(x) .

(4.49)

Hence Qµ acts as a gauge ﬁeld associated with the local H transformations. Furthermore both Pµ and Qµ are invariant under rigid G-transformations. It is convenient to introduce a corresponding H-covariant derivative,

so that (4.47) reads

Dµ V = ∂µ V − VQµ ,

(4.50)

V −1 Dµ V = Pµ .

(4.51)

Just as before, one derives the Cartan-Maurer equations (4.26), Fµν (Q)

= ∂µ Qν − ∂ν Qµ + [Qµ , Qν ] = −[Pµ , Pν ] ,

D[µ Pν]

= ∂[µ Pν] + [Q[µ , Pν] ] = 0 .

(4.52)

Here we made use of the commutation relations (4.5) There are several ways to write down the Lagrangian of the corresponding nonlinear sigma model. Obviously the Lagrangian must be invariant under both the rigid G transformations and the local H transformations. Hence we write (4.53) L = 12 tr Dµ V −1 Dµ V . One can interpret this result in a ﬁrst- and in a second-order form. In the ﬁrst one regards the gauge ﬁeld Qµ as an independent ﬁeld, whose ﬁeld equations are algebraic and are solved by (4.51). After substituting the result one obtains the second-order form, which presupposes (4.51) from the beginning. The result can be written as, (4.54) L = − 12 tr Pµ P µ . Clearly this Lagrangian is invariant under the group G. At this stage one still has the full gauge invariance with respect to local H transformations and one can impose a gauge restricting V to a coset representative. When this is not done, the theory is invariant under Grigid × Hlocal with both groups acting linearly. However, as soon as one imposes a gauge and restricts V to a coset representative parametrized by certain ﬁelds φi , the

68

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

residual subgroup is such that the H transformations are linked to the G transformations and depend on the ﬁelds φi . This combined subgroup still generates a representation of the group G, but it is now realized in a nonlinear fashion. In order to deal with complicated supergravity theories that involve homogeneous spaces, the strategy is to postpone this gauge choice till the end, so that one is always dealing with a manifest linearly realized symmetry group Grigid × Hlocal . As we intend to demonstrate, this strategy allows for a systematic approach, whereas the gauge-ﬁxed approach leads to unsurmountable diﬃculties (at least, for the spaces of interest). It is straightforward to demonstrate that (4.54) leads to the standard form of the nonlinear sigma model, L = − 12 gij (φ) ∂µ φi ∂ µ φj ,

(4.55)

where the target space metric is given by (4.31). In this form the local H invariance is absent, but the invariance under G is still there and realized as target space isometries generated by corresponding Killing vectors. In this form it is easy to see how to couple matter ﬁelds to the sigma model in a way that the invariance under the isometries remains unaﬀected. Matter ﬁelds are assigned to a representation of the local H group, so that they couple to the sigma model ﬁelds through the connection Qµ that appears in the covariant derivatives. Usually the ﬁelds will remain invariant under the group G as long as one does not ﬁx the gauge and choose a speciﬁc coset representative. Also here we can proceed in ﬁrst- or secondorder formalism. In ﬁrst-order form the equation (4.47) will acquire some extra terms that depend on the matter ﬁelds. Upon choosing a gauge, the matter ﬁelds transform nonlinearly under the group G with transformations that take the form of φ-dependent H-transformations, determined by (4.36). However, gauge ﬁelds cannot couple in this way as their gauge invariance would be in conﬂict with the local invariance under the group H. Therefore, gauge ﬁelds have to transform under the rigid group G. We emphasize that the presentation that we followed so far was rather general; the maximally symmetric spaces that we considered served only as an example. In supergravity we are often dealing with sigma models based on homogeneous, symmetric target spaces. These target spaces are usually noncompact and Riemannian, so that H is the maximally compact subgroup of G. Later in this chapter we will be dealing with the E7(7) /SU (8) and E6(6) /U Sp(8) coset spaces. The exceptional groups are noncompact and are divided by their maximal compact subgroups. The corresponding spaces have dimension 70 and 42, respectively.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

69

4.4 Gauged nonlinear sigma models Given a nonlinear sigma model with certain isometries, one can gauge some or all of these isometries in the usual way: one elevates the parameters of the isometry group (of a subgroup thereof) to arbitrary functions of the spacetime coordinates and introduces the necessary gauge ﬁelds (with their standard gauge-invariant Lagrangian containing a kinetic term) and corresponding covariant derivatives. As explained above, for sigma models based on homogeneous target spaces one can proceed in a way in which all transformations remain linearly realized. To adopt this approach is extremely important for the construction of gauged supergravity theories, as we will discuss in the next section. We will always use the second-order formalism so that the H-connection Qµ will not be an independent ﬁeld. Since these new gauge transformations involve the isometry group they must act on the group element V as a subgroup of G. Hence the covariant derivative of V is now changed by the addition of the corresponding (dynamical) gauge ﬁelds Aµ which take their values in the corresponding Lie algebra (which is a subalgebra of the Lie algebra associated with G). Hence, (4.56) Dµ V(x) = ∂µ V(x) − V(x) Qµ (x) − g Aµ (x) V(x) , where we have introduced a coupling constant g to keep track of the new terms introduced by the gauging. With this change, the expressions for Qµ and Pµ will change. They remain expressed by (4.51), but the derivative is now covariantized and modiﬁed by the terms depending on the new gauge ﬁelds Aµ . The consistency of this procedure is obvious as (4.51) is fully covariant. Of course, the original rigid invariance under G transformations from the left is now broken by the embedding of the new gauge group into G. The modiﬁcations caused by the new minimal couplings are minor and the eﬀects can be concisely summarized by the Cartan-Maurer equations, Fµν (Q) = = D[µ Pν]

=

∂µ Qν − ∂ν Qµ + [Qµ , Qν ] , [Pµ , Pν ] − g V −1 Fµν (A)V , H − 21 g V −1 Fµν (A)V .

(4.57)

G/H

Because Qµ and Pµ now depend on the gauge connections Aµ , according to −1 Aµ V]H , Qµ = Q(0) µ − g[V

Pµ = Pµ(0) − g[V −1 Aµ V]G/H .

(4.58)

When imposing a gauge condition, the last result for Pµ exhibits precisely the Killing vectors (4.36) (in the gauge where V equals the coset representative). When gauging isometries in a generic nonlinear sigma model

70

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

(cf. (4.55)), one replaces the derivatives according to ∂µ φ → ∂µ φi −Aµ ξ i (φ), where for simplicity we assumed a single isometry. The modiﬁcations in the matter sector arise through the order g contributions to Qµ . Note that Pµ and Qµ are invariant under the new gauge group (but transform under local H-transformations, as before). In the next section we will discuss the application of this formulation to gauged supergravity. 5

Gauged maximal supergravity in 4 and 5 dimensions

The maximally extended supergravity theories introduced in Section 3 were obtained by dimensional reduction from 11-dimensional supergravity on a hypertorus. In these theories the scalar ﬁelds parametrize a G/H coset space (cf. Table 12) and the group G is also realized as a symmetry of the full theory. Generically the ﬁelds transform as follows. The graviton is invariant, the (Abelian) gauge ﬁelds transform linearly under G and the fermions transform linearly under the group H. However, in some dimensions the G-invariance is not realized at the level of the action, but at the level of the combined ﬁeld equations and Bianchi identities. For example, in 4 dimensions the 28 Abelian vector ﬁelds do not constitute a representation of the group E7(7) . In this case the group G is realized by electric-magnetic duality and acts on the ﬁeld strengths, rather than on the vector ﬁelds. We return to electric-magnetic duality in Section 5.3. It is an obvious question whether these theories allow an extension in which the Abelian gauge ﬁelds are promoted to non-Abelian ones. This turns out to be possible and the corresponding theories are known as gauged supergravities. They contain an extra parameter g, which is the non-Abelian coupling constant. Supersymmetry requires the presence of extra terms of order g and g 2 in the Lagrangian. Apart from the gauge ﬁeld interactions there are fermionic masslike terms of order g and a scalar potential of order g 2 . The latter may give rise to groundstates with nonzero cosmological constant. To explain the construction of gauged supergravity theories, we concentrate on the maximal gauged supergravities in D = 4 and 5 spacetime dimensions. An obvious gauging in D = 4 dimensions is based on the group SO(8), as the Lagrangian has a manifest SO(8) invariance and there are precisely 28 vector ﬁelds [63]. This gauging has an obvious KaluzaKlein origin, and arises when compactifying seven coordinates of D = 11 supergravity on the sphere S 7 , which has an SO(8) isometry group. The group emerges as the gauge group of the compactiﬁed theory formulated in 4 dimensions. In this theory the E7(7) invariance group is broken to a local SO(8) group so that the resulting theory is invariant under SU (8)local × SO(8)local . In this compactiﬁcation the four-index ﬁeld strength acquires a nonzero values when all its indices are in the four-dimensional spacetime.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

71

Table 16. Representation assignments for the various supergravity ﬁelds with respect to the groups G and H. In D = 4 dimensions these groups are E7(7) and SU (8), respectively. In D = 5 dimensions they are E6(6) and U Sp(8). Note that the tensors Fµν , Gµν and/or Hµν denote the ﬁeld strengths of the vector ﬁelds and/or (for D = 5) possible tensor ﬁelds.

eµa

ψµi

Fµν ; Gµν ; Hµν

χijk

uijIJ ; v ijIJ

SU (8) E7(7)

1 1

8 1

1 56

56 1

28 + 28 56

U Sp(8) E6(6)

1 1

8 1

1 27

48 1

27 + 27 27 + 27

However, it turns out that many other subgroups of E7(7) can be gauged. In D = 5 dimensions the possible gaugings are not immediately clear, as there is no obvious 27-dimensional gauge group. Again the Kaluza-Klein scenario can serve as a guide. While D = 11 supergravity has no obvious compactiﬁcation to ﬁve dimensions, type-IIB supergravity has a compactiﬁcation on the sphere S 5 . In this solution the ﬁve-index (self-dual) ﬁeld strength acquires a nonzero value whenever the ﬁve indices take all values in either S 5 or in the ﬁve-dimensional spacetime. Type-IIB supergravity has a manifest SL(2) invariance and the isometry group of S 5 is SO(6), so that the symmetry group of the Lagrangian equals the SL(2) × SO(6) subgroup of E6(6) , where SO(6) is realized as a local gauge group. This implies that 15 of the 27 gauge ﬁelds become associated with the non-Abelian group SO(6), which leaves 12 Abelian gauge ﬁelds which are charged with respect to the same group. This poses an obvious problem, as the Abelian gauge transformations of these 12 ﬁelds will be in conﬂict with their transformations under the SO(6) gauge group. The solutions is to convert these 12 gauge ﬁelds to antisymmetric tensor ﬁelds. The Lagrangian can thus be written in a form that is invariant under U Sp(8)local × SO(6)local × SL(2) [29]. Also in 5 dimensions other gauge groups are possible. We will brieﬂy comment on this issue at the end of the section. Before continuing with supergravity we ﬁrst discuss some basic features of the two coset spaces E7(7) /SU (8) and E6(6) /U Sp(8). Both these exceptional Lie groups can be introduced in terms of 56-dimensional matrices22 .

22 Strictly

speaking the isotropy groups are SU (8)/Z2 and U Sp(8)/Z2 .

72

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

5.1 On E7(7) /SU(8) and E6(6) /USp(8) cosets We discuss the E7(7) and E6(6) on a par for reasons that will become obvious. To deﬁne the groups we consider the fundamental representation, acting on a pseudoreal vector (zIJ , z KL ) with z IJ = (zIJ )∗ , where the indices are antisymmetrized index pairs [IJ] and [KL] and I, J, K, L = 1, . . . , 8. Hence the (zIJ , z KL ) span a 56-dimensional vector space. Consider now inﬁnitesimal transformations of the form, δzIJ

=

ΛIJKL zKL + ΣIJKL z KL ,

δz IJ

=

ΛIJKL z KL + ΣIJKL zKL

(5.1)

where ΛIJKL and ΣIJKL are subject to the conditions (ΛIJKL )∗ = ΛIJKL = −ΛKLIJ ,

(ΣIJKL )∗ = ΣKLIJ .

(5.2)

The corresponding group elements constitute the group Sp(56; R) in a pseudoreal basis. This group is the group of electric-magnetic dualities of maximal supergravity in D = 4 dimensions. The matrices ΛIJ KL are associated with its maximal compact subgroup, which is equal to U (28). The deﬁning properties of elements E of Sp(56; R) are E∗ = ω E ω ,

E −1 = Ω E † Ω ,

where ω and Ω are given by 0 1 ω= , 1 0

Ω=

1 0

0 −1

(5.3)

.

(5.4)

The above properties ensure that the sequilinear form, (z1 , z2 ) = z1IJ z2IJ − z1IJ z2IJ ,

(5.5)

is invariant. In passing we note that the real subgroup (in this pseudoreal representation) is equal to the group GL(28). Let us now consider the E7(7) subgroup, for which the ΣIJKL is fully antisymmetric and the generators are further restricted according to [K

ΛIJKL = δ[I ΛJ]L] ,

ΛI J = −ΛJ I ,

ΛI I = 0 ,

1 24 εIJKLMN P Q

ΣIJKL =

ΣMN P Q .

(5.6)

Obviously the matrices ΛIJ generate the group SU (8), which has dimension 63; since ΣIJKL comprise 70 real parameters, the dimension of E7(7) equals 63+70 = 133. Because SU (8) is the maximal compact subgroup, the number of the noncompact generators minus the number of compact ones

B. de Wit: Supergravity

73

is equal to 70 − 63 = 7. It is straightforward to show that these matrices close under commutation and generate the group E7(7) . To show this one needs a variety of identities for selfdual tensors [64]; one of them is that the contraction ΣIKLM ΣJKLM is traceless. However, E7(7) has another maximal 63-dimensional subgroup, which is not compact. This is the group SL(8). It is possible to choose conventions in which the E7(7) matrices have a diﬀerent block decomposition than (5.1) and where the diagonal blocks correspond to the group SL(8), rather than to SU (8). We note that the subgroup generated by (5.6) with ΛIJ and ΣIJKL real, deﬁnes the group SL(8; R). The group E7(7) has a quartic invariant, J4 (z) = zIJ z JK zKL z LI − 14 (zIJ z IJ )2 (5.7) IJ KL MN P Q IJKLMN P Q 1 z +ε zIJ zKL zMN zP Q , + 96 εIJKLMN P Q z z z which, however, plays no role in the following. For further information the reader is encouraged to read the appendices of [53]. Another subgroup is the group E6(6) , for which the restrictions are rather similar. Here one introduces a skew-symmetric tensor ΩIJ , satisfying ΩIJ = −ΩJI ,

(ΩIJ )∗ = ΩIJ ,

ΩIK ΩKJ = −δIJ .

(5.8)

Now we restrict ourselves to the subgroup of U (8) that leaves ΩIJ invariant. This is the group U Sp(8). The other restrictions on the generators concern ΣIJKL . Altogether we have the conditions, [K

ΛIJKL = δ[I ΛJ]L] , Λ[I K ΩJ]K = 0 ,

ΛI J = −ΛJ I , ΩIJ ΣIJKL = 0 ,

ΣIJKL = ΩIM ΩJN ΩKP ΩLQ ΣMN P Q .

(5.9)

The maximal compact subgroup U Sp(8) thus has dimension 64 − 28 = 36, while there are 70 − 28 = 42 generators associated with ΣIJKL . Altogether we thus have 36 + 42 = 78 generators, while the diﬀerence between the numbers of noncompact and compact generators equals 42 − 36 = 6. These numbers conﬁrm that we are indeed dealing with E6(6) and its maximal compact subgroup U Sp(8). Because of the constraints (5.9) the 56-dimensional representation deﬁned by (5.1) is reducible and decomposes into two singlets and a 27 and a 27 representation. To see this we observe that the following restrictions are preserved by the group, ΩIJ z IJ = 0 ,

zIJ = ±ΩIK ΩJL z KL .

(5.10)

The ﬁrst one suppresses the singlet representation and the second one projects out the 27 or the 27 representation.

74

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings The group E6(6) has a cubic invariant, deﬁned by J3 (z) = z IJ z KL z MN ΩJK ΩLM ΩN I ,

(5.11)

which plays a role in the E6(6) invariant Chern-Simons term in the supergravity Lagrangian. There is another maximal subgroup of E6(6) , which is noncompact, that will be relevant in the following. This is the group SL(6) × SL(2), which has dimension 35 + 3 = 38, and which plays a role in many of the known gaugings, where the gauge group is embedded into the group SL(6), so that SL(2) remains as a rigid invariance group of the Lagrangian. 5.2 On ungauged maximal supergravity Lagrangians An important feature of pure extended supergravity theories is that the spinless ﬁelds take their values in a homogeneous target space (cf. Table 12, where we have listed these spaces). Because the spinless ﬁelds always appear in nonpolynomial form, it is vital to exploit the coset structure explained in the previous section in the construction of the supersymmetric action and transformation rules, as well as in the gauging. We will not be complete here but sketch a number of features of the maximal supergravity theories in D = 4, 5 where the coset structure plays an important role. We will be rather cavalier about numerical factors, spinor conventions, etc. In this way we will, hopefully, be able to bring out the main features of the G/H structure, without getting entangled in issues that depend on the spacetime dimension. For those and other details we refer to the original literature [29, 63]. One starts by introducing a so-called 56-bein V(x), which is a 56 × 56 matrix that belongs to the group E7(7) or E6(6) , depending on whether we are in D = 4, or 5 dimensions. A coset representative is obtained by exponentiation of the generators deﬁned in (5.1). Schematically, 0 Σ(x) V(x) = exp , (5.12) Σ(x) 0 where the rank-4 antisymmetric tensor Σ satisﬁes the algebraic restrictions appropriate for the exceptional group. As explained in the previous section, the 56-bein is reducible for E6(6) , but we will use the reducible version in order to discuss the two theories on a par. Our notation will be based on a description in terms of right cosets, just as in the previous sections, which may diﬀer from the notations used in the original references where one sometimes uses left cosets. Hence, we assume that the 56-bein transforms under the exceptional group from the left and under the local SU (8) (or

B. de Wit: Supergravity

75

U Sp(8)) from the right. The 56-bein can be decomposed in block form according to  ij  −vklIJ (x) u IJ (x) , V(x) =  (5.13) ijKL KL −v (x) ukl (x) with the usual conventions uijIJ = (uijIJ )∗ and vijIJ = (v ijIJ )∗ . Observe that the indices of the matrix are antisymmetrized index pairs [IJ] and [ij]. In the above the row indices are ([IJ], [KL]), and the column indices are ([ij], [kl]). The latter are the indices associated with the local SU (8) or U Sp(8). The notation of the submatrices is chosen such as to make contact with [63], where left cosets were chosen, upon interchanging V and V −1 . Observe also that (5.12) is a coset representative, i.e. we have ﬁxed the gauge with respect to local SU (8) or U Sp(8), whereas in (5.13) gauge ﬁxing is not assumed. According to (5.3) the inverse V −1 can be expressed in terms of the complex conjugates of the submatrices of V,   IJ uij (x) vijKL (x) . (5.14) V −1 (x) =  klIJ kl v (x) u KL (x) Consequently we derive the identities, for E7(7) , uijIJ uklIJ − v ijIJ vklIJ

ij = δkl ,

uijIJ v klIJ − v ijIJ uklIJ

= 0,

(5.15)

or, conversely, uijIJ uijKL − vijIJ v ijKL uijIJ vijKL − vijIJ uijKL

= =

IJ δKL , 0.

(5.16)

The corresponding equations for E6(6) are identical, except that the antisymmetrized Kronecker symbols on the right-hand sides are replaced according to ij ij δkl → δkl − 18 Ωkl Ωij ,

IJ IJ δKL → δKL − 18 ΩKL ΩIJ .

(5.17)

Furthermore the matrices u and v vanish when contracted with the invariant tensor Ω and they are pseudoreal, e.g., uijIJ ΩIJ = 0 ,

uijKL ΩIK ΩJL = Ωik Ωjl uklIJ ,

(5.18)

with similar identities for the v ijIJ . In this case the (pseudoreal) matrices uij IJ ± ΩIK ΩJL v ijKL and their complex conjugates deﬁne (irreducible)

76

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

elements of E6(6) corresponding to the 27 and 27 representations. We note the identity ij uij IJ + ΩIK ΩJL v ijKL ukl IJ − ΩIM ΩJN vklMN = δkl − 18 Ωkl Ωij . (5.19) In this case we can thus decompose the 56-bein in terms of a 27-bein and a 27-bein. Subsequently we evaluate the quantities Qµ and Pµ ,  V −1 ∂µ V = 

Qµ ijmn

Pµ ijpq

Pµklmn

Qµklpq

 ,

(5.20)

which leads to the expressions, Qµ ijkl Pµijkl

= =

uijIJ ∂µ uklIJ − vijIJ ∂µ v klIJ , v ijIJ ∂µ uklIJ − uijIJ ∂µ v klIJ .

(5.21)

The important observation is that Qµijkl and Pµijkl are subject to the same constraints as the generators of the exceptional group listed in the previous section. Hence, Pµijkl is fully antisymmetric and subject to a reality constraint. Therefore it transforms according to the 70-dimensional representation of SU (8), with the reality condition, Pµijkl =

1 24

εijklmnpq Pµ mnpq ,

(5.22)

or, to the 42-dimensional representation of U Sp(8), with the reality condition, (5.23) Pµijkl = Ωim Ωjn Ωkp Ωlq Pµ mnpq . Likewise Qµ transforms as a connection associated with SU (8) or U Sp(8), respectively. Hence Qµ ijkl must satisfy the decomposition, [k

Qµ ijkl = δ[i Qµ j]l] ,

(5.24)

so that Qµ ij equals Qµ ij =

2 3

uikIJ ∂µ ujkIJ − vikIJ ∂µ v jkIJ .

(5.25)

Because of the underlying Lie algebra the connections Qµ ij satisfy Qµij = −Qµj i and Qµi i = 0, as well as an extra symmetry condition in the case of U Sp(8) (cf. (5.9)).

B. de Wit: Supergravity

77

Furthermore we can evaluate the Maurer-Cartan equations (4.52), Fµν (Q)i j

= ∂µ Qν ij − ∂ν Qµ ij + Q[µ ik Qν]kj = − 43 P[µjklm Pν]iklm ,

ijkl D[µ Pν]

ijkl = ∂[µ Pν] + 2Q[µ m[i Pν]

jkl]m

= 0.

(5.26)

Observe that the use of the Lie algebra decomposition for G/H is crucial in deriving these equations. Such decompositions are an important tool for dealing with the spinless ﬁelds in this nonlinear setting. Before ﬁxing a gauge, we can avoid the nonlinearities completely and carry out the calculations in a transparent way. Fixing the gauge prematurely and converting to a speciﬁc coset representative for G/H would lead to unsurmountable diﬃculties. Continuing along similar lines we turn to a number of other features that are of interest for the Lagrangian and transformation rules. The ﬁrst one is the observation that any variation of the 56-bein can be written, up to a local H-transformation, as 0 Σ , (5.27) δV = V Σ 0 or, in terms of submatrices, δuijIJ = −Σijkl v klIJ ,

δvijIJ = −Σijkl uklIJ .

(5.28)

where Σijkl is the rank-four antisymmetric tensor corresponding to the generators associated with G/H (i.e., the generators denoted by k in the previous section). Because Σ takes the form of an H-covariant tensor, the variation (5.28) is consistent with both groups G and H. Under this variation the quantities Qµ and Pµ transform systematically, δQµ ij = 23 Σjklm Pµ iklm − Σiklm Pµjklm , δPµijkl

=

Dµ Σijkl = ∂µ Σijkl + 2Qµ m[i Σjkl]m .

(5.29)

Observe that, this establishes that the SU (8) tensors Qµ and Pµ can be assigned to the adjoint representation of the group G, as is also obvious from the decomposition (5.20). As was stressed above, any variation of V can be decomposed into (5.27), up to a local H-transformation. In particular this applies to supersymmetry transformations. The supersymmetry variation can be written in the form (5.27), where Σ is an H-covariant expression proportional to the supersymmetry parameter i and the fermion ﬁelds χijk . Hence it must be of the form Σijkl ∝ ¯ [i χjkl] , up to complex conjugation and possible contractions with H-covariant tensors, Furthermore Σ must satisfy the restrictions associated with the exceptional group, i.e. (5.6) or (5.9).

78

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The supersymmetry variation of the spinor χijk contains the quantity Pµijkl , which incorporates the spacetime derivatives of the spinless ﬁelds, so that up to proportionality constants we must have a variation, δχijk ∝ Pµijkl γ µ l .

(5.30)

The veriﬁcation of the supersymmetry algebra on V is rather easy. Under two consecutive (ﬁeld-dependent) variations (5.28) applied in diﬀerent orders on the 56-bein, we have 0 Σ1 0 Σ2 0 2 δ[1 Σ2] [δ1 , δ2 ] V = V +V , . 2 δ[1 Σ2] 0 Σ1 0 Σ2 0 (5.31) The last term is just an inﬁnitesimal H-transformations. For the ﬁrst term we note that δ1 Σ2 leads to a term proportional to Pµijkl , combined with [i

jkl]m

two supersymmetry parameters, 1 and 2 , of the form (¯ 1 γ µ 2 m ) Pµ . Taking into account the various H-covariant combinations in the actual expressions implied by (5.6) or (5.9), respectively, this contribution can be written in the form 0 Pµ [δ1 , δ2 ] V ∝ (¯ . (5.32) i1 γ µ 2 i − ¯ i2 γ µ 1 i ) V Pµ 0 This is precisely a spacetime diﬀeomorphism, up to a local H-transformation proportional to Qµ , as follows from (5.20). Hence up to a number of ﬁelddependent H-transformations, the supersymmetry commutator closes on V into a spacetime diﬀeomorphism (up to terms of higher-order in the spinors that we suppressed). Let us now turn to the action. Apart from higher-order spinor terms, the terms in the Lagrangian pertaining to the graviton, gravitini, spinors and scalars take the following form, e−1 L1 = − 21 R(e, ω) − 12 ψ¯µi γ µνρ (∂ν − 12 ωνab γab )δij + 12 Qν ij ψρj µ 1 ijk µ 1 − 12 χ ¯ γ (∂µ − 12 ωµab γab )δkl + 32 Qµ kl χijl − 96 Pµijkl Pijkl 1 − 12 χ ¯ijk γ ν γ µ ψνl Pµijkl .

(5.33)

This Lagrangian is manifestly invariant with respect to E7(7) or E6(6) . Here we distinguish the Einstein-Hilbert term for gravity, the Rarita-Schwinger Lagrangian for the gravitini, the Dirac Lagrangian and the nonlinear sigma model associated with the G/H target space. The last term represents the Noether coupling term for the spin-0/spin- 21 system. For D = 4 the fermion ﬁelds are chiral spinors and we have to add the contributions from the

B. de Wit: Supergravity

79

spinors of opposite chirality; for D = 5 we are dealing with so-called symplectic Majorana spinors. Here we disregard such details and concentrate on the symmetry issues. The vector ﬁelds bring in new features, which are diﬀerent for spacetime dimensions D = 4 and 5. In D = 5 dimensions the vector ﬁelds BµIJ transform as the 27 representation of E6(6) , so that they satisfy the reality constraint Bµ IJ = ΩIK ΩJL BµKL , and the Lagrangian is manifestly invariant under the corresponding transformations. It is impossible to construct an invariant action just for the vector ﬁelds and one has to make use of the scalars, which can be written in terms of the 27-beine, uijIJ +v ijKL ΩIK ΩJL , and which can be used to convert E6(6) to U Sp(8) indices. Hence we deﬁne a U Sp(8) covariant ﬁeld strength for the vector ﬁelds, equal to ij ijKL Fij ΩIK ΩJL )(∂µ BνIJ − ∂ν BµIJ ) . µν = (u IJ − v

(5.34)

The invariant Lagrangian of the vector ﬁelds then reads, L2

=

µνkl 1 − 16 e Fij Ωik Ωjl µν F 1 µνρσλ IJ − 12 ε Bµ ∂ν BρKL ∂σ BλMN ΩJK ΩLM ΩN I µν + 41 e Fij µν Oij ,

(5.35)

where we distinguish the kinetic term, a Chern-Simons interaction associated with the E6(6) cubic invariant (5.11) and a moment coupling with the µν denotes a covariant tensor antisymmetric in both spacefermions. Here Oij time and U Sp(8) indices and quadratic in the fermion ﬁelds, ψµi and χijk . Observe that the dependence on the spinless ﬁelds is completely implicit. Any additional dependence would aﬀect the invariance under E6(6) . The result obtained by combining the Lagrangians (5.33) and (5.35) gives the full supergravity Lagrangian invariant under rigid E6(6) and local U Sp(8) transformations, up to terms quartic in the fermion ﬁelds. We continue the discussion of the D = 4 theory in the next section, as this requires to ﬁrst introduce the concept of electric-magnetic duality. 5.3 Electric–magnetic duality and E7(7) For D = 4 the Lagrangian is not invariant under E7(7) but under a smaller group, which acts on the vector ﬁelds (but not necessarily on the 56-bein) according to a 28-dimensional subgroup of GL(28). However, the combined equations of motion and the Bianchi identities are invariant under the group E7(7) . This situation is typical for D = 4 theories with Abelian vector ﬁelds, where the symmetry group of ﬁeld equations and Bianchi identities can be bigger than that of the Lagrangian, and where diﬀerent Lagrangians not related by local ﬁeld redeﬁnitions, can lead to an equivalent set of ﬁeld equations and Bianchi identities. However, the phenomenon is not restricted to

80

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

4 dimensions and can occur for antisymmetric tensor gauge ﬁelds in any even number of spacetime dimensions (see, e.g. [52]). The 4-dimensional version has been known for a long time and is commonly referred to as electric-magnetic duality (for a recent review of this duality in supergravity, see, e.g. [51]). Its simplest form arises in Maxwell theory in four-dimensional (ﬂat or curved) Minkowski space, where one can perform (Hodge) duality rotations, which commute with the Lorentz group and rotate the electric and magnetic ﬁelds and inductions according to E ↔ H and B ↔ D. This duality can be generalized to any D = 4 dimensional ﬁeld theory with Abelian vector ﬁelds and no charged ﬁelds, so that the gauge ﬁelds enter the Lagrangian only through their (Abelian) ﬁeld strengths. These ﬁeld strengths (in the case at hand we have 28 of them, labelled by antisymmetric index pairs [IJ], but for the moment we will remain more general and label the ﬁeld strengths by α, β, . . .) are decomposed into selfdual and ±α anti-selfdual components Fµν (which, in Minkowski space, are related by complex conjugation) and so are the ﬁeld strengths G± µν α that appear in the ﬁeld equations, which are deﬁned by G± µν α = ±

∂L 4i · e ∂F ± αµν

(5.36)

±α and G± Together Fµν µν α comprise the electric and magnetic ﬁelds and inductions. The Bianchi identities and equations of motion for the Abelian gauge ﬁelds take the form

+

µ − ∂µ F + − F − α µν α = 0 , µν = ∂ G − G

(5.37)

which are obviously invariant under real, constant, rotations of the ﬁeld strengths F ± and G±

±α Fµν

G± µν β

−→

U

Z

W

V

±α Fµν

G± µν β

,

(5.38)

where U αβ , Vαβ , Wαβ and Z αβ are constant, real, n × n submatrices and n denotes the number of independent gauge potentials. In N = 8 supergravity we have 56 such ﬁeld strengths of each duality, so that the rotation is associated with a 56 × 56 matrix. The relevant question is whether the rotated equations (5.37) can again follow from a Lagrangian. More precisely, does there exist a new Lagrangian depending on the new, rotated, ﬁeld strengths, such that the new tensors Gµν follow from this Lagrangian as in (5.36). This condition amounts to an integrability condition, which can only have a solution (for generic Lagrangians) provided that the matrix

B. de Wit: Supergravity

81

is an element of the group Sp(2n; R)23 . This implies that the submatrices satisfy the constraint U TV − W TZ = V U T − W Z T = 1 , U TW = W TU ,

Z TV = V TZ .

(5.39)

We distinguish two subgroups of Sp(2n; R). One is the invariance group of the combined ﬁeld equations and Bianchi identities, which usually requires the other ﬁelds in the Lagrangian to transform as well. Of course, a generic theory does not have such an invariance group, but maximal supergravity is known to have an E7(7) ⊂ Sp(56; R) invariance. However, this invariance group is not necessarily realized as a symmetry of the Lagrangian. The subgroup that is a symmetry of the Lagrangian, is usually smaller and restricted by Z = 0 and U −1 = V T ; the subgroup associated with the matrices U equals GL(n). Furthermore the Lagrangian is not uniquely deﬁned (it can always be reparametrized via an electric-magnetic duality transformation) and neither is its invariance group. More precisely, there exist diﬀerent Lagrangians with diﬀerent symmetry groups, whose Bianchi identities and equations of motion are the same (modulo a linear transformation) and are invariant under the same group (which contains the symmetry groups of the various Lagrangians as subgroups). These issues are extremely important when gauging a subgroup of the invariance group, as this requires the gauge group to be contained in the invariance group of the Lagrangian. Given the fact that we can rotate the ﬁeld strengths by electric-magnetic duality transformations, we assign diﬀerent indices to the ﬁeld strengths and the underlying gauge groups than to the 56-bein V. Namely, we label the ﬁelds strengths by independent index pairs [AB], which are related to the index pairs [IJ] of the 56-bein (cf. (5.13)) in a way that we will discuss below. Furthermore, to remain in the context of the pseudoreal basis used previously, we form the linear combinations, + +AB 1 ), F+ 1µν AB = 2 (i Gµν AB + Fµν

+ +AB 1 F+AB ) . (5.40) 2µν = 2 (i Gµν AB − Fµν

23 Without any further assumptions, one can show that in Minkowski spaces of dimensions D = 4k, the rotations of the ﬁeld equations and Bianchi identities associated with n rank-(k − 1) antisymmetric gauge ﬁelds that are described by a Lagrangian, constitute the group Sp(2n; R). For rank-k antisymmetric gauge ﬁelds in D = 2k + 2 dimensions, this group equals SO(n, n; R). Observe that these groups do not constitute an invariance of the theory, but merely characterize an equivalence class of Lagrangians. The fact that the symplectic redeﬁnitions of the ﬁeld strengths constitute the group Sp(2n; R) was ﬁrst derived in [65], but in the context of a duality invariance rather than of a reparametrization. In this respect our presentation is more in the spirit of a later treatment in [66] for N = 2 vector multiplets coupled to supergravity (duality invariances for these theories were introduced in [67]).

82

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

− Anti-selfdual ﬁeld strengths (F−AB 1µν , F2µν AB ) follow from complex conjugation. On this basis the ﬁeld strengths rotate under Sp(56; R) according to the matrices E speciﬁed in (5.3); the real GL(28) subgroup is induced by corresponding linear transformations of the vector ﬁelds. To exhibit how one can deal with a continuous variety of Lagrangians, which are manifestly invariant under diﬀerent subgroups of E7(7) , let us AB remember that the tensors Fµν and Gµν AB are related by (5.36) and this relationship must be consistent with E7(7) . In order to establish this consistency, the 56-bein plays a crucial role. The relation involves a constant Sp(56; R) matrix E (so that it satisﬁes the conditions (5.3)),

 E=

UIJAB

VIJCD

VKLAB

UKLCD

 .

(5.41)

On the basis of E7(7) and SU (8) covariance, the relation among the ﬁeld strengths must have the form, V

−1

E

F+ 1µν AB F+AB 2µν

=

F+ µν ij +kl Oµν

,

(5.42)

+ is an SU (8) covariant tensor quadratic in the fermion ﬁelds and where Oµν independent of the scalar ﬁelds, which appears in the moment couplings in the Lagrangian. Without going into the details we mention that the chirality + is severely restricted so that the structure of (5.42) is and duality of Oµν unique (cf. [63]). The tensor F+ µν ij is an SU (8) covariant ﬁeld strength that appears in the supersymmetry transformation rules of the spinors, which is simply deﬁned by the above condition. Hence the matrix E allows the ﬁeld strengths and the 56-bein to transform under E7(7) in an equivalent but nonidentical way. One could consider absorbing this matrix into the deﬁnition of the ﬁeld strengths (F1 , F2 ), but such a redeﬁnition cannot be carried out at the level of the Lagrangian, unless it belongs to a GL(28) subgroup which can act on the gauge ﬁelds themselves. In the basis (5.3) the generators of GL(28) have a block decomposition with SO(28) generators in both diagonal blocks and identical real, symmetric, 28 × 28 matrices in the oﬀ-diagonal blocks. On the other hand, when E ∈ E7(7) , it can be absorbed into the 56-bein V. The various Lagrangians are thus encoded in Sp(56; R) matrices E, up to multiplication by GL(28) from the right and multiplication by E7(7) from the left, i.e. in elements of E7(7) \Sp(56; R)/GL(28). From (5.42) one can straightforwardly determine the relevant terms in the Lagrangian. For convenience, we redeﬁne the 56-bein by absorbing the

B. de Wit: Supergravity

83

matrix E,  ˆ V(x) = E−1 V(x) = 

uijAB (x) −v

ij CD

(x)

−v kl AB (x)

 ,

(5.43)

uklCD (x)

where we have to remember that Vˆ is now no longer a group element of E7(7) . Note, however, that the E7(7) tensors Qµ and Pµ are not aﬀected by ˆ This is the matrix E and have identical expressions in terms of V and V. not the case for the terms in the Lagrangian that contain the Abelian ﬁeld strengths, AB Fµν = ∂µ AAB − ∂ν AAB (5.44) ν µ , and which take the form, +AB +CD µν L3 = − 18 e Fµν F [(u + v)−1 ]ABij (uijCD − v ijCD ) +AB [(u + v)−1 ]ABij O+µν ij − 12 e Fµν

+ h.c. ,

(5.45)

AB . where the 28 × 28 matrices satisfy [(u + v)−1 ]ABij (uijCD + v ijCD ) = δCD + The SU (8) covariant ﬁeld strength Fµνij will appear in the supersymmetry transformation rules for the fermions, and is equal to +AB +ij AB = (uijAB + v ijAB ) F+ + vijAB ) Oµν . Fµν µνij − (uij

(5.46)

Clearly the Lagrangian depends on the matrix E. Because the matrix E−1 V is an element of Sp(56; R), the matrix multiplying the two ﬁeld strengths in (5.45) is symmetric under the interchange of [AB] ↔ [CD]24 . In order that the Lagrangian be invariant under a certain subgroup of E7(7) , one has to make a certain choice for the matrix E. According to the analysis leading to (5.38) and (5.39), this subgroup is generated on Vˆ by matrices Λ and Σ, just as in (5.1), but with indices A, B, . . ., rather than with I, J, . . ., satisfying (5.47) Im ΣABCD + ΛABCD = 0 . In order to be a subgroup of E7(7) as well, they must also satisfy (5.6), but only after a proper conversion of the I, J, . . . to A, B, . . . indices. The gauge ﬁelds transform under the real subgroup (i.e., the imaginary parts of 24 Such symmetry properties follow from the symmetry under interchanging index pairs in the products (uijAB − vijAB ) (uklAB + vklAB ) and (uijAB + vijAB ) (uijCD + vijCD ).

84

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

the generators act exclusively on the 56-bein). A large variety of symmetry groups exists, as one can deduce from the symmetry groups that are realized in maximal supergravity in higher dimensions. The biggest group whose existence can be inferred in this way, is E6(6) × SO(1, 1), which is the group that one obtains from the D = 5 Lagrangian upon reduction to D = 4 dimensions. 5.4 Gauging maximal supergravity; the T-tensor The gauging of supergravity is eﬀected by switching on the gauge coupling constant, after assigning the various ﬁelds to representations of the gauge group embedded in E7(7) or E6(6) . Only the gauge ﬁelds themselves and the spinless ﬁelds can transform under this gauge group. Hence the Abelian ﬁeld strengths are changed to non-Abelian ones and derivatives of the scalars are covariantized according to ∂µ V → ∂µ V − gAAB µ TAB V ,

(5.48)

where the gauge group generators TAB are 56 × 56 matrices which span a subalgebra of maximal dimension equal to the number of vector ﬁelds, embedded in the Lie algebra of E7(7) or E6(6) . The structure constants of the gauge group are given by [TAB , TCD ] = fAB,CDEF TEF .

(5.49)

It turns out that the viability for a gauging depends sensitively on the choice of the gauge group and its corresponding embedding. This aspect is most nontrivial for the D = 4 theory, in view of electric-magnetic duality. Therefore, we will mainly concentrate on this theory. In D = 4 dimensions, one must start from a Lagrangian that is symmetric under the desired gauge group, which requires one to make a suitable choice of the matrix E. In D = 5 dimensions, the Lagrangian is manifestly symmetric under E6(6) , so this subtlety does not arise. When eﬀecting the gauging the vector ﬁelds may decompose into those associated with the non-Abelian gauge group and a number of remaining gauge ﬁelds. When the latter are charged under the gauge group, then there is a potential obstruction to the gauging as the gauge invariance of these gauge ﬁelds cannot coexist with the nonAbelian gauge transformations. However, in D = 5 this obstruction can be avoided, because (charged) vector ﬁelds can alternatively be described as antisymmetric rank-2 tensor ﬁelds. For instance, the gauging of SO(p, 6−p) involves 15 non-Abelian gauge ﬁelds and 12 antisymmetric tensor ﬁelds. The latter can transform under the gauge group, because they are not realized as tensor gauge ﬁelds. Typically this conversion of vector into tensor ﬁelds leads to terms that are inversely proportional to the gauge coupling [68]. However,

B. de Wit: Supergravity

85

to write down a corresponding Lagrangian requires an even number of tensor ﬁelds. Introducing the gauging leads directly to a loss of supersymmetry, because the new terms in the Lagrangian lead to new variations. For convenience we now restrict ourselves to D = 4 dimensions. The leading variations are induced by the modiﬁcation (5.48) of the Cartan-Maurer equations. This modiﬁcation was already noted in (4.57) and takes the form Fµν (Q)i j

=

AB − 43 P[µjklm Pν]iklm − g Fµν QAB i j ,

ijkl D[µ Pν]

=

AB ijkl − 12 g Fµν PAB ,

where

 V −1 TAB V = 

(5.50)

QAB ijmn

PAB ijpq

klmn PAB

QABklpq

 .

(5.51)

These modiﬁcations are the result of the implicit dependence of Qµ and Pµ on the vector potentials AAB µ . The fact that the matrices TAB generate a subalgebra of the algebra associated with E7(7) , in the basis appropriate for V, implies that the quantities QAB and PAB satisfy the constraints, ijkl PAB

=

QAB ijkl

=

1 ijklmnpq PAB mnpq 24 ε [k δ[i QAB j]l] ,

, (5.52)

while QABij is antihermitean and traceless. It is straightforward to write down the explicit expressions for QAB and PAB , QAB ij = 23 uikIJ (∆AB ujkIJ ) − vikIJ (∆AB v jkIJ ) , ijkl PAB

=

v ijIJ (∆AB uklIJ ) − uijIJ (∆AB v klIJ )

(5.53)

where ∆AB u and ∆AB v indicate the change of submatrices in V induced by multiplication with the generator TAB . Note that we could have expressed ˆ on which the E7(7) the above quantities in terms of the modiﬁed 56-bein V, transformations act in the basis that is appropriate for the ﬁeld strengths, provided we change the generators TAB into TˆAB = E−1 TAB E .

(5.54)

This is done below. When establishing supersymmetry of the action one needs the CartanMaurer equations at an early stage to cancel variations from the gravitino kinetic terms and the Noether term (the term in the Lagrangian proportional to χψ ¯ µ Pν ). The order-g terms in the Maurer-Cartan equation yield

86

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

the leading variations of the Lagrangian. They are linearly proportional to the fermion ﬁelds and read, δL =

1 j γ ρ γ µν ψρi 4 g(¯ 1 ijklmnpq + 288 ε

− ¯i γ ρ γ µν ψρj ) QAB i j (uklAB + v klAB ) F+ µνkl χ ¯ijk γ µν l PAB mnpq (ursAB + v rsAB ) F+ µνrs

+ h.c.

(5.55)

The ﬁrst variation is proportional to an SU (8) tensor Tijkl , which is known as the T -tensor, Tijkl

= =

j 3 4 QAB i

(uklAB + v klAB ) (5.56) CD ˆ 1 ˆ AB v jmCD ) (uklAB + v klAB ) , (∆AB ujmCD ) − vimCD (∆ 2 uim

ˆ Another component ˆ AB v are the submatrices of TˆAB V. ˆ AB u and ∆ where ∆ of the T -tensor appears in the second variation and is equal to mn Tijkl

= =

1 2 PAB ijkl

(umnAB + v mnAB ) (5.57) mn mnAB CD CD 1 ˆ ˆ AB vklCD ) (u AB + v ) − uij (∆ ). 2 vijCD (∆AB ukl

The T -tensor is thus a cubic product of the 56-bein Vˆ which depends in a nontrivial way on the embedding of the gauge group into E7(7) . It satisﬁes a number of important properties. Some of them are rather obvious (such as Tiijk = 0), and follow rather straightforwardly from the deﬁnition. We will concentrate on properties which are perhaps less obvious. Apart from the ˆ which is a special feature of D = 4 dimensions, distinction between V and V, these properties are generic. First we observe that SU (8) covariantized variations of the T -tensor are again proportional to the T -tensor. These variations are induced by (5.27) and (5.28). Along the same lines as before we can show that the SU (8) tensors QAB and PAB transform according to the adjoint representation of E7(7) , which allows one to derive, δTijkl

=

mn δTijkl

=

kl 1 jmnpqrst Σimnp Tqrst + 24 ε pmn mntu pqrs 4 1 − 24 εijklpqrs Σ Ttu . 3 Σp[ijk Tl]

kl Σjmnp Timnp −

j Σklmn Timn ,

(5.58)

This shows that the SU (8) covariant T -tensors can be assigned to a representation of E7(7) . This property will play an important role below. Before completing the analysis leading to a consistent gauging we stress that all variations are from now on expressed in terms of the T -tensor, as its variations yield again the same tensor. This includes the SU (8) covariant derivative of the T -tensor, which follows directly from (5.58) upon the

B. de Wit: Supergravity

87

substitutions δ → Dµ and Σ → Pµ . A viable gauging requires that the T -tensor satisﬁes a number of rather nontrivial identities, as we will discuss shortly, but the new terms in the Lagrangian and transformation rules have a universal form, irrespective of the gauge group. Let us ﬁrst describe these new terms. First of all, to cancel the variations (5.55) we need masslike terms in the Lagrangian, √ ¯i µ Lmasslike = g e 12 2 A1ij ψ¯ iµ γ µν ψνj + 16 Ajkl 2i ψµ γ χjkl +Aijk,lmn χ ¯ijk χlmn + h.c. , 3

(5.59)

whose presence necessitates corresponding modiﬁcations of the supersymmetry transformations of the fermion ﬁelds, √ δg ψ¯µi = − 2g Aij ¯j γµ , 1 δg χijk

=

−2g A2lijk ¯l .

Finally at order g 2 one needs a potential for the spinless ﬁelds, 2 1 · |A2ijkl |2 − 13 |Aij P (V) = g 2 24 1 |

(5.60)

(5.61)

These last three formulae will always apply, irrespective of the gauge group. jkl Note that the tensors Aij and Aijk,lmn have certain symmetry prop1 , A2i 3 erties dictated by the way they appear in the Lagrangian (5.59). To be speciﬁc, A1 is symmetric in (ij), A2 is fully antisymmetric in [jkl] and A3 is antisymmetric in [ijk] as well as in [lmn] and symmetric under the interchange [ijk] ↔ [lmn]. This implies that these tensors transform under SU (8) according to the representations A1: 36 , A2: 28 + 420 , A3: 28 + 420 + 1176 + 1512 . The three SU (8) covariant tensors, A1 , A2 and A3 , which depend only on the spinless ﬁelds, must be linearly related to the T -tensor, because they were introduced for the purpose of cancelling the variations (5.55). To see how this can be the case, let us analyze the SU (8) content of the T -tensor. As we mentioned already, the T -tensor is cubic in the 56-bein, and as such is constitutes a certain tensor that transforms under E7(7) . The transformation properties were given in (5.58), where we made use of the fact that the T -tensor consists of a product of the fundamental times the adjoint representation of E7(7) . Hence the T -tensor comprises the representations, 56 × 133 = 56 + 912 + 6480 .

(5.62)

88

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The representations on the right-hand side can be decomposed under the action of SU (8), with the result 56 = 28 + 28 , 912 = 36 + 36 + 420 + 420 ,

(5.63)

6480 = 28 + 28 + 420 + 420 + 1280 + 1280 + 1512 + 1512 . Comparing these representations to the SU (8) representations to which the tensors A1 −A3 (and their complex conjugates) belong, we note that there is a mismatch between (5.63) and (5.62). In view of (5.58) the T -tensor must be restricted by suppressing complete representations of E7(7) in order that its variations and derivatives remain consistent. This proves that the T tensor cannot contain the entire 6480 representation of E7(7) , so that it must consist of the 28 + 36 + 420 representation of SU (8) (and its complex conjugate). This implies that the T -tensor is decomposable into A1 and A2 , whereas A3 is not an independent tensor and can be expressed in terms of A2 . Indeed this was found by explicit calculation, which gave rise to Tijkl

=

− 43 A2ijkl + 32 A1 δi ,

mn Tijkl

=

Aijk,lmn 3

=

− 34 δ[i Tjkl] , √ ijkpqr[lm n] 1 − 108 2ε Tpqr .

j[k

[m

l]

n]

(5.64)

Note that these conditions are necessary, but not suﬃcient as one also needs nontrivial identities quadratic in the T -tensors in order to deal with the variations of the Lagrangian of order g 2 . One then ﬁnds that there is yet another constraint, which suppresses the 28 representation of the T -tensor, [jk]i

Ti

= 0.

(5.65)

Observe that a contraction with the ﬁrst upper index is also equal to zero, as follows from the deﬁnition (5.56). Hence the T -tensor transforms under E7(7) according to the 912 representation which decomposes into the 36 and 420 representations of SU (8) and their complex conjugates residing in the tensors A1 and A2 , respectively, Aij 1 =

ikj 4 21 Tk

,

[jkl]

4 Ajkl 2i = − 3 Ti

.

(5.66)

Although we concentrated on the D = 4 theory, we should stress once more that many of the above features are generic and apply in other dimensions. For instance, the unrestricted T -tensors in D = 5 and 3 dimensions belong

B. de Wit: Supergravity

89

to the following representations of E6(6) and E8(8) , respectively25 D

= 5: 27 × 78 = 27 + 351 + 1728 ,

D

= 3: 248 × 248 = 1 + 248 + 3875 + 27 000 + 30 380 . (5.67)

In these cases a successful gauging requires the T -tensor to be restricted to the 351 and the 1 + 3875 representations, respectively, which decompose as follows under the action of U Sp(8) and SO(16), 351 = 36 + 315 , 1 + 3875 = 1 + 135 + 1820 + 1920 .

(5.68)

These representations correspond to the tensors A1 and A2 ; for D = 5 A3 is again dependent while for D = 3 there is an independent tensor A3 associated with the 1820 representation of SO(16). We close with a few comments regarding the various gauge groups that have been considered. As we mentioned at the beginning of this section, the ﬁrst gaugings were to some extent motivated by corresponding KaluzaKlein compactiﬁcations. The S 7 and the S 4 [70] compactiﬁcations of 11dimensional supergravity and the S 5 compactiﬁcation of IIB supergravity, gave rise to the gauge groups SO(8), SO(5) and SO(6), respectively. Noncompact gauge groups were initiated in [71] for the 4-dimensional theory; for the 5-dimensional theory they were also realized in [29] and in [72]. In D = 3 dimensions there is no guidance from Kaluza-Klein compactiﬁcations and one has to rely on the group-theoretical analysis described above. In that case there exists a large variety of gauge groups of rather high dimension [69]. Gaugings can also be constructed via a so-called Scherk-Schwarz reduction from higher dimensions [73]. To give a really exhaustive classiﬁcation remains cumbersome. For explorations based on the group-theoretical analysis explained above, see [74, 75]. 6

Supersymmetry in anti-de Sitter space

In Section 3.1 we presented the ﬁrst steps in the construction of a generic supergravity theory, starting with the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian for gravity and the Rarita-Schwinger Lagrangians for the gravitino ﬁelds. We established the existence of two supersymmetric gravitational backgrounds, namely ﬂat Minkowski space and anti-de Sitter space with a cosmological 25 The D = 3 theory has initially no vector ﬁelds, but those can be included by adding Chern-Simons terms. These terms lose their topological nature when gauging some of the E8(8) isometries [69].

90

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

constant proportional to g 2 , where g was some real coupling constant proportional to the the inverse anti-de Sitter radius. The two cases are clearly related and ﬂat space is obtained in the limit g → 0, as can for instance be seen from the expression of the Riemann curvature (cf. (3.14)), Rµνρσ = g 2 (gµρ δνσ − gνρ δµσ ) .

(6.1)

Because both ﬂat Minkowski space and anti-de Sitter space are maximally symmetric, they have 12 D(D + 1) independent isometries which comprise the Poincar´e group or the group SO(D − 1, 2), respectively. The algebra of the combined bosonic and fermionic symmetries is called the anti-de Sitter superalgebra. Note again that the derivation in Section 3.1 was incomplete and in general one will need to introduce additional ﬁelds. In this section we will mainly be dealing with simple anti-de Sitter supersymmetry and we will always assume that 3 < D ≤ 7. In that case the bosonic subalgebra coincides with the anti-de Sitter algebra. In D = 3 spacetime dimensions the anti-de Sitter group SO(2, 2) is not simple. There exist N -extended versions where one introduces N supercharges, each transforming as a spinor under the anti-de Sitter group. These N supercharges transform under a compact R-symmetry group, whose generators will ap¯ anticommutator. As we discussed in Section 2.5, the pear in the {Q, Q} R-symmetry group is in general not the same as in Minkowski space; according to Table 9, we have HR = SO(N ) for D = 4, HR = U (N ) for D = 5, and HR = U Sp(2N ) for D = 6, 7. For D > 7 the superalgebra is no longer simple [3]; its bosonic subalgebra can no longer be restricted to the sum of the anti-de Sitter algebra and the R-symmetry algebra, but one needs extra bosonic generators that transform as high-rank antisymmetric tensors under the Lorentz group (see also [76]). In contrast to this, there exists an (N -extended) super-Poincar´e algebra associated with ﬂat Minkowski space of any dimension, whose bosonic generators correspond to the Poincar´e group, possibly augmented with the R-symmetry generators associated with rotations of the supercharges. Anti-de Sitter space is isomorphic to SO(D−1, 2)/SO(D−1, 1) and thus belongs to the coset spaces that were discussed extensively in Section 4. According to (4.10) it is possible to describe anti-de Sitter space as a hypersurface in a (D + 1)-dimensional embedding space. Denoting the extra coordinate of the embedding space by Y − , so that we have coordinates Y A with A = −, 0, 1, 2, . . . , D − 1, this hypersurface is deﬁned by −(Y − )2 − (Y 0 )2 + Y

2

= ηAB Y A Y B = −g −2 .

(6.2)

Obviously, the hypersurface is invariant under linear transformations that leave the metric ηAB = diag (−, −, +, +, . . . , +) invariant. These transformations constitute the group SO(D − 1, 2). The 12 D(D + 1) generators

B. de Wit: Supergravity

91

denoted by MAB act on the embedding coordinates by MAB = YA

∂ ∂ − YB , ∂Y B ∂Y A

(6.3)

where we lower and raise indices by contracting with ηAB and its inverse η AB . It is now easy to evaluate the commutation relations for the MAB [MAB , MCD ] = ηBC MAD − ηAC MBD − ηBD MAC + ηAD MBC .

(6.4)

Anti-de Sitter space has the topology of S 1 [time] × RD−1 [space] and has closed timelike curves. These curves can be avoided by unwrapping S 1 , so that one ﬁnds the universal covering space denoted by CadS, which has the topology of RD . There exist no Cauchy surfaces in this space. Any attempt to determine the outcome of some evolution or wave equation from a spacelike surface requires fresh information coming from a timelike inﬁnity which takes a ﬁnite amount of time to arrive [77, 78]. Spatial inﬁnity is a timelike surface which cannot be reached by timelike geodesics. There are many ways to coordinatize anti-de Sitter space, but we will avoid using explicit coordinates. For later use we record the (simple) anti-de Sitter superalgebra, which in addition to (6.4) contains the (anti-)commutation relations ¯β } = {Qα , Q ¯ α] = [MAB , Q

− 21 (ΓAB )αβ M AB , 1 ¯ 2 (Q ΓAB )α .

(6.5)

Here the matrices ΓAB , which will be deﬁned later, are the generators of SO(D − 1, 2) group in the spinor representation. As we alluded to earlier, this algebra changes its form when considering N supercharges which rotate under R-symmetry, because the R-symmetry generators will appear on the ¯ anticommutator. right-hand side of the {Q, Q} The relation with the Minkowski case proceeds by means of a so-called Wigner-In¨ on¨ u contraction. Here one rescales the generators according to M−A → g −1 PA , Q → g −1/2 Q, keeping the remaining generators MAB corresponding to the Lorentz subalgebra unchanged. In the limit g → 0, the generators PA will form a commuting subalgebra and the full algebra contracts to the super-Poincar´e algebra. On spinors, the anti-de Sitter algebra can be realized by the following combination of gamma matrices Γa in D-dimensional Minkowski space, 1 2 Γab for A, B = a, b , 1 MAB = 2 ΓAB = (6.6) 1 for A = − , B = a 2 Γa with a, b = 0, 1, . . . , D−1. Our gamma matrices satisfy the Cliﬀord property {Γa , Γb } = 2 η ab 1, where η ab = diag (−, +, . . . , +) is the D-dimensional

92

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Lorentz-invariant metric26 . Concerning the R-symmetry group in anti-de Sitter space, the reader is advised to consult Section 2.5. Of central importance is the quadratic Casimir operator of the isometry group SO(D − 1, 2), deﬁned by C2 = − 12 M AB MAB .

(6.7)

The group SO(D − 1, 2) has more Casimir operators when D > 3, but these are of higher order in the generators and will not play a role in the following. To make contact between the masslike terms in the wave equations and the properties of the irreducible representations of the anti-de Sitter group, which we will discuss in Section 6.1, it is important that we establish the relation between the wave operator for ﬁelds that live in anti-de Sitter space, which involves the appropriately covariantized D’Alembertian 2adS , and the quadratic Casimir operator C2 . We remind the reader that ﬁelds in anti-de Sitter space are multi-component functions of the anti-de Sitter coordinates that rotate irreducibly under the action of the Lorentz group SO(D − 1, 1). The appropriate formulae were given at the end of Section 4.2 (cf. (4.44) and (4.45)) and from them one can derive, ! ! + C2Lorentz , (6.8) C2 = 2adS ! g=1

where C2Lorentz is the quadratic Casimir operator for the representation of the Lorentz group to which the ﬁelds have been assigned. This result can be proven for any symmetric, homogeneous, space (see, for example [79]). For scalar ﬁelds, the second term in (6.8) vanishes and the proof is elementary (see, e.g. [80]). Let us now brieﬂy return to the supersymmetry algebra as it is realized on the vielbein ﬁeld. Using the transformation rules (3.11) The commutator of two supersymmetry transformations yields an inﬁnitesimal generalcoordinate transformation and a tangent-space Lorentz transformation. For example, we obtain for the vielbein, [δ1 , δ2 ] eµ a

=

1 ¯2 2

Γa δ1 ψµ − 12 ¯1 Γa δ2 ψµ

= Dµ ( 12 ¯2 Γa 1 ) + 12 g (¯ 2 Γab 1 ) eµb .

(6.9)

The ﬁrst term corresponds to a spacetime diﬀeomorphism and the second one to a tangent space (local Lorentz) transformation. Here we consider only the gravitational sector of the theory; for a complete theory there are additional contributions, but nevertheless the above terms remain and 26 Note that when the gravitino is a Majorana spinor, the quantities Γ AB should satisfy the same Majorana constraint.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

93

(6.9) should be realized uniformly on all the ﬁelds. In the anti-de Sitter background, were the gravitino ﬁeld vanishes, the parameters of the supersymmetry transformations are Killing spinors satisfying (3.15) so that the gravitino ﬁeld remains zero under supersymmetry. Therefore both the gravitino and the vielbein are left invariant under supersymmetry, so that the combination of symmetries on the right-hand side of (6.9) should vanish when 1 and 2 are Killing spinors. Indeed, the diﬀeomorphism with parameter ξ µ = 12 ¯2 Γµ 1 , is an anti-de Sitter Killing vector (i.e., it satisﬁes (4.38)), because Dµ (g ¯2 Γνρ 1 ) = −g 2 gµ[ρ ξν] is antisymmetric in µ and ν. As for all Killing vectors, higher derivatives can be decomposed into the Killing vector and its ﬁrst derivative. Indeed, we ﬁnd Dµ (g ¯ 2 Γνρ 1 ) = −g 2 gµ[ρ ξν] in the case at hand. The Killing vector can be decomposed into the 12 D(D + 1) Killing vectors of the anti-de Sitter space. The last term in (6.9) is a compensating target space transformation of the type we have been discussing extensively in Section 4.2 for generic coset spaces. 6.1 Anti-de Sitter supersymmetry and masslike terms In ﬂat Minkowski space all ﬁelds belonging to a supermultiplet are subject to ﬁeld equations with the same mass, because the momentum operators commute with the supersymmetry charges, so that P 2 is a Casimir operator. For supermultiplets in anti-de Sitter space this is no longer the case, so that masslike terms will not necessarily be the same for diﬀerent ﬁelds belonging to the same multiplet. We have already discussed the interpretation of masslike terms for the gravitino, following (3.10). This phenomenon will be now illustrated below in a speciﬁc example, namely a scalar chiral supermultiplet in D = 4 spacetime dimensions. Further clariﬁcation from an algebraic viewpoint will be given later in Section 6.3. A scalar chiral supermultiplet in 4 spacetime dimensions consists of a scalar ﬁeld A, a pseudoscalar ﬁeld B and a Majorana spinor ﬁeld ψ. In anti-de Sitter space the supersymmetry transformations of the ﬁelds are proportional to a spinor parameter (x), which is a Killing spinor in the anti-de Sitter space, i.e., (x) must satisfy the Killing spinor equation (3.15). In the notation of this section, this equation reads (6.1) ∂µ − 14 ω ab γab + 12 g eµa γa = 0 , where we made the anti-de Sitter vierbein and spin connection explicit. We allow for two constants a and b in the supersymmetry transformations, which we parametrize as follows, δA δψ

= 14 ¯ψ , δB = 14 i¯ γ5 ψ , = ∂ / (A + iγ5 B) − (a A + ib γ5 B) .

(6.2)

94

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

In this expression the anti-de Sitter vierbein ﬁeld has been used to contract the gamma matrix with the derivative. The coeﬃcient of the ﬁrst term in δψ has been chosen such as to ensure that [δ1 , δ2 ] yields the correct coordinate transformation ξ µ Dµ on the ﬁelds A and B. To determine the constants a and b and the ﬁeld equations of the chiral multiplet, we consider the closure of the supersymmetry algebra on the spinor ﬁeld. After some Fierz reordering we obtain the result, 1 [δ1 , δ2 ]ψ = ξ µ Dµ ψ + 16 (a− b) ¯2 γ ab 1 γab ψ − 12 ξ ρ γρ [/ Dψ + 12 (a+ b)ψ] .

(6.3)

We point out that derivatives acting on (x) occur in this calculation at an intermediate stage and should not be suppressed in view of (6.1). However, they produce terms proportional to g which turn out to cancel in the above commutator. Now we note that the right-hand side should constitute a coordinate transformation and a Lorentz transformation, possibly up to a ﬁeld equation. Obviously, the coordinate transformation coincides with (6.9) but the correct Lorentz transformation is only reproduced provided that a − b = 2g. If we now deﬁne m = 12 (a + b), so that the last term is just the Dirac equation with mass m, we ﬁnd a = m+g,

b = m−g.

(6.4)

Consequently, the supersymmetry transformation of ψ equals δψ = D(A / + iγ5 B) − m(A + iγ5 B) − g(A − iγ5 B) ,

(6.5)

and the fermionic ﬁeld equation equals (/ D + m)ψ = 0. The second term in (6.5), which is proportional to m, can be accounted for by introducing an auxiliary ﬁeld to the supermultiplet. The third term, which is proportional to g, can be understood as a compensating S-supersymmetry transformation associated with auxiliary ﬁelds in the supergravity sector (see, e.g. [81]). In order to construct the corresponding ﬁeld equations for A and B, we consider the variation of the fermionic ﬁeld equation. Again we have to take into account that derivatives on the supersymmetry parameter are not equal to zero. This yields the following second-order diﬀerential equations [2adS + 2g 2 − m(m − g)] A = 0 , [2adS + 2g 2 − m(m + g)] B = 0 , [2adS + 3g 2 − m2 ] ψ

= 0.

(6.6)

The last equation follows from the Dirac equation. Namely, one evaluates D,D]− / m2 . (/ D − m)(/ D + m)ψ, which gives rise to the wave operator 2adS + 12 [/ The commutator yields the Riemann curvature of the anti-de Sitter space. In an anti-de Sitter space of arbitrary dimension D this equation then reads [2adS + 14 D(D − 1)g 2 − m2 ]ψ = 0 ,

(6.7)

B. de Wit: Supergravity

95

which, for D = 4 agrees with the last equation of (6.6). A striking feature of the above result is that the ﬁeld equations (6.6) all have diﬀerent mass terms, in spite of the fact that they belong to the same supermultiplet [82]. Consequently, the role of mass is quite diﬀerent in anti-de Sitter space as compared to ﬂat Minkowski space. This will be elucidated later in Section 6.2. For future applications we also evaluate the Proca equation for a massive vector ﬁeld, (6.8) Dµ (∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ ) − m2 Aν = 0 . This leads to27 Dµ Aµ = 0, so that (6.8) reads D2 Aν −[Dµ , Dν ]Aµ −m2 Aν = 0 or, in anti-de Sitter space [2adS + (D − 1)g 2 − m2 ] Aµ = 0 .

(6.9)

This can be generalized to an antisymmetric tensor of rank n, whose ﬁeld equation reads (antisymmetrizing over indices ν1 , . . . , νn ) (n + 1) Dµ ∂[µ Cν1 ···νn ] − m2 Cν1 ···νn = 0 .

(6.10)

In the same way as before, this leads to [2adS + n(D − n)g 2 − m2 ] Cν1 ···νn = 0 .

(6.11)

The g 2 term in the ﬁeld equations for the scalar ﬁelds can be understood from the observation that the scalar D’Alembertian (in an arbitrary gravitational background) can be extended to a conformally invariant operator (see, e.g. [81]), 2+

1D−2 R = 2 + 14 D(D − 2) g 2 , 4D−1

(6.12)

which seems the obvious candidate for a massless wave operator for scalar ﬁelds. Indeed, for D = 4, we do reproduce the g 2 dependence in the ﬁrst two equations (6.6). Observe that the Dirac operator D / is also conformally invariant and so is the wave equation associated with the Maxwell ﬁeld. Using (6.8) we can now determine the values for the quadratic Casimir operator for the representations described by scalar, spinor, vector and tensor ﬁelds. The quadratic Casimir operator of the Lorentz group takes the values 0, 18 D(D − 1), D − 1 and n(D − n) for scalar, spinor, vector and tensor ﬁelds respectively. Combining this result with (6.12, 6.7, 6.9) and 27 When

m = 0, otherwise one can impose this equation as a gauge condition.

96

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

(6.10, 6.8) yields the following values for the quadratic Casimir operators, C2scalar C2spinor C2vector

C2tensor

= − 14 D(D − 2) + m2 , = − 18 D(D − 1) + m2 , = m2 , = m2 .

(6.13)

For spinless ﬁelds, m2 is not the coeﬃcient in the mass term of the KleinGordon equation, as that is given by the value for C2scalar , while, for spinor and vector ﬁelds, m and m2 do correspond to the mass terms in the Dirac and Proca equations, respectively. We thus derive speciﬁc values for C2 for massless scalar, spinor, vector and tensor ﬁelds upon putting m = 0. The fact that the value of C2 does not depend on the rank of the tensor ﬁeld is in accord with the fact that, for m2 = 0, a rank-n and a rank-(D − n − 2) tensor gauge ﬁeld are equivalent on shell (also in curved space). Hence, we see that the interpretation of the mass parameter is not straightforward in the context of anti-de Sitter space. In the next section we will derive a rather general lower bound on the value of C2 for the lowest-weight representations of the anti-de Sitter algebra (cf. (6.26)), which implies that the masslike terms for scalar ﬁelds can have a negative coeﬃcient µ2 subject to the inequality, µ2 ≥ − 41 (D − 1)2 .

(6.14)

This result is known as the the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound [82], which ensures the stability of an anti-de Sitter background against small ﬂuctuations of the scalar ﬁelds. For spin- 21 the bound on C2 implies that m2 ≥ 0, whereas for spin-0 we ﬁnd that m2 ≥ − 41 , with m2 as deﬁned in (6.13). In the next section we study unitary representations of the anti-de Sitter algebra and this study will conﬁrm some of the results found above. For massless representations of higher spin there is a decoupling of degrees of freedom, which uniquely identiﬁes the massless representations and their values of C2 . In a number of cases this decoupling is more extreme and one obtains a so-called singleton representation which does not have a smooth Poincar´e limit. In those cases there is no decoupling of a representation that could be identiﬁed as massless and therefore there remains a certain ambiguity in the deﬁnition of “massless” representations. This can also be seen from the observation that (massless) antisymmetric tensor gauge ﬁelds of rank n = D − 2 are on-shell equivalent to massless scalar ﬁelds. While we concluded above that these tensor ﬁelds lead to C2 = 0, massless scalar ﬁelds have C2 = − 41 D(D − 2) according to (6.13). The diﬀerence may not be entirely surprising in view of the fact that the antisymmetric tensor Lagrangian is not conformally invariant for arbitrary values of D, contrary

B. de Wit: Supergravity

97

to the scalar ﬁeld Lagrangian. At any rate, we have established the existence of two diﬀerent ﬁeld representations that describe massless, spinless states which correspond to diﬀerent values for the anti-de Sitter Casimir operator C2 . At the end of the next section, where we discuss unitary representations of the anti-de Sitter algebra, we brieﬂy return to the issue of massless representations. The connection between the local ﬁeld theory description and the anti-de Sitter representations tends to be subtle. 6.2 Unitary representations of the anti-de Sitter algebra In this section we discuss unitary representations of the anti-de Sitter algebra. We refer to [83] for some of the original work, and to [80, 84, 85] where part of this work was reviewed. In order to underline the general features we will stay as much as possible in general spacetime dimensions D > 328 . The anti-de Sitter isometry group, SO(D − 1, 2), is noncompact, which implies that unitary representations will be inﬁnitely dimensional. For these representations the generators are anti-hermitean, † = −MAB . MAB

(6.15)

Here we note that the cover group of SO(D − 1, 2) has the generators 12 Γµν and 12 Γµ , acting on spinors which are ﬁnite-dimensional objects. These generators, however, have diﬀerent hermiticity properties. The compact subgroup of the anti-de Sitter group is SO(2) × SO(D − 1) corresponding to rotations of the compact anti-de Sitter time and spatial rotations. It is convenient to decompose the 12 D(D+1) generators as follows. First, the generator M−0 is related to the energy operator when the radius of the anti-de Sitter space is taken to inﬁnity. The eigenvalues of this generator, associated with motions along the circle, are quantized in integer units in order to have single-valued functions, unless one passes to the covering space CadS. The energy operator H will thus be deﬁned as H = −iM−0 .

(6.16)

Obviously the generators of the spatial rotations are the operators Mab with a, b = 1, . . . , D − 1. Note that we have changed notation: here and henceforth in this section the indices a, b, . . . refer to space indices. The remaining generators M−a and M0a are combined into D −1 pairs of mutually conjugate operators, Ma± = −iM0a ± M−a , (6.17) 28 The

case of D = 3 is special because SO(2, 2) ∼ = (SL(2, R) × SL(2, R))/Z2 .

98

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

satisfying (Ma+ )† = Ma− . The anti-de Sitter commutation relations then read [H, Ma± ] =

±Ma± ,

[Ma± , Mb± ] =

0,

[Ma+ , Mb− ]

−2(H δab + Mab ) .

=

(6.18)

Obviously, the Ma± play the role of raising and lowering operators: when applied to an eigenstate of H with eigenvalue E, application of Ma± yields a state with eigenvalue E ± 1. We also give the Casimir operator in this basis, C2

= − 12 M AB MAB

= H 2 − 12 {Ma+ , Ma− } − 12 (Mab )2

= H(H − D + 1) + J 2 − Ma+ Ma− ,

(6.19)

where J 2 is the total spin operator: the quadratic Casimir operator of the rotation group SO(D − 1), deﬁned by J 2 = − 21 (Mab )2 .

(6.20)

In simple cases, its value is well known. For D = 4 it is expressed in terms of the “spin” s which is an integer for bosons and a half-integer for fermions and the spin-s representation has dimension 2s + 1 and J 2 = s(s + 1). For D = 5, the corresponding rotation group SO(4) is the product of two SU (2) groups, so that irreducible representations are characterized by two spin values, (s+ , s− ). Their dimension is equal to (2s+ + 1)(2s− + 1) and J 2 = 2(J+2 + J−2 ) with J±2 = s± (s± + 1). Summarizing: s(s + 1) for D = 4 , 2 J = (6.21) 2s+ (s+ + 1) + 2s− (s− + 1) for D = 5 . The SO(D−1) representations for D > 5 are speciﬁed by giving the eigenvalues of additional (higher-order) SO(D − 1) Casimir operators. A restricted class of representations will be discussed in a sequel; a more general discussion of all possible representations requires a more technical set-up and is outside the scope of these lectures. In this section we restrict ourselves to the bosonic case, but in passing, let us already brieﬂy indicate how some of the other (anti-)commutators of the simple anti-de Sitter superalgebra decompose (cf. (6.5)) {Qα , Q†β }

= H δαβ − 12 iMab (Γa Γb Γ0 )αβ + 12 (Ma+ Γa (1 + iΓ0 ) + Ma− Γa (1 − iΓ0 ))αβ ,

B. de Wit: Supergravity

99

[H , Qα ] = − 12 i(Γ0 Q)α , [Ma± , Qα ] = ∓ 12 (Γa (1 ∓ iΓ0 ) Q)α .

(6.22)

For the anti-de Sitter superalgebra, all the bosonic operators can be expressed as bilinears of the supercharges, so that in principle one could restrict oneself to fermionic operators only and employ the projections (1±iΓ0)Q as the basic lowering and raising operators. This will be discussed later in Section 6.3. We now turn to irreducible representations of the anti-de Sitter algebra (6.18). We start with the observation that the energy operator can be diagonalized so that we can label the states according to their eigenvalue E. Because application of Ma± leads to the states with higher and lower eigenvalues E, we expect the representation to cover an inﬁnite range of eigenvalues, all separated by integers. For a unitary representation the Ma+ Ma− term in (6.19) is positive, which implies that the Casimir operator is bounded by

2 C2 ≤ − 14 (D − 1)2 + J 2 + E − 12 (D − 1) , (6.23) minimal

where the subscript indicates that one must choose the minimal value that J 2 + (E − 12 (D − 1))2 takes in the representation. Among other things, this number will depend on whether the eigenvalues E take integer or halfinteger values. Continuous representations cover the whole range of eigenvalues E extending from −∞ to ∞. However, when there is a state with some eigenvalue E0 that is annihilated by all the Ma− , then only states with eigenvalues E > E0 will appear in the representation. This is therefore not a continuous representation but a so-called lowest-weight representation. The ground state of this representation (which itself transforms as an irreducible representation of the rotation group and may thus be degenerate) is denoted by |E0 , J and satisﬁes Ma− |E0 , J = 0 . (6.24) The unitarity upper bound (6.23) on C2 is primarily useful for continuous representations. For unitary lowest-weight representations one can derive various lower bounds, as we shall see below. Substituting the condition (6.24) in the expression (6.18) applied to the ground state |E0 , J , we derive at once the eigenvalue of the quadratic Casimir operator associated with this representation in terms of E0 and J 2 , C2 = E0 (E0 − D + 1) + J 2 .

(6.25)

Since C2 is a Casimir operator, this value holds for any state belonging to the corresponding irreducible representation. For real values of E0 the Casimir

100

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings E 6 s

E0 + 5 E0 + 4

s

s s

E0 + 3 E0 + 2

s

s

s s

s s

s

E0 + 1 E0 s

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

- j

Fig. 1. States of the spinless representation in terms of the energy eigenvalues E and the angular momentum j. Each point corresponds to the spherical harmonics of S D−1 : traceless, symmetric tensors Y a1 ···al of rank l = j.

operator is bounded by C2 ≥ J 2 − 14 (D − 1)2 .

(6.26)

As we already discussed at the end of the previous section, for scalar ﬁelds (J 2 = 0) this is just the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound [82]. Additional restrictions based on unitarity will be derived shortly. They generally lead to a lower bound for E0 and thus to a corresponding lower bound for C2 . Unless this bound supersedes (6.26) there can exist a degeneracy in the sense that there are two possible, permissible values for E0 with the same value for C2 . These two values correspond to two diﬀerent solutions of the ﬁeld equations subject to diﬀerent boundary conditions at spatial inﬁnity. In what follows we restrict ourselves to lowest-weight representations, because those have a natural interpretation in the limit of large anti-de Sitter radius in terms of Poincar´e representations. Alternatively we can construct highest-weight representations, but those will be similar and need not to be discussed separately.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

101

Table 17. Two generic SO(D − 1) representations. One is the symmetric traceless tensor representation (corresponding to the spherical harmonics on S D−2 ) denoted by l-rank tensors Y A1 ···Al , and the representation spanned by mixed tensors Y B;A1 ···Al of rank l + 1 (which is not independent for D = 4). We list the corresponding eigenvalues of the quadratic Casimir operator J 2 , for general D. For D = 4 these representations are characterized by an integer spin s. For D = 5 there are two such numbers, s± , as we explained in the text.

representation D D=4 D=5

Y A1 ···Al l(l + D − 3) s=l s± = 12 l

Y B;A1 ···Al (l + D − 4)(l + 1) s=l s± = s∓ + 1 = 12 (l + 1)

The full lowest-weight representation can now be constructed by acting with the raising operators on the ground state |E0 , J . To be precise, all states of energy E = E0 +n are constructed by an n-fold product of creation operators Ma+ In this way one obtains states of higher eigenvalues E with higher spin. The simplest case is the one where the vacuum has no spin (J = 0). For given eigenvalue E, the states decompose into the state of the highest spin generated by the traceless symmetric product of E − E0 operators Ma+ and a number of lower-spin descendants. These states are all shown in Figure 1. In the following we consider a number of representations of SO(D − 1) that exist for any dimension. For the bosons we consider the spherical harmonics, spanned by l-rank traceless, symmetric tensors Y a1 ···al . Multiplying such tensors with the vector representation gives rise to two of these representations with rank l ± 1, and a “mixed” representation, spanned by mixed tensors Y b;a1 ···al . Table 17 lists the value of J 2 for these representations, for general D and for the speciﬁc cases of D = 4, 5. In a similar Table 18 we list the value of J 2 for the irreducible symmetric tensor-spinors, denoted by Y α;a1 ···al . They are symmetric l-rank tensor spinors that vanish upon contraction by a gamma matrix and appear when taking products of spherical harmonics with a simple spinor. Armed with this information it is straightforward to ﬁnd the decompositions of the spinor representation of the anti-de Sitter algebra. One simply takes the direct product of the spinless representation with a spin- 12 state. That implies that every point with spin j in Figure 1 generates two points with spin j ± 12 , with the exception of points associated with j = 0, which will simply move to j = 12 . The result of this is shown in Figure 2.

102

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Table 18. The eigenvalues of the quadratic SO(D−1) Casimir operator J 2 for the symmetric tensor-spinor representation spanned by tensors Y α;a1 ···al for general dimension D and for the speciﬁc cases D = 4, 5.

representation

Y α;a1 ···al

J2 D=4 D=5

l(l + D − 2) + 18 (D − 1)(D − 2) s = l + 12 s± = s∓ − 12 = 12 l

However, the spinless and the spinor representations that we have constructed so far are not necessarily irreducible. To see this consider the excited state that has the same spin content as the ground state, but with an energy equal to E0 +2 or E0 +1, for the scalar and spinor representations, respectively, and compare their value for the Casimir operator with that of the corresponding ground state. In this way we ﬁnd for the scalar ! !2 ! ! E0 (E0 − D + 1) = (E0 + 2)(E0 − D + 3) + !Ma− |E0 + 2, spinless ! . (6.27) This leads to ! !2 ! ! 2E0 + 3 − D = 12 !Ma− |E0 + 2, spinless ! ,

(6.28)

so that unitary of the representation requires the inequality, E0 ≥ 12 (D − 3) .

(6.29)

For E0 = 12 (D − 3) we have the so-called singleton representation29, where we have only one state for each given spherical harmonic. The Casimir eigenvalue for this representation equals C2 (spinless singleton) = − 14 (D + 1)(D − 3) .

(6.30)

The excited state then constitutes the ground state for a separate irreducible spinless representation, but now with E0 = 12 (D+1), which, not surprisingly, has the same value for C2 . 29 The singleton representation was ﬁrst found by Dirac [86] in 4-dimensional anti-de Sitter space and was known as a “remarkable representation”. In the context of the oscillator method, which we will refer to later, singletons in anti-de Sitter spaces of dimension D = 4 are called “doubletons” [87]. In these lectures we will only use the name singleton to denote these remarkable representations.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

103

For the spinor representation one ﬁnds a similar result, E0 (E0 − D + 1) + J 2

= (E0 + 1)(E0 − D + 2) + J 2 ! !2 ! ! +!Ma− |E0 + 1, spinor ! .

(6.31)

As the value for J 2 are the same for the ground state and the excited state one readily derives ! !2 ! ! (6.32) 2E0 − D + 3 = !Ma− |E0 + 1, spinor ! , so that one obtains the unitarity bound E0 ≥ 12 (D − 2) .

(6.33)

For E0 = 12 (D − 2) we have the spinor singleton representation, which again consists of just one state for every value of the total spin. For the spinor representation the value of the Casimir operator equals C2 (spinor singleton) = − 81 (D + 1)(D − 2) .

(6.34)

Note that in D = 4, both singleton representations have the same eigenvalue of the Casimir operator. The existence of the singletons was ﬁrst noted by Dirac [86]. These representations are characterized by the fact that they do not exist in the Poincar´e limit. To see this, note that Poincar´e representations correspond to plane waves which are decomposable into an inﬁnite number of spherical harmonics, irrespective of the size of the spatial momentum (related to the energy eigenvalue). That means that, for given spin, one is dealing with an inﬁnite, continuous tower of modes, which is just what one obtains in the limit of vanishing energy increments for the generic spectrum shown in, e.g., Figure 1. In contradistinction, the singleton spectrum is diﬀerent as the states have a single energy eigenvalue for any given value of the spin, as is obvious in Figure 3. Consequently, wave functions that constitute singleton representations do not depend on the radius of the anti-de Sitter spacetime and can be regarded as living on the boundary. To obtain the spin-1 representation one can take the direct product of the spinless multiplet with a spin-1 state. Now the situation is more complicated, however, as the resulting multiplet contains states of spin lower than that of the ground state. In principle, each point in Figure 1 now generates three points, associated with two spherical harmonics, associated with rank-j ±1 tensors as well as mixed tensors of rank j + 1 (so that l = j). An exception are the spinless points, which simply move to j = 1. The result of taking the product is depicted in Figure 4. This procedure can be

104

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings E 6 s

E0 + 5 E0 + 4

b

E0 + 2

s s

E0 + 3 b

E0 b

0

s s

b

s s

E0 + 1

b

b

s s

b

s s s b

b

s s

b

s b

b

s

s

s

s

s

s

1

2

3

4

5

6

- j

Fig. 2. States of the spinor representation in terms of the energy eigenvalues E and the angular momentum; the half-integer values for j = l + 12 denote that we are dealing with a symmetric tensor-spinor of rank l. The small circles denote the original spinless multiplet from which the spinor multiplet has been constructed by a direct product with a spinor.

extended directly to ground states that transform as a spherical harmonic Y a1 ···al . Along the same lines as before, we investigate whether this representation can become reducible for special values of the ground state energy. We compare the value of the Casimir operator for the ﬁrst excited states with minimal spin to the value for the ground state speciﬁed in (6.25). Hence we consider the states with E = E0 + 1 and j = l − 1, assuming that the ground state has l ≥ 1. In that case we ﬁnd C2

=

! !2 ! ! (E0 + 1)(E0 − D + 2) + (l − 1)(l + D − 4) − !Ma− |E0 + 1, l − 1 !

=

E0 (E0 − D + 1) + l(l + D − 3) ,

so that

! !2 ! ! E0 − l − D + 3 = 12 !Ma− |E0 + 1, l − 1 ! .

(6.35)

(6.36)

B. de Wit: Supergravity

105

E 6 s

E0 + 5

c s

E0 + 4

c s

E0 + 3

c s

E0 + 2

c s

E0 + 1

c

E0 s

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

- j

Fig. 3. The spin-0 and spin- 12 singleton representations. The solid dots indicate the states of the spin-0 singleton, the circles the states of the spin- 12 singleton. It is obvious that singletons contain much less degrees of freedom than a generic local ﬁeld. The value of E0 , which denotes the spin-0 ground state energy, is equal to E0 = 12 (D − 3). The spin- 12 singleton ground state has an energy which is one half unit higher, as is explained in the text.

Therefore we establish the unitarity bound E0 ≥ l + D − 3

(l ≥ 1).

(6.37)

When E0 = l + D − 3, however, the state |E0 + 1, l − 1 is itself the ground state of an irreducible multiplet, which decouples from the original multiplet together with its corresponding excited states. This can be interpreted as the result of a gauge symmetry. Because these representations have a smooth Poincar´e limit they are not singletons and can therefore be regarded as massless representations. Hence massless representations with spin l ≥ 1 are characterized by E0 = l + D − 3 .

(l ≥ 1)

(6.38)

106

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings E 6 s

E0 + 5 E0 + 4

s

E0 + 3 E0 + 2

s

E0 + 1

sf

sf

sf

sf

s

sf

s

sf

s

s

s

s

E0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

- j

Fig. 4. States of the spin-1 representation in terms of the energy eigenvalues E and the angular momentum j. Observe that there are now points with double occupancy, indicated by the circle superimposed on the dots and states transforming as mixed tensors (with l = j) denoted by a . The double-occupancy points exhibit the structure of a spin-0 multiplet with ground state energy E0 + 1. This multiplet becomes reducible and can be dropped when E0 = D − 2, as is explained in the text. The remaining points then constitute a massless spin-1 multiplet, shown in Figure 5.

For these particular values the quadratic Casimir operator acquires a minimal value equal to C2 (massless) = 2(l − 1)(l + D − 3) .

(l ≥ 1)

(6.39)

We recall that this result is only derived for l ≥ 1. For certain other cases, the identiﬁcation of massless representation is somewhat ambiguous, as we already discussed. We return to this issue at the end of this section. The above arguments can be easily extended to other grounds states, but this requires further knowledge of the various representations of the rotation group, at least for general dimension. This is outside the scope of these lectures. However, in D = 4, 5 dimensions this information is readily available. For a spin-s ground state in 4 spacetime dimensions we

B. de Wit: Supergravity

107

E 6 E0 + 5

s

s

E0 + 4

s

s

s

E0 + 3

s

s

E0 + 2

s

s

E0 + 1

s

E0

s

0

1

2

3

4

5

s

6

- j

Fig. 5. States of the massless s = 1 representation in terms of the energy eigenvalues E and the angular momentum j. Now E0 is no longer arbitrary but it is ﬁxed to E0 = D − 2.

immediately derive the unitarity bound (for s > 12 ), E0 ≥ s + 1 ,

(6.40)

by following the same procedure as leading to (6.37). When the bound is saturated we obtain a massless representation. The equation corresponding to (6.39) becomes (6.41) C2 = 2(s2 − 1). It turns out that this result applies to all spin-s representations, even to s = 0, 12 conformal ﬁelds, for which we cannot use this derivation. This is a special property for D = 4 dimensions. The case of D = 5 requires extra attention, because here the rotation group factorizes into two SU (2) groups. We brieﬂy summarize some results. First let us assume the the groundstate has spin (s+ , s− ) with s± ≥ 12 . In that case we ﬁnd that the ground state energy satisﬁes the unitarity bound, E0 ≥ s+ + s− + 2 .

(s± ≥ 12 )

(6.42)

108

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

This bound is saturated for massless states, for which the E = E0 + 1 states with spin (s+ − 12 , s− − 12 ) decouples. The corresponding value for the Casimir operator is equal to C2 = (s+ + s− )2 + 2s+ (s+ + 1) + 2s− (s− + 1) − 4 .

(6.43)

For s± = 12 l these values are in agreement with earlier result. What remains to be considered are the ground states with spin (0, s). Here we ﬁnd (6.44) E0 ≥ 1 + s . When the bound is saturated we have again a singleton representation. The corresponding values for the Casimir operator are C2 (singleton) = 3(s2 − 1) .

(6.45)

The singleton representations for s = 0, 12 were already found earlier. Note that for D = 5 there are thus inﬁnitely many singleton representations, unlike in 4 dimensions, with a large variety of spin values. This is generically the case for arbitrary dimensions D = 4 and is thus related to the fact that the rotation group is of higher rank. From the above it is clear that we are dealing with the phenomenon of multiplet shortening for speciﬁc values of the energy and spin of the representation, just as in the earlier discussions on BPS multiplets in previous sections. This phenomenon can be understood from the fact that the [Ma+ , Mb− ] commutator acquires zero or negative eigenvalues for certain values of E0 and J 2 . When viewed in this way, the shortening of the representation is qualitatively similar to the shortening of BPS multiplets based on the anticommutator of the supercharges. Our discussion of the shortening of anti-de Sitter supermultiplets in Section 6.3 will support this point of view. The same phenomenon of multiplet shortening is well known and relevant in conformal ﬁeld theory in 1 + 1 dimensions. The purpose of this section was to elucidate the various principles that underlie the anti-de Sitter representations and their relation with the ﬁeld theory description. Here we are not striving for completeness. There are in fact alternative and often more systematic techniques for constructing the lowest-weight representations. A powerful method to construct the unitary irreducible representations of the anti-de Sitter algebra, is known as the oscillator method [88], which is applicable in any number of spacetime dimensions and which can also be used for supersymmetric extensions of the anti-de Sitter algebra. There is an extensive literature on this; for a recent elementary introduction to this method we refer to [80]. We close this section with a number of comments regarding “massless” representations and their ﬁeld-theoretic description. As we demonstrated

B. de Wit: Supergravity

109

above, certain representations can, for a speciﬁc value of E0 , decouple into diﬀerent irreducible representations. This phenomenon takes place when some unitarity bound is saturated. In that case one has representations that contain fewer degrees of freedom. When these “shortened” representations have a smooth Poincar´e limit, they are called massless; when they do not, they are called singletons. For the case of spin-0 or spin- 12 representations, for example, the spectrum of states is qualitatively independent of the value for E0 , as long as E0 does not saturate the unitarity bound and a singleton representation decouples. Therefore the concept of mass remains ambiguous. We have already discussed this in Section 6.1, where we emphasized that the absence of mass terms in the ﬁeld equations is also not a relevant criterion for masslessness. In Table 19 we have collected a number of examples of spin-0 and spin- 12 representations with the criteria according to which they can be regarded as massless. One of them is tied to the fact that the corresponding ﬁeld equation is conformally invariant, as we discussed at the end of Section 6.1. Another one follows from the fact that we are dealing with a gauge ﬁeld. Here the example is an antisymmetric rank-(D − 2) gauge ﬁeld, which is on-shell equivalent to a scalar. We also invoke a criterion introduced by G¨ unaydin (see [89] and the discussion in [90]), according to which every representation should be regarded as massless that appears in the tensor product of two singleton representations. For instance, it is easy to verify that the product of two spinless singletons leads to an inﬁnite series of higher spin representations that are all massless according to (6.38). However, it also contains the l = 0 representation with E0 = D − 3, to which (6.38) does not apply so that the interpretation as a massless representation is less obvious. It is interesting to consider this criterion for masslessness in D = 5 dimensions. The tensor product of the singleton representations with spin (0, s− ) and (s+ , 0) leads to a ground state with spin (s+ , s− ) and E0 = 2 + s+ + s− , which are obviously massless in view of (6.44) and (6.42). Taking the product of two singleton representations, one with spin (s1 , 0) and another one with spin (s2 , 0) leads to ground states with spin (s, 0) and energy E0 = 2 + s + n, where n is an arbitrary positive integer. Hence these representations should be regarded as massless. This interpretation can be tested as follows. In maximal gauged supergravity in 5 dimensions with gauge group SO(6), one of these representations appears as part of the “massless” supergravity multiplet. This anti-de Sitter representation is described by a (complex) tensor ﬁeld, whose ﬁeld equation takes the form, e−1 εµνρσλ Dρ Bσλ + 2im B µν = 0 ,

(6.46)

where m = ±g. From this equation one can show that Bµν satisﬁes (6.10) so that C2 = 1 (cf. (6.13)). On shell the equation (6.46) projects out the

110

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Table 19. Some unitary anti-de Sitter representations of spin 0 and 12 which are massless according to various criteria, and the corresponding values for E0 and C2 .

spin 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2

E0 1 2D − 1 2D

1

D−3 D−1 1 1 2D − 2 5 D− 2

C2 1 − 4 D(D − 41 D(D

type

− 2) − 2) −2(D − 3) 0 1 − 8 D(D − 1) 1 2 (D − 15D + 32) 8

conformal scalar conformal scalar ∈ singleton × singleton (D − 2)-rank gauge ﬁeld conformal spinor ∈ singleton × singleton

degrees of freedom corresponding to spin (1, 0) or (0, 1), depending on the sign of m. From this one derives that E0 = 3 (a second solution with E0 = 1 violates the unitarity bound (6.44)). 6.3 The superalgebras OSp(N |4) In this section we return to the anti-de Sitter superalgebras. We start from the (anti-)commutation relations already presented in (6.18) and (6.22). For deﬁniteness we discuss the case of 4 spacetime dimensions with a Majorana supercharge Q. This allows us to make contact with the material discussed in Section 6.1. These anti-de Sitter supermultiplets were ﬁrst discussed in [82, 84, 85, 91]. In most of the section we discuss simple supersymmetry (i.e., N = 1), but at the end we turn to more general N . We choose conventions where the 4 × 4 gamma matrices are given by −i1 0 0 −iσ a 0 a , a = 1, 2, 3 , (6.47) , Γ = Γ = iσ a 0 0 i1 and write the Majorana spinor Q in the form qα , Q= εαβ q β

(6.48)

where q α ≡ qα† , the indices α, β, . . . are two-component spinor indices and the σ a are the Pauli spin matrices. We substitute these deﬁnitions into (6.22) and obtain [H , qα ] =

− 21 qα ,

B. de Wit: Supergravity [H , q α ] =

1 α 2q

111

,

{qα , q β } =

(H 1 + J · σ )α β ,

{qα , qβ } =

Ma− (σ a σ 2 )αβ ,

{q α , q β } =

Ma+ (σ 2 σ a )αβ ,

(6.49)

where we have deﬁned the (hermitean) angular momentum operators Ja = − 21 i εabc M bc . We see that the operators qα and q α are lowering and raising operators, respectively. They change the energy of a state by half a unit. Observe that the relative sign between H and J · σ in the third (anti)commutator is not arbitrary but ﬁxed by the closure of the algebra. In analogy to the bosonic case, we study unitary irreducible representations of the OSp(1|4) superalgebra. We assume that there exists a lowestweight state |E0 , s , characterized by the fact that it is annihilated by the lowering operators qα , qα |E0 , s = 0 . (6.50) In principle we can now choose a ground state and build the whole representation upon it by applying products of raising operators q α . However, we only have to study the antisymmetrized products of the q α , because the symmetric ones just yield products of the operators Ma+ by virtue of (6.49). Products of the Ma+ simply lead to the higher-energy states in the antide Sitter representations of given spin that we considered in Section 6.2. By restricting ourselves to the antisymmetrized products of the q α we thus restrict ourselves to the ground states upon which the full anti-de Sitter representations are build. These ground states are |E0 , s , q α |E0 , s and q [α q β] |E0 , s . Let us brieﬂy discuss these representations for diﬀerent s. The s = 0 case is special since it contains less anti-de Sitter representations than the generic case. It includes the spinless states |E0 , 0 and q [α q β] |E0 , 0 with ground-state energies E0 and E0 + 1, respectively. There is one spin- 21 pair of ground states q α |E0 , 0 , with energy E0 + 12 . As we will see below, these states can be described by the scalar ﬁeld A, the pseudoscalar ﬁeld B and the spinor ﬁeld ψ of the scalar chiral supermultiplet, that we studied in Section 6.1. Obviously, the bounds for E0 that we derived in the previous sections should be respected, so that E0 > 12 . For E0 = 12 the multiplet degenerates and decomposes into a super-singleton, consisting of a spin-0 and a spin- 12 singleton, and another spinless supermultiplet with E0 = 32 . For s ≥ 12 we are in the generic situation. We obtain the ground states |E0 , s and q [α q β] |E0 , s which have both spin s and which have energies E0 and E0 + 1, respectively. There are two more (degenerate) ground states, q α |E0 , s , both with energy E0 + 12 , which decompose into the ground states with spin j = s − 12 and j = s + 12 .

112

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

As in the purely bosonic case of Section 6.2, there can be situations in which states decouple so that we are dealing with multiplet shortening associated with gauge invariance in the corresponding ﬁeld theory. The corresponding multiplets are then again called massless. We now discuss this in a general way analogous to the way in which one discusses BPS multiplets in ﬂat space. Namely, we consider the matrix elements of the operator qα q β between the (2s + 1)-degenerate ground states |E0 , s E0 , s| qα q β |E0 , s = =

E0 , s|{qα , q β }|E0 , s E0 , s|(E0 1 + J · σ )α β |E0 , s ·

(6.51)

This expression constitutes an hermitean matrix in both the quantum numbers of the degenerate groundstate and in the indices α and β, so that it is (4s + 2)-by-(4s + 2). Because we assume that the representation is unitary, this matrix must be positive deﬁnite, as one can verify by inserting a complete set of intermediate states between the operators qα and q β in the matrix element on the left-hand side. Obviously, the right-hand side is manifestly hermitean as well, but in order to be positive deﬁnite the eigenvalue E0 of H must be big enough to compensate for possible negative eigenvalues of J · σ , where the latter is again regarded as a (4s + 2)-by-(4s + 2) matrix. To determine its eigenvalues, we note that J · σ satisﬁes the following identity (6.52) (J · σ )2 + (J · σ ) = s(s + 1)1 , as follows by straightforward calculation. This shows that J · σ has only two (degenerate) eigenvalues (assuming s = 0, so that the above equation is not trivially satisﬁed), namely s and −(s + 1). Hence in order for (6.51) to be positive deﬁnite, E0 must satisfy the inequality E0 ≥ s + 1 ,

for s ≥ 12 ·

(6.53)

If the bound is saturated, i.e. if E0 = s + 1, the expression on the right-hand side of (6.51) has zero eigenvalues so that there are zero-norm states in the multiplet which decouple. In that case we must be dealing with a massless multiplet. This is the bound (6.40), whose applicability is extended to spin- 21 . The ground state with s = 12 and E0 = 32 leads to the massless vector supermultiplet in 4 spacetime dimensions. As we already mentioned one can also use the oscillator method to construct the irreducible representations. There is an extended literature on this. The reader may consult, for instance [87, 92]. Armed with these results we return to the masslike terms of Section 6.1 for the chiral supermultiplet. The ground-state energy for anti-de Sitter multiplets corresponding to the scalar ﬁeld A, the pseudo-scalar ﬁeld B and

B. de Wit: Supergravity

113

the Majorana spinor ﬁeld ψ, are equal to E0 , E0 +1 and E0 + 12 , respectively. The Casimir operator therefore takes the values C2 (A) C2 (B)

= E0 (E0 − 3) , = (E0 + 1)(E0 − 2) ,

C2 (ψ)

= (E0 + 12 )(E0 − 52 ) + 34 ·

(6.54)

For massless anti-de Sitter multiplets, we know that the quadratic Casimir operator is given by (6.41), so we present the value for C2 − 2(s2 − 1) for the three multiplets, i.e. C2 (A) + 2 C2 (B) + 2 C2 (ψ) +

3 2

= (E0 − 1)(E0 − 2) , = E0 (E0 − 1) , = (E0 − 1)2 .

(6.55)

The terms on the right-hand side are not present for massless ﬁelds and we should therefore identify them somehow with the common mass parameter m of the supermultiplet. Comparison with the ﬁeld equations (6.6) shows (for g = 1) that we obtain the correct contributions provided we make the identiﬁcation E0 = m + 1. Observe that we could have made a slightly diﬀerent identiﬁcation here; the above result remains the same under the interchange of A and B combined with a change of sign in m (the latter is accompanied by a chiral redeﬁnition of ψ). When E0 = 2 there exists, in principle, an alternative ﬁeld representation for describing this supermultiplet. The spinless representation with E0 = 2 can be described by a scalar ﬁeld, the spin- 21 representation with E0 = 52 by a spinor ﬁeld, and the second spinless representation with E0 = 3 by a rank-2 tensor ﬁeld. The Lagrangian for the tensor supermultiplet is not conformally invariant in 4 dimensions, and this could account for the unusual ground state energy for the spinor representation. We have not constructed this supermultiplet in anti-de Sitter space; in view of the fact that it contains a tensor gauge ﬁeld, it should be regarded as massless. From Kaluza-Klein compactiﬁcations of supergravity one can deduce that there should also exist shortened massive supermultiplets. The reason is that the underlying supergravity multiplet in higher dimensions is shortened because it is massless. When compactifying to an anti-de Sitter ground state with supersymmetry the massless supermultiplets remain shortened by the same mechanism, but also the inﬁnite tower of massive Kaluza-Klein states should comprise shortened supermultiplets. For toroidal compactiﬁcations the massive Kaluza-Klein states belong to BPS multiplets whose central charges are the momenta associated with the compactiﬁed dimensions. For nontrivial compactiﬁcations that correspond to supersymmetric

114

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

anti-de Sitter ground states, the massive Kaluza-Klein states must be shortened according to the mechanism exhibited in this section. The singleton multiplets decouple from the Kaluza-Klein spectrum. Therefore it follows that there must exist shortened massive representations of the extended supersymmetric anti-de Sitter algebra. To exhibit this we generalize the previous analysis to the N -extended superalgebra, denoted by OSp(N, 4). As it turns out, the analysis is rather similar. The supercharges now carry an extra SO(N ) index and are denoted by qαi and q αi , with q αi = (qαi )† with i = 1, . . . , N . The most relevant change to the (anti)commutators (6.49) is in the third one, which reads ij , {qαi , q βj } = δij δαβ H + δij J · σα β + δαβ T · Σ

(6.56)

where T are the hermitean 12 N (N − 1) generators of SO(N ) which act on the supercharges in the fundamental representation, generated by the The last two anticommutators are given by hermitean matrices Σ. {qαi , qβj }

=

Ma− (σ a σ 2 )αβ δij ,

{q αi , q βj }

=

Ma+ (σ 2 σ a )αβ δ ij .

(6.57)

The construction of lowest-weight representations proceeds in the same way as before. One starts with a ground state of energy E0 which has a certain spin and transforms according to a representation of SO(N ) which is annihilated by the qαi . Denoting the SO(N ) representation by t (which can be expressed in terms of the eigenvalues of the Casimir operators or Dynkin labels), we have (6.58) qαi |E0 , s, t = 0 . Excited states are generated by application of the q αi , which are mutually anticommuting, with exception of the combination that leads to the operators Ma+ which will generate the full anti-de Sitter representations. Hence the generic N -extended representations decompose into ordinary anti-de Sitter representation whose ground states have energy E0 + 12 n and which can be written as (6.59) q [α1 i1 · · · q αn in ] |E0 , s, t · Here the antisymmetrization applies to the combined (αi) labels. As before the unitarity limits follow from the separate limits on the anti-de Sitter representations and from the right-hand side of the anticommutator (6.56), which decomposes into three terms, namely the Hamiltonian, the rotation generators and the R-symmetry generators, taken in the space of ground state conﬁgurations (cf. (6.51)). We have already determined the possible eigenvalues of J ·σ which are equal to s or −(s+1). In a similar way one can by noting that it satisﬁes a polynomial determine the eigenvalues for T · Σ

B. de Wit: Supergravity

115

matrix equation such as (6.52) with coeﬃcients determined by the Casimir operators. For instance, for N = 3 we derive, 3 + 2(T · Σ) 2 + (t2 + t − 1)(T · Σ) = t(t + 1) 1 , −(T · Σ)

(6.60)

where T 2 = t(t + 1) 1. This equation shows that the eigenvalues of T · Σ take the values −t, 1 or t + 1, unless t = 0. Combining these results we ﬁnd that the right-hand side of (6.56) in the space of degenerate ground state conﬁgurations has the following six eigenvalues: E0 + s − t, E0 + s + 1, E0 + s + t + 1, E0 − s − t − 1, E0 − s or E0 + t + 1. All these eigenvalues must be positive, so that in the generic case where s and t are nonvanishing, we derive the unitarity bound, E0 ≥ 1 + s+ t. Incorporating also the possibility that s or t vanishes, the combined result takes the following form, E0 ≥ 1 + s + t E0 ≥ 1 + s E0 ≥ t

for s ≥ 12 , t ≥ 12 , for s ≥ 12 , t = 0 , for s = 0 , t ≥ 12 ·

(6.61)

Whenever one of these bounds is saturated, certain anti-de Sitter representations must decouple. The ground states with s = 0 and E0 = t deﬁne massive shortened representations of the type that appear in Kaluza-Klein compactiﬁcations [84]. In the Poincar´e limit these representations become all massless. Obviously these techniques can be extended to other cases, either by changing the number of supersymmetries or by changing the spacetime dimension. There is an extended literature to which we refer the reader for applications and further details. Before closing the section we want to return to the remarkable singleton representations. Long before the formulation of the AdS/CFT correspondence it was realized that supersingleton representations could be described by conformal supersymmetric ﬁeld theories on a boundary. Two prominent examples were noted (see, e.g. [87, 92]), namely the singleton representations in D = 5 and 7 anti-de Sitter space, which correspond to N = 4, D = 4 supersymmetric gauge theories and the chiral (2, 0) tensor multiplet in D = 6 dimensions. The singletons decouple from the KaluzaKlein spectrum, precisely because they are related to boundary degrees of freedom. Group-theoretically they are of interest because their products lead to the massless and massive representations that one encountered in the Kaluza-Klein context. Another theme addresses the connection between singletons and higher-spin theories. Here the issue is whether the singletons play only a group-theoretic role or whether they have also a more dynamical signiﬁcance. We refrain from speculating about these questions and just refer to some recent papers [93–95]. In [94] the reader may also ﬁnd a

116

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

summary of some useful results about singletons as well as an extensive list of references. In the next section we will move to a discussion of superconformal symmetries, which are based on the same anti-de Sitter algebra. We draw the attention of the reader to the fact that in Section 7, D will always denote the spacetime dimension of the superconformal theory. The corresponding superalgebra is then the anti-de Sitter superalgebra, but in spacetime dimension D + 1. 7

Superconformal symmetry

Invariances of the metric are known as isometries. Continuous isometries are generated by so-called Killing vectors, satisfying Dµ ξν + Dν ξµ = 0 .

(7.1)

The maximal number of linearly independent Killing vectors is equal to 1 2 D(D + 1). A space that has the maximal number of isometries is called maximally symmetric. A weaker condition than (7.1) is, Dµ ξν + Dν ξµ =

2 gµν Dρ ξ ρ . D

(7.2)

Solutions to this equation are called conformal Killing vectors. Note that the above equation is the traceless part of (7.1). The conformal Killing vectors that are not isometries are thus characterized by a nonvanishing ξ = Dµ ξ µ . For general dimension D > 2 there are at most 12 (D + 1)(D + 2) conformal Killing vectors. For D = 2 there can be inﬁnitely many conformal Killing vectors. These result can be derived as follows. First one shows that 1 gµν Dρ ξ − gρµ Dν ξ − gρν Dµ ξ . (7.3) Dµ Dν ξρ = Rνρµ σ ξσ − D For Killing vectors (which satisfy ξ = 0) this result implies that the second derivatives of Killing vectors are determined by the vector and its ﬁrst derivatives. When expanding about a certain point on the manifold, the Killing vector is thus fully determined by its value at that point and the values of its ﬁrst derivatives (which are antisymmetric in view of (7.1)). Altogether there are thus 12 D(D + 1) initial conditions to be ﬁxed and they parametrize the number of independent Killing vectors. For conformal Killing vectors, where ξ = 0 one then proves that (D − 2)Dµ Dν ξ and Dµ Dµ ξ are determined in terms of lower derivatives. This suﬃces to derive the maximal number of conformal Killing vectors quoted above for D > 2. Both ordinary and conformal Killing vectors generate a group.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

117

In what follows we choose a Minkowski signature for the D-dimensional space, a restriction that is mainly relevant when considering supersymmetry. Flat Minkowski spacetime has the maximal number of conformal Killing vectors, which decompose as follows,  µ ξ spacetime translations (P )   µP ν  νx Lorentz transformations (M ) ξµ = (7.4) µ  x scale transformations (D) Λ D   (2 xµ xν − x2 η µν )ΛKν conformal boosts (K). Here ξPµ , µν = −νµ , ΛD and ΛµK are constant parameters. Obviously ξ = D(ΛD +xµ ΛµK ). The above conformal Killing vectors generate the group SO(D, 2). This is the same group as the anti-de Sitter group in D+1 dimensions. The case of D = 2 is special because in that case the above transformations generate a semisimple group, SO(2, 2) ∼ = (SL(2, R)×SL(2, R))/Z2 . This follows directly by writing out the inﬁnitesimal transformations (7.4) for the linear combinations x ± t, δ(x ± t) = (ξPx ± ξPt ) + (ΛD ∓ xt )(x ± t) + 12 (ΛxK ∓ ΛtK )(x ± t)2 .

(7.5)

However, for D = 2 there are inﬁnitely many conformal Killing vectors, corresponding to two copies of the Virasoro algebra. The corresponding diﬀeomorphisms can be characterized in terms of two independent functions f± and take the form, δx = f+ (x + t) + f− (x − t) ,

δt = f+ (x + t) − f− (x − t) .

(7.6)

The fact that, for D ≥ 3 the anti-de Sitter and the conformal group coincide for dimensions D + 1 and D, respectively, can be clariﬁed by extending the D-dimensional spacetime parametrized by coordinates xµ with an extra (noncompact) coordinate y, assuming the line element, ds2 =

gµν dxµ dxν + dy 2 , y2

(7.7)

so that the right-hand side of (7.2), which is responsible for the lack of invariance of the line element of the original D-dimensional space, can be cancelled by a scale transformation of extra coordinate y. It is straightforward to derive the nonvanishing Christoﬀel symbols for this extended space (7.8) {µyν } = y −1 gµν , {µνy } = −y −1 δµν , {yyy } = −y −1 , where {µρν } remains the same for both spaces and all other components vanish. The corresponding expressions for the curvature components are Rµνρ σ

=

D σ σ Rµνρ + 2y −2 gρ[µ δν] ,

118

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings Rµyρ y

=

y −2 gµρ ,

Ryνy σ

=

y −2 δνσ .

(7.9)

With these results one easily veriﬁes that the curvature tensor of the (D+1)dimensional extension of a ﬂat D-dimensional Minkowski space is that of an anti-de Sitter spacetime with unit anti-de Sitter radius (i.e. g = 1 in (3.14)). This was the reason why we adopted a positive signature in the line element (7.7) for the coordinate y. Subsequently one can show that the D-dimensional conformal Killing vectors satisfying Dµ Dν ξ = 0 can be extended to Killing vectors of the (D + 1)-dimensional space, ξ µ (x, y) = ξ µ (x) −

y2 µ ∂ ξ(x) , 2D

ξ y (x, y) =

y ξ(x) . D

(7.10)

The condition Dµ Dν ξ = 0 holds for the conformal Killing vectors (7.4). For D = 2 these vectors generate a ﬁnite subgroup of the inﬁnite-dimensional conformal group, and only this group can be extended to isometries of the (D+1)-dimensional space. Nevertheless, near the boundary [77] of the space (y ≈ 0), the conformal Killing vectors generate asymptotic symmetries. Such a phenomenon was ﬁrst analyzed in [96]. This setting is relevant for the adS/CFT correspondence and there exists an extensive literature on this (see, e.g. [28, 97–101], and also the lectures presented at this school). Also the relation between the D’Alembertians of the extended and of the original D-dimensional spacetime is relevant in this context. Straightforward calculation yields, 2D+1 = y 2 2D + (y ∂y )2 − D y ∂y .

(7.11)

Near the boundary where y is small, the ﬁelds can be approximated by y ∆ φ(x). We may compare this to solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation in the anti-de Sitter space, for which we know that the D’Alembertian equals the quadratic Casimir operator C2 . In terms of the ground state energy E0 of the anti-de Sitter representation, we have C2 = E0 (E0 − D) (observe that we must replace D by D + 1 in (6.25)), which shows that we have the identiﬁcation ∆ = E0 or ∆ = D − E0 . This identiﬁcation is somewhat remarkable in view of the fact that E0 is the energy eigenvalue associated with the SO(2) generator of the anti-de Sitter algebra and not with the noncompact scale transformation of y, which associated with the SO(1, 1) eigenvalue. This identiﬁcation of the generators is discussed in more detail in the next section.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

119

7.1 The superconformal algebra From the relation between the conformal and the anti-de Sitter algebra one can determine the superextension of the conformal algebra generated by the above conformal Killing vectors. In comparison to the anti-de Sitter algebra and superalgebra (cf. (6.4) and (6.5)) we make a diﬀerent decomposition than the one that led to (6.18) and (6.22). We start from a D-dimensional spacetime of coordinates carrying indices a = 0, 1, . . . , D − 1, which we extend with two extra index values, so that A = −, 0, 1, . . . , D − 1, D. For the bosonic generators which generate the group SO(D, 2) we have MD− Mab MDa M−a

−→ D , −→ Mab , −→ −→

1 2 (Pa 1 2 (Pa

− Ka ) , + Ka ).

(7.12)

Here we distinguish the generator D of the dilatations, 12 D(D−1) generators Mab of the Lorentz transformations, D generators Pa of the translations, and D generators Ka of the conformal boosts. The algebra associated with SO(D, 2) was given in (6.4) and corresponds to the following commutation relations [D, Pa ] [Mab , Pc ] [Mab , Mcd ] [D, Mab ]

= = = =

−Pa , −2 ηc[a Pb] , 4 η[a[c Md]b] , 0,

[D, Ka ] [Mab , Kc ] [Pa , Pb ] [Ka , Pb ]

= = = =

Ka , −2 ηc[a Kb] , [Ka , Kb ] = 0 , 2(Mab + ηab D) .

(7.13)

To obtain the superextension (for D ≤ 6) one must ﬁrst extend the spinor representation associated with the D-dimensional spacetime to incorporate two extra gamma matrices ΓD and Γ− . According to the discussion in Section 2.5 (see, in particular, Table 9) this requires a doubling of the spinor charges, Sα ¯→Q ¯ = (Q ¯ α , S¯α ) , (7.14) Q→Q= , Q Qα and we deﬁne an extended set of gamma matrices ΓA by, a 0 Γ 0 1 0 1 Γa = Γ− = . ΓD = 0 −Γa 1 0 −1 0

(7.15)

The new charges Sα generate so-called special supersymmetry transformations [27]. The decomposition of the conjugate spinor is somewhat subtle, to make contact with the Majorana condition employed for the anti-de Sitter algebra.

120

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The anticommutation relation for the spinor charges follows from (6.5) and can be written as ¯ ¯ {S, Q} {S, S} ¯ {Q, Q} = ¯ ¯ {Q, Q} {Q, S}  1 ab  −Γa Ka − 2 Γ Mab − D , =  (7.16) 1 a −Γ Pa − 2 Γab Mab + D or ¯ β } = −Γaαβ Pa , {Qα , Q {Sα , S¯β } = −Γaαβ Ka , {Qα , S¯β } = − 12 Γab αβ Mab + ηαβ D.

(7.17)

The nonvanishing commutators of the spinor charges with the bosonic generators read ¯ α ] = 1 (QΓ ¯ ab )α , [Mab , Q 2 1 ¯ ¯ [D, Qα ] = − 2 Qa , ¯ α ] = −(SΓ ¯ a )α , [Ka , Q

¯ α ] = 1 (QΓ ¯ ab )α , [Mab , Q 2 1 ¯ ¯ [D, Sα ] = 2 Sα , ¯ a )α . [Pa , S¯α ] = −(QΓ

(7.18)

Here we are assuming the same gamma matrix conventions as in the beginning of Section 3. From the results quoted in the previous section, we know that, up to D = 6, the bosonic subalgebra will be the sum of the conformal algebra and the R-symmetry algebra. The R-symmetry can be identiﬁed from Table 9 and the corresponding generators will appear on the righ-hand side of the {Q, S} anticommutator; the other (anti)commutation relations listed above remain unchanged. In addition, commutators with the R-symmetry generators must be speciﬁed, but those follow from the Rsymmetry assignments of the supercharges. The above (anti)commutators satisfy the Jacobi identities that are at most quadratic in the fermionic generators. The validity of the remaining Jacobi identities, which are cubic in the fermionic generators, requires in general the presence of the R-symmetry charges. The results given so far suﬃce to discuss the most salient features of the superconformal algebra and henceforth we will be ignoring the contributions of the R-symmetry generators. Note also that the numbers of bosonic and fermion generators do not match; this mismatch will in general remain when including the R-symmetry generators. As before, the matrix on the right-hand side of (7.16) may have zero eigenvalues, leading to shortened supermultiplets. Those multiplets are in one-to-one correspondence with the anti-de Sitter supermultiplets. Its

B. de Wit: Supergravity

121

eigenvalues are subject to certain positivity requirements in order that the algebra is realized in a positive-deﬁnite Hilbert space. The abstract algebra can be connected to the spacetime transformations (7.4) in ﬂat spacetime introduced at the beginning of this section. To see this we derive how the conformal transformations act on generic ﬁelds. In principle, this is an application of the theory of homogeneous spaces discussed in Section 4 and we will demonstrate this for the bosonic transformations [102]; a supersymmetric extension can be given in superspace. Let us assume that the action of these spacetime transformations denoted by g takes the following form on a generic multicomponent ﬁeld φ, φ(x)−→φg (x) = S(g, x) φ(g −1 x) ,

(7.19)

where S is some matrix acting on the components of φ. Observe that there exists a subgroup of the conformal group that leaves a point in spacetime invariant and choose, by a suitable translation, this point equal to xa = 0. From (7.4) it then follows that the corresponding stability group of this point is generated by the generators M of the Lorentz group, the generator D of the scale transformations and the generators K of the conformal boosts. Hence we conclude that the matrices S(g, 0) must form a representation of ˆ and ˆ ab , D this subgroup, whose generators are denoted by the matrices M ˆ Ka . Generic ﬁelds are thus assigned to representations of this subgroup. On the other hand, we want the translation operators to act exclusively on the coordinates xa , so that (the generators have been taken antihermitean), ∂ Pa φ(x) = φ(x) , (7.20) ∂xa so that φ(x) can be written as exp(xa Pa )φ(0). Combining (7.19) with (7.20), it follows that S(g, x) = exp(−y a Pa ) S(g, 0) exp(xb Pb ) , with y = g x .

(7.21)

Writing this out for inﬁnitesimal transformations with y a = xa + ξ a , and ˆ ab + ΛD D ˆ + Λa K, ˆ we derive that conformal transforO(g, 0) ≈ 1 + 12 ab M K mations act inﬁnitesimally on φ according to δφ(x) = −ξ a ∂a φ(x) (7.22) [a b] ˆ a a 1 ab ˆ + ΛK K ˆ a φ(x) , + 2 + 2ΛK x Mab + ΛD − 2ΛK xa D where ξ a denotes the conformal Killing vectors parametrized in (7.4). The procedure applied above is just a simple example of the construction of induced representations on a G/H coset manifold. Indeed, we are describing ﬂat space as a coset manifold, where the conformal group plays

122

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

the role of the isometry group G and the stability group plays the role of the isotropy group H. The coset representative equals exp(xa Pa ), from which it follows (cf. (4.16)) that the vielbein is constant and diagonal and the connections associated with the stability group are zero. Hence the metric is invariant under the conformal transformations, as established earlier, while the vielbein is invariant after including the compensating transformations represented by the second line of (7.22). Explicit evaluation then shows that the invariance of the ﬂat vielbein requires the compensating tangent-space transformations, δeµa = ab eµ,b − ΛD eµa , (7.23) with parameters speciﬁed by (7.22). Note that the special conformal boosts do not act on the tangent space index of the vielbein. In the next two sections we will discuss how one can deviate from ﬂat space in the context of the conformal group. There are two approaches here which lead to related results. One is to start from a gauge theory of the conformal group. This conformal group has a priori nothing to do with spacetime transformations and the resulting theory is described in some unspeciﬁed spacetime. Then one imposes a constraint on certain curvatures. This is similar to what we described in Section 3, where we imposed a constraint on the torsion tensor (cf. (3.6)), so that the spin connection becomes a dependent ﬁeld and the Riemann tensor becomes proportional to the curvature of the spin connection ﬁeld. This approach amounts to imposing the maximal number of conventional constraints. The second approach starts from the coupling to superconformal matter and the corresponding superconformal currents. 7.2 Superconformal gauge theory and supergravity In principle it is straightforward to set up a gauge theory associated with the superconformal algebra. We start by associating a gauge ﬁeld to every generator, generators: gauge ﬁelds: parameters:

P eµa ξPa

M ωµab ab

D bµ ΛD

K fµa ΛaK

Q ψµ

S φµ η.

(7.24)

Up to normalization factors, the transformation rules for the gauge ﬁelds, which we specify below, follow directly from the structure constants of the superconformal algebra, δeµa

= Dµ ξPa − ΛD eµa + 12 ¯Γa ψµ ,

δωµab

[a [a = Dµ ab + ΛK eµb] − ξP fµb] − 14 ¯Γab φµ + 14 ψ¯µ Γab η ,

B. de Wit: Supergravity δbµ

123

= Dµ ΛD + 12 ΛKa eµa − 12 ξP a fµa + 14 ¯φµ − 14 ψ¯µ η ,

δfµa

= Dµ ΛaK + ΛD eµa + 12 η¯Γa φµ ,

δψµ

= Dµ − 12 ΛD ψµ − 12 eµa Γa η + 12 ξPa Γa φµ ,

δφµ

= Dµ η + 12 ΛD φµ − 12 fµa Γa + 12 ΛaK Γa ψµ .

(7.25)

Here we use derivatives that are covariantized with respect to dilatations and Lorentz transformations, i.e., Dµ ξPa

= ∂µ ξPa + bµ ξPa − ωµ ab ξP b ,

Dµ ΛaK

= ∂µ ΛaK − bµ ΛaK − ωµ ab ΛKb ,

Dµ ΛD

= ∂µ ΛD ,

Dµ

= (∂µ + 12 bµ − 14 ωµab Γab ) ,

Dµ η

= (∂µ − 12 bµ − 14 ωµab Γab )η .

(7.26)

Again we suppressed the gauge ﬁelds for the R-symmetry generators. The above transformation rules close under commutation, up to the commutators of two supersymmetry transformations acting on the fermionic gauge ﬁelds. In that case, one needs Fierz reorderings to establish the closure of the algebra, which depend sensitively on the dimension and on the presence of additional generators (for D = 4, see, for example [27]). As an example we list some of the commutation relations that can be obtained from (7.25) [δP (ξP ), δK (ΛK )] = {δQ (1 ), δQ (2 )}

=

{δS (η1 ), δS (η2 )}

=

{δQ (), δS (η)}

=

[δQ (), δK (ΛK )] = [δS (η), δP (ΛP )] =

[a b]

δD ( 12 ΛaK ξPb ηab ) + δM (ΛK ξP ) ,

δP ( 12 ¯2 Γa 1 ) ,

δK ( 12 η¯2 Γa η1 ) ,

δM ( 14 ¯ Γab η) + δD (− 41 ¯η) , δS ( 12 ΛaK Γa ) , δQ ( 12 ξPa Γa η) .

(7.27)

For completeness we also present the corresponding curvature tensors of the superconformal gauge theory, a Rµν (P ) =

2 D[µ eaν] − 12 ψ¯[µ Γa ψν] ,

Rµν (D) =

[a b] ab ac 2 ∂[µ ων] − 2 ω[µ ων] c b − 2 f[µ eν] + 12 ψ¯[µ Γab φν] , 2 D[µ bν] − f a e − 1 ψ¯[µ φν] ,

a Rµν (K) =

a 2 D[µ fν] − 12 φ¯[µ Γa φν] ,

ab (M ) = Rµν

[µ ν] a

2

124

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings Rµν (Q) =

2 D[µ ψν] − e[µa Γa φν] ,

Rµν (S) =

2 D[µ φν] − f[µa Γa ψν] .

(7.28)

These curvature tensors transform covariantly and their transformation rules follow from the structure constants of the superconformal algebra. They also satisfy a number of Bianchi identities which are straightforward to write down. As an example and for future reference we list the ﬁrst three identities, a ab (P ) + R[µν (M ) eρ] b − R[µν (D) eρ]a − 12 ψ¯[ρ Γa Rµν] (Q) = 0 , D[µ Rρ] [a

b]

[a

b]

ab (M ) + R[µν (K) eρ] + R[µν (P ) fρ] D[µ Rνρ]

+ 41 φ¯[ρ Γab Rµν] (Q) + 14 ψ¯[ρ Γab Rµν] (S) = 0 ,

a a (K) eρ] a − R[µν (P ) fρ] a D[µ Rνρ] (D) + 12 R[µν + 14 φ¯[ρ Rµν] (Q) − 14 ψ¯[ρ Rµν] (S) = 0 . (7.29)

At this stage, the superconformal algebra is not related to symmetries of spacetime. Of course, the gauge ﬁelds independently transform as vectors under general coordinate transformations but these transformations have no intrinsic relation with the gauge transformations. This is the reason why, at this stage, there is no need for the bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom to match, as one would expect for a conventional supersymmetric theory. There is a procedure to introducing a nontrivial entangling between the spacetime diﬀeomorphisms and the (internal) symmetries associated with the superconformal gauge algebra, based on curvature constraints. Here one regards the P gauge ﬁeld eµa as a nonsingular vielbein ﬁeld, whose inverse will be denoted by eaµ . This interpretation is in line with the interpretation presented in the previous section, where ﬂat space was viewed as a coset space. In that case, the curvature R(P ) has the interpretation of a torsion tensor, and one can impose a constraint R(P ) = 0, so that the M gauge ﬁeld ωµab becomes a dependent ﬁeld, just as in (3.6). The eﬀect of this constraint is also that the P gauge transformations are eﬀectively replaced by generalcoordinate transformations. To see this, let us rewrite a P -transformation on eµa , making use of the fact that there exists an inverse vielbein eaµ , a δeµa = Dµ ξPa = ∂µ ξ ν eνa − ξ ν Dν eµa + ξ ν Rµν (P ) ,

(7.30)

where ξ µ = ξPa eaµ . Hence, when imposing the torsion constraint R(P ) = 0, a P -transformation takes the form of a (covariant) general coordinate transformation. This is completely in line with the ﬁeld transformations (7.22), where the P -transformations were also exclusively represented by coordinate changes, except that we are now dealing with arbitrary diﬀeomorphisms.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

125

A constraint such as R(P ) = 0 is called a conventional constraint, because it algebraically expresses some of the gauge ﬁelds in terms of the others. Of course, by doing so, the transformation rules of the dependent ﬁelds are determined and they may acquire extra terms beyond the original ones presented in (7.25). Because R(P ) = 0 is consistent with spacetime diﬀeomorphisms, and the bosonic conformal transformations, the ﬁeld the ﬁeld ωµab will still transform under these symmetries according to (7.25). This is also the case for S-supersymmetry, but not for Q-supersymmetry, because the constraint R(P ) = 0 is inconsistent with Q-supersymmetry. Indeed, under Q-supersymmetry, the ﬁeld ωµab acquires an extra term beyond what was presented in (7.25), which is proportional to R(Q). We will not elaborate on the systematics of this procedure but concentrate on a number of noteworthy features. One of them is that there are potentially more conventional constraints. Inspection of (7.28) shows that constraints on R(M ), R(D) and R(Q) can be conventional and may lead to additional dependent gauge ﬁelds fµa and φµ associated with special conformal boosts and special supersymmetry transformations. A maximal set of conventional constraints that achieves just that, takes the form a (P ) = Rµν ab ebb Rµν (M ) µ Γ Rµν (Q)

= =

0, 0, 0,

(7.31)

where, for reasons of covariance, one should include possible modiﬁcations of the curvatures due to the changes in the transformation laws of the dependent ﬁelds. Other than that, the precise form of the constraints is not so important, because constraints that diﬀer by the addition of other covariant terms result in the addition of covariant terms to the dependent gauge ﬁelds, which can easily be eliminated by a ﬁeld redeﬁnition. Note that Rµν (D) is a not independent as a result of the ﬁrst Bianchi identity on Rµν (P ) given in (7.29) and should not be constrained. At this point we are left with the vielbein ﬁeld eµa , the gauge ﬁeld bµ associated with the scale transformations, and the gravitino ﬁeld ψµ associated with Q-supersymmetry. All other gauge ﬁelds have become dependent. The gauge transformations remain with the exception of the P transformations; we have diﬀeomorphisms, local Lorentz transformations (M ), local scale transformations (D), local conformal boosts (K), Q-supersymmetry and S-supersymmetry. Note that bµ is the only ﬁeld that transforms nontrivially on special conformal boosts and therefore acts as a compensator which induces all the K-transformations for the dependent ﬁelds. Because the constraints are consistent with all the bosonic transformations, those will not change and will still describe a closed algebra. The superalgebra will, however, not close, as one can verify by comparing the numbers of

126

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom. In order to have a consistent superconformal theory one must add additional ﬁelds (for a review, see [103]). A practical way to do this makes use of the superconformal multiplet of currents [22], which we will discuss in the next section. This construction is limited to theories with Q = 16 supercharges and leads to consistent conformal supergravity theories [22, 104, 105]. We close this section with a comment regarding the number of degrees of freedom described by the above gauge ﬁelds. The independent bosonic ﬁelds, eµa and bµ , comprise D2 + D degrees of freedom, which are subject to the 12 D2 − 32 D − 1 independent, bosonic, gauge invariances of the conformal group. This leaves us with 12 D(D − 1) − 1 degrees of freedom, corresponding to the independent components of a symmetric, traceless, rank-2 tensor in D − 1 dimensions, which constitutes an irreducible representation of the Poincar´e algebra. This representation is the minimal representation that is required for an oﬀ-shell description of gravitons in D spacetime dimensions. A similar oﬀ-shell counting argument applies to the fermions, which comprise (D − 2)ns degrees of freedom after subtracting the gauge degrees of freedom associate with Q- and S-supersymmetry. Here ns denotes the spinor dimension. Hence, the conformal framework is set up to reduce the ﬁeld representation to the smallest possible one that describes the leading spin without putting the ﬁelds on shell. The fact that the ﬁelds can exist oﬀ the mass shell, implies that they must constitute massive representations of the Lorentz group. Similarly, the supermultiplet of ﬁelds on which conformal supergravity is based, comprise the smallest massive supermultiplet whose highest spin coincides with the graviton spin. 7.3 Matter fields and currents In the previous section we described how to set up a consistent gauge theory for conformal supergravity. This theory has an obvious rigid limit, where all the gauge ﬁelds are equal to zero, with the exception of the vielbein which is equal to the ﬂat vielbein, eµa = δµa . This is the background we considered in Section 7.1. In this background we may have (matter) theories that are superconformally invariant under rigid transformations, described by (7.22). Suppose that we couple such a rigidly superconformal matter theory in ﬁrst order to the gauge ﬁelds of conformal supergravity. Hence we write, L = Lmatter µ +hµa θa µ + 12 ωµab Sab + bµ T µ + fµa Ua µ + ψ¯µ J µ + φ¯µ JSµ , (7.32) where hµa denotes the deviation of the vielbein from its ﬂat space value, i.e., eµa ≈ δµa + hµa . The ﬁrst term denotes the matter Lagrangian in ﬂat space. The current θa µ is the energy-momentum tensor. In linearized approximation the above Lagrangian is invariant under local superconformal

B. de Wit: Supergravity

127

transformations. To examine the consequences of this we need the leading (inhomogeneous) terms in the transformations of the gauge ﬁelds (cf. (7.25)), translations: δhµa = ∂µ ξPa , Lorentz: δωµab = ∂µ ab , δhµa = ab δµ b , dilatations: δbµ = ∂µ ΛD , δhµa = −δµa ΛD , [a

conformal boosts: δfµa = ∂µ ΛaK , δωµab = ΛK δµ , δbµ = 12 ΛKµ , Q-supersymmetry: δψµ = ∂µ , δψµ = − 21 Γµ η. S-supersymmetry: δφµ = ∂µ η , b]

(7.33)

The variations of the action corresponding to (7.32) under the superconformal transformations, ignoring variations that are proportional to the superconformal gauge ﬁelds and assuming that the matter ﬁelds satisfy their equations of motion, must vanish. One can verify that this leads to a number of conservation equations for the currents, ∂µ θa µ µ ∂µ Sab − 2 θ[ab] ∂µ T µ + θµ µ

= 0, = 0, = 0,

µ − 12 Ta ∂µ Ua µ − 12 Saµ ∂µ J µ µ 1 ∂µ JS + 2 Γµ J µ

= 0, = 0, = 0,

(7.34)

where we used the ﬂat vielbein to convert world into tangent space indices and vice versa; for instance, we employed the notation θab = θa µ eµ b and θµ µ = θa µ eµa . Obviously, not all currents are conserved, but we can deﬁne a set of conserved currents by allowing an explicit dependence on the coordinates, ∂µ θa µ µ − 2 θ[aµ xb] ∂µ Sab

= 0,

∂µ (T µ + θa µ xa )

µ 1 µ b 1 µ a 1 µ ∂µ Ua − 2 Sab x − 2 T x − 2 θb (xa xb − 12 x2 δab ) ∂µ J µ µ 1

∂µ JS + 2 Γν J µ xν

= 0,

= 0, = 0, = 0, = 0 . (7.35)

In this result one recognizes the various components in (7.22) and in (7.4). For S-supersymmetry one can understand the expression of the current by noting that the following combination of a constant S transformation with a spacetime dependent Q-transformation with = 12 xµ Γµ η leaves the gravitino ﬁeld ψµ invariant. Observe that the terms involving the energymomentum tensor take the form θa µ ξ a , where ξ a are the conformal Killing vectors deﬁned in (7.4).

128

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

So far we have assumed that the gauge ﬁelds in (7.32) are independent. However, we have argued in the previous section that it is possible to choose the gauge ﬁelds associated with the generators M , K and S, to depend on the other ﬁelds. At the linearized level, the ﬁelds ωµab , fµa and φµ can then be written as linear combinations of curls of the independent gauge ﬁelds. After a partial integration, the currents θa µ , T µ and J µ are modiﬁed by improvement terms: terms of the form ∂ν A[νµ] , which can be included into the currents without aﬀecting their divergence. Hence, the currents µ , Ua µ and JSµ no longer appear explicitly but are absorbed in the reSab maining currents as improvement terms. We do not have to work out their explicit form, because we can simply repeat the analysis leading to (7.34), µ , Ua µ and JSµ . We then obtain the following conditions for suppressing Sab the improved currents, imp imp µ ∂ µ θµν = θ[µν] = θimp = 0, µ

∂ µ Jµimp = Γµ Jµimp = 0 .

(7.36)

Observe that these equations reduce the currents to irreducible representations of the Poincar´e group, in accord with the earlier counting arguments given for the gauge ﬁelds. To illustrate the construction of the currents, let us consider a nonlinear sigma model in ﬂat spacetime with Lagrangian, L = 12 gAB ∂µ φA ∂ µ φB .

(7.37)

Its energy-momentum operator can be derived by standard methods and is equal to

θµν = 12 gAB ∂µ φA ∂ν φB − 12 ηµν ∂ρ φA ∂ ρ φB . (7.38) It is conserved by virtue of the ﬁeld equations; moreover it is symmetric, but not traceless. It is, however, possible to introduce an improvement term, imp θµν

=

A 1 2 gAB (∂µ φ

+

D−2 4(D − 1)

∂ν φB − 12 ηµν ∂ρ φA ∂ ρ φB )

ηµν ∂ 2 − ∂µ ∂ν χ(φ) .

(7.39)

When χ(φ) satisﬁes DA ∂B χ(φ) = gAB ,

(7.40)

the improved energy-momentum tensor is conserved, symmetric and traceless (again, upon using the ﬁeld equations). This implies that, χA = ∂A χ is a homothetic vector30. From this result it follows that locally in the target 30 A homothetic vector satisﬁes D χ + D χ A B A B = 2gAB Here we are dealing with an exact homothety, for which DA χB = DB χA , and which can be solved by a potential χ.

B. de Wit: Supergravity

129

space, χ can be written as χ = 12 g AB χA χB ,

(7.41)

up to an integration constant. Spaces that have such a homothety are cones. To see this, we decompose the target-space coordinates φA into φ and remaining coordinates ϕa , where φ is deﬁned by χA

∂ ∂ · = ∂φA ∂φ

(7.42)

It then follows that χ(φ, ϕ) = exp[2φ] χ(ϕ), ˆ where χ ˆ is an undetermined function of the coordinates ϕa . In terms of these new coordinates we have χA = (1, 0, · · · , 0) and gAφ = χA = (2χ, gaφ ). From this result one proves directly that the metric takes the form (ds)2 =

(dχ)2 + χhab (ϕ) dϕa dϕb , 2χ

(7.43)

where the φ-independence of hab can be deduced directly from (7.40). This result shows that the target space is a cone over a base manifold MB parametrized in terms of the coordinates ϕa with metric hab [106]. In the supersymmetic context it is important to note that, when the cone is a K¨ ahler or hyperk¨ ahler space, the cone must also be invariant under U (1) or SU (2). These features play an important role when extending to the supersymmetric case. In that case U (1) or SU (2) must be associated with the R-symmetry of the superconformal algebra. Coupling the improved energy-momentum tensor (7.39) to gravity must lead to a conformally invariant theory of the nonlinear sigma model and gravity. The relevant Lagrangian reads, e−1 L = 12 gAB ∂µ φA ∂ µ φB −

D−2 χ(φ) R . 4(D − 1)

(7.44)

Indeed, this Lagrangian is invariant under local scale transformations characterized by the functions ΛD (x), δD φA = wΛD χA ,

δD gµν = −2ΛD gµν

(7.45)

where w is the Weyl weight of the scalar ﬁelds which is equal to w = 1 2 (D − 2). The transformation of gµν is in accord with the vielbein scale transformation written down in Section 7.2. We should also point out that the coupling with the Ricci scalar can be understood in the context of the results of the previous section. Using the gauge ﬁelds of the conformal group, the Lagrangian reads, e−1 L = 12 gAB g µν (∂µ φA − w bµ χA ) (∂ν φB − w bν χB ) − 12 w fµ µ χ . (7.46)

130

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

As one can easily verify from the transformation rules (7.25), this Lagrangian is invariant under local dilatations, conformal boosts and spacetime diﬀeomorphisms. Upon using the second constraint (7.31) for the gauge ﬁeld fµ a associated with the conformal boosts and setting bµ = 0 as a gauge condition for the conformal boosts, the Lagrangian becomes equal to (7.44), which is still invariant under local dilatations. This example thus demonstrates the relation between improvement terms in the currents and constraints on the gauge ﬁelds. It is possible to also employ a gauge condition for the dilatations. An obvious one amounts to putting χ equal to a constant χ0 , with the dimension D−2 of [mass] , (7.47) χ = χ0 . Substituting the metric (7.43) the Lagrangian then acquires the form, e−1 L ∝ 12 hab ∂µ ϕa ∂ µ ϕb −

D−2 R. 4(D − 1)

(7.48)

This Lagrangian describes a nonlinear sigma model with the base manifold MB of the cone as a target space, coupled to (nonconformal) gravity. The constant χ0 appears as an overall constant and is inversely proportional to Newton’s constant in D spacetime dimensions. Observe that in order to obtain positive kinetic terms, the metric hab should be negative deﬁnite and χ0 must be positive. The above example forms an important ingredient in the so-called superconformal multiplet calculus that has been used extensively in the construction of nonmaximal supergravity couplings. There is an extensive literature on this. For an introduction to the 4-dimensional N = 1 multiplet calculus, see, e.g. [81], for 4-dimensional N = 2 vector multiplets and hypermultiplets, we refer to [67, 107]. References [1] P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rep. 68 (1981) 189; B. de Wit and D.Z. Freedman, Supergravity – The basics and beyond, in Supersymmetry, NATO ASI B 125 135, edited by K. Dietz, R. Flume, G. von Gehlen and V. Rittenberg (Plenum, 1985); S. Ferrara, Supersymmetry, Vols. 1 & 2 (North-Holland/World Scientiﬁc, 1989); A. Salam and E. Sezgin, Supergravities in diverse dimensions, Vols. 1 & 2 (NorthHolland/World Scientiﬁc, 1989). [2] M. Green, J. Schwarz and E. Witten, Superstring theory, Vols. 1 & 2 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987); D. L¨ ust and S. Theisen, Lectures on string theory (Springer, 1989); J. Polchinski, String Theory, Vols. I & II (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998); E. Kiritsis, Leuven Notes Math. Theor. Phys. 9 (1997) [hep-th/9709062]; AIP Conf. Proc. 419 (1998) 265 [hep-th/9708130]. For a collection of reprints, see, for example, J.H. Schwarz, Superstrings. The first 15-years of superstring theory, Vols. 1 & 2 (World Scientiﬁc, 1985); M. Dine, String

B. de Wit: Supergravity

[3] [4]

[5] [6]

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

[15]

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

[24] [25]

131

Theory in four dimensions (North-Holland, 1988); A.N. Schellekens, Superstring construction (North-Holland, 1989). W. Nahm, Nucl. Phys. B 135 (1978) 149. S. Ferrara, C.A. Savoy and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B 100 (1981) 393; S. Ferrara and C.A. Savoy, Representations of extended supersymmetry on one- and two-particle states, in Supergravity ’81, edited by S. Ferrara and J.G. Taylor (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), p. 47; B. de Wit, Maximal supergravity, in Frontiers in Particle ˇ cki, N. Bili´ Physics ’83, edited by Dj. Sijaˇ c, B. Dragoviˇc and D. Popoviˇc (World Scientiﬁc, 1984), p. 152. J. Strathdee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2 (1987) 273. B. de Wit and J. Louis, Supersymmetry and dualities in various dimensions, in Strings, Branes and Dualities, NATO ASI C520, edited by L. Baulieu, P. Di Francesco, M. Douglas, V. Kazakov, M. Picco and P. Windey (Kluwer, 1999), p. 33 [hep-th/9801132]. A. Van Proeyen, Tools for supersymmetry [hep-th/9910030]. B. de Wit, A. Tollst´en and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys. B 392 (1993) 3 [hep-th/9208074]. E. Cremmer, Supergravities in 5 dimensions, in Superspace & Supergravity, edited by S.W. Hawking and M. Roˇcek (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981), p. 267. C.M. Hull, JHEP 0006 (2000) 019 [hep-th/0004086]; Nucl. Phys. B 583 (2000) 237 [hep-th/0004195]. E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk, Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 409. R. Slansky, Phys. Rep. 79 (1981) 1. L. Brink, J. Scherk and J.H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 121 (1977) 77; F. Gliozzi, J. Scherk and D. Olive, Nucl. Phys. B 122 (1977) 253. M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 122 (1983) 143; J.H. Schwarz and P.C. West, Phys. Lett. B 126 (1983) 301; J.H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 226 (1983) 269; P. Howe and P.C. West, Nucl. Phys. B 238 (1984) 181. M. Huq and M.A. Namazie, Class. Quantum Grav. 2 (1985) 293; F. Giani and M. Pernici, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 325; I.C.G. Campbell and P.C. West, Nucl. Phys. B 243 (1984) 112. M. Dine, P. Huet and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 322 (1989) 301. J. Dai, R.G. Leigh and J. Polchinski, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4 (1989) 2073. E. Bergshoeﬀ, C. Hull and T. Ortin, Nucl. Phys. B 451 (1995) 547 [hep-th/9504081]. M. Abou-Zeid, B. de Wit, H. Nicolai and D. L¨ ust, Phys. Lett. B 466 (1999) 144 [hep-th/9908169]. P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 139 (1984) 283. R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara and C. Kounnas, N = (4, 2) Chiral supergravity in six dimensions and solvable Lie algebras [hep-th/9711048]. E.A. Bergshoeﬀ, M. de Roo and B. de Wit, Nucl. Phys. B 182 (1981) 173. P.K. Townsend, Four lectures on M-theory, lectures given at the 1996 ICTP Summer School in High Energy Physics and Cosmology, Trieste [hep-th/9612121]; M-theory from its superalgebra, in Strings, Branes and Dualities, NATO ASI C520, edited by L. Baulieu, P. Di Francesco, M. Douglas, V. Kazakov, M. Picco and P. Windey (Kluwer, 1999), p. 141 [hep-th/9712004]. N.A. Obers and B. Pioline, Phys. Rep. 318 (1999) 113 [hep-th/9809039]. S. Ferrara, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 55 (1997) 145; L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria and S. Ferrara, U-Duality and central charges in various dimensions revisited [hep-th/9612105].

132

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

[26] R. Coquereaux, Phys. Lett. B 115 (1982) 389, and references quoted therein. [27] S. Ferrara, M. Kaku, P.K. Townsend and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Nucl. Phys. B 129 (1977) 125. [28] J. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231 [hep-th/9711200]. [29] M. G¨ unaydin, L.J. Romans and N.P. Warner, Nucl. Phys. B 272 (1986) 598. [30] B. de Wit, Introduction to supergravity, in Supersymmetry and Supergravity ’84, edited by B. de Wit, P. Fayet and P. van Nieuwenhuizen (World Scientiﬁc, 1984), p. 49. [31] P.K. Townsend, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2802. [32] S. Deser and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1433. [33] S. Ferrara, Phys. Lett. B 69 (1977) 481. [34] B. de Wit and A. Zwartkruis, Class. Quantum Grav. 4 (1987) L59. [35] K. Bautier, S. Deser, M. Henneaux and D. Seminara, Phys. Lett. B 406 (1997) 49. [36] C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 3264; J. Fang and C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 3630; J. Schwinger, Particles, sources and fields (Addison Wesley, 1970); T. Curtright, Phys. Lett. B 85 (1979) 219. [37] C. Aragone and S. Deser, Spin 2 matter-graviton coupling problems, in Supergravity, edited by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D.Z. Freedman (North-Holland, 1979). [38] C. Aragone and S. Deser, Phys. Lett. B 86 (1979) 161; F.A. Berends, J.W. van Holten, P. van Nieuwenhuizen and B. de Wit, J. Phys. A 13 (1980) 1643; B. de Wit and D.Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 358. [39] M.A. Vasiliev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 5 (1996) 763 [hep-th/9611024]. [40] B. de Wit, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 (2001) 1002, Proc. Strings 2000, edited by M.J. Duﬀ, J.T. Liu and J. Lu [hep-th/0010292]. [41] B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, Class. Quantum Grav. 18 (2001) 3095 [hep-th/0011239]. [42] P.K. Townsend and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 439; A.H. Chamseddine and P.C. West, Nucl. Phys. B 129 (1977) 39. [43] D.N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2976. [44] M.J. Duﬀ and K.S. Stelle, Phys. Lett. B 253 (1991) 113. [45] R. G¨ uven, Phys. Lett. B 276 (1992) 49. [46] For a review see, for example, M.J. Duﬀ, R.R. Khuri and J.X. L¨ u, Phys. Rep. 259 (1995) 213 [hep-th/9412184]; K.S. Stelle, Lectures on supergravity p-branes, in Trieste 1996, High energy physics and cosmology, p. 287 [hep-th/9701088]. [47] B. Biran, F. Englert, B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, Phys. Lett. B 124 (1983) 45. [48] For a reprint collection and a review of Kaluza-Klein theory, see, for instance, M.J. Duﬀ, B.E.W. Nilsson and C.N. Pope, Phys. Rep. 130 (1986) 1; T Appelquist, A. Chodos and P.G.O. Freund, Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories (Addison-Wesley, 1987). [49] B. de Wit, F. Vanderseypen and A. Van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B 400 (1993) 463 [hep-th/9210068]. [50] E. Cremmer, N=8 Supergravity, in Unification of fundamental particle interactions, edited by S. Ferrara, J. Ellis and P. van Nieuwenhuizen (Plenum, 1980), p. 137; B. Julia, “Group disintegrations”, in Superspace & Supergravity, edited by S.W. Hawking and M. Roˇcek (Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 331. [51] B. de Wit, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 101 (2001) 154, Proc. Thirty Years of Supersymmetry, edited by K.A. Olive, S. Rudaz and M. Shifman [hep-th/0103086]. [52] Y. Tanii, Phys. Lett. B 145 (1984) 368.

B. de Wit: Supergravity [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]

[60]

[61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]

[72] [73]

[74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]

133

E. Cremmer and B. Julia, Phys. Lett. B 80 (1978) 48. C.M. Hull and P.K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B 438 (1995) 109 [hep-th/9410167]. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 443 (1995) 85 [hep-th/9503124]. P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 350 (1995) 184 [hep-th/9501068]; Phys. Lett. B 373 (1996) 68 [hep-th/9512062]. E.A. Bergshoeﬀ, E. Sezgin and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 189 (1987) 75; Ann. Phys. 185 (1988) 330. J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 367 (1996) 97 [hep-th/9510086]; P.S. Aspinwall, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 46 (1996) 30 [hep-th/9508154]. A.H. Chamseddine, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 3065; E. Bergshoeﬀ, M. de Roo, B. de Wit and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Nucl. Phys. B 195 (1982) 97; E. Bergshoeﬀ, M. de Roo and B. de Wit, Nucl. Phys. B 217 (1983) 143; G. Chapline and N.S. Manton, Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 105. J. Polchinski and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 525 [hep-th/9510169]; I. Antoniadis, H. Partouche and T.R. Taylor, NATO ASI C520, edited by L. Baulieu, P. Di Francesco, M. Douglas, V. Kazakov, M. Picco and P. Windey (Kluwer, 1999) p. 179 [hep-th/9706211]. R. Gilmore, Lie groups, Lie algebras, and some of their applications (Wiley Interscience, 1974). L. Castellani, R. D’Auria and P. Fr´e, Supergravity and superstrings I (World Scientiﬁc, 1991). B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, Phys. Lett. B 108 (1982) 285; Nucl. Phys. B 208 (1982) 323. B. de Wit, Nucl. Phys. B 158 (1979) 189. M.K. Gaillard and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 221. S. Cecotti, S. Ferrara and L. Girardello, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 4 (1989) 2475. B. de Wit and A. Van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B 245 (1984) 89. P.K. Townsend, K. Pilch and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Lett. B 136 (1984) 38. H. Nicolai and H. Samtleben, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 1686 [hep-th/0010076]. M. Pernici, K. Pilch and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Lett. B 143 (1984) 103. C.M. Hull, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 760; Phys. Lett. B 142 (1984) 39; Phys. Lett. B 148 (1984) 297; Class. Quantum Grav. 2 (1985) 343; New gauged N = 8, D = 4 supergravities [hep-th/0204156]. L.Andreanopoli, F. Cordaro, P. Fr´e and L. Gualtieri, Class. Qunatum Grav. 18 (2001) 395 [hep-th/0009048]. L. Andreanopoli, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara and M.A. Lled´ o, JHEP 0207 (2002) 010 [hep-th/0203206]; Duality and spontaneously broken supergravity in flat backgrounds [hep-th/0204145]. H. Nicolai and H. Samtleben, JHEP 0104 (2001) 022 [hep-th/0103032]. B. de Wit, H. Samtleben and M. Trigiante (to appear). J.-W. van Holten and A. Van Proeyen, J. Phys. A 15 (1982) 3763. S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis, The large scale structure of space-time (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973). S.J. Avis, C.J. Isham and D. Storey, Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 3565. K. Pilch and A.N. Schellekens, J. Math. Phys. 25 (1984) 3455. B. de Wit and I. Herger, Lect. Notes Phys. 541 (2000) 79, also in Polanica 1999, Towards Quantum Gravity, p. 79 [hep-th/9908005]. B. de Wit, Multiplet calculus, in Supersymmetry and Supergravity ’82, edited by S. Ferrara, J.G. Taylor and P. Van Nieuwenhuizen (World Scientiﬁc, 1983).

134

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

[82] P. Breitenlohner and D.Z. Freedman, Ann. Phys. 144 (1982) 249. [83] C. Fronsdal, Rev. Mod. Phys. 37 (1965) 221; Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 589; C. Fronsdal and R.B. Haugen, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 3810; C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 3819. [84] D.Z. Freedman and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys. B 237 (1984) 342. [85] H. Nicolai, Representations of supersymmetry in anti-de Sitter space, in Supersymmetry and Supergravity ’84, edited by B. de Wit, P. Fayet, P. van Nieuwenhuizen (World Scientiﬁc, 1984). [86] P.A.M. Dirac, J. Math. Phys. 4 (1963) 901. [87] M. G¨ unaydin, P. van Nieuwenhuizen and N.P. Warner, Nucl. Phys. B 255 (1985) 63. [88] M. G¨ unaydin and C. Saclioglu, Commun. Math. Phys. 91 (1982) 159; M. G¨ unaydin, Oscillator like unitary representations of noncompact groups and supergroups and extended supergravity theories, in Int. Colloq. on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics (Istanbul, 1982), edited by M. Serdaroglu and E. In¨ on¨ u, Lecture Notes Phys. 180 (Springer, 1983). [89] M. G¨ unaydin, Singleton and doubleton supermultiplets of space-time supergroups and infinite spin superalgebras, in Supermembranes and physics of 2+1 dimensions, edited by M.J. Duﬀ, C.N. Pope and E. Sezgin (World Scientiﬁc, 1990), p. 442. [90] M. G¨ unaydin and D. Minic, Nucl. Phys. B 523 (1998) 145 [hep-th/9802047]; M. G¨ unaydin D. Minic and M. Zagerman, Nucl. Phys. B 534 (1998) 96 [hep-th/9806042]. [91] W. Heidenreich, Phys. Lett. B 110 (1982) 461. [92] M. G¨ unaydin and N. Marcus, Class. Quantum Grav. 2 (1985) L11; M. G¨ unaydin and N.P. Warner, Nucl. Phys. B 272 (1986) 99. [93] S. Ferrara and C. [hep-th/9712239].

Fronsdal,

Class.

Quantum

Grav.

15

(1998)

2153

[94] E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, Massless higher spins and holography [hep-th/0205131]. [95] A. Segal, Conformal higher spin theory [hep-th/0207212]. [96] J.D. Brown and M. Henneaux, Commun. Math. Phys. 104 (1986) 207. [97] S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105 [hep-th/9802109]. [98] E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253 [hep-th/9802150]. [99] V. Balasubramanian, P. Kraus and A. Lawrence, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 046003 [hep-th/9805171]. [100] O. Aharony, S.S. Gubser, J.M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, Y. Oz, Phys. Rep. 323 (2000) 183 [hep-th/9905111]. [101] S. de Haro, K. Skenderis and S.N. Solodukhin, Commun. Math. Phys. 217 (2001) 595 [hep-th/0002230]. [102] G. Mack and A. Salam, Ann. Phys. 53 (1969) 174. [103] B. de Wit, Conformal invariance in extended supergravity, in Supergravity ’81, edited by S. Ferrara and J.G. Taylor (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982). [104] M. Kaku, P.K. Townsend and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 3179; P.K. Townsend and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 3166. [105] B. de Wit and J.-W. van Holten, Nucl. Phys. B 155 (1979) 530; B. de Wit, J.-W. van Holten and A. Van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B 167 (1980) 186. [106] G.W. Gibbons and P. Rychenkova, Phys. Lett. B 443 (1998) 138 [hep-th/9809158].

B. de Wit: Supergravity

135

[107] K. Galicki, Class. Quantum Grav. 9 (1992) 27; B. de Wit, B. Kleijn and S. Vandoren, Rigid N = 2 superconformal hypermultiplets, in Dubna 1979, Supersymmetries and Quantum Symmetries, p. 37 [hep-th/9808160]; Nucl. Phys. B 568 (2000) 475 [hep-th/9909228]; B. de Wit, M. Roˇ cek and S. Vandoren, JHEP 0102 (2001) 039 [hep-th/0101161].

LECTURE 2

SUPERSYMMETRIC GAUGE THEORIES

E. RABINOVICI Racah Institute, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

Contents 1 Introduction

141

2 Supersymmetric quantum mechanics 2.1 Symmetry and symmetry breaking . . . . . . 2.2 A nonrenormalisation theorem . . . . . . . . 2.3 A two variable realization and ﬂat potentials 2.4 Geometric meaning of the Witten index . . . 2.5 Landau levels and SUSY QM . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Conformal quantum mechanics . . . . . . . . 2.7 Superconformal quantum mechanics . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

143 151 152 154 158 159 161 164

3 Review of supersymmetric models 3.1 Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Superspace and chiral ﬁelds . . 3.3 K¨ ahler potentials . . . . . . . . 3.4 F-terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Global symmetries . . . . . . . 3.6 The eﬀective potential . . . . . 3.7 Supersymmetry breaking . . . . 3.8 Supersymmetric gauge theories

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

165 165 167 169 170 170 172 172 173

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

4 Phases of gauge theories 5 Supersymmetric gauge theories/super QCD 5.1 The classical moduli space . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Quantum moduli spaces . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Quantum moduli space for 0 < NF < NC 5.4 Integrating in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Quantum moduli space for NF ≥ NC . . . 5.6 NF = NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 NF = NC + 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 Higgs and conﬁnement phases . . . . . . . 5.9 Infra-red duality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10 Superconformal invariance in d = 4 . . . .

179 . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

6 Comments on vacuum energies in scale invariant theories

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

180 182 185 185 186 190 190 191 192 194 202 207

7 Supersymmetric gauge theories and string theory 7.1 Branes in string theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Branes in IIA and IIB string theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 The eﬀective ﬁeld theory on branes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Eﬀective D = 4 dimensional systems with N = 2 supersymmetry 7.5 An eﬀective D = 4, N = 1, U (NC ) gauge theory with matter . . 7.6 More pieces of information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Obtaining the dual ﬁeld theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Final remarks

. . . . . . . .

210 210 211 213 216 226 229 233 235 237

SUPERSYMMETRIC GAUGE THEORIES D.S. Berman1 and E. Rabinovici1

Abstract We introduce simple and more advanced concepts that have played a key role in the development of supersymmetric systems. This is done by ﬁrst describing various supersymmetric quantum mechanics models. Topics covered include the basic construction of supersymmetric ﬁeld theories, the phase structure of supersymmetric systems with and without gauge particles, superconformal theories and infrared duality in both ﬁeld theory and string theory. A discussion of the relation of conformal symmetry to a vanishing vacuum energy (cosmological constant) is included.

1

Introduction

At least three phases of gauge theory are manifest in nature. The weak interactions are in the Higgs phase. The electromagnetic interaction is in the Coulomb phase and the colour interactions are in the conﬁning phase. None of these phases exhibits supersymmetry explicitly. What is then the motivation to introduce and study supersymmetry? Here is a list of reasons that have motivated people over the years. • In their seminal paper Golfand and Likhtman [1] introduced supersymmetry in order to constrain the possible forms of interaction, little did they know that the constrained interactions [2] will give rise to a multitude of vacua; • The local version of supersymmetry contains automatically gravity [3, 4], the force in nature that has yet to be tamed by theoretical physics; This work is supported by BSF- the American-Israeli Bi-National Science foundation, the Israel academy of sciences and humanities-Centers of excellence program, the GermanIsraeli Bi-National science foundation, the european RTN network HPRN-CT-2000-00122 and DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER40560. 1 Racah Institute, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. c EDP Sciences, Springer-Verlag 2002

142

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

• The weak interaction scale and the Plank scale are widely separated for theoreticians this could be a problem, called the Hierarchy problem. This problem is much softer in supersymmetric theories [5–7]; • In various supersymmetric models the gauge couplings unify sensibly [8–10]; • Strong coupling problems are generically intractable in ﬁeld theory. In the presence of supersymmetry constraints the problems can be solved in interesting cases. In particular the idea of monopole condensation as the responsible mechanism for conﬁnement becomes tractable. Such models serve as analytical laboratories for physical ideas; • Perturbative string theory seams to need supersymmetry in order to be stable. In fact, in order for string theories to make sense the number of Bosonic degrees of freedom can diﬀer from those of the Fermionic degrees of freedom by at most those of a d = 2 ﬁeld theory [11]. The construction and analysis of supersymmetric systems requires the use of many diﬀerent concepts and ideas in ﬁeld theory. In section two we will introduce several of these ideas by using a simple quantum mechanical context. The ideas include: supersymmetry and its spontaneous breaking; index theorems as a tool to answer physical questions; the impact of conformal symmetries; and treating theories with no ground states. Section three will contain a review of the methods usedto construct supersymmetric ﬁeld theories and supersymmetric gauge theories. There are many excellent reviews on the subject, we refer the reader to them for a more complete exposition [3, 4, 12–18]. In section four, we review the intricate phase structure of classical and quantum supersymmetric gauge theories. It may occasionally seem that one sees only the trees and not the forest however note that many of the trees are central problems in ﬁeld theory for years. They include the understanding of conﬁnement, chiral symmetry breaking and the emergence of massless fermions to mention just a few. the material in this section is elaborated in similar or greater detail in [12, 15]. This section includes also a discussion of conformal ﬁeld theories and some properties in dimension greater than two including four. In particular, the vacuum energy of these theories is discussed in relation to the cosmological constant problem. In section ﬁve we describe the phenomena of infra-red duality in supersymmetric gauge theories. This duality is described from both a ﬁeld theoretical and string theoretical point of view. In the process we will discuss connections between string theory in the presence of branes and gauge theories.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

143

Many topics in the study of supersymmetric theories which are as worthy have not been covered for lack of time or because they were covered by other lectures. Examples of such topics are: large N gauge theories [19]; non-supersymmetric deformations of the models described e.g. [20]; supersymmetric matrix models [21]; supersymmetry on the lattice [22] as well as many others. 2

Supersymmetric quantum mechanics

The ideas in this section were introduced in [24, 25]. First we will examine the quantum mechanical realization of the supersymmetry algebra so as to introduce various ideas that will later carry over to ﬁeld theory. The questions we wish to examine are: what is supersymmetry; how is SUSY broken spontaneously; and what are nonrenormalisation theorems. Along the way we will introduce some useful tools such as the Witten index. Now we begin with a one variable realization of N = 1 SUSY. Later we will present a two variable realization where we can introduce the notion of a ﬂat direction. Quantum mechanics is a one dimensional ﬁeld theory. The Hamiltonian is the only member of the Poincare group in that case. Thus, the basic anti-commutation relations that deﬁne the supersymmetric algebra are: {Qi , Q+ j } = 2Hδij

i, j = 1..N

(2.1)

H is the Hamiltonian and Q, Q+ are called the supercharges. N denotes the number of supersymmetries. A rather general N = 1 realization with n bosonic and n Fermionic degrees of freedom is given by: Q=

n α=1

ψα+

∂W −pα + i , ∂xα

(2.2)

The W (x, .., xn ) is a general function of the n bosonic variables. Hamiltonian is then given by:   2 2 ∂ W 1 ∂W 1  (2.3) p2α + Bαβ 1L×L − H = {Q, Q+ } =  2 2 ∂xα ∂xα ∂xβ α αβ

and B is: Bαβ =

1 + [ψ , ψβ ] 2 α

(2.4)

144

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

and the ψ variables obey the following anticommutation relations. {ψα+ , ψβ } = δαβ , {ψα , ψβ } = 0 , {ψα+ , ψβ+ } = 0.

(2.5)

The dimension of the Fermionic Hilbert space is L = 2n . Before moving on to n = 1 realization of this super algebra, we ﬁrst will recall some basic facts about the Bosonic harmonic oscillator. H=

p2q 1 + mω 2 q 2 2m 2

(2.6)

deﬁne The energy scale is extracted by deﬁning dimensionless variables x and px . x=

mω 12

q,

1

px = (mω)− 2 pq .

(2.7)

This gives the following commutation relations: −i = [pq , q] = [px , x] ,

(2.8)

the Hamiltonian is now given by: 1 H = ω (p2x + x2 ) 2

(2.9)

ω is the energy scale in the problem. It is useful to deﬁne creation and annihilation operators, a+ , a by: 1 i x = √ (a + a+ ) , p = √ (a+ − a) 2 2

(2.10)

and so we obtain the commutation relation: [a, a+ ] = 1.

(2.11)

The number operator, N is constructed out of the creation and annihilation operators: N = a+ a.

(2.12)

The spectrum of this operator is given by the nonnegative integers. The Hamiltonian in these variables then becomes: 1 H = ω N + (2.13) 2 and the energy spacings are given by the scale ω.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

145

The energy of the ground state diﬀers from the classical minimum energy by 12 ω. This is essentially due the uncertainty relation. The eigenstates, |n can be recast in terms of the variable x. The ground state, |0 is obtained by solving the equation: a|0 = 0.

(2.14)

Note that this equation is a ﬁrst order as opposed to the second order equation that one would have to solve if one attempted to directly solve the Schroedinger equation. This is possible only for the ground state. Using equations (2.10, 2.14):

That is:

(x + ip)φ(x) = 0.

(2.15)

d φ(x) = 0 x+ dx

(2.16)

yielding the ground state wave function: 2 x φ(x) = c exp − · 2

(2.17)

The state |n is given by: (a+ )n |n = √ |0 , n!

(2.18)

which can now be expressed in x-space. This completes the solution of the Bosonic harmonic oscillator. Also note that one could have written H as: 1 H = ω aa+ − · (2.19) 2 So why not obtain a ground state energy of − 12 ω by solving a+ |GS = 0. This ﬁrst order equation always has a solution. It is given by: 1 2 x . φ(x) = c exp 2

(2.20)

(2.21)

To ﬁnd a quantum state it is not enough that it be a zero energy solution of the Schr¨ odinger equation but it must also be normalizable (by normalizable we include plane wave normalisability).

146

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The above solution is not even plane wave normalizable and hence it is not a quantum state. Physically, how do we motivate this restriction? After all, the universe may well be ﬁnite. In such a circumstance the wave function will be exponentially conﬁned to the edge of the universe and thus irrelevant for bulk physics. There may be situations where one will want to study the physics on the boundary. In such cases the “non-normalizable” states should be kept and may play an important role. From now on we will only accept plane wave normalizable states and nothing “worse”. Also recall that, the simple harmonic oscillator is a useful approximation for small excitations above the minimum of a generic potential. We will now note some basic facts concerning the validity of a perturbative expansion. Consider the Hamiltonian, H=

p2q 1 + gq n . 2m 2

(2.22)

One may wonder whether if one can make a perturbative expansion in small or large g or small or large m. To answer this one needs to ﬁnd out if one can remove the g, m dependence the same type of rescaling used for the harmonic oscillator (2.7). Is it possible to deﬁne a new set of dimensionless canonical variables px , x that preserve the commutation relations, such that: [pq , q] = [px , x]

(2.23)

1 H = h(m, g) (p2x + xn ). 2

(2.24)

and

We will make the following ansatz: q = f (m, g)x ,

pq =

1 px , f (m, g)

(2.25)

giving 2H =

p2x + gf (m, g)n xn , mf 2 (m, g)

(2.26)

and so one may choose

1 mf (m, g)2

1 n+2

·

(2.27)

n n 1 H = g 1− n+2 m− n+2 (p2q + q n ). 2

(2.28)

gf (m, g) = The Hamiltonian becomes:

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

147

The role of g and m is just to determine the overall energy scale. They may not serve as perturbation parameters. (This does not apply to the special case of n = −2, which we will return to later.) Thus, Hamiltonians of the form p2 + xn can’t be analyzed perturbatively. Further analysis shows that for Hamiltonians of the form p2 + xn + xm with m < n, perturbation theory is valid. After reviewing the Bosonic harmonic oscillator, we review the harmonic Fermionic Oscillator. The commutation relations become anticommutation relations. + + {aF , a+ F } = 1 , {aF , aF } = {af , aF } = 0.

(2.29)

The Hamiltonian (that does not have a classical analogue) is taken to be, H = ωF (a+ F aF + const.) ,

(2.30)

where ωF is the Fermionic oscillator frequency and, + [a+ F , H] = −aF ,

[aF , H] = aF .

(2.31)

This demonstrates that a+ F , aF are creation and annihilation operators. The spectrum of NF is 0, 1. This is essentially a manifestation of the Pauli exclusion principle. The states are given by |0 , a+ F |0.

(2.32)

This algebra can be realized using the Pauli matrices {σ i } as follows. Deﬁne, σ− =

1 1 (σ1 − iσ2 ) , σ+ = (σ1 + iσ2 ) · 2 2

(2.33)

We then identify, aF = σ− , a+ F = σ+ .

(2.34)

Hence the Hamiltonian becomes: H=

1 ωF (σ3 + 1) + c. 2

(2.35)

For the Bosonic case, we have

1 1 + HB = ωB {aB , aB } = ωB NB + · 2 2

(2.36)

This shifts the energy levels by + 21 ω. By analogy, we choose HF to be, 1 1 HF = ωF [a+ , a ] = ω − N · (2.37) F F F F 2 2

148

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

With this choice, the vacuum energy may cancel between the Bosons and Fermions. We see that the total Hamiltonian becomes: 1 1 H = ωB NB + + ωF NF − · (2.38) 2 2 The Fermionic and Bosonic number operators both commute with the total Hamiltonian. Consider the case when ω = ωF = ωB , here the vacuum energy precisely vanishes. En = ω(nB + nF ).

(2.39)

There is now a symmetry except for the E = 0 state. Deﬁne 1 Q = √ (σ1 p + σ2 x) 2

(2.40)

1 {Q, Q} = Q2 2

(2.41)

H= Q commutes with H. Q2

= = =

1 2 2 σ p + σ22 x2 + σ1 σ2 px + σ2 σ1 xp 2 1

1 2 p + x2 12×2 + iσ3 (px − xp) 2

1 2 1 p + x2 12×2 + σ3 2 2

(2.42) (2.43) (2.44)

hence, H=

1 2 ω (p + x2 12×2 + σ3 ). 2

(2.45)

Q anticommutes with σ3 and commutes with H. We will label a state by its energy E and its Fermion number, NF = 0, 1, i.e. |E, 0 denotes a state with energy E and NF = 0. Thus, H(Q|E, 0) =

E(Q|E, 0)

(2.46)

NF (Q|E, 0) = Q(Q|E, 0) =

1(Q|E, 0) E|E, 0.

(2.47) (2.48)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

149

This implies Q(|E, 0) = Q(|E, 1) =

√ E|E, 1 √ E|E, 0

(2.49) (2.50)

which is valid only for E = 0. For any state |E, NF with E = 0 there is a state with equal energy and diﬀerent NF obtained by the application of Q. The ground state |0, 0 however is annihilated by Q and so is not necessarily paired. Note, that there is a Q2 such that also H = Q22 . 1 1 Q2 = √ (σ2 p − σ1 x) = √ σ2 (p + iσ3 x) 2 2

(2.51)

and, {Q1 , Q2 } = 0. Q1 = iσ3 Q2 .

(2.52)

1 Q± = √ (Q1 ± iQ2 ) 2

(2.53)

We can then deﬁne:

H=

1 {Q+ , Q− } , 2

{Q+ , Q+ } = 0 , {Q− , Q− } = 0.

(2.54)

This was a “free” theory, (i.e. a simple harmonic oscillator). It can be generalized to more complicated cases. We introduce new supercharges that depend on a potential W (x) as follows: Q1

=

Q2

=

1 √ (σ1 p + σ2 W (x)) 2 1 √ (σ2 p − σ1 W (x)). 2

(2.55) (2.56)

In the previous case, with the simple harmonic oscillator, W (x) = 12 x2 . The generalized Hamiltonian is now: 1 2 1 (p + W (x)2 )1 + W (x)σ3 2 2 [H, Qi ] = 0 , [H, σ3 ] = 0 , {Qi , σ3 } = 0. H = Q21 + Q22 =

Thus E ≥ 0 and for E > 0 the spectrum is paired.

(2.57) (2.58)

150

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

There is an analogue in ﬁeld theory. The energy gap in the Bosonic sector (NF = 0) matches the energy gap in the Fermionic (NF = 1) sector. In ﬁeld theory the energy gap between he ﬁrst excited state and the ground state is the particle mass, thus the mass of a free Boson equals that of a free Fermion. Consider the E = 0 case. In general one may have any number of zero energy states in each NF sector. For W (x) = 12 x2 , n(E = 0, NF = 0) = 1 and n(E = 0, NF = 1) = 0 where n denotes the number of states of given E and NF . The full spectrum can’t be solved for general potential W (x). It is necessary to solve two 2nd order equations: 2 φ1 (x) φ1 (x) 0 p + (W )2 + W = 2E · (2.59) 0 p2 + (W )2 − W φ0 (x) φ0 (x) The zero energy solutions on the other hand, can be found (if they exist) for any W (x) by using the following: Hφ = Eφ , H = Q2 .

(2.60)

Hφ = 0 ⇔ Qφ = 0.

(2.61)

0 = 0|H|0 = 0|QQ|0 = (||Q|0||) ⇒ Q|0 = 0.

(2.62)

So

Proof:

Where we have used that Q is Hermitian. One can now solve the ﬁrst order equation to ﬁnd the zero energy states, Qφ = 0

(2.63)

1 √ (σ1 p + σ2 W (x))φ = 0. 2

(2.64)

This leads to two independent ﬁrst order diﬀerential equations: d + W (x) φ1 (x) = 0 − dx d + W (x) φ0 (x) = 0. dx

(2.65) (2.66)

These can be integrated to give the following solutions: φ1 (x) φ0 (x)

= =

φ1 (0) exp(−W (0)) exp(W (x)) φ0 (0) exp(W (0)) exp(−W (x)).

(2.67) (2.68)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

151

A zero energy solution always exists. Is it a physically acceptable solution? If W (x) → ∞ as |x| → ∞ then φ0 (x) is a normalizable solution and one must set φ1 (x) = 0. This corresponds to a Bosonic ground state. If on the other hand W (x) → −∞ as |x| → ∞ then φ1 (x) is a normalizable solution and one must set φ0 to zero and obtain a Fermionic ground state. For W (x) → const. as |x| → ∞ then both solutions are possible. There is at N most one unpaired solution at E = 0. For W (x) = n=0 an xn there is an E = 0 solution if N is even. There is no E = 0 solution if N is odd. Only the leading asymptotic behavior matters. The fact that nE=0 depends on such global information is very useful. It will appear again in a variety of contexts. 2.1 Symmetry and symmetry breaking One can break a symmetry explicitly, as it occurs in the Zeeman eﬀect where one introduces a magnetic ﬁeld in the action that does not possess all the symmetries of the original action. The symmetry may be broken spontaneously. This occurs when the ground state does not posses the symmetry of the action. Spontaneous symmetry breaking plays an important role in the standard model and in a variety of statistical mechanical systems. Assume S is a symmetry of the Hamiltonian, [H, S] = 0. Let |G.S. denote the energy ground state of the system. If the ground state is not invariant under S, that is, if S|G.S = |G.S. then it is said that the symmetry is spontaneously broken. When the symmetry is continuous, it has generators, g and the symmetry is spontaneously broken if g|G.S. = 0. In the case of a continuous symmetry, such a symmetry breaking may result in massless particles (called Goldstone Bosons). Returning to our model, Q is the generator of a continuous symmetry (supersymmetry). The relevant question is whether Q|G.S. = 0, if Q|0 = 0 then there is a supersymmetric ground state and spontaneous supersymmetry breaking does not occur. Q|G.S. = 0 iﬀ EG.S. = 0 and Q|G.S. = 0 iﬀ EG.S. = 0. For the N previously considered potential, W (x) = i ai xi , one sees that if N is even then there is no spontaneous symmetry breaking since there are zero energy normalizable solutions and conversely if N is odd then there is spontaneous symmetry breaking. The consequences on the spectrum are as follows. When there is no spontaneous supersymmetry breaking Fermions and Bosons have the same mass. If supersymmetry is spontaneously broken then the ground state will not have zero energy. Previously it was shown that any state with nonzero energy must be paired with at least one other state (its supersymmetric partner). This implies there will be at least two ground states with identical

152

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings Susy

No Susy

Susy

E

mB mF

mF

mB

E=0

NF=0

NF=0

NF=1

mB=mF >0

NF=1

NF=0

NF=1

mB>mF =0 Fig. 1. Spectra.

energies and one must make a choice for the vacuum. For any choice of ground state, there is a zero energy gap between that ground state and the other possible ground state with Fermion number diﬀerent by one. For example, taking the ground state to be the state with Fermion number zero implies that there is a Fermionic state with the same energy as the ground state thus the Fermion mass will now be zero while the Boson will remain with mass ∆. After spontaneous symmetry breaking the Boson and Fermion masses are no longer equal. The zero mass Fermion is called the Goldstino. It arises from the breaking of a Fermionic symmetry just as the Goldstone Boson arises from breaking a Bosonic symmetry. The Goldstone Boson and the Goldstino have special low energy couplings. 2.2 A nonrenormalisation theorem Consider now the system from a perturbative perspective. Hamiltonian is 2 1 1 2 ∂ 2 + W (x) 1 + σ3 W (x). − H= 2 ∂x2 2

The

(2.69)

First we will do a classical analysis and then we will examine the corrections to the classical result. The classical limit is taken by → 0. H→

1 (W (x))2 ≥ 0. 2

(2.70)

For N even W (x) has at least one zero where W (x0 ) = 0. Classically therefore the ground state has zero energy. This the same as the exact result calculated previously by solving the Schroedinger equation! So how

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

153

do classical results become exact? First let us note that in the Bosonic case, this does not work. For example, the ground state of the simple harmonic oscillator has an energy 12 ω above the classical ground state energy. More generally for the Bosonic Hamiltonian: HB =

1 2 (p + V (x)), 2

(2.71)

when x0 is a minimum of V (x) so that Ecl = 12 V (x0 ) we have a perturbed energy given by: 1 Epert = Ecl + V (x0 ). 2

(2.72)

In a theory with Fermions though, due to the presence of a Yukawa coupling, there is another source for correction. This is analogous to how the zero point energies of a free oscillator cancel between the Bosons and Fermions. Calculating the perturbative energy of the ground state for a supersymmetric theory we have: SUSY Epert =

1 ((W (x0 ))2 + W (x0 ) − W (x0 )). 2

(2.73)

Thus the Bosonic correction is canceled by the Fermionic correction and the classical result is exact. The result is true to all orders in perturbation theory. This generalizes under some circumstances to supersymmetric ﬁeld theories and is known by the name “nonrenormalisation theorem” [26]. As classical results are easier to obtain, this can be made into a very powerful tool. Consider the case W (x) = x3 , N is odd and the supersymmetry is broken; there is no ground state with E = 0. However, Vcl = 12 (3x2 )2 G.S. and Ecl = 0. In this case the classical result is not exact. There are nonperturbative eﬀects that provide corrections. In order to see how nonperturbative eﬀects become relevant we will actually consider the following: W (x) =

1 3 x + ax 3

a < 0.

(2.74)

This also has E = 0 classical solutions and the leading term in W (x) is odd thus there are no exact quantum E = 0 states; the potential is: |W (x) |2 = (x2 + a)2 .

(2.75)

This potential clearly has a vacuum degeneracy. We will label the vacuum states |+, |−. Perturbatively, the energies of these two states are equal.

154

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The energy eigenstates are: |S = |A

=

1 √ (|+ + |−) 2 √ (|+ − |−) 2

(2.76) (2.77)

E(|A) − E(|S) > 0 and the ground state is the symmetric state; its energy gap is:

c (2.78) ∆E = a exp − λ a, c are numerical coeﬃcients. This is a tunneling phenomenon (essentially a nonperturbative eﬀect) that is associated with the presence of instantons. Note that for a > 0 there are no zero energy solutions already classically. 2.3 A two variable realization and ﬂat potentials Consider a two variable realization of supersymmetry. The supercharge is given by: Q=

∂W ψα+ −pα + i ∂xα α=1 2

(2.79)

where W (x, y) is a general function of the Bosonic variables x, y. One can realize ψ1 and ψ2 by the following matrices:   0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0  ψ1 =  (2.80) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0  0 0 ψ2 =  0 0

 0 −1 0 0 0 −1 · 0 0 0 0 0 0

The Hamiltonian has the following structure:   0 0 0 H0  0 H11 H12 0   H=  0 H21 H22 0  · 0 0 0 H2

(2.81)

(2.82)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

155

The possible states are: (1, 1) = (0, 1); (1, 0) = (0, 0) =

+ a+ F1 aF2 |00

(2.83)

+ a+ F1 |00, aF2 |00

(2.84)

|00.

(2.85)

With,

1 H1 = 2

H0

=

H2

=

1 [−∆ + (∇W )2 − ∆W ] 2 1 [−∆ + (∇W )2 + ∆W ] 2

∂11 W (−∆ + (∇W ) − ∆W )1 + 2 ∂21 W 2

∂12 W ∂22 W

(2.86) (2.87) ·

(2.88)

For any W the n = 0, 2 sectors can be solved exactly for E = 0 just as before. Consider the potential W = x(y 2 + c) then Vcl = 12 [(y 2 + c)2 2 + 4x2 y 2 ]. For c > 0, Vcl = 12 c2 > 0 which leads to classical SUSY breaking [27]. Note, Vcl = 12 c2 at y = 0. This is a “ﬂat direction”, the potential is the same for all values of x. Flat directions imply the presence of many vacua. Such ﬂat directions appear in abundance in supersymmetric models and lead in some contexts to supersymmetry breaking. Flat directions in purely Bosonic models are lifted by quantum ﬂuctuations. In supersymmetric systems the Bosonic and Fermionic ﬂuctuations cancel and the ﬂat directions remain. Classically the ground state is non zero which implies that the supersymmetry is broken. What about quantum mechanical eﬀects, can supersymmetry actually be restored? (There are cases where symmetries have been known to be restored quantum mechanically.) For n = 0, 2 sectors, the answer is no; neither ground state is normalisable. What about n = 1 sector? To ﬁnd these states we need to solve the following pseudo-analytic equations:

∂1 eW φ1,0 = ∂2 eW φ0,1 (2.89) −W

−W

∂1 e = −∂2 e (2.90) φ0,1 φ1,0 · Unfortunately, these cannot be solved in general. We will now show that

156

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

from more general arguments that supersymmetry cannot be restored by quantum eﬀects. EW =

φ|H|φ · φ|φ

(2.91)

Consider perturbing the potential, W λ = W 0 + λxi ni where ni ni = 1 and W 0 = x(y 2 + c) is the unperturbed potential. 1 E W (λ) = E W (0) + λ2 + λ d2 x(n · ∇W )φ2 2

(2.92)

(2.93)

where φ denotes the unperturbed solution. (There is no λ dependence from the Yukawa term.) ∂x W = y 2 + x > 0 , φ2 ≥ 0 and d2 xφ2 = 1, thus, d2 x(n · ∇W )φ2 > 0. (2.94) So we may write: 1 E W (λ) = E W (0) + λ2 + λr2 2

(2.95)

where r is some ﬁnite real quantity. E W (λ) ≥ 0; if we now assume E W (0) = 0 then we obtain a contradiction because by taking λ to be small and negative we obtain E W (λ) < 0. This argument is rather general and also works for the 3 variable potential W = ayz + bx(y 2 + c)

(2.96)

(this is the potential used to break supersymmetry spontaneously in scalar ﬁeld theories.) There is a short more elegant argument for non-restoration of supersymmetry that is based on an index theorem. The “Witten index”, [25] is deﬁned by, ∆ = Tr(−1)F =

nF =even (E) − nF =odd (E) .

(2.97)

E

The trace indicates a sum over all states in the Hilbert space, F is the fermion number of the state. nF =even (E), nF =odd (E) denote the number

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

157

of solutions with Fermi number even/odd with energy E. Since the Bosons and fermions are paired at all energies greater than zero then ∆ = nF =even (E = 0) − nF =odd (E = 0).

(2.98)

If ∆ is calculated for some potential W it will not change under perturbations of W (only En will change). In particular, if ∆ = 0 for some W then there will be no spontaneous symmetry breaking under any perturbations in W . On the other hand if ∆ = 0 then we do not know whether SUSY may be broken or not since either nF =even = nF =odd = 0

(2.99)

nF =even = nF =odd = 0.

(2.100)

or

Thus for ∆ = 0 one needs more information. ∆! =1

w

E

∆! !=0

w+!δ w

w+!δ w

w

Q

Q

Q

Q Q

Q Q

E=0

NF= 0

NF=1

NF=0

NF=1

NF=0

NF=1

NF=0

NF=1

Fig. 2. Perturbing the spectrum; ∆ is unchanged.

Returning to the case described above. We have calculated the classical Witten Index to be: ∆cl = 0.

(2.101)

One considers turning on quantum corrections as a perturbation. Since the index is invariant under perturbations, one obtains: 0 = ∆cl = ∆quantum = nqNF =0 (E = 0) + nqNF =2 (E = 0) − nqNF =1 (E = 0). (2.102) We have already shown that nqNF =0 (E = 0) = nqNF =2 (E = 0) = 0

(2.103)

158

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

which in turn implies nNF =1 (E = 0) = 0 ,

(2.104)

thus, there is no supersymmetry restoration. 2.4 Geometric meaning of the Witten index Consider a supersymmetry sigma model with a D dimensional target space whose metric is gij [25], S=

dtgij (x)

dxi dxi ¯ 0 Dt ψi + 1 Rijkl ψ i ψ k ψ j ψ l , + iψγ dt dt 4

(2.105)

Dt denotes a covariant derivative, Rijkl is the curvature. {ψi , ψj } = {ψi∗ , ψj∗ } = 0 , {ψi , ψj∗ } = gij ,

Q=i

D

= φ∗i pi ,

Q∗ = −i

D

i

= φ∗i pi

(2.106)

(2.107)

i

and pi = −Dxi .

(2.108)

The Hilbert space may be graded according to the Fermion occupation number: φ0 φ1 φ2 · · φD

= = =

=

|0, .., 0 {|0, .., 1, .., 0} {|0, .., 1, .., 1, .., 0} · · |1, 1, .., 1

Dim Dim Dim

= = =

1 D 1 2 D(D − 1)

Dim

=

1.

(2.109)

Generically the Dimension of a state with p-Fermions is given by: Dim(p, D) =

D! · (D − p)!p!

(2.110)

This is identical to the dimension of p-forms in D dimensions. Q acts by adding a Fermion hence is a map Q: φp → φp+1 .

(2.111)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

159

From simple Fermi statistics we see that, Q is nilpotent. Hence, we have an isomorphism between p-forms with an exterior derivative, d and the space of states with Fermion occupation number p and supercharge Q. As with any nilpotent operator one can examine its cohomology deﬁned by: Hp =

{dφp = 0} · {φp = dφp−1 }

(2.112)

The dimension of the cohomology is denoted by the Betti number bp = dimH p . The Euler characteristic is then given by the alternating sum of the Betti numbers. (−1)p bp . (2.113) χ= p

Recall that to ﬁnd the E = 0 states, one solved the equation Qφp = 0, hence the E = 0 states are in the cohomology of Q. Thus one has the remarkable correspondence, Tr(−1)F = χ.

(2.114)

The Euler characteristic is a topological invariant and is independent of geometrical perturbations of the manifold. This explains why the Witten index is stable against non-singular perturbations. The Witten index is given a very physical realization in the following example. 2.5 Landau levels and SUSY QM Consider an electron moving in two dimensions in the presence of a perpendicular magnetic ﬁeld. 1 2 2 (2.115) (px + Ax ) 1 + (py + Ay ) 1 + Bz σ3 . H= 2 Two Bosons x, y and one Fermion. This is a less familiar realization of supersymmetry as the number of Bosonic and Fermionic oscillators diﬀer. It is particular to the quantum mechanical system. The supercharges are: Q1

=

Q2

=

1 √ ((px + Ax )σ1 + (py + Ay )σ2 ) 2 1 √ ((px + Ax )σ2 − (py + Ay )σ1 ) 2 [Qi , H] = 0 , {Qi , σ3 } = 0.

(2.116) (2.117)

(2.118)

160

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

In Lorentz gauge, ∂i Ai = 0 we can write Ai = ij ∂j a Bz = −∇2 a. Take Q = Q1 , Q is just like the Dirac operator. To ﬁnd E = 0 states we again use Qφ = 0. Multiplying by σ1 gives: φ1 0 ((px + Ax )1 + iσ3 (py + Ay )) = . (2.119) φ−1 0 One can solve these equations as follows: φ1 (x, y) = exp(−a)f (x + iy) , φ−1 = exp(a)g(x − iy)

(2.120)

where f and g are arbitrary functions. The normalisability of these solutions depends on the function a. In a constant magnetic ﬁeld, taking for example, a = − 12 y 2 B. Depending on the sign of B, either φ1 or φ−1 may be normalizable. If B > 0, take φ1 = 0 and 1 2 (2.121) φ−1 = exp − y B g(x − iy). 2 From translational invariance, a convenient choice is g(x − iy) = exp(ik(x − iy)).

(2.122)

There are an inﬁnite number of E = 0 states. (This is true also for any E not just E = 0.) Let us examine this from a topological point of view. The total magnetic ﬂux is: 2π 1 1 Φ= dθr∂r a |r=∞ . (2.123) d2 rBz = − 2π 2π 0 Φ = 0 implies a(r = ∞) = 0 and one has only plane wave normalizable states. Take a constant negative B ﬁeld with a = − 41 r2 B. The solution is: φ+1 =

c n r exp(inθ). r|Φ|

(2.124)

For B constant Φ → ∞ and there are an inﬁnite number of allowed states, i.e. all n. Now assume that Φ is ﬁnite because B is conﬁned in a solenoid, for example. In such a case, normalisability requires that n is bounded by [Φ − 1]. (Φ is quantized). Thus the number of E = 0 states is given by the total ﬂux number, n(E=0) = |Φ|.

(2.125)

The total magnetic ﬂux is a global quantity that is independent of local ﬂuctuations. Again we have shown how the number of zero energy states does not depend on the local details but only upon global information.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

161

2.6 Conformal quantum mechanics Relevant material for this section may be found in [28–30]. Recall the Hamiltonian: H=

1 2 (p + gx−2 ) 2

(2.126)

is special since g has a meaning. H is part of an algebra: [H, D] = iH , [K, D] = iK , [H, K] = 2iD.

(2.127)

This forms an SO(2,1) algebra where: 1 1 D = − (xp + px) , K = x2 4 2

(2.128)

and H is as given above. The Casimir is given by: 1 3 g (HK + KH) − D2 = − · 2 4 16

(2.129)

The meaning of D and K is perhaps clearer in the Lagrangian formalism: 1 2 g (2.130) L= x˙ − 2 , S = dtL. 2 x Symmetries of the action S, and not the Lagrangian L alone, are given by: t =

A=

a c

b , d

H acts as translation AT = D acts as dilation AD

at + b 1 , x (t ) = x(t) ct + d ct + d detA = ad − bc = 1

(2.132)

t = t + δ

(2.133)

t = α2 t

(2.134)

1 0 , δ 1

α = 0

0

1 α

(2.131)

,

K acts as a special conformal transformation t 1 δ AK = · , t = 0 1 δt + 1

(2.135)

162

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The spectrum of the Hamiltonian 2.126 is the open set (0, ∞), the spectrum is therefore continuous and bounded from below. The wave functions are given by: √ √ ψE (x) = xJ√g+ 1 ( 2Ex) E = 0. (2.136) 4

We will now attempt to ﬁnd the zero energy state. φ(x) = xα : d2 g H = − 2 + 2 xα = 0. dx x

Take the ansatz

(2.137)

This implies g = −α(α − 1)

(2.138)

solving this equation gives

√ 1 + 4g 1 · (2.139) α=− ± 2 2 This gives two independent solutions and by completeness all the solutions. α+ > 0, does not lead to a normalizable solution since the function diverges at inﬁnity. α− < 0, is not normalizable either since the function diverges at the origin (a result of the scale symmetry). Thus, there is no normalizable E = 0 solution (not even plane wave normalizable)!

H

?

∞

x

Fig. 3. The absence of a normalisable ground state for this potential.

Most of the analysis in ﬁeld theory proceeds by identifying a ground state and the ﬂuctuations around it. How do we deal with a system in the absence of a ground state?

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

163

One possibility is to accept this as a fact of life. Perhaps it is possible to view this as similar to cosmological models that also lack a ground state such those with Quintessence. Another possibility is to deﬁne a new evolution operator that does have a ground state. G = uH + vD + wK.

(2.140)

2

This operator has a ground state if v − 4uw < 0. Any choice explicitly breaks Lorentz and scale invariance. Take for example, 1 1 K + aH ≡ R (2.141) G= 2 a a has dimension of length. The eigenvalues of R are 1 1 rn = r0 + n , r0 = 1+ g+ · 2 4

(2.142)

One must interpret what this means physically. Surprisingly this question arises in the context of black hole physics. Consider a particle of mass m and charge q falling into a charged black hole. The black hole is BPS meaning that its mass, M and charge, Q are related by M = Q. The blackhole metric is given by: −2 2 M M r 2 2 · dt + 1 + (dr2 + r2 dΩ2 ) , At = ds = − 1 + r r M (2.143) Now consider the near Horizon limit i.e. r << M , which we will take by M → ∞ keeping r ﬁxed. 2

r 2 M ds2 = − dt2 + dr2 + M 2 dΩ2 . (2.144) M r This produces an AdS2 × S 2 geometry. We also wish to keep ﬁxed M 2 (m − q) as we scale M . This means we must scale (m − q) → 0. That is the particle itself becomes BPS in the limit. The Hamiltonian for this in falling particle in this limit is given by our old friend: g 4l(l + 1) p2 · (2.145) g = 8M 2 (m − q) + H= r + 2 , 2m 2r M For l = 0, we have g > 0 and there is no ground state. This is associated with the coordinate singularity at the Horizon. The change in evolution operator is now associated with a change of time coordinate. One for which the world line of a static particle passes through the black hole horizon instead of remaining in the exterior of the space time.

164

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

2.7 Superconformal quantum mechanics The bosonic conformal mechanical system had no ground state. The absence of a E = 0 ground state in the supersymmetric context leads to the breaking of supersymmetry. This breaking has a diﬀerent ﬂavor from that which was discussed earlier. Next the supersymmetric version of conformal quantum mechanics is examined to see if supersymmetry is indeed broken. For this the superpotential is chosen to be, W (x) =

1 g log x2 , 2

(2.146)

yielding a Hamiltonian: 1 H= 2

2

p +

dw dx

2

d2 W 1 − σ3 dx2

·

Representing ψ by 12 σ− and ψ ∗ by 12 σ+ gives the supercharges: dw dW + + Q=ψ −ip + , Q = ψ ip + · dx dx

(2.147)

(2.148)

One now has a larger algebra, the superconformal algebra, {Q, Q+ } +

{S, S }

= 2H , {Q, S + } = g − B + 2iD +

= 2K , {Q , S} = g − B − 2iD.

(2.149) (2.150)

A realization is: B = σ3 , S = ψ + x , S + = ψx.

(2.151)

The zero energy solutions are exp(±W (x)) = x±g , neither solution is normalizable. H factorizes: p2 + g(g+1) x2 2H = 0

(2.152)

0 p2 +

and we may solve for the full spectrum: √ 1 ψE (x) = x 2 J√ν (x 2E) ,

g(g−1) x2

E = 0 ,

(2.153)

(2.154)

where ν = g(g − 1) + 14 for NF = 0 and ν = g(g + 1) + 14 for NF = 1. Again the spectrum is continuous though there is no normalizable zero energy

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

165

state. Again we must interpret the absence of a normalizable ground state. One can again deﬁne a new operator with a normalizable ground state. By inspection the operator (2.141) can be used provided one makes the following identiﬁcations: NF NF

= 1 = 0

gB = gsusy (gsusy + 1) , gB = gsusy (gsusy − 1).

(2.155) (2.156)

Thus the spectrum diﬀers between the NF = 1 and NF = 0 sectors and so supersymmetry would be broken. One needs to deﬁne a whole new set of operators: M + = Q+ − S +

M =Q−S +

N =Q +S

+

N

+

=Q+S

+

(2.157) (2.158)

which produces the algebra: 1 {M, M + } = 4 1 {N, N + } = 4 1 {M, N } = 4 L±

=

1 1 R + B − g ≡ T1 2 2 1 1 R + B + g ≡ T2 2 2 1 L− {M + , N + } = L+ 4 1 − (H − K ∓ 2iD) 2

(2.159) (2.160) (2.161) (2.162)

T1 , T2 , H have a doublet spectra. “Ground states” are given by: T1 |0 = 0 ;

T2 |0 = 0 ;

H|0 = 0 .

(2.163)

A physical context arises when one considers a supersymmetric particle falling into a black hole [31,32]. This is the supersymmetric analogue of the situation already discussed. 3

Review of supersymmetric models

3.1 Kinematics For a more detailed discussion of the material presented in this section see [3]. The possible particle content of supersymmetric (SUSY) theories is determined by the SUSY algebra, its N = 1 version is: ¯ α˙ } = 2σ µ Pµ , {Qα , Qβ } = {Q ¯ α˙ , Q ¯ ˙ } = 0. {Qα , Q β αβ˙

(3.1)

¯ α˙ ] = [Pµ , Pν ] = 0. [Pµ , Qα ] = [Pµ , Q

(3.2)

166

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

This algebra can be generalized to include a higher number of supersymmetries N = 2, 4 by: {Qiα , Q¯j α˙ } = 2δ ij σαµβ˙ Pµ + δαβ˙ Uij + (γ5 )αβ˙ Vij ,

(3.3)

U and V are the central charges i.e. they commute with all other charges (they are antisymmetric in ij). They are associated with BPS states such as monopoles. We will discuss in this section the d = 4 realisations with, µ, ν = 0, 1, 2, 3 the space-time indices. In four dimensions we have two component Weyl Fermions. Those with α or β indices transform under the (0, 12 ) representation of the Lorentz group; and those with dotted indices, α˙ or β˙ transform under the ( 12 , 0) representation. Consider ﬁrst the massless representations of N = 1 supersymmetry. The simplest is the the chiral multiplet: 1 1 (φ, ψ) (2, 2). (3.4) − , 0, 0, 2 2 In the above table, ﬁrst are written the helicities; then the associated component ﬁelds, φ denotes a complex scalar and ψ a Weyl Fermion; and ﬁnally are the number of physical degrees of freedom carried by the Bosons and Fermions. The vector multiplet has: 1 1 (λα , Aµ ) (2, 2) (3.5) −1, − , , 1 2 2 λ is a Weyl Fermion and Aµ is a vector ﬁeld. With N = 2 supersymmetry, there is a massless vector multiplet: − 21 0 12 1 (φ, ψ) + (λα , Aµ ) (4, 4) (3.6) −1 1 − 2 0 12 and a massless hypermultiplet which is given by:   0 − 21 0 12    (φ1 , ψ1 ) + (φ2 , ψ2 ) − 1 , 0 , 1  2

0

(4, 4).

(3.7)

2

For massive multiplets, in N = 1, there is again the chiral multiplet which is the same as the massless multiplet but with now massive ﬁelds. The massive vector multiplet becomes: − 21 0 12 1 (h, ψα , λα , Aµ ) (4, 4). (3.8) −1 1 − 2 0 12

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

167

Where h is a real scalar ﬁeld. The massive vector multiplet has a diﬀerent ﬁeld content than the massless vector multiplet because a massive vector ﬁeld has an additional physical degree of freedom. One sees that the massive vector multiplet is composed out of a massless chiral plus massless vector multiplet. This can occur dynamically; massive vector multiplets may appear by a supersymmetric analogue of the Higgs mechanism. With N = 4 supersymmetry, the massless vector multiplet is:   0   − 21 0 12     1 1   −2 0 2 a I −1 , , 1 , 1 (8, 8) (3.9) 1 ,   (λ , φ , Aµ ) 0 −   2 2     − 21 0 12 0 where I = 1..6, a = 1..4. 3.2 Superspace and chiral ﬁelds Spacetime can be extended to include Grassmann spinor coordinates, θ¯α˙ , θα . Superﬁelds are then functions of this superspace. Constructing a Lagrangian out of superﬁelds provides a useful way to construct explicitly supersymmetric Lagrangians. Recall the integration formulas for Grassmann variables: ∂ =1, dθα = 0. (3.10) dθα θα = ∂θα The following identity will be of use: ∂2L 2 2¯ d θd θL = d2 θ ¯ ¯ · ∂ θ1 θ2

(3.11)

The supercharges can be realized in superspace by generators of supertranslations: Qα =

∂ − iσαµα˙ θ¯α˙ ∂µ , ∂θα

¯ α˙ = − ∂ + iθα σ µ ∂µ . Q αα˙ ∂ θ¯α˙

(3.12)

It will also be useful to deﬁne a supercovariant derivative: Dα =

∂ + iσαµα˙ θ¯α˙ ∂µ , ∂θα

¯ α˙ = − ∂ − iθα σ µ ∂µ . D αα˙ ∂ θ¯α˙

(3.13)

A superﬁeld Φ is called “chiral” if: ¯ α˙ Φ = 0. D

(3.14)

168

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

One introduces the variable, y µ = xµ + iθσ µ θ¯ which produces the following expansion for a chiral ﬁeld, √ Φ(y) = A(y) + 2θψ(y) + θθF (y).

(3.15)

(3.16)

The Taylor expansion terminates because of the anticommuting property of the Grassmann coordinates. As a function of x it may be written as follows: Φ(x)

=

√ ¯ ¯ µ A(x) + 1 θθθ¯θA(x) A(x) + iθσ µ θ∂ + 2θψ(x) (3.17) 4 i µ¯ − √ θθ∂µ ψ(x)σ θ + θθF (x). (3.18) 2

The key point is that

L=

d2 θΦ(x)

(3.19)

is a invariant under supersymmetric transformations (up to a total derivative). After the integration some terms will disappear from the expansion of Φ(x) leaving only: √ (3.20) Φ(x) = A(x) + 2θψ(x) + θθF (x) A(x) will be associate with a complex Boson; ψ(x) will be associated with a Weyl Fermion and F (x) acts as an auxiliary ﬁeld that contributes no physical degrees of freedom. These are called the component ﬁelds of the superﬁeld. The product of two chiral ﬁelds also produces a chiral ﬁeld. Therefore, any polynomial, W (Φ) can be used to construct a supersymmetry invariant as (3.21) L = d2 θW (Φ) = FW (Φ) is a supersymmetry invariant. This is used to provide a potential for the chiral ﬁeld. The kinetic terms are described by: ¯ i Φj |θθθ¯θ¯ . ¯ i Φj = Φ (3.22) d2 θd2 θ¯Φ After expanding and extracting the θθθ¯θ¯ term is (up to total derivatives): i ¯ µ Fi∗ Ff − |∂µ A|2 + ∂µ ψ¯ σ ψ. 2

(3.23)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

169

One thus composes the following Lagrangian: ¯ i Φi |θθθ¯θ¯ + λi Φi + 1 mij Φi Φj + 1 gijk Φi Φj Φk L = Φ (3.24) 2 3 θθ 1 ¯ ψi + A∗i Ai + Fi∗ Fi + λi Fi + mij Ai Fj − ψi ψj = i∂ ψ¯i σ 2 +gijk (Ai Aj Fk − ψi ψj Ak ) + h.c. (3.25) One must now eliminate the auxiliary ﬁelds Fi , Fi∗ . The equation of motion for Fk∗ is as follows: ∗ Fk + λ∗k + mij A∗i + gijk A∗i A∗j .

(3.26)

This gives: L

1 1 = i∂ ψ¯i σ ¯ ψi + A∗i Ai − mij ψi ψj − m∗ij ψi∗ ψj∗ 2 2 ∗ ¯ ¯ −gijk ψi ψj Ak − gijk ψi ψj A∗k − Fi∗ Fi

(3.27)

∗

where the last term is a potential for A, A ; these are known as the F terms, VF (A∗ , A). (Note, VF ≥ 0). At the ground state this must vanish i.e. VF (A∗ , A) = 0. This in turn implies that Fi = 0 for the ground state. Although this is a classical analysis so far, in fact it is true to all orders in perturbation theory as there exists a non renormalization theorem for the eﬀective potential. 3.3 K¨ahler potentials To describe the supersymmetric Lagrangian for scalar ﬁelds spanning a more complicated manifold it is convenient to introduce the following supersymmetry invariant: ¯ (3.28) d4 θK(Φ, Φ). ¯ is called the K¨ K(Φ, Φ) ahler potential. One may add any function of Φ or ¯ Φ to the integrand since these terms will vanish after integration. For the ¯ which produces the usual kinetic terms, K is taken to be given by K = ΦΦ ∗i µ j −δij ∂µ A ∂ A kinetic terms for the scalars. For the case of a sigma model with a target space whose metric is gij ; this metric is related to the K¨ahler potential by: gij =

∂2K ¯ i ∂Φj · ∂Φ

(3.29)

The above supersymmetry invariant (3.28) which previously gave the usual kinetic terms in the action, produces for general K the action of a supersymmetric sigma model, with the target space metric given by equation (3.29).

170

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

3.4 F-terms In this section we examine the vanishing of the potential generated by the F terms. The issues we are interested in are whether supersymmetry is spontaneously broken; is there a non renormalization theorem; and are there other internal symmetries broken. VF = 0 ⇔ Fi = 0

∀i ,

(3.30)

are n (complex) equations with n (complex) unknowns. Generically, they have a solution. Take the example of the one component WZ model, where F1 = −λ − mA + gA2 .

(3.31)

This has a solution. There is no supersymmetry breaking classically. The Witten index Tr(−1)F = 2. This implies the classical result is exact. Note, that for λ = 0, V = A∗ A|(gA − m)|2

(3.32)

and hence there will be a choice of vacuum: either A = or A = 0. The claim is that the form of the eﬀective interacting superpotential Weﬀ will be the same as the classical superpotential Wcl . Take Wcl to have the form: 1 1 (3.33) W = mΦ2 + λΦ3 . 2 3 To show that the form of W remains invariant, the following ingredients are used: the holomorphic dependence of W (Φ, m, λ), that is W is independent of m∗ , λ∗ , Φ∗ ; and the global symmetries present in the theory [33]. m g

3.5 Global symmetries R-symmetry is a global U (1) symmetry that does not commute with the supersymmetry. The action of the R-symmetry on a superﬁeld Φ with R-character n as follows. RΦ(θ, x) =

exp(2inα)Φ(exp(−iαθ), x)

(3.34)

¯ x) = ¯ θ, RΦ(

¯ x). exp(−2inα)Φ(exp(iαθ),

(3.35)

Since the R-charge does not commute with the supersymmetry, the component ﬁelds of the chiral ﬁeld have diﬀerent R-charges. For a superﬁeld Φ with R-character n, the R-charges of the component ﬁelds may be read oﬀ as follows: R(lowest component of Φ) = R(A) ≡ n , R(ψ) = n − 1 ,

R(F ) = n − 2. (3.36)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

171

The R-charge of the Grassmann variables is given by: R(θα ) = 1 , R(dθα ) = −1

(3.37)

¯ is with, barred variables having opposite R charge. The kinetic term ΦΦ ¯ ¯ an R invariant. (θ θθθ is an invariant.) For the potential term, d2 θW (3.38) to have zero R charge requires that R(W ) = 2. For the mass term W = 1 2 2 mΦ , W = mψψ + m2 |A|2 ,

(3.39)

to have vanishing R-charge requires R(Φ) = R(A) = 1 , R(ψ) = 0.

(3.40)

Adding the cubic term: W3 =

λ 3 Φ 3

(3.41)

produces V = |λ|2 |A|4 + λAψψ.

(3.42)

This term is not R-invariant with the R-charges given by (3.40). To restore R-invariance requires λ is assigned an R-charge of −1. This can be viewed as simply a book keeping device or more physically one can view the coupling as the vacuum expectation value of some ﬁeld. The expectation value inherits the quantum numbers of the ﬁeld. This is how one treats for example the mass parameters of Fermions in the standard model. There is also one other global U (1) symmetry that commutes with the supersymmetry. All component ﬁelds are charged the same with respect to this U (1) symmetry. Demanding that the terms in the action maintain this symmetry requires an assignment of U (1) charges to λ, and m. The charges are summarized in the following table: Φ m λ W

U (1) U (1)R 1 1 −2 0 −3 −1 0 2.

(3.43)

These symmetries are next used to prove the nonrenormalisation theorem.

172

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

3.6 The eﬀective potential That the eﬀective potential be invariant under the global U (1) implies that Weﬀ (Φ, m, λ) = g1 (mΦ2 , λΦ3 ) ,

(3.44)

combining this with the invariance under the U (1) R-symmetry implies λΦ 2 Weﬀ = mΦ g · (3.45) m Consider expanding in |λ| << 1, 2

mΦ g

λΦ m

=

∞ λn Φn+2 1 1 mΦ2 + Φ3 + an · 2 3 mn−1 n=2

(3.46)

As λ → 0 one must recover the classical potential. This requires that n ≥ 0. Consider the limit m → 0, for the function to be free of singularities implies that n < 1. There can therefore be no corrections to the form of Weﬀ [33]. In particular, if he classical superpotential has unbroken supersymmetry so does the full theory. (On the other hand, the Kahler potential is renormalized.) 3.7 Supersymmetry breaking Let us examine now how supersymmetry may be spontaneously broken. The following anecdote may be of some pedagogical value [34]. It turns out that a short time after supersymmetry was introduced arguments were published which claimed to prove that supersymmetry cannot be broken spontaneouly. Supersymmetry resisted breaking attmepts for both theories of scalars and gauge theories. One could be surprised that the breaking was ﬁrst achieved in the gauge systems. This was done by Fayet and Illiopoulos. The presence in the collaboration of a student who paid little respect to the general counter arguements made the discovery possible. Fayet went on to discover the breaking mechanism also in supersymmetric scalar theories as did O’Raighfeartaigh. The Fayet-O’Raifeartaigh potential [35, 36] is the ﬁeld theory analogue of the potential given by equation (2.96) for supersymmetric quantum mechanics. In order to break supersymmetry a minimum of three chiral ﬁelds are needed: LPotential = λΦ0 + mΦ1 Φ2 + gΦ0 Φ1 Φ1 + h.c.

(3.47)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

173

Minimizing the potential leads to the following equations: 0 = 0 =

λ + gΦ1 Φ1 mΦ2 + 2gΦ0 Φ1

(3.48) (3.49)

0 =

mΦ1 .

(3.50)

These cannot be consistently solved so there cannot be a zero energy ground state and supersymmetry must be spontaneously broken. To ﬁnd the ground state one must write out the full Lagrangian including the kinetic terms in component ﬁelds and then minimize. Doing so one discovers that in the ground state A1 = A2 = 0 and A0 is arbitrary. The arbitrariness of A0 is a ﬂat direction in the potential, like in the quantum mechanical example (2.96). Computing the masses by examining the quadratic terms for component ﬁelds gives the following spectrum: the six real scalars have masses: 0, 0, m2 m2 , m2 ± 2gλ; and the Fermions have masses: 0, 2m. The zero mass Fermion is the Goldstino. We turn next to supersymmetric theories that are gauge invariant. 3.8 Supersymmetric gauge theories A vector superﬁeld contains spin 1 and spin reality condition V = V¯ . V

=

1 2

component ﬁelds. It obeys a

¯ µ B + θχθ¯χ ¯ + +θ2 C + θ¯2 C¯ − θσ µ θA 1 ¯λ ¯ + 1σ ¯ µ ∂µ χ) − iθ¯2 θ(λ − σ µ ∂µ χ) +iθ2 θ( ¯ 2 2 1 + θ2 θ¯2 (D2 + ∂ 2 B) 2

(3.51) (3.52) (3.53)

B, D, Aµ are real and C is complex. There will be a local U (1) symmetry with gauge parameter, Λ an arbitrary chiral ﬁeld: ¯ V → V + i(Λ − Λ)

(3.54)

B, χ, and C are gauge artifacts and can be gauged away. The symmetry is actually U (1)C as opposed to the usual U (1)R because although the vector ﬁeld transforms with a real gauge parameter, the other ﬁelds transform with gauge parameters that depend on the imaginary part of Λ. It is possible to construct a chiral superﬁeld, Wα , from V as follows 1¯¯ ¯ ˙ Wα = 0. DDα V , D Wα = − D β 4

(3.55)

174

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

One may choose a gauge (called the Wess Zumino gauge) in which B, C and χ = 0 and then expand in terms of component ﬁelds, ¯ µ + iθ2 θ¯λ ¯ − iθ¯2 θλ + 1 θ2 θ¯2 D V (y) = −θσ µ θA (3.56) 2 i ¯ α θ2 . (3.57) Wα (y) = −iλα + δαβ D − (σ µ σ ¯ ν )βα Fµν θβ + (σ µ ∂µ λ) 2 Where Aµ is the vector ﬁeld, Fµν its ﬁeld strength, λ is the spin 12 ﬁeld and D is an auxiliary scalar ﬁeld. Under the symmetry (3.54), the component ﬁelds transform under a now U (1)R symmetry as: Aµ → Aµ − i∂µ (B − B ∗ ) , λ → λ , D → D.

(3.58)

Note, W is gauge invariant. The following supersymmetric gauge invariant Lagrangian is then constructed: −iτ L = d2 θ (3.59) W α Wα + h.c. 16π where the coupling constant τ is now complex, τ=

θ 4π +i 2 · 2π g

(3.60)

Expanding this in component ﬁelds produces, L=

1 i −1 ¯ + θ (∗F )µν Fµν . Fµν F µν + 2 D2 − 2 λσDλ 4g 2 2g g 32π 2

(3.61)

D is clearly a non propagating ﬁeld. The theta term couples to the instanton number density (this vanishes for abelian ﬁelds in a non-compact space). A monopole in the presence of such a coupling will get electric charge through the Witten eﬀect. The supersymmetries acting on the component ﬁelds are, (up to total derivatives): √ 2 ψ (3.62) δ A = √ µ √ δ ψ = i 2σ ¯

∂µ A + 2 F (3.63) √ µ δ F = i 2¯

σ ¯ ∂µ ψ (3.64) ¯ δ Fµν = i( σµ ∂ν λ + ¯σ (3.65) ¯µ ∂ν λ) − (µ ↔ ν) δ λ δ D

=

i D + σ µν Fµν

(3.66)

=

¯ .

¯σ ¯ ∂µ λ − σ ∂µ λ

(3.67)

µ

µ

One may also add to the action a term linear in the vector ﬁeld V , known as a Fayet-Iliopoulos term [37]: ¯ = KD = dθα Wα + h.c. 2K d2 θd2 θV (3.68)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

175

Its role will be discussed later. The U (1) gauge ﬁelds couple to charged chiral matter through the following term ¯ i exp(qi V )Φi . L= (3.69) d2 θd2 θ¯Φ i

Under the gauge transformation ¯ , Φi → exp(−iqi Λ)Φi . V → V + i(Λ − Λ)

(3.70)

Since there are chiral Fermions there is the the possibility for chiral anomalies. In order that the theory is free from chiral anomalies one requires: qi = qi3 = 0. (3.71) Writing out the term (3.69) in components produces: iq ¯σ ∂µ + iq qAµ ψ L = F ∗ F − |∂µ φ + Aµ φ|2 − iφ¯ 2 2 iq ¯ ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ − √ φλψ − φλψ + qDφφ. 2 2

(3.72) (3.73)

There are two auxiliary ﬁelds, the D and F ﬁelds. ˜ (Φ) Adding the kinetic term (3.61) for the vector ﬁeld and a potential, W for the matter, gives the total Lagrangian, 2 α 2 ¯¯ i ˜ (3.74) L = d θ W Wα + d θΦ exp(qi V )Φi + W (Φ) this produces the following potential, V =

2 ∂W ˜ q2

|φi |2 . (2K + | i |2 + ∂φ 4 i

(3.75)

The ﬁrst term is the F -term and the second is the D-term. Both these terms need to vanish for unbroken supersymmetry. Some remarks about this potential: Generically the F -terms should vanish since there are n equations for n unknowns. If φi = 0, that is if the U (1) is not spontaneously broken then supersymmetry is broken if and only if KF.I. = 0. When K = 0 and the F -terms have a solution then so will the D-term and there will be no supersymmetry breaking. These ideas are demonstrated by the following example. Consider ﬁelds Φ1 , Φ2 with opposite U (1) charges and Lagrangian given by: L =

1 ¯ 1 exp(eV )Φ1 (W α Wα + h.c.) + Φ 4 ¯ 2 exp(−eV )Φ2 + mΦ1 Φ2 + h.c. + 2KV. +Φ

(3.76) (3.77)

176

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

This leads to the potential: V =

1 2 D + F1 F1∗ + F2 F2∗ 2

(3.78)

where e D + K + (A∗1 A1 − A∗2 A2 ) = 0 2 F1 + mA2 ∗ = 0 F2 + mA∗1 = 0.

(3.79) (3.80) (3.81)

Leading to the following expression for the potential: 1 1 1 1 2 V = K 2 + m2 + eK A∗1 A1 + m2 − eK A∗2 A2 + e2 (A∗1 A1 −A∗2 A2 ) . 2 2 2 8 (3.82) Consider the case, m2 > 12 eK. The scalars have mass, m2 + 12 eK and m2 − 12 eK. The vector ﬁeld has zero mass. Two Fermions have mass m and one Fermion is massless. Since the vector ﬁeld remains massless then the U (1) symmetry remains unbroken. For K = 0, supersymmetry is broken as the Bosons and Fermions have diﬀerent masses. (For K = 0 though the symmetry is restored.) The massless Fermion (the Photino) is now a Goldstino. Note that a trace of the supersymmetry remains as TrMB2 = TrMF2 even after the breaking of supersymmetry. Next, consider the case, m2 < 12 eK; at the minimum, A1 = 0, A2 = 1

eK−m2

v where v 2 ≡ 4 2 e2 . The potential expanded around this minimum becomes, with A ≡ A1 and A˜ ≡ A2 − v: 2m2 1 1 2 2 2 e V = (eK − m ) + v (3.83) Aµ Aµ e2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 ˜ ˜∗ 2 ∗ (3.84) +2m A A = ( e v ) √ A + A 2 2 2

1 ¯ ¯ (3.85) + m2 + e2 v 2 ψ ψ˜ + ψ¯ψ˜ + 0 × λλ. 2

The ﬁrst term implies that supersymmetry is broken for m > 0. The photon is now massive, m2γ = 12 e2 v 2 implying that the U (1) symmetry is broken as well. The Higgs ﬁeld, √12 (A˜ + A˜∗ ))2 has the same mass as the photon. Two Fermions have non-zero mass and there is one massless Fermion, the Goldstino.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

177

In the above example there is both supersymmetry breaking and U (1) symmetry breaking except when m = 0 in which case the supersymmetry remains unbroken. Next consider a more generic example where there is U (1) breaking but no supersymmetry breaking, Φ is neutral under the U (1) while Φ+ has charge +1 and Φ− has charge −1. The potential is given by: L=

1 mΦ2 + µΦ+ Φ− + λΦΦ+ Φ− + h.c. 2

(3.86)

There are two branches of solutions to the vacuum equations (a denotes the vacuum expectation value of A etc.): a+ a− = 0 , a = −

λ m

which leads to no U (1) breaking and 1 mµ µ a+ a− = − λ− ,a = − 8 g g

(3.87)

(3.88)

which breaks the U (1) symmetry. Note, the presence of a ﬂat direction: a+ → eα a+ , a− → e−αa−

(3.89)

leaves a− a+ ﬁxed and the vacuum equations are still satisﬁed. Typical generic supersymmetry breaking leads to the breaking of R-symmetry. Since there is a broken global symmetry this would lead to the presence of Goldstone Boson corresponding to the broken U (1)R . Inverting this argument leads to the conclusion that supersymmetric breaking in nature cannot be generic since we do not observe such a particle. So far we have only dealt with U (1) vector ﬁelds. One can also consider non-abelian groups. The ﬁelds are in an adjoint representation of the group, Aaµ , λa , Da , the index a is the group index, a = 1..dim(group) and Da = ¯ a i φi TR(Φi ) Φi . Only if there is a U (1) factor will the Fayet-Iliopoulos term be non-vanishing. We wish to examine the properties of potentials with ﬂat directions. Take the simple example of an abelian theory with no Fayet-Iliopoulos terms and no F -terms. This gives a U (1) theory with oppositely charged ﬁelds Φ+ , Φ− . The vanishing of the D-term implies: D = |Φ+ |2 − |Φ− |2 = 0.

(3.90)

Four real ﬁelds obeying the constraint: Φ+ = exp(iα)Φ−

(3.91)

178

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

implies a three dimensional conﬁguration space. However there is still the U (1) gauge symmetry that one must mod out by. This leaves a two dimensional moduli space. A convenient gauge ﬁxing is, Φ + = Φ− .

(3.92)

There remains a Z2 residual gauge symmetry however: Φ+ → −Φ+ .

(3.93)

After moding out by this action, the classical moduli space is given by the orbifold, ZC2 . There is therefore a ﬁxed point at Φ+ = 0, which will be a singularity. What is the physical interpretation of this singularity in moduli space? Let us study the space in terms of gauge invariant variables: M ≡ Φ+ Φ− .

(3.94)

Using Φ− = Φ+ , the Kahler potential becomes: ¯ − Φ− = 2 Φ ¯ + Φ+ = +2 M M ¯. ¯ + Φ+ + Φ K =Φ

(3.95)

The metric will then be: ds2 =

¯ 1 dM dM √ · ¯ 2 MM

(3.96)

There is a singularity in moduli space when M = 0. By expanding the D-term, ones sees that M is a parameter that determines the mass of the matter ﬁelds. Thus the singularity in moduli space is a signature of a particle becoming massless. Note, there is no nonrenormalisation theorem for the Kahler potential. When K = 0, (as is the case above) the moduli space is determined in the following way. In the absence of an F -term then there is always a solution to the D-term equations. The moduli space is the space of all ﬁelds Φi , such that Da = 0, modulo GR gauge transformations. This is equivalent to the space of all constant Φ ﬁelds modulo the complex GC gauge transformations. When K = 0 but in the presence of an F -term, then provided there are solutions to the F -terms equations, the D-terms automatically vanish. The moduli space is then given by the space of ﬁelds that solve the F -term equations modulo complex GC gauge transformations. Moreover the moduli space, GΦCi is spanned by a basis of the independent gauge singlets (such as m = φ+ φ− ).

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories 4

179

Phases of gauge theories

First we will gain our intuition from D = 4 lattice gauge theories, i.e. ZN valued gauge ﬁelds with coupling g [38–43] 2 The eﬀective “temperature” of the system will be given by, T = N2πg · For a given theory there is a lattice of electric and magnetically charged operators where the electric charge is denoted by n and the magnetic charge by m. An operator with charges (n, m) is perturbative i.e. it is an irrelevant operator and weakly coupled to system, so long as the free energy, F > 0, that is, n2 T +

C m2 > , T N

(4.1)

however when the free energy is negative for the operator (n, m), it condenses indicating the presence of a relevant operator and hence an infra-red instability, this occur when, n2 T +

C m2 < · T N

(4.2)

Keeping N , C ﬁxed and vary T . How does the theory change? There are three phases depending which operators condense. At small T , there is electric condensation which implies that there is electric charge screening, magnetic charges are conﬁned, and the log of the Wilson loop is proportional to the length of the perimeter of the loop. (This is called the Higgs phase.) At high T , magnetic condensation occurs, this is the dual of electric condensation. Magnetic charges are screened, electric charges are conﬁned and the log of the Wilson loop is proportional to the area. (This is called the conﬁnement phase.) For intermediate values of T it is possible that there is neither screening of charges nor conﬁnement, this is the Coulomb phase. In the presence of a theta parameter, an electric charge picks up a magnetic charge and becomes dyonic [44]. n = n +

θ m. 2π

(4.3)

This lead to a tilted lattice of dyonic charges and one may condense dyons with charges (n0 , m0 ). This leads to what is called oblique conﬁnement with the charges commensurate with (n0 , m0 ) being screened and all other charges being conﬁned [43]. How does this relate to QCD? There are ideas that conﬁnement in QCD occurs due the condensation of QCD monopoles [45–47]. It is diﬃcult to

180

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

m (magnetic) Higgs

(T<<1)

Possibly Coulomb (T~1) (T>>1) Confinement

n (electric)

Fig. 4. The diﬀerent possible phases.

study this phenomenon directly. The Dirac monopole in a U (1) gauge theory is a singular object; however by embedding the monopole in a spontaneously non-abelian theory with an additional scalar ﬁeld one may smooth out the core of the monopole and remove the singularity. One may proceed analogously, by enriching QCD; adding scalars and making the the theory supersymmetric one can calculate the condensation of monopoles in a four dimensional gauge theory. This has been achieved for gauge theories with N = 1, 2 supersymmetries. There are many new methods that have been utilized and the phase structures of these theories have been well investigated [15, 48, 49]. Novel properties of these theories have been discovered such as new types of conformal ﬁeld theories and new sorts of infra-red duality. To this we turn next.

5

Supersymmetric gauge theories/super QCD

The goal will be to examine theories that are simple supersymmetric extensions of QCD. Consider the case of an N = 1 vector multiplet with gauge group SU (NC ), and NF chiral multiplets in the fundamental representation of SU (NC ) and NF chiral multiplets in the antifundamental representation. The Lagrangian is: L =

(−iτ )TrW α Wα d2 θ + h.c.

+ ˜ F Q|θθ (5.1) ˜ +Q+ ¯ + mF Q F exp(−2V )QF + Q exp(2V )QF |θ¯θθθ

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

181

g2 2) SU( GS HIG

U(1

CO

UL

)

OM

B

(3)

SU

T MEN INE F N CO

g1 Fig. 5. Possible phases of gauge theories (g1 and g2 are some relevant/marginal couplings).

where the coupling is: τ=

4π θ +i 2 · 2π g

(5.2)

Apart from the local SU (NC ) gauge symmetry, the ﬁelds are charged under the following global symmetries.

Qia ˜a Q i

Wα

SU (NF )L NF 1 1

×

SU (NF )R 1 ¯F N

× U (1)V 1

1

×

−1 0

U (1)A 1 1 0

× U (1)RC 1 1 1.

(5.3)

Note, when NC = 2, because 2 ∼ ¯ 2, the global ﬂavor symmetry is enhanced to SO(2NF )L × SO(NF )R . There is an anomaly of the U (1)A × U (1)R symmetry. A single U (1) symmetry survives the anomaly. This is denoted as U (1)R and is a full quantum symmetry. The adjoint Fermion contributes 2NC × R(λ) to the anomaly. The Chiral Fermions contribute, 2NF × RF . R(λ) = 1, while RF is now chosen so that the total anomaly vanishes, 2NC + 2RF NF = 0.

(5.4)

This leads to RF = −

NC · NF

(5.5)

182

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The Bosons in the chiral multiplet have an R charge one greater than the Fermions in the multiplet. Thus, RB = 1 −

NC NF − NC = · NF NF

(5.6)

The non-anomalous R-charge, is given by: R = RC −

NC QA , NF

(5.7)

where RC is the classical R-charge and A is the classical U (1)A charge. This leads to the following non-anomalous global charges: SU (NF )L

×

SU (NF )R

×

U (1)V

×

U (1)R

Qia

NF

1

1

NF −NC NF

˜a Q i

1

¯F N

−1

NF −NC NF

Wα

1

1

0

1.

(5.8)

One is now ready to identify the classical moduli space. 5.1 The classical moduli space The classical moduli space is given by solving the D-term and F -term equations: Da F¯QF

a ˜ a ˜ = Q+ F T QF − QF T QF ˜ = −mF Q

F¯Q˜ F

= −mF Q.

+

(5.9) (5.10) (5.11)

For NF = 0 or for NF = 0 and mF = 0, there is no moduli space. Note, the vacuum structure is an infra-red property of the system hence having mF = 0 is equivalent to setting NF = 0 in the infra-red. Consider the quantum moduli space of the case where NF = 0. The Witten index, Tr(−1)F = NC i.e. the rank of the group +1. This indicates there is no supersymmetry breaking. There are 2NC Fermionic zero modes (from the vector multiplet). These Fermionic zero modes break through instanton eﬀects the original U (1)R down to Z2NC . Further breaking occurs because the gluino two point function acquires a vacuum expectation value which breaks the symmetry down to Z2 . This leaves NC vacua. The gluino condensate is: 2πik (5.12) λλ = exp Λ3NC NC

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

183

where ΛNC is the dynamically generated scale of the gauge theory and k = 1, .., NC −1 label the vacua. Chiral symmetry breaking produces a mass gap. Note, because chiral symmetry is discrete there are no Goldstone Bosons. Further details of quantum moduli spaces will be discussed later. Consider the case where mF = 0 and 0 < NF < NC . The classical moduli space is determined by the following solutions to the D-term equations:   a1 0 0..0  0 a2 0..0   ˜= Q=Q · 0..0 (5.13)    · 0..0 aNF 0..0 N ×N . F

C

Where the row indicates the the ﬂavor and the column indicates the colour. There are NF diagonal non-zero real entries, ai . (To validate this classical analysis the vacuum expectation values must be much larger than any dynamically generated scale, i.e. ai >> Λ.) The gauge symmetry is partially broken: SU (NC ) → SU (NC − NF ).

(5.14)

This is for generic values of ai . By setting some subset of ai to zero one may break to a subgroup of SU (NC ) that is larger than SU (NC − NF ). Also, if NF = NC − 1 then the gauge group is complete broken. This is called the Higgs phase. The number of massless vector Bosons becomes NC2 − ((NC − NF )2 − 1) = 2NC NF − NF2 ,

(5.15)

the number of massless scalar ﬁelds becomes, 2NC NF − (2NC NF − NF2 ) = NF2 .

(5.16)

˜˜Qj M˜ij ≡ Q i

(5.17)

The matrix

forms a gauge invariant basis. The Kahler potential is then, ¯) K = 2Tr (M M

(5.18)

and as before when singularities appear i.e. detM = 0 this signals the presence of enhanced symmetries.

184

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

When NF ≥ NC , one has the following classical moduli space.   a˜ a 0 0 1

0   Q=  0  · 0

1

a2 · · 0 · 0

·· ·· ··

·· ·· ··

    aNC   0  0 0

0   ˜ Q=  0 

,

· 0

NF ×NC

a ˜2

    a ˜ NC   0 

· · 0 · 0

·· ·· ··

·· ·· ··

0 0

NF ×NC

(5.19) with the constraint that ai |2 = ρ. |ai |2 − |˜

(5.20)

Generically the SU (NC ) symmetry is completely broken. However, when ˜i = 0 then a subgroup of the SU (NC ) can remain. ai = a We will now consider some special cases, ﬁrst the classical moduli space for NF = NC . The dimension of the moduli space is given by: 2NC2 − (NC2 − 1) = NC2 + 1 = NF2 + 1.

(5.21)

NF2

There are degrees of freedom from M˜ij and naively one would have two further degrees of freedom from: iN ˜ i1 · · · Q ˜ = i1 ···iN Q ˜ iNC . B = i1 ···iNC Qij11 · · · QjNC , B j1 jN C F

F

(5.22)

There is however a classical constraint: ˜=0 detM − B B

(5.23)

˜ are classically dependent. This leaves only N 2 +1 which means M , B and B F independent moduli. Generically, as well as the gauge symmetry being completely broken the global ﬂavor symmetry is also broken. There is a singular point in the ˜ moduli space where M = 0 = B = B. Next, consider the case, Nf = NC + 1, again there are NF2 moduli from Mi˜j . There are also, 2(NC + 1) degrees of freedom given by: iN ˜ i1 · · · Q ˜˜ = i1 ···iN Q ˜ iNC . Bi = ii1 ···iNC Qij11 · · · QjNC , B i j1 jN C F

F

(5.24)

However there are again the classical constraints: detM M˜ji B

i

− =

˜

Mi˜j B i B j = 0 ˜ j

Mi˜j B = 0

(5.25) (5.26)

giving again an NF2 + 1 dimension moduli space. (The moduli space is not smooth.) There is a generic breaking of gauge symmetry.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

185

5.2 Quantum moduli spaces One is required to examine on a case by case basis the role that quantum eﬀects play in determining the exact moduli space. Quantum eﬀects both perturbative and nonperturbative can lift moduli. In what follows we examine the quantum moduli space for the separate cases: 1 ≤ NF ≤ NC − 1, NF = NC , NF = NC + 1, NC + 1 < NF ≤ 3N2 C , 3N2 C < NF < 3NC , NF = 3NC , NF > 3NC . 5.3 Quantum moduli space for 0 < NF < NC ˜ The followClassically, the dimension of the moduli space is NF2 from Q, Q. ing table summarizes the charges under the various groups [51–53]. SU(NC ) Qia ˜a Q i 3NC −NF

Λ

SU(NF )L

SU(NF )R

U(1)V

U(1)A

U(1)Rcl

U(1)R

NC

NF

1

1

1

1

NF −NC NF

N¯C

1

¯F N

−1

1

1

1

1

1

0

2NF

2NC

NF −NC NF

0

2

2

0

2NF

2NF

M

1

NF

¯F N

detM

1

1

1

0

2−

2NC NF

2(NF − NC )

(5.27) Λ, the dynamically generated QCD scale is assigned charges as m and g were before. The power 3NC − NF is the coeﬃcient in the one loop beta function. There is no Coulomb phase so Wα does not appear. The symmetries imply, the superpotential, W , has the following form: W = (Λ3NC −NF )a (detM )b c

(5.28)

a, b are to be determined. c is a numerical coeﬃcient, If c does not vanish, the classical moduli space gets completely lifted by these nonperturbative eﬀects. One examines the charges of W under the various symmetries. Automatically, the charges of W for the ﬂavor symmetries, SU (NF )L × SU (NF)R and the U (1)V vanish. If one requires the U (1)A charge to vanish then this implies a = −b. 1 . These Requiring the U (1)R charge to vanish implies that b = NF −N C restrictions ﬁx: 1 3NC −NF N −N C F Λ · (5.29) W =c detM For non vanishing c, all the moduli are now lifted and there is no ground state.

186

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

V

det(M) Fig. 6. The potential for 1 < NF < NC , it has no ground state.

What is the value of c? This is a diﬃcult to calculate directly unless there is complete Brouting. For NF = NC − 1 there is complete symmetry breaking and one can turn to weak coupling. From instanton calculations one calculates that c = 0 and the prepotential for the matter ﬁelds is 2NC +1 Λ W ∼ · (5.30) detM One may now go to NF < NC − 1 by adding masses and integrating out the heavy degrees of freedom. This produces, 1

M i j min = (m−1 )i j (Λ3NC −NF detm) NC .

(5.31)

5.4 Integrating in This method involves the addition of very massive ﬁelds to known eﬀective actions and extrapolating to the case where the additional degrees of freedom are massless, see [54–62]. It is rather surprising that anything useful can be learned by this ﬂow in the opposite direction to the usual infra-red. We will show that under certain circumstances it is possible to derive in a rather straight forward way the potential for light ﬁelds. We thus give some of the ﬂavour of this possibility. It gives results for the phase structure in many cases. We will also discuss when these conditions are met. We begin by reviewing the conventional method of integrating out; heavy degrees of freedom are integrated out to obtain an eﬀective potential for the light degrees of freedom.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

187

V

MMin

M

Fig. 7. The potential with ﬁnite masses has a ground state. Mmin → ∞ as m → 0.

Consider a theory containing gauge invariant macroscopic light ﬁelds of the following nature: Fields X: built out of dA degrees of freedom Fields M : built out of ui degrees of freedom Fields Z: built out of both da and ui . The da dofs will be kept light throughout all the discussion. The ui and with them the macroscopic ﬁelds M and Z will be considered as heavy in part of the discussion. Assume that one is given the eﬀective potential Wu (X, M, Z, Λu ) describing all the light macroscopic degrees of freedom. (Λu is the dynamically generated scale of the theory. The eﬀective potential is the Legendre transform ˜ (gi ) − Wu (Φ) = (W gi Φi )gi (5.32) where ˜ (gi ) ∂W = Φi · ∂gi

(5.33)

Consider next making the microscopic “up” ﬁelds massive and integrating them out retaining only the light degrees of freedom and the couplings m, ˜ λ to the macroscopic degrees of freedom containing the removed ﬁelds: M and Z. One thus obtains: ˜ d (X, m, ˜ λ, Λu ) = (Wu (X, M, Z, Λu ) = mM ˜ + λZ)M,Z· W

(5.34)

For the case m ˜ → ∞ one may tune the scale Λu so as to replace an appropriate combination of λ, m ˜ and Λu by Λd the scale of the theory of the remaining light degrees of freedom. One ends with Wd (X, Λd ). It is convenient for general m ˜ = 0 to write, ˜ d (X, m, W ˜ λ, Λu ) = Wd (X, Λd ) + WI (X, m, ˜ λ, Λd )

(5.35)

188

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

where Wd (X, Λd ) is the exact result for inﬁnitely heavy Ui , and to partition again, WI = Wtree,d + W∆

(5.36)

Wtree,d = (Wtree )ui

(5.37)

where

has by deﬁnition no scale dependence. W∆ should obeys the constraints: W∆ → 0 ,

when Λu → 0 , or m ˜ →∞.

(5.38)

Now one reverses the direction and integrates in. Namely, given an exact form for Wd (X, Λd ) one can obtain: . Wu (X, M, Z, Λu ) = (Wd (X, Λd ) + W∆ + Wtree,d − Wtree )m,λ ˜

(5.39)

All the essential complexities of the ﬂow lie in the term W∆ . Imagine however that this term would vanish. In this case the calculations become much simpler. For the cases corresponding to the colour group SU (2) this indeed turns out to be the case. This can be seen in the following manner. One starts with SU (2) without adjoint ﬁelds (Na = 0), and quark ﬂavors Qi , i = 1, ..NF (NF ≤ 4) for the down theory. one brings down inﬁnitely heavy ﬁelds in the adjoint representation, that is, one resuscitates the full up theory, which contains Na adjoint ﬁelds Φα with the superpotential: ˜ + λZ, Wtree = mX + mM

(5.40)

where M = ΦΦ and Z = QΦQ. For convenience one writes, W∆ (, m, ˜ λ, Λ) = Wtree,d f (t)

(5.41)

where X = W W and t being any possible singlet of SU (2NF ) × U (1)Q × U (1)Φ × U (1)R ; Φ is the adjoint ﬁeld we add. The quantum numbers of all relevant ﬁelds and parameters are given by: X λ Λb1 m ˜ W∆

U (1)Q 2 −2 2NF 0 0

U (1)Φ 0 −1 4Na −2 0

U (1)R 0 2 4 − 4Na − 2NF 2 2

(5.42)

where b1 = 6 − 2Na − NF . Writing t as, t ∼ (Λb1 )a m ˜ b X c λd .

(5.43)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

189

It is a singlet provided that b = (2Na + 2 − NF )a ,

c = (NF − 4)a ,

d = (2NF − 4)a .

(5.44)

Recall the constraints W∆ → 0 for

m ˜ → ∞ and W∆ → 0 for

Λ→0

(5.45)

as well as the fact that in the Higgs phase one can decompose W as: W (Λb1 ) =

∞

an (Λb1 )n .

(5.46)

n=1

One shows that Wtree,d ∼

1 m ˜

(5.47)

which implies that for all values of Nf the vanishing of W∆ . We see this explicitly in the following cases. For NF = 0 and Na = 1 b = 4a

(5.48)

leading to W∆ =

∞

ra (Λb1 )a m ˜ a−1 .

(5.49)

a=1

The constraints imply that r − a indeed vanishes for all a’s. For Na + 1, NF = 1, 2, 3, b1 = 4 − NF , W∆ =

r(mΛ) ˜ b1 + ... m ˜

(5.50)

implying that r = 0 as well. Starting from known results for Na = NF = 0 one can now obtain the eﬀective potential for all relevant values of Na and NF . The equations of motion of these potentials can be arranged in such a manner as to coincide with the singularity equations of the appropriate elliptic curves derived for systems with N = 2 supersymmetry and SU (2) gauge group. (The role of these elliptic curves in N = 2 theories will be described later.)

190

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

5.5 Quantum moduli space for NF ≥ NC There is a surviving moduli space. In the presence of a mass matrix, mij for matter one obtains, 1

M i j = (m−1 )i j (Λ3NC −NF detm) NC .

(5.51)

Previously, for the case of NF < NC , it turned out that m → 0 implied M i j → ∞ thus explicitly lifting the classical moduli space. For NF ≥ NC it is possible to have m → 0 while keeping M i j ﬁxed. 5.6 NF = NC Quantum eﬀects alter the classical constraint to: ˜ = Λ2NC . detM − B B

(5.52)

This has the eﬀect of resolving the singularity in moduli space. The absence of a singularity means there will not be additional massless particles. In this case, 1

Mi j = (m−1 )i j (detm) NC Λ2 .

(5.53)

detM = Λ2NC

(5.54)

This implies,

since m cancels, thus this also holds in the limit m → 0. On the other ˜ = 0 if detm = 0 because all ﬁelds carrying B number are hand, B = B ˜ through quantum eﬀects. integrated out. Therefore detM = B B Note, R(MIJ ) = 0 for NF = NC . Writing out an expansion that obeys the R-charge conservation:   (B B) ˜ i Λ2NC j ˜ = Λ2NC 1 +  cij detM − B B (5.55) (detM )i+j ij then by demanding that there be no singularities at small M or at large ˜ = Λ2NC B implies that all cij must vanish and the hence detM − B B obeys a nonrenormalisation theorem. Note, R(M ) = 0 ⇒ W = 0 .

(5.56)

There are allowed soft perturbations, mass terms given by: ˜ W = tr(mM ) + bB + ˜bB.

(5.57)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

191

One check is to integrate out to give the case NF = NC − 1 yielding, W =

˜ 2NC +1 Λ mΛ2NC = · detM detM

(5.58)

What is the physics of this theory, is it in a Higgs/conﬁnement phase? For ˜ one is sitting in the Higgs regime; however, for small M/B/B ˜ large, M/B/B one is in the conﬁning regime. Note that M cannot be taken smaller than Λ. Global symmetries need to be broken in order to satisfy the modiﬁed constraint equation. Consider some examples: With the following expectation value, M i j = δ i j Λ2 ,

˜ =0 B B

(5.59)

the global symmetries are broken to: SU (NF )V × UB (1) × UR (1)

(5.60)

and there is chiral symmetry breaking. When, M i j = 0 ,

˜ = 0 B B

(5.61)

then the group is broken to: SU (NF )L × SU (NF )R × UR (1)

(5.62)

which has chiral symmetry and also has conﬁnement. This is an interesting situation because there is a dogma that as soon as a system has a bound state there will be chiral symmetry breaking [65]. In both cases the ’t Hooft anomaly conditions [66] are satisﬁed. These will be discussed later. 5.7 NF = NC + 1 The moduli space remains unchanged. The classical and quantum moduli ˜ = 0 spaces are the same and hence the singularity when M = B = B remains. This is not a theory of massless gluons but a theory of massless ˜ = 0 then one is in a Higgs/conﬁning mesons and baryons. When, M, B, B ˜ = 0 there is no global phase. At the singular point when, M = B = B symmetry breaking but there is “conﬁnement” with light baryons. ˜ become dynamically There is a suggestion that in this situation, M, B, B independent. The analogy is from the nonlinear sigma model, where because of strong infra-red ﬂuctuations there are n independent ﬁelds even though there is a classical constraint. The eﬀective potential is: Weﬀ =

1 ˜ j − detM ) (M i j Bi B Λ2NC −1

(5.63)

192

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

the classical limit is taken by: Λ→0

(5.64)

which in turn imposes the classical constraint. Again the system obeys the ’t Hooft anomaly matching conditions.

IR FREE NF 3N C Conformal Two A.F Dual Descriptions 3NC 2 Magnetic IR Free, S=1 NC+2 NC+ 1 NC

No Global Chiral Symmetry Breaking Modified Moduli Space

NC-1 No Vacuum 1 0

!! < λλ> = 0 Confinement Discrete Vacua

Fig. 8. The phases of super QCD.

5.8 Higgs and conﬁnement phases This section is discussed in [63]. While one is discussing the conﬁnement phase in supersymmetric gauge theories one should recall that for gauge theories such as SU (N ) Yang Mills, with matter in a nontrivial representation of the center of the group, which is ZN for SU (N ), the diﬀerence between the Higgs and conﬁnement phases is purely quantitative. There is no phase boundary. This contrasts the situation of pure QCD or super QCD where all the particles are in the adjoint representation which is trivial under the center. In such a case there is a phase transition and there is a qualitative diﬀerence between the phases. So what about the standard model, SU (2) × U (1). Is it in a Higgs or conﬁnement phase? Below we

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

193

present the spectrum in the two pictures. In the Englert picture: s=0 1 2 1 s= 2 s=

1 2 1 I= 2

φ → φreal

(5.65)

(l)L (q)L

(5.66)

I=0

(l)R (q)R .

(5.67)

I=

In the conﬁnement picture, (l)R , (q)R

(5.68)

are SU (2)L singlets. Along with, 1 2 s=0 s=1

s=

φ+ ψi ,

ij ψi φj

φ+ i φi φi Dµ φj ij ,

(5.69)

+ φ+ i Dµ φj ij

,

φ+ i Dµ φi .

(5.70) (5.71)

One may choose a gauge,

ρ(x) φ(x) = Ω(x) 0

(5.72)

then Bµ = Ω + D µ Ω

(5.73)

leading to the Lagrangian, L = trFµν (B)F µν (B) + ∂µ ρ∂ µ ρ + ρ2 (Bµ+ B µ )|| + V (ρ2 ).

(5.74)

Unitary gauge is Ω = 1. The Higgs picture also contains the operators: ψ1 =

φ+ φi ψj ij i ψi , ψ2 = , |φ| |φ|

+ + + φ+ ˜ + = φi Dµ j ij , W ˜ 0 = φi Dµ φi · W µ |φ| |φ| |φ| |φ| (5.75)

Like conﬁnement but with the scale determined by: |φ|. At ﬁnite temperature the two phases are qualitatively indistinguishable. Examine the charges of the ﬁelds with respect to the unbroken U (1). In the Higgs picture, Q(ψ) =

1 1 e Q(φ) = e 2 2

Q(W 0 ) = 0.

(5.76)

194

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

However, the conﬁned objects have integral charge. The appropraite conserved charge is actually: Q = Q + T 3 .

(5.77)

Then, Q (e) = 1

Q (W 0 ) = 0 Q (v) = 0 Q (W ± ) = ±1 Q (ρ) = 0

(5.78)

Q (ψφ) = 1 Q (φ+ Dµ φ) = 0 Q (φ + ψ) = 0

(5.79)

Q (φ+ Dµ φ+ ) = 1 Q (φ+ φ) = 0 Q (φDµ φ) = −1.

(5.80)

and

This matches the charges of operators in the conﬁned picture. Is it possible to have strong “weak” interactions at high energies? This is theoretically possible but it is not the course chosen by nature for the standard model. This is seen empirically by the absence of radial excitations of the Z particles [64]. Note, this will not work for the Georgi-Glashow model where φ is a triplet in SO(3). 5.9 Infra-red duality Two systems are called infra-red dual if, when observed at longer and longer length scales, they become more and more similar.

System I J

J J J

System II

J J

JJ ^•

Fig. 9. Two systems with a diﬀerent ultra-violet behavior ﬂowing to the same infra-red ﬁxed point.

Seiberg has observed and has given very strong arguments that the following set of N = 1 supersymmetric gauge theories are pairwise infra-red dual [88].

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

System

195

Dual System

Gauge Group

#ﬂavors

Gauge Group

SU (NC ) SO(NC ) Sp(NC )

NF NF 2NF

SU (NF − NC ) SO(NF − NC + 4) Sp(NF − NC − 2)

#ﬂavor #singlets NF NF 2NF

NF2 NF2 NF2 .

For a given number of colors, NC , the number of ﬂavors, NF , for which the infra-red duality holds is always large enough so as to make the entries in the table meaningful. Note that the rank of the dual pairs is usually different. Lets explain why this result is so powerful. In general, it has been known for quite a long time that two systems which diﬀer by irrelevant operator have the same infra-red behavior. We have no indication whatsoever, that this is the case with Seiberg’s duality, where groups with diﬀerent number of colors are infra-red dual. Nevertheless, the common wisdom in hadronic physics has already identiﬁed very important cases of infra-red duality. For example, QCD, whose gauge group is SU (NC ) and whose ﬂavor group is SU (NF ) × SU (NF ) × U (1), is expected to be infra-red dual to a theory of massless pions which are all color singlets. The pions, being the spin-0 Goldstone Bosons of the spontaneously broken chiral symmetry, are actually infra-red free in four dimensions. We have thus relearned that free spin-0 massless particles can actually be the infra-red ashes of a stronglyinteracting theory, QCD whose ultraviolet behavior is described by other particles. By using supersymmetry, one can realize a situation where free massless spin- 21 particles are also the infra-red resolution of another theory. Seiberg’s duality allows for the ﬁrst time to ascribe a similar role to massless infra-red free spin-1 particles. Massless spin-1 particles play a very special role in our understanding of the basic interactions. This comes about in the following way: consider, for example, the N = 1 supersymmetric model with NC colors and NF ﬂavors. It is infra-red dual to a theory with NF −NC colors and NF ﬂavors and NF2 color singlets. For a given NC , if the number of ﬂavors is in the interval NC + 1 < NF < 3N2 C , the original theory is strongly coupled in the infra-red, while the dual theory has such a large number of ﬂavors that it becomes infra-red free. Thus the infra-red behavior of the strongly-coupled system is described by infra-red free spin-1 massless ﬁelds (as well as its superpartners), that is, Seiberg’s work has shown that infra-red free massless spin-1 particles(for example photons in a SUSY system) could be, under certain circumstances, just the infra-red limit of a

196

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

much more complicated ultraviolet theory. Seiberg’s duality has passed a large number of consistency checks under many circumstances. The infra-red duality relates two disconnected systems. From the point of view of string theory the two systems are embedded in a larger space of models, such that a continuous trajectory relates them. We will describe the ingredients of such an embedding [68, 69] later. In order to be able to appreciate how that is derived, we will need to learn to use some tools of string theory.

Fig. 10. In string theory, a continuous path in parameter space relates a pair of two disjoint infra-red-dual ﬁeld theories.

First we will describe some more details of the Seiberg infra-red duality in ﬁeld theory. Consider the example of N = 1 supersymmetric Yang¯F fundamental, antiMills theory with gauge group SU (NC ) and NF , N fundamental matter. The charges of the matter ﬁelds are given by the table below: SUL (NF ) SUR (NF ) UB (1) Q ˜ Q

NF 1

1 ¯ NF

UR (1)

1

1−

−1

1−

NC NF NC NF ·

(5.81)

The infra-red dual is N = 1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills with gauge group ¯F fundamental and antifundamental matter and N 2 S(NF − NC ) and NF , N F

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

197

gauge singlets. The charges are given by: SUL (NF )

SUR (NF )

UB (1)

q

¯F N

1

NC NF −NC

1−

NC NF

q˜

1

NF

C − NFN−N C

1−

NC NF

M

NF

¯F N

0

UR (1) (5.82)

C 2 NFN−N · F

One must also add an interaction term in the dual theory described by: W =

1 i ˜ M ˜j qi q j . µ

(5.83)

• The dual theories have diﬀerent gauge groups. If one regards a gauge symmetry as a redundancy in the description of the theory then this is not important. What does matter is that the two dual theories share the same global symmetries; • Note, it is not possible to build a meson out of q, q˜ that has the same ˜ The M ﬁeld in the dual theory R-charge as a meson built from Q, Q. ˜ does have the same charges as a meson built from Q, Q; ˜ have the same charges as those built • The Baryons built from Q, Q from q, q˜. For the case NF = NC + 1 then the Baryon of the SU (NC ) theory becomes the q in the dual theory (which is a singlet in this case). This looks like there is a solitonic dual for the quarks in this case; • If M is fundamental there should be an associated UM (1) charge which does not appear in the original SU (NC ) theory; • Where are the q, q˜ mesons in the original SU (NC ) theory? • the resolution to the previous two points is provided by the interaction term (5.83). This term breaks the UM (1) symmetry and provides a mass to the q, q˜ mesons, which implies one may ignore them in the infra-red. ˜F < 3(NF − NC ). For the case, 3N2 C < NF < 3NC , and for 32 (NF − NC ) < N The operator, M q q˜ has dimension: D(M q q˜) = 1 +

3NC <3 NF

(5.84)

and so it is a relevant operator. In both dual pictures there is an Infra red ﬁxed point; both are asymptotically free and in the center of moduli space the theories will be a conformal.

198

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The checks of the duality are as follows: • They have the same global symmetries; • They obey the ’t Hooft anomaly matching conditions; • It is a Z2 operation; • There are the same number of ﬂat directions; • There is the same reaction to a mass deformation. Adding a mass in one theory is like an Englerting in the other; • There is a construction of the duality by embedding the ﬁeld theory in string theory. This will be the subject of the next section. The ’t Hooft anomaly matching conditions are determined as follows. One takes the global symmetries in the theory and then make them local symmetries. One then calculates their anomalies. Both dual theories must share the same anomalies. In the above example there are anomalies for: SU (NF )3 , SU (NF )2 UR (1) , SU (NF )2 UB (1) , UR (1) , 3

2

3

2

UR (1) , UB (1) UR (1) , UB (1) , UB (1) UR (1).

(5.85) (5.86)

All these anomalies match between the dual theories. There was no a priori reason for them to do so. Let us examine some of the consequences of this duality. For the case 3NC < NF < 3NC the two dual theories are both asymptotically free. It 2 is symmetric around NF = 2NC . Perhaps one can more learn about this system since it is a ﬁxed point under duality. At the origin of moduli space one may have obtained a new conformal theory- this will be discussed later. For NC + 2 ≤ NF ≤ 3 N2C , the theory is an infra-red free gauge theory plus free singlets. This is the ﬁrst example of a weakly interacting theory with spin one particles that in the infra-red one may view as bound states of the dual theory. The panorama of these structures is given in Figure 8. Let us now enrich the structure of the theory by adding Na particles in the adjoint representation. At ﬁrst we will have no matter in the fundamental representation and scalar multiplets which are adjoint valued. The potential for the scalars, φi is given by: V = ([φ, φ])2 .

(5.87)

This potential obviously has a ﬂat direction for diagonal φ. The gauge invariant macroscopic moduli would be Trφk . Consider the non generic example of NC = 2 and Na = 1, the supersymmetry is now increased to

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

199

Fig. 11. The classical, naive quantum and exact quantum moduli spaces.

N = 2. There is a single complex modulus, Trφ2 . Classically, SU (2) is broken to U (1) for Trφ2 = 0. One would expect a singularity at Trφ2 = 0. The exact quantum potential vanishes in this case [48, 49]. Naively, one would expect the following. When Trφ2 is of order Λ or smaller, one would expect that the strong infra-red ﬂuctuations would wash away the expectation value for Trφ2 and the theory would be conﬁning. The surprising thing is that when SU (2) breaks down to U (1), because of the very strong constraints that supersymmetry imposes on the system, there are only two special points in moduli space and even there the theory is only on the verge of conﬁnement. Everywhere else the theory is in the Coulomb phase. At the special points in the moduli space, new particles will become massless. This is illustrated in the Figure 11. We will now examine the eﬀective theory at a generic point in moduli space where the theory is broken down to U (1). The Lagrangian is given by, (5.88) L = d2 θIm(τeﬀ (trφ2 , g, Λ)Wα W α ). The τeﬀ is the eﬀective complex coupling which is a function of the modulus, trφ2 , the original couplings and the scale, Λ. This theory has an SL(2, Z) duality symmetry. The generators of the SL(2, Z) act on τ , deﬁned by 5.2, as follows: 1 (5.89) τ → − , τ → τ + 1. τ This is a generalization of the usual U (1) duality that occurs with electromagnetism to the case of a complex coupling. Recall the usual electromagnetic duality for Maxwell theory in the presence of charged matter is: E → B , B → −E , e → m , m → −e.

(5.90)

This generalizes to a U (1) symmetry by deﬁning: E + iB , e + im.

(5.91)

200

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The duality symmetry now acts by: E + iB → exp(iα)(E + iB) , e + im → exp(iα)(e + im).

(5.92)

Previously for the SU (2) case the moduli were given by u = Trφ2 for SU (NC ) the moduli are given by uk = Trφk , k = 2, .., NC . Again the classical moduli space is singular at times, there is no perturbative or nonperturbative corrections. How does one ﬁnd τ as a function of the u? There is a great deal of literature on the subject here we will just sketch the ideas [48–50]. The following complex equation, y 2 = ax3 + bx2 + cx + d

(5.93)

determines a torus. The complex structure of the torus, τtorus will be identiﬁed with the complex coupling τeﬀ . a, b, c, d are holomorphic functions of the moduli, couplings and scale and so will implicitly determine τtorus . When y(x) and y (x) vanish for the same value of x then τ is singular. Therefore, 2 τeﬀ = i∞ , geﬀ =0

(5.94)

and the eﬀective coupling vanishes. This reﬂects the presence of massless charged objects. This occurs for deﬁnite values of u in the moduli space. These new massless particles are monopoles or dyons. The theory is on the verge of conﬁnement. For N = 2 supersymmetry that is the best one can do. The monopoles are massless but they have not condensed [54–57, 59, 60, 62]. For condensation to occur the monopoles should become tachyonic indicating an instability that produces a condensation. One can push this 2 , or generally for SU (NC ) to conﬁnement by adding a mass term: mTrφ ˜ the term: δW = gk uk .

(5.95)

The eﬀective prepotential is now: W = M (uk )q q˜ + gk uk

(5.96)

then ∂W ∂W = 0 ⇒ M (uk ) = 0 , ∂uk M (uk )q q˜ = −gk . (5.97) =0 , ∂uk ∂(q q˜)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

201

Since generically, ∂uk M (uk ) = 0

(5.98)

then there will be condensation. We now describe how the complex elliptic curve arises using more physical terms. This is achieved here by using the integrating in method discussed earlier. Consider the case, NC = 2 with arbitrary NF and Na . The ﬁelds that are the moduli in the system are: XIJ Mαβ Zij

=

ab Qai Qbj

=

a b

aa bb φab α φβ

=

(5.99) (5.100)

aa bb Qai φaα b Qbj

(5.101)

where Q are fundamental and φ are adjoint ﬁelds. α, β = 1.., Na , i, j = 1.., 2NF, a, b = 1, 2. We deﬁne the quantity, Γαβ (M, X, Z) = Mαβ + Tr2NF (Zα X −1 Zβ X −1 )

(5.102)

which we will use to write the prepotential as follows, WNF ,Na (M, X, Z) =

1 (b1 − 4) Λ−b1 P f X(det(Γαβ ))2 4−b1 (5.103) 1 +TrNa mM ˜ (5.104) Tr2NF mX 2 1 (5.105) + √ Tr2NF λα Zα . 2

This respects the necessary symmetries and can be checked semiclassically. Take the case Na = 1, NF = 2. The equations of motion from minimizing the superpotential are: ∂W2,1 ∂W2,1 ∂W2,1 = = =0 ∂M ∂X ∂Z

(5.106)

which imply: m ˜ m 1 √ λ 2

1

= 2Λ−1 (P f X) 2 = R−1 (X −1 − 8Γ−1 X −1 (ZX −1 )2 )

(5.107) (5.108)

= 4R−1 Γ−1 X −1 ZX −1

(5.109)

where 1

R−1 ≡ Λ− (P f X) 2 Γ , X ≡

1 Γ. 2

(5.110)

202

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The following equations are then obeyed: 1 (c − 8M )˜ c=0 128 X 2 − 2M X + b = 0.

X 3 − M X 2 + bX −

(5.111) (5.112)

Taking y and y to vanish we can compare with the elliptic cure, y 2 = x3 + ax2 + bx + c.

(5.113)

One can therefore identify the parameters as: a = −M c=

α (2M + Tr(µ2 )) 8

α Λ2 + Pfm 4 4 Λ4 , µ ≡ λ−1 m. α≡ 16

b=−

(5.114) (5.115)

Identifying the modular parameter of the torus from the elliptic equation involves standard techniques in algebraic geometry. This modular parameter will then be the eﬀective coupling of the theory. Some comments: • Some points in moduli space when 2 + NF = 4, are degenerate vacua which are possibly non-local with respect to each other. These are Argyres Douglas points [71]; • As you move in moduli space monopoles turn smoothly into dyons and electric charge. This is an indication of the Higgs/conﬁnement complementarity; • These techniques may be extended to obtain curves for other more complicated groups. We now rexamine some special properties of the region 32 NC < NF < 3NC . 5.10 Superconformal invariance in d = 4 For the case of 32 NC < NF < 3NC , at the center of moduli space when all expectation values vanish, it is claimed that the theory is described by a non-trivial conformal ﬁeld theory [73]. There are several motivations for reaching this conclusion. Examine for example, the exact β function: β(g) = −

g 3 3NC − NF + NF γ(g 2 ) 2 16π 2 1 − g 2 NC 8π

(5.116)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

203

where γ(g 2 ) is the anomalous dimension given perturbatively by: γ(g 2 ) = −

g 2 NC2 − 1 + O(g 4 ) . 8π 2 NC

(5.117)

If one now considers a limit where NF , NC are both taken to be large but their ratio is kept ﬁxed then the ﬁxed point of the β function, β(g ∗ ) = 0, is at g ∗2 =

1 8π 2

, NC 3

(5.118)

NF where = 3 − N << 1. Since the coupling at the ﬁxed point is proporC tional to << 1, both the existence of a ﬁxed point and the perturbative evaluation for γ is justiﬁed. The anomalous dimension at the ﬁxed point is:

γ(g ∗ ) = 1 −

3NC · NF

(5.119)

˜ is The dimension of the QQ ˜ =2+γ =3 D(QQ)

NF − NC · NF

(5.120)

This observatoin will lead to interesting conclusions. In d = 2 the conformal group is inﬁnite dimensional and so provides very powerful constraints on the theory. In d = 4 the conformal group is ﬁnite dimensional and so the conformal symmetry does not constrain the theory in the same way [74, 75]. Nevertheless there are still interesting properties of d = 4 conformal theories arising from the conformal invariance. One can prove that the scaling dimension of a ﬁeld is bounded by its R-charge as follows: D≥

3 |R| 2

(5.121)

where D is the scaling dimension and R is the R-charge. The bound is saturated for (anti-)chiral ﬁelds. Consider the operator product: i O1 (x1 )O2 (x2 ) = O12 f i (x1 − x2 ). (5.122) i

Generally, the dimension of the product of the operator appearing on the righthand side of equation (5.122) is not a sum of the dimensions of the two operators appearing on the left hand side of equation (5.122). The product contains a superposition of operators with diﬀerent dimensions. For chiral

204

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

ﬁelds the situation is simpler. Since the R-charge is additive and chiral ﬁelds saturate the bound (5.121) i R(O12 ) = R(O1 (x1 )) + R(O2 (x2 )) ⇒ D(O1 O2 ) = D(O1 ) + D(O2 ) (5.123) i is also a chiral operand f i (x1 − x2 ) are thus all constants. By (5.123) O12 ator. The closure property of the chiral ﬁelds under the operator product expansion leads to the name “chiral ring”. There are reasons to expect that at the ﬁxed point, the infra-red nonanomalous R-charge equals the non-anomalous R-charge of the ultra violet. ˜ is given by, see equation (5.120): At the ﬁxed point of the dimension of QQ

˜ = D(QQ)

3 ˜ = 3 NF − NC · R(QQ) 2 NF

(5.124)

The dimension of the Baryon and anti-Baryon are: ˜ = D(B) = D(B)

3NC (NF − NC ) · 2NF

(5.125)

For unitary representations (of spin = 0) ﬁelds, where I is the identity operator and O is an operator = I, D(I) = 0 , D(O) ≥ 1.

(5.126)

For a free ﬁeld the bound is saturated, D(O) = 1.

(5.127)

˜ becomes free, since D(QQ) ˜ = 1. For When NF = 32 NC , the operator QQ 3 ˜ NC + 1 < NF < 2 NC it appears that D(QQ) < 1 which is forbidden. This is an indication that one is using the wrong degrees of freedom and a dual description is required. This will be elaborated later. Non-trivial superconformal N = 2 theories in d = 4 occur for N = 2, SU (3) theories without matter or SU (2) theories with matter [76]. The key point is that a non-trivial conformal theory with vector ﬁelds contains both massless electric and magnetic excitations (these are mutually non-local). The deﬁnition of a primary state is that it is annihilated by the generator of special conformal transformations, K. The descendents are obtained by acting on primary states with momentum operators. The Lorentz group decomposes into SU (2)L ⊕ SU (2)R with charges j, ˜j respectively. An operator with non-zero spin will be carry j, ˜j charge as well as D the dimension. Unitary chiral primaries obey: j ˜j = 0. The dimension of a chiral ﬁled is: D(O) ≥ j + ˜j + 1

(5.128)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

205

as compared with a non-chiral operator: D(O) ≥ j + ˜j + 2.

(5.129)

D(O) = j + ˜j + 1.

(5.130)

For a free ﬁeld:

This generalizes the previous results for scalar chiral ﬁelds. Fµν decomposes into self-dual and anti self-dual parts that form irreducible representations of SU (2)L ⊕ SU (2)R . F = F + + F −, F ± = F ± ∗F.

(5.131)

One can show that there are states associated with the conserved currents: ± Jµ± = ∂ ν Fµν .

(5.132)

These states are the decendents of F ± , obtained by applying the momentum operator P on the chiral ﬁeld, F ± . The norm is then calculated using the following: the commutator of the d = 4 conformal algebra, ˙

[P αα˙ , K β β ] =

i αβ α˙ β˙ ¯ α˙ β˙ αβ + D αβ α˙ β˙ , M +M 2

(5.133)

where the undotted indices are SU (2)L indices, dotted indices are SU (2)R indices and 2i M 12 = J 3 ; the Hermitian conjugate relation, ˙

˙

(P αα˙ )+ = − αβ α˙ β K β β ;

(5.134)

and that K annihilates primary states. After some algebra this produces, ||J ± | = 2(D − 2).

(5.135)

For D = 2, these are null states and F ± is free. If F is not free and D > 2, then ||J ± | > 0

(5.136)

Je ≡ J+ + J− , Jm ≡ J+ − J−

(5.137)

and therefore both,

are non-vanishing [76]. At the point in moduli space (discussed previously) where there are both electric and magnetic charges, called the Argyres Douglas point [71],

206

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

this condition is met and it is possible to have a non-trivial conformal ﬁeld theory with spin one particles. Other conformal theories occur for N = 1 supersymmetry when Na = 3 and the couplings are appropriately tuned; this is actually a deformed N = 4 theory. For N = 2 supersymmetry, the theory is conformal when NF = 2NC and the one loop β function vanishes; this is known to be an exact result [77]. One can deform N = 4 theories with marginal operators such that the global symmetries are broken but the theory remains conformal. Hence, consider, gi O i (5.138) L = L0 + i

where Oi are the set of operators with dimension 4. Consider N = 1 with Na = 3 and an interaction for the adjoint ﬁelds X1 , X2 , X3 : Lint = hX1 X2 X3 .

(5.139)

When h = g, g being the gauge coupling, the theory has full N = 4 supersymmetry. For a general hφ1 ..φn perturbation one has n 1 (5.140) βh = h(µ) −dw + d (φk ) + γ(φk ) 2 k=1

where dw is the engineering dimension of the composite perturbing term, d(φk ) is the engineering dimension of the ﬁeld, φk and γ(φk ) is the associated anomalous dimension of the ﬁeld φk . By symmetry all ﬁelds have the same anomalous dimension and so γ(φk ) is independent of k and so is denoted as simply γ(φ). In the case at hand dw = 3 ,

3

1

d(φk ) = 3 ,

k=1

k

2

γ(φk ) =

3 γ 2

(5.141)

and therefore 3 βh = h(µ) γ(φ) 2

(5.142)

and βg

= −f (g(µ))((3C2 (G) −

k

= −f (g(µ))3T (R)γ(φ)

T (Rk )) +

T (Rk )γ(φk )) (5.143)

k

(5.144)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

207

h

g Fig. 12. RG ﬂow to the ﬁxed line.

which is non vanishing. C2 (G) is the second Casimir of the group G and T (Rk ) is associated with the representation of φ. Therefore, both βh and βg vanish if γ vanishes. This means there is a ﬁxed line, rather than a ﬁxed point, where g = h and the supersymmetry is enhanced to N = 4. (This is diﬀerent from the more generic situation where the β functions are not related and there are isolated ﬁxed points.) This ﬁxed line is infra-red stable. Also the relations between relevant deformations follow a similar pattern [78]. At the ﬁxed line, one can ask if the N = 4 theory has any discrete symmetries that relate theories with diﬀerent moduli. The answer is yes [79]. There is a great deal of evidence that N = 4 theories possess an SL(2, Z) duality [80] that identiﬁes theories with coupling τ given by equation (5.2): τ→

aτ + b , cτ + d

ad − bc = 1 , a, b, c, d ∈ Z.

(5.145)

To conclude, supersymmetric gauge theories have a very rich phase structure and many outstanding dynamical issues can be discussed reliably in the supersymmetric arena that are hard to address elsewhere. 6

Comments on vacuum energies in scale invariant theories

The puzzle to be addressed in this section is that of the cosmological constant problem [81, 82]. The problem was originally stated as follows. Given that there is an eﬀective scale below which the physics is known then (such

208

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

as QED or the standard model) integrating out the more energetic degrees of freedom above this scale leads to a vacuum energy that is proportional to the cut oﬀ. For either choice of the above physics, the vacuum energy calculated in such a manner however would give a cosmological constant many orders of magnitude above the observed value. One should observe some important caveats in this argument [83,84] and also [78,85]. When one writes down a low energy eﬀective action for a spontaneously broken theory one should respect all the symmetries that appear in the original action. If the original theory is scale invariant then the eﬀective action of the spontaneously broken theory should reﬂect this symmetry. The consequence of scale invariance is a zero vacuum energy whether or not scale invariance is spontaneously broken. As an example consdier N = 4 super Yang-Mills in four dimensions. The potential is given by: V = [φ, φ]2

(6.1)

thus the theory has ﬂat directions. This result is exact to all orders in perturbation theory and non-perturbatively. Giving an expectation value to a ﬁeld will break the scale invariance spontaneously as well as generically breaking the gauge symmetry down to U (1)r where r is the rank of the unbroken gauge group. An analysis of the spectrum shows that a gauge singlet particle emerges, which is the dilaton (the Goldstone Boson associated with spontaneously broken scale invariance). The vacuum energy remains zero. Thus provided there is a translationally invariant ground state, global supersymmetry can’t be spontaneously broken whether or not scale invariance is spontaneoulsy broken. The presence of a ground state is crucial; recall the example discussed in quantum mechanics where the action scale invariance and supersymmetry were spontaneously broken but the system had no ground state. The next example is the O(N ) model in three dimensions, described by the Lagrangian,

3 2 · ∂ µφ − g6 |φ| (6.2) L = ∂µ φ are in the vector representation of O(N ). In the limit, where the ﬁelds φ N → ∞, βg6 = 0

(6.3)

( N1 corrections break the conformality). g6 is a modulus. An eﬀective potential can be written down for the O(N ) invariant ﬁeld, 2 σ = |φ|

(6.4)

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

209

the eﬀective potential is: V (σ) = f (g)|σ|3 .

(6.5)

One has the following possibilities, summarized in the table below: f (g) > 0 f (g) = 0 f (g) = 0

σ 0 σ = 0 σ = 0

S.B. masses V No 0 0 No 0 0 Yes σ, 0 0

(6.6)

where S.B. indicates spontaneous symmetry breaking of scale invariance and V is the vacuum energy. (For f (g) < 0 the theory is unstable). Note, the vacuum energy always vanishes. To summarize, in the situation where σ = 0 and the scale invariance is spontaneously broken, one could write down the eﬀective theory for energy scales below σ and integrate out the physics above that scale. The vacuum energy remains zero however and not proportional to σ3 as is the naive expectation. The ﬁnal example will be the O(N ) × O(N ) model with two ﬁelds in the vector representation of O(N ), with Lagrangian: L =

3 ∂µ φ1 · ∂ µ φ1 + ∂µ φ2 · ∂ µ φ2 − λ6,0 |φ1 |2

(6.7)

2

2 |φ2 |2 − λ2,4 |φ1 |2 |φ2 |2 −λ4,2 |φ1 |2

(6.8)

3 −λ0,6 |φ2 |2 . Again the β functions vanish in the strict N → ∞ limit. There are now two possible scales, one associated to the break down of a global symmetry and another with the break down of scale invariance. The possibilities are summarized by the table below: O(N ) + − + −

O(N ) + + − −

scale massless + all − (N − 1)π s, D − (N − 1)π s, D − 2(N − 1)π s, D

massive V none 0 N, σ 0 N, σ 0 σ 0.

(6.9)

Again, in all cases the vacuum energy vanishes. Assume a hierarchy of scales where the scale invariance is broken at a scale much above the scale at which the O(N ) symmetries are broken. One would have argued that one would have had a low energy eﬀective Lagrangian for the pions and dilaton

210

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

with a vacuum energy given by the scale at which the global symmetry is broken. This is not true, the vacuum energy remains zero. It was proposed that the underlying physics of nature is scale invariant and the scale invariance is only removed by spontaneous symmetry breaking [83, 84] and also [78, 85]. This would explain the vanishing of the cosmological constant. (The data in 2001 seems to indicate the presence of a small cosmological constant.) A key problem with this scenario however is that we do not observe a dilaton in nature that would be expected if scale invariance is spontaneously broken. The hope is that this dilaton may somehow be given a mass with a further independent (Higgs like?) mechanism. The total energy of the universe can be augmented even in a scale invariant theory. Such theories may have many superselection sectors (such as magnetic monopoles in N = 4 super Yang-Mills). In each sector the total energy will diﬀer from zero by the energy of these particles. If there are many of them they may mimic a very small cosmological constant [87]. 7

Supersymmetric gauge theories and string theory

We now view the supersymmetric gauge theories from a diﬀerent point of view. We obtain them as the low energy limit of various string backgrounds. Many properties of gauge theories are obtained in this fashion [93, 94]. In the following discussion we will have as our goal to: • Construct: – a D = 4 dimensional eﬀective theory; – with N = 1 supersymmetry (SUSY); – with U (Nc ) gauge symmetry; – with SU (NF ) × SU (NF ) × U (1) global symmetry. • Identify dualities in a pedestrian way. Our tools for this project will be... comic strips [95]. The unabridged original novel, from which this “comics illustrated” is derived is yet to be written. The scaﬀolding for this construction will be extended objects called branes. 7.1 Branes in string theory Branes are extended object solutions which emerge non perturbatively in string theory in a very similar way that solitons emerge in ﬁeld theory. Magnetic monopoles and vortices are examples of solitonic conﬁgurations

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

211

in gauge theories. What are they good for? First, there existence answers a yearning to search for more than meets the eye (or the equations). A yearning, which seems to be engraved in at least part of our community. It, of course, also answers positively the important question of the existence of a magnetic monopole, as well as that of other interesting topological excitations. These excitations are often very heavy and have little direct impact on the low-energy dynamics. However, there are circumstances, in which they can condense and thus take over the control and drive the infra-red dynamics. In the context we will discuss here, the branes will basically serve as regulators for some ﬁeld theories, playing the same role as string sizes and lattice cut-oﬀs. In lattice gauge theories, such regulators have granted a very rapid access to identifying non-perturbative features, such as conﬁnement, in strong-coupling approximations. Similar consequences will occur here. In string theory, at this stage, the regulator will also learn how to behave from the very theory it regulates. 7.2 Branes in IIA and IIB string theories For some years it has been known that solitons exist in the low-energy effective theory of superstring theory/supergravity [96]. To appreciate that, we ﬁrst review the spectrum of massless particles in various string theories [97]. In the closed bosonic string theory, the spectrum consists of a graviton, an anti-symmetric tensor, and a dilaton, denoted by Gµν , Bµν , Φ, µ = 1, 2, . . . , 24, respectively. The massless spectrum of the open bosonic string consists of photons Aµ . The bosonic sector of type-IIA theory consists of two sectors. The ﬁrst is called NS-NS sector and consists of the same spectrum as that of the bosonic closed string theory, namely Gµν , Bµν , Φ. The other sector is called the RR sector, consisting of one-form and three-form vector potentials, denoted by Aµ and Aµν . To each of them is associated an “electric ﬁeld”, carrying two and four indices, respectively. In type-IIB the NS-NS sector also consists of Gµν , Bµν , Φ. The RR sector consists of vector potentials which are 0-forms, 2-forms, and 4-forms. In addition, duality relations in ten dimensions between the electric ﬁeld Eµ1 ,... ,µp+1 , derived from the p-form A, and the electric ﬁeld Eµ1 ,... ,µ8−p−1 , derived from the (6-p)-form A lead to further vector potentials, a 5-form in type-IIA and 4-forms and 6-forms in RR sector of type-IIB. Gravitons and the other particles in the NS-NS sector have a perturbative string realization. What about the objects in the RR sector? First we note, that in the NS-NS sector, there exist solitons, discovered in supergravity, whose tension T is: TNS−NS = g21l6 , where gs is the string coupling and ls is the string scale. s s These solitons spread over ﬁve space and one time dimensions. The exact background corresponding to this conﬁguration is not yet known as the dilaton background seem to contain singularities. In the RR sector, there are

212

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

solitons as well [92]. The p + 1 dimensional solitons have a tension which is: TRR = g l1p+1 . These are called D-branes. The D stands for Dirichlet. It s s turns out that open strings, obeying appropriate Dirichlet boundary conditions, may end on these branes. The solitonic sector of closed string theory contains conﬁgurations of open strings. One may inquire as to the eﬀective theory on the six-dimensional world volume of the NS-NS soliton, the NS5 brane. One may also inquire what are the supersymmetry properties of that theory. It is easier to answer the second question. The supersymmetry algebra: ¯β j } = {Qiα , Q {Qiα , Qjβ } =

µ 2σαβ Pµ δ ij

¯ α i, Q ¯β j } = 0 {Q

(7.1)

contains on its right-hand side the generators of translation. A soliton, existing in ten dimensions, whose extension is in p+1 space-time dimensions breaks translational invariance in 9-p directions. Thus it is not clear a priori if any of the supersymmetric generators, residing in the left-hand side of the algebra, will survive intact. It turns out that, in ﬂat space-time, the system has 32 SUSY charges. In the presence of the NS5 conﬁguration sixteen (half) of the SUSY charges survive. They are of the form:

L QL + R QR

(7.2)

where L and R obey the constraints:

L

=

Γ0 . . . Γ5 L

R

=

±Γ0 . . . Γ5 R ,

(7.3)

where the sign ± corresponds to type-IIA and type-IIB, respectively, and the Γ-matrices are respective ten-dimensional Dirac Γ-matrices. The answer to the ﬁrst question is more complicated. The massless sector on the NS5 in the type-IIA theory is a chiral system consisting of a self-dual anti-symmetric vector potential, ﬁve scalars, and their supersymmetric partners. The massless sector on the NS5 in the type-IIB theory is a non-chiral system consisting of spin-1 particles, spin-0 particles, and their supersymmetric partners. Let us return now to the RR sector. The D-brane solitons in this sector are denoted Dp, where p denotes the number of spatial dimensions of the branes world volume (the spatial volume in which the brane extends). This is our ﬁrst comic strip (Fig. 13). The coordinates x0 , x1 , . . . , xp are unconstrained and span the brane’s space-time p + 1 dimensional world volume. The other coordinates xp+1 , .., x9 are ﬁxed. The translational non-invariance of the Dp-brane

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

213

D-brane x0,1,... ,p

6 open strings end on brane

−→ xp+1,... ,9 Fig. 13. A Dp brane with an open string ending on it.

reduces the number of SUSY generators by half for any value of p. For Dp-branes R and L in the surviving supersymmetric charge (Eq. (7.2)) obey the constraint

L = Γ0 . . . Γp R .

(7.4)

Thus, for any p, there are sixteen surviving supercharges. Note that, applying naively Newton’s law, one can estimate the eﬀective gravitational coupling GN “M ”. GN , Newton’s constant, is proportional to gs2 . “M ” is proportional to g1s for Dp branes and to g12 for the NS5 brane. Thus GN s “M ” vanishes at weak coupling for Dp branes, unaltering the large distance geometry. 7.3 The eﬀective ﬁeld theory on branes The eﬀective theory on the Dp-brane can be identiﬁed in more detail in this case. It can be shown to contain, in addition to the sixteen conserved supercharges, 9-p massless scalars (corresponding to the Goldstone Bosons resulting from the spontaneous breaking of some of the translational invariances), spin-1 massless particles, and their spin- 12 superpartners. The eﬀective theory is invariant under local U (1) gauge transformations (Fig. 14). Similarly, one can construct a conﬁguration containing NC parallel Dp-branes. This theory still contains sixteen conserved supercharges, and the gauge symmetry has increased to U (1)NC . The next comic strip describes this conﬁguration for NC = 4 (Fig. 15).

214

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Fig. 14. A massless state propagating on a Dp brane.

U (1)4

Fig. 15. The eﬀective ﬁeld theory describing this D4 brane conﬁguration is a U (4) gauge theory, spontaneously broken down to U (1)4 . Four massless states (corresponding to open strings ending on the same brane) and six massive states (corresponding to open strings ending on diﬀerent branes) are shown.

It turns out that the masses of the particles can be directly associated with the minimal distance between the end points of the strings stretched between diﬀerent branes. For example, a string stretched between the i-th and j-th brane represents a particle which has a mass mij = l12 |xi − xj |, s where xi represents the value of the coordinates at which the brane is set. A parameter in ﬁeld theory, the mass of a particle has a very simple geometrical meaning. Imagine now bringing the parallel branes together (Fig. 16). This, according to the above relation, will lead to the emergence of massless

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

215

particles. In fact, one can show that these massless particles can enhance the gauge symmetry all the way from U (1)4 to U (4).

Fig. 16. Four parallel D-branes, piled on top of each other. The sixteen massless states formed are not shown in the ﬁgure.

The minimal gauge symmetry for NC Dp-branes is U (1)NC . The maximal gauge symmetry is U (NC ). This has a correspondence in SUSY ﬁeld theory. The Lagrangian describing the bosonic sector of a supersymmetric gauge theory with sixteen supercharges is of the form: 1 1 1 2 I µ Tr[X I , X J ]2 , (7.5) TrFµν + 4 Dµ X D XI + 8 2 L= 2 gYM,p+1 ls ls gYM,p+1 where Dµ X I

=

∂µ X I − i[Aµ , X I ] (7.6)

X I is a scalar ﬁeld in the adjoint representation of the gauge group and 2 gYM,p+1 is the eﬀective Yang-Mills coupling in p + 1 dimensions, it is proportional to gs . The system has indeed the same particle content and gauge symmetries as can be inferred from Figure 15. Moreover, the Higgs mechanism in the presence of scalars in the adjoint representation is known to conserve the rank of the group. Indeed, only such residual gauge symmetry groups that preserve the rank are allowed according to the comic strip. The form of the potential term appearing in equation (7.5) is generic for supersymmetric theories. The classical potential is ﬂat and allows for an inﬁnite set of vacua, parameterized by those expectation values of the scalar ﬁelds X I for which the potential term vanishes. For example, in a N = 1 supersymmetric gauge theory, containing two multiplets with opposite electric charges, the potential is given by: V = (q † q − q˜† q˜)2 .

(7.7)

216

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

It is a property of supersymmetric theories that the ﬂat potential is retained to all orders in perturbation theory. For some theories with a small number of SUSY charges, this result is modiﬁed non-perturbatively [15, 52]. For theories with sixteen SUSY charges, the potential remains ﬂat also nonperturbatively. The vacua of the system consist of those expectation values for which q = ˜ q = 0. In each of these vacua, the system will have massless scalar excitations. They are denoted moduli and their number is called the dimension of moduli space. Returning to the conﬁguration of NC Dp-branes, we have seen that U (1) symmetries remain unbroken and therefore the theory is said to be in the Coulomb phase. The Coulomb phase is that phase of gauge theory for which the force between both electric and magnetic charges is a Coulomb force. The number of massless particles is at most NC (in complex notation). This is again apparent from the geometry of the open strings ending on the brane conﬁguration. The expectation values of the Higgs ﬁelds in the adjoint representation can be shown to have themselves a very transparent geometrical meaning: ii (i = 1, . . . , NC ). xi = X

(7.8)

xi on the left-hand side of the equation denotes the location of the i-th ii on the right-hand side of the equation denotes the component of brane, X the Higgs ﬁeld in the i-th element of the Cartan subalgebra of U (NC ). In this context, the mass formula mij =

1 |xi − xj | ls2

(7.9)

is just the usual mass obtained by the Higgs mechanism. To keep ﬁxed the mass of these “W ” particles in the limit of the decoupling of the string states (ls → 0), the separations between the branes should vanish themselves in that limit, that is, these separation should be sub-stringy. In this limit, one cannot resolve the NC diﬀerent world volumes, so the theory is perceived as a U (1)NC gauge theory on a single p + 1 dimensional world volume. We are by now well on our way to obtain that brane conﬁgurations will help accomplish our goals, namely the brane conﬁguration leading to an eﬀective D = 4, N = 1 supersymmetrical U (NC ) gauge theory containing in addition matter ﬁelds. 7.4 Eﬀective D = 4 dimensional systems with N = 2 supersymmetry To obtain an eﬀective D = 4 description one can either set up a single D3-brane conﬁguration in type IIB string theory or build a more complicated conﬁguration in type IIA string theory. It turns out that for our goals

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

217

the latter is more useful. One constructs a brane conﬁguration which has a world volume of the form M 3,1 × I[∆x6 ] where M 3,1 is the four-dimensional Minkowski space-time and I[∆x6 ] is an interval of length ∆x6 . This is realized by the following conﬁguration:

Fig. 17. The eﬀective ﬁeld theory on the D4 brane will be four-dimensional for 1 energies much smaller than ∆x . The content of the ﬁeld theory will depend on 6 the branes “?” on which the D4 brane ends.

In this conﬁguration a D4-brane (whose world volume is 5 dimensional and of the type M 3,1 × I[∆x6 ] ) the two branes between which the D4-brane is suspended would be chosen such that the eﬀective ﬁeld theory has U (NC ) local gauge symmetry and N = 1 supersymmetry. The candidates for “heavier” such branes would be either NS5-branes or D6-branes. For either choice, the eﬀective ﬁeld theory, that is the ﬁeld theory at energy scales much smaller than 1/∆x6 , is eﬀectively four dimensional. Before analyzing the various eﬀective theories resulting from the diﬀerent choices of the branes on which the D4-brane ends we discuss which are the allowed “vertices”, that is on which branes are the D4-branes actually allowed to end. In the ﬁrst example we will show that a D4 is allowed to end on a D6-brane, that is the vertex appearing in Figure 18 is allowed. A fundamental string (F1) can by deﬁnition end on any Dp-brane, in particular in type IIB string theory it can end on a D3-brane. Performing what is called an S-duality transformation validates that also a D1brane may end on a D3-brane in type IIB theory. The world-volume of the D3-brane is chosen to extend in the x0 , x7 , x8 , x9 directions and that of the D1-brane extends in x0 , x6 . Establishing that the D1 may end on a D3-brane, we pause now to brieﬂy discuss several types of useful discrete symmetries in string theory, called S- and T -dualities. S-duality is a symmetry which is familiar already in some ﬁeld theories. For example, in an N = 4 supersymmetric gauge theory in D = 4 dimensions the gauge coupling constant g is a real parameter. The ﬁeld

218

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

D4 D6

Fig. 18. A “vertex” in which a D4 brane ends on a D6 brane.

theory is ﬁnite, the gauge coupling does not run under the renormalization group and thus diﬀerent values of g correspond to diﬀerent theories. There is evidence that the theory with coupling g is isomorphic to the theory with coupling 1/g. Type IIB string theory has similar properties with the string coupling playing the role of the gauge coupling. This non-perturbative symmetry, called S-duality, has a generalization involving also the value of the θ parameter in ﬁeld theory and an additional corresponding ﬁeld in string theory. In its implementation in ﬁeld theory electric and magnetic excitations were interchanged, similarly in string theory diﬀerent types of branes are interchanged under S-duality. An F1 is interchanged with a D1, a D3 is left invariant and a D5 is interchanged with an NS5. We have used some of these properties in the derivation above. T -duality is a symmetry which has aspects peculiar to string theory [98]. In particular, a closed bosonic string theory with one compact dimension whose radius in string units is R, is identical to another bosonic string theory whose compact dimension in string units is of radius 1/R. It is the extended nature of the string which leads to this result. The mass M of the particles depends on the compactiﬁcation radius through the formula: M2 =

n2 + m2 R 2 . R2

(7.10)

n/R denotes the quantized momentum of the center of mass of the string. n2 The term R 2 is not particular to string theory, it describes also a point particle in a Kaluza-Klein compactiﬁcation. The second term m2 R2 reﬂects the extended nature of the string. It describes those excitations in which the closed bosonic string extends and winds around the compact dimensions m times. For a small radius R these are very low energy excitations. All in all, an interchange of n and m simultaneously with an interchange of R and 1/R in equation (7.10) gives an indication of how T -duality works. T -duality can

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

219

be generalized to an inﬁnite discrete symmetry and can be shown to actually be a gauge symmetry in the bosonic case. This indicates that it persists non-perturbatively. For supersymmetric string theories T -duality has some diﬀerent manifestations. In particular the transformation R → 1/R maps a type IIA string theory background with radius R to a type IIB background with radius 1/R and vice versa. In the presence of D-branes one naturally distinguishes between two types of compact dimensions: “longitudinal” dimensions, which are part of the world-volume of the brane, and “transverse” dimensions, those dimensions which are not part of the world-volume of the brane. A T -duality involving a longitudinal dimension will transform a Dpbrane into a D(p − 1)-brane and will leave an NS5-brane intact. T -duality involving a transverse direction transforms a Dp-brane into a D(p+1)-brane. Its eﬀect on a NS5-brane is more complicated and we will not need it in this lecture (Figs. 19, 20).

Ri

T 6 -

6

6 Ri

‘Longitudinal Duality’

N −→ D Dp

Rj ←−

-

T −→ -

D(p-1)

Rj ←−

‘Transverse Duality’ D −→ N

Dp

-

D(p+1)

Fig. 19. T -duality acting on Dp branes. D and N denote Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions in the compact directions, respectively.

220

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings NS5

NS5

T

6 -

complicated

NS5

T −→ -

P P A A A

Fig. 20. T -duality acting on a NS5 brane. The detailed action of the transverse duality is not indicated.

Equipped with this information we can continue the proof of the existence of a D4 conﬁguration ending on a D6-brane. By performing a T -duality along three directions transverse to both the D3 and the D1branes, for example the directions x1 , x2 and x3 , we obtain a D4-brane ending on a D6-brane. Due to the odd number of T -duality transformations, one passes from a IIB background to a type IIA background. The proof thus rests on the validity of both S- and T -duality. There are many indications that the former is correct, and there is ﬁrmer evidence of the validity of T -duality. The construction sketched in this proof shows that any Dp-brane can end on any D(p + 2)-brane. The steps used in the proof are summarized in Figure 21. In a somewhat similar manner one can show that a D4-brane can end on a NS5-brane (Fig. 22). Starting from the by now established conﬁguration of a D1-brane ending on a D3-brane in type IIB string theory, one performs T -duality along two transverse direction, x1 and x2 to obtain a D3-brane ending on a D5-brane.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

F1 D3

−→ S

D1

−→ D6 06 T(1,2,3)

D3

0789 IIB

221

D4 01236

0123789 IIA

IIB

Fig. 21. A combination of S and T duality transformations, establishing that a D4 brane can indeed end on a D6 brane.

D4 NS

Fig. 22. A D4 brane ends on a NS5 brane.

An S-duality transformation brings us to a D3-brane ending on a NS5brane. A T -duality along x3 , which is transverse to the newly formed D3brane but longitudinal to the NS5-brane, leads to the desired conﬁguration in which a D4-brane ends on a NS5-brane. This series of S- and T -duality transformations (called U -duality) is shown in Figure 23. Let us consider ﬁrst the eﬀective low energy ﬁeld theory related to the conﬁguration in which the D4-brane is suspended between a NS5-brane and a D6-brane (Fig. 24). The spatial extension of the various branes is summarized in the table below, where + and − denote respectively directions longitudinal and

222

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

D1 D3 06

D3 −→ T(1,2)

0345

−→

D5 0612

S

034512 IIB

IIB

0126 D3

D4 −→ T(3)

0612

NS5 012345

NS5 012345 IIB

IIA

Fig. 23. S- and T -duality transformations establish that a D4 brane may end on a NS5 brane.

D4

NS5

D6

Fig. 24. A D4 brane suspended between and NS5 and D6 branes. The eﬀective ﬁeld theory contains no massless particles and is thus, at best, some topological theory.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

223

transverse to the relevant brane, and = indicates that the brane is of ﬁnite extent in that direction. D4 D6 N S5

x0123 + + +

x4 − − +

x5 − − +

x6 = − −

x7 − + −

x8 − + −

x9 − + −.

(7.11)

The eﬀective ﬁeld theory should contain the massless degrees of freedom of the system. Massless degrees of freedom can also be identiﬁed in a geometrical manner. Each possibility to displace the D4-brane along the D6 and the NS5 branes maintaining the shape of the conﬁguration corresponds to a massless particle. The D4-brane left on its own could be displaced along the directions x4 , x5 , x6 , x7 , x8 and x9 . On the D6 side, the D4-brane is locked in the x4 , x5 and x6 directions. On the NS5 side the D4 is locked along x6 , x7 , x8 and x9 . All in all, the D4-brane is frozen. It cannot be displaced in a parallel fashion and therefore the eﬀective theory contains no massless particles whatsoever. Although the D4-brane would have allowed the propagation of 5-dimensional photons had it been left on its own, suspended between the D6 and the NS5 it allows no massless degrees of freedom to propagate on it. It is at best a topological ﬁeld theory. We thus turn to another attempt to build an eﬀective four dimensional ﬁeld theory along the suspended D4-brane. We now suspend it between two NS5-branes which are extended in the same directions as the NS5 of the previous example [95] (Fig. 25).

Fig. 25. A D4 brane suspended between two NS5 branes. The eﬀective ﬁeld theory is N = 2 SUSY U (1) gauge theory.

At both ends, the D4-branes is locked in the x6 , x7 , x8 and x9 directions. Therefore now it can be displaced in the x4 and x5 directions, as shown in Figure 26.

224

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Fig. 26. The D4 brane can be parallely displaced along the x4 and x5 directions. This corresponds to two massless spin-0 particles appearing in the eﬀective ﬁeld theory. N = 2 supersymmetry implies the existence of massless spin- 21 and spin-1 particles as well.

Thus the eﬀective ﬁeld theory contains at least two massless spin 0 particles. An analysis using (Eqs. (7.2), (7.3)) and (Eq. (7.4)) shows that in this conﬁguration one half of the supersymmetry generators of the single brane conﬁguration survive. That is, 8 supercharges survive as symmetries, implementing an N = 2 supersymmetry in the eﬀective four dimensional theory. The two scalar particle identiﬁed geometrically form part of the N = 2 vector multiplet. That multiplet consists of spin 1, spin 1/2 and spin 0 particles. Thus the conﬁguration above describes an eﬀective D = 4, N = 2, U (1) supersymmetric gauge theory. The eﬀective four dimensional gauge coupling constant is related to the eﬀective ﬁve dimensional gauge coupling constant in the usual Kaluza-Klein manner: 2 = gYM,4

2 gYM,5 · ∆x6

(7.12)

2 Changing the value of the separation ∆x6 amounts to rescaling gYM,4 . As in the single brane case, the gauge symmetry can be enhanced to U (NC ) by suspending NC D4-branes between the NS5-branes1 (Fig. 27). Rotating one of the NS5-branes from the x4 , x5 directions to the x8 , x9 directions will lead to the desired D = 4, N = 1, U (NC ) eﬀective gauge theory. Before pursuing this, it will be useful to study the eﬀective ﬁeld theory on a D4-brane suspended between two D6-branes (Fig. 28).

1 The

actual symmetry turns out to be SU (NC ). This is discussed in [93, 99].

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

225

D4 }NC

NS5

NS5

Fig. 27. The eﬀective ﬁeld theory is a D = 4, N = 2 U (NC ) SUSY gauge theory.

D4

D6

D6

Fig. 28. The eﬀective ﬁeld theory on the D4 brane is a D = 4, N = 2 SUSY ﬁeld theory, containg an N = 2 matter hypermultiplet. It contains no massless gauge particles.

The spatial extension of the branes is: D4 D6

x0123 + +

x4 − −

x5 − −

x6 = −

x7 − +

x8 − +

x9 − +.

(7.13)

This conﬁguration also has 8 surviving supercharges and thus the eﬀective ﬁeld theory has N = 2 supersymmetry in D = 4. Similar considerations to the ones used above show that the eﬀective theory contains at least three massless spin 0 particles. These correspond to the allowed translations in the directions x7 , x8 and x9 . An N = 2 supersymmetric multiplet would require either two or four spin 0 particles. At the case at hand, the multiplet is actually the N = 2 hypermultiplet which contains four spin 0 and four spin 1/2 degrees of freedom. It is important to note that the system contains no massless spin 1 degrees of freedom, that is the low energy eﬀective theory is not an unbroken gauge theory. Actually, later we will show that

226

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

this conﬁguration will be part of the description of the Higgs phase of the supersymmetric gauge theory. The fact that the geometrical considerations were not suﬃcient to identify all four spin 0 particles shows us one of the limitations of the simple geometrical analysis. The fourth spin 0 particle can be identiﬁed in this case with the component of a compactiﬁed gauge ﬁeld, namely A6 . At this stage of understanding of the gauge theory–brane correspondence, one ﬁnds parameters in the brane picture with no clearly known ﬁeld theoretical interpretation and vice versa. Returning to the N = 2 U (NC ) gauge conﬁguration, one notes that a separation of the D4-branes along the directions x4 , x5 leads to all rank preserving possible breakings of the gauge symmetry. This is similar to what was described before in the case of the separations of NC inﬁnitely extended parallel Dp-branes. The mass of the W particles is again proportional to ∆D4(x4 , x5 ), which denotes the separation of two D4-branes in the x4 , x5 directions. The complex number of moduli is immediately read out of the geometrical picture to be NC . This coincides with algebraic analysis determining the complex number of massless spin 0 particles surviving the breaking of the gauge group. In Figure 29 we summarize the complex number of massless spin 0 particles appearing in any of the four conﬁgurations discussed until now.

7.5 An eﬀective D = 4, N = 1, U(NC ) gauge theory with matter We construct now the conﬁguration leading to N = 1 supersymmetry. The rotation of one of the NS5 from x4 , x5 to the x8 , x9 directions corresponds to adding an inﬁnite mass term to the scalar ﬁelds in the adjoint representation, a rotation by diﬀerent angles would have given rise in ﬁeld theoretical language to a ﬁnite mass term. The rotation leads to a conﬁguration with 4 surviving supercharges (Fig. 30). The eﬀective four dimensional theory is a U (1) gauge symmetry and has no moduli, as can be seen from the by now familiar geometrical considerations. This agrees with a description by an eﬀective D = 4, N = 1 supersymmetric U (1) gauge theory. The gauge symmetry can be enhanced to U (NC ) by suspending NC D4-branes between the two diﬀerent NS5-branes (Fig. 31). The ﬁnal ingredient needed is to add some ﬂavor to the eﬀective ﬁeld theory. This is done by distributing NF D6-branes along the x6 direction (Fig. 32).

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

227

D4 D6

D6

N=2 Hyper-multiplet

NS5

Vector SUSY U(1)

D6

‘Topological’

2

D4 NS5 1

D4 NS5 0

Fig. 29. A summary of the particle content of the low-energy eﬀective theories described in Section 7.4.

The spatial extension of the various branes is:

D4 D6 N S5 N S5

x0123 + + + +

x4 − − + −

x5 − − + −

x6 = − − −

x7 − + − −

x8 − + − +

x9 − + − +.

(7.14)

228

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

D4

NS5 45

NS5’ 89

Fig. 30. The conﬁguration leading to a D = 4, N = 1 U (1) SUSY gauge theory. The NS5 extending also in the directions x8 , x9 is labeled NS5’.

NS5 45

D4 }NC

NS5’ 89

Fig. 31. The conﬁguration leading to a D = 4, N = 1 U (NC ) SUSY gauge theory.

The matter ﬁelds appear as representations of diagonal vectorial subgroup of the ﬂavor group SU (NF ) × SU (NF ) × U (1). Geometrically they are associated with strings connecting the D6-branes with the D4-branes. Touching the D6-branes endows the open strings with ﬂavor, and touching the D4-branes endows them with color. Their directionality is responsible for ¯F . In [93] the reader will ﬁnd referthe appearance of both the NF and N ences for attempts to construct chiral conﬁgurations and to identify the full ﬂavor group. The masses of the squarks have a geometrical interpretation: they are proportional to the distance between the D4 and D6-branes along the x4 , x5 directions. The eﬀective ﬁeld theory is thus a four dimensional N = 1 U (NC ) supersymmetric gauge theory which has matter in the fundamental representation of the vector subgroup of the ﬂavor symmetry. This is as close to our goal as we will reach in this lecture. The way to obtain the Seiberg dual conﬁguration is essentially to move the position of the NS5-brane residing on the left hand part of the

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

@ I @ @ R @

229

  

NC

D4

NS5

D6

D6

NS5’

Fig. 32. Adding D6 branes allows the existence of matter in the eﬀective ﬁeld theory. Open strings ending on D4 and D6 branes carry both color and ﬂavor.

conﬁguration all the way to the right hand part. The resulting new conﬁg¯F colored uration will have SU (NF − NC ) gauge symmetry and NF and N 2 matter as well as NF , ﬂavor adjoint color singlets, which is exactly the result of Seiberg (Fig. 33). The NF2 ﬁelds are essentially the color-singlet particles appearing in the eﬀective ﬁeld theory corresponding to the brane conﬁguration (Fig. 28).

NF

- ¯ (N F , NF )  ? ? i P PP   q P   NF = 5   I @ @ ˜C )R (NF , N NS5’ D6 D6 D6 D6 D6

˜C = 2 N

NS5

Fig. 33. This is the dual conﬁguration to that of a N = 1 SUSY gauge theory with NC = 3 and NF = 5 (Fig. 39). The conﬁguration shown has NC = 5 − 3 = 2, NF = 5 and, in addition, NF2 color singlet massless particles.

7.6 More pieces of information In order to be able to perform this displacement of the NS5-brane, one needs three more pieces of “information” as to the behavior of branes.

230

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

1) “Motions of branes” Changes of the positions of branes correspond in some cases to smooth changes in ﬁeld theoretical parameters. For example, a change in the relative displacement in the x4 , x5 directions of the D4-branes in the N = 4 and N = 2 supersymmetric conﬁgurations led to a smooth change of the mass of the W ’s (or equivalently to smooth changes in the Higgs expectation values). A change in the relative position in the D4 and D6-branes in the x4 , x5 directions led to a change in the masses of the squarks (it is actually equivalent to a smooth change in the expectation value of the scalar coupled to fermions by a Yukawa coupling) (Fig. 34).

D4

∆D4,D4 (x4 , x5 )

6

mWi

D4 ?

NS5

NS5 D6 × I @ @ D4 @ R @

∆D4,D6 (x4 , x5 )

mQ(Q) ˜

D4

6 x4 , x5 - x6 Fig. 34. The values of the masses of the W and squark particles is encoded in this ﬁgure. They are proportional to the distances ∆D4,D4 (x4 , x5 ) and ∆D4,D6 (x4 , x5 ), respectively. Both distances are indicated in the ﬁgure. Varying these distances smoothly changes the parameters of the ﬁeld theory.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

231

A change in the relative distance between the NS5-branes corresponded to a change in the coupling of the gauge theory on the D4-branes suspended between them. A change in the relative position along the x7 , x8 and x9 directions of the positions of two NS5-branes corresponds to adding a FayetIliopoulos term in an N = 2 ﬁeld theoretical interpretation (Fig. 35). A similar interpretation can be given for the separation along the x7 direction between the NS5 and NS5 in the N = 1 case supersymmetric case.

x7 , x8 , x9

NS5 ×

6 × NS5

∆N S5 (x7 , x8 , x9 ) - x6

Fig. 35. The NS5 branes can be separated in the x7 , x8 , x9 directions. Each such separation corresponds to appropriate components of the Fayet-Iliopoulos term in N = 2 SUSY U (NC ) gauge theory.

In other cases changes in the position of branes could have more abrupt consequences. Consider a conﬁguration consisting only of a NS5-brane and a D6-brane separated in the x6 direction (Fig. 36). Displacing the NS5brane for example in the x6 direction is a smooth motion as long as the two branes do not intersect (this is an example where a brane parameter, the relative separation in the x6 direction, has no clear impact on the ﬁeld theory description). Eventually, the two branes have to intersect. However once they do, it is clear that something more singular may result. What actually can be shown to occur [93, 95] is that as the NS5-brane “crosses” the D6-brane a D4-brane is created and suspended between the NS5 and D6-brane. Note that there is no particle content to the eﬀective theory on that D4-brane and thus no new degrees of freedom are created as the D4-brane is formed. 2) Supersymmetry restrictions Supersymmetry allows that only a single D4-brane can be suspended between a NS5-brane and a D6-brane [93, 95] (Fig. 37). 3) The brane realization of the Higgs phase We have seen that the Coulomb phase of N = 4 gauge theories is spanned by the separation among the D4-brane. The same is true the N = 2 case. The N = 1 case has no Coulomb phase. Also the Higgs phase has a simple geometrical realization in terms of branes. Consider an N = 2

232

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

NS5 45

D4

D6 789

D6

∆x6

-

NS5

Fig. 36. A D4 brane is created when the NS5 brane crosses the D6 brane, from left to right in this ﬁgure. The D4 brane carries no massless degrees of freedom.

conﬁguration in which in addition of having a D4-brane suspended between two NS5-branes a D6-brane is inserted between the NS5-branes (Fig. 38). The separation of the D4-branes on the D6-brane along the x4 , x5 directions maintains the supersymmetry. However the eﬀective ﬁeld theory on each of the D4-branes contains no spin 1 massless particles. One can show that this breaking indeed represents the Higgs phenomenon, the separation among the two D4-branes along the x4 , x5 directions being proportional to the expectation value of the scalar ﬁeld responsible for the Higgsing. This result is true also for the N = 1 conﬁgurations. For the N = 1 case one needs also to realize that the eﬀective theory on a D4-brane suspended between a D6-brane and a NS5 -brane contains one massless complex spin 0 ﬁeld, one massless spin 1/2 ﬁeld and no massless spin 1 ﬁelds. The brane geometrical picture has a classical weakly coupled taste. In order to be able to trust the pictures as one moves the branes around it is advisable to be in a weak coupling situation as long as possible. To enforce that, one starts the journey by setting the D = 4 N = 1 U (NC ) supersymmetric gauge theory with NF ﬂavors in the Higgs phase. Retaining the Higgs phase, one is able not only to reproduce the particle content required by Seiberg’s duality, but also his analysis of comparing the dimensions of the moduli space at both ends of the duality transformation, as well as comparing the numbers of the relevant operators. One is also able to show in the brane picture as Seiberg has done in ﬁeld theory that masses as one end of the duality pair correspond to expectation values on the other side.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

D4

NS5

a)

D4 b)

D6

D4

NS5

233

D6

Fig. 37. SUSY allows only the existence of the conﬁguration a). Conﬁguration b) is disallowed. However, if the NS5 is exchanged with an NS5’, conﬁguration b) is allowed.

7.7 Obtaining the dual ﬁeld theory At this stage in the lecture a movie2 composed out of the comic strips was shown. This enabled an easy visualization of the continuous features of the duality transformation. The reader is actually equipped by now to embark on this journey on her/his own (or by reading [68, 69, 93]). As a navigational aid, I will brieﬂy mention the diﬀerent stages of the journey. The starting point is a conﬁguration depicted in Figure 39, which has NF = 5 and NC = 3. First stage: the NS5-brane is displaced across the D6-branes respecting the rule mentioned in 1) above concerning D4-brane creation.

2 An

attempt is made to digitalize the movie.

234

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings NF = 1

D4

NS5

D6

NC = 1

NS5

D4 6 D4

NS5

?

D6

Q

NS5

Fig. 38. The Higgs phase of ﬁeld theory is realized by the D4 branes connecting the two NS5 branes, breaking and separating on the D6 brane. This indicated distance of separation corresponds to the expectation value of the Higgs matter ﬁeld. The eﬀective ﬁeld theory in this example carries no massless degrees of freedom at all. In the presence of additional D6 branes, the eﬀective theory would contain massless spin-0 and spin- 21 degrees of freedom, but no massless spin-1 degrees of freedom, as appropriate for a Higgs phase (Fig. 28).

Second stage: the system is driven into the Higgs phase according to rule 3) above. Third stage: it is realized that if the NS5-brane will directly collide with the NS5 brane the gauge coupling will diverge, leaving the protected weak coupling regime. In order to avoid that, the branes are separated along the x7 direction before they are made to coincide in the x6 direction. This separation, as stated in 1) above, corresponds in some sense [68, 69, 93] to the turning on of a Fayet-Iliopoulos coupling in ﬁeld theory. At this stage, the appropriate reconnections of the branes shows that the conﬁguration represents the Higgs phase of a U (NF − NC ) gauge theory.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories NF = 5

NS5

235

-

  

NC = 3

D6

D6

D6

D6

D6

D6

NS5’

Fig. 39. A D = 4, N = 1 SUSY, NC = 3, NF = 5 conﬁguration.

Fourth stage: rejoining the branes in the x7 direction requires some quantum adjustments which we will indicate below. The ﬁnal outcome is shown = 5 ﬂavors and in Figure 33, the gauge theory has NF NC = 5 − 3 = 2 colors. In addition, the theory has 52 singlet complex spin-0 and spin- 12 massless particles. This is the realization of the dual theory obtained by Seiberg. The result here is simply the outcome of the NS5 moving according to the brane rules from the left of the NS5’ to its right. The simple procedure allows one to obtain the infra-red dual of many other brane conﬁgurations.

7.8 Concluding remarks Infrared duality What has actually been shown is that in a continuous motion starting from one N = 1 supersymmetric gauge theory one reaches another. That does not really demonstrate that the two are identical in the infra-red or at all. Taking a bus ride from Chamonix to Les Houches does not constitute a proof that the two cities are the same. What has emerged naturally is one gauge group out of another as well as the presence of NF2 color singlets. A more detailed analysis of the resulting massless particle spectrum (chiral ring) and its properties is needed to conclude infra-red duality [68, 69, 93]. Other groups It can be shown that Sp(N ), O(N ) and product gauge groups can be constructed as well [68, 69, 93].

236

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Generalized infra-red dualities By allowing conﬁgurations with k NS5-branes and k NS5 -branes one can test new and old generalizations of Seiberg’s duality in the presence of a richer matter content and various Landau-Ginzburg-like interactions [68, 69, 93].

M-theory context The brane–ﬁeld theory correspondence obtains even more geometrical features once embedded in M-theory [93, 99, 100].

Quantum corrections The classical brane picture needs to be amended by quantum considerations [95, 99]. For example, recall that two D4-branes were not allowed to be suspended between an NS5 and a D6-brane. One could ascribe this to a quantum repulsive force between two D4-branes on the same side of a NS5-brane in a non-BPS conﬁguration. The agreement between the dimensions of the moduli spaces of the two dual models was obtained in the presence of a quantum attractive interaction between two D4-branes on the opposite sides of a NS5-brane. At this stage, these are additional postulates they have however immediate consequences in allowing a uniﬁed description of D = 4 and D = 3 gauge theories with 4 supercharges. For example, consider the D = 4 N = 1 U (NC ) gauge theory with no ﬂavors. Such a system has a ground state [15, 52]. However the same system in D = 3 has no ground state [101]. This is indicated in the brane picture in the following manner: compactify one dimension, say x3 , of the world-volume of the D4-brane, 0 ≤ x3 ≤ 2πR. It is more convenient to perform a longitudinal T -duality along the x3 direction. The resulting system is a type IIB string theory whose third direction has radius 1/R. Thus a four dimensional IIA system corresponds to a type IIB system with vanishing radius. For any ﬁnite radius, the type IIB eﬀective theory corresponds to a ﬁeld theory with more than three dimensions in type IIA. Only an inﬁnite type IIB radius will correspond to an eﬀective three dimensional gauge theory. Due to the repulsive force between the D4-branes, and due to the compact nature of the x3 coordinate, a stable conﬁguration will form for any ﬁnite value of x3 , that is, such a vacuum state exists for any eﬀective supersymmetric gauge theory with no ﬂavors in more than three dimensions. Once the IIB radius is inﬁnite, the equilibrium state exists no more, the three dimensional gauge theory has no vacuum.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

237

gs Black Holes

HOLOGRAPHIC BOUND

SUGRA 1 v

STRINGS V

E

Fig. 40. A prototype of a phase diagram for a gravitational theory.

8

Final remarks

In this set of lectures we have had a panoramic vista of the rich structure of supersymmetric gauge theories. The classiﬁcation of possible phases of gauge theories were understood well before concepts like conﬁnement could have been analysed analytically in four dimensional continuum theories. Perhaps a similar course can be followed for theories whose symmetry includes general coordinate invariance in analogy to Figures 4, 5 and 8. The qualitative understanding of the phase structure of such systems will proceed their complete quantitative analysis. As a prototype for a phase diagram of gravity we propose the following Figure 40, [102]. E.R. acknowledges S. Elitzur, A. Forge, A. Giveon, D. Kutasov and A. Schwimmer for collobartions and many very valuable discussions. D.B. acknowledges the inspirational atmosphere created by the groups of the Hebrew University and the Weizmann institute.

The references given in this article though detailed are not complete. References [1] Y.A. Golfand and E.P. Likhtman, JETP Lett. 13 (1971) 323 [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 13 (1971) 452]. [2] J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B 49 (1974) 52. [3] J. Bagger and J. Wess, Supersymmetry and Supergravity, 2nd edition (Princeton University Press, 1992). [4] P.C. West, Introduction To Supersymmetry And Supergravity, Singapore (Singapore: World Scientiﬁc, 1990), 425.

238 [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976) 974. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 1277. L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 2619. J.R. Ellis, S. Kelley and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 260 (1991) 131. U. Amaldi, W. de Boer and H. Furstenau, Phys. Lett. B 260 (1991) 447. P. Langacker and M.x. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 817. D. Kutasov and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 358 (1991) 600. Introduction to Supersymmetry http://www.lns.cornell.edu/ argyres/phys661/ P. Fayet and S. Ferrara, Phys. Rept. 32 (1977) 249. H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rept. 110 (1984) 1. K. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. BC 45 (1996) 1 [hep-th/9509066]. S.J. Gates, M.T. Grisaru, M. Rocek and W. Siegel, Front. Phys. 58 (1983) 1 [arXiv:hep-th/0108200]. S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory Of Fields, Vol. 3: Supersymmetry (Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr., 2000), 419. J.M. Figueroa-O’Farrill, BUSSTEPP lectures on supersymmetry [arXiv:hep-th/0109172]. For a review see, O. Aharony, S.S. Gubser, J.M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept. 323 (2000) 183 [arXiv:hep-th/9905111]. See for example, O. Aharony, J. Sonnenschein, M.E. Peskin and S. Yankielowicz, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 6157 [arXiv:hep-th/9507013]. For a review see, T. Banks, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 62 (1998) 341; Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 68 (1998) 261 [arXiv:hep-th/9706168]. S. Elitzur, E. Rabinovici and A. Schwimmer, Phys. Lett. B 119 (1982) 165. N. Parga, E. Rabinovici and A. Schwimmer, Nucl. Phys. B 255 (1985) 383. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 188 (1981) 513. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 202 (1982) 253. P.C. West, Nucl. Phys. B 106 (1976) 219. A. Forge and E. Rabinovici, Phys. Rev. D 32 (1985) 927. V. de Alfaro, S. Fubini and G. Furlan, Nuovo Cim. A 34 (1976) 569. V.P. Akulov and A.I. Pashnev, Theor. Math. Phys. 56 (1983) 862; Teor. Mat. Fiz. 56 (1983) 344. S. Fubini and E. Rabinovici, Nucl. Phys. B 245 (1984) 17. P. Claus, M. Derix, R. Kallosh, J. Kumar, P.K. Townsend and A. Van Proeyen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4553. R. Kallosh, Black holes and quantum mechanics [arXiv:hep-th/9902007]. N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B 318 (1993) 469. Private communication, P. Fayet and J. Illiopoulos. P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 58 (1975) 67. L. O’Raifeartaigh, Nucl. Phys. B 96 (1975) 331. P. Fayet and J. Iliopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 51 (1974) 461. T. Banks, R. Myerson and J.B. Kogut, Nucl. Phys. B 129 (1977) 493. D. Horn, M. Weinstein and S. Yankielowicz, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 3715. S. Elitzur, R.B. Pearson and J. Shigemitsu, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 3698. A. Ukawa, P. Windey and A.H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 1013.

D.S. Berman and E. Rabinovici: Supersymmetric Gauge Theories

239

[42] For similar structures in a string theory context see, S. Elitzur, B. Pioline and E. Rabinovici, JHEP 0010 (2000) 011 [arXiv:hep-th/0009009]. [43] J.L. Cardy and E. Rabinovici, Nucl. Phys. B 205 (1982) 1. [44] E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 86 (1979) 283. [45] H.B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B 61 (1973) 45. [46] S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rept. 23 (1976) 245. [47] G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 138 (1978) 1. [48] N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 431 (1994) 484 [arXiv:hep-th/9408099]. [49] N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 19; Erratum-ibid. 430 (1994) 485 [arXiv:hep-th/9407087]. [50] A. Bilal, Duality in N = 2 SUSY SU (2) Yang-Mills Theory: A pedagogical introduction to the work of Seiberg and Witten [arXiv:hep-th/9601007]. [51] T.R. Taylor, G. Veneziano and S. Yankielowicz, Nucl. Phys. B 218 (1983) 493. [52] D. Amati, K. Konishi, Y. Meurice, G.C. Rossi and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rept. 162 (1988) 169. [53] I. Aﬄeck, M. Dine and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 241 (1984) 493; Nucl. Phys. B 256 (1985) 557. [54] K. Intriligator, Phys. Lett. B 336 (1994) 409 [hep-th/9407106]. [55] S. Elitzur, A. Forge, A. Giveon and E. Rabinovici, Phys. Lett. B 353 (1995) 79 [hep-th/9504080]. [56] S. Elitzur, A. Forge, A. Giveon and E. Rabinovici, Nucl. Phys. B 459 (1996) 160 [hep-th/9509130]. [57] S. Elitzur, A. Forge, A. Giveon and E. Rabinovici, Ahrenshoop Symp. (1995) 174 [hep-th/9512140]. [58] K. Intriligator, R.G. Leigh and N. Seiberg, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 1092 [hep-th/9403198]. [59] K. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 431 (1994) 551 [hep-th/9408155]. [60] K. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 444 (1995) 125 [hep-th/9503179]. [61] K. Intriligator, N. Seiberg and S.H. Shenker, Phys. Lett. B 342 (1995) 152 [hep-ph/9410203]. [62] S. Elitzur, A. Forge, A. Giveon, K. Intriligator and E. Rabinovici, Phys. Lett. B 379 (1996) 121 [hep-th/9603051]. [63] T. Banks and E. Rabinovici, Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979) 349; E. Fradkin and S. Shenker, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 3682. [64] L.F. Abbott and E. Farhi, Nucl. Phys. B 189 (1981) 547. [65] A. Casher, Phys. Lett. B 83 (1979) 395. [66] G. ’t Hooft, in C79-08-26.4 PRINT-80-0083 (UTRECHT) Lecture given at Cargese Summer Inst. (Cargese, France, Aug. 26 – Sep. 8, 1979). [67] N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 435 (1995) 129 [hep-th/9411149]. [68] S. Elitzur, A. Giveon and D. Kutasov, Phys. Lett. B 400 (1997) 269 [hep-th/9702014]. [69] S. Elitzur, A. Giveon, D. Kutasov, E. Rabinovici and A. Schwimmer, Nucl. Phys. B 505 (1997) 202 [hep-th/9704104]. [70] N. Dorey, T.J. Hollowood, V.V. Khoze and M.P. Mattis, The calculus of many instantons [arXiv:hep-th/0206063]. [71] P. Argyres and M. Douglas, Nucl. Phys. B 448 (1995) 93 [hep-th/9505062]. [72] A.C. Davis, M. Dine and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B 125 (1983) 487.

240

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

[73] T. Banks and A. Zaks, Nucl. Phys. B 196 (1982) 189. [74] G. Mack, Commun. Math. Phys. 53 (1977) 155. [75] V.K. Dobrev, G. Mack, V.B. Petkova, S.G. Petrova and I.T. Todorov, Harmonic Analysis On The N-Dimensional Lorentz Group And Its Application To Conformal Quantum Field Theory (Berlin, 1977), 280. [76] P.C. Argyres, M. Ronen Plesser, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 71. [77] R.G. Leigh and M.J. Strassler, Nucl. Phys. B 447 (1995) 95 [arXiv:hep-th/9503121]. [78] M.B. Einhorn, G. Goldberg and E. Rabinovici, Nucl. Phys. B 256 (1985) 499. [79] For some recent string theory results see, O. Aharony, B. Kol and S. Yankielowicz, JHEP 0206 (2002) 039 [arXiv:hep-th/0205090]. [80] For a review, see: J. Harvey [hep-th/9603082], and references therein. [81] Ya.B. Zeldovich, Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 11 (1968) 381. [82] S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989). [83] D.J. Amit and E. Rabinovici, Nucl. Phys. B 257 (1985) 371. [84] E. Rabinovici, B. Saering and W.A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 562. [85] W.M. Alberico and S. Sciuto, Symmetry And Simplicity in Physics, in Proceedings, Symposium on The Occasion of Sergio Fubini’s 65th Birthday, Turin, Italy, February 24-26, 1994 (Singapore, Singapore: World Scientiﬁc, 1994), 220. [86] W.A. Bardeen, M. Moshe and M. Bander, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984) 1188. [87] E. Rabinovici, unpublished. [88] N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 435 (1995) 129 [hep-th/9411149]. [89] P. Argyres, M.R. Plesser, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 71 [hep-th/9511154]. [90] N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B 318 (1993) 469 [hep-th/9309335]. [91] For example, see: A. Giveon and M. Roˇcek, Phys. Lett. B 363 (1995) 173 [hep-th/9508043], and references therein. [92] J. Polchinski, TASI Lectures on D-Branes [hep-th/9611050]. [93] A. Giveon and D. Kutasov, Brane Dynamics and Gauge Theory [hep-th/9802067]. [94] E. Rabinovici, Non-perturbative gauge dynamics and strings, Published in “Erice 1999, Basics and highlights in fundamental physics”, 284. [95] A. Hanany and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 492 (1997) 152 [hep-th/9611230]. [96] M. Duﬀ, R.R. Khuri and J.X. Lu, Phys. Rept. 259 (1995) 213 [hep-th/9412184]. [97] M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz and E. Witten, Superstring Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1987). [98] A. Giveon, M. Porrati and E. Rabinovici, Phys. Rept. 244 (1994) 77 [hep-th/9401139]. [99] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 500 (1997) 3 [hep-th/9703166]. [100] P.S. Howe, N.D. Lambert and P.C. West, Phys. Lett. B 418 (1998) 85 [arXiv:hep-th/9710034]; N.D. Lambert and P.C. West, Nucl. Phys. B 524 (1998) 141 [arXiv:hep-th/9712040]. [101] O. Aharony, A. Hanany, K. Intriligator, N. Seiberg and M.J. Strassler, Nucl. Phys. B 499 (1997) 67 [hep-th/9703110]. [102] J.L. Barbon, I.I. Kogan and E. Rabinovici, Nucl. Phys. B 544 (1999) 104 [arXiv:hep-th/9809033]; S.A. Abel, J.L.F. Barbon, I.I. Kogan and E. Rabinovici, JHEP 9904 (1999) 015 [arXiv:hep-th/9902058].

LECTURE 3

AN INTRODUCTION TO DUALITY SYMMETRIES IN STRING THEORY

A. SEN Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhusi, Allahabad 211019, India

Contents 1 Introduction 2 A brief review of perturbative 2.1 The spectrum . . . . . . 2.2 Interactions . . . . . . . 2.3 Compactiﬁcation . . . .

243 string theory 245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

3 Notion of duality symmetries in string theory 255 3.1 Duality symmetries: Deﬁnition and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 3.2 Testing duality conjectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 4 Analysis of low energy eﬀective ﬁeld theory 4.1 Type I–SO(32) heterotic duality in D = 10 . 4.2 Self-duality of heterotic string theory on T 6 . 4.3 Duality between heterotic on T 4 and type IIA 4.4 SL(2, Z) self-duality of type IIB in D = 10 . 4.5 Other examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . on . . . .

. . . . K3 . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

5 Precision test of duality: Spectrum of BPS states 5.1 SL(2, Z) S-duality in heterotic on T 6 and multi-monopole spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 SL(2, Z) duality in type IIB on S 1 and D-branes . . . . . 5.3 Massless solitons and tensionless strings . . . . . . . . . . 6 Interrelation between diﬀerent duality conjectures 6.1 Combining non-perturbative and T -dualities . 6.2 Duality of dualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Fiberwise duality transformation . . . . . . . 6.4 Recovering higher dimensional dualities from lower dimensional ones . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

260 261 264 268 272 274

276 moduli . . . . . 280 . . . . . 286 . . . . . 296

299 . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

7 Duality in theories with less than sixteen supersymmetry generators 305 7.1 Construction of a dual pair of theories with eight supercharges . . 306 7.2 Test of duality conjectures involving theories with eight supercharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 8 M-theory 312 8.1 M-theory in eleven dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 8.2 Compactiﬁcation of M-theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

AN INTRODUCTION TO DUALITY SYMMETRIES IN STRING THEORY

A. Sen

Abstract In this review I discuss some basic aspects of non-perturbative string theory. The topics include test of duality symmetries based on the analysis of the low energy eﬀective action and the spectrum of BPS states, relationship between diﬀerent duality symmetries, and an introduction to M-theory.

1

Introduction

During the last few years, our understanding of string theory has undergone a dramatic change. The key to this development is the discovery of duality symmetries, which relate the strong and weak coupling limits of apparently diﬀerent string theories. These symmetries not only relate apparently different string theories, but give us a way to compute certain strong coupling results in one string theory by mapping it to a weak coupling result in a dual string theory. In this review I shall try to give an introduction to this exciting subject. However, instead of surveying all the important developments in this subject I shall try to explain the basic ideas with the help of a few simple examples. I apologise for the inherent bias in the choice of examples and the topics, this is solely due to the varied degree of familiarity that I have with this vast subject. I have also not attempted to give a complete list of references. Instead I have only included those references whose results have been directly used or mentioned in this article. A complete list of references may be obtained by looking at the citations to some of the original papers in spires. There are also many other reviews in this subject where more references can be found [1–17]. I hope that this review will serve the limited purpose of initiating a person with a knowledge of perturbative string theory into this area. (For an introduction to perturbative string theory, see [18].) c EDP Sciences, Springer-Verlag 2002

244

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The review will be divided into seven main sections as described below. 1. A brief review of perturbative string theory: in this section I shall very brieﬂy recollect some of the results of perturbative string theory which will be useful to us in the rest of this article. This will in no way constitute an introduction to this subject; at best it will serve as a reminder to a reader who is already familiar with this subject; 2. Notion of duality symmetry: in this section I shall describe the notion of duality symmetry in string theory, a few examples of duality conjectures in string theory, and the general procedure for testing these duality conjectures; 3. Analysis of the low energy eﬀective action: in this section I shall describe how one arrives at various duality conjectures by analyzing the low energy eﬀective action of string theory; 4. Precision test of duality based on the spectrum of BPS states: in this section I shall discuss how one can device precision tests of various duality conjectures based on the analysis of the spectrum of a certain class of supersymmetric states in string theory; 5. Interrelation between various dualities: in this section I shall try to relate the various duality conjectures introduced in the Sections 3–5 by “deriving” them from a basic set of duality conjectures. I shall also discuss what we mean by relating diﬀerent dualities and try to formulate the rules that must be followed during such a derivation. 6. Duality in theories with <16 supersymmetries: the discussion in Sections 4–6 is focussed on string theories with at least 16 supersymmetry generators. In this section I consider theories with less number of supersymmetries. Speciﬁcally we shall focus our attention on theories with eight supercharges, which correspond to N = 2 supersymmetry in four dimensions. 7. M-theory: in this section I discuss the emergence of a new theory in eleven dimensions − now known as M-theory − from the strong coupling limit of type IIA string theory. I also discuss how compactiﬁcation of M-theory gives rise to new theories that cannot be regarded as perturbative compactiﬁcation of a string theory. Throughout this article I shall work in units where = 1 and c = 1.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries 2

245

A brief review of perturbative string theory

String theory is based on the simple idea that elementary particles, which appear as point-like objects to the present day experimentalists, are actually diﬀerent vibrational modes of strings. The energy per unit length of the string, known as string tension, is parametrized as (2πα )−1 , where α has the dimension of (length)2 . As we shall describe later, this theory automatically contains gravitational interaction between elmentary particles, but in order √to correctly reproduce the strength of this√interaction, we need to choose α to be of the order of 10−33 cm. Since α is the only length √ parameter in the theory, the typical size of a string is of the order of α ∼ 10−33 cm − a distance that cannot be resolved by present day experiments. Thus there is no direct way of testing string theory, and its appeal lies in its theoretical consistency.

A

B

Fig. 1. Propagation of a closed string.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. a) A closed string, and b) an open string.

246

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

The basic principle behind constructing a quantum theory of relativistic string is quite simple. Consider propagation of a string from a spacetime conﬁguration A to a space-time conﬁguration B. During this motion the string sweeps out a two dimensional surface in space-time, known as the string world-sheet (see Fig. 1). The amplitude for the propagation of the string from the space-time position A to space-time position B is given by the weighted sum over all world-sheet bounded by the initial and the ﬁnal locations of the string. The weight factor is given by e−S where S is the product of the string tension and the area of the world-sheet. It turns out that this procedure by itself does not give rise to a fully consistent string theory. In order to get a fully consistent string theory we need to add some internal fermionic degrees of freedom to the string and generalize the notion of area by adding new terms involving these fermionic degrees of freedom. The leads to ﬁve (apparently) diﬀerent consistent string theories in (9 + 1) dimensional space-time, as we shall describe. In the ﬁrst quantized formalism, the dynamics of a point particle is described by quantum mechanics. Generalizing this we see that the ﬁrst quantized description of a string will involve a (1 + 1) dimensional quantum ﬁeld theory. However unlike a conventional quantum ﬁeld theory where the spatial directions have inﬁnite extent, here the spatial direction, which labels the coordinate on the string, has ﬁnite extent. It represents a compact circle if the string is closed (Fig. 2a) and a ﬁnite line interval if the string is open (Fig. 2b). This (1 + 1) dimensional ﬁeld theory is known as the world-sheet theory. The ﬁelds in this (1 + 1) dimensional quantum ﬁeld theory and the boundary conditions on these ﬁelds vary in diﬀerent string theories. Since the spatial direction of the world-sheet theory has ﬁnite extent, each world-sheet ﬁeld can be regarded as a collection of inﬁnite number of harmonic oscillators labelled by the quantized momentum along this spatial direction. Diﬀerent states of the string are obtained by acting on the Fock vacuum by these oscillators. This gives an inﬁnite tower of states. Typically each string theory contains a set of massless states and an inﬁnite tower of massive states. The massive string states typically have mass of the order of (10−33 cm)−1 ∼ 1019 GeV and are far beyond the reach of the present day accelerators. Thus the interesting part of the theory is the one involving the massless states. We shall now brieﬂy describe the spectrum and interaction in various string theories and their compactiﬁcations. 2.1 The spectrum There are ﬁve known fully consistent string theories in ten dimensions. They are known as type IIA, type IIB, type I, E8 × E8 heterotic and SO(32) heterotic string theories respectively. Here we give a brief description of the degrees of freedom and the spectrum of massless states in each of these

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

247

theories. We shall give the description in the so called light-cone gauge which has the advantage that all states in the spectrum are physical states. 1. Type II string theories: in this case the world-sheet theory is a free ﬁeld theory containing eight scalar ﬁelds and eight Majorana fermions. These eight scalar ﬁelds are in fact common to all ﬁve string theories, and represent the eight transverse coordinates of a string moving in a nine dimensional space. It is useful to regard the eight Majorana fermions as sixteen Majorana-Weyl fermions, eight of them having left-handed chirality and the other eight having right-handed chirality. We shall refer to these as left- and right-moving fermions respectively. Both the type II string theories contain only closed strings; hence the spatial component of the world-sheet is a circle. The eight scalar ﬁelds satisfy periodic boundary condition as we go around the circle. The fermions have a choice of having periodic or anti-periodic boundary conditions. It is customary to refer to periodic boundary condition as Ramond (R) boundary condition [123] and anti-periodic boundary condition as Neveu-Schwarz (NS) boundary condition [124]. It turns out that in order to get a consistent string theory we need to include in our theory diﬀerent classes of string states, some of which have periodic and some of which have anti-periodic boundary condition on the fermions. In all there are four classes of states which need to be included in the spectrum: • NS-NS where we put anti-periodic boundary conditions on both the left- and the right-moving fermions; • NS-R where we put anti-periodic boundary condition on the leftmoving fermions and periodic boundary condition on the rightmoving fermions; • R-NS where we put periodic boundary condition on the leftmoving fermions and anti-periodic boundary condition on the right-moving fermions; • R-R where we put anti-periodic boundary conditions on both the left- and the right-moving fermions. Finally, we keep only about (1/4)th of the states in each sector by keeping only those states in the spectrum which have in them only even number of left-moving fermions and even number of right-moving fermions. This is known as the GSO projection [125]. The procedure has some ambiguity since in each of the four sectors we have the choice of assigning to the ground state either even or odd fermion number. Consistency of string theory rules out most of these possibilities, but at the end two possibilities remain. These diﬀer from each other in

248

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings the following way. In one possibility, the assignment of the left- and the right-moving fermion number to the left- and the right-moving Ramond ground states are carried out in an identical manner. This gives type IIB string theory. In the second possibility the GSO projections in the left- and the right-moving sector diﬀer from each other. This theory is known as type IIA string theory. Typically states from the Ramond sector are in the spinor representation of the SO(9,1) Lorentz algebra, whereas those from the NS sector are in the tensor representation. Since the product of two spinor representation gives us back a tensor representation, the states from the NS-NS and the RR sectors are bosonic, and those from the NS-R and R-NS sectors are fermionic. It will be useful to list the massless bosonic states in these two string theories. Since the two theories differ only in their R-sector, the NS sector bosonic states are the same in the two theories. They constitute a symmetric rank two tensor ﬁeld, an anti-symmetric rank two tensor ﬁeld, and a scalar ﬁeld known as the dilaton1 . The RR sector massless states of type IIA string theory consist of a vector, and a rank three anti-symmetric tensor. On the other hand, the massless states from the RR sector of type IIB string theory consist of a scalar, a rank two anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld, and a rank four anti-symmetric tensor gauge ﬁeld satisfying the constraint that its ﬁeld strength is self-dual. The spectrum of both these theories are invariant under space-time supersymmetry transformations which transform fermionic states to bosonic states and vice versa. The supersymmetry algebra for type IIB theory is known as the chiral N = 2 superalgebra and that of type IIA theory is known as the non-chiral N = 2 superalgebra. Both superalgebras consist of 32 supersymmetry generators. Often it is convenient to organise the inﬁnite tower of states in string theory by their oscillator level deﬁned as follows. As has already been pointed out before, the world-sheet degrees of freedom of the string can be regarded as a collection of inﬁnite number of harmonic oscillators. For the creation operator associated with each oscillator we deﬁne the level as the absolute value of the number of units of world-sheet momentum that it creates while acting on the vacuum. The total oscillator level of a state is then the sum of the levels of all the oscillators that act on the Fock vacuum to create this state. (The Fock vacuum, in turn, is characterized by several quantum numbers,

1 Although from string theory we get the spectrum of states, it is useful to organise the spectrum in terms of ﬁelds. In other words the spectrum of massless ﬁelds in string theory is identical to that of a free ﬁeld theory with these ﬁelds.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

249

which are the momenta conjugate to the zero modes of various ﬁelds − modes carrying zero world-sheet momentum.) We can also separately deﬁne left- (right-) moving oscillator level as the contribution to the oscillator level from the left- (right-) moving bosonic and fermionic ﬁelds. Finally, if E and P denote respectively the world-sheet energy ¯ 0 = (E − P )/2. and momentum2 then we deﬁne L0 = (E + P )/2 and L ¯ 0 include contribution from the oscillators as well as from L0 and L the Fock vacuum. Thus for example the total contribution to L0 will be given by the sum of the right-moving oscillator level and the contribution to L0 from the Fock vacuum. 2. Heterotic string theories: the world-sheet theory of the heterotic string theories consists of eight scalar ﬁelds, eight right-moving MajoranaWeyl fermions and thirty two left-moving Majorana-Weyl fermions. We have as before NS and R boundary conditions as well as GSO projection involving the right-moving fermions. Also as in the case of type II string theories, the NS sector states transform in the tensor representation and the R sector states transform in the spinor representation of the SO(9,1) Lorentz algebra. However, unlike in the case of type II string theories, in this case the boundary condition on the left-moving fermions do not aﬀect the Lorentz transformation properties of the state. Thus bosonic states come from states with NS boundary condition on the right-moving fermions and fermionic states come from states with R boundary condition on the right-moving fermions. There are two possible boundary conditions on the left-moving fermions which give rise to fully consistent string theories. They are: • SO(32) heterotic string theory: in this case we have two possible boundary conditions on the left-moving fermions: either all of them have periodic boundary condition, or all of them have anti-periodic boundary condition. In each sector we also have a GSO projection that keeps only those states in the spectrum which contain even number of left-moving fermions. The massless bosonic states in this theory consist of a symmetric rank two ﬁeld, an anti-symmetric rank two ﬁeld, a scalar ﬁeld known as the dilaton and a set of 496 gauge ﬁelds ﬁlling up the adjoint representation of the gauge group SO(32); • E8 × E8 heterotic string theory: in this case we divide the thirty two left-moving fermions into two groups of sixteen each and 2 We should distinguish between world-sheet momentum, and the momenta of the (9 + 1) dimensional theory. The latter are the the momenta conjugate to the zero modes of various bosonic ﬁelds in the world-sheet theory.

250

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings use four possible boundary conditions, 1) all the left-moving fermions have periodic boundary condition 2) all the left-moving fermions have anti-periodic boundary condition, 3) all the leftmoving fermions in group 1 have periodic boundary conditions and all the left-moving fermions in group 2 have anti-periodic boundary conditions, 4) all the left-moving fermions in group 1 have anti-periodic boundary conditions and all the left-moving fermions from group 2 have periodic boundary conditions. In each sector we also have a GSO projection that keeps only those states in the spectrum which contain even number of left-moving fermions from the ﬁrst group, and also even number of leftmoving fermions from the second group. The massless bosonic states in this theory consist of a symmetric rank two ﬁeld, an anti-symmetric rank two ﬁeld, a scalar ﬁeld known as the dilaton and a set of 496 gauge ﬁelds ﬁlling up the adjoint representation of the gauge group E8 × E8 . The spectrum of states in both the heterotic string theories are invariant under a set of space-time supersymmetry transformations. The relevant superalgebra is known as the chiral N = 1 supersymmetry algebra, and has sixteen real generators. Using the bose-fermi equivalence in (1 + 1) dimensions, we can reformulate both the heterotic string theories by replacing the thirty two left-moving fermions by sixteen left-moving bosons. In order to get a consistent string theory the momenta conjugate to these bosons must take discrete values. It turns out that there are only two consistent ways of quantizing the momenta, giving us back the two heterotic string theories.

3. Type I string theory: the world-sheet theory of type I theory is identical to that of type IIB string theory, with the following two crucial diﬀerence. • Type IIB string theory has a symmetry that exchanges the leftand the right-moving sectors in the world-sheet theory. This transformation is known as the world-sheet parity transformation. (This symmetry is not present in type IIA theory since the GSO projection in the two sectors are diﬀerent). In constructing type I string theory we keep only those states in the spectrum which are invariant under this world-sheet parity transformation; • In type I string theory we also include open string states in the spectrum. The world-sheet degrees of freedom are identical to those in the closed string sector. Specifying the theory requires

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

251

us to specify the boundary conditions on the various ﬁelds. We put Neumann boundary condition on the eight scalars, and appropriate boundary conditions on the fermions. The spectrum of massless bosonic states in this theory consists of a symmetric rank two tensor and a scalar dilaton from the closed string NS sector, an anti-symmetric rank two tensor from the closed string RR sector, and 496 gauge ﬁelds in the adjoint representation of SO(32) from the open string sector. This spectrum is also invariant under the chiral N = 1 supersymmetry algebra with sixteen real supersymmetry generators.

Fig. 3. A string world-sheet bounded by four external strings.

2.2 Interactions So far we have discussed the spectrum of string theory, but in order to fully describe the theory we must also describe the interaction between various particles in the spectrum. In particular, we would like to know how to compute a scattering amplitude involving various string states. It turns out that there is a unique way of introducing interaction in string theory. Consider for example a scattering involving four external strings, situated along some speciﬁc curves in space-time. The prescription for computing the scattering amplitude is to compute the weighted sum over all possible string world-sheet bounded by the four strings with weight factor e−S , S being the string tension multiplied by the generalized area of this surface (taking into account the fermionic degrees of freedom of the world-sheet). One such surface is shown in Figure 3. If we imagine the time axis running from left to right, then this diagram represents two strings joining into one string and then splitting into two strings, − the analog of a tree diagram in

252

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

ﬁeld theory. A more complicated surface is shown in Figure 4. This represents two strings joining into one string, which then splits into two and joins again, and ﬁnally splits into two strings. This is the analog of a one loop diagram in ﬁeld theory. The relative normalization between the contributions from these two diagrams is not determined by any consistency requirement. This introduces an arbitrary parameter in string theory, known as the string coupling constant. However, once the relative normalization between these two diagrams is ﬁxed, the relative normalization between all other diagrams is ﬁxed due to various consistency requirement. Thus besides the dimensionful parameter α , string theory has a single dimensionless coupling constant. As we shall see later, both these parameters can be absorbed into deﬁnitions of various ﬁelds in the theory.

Fig. 4. A more complicated string world-sheet.

What we have described so far is the computation of the scattering amplitude with ﬁxed locations of the external strings in space-time. The more relevant quantity is the scattering amplitude where the external strings are in the eigenstates of the energy and momenta operators conjugate to the coordinates of the (9 + 1) dimensional space-time. This is done by simply taking the convolution of the above scattering amplitude with the wavefunctions of the strings corresponding to the external states. In practice there is an extremely eﬃcient method of doing this computation using the so called vertex operators. It turns out that unlike in quantum ﬁeld theory, all of these scattering amplitudes in string theory are ultraviolet ﬁnite. This is one of the major achievements of string theory. Out main interest will be in the scattering involving the external massless states. The most convenient way to summarize the result of this computation in any string theory is to specify the eﬀective action. By deﬁnition this eﬀective action is such that if we compute the tree level scattering amplitude using this action, we should reproduce the S-matrix elements involving the massless states of string theory. In general such an action will have to

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

253

contain inﬁnite number of terms, but we can organise these terms by examining the number of space-time derivatives that appear in a given term in the action. Terms with the lowest number of derivatives constitute the low energy eﬀective action, − so called because this gives the dominant contribution if we want to evaluate the scattering amplitude when all the external particles have small energy and momenta. The low energy eﬀective action for all ﬁve string theories have been found. The actions for the type IIA and type IIB string theories correspond to those of two well known supergravity theories in ten space-time dimensions, called type IIA and type IIB supergravity theories respectively. On the other hand the actions for the three heterotic string theories correspond to another set of well-known supersymmetric theories in ten dimensions, − N = 1 supergravity coupled to N = 1 super Yang-Mills theory. For type I and the SO(32) heterotic string theories the Yang-Mills gauge group is SO(32) whereas for the E8 × E8 heterotic string theory the gauge group is E8 × E8 . The emergence of gravity in all the ﬁve string theories is the most striking result in string theory. Its origin can be traced to the existence of the symmetric rank two tensor state (the graviton) in all these theories. This, combined with the result on ﬁniteness of scattering amplitudes, shows that string theory gives us a ﬁnite quantum theory of gravity. We shall explicitly write down the low energy eﬀective action of some of the string theories in Section 4. The eﬀective action of all ﬁve string theories are invariant under the transformation Φ → Φ − 2C,

g S → eC g S ,

(2.1)

together with possible rescaling of other ﬁelds. Here Φ denotes the dilaton ﬁeld, gS denotes the string coupling, and C is an arbitrary constant. Using this scaling property, gS can be absorbed in Φ. Put another way, the dimensionless coupling constant in string theory is related to the vacuum expectation value Φ of Φ. The perturbative eﬀective action does not have any potential for Φ, and hence Φ can take arbitrary value. One expects that in a realistic string theory where supersymmetry is spontaneouly broken, there will be a potential for Φ, and hence Φ will be determined uniquely. In a similar vain one can argue that in string theory even the string tension, or equivalently the parameter α , has no physical signiﬁcance. Since α has the dimension of (length)2 and is the only dimensionful parameter in the theory, the eﬀective action will have an invariance under the simultaneous rescaling of α and the metric gµν : α → λα ,

gµν → λgµν ,

(2.2)

254

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

together with possible rescaling of other ﬁelds. Using this scaling symmetry α can be absorbed into the deﬁnition of gµν . We shall discuss these two rescalings in detail in Section 4.1. 2.3 Compactification So far we have described ﬁve diﬀerent string theories, but they all live in ten space-time dimensions. Since our world is (3 + 1) dimensional, these are not realistic string theories. However one can construct string theories in lower dimensions using the idea of compactiﬁcation. The idea is to take the (9 + 1) dimensional space-time as the product of a (9 − d) dimensional compact manifold M with euclidean signature and a (d + 1) dimensional Minkowski space Rd,1 . Then, in the limit when the size of the compact manifold is suﬃciently small so that the present day experiments cannot resolve this distance, the world will eﬀectively appear to be (d + 1) dimensional. Choosing d = 3 will give us a (3 + 1) dimensional theory. Of course we cannot choose any arbitrary manifold M for this purpose; it must satisfy the equations of motion of the eﬀective ﬁeld theory that comes out of string theory. One also normally considers only those manifolds which preserve part of the space-time supersymmetry of the original ten dimensional theory, since this guarantees vanishing of the cosmological constant, and hence consistency of the corresponding string theory order by order in perturbation theory. There are many known examples of manifolds satisfying these restrictions e.g. tori of diﬀerent dimensions, K3, Calabi-Yau manifolds etc. Instead of going via the eﬀective action, one can also directly describe these compactiﬁed theories as string theories. For this one needs to modify the string world-sheet action in such a way that it describes string propagation in the new manifold M × Rd,1 , instead of in ﬂat ten dimensional space-time. This modiﬁes the world-sheet theory to an interacting non-linear σ-model instead of a free ﬁeld theory. Consistency of string theory puts restriction on the kind of manifold on which the string can propagate. At the end both approaches yield identical results. The simplest class of compact manifolds, on which we shall focus much of our attention in the rest of this article, are tori − product of circles. The eﬀect of this compactiﬁcation is to periodically identify some of the bosonic ﬁelds in the string world-sheet ﬁeld theory − the ﬁelds which represent coordinates tangential to the compact circles. One eﬀect of this is that the momentum carried by any string state along any of these circles is quantized in units of 1/R where R is the radius of the circle. But that is another novel eﬀect: we now have new states that correspond to strings wrapped around a compact circle. For such a states, as we go once around the string, we also go once around the compact circle. These states are known as winding states and play a crucial role in the analysis of duality symmetries.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries 3

255

Notion of duality symmetries in string theory

In this section I shall elaborate the notion of duality symmetries, the diﬃculties in testing them, and the way of avoiding these diﬃculties. We begin by introducing the notion of duality in string theory. 3.1 Duality symmetries: Definition and examples As was described in the last section, there are ﬁve consistent string theories in ten space-time dimensions. We also saw that we can get many diﬀerent string theories in lower dimensions by compactifying these ﬁve theories on appropriate manifold M. Each of these theories is parametrized by a set of parameters known as moduli3 e.g. • String coupling constant (related to the vacuum expectation value of the dilaton ﬁeld); • Shape and size of M (information contained in the metric); • various other background ﬁelds. Inside the moduli space of the theory there is a certain region where the string coupling is weak and perturbation theory is valid. Elsewhere the theory is strongly coupled. This situation has been illustrated in Figure 5.

Fig. 5. A schematic representation of the moduli space of a string theory. The shaded region denotes the weak coupling region, whereas the white region denotes the strong coupling region.

String duality provides us with an equivalence map between two diﬀerent string theories. In general this equivalence relation maps the weak coupling region of one theory to the strong coupling region of the second theory and vice versa. This situation is illustrated in Figure 6. 3 In string theory these moduli are related to vacuum expectation values of various dynamical ﬁelds and are expected to take deﬁnite values when supersymmetry is broken.

256

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

A on K

B on K

Fig. 6. A schematic representation of the duality map between the moduli spaces of two diﬀerent string theories, A on K and B on K , where A and B are two of the ﬁve string theories in ten dimensions, and K, K are two compact manifolds. Under this duality the weak coupling region of the ﬁrst theory (denoted by the shaded region) gets mapped to the strong coupling region of the second theory and vice versa.

Fig. 7. Schematic representation of the moduli space of a self-dual theory. Duality relates weak and strong coupling regions of the same theory.

Before we proceed, let us give a few examples of dual pairs: • Type I and SO(32) heterotic string theories in D = 10 are conjectured to be dual to each other [19–22]; • Type IIA string theory compactiﬁed on K3 and heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on a four dimensional torus T 4 are conjectured to be dual to each other [19, 23–26]4 . Under duality, typically perturbation expansions get mixed up. Thus for example, tree level results in one theory might include perturbative and non-perturbative corrections in the dual theory. Also under duality, many of the elementary string states in one theory get mapped to solitons and their bound states in the dual theory. 4 Throughout this article a string theory on M will mean string theory in the background M × R9−n,1 where n is the real dimension of M, and R9−n,1 denotes (10 − n) dimensional Minkowski space.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

257

Fig. 8. Examples of T -duality relating a weakly coupled theory to a diﬀerent or the same weakly coupled theory.

Fig. 9. A schematic representation of the moduli spaces of a chain of theories related by duality. In each case the shaded region denotes weak coupling region as usual.

Although duality in general relates the weak coupling limit of one theory to the strong coupling limit of another theory, there are special cases where the situation is a bit diﬀerent. For example, we can have: • Self-duality: here duality gives an equivalence relation between diﬀerent regions of the moduli space of the same theory, as illustrated in Figure 7. In this case, duality transformations form a symmetry group that acts on the moduli space of the theory. For example, type IIB

258

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings string theory in D = 10 is conjectured to have an SL(2, Z) self-duality group [23].

• T -duality: in this case duality transformation maps the weak coupling region of one theory to the weak coupling region of another theory or the same theory as illustrated in Figure 8. For example, type IIA string theory compactiﬁed on a circle of radius R is dual to IIB string theory compactiﬁed on a circle of radius R−1 at the same value of the string coupling. Also, either of the two heterotic string theories compactiﬁed on a circle of radius R is dual to the same theory compactiﬁed on a circle of radius R−1 at the same value of the coupling constant. As a result the duality map does not mix up the perturbation expansions in the two theories. (For a review of this subject, see [27].) In a generic situation duality can relate not just two theories, but a whole chain of theories, as illustrated in Figure 9. Thus for example, type IIA string theory compactiﬁed on K3 is related to heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on T 4 . On the other hand, due to the equivalence of the SO(32) heterotic and type I string theory in ten dimensions, SO(32) heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on T 4 is related to type I string theory compactiﬁed on T 4 . Thus these three theories are related by a chain of duality transformations. From this discussion we see that the presence of duality in string theory has two important consequences. First of all, it reduces the degree of non-uniqueness of string theory, by relating various apparently unrelated (compactiﬁed) string theories. Furthermore, it allows us to study a strongly coupled string theory by mapping it to a weakly coupled dual theory whenever such a dual theory exists. 3.2 Testing duality conjectures Let us now turn to the question of testing duality. As we have already emphasized, duality typically relates a weakly coupled string theory to a strongly coupled string theory. Thus in order to prove/test duality we must be able to analyze at least one of the theories at strong coupling. But in string theory we only know how to deﬁne the theory perturbatively at weak coupling. Thus it would seem impossible to prove or test any duality conjecture in string theory5 . This is where supersymmetry comes to our 5 Note that this problem is absent for T -duality transformations which relates two weakly coupled string theories, and hence can be tested using string perturbation theory. All T -duality symmetries in string theory can be “proved” this way, at least to all orders in perturbation theory.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

259

rescue. Supersymmetry gives rise to certain non-renormalization theorems in string theory, due to which some of the weak coupling calculations can be trusted even at strong coupling. Thus we can focus our attention on such “non-renormalized” quantities and ask if they are invariant under the proposed duality transformations. Testing duality invariance of these quantities provides us with various tests of various duality conjectures, and is in fact the basis of all duality conjectures. The precise content of these non-renormalization theorems depends on the number of supersymmetries present in the theory. The maximum number of supersymmetry generators that can be present in a string theory is 32. This gives N = 2 supersymmetry in ten dimensions, and N = 8 supersymmetry in four dimensions. Examples of such theories are types IIA or type IIB string theories compactiﬁed on n dimensional tori T n . The next interesting class of theories are those with 16 supersymmetry generators. This corresponds to N = 1 supersymmetry in ten dimensions and N = 4 supersymmetry in four dimensions. Examples of such theories are types IIA or type IIB string theories compactiﬁed on K3 × T n , heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on T n , etc. Another class of theories that we shall discuss are those with eight supersymmetry generators, e.g. heterotic string theory on K3 × T n , type IIA or IIB string theory on six dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds, etc. For theories with 16 or more SUSY generators the non-renormalization theorems are particularly powerful. In particular, • Form of the low energy eﬀective action involving the massless states of the theory is completely ﬁxed by the requirement of supersymmetry (and the spectrum) [28]. Thus this eﬀective action cannot get renormalized by string loop corrections. As a result, any valid symmetry of the theory must be a symmetry of this eﬀective ﬁeld theory; • These theories contain special class of states which are invariant under part of the supersymmetry transformations. They are known as BPS states, named after Bogomol’nyi, Prasad and Sommerfeld. The mass of a BPS state is completely determined in terms of its charge as a consequence of the supersymmetry algebra. Since this relation is derived purely from an analysis of the supersymmetry algebra, it is not modiﬁed by quantum corrections. Furthermore it can be argued that the degeneracy of BPS states of a given charge does not change as we move in the moduli space even from weak to strong coupling region [29]. Thus the spectrum of BPS states can be calculated from weak coupling analysis and the result can be continued to the strong coupling region. Since any valid symmetry of the theory must be a symmetry of the spectrum of BPS states, we can use this to design non-trivial tests of duality [1].

260

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

For theories with eight supersymmetries the non-renormalization theorems are less powerful. However, even in this case one can design non-trivial tests of various duality conjectures. We shall discuss these in Section 7. 4

Analysis of low energy eﬀective ﬁeld theory

In this section I shall discuss tests of various dualities in string theories with ≥16 supersymmetries based on the analysis of their low energy eﬀective action. As has been emphasized in the previous section, the form of this low energy eﬀective action is determined completely by the requirement of supersymmetry and the spectrum of massless states in the theory. Thus it does not receive any quantum corrections, and if a given duality transformation is to be a symmetry of a string theory, it must be a symmetry of the corresponding low energy eﬀective action. Actually, since the low energy eﬀective action is to be used only for deriving the equations of motion from this action, and/or computing the tree level S-matrix elements using this action, but not to perform a full-ﬂedged path integral, it is enough that only the equations of motion derived from this action are invariant under duality transformations. (This also guarantees that the tree level S-matrix elements computed from this eﬀective action are invariant under the duality transformations.) It is not necessary for the action itself to be invariant. Throughout this article we shall denote by Gµν the string metric − the metric that is used in computing the area of the string world-sheet embedded in space time for calculating string scattering amplitudes. For a string theory compactiﬁed on a (9 − d) dimensional manifold M, we shall denote by Φ the shifted dilaton, related to the dilaton Φ(10) of the ten dimensional string theory as Φ = Φ(10) − ln V ,

(4.1)

where (2π)9−d V is the volume of M measured in the ten dimensional string (10) metric. The dilaton is normalized in such a way that eΦ corresponds to the square of the closed string coupling constant in ten dimensions6 . gµν will denote the canonical Einstein metric which is related to the string metric by an appropriate conformal rescaling involving the dilaton ﬁeld, 2

gµν = e− d−1 Φ Gµν .

(4.2)

We shall always use this metric to raise and lower indices. The signature of space-time will be taken as (−, +, · · · +). Finally, all ﬁelds will be made dimensionless by absorbing appropriate powers of α in them. 6Φ

is related to the more commonly normalized dilaton φ by a factor of two: Φ = 2φ.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

261

We shall now consider several examples. The discussion will closely follow references [1, 19, 23]. For a detailed review of the material covered in this section, see reference [15]. 4.1 Type I–SO(32 ) heterotic duality in D = 10 In SO(32) heterotic string theory, the massless bosonic states come from (H) the NS sector of the closed heterotic string, and contains the metric gµν , (H) the dilaton Φ(H) , the rank two anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld Bµν , and gauge (H)a ﬁelds Aµ (1 ≤ a ≤ 496) in the adjoint representation of SO(32). The low energy dynamics involving these massless bosonic ﬁelds is described by the N = 1 supergravity coupled to SO(32) super Yang-Mills theory in ten dimensions [114]. The action is given by [102]: 1 1 10 (H) R(H) − g (H)µν ∂ Φ(H) ∂ Φ(H) x −g d S (H) = µ ν 2 7 4 (2π) (αH ) gH 8 (H) 1 (H) (H) − g (H)µµ g (H)νν e−Φ /4 Tr(Fµν Fµ ν ) 4 (H) 1 (H) (H) − g (H)µµ g (H)νν g (H)ρρ e−Φ /2 Hµνρ Hµ ν ρ , 12 (4.3) (H)

where R(H) is the Ricci scalar, Fµν denotes the non-abelian gauge ﬁeld strength, 2 (H) (H) (H) [A(H) , A(H) (4.4) Fµν = ∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ + ν ], αH µ (H)

Tr denotes trace in the vector representation of SO(32), and Hµνρ is the (H) ﬁeld strength associated with the Bµν ﬁeld: 2 (H) (H) (H) 1 1 (H) (H) (H) (H) A [Aν , Aρ ] Hµνρ = ∂µ Bνρ − Tr Aµ Fνρ − 2 3 αH µ +cyclic permutations of µ, ν, ρ .

(4.5)

2παH and gH are respectively the inverse string tension and the coupling constant of the heterotic string theory. The rescalings (2.1), (2.2) take the following form acting on the complete set of ﬁelds: g H → eC g H , (H) (H) Bµν → Bµν ,

Φ(H) → Φ(H) − 2C, A(H)a → A(H)a , µ µ

(H) (H) gµν → eC/2 gµν

(4.6)

262

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings αH → λαH , (H) (H) Bµν → λBµν ,

Φ(H) → Φ(H) ,

(H) (H) gµν → λgµν

A(H)a → λ1/2 A(H)a , µ µ

(4.7)

Since gH and αH can be changed by this rescaling, these parameters cannot have a universal signiﬁcance. In particular, we can absorb gH and αH into the various ﬁelds by setting e−C = gH and λ = (αH )−1 in (4.6), (4.7). This is equivalent to setting gH = 1 and αH = 1. In this notation the physical (H) coupling constant is given by the vacuum expectation value of eΦ /2 , and the ADM mass per unit length of an inﬁnitely long straight string, measured (H) (H) (H) in the metric eΦ /4 gµν that approaches the string metric Gµν far away (H) from the string, is equal to 1/2π. By changing Φ we can get all possible values of string coupling, and using a metric that diﬀers from the one used here by a constant multiplicative factor, we can get all possible values of the string tension. For αH = 1 and gH = 1 equations (4.3)–(4.5) take the form: 1 1 10 (H) R(H) − g (H)µν ∂ Φ(H) ∂ Φ(H) S (H) = x −g d µ ν 7 (2π) 8 (H) 1 (H) (H) − g (H)µµ g (H)νν e−Φ /4 Tr(Fµν Fµ ν ) 4 (H) 1 (H) (H) Hµ ν ρ , − g (H)µµ g (H)νν g (H)ρρ e−Φ /2 Hµνρ 12 (4.8) (H) Fµν = ∂µ A(H) − ∂ν A(H) ν µ +

(H) Hµνρ

√

(H) 2[A(H) µ , Aν ] ,

(4.9)

√ 1 (H) (H) 2 (H) (H) (H) A [Aν , Aρ ] = − Tr Aµ Fνρ − 2 3 µ +cyclic permutations of µ, ν, ρ . (4.10) (H) ∂µ Bνρ

Let us now turn to the type I string theory. The massless bosonic states in type I theory come from three diﬀerent sectors. The closed string Neveu(I) Schwarz − Neveu-Schwarz (NS) sector gives the metric gµν and the dilaton Φ(I) . The closed string Ramond-Ramond (RR) sector gives an anti(I) symmetric tensor ﬁeld Bµν . Besides these, there are bosonic ﬁelds coming from the NS sector of the open string. This sector gives rise to gauge ﬁelds (I)a Aµ (a = 1, . . . 496) in the adjoint representation of the group SO(32). (The superscript (I) refers to the fact that these are the ﬁelds in the type I string theory.) The low energy dynamics is again described by the N = 1 supergravity theory coupled to SO(32) super Yang-Mills theory [115]. But

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

263

it is instructive to rewrite the eﬀective action in terms of the type I variables. For suitable choice of the string tension and the coupling constant, this is given by [102] 1 1 10 (I) R(I) − g (I)µν ∂ Φ(I) ∂ Φ(I) S (I) = x −g d µ ν 7 (2π) 8 (I) 1 (I) (I) − g (I)µµ g (I)νν eΦ /4 Tr(Fµν Fµ ν ) 4 (I) 1 (I) (I) − g (I)µµ g (I)νν g (I)ρρ eΦ /2 Hµνρ Hµ ν ρ , 12 (4.11) (I)

where R(I) is the Ricci scalar, Fµν denotes the non-abelian gauge ﬁeld strength, √ (I) (I) (I) Fµν = ∂µ A(I) 2[A(I) (4.12) ν − ∂ν Aµ + µ , Aν ] , (I)

(I)

and Hµνρ is the ﬁeld strength associated with the Bµν ﬁeld: √ 1 2 (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) A [Aν , Aρ ] = ∂µ Bνρ − Tr A(I) F − Hµνρ µ νρ 2 3 µ +cyclic permutations of µ, ν, ρ .

(4.13)

For both, the type I and the SO(32) heterotic string theory, the low energy eﬀective action is derived from the string tree level analysis. However, to this order in the derivatives, the form of the eﬀective action is determined completely by the requirement of supersymmetry for a given gauge group. Thus neither action can receive any quantum corrections. It is straightforward to see that the actions (4.8) and (4.11) are identical provided we make the identiﬁcation: Φ(H) = −Φ(I) , (H) (I) Bµν = Bµν ,

(H) (I) gµν = gµν

A(H)a = A(I)a . µ µ

(4.14)

This led to the hypothesis that the type I and the SO(32) heterotic string theories in ten dimensions are equivalent [19]. One can ﬁnd stronger evidence for this hypothesis by analysing the spectrum of supersymmetris states, but the equivalence of the two eﬀective actions was the reason for proposing this duality in the ﬁrst place. Note the − sign in the relation between Φ(H) and Φ(I) in equation (4.14). Recalling that eΦ/2 is the string coupling, we see that the strong coupling limit of one theory is related to the weak coupling limit of the other theory and vice versa.

264

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

From now on I shall use the unit α = 1 for writing down the eﬀective action of all string theories. Physically this would mean that the ADM mass per unit length of a test string, measured in the metric e2Φ/(d−1) gµν that agrees with the string metric Gµν deﬁned in (4.2) far away from the test string, is given by 1/2π. In future we shall refer to the ADM mass of a particle measured in this metric as the mass measured in the string metric. 4.2 Self-duality of heterotic string theory on T 6 In the previous subsection we have described the massless bosonic ﬁeld content of the ten dimensional SO(32) heterotic string theory. When we compactify it on a six dimensional torus, we can get many other massless scalar ﬁelds from the internal components of the metric, the anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld and the gauge ﬁelds in the Cartan subalgebra of the gauge group7 . This gives a total of (21 + 15 + 96 = 132) scalar ﬁelds. It turns out that these scalars can be represented by a 28 × 28 matrix valued ﬁeld M satisfying8 M LM T = L, where

 L = I6

MT = M ,

(4.15)



I6 −I16

·

(4.16)

In denotes an n × n identity matrix. We shall choose a convention in which 1 6 1 M = I√ 28 corresponds to a compactiﬁcation on (S ) with each S having radius α = 1 measured in the string metric, and without any background gauge or antisymmetric tensor ﬁelds. We can get another scalar ﬁeld a by dualizing the gauge invariant ﬁeld strength H of the antisymmetrix tensor ﬁeld through the relation: √ H µνρ = −( −g)−1 e2Φ µνρσ ∂σ a , (4.17) where Φ denotes the four dimensional dilaton and gµν denotes the (3 + 1) dimensional canonical metric deﬁned in equations (4.1), (4.2) respectively. It is convenient to combine the dilaton Φ and the axion ﬁeld a into a single complex scalar λ: λ = a + ie−Φ ≡ λ1 + iλ2 .

(4.18)

7 Only the sixteen gauge ﬁelds in the Cartan subalgebra of the gauge group can develop vacuum expectation value since such vacuum expectation values do not generate any ﬁeld strength, and hence do not generate energy density. 8 For a review of this construction, see [1].

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

265

At a generic point in the moduli space, where the scalars M take arbitrary vacuum expectation values, the non-abelian gauge symmetry of the ten dimensional theory is broken to its abelian subgroup U (1)16 . Besides these sixteen U (1) gauge ﬁelds we get twelve other U (1) gauge ﬁelds from components Gmµ , Bmµ (4 ≤ m ≤ 9, 0 ≤ µ ≤ 3) of the metric and the anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld respectively. Let us denote these 28 U (1) gauge ﬁelds (after suitable normalization) by Aaµ (1 ≤ a ≤ 28). In terms of these ﬁelds, the low energy eﬀective action of the theory is given by [1,30–32,34]9 , S

=

¯ 1 √ ∂µ λ∂ν λ 1 + g µν Tr(∂µ M L∂ν M L) d4 x −g R − g µν 2π 2(λ2 )2 8 1 1 a a b − λ2 g µµ g νν Fµν (LM L)ab Fµb ν + λ1 g µρ g νσ Fµν Lab Fρσ , 4 4 (4.19)

a where Fµν is the ﬁeld strength associated with Aaµ , R is the Ricci scalar. and

1 √ a . F aµν = ( −g)−1 µνρσ Fρσ 2

(4.20)

This action is invariant under an O(6,22) transformation10 : M → ΩM ΩT ,

Aaµ → Ωab Abµ ,

gµν → gµν ,

λ → λ,

(4.21)

where Ω satisﬁes: ΩLΩT = L .

(4.22)

An O(6,22;Z) subgroup of this can be shown to be a T -duality symmetry of the full string theory [27]. This O(6,22;Z) subgroup can be described as follows. Let Λ28 denote a twenty eight dimensional lattice obtained by taking the direct sum of the twelve dimensional lattice of integers, and the sixteen dimensional root lattice of SO(32)11 . O(6,22;Z) is deﬁned to be the subset of O(6,22) transformations which leave Λ28 invariant, i.e. acting on any vector in Λ28 , produces another vector in Λ28 . It will be useful 9 The normalization of the gauge ﬁelds used here diﬀer from that in reference [1] by a factor of two. Also there we used α = 16 whereas here we are using α = 1. 10 O(p, q) denotes the group of Lorentz transformations in p space-like and q time-like dimensions. (These have nothing to do with physical space-time, which always has only one time-like direction.) O(p, q; Z) denotes a discrete subgroup of O(p, q). 11 More precisely we have to take the root lattice of Spin(32)/Z which is obtained 2 by adding to the SO(32) root lattice the weight vectors of the spinor representations of SO(32) with a deﬁnite chirality.

266

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

for our future reference to undertstand why only an O(6,22;Z) subgroup of the full O(6,22) group is a symmetry of the full string theory. Since O(6,22;Z) is a T -duality symmetry, this question can be answered within the context of perturbative string theory. The point is that although at a generic point in the moduli space the massless string states do not carry any charge, there are massive charged states in the spectrum of full string theory. Since there are 28 charges associated with the 28 U (1) gauge ﬁelds, a state can be characterized by a 28 dimensional charge vector. With appropriate normalization, this charge vector can be shown to lie in the lattice Λ28 , i.e. the charge vector of any state in the spectrum can be shown to be an element of the lattice Λ28 . Since the O(6,22) transformation acts linearly on the U (1) gauge ﬁelds, it also acts linearly on the charge vectors. As a result only those O(6,22) elements can be genuine symmetries of string theory which preserve the lattice Λ28 . Any other O(6,22) element, acting on a physical state in the spectrum, will take it to a state with charge vector outside the lattice Λ28 . Since such a state does not exist in the spectrum, such an O(6,22) transformation cannot be a symmetry of the full string theory. In order to see a speciﬁc example of a T -duality transformation, let us consider heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on (S 1 )6 with one of the circles having radius R measured in the string metric, and the rest having unit radius. Let us also assume that there is no background gauge or antisymmetric tensor ﬁelds. Using the convention of reference [1] one can show that for this background  −2  R   I5   2 . (4.23) M (H) =  R     I5 I16 Consider now the O(6,22;Z) transformation with the matrix:   0 1  I5  . Ω= 1  0 I21 Using equation (4.21) we see that this transforms M (H) to   2 R   I5   (H) −2 .  R = M    I5 I16

(4.24)

(4.25)

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

267

Thus the net eﬀect of this transformation is R → R−1 . It says that the heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on a circle of radius R is equivalent to the −1 same theory √ compactiﬁed on a circle of radius R . For this reason R = 1 (i.e. R = α ) is known as the self-dual radius. Other O(6,22;Z) transformations acting on (4.23) will give rise to more complicated M (H) corresponding to a conﬁguration with background gauge and/or anti-symmetric tensor ﬁelds. Besides this symmetry, the equations of motion derived from this action can be shown to be invariant under an SL(2, R) transformation of the form [30, 35, 36] a a b Fµν → (rλ1 + s)Fµν + rλ2 (M L)ab Fµν ,

gµν → gµν ,

M →M,

λ→

pλ + q , rλ + s (4.26)

where p, q, r, s are real numbers satisfying ps − qr = 1. The existence of such symmetries (known as hidden non-compact symmetries) in this and in other supergravity theories were discovered in early days of supergravity theories and in fact played a crucial role in the construction of these theories in the ﬁrst place [30, 113]. Since this SL(2,R) transformation mixes the gauge ﬁeld strength with its Poincare dual, it is an electric-magnetic duality transformation. This leads to the conjecture that a subgroup of this continuous symmetry group is an exact symmetry of string theory [1,36–42]. One might wonder why the conjecture refers to only a discrete subgroup of SL(2, R) instead of the full SL(2, R) group as the genuine symmetry group. This follows from the same logic that was responsible for breaking O(6,22) to O(6,22;Z); however since the SL(2, R) transformation mixes electric ﬁeld with magnetic ﬁeld, we now need to take into account the quantization of magnetic charges. We have already described the quantization condition on the electric charges. Using the usual Dirac-Schwinger-Zwanziger rules one can show that in appropriate normalization, the 28 dimensional magnetic charge vectors also lie in the same lattice Λ28 . Also with this normalization convention the electric and magnetic charge vectors transform as doublet under the SL(2, R) transformation; thus it is clear that the subgroup of SL(2, R) that respects the charge quantization condition is SL(2, Z). An arbitrary SL(2, R) transformation acting on the quantized electric and magnetic charges will not give rise to electric and magnetic charges consistent with the quantization law. This is the reason behind the conjectured SL(2, Z) symmetry of heterotic string theory on T 6 . Note that since this duality acts non-trivially on the dilaton and hence the string coupling, this is a non-perturbative symmetry, and cannot be veriﬁed order by order in perturbation theory. Historically, this is the ﬁrst example of a concrete

268

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

duality conjecture in string theory. Later we shall review other tests of this duality conjecture. 4.3 Duality between heterotic on T 4 and type IIA on K3 The massless bosonic ﬁeld content of heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on T 4 can be found in a manner identical to that in heterotic string theory on T 6 . Besides the dilaton Φ(H) , we get many other massless scalar ﬁelds from the internal components of the metric, the anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld and the gauge ﬁelds. In this case these scalars can be represented by a 24 × 24 matrix valued ﬁeld M (H) satisfying M (H) LM (H)T = L,

M (H)T = M (H) ,

(4.27)

where  L = I4

I4

  −I16 .

(4.28)

We again use the convention that M (H) = I24 corresponds to compactiﬁca√ tion on (S 1 )4 with each S 1 having self-dual radius ( α = 1), without any background gauge ﬁeld or anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld. At a generic point in the moduli space, where the scalars M (H) take arbitrary vacuum expectation values, we get a U (1)24 gauge group, with 16 gauge ﬁelds coming from the Cartan subalgebra of the original gauge group in ten dimensions, and eight other gauge ﬁelds from components Gmµ , Bmµ (6 ≤ m ≤ 9, 0 ≤ µ ≤ 5) of the metric and the anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld respectively. Here xm denote the compact directions, and xµ denote the non-compact directions. Let us (H)a (H) (1 ≤ a ≤ 24). Finally, let gµν denote these 24 U (1) gauge ﬁelds by Aµ (H) and Bµν denote the canonical metric and the anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld respectively. In terms of these ﬁelds, the low energy eﬀective action of the theory is given by, SH

=

1 1 d6 x −g (H) R(H) − g (H)µν ∂µ Φ(H) ∂ν Φ(H) 3 (2π) 2 1 µν + g Tr(∂µ M (H) L∂ν M (H) L) 8 (H) 1 (H)b (H)a − e−Φ /2 g (H)µµ g (H)νν Fµν (LM (H) L)ab Fµ ν 4 (H) 1 (H) (H) (4.29) − e−Φ g (H)µµ g (H)νν g (H)ρρ Hµνρ Hµ ν ρ , 12

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries (H)a

269 (H)a

where Fµν is the ﬁeld strength associated with Aµ , R(H) is the Ricci (H) (H) scalar, and Hµνρ is the ﬁeld strength associated with Bµν : 1 (H) (H) (H)b = ∂µ Bνρ + A(H)a L F Hµνρ + (cyclic permutations of µ, ν, ρ). ab νρ 2 µ (4.30) This action is invariant under an O(4,20) transformation: M (H) → ΩM (H) ΩT , (H) (H) Bµν → Bµν ,

A(H)a → Ωab A(H)b , µ µ

(H) (H) gµν → gµν ,

Φ(H) → Φ(H) ,

(4.31)

where Ω satisﬁes: ΩLΩT = L .

(4.32)

Again as in the case of T 6 compactiﬁcation, only an O(4,20;Z) subgroup of this which preserves the charge lattice Λ24 is an exact T -duality symmetry of this theory. The lattice Λ24 is obtained by taking the direct sum of the 8 dimensional lattice of integers and the root lattice of Spin(32)/Z2. Let us now turn to the spectrum of massless bosonic ﬁelds in type IIA string theory on K3. In ten dimensions the massless bosonic ﬁelds in type IIA string theory are the metric gMN , the rank two anti-symmetric tensor BMN and the scalar dilation Φ coming from the NS sector, and a gauge ﬁeld AM and a rank three antisymmetric tensor ﬁeld CMNP coming from the RR sector. The low energy eﬀective action of this theory involving the massless bosonic ﬁelds is given by [90] √ 1 1 SIIA = d10 x −g R − g µν ∂µ Φ∂ν Φ 7 (2π) 8 1 −Φ/2 µµ νν ρρ 1 − e g g g Hµνρ Hµ ν ρ − e3Φ/4 g µµ g νν Fµν Fµ ν 12 4 1 Φ/4 µµ νν ρρ σσ − e g g g g Gµνρσ Gµ ν ρ σ 48 1 √ −1 µ0 ···µ9 , (4.33) − ( −g) ε B G G µ µ µ ···µ µ ···µ 0 1 2 5 6 9 (48)2 where R is the Ricci scalar, and Fµν Hµνρ

= =

∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ , ∂µ Bνρ + cyclic permutations of µ, ν, ρ ,

Gµνρ

=

∂µ Cνρσ + Aµ Hνρσ + (−1)P · cyclic permutations , (4.34)

are the ﬁeld strengths associated with Aµ , Bµν and Cµνρ respectively. Upon compactiﬁcation on K3 we get a new set of scalar ﬁelds from the Kahler and

270

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

complex structure moduli of K3. These can be regarded as deformations of the metric and give a total of 58 real scalar ﬁelds. We get 22 more scalar ﬁelds φ(p) by decomposing the antisymmetric tensor ﬁeld BMN along the (p) twenty two harmonic two forms ωmn in K3: Bmn (x, y) ∼

22

(p) φp (x)ωmn (y) + · · · .

(4.35)

p=1

Here {xµ } and {y m } denote coordinates along the non-compact and K3 directions respectively. These eighty scalar ﬁelds together parametrize a coset O(4, 20)/O(4) × O(20) and can be described by a matrix M (A) satisfying properties identical to those of M (H) described in (4.27). This theory also has twenty four U (1) gauge ﬁelds. 22 of the gauge ﬁelds arise from the components of the three form ﬁeld CMNP : Cmnµ (x, y) =

22

(p) ωmn (y)A(p) µ (x) + . . . .

(4.36)

p=1 (p)

Aµ deﬁned in (4.36) behaves as gauge ﬁelds in six dimensions. One more gauge ﬁeld comes from the original RR gauge ﬁeld Aµ . The last one Aµ comes from dualizing Cµνρ : G∼

∗

(dA) ,

(4.37)

where ∗ denotes Poincare dual in six dimensions. Together we shall denote (A)a for 1 ≤ a ≤ 24. Besides these ﬁelds, the theory these gauge ﬁelds by Aµ contains the canonical metric and the anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld which we (A) (A) shall denote by gµν and Bµν respectively. The action involving these ﬁelds is given by, 1 1 6 (A) R(A) − g (A)µν ∂ Φ(A) ∂ Φ(A) x −g d SA = µ ν 3 (2π) 2 1 + g µν Tr(∂µ M (A) L∂ν M (A) L) 8 1 (A) (A)b (A)a − eΦ /2 g (A)µµ g (A)νν Fµν (LM (A) L)ab Fµ ν 4 (A) 1 (A) (A) − e−Φ g (A)µµ g (A)νν g (A)ρρ Hµνρ Hµ ν ρ 12 1 (A) (A)a (A)b , (4.38) − εµνρδη ( −g (A) )−1 Bµν Fρδ Lab Fη 16 (A)a

(A)a

where Fµν is the ﬁeld strength associated with Aµ , R(A) is the Ricci (A) (A) scalar, and Hµνρ is the ﬁeld strength associated with Bµν : (A) (A) = ∂µ Bνρ + (cyclic permutations of µ, ν, ρ) . Hµνρ

(4.39)

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

271

In writing down the above action we have used the convention that M (A) = I24 corresponds to compactiﬁcation on a speciﬁc reference K3, possibly with speciﬁc background Bmn ﬁelds. This action has an O(4,20) symmetry of the form: M (A) → ΩM (A) ΩT , (A) (A) Bµν → Bµν ,

A(A)a → Ωab A(A)b , µ µ

(A) (A) gµν → gµν ,

Φ(A) → Φ(A) ,

(4.40)

where Ω satisﬁes: ΩLΩT = L .

(4.41)

An O(4,20;Z) subgroup of this can be shown to be an exact T -duality symmetry of string theory [126]. The lattice Λ24 which is preserved by this O(4,20;Z) subgroup of O(4,20) is not the lattice Λ24 deﬁned earlier, but is in general an O(4,20) rotation of that lattice: Λ24 = Ω0 Λ24 .

(4.42)

Ω0 depends on the choice of the special reference K3 mentioned earlier. It is now a straightforward exercise to show that the equations of motion and the Bianchi identities derived from (4.29) and (4.38) are identical if we use the following map between the heterotic and the type II variables [23,43]: (H) (A) = gµν , gµν

T, (A) Ω M (H) = ΩM

ab A(A)a A(H)a =Ω , Φ(H) = −Φ(A) , µ µ 1 (A) −g (H) exp(−Φ(H) )H (H)µνρ = εµνρδη Hδη . 6

(4.43)

is an arbitrary O(4,20) matrix. This leads to the conjectured equivwhere Ω alence between heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on T 4 and type IIA string theory compactiﬁed on K3 [23]. But clearly the two theories cannot since in the individual theories the O(4,20) symbe equivalent for all Ω can be found (up to an O(4,20;Z) metry is broken down to O(4,20;Z). Ω transformation) by comparing the T -duality symmetry transformations in the two theories. To do this let us note that according to equation (4.43) a transformation M (H) → ΩM (H) ΩT will induce a transformation (A) −1 T −1 ΩΩ)M (Ω ΩΩ) . (4.44) M (A) → (Ω −1 ΩΩ should preserve the lattice Λ = Thus if Ω preserves the lattice Λ24 , Ω 24 Ω0 Λ24 . This happens if we choose: = Ω−1 . Ω (4.45) 0

Note again that there is a relative minus sign that relates Φ(H) and Φ(A) , showing that the strong coupling limit of one theory corresponds to the weak coupling limit of the other theory.

272

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

4.4 SL(2 , Z ) self-duality of type IIB in D = 10 As described in Section 2.1, the massless bosonic ﬁelds in type IIB string theory come from two sectors, − Neveu-Schwarz−Neveu-Schwarz (NS) and Ramond-Ramond (RR). The NS sector gives the graviton described by the metric gµν , an anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld Bµν , and a scalar ﬁeld Φ known as the dilaton. The RR sector contributes a scalar ﬁeld a sometimes called , and a rank the axion, another rank two anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld Bµν four anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld Dµνρσ whose ﬁeld strength is self-dual. It is often convenient to combine the axion and the dilaton into a complex scalar ﬁeld λ as follows12 : λ = a + ie−Φ/2 ≡ λ1 + iλ2 .

(4.46)

The low energy eﬀective action in this theory can be determined either from the requirement of supersymmetry, or by explicit computation in string theory. Actually it turns out that there is no simple covariant action for this low energy theory, but there are covariant ﬁeld equations [44], which are in fact just the equations of motion of type IIB supergravity. Although in string theory this low energy theory is derived from the tree level analysis, non-renormalization theorems tell us that this is exact to this order in the space-time derivatives. Basically supersymmetry determines the form of the equations of motion to this order in the derivatives completely, and so there is no scope for the quantum corrections to change the form of the action. For the sake of brevity, we shall not explicitly write down the equations of motion. The main point is that these equations of motion are covariant (in the sense that they transform into each other) under an SL(2,R) transformation [44]: pλ + q Bµν Bµν p q , → , λ→ Bµν Bµν r s rλ + s (4.47) gµν → gµν , Dµνρσ → Dµνρσ , where p, q, r, s are real numbers satisfying, ps − qr = 1 .

(4.48)

The existence of this SL(2,R) symmetry in the type IIB supergravity theory led to the conjecture that an SL(2,Z) subgroup of this SL(2,R), obtained by restricting p, q, r, s to be integers instead of arbitrary real numbers, is 12 Note that this ﬁeld λ has no relation to the ﬁeld λ deﬁned in Section 4.2 for heterotic string theory on T 6 , although both transform as modulus under the respective SL(2,Z) duality transformations in the two theories.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

273

a symmetry of the full string theory [23]. The breaking of SL(2,R) to SL(2,Z) can be seen as follows. An elementary string is known to carry Bµν charge. In suitable normalization convention, it carries exactly one unit of Bµν charge. This means that the Bµν charge must be quantized in integer units, as the spectrum of string theory does not contain fractional strings carrying a fraction of the charge carried by the elementary string. From (4.47) we see that acting on an elementary string state carrying one unit of Bµν charge, the SL(2,R) transformation gives a state with p units charge. Thus p must be an integer. It is of Bµν charge and r units of Bµν easy to see that the maximal subgroup of SL(2,R) for which p is always an integer consists of matrices of the form p αq , (4.49) α−1 r s with p, q, r, s integers satisfying (ps − qr) = 1, and α a ﬁxed constant. Ab we see that the subgroup of SL(2, R) masorbing α into a redeﬁnition of Bµν p q trices consistent with charge quantization are the SL(2, Z) matrices r s with p, q, r, s integers satisfying ps − qr = 1. Note that this argument only shows that SL(2,Z) is the maximal possible subgroup of SL(2,R) that can be a symmetry of the full string theory, but does not prove that SL(2,Z) is a symmetry of string theory. In particular, since SL(2,Z) acts non-trivially on the dilaton, whose vacuum expectation value represents the string coupling constant, it cannot be veriﬁed order by order in string perturbation theory. We shall see later how one can ﬁnd non-trivial evidence for this symmetry. Besides this non-perturbative SL(2,Z) transformation, type IIB theory has two perturbatively veriﬁable discrete Z2 symmetries. They are as follows: • (−1)FL : it changes the sign of all the Ramond sector states on the left moving sector of the world-sheet. In particular, acting on the massless and Dµνρσ , but bosonic sector ﬁelds, it changes the sign of a, Bµν leaves gµν , Bµν and Φ invariant; • Ω: this is the world-sheet parity transformation mentioned in Section 2.1 that exchanges the left- and the right-moving sectors of the world-sheet. Acting on the massless bosonic sector ﬁelds, it changes the sign of Bµν , a and Dµνρσ , leaving the other ﬁelds invariant. From this description, we see that the eﬀect of (−1)FL · Ω is to change of sign of Bµν and Bµν , leaving the other massless bosonic ﬁelds invariant. Comparing this with the action of the SL(2,Z) transformation laws of the

274

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

massless bosonic sector ﬁelds, we see that (−1)FL · Ω can be identiﬁed with the SL(2,Z) transformation: −1 . (4.50) −1 This information will be useful to us later. Theories obtained by modding out (compactiﬁed) type IIB string theory by a discrete symmetry group, where some of the elements of the group involve Ω, are known as orientifolds [100, 101]. The simplest example of an orientifold is type IIB string theory modded out by Ω. This corresponds to type I string theory. The closed string sector of type I theory consists of the Ω invariant states of type IIB string theory. The open string states of type I string theory are the analogs of twisted sector states in an orbifold, which must be added to the theory in order to maintain ﬁniteness. 4.5 Other examples Following the same procedure, namely, studying symmetries of the eﬀective action together with charge quantization rules, we are led to many other duality conjectures in theories with 16 or more supersymmetry generators. Here we shall list the main series of such duality conjectures. We begin with the self duality groups of type II string theories compactiﬁed on tori of diﬀerent dimensions. As mentioned earlier, there is a T -duality that relates type IIA on a circle to type IIB on a circle of inverse radius. Thus for n ≥ 1, the self-duality groups of type IIA and type IIB theories compactiﬁed on an n-dimensional torus T n will be identical. We now list the conjectured self-duality groups of type IIA/IIB string theory compactiﬁed on T n for diﬀerent values of n [23]: D = (10 − n)

Full Duality Group

T -duality Group − SL(2, Z) × SL(2, Z)

9 8

SL(2, Z) SL(2, Z) × SL(3, Z)

7 6

SL(5, Z) SO(5, 5; Z)

SO(3, 3; Z) SO(4, 4; Z)

5 4

E6(6) (Z) E7(7) (Z)

SO(5, 5; Z) SO(6, 6; Z)

3

E8(8) (Z)

SO(7, 7; Z)

2

E 8(8) (Z)

SO(8, 8; Z)

Note that besides the full duality group, we have also displayed the T duality group of each theory which can be veriﬁed order by order in string

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

275

perturbation theory. En(n) denotes a non-compact version of the exceptional group En for n = 6, 7, 8, and En(n) (Z) denotes a discrete subgroup of En(n) . for any group G denotes the loop group of G based on the corresponding G aﬃne algebra and G(Z) denotes a discrete subgroup of this loop group. Note that we have stopped at D = 2. We could in principle continue this all the way to D = 1 where all space-like directions are compactiﬁed. In this case one expects a very large duality symmetry group based on hyperbolic Lie algebra [103], which is not well understood to this date. In each of the cases mentioned, the low energy eﬀective ﬁeld theory is invariant under the full continuous group [45], but charge quantization breaks this symmetry to its discrete subgroup. As noted before, these symmetries were discovered in the early days of supergravity theories, and were known as hidden non-compact symmetries. Next we turn to the self-duality conjectures involving compactiﬁed heterotic string theories. Although there are two distinct heterotic string theories in ten dimensions, upon compactiﬁcation on a circle, the two heterotic string theories can be shown to be related by a T -duality transformation. As a result, upon compactiﬁcation on T n , both of them will have the same self-duality group. We now display this self-duality group in various dimensions: D = (10 − n) 9

Full Duality Group O(1, 17, Z)

T -duality Group O(1, 17; Z)

8 7

O(2, 18, Z) O(3, 19, Z)

O(2, 18; Z) O(3, 19; Z)

6

O(4, 20, Z)

O(4, 20; Z)

5 4

O(5, 21, Z) O(6, 22, Z) × SL(2, Z)

O(5, 21; Z) O(6, 22; Z)

3

O(8, 24, Z) O(8, 24, Z)

O(7, 23; Z)

2

O(8, 24; Z)

Since type I and SO(32) heterotic string theories are conjectured to be dual to each other in ten dimensions, the second column of the above table also represents the duality symmetry group of type I string theory on T n . However, in the case of type I string theory, there is no perturbatively realised self-duality group (except trivial transformations which are part of the SO(32) gauge group and the group of global diﬀeomorphisms of T n ). The eﬀective action of type IIB string theory compactiﬁed on K3 has an SO(5,21) symmetry [43], which leads to the conjecture that an SO(5,21;Z) subgroup of this is an exact self-duality symmetry of the type IIB string

276

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

theory on K3. The conjectured duality between type IIA string theory compactiﬁed on K3 and heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on T 4 has already been discussed before. Due to the equivalence of type IIB on S 1 and type IIA on S 1 , type IIA on K3 × T n is equivalent to type IIB on K3 × T n . Finally, due to the conjectured duality between type IIA on K3 and heterotic on T 4 , type IIA/IIB on K3 × T n are dual to heterotic string theory on T n+4 for n ≥ 1. Thus the self-duality symmetry groups in these theories can be read out from the second column of the previous table displaying the self-duality groups of heterotic string theory on T n . Besides the theories discussed here, there are other theories with 16 or more supercharges obtained from non-geometric compactiﬁcation of heterotic/type II string theories [46–48]. The duality symmetry groups of these theories can again be guessed from an analysis of the low energy eﬀective ﬁeld theory and the charge quantization conditions. Later we shall also describe a more systematic way of “deriving” various duality conjectures from some basic set of dualities. Although in this section I have focussed on duality symmetries of the low energy eﬀective action which satisfy a non-renormalization theorem as a consequence of space-time supersymmetry, this is not the only part of the full eﬀective action which satisfy such a non-renormalization theorem. Quite often the eﬀective action contains another set of terms satisfying non-renormalization theorems. They are required for anomaly cancellation, and are known as Green-Schwarz terms. Adler-Bardeen theorem guarantees that they are not renormalized beyond one loop. These terms have also been used eﬀectively for testing various duality conjectures [127], but I shall not discuss it in this article. 5

Precision test of duality: Spectrum of BPS states

Analysis of the low energy eﬀective action, as discussed in the last section, provides us with only a crude test of duality. Its value lies in its simplicity. Indeed, most of the duality conjectures in string theory were arrived at by analysing the symmetries of the low energy eﬀective action. But once we have arrived at a duality conjecture based on the analysis of the low energy eﬀective action, we can perform a much more precise test by analysing the spectrum of BPS states in the theories. BPS states are states which are invariant under part of the supersymmetry transformation, and are characterized by two important properties: • They belong to a supermultiplet which has typically less dimension than a non-BPS state. This has an analog in the theory of representations of the Lorentz group, where massless states form a shorter representation of the algebra than massive states. Thus for example

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

277

a photon has only two polarizations but a massive vector particle has three polarizations; • The mass of a BPS state is completely determined by its charge as a consequence of the supersymmetry algebra. This relation between the mass and the charge is known as the BPS mass formula. This statement also has an analog in the theory of representations of the Lorentz algebra, e.g. a spin 1 representation of the Lorentz algebra containing only two states must be necessarily massless. We shall now explain the origin of these two properties [29]. Suppose the theory has N real supersymmetry generators Qα (1 ≤ α ≤ N ). Acting on a single particle state at rest, the supersymmetry algebra takes the form: {y}) , {Qα , Qβ } = fαβ (m, Q,

(5.1)

where fαβ is a real symmetric matrix which is a function of its arguments and {y}. Here m denotes the rest mass of the particle, Q denotes m, Q various gauge charges carried by the particle, and {y} denotes the coordinates labelling the moduli space of the theory13 . We shall now consider the following distinct cases: 1. fαβ has no zero eigenvalue. In this case by taking appropriate linear combinations of Qα we can diagonalize f . By a further appropriate rescaling of Qα , we can bring f into the identity matrix. Thus in this basis the supersymmetry algebra has the form: {Qα , Qβ } = δαβ .

(5.2)

This is the N dimensional Cliﬀord algebra. Thus the single particle states under consideration form a representation of this Cliﬀord algebra, which is 2N/2 dimensional. (We are considering the case where N is even.) Such states would correspond to non-BPS states. 2. f has (N − M ) zero eigenvalues for some M < N . In this case, by taking linear combinations of the Qα we can bring the algebra into the form: {Qα , Qβ }

= =

δαβ , for 1 ≤ α, β ≤ M , 0 for α or β > M .

(5.3)

We can form an irreducible representation of this algebra by taking all states to be annihilated by Qα for α > M . In that case the states will 13 Only speciﬁc combinations of Q and {y}, known as central charges, appear in the algebra.

278

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings form a representation of an M dimensional Cliﬀord algebra generated by Qα for 1 ≤ α ≤ M . This representation is 2M/2 dimensional for M even. Since M < N , we see that these are lower dimensional representations compared to that of a generic non-BPS state. Furthermore, these states are invariant under part of the supersymmetry algebra generated by Qα for α > M . These are known as BPS states. We can get diﬀerent kinds of BPS states depending on the value of M , i.e. depending on the number of supersymmetry generators that leave the state invariant.

From this discussion it is clear that in order to get a BPS state, the matrix f must have some zero eigenvalues. This in turn, gives a constraint involving and the moduli {y}, and is the origin of the BPS formula mass m, charges Q relating the mass and the charge of the particle. Before we proceed, let us illustrate the preceeding discussion in the context of a string theory. Consider type IIB string theory compactiﬁed on a circle S 1 . The total number of supersymmetry generators in this theory is 32. Thus a generic non-BPS supermultiplet is 216 = (256)2 dimensional. These are known as long multiplets. This theory also has BPS states breaking half the space-time supersymmetry. For these states M = 16 and hence we have 28 = 256 dimensional representation of the supersymmetry algebra. These states are known as ultra-short multiplets. We can also have BPS states breaking 3/4 of the space-time supersymmetry (M = 24). These will form a 212 = 256 × 16 dimensional representation, and are known as short multiplets. In each case there is a speciﬁc relation between the mass and the various charges carried by the state. We shall discuss this relation as well as the origin of these BPS states in more detail later. As another example, consider heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on an n-dimensional torus T n . The original theory has 16 supercharges. Thus a generic non-BPS state will belong to a 28 = 256 dimensional representation of the supersymmetry algebra. But if we consider states that are invariant under half of the supercharges, then they belong to a 24 = 16 dimensional representation of the supersymmetry algebra. This is known as the short representation of this superalgebra. We can also have states that break 3/4 of the supersymmetries14 . These belong to a 64 dimensional representation of the supersymmetry algebra known as intermediate states. BPS states are further characterized by the property that the degeneracy of BPS states with a given set of charge quantum numbers is independent of the value of the moduli ﬁelds {y}. Since string coupling is also one of 14 It turns out that these states can exist only for n ≥ 5. This constraint arises due to the fact that the unbroken supersymmetry generators must form a representation of the little group SO(9 − n) of a massive particle in (10 − n) dimensional space-time.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

279

the moduli of the theory, this implies that the degeneracy at any value of the string coupling is the same as that at weak coupling. This is the key property of the BPS states that makes them so useful in testing duality, so let us review the argument leading to this property [29]. We shall discuss this in the context of the speciﬁc example of type IIB string theory compactiﬁed on S 1 , but it can be applied to any other theory. Suppose the theory has an ultra-short multiplet at some point in the moduli space. Now let us change the moduli. The question that we shall be asking is: can the ultrashort multiplet become a long (or any other) multiplet as we change the moduli? If we assume that the total number of states does not change discontinuously, then this is clearly not possible since other multiplets have diﬀerent number of states. Thus as long as the spectrum varies smoothly with the moduli (which we shall assume), an ultra-short multiplet stays ultra-short as we move in the moduli space [88]. Furthermore, as long as it stays ultra-short, its mass is determined by the BPS formula. Thus we see that the degeneracy of ultra-short multiplets cannot change as we change the moduli of the theory. A similar argument can be given for other multiplets as well. Note that for this argument to be strictly valid, we require that the mass of the BPS state should stay away from the continuum, since otherwise the counting of states is not a well deﬁned procedure. This requires that the mass of a BPS state should be strictly less than the total mass of any set of two or more particles carrying the same total charge as the BPS state. Given this result, we can now adapt the following strategy to carry out tests of various duality conjectures using the spectrum of BPS states in the theory: 1. Identify BPS states in the spectrum of elementary string states. The spectrum of these BPS states can be trusted at all values of the coupling even though it is calculated at weak coupling; 2. Make a conjectured duality transformation. This typically takes a BPS state in the spectrum of elementary string states to another BPS state, but with quantum numbers that are not present in the spectrum of elementary string states. Thus these states must arise as solitons/composite states; 3. Try to explicitly verify the existence of these solitonic states with degeneracy as predicted by duality. This will provide a non-trivial test of the corresponding duality conjecture. We shall now illustrate this procedure with the help of speciﬁc examples. We shall mainly follow [51, 62, 65].

280

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

5.1 SL(2 , Z ) S-duality in heterotic on T 6 and multi-monopole moduli spaces As discussed in Section 4.2, heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on T 6 is conjectured to have an SL(2,Z) duality symmetry. In this subsection we shall see how one can test this conjecture by examining the spectrum of BPS states. Since the BPS spectrum does not change as we change the moduli, we can analyse the spectrum near some particular point in the moduli space. As discussed in Section 4.2, at a generic point in the moduli space the unbroken gauge group is U (1)28 . But there are special points in this moduli space where we get enhanced non-abelian gauge group [107]. Thus for example, if we set the internal components of the original ten dimensional gauge ﬁelds to zero, we get unbroken E8 × E8 or SO(32) gauge symmetry. Let us consider a special point in the moduli space where an SU (2) gauge symmetry is restored. This can be done for example by taking a particular S 1 in T 6 to be orthogional to all other circles, taking the components of the gauge ﬁelds along this S 1 to be zero, and taking the radius of this S 1 to be the self-dual radius. In that case the eﬀective ﬁeld theory at energies much below the string scale will be described by an N = 4 supersymmetric SU (2) gauge theory, together with a set of decoupled N = 4 supersymmetric U (1) gauge theories and N = 4 supergravity. The conjectured SL(2, Z) duality of the heterotic string theory will require the N = 4 supersymmetric SU (2) gauge theory to have this SL(2, Z) symmetry15 . Thus by testing the duality invariance of the spectrum of this N = 4 supersymmetric SU (2) gauge theory we can test the conjectured SL(2, Z) symmetry of heterotic string theory. The N = 4 supersymmetric SU (2) gauge theory has a vector, six massless scalars and four massless Majorana fermions in the adjoint representation of SU (2) [50]. The form of the Lagrangian is ﬁxed completely by the requirement of N = 4 supersymmetry up to two independent parameters − the coupling constant g that determines the strength of all interactions (gauge, Yukawa, scalar self-interaction etc.), and the vacuum angle θ that multiplies the topological term Tr(F F) involving the gauge ﬁeld. With the choice of suitable normalization convention, g and θ are related to the vacuum expectation value of the ﬁeld λ deﬁned in (4.18) through the relation: λ =

4π θ +i 2 · 2π g

(5.4)

15 Independently of string theory, the existence of a strong-weak coupling duality in this theory was conjectured earlier [49, 50].

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

281

The potential involving the six adjoint representation scalar ﬁelds φα m (1 ≤ α ≤ 3, 1 ≤ m ≤ 6) is proportional to (αβγ φβm φγn )2 . (5.5) m
This vanishes for φα m = am δα3 .

(5.6)

Vacuum expectation values of φα m of the form (5.6) does not break supersymmetry, but breaks the gauge group SU (2) to U (1). The parameters {am } correspond to the vacuum expectation values of a subset of the scalar moduli ﬁelds M in the full string theory. We shall work in a region in the moduli scale of breaking of SU (2) is small space where am = 0 for some m, but the√ compared to the string scale (|am | << ( α )−1 ) for all m), so that gravity is still decoupled from this gauge theory. The BPS states in the spectrum of elementary particles in this theory are the heavy charged bosons W ± and their superpartners. These break half of the 16 space-time supersymmetry generators and hence form a 28/2 = 16 dimensional representation of the supersymmetry algebra. These states can be found explicitly in the spectrum of elementary string states from the sector containing strings with one unit of winding and one unit of momentum along the special S 1 that is responsible for the enhanced SU (2) gauge symmetry. As we approach the point in the moduli space where this special S 1 has self-dual radius, these states become massless and form part of the SU (2) gauge multiplet. When SU (2) is broken to U (1) by the vacuum expectation value of φm , the spectrum of solitons in this theory is characterized by two quantum numbers, the electric charge quantum number ne and the magnetic charge quantum number nm , normalized so that ne and nm are both integers. We ne shall denote such a state by . In this notation the elementary W + nm 1 boson corresponds to a state. By studying the action of the SL(2, Z) 0 transformation (4.26) on the gauge ﬁelds, we can easily work out its action ne on the charge quantum numbers [1]. The answer is nm

ne nm

→

p r

q s

ne nm

,

(5.7)

forappropriate choice of sign convention for ne and nm . Thus acting on an 1 p state it produces a state. From the relation ps − qr = 1 satisﬁed 0 r

282

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

by an SL(2, Z) matrix, we can easily see that p and r are relatively prime. Furthermore for every p and r relatively prime, we can ﬁnd integers q and s satisfying ps − qr = 1. Thus SL(2, Z) duality predicts that for every p and r relatively prime, thetheory must contain a unique short multiplet with p charge quantum numbers [51]. r We can now directly examine the solitonic sector of the theory to check this prediction. The theory contains classical monopole solutions which break half of the supersymmetries of the original theory. These solutions are non-singular everywhere, and in fact, for a given r, there is a 4r parameter non-singular solution with r units of total magnetic charge [52, 104]. These 4r parameters correspond to the bosonic collective excitations of this system [105]. In order to study the spectrum of BPS solitons, we need to quantize these collective excitations and look for supersymmetric ground states of the corresponding quantum mechanical system. Each solution also has inﬁnite number of vibrational modes with non-zero frequency, but excitations of these modes are not relevant for ﬁnding supersymmetric ground states. States with r = 1 come from one monopole solution. This has four bosonic collective coordinates, three of which correspond to the physical position of the monopole in the three dimensional space, and the fourth one is an angular variable describing the U (1) phase of the monopole. The momenta conjugate to the ﬁrst three coordinates correspond to the components of the physical momentum of the particle. These can be set to zero by working in the rest frame of the monopole. The fourth coordinate is periodically identiﬁed and hence its conjugate momentum is quantized in integer units. This integer p corresponds to the electric charge quantum the bosonic sector of number ne . Thus the states obtained byquantizing p the theory has charge quantum numbers for all integer p. 1 The degeneracy comes from quantizing the fermionic sector. There are eight fermionic zero modes, which describe the result of applying the eight broken supersymmetry generators on the monopole solution. These form an eight dimensional Cliﬀord algebra. Thus the ground state has 24 = 16-fold degeneracy, exactly as predicted by SL(2, Z) [50]. Let us now turn to the analysis of states with r > 1 [51]. As has already been said, this system has 4r bosonic collective coordinates, which, when the monopoles are far away from each other, correspond to the spatial location and the U (1) phase of each of the r monopoles. The total number of fermionic collective coordinates can be computed from an index theorem and is equal to 8r [106]. We can divide this set into the “center of mass” coordinates containing four bosonic and eight fermionic coordinates, and the “relative coordinates” containing 4(r − 1) bosonic and 8(r − 1)

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

283

fermionic coordinates. The quantization ofthe center of mass system gives p states carrying charge quantum numbers with 16-fold degeneracy, p r being the momentum conjugate to the overall U (1) phase. This shows that the degeneracy is always a multiple of 16, consistent with the fact that a short multiplet is 16-fold degenerate. At this stage p can be any integer, not necessarily prime relative to r. However, since the total wave-function is a product of the wave-function of the center of mass system and the relative system, in order to determine the number of short multiplets for a given value of p, we need to turn to the quantum mechanics of the relative coordinates. It turns out that the bosonic coordinates in the relative coordinate system describe a non-trivial 4(r − 1) dimensional manifold, known as the relative moduli space of r monopoles [52, 53, 105]. The quantum mechanics of the bosonic and fermionic relative coordinates can be regarded as that of a supersymmetric particle moving in this moduli space. There are several subtleties with this system. They are listed below: • First of all, the center of mass and the relative coordinates do not completely decouple, although they decouple locally. The full moduli space has the structure [52]: (R3 × S 1 × Mr )/Zr ,

(5.8)

where R3 is parametrized by the center of mass location, S 1 by the overall U (1) phase, and Mr by the relative coordinates. There is an identiﬁcation of points in the product space R3 × S 1 × Mr by a Zr transformation that acts as a shift by 2π/r on S 1 and as a diﬀeomorphism on Mr without any ﬁxed point [52, 53]. Due to this identiﬁcation, the total wave-function must be invariant under this Zr transformation. Since the part of the wave-function involving the coordinate of S 1 picks up a phase exp(2πip/r) under this Zr , we see that the wave-function involving the relative coordinates must pick up a phase of exp(−2πip/r) under this Zr transformation; • Normally the part of the wave-function involving the relative coordinates will be a function on Mr . But it turns out that the eﬀect of the 8(r − 1) fermionic degrees of freedom in the quantum mechanical system makes the wave-function a diﬀerential form of arbitrary rank on Mr [54, 55]; • Finally, among all the possible states, the ones saturating Bogomol’nyi bound correspond to harmonic diﬀerential forms on Mr . This can be understood as follows. It can be shown that the Hamiltonian of the

284

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

relative coordinates correspond to the Laplacian on M. Also it turns out that the BPS mass formula is saturated by contribution from the center of mass coordinates. Hence in order to get a BPS state, the part of the wave-function involving the relative coordinates must be an eigenstate of the corresponding Hamiltonian with zero eigenvalue i.e. it must be a harmonic form on Mr . Thus for every harmonic diﬀerential form we get a short multiplet, since the fermionic degrees of freedom associated with the center of mass coordinates supply the necessary 16-fold degeneracy. p Thus the existence of a short multiplet of charge quantum numbers r would require the existence of a harmonic form on Mr that picks up a phase of exp(2πip/r) under the action of Zr . According to the prediction of SL(2, Z) such a harmonic form should exist only for p and r relatively prime, and not for other values of p [51]. For r = 2 the relevant harmonic form can be constructed explicitly [51, 56,57], therby verifying the existence of the states predicted by SL(2, Z) duality. For r > 2 the analysis is more complicated since the metric in the multimonopole moduli space is not known. However general arguments showing the existence of the necessary harmonic forms has been given [58, 59]. Besides the BPS states discussed here, the spectrum of elementary string states in the heterotic string theory on T 6 contains many other BPS states. In the world-sheet theory, a generic state is created by applying oscillators from the left- and the right-moving sector on the Fock vacuum. The Fock vacuum, in turn, is characterized by a pair of vectors ( kL , kR ) specifying the charges (momenta) associated with the six right-handed and twenty two left-handed currents on the world-sheet. From the viewpoint of the spacetime theory, these 28 components of ( kL , kR ) are just appropriate linear combinations of the charges carried by the state under the 28 U (1) gauge ﬁelds. The tree level mass formula for an elementary string state in the NS sector is given by16 , k 2 k 2 4 4 1 R L m2 = + NR − = + NL − 1 , (5.9) λ2 2 2 λ2 2 where NR and NL denote respectively the oscillator levels of the state in the right- and the left-moving sectors of the world-sheet. In the above equation ¯0 the terms in the square bracket denote the total contribution to L0 and L from the oscillators, the internal momenta, and the vacua in the right- and 16 In this and all subsequent mass formula λ should really be interpreted as the vacuum 2 expectation value of λ2 .

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

285

the left-moving sectors respectively. Normally we do not have the factor of λ−1 2 in the mass formula since the formula refers to the ADM mass measured in the string metric Gµν = λ−1 2 gµν . But here (and in the rest of the article) we quote the ADM mass measured in the canonical metric gµν . This is more convenient for discussing duality invariance of the spectrum, since it is gµν and not Gµν that remains invariant under a duality transformation. The additive factor of −1/2 and −1 can be interpreted as the contributions ¯ 0 from the vacuum. (In the covariant formulation these can be to L0 and L traced to the contributions from the world-sheet ghost ﬁelds). It turns out that of the full set of elementary string states, only those states which satisfy the constraint [64] NR =

1 , 2

(5.10)

correspond to BPS states (short multiplets). From equations (5.9) we see that for these states NL =

1 2 2 (k − kL ) + 1 . 2 R

(5.11)

The degeneracy d(NL ) of short multiplets for a given set of kL , kR is determined by the number of ways a level NL state can be created out of the Fock vacuum by the 24 left-moving bosonic oscillators (in the light-cone gauge) − 8 from the transverse bosonic coordinates of the string and 16 from the bosonization of the 32 left-moving fermions on the world-sheet − and is given by the formula: ∞ NL =0

d(NL )q NL =

∞

1 · (1 − q n )24 n=1

(5.12)

The BPS states discussed earlier − the ones which can be regarded as the massive gauge bosons of a spontaneously broken non-abelian gauge theory − correspond to the NL = 0 states in this classiﬁcation. From equation (5.12) we see that we have only one short multiplet for states with this quantum number; this is consistent with their description as heavy gauge bosons in an N = 4 supersymmetric gauge theory. The next interesting class of states are the ones with NL = 1. From (5.12) we see that they have degeneracy 2417 . An SL(2, Z) transformation relates these states to appropriate magnetically charged states with r units of magnetic charge and p units of electric charge for p and r relatively prime. Thus the SL(2, Z) self-duality symmetry of the 17 In counting degeneracy we are only counting the number of short multiplets, and ignoring the trivial factor of 16 that represents the degeneracy within each short multiplet.

286

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

heterotic string theory predicts the existence of 24-fold degenerate solitonic states with these charge quantum numbers. Verifying the existence of these solitonic states turns out to be quite diﬃcult [60]. The main problem is that unlike the NL = 0 states, the solitonic states (known as H-monopoles) which are related to the NL = 1 states by SL(2, Z) duality turn out to be singular objects, and hence we cannot unambiguously determine the dynamics of collective coordinates of these solitons just from the low energy eﬀective ﬁeld theory. Nevertheless, the problem has now been solved for r = 1 [70, 72–74], and one ﬁnds that these solitons have exactly the correct degeneracy 24. Similar analysis based on soliton solutions of low energy supergravity theory has been used to test many other duality conjectures [20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 61]. One of the main problems with this approach has been that unlike the example discussed in this section, most of these other solutions are either singular, or has strong curvature at the core where the low energy approximation breaks down. As a result, analysis based on these solutions has been of limited use. The situation changed after the advent of D-branes, to which we now turn. 5.2 SL(2 , Z ) duality in type IIB on S 1 and D-branes As discussed earlier, type IIB string theory in ten dimensions has a conjectured SL(2, Z) duality symmetry group. In this section I shall discuss the consequence of this conjectured symmetry for the spectrum of BPS states in type IIB string theory compactiﬁed on a circle S 1 . For details, see [62, 63]. The spectrum of elementary string states in this theory are characterized by two charges kL and kR deﬁned as: √ 1/4 1/4 kL = (kλ2 /R − wR/λ2 )/ 2,

√ 1/4 1/4 kR = (kλ2 /R + wR/λ2 )/ 2 , (5.13)

where R denotes the radius of S 1 measured in the ten dimensional canonical metric, k/R denotes the momentum along S 1 with k being an integer, and w, also an integer, denotes the number of times the elementary string is wound along S 1 . As usual we have set α = 1. In the world-sheet theory describing ﬁrst quantized string theory, kL and kR denote the left and the right-moving momenta respectively. There are inﬁnite tower of states with this quantum number, obtained by applied appropriate oscillators, both from the left- and the right-moving sector of the world-sheet, on the Fock vacuum of the world-sheet theory carrying these quantum numbers. The mass formula for any state in this tower, measured in the ten dimensional

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

287

canonical metric, is given by: 2 2 2 m2 = √ (kL2 + 2NL ) = √ (kR + 2NR ) , λ2 λ2

(5.14)

where NL , NR denote oscillator levels on the left- and the right- moving sector of the world-sheet respectively18 . In normal convention, one does not have the factors of (λ2 ) in the mass formula, but here it comes due to the fact that we are using the ten dimensional canonical metric instead of the string metric to deﬁne the mass of a state. (Note that if we had used the nine dimensional canonical metric as deﬁned in equations (4.1), (4.2), there will be an additional multiplicative factor of R−2/9 in the expression for m2 .) Most of these states are not BPS states as they are not invariant under any part of the supersymmetry transformation. It turns out that in order to be invariant under half of the space-time supersymmetry coming from the left- (right-) moving sector of the world-sheet, NL (NR ) must vanish [64]. Thus a state with NL = NR = 0 will preserve half of the total number of supersymmetries and will correspond to ultra-short multiplets. From equation (5.14) we see that mass formula for these states takes the form: 2k 2 2k 2 m2 = √ L = √ R · λ2 λ2

(5.15)

This is the BPS mass formula for these ultra-short multiplets. This requires kL = ±kR or, equivalently, k = 0 or w = 0. On the other hand, a state with either NL = 0 or NR = 0 will break (3/4)th of the total number of supersymmetries in the theory, and will correspond to short multiplets. If, for deﬁniteness, we consider states with NR = 0, then the BPS mass formula takes the form: 2k 2 m2 = √ R · λ2

(5.16)

NL is determined in terms of kL and kR through the relation: NL =

1 2 (k − kL2 ) = wk . 2 R

(5.17)

There is no further constraint on w and k. Although we have derived these mass formulae by directly analysing the spectrum of elementary string states, they can also be derived by analyzing the supersymmetry algebra, as indicated earlier. 18 We have stated the formula in the RR sector, but due to space-time supersymmetry we get identical spectrum from the NS and the R sectors.

288

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

One can easily calculate the degeneracy of these states by analyzing the spectrum of elementary string states in detail. For example, for the states with NL = NR = 0, there is a 16-fold degeneracy of states in each (left- and right-) sector of the world-sheet, − 8 from the NS sector and 8 from the R sector. Thus the net degeneracy of such a state is 16×16 = 256, showing that there is a unique ultra-short multiplet carrying given charges (kL , kR ). The degeneracy of short multiplets can be found in a similar manner. Consider for example states with NR = 0, NL = 1. In this case there is a 16-fold degeneracy coming from the right-moving sector of the world-sheet. There is an 8-fold degeneracy from the Ramond sector Fock vacuum of the leftmoving sector. There is also an extra degeneracy factor in the left-moving Ramond sector due to the fact that there are many oscillators that can act on the Fock vacuum of the world-sheet theory to give a state at oscillator level NL = 1. For example we get eight states by acting with the transverse bosonic oscillators αi−1 (1 ≤ i ≤ 8), and eight states by acting with the i 19 transverse fermionic oscillators ψ−1 . This gives total degeneracy factor of 8×16 in the left-moving Ramond sector. Due to supersymmetry, we get an identical factor from the left-moving NS sector as well. Thus we get a state with total degeneracy 16 × 16 × 16, − 16 from the right moving sector, and 16 × 16 from the left-moving sector − which is the correct degeneracy of a single short multiplet. Similar counting can be done for higher values of NL as well. It turns out that the total number of short multiplets d(NL ) with NR = 0 for some given value of NL ≥ 1 is given by the formula: NL

d(NL )q NL =

∞ 1 1 + q n 8 · 16 n=1 1 − q n

(5.18)

The (1+q n )8 and (1−q n )8 factors in the numerator and the denominator are related respectively to the fact that in the light-cone gauge there are 8 leftmoving fermionic ﬁelds and 8 left-moving bosonic ﬁelds on the world-sheet. The overall factor of (1/16) is due to the fact that the lowest level state is only 256-fold degenerate but a single short multiplet requires 16 × 256 states. Let us ﬁrst consider the ultra-short multiplet with k = 0, w = 1. These states have mass m2 =

R2 · λ2

(5.19)

19 Since ψ i −1 has fermion number one, it has to act on the Fock vacua with odd fermion i on the vacua satisfy GSO number in order that the states obtained after acting with ψ−1 projection.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

289

It is well known that an elementary string acts as a source of the Bµν ﬁeld (see e.g. Ref. [64]). Thus in the (8 + 1) dimensional theory obtained by compactifying type IIB on S 1 , the w = 1 state will carry one unit of B9µ gauge ﬁeld charge. Now, under SL(2, Z) B9µ B9µ p q B9µ → . (5.20) B9µ r s 1 This converts the w = 1 state, which we shall denote by reﬂecting the 0 B9µ p charge carried by the state, to a state, i.e. a state carrying p B9µ r charge. The condition ps − qr = 1 units of B9µ charge and r units of B9µ implies that the pair of integers (p, r) are relatively prime. Thus SL(2, Z) duality of type IIB string theory predicts that ∀(p, r) relatively prime, the theory must have a unique ultra-short multiplet with p units of B9µ charge and r units of B9µ charge [61]. The BPS mass formula for these states can be derived by analysing the supersymmetry algebra, as indicated earlier, and is given by, m2 =

R2 |rλ − p|2 . λ2

(5.21)

Note that this formula is invariant under the SL(2, Z) transformation: aλ + b p a b p , → , (5.22) λ→ r c d r cλ + d a b where is an SL(2, Z) matrix. c d A similar prediction for the spectrum of BPS states can be made for short multiplets as well. In this case the state is characterized by three integers p, r and k reﬂecting the B9µ , B9µ and G9µ charge (momentum along S 1 ) respectively. Let us denote by d(k, p, r) the degeneracy of such short multiplets. For (p, r) relatively prime, an SL(2, Z) transformation relates these to elementary string states with one unit of winding and k units of momentum along S 1 . Such states have degeneracy d(k) given in equation (5.18). Then by following the same logic as before, we see that the SL(2, Z) duality predicts that for (p, r) relatively prime, d(k, p, r) is independent of p and r and depends on k according to the relation: k

d(k, p, r)q k =

∞ 1 1 + q n 8 · 16 n=1 1 − q n

(5.23)

290

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

In other words, there should be a Hagedorn spectrum of short multiplets p with charge . r A test of SL(2, Z) symmetry involves explicitly verifying the existence of these states. To see what such a test involves, recall that Bµν arises in the RR sector of string theory. In type II theory, all elementary string states are neutral under RR gauge ﬁelds as can be seen by computing a three point function involving any two elementary string states and an RR sector gauge charge must arise as a soliton. The naive ﬁeld. Thus a state carrying B9µ approach will involve constructing such a soliton solution as a solution to the low energy supergravity equations of motion, quantizing its zero modes, and seeing if we recover the correct spectrum of BPS states. However, in charge, it actual practice, when one constructs the solution carrying Bµν turns out to be singular. Due to this fact it is diﬃcult to proceed further along this line, as identifying the zero modes of a singular solution is not a well deﬁned procedure. In particular we need to determine what boundary condition the modes must satisfy at the singularity. Fortunately, in this theory, there is a novel way of constructing a soliton solution that avoids this problem. This construction uses Dirichlet (D-) branes [65,66]. In order to compute the degeneracy of these solitonic states, we must understand the deﬁnition and some of the the properties of these D-branes. This is the subject to which we now turn. Normally type IIA/IIB string theory contains closed string states only. But we can postulate existence of solitonic extended objects in these theories such that in the presence of these solitons, there can be open string states whose ends lie on these extended objects (see Fig. 10). This can in fact be taken to be the deﬁning relation for these solitons, with the open string states with ends lying on the soliton corresponding to the (inﬁnite number of) vibrational modes of the soliton. Of course, one needs to ensure that the soliton deﬁned this way satisfy all the properties expected of a soliton solution in this theory e.g. partially unbroken supersymmetry, existence of static multi-soliton solutions etc. Since open strings satisfy Dirichlet boundary condition in directions transverse to these solitons, these solitons are called D-branes. In particular, we shall call a D-brane with Neumann boundary condition in (p + 1) directions (including time) and Dirichlet boundary condition in (9 − p) directions a Dirichlet p-brane, since it can be regarded as a soliton extending along p space-like directions in which we have put Neumann boundary condition. (Thus a 0-brane represents a particle like object, a 1-brane a string like object, and a 2-brane a membrane like object.) To be more explicit, let us consider the following

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

291

boundary condition on the open string: X m (σ = 0, π) = µ

∂σ X (σ = 0, π) =

xm 0

for

0 for

(p + 1) ≤ m ≤ 9 , 0 ≤ µ ≤ p,

(5.24)

where σ denotes the spatial direction on the string world-sheet. The boundary conditions on the world-sheet fermion ﬁelds are determined from (5.24) using various consistency requirements including world-sheet supersymmetry that relates the world-sheet bosons and fermions. Note that these boundary conditions break translational invariance along xm . Since we want the full theory to be translationally invariant, the only possible interpretation of such a boundary condition is that there is a p dimensional extended object situated at xm = xm 0 that is responsible for breaking this translational invariance. We call this a Dirichlet p-brane located at xm = xm 0 (p + 1 ≤ m ≤ 9), and extended along x1 , . . . xp .

(a)

(b)

Fig. 10. Open string states with ends attached to a a) Dirichlet membrane, b) Dirichlet string.

Let us now summarize some of the important properties of D-branes that will be relevant for understanding the test of SL(2, Z) duality in type IIB string theory: • The Dirichlet p-brane in IIB is invariant under half of the space-time supersymmetry transformations for odd p. To see how this property

292

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings arises, let us denote by L and R the space-time supersymmetry transformation parameters in type IIB string theory, originating in the leftand the right-moving sector of the world-sheet theory respectively. L and R satisfy the chirality constraint: Γ0 · · · Γ9 L = L ,

Γ0 · · · Γ9 R = R ,

(5.25)

where Γµ are the ten dimensional gamma matrices. The open string boundary conditions (5.24) together with the corresponding boundary conditions on the world-sheet fermions give further restriction on L and R of the form [65]: L = Γp+1 . . . Γ9 R .

(5.26)

It is easy to see that the two equations (5.25) and (5.26) are compatible only for odd p. Thus in type IIB string theory Dirichlet p-branes are invariant under half of the space-time supersymmetry transformations for odd p. An identical argument shows that in type IIA string theory we have supersymmetric Dirichlet p-branes only for even p since in this theory equation (5.25) is replaced by, Γ0 · · · Γ9 L = L ,

Γ0 · · · Γ9 R = −R .

(5.27)

• Type IIB (IIA) string theory contains a p-form gauge ﬁeld for even (odd) p. For example, in type IIB string theory these p-form gauge ﬁelds correspond to the scalar a, the rank two anti-symmetric tensor and the rank four anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld Dµνρσ . It can ﬁeld Bµν be shown that a Dirichlet p-brane carries one unit of charge under the RR (p + 1)-form gauge ﬁeld [65]. More precisely, if we denote by Cµ1 ···µq the q-form gauge potential, then a Dirichlet p-brane extending along 1 · · · p direction acts as a source of C01···p . (For p = 5 and 7 these and a respectively.) correspond to magnetic dual potentials of Bµν This result can be obtained by computing the one point function of the vertex operator for the ﬁeld C in the presence of a D-brane. The relevant string world-sheet diagram has been indicated in Figure 11. We shall not discuss the details of this computation here. From this discussion it follows that a Dirichlet 1-brane (D-string) in type IIB . This theory carries one unit of charge under the RR 2-form ﬁeld Bµν 1 9 means that in type IIB on S (labelled by the coordinate x ) a D-string wrapped around the S 1 describes a particle charged under B9µ . This then is 0 a candidate soliton carrying charge quantum numbers that is related to 1 1 the state via SL(2, Z) duality. As we had seen earlier, SL(2, Z) duality 0

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

293

D-brane

X

Vertex op. for RR state

String world-sheet

Fig. 11. The string world-sheet diagram relevant for computing the coupling of the RR gauge ﬁeld to the D-brane. It corresponds to a surface of the topology of a hemisphere with its boundary glued to the D-brane. The vertex operator of the RR-ﬁeld is inserted at a point on the hemisphere.

predicts that there should be a unique ultra-short multiplet carrying charge 0 quantum numbers . Thus our task now is as follows: 1 • Quantize the collective coordinates of this soliton; • Verify if we get an ultra-short multiplet in this quantum theory. Since the D-string is a one dimensional object, the dynamics of its collective coordinates should be described by a (1 + 1) dimensional ﬁeld theory. As we had discussed earlier, all the vibrational modes of the D-string are given by the open string states with ends attached to the D-string. In particular, the zero frequency modes (collective modes) of the D-string that are relevant for analyzing the spectrum of BPS states correspond to massless open string states propagating on the D-string. By analyzing the spectrum of these open string states one ﬁnds that the collective coordinates in this case correspond to • 8 bosonic ﬁelds y m denoting the location of this string in eight transverse directions; • A U (1) gauge ﬁeld; • 8 Majorana fermions. It can be shown that the dynamics of these collective coordinates is described by a (1+1) dimensional supersymmetric quantum ﬁeld theory which

294

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

is the dimensional reduction of the N = 1 supersymmetric U (1) gauge theory from (9 + 1) to (1 + 1) dimensions. Normally in (1 + 1) dimension gauge ﬁelds have no dynamics. But here since the space direction is compact, y ≡ A1 dl is a physical variable. Furthermore, the compactness of U (1) makes y to be periodically identiﬁed ((y ≡ y + a) for some a). Thus the momentum py conjugate to y is quantized (py = 2πk/a with k integer.) It can be shown that [62] this momentum, which represents electric ﬂux along the D-string, is actually a source of B9µcharge! Thus if we restrict to the 0 py = 0 sector then these states carry charge quantum numbers as dis1 cussed earlier, but by taking py = 2πk/a, we can get states carrying charge k quantum numbers as well. 1 Due to the compactness of the space direction, we can actually regard this as a quantum mechanical system instead of a (1 + 1) dimensional quantum ﬁeld theory. It turns out that in looking for ultra-short multiplets, we can ignore all modes carrying momentum along S 1 . This corresponds to dimensionally reducing the theory to (0 + 1) dimensions. The degrees of freedom of this quantum mechanical system are: • 8 bosonic coordinates y m ; • 1 compact bosonic coordinate y; • 16 fermionic coordinates. A quantum state is labelled by the momenta conjugate to y m (ordinary momenta) and an integer labelling momentum conjugate to y which can be identiﬁed with the quantum number p labelling B9µ charge. The fermionic coordinates satisfy the sixteen dimensional Cliﬀord algebra. Thus quantization of the fermionic coordinates gives 28 = 256 -fold degeneracy, which is precisely the correct degeneracy for a ultra-shortmultiplet. This establishes p the existence of all the required states of charge predicted by SL(2, Z) 1 symmetry. p charge What about states with r > 1? These carry r units of B9µ r and hence must arise as a bound state of r D-strings wrapped along S 1 . Thus the ﬁrst question we need to ask is: what is the (1 + 1) dimensional quantum ﬁeld theory governing the dynamics of this system? In order to answer this question we need to study the dynamics of r D-strings. This system can be described as easily as a single D-string: instead of allowing open strings to end on a single D-string, we allow it to end on any of the r

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

295

Fig. 12. Possible open string states in the presence of three parallel D-strings.

D-strings situated at xm = xm (i) ,

2 ≤ m ≤ 9,

1 ≤ i ≤ r,

(5.28)

where x(i) denotes the location of the i-th D-string. The situation is illustrated in Figure 12. Thus the dynamics of this system will now be described not only by the open strings starting and ending on the same D-string, but also by open strings whose two ends lie on two diﬀerent D-strings. For studying the spectrum of BPS states we need to focus our attention on the massless open string states. First of all, for each of the r D-strings we get a U (1) gauge ﬁeld, eight scalar ﬁelds and eight Majorana fermions from open strings with both ends lying on that D-string. But we can get extra massless states from open strings whose two ends lie on two diﬀerent D-strings when these two D-strings coincide. It turns out that for r coincident D-strings the dynamics of massless strings on the D-string world-sheet is given by the dimensional reduction to (1 + 1) dimension of N = 1 supersymmetric U (r) gauge theory in ten dimensions, or equivalently, N = 4 supersymmetric U (r) gauge theory in four dimensions [62]. Following a logic similar to that in the case of a singleD-string, one can show that the prob p lem of computing the degeneracy of states reduces to the computation r of certain Witten index in this quantum theory. We shall not go through the details of this analysis, but just state the ﬁnal result. It turns out that there is a unique ultra-short multiplet for every pair of integers (p, r) which are relatively prime, precisely as predicted by SL(2, Z) [62]!

296

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

A similar analysis can be carried out for the short multiplets that carry momentum k along S 1 besides carrying the B and B charges p and r [62, 63]. In order to get these states from the D-brane spectrum, we can no longer dimensionally reduce the (1 + 1) dimensional theory to (0 + 1) dimensions. Instead we need to take into account the modes of the various ﬁelds of the (1 + 1) dimensional ﬁeld theory carrying momentum along the internal S 1 . The BPS states come from conﬁgurations where only the left- (or right-) moving modes on S 1 are excited. The calculation of the degeneracy d(k, p, r) of BPS states carrying given charge quantum numbers (p, r, k) is done by determining in how many ways the total momentum k can be divided among the various left-moving bosonic and fermionic modes. This counting problem turns out to be identical to the one used to get the Hagedorn spectrum of BPS states in the elementary string spectrum, except that the elementary string is replaced here by the solitonic D-string. Naturally, we get back the Hagedorn spectrum for d(k, p, r) as well. Thus the answer agrees exactly with that predicted by SL(2, Z) duality. This provides us with a test of the conjectured SL(2, Z) symmetry of type IIB on S 1 . The method of using D-branes to derive the dynamics of collective coordinates has been used to verify the predictions of other duality conjectures involving various string compactiﬁcations. Among them are self-duality of type II string theory on T 4 [67–70], the duality between heterotic on T 4 and type IIA on K3 [71], the duality between type I and SO(32) heterotic string theory [22], etc. 5.3 Massless solitons and tensionless strings An interesting aspect of the conjectured duality between the heterotic string theory on T 4 and type IIA string theory on K3 is that at special points in the moduli space the heterotic string theory has enhanced non-abelian gauge symmetry e.g. E8 × E8 or SO(32) in the absence of vacuum expectation value of the internal components of the gauge ﬁelds, SU (2) at the self-dual radius etc. Perturbative type IIA string theory on K3 does not have any such gauge symmetry enhancement, since the spectrum of elementary string states does not contain any state charged under the U (1) gauge ﬁelds arising in the RR sector. Thus, for example, we do not have the W ± bosons that are required for enhancing a U (1) gauge group to SU (2). At ﬁrst sight this seems to lead to a contradiction. However upon closer examination one realises that this cannot really be a problem [116]. To see this let us consider a point in the moduli space of heterotic string theory on T 4 where the non-abelian gauge symmetry is broken. At this point the would be massless gauge bosons of the non-abelian gauge theory acquire mass by Higgs mechanism, and appear as BPS states in the abelian theory.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

297

As we approach the point of enhanced gauge symmetry, the masses of these states vanish. Since the masses of BPS states are determined by the BPS formula, the vanishing of the masses must be a consequence of the BPS formula. Thus if we are able to ﬁnd the images of these BPS states on the type IIA side as appropriate D-brane states, then the masses of these Dbrane states must also vanish as we approach the point in the moduli space where the heterotic theory has enhanced gauge symmetry. These massless D-brane solitons will then provide the states necessary for enhancing the gauge symmetry. To see this more explicitly, let us examine the BPS formula. It can be shown that in the variables deﬁned in Section 4.3 the BPS formula is given by, (A)

m2 = e−Φ

/2 T

α (LM (A) L + L)α ,

(5.29)

where α is a 24 dimensional vector belonging to the lattice Λ24 , and represents the U (1) charges carried by this particular state. For each α we can assign an occupation number n( α) which gives the number of BPS multiplets carrying this speciﬁc set of charges. Since M (A) is a symmetric O(4, 20) matrix, we can express this as Ω(A)T Ω(A) for some O(4, 20) matrix Ω(A) , and rewrite equation (5.29) as (A)

m2 = e−Φ

/2 T

α LΩ(A)T (I24 + L)Ω(A) Lα .

(5.30)

As can be seen from equation (4.28), (I24 + L) has 20 zero eigenvalues. As we vary M (A) and hence Ω(A) , the vector Ω(A) Lα rotates in the twenty four dimensional space. If for some Ω(A) it is aligned along one of the eigenvectors of (I24 + L) with zero eigenvalue, we shall get massless solitons provided the occupation number n( α) for this speciﬁc α is non-zero. Although this argument resolves the problem at an abstract level, one would like to understand this mechanism directly by analysing the type IIA string theory, since, after all, we do not encounter massless solitons very often in physics. This has been possible through the work of [19, 71, 117]. For simplicity let us focus on the case of enhanced SU (2) gauge symmetry. First of all, one ﬁnds that at a generic point in the moduli space where SU (2) is broken, the images of the W ± bosons in the type IIA theory are given by a D-2 brane wrapped around a certain 2-cycle (topologically non-trivial two dimensional surface) inside K3, the + and the − sign of the charge being obtained from two diﬀerent orientations of the D-2 brane. Since the two tangential directions on the D-2 brane are directed along the two internal directions of K3 tangential to the 2-cycle, this object has no extension in any of the ﬁve non-compact spatial directions, and hence

298

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

behaves like a particle20 . It turns out that as we approach the point in the moduli space where the theory on the heterotic side develops enhanced SU (2) gauge symmetry, the K3 on which type IIA theory is compactiﬁed becomes singular. At this singularity the area of the topologicaly non-trivial 2-cycle mentioned above goes to zero. As a result, the mass of the wrapped D-2 brane, obtained by multiplying the tension of the D-2 brane by the area of the two cycle, vanishes. This gives us the massless solitons that are required for the gauge symmetry enhancement. A similar mechanism works for getting other gauge groups as well. In fact it turns out that there is a one to one correspondence between the enhanced gauge groups, which are classiﬁed by A-D-E dynkin diagram, and the singularity type of K3, which are also classiﬁed by the A-D-E dynkin diagram [19]. This establishes an explicit physical relationship between A-D-E singularities and A-D-E lie algebras. The appearance of enhanced gauge symmetry in type IIA on K3 poses another puzzle. Let us compactify this theory on one more circle. Since such a compactiﬁcation does not destroy gauge symmetry, this theory also has enhanced gauge symmetry when the K3 becomes singular. But type IIA on K3 × S 1 is T-dual to type IIB on K3 × S 1 ; thus type IIB on K3 × S 1 must also develop enhanced gauge symmetry when K3 develops singularities. Does this imply that type IIB on K3 also develops enhanced gauge symmetry at these special points in the K3 moduli space? This does not seem possible, since type IIB string theory does not have any D-2 brane solitons which can be wrapped around the collapsed two cycles of K3. It turns out that instead of acquiring enhanced gauge symmetry, type IIB string theory acquires tensionless strings at these special points in the K3 moduli space [119]. These arise from taking a D-3 brane of type IIB string theory, and wrapping it on a two cycle of K3. Thus two of the tangential directions of the three brane are directed along the internal directions of K3, and the third direction of the three brane is along one of the non-compact spatial directions. Thus from the point of view of the (5 + 1) dimensional theory such a conﬁguration will appear as a string. The tension of this string is given by the product of the tension (energy per unit three volume) of the three brane and the area of the two cycle on which the three brane is wrapped. Thus as we approach the singular point on the K3 moduli space where the area of the two cycle vanishes, the tension of the string goes to zero. In other words, we get tensionless strings. Upon further compactiﬁcation on a circle we get massless particles from conﬁgurations where this tensionless string is wound around the circle. These are precisely the massless gauge bosons required for the gauge symmetry enhancement in type IIB on K3 × S 1 . 20 These

states were analyzed in detail in [118].

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries 6

299

Interrelation between diﬀerent duality conjectures

In the last three sections we have seen many diﬀerent duality conjectures and have learned how to test these conjectures. We shall now see that many of these conjectures are not independent, but can be “derived” from each other. There are several diﬀerent ways in which dualities can be related to each other. We shall discuss them one by one. The material covered in this section is taken mainly from [75, 77, 78]. 6.1 Combining non-perturbative and T -dualities Suppose a string theory A compactiﬁed on a manifold KA has a conjectured duality symmetry group G. Now further compactify this theory on some manifold M. Then the theory A on KA × M is expected to have the following set of duality symmetries: • It inherits the original duality symmetry group G of A on KA ; • It also has a perturbatively veriﬁable T -duality group. Let us call it H. Quite often G and H do not commute and together generate a much bigger group [23,76]. In that case, the existence of this bigger group of symmetries can be regarded as a consequence of the duality symmetry of A on KA and T -dualities. We shall illustrate this with a speciﬁc example [23]. We have seen that in ten dimensions type IIB string theory has a conjectured duality group SL(2, Z) that acts non-trivially on the coupling constant. From the table given in Section 4.5 we see that type IIB on T n also has a T -duality group SO(n, n; Z), whose existence can be veriﬁed order by order in string perturbation theory. It turns out that typically these two duality groups do not commute, and in fact generate the full duality symmetry group of type IIB on T n as given in the table of Section 4.5. Thus we see that the existence of the full duality symmetry group of type IIB on T n can be infered from the SL(2, Z) duality symmetry of the ten dimensional type IIB string theory, and the perturbatively veriﬁable T -duality symmetries of type IIB on T n . 6.2 Duality of dualities Suppose two theories are conjectured to be dual to each other, and each theory in turn has a conjectured self-duality group. Typically part of this self duality group is T -duality, and the rest involves non-trivial transformation of the coupling constant. But quite often the non-perturbative duality transformations in one theory correspond to T -duality in the dual theory

300

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings DUALITY GROUP

HETEROTIC ON T6

FULL

O(6,22;Z)

O(6,22;Z)

X SL(2,Z)

X SL(2,Z)

O(6,22;Z)

O(4,20;Z) X SL(2,Z) X SL(2,Z)

T-

TYPE II ON K3 X T2

Fig. 13. The embedding of the T -duality groups in the full duality group in heterotic on T 6 and type IIA on K3 × T 2 .

and vice versa. As a result, the full self duality group in both theories follows from the conjectured duality between the two theories. Again we shall illustrate this with an example [19, 24]. Let us start with the conjectured duality between heterotic on T 4 and type IIA on K3. Now let us compactify both theories further on a two dimensional torus T 2 . This produces a dual pair of theories: type IIA on K3 × T 2 and heterotic on T 6 . Now, heterotic on T 6 has a T -duality group O(6, 22; Z) that can be veriﬁed using heterotic perturbation theory. On the other hand , type IIA on K3×T 2 has a T -duality group O(4, 20; Z)×SL(2, Z)×SL(2, Z) that can be veriﬁed using type II perturbation theory. The full conjectured duality group in both theories is O(6, 22, Z) × SL(2, Z). Now the question we would like to address is, how are the T -duality symmetry groups in the two theories embedded in the full conjectured O(6, 22; Z) × SL(2, Z) duality group? This has been illustrated in Figure 13. In particular we ﬁnd that the SL(2, Z) factor of the full duality group is a subgroup of the T -duality group in type IIA on K3 × T 2 , and hence can be veriﬁed in this theory order by order in perturbation theory. On the other hand, the O(6,22;Z) factor of the duality group appears as a T -duality symmetry of the heterotic string theory, and hence can be veriﬁed order by order in perturbation theory in this theory. Thus assuming that T -duality in either theory is a valid symmetry, and the duality between the heterotic on T 4 and type IIA on K3, we can establish the existence of the self-duality group O(6, 22; Z)×SL(2, Z) in heterotic on T 6 and type IIA on K3×T 2.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

301

Using the results of this and the previous subsection, we see that so far among all the conjectured non-perturbative duality symmetries, the independent ones are: 1. SL(2, Z) of type IIB in D = 10, 2. type I ↔ SO(32) heterotic in D = 10, and 3. IIA on K3 ↔ heterotic on T 4 . We shall now show how to “derive” 3) from 1) and 2). 6.3 Fiberwise duality transformation

A on KA

B A on MA

B on KB

B B on M B

Fig. 14. Application of ﬁberwise duality transformation. In each local neighbourhood of the base manifold B, the two theories are equivalent due to the equivalence of the theories living on the ﬁber (× any manifold). Thus we would expect the theories A on MA and B on MB to be equivalent.

In this subsection we shall describe the idea of constructing dual pairs of theories using ﬁberwise duality transformation [77]. Suppose (Theory A on KA ) has been conjectured to be dual to (Theory B on KB ). Here A and B are two of the ﬁve diﬀerent string theories in D = 10, and KA , KB are two diﬀerent manifolds (in general). This duality involves a precise map between the moduli spaces of the two theories. Now construct a pair of new manifolds MA , MB by starting from some other manifold B, and erecting at every point on B a copy of KA , KB . The moduli of KA , KB vary slowly over B and are related to each other via the duality map that relates (A on KA ) to (B on KB ). Then we would expect a duality Theory A on MA ↔ Theory B on MB by applying the duality transformation ﬁberwise. This then gives rise to a new duality conjecture. This situation has been illustrated in Figure 14.

302

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

KA Q

KA

KA

p g(Q) Z2

D

Q=g(Q)

hA(p)

D/g

Fig. 15. Representation of a Z2 orbifold as a ﬁbered space. The Z2 transformation relates the point (Q, p) on D × KA to the point (g(Q), hA (p)).

Now suppose that at some isolated points (or subspaces of codimension ≥1) on B the ﬁbers KA and KB degenerate. (We shall see some explicit examples of this later.) Is the duality between (A on MA ) and (B on MB ) still valid? We might expect that even in this case the duality between the two theories holds since the singularities occur on subspaces of “measure zero”. Although there is no rigorous argument as to why this should be so, this appears to be the case in all known examples. Conversely, assuming that this is the case, we can derive the existence of many new duality symmetries from a given duality symmetry. A special case of this construction involves Z2 orbifolds. Suppose we have a dual pair (A on KA ) ↔ (B on KB ). Further suppose that (A on KA ) has a Z2 symmetry generated by hA . Then the dual theory must also have a Z2 symmetry generated by hB . hA and hB are mapped to each other under duality. Now compactify both theories on another manifold D with a Z2 isometry generated by g, and compare the two quotient theories (A on KA × D/hA · g) and (B on KB × D/hB · g) (KA ×D/hA ·g) is obtained from the product manifold KA ×D by identifying points that are related by the Z2 transformation hA · g. This situation is illustrated in Figure 15. As shown in this ﬁgure, (KA × D/hA · g) admits a ﬁbration with base D/g and ﬁber KA . In particular, note that since hA · g takes a point (p ∈ KA , Q ∈ D) to (hA (p), g(Q)), if we focus our attention on a deﬁnite point Q on D, then there is no identiﬁcation of the points in the copy of KA that is sitting at Q. This shows that the ﬁber is KA and not KA /hA . As we go from Q to g(Q), which is a closed cycle on D/g, the ﬁber gets twisted by the transformation hA . The second theory, B on (KB × D)/(hB · g) has an identical structure. Thus we can now apply ﬁberwise duality transformation to derive a new

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

303

duality: (A on KA × D/hA · g) ↔ (B on KB × D/hB · g) Note that if P0 ∈ D is a ﬁxed point of g (i.e. if g(P0 ) = P0 ) then in KA × D/hA ·g there is an identiﬁcation of points (p, P0 ) and (hA (p), P0 ). Similarly in KB × D/hB · g there is an identiﬁcation of points (p , P0 ) and (hB (p ), P0 ). Thus at P0 the ﬁbers degenerate to KA /hA and KB /hB respectively. At these points the argument in support of duality between the two theories breaks down. However, as we have discuused earlier, since these are points of “measure zero” on D, we would expect that the two quotient theories are still dual to each other [78]. We shall now illustrate this construction in the context of a speciﬁc example. We start with type IIB string theory in ten dimensions. This has a conjectured SL(2, Z) symmetry. Let S denote the SL(2, Z) element 0 1 . (6.1) −1 0 Recall that this theory also has two global discrete symmetries (−1)FL and Ω. The action of S, (−1)FL and Ω on the massless bosonic ﬁelds in this theory were described in Section 4.4. From this one can explicitly compute the action of S(−1)FL S −1 on these massless ﬁelds. This action turns out to be identical to that of Ω. A similar result holds for their action on the massless fermionic ﬁelds as well. Finally, since the action of S on the massive ﬁelds is not known, one can deﬁne this action in such a way that the actions of S(−1)FL S −1 and Ω are identical on all states. This gives: S(−1)FL S −1 = Ω .

(6.2)

We are now ready to apply our formalism. We take (A on KA ) to be type IIB in D = 10, (B on KB ) to be type IIB in D = 10 transformed by S, hA to be (−1)FL , hB to be Ω, D to be T 4 , and g to be the transformation I4 that changes the sign of all the coordinates on T 4 . This gives the duality: (IIB on T 4 /(−1)FL · I4 ) ↔ (IIB on T 4 /Ω · I4 ). Note that in this case the ﬁbers KA and KB are points, but this does not prevent us from applying our method of constructing dual pairs. Also there are sixteen ﬁxed points on T 4 under I4 where the application of ﬁberwise duality transformation breaks down, but as has been argued before, we still expect the duality to hold since these are points of measure zero on T 4 . We shall now bring this duality into a more familiar form via T -duality transformation. Let us make R → (1/R) duality transformation on one of the circles of T 4 in the theory on the left hand side. This converts type IIB

304

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

theory to type IIA. This also transforms (−1)FL · I4 to I4 , which can be checked by explicitly studying the action of these transformations on the various massless ﬁelds. Thus the theory on the left hand side is T -dual to type IIA on T 4 /I4 . This of course is just a special case of type IIA on K3. Let us now take the theory on the right hand side and make R → (1/R) duality transformation on all four circles. This takes type IIB theory to type IIB theory. But this transforms Ω · I4 to Ω, which can again be seen by studying the action of these transformations on the massless ﬁelds. Thus the theory on the right is T -dual to type IIB on T 4 /Ω. Since type I string theory can be regarded as type IIB string theory modded out by Ω, we see that the theory on the right hand side is type I on T 4 . But by (heterotic – type I) duality in ten dimensions this is dual to heterotic on T 4 . Thus we have “derived” the duality (Type IIA on K3) ↔ (Heterotic on T 4 ) from other conjectured dualities in D = 10. Although this way the duality has been established only at a particular point in the moduli space (the orbifold limit of K3), the argument can be generalized to establish this duality at a generic point in the moduli space as well [78]. There are many other applications of ﬁberwise duality transformation. Some of them will be discussed later in this review. 6.4 Recovering higher dimensional dualities from lower dimensional ones So far we have discussed methods of deriving dualities involving compactiﬁed string theories by starting with the duality symmetries of string theories in higher dimensions. But we can also proceed in the reverse direction. Suppose a string theory compactiﬁed on a manifold M1 × M2 has a self-duality symmetry group G. Now consider the limit when the size of M2 goes to inﬁnity. A generic element of G, acting on this conﬁguration, will convert this conﬁguration to one where M2 has small or ﬁnite size. However, there may be a subgroup H of G that commutes with this limit, i.e. any element of this subgroup, acting on a conﬁguration where M2 is big, gives us back a conﬁguration where M2 is big. Thus we would expect that H is the duality symmetry group of the theory in the decompactiﬁcation limit, i.e. of the original string theory compactiﬁed on M1 . The same argument can be extended to the case of a pair of dual theories. A priori this procedure does not appear to be very useful, since one normally likes to derive more complicated duality transformations of lower dimensional theories from the simpler ones in the higher dimensional theory. But we shall now show how this procedure can be used to derive the SL(2, Z) duality symmetry of type IIB string theory from the conjectured duality between type I and SO(32) heterotic string theories, and

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

305

T -duality symmetries of the heterotic string theory. We shall describe the main steps in this argument, for details, see [75]. We start with the duality between type I on T 2 and heterotic on T 2 that follows from the duality between these theories in ten dimensions. Now heterotic string theory on T 2 has a T -duality group O(2,18;Z). We shall focus our attention on an SL(2, Z) × SL(2, Z) subgroup of this T -duality group. One of these two SL(2, Z) factors is associated with the global diﬀeomorphism of T 2 , and the other one is associated with the R → (1/R) duality symmetries on the two circles. By the “duality of dualities” argument, this must also be a symmetry of type I on T 2 . Since type I string theory can be regarded as type IIB string theory modded out by the world-sheet parity transformation Ω discussed in Section 4.4, we conclude that SL(2, Z) × SL(2, Z) is a subgroup of the self-duality group of type IIB on T 2 /Ω. Let us now make an R → (1/R) duality transformation on both the circles of this T 2 . This converts type IIB on T 2 to type IIB theory compactiﬁed on a dual T 2 , and Ω to (−1)FL · Ω · I2 , where I2 denotes the reversal of orientation of both the circles of T 2 . (This can be seen by studying the action of various transformations on the massless ﬁelds.) Geometrically, this model describes type IIB string theory compactiﬁed on the surface of a tetrahedron (which is geometrically T 2 /I2 ), with an added twist of (−1)FL · Ω as we go around any of the four vertices of the tetrahedron (the ﬁxed points of I2 ). Thus we conclude that SL(2, Z) × SL(2, Z) is a subgroup of the self-duality group of type IIB on a tetrahedron. Now take the limit where the size of the tetrahedron goes to inﬁnity. It turns out that both the SL(2, Z) factors commute with this limit. One of these SL(2, Z) groups becomes part of the diﬀeomorphism group of type IIB string theory and does not correspond to anything new, but the other SL(2, Z) factor represents the S-duality transformation discussed in Section 4.4. Since this limit gives us back the decompactiﬁed type IIB string theory, we conclude that type IIB string theory in ten dimensions has a self-duality group SL(2, Z). Thus we see that all the dualities discussed so far can be “derived” from a single duality conjecture, − the one between type I and SO(32) heterotic string theories in ten dimensions. In the next section we shall see more examples of dualities which can be derived from the ones that we have already discussed. 7

Duality in theories with less than sixteen supersymmetry generators

So far our discussion has been focussed on theories with 16 or more supersymmetry charges. As was pointed out in Section 4, for these theories the non-renormalization theorems for the low energy eﬀective action and

306

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

the spectrum of BPS states are particularly powerful. This makes it easy to test duality conjectures involving these theories. In this section we shall extend our discussion to theories with eight supercharges. Examples of such theories are provided by N = 2 supersymmetric theories in four dimensions. We shall see that these theories have a very rich structure, and although the non-renormalization theorems are less powerful here, they are still powerful enough to provide us with some of the most striking tests of duality conjectures involving these theories. The material covered in this section is based mainly on refs. [77, 79, 80]. 7.1 Construction of a dual pair of theories with eight supercharges For deﬁniteness we shall focus our attention on N = 2 supersymmetric theories in four dimensions. There are several ways to get theories with N = 2 supersymmetry in four dimensions. Two of them are: 1. Type IIA/IIB on Calabi-Yau 3-folds: in our convention an n-fold describes an n complex or 2n real dimensional manifold. In ten dimensions type II theories have 32 supersymmetry generators. Compactiﬁcation on a Calabi-Yau 3-fold breaks 3/4 of the supersymmetry. Thus we are left with 8 supersymmetry generators in D = 4, giving rise to N = 2 supersymmetry; 2. Heterotic string theory on K3 × T 2: in ten dimensions heterotic string theory has sixteen supersymmetry generators. Compactiﬁcation on K3×T 2 breaks half of the supersymmetry. Thus we have a theory with eight supersymmetry generators, again giving N = 2 supersymmetry in four dimensions. It is also possible to construct more general class of four dimensional heterotic string theories with the same number of supersymmetries where the background does not have the product structure K3 × T 2 [79, 108]. The question we would like to ask is: is it possible to construct pairs of N = 2 supersymmetric type II and heterotic string compactiﬁcations in four dimensions which will be non-perturbatively dual to each other? Historically such dual pairs were ﬁrst constructed by trial and error [79] and then a more systematic approach was developed [77, 80–83]. However we shall begin by describing the systematic approach, and then describe how one tests these dualities. The systematic construction of such dual pairs can be carried out by application of ﬁberwise duality transformation as described in the last section. The steps involved in this construction are as follows: • Start from the conjectured duality (Type IIA on K3) ↔ (Heterotic on T 4 );

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries 6D Duality map K3

T

4

1

CP IIA on CY

307

1

CP Heterotic on K3 X T 2

Fig. 16. Construction of dual pair of N = 2 supersymmetric string theories in four dimensions from the dual pair of theories in six dimensions.

• Choose a CP 1 base; • Construct a Calabi-Yau 3-fold by ﬁbering K3 over the base CP 1 ; One can construct a whole class of Calabi-Yau manifolds this way by choosing diﬀerent ways of varying K3 over CP 1 ; • For type IIA on each such Calabi-Yau 3-fold we can get a dual heterotic compactiﬁcation by replacing the type IIA on K3 by heterotic on T 4 on each ﬁber according to the duality map. This gives heterotic string theory on a manifold obtained by varying T 4 on CP 1 according to the duality map. Typically this manifold turns out to be K3 × T 2 or some variant of this. This model is expected to be dual to the type IIA string theory on the Calabi-Yau manifold that we started with. Thus we get a duality map (Type IIA on CY) ↔ (Heterotic on K3×T 2). This construction has been illustrated in Figure 16. Note that the original duality map gives a precise relationship between the moduli of type IIA on K3 and heterotic on T 4 . On the heterotic side the moduli involve background gauge ﬁelds on T 4 besides the shape and size of T 4 . Thus for a speciﬁc Calabi-Yau, knowing how K3 varies over CP 1 , we can ﬁnd out how on the heterotic side the background gauge ﬁelds on T 4 vary as we move along CP 1 . This gives the gauge ﬁeld conﬁguration on K3 × T 2 . Diﬀerent Calabi-Yau manifolds will give rise to diﬀerent gauge ﬁelds on K3 × T 2 .

308

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

We shall illustrate this procedure with the example of a pair of Z2 orbifolds of the form [80]: (IIA on K3 × T 2 /hA · g) ↔ (Heterotic on T 4 × T 2 /hB · g) where g acts on T 2 by changing the sign of both its coordinates, hA is a speciﬁc involution of K3 known as the Enriques involution, and hB is the image of this transformation on the heterotic side. By our previous argument relating orbifolds to ﬁbered spaces, these two theories are expected to be dual to each other via ﬁberwise duality transformation. K3×T 2/(hA ·g) can be shown to describe a Calabi-Yau manifold. Thus the theory on the left-hand side corresponds to type IIA string theory compactiﬁed on this Calabi-Yau manifold. In order to determine the theory on the heterotic side, we need to determine hB . We shall now describe this procedure in some detail. In order to determine hB , we need to study the relationship between the ﬁelds appearing in type IIA on K3 and heterotic on T 4 . The low energy eﬀective action of both the theories and the origin of the various massless ﬁelds in these theories were discussed in Section 4.3. We shall focus our attention on the gauge ﬁelds. As discussed there, in the type IIA on K3, 22 of the gauge ﬁelds come from decomposing the three form ﬁeld along the harmonic two forms on K3. Now, hA , being a geometric transformation on K3, has known action on the harmonic forms ω (p) . For this particular example, hA corresponds to • exchanging ten of the ω (p) with ten others and • changing the sign of two more ω (p) . (p)

This translates into a similar action on the ﬁelds Aµ deﬁned in equation (4.36). Furthermore, hA leaves the other two gauge ﬁelds, coming from the ten dimensional gauge ﬁeld Aµ and the dual of Cµνρ invariant. We can now translate this into an action on the gauge ﬁelds in heterotic on T 4 . It turns out that the action on the heterotic side is given by: • exchanging the gauge ﬁelds in the two E8 factors, • exchanging (G9µ , B9µ ) with (G8µ , B8µ ), and, • changing the sign of (G7µ and B7µ ).

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

309

This translates into the following geometric action in heterotic string theory on T 4 :21 • exchange of two E8 factors in the gauge group, • x8 ↔ x9 , • x7 → −x7 . This is hB 22 . It turns out that modding out heterotic string theory on T 6 by the transformation hB · g produces an N = 2 supersymmetric theory. Thus this construction gives a type II – heterotic dual pair with N = 2 supersymmetry. Using the idea of ﬁberwise duality transformation we can construct many more examples of heterotic – type IIA dual pairs in four dimensions with N = 2 supersymmetry. Quite often using mirror symmetry [109] we can also relate this to IIB string theory on a mirror Calabi-Yau manifold. 7.2 Test of duality conjectures involving theories with eight supercharges Given such a dual pair of theories constructed by application of ﬁberwise duality transformation, the next question will be: how do we test if these theories are really dual to each other? After all, as we have seen, there is no rigorous proof that ﬁberwise duality transformation always produces a correct dual pair of theories, particularly when the ﬁber degenerates at some points/regions in the base. Unlike in the case of theories with sixteen supercharges, one cannot directly compare the tree level low energy eﬀective action in the two theories, as they undergo quantum corrections in general. Furthermore, in this theory the spectrum of BPS saturated states can change discontinuously as we move in the moduli space [88]. Hence the spectrum computed at weak coupling cannot always be trusted at strong coupling. Nevertheless there are some non-renormalization theorems which allow us to test these proposed dualities, as we shall now describe. Matter multiplets in N = 2 supersymmetric theories in four dimensions are of two types. (For a review, see [88].) They are • vector multiplet containing one vector, one complex scalar, and two Majorana fermions, and 21 Here we are regarding this theory as the E × E heterotic string theory compactiﬁed 8 8 on T 4 . By the duality between the two heterotic string theories upon compactiﬁcation on a circle, this is equivalent to SO(32) heterotic string theory compactiﬁed on T 4 . 22 We need to add to this a non-geometrical shift involving half of a lattice vector in Λ24 in order to get a modular invariant theory on the heterotic side. This transformation is not visible in perturbative type IIA theory.

310

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

• hypermultiplet containing two complex scalars and two Majorana fermions. Let us consider a theory at a generic point in the moduli space where the massless matter ﬁelds include only abelian gauge ﬁelds and neutral hyper denote the complex scalars in the vector multiplet, and multiplets. Let φ ψ denote the complex scalars in the hypermultiplet. The N = 2 supersymmetry requires that there is no coupling between the vector and the hypermultiplets in those terms in the low energy eﬀective action Seﬀ which contain at most two space-time derivatives [84]. Thus the scalar kinetic terms appearing in the Lagrangian density associated with Seﬀ must be of the form: µ φm ∂ µ φ¯n + GH¯ (ψ)∂ µ ψ α ∂ µ ψ¯β , GVm¯n (φ)∂ αβ

(7.1)

where GV and GH are appropriate metrics in the vector and the hypermultiplet moduli spaces. The kinetic terms of the vectors and the fermionic ﬁelds are related to these scalar kinetic terms by the requirement of N = 2 supersymmetry. This decoupling between the hyper- and the vector- multiplet moduli spaces by itself is not of much help, since each term may be independently modiﬁed by quantum corrections23 . But in string theory we have some extra ingredient [77, 79]. Recall that the coupling constant in string theory involves the dilaton. Thus quantum corrections to a given term must involve a coupling to the dilaton. Now consider the following two special cases. 1. The dilaton belongs to a hypermultiplet. Then there can be no correction to the vector multiplet kinetic term since such corrections will give a coupling between the dilaton and the vector multiplet; 2. The dilaton belongs to a vector multiplet. In this case the same argument shows that there can be no correction to the hypermultiplet kinetic term. In type IIA/IIB string theory on Calabi-Yau manifold the dilaton belongs to a hypermultiplet. Thus in these theories the vector multiplet kinetic term, calculated at the tree level, is exact. On the other hand in heterotic on K3 × T 2 , the dilaton is in the vector multiplet. Thus the hypermultiplet 23 There are however strong restrictions on what kind of metric G V and GH should describe. In particular GV must describe a special Kahler geometry [84, 110], whereas GH must describe a quaternionic geometry [111]. However, these restrictions do not ﬁx GV and GH completely.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

311

kinetic term, calculated at the tree level, is exact. Using this information we can adopt the following strategy for testing duality24 . 1. Take a type II – heterotic dual pair and calculate the vector multiplet kinetic term exactly from the tree level analysis on the type II side; 2. Using the map between the ﬁelds in the type II and the heterotic theory, we can rewrite the exact vector multiplet kinetic term in terms of the heterotic variables; 3. In particular the heterotic variables include the heterotic dilaton ΦH which is in the vector multiplet. So we can now expand the exact answer in powers of eΦH and compare this answer with the explicit calculations in heterotic string perturbation theory. Typically the expansion involves tree, one loop, and non-perturbative terms. (There is no perturbative contribution in the heterotic theory beyond one loop due to some Adler-Bardeen type non-renormalization theorems.) Thus one can compare the expected tree and one loop terms, calculated explicitly in the heterotic string theory, with the expansion of the exact answer. The results of the above calculation in heterotic and type II string theories agree in all the cases tested [79,85,86]! This agreement is quite remarkable, since the one loop calculation is highly non-trivial on the heterotic side, and involves integrals over the moduli space of the torus. Indeed, the agreement between the two answers is a consequence of highly non-trivial mathematical identities. Given that the tree and one loop results in the heterotic string theory agree with the expansion of the exact result on the type II side, one might ask if a similar agreement can be found for the non-perturbative contribution from the heterotic string theory as well. From the exact answer calculated from the type II side we know what this contribution should be. But we cannot calculate it directly on the heterotic side, since there is no non-perturbative formulation of string theory. However, one can take an appropriate limit in which the stringy eﬀects on the heterotic side disappear and the theory reduces to some appropriate N = 2 supersymmetric quantum ﬁeld theory25 . Thus now the calculation of these non-perturbative eﬀects on the heterotic side reduces to a calculation in the N = 2 supersymmetric ﬁeld theory. This can be carried out using the method developed by 24 Here we describe the test using the vector multiplet kinetic term, but a similar analysis should be possible with the hypermultiplet kinetic term as well. 25 This is in the same spirit as in the case of toroidal compactiﬁcation of heterotic string theory, where, by going near a special point in the moduli space, we can eﬀectively get an N = 4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory.

312

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Seiberg and Witten [88]. Again there is perfect agreement with the results from the type II side [87]. Besides providing a non-trivial test of string duality, this also shows that the complete Seiberg-Witten [88] results (and more) are contained in the classical geometry of Calabi-Yau spaces!

8

M-theory

So far we have discussed dualities that relate known string theories. However, sometime analysis similar to those that lead to various duality conjectures can also lead to the discovery of new theories. One such theory is a conjectured theory living in eleven dimensions. This theory is now known as M-theory. In this section we shall give a brief description of this theory following references [19, 93–98].

8.1 M-theory in eleven dimensions The arguments leading to the existence of M-theory goes as follows [19, 89]. Take type IIA string theory in ten dimensions. The low energy eﬀective action of this theory is non-chiral N = 2 supergravity in ten dimensions. It is well known that this can be obtained from the dimensional reduction of N = 1 supergravity in eleven dimensions [90]. More speciﬁcally, the relationship between the two theories is as follows. The bosonic ﬁelds in (S) N = 1 supergravity theory in eleven dimensions consist of the metric gMN (S) and a rank three anti-symmetric tensor ﬁeld CMNP (0 ≤ M, N ≤ 10). The bosonic part of the action of this theory is given by [112] SSG

=

1 1 (S)2 11 (S) R(S) − G x −g d (2π)8 48 1 µ0 ···µ10 (S) (S) (S) ε C G G − , µ µ ···µ ···µ 3 8 7 10 µ0 µ1 µ2 (12)4

(8.1)

where G(S) ∼ dC (S) is the four form ﬁeld strength associated with the three form ﬁeld C (S) . In writing down the above equation we have set the eleven dimensional Planck mass to unity (or equivalently we can say that we have absorbed it into a redeﬁnition of the metric.) Let us now compactify this supergravity theory on a circle of radius R(∼ (S)

(S)

g10,10 ) measured in the

supergravity metric gMN and ignore (for the time being) the Kaluza-Klein modes carrying momentum in the internal direction. Then the eﬀective action in the dimensionally reduced theory agrees with that of type IIA

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

313

string theory given in (4.33) under the identiﬁcation [90]: (S) (S) (S) g10,10 = eΦ/3 , gµν

e−Φ/12 gµν g10µ e2Φ/3 Aµ , (S)

(S) Cµνρ

Cµνρ ,

C10µν Bµν ,

(0 ≤ µ, ν ≤ 9) .

(8.2)

Here denotes equality up to additive terms involving second and higher 1 S compactification Type IIA string theory

M-theory

Low energy limit

Low energy limit Type IIA supergravity

D=11 supergravity

1 S

compactification

+ low energy limit

Fig. 17. The relationship between M-theory and various other supergravity/string theories.

powers in ﬁelds. We are using the convention that Φ = 0 corresponds to compactiﬁcation on a circle of unit radius. Note that as the radius (S) R ∼ g10,10 approaches ∞, Φ → ∞. This corresponds to strong coupling limit of the type IIA string theory. This leads one to the conjecture [19, 89] that in the strong coupling limit type IIA string theory approaches an 11 dimensional Lorentz invariant theory, whose low energy limit is 11-dimensional N = 1 supergravity. This theory has been called M-theory. The situation is illustrated in Figure 17. Part of the conjecture is just the deﬁnition of M-theory as the strong coupling limit of type IIA string theory. The non-trivial part of the conjecture is that it describes a Lorentz invariant theory in eleven dimensions. The evidence for the existence of an eleven dimensional theory, as discussed so far, has been analogous to the evidence for various duality conjectures based on the comparison of their low energy eﬀective action. One might ask if there are more precise tests involving the spectrum of BPS states. There are indeed such tests. M theory on S 1 will have Kaluza-Klein modes representing states in the eleven dimensional N = 1 supergravity multiplet carrying momentum along the compact x10 direction. These are BPS states, and can be shown to belong to the 256 dimensional ultra-short

314

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

representation of the supersymmetry algebra. The charge quantum number characterizing such a state is the momentum (k/R) along S 1 . Thus for every integer k we should ﬁnd such BPS states in type IIA string theory in (S) ten dimensions. In M-theory these states carry k units of g10µ charge. Since (S)

g10µ gets mapped to Aµ under the M-theory - IIA duality, these states must carry k units of Aµ charge in type IIA string theory. If we now recall that in type IIA string theory Aµ arises in the RR sector, we see that these states cannot come from elementary string states, as elementary string excitations are neutral under RR sector gauge ﬁelds. However Dirichlet 0-branes in this theory do carry Aµ charge. In particular the state with k = 1 corresponds to a single Dirichlet zero brane. As usual, the collective coordinate dynamics of the 0-branes is determined from the dynamics of massless open string states with ends lying on the D0-brane, and in this case is described by the dimensional reduction of N = 1 super-Maxwell theory from (9 + 1) to (0 + 1) dimensions. This theory has sixteen fermion zero modes whose quantization leads to a 28 = 256 fold degenerate state. Thus we see that we indeed have an ultra-short multiplet with unit Aµ charge, as predicted by the M-theory - IIA duality conjecture. What about states with k > 1? In type IIA string theory these must arise as bound states of k D0-branes. Dynamics of collective coordinates of k D0 branes is given by the dimensional reduction of N = 1 supersymmetric U (k) gauge theory from (9 + 1) to (0 + 1) dimensions. Thus the number of ultra-short multiplets with k-units of Aµ charge is determined in terms of the number of normalizable supersymmetric ground states of this quantum mechanical system. Finding these bound states is much more diﬃcult than the bound state problems discussed earlier. The main obstacle to this analysis is that a charge k state has the same energy as k charge 1 states at rest. Thus the bound states we are looking for sit at the bottom of a continuum. Such states are diﬃcult to study. For k = 2 such a bound state with the correct degeneracy has been found [91]. The analysis for higher k still remains to be done. The analysis can be simpliﬁed by compactifying M-theory on T 2 and considering the Kaluza-Klein modes carrying (k1 , k2 ) units of momenta along the two S 1 ’s. Assuming that the two S 1 ’s are orthogonal, and have radii R1 and R2 respectively, the mass of such a state, up to a proportionality factor, is k1 2 k2 2 + · (8.3) R1 R2 For (k1 , k2 ) relatively prime, such a state has strictly less energy than the sum of the masses of any other set of states with the same total charge [92]. Thus one should be able to ﬁnd these states in type IIA string theory on

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

315

S 1 (which, according to the conjecture, is equivalent to M-theory on T 2 ) without encountering the diﬃculties mentioned earlier. By following the same kind of argument, these states can be shown to be in one to one correspondence to a class of supersymmetric vacua in a (1 + 1) dimensional supersymmetric gauge theory compactiﬁed on a circle26 . All such states have been found with degeneracy as predicted by the M-theory – IIA duality. There are also other consistency checks on the proposed M-theory – IIA duality. Consider M-theory on T 2 . According to M-theory – type IIA duality, it is dual to IIA on S 1 . But we know that IIA on S 1 is related by T duality to IIB on S 1 . Thus we have a duality between M-theory on T 2 and IIB on S 1 . Now IIB on S 1 has an SL(2, Z) strong-weak coupling duality inherited from ten dimensional type IIB string theory. Thus one might ask, what does it correspond to in M-theory on T 2 ? One can ﬁnd the answer by using the known map between the massless ﬁelds in the two theories, and the action of SL(2, Z) in type IIB string theory. It turns out that this SL(2, Z) symmetry in M-theory is simply the group of global diﬀeomorphisms of T 2 [61, 93, 94]. Thus we again have an example of “duality of dualities”. The SL(2, Z) of IIB is a non-perturbative symmetry. But in M-theory on T 2 it is simply a consequence of the diﬀeomorphism invariance of the 11dimensional theory. Turning this analysis around we see that this also supports the ansatz that M-theory, deﬁned as the strong coupling limit of IIA, is a fully Lorentz invariant theory in eleven dimension. The argument goes as follows: • First of all, from Lorentz invariance of type IIA string theory we know that we have Lorentz invariance in coordinates x0 , . . . x9 when all the coordinates x0 , . . . x9 are non-compact; • Then from the conjectured SL(2, Z) duality symmetry of type IIB string theory we know that we have an exchange symmetry between the 9th and the 10th coordinate of M-theory when these coordinates are compact. In the limit when the radius of both the compact circles are taken to be large, this would mean that we should have Lorentz invariance in coordinates x0 , . . . x10 . 8.2 Compactification of M-theory Given the existence of M-theory, we can now construct new vacua of the theory by compactifying M-theory on various manifolds. (For a review of 26 In fact, these states are related via an R → (1/R) duality transformation to the ultra-short multiplets in type IIB on S 1 discussed in Section 5.2.

316

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

compactiﬁcation of eleven dimensional supergravity, see [138].) For example, we can consider M-theory compactiﬁed on K3, Calabi-Yau, and various orbifolds. These can all be regarded as appropriate strong coupling limits of type IIA compactiﬁcation on the same manifold. But in general these cannot be regarded as perturbative string vacua. The essential feature of this strong coupling limit is the emergence of Lorentz invariance in one higher dimension. For example, M-theory on a Calabi-Yau manifold gives a ﬁve dimensional theory with N = 1 supersymmetry [137]. Such a theory cannot be constructed by conventional compactiﬁcation of type IIA string theory at weak coupling. Of course in many cases these non-perturbative vacua are related to perturbative string vacua by conjectured duality relations. These duality conjectures can be arrived at by using arguments very similar to those used in arriving at string duality conjectures. Some examples of such conjectured dualities are given below [95–98]: M-theory on ↔ (E8 × E8 ) heterotic in D = 10 S 1 /Z2 K3 T /Z2

↔ Heterotic/Type I on T 3 ↔ IIB on K3

T 8 /Z2 T 9 /Z2

↔ Type I/Heterotic on T 7 ↔ Type IIB on T 8 /Z2

5

In each case Z2 acts by reversing the sign of all the coordinates of T n ; for (S) odd n this is also accompanied by a reversal of sign of CMNP . Each of these duality conjectures satisfy the consistency condition that the theory on the right hand side, upon further compactiﬁcation on a circle, is dual to type IIA string theory compactiﬁed on the manifold on the left hand side. The duality between M-theory on S 1 /Z2 and the E8 × E8 heterotic string theory is particularly amusing. Here the Z2 transformation acts by reversing the orientation of S 1 , together with a change of sign of the three (S) form ﬁeld CMNP . S 1 /Z2 denotes a real line segment bounded by the two ﬁxed points on S 1 . It turns out that the two E8 gauge multiplets arise from “twisted sector” of the theory and sit at the two ends of this line segment. The supergravity sector, on the other hand, sits in the bulk. Now in the conventional heterotic string compactiﬁcation on Calabi-Yau spaces, all the observed gauge bosons and charged particles come from one E8 and are neutral under the second E8 [128]. The second E8 , known as the hidden sector or the shadow world, is expected to be responsible for supersymmetry breaking. In the M-theory picture these two sectors are physically separated in space. In other words, the real world and the shadow world live at two ends of the line and interact only via the exchange of supergravity multiplets

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

317

propagating in the bulk [136]! It has been suggested that this physical separation could be as large as a millimeter [99]! This limit comes from the analysis of the ﬁfth force experiment, since if this dimension is too large, we should have inverse cube law for the gravitational force instead of inverse square law. No such direct limit comes from the inverse square law of gauge interaction, since gauge ﬁelds live on the boundary of S 1 /Z2 and hence do not get aﬀected by the existence of this extra dimension. Many of the listed duality conjectures involving M-theory (in fact all except the ﬁrst one) can be derived by ﬁberwise duality transformation [98]27 . Let us for example consider the duality (M theory on T 5 /Z2 ) ↔ (type IIB on K3). The Z2 generator is I5 · σ where I5 changes the sign of all ﬁve coordinates (S) (S) (x6 , . . . x10 ) on T 5 , and σ denotes the transformation CMNP → −CMNP . 10 Let us express this as (I1 · σ) · I4 where I1 changes the sign of x , and I4 changes the sign of (x6 , . . . x9 ). We now use the result of ﬁberwise duality transformation: (A on KA × D/(hA · g)) ≡ (B on KB × D/(hB · g)) by choosing A on KA to be M-theory on S 1 , B on KB to be type IIA string theory, hA to be I1 · σ, hB to be (−1)FL (this can be shown to be the image of hA in the type IIA string theory), D to be T 4 spanned by x6 , . . . x9 , and g to be I4 . Thus we get the duality M-theory on (S 1 × T 4 /I1 · σ · I4 ) ↔ IIA on T 4 /(−1)FL · I4 . The theory on the left hand side is M-theory on T 5 /Z2 . On the other hand, if we take the theory on the right hand side and make an R → (1/R) duality transformation on one of the circles, it converts • type IIA theory to type IIB theory, and • (−1)FL · I4 into I4 . Thus the theory on the right is dual to type IIB on T 4 /I4 , which is a special case of type IIB on K3. Thus we get the duality: (M-theory on T 5 /Z2 ) ↔ (IIB on K3). 27 The duality between E × E heterotic string theory and M-theory on S 1 can be 8 8 “derived” from other known duality conjectures by taking the inﬁnite radius limit of a lower dimensional duality relation [75].

318

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

This duality was ﬁrst conjectured in [96, 97]. As in the case of type IIA string theory, we can get non-perturbative enhancement of gauge symmetries in M-theory when the compact manifold develops singularities [19, 134, 135]. M-theory contains classical membrane and ﬁve-brane soliton solutions carrying electric and magnetic charges of (S) CMNP respectively [8]. The extra massless states required for this symmetry enhancement come from membranes wrapped around the collapsed two cycles of the singular manifold. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

A. Sen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9 (1994) 3707 [hep-th/9402002]. M. Duﬀ, R. Khuri and J. Lu, Phys. Rep. 259 (1995) 213 [hep-th/9412184]. J. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. B 55 (1) [hep-th/9607201]. S. Chaudhuri, C. Johnson and J. Polchinski [hep-th/9602052]. J. Polchinski, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68 (1996) 1245 [hep-th/9607050]. J. Polchinski [hep-th/9611050]. P. Townsend [hep-th/9612121; gr-qc/9707012; hep-th/9712004]. M. Duﬀ [hep-th/9611203]. M. Douglas [hep-th/9610041]. W. Lerche [hep-th/9611190; hep-th/9710246]. S. Forste and J. Louis [hep-th/9612192]. C. Vafa [hep-th/9702201]. A. Klemm [hep-th/9705131]. E. Kiritsis [hep-th/9708130]. B. de Wit and J. Louis [hep-th/9801132]. M. Trigiante [hep-th/9801144]. S. Mukhi [hep-ph/9710470]. M. Green, J. Schwarz and E. Witten, Superstring Theory, Vols. 1 and 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1986); edited by D. Lust and S. Theisen, Lectures on String Theory (Springer, 1989); J. Polchinski [hep-th/9411028]. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 443 (1995) 85 [hep-th/9503124]. A. Dabholkar, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 307 [hep-th/9506160]. C. Hull, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 545 [hep-th/9506194]. J. Polchinski and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 525 [hep-th/9510169]. C. Hull and P. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B 438 (1995) 109 [hep-th/9410167]. M. Duﬀ, Nucl. Phys. B 442 (1995) 47 [hep-th/9501030]. M. Duﬀ and R. Khuri, Nucl. Phys. B 411 (1994) 473 [hep-th/9305142]. A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B 450 (1995) 103 [hep-th/9504027]. J. Harvey and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B 449 (1995) 535 [hep-th/9504047]. A. Giveon, M. Porrati and E. Rabinovici, Phys. Rep. 244 (1994) 77 [hep-th/9401139]. P. Fre, Nucl. Phys. B [Proc. Sup.] 45B,C (1996) 59 [hep-th/9512043] and references therein. E. Witten and D. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 97.

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

[45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

[53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

319

M. de Roo, Nucl. Phys. B 255 (1985) 515. S. Ferrara, C. Kounnas and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B 181 (1986) 263. M. Terentev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 49 (1989) 713. S.F. Hassan and A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B 375 (1992) 103 [hep-th/9109038]. J. Maharana and J. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 390 (1993) 3 [hep-th/9207016]. A. Shapere, S. Trivedi and F. Wilczek, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6 (1991) 2677. A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B 404 (1993) 109 [hep-th/9207053]. A. Font, L. Ibanez, D. Lust and F. Quevedo, Phys. Lett. B 249 (1990) 35. S.J. Rey, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 526. J. Schwarz [hep-th/9209125]. A. Sen, Phys. Lett. B 303 (1993) 22 [hep-th/9209016]. A. Sen, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 8 (1993) 2023 [hep-th/9303057]. J. Schwarz and A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B 411 (1994) 35 [hep-th/9304154]; Phys. Lett. B 312 (1993) 105 [hep-th/9305185]. N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 303 (1988) 286. M. Green and J. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 122 (1983) 143; J. Schwarz and P. West, Phys. Lett. B 126 (1983) 301; J. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 226 (1983) 269; P. Howe and P. West, Nucl. Phys. B 238 (1984) 181. E. Cremmer, in “Uniﬁcation of Fundamental Particle Interactions” (Plenum, 1980); B. Julia, in “Superspace and Supergravity” (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981). S. Ferrara and C. Kounnas, Nucl. Phys. B 328 (1989) 406. S. Chaudhuri, G. Hockney and J. Lykken, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 2264 [hep-th/9505054]. S. Chaudhuri and J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 7168 [hep-th/9506048]. C. Montonen and D. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 72 (1977) 117. H. Osborn, Phys. Lett. B 83 (1979) 321. A. Sen, Phys. Lett. B 329 (1994) 217 [hep-th/9402032]. M. Atiyah and N. Hitchin, Phys. Lett. A 107 (1985) 21; Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 315 (1985) 459; Geometry and Dynamics of Magnetic Monopoles (Cambridge Univ. Press). G. Gibbons and N. Manton, Nucl. Phys. B 274 (1986) 183. J. Gauntlett, Nucl. Phys. B 400 (1993) 103 [hep-th/9205008]; Nucl. Phys. B 411 (1994) 443 [hep-th/9305068]. J. Blum, Phys. Lett. B 333 (1994) 92 [hep-th/9401133]. N. Manton and B. Schroers, Annals Phys. 225 (1993) 290. G. Gibbons and P. Ruback, Comm. Math. Phys. 115 (1988) 267. G. Segal and A. Selby, Comm. Math. Phys. 177 (1996) 775. M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B 377 (1996) 67 [hep-th/9505187]. J. Gauntlett and J. Harvey [hep-th/9407111]. J. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 360 (1995) 13 [hep-th/9508143]. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 335 [hep-th/9510135]. S. Das and S. Mathur, Phys. Lett. B 375 (1996) 103 [hep-th/9601152]. A. Dabholkar and J. Harvey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 478; A. Dabholkar, G. Gibbons, J. Harvey and F. Ruiz, Nucl. Phys. B 340 (1990) 33. J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4724 [hep-th/9510017].

320

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

[66] J. Dai, R. Leigh and J. Polchinski, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4 (1989) 2073; R. Leigh, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4 (1989) 2767; J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 6041 [hep-th/9407031]. [67] M. Bershadsky, V. Sadov and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 463 (1996) 398 [hep-th/9510225]. [68] A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 2874 [hep-th/9711026]. [69] C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 469 (1996) 415 [hep-th/9511088]; Nucl. Phys. B 463 (1996) 435 [hep-th/9512078]. [70] S. Sethi and M. Stern, Phys. Lett. B 398 (1997) 47 [hep-th/9607145]. [71] M. Bershadsky, V. Sadov and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 463 (1996) 420 [hep-th/9511222]. [72] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 541 [hep-th/9511030]. [73] M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996) 492 [hep-th/9607082]. [74] J. Blum, Nucl. Phys. B 506 (1997) 223 [hep-th/9705030]. [75] A. Sen [hep-th/9609176]. [76] A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B 434 (1995) 179 [hep-th/9408083]; Nucl. Phys. B 447 (1995) 62 [hep-th/9503057]. [77] C. Vafa and E. Witten [hep-th/9507050]. [78] A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B 474 (1996) 361 [hep-th/9604070]. [79] S. Kachru and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 450 ((1995) 69 [hep-th/9605105]. [80] S. Ferrara, J. Harvey, A. Strominger and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B 361 (1995) 59 [hep-th/9505162]. [81] A. Klemm, W. Lerche and P. Mayr, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 313 [hep-th/9506112]. [82] G. Aldazabal, A. Font, L. Ibanez and F. Quevedo, Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 537 [hep-th/9510093]. [83] B. Hunt and R. Schimmrigk, Phys. Lett. B 381 (1996) 427 [hep-th/9512138]; B. Hunt, M. Lynker and R. Schimmtigk [hep-th/9609082]. [84] B. de Wit, P. Lauwers and A. van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B 255 (1985) 569. [85] V. Kaplunovsky, J. Louis and S. Theisen, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 71 [hep-th/9506110]. [86] I. Antoniadis, E. Gava, K. Narain and T. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B 455 (1995) 109 [hep-th/9507115]. [87] S. Kachru, A. Klemm, W. Lerche, P. Mayr and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 459 (1996) 537 [hep-th/9508155]; A. Klemm, W. Lerche, P. Mayr, C. Vafa and N. Warner, Nucl. Phys. B 477 (1996) 746 [hep-th/9604034]. [88] N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 19 [hep-th/9407087]; Nucl. Phys. B 431 (1994) 484 [hep-th/9408099]. [89] P. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 350 (1995) 184 [hep-th/9501068]. [90] F. Giani and M. Pernici, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 325; I. Campbell and P. West, Nucl. Phys. B 243 (1984) 112; M. Huq and M. Namazie, Class. Quant. Grav. 2 (1985) 293. [91] S. Sethi and M. Stern [hep-th/9705046]. [92] A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 2964 [hep-th/9510229]. [93] J. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 367 (1996) 97 [hep-th/9510086]. [94] P. Aspinwall, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 46 (1996) 30 [hep-th/9508154]. [95] P. Horava and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 506 [hep-th/9510209]; Nucl. Phys. B 475 (1996) 94 [hep-th/9603142]. [96] K. Dasgupta and S. Mukhi, Nucl. Phys. B 465 (1996) 399 [hep-th/9512196].

A. Sen: Duality Symmetries

321

[97] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 463 (1996) 383 [hep-th/9512219]. [98] A. Sen, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 11 (1996) 1339 [hep-th/9603113]. [99] E. Caceres, V. Kaplunovsky and M. Mandelberg, Nucl. Phys. B 493 (1997) 73 [hep-th/9606036]. [100] A. Sagnotti, Open Strings and their Symmetry Groups (Talk at Cargese Summer Inst., 1987); G. Pradisi and A. Sagnotti, Phys. Lett. B 216 (1989) 59; M. Bianchi, G. Pradisi and A. Sagnotti, Nucl. Phys. B 376 (1992) 365; P. Horava, Nucl. Phys. B 327 (1989) 461; Phys. Lett. B 231 (1989) 251. [101] E. Gimon and J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 1667 [hep-th/9601038]. [102] A. Chamseddine, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 3065; E. Bergshoeﬀ, M. de Roo, B. de Wit and P. van Niewenhuizen, Nucl. Phys. B 195 (1982) 97; E. Bergshoeﬀ, M. de Roo and B. de Wit, Nucl. Phys. B 217 (1983) 143; G. Chapline and N. Manton, Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 105. [103] H. Nicolai, Phys. Lett. B 276 (1992) 333. [104] E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 936; E. Corrigan and P. Goddard, Comm. Math. Phys. 80 (1981) 575; C. Taubes, Comm. Math. Phys. 91 (1983) 235. [105] N. Manton, Phys. Lett. B 110 (1982) 54. [106] C. Callias, Comm. Math. Phys. 62 (1978) 213. [107] K. Narain, Phys. Lett. B 169 (1986) 41; K. Narain, H. Sarmadi and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 279 (1987) 369. [108] T. Banks, L. Dixon, D. Friedan and E. Martinec, Nucl. Phys. B 299 (1988) 613; T. Banks and L. Dixon, Nucl. Phys. B 307 (1988) 93. [109] B. Greene [hep-th/9702155] and references therein. [110] B. de Wit and A. van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B 245 (1984) 89; E. Cremmer, C. Kounnas, A. van Proeyen, J. Derendinger, S. Ferrara, B. de Wit and L. Girardello, Nucl. Phys. B 250 (1985) 385; S. Ferrara and A. Strominger, in “Strings 89”, World Scientiﬁc (1989); A. Strominger, Comm. Math. Phys. 133 (1990) 163. [111] J. Bagger and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 222 (1983) 1; K. Galicki, Comm. Math. Phys. 108 (1987) 117. [112] E. Cremmer and B. Julia, Nucl. Phys. B 159 (1979) 141. [113] M. Gaillard and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 221; S. Ferrara, J. Scherk and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B 121 (1977) 393; E. Cremmer, J. Scherk and S. Ferrara, Phys. Lett. B 74 (1978) 61; B. de Wit, Nucl. Phys. B 158 (1979) 189; B. de Wit and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys. B 208 (1982) 323; E. Cremmer and B. Julia, Phys. Lett. B 80 (1978) 48; B. de Wit and A. van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B 245 (1984) 89. [114] D. Gross, J. Harvey, E. Martinec and R. Rohm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 502; Nucl. Phys. B 256 (1985) 253; Nucl. Phys. B 267 (1986) 75. [115] M. Green and J. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B 109 (1982) 444; Phys. Lett. B 149 (1984) 117; Phys. Lett. B 151 (1985) 21; Nucl. Phys. B 255 (1985) 93. [116] C. Hull and P. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B 451 (1995) 525 [hep-th/9505073]. [117] A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B 451 (1995) 96 [hep-th/9504090]; B. Greene, D. Morrison and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B 451 (1995) 109 [hep-th/9504145]. [118] M. Douglas and G. Moore [hep-th/9603167]; J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. B 55 (1997) 6423 [hep-th/9606165]; C. Johnson and R. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 6382 [hep-th/9610140]; M. Douglas [hep-th/9612126] published in JHEP electronics journal; D. Diaconescu, M. Douglas and J. Gomis [hep-th/9712230]. [119] E. Witten [hep-th/9507121]. [120] M. Douglas [hep-th/9512077; hep-th/9604198].

322

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

[121] L. Alvarez-Gaume, D. Freedman and S. Mukhi, Ann. Phys. (NY) 134 (1981) 85; L. Alvarez-Gaume and D. Freedman, Comm. Math. Phys. 80 (1981) 443. [122] E. Bergshoeﬀ, E. Sezgin and P. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 189 (1987) 75; Ann. Phys. (NY) 185 (1988) 330; M. Duﬀ, Class. Quant. Grav. 5 (1988) 189; B. de Wit, M. Luscher and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys. B 320 (1989) 135; B. de Wit, J. Hoppe and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys. B 305 (1988) 545. [123] P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 2415. [124] A. Neveu and J. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 31 (1971) 86; Phys. Rev. D 4 (1971) 1109. [125] F. Gliozzi, J. Scherk and D. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 65 (1976) 282; Nucl. Phys. B 122 (1977) 253. [126] P. Aspinwall and D. Morrison [hep-th/9404151]; P. Aspinwall [hep-th/9611137] and references therein. [127] M. Duﬀ and R. Minasian, Nucl. Phys. B 436 (1995) 507 [hep-th/9406198]; C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 447 (1995) 261 [hep-th/9505053]; M. Duﬀ, J. Liu and R. Minasian, Nucl. Phys. B 452 (1995) 261 [hep-th/9506126]; M. Duﬀ, R. Minasian and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 463 (1996) 435 [hep-th/9601036]; M. Berkooz, R. Leigh, J. Polchinski, J. Schwarz, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 475 (1996) 115 [hep-th/9605184]. [128] P. Candelas, G. Horowitz, A. Strominger and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 258 (1985) 46. [129] E. Gimon and C. Johnson, Nucl. Phys. B 479 (1996) 285 [hep-th/9606176]; J. Blum and A. Zaﬀaroni, Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996) 71 [hep-th/9607019]; A. Dabholkar and J. Park, Phys. Lett. B 394 (1997) 302 [hep-th/9607041]; R. Gopakumar and S. Mukhi, Nucl. Phys. B 479 (1996) 260 [hep-th/9607057]; J. Park [hep-th/9611119]; A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B 489 (1997) 139 [hep-th/9611186]; Nucl. Phys. B 498 (1997) 135 [hep-th/9702061]; Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 7345 [hep-th/9702165]; O. Aharony, J. Sonneschein, S. Yankielowicz and S. Theisen, Nucl. Phys. B 493 (1997) 177 [hep-th/9611222]. [130] M. Bershadsky, K. Intrilligator, S. Kachru, D. Morrison, V. Sadov and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 481 (1996) 215 [hep-th/9605200]; P. Aspinwall and M. Gross, Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996) 735 [hep-th/9605131]. [131] K. Dasgupta and S. Mukhi, Phys. Lett. B 385 (1996) 125 [hep-th/9606044]. [132] A. Johansen, Phys. Lett. B 395 (1997) 36 [hep-th/9608186]. [133] M. Gaberdiel and B. Zwiebach [hep-th/9709013]; M. Gaberdiel, T. Hauer and B. Zwiebach [hep-th/9801205]. [134] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 500 (1997) 3 [hep-th/9703166]. [135] A. Sen [hep-th/9707123] published in JHEP electronic journal. [136] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 471 (1996) 135 [hep-th/9602070]. [137] A. Cadavid, A. Ceresole, R. D’Auria and S. Ferrara [hep-th/9506144]; I. Antoniadis, S. Ferrara and T. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 489; S. Ferrara, R. Khuri and R. Minasian [hep-th/9602102]; E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 471 (1996) 195 [hep-th/9603150]. [138] M. Duﬀ, B. Nilsson and C. Pope, Phys. Rep. 130 (1986) 1. [139] J. Cardy, Nucl. Phys. B 270 (1986) 186.

LECTURE 4

LES HOUCHES LECTURES ON LARGE N FIELD THEORIES AND GRAVITY

J. MALDACENA Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, U.S.A.

Contents 1 General introduction

325

2 The correspondence 330 2.1 The ﬁeld ↔ operator correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 2.2 Holography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

/CFT correspondence 341 3 Tests of the 3.1 The spectrum of chiral primary operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 3.2 Matching of correlation functions and anomalies . . . . . . . . . . 351 4 Correlation functions 353 4.1 Two-point functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 4.2 Three-point functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 5 Wilson loops 362 5.1 Wilson loops and minimum surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 5.2 Other branes ending on the boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 6 Theories at finite temperature 369 6.1 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 6.2 Thermal phase transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372

LES HOUCHES LECTURES ON LARGE N FIELD THEORIES AND GRAVITY

J. Maldacena

Abstract We describe the holographic correspondence between ﬁeld theories and string/M theory, focusing on the relation between compactiﬁcations of string/M theory on Anti-de Sitter spaces and conformal ﬁeld theories. We review the background for this correspondence and discuss its motivations and the evidence for its correctness. We describe the main results that have been derived from the correspondence in the regime that the ﬁeld theory is approximated by classical or semiclassical gravity. We focus on the case of the N = 4 supersymmetric gauge theory in four dimensions. These lecture notes are based on the Review written by Aharony et al. [1].

1

General introduction

These lecture notes are taken out of the review [1]. A more complete set of references is given there. Even though though string theory is normally used as a theory of quantum gravity, it is not how string theory was originally discovered. String theory was discovered in an attempt to describe the large number of mesons and hadrons that were experimentally discovered in the 1960’s. The idea was to view all these particles as diﬀerent oscillation modes of a string. The string idea described well some features of the hadron spectrum. For example, the mass of the lightest hadron with a given spin obeys a relation like m2 ∼ T J 2 + const. This is explained simply by assuming that the mass and angular momentum come from a rotating, relativistic string of tension T . It was later discovered that hadrons and mesons are actually made of quarks and that they are described by QCD. This work is supported by the Packard foundation and the DOE grant DE-FGO291ER40654. c EDP Sciences, Springer-Verlag 2002

326

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

QCD is a gauge theory based on the group SU (3). This is sometimes stated by saying that quarks have three colors. QCD is asymptotically free, meaning that the eﬀective coupling constant decreases as the energy increases. At low energies QCD becomes strongly coupled and it is not easy to perform calculations. One possible approach is to use numerical simulations on the lattice. This is at present the best available tool to do calculations in QCD at low energies. It was suggested by ’t Hooft that the theory might simplify when the number of colors N is large [7]. The hope was that one could solve exactly the theory with N = ∞, and then one could do an expansion in 1/N = 1/3. Furthermore, as explained in the next section, the diagrammatic expansion of the ﬁeld theory suggests that the large N theory is a free string theory and that the string coupling constant is 1/N . If the case with N = 3 is similar to the case with N = ∞ then this explains why the string model gave the correct relation between the mass and the angular momentum. In this way the large N limit connects gauge theories with string theories. The ’t Hooft argument, reviewed below, is very general, so it suggests that diﬀerent kinds of gauge theories will correspond to diﬀerent string theories. In this review we will study this correspondence between string theories and the large N limit of ﬁeld theories. We will see that the strings arising in the large N limit of ﬁeld theories are the same as the strings describing quantum gravity. Namely, string theory in some backgrounds, including quantum gravity, is equivalent (dual) to a ﬁeld theory. Strings are not consistent in four ﬂat dimensions. Indeed, if one wants to quantize a four dimensional string theory an anomaly appears that forces the introduction of an extra ﬁeld, sometimes called the “Liouville” ﬁeld [8]. This ﬁeld on the string worldsheet may be interpreted as an extra dimension, so that the strings eﬀectively move in ﬁve dimensions. One might qualitatively think of this new ﬁeld as the “thickness” of the string. If this is the case, why do we say that the string moves in ﬁve dimensions? The reason is that, like any string theory, this theory will contain gravity, and the gravitational theory will live in as many dimensions as the number of ﬁelds we have on the string. It is crucial then that the ﬁve dimensional geometry is curved, so that it can correspond to a four dimensional ﬁeld theory, as described in detail below. The argument that gauge theories are related to string theories in the large N limit is very general and is valid for basically any gauge theory. In particular we could consider a gauge theory where the coupling does not run (as a function of the energy scale). Then, the theory is conformally invariant. It is quite hard to ﬁnd quantum ﬁeld theories that are conformally invariant. In supersymmetric theories it is sometimes possible to prove exact conformal invariance. A simple example, which will be the main example

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

327

in this review, is the supersymmetric SU (N ) (or U (N )) gauge theory in four dimensions with four spinor supercharges (N = 4). Four is the maximal possible number of supercharges for a ﬁeld theory in four dimensions. Besides the gauge ﬁelds (gluons) this theory contains also four fermions and six scalar ﬁelds in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. The Lagrangian of such theories is completely determined by supersymmetry. There is a global SU (4) R-symmetry that rotates the six scalar ﬁelds and the four fermions. The conformal group in four dimensions is SO(4, 2), including the usual Poincar´e transformations as well as scale transformations and special conformal transformations (which include the inversion symmetry xµ → xµ /x2 ). These symmetries of the ﬁeld theory should be reﬂected in the dual string theory. The simplest way for this to happen is if the ﬁve dimensional geometry has these symmetries. Locally there is only one space with SO(4, 2) isometries: ﬁve dimensional Anti-de-Sitter space, or AdS5 . Anti-de Sitter space is the maximally symmetric solution of Einstein’s equations with a negative cosmological constant. In this supersymmetric case we expect the strings to also be supersymmetric. We said that superstrings move in ten dimensions. Now that we have added one more dimension it is not surprising any more to add ﬁve more to get to a ten dimensional space. Since the gauge theory has an SU (4) SO(6) global symmetry it is rather natural that the extra ﬁve dimensional space should be a ﬁve sphere, S 5 . So, we conclude that N = 4 U (N ) Yang-Mills theory could be the same as ten dimensional superstring theory on AdS5 × S 5 [9]. Here we have presented a very heuristic argument for this equivalence; later we will be more precise and give more evidence for this correspondence. The relationship we described between gauge theories and string theory on Anti-de-Sitter spaces was motivated by studies of D-branes and black holes in strings theory. D-branes are solitons in string theory [10]. They come in various dimensionalities. If they have zero spatial dimensions they are like ordinary localized, particle-type soliton solutions, analogous to the ’t Hooft-Polyakov [11, 12] monopole in gauge theories. These are called D-zero-branes. If they have one extended dimension they are called Done-branes or D-strings. They are much heavier than ordinary fundamental strings when the string coupling is small. In fact, the tension of all D-branes is proportional to 1/gs , where gs is the string coupling constant. D-branes are deﬁned in string perturbation theory in a very simple way: they are surfaces where open strings can end. These open strings have some massless modes, which describe the oscillations of the branes, a gauge ﬁeld living on the brane, and their fermionic partners. If we have N coincident branes the open strings can start and end on diﬀerent branes, so they carry two indices that run from one to N . This in turn implies that the low energy dynamics is described by a U (N ) gauge theory. D-p-branes are charged under

328

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

p+1-form gauge potentials, in the same way that a 0-brane (particle) can be charged under a one-form gauge potential (as in electromagnetism). These p + 1-form gauge potentials have p + 2-form ﬁeld strengths, and they are part of the massless closed string modes, which belong to the supergravity (SUGRA) multiplet containing the massless ﬁelds in ﬂat space string theory (before we put in any D-branes). If we now add D-branes they generate a ﬂux of the corresponding ﬁeld strength, and this ﬂux in turn contributes to the stress energy tensor so the geometry becomes curved. Indeed it is possible to ﬁnd solutions of the supergravity equations carrying these ﬂuxes. Supergravity is the low-energy limit of string theory, and it is believed that these solutions may be extended to solutions of the full string theory. These solutions are very similar to extremal charged black hole solutions in general relativity, except that in this case they are black branes with p extended spatial dimensions. Like black holes they contain event horizons. If we consider a set of N coincident D-3-branes the near horizon geometry turns out to be AdS5 × S 5 . On the other hand, the low energy dynamics on their worldvolume is governed by a U (N ) gauge theory with N = 4 supersymmetry [13]. These two pictures of D-branes are perturbatively valid for diﬀerent regimes in the space of possible coupling constants. Perturbative ﬁeld theory is valid when gs N is small, while the low-energy gravitational description is perturbatively valid when the radius of curvature is much larger than the string scale, which turns out to imply that gs N should be very large. As an object is brought closer and closer to the black brane horizon its energy measured by an outside observer is redshifted, due to the large gravitational potential, and the energy seems to be very small. On the other hand low energy excitations on the branes are governed by the Yang-Mills theory. So, it becomes natural to conjecture that Yang-Mills theory at strong coupling is describing the near horizon region of the black brane, whose geometry is AdS5 × S 5 . The ﬁrst indications that this is the case came from calculations of low energy graviton absorption cross sections [14–16]. It was noticed there that the calculation done using gravity and the calculation done using super Yang-Mills theory agreed. These calculations, in turn, were inspired by similar calculations for coincident D1-D5 branes. In this case the near horizon geometry involves AdS3 × S 3 and the low energy ﬁeld theory living on the D-branes is a 1+1 dimensional conformal ﬁeld theory. In this D1-D5 case there were numerous calculations that agreed between the ﬁeld theory and gravity. First black hole entropy for extremal black holes was calculated in terms of the ﬁeld theory in [17], and then agreement was shown for near extremal black holes [18,19] and for absorption cross sections [20–22]. More generally, we will see that correlation functions in the gauge theory can be calculated using the string theory (or gravity for large gs N ) description, by considering the propagation of

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

329

particles between diﬀerent points in the boundary of AdS, the points where operators are inserted [23, 24]. Supergravities on AdS spaces were studied very extensively, see [25, 26] for reviews. See also [2, 3] for earlier hints of the correspondence. One of the main points of these lectures will be that the strings coming from gauge theories are very much like the ordinary superstrings that have been studied during the last 20 years. The only particular feature is that they are moving on a curved geometry (anti-de Sitter space) which has a boundary at spatial inﬁnity. The boundary is at an inﬁnite spatial distance, but a light ray can go to the boundary and come back in ﬁnite time. Massive particles can never get to the boundary. The radius of curvature of Anti-de Sitter space depends on N so that large N corresponds to a large radius of curvature. Thus, by taking N to be large we can make the curvature as small as we want. The theory in AdS includes gravity, since any string theory includes gravity. So in the end we claim that there is an equivalence between a gravitational theory and a ﬁeld theory. However, the mapping between the gravitational and ﬁeld theory degrees of freedom is quite non-trivial since the ﬁeld theory lives in a lower dimension. In some sense the ﬁeld theory (or at least the set of local observables in the ﬁeld theory) lives on the boundary of spacetime. One could argue that in general any quantum gravity theory in AdS deﬁnes a conformal ﬁeld theory (CFT) “on the boundary”. In some sense the situation is similar to the correspondence between three dimensional Chern-Simons theory and a WZW model on the boundary [27]. This is a topological theory in three dimensions that induces a normal (non-topological) ﬁeld theory on the boundary. A theory which includes gravity is in some sense topological since one is integrating over all metrics and therefore the theory does not depend on the metric. Similarly, in a quantum gravity theory we do not have any local observables. Notice that when we say that the theory includes “gravity on AdS” we are considering any ﬁnite energy excitation, even black holes in AdS. So this is really a sum over all spacetimes that are asymptotic to AdS at the boundary. This is analogous to the usual ﬂat space discussion of quantum gravity, where asymptotic ﬂatness is required, but the spacetime could have any topology as long as it is asymptotically ﬂat. The asymptotically AdS case as well as the asymptotically ﬂat cases are special in the sense that one can choose a natural time and an associated Hamiltonian to deﬁne the quantum theory. Since black holes might be present this time coordinate is not necessarily globally well-deﬁned, but it is certainly well-deﬁned at inﬁnity. If we assume that the conjecture we made above is valid, then the U (N ) Yang-Mills theory gives a non-perturbative deﬁnition of string theory on AdS. And, by taking the limit N → ∞, we can extract the (ten

330

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

dimensional string theory) ﬂat space physics, a procedure which is in principle (but not in detail) similar to the one used in matrix theory [28]. The fact that the ﬁeld theory lives in a lower dimensional space blends in perfectly with some previous speculations about quantum gravity. It was suggested [29, 30] that quantum gravity theories should be holographic, in the sense that physics in some region can be described by a theory at the boundary with no more than one degree of freedom per Planck area. This “holographic” principle comes from thinking about the Bekenstein bound which states that the maximum amount of entropy in some region is given by the area of the region in Planck units [31]. The reason for this bound is that otherwise black hole formation could violate the second law of thermodynamics. We will see that the correspondence between ﬁeld theories and string theory on AdS space (including gravity) is a concrete realization of this holographic principle. Other reviews of this subject are [1, 32–35]. 2

The correspondence

In this section we will present an argument connecting type IIB string theory compactiﬁed on AdS5 ×S 5 to N = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory [9]. Let us start with type IIB string theory in ﬂat, ten dimensional Minkowski space. Consider N parallel D3 branes that are sitting together or very close to each other (the precise meaning of “very close” will be deﬁned below). The D3 branes are extended along a (3 + 1) dimensional plane in (9 + 1) dimensional spacetime. String theory on this background contains two kinds of perturbative excitations, closed strings and open strings. The closed strings are the excitations of empty space and the open strings end on the D-branes and describe excitations of the D-branes. If we consider the system at low energies, energies lower than the string scale 1/ls , then only the massless string states can be excited, and we can write an eﬀective Lagrangian describing their interactions. The closed string massless states give a gravity supermultiplet in ten dimensions, and their low-energy eﬀective Lagrangian is that of type IIB supergravity. The open string massless states give an N = 4 vector supermultiplet in (3 + 1) dimensions, and their low-energy eﬀective Lagrangian is that of N = 4 U (N ) super-Yang-Mills theory [13,36]. The complete eﬀective action of the massless modes will have the form S = Sbulk + Sbrane + Sint .

(2.1)

Sbulk is the action of ten dimensional supergravity, plus some higher derivative corrections. Note that the Lagrangian (2.1) involves only the massless ﬁelds but it takes into account the eﬀects of integrating out the massive ﬁelds. It is not renormalizable (even for the ﬁelds on the brane), and it

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

331

should only be understood as an eﬀective description in the Wilsonian sense, i.e. we integrate out all massive degrees of freedom but we do not integrate out the massless ones. The brane action Sbrane is deﬁned on the (3 + 1) dimensional brane worldvolume, and it contains the N = 4 super-Yang-Mills Lagrangian plus some higher derivative corrections, for example terms of the form α2 Tr(F 4 ). Finally, Sint describes the interactions between the brane modes and the bulk modes. The leading terms in this interaction Lagrangian can be obtained by covariantizing the brane action, introducing the background metric for the brane [37]. We can expand the bulk action as a free quadratic part describing the propagation of free massless modes (including the graviton), plus some interactions which are proportional to positive powers of the square root of the Newton constant. Schematically we have

Sbulk

1 ∼ 2 2κ

√ gR ∼

(∂h)2 + κ(∂h)2 h + · · · ,

(2.2)

where we have written the metric as g = η + κh. We indicate explicitly the dependence on the graviton, but the other terms in the Lagrangian, involving other ﬁelds, can be expanded in a similar way. Similarly, the interaction Lagrangian Sint is proportional to positive powers of κ. If we take the low energy limit, all interaction terms proportional to κ drop out. This is the well known fact that gravity becomes free at long distances (low energies). In order to see more clearly what happens in this low energy limit it is convenient to keep the energy ﬁxed and send ls → 0 (α → 0) keeping all the dimensionless parameters ﬁxed, including the string coupling constant and N . In this limit the coupling κ ∼ gs α2 → 0, so that the interaction Lagrangian relating the bulk and the brane vanishes. In addition all the higher derivative terms in the brane action vanish, leaving just the pure N = 4 U (N ) gauge theory in 3 + 1 dimensions, which is known to be a conformal ﬁeld theory. And, the supergravity theory in the bulk becomes free. So, in this low energy limit we have two decoupled systems. On the one hand we have free gravity in the bulk and on the other hand we have the four dimensional gauge theory. Next, we consider the same system from a diﬀerent point of view. Dbranes are massive charged objects which act as a source for the various supergravity ﬁelds. We can ﬁnd a D3 brane solution [38] of supergravity, of

332

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

the form ds2 = f −1/2 (−dt2 + dx21 + dx22 + dx23 ) + f 1/2 (dr2 + r2 dΩ25 ) , F5 = (1 + ∗)dtdx1 dx2 dx3 df −1 , 4

f =1+

R , r4

(2.3)

R4 ≡ 4πgs α2 N .

Note that since gtt is non-constant, the energy Ep of an object as measured by an observer at a constant position r and the energy E measured by an observer at inﬁnity are related by the redshift factor E = f −1/4 Ep .

(2.4)

This means that the same object brought closer and closer to r = 0 would appear to have lower and lower energy for the observer at inﬁnity. Now we take the low energy limit in the background described by equation (2.3). There are two kinds of low energy excitations (from the point of view of an observer at inﬁnity). We can have massless particles propagating in the bulk region with wavelengths that becomes very large, or we can have any kind of excitation that we bring closer and closer to r = 0. In the low energy limit these two types of excitations decouple from each other. The bulk massless particles decouple from the near horizon region (around r = 0) because the low energy absorption cross section goes like σ ∼ ω 3 R8 [14, 15], where ω is the energy. This can be understood from the fact that in this limit the wavelength of the particle becomes much bigger than the typical gravitational size of the brane (which is of order R). Similarly, the excitations that live very close to r = 0 ﬁnd it harder and harder to climb the gravitational potential and escape to the asymptotic region. In conclusion, the low energy theory consists of two decoupled pieces, one is free bulk supergravity and the second is the near horizon region of the geometry. In the near horizon region, r R, we can approximate f ∼ R4 /r4 , and the geometry becomes ds2 =

2 r2 2 2 2 2 2 dr (−dt + dx + dx + dx ) + R + R2 dΩ25 , 1 2 3 R2 r2

(2.5)

which is the geometry of AdS5 × S 5 . We see that both from the point of view of a ﬁeld theory of open strings living on the brane, and from the point of view of the supergravity description, we have two decoupled theories in the low-energy limit. In both cases one of the decoupled systems is supergravity in ﬂat space. So, it is natural to identify the second system which appears in both descriptions. Thus, we are led to the conjecture that N = 4 U (N ) super-Yang-Mills theory in

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

333

3 + 1 dimensions is the same as (or dual to) type IIB superstring theory on AdS5 × S 5 [9]. We could be a bit more precise about the near horizon limit and how it is being taken. Suppose that we take α → 0, as we did when we discussed the ﬁeld theory living on the brane. We want to keep ﬁxed the energies of the objects in the throat (the near-horizon region) in string units, so that excited string states there. √ we can consider arbitrary √ This implies that α Ep ∼ ﬁxed. For small α (2.4) reduces to E ∼ Ep r/ α . Since we want to keep ﬁxed the energy measured from inﬁnity, which is the way energies are measured in the ﬁeld theory, we need to take r → 0 keeping r/α ﬁxed. It is then convenient to deﬁne a new variable U ≡ r/α , so that the metric becomes 2 dU U2 2 2 2 2 2 2 + dΩ5 . (−dt + dx1 + dx2 + dx3 ) + 4πgs N ds = α √ U2 4πgs N (2.6) This can also be seen by considering a D3 brane sitting at r. This corresponds to giving a vacuum expectation value to one of the scalars in the Yang-Mills theory. When we take the α → 0 limit we want to keep the mass of the “W -boson” ﬁxed. This mass, which is the mass of the string stretching between the branes sitting at r = 0 and the one at r, is proportional to U = r/α , so this quantity should remain ﬁxed in the decoupling limit. A U (N ) gauge theory is essentially equivalent to a free U (1) vector multiplet times an SU (N ) gauge theory, up to some ZN identiﬁcations (which aﬀect only global issues). In the dual string theory all modes interact with gravity, so there are no decoupled modes. Therefore, the bulk AdS theory is describing the SU (N ) part of the gauge theory. In fact we were not precise when we said that there were two sets of excitations at low energies, the excitations in the asymptotic ﬂat space and the excitations in the near horizon region. There are also some zero modes which live in the region connecting the “throat” (the near horizon region) with the bulk, which correspond to the U (1) degrees of freedom mentioned above. The U (1) vector supermultiplet includes six scalars which are related to the center of mass motion of all the branes [39]. From the AdS point of view these zero modes live at the boundary, and it looks like we might or might not decide to include them in the AdS theory. Depending on this choice we could have a correspondence to an SU (N ) or a U (N ) theory. The U (1) center of mass degree of freedom is related to the topological theory of B-ﬁelds on AdS [40]; if one imposes local boundary conditions for these B-ﬁelds at the boundary of AdS one ﬁnds a U (1) gauge ﬁeld living at the boundary [41], as is familiar in Chern-Simons theories [27, 42]. These modes living at the boundary are sometimes called singletons (or doubletons) [43–51].

334

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Anti-de-Sitter space has a large group of isometries, which is SO(4, 2) for the case at hand. This is the same group as the conformal group in 3 + 1 dimensions. Thus, the fact that the low-energy ﬁeld theory on the brane is conformal is reﬂected in the fact that the near horizon geometry is Anti-de-Sitter space. We also have some supersymmetries. The number of supersymmetries is twice that of the full solution (2.3) containing the asymptotic region [39]. This doubling of supersymmetries is viewed in the ﬁeld theory as a consequence of superconformal invariance, since the superconformal algebra has twice as many fermionic generators as the corresponding Poincare superalgebra. We also have an SO(6) symmetry which rotates the S 5 . This can be identiﬁed with the SU (4)R R-symmetry group of the ﬁeld theory. In fact, the whole supergroup is the same for the N = 4 ﬁeld theory and the AdS5 × S 5 geometry, so both sides of the conjecture have the same spacetime symmetries. We will discuss in more detail the matching between the two sides of the correspondence in Section 3. In the above derivation the ﬁeld theory is naturally deﬁned on R3,1 , but we could also think of the conformal ﬁeld theory as deﬁned on S 3 × R by redeﬁning the Hamiltonian. Since the isometries of AdS are in one to one correspondence with the generators of the conformal group of the ﬁeld theory, we can conclude that this new Hamiltonian 12 (P0 + K0 ) can be associated on AdS to the generator of translations in global time. This formulation of the conjecture is more useful since in the global coordinates there is no horizon. When we put the ﬁeld theory on S 3 the Coulomb branch is lifted and there is a unique ground state. This is due to the fact that the scalars φI in the ﬁeld theory are conformally coupled, so there is a term of the form d4 xTr(φ2 )R in the Lagrangian, where R is the curvature of the four-dimensional space on which the theory is deﬁned. Due to the positive curvature of S 3 this leads to a mass term for the scalars [24], lifting the moduli space. The parameter N appears on the string theory side as the ﬂux of the ﬁve-form Ramond-Ramond ﬁeld strength on the S 5 , F5 = N. (2.7) S5

From the physics of D-branes we know that the Yang-Mills coupling is related to the string coupling through [10, 52] τ≡

4πi i θ χ = , + + 2 gYM 2π gs 2π

(2.8)

where we have also included the relationship of the θ angle to the expectation value of the RR scalar χ. We have written the couplings in this fashion because both the gauge theory and the string theory have an SL(2, Z) selfduality symmetry under which τ → (aτ + b)/(cτ + d) (where a, b, c, d are

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

335

integers with ad − bc = 1). In fact, SL(2, Z) is a conjectured strong-weak coupling duality symmetry of type IIB string theory in ﬂat space [53], and it should also be a symmetry in the present context since all the ﬁelds that are being turned on in the AdS5 × S 5 background (the metric and the ﬁve form ﬁeld strength) are invariant under this symmetry. The connection between the SL(2, Z) duality symmetries of type IIB string theory and N = 4 SYM was noted in [54–56]. The string theory seems to have a parameter that does not appear in the gauge theory, namely α , which sets the string tension and all other scales in the string theory. However, this is not really a parameter in the theory if we do not compare it to other scales in the theory, since only relative scales are meaningful. In fact, only the ratio of the radius of curvature to α is a parameter, but not α and the radius of curvature independently. Thus, α will disappear from any ﬁnal physical quantity we compute in this theory. It is sometimes convenient, especially when one is doing gravity calculations, to set the radius of curvature to one. This can s2 , and rewriting everything be achieved by writing the metric as ds2 = R2 d˜ √ in terms of g˜. With these conventions GN ∼ 1/N 2 and α ∼ 1/ gs N . This implies that any quantity calculated purely in terms of the gravity solution, without including stringy eﬀects, will be independent of gs N and will depend only on N . α corrections to √the gravity results give corrections which are proportional to powers of 1/ gs N . Now, let us address the question of the validity of various approximations. The analysis of loop diagrams in the ﬁeld theory shows that we can trust the perturbative analysis in the Yang-Mills theory when 2 N ∼ gs N ∼ gYM

R4 1. ls4

(2.9)

2 2 N to be small and not just gYM . On the other Note that we need gYM hand, the classical gravity description becomes reliable when the radius of curvature R of AdS and of S 5 becomes large compared to the string length,

R4 2 ∼ gs N ∼ gYM N 1. ls4

(2.10)

We see that the gravity regime (2.10) and the perturbative ﬁeld theory regime (2.9) are perfectly incompatible. In this fashion we avoid any obvious contradiction due to the fact that the two theories look very diﬀerent. This is the reason that this correspondence is called a “duality”. The two theories are conjectured to be exactly the same, but when one side is weakly coupled the other is strongly coupled and vice versa. This makes the correspondence both hard to prove and useful, as we can solve a strongly coupled gauge theory via classical supergravity. Notice that in (2.9, 2.10) we implicitly assumed that gs < 1. If gs > 1 we can perform an SL(2, Z)

336

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

duality transformation and get conditions similar to (2.9, 2.10) but with gs → 1/gs . So, we cannot get into the gravity regime (2.10) by taking N small (N = 1, 2, ...) and gs very large, since in that case the D-string becomes light and renders the gravity approximation invalid. Another way to see this is to note that the radius of curvature in Planck units is R4 /lp4 ∼ N . So, it is always necessary, but not suﬃcient, to have large N in order to have a weakly coupled supergravity description. One might wonder why the above argument was not a proof rather than a conjecture. It is not a proof because we did not treat the string theory non-perturbatively (not even non-perturbatively in α ). We could also consider diﬀerent forms of the conjecture. In its weakest form the gravity description would be valid for large gs N , but the full string theory on AdS might not agree with the ﬁeld theory. A not so weak form would say that the conjecture is valid even for ﬁnite gs N , but only in the N → ∞ limit (so that the α corrections would agree with the ﬁeld theory, but the gs corrections may not). The strong form of the conjecture, which is the most interesting one and which we will assume here, is that the two theories are exactly the same for all values of gs and N . In this conjecture the spacetime is only required to be asymptotic to AdS5 ×S 5 as we approach the boundary. In the interior we can have all kinds of processes; gravitons, highly excited fundamental string states, D-branes, black holes, etc. Even the topology of spacetime can change in the interior. The Yang-Mills theory is supposed to eﬀectively sum over all spacetimes which are asymptotic to AdS5 × S 5 . This is completely analogous to the usual conditions of asymptotic ﬂatness. We can have black holes and all kinds of topology changing processes, as long as spacetime is asymptotically ﬂat. In this case asymptotic ﬂatness is replaced by the asymptotic AdS behavior. 2.1 The field ↔ operator correspondence A conformal ﬁeld theory does not have asymptotic states or an S-matrix, so the natural objects to consider are operators. For example, in N = 4 superYang-Mills we have a deformation by a marginal operator which changes the value of the coupling constant. Changing the coupling constant in the ﬁeld theory is related by (2.8) to changing the coupling constant in the string theory, which is then related to the expectation value of the dilaton. The expectation value of the dilaton is set by the boundary condition for the dilaton at inﬁnity. So, changing the gauge theory coupling constant corresponds to changing the boundary value of the dilaton. More precisely, let us denote 4 by O the corresponding operator. We can consider adding the term d xφ0 (x)O(x) to the Lagrangian (for simplicity we assume that such a term was not present in the original Lagrangian, otherwise we consider φ0 (x) to be the total coeﬃcient of O(x) in the Lagrangian). According to the

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

337

discussion above, it is natural to assume that this will change the boundary condition of the dilaton at the boundary of AdS to φ(x, z)|z=0 = φ0 (x), in the coordinate system 2 ds2 = RAdS

−dt2 + dx21 + · · · + dx33 + dz 2 · z2

More precisely, as argued in [23, 24], it is natural to propose that

Ê 4 d xφ0 ( x)O( x) e = Zstring φ(x, z) = φ0 (x) , CFT

(2.11)

z=0

where the left hand side is the generating function of correlation functions in the ﬁeld theory, i.e. φ0 is an arbitrary function and we can calculate correlation functions of O by taking functional derivatives with respect to φ0 and then setting φ0 = 0. The right hand side is the full partition function of string theory with the boundary condition that the ﬁeld φ has the value φ0 on the boundary of AdS. Notice that φ0 is a function of the four variables parametrizing the boundary of AdS5 . A formula like (2.11) is valid in general, for any ﬁeld φ. Therefore, each ﬁeld propagating on AdS space is in a one to one correspondence with an operator in the ﬁeld theory. There is a relation between the mass of the ﬁeld φ and the scaling dimension of the operator in the conformal ﬁeld theory. Let us describe this more generally in AdSd+1 . The wave equation in Euclidean space for a ﬁeld of mass m has two independent solutions, which behave like z d−∆ and z ∆ for small z (close to the boundary of AdS), where

d2 d + R 2 m2 . (2.12) ∆= + 2 4 Therefore, in order to get consistent behavior for a massive ﬁeld, the boundary condition on the ﬁeld in the right hand side of (2.11) should in general be changed to φ(x, ) = d−∆ φ0 (x),

(2.13)

and eventually we would take the limit where → 0. Since φ is dimensionless, we see that φ0 has dimensions of [length]∆−d which implies, through the left hand side of (2.11), that the associated operator O has dimension ∆ (2.12). A more detailed derivation of this relation will be given in Section 4, where we will verify that the two-point correlation function of the operator O behaves as that of an operator of dimension ∆ [23,24]. A similar relation between ﬁelds on AdS and operators in the ﬁeld theory exists also for non-scalar ﬁelds, including fermions and tensors on AdS space.

338

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

Correlation functions in the gauge theory can be computed from (2.11) by diﬀerentiating with respect to φ0 . Each diﬀerentiation brings down an insertion O, which sends a φ particle (a closed string state) into the bulk. Feynman diagrams can be used to compute the interactions of particles in the bulk. In the limit where classical supergravity is applicable, the only diagrams that contribute are the tree-level diagrams of the gravity theory (see for instance Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Correlation functions can be calculated (in the large gs N limit) in terms of supergravity Feynman diagrams. Here we see the leading contribution coming from a disconnected diagram plus connected pieces involving interactions of the supergravity ﬁelds in the bulk of AdS. At tree level, these diagrams and those related to them by crossing are the only ones that contribute to the four-point function.

This method of deﬁning the correlation functions of a ﬁeld theory which is dual to a gravity theory in the bulk of AdS space is quite general, and it applies in principle to any theory of gravity [24]. Any local ﬁeld theory contains the stress tensor as an operator. Since the correspondence described above matches the stress-energy tensor with the graviton, this implies that the AdS theory includes gravity. It should be a well deﬁned quantum theory of gravity since we should be able to compute loop diagrams. String theory provides such a theory. But if a new way of deﬁning quantum gravity theories comes along we could consider those gravity theories in AdS, and they should correspond to some conformal ﬁeld theory “on the boundary”. In particular, we could consider backgrounds of string theory of the form AdS5 × M 5 where M 5 is any Einstein manifold [63–65]. Depending on the choice of M 5 we get diﬀerent dual conformal ﬁeld theories. Similarly, this discussion can be extended to any AdSd+1 space, corresponding to a conformal ﬁeld theory in d spacetime dimensions (for d > 1). 2.2 Holography In this section we will describe how the AdS/CFT correspondence gives a holographic description of physics in AdS spaces.

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

339

Let us start by explaining the Bekenstein bound, which states that the maximum entropy in a region of space is Smax = Area/4GN [31], where the area is that of the boundary of the region. Suppose that we had a state with more entropy than Smax , then we show that we could violate the second law of thermodynamics. We can throw in some extra matter such that we form a black hole. The entropy should not decrease. But if a black hole forms inside the region its entropy is just the area of its horizon, which is smaller than the area of the boundary of the region (which by our assumption is smaller than the initial entropy). So, the second law has been violated. Note that this bound implies that the number of degrees of freedom inside some region grows as the area of the boundary of a region and not like the volume of the region. In standard quantum ﬁeld theories this is certainly not possible. Attempting to understand this behavior leads to the “holographic principle”, which states that in a quantum gravity theory all physics within some volume can be described in terms of some theory on the boundary which has less than one degree of freedom per Planck area [29,30] (so that its entropy satisﬁes the Bekenstein bound). In the AdS/CFT correspondence we are describing physics in the bulk of AdS space by a ﬁeld theory of one less dimension (which can be thought of as living on the boundary), so it looks like holography. However, it is hard to check what the number of degrees of freedom per Planck area is, since the theory, being conformal, has an inﬁnite number of degrees of freedom, and the area of the boundary of AdS space is also inﬁnite. Thus, in order to compare things properly we should introduce a cutoﬀ on the number of degrees of freedom in the ﬁeld theory and see what it corresponds to in the gravity theory. For this purpose let us write the metric of AdS as

2 2 1 + r 4 dt2 + (dr2 + r2 dΩ2 ) . (2.14) ds2 = R2 − 1 − r2 (1 − r2 )2 In these coordinates the boundary of AdS is at r = 1. We saw above that when we calculate correlation functions we have to specify boundary conditions at r = 1 − δ and then take the limit of δ → 0. It is clear by studying the action of the conformal group on Poincar´e coordinates that the radial position plays the role of some energy scale, since we approach the boundary when we do a conformal transformation that localizes objects in the CFT. So, the limit δ → 0 corresponds to going to the UV of the ﬁeld theory. When we are close to the boundary we could also use the Poincar´e coordinates −dt2 + dx2 + dz 2 , (2.15) ds2 = R2 z2 in which the boundary is at z = 0. If we consider a particle or wave propagating in (2.15) or (2.14) we see that its motion is independent of R in

340

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

the supergravity approximation. Furthermore, if we are in Euclidean space and we have a wave that has some spatial extent λ in the x directions, it will also have an extent λ in the z direction. This can be seen from (2.15) by eliminating λ through the change of variables x → λx, z → λz. This implies that a cutoﬀ at z∼δ

(2.16)

corresponds to a UV cutoﬀ in the ﬁeld theory at distances δ, with no factors of R (δ here is dimensionless, in the ﬁeld theory it is measured in terms of the radius of the S 4 or S 3 that the theory lives on). Equation (2.16) is called the UV-IR relation [66]. Consider the case of N = 4 SYM on a three-sphere of radius one. We can estimate the number of degrees of freedom in the ﬁeld theory with a UV cutoﬀ δ. We get S ∼ N 2 δ −3 ,

(2.17)

since the number of cells into which we divide the three-sphere is of order 1/δ 3 . In the gravity solution (2.14) the area in Planck units of the surface at r = 1 − δ, for δ 1, is V 5 R3 δ −3 Area = S ∼ N 2 δ −3 . 4GN 4GN

(2.18)

Thus, we see that the AdS/CFT correspondence saturates the holographic bound [66]. One could be a little suspicious of the statement that gravity in AdS is holographic, since it does not seem to be saying much because in AdS space the volume and the boundary area of a given region scale in the same fashion as we increase the size of the region. In fact, any ﬁeld theory in AdS would be holographic in the sense that the number of degrees of freedom within some (large enough) volume is proportional to the area (and also to the volume). What makes this case diﬀerent is that we have the additional parameter R, and then we can take AdS spaces of diﬀerent radii (corresponding to diﬀerent values of N in the SYM theory), and then we can ask whether the number of degrees of freedom goes like the volume or the area, since these have a diﬀerent dependence on R. One might get confused by the fact that the surface r = 1 − δ is really nine dimensional as opposed to four dimensional. From the form of the full metric on AdS5 × S 5 we see that as we take δ → 0 the physical size of four of the dimensions of this nine dimensional space grow, while the other ﬁve, the S 5 , remain constant. So, we see that the theory on this nine dimensional surface becomes eﬀectively four dimensional, since we need to multiply the metric by a factor that goes to zero as we approach the boundary in order to deﬁne a ﬁnite metric for the four dimensional gauge theory.

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity 3

341

Tests of the AdS/CFT correspondence

In this section we review the direct tests of the AdS/CFT correspondence. In Section 2 we saw how string theory on AdS deﬁnes a partition function which can be used to deﬁne a ﬁeld theory. Here we will review the evidence showing that this ﬁeld theory is indeed the same as the conjectured dual ﬁeld theory. We will focus here only on tests of the correspondence between the N = 4 SU (N ) SYM theory and the type IIB string theory compactiﬁed on AdS5 × S 5 ; most of the tests described here can be generalized also to cases in other dimensions and/or with less supersymmetry, which will be described below. As described in Section 2, the AdS/CFT correspondence is a strong/weak coupling duality. In the ’t Hooft large N limit, it relates 2 the region of weak ﬁeld theory coupling λ = gYM N in the SYM theory to the region of high curvature (in string units) in the string theory, and vice versa. Thus, a direct comparison of correlation functions is generally not possible, since (with our current knowledge) we can only compute most of √ them perturbatively in λ on the ﬁeld theory side and perturbatively in 1/ λ on the string theory side. For example, as described below, we can compute the equation of state of the SYM theory and also the quark-antiquark potential both for small λ and for large λ, and we obtain diﬀerent answers, which we do not know how to compare since we can only compute them perturbatively on both sides. A similar situation arises also in many ﬁeld theory dualities that were analyzed in the last few years (such as the electric/magnetic SL(2, Z) duality of the N = 4 SYM theory itself), and it was realized that there are several properties of these theories which do not depend on the coupling, so they can be compared to test the duality. These are: • the global symmetries of the theory, which cannot change as we change the coupling (except for extreme values of the coupling). As discussed in Section 2, in the case of the AdS/CFT correspondence we have the same supergroup SU (2, 2|4) (whose bosonic subgroup is SO(4, 2) × SU (4)) as the global symmetry of both theories. Also, both theories are believed to have a non-perturbative SL(2, Z) duality symmetry acting on their coupling constant τ . These are the only symmetries of the theory on R4 . Additional ZN symmetries arise when the theories are compactiﬁed on non-simply-connected manifolds, and these were also successfully matched in [40, 67]1; 1 Unlike most of the other tests described here, this test actually tests the ﬁnite N duality and not just the large N limit.

342

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

• some correlation functions, which are usually related to anomalies, are protected from any quantum corrections and do not depend on λ. The matching of these correlation functions will be described in Section 3.2 below; • the spectrum of chiral operators does not change as the coupling varies, and it will be compared in Section 3.1 below; • the moduli space of the theory also does not depend on the coupling. In the SU (N ) ﬁeld theory the moduli space is R6(N −1) /SN , parametrized by the eigenvalues of six commuting traceless N × N matrices. On the AdS side it is not clear exactly how to deﬁne the moduli space. There are however multicenter solutions so that one might think that there is a background of string theory corresponding to any point in the ﬁeld theory moduli space, but it is not clear how to see that this is the exact moduli space on the string theory side (especially since high curvatures arise for generic points in the moduli space); • the qualitative behavior of the theory upon deformations by relevant or marginal operators also does not depend on the coupling (at least for chiral operators whose dimension does not depend on the coupling, and in the absence of phase transitions). There are many more qualitative tests of the correspondence, such as the existence of conﬁnement for the ﬁnite temperature theory [68], which we will not discuss in this section. We will also not discuss here tests involving the behavior of the theory on its moduli space [60, 61, 69]. 3.1 The spectrum of chiral primary operators 3.1.1 The ﬁeld theory spectrum The N = 4 supersymmetry algebra in d = 4 has four generators QA α (and ¯ αA their complex conjugates Q ˙ ), where α is a Weyl-spinor index (in the 2 of the SO(3, 1) Lorentz group) and A is an index in the 4 of the SU (4)R R-symmetry group (lower indices A will be taken to transform in the ¯ 4 representation). They obey the algebra A ¯ ˙ } = 2(σ µ )αα˙ Pµ δB , {QA α , QαB B ¯ ˙ ,Q ¯ ˙ } = 0, {QA α , Qβ } = {QαA βB

(3.1)

where σ i (i = 1, 2, 3) are the Pauli matrices and (σ 0 )αα˙ = −δαα˙ (we use the conventions of Wess and Bagger [70]).

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

343

N = 4 supersymmetry in four dimensions has a unique multiplet which does not include spins greater than one, which is the vector multiplet. It includes a vector ﬁeld Aµ (µ is a vector index of the SO(3, 1) Lorentz group), 4 of SU (4)R ), and six real scalars φI four complex Weyl fermions λαA (in the ¯ (where I is an index in the 6 of SU (4)R ). The classical action of the supersymmetry generators on these ﬁelds is schematically given (for onshell ﬁelds) by I [QA α , φ ] ∼ λαB , µν I J {QA α , λβB } ∼ (σ )αβ Fµν + αβ [φ , φ ], µ I ¯B {QA α , λβ˙ } ∼ (σ )αβ˙ Dµ φ ,

(3.2)

¯ A α˙ β˙ , [QA α , Aµ ] ∼ (σµ )αα˙ λβ˙ ¯ with similar expressions for the action of the Q’s, where σ µν are the generators of the Lorentz group in the spinor representation, Dµ is the covariant derivative, the ﬁeld strength Fµν ≡ [Dµ , Dν ], and we have suppressed the SU (4) Clebsch-Gordan coeﬃcients corresponding to the products 4 × 6 → ¯ 4, 4× ¯ 4→ 1+15 and 4×4 → 6 in the ﬁrst three lines of (3.2). An N = 4 supersymmetric ﬁeld theory is uniquely determined by specifying the gauge group, and its ﬁeld content is a vector multiplet in the adjoint of the gauge group. Such a ﬁeld theory is equivalent to an N = 2 theory with one hypermultiplet in the adjoint representation, or to an N = 1 theory with three chiral multiplets Φi in the adjoint representation (in the 32/3 of the SU (3) × U (1)R ⊂ SU (4)R which is left unbroken by the choice of a single N = 1 SUSY generator) and a superpotential of the form The interactions of the theory include a scalar poW ∝ ijk Tr(Φi Φj Φk ). tential proportional to I,J Tr([φI , φJ ]2 ), such that the moduli space of the theory is the space of commuting matrices φI (I = 1, · · · , 6). The spectrum of operators in this theory includes all the gauge invariant quantities that can be formed from the ﬁelds described above. In this section we will focus on local operators which involve ﬁelds taken at the same point in space-time. For the SU (N ) theory described above, properties of the adjoint representation of SU (N ) determine that such operators necessarily involve a product of traces of products of ﬁelds (or the sum of such products). It is natural to divide the operators into single-trace operators and multiple-trace operators. In the ’t Hooft large N limit correlation functions involving multiple-trace operators are suppressed by powers of N compared to those of single-trace operators involving the same ﬁelds. We will discuss here in detail only the single-trace operators; the multiple-trace operators appear in operator product expansions of products of single-trace operators.

344

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

It is natural to classify the operators in a conformal theory into primary operators and their descendants. In a superconformal theory it is also natural to distinguish between chiral primary operators, which are in short representations of the superconformal algebra and are annihilated by some of the supercharges, and non-chiral primary operators. Representations of the superconformal algebra are formed by starting with some state of lowest dimension, which is annihilated by the operators S and Kµ , and acting on it with the operators Q and Pµ . The N = 4 supersymmetry algebra involves 16 real supercharges. A generic primary representation of the superconformal algebra will thus include 216 primaries of the conformal algebra, generated by acting on the lowest state with products of diﬀerent supercharges; acting with additional supercharges always leads to descendants of the conformal algebra (i.e. derivatives). Since the supercharges have helicities ±1/2, the primary ﬁelds in such representations will have a range of helicities between λ − 4 (if the lowest dimension operator ψ has helicity λ) and λ + 4 (acting with more than 8 supercharges of the same helicity either annihilates the state or leads to a conformal descendant). In non-generic representations of the superconformal algebra a product of less than 16 diﬀerent Q’s annihilates the lowest dimension operator, and the range of helicities appearing is smaller. In particular, in the small representations of the N = 4 superconformal algebra only up to 4 Q’s of the same helicity acting on the lowest dimension operator give a non-zero result, and the range of helicities is between λ − 2 and λ + 2. For the N = 4 supersymmetry algebra (not including the conformal algebra) it is known that medium representations, whose range of helicities is 6, can also exist (they arise, for instance, on the moduli space of the SU (N ) N = 4 SYM theory [71–78]); it is not clear if such medium representations of the superconformal algebra [79] can appear in physical theories or not (there are no known examples). More details on the structure of representations of the N = 4 superconformal algebra may be found in [79–85] and references therein. In the U (1) N = 4 SYM theory (which is a free theory), the only gaugeinvariant “single trace” operators are the ﬁelds of the vector multiplet itself ¯ A and Fµν = ∂[µ Aν] ). These operators form an ultra(which are φI , λA , λ short representation of the N = 4 algebra whose range of helicities is from (−1) to 1 (acting with more than two supercharges of the same helicity on any of these states gives either zero or derivatives, which are descendants of the conformal algebra). All other local gauge invariant operators in the theory involve derivatives or products of these operators. This representation is usually called the doubleton representation, and it does not appear in the SU (N ) SYM theory (though the representations which do appear can all be formed by tensor products of the doubleton representation).

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

345

In the context of AdS space one can think of this multiplet as living purely on the boundary of the space [46,86–95], as expected for the U (1) part of the original U (N ) gauge group of the D3-branes (see the discussion in Sect. 2). There is no known simple systematic way to compute the full spectrum of chiral primary operators of the N = 4 SU (N ) SYM theory, so we will settle for presenting the known chiral primary operators. The lowest component of a superconformal-primary multiplet is characterized by the fact that it cannot be written as a supercharge Q acting on any other operator. Looking at the action of the supersymmetry charges (3.2) suggests that generally operators built from the fermions and the gauge ﬁelds will be descendants (given by Q acting on some other ﬁelds), so one would expect the lowest components of the chiral primary representations to be built only from the scalar ﬁelds, and this turns out to be correct. Let us analyze operators of the form OI1 I2 ···In ≡ Tr(φI1 φI2 · · · φIn ). First we can ask if this operator can be written as {Q, ψ} for any ﬁeld ψ. In the SUSY algebra (3.2) only commutators of φI ’s appear on the right hand side, so we see that if some of the indices are antisymmetric the ﬁeld will be a descendant. Thus, only symmetric combinations of the indices will be lowest components of primary multiplets. Next, we should ask if the multiplet built on such an operator is a (short) chiral primary multiplet or not. There are several diﬀerent ways to answer this question. One possibility is to use the relation between the dimension of chiral primary operators and their R-symmetry representation [96–100], and to check if this relation is obeyed in the free ﬁeld theory, where [OI1 I2 ···In ] = n. In this way we ﬁnd that the representation is chiral primary if and only if the indices form a symmetric traceless product of n 6’s (traceless representations are deﬁned as those who give zero when any two indices are contracted). This is a representation of weight (0, n, 0) of SU (4)R ; in this section we will refer to SU (4)R representations either by their dimensions in boldface or by their weights. Another way to check this is to see if by acting with Q’s on these operators we get the most general possible states or not, namely if the representation contains “null vectors” or not (it turns out that in all the relevant cases “null vectors” appear already at the ﬁrst level by acting with a single Q, though in principle there could be representations where “null vectors” appear only at higher levels). Using the SUSY algebra (3.2) it is easy to see that for symmetric traceless representations we get “null vectors” while for other representations we do not. For instance, let us analyze in detail the case n = 2. The symmetric product of two 6’s is given by 6 × 6 → 1 + 20 . The ﬁeld in the 1 representation is Tr(φI φI ), for which I I AJB [QA Tr(λαB φJ ) where C AIB is a Clebsch-Gordan coeﬃα , Tr(φ φ )] ∼ C cient for ¯ 4 × 6 → 4. The right-hand side is in the 4 representation, which is

346

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

the most general representation that can appear in the product 4 × 1, so we ﬁnd no null vectors at this level. On the other hand, if we look at the symmetric traceless product Tr(φ{I φJ} ) ≡ Tr(φI φJ )− 16 δ IJ Tr(φK φK ) in the 20 {I J} K representation, we ﬁnd that {QA α , Tr(φ φ )} ∼ Tr(λαB φ ) with the righthand side being in the 20 representation (appearing in ¯ 4 × 6 → 4 + 20), while the left-hand side could in principle be in the 4 × 20 → 20 + 60. Since the 60 does not appear on the right-hand side (it is a “null vector”) we identify that the representation built on the 20 is a short representation of the SUSY algebra. By similar manipulations (see [24, 81, 84, 101] for more details) one can verify that chiral primary representations correspond exactly to symmetric traceless products of 6’s. It is possible to analyze the chiral primary spectrum also by using N = 1 subalgebras of the N = 4 algebra. If we use an N = 1 subalgebra of the N = 4 algebra, as described above, the operators On include the chiral operators of the form Tr(Φi1 Φi2 · · · Φin ) (in a representation of SU (3) which is a symmetric product of 3’s), but for a particular choice of the N = 1 subalgebra not all the operators On appear to be chiral (a short multiplet of the N = 4 algebra includes both short and long multiplets of the N = 1 subalgebra). The last issue we should discuss is what is the range of values of n. The product of more than N commuting2 N × N matrices can always be written as a sum of products of traces of less than N of the matrices, so it does not form an independent operator. This means that for n > N we can express the operator OI1 I2 ···In in terms of other operators, up to operators including commutators which (as explained above) are descendants of the SUSY algebra. Thus, we ﬁnd that the short chiral primary representations are built on the operators On = O{I1 I2 ···In } with n = 2, 3, · · · , N , for which the indices are in the symmetric traceless product of n 6’s (in a U (N ) theory we would ﬁnd the same spectrum with the additional representation corresponding to n = 1). The superconformal algebra determines the dimension of these ﬁelds to be [On ] = n, which is the same as their value in the free ﬁeld theory. We argued above that these are the only short chiral primary representations in the SU (N ) gauge theory, but we will not attempt to rigorously prove this here. The full chiral primary representations are obtained by acting on the ﬁelds On by the generators Q and P of the supersymmetry algebra. The 1 2 2 representation built on On contains a total of 256 × 12 n (n − 1) primary states, of which half are bosonic and half are fermionic. Since these 2 We can limit the discussion to commuting matrices since, as discussed above, commutators always lead to descendants, and we can write any product of matrices as a product of commuting matrices plus terms with commutators.

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

347

multiplets are built on a ﬁeld of helicity zero, they will contain primary ﬁelds of helicities between (−2) and 2. The highest dimension primary ﬁeld ¯ 4 On , and its dimension is in the multiplet is (generically) of the form Q4 Q n+4. There is an elegant way to write these multiplets as traces of products of “twisted chiral N = 4 superﬁelds” [81, 101]; see also [102] which checks some components of these superﬁelds against the couplings to supergravity modes predicted on the basis of the DBI action for D3-branes in anti-de Sitter space [4]. It is easy to ﬁnd the form of all the ﬁelds in such a multiplet by using the algebra (3.2). For example, let us analyze here in detail the bosonic primary ﬁelds of dimension n + 1 in the multiplet. To get a ﬁeld of dimension n + 1 we need to act on On with two supercharges (recall that [Q] = 12 ). If we act with two supercharges QA α of the same chirality, their Lorentz indices can be either antisymmetrized or symmetrized. In the ﬁrst case we get a Lorentz scalar ﬁeld in the (2, n − 2, 0) representation of SU (4)R , which is of the schematic form

αβ {Qα , [Qβ , On ]} ∼

αβ Tr(λαA λβB φJ1 · · · φJn−2 ) + Tr([φK1 , φK2 ]φL1 · · · φLn−1 ). Using an N = 1 subalgebra some of these operators may be written as the lowest components of the chiral superﬁelds Tr(Wα2 Φj1 · · · Φjn−2 ). In the second case we get an anti-symmetric 2-form of the Lorentz group, in the (0, n − 1, 0) representation of SU (4)R , of the form {Q{α , [Qβ} , On ]} ∼ Tr((σ µν )αβ Fµν φJ1 · · · φJn−1 ) + Tr(λαA λβB φK1 · · · φKn−2 ). Both of these ﬁelds are complex, with the complex conjugate ﬁelds given by ¯ Acting with one Q and one Q ¯ on the state On gives the action of two Q’s. a (real) Lorentz-vector ﬁeld in the (1, n − 2, 1) representation of SU (4)R , of the form ¯ α˙ , On ]} ∼ {Qα , [Q ¯B φJ1 · · · φJn−2 ) + (σ µ )αα˙ Tr((Dµ φJ )φK1 · · · φKn−1 ). Tr(λαA λ α˙ At dimension n + 2 (acting with four supercharges) we ﬁnd: • a complex scalar ﬁeld in the (0, n−2, 0) representation, given by Q4 On , 2 I1 of the form Tr(Fµν φ · · · φIn−2 ) + · · · ; ¯ 2 On , • a real scalar ﬁeld in the (2, n − 4, 2) representation, given by Q2 Q B B αβ α ˙ β˙ I I 1 2 ¯ λ ¯ φ 1 · · · φ n−4 ) + · · · ; of the form Tr(λαA1 λβA2 λ α ˙ β˙

348

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

• a complex vector ﬁeld in the (1, n − 4, 1) representation, given by ¯ n , of the form Tr(Fµν Dν φJ φI1 · · · φIn−2 ) + · · · ; Q3 QO • an complex anti-symmetric 2-form ﬁeld in the (2, n − 3, 0) representa¯ 2 On , of the form Tr(Fµν [φJ1 , φJ2 ]φI1 · · · φIn−2 )+· · · ; tion, given by Q2 Q • a symmetric tensor ﬁeld in the (0, n − 2, 0) representation, given by ¯ 2 On , of the form Tr(D{µ φJ Dν} φK φI1 · · · φIn−2 ) + · · · Q2 Q The spectrum of primary ﬁelds at dimension n + 3 is similar to that of dimension n + 1 (the same ﬁelds appear but in smaller SU (4)R representations), and at dimension n + 4 there is a single primary ﬁeld, which is a ¯ 4 On , of the form real scalar in the (0, n − 4, 0) representation, given by Q4 Q 4 I1 In−4 ) + · · · . Note that ﬁelds with more than four Fµν ’s or Tr(Fµν φ · · · φ more than eight λ’s are always descendants or non-chiral primaries. For n = 2, 3 the short multiplets are even shorter since some of the representations appearing above vanish. In particular, for n = 2 the highestdimension primaries in the chiral primary multiplet have dimension n + 2 = 4. The n = 2 representation includes the currents of the superconformal algebra. It includes a vector of dimension 3 in the 15 representation which is the SU (4)R R-symmetry current, and a symmetric tensor ﬁeld of dimension 4 which is the energy-momentum tensor (the other currents of the superconformal algebra are descendants of these). The n = 2 multiplet also includes a complex scalar ﬁeld which is an SU (4)R -singlet, whose real 2 part is the Lagrangian density coupling to 4g12 (of the form Tr(Fµν )+···) YM and whose imaginary part is the Lagrangian density coupling to θ (of the form Tr(F ∧ F )). For later use we note that the chiral primary multiplets which contain scalars of dimension ∆ ≤ 4 are the n = 2 multiplet (which has a scalar in the 20 of dimension 2, a complex scalar in the 10 of dimension 3, and a complex scalar in the 1 of dimension 4), the n = 3 multiplet (which contains a scalar in the 50 of dimension 3 and a complex scalar in the 45 of dimension 4), and the n = 4 multiplet which contains a scalar in the 105 of dimension 4. 3.1.2 The string theory spectrum and the matching As discussed in Section 2.1, ﬁelds on AdS5 are in a one-to-one correspondence with operators in the dual conformal ﬁeld theory. Thus, the spectrum of operators described in Section 3.1.1 should agree with the spectrum of ﬁelds of type IIB string theory on AdS5 × S 5 . Fields on AdS naturally lie in the same multiplets of the conformal group as primary operators; the second Casimir of these representations is C2 = ∆(∆ − 4) for a primary scalar ﬁeld of dimension ∆ in the ﬁeld theory, and C2 = m2 R2 for a ﬁeld of mass m on an AdS5 space with a radius of curvature R. Single-trace

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

349

operators in the ﬁeld theory may be identiﬁed with single-particle states in AdS5 , while multiple-trace operators correspond to multi-particle states. Unfortunately, it is not known how to compute the full spectrum of type IIB string theory on AdS5 ×S 5 . In fact, the only known states are the states which arise from the dimensional reduction of the ten-dimensional type IIB supergravity multiplet. These ﬁelds all have helicities between (−2) and 2, so it is clear that they all lie in small multiplets of the superconformal algebra, and we will describe below how they match with the small multiplets of the ﬁeld theory described above. String theory on AdS5 × S 5 is expected to have many additional states, with masses of the order of the string scale 1/ls or of the Planck scale 1/lp . Such states would correspond (using the mass/dimension relation described above) to operators in the ﬁeld theory with dimensions of order ∆ ∼ (gs N )1/4 or ∆ ∼ N 1/4 for large N, gs N . Presumably none of these states are in small multiplets of the superconformal algebra (at least, this would be the prediction of the AdS/CFT correspondence). The spectrum of type IIB supergravity compactiﬁed on AdS5 × S 5 was computed in [103]. The computation involves expanding the ten dimensional ﬁelds in appropriate spherical harmonics on S 5 , plugging them into the supergravity equations of motion, linearized around the AdS5 ×S 5 background, and diagonalizing the equations to give equations of motion for free the ten dimensional dilaton (massless or massive) ﬁelds3 . For example, ∞ ﬁeld τ may be expanded as τ (x, y) = k=0 τ k (x)Y k (y) where x is a coordinate on AdS5 , y is a coordinate on S 5 , and the Y k are the scalar spherical harmonics on S 5 . These spherical harmonics are in representations corresponding to symmetric traceless products of 6’s of SU (4)R ; they may be written as Y k (y) ∼ y I1 y I2 · · · y Ik where the y I , for I = 1, 2, · · · , 6 and with 6 I 2 5 k I=1 (y ) = 1, are coordinates on S . Thus, we ﬁnd a ﬁeld τ (x) on AdS5 in each such (0, k, 0) representation of SU (4)R , and the equations of motion determine the mass of this ﬁeld to be m2k = k(k + 4)/R2 . A similar expansion may be performed for all other ﬁelds. If we organize the results of [103] into representations of the superconformal algebra [80], we ﬁnd representations of the form described in the previous section, which are built on a lowest dimension ﬁeld which is a scalar in the (0, n, 0) representation of SU (4)R for n = 2, 3, · · · , ∞. The lowest dimension scalar ﬁeld in each representation turns out to arise from a linear combination of spherical harmonic modes of the S 5 components of the graviton haa (expanded around the AdS5 × S 5 vacuum) and the 4-form ﬁeld Dabcd , where a, b, c, d are indices on S 5 . The scalar ﬁelds of dimension 3 The ﬁelds arising from diﬀerent spherical harmonics are related by a “spectrum generating algebra”, see [104].

350

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

n + 1 correspond to 2-form ﬁelds Bab with indices in the S 5 . The symmetric tensor ﬁelds arise from the expansion of the AdS5 -components of the graviton. The dilaton ﬁelds described above are the complex scalar ﬁelds arising with dimension n + 2 in the multiplet (as described in the previous subsection). In particular, the n = 2 representation is called the supergraviton representation, and it includes the ﬁeld content of d = 5, N = 8 gauged supergravity. The ﬁeld/operator correspondence matches this representation to the representation including the superconformal currents in the ﬁeld theory. It includes a massless graviton ﬁeld, which (as expected) corresponds to the energy-momentum tensor in the ﬁeld theory, and massless SU (4)R gauge ﬁelds which correspond to (or couple to) the global SU (4)R currents in the ﬁeld theory. In the naive dimensional reduction of the type IIB supergravity ﬁelds, the n = 1 doubleton representation, corresponding to a free U (1) vector multiplet in the dual theory, also appears. However, the modes of this multiplet are all pure gauge modes in the bulk of AdS5 , and they may be set to zero there. This is one of the reasons why it seems more natural to view the corresponding gauge theory as an SU (N ) gauge theory and not a U (N ) theory. It may be possible (and perhaps even natural) to add the doubleton representation to the theory (even though it does not include modes which propagate in the bulk of AdS5 , but instead it is equivalent to a topological theory in the bulk) to obtain a theory which is dual to the U (N ) gauge theory, but this will not aﬀect most of our discussion in this review so we will ignore this possibility here. Comparing the results described above with the results of Section 3.1.1, we see that we ﬁnd the same spectrum of chiral primary operators for n = 2, 3, · · · , N . The supergravity results cannot be trusted for masses above the order of the string scale (which corresponds to n ∼ (gs N )1/4 ) or the Planck scale (which corresponds to n ∼ N 1/4 ), so the results agree within their range of validity. The ﬁeld theory results suggest that the exact spectrum of chiral representations in type IIB string theory on AdS5 × S 5 actually matches the naive supergravity spectrum up to a mass scale m2 ∼ N 2 /R2 ∼ N 3/2 Mp2 which is much higher than the string scale and the Planck scale, and that there are no chiral ﬁelds above this scale. It is not known how to check this prediction; tree-level string theory is certainly not enough for this since when gs = 0 we must take N = ∞ to obtain a ﬁnite value of gs N . Thus, with our current knowledge the matching of chiral primaries of the N = 4 SYM theory with those of string theory on AdS5 × S 5 tests the duality only in the large N limit. In some generalizations of the AdS/CFT correspondence the string coupling goes to zero at the boundary even for ﬁnite N , and then classical string theory should lead to exactly the same

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

351

spectrum of chiral operators as the ﬁeld theory. This happens in particular for the near-horizon limit of NS5-branes, in which case the exact spectrum was successfully compared in [105]. In other instances of the AdS/CFT correspondence (such as the ones discussed in [106–108]) there exist also additional chiral primary multiplets with n of order N , and these have been successfully matched with wrapped branes on the string theory side. The fact that there seem to be no non-chiral ﬁelds on AdS5 with a mass below the string scale suggests that for large N and large gs N , the dimension of all non-chiral operators in the ﬁeld theory, such as Tr(φI φI ), grows at 2 least as (gs N )1/4 ∼ (gYM N )1/4 . The reason for this behavior on the ﬁeld theory side is not clear; it is a prediction of the AdS/CFT correspondence. 3.2 Matching of correlation functions and anomalies The classical N = 4 theory has a scale invariance symmetry and an SU (4)R R-symmetry, and (unlike many other theories) these symmetries are exact also in the full quantum theory. However, when the theory is coupled to external gravitational or SU (4)R gauge ﬁelds, these symmetries are broken by quantum eﬀects. In ﬁeld theory this breaking comes from one-loop diagrams and does not receive any further corrections; thus it can be computed also in the strong coupling regime and compared with the results from string theory on AdS space. We will begin by discussing the anomaly associated with the SU (4)R global currents. These currents are chiral since the fermions λαA are in ¯ A are in the ¯ 4 representation while the fermions of the opposite chirality λ α˙ the 4 representation. Thus, if we gauge the SU (4)R global symmetry, we will ﬁnd an Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly from the triangle diagram of three SU (4)R currents, which is proportional to the number of charged fermions. In the SU (N ) gauge theory this number is N 2 − 1. The anomaly can be expressed either in terms of the 3-point function of the SU (4)R global currents, a N 2 − 1 abc Tr [γ5 γµ ( x− y)γν ( y− z)γρ ( z− x)] Jµ (x)Jνb (y)Jρc (z) − = − id , 32π 6 (x − y)4 (y − z)4 (z − x)4 where dabc = 2Tr(T a {T b , T c }) and we take only the negative parity component of the correlator, or in terms of the non-conservation of the SU (4)R a current when the theory is coupled to external SU (4)R gauge ﬁelds Fµν , (Dµ Jµ )a =

N 2 − 1 abc µνρσ b c id Fµν Fρσ . 384π 2

(3.3)

How can we see this eﬀect in string theory on AdS5 ×S 5 ? One way to see it is, of course, to use the general prescription of Section 4 to compute the 3-point

352

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

function (3.3), and indeed one ﬁnds [109, 110] the correct answer to leading order in the large N limit (namely, one recovers the term proportional to N 2 ). It is more illuminating, however, to consider directly the meaning of the anomaly (3.3) from the point of view of the AdS theory [24]. In the AdS theory we have gauge ﬁelds Aaµ which couple, as explained above, to the SU (4)R global currents Jµa of the gauge theory, but the anomaly means that when we turn on non-zero ﬁeld strengths for these ﬁelds the theory should no longer be gauge invariant. This eﬀect is precisely reproduced by a Chern-Simons term which exists in the low-energy supergravity theory arising from the compactiﬁcation of type IIB supergravity on AdS5 × S 5 , which is of the form iN 2 d5 x(dabc µνλρσ Aaµ ∂ν Abλ ∂ρ Acσ + · · · ). (3.4) 96π 2 AdS5 This term is gauge invariant up to total derivatives, which means that if we take a gauge transformation Aaµ → Aaµ + (Dµ Λ)a for which Λ does not vanish on the boundary of AdS5 , the action will change by a boundary term of the form iN 2 b c d4 x µνρσ dabc Λa Fµν Fρσ . (3.5) − 384π 2 ∂AdS5 From this we can read the anomaly in (Dµ Jµ ) since, when we have a oﬀ 4 coupling of the form d xAµa Jµa , the change in the action under a gauge transformation is given by d4 x(Dµ Λ)a Jµa = − d4 xΛa (Dµ Jµa ), and we ﬁnd exact agreement with (3.3) for large N . The other anomaly in the N = 4 SYM theory is the conformal (or Weyl) anomaly (see [111,112] and references therein), indicating the breakdown of conformal invariance when the theory is coupled to a curved external metric (there is a similar breakdown of conformal invariance when the theory is coupled to external SU (4)R gauge ﬁelds, which we will not discuss here). The conformal anomaly is related to the 2-point and 3-point functions of the energy-momentum tensor [113–116]. In four dimensions, the general form of the conformal anomaly is g µν Tµν = −aE4 − cI4 ,

(3.6)

1 (R2 − 4R2µν + R2 ), 16π 2 µνρσ 1 1 2 2 2 R − 2R + I4 = − R , µνρσ µν 16π 2 3

(3.7)

where E4 =

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

353

where Rµνρσ is the curvature tensor, Rµν ≡ Rρµρν is the Riemann tensor, and R ≡ Rµµ is the scalar curvature. A free ﬁeld computation in the SU (N ) N = 4 SYM theory leads to a = c = (N 2 −1)/4. In supersymmetric theories the supersymmetry algebra relates g µν Tµν to derivatives of the R-symmetry current, so it is protected from any quantum corrections. Thus, the same result should be obtained in type IIB string theory on AdS5 × S 5 , and to leading order in the large N limit it should be obtained from type IIB supergravity on AdS5 × S 5 . This was indeed found to be true in [117–120]4 , where the conformal anomaly was shown to arise from subtleties in the regularization of the (divergent) supergravity action on AdS space. The result of [117–120] implies that a computation using gravity on AdS5 always gives rise to theories with a = c, so generalizations of the AdS/CFT correspondence which have (for large N ) a supergravity approximation are limited to conformal theories which have a = c in the large N limit. Of course, if we do not require the string theory to have a supergravity approximation then there is no such restriction. For both of the anomalies we described the ﬁeld theory and string theory computations agree for the leading terms, which are of order N 2 . Thus, they are successful tests of the duality in the large N limit. For other instances of the AdS/CFT correspondence there are corrections to anomalies at order 1/N ∼ gs (α /R2 )2 ; such corrections were discussed in [122] and successfully compared in [123–125]5 . It would be interesting to compare other corrections to the large N result. 4

Correlation functions

A useful statement of the AdS/CFT correspondence is that the partition function of string theory on AdS5 × S 5 should coincide with the partition function of N = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory “on the boundary” of AdS5 [23, 24]. The basic idea was explained in Section 2.1, but before summarizing the actual calculations of Green’s functions, it seems worthwhile to motivate the methodology from a somewhat diﬀerent perspective. Throughout this section, we approximate the string theory partition function by e−ISUGRA , where ISUGRA is the supergravity action evaluated on AdS5 × S 5 (or on small deformations of this space). This approximation amounts to ignoring all the stringy α corrections that cure the divergences of supergravity, and also all the loop corrections, which are controlled essentially by the gravitational coupling κ ∼ gst α2 . On the gauge theory side, 4A

generalization with more varying ﬁelds may be found in [121]. such corrections tests the conjecture that the correspondence holds order by order in 1/N ; however, this is weaker than the statement that the correspondence holds for ﬁnite N , since the 1/N expansion is not expected to converge. 5 Computing

354

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

as explained in Section 2.1, this approximation amounts to taking both N 2 and gYM N large, and the basic relation becomes e−ISUGRA Zstring = Zgauge = e−W ,

(4.1)

where W is the generating functional for connected Green’s functions in the gauge theory. At ﬁnite temperature, W = βF where β is the inverse temperature and F is the free energy of the gauge theory. When we apply this relation to a Schwarzschild black hole in AdS5 , which is thought to be reﬂected in the gauge theory by a thermal state at the Hawking temperature of the black hole, we arrive at the relation ISUGRA βF . Calculating the free energy of a black hole from the Euclidean supergravity action has a long tradition in the supergravity literature [126], so the main claim that is being made here is that the dual gauge theory provides a description of the state of the black hole which is physically equivalent to the one in string theory. We will discuss the ﬁnite temperature case further in Section 6, and devote the rest of this section to the partition function of the ﬁeld theory on R4 . The main technical idea behind the bulk-boundary correspondence is that the boundary values of string theory ﬁelds (in particular, supergravity ﬁelds) act as sources for gauge-invariant operators in the ﬁeld theory. From a D-brane perspective, we think of closed string states in the bulk as sourcing gauge singlet operators on the brane which originate as composite operators built from open strings. We will write the bulk ﬁelds generically as φ(x, z) (in the coordinate system (2.15)), with value φ0 (x) for z = . The true boundary of anti-de Sitter space is z = 0, and = 0 serves as a cutoﬀ which will eventually be removed. In the supergravity approximation, we think of choosing the values φ0 arbitrarily and then extremizing the action ISUGRA [φ] in the region z > subject to these boundary conditions. In short, we solve the equations of motion in the bulk subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions on the boundary, and evaluate the action on the solution. If there is more than one solution, then we have more than one saddle point contributing to the string theory partition function, and we must determine which is most important. In this section, multiple saddle points will not be a problem. So, we can write Ê 4 extremum ISUGRA [φ] . (4.2) Wgauge [φ0 ] = − log e d x φ0 (x)O(x) CFT φ =φ0 z=

That is, the generator of connected Green’s functions in the gauge theory, 2 N limit, is the on-shell supergravity action. in the large N, gYM Note that in (4.2) we have not attempted to be prescient about inserting factors of . Instead our strategy will be to use (4.2) without modiﬁcation to compute two-point functions of O, and then perform a wave-function

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

355

renormalization on either O or φ so that the ﬁnal answer is independent of the cutoﬀ. This approach should be workable even in a space (with boundary) which is not asymptotically anti-de Sitter, corresponding to a ﬁeld theory which does not have a conformal ﬁxed point in the ultraviolet. A remark is in order regarding the relation of (4.2) to the old approach of extracting Green’s functions from an absorption cross-section [16]. In absorption calculations one is keeping the whole D3-brane geometry, not just the near-horizon AdS5 × S 5 throat. The usual treatment is to split the space into a near region (the throat) and a far region. The incoming wave from asymptotically ﬂat inﬁnity can be regarded as ﬁxing the value of a supergravity ﬁeld at the outer boundary of the near region. As usual, the supergravity description is valid at large N and large ’t Hooft coupling. At small ’t Hooft coupling, there is a diﬀerent description of the process: a cluster of D3-branes sits at some location in ﬂat ten-dimensional space, and the incoming wave impinges upon it. In the low-energy limit, the value of the supergravity ﬁeld which the D3-branes feel is the same as the value in the curved space description at the boundary of the near horizon region. Equation (4.2) is just a mathematical expression of the fact that the throat geometry should respond identically to the perturbed supergravity ﬁelds as the low-energy theory on the D3-branes. Following [23, 24], a number of papers–notably [109, 110, 127–141]–have undertaken the program of extracting explicit n-point correlation functions of gauge singlet operators by developing both sides of (4.2) in a power series in φ0 . Because the right hand side is the extremization of a classical action, the power series has a graphical representation in terms of treelevel Feynman graphs for ﬁelds in the supergravity. There is one diﬀerence: in ordinary Feynman graphs one assigns the wavefunctions of asymptotic states to the external legs of the graph, but in the present case the external leg factors reﬂect the boundary values φ0 . They are special limits of the usual gravity propagators in the bulk, and are called bulk-to-boundary propagators. We will encounter their explicit form in the next two sections. 4.1 Two-point functions For two-point functions, only the part of the action which is quadratic in the relevant ﬁeld perturbation is needed. For massive scalar ﬁelds in AdS5 , this has the generic form 1 √ 1 (4.3) S = η d5 x g (∂φ)2 + m2 φ2 , 2 2 where η is some normalization which in principle follows from the tendimensional origin of the action. The bulk-to-boundary propagator is a

356

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

particular solution of the equation of motion, ( −m2 )φ = 0, which has special asymptotic properties. We will start by considering the momentum space propagator, which is useful for computing the two-point function and also in situations where the bulk geometry loses conformal invariance; then, we will discuss the position space propagator, which has proven more convenient for the study of higher point correlators in the conformal case. We will always work in Euclidean space6 . A coordinate system in the bulk of AdS5 such that ds2 =

R2 2 dx + dz 2 z2

(4.4)

provides manifest Euclidean symmetry on the directions parametrized by x. To avoid divergences associated with the small z region of integration in (4.3), we will employ an explicit cutoﬀ, z ≥ . A complete set of solutions for the linearized equation, ( −m2 )φ = 0, is given by φ = eip·x Z(pz), where the function Z(u) satisﬁes the radial equation

u5 ∂u

1 2 2 2 ∂ − u − m R Z(u) = 0 . u u3

(4.5)

There are two independent solutions to (4.5), namely Z(u) = u2 I∆−2 (u) and Z(u) = u2 K∆−2 (u), where Iν and Kν are Bessel functions and ∆=2+

4 + m2 R 2 .

(4.6)

The second solution is selected by the requirement of regularity in the interior: I∆−2 (u) increases exponentially as u → ∞ and does not lead to a ﬁnite action conﬁguration. Imposing the boundary condition φ(x, z) = φ0 (x) = eip·x at z = , we ﬁnd the bulk-to-boundary propagator φ(x, z) = Kp (x, z) =

(pz)2 K∆−2 (pz) ip·x e . (p )2 K∆−2 (p )

(4.7)

6 The results may be analytically continued to give the correlation functions of the ﬁeld theory on Minkowskian Ê4 , which corresponds to the Poincar´e coordinates of AdS space.

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

357

To compute a two-point function of the operator O for which φ0 is a source, we write ∂ 2 W φ0 = λ1 eip·x + λ2 eiq·x O( p)O( q ) = ∂λ1 ∂λ2 λ1 =λ2 =0

= (leading analytic terms in ( p)2 ) − η

2∆−8

Γ(3 − ∆) 4 δ ( (2∆ − 4) p + q) Γ(∆ − 1)

2∆−4 p 2

(4.8)

+ (higher order terms in ( p)2 ), O(x)O(y ) = η 2∆−8

1 2∆ − 4 Γ(∆ + 1) · 2 ∆ π Γ(∆ − 2) |x − y|2∆

Several explanatory remarks are in order: • To establish the second equality in (4.8) we have used (4.7), substituted in (4.3), performed the integral and expanded in . The leading analytic terms give rise to contact terms in position space, and the higher order terms are unimportant in the limit where we remove the cutoﬀ. Only the leading nonanalytic term is essential. We have given the expression for generic real values of ∆. Expanding around integer ∆ ≥ 2 one obtains ﬁnite expressions involving log p. • The Fourier transforms used to obtain the last line are singular, but they can be deﬁned for generic complex ∆ by analytic continuation and for positive integer ∆ by expanding around a pole and dropping divergent terms, in the spirit of diﬀerential regularization [142]. The result is a pure power law dependence on the separation |x − y |, as required by conformal invariance. • We have assumed a coupling d4 x φ(x, z = )O(x) to compute the Green’s functions. The explicit powers of the cutoﬀ in the ﬁnal position space answer can be eliminated by absorbing a factor of ∆−4 into the deﬁnition of O. From here on we will take that convention, which amounts to inserting a factor of 4−∆ on the right hand side of (4.7). In fact, precise matchings between the normalizations in ﬁeld theory and in string theory for all the chiral primary operators have not been worked out. In part this is due to the diﬃculty of determining the coupling of bulk ﬁelds to ﬁeld theory operators (or in stringy terms, the coupling of closed string states to composite open string operators on the brane). See [15] for an early approach to this problem. For the dilaton, the graviton, and their superpartners

358

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings (including gauge ﬁelds in AdS5 ), the couplings can be worked out explicitly. In some of these cases all normalizations have been worked out unambiguously and checked against ﬁeld theory predictions (see for example [23, 109, 134]).

• The mass-dimension relation (4.6) holds even for string states that are not included in the Kaluza-Klein supergravity reduction: the mass and the dimension are just diﬀerent expressions of the second Casimir √ of SO(4, 2). For instance, excited string states, with m ∼ 1/ α , are expected to correspond to operators with dimen2 sion ∆ ∼ (gYM N )1/4 . The remarkable fact is that all the string theory modes with m ∼ 1/R (which is to say, all closed string states which arise from massless ten dimensional ﬁelds) fall in short multiplets of the supergroup SU (2, 2|4). All other states have a much larger mass. The operators in short multiplets have algebraically protected dimensions. The obvious conclusion is that all operators whose dimensions are not algebraically protected have large dimension in the strong ’t Hooft coupling, large N limit to which supergravity applies. This is no longer true for theories of reduced supersymmetry: the supergroup gets smaller, but the Kaluza-Klein states are roughly as numerous as before, and some of them escape the short multiplets and live in long multiplets of the smaller supergroups. They still have a mass on the order of 1/R, and typically correspond to dimensions 2 N limit) but irrational. which are ﬁnite (in the large gYM Correlation functions of non-scalar operators have been widely studied following [24]; the literature includes [143–153]. For N = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory, all correlation functions of ﬁelds in chiral multiplets should follow by application of supersymmetries once those of the chiral primary ﬁelds are known, so in this case it should be enough to study the scalars. It is worthwhile to note however that the mass-dimension formula changes for particles with spin. In fact the deﬁnition of mass has some conventiondependence. Conventions seem fairly uniform in the literature, and a table of mass-dimension relations in AdSd+1 with unit radius was made in [154] from the various sources cited above (see also [101]): √ • scalars: ∆± = 12 (d ± d2 + 4m2 ); • spinors: ∆ = 12 (d + 2|m|); • vectors: ∆± = 12 (d ± (d − 2)2 + 4m2 ); • p-forms: ∆ = 12 (d ± (d − 2p)2 + 4m2 ); • ﬁrst-order (d/2)-forms (d even): ∆ = 12 (d + 2|m|);

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

359

• spin-3/2: ∆ = 12 (d + 2|m|); • massless spin-2: ∆ = d. In the case of ﬁelds with second order lagrangians, we have not attempted to pick which of ∆± is the physical dimension. Usually the choice ∆ = ∆+ is clear from the unitarity bound, but in some cases (notably m2 = 15/4 in AdS5 ) there is a genuine ambiguity. In practice this ambiguity is usually resolved by appealing to some special algebraic property of the relevant ﬁelds, such as transformation under supersymmetry or a global bosonic symmetry. For brevity we will omit a further discussion of higher spins, and instead refer the reader to the (extensive) literature. 4.2 Three-point functions Working with bulk-to-boundary propagators in the momentum representation is convenient for two-point functions, but for higher point functions position space is preferred because the full conformal invariance is more obvious. (However, for non-conformal examples of the bulk-boundary correspondence, the momentum representation seems uniformly more convenient.) The boundary behavior of position space bulk-to-boundary propagators is speciﬁed in a slightly more subtle way: following [109] we require K∆ (x, z; y) → z 4−∆ δ 4 (x − y ) as z → 0.

(4.9)

Here y is the point on the boundary where we insert the operator, and (x, z) is a point in the bulk. The unique regular K∆ solving the equation of motion and satisfying (4.9) is Γ(∆) K∆ (x, z; y) = 2 π Γ(∆ − 2)

z z 2 + (x − y )2

∆ ·

(4.10)

At a ﬁxed cutoﬀ, z = , the bulk-to-boundary propagator K∆ (x, ; y) is a continuous function which approximates 4−∆ δ 4 (x − y) better and better as

→ 0. Thus at any ﬁnite , the Fourier transform of (4.10) only approximately coincides with (4.7) (modiﬁed by the factor of 4−∆ as explained after (4.8)). This apparently innocuous subtlety turned out to be important for two-point functions, as discovered in [109]. A correct prescription is to specify boundary conditions at ﬁnite z = , cut oﬀ all bulk integrals at that boundary, and only afterwards take → 0. That is what we have done in (4.8). Calculating two-point functions directly using the position-space propagators (4.9), but cutting the bulk integrals oﬀ again at , and ﬁnally taking the same → 0 answer, one arrives at a diﬀerent answer. This is not

360

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

1

2

λ

3 Fig. 2. The Feynman graph for the three-point function as computed in supergravity. The legs correspond to factors of K∆i , and the cubic vertex to a factor of λ. The position of the vertex is integrated over AdS5 .

surprising since the z = boundary conditions were not used consistently. The authors of [109] checked that using the cutoﬀ consistently (i.e. with the momentum space propagators) gave two-point functions O(x1 )O(x2 ) a normalization such that Ward identities involving the three-point function O(x1 )O(x2 )Jµ (x3 ), where Jµ is a conserved current, were obeyed. Two-point functions are uniquely diﬃcult because of the poor convergence properties of the integrals over z. The integrals involved in three-point functions are suﬃciently benign that one can ignore the issue of how to impose the cutoﬀ. If one has a Euclidean bulk action for three scalar ﬁelds φ1 , φ2 , and φ3 , of the form

1 5 √ 2 1 2 2 S= d x g (∂φi ) + 2 mi φi + λφ1 φ2 φ3 , (4.11) 2 i and4 if the φi couple to operators in the ﬁeld theory by interaction terms d x φi Oi , then the calculation of O1 O2 O3 reduces, via (4.2), to the evaluation of the graph shown in Figure 2. That is, √ O1 (x1 )O2 (x2 )O3 (x3 ) = −λ d5 x gK∆1 (x; x1 )K∆2 (x; x2 )K∆3 (x; x3 ) =

λa1 , |x1 − x2 |∆1 +∆2 −∆3 |x1 − x3 |∆1 +∆3 −∆2 |x2 − x3 |∆2 +∆3 −∆1 (4.12)

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

361

for some constant a1 . The dependence on the xi is dictated by the conformal invariance, but the only way to compute a1 is by performing the integral over x. The result [109] is Γ 12 (∆1 + ∆2 − ∆3 ) Γ 12 (∆1 + ∆3 − ∆2 ) Γ 12 (∆2 + ∆3 − ∆1 ) · a1 = − 2π 4 Γ(∆1 − 2)Γ(∆2 − 2)Γ(∆3 − 2) Γ 12 (∆1 + ∆2 + ∆3 ) − 2 . (4.13) In principle one could also have couplings of the form φ1 ∂φ2 ∂φ3 . This leads only to a modiﬁcation of the constant a1 . The main technical diﬃculty with three-point functions is that one must ﬁgure out the cubic couplings of supergravity ﬁelds. Because of the diﬃculties in writing down a covariant action for type IIB supergravity in ten dimensions (see however [155–157]), it is most straightforward to read oﬀ these “cubic couplings” from quadratic terms in the equations of motion. In ﬂat ten-dimensional space these terms can be read oﬀ directly from the original type IIB supergravity papers [158, 159]. For AdS5 × S 5 , one must instead expand in ﬂuctuations around the background metric and ﬁve-form ﬁeld strength. The old literature [103] only dealt with the linearized equations of motion; for 3-point functions it is necessary to go to one higher order of perturbation theory. This was done for a restricted set of ﬁelds in [132]. The ﬁelds considered were those dual to operators of the form Trφ(J1 φJ2 . . . φJ ) in ﬁeld theory, where the parentheses indicate a symmetrized traceless product. These operators are the chiral primaries of the gauge theory: all other single trace operators of protected dimension descend from these by commuting with supersymmetry generators. Only the metric and the ﬁve-form are involved in the dual supergravity ﬁelds, and we are interested only in modes which are scalars in AdS5 . The result of [132] is that the equations of motion for the scalar modes s˜I dual to OI = CJI 1 ...J Trφ(J1 . . . φJ )

(4.14)

follow from an action of the form AI (wI )2 4N 2 5 √ x g s2I d S= −(∇˜ sI )2 − l(l − 4)˜ 5 (2π) 2 I

(4.15) GI I I wI1 wI2 wI3 1 2 3 + s˜I1 s˜I2 s˜I3 · 3 I1 ,I2 ,I3

Derivative couplings of the form s˜∂˜ s∂˜ s are expected a priori to enter into (4.15), but an appropriate ﬁeld redeﬁnition eliminates them. The notation in (4.14) and (4.15) requires some explanation. I is an index which runs

362

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

over the weight vectors of all possible representations constructed as symmetric traceless products of the 6 of SU (4)R . These are the representations whose Young diagrams are , , , · · · . CJI 1 ...J is a basis transformation matrix, chosen so that CJI 1 ...J CJJ1 ...J = δ IJ . As commented in the previous section, there is generally a normalization ambiguity on how supergravity ﬁelds couple to operators in the gauge theory. We have taken the coupling to be d4 x s˜I OI , and the normalization ambiguity is represented by the “leg factors” wI . It is the combination sI = wI s˜I rather than s˜I itself which has a deﬁnite relation to supergravity ﬁelds. We refer the reader to [132] for explicit expressions for AI and the symmetric tensor GI1 I2 I3 . To get rid of factors of wI , we introduce operators OI = w ˜I OI . One can choose w ˜ I so that a two-point function computation along the lines of Section 4.1 leads to OI1 (x)OI2 (0) =

δ I1 I2 · x2∆1

(4.16)

With this choice, the three-point function, as calculated using (4.12), is OI1 (x1 )OI2 (x2 )OI3 (x3 ) =

√ 1 ∆1 ∆2 ∆3 C I1 C I2 C I3 , ∆ +∆ −∆ N |x1 − x2 | 1 2 3 |x1 − x3 |∆1 +∆3 −∆2 |x2 − x3 |∆2 +∆3 −∆1

where we have deﬁned I3 C I1 C I2 C I3 = CJI11 ···Ji K1 ···Kj CJI21 ···Ji L1 ···Lk CK . 1 ···Kj L1 ···Lk

(4.17)

Remarkably, (4.17) is the same result one obtains from free ﬁeld theory by Wick contracting all the φJ ﬁelds in the three operators. This suggests that there is a non-renormalization theorem for this correlation function, but such a theorem has not yet been proven (see however comments at the end of Sect. 3.2). It is worth emphasizing that the normalization ambiguity in the bulk-boundary coupling is circumvented essentially by considering invariant ratios of three-point functions and two-point functions, into which the “leg factors” wI do not enter. This is the same strategy as was pursued in comparing matrix models of quantum gravity to Liouville theory. 5

Wilson loops

In this section we consider Wilson loop operators in the gauge theory. The Wilson loop operator W (C) = Tr P exp i A (5.1) C

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

363

depends on a loop C embedded in four dimensional space, and it involves the path-ordered integral of the gauge connection along the contour. The trace is taken over some representation of the gauge group; we will discuss here only the case of the fundamental representation (see [165] for a discussion of other representations). From the expectation value of the Wilson loop operator W (C) we can calculate the quark-antiquark potential. For this purpose we consider a rectangular loop with sides of length T and L in Euclidean space. Then, viewing T as the time direction, it is clear that for large T the expectation value will behave as e−T E where E is the lowest possible energy of the quark-anti-quark conﬁguration. Thus, we have W ∼ e−T V (L) ,

(5.2)

2 where V (L) is the quark anti-quark potential. For large N and large gYM N, the AdS/CFT correspondence maps the computation of W in the CFT into a problem of ﬁnding a minimum surface in AdS [166, 167].

5.1 Wilson loops and minimum surfaces In QCD, we expect the Wilson loop to be related to the string running from the quark to the antiquark. We expect this string to be analogous to the string in our conﬁguration, which is a superstring which lives in ten dimensions, and which can stretch between two points on the boundary of AdS. In order to motivate this prescription let us consider the following situation. We start with the gauge group U (N + 1), and we break it to U (N ) × U (1) by giving an expectation value to one of the scalars. This corresponds, as discussed in Section 2, to having a D3 brane sitting at some radial position U in AdS, and at a point on S 5 . The oﬀ-diagonal states, transforming in the N of U (N ), get a mass proportional to U , m = U/2π. So, from the point of view of the U (N ) gauge theory, we can view these states as massive quarks, which act as a source for the various U (N ) ﬁelds. Since they are charged they will act as a source for the vector ﬁelds. In order to get a non-dynamical source (an “external quark” with no ﬂuctuations of its own, which will correspond precisely to the Wilson loop operator) we need to take m → ∞, which means U should also go to inﬁnity. Thus, the string should end on the boundary of AdS space. These stretched strings will also act as a source for the scalar ﬁelds. The coupling to the scalar ﬁelds can be seen qualitatively by viewing the quarks as strings stretching between the N branes and the single separated brane. These strings will pull the N branes and will cause a deformation of the branes, which is described by the scalar ﬁelds. A more formal argument for this coupling is that these states are BPS, and the coupling to the scalar (Higgs) ﬁelds is determined by supersymmetry. Finally, one can see

364

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

this coupling explicitly by writing the full U (N + 1) Lagrangian, putting in the Higgs expectation value and calculating the equation of motion for the massive ﬁelds [166]. The precise deﬁnition of the Wilson loop operator corresponding to the superstring will actually include also the ﬁeld theory fermions, which will imply some particular boundary conditions for the worldsheet fermions at the boundary of AdS. However, this will not aﬀect the leading order computations we describe here. So, the ﬁnal conclusion is that the stretched strings couple to the operator √ W (C) = Tr P exp (iAµ x˙ µ + θI φI x˙ 2 )dτ , (5.3) where xµ (τ ) is any parametrization of the loop and θI (I = 1, · · · , 6) is a unit vector in R6 (the point on S 5 where the string is sitting). This is the expression when the signature of R4 is Euclidean. In the Minkowski signature case, the phase factor associated to the trajectory of the quark has an extra factor “i” in front of θI 7 . Generalizing the prescription of section 4 for computing correlation functions, the discussion above implies that in order to compute the expectation value of the operator (5.3) in N = 4 SYM we should consider the string theory partition function on AdS5 × S 5 , with the condition that we have a string worldsheet ending on the loop C, as in Figure 3 [166, 167]. In the supergravity regime, when gs N is large, the leading contribution to this partition function will come from the area of the string worldsheet. This area is measured with the AdS metric, and it is generally not the same as the area enclosed by the loop C in four dimensions. The area as deﬁned above is divergent. The divergence arises from the fact that the string worldsheet is going all the way to the boundary of AdS. If we evaluate the area up to some radial distance U = r, we see that for large r it diverges as r|C|, where |C| is the length of the loop in the ﬁeld theory [166, 167]. On the other hand, the perturbative computation in the ﬁeld theory shows that W , for W given by (5.3), is ﬁnite, as it should be since a divergence in the Wilson loop would have implied a mass renormalization of the BPS particle. The apparent discrepancy between the divergence of the area of the minimum surface in AdS and the ﬁniteness of the ﬁeld theory computation can be reconciled by noting that the appropriate action for the string worldsheet is not the area itself but its Legendre transform with respect to the string coordinates corresponding to θI and the 7 The diﬀerence in the factor of i between the Euclidean and the Minkowski cases can √ be traced to the analytic continuation of x˙ 2 . A detailed derivation of (5.3) can be found in [168].

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

365

Fig. 3. The Wilson loop operator creates a string worldsheet ending on the corresponding loop on the boundary of AdS.

radial coordinate u [168]. This is because these string coordinates obey the Neumann boundary conditions rather than the Dirichlet conditions. When the loop is smooth, the Legendre transformation simply subtracts the divergent term r|C|, leaving the resulting action ﬁnite. As an example let us consider a circular Wilson loop. Take C to be a circle of radius a on the boundary, and let us work in the Poincar´e coordinates. We could ﬁnd the surface that minimizes the area by solving the Euler-Lagrange equations. However, in this case it is easier to use conformal invariance. Note that there is a conformal transformation in the ﬁeld theory that maps a line to a circle. In the case of the line, the minimum area surface is clearly a plane that intersects the boundary and goes all the way to the horizon (which is just a point on the boundary in the Euclidean case). Using the conformal transformation to map the line to a circle we obtain the minimal surface we want. It is, using the coordinates (2.15) for AdS5 , (5.4) x = a2 − z 2 (e1 cos θ + e2 sin θ), where e1 , e2 are two orthonormal vectors in four dimensions (which deﬁne the orientation of the circle) and 0 ≤ z ≤ a. We can calculate the area of this surface in AdS, and we get a contribution to the action a dza R2 R2 a 1 − 1 , (5.5) A = = dθ S∼ 2πα 2πα z2 α

where we have regularized the area by putting a an IR cutoﬀ at z = in AdS, which is equivalent to a UV cutoﬀ in the ﬁeld theory [66]. Subtracting the divergent term we get 2

W ∼ e−S ∼ eR

/α

=e

√

4πgs N

.

This is independent of a as required by conformal invariance.

(5.6)

366

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

We could similarly consider a “magnetic” Wilson loop, which is also called a ’t Hooft loop [169]. This case is related by electric-magnetic duality to the previous case. Since we identify the electric-magnetic duality with the SL(2, Z) duality of type IIB string theory, we should consider in this case a D-string worldsheet instead of a fundamental string worldsheet. We get the same result as in (5.6) but with gs → 1/gs . Using (5.2) it is possible to compute the quark-antiquark potential in the supergravity approximation [166, 167]. In this case we consider a conﬁguration which is invariant under (Euclidean) time translations. We take both particles to have the same scalar charge, which means that the two ends of the string are at the same point in S 5 (one could consider also the more general case with a string ending at diﬀerent points on S 5 [166]). We put the quark at x = −L/2 and the anti-quark at x = L/2. Here “quark” means an inﬁnitely massive W-boson connecting the N branes with one brane which is (inﬁnitely) far away. The classical action for a string worldsheet is 1 S= det(GMN ∂α X M ∂β X N ), (5.7) dτ dσ 2πα where GMN is the Euclidean AdS5 × S 5 metric. Note that the factors of α cancel out in (5.7), as they should. Since we are interested in a static conﬁguration we take τ = t, σ = x, and then the action becomes (∂x z)2 + 1 T R2 L/2 S= dx · (5.8) 2π −L/2 z2 We need to solve the Euler-Lagrange equations for this action. Since the action does not depend on x explicitly the solution satisﬁes z2

1 = constant. (∂x z)2 + 1

(5.9)

Deﬁning z0 to be the maximum value of z(x), which by symmetry occurs at x = 0, we ﬁnd that the solution is8 1 dyy 2 x = z0 , (5.10) 1 − y4 z/z0 where z0 is determined by the condition √ 3/2 1 dyy 2 2π L = z0 = z0 · 4 2 Γ(1/4)2 1−y 0 8 All

(5.11)

integrals in this section can be calculated in terms of elliptic or Beta functions.

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

367

The qualitative form of the solution is shown in Figure 4b. Notice that the string quickly approaches x = L/2 for small z (close to the boundary), L − x ∼ z3 , 2

z→0.

(5.12)

Now we compute the total energy of the conﬁguration. We just plug in the solution (5.10) in (5.8), subtract the inﬁnity as explained above (which can be interpreted as the energy of two separated massive quarks, as in Fig. 4a), and we ﬁnd E = V (L) = −

2 4π 2 (2gYM N )1/2 · 1 4 Γ( 4 ) L

(5.13)

U=

8

We see that the energy goes as 1/L, a fact which is determined by conformal 2 N )1/2 , as opposed invariance. Note that the energy is proportional to (gYM 2 to gYM N which is the perturbative result. This indicates some screening of the charges at strong coupling. The above calculation makes sense for all distances L when gs N is large, independently of the value of gs . Some subleading corrections coming from quantum ﬂuctuations of the worldsheet were calculated in [170–172].

L

x U

U=0 (a)

(b)

Fig. 4. a) Initial conﬁguration corresponding to two massive quarks before we turn on their coupling to the U (N ) gauge theory. b) Conﬁguration after we consider the coupling to the U (N ) gauge theory. This conﬁguration minimizes the action. The quark-antiquark energy is given by the diﬀerence of the total length of the strings in a) and b).

368

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

In a similar fashion we could compute the potential between two magnetic monopoles in terms of a D-string worldsheet, and the result will be the same as (5.13) but with gYM → 4π/gYM . One can also calculate the interaction between a magnetic monopole and a quark. In this case the fundamental string (ending on the quark) will attach to the D-string (ending on the monopole), and they will connect to form a (1, 1) string which will go into the horizon. The resulting potential is a complicated function of 2 gYM [173], but in the limit that gYM is small (but still with gYM N large) we get that the monopole-quark potential is just 1/4 of the quark-quark potential. This can be understood from the fact that when g is small the D-string is very rigid and the fundamental string will end almost perpendicularly on the D-string. Therefore, the solution for the fundamental string will be half of the solution we had above, leading to a factor of 1/4 in the potential. Calculations of Wilson loops in the Higgs phase were done in [174]. Another interesting case one can study analytically is a surface near a cusp on R4 . In this case, the perturbative computation in the gauge theory shows a logarithmic divergence with a coeﬃcient depending on the angle at the cusp. The area of the minimum surface also contains a logarithmic divergence depending on the angle [168]. Other aspects of the gravity calculation of Wilson loops were discussed in [175–179]. 5.2 Other branes ending on the boundary We could also consider other branes that are ending at the boundary [180]. The simplest example would be a zero-brane (i.e. a particle) of mass m. In Euclidean space a zero-brane describes a one dimensional trajectory in anti-de-Sitter space which ends at two points on the boundary. Therefore, it is associated with the insertion of two local operators at the two points where the trajectory ends. In the supergravity approximation the zero-brane follows a geodesic. Geodesics in the hyperbolic plane (Euclidean AdS) are semicircles. If we compute the action we get a adz √ , (5.14) S = m ds = −2mR 2 2

z a −z where we took the distance between the two points at the boundary to be L = 2a and regulated the result. We ﬁnd a logarithmic divergence when

→ 0, proportional to log( /a). If we subtract the logarithmic divergence we get a residual dependence on a. Naively we might have thought that (as in the previous subsection) the answer had to be independent of a due to conformal invariance. In fact, the dependence on a is very important, since it leads to a result of the form 1 (5.15) e−S ∼ e−2mR log a ∼ 2mR , a

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

369

which is precisely the result we expect for the two-point function of an operator of dimension ∆ = mR. This is precisely the large mR limit of the formula (2.12), so we reproduce in the supergravity limit the 2-point function described in Section 4. In general, this sort of logarithmic divergence arises when the brane worldvolume is odd dimensional [180], and it implies that the expectation value of the corresponding operator depends on the overall scale. In particular one could consider the “Wilson surfaces” that arise in the six dimensional N = (2, 0) theory. In that case one has to consider a two-brane, with a three dimensional worldvolume, ending on a two dimensional surface on the boundary of AdS7 . Again, one gets a logarithmic term, which is proportional to the rigid string action of the two dimensional surface living on the string in the N = (2, 0) ﬁeld theory [180, 181]. One can also compute correlation functions involving more than one Wilson loop. To leading order in N this will be just the product of the expectation values of each Wilson loop. On general grounds one expects that the subleading corrections are given by surfaces that end on more than one loop. One limiting case is when the surfaces look similar to the zeroth order surfaces but with additional thin tubes connecting them. These thin tubes are nothing else than massless particles being exchanged between the two string worldsheets [165, 181]. 6

Theories at finite temperature

As discussed in Section 3, the quantities that can be most successfully compared between gauge theory and string theory are those with some protection from supersymmetry and/or conformal invariance – for instance, dimensions of chiral primary operators. Finite temperature breaks both supersymmetry and conformal invariance, and the insights we gain from examining the T > 0 physics will be of a more qualitative nature. They are no less interesting for that: we shall see in Section 6.1 how the entropy of near-extremal D3-branes comes out identical to the free ﬁeld theory prediction up to a factor of a power of 4/3; then in Section 6.2 we explain how a phase transition studied by Hawking and Page in the context of quantum gravity is mapped into a conﬁnement-deconﬁnement transition in the gauge theory.

6.1 Construction The gravity solution describing the gauge theory at ﬁnite temperature can be obtained by starting from the general black three-brane solution and taking the decoupling limit of Section 2 keeping the energy density above

370

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

extremality ﬁnite. The resulting metric can be written as du2 ds2 = R2 u2 (−hdt2 + dx21 + dx22 + dx23 ) + 2 + dΩ25 hu u4 h = 1 − 04 , u

(6.1)

u0 = πT.

It will often be useful to Wick rotate by setting tE = it, and use the relation between the ﬁnite temperature theory and the Euclidean theory with a compact time direction. The ﬁrst computation which indicated that ﬁnite-temperature U (N ) Yang-Mills theory might be a good description of the microstates of N coincident D3-branes was the calculation of the entropy [182, 183]. On the supergravity side, the entropy of near-extremal D3-branes is just the usual Bekenstein-Hawking result, S = A/4GN , and it is expected to be a reliable 2 guide to the entropy of the gauge theory at large N and large gYM N . There is no problem on the gauge theory side in working at large N , but large 2 N at ﬁnite temperature is diﬃcult indeed. The analysis of [182] was gYM limited to a free ﬁeld computation in the ﬁeld theory, but nevertheless the two results for the entropy agreed up to a factor of a power of 4/3. In the canonical ensemble, where temperature and volume are the independent variables, one identiﬁes the ﬁeld theory volume with the world-volume of the D3-branes, and one sets the ﬁeld theory temperature equal to the Hawking temperature in supergravity. The result is

FSUGRA = − FSYM

π2 2 N V T 4, 8

4 = FSUGRA . 3

(6.2)

The supergravity result is at leading order in ls /R, and it would acquire corrections suppressed by powers of T R if we had considered the full D3brane metric rather than the near-horizon limit, equation (6.1). These corrections do not have an interpretation in the context of CFT because they involve R as an intrinsic scale. Two equivalent methods to evaluate FSUGRA are a) to use F = E − T S together with standard expressions for the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, the Hawking temperature, and the ADM mass; and b) to consider the gravitational action of the Euclidean solution,

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

371

with a periodicity in the Euclidean time direction (related to the temperature) which eliminates a conical deﬁcit angle at the horizon9 . The 4/3 factor is a long-standing puzzle into which we still have only qualitative insight. The gauge theory computation was performed at zero ’t Hooft coupling, whereas the supergravity is supposed to be valid at strong ’t Hooft coupling, and unlike in the 1+1-dimensional case where the entropy is essentially ﬁxed by the central charge, there is no nonrenormalization theorem for the coeﬃcient of T 4 in the free energy. Indeed, it was suggested in [184] that the leading term in the 1/N expansion of F has the form 2 N) F = −f (gYM

π2 2 N V T 4, 6

(6.3)

2 where f (gYM N ) is a function which smoothly interpolates between a weak coupling limit of 1 and a strong coupling limit of 3/4. It was pointed 2 Tr[φI , φJ ]2 in the N = 4 out early [185] that the quartic potential gYM Yang-Mills action might be expected to freeze out more and more degrees of 2 N ) is freedom as the coupling was increased, which would suggest that f (gYM monotone decreasing. An argument has been given [186], based on the non2 renormalization of the two-point function of the stress tensor, that f (gYM N) should remain ﬁnite at strong coupling. 2 N ) at strong and The leading corrections to the limiting value of f (gYM weak coupling were computed in [184] and [187], respectively. The results are

3 2 g N + ... 2π 2 YM ζ(3) 3 45 2 N) = + + ... f (gYM 2 4 32 (gYM N )3/2 2 N) = 1 − f (gYM

2 for small gYM N,

(6.4) 2 for large gYM N.

The weak coupling result is a straightforward although somewhat tedious application of the diagrammatic methods of perturbative ﬁnite-temperature ﬁeld theory. The constant term is from one loop, and the leading correction is from two loops. The strong coupling result follows from considering the leading α corrections to the supergravity action. The relevant one involves a particular contraction of four powers of the Weyl tensor. It is important now to work with the Euclidean solution, and one restricts attention 9 The result of [182], S 1/4 S SYM = (4/3) SUGRA , diﬀers superﬁcially from (6.2), but it is only because the authors worked in the microcanonical ensemble: rather than identifying the Hawking temperature with the ﬁeld theory temperature, the ADM mass above extremality was identiﬁed with the ﬁeld theory energy.

372

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

further to the near-horizon limit. The Weyl curvature comes from the noncompact part of the metric, which is no longer AdS5 but rather the AdSSchwarzschild solution which we will discuss in more detail in Section 6.2. The action including the α corrections no longer has the Einstein-Hilbert form, and correspondingly the Bekenstein-Hawking prescription no longer agrees with the free energy computed as βI where I is the Euclidean action. In keeping with the basic prescription for computing Green’s functions, where a free energy in ﬁeld theory is equated (in the appropriate limit) with a supergravity action, the relation I = βF is regarded as the correct one 2 (see [188]). It has been conjectured that the interpolating function f (gYM N) is not smooth, but exhibits some phase transition at a ﬁnite value of the ’t Hooft coupling. We regard this as an unsettled question. The arguments in [189, 190] seem as yet incomplete. In particular, they rely on analyticity properties of the perturbation expansion which do not seem to be proven for ﬁnite temperature ﬁeld theories. 6.2 Thermal phase transition 2 N where The holographic prescription of [23,24], applied at large N and gYM loop and stringy corrections are negligible, involves extremizing the supergravity action subject to particular asymptotic boundary conditions. We can think of this as the saddle point approximation to the path integral over supergravity ﬁelds. That path integral is ill-deﬁned because of the non-renormalizable nature of supergravity. String amplitudes (when we can calculate them) render on-shell quantities well-deﬁned. Despite the conceptual diﬃculties we can use some simple intuition about path integrals to illustrate an important point about the AdS/CFT correspondence: namely, there can be more than one saddle point in the range of integration, and when there is we should sum e−ISUGRA over the classical conﬁgurations to obtain the saddle-point approximation to the gauge theory partition function. Multiple classical conﬁgurations are possible because of the general feature of boundary value problems in diﬀerential equations: there can be multiple solutions to the classical equations satisfying the same asymptotic boundary conditions. The solution which globally minimizes ISUGRA is the one that dominates the path integral. When there are two or more solutions competing to minimize ISUGRA , there can be a phase transition between them. An example of this was studied in [191] long before the AdS/CFT correspondence, and subsequently resurrected, generalized, and reinterpreted in [24, 68] as a conﬁnementdeconﬁnement transition in the gauge theory. Since the qualitative features are independent of the dimension, we will restrict our attention to AdS5 . It is worth noting however that if the AdS5 geometry is part of a string compactiﬁcation, it doesn’t matter what the internal manifold is except insofar

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

373

as it ﬁxes the cosmological constant, or equivalently the radius R of anti-de Sitter space. There is an embedding of the Schwarzschild black hole solution into anti-de Sitter space which extremizes the action 1 12 √ I=− (6.5) d5 x g R + 2 · 16πG5 R Explicitly, the metric is ds2 = f dt2 +

1 2 dr + r2 dΩ23 , f

r2 µ f = 1+ 2 − 2· R r

(6.6)

The radial variable r is restricted to r ≥ r+ , where r+ is the largest root of f = 0. The Euclidean time is periodically identiﬁed, t ∼ t + β, in order to eliminate the conical singularity at r = r+ . This requires β=

2πR2 r+ 2 + R2 · 2r+

(6.7)

Topologically, this space is S 3 × B 2 , and the boundary is S 3 × S 1 (which is the relevant space for the ﬁeld theory on S 3 with ﬁnite temperature). We will call this space X2 . Another space with the same boundary which is also a local extremum of (6.5) is given by the metric in (6.6) with µ = 0 and again with periodic time. This space, which we will call X1 , is not only metrically distinct from the ﬁrst (being locally conformally ﬂat), but also topologically B 4 ×S 1 rather than S 3 ×B 2 . Because the S 1 factor is not simply connected, there are two possible spin structures on X1 , corresponding to thermal (anti-periodic) or supersymmetric (periodic) boundary conditions on fermions. In contrast, X2 is simply connected and hence admits a unique spin structure, corresponding to thermal boundary conditions. For the purpose of computing the twisted partition function, Tr(−1)F e−βH , in a saddle-point approximation, only X1 contributes. But, X1 and X2 make separate saddle-point contributions to the usual thermal partition function, Tre−βH , and the more important one is the one with the smaller Euclidean action. Actually, both I(X1 ) and I(X2 ) are inﬁnite, so to compute I(X2 )−I(X1 ) a regulation scheme must be adopted. The one used in [68, 184] is to cut oﬀ both X1 and X2 at a deﬁnite coordinate radius r = R0 . For X2 , the elimination of the conical deﬁcit angle at the horizon ﬁxes the period of Euclidean time; but for X1 , the period is arbitrary. In order to make the comparison of I(X1 ) and I(X2 ) meaningful, we ﬁx the period of Euclidean

374

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

time on X1 so that the proper circumference of the S1 at r = R0 is the same as the proper length on X2 of an orbit of the Killing vector ∂/∂t, also at r = R0 . In the limit R0 → ∞, one ﬁnds I(X2 ) − I(X1 ) =

3 2 π 2 r+ (R2 − r+ ) , 2 4G5 (2r+ + R2 )

(6.8)

where again r+ is the largest root of f = 0. The fact that (6.8) (or more precisely its AdS4 analog) can change its sign was interpreted in [191] as indicating a phase transition between a black hole in AdS and a thermal gas of particles in AdS (which is the natural interpretation of the space X1 ). The black hole is the thermodynamically favored state when the horizon radius r+ exceeds the radius of curvature R of AdS. In the gauge theory we interpret this transition as a conﬁnement-deconﬁnement transition. Since the theory is conformally invariant, the transition temperature must be proportional to the inverse radius of the space S 3 which the ﬁeld theory lives on. Similar transitions, and also local thermodynamic instability due to negative speciﬁc heats, have been studied in the context of spinning branes and charged black holes in [192–198]. Most of these works are best understood on the CFT side as explorations of exotic thermal phenomena in ﬁnite-temperature gauge theories. Connections with Higgsed states in gauge theory are clearer in [199, 200]. The relevance to conﬁnement is explored in [197]. See also [201–204] for other interesting contributions to the ﬁnite temperature literature. Deconﬁnement at high temperature can be characterized by a spontaneous breaking of the center of the gauge group. In our case the gauge group is SU (N ) and its center is ZN . The order parameter for the breaking of the center is the expectation value of the Polyakov (temporal) loop W (C). The boundary of the spaces X1 , X2 is S 3 ×S 1 , and the path C wraps around the circle. An element of the center g ∈ ZN acts on the Polyakov loop by W (C) → gW (C). The expectation value of the Polyakov loop measures the change of the free energy of the system Fq (T ) induced by the presence of the external charge q, W (C) ∼ exp (−Fq (T )/T ). In a conﬁning phase Fq (T ) is inﬁnite and therefore W (C) = 0. In the deconﬁned phase Fq (T ) is ﬁnite and therefore W (C) = 0. As discussed in Section 5, in order to compute W (C) we have to evaluate the partition function of strings with a worldsheet D that is bounded by the loop C. Consider ﬁrst the low temperature phase. The relevant space is X1 which, as discussed above, has the topology B 4 × S 1 . The contour C wraps the circle and is not homotopic to zero in X1 . Therefore C is not a boundary of any D, which immediately implies that W (C) = 0. This is the expected behavior at low temperatures (compared to the inverse radius of the S 3 ), where the center of the gauge group is not broken.

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

375

For the high temperature phase the relevant space is X2 , which has the topology S 3 × B 2 . The contour C is now a boundary of a string worldsheet D = B 2 (times a point in S 3 ). This seems to be in agreement with the fact that in the high temperature phase W (C) = 0 and the center of the gauge group is broken. It was pointed out in [68] that there is a subtlety with this argument, since the center should not be broken in ﬁnite volume (S 3 ), but only in the inﬁnite volume limit (R3 ). Indeed, the solution X2 is not unique and we can add to it an expectation value for the integral of the NS-NS 2-form ﬁeld B on B 2 , with vanishing ﬁeld strength. This is an angular parameter ψ with period 2π, which contributes iψ to the string worldsheet action. The string theory partition function includes now an integral over all values of ψ, making W (C) = 0 on S 3 . In contrast, on R3 one integrates over the local ﬂuctuations of ψ but not over its vacuum expectation value. Now W (C) = 0 and depends on the value of ψ ∈ U (1), which may be understood as the dependence on the center ZN in the large N limit. Explicit computations of Polyakov loops at ﬁnite temperature were done in [6, 205]. In [68] the Euclidean black hole solution (6.6) was suggested to be holographically dual to a theory related to pure QCD in three dimensions. In the large volume limit the solution corresponds to the N = 4 gauge theory on R3 × S 1 with thermal boundary conditions, and when the S 1 is made small (corresponding to high temperature T ) the theory at distances larger than 1/T eﬀectively reduces to pure Yang-Mills on R3 . Some of the non-trivial successes of this approach to QCD are summarized in [1]. These notes were made by selected pieces of [1]. I thank O. Aharony, S. Gubser, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz for collaborating on writing that review. I also thank the organizers for a very nice school. This work was supported in part by by the Packard foundation and the DOE grant DE-FGO2-91ER40654.

References [1] O. Aharony, S.S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept. 323 (2000) 183. [2] H.J. Boonstra, B. Peeters and K. Skenderis, Phys. Lett. B 411 (1997) 59. [3] K. Sfetsos and K. Skenderis, Nucl. Phys. B 517 (1998) 179. [4] S.R. Das and S.P. Trivedi, Phys. Lett. B 445 (1998) 142. [5] F. Gonzalez-Rey, I. Park and K. Schalm, Phys. Lett. B 448 (1999) 37. [6] A. Brandhuber, N. Itzhaki, J. Sonnenschein and S. Yankielowicz, Phys. Lett. B 434 (1998) 36. [7] G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 72 (1974) 461. [8] A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 103 (1981) 207. [9] J. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231 [hep-th/9711200]. [10] J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4724 [hep-th/9510017]. [11] G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 79 (1974) 276.

376

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

[12] [13] [14] [15]

A.M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20 (1974) 194. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 335-350 [hep-th/9510135]. I.R. Klebanov, Nucl. Phys. B 496 (1997) 231 [hep-th/9702076]. S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B 499 (1997) 217 [hep-th/9703040]. S.S. Gubser and I.R. Klebanov, Phys. Lett. B 413 (1997) 41 [hep-th/9708005]. A. Strominger and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B 379 (1996) 99 [hep-th/9601029]. C.G. Callan and J.M. Maldacena, Nucl. Phys. B 472 (1996) 591 [hep-th/9602043]. G.T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 2368 [hep-th/9602051]. S.R. Das and S.D. Mathur, Nucl. Phys. B 478 (1996) 561 [hep-th/9606185]. A. Dhar, G. Mandal and S.R. Wadia, Phys. Lett. B 388 (1996) 51 [hep-th/9605234]. J. Maldacena and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 861 [hep-th/9609026]. S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105 [hep-th/9802109]. E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253 [hep-th/9802150]. A. Salam and E. Sezgin, Supergravities in Diverse Dimensions, Vols. 1 and 2 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1989). M.J. Duﬀ, B.E.W. Nilsson and C.N. Pope, Phys. Rept. 130 (1986) 1. E. Witten, Commun. Missing Math. Phys. 121 (1989) 351. T. Banks, W. Fischler, S.H. Shenker and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 5112 [hep-th/9610043]. G. ’t Hooft, Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity [gr-qc/9310026]. L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377 [hep-th/9409089]. J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 1912 [gr-qc/9307035]. P.D. Vecchia, An Introduction to AdS/CFT correspondence [hep-th/9903007]. M.R. Douglas and S. Randjbar-Daemi, Two lectures on the AdS/CFT correspondence [hep-th/9902022]. J.L. Petersen, Introduction to the Maldacena conjecture on AdS/CFT [hep-th/9902131]. I.R. Klebanov, From three-branes to large N gauge theories [hep-th/9901018]. J. Polchinski, String Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1998). R.G. Leigh, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4 (1989) 2767. G.T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B 360 (1991) 197. G.W. Gibbons and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 3754 [hep-th/9307049]. E. Witten, JHEP 12 (1998) 012 [hep-th/9812012]. N. Seiberg, private communication (1999). S. Elitzur, G. Moore, A. Schwimmer and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 326 (1989) 108. C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 1988. D.Z. Freedman and H. Nicolai, Nucl. Phys. B 237 (1984) 342. K. Pilch, P. van Nieuwenhuizen and P.K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B 242 (1984) 377. M. Gunaydin, P. van Nieuwenhuizen and N.P. Warner, Nucl. Phys. B 255 (1985) 63. M. Gunaydin and N.P. Warner, Nucl. Phys. B 272 (1986) 99. M. Gunaydin, B.E.W. Nilsson, G. Sierra and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 176 (1986) 45.

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

J. Maldacena: Lectures on Large N Field Theories and Gravity

377

[49] E. Bergshoeﬀ, A. Salam, E. Sezgin and Y. Tanii, Phys. Lett. B 205 (1988) 237. [50] E. Bergshoeﬀ, A. Salam, E. Sezgin and Y. Tanii, Nucl. Phys. B 305 (1988) 497. [51] E. Bergshoeﬀ, M.J. Duﬀ, C.N. Pope and E. Sezgin, the Eleven-Dimensional Supermembrane, Phys. Lett. B 224 (1989) 71. [52] M.R. Douglas, Branes within branes [hep-th/9512077]. [53] C.M. Hull and P.K. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. B 438 (1995) 109 [hep-th/9410167]. [54] A.A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B 469 (1996) 51 [hep-th/9602064]. [55] M.B. Green and M. Gutperle, Phys. Lett. B 377 (1996) 28 [hep-th/9602077]. [56] M.R. Douglas and M. Li, D-brane realization of N=2 superYang-Mills theory in four- dimensions [hep-th/9604041]. [57] N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 431 (1994) 484 [hep-th/9408099]. [58] M. Dine and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B 409 (1997) 239 [hep-th/9705057]. [59] M.R. Douglas, D. Kabat, P. Pouliot and S.H. Shenker, Nucl. Phys. B 485 (1997) 85 [hep-th/9608024]. [60] M.R. Douglas and W. Taylor, Branes in the bulk of Anti-de Sitter space [hep-th/9807225]. [61] S.R. Das, Holograms of branes in the bulk and acceleration terms in SYM eﬀective action [hep-th/9905037]. [62] S.R. Das, JHEP 02 (1999) 012 [hep-th/9901004]. [63] A. Kehagias, Phys. Lett. B 435 (1998) 337 [hep-th/9805131]. [64] S.S. Gubser, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 025006 [hep-th/9807164]. [65] L.J. Romans, Phys. Lett. B 153 (1985) 392. [66] L. Susskind and E. Witten, The Holographic bound in anti-de Sitter space [hep-th/9805114]. [67] O. Aharony and E. Witten, JHEP 11 (1998) 018 [hep-th/9807205]. [68] E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 505 [hep-th/9803131]. [69] F. Gonzalez-Rey, B. Kulik, I.Y. Park and M. Rocek, Nucl. Phys. B 544 (1999) 218 [hep-th/9810152]. [70] J. Bagger and J. Wess, Supersymmetry and Supergravity, Princeton Series in Physics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992). [71] O. Bergman, Nucl. Phys. B 525 (1998) 104 [hep-th/9712211]. [72] K. Hashimoto, H. Hata and N. Sasakura, Phys. Lett. B 431 (1998) 303 [hep-th/9803127]. [73] T. Kawano and K. Okuyama, Phys. Lett. B 432 (1998) 338 [hep-th/9804139]. [74] O. Bergman and B. Kol, Nucl. Phys. B 536 (1998) 149 [hep-th/9804160]. [75] K. Hashimoto, H. Hata and N. Sasakura, Nucl. Phys. B 535 (1998) 83 [hep-th/9804164]. [76] K. Lee and P. Yi, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 066005 [hep-th/9804174]. [77] N. Sasakura and S. Sugimoto, M theory description of 1/4 BPS states in N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory [hep-th/9811087]. [78] D. Tong, A Note on 1/4 BPS states [hep-th/9902005]. [79] M. Gunaydin, D. Minic and M. Zagermann, Novel supermultiplets of SU (2, 2|4) and the AdS5 /CFT4 duality [hep-th/9810226]. [80] M. Gunaydin and N. Marcus, Class. Quant. Grav. 2 (1985) L11. [81] L. Andrianopoli and S. Ferrara, Phys. Lett. B 430 (1998) 248 [hep-th/9803171].

378

Unity from Duality: Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings

[82] L. Andrianopoli and S. Ferrara, Lett. Math. Phys. 46 (1998) 265 [hep-th/9807150]. [83] S. Ferrara and A. Zaﬀaroni, Bulk gauge ﬁelds in AdS supergravity and supersingletons [hep-th/9807090]. [84] M. Gunaydin, D. Minic and M. Zagermann, Nucl. Phys. B 534 (1998) 96 [hep-th/9806042]. [85] L. Andrianopoli and S. Ferrara, On Short and Long SU (2, 2/4) Multiplets in the AdS/CFT Correspondence [hep-th/9812067]. [86] M. Flato and C. Fronsdal, Lett. Math. Phys. 2 (1978) 421. [87] C. Fronsdal and M. Flato, Phys. Lett. B 97 (1980) 236. [88] M. Flato and C. Fronsdal, J. Math. Phys. 22 (1981) 1100. [89] E. Angelopoulos, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal and D. Sternheimer, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 1278. [90] H. Nicolai and E. Sezgin, Phys. Lett. B 143 (1984) 389. [91] M. Gunaydin and N. Marcus, Class. Quant. Grav. 2 (1985) L19. [92] M. Flato and C. Fronsdal, Phys. Lett. B 172 (1986) 412. [93] S. Ferrara and C. Fronsdal, Class. Quant. Grav. 15 (1998) 2153 [hep-th/9712239]. [94] S. Ferrara and C. Fronsdal, Lett. Math. Phys. 46 (1998) 157 [hep-th/9806072]. [95] S. Ferrara and C. Fronsdal, Phys. Lett. B 433 (1998) 19 [hep-th/9802126]. [96] V.G. Kac, Representations of classical Lie superalgebras, Proceedings, Diﬀerential Geometrical Methods In Mathematical Physics.Ii (Berlin 1977), 597 [97] V.K. Dobrev and V.B. Petkova, Fortschr. Phys. 35 (1987) 537. [98] V.K. Dobrev and V.B. Petkova, Phys. Lett. B 162 (1985) 127. [99] N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 67 (1998) 158 [hep-th/9705117]. [100] S. Minwalla, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 781 [hep-th/9712074]. [101] S. Ferrara, C. Fronsdal and A. Zaﬀaroni, Nucl. Phys. B 532 (1998) 153 [hep-th/9802203]. [102] S. Ferrara, M.A. Lledo and A. Zaﬀaroni, Phys. Rev. D 58