M-Theory: Bosonic Fields - Need Help With Part III

In summary, the conversation discusses the variation of a certain action with respect to the metric and a 3-form field. The resulting field equation is derived and compared to the stress-energy tensor of the 3-form field. The conversation also includes a discussion on the classic trick for diagonalizable matrices and the use of the divergence theorem in the derivation.
  • #1
ergospherical
1,072
1,363
Need help with part iii)

1624800784728.png


i) Under ##C \rightarrow C + d\Lambda##, and since ##dG = d^2C = 0 \implies d(\Lambda \wedge G \wedge G) = d\Lambda \wedge G \wedge G##, then neglecting the surface terms\begin{align*}
\int_D d\Lambda \wedge G \wedge G = \int_D d(\Lambda \wedge G \wedge G) &= \int_{\partial D} \Lambda \wedge G \wedge G = 0
\end{align*}ii) Varying with respect to the metric\begin{align*}
\delta S = \dfrac{1}{2}M^9 \int d^{11}x \left[\delta\sqrt{-g} \left(R - \dfrac{1}{48}G_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}G^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} \right) + \sqrt{-g} \delta R \right]
\end{align*}Using the classic trick for diagonalisable matrices ##\delta \sqrt{-g} = \dfrac{1}{2\sqrt{-g}} (-g) \mathrm{tr}(g^{-1} \delta g) = \dfrac{-1}{2} \sqrt{-g} g_{\mu \nu} \delta g^{\mu \nu}##. Meanwhile for the Ricci scalar\begin{align*}

\delta R = \delta (g^{\mu \nu} R_{\mu \nu}) &= g^{\mu \nu} \delta R_{\mu \nu} + \delta g^{\mu \nu}R_{\mu \nu} \\

&= \nabla_{\mu} [g^{\rho \nu} \delta \Gamma^{\mu}_{\rho \nu} - g^{\mu \nu} \delta \Gamma^{\rho}_{\nu \rho}] + \delta g^{\mu \nu} R_{\mu \nu}

\end{align*}Therefore the Einstein equation should be\begin{align*}
\dfrac{-1}{2} g_{\alpha \beta} \left(R - \dfrac{1}{48}G_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}G^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} \right) + R_{\alpha \beta} &= 0 \\

\end{align*}Is this correct?

iii) Little progress made, hints appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
From which paper/book/lecture notes is this taken from?
 
  • #4
ergospherical said:
Need help with part iii)
Therefore the Einstein equation should be [tex]\begin{align*}
\dfrac{-1}{2} g_{\alpha \beta} \left(R - \dfrac{1}{48}G_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}G^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} \right) + R_{\alpha \beta} &= 0 \\
\end{align*}[/tex] Is this correct?
No. The field equation should be of the form [tex]R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R \propto T_{\mu\nu}(G),[/tex] where, [itex]T_{\mu\nu}(G)[/itex] is the energy-momentum tensor of the 4-form field [itex]G[/itex]. Try to practise with the action [tex]S = \int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g} \left( R - \frac{1}{4}F^{2}\right),[/tex] where [tex]F^{2} = F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} = g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\rho\sigma} .[/tex]

ergospherical said:
iii) Little progress made, hints appreciated.
The relevant part of the action is [tex]- \frac{1}{2(4!)}\int d^{11}x \ \sqrt{-g} \ G^{2} - \frac{1}{6} \int C \wedge dC \wedge dC .[/tex] For the first integral, the variation gives you [tex]- \frac{1}{4!} \int d^{11} \sqrt{-g} \ G^{\mu_{1} \cdots \mu_{4}} (d \delta C)_{\mu_{1} \cdots \mu_{4}},[/tex] which is same as [tex]- \int \ \star G \wedge d(\delta C) = - \int \ d (\delta C) \wedge \star G .[/tex] Now, since [tex]d (\delta C \wedge \star G) = d(\delta C) \wedge \star G - \delta C \wedge d (\star G) ,[/tex] then the variation of the first integral (ignoring boundary integral) is [tex]- \int \ \delta C \wedge d \star G .[/tex]
Similarly, for the second integral, you get [tex]-\frac{1}{6}\left( \int \delta C \wedge G \wedge G + 2 \int d(\delta C) \wedge C \wedge G \right) .[/tex] Integrating the second term by parts, the result of the variation becomes [tex]- \frac{3}{6} \int \delta C \wedge G \wedge G .[/tex] Thus, the vanishing variation of the action with respect to the 3-form [itex]C[/itex] gives [tex]\int \delta C \wedge \left( d \star G + \frac{1}{2} G \wedge G \right) = 0.[/tex] So, for arbitrary 3-form [itex]\delta C[/itex], you get [tex]d \star G + \frac{1}{2} G \wedge G = 0.[/tex]
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes ergospherical and vanhees71
  • #5
samalkhaiat said:
Try to practise with the action [tex]S = \int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g} \left( R - \frac{1}{4}F^{2}\right),[/tex] where ##F^{2} = F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} = g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\rho\sigma}##
I will re-write\begin{align*}
S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left( g^{\mu \nu} R_{\mu \nu} - \dfrac{1}{4} g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\rho\sigma} \right)

\end{align*}then vary ##S## with respect to the metric,\begin{align*}
\delta S &= \int d^4 x \left( R- \dfrac{1}{4}F^2 \right)\delta \sqrt{-g} + \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left( \delta R - \dfrac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F_{\rho\sigma} \delta(g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma})\right)
\end{align*}We have the results:\begin{align*}
\delta \sqrt{-g} &= -\dfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g} g_{\mu \nu} \delta g^{\mu \nu} \\ \\

\delta R &= \delta (g^{\mu \nu} R_{\mu \nu}) = \nabla_{\mu} [g^{\rho \nu} \delta \Gamma^{\mu}_{\rho \nu} - g^{\mu \nu} \delta \Gamma^{\rho}_{\nu \rho}] + \delta g^{\mu \nu} R_{\mu \nu} \\ \\

\delta(g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}) &= g^{\mu \rho} \delta g^{\nu \sigma} + g^{\nu \sigma} \delta g^{\mu \rho}

\end{align*}Ignoring the total derivative using the divergence theorem, the second integral becomes\begin{align*}
I_2 &= \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left( \delta g^{\mu \nu} R_{\mu \nu} -\dfrac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F_{\rho\sigma}(g^{\mu \rho} \delta g^{\nu \sigma} + g^{\nu \sigma} \delta g^{\mu \rho}) \right) \\

&= \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left( R_{\mu \nu} -\dfrac{1}{4} {F^{\rho}}_{\mu}F_{\rho\nu} -\dfrac{1}{4} {F_{\mu}}^{\sigma}F_{\nu\sigma} \right)\delta g^{\mu \nu}
\end{align*}due to the antisymmetry of ##F## it follows that ##{F^{\rho}}_{\mu}F_{\rho\nu} = {F_{\mu}}^{\rho} F_{\nu \rho}##, hence putting ##\delta S = 0## gives\begin{align*}
-\dfrac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} \left( R - \frac{1}{4}F^2 \right) + R_{\mu \nu} -\frac{1}{2} {F_{\mu}}^{\rho}F_{\nu\rho} = 0 \\ \\
\end{align*}which may be rearranged to \begin{align*}
R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2} Rg_{\mu \nu} &= \dfrac{1}{2} \left( {F_{\mu}}^{\rho}F_{\nu\rho} - \frac{1}{4} g_{\mu \nu} F^2 \right)
\end{align*}which does appear to be the stress energy tensor ##T_{\mu \nu}(F)## up to perhaps an erroneous proportionality constant?

samalkhaiat said:
[tex]- \frac{1}{4!} \int d^{11} \sqrt{-g} \ G^{\mu_{1} \cdots \mu_{4}} (d \delta C)_{\mu_{1} \cdots \mu_{4}},[/tex] which is same as [tex]- \int \ \star G \wedge d(\delta C) = - \int \ d (\delta C) \wedge \star G .[/tex]
I'm having some trouble with this part. Defining the tensor ##\epsilon_{\mu_1 \dots \mu_{11}} = \sqrt{-g} [\mu_1 \dots \mu_{11}]## such that the volume element is ##\boldsymbol{\epsilon} = \epsilon_{1\dots 11} d^{11}x = \sqrt{-g} d^{11} x##, \begin{align*}
\int {\star G} \wedge d(\delta C) &= \int d^{11}x \dfrac{11!}{4! 7!} (\star G)_{[1\dots 7} d(\delta C)_{8\dots 11]} \\

&= \int d^{11}x \dfrac{11!}{4! 7!} \dfrac{1}{7!} \epsilon_{[1\dots 7| \alpha \beta \gamma \delta} G^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} (d\delta C)_{|8\dots 11]}
\end{align*}I'm not sure if there's an identity I could use to tidy up the antisymmetrisation?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
ergospherical said:
I'm having some trouble with this part. Defining the tensor ##\epsilon_{\mu_1 \dots \mu_{11}} = \sqrt{-g} [\mu_1 \dots \mu_{11}]## such that the volume element is ##\boldsymbol{\epsilon} = \epsilon_{1\dots 11} d^{11}x = \sqrt{-g} d^{11} x##, \begin{align*}
\int {\star G} \wedge d(\delta C) &= \int d^{11}x \dfrac{11!}{4! 7!} (\star G)_{[1\dots 7} d(\delta C)_{8\dots 11]} \\

&= \int d^{11}x \dfrac{11!}{4! 7!} \dfrac{1}{7!} \epsilon_{[1\dots 7| \alpha \beta \gamma \delta} G^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} (d\delta C)_{|8\dots 11]}
\end{align*}I'm not sure if there's an identity I could use to tidy up the antisymmetrisation?
That mess does not take you anywhere. The proof of following identity can be found in many textbooks [tex]\alpha \wedge \star \beta = \beta \wedge \star \alpha = (\alpha , \beta) \ \epsilon ,[/tex] where [tex](\alpha , \beta) (x) = \frac{1}{p!} \alpha_{\mu_{1} \cdots \mu_{p}}(x) \beta^{\mu_{1} \cdots \mu_{p}}(x) ,[/tex][tex]\epsilon (x) = \sqrt{-g(x)} dx^{0} \wedge \cdots \wedge dx^{n-1} \equiv \sqrt{-g(x)} \ d^{n}x .[/tex]
 
  • Like
Likes ergospherical

FAQ: M-Theory: Bosonic Fields - Need Help With Part III

What is M-theory and how does it relate to bosonic fields?

M-theory is a theoretical framework in physics that attempts to unify all five superstring theories into one overarching theory. It proposes that the fundamental building blocks of the universe are not particles, but rather one-dimensional strings. Bosonic fields are a type of field that are described by bosons, which are particles that have integer spin. M-theory incorporates bosonic fields as one of the building blocks of the universe.

What is the significance of bosonic fields in M-theory?

Bosonic fields play a crucial role in M-theory as they are one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. They are responsible for the interactions between particles and play a key role in the theory's attempts to unify all five superstring theories.

How do bosonic fields differ from fermionic fields?

Bosonic fields are described by bosons, which have integer spin, while fermionic fields are described by fermions, which have half-integer spin. Additionally, bosonic fields are responsible for the forces between particles, while fermionic fields are responsible for the matter particles themselves.

Can you provide an example of a bosonic field in M-theory?

One example of a bosonic field in M-theory is the graviton, which is a hypothetical particle that is responsible for the force of gravity. In M-theory, the graviton is a closed string that can interact with other particles, such as fermions, through its vibrations.

How does M-theory explain the existence of multiple dimensions?

M-theory proposes that there are 11 dimensions in the universe, with 10 of them being spatial dimensions and one being a time dimension. These extra dimensions are necessary for the theory to be mathematically consistent. In M-theory, these extra dimensions are compactified, meaning they are curled up and hidden from our everyday experience, but they still play a crucial role in the interactions between particles.

Similar threads

Back
Top