4.7 Article

Higher-derivative field redefinitions in the presence of boundary

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
卷 82, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10611-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses the restrictions on field redefinitions and corrections to T-duality transformations imposed by boundary conditions. By imposing O(1, 1) and O(d, d) symmetry, the coefficients of gauge invariant bulk and boundary couplings in bosonic string theory are determined.
Recently it has been proposed that the consistency with T-duality requires the effective action of string theory at order alpha '(n) to satisfy the least action principle provided that the values of the massless fields and their derivatives up to order n are known on the boundary. In this paper we speculate that this boundary condition constrains the field redefinitions and the corrections to the T-duality transformations in the presence of boundary, e.g., at order alpha ', the metric does not change, and all other massless fields should change to include only the first derivative of the massless fields. Using the above restricted field redefinitions, we write all gauge invariant bulk and boundary couplings in the bosonic string theory at order alpha ' in aminimal scheme. Then using the assumption that the effective action of string theory at the critical dimension is background independent, we fix the coefficients of the tree-level gauge invariant couplings by imposing O(1, 1) symmetry when the background has a circle and by imposing O(d, d) symmetry when the background has T-d. These constraints fix the bulk action up to an overall factor, and the boundary action up to two parameters. By requiring the gravity couplings in the boundary action to be consistent with those in the Chern-Simons gravity, the two boundary parameters are also fixed. Up to a restricted field redefinition, the bulk and boundary couplings are exactly those in the K.A. Meissner action and its corresponding boundary action.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据