Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Okay, I have merged the information that used to be in the entry “D-branes” and which wasn’t yet at D-brane into the latter (namely the two comments on D-branes of LG models and the pointer to Kapustin’s article).
Thanks for hard work :)
I had not been aware of the entry D-branes
Surely we all sometimes created the doubles :) Nobody does this regularily, including of course myself, but somehow we should in principle do some Lab search when creating a page for a very common/probable concept. Here the bad circumstance was that the name was in plural, hence more likely to escape the attention.
I am inclined to say that, apart from the plural, here the problem was that the page “D-branes” was not linked to from the relevant entries. Otherwise I would have seen it.
added to D-brane a brief paragraph on D-brane charge in terms of an index in KK-theory.
Should be further expanded later…
I have cleaned it up a bit more.
It should be true that, in full beauty: “the WZW-term” of the D-brane action functional (sometimes called “the Chern-Simons term”) is nothing but the Kronecker pairing in (twisted) differential K-theory.
In def. 1.6 of arXiv:hep-th/0607020 the shadow of this statement in ordinary cohomology is given. Is there any reference that mentiones the full statement?
Here is what I mean: Write for (some version) of multiplicative differential complex K-theory. Let be a smooth manifold. With denoting the “type of string theory” ( for type IIA string theory, and for type IIB string theory) then
for a -brane in is a cycle in differential K-homology ;
an RR-field configuration on is a cocycle in differential KU-cohomology
and the value of the WZW-type action functional of that D-brane in that RR-background should be the Kronecker pairing
in .
Why write the exponent as ?
Sorry, it should have been (fixed now). So for even then the D-branes of IIA are p-branes (in every even degree) and those of IIB are -branes (every odd degree). (The worldvolume is is of dimension one higher.)
Does #8 have something to do with KK-theory then?
the coupling of D-branes and their Chan-Paton bundles in twisted K-theory with RR-charge in string theory is naturally captured by the coupling between K-homology and K-cohomology in KK-theory
KK-theory is one model for KU-(co-)homology. The references cited in the entry on KK-theory discuss mainly the push-forward maps in KU-theory in terms of pairings in KK-theory.
However what I am after in #8 is the WZW-term of the D-branes (e.g. def. 4.4 in arXiv:1606.03206). I am thinking this should be equivalently the (Kronecker) pairing, whith relative degree 1 of the homology cycle of a D-brane against the cohomology cocycle of the background RR-field, in differential KU-theory. This is a statement that I don’t see in existing literature. In def. 1.6 of arXiv:hep-th/0607020 the explicit formula is given in K-theoretic terms, but not as an intrinsically differential K-theoretic pairing construction.
What I am really after is this: the brane bouquet gives a derivation from first principles of Dp-branes with (twisted) complex line bundles on their worldvolume and equipped with that WZW-functional
where is manifold of dimension whose boundary is the given Dp-brane wordvolume, where is the way that the D-brane sits in spacetime, and where denote the backrground RR-field strengths.
One observes that, rationally, this functional is invariant under forming the “external tensor product” with the canonical line bundle on with curvature , in that for then the above functional becomes
Hence it makes sense to consider the “quotient” of the moduli of complex line bundles on the D-branes by this relation, since the functional that we are interested in descends to this “quotient”. More precisely, this means saying that multiplying with the “Bott generator” should be invertible. Now Snaith’s theorem says that the result of starting with complex line bundles and then inverting the multiplication with the Bott generator is complex K-theory
I’d like to turn this argument into an alternative “derivation”, starting from just the brane bouquet, that D-brane charge is in K-theory.
And you have a parallel for much of this for M-branes?
Returning to the more ambitious route via spectral supergeometry, there would need to be a spectral group scheme to play the role of ? Then successive extensions of this group scheme would lead inexorably to and the M-brane spectrum?
And you have a parallel for much of this for M-branes?
I have the rational story for the M-branes and for the D-branes and we know the non-rational answer for the D-branes. If I knew a systematic way to deduce the non-rational answer for the D-branes from the rational version (some general principle), then the analogous systematics applied to the rational M-branes should give the non-rational M-branes, which is currently an open problem.
Returning to the more ambitious route via spectral supergeometry, there would need to be a spectral group scheme to play the role of ℝ 0|1\mathbb{R}^{0|1}? Then successive extensions of this group scheme would lead inexorably to KU$ and the M-brane spectrum?
That’s a guess I have expressed, yes. But for the moment it’s just that, a guess.
Here is a more polished way to state the observation in #12.
So consider the D-brane cocycles, say in type IIA (just for definiteness of notation):
(with notation and conventions from here).
By the process of differential Lie integration, the cocoycles
yield global WZW terms (here)
where is a super-2-group extension of the super-Minkowski group by , fitting into a homotopy fiber sequence of the form
(this example).
Now consider the “differential Bott generator” in this context, the map
where “1” is the map that modulates the circle-principal connection on the sphere with unit first Chern class and curvature 2-form the volume form, where the second morphism is the inclusion from the above extension diagram, and where the last morphism is the product in the 2-group.
The hom-adjunct of this morphism is a map
Finally consider the transgression of the D(p+2)-cocycle on the 2-sphere, given by the composite
Using this we may now state a “Bott periodicity” among the Dp-brane cocycles: I think it is true that coincides with the 2-sphere transgression of composed with the “differential Bott generator”, i.e. that
The argument for why this is true is that is given by the Lie integration of the cocycle , with local data given by integrals of the differential form obtained from this by substituting differential forms for the CE-generators, in particular by substituting the curvature 2-form for . Now for maps in the image of the above composite with , then
where the first summand is some contribution and the second summand is the volume form on the 2-sphere. Under the integral involved in the transgression map, the component in which is linear in that form is picked out, and that component is simply .
I should check carefully that this arguments holds water, but I think it looks good.
So this is then the idea that I am after:
Observe that the Dp-brane WZW terms obtained from the brane bouquet (hence “from first principles”) enjoy this extra “differential Bott periodicity” condition
Then somehow argue that, therefore, we should “quotient out” this “symmetry” of the joint WZW term (it’s standard to pass a Lagrangian to the “reduced phase space” obtained by quotienting out all its symmetries from the original phase space, one just needs to be careful to read this Bott periodicity as a symmetry in this sense, but I suppose it looks like it should make sense). In conclusion this discovers essentially the quotient operation that Snaith’s theorem shows turns into . Well, up to some handwaving for the moment. I should still say how the passage to spectra via before “quotienting” is motivated from te brane bouquet story.
Is that systematic enough to help with
If I knew a systematic way to deduce the non-rational answer for the D-branes from the rational version (some general principle), then the analogous systematics applied to the rational M-branes should give the non-rational M-branes ?
Not yet. There is the open issue that I mentioned at the end. And, worse, I realize now that there is a gap even in the argment that I sketched: the second clause of the condition here is not satisfied, unless one makes some adjustments. Not sure. For that purpose it might be better to consider the cocycles on AdS and then take the contraction limit. Unfortunately in this case I am not sure exactly how the D-brane cocycles behave.
1 to 17 of 17