Abstract
I propose a generalization of the Liouville action which corresponds to the Nambu-Goto
string like the usual Liouville action corresponds to the Polyakov string.
The two differ by higher-derivative terms which are negligible classically but revive quantumly.
Based on the equivalence with the four-derivative action I argue that
the Nambu-Goto string in four dimensions is described by the (4,3) minimal model analogously
to the critical Ising model on a dynamical lattice.
While critical indices are the same as in the usual Liouville theory, the domain of applicability becomes broader.
I Introduction
Strings are with us! A string is generically a one-dimensional object whose propagation
in time forms a two-dimensional surface embedded in -dimensional space-time
(we live in ). The origin of
modern string theory goes back to early 1970’s when it was
recognized that the dual resonance models of strong interaction are described by strings.
Thus relativistic quantum strings do exist at the distances of the order of one fermi. There are vast
applications of strings and two-dimensional surfaces in physics: biological membranes,
cosmic strings, Abrikosov and Nielsen-Olesen vortices etc..
The beauty of bosonic string theory is a simplicity of its action – the area spanned by
a string propagation – as proposed by Y. Nambu with T. Goto and also by H.B. Nielsen
at the border of 1960’s and 1970’s.
It looks very simple but this is an illusion. Area is a highly nonlinear
functional of target-space coordinates which is invariant under diffeomorphism
transformations of two coordinates parametrizing the string world-sheet. To quantize
such a system the symmetry has to be constrained by fixing a gauge, like it happens
in quantum electrodynamics. The string quantization of 1970’s has resulted in a
very beautiful theory enjoying conformal symmetry which becomes
infinite-dimensional in two dimensions and whose
generators obey the Virasoro algebra. However, the canonical
quantization was consistent only in .
In early 1980’s A.M. Polyakov recognized that the reason for this was an additional degree of
freedom – one of the components of the metric tensor
at the world-sheet – which does not decouple if . Its dynamics is governed
for the Polyakov string [1] by the Liouville action
(the field is accordingly called the Liouville field).
Quantization of the Polyakov string is more easy than of the Nambu-Goto string because
the action is quadratic in and enjoys Weyl’s invariance which makes conformal
symmetry manifest.
The equivalence of the Nambu-Goto and Polyakov
string formulations was shown in classical theory and at the one-loop order [2] of the
perturbative expansion in
the inverse string tension . An exact solution of the quantum Liouville theory
was found by KPZ-DDK [4, 5, 6] using the methods of conformal field theory (CFT).
It allows to compute the so-called string susceptibility index which determines
the large-area behavior of the number of surfaces of genus .
The result for closed Polyakov’s string reads
|
|
|
(1) |
with , . It is real for that describes a vast amount of
models in Statistical Mechanics, in particular, describes the susceptibility index of
the critical Ising model on a random lattice [7], but is not applicable for
where (1) becomes imaginary. A pessimistic point of view (shared by some of my
colleagues in 1990’s) is that is a barrier for the existence of bosonic string which
does not exist nonperturbatively if including or . A more optimistic view supported
by the recent studies [8, 9, 10] of the spectrum
of “effective strings” is that the problem may
exist only for the Polyakov string rather than for the Nambu-Goto string. Anyway the
challenging problem of existence of nonperturbative strings is
inherited from the previous Millennium along with turbulence and confinement.
I argue in this Letter that Eq. (1) may still hold for the Nambu-Goto string
in with the KPZ barriers shifted to
. Then like for the critical
Ising model on a dynamical lattice [7] which for the Polyakov string was described
by . It works now in because , linking conformal symmetry
of the Nambu-Goto string to the
(4,3) unitary minimal model. The arguments are based on the equivalence
of the effective action with the four-derivative Liouville action exactly
solved [11] previously. Both theories are conformal invariant in spite of the
presence of mass parameters.
I now proceed with the description of this equivalence.
II Generalized conformal anomaly
The standard representation of the Nambu-Goto string via auxiliary fields
which I learned from [12] is
|
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
where the (imaginary) Lagrange multiplier is a tensor density
and is an independent metric tensor. I use the units where the bare string tension
is set to 1.
The action (2) becomes
quadratic in that makes it easy to path-integrate out.
For a closed string this results in an effective action
|
|
|
(3) |
where
|
|
|
|
|
(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
and terms of higher-order in Schwinger’s proper-time ultraviolet cutoff
are dropped like they are dropped in the derivation of the Liouville action from the Polyakov string.
Equation (4) has been derived [13] from the DeWitt-Seeley expansion
of the operator which becomes the Laplacian for
with constant , reproducing the results for the Polyakov string. Thus Eq. (4) generalizes the usual conformal anomaly.
One has for the Nambu-Goto string but I keep arbitrary for generality.
The action (4) is nonlocal just as in the case of the Polyakov string. It becomes local in
the conformal gauge
|
|
|
(5) |
where is the background (or fiducial) metric tensor and
the Liouville field is a dynamical variable.
Fixing the gauge produces the usual ghosts and their usual contribution
to the effective action after path-integrating over the ghosts.
A subtlety which
will be crucial in what follows is that the curvature acquires the shift
|
|
|
(6) |
where is the Laplacian for the metric tensor . It
vanishes only if the background curvature vanishes.
This produces an additional nonminimal interaction of with background gravity.
As always in Euclidean
CFT we use conformal coordinates and in a flat background when
, . Then the action (4) takes the form
|
|
|
|
|
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where as follows from (4), but it may be renormalized.
In the action (7)
is the covariant derivative in the conformal gauge and it
describes a theory with interaction.
The representation of the case by an auxiliary field [14] is
reproduced as .
It is tempting to path integrate over expanding about the
value minimizing the action (7)
with .
However, nothing is expected to depend on because of the background
independence. I often keep the same notation for the fluctuations
about when no confusion.
The path integral over has then a saddle point justified
by the smallness of at
|
|
|
(8) |
and analogously for .
It is slightly different with which naively is not from
(7). However, we should not forget the linear in term
entering also the classical part of the action (7), which causes the renormalization
of the bare string tension in the scaling regime [15]. We thus have
|
|
|
(9) |
which is again for finite . In fact the term with will
never be essential in what follows because we are interested in anomalous
contributions which come from large virtual momenta .
Thus in the saddle-point approximation we arrive at the
four-derivative action
|
|
|
(10) |
|
|
|
|
|
where
|
|
|
(11) |
It is precisely the action exactly solved in [11].
It is clear from Eqs. (8) and (9) that the presence of the dimensionful parameter
was crucial in the passage from (7) to (10) where it becomes .
I refer to each of these actions as “massive” CFT because its energy-momentum tensor
(EMT) will be concerved and traceless in spite of the presence of the mass parameters.
Equations (8) and (9) for the saddle-point values of is not the end of
the story because of the next orders in coming from the expansion of . But these terms are at least quartic in
and thus are expected not to change the one-loop results while
they may contribute to the next orders.
I shall now apply a more sophisticated technique of CFT to go toward proving the equivalence of
the actions (4) and (10).
III Improved energy-momentum tensor
The central role in CFT is played by the traceless EMT.
It is derived by applying the variational derivative to the action in curved background which produces terms additional to the part associated to minimal
interaction with gravity. It was called [16] “improved” to be distinguished from
the minimal one and used by KPZ-DDK in solving the Liouville theory. A specifics of the
“improvement” in two dimensions is outlined in [17].
A very nice feature of the improved EMT (IEMT) is that it is always traceless
thanks to
the classical equation of motion for . This is
a general property because in the conformal gauge (5)
we have
|
|
|
(12) |
where the left-hand side represents the trace of IEMT
while the right-hand side represents the classical equation of motion for .
The components of the symmetric minimal EMT obeying
read
|
|
|
|
(13a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13b) |
|
|
|
|
|
This EMT is conserved but not traceless.
IEMT is given by the sum
of the minimal EMT and the addition with the component
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14b) |
In covariant notations it reads
|
|
|
|
|
(15) |
|
|
|
|
|
where we set to simplify the formulas, and obeys
,
thanks to the classical equations of motion.
IEMT is thus conserved and traceless as expected in spite of the massive parameter !
A price for that is the nonlocal term (14b).
This is just as was discovered in [18] for the action (10).
The conservation and tracelessness of IEMT (15) at the classical level follows from
|
|
|
|
|
(16) |
|
|
|
|
|
In quantum theory the variations of are no longer zeros but
are substituted by
the variational derivatives with respect to the corresponding fields in the path integral.
For the generator of the (infinitesimal) conformal transformation this yields
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classically it produces
the right transformation laws of and whose
components , , have
conformal weights , , , respectively.
IV “Massive” versus massless CFT
The one-loop computation of the central charge and conformal weights can be performed
by the propagators
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18a) |
|
|
|
|
|
(18b) |
|
|
|
|
|
(18c) |
where and are given by Eq. (11).
We see that has mass squared and
does not propagate to large distances
what was the
original Polyakov’s agrument [19] for the equivalence of the two string formulations.
However, like shown in [18] for the action (10),
a private life of ’s which occurs at the distances of order of the cutoff
is seen nevertheless at macroscopic distances as a result of doing the uncertainty
where cuts momentum-space integrals and
is the coupling of interaction between and . This is like an appearance
of anomalies in quantum field theory (QFT).
It is clear that the terms involving in (15) (or (13a) plus
(14a)) do not contribute to the central charge because of massiveness, except for
the nonlocal term (14b) which does contribute in a full analogy
with the four-derivative Liouville theory [18].
Its computation drastically simplifies when
the generator of the conformal transformation is represented by Eq. (LABEL:hatdel) which
accounts for tremendous cancellations in the quantum case,
while there are subtleties associated with singular products emerging in the averages
like in the definition of the central charge ,
|
|
|
(19) |
The normal ordering has to be implemented in .
With or without a little use of Mathematica we obtain
|
|
|
(20) |
where
the singular product does not vanish as naively expected,
but equals [20]
|
|
|
(21) |
Equation (19)
then contributes the additional to the central charge
which is the same as for the four-derivative action (10), so we have
shown how the terms of higher orders in maintain the equivalence of
(7) and (10) at one loop as anticipated.
By making use of the method of singular products it is tempting to repeat the arguments
of [11] that like for the action (10) the intelligent one loop will give
an exact answer in our case as well. I call this way the procedure proposed
by DDK [5, 6]
for solving the usual Liouville theory where is simply multiplied by
a parameter describing a renormalization of the nonminimal interaction.
The arguments rely on cancellations of skeleton diagrams which is
represented by Eq. (LABEL:hatdel).
We then would obtain for the additional contribution to the central charge to all loops.
The vanishing of the total central charge would then require
|
|
|
(22) |
recovering DDK for .
The second equation that fixes the conformal weight of
to be 1 remains unchanged
|
|
|
(23) |
what is easily seen from the propagators (18) when .
Like for the four-derivative action
the nonlocal term in does not contribute to the conformal weight.
In fact there exists a whole family of primary operators with the weights 1
thanks to Eq. (23), including a renormalized version of .
In this family only is not renormalized by the interaction.
The difference between massless and “massive” CFT’s is explicitly seen in the pure case
where in the massless case of there are two massless fields contributing 2 to
the central charge [14], while in our case of only their combination
remains massless and contributes 1 to .
In “massive” CFT conformal symmetry holds for all distances, not only for the distances
where the standard CFT technique of BPZ [21] applies.
In contrast to CFT without diffeomphism invariance,
the value of can now be compensated by a shift of .
For this reason I believe that Eqs. (22), (23) remain
valid not only for but also for finite .
The solution to Eqs. (22), (23) will be now described.
V Relation to minimal models
For the Nambu-Goto string we have from (11).
Kee** in mind applications of the four-derivative Lioville action (10) in other cases,
let us consider arbitrary .
From Eqs. (22), (23) renormalizes to
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24a) |
|
|
|
|
|
(24b) |
and is as in Eq. (1) with
the KPZ barriers shifted to given by (24b).
The values of depend on which has to lie in the interval for the
the action (10) to be stable.
Then is real for which increases from 1 at to 19 at .
For we have
as is already annonced in Introduction,
so is real in . Remarkably, the value
is associated in with the , unitary minimal model as
it will be momentarily discussed.
To find the relation to minimal models we note that
the operators
|
|
|
(25) |
are the BPZ null-vectors for integer and like in the usual Liouville theory [22].
Their conformal weights
|
|
|
(26) |
are derived like (23) and
reproduce Kac’s spectrum of CFT with the central charge
|
|
|
(27) |
where is given by Eq. (24a). This is the central charge
of the Virasoro algebra and not to be confused with the central
charge of (or the sum of those of and ’s for the
Nambu-Goto string).
The relation with the minimal models is established by choosing
|
|
|
(28) |
Then Eqs. (24a), (27) fix
|
|
|
(29) |
with coprime . In the usual Liouville theory where
Eq. (29) would imply for
the central charge of matter, but is
a free parameter for . The inequalities in (29) guarantee as
is necessary for stability. Contrary to the Liouville theory now Kac’s .
Given (29) we finally find from Eq. (24a)
|
|
|
(30) |
that applies for .
The perturbative branch is as in the usual
Liouville theory, but the second branch is no longer
interchangeable
with it.
There are no obstacles against for the unitary case [23] !
The barriers coincide (both equal 19) for
( for ).
For from the interval we have and is real.