Tachyon vacuum in Schnabl gauge in level truncation

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lect.3 Modeling in The Time Domain Basil Hamed
Advertisements

Summing planar diagrams
Introduction to Molecular Orbitals
MANE 4240 & CIVL 4240 Introduction to Finite Elements
ECIV 201 Computational Methods for Civil Engineers Richard P. Ray, Ph.D., P.E. Error Analysis.
1 Interacting Higher Spins on AdS(D) Mirian Tsulaia University of Crete.
Copyright © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. Martin Mendez UASLP Chapter 61 Unit II.
Review of Matrix Algebra
Antonio RagoUniversità di Milano Techniques for automated lattice Feynman diagram calculations 1 Antonio RagoUniversità di Milano Techniques for automated.
Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems
Intersections between Open String Field Theory and condensed matter
2009 Mathematics Standards of Learning Training Institutes Algebra II Virginia Department of Education.
Copyright © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. 1 Part 2 Roots of Equations Why? But.
Charting the OSFT landscape: Boundary state from classical solutions Carlo Maccaferri Torino University (with M. Kudrna and M. Schnabl) & Work.
ME451 Kinematics and Dynamics of Machine Systems Numerical Solution of DAE IVP Newmark Method November 1, 2013 Radu Serban University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Finite Element Method.
Copyright © 2014, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Polynomials and Rational Functions Copyright © 2014, 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.
August 6, 2007 基研研究会@近畿大学 1 Comments on Solutions for Nonsingular Currents in Open String Field Theories Isao Kishimoto I. K., Y. Michishita, arXiv:
Integration of 3-body encounter. Figure taken from
6. Introduction to Spectral method. Finite difference method – approximate a function locally using lower order interpolating polynomials. Spectral method.
Chapter 3 Roots of Equations. Objectives Understanding what roots problems are and where they occur in engineering and science Knowing how to determine.
GASYUKU2002,Kyoto-U @ KAGA 1 Computing Feynman Graphs in MSFT Isao Kishimoto (Univ. of Tokyo) based on Collaboration with I.Bars and Y.Matsuo [ hep-th/ ]
The Quantum Theory of Atoms and Molecules The Schrödinger equation and how to use wavefunctions Dr Grant Ritchie.
On the ghost sector of OSFT Carlo Maccaferri SFT09, Moscow Collaborators: Loriano Bonora, Driba Tolla.
PHYS 773: Quantum Mechanics February 6th, 2012
Relationship between marginal deformation parameters in OSFT and boundary CFT 村田 仁樹 (Masaki Murata) with Matej Kudrna and Martin Schnabl Institute of Physics.
Lecture 22 Numerical Analysis. Chapter 5 Interpolation.
Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. 1 Chapter 27.
Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 7 th Edition Peter V. O’Neil © 2012 Cengage Learning Engineering. All Rights Reserved. CHAPTER 4 Series Solutions.
In Chapters 6 and 8, we will see how to use the integral to solve problems concerning:  Volumes  Lengths of curves  Population predictions  Cardiac.
Univ.1 Idempotency Equation and Boundary States in Closed String Field Theory Isao Kishimoto (Univ. of Tokyo → KEK) Collaboration.
Martin Schnabl Institute of Physics, Prague Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic ICHEP, July 22, 2010.
1 SYSTEM OF LINEAR EQUATIONS BASE OF VECTOR SPACE.
Martin Schnabl Collaborators: T. Erler, C. Maccaferri, M. Murata, M. Kudrna, Y. Okawa and M. Rapčák Institute of Physics AS CR SPC2013, Sichuan University,
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS I. Introduction Numerical analysis is concerned with the process by which mathematical problems are solved by the operations.
1 CHAP 3 WEIGHTED RESIDUAL AND ENERGY METHOD FOR 1D PROBLEMS FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Nam-Ho Kim.
Trigonometric Identities
WARM UP Find each equation, determine whether the indicated pair (x, y) is a solution of the equation. 2x + y = 5; (1, 3) 4x – 3y = 14; (5, 2)
Chapter 7. Classification and Prediction
Root Finding Methods Fish 559; Lecture 15 a.
Chapter 7 Matrix Mathematics
Analytic Results in Open String Field Theory
Gauss-Siedel Method.
Adjoint sector of MQM at finite N
MANE 4240 & CIVL 4240 Introduction to Finite Elements
Perturbation method, lexicographic method
Chapter 22.
THE METHOD OF LINES ANALYSIS OF ASYMMETRIC OPTICAL WAVEGUIDES Ary Syahriar.
Trigonometric Identities
Quantum One.
MATRICES AND DETERMINANTS
Interpolation.
Autar Kaw Benjamin Rigsby
Class Notes 18: Numerical Methods (1/2)
Chapter 6.
Solution of Equations by Iteration
Polynomial and Rational Functions
Chapter 27.
Quantum Two.
Analytic Solutions in Open String Field Theory
Linear Equations in Linear Algebra
Warm-up: Solve the inequality and graph the solution set. x3 + 2x2 – 9x  18 HW: pg (4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 30, 34, 46, 52, 68, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88)
Nonlinear regression.
TECHNIQUES OF INTEGRATION
SKTN 2393 Numerical Methods for Nuclear Engineers
Chapter 6.
Linear Equations in Linear Algebra
1 Newton’s Method.
Pivoting, Perturbation Analysis, Scaling and Equilibration
Quantum One.
Presentation transcript:

Tachyon vacuum in Schnabl gauge in level truncation Matěj Kudrna Institute of Physics AS CR in collaboration with Aldo Arroyo 12 February 2018 HRI, Allahabad, India

Introduction Tachyon vacuum is the basic solution in bosonic OSFT, which describes D-brane decay through tachyon condensation. As universal solution it can be found on any D-brane system. The first tachyon vacuum solution was found numerically in Siegel gauge. Subsequently several improvements of precision has shown that it satisfies Sen´s first conjecture with great precision. The first analytic solution was found by M. Schnabl [hep- th/0511286] and it was followed by several generalizations in terms of KBc algebra.

In this work we attempt to reproduce Schnabl´s solution in level truncation. These calculations were initiated by A. Arroyo et al. [hep- th/1707.09452]. They evaluated the tachyon vacuum solution to level 10 and made several predictions about its behaviour at higher levels. We will test these predictions and compare the numerical solution both with the analytic and Siegel gauge solution. We can hope to get some information about validity and convergence properties of the level truncation approach in general.

Gauge choice in level truncation The bosonic OSFT action has well known gauge symmetry We expand the string field in basis of L0 eigenstates In this basis the action is given by cubic polynomial in ti Gauge symmetry and L0 do not commute ⇒ the exact symmetry is broken.

It is possible to solve the corresponding equations of motion without any gauge fixing. Due to the broken symmetry we find a discrete set of solutions, but the level truncation scheme becomes unstable ⇒ the gauge must be fixed.

The most common (and most convenient) gauge is the Siegel gauge The gauge condition is level-independent. It can be easily implemented by removing states with c0 from the spectrum or by restriction to SU(1,1) singlet states in the ghost BCFT. The Schnabl gauge condition is given by where It does not commute with L0, which makes it more difficult to implement.

Solving equations of motion in Schnabl gauge The gauge condition translates to linear constraints on coefficients of the string field. In matrix form we can write them as We have to solve both the equations of motion and the constraints ⇒ the system of equations becomes overdetermined. It is possible to satisfy only projected set of equations while the rest must be left unsolved.

However physical solutions must satisfy the missing equations in the infinite level limit and therefore we can use them as consistency check. The matrix G has simplest form in basis given by modes of b and c ghosts. Therefore the generic element of our string field will is Other possible bases in ghost sector (in terms of ghost Virasoros or ghost current) would lead to more complicated matrix G.

After some linear algebra and column rearrangement the matrix G can be written as This form allows us to divide the variables into independent and dependent set. The independent variables can be chosen so that they agree with Siegel gauge. Now we have to choose projector on the equations of motion. In principle different choices are possible as long as they give the same number of equations as variables.

For example Kishimoto and Takahashi used Siegel gauge projector in their calculations in a-gauge. The most natural choice comes from substition of the dependent variables into the action Then we obtain the equations of motion by variation of the reduced action Unfortunately this cannot be done explicitly, because we store the cubic vertices only in factorized form

However we can derive formula for projector on the equations of motion We solve the equations iteratively by Newton´s method where f(t) are the full equations and M(t) their Jacobian. The Newton´s method for the projected equations takes form

Observables and extrapolations For universal solutions we compute only two gauge invariant observables: Energy Ellwood invariant As consistency check we also compute the first omitted equation of motion. Both in Siegel and Schnabl gauge it can be expressed as For tachyon vacuum solution all three quantities should converge to zero.

We use extrapolatrions to estimate behaviour of the solutions at infinite level. We use two different functions: Polynomial in 1/L rational function In most cases both options give similar results. The best results are usually given by extrapolation of maximal possible order. For E0 we have to extrapolate levels 4k and 4k+2 separately.

Numerical results Tachyon vacuum observables in Schnabl and Siegel gauge:

Extrapolations of energy in Schnabl gauge (blue) and Siegel gauge (red)

Extrapolations of Ellwood invariant E0

At level 30 in Siegel gauge we have confirmed a prediction by Gaiotto and Rastelli that the energy has minimum at level 28. In Schnabl gauge the solution behaves in similar way and overshoots the correct value. A. Arroyo correctly predicted that the energy has minimum is at level 12. The extrapolation overshoots the correct value again ⇒ low precision or multiple oscillations? Extrapolations work better in Siegel gauge than in Schnabl gauge. The precision is better by one or two orders.

Comparison of selected coefficients of the numerical solution and Schnabl´s solution: We find a rough agreement, but the precision is not very good.

Closer look at the tachyon coefficient Obvious difference between extrapolation and analytic value. A. Arroyo predicted minimum at level 26, the minimum probably exists, but at much higher level. Compared to Siegel gauge the extrapolation changes significantly with increasing maximal level.

Other solutions We can find all possible seeds for Newton‘s method at low levels using homotopy continuation method. We have found all twist even solutions up to level 6 (approximately 226≅ 6.7×107 solutions). Among them there are two stable solutions with energy of order 1. They are quite different from solutions in Siegel gauge. We have also found all non-even solutions up to level 5, but none of them seems to be well-behaved.

Solution number 3 Somewhat similar behaviour to „Double brane“ in Siegel gauge. Large imaginary part ⇒ probably not physical.

Solution number 7 Rare case of real and stable solution. It is plausible that all quantities converge to zero ⇒ it could be gauge transformation of tachyon vacuum.

Summary and Discussion We have developed numerical algorithm which allows us to compute solutions in Schnabl gauge (and possibly also in other gauges). We computed tachyon vacuum solution in Schnabl gauge to level 24. We found correct gauge invariants, but also relatively bad agreement with Schnabl´s solution. Possible resolutions: The solution has different asymptotic behaviour from Siegel gauge – we may need different extrapolation technique.

There is something wrong with the selected equations of motion There is something wrong with the selected equations of motion. We can try to change the projector (for example c0b0 from Siegel gauge) and see whether we obtain better behaviour. Alternatively we can try to find string field that would minimaze violation of the equations instead of solving the projected set. The numerical and analytic solutions differ by gauge transformation.