# Untitled

a guest
Jul 2nd, 2022
15
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
1. PHYSICS BY GPT-J
2.
3. RESULT
4. "Three Fermion Generations from Octonions" Phys. Rev. D 76, 045015 (2007).
5.
6. [^1]: E-mail: fedele.cannata@unibo.it
7.
8. [^2]: E-mail: ejtorres@fisica.uaz.edu.mx
9.
10. [^3]: E-mail: iuri.lizzi@unibo.it
11.
12. [^4]: The scalar curvature $R$ is a combination of the scalar curvature of the underlying space and of the other terms.
13.
14. [^5]: The integral is evaluated over the whole space.
15.
16. [^6]: The multiplicity of roots is not relevant here.
17.
18. [^7]: A positive root of $M_0$ is given by $i\, {\cal M}$ and can be expressed as a combination of the roots $\pm i\, {\cal M}_k$, which are also positive, $\pm \Delta_k\, {\cal M}_k$.
19.
20. [^8]: The parameter $\epsilon$ is related to the compactification scale $\Lambda_{c}$ and to the relation between $R_0$ and $\mu_0$.
21.
22. [^9]: This makes sense only for the choice of a constant scale for the two vectors $Z$ and $\zeta$.
23.
24. [^10]: Strictly speaking, we have to consider separately the case when $c_1<0$, because of the $\frac{1}{c_1}$ factor in the rhs of ($rhos1$). This could be in principle included in the calculations we perform.
25.
26. [^11]: We actually have to normalize the integration measure in this case so that it is 1 at the maximum value of $\xi$ that we are interested in.
27.
28. [^12]: This statement is true for a constant scale for the two vectors $Z$ and $\zeta$ as well.
29.
30. [^13]: In general, one expects $p_4>0$ from unitarity bounds on the scattering of four massless scalar particles in flat Minkowski space.
31.
32. [^14]: This statement is true for a constant scale for the two vectors $Z$ and $\zeta$ as well.
33.
34. [^15]: More explicitly, we are interested in the leading logarithmic approximation in the limit of large $\Lambda_{c}$, with the relative corrections being subleading as $1/\Lambda_{c}$ in this limit.
35.
36. [^16]: If $p_4<0$ this is not possible. The condition ($n$) is necessary for the problem to make sense. If it is not satisfied, one would have $r\le 0$ which is a contradiction.
37.
38. [^17]: An alternative to this method to derive the constraint ($rho$) is to consider the contribution to $W_\mu W^\mu$ from the gauge sector.
39.
40. [^18]: We thank G. Parisi for pointing this out.
41.
42. [^19]: Note that the potential is logarithmically divergent if ${\cal M}^2=0$, i.e. for one of the roots. This does not arise in our analysis since we are only interested in the deep infrared limit of the theory.
43.
44. [^20]: This is the reason why we use the minus sign for the condensate. It makes the eigenvalue equation for the modes to be fulfilled for $s>0$, instead of $s<0$.
45.
46. [^21]: We thank S.S. Gubser for this comment.
47.
48. [^22]: In particular, it can be shown that $\rho$ is constant in the deep infrared limit, which can be taken as a proof of absence of black hole formation in the dual field theory.
49.
50. [^23]: Recall that the condensates are constrained by unitarity. In the case of $\Delta_4$ this constraint is the fact that the four particle scattering cross-section has to be finite. This is not the case of the condensates here.
51.
52. [^24]: In the case $\sigma^\mu=0$ this corresponds to the solution where $f^\prime=1$ and $f$ is a constant. However, the contribution to the action from this solution is zero, due to the cancellation between the contributions from the first and from the last term in ($etamax$).
53.
54. [^25]: This is not the case of the four-vector condensate $\Delta_4$ considered in this paper.
55.
56. [^26]: We thank A. Fring for bringing this to our attention.
57.
58. [^27]: One can alternatively perform the calculation in the eikonal approximation with respect to the angles between the momenta of the condensate and of the gauge bosons.
59.
60. [^28]: If $g=0$, the string theory has an SU(2) symmetry. This is equivalent to a choice of a reference point in the $W$ plane. See also the footnote $sec:su2$.
61.
62. [^29]: Note that in the case of only the gauge fields, $\Delta_4$ is not equal to zero.
63.
64. [^30]: We thank S. S. Gubser for this comment.
65.
66. [^31]: The constant scale $g$ in ($alpha$) is not relevant for the calculation, since it can be included in the normalization of the integral measure.
67.
68. [^32]: We thank J. Casalderrey-Solana for this comment.
69.
70. [^33]: Note that the sum runs only over the positive roots.
71.
72. [^34]: Note that $d_\alpha$ is the positive root of $M_0$ with respect to which we are normalizing the measure, so that the sum runs over the positive roots.
73.
74. [^35]: We thank S. S. Gubser for this comment.
75.
76. [^36]: This holds in particular when $R_0$ is chosen to be negative and smaller than the $AdS_5$ radius, as in our analysis of section $sec:examples$.
77.
78. [^37]: This is easily understood by considering the expression ($eta4$). Note that the ratio $\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g_5}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g_4}}$ is independent of the choice of the coordinates (since they are related only by a conformal transformation) and it is equal to $\sqrt{-g_5}\,\sqrt{-g_4}=\mu^2$ (we are taking the same normalization for the coordinates in ($eta4$) as in ($etamax$)).
79.
80. [^38]: For small values of $r$ (of the order of $\mu^2$), there is a contribution to the potential proportional to $r^2\log(r^2/\mu^2)$. However, this is a finite contribution and is therefore irrelevant for our discussion.
81.
82. [^39]: In fact, in the small radius limit, $W_\mu W^\mu=0$, the expression ($eta4$) can be simplified to $$\eta = \frac{1}{2\, c_1} \, r\, (\, 4 \, \mu^4 - c_1 \, \Delta_2^2 + c_2 \, r^2 \, ) \,. 83. \label{smallr}$$ Note that for $r>0$ there are no contributions from $\Delta_4$ and $\Delta_6$ and that the only relevant contributions come from the first two terms. For this reason, in the above formula, we have included the term proportional to $r^2$. This term makes the r.h.s. of ($smallr$) be positive definite for $r>0$.
84.
85. [^40]: See also the footnote $sec:su2$.
86.
87. [^41]: This is easily understood by considering the expression ($eta4$). Note that the ratio $\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g_5}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g_4}}$ is independent of the choice of the coordinates (since they are related only by a conformal transformation) and it is equal to $\sqrt{-g_5}\,\sqrt{-g_4}=\mu^2$ (we are taking the same normalization for the coordinates in ($eta4$) as in ($etamax$)).
88.
89. [^42]: For small values of $r$ (of the order of $\mu^2$), there is a contribution to the potential proportional to \$r^2\log(r
90.