Guest User

Untitled

a guest
Jul 2nd, 2022
15
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 6.18 KB | None | 0 0
  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.  
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment