We study Double Field Theory on a 2d-dimensional doubled torus with \(N_L+N_R=2\) , where \(N_L\) and \(N_R\) are the numbers of left- and right-moving oscillators. The massive states, \(N_L\ne N_R\) , provide the momentum and winding numbers simultaneously. The fields of Double Field Theory need to satisfy a constraint imposed on the string states. In the target space, we provide a unique constraint up to the cubic order compatible with the integration by part. We make a correspondence of fields between the massless and massive cases. We then use the gauge symmetry to build the action. For the quadratic order, the mass term at the order of \(1/\alpha ^{\prime }\) appears when \(N_L\ne N_R\) . We can also introduce the additional interacting term to construct the gauge-invariant cubic action. Since the massive states do not follow a consistent truncation, a consistent theory possibly cannot appear from the states of \(N_L+N_R=2\) . We show that the expectation is wrong up to the cubic order.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Cubic Action in Double Field Theory

  • Chen-Te Ma

摘要

We study Double Field Theory on a 2d-dimensional doubled torus with \(N_L+N_R=2\) , where \(N_L\) and \(N_R\) are the numbers of left- and right-moving oscillators. The massive states, \(N_L\ne N_R\) , provide the momentum and winding numbers simultaneously. The fields of Double Field Theory need to satisfy a constraint imposed on the string states. In the target space, we provide a unique constraint up to the cubic order compatible with the integration by part. We make a correspondence of fields between the massless and massive cases. We then use the gauge symmetry to build the action. For the quadratic order, the mass term at the order of \(1/\alpha ^{\prime }\) appears when \(N_L\ne N_R\) . We can also introduce the additional interacting term to construct the gauge-invariant cubic action. Since the massive states do not follow a consistent truncation, a consistent theory possibly cannot appear from the states of \(N_L+N_R=2\) . We show that the expectation is wrong up to the cubic order.