1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{hyperref}
4:
5:
6: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
8: \usepackage{amsmath}
9: \usepackage{amssymb}
10: \usepackage{latexsym}
11: \usepackage{epsfig}
12:
13:
14: %%%%%%%%% size control %%%%%%%%%%%
15: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.7in}
16: \setlength{\hoffset}{-0.65in}
17: \setlength{\voffset}{-0.8in}
18: \setlength{\textheight}{8.9in}
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: \newcommand{\half}{{\textstyle {1\over 2}}}
21: \newcommand{\ord}[1]{\mathcal{O}(#1)}
22: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle #1|}
23: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}
24: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\langle #1|#2\rangle}
25: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}
26: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}
27: \newcommand{\Bra}[1]{\bigl\langle #1\bigr|}
28: \newcommand{\Ket}[1]{\bigl|#1\bigr\rangle}
29: \newcommand{\BRa}[1]{\Bigl\langle #1\Bigr|}
30: \newcommand{\KEt}[1]{\Bigl|#1\Bigr\rangle}
31: \newcommand{\BRA}[1]{\biggl\langle #1\biggr|}
32: \newcommand{\KET}[1]{\biggl|#1\biggr\rangle}
33:
34:
35: \newcommand{\BB}{{\cal B}}
36: \newcommand{\CC}{{\cal C}}
37: \newcommand{\DD}{{\cal D}}
38: \newcommand{\OO}{{\cal O}}
39: \newcommand{\LL}{{\cal L}}
40: \newcommand{\PP}{{\cal P}}
41: \newcommand{\refb}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
42: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}
43: \newcommand{\RRR}{{\hbox{\rm R\kern-2.35mm R}}}
44: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}
45:
46: \def\ZZZ{{\hbox{ Z\kern-1.6mm Z}}}
47:
48: \newcommand{\RR}{{\cal R}}
49:
50:
51: \newcommand{\BQBs}[2]{\frac{{\cal B}_{(#1)}}{{\cal L}_{(#1)}}
52: \, Q \, \frac{{\cal B}^\star_{(#2)}}{{\cal L}^\star_{(#2)}}}
53: \newcommand{\BsQB}[2]{\frac{{\cal B}^\star_{(#1)}}{{\cal L}^\star_{(#1)}}
54: \, Q \, \frac{{\cal B}_{(#2)}}{{\cal L}_{(#2)}}}
55: \newcommand{\BQB}[2]{\frac{{\cal B}_{(#1)}}{{\cal L}_{(#1)}} \, Q \,
56: \frac{{\cal B}_{(#2)}}{{\cal L}_{(#2)}}}
57: \newcommand{\BsQBs}[2]{\frac{{\cal B}^\star_{(#1)}}{{\cal L}^\star_{(#1)}}
58: \, Q \, \frac{{\cal B}^\star_{(#2)}}{{\cal L}^\star_{(#2)}}}
59:
60: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
61:
62: \begin{document}
63: \noindent
64:
65:
66: \begin{titlepage}
67: %\rightline{\today}
68: \rightline{\tt arXiv:0805.3701}
69: \rightline{\tt MIT-CTP-3948}
70: \begin{center}
71: \vskip 2.5cm
72: {\Large \bf {One-Loop Riemann Surfaces in Schnabl Gauge}}\\
73:
74:
75: \vskip 2.0cm
76: {\large {Michael Kiermaier and Barton Zwiebach}}
77: \vskip 1.0cm
78: {\it {Center for Theoretical Physics}}\\
79: {\it {Massachusetts Institute of Technology}}\\
80: {\it {Cambridge, MA 02139, USA}}\\
81: mkiermai@mit.edu, zwiebach@mit.edu
82:
83: \vskip 2.0cm
84: {\bf Abstract}
85:
86: \vskip 1.0cm
87: \end{center}
88:
89:
90: \noindent
91: \begin{narrower}
92: Due to a peculiar behavior at the open string
93: midpoint, loop diagrams in Schnabl gauge
94: were expected to fail to produce the relevant closed string moduli.
95: We find that closed string moduli are generated because the
96: Riemann surfaces are built with {\em slanted} wedges:
97: semi-infinite strips whose edges have parameterizations
98: related by scaling.
99: We examine in detail one-loop string diagrams
100: and find that the closed string modulus is always produced.
101: Moreover, the conformal maps simplify so greatly that both
102: closed and open moduli become simple calculable functions of the Schwinger parameters, a simplification that occurs neither in Siegel
103: gauge nor in light-cone gauge.
104:
105:
106: \end{narrower}
107:
108:
109: \medskip
110:
111:
112:
113: \end{titlepage}
114:
115: \newpage
116:
117:
118:
119: \tableofcontents
120: \baselineskip=17pt
121: \section{Introduction}
122:
123: The string field $\Phi$ that represents
124: the tachyon vacuum in Schnabl's solution~\cite{0511286}
125: of open string field theory~\cite{wit1}
126: satisfies a novel gauge condition.
127: The solution
128: is not in Siegel gauge~\cite{siegel1}:
129: $\Phi$ is not annihilated by
130: the zero mode $b_0$
131: of the antighost field in the canonical
132: open string frame.
133: Rather, $\Phi$ is annihilated by
134: the zero mode $B$ of the antighost field
135: in the conformal frame of the sliver projector of the
136: star algebra of open string fields.
137: The sliver frame is central to the construction
138: and analysis
139: of classical solutions~\cite{0603159}--\cite{Kawano:2008jv}
140: but,
141: as any projector frame, it is singular at the open string midpoint.
142: One can wonder if the Schnabl
143: gauge condition $B\Phi=0$
144: defines a consistent open string perturbation theory.
145: In this question, the singular behavior of the open string midpoint
146: has brought interesting advantages
147: but has also introduced some new subtleties.
148:
149: At tree level, the sliver frame makes all conformal maps from the string
150: diagrams to the upper-half plane very simple~\cite{Fuji:2006me,0708.2591}.
151: This is remarkable, if we recall that in Siegel gauge these maps are
152: extremely complicated and no closed form expressions are
153: known
154: except for four-string amplitudes~\cite{gid}.
155: The subtleties arise because there
156: are delicate contributions whose origin can be traced to the singular behavior at the open string midpoint~\cite{0708.2591}. These contributions affect the off-shell part of four-string amplitudes and could affect higher-point functions on-shell.
157: No Feynman rules are known that deal
158: with these complications
159: in general tree-level amplitudes.
160:
161: This state of affairs prompted~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg}
162: to introduce a class of {\em regular linear $b$-gauges}
163: that produce correct on-shell amplitudes. In this class,
164: a propagator insertion with Schwinger parameter approaching
165: infinity induces an
166: open string degeneration of the Riemann surface associated with the string diagram-- the desired behavior.
167: Schnabl gauge does not belong to the class of
168: regular $b$-gauges,
169: but there is a simple one-parameter family of regular
170: linear
171: $b$-gauges that
172: interpolates between Siegel and Schnabl gauge as its parameter $\lambda$ goes
173: from infinity to zero.
174: This suggests that
175: Schnabl gauge amplitudes can be obtained by taking the limit
176: $\lambda\to0$ of the well-behaved amplitudes in this $\lambda$-family.
177:
178:
179:
180: While it is not yet proven that
181: moduli space is covered for general tree amplitudes
182: in Schnabl gauge, it is no
183: mystery how the relevant Riemann surfaces --disks with
184: boundary punctures -- carry the moduli and how degenerations
185: can be generated.
186: Naive arguments, however,
187: suggest that
188: Schnabl gauge at loop level only produces surfaces with
189: degenerate closed string moduli,
190: thus making it impossible to
191: reproduce the correct on-shell amplitudes. In a one-loop amplitude, for
192: example, the line traced by the open string midpoint is a nontrivial
193: closed curve. In the Schnabl propagator the open string midpoint does not move, thus
194: naively suggesting
195: a diagram with a
196: zero-length closed curve that signals closed string degeneration.
197:
198: It is the main purpose of this paper to discuss the one-loop string diagrams
199: in Schnabl gauge. Our results are quite encouraging. We find that the
200: anticipated
201: problems with closed string moduli are not present.
202: Our main tool is the regulation provided by the $\lambda$-family
203: of regular linear
204: $b$-gauges that yield Schnabl gauge in the limit. Not only
205: are closed string moduli produced but they are easily calculated,
206: something that does not happen in Siegel gauge. Our work focuses only
207: on the moduli problem; we do not attempt to fully compute any
208: loop-amplitude. Such a computation, of course, would be quite interesting.
209:
210: The analysis shows that closed string moduli arise because
211: vertical lines
212: in the sliver frame that are identified horizontally in
213: tree diagrams, require slanted identifications in the case of loops. We recall that wedge surfaces~\cite{Rastelli:2000iu,Schnabl:2002gg}
214: are semi-infinite strips of fixed width whose vertical edges carry identical
215: parameterizations. We are led to introduce {\em slanted} wedges, semi-infinite strips of fixed width whose vertical edges have parameterizations
216: related by a scale factor. These slanted
217: wedges are new, interesting objects in
218: their own right. One can glue them
219: and they are a natural ingredient in
220: the construction of loop-diagrams. As opposed to the familiar wedges, however, there are no states associated to them. With the help of slanted
221: wedges we develop a formalism that allows us to calculate the moduli
222: (both open and closed) of arbitrary tree and one-loop amplitudes.
223: Our analysis also shows that the BPZ-even gauge condition
224: $B^+ \Phi = (B + B^\star)\Phi =0$, where $\star$ denotes BPZ
225: conjugation, fails to generate the closed string
226: modulus in one-loop diagrams because
227: in this gauge
228: the identifications in the sliver frame are not slanted.
229: Unlike Schnabl gauge, the gauge $B^+ \Phi =0$
230: appears to be genuinely inadequate for loop calculations.
231:
232: \bigskip
233: This paper is organized as follows.
234: In Section~\ref{secvac}, we will begin our analysis with the one-loop
235: vacuum graph
236: in general regular linear $b$-gauges,
237: focusing on the Riemann surfaces generated by varying
238: one of the two Schwinger parameters of the propagator.
239: We see that the modulus
240: of the annulus is an exactly calculable function of the Schwinger parameter
241: and is, in fact, independent of the gauge choice.
242: We then study the vacuum graph in Schnabl gauge as a limit in the family
243: of regular interpolating gauges.
244: The role of slanted
245: identifications in Schnabl gauge
246: first becomes apparent and the error in the presumption that
247: diagrams are closed string degenerate is identified.
248:
249: The situation becomes more nontrivial and challenging for
250: the one-loop tadpole,
251: i.e. the one-loop one-point function.
252: We study this diagram in Section~\ref{sectp}
253: for the family of interpolating gauges parameterized by $\lambda$.
254: The diagram
255: only has a closed string modulus; the position of
256: the open string puncture can be adjusted using rotations. For any fixed
257: $\lambda$,
258: we can use extremal length methods to show that the full moduli space
259: of annuli is produced as the Schwinger parameter
260: is varied over its allowed range. In Siegel gauge the modulus
261: of the annulus is a complicated function of the Schwinger parameter
262: (defined implicitly by certain elliptic integrals, see, for example~\cite{Zemba:1988rf}).
263: In the limit that we reach Schnabl gauge the modulus becomes a simple
264: function of the Schwinger parameter. In this example one can glean
265: the main geometrical insight that shows how the two components
266: of the annulus, each one with its own
267: open string boundary, are glued across
268: a {\em hidden boundary} at infinity!
269: The existence of such a hidden boundary leads us to conclude that
270: the operator $L$ (the Virasoro zero mode in the
271: sliver frame) has an anomalous left/right decomposition, i.e.
272: $[L_L,L_R]\neq 0$.
273:
274: In Section~\ref{secsw}, we will introduce slanted wedges and show how
275: to glue them together, as suggested by star multiplication, to produce
276: a closed algebra.
277: We discuss how the operators $L_L$ and $L_R$ and their BPZ conjugates
278: act on slanted wedges and derive the action of the full
279: Schnabl propagator.
280: This formalism simplifies tremendously
281: the construction of string diagrams, as we discuss for the case of trees
282: in Section~\ref{sectree}. The moduli for tree diagrams are the positions
283: of open string punctures and these can be calculated efficiently, as is
284: demonstrated for the case of
285: the 5-point diagram.
286: We present the generalization to arbitrary tree diagrams, which
287: is surprisingly
288: straightforward using the algebra of slanted wedges.
289:
290: In Section~\ref{secloop} we discuss the Riemann surfaces for
291: general one-loop string diagrams in Schnabl gauge. We show how
292: to construct such a surface by gluing the hidden boundaries of the
293: surfaces
294: associated with each of the
295: boundaries of the annulus.
296: Both of these surfaces
297: are naturally built with slanted wedges.
298: We determine the closed string modulus and all
299: open string moduli as simple functions of the Schwinger parameters.
300: In particular, we find that the closed string modulus
301: only depends on the Schwinger parameters of the propagators running in the loop.
302: The computations are
303: illustrated in Section~\ref{secloop2pt} where we work out
304: the one-loop diagram with two external states.
305: If both external states are placed on the same boundary component
306: there are two string diagrams,
307: and we discuss how they generate together
308: the relevant open and closed string moduli.
309:
310: In Section~\ref{aregvieononelooam}
311: we use the family of $\lambda$-regularized gauges
312: to justify our prescription for the calculation of one-loop moduli.
313: There are three types of gluing operations that need to be justified
314: in the Schnabl limit $\lambda\to0$: (i) the star multiplication of slanted wedges corresponding to external states and propagator surfaces,
315: (ii) the gluing along hidden boundaries that forms a
316: single strip from
317: the two slanted wedges each of which contains one boundary
318: component of the
319: one-loop diagram,
320: and (iii) the identification of the edges of the resulting strip that
321: creates the annulus.
322: We show that all three types of operations can be justified rigorously in the Schnabl limit.
323: We end in Section~\ref{secconcl}
324: with some concluding remarks.
325:
326:
327:
328: \section{The vacuum graph}\label{secvac}
329: \setcounter{equation}{0}
330:
331: In this section we discuss the geometry of the vacuum
332: graph. Our objectives are to set up notation and
333: to calculate the modulus of the vacuum graph as a function of the
334: Schwinger parameter for general regular linear $b$-gauges.
335:
336: \subsection{Gauges, coordinate frames and the surface $\mathcal{R}(s)$}\label{sec21}
337: Reference~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg} studied open string perturbation theory in
338: a class of gauges called linear $b$-gauges.
339: In these gauges,
340: a linear combination of even moded
341: antighost oscillators annihilates the classical
342: string field
343: $\ket{\psi_{cl}}$ :
344: \begin{equation}\label{classgaugecond}
345: B[v]\,\ket{\psi_{cl}}=0\, .
346: \end{equation}
347: Here $B[v]$ is determined by a vector field $v(\xi)$ via
348: \begin{equation}\label{vecfield}
349: B[v]=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}} v_{2k}b_{2k}=\oint {d\xi\over 2\pi i} v(\xi) b(\xi)\,,
350: \qquad \textrm{with} \quad
351: v(\xi)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}v_{2k}\xi^{2k+1}\,, \quad
352: v_{2k}\in\mathbb{R}\,.
353: \end{equation}
354: A subset of linear $b$-gauges in which string perturbation is guaranteed to produce the correct
355: on-shell amplitudes was identified in~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg}. In this subset the vector field
356: $v(\xi)$ is analytic in a neighborhood of the unit circle $|\xi|=1$, and
357: satisfies the
358: condition
359: \begin{equation}
360: \Re\left(\bar\xi v(\xi)\right)>0\, \qquad \textrm{for} \quad
361: |\xi|=1\,.
362: \end{equation}
363: These gauges were called \emph{regular linear $b$-gauges}.
364: One also defines
365: \begin{equation}
366: L[v]\equiv\bigl\{Q,B[v]\bigr\}=\oint {d\xi\over 2\pi i} v(\xi) T(\xi)=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}} v_{2k}L_{2k} \,.
367: \end{equation}
368: In a certain
369: frame $w= g(\xi)$
370: the operator $L[v]$ generates
371: translations~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg,0611200}.
372: The map $g(\xi)$ is related to the vector field $v(\xi)$ through
373: \begin{equation}
374: \label{vmiahpcss}
375: {dg\over d\xi} = -{1\over v(\xi)} \,.
376: \end{equation}
377: Normalizing $v(\xi)$ appropriately, we can
378: impose on $g(\xi)$ the convenient boundary conditions
379: \begin{equation}
380: \label{vmiahpcssnorm}
381: g(-1)=0 \,, \quad g(1)=i\pi\,.
382: \end{equation}
383: We also use the frame $z=f(\xi)$ where the operator
384: $L[v]$ is the zero mode Virasoro operator and thus generates
385: scaling. This frame is only determined up to an overall factor. We choose the
386: normalization
387: \begin{equation}
388: \label{zframeaj}
389: f(\pm 1) = \pm\, \half \,.
390: \end{equation}
391: Given such a frame $z=f(\xi)$, one can determine the associated vector field $v(\xi)$ as
392: \begin{equation}
393: \label{vfieldaj}
394: v(\xi) = {f(\xi)\over f'(\xi)}\,.
395: \end{equation}
396: The defining property of this vector field is that the operators
397: $L[v]$ and $B[v]$
398: are, respectively, the zero modes of the Virasoro and antighost operators
399: in the $z$ frame.
400: Use of (\ref{vmiahpcss}) and (\ref{vfieldaj}) immediately shows that the $w$ and $z$ frames
401: are related by
402: $g = - \ln f + c$, where $c$ is a constant.
403: This constant is determined by our boundary conditions on $g(\xi)$ and $f(\xi)$ in~(\ref{vmiahpcssnorm}) and~(\ref{zframeaj}). We obtain
404: \begin{equation}
405: \label{wzrel}
406: \boxed{\phantom{\Biggl(}
407: w= g(\xi) = - \ln (2 f(\xi)) + i\pi = - \ln (2z) + i \pi \,.~}
408: \end{equation}
409: In this map $z$
410: is always in the upper-half plane and the
411: branch of the logarithm is taken using $0 \leq \hbox{Arg}\, z \leq \pi$.
412: Inverting (\ref{wzrel}) we get
413: \begin{equation}
414: \label{zfromwaj}
415: z = f(\xi) = - \half\, \,e^{-w}\,.
416: \end{equation}
417:
418:
419: Picking a gauge condition~(\ref{classgaugecond}) for the
420: classical string field $\ket{\psi_{cl}}$ of ghost number one is only the
421: first step in the gauge fixing
422: procedure~\cite{boch,thorn,preit,Kiermaier:2007jg}.
423: Appropriate vector
424: fields $v(\xi)$
425: must be chosen for each ghost number and the gauge condition
426: is that the corresponding $B[v]$
427: operator must annihilate the
428: string field at the given ghost number.
429: We will return to this issue when we address general one-loop amplitudes in
430: Section~\ref{secloop}.
431:
432: We noted above that the operator $L[v]$ generates rescalings in the
433: $z$ frame and
434: translations in the $w$ frame.
435: As a differential operator we
436: thus
437: have
438: \begin{equation}
439: \label{diffaction}
440: L[v] = - z {d\over dz} = {d\over dw}\,.
441: \end{equation}
442: The operator $e^{-sL[v]}$ creates a strip $\mathcal{R}(s)$
443: of length $s$ in the $w$ frame with two horizontal open string boundaries~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg}, as depicted in Figure~\ref{sl01fig}(a).
444: The boundary conditions~(\ref{vmiahpcssnorm}) ensure that the
445: width of the strip is normalized to $\pi$.
446: Furthermore, the strip domain
447: $\RR(s)$
448: has as right boundary the curve
449: $w= g(\xi = e^{i\theta})$
450: with $0\leq \theta\leq \pi$;
451: this is just the $w$-plane image of the coordinate curve.
452: It is clear from (\ref{diffaction}) that
453: $e^{-sL[v]}$
454: translates by a distance $s$ to the left. It follows that the left boundary of $\mathcal{R}(s)$
455: is the right boundary copied a distance $s$ to the left.\footnote{
456: This representation of $\RR(s)$ differs from the representation in~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg}
457: by a rescaling of $\frac{1}{2}e^s$ in the $z$ frame and by a translation of $-s$ in the $w$ frame.}
458:
459:
460: Using the relation~(\ref{zfromwaj}),
461: we can map the strip $\RR(s)$ to the $z$ frame.
462: The right boundary of $\RR(s)$ in the $w$ frame becomes the \emph{coordinate curve} $z=f(e^{i\theta})$
463: with $0\leq\theta\leq\pi$ in the $z$ frame.
464: As $L[v]$ generates rescalings in this
465: frame, the surface $\RR(s)$ is swept out by rescalings of the coordinate curve
466: with scale factors ranging from one to $e^s$.
467: As we can decompose the operator $L[v]$
468: into left and right pieces,
469: \be
470: \label{iwltflckmytngttassfcl}
471: L[v] = L[v]_L + L[v]_R\,,
472: \ee
473: we can similarly divide $\RR(s)$ into two components, one associated with the action of $e^{-sL[v]_L}$ and the other associated with the action of
474: $e^{-sL[v]_R}$.
475: The component associated with $e^{-sL[v]_R}$ is the part of $\RR(s)$ in the region
476: $\Re(z)>0$
477: and is shaded in light grey in Figure~\ref{sl01fig}(b). It is swept out by rescalings of the right
478: part of the coordinate curve, which we parameterize as
479: \begin{equation}\label{gammaR}
480: ~~\half+\gamma_R(\theta)\equiv f\bigl(e^{i\theta}\bigr)\,, ~\quad\qquad 0\leq\theta\leq\textstyle{\frac{\pi}{2}}\,.
481: \end{equation}
482: Similarly, the component of $\RR(s)$ associated with $e^{-sL[v]_L}$,
483: shaded in dark grey in the figure,
484: is located in the region
485: $\Re(z)<0$,
486: and is swept out by rescalings of the left part of the coordinate line, which
487: we parameterize as
488: \begin{equation}\label{gammaL}
489: -\half+\gamma_L(\theta)\equiv f\bigl(e^{i(\pi-\theta)}\bigr)\,, \qquad 0\leq\theta\leq\textstyle{\frac{\pi}{2}}\,.
490: \end{equation}
491: Note that the curves $\gamma_R(\theta)$ and $\gamma_L(\theta)$
492: introduced above
493: are, respectively, the right and left parts of the coordinate curve, displaced horizontally
494: so that for $\theta=0$ they are
495: at the origin (Figure~\ref{sl01fig}(c)).
496: The left component of $\RR(s)$ is
497: simply a reflection of the
498: right component around the axis $\Re(z)=0$, because the general form~(\ref{vecfield}) of the vector field
499: $v(\xi)$ implies
500: \begin{equation}
501: \gamma_L(\theta) =-\overline{\gamma_R(\theta)}\,.
502: \end{equation}
503: The left and right components of $\RR(s)$ need to be glued
504: on the imaginary axis along the line $QQ'$, which stretches
505: from $f(i)$ to $e^sf(i)$. For regular linear $b$-gauges $f(i)$ is finite, resulting in a finite boundary
506: $QQ'$ generated by $e^{-sL[v]_L}$ and $e^{-sL[v]_R}$.
507: Thus,
508: $e^{-sL[v]_L}$ and $e^{-sL[v]_R}$ do not give the surface associated with
509: $e^{-sL[v]}$ until they are glued along $QQ'$.
510: This can be traced to the non-commutativity of $L[v]_L$ and $L[v]_R$,
511: \be
512: \label{iwltflckmytngttassfvm}
513: \bigl[\,L[v]_L \, , \, L[v]_R\,\bigr] \not= 0 \,,
514: \ee
515: which in turn implies $e^{-sL[v]}\not= e^{-sL[v]_R}e^{-sL[v]_L}$
516: for regular linear $b$-gauges. The operators in (\ref{iwltflckmytngttassfvm})
517: fail to commute because the vector field $v$ does not vanish at the open
518: string midpoint (see~\cite{0606131}).
519:
520:
521:
522:
523: \begin{figure}[t]
524: \centerline{
525: \epsfig{figure=vacg4.eps, height=8cm}
526: \hskip .75cm
527: \epsfig{figure=vac4.eps, height=8cm}
528: \hskip 1.35cm
529: \epsfig{figure=gammaLR.eps, height=8cm}
530: }
531: \centerline{ \hskip 4cm (a) \hskip 6.2cm (b) \hskip 4.3cm (c)\hskip 2.5cm }
532: \caption{The surface $\RR(s)$ created by
533: $e^{-sL[v]}$ in the $w$ frame (a) and in the $z$ frame (b).
534: Points $R$ and $R'$ related
535: by horizontal translation $w\to w-s$ in the $w$ frame
536: are related by
537: scaling $z \to e^s z$ in the $z$ frame.
538: The surface $\RR(s)$ is displayed for $L[v]=L^\lambda$ with $\lambda=10^{-4}$ and $s=1$.\quad
539: The curves $\gamma_L$ and $\gamma_R$ arise from the
540: coordinate curve $f(e^{i\theta})$, as illustrated in (c).
541: }
542: \label{sl01fig}
543: \end{figure}
544:
545:
546: \bigskip
547: In this paper
548: the family of $\lambda$-regulated
549: gauges introduced in~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg}
550: plays an important role.
551: This family is defined through the one-parameter family of
552: vector fields
553: \begin{equation}
554: v^\lambda(\xi) =
555: e^\lambda (1+ e^{-2\lambda}\xi^2)
556: \tan^{-1} (e^{-\lambda}\xi)
557: \,, \quad \text{ with }\quad \lambda>0\,.
558: \end{equation}
559: The surface $\RR(s)$ in this gauge is then generated by the operator
560: \begin{equation}
561: L^\lambda\equiv L[v^\lambda]
562: = L_0 + 2\sum_{k=1}^\infty {(-1)^{k+1}\over 4 k^2 -1} \, e^{-2k\lambda}
563: \, L_{2k}\, .
564: \end{equation}
565: This family interpolates
566: from
567: Siegel gauge as $\lambda\to\infty$ to Schnabl gauge
568: which arises in the limit
569: $\lambda \to 0$. In fact, these gauges are regular
570: linear $b$-gauges for all values $\lambda>0$.
571: Schnabl gauge is not regular --
572: this is why there is no proof yet that amplitudes arise correctly.
573:
574: For the $\lambda$-regulated $z$
575: frames we have the $\lambda$-regulated
576: functions
577: \begin{equation}
578: \label{flambdadef}
579: f^\lambda (\xi) = {1\over 2} \, {\tan^{-1} (e^{-\lambda} \xi) \over
580: \tan^{-1} (e^{-\lambda})}
581: \,,\quad \text{with }\quad \lambda>0 \,.
582: \end{equation}
583: While in general regular linear $b$-gauges the functions $f(\xi)$, just like
584: $v(\xi)$, need only be analytic in a neighborhood of $|\xi|=1$, the
585: functions~(\ref{flambdadef})
586: have the nice property that they are analytic on the entire unit disk
587: $|\xi|\leq 1$.
588: They map the real axis between $\xi=-1$ and $\xi=1$ to the real axis between $z=-\half$ and
589: $z=\half$, and map $\xi=0$ to $z=0$. The region in the $z$ frame between the real axis and the
590: curve $z=f(e^{i\theta})$ with $0\leq \theta\leq \pi$ can thus be interpreted as a canonical coordinate patch that
591: glues nicely to the boundary of $\RR(s)$. The maps $f^\lambda (\xi)$ are thus \emph{coordinate functions}.
592: In the Schnabl limit $\lambda\to 0$, we obtain
593: \begin{equation}
594: \label{f0def}
595: f(\xi) \equiv \lim_{\lambda\to0}\, f^\lambda(\xi)= {2\over \pi} \, \tan^{-1} \xi\,.
596: \end{equation}
597: This is the familiar coordinate function of the sliver frame which is well defined for all $|\xi|\leq1$ except for
598: $\xi=i$. The open string midpoint $\xi=i$ is mapped to $i\infty$.
599:
600:
601:
602:
603:
604: \medskip
605: The behavior of the coordinate function $f^\lambda (\xi)$ for
606: very small $\lambda$
607: (near Schnabl gauge) will be of
608: interest. We focus on the coordinate curve
609: $f^\lambda(\xi = e^{i\theta})$ with $0\leq \theta\leq \pi$.
610: It is convenient to use the angular variable $\hat \theta$ that
611: measures angles with respect to the imaginary axis
612: \begin{equation}
613: \hat \theta = {\pi\over 2} - \theta \,.
614: \end{equation}
615: The coordinate function (\ref{flambdadef}) admits a simple
616: expansion when both $\lambda$ and $\hat \theta$ are small,
617: regardless of their ratio.
618: One then
619: finds\footnote{We
620: follow the convention that terms
621: of order $\lambda \ln \lambda$ are written as $\mathcal{O}(\lambda)$.}
622: \begin{equation}
623: \label{ilas99}
624: f^\lambda (e^{i\theta}) = - {i\over \pi} \ln \Bigl( {\lambda + i \hat \theta\over
625: 2}\, \Bigr)
626: \,+\,\ord{\lambda}\,+\,\ord{\hat \theta} \,.
627: \end{equation}
628: We define $i \Lambda (\lambda)$ as the value of the
629: coordinate function at $\xi = i$:
630: \begin{equation}
631: \label{iwltfsksss}
632: i\Lambda \equiv f^\lambda (i) = - {i\over \pi} \ln {\lambda\over 2}
633: \,+\,\ord{\lambda} \,.
634: \end{equation}
635: Happily,
636: the regularized curve $f^\lambda (e^{i\theta})$ only differs
637: appreciably
638: from the sliver
639: curve $f(e^{i\theta})$
640: for $\hat\theta=\ord\lambda$. For $\lambda\ll 1$, the part of the curve
641: $f^\lambda (e^{i\theta})$ which deviates significantly
642: from $f(e^{i\theta})$ is thus entirely captured by (\ref{ilas99}).
643: We can write the leading dependence as
644: \begin{equation}
645: \label{ilas999}
646: f^\lambda (e^{i\theta}) ~\simeq~ i\Lambda (\lambda) - {i\over 2\pi} \ln
647: \Bigl[ 1+ \Bigl( {\hat \theta \over \lambda} \Bigr)^2\,\Bigr] + {1\over \pi}
648: \tan^{-1} \Bigl( {\hat \theta \over \lambda} \Bigr) \,.
649: \end{equation}
650: The nature of the curve $f^\lambda (e^{i\theta})$
651: is quite interesting. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fregfig},
652: for any $\lambda\ll 1$ the
653: coordinate curve near the top takes the {\em same} shape.
654: This is so because,
655: apart from the $i\Lambda (\lambda)$ term that sets
656: the height,
657: the rest of $f^\lambda$ depends only on the
658: ratio $\hat \theta/\lambda$, which spans the same values as
659: $\hat \theta$ grows from zero to some multiple of $\lambda$.
660: For $\hat \theta = \lambda$
661: the coordinate curve has come down about $0.11$ from the top
662: and
663: is 50\% of the way to the maximum real value of $1/2$ (top dashed
664: lines).
665: For $\hat \theta = 64\lambda$
666: the coordinate curve has come down about $1.32$ from the top and
667: is 99\% of the way to the maximum real value
668: (lower dashed lines).
669: Clearly, for sufficiently small $\lambda$, the coordinate curve
670: deviates from the vertical lines that define the sliver frame only
671: for $\hat \theta\ll 1$.
672:
673:
674: \begin{figure}[t]
675: \begin{center}
676: \parbox[b]{6cm}{\epsfig{figure=freg.eps, height=9cm} }
677: \hskip 3cm
678: \parbox[b]{6cm}{\epsfig{figure=fregg.eps, height=8.75cm}\vskip.25cm}
679: \end{center}
680: \caption{Left: The coordinate curve $f^\lambda(e^{i\theta})$ for
681: $\theta \in [0, \pi/2]$ and $\lambda = 10^{-4}$. The intersection
682: with the bottom dashed line indicates that by the time
683: the curve has dropped about 1.32 from the top, it is within
684: 1\% of the vertical line $\Re (z) = 1/2$
685: that defines the sliver frame. Right: the same portion of the
686: coordinate curve for $\lambda = 10^{-14}$. The top part of the
687: coordinate curve is quite accurately the same as the one shown
688: to the left, but is displaced upwards.
689: }
690: \label{fregfig}
691: \end{figure}
692:
693: The curves $\gamma^\lambda_R$ and $\gamma^\lambda_L$ which parameterize the coordinate curve
694: $f^\lambda(e^{i\theta})$ for $\lambda$-regulated gauges will play
695: an important role in our analysis. They are defined by
696: \begin{equation}\label{gammalLR}
697: \half+\gamma^\lambda_R(\theta)\equiv f^\lambda\bigl(e^{i\theta}\bigr)\,, \qquad
698: -\half+\gamma^\lambda_L(\theta)\equiv f^\lambda\bigl(e^{i(\pi-\theta)}\bigr)\,,
699: \end{equation}
700: a particular example of the general definitions~(\ref{gammaR}) and~(\ref{gammaL}).
701: In the Schnabl limit $\lambda\to0$, $\gamma_R^\lambda$ and $\gamma_L^\lambda$ coincide, and we therefore define
702: \begin{equation}\label{gamma0}
703: \gamma(\theta)\equiv \lim_{\lambda\to0}\gamma_R^\lambda(\theta) =\lim_{\lambda\to0}\gamma_L^\lambda(\theta)
704: =i\,{2\over \pi} \tanh^{-1} \Bigl( \tan {\theta\over 2} \Bigr)\,.
705: \end{equation}
706: As expected, this is the parameterized vertical line that defines the
707: left and right parts $\half - \gamma$ and $\half +\gamma$ of the
708: coordinate curve
709: of the sliver projector.
710: Notice, however, that the limit~(\ref{gamma0}) is not uniform in $\theta$. In fact, for all $\lambda>0$ we have
711: \begin{equation}
712: \lim_{\theta\to\frac{\pi}{2}}\Re\bigl(\gamma_{L/R}^\lambda(\theta)\bigr)=\pm\frac{1}{2}\,,
713: \end{equation}
714: while $\Re(\gamma(\theta))=0$, independent of $\theta$.
715:
716: We now ask how much the coordinate curve of $\lambda$-regulated gauges still
717: deviates from the vertical line that defines the sliver
718: by the time its imaginary part has been reduced to
719: $\Lambda/2$, that is, half the value it has at the top.
720: To leading order in $\lambda$, the angle corresponding to this point on the curve is given by
721: \begin{equation}
722: \hat \theta_{\frac{1}{2}}= \sqrt{2\lambda} \quad \to \quad
723: \theta_{\frac{1}{2}}=\textstyle{\frac{\pi}{2}}- \sqrt{2\lambda}\,.
724: \end{equation}
725: A short calculation then shows
726: \begin{equation}\label{thatahalf}
727: \gamma^\lambda_R\bigl(\theta_{\frac{1}{2}}\bigr)=-{1\over 2\pi}\sqrt{2\lambda} \,+\, i \, {\Lambda \over 2}\,+\, \ord{\lambda} \, .
728: \end{equation}
729: As we can see, $\gamma^\lambda_R(\theta)$ only deviates by $\mathcal{O} (\sqrt{\lambda})$ from the imaginary axis by the time its height has dropped by half.
730:
731:
732:
733: \subsection{The annulus and its modulus}\label{secannmod}
734: The surfaces associated with the one-loop vacuum graph
735: are obtained by gluing the two parameterized edges of the
736: propagator to itself.
737: The propagator associated with regular linear $b$-gauges is in general a complicated object. Its geometric interpretation depends on the
738: ghost number of the state it acts on. In alternating
739: gauge~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg} the surface of the propagator is built by gluing
740: the strips associated with $e^{-sL[v]}$ and $e^{-s^\star L^\star[v]}$ in
741: some order (that depends on ghost number)
742: and by
743: including the action of the BRST operator $Q$, that acts
744: as a total derivative on moduli.
745: The details of this construction will be important for our general analysis in
746: Section~\ref{secloop}. For now, we focus on one term that arises from the
747: propagator: it can be described by setting $s^\star=0$
748: and gives
749: the strip $\RR(s)$ associated with $e^{-sL[v]}$.
750: The generalization to the full propagator will not introduce further conceptual
751: problems in our Riemann surface analysis. We restrict ourselves to the simplified propagator in the discussion of
752: the vacuum and the tadpole diagrams
753: because it suffices
754: to demonstrate the main features of loop diagrams in Schnabl gauge.
755:
756:
757: For any regular linear $b$-gauge,
758: the gluing of the simplified propagator $\RR(s)$
759: to itself is implemented in the $w$ frame
760: by the identification $w \sim w-s$.
761: The result, for each value of $s$, is an annulus. In this annulus
762: the boundaries are the horizontal segments $BC$ and $AD$,
763: shown in Figure~\ref{sl01fig}(a)
764: for $\lambda$-regularized gauges.
765: The map from
766: this annulus to a canonically presented annulus in the $\zeta$
767: frame is
768: \begin{equation}
769: \label{iwltktcntaj}
770: \zeta = \exp \Bigl( -{2\pi i \over s} (w-i\pi)\Bigr) =
771: \exp \Bigl( -{2\pi^2 \over s} \Bigr) \exp \Bigl( -{2\pi i w\over s} \Bigr) \,.
772: \end{equation}
773: See Figure~\ref{sl01bfig}(a).
774: We can also write, using (\ref{wzrel}),
775: \begin{equation}
776: \label{iwltktcntaj99}
777: \zeta = \exp \Bigl( {2\pi i \over s} \ln 2z \Bigr) \,.
778: \end{equation}
779: The map (\ref{iwltktcntaj}) takes $BC$ into the unit circle $|\zeta| = 1$ and
780: $AD$ into the inner circle $|\zeta| = \exp(-2\pi^2/s)$. Since the
781: strip $\mathcal{R}(s)$ is foliated
782: in the $w$ frame
783: by horizontal lines of length $s$
784: at heights that go from zero to $\pi$ it is clear that the map
785: (\ref{iwltktcntaj}) takes the interior of the strip to the region between
786: the two $\zeta$ circles mentioned above. The shape of the edges
787: of $\mathcal{R}(s)$ is irrelevant to the map;
788: their image under the map is a cutting curve for the annulus.
789: Shown to the right in
790: Figure~\ref{sl01bfig}(b) is the $w$-frame picture
791: of $\mathcal{R}(s)$ rolled up into a cylinder of height $\pi$ and
792: circumference $s$. The cutting curve is shown in both presentations.
793:
794: \begin{figure}
795: \centerline{
796: \epsfig{figure=vacxi4.eps, height=8cm}
797: \hskip 2.75cm
798: \epsfig{figure=vaccyl4.eps, height=8cm}
799: }
800: \centerline{ \hskip 3.25cm (a) \hskip 8cm (b) \hskip2.75cm}
801: \caption{
802: The vacuum graph obtained from gluing the edges of $\RR(s)$, illustrated
803: for $L[v]=L^\lambda$ with $\lambda=10^{-4}$. In (a) the surface
804: is displayed as a canonical annulus in the $\zeta$ frame for $s=10$. The cutting curve
805: is shown explicitly. In (b) the surface is
806: displayed as a cylinder obtained from the identification
807: $w\sim w-s$
808: in the $w$ frame for $s=1$. This should be compared to Figure~\ref{sl01fig}(a).
809: }
810: \label{sl01bfig}
811: \end{figure}
812:
813:
814: The modulus $M$ of an annulus with radii
815: $r_{\rm{in}}$ and $r_{\rm{out}}$ with $r_{\rm{in}}<r_{\rm{out}}$
816: is usually defined by
817: \begin{equation}\label{defM}
818: M \equiv {1\over 2\pi } \ln {r_{\rm{out}}\over r_{\rm{in}}} \,.
819: \end{equation}
820: The moduli space of annuli is the set
821: \begin{equation}
822: \label{modspaann}
823: 0\leq M \leq \infty\,.
824: \end{equation}
825: For our annulus the modulus is
826: \begin{equation}
827: \label{modourann}
828: M = {\pi\over s} \,.
829: \end{equation}
830: This result for the annulus modulus is valid for any regular linear $b$-gauge.
831: In particular,
832: the modulus $M$ of the annulus produced by
833: the gluing of the edges of $\mathcal{R}(s)$ is the same
834: for all values of $\lambda$ in the $\lambda$-regularized gauges
835: and depends
836: only on $s$.
837: As $s\to 0$, $M\to \infty$, the inner circle goes to zero size, and we
838: approach closed string degeneration. As $s\to \infty$ the inner circle
839: approaches the outer circle, $M$ goes to zero, and we approach
840: open string degeneration. The full moduli space (\ref{modspaann}) is therefore covered.
841: It thus follows that in the Schnabl limit $\lambda \to 0$ the gluing of
842: $\mathcal{R}(s)$ also gives an annulus
843: of $M = \pi/s$ and that moduli space is covered in this case as well.
844: The limit $\lambda \to 0$
845: of Figure~\ref{sl01fig} is shown in Figure~\ref{sl02fig}.
846: Moreover, Figure~\ref{sl02bfig} shows the map to the $\zeta$ plane
847: and the cylinder view of the $w$-presentation.
848: Note that we could have calculated the annulus modulus in Schnabl gauge
849: using any other family of regular linear $b$-gauges which approaches
850: Schnabl gauge when the regulator is removed. The result for $M$ would
851: have been the same.
852: \medskip
853:
854:
855: \begin{figure}[t]
856: \centerline{
857: \epsfig{figure=vac0.eps, height=9cm}
858: \hskip 2cm
859: \epsfig{figure=vacg0.eps, height=8.8cm}}
860: \centerline{ \hskip 2.3cm (a) \hskip 8.7cm (b) \hskip5cm}
861: \caption{The $\mathcal{R}(s)$ strip in the Schnabl limit
862: $\lambda =0$ both in the $w$ and in the $z$ frames, displayed for $s=1$.
863: The gluing of the free edges of the strip gives rise to an
864: annulus of finite modulus (see Figure~\ref{sl02bfig}). The gluing identification in the
865: $z$ frame is that induced by radial lines emerging from
866: the origin.}
867: \label{sl02fig}
868: \end{figure}
869:
870:
871:
872:
873: \begin{figure}[t]
874: \centerline{
875: \epsfig{figure=vacxi0.eps, height=8cm}
876: \hskip 2.75cm
877: \epsfig{figure=vaccyl0.eps, height=8cm}}
878: \centerline{ \hskip 3.25cm (a) \hskip 8cm (b) \hskip2.75cm}
879: \caption{
880: The vacuum graph obtained from gluing the edges of $\RR(s)$ in the Schnabl limit
881: $\lambda\to 0$. In (a) the surface
882: is displayed as a canonical annulus in the $\zeta$ frame for $s=10$. In (b) the surface is displayed as a cylinder obtained from the identification $w\sim w-s$ in the
883: $w$ frame for $s=1$. These surfaces differ from the corresponding
884: finite-$\lambda$
885: surfaces in Figure~\ref{sl01bfig} only through the
886: shape of the cutting curve. }
887: \label{sl02bfig}
888: \end{figure}
889:
890:
891:
892:
893:
894:
895: A few remarks
896: about this construction in the Schnabl limit
897: are in order.
898: \begin{itemize}
899: \item
900: The map (\ref{iwltktcntaj})
901: still takes the shaded domain in the $w$ plane to the circular annulus
902: because the identification $w\sim w-s$ still holds. The cutting curve is infinitely long (Figure~\ref{sl02bfig}).
903:
904: \item In the $z$ plane the vertical strip
905: to the right produces the
906: upper half of the annulus
907: (the upper half of
908: the vertical cylinder of height $\pi$ and circumference $s$).
909: The vertical strip to the left produces the lower half of the annulus.
910: The two halves are glued.
911:
912: \item The identifications $w\sim w-s$ become {\em slanted}
913: identifications
914: $z \sim e^s z$ of the vertical lines through $B$ and $C$, and
915: of the vertical lines through $A$ and $D$. If the identifications
916: had been horizontal
917: ($z \sim z - \half+\half e^s$)
918: both the right and left
919: strips would have each given rise to a (closed string) degenerate
920: annulus.
921: In fact, such a problematic horizontal identification happens for the
922: gauge condition $B^+ \Phi=0$ in the sliver frame.
923: It is the slanted identification that makes the $z$ frame picture
924: in Schnabl gauge
925: consistent with a finite modulus annulus.
926:
927: \end{itemize}
928:
929:
930:
931: In the previous section we remarked that the propagator strip $\RR(s)$ for
932: regular linear $b$-gauges can be decomposed into two components associated with
933: $e^{-sL[v]_L}$ and $e^{-sL[v]_R}$, respectively. These components are glued along the
934: boundary $QQ'$ in Figure~\ref{sl01fig}(b).
935: $L[v]_L$ and $L[v]_R$ generate this unmatched boundary that needs to be glued by hand
936: because they do not commute.
937: The operators $L$ and $L^\star$ in Schnabl gauge can also be decomposed
938: into left and right parts. We write $L = L_L + L_R$, $L^\star = L^\star_L
939: +L^\star_R$.
940: In the Schnabl limit, the unmatched boundary is hidden at $i\infty$
941: in the $z$- frame, but arises in the annulus frame $\zeta$ as the circle
942: $|\zeta|=\exp(-\pi^2/s)$, shown dashed
943: in Figure~\ref{sl02bfig}(a).
944: We are led to conclude that
945: while both $L$ and $L^\star$ arise from vector fields
946: that vanish at the open string midpoint, they do not vanish fast enough
947: to ensure that
948: $L_L$ and $L_R$ commute and that $L^\star_L$ and $L^\star_R$
949: commute:\footnote{In fact
950: the linear combination
951: $L^+ = L+L^*$ arises from a vector that,
952: as we approach the midpoint, vanishes sufficiently fast to ensure
953: that
954: $L^+_L$
955: and $L^+_R$ commute.}
956: \begin{equation}
957: \label{o9rhd}
958: \boxed{\phantom{\Bigl(}[L_L,L_R]\neq0\,, \qquad [L^\star_L,L^\star_R]\neq0\,. ~~ }
959: \end{equation}
960:
961:
962: We conclude this subsection by recalling the relation
963: of the modulus $M$ with the
964: conformal invariant known as the extremal length~\cite{ahlfors}.
965: The extremal length is an invariant associated to a
966: given set of curves $\Gamma$ on a Riemann surface.
967: Let $\rho$ denote a conformal metric
968: (a metric for which $ds=\rho(z,\bar z)|dz|$) on the
969: Riemann surface.
970: The length $\ell(\gamma, \rho)$ of a curve
971: $\gamma\in \Gamma$ and the area $A(\Omega, \rho)$ of the
972: Riemann surface $\Omega$
973: are given by:
974: \be
975: \ell(\gamma, \rho) = \int_\gamma \rho |dz|\,, \quad
976: A(\Omega, \rho) = \int\hskip-7pt\int_\Omega \rho^2 \, dx dy\,.
977: \ee
978: We define $\ell(\Gamma, \rho)$ as the length of the shortest
979: curve in $\Gamma$
980: with respect to the metric $\rho$:
981: \be
982: \ell(\Gamma, \rho) = \inf_{\gamma\in \Gamma} \ell(\gamma, \rho)\,.
983: \ee
984: The extremal length
985: $\lambda_\Gamma$ is defined
986: as~\cite{ahlfors}
987: \be
988: \label{def_extremal_length}
989: \lambda_\Gamma
990: = \sup_\rho \Biggl( {\ell^2(\Gamma, \rho)
991: \over A(\Omega, \rho)} \Biggr) \,.
992: \ee
993: To evaluate
994: $\lambda_\Gamma$
995: one must search over metrics
996: until the quantity inside parenthesis on the right-hand side
997: is maximized. The extremal metric $\rho$ for which the maximum
998: is attained is a minimal area metric: it is the metric with least area
999: consistent with all curves in the set having a length greater than
1000: or equal to a certain prescribed value.
1001: {}From the definition \refb{def_extremal_length} it is clear that
1002: the extremal length
1003: $\lambda_\Gamma$
1004: is a conformal invariant.
1005:
1006: \smallskip
1007: Let us now return to
1008: the vacuum graph of regular linear $b$-gauges.
1009: Imagine the domain $\mathcal{R}(s)$,
1010: glued to itself to form the vacuum graph,
1011: as a cylinder of circumference $s$ and height $\pi$. This is, in fact,
1012: the $w$ frame picture in Figure~\ref{sl01bfig}(b).
1013: There are two types of curves on this cylinder (or annulus):
1014: open curves that stretch from one boundary to the other and
1015: closed curves that go around the cylinder. We thus have an extremal
1016: length $\lambda_{\rm{open}}$ associated with the set of open curves
1017: and an extremal length $\lambda_{\rm{closed}}$ associated with
1018: the set of closed curves. It is a familiar result
1019: that in the $w$ frame the {\em same} metric
1020: $\rho=1$ is extremal for {\em both} open and closed curves~\cite{gardiner}.
1021: It is clear that in this flat metric the shortest open curves have length $\pi$ and the
1022: shortest closed
1023: curves have length $s$. The area, moreover, is $\pi s$. It follows that
1024: the extremal lengths are
1025: \begin{equation}
1026: \lambda_{\rm{open}} = {\pi^2 \over \pi s} = {\pi\over s}\,,
1027: \qquad
1028: \lambda_{\rm{closed}} = {s^2\over \pi s} = {s\over \pi}\,.
1029: \end{equation}
1030: It is interesting to note that
1031: \begin{equation}\label{openclosed}
1032: \lambda_{\rm{open}} \lambda_{\rm{closed}} = 1 \,, \quad
1033: \hbox{and} \quad M = \lambda_{\rm{open}}
1034: = {1\over \lambda_{\rm{closed}} }\,.
1035: \end{equation}
1036: The relations~(\ref{openclosed}) are general and
1037: valid for any annulus.
1038: Note that degeneration of a given type means
1039: vanishing extremal length for the curves of associated type.
1040: Thus closed string degeneration ($s\to 0$) happens for $\lambda_{\rm{closed}} \to 0$ and open string degeneration ($s\to \infty$)
1041: happens for $\lambda_{\rm{open}} \to 0$.
1042:
1043: \section{One-loop tadpole graph}\label{sectp}
1044: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1045:
1046:
1047: In this section we discuss the one-loop tadpole graph.
1048: The underlying Riemann surface is an annulus with
1049: an open string puncture, that is, a puncture on one
1050: of the boundary components of the annulus.
1051: The puncture, which represents the external state,
1052: introduces significant complications in the geometry.
1053: Indeed, it is well known that in Siegel gauge the map
1054: of the string diagram to the round annulus is nontrivial
1055: and the modulus of the annulus cannot be calculated
1056: in simple closed form.
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060: As in the previous section
1061: we restrict ourselves to the contribution from the propagator
1062: surface $\RR(s)$ generated by $e^{-sL[v]}$.
1063: We discuss the graph
1064: for the family of interpolating gauges. We first show that
1065: for any value of the regulator $\lambda$
1066: the moduli space of annuli is generated when the
1067: Schwinger parameter
1068: $s$ covers the range from zero to infinity.
1069: We then study
1070: the geometry as the regulator parameter
1071: $\lambda$
1072: goes to zero and we approach Schnabl gauge.
1073: We present a construction which allows us
1074: to exactly map the tadpole string diagram
1075: to the round annulus in the limit $\lambda\to0$.
1076: The modulus of the annulus becomes exactly calculable
1077: in Schnabl gauge.
1078:
1079:
1080:
1081: \subsection{Covering moduli space in the $\lambda$-regulated gauges}
1082: \label{comospitherega}
1083:
1084: Let us consider the one-loop tadpole graph
1085: with propagator $e^{-sL[v]}$.
1086: It is useful to first examine the surface obtained
1087: in the $\lambda$-regulated gauges.
1088: The way to assemble the surface
1089: is illustrated using Figure~\ref{sl03fig}. We need the
1090: part of the surface associated with the external state and
1091: the propagator strip $\mathcal{R}(s)$.
1092:
1093: As we can see in Figure~\ref{sl03fig}(b),
1094: the placement of $\RR(s)$ in the $z$ frame is the same one
1095: used for the vacuum graph in the
1096: last section~(Figure~\ref{sl01fig}(b)).
1097: As discussed above equation (\ref{o9rhd}),
1098: it is convenient to view
1099: the surface $\RR(s)$ as built by gluing together
1100: two pieces -- one associated with
1101: $e^{-sL^\lambda_R}$ and one associated with $e^{-sL^\lambda_L}$.
1102: These two pieces are glued along the dashed line $QQ'$ to form the complete
1103: surface $\RR(s)$.
1104:
1105:
1106: The two curved boundaries of $e^{-sL^\lambda_L}$
1107: are identified, just as for the vacuum graph. This time, however,
1108: the two curved boundaries of
1109: $e^{-sL^\lambda_R}$
1110: are not glued to each other.
1111: To form the tadpole, we need to glue
1112: these two boundaries to the left and right boundaries of the external state.
1113: As the functions $f^\lambda(\xi)$ are coordinate functions and
1114: thus well defined for all $|\xi|\leq1$, we can conveniently place
1115: this external state in the region between the real axis and the
1116: coordinate curve $f^\lambda(e^{i\theta})$. The operator insertion is
1117: then located at $z=f(0)=0$ (see Figure~\ref{sl03fig}(b)).
1118:
1119:
1120: The gluing patterns
1121: both in the $z$ and $w$ frames are readily obtained from
1122: the graph in Figure~\ref{sl03fig}(a).
1123: The only slightly nontrivial gluing operation
1124: is that identifying the curves $AQ$ and $CQ'$
1125: in the $z$ plane (the lines with triple arrows).
1126: We can express these two curves using $\gamma_{L/R}^\lambda$
1127: defined in~(\ref{gammalLR}):
1128: \begin{equation}\label{AQCQ}
1129: AQ=-\half +\gamma^\lambda_L\,, \qquad
1130: CQ'=e^s(\half +\gamma^\lambda_R)\,.
1131: \end{equation}
1132: It then follows that the identification between $AQ$ and $CQ'$ is given
1133: by the map
1134: \begin{equation}
1135: z=-\half +\gamma^\lambda_L(\theta) ~\to~ z'=e^s\bigl(\half +\gamma^\lambda_R(\theta)\bigr)\,.
1136: \end{equation}
1137: Recalling $\gamma_L(\theta) =-\overline{\gamma_R(\theta)}$, we find that
1138: a point $z\in AQ$
1139: is identified with the point $z'\in CQ'$, where $z'$ is obtained
1140: by first reflecting $z$ across the vertical axis $z\to - {\bar z}$, and then applying
1141: the expansion factor $e^s$:
1142: \begin{equation}
1143: \label{gindents}
1144: z \to z ' = - e^s \,\bar{z} \,.
1145: \end{equation}
1146: There should be no concern that $z'$ appears to be a non-analytic
1147: function of $z$. The above relation is not a {\em sewing} relation, but just
1148: a relation valid on the curve (for example, the analytic relation
1149: $\xi \xi' = -1$ becomes $\xi' = - \bar {\xi}$ on the unit circle).
1150: The analytic gluing relation is determined by the sequence of conformal
1151: maps $z\to f^{-1}(z) $ back to the coordinate circle, $\xi \to -1/\xi$,
1152: followed by the action of $f$ and, finally, multiplication by $e^s$.
1153: The analytic gluing relation corresponding to the identification~(\ref{gindents}) is thus
1154: \begin{equation}
1155: z\sim e^sf\Bigl(-{1\over f^{-1}(z)}\Bigr)\,.
1156: \end{equation}
1157:
1158:
1159: \begin{figure}[t]
1160: \begin{center}
1161: \parbox{3.5cm}{\epsfig{figure=tptopo.eps, height=5.5cm}}
1162: \hskip 1.2cm
1163: \parbox{3.5cm}{\epsfig{figure=tp4.eps, height=8cm}}
1164: \hskip .8cm
1165: \parbox{7cm}{\epsfig{figure=tpg4.eps, height=5cm}}
1166: \end{center}
1167: \centerline{ \hskip 2.5cm (a) \hskip 3.8cm (b) \hskip6.2cm (c)\hskip 3.5cm}
1168: \caption{ (a) The topology of the one-loop tadpole diagram obtained by gluing the external
1169: strip for the Fock space state to the propagator strip. (b) The tadpole diagram for a $\lambda$-regulated gauge in
1170: the $z$ frame, displayed for $\lambda=10^{-4}$ and $s=1$. Note
1171: the cut from $Q$ to $A$ that separates the two boundary components.
1172: (c) The tadpole diagram in the $w$ frame.}
1173: \label{sl03fig}
1174: \end{figure}
1175:
1176:
1177:
1178: \medskip
1179: Since there is no simple closed
1180: form expression for the modulus $M(s)$ of the annulus
1181: in Siegel gauge, we cannot hope to calculate
1182: explicitly $M(s)$ for arbitrary finite $\lambda$. Extremal length,
1183: however, gives a very simple
1184: proof that moduli space will be covered. Consider
1185: the $w$-frame picture in Figure~\ref{sl03fig}(c).
1186: The extremal metric cannot be found, but let us use
1187: the
1188: metric
1189: $\rho=1$ on the lower half of the
1190: strip $\mathcal{R}(s)$ (below $Q'Q$) and
1191: $\rho=0$
1192: elsewhere.
1193: In other words, we are setting $\rho=1$ only on the part
1194: of the surface corresponding to $e^{-sL_L^\lambda}$
1195: (shaded in dark grey in the figure).
1196: The area
1197: of the surface in this metric is
1198: $A = {1\over 2} \pi s$.
1199: In this metric the shortest open curves
1200: have length $\frac{\pi}{2}$. This gives the following
1201: inequality
1202: for the open string extremal length
1203: \begin{equation}
1204: \label{vmitgfitw}
1205: \lambda_{\rm{open}}
1206: \geq {\bigl({\pi\over 2}\bigr)^2 \over {\pi s\over 2}}
1207: = {\pi\over 2s} \,. \end{equation}
1208: For closed curves we take $\rho=1$
1209: all over the propagator strip $\mathcal{R}(s)$ {\em and}
1210: over the portion of the external state strip that lies to the left of the
1211: vertical line $AB$
1212: in Figure~\ref{sl03fig}(c).
1213: In other words, we set $\rho=1$ in the region $\Re(w)<0$.
1214: We set $\rho=0$ elsewhere.
1215: A little thought
1216: shows that in this metric the shortest closed curve has length $s$. The area is $\pi s + A(\lambda)$, where $A(\lambda)$ is the area of
1217: the external state strip in the chosen metric. We thus get
1218: \begin{equation}
1219: \label{vmitgf}
1220: \lambda_{\rm{closed}} \geq {s^2 \over \pi s + A(\lambda)}
1221: \quad \to \quad \lambda_{\rm{open}} \leq {\pi \over s} + {A(\lambda)\over s^2} \,.
1222: \end{equation}
1223: In the Siegel limit
1224: $\lambda \to \infty$,
1225: the vertical line $AB$
1226: in the $w$ frame
1227: coincides with the
1228: right boundary of $\mathcal{R}(s)$ so that the area $A(\infty) =0$.
1229: It is easy to see that
1230: the area $A(\lambda)$ grows as $\lambda$ decreases, but it stays finite even in the limit $\lambda\to0$. In fact, the relevant integral can be exactly calculated
1231: and one finds that
1232: \begin{equation}
1233: A_0 \equiv \lim_{\lambda\to0}A(\lambda)= \pi \ln 2\,.
1234: \end{equation}
1235: Back in (\ref{vmitgf}),
1236: we use $A(\lambda)\leq A_0$ and find
1237: \begin{equation}
1238: \label{vmitgf99}
1239: \lambda_{\rm{open}} \leq {\pi \over s} + {A_0\over s^2} =
1240: {\pi \over s} + {\pi \ln 2\over s^2} \,.
1241: \end{equation}
1242: Combining (\ref{vmitgfitw}) and (\ref{vmitgf99}) and recalling that
1243: $M = \lambda_{\rm{open}}$ we get
1244: \begin{equation}\label{inequ}
1245: {\pi\over 2s}\, \leq M(s) \,\leq {\pi\over s} \Bigl( 1 + {\ln 2\over s}\Bigr) \,.
1246: \end{equation}
1247: The above inequalities imply that
1248: $M(s)\to 0$ as $s\to \infty$ and $M(s) \to \infty$ as
1249: $s\to 0$, so the full moduli space will be covered for $s\in [0, \infty)$.
1250: This is consistent with the results of~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg} which showed that regular
1251: linear $b$-gauges, such as the $\lambda$-regulated gauges,
1252: give correct on-shell string amplitudes.
1253: The
1254: inequalities~(\ref{inequ}) hold for all
1255: $\lambda>0$. We thus
1256: conclude that moduli space is covered in the Schnabl limit $\lambda\to0$.
1257:
1258:
1259: \begin{figure}[t]
1260: \begin{center}
1261: \parbox[b]{3cm}{
1262: \epsfig{figure=tp0.eps, height=8.0cm}}
1263: \hskip 0.7cm
1264: \parbox[b]{5cm}{\epsfig{figure=nattp0.eps, height=7.5cm}}
1265: \hskip 0.7cm
1266: \parbox[b]{6.5cm}{ \epsfig{figure=nattpg0.eps, height=7.5cm}}
1267: \end{center}
1268: \centerline{
1269: \hskip 2cm (a) \hskip 4.30cm
1270: (b) \hskip6.2cm (c)\hskip 3.5cm}
1271: \caption{(a) The one-loop tadpole in the
1272: $z$ frame.
1273: The surface is composed of two separate strips: one above
1274: $z\in [-{1\over 2}e^s, -{1\over 2} ]$ and the other above $z\in [-{1\over 2},
1275: {1\over 2} e^s]$. These two strips are joined at $i\infty$. The figure is
1276: displayed for $s=1$.
1277: (b) The same surface with the
1278: right strip translated to the right by a distance $a_0+1$, which
1279: depends on $s$ and makes the identifications of the left and
1280: right boundaries work with rays through the origin.
1281: (c) The middle figure mapped to the $w$ frame with $w= -\ln 2z + i\pi$.}
1282: \label{sl04fig}
1283: \end{figure}
1284:
1285:
1286: \subsection{Modulus in Schnabl gauge}
1287:
1288: The estimates done in the previous subsection bound $M(s)$
1289: and allow us to confirm that moduli space is covered for any
1290: value of the deformation parameter $\lambda$. We now claim
1291: that
1292: the value of the modulus $M(s)$ becomes calculable in simple
1293: closed form in the Schnabl limit $\lambda \to 0$. The
1294: derivation
1295: requires careful analysis of a conformal map in the limit $\lambda \to 0$.
1296: Since the final result is simple, we will present it here, without proof.
1297: In the following subsection we justify our claim.
1298:
1299:
1300:
1301: We begin with Figure~\ref{sl04fig}(a), where we see that the
1302: surface of the tadpole diagram
1303: appears as two {\em disconnected} vertical strips
1304: in the $z$ frame.
1305: The strip above the real segment $[-{1\over 2} e^s , -{1\over 2}]$
1306: represents $e^{-sL_L}$
1307: and the strip
1308: above the real segment $[-{1\over 2}, {1\over 2} e^s]$
1309: represents the external state and $e^{-sL_R}$.
1310: These real segments are the boundaries of the annulus.
1311: On the left strip the identification of the edges is
1312: $z \sim e^s z$. On the right strip the identification is
1313: more nontrivial.
1314: Its left boundary carries the ordinary sliver parameterization
1315: and is given by $-\frac{1}{2}+\gamma(\theta)$, with $\gamma(\theta)$ defined in~(\ref{gamma0}).
1316: The right boundary of the right strip is given by $e^s(\half+\gamma(\theta))$ and thus carries a parameterization which is rescaled
1317: by $e^s$. It follows that
1318: a point $R$ on the line above $z=-{1\over 2}$ and
1319: a point $R'$ on the line above $z={1\over 2} e^s$ are identified
1320: if the copy $S$ of
1321: $R$ on the line above $z={1\over 2} $
1322: is related to $R'$ via the scaling
1323: $z \sim e^s z$.
1324: This is, in fact, the gluing prescription discussed around
1325: equation~(\ref{gindents}).
1326: The two separate strips are supposed to be glued together
1327: at $i\infty$ but it is not obvious how to glue these hidden
1328: boundaries.
1329:
1330: We could proceed as we did in the previous section and map this configuration of surfaces directly to the $w$ frame via~(\ref{wzrel}).
1331: Just like in
1332: Figure~\ref{sl03fig}(c)), the external state would be represented
1333: in the $w$ frame by an infinite strip
1334: of height $\pi$. In Schnabl gauge, however,
1335: we can construct a different map of the tadpole diagram to
1336: the $w$ frame, one
1337: in which the whole surface is foliated by
1338: horizontal lines of length $s$.
1339: It is then possible to use the map $\zeta(w)$ in (\ref{iwltktcntaj})
1340: to get a round annulus.
1341: We will now show how this is done.
1342:
1343: In the $z$ frame we
1344: translate the right strip towards the right by a
1345: distance that makes the line through
1346: the identified points
1347: $R$ and $R'$ go through the origin. Since the heights of $R$ and $R'$ are related by $e^s$ it follows,
1348: by similar triangles, that $R\sim R'$ are related by $z \sim e^s z$
1349: (see Figure~\ref{sl04fig}(b)). The requisite displacement, called
1350: $a_0 +1$ for later convenience, is determined from the similar
1351: triangles:
1352: \begin{equation}
1353: e^s
1354: = {CR'\over AR}
1355: = { a_0+1+{1\over 2} e^s \over a_0+{1\over 2}} \,.
1356: \end{equation}
1357: One readily finds that
1358: \begin{equation}
1359: \label{aval99}
1360: a_0 = {1\over e^s -1} \,, \quad a_0 + 1
1361: = {1\over 1-e^{-s}}\,.
1362: \end{equation}
1363: With this result one can check that the two vertical lines for the right strip
1364: are located at
1365: \begin{equation}
1366: \label{iwltfkchlw}
1367: \Re(z)=
1368: a_0 +\frac{1}{2}= \frac{1}{2}
1369: \coth \left(\frac{s}{2}\right)
1370: \,, \quad
1371: \hbox{and} \quad
1372: \Re(z)=
1373: a_0 + 1+ {1\over 2} e^s = e^s \cdot{1\over 2}
1374: \coth \left(\frac{s}{2}\right) \,.
1375: \end{equation}
1376: The map
1377: $w = - \ln (2z)+ i\pi$ in (\ref{wzrel})
1378: takes the full left and
1379: right strips to the
1380: $w$-frame picture in Figure~\ref{sl04fig}(c).
1381: This picture is similar to that in Figure~\ref{sl02fig}(b), which
1382: refers to the vacuum graph.
1383: There is only one minor difference:
1384: the image of the
1385: right strip in Figure~\ref{sl04fig}(c)
1386: is displaced some distance to the left.
1387: This happens
1388: because the coordinate $z(A)$ of the point $A$ satisfies
1389: \begin{equation}
1390: z(A) = a_0+{1\over 2} > {1\over 2}
1391: \quad \to\quad \Re\bigl(w(A)\bigr)< 0\,.
1392: \end{equation}
1393: Since both strips in
1394: Figure~\ref{sl04fig}(b)
1395: work with identification
1396: $z \sim e^s z$, the $w$ plane Figure~\ref{sl04fig}(c)
1397: has the identification $w\sim w-s$.
1398: This $w$ presentation is different from the earlier $w$ presentation in which
1399: the coordinate half-disk for the external state appears as a semi-infinite
1400: strip (Figure~\ref{sl03fig}(c)); the coordinate half-disk has been pushed
1401: up!
1402: The identification $w\sim w-s$ ensures that the map (\ref{iwltktcntaj}) takes the $w$-plane region to the annulus with modulus
1403: \begin{equation}
1404: \label{Mtp}
1405: \boxed{ \phantom{\Bigl(} M = \frac{\pi}{s}\,. ~}
1406: \end{equation}
1407: Inserting an external state to form the tadpole graph therefore did not affect the modulus of the annulus -- the modulus~(\ref{Mtp}) coincides with our
1408: result~(\ref{modourann}) for the modulus of the vacuum graph.
1409: The only evidence of the
1410: external state
1411: is that
1412: the top boundary of the
1413: annulus is split between the boundary $AB$ of the
1414: coordinate half-disk
1415: with the puncture
1416: and the
1417: boundary $BC$ generated by $e^{-sL_R}$.
1418: The surprisingly simple form of
1419: the
1420: modulus will turn out to be
1421: generic for one-loop diagrams in Schnabl gauge.
1422: In fact, we will find that the annulus modulus of a general one-loop diagram is a simple function that depends
1423: only on the Schwinger parameters of the propagators running in the loop;
1424: the Schwinger parameters of trees attached to the loop do not affect the
1425: modulus of the annulus.
1426: \begin{figure}
1427: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=nattp4.eps, height=8cm}}
1428: \caption{The $z$-frame $\lambda$-regulated one-loop tadpole of
1429: Figure~\ref{sl03fig} cut along $QQ'$ and with the right piece
1430: translated to the right a distance $a_0+1$ so that the identification
1431: of $A$ and $C$ is through scaling by
1432: $e^s$.
1433: The figure is displayed for $\lambda=10^{-4}$ and $s=1$.}
1434: \label{sl05fig}
1435: \end{figure}
1436:
1437: \subsection{Taking the $\lambda \to 0$ limit}\label{dofeoruhk}
1438:
1439: We will now justify our construction of the map of the Schnabl tadpole diagram to the round annulus.
1440: Let us
1441: consider the $\lambda$-regulated version of the one-loop tadpole
1442: graph, first shown in Figure~\ref{sl03fig}(b). We cut the diagram along the
1443: $QQ'$ line to produce two disconnected pieces. Just like we did for
1444: the Schnabl tadpole, we displace the right part of the figure to the right a distance $a_0+1$. The identifications on the left part of the surface still
1445: work with $z \sim e^s z$, but on the right they do not anymore. Choosing
1446: $a_0$ as before (see (\ref{aval99})) we ensure that the points
1447: $A$ and $C$ are still identified with $z\sim e^s z$, but this identification is only approximate for the other points on the curves $A\bar Q $ and
1448: $C{\bar Q}' $.
1449:
1450: As before, the map $w = - \ln (2z) + i\pi$ takes the left part of
1451: Figure~\ref{sl05fig} (the surface associated with $e^{-sL_L^\lambda}$)
1452: to the familiar annular domain with identifications
1453: exactly given by $w\sim w-s$ (see Figure~\ref{sl06fig}).
1454: Since
1455: $z(Q) = i\Lambda$
1456: (see (\ref{iwltfsksss}))
1457: the image of $QQ'$
1458: in the $w$ frame
1459: is shifted $\ln 2\Lambda$ to the left with respect
1460: to the image of the inner boundary $DE$.
1461:
1462: For the map of the right part of Figure~\ref{sl05fig} we have
1463: to be a bit more careful. We will use the same map
1464: $w= - \ln (2z) + i\pi$, which
1465: results in a surface whose identification is
1466: not quite $w\sim w-s$ and
1467: thus cannot be interpreted as an annular region for general $\lambda$.
1468: Furthermore, the image of $\bar Q\bar Q'$ in the $w$ frame does not quite coincide with the image of $QQ'$.
1469: What we are
1470: going to show is that in the limit as $\lambda \to 0$ (and
1471: consequently $\Lambda \to \infty$) the identifications needed to
1472: form the full annulus become exact. More precisely, as
1473: $\lambda \to 0$ two things should happen:
1474:
1475: \begin{enumerate}
1476:
1477: \item
1478: All points
1479: $p\in QQ'$ and $\bar p\in {\bar Q}{\bar Q}'$
1480: that are at the same height (and should therefore be identified),
1481: are mapped to points on the $w$ frame
1482: that approach each other as $\lambda \to 0$.
1483: This convergence is uniform on $QQ'$
1484: ensuring that the top and bottom parts of the annulus glue well.
1485:
1486: \item Points $q\in A{\bar Q}$ and $q'\in A{\bar Q}'$
1487: that must be identified will map to coordinates $w$ that satisfy
1488: $w(q) - w(q') = s$ in the limit $\lambda \to 0$.
1489: This convergence is uniform on $A{\bar Q}$,
1490: ensuring that the top part of the annulus works with the same
1491: identification $w\sim w-s$
1492: as the bottom part.
1493:
1494:
1495: \end{enumerate}
1496: If these two claims hold, it justifies the prescription
1497: given in the previous subsection for the Schnabl limit. In the remainder
1498: of this subsection we will prove (1) and (2).
1499:
1500:
1501:
1502:
1503: Consider first claim (1) regarding the
1504: gluing of $QQ'$ to ${\bar Q} {\bar Q}'$.
1505: Let $i x \Lambda$, with $x$ a real number, denote the imaginary part of a point $p\in QQ'$ that must
1506: be identified with a point $\bar p \in {\bar Q} {\bar Q}'$
1507: with the same imaginary part. Since the imaginary part of any
1508: point $p$ (or $\bar p$) ranges between $\Lambda$ and $e^s \Lambda$ we have
1509: \begin{equation}
1510: 1 \leq x \leq e^s \quad \to \quad
1511: \Lambda \leq x \Lambda \leq e^s \Lambda \,.
1512: \end{equation}
1513: We then have
1514: \begin{equation}
1515: z(p) = i\, x \Lambda \,, \quad z (\bar p) = a_0 + 1 + i \,x\Lambda
1516: = {1\over 1 -e^{-s} } + i \,x\Lambda\,,
1517: \end{equation}
1518: where we made use of (\ref{aval99}).
1519: Using (\ref{wzrel}) we get
1520: \begin{equation}
1521: \label{iwltsskstts}
1522: w({\bar p}) - w(p) = - \ln \Bigl[\, {z({\bar p})\over z(p)}\Bigr]
1523: = -\ln \Bigl[ 1 + {1 \over ix\Lambda (1-e^{-s})} \Bigr]
1524: \end{equation}
1525: As $\lambda \to 0$ we have $\Lambda \to \infty$. It is then clear that for any fixed value of
1526: $s>0$
1527: and any $x\in [1, e^s]$ the above gives
1528: $w(\bar p) - w (p) \to 0$.
1529: Furthermore, it follows from~(\ref{iwltsskstts}) and $x\geq1$
1530: that the convergence of $\bar Q\bar Q'$ to $QQ'$ is uniform.
1531: This proves claim (1).
1532:
1533: It is interesting to discuss the above result
1534: in more detail. We show in Figure~\ref{sl06fig} two examples of
1535: the $w$ plane surface, both for $s=1$. The top figure uses
1536: $\lambda = 10^{-4}$ and the bottom one uses $\lambda = 10^{-14}$.
1537: One can see the image of ${\bar Q} {\bar Q}'$ as the sloping edge
1538: that approaches
1539: (as we go from the top figure to the bottom figure)
1540: the horizontal image
1541: of $Q Q'$.
1542: Expanding the logarithm in (\ref{iwltsskstts}) we get
1543: \begin{equation}\label{pbarpconv}
1544: w(\bar p) - w(p) = i \,\,{1 \over x\Lambda (1-e^{-s})} - {1\over 2}
1545: \, { 1\over x^2\Lambda^2 (1-e^{-s})^2} + \mathcal{O}(\Lambda^{-3})\,.
1546: \end{equation}
1547: The vertical distance
1548: between the images of $p$ and $\bar p$ vanishes as $\Lambda^{-1}$.
1549: The horizontal distance
1550: vanishes faster, as fast as $\Lambda^{-2}$.
1551: These features are clearly seen in the figure for the pair
1552: $\bar Q$, $Q$, and for the pair ${\bar Q}'$, $Q'$.
1553: Furthermore,
1554: the vertical convergence of $Q'$ to $\bar Q'$ in the $w$ frame
1555: is faster by a factor of $e^s$ than the vertical convergence of
1556: $Q$ to $Q'$. This is due to the suppression factor $\frac{1}{x}$ in
1557: the imaginary part of~(\ref{pbarpconv}), and is clearly visible
1558: in the figure.
1559:
1560:
1561: \begin{figure}
1562: \rightline{\epsfig{figure=nattpg4.eps, height=9.5cm}\hskip 42pt}
1563: \vskip 2.0cm
1564: \rightline{\epsfig{figure=nattpg14.eps, height=9.5cm}\hskip 60pt}
1565: \caption{The $\lambda$-regulated one-loop
1566: tadpole in the plane $w = - \ln (2z) + i\pi$.
1567: The top figure arises for $\lambda=10^{-4}$ and the bottom figure arises for $\lambda=10^{-14}$. Both figures use $s=1$. }
1568: \label{sl06fig}
1569: \end{figure}
1570:
1571: \medskip
1572: Let us now address claim (2).
1573: Before the translation is performed (see
1574: Figure~\ref{sl03fig}(b)), the identified curves $AQ$ and $CQ'$ are parameterized as shown in~(\ref{AQCQ}).
1575: After the translation by $a_0+1$, we obtain Figure~\ref{sl05fig} with the curves $A\bar Q$ and $C\bar {Q'}$ given by
1576: \begin{equation}\label{AbarQCbarQ}
1577: A\bar Q=a_0+\half +\gamma^\lambda_L\,, \qquad
1578: C\bar{Q'}=a_0+1+e^s\bigl(\half +\gamma^\lambda_R\bigr)\,.
1579: \end{equation}
1580: These parameterized curves are identified.
1581: The (complex)
1582: ratio $r(\theta)$ between identified points on the curves is given by
1583: \begin{equation}
1584: \label{iwltskthcltofsk}
1585: r(\theta) = {a_0+1+e^s\bigl(\half +\gamma^\lambda_R(\theta)\bigr)\over a_0+\half +\gamma^\lambda_L(\theta) }
1586: =e^s\cdot\frac{\gamma_R(\theta)+\half \coth\tfrac{s}{2}}{\gamma_L(\theta)+\half \coth\tfrac{s}{2}}\,,
1587: \end{equation}
1588: where we used the definition~(\ref{aval99}) of the shift $a_0+1$
1589: as well as~(\ref{iwltfkchlw}).
1590: We must show that this ratio has
1591: the limit
1592: \begin{equation}\label{limittoshow}
1593: r(\theta)\to e^s\,\qquad\text{for }\quad\lambda \to 0\,,\quad0\leq\theta\leq\tfrac{\pi}{2}\,.
1594: \end{equation}
1595: If this is so, the map to the
1596: $w$ plane (via the logarithm) will imply that the points corresponding to $\theta$ are separated
1597: by a horizontal
1598: translation by $s$.
1599: To make the map to the annulus well defined in the limit $\lambda\to0$, we need this horizontal
1600: separation by $s$ to hold to arbitrary precision for all points on the identified curves, i.e. we need the
1601: limit~(\ref{limittoshow}) to hold \emph{uniformly} on $0\leq\theta\leq\tfrac{\pi}{2}$.
1602:
1603: One finds $r(\theta=0) = e^s$, exactly, as expected for the ratio of the base points $A$ and $C$ of the two curves.
1604: Indeed, the translation was designed to make the identification $z\sim e^s z $ work on the
1605: real axis. For general $\theta$, a short calculation gives
1606: \begin{equation}
1607: \label{iwltskthansofskl}
1608: r(\theta) =e^s \cdot \, {1 +\delta(\theta)\over 1-\delta(\theta)} \,, \quad\hbox{with}\quad
1609: \delta = \frac{\gamma_R-\gamma_L}{\gamma_R+\gamma_L+\coth {s\over 2}}=
1610: {\Re\bigl(\gamma_R\bigr) \over i\Im\bigl(\gamma_R\bigr) + {1\over 2} \coth {s\over 2}}\,,
1611: \end{equation}
1612: where we used $\gamma_L=-\overline{\gamma_R}$ in the last step.
1613: As we map the two points in question to the $w$ plane, their separation is
1614: given by $\ln r$.
1615: We obtain
1616: \begin{equation}
1617: \ln r = s + \ln \Bigl( {1 -\delta \over 1+\delta} \Bigr)\,.
1618: \end{equation}
1619: We want to show that $\delta$
1620: goes to zero
1621: uniformly on $0\leq\theta\leq\tfrac{\pi}{2}$
1622: when
1623: $\lambda \to 0$.
1624: We are going to
1625: break the
1626: curve
1627: $\gamma_R$
1628: into two parts: (i) the top part for which $\Im(\gamma_R) \in [\Lambda/2, \Lambda]$
1629: and (ii) the bottom part for which $\Im(\gamma_R) \in [0, \Lambda/2]$.
1630: We recall from~(\ref{thatahalf}), that this corresponds to splitting the range of $\theta$ at
1631: $\theta=\theta_{\frac{1}{2}}$.
1632: Consider the top part (i).
1633: In this region we estimate
1634: \begin{equation}
1635: \bigl|\delta \bigr| =
1636: \biggl|
1637: {\Re\bigl(\gamma_R\bigr) \over i\Im\bigl(\gamma_R\bigr) + {1\over 2} \coth {s\over 2}}
1638: \biggr|
1639: \leq\, {
1640: \hbox{Max}\,\Re\bigl(\gamma_R\bigr) \over \hbox{Min}\,\Im\bigl(\gamma_R\bigr) }
1641: ={ {1\over 2} \over \,{\Lambda\over 2}\,} = {1\over \Lambda}
1642: \end{equation}
1643: so that
1644: \begin{equation}\label{regioni}
1645: \bigl|\delta(\theta)\bigr| \leq {1\over \Lambda} \, \qquad \hbox{for }
1646: \quad\theta\in\bigl[\theta_\frac{1}{2},\tfrac{\pi}{2}\bigr]\,.
1647: \end{equation}
1648: Now consider region (ii), i.e. $0\leq\theta\leq \theta_\frac{1}{2}$. Recall our earlier estimate
1649: (\ref{thatahalf})
1650: that at $ \theta=\theta_\frac{1}{2}$
1651: the coordinate curve has indeed risen to a height of $\Lambda/2$ and
1652: that
1653: \begin{equation}\label{maxRegammaR}
1654: \Re \Bigl(\gamma_R\bigl(\theta_\frac{1}{2}\bigr)\Bigr)=-{1\over 2\pi}\sqrt{2\lambda}\,.
1655: \end{equation}
1656: In this region
1657: $\Im(\gamma_R)$
1658: can be arbitrarily small, and
1659: $|\Re(\gamma_R)|$ reaches its maximal value at $\theta=\theta_\frac{1}{2}$.
1660: We thus estimate
1661: \begin{equation}
1662: |\delta| = \biggl| {\Re(\gamma_R) \over i\Im(\gamma_R) + {1\over 2} \coth {s\over 2}}\biggr|
1663: \leq \biggl| {\Re(\gamma_R) \over {1\over 2} \coth {s\over 2}} \biggr|
1664: \leq\, { {1\over 2\pi}\sqrt{2\lambda} \over {1\over 2} }
1665: ={1\over \pi}
1666: \sqrt{2\lambda}\,
1667: \end{equation}
1668: for region (ii),
1669: so that
1670: \begin{equation}\label{regionii}
1671: \bigl|\delta(\theta)\bigr| \leq {1\over \pi}
1672: \sqrt{2\lambda}\,\qquad \hbox{for }
1673: \quad\theta\in\bigl[0,\theta_\frac{1}{2}\bigr]\,.
1674: \end{equation}
1675: We now have upper bounds
1676: on $\delta$
1677: valid for
1678: the regions
1679: (i) and (ii).
1680: For any $\lambda < 1$
1681: the upper bound in
1682: (\ref{regioni}) for region
1683: (i)
1684: is larger than that in
1685: (\ref{regionii}) for region
1686: (ii).
1687: Therefore we obtain
1688: the uniform upper bound
1689: \begin{equation}
1690: \bigl|\delta(\theta)\bigr| \leq {1\over \Lambda}
1691: \quad \hbox{for all } \quad\theta\in\bigl[0,\tfrac{\pi}{2}\bigr]\,,\quad \lambda<1\,.
1692: \end{equation}
1693: This means that $\delta(\theta)$ will vanish
1694: uniformly on $0\leq\theta\leq\tfrac{\pi}{2}$
1695: as $\lambda\to 0$, as we wanted
1696: to prove. This establishes the second claim, and thus completes
1697: the argument that shows that regulation leads to the claimed
1698: simple map in Schnabl gauge.
1699:
1700:
1701: \medskip
1702: We conclude with a comment concerning the Schnabl gauge limit.
1703: In the unregulated case, shown in Figure~\ref{sl04fig}(b), we see that the left and right cylinders are supposed to be glued at $i\infty$.
1704: It may seem as if the gluing involves both the coordinate patch strip of the
1705: external state and the strip to the right of it. The regulation shows that this is not quite the way things work. The
1706: coordinate frame for the external state tapers out and does not
1707: glue to the bottom part of the diagram, which arises from the
1708: left cylinder. The tip $\bar Q$ of the local coordinate
1709: frame (the string midpoint) lies at the end of the gluing line.
1710: As can be seen in Figure~\ref{sl06fig},
1711: at $\bar Q$ the coordinate curve goes both up
1712: towards $B$ and down to
1713: eventually reach $A$.
1714: The behavior at $\bar Q$
1715: follows from conformality
1716: to the $z$ frame, as shown in Figure~\ref{sl05fig}.
1717:
1718:
1719:
1720: \section{Slanted wedges: A family of surfaces}\label{secsw}
1721: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1722:
1723:
1724: Loop amplitudes in Schnabl gauge
1725: use surfaces that do not feature in tree amplitudes.
1726: As we have seen in the previous sections, we sometimes
1727: deal with semi-infinite strips that look like the familiar
1728: wedge surfaces, except that the vertical edges are subject
1729: to identifications that are slanted. For wedge
1730: surfaces, presented as vertical semi-infinite strips, the natural
1731: identification of the vertical edges is a horizontal translation
1732: by the width $a$ of the wedge.
1733:
1734: It turns out to be convenient to introduce a set of surfaces
1735: that generalize the wedge surfaces. They will be called
1736: {\em slanted} wedges and are characterized by two parameters:
1737: the width $a$ of the underlying wedge and the slant $b$,
1738: to be defined below. There is one important difference between
1739: wedges and slanted wedges. Associated with wedges there
1740: are wedge states but there are
1741: no surface states associated
1742: with slanted wedges.
1743:
1744: For wedge surfaces, the surface states are based on once-punctured
1745: disks. The disk is formed by attaching the left edge of the wedge surface
1746: to the right edge of a unit-width wedge coordinate frame (with a marked
1747: point, or puncture) and gluing the two remaining vertical edges with a horizontal identification.
1748: The resulting surface is a semi-infinite cylinder with a puncture
1749: on the boundary at the real axis.
1750: This surface can be conformally mapped to a disk. More precisely,
1751: the disk has an inner puncture because it misses one point,
1752: the image of $i\infty$ on the wedges. This missing point can be
1753: ignored. The situation is far more serious for slanted wedges.
1754: As we have seen in the construction of the one-loop tadpole, a wedge
1755: with a slanted identification has a
1756: hidden boundary at $i\infty$, a boundary that must be glued to another surface. Instead of having a vanishingly small additional
1757: boundary associated with a missing point, as in the case
1758: for wedges,
1759: slanted wedges have
1760: an additional boundary that cannot be ignored.
1761: As a result
1762: there are no canonical
1763: surface states associated
1764: with slanted wedges. The hidden boundaries of slanted wedges
1765: can be brought into the open by $\lambda$-regularization.
1766:
1767: Even without associated states, we can define a kind
1768: of star algebra of slanted wedges.
1769: While not strictly needed for tree diagrams,
1770: slanted wedges
1771: simplify significantly the construction of the
1772: associated Riemann surfaces.
1773: For loop diagrams
1774: slanted wedges are key to the construction of the relevant Riemann surfaces.
1775:
1776:
1777:
1778: \subsection{Definition and examples}\label{ssecsw}
1779:
1780: The slanted wedge $[a;b]$, with $a, b \geq 0$, is defined
1781: on the upper-half plane $z$ as the semi-infinite strip between $\Re(z)=\half$
1782: and $\Re(z)=\half +a$:
1783: \begin{equation}
1784: [a;b] \equiv \Bigl\{ z \, \Bigl| \, {1\over 2} \leq \Re (z) \leq {1\over 2} + a\,,
1785: ~ \Im (z) \geq 0 \, \Bigr\}\,.
1786: \end{equation}
1787: The above states that, as a region, $[a;b]$ is the wedge
1788: of width $a$, positioned so that the left boundary is
1789: $\Re(z) = {1\over 2}$. By definition, the left boundary
1790: $\Re(z) = {1\over 2}$ carries the parameterization induced by the sliver
1791: map
1792: $z=\frac{2}{\pi}\tan^{-1}\xi$.
1793: More explicitly, the point $\xi = e^{i\theta}$ is mapped to
1794: \begin{equation}
1795: \label{parleftboundary}
1796: ~\hbox{Left Boundary:}~~~e^{i\theta} \to
1797: \half+ \gamma(\theta)
1798: \qquad\qquad \hbox{with} \quad 0\leq \theta \leq {\pi\over 2}\,,
1799: \end{equation}
1800: where the curve $\gamma(\theta)$ was defined in~(\ref{gamma0}).
1801: It follows that the left boundary of $[a;b]$ glues naturally to a coordinate patch
1802: $-\half \leq \Re(z) \leq \half $ of the sliver frame.
1803: The slant parameter $b >0$ is a scaling factor for the parameterization
1804: of the right boundary $\Re (z) = {1\over 2} + a$ of $[a;b]$.
1805: We have
1806: \begin{equation}
1807: \label{parrightboundary}
1808: \hbox{Right Boundary:}~~~e^{i\theta} \to
1809: \half+ a +b\cdot\gamma(\theta)
1810: \quad \hbox{with} \quad 0\leq \theta \leq {\pi\over 2}
1811: \,.
1812: \end{equation}
1813: This implies that
1814: the parameterization of the right boundary
1815: is obtained by stretching that of the left boundary by the factor $b$.
1816: See Figure~\ref{figSigma}(a) for a representation of the slanted
1817: wedge $[a;b]$.
1818: For $b=1$
1819: both boundaries of the slanted wedge carry the same parameterization
1820: and are thus horizontal translations of each other.
1821: Thus
1822: $[a;1]$ is just the familiar
1823: ordinary
1824: wedge surface of width $a$:
1825: \begin{equation}
1826: [a; 1] = W_a \,.
1827: \end{equation}
1828: Fock space states are described as $[1;1]$ with a
1829: local operator insertion at $z=1$ between the two
1830: boundaries. The Fock space state insertion is mapped from
1831: $\xi = 0$ to $[1;1]$ via
1832: $z=1+\frac{2}{\pi}\tan^{-1} \xi $.
1833: In general, slanted wedges can carry operator insertions
1834: or line integrals.
1835: %
1836: %
1837: \begin{figure}
1838: \centerline{
1839: \epsfig{figure=Sigma.eps, height=5cm}
1840: \hskip 1cm
1841: \epsfig{figure=Sigmamult.eps, height=5cm}}
1842: \centerline{(a)\hskip 7.5cm (b) \hskip 1.1cm}
1843: \caption{(a) The slanted wedge $[a;b]$ in the sliver frame $z$.\quad (b) Illustration
1844: of the star multiplication of a slanted wedge $[a;b]$ with a Fock space state
1845: $[1;1]$. The result is a slanted wedge $[a+b;b]$.}
1846: \label{figSigma}
1847: \end{figure}
1848: %
1849: %
1850:
1851:
1852: Since slanted wedges are Riemann surfaces we have some
1853: equivalence relations that must be noted. First, the position of
1854: the slanted wedge can be altered. While $[a;b]$ is always assumed
1855: to have a left boundary $\Re(z) = \half$, a translation by a real
1856: constant can be used
1857: to position the slanted wedge elsewhere. This is useful to form star
1858: products, for example. Sometimes we have to deal with wedge
1859: regions where both edges carry scaled parameterizations.
1860: We could call such surfaces $[b_L; a; b_R]$ with $b_L$
1861: and $b_R$ denoting the scaling factors
1862: for the left and the right edges, respectively. Explicitly,
1863: this means that
1864: the parameterizations of the left and right boundaries in
1865: (\ref{parleftboundary}) and (\ref{parrightboundary}) are replaced
1866: by $\half+b_L\gamma(\theta)$ and $\half+a +b_R\gamma(\theta)$, respectively.
1867: This surface, under the map $z \to z/b_L$ and a possible
1868: translation, gives us the conformal
1869: identification
1870: \begin{equation}
1871: [b_L; a; b_R]~\sim ~ [ a/b_L \,; b_R/b_L] \,.
1872: \end{equation}
1873: We obtain a wedge of width $a/b_L$ with unit scaling on the
1874: left boundary and scaling $b_R/b_L$ on the right boundary.
1875: The above shows that we do not have to define slanted
1876: wedges with scaled parameterizations on both edges.
1877:
1878:
1879:
1880: \subsection{Operations on slanted wedges}
1881:
1882: In order to create the surfaces relevant to the Feynman
1883: rules we need to introduce the ``star-multiplication" of
1884: slanted wedges. For plain wedges the star multiplication
1885: is homomorphic to the star multiplication
1886: of the corresponding wedge states. Since we have no states
1887: associated with slanted wedges, their star multiplication is
1888: only a device to
1889: construct
1890: interesting surfaces.
1891:
1892: As for surface states, we define star multiplication as the gluing of the right boundary of the
1893: first surface to the left boundary of the second surface. This gluing,
1894: however, requires identical parameterizations.
1895: For two slanted wedges $[a_1;b_1]$ and $[a_2;b_2]$, we define
1896: \begin{equation}\label{alg}
1897: \boxed{ \phantom{\Bigl(} [a_1;b_1]\ast [a_2;b_2]\equiv [\,a_1+b_1a_2\,;\,b_1b_2\,]\,.}
1898: \end{equation}
1899: The logic behind this is clear: since the right boundary of the first
1900: slanted wedge carries a scaling $b_1$, the second slanted wedge
1901: must be fully scaled by $b_1$ so that its left boundary carries the
1902: same scaling. In this process its width becomes $b_1 a_2$ and
1903: the scaling of its right boundary $b_1b_2$.
1904: Once the surfaces are glued, we get a total width of $a_1 + b_1a_2$
1905: and a scaling factor $b_1b_2$, which applies to the right boundary.
1906:
1907:
1908: Clearly, slanted wedges form a closed algebra under the star multiplication and plain wedges form a commutative subalgebra.
1909: The algebra~(\ref{alg}) of slanted wedges $[a;b]$ can also be represented as the algebra of matrices of the form
1910: \begin{equation}\label{matrep}
1911: [a;b] \leftrightarrow \begin{pmatrix} b & a \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \,.
1912: \end{equation}
1913: Indeed, in agreement with (\ref{alg}) we then have
1914: \begin{equation}
1915: \begin{pmatrix} b_1 & a_1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} b_2 & a_2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} b_1b_2 & a_1+ b_1 a_2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\,.
1916: \end{equation}
1917: A simple and useful particular case of (\ref{alg}) involves a
1918: Fock space state and a slanted wedge:
1919: \begin{equation}
1920: [a;b]\ast [1;1]=[a+b\,;b\,]\,.
1921: \end{equation}
1922: This example is
1923: illustrated in Figure~\ref{figSigma}(b).
1924: Note that in the final surface the puncture lies at
1925: $z= \half + a + \half b$, the first $\half$ for the conventional
1926: offset, the $a$ due to the first surface and $\half b$ because
1927: the slanting required scaling the unit width of the Fock state
1928: surface by $b$.
1929:
1930: \bigskip
1931: We now consider the Schnabl gauge propagator. As we will
1932: see,
1933: its various ingredients act naturally on slanted wedges
1934: and can be themselves represented by slanted wedges.
1935: The classical propagator is given by
1936: \begin{equation}
1937: \label{classprop1}
1938: {\cal P}=\int
1939: ds ds^\star\, e^{-sL}\,B\,Q\,B^\star e^{-s^\star L^\star}
1940: = \int
1941: ds ds^\star\, \,B\,Q\,e^{-sL} e^{-s^\star L^\star} B^\star\,.
1942: \end{equation}
1943: We will focus solely on the Riemann surface interpretation of this propagator, namely the action of $e^{-sL} e^{-s^\star L^\star}$ on
1944: surfaces. The presence
1945: of line integral insertions from $B,Q$, and $B^\star$
1946: will not play a role in the following analysis.
1947:
1948:
1949: \medskip
1950: We will construct the action of the propagator step by step, treating the operators $e^{-sL_R}$, $e^{-sL_L}$, $e^{-s^\star L_R^\star}$, and
1951: $e^{-s^\star L_L^\star}$ separately.
1952: As discussed in Section~\ref{secannmod} these operators
1953: generate hidden boundaries, which
1954: will now be associated with slanted wedges.
1955: For loop diagrams these boundaries
1956: require special attention.
1957:
1958:
1959: Let us first consider the action of $e^{-sL_R}$ on a general Fock space state $\ket{F}$. We represent $\ket{F}$ in the sliver frame $z$ as
1960: the semi-infinite strip between $\Re(z)=-\half $ and $\Re(z)=\half $.
1961: The operator insertion of the Fock space state is mapped to $z=0$ in the
1962: sliver frame via the map
1963: $z=\frac{2}{\pi}\tan^{-1} \xi$.
1964: Recalling the discussion of
1965: $\mathcal{R}(s)$ in Section~\ref{sectp},
1966: we see that $e^{-sL_R}\ket{F}$ is
1967: represented in the $z$ frame by gluing a strip of width
1968: $\half (e^s-1)$ to the right boundary
1969: of $\ket{F}$ (Figure~\ref{sl02fig}). The parametrization of the right boundary on the resulting
1970: surface, however, has a scaling factor~$e^s$.
1971: We conclude that $e^{-sL_R}$
1972: attaches to the right of $\ket{F}$ the slanted wedge
1973: $[\half (e^s-1);e^s]$ (see Figure~\ref{figemsL}(a)).
1974: %
1975: %
1976: \begin{figure}
1977: \centerline{
1978: \epsfig{figure=emsL.eps, height=5cm}
1979: \hskip .8cm
1980: \epsfig{figure=emsLstar.eps, height=5cm}
1981: \hskip .8cm
1982: \epsfig{figure=emsLstarflip.eps, height=5cm}}
1983: \centerline{(a)\hskip 4.9cm (b) \hskip 5.65cm (c)\hskip 1.15cm}
1984: \caption{(a) The action of $e^{-sL}$ on a Fock space state adds the shaded
1985: strips on both sides of the Fock space state. The shaded strip on the right
1986: represents $e^{-sL_R}$, the
1987: shaded strip on the left represents $e^{-sL_L}$. The dashed grey lines
1988: illustrate the rescaling of the parameterizations from the inner to the outer boundaries.
1989: (b) The action of $e^{-s^\star L^\star}$ on a Fock space state creates the
1990: shaded strips which
1991: lie on top of
1992: the Fock space state surface. (c)
1993: The action of $e^{-s^\star L^\star}$ on a Fock space state after flipping the
1994: strips of the propagator.
1995: }
1996: \label{figemsL}
1997: \end{figure}
1998: %
1999: %
2000: Having determined that $e^{-sL_R}$ is represented by the right attachment
2001: of the
2002: slanted wedge $[\half (e^s-1);e^s]$, it follows that, more generally,
2003: \begin{equation}\label{eslr}
2004: e^{-sL_R}\, [a;b]=[a;b]\ast [\half (e^s-1);e^s]\,.
2005: \end{equation}
2006: The slanted wedge $[a;b]$ has hidden boundaries and the action
2007: of $e^{-sL_R}$ introduces an additional one that stems from
2008: cutting the propagator surface $\RR(s)$. We have seen this
2009: hidden boundary emerge through
2010: $\lambda$-regularization as the line $\bar{Q} \bar{Q}'$ displayed
2011: in Figure~\ref{sl05fig}.
2012:
2013:
2014:
2015:
2016:
2017: Similarly,
2018: $e^{-sL_L}$ glues a strip of width
2019: $\half (e^s-1)$ to the left boundary of $\ket{F}$. Now
2020: the \emph{left} boundary of the resulting surface has a parametrization which
2021: is scaled by $e^s$ (see Figure~\ref{figemsL}(a)). To interpret
2022: this added piece of strip as a slanted wedge, we need to rescale
2023: it by a factor $e^{-s}$ so that its left boundary has canonical
2024: parameterization. We conclude that the action $e^{-sL_L}$
2025: on $\ket{F}$ glues the slanted wedge
2026: $[\half (1-e^{-s});e^{-s}]$ to the left boundary of $\ket{F}$. This generalizes to
2027: \begin{equation}\label{esll}
2028: e^{-sL_L} \,[a;b]= [\half (1-e^{-s});e^{-s}]\ast[a;b]\,.
2029: \end{equation}
2030: It follows from (\ref{eslr}) and (\ref{esll}) that
2031: \be
2032: e^{-s_RL_R} e^{-s_LL_L} [a;b] = e^{-s_LL_L} e^{-s_RL_R}[a;b]\,,
2033: \ee
2034: for all values of $s_L$ and $s_R$. We thus conclude that acting on
2035: slanted wedges the operators $L_L$ and $L_R$ commute.
2036: The action of $e^{-sL}$ on a given slanted wedge can
2037: be calculated as follows
2038: \begin{equation}
2039: \label{eroivkjb}
2040: \begin{split}
2041: e^{-sL} [a; b] &= e^{-s(L_L+L_R)} [a; b] =
2042: e^{-sL_L}e^{-sL_R} [a;b]
2043: \\[1.0ex] &
2044: = [\half (1-e^{-s});e^{-s}]\ast[a;b] \ast [\half (e^s-1);e^s]\,,
2045: \end{split}
2046: \end{equation}
2047: and therefore
2048: \begin{equation}
2049: \label{eroivkjbee}
2050: e^{-sL} [a; b] = [\half (1+b) (1-e^{-s}) + a e^{-s} \,; b \,]\,.
2051: \end{equation}
2052: For the particularly important case of $b=1$, the above
2053: reduces to
2054: \begin{equation}
2055: \boxed{\phantom{\biggl(} e^{-sL} \,[a;1]=[1+(a-1)e^{-s}\,;\,1]\,.~}
2056: \end{equation}
2057: Since $[a;1]$ is a
2058: wedge state, this identity can be readily confirmed
2059: by familiar methods (see eqn.~(A.27) of~\cite{0708.2591}).
2060:
2061:
2062: \medskip
2063: The geometric interpretation of
2064: $e^{-s^\star L^\star}\ket{F}$ is somewhat more intricate.
2065: In the construction of
2066: $e^{-s L}\ket{F}$ we glue the {\em right}
2067: boundary of
2068: the $w$-frame strip $\mathcal{R}(s)$
2069: to the coordinate curve of~$\ket{F}$.
2070: This
2071: boundary of $\RR(s)$ is mapped by (\ref{zfromwaj})
2072: to the coordinate curve $\Re(z)=\pm\half$
2073: and the gluing to the Fock space state works out naturally,
2074: as shown in Figure~\ref{figemsL}(a).
2075: It follows from the discussion in \S4.3 of~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg}
2076: that the surface corresponding to
2077: $e^{-s^\star L^\star}$
2078: can be obtained by gluing the {\em left} boundary of the $w$-frame
2079: $\mathcal{R}(s^\star)$
2080: to the coordinate curve of $\ket{F}$.
2081: This left boundary of $\RR(s^\star)$ is mapped
2082: by (\ref{zfromwaj}) to $\Re(z)=\pm\half e^{s^\star}$
2083: and the strip develops inwards up to $\Re(z)=\pm\half$.
2084: To glue the chosen boundary of $\RR(s^\star)$
2085: to the coordinate curve
2086: at $\Re(z)=\pm\half$, we rescale $\RR(s^\star)$
2087: by $z\to e^{-s^\star}z$.
2088: The result, illustrated in Figure~\ref{figemsL}(b),
2089: is that $e^{-s^\star L_R^\star}$
2090: acting on the sliver-frame $\ket{F}$
2091: introduces
2092: a strip between $\half e^{-s^\star}$ and $\half$,
2093: which is glued to the Fock space state at $\Re(z)=\half$.
2094: In this presentation the surface added by $e^{-s^\star L_R^\star}$
2095: lies on top of the Fock state surface.
2096: The parameterization of the left
2097: boundary of this added strip is shrunk by a factor of
2098: $e^{-s^\star}$.
2099: We can flip the
2100: surface of $e^{-s^\star L_R^\star}$ around the axis
2101: $\Re(z)=\half $ to obtain the result shown in Figure~\ref{figemsL}(c).
2102: We have thus found that $e^{-s^\star L_R^\star}$ attaches
2103: the left boundary of the slanted wedge
2104: $[\half (1-e^{-s^\star});e^{-s^\star}]$ to the right
2105: boundary of $\ket{F}$. On general slanted wedges
2106: \begin{equation}\label{eslstarr}
2107: \begin{split}
2108: e^{-s^\star L^\star_R}
2109: \,[a;b]&=[a;b]\ast[\half (1-e^{-s^\star});e^{-s^\star}]\,.
2110: \end{split}
2111: \end{equation}
2112: Similarly, we obtain
2113: \begin{equation}\label{eslstarl}
2114: e^{-s^\star L^\star_L}\, [a;b]=
2115: [\half (e^{s^\star}-1);e^{s^\star}]\ast[a;b]\,.
2116: \end{equation}
2117: We notice from~(\ref{eslr}), (\ref{esll}), (\ref{eslstarr}), and (\ref{eslstarl}) that the slanted wedges associated
2118: with $e^{-s^\star L^\star_L}$ and $e^{-s^\star L^\star_R}$ can be obtained from those
2119: associated with $e^{-s L_R}$ and $e^{-s L_L}$, respectively, by
2120: letting $s\to s^\star$.
2121: This is not a peculiarity of Schnabl gauge;
2122: it follows because
2123: the surface $\RR^\star(s^\star)$ generated
2124: $e^{-s^\star L[v]^\star}$ can be obtained from the surface $\RR(s)$ generated by $e^{-s L[v]}$ from a reflection in
2125: the $w$ frame~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg}.
2126:
2127: The action of $e^{-s^\star L^\star}$ on a given slanted wedge can be
2128: calculated from
2129: \begin{equation}
2130: \label{eroivkjbjk}
2131: e^{-s^\star L^\star} [a; b] \equiv
2132: e^{-s^\star L_L^\star}e^{-s^\star L_R^\star} [a;b]= [\half (e^{s^\star}-1);e^{s^\star}]\ast[a;b] \ast
2133: [\half (1-e^{-s^\star});e^{-s^\star}]
2134: \ee
2135: and gives
2136: \begin{equation}
2137: \label{eroivkjbjk67}
2138: e^{-s^\star L^\star} [a; b]
2139: = [\half (1+b) (e^{s^\star}-1) + a e^{s^\star} \,; b \,]\,.
2140: \end{equation}
2141: For the case of surface states the above reduces to the identity
2142: \begin{equation}
2143: \boxed{\phantom{\biggl(}
2144: e^{-s^\star L^\star}\, [a;1]=[(1+a)e^{s^\star}-1;1] \,.~}
2145: \end{equation}
2146: that is readily confirmed
2147: by familiar methods (see eqn.~(A.28) of~\cite{0708.2591}).
2148:
2149: \medskip
2150: {}From~(\ref{eslr}),~(\ref{esll}),~(\ref{eslstarr}), and~(\ref{eslstarl})
2151: we find that the left and right parts of the
2152: classical propagator act on a slanted wedge $[a;b]$ as
2153: \begin{equation}\label{propLR}
2154: \boxed{\begin{split}
2155: ~~\phantom{\biggl(} e^{-sL_R}e^{-s^\star L^\star_R}\,[a;b]
2156: &=[a;b]\ast [\half (1+e^{s-s^\star})-e^{-s^\star}\,;\,e^{s-s^\star}]\,,
2157: ~~\\%[0.5ex]
2158: e^{-sL_L}e^{-s^\star L^\star_L}\,[a;b]
2159: &= [\half (1+e^{s^\star-s})-e^{-s}\,;\,e^{s^\star-s}]\ast [a;b] \phantom{\biggl)}.
2160: \end{split}}
2161: \end{equation}
2162: It now follows
2163: that the action of the classical propagator~(\ref{classprop1})
2164: on a slanted wedge $[a;b]$ is given by:
2165: \begin{equation}
2166: \label{classprop}
2167: e^{-sL}e^{-s^\star
2168: L^\star}[a;b]
2169: =[\, \half (1+b)(1+e^{s^\star-s}-2e^{-s})+a\, e^{s^\star-s}\,;\,b\,]\,.
2170: \end{equation}
2171: On
2172: wedge
2173: states $[a;1]$, this simplifies to
2174: \begin{equation}\label{proponwedge}
2175: \boxed{\phantom{\biggl(} e^{-sL}e^{-s^\star L^\star}[a;1]
2176: =\bigl[1-2e^{-s}+(1+a)e^{s^\star-s}\,;\,1\bigr]\,.~}
2177: \end{equation}
2178:
2179: \medskip
2180: As we have emphasized, there are no states
2181: associated with slanted wedges
2182: $[a;b]$
2183: for
2184: $b\neq 1$. Such surfaces are incomplete,
2185: they have a \emph{hidden} vertical boundary segment at $i\infty$.
2186: Since eventually no hidden boundary can remain,
2187: a surface $[a;b]$
2188: with $b\neq 1$, will have its hidden boundary glued to
2189: that of a compensating surface $[\hat a; 1/b]$ with inverse slant
2190: factor. This will be especially relevant
2191: when we build general one-loop diagrams in Section~\ref{secloop}.
2192: There we construct compensating slanted
2193: wedges
2194: $[a;e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}]$ and $[\hat a;e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}]$
2195: which can then be mapped to the annulus.
2196: For tree diagrams the situation is simpler: the
2197: total surface representing the diagram is always
2198: of the form $[a;1]$, with horizontal identifications
2199: applied to the vertical edges.
2200:
2201:
2202: \subsection{Keeping track of insertions on slanted wedges}
2203: The open string moduli are encoded in
2204: the positions of punctures on the corresponding Riemann surfaces.
2205: As we will use slanted wedges to describe these surfaces,
2206: we need to keep track of operator insertions on slanted wedges.
2207: We denote by
2208: \begin{equation}
2209: [\,a ; b \,| x_1, x_2, \ldots , x_k ] \,, \quad\hbox{with}
2210: \quad \half \leq x_1 \leq x_2 \leq \ldots
2211: \leq x_k \leq \half + a\,,
2212: \end{equation}
2213: a slanted wedge with marked points at real coordinates $x_i$. The
2214: wedge is presented, as usual, with its left boundary above $z = \half$.
2215: When star multiplying two slanted wedges, the position $x$ of a marked point on the first slanted wedge
2216: is unaffected:
2217: \begin{equation}
2218: [\,a ; b \,| x] \ast [\,a' ; b'] = [a + b a'; bb' \, |\, x \, ] \,.
2219: \end{equation}
2220: A puncture at $x'$ on the second wedge, on the other hand, is displaced and experiences scaling:
2221: \begin{equation}
2222: \label{iwltsktnpplsfaj}
2223: [\,a ; b \,] \ast [\,a' ; b' \,| x'] = [a + b a'; bb' \, |\, \half + a + b (x'- \half) \, ] \,.
2224: \end{equation}
2225: From this
2226: one can readily verify that
2227: \begin{equation}
2228: \label{iwltksscl}
2229: \begin{split}
2230: e^{-sL_L} [\,a ; b \,| x] &= [~ \ldots \,; \,\ldots \, \, | ~1- e^{-s} + e^{-s}x \,] \,, \\
2231: e^{-sL_R} [\,a ; b \,| x] &= [ ~ \ldots \,; \,\ldots \, \, | ~x \,] \,, \\
2232: e^{-s^\star L_L^\star} [\,a ; b \,| x] &= [~ \ldots \,; \, \ldots \, \, | ~e^{s^\star}x \,] \,, \\
2233: e^{-s^\star L_R^\star} [\,a ; b \,| x] &= [~ \ldots \,; \, \ldots \, \, | ~x \,] \,.
2234: \end{split}
2235: \end{equation}
2236: We put dots $\ldots$ on the width and slant parameters of the resulting wedges
2237: because these values are unaffected by the punctures and were given earlier.
2238: Note that the exponentials of right operators do not affect the position
2239: since they add a slanted wedge from the right. It follows from the above
2240: relations that
2241: \begin{equation}
2242: \label{iwltptmnstvmss}
2243: e^{-s L} \, e^{-s^\star L^\star} [\,a ; b \,| x] = [~ \ldots \,; \, \ldots \, \, | ~
2244: 1- e^{-s} + e^{s^\star-s}x \,]
2245: \,.
2246: \end{equation}
2247: This formula generalizes easily to the case of additional punctures:
2248: all $x_i \to 1- e^{-s} + e^{s^\star-s}x_i$.
2249:
2250:
2251:
2252:
2253: \subsection{Representation of the $L$, $L^\star$ algebra on slanted wedges}
2254:
2255:
2256: It is known that one can view $L, L^\star, L^+ = L+L^\star$ as well
2257: as $L^+_L$ and $L^+_R$
2258: as differential operators acting on the familiar wedge states. As we have
2259: learned, the left and right parts of $L$ and $L^\star$ only act naturally
2260: on slanted wedges (acting on
2261: an ordinary wedge they will give a slanted wedge).
2262: In this section we represent $L_L, L_R, L_L^\star$ and $L^\star_R$, as differential operators on slanted wedges. This provides some further insight into slanted wedges,
2263: a check of this formalism and, as a by product, a tool to derive
2264: (or rederive) some identities.
2265:
2266: Let us focus on the right part of the $L$ and $L^\star$
2267: operators. From~(\ref{eslr}) and~(\ref{eslstarr}) we have
2268: \begin{equation}\label{Lrep}
2269: \begin{split}
2270: L_R[a;b]&= -\frac{d}{\,ds\,}\Bigr|_{s=0~}e^{-sL_R~}[a;b]
2271: =(-\half b\del_a-b\del_b)[a;b]\,,\\
2272: L^\star_R[a;b]&= -\frac{d}{ds^\star}\Bigr|_{s^\star=0}e^{-s^\star
2273: L^\star_R}[a;b]
2274: =(-\half b\del_a+b\del_b)[a;b]\,,
2275: \end{split}
2276: \end{equation}
2277: and we identify the representation
2278: \begin{equation}
2279: L_R= -\half b\del_a-b\del_b\,,
2280: \qquad L^\star_R= -\half b\del_a+b\del_b\,.
2281: \end{equation}
2282: For the left counterparts a similar calculation gives
2283: \begin{equation}
2284: L_L= (a-\half)\del_a +b\del_b\,,
2285: \qquad L^\star_L= -(a+\half) \del_a-b\del_b\,.
2286: \end{equation}
2287: One can readily confirm that acting on slanted wedges the operators
2288: $L_R$ and $L_L$ commute, and so do $L_R^\star$ and $L_L^\star$.
2289: One can now recover the more familiar
2290: differential operators
2291: \begin{equation}
2292: L = -(\half(1+b)-a ) \partial_a\,, ~~
2293: L^\star = -(\half(1+b)+a ) \partial_a\,,~~ L^+ = L+ L^\star= -(1+b) \partial_a\,.
2294: \end{equation}
2295: It is now possible to calculate the commutator $[L, L^\star]$ by imagining
2296: it acting on a wedge state,
2297: \begin{equation}
2298: [L, L^\star] = [ -(\half(1+b)+a ) \partial_a\,, -(\half(1+b)-a ) \partial_a]
2299: = -(1+b) \partial_a = L^+\,,
2300: \end{equation}
2301: which is the expected result. In fact, even the right parts of $L,L^\star$,
2302: and $L^+$ obey the
2303: same equation, as one would expect,
2304: \begin{equation}\label{LLstaralg}
2305: [L_R,L_R^\star] =
2306: \bigl[-\half b\del_a+b\del_b\,,-\half b\del_a-b\del_b\bigr]=- b\del_a =
2307: L_R^+ \,.
2308: \end{equation}
2309:
2310:
2311: \medskip
2312: Let us illustrate how one derives identities using the above
2313: representation of operators. Note first that
2314: \begin{equation}
2315: L_R^+\equiv L_R+L^\star_R=
2316: -b\del_a\,.
2317: \end{equation}
2318: It then follows that
2319: \begin{equation}
2320: \label{iwltfksscl}
2321: e^{-s^+ L_R^+}[a;b] =[a+b s^+;b] = [a;b]\ast[s^+;1]\,,
2322: \end{equation}
2323: showing that $e^{-s^+ L_R^+}$ acts by right multiplying a wedge
2324: of length $s^+$.
2325: Additionally, for wedge states
2326: $[a;1]$
2327: of width $a$
2328: we have
2329: \begin{equation}
2330: -L_R^+[a;1]=\del_a[a;1]\,, \qquad
2331: [a;1]=e^{-a L^+_R}\,[0;1]\,,
2332: \end{equation}
2333: where the zero-length wedge
2334: $[0;1]$ is the identity state $\ket{\mathcal{I}}$.
2335: Another example uses
2336: (\ref{propLR})
2337: and (\ref{iwltfksscl}):
2338: \begin{equation}
2339: \label{iwltfkvm}
2340: e^{-tL_R}e^{-t L^\star_R}\,[a;b]
2341: =[a;b]\ast [1-e^{-t}\,;\,1]
2342: =e^{-(1-e^{-t})L_R^+}\, [a;b]\,,
2343: \end{equation}
2344: leading us to conclude that
2345: $ e^{-tL_R}e^{-t L^\star_R}= e^{-(1-e^{-t})L_R^+}\,.$
2346:
2347:
2348:
2349:
2350:
2351:
2352: \section{Riemann surfaces for tree-level diagrams}\label{sectree}
2353: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2354: In this section we will use the technology of slanted wedges developed
2355: in the previous section to construct the punctured disks associated with tree diagrams. We start with the particularly simple
2356: case of a diagram with five external lines. We then sketch the construction for
2357: arbitrary tree-level diagrams.
2358:
2359:
2360: \subsection{The five-point diagram}
2361:
2362: \begin{figure}
2363: \begin{center}
2364: \epsfig{figure=5point.eps, height=5cm}
2365: \hskip 1.5cm
2366: \epsfig{figure=tracetree5.eps, height=4cm}
2367: \end{center}
2368: \centerline{\hskip1cm(a)\hskip 8cm(b)}
2369: \caption{
2370: (a) A Feynman diagram for a five-point amplitude. (b) The topology of the corresponding Riemann surface.
2371: }
2372: \label{fig5point}
2373: \end{figure}
2374:
2375: Let us use the formalism of Section~\ref{secsw} to construct the surface corresponding to the
2376: tree-level five-point diagram shown in
2377: Figure~\ref{fig5point}. Our goal is to determine the relative angles of the operator insertions on the unit disk. These are the open string
2378: moduli. There are, of course, no closed string moduli.
2379: All other
2380: diagrams contributing to the five point
2381: function are permutations of the external states in the diagram of
2382: Figure~\ref{fig5point}.
2383:
2384:
2385: \medskip
2386: The diagram contains two internal propagators, parameterized by the
2387: Schwinger parameters $t_i, t^\star_i$ with $i=1,2$.
2388: Here and in the
2389: following we use the letter $t$ for Schwinger parameters of propagators in tree diagrams (or subtrees of
2390: loop diagrams).
2391: As this is a tree-level diagram, the classical propagator~(\ref{classprop1}) must be used on both lines.
2392: We use arrows
2393: to assign a direction to each propagator line in the diagram.
2394: At fixed Schwinger parameters
2395: the classical propagator on the $i$-th line
2396: acts as the
2397: operator $e^{-t_iL}BQB^\star e^{-t_i^\star L^\star}$ in the indicated
2398: direction, {\em i.e.} on the state representing the surface in the
2399: direction of
2400: the arrow. Equivalently, it acts as the BPZ conjugate operator $e^{-t_i^
2401: \star L}BQB^\star e^{-t_i L^\star}$ in the direction opposite to the
2402: arrow. Since the full
2403: propagator is BPZ invariant, amplitudes do not depend on
2404: this assignment after
2405: integration over Schwinger parameters.
2406: The selection of specific arrows
2407: is simply a convention that fixes which Schwinger
2408: parameter we call $t_i$ and which one we call~$t_i^\star$.
2409:
2410:
2411:
2412:
2413:
2414: Let us consider the part of the diagram consisting of the
2415: first propagator ($t_1$,$t^\star_1$) and the Fock
2416: space states $\ket{F_A}$, $\ket{F_B}$. Each Fock space state is
2417: of the form $[1;1|1]$. Together, and
2418: acted by
2419: the propagator, they
2420: form the twice-punctured surface state
2421: \begin{equation}
2422: \label{iwltssprmdrptvmpss}
2423: \begin{split}
2424: [a_1;1\,|~x_A, x_B]&
2425: \equiv e^{-t_1L}e^{-t_1^\star L^\star}\bigl([1; 1|1]_A\ast [1;
2426: 1\,|1]_B\bigr) \\
2427: &= e^{-t_1L}e^{-t_1^\star L^\star}\,[2; 1|1,2]\\
2428: & =[1-2e^{-t_1}+3e^{t_1^\star-t_1};1\,|\,x_A,x_B]\,\,,\\[1.0ex]
2429: \hbox{with} \phantom{jjkkkj} x_A&=1-e^{-t_1}+ e^{t_1^\star-t_1} \\[1.0ex]
2430: x_B&=1-e^{-t_1}+2 e^{t_1^\star-t_1} \,,
2431: \end{split}
2432: \end{equation}
2433: where we used~(\ref{proponwedge}) to calculate the wedge parameters
2434: and (\ref{iwltptmnstvmss}) to calculate the positions $x_A$ and $x_B$
2435: of the punctures on the resulting wedge.
2436: Similarly, we can analyze the part of
2437: the diagram with the second propagator
2438: ($t_2$,$t^\star_2$) and the
2439: Fock space states $\ket{F_D}$, $\ket{F_E}$. They form the surface state
2440: \begin{equation}
2441: \label{iwltsmllychrlppssy}
2442: \begin{split}
2443: [a_2;1\,|~ x_D , x_E]
2444: \equiv e^{-t_2L}e^{-t_2^\star L^\star}\bigl([1; 1|1]_D\ast [1; 1|1]_E\bigr)=
2445: [1-2e^{-t_2}+3e^{t_2^\star-t_2};1|x_D, x_E\,]\,,
2446: \end{split}
2447: \end{equation}
2448: with the operator insertions corresponding to $\ket{F_D}$ and $\ket{F_E}$ located at
2449: \begin{equation}
2450: \begin{split}
2451: x_D&=1-e^{-t_2}+ e^{t_2^\star-t_2}\,,\\
2452: x_E&=1-e^{-t_2}+2 e^{t_2^\star-t_2} \,.
2453: \end{split}
2454: \end{equation}
2455:
2456: To assemble the Riemann surface corresponding to the five-point diagram we
2457: glue the surfaces $[a_1;1|x_A, x_B]$, $[1; 1|1]_C$ (corresponding to
2458: $\ket{F_C}$) and $[a_2;1|x_D, x_E]$. We obtain the surface $\Sigma$ given by
2459: \begin{equation}
2460: \label{ylchrlpans}
2461: \begin{split}
2462: \Sigma&\equiv
2463: [a_1;1|x_A, x_B]\ast [1; 1|1]_C \ast [a_2;1|\,x_D, x_E]\\[1.0ex]
2464: &=[a_1+a_2+1;1|\, x_A,\, x_B,\, \,a_1+1,\,\, a_1 + 1 + x_D, \,
2465: a_1 + 1 + x_E]\,.
2466: \end{split}
2467: \end{equation}
2468: In particular, we notice that the wedge $\Sigma$ is not slanted.
2469: The two vertical boundaries of $\Sigma$
2470: are thus identified horizontally
2471: and the resulting surface is mapped to
2472: the unit disk $\eta$ via
2473: \begin{equation}\label{diskframe}
2474: \eta=\exp\left({\frac{2\pi iz}{a}}\right)\,, \quad a = a_1 + a_2 + 1\,.
2475: \end{equation}
2476: A horizontal distance $\Delta x$ along the boundary of $\Sigma$ translates into an angular separation $\Delta \phi$ on the unit disk given by
2477: \begin{equation}
2478: \frac{\Delta \phi}{2\pi}=\frac{\Delta x}{a}\,.
2479: \end{equation}
2480: For the relative angles of the operator insertions on the boundary of the unit
2481: disk
2482: we thus obtain
2483: \begin{equation}\label{angles5point}
2484: \begin{split}
2485: \frac{\phi_B-\phi_A}{2\pi} =\qquad\frac{x_B-x_A}{a}\qquad
2486: &=
2487: \frac{e^{t_1^\star-t_1}}{3-2e^{-t_1}-2e^{-t_2}+3e^{t_1^\star-t_1}+3e^{t_2^\star-t_2}
2488: }\,,\\
2489: \frac{\phi_C-\phi_A}{2\pi} =\quad\frac{a_1+1-x_A}{a}~\quad
2490: &=
2491: \frac{1-e^{-t_1}+2e^{t_1^\star-t_1}}{3-2e^{-t_1}-2e^{-t_2}+3e^{t_1^\star-t_1}+3e^{t_2^\star-t_2}
2492: }\,,\\
2493: \frac{\phi_D-\phi_A}{2\pi} =\frac{a_1+1+x_D-x_A}{a}
2494: &=
2495: \frac{2-e^{-t_1}+2e^{t_1^\star-t_1}-e^{-t_2}+e^{t_2^\star-t_2}}{3-2e^{-t_1}-2e^{-t_2}+3e^{t_1^\star-t_1}+3e^{t_2^\star-t_2}
2496: }\,,\\
2497: \frac{\phi_E-\phi_A}{2\pi} =\frac{a_1+1+x_E-x_A}{a}
2498: &=
2499: \frac{2-e^{-t_1}+2e^{t_1^\star-t_1}-e^{-t_2}+2e^{t_2^\star-t_2}}{3-2e^{-t_1}-2e^{-t_2}+3e^{t_1^\star-t_1}+3e^{t_2^\star-t_2}
2500: }\,.
2501: \end{split}
2502: \end{equation}
2503: This concludes the computation of angles for the string diagram
2504: in Figure~\ref{fig5point}. Of course, the positions of three of the punctures
2505: can be fixed arbitrarily, so there are just two open string moduli.
2506: As usual for amplitudes in non BPZ-invariant gauges, we have twice as many
2507: Schwinger parameters as moduli of the corresponding
2508: Riemann surface.
2509: Indeed, we have four Schwinger parameters ($t_1$,
2510: $t_1^\star$, $t_2$, $t_2^\star$).
2511: This is not a problem because each of the two propagators is
2512: accompanied by a BRST operator $Q$.
2513: In~\cite{0708.2591,Fuji:2006me}, the classical propagator~(\ref{classprop1}) was rewritten~as
2514: \begin{equation}
2515: {\cal P} = \frac{B}{L} +\textrm{ other terms }\,,
2516: \end{equation}
2517: and it turned out that the $B/L$ term by itself covered the moduli space of
2518: on-shell amplitudes for the four-point function.
2519: All other terms only contributed off-shell.
2520:
2521: It is therefore interesting to ask if there is an assignment of $B/L$ and
2522: $B^\star/L^\star$ to the
2523: propagator lines
2524: in the five-point diagram
2525: which produces all the requisite open string degenerations:
2526: as a Schwinger parameter becomes large the associated line
2527: produces the degeneration represented by a long strip.
2528: That degeneration, moreover, must occur independent of the
2529: values of the other Schwinger parameters, even if they also go
2530: to infinity.
2531: Not every assignment works. If we assign $B^\star/L^\star$ to {\em both} propagators (namely, $t_1=t_2=0$)
2532: making one Schwinger parameter large is
2533: not sufficient to guarantee an open string degeneration.
2534: In fact, for $t_1^\star=t^\star_2\to\infty$
2535: the angles of the five insertions on the unit circle
2536: spread out over the circle,
2537: a configuration that is clearly not degenerate.
2538: This is not too surprising. If we had regarded the left propagator as
2539: acting to the right, we would have encountered the operator combination
2540: $e^{-t_2^\star L_L}e^{-t_1^\star L_L^\star}$ acting on the Fock space state
2541: $\ket{F_A}$. This product
2542: of operators has been noticed to produce
2543: interesting subtleties in~\cite{0708.2591}. Although both Schwinger parameters
2544: in the operator diverge, the resulting Riemann surface
2545: is perfectly regular.
2546: Indeed, acting on any slanted wedge we have
2547: from~(\ref{propLR}):
2548: \begin{equation}
2549: \begin{split}
2550: \lim_{t_1^\star=t^\star_2\to\infty}e^{-t_2^\star L_L}e^{-t_1^\star L_L^\star}[a;b]
2551: & = \lim_{t_1^\star=t^\star_2\to\infty}
2552: [\half + \half
2553: e^{t_1^\star - t_2^\star}- e^{-t_2^\star} \,; e^{t_1^\star - t_2^\star} ] \ast [a;b] = [1;1]\ast [a;b]\, \\
2554: &= [a+1;b] \,.
2555: \end{split}
2556: \end{equation}
2557: In this limit the operator simply inserts the unit wedge $[1;1]$.
2558: This is a surface of finite width and finite rescaling and cannot
2559: induce an open string degeneration in any diagram. For all other choices of assignments of $B/L$ and $B^\star/L^\star$ to the two
2560: propagator lines, open
2561: string degenerations are always produced when we make any Schwinger parameter large. Details of this analysis are given in
2562: appendix~\ref{app5pt}.
2563:
2564:
2565: \subsection{General tree diagrams}
2566: The construction of the surface for the five-string diagram was particularly simple. For general
2567: tree-level diagrams we need to be more systematic. As we did for the
2568: five-string diagram we assign an arrow to each
2569: propagator, indicating the direction in which it acts. This assignment
2570: is arbitrary and will not affect the total set of surfaces created as the
2571: Schwinger parameters vary over their full range because the propagator is BPZ-invariant.
2572:
2573: We now rewrite the five-string diagram in a way that makes the case for
2574: the general rules to be stated below.
2575: Let us revisit
2576: the surface considered in (\ref{iwltssprmdrptvmpss}):
2577: \begin{equation}
2578: e^{-t_1L}e^{-t_1^\star L^\star}\bigl([1; 1|1]_A\ast [1;
2579: 1\,|1]_B\bigr) = e^{-t_1L_L}
2580: e^{-t_1^\star L^\star_L}e^{-t_1L_R}
2581: e^{-t_1^\star L^\star_R}\bigl([1; 1|1]_A\ast [1;
2582: 1\,|1]_B\bigr)\,.
2583: \end{equation}
2584: Recalling~(\ref{propLR}), we then find
2585: \begin{equation}
2586: \begin{split}
2587: &e^{-t_1L}e^{-t_1^\star L^\star}\bigl([1; 1|1]_A\ast [1;1\,|1]_B\bigr)\\
2588: \quad &= [\half (1+e^{t_1^\star-t_1})-e^{-t_1}\,;\,e^{t_1^\star-t_1}]
2589: \ast[1; 1|1]_A\ast [1;1\,|1]_B\ast
2590: [\half (1+e^{t_1-t_1^\star})-e^{-t_1^\star}\,;\,e^{t_1-t_1^\star}]\\[1.0ex]
2591: \quad &= L_1 \ast [1; 1|1]_A\ast [1;1\,|1]_B\ast R_1\,,
2592: \end{split}
2593: \end{equation}
2594: where we have defined
2595: the slanted wedges $L_i$ and $R_i$ associated with the left and right part of the $i$-th
2596: propagator:
2597: \begin{equation}\label{LiRitree}
2598: L_i \equiv [\half (1+e^{t_i^\star-t_i})-e^{-t_i}\,;\,e^{t_i^\star-t_i}]\,,\qquad
2599: R_i \equiv [\half (1+e^{t_i-t_i^\star})-e^{-t_i^\star}\,;\,e^{t_i-t_i^\star}]\,.
2600: \end{equation}
2601: It is now clear that (\ref{iwltsmllychrlppssy}) becomes:
2602: \begin{equation}
2603: e^{-t_2L}e^{-t_2^\star L^\star}\bigl([1; 1|1]_D\ast [1; 1|1]_E\bigr)=
2604: L_2 \ast [1; 1|1]_D\ast [1;
2605: 1\,|1]_E\ast R_2\,.
2606: \end{equation}
2607: Assembling now the full surface $\Sigma$ as in (\ref{ylchrlpans}) we have
2608: \begin{equation}
2609: \Sigma=L_1 \ast [1; 1|1]_A\ast [1;
2610: 1\,|1]_B\ast R_1\ast [1;1|1]_C\ast L_2 \ast [1; 1|1]_D\ast [1;
2611: 1\,|1]_E\ast R_2\,.
2612: \end{equation}
2613: Note that $\Sigma$ is a wedge of unit slant factor (an ordinary
2614: wedge) because the slant factors of $L_i$ and $R_i$
2615: are multiplicative inverses of each other.
2616: Since the right and left edges of $\Sigma$ are to be identified, we can
2617: slide part of the wedge state from left to right, cyclically. We write, for
2618: convenience,
2619: \begin{equation}
2620: \label{ylchrlpsttsrgrt}
2621: \Sigma=[1; 1|1]_A\ast [1;1\,|1]_B\ast R_1\ast [1;1|1]_C\ast L_2 \ast [1; 1|1]_D\ast [1;1\,|1]_E\ast R_2\ast L_1\,.
2622: \end{equation}
2623: The rule for building
2624: the surface $\Sigma$ for general tree diagrams
2625: is now clear: {\em Begin at some external
2626: state and trace around the diagram in the counterclockwise
2627: direction.
2628: For each external state add the factor $[1;1|1]$.
2629: For each line $i$ traversed against the propagator arrow
2630: add a factor $R_i$. For each line $i$ traversed along the propagator arrow add a factor $L_i$.
2631: All factors are added from the right.}
2632: The formula in (\ref{ylchrlpsttsrgrt}) results from the application
2633: of this rule to the diagram in Figure~\ref{fig5point},
2634: starting at the external state $\ket{F_A}$.
2635: Note that the
2636: rules build the surface using half strings.
2637: If we are tracing in the direction of the arrow on the $i$ line, we multiply
2638: by the surface $L_i$
2639: because the propagator acts from the left on the surface to be built. If we are tracing against the arrow of the propagator, we
2640: multiply by the surface
2641: $R_i$ because, in this case, the propagator acts from the right on the surface we have already built.
2642:
2643: For the more complicated diagram in Figure~\ref{figtracetree} the rules are still simple to follow. Although it is redundant information, the labels
2644: $L_i$ and $R_i$
2645: in Figure~\ref{figtracetree} represent the factors that must be included, as a result of the chosen
2646: assignment of arrows, when
2647: we follow the grey dotted curve along the diagram.
2648: We have,
2649: %
2650: %
2651: \begin{figure}
2652: \centerline{
2653: \epsfig{figure=tracetree.eps, height=7cm}}
2654: \caption{The surface $\Sigma$ for general tree diagrams is built by tracing the grey dotted line counterclockwise around the
2655: diagram, starting at an arbitrary external state. When tracing along
2656: the $i$-th
2657: propagator one picks up either the slanted wedge corresponding
2658: to the
2659: left part ($L_i$) or right part ($R_i$)
2660: of the
2661: propagator. This depends on the direction of the propagator (black arrows). }
2662: \label{figtracetree}
2663: \end{figure}
2664: %
2665: \begin{equation}
2666: \begin{split}
2667: \label{iwltstckmnsnvmpssy}
2668: \Sigma& = [1;1|1]\ast L_1 \ast R_2 \ast[1;1|1] \ast L_3 \ast \ldots \ast L_i \ast [2;1|1,2]\ast R_i \ast \ldots \\[1.0ex]
2669: &~~~\ldots \ast R_3\ast L_2 \ast L_n \ast [2;1|1,2] \ast R_n \ast R_1 \ast [1;1|1]\,.
2670: \end{split}
2671: \end{equation}
2672: The resulting surface is of unit slant (for each $L_i$ there is an
2673: $R_i$) and takes
2674: the form
2675: \begin{equation}
2676: \Sigma = [a;1\,|\, x_1, x_2, \ldots x_k\,]\,,
2677: \end{equation}
2678: for some calculable width $a$ and some calculable positions $x_i$.
2679: The left and right boundaries of $\Sigma$ are identified
2680: through translation by $a$. We can therefore map the glued $\Sigma$
2681: surface to a unit disk using
2682: $\eta=\exp(2\pi iz/a)$.
2683: To determine the moduli of the surface, we only need to know the angular separation between operator
2684: insertions on the unit circle. If insertions are separated by $\Delta x$ on $\Sigma$, their relative angle $\Delta\phi$ on the unit circle
2685: is simply given by
2686: \begin{equation}
2687: \frac{ \Delta\phi}{2\pi} =\frac{\Delta x}{a} \,.
2688: \end{equation}
2689: This concludes our discussion of Riemann surfaces for general tree-level diagrams.
2690:
2691:
2692:
2693:
2694: \section{Riemann surfaces for general one-loop diagrams}\label{secloop}
2695: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2696:
2697: In Section~\ref{sectp} we built the surface corresponding to the tadpole
2698: diagram in Schnabl gauge using the simplified propagator $B/L$ (i.e. $s^\star=0$).
2699: Using the $z$ frame we built separately the parts of the surface that
2700: contain the inner and outer boundary components of the annulus,
2701: as displayed in Figure~\ref{sl04fig}(b).
2702: Let us now review this construction using the algebra of slanted wedges.
2703:
2704:
2705: On the outer boundary
2706: (the right strip in the $z$ frame)
2707: there is a Fock space state $[1;1|1]$. It is acted
2708: by the right part $e^{-sL_R}$ of the propagator
2709: so we get a slanted wedge $\Sigma$ given by
2710: \begin{equation}
2711: \Sigma = e^{-sL_R} [1;1|1] = [\half (1+e^{s});e^{s}|1\,]\,,
2712: \end{equation}
2713: where we made use of (\ref{eslr}) and (\ref{iwltksscl}).
2714: On the inner boundary there is only the remaining left part $e^{-sL_L}$ of the propagator so the resulting slanted wedge $\widehat \Sigma$ is just
2715: \begin{equation}
2716: \widehat\Sigma\equiv[\half (1-e^{-s});e^{-s}]\,,
2717: \end{equation}
2718: making use of (\ref{esll}).
2719: The slanted wedges $\Sigma$ and $\widehat\Sigma$
2720: are glued to each other at their
2721: hidden boundaries at $i\infty$, as discussed
2722: in Section~\ref{sectp} using $\lambda$-regularization.
2723:
2724: We need to place the surfaces $\Sigma$ and $\widehat \Sigma$ in the $z$-plane in
2725: such a way that: (i) their hidden boundaries at $i\infty$ glue correctly,
2726: and
2727: (ii) the slanted identifications
2728: become translations in
2729: the $w$ frame ($z=-\half e^{-w}$). We refer to the result
2730: as the natural $w$-picture.
2731: For the identifications on $\Sigma$ to be simple
2732: translations in the $w$ frame, we
2733: shift $\Sigma$ horizontally, so that
2734: the position of its right
2735: boundary is a rescaling by $e^{s}$ of its left boundary. The translation is uniquely
2736: determined and $\Sigma$ lands between the vertical lines
2737: given
2738: in (\ref{iwltfkchlw}).
2739: Similarly, we need to shift the position of $\widehat\Sigma$ in such a way
2740: that the position of its right
2741: boundary is a rescaling by $e^{-s}$ of its left boundary. As $e^{-s}<1$, this
2742: implies that we need to position $\widehat\Sigma$ in the region $\Re (z) <0$.
2743: In fact, we readily see that $\widehat\Sigma$ must be placed as the region between $\Re(z)=-\half $ and
2744: $\Re(z)=-\half e^{-s}$.
2745:
2746: But we are not done yet. The boundaries at $i\infty$ now do \emph{not} glue
2747: correctly.
2748: By the definition of slanted wedges, the parameterizations of
2749: the left boundaries of
2750: $\Sigma$ and $\widehat\Sigma$ match -- indeed, they both
2751: have unit scaling factor.
2752: But for the hidden boundaries at $i\infty$ to glue nicely in the $w$ frame,
2753: the parameterizations of the left boundary of $\Sigma$ needs to match the
2754: parametrization of the \emph{right} boundary
2755: of $\widehat\Sigma$.\footnote{This requirement will lead to the established
2756: result for this diagram, but will be justified in more generality using $\lambda$-regularization in Section~\ref{sechidden}.} We can achieve this simply by rescaling
2757: the shifted
2758: $\widehat\Sigma$
2759: by $e^s$. Then $\widehat\Sigma$ is positioned
2760: between $\Re(z)=-\half e^{s}$ and $\Re(z)=-\half $. This is precisely the
2761: configuration of surfaces that we ended up with and fully justified
2762: in Section~\ref{sectp}.
2763:
2764: The above steps can easily be
2765: generalized to one-loop diagrams
2766: of arbitrary complexity. We will now show
2767: how this is done.
2768: A detailed justification of the procedure is given in Section~\ref{aregvieononelooam}, where
2769: we discuss the $\lambda$-regulation explicitly.
2770:
2771:
2772: \subsection{The natural $w$-picture}\label{naturalw}
2773:
2774: For a one-loop diagram,
2775: we construct two complementary surfaces
2776: \begin{equation}
2777: \label{iwltfkvkmt}
2778: \Sigma\equiv[a;e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}|
2779: \,\vec{x}\,]
2780: \quad\hbox{and}\quad
2781: \widehat{\Sigma}\equiv[\hat a; e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}\,|
2782: \,\vec{\hat x}\,
2783: ]\,,
2784: \end{equation}
2785: where $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{\hat x}$ collectively represent the positions of all punctures
2786: on $\Sigma$ and $\widehat \Sigma$, respectively.
2787: These surfaces are said to be complementary because their scaling factors
2788: multiply to one.
2789: On each surface, the left and
2790: the right boundaries are identified,
2791: and the two surfaces are glued to each other at their hidden boundaries
2792: at $i\infty$.
2793:
2794: The \emph{natural $w$ picture} is one in which
2795: the hidden boundaries of $\Sigma$ and $\widehat{\Sigma}$ glue
2796: nicely and the identifications on $\Sigma$ and $\widehat \Sigma$ are
2797: horizontal translations by $s_{\rm{eff}}$.
2798: To obtain this picture
2799: we need to place the surfaces $\Sigma$
2800: and $\widehat\Sigma$ correctly in
2801: the $z$ frame.
2802: First, we shift the surfaces $\Sigma$ and
2803: $\widehat \Sigma$
2804: by real constants $a_0$ and $\hat a_0$, respectively, so that the position of
2805: their right boundaries is
2806: a rescaling of the left boundaries by $e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}$ and $e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}$,
2807: respectively. Recall that by definition all
2808: slanted wedges start out with their left boundary at $\Re(z)=\half $. The
2809: required shifts are thus determined by the relations
2810: \begin{equation}
2811: e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}=\frac{a_0+a+\half }{a_0+\half }\,,\qquad e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}=\frac{\hat
2812: a_0+\hat a+\half }{\hat a_0+\half }\,.
2813: \end{equation}
2814: Thus
2815: \begin{equation}\label{defa0}
2816: a_0
2817: =\frac{a}{e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}-1}-\half\,, \qquad
2818: \hat a_0
2819: =-\frac{\hat a }{1-e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}}-\half \,.
2820: \end{equation}
2821: This shift places the surface $\Sigma$ at
2822: \begin{equation}\label{sigmaregion}
2823: \hbox{Final}~ \Sigma ~
2824: \hbox{region:}~~~ a_0 + \half \leq \Re (z) \leq e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}(a_0 + \half) \,.
2825: \end{equation}
2826: As we discussed for the tadpole example above,
2827: we then rescale $\widehat{\Sigma}$ by a factor of
2828: $e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}$ so that it has the
2829: canonical parametrization on its \emph{right} boundary.
2830: With this scaling $\widehat\Sigma$ ends up
2831: in the location
2832: \begin{equation}\label{hatsigmaregion}
2833: \hbox{Final}~ \widehat\Sigma ~
2834: \hbox{region:}~~~ e^{s_{\rm{eff}}} (\hat{a}_0 + \half) \leq \Re (z) \leq
2835: \hat{a}_0 + \half \,.
2836: \end{equation}
2837: After positioning $\Sigma$ and $\widehat \Sigma$ in this way we
2838: map to the
2839: $w$ frame via (\ref{wzrel})
2840: and to the annulus frame $\zeta$ via
2841: \begin{equation}\label{zetadef}
2842: \zeta=e^{-\frac{2\pi i}{s_{\rm{eff}}} (w-i\pi)} \, .
2843: \end{equation}
2844: The modulus $M$ of the annulus was defined in~(\ref{defM}).
2845: We can read it off from~(\ref{zetadef}) as
2846: \begin{equation}\label{annulusmodulus}
2847: M=\frac{\pi}{|s_{\rm{eff}}|}\,.
2848: \end{equation}
2849: A point $x$ on $\Sigma$ with $\half \leq x\leq \half +a$ is located
2850: at $z = x+ a_0$ in the shifted $\Sigma$ region~(\ref{sigmaregion}).
2851: Using (\ref{iwltktcntaj99}), we see that it
2852: ends on a boundary of the annulus
2853: at an angle
2854: \begin{equation}
2855: \label{389eiu}
2856: \phi=\frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln (2|a_0+x|)=\frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln
2857: \Bigl( 2\Bigl|x-\half+\frac{a}{e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}-1}\Bigr|\Bigr)\,.
2858: \end{equation}
2859: Similarly, any
2860: point $\hat x$ on $\widehat{\Sigma}$ is located
2861: at $z = e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}
2862: ( \hat x + \hat{a}_0)$
2863: in the final $\widehat\Sigma$ region~(\ref{hatsigmaregion})
2864: and lands at
2865: an angle
2866: \begin{equation}
2867: \label{3948ufd}
2868: \hat\phi= \frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln(2e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}|\hat x+\hat
2869: a_0|)=\frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln \Bigl( 2\Bigl|\half-\hat x+\frac{\hat a
2870: }{1-e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}}\Bigr|\Bigr)\,.
2871: \end{equation}
2872: All points in $\vec{x}$ land on the same boundary component and all points
2873: in $\vec{\hat x}$ land on the other boundary component. With the maps
2874: written here, if $s_{\rm{eff}}>0$
2875: the points in $\vec{x}$ lie on the outer component and if $s_{\rm{eff}}<0$
2876: they lie on the inner component. Of course, there is no invariant
2877: distinction between these components as they can be exchanged by
2878: a conformal map.
2879:
2880: \subsection{General one-loop diagrams}
2881: Let us now build the complementary
2882: surfaces $\Sigma$ and $\widehat\Sigma$ in (\ref{iwltfkvkmt})
2883: for a general
2884: one-loop diagram.
2885: Let
2886: $n$ be the number of propagators running in the loop.
2887: It follows that there are also $n$ vertices
2888: within the loop. These vertices will be labeled $1$ to $n$
2889: as we move counterclockwise in the loop (see Figure~\ref{figloopn}(a)).
2890: Two lines of each cubic vertex in the loop connect to loop propagators.
2891: The remaining line can lead to a single external state
2892: or to a subtree diagram with a set of external states.
2893: In either case, the additional external state(s) at this vertex are all on one
2894: specific boundary of the annulus.
2895: We let $\Sigma$ represent the part of the diagram which is
2896: drawn on the outer side of the loop and
2897: $\widehat\Sigma$ represent the part of the diagram on the inside
2898: of the loop.
2899: Eventually, we will glue the surfaces $\Sigma$ and $\widehat\Sigma$ along their
2900: hidden boundaries, shown
2901: as dashed lines in Figure~\ref{figloopn}(b).
2902: In Section~\ref{naturalw} we have
2903: learned how to perform this gluing.
2904: \begin{figure}
2905: \centerline{
2906: \epsfig{figure=loopn.eps, height=6.5cm}\hskip 3.5cm \epsfig{figure=proptopo.eps,
2907: height=6.5cm}
2908: }
2909: \centerline{\hskip3cm(a)\hskip9cm (b)}
2910: \caption{(a) A general one-loop diagram with $n$ vertices and $n$
2911: propagators in the loop.
2912: At each vertex the external states can either contribute to
2913: $\Sigma$ or $\widehat{\Sigma}$ and
2914: thus end up on either boundary of the annulus. (b) The topology of the
2915: surfaces at vertex one. The right part $R_i$ of
2916: the $i$-th propagator
2917: contributes to $\Sigma$. The left part
2918: $L_i$ of the $i$-th propagator
2919: (shaded) contributes to $\widehat\Sigma$. $\Sigma$
2920: and $\widehat \Sigma$ are glued along the hidden boundaries
2921: represented by the dashed lines.}
2922: \label{figloopn}
2923: \end{figure}
2924:
2925: If the external states at the $i$-th vertex are on the $\Sigma$-side of the annulus, they add to $\Sigma$ a surface
2926: \begin{equation}
2927: \label{iwltkthftfvm}
2928: [a_i;1\,|\,
2929: \vec{y_i}\,] = [a_i;1\,|\, y_i^1,\ldots\,, y_i^{m_i}\,] ~~\text{ with } a_i>0\,,
2930: \end{equation}
2931: where the $y_i^\alpha$ are the positions of the punctures and $\alpha= 1 ,
2932: \ldots m_i$ is an
2933: index that enumerates them.
2934: If only
2935: a Fock space state is connected to
2936: vertex $i$, the surface in (\ref{iwltkthftfvm}) is $[1;1|1]$.
2937: As shown in Figure~\ref{figloopn}(a), the surface in (\ref{iwltkthftfvm}) can
2938: in general
2939: represent a complicated subtree diagram.
2940: The slant factor is one because the subdiagram is a tree.
2941: As the external states of the $i$-th vertex are on the $\Sigma$-side of the
2942: diagram, they do not affect the $\widehat \Sigma$-side.
2943: In order to treat
2944: both $\Sigma$ and $\widehat\Sigma$ symmetrically, we also insert a surface
2945: on $\widehat\Sigma$,
2946: the trivial ``identity surface"
2947: \begin{equation}
2948: [\hat a_i;1]= [0;1]\,.
2949: \end{equation}
2950: If, on the other hand, the external states are on the boundary corresponding to
2951: $\widehat\Sigma$, we have a surface insertion
2952: \begin{equation}
2953: \label{iwltkthfetfvm}
2954: [\hat a_i;1\,|\,
2955: \vec{\hat {y}}_i\,]= [\hat a_i;1\,|\, \hat y_i^1,\ldots\,, \hat y_i^{\hat m_i}\,]
2956: ~~\text{ with } \hat a_i>0
2957: \end{equation}
2958: on $\widehat\Sigma$ accompanied by a trivial
2959: insertion $[a_i;1]=[0;1]$ on the $\Sigma$ side.
2960: Thus the $n$ vertices in the loop are described by $2n$ wedges,
2961: only $n$ of which are non-trivial.
2962:
2963: \medskip
2964: The propagators in the loop are in general complicated, because their
2965: geometric action depends
2966: on the ghost number of the state that they act on~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg}.
2967: Since states of all ghost numbers circulate in the loop
2968: we cannot use the classical propagator (\ref{classprop1}).
2969: We choose the alternating
2970: gauge introduced in~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg} for the FP gauge fixing procedure
2971: of Schnabl gauge.
2972: This yields the propagator
2973: \begin{equation}
2974: {\cal P}={\cal P}_{+}\,\Pi_++{\cal P}_{-}\,\Pi_-\,,
2975: \end{equation}
2976: where $\Pi_+$ ($\Pi_-$) is the projector on even (odd) ghost number,
2977: and ${\cal P}_{\pm}$, for the $i$-th propagator,
2978: are
2979: defined by
2980: \begin{equation}~\label{altprop}
2981: {\cal P}_{+}
2982: =\int ds_i ds^\star_i\, e^{-s_iL}\,B\,Q\,B^\star e^{-s^\star_i L^\star}\,,\qquad
2983: {\cal P}_{-}
2984: =\int ds_i ds^\star_i\, e^{-s^\star_iL^\star}\,B^\star\,Q\,B e^{-s_i L}\,.
2985: \end{equation}
2986: The classical propagator is $\mathcal{P}_+$ since it acts on ghost number two sources to give ghost number one classical states.
2987: With external physical states of ghost number one, all
2988: non-trivial
2989: surface insertions at the loop insert states of ghost number one. Since the three string vertex
2990: couples states whose ghost numbers add up to three, the states on the
2991: two loop-propagators that attach to the vertex must both have either even or
2992: odd ghost number. Consequently the states
2993: running over {\em all}
2994: the propagators in the loop are either of even ghost number
2995: or odd ghost number.
2996: It follows that in alternating gauge we only need to consider two types of Riemann surfaces for every diagram at one
2997: loop level.
2998: The first surface is constructed by including a projector onto states of even ghost number anywhere in the loop and using
2999: ${\cal P}_{+}$ for all lines in the loop. The second surface is constructed
3000: with a projector onto
3001: odd ghost numbers in the loop and using ${\cal P}_{-}$ for all
3002: lines in the loop.
3003:
3004: As mentioned before, the final set of surfaces is independent of the chosen
3005: direction on the propagator on each line. For simplicity, however,
3006: we
3007: orient all propagators in the loop clockwise.
3008: Tracing the outer loop counterclockwise, the
3009: right part of the propagator
3010: contributes to the surface $\Sigma$ on each line.
3011: The inner loop must be traced clockwise so the left part of the propagator
3012: contributes to the surface $\widehat\Sigma$ on each line.
3013: This has been illustrated in
3014: Figure~\ref{figloopn}(b).
3015:
3016: At fixed Schwinger parameters, the right part of
3017: ${\cal P}_{+}$
3018: adds to $\Sigma$ the slanted wedge corresponding to the operator
3019: $e^{-s_iL_R}e^{-s^\star_i L_R^\star}$, which is calculated in
3020: (\ref{propLR}).
3021: The right part of
3022: ${\cal P}_{-}$, on the other hand,
3023: adds the slanted wedge
3024: corresponding to $e^{-s^\star_i L_R^\star}e^{-s_iL_R}$ to $\Sigma$,
3025: which is calculated using (\ref{eslr}) and (\ref{eslstarr}).
3026: We conclude
3027: that the $i$-th propagator contributes to
3028: $\Sigma$ the slanted wedge $R_i$
3029: given by
3030: \begin{equation}
3031: \label{iwltkssajj}
3032: R_i\equiv
3033: [r_i;e^{s_i-s^\star_i}]
3034: \quad\text{with}\quad
3035: \left\{
3036: \begin{array}{l}
3037: r_i=\half (1+e^{s_i-s^\star_i})-e^{-s^\star_i}
3038: \quad\,\text{ for even ghost number }({\cal P}_+)\\\\
3039: r_i=e^{s_i}-\half(1+e^{s_i-s^\star_i})
3040: \qquad\text{ for \,odd\, ghost number }({\cal P}_-)\,\,.
3041: \end{array}
3042: \right.
3043: \end{equation}
3044: Similarly, the left part of the propagator contributes to $\widehat \Sigma$
3045: the slanted wedge $L_i$ given by $e^{-s_iL_L}e^{-s^\star_i L_L^\star}$
3046: for $\mathcal{P}_+$ and $e^{-s^\star_i L_L^\star}e^{-s_iL_L}$
3047: for $\mathcal{P}_-$. We readily find
3048: \begin{equation}
3049: \label{iwltkssajjj}
3050: L_i\equiv
3051: [ l_i;e^{s^\star_i-s_i}]
3052: \quad\text{with}\quad
3053: \left\{
3054: \begin{array}{l}
3055: l_i=\half (1+e^{s^\star_i-s_i})-e^{-s_i}
3056: \quad~~\text{ for even ghost number }({\cal P}_+)\\\\
3057: l_i=e^{s^\star_i}-\,\half(1+e^{s^\star_i-s_i})
3058: \qquad\text{ for \,odd\, ghost number }({\cal P}_-)\,.
3059: \end{array}
3060: \right.
3061: \end{equation}
3062: The definitions~(\ref{iwltkssajj}) and~(\ref{iwltkssajjj}) generalize~(\ref{LiRitree})
3063: from the classical propagators of tree diagrams to loop propagators in alternating gauge.
3064:
3065: \medskip
3066: We now assemble the complete surfaces $\Sigma$ and $\widehat \Sigma$. We
3067: construct
3068: $\Sigma$ by gluing the surfaces of propagators and external states
3069: counterclockwise, starting at vertex $1$. We obtain
3070: \begin{equation}~\label{Sigmagen}
3071: \begin{split}
3072: \Sigma\equiv[a;e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}|\vec x\,]&=[a_1;1| \vec{y}_1]\ast
3073: R_1
3074: \ast\cdots\ast[a_n;1| \vec{y}_n]\ast
3075: R_n
3076: \,,\\
3077: \end{split}
3078: \end{equation}
3079: Similarly, we construct $\widehat \Sigma$ by gluing the surfaces of propagators
3080: and external states.
3081: We trace clockwise starting right below vertex $1$ and get
3082: \begin{equation}\label{hatSigmagen}
3083: \widehat{\Sigma}\equiv [\hat a;e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}|\, \vec{\hat{x}}\,]=
3084: L_n
3085: \ast [\hat a_n;1|\,\vec{\hat y}_n\,]\ast\cdots \ast
3086: L_1
3087: \ast[\hat a_1;1|\,\vec{\hat y}_1\,]\,.
3088: \end{equation}
3089: It is clear from ~(\ref{Sigmagen}) and~(\ref{hatSigmagen}) that
3090: \begin{equation}\label{seffdefined}
3091: s_{\rm{eff}}=\sum_{i=1}^n (s_i-s^\star_i)\,.
3092: \end{equation}
3093: It follows that the modulus $M$ of the annulus is given by
3094: \begin{equation}\label{oneloopM}
3095: \boxed{\phantom{\Bigl(} M=\frac{\pi}{\left|s_{\rm{eff}}\right|}\,.~~}
3096: \end{equation}
3097: To calculate the positions of the punctures we first determine the total lengths $a$ and $\hat a$ of $\Sigma$ and $\widehat \Sigma$. Looking
3098: at (\ref{Sigmagen}) we see that
3099: \be
3100: a = a_1 + r_1 + e^{s_1 - s_1^\star} \bigl(a_2 + r_2 + e^{s_2 - s_2^\star} (a_3 + r_3 + \ldots \,\,\,.
3101: \ee
3102: This is readily seen to give
3103: \begin{equation}\label{valueofa99}
3104: a=\sum_{i=1}^n e^{\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} s_j-s^\star_j}(a_i+r_i)
3105: = \sum_{i=1}^n b_i\, (a_i+r_i)\,.
3106: \end{equation}
3107: where we defined
3108: \begin{equation}\label{bindexed}
3109: b_i \equiv e^{\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}s_j-s_j^\star}
3110: \,.
3111: \end{equation}
3112: We can view $b_i$ as a \emph{local scaling factor}.
3113: It is the product of
3114: the slant factors of the surfaces $R_1$, $R_2, \ldots$, up to
3115: $R_{i-1}$. It is the scaling factor that must apply to $R_i$ when
3116: it is glued in to form $\Sigma$ in (\ref{Sigmagen}).
3117:
3118: The value of $\hat a$ is computed similarly.
3119: Looking at (\ref{hatSigmagen}) we write
3120: \be
3121: \hat a = e^{s_n^\star-s_n} \hat{a}_n + l_n + e^{s_n^\star-s_n}
3122: \bigl( e^{s_{n-1}^\star-s^{\phantom{\star}}_{n-1}}\,\hat{a}_{n-1} + l_{n-1} + \ldots \,\,\,,
3123: \ee
3124: which gives
3125: \begin{equation}\label{valueofhata}
3126: \hat a= \sum_{i=1}^n e^{\sum_{j=i+1}^{n}
3127: s^\star_j-s_j}(e^{s^\star_i-s_i}\hat a_i+ l_i)\,.
3128: \end{equation}
3129: Noticing that $e^{s_i-s^\star_i} l_i=r_i$ (see (\ref{iwltkssajj}) and (\ref{iwltkssajjj}))
3130: we can also rewrite $\hat a$ as
3131: \begin{equation}
3132: \hat a= e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}\sum_{i=1}^n
3133: e^{\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} s_j-s^\star_j}(\hat a_i+r_i) =
3134: e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}\sum_{i=1}^n
3135: b_i\,(\hat a_i+r_i)\,.
3136: \end{equation}
3137: For insertions at positions $y_k^\alpha$ and $\hat{y}_k^\alpha$ we denote
3138: by $x_k^\alpha$ and $\hat{x}_k^\alpha$
3139: their final coordinates on $\Sigma$ and $\widehat \Sigma$.
3140: The collection of these insertions were represented by
3141: $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{\hat x}$ in
3142: (\ref{Sigmagen}) and (\ref{hatSigmagen}). Short calculations
3143: using (\ref{iwltsktnpplsfaj}) show that
3144: these positions are given by
3145: \begin{equation}\label{pospunctonsigma}
3146: \begin{split}
3147: x^\alpha_k-\half &= \,b_k \, (y^\alpha_k-\half ) + \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}
3148: b_i\, (a_i+r_i)
3149: \,,
3150: \\
3151: \hat x^\alpha_k-\half &=
3152: e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}\Bigl(\,b_k\,(\hat y_k^\alpha-\half +r_k)
3153: + \sum_{i=k+1}^n
3154: b_i\,( \hat a_i+r_i)
3155: \Bigr)\,.
3156: \end{split}
3157: \end{equation}
3158: It follows immediately from (\ref{389eiu}) and (\ref{3948ufd})
3159: that in the annulus frame $\zeta$ these positions translate into the angles
3160: \begin{equation}\label{allangles}
3161: \boxed{\phantom{\Biggl(}
3162: \phi^\alpha_k=\frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln \Bigl( 2
3163: \Bigl|x^\alpha_k-\half+\frac{a}{e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}-1}\Bigr|\Bigr)
3164: \,, \qquad
3165: \hat\phi^\alpha_k= \frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln \Bigl( 2\Bigl|\half-\hat
3166: x^\alpha_k+\frac{\hat a}{1-e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}}\Bigr|\Bigr)\,.
3167: ~~}
3168: \end{equation}
3169: Up to a trivial overall rotation of the annulus, the angles~(\ref{allangles}) represent
3170: the open string moduli of the one-loop diagram. This concludes our construction of moduli for
3171: general one-loop diagrams in Schnabl gauge.
3172:
3173:
3174:
3175:
3176: \section{The one-loop two-point diagram}\label{secloop2pt}
3177: \setcounter{equation}{0}
3178: We now apply the general construction of Section~\ref{secloop} to the one-loop
3179: two-point diagram. In the following analysis we will restrict ourselves to the Riemann surfaces
3180: generated by even ghost-number propagators running in the loop, i.e. we use the propagator
3181: ${\cal P}_+$ in the loop. The other Riemann surface, which is generated by putting ${\cal P}_-$ on all
3182: loop propagator lines, can be calculated
3183: analogously.
3184:
3185: %
3186: %
3187: \begin{figure}
3188: \centerline{
3189: \epsfig{figure=loop2ptA1.eps, height=5.5cm}
3190: \hskip 2.0cm
3191: \epsfig{figure=loop2ptA2.eps, height=5.5cm}}
3192: \centerline{(a)\hskip 9.3cm (b) \hskip .9cm}
3193: \caption{The two diagrams contributing to the two-point function with both
3194: insertions on the same
3195: boundary.}
3196: \label{figloop2ptA}
3197: \end{figure}
3198: %
3199: %
3200:
3201: \subsection{Riemann surfaces with both insertions on the same
3202: boundary}
3203:
3204: Let us consider the one-loop two-point function with both insertions on the same boundary component
3205: of the annulus -- the so-called planar contributions.
3206: There are two diagrams that contribute,
3207: as shown in~Figure~\ref{figloop2ptA}.
3208:
3209:
3210: \subsubsection{First diagram}
3211: In the first diagram (Figure~\ref{figloop2ptA}(a))
3212: we have two propagators in the loop $(n=2)$ and two Fock space
3213: surfaces $[1;1|1]$ connected directly
3214: to vertices in the loop, on the side that we choose to call
3215: the surface $\Sigma$. The Fock space surfaces do not
3216: contribute to $\widehat \Sigma$.
3217: In the notation of (\ref{iwltkthftfvm})
3218: \begin{equation}
3219: a_1=a_2=1\,, \qquad y_1^1=y_2^1=1\,,\qquad \hat a_1=\hat a_2=0\,.
3220: \end{equation}
3221: We label the Schwinger parameters of the two propagators by $s_1$, $s^\star_1$,
3222: $s_2$, $s^\star_2$ and (\ref{seffdefined}) gives
3223: \begin{equation}
3224: s_{\rm{eff}}=s_1-s^\star_1+s_2-s^\star_2\,.
3225: \end{equation}
3226: The length $a$ of the $\Sigma$ surface follows from (\ref{valueofa99})
3227: and (\ref{iwltkssajj}). We find
3228: \begin{equation}
3229: \label{alengthfor2pt}
3230: a = {\textstyle{3\over 2} } + 2 e^{s_1 - s_1^\star} - e^{-s_1^\star}
3231: + \half \,e^{s_{\rm{eff}}} - e^{s_1 -s_1^\star-s_2^\star}\,.
3232: \end{equation}
3233: The position of the punctures on $\Sigma$ are found using
3234: (\ref{pospunctonsigma}) and (\ref{iwltkssajj}). We obtain:
3235: \begin{equation}
3236: x_1^1 = 1 \,,\qquad
3237: x_2^1 = 2 + e^{s_1 - s_i^\star} - e^{-s_1^\star} \,.
3238: \end{equation}
3239: The relevant open string modulus is the relative angle between the insertions.
3240: Making use of (\ref{allangles}) a short calculation gives
3241: \begin{equation}
3242: \label{delhiv}
3243: \begin{split}
3244: \Delta\phi=\phi^1_2-\phi^1_1
3245: &= \frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln\frac{
3246: 2-e^{-s^\star_1}+e^{s_1-s^\star_1}
3247: + e^{s^\star_2-s_2}-e^{-s_2}}
3248: {1-e^{-s^\star_1}+2e^{s_1-s^\star_1}-
3249: e^{s_1-s^\star_1-s^\star_2}+e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}}\,.
3250: \end{split}
3251: \end{equation}
3252:
3253: \medskip
3254: Just like for the
3255: five-point diagram, let us consider
3256: the Riemann surfaces generated by the simplified propagator $B/L$.
3257: We thus set $s^\star_1=s^\star_2=0$ and (\ref{delhiv}) becomes
3258: \begin{equation}
3259: \begin{split}
3260: \Delta \phi
3261: = \frac{2\pi}{s_1+s_2} \ln\Bigl(\frac{ 1+e^{s_1}}{e^{s_1}+e^{s_1+s_2}}\Bigr)
3262: \,=\,\pi+\frac{2\pi}{s_1+s_2} \ln \Bigl(\frac{
3263: \cosh{\textstyle {{s_1}\over 2}}}{\cosh {\textstyle {{s_2}\over 2}}}\Bigr)\,.
3264: \end{split}
3265: \end{equation}
3266: It is convenient to study this angle for fixed modulus of the
3267: annulus:
3268: $s_{\rm{eff}}=s_1+s_2=\text{const}$. We then have
3269: \begin{equation}
3270: \begin{split}
3271: \Delta \phi
3272: &=\pi+\frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}} \ln \Bigl(\frac{
3273: \cosh{\textstyle {{s_1}\over 2}}}{\cosh{\textstyle {{s_{\rm{eff}}-s_1}\over 2}}}\Bigr)\,.
3274: \end{split}
3275: \end{equation}
3276: For $s_1=\half s_{\rm{eff}}$ the two
3277: punctures are maximally separated: $\Delta \phi=\pi$.
3278: As we vary $s_1$ the separation angle varies within an interval
3279: centered at $\pi$. The maximal (minimal) angle $\Delta\phi_+$ ($\Delta\phi_-$) is obtained for
3280: $s_1=s_{\rm{eff}}$ ($s_1=0$), and it is given by
3281: \begin{equation}
3282: \label{excurmodpos}
3283: \Delta \phi_{\pm}
3284: =\pi\pm\frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}} \ln
3285: \cosh{\textstyle {{s_{\rm{eff}}}\over 2}}\,.
3286: \end{equation}
3287: Close to closed string degeneration, i.e. for $s_{\rm{eff}}\ll1$, we obtain the
3288: simplified expression
3289: \begin{equation}
3290: \Delta \phi_{\pm}
3291: =\pi\pm\frac{\pi}{4}s_{\rm{eff}} \qquad\text{ for }\quad s_{\rm{eff}}\ll1\,.
3292: \end{equation}
3293: Thus near closed string degeneration the diagram just generates a
3294: region of moduli in which the punctures are nearly opposite. Close to
3295: open string degeneration ($s_{\rm{eff}} \to \infty$) equation~(\ref{excurmodpos}) shows that almost
3296: the entire range of the position modulus
3297: is covered.
3298: In general, not all of the range of the position modulus is obtained.
3299: In Figure~\ref{figloop2ptmod} we show the region of the
3300: complete two-dimensional moduli
3301: space $(s_{\rm{eff}}, \Delta \phi)$ that the present, first diagram covers.
3302: %
3303: %
3304: \begin{figure}
3305: \centerline{
3306: \epsfig{figure=positionmodulus.eps, height=5.5cm}
3307: \hskip 1.5cm
3308: \epsfig{figure=modspace.eps, height=5.5cm}}
3309: \centerline{
3310: \hskip.5 cm (a)\hskip 8cm (b)\hskip 2.5cm}
3311: \caption{
3312: (a)
3313: The $\zeta$-frame annulus for the planar one-loop two-point function.
3314: Insertion $1$ is fixed at angle $\phi=0$ and the position modulus
3315: is the angle $\Delta \phi$ for insertion 2.
3316: Both string diagrams in Figure~\ref{figloop2ptA}
3317: are needed to generate
3318: the full position range
3319: $0\leq\Delta\phi \leq 2\pi$.
3320: (b) The space $(s_{\rm{eff}}, \Delta \phi)$
3321: of closed and open moduli is covered fully by the indicated string diagrams.}
3322: \label{figloop2ptmod}
3323: \end{figure}
3324: %
3325: The remaining region, as we will see now, is generated by
3326: second diagram contributing to the amplitude.
3327:
3328: \subsubsection{Second diagram}
3329:
3330: In the second diagram (Figure~\ref{figloop2ptA}(b)) there is only one propagator in the loop ($s^\star$, $s$)
3331: and both external states are connected to the loop through
3332: another internal propagator ($t$, $t^\star$).
3333: We then have
3334: \begin{equation}
3335: [a_1;1|\, y_1^1, y_1^2]
3336: = e^{-t L}e^{-t^\star L^\star}[2;1|1,2]
3337: =[1-2e^{-t}+3e^{t^\star-t};1| y_1^1, y_1^2]\,,
3338: \end{equation}
3339: where we use
3340: (\ref{classprop}) and (\ref{iwltptmnstvmss}) to obtain
3341: \begin{equation}\label{insposa1}
3342: a_1= 1-2e^{-t}+3e^{t^\star-t}\,, \quad
3343: y^1_1= 1-e^{-t}+e^{t^\star-t}\,, \quad
3344: y^2_1= 1-e^{-t}+2e^{t^\star-t}\,,\quad
3345: \hat a_1=0\,.
3346: \end{equation}
3347: To build $\Sigma$
3348: we use (\ref{Sigmagen}) with $n=1$ and find
3349: \begin{equation}
3350: \Sigma\equiv[a;e^{s-s^\star}| x_1^1 ,x_1^2] =
3351: [a_1;1|\, y_1^1, y_1^2] \ast [r_1;e^{s-s^\star}]\,, \qquad
3352: r_1=\half (1+e^{s-s^\star})-e^{-s^\star}\,,
3353: \end{equation}
3354: and thus
3355: \begin{equation}
3356: a=a_1+r_1
3357: ={\textstyle {3\over 2}}-2e^{-t}+3e^{t^\star-t}-e^{-s^\star}+\half e^{s-s^\star}\,.
3358: \end{equation}
3359: As $ [a_1;1|\, y_1^1, y_1^2]$ is the left-most surface in $\Sigma$, the positions of insertions on $\Sigma$ coincide with the positions of
3360: insertions on $[a_1;1]$: we have $ x^1_1=y^1_1$ and $ x^2_1=y^2_1$.
3361: For the relative angle $\Delta\phi$ between the two
3362: insertions we use (\ref{allangles}) to obtain
3363: \begin{equation}
3364: \begin{split}
3365: \Delta \phi
3366: & = \frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln\biggl(\frac
3367: {1-e^{-s^\star}+e^{s-s^\star}-e^{-t}+e^{t^\star-t}-e^{s-s^\star-t}+2
3368: e^{s-s^\star+ t^\star-t}}
3369: {1-e^{-s^\star}+e^{s-s^\star}-e^{-t}+2e^{t^\star-t}-e^{s-s^\star-t}+e^{s-s^\star+
3370: t^\star-t}}\biggr)\,,
3371: \end{split}
3372: \end{equation}
3373: with $s_{\rm{eff}}=s-s^\star$.
3374:
3375: \medskip
3376: Let us again focus on the surfaces generated by the simplified propagators
3377: $B^\star/L^\star$ or $B/L$. We have two options.
3378: \begin{itemize}
3379: \item
3380: $s^\star=t=0$ (The case $s=t=0$ gives similar results)\\
3381: In this case
3382: $s_{\rm{eff}}=s$
3383: and $\Delta \phi$ reduces to
3384: \begin{equation}
3385: \Delta \phi = \frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln\biggl(\frac
3386: {e^{t^\star}+2 e^{s_{\rm{eff}}+ t^\star}-1}
3387: {2e^{t^\star}+e^{s_{\rm{eff}}+ t^\star}-1}\biggr)\,.
3388: \end{equation}
3389: For $t^\star\to0$, this gives
3390: \begin{equation}
3391: \Delta \phi = \frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln\biggl(\frac
3392: {2 e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}}
3393: {1+e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}}\biggr)=\pi-\frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln\cosh{\textstyle {s_{\rm{eff}}\over 2}} \quad \textrm{ for }
3394: t^\star\to0\,,
3395: \end{equation}
3396: and matches smoothly to the first diagram's $\Delta \phi_-$
3397: as given in (\ref{excurmodpos}).
3398:
3399: For $t^\star\to\infty$, however,
3400: there is no collision between
3401: the insertions. Instead, we obtain
3402: \begin{equation}
3403: \Delta \phi = \frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln\biggl(\frac
3404: {1+2 e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}}
3405: {2+e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}}\biggr) \quad \textrm{ for }~ t^\star\to\infty\,.
3406: \end{equation}
3407: Thus diagram two with propagator $B^\star/L^\star$ in the subtree does
3408: \emph{not} cover moduli space together with diagram one.
3409: This is not surprising because tracing
3410: along the $\Sigma$ boundary of the Feynman diagram we encounter the operator combination
3411: $e^{-t^\star L_L}e^{-s_{\rm{eff}} L^\star_L}e^{-t^\star L^\star_L}$. At fixed annulus modulus, i.e. for $s_{\rm{eff}}=const$,
3412: this operator does not produce open string degeneration for
3413: $t^\star\to\infty$. In fact,
3414: \begin{equation}
3415: \lim_{t^\star\to\infty}e^{-t^\star L_L}e^{-s_{\rm{eff}} L^\star_L}e^{-t^\star L^\star_L}[a;b]
3416: =[a+\half(e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}+1);e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}b]\,,
3417: \end{equation}
3418: which is a perfectly regular surface.
3419:
3420: \item
3421: $s^\star=t^\star=0$ (The case $s=t^\star=0$ gives similar results)\\
3422: Again,
3423: $s_{\rm{eff}}=s$
3424: and this choice
3425: corresponds to $B/L$ as the propagator in the tree. This
3426: time we obtain
3427: \begin{equation}
3428: \Delta \phi = \frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln\biggl(\frac
3429: {e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}+e^{s_{\rm{eff}}-t}}
3430: {e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}+e^{-t}}\biggr)
3431: = \pi-\frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln\biggl(\frac
3432: {\cosh {\textstyle {{t+s_{\rm{eff}}}\over 2}}}{\cosh {\textstyle {t\over 2}}}\biggr)\,.
3433: \end{equation}
3434: For $t=0$ we again match to $\Delta \phi_-$ in
3435: the first diagram.
3436: This time, all
3437: angles $0<\Delta\phi<\Delta\phi_-$ are covered.
3438: Indeed,
3439: \begin{equation}
3440: \Delta \phi \to 0 \quad \textrm{ for } \quad t\to\infty\,.
3441: \end{equation}
3442: This is sufficient to cover moduli space together with diagram one,
3443: as shown in Figure~\ref{figloop2ptmod}. The diagram gives the
3444: shaded region $0<\Delta\phi<\Delta\phi_-$.
3445: Of course, since external states are distinguishable,
3446: the region \
3447: $\Delta\phi_+<\Delta\phi<2\pi$ is generated by the string diagram
3448: in which the order of the Fock space state insertions is reversed.
3449: \end{itemize}
3450:
3451:
3452: \subsection{Riemann surfaces with insertions on both boundaries}
3453: Let us consider a one-loop amplitude with one Fock space state insertion on the
3454: outer boundary and one Fock space state insertion on the inner boundary.
3455: This nonplanar string diagram in shown in
3456: Figure~\ref{figloop2ptB}.
3457: %
3458: %
3459: \begin{figure}
3460: \centerline{
3461: \epsfig{figure=loop2ptB.eps, height=5.5cm}}
3462: \caption{The diagram of the two-point function with insertions on both
3463: boundaries.}
3464: \label{figloop2ptB}
3465: \end{figure}
3466: %
3467: %
3468: As $[a_1;1|1]$ and $[\hat a_2;1|1]$ are the Fock space surfaces, we have
3469: \begin{equation}
3470: a_1=\hat a_2=1\,,\qquad
3471: a_2=\hat a_1=0\,,\qquad
3472: y^1_1=1\,,\qquad
3473: \hat y^1_2=1\,.
3474: \end{equation}
3475: We have two propagators running in the loop. The relevant surfaces,
3476: using (\ref{Sigmagen}) and (\ref{hatSigmagen}) are
3477: \begin{equation}
3478: \begin{split}
3479: \Sigma\equiv[a;1|x_1^1] &= [1;1|1] * R_1 * R_2 \\
3480: \widehat \Sigma\equiv [\hat a;1|\hat{x}_2^1] &= L_2 * [1;1|1] * L_1\,.
3481: \end{split}
3482: \end{equation}
3483: The relevant parameters above are readily calculated:
3484: \begin{equation}
3485: \begin{split}
3486: a
3487: &={\textstyle {3\over 2}}-e^{-s^\star_1}+e^{s_1-s^\star_1}(1-e^{-s^\star_2}+\half e^{s_2-s^\star_2})\\
3488: \hat a
3489: &=e^{-s_{\rm{eff}}}\bigl(\half -e^{-s^\star_1}+e^{s_1-s^\star_1}(2-e^{-s^\star_2}+\half e^{s_2-s^\star_2})\bigr)\,,\\ s_{\rm{eff}} &= s_1-s^\star_1+s_2-s^\star_2\,, \\
3490: x^1_1&=1\,,\qquad
3491: \hat x^1_2=e^{s^\star_2-s_2}-e^{s_2}+1\,.
3492: \end{split}
3493: \end{equation}
3494: A calculation using the above results and (\ref{allangles})
3495: gives us the difference in insertion angles
3496: \begin{equation}
3497: \Delta\phi=\hat\phi^1_2-\phi^1_1
3498: =\frac{2\pi}{s_{\rm{eff}}}\ln\frac{
3499: 1-e^{-s^\star_1}+e^{s_1-s^\star_1}-e^{-s_2}+e^{s^\star_2-s_2} }
3500: {1-e^{-s^\star_1}+e^{s_1-s^\star_1}-e^{s_1-s^\star_1-s^\star_2}+e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}}\,.
3501: \end{equation}
3502:
3503: \medskip
3504: Let us consider two cases of simplified propagators. If both propagators are
3505: $B/L$, then we can set
3506: $s^\star_1=s^\star_2=0$ (similarly for $B^\star/L^\star$ and $s_1=s_2=0$) and
3507: obtain
3508: \begin{equation}
3509: \Delta\phi
3510: =\frac{2\pi}{s_1+s_2}\ln\frac{e^{s_1}}{e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}}
3511: =2\pi\,\frac{s_1}{s_1+s_2}\,.
3512: \end{equation}
3513: Moduli space is covered: for fixed $s_{\rm{eff}}=s_1+s_2$, $\Delta \phi$
3514: takes on all values between $0$ and $2\pi$.
3515:
3516: To examine the case of mixed propagators $B/L$ and
3517: $B^\star/L^\star$ we set
3518: $s^\star_1=s_2=0$. Then,
3519: \begin{equation}
3520: \Delta\phi
3521: =\frac{2\pi}{s_1-s^\star_2}\ln(e^{s_1-s^\star_2}-e^{-s^\star_2}+1) \,.
3522: \end{equation}
3523: Since $s_1 = s_{\rm{eff}} + s_2^\star$ and $s_1, s_2^* \geq 0$, for
3524: fixed
3525: $s_{\rm{eff}}>0$ we have a constraint in the range of $s_1$. Moduli
3526: space is not fully covered.
3527: In fact, for $s_{\rm{eff}}\to\infty$ we have $\Delta \phi\to 2\pi$ for the entire range of permissible
3528: $s_1$, $s_2^\star$. In this limit the open string modulus is stuck at the collision of punctures.
3529:
3530:
3531: \bigskip
3532:
3533: \section{A regularized view on one-loop diagrams}\label{aregvieononelooam}
3534: \setcounter{equation}{0}
3535: In Section~\ref{secloop}
3536: we presented a prescription
3537: to map the Riemann surface
3538: of a general one-loop diagram to the annulus
3539: while keeping track of the operator
3540: insertions of external states. This allowed us to calculate the closed and open string
3541: moduli of the surface as simple functions of the Schwinger parameters.
3542: The treatment was entirely in Schnabl gauge and used
3543: the formalism of slanted wedges.
3544: To justify our prescription, however,
3545: we need to revisit the construction by regularizing
3546: Schnabl gauge.
3547: This analysis extends the proof for the one-loop
3548: tadpole given in Section~\ref{dofeoruhk} to general one-loop diagrams.
3549: Again, we use the $\lambda$-regularization introduced in~\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg}.
3550: To confirm our prescription we need
3551: to examine the three types of operations that
3552: are used.
3553: These operations are the multiplication of slanted wedges, the gluing between
3554: left and right boundaries on both $\Sigma$ and $\widehat\Sigma$, and the
3555: gluing of $\Sigma$ and $\widehat \Sigma$ to each other at their hidden boundaries.
3556: Before we check these operations, let us analyze the relevant gluing boundaries in more detail.
3557:
3558:
3559:
3560: \subsection{The boundaries of regularized slanted wedges}
3561: To examine the gluing curves, it is
3562: convenient to represent
3563: the coordinate curve $f^\lambda(e^{i\theta})$ in the $z$ frame
3564: in terms of the parameterized curves
3565: $\gamma^\lambda_R$ and $\gamma^\lambda_L$
3566: defined in (\ref{gammalLR}) and shown in Figure~\ref{sl01fig}(c).
3567: Regarded as the regulated surface $[1;1|1]$, a
3568: Fock space state is then
3569: bounded by $\half+\gamma^\lambda_L$ and $\frac{3}{2}+\gamma^\lambda_R$.
3570: The boundaries touch at the midpoint $\theta=\pi/2$.
3571:
3572: Similarly, the regularized slanted wedge corresponding to $e^{-sL^\lambda_R}$
3573: is bounded by
3574: the curves $\half +\gamma^\lambda_R$ and $e^s(\half+\gamma^\lambda_R)$. Its left boundary glues nicely to
3575: a Fock space state. The right boundary is a simple rescaling of the left boundary by $e^s$. This was illustrated in
3576: the context of the tadpole graph in Figure~\ref{sl03fig}(b).
3577: The two boundaries of $e^{-sL^\lambda_R}$ do not touch for
3578: $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$.
3579: In fact, $e^{-sL^\lambda_R}$ has a
3580: vertical boundary on the imaginary axis from $i\Lambda$ to $ie^s\Lambda$,
3581: as discussed in Section~\ref{sectp}. This vertical line segment connects the endpoints of the left and right boundary of $e^{-sL^\lambda_R}$.
3582:
3583: The regularized slanted wedge corresponding to
3584: $e^{-s^\star (L^\lambda_R)^\star}$ is more delicate. Recall that in Figure~\ref{figemsL}
3585: we \emph{flipped} the surface around its right vertical
3586: boundary to be able to
3587: interpret $e^{-s^\star L_R^\star}$ as the slanted wedge
3588: $[\half(1-e^{-s^\star});e^{-s^\star}]$. We conclude that the regularized boundaries of
3589: $e^{-s^\star (L^\lambda_R)^\star}$
3590: are given by $\half+\gamma^\lambda_L$ and $\half+\half(1-e^{-s^\star})+e^{-s^\star}\gamma^\lambda_L$. The surface of
3591: $e^{-s^\star (L^\lambda_R)^\star}$
3592: also has a hidden vertical boundary. It
3593: is located between $1+ie^{-s^\star}\Lambda$ and $1+i\Lambda$. These
3594: facts are illustrated in Figure~\ref{figregesstar}, where we also show
3595: the surface for $e^{-s^\star (L_L^{\lambda})^\star}$, which needs
3596: further displacement and rescaling to be presented as a
3597: regularization of a conventional slanted wedge.
3598:
3599: \begin{figure}
3600: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=regesstar.eps, height=8cm}}
3601: \caption{The regularized version of the
3602: slanted wedges corresponding to $e^{-s^\star (L_L^{\lambda})^\star}$ and
3603: $e^{-s^\star (L_R^\lambda)^\star}$.
3604: }
3605: \label{figregesstar}
3606: \end{figure}
3607:
3608:
3609: \medskip
3610: In our construction, we build surfaces from slanted wedges
3611: associated with propagators and Fock space states.
3612: From this
3613: it is clear, that
3614: the slanted wedges $[a;b]$ relevant to our construction
3615: will, after regularization, be bounded on the left
3616: by either $\half+\gamma^\lambda_L$ or $\half+\gamma^\lambda_R$ and will be bounded on the right by either $\half+a+b\gamma^\lambda_L$ or
3617: by $\half+a+b\gamma^\lambda_R$. Furthermore,
3618: the slanted wedges associated with the left and right parts of $e^{-sL}$ and $e^{-s^\star L^\star}$ carry a hidden boundary
3619: that needs to be glued to the hidden boundary of a complementary surface.
3620:
3621: For $\lambda\to 0$, the curves $\gamma_{L/R}^\lambda(\theta)$ both approach the canonical vertical sliver parametrization
3622: $\gamma(\theta)$ defined in~(\ref{gamma0}).
3623: One may therefore wonder why it
3624: is not trivial that regularized slanted wedges glue nicely for $\lambda\to0$. The problem is that the convergence
3625: of $\gamma_{L/R}^\lambda (\theta)$ to the curve $\gamma(\theta)$ in the limit $\lambda\to0$ is not \emph{uniform} on the full interval
3626: $0\leq\theta\leq\frac{\pi}{2}$. In fact, for any $\lambda>0$, the curves $\gamma^\lambda_{L/R}$ start deviating significantly
3627: from $\gamma$ in the region where $\Im(z)$ is of order $\Lambda$,
3628: as discussed in Section~\ref{sec21}.
3629: This effect can be neglected for tree-level amplitudes. In fact, the relevant frame for the
3630: calculation of moduli and correlators in tree amplitudes is the disk frame $\eta$, which is related to the $z$ frame through
3631: \begin{equation}\label{}
3632: \eta=\exp\left(\frac{2\pi iz}{a}\right)\,.
3633: \end{equation}
3634: Here, $a>0$ is a function of the Schwinger parameters and independent of $\lambda$.
3635: All points with large imaginary values in the $z$ frame converge to the point $\eta=0$.
3636: In the $\eta$-frame, the deviations of $\gamma^\lambda_{L/R}$ from $\gamma$ are thus
3637: suppressed by a factor of $e^{-\frac{2\pi \Lambda}{a}}$, which vanishes for $\lambda\to0$.
3638:
3639:
3640: For one-loop diagrams the natural frame to consider
3641: for the gluing is either the $\zeta$-frame of the annulus
3642: or the $w$ frame, in which the annulus is ``unwrapped''.
3643: The $w$ coordinate is given~by
3644: \begin{equation}\label{}
3645: w=-\ln(2z)+i\pi\,.
3646: \end{equation}
3647: Clearly, not all points $z$ with large imaginary values converge to a single point in the $w$ frame. Therefore
3648: the analysis for one-loop diagrams is more subtle than for trees.
3649: The
3650: mapping of the
3651: boundary curves $\gamma^\lambda_{L/R}$
3652: to the $w$ frame
3653: have been analyzed
3654: in the context of the
3655: simplified tadpole diagram.
3656: Indeed, in Section~\ref{sectp} we have proven that
3657: when mapped to the $w$ frame,
3658: the left boundary
3659: of the Fock space state is a translation by $s$ of the right boundary
3660: of $e^{-sL_R}$.
3661: Concretely, we showed in claim (2) of Section~\ref{dofeoruhk} that
3662: \begin{equation}\label{limit1}
3663: \lim_{\lambda\to 0} w\Bigl(
3664: a_0 + \half +\gamma^\lambda_L\Bigr)-w\Bigl( e^{s}
3665: \bigl( a_0 + \half+\gamma^\lambda_R\bigr)\Bigr) =s\,.
3666: \end{equation}
3667: The limit holds uniformly on $0\leq\theta\leq\frac{\pi}{2}$.
3668: This result can be easily generalized to the uniform convergence
3669: \begin{equation}\label{limit}
3670: \boxed{\begin{split}
3671: \phantom{\biggl(}&\lim_{\lambda\to 0}~ w\bigl(e^{s'}(d+\gamma^\lambda_{L/R})\bigr)-w\bigl( e^{s''}(d+\gamma^\lambda_{R/L})\bigr)
3672: =s''-s'\,~~ \\ &\quad \forall \textrm{
3673: $d,s',s''\in\mathbb{R}$
3674: independent of $\lambda$\,;\, $d\neq 0$}\,.\phantom{\Bigl(}
3675: \end{split}}
3676: \end{equation}
3677: Note that only this case of mixed curves $\gamma_L$ and $\gamma_R$ is non-trivial.
3678: If both curves are either of the type $\gamma_L$ or of the type $\gamma_R$,
3679: the identity analogous to~(\ref{limit}) is exact for all $\lambda$:
3680: \begin{equation}\label{limittrivial}
3681: w\bigl(e^{s'}(d+\gamma^\lambda_{L/R})\bigr)-w\bigl( e^{s''}(d+\gamma^\lambda_{L/R})\bigr) =s''-s'
3682: \quad\text{ for all} \quad \lambda\geq0 \,.
3683: \end{equation}
3684: This follows from the definition of the map~(\ref{wzrel}) to
3685: the $w$ frame.
3686:
3687:
3688: \subsection{Gluings and identifications on $\Sigma$}
3689: For one-loop diagrams, we know from~(\ref{Sigmagen}) that the surface $\Sigma$ is constructed by the multiplication of $2n$ slanted wedges. Let as analyze the validity of the gluing between any pair of neighboring slanted wedges in this product. To this end,
3690: we split the surface $\Sigma$ into two slanted wedges. One of them comprises all the surfaces to the left of the gluing we are interested in, the other one comprises all the surfaces to the right of this gluing. We thus have
3691: \begin{equation}\label{}
3692: \Sigma =[a;e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}]=[a_1;b_1]\ast[a_2;b_2]\,.
3693: \end{equation}
3694: When multiplying the slanted wedges $[a_1;b_1]$ and $[a_2;b_2]$, we need to glue the right boundary of $[a_1;b_1]$ to the
3695: left boundary $[a_2;b_2]$. To see that our usual multiplication prescription is valid, we analyze this gluing
3696: of the two boundaries using $\lambda$-regulated slanted wedges. If these boundaries are either both of the type $\gamma^\lambda_L$ or both of the type $\gamma^\lambda_R$, the gluing is
3697: natural for all $\lambda$ and no limit needs to be taken. If the boundaries are of mixed type, the gluing curves do not match
3698: for $\Im(z)$ of order $\Lambda$. The surfaces thus either start overlapping or separating in this region.
3699: But using~(\ref{limit}) in the form
3700: \begin{equation}
3701: \lim_{\lambda\to 0}~ w\bigl(\half+a_0+a_1+b_1\gamma^\lambda_L\bigr)-w\bigl(\half+a_0+a_1+b_1\gamma^\lambda_R\bigr) =0 \,,
3702: \end{equation}
3703: we see that the boundaries match in the $w$ frame for $\lambda\to0$. The shift $a_0$, defined in~(\ref{defa0}), is
3704: independent of $\lambda$ so that uniform convergence is
3705: guaranteed.
3706: We have thus shown that all the slanted wedges which are multiplied
3707: in the construction of $\Sigma$ glue nicely to each other in the
3708: $w$ frame when $\lambda\to0$.
3709:
3710: Eventually, we also have to glue the left and right boundaries of $\Sigma$ to each other. This is done by the map from the
3711: $w$ frame to the annulus $\zeta$ through~(\ref{zetadef}). This map has the periodicity
3712: $w\sim w-s_{\rm{eff}}$.
3713: It is thus sufficient to show
3714: that in the limit $\lambda\to0$, the left and right boundaries of $\Sigma$ are related through a translation by $s_{\rm{eff}}$ in the $w$ frame.
3715: As shown in~(\ref{limittrivial}), if
3716: both boundaries of $\Sigma$ are
3717: of type $\gamma_L^\lambda$ or both are of type $\gamma_R^\lambda$, this
3718: relation in the
3719: $w$ frame is exact by construction, even for finite $\lambda$.
3720: If one
3721: boundary is of the type $\gamma^\lambda_L$ and the other
3722: boundary is of the type $\gamma_R^\lambda$, we can
3723: use~(\ref{limit}) in the form
3724: \begin{equation}
3725: \lim_{\lambda\to 0}~ w\bigl(\half+a_0+\gamma^\lambda_{L/R}\bigr)-w\bigl( e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}(\half+a_0+\gamma^\lambda_{R/L})\bigr)=s_{\rm{eff}}\,
3726: \end{equation}
3727: to see that the two boundaries of $\Sigma$ are related through a translation by $s_{\rm{eff}}$ in the $w$ frame.
3728:
3729: \medskip
3730: In summary, we have shown that the $w$-frame image of
3731: $\Sigma$, as $\lambda \to 0$,
3732: represents a smooth surface which is foliated by horizontal
3733: lines of length $|s_{\rm{eff}}|$. Clearly, the same arguments as above also apply to the surface $\widehat\Sigma$. To complete the proof
3734: of our prescription, we still need to show that the surfaces $\Sigma$ and $\widehat \Sigma$ also glue smoothly to each other at
3735: their hidden boundaries.
3736:
3737:
3738: \subsection{Gluing the hidden boundaries}\label{sechidden}
3739: In constructing one-loop amplitudes for Schnabl gauge, we cut the surfaces associated with $e^{-s_iL}$ and $e^{-s^\star_iL^\star}$ into two
3740: pieces
3741: associated with their left and right parts.
3742: As we saw
3743: using
3744: $\lambda$-regularization, these surfaces really have a hidden boundary at
3745: $i\infty$ at which they were cut, and we need to ensure that these hidden boundaries glue nicely when we form the annulus.
3746:
3747: In the $\lambda$-regularized construction
3748: the hidden boundaries
3749: are of the general form
3750: \begin{equation}\label{genhiddbnd}
3751: \boxed{\phantom{\biggl(}
3752: z=d+i x\Lambda \qquad \textrm{ with } \quad e^{s'}\leq x\leq e^{s''}\,, \qquad
3753: d, s', s''\in\mathbb{R}~\textrm{ independent of }\lambda\,.}
3754: \end{equation}
3755: The parameters $d$, $s'$, and $s''$ are thus suitable to characterize general hidden boundaries of slanted wedges. They emerge
3756: as actual vertical boundary segments once the slanted wedge is regularized,
3757: but we will still call them hidden boundaries, to avoid confusion with
3758: other types of boundaries.
3759: The hidden boundary of
3760: $e^{-s^\star {(L^\lambda)}^\star_R}$, for example,
3761: stretches from $1+ie^{-s^\star}\Lambda$ to $1+i\Lambda$,
3762: as we can see in Figure~\ref{figregesstar}. We thus have $d=1$, $s'=-s^\star$, and $s''=0$ as the parameters of the hidden boundary of $e^{-s^\star L^\star_R}$.
3763: Note also that the parameters
3764: $s'$ and $s''$
3765: are just
3766: the logarithms of the scaling factors that apply to the left or right boundaries
3767: of the surface
3768: associated with $e^{-s^\star L^\star_R}$.
3769: The parameter $s''$ that defines the top endpoint
3770: of the hidden boundary arises from the left boundary which has a scale
3771: factor of one, thus $s''=0$.
3772: The parameter $s'$ that defines the bottom endpoint
3773: of the hidden boundary arises from the right boundary, which
3774: has a scale factor of $e^{-s^\star}$, thus $s' = -s^\star$.
3775:
3776: Let us summarize the parameters of hidden boundaries for
3777: slanted
3778: wedges associated with propagators:
3779: \begin{align}\label{listhidden1}
3780: d&=0 & s'&=0 & s''&=s
3781: &&\textrm{for the hidden boundary of }e^{-sL_R}\,,\\
3782: \label{listhidden2} d&=1 & s'&=-s & s''&=0
3783: &&\textrm{for the hidden boundary of }e^{-sL_L}\,,\\
3784: \label{listhidden3} d&=1 & s'&=-s^\star & s''&=0
3785: &&\textrm{for the hidden boundary of }e^{-s^\star L^\star_R}\,,\\
3786: \label{listhidden4} d&=0 & s'&=0 & s''&=s^\star
3787: &&\textrm{for the hidden boundary of }e^{-s^\star L^\star_L}\,.
3788: \end{align}
3789: When we multiply regulated
3790: slanted wedges to form the surfaces $\Sigma$ and $\widehat\Sigma$,
3791: hidden boundaries
3792: get shifted and rescaled. Of course they are then still of the general form~(\ref{genhiddbnd}).
3793:
3794: In proving claim (1) of Section~\ref{dofeoruhk}
3795: --that the hidden boundaries of $e^{-sL_L}$ and $e^{-sL_R}$ glue nicely in the
3796: tadpole graph-- we showed that
3797: \begin{equation}\label{showedgoodglue}
3798: \lim_{\lambda\to0}~ w(i x\Lambda)-w(a_0+1+i x\Lambda) =0 \qquad \textrm{ for all } \quad 1\leq x\leq e^{s}\,.
3799: \end{equation}
3800: More generally,
3801: consider two hidden boundaries of the form~(\ref{genhiddbnd}) with identical ranges of $x$ so that they are related by
3802: just a horizontal translation.
3803: If the horizontal distance $\Delta d\in\mathbb{R}$ that separates
3804: these hidden boundaries is independent of $\lambda$,
3805: they glue nicely in the
3806: $w$ frame in the limit $\lambda\to 0$.
3807: A straightforward generalization of the proof in Section~\ref{dofeoruhk} indeed shows that
3808: the following limit holds uniformly
3809: \begin{equation}\label{goodglue}
3810: \boxed{\phantom{\biggl(}
3811: \lim_{\lambda\to0}~ w(d+i x\Lambda)-w(d+\Delta d+i x\Lambda) =0
3812: \quad \forall ~
3813: e^{s'}\leq x\leq e^{s''} ~ \text{ with } ~
3814: d,\Delta d,s',s''\in\mathbb{R}
3815: \,.
3816: ~}
3817: \end{equation}
3818:
3819: We now show that for one-loop diagrams all gluings of hidden boundaries work nicely in the $w$ frame.
3820: Each propagator in the loop has two hidden boundaries, one from cutting $e^{-sL}$ and one from cutting $e^{-s^\star L^\star}$.
3821: For definiteness, we analyze the $k$-th propagator in the loop and assume it is of type ${\cal P}_+$. This propagator is responsible for the insertion
3822: of the slanted wedge
3823: associated with
3824: \be
3825: \label{insert1}
3826: e^{-s_kL_R}\, \underline{e^{-s^\star_kL^\star_R}}\,\qquad \hbox{into} ~~\Sigma\,.
3827: \ee
3828: The same propagator will be responsible for the insertion
3829: of the slanted wedge associated with
3830: \be
3831: \label{insert2}
3832: e^{-s_kL_L}\, \underline{e^{-s^\star_k L^\star_L}}\,\qquad \hbox{into} ~~
3833: \widehat\Sigma\,.
3834: \ee
3835: We will focus on the underlined operators in the two expressions
3836: above. The first produces a hidden boundary in $\Sigma$ and the
3837: second a hidden boundary in $\widehat \Sigma$. We aim to show that these hidden
3838: boundaries
3839: appear at the same height and have the same
3840: vertical range
3841: so that
3842: (\ref{goodglue}) implies that they glue correctly as the regulator is
3843: removed. More concretely, we want to show that these two hidden boundaries
3844: are characterized by (\ref{genhiddbnd}) with identical parameters
3845: $s'$ and $s''$, both independent of $\lambda$.
3846: The
3847: value of $d$ for each boundary must also be $\lambda$-independent.
3848:
3849:
3850: Let us begin
3851: with the hidden boundary generated by
3852: $e^{-s^\star_kL^\star_R}$ in $\Sigma$.
3853: Just before $\Sigma$ is mapped to
3854: the $w$ frame, the
3855: associated slanted wedge has its
3856: left boundary at a position $x^k_L$ that is independent of
3857: $\lambda$ (as is familiar from our calculations of positions in
3858: Section~6, positions just depend on Schwinger parameters).
3859: According to~(\ref{listhidden3}),
3860: the hidden boundary of $e^{-s^\star_kL^\star_R}$, as a canonically presented slanted wedge
3861: is positioned a distance $d-\half =\half$
3862: to the right of its left boundary.
3863: We conclude that on $\Sigma$, it is positioned
3864: a distance $\half b_k$ from its left boundary, i.e. at
3865: $d=x_L^k+\half b_k$. The factor of $b_k$ is necessary because
3866: it represents the \emph{local scale factor}: it is the product of the
3867: scale factors of all the slanted wedges
3868: that precede the insertion of
3869: $e^{-s^\star_kL^\star_R}$ in $\Sigma$ (see (\ref{Sigmagen})).
3870: Note that the first operator in $(\ref{insert1})$ does not
3871: contribute to the local scale factor
3872: because its slanted wedge
3873: ends up to the right of the one we are looking at.
3874: As both $x_L^k$ and $b_k$ are manifestly $\lambda$ independent,
3875: so is the location $d$ of the hidden boundary.
3876: This is all that matters, its specific value is not needed.
3877:
3878:
3879:
3880: The parameters $s'$ and $s''$ for $e^{-s^\star_kL^\star_R}$ listed in (\ref{listhidden3}) get a contribution from the logarithm of the
3881: local scale factor $b_k$ at the insertion. We thus have:
3882: \be
3883: \label{8okdn}
3884: s' = -s_k^\star + \ln b_k \,, \quad s'' = 0 + \ln b_k = \ln b_k \,,
3885: \qquad \text{for }e^{-s^\star_kL^\star_R}\text{ on }\Sigma\,.
3886: \ee
3887:
3888:
3889: Let us now consider the insertion of
3890: $e^{-s^\star_k L^\star_L}$ on $\widehat\Sigma$, just before
3891: $\widehat\Sigma$ is mapped to
3892: the $w$ frame. The position
3893: $\hat{x}_L^k$
3894: of the associated slanted wedge, defined as the real value of its left boundary, is
3895: independent of $\lambda$. What we need is the local scale factor
3896: $b_{\rm{loc}}$
3897: at this position.
3898: For this we
3899: recall that $\widehat \Sigma$ is
3900: rescaled by $e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}$ in such a way that its left boundary
3901: has scaling factor $e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}$ and the right boundary has
3902: unit scaling factor. It then follows from (\ref{hatSigmagen}) that, in addition
3903: to $e^{s_{\rm{eff}}}$,
3904: we get the multiplicative contribution from the slant parameters
3905: of $L_n, L_{n-1}, \ldots,
3906: L_{k+1}$ {\em and} the slant parameter of the first
3907: operator in (\ref{insert2}).
3908: This gives
3909: \be
3910: b_{\rm{loc}} = e^{s_{\rm{eff}}} \cdot e^{\sum_{j=k+1}^n (s_j^\star - s_j)}\cdot
3911: e^{-s_k} = e^{\sum_{j=1}^k (s_j - s_j^\star)}\cdot
3912: e^{-s_k} = b_k e^{-s_k^\star} \,.
3913: \ee
3914: This time the $s'$ and $s''$ parameters in (\ref{listhidden4}) are modified
3915: by the addition of the logarithm of~$b_{\rm{loc}}$. We thus get
3916: \be
3917: \label{eohckug}
3918: s' = 0 + \ln b_{\rm{loc}} = -s_k^\star + \ln b_k \,, \quad
3919: s'' = s_k^\star + \ln b_{\rm{loc}} = \ln b_k \,,
3920: \qquad \text{for }e^{-s^\star_kL^\star_L}\text{ on }\widehat\Sigma\,.
3921: \ee
3922: Comparing~(\ref{8okdn}) with~(\ref{eohckug}), we see that the
3923: parameters $s'$ and $s''$ match precisely.
3924: Therefore we conclude from~(\ref{goodglue})
3925: that the hidden boundaries of $e^{-s^\star_k L^\star_R}$ and $e^{-s^\star_k L^\star_L}$ glue nicely in the $w$ frame.
3926:
3927: \bigskip
3928: \noindent
3929: A few remarks are in order.
3930: \begin{itemize}
3931: \item
3932: The hidden boundaries of $e^{-s_k L_R}$ and $e^{-s_k L_L}$ also
3933: glue seamlessly in the $w$ frame. The proof is completely
3934: analogous to the one presented above.
3935: \item
3936: The propagators in subtrees also have hidden boundaries. The hidden boundaries associated with a subtree propagator are either
3937: both on $\Sigma$ or both on $\widehat \Sigma$. These boundaries cannot be simply ignored
3938: because unlike in tree-amplitudes, the subtree is mapped to the annulus and \emph{not} to the disk.
3939: Still, it is easy to see by a similar analysis as for loop propagators that these hidden boundaries glue nicely in the
3940: $w$ frame.
3941: \item
3942: One might wonder if the question
3943: of gluing hidden boundaries could have been ignored.
3944: After all, these hidden
3945: boundaries are pushed off to $i\infty$ in the $z$ frame and to $\frac{\pi}{2}-i\infty$ in the $w$ frame and these seem to be well defined points.
3946: This naive argument, however,
3947: leads to wrong conclusions. It would allow
3948: \emph{independent} $z$-frame rescalings of $\Sigma$ and $\widehat\Sigma$, which is equivalent to shifting their relative horizontal
3949: position in the $w$ frame. On the annulus, this corresponds to rotating the inner and outer boundaries of the annulus with respect to
3950: each other. But if we have insertions on both the inner and the outer boundary, the configuration after such a relative rotation
3951: is \emph{not} conformally equivalent to the original one.
3952: We conclude that the naive
3953: expectation that the gluing in Schnabl gauge works out correctly automatically, leaves an ambiguity in the open string moduli.
3954: This ambiguity is fixed when we regulate and demand the gluing to work out nicely in the limit $\lambda\to0$.
3955: \item
3956: While we did our analysis of the gluing of hidden boundaries using the $\lambda$-regulated gauges, any other family of
3957: regular linear $b$-gauges associated with zero modes in the frames $z=\tilde f^\lambda(\xi)$ could have been used, as long
3958: as this family approaches Schnabl gauge in the limit $\lambda\to 0$. By construction, for such
3959: a family the frames satisfy
3960: \begin{equation}\label{}
3961: \lim_{\lambda\to0} \tilde\Lambda=\infty \quad \textrm{ with } \quad
3962: i\tilde\Lambda\equiv \tilde f^\lambda(i)\,.
3963: \end{equation}
3964: The proof of consistent gluing of hidden boundaries goes through with
3965: $\Lambda\to\tilde \Lambda$.
3966: \end{itemize}
3967:
3968: \medskip
3969: \noindent
3970: This concludes the proof of our prescription for the construction of general one-loop Riemann surfaces in Schnabl gauge.
3971:
3972:
3973:
3974:
3975:
3976:
3977:
3978: \section{Concluding remarks}\label{secconcl}
3979: \setcounter{equation}{0}
3980:
3981: The open
3982: string midpoint has played a very subtle and important role
3983: in covariant open string field theory.
3984: The midpoint makes it non-trivial to formulate open string
3985: field theory as a theory of half-strings (see~\cite{Gross:2001yk}).
3986: Spacetime diffeomorphisms are not quite open-string gauge
3987: symmetries because of the special status of the
3988: midpoint in the star product~\cite{Witten:1986gi}.
3989: Nevertheless, closed string poles appear
3990: in open string loop diagrams, again because of the special
3991: role of the midpoint. Naively, the star algebra was
3992: expected to have no projectors. But again, open string surface
3993: states with singular behavior at the midpoint give rise to
3994: projectors that seem to be completely consistent.
3995:
3996: It is perhaps no surprise then that the tachyon vacuum solution
3997: uses a gauge, Schnabl gauge, that is described by the
3998: conformal frame of a projector. So does the rolling tachyon solution that
3999: describes the decay of a D-brane. Since observables associated with
4000: these solutions
4001: probe closed string
4002: physics~\cite{0804.1131,Hashimoto:2001sm,Gaiotto:2001ji}
4003: it is natural to ask if
4004: the use of
4005: Schnabl gauge
4006: allows the correct incorporation of
4007: closed string physics.
4008: As a first step,
4009: we ask if Schnabl gauge, just like Siegel gauge, leads to correct
4010: loop amplitudes. Indeed, naive
4011: arguments suggested that the singular midpoint behavior in Schnabl
4012: gauge could ruin the validity of the gauge at
4013: loop level, precisely
4014: where closed string physics is revealed. In a nutshell, the string diagrams
4015: for one loop appeared to give a surface that is disconnected into two pieces,
4016: each of which contains one of the boundary components of the annulus.
4017:
4018: The analysis presented in this paper gives reason for optimism
4019: and teaches us a few facts:
4020:
4021:
4022: \begin{itemize}
4023:
4024: \item The left and
4025: right parts of the operator $L$
4026: (the Virasoro zero-mode in sliver frame) fail to commute. This non-commutation is required by consistency:
4027: it introduces a finite hidden boundary to each of the two disconnected surfaces that form the annulus. The gluing across the hidden boundaries
4028: restores the closed string moduli.
4029:
4030: \item Schnabl gauge string diagrams at one loop cover the
4031: (one-dimensional) closed string moduli space.
4032: This is no proof of complete consistency, but
4033: dispels the fear of inconsistency due to subtle midpoint effects.
4034:
4035: \item All moduli, open and closed, of one-loop amplitudes with arbitrary numbers of open string states are calculable in closed form.
4036: Schnabl gauge off-shell amplitudes may ultimately be recognized as simpler than those
4037: in the familiar Siegel or light-cone gauges.
4038:
4039:
4040: \item Wedge surfaces have a natural generalization in the form of
4041: {\em slanted} wedges. Only on slanted wedges we have a natural
4042: action of the left and right parts of the operators $L$ and $L^\star$.
4043: The use of these surfaces allows us to give (for the first time) an explicit algorithm
4044: to construct arbitrarily complicated tree and one-loop diagrams.
4045:
4046:
4047: \end{itemize}
4048:
4049: The focus in this paper has been narrow.
4050: We have studied the moduli of the diagrams generated in Schnabl gauge.
4051: We have not calculated any loop amplitude in detail. For this one must,
4052: of course, deal with the antighost and BRST insertions. Even
4053: regarding
4054: moduli we have not answered everything.
4055: Though the specific examples we have analyzed in this paper are encouraging,
4056: it is not yet clear whether open string moduli are covered in general.
4057: This problem is in fact still unsolved at tree-level.
4058: We are lacking proof that even
4059: tree amplitudes are correctly reproduced in Schnabl gauge.
4060: The open string propagator has moduli associated with the operators
4061: $B/L$ and $B^\star/L^\star$,
4062: but also contains the BRST operator $Q$, which acts as a total derivative on moduli space.
4063: Our analysis of the tree-level five-point function and the one-loop two-point function
4064: suggests that there might be an assignment of simplified propagators $B/L$ and $B^\star/L^\star$
4065: to the propagator lines so that the string diagram has all the requisite degenerations.
4066: Finding such an assignment
4067: could be the next
4068: step in a proof of consistency of Schnabl gauge.
4069:
4070:
4071: The $\lambda$-regularized gauges are fully consistent and Schnabl gauge amplitudes can in principle
4072: be defined by
4073: the limit $\lambda\to 0$ of
4074: $\lambda$-regulated amplitudes.
4075: Calculating regularized amplitudes is problematic, because even at small (but fixed) $\lambda$,
4076: the geometry differs significantly from the Schnabl geometry when any Schwinger parameter becomes large, i.e.
4077: of order
4078: $\ord{\log\log\lambda^{-1}}$.
4079: When one imposes cutoffs on the integration region of Schwinger parameters, the limit
4080: of removing these cutoffs and the limit $\lambda\to0$ do not, in general, commute. It would be interesting to determine
4081: a cutoff prescription for which these limits commute and thus define consistent amplitudes for Schnabl gauge.
4082: A possible candidate for such a prescription is a generalization of the symmetric limit defined for the four-point amplitude in~\cite{0708.2591}.
4083: Note that, in this paper, we took the limit $\lambda\to0$ at fixed Schwinger parameters and any amplitude calculated using
4084: these surfaces is thus a true Schnabl-gauge amplitude and needs to be supplemented with a suitable prescription
4085: on the integration over Schwinger parameters.
4086:
4087:
4088:
4089: The conformal field theory boundary state of the rolling tachyon has been studied
4090: to extract the time-dependent pressure profile of tachyon condensation (see~\cite{Sen:2004nf} and references therein). The result
4091: suggests that the pressure goes to zero at late times, consistent with the
4092: expectation that the D-brane decays into heavy non-relativistic closed strings. The conformal field theory analysis of the closed
4093: string production in the background of the rolling tachyon encounters
4094: UV divergences~\cite{Lambert:2003zr}.
4095: As the corresponding analytic solution of string field theory has been found, this problem can now also be studied within open string field theory.\footnote{For an interesting recent analysis of observables associated with on-shell closed string states, see~\cite{0804.1131}.}
4096: It would be interesting to extract a boundary state from the one-loop
4097: open-string vacuum amplitude in the background of the
4098: rolling tachyon solution. This string field theory
4099: boundary state may confirm the
4100: expected late time behavior of the pressure and could help us
4101: understand the role of observables in open string field theory.
4102:
4103:
4104: All in all, our work shows that Schnabl gauge is not only
4105: a convenient gauge for analytic solutions in string field theory but
4106: also simplifies string perturbation theory considerably. While the
4107: ultimate consistency proof is still pending, we hope that the tools
4108: developed here will help construct this proof and lead to
4109: new insights into the role of closed strings in open string field theory.
4110:
4111:
4112: \vspace{0.6cm}
4113:
4114: {\bf \large Acknowledgments:}
4115: We would like to thank Ashoke Sen for helpful discussions and
4116: for collaboration in the initial stages of this project.
4117: We also thank Yuji Okawa and Martin Schnabl for valuable comments on a draft
4118: version of this paper.
4119: The work of M.K. and
4120: B.Z. is supported in part by the U.S.
4121: DOE grant DE-FC02-94ER40818.
4122:
4123:
4124: \appendix
4125: \section{Covering of Moduli space in the five-point diagram}\label{app5pt}
4126: \setcounter{equation}{0}
4127: In this appendix we will analyze which assignment of $B/L$ and $B^\star/L^\star$
4128: to the propagators in the five-point amplitude
4129: always produces
4130: open string degenerations when a Schwinger parameter becomes
4131: large. To do so, we will set one of the Schwinger parameters of each propagator
4132: to zero in our result for the angles of operator insertions on the unit
4133: circle~(\ref{angles5point}).
4134: Notice that the only degenerations we expect from the diagram in
4135: Figure~\ref{fig5point}
4136: are
4137: the collision of the insertions of $\ket{F_A}$ and $\ket{F_B}$, and the collision
4138: of the insertions of $\ket{F_D}$ and $\ket{F_E}$.
4139: There are three distinct cases of $B/L$ and $B^\star/L^\star$ assignments.
4140: \begin{itemize}
4141: \item
4142: {\bf case 1: $t_1=t_2=0$ (propagator 1: $B^\star/L^\star$; propagator 2:
4143: $B^\star/L^\star$)}\\
4144: In this case we obtain for the angles of operator insertions:
4145: in~(\ref{angles5point})\\
4146: \begin{center}\small
4147: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
4148: \hline
4149: & finite $t_1^\star$, $t_2^\star\phantom{\Bigl{(}}$ & $t_1^\star\to\infty$
4150: & $t_2^\star\to\infty$ & $t_1^\star=t_2^\star\to\infty$\\
4151: \hline
4152: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_B-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4153: $\frac{e^{t_1^\star}}{3e^{t_1^\star}+3e^{t_2^\star}-1}$
4154: & $\frac{1}{3}$ & $0$ & $\frac{1}{6}$\\
4155: \hline
4156: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_C-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4157: $\frac{2e^{t_1^\star}}{3e^{t_1^\star}+3e^{t_2^\star}-1}$
4158: & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $0$ & $\frac{1}{3}$\\
4159: \hline
4160: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_D-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4161: $\frac{2e^{t_1^\star}+e^{t_2^\star}}{3e^{t_1^\star}+3e^{t_2^\star}-1}$
4162: & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{2}$\\
4163: \hline
4164: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_E-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4165: $\frac{2e^{t_1^\star}+2e^{t_2^\star}}{3e^{t_1^\star}+3e^{t_2^\star}-1}$
4166: & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$\\
4167: \hline
4168: \end{tabular}
4169: \end{center}
4170: The angles $\phi_C$, $\phi_D$, and $\phi_E$
4171: approach each other for
4172: $t_1^\star\to\infty$, if $t_2^\star$ stays finite. This is conformally
4173: equivalent to $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$ coming close together. But this
4174: cannot be a stable degeneration, because if $t_2^\star$ also becomes large,
4175: the angles $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$ are no longer
4176: degenerate. In fact, for $t_1^\star=t_2^\star\to\infty$
4177: all insertions are separated by finite angles from each other!
4178: Thus this is not a
4179: consistent assignment of $B/L$ and $B^\star/L^\star$.
4180:
4181: \item
4182: {\bf case 2: $t_1^\star=t_2^\star=0$ (propagator 1: $B/L$; propagator 2:
4183: $B/L$)}\\
4184: In this case we obtain for the angles of operator insertions
4185: in~(\ref{angles5point}):\\
4186: \begin{center}\small
4187: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
4188: \hline
4189: & finite $t_1$, $t_2\phantom{\Bigl{(}}$ & $t_1\to\infty$ & $t_2\to\infty$
4190: & $t_1=t_2\to\infty$\\
4191: \hline
4192: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_B-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4193: $\quad\frac{e^{-t_1}}{3+e^{-t_1}+e^{-t_2}}\quad$
4194: & $0$
4195: & $\quad\frac{e^{-t_1}}{3+e^{-t_1}}\quad$
4196: & $0$\\
4197: \hline
4198: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_C-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4199: $\quad\frac{1+e^{-t_1}}{3+e^{-t_1}+e^{-t_2}}\quad$
4200: & $\frac{1}{3+e^{-t_2}}$
4201: &$\quad\frac{1+e^{-t_1}}{3+e^{-t_1}}\quad$
4202: & $\frac{1}{3}$\\
4203: \hline
4204: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_D-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4205: $\quad\frac{2+e^{-t_1}}{3+e^{-t_1}+e^{-t_2}}\quad$
4206: & $\frac{2}{3+e^{-t_2}}$
4207: &$\quad\frac{2+e^{-t_1}}{3+e^{-t_1}}\quad$
4208: & $\frac{2}{3}$\\
4209: \hline
4210: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_E-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4211: $\quad\frac{2+e^{-t_1}+e^{-t_2}}{3+e^{-t_1}+e^{-t_2}}\quad$
4212: & $\frac{2+e^{-t_2}}{3+e^{-t_2}}$
4213: &$\quad\frac{2+e^{-t_1}}{3+e^{-t_1}}\quad$
4214: & $\frac{2}{3}$\\
4215: \hline
4216: \end{tabular}
4217: \end{center}
4218: The angles $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$ come close together for $t_1\to\infty$.
4219: Making $t_2$ also large
4220: cannot prevent the degeneration.
4221: Similarly, the degeneration of $\phi_D$ and $\phi_E$ in the limit
4222: $t_2\to\infty$ cannot be undone
4223: by making $t_1$ comparably large.
4224: Thus, this is a good assignment of propagators.
4225:
4226:
4227: \item
4228: {\bf case 3: $t_1^\star=t_2=0$ (propagator 1: $B/L$ , propagator 2:
4229: $B^\star/L^\star$)}\\
4230: In this case we obtain for the angles of operator insertions
4231: in~(\ref{angles5point}):\\
4232: \begin{center}\small
4233: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
4234: \hline
4235: & finite $t_1$, $t_2^\star\phantom{\Bigl{(}}$ & $t_1\to\infty$ &
4236: $t_2^\star\to\infty$
4237: & $t_1=t^\star_2\to\infty$\\
4238: \hline
4239: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_B-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4240: $\quad\frac{e^{-t_1}}{1+e^{-t_1}+3e^{t_2^\star}}\quad$
4241: & $0$ & $0$ & $0$\\
4242: \hline
4243: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_C-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4244: $\quad\frac{1+e^{-t_1}}{1+e^{-t_1}+3e^{t_2^\star}}\quad$
4245: & $\frac{1}{1+3e^{t_2^\star}}$ & $0$ & $0$\\
4246: \hline
4247: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_D-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4248: $\quad\frac{1+e^{-t_1}+e^{t_2^\star}}{1+e^{-t_1}+3e^{t_2^\star}}\quad$
4249: & $\frac{1+e^{t_2^\star}}{1+3e^{t_2^\star}}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ &
4250: $\frac{1}{3}$\\
4251: \hline
4252: $\phantom{\biggl{(}}\frac{\phi_E-\phi_A}{2\pi}$ &
4253: $\quad\frac{1+e^{-t_1}+2e^{t_2^\star}}{1+e^{-t_1}+3e^{t_2^\star}}\quad$
4254: & $\frac{1+2e^{t_2^\star}}{1+3e^{t_2^\star}}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ &
4255: $\frac{2}{3}$\\
4256: \hline
4257: \end{tabular}
4258: \end{center}
4259: The angles $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$ come close together for $t_1\to\infty$.
4260: Making $t^\star_2$ also large, cannot prevent the degeneration.
4261: Similarly, for $t_2^\star$ very large, $\phi_A$, $\phi_B$ and $\phi_C$
4262: approach each other.
4263: This is conformally equivalent to
4264: $\phi_D$ and $\phi_E$ coming close together. Again, this cannot be undone by
4265: making $t_1$ comparably large.
4266: Thus, this is also a good assignment of propagators.
4267:
4268: \end{itemize}
4269:
4270:
4271:
4272:
4273:
4274:
4275:
4276: \baselineskip 15pt
4277:
4278:
4279:
4280:
4281: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
4282:
4283: \bibitem{0511286}
4284: M.~Schnabl,
4285: ``Analytic solution for tachyon
4286: condensation in open string field theory,''
4287: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 10}, 433 (2006)
4288: [arXiv:hep-th/0511286].
4289: %%CITATION = 00203,10,433;%%
4290:
4291:
4292: \bibitem{wit1}
4293: E.~Witten,
4294: ``Noncommutative Geometry And String Field Theory,''
4295: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 268}, 253 (1986).
4296: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B268,253;%%
4297:
4298:
4299:
4300: \bibitem{siegel1}
4301: W.~Siegel,
4302: ``Covariantly Second Quantized String,''
4303: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 142}, 276 (1984);
4304: %% %%CITATION = PHLTA,B142,276;%%
4305: %
4306: %%\bibitem{siegel2}
4307: %% W.~Siegel,
4308: ``Covariantly Second Quantized String. 2,''
4309: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 149}, 157 (1984)
4310: [Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 151}, 391 (1985)];
4311: % %%CITATION = PHLTA,B151,391;%%
4312: %
4313: %\bibitem{siegel3}
4314: % W.~Siegel,
4315: ``Covariantly Second Quantized String. 3,''
4316: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 149}, 162 (1984)
4317: [Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 151B}, 396 (1985)].
4318: %%CITATION = PHLTA,151B,396;%%
4319:
4320:
4321:
4322: \bibitem{0603159}
4323: Y.~Okawa,
4324: ``Comments on Schnabl's analytic
4325: solution for tachyon condensation in
4326: Witten's open string field theory,''
4327: JHEP {\bf 0604}, 055 (2006)
4328: [arXiv:hep-th/0603159].
4329: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0604,055;%%
4330: %\cite{Fuchs:2006hw}
4331:
4332: \bibitem{0603195}
4333: E.~Fuchs and M.~Kroyter,
4334: ``On the validity of the solution of string field theory,''
4335: JHEP {\bf 0605}, 006 (2006)
4336: [arXiv:hep-th/0603195].
4337: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0605,006;%%
4338:
4339: \bibitem{0605254}
4340: E.~Fuchs and M.~Kroyter,
4341: ``Schnabl's L(0) operator in the continuous basis,''
4342: JHEP {\bf 0610}, 067 (2006)
4343: [arXiv:hep-th/0605254].
4344: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0610,067;%%
4345:
4346: \bibitem{0606131}
4347: L.~Rastelli and B.~Zwiebach,
4348: ``Solving open string field theory with special projectors,''
4349: arXiv:hep-th/0606131.
4350: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0606131;%%
4351:
4352: \bibitem{0606142}
4353: I.~Ellwood and M.~Schnabl,
4354: ``Proof of vanishing cohomology at the tachyon vacuum,''
4355: JHEP {\bf 0702}, 096 (2007)
4356: [arXiv:hep-th/0606142].
4357: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0702,096;%%
4358:
4359: \bibitem{0610298}
4360: E.~Fuchs and M.~Kroyter,
4361: ``Universal regularization for string field theory,''
4362: JHEP {\bf 0702}, 038 (2007)
4363: [arXiv:hep-th/0610298].
4364: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0702,038;%%
4365:
4366: \bibitem{0611110}
4367: Y.~Okawa, L.~Rastelli and B.~Zwiebach,
4368: ``Analytic solutions for tachyon
4369: condensation with general projectors,''
4370: arXiv:hep-th/0611110.
4371: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0611110;%%
4372:
4373: \bibitem{0611200}
4374: T.~Erler,
4375: ``Split string formalism and the closed string vacuum,''
4376: JHEP {\bf 0705}, 083 (2007)
4377: [arXiv:hep-th/0611200].
4378: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0705,083;%%
4379:
4380: \bibitem{0612050}
4381: T.~Erler,
4382: ``Split string formalism and the closed string vacuum. II,''
4383: JHEP {\bf 0705}, 084 (2007)
4384: [arXiv:hep-th/0612050].
4385: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0705,084;%%
4386:
4387: \bibitem{0701248}
4388: M.~Schnabl,
4389: ``Comments on marginal deformations in
4390: open string field theory,''
4391: arXiv:hep-th/0701248.
4392: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0701248;%%
4393:
4394: \bibitem{0701249}
4395: M.~Kiermaier, Y.~Okawa, L.~Rastelli and B.~Zwiebach,
4396: ``Analytic solutions for
4397: marginal deformations in open string field theory,''
4398: arXiv:hep-th/0701249.
4399: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0701249;%%
4400:
4401: \bibitem{0704.0930}
4402: T.~Erler,
4403: ``Marginal Solutions for the Superstring,''
4404: JHEP {\bf 0707}, 050 (2007)
4405: [arXiv:0704.0930 [hep-th]].
4406: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0707,050;%%
4407:
4408: \bibitem{0704.0936}
4409: Y.~Okawa,
4410: ``Analytic solutions for marginal deformations
4411: in open superstring field
4412: theory,''
4413: JHEP {\bf 0709}, 084 (2007)
4414: [arXiv:0704.0936 [hep-th]].
4415: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0709,084;%%
4416:
4417: \bibitem{0704.2222}
4418: E.~Fuchs, M.~Kroyter and R.~Potting,
4419: ``Marginal deformations in string field theory,''
4420: JHEP {\bf 0709}, 101 (2007)
4421: [arXiv:0704.2222 [hep-th]].
4422: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0709,101;%%
4423:
4424: \bibitem{0704.3612}
4425: Y.~Okawa,
4426: ``Real analytic solutions for marginal
4427: deformations in open superstring field
4428: theory,''
4429: JHEP {\bf 0709}, 082 (2007)
4430: [arXiv:0704.3612 [hep-th]].
4431: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0709,082;%%
4432:
4433: \bibitem{0705.0013}
4434: I.~Ellwood,
4435: ``Rolling to the tachyon vacuum in string field theory,''
4436: arXiv:0705.0013 [hep-th].
4437: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.0013;%%
4438:
4439: \bibitem{0706.0717}
4440: E.~Fuchs and M.~Kroyter,
4441: ``Marginal deformation for the photon in superstring field theory,''
4442: arXiv:0706.0717 [hep-th].
4443: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.0717;%%
4444:
4445: \bibitem{0707.4472}
4446: M.~Kiermaier and Y.~Okawa,
4447: ``Exact marginality in open string field theory:
4448: a general framework,''
4449: arXiv:0707.4472 [hep-th].
4450: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0707.4472;%%
4451:
4452: \bibitem{0707.4591}
4453: T.~Erler,
4454: ``Tachyon Vacuum in Cubic Superstring Field Theory,''
4455: arXiv:0707.4591 [hep-th].
4456: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0707.4591;%%
4457:
4458: \bibitem{0708.3394}
4459: M.~Kiermaier and Y.~Okawa,
4460: ``General marginal deformations in open superstring field theory,''
4461: arXiv:0708.3394 [hep-th].
4462: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0708.3394;%%
4463:
4464: \bibitem{0709.2888}
4465: O.~K.~Kwon, B.~H.~Lee, C.~Park and S.~J.~Sin,
4466: ``Fluctuations around the Tachyon
4467: Vacuum in Open String Field Theory,''
4468: arXiv:0709.2888 [hep-th].
4469: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0709.2888;%%
4470:
4471: \bibitem{0710.1342}
4472: B.~H.~Lee, C.~Park and D.~D.~Tolla,
4473: ``Marginal Deformations as Lower
4474: Dimensional D-brane Solutions in Open String
4475: Field theory,''
4476: arXiv:0710.1342 [hep-th].
4477: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.1342;%%
4478:
4479: %\cite{Kwon:2008ap}
4480: \bibitem{0801.0573}
4481: O.~K.~Kwon,
4482: ``Marginally Deformed Rolling Tachyon around the Tachyon Vacuum in Open
4483: String Field Theory,''
4484: arXiv:0801.0573 [hep-th].
4485: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0801.0573;%%
4486:
4487: %\cite{Hellerman:2008wp}
4488: \bibitem{0803.1184}
4489: S.~Hellerman and M.~Schnabl,
4490: ``Light-like tachyon condensation in Open String Field Theory,''
4491: arXiv:0803.1184 [hep-th].
4492: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.1184;%%
4493:
4494: %\cite{Ellwood:2008jh}
4495: \bibitem{0804.1131}
4496: I.~Ellwood,
4497: ``The closed string tadpole in open string field theory,''
4498: arXiv:0804.1131 [hep-th].
4499: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0804.1131;%%
4500:
4501:
4502: %\cite{Kawano:2008ry}
4503: \bibitem{Kawano:2008ry}
4504: T.~Kawano, I.~Kishimoto and T.~Takahashi,
4505: ``Gauge Invariant Overlaps for Classical Solutions in Open String Field
4506: Theory,''
4507: arXiv:0804.1541 [hep-th].
4508: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0804.1541;%%
4509:
4510: %\cite{Kawano:2008jv}
4511: \bibitem{Kawano:2008jv}
4512: T.~Kawano, I.~Kishimoto and T.~Takahashi,
4513: ``Schnabl's Solution and Boundary States in Open String Field Theory,''
4514: arXiv:0804.4414 [hep-th].
4515: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0804.4414;%%
4516:
4517: %\cite{Fuji:2006me}
4518: \bibitem{Fuji:2006me}
4519: H.~Fuji, S.~Nakayama and H.~Suzuki,
4520: ``Open string amplitudes in various gauges,''
4521: JHEP {\bf 0701}, 011 (2007)
4522: [arXiv:hep-th/0609047].
4523: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0701,011;%%
4524:
4525: \bibitem{0708.2591}
4526: L.~Rastelli and B.~Zwiebach,
4527: ``The off-shell Veneziano amplitude in Schnabl gauge,''
4528: arXiv:0708.2591 [hep-th].
4529: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0708.2591;%%
4530:
4531:
4532:
4533:
4534: \bibitem{gid}
4535: S.~B.~Giddings,
4536: ``The Veneziano Amplitude From Interacting String Field Theory,''
4537: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 278}, 242 (1986).
4538: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B278,242;%%
4539:
4540: %\cite{Kiermaier:2007jg}
4541: \bibitem{Kiermaier:2007jg}
4542: M.~Kiermaier, A.~Sen and B.~Zwiebach,
4543: ``Linear b-Gauges for Open String Fields,''
4544: arXiv:0712.0627 [hep-th].
4545: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0712.0627;%%
4546:
4547:
4548:
4549:
4550: %\cite{Rastelli:2000iu}
4551: \bibitem{Rastelli:2000iu}
4552: L.~Rastelli and B.~Zwiebach,
4553: ``Tachyon potentials, star products and universality,''
4554: JHEP {\bf 0109}, 038 (2001)
4555: [arXiv:hep-th/0006240].
4556: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0109,038;%%
4557:
4558:
4559: %\cite{Schnabl:2002gg}
4560: \bibitem{Schnabl:2002gg}
4561: M.~Schnabl,
4562: ``Wedge states in string field theory,''
4563: JHEP {\bf 0301}, 004 (2003)
4564: [arXiv:hep-th/0201095].
4565: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0301,004;%%
4566:
4567: \bibitem{Zemba:1988rf}
4568: G.~Zemba and B.~Zwiebach,
4569: ``Tadpole graph in covariant closed string field theory,"
4570: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 30}, 2388 (1989).
4571: %%CITATION = JMAPA,30,2388;%%
4572:
4573: \bibitem{boch}
4574: M.~Bochicchio,
4575: ``Gauge fixing for the field theory of the bosonic string,''
4576: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 193}, 31 (1987);
4577: %\cite{Thorn:1986qj}
4578: %\bibitem{Thorn:1986qj}
4579: C.~B.~Thorn,
4580: ``Perturbation Theory For Quantized String Fields,''
4581: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 287}, 61 (1987).
4582:
4583: \bibitem{thorn}
4584: C.~B.~Thorn,
4585: ``String Field Theory,''
4586: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 175}, 1 (1989).
4587: %%CITATION = PRPLC,175,1;%%
4588:
4589: \bibitem{preit}
4590: C.~R.~Preitschopf, C.~B.~Thorn and S.~A.~Yost,
4591: ``Superstring field theory,''
4592: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 337}, 363 (1990).
4593: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B337,363;%%
4594:
4595: \bibitem{ahlfors}
4596: Lars V. Ahlfors. {\em Conformal Invariants:
4597: Topics in Geometric Function Theory}.
4598: McGraw-Hill series in higher mathematics.
4599: New York, McGraw-Hill [1973].
4600:
4601: \bibitem{gardiner}
4602: F. P. Gardiner. {Teichmuller theory and quadratic
4603: differentials}. John Wiley and Sons. New York [1987].
4604:
4605: %\cite{Gross:2001yk}
4606: \bibitem{Gross:2001yk}
4607: D.~J.~Gross and W.~Taylor,
4608: ``Split string field theory. II,''
4609: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 010 (2001)
4610: [arXiv:hep-th/0106036];
4611: %\bibitem{Gross:2001rk}
4612: % D.~J.~Gross and W.~Taylor,
4613: ``Split string field theory. I,''
4614: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 009 (2001)
4615: [arXiv:hep-th/0105059].
4616: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0108,009;%%
4617:
4618: \bibitem{Witten:1986gi}
4619: E.~Witten,
4620: ``Some Remarks About String Field Theory,''
4621: Phys.\ Scripta {\bf T15}, 70 (1987).
4622: %%CITATION = PHSTB,T15,70;%%.
4623:
4624: %\cite{Hashimoto:2001sm}
4625: \bibitem{Hashimoto:2001sm}
4626: A.~Hashimoto and N.~Itzhaki,
4627: ``Observables of string field theory,''
4628: JHEP {\bf 0201}, 028 (2002)
4629: [arXiv:hep-th/0111092].
4630: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0201,028;%%
4631:
4632: %\cite{Gaiotto:2001ji}
4633: \bibitem{Gaiotto:2001ji}
4634: D.~Gaiotto, L.~Rastelli, A.~Sen and B.~Zwiebach,
4635: ``Ghost structure and closed strings in vacuum string field theory,''
4636: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 6}, 403 (2003)
4637: [arXiv:hep-th/0111129].
4638: %%CITATION = 00203,6,403;%%
4639:
4640: %\cite{Sen:2004nf}
4641: \bibitem{Sen:2004nf}
4642: A.~Sen,
4643: ``Tachyon dynamics in open string theory,''
4644: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20}, 5513 (2005)
4645: [arXiv:hep-th/0410103].
4646: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A20,5513;%%
4647:
4648: %\cite{Lambert:2003zr}
4649: \bibitem{Lambert:2003zr}
4650: N.~D.~Lambert, H.~Liu and J.~M.~Maldacena,
4651: ``Closed strings from decaying D-branes,''
4652: JHEP {\bf 0703}, 014 (2007)
4653: [arXiv:hep-th/0303139].
4654: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0703,014;%%
4655:
4656: \end{thebibliography}
4657:
4658:
4659: \end{document}
4660:
4661: