If the quadverse view of the universe is correct (matterverse / antimatterverse / mirrorverse /

antimirrorverse) here is how it would work. Assuming that we live in 3D space and that the
antiverse exists on the opposite side of the CY manifold of our universe within three
complementary dimensional space, we have two CY manifolds, each with 6 dimensions that
mirror each other. Also, using this model, the space near the cone actually represents the central
black hole of the universe ("singularity") which has the ability to create baby universes and
thereby connect all the CY manifolds (universes) throughout the omniverse. If our universe is
inside a black hole inside a larger universe, this can be seen "from the outside" as a single point
(the dimensions cancel each other out -- 3 regular spatial dimensions, 3 complementary spatial
dimensions, and time and its complement), therefore rather than expanding into the black hole, it
would expand into its own space and the net affect to the outside would be no change.

The big bangs (which are actually big bounces) are coordinated, between the universe and its
mirroverse (which are a quantumly entangled pair) and the antiverse and the mirror antiverse
which are similarly entangled.

Where does the 2-sphere and 3-sphere model come in? Enter type 2 string theory.... in type 2A
the topology smooths out to a 2-sphere (actually a torus) and in type 2B it becomes the 3-sphere
or the glome mentioned earlier. So really, type 2A and 2B are related via T duality. Mirror
symmetry can also be understood as T-duality applied to three dimensional toroidal CY space. F-
theory also compactifies the background to a torus (and obtains type 2B superstring theory.) 6+2
dimensional space is preserved as "large." (all the spatial and temporal dimensions plus their
complements.) To include the entire omniverse in M-theory or F-theory, to explain the presence
of exotic matter, hyperspace and imaginary time, as well as dark matter and dark energy, we
need to complete the description of it as an infinite but bounded analogy to the hypersphere with
4+1 dimensions (Einstein was on the right track with Relativity). The extra temporal dimension is
Imaginary Time, which now gives us a total of three time dimensions with which to navigate
through time in any direction we wish (this explains how time can go both ways at the quantum
level.) So now we have a theory of 10+3 dimensions, our three spacial dimensions plus time
(3+1), the complementary spatial dimensions plus complementary time (3'+1') and, finally, the
omniverse's own (4+1) dimensions which can be fractally reduced through string theory (just like
with the universe) from a hypersphere to a torus to a mobius strip, which is not only emblematic
of the infinite but bounded structure present on every level, but the cyclical time nature of the
omniverse and all its component universes. It is in this 4+1 that other universes get created and
where exotic matter and ZPE exist, and what wormholes tunnel through. So the total structure of
the omniverse is a 10+3 cosmology with the 6+2 being emergent from the original 4+1. The 4
original dimensions of the omniverse make up hyperspace (it should have been named
hypersphere) and the original temporal dimension is imaginary time. In addition, T duality acting
on D-branes changes their dimension by 1, thereby validating the Holographic Principle. This
agrees well with the AdS/CFT correspondence which explains superconductivity, quantum
entanglement, quark soup BEC and black holes. Another descendant of string theory, M-theory,
is used to explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces-- its closed loop geometry
attenuates it across the extra dimensions at right angles to reality (and parallel time lines across
the second temporal dimension) while the other forces are not so affected (they are local to each
timeline and universe.) M-theory was used to explain how 2A and 2B are really two different
ways of looking at the same thing and how the universe can be toroidal and hyperspherical at the
same time (the volumetric equations for both are the same.) The fact that one is the inverse of
the other identifies both the "normal" side of the universe as well as the antiverse side. Heterotic
string theory (which defines the universe as a line segment) can be looped using M-theory to
create a mobius strip (the twist is the vertex of the cone) and thus the mobius, torus and glome
are all united under the umbrella of M-theory. In addition, they show why larger black holes warp
space-time more and lead to more distances across space and time because larger black holes
are composed of larger strings which means longer worm holes. In M theory, the torus has
multiple holes, and each of these holes can correspond to a black hole which births a baby
universe (the CYM connection across the omniverse through the conifolds is preserved.) SO and
SE heterotic string theory flip the same way as type 2A and type 2B do, inversely, thus together
describing the universe/antiverse pair. Another duality, called S-duality, occurs with type 1 string
theory, where weakly interacting particles become strongly interacting ones, thus each ordinary
particle is seen to have a supersymmetric dark matter partner. Even bosonic string theory with its
26 dimensions predicts particles with ghost states that do not interact with ordinary matter and
spacetime curls up to form a torus. It also predicts the existence of tachyons, which can be
resolved by considering that a luxon wall separates our universe from the antiverse; along the
luxon wall photons exist that travel at the speed of light, while "on the other side" we have
particles that appear to be going faster than light and backward in time. For an observer on the
other side, they would think we were undergoing the same phenomena. Thus the arrow of time is
conserved because, in actuality, all possible temporal states exist at once, which explains such
things as precognition, which occurs through the quantum foam of consciousness (informational
tunneling) and retrocausal post selection of the present from the future. This is why the big
bounces are reversed between the universe and the antiverse and the mirrorverse and the
antimirrorverse. This is mathematically outlined in K-theory, which states that tachyon
condensation occurs when universe/antiverse pairs stack together to form a CY manifold. Thus,
conservation laws are preserved and this works well with Type 2B superstring theory using 9
dimensional D branes and Type 2A superstring theory using 8 dimensional D branes. Anti D
branes define the antiverse. Not only that, twisted K-theory also identifies SU (3) a major
component of the weak interaction. Twisted K-theory also works with the 2x2 matrix of the
universe/antiverse arrangement as the mobius twists of the pair add up to the same number.
This also works with the mirrorverse and its partner to create mirror symmetry. Furthermore CY
manifolds are created as supersymmetry breaks to create 3+1 spacetime , as the other
dimensions appear to compactify as they become the torus of the antiverse. Mirror symmetry
also predicts the torus. Topological string theory presents a 2D holographic surface that allows
for quantum bubbles in space time that would show up as quantum foam (like the holes in the
torus earlier mentioned under M theory membranes). This quantum foam would fulfill the
objective of connecting all the CY Manifold universes together through micro wormholes. This
quantizes space-time and this model. Just like the other models of string theory presented, each
CY Manifold consists of 6 dimensions, 3 spatial dimensions for each side (universe and
antiverse). Mirror symmetry also exists in this model, as described by T-duality on a three torus.
And so we have two manifolds each with 6 dimensions. They also observe S-duality. Witten
argues that the dimensions quantize, which basically is the same thing as saying the CY Manifold
halves, creating the universe and the antiverse, with the luxon wall on the boundary. Another
duality is the conversion of the 3 torus to the 3 sphere. This is wrapped around the conifold and
the two vertices coincide (universal black hole), which either expands the universe with dark
energy entering through the wormhole part or shrinks it on the black hole end-- depending on
whether you're in the universe or the antiverse. It never shrinks to zero because gravity becomes
repellant at very short distances, thus there is a big bounce at 10 planck lengths while the other
universe is at maximum extent and starts to collapse as gravity increases on that side as the big
bounce causes a gravity reversal as black hole turns to white hole in the universe and white hole
turns to black hole in the antiverse and the collapse accelerates ("deflation") as the time lines
converge and gravity increases, while inflation at greater than light speeds causes the parallel
time lines to emerge and separate in the second temporal dimension in the universe (and the
separation causes gravity to weaken further increasing expansion.) This separation of time lines
actually occurs in the original temporal dimension of the omniverse, imaginary time (which is why
these time lines are navigable by worm hole time machines, with the fact that all moments of all
times exist simultaneously making that possible. The reason these wormholes exist is because
the expansion occurred so rapidly that what was once connected spacetime remains so through
the higher 4+1 dimensions of the omniverse.) Another important thing to note is that there is a
flip from black hole to white hole and it is simultaneous in the quadverse (universe and
mirrorverse together, antiverse and antimirrorverse together) as the force of gravity flips the
unified gravimagnetic fields of each universe (analogous to the earth's own magnetic field
switching and also to the way negative absolute temperatures occur.) These also obey the
holographic principle of dimensional reduction (glome to torus to mobius with the hole and the
twist the black hole / white hole.) As a matter of fact, the hole neatly reduces to the twist and so
the geometry is the same. The holographic principle links together seemingly unconnected
regions of space through dimension reduction and thus performs a function analogous to
quantum entanglement, teleportation and tunneling. They also obey the 2x2 matrix (universe +
antiverse), with 1x1 being identified on each surface. Instantons describe quantum tunneling in
one dimension and mirror symmetry in two. It also results in the monopole, whose mass will
eventually help the universe collapse (as part of dark matter.) As a matter of fact, the monopole
has recently been discovered in spin ice (see below.) The central black hole is quite possibly a
BTZ black hole, a much larger one of the type found in quantum foam (2+1 spacetime), which
might indicate that our own universe exists in the quantum foam of a larger universe (and that we
have myriads "under" us also, as everything loops back, infinite yet bounded) and rotates just like
a 3+1 Kerr Black Hole (thus imparting angular momentum to the quadverse) and therefore
creates the same wormhole tunneling and linkages to other universes. This also follows the
AdS/CFT correspondence. Quantum topology can also link entanglement to geometric linking
and braiding. This is just like the double helix structure of DNA, which is why the quadverse can
be described by that model, another example of fractality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_symmetry_(string_theory)

In physics and mathematics, mirror symmetry is a relation that can exist between two Calabi-Yau
manifolds. It happens, usually for two such six-dimensional manifolds, that the shapes may look
very different geometrically, but nevertheless they are equivalent if they are employed as hidden
dimensions of string theory. The classical formulation of mirror symmetry relates two Calabi-Yau
threefolds M and W whose Hodge numbers h1,1 and h1,2 are swapped; string theory
compactified on these two manifolds lead to identical effective field theories.Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Applications
3 Generalizations
3.1 Mirror symmetry in 2-dimensional gauged sigma models
3.2 Mirror symmetry in 3-dimensional gauge theories
4 Notes
5 References

[edit]
History

The discovery of mirror symmetry is connected with names such as Lance Dixon, Wolfgang
Lerche, Cumrun Vafa, Nicholas Warner, Brian Greene, Ronen Plesser, Philip Candelas, Monika
Lynker, Rolf Schimmrigk and others. Andrew Strominger, Shing-Tung Yau, and Eric Zaslow have
showed that mirror symmetry is a special example of T-duality: the Calabi-Yau manifold may be
written as a fiber bundle whose fiber is a three-dimensional torus. The simultaneous action of T-
duality on all three dimensions of this torus is equivalent to mirror symmetry.

Mathematicians became interested in mirror symmetry in 1990, after Candelas-de la Ossa-

Green-Parkes gave predictions for numbers of rational curves in a quintic threefold via data
coming from variation of Hodge structure on the mirror family. These predictions were
mathematically proven a few years later by Givental and Lian-Liu-Yau.
[edit]
Applications

Mirror symmetry allowed the physicists to calculate many quantities that seemed virtually
incalculable before, by invoking the "mirror" description of a given physical situation, which can be
often much easier. Mirror symmetry has also become a very powerful tool in mathematics, and
although mathematicians have proved many rigorous theorems based on the physicists' intuition,
a full mathematical understanding of the phenomenon of mirror symmetry is still being developed.
Most of the physicist's examples could be conceptualized by the Batyrev-Borisov mirror
construction which uses the duality of reflexive polytopes and nef partitions. In their construction
the mirror partners appear as anticanonically embedded hypersurfaces or certain complete
intersections in Fano toric varieties. The Gross-Siebert mirror construction generalizes this to
non-embedded cases by looking at degenerating families of Calabi-Yau manifolds. This point of
view also includes the T-duality. Another mathematical framework is provided by the homological
mirror symmetry conjecture.
[edit]
Generalizations

There are two different, but closely related, string theory statements of mirror symmetry[1].
1. Type IIA string theory on a Calabi-Yau M is mirror dual to Type IIB on W.
2. Type IIB string theory on a Calabi-Yau M is mirror dual to Type IIA on W.

This follows from the fact that Calabi-Yau hodge numbers satisfy h1,1 1 but h2,1 0. If the Hodge
numbers of M are such that h2,1=0 then by definition its mirror dual W is not Calabi-Yau. As a
result mirror symmetry allows for the definition of an extended space of compact spaces, which
are defined by the W of the above two mirror symmetries.

Mirror symmetry has also been generalized to a duality between supersymmetric gauge theories
in various numbers of dimensions. In this generalized context the original mirror symmetry, which
relates pairs of toric Calabi-Yau manifolds, relates the moduli spaces of 2-dimensional abelian
supersymmetric gauge theories when the sums of the electric charges of the matter are equal to
zero.

In all manifestations of mirror symmetry found so far a central role is played by the fact that in a d-
dimensional quantum field theory a differential p-form potential admits a dual formulation as a (d-
p-2)-form potential. In 4-dimensions this relates the electric and magnetic vector potentials and is
called electric-magnetic duality. In 3-dimensions this duality relates a vector and a scalar, which
in an abelian gauge theory correspond to a photon and a squark. In 2-dimensions it relates two
scalars, but while one carries an electric charge, the dual scalar is an uncharged Fayet-Iliopoulos
term. In the process of this duality topological solitons called Abrikosov-Nielsen-Oleson vortices
are intercharged with elementary quark fields in the 3-dimensional case and play the role in
instantons in the 2-dimensional case.

The derivations of 2-dimensional mirror symmetry and 3-dimensional mirror symmetry are both
inspired by Alexander Polyakov's instanton calculation in non-supersymmetric quantum
electrodynamics with a scalar Higgs field. In a 1977 article[2] he demonstrated that instanton
effects give the photon a mass, where the instanton is a 't Hooft-Polyakov monopole embedded in
an ultraviolet nonabelian gauge group.
[edit]
Mirror symmetry in 2-dimensional gauged sigma models

Mirror symmetries in 2-dimensional sigma models are usually considered in cases with N=(2,2)
supersymmetry, which means that the fermionic supersymmetry generators are the four real
components of a single Dirac spinor. This is the case which is relevant, for example, to
topological string theories and type II superstring theory. Generalizations to N=(2,0)
supersymmetry have also appeared.[3]

The matter content of N=(2,2) gauged linear sigma models consists of three kinds of
supermultiplet. The gauge bosons occur in vector multiplets, the charged matter occurs in chiral
multiplets and the Fayet-Ilipolous (FI) terms of the various abelian gauge symmetries occur in
twisted chiral multiplets. Mirror symmetry exchanges chiral and twisted chiral multiplets.
Mirror symmetry, in a class of models of toric varieties with zero first Chern class Calabi-Yau
manifolds and positive first Chern class (Fano varieties) was proven by Kentaro Hori and Cumrun
Vafa.[4] Their approach is as follows. A sigma model whose target space is a toric variety may be
described by an abelian gauge theory with charged chiral multiplets. Mirror symmetry then
replaces these charged chiral multiplets with uncharged twisted chiral multiplets whose vacuum
expectation values are FI terms. Instantons in the dual theory are now vortices whose action is
given by the exponential of the FI term. These vortices each have precisely 2 fermion zeromodes,
and so the sole correction to the superpotential is given by a single vortex. The nonperturbative
corrections to the dual superpotential may then be found by simply summing the exponentials of
the FI terms. Therefore mirror symmetry allows one to find the full nonperturbative solutions to the
theory.

In addition to finding many new dualities, this allowed them to demonstrate many dualities that
had been conjectured in the literature. For example, beginning with a sigma model whose target
space is the 2-sphere they found an exactly solvable Sine-Gordon model. More generally, when
the original sigma model's target space is the n-complex dimensional projective space they found
that the dual theory is the exactly solvable affine Toda model.
[edit]
Mirror symmetry in 3-dimensional gauge theories

Mirror symmetry in 3-dimensional gauge theories with N=4 supersymmetry, or 8 supercharges,

was first proposed by Kenneth Intriligator and Nathan Seiberg in their 1996 paper[5] as a relation
between pairs of 3-dimensional gauge theories such that the Coulomb branch of the moduli
space of one is the Higgs branch of the moduli space of the other. It was demonstrated using D-
brane cartoons by Amihay Hanany and Edward Witten 4 months later,[6] where they found that it
is a consequence of S-duality in type IIB string theory.

Four months later it was extended to N=2 gauge theories resulting from supersymmetry breaking
in N=4 theories.[7] Here it was given a physical interpretation in terms of vortices. Vortices in 3-
dimensional gauge theories are particles. BPS vortices, which are those vortices that preserve
some supersymmetry, have masses which are given by the FI term of the gauge theory. In
particular, on the Higgs branch, where the squarks are massless and condense yielding nontrivial
vacuum expectation values (VEVs), the vortices are massive. On the other hand they interpret
the Coulomb branch of the gauge theory, where the scalar in the vector multiplet has a VEV, as
being the regime where massless vortices condense. Thus the duality between the Coulumb
branch in one theory and the Higgs branch in the dual theory is the duality between squarks and
vortices.

In this theory the instantons are 't Hooft-Polyakov magnetic monopoles, whose actions are
proportional to the VEV of the scalar in the vector multiplet. In this case instanton calculations
again reproduce the nonperturbative superpotential. In particular, in the N=4 case with SU(2)
gauge symmetry, the metric on the moduli space was found by Nathan Seiberg and Edward
Witten[8] using holomorphy and supersymmetric nonrenormalization theorems several days
before Intriligator and Seiberg's 3-dimensional mirror symmetry paper appeared. Their results
were reproduced using standard instanton techniques.[9]

The description of conifolds here reminds me of spaces connected with worm holes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conifold

In mathematics and string theory, a conifold is a generalization of a manifold. Unlike manifolds,

conifolds can contain conical singularities i.e. points whose neighbourhoods look like cones over
a certain base. In physics, in particular in flux compactifications of string theory, the base is
usually a five-dimensional real manifold, since the typically considered conifolds are complex 3-
dimensional (real 6-dimensional) spaces.

Conifolds are important objects in string theory: Brian Greene explains the physics of conifolds in
Chapter 13 of his book The Elegant Universe - including the fact that the space can tear near the
cone, and its topology can change. This possibility was first noticed by Candelas et al. (1988) and
employed by Green & Hübsch (1988) to prove that conifolds provide a connection between all
(then) known Calabi-Yau compactifications in string theory; this partially supports a conjecture by
Reid (1987) whereby conifolds connect all possible Calabi-Yau complex 3-dimensional spaces.

A well-known example of a conifold is obtained as a deformation limit of a quintic - i.e. a quintic

hypersurface in the projective space . The space has complex dimension equal to four, and
therefore the space defined by the quintic (degree five) equations

in terms of homogeneous coordinates zi on , for any fixed complex ψ, has complex dimension
three. This family of quintic hypersurfaces is the most famous example of Calabi-Yau
manifolds. If the complex structure parameter ψ is chosen to become equal to one,
the manifold described above becomes singular since the derivatives of the quintic
polynomial in the equation vanish when all coordinates zi are equal or their ratios are
certain fifth roots of unity. The neighbourhood of this singular point looks like a cone
whose base is topologically just .

In the context of string theory, the geometrically singular conifolds can be shown to
lead to completely smooth physics of strings. The divergences are "smeared out" by
D3-branes wrapped on the shrinking three-sphere in Type IIB string theory and by
D2-branes wrapped on the shrinking two-sphere in Type IIA string theory, as
originally pointed out by Strominger (1995). As shown by Greene, Morrison &
Strominger (1995), this provides the string-theoretic description of the topology-
change via the conifold transition originally described by Candelas, Green & Hübsch
(1990), who also invented the term "conifold" and the diagram

for the purpose. The two topologically distinct ways of smoothing a conifold are thus shown to
involve replacing the singular vertex (node) by either a 3-sphere (by way of deforming the
complex structure) or a 2-sphere (by way of a "small resolution"). It is believed that nearly all
Calabi-Yau manifolds can be connected via these "critical transitions", resonating with Reid's
conjecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_IIB_string_theory

In theoretical physics, type II string theory is a unified term that includes both type IIA strings and
type IIB strings. These account for two of the five consistent superstring theories in ten
dimensions. Both theories have the maximal amount of supersymmetry — namely 32
supercharges — in ten dimensions. Both theories are based on oriented closed strings. On the
worldsheet, they differ only in the choice of GSO projection.Contents [hide]
1 Type IIA string
2 Type IIB string
3 Relationship between the type II theories
4 See also

Type IIA string

At low energies, type IIA string theory is described by type IIA supergravity in ten dimensions
which is a non-chiral theory (i.e. left-right symmetric) with (1,1) d=10 supersymmetry; the fact that
the anomalies in this theory cancel is therefore trivial.

In the 1990s it was realized by Edward Witten (building on previous insights by Michael Duff, Paul
Townsend, and others) that the limit of type IIA string theory in which the string coupling goes to
infinity becomes a new 11-dimensional theory called M-theory.

The mathematical treatment of type IIA string theory belongs to symplectic topology and algebraic
geometry, particularly Gromov-Witten invariants.
Type IIB string

At low energies, type IIB string theory is described by type IIB supergravity in ten dimensions
which is a chiral theory (left-right asymmetric) with (2,0) d=10 supersymmetry; the fact that the
anomalies in this theory cancel is therefore nontrivial.

In the 1990s it was realized that type II string theory with the string coupling constant g is
equivalent to the same theory with the coupling 1 / g. This equivalence is known as S-duality.

Orientifold of type IIB string theory leads to type I string theory.

The mathematical treatment of type IIB string theory belongs to algebraic geometry, specifically
the deformation theory of complex structures originally studied by Kunihiko Kodaira and Donald
C. Spencer.
Relationship between the type II theories

In the late 1980s, it was realized that type IIA string theory is related to type IIB string theory by T-
duality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-duality

Open Strings and D-branes

T-duality acting on D-branes changes their dimension by +1 or -1.

Andrew Strominger, Shing-Tung Yau, and Eric Zaslow have showed that mirror symmetry can be
understood as T-duality applied to three-dimensional toroidal fibres of the Calabi-Yau space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi-Yau_space#Applications_in_superstring_theory

Applications in superstring theory

Calabi–Yau manifolds are important in superstring theory. In the most conventional superstring
models, ten conjectural dimensions in string theory are supposed to come as four of which we are
aware, carrying some kind of fibration with fiber dimension six. Compactification on Calabi–Yau n-
folds are important because they leave some of the original supersymmetry unbroken. More
precisely, in the absence of fluxes, compactification on a Calabi–Yau 3-fold (real dimension 6)
leaves one quarter of the original supersymmetry unbroken if the holonomy is the full SU(3).

More generally, a flux-free compactification on an n-manifold with holonomy SU(n) leaves 21−n of
the original supersymmetry unbroken, corresponding to 26−n supercharges in a compactification
of type II supergravity or 25−n supercharges in a compactification of type I. When fluxes are
included the supersymmetry condition instead implies that the compactification manifold be a
generalized Calabi–Yau, a notion introduced by Hitchin (2003). These models are known as flux
compactifications.

Essentially, Calabi–Yau manifolds are shapes that satisfy the requirement of space for the six
"unseen" spatial dimensions of string theory, which may be smaller than our currently observable
lengths as they have not yet been detected. A popular alternative known as large extra
dimensions, which often occurs in braneworld models, is that the Calabi–Yau is large but we are
confined to a small subset on which it intersects a D-brane.

F-theory compactifications on various Calabi–Yau four-folds provide physicists with a method to

find a large number of classical solution in the so-called string theory landscape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-theory

F-theory is a branch of string theory developed by Cumrun Vafa. The new vacua described as F-
theory were discovered by Vafa, and it also allowed string theorists to construct new realistic
vacua — in the form of F-theory compactified on elliptically fibered Calabi-Yau four-folds. The
letter "F" supposedly stands for "Father".[citation needed]Contents [hide]
1 Compactifications
2 Phenomenology
3 Extra time dimensions
4 References

Compactifications

F-theory is formally a 12-dimensional theory, but the only way to obtain an acceptable
background is to compactify this theory on a two-torus. By doing so, one obtains type IIB
superstring theory in 10 dimensions. The SL(2,Z) S-duality symmetry of the resulting type IIB
string theory is manifest because it arises as the group of large diffeomorphisms of the two-
dimensional torus.

More generally, one can compactify F-theory on an elliptically fibered manifold (elliptic fibration),
i.e. a fiber bundle whose fiber is a two-dimensional torus (also called an elliptic curve). For
example, a subclass of the K3 manifolds is elliptically fibered, and F-theory on a K3 manifold is
dual to heterotic string theory on a two-torus. (Eight dimensions are large.)

The well-known large number of semirealistic solutions to string theory referred to as the string
theory landscape, with 10500 elements or so, is dominated by F-theory compactifications on
Calabi-Yau four-folds.
Phenomenology

New models of GUT unification of the fundamental forces have recently been developed using F-
theory.[1]
Extra time dimensions

F-theory, as it has metric signature (11,1), as needed for the Euclidean interpretation of the
compactification spaces (e.g. the four-folds), is not a "two-time" theory of physics.

However, the signature of the two additional dimensions is somewhat ambiguous due to their
infinitesimal character. For example, the supersymmetry of F-theory on a flat background
corresponds to type IIB (i.e. (2,0)) supersymmetry with 32 real supercharges which may be
interpreted as the dimensional reduction of the chiral real 12-dimensional supersymmetry if its
spacetime signature is (10,2). In (11,1) dimensions, the minimum number of components would
be 64.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-branes

In string theory, D-branes are a class of extended objects upon which open strings can end with
Dirichlet boundary conditions, after which they are named. D-branes were discovered by Dai,
Leigh and Polchinski, and independently by Hořava in 1989. In 1995, Polchinski identified
D-branes with black p-brane solutions of supergravity, a discovery that triggered the
Second Superstring Revolution and led to both holographic and M-theory dualities.

D-branes are typically classified by their spatial dimension, which is indicated by a

number written after the D. A D0-brane is a single point, a D1-brane is a line
(sometimes called a "D-string"), a D2-brane is a plane, and a D25-brane fills the
highest-dimensional space considered in bosonic string theory. There are also
instantonic D(-1)-branes, which are localized in both space and time.Contents [hide]
1 Theoretical background
2 Braneworld cosmology
3 D-brane scattering
4 Gauge theories
5 Black holes
6 History
7 See also
8 References

[edit]
Theoretical background

The equations of motion of string theory require that the endpoints of an open string
(a string with endpoints) satisfy one of two types of boundary conditions: The
Neumann boundary condition, corresponding to free endpoints moving through
spacetime at the speed of light, or the Dirichlet boundary conditions, which pin the
string endpoint. Each coordinate of the string must satisfy one or the other of these
conditions. There can also exist strings with mixed boundary conditions, where the
two endpoints satisfy NN, DD, ND and DN boundary conditions. If p spatial
dimensions satisfy the Neumann boundary condition, then the string endpoint is
confined to move within a p-dimensional hyperplane. This hyperplane provides one
description of a Dp-brane.

Although rigid in the limit of zero coupling, the spectrum of open strings ending on a
D-brane contains modes associated with its fluctuations, implying that D-branes are
dynamical objects. When N D-branes are nearly coincident, the spectrum of strings
stretching between them becomes very rich. One set of modes produce a non-
abelian gauge theory on the world-volume. Another set of modes is an dimensional
matrix for each transverse dimension of the brane. If these matrices commute, they
may be diagonalized, and the eigenvalues define the position of the N D-branes in
space. More generally, the branes are described by non-commutative geometry,
which allows exotic behavior such as the Myers effect, in which a collection of Dp-
branes expand into a D(p+2)-brane.

Tachyon condensation is a central concept in this field. Ashoke Sen has argued that
in Type IIB string theory, tachyon condensation allows (in the absence of Neveu-
Schwarz 3-form flux) an arbitrary D-brane configuration to be obtained from a stack
of D9 and anti D9-branes. Edward Witten has shown that such configurations will be
classified by the K-theory of the spacetime. Tachyon condensation is still very poorly
understood. This is due to the lack of an exact string field theory that would describe
the off-shell evolution of the tachyon.
[edit]
Braneworld cosmology

This has implications for physical cosmology. Because string theory implies that the
Universe has more dimensions than we expect—26 for bosonic string theories and 10
for superstring theories—we have to find a reason why the extra dimensions are not
apparent. One possibility would be that the visible Universe is in fact a very large D-
brane extending over three spatial dimensions. Material objects, made of open
strings, are bound to the D-brane, and cannot move "at right angles to reality" to
explore the Universe outside the brane. This scenario is called a brane cosmology.
The force of gravity is not due to open strings; the gravitons which carry gravitational
forces are vibrational states of closed strings. Because closed strings do not have to
be attached to D-branes, gravitational effects could depend upon the extra
dimensions at right angles to the brane.
[edit]
D-brane scattering

When two D-branes approach each other the interaction is captured by the one loop
annulus amplitude of strings between the two branes. The scenario of two parallel
branes approaching each other at a constant velocity can be mapped to the problem
of two stationary branes that are rotated relative to each other by some angle. The
annulus amplitude yields singularities that correspond to the on-shell production of
open strings stretched between the two branes. This is true irrespective of the charge
of the D-branes. At non-relativistic scattering velocities the open strings may be
described by a low-energy effective action that contains two complex scalar fields
that are coupled via a term φ2χ2. Thus, as the field φ (separation of the branes)
changes, the mass of the field χ changes. This induces open string production and as
a result the two scattering branes will be trapped.
[edit]
Gauge theories

The arrangement of D-branes constricts the types of string states which can exist in a
system. For example, if we have two parallel D2-branes, we can easily imagine
strings stretching from brane 1 to brane 2 or vice versa. (In most theories, strings are
oriented objects: each one carries an "arrow" defining a direction along its length.)
The open strings permissible in this situation then fall into two categories, or
"sectors": those originating on brane 1 and terminating on brane 2, and those
originating on brane 2 and terminating on brane 1. Symbolically, we say we have the
and the sectors. In addition, a string may begin and end on the same brane, giving
and sectors. (The numbers inside the brackets are called Chan-Paton indices, but
they are really just labels identifying the branes.) A string in either the or the sector
has a minimum length: it cannot be shorter than the separation between the branes.
All strings have some tension, against which one must pull to lengthen the object;
this pull does work on the string, adding to its energy. Because string theories are by
nature relativistic, adding energy to a string is equivalent to adding mass, by
Einstein's relation E = mc2. Therefore, the separation between D-branes controls the
minimum mass open strings may have.

Furthermore, affixing a string's endpoint to a brane influences the way the string can
move and vibrate. Because particle states "emerge" from the string theory as the
different vibrational states the string can experience, the arrangement of D-branes
controls the types of particles present in the theory. The simplest case is the sector
for a Dp-brane, that is to say the strings which begin and end on any particular D-
brane of p dimensions. Examining the consequences of the Nambu-Goto action (and
applying the rules of quantum mechanics to quantize the string), one finds that
among the spectrum of particles is one resembling the photon, the fundamental
quantum of the electromagnetic field. The resemblance is precise: a p-dimensional
version of the electromagnetic field, obeying a p-dimensional analogue of Maxwell's
equations, exists on every Dp-brane.

In this sense, then, one can say that string theory "predicts" electromagnetism: D-
branes are a necessary part of the theory if we permit open strings to exist, and all
D-branes carry an electromagnetic field on their volume.

Other particle states originate from strings beginning and ending on the same D-
brane. Some correspond to massless particles like the photon; also in this group are a
set of massless scalar particles. If a Dp-brane is embedded in a spacetime of d spatial
dimensions, the brane carries (in addition to its Maxwell field) a set of d - p massless
scalars (particles which do not have polarizations like the photons making up light).
Intriguingly, there are just as many massless scalars as there are directions
perpendicular to the brane; the geometry of the brane arrangement is closely related
to the quantum field theory of the particles existing on it. In fact, these massless
scalars are Goldstone excitations of the brane, corresponding to the different ways
the symmetry of empty space can be broken. Placing a D-brane in a universe breaks
the symmetry among locations, because it defines a particular place, assigning a
special meaning to a particular location along each of the d - p directions
perpendicular to the brane.

The quantum version of Maxwell's electromagnetism is only one kind of gauge

theory, a U(1) gauge theory where the gauge group is made of unitary matrices of
order 1. D-branes can be used to generate gauge theories of higher order, in the
following way:

Consider a group of N separate Dp-branes, arranged in parallel for simplicity. The

branes are labeled 1,2,...,N for convenience. Open strings in this system exist in one
of many sectors: the strings beginning and ending on some brane i give that brane a
Maxwell field and some massless scalar fields on its volume. The strings stretching
from brane i to another brane j have more intriguing properties. For starters, it is
worthwhile to ask which sectors of strings can interact with one another. One
straightforward mechanism for a string interaction is for two strings to join endpoints
(or, conversely, for one string to "split down the middle" and make two "daughter"
strings). Since endpoints are restricted to lie on D-branes, it is evident that a string
may interact with a string, but not with a or a one. The masses of these strings will
be influenced by the separation between the branes, as discussed above, so for
simplicity's sake we can imagine the branes squeezed closer and closer together,
until they lie atop one another. If we regard two overlapping branes as distinct
objects, then we still have all the sectors we had before, but without the effects due
to the brane separations.

The zero-mass states in the open-string particle spectrum for a system of N

coincident D-branes yields a set of interacting quantum fields which is exactly a U(N)
gauge theory. (The string theory does contain other interactions, but they are only
detectable at very high energies.) Gauge theories were not invented starting with
bosonic or fermionic strings; they originated from a different area of physics, and
have become quite useful in their own right. If nothing else, the relation between D-
brane geometry and gauge theory offers a useful pedagogical tool for explaining
gauge interactions, even if string theory fails to be the "theory of everything".
[edit]
Black holes

Another important use of D-branes has been in the study of black holes. Since the
1970s, scientists have debated the problem of black holes having entropy. Consider,
as a thought experiment, dropping an amount of hot gas into a black hole. Since the
gas cannot escape from the hole's gravitational pull, its entropy would seem to have
vanished from the universe. In order to maintain the second law of thermodynamics,
one must postulate that the black hole gained whatever entropy the infalling gas
originally had. Attempting to apply quantum mechanics to the study of black holes,
Stephen Hawking discovered that a hole should emit energy with the characteristic
spectrum of thermal radiation. The characteristic temperature of this Hawking
radiation is given by
,

where G is Newton's gravitational constant, M is the black hole's mass and kB is

Boltzmann's constant.

Using this expression for the Hawking temperature, and assuming that a zero-mass
black hole has zero entropy, one can use thermodynamic arguments to derive the
"Bekenstein entropy":

The Bekenstein entropy is proportional to the black hole mass squared; because the
Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass, the Bekenstein entropy is
proportional to the black hole's surface area. In fact,

where lP is the Planck length.

The concept of black hole entropy poses some interesting conundra. In an ordinary
situation, a system has entropy when a large number of different "microstates" can
satisfy the same macroscopic condition. For example, given a box full of gas, many
different arrangements of the gas atoms can have the same total energy. However, a
black hole was believed to be a featureless object (in John Wheeler's catchphrase,
"Black holes have no hair"). What, then, are the "degrees of freedom" which can give
rise to black hole entropy?

String theorists have constructed models in which a black hole is a very long (and
hence very massive) string. This model gives rough agreement with the expected
entropy of a Schwarzschild black hole, but an exact proof has yet to be found one
way or the other. The chief difficulty is that it is relatively easy to count the degrees
of freedom quantum strings possess if they do not interact with one another. This is
analogous to the ideal gas studied in introductory thermodynamics: the easiest
situation to model is when the gas atoms do not have interactions among
themselves. Developing the kinetic theory of gases in the case where the gas atoms
or molecules experience inter-particle forces (like the van der Waals force) is more
difficult. However, a world without interactions is an uninteresting place: most
significantly for the black hole problem, gravity is an interaction, and so if the "string
coupling" is turned off, no black hole could ever arise. Therefore, calculating black
hole entropy requires working in a regime where string interactions exist.

Extending the simpler case of non-interacting strings to the regime where a black
hole could exist requires supersymmetry. In certain cases, the entropy calculation
done for zero string coupling remains valid when the strings interact. The challenge
for a string theorist is to devise a situation in which a black hole can exist which does
not "break" supersymmetry. In recent years, this has been done by building black
holes out of D-branes. Calculating the entropies of these hypothetical holes gives
results which agree with the expected Bekenstein entropy. Unfortunately, the cases
studied so far all involve higher-dimensional spaces — D5-branes in nine-dimensional
space, for example. They do not directly apply to the familiar case, the Schwarzschild
black holes observed in our own universe.
[edit]
History
Dirichlet boundary conditions and D-branes had a long `pre-history' before their full
significance was recognized. Mixed Dirichlet/Neumann boundary conditions were first
considered by Warren Siegel in 1976 as a means of lowering the critical dimension of
open string theory from 26 or 10 to 4 (Siegel also cites unpublished work by Halpern,
and a 1974 paper by Chodos and Thorn, but a reading of the latter paper shows that
it is actually concerned with linear dilation backgrounds, not Dirichlet boundary
conditions). This paper, though prescient, was little-noted in its time (a 1985 parody
by Siegel, `The Super-g String,' contains an almost dead-on description of
braneworlds). Dirichlet conditions for all coordinates including Euclidean time
(defining what are now known as D-instantons) were introduced by Michael Green in
1977 as a means of introducing point-like structure into string theory, in an attempt
to construct a string theory of the strong interaction. String compactifications studied
by Harvey and Minahan, Ishibashi and Onogi, and Pradisi and Sagnotti in 1987-89
also employed Dirichlet boundary conditions.

The fact that T-duality interchanges the usual Neumann boundary conditions with
Dirichlet boundary conditions was discovered independently by Horava and by Dai,
Leigh, and Polchinski in 1989; this result implies that such boundary conditions must
necessarily appear in regions of the moduli space of any open string theory. The Dai
et al. paper also notes that the locus of the Dirichlet boundary conditions is
dynamical, and coins the term Dirichlet-brane (D-brane) for the resulting object (this
paper also coins orientifold for another object that arises under string T-duality). A
1989 paper by Leigh showed that D-brane dynamics are governed by the Dirac-Born-
Infeld action. D-instantons were extensively studied by Green in the early 1990s, and
were shown by Polchinski in 1994 to produce the e^{-1/g} nonperturbative string
effects anticipated by Shenker. In 1995 Polchinski showed that D-branes are the
sources of electric and magnetic Ramond-Ramond fields that are required by string
duality, leading to rapid progress in the nonperturbative understanding of string
theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#P-branes

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11

dimensions are identified. Because the dimensionality exceeds the dimensionality of
superstring theories in 10 dimensions, it is believed that the 11-dimensional theory
unites all five string theories (and supersedes them). Though a full description of the
theory is not known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity
interacting with 2- and 5-dimensional membranes.

This idea is the unique supersymmetric theory in eleven dimensions, with its low-
entropy matter content and interactions fully determined, and can be obtained as the
strong coupling limit of type IIA string theory because a new dimension of space
emerges as the coupling constant increases.

Drawing on the work of a number of string theorists (including Ashoke Sen, Chris Hull,
Paul Townsend, Michael Duff and John Schwarz), Edward Witten of the Institute for
Advanced Study suggested its existence at a conference at USC in 1995, and used M-
theory to explain a number of previously observed dualities, sparking a flurry of new
research in string theory called the second superstring revolution.

In the early 1990s, it was shown that the various superstring theories were related by
dualities, which allow physicists to relate the description of an object in one super
string theory to the description of a different object in another super string theory.
These relationships imply that each of the super string theories is a different aspect
of a single underlying theory, proposed by Witten, and named "M-theory".

Originally the letter M in M-theory was taken from membrane, a construct designed
to generalize the strings of string theory. However, as Witten was more skeptical
about membranes than his colleagues, he opted for "M-theory" rather than
"Membrane theory". Witten has since stated that the interpretation of the M can be a
matter of taste for the user of the name.[1]

M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized (e.g. by Lawrence Krauss) for lacking
predictive power or being untestable. Further work continues to find mathematical
constructs that join various surrounding theories. New formulations are proposed to
join many theoretic situations (usually by exploiting string theoretic
dualities[clarification needed]). Witten has suggested that a general formulation of M-
theory will probably require the development of new mathematical language.[citation
needed] However, the tangible success of M-theory can be questioned, given its
current incompleteness and limited predictive power, even after so many years of
intense research.Contents [hide]
1 History and development
1.1 Prior to May 1995
1.2 Type I string theory and supplements
1.3 String vibrational patterns
1.4 M-theory
1.5 Type IIA and Type IIB
1.6 Other dualities
1.7 Only two string theories
1.8 Last step
1.9 Supergravity theories
1.10 Same underlying theory
1.11 Recent developments
2 Nomenclature
3 M-theory and membranes
3.1 P-branes
3.2 Strings with "loose ends"
3.3 Strings with closed loops
4 Membrane interactions
5 Matrix theory
5.1 Analogy with water
5.2 BFSS model
5.3 IKKT model
6 Mysterious duality
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

[edit]
History and development
[edit]
Prior to May 1995

Antecedent to 1995 there were five (known) consistent superstring theories

(henceforth referred to as string theories), which were given the names Type I string
theory, Type IIA string theory, Type IIB string theory, heterotic SO(32) (the HO string)
theory, and heterotic E8×E8 (the HE string) theory. The five theories all share essential
features that relate them to the name of string theory. Each theory is fundamentally based on
vibrating, one dimensional strings at approximately the length of the Planck length. Calculations
have also shown that each theory requires more than the normal four spacetime dimensions
(although all extra dimensions are in fact spatial). Yet, when the theories are analyzed in detail,
significant differences appear.
[edit]
Type I string theory and supplements

The Type I string theory has vibrating strings like the rest of the string theories. These strings
vibrate both in closed loops, so that the strings have no ends, and as open strings with two loose
ends. The open loose strings are what separates the Type I string theory from the other four
string theories. This was a feature that the other string theories did not contain.
[edit]
String vibrational patterns

The calculations of the String Vibrational Patterns show that the list of string vibrational patterns
and the way each pattern interacts and influences others vary from one theory to another. These
and other differences hindered the development of the string theory as being the theory that
united quantum mechanics and general relativity successfully. Attempts by the physics
community to eliminate four of the theories, leaving only one string theory, have not been
successful.
[edit]
M-theory

M-theory attempts to unify the five string theories by examining certain identifications and
dualities. Thus each of the five string theories become special cases of M-theory.

As the names suggest, some of these string theories were thought to be related to each other. In
the early 1990s, string theorists discovered that some relations were so strong that they could be
thought of as an identification.
[edit]
Type IIA and Type IIB

The Type IIA string theory and the Type IIB string theory were known to be connected by T-
duality; this essentially meant that the IIA string theory description of a circle of radius R is exactly
the same as the IIB description of a circle of radius 1/R, where distances are measured in units of
the Planck length.

This was a profound result. First, this was an intrinsically quantum mechanical result; the
identification did not hold in the realm of classical physics. Second, because it is possible to build
up any space by gluing circles together in various ways,[dubious – discuss] it would seem that
any space described by the IIA string theory can also be seen as a different space described by
the IIB theory. This implies that the IIA string theory can identify with the IIB string theory: any
object which can be described with the IIA theory has an equivalent, although seemingly different,
description in terms of the IIB theory. This suggests that the IIA string theory and the IIB string
theory are really aspects of the same underlying theory.
[edit]
Other dualities

There are other dualities between the other string theories. The heterotic SO(32) and the
heterotic E8×E8 theories[2][3] are also related by T-duality; the heterotic SO(32) description of a
circle of radius R is exactly the same as the heterotic E8×E8 description of a circle of radius 1/R.
This implies that there are really only three superstring theories, which might be called (for
discussion) the Type I theory, the Type II theory, and the heterotic theory.

There are still more dualities, however. The Type I string theory is related to the heterotic SO(32)
theory by S-duality; this means that the Type I description of weakly interacting particles can also
be seen as the heterotic SO(32) description of very strongly interacting particles. This
identification is somewhat more subtle, in that it identifies only extreme limits of the respective
theories. String theorists have found strong evidence that the two theories are really the same,
even away from the extremely strong and extremely weak limits, but they do not yet have a proof
strong enough to satisfy mathematicians. However, it has become clear that the two theories are
related in some fashion; they appear as different limits of a single underlying theory.
[edit]
Only two string theories

Given the above commonalities there appear to be only two string theories: the heterotic string
theory (which is also the type I string theory) and the type II theory. There are relations between
these two theories as well, and these relations are in fact strong enough to allow them to be
identified.
[edit]
Last step

This last step is best explained first in a certain limit. In order to describe our world, strings must
be extremely tiny objects. So when one studies string theory at low energies, it becomes difficult
to see that strings are extended objects — they become effectively zero-dimensional (pointlike).
Consequently, the quantum theory describing the low energy limit is a theory that describes the
dynamics of these points moving in spacetime, rather than strings. Such theories are called
quantum field theories. However, since string theory also describes gravitational interactions, one
expects the low-energy theory to describe particles moving in gravitational backgrounds. Finally,
since superstring string theories are supersymmetric, one expects to see supersymmetry
appearing in the low-energy approximation. These three facts imply that the low-energy
approximation to a superstring theory is a supergravity theory.
[edit]
Supergravity theories

The possible supergravity theories were classified by Werner Nahm in the 1970s. In 10
dimensions, there are only two supergravity theories, which are denoted Type IIA and Type IIB.
This similar denomination is not a coincidence; the Type IIA string theory has the Type IIA
supergravity theory as its low-energy limit and the Type IIB string theory gives rise to Type IIB
supergravity. The heterotic SO(32) and heterotic E8×E8 string theories also reduce to Type IIA
and Type IIB supergravity in the low-energy limit. This suggests that there may indeed be a
relation between the heterotic/Type I theories and the Type II theories.

In 1994, Edward Witten outlined the following relationship: The Type IIA supergravity
(corresponding to the heterotic SO(32) and Type IIA string theories) can be obtained by
dimensional reduction from the single unique eleven-dimensional supergravity theory. This
means that if one studied supergravity on an eleven-dimensional spacetime that looks like the
product of a ten-dimensional spacetime with another very small one-dimensional manifold, one
gets the Type IIA supergravity theory. (And the Type IIB supergravity theory can be obtained by
using T-duality.) However, eleven-dimensional supergravity is not consistent on its own — it does
not make sense at extremely high energy, and likely requires some form of completion. It seems
plausible, then, that there is some quantum theory — which Witten dubbed M-theory — in eleven-
dimensions which gives rise at low energies to eleven-dimensional supergravity, and is related to
ten-dimensional string theory by dimensional reduction. Dimensional reduction to a circle yields
the Type IIA string theory, and dimensional reduction to a line segment yields the heterotic
SO(32) string theory.
[edit]
Same underlying theory

M-theory would implement the notion that all of the different string theories are different special
cases.
[edit]
Recent developments

In late 2007, Bagger and Lambert set off renewed interest in M-theory with the discovery of a
candidate Lagrangian description of coincident M2-branes, based on a non-associative
generalization of Lie Algebra, Nambu 3-algebra or Filippov 3-algebra. Practitioners hope the
Bagger–Lambert–Gustavsson action will provide the long-sought microscopic description of M-
theory.
[edit]
Nomenclature

When Edward Witten named M-theory, he did not specify what the M stood for—perhaps
because the nascent theory wasn't fully defined. Some[who?] speculate that Witten chose the
letter because it resembles an inverted W. According to Witten, "M can stand variously for
'magic', 'mystery', or 'matrix', according to one's taste."[4]

Faced with this ambiguous initial, countless scientists and commentators have offered their own
expansions of the M—some sincere, others facetious. M should stand for membrane, say some.
[who?] Meanwhile, Michio Kaku, Michael Duff, Neil Turok, and others suggest mother or master
(i.e., the "mother of all theories" or the "master theory").[5]

Although Witten coined the term M-theory to refer to his model of an eleven-dimensional
universe, other scientists have generalized the moniker for application to any of various meta-
theories involving string theory and brane cosmology. (Ashoke Sen proposed u-theory (ur, 'über',
'ultimate', 'underlying', or perhaps 'unified') as a more distinctive appellation.)[citation needed]
When unqualified, M-theory now usually denotes this more general definition, rather than the one
Witten originally advanced.
[edit]
M-theory and membranes

In the standard string theories, strings are assumed to be the single fundamental constituent of
the universe. M-theory adds another fundamental constituent - membranes. Like the tenth spatial
dimension, the approximate equations in the original five superstring models proved too weak to
reveal membranes.
[edit]
P-branes

A membrane, or brane, is a multidimensional object, usually called a P-brane, with P referring to

the number of dimensions in which it exists. The value of 'P' can range from zero to nine, thus
giving branes dimensions from zero (0-brane ≡ point particle) to nine - five more than the world
we are accustomed to inhabiting. The inclusion of p-branes does not render previous work in
string theory wrong on account of not taking note of these P-branes. P-branes are much more
massive ("heavier") than strings, and when all higher-dimensional P-branes are much more
massive than strings, they can be ignored, as researchers had done unknowingly in the 1970s.
[edit]
Strings with "loose ends"

Shortly after Witten's breakthrough in 1995, Joseph Polchinski of the University of California,
Santa Barbara discovered a fairly obscure feature of string theory. He found that in certain
situations the endpoints of strings (strings with "loose ends") would not be able to move with
complete freedom as they were attached, or stuck within certain regions of space. Polchinski then
reasoned that if the endpoints of open strings are restricted to move within some p-dimensional
region of space, then that region of space must be occupied by a p-brane. These type of "sticky"
branes are called Dirichlet-P-branes, or D-p-branes. His calculations showed that the newly
discovered D-P-branes had exactly the right properties to be the objects that exert a tight grip on
the open string endpoints, thus holding down these strings within the p-dimensional region of
space they fill.
[edit]
Strings with closed loops

Not all strings are confined to p-branes. Strings with closed loops, like the graviton, are
completely free to move from membrane to membrane. Of the four force carrier particles, the
graviton is unique in this way. Researchers speculate that this is the reason why investigation
through the weak force, the strong force, and the electromagnetic force have not hinted at the
possibility of extra dimensions. These force carrier particles are strings with endpoints that
confine them to their p-branes. Further testing is needed in order to show that extra spatial
dimensions indeed exist through experimentation with gravity.
[edit]
Membrane interactions

One of the reasons M-theory is so difficult to formulate is that the numbers of different types of
membranes in the various dimensions increases exponentially. For example once one gets to 3
dimensional surfaces, one has to deal with solid objects with knot-shaped holes, and then one
needs the whole of knot theory just to classify them. Since M-theory is thought to operate in 11
dimensions this problem then becomes very difficult. But just like string theory, in order for the
theory to satisfy causality, the theory must be local, and so the topology changing must occur at a
single point. The basic orientable 2-brane interactions are easy to show. Orientable 2-branes are
tori with multiple holes cut out of them.
[edit]
Matrix theory

The original formulation of M-theory was in terms of a (relatively) low-energy effective field theory,
called 11-dimensional Supergravity. Though this formulation provided a key link to the low-energy
limits of string theories, it was recognized that a full high-energy formulation (or "UV-completion")
of M-theory was needed.
[edit]
Analogy with water

For an analogy, the Super gravity description is like treating water as a continuous,
incompressible fluid. This is effective for describing long-distance effects such as waves and
currents, but inadequate to understand short-distance/high-energy phenomena such as
evaporation, for which a description of the underlying molecules is needed. What, then, are the
underlying degrees of freedom of M-theory?
[edit]
BFSS model

Banks, Fischler, Shenker and Susskind (BFSS) conjectured that Matrix theory could provide the
answer. They demonstrated that a theory of 9 very large matrices, evolving in time, could
reproduce the Super gravity description at low energy, but take over for it as it breaks down at
high energy. While the Super gravity description assumes a continuous space-time, Matrix theory
predicts that, at short distances, non-commutative geometry takes over, somewhat similar to the
way the continuum of water breaks down at short distances in favor of the graininess of
molecules.
[edit]
IKKT model

Another matrix string theory equivalent to Type IIB string theory was constructed in 1996 by
Ishibashi, Kawai, Kitazawa, and Tsuchiya.
[edit]
Mysterious duality
Main article: Mysterious duality
There is a duality theory called mysterious duality relating M-theory and the geometry of del
Pezzo surfaces.
[edit]
See also
AdS/CFT correspondence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

In physics, the AdS/CFT correspondence (anti-de-Sitter space/conformal field theory

correspondence), sometimes called the Maldacena duality, is the conjectured equivalence
between a string theory and gravity defined on one space, and a quantum field theory without
gravity defined on the conformal boundary of this space, whose dimension is lower by one or
more. The name suggests that the first space is the product of anti de Sitter space (AdS) with
some closed manifold like sphere, orbifold, or noncommutative space, and that the quantum field
theory is a conformal field theory (CFT).[1]

An example is the duality between Type IIB string theory on AdS5 × S5 space (a product of five
dimensional AdS space with a five dimensional sphere) and a supersymmetric N=4 Yang-Mills
gauge theory (which is a conformal field theory) on the 4-dimensional boundary of AdS5. It is the
most successful realization of the holographic principle, a speculative idea about quantum gravity
originally proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and improved and promoted by Leonard Susskind.

The AdS/CFT correspondence was originally proposed by Juan Maldacena in late 1997.[2]
Important aspects of the correspondence were given in articles by Steven Gubser, Igor Klebanov
and Alexander Markovich Polyakov,[3] and by Edward Witten.[4] The correspondence has also
been generalized to many other (non-AdS) backgrounds and their dual (non-conformal) theories.
In about five years, Maldacena's article had 3000 citations and became one of the most important
conceptual breakthroughs in theoretical physics of the 1990s, providing many new lines of
research into both quantum gravity and quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_theory_(physics)

In physics, Matrix string theory is a set of equations that describe superstring theory in a non-
perturbative framework. Type IIA string theory can be shown to be equivalent to a maximally
supersymmetric two-dimensional gauge theory, the gauge group of which is U(N) for a large
value of N. This Matrix string theory was first proposed by Luboš Motl in 1997 [1] and later
independently in a more complete paper by Robbert Dijkgraaf, Erik Verlinde, and Herman
Verlinde [2]. Another matrix string theory equivalent to Type IIB string theory was constructed in
1996 by Ishibashi, Kawai, Kitazawa and Tsuchiya [3]. This version is known as the IKKT matrix
model.
M(atrix) Theory

M(atrix) theory (also known as BFSS-Matrix theory) is a fundamental formulation of M-theory as a

Random matrix model. Matrix string theory is related to M(atrix) theory in the same sense that
superstring theory is related to M-theory.

M(atrix) theory is written in terms of interacting D0-branes (zero-dimensional Dirichlet branes) in

infinite momentum frame. It was proposed by Banks, Fischler, Shenker, and Susskind in 1996 [4].
See also the discussion in M-theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosonic_string_theory

Bosonic string theory is the original version of string theory, developed in the late 1960s.

In the early 1970s, supersymmetry was discovered in the context of string theory, and a new
version of string theory called superstring theory (supersymmetric string theory) became the real
focus. Nevertheless, bosonic string theory remains a very useful "toy model" to understand many
general features of perturbative string theory, and string theory textbooks usually start with the
bosonic string. The first volume of Polchinski's String Theory and Zwiebach's A First Course in
String Theory are good examples.Contents [hide]
1 Problems
2 See also
3 References
4 External links

Problems

Although bosonic string theory has many attractive features, it has a pair of features that render it
unattractive as a physical model.

Firstly it predicts only the existence of bosons whereas many physical particles are fermions.
Secondly, it predicts the existence of a particle whose mass is imaginary implying that it travels
faster than light. The existence of such a particle, commonly known as a tachyon, would conflict
with much of what is known about physics, and such particles have never been observed.

Another feature of bosonic string theory is that in general the theory displays inconsistencies due
to the conformal anomaly. But, as was first noticed by Claud Lovelace, in a spacetime of 26
dimensions, with 25 dimensions of space and one of time, the inconsistencies cancel. Another
way to look at this is that in general bosonic string theory predicts unphysical particle states called
'ghosts'. In 26 dimensions the no-ghost theorem predicts that these ghost states have no
interaction whatsoever with any other states and hence that they can be ignored leaving a
consistent theory. So bosonic string theory predicts a 26 dimensional spacetime. This high
dimensionality is not a problem for bosonic string theory because it can be formulated in such a
way that along the 22 excess dimensions, spacetime is folded up to form a small torus. This
would leave only the familiar four dimensions of spacetime visible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-theory_(physics)#Reconciling_twisted_K-theory_and_S-duality

In string theory, the K-theory classification refers to a conjectured application of K-theory (in
abstract algebra and algebraic topology) to superstrings, to classify the allowed Ramond-Ramond
field strengths as well as the charges of stable D-branes.

In condensed matter physics K-theory has also found important applications, specially in the
topological classification of topological insulators, superconductors and stable Fermi Surfaces
(Kitaev (2009), Horava (2005)).Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Applications
2.1 Open problems
3 K-theory classification of RR fluxes
4 K-theory classification of D-branes
4.1 K-theory charge versus BPS charge
4.2 K-theory from tachyon condensation
4.3 Twisted K-theory from MMS instantons
5 Reconciling twisted K-theory and S-duality
6 Researchers
7 See also
8 References
9 References (Condensed Matter Physics)
10 Further reading
11 External links

History
This conjecture, applied to D-brane charges, was first proposed by Minasian & Moore (1997). It
was popularized by Witten (1998) who demonstrated that in type IIB string theory arises naturally
from Ashoke Sen's realization of arbitrary D-brane configurations as stacks of D9 and anti-D9-
branes after tachyon condensation.

Such stacks of branes are inconsistent in a non-torsion Neveu-Schwarz (NS) 3-form background,
which, as was highlighted by Kapustin (2000), complicates the extension of the K-theory
classification to such cases. Bouwknegt & Varghese (2000) suggested a solution to this problem:
D-branes are in general classified by a twisted K-theory, that had earlier been defined by
Rosenberg (1989).
ApplicationsString theory

Superstring theory [show]

Theory
[show]
Concepts
[show]
Related Topics
[show]
Scientists

v·d·e

The K-theory classification of D-branes has had numerous applications. For example, Hanany &
Kol (2000) used it to argue that there are eight species of orientifold one-plane. Uranga (2001)
applied the K-theory classification to derive new consistency conditions for flux compactifications.
K-theory has also been used to conjecture a formula for the topologies of T-dual manifolds by
Bouwknegt, Evslin & Varghese (2004). Recently K-theory has been conjectured to classify the
spinors in compactifications on generalized complex manifolds.
Open problems

Despite these successes, RR fluxes are not quite classified by K-theory. Diaconescu, Moore &
Witten (2003) argued that the K-theory classification is incompatible with S-duality in IIB string
theory.

In addition, if one attempts to classify fluxes on a compact ten-dimensional spacetime, then a

complication arises due to the self-duality of the RR fluxes. The duality uses the Hodge star,
which depends on the metric and so is continuously valued and in particular is generically
irrational. Thus not all of the RR fluxes, which are interpreted as the Chern characters in K-theory,
can be rational. However Chern characters are always rational, and so the K-theory classification
must be replaced. One needs to choose a half of the fluxes to quantize, or a
polarization[disambiguation needed] in the geometric quantization-inspired language of
Diaconescu, Moore, and Witten and later of Varghese & Sati (2004). Alternately one may use the
K-theory of a 9-dimensional time slice as has been done by Maldacena, Moore & Seiberg (2001).
K-theory classification of RR fluxes

In the classical limit of type II string theory, which is type II supergravity, the Ramond-Ramond
field strengths are differential forms. In the quantum theory the well-definedness of the partition
functions of D-branes implies that the RR field strengths obey Dirac quantization conditions when
spacetime is compact, or when a spatial slice is compact and one considers only the (magnetic)
components of the field strength which lie along the spatial directions. This led twentieth century
physicists to classify RR field strengths using cohomology with integral coefficients.

However some authors have argued that the cohomology of spacetime with integral coefficients
is too big. For example, in the presence of Neveu-Schwarz H-flux or non-spin cycles some RR
fluxes dictate the presence of D-branes. In the former case this is a consequence of the
supergravity equation of motion which states that the product of a RR flux with the NS 3-form is a
D-brane charge density. Thus the set of topologically distinct RR field strengths that can exist in
brane-free configurations is only a subset of the cohomology with integral coefficients.

This subset is still too big, because some of these classes are related by large gauge
transformations. In QED there are large gauge transformations which add integral multiples of
two pi to Wilson loops. The p-form potentials in type II supergravity theories also enjoy these
large gauge transformations, but due to the presence of Chern-Simons terms in the supergravity
actions these large gauge transformations transform not only the p-form potentials but also
simultaneously the (p+3)-form field strengths. Thus to obtain the space of inequivalent field
strengths from the forementioned subset of integral cohomology we must quotient by these large
gauge transformations.

The Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence constructs twisted K-theory, with a twist given by the
NS 3-form field strength, as a quotient of a subset of the cohomology with integral coefficients. In
the classical limit, which corresponds to working with rational coefficients, this is precisely the
quotient of a subset described above in supergravity. The quantum corrections come from torsion
classes and contain mod 2 torsion corrections due to the Freed-Witten anomaly.

Thus twisted K-theory classifies the subset of RR field strengths that can exist in the absence of
D-branes quotiented by large gauge transformations. Daniel Freed has attempted to extend this
classification to include also the RR potentials using differential K-theory.
K-theory classification of D-branes

K-theory classifies D-branes in noncompact spacetimes, intuitively in spacetimes in which we are

not concerned about the flux sourced by the brane having nowhere to go. While the K-theory of a
10d spacetime classifies D-branes as subsets of that spacetime, if the spacetime is the product of
time and a fixed 9-manifold then K-theory also classifies the conserved D-brane charges on each
9-dimensional spatial slice. While we were required to forget about RR potentials to obtain the K-
theory classification of RR field strengths, we are required to forget about RR field strengths to
obtain the K-theory classification of D-branes.
K-theory charge versus BPS charge

As has been stressed by Petr Hořava, the K-theory classification of D-branes is

independent of, and in some ways stronger than, the classification of BPS states. K-
theory appears to classify stable D-branes missed by supersymmetry based
classifications.

For example, D-branes with torsion charges, that is with charges in the order N cyclic
group , attract each other and so can never be BPS. In fact, N such branes can decay,
whereas no superposition of branes that satisfy a Bogomolny bound may ever decay.
However the charge of such branes is conserved modulo N, and this is captured by
the K-theory classification but not by a BPS classification. Such torsion branes have
been applied, for example, to model Douglas-Shenker strings in supersymmetric U(N)
gauge theories.
K-theory from tachyon condensation

Ashoke Sen has conjectured that, in the absence of a topologically nontrivial NS 3-

form flux, all IIB brane configurations can be obtained from stacks of spacefilling D9
and anti D9 branes via tachyon condensation. The topology of the resulting branes is
encoded in the topology of the gauge bundle on the stack of the spacefilling branes.
The topology of the gauge bundle of a stack of D9s and anti D9s can be decomposed
into a gauge bundle on the D9's and another bundle on the anti D9's. Tachyon
condensation transforms such a pair of bundles to another pair in which the same
bundle is direct summed with each component in the pair. Thus the tachyon
condensation invariant quantity, that is, the charge which is conserved by the
tachyon condensation process, is not a pair of bundles but rather the equivalence
class of a pair of bundles under direct sums of the same bundle on both sides of the
pair. This is precisely the usual construction of topological K-theory. Thus the gauge
bundles on stacks of D9's and anti-D9's are classified by topological K-theory. If Sen's
conjecture is right, all D-brane configurations in type IIB are then classified by K-
theory. Petr Horava has extended this conjecture to type IIA using D8-branes.
Twisted K-theory from MMS instantons

While the tachyon condensation picture of the K-theory classification classifies D-

branes as subsets of a 10-dimensional spacetime with no NS 3-form flux, the
Maldacena, Moore, Seiberg picture classifies stable D-branes with finite mass as
subsets of a 9-dimensional spatial slice of spacetime.

The central observation is that D-branes are not classified by integral homology
because Dp-branes wrapping certain cycles suffer from a Freed-Witten anomaly,
which is cancelled by the insertion of D(p-2)-branes and sometimes D(p-4)-branes
that end on the afflicted Dp-brane. These inserted branes may either continue to
infinity, in which case the composite object has an infinite mass, or else they may
end on an anti-Dp-brane, in which case the total Dp-brane charge is zero. In either
case, one may wish to remove the anomalous Dp-branes from the spectrum, leaving
only a subset of the original integral cohomology.

The inserted branes are unstable. To see this, imagine that they extend in time away
(into the past) from the anomalous brane. This corresponds to a process in which the
inserted branes decay via a Dp-brane that forms, wraps the forementioned cycle and
then disappears. MMS refer to this process as an instanton, although really it need
not be instantonic.

The conserved charges are thus the nonanomolous subset quotiented by the
unstable insertions. This is precisely the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence
construction of twisted K-theory as a set.
Reconciling twisted K-theory and S-duality

Diaconescu, Moore, and Witten have pointed out that the twisted K-theory
classification is not compatible with the S-duality covariance of type IIB string theory.
For example, consider the constraint on the Ramond-Ramond 3-form field strength
G3 in the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence (AHSS):

where d3=Sq3+H is the first nontrivial differential in the AHSS, Sq3 is the third
Steenrod square and the last equality follows from the fact that the nth Steenrod
square acting on any n-form x is xx.

The above equation is not invariant under S-duality, which exchanges G3 and H.
Instead Diaconescu, Moore, and Witten have proposed the following S-duality
covariant extension

where P is an unknown characteristic class that depends only on the topology, and in
particular not on the fluxes. Diaconescu, Freed & Moore (2007) have found a
constraint on P using the E8 gauge theory approach to M-theory pioneered by
Diaconescu, Moore, and Witten.
Thus D-branes in IIB are not classified by twisted K-theory after all, but some
unknown S-duality-covariant object that inevitably also classifies both fundamental
strings and NS5-branes.

However the MMS prescription for calculating twisted K-theory is easily S-

covariantized, as the Freed-Witten anomalies respect S-duality. Thus the S-
covariantized form of the MMS construction may be applied to construct the S-
covariantized twisted K-theory, as a set, without knowing having any geometric
description for just what this strange covariant object is. This program has been
carried out in a number of papers, such as Evslin & Varadarajan (2003) and Evslin
(2003a), and was also applied to the classification of fluxes by Evslin (2003b).
Bouwknegt et al. (2006) use this approach to prove Diaconescu, Moore, and Witten's
conjectured constraint on the 3-fluxes, and they show that there is an additional term
equal to the D3-brane charge. Evslin (2006) shows that the Klebanov-Strassler
cascade of Seiberg dualities consists of a series of S-dual MMS instantons, one for
each Seiberg duality. The group, of universality classes of the supersymmetric
gauge theory is then shown to agree with the S-dual twisted K-theory and not with
the original twisted K-theory.

Some authors have proposed radically different solutions to this puzzle. For example,
Kriz & Sati (2005) propose that instead of twisted K-theory, II string theory
configurations should be classified by elliptic cohomology.
Researchers

Prominent researchers in this area include Peter Bouwknegt, Angel Uranga, Emanuel
Diaconescu, Gregory Moore, Anton Kapustin, Jonathan Rosenberg, Ruben Minasian,
Amihay Hanany, Hisham Sati, Nathan Seiberg, Juan Maldacena, Daniel Freed, and
Igor Kriz.
See also
Twisted K-theory
Ramond-Ramond field
Kalb-Ramond field
D-brane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twisted_K-theory

More specifically, twisted K-theory with twist H is a particular variant of K-theory, in

which the twist is given by an integral 3-dimensional cohomology class. It is special
among the various twists that K-theory admits for two reasons. First, it admits a
geometric formulation. This was provided in two steps ; the first one was done in
1970 (Publ. Math. de l'IHES) by Peter Donovan and Max Karoubi [1]; the second one
in 1988 by Jonathan Rosenberg in Continuous-Trace Algebras from the Bundle
Theoretic Point of View.

In physics, it has been conjectured to classify D-branes, Ramond-Ramond field

strengths and in some cases even spinors in type II string theory. For more
information on twisted K-theory in string theory, see K-theory (physics).

In the broader context of K-theory, in each subject it has numerous isomorphic

formulations and, in many cases, isomorphisms relating definitions in various
subjects have been proven. It also has numerous deformations, for example, in
abstract algebra K-theory may be twisted by any integral cohomology class.Contents
[hide]
1 The definition
2 What is it?
3 How to calculate it
3.1 Example: the three-sphere
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

[edit]
The definition

To motivate Rosenberg's geometric formulation of twisted K-theory, start from the

Atiyah-Jänich theorem, stating that
,

the Fredholm operators on Hilbert space , is a classifying space for ordinary,

untwisted K-theory. This means that the K-theory of the space M consists of the
homotopy classes of maps

from M to .

A slightly more complicated way of saying the same thing is as follows. Consider the
trivial bundle of over M, that is, the Cartesian product of M and . Then the K-theory of
M consists of the homotopy classes of sections of this bundle.

We can make this yet more complicated by introducing a trivial

bundle P over M, where is the group of projective unitary operators on the Hilbert
space . Then the group of maps

from P to which are equivariant under an action of is equivalent to the original

groups of maps

This more complicated construction of ordinary K-theory is naturally generalized to

the twisted case. To see this, note that bundles on M are classified by elements H of
the third integral cohomology group of M. This is a consequence of the fact that
topologically is a representative Eilenberg-MacLane space
.

The generalization is then straightforward. Rosenberg has defined

KH(M),

the twisted K-theory of M with twist given by the 3-class H, to be the space of
homotopy classes of sections of the trivial bundle over M that are covariant with
respect to a bundle PH fibered over M with 3-class H, that is

Equivalently, it is the space of homotopy classes of sections of the bundles

associated to a bundle with class H.
[edit]
What is it?

When H is the trivial class, twisted K-theory is just untwisted K-theory, which is a ring.
However when H is nontrivial this theory is no longer a ring. It has an addition, but it
is no longer closed under multiplication.

However, the direct sum of the twisted K-theories of M with all possible twists is a
ring. In particular, the product of an element of K-theory with twist H with an element
of K-theory with twist H' is an element of K-theory twisted by H+H'. This element can
be constructed directly from the above definition by using adjoints of Fredholm
operators and construct a specific 2 x 2 matrix out of them (see the reference 1,
where a more natural and general Z/2-graded version is also presented). In particular
twisted K-theory is a module over classical K-theory.
[edit]
How to calculate it

Physicist typically want to calculate twisted K-theory using the Atiyah-Hirzebruch

spectral sequence.[1] The idea is that one begins with all of the even or all of the odd
integral cohomology, depending on whether one wishes to calculate the twisted K0 or
the twisted K1, and then one takes the cohomology with respect to a series of
differential operators. The first operator, d3, for example, is the sum of the three-
class H, which in string theory corresponds to the Neveu-Schwarz 3-form, and the
third Steenrod square. [2] No elementary form for the next operator, d5, has been
found, although several conjectured forms exist. Higher operators do not contribute
to the K-theory of a 10-manifold, which is the dimension of interest in critical
superstring theory. Over the rationals Michael Atiyah and Graeme Segal have shown
that all of the differentials reduce to Massey products of H.[3]

After taking the cohomology with respect to the full series of differentials one obtains
twisted K-theory as a set, but to obtain the full group structure one in general needs
to solve an extension problem.
[edit]
Example: the three-sphere

The three-sphere, S3, has trivial cohomology except for H0(S3) and H3(S3) which are
both isomorphic to the integers. Thus the even and odd cohomologies are both
isomorphic to the integers. Because the three-sphere is of dimension three, which is
less than five, the third Steenrod square is trivial on its cohomology and so the first
nontrivial differential is just d3 = H. The later differentials increase the degree of a
cohomology class by more than three and so are again trivial; thus the twisted K-
theory is just the cohomology of the operator d3 which acts on a class by cupping it
with the 3-class H.

Imagine that H is the trivial class, zero. Then d3 is also trivial. Thus its entire domain
is its kernel, and nothing is in its image. Thus K0H=0(S3) is the kernel of d3 in the
even cohomology, which is the full even cohomology, which consists of the integers.
Similarly K1H=0(S3) consists of the odd cohomology quotiented by the image of d3,
in other words quotiented by the trivial group. This leaves the original odd
cohomology, which is again the integers. In conclusion, K0 and K1 of the three-sphere
with trivial twist are both isomorphic to the integers. As expected, this agrees with
the untwisted K-theory.

Now consider the case in which H is nontrivial. H is defined to be an element of the

third integral cohomology, which is isomorphic to the integers. Thus H corresponds to
a number, which we will call n. d3 now takes an element m of H0 and yields the
element nm of H3. As n is not equal to zero by assumption, the only element of the
kernel of d3 is the zero element, and so K0H=n(S3)=0. The image of d3 consists of
all elements of the integers that are multiples of n. Therefore the odd cohomology, Z,
quotiented by the image of d3, nZ, is the cyclic group of order n, Zn. In conclusion
K1H=n(S3) = Zn.

In string theory this result reproduces the classification of D-branes on the 3-sphere
with n units of H-flux, which corresponds to the set of symmetric boundary conditions
in the supersymmetric SU(2) WZW model at level n &minus 2.

There is an extension of this calculation to the group manifold of SU(3).[4] In this

case the Steenrod square term in d3, the operator d5, and the extension problem are
nontrivial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientifold

In theoretical physics orientifold is a generalization of the notion of orbifold, proposed

by Augusto Sagnotti in 1987. The novelty is that in the case of string theory the non-
trivial element(s) of the orbifold group includes the reversal of the orientation of the
string. Orientifolding therefore produces unoriented strings—strings that carry no
"arrow" and whose two opposite orientations are equivalent. Type I string theory is
the simplest example of such a theory and can be obtained by orientifolding type IIB
string theory.

In mathematical terms, given a smooth manifold , two discrete, freely acting, groups
G1 and G2 and the worldsheet parity operator Ωp (such that ) an orientifold is
expressed as the quotient space . If G2 is empty, then the quotient space is an
orbifold. If G2 is not empty, then it is an orientifold.Contents [hide]
1 Application to String Theory
1.1 Supersymmetry Breaking
1.2 Effect on Field Content
2 Notes
3 References

[edit]
Application to String Theory

In string theory is the compact space formed by rolling up the theory's extra
dimensions, specifically a six dimensional Calabi-Yau space. The simplest viable
compact spaces are those formed by modifying a torus.
[edit]
Supersymmetry Breaking

The six dimensions take the form of a Calabi-Yau for reasons of partially breaking the
supersymmetry of the string theory to make it more phenomenologically viable. The
Type II string theories have N=2 supersymmetry and compactifying them directly
onto a six dimensional torus increases this to N=8. By using a more general Calabi-
Yau instead of a torus 3/4 of the supersymmetry is removed to give an N=2 theory
again, but now with only 3 large spatial dimensions. To break this further to the only
non-trivial phenomenologically viable supersymmetry, N=1, half of the
supersymmetry generators must be projected out and this is achieved by applying
the orientifold projection.
[edit]
Effect on Field Content

A simpler alternative to using Calabi-Yaus to break to N=2 is to use an orbifold

originally formed from a torus. In such cases it is simpler to examine the symmetry
group associated to the space as the group is given in the definition of the space.
The orbifold group G1 is restricted to those groups which work crystallographically on
the torus lattice,[1] ie lattice preserving. G2 is generated by an involution σ, not to be
confused with the parameter signifying position along the length of a string. The
involution acts on the holomorphic 3-form Ω (again, not to be confused with the
parity operator above) in different ways depending on the particular string
formulation being used.[2]
Type IIB : σ(Ω) = Ω or σ(Ω) = − Ω
Type IIA :

The locus where the orientifold action reduces to the change of the string orientation
is called the orientifold plane. The involution leaves the large dimensions of space-
time unaffected and so orientifolds can have O-planes of at least dimension 3. In the
case of σ(Ω) = Ω it is possible that all spatial dimensions are left unchanged and O9
planes can exist. The orientifold plane in type I string theory is the spacetime-filling
O9-plane.

More generally, one can consider orientifold Op-planes where the dimension p is
counted in analogy with Dp-branes. O-planes and D-branes can be used within the
same construction and generally carry opposite tension to one another.

However, unlike D-branes, O-planes are not dynamical. They are defined entirely by
the action of the involution, not by string boundary conditions as D-branes are. Both
O-planes and D-branes must be taken into account when computing tadpole
constraints.

The involution also acts on the complex structure (1,1)-form J

Type IIB : σ(J) = J
Type IIA : σ(J) = − J

This has the result that the number of moduli parameterising the space is reduced.
Since σ is an involution, it has eigenvalues . The (1,1)-form basis ωi, with dimension
h1,1 (as defined by the Hodge Diamond of the orientifold's cohomology) is written in
such a way that each basis form has definite sign under σ. Since moduli Ai are
defined by J = Aiωi and J must transform as listed above under σ, only those moduli
paired with 2-form basis elements of the correct parity under σ survive. Therefore σ
creates a splitting of the cohomology as and the number of moduli used to describe
the orientifold is, in general, less than the number of moduli used to describe the
orbifold used to construct the orientifold.[3] It is important to note that although the
orientifold projects out half of the supersymmetry generators the number of moduli it
projects out can vary from space to space. In some cases , in that all of the (1-1)-
forms have the same parity under the orientifold projection. In such cases the way in
which the different supersymmetry content enters into the moduli behaviour is
through the flux dependent scalar potential the moduli experience,the N=1 case is
different from the N=2 case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homological_mirror_symmetry

Homological mirror symmetry is a mathematical conjecture made by Maxim

Kontsevich. It seeks a systematic mathematical explanation for a phenomenon called
mirror symmetry first observed by physicists studying string theory.Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Examples
3 See also
4 References
History

In an address to the 1994 International Congress of Mathematicians in Zurich,

Kontsevich speculated that mirror symmetry for a pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds X and
Y could be explained as an equivalence of a triangulated category constructed from
the algebraic geometry of X (the derived category of coherent sheaves on X) and
another triangulated category constructed from the symplectic geometry of Y (the
derived Fukaya category).

Edward Witten originally described the topological twisting of the N=(2,2)

supersymmetric field theory into what he called the A and B model topological string
theories. These models concern maps from Riemann surfaces into a fixed target—
usually a Calabi-Yau manifold. Most of the mathematical predictions of mirror
symmetry are embedded in the physical equivalence of the A-model on Y with the B-
model on its mirror X. When the Riemann surfaces have empty boundary, they
represent the worldsheets of closed strings. To cover the case of open strings, one
must introduce boundary conditions to preserve the supersymmetry. In the A-model,
these boundary conditions come in the form of Lagrangian submanifolds of Y with
some additional structure (often called a brane structure). In the B-model, the
boundary conditions come in the form of holomorphic (or algebraic) submanifolds of
X with holomorphic (or algebraic) vector bundles on them. These are the objects one
uses to build the relevant categories. They are often called A and B branes
respectively. Morphisms in the categories are given by the massless spectrum of
open strings stretching between two branes.

The closed string A and B models only capture the so-called topological sector—a
small portion of the full string theory. Similarly, the branes in these models are only
topological approximations to the full dynamical objects that are D-branes. Even so,
the mathematics resulting from this small piece of string theory has been both deep
and difficult.
Examples

Only in a few examples have mathematicians been able to verify the conjecture. In
his seminal address, Kontsevich commented that the conjecture could be proved in
the case of elliptic curves using theta functions. Following this route, Alexander
Polishchuk and Eric Zaslow provided a proof of a version of the conjecture for elliptic
curves. Kenji Fukaya was able to establish elements of the conjecture for abelian
varieties. Later, Kontsevich and Yan Soibelman provided a proof of the majority of the
conjecture for nonsingular torus bundles over affine manifolds using ideas from the
SYZ conjecture. In 2003, Paul Seidel proved the conjecture in the case of the quartic
surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SYZ_conjecture

The SYZ conjecture is an attempt to understand the mirror symmetry conjecture, an

issue in theoretical physics and mathematics. The original conjecture was proposed
in a paper by Strominger, Yau, and Zaslow, entitled "Mirror Symmetry is T-duality".[1]

Along with the homological mirror symmetry conjecture, it is one of the most
explored tools applied to understand mirror symmetry in mathematical terms. While
the homological mirror symmetry is based on homological algebra, the SYZ
conjecture is a geometrical realization of mirror symmetry.
[edit]
Formulation
In string theory, mirror symmetry relates type IIA and type IIB theories. It predicts
that the effective field theory of type IIA and type IIB should be the same if the two
theories are compactified on mirror pair manifolds.

The SYZ conjecture uses this fact to realize mirror symmetry. It starts from
considering BPS states of type IIA theories compactified on X, especially 0-branes
that have moduli space X. It is known that all of the BPS states of type IIB theories
compactified on Y are 3-branes. Therefore mirror symmetry will map 0-branes of type
IIA theories into a subset of 3-branes of type IIB theories.

By considering supersymmetric conditions, it has been shown that these 3-branes

should be special Lagrangian submanifolds.[2][3] On the other hand, T-duality does
the same transformation in this case, thus "mirror symmetry is T-duality".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_string_theory

In theoretical physics, topological string theory is a simplified version of string theory. The
operators in topological string theory represent the algebra of operators in the full string theory
that preserve a certain amount of supersymmetry. Topological string theory may be obtained by a
topological twist of the worldsheet description of ordinary string theory: the operators are given
different spins. The operation is fully analogous to the construction of topological field theory
which is a related concept. Consequently, there are no local degrees of freedom in topological
string theory.

There are two main versions of topological string theory: the topological A-model and the
topological B-model. The results of the calculations in topological string theory generically encode
all holomorphic quantities within the full string theory whose values are protected by spacetime
supersymmetry. Various calculations in topological string theory are closely related to Chern-
Simons theory, Gromov-Witten invariants, mirror symmetry, and many other topics. As you can
see, these are mathematical topics. Indeed, topological string theory cannot be understood as a
realistic theory to describe the physical world.

Topological string theory was established and is studied by physicists such as Edward Witten and
Cumrun Vafa.Contents [hide]
1 Admissible spacetimes
2 The objects
2.1 The A-model
2.2 The B-model
2.3 Topological M-theory
3 Observables
3.1 The topological twist
3.2 What do the correlators depend on?
4 Dualities
4.1 Dualities between TSTs
4.1.1 The holomorphic anomaly
4.2 Geometric transitions
4.3 Dualities with other theories
4.3.1 Crystal melting, quantum foam and U(1) gauge theory
5 Applications
6 See also
7 References

[edit]
Admissible spacetimes
The fundamental strings of string theory are two-dimensional surfaces. A quantum field theory
known as the N=(1,1) sigma model is defined on each surface. This theory consist of maps from
the surface to a supermanifold. Physically the supermanifold is interpreted as spacetime and
each map is interpreted as the embedding of the string in spacetime.

Only special spacetimes admit topological strings. Classically one must choose a spacetime such
that the theory respects an additional pair of supersymmetries, and so is in fact an N=(2,2) sigma
model. This will be the case for example if the spacetime is Kähler manifold and the H-flux is
identically equal to zero, although there are more general cases in which the target is a
generalized Kähler manifold and the H-flux is nontrivial.

So far we have described ordinary strings on special backgrounds. These strings are never
topological. To make these strings topological, one needs to modify the sigma model via a
procedure called a topological twist which was invented by Edward Witten in 1988. The central
observation is that these theories have two U(1) symmetries known as R-symmetries, and one
may modify the Lorentz symmetry by mixing rotations and R-symmetries. One may use either of
the two R-symmetries, leading to two different theories, called the A model and the B model. After
this twist the action of the theory is BRST [disambiguation needed] exact, and as a result the
theory has no dynamics, instead all observables depend on the topology of a configuration. Such
theories are known as topological theories.

While classically this procedure is always possible, quantum mechanically the U(1) symmetries
may be anomalous. In this case the twisting is not possible. For example, in the Kahler case with
H=0 the twist leading to the A-model is always possible but that leading to the B-model is only
possible when the first Chern class of the spacetime vanishes, implying that the spacetime is
Calabi-Yau. More generally (2,2) theories have two complex structures and the B model exists
when the first Chern classes of associated bundles sum to zero whereas the A model exists when
the difference of the Chern classes is zero. In the Kahler case the two complex structures are the
same and so the difference is always zero, which is why the A model always exists.

There is no restriction on the number of dimensions of spacetime, other than that it must be even
because spacetime is generalized Kahler. However all correlation functions with worldsheets that
are not spheres vanish unless the complex dimension of the spacetime is three, and so
spacetimes with complex dimension three are the most interesting. This is fortunate for
phenomenology, as phenomenological models often use a physical string theory compactified on
a 3 complex-dimensional space. The topological string theory is not equivalent to the physical
string theory, even on the same space, but certain supersymmetric quantities agree in the two
theories.
[edit]
The objects
[edit]
The A-model

The topological A-model comes with a target space which is a 6 real-dimensional generalized
Kahler spacetime. In the case in which the spacetime is Kahler, the theory describes two objects.
There are fundamental strings, which wrap 2 real-dimensional holomorphic curves. Amplitudes
for the scattering of these strings depend only on the Kahler form of the spacetime, and not on
the complex structure. Classically these correlation functions are determined by the cohomology
ring. There are quantum mechanical instanton effects which correct these and yield Gromov-
Witten invariants, which measure the cup product in a deformed cohomology ring called the
quantum cohomology. The string field theory of the A model closed strings is known as Kahler
gravity, and was introduced by Michael Bershadsky and Vladimir Sadov in Theory of Kahler
Gravity.

In addition there are D2-branes which wrap Lagrangian submanifolds of spacetime. These are
submanifolds whose dimensions are one half that of space time, and such that the pullback of the
Kahler form to the submanifold vanishes. The worldvolume theory on a stack of N D2-branes is
the string field theory of the open strings of the A-model, which is a U(N) Chern-Simons theory.

The fundamental topological strings may end on the D2-branes. Notice that while the embedding
of a string depends only on the Kahler form, the embeddings of the branes depends entirely on
the complex structure. In particular, when a string ends on a brane the intersection will always be
orthogonal, as the wedge product of the Kahler form and the homolomorphic 3-form is zero. In
the physical string this is necessary for the stability of the configuration, but here it is a property of
Lagrangian and homolomorphic cycles on a Kahler manifold.

Away from the Calabi-Yau case there may also be coisotropic branes in various dimensions.
These were first introducted by Anton Kapustin and Dmitri Orlov in Remarks on A-Branes, Mirror
Symmetry, and the Fukaya Category
[edit]
The B-model

The B-model also contains fundamental strings, but their scattering amplitudes depend entirely
upon the complex structure and are independent of the Kahler structure. In particular, they are
insensitive to worldsheet instanton effects and so can often be calculated exactly. Mirror
symmetry then relates them to A model amplitudes, allowing one to compute Gromov-Witten
invariants. The string field theory of the closed strings of the B model is known as The Kodaira-
Spencer theory of gravity and was developed by Michael Bershadsky, Sergio Cecotti, Hirosi
Ooguri and Cumrun Vafa in Kodaira-Spencer Theory of Gravity and Exact Results for Quantum
String Amplitudes.

The B-model also comes with D(-1), D1, D3 and D5-branes, which wrap holomorphic 0, 2, 4 and
6-submanifolds respectively. The 6-submanifold is a connected component of the spacetime. The
theory on a D5-brane is known as holomorphic Chern-Simons theory. The Lagrangian density is
the wedge product of that of ordinary Chern-Simons theory with the holomorphic (3,0)-form,
which exists in the Calabi-Yau case. The Lagrangian densities of the theories on the lower-
dimensional branes may be obtained from holomorphic Chern-Simons theory by dimensional
reductions.
[edit]
Topological M-theory

Topological M-theory, which enjoys a 7-dimensional spacetime, is not a topological string theory,
as it contains no topological strings. However topological M-theory on a circle bundle over a 6-
manifold has been conjectured to be equivalent to the topological A-model on that 6-manifold.

In particular the D2-branes of the A-model lift to points at which the circle bundle degenerates, or
more precisely Kaluza-Klein monopoles. The fundamental strings of the A-model lift to
membranes named M2-branes in topological M-theory.

One special case that has attracted a lot of interest is topological M-theory on a space with G2
holonomy and the A-model on a Calabi-Yau. In this case the M2-branes wrap associative 3-
cycles. Strictly speaking the topological M-theory conjecture has only been made in this context,
as in this case functions introduced by Nigel Hitchin in The Geometry of Three-Forms in Six and
Seven Dimensions and Stable Forms and Special Metrics provide a candidate low energy
effective action.
[edit]
Observables
[edit]
The topological twist

The 2-dimensional worldsheet theory is an supersymmetric sigma model, the (2,2)

supersymmetry means that the fermionic generators of the supersymmetry algebra, called
supercharges, may be assembled into a single Dirac spinor, which consists of two Majorana-Weyl
spinors of each chirality. This sigma model is topologically twisted, which means that the Lorentz
symmetry generators that appear in the supersymmetry algebra simultaneously rotate the
physical spacetime and also rotate the fermionic directions via the action of one of the R-
symmetries. The R-symmetry group of a 2-dimensional N=(2,2) field theory is , twists by the two
different factors lead to the A and B models respectively. The topological twisted construction of
topological string theories was introduced by Edward Witten in his 1988 paper Topological Sigma
Models.
[edit]
What do the correlators depend on?

The topological twist leads to a topological theory because the stress-energy tensor may be
written as an anticommutator of a supercharge and another field. As the stress-energy tensor
measures the dependence of the action on the metric tensor, this implies that all correlation
functions of Q-invariant operators are independent of the metric. In this sense, the theory is
topological.

More generally, any D-term in the action, which is any term which may be expressed as an
integral over all of superspace, is an anticommutator of a supercharge and so does not affect the
topological observables. Yet more generally, in the B model any term which may be written as an
integral over the fermionic coordinates does not contribute, whereas in the A-model any term
which is an integral over θ − or over does not contribute. This implies that A model
observables are independent of the superpotential (as it may be written as an
integral over just ) but depend holomorphically on the twisted superpotential, and
vice versa for the B model.
[edit]
Dualities
[edit]
Dualities between TSTs

A number of dualities relate the above theories. The A-model and B-model on two
mirror manifolds are related by mirror symmetry, which has been described as a T-
duality on a three-torus. The A-model and B-model on the same manifold are
conjectured to be related by S-duality, which implies the existence of several new
branes, called NS branes by analogy with the NS5-brane, which wrap the same cycles
as the original branes but in the opposite theory. Also a combination of the A-model
and a sum of the B-model and its conjugate are related to topological M-theory by a
kind of dimensional reduction. Here the degrees of freedom of the A-model and the
B-models appear to not be simultaneously observable, but rather to have a relation
similar to that between position and momentum in quantum mechanics.
[edit]
The holomorphic anomaly

The sum of the B-model and its conjugate appears in the above duality because it is
the theory whose low energy effective action is expected to be described by Hitchin's
formalism. This is because the B-model suffers from a holomorphic anomaly, which
states that the dependence on complex quantities, while classically holomorphic,
receives nonholomorphic quantum corrections. In Quantum Background
Independence in String Theory, Edward Witten argued that this structure is
analogous to a structure that one finds geometrically quantizing the space of
complex structures. Once this space has been quantized, only half of the dimensions
simultaneously commute and so the number of degrees of freedom has been halved.
This halving depends on an arbitrary choice, called a polarization[disambiguation
needed]. The conjugate model contains the missing degrees of freedom, and so by
tensoring the B-model and its conjugate one reobtains all of the missing degrees of
freedom and also eliminates the dependence on the arbitrary choice of polarization.
[edit]
Geometric transitions

There are also a number of dualities that relate configurations with D-branes, which
are described by open strings, to those with branes the branes replaced by flux and
with the geometry described by the near-horizon geometry of the lost branes. The
latter are described by closed strings.

Perhaps the first such duality is the Gopakumar-Vafa duality, which was introduced
by Rajesh Gopakumar and Cumrun Vafa in On the Gauge Theory/Geometry
Correspondence.This relates a stack of N D2-branes on a 3-sphere in the A-model on
the deformed conifold to the closed string theory of the A-model on a resolved
conifold with a B field equal to N times the string coupling constant. The open strings
in the A model are described by a U(N) Chern-Simons theory, while the closed string
theory on the A-model is described by the Kahler gravity.

Although the conifold is said to be resolved, the area of the blown up two-sphere is
zero, it is only the B-field, which is often considered to be the complex part of the
area, which is nonvanishing. In fact, as the Chern-Simons theory is topological, one
may shrink the volume of the deformed three-sphere to zero and so arrive at the
same geometry as in the dual theory.

The mirror dual of this duality is another duality, which relates open strings in the B
model on a brane wrapping the 2-cycle in the resolved conifold to closed strings in
the B model on the deformed conifold. Open strings in the B-model are described by
dimensional reductions of homolomorphic Chern-Simons theory on the branes on
which they end, while closed strings in the B model are described by Kodaira-Spencer
gravity.
[edit]
Dualities with other theories
[edit]
Crystal melting, quantum foam and U(1) gauge theory

In the paper Quantum Calabi-Yau and Classical Crystals, Andrei Okounkov, Nicolai
Reshetikhin and Cumrun Vafa conjectured that the quantum A-model is dual to a
classical melting crystal at a temperature equal to the inverse of the string coupling
constant. This conjecture was interpreted in Quantum Foam and Topological Strings,
by Amer Iqbal, Nikita Nekrasov, Andrei Okounkov and Cumrun Vafa. They claim that
the statistical sum over melting crystal configurations is equivalent to a path integral
over changes in spacetime topology supported in small regions with area of order the
product of the string coupling constant and α'.

Such configurations, with spacetime full of many small bubbles, dates back to John
Archibald Wheeler in 1964, but has rarely appeared in string theory as it is
notoriously difficult to make precise. However in this duality the authors are able to
cast the dynamics of the quantum foam in the familiar language of a topologically
twisted U(1) gauge theory, whose field strength is linearly related to the Kähler form of
the A-model. In particular this suggests that the A-model Kahler form should be quantized.
[edit]
Applications

A-model topological string theory amplitudes are used to compute prepotentials in N=2
supersymmetric gauge theories in four and five dimensions. The amplitudes of the topological B-
model, with fluxes and or branes, are used to compute superpotentials in N=1 supersymmetric
gauge theories in four dimensions. Perturbative A model calculations also count BPS states of
spinning black holes in five dimensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'t_Hooft–Polyakov_monopole

In theoretical physics, the 't Hooft–Polyakov monopole is a topological soliton similar to the Dirac
monopole but without any singularities. It arises in the case of a Yang–Mills theory with a gauge
group G, coupled to a Higgs field which spontaneously breaks it down to a smaller group H via
the Higgs mechanism. It was first found independently by Gerard 't Hooft and Alexander
Polyakov[1] [2].

Unlike the Dirac monopole, the 't Hooft–Polyakov monopole is a smooth solution with a finite total
energy. The solution is localized around r = 0. Very far from the origin, the gauge group G is
broken to H, and the 't Hooft–Polyakov monopole reduces to the Dirac monopole.

However, at the origin itself, the G gauge symmetry is unbroken and the solution is non-singular
also near the origin. The Higgs field

is proportional to

where the adjoint indices are identified with the three-dimensional spatial indices. The gauge field
at infinity is such that the Higgs field's dependence on the angular directions is pure gauge. The
precise configuration for the Higgs field and the gauge field near the origin is such that it satisfies
the full Yang–Mills–Higgs equations of motion.
[edit]
Mathematical details

Suppose the vacuum is the vacuum manifold Σ. Then, for finite energies, as we move along
each direction towards spatial infinity, the state along the path approaches a point on
the vacuum manifold Σ. Otherwise, we would not have a finite energy. In
topologically trivial 3 + 1 dimensions, this means spatial infinity is homotopically
equivalent to the topological sphere S2. So, the superselection sectors are classified
by the second homotopy group of Σ, π2(Σ).

In the special case of a Yang–Mills–Higgs theory, the vacuum manifold is isomorphic

to the quotient space G/H and the relevant homotopy group is π2(G/H). Note that this
doesn't actually require the existence of a scalar Higgs field. Most symmetry
breaking mechanisms (e.g. technicolor) would also give rise to a 't Hooft–Polyakov
monopole.

It's easy to generalize to the case of d + 1 dimensions. We have πd−1(Σ).

[edit]
Monopole problem

The "monopole problem" refers to the cosmological implications of Grand unification

theories (GUT). Since monopoles are generically produced in GUT during the cooling
of the universe, and since they are expected to be quite massive, their existence
threatens to overclose it. This is considered a "problem" within the standard Big Bang
theory. Cosmic inflation remedies the situation by diluting any primordial abundance
of magnetic monopoles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instanton
An instanton (or pseudoparticle) is a notion appearing in theoretical and
mathematical physics. Mathematically, a Yang–Mills instanton is a self-dual or anti-
self-dual connection in a principal bundle over a four-dimensional Riemannian
manifold that plays the role of physical space-time in nonabelian gauge theory.
Instantons are topologically nontrivial solutions of Yang–Mills equations that
absolutely minimize the energy functional within their topological type. The first such
solutions were discovered in the case of four-dimensional Euclidean space
compactified to the four-dimensional sphere, and turned out to be localized in space-
time, prompting the names pseudoparticle and instanton.

Yang–Mills instantons have been explicitly constructed in many cases by means of

twistor theory, which relates them to algebraic vector bundles on algebraic surfaces,
and via the ADHM construction, or hyperkähler reduction (see hyperkähler manifold), a
sophisticated linear algebra procedure. The groundbreaking work of Simon Donaldson, for which
he was later awarded the Fields medal, used the moduli space of instantons over a given four-
dimensional differentiable manifold as a new invariant of the manifold that depends on its
differentiable structure and applied it to the construction of homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic
four-manifolds. Many methods developed in studying instantons have also been applied to
monopoles. Look up instanton in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Contents [hide]
1 Physical description
2 Instantons
2.1 Quantum mechanics
2.2 Quantum field theory
2.3 Yang–Mills theory
2.4 Various numbers of dimensions
2.5 4d supersymmetric gauge theories
3 See also
4 References

[edit]
Physical description

An instanton is a classical solution to equations of motion with a finite, non-zero action, either in
quantum mechanics or in quantum field theory. More precisely, it is a solution to the equations of
motion of the classical field theory on a Euclidean spacetime. In such a theory, solutions to the
equations of motion may be thought of as critical points of the action. The critical points of the
action may be local maxima of the action, local minima, or saddle points. Instantons are important
in quantum field theory because (a) they appear in the path integral as the leading quantum
corrections to the classical behavior of a system, and (b) they can be used to study the tunneling
behavior in various systems such as a Yang–Mills theory.
[edit]
Instantons
[edit]
Quantum mechanics

An instanton can be used to calculate the transition probability for a quantum mechanical particle
tunneling through a potential barrier. One of the simplest examples of a system with an instanton
effect is a particle in a double-well potential. In contrast to a classical particle, there is non-
vanishing probability that it crosses a region of potential energy higher than its own energy. One
way to calculate this probability is by means of the semi-classical WKB approximation, which
requires the value of to be small. The Schrödinger equation for the particle reads

If the potential were constant, the solution would (up to proportionality) be a plane wave,
with

This means that if the energy of the particle is smaller than the potential energy, one obtains an
exponentially decreasing function. The associated tunneling amplitude is proportional to

where a and b are the beginning and endpoint of the tunneling trajectory.

Alternatively, the use of path integrals allows an instanton interpretation and the same result can
be obtained with this approach. In path integral formulation, the transition amplitude can be
expressed as

Following the process of Wick rotation (analytic continuation) to Euclidean spacetime (), one gets

with the Euclidean action

The potential energy changes sign under the Wick rotation and the minima transform into
maxima, thereby V(x) exhibits two "hills" of maximal energy. Results obtained from the
mathematically well-defined Euclidean path integral may be Wick-rotated back and give the same
physical results as would be obtained by appropriate treatment of the (potentially divergent)
Minkowskian path integral. As can be seen from this example, calculating the transition
probability for the particle to tunnel through a classically forbidden region (V(x)) with the
Minkowskian path integral corresponds to calculating the transition probability to tunnel through a
classically allowed region (with potential −V(X)) in the Euclidean path integral (pictorially speaking
—in the Euclidean picture—this transition corresponds to a particle rolling from one hill of a
double-well potential standing on its head to the other hill). This classical solution of the Euclidean
equations of motion is often named "kink solution" and is an example of an instanton. In this
example, the two "vacua" of the double-well potential, turn into hills in the Euclideanized version
of the problem. Thus, the instanton field solution of the (1 + 1)-dimensional field theory (first
quantized quantum mechanical system) allows to be interpreted as a tunneling effect between the
two vacua of the physical Minkowskian system.

Note that a naive perturbation theory around one of those two vacua would never show this non-
perturbative tunneling effect, dramatically changing the picture of the vacuum structure of this
quantum mechanical system.
[edit]
Quantum field theory

In studying Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the vacuum structure of a theory may draw attention to
instantons. Just as a double-well quantum mechanical system illustrates, a naive vacuum may
not be the true vacuum of a field theory. Moreover, the true vacuum of a field theory may be an
"overlap" of several topologically inequivalent sectors, so called "topological vacua".

A well understood and illustrative example of an instanton and its interpretation can be found in
the context of a QFT with a non-abelian gauge group, a Yang–Mills theory. For a Yang–Mills
theory these inequivalent sectors can be (in an appropriate gauge) classified by the third
homotopy group of SU(2) (whose group manifold is the 3-sphere S3). A certain topological
vacuum (a "sector" of the true vacuum) is labelled by a topological invariant, the Pontryagin
index. As the third homotopy group of S3 has been found to be the set of integers,
there are infinitely many topologically inequivalent vacua, denoted by , where N is their
corresponding Pontryagin index. An instanton is a field configuration fulfilling the classical
equations of motion in Euclidean spacetime, which is interpreted as a tunneling effect between
these different topological vacua. It is again labelled by a whole number, its Pontryagin index, Q.
One can imagine an instanton with index Q to quantify tunneling between topological vacua and .
If Q = 1, the configuration is named BPST instanton after its discoverers Alexander Belavin,
Alexander Polyakov, Albert S. Schwartz and Yurij Tyupkin. The true vacuum of the theory is
labelled by an "angle" theta and is an overlap of the topological sectors:

Gerard 't Hooft first performed the field theoretic computation of the effects of the BPST instanton
in a theory coupled to fermions in [1]. He showed that zero modes of the Dirac equation in the
instanton background lead to a non-perturbative multi-fermion interaction in the low energy
effective action.
[edit]
Yang–Mills theory

The classical Yang–Mills action on a principal bundle with structure group G, base M, connection
A, and curvature (Yang–Mills field tensor) F is

where dvolM is the volume form on M. If the inner product on , the Lie algebra of G in which F
takes values, is given by the Killing form on , then this may be denoted as , since

For example, in the case of the gauge group U(1), F will be the electromagnetic field tensor. From
the principle of stationary action, the Yang–Mills equations follow. They are

The first of these is an identity, because dF = d2A = 0, but the second is a second-order partial
differential equation for the connection A, and if the Minkowski current vector does not vanish, the
zero on the rhs. of the second equation is replaced by . But notice how similar these equations
are; they differ by a Hodge star. Thus a solution to the simpler first order (non-linear) equation

is automatically also a solution of the Yang–Mills equation. Such solutions usually exist, although
their precise character depends on the dimension and topology of the base space M, the principal
bundle P, and the gauge group G.

In nonabelian Yang–Mills theories, DF = 0 and D * F = 0 where D is the exterior covariant

derivative. Furthermore, the Bianchi identity

is satisfied.

In quantum field theory, an instanton is a topologically nontrivial field configuration in four-

dimensional Euclidean space (considered as the Wick rotation of Minkowski spacetime).
Specifically, it refers to a Yang–Mills gauge field A which locally approaches pure gauge at spatial
infinity. This means the field strength defined by A,

vanishes at infinity. The name instanton derives from the fact that these fields are localized in
space and (Euclidean) time – in other words, at a specific instant.

Instantons may be easier to visualise in two dimensions than in four. In the simplest case the
gauge group is U(1). In this case the field can be visualised as an arrow at each point in two-
dimensional spacetime. An instanton is a configuration where, for example, the arrows point away
from a central point (i.e., a "hedgehog" state). More complicated configurations are also possible.

The field configuration of an instanton is very different from that of the vacuum. Because of this
instantons cannot be studied by using Feynman diagrams, which only include perturbative
effects. Instantons are fundamentally non-perturbative.

The Yang–Mills energy is given by

where ∗ is the Hodge dual. If we insist that the solutions to the Yang–Mills equations have finite
energy, then the curvature of the solution at infinity (taken as a limit) has to be zero. This means
that the Chern–Simons invariant can be defined at the 3-space boundary. This is equivalent, via
Stokes' theorem, to taking the integral

This is a homotopy invariant and it tells us which homotopy class the instanton belongs to.

Since the integral of a nonnegative integrand is always nonnegative,

for all real θ. So, this means

If this bound is saturated, then the solution is a BPS state. For such states, either ∗F
= F or ∗F = − F depending on the sign of the homotopy invariant.

Instanton effects are important in understanding the formation of condensates in the

vacuum of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and in explaining the mass of the so-
called 'eta-prime particle', a Goldstone-boson which has acquired mass through the
axial current anomaly of QCD. Note that there is sometimes also a corresponding
soliton in a theory with one additional space dimension. Recent research on
instantons links them to topics such as D-branes and Black holes and, of course, the
vacuum structure of QCD. For example, in oriented string theories, a Dp brane is a
gauge theory instanton in the world volume (p + 5)-dimensional U(N) gauge theory
on a stack of N D(p + 4)-branes.
[edit]
Various numbers of dimensions

Instantons play a central role in the nonperturbative dynamics of gauge theories. The
kind of physical excitation that yields an instanton depends on the number of
dimensions of the spacetime, but, surprisingly, the formalism for dealing with these
instantons is relatively dimension-independent.

In 4-dimensional gauge theories, as described in the previous section, instantons are

gauge bundles with a nontrivial four-form characteristic class. If the gauge symmetry
is a unitary group or special unitary group then this characteristic class is the second
Chern class, which vanishes in the case of the gauge group U(1). If the gauge
symmetry is an orthogonal group then this class is the first Pontrjagin class.

In 3-dimensional gauge theories with Higgs fields, 't Hooft–Polyakov monopole's play
the role of instantons. In his 1977 paper Quark Confinement and Topology of Gauge
Groups, Alexander Polyakov demonstrated that instanton effects in 3-dimensional
QED coupled to a scalar field lead to a mass for the photon.
In 2-dimensional abelian gauge theories worldsheet instantons are magnetic vortices.
They are responsible for many nonperturbative effects in string theory, playing a
central role in mirror symmetry.

In 1-dimensional quantum mechanics, instantons describe tunneling, which is

invisible in perturbation theory.
[edit]
4d supersymmetric gauge theories

Supersymmetric gauge theories often obey nonrenormalization theorems, which

restrict the kinds of quantum corrections which are allowed. Many of these theorems
only apply to corrections calculable in perturbation theory and so instantons, which
are not seen in perturbation theory, provide the only corrections to these quantities.

Field theoretic techniques for instanton calculations in supersymmetric theories were

extensively studied in the 1980s by multiple authors. Because supersymmetry
guarantees the cancellation of fermionic vs. bosoninc non-zero modes in the
instanton background, the involved 't Hooft computation of the instanton saddle
point reduces to an integration over zero modes.

In N = 1 supersymmetric gauge theories instantons can modify the superpotential,

sometimes lifting all of the vacua. In 1984 Ian Affleck, Michael Dine and Nathan
Seiberg calculated the instanton corrections to the superpotential in their paper
Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking in Supersymmetric QCD. More precisely, they
were only able to perform the calculation when the theory contains one less flavor of
chiral matter than the number of colors in the special unitary gauge group, because
in the presence of fewer flavors an unbroken nonabelian gauge symmetry leads to an
infrared divergence and in the case of more flavors the contribution in equal to zero.
For this special choice of chiral matter, the vacuum expectation values of the matter
scalar fields can be chosen to completely break the gauge symmetry at weak
coupling, allowing a reliable semi-classical saddle point calculation to proceed. By
then considering perturbations by various mass terms they were able to calculate the
superpotential in the presence of arbitrary numbers of colors and flavors, valid even
when the theory is no longer weakly coupled.

In N = 2 supersymmetric gauge theories the superpotential receives no quantum

corrections. However the correction to the metric of the moduli space of vacua from
instantons was calculated in a series of papers. First, the one instanton correction
was calculated by Nathan Seiberg in Supersymmetry and Nonperturbative beta
Functions. The full set of corrections for SU(2) Yang–Mills theory was calculated by
Nathan Seiberg and Edward Witten in Electric – magnetic duality, monopole
condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory, in the
process creating a subject that is today known as Seiberg-Witten theory. They
extended their calculation to SU(2) gauge theories with fundamental matter in
Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in N=2 supersymmetric QCD.
These results were later extended for various gauge groups and matter contents, and
the direct gauge theory derivation was also obtained in most cases. Quantitative
agreement has been demonstrated in many cases between Seiberg–Witten and
conventional field-theoretic saddle point calculations.

In N = 4 supersymmetric gauge theories the instantons do not lead to quantum

corrections for the metric on the moduli space of vacua.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTZ_black_hole
The BTZ black hole, named after Maximo Banados, Claudio Teitelboim, and Jorge
Zanelli, is a black hole solution for (2+1)-dimensional gravity with a negative
cosmological constant.

When the cosmological constant is zero, a vacuum solution of (2+1)-dimensional

gravity is necessarily flat, and it can be shown that no black hole solutions exist[1].
We do have conical angle deficit solutions, but they don't have event horizons. It
therefore came as a surprise when black hole solutions were shown to exist for a
negative cosmological constant.

The BTZ black hole is remarkably similar to the (3+1)-dimensional black hole. Like
the Kerr black hole, a rotating BTZ black hole contains an inner and an outer horizon.
It has "no hairs" (No hair theorem) and is fully characterized by ADM-mass, angular
momentum and charge. It also possesses thermodynamical properties analogous to
the (3+1)-dimensional black hole. E.g. its entropy is captured by a law directly
analogous to the Bekenstein bound in (3+1)-dimensions, essentially with the surface
area replaced by the BTZ black holes circumference.

Since (2+1)-dimensional gravity has no Newtonian limit, one might fear that the BTZ
black hole is not the final state of a gravitational collapse. It was however shown, that
this black hole does arise from collapsing matter.

The BTZ solution is often discussed in the realm on (2+1)-dimensional quantum

gravity.

The metric is

where R is the black hole radius, in the absence of charge and angular momentum.

BTZ black holes without any electric charge are locally isometric to anti de Sitter
space. More precisely, it corresponds to an orbifold of the universal covering space of
AdS3.

A rotating BTZ black hole admits closed timelike curves.

See also

Axisymmetric spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_topology

Quantum topology is a branch of mathematics that connects quantum mechanics

with low-dimensional topology.

Dirac notation provides a viewpoint of quantum mechanics which becomes amplified

into a framework that can embrace the amplitudes associated with topological
spaces and the related embedding of one space within another such as knots and
links in three-dimensional space. This Bra-ket notation of kets and bras can be
generalised, becoming maps of vector spaces associated with topological spaces that
allow tensor products.[1]

Topological entanglement involving linking and braiding can be intuitively related to

quantum entanglement.[2]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40673
Monopole spotting at ISIS
Researchers in the UK and France have measured the charge and current of
"magnetic monopoles", which were recently shown to exist in materials called spin
ices. While the team didn’t actually create the magnetic analogue of an electrical
circuit, they showed that magnetic monopoles respond to magnetic fields in much
the same way as charged particles respond to electric fields.
Earlier this year two independent groups of physicists provided the best evidence yet
that magnetic monopoles – free "north" and "south" magnetic poles – can exist in
magnetic materials called spin ices.
The magnetic moments in a spin ice do not line up like those in a ferromagnet.
Instead physicists believe that they join up to create magnetic flux lines within the
material that resemble a knotted mess of strings. However, if a moment is flipped – a
string is broken and the magnetic flux spills out in a manner resembling a monopole.
In September, teams led by Jonathan Morris at the Helmholtz Centre in Berlin and
Tom Fennell at the Institute Laue-Langevin (ILL) in Grenoble measured the
thermodynamic and other properties of two different spin ices – and their results
suggested the existence of monopoles.
Charge and current
Now Fennell has joined forces with Steve Bramwell of University College London and
Sean Giblin of Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) to make the first measurements
of the magnetic charge and current associated with magnetic monopoles in the spin
ice Dy2Ti2O7.
They did this by "mapping" the problem onto Lars Onsager's 1934 theory of
electrolytes – which describes how an applied electric field causes molecules in
solution to ionize, thus boosting the conductivity of the solution. Working at RAL's
ISIS muon facility, the team applied a magnetic field to the spin ice, which creates
north and south monopoles that drift apart to create magnetic currents in the
material.
The presence of these currents was detected using muon spin resonance (µSR) –
whereby a beam of muons is fired at the material and some of the particles take up residence in
the crystal lattice. The muons decay to produce positrons, which exit the material and are
detected. The direction of the emitted positron is related to the magnetic polarization of the muon.
Wobbling muons
In the absence of monopoles, a muon’s magnetic moment will wobble about an applied magnetic
field, and the µSR signal resembles a decaying sine wave. The creation of monopoles leads to
random, local magnetic fields, which disrupt the rotation and hasten the decay of the µSR signal.
The team related the µSR decay rate to the magnetic conductivity of the spin ice – which
increased with stronger applied magnetic fields, just as predicted by Onsager's theory. This
allowed the team to use the theory to determine the elementary magnetic charge of the
monopoles – which was in good agreement with the theoretical value.
Claudio Castelnovo of Oxford University, who was not involved in the research, described the
work as "an important paradigm shift in spin ice research" and "the first step in generating a
current of monopoles".
Explaining the inexplicable
Fennell told physicsworld.com that the study could also explain the "inexplicable behaviour" that
has been seen in previous µSR studies of spin ices. "The experiments could have been seeing
monopoles all along," he said.
The spin-ice monopoles have very different origins from the monopoles famously predicted by
Paul Dirac's work on quantum electrodynamics. But, because the monopoles occur in magnetic
materials, understanding their properties could help with the development of magnetic memories
and other spintronic devices.
The results are published in Nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_ice
A spin ice is a magnet (i.e. a substance with spin degrees of freedom) with frustrated interactions,
which shows low-temperature properties – in particular residual entropy – closely related to those
of crystalline water ice.[1] The most prominent compounds with such properties are dysprosium
titanate and holmium titanate. The magnetic ordering of a spin ice resembles the positional
ordering of hydrogen atoms in conventional water ice.

Recent experiments have shown strong evidence for the existence of deconfined magnetic
monopoles in these materials,[2][3] with analogous properties to the hypothetical magnetic
monopoles postulated to exist in the vacuum.Contents [hide]
1 Technical description
2 Spin ices and magnetic monopoles
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

[edit]
Technical description

In 1935, Linus Pauling noted that the structure of water ice exhibited degrees of freedom that
would be expected to remain disordered even at absolute zero. That is, even upon cooling to zero
temperature, water ice is expected to have residual entropy (i.e. intrinsic randomness). This is a
result of the fact that the structure of ice contains oxygen atoms with four neighboring hydrogen
atoms. For each oxygen atom, two of the neighboring hydrogen atoms are near (forming the
traditional H2O molecule), and two are further away (being the hydrogen atoms of neighboring
water molecules). Pauling noted that the number of configurations conforming to this "two-in two-
out" rule grows exponentially with the system size, and therefore that the zero-temperature
entropy of ice was expected to be extensive.[4] Pauling's findings were confirmed by specific-heat
measurements, though pure crystals of water ice are particularly hard to create.[citation needed]

The arrangement of spins (black arrows) in a spin ice

Spin ices are materials consisting of tetrahedra of ions, each of which has a non-zero spin, which
must satisfy some two-in, two-out rule analogous to water ice because of the interactions
between neighbouring ions. Spin ice materials therefore exhibit the same residual entropy
properties as water ice. However, depending on the material used in a spin ice, it is generally
much easier to create large single crystals of spin ice materials than the corresponding water ice
materials. Additionally, the interaction of a magnetic field with the spins in a spin ice material
make spin ice materials much better materials for examining residual entropy than water ice.

While Philip Anderson had already noted in 1956[5] the connection between the problem of the
frustrated Ising antiferromagnet on a (pyrochlore) lattice of corner-shared tetrahedra and
Pauling's water ice problem, real spin ice materials were only discovered quite recently.[6] The
first materials identified as spin ices were the pyrochlores Dy2Ti2O7 (dysprosium titanate),
Ho2Ti2O7 (holmium titanate) and Ho2Sn2O7 (holmium stannate). Very recently, compelling
evidence has been reported that Dy2Sn2O7 (dysprosium stannate) is also a spin ice.

Spin ice materials are characterized by disorder of magnetic ions even when said ions are at very
low temperatures. AC magnetic susceptibility measurements find evidence for a dynamical
freezing of the magnetic moments as the temperature is lowered somewhat below the
temperature at which the specific heat displays a maximum.
[edit]
Spin ices and magnetic monopoles

Spin ices are geometrically frustrated magnetic systems. While frustration is usually associated
with triangular or tetrahedral arrangements of magnetic moments coupled via antiferromagnetic
exchange interactions, spin ices are frustrated ferromagnets. It is the local nature of the strong
crystal field forcing the magnetic moments to point either in or out of a tetrahedron that renders
ferromagnetic interactions frustrated in spin ices. Interestingly, it is the long range magnetic
dipolar interaction and not the nearest-neighbor exchange coupling that causes the frustration
and the consequential "two-in two-out" spin orientations and which leads to the spin ice
phenomenology.[7][8]

In a paper published in Science in September 2009, researchers Jonathan Morris and Alan
Tennant from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie (HZB) along with
Santiago Grigera from Instituto de Física de Líquidos y Sistemas Biológicos (IFLYSIB, CONICET)
and other colleagues from Dresden University of Technology, University of St. Andrews and
Oxford University described the observation of quasiparticles resembling monopoles [2]. A single
crystal of dysprosium titanate in a highly frustrated pyrochlore lattice (F d -3 m) was cooled to 0.6
to 2 K. Using neutron scattering, the magnetic moments were shown to align in the spin ice into
interwoven tube-like bundles resembling Dirac strings. At the defect formed by the end of each
tube, the magnetic field looks like that of a monopole. Using an applied magnetic field to break
the symmetry of the system, the researchers were able to control the density and orientation of
these strings. A contribution to the heat capacity of the system from an effective gas of these
quasiparticles is also described [9][10].