arXiv:1701.

05103v1 [hep-th] 18 Jan 2017

Magnetic charge quantization from SYM

considerations
M. Porforough
Department of Physics, School of Sciences
Tarbiat Modares University, P. O. Box 14155-4838, Tehran, Iran
Email: milaad@aut.ac.ir

January 19, 2017

Abstract
An intersecting D3-D3 system contains magnetic monopole solutions
due to D-strings stretched between two branes. These magnetic charges
satisfy usual Dirac quantization relation. We show that this quantization
condition can also be obtained directly by SUSY and gauge invariance
arguments of the theory and conclude that the independence of physics
on shift of holonomy exactly equals to regarding Fayet-Iliopoulos gauge
for our setup. So we are led to conjecture that there is a correspondence
between topological point of view of magnetic charges and SYM considerations of their theories.

Introduction

The Hanany-Witten brane construction [1] provides the simplest method to see
the relationship between three-dimensional gauge theories and monopole moduli
spaces. N D3-branes are suspended between a pair of NS5-branes. the NS5brane worldvolume spanns 012345 directions and the D3-branes worldvolume
spanns 0126 directions.
The effective field theory lives on the D3-brane is a N = 4, 3d U (N ) gauge
theory. Each D3-brane is free to move in ~x = (x3 , x4 , x5 ) directions. these
correspond to the expectation values of the three adjoint scalars in the vector
multiplet. For a generic configuration, the U (N ) gauge symmetry is broken to
U (1)N and each of these N photons can be dualised to a periodic scalar. The
result is a 4N -dimensional configuration space; this is the Coulomb branch of
the gauge theory. The low-energy dynamics of the gauge theory is governed by
the metric on the Coulomb branch.
The metric on the Coulomb branch can be determind by taking a different
perspective on the brane picture. We start by performing an S-duality so that
the NS5-branes are replaced by D5-branes. The theory on D5-branes is SU (2)
1

Yang-Mills in 6d dimensions. The D3-branes stretched between them appear as

N magnetic monopoles [2]. This strongly suggests that the quantum corrected
metric on the Coulomb branch of the 3d SU (N ) gauge theory coincides with
the metric on the classical moduli space of N monopoles.
There is a simple modification of the brane setup which realises 3d dimensional gauge theories with N = 2 supersymmetry on the worldvolume of the
D3-branes. We need rotate only one of the NS5-branes [3-5]. After this rotation, it is usually referred to as NF5-brane which its worldvolume spanns
012378 directions. The D3-branes are free to move only in x3 direction. At a
generic point in the classical moduli space, we may again dualise the N photons,
leaving ourselves with 2N low-energy dynamics of these modes.
S-dualise of this theory has been studied recently [6-8] and we know this
system has magnetic solutions but the trouble is that this configuration does
not admit any soliton solutions which could be identified with the D-strings
stretched between D3-branes. However, the setup was revisted by Mintun,
Polchinski and Sun [6] where they argued that the hypermultiplet fields should
be endowed with non-canonical kinetic terms.
In this paper we will try to find an alternative way to obtain Dirac monopole
quantization by using SUSY and gauge invariace of the field theory of this
system. In Section 2 we will review main topics in [6] to understand how one
can construct a field theory for such a configuration. In Section 3 we will
introduce Fayet-Iliopoulos gauge for the setup and show that it corresponds to
Dirac monopole. The paper closes in Section 4 with a brief concluding remark.

The field theory of D3-D3 system

In this section, in order to fix our notation we follow [6] to see how one can
construct the field theory of intersecting D3-D3 branes. Consider a D3-brane
spanning the 0145 directions and an orthogonal D3-brane spanning the 0167
directions such that eight supercharges are preserved. On each D3-brane there
lives the usual field content for a U (1) N = 2, d = 4 gauge theory, but the
supersymmetry algebras of the two branes are not the same.
If one wants to use the strategy introduced in [9] and [10] to write the full
action of the theory, he or she must T-dualise system in 23 directions which are
orthogonal to both of branes so they correspond to DD boundary conditions.
Then the D3-D3 becomes D5-D5. Note that after writing the full action one
should dimensionally reduce in the 23 directions to obtain the system of interest. The T-dual system has different global symmetries, but the fact that the
dimensionally reduced system will have an SO(4)2389 symmetry guarantees that
it has N = 2, d = 4 SUSY. So all we need to construct a SYM theory in 6d for
D3 and D3 branes in terms of N = 1, d = 4 are:
A vector multiplet V and the chiral multiplets Q1,2,3 for D3-brane and a
vector multiplet V and the chiral multiplets S1,2,3 which live on D3-brane.
The scalars AV 2,3 and AV 2,3 combine with the scalars Q3 and S3 respectively
to become SO(4)2389 vectors, since these fields will describe the transverse co2

ordinates of the branes in the 2389 directions. According to [9] and [10] and
after dimensional reduction in x2,3 , only the integrations over the 0145 directions remain and all fields become functions of the parameters x4,5 . Ultimately,
the action for D3-brane becomes:

1
1
Q
)
+ c.c.
Q

W
W
+
(Q

2 z1 3
V
3 z1 2
gY2 M
4 V
2
Z
h
i

+ d ( 2z1 V Q1 )( 2z1 V Q1 ) z1 V z1 V + Q2 Q2 + Q3 Q3 ,

S33 =

d2 x dx4 dx5

d2



(1)
where all N = 1, d = 4 chiral and vector multiplets are as usual [11] in the form:
V + 1 2 2 D2 ,
+ i2 V i2
V = A
V
V
2

Q3 = Q3 (y) + 2Q3 (y) + 2 FQ3 (y),

(2)

which for all chiral multiplets we use the same symbol for the scalar components
as for the superfields themselves. In action (1) z1 = 12 (x4 +ix5 ) so z1 = 4 i5 .
Finally, Greek indices run over 0123 and spinor dotted and undotted indices
take two values as usual. One can show that this action is invariant under
gauge transformations:

V V ++

Q1 Q1 + 2z1 ,

(3)

where is a chiral parameter which defines gauge transformation as usual. The

whole argument holds on also for second brane theory.
The best part of the story is the hypermultiplet action, S33 . The simplest
choice for the hypermultiplet kinetic terms take the canonical form. In this case,
the hypermultiplet consists of two fields B and C which live on defect and have
charges (1, 1) and (1, 1) under U (1) U (1) respectively such that the action
becomes:
Z
Z



1
4
S33 = 2
d x
d4 |B|2 eV V + |C|2 eV V
gY M

(4)
Z
i
2
d (BCQ3 BCS3 ) + c.c .
+
2
As explained in [6], there is a problem with the action (4); when the D3branes are separated, it does not admit any soliton solutions because potential
has not any nontrivial vaccum and takes its minimum value only when B = C =
0. So they suggest non-canonical action for the kinetic terms. There are various
restrictions on the form that the kinetic terms in S33 can take. First the
requirement of 8 supercharges restricts the target space to have a hyperKahler
metric. Next, the fact that we want to couple the hypermultiplet to a U (1)
gauge field means that the metric should have a (tri-holomorphic) U (1) isometry.
3

Finally, the metric should have one further U (1)R isometry which leaves one of
the three complex structures invariant (and rotates the other two). This ensures
that the field theory has a U (1)R R-symmetry, a property which can be traced
to the U (1)45 U (1)67 rotational symmetry of the brane configuration.

Fayet-Iliopoulos gauge and Dirac monopole

Now we are in a position to define Fayet-Iliopoulos gauge: once the gauge group
of a SYM theory is U (1)1 U (1)n , one allows to add V1 + + Vn to Dterms of the action where Vi s denote vector multiplets in abelian case. These
are the Fayet-Iliopoulos terms [12]. Under an abelian gauge transformation,
and regarding the fact that for a chiral superfield the only
Vi Vi + +
term which survived in D-term integration is 41 2 2 2 , it is clear that FI
Lagrangian:
Z
X
X
1
i DVi ,
(5)
LF I =
i d4 V i =
2
Aabelianf actors

Aabelianf actors

is SYM invariant which is an arbitrary function and DVi is an auxiliary field

for a vector multiplet V i of the form (2) as usual.
We mentioned one can add FI terms to action without SYM invariance
violation but now we demand FI terms act like a gauge for the theory. It means
that adding them to action leads no physical effects. It is quite reasonable!
Now let us come back to our setup. As long as the gauge group of SYM
theory on the defect is U (1) U (1) , we can add 21 (V V + V V ) to first term
in (4) where s are FI gauge parameters which live on the defect. Now the
bosonic sector of full action in component form is:

Stot =

1
gY2 M

1
1
d x dz1 d
z1 FV FV + DV2
4
2
D3

1
+ (Q3 z1 FQ2 + FQ3 z1 Q2 Q2 z1 FQ3 FQ2 z1 Q3 ) + c.c.
2
i
i
1
+z1 AV z1 AV + z1 AV Q1 z1 AV Q
2
2
1 1 (Q1 z1 DV + Q
1 z1 DV ) 1 z1 A z1 AV + FQ1 + FQ1
+ Q1 Q
V
2
2

3 + FQ2 FQ2 + FQ3 FQ3

2 + Q3 Q
+ Q2 Q
 2
Z


|B|
1
2

2(DV DV ) + A2V + A2V 2AV .AV ) + B B

d x
+ 2
gY M Def ect
4
i
B
B)(A A ) + FB FB + (B C and V V )
+ (B B
V
V
2
i
+ (BCFQ3 + Q3 (BFC + CFB )) + c.c. (Q3 S3 ) + c.c.
2

1
1
+ V D V + V D V
2
2
+S3 3 .
(6)
To eliminate auxiliary fields from full action we should obtain their equations
of motion. Note also that when one term on the defect appears in a brane
contribution integration we need a convenient Dirac delta function to reassure
that all fields on defect have values only on defect as expected. Without lose of
generality we consider just auxiliary fields on the D3 and obtain:
iC
FB = (S3 Q3 ),
2
iB
FC = (S3 Q3 ),
2
FQ2 = z1 Q3 ,
i
FQ3 = z1 Q2 BC 2 (z1 , z1 ),
2
FQ1 = 0,
1
1 ) + 1 2 (z1 , z1 )(|C|2 |B|2 + V ).
DV = (z1 Q1 + z1 Q
2
2

(7)

On the D3-brane the original gauge field Fab (with a, b = 0, 1, 4, 5), obeys
the Bianchi identity a F ab = abcd a Fcd = 0 everywhere on its worldvolume
and hence can not carry a magnetic charge. Instead, in comparison with [6] we
define:

1
F45 F45 + 2 (z1 , z1 )PF I ,
2
Fab Fab f or a, b 6= 4, 5,

(8)

P P F I = P + V ,

(9)

where PF I appearence tells us: moving between two equivalent theories by

means of FI gauge, corresponds to:

where P = |C| |B| is the contribution of the charged fields to the D-terms.
Now after elimination auxiliary fields by using (7) one can show that it is Fab
which is the field strength which appears in the Lagrangian (6) in the standard
Maxwell form Fab F ab . the electric euqation of motion d F = je,V can obtain
directly by varying action with respect to gauge field as usual such that one
can show that the only non-zero components of electric curret are those in 01
directions.
It is clear from first definition in (8) that field strengh Fab is not constrained
to obey the Bianchi identity because now it is not a colse form yet so we are
dealing with magnetic equation of motion dF = jm,V where:
0
a B a = jm,V
=

1
1 PF I 2 (z1 , z1 ),
2

(10)

with B a = F 0a as usual. Note also that the magnetic current is also tangent
to the defect so from the perspective of the D3-brane one can obtain the magnetic charge which the 1+1 dimensional kink carries by integrating associated
magnetic field B a over an S2 surrounding the kink:
Z
1
(11)
QM =
B a dsa = (PF I (x1 = +) PF I (x1 = )),
2
S2
where, in second equality we have deformed the S2 to covers the kink in x1
direction because of Dirac delta function.
We need equal values for QM in two theories so:
V (x1 = +) V (x1 = +),

(12)

should be canceled out. This leads us to regard V as a constant function and

then we take its value 8 by convention. So (9) becomes:
P P + 8.

(13)

This is nothing but Dirac quantization for magnetic monoploe because it leads
to QM = 4 as expected.
The final step is follow the standard argument in [6] to obtain quantization condition (13) directly by usual integration of vector potential like in the
Aharov-Bohm effect. We know P is source for vector potential and when the
point z1 = 0 is pushed off to infinity and the remaining space is multiply connected, the holonomy is:
6

dz1 AVz1 + c.c. =

1
ReP.
2

(14)

A shift of the holonomy by 4 gives a physically equivalent configuration therefore we again reach (13).
Finally, it is obvious that the whole argument is also true for D3-brane.

Conclusion

We mentioned that there is an alternative approach to obtain magnetic charge

quantization relation for the D3-D3 setup. This prescription is based on SUSY
and gauge invariance properties of the system such that they originate FayetIliopoulos gauge for the configuration.
It seems hard to generalize this to non-abelian case because as mentioned
earlier FI terms addition is allowed only when gauge group is U (1) U (1). In
non-abelian case contents mixture is such that one can not find any quantization
condition for the system.
Another interesting feature is: magnetic charge quantization does not depend on whether we are in the canonincal or non-canonincal description of the
system as expected. It is because of in non-canonical case we must add FI

Ce(V V ) , C)
for
terms as before to the K
ahler potential K = (Be(V V ) , B,
kinetic terms. After do that one can show that the effect of FI terms is equal
to canonical description and leads to (13) again.

References
[1] A. Hanany and E. Witten, Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopoles,
and three dimensional gauge dynamics, Nucl. Phys. B 492, 152 (1997)
[hep-th/9611230].
[2] D, -E, Diaconescu, D-branes, monopoles and Nahm equations, Nucl. Phys.
B 503, 220 (1997) [cond-mat/9608163].
[3] S. Elitzur, A. Giveon and D. Kutasov, Branes and N = 1 duality in string
theory, Phys. Lett. B 400, 269 (1997) [hep-th/9702014].
[4] J. de Boer, K. Hori, Y. Oz and Z. Yin, Branes and mirror symmetry in
N = 2 supersymmetric gauge theories in three-dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B
502, 107 (1997) [hep-th/9702154].
[5] O. Aharony and A. Hanany, Branes, superpotentials and superconformal
fixed points, Nucl. Phys. B 504, 239 (1997) [hep-th/9704170].
[6] E. Mintun and J. Polchinski and S. Sun, The Field Theory of Intersecting
D3-branes, JHEP 08, 118 (2015) [arXiv/1402.6327].

[7] N. R. Constable, J. Erdmenger, Z. Guralnik, I. Kirsch, Intersecting D3branes and Holography, Phys. Rev. D 68, 106007 (2003) [hep-th/0211222].
[8] D. Dorigoni and D. Tong, Intersecting branes, domain walls and superpotentials in 3d gauge theories, JHEP 08, 119 (2014) [arXiv/1405.5226].
[9] N. Marcus, A. Sagnotti and W. Siegel Ten-dimensional Supersymmetric
Yang-Mills Theory in Terms of Four-dimensional Superfields, Nucl. Phys.
B 224, 159 (1983).
[10] N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Gregoire and J. G. Wacker, Higher dimensional supersymmetry in 4-D superspace, JHEP 0203, 055 (2002) [hep-th/0101233].
[11] J. Wess and J. Bagger, Supersymmetry and supergravity, Princeton, USA:
Univ. Pr. (1992) 259 p.
[12] P. Fayet and J. Iliopoulos, Spontaneously Broken Supercharge Symmetries
And Goldstone Spinors, Phys. Lett. B 51, 461 1974.