PHYSICAL REVIEW D VOLUME 38, NUMBER 10 15 NOVEMBER 1988

Geometric derivation of string field theory from first principles:

Closed strings and modular invariance

Michio Kaku
Physics Department, City College of the City University of New York, New York, New York I003I
(Received 21 April 1988)
We present an entirely new approach to closed-string field theory, called geometric string
Iield theory, which avoids the complications found in Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin string field theory
(e.g. , ghost counting, infinite overcounting of diagrams, midpoints, lack of modular invariance).
Following the analogy with general relativity and Yang-Mills theory, we define a new infinite-
dimensional local gauge group, called the unified string group, which uniquely specifies the connec-
tion fields, the curvature tensor, the measure and tensor calculus, and finally the action itself.
Geometric field theory, when gauge fixed, yields an entirely new class of gauges called the interpolat-
ing gauge which allows us to smoothly interpolate between the midpoint gauge and the end-point
gauge ("covariantized light-cone gauge"). We can show that geometric string field theory repro-
duces one copy of the Shapiro-Virasoro model. Surprisingly, after the gauge is broken, a new closed
four-string interaction emerges as the counterpart of the instantaneous four-fermion Coulomb term
in QED. This term restores modular invariance and precisely fills the missing region of the complex
plane.

I. INTRODUCTION Following this analogy with point-particle gauge

At present, there is only one satisfactory field theory of
closed strings, which is the original light-cone theory.
Unfortunately, the various Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin
(BRST} approaches are all plagued by fundamental
difficulties. The "covariantized light-cone" approach, '
for example, yields an infinite overcounting of the
Shapiro-Virasoro amplitude. The symmetric theories '
based on Ref. 6 do not reproduce the Shapiro-Virasoro
amplitude at all. Both approaches, furthermore, violate
modular-invariance, which is either overcounted or un-
dercounted.
In this paper, we apply an entirely new approach,
called geometric string field theory, to closed-string field
theory which avoids these problems and produces a
modular-invariant theory. In Ref. 9, we show that it
reproduces the Shapiro-Virasoro amplitude in the mid-
point, end-point, and interpolating gauge, both analyti-
cally and by computer.
The key to this approach is to follow the analogy with
general relativity and Yang-Mills theory, which can be
derived uniquely from two simple principles.
Global symmetry: the theory propagates pure spin-1
and spin-2 fields A„' and e„' which transform as irreduc-
ible representations of SU(N) and the Lorentz group.
Local symmetry: the theory is locally invariant under
SU(N) and general covariance.
(By "pure" we mean ghost-free states. We thus rule out
higher-derivative actions, such as I' and R .)
Once the gauge group is specified, then one can unique-
ly construct the tensor calculus, the connection fields, the
curvatures, and finally the action itself. The basic strategy
is
gauge group~connections~covariant derivatives
~curvatures~action . Global symmetry: the theory must propagate pure con-
theory, we define an entirely new local gauge group for
strings, the universal string group, from which the string
action can be uniquely derived. When generalized to in-
clude space-time supersymmetry, it becomes the unified
string group. The key to understanding the universal
string group is that the entire theory is defined in loop
space, i.e. , the space of unparametrized, physical, space-
time strings. Thus, the theory is independent of any par-
ticular parametrization or any background gravitational
metric g„,. The advantage of formulating the theory in
loop space is that we see the essential physical and
geometrical features of the theory stripped clean of un-
necessary artifacts left over from gauge fixing (e.g. ,
ghosts, midpoints, ghost number, ghost insertions, etc. ).
To each string C in loop space we associate its physi-
cal, invariant length:
L= I 0
dcr[X'(o )P ]'
By contrast, "rigid" BRST closed-string field theory is
based on the fictitious parametrization length:
27TCK = d CT (1.3)
0
which can be changed at any time in geometric string
field theory.
Unlike "rigid" BRST string field theories, the
geometric theory has a vierbein field e„~ which makes
possible local reparametrization invariance. Thus, the
fictitious parametrization length e can be changed at will
without changing the physical, invariant length. The
geometric theory, therefore, resembles general relativity
in its structure, except that the vierbein is not a propaga-
ting field.
We now derive the, closed field theory of strings
from two physical principles.

38 3052 1988 The American Physical Society

38 GEOMETRIC DERIVATION OF STRING FIELD THEORY FROM. . .
fields
nection A transforming as i rreps of Dijg S i ).
Local symmetry: the theory must be locally invariant
under the united string group and modular inuariant
These two principles uniquely specify the number of
basic fields in the theory, the tensor calculus for multiply-
ing and integrating over these fields, and finally the action
itself. When we gauge fix the geometric string field
theory and calculate scattering amplitudes, we obtain just
one copy of the Shapiro-Virasoro amplitude.
The basic fields of the theory are connection fields
which transform as irreps of the unified string group. In
this respect, the geometric theory resembles the ordinary
point-particle theory of a Yang-Mills field A interacting
with a vierbein e„' via a vierbein e„' and a connection field
co„' . The correspondence is given by
A„'~A~,
CO
s
~CO
a vp
~ep~
ep
where the usual point-particle fields are given on the left
and the geometric string fields are given on the right.
Because we have the freedom of choosing any particu-
lar parametrization we desire, there are three ways in
which we can fix the gauge in our theory. First, we can
let the string states in our three-string vertex have equal
parametrization length 2m. such that they interact via
their parametrization midpoints. We call this the mid
point gauge. Second, we can have the traditional light-
cone-like parametrization such that the sum of the pa-
rametrization lengths equals zero. We define the joining
or splitting point of three closed strings to be the "end
"
point. We call this the end point gau-ge (Of cou.rse,
closed-strings have no end. We merely define the joining
or splitting point to be the end point in analogy with the
open-string case. ) And finally, we have an intermediate
gauge, called the interpolating gauge, which has arbitrary
string lengths and smoothly interpolates between the
midpoint and end-point gauges. In summary:
midpoint gauge: ~
ct; ~
=a,
3
end-point gauge: g a, =0,
interpolating gauge: a; arbitrary
The surprising feature of the interpolating gauge is
that when we smoothly make the transition from the
end-point gauge to the midpoint gauge, an entirely new
closed four string interaction t-erm suddenly appears in the
action. It is the generalization of the four-string interac-
tion term first studied in Ref. 1 for open strings (except it
disappears in the end-point gauge and appears in the mid-
point gauge, which is exactly the opposite of the situation
for open strings). This new closed four-string interaction,
which is essential for modular invariance, is studied in
Ref. 9, where we show by direct computer calculation
that the four-string interaction is absolutely necessary to
reproduce just one copy of the complex plane.
The geometric theory also gives us previously un-
3053
known ways in which to triangulate moduli space for
closed strings. At present, there is only one way to tri-
that is via the old light-cone theory. "
angulate moduli space via closed-string field theory, and
Now, we have
several new ways. In the midpoint gauge, we triangulate
moduli space with cylinders of equal circumference but
unequal length via three- and four-string interactions
(three-string vertices alone will undercount moduli
space). In the end-point gauge, we reproduce the triangu-
lation found in the light-cone theory, with cylinders of
unequal circumference and unequal (but correlated)
lengths interacting only via three-string vertices. (The
lengths are correlated because of the presence of proper
„ time. } In the interpolating gauge, we can triangulate
moduli space with cylinders of unequal circumference
and unequal (but correlated) lengths interacting in three-
and four-string vertices.
Lastly, we should mention that our end-point gauge
(1.4) differs significantly from Refs. 2 and 3, although they use
the same vertices. There is no overcounting in our end-
point gauge due to the string length, because the parame-
trization length is a gauge fiction. Moreover, the triangu-
lation of moduli space is completely different from that of
Refs. 2 and 3, where the cylinders are of unequal cir-
cumference and are of unequal and uncor related in
length. Thus, the formalism of Refs. 2 and 3 apparently
has seven Teichmuller parameters for each interior hole,
rather than six, with the extra, unwanted parameter corn-
ing from the fact that the lengths of the cylinders are un-
correlated because proper time is not present.
In a later paper, we will prove that our theory, by con-
trast, is modular invariant to all orders in loops.
II. THE STRING GROUP
We begin by defining IC) to be the infinite-
dimensional set of unparametrized, space-time strings in
loop space. Let us discuss open strings first. We define a
triplet as three open (oriented) strings arranged as in Fig.
1. We define an antitrip/et as a configuration with the
orientation of open strings 1,2, 3 reversed in order.
We define two strings C and C to be conjugates if they
(1.5)
.
FIG. 1. A "triplet" of open strings. Three oriented un-
parametrized physical strings Cl, C2, C3 in space-time form a
triplet if they can be arranged cyclically as in the diagram such
that the end of one string coincides with the beginning of the
other.
3054 MICHIO KAKU 38

appear in the same triplet. We now define the universal

string group (USG) as the set of all maps of the points in a
physical string C into itself and all its conjugates:

'
C~C,
USG: (2. 1)
C~C .
We will devote the next two sections to defining an expli-
cit form for the generators of the USG and writing down
its irreducible representations. Our claim is that the
string field theory can be uniquely specified by gauging FIG. 2. Three unparametrized open strings in space-time
the universal string group when we follow our basic stra- which appear in the Jacobi identity. Notice that C& is conjugate
tegy (1.1). to C„which in turn is conjugate to C3, but C& is not conjugate
For each open-string C, we associate an abstract group to C3. Thus, the Jacobi identity is satisfied because 1 —1+0=0.
generator I.c. Notice that C is now an infinite index, la- Notice that there is no such thing as a parametrization mid-
beling an point.
Ro
Ri-2
transfinite, nondenumerable number of states. cannot simply generalize to closed strings.
For each open triplet, we can define the number: (2) Antisymmetric c number -structure constants do not
exist for the closed strin-g case On. ly symmetric c-number
+1 for triplets, structure constants are possible. If one tries to construct
a constant tensor which is antisymmetric in two strings,
fc c c = '
I 2 3
1 for antitriplets, (2.2)
then one can always smoothly deform the strings into the
0 otherwise . opposite order. Thus, the constant tensor must be sym-
metric, or zero.
Let C represent the string C with reversed orientation. (3) The Jacobi identities are not satisfied. For example,
We now define the structure constants of the (open-) in Fig. 3 we have a candidate for a triplet of three closed
string grogp as strings with equal parametrization length. However, a
C3 straightforward application of the Jacobi equation for
(2.3)
2 three closed strings based on Fig. 3 yields a new diagram
as in Fig. 4. This diagram contributes the following to the
fc, c, = fc, c,
C3 C3
. (2.4) Jacobi identity:
The algebra for the (open-) string group is therefore
1+1+1~0 (2.9)
C3
SG:lLc, Lc, l=fc, c,Ls (2.5)
which is not acceptable. The Jacobi identity based on
It is easy to show that the Jacobi identity is satisfied for Fig. 3 will always produce tetrahedron configurations
this algebra: which are symmetrical in all three strings. Thus, no
matter how we might tamper with the algebra, me can
(Lc, lLc, Lc, ]]+(perm)=0, (2.6) never satisfy the Jacobi identities with Fig. 3 as our vertex
What is needed, obviously, is a rather radical departure
C4
fc, c,fc,sc, +fc, c,fc,sc, +fc,4c,fc,sc, =0 .
4
(2.7) from the open-string case. In order to surmount these
fundamental diSculties, we must make a fundamental
To show this explicitly, take the configurations for the
strings 1, 2, and 3 as shown in Fig. 2. A careful applica-
tion of the identities shows that (2.7) can be written as
1 —1+0=0 (2.8)
proving the Jacobi identities for Fig. 2. We emphasize
that the Jacobi identities close independent of any param-
etrization or any background gravitational metric.
We call (2.5) a transfinite Lie algebra
Let us now generalize this discussion to the case of
closed strings. Immed&ately, we see severe problems
which will require nontrivial modifications for the
closed-string case. There are three reasons why a naive
generalization of (2.5) is not possible.
(I) Antitriplets do not exist for closed strings. Any trip-
let, in fact, is its own antitriplet. By rotating a triplet of FIG. 3. The arrangement of three parametrized closed
closed strings, we can always smoothly deform it into its "
strings in the "midpoint gauge. The Jacobi identity ca@not be
antitriplet. Thus, the formalism invented for open strings satisfied for this definition of a triplet of strings.
38 GEOMETRIC DERIVATION OF STRING FIELD THEORY FROM. .. 3055

FIG. 5. The correct definition of a triplet of three closed un-

FIG. 4. When calculating the Jacobi identity for the "mid- parametrized strings. Notice that a physical string fissions at a
"
point gauge, we find that totally symmetric tetrahedron-type point, creating two smaller physical strings.
graphs appear. Thus, the Jacobi identity is not satisfied because
1+1+1&0. Higher-order string graphs are needed to form an definition of our triplet.
algebra. This is, in fact, the reason why tetrahedron-type Second, to solve the remaining problems, we must
graphs occur in the action in the midpoint gauge as a gauge ar- necessarily dePne LC for closed strings to be fermionic
tifact in order to restore modular invariance. (Grassmann odd) in loop space:

tLC, Lc, j=fc,'c, Lc, (2. 11)

change in our approach.
First, to eliminate the unwanted tetrahedron graph
which spoils the Jacobi identity, we are forced to define a
triplet of closed strings as in Fig. 5, such that
ILi I+ IL2 = IL3 I I
(2. 10)
where L, is given by (1.2) and is the physical, invariant
length of the ith string (not its parametrization length).
By iterating this choice in the Jacobi identity, we find
that the tetrahedron diagram does not exist, and hence
we should be able to close the algebra. Thus, we must
treat Fig. 5, rather than Fig. 3 as the fundamental
I
because the structure constant is necessarily symmetric in
1 and 2. Because Lc is fermionic, this means that the
r C3
structure constant fc 1
c2 is also fermionic, such that the
right-hand side becomes bosonic. It seems strange that
anticommutators appear in a theory of bosonic strings,
but we have no choice in the matter because antisym-
metric c-number expressions are impossible to write
down in loop space for closed strings.
To concretize our choice for the string algebra, let us
make the following definitions. Notice that Fig. 5, be-
cause it is not totally symmetrical, allows us to define the
outer and inner strings within a triplet. Then we define

+1 ( —1) for triplets if C3 =outer (inner) string,

fc|C~C3 (2. 12)
0 otherwise,

where fc c c 2 3
is symmetric in 1 and 2. If C is the loop When written out explicitly, this identity becomes
space string C with reversed orientation, then we define AC4 AC5 AC4 AC5 AC4 AC5
C3
fc, c,fc, c, +fc, c,fc, c, +fc, c,fc, c, =0 (2. 17)
fcic2 =fcic2C3 . (2. 13)
The proof of this identity is not hard, but requires a care-
Finally, our structure constant is defined as ful analysis of the location of the fermionic c number i, 23.
In Fig. 6, we see several configurations for which we must
f =fC|C2
C3
Ci C2 Ci n C2 rl C3 (2. 14) calculate the Jacobi identity. Let the intersection points
be represented as i, and ib. Then Fig. 6 contributes the
where i is a Grassmann number defined at the end (join- following to the Jacobi identity:
ing splitting) point of three strings:
6(a): i, ib+ibi, +0=0,
end point:—C, AC2 flC3 (2. 15)
6(b): i, ( ib)+0+— ( i, )( ib)=0, —
—
Notice that our closed-string structure constant is now
fermionic, as desired. 6(c): i, (ib)+(i— b )( i, )+0=0, —
The whole point of introducing this Grassrnann-type (2. 18)
construction is to satisfy the Jacobi identities. Let us
A
6(d): ( ib )( ib )+( i, )(—
A
—
i, )+—0=0,
now calculate the Jacobi identity for this structure con-
6(e): ( i, )( ib ) + (—i b )(—ig )+ 0 =0— , —
stant. The key identity we must show is
6(f): ( —~. )( —ib )+ 0+ (™i,)( —ib ) = 0 .
[LC, I LC, LC, I ]+ I.LC, I LC, Lc, l i
Thus, all the Jacobi identities are satisfied.
+lLC ILc Lc )i=0. (2. 16) In summary, we have now shown that a closed-string
3056 MICHIO KAKU 38

(a)

f™,
E. ~3
(c)

(e)

FIG. 6. %'hen calculating the Jacobi identity for closed triplet configurations given by Fig. 5, we find considerably more graphs
than for the case of open strings, given by Fig. 2. All these contributions cancel identically to zero, but only if an anticommuting c
"
number is placed at the "end point, i.e., the joining-splitting point where three strings meet. In physical space, the string algebra is
therefore not a true Lie algebra. Only when we introduce parametrizations does the algebra become a traditional Lie algebra.

generalization of the string group exists, but the algebra III. INVARIANTS FOR THE STRING GROUP
is based on anticommutators and the structure constants
are Grassmann numbers. Now that we have defined the string group in loop
It is essential to notice that the open and closed strings space, let us now define invariants. Let us first discuss
are, in some sense, opposites. The open-string algebra representations of the open-string case. Let the contra-
(2.5) closed with triplet configurations given in Fig. 1, so variant states e & represent an abstract set of basis
I

that the midpoint gauge has vierbein measure det e„"~ states for the algebra. Let its covariant dual be represent-
ed as (ec . We define the scalar product as
I I

equal to one (and hence has no four-string interaction). In I

the end-point gauge, because the measure is not equal to

c, '&=fic',
one, there must be an open four-string interaction. The I

situation is reversed for the closed string. There, because where

the string algebra (2. 11) closes for configurations like Fig.
5, the end-point configuration appears with measure c, = +1 if C) —Q2,
fic',
equal to one, and hence has no four-string interaction. (3 2)
0 otherwise .
However, the midpoint gauge has a nonvanishing mea-
sure, and hence has a four-string interaction. ' In sum- (It is easy to show that 5c' transforms as a genuine con-
1
mary, we have, symbolically for the four-string contribu-
stant tensor under the string group. We can also show
tion to the action,
that the raising and lowering metric in the theory gc l ~2 is
Open strings just the operator shown by a tilde which reverses the
orientation of a string. }
L(P ) =0 in midpoint gauge, Let us define the adjoint representation of the string
group. Let the action of the generators on the basis states
L(P )&0 in end-point gauge . be represented as
Closed strings
Lc, e '&=I fc,'c, I
e '&— (3.3)
L(P )=0 in end-point gauge,
Lc, ec, &=fc,'c, ec, .
I I
&

L(P )&0 in midpoint gauge .

(By hitting these identities with another Lc and taking
Both open and closed-string theories have four-string in- the commutator, we can show that this forms a genuine
teractions for the interpolating gauge. representation of the string algebra. )
38 GEOMETRIC DERIVATION OF STRING FIELD THEORY FROM. . . 3057

In this representation, we can write an explicit form for the string algebra A is now also fermionic. For example,
the generators: the variation of covariant and contravariant fields is
given by
(3.4)
50 '=A 'f '
3 2
Let us now define the group element as (3. 14)
~C3
54c, =
C2
O=e
A Lc
(3.5)
A fc c 4c,
and its matrix elements in this basis as
where Pc and P are independent fields.
The crucial point is that two invariants are possible un-
&ec, ~0~e '&=Oc', (3.6) der the (closed-) string group:

where A is a gauge parameter. 5(PXP)=5(gcg )=0,

Let us now define the action of the group on covariant
and contravariant fields Pc and P . We wish the com-
5(PXPXP)=5(fc Pc P 'f; )=0. (3. 15)

bination
(3.7) IV. UNIVERSAL STRING GROUP

to be an invariant. Thus, What is remarkable is that we have been able to con-

struct a group theory analysis on strings in loop space,
(3.&) totally independent of any parametrization or any classi-
Written out in components, this states cal background gravitational metric. This next step is to
generalize the string group (SG) to include parametriza-
C
0c, =ac, 4c, . (3.9) tion. In other words, we wish to combine the string group
with the reparametrization group Diff(Si ) which is gen-
Infinitesimally, the fields transform as erated by L„L„. [T—
his is a subgroup of the full group
Diff(Si ), which is generated by both L„and L„.] When
54c, =~
C~ C3
fc, c, 0c, the Virasoro algebra is married to the Kac-Moody alge-
(3. 10) bra, we combine them by taking the semidirect product.
1
A 2f 1
y
3
Similarly, we will show that we can take the semidirect
3 2
product of the string group SG with Diff(S, )
In this basis, the generators can be defined as
USG
C, C,
Lc, =fc, c, 4 Diff(S, )
(3. 11) This is a fundamental equation for the geometric theory.
C3
Lc, =fc, c, 0c, 5 Later, when we gauge fix our action, we will use this
&C2 equation to fix the parametrization of our theory. [In a
forthcoming paper, we will show how to include the en-
The point of this section is to show the existence of in- tire group Diff(Si) in the USG. ]
variants under this algebra. It is now easy to show that Let us now introduce a parametrization for the string
there are two such invariants: C, given by X„(cr ), where o ranges from 0 to 2ma such
5(PXP)=5(gc(() )=0, that X„(0)=X„(2~a). Two parametrizations X and Y
(3.12) are defined to be in the same equivalence class if they
5(QXQXQ)=5(fc, c, c, f P P )=0 parametrize the same space-time string C:

We have now shown that P and P are invariants under X —Y if Y„(cr)=X„(cr)+e(cr,X)X„'(o ) . (4. 1)
the (open )string gr-oup, independent of any parametriza
[Notice that e(o, X) is a function of the string state X,
tion of the string, parametrization midpoints, or indepen
meaning that our gauge group is a local one. Thus, the
dent of any background classical space time geomet-ry
reparametrization of a string C depends on its particular
Let us now generalize these results for the closed-string parametrization X. Each string therefore has its own in-
case. We begin by defining the action of the group gen- dependent Virasoro group of reparametrizations. ]
erator on the basis states for closed strings: Let us now associate Lx with L& in the following
LC, e
' = 'c, f e fashion:
I c,
& I

r C3 (3.13) Lc~Lx —Lx [~l& x [ 2] . x [~w (4.2)

Lc, ec, &=
I fc, c, ec, . I
&
—
where the number X of evenly spaced points along the
(The correctness of this definition can be checked by ap- parametrized string goes to infinity. Lx and Lz belong to
plying another Lc to these identities and verifying that the same equivalence class if X and Y belong to the same
the Jacobi identities are reproduced. ) The major change equivalence class.
from the open-string case is that the gauge parameter for In order to write down the algebra of the generators of
3058 MICHIO KAKU 38

the universal string group, let us now define how to make mation convention:
a transformation on the parametrized string:
cr~o+e(o ) . (4.3)
A 8 = f
0
do A(cr)8(o)= g A "8 (4.5)

Let us now introduce Fourier components (keeping in where A has weight n and 8 has weight 1 — n, such that
mind that this is a bit dangerous; the Fourier decomposi- the product has weight 1, so that A 8 is invariant un-
tion of a string is actually a gauge-dependent choice in a der global reparametrizations.
theory which is independent of parametrizations; howev- Now let us make this reparametrization on a covariant
er, we will give the Fourier decomposition of our fields in string functional:
order to make contact with "rigid" BRST theories once
we fix the gauge). We define fiyx= f '"dae(a)X
nor no =& ~ -4x (4.6)
e(0)=e = g e'"cos +e""sin
tin
n=1 a a
where
inrr—/a
&
y
ll
&ne (4.4)
a. =X~ a„. (4.7)

where we emphasize with the symbol e that 0. labels a (and there is no summation or integration over cr). To be
specific representation of Diff(S, ). We will use the sum- specific, let us choose the following parametrization:

no. . no. —inc/a)

X" =xio+ Q &2in x„'"cos +~„"~sin
~q
" =x"0 +i 1
(a"—
ne
ma/a+ai'e
n=1 a a 7

g &,
n~O
r (4.8}
5
+ B„„sin no
1 ncr r, . 1 —ina/a
e me/a+
1
Bo„+ 2n B„„cos OP P a P
e
2 n~O

where ~. =2~ X aian-i . (4. 12)

[gp~s Xva') fivfirr0'

P
(2~a') —lfivP ge in(cr rr')/a- (4.9) (We will use the symbol L„ to represent the abstract
Virasoro operator, independent of X.) Our final result is
The oscillator decomposition is given by
e 8 = f
0
do e(a)X„'(a)
5X„a.
n
= ye"(a„—3 „). (4. 13)

Let us now replace 8 with the more abstract opera-

a'„= 2 ' (a„+a„), tor L . It generates the group Diff(S,
reparametrization
which is the
subgroup of Diff(S, ) containing only
),
(4.10}
a'„'=2 ' (a„—a„), the L„— L „generators, not the full set, where

2&n
L =
2&a
g(L„L„).
n
—

We now define the universal string group through its

2v'n algebra:

Using this notation, we can now write down an explicit

representation for the operator which generates
reparametrizations in cr. Specifically, we find
8, USG:
Lp)=f P
[L,Lx) =e "d L», (4. 14)

=X'" 8 = ILx Lrj=fxrLz

8 pe'" (a„—
3 „) (4.11)
2a& n
The first line of (4. 14) is nothing but the familiar
where we use the symbol 8„ to represent the Virasoro Virasoro algebra written in our new notation, and the in-
generators in the X basis: dices o. , p, co vary continuously from 0 to 2m. a and
38 GEOMETRIC DERIVATION OF STRING FIELD THEORY FROM. . . 3059

f =5(p —o )5'(co —p)+n5(co —o )5'(p —o ), vanish at the end points and then make
dependent variables. This corresponds
a and 0 into in-
to making the
where the weight n =2. The second line of (4. 14) de- decomposition:
scribes how the generators of the string group transform
under reparametrizations. It shows that the universal Diff(S, ) =D S, Diff(S, } (4. 16)
string group is the semidirect product of the reparametri-
where D is the dilatation subgroup which rescales the pa-
zation group and the string group. The third line of (4. 14)
rarnetrization length, S, is the angular rotation group,
describes the string group itself, where we will define the
and Diff(S, ) is the subgroup which preserves the pa-
structure constant shortly.
In general, the irreducible representations of the USG rametrization length but changes the internal parametriz-
are unknown. However, we have been able to identify ation of o. Then the reparametrization e and the
three. reparametrization operator 8 can be Fourier decom-
(1} The adjoint representation of the string group, posed into components as follows:
represented as Px and P . Thus, the field functional e = I5a, e"),
/[X] is not a scalar, but a vector transforming as the ad-
joint representation of the string group. 5
(2) The set U of Verma modules, represented by the set a cr— a', 8„—3
of states which transform like the products of raising
operators in the universal enveloping algebra: where we have explicitly isolated the dilatation part of

)=L. '„L '„L, '„L",L",

N ~1 ~2
L'~
~M 1
}, the reparametrization group. Then the total reparametri-
zation operator becomes

(4. 15) e 8 =5a

6a
+ g e"(8„—
8 „).
where a represents a large collection of integers with
n; & n;+, and p; & p;+, . The representation is irreducible With this second decomposition, we find that the in-
if tegration variable becomes

2)X=dad8g dX"", (4. 17)

In fact, g ~= (e 1e~) is the raising operator and (g ~)
is the lowering operator for contravariant and covariant
vectors in this space. An invariant combination is given where 0 is the angle of rotation of the string.
by Normally, for open strings, this distinction between
these two parametrizations does not rnatter. In the
open-string case, the delta-function overlap condition in
the vertex can be changed by a reparametrization in ei-
where is a covariant field transforming as an element
P, ther fashion, with equal result. Furthermore, we can al-
of V. We will use the greek letters a, P, y to represent ir- ways fix the pararnetrization lengths of all open strings to
reducible Verma modules. (We will also use a to be equal from the very beginning in the geometric theory,
represent the parametrization length of the string. It will so treating a independent of the X„modes has no impact.
be clear from the context which letter we are referring In the second decomposition, in fact, we find that the on-
to. ) shell states obey
(3) The set S of string states P of weight n. We will use
the greek letters o. , p, co to represent these states, where 5
14 & physical
the continuous index ranges from 0 to 2m. a.
Before continuing our discussion of the parametriza-
tion of our string, it is essential to note that there is an so that the parametrization length drops out of the S ma-
ambiguity in how we specify the reparametrization of the trix.
string length. Traditionally, in string theory the operator In the closed-string case, however, we saw that the
L„— L „contained within 0 is used to change the configuration given by 1L, + 1L2 = L3 is the pre-
1 1 1 1

internal parametrization as well as rescale the overall
string length 2m. a. This is the formalism we have used in
(4. 13}. However, this is at times not the most convenient
parametrization. If, for example, we set e(0)=e(2m. a)
=0, then the rescaling o. ~o. +o5a/a is incompatible
with this boundary condition unless we take the boun-
daries an infinitesimal distance away from 2m. a. Also, the
Jacobian of the transformation from one X to another pa-
rarnetrization is infinite under rescalings. Similarly, the
Jacobian from one parametrization X to another which is
rotated by an angle L9 is also infinite.
The second parametrization we can use is to set E(cr ) to
ferred one in order to close the algebra. Thus, we do not
have the freedom of choosing all parametrization lengths
equal at the very beginning of gauge fixing. As a conse-
quence, the second formalism based on (4. 16) is preferred
over the first for the closed-string case.
Let us now write down an explicit construction of the
structure constants of the universal string group. We be-
gin with the pararnetrized vertex of Fig. 3 where the a,
are arbitrary. Let a, be the pararnetrization length of the
line which is common to the ith and jth string. Since the
parametrization lengths of each of the closed strings can
be arbitrary, we have
3060 MICHIO KAKU 38

12 + a 13 2~+1 stants, the resulting object is still a member of a Verrna

module. Thus, the constant f„p is a Clebsch-Gordan
a12+ a 23 2ma2 (4. 18) coefficient for the tensor product of two different repre-
sentations of the reparametrization group:
a]3+a23 —2m a3 ~

We want a vertex function ~

V ~ x which satisfies V(3) S~V . (4.23)
1 2 3
(with arbitrary a;) Let a field P transform as a covariant field under
Diff(S] ). Then
r'r n [X;(o;) 8; —
X(.b; —oi)] V &x —0,
5$ =e fP (4.24}
~

i & j 0&o, &2ma tJ]p,

where

where L ~e &=f:p eP& . (4.25}

~]2 @ o]) Written out in detail, this transformation rule (4.24) can
]2
be expressed as
~]3=~(2~ ~3 I o] )@o]—a]2 }
=g f do e(o)f
~

5$ ~Pl~
}Pp. (4.26)
~23 @a23 o2) IPl
(4.20)
b12
—2mu2 M ~

Our objective is to absorb the troublesome term i into a

b ]3 2]r t23 + a ]2 matrix element on Verma modules. Let us now generalize
our generators of the USG to L~, where alpha labels a
~ ~

b23 member of a Verma module. Thus let us define

Notice that the vertex function that we have just defined
is a gauge-fixed one; i.e. , the fictitious pararnetrization
f P'=&e ~
&e ~
(e' (4.27}

lengths are all fixed. The structure constant for the where ~ tangent„t by definition satisfies
Valapa3 &„„s,
group can now be written as the gauge-fixed vertex with
the insertion of an extra vector field which allows us to P nj 0&o,n&2~a, (L a. ~ijL].. —a } I Va]a2a3 &
tansent =0
change the parametrization at will: i &

f —lim gj Q~o.g&2' $(X.(tT, ) 6],JXJ(b J o J )), (4.28)

12 ig
because of the continuity condition (4. 19). Notice that
(4.21) this vertex function is entirely defined within the space of
Verma modules which, we shall see in the next section,
where o =o+ P.
Notice that by summing over all possi- defines the tangent space of the theory.
ble P, we automatically sum over all possible parame- (4.27) and (4.28) are actually sufficient to determine the
trizations of our vertex. For small (but nonvanishing)
a]2, summing over means summing over the end-p
Clebsch-Gordan coefficients in
tensor product decomposition
f
p", which occur in the

point, midpoint, and interpolating gauge vertices with a

certain measure or weight attached to each vertex. In VV~V .
particular, notice that P=O corresponds to the end- The complete vertex function for the theory will be the
point gauge. [We note that in integrating over d8 in product of the base-space vertex and the tangent space
(4. 17), we automatically include the following factor in vertex:
our theory
i.
e(L. o —I.o )
dOe
To calculate these tangent space coefficients, we simply
We will comment more on this in a forthcoming paper. ] move each of the L„contained in the Verma modules,
We are not yet finished.
M
In order to remove the strange reflect them off the vertex function until they turn into
~

anticornmuting factor i in our algebra, we will find it con- L „, and then annihilate them on the other Verma
venient to generalize our algebra so that the string gen- modules. After a sufficiently large number of reflections,
erators are Verma modules themselves. We wish to re- all L„disappear, leaving the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient
place Lz with Lz. To do this, we must define how Ver- as the only numerical factor.
rna modules transform under the USG. Consider the Our final form for the algebra of the universal string
identity group is
L„~ e &=f p eP&, (4.22) [L,L ]=f" L
..Lrl=fxvf
~

where
shove
fL„directly
is a constant. For positive
into the Verma
or negative n, we can
module. Because the
USG: [L. ]=~ a.
L. L. +~ fP. ~ (4.29)

commutator of the L„'s produces more L„'s and con- [Lx 'L5 .
38 GEOMETRIC DERIVATION OF STRING FIELD THEORY FROM. . . 3061

The advantage of this formalism with Verma modules is (4.33)

that we have now dispensed with the Grassmann-valued
structure constants and instead have a traditional Lie
algebra. This is because f
~r is antisymmetric. The fac-
tor i has now. been absorbed into the Clebsch-Gordan
coefficient ~r.f
In principle, we need never actually calculate the where 0.; represents the joining point of three strings.
C1ebsch-Gordan coefficients, since we can in principle nu- [There are some subtleties with regard to defining the
merically calculate all of them via (4.27) and (4.28). vacuum of the Verma module because we must achieve
However, it will prove convenient to actually calculate an the correct statistics. This will be discussed in another pa-
expression for them in order to make contact with the per. This vertex, in the end-point gauge, essentially
midpoint and end-point gauge. reproduces the vertex of Refs. 2 and 3, except the inter-
Let us now construct an explicit form of the vertex pretation here is different. In the geometric formalism,
function. We need the conformal map which takes us this vertex function is actually the structure constant of
froR the upper half plane to the configuration represent- the gauge group (the universal string group) in a specific
ed in (4. 19). The map is parametrization. ]
In Ref. 8, it was shown that this vertex function can
p(z ) = —a lln(z —1) —a2lnz smoothly interpolate between the end-point gauge and
3 the midpoint gauge without any singularities:
+ g a„ln[(az +bz+c)' +(a„z+b„)],
a a2a 3 interpolating a 1 a 2a 3 end point
~p
&
1
12
where
a a a ~ interpolating ~aaa ~midpoint '
al2 —a2+a3 —a 2l+ a2+ I
2 2 2 2
a3 a,. a
a, =
l

Q2= 7
2al 2a2
2 2 —2 V. TANGENT SPACE AND CONNECTIONS
a&+a2 a3
a3= —a3, bl ——
The second step in our basic strategy (1.1) is to intro-
2al
(4.30) duce connection fields, but first, let us say a few words
al2 —a22 —a33 about the necessity of a tangent space in our theory. For
—2a3 the case of four-dimensional Dirac spinors interacting
with gravity, it is well known that a tangent space is re-
b =at2 —ap —
2
2
a =a3, 2
a3, c =a22 . quired because there are no finite-dimensional spinor rep-
Notice that this map has the same structure as the con- resentations of GL(4). Thus, the Dirac spinor
forms under local Lorentz transformations as
trans- f
formal map found in the open-string case in the interpo-
lating gauge. The difference is now we must consider the 5$ =[a""(x)tr„]$P, (5. 1)
entire complex z plane, not just the upper half plane.
To show this mapping has the correct analytic struc- where cr„„ is a spinorial representation of the Lorentz
ture, we can show by a direct but tedious calculation that generators. However, the spinor transforms under gen-
eral covariance as
dp (z —z ) (z —z )
—1) (4.31) 5$ =e"(x)B„Q' . (5.2)
dz z(z
where zp and zp are the roots of az +bz+c=0. This The total Lorentz generator is actually the sum of the x-
shows that the points z = 0, 1,
(x) correspond to the dependent Lorentz generator and the Lorentz generator
three closed strings at infinity in the p plane, while zp and for the tangent space:
zp correspond to the points in the p plane where the three
Mpv =X+v X vpp+ (trpv)p (5.3)
strings join.
Given the conformal map, it is possible to construct where o.„„are Dirac matrices which transform like the
the coefficients of the Neumann function N „which ap- generators of the Lorentz group.
pears in the vertex function. We can always write them as Thus, the spinor g transforms differently under two
— &[ ] —"&['] local gauge groups:
.. 2
mn
mn(2@i ) O(3, 1) spinor,
general covariant scalar . (5.4)
(4.32)
These Neumann coefficients N„"' satisfy a large number In addition, we can introduce the Dirac matrix which
of identities which are tabulated in Ref. 8. They can be operates in the tangent space. Let e ) be a spinor state I

written explicitly in terms of a power expansion with within the universal enveloping algebra of O(3, 1). Let y"
known coefficients. The final form of the vertex function be some vector operator. Then
is then just given by the product of left- and right-moving
oscillators: (r").it= e. & I
1'" I
ep& . (5.5)
3062 MICHIO KAKU 38

If S represents the set of spinor states, and V represents dependent part and the tangent space contribution. Let
the set of vector states, then the Dirac matrix can be M represent the generators of the full Diff(Si ), not just
represented as the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for the fol- its reparametrization subgroup. Then
lowing tensor product decomposition:
M =8+L (5. 11)
Ug S~S . (5.6)
The commutator of M with itself must reproduce the
A similar situation applies for the string theory. The usual Virasoro algebra:
field Px cannot transform in X space under the full
Diff(S, ), as required by our first principle, because it is [M, M j=f M +(D —26) (5. 12)
impossible to form a representation of DifPSi) with a (When we choose a specific representation for the tangent
function of X„(o ) alone. For example, it is well known space generators, we will find that the total Virasoro gen-
that the combinations erator closes only in 26 dimensions. D comes from the
1 base space, while — 26 comes from the tangent space. )
4m Finally, let us introduce a Dirac-type matrix which
operates within the tangent space. We define the Dirac-
1 cine la type matrix as follows:
2m. a
(5.7) (e ~ep)=(y ) p (5. 13)
~y
. 1
— t
( )
i 8„—
4a X&~ which is the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for the tensor
oo
product decomposition:
&incr/a
27Ta
V(3) S~V . (5. 14)
form a representation of the full Diff(S, ), but not X by it-
self. In general, functions of X„(tr) can only transform Notice that (y ) p is totally specified as soon as we define
under the smaller o reparametrization groups Diff(S, ) the transformation properties of y . For example, if we
generated by
and L„separately.
L„L„, whi—
le Diff(S, ) is generated by L„ define y to have weight — 1, then

For example, a Verma module Px transforms under the (5. 15)

full Diff|S, ) group as

=e (X)f for n = —l. If we move the various L„within the Verma

fikx pox (5.8)
module ( e to the right and the various L
~
operators
However, under a reparametrization in X, it transforms ~
ep) to the left, then eventually all factors of L„can be
under the smaller Diff(S, ) as eliminated completely as they all annihilate on the vacu-
um. All that is left is
(5.9)
Diff(S, ) thus transforms the index a, while Diff(S, ) &e. lr Iep)=(r ).p«lr'I» (5. 16)
transforms the index X.
Let us define a conformal representation as one which By fixing the value of (0 y' 0), we can determine this
transforms under the full Diff(S&). For example, func- Clebsch-Gordan
~ ~

coefficient nuinerically. (Notice that

tions of both 0 and ~ can transform as conformal repre- there are no complications with regard to "ghost count-
sentations. "
ing, since there are no ghosts. In fact, the role of ghosts
Thus, to satisfy the first principle, we must necessarily is to provide a specific way in which to numerically calcu-
introduce a tangent space because there are no irreducible late the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients in a specific repre-
conformal representations of Dijon S, ) . In the same way, sentation. )
a tangent space is required for spinors because there are As we shall shortly see, this tangent space will eventu-
no finite-dimensional spinor representations of GL(4). ally become the "ghost sector" of the string theory.
This explains the origin of the mysterious "ghost sector" Thus, geometric string field theory gives us an elegant in-
of the BRST theory. We see that it is just the tangent terpretation of the origin of the "ghost sector. "
space of our geometric theory:
ghost sector~tangent space .
VI. CONNECTIONS AND CURVATURES
In summary, the field P» transforms as
Up to now, we have only been discussing the first step
a Diff(S, ) vector, of our strategy (1.1), the group theory. We now complete
X (5. 10) the second and third steps of our strategy, writing down
Diff(S, ) scalar .
the connections and curvatures for the theory. Let us
As in the spinorial case, we must write the total generator define two derivatives which transform upder the full
of reparametrizations as the sum of two parts: the X- Diff(Si ):
38 GEOMETRIC DERIVATION OF STRING FIELD THEORY FROM. . . 3063

~(+)=V(+)V+) we can define the measure and make contact with the
PO'
CJ PCT
tangent space. We need the vierbein to define a measure
'2
because the differential and derivative transform as
—
i d„+
1
X„'
4m

„eincr /a ax~
(6.4}
(6. 1)
PO d~ VP
a'-'= v'-'v'-' BX"
CT PO' PO'
The vierbein must have double the number indices ap-
—i(}„—1 X„' pearing in the coordinate. Since the coordinate has two
4m indices X", then the vierbein must have four indices:
e„"i'. The lower o index transforms under local Diff(S) )
e ina/a repararnetrizations. If we describe the space of all
(2ma) parametrized strings as "base space, then the lower e "
where we sum over the Lorentz index but not a. . Let us index transforms under reparametrizations of the base
now define space.
However, the upper p index transforms according to
V(+) g(+)+uL (+) local Diff(S) ) in the tangent space. To summarize show
the two spaces transform in the vierbein, let us write
We wish the cornrnutator between two covariant deriva-
tives to vanish: Base space: Diff(S) )

[V(+) V(+)] 0 Tangent space: Diff(S) ) .

where this identity is satisfied as a tensor equation acting We use the vierbein to construct invariants when con-
on irreducible representations of the group, modulo tracting over various indices. [In particular, notice that
terms which vanish upon contraction with y . It is easy vierbeins have to be inserted into B(a*' because we are tak-
to show that this identity then holds only if a = —,' (Ref. 8). ing the square of an operator. Thus, the vierbein must be
We can now construct an invariant operator corre- inserted into the expressions in (6. 1) in order to have a co-
sponding to 7 found in ordinary Dirac theory. We define variant tensor. ]
Thus, our invariant measure must be
+ y ~n(k)v(k)
~
e 2)X =det
~ ~
e„"i' ~
dad 8 g g dX"" . (6.5)
where y is the dilatation component of y under the
decomposition given in (4. 16). It is easy to check that Up to now, the connection field co~ and the vierbein
=0 2 e„p create a theory which is invariant under the transfor-
mation
if D = 26 and y is a Grassmann number. This is be-
cause 7 is a generalization of Q found in BRST theories. . X" =X" (X), (6.6)
+'
We now wish to apply V„' — in (5.7) and V'*' in (6. 1)
which is far too large. We do not want general covari-
onto Verma modules. However, we find immediately that
ance of the string variable (which would cause the string
these covariant derivatives need connection fields to satis-
to disintegrate) but only reparametrization of the string
fy local invariance. We define
variable. Thus, we wish to restrict the theory. We choose

(6.2) Vpoe gp Op R Ppo yp ~ 0 (6.7)

The first relation fixes the vierbein in terms of the field P.
The second fixes the connection cif„ in terms of the
vierbein. Thus, the entire theory is now defined totally in
The addition of the connection fields A and co„& were
terms of P, as desired.
essential in creating a genuine derivative covariant under
One last point must be discussed before we write down
the full USG, not just the smaller Diff(S, }.
the action, and this is proper time. The work of Ref. 10
Let us now take the commutator of two such deriva- shows that the counting of light-cone diagrams is impor-
tives:
tant if we wish to have a modular-invariant amplitude.
We generalize our expression (4. 16) for the contraction of
(6.3) two vectors transforming as elements of S. Specifically,
[V„,V —
]p R„„p
we must generalize our earlier definition of 7 to include
proper time. In a later paper we show that proper time
=V aco„ I)+co a cc)„p —()M(T~vt()} . arises when we generalize Diff(S, ) to Diff(S, ). We will
now define the Fourier components of our tensors as fol-
As in general relativity, we need a vierbein by which lows:
3064 MICHIO KAKU 38

Z= DA D exp i X

~cr — 55 ~
5
5
p~n where the functional integration over P sums over all
possible parametrizations of the loop space strings.
such that Now that we have written down the unique action
which satisfies our two original principles, our next task
&=y v: , y—
5
+y 5
5
+yy"v „, (6.8) is to fix the gauge. Notice that our action
variant under
is actually in-

where y is the component of y transforming under di- 5A =X (7.6)

latations in (4. 16). y, is a new constant tensor, which is
where
the partner of proper time. Both y and y, must be
Grassmann numbers to preserve P =0. The addition of y X 1e, &=0. (7.7)
proper time also means that the vacuum state of the
theory must be enlarged by multiplying it with products This local gauge symmetry allows us to gauge away the o.
of the conjugates of y and y, . There are four such terms index on A
one can construct out of these Grassmann states when With (7.6), we can make the replacement
combined with e &. We now define
1

(7.8)
Written out in full, this equation reads

1e &=+ Jdo y Aged&.

aI I~I
VII. ACTION AND GAUGE FIXING
Now, let us also fix the gauge group Diff(S, ) . Let us
Now that we have defined the connections and curva- choose
tures, we must now complete the fifth and last phase of
our strategy (1.1), which is to write down the action itself. P(X) =0 (7.9)
Our first choice might be in (4.21) which, as we have seen, corresponds to the end-
&F F (7. 1) point gauge. Our final action now reads

where 1F p&=F p1e &. However, this must be ruled (7. 10)
out because 5 is not a constant tensor of the theory. where we have omitted the integration over all a, .
This may seem strange, but this can be easily shown by Decomposing the action to And the on-shell conditions is
calculating the variation of not difficult, and resembles that found in Ref. 11, which
also introduced proper time. The on-shell conditions be-
gL„L„, gL „L„ (7.2)
come
and various combinations under Diff(S, ). None of them
14' & physical
are invariant; they all have the incorrect weight. In fact, 7
the only constant tensor that we can use is the Dirac-type 5
matrix y . Let us define a 0 &physicai=0
I ~

(7.3) so that the on-shell states are free of any parametrization

Notice that, although e""" for the Lorentz group can
only be of fourth rank, this tensor can be of any arbitrary
rank and still transform as a constant tensor.
Thus, our next logical choice is
&F eP sF
Unfortunately, this is a total derivative. Thus, our last
remaining hope of satisfying our two principles is the
Chem-Simons form associated with the above invariant.
Our last invariant choice is thus
X=det1e 1(& A XVpA &+ —
', & A X A&X
(where we have deliberately omitted the factor of e
the equation for clarity). This action is to be inserted into
the functional:
or proper time. It is not difficult to reduce the action
down totally to the physical state, which is then a light-
cone-type theory whose proper time evolution traces out
the Riemann surfaces of Ref. 10. [The calculation differs
from Ref. 11 in several ways. First, the basic state of Ref.
(7.4) 11, defined by ghost number, appears to be reducible un-
der Diff(S, ). Thus, there are probably more redundant
states in Ref. 11 than necessary. The reduction down to
physical states is complicated, however, because we have
defined our basic states in terms of irreducible representa-
tions of our gauge group, while the BRST formalism uses
ghosts. In Ref. 8 we showed the one-to-one correspon-
A &)
dence between open BRST states and gauge-fixed
(7.5) geometric fields. Second, there are no vierbeins in Ref.
11, so it is not possible to leave the end-point gauge for
in p any other gauge. ]
However, the physically interesting case involves tak-
ing the midpoint and interpolating gauge, rather than the
38 GEOMETRIC DERIVATION OF STRING FIELD THEORY FROM. . .
end-point gauge. Our Feynman
we use the vertex ~
V
1 2 3
& where g„a, &0. At first,
this seems to be a disaster, because the use of this vertex
function is known to undercount moduli space in the
midpoint gauge. However, the fundamental difference
between our gauge-fixed formalism and the work of Refs.
4 and 5 is that we have an extra measure term coming
from the factor det e„"i' . ~ ~
The removal of this measure factor can be accom-
plished as follows. We can always extract the presence of
the vierbein in any vertex function or field by using a
Taylor expansion. In (4.21}, for example, we can extract
out the dependence on as follows: P which transform as connections. Also, there is a string
i=1
3
II U. "I V. .. &= V
where
U
l
'=exp g e"(8„— „)
n
Q tion
And e" is the remnant of the vierbein which changes the
parametrization length of a string from a; to o.';.
It would thus be totally incorrect to use the midpoint
or interpolating vertices blindly in constructing an N-
point amplitude. Only the end-point gauge has the prop-
erty that the measure equals one, and hence N-point
functions can be constructed without keeping track of the
vierbein. When using the midpoint and interpolating
gauge, we must be careful to consider the vierbein mea-
sure term, which, by a X redefinition, can be recast in the
form of the U operator. Fortunately, there exists a large
body of identities which will allow us to eliminate the U
matrix entirely. Using (4.28), we can reflect L„off the
vertex function and covert it to a L . Thus, the new
vertex can be written totally in terms of the operator
L „.For infinitesimal e, we have
By using the above identity, we can write
&=exp(L" „N„"' 5a'
V )
~
1 2 3
where 5cz" is linearly related to the e" terms which
change the parametrization length of the string.
Notice that this demonstrates that the interpolating
gauge vertex has the same on-shell matrix elements as the
three-reg geon vertex function. However, the real
significance of this equation is that these factors of L
appear in the off-shell amplitudes. Thus, nontrivial con-
formal transformations take place when we remove these
factors of U arising from the vierbein.
By removing these vierbeins, we find that, in analogy
with the instantaneous four-fermion Coulomb term found
in QED, an entirely new closed four-string interaction
emerges in the interpolating gauge and midpoint gauge.
This closed four-string interaction solves the puzzle as to
why closed-string field theories seem to violate conformal
invariance. Details are presented in Ref. 9.
3065
rules then require that VIII. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the geometric string field theory pro-
vides a modular-invariant, gauge-covariant string field
theory which can derive the Shapiro-Virasoro amplitude.
Specifically, we note the following.
(1) The action (7.5) can be derived by gauging the
universal string group, the group which maps loop space
strings into themselves and all their conjugates. In order
to satisfy the Jacobi identities, the structure constants are
based on triplet configurations in loop space for Fig. 5,
not for Fig. 3.
(2) The group determines the basic fields of the theory,
vierbein e„ in the theory, which makes possible the
treatment of the parametrization length as a gauge degree
of freedom. Thus, there is no overcounting of the param-
etrization length.
(3} Gauge fixing is performed by using the decomposi-
USG
Diff(S) )
which demonstrates that the universal string group is the
semidirect product of the Virasoro group and the string
group.
(4) The ghost sector of the "rigid" BRST theory corre-
sponds to the tangent space of the geometric theory. The
various ghost representations of the fields and vertices are
representation-dependent ways of expressing Clebsch-
Gordan coefficients in the geometric theory.
(5) When gauge fixed, we have a new vertex, called the
interpolating vertex, which allows us to smoothly go be-
tween the end-point and the midpoint gauge.
(6) The measure equals one in the end-point gauge, but
is not equal to one in the midpoint gauge (opposite of the
situation in the open-string case). When the measure
(vierbein) is removed, the closed four-string interaction
emerges as the counterpart of the instantaneous Coulomb
term. This provides the missing piece which completes
the proof of modular-in variance for the geometric
theory.
+L" „N„"' 5a' (7) Proper time is introduced through Diff(S, ), so that
V
~
we have the modular-invariant light-cone-like counting of
Ref. 10. We thus have six Teichmiiller parameters for
each loop, which differs from the work of Refs. 2 and 3,
which apparently has seven Teichmuller parameters per
loop because internal string propagation distances are to-
tally uncorrelated.
If we describe deformations of a cylinder in terms of a
"twist" which rotates the cylinder, or a "stretch" which
lengthens it, or an "expansion" which increases its cir-
cumference, then we can count the number of
Teichmuller parameters for each loop for various gauges.
In a forthcoming paper, we will discuss the triangulation
of moduli space in various gauges for higher loop ampli-
tudes. We will show that different gauge triangulate
moduli space in different ways.
Midpoint gauge. three stretches, three twists.
End-point gauge: three twists, two stretches, one ex-
pansion.
3066 MICHIO KAKU
Interpolating gauge: three twists, two stretches, one
stretch/one expansion.
In the interpolating gauge, there is a subtle interplay
between the stretch and expansion modes which will be
fully explored in a forthcoming paper.
By contrast, the work of Refs. 2 and 3 apparently has
the following counting: three stretches, three twists, one
one expansion, adding up to seven Teichmiiller parame-
ters per loop, which is undesirable.
'M. Kaku and K. Kikkawa, Phys. Rev. D 10, 1110 (1974); 10,
1823 (1974).
A. Neveu and P.C. West, Phys. Lett. 168B, 192 (1986).
H. Hata, K. Itoh, T. Kugo, H. Kunitomo, and K. Ogawa,
Phys. Rev. D 34, 2360 (1987).
4J. Lykken and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B278, 256 (1986).
5S. Sen and R. Holman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1304 (1987); see
also A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B294, 93 (1987); J. Feng, Re-
port No. CALT-68-1466, 1987 (unpublished); G. Siopsis, Re-
port No. CTP-TAMU-633-87, 1987 (unpublished).
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B276, 291 (1986).
S. Giddings and E. Martinec, Nucl. Phys. B278, 91 (1986).
38
We will show in a later paper that our theory is modu-
lar invariant to all orders in perturbation theory.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank B. Sakita for stimulat-
ing conversations. This work was supported in part by
Contracts Nos. NSF-PHY-86-15338 and CUNY-
FRAP-RF-13873.
M. Kaku, Introduction to Superstring (Springer, New York,
1988); Int. J. Mod. Phys. A2, 1 (1987); Phys. Lett. B 200, 22
(1988); Reports Nos. CCNY-HEP-14-1986, CCNY-HEP-3-
1987, and CCNY-HEP-7-1988 (unpublished).
M. Kaku and J. Lykken, following paper, Phys. Rev. D 38,
3067 (1988).
' S. Giddings and S. Wolpert, Commun. Math. Phys. 19, 177
(1987).
"A. Neveu and P.C. West, Nucl. Phys. 8293, 266 (1987); S.
Uehara, Phys. Lett. B 190, 76 (1987); W. Siegel and B.
Zwiebach, Nucl. Phys. B282, 125 (1987).