Date post: | 27-Jun-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | seenet-mtp |
View: | 469 times |
Download: | 0 times |
The Backreaction of Localized Sources and de Sitter Vacua
Marco Zagermann(Leibniz Universität Hannover & QUEST)
Donji Milanovac, August 29, 2011
Montag, 29. August 2011
Based on:
Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ, w. i. p. Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ (2011)Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ (2010)
Wrase, MZ (2010)Caviezel, Wrase, MZ (2009)
Caviezel, Koerber, Körs, Lüst, Wrase, MZ (2008) Caviezel, Koerber, Körs, Lüst, Tsimpis, MZ (2008)
As well as
Montag, 29. August 2011
Outline
1. Smearing D-branes and O-planes
2. Classical de Sitter vacua
3. Smearing in the BPS-case I
4. Smearing in the BPS-case II
5. Smearing in the non-BPS case
6. Conclusions
Montag, 29. August 2011
1. Smearing D-branes and O-planes
Montag, 29. August 2011
D-branes & O-planes are important ingredients in phenomenologically realistic type II compactifications:
Montag, 29. August 2011
D-branes & O-planes are important ingredients in phenomenologically realistic type II compactifications:
D-brane O-plane
T > 0 T < 0Tension:Montag, 29. August 2011
D-branes & O-planes are important ingredients in phenomenologically realistic type II compactifications:
E.g.
• Chiral matter
Montag, 29. August 2011
D-branes & O-planes are important ingredients in phenomenologically realistic type II compactifications:
E.g.
• Chiral matter
• Supersymmetry breaking
Montag, 29. August 2011
D-branes & O-planes are important ingredients in phenomenologically realistic type II compactifications:
...
E.g.
• Moduli stabilization
• Chiral matter
• Supersymmetry breaking
( →Tadpole cancellation, non-pert. effects, etc.)
Montag, 29. August 2011
But: Dp-branes and Op-planes...
• ... have mass
→ Backreaction on metric (e.g. warp factor)
Montag, 29. August 2011
But: Dp-branes and Op-planes...
• ... have mass
• ... carry RR-charge
→ Backreaction on metric (e.g. warp factor)
→ Source RR-potentials
Montag, 29. August 2011
But: Dp-branes and Op-planes...
• ... have mass
• ... carry RR-charge
• ... couple to the dilaton
→ Backreaction on metric (e.g. warp factor)
→ Source RR-potentials
→ Nontrivial dilaton profile (except for p = 3)
Montag, 29. August 2011
x
Profile of warp factor, dilaton or RR-pot.
D-brane or O-plane
Montag, 29. August 2011
This backreaction is absent if all brane masses and charges are cancelled locally by putting the right number of D-branes on top of O-planes
Montag, 29. August 2011
This backreaction is absent if all brane masses and charges are cancelled locally by putting the right number of D-branes on top of O-planes
O6
2 D6
Montag, 29. August 2011
This backreaction is absent if all brane masses and charges are cancelled locally by putting the right number of D-branes on top of O-planes
Montag, 29. August 2011
This backreaction is absent if all brane masses and charges are cancelled locally by putting the right number of D-branes on top of O-planes
Montag, 29. August 2011
In all other cases:
• take backreaction into account
or
• make sure it can be neglected
Montag, 29. August 2011
A common approach:
Take backreaction into account at most in an averaged or integrated sense
Montag, 29. August 2011
Example: Tadpole cancellation with D3/O3:
Locally: dF5 = H3 ∧ F3 − µ3δ6(O3/D3)
→ Nontrivial C4 - profile → complicated
Montag, 29. August 2011
Example: Tadpole cancellation with D3/O3:
Locally:
Globally:
dF5 = H3 ∧ F3 − µ3δ6(O3/D3)
0 =�M(6) H3 ∧ F3 − µ3
�NO3 − 1
4ND3
�
→ Nontrivial C4 - profile → complicated
Instead:
Montag, 29. August 2011
Example: Tadpole cancellation with D3/O3:
Locally:
Globally:
dF5 = H3 ∧ F3 − µ3δ6(O3/D3)
0 =�M(6) H3 ∧ F3 − µ3
�NO3 − 1
4ND3
�
→ Global cancellation of tadpole by choosing appropriate flux & brane #‘s
→ Nontrivial C4 - profile → complicated
F5
Instead:
Montag, 29. August 2011
Example: Tadpole cancellation with D3/O3:
Locally:
Globally:
dF5 = H3 ∧ F3 − µ3δ6(O3/D3)
0 =�M(6) H3 ∧ F3 − µ3
�NO3 − 1
4ND3
�
→ Global cancellation of tadpole by choosing appropriate flux & brane #‘s
But neglection of precise - profile
→ Nontrivial C4 - profile → complicated
F5
C4
Instead:
Montag, 29. August 2011
At the level of the 10D eoms, this averaging is often implemented by “smearing” the local brane sources:
Montag, 29. August 2011
At the level of the 10D eoms, this averaging is often implemented by “smearing” the local brane sources:
Localized brane source “Smeared” brane source
Montag, 29. August 2011
At the level of the 10D eoms, this averaging is often implemented by “smearing” the local brane sources:
Localized brane source
x
ρ(x)
x
x
ρ(x)
x
“Smeared” brane source
Montag, 29. August 2011
Mathematically: δ → const.
(More generally: δ → smooth function)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Mathematically: δ → const.
(More generally: δ → smooth function)
→ Nice simplification: Warp factor, dilaton and certain RR-potentials (e.g. ) may often be assumed const.C4
Montag, 29. August 2011
Mathematically: δ → const.
(More generally: δ → smooth function)
→ Construction of many interesting flux backgrounds as explicit solutions to the 10D (smeared) eoms.
→ Nice simplification: Warp factor, dilaton and certain RR-potentials (e.g. ) may often be assumed const.
Early work, e.g.: Acharya, Benini, Valandro (2006)Grana, Minasian, Petrini, Tomasiello (2006) Koerber, Lüst, Tsimpis (2008)
C4
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing also brings a welcome simplification to dimensional reduction:
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing also brings a welcome simplification to dimensional reduction:
For compactifications on group or coset manifolds(incl. (twisted) tori, spheres) without brane sources, the restriction to the left-invariant modes yields a consistent truncation.
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing also brings a welcome simplification to dimensional reduction:
For compactifications on group or coset manifolds(incl. (twisted) tori, spheres) without brane sources, the restriction to the left-invariant modes yields a consistent truncation.
On a torus this corresponds to keeping only the constant Fourier modes:
φ(x, y) =�∞
n=0 φn(x)einy −→ φ0(x)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing also brings a welcome simplification to dimensional reduction:
For compactifications on group or coset manifolds(incl. (twisted) tori, spheres) without brane sources, the restriction to the left-invariant modes yields a consistent truncation.
Remains valid in presence of brane-like sources if these are suitably smeared. E.g. Grana, Minasian, Petrini, Tomasiello (2006)
Caviezel, Koerber, Körs, Lüst, Tsimpis, MZ (2008)Cassani, Kashani-Poor (2009)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Gauged SUGRA theories obtained from (twisted) torus orientifolds make implicit use of such a smearing
In particular:
E.g. Angelantonj, Ferrara, Trigiante (2003)Derendinger, Kounnas, Petropoulos, Zwirner (2004)
Roest (2004) + ...
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing D-branes and O-planes is a commonly employed simplification to obtain explicit 10D flux compactifications or consistently truncated 4D
Summary:
Leff
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing D-branes and O-planes is a commonly employed simplification to obtain explicit 10D flux compactifications or consistently truncated 4D
It takes into account some brane backreaction in an averaged sense, but ignores local backreaction on warp factor, dilaton or certain RR-potentials
Summary:
Leff
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing D-branes and O-planes is a commonly employed simplification to obtain explicit 10D flux compactifications or consistently truncated 4D
It takes into account some brane backreaction in an averaged sense, but ignores local backreaction on warp factor, dilaton or certain RR-potentials
Question: Is this always a good approximation?
Summary:
Leff
Montag, 29. August 2011
Question seems particularly important for...
Montag, 29. August 2011
2. Classical de Sitter vacua
Montag, 29. August 2011
de Sitter compactifications are hard to buildat leading order in and gs α�
(No comparable problems for Minkowski or AdS)
Montag, 29. August 2011
de Sitter compactifications are hard to buildat leading order in and gs α�
(No comparable problems for Minkowski or AdS)
“No-go” theorems:
E.g.: Gibbons (1984); de Wit, Smit, Hari Dass (1987) Maldacena, Nuñez (2000) Steinhardt, Wesley (2008)
Hertzberg, Kachru, Taylor, Tegmark (2007)Danielsson, Haque,Shiu,Van Riet (2009)Wrase, MZ (2010)
Montag, 29. August 2011
de Sitter compactifications are hard to buildat leading order in and gs α�
(No comparable problems for Minkowski or AdS)
“No-go” theorems:
E.g.: Gibbons (1984); de Wit, Smit, Hari Dass (1987) Maldacena, Nuñez (2000) Steinhardt, Wesley (2008)
Hertzberg, Kachru, Taylor, Tegmark (2007)Danielsson, Haque,Shiu,Van Riet (2009)Wrase, MZ (2010)
Fluxes + D-branesbut no O-planes
Montag, 29. August 2011
de Sitter compactifications are hard to buildat leading order in and gs α�
(No comparable problems for Minkowski or AdS)
“No-go” theorems:
E.g.: Gibbons (1984); de Wit, Smit, Hari Dass (1987) Maldacena, Nuñez (2000) Steinhardt, Wesley (2008)
Hertzberg, Kachru, Taylor, Tegmark (2007)Danielsson, Haque,Shiu,Van Riet (2009)Wrase, MZ (2010)
Fluxes + D-branesbut no O-planes
Fluxes + D-branes + O-planes with
�d6y
�g(6)R(6) ≥ 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
Two approaches:
(i) Go beyond leading order
E.g. non-perturbative quantum corrections → KKLT
Montag, 29. August 2011
Two approaches:
(i) Go beyond leading order
E.g. non-perturbative quantum corrections → KKLT
Hard to build explicit and controlled examples
Montag, 29. August 2011
Two approaches:
(i) Go beyond leading order
E.g. non-perturbative quantum corrections → KKLT
Hard to build explicit and controlled examples
(ii) Work harder at leading order
→ “Classical” de Sitter vacua?
Montag, 29. August 2011
Two approaches:
(i) Go beyond leading order
E.g. non-perturbative quantum corrections → KKLT
Hard to build explicit and controlled examples
(ii) Work harder at leading order
→ “Classical” de Sitter vacua?
Simplest way to evade no-go‘s: O-planes +neg. curvature
Montag, 29. August 2011
Has met with partial success:
4D de Sitter extrema found for certain group/coset spaces that allow for an SU(3)-structure with
Caviezel, Koerber, Körs, Lüst, Wrase, MZ (2008)Flauger, Paban, Robbins, Wrase (2008)
Caviezel, Wrase, MZ (2009)
See also: Haque, Shiu, Underwood, Van Riet (2008)Danielsson, Haque, Shiu, Van Riet (2009)
Andriot, Goi, Minasian, Petrini (2010)Dong, Horn, Silverstein, Torroba (2010)
R(6) < 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
Has met with partial success:
4D de Sitter extrema found for certain group/coset spaces that allow for an SU(3)-structure with
Caviezel, Koerber, Körs, Lüst, Wrase, MZ (2008)Flauger, Paban, Robbins, Wrase (2008)
Caviezel, Wrase, MZ (2009)
See also: Haque, Shiu, Underwood, Van Riet (2008)Danielsson, Haque, Shiu, Van Riet (2009)
Andriot, Goi, Minasian, Petrini (2010)Dong, Horn, Silverstein, Torroba (2010)
R(6) < 0
Explicit uplift to 10D knownDanielsson, Koerber, Van Riet (2010)
Danielsson, Haque, Koerber, Shiu, Van Riet, Wrase (2011)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Examles found so far not yet fully satisfactory:
• All contain at least one tachyon
Montag, 29. August 2011
Examles found so far not yet fully satisfactory:
• All contain at least one tachyon
• Possible issues with flux quantizationDanielsson, Haque, Koerber, Shiu, Van Riet, Wrase (2011)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Examles found so far not yet fully satisfactory:
• All contain at least one tachyon
• Possible issues with flux quantization
• Validity of smearing ? → “Douglas-Kallosh problem”
Danielsson, Haque, Koerber, Shiu, Van Riet, Wrase (2011)
Montag, 29. August 2011
The Douglas-Kallosh problem:Douglas, Kallosh (2010)
Montag, 29. August 2011
The Douglas-Kallosh problem:
Spaces of constant negative curvature require an everywhere negative energy density
In the absence of warping and higher curvature terms:
Douglas, Kallosh (2010)
Montag, 29. August 2011
The Douglas-Kallosh problem:
Spaces of constant negative curvature require an everywhere negative energy density
In the absence of warping and higher curvature terms:
Douglas, Kallosh (2010)
R < 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
The Douglas-Kallosh problem:
Spaces of constant negative curvature require an everywhere negative energy density
In the absence of warping and higher curvature terms:
Douglas, Kallosh (2010)
R < 0
ρ < 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
The Douglas-Kallosh problem:
Spaces of constant negative curvature require an everywhere negative energy density
In the absence of warping and higher curvature terms:
But smeared O-planes can provide precisely that!So where is the problem?
Douglas, Kallosh (2010)
Montag, 29. August 2011
The Douglas-Kallosh problem:
Spaces of constant negative curvature require an everywhere negative energy density
In the absence of warping and higher curvature terms:
But smeared O-planes can provide precisely that!So where is the problem?
True O-planes are not smeared!
Douglas, Kallosh (2010)
Montag, 29. August 2011
The Douglas-Kallosh problem:
Spaces of constant negative curvature require an everywhere negative energy density
In the absence of warping and higher curvature terms:
Douglas, Kallosh (2010)
R < 0
ρ < 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
So how can negative curvature be sustained if O-planes are localized (as they should be)?
Montag, 29. August 2011
So how can negative curvature be sustained if O-planes are localized (as they should be)?
Note: Is a general issue of negative internal curvature, not necessarily related to dS
Montag, 29. August 2011
Possible ways out:
- Everywhere strongly varying warping
(- Or higher curvature terms relevant)
Douglas, Kallosh (2010)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Possible ways out:
- Everywhere strongly varying warping
(- Or higher curvature terms relevant)
Varying warping is automatically induced by localized O-planes and D-branes
Douglas, Kallosh (2010)
`
Montag, 29. August 2011
Possible ways out:
- Everywhere strongly varying warping
(- Or higher curvature terms relevant)
Varying warping is automatically induced by localized O-planes and D-branes
But if it varies strongly everywhere, it is unclear whether this is still well-approximated by the smeared solution with constant warp factor.
Douglas, Kallosh (2010)
`
Montag, 29. August 2011
x
e2A(x)
x
e2A(x)
Localized O-plane with everywhere strongly varying warp factor
Smeared O-plane with constant warp factor
Montag, 29. August 2011
Our question:
How reliable is the smearing procedure in general?
Montag, 29. August 2011
Our question:
How reliable is the smearing procedure in general?
1) Do smeared solutions always have a localized counterpart?
2) If yes, how much do their physical properties differ? (e.g. w.r.t. moduli values, cosmological constant,...)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Our question:
How reliable is the smearing procedure in general?
1) Do smeared solutions always have a localized counterpart?
2) If yes, how much do their physical properties differ? (e.g. w.r.t. moduli values, cosmological constant,...)
For 2), cf. also “warped effective field theory” E.g DeWolfe, Giddings (2002)
Giddings, Maharana (2005)Frey, Maharana (2006)
Koerber, Martucci (2007)Douglas, Torroba (2008)
Shiu, Torroba, Underwood, Douglas (2008)+later papers
Montag, 29. August 2011
3. Smearing in the BPS case I
Montag, 29. August 2011
Need simple toy models where a localized solution is accessible → compare to the smeared solution
Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ (2010,2011)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Prime candidate: Flux compactifications à la GKP
Giddings, Kachru, Polchinski (2001)
= best understood type of flux compactification with backreacting localized sources
Need simple toy models where a localized solution is accessible → compare to the smeared solution
Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ (2010,2011)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Simplest version:
• M(10) = M(4) ×w M(6)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Simplest version:
•
• O3-planes filling M(4) and pointlike on M(6)
M(10) = M(4) ×w M(6)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Simplest version:
•
• O3-planes filling M(4) and pointlike on M(6)
• F3 and H3 Flux on M(6)
M(10) = M(4) ×w M(6)
Montag, 29. August 2011
Simplest version:
•
• O3-planes filling M(4) and pointlike on M(6)
• F3 and H3 Flux on M(6)
M(10) = M(4) ×w M(6)
dF5 = H3 ∧ F3 − µ3δ6(O3/D3)•
Montag, 29. August 2011
•
•O3
O3
F3
H3
M(6)
F5
and e sourced by fluxes and O3-planes 2A(x)+
Montag, 29. August 2011
Localized case:
ds210 = e2Ads̃24 + e−2Ads̃26
Montag, 29. August 2011
Localized case:
F5 = −(1 + ∗10)e−4A ∗6 dα
ds210 = e2Ads̃24 + e−2Ads̃26
Montag, 29. August 2011
Localized case:
F5 = −(1 + ∗10)e−4A ∗6 dα
ds210 = e2Ads̃24 + e−2Ads̃26
∇̃2(e4A − α) = R̃(4) + e
−6A
���∂(e4A − α)���2
+ 1
2e2A+φ
���F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3
���2
Montag, 29. August 2011
Localized case:
F5 = −(1 + ∗10)e−4A ∗6 dα
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
ds210 = e2Ads̃24 + e−2Ads̃26
∇̃2(e4A − α) = R̃(4) + e
−6A
���∂(e4A − α)���2
+ 1
2e2A+φ
���F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3
���2
Montag, 29. August 2011
Localized case:
F5 = −(1 + ∗10)e−4A ∗6 dα
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
Minkowski ⇔ e4A − α = const.
(BPS-like cond.‘s)
(Λ=0)
ds210 = e2Ads̃24 + e−2Ads̃26
∇̃2(e4A − α) = R̃(4) + e
−6A
���∂(e4A − α)���2
+ 1
2e2A+φ
���F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3
���2
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
Localized case:
F5 = −(1 + ∗10)e−4A ∗6 dα
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
Minkowski ⇔ e4A − α = const.
(BPS-like cond.‘s)
(Λ=0)
Moreover: R̃(6)ij = 0, φ = φ0 = const.
ds210 = e2Ads̃24 + e−2Ads̃26
∇̃2(e4A − α) = R̃(4) + e
−6A
���∂(e4A − α)���2
+ 1
2e2A+φ
���F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3
���2
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smeared case:
F5 = −(1 + ∗10)e−4A ∗6 dα
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
Minkowski ⇔ e4A − α = const.
(BPS-like cond.‘s)
(Λ=0)
Moreover: R̃(6)ij = 0, φ = φ0 = const.
ds210 = e2Ads̃24 + e−2Ads̃26
∇̃2(e4A − α) = R̃(4) + e
−6A
���∂(e4A − α)���2
+ 1
2e2A+φ
���F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3
���2
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
Minkowski ⇔ e4A − α = const.
(BPS-like cond.‘s)
(Λ=0)
Moreover: R̃(6)ij = 0, φ = φ0 = const.
ds210 = ds̃24 + ds̃26
F5 = −(1 + ∗10)e−4A ∗6 dα
∇̃2(e4A − α) = R̃(4) + e
−6A
���∂(e4A − α)���2
+ 1
2e2A+φ
���F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3
���2
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
Smeared case:
Montag, 29. August 2011
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
Minkowski ⇔ e4A − α = const.
(BPS-like cond.‘s)
(Λ=0)
Moreover: R̃(6)ij = 0, φ = φ0 = const.
ds210 = ds̃24 + ds̃26
F5 = 0
∇̃2(e4A − α) = R̃(4) + e
−6A
���∂(e4A − α)���2
+ 1
2e2A+φ
���F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3
���2
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
Smeared case:
Montag, 29. August 2011
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
Minkowski ⇔ e4A − α = const.
(BPS-like cond.‘s)
(Λ=0)
Moreover: R̃(6)ij = 0, φ = φ0 = const.
ds210 = ds̃24 + ds̃26
F5 = 0
0 = R̃(4) + 1
2eφ���F3 + e
−φ∗̃6H3
���2
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
Smeared case:
Montag, 29. August 2011
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
Minkowski ⇔
(BPS-like cond.)
(Λ=0)
Moreover: R̃(6)ij = 0, φ = φ0 = const.
ds210 = ds̃24 + ds̃26
F5 = 0
0 = R̃(4) + 1
2eφ���F3 + e
−φ∗̃6H3
���2
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
Smeared case:
Montag, 29. August 2011
have a localized Minkowski counterpart with
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
⇒ Smeared Minkowski vacua with BPS-type fluxes,
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
have a localized Minkowski counterpart with
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
⇒ Smeared Minkowski vacua with BPS-type fluxes,
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
ISD flux: fixes complex structure moduli and dilaton
Montag, 29. August 2011
have a localized Minkowski counterpart with
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
⇒ Smeared Minkowski vacua with BPS-type fluxes,
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
ISD flux: fixes complex structure moduli and dilaton
The smeared and localized BPS-solution have these moduli fixed at the same value and have the same
cosmological constant (zero)
Montag, 29. August 2011
At least for these physical quantities the localization effects (warping etc.) cancel out.
The BPS-nature ensures that the smearing is quite harmless.
Montag, 29. August 2011
Intuitive understanding:
O-planes and fluxes are BPS w.r.t. one another
⇒ O-plane charge and mass can be freely distributed without affecting the flux
Montag, 29. August 2011
4. Smearing in the BPS case II
Montag, 29. August 2011
Take smeared GKP-solution with M(6) = T6
and BPS-flux F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
Take smeared GKP-solution with M(6) = T6
and BPS-flux F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
T-dualize along a circle with H-flux
⇒ IIA compactification on a twisted torus with
F4 -fluxwrapped (and smeared) O4-planes and
Montag, 29. August 2011
Take smeared GKP-solution with M(6) = T6
and BPS-flux F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 = 0
T-dualize along a circle with H-flux
⇒ IIA compactification on a twisted torus with
F4 -fluxwrapped (and smeared) O4-planes and
⇒ Twisted torus has constant negative curvature !
⇒ Localization of O4 directly addresses DK problem
Montag, 29. August 2011
Constructed the localized solution
Montag, 29. August 2011
Constructed the localized solution
Warping indeed takes care of DK problem
Montag, 29. August 2011
Constructed the localized solution
Warping indeed takes care of DK problem
Integrated internal curvature remains negative:�d6y
�g(10)R(6) =
�g̃(4)
�d6y
�g̃(6)
�− 40
3 (∇̃A)2 + 14e
163 AR̃(6)
�< 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
Constructed the localized solution
Warping indeed takes care of DK problem
Integrated internal curvature remains negative:
Despite the large warping effects, the moduli are stabilized at the same point and with the same cosmological constant as in the smeared case
�d6y
�g(10)R(6) =
�g̃(4)
�d6y
�g̃(6)
�− 40
3 (∇̃A)2 + 14e
163 AR̃(6)
�< 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
Constructed the localized solution
Warping indeed takes care of DK problem
Integrated internal curvature remains negative:
Despite the large warping effects, the moduli are stabilized at the same point and with the same cosmological constant as in the smeared case
→ Consequence of BPS nature
�d6y
�g(10)R(6) =
�g̃(4)
�d6y
�g̃(6)
�− 40
3 (∇̃A)2 + 14e
163 AR̃(6)
�< 0
Montag, 29. August 2011
5. Smearing in the non-BPS case
Montag, 29. August 2011
Recall the smeared GKP solutions:
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
0 = R̃(4) + 1
2eφ���F3 + e
−φ∗̃6H3
���2
Montag, 29. August 2011
Recall the smeared GKP solutions:
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
0 = R̃(4) + 1
2eφ���F3 + e
−φ∗̃6H3
���2
Violating the BPS condition, i.e., assuming
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 �= 0
allows for (stable) AdS-solutions, e.g.
AdS4 × S3 × S3
Montag, 29. August 2011
Recall the smeared GKP solutions:
⇒ R̃(4) ≤ 0 (AdS or Minkowski)
0 = R̃(4) + 1
2eφ���F3 + e
−φ∗̃6H3
���2
Violating the BPS condition, i.e., assuming
F3 + e−φ∗̃6H3 �= 0
allows for (stable) AdS-solutions, e.g.
AdS4 × S3 × S3
Need D3-branes instead of O3-planesMontag, 29. August 2011
One can prove: A localized solution does not exist, if the fluxes satisfy the same relation as in the smeared case.
Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ (2010)
Montag, 29. August 2011
One can prove: A localized solution does not exist, if the fluxes satisfy the same relation as in the smeared case.
So, if a localized solution exists, it will probably fix the moduli at different values.
Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ (2010)
Montag, 29. August 2011
One can prove: A localized solution does not exist, if the fluxes satisfy the same relation as in the smeared case.
So, if a localized solution exists, it will probably fix the moduli at different values.
For the analogous smeared non-BPS solution on
one can show that there is no continuous interpolation between the smeared solution and a fully localized counterpart (if it exists at all).
AdS7 × S3
Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ (2010)
Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ (2011)Montag, 29. August 2011
ρ(x)
x
Montag, 29. August 2011
ρ(x)
x
Montag, 29. August 2011
ρ(x)
x
Montag, 29. August 2011
ρ(x)
x
Montag, 29. August 2011
Works for BPS
ρ(x)
x
Montag, 29. August 2011
Only smooth non-BPS solution is the smeared one:
ρ(x)
x
But:
Montag, 29. August 2011
If a localized solution disconnected from the smeared one exists, it must involve non-standard boundary conditions at the D6-brane (divergent H ).3
Moreover:
Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ (2011)
Montag, 29. August 2011
If a localized solution disconnected from the smeared one exists, it must involve non-standard boundary conditions at the D6-brane (divergent H ).
Whether this makes sense is still unclear
3
Cf. also Bena, Grana, Halmagyi (2009)
Moreover:
Blåbäck, Danielsson, Junghans, Van Riet, Wrase, MZ (2011)
Montag, 29. August 2011
6. Conclusions
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing D-branes and O-planes is a common and helpful simplification
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing D-branes and O-planes is a common and helpful simplification
For BPS configurations we found this to be a quite robust approximation
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing D-branes and O-planes is a common and helpful simplification
For BPS configurations we found this to be a quite robust approximation
Warp factor resolves the Douglas-Kallosh problemof negatively curved spaces for BPS solutions
Montag, 29. August 2011
Smearing D-branes and O-planes is a common and helpful simplification
For BPS configurations we found this to be a quite robust approximation
Warp factor resolves the Douglas-Kallosh problemof negatively curved spaces for BPS solutions
For non-BPS configuration, the general validity of smearing could not yet (?) be confirmed and raised instead many questions/concerns.
Montag, 29. August 2011
Unfortunately, de Sitter vacua should be non-BPS,so it is still unclear whether smearing makes sense here.
Montag, 29. August 2011
Unfortunately, de Sitter vacua should be non-BPS,so it is still unclear whether smearing makes sense here.
Can we also learn something about brane backreaction in warped throats from this?
Cf. also Bena, Grana, Halmagyi (2009)
Montag, 29. August 2011