tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post110705506975730376..comments2019-11-18T20:02:57.919+01:00Comments on The Reference Frame: Pure spinor formalismLuboš Motlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-5194560728236859902013-09-22T06:33:28.332+02:002013-09-22T06:33:28.332+02:00Thanks.
If c = 0 is not a sufficient condition...Thanks. <br /><br /><br />If c = 0 is not a sufficient condition, then what else is required to ensure consistency? <br /><br /><br />By the way, how does the Lagrangian Density for these ghosts look like? Is is it the same (or similar) sort of ghosts one finds in Yang - Mills Theory?<br /><br /><br />Thanks.Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS)http://psiepsilon.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-47742950978851258732013-09-21T20:17:09.755+02:002013-09-21T20:17:09.755+02:00Dear Dimension10, what you write is more or less r...Dear Dimension10, what you write is more or less right but in between the lines, it's clear that you underestimate the difficulty to construct a new description. It's not just that you can add any ghosts you like, and c=0 isn't a sufficient condition for the theory to be a consistent string theory.<br /><br /><br />It's remarkable that something like that may be done at all.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-67754185979727202412013-09-21T14:41:29.802+02:002013-09-21T14:41:29.802+02:00Thanks for this post.
So, if I understand it ri...Thanks for this post. <br /><br /><br />So, if I understand it right, the Pure Spinor Formalism is just a modification to the Green-Schwarz Formalism such that there are some additional ghost fields (which are pure spinors) sending the central charge to 0, right? <br /><br /><br />Or am I confused?...Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS)http://psiepsilon.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-81587756592471776112013-09-21T07:22:00.502+02:002013-09-21T07:22:00.502+02:00Yup but I don't understand it. It's Nathan...Yup but I don't understand it. It's Nathan Berkovits' pure spinor and one may "construct" various string theories by changing things in others. But if one doesn't actually show that they're the same or "physically related", then it is just a game on the paper showing how some letters are similar to others. <br /><br /><br />I am not sure whether there's beef in the paper. It would be extremely interesting if there were beef - a physical relationship. I've been trying to obtain the pure spinor for AdS5 x S5 out of a mostly topological theory for quite some time, with the goal to prove AdS/CFT. But the "related to" words in this paper sound too vague. The cohomologies may be "similar".<br /><br /><br />I will look at the paper more carefully, thanks.Luboš Motlhttp://motls.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-16185180808050385952013-09-21T00:04:36.834+02:002013-09-21T00:04:36.834+02:00Dear Lubos,
Are you aware of (http://arxiv.org/...Dear Lubos,<br /><br /><br /><br />Are you aware of (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.3548v3.pdf) where ST is proposed to be a derived concept from topological field theories using Pure Spinor formalism? What about the paper?<br /><br />NumNumCrackernoreply@blogger.com