Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

On the particle picture of Emergence

Published 24 Dec 2023 in hep-th | (2312.15440v1)

Abstract: The Emergence Proposal is the idea that all kinetic terms for fields in quantum gravity are emergent in the infrared from integrating out towers of states. It predicts that in a supersymmetric string theory context, the tree-level prepotential terms can be recovered precisely by integrating out a tower of non-perturbative states. In this note we present a new perspective, and associated quantitative evidence, for this proposal. We argue that the tree-level kinetic terms arise from integrating out the ultraviolet physics of each of the states in the tower. This ultraviolet physics is associated to extended objects, and cannot be captured by a standard particle Schwinger integral. Instead, we argue that it should be captured by a Schwinger-like integral where the proper time is analytically continued, and a contour is taken around the origin. This maps to certain integral representations for the moduli space periods, and indeed one recovers the tree-level prepotential exactly. This interpretation suggests that the ultraviolet physics which gives the leading contribution to the prepotential is localised on point intersections of the extended objects. We also argue that over special loci in moduli space there can exist a particle picture of the states, and an associated simple particle Schwinger integral, which leads to the full tree-level prepotential. These are loci with special degenerations, such as the singular limit of the resolved conifold.

Authors (2)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (15)
  1. E. Palti, Fortsch. Phys. 67, 1900037 (2019), arXiv:1903.06239 [hep-th] .
  2. D. Harlow, JHEP 01, 122 (2016), arXiv:1510.07911 [hep-th] .
  3. E. Palti, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135617 (2020), arXiv:2005.08538 [hep-th] .
  4. F. Marchesano and M. Wiesner, JHEP 08, 004 (2022), arXiv:2202.10466 [hep-th] .
  5. F. Marchesano and L. Melotti, JHEP 02, 112 (2023), arXiv:2211.01409 [hep-th] .
  6. C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, JHEP 09, 159 (2023), arXiv:2304.03902 [hep-th] .
  7. F. Baume and J. Calderón-Infante,   (2023), arXiv:2305.05693 [hep-th] .
  8. M.-S. Seo, JHEP 09, 031 (2023), arXiv:2305.18673 [hep-th] .
  9. D. De Biasio,   (2023), arXiv:2307.08320 [hep-th] .
  10. R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa,   (1998a), arXiv:hep-th/9809187 .
  11. R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa,   (1998b), arXiv:hep-th/9812127 .
  12. M. Dedushenko and E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 20, 1 (2016), arXiv:1411.7108 [hep-th] .
  13. R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3, 1415 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9811131 .
  14. A. Joshi and A. Klemm, JHEP 08, 086 (2019), arXiv:1903.00596 [hep-th] .
  15. E. Palti, JHEP 08, 091 (2021), arXiv:2107.01539 [hep-th] .
Citations (2)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.