07.01.2014 Views

PHYS08200604018 Shamik Banerjee - Homi Bhabha National ...

PHYS08200604018 Shamik Banerjee - Homi Bhabha National ...

PHYS08200604018 Shamik Banerjee - Homi Bhabha National ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

4.3. CONSTRAINTS FROM WALL CROSSING 45<br />

As shown in [44], the right hand side of (4.3.5) vanishes on the wall of marginal stability<br />

associated with the decay given in (4.3.1). Thus it follows from (4.3.5) that as we cross this<br />

wall of marginal stability, the contour (4.3.4) crosses the pole at (4.3.2) in accordance with our<br />

postulate.<br />

This postulate allows us to identify the possible poles of the partition function besides<br />

those related to the ˇv = 0 pole by the S-duality transformation (4.2.5), – they occur at (4.3.2)<br />

for those values of a 0 , b 0 , c 0 and d 0 for which the decay (4.3.1) is consistent with the charge<br />

quantization laws. One can also get information about the residues at these poles since they<br />

are given by the jumps in the index. This jump can be expressed using the wall crossing<br />

formula [44, 49–54] that tells us that as we cross a wall of marginal stability associated with<br />

the decay (Q, P ) → (Q 1 , P 1 ) + (Q 2 , P 2 ) the index jumps by an amount<br />

(−1) Q 1·P 2 −Q 2·P 1 +1 (Q 1 · P 2 − Q 2 · P 1 ) d h (Q 1 , P 1 )d h (Q 2 , P 2 ) (4.3.7)<br />

up to a sign, where d h (Q, P ) denotes the index measuring the number of bosonic minus the<br />

number of fermionic half BPS supermultiplets carrying charges (Q, P ). Thus this relates the<br />

residues at the poles of the integrand to the indices of half BPS states.<br />

We shall now study the consequence of (4.3.7) on the residue at the pole (4.3.2). First<br />

let us consider the special case associated with the decay (Q, P ) → (Q, 0) + (0, P ). In this case<br />

the jump in the index is given by<br />

(−1) Q·P +1 Q · P d e (Q) d m (P ) , (4.3.8)<br />

where d e (Q) = d h (Q, 0) is the index of purely electrically charged states and d m (P ) = d h (0, P )<br />

is the index of purely magnetically charged state. This jump is to be accounted for by the<br />

residue of a pole of the integrand at ˇv = 0. The result (4.3.8) is reproduced if near ˇv = 0, ̂Φ<br />

behaves as<br />

̂Φ(ˇρ, ˇσ, ˇv) −1 ∝ {φ m (ˇρ) −1 φ e (ˇσ) −1ˇv −2 + O(ˇv 0 )} , (4.3.9)<br />

where 1/φ m (ˇρ) and 1/φ e (ˇσ) denote respectively the partition functions of purely magnetic and<br />

purely electric states:<br />

d m (P ) = 1 ∫ iM1 +T 1 /2<br />

dˇρ e −iπP 2 ˇρ 1<br />

T 1 iM 1 −T 1 /2 φ m (ˇρ) , d e(Q) = 1 ∫ iM2 +T 2 /2<br />

dˇσ e −iπQ2ˇσ 1<br />

T 2 iM 2 −T 2 /2<br />

φ e (ˇσ) .<br />

(4.3.10)<br />

Substituting (4.3.10) into the integrand in (4.1.2) and picking up the residue from the pole at<br />

ˇv = 0 we get the change in the index to be<br />

(−1) Q·P +1 Q · P d e (Q) d m (P ) , (4.3.11)<br />

in agreement with (4.3.8), provided we choose the constant of proportionality in (4.3.9) appropriately.<br />

Note that the Q · P factor comes from the ˇv derivative of the exponential factor in<br />

(4.1.2) arising due to the double pole of ̂Φ −1 at ˇv = 0.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!