Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
https://doi.org/10.1...arrow_drop_down
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-...
Part of book or chapter of book . 1991 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-...
Part of book or chapter of book . 1988 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Geometric String Field Theory

Authors: Michio Kaku;

Geometric String Field Theory

Abstract

One of the embarrassments of string field theory [1, 2] is that it has fewer symmetries than the first quantized approach. Reparameterization invariance is nowhere to be seen, which accounts for the fact that the midpoints and endpoints of strings become special points. Worse, the light cone theory seems to be totally incompatible with the midpoint theory. They seem to triangulate moduli space in entirely different ways. Each is totally different off-shell, each has a different set of interactions, yet they miraculously yield the same S matrix. For example, for closed strings, the nonpolynomial closed string field theory triangulates moduli space in a highly nontrivial fashion, while the light cone theory triangulates moduli space in an almost trivial fashion via strings that fission. Our goal is to postulate a geometric string field theory [3–7] in which reparameterization symmetry is built in from the start, that is, we wish to gauge the reparameterization group. In this way, one should be able to select as gauge choices either the endpoint or midpoint as special points along the string. Then, we should be able to view the various string field theories as gauge choices, that is, the “midpoint gauge” and “endpoint gauge”. This, in turn, would give us a unifying principle by which all self-consistent string field theories could be seen as gauge choices of a single theory.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    1
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
1
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!