format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

One of the exactly soluble model in quantum field theory is the quantum electrodynamics of the massless fermions in 1+1 dimensions, which is known as Schwinger model . The massive Schwinger model, describing the electromagnetic interaction of a massive Dirac field, is no longer exactly soluble, however all non-trivial features of the massless model continue to hold for small fermion mass limit . The Schwinger model may serve as a laboratory to study some important features of particle physics, present also in higher dimensional theories, such as screening and quark confinement which are some of the most important problems in particle physics. For example it has been proposed that the infrared behavior of QCD4 may be responsible for the confinement of quarks and gluons. But the concept of infrared slavery, i.e. the increase of potential between colored objects with separation, could not be verified to be true using the perturbation methods (because of infrared singularities) and must be studied nonperturbatively. These kinds of calculations can be done in an equivalent two-dimensional model.

As it is well known, the gauge field of the massless Schwinger model can be made massive by the standard Higgs mechanism and the Coulomb force is replaced by a finite range force. Then by introducing two opposite static external charges $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$, one can see that the potential tends to some constant for large separation of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs, reflecting the screening of these charges by the induced vacuum polarization. On the other hand in the massive Schwinger model, a semiclassical analysis reveals a linear $`q\overline{q}`$ potential. In this case, by computing the Wilson loop for widely separated charges, within the framework of Euclidean path integral and mass perturbation (for small masses), one can see that integer external probe charges are completely screened whereas a linearly potential is formed between widely separated non–integer charges .

A particular intriguing and interesting case occurs when the two dimensional surface, on which the model is defined, is a curved space-time. (Similar investigations for pure Yang-Mills theories on arbitrary two dimensional compact Riemann surfaces have been done in several papers, see for example .) These models are useful for better understanding the confinement and screening mechanisms in curved space-time and can be viewed as a first step to study these phenomena in the presence of quantum gravity. Moreover, they may have application in string theory and quantum gravity coupled to nonconformal matter (note that the kinetic term of the gauge field spoils the conformal invariance of the theory).

The Schwinger model has been studied on different non flat surfaces, for example on closed Riemann surfaces of genus $`g2`$ , on torus , and on sphere . Also the Green function of the gauge field of the Schwinger model has been calculated on the Poincare disk in . Moreover, in , the authors have considered a $`D`$–dimensional hyperboloid with negative curvature, embedded in $`(D+1)`$–dimensional Minkowski space, and by considering the behavior of the gauge and matter fields near the boundary, they have chosen the solutions with suitable behavior. In this way, they have used the negative curvature space–time as a regulator for interacting Euclidean quantum field theories. However, the confinement and screening properties of the Schwinger model have not yet been studied on curved space–time. In , where the bosonization procedure of the Schwinger model in curved space has been discussed, it has been mentioned that this model continues to exhibit screening or confinement of the charges associated to the electromagnetic field on conformally flat spaces. As we will show, it is not true at least for the Poincare half plane. In , the authors have argued that as the perimeter and the area in hyperboloid space–times are proportional for large loops, one can not simply distinguish between different phases by only considering the Wilson loop dependence on area or perimeter. As we will show, this is right, i.e. by explicit computation of effective static potential between a quark and antiquark, we show that despite the different behavior of the Wilson loop of the Schwinger model in $`e0`$ and $`e=0`$ (the first has perimeter behavior, while the second has area behavior), both have a common phase structure.

In this paper we want to study the confining behavior of the Schwinger model on the Poincare half plane. This is an interesting case because it can illustrate the effects of the boundary and the metric of the space–time on the confinement feature of the Schwinger model. Other property of the Poincare half plane is that its metric is independent of one of the coordinates, so one can obtain the static potential of the external charges in terms of the spatial geodesic distance.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, following the method used in , we obtain an expression for the potential between the external charges by integrating out the fermionic degrees of freedom. We discuss the confining and screening like behaviors of the system and point out the differences of these features with respect to the flat case. We justify our results by calculating the expectation value of the Wilson loop. We also derive the bosonization rules for the Schwinger model on the Poincare half plane. In section 3 we consider the massive Schwinger model. Using the bosonization method and by solving the equations of motion of the gauge and matter fields, we obtain a perturbative expression for the interaction energy of the probe charges.
Note that in this paper we do not consider the nontrivial topologically sectors of the gauge fields.

## 2 Massless Schwinger model on the Poincare half plane and its confining behavior

The Poincare half plane, $`H=\{(x,t),x>0\}`$, is a non–compact Riemann surface equipped with the metric $`ds^2=(dx^2+dt^2)r^2/x^2`$ and the symplectic area form $`\sqrt{g}d^2x=(dxdt)r^2/x^2`$. $`r`$ is a scale parameter of the Poincare plane and is related to the scalar curvature by $`R=2/r^2`$. This space is conformally related to the compact orientable Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ with genus $`g2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$=H/G, where G is a discrete subgroup of PSL(2,R) (the isometry group of H). The geodesics of the Poincare half plane are semi–circles centered on the horizontal axis $`t`$ (which we take it as the time axis), and straight lines parallel to the vertical axis $`x`$. The geodesic distance between the points $`(x_1,t_1)`$ and $`(x_2,t_2)`$ on the semi circle is

$$L=r\mathrm{cosh}^1[1+\frac{(x_2x_1)^2+(t_2t_1)^2}{2x_1x_2}].$$
(1)
For the points $`(x_1,t)`$ and $`(x_2,t)`$, $`x_2>x_1`$, situated on the straight line the geodesic distance is given by

$$d=r\mathrm{ln}\frac{x_2}{x_1}.$$
(2)
The Schwinger model is defined by the action

$$S=\sqrt{g}d^2x[i\overline{\psi }\widehat{\gamma }^ae_a^\mu (_\mu ieA_\mu )\psi +\frac{1}{4}g^{\mu \rho }g^{\nu \lambda }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \lambda }],$$
(3)
where $`e`$ is the charge of dynamical fermions, and $`\widehat{\gamma }^a`$ are anti–Hermitian matrices which in terms of Pauli matrices are $`\widehat{\gamma }^0=i\sigma _2`$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }^1=i\sigma _1`$. $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is defined by $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$, $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }r^2/x^2`$, $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$, and $`\sqrt{g}=r^2/x^2`$. The zwei-beins fields ($`e_a^\mu ,e_\mu ^a`$) are defined through

$$g_{\mu \nu }=e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^b\eta _{ab},g^{\mu \nu }=e_a^\mu e_b^\nu \eta ^{ab}.$$
(4)
For the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }r^2/x^2`$, we obtain

$$e_\mu ^a=\frac{r}{x}\delta _\mu ^a,e_a^\mu =\frac{x}{r}\delta _a^\mu ,$$

$$e^{\mu a}=\frac{x}{r}\eta ^{\mu a},e_{\mu a}=\frac{r}{x}\eta _{\mu a}.$$
(5)
The action (3) is invariant under change of coordinate system, frame rotation $`e_\mu ^a\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^ae_\mu ^b`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ SO(2), and local gauge transformation, but it is not conformal invariant since the Maxwell field theory is conformal invariant only in four dimensions.

### 2.1  Bosonization

The classical equation of motion of the field $`A_\mu `$ is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\nu \sqrt{g}F^{\nu \sigma }=J^\sigma =e\overline{\psi }\widehat{\gamma }^be_b^\sigma \psi ,$$

which yields

$$_\sigma \sqrt{g}\overline{\psi }\widehat{\gamma }^be_b^\sigma \psi =0.$$

Hence

$$\overline{\psi }\widehat{\gamma }^be_b^\sigma \psi =\alpha ϵ^{\sigma \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi },$$
(6)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant, $`ϵ^{\sigma \nu }=\widehat{ϵ}^{\sigma \nu }/\sqrt{g}`$ and $`\widehat{ϵ}^{01}=\widehat{ϵ}_{01}=1`$, $`\widehat{ϵ}^{10}=1`$. This relation is one of the bosonization rules for massless fermions in a two dimensional (conformally flat) space. In , it has been shown that by performing a fermionic change of variables, $`\psi =\chi /g^{1/8}`$ and $`\overline{\psi }=\overline{\chi }/g^{1/8}`$, the bosonization of the fermionic part of the action (3) is realized in a similar method as in the flat case. On the other hand the bosonization rules on the half plane, R$`{}_{}{}^{+}\times `$R, is the same as the complete plane . Therefore on the Poincare half plane the bosonization rules are

$$i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi =\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi },$$

$$\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi =\frac{i}{\sqrt{\pi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi },$$
(7)
$$\overline{\psi }\psi =\frac{1}{g^{1/4}}\overline{\chi }\chi =\frac{1}{g^{1/4}}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }),$$

in which $`\gamma ^\mu =\widehat{\gamma }^ae_a^\mu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`c`$–number which depends on the normal ordering of the composite operator $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$. To determine $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we proceed as .

On one hand, the bosonization of the composite operator $`\overline{\chi }\chi `$ is the same as in the flat case, that is $`\overline{\chi }\chi =\mathrm{\Sigma }N_\mu \mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Phi })`$, where $`N_\mu `$ is the normal ordering with respect to the mass $`\mu =e/\sqrt{\pi }`$. Hence

$$<\overline{\chi }\chi (\xi _1)\overline{\chi }\chi (\xi _2)>=\mathrm{\Sigma }^2<N_\mu \mathrm{cos}[2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi _1)]N_\mu \mathrm{cos}[2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi _2)]>$$

$$=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2r^2}{x_1x_2}\mathrm{cosh}[4\pi D(\xi _1,\xi _2)],$$
(8)
where $`\xi _1=(x_1,t_1)`$, $`\xi _2=(x_2,t_2)`$, are two points on the upper half plane, and $`D(\xi _1,\xi _2)`$ is the bosonic propagator

$$D(\xi _1,\xi _2)=\frac{1}{2\pi }Q_l(1+\frac{2|\xi _1\xi _2|^2}{4x_1x_2}),$$
(9)
computed from the Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{g}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Phi }^2.$$
(10)
$`Q_l`$ is the Legendre function of the second kind and $`l=(1+\sqrt{1+4\mu ^2r^2})/2`$. The appearance of the metric dependent term $`r^2/(x_1x_2)`$ in eq.(8) is related to the renormalization of vertex operators on the curved space–time . In the limit $`\xi _1\xi _2`$, we use the asymptotic behavior of $`Q_l`$ and obtain

$$<\overline{\chi }\chi (\xi _1)\overline{\chi }\chi (\xi _2)>=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2r^2}{2x_1x_2}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{ln}\frac{|\xi _1\xi _2|^2}{4x_1x_2}2\gamma 2\mathrm{\Psi }(l+1)],$$
(11)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the digamma function.

On the other hand, in the limit $`\xi _1\xi _2`$, we have

$$<\overline{\chi }\chi (\xi _1)\overline{\chi }\chi (\xi _2)>=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2|\xi _1\xi _2|^2}.$$
(12)
Note that this relation is the same as one in flat space–time. The reason of this equality lies in the fact that in the limit $`\xi _1\xi _2`$, all the $`A_\mu `$–dependent terms in evaluating $`<\overline{\chi }\chi (\xi _1)\overline{\chi }\chi (\xi _2)>`$ are canceled out , and this calculation reduces to one in the free fermion model, i.e. without gauge field, on a flat Euclidean space–time, described by the action

$$S_{\mathrm{free}}=d^2x(i\overline{\chi }\widehat{\gamma }^a_a\chi ).$$
(13)
Comparing (11) and (12) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{1}{2\pi r}\mathrm{exp}[\gamma +\mathrm{\Psi }(l+1)],$$
(14)
which differs from the result obtained for the complete flat plane: $`(e/2\pi ^{3/2})\mathrm{exp}(\gamma )`$ . This difference is due to the presence of the curvature which modify the Green function of the gauge fields appeared in the fermionic two–point functions . In the limit $`R0`$ ($`r\mathrm{}`$), using $`lim_x\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{x})`$, we obtain the same $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as the flat case.

### 2.2 Confinement: the effective action approach

In order to investigate the confining behavior of the action (3), we will obtain the equation of motion of the gauge field derived from the corresponding effective action. Using (7), the bosonic version of (3) is

$$S=\sqrt{g}d^2x(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\frac{ie}{\sqrt{\pi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu }A_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }).$$
(15)
Integrating over the bosonic degrees of freedom we arrive at

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=(\frac{e^2}{2\pi }\sqrt{g}\frac{F}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{F}{\sqrt{g}}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{g}}F^2)d^2x,$$
(16)
in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(1/\sqrt{g})_\mu g^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{g}_\nu `$, and $`F=\widehat{ϵ}^{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu `$.

As an alternative method, this effective action can be also obtained by integrating out the fermionic degrees of freedom of the action (3). To do this, we should compute the determinant of the Dirac operator $`i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu =i\gamma ^\mu (_\mu ieA_\mu )`$,

$$D:=\mathrm{ln}\frac{D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{g}d^2x\overline{\psi }i\gamma ^\mu (_\mu ieA_\mu )\psi )}{D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{g}d^2x\overline{\psi }i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi )}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{det}i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu }{\mathrm{det}i\gamma ^\mu _\mu }.$$
(17)
Using the one–loop radiative correction of the two–point function of the gauge field and also by considering the requirement of the invariance of the theory under PSL(2,R), it can be shown that

$$D=\frac{e^2}{2\pi }\sqrt{g}d^2x\frac{F}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{F}{\sqrt{g}}.$$
(18)
Adding the kinetic term of the gauge field, we arrive at (16).

In the gauge $`A_1=0`$ and in the static case $`dA_0/dt=0`$, the effective Lagrangian (16) becomes

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{e^2}{2\pi }A_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^2}{r^2}(\frac{dA_0}{dx})^2.$$
(19)
The above effective Lagrangian density shows that the photon gains a mass equal to $`e/\sqrt{\pi }`$, which can be interpreted as a peculiar two–dimensional version of the Higgs phenomenon.

Now following , if we introduce a static external charge distribution composed of a quark and an anti–quark with charges $`e_1=e^{}`$ and $`e_2=e^{}`$ at points $`\xi _1=(a,t)`$ and $`\xi _2=(b,t)`$, respectively, this Lagrangian becomes

$$=\frac{e^2}{2\pi }A_0^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^2}{r^2}(\frac{dA_0}{dx})^2+J^0A_0\frac{r^2}{x^2},$$
(20)
where

$$J^0=\frac{i}{\sqrt{g}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{2}{}}e_n\delta ^2(\xi \xi _n)𝑑t_n$$

$$=i\frac{x^2}{r^2}e^{}[\delta (xb)\delta (xa)].$$
(21)
In this case, the equation of motion of the field $`A_0`$ is

$$\frac{d}{dx}\frac{x^2}{r^2}\frac{dA_0}{dx}\frac{e^2}{\pi }A_0=ie^{}[\delta (xb)\delta (xa)].$$
(22)
To find $`A_0(x)`$, we note that the Green function of the self adjoint operator $`P=\frac{d}{dx}\frac{x^2}{r^2}\frac{d}{dx}\frac{e^2}{\pi }`$ is

$$G_P(x,x^{})=\frac{r^2}{2l+1}\frac{x_<^l}{x_>^{l+1}},$$
(23)
where $`x_<`$ ($`x_>`$) is the smaller (larger) value of $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$. This Green function is the same as the Green function of the radial part of Poisson operator in spherical coordinates and satisfies the Dirichlet boundary condition at $`x=0`$ (the Poincare half plane has no boundary, but by boundary condition we mean the behavior of the fields near the horizontal axis). In the flat case limit, $`r\mathrm{}`$, $`l`$ leads to $`\mu r`$ and therefore the eq.(23) reduces to

$$\frac{(g(x)g(x^{}))^{1/8}}{2\mu }e^{\mu d(xx^{})},$$
(24)
where $`d`$ is the geodesic distance (2). By setting $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, eq.(24) leads to the Green function of the flat case, i.e. $`(1/2\mu )e^{\mu d}`$. Using (23), we obtain

$$A_0(x)=ie^{}[G_P(xb)G_P(xa)]=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{ie^{}r^2}{2l+1}(\frac{b^l}{x^{l+1}}\frac{a^l}{x^{l+1}}),\hfill & b<x\hfill \\ \frac{ie^{}r^2}{2l+1}(\frac{x^l}{b^{l+1}}\frac{a^l}{x^{l+1}}),\hfill & a<x<b\hfill \\ \frac{ie^{}r^2}{2l+1}(\frac{x^l}{b^{l+1}}\frac{x^l}{a^{l+1}}),\hfill & x<a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
To calculate the quark–antiquark energy, we must note that the Schwinger model on the Poincare half plane can be considered as the analytical continuation of the corresponding model on a Minkowskian space–time described by the metric $`ds^2=(r^2/x^2)(dt^2dx^2)`$. By ignoring the $`i`$ factors in eqs.(21) and (25) and substituting them back into $`^{\mathrm{Min}.}`$, which has the same form as (20), one can obtain the static external charges energy as $`U=^{\mathrm{Mink}.}𝑑x=^{\mathrm{Eucl}.}𝑑x`$ . In this way we find the interaction energy of the external charges as

$$U=\frac{1}{2}J^0A_0\frac{r^2}{x^2}𝑑x=\frac{e^2}{2l+1}\frac{r^2}{2a}(2e^{\frac{d}{r}(l+1)}+e^{\frac{d}{r}}+1).$$
(26)
For a detailed discussion on the relation of the Euclidean action with the Minkowskian static energy, see .

In the flat case, the eq.(22) is replaced by

$$\frac{d^2}{dx^2}A_0\frac{e^2}{\pi }A_0=ie^{}[\delta (xb)\delta (xa)],$$
(27)
which is invariant under translation ($`xx+c,c`$ R), hence the potential is only a function of charge separation, which is a translational invariant quantity. But in our case, (22) is not invariant under scale transformation (dilatation $`x\lambda x`$; $`\lambda `$ R), which leaves the distance $`d`$ invariant, hence the potential depends on both the distance $`d=r\mathrm{ln}(b/a)`$ and the position of the external charges.

For large separation, $`b>>a`$, the potential tends to

$$\underset{d\mathrm{}}{lim}U=\frac{r^2}{2a}\frac{e^2}{2l+1},$$
(28)
which indicates the screening like phenomenon: By fixing the position of one of the charges at an arbitrary point $`x=a`$, and moving the other charge, the potential increases linearly for small separation and tends to a finite value for large $`d`$. But the crucial point is that the geometry of the Poincare half plane is non–trivial, and a model defined in this space–time, may have different behaviors in different regions. For example, while the confinig phase is dominant in a region, the system may be in screening phase in another region. To see this, one must study the behavior of some external charge in this space, as a probe. Now as it is clear from (26), the system is in confining phase near the boundary $`x=0`$: for $`a0`$, we must have $`b=a+O(a^2)`$ in order to have a finite energy for the system, otherwise $`U\mathrm{}`$. This means that in the massless Schwinger model on the Poincare half plane, the confining phase, is dominant near the horizontal axis. This is related to the singularity of the metric at $`x=0`$.

On the flat plane, the Schwinger model is confining in the absence of dynamical fermions: The screening potential

$$U_{\mathrm{flat}}=\frac{e^2}{2\mu }(1e^{\mu |ba|}),$$
(29)
in the limit $`\mu 0`$, becomes $`(e^2/2)|ba|`$ which increases with the relative distance of the charges. In this limit, the effects of the fermionic vacuum polarization is switched off: the screening is replaced by the confining behavior of the system.

But on the Poincare half plane at $`\mu =0`$, that is when dynamical massless fermions are absent, the potential becomes

$$U=\frac{e^2r^2}{2a}(1e^{\frac{d}{r}}),$$
(30)
which has the same confining or screening nature as (26). The dynamical fermions can only decrease the amount of saturated energy. Hence the screening like (or confining) behavior of the Schwinger model depends on the vacuum polarization and the curvature of the space–time.

### 2.3 Confinement: the Wilson loop approach

Now it is interesting to obtain and interpret these results by computing the Wilson loop expectation value. The interaction of an external current density $`j^\mu `$ and the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is described by the action $`S_{\mathrm{int}.}=\sqrt{g}j^\mu A_\mu d^2x`$. We assume that $`j^\mu `$ is produced by two external charges moving on a loop which is obtained as follows. Two charges $`e^{}`$ and $`e^{}`$ are created at the point $`(x,t)`$ and move apart in (Euclidean) time $`\tau `$ to points $`(a,t+\tau )`$ and $`(b,t+\tau )`$. Then they stay static at their positions for a period of time $`T`$, and after that come together to annihilate. In the limit $`T>>\tau `$, in which we are interested, this Wilson loop becomes a rectangle $`c`$ characterized by $`a,b`$, and $`T`$, on the Poincare half plane. The reason for choosing this kind of Wilson loop is that in the large $`T`$–limit, the expectation value of this Wilson loop becomes proportional to exp\[$`U(d)T`$\] ($`U(d)`$ is the static external charge potential) for time–independent metrics . (See also  for the same calculations on a curved space–time.) The interaction term of this process is $`S_{\mathrm{int}}=ie^{}_c𝑑x^\mu A_\mu `$, and the expectation value of the corresponding Wilson loop is

$`<W_c[A]>=`$

$$\frac{DA_\alpha D\mathrm{\Phi }\delta (H[A_\alpha ])\mathrm{det}[\frac{\delta H[A^\lambda ]}{\delta \lambda }]\mathrm{exp}(ie^{}_cA_\mu 𝑑x^\mu )\mathrm{exp}[(\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2\frac{ie}{\sqrt{\pi }}F\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^2}{r^2}F^2)d^2x]}{DA_\alpha D\mathrm{\Phi }\delta (H[A_\alpha ])\mathrm{det}[\frac{\delta H[A^\lambda ]}{\delta \lambda }]\mathrm{exp}[(\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2\frac{ie}{\sqrt{\pi }}F\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^2}{r^2}F^2)d^2x]}.$$
(31)
$`H[A_\alpha ]=0`$ is the gauge–fixing condition and $`\lambda `$ parameterizes the gauge transformation $`A_\alpha ^\lambda =A_\alpha +_\alpha \lambda `$. One can show that by using the change of variables $`A(F,\eta )`$, $`\eta :=H[A]`$, the Jacobian of this transformation:

$$DA_\alpha =\mathrm{det}^1[\frac{\delta H[A^\lambda ]}{\delta \lambda }]D\eta DF,$$
(32)
cancels precisely against the ghost determinant . Thus

$$<W_c[A]>=\frac{DFD\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}[(\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^2}{r^2}F^2\frac{ie}{\sqrt{\pi }}F\mathrm{\Phi })d^2x]\mathrm{exp}(ie^{}_cA_\mu 𝑑x^\mu )}{DFD\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}[(\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^2}{r^2}F^2\frac{ie}{\sqrt{\pi }}F\mathrm{\Phi })d^2x]}.$$
(33)
Using the Stokes theorem

$$_cA_\mu 𝑑x^\mu =_D\eta (\xi )F(\xi )d^2x,$$
(34)
where $`c=D`$, and $`\eta (\xi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \xi D\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \xi D.\hfill \end{array}`$, we arrive at

$$<W_c[A]>=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{e^2}{2}\frac{r^2}{x^2}\eta ^2(\xi )d^2\xi \frac{e^2e^2}{2\pi }\eta (\xi )G_W(\xi ,\xi ^{})\eta (\xi ^{})d^2\xi d^2\xi ^{}],$$
(35)
in which the Green function $`G_W(\xi ,\xi ^{})`$ satisfies

$$[\frac{x^2}{r^2}(\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\frac{d^2}{dt^2})\frac{x^2}{r^2}\mu ^2\frac{x^2}{r^2}]G_W(\xi ,\xi ^{})=\delta ^2(\xi \xi ^{}).$$
(36)
If we insert the Fourier expansion

$$G_W(\xi ,\xi ^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f_k(x,x^{})e^{ik(tt^{})}𝑑k,$$
(37)
in eq.(36), the coefficients are found as following

$$f_k(x,x^{})=r^4(xx^{})^{3/2}I_{l+\frac{1}{2}}(kx_<)K_{l+\frac{1}{2}}(kx_>).$$
(38)
$`I_{l+\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`K_{l+\frac{1}{2}}`$ are modified Bessel functions of the first and second kind, respectively. Performing the integration over $`k`$ we obtain

$$G_W(\xi ,\xi ^{})=\frac{r^4}{2\pi (xx^{})^2}Q_l[\frac{x^2+x^2+(tt^{})^2}{2xx^{}}],$$
(39)
Now as the functional integral in the massless Schwinger model is Gaussian, and the higher order correlators factorize into product of pair correlators $`<F(\xi )F(\xi ^{})>`$, we have

$$<\mathrm{exp}(ie^{}A_\mu 𝑑x^\mu )>=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{e^2}{2}_Dd^2\xi d^2\xi ^{}<F(\xi )F(\xi ^{})>].$$
(40)
Comparing (40) with (35) and (39), results

$$<F(\xi )F(\xi ^{})>=\delta ^2(\xi \xi ^{})\frac{r^2}{x^2}\frac{\mu ^2r^4}{2\pi (xx^{})^2}Q_l(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{L}{r}),$$
(41)
where $`L`$ is the geodesic distance between $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ (see eq.(1)). By considering the behavior of $`I_{l+\frac{1}{2}}(x)`$ at $`x0`$ ($`Q_l(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{L}{r})`$ at $`L=\mathrm{}`$), one can easily check that the behavior of $`f_k(x,x^{})`$ ($`<F(\xi )F(\xi ^{})>`$) is consistent with the Dirichlet boundary condition imposed on eq.(23).

In the flat case limit, one can show that $`lim_r\mathrm{}Q_l[\mathrm{cosh}(L/r)]=K_0(\mu L)`$, and by setting $`g_{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, the eq.(41) becomes

$$<F(\xi )F(\xi ^{})>_{\mathrm{flat}}=\delta ^2(\xi \xi ^{})\frac{\mu ^2}{2\pi }K_0(\mu |\xi \xi ^{}|),$$
(42)
which is the strength fields correlator on the flat space–time . In the absence of dynamical fermions ($`\mu =0`$), eq.(42) reduces to $`\delta ^2(\xi \xi ^{})`$ and one obtains the area law for the Wilson loop, which is a characteristic of a confining potential. In the presence of dynamical fermions, since $`K_0(\mu |\xi \xi ^{}|)`$ decays exponentially as $`e^{\mu |\xi \xi ^{}|}`$, the correlator exhibits the finite correlation length (related physically to the screening effect), and the perimeter law is arisen for large contour . On the Poincare half plane, $`K_0`$ is replaced by $`Q_l(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{L}{r})`$ which decays as $`[\mathrm{cosh}(L/r)]^{l1}`$ for large $`L/r`$. Hence in this case we have also a finite correlation length for $`<F(\xi )F(\xi ^{})>`$ and, as we will show, the Wilson loop is perimeter dependent. In fact the area term arising from the delta function is canceled out by the corresponding term in the integration of $`Q_l`$.

Using

$$\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2\pi T}_0^Te^{ikt}𝑑t_0^Te^{ikt^{}dt^{}}=\delta (k),$$
(43)
and

$$f_0(x,x^{})=\frac{r^4}{2l+1}\frac{x_<^{l1}}{x_>^{l+2}},$$
(44)
one can obtain the following expression

$$U=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}(\frac{1}{T}\mathrm{ln}W)=\frac{r^2}{2l+1}\frac{e^2}{2}[\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}2(\frac{a^l}{b^{l+1}})],$$
(45)
for the static potential between external charges which is equal to one obtained in eq.(26). After some calculations, one can show that the Wilson loop for $`T>>b>>a`$ is

$$<W_c[A]>=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{r^2}{2l+1}\frac{e^2}{2}T(\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b})+O(\frac{1}{T^\lambda })],$$
(46)
where using the hypergeometric representation of the Legendre function, $`\lambda `$ is found to be $`\lambda =2l+1`$.

But the perimeter of the large Wilson loop $`T>>b,a`$ is

$$_c\frac{r\sqrt{dx^2+dy^2}}{x}=T(\frac{r}{a}+\frac{r}{b}),$$
(47)
therefore eq.(46) shows that for a large contour, the perimeter law is satisfied, which is the same behavior as the flat space–time case.

In the quenched Schwinger model ($`\mu =0`$), the Wilson loop expectation value is

$$<W_c[A]>=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{e^2}{2}\eta ^2\frac{r^2}{x^2}𝑑x𝑑t]=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{e^2}{2}Tr^2(\frac{1}{a}\frac{1}{b})].$$
(48)
But we note that $`Tr^2(1/a1/b)`$ is nothing but the area of the rectangle bounded by the Wilson loop. Therefore on the Poincare half plane, the Wilson loop of the Schwinger model in the absence of dynamical fermions (that is the pure QED2) is equal to the exponential of the area, like the flat case. But in contrast to the flat case, the area is not proportional to the geodesic distance of the charges, and we can not conclude that the system is in confining phase. This result is consistent with our discussion after eq.(30).

## 3  Confining aspect of massive Schwinger model on the Poincare half plane

The massive Schwinger model, i.e. U(1) gauge theory with massive dynamical fermions of charge $`e`$ and mass $`m`$, is defined by the action

$$S=\sqrt{g}d^2x[i\overline{\psi }\widehat{\gamma }^ae_a^\mu (_\mu ieA_\mu )\psi +m\overline{\psi }\psi +\frac{1}{4}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\rho \sigma }F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma }].$$
(49)
This model is not soluble even in the flat case, but in the limit $`m<<e`$, the physical quantities may be evaluated using perturbative expansion in fermions mass.

In conformally flat curved space–time, the bosonic form of the action (49) is

$$S=\sqrt{g}d^2x[\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\frac{ie}{\sqrt{\pi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu }A_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\frac{m\mathrm{\Sigma }}{g^{\frac{1}{4}}}\mathrm{cos}(2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Phi })+\frac{1}{4}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\rho \sigma }F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma }],$$
(50)
where the constant $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given by (14). In fact this model is a Sine-Gordon model whose interaction is position dependent . The confining behavior of this system can be analyzed perturbatively by expanding the mass term in a power of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ . The equations of motion followed from the bosonized action (50), in the presence of external charges (21), are

$$\frac{d}{dx}\frac{x^2}{r^2}\frac{d}{dx}A_0+\frac{ie}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dx}=ie^{}[\delta (xb)\delta (xa)],$$

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{dx^2}+\frac{ie}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{dA_0}{dx}+\frac{2\sqrt{\pi }m\mathrm{\Sigma }r}{x}\mathrm{sin}(2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Phi })=0,$$
(51)
where we have used, as before, the Coulomb gauge $`A_1=0`$ and $`dA_0/dt=0`$. Using the approximation $`\mathrm{sin}(2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Phi })2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and assuming that the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a slowly varying field , we arrive at

$$\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{x^2}{r^2}+\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }r}x)\frac{dA_0}{dx}=ie^{}[\delta (xb)\delta (xa)],$$
(52)
$$\frac{4\pi m\mathrm{\Sigma }r}{x}\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{ie}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{dA_0}{dx}=0,$$

with solutions

$$A_0(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & x>b\hfill \\ i\frac{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }e^{}r}{e^2}[\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{r}{b})\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{r}{x})],\hfill & a<x<b\hfill \\ i\frac{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }e^{}r}{e^2}[\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{r}{b})\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{r}{a})],\hfill & xb\hfill \\ (\frac{e^{}}{e})\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^{\frac{3}{2}}m\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\frac{1}{\frac{x}{r}+\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }}}),\hfill & a<x<b\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & x<a\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
Therefore we find the potential $`U=\frac{1}{2}\rho A_0𝑑x`$ as

$$U=2\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }(\frac{e^{}}{e})^2r[\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{r}{a})\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{r}{b})].$$
(55)
By fixing $`a`$ and increasing the separation of the charges, $`U`$ increases and finally achieves the limiting value $`2\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }(e^{}/e)^2r\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{e^2r}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }a})`$, which shows that the system is in the screening phase. When one of the charges is located near the horizontal axis, $`a0`$, the eq.(55) goes to infinity, unless $`ba`$. So the system is in confining phase at $`x0`$, as we expect. On the other hand, in order to satisfy the conditions that we have assumed for the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (to be small and small varying), we must take

$$(\frac{x}{r}+\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }})>>(\frac{e^{}}{e})\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }}.$$
(56)
By expanding $`U`$ in terms of $`r/a`$ and $`r/b`$, we obtain

$$U=\frac{e^2}{2}r^2(\frac{1}{a}\frac{1}{b})+O(\frac{r^2}{a^2},\frac{r^2}{b^2}).$$
(57)
For large $`a/r`$ and $`b/r`$, $`U`$ is proportional to the area of the Wilson loop characterized by $`a,b,`$ and $`T`$. In the flat case, this behavior is interpreted as a sign of confinement but, as we have discussed earlier, this is not true for the Poincare half plane.

Finally if we consider the small fermion mass limit $`m<<e`$, and also $`e^{}<<e`$, the eq.(55) reduces to

$$U=2\pi ^2m\mathrm{\Sigma }(\frac{e^{}}{e})^2r\mathrm{ln}(\frac{b}{a}),$$
(58)
which is comparable with the corresponding result in the flat case, after substituting $`r`$ln$`(b/a)(ba)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$(Poincare) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (flat) . Note that the potential (58) is proportional to the geodesic distance $`d=r`$ln $`(b/a)`$, but this is not a sign of confinement as in the flat case. To see this, note that if one fixes the position of the first charge at $`x=a`$ and moves the other charge to a large distance ($`b/r\mathrm{}`$), the eq.(55) reduces to (for $`m<<e`$, $`e^{}<<e`$)

$$U(\frac{b}{r}\mathrm{})=e^2r^2\frac{1}{2a},$$
(59)
which has a finite value, and the system is again in the screening (and not confining) phase.

## 4 Conclusion

Let us summarize the main results of the paper:

1- In $`m=0`$, the Schwinger model on flat space–time is in screening phase, but on the Poincare half plane, the system is in confining phase in $`x0`$ region, and in screening phase in regions far enough from the horizontal axis ( after eq.(28)),

2- In $`m=0`$ and $`e=0`$, the model is confining in flat case (after eq.(29)), but on the Poincare half plane, the phase depends on the region under study (after eq.(30)).

3- In $`m=0`$, the Wilson loop obeys the perimeter (area)–law for $`e0`$ ($`=0`$) in both the flat (after eq.(42)) and the Poincare (eqs.(47) and (48)) cases. But on the Poincare half plane, the area dependence does not indicate the confining phase (in contrast to the flat case) (after eq.(48)).

4- In $`m0`$, the Schwinger model on the flat space–time is in confining phase but in the Poincare case, the model is in screening phase (after eqs.(55) and (59)).

Acknowledgement We would like to thank A. Arfaei for useful discussion and the research council of the University of Tehran for partial financial support.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent years have seem dramatic progress in the understanding of non-perturbative aspects of string theory . With these studies has come the realization that solitonic extended objects, other than just strings, play an essential role. An important object in these investigations has been Dirichlet branes . D-branes are non-perturbative states on which open string can live, and to which various closed strings including Ramond-Ramond states can couple.

Type II string theories have two kind of D-branes, BPS D$`p`$-branes for $`p`$ even(odd)  and non-BPS D$`p`$-branes for $`p`$ odd(even)  in IIA(IIB) theory. The BPS branes are stable solitons which break half of the space-time supersymmetries and their dynamics are properly described in field theory by Dirac-Born-Infeld(DBI) action  (see also ) and Chern-Simons action . The non-BPS D$`p`$-branes on the other hand suffer from open string tachyonic mode whose mass causes the brane in a flat background to be unstable. However, there are other terms in the tachyon potential which makes it bounded from below. Consequently, the non-BPS branes decay to minimum of the tachyon potential. It has been conjectured that at the stationary point of the tachyon potential, the negative minimum energy of the tachyon potential plus the positive energy of the brane tension is exactly zero . Hence, the unstable non-BPS branes in flat space-time vacuum should decay to the true vacuum of the theory in which there is no branes. This conjecture was studied in  by explicit calculation of the tachyon potential using the string field theory framework.

The dynamics of massless bosonic excitations of non-BPS D$`p`$-branes are suitablely described by the DBI action in field theory. This action has been generalized to the supersymmetric form to include the dynamics of massless fermionic modes of the branes as well . The RR fields of the type II theory have no coupling to the non-BPS D-branes through the usual Chern-Simons action. However, there is a non-vanishing coupling between the RR field and tachyon on the world-volume of the branes . The Chern-Simons action hence was modified in  to incorporate this coupling. In the present paper, on the other hand, we are interested in generalizing the DBI action to take into account the dynamics of the tachyon field. We study this by explicit evaluation of some nontrivial disk S-matrix elements in the first quantized string theory. From these matrix elements we conjecture an extension for the DBI action which includes the tachyon field as well.

An outline of the paper is as follows. We begin in section 2 by expressing our conjecture for extension of the DBI action which includes dynamics of the tachyon field. Then we expand this action around a background B-flux to produce various couplings involving two tachyons and one gauge field, graviton, dilaton or Kalb-Ramond antisymmetric tensor. In Section 2.1 we transform the above couplings between commutative fields to their non-commutative counterparts. We do this because the disk S-matrix elements in the presence of the background B-flux with which we are going to compare our conjectured action in the subsequent section are corresponding to non-commutative open string fields . In Section 3, we evaluate the S-matrix elements and check their consistency with the proposed field theory couplings. In Section 4 we extend our proposed action for describing dynamics of a single non-BPS D$`p`$-brane to the case of the non-abelian theory of $`N`$ coincident branes using the general grounds of the symmetrized trace, and non-abelian gauge and invariance under T-duality transformations. Appendix contains our conventions and some useful comments on conformal field theory propagators and vertex operators used in our calculations.

## 2 Abelian action

The world-volume theory of a single non-BPS D-brane in type II theory includes a massless U(1) vector $`A_a`$, a set of massless scalars $`X^i`$, describing the transverse oscillations of the brane, a tachyonic state $`T`$ and their fermionic partners (see, e.g., ). The leading order low-energy action for the massless fields corresponds to a dimensional reduction of a ten dimensional U(1) Yang Mills theory. As usual in string theory, there are higher order $`\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{}_s^2`$ corrections, where $`\mathrm{}_s`$ is the string length scale. As long as derivatives of the field strengths (and second derivatives of the scalars) are small compared to $`\mathrm{}_s`$, then the action takes a Dirac-Born-Infeld form . To take into account the couplings of the massless open string states with closed strings, the DBI action may be extended naturally to include massless Neveu-Schwarz closed string fields,i.e., the metric, dilaton and Kalb-Ramond filed. In this case one arrives at the following world-volume action:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_p{\displaystyle d^{p+1}\sigma e^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(P[G_{ab}+B_{ab}]+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}}}.`$
Here, $`F_{ab}`$ is the abelian field strength of the world-volume ordinary gauge field, while the metric and antisymmetric tensors are the pull-backs of the bulk tensors to the D-brane world-volume, e.g.,

$`P[G_{ab}]`$ $`=`$ $`G_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{X^\mu }{\sigma ^a}}{\displaystyle \frac{X^\nu }{\sigma ^b}}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`G_{ab}+2G_{i(a}_{b)}X^i+G_{ij}_aX^i_bX^j`$
where in the second line above we have used that fact that we are employing static gauge throughout the paper, i.e., $`\sigma ^a=X^a`$ for world-volume and $`X^i(\sigma ^a)`$ for transverse coordinates.

In order to extend this action to incorporate dynamics of the tachyonic mode as well, we shall evaluate some disk S-matrix elements in string theory and read from them various couplings involving the tachyon field. Our results indicate that the tachyon should appear in the following extension of DBI action:

$$S=T_pd^{p+1}\sigma e^\mathrm{\Phi }V(T)\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(P[G_{ab}+B_{ab}]+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}_aT_bT)}$$
(2)
where the tachyon potential is $`V(T)=1+2\pi \alpha ^{}m^2T^2/2+O(T^4)`$ and the tachyon mass is $`m^2=1/2\alpha ^{}`$. In our conventions the tachyon field is dimensionless. The conjecture in  is that the tachyon potential is zero at the minimum of the potential, i.e., $`V(T_0)=0`$. Hence, upon tachyon condensation at this point the abelian action (2) of the non-BPS brane becomes zero.

Note that appearance of the tachyon kinetic term and potential in (2) is similar in form to the kinetic term and potential of the transverse scalar fields in the non-abelian DBI action of $`N`$ coincident BPS D-branes . In this case though the kinetic term appears in the pull-back of the metric under the square root and the potential for scalar fields multiplies the square root in the DBI action(see eq. (4) for $`T=0`$).

We now continue backward, assuming the above action (2) and check its consistency with some S-matrix elements. To have nontrivial check, we shall evaluate disk amplitudes describing decay of two tachyons to dilaton, graviton or Kalb-Ramond antisymmetric tensor on the world-volume of a single non-BPS D$`p`$-brane with background B-flux. The amplitude describing the world-volume coupling of two tachyons to gauge field will be evaluated as well. Therefore, we begin by expanding (2) for fluctuations around the background $`G_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, $`B_{\mu \nu }=^{ab}\eta _{a\mu }\eta _{b\nu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ and $`T=0`$ to extract interactions expected from the proposed action (2). The fluctuations should be normalized as the conventional field theory modes which appear in the string vertex operators. As a first step, we recall that the graviton vertex operator corresponds to string frame metric. Hence, one should transform the Einstein frame metric $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ to the string frame metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ via $`G_{\mu \nu }=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }/2}g_{\mu \nu }`$. Now with our conventions for string vertex operators (see Appendix), the string mode fluctuations take the form

$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{\mu \nu }+2\kappa h_{\mu \nu }`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\kappa \varphi `$
$`B_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`^{ab}\eta _{a\mu }\eta _{b\nu }2\kappa b_{\mu \nu }`$
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^{}T_p}}}\tau `$
$`A_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}\sqrt{T_p}}}a_a`$
$`X^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{T_p}}}\lambda ^i.`$
With these normalizations, the pull back of the Einstein frame metric becomes:

$`P[G_{ab}]`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{ab}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi )+2\kappa P[h_{ab}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_p}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi )_a\lambda ^i_b\lambda _i+\mathrm{}`$
where the dots represents terms with two and more closed string fields.

Now it is straightforward, to expand eq. (2) using

$`\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(M_0+M)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(M_0)}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}(M_0^1M)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}(M_0^1MM_0^1M)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(\mathrm{Tr}(M_0^1M))^2+\mathrm{})`$
to produce a vast array of interactions. We are interested in the interactions quadratic in tachyon, and linear in massless open and closed string fluctuations. The appropriate Lagrangian are:

$`_{2,0}`$ $`=`$ $`c\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_S)^{ab}_a\tau _b\tau \right)`$ (3)
$`_{3,0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2\sqrt{T_p}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2(V_A)^{ab}f_{ba}\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{ab}f_{ba}V^{cd}_c\tau _d\tau V^{ab}f_{bc}V^{cd}_d\tau _a\tau \right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}`$
$`_{2,1}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa c((V^{ab}(h_{ba}b_{ba})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{Tr}(V)4)\varphi )({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_S)^{ab}_a\tau _b\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\tau ^2)`$
$`V^{ab}(h_{bc}b_{bc}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\varphi \eta _{bc})V^{cd}_d\tau _a\tau ).`$
where we have dropped some total derivative terms in $`_{3,0}`$. In the above Lagrangian, $`f_{ab}=_aa_b_ba_a`$ and

$`c\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(\eta _{ab}+_{ab})}`$ $`,`$ $`V^{ab}\left((\eta +)^1\right)^{ab},`$ (4)
and $`V_S(V_A)`$ is symmetric(antisymmetric) part of the V matrix above. It is important to note that the antisymmetric matrix $`V_A`$ appears in total derivative terms in the Lagrangian $`_{3,0}`$ which involves only open string fields.

In the case that the background B-flux is zero, the coupling of Kalb-Ramond field to tachyon in the second line of $`_{2,1}`$ vanishes, and the graviton and dilaton couplings reduce to the natural coupling of these fields to the kinetic term of the tachyon field, i.e., $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }G^{ab}_aT_bT`$. In that way, there is no nontrivial coupling that confirms the conjectured action (2) is valid or not. So we continue our discussion for non-vanishing background B-flux.

The open string fields appearing in the DBI action (2) or (3) are ordinary commutative fields. Whereas, open string vertex operators in string theory with background B-flux correspond to non-commutative fields . Hence, in order to compare the couplings in (3) with corresponding S-matrix elements, one has to transform the commutative fields in (3) to their non-commutative variables.

### 2.1 Change of variables

In  differential equation for transforming commutative gauge field to its non-commutative counterpart was found to be

$`\delta \widehat{A}_a(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta \theta ^{cd}\left(\widehat{A}_c\widehat{F}_{ad}+\widehat{F}_{ad}A_c\widehat{A}_c_d\widehat{A}_a_d\widehat{A}_aA_c\right)`$ (5)
$`\delta \widehat{F}_{ab}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta \theta ^{cd}\left(2\widehat{F}_{ac}\widehat{F}_{bd}+2\widehat{F}_{bd}\widehat{F}_{ac}\widehat{A}_c(\widehat{D}_d\widehat{F}_{ab}+_d\widehat{F}_{ab})(\widehat{D}_d\widehat{F}_{ab}+_d\widehat{F}_{ab})\widehat{A}_c\right)`$
where the gauge field strength and $``$ product were defined to be

$`\widehat{F}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`_a\widehat{A}_b_b\widehat{A}_ai\widehat{A}_a\widehat{A}_b+i\widehat{A}_b\widehat{A}_a`$
$`=`$ $`_a\widehat{A}_b_b\widehat{A}_ai[\widehat{A}_a,\widehat{A}_b]_M`$
$`\widehat{f}(x)\widehat{g}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta _{ab}_y^a_z^b}\widehat{f}(y)\widehat{g}(z)|_{y=z=x}.`$
These differential equations can be integrated perturbatively to find a relation between ordinary fields appearing in (3) and non-commutative fields corresponding to open string vertex operators. The result for abelian case that we are interested in is :

$`A_a`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{A}_a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{cd}\left(\widehat{A}_c^{}\widehat{F}_{ad}\widehat{A}_c^{}_d\widehat{A}_a\right)+O(\widehat{A}^3)`$
$`F_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{F}_{ab}\theta ^{cd}\left(\widehat{F}_{ac}^{}\widehat{F}_{bd}\widehat{A}_c^{}_d\widehat{F}_{ab}\right)+O(\widehat{A}^3)`$ (6)
where the commutative multiplication $`^{}`$ operates as

$`\widehat{f}(x)^{}\widehat{g}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}\theta _{ab}_y^a_z^b)}{\frac{1}{2}\theta _{ab}_y^a_z^b}}\widehat{f}(y)\widehat{g}(z)|_{y=z=x}.`$
In  we verified by explicit calculation of S-matrix elements of one massless closed and two open string states that the transformation (6) is exactly reproduced by perturbative string theory. Appropriate transformations for scalar fields such as the tachyon can be read from (6), i.e.,

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{T}+\theta ^{cd}\widehat{A}_c^{}_d\widehat{T}+\mathrm{}`$ (7)
$`_aT`$ $`=`$ $`_a\widehat{T}i[\widehat{A}_a,\widehat{T}]_M+\theta ^{cd}\left(\widehat{F}_{ca}^{}_b\widehat{T}+\widehat{A}_c^{}_a_d\widehat{T}\right)+\mathrm{}`$
where dots represent terms which involve more than two open string fields. They produce couplings between more than three fields upon replacing them into (3) in which we are not interested.

The differential equation (5) expresses infinitesimal variation of linear field , e.g., $`\delta \widehat{A}_a`$, in terms of infinitesimal variation of the non-commutative parameter, i.e., $`\delta \theta ^{cd}`$. Upon integration (6), this transforms the linear commutative gauge field in terms of nonlinear combination of non-commutative fields. However, we are interested in transforming quadratic combinations of commutative fields appearing in (3) in terms of non-commutative fields. Such a transformation, in principle, might be found from a differential equation alike (5) that expresses infinitesimal variation of the quadratic fields in terms of infinitesimal variation of non-commutative parameter. Upon integration, that would produced the desired transformation. In that way, one would find that not only the fields transform as in (7) but the multiplication rule between fields also undergo appropriate transformation. We are not going to find such a differential equations here. Instead, we simply note that the transformation for multiplication rule between two open string fields can be conjectured from the right hand side of eq. (6) to be

$`fg|_{\theta =0}`$ $``$ $`f^{}g|_{\theta 0}`$ (8)
for $`f`$ and $`g`$ being any arbitrary open string fields. This transformation rule was confirmed in  by explicit evaluation of S-matrix elements of one massless closed and two open string states.

Now with the help of equation (7) and (8), one can transform the commutative Lagrangian (3) to non-commutative counterparts. In doing so, one should first using (8) replace ordinary multiplication of two tachyons by the $`^{}`$ multiplication. Then, using (7) the ordinary tachyon fields should be transformed to their non-commutative counterparts. The results are

$`\widehat{}_{2,0}`$ $`=`$ $`c\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\widehat{\tau }\widehat{\tau }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_S)^{ab}_a\widehat{\tau }_b\widehat{\tau }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{ic}{4\pi \sqrt{T_p}}}(V_S)^{ab}_a\widehat{\tau }[\widehat{a}_b,\widehat{\tau }]_M+\mathrm{}`$ (9)
$`\widehat{}_{2,1}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa c((V^{ab}(h_{ba}b_{ba})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{Tr}(V)4)\varphi )({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_S)^{ab}_a\widehat{\tau }^{}_b\widehat{\tau }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\widehat{\tau }^{}\widehat{\tau })`$ (10)
$`V^{ab}(h_{bc}b_{bc}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi \eta _{bc}}{2\sqrt{2}}})V^{cd}_d\widehat{\tau }^{}_a\widehat{\tau })+\mathrm{}`$
where ellipsis represent terms which have more than three fields. Here we have dropped some total derivative terms which appeared in $`\widehat{}_{2,0}`$ and also replaced $`^{}`$ between two non-commutative tachyons in (9) with ordinary multiplication rule because the deference is some total derivative terms. In the eq. (10) on the other hand, the difference between $`^{}`$ and ordinary multiplication rules is not just a total derivative terms. Note that upon inserting the transformation (7) into (3), the antisymmetric matrix $`(V_A)^{ab}`$ appears in eq. (9) only in the $``$ product terms111Note that our conventions set $`\theta ^{ab}=4\pi (V_A)^{ab}`$..

It is interesting to note that the symmetric part of the $`(\eta +)^1`$ matrix, i.e., $`V_S`$, appears as the metric in (9) and the antisymmetric part appears in the definition of $``$ product in the Moyal bracket. This is consistent with the conclusion reached in . In our discussion, however, the symmetric part $`V_S`$ appears naturally as a result of expanding the ordinary DBI action around the background B-flux, and the antisymmetric part $`V_A`$ appears as a result of transforming commutative fields to non-commutative variables. In the Lagrangian (10), on the other hand, which involves open and closed string fields, both symmetric and antisymmetric matrices appear in its different coupling terms.

## 3 Scattering Calculations

The couplings in (9) and (10) should be reproduced by disk S-matrix elements of string theory if the proposed action (2) is going to be valid. In this section, we work at the string theory side and evaluate these couplings using the conformal field theory technique. We begin with the evaluation of the coupling of two tachyons to gauge or scalar fields.

### 3.1 Open-Open-Open couplings

In the world-sheet conformal field theory framework, the coupling of two tachyons to a gauge or scalar field is described properly by the correlation of their corresponding vertex operators inserted at the boundary of the disk world-sheet, that is

$`A`$ $``$ $`(\zeta _3𝒢)_\mu {\displaystyle }dx_1dx_2dx_3:V_1(2k_1V^T,x_1)::V_1(2k_2V^T,x_2)::V_0^\mu (2k_3V^T,x_3):`$
where the vertex operators are given in the Appendix. Using the world-sheet conformal field theory technique, it is not difficult to perform the correlators above and show that the integrand is invariant under $`SL(2,R)`$. Gauging this symmetry by fixing the positions of the vertices at arbitrary points, one finds $`A(\tau _1,\tau _2,\lambda _3)=0`$ and

$`A(\tau _1,\tau _2,a_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{\pi \sqrt{T_p}}}(k_1V_S\zeta _3)`$ (11)
where we have defined $`l2k_1V^TVk_2=2k_1V_Ak_2`$. We have also normalized the amplitude by the appropriate coupling factor $`c/2\pi \sqrt{T_p}`$. The $`\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)`$ factor above arises basically from two different phase factors corresponding to two distinct cyclic orderings of the vertex operators. Each phase factor stems from the second term of the world-sheet propagator (29). Using the fact that our conventions set $`\theta ^{ab}=4\pi V_A^{ab}`$, it is not difficult to verify that the S-matrix element (11) is exactly reproduced by the second term in (9). At the same time, vanishing of $`A(\tau _1,\tau _2,\lambda _3)`$ is consistent with (9).

### 3.2 Closed-Open-Open amplitudes

The amplitudes describing decay of two open string tachyons to one massless closed string NSNS mode is given by the following correlation:

$$A(\epsilon _3D)_{\mu \nu }dx_1dx_2d^2z:V_0(2k_1V^T,x_1)::V_0(2k_2V^T,x_2)::V_1^\mu (p_3,z_3)::V_1^\nu (p_3D,\overline{z}_3):$$

where the closed string vertex operator inserted at the middle and open string vertex operators at the boundary of the disk world-sheet. Explicit form of the vertex operators in terms of world-sheet fields are given in the Appendix. Here again using appropriate world-sheet propagators, one can evaluate the correlations above and show that the integrand is $`SL(2,R)`$ invariant. We refer the reader to Refs.  for the details of the calculations. Gauging the $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry by fixing $`z_3=i`$ and $`x_1=\mathrm{}`$, one arrives at

$`A`$ $``$ $`2^{2s2}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left((2s+1)\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)\frac{8ik_2V^T\epsilon _3DVk_1}{xi}+\frac{8ik_1V^T\epsilon _3DVk_2}{x+i}\right)}`$
$`\times (xi)^{sl}(x+i)^{s+l}`$
where the integral is taken from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, and $`s=p_3V_Sp_3=1/22k_1V_Sk_2`$. This integral is doable and the result is

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\kappa c}{2}}\left(a_1(s+l)a_2(sl)\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1sl)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s+l)}}`$ (12)
where $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are two kinematic factors depending only on the space time momenta and the closed string polarization tensor

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`4k_2V^T\epsilon _3DVk_1`$
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`(s+l)\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)+4k_1V^T\epsilon _3DVk_2.`$
We have also normalized the amplitude (12) at this point by the coupling factor $`i\kappa c/2\pi `$. As a check of our calculations, we have inserted the dilaton polarization (31) into (12) and found that the result is independent of the auxiliary vector $`\mathrm{}^\mu `$. The amplitude (12) has the pole structure at $`m_{open}^2=n/\alpha ^{}`$222We explicitly restore $`\alpha ^{}`$ here. Otherwise our conventions set $`\alpha ^{}=2`$. This does not have tachyon pole which is consistent with the fact that coupling of three tachyons is zero. In fact due to the world-sheet fermions in the tachyon vertex operator, coupling of any odd number of tachyons is zero. Hence, the world-volume of the non-BPS D$`p`$-branes has a $`Z_2`$ symmetry under which the tachyon changes sign.

#### 3.2.1 Massless poles

Given the general form of the string amplitude in eq. (12), one can expand this amplitude as an infinite sum of terms reflecting the infinite tower of open string states that propagate on the world-Volume of D-brane. In the domain where $`s0`$, the first term of the expansion representing the exchange of massless string states dominate. In this case the scattering amplitude (12) reduces to

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\kappa c\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{4\pi s}}(a_1+a_2)+\mathrm{}`$ (13)
where dots represent contact terms and the infinite series of massive poles. Making the appropriate explicit choices of polarizations, we find

$`A_s(\tau _1,\tau _2,\varphi _3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\kappa c\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{8\pi \sqrt{2}s}}({\displaystyle \frac{l}{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}(D)+2)4k_1VVk_2)+12`$ (14)
$`A_s(\tau _1,\tau _2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\kappa c\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{4\pi s}}({\displaystyle \frac{l}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)4k_1V\epsilon _3^TVk_2)+12.`$
Here $`h_3`$ stands for both graviton and Kalb-Ramond antisymmetric tensors. In writing explicitly the above massless poles, one finds some terms which are proportional to $`s`$ as well. We will add these terms which have no contribution to the massless poles of field theory to the contact terms in (16). The amplitudes (14) should be reproduced in $`s`$-channel of field theory. They can be evaluated in field theory as

$`A_s^{}(\tau _1,\tau _2,\varphi _3)`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{\varphi _3a})^a(\stackrel{~}{G}_a)_{ab}(\stackrel{~}{V}_{a\tau _1\tau _2})^b`$
$`A_s^{}(\tau _1,\tau _2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{h_3a})^a(\stackrel{~}{G}_a)_{ab}(\stackrel{~}{V}_{a\tau _1\tau _2})^b`$ (15)
where the propagator and the vertices can be read from expansion of (2) in terms of non-commutative fields. They are

$`(\stackrel{~}{G}_a)^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{(V_S^1)^{ab}}{s}}`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{\varphi _3a})^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{T_p}\kappa c}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}(D)+2)p_3V_A^ap_3VV^a+V^aVp_3\right)`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{h_3a})^a`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{T_p}\kappa c\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)p_3V_A^ap_3V\epsilon _3^TV^a+V^a\epsilon _3^TVp_3\right)`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{V}_{a\tau _1\tau _2})^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{2\pi \sqrt{T_p}}}k_1V_S^a+12.`$
In writing the above propagator, we have used the covariant gauge $`V_S^{ab}_a\widehat{A}_b=0`$. Replacing above propagator and vertices into (15), one finds exactly the string massless poles (14).

#### 3.2.2 Contact terms

Having examined in detail the massless poles of string amplitude, we now extract the low energy contact terms of the string amplitude (12). Expanding the gamma function appearing in this amplitude for $`s0`$, one will find

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\kappa c}{2}}(({\displaystyle \frac{a_1+a_2}{2\pi }}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{s}}+({\displaystyle \frac{a_1a_2}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{\pi l}}`$
$`+(a_1+a_2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{\pi l}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\zeta (2n+1)l^{(2n+1)}+k^2O(s,l)).`$
The factor $`\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)/(\pi l)`$ appears for all the contact terms which is consistent with the transformation of multiplication rule in (8). The second term of the first line above is the contact term with minimum number of momentum in which we are interested, that is,

$`A_c`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\kappa c\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{4\pi l}}(a_1a_2)`$ (16)
Inserting appropriate polarization (see Appendix) and adding the residue contact terms of the massless poles (13), one finds

$`A_c(\tau _1,\tau _2,\varphi _3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\kappa c\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{8\pi \sqrt{2}l}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}(\mathrm{Tr}(D)+2)4k_1VVk_2\right)+12`$ (17)
$`A_c(\tau _1,\tau _2,h_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\kappa c\mathrm{sin}(\pi l)}{4\pi l}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}(\epsilon _3D)4k_1V\epsilon _3^TVk_2\right)+12.`$
where again $`h_3`$ stands for both graviton and Kalb-Ramond antisymmetric tensors. These contact terms are reproduced exactly by the Lagrangian in (10). The first terms in (17) by the terms in the first line of (10) and the second terms in (17) by the terms in the second line of (10). Note that, while the first terms in (17) can be reproduced in field theory by an action in which the tachyon kinetic term appears linearly like the one proposed in , the second terms in (17) can be reproduced only if the tachyon kinetic term appears non-linearly in the determinant under the square root in the BDI action, i.e., eq. (2). This ends our illustration of consistency between disk S-matrix elements and the proposed action (2).

## 4 Non-abelian action

In this section we extend the proposed action (2) for a non-BPS D$`p`$-brane to the case of N coincident non-BPS D$`p`$-brane where the world-volume theory involves a U(N) gauge theory. Our guiding principle in constructing such a non-abelian action is that the action should be consistent with the familiar rules of T-duality. This guideline has been recently employed by Myers  to construct non-abelian DBI action. In this way, one should start with non-abelian action for D9-branes and then use some sort of T-duality transformations to convert the D9-brane action to non-abelian action for D$`p`$-branes. Therefore, we begin by extending the abelian action (2) to non-abelian action for non-BPS D9-branes. In this case there is no scalar field corresponding to the transverse direction of D9-branes. Hence, the non-abelian action may be constructed from the corresponding abelian case by simply extending the derivative of open string fields to its non-abelian covariant derivative , and a trace over the U(N) representations  (see also ), that is,

$$S=T_9d^{10}\sigma \mathrm{Tr}\left(e^\mathrm{\Phi }V(T)\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(G_{\mu \nu }+B_{\mu \nu }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\mu \nu }+2\pi \alpha ^{}D_\mu TD_\nu T)}\right)$$
(18)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$, $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ are the metric, antisymmetric tensor and the non-abelian gauge field strength, respectively, and

$`D_\mu T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\sigma ^\mu }}i[A_\mu ,T].`$
This action is still incomplete without a precise prescription for how the gauge trace should be implemented. We expect that a prescription similar to that given for Born-Infeld action  should also be given here. That is, the gauge trace should be completely symmetric between all non-abelian expression of the form $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, $`D_\mu T`$ and individual $`T`$ appearing in the tachyon potential $`V(T)`$.

Now we generalize (18) to the action appropriate for non-BPS D$`p`$-branes for any $`p`$. To this end, we apply familiar T-duality transformations rules to the non-abelian D9-brane action (18). T-duality transformations in $`i=p+1,\mathrm{},9`$ directions of the D9-brane world-volume converts the D9-brane to D$`p`$-brane, the gauge fields in those direction to $`\stackrel{~}{A}_i=X^i/2\pi \alpha ^{}`$ and leaves unchanged the tachyon, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{T}=T`$. The new scalar fields $`X^i`$ are now transverse coordinates of the new D$`p`$-brane. Under this transformation, the covariant derivative of tachyon becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{D}_i\stackrel{~}{T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\sigma ^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}[X^i,T].`$
Using the fact that we are always working in the static gauge, the first term on the right hand side becomes zero because of the assumption implicit in the T-duality transformations that all fields must be independent of the coordinates $`\sigma ^i`$. Now adding this transformation to the T-duality transformation of massless fields (see e.g., ), one has complete list of T-duality transformations for the fields appearing in (18);

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}=E_{ab}E_{ai}E^{ij}E_{jb}`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ai}=E_{aj}E^{ji}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ij}=E^{ij}`$ , $`E_{ia}=E^{ij}E_{ja}`$
$`e^{2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}=e^{2\varphi }\mathrm{det}(E^{ij})`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{D}_i\stackrel{~}{T}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}[X^i,T]`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{ab}=F_{ab}`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{ai}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}D_aX^i`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}}[X^i,X^j]`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{ia}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}D_aX^i`$
where we have defined $`E_{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }+B_{\mu \nu }`$. Here $`E^{ij}`$ denotes the inverse of $`E_{ij}`$, i.e., $`E^{ik}E_{kj}=\delta ^i_j`$. Under above T-duality transformations the determinant in (18) becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{D}=\mathrm{det}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& \stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}D_aTD_bT& \stackrel{~}{E}_{aj}+D_aX^jiD_aT[X^j,T]\\ \\ & \stackrel{~}{E}_{ib}D_bX^ii[X^i,T]D_bT& \stackrel{~}{E}_{ij}\frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}[X^i,X^j]\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}[X^i,T][X^j,T]\end{array}\right)`$
Manipulating the matrix inside the determinant, one finds

$`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{det}(P[E_{ab}+E_{ai}(Q^1\delta )^{ij}E_{jb}]+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}+T_{ab})\mathrm{det}(Q^i{}_{j}{}^{})\mathrm{det}(E^{ij})`$ (20)
where now the definition of the pull-back above is the extension of (1) in which ordinary derivative is replaced by its non-abelian covariant derivative. Here the matrices $`Q^i_j`$ and $`T_{ab}`$ are defined to be

$`Q^i_j`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^i{}_{j}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}[X^i,X^k]E_{kj}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}[X^i,T][X^k,T]E_{kj}`$
$`T_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \alpha ^{}D_aTD_bTD_aT[X^i,T](Q^1)_{ij}[X^j,T]D_bT`$
$`iE_{ai}(Q^1)^i{}_{j}{}^{}[X^j,T]D_bTiD_aT[X^i,T](Q^1)_i{}_{}{}^{j}E_{jb}^{}`$
$`iD_aX^i(Q^1)_{ij}[X^j,T]D_bTiD_aT[X^i,T](Q^1)_{ij}D_bX^j`$
In equations (20) and (4), indices are raised and lowered by $`E^{ij}`$ and $`E_{ij}`$, respectively. Now replacing (20) into T-dual of (18) and using the transformation for dilaton field (19), one finds the final T-dual action

$`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ $`=`$ $`T_p{\displaystyle d^{p+1}\sigma }`$
$`\times \mathrm{Tr}\left(e^\mathrm{\Phi }V(T)V^{}(T,X^i)\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(P[E_{ab}+E_{ai}(Q^1\delta )^{ij}E_{jb}]+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}+T_{ab})}\right)`$
where we have defined $`V^{}(T,X^i)=\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(Q^i{}_{j}{}^{})}`$. This potential term is one for abelian case. If the tachyon field is set to zero, this action would get to the result of non-abelian action for N coincident BPS D$`p`$-branes . In this case, the prescription for the gauge trace is studied in . The trace is completely symmetric between $`F_{ab}`$, $`D_aX^i`$, $`i[X^i,X^j]`$ and individual $`X^i`$. The latter non-abelian field stems from non-abelian Taylor expansion of the closed string fields that appear in the DBI action . Natural extension of this prescription for the trace in the action (4) is that the trace should be completely symmetric between all non-abelian expressions of the form $`F_{ab}`$, $`D_aX^i`$, $`i[X^i,X^j]`$, $`X^i`$, $`D_aT`$, $`i[X^i,T]`$ and individual $`T`$ of the tachyon potential.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge useful conversation with R.C. Myers. This work was supported by University of Birjand and IPM.

## Appendix A  Perturbative string theory with background field

In perturbative superstring theories, to study scattering amplitude of some external string states in conformal field theory frame, one usually evaluate correlation function of their corresponding vertex operators with use of some standard conformal field theory propagators . In trivial flat background one uses an appropriate linear $`\sigma `$-model to derive the propagators and define the vertex operators. In nontrivial D-brane background the vertex operator remain unchanged while the standard propagators need some modification. Alternatively, one may use a doubling trick to convert the propagators to standard form and give the modification to the vertex operators . In this appendix we would like to consider a D-brane with constant gauge field strength / or antisymmetric Kalb-Ramond field in all directions of the D-brane. The modifications arising from the appropriate linear $`\sigma `$-model appear in the following boundary conditions 333 Our notation and conventions follow those established in . So we are working on the upper-half plane with boundary at $`y=0`$ which means $`_y`$ is normal derivative and $`_x`$ is tangent derivative. And our index conventions are that lowercase Greek indices take values in the entire ten-dimensional space-time, e.g., $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},9`$; early Latin indices take values in the world-volume, e.g., $`a,b,c=0,1,\mathrm{},p`$; and middle Latin indices take values in the transverse space, e.g., $`i,j=p+1,\mathrm{},8,9`$. Finally, our conventions set $`\mathrm{}_s^2=\alpha ^{}=2`$.:

$`_yX^ai^a{}_{b}{}^{}_{x}^{}X^b=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`a,b=0,1,\mathrm{}p`$
$`X^i=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`i=p+1,\mathrm{}9`$ (23)
where $`_{ab}`$ are the constant background fields, and these equations are imposed at $`y=0`$. The world-volume (orthogonal subspace) indices are raised and lowered by $`\eta ^{ab}(N^{ij})`$ and $`\eta _{ab}(N_{ij})`$, respectively. Now we have to understand the modification of the conformal field theory propagators arising from these mixed boundary conditions. To this end consider the following general expression for propagator of $`X^\mu (z,\overline{z})`$ fields:

$`<X^\mu (z,\overline{z})X^\nu (w,\overline{w})>`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{log}(zw)\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{log}(\overline{z}\overline{w})`$ (24)
$`D^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{log}(z\overline{w})D^{\nu \mu }(\overline{z}w)`$
where $`D^{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant matrix. To find this matrix, we impose the boundary condition (23) on the propagator (24), which yields

$`\eta ^{ab}D^{ba}^{ab}^a{}_{c}{}^{}D_{}^{bc}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (25)
for the world-volume directions, $`D^{ij}=N^{ij}`$ for the orthogonal directions, and $`D^{ia}=0`$ otherwise. Now equation (25) can be solved for $`D^{ab}`$, that is

$`D_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\eta )_{ab}^{(1)}\eta _{ab}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`2V_{ba}\eta _{ab}`$ (27)
where matrix $`V`$ is the dual metric that appears in the expansion of DBI action (4). Note that the $`D^{\mu \nu }`$ is orthogonal matrix, i.e., $`D^\mu {}_{\alpha }{}^{}D_{}^{\nu \alpha }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$.

Using two dimensional equation of motion, one can write the world-sheet fields in terms of right- and left-moving components. In terms of these chiral fields, closed NSNS and open NS vertex operators are

$`V^{\mathrm{NSNS}}`$ $`=`$ $`:V_n^{\mathrm{NS}}(X(z),\psi (z),\varphi (z),p)::V_m^{\mathrm{NS}}(\stackrel{~}{X}(\overline{z}),\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\overline{z}),\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\overline{z}),p):`$
$`V^{\mathrm{NS}}`$ $`=`$ $`:V_n^{\mathrm{NS}}(X(x)+\stackrel{~}{X}(x),\psi (x)+\stackrel{~}{\psi }(x),\varphi (x)+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x),k):`$
where $`\psi ^\mu `$ is super partner of world-sheet field $`X^\mu `$ and $`\varphi `$ is world-sheet superghost field. The indices $`n,m`$ refer to the superghost charge of vertex operators, and $`p`$ and $`k`$ are closed and open string momentum, respectively. In order to work with only right-moving fields, we use the following doubling trick:

$`\stackrel{~}{X}^\mu (\overline{z})D^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}X_{}^{\nu }(\overline{z})`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^\mu (\overline{z})D^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}\psi _{}^{\nu }(\overline{z})`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\overline{z})\varphi (\overline{z}).`$ (28)
These replacements in effect extend the right-moving fields to the entire complex plane and shift modification arising from mixed boundary condition from propagators to vertex operators. Under these replacement, world-sheet propagator between all right-moving fields take the standard form  except the following boundary propagator:

$`<X^\mu (x_1)X^\nu (x_2)>`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{log}(x_1x_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Theta }(x_1x_2)`$ (29)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x_1x_2)=1(1)`$ if $`x_1>x_2(x_1<x_2)`$. Note that the orthogonal property of the $`D`$ matrix is an important ingredient for writing the propagators in the standard form. The vertex operators under transformation (28) becomes

$`V^{\mathrm{NSNS}}`$ $`=`$ $`:V_n^{\mathrm{NS}}(X(z),\psi (z),\varphi (z),p)::V_m^{\mathrm{NS}}(DX(\overline{z}),D\psi (\overline{z}),\varphi (\overline{z}),p):`$
$`V^{\mathrm{NS}}`$ $`=`$ $`:V_n^{\mathrm{NS}}(X(x)+DX(x),\psi (x)+D\psi (x),2\varphi (x),k):.`$
The vertex operator for massless NSNS and NS states and open string tachyon are

$`V^{\mathrm{NSNS}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon D)_{\mu \nu }:V_n^\mu (p,z)::V_m^\nu (pD,\overline{z}):`$
$`V^{\mathrm{NS}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\zeta 𝒢)_\mu :V_n^\mu (2kV^T,x):`$
$`V^\tau `$ $`=`$ $`:V_n(2kV^T,x):`$ (30)
where $`𝒢^{ab}=(\eta ^{ab}+D^{ab})/2=V^{ba}`$ for gauge field, $`𝒢^{ij}=(\eta ^{ij}D^{ij})/2=N^{ij}`$ for scalar field and $`𝒢^{ai}=0`$ otherwise. The open string vertex operators in $`(0)`$ and $`(1)`$ pictures are

$`V_0^\mu (k,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(X^\mu (x)+ik\psi (x)\psi ^\mu (x)\right)e^{ikX(x)}`$
$`V_1^\mu (k,x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\varphi (x)}\psi ^\mu (x)e^{ikX(x)}`$
$`V_0(k,x)`$ $`=`$ $`ik\psi (x)e^{ikX(x)}`$
$`V_1(k,x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\varphi (x)}e^{ikX(x)}.`$
The physical conditions for the massless open string and tachyon are

$`\mathrm{massless}:`$ $`kV_Sk=0,kV_S\zeta =0`$
$`\mathrm{tachyon}:`$ $`kV_Sk={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$
and for massless closed string are $`p^2=0`$ and $`p_\mu \epsilon ^{\mu \nu }=0`$ where $`\epsilon `$ is the closed string polarization which is traceless and symmetric(antisymmetric) for graviton(Kalb-Ramond) and

$$\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}(\eta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}^\mu p^\nu \mathrm{}^\nu p^\mu ),\mathrm{}p=1$$
(31)
for the dilaton. Using the fact that $`D^{\mu \nu }`$ is orthogonal matrix, one finds the following identities:

$$𝒢𝒢^T=𝒢^S,(D𝒢^T)^{ab}=𝒢^{ab},(D𝒢^T)^{ij}=N^{ij}$$

where the $`𝒢^S`$ is symmetric part of the $`𝒢`$ matrix.