References

Thomas Mohaupt

doi:10.1017/9781108611619.029

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 March 2022

Thomas Mohaupt

Show author details

Thomas Mohaupt: Affiliation:
University of Liverpool

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: A Short Introduction to String Theory , pp. 257 - 262

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108611619.029 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldazabal, G., Marques, D., and Nunez, C. 2013. Double Field Theory: A Pedagogical Review. Class. Quant. Grav., 30, 163001.Google Scholar

Ammon, M. and Erdmenger, J. 2015. Gauge/Gravity Duality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Antoniadis, Ignatios, Bachas, C. P., and Kounnas, C. 1987. Four-Dimensional Superstrings. Nucl. Phys. B, 289, 87.Google Scholar

Aspinwall, P. S., Bridgeland, T., Craw, A. et al. (eds.). 2009. Dirichlet Branes and Mirror Symmetry. Clay Mathematics Monographs, vol. 5. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar

Astashkevich, A. and Belopolsky, A. 1997. String Center-of-Mass Operator and Its Effect on BRST Cohomology. Commun. Math. Phys., 186, 109–36.CrossRef Google Scholar

Athanasopoulos, P., Faraggi, A. E., Groot Nibbelink, S., and Mehta, V. M. 2016. Heterotic Free Fermionic and Symmetric Toroidal Orbifold Models. JHEP, 04, 038.Google Scholar

Becker, K., Becker, M., and Schwarz, J. H.. 2007. String Theory and M Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Belopolsky, A. and Zwiebach, B. 1996. Who Changes the String Coupling? Nucl. Phys. B, 472, 109–38.Google Scholar

Bergshoeff, E., de Roo, M., Green, M. B., Papadopoulos, G., and Townsend, P. K. 1996. Duality of Type II 7 Branes and 8 Branes. Nucl. Phys. B, 470, 113–35.CrossRef Google Scholar

Berkovits, N. and Gomez, H. 2017 (11). An Introduction to Pure Spinor Superstring Theory. In: Quantization, Geometry and Noncommunicative Structures in Mathematics and Physics. Mathematical Physics Studies. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Berkovits, N., Sen, A., and Zwiebach, B. 2000. Tachyon Condensation in Superstring Field Theory. Nucl. Phys. B, 587, 147–78.Google Scholar

Bern, Z., Dennen, T., Huang, Y.-T., and Kiermaier, M. 2010a. Gravity as the Square of Gauge Theory. Phys. Rev. D, 82, 065003.Google Scholar

Bern, Z., Carrasco, J. J. M., and Johansson, H. 2010b. Perturbative Quantum Gravity as a Double Copy of Gauge Theory. Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 061602.Google Scholar

Binetruy, P. 2008. Supersymmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blumenhagen, R. and Plauschinn, E. 2009. Introduction to Conformal Field Theory. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 779. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Blumenhagen, R., Luest, D., and Theisen, S. 2013. Basic Concepts of String Theory. Berlin/Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bump, D. 2004. Lie Groups. New York: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cahn, R. N. 1984. Semi-Simple Lie Algebras and Their Representations. Benjamin and Cummings.Google Scholar

Callan, Jr, Curtis, G., Martinec, E. J., Perry, M. J., and Friedan, D. 1985. Strings in Background Fields. Nucl. Phys. B, 262, 593–609.Google Scholar

Candelas, P. 1987. Lectures on Complex Manifolds. In: Alvarez-Gaume, L. (ed.), Superstrings’87. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Coleman, S. 1985. Aspects of Symmetry. Selected Erice Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cornwell, R. 1997. Group Theory in Physics: An Introduction (vols 1 & 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

de Azcarraga, J. A. and Izquierdo, J. M. 1995. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, Cohomology and Some Applications in Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

de Boer, J., Cheng, M. C. N., Dijkgraaf, R., Manschot, J., and Verlinde, E. 2006. A Farey Tail for Attractor Black Holes. JHEP, 11, 024.CrossRef Google Scholar

de Wit, B. and Louis, J. 1999. Supersymmetry and Dualities in Various Dimensions. NATO Sci. Ser. C, 520, 33–101.Google Scholar

Deligne, P., Etingof, P., Freed, D. S. et al. (eds.). 1999. Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar

D’Hoker, E. and Phong, D. H. 1988. The Geometry of String Perturbation Theory. Rev. Mod. Phys., 60, 917.Google Scholar

Di Francesco, P., Mathieu, P., and Sénéchal, D. 1997. Conformal Field Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Dijkgraaf, R., Verlinde, E. P., and Verlinde, H. L. 1988. C = 1 Conformal Field Theories on Riemann Surfaces. Commun. Math. Phys., 115, 649–90.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dijkgraaf, R., Maldacena, J. M., Moore, G., and Verlinde, E. P. 2000. A Black Hole Farey Tail. E-print arXiv:hep-th/0005003.Google Scholar

Dine, M. 2007. Supersymmetry and String Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. 1964. Lectures on Quantum Mechanics. Belfare Graduate School Monograph Series. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, L. J., Friedan, D., Martinec, E. J., and Shenker, S. H. 1987. The Conformal Field Theory of Orbifolds. Nucl. Phys. B, 282, 13–73.Google Scholar

Dixon, L. J., Harvey, J. A., Vafa, C., and Witten, E. 1985. Strings on Orbifolds. Nucl. Phys. B, 261, 678–86.Google Scholar

Dixon, L. J., Harvey, J. A., Vafa, C., and Witten, E. 1986. Strings on Orbifolds. 2. Nucl. Phys. B, 274, 285–314.CrossRef Google Scholar

Doubek, M., Jurco, B., Markl, M., and Sachs, I. 2020. Algebraic Structures of String Field Theory. Lecture Notes in Physics. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Duff, M. J., Nilsson, B. E. W., and Pope, C. N. 1986. Kaluza–Klein Supergravity. Phys. Rept., 130, 1–142.CrossRef Google Scholar

Duncan, A. 2012. The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Erbin, H. 2021. String Field Theory. Lecture Notes in Physics. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Erler, T. 2013. Analytic Solution for Tachyon Condensation in Berkovits’ Open Superstring Field Theory. JHEP, 11, 007.Google Scholar

Erler, T. 2019 (12). Four Lectures on Analytic Solutions in Open String Field Theory. E-print arXiv:1912.00521.Google Scholar

Erler, T. 2020. Four Lectures on Closed String Field Theory. Phys. Rept., 851, 1–36.Google Scholar

Frankel, T. 2004. The Geometry of Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Freedman, D. Z. and Van Proeyen, A. 2012. Supergravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Frenkel, E. and Ben-Zvi, D. 2001. Vertex Algebras and Algebraic Curves. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar

Friedan, D., Martinec, E. J., and Shenker, S. H. 1986. Conformal Invariance, Supersymmetry and String Theory. Nucl. Phys. B, 271, 93–165.Google Scholar

Fuchs, J. and Schweigert, C. 1997. Symmetries, Lie Algebras and Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fulton, W. and Harris, J. 1991. Representation Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Gaberdiel, M. R. and Suchanek, P. 2012. Limits of Minimal Models and Continuous Orbifolds. JHEP, 03, 104.Google Scholar

Gilmore, R. 1974. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras and Some of Their Applications. London/New York/Sydney/Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Ginsparg, P. H. 1988. Applied Conformal Field Theory. E-print hep-th/9108028.Google Scholar

Giveon, A., Porrati, M., and Rabinovici, E. 1994. Target Space Duality in String Theory. Phys.Rept., 244, 77–202.Google Scholar

Glimm, J. and Jaffe, A. 1981. Quantum Physics. A Functional Integral Point of View. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Goddard, P. and Olive, D. I. 1986. Kac–Moody and Virasoro Algebras in Relation to Quantum Physics. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 1, 303.Google Scholar

Green, M. B., H., Schwarz, J., and Witten, E. 1987. Superstring Theory (2 vols). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Greene, B. R. 1996. String Theory on Calabi–Yau Manifolds. Pages 543–726 of: Fields, Strings and Duality. Proceedings, Summer School, Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, TASI’96, Boulder, USA, June 2-28, 1996.Google Scholar

Gutperle, M. and Strominger, A. 2002. Spacelike Branes. JHEP, 04, 018.Google Scholar

Haag, R. 1996. Local Quantum Physics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Hamermesh, M. 1962. Group Theory and its Application to Physical Problems. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Hamidi, S. and Vafa, C. 1987. Interactions on Orbifolds. Nucl. Phys. B, 279, 465–513.Google Scholar

Helgason, S. 1978. Differential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces. Academic Press.Google Scholar

Henneaux, M. and Teitelboim, C. 1992. Quantization of Gauge Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Hohm, O. and Samtleben, H. 2019. The Many Facets of Exceptional Field Theory. E-print arXiv:1905.08312.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hori, K., Katz, S., Klemm, A. et al. (eds). 2003. Mirror Symmetry. Clay Mathematics Monographs, vol. 1. Amer. Math. Soc.Google Scholar

Horowitz, G. T. and Polchinski, J. 1997. A Correspondence Principle for Black Holes and Strings. Phys. Rev. D, 55, 6189–6197.Google Scholar

Hubsch, T. 1991. Calabi–Yau Manifolds. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Hull, C. M. 1998. Timelike T-duality, de Sitter Space, Large N Gauge Theories and Topological Field Theory. JHEP, 07, 021.Google Scholar

Hull, C. M. 2001. De Sitter Space in Supergravity and M Theory. JHEP, 11, 012.Google Scholar

Humphreys, J. E. 1972. Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Ibáñez, L. E. and Uranga, A. M. 2012. String Theory and Particle Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, C. V. 2003. D-Branes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kac, V. G. 1990. Infinite Dimensional Lie Algebras. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kaku, M. 1988. Introduction to Superstrings. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Kaku, M. 1991. Strings, Conformal Fields and Topology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Kaplunovsky, V. and Louis, J. 1994. Field Dependent Gauge Couplings in Locally Supersymmetric Effective Quantum Field Theories. Nucl. Phys. B, 422, 57–124.Google Scholar

Kaplunovsky, V. and Louis, J. 1995. On Gauge Couplings in String Theory. Nucl. Phys. B, 444, 191–244.Google Scholar

Kawai, H., Lewellen, D. C., and Tye, S.-H. H. 1986. A Relation Between Tree Amplitudes of Closed and Open Strings. Nucl. Phys. B, 269, 1.Google Scholar

Kawai, H., Lewellen, D. C., and Tye, S.-H. H. 1987. Construction of Fermionic String Models in Four-Dimensions. Nucl. Phys. B, 288, 1.Google Scholar

Kiritsis, E. 2007. String Theory in a Nutshell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lawson, H. B. and Michelsohn, M.-L. 1989. Spin Geometry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lerche, W., Schellekens, A. N., and Warner, N. P. 1989. Lattices and Strings. Phys. Rept., 177, 1.Google Scholar

Maharana, J. and Schwarz, J. H. 1993. Noncompact Symmetries in String Theory. Nucl. Phys., B 390, 3–32.Google Scholar

Maldacena, J. M. 1996. Black Holes in String Theory. Ph thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar

Marnelius, R. 1982. Introduction to the Quantization of General Gauge Theories. Acta Phys. Polon. B, 13, 669.Google Scholar

Narain, K. S. 1986. New Heterotic String Theories in Uncompactified Dimensions < 10. Phys. Lett., B 169, 41.Google Scholar

Narain, K. S., Sarmadi, M. H., and Witten, E. 1987. A Note on Toroidal Compactification of Heterotic String Theory. Nucl. Phys., B 279, 369.Google Scholar

Nieto, J. A. 2001. Remarks on Weyl Invariant P-Branes and Dp-Branes. Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 16, 2567–78.Google Scholar

Ooguri, H. and Vafa, C. 2007. On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland. Nucl. Phys. B, 766, 21–33.Google Scholar

Ortin, T. 2004. Gravity and Strings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Peskin, M. E. and Schroeder, D. V. 1996. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Plauschinn, E. 2019. Non-geometric Backgrounds in String Theory. Phys. Rept., 798, 1–122.Google Scholar

Polchinski, J. 1996 (11). Tasi Lectures on D-Branes. In: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 96): Fields, Strings, and Duality.Google Scholar

Polchinski, J. 1998a. String Theory. Vol. 1: An Introduction to the Bosonic String. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Polchinski, J. 1998b. String Theory. Vol. 2: Superstring Theory and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Polyakov, A. M. 1981a. Quantum Geometry of Bosonic Strings. Physics Letters B, 103(3), 207–10.Google Scholar

Polyakov, A. M. 1981b. Quantum Geometry of Fermionic Strings. Physics Letters B, 103(3), 211–13.Google Scholar

Polyakov, A. M. 1987. Gauge Fields and Strings. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Rajaraman, R. 1982. Solitons and Instantons. An Introduction to Solitons and Instantons in Quantum Field Theory. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Ramond, P. 2010. Group Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rocek, M. and Verlinde, E. P. 1992. Duality, Quotients, and Currents. Nucl. Phys. B, 373, 630–46.Google Scholar

Roepstorff, G. 1994. Path Integral Approach to Quantum Physics. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Runkel, I. and Watts, G. M. T. 2002. A Nonrational CFT with Central Charge 1. Fortsch. Phys., 50, 959–65.Google Scholar

Sakamoto, M. 1989. A Physical Interpretation of Cocycle Factors in Vertex Operator Representations. Phys. Lett. B, 231(3), 258.Google Scholar

Scherk, J. 1975. An Introduction to the Theory of Dual Models and Strings. Rev. Mod. Phys., 47, 123–64.Google Scholar

Scherk, J. and Schwarz, J. H. 1979. How to Get Masses from Extra Dimensions. Nucl. Phys. B, 153, 61–88.Google Scholar

Schomerus, V. 2017. A Primer on String Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schottenloher, M. 1997. A Mathematical Introduction to Conformal Field Theory. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Schubert, C. 2001. Perturbative Quantum Field Theory in the String Inspired Formalism. Phys. Rept., 355, 73–234.Google Scholar

Sen, A. 1998. Tachyon Condensation on the Brane Anti-Brane System. JHEP, 08, 012.Google Scholar

Sen, A. 2018. Background Independence of Closed Superstring Field Theory. JHEP, 02, 155.Google Scholar

Serre, J.-P. 1973. A Course in Arithmetic. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Sexl, R. U., and Urbantke, H. K. 2001. Relativity, Groups, Particles. NewYork/ Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar

Siegel, W. 1988. Introduction to String Field Theory. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Sonoda, H. 1988a. Sewing Conformal Field Theories I. Nucl. Phys. B, 311(2), 401–16.Google Scholar

Sonoda, H. 1988b. Sewing Conformal Field Theories II. Nucl. Phys. B, 311(2), 417–432.Google Scholar

Streater, R. F. and Wightman, A. S. 1964. PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That. W.A. Benjamin, Inc.Google Scholar

Strominger, A., Yau, S.-T., and Zaslow, E. 1996. Mirror Symmetry is T-Duality. Nucl. Phys. B, 479, 243–259.Google Scholar

Strominger, A. and Vafa, C. 1996. Microscopic Origin of the Bekenstein–Hawking Entropy. Phys. Lett., B 379, 99–104.Google Scholar

Sudarshan, E. C. G. and Mukunda, N. 1974. Classcial Mechanics: A Modern Perspective. Singpore: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Sundermeyer, K. 1982. Constrained Dynamics. Springer Lecture Notes in Physics 169. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Townsend, P. K. 1997. M-Theory from Its Superalgebra. E-print hep-th/9712004.Google Scholar

Tseytlin, A. A. 1989. Sigma Model Approach to String Theory. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 4, 1257.Google Scholar

van Beest, M., Calderón-Infante, J., Mirfendereski, D., and Valenzuela, I. 2021 (2). Lectures on the Swampland Program in String Compactifications. E-print arXiv:2102.01111.Google Scholar

Van Proeyen, A. 1999. Tools for Supersymmetry. E-print hep-th/9910030.Google Scholar

Wald, R. M. 1984. General Relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Weinberg, E. 2012. Classical Solutions in Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Weinberg, S. 1987. Covariant Path Integral Approach to String Theory. 3rd Jerusalem Winter School in Theoretical Physics.Google Scholar

Weinberg, S. 1995. The Quantum Theory of Fields. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wess, J. and Bagger, J. 1992. Supersymmetry and Supergravity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

West, P. 1986. Introduction to Supersymmetry and Supergravity. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRef Google Scholar

West, P. 2012. Introduction to Strings and Branes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Weyl, H. 1939. The Classical Groups. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Woit, P. 2017. Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Zwiebach, B. 2009. A First Course in String Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive