4.4 Article

A 4d N=1 Cardy Formula

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP01(2021)025

关键词

AdS-CFT Correspondence; Anomalies in Field and String Theories; Supersymmetric Gauge Theory

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [2018R1A2B6004914, 2017R1D1A1B06034369, NRF-2020R1C1C1007591]
  2. Junior Research Group Program at the APCTP through the Science and Technology Promotion Fund
  3. Lottery Fund of the Korean Government
  4. Gyeongsangbuk-do
  5. Pohang City
  6. Settlement Research Grant for the new faculty by Korea Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (KAIST)
  7. NSF [PHY1911298]
  8. National Research Foundation of Korea [2018R1A2B6004914, 00000002, 2017R1D1A1B06034369] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the asymptotic behavior of the (modified) superconformal index for 4d N = 1 gauge theory, finding that the 'high-temperature limit' of the index can be expressed in terms of conformal anomalies. Moreover, the macroscopic entropy of the interacting SCFT system is derived from the asymptotic free energy when certain bounds are satisfied. Additionally, the Carby limit of the index for N = 1 theories dual to AdS(5) x Y-p,Y-p is found to explain the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of large black holes.
We study the asymptotic behavior of the (modified) superconformal index for 4d N = 1 gauge theory. By considering complexified chemical potential, we find that the 'high-temperature limit' of the index can be written in terms of the conformal anomalies 3c - 2a. We also find macroscopic entropy from our asymptotic free energy when the Hofman-Maldacena bound 1/2 < a/c < 3/2 for the interacting SCFT is satisfied. We study N = 1 theories that are dual to AdS(5) x Y-p,Y-p and find that the Cardy limit of our index accounts for the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of large black holes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据