Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,549 answers , 19,356 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
410 active unimported users
More ...

What is the need to consider a singular spacetime?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
85 views

To have a consistent superstring theory (which is to avoid the conformal anomaly on the worldsheet CFT) we are forced to build our theory on the critical dimension $n=10$.

However, the Standard Model, seen as an effective low energy theory lives on $n=4$. So we are forced to compactify the background spacetime for the string theory, as to be of the form $\mathbb{R}^4\times M$ where $M$ is a compact and "very small" riemannian manifold. $M$ could be a torus, for example. To save some of the supersymmetry after compactification we are furtheremore forced to take $M$ to be Kahler.

Given this, my question is: From a physical viewpoint, why do we usually consider nowadays $M$ to admit singularities? In other words why should $M$ be an orbifold and not just a smooth manifold?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-31 16:03 (UCT), posted by SE-user Federico Carta
asked Jan 3, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by Fedecart (90 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

You are absolutely right that to have a consistent String Theory we need a CFT with the correct conformal anomaly (or conformal charge or central charge, these terms all mean the same thing). However, this does not always mean extra dimensions. For example the free fermionic models [1],[2] are constructed directly in 4d and the extra fields required for the conformal anomaly are implemented as worldsheet fermions.

It is whenever the extra degrees of freedom required to cancel the conformal anomaly are implemented as bosons that we can interpret them as coordinates or extra-dimensions of spacetime. This happens because both bosons and coordinates carry a spacetime index $\mu$ (eg $A^\mu$ and $X^\mu$). Such theories are for obvious reasons called geometric while the rest are called non-geometric.

All such theories are perfectly consistent mathematically, but here is the tradeoff:

i) You can have really simple CFTs (like the CFT of bosons compactified on a 6d torus) that we understand very well, but they give non-realistic models describing the real world. The previous one is an example of what you call a smooth manifold and it gives $N=4$ spacetime SUSY which we know is not a symmetry of nature in low energies.

ii) You can have really complicated CFTs that give realistic 4d physics, (realistic means the SM or the MSSM particles, no other exotic particles, 3 generations, $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge group, etc...). Unfortunately, these CFTs are very difficult to study.

iii) You can have something in-between like orbifolds or some semi-realistic fermionic models that are have some nice features, yet are not too difficult to study.

So, to sum up, you do not have to have an orbifold. You don't even need to have an interpretation of the internal degrees of freedom as a compactified space! The goal is to find a theory that we can study that is as close to the real world as possible.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-31 16:03 (UCT), posted by SE-user Heterotic
answered Jan 3, 2014 by Heterotic (515 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$w
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...