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
4,551 answers , 19,358 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

What is the current status of the swampland?

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
59 views

What is the current status of the swampland? Have people expanded the list of swampland criteria?

If let's say I wish to figure out if the Standard Model belongs to the swampland, are there any concrete steps I can use to go about it, at least in principle? If let's say technical difficulties aren't an objection, and we have access to a supercomputer with top notch programmers and mathematics code, is there any algorithmic procedure to show whether or not the Standard Model belongs to the swampland?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 14:33 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1899
asked Feb 13, 2011 in Phenomenology by anonymous [ no revision ]
What is this "swampland" you speak of? A link would help, for those of us who aren't familiar with the term.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 14:33 (UCT), posted by SE-user David Z
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampland_(physics)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 14:33 (UCT), posted by SE-user mbq

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

Yoshiko, the Standard Model belongs to the swampland for some easy reasons - you don't need a supercomputer for that. First of all, you should add gravity to the Standard Model - in some approximate way that people would normally do.

When you add gravity, the Standard Model still belongs to the swampland.

For example, it predicts that there are no magnetic monopoles. That's forbidden in the "landscape" of consistent theories of quantum gravity because one may demonstrate that pairs of black holes that carry the magnetic monopole charge may be pair-produced because of an instanton that enables this process.

There are probably many other pathological properties of the Standard Model that guarantee it is in the swampland but the map of all the conditions remains poorly understood. Let me just mention another example: the Standard Model perturbatively conserves the lepton and baryon charges. In the allowed theories of quantum gravity, there can't exist exact global symmetries (which don't produce any new local fields) and the baryon and lepton charges would violate this rule.

Of course, if you generalized the term "Standard Model" and included all theories that look like the Standard Model but may be modified at the GUT scale or another high energy scale (e.g. GUT theories themselves where magnetic monopoles can be easily constructed; and electroweak instantons allow one to violate at least $B$ or $L$ separately), then you would have to conclude that the generalized Standard Model almost certainly belongs to the "landscape" and is allowed.

After all, quantum gravity has to describe the real world. However, there are no rigorous ways to mathematically prove such a modest proposition at this moment. What is available at this moment are various constraints that may show that various theories are bad and belong to the swampland. One of those that were studied in recent years is the condition that "gravity has to be the weakest force".

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0601001

Of course, the known conditions are useful to eliminate various pathological "cousins" of the Standard Model. The Standard Model itself is close to the actual laws of Nature so it doesn't suffer from "unfixable" pathologies - only from pathologies that arise from the incompleteness of the Standard Model.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 14:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
answered Feb 13, 2011 by Luboš Motl (10,178 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$\hbar$ysicsOve$\varnothing$flow
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
...