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 ...

Is the conjecture about $E(11)$ and M-theory (West's conjecture) generally accepted?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
190 views

I was reading this paper by West, in which it is argued that:

Eleven dimensional supergravity can be described by a non-linear realisation based on the group $E\left(11\right)$

From which they conjecture that $ E\left(11\right) $ can be related to M-theory, too. This seems rather weird to me, given that $E\left(11\right) $ is a rather unwieldy group, given that it has a cartan determinant of $-2$. The cartan matrix of the group is as follows:

$$\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 2&{ - 1}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{} \\ { - 1}&2&{ - 1}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{} \\ {}&{ - 1}&2&{ - 1}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{ - 1} \\ {}&{}&{ - 1}&2&{ - 1}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{} \\ {}&{}&{}&{ - 1}&2&{ - 1}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{} \\ {}&{}&{}&{}&{ - 1}&2&{ - 1}&{}&{}&{}&{} \\ {}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{ - 1}&2&{ - 1}&{}&{}&{} \\ {}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{ - 1}&2&{ - 1}&{}&{} \\ {}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{ - 1}&2&{ - 1}&{} \\ {}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{ - 1}&2&{} \\ {}&{}&{ - 1}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&{}&2 \end{array}} \right]$$

So, is this paper well-accepted in the string community?

asked Aug 14, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by dimension10 (1,950 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 26, 2015 by dimension10

Submission for West's paper: E_11 and M Theory.

2 Answers

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

The conjecture -- in the somewhat vague form as it is given -- is a pretty straightforward, compelling extrapolation of a long list of known facts about U-duality groups (see there). Moreover, West, Nicolai, Kleinschmidt and others have given long and detailed discussion for how to match plenty of main structural aspects of 11d sugra and the M-branes into various elements of the level decomposition of the E-series Kac-Moody Lie algebras. Concrete discussion of symmetry groups in supergravity routinely compares to structures in \(E_{11}\).Moreover, all the "lower" U-duality groups \(E_{n(n)}\)are all known to act via their canonical action on their coset by their maximal compact subgroups (called "non-linear realization"), and hence the statement that "M-theory can be described by a non-linear realisation based on the group \(E_{11(11)}\)" is not very far-fetched at all, given all that is known. On the other hand, as far as I can see, it remains unclear just what "can be described" will turn out to mean. But that the low level decompositions of \(E_{11(11)}\) happen to know a lot about what is otherwise known about M-theory (which is much in itself, but relatively little as to what is probably waiting to be understood) is established. The remaining question is what exactly this now implies.

answered May 24, 2014 by Urs Schreiber (5,085 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jul 13, 2014 by Arnold Neumaier
+ 4 like - 0 dislike

I cannot speak to whether or not $E_{11}$ is "ugly" but if you see, e.g. arXiv:1308.1673, West's paper is referred to as an "ambitious" proposal. Moreover, West's paper has been cited over 250 times, which indicates it's fairly well-known. (This would be classified as "famous" according to inspirehep.net.)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user sujeet
answered Aug 14, 2013 by sujeet (40 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$\varnothing$ysicsOverflow
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
...