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
4,552 answers , 19,366 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

Why does string theory have such a huge landscape?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
25 views

I was browsing through Foundations of Space and Time, a compilation of essays on various theories of quantum gravity. The following passage in the introduction intrigued me:

Each compactification leads to a different vacuum state.... at least one state should describe our Universe in its entirety.... the enormous number (~10^500 at last count) of solutions, with no perturbative mechanism to select mechanism to select among them, leads some critics to question the predictive power of the theory..Even more worrying is that, while the theory is perturbatively finite order by order, the perturbation series does not seem to converge.

I don't know anything about string theory and so I could not make head or tails this. All I know is that ~$10^{500}$ is a very large number.

  1. What exactly is a 'solution' in string theory? Is it a spacetime metric of some sort or the terms of a S-matrix of some sort?

  2. Why are there so many 'solutions'?

  3. I thought string theory was supposed to be finite, why do perturbative series still diverge?

  4. Is there any experimental technique to limit the number of 'solutions'?

  5. Will experimental techniques be able to pinpoint a solution within present day string theorists' lifetimes too? If not, how long will it take before we can experimentally probe these things?

  6. Are string theorists completely relaxed about these issues? Or are they in anguish?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user dj_mummy
asked Aug 27, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by dj_mummy (135 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 7, 2014

2 Answers

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Who wrote that passage? It contains some misunderstandings.

All I know is that $10^{500}$ is a very large number.

It is a finite number. How many theories do you know which have a finite number of solutions? Have you tried to count the number of solutions of plain Einstein-Yang-Mills-Dirac-Higgs theory without its string-theoretic UV completion? There are not only infinitely-many solutions, there is a hugely infinite-dimensional space of solutions. This is the usual state of affairs for most every theory of physics ever considered. String theory is special in that it puts many more constraints on the solutions, such as to even leave just a finite number (under some assumptions).

What exactly is a 'solution' in string theory?

A background for perturbative string theory is a choice of 2-dimensional superconformal QFT of central charge -15. This can be interpreted as describing an effective target space geometry which is a solution to a higher dimensional supergravity theory with higher curvature corrections. A "solution" to string theory is a solution of the equations of motion of that. At least without non-perturbative effects taken into account.

See on the nLab: landscape of string theory vacua for more.

I thought string theory was supposed to be finite, why do perturbative series still diverge?

String theory is thought to be loop-wise finite, thus being a renormalized perturbative theory. No sensible remormalized perturbative QFT can have converging perturbation series. The perturbation series must be an asymptotic series to be realistic, and it comes out exactly like this in string perturbation theory.

See at the String Theory FAQ on the nLab the item Isn’t it fatal that the string perturbation series does not converge?

Is there any experimental technique to limit the number of 'solutions'? Will experimental techniques be able to pinpoint a solution within present day string theorists' lifetimes too?

Models that have been and are being built in string phenomenology approximate the standard model to more detail than probably most people are aware the standard model even has. Check out some of the references there. Given the slow but continuous flow of new articles on these matter, one sees that some people are slowly but surely working on improving ever further. Check out the references at string phenomenology.

[edit: I have now added a corresponding item to the nLab String Theory FAQ: What does it mean to say that string theory has a “landscape of solutions”?]

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Urs Schreiber
answered Aug 27, 2013 by Urs Schreiber (5,085 points) [ no revision ]
Thanks. The passage was written by Jeff Murugan, Amanda Weltman and G F R Ellis. So there are only 10^500 completely unique universes possible? But are there any aspects of String theory that give non-perturbated solutions?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user dj_mummy
No, that number 10^500 which has become so famous in public discussion plays no specific role. It is just a generic example of the following counting: 1. IF one assumes that 10 spacetime is compactified on a Calabi-Yau (which one used to be interested in (only) because this makes the effective 4d thory N=1 supersymmetric) and 2. IF one considers type II "flux vacua", then the highr form fields of string theory (the higher electromagnetic fields, if you wish) are quantized/constrained to have integral periods over the cycles of the compact Calabi-Yau. It is this quantization condition, akin...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Urs Schreiber
...akin to the Dirac charge quantization condition which makes anything finite in this game at all. Moreover, the higher these integral periods are, the more they contribute to some potential energy. Some other constraints say that this energy cannot be too big. So as a rule of thumb on says that one has a choice between 10 different values for each such flux field on each cycle. Similarly, as a rule of thumb, one says that a generic Calabi-Yau has 500 nontrivial cylces, give or take a few hundred. The conclusion of this thumb-counting is that the number of choices for the flux fields is...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Urs Schreiber
... is 10 per cycle, and 500 times a choice of 10, hence 10^500 choices. As you see, this number is hand-waving incarnate and the only information it carries is this: look, while there are finitely many of choices of internal flux, due to a charge quantization condition, on a typical Calabi-Yau there are still quite a few such choices.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Urs Schreiber
I have now added a corresponding item to the nLab String Theory FAQ: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Urs Schreiber
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

What exactly is a 'solution' in string theory? Is it a spacetime metric of some sort or the terms of a S-matrix of some sort?

We have a non-peturbative definition of M-theory and string theories on AdS Space through the AdS/.CFT correspondence. Now, these are 10 or 11-dimensional. To get rid of the extra 6 or 7 dimensions, you need to compactify it on a 6-dimensional or 7-dimensional manifold.

A particularly convinient compactifications of 11-dimensional M-theory is on $G(2)$-holonomy manifolds. Particularly convinient compactifications of 10-dimensional string theories, such as Type HE, are on $SU(3)$-holonomy Calabi-Yau manifolds. Of course, it's not necessary; e.g. if the world happens to be something with $\mathcal N=2$ supersymmetry, as opposed to $\mathcal N=1$.

Why are there so many 'solutions'?

Because there are lots of these manifolds!

I thought string theory was supposed to be finite, why do perturbative series still diverge?

Uh... Yes. But it's renormaliable. And there are non-peturbative definitions in AdS spacetime.

Is there any experimental technique to limit the number of 'solutions'? Will experimental techniques be able to pinpoint a solution within present day string theorists' life times too? If not, how long will it take before we can experimentally probe these things?

In principle, it's possible. But in anyone's lifetime... Do you know how big $10^{500} $ is? % See this.

Are string theorists completely relaxed about these issues? Or are they in anguish?

There's the branch of String Phenomenology that attempts to find the correct vacua...


This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0

answered Aug 27, 2013 by dimension10 (1,950 points) [ revision history ]
Thanks. It's good to know that there is a definite way to pinpoint the solution.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user dj_mummy
@dj_mummy: In fact, I've heard that it can be done so mathematically (as opposed to phenomenologically), too. I don't know how that is done, thougjh,...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0

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$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflow
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
...