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 printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

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

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,853 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

A review of geometry of $G_2$ holonomy 7-folds

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
162 views

It is know that in order to have ${\cal N}=1$ 4D compactification of M-theory or 11D SUGRA, one has to take the internal space to be a manifold of $G_2$ holonomy. Moreover, such manifolds are considered as possible target spaces of Topological M-theory.

Could anybody recommend a review of geometry and topology of 7-folds of $G_2$ holonomy? I am a physicist, so the reviews written by physicist or at least for physicists are most welcome.

asked Apr 6 in Theoretical Physics by Andrey Feldman (600 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 6 by Andrey Feldman

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

This here is good;

answered Apr 6 by Urs Schreiber (5,795 points) [ revision history ]

Thanks, but the discussion there is very sketchy. Do you know of any more detailed introductions?

There are detailed discussions in the mathematical literature.But the "reviews written by physicist or at least for physicists" that you ask for are all at least this sketchy.

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
...