• 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.


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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

180 submissions , 140 unreviewed
4,534 questions , 1,819 unanswered
5,159 answers , 21,956 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
720 active unimported users
More ...

  Are every consistent String theories compactification of 10D strings?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

It's known that there are only five consistent tachyonless spacetime-supersymmetric string theories with non-compact ten dimensions, and one more tachyonless ten-dimensional string theory with non-compact ten dimensions that is not supersymmetric ($SO(16)\times SO(16)$ heterotic string). Is any consistent string theory without tachyons in lower dimensions a compactification of any of these? There are known string theories in lower dimensions that is not known how to embebed or is known that can't be embebed as a compactification of their ten-dimensional cousins?

Background: I had read Polchinsky Vol 1 and from Vol 2 the chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 and parts of chapter 14. I hadn't done all the exercises from that.

asked May 19 in Theoretical Physics by Iliod (15 points) [ revision history ]
edited May 19 by Iliod

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:
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