• 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.


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

132 submissions , 111 unreviewed
3,777 questions , 1,329 unanswered
4,721 answers , 19,948 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
466 active unimported users
More ...

Is there an open oriented superstring?

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

Type I superstring theory is unoriented, and it seems that it needs to be so in order to exist.

Now, we always have open-closed duality, that connects at least the ultraviolet sector of a theory with the infrared sector of another, so in principle we should have some oriented open strings coming from it, by duality with a closed oriented theory.

And we have all the D-brane stuff, that surely produces another kinds of open string theories with the restriction of terminating there in the branes.

¿Is some of these D-brane examples an oriented theory? ¿Is there some canonical, well known, example of a consistent oriented theory with open strings?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user arivero

asked Jun 14, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by - (255 points) [ revision history ]
retagged Apr 20, 2014 by dimension10

1 Answer

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

No. There is no theory of open, oriented strings. Any string theory must contain closed strings, while the open strings are optional. If there is a string theory which contains oriented open strings, then it has the problem that the oriented open strings cannot couple to the oriented closed strings. Why?

This is my understanding of the explanation given by the by Thomas Mohaupt in Lecture notes "Introduction to String theory":

In the closed string spectrum, there is an $\mathcal N = 2A$ algebra and and an $\mathcal N = 2B$ algebra which lead to different string theories. Both have 32 supercharges. In each of these,, there are 2 gravitinoes, dilationoes, 1 in the Ramond Neveu-Schwarz Sector and 1 more in the Neveu-Schwarz Ramond Sector. These 2 gravitinos need 2 different supercurrents to couple to. But the $\mathcal N=1$ supersymmetric algebra with only 16 supercharges clearly cannot allow this!

Thus, the open oriented strings would not couple with the closed oriented strings. The solution is to have open unoriented strings instead. This along with the unoriented closed strings IS the Type I string theory. The "only unoriented closed strings" theory is also inconsistent because of other reasons.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0

answered Jun 18, 2013 by dimension10 (1,950 points) [ revision history ]
What about the strings between D-branes? Are they unoriented too, even if they have Chan-Paton labels?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user arivero
They are unoriented. Orientation is a property of the 2d worldsheet, not the 1d string. Unoriented just means that crosscaps and the like can appear in the worldsheet.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1504

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