• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,734 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Why do the mismatched 16 dimensions have to be compactified on an even lattice?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

The mismatched 16 dimensions between the left- (26 dimensional) and right- (10 dimensional) are compactified on even, unimodular lattices. I think I get the unimoduar part, at least intuitively, somewhat, but I don't understand why the lattice has to be even. From what I understand, an even lattice means that the vectors have even norm-squared. Why is that a necessary property for compactifying the 16 dimensions?

asked Jun 16, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 25, 2014 by dimension10
I suppose that one of the tracks is to consider mass-shell relations, considering closed-string and toroidal compactification (so leading to T-Duality), they could be written : $$m^2 = \frac{n^2}{R^2} + \frac{w^2R^2}{\alpha'^2} + \frac{2}{\alpha'}(N + \tilde N - 2)$$ $$0 = nw + N - \tilde N $$ $n$: momentum quantification number, $w$: winding number, $N,\tilde N$ : left/right levels We consider (16) bosonic left-movers, so there should be a relation between $n$ and $w$, something like $p_R=\frac{n}{R} -\frac{wR}{\alpha'} = 0$. But I shamefully missed the final step...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 09:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Trimok

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

(Source : Polchinski)

Consider a toroidal compactification for a bosonic closed string. We make the identification : $X \sim X +2\pi R$, $X$ being one of the 25 spatial dimensions, say $X^{25}$ The left and right momenta are :

$k_L =\frac{n}{R} +\frac{wR}{\alpha'} = 0$, $k_R =\frac{n}{R} - \frac{wR}{\alpha'} = 0$

The on-shell mass conditions are written :

$m^2 = k_L^2 + \frac{4}{\alpha'}(N - 1)$, $m^2 = k_R^2 + \frac{4}{\alpha'}(\tilde N - 1)$

From this we get :

$0 = k_L^2 - k_R^2 + \frac{4}{\alpha'}(N - \tilde N)$

Using a "dimensionless" momentum $l_{L,R} = k_{L,R}(\frac{\alpha'}{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}$, we get :

$0 = l_L^2 - l_R^2 + 2 (N - \tilde N)$

If we compactify 16 dimensions, we will have vectors $\vec l_L, \vec l_R$, with :

$0 = \vec l_L^2 - \vec l_R^2 + 2 (N - \tilde N)$

Now, in the heterotic string, we consider only left - movers, so $\vec l_R = \vec 0$, so we have :

$0 = \vec l_L^2 + 2 (N - \tilde N)$

If we consider a lattice $\Gamma$ made up with the $\vec l_L$, we see that it must be a even lattice.

Note :

The expression of the dimensionless momentum may be justifyed by looking at the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) :

$X_L(z_1) X_L(z_2) \sim -\frac{\alpha'}{2} \ln z_{12}$ and $X_R(z_1) X_R(z_2) \sim -\frac{\alpha'}{2} \ln \bar z_{12}$

Note that we have also :

$:e^{ik_LX_L(z)+ik_RX_R(\bar z)}: :e^{ik_L'X_L(0)+ik_R'X_R(\bar 0)}:~ \sim z^{\alpha'k_Lk_L'/2} (\bar z)^{\alpha'k_Rk_R'/2} ~:e^{i(k_L +k_L')X_L(0)+i(k_R + k_R')X_R(0)}:$

where the $z,\bar z$ term could be written $z^{l_Ll_L'} \bar z^{l_Rl_R'}$

In fact, single-valuedness of the last OPE under a circle means that :

$e^{2i\pi (l_Ll_L' - l_Rl_R')} = 1$, so $l_Ll_L' - l_Rl_R'$ is in $\mathbb Z$

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 09:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Trimok
answered Jun 18, 2013 by Trimok (955 points) [ no revision ]
+1 Thanks a lot!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 09:11 (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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights