• 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
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,719 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  G(2) lattice and the M-theory landscape

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

In a previous question (Calabi-Yau manifolds and compactification of extra dimensions in M-theory), I was told that the $G(2)$ lattice can be used to compactify the extra 7 dimensions of M-theory and preserve exactly $\mathcal N=1$ supersymmetry.

However, since there is only 1 $G(2)$ lattice, there should be only 1 4-dimensional M-theory. Then, why is there such a huge fuss about the M-theory landscape?


asked May 28, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ revision history ]
retagged May 7, 2014 by dimension10

1 Answer

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

It's not a "$G(2)$ lattice" one has to compactify the M-theoretical dimensions upon (after all, the $G_2$ lattice is 2-dimensional); it's the $G_2$ holonomy manifolds. There are lots of different topologies of these seven-dimensional manifolds. They're analogous to the Calabi-Yau manifolds but don't allow one to use the machinery of complex numbers.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 09:12 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
answered May 28, 2013 by Luboš Motl (10,278 points) [ no revision ]
Thanks. Now that I get it.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-09 09:12 (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