Nakanishi proves 2-d string theories inconsistent(?)

In summary, A man named Nakanishi claims to have proven that 2-dimensional string theories are inconsistent. However, his argument has been widely rejected by string theorists, including Lubos Motl, who argues that Nakanishi's paper contains numerous mistakes and has not been cited by anyone in the past two years. Nakanishi also claims that the anomaly cancellation in superstring theories is only meaningful in the presence of gravitational anomalies, but this claim has been refuted by others. Overall, Nakanishi's argument does not hold up to scrutiny and is not considered a valid critique of string theory.
  • #1
sluser
3
0
From Peter Woit's http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=643#comments"
some guy named Nakanishi claims to have proven that 2-d string theories are inconsistent:


question:
Eric Says:

Kevin,
The main reason for string theory being considered the ‘leading’ (really, the only) contender for a theory of everything is that it is presently the only known way to consistently combine gravity with quantum mechanics. String theory only works because of number of nearly miraculous anomaly cancellations. It is because of this that it is studied, despite the fact that it has not yet been possible to make definitive experimental predictions.

answer:
# N. Nakanishi Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 10:59 pm

Eric,
I believe the anomaly cancellation in superstring is a meaningful condition only if the corresponding QFT has gravitational anomaly. The existence of gravitational anomaly in QFT was claimed by Alvarez-Gaume and Witten (Nucl. Phys. B 234 (1984) 269), but their reasoning contained a serious mistake: They were not aware of the fundamental difference between T-product quantities and T*-product ones. Both coincide for chiral current but not for energy-momentum tensor, because the expression for the latter contains time differentiation. The genuine anomaly must be considered for T-product quantities, but what they considered are T*-product ones,
because only T*-product quantities can be calculated by Feynman integrals and path integrals. I have explicitly shown in the 2dimensional case that what they called gravitational anomaly arises from the difference between T-product and T*-product. Thus,
at least in the 2-dimensional case, the gravitational anomaly in the genuine sense is non-existent in QFT. It is quite likely that the same is true in the 10-dimensional case.
B. Schroer completely agreed with me.
For details, see Abe and Nakanishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 115 (2006) 1151 or arXiv hep-th/0503172 v2.

Back to the drawing board?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
sluser said:
Back to the drawing board?

Lubos Motl replied:

Dear metamars, I don't know what all string theorists would say. I only know what sane string theorists say about it. They will say that what is written above is 100% rubbish.

First of all, a UV-complete QFT by definition doesn't contain gravity. Second of all, the existence of gravitational and gauge anomalies in anomalous effective field theories is an established fact well beyond any sensible doubts and the comments above don't exceed confused comments of a generic anti-talented student who should be failed in her QFT II or III course because this is where the folks should learn how to compute anomalies. It can be done in many a priori inequivalent ways and all of them agree.

The paper by Abe and Nakanishi has all the 1-loop contributions to everything wrong - because it uses an incorrect Hamiltonian formalism where the required gauge invariance of the physical states is largely neglected - so it is not surprising that it can "derive" wrong anomalies (it's just like neglecting FP ghosts or divergent 1-loop diagrams in general). If you can't follow what I am saying, note that after 2 years, the paper still has 0 citations. I wrote above that paper, very politely, when it appeared here:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/false-anomalies.html anomalies.html

See also my analysis of a day in hep-th where stupid papers happened to be contributed both by Nakanishi and Schroer:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/hep-th-papers-on-friday.html friday.html

Did you copy it from a crackpot forum? I guess so. On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me that Mr Schroer doesn't understand why anomalies exist in QFT either - much like hundreds of other basic things about quantum theory.

I don't know why you think that there's something wrong with 2D string theories and how is this surprising statement related to the silly quotations that you added.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
But if this were true, it wouldn't demonstrate 2D string theory "inconsistent", would it? It would only invalidate one proof of anomoly-free-ness.

Very interesting either way, I would love to see some explanation of what this means and some people weighing in on whether Nakanishi's argument is valid. For example, why were Witten et al "not aware of the fundamental difference between T-product quantities and T*-product ones" as Nakanishi claims? Was this divergence between the two products something which was discovered only more recently? Heck, what is a T-product?

Unfortunately I do have to say I have a lot of trouble taking anything Lubos Motl says seriously at face value.
 

What is the Nakanishi proof?

The Nakanishi proof, named after Japanese physicist Tetsuo Nakanishi, is a mathematical proof that shows 2-d string theories are inconsistent or contradictory.

What are 2-d string theories?

2-d string theories are mathematical models that attempt to describe the behavior of strings, which are considered the fundamental building blocks of the universe, in a two-dimensional space.

What does it mean for a theory to be inconsistent?

Inconsistency in a theory means that there are logical contradictions or errors within the theory that make it impossible for it to accurately describe the behavior of the system it is attempting to model.

What implications does the Nakanishi proof have for string theory?

The Nakanishi proof is significant because it shows that 2-d string theories, which were previously thought to be a promising avenue for understanding the fundamental nature of the universe, are not consistent and therefore cannot accurately describe our reality.

Is the Nakanishi proof widely accepted in the scientific community?

The Nakanishi proof has been subject to much debate and criticism within the scientific community. While some researchers agree with the proof's conclusions, others argue that it is based on flawed assumptions and does not necessarily apply to higher-dimensional string theories.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
21
Replies
702
Views
121K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
6
Views
6K
Back
Top