| New Reply |
supergravity, does anyone work on it now? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Jul16-12, 10:27 PM | #1 |
|
|
supergravity, does anyone work on it now?
It is with immense pleasure that I came across this passage in Brief History of Time. I remember reading this sentence when I was 16 but in the last 20 years I had forgotten where I read it. The only thing I could remember was that there were some physics calculations which took 3 years to complete and no one had the courage to take them on. Now I've found that passage again. I guess I did read BHOT when I was 16 and moreover I got to the end since this passage is in the final pages. I didn't understand the book though and probably just plowed through it just to say I had done it.
|
| PhysOrg.com |
physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Promising doped zirconia >> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease >> Bringing life into focus |
| Jul17-12, 12:08 AM | #2 |
|
Recognitions:
|
Supergravity is the low energy limit of superstring theory, so the extent that string theory is a candidate theory, supergravity is too. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4689
Also, there have been developments in making computers do calculations for supergravity. http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1848 |
| Jul18-12, 01:41 AM | #3 |
|
Recognitions:
|
You can do "SUGRA on its own", or "SUGRA derived from strings"; strings indicate that not arbitrary low-energy theories (gauge-, SUSY/gauge-, SUGRA-theories) are possible (consistent with gravity), but only those which follow from string / M-theory; the others are called "swampland".
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509212 Afaik Nicolai is still working on N=8 SUGRA related to E(10) and E(11) - whatever this means ;-) Maximal N=8 SUGRA w/o relation to string theory is studied in order to understand whether it's well definied in perturbation theory - which would be an indication that it may be a viable theory of gravity w/o taking strings into account. Bern, Kallosh et al. are working on perturbative renormalizibility (even finiteness) of N=8 SUGRA. Finiteness at all orders does not mean that the theory need to be consistent non-perturbatively b/c renormalizibility or finiteness at all orders does *not* imply convergence of the perturbation series. Therefore SUGRA may still require an UV completion; whether this could be strings or M-theory or something else is unclear to me, simply b/c neither have string / M-theory (whatever it may be) been shown to be renormalizable or finite to all orders, nor has it been possible to address a construction of these theories non-perturbatively. So b/c we do not know if strings can redeem their promises it makes sense to study SUGRA as an alternative w/o any relation to strings. |
| New Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: supergravity, does anyone work on it now?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| demonstrated convincingly that supergravity gives you GR | Beyond the Standard Model | 3 | ||
| Supergravity for beginners. | Beyond the Standard Model | 5 | ||
| maximal supergravity | Beyond the Standard Model | 4 | ||
| E7(7) Supergravity, d=60. | Beyond the Standard Model | 0 | ||
| Orthosymplectic group and supergravity | General Physics | 0 | ||