Alternatives to Calabi Yau?

  • #1

Summary:

Alternatives to Calabi Yau?

Main Question or Discussion Point

Are there alternatives to Calabi Yau spaces describing dimensions in superstring theory? If yes, what are they? If no, why?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
PeterDonis
Mentor
Insights Author
2019 Award
29,692
8,957
Moderator's note: Moved thread to the Beyond the Standard Model forum.
 
  • Like
Likes StenEdeback
  • #4
Thank you, Demystifier!
Sten E
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #5
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,302
673
You mean by "describing dimensions" "compactifications to 4 spacetime dimensions?"
 
  • Like
Likes StenEdeback
  • #6
Thank you haushofer!
Yes, that is a good way of putting it. I wonder if Calabi Yau are the only players in that game, or if there are other ways of handling all these extra dimensions.
 
  • #7
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
10,879
3,583
As for compactification, there are also orbifolds.
 
  • Like
Likes StenEdeback
  • #9
Thank you Demystifier and samalkhaiat! I will have a look at orbifolds.
 
  • #10
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
10,879
3,583
Calabi-Yau is an orbifold.
Yes. But some orbifolds are not manifolds, and obviously I meant those orbifolds.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes StenEdeback
  • #11
samalkhaiat
Science Advisor
Insights Author
1,693
936
I wonder if Calabi Yau are the only players in that game,
Yes, they seem so. Broadly speaking, compactification requires Ricci-flat compact (complex) space. Ricci-flatness and compactness are what CY spaces have. Of course, finding the right one is another story.
 
  • Like
Likes StenEdeback
  • #12
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
10,879
3,583
compactification requires Ricci-flat
Why does compactification requires Ricci flatness? Does it depend on a requirement that some supersymmetry survives at low energies, or is there an argument that does not depend on supersymmetry?
 
  • #13
samalkhaiat
Science Advisor
Insights Author
1,693
936
Why does compactification requires Ricci flatness?
Consider [itex]M^{D} = M^{d} \times K^{D-d}[/itex]. From Supergravity action you obtain the Einstein equation in [itex]M^{D}[/itex]: [tex]R^{(D)}_{AB} = 0.[/tex] This implies, [tex]R^{(d)}_{\mu\nu} = 0, \ \mbox{&} \ R^{(D-k)}_{mn} = 0.[/tex]
Does it depend on a requirement that some supersymmetry survives at low energies,
I would agree with that, if I was a phenomenologist. Mathematically, world-sheet supersymmetry means that there are Killing spinors, [itex]\nabla \epsilon = 0[/itex], on the target space of the critical dimension [itex]M^{10}[/itex]. Then, one can easily show that [itex]\nabla \epsilon = 0 \ \Rightarrow \ R^{(10)}_{AB} = 0[/itex]. So, if you consider the solution [itex]M^{10} = M^{4} \times K^{6}[/itex], then [itex]\mbox{Ric}(K) = 0[/itex].
is there an argument that does not depend on supersymmetry?
You can't avoid supersymmetry in superstrings. Where do the fermions come from?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and StenEdeback
  • #15
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
10,879
3,583
You can't avoid supersymmetry in superstrings. Where do the fermions come from?
Well, at least for academic purposes one can study compactification in 26-dimensional bosonic string theory. By replacing supergravity action with bosonic field action, your argument can be used to argue that we would need Calabi-Yau even then, am I right?
 
  • Like
Likes StenEdeback
  • #16
samalkhaiat
Science Advisor
Insights Author
1,693
936
Well, at least for academic purposes one can study compactification in 26-dimensional bosonic string theory. By replacing supergravity action with bosonic field action, your argument can be used to argue that we would need Calabi-Yau even then, am I right?
No. In order for the compact internal space [itex]K^{D-4}[/itex] to be a CY space, it must admit a flat Kahler metric. In superstring, the Kahler metric comes for free and we can show that it is flat. This is not so in bosonic string theory. The pure Plyakov action of bosonic string is very boring. However, interesting things happen if you include the NLSM torsion potential (known as the Kalb-Ramond field [itex]H_{AB}(X) = H_{[AB]}(X)[/itex]) in the action and assume that the metric [itex]G_{AB}(X)[/itex] and the torsion potential [itex]H_{AB}(X)[/itex] are independent of [itex]X^{0}[/itex].
 
  • Like
Likes StenEdeback

Related Threads on Alternatives to Calabi Yau?

Replies
20
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
934
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Top