Experimental support of string theory?

PAllen
Science Advisor
Messages
9,318
Reaction score
2,530
I'd like to hear what people have to say about the following paper, which is way beyond my level knowledge, but could be exciting(?):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2302
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PAllen said:
I'd like to hear what people have to say about the following paper, which is way beyond my level knowledge, but could be exciting(?):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2302

Thats actually quite simple to explain. There are some string models where the string scale is very low, like near the weak scale, so that the level spacing of the string resonances is small. Naturally one can see these resonances if their mass is small enough, that's the essence.

However, there is absolutley no reason why the string scale should be so low, it is only a remote possibility. So only if we were _extremely_ lucky, one could directly test strings in this manner.
 
The idea here is that there are classes of string models in which the Standard Model fields are entirely realized on a collection of a few D-branes. While the standard model gauge group is SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1), D-branes have U(N) gauge groups on them (if we include orientifolds, we can also realize SO(N) and Sp(2N) gauge groups). Therefore the SU(3) color will actually come from a U(3) group in a model which uses a minimal number of branes. It is easy to imagine an extra Higgs mechanism that breaks U(3)\rightarrow U(1)_3 \times SU(3).

In order to figure out the spectrum of abelian gauge bosons, we should list all of the U(1) groups that we have. These are

U(1)_3 \times U(1)_2 \times U(1)_1 \subset U(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_1

where U(1)_2 \subset SU(2) is the diagonal subgroup. Let's denote the gauge boson of the U(1)_i group by B^{(i)}_\mu. In the normal electroweak symmetry breaking, the photon is a linear combination

A_\mu = \sin\theta_W B^{(2)}_\mu + \cos\theta_W B^{(1)}_\mu,

while the Z is the orthogonal combination

Z_\mu = \cos\theta_W B^{(2)}_\mu - \sin\theta_W B^{(1)}_\mu.

Because of the new U(1)_3, in the brane models we now have 4 gauge bosons consisting of linear combinations

\tilde{Z}_\mu = \sin\vartheta_Z B^{(3)}_\mu + \cos\vartheta_Z Z_\mu

\tilde{Z'}_\mu = \cos\vartheta_Z B^{(3)}_\mu - \sin\vartheta_Z Z_\mu

\tilde{A}_\mu = \sin\vartheta_A B^{(3)}_\mu + \cos\vartheta_A A_\mu,

\tilde{Z''}_\mu = \cos\vartheta_A B^{(3)}_\mu - \sin\vartheta_A A_\mu

Up to labeling conventions, we get a massive gauge boson which we can identify with the physical Z, another massive gauge boson which is a Z', a massless gauge boson which we identify as the physical photon, and a 3rd massive gauge boson which we call Z''.

By exploring the parameter space, one of the bosons that I've labeled Z' or Z'' is being compared with the possible new observed particle.

I think it's interesting, and very much in the spirit of theoretical particle physics to explore all explanations of new physics, however remote. I also agree with surprised that low scale string models are only one small part of possible string vacua and therefore unlikely to be physical. But it would be extremely interesting to find evidence for them, since that would mean that other string physics might be within reach of the LHC.
 
Thread 'LQG Legend Writes Paper Claiming GR Explains Dark Matter Phenomena'
A new group of investigators are attempting something similar to Deur's work, which seeks to explain dark matter phenomena with general relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity is systems like galaxies. Deur's most similar publication to this one along these lines was: One thing that makes this new paper notable is that the corresponding author is Giorgio Immirzi, the person after whom the somewhat mysterious Immirzi parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity is named. I will be reviewing the...
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
Back
Top