Is 11-Dimensional Chirality a Fatal Flaw in Superstring Theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter m_brain
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chirality
m_brain
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I just read a book by Davies and Brown entitled "Superstrings: A Theory of Everything?"

They dismiss 11D theory as having a fatal flaw: "A distinctive element of the weak interaction is that it breaks left-right mirror symmetry. This implies that elementary particles must be endowed with a definite handedness, or 'chirality'...It turns out that definite chirality only exists in spaces with an odd number of dimensions. This means that space must have an odd number of dimensions, and hence spacetime must have an even number of dimensions, otherwise there would be no chirality in the laws of nature. In short, eleven spacetime dimensions won't work."

Any thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are better reasons for why 11 dimensional spacetime is rediculous.

Sure Einstein overthrew classical space and time single handedly, but he was guided by evidence and physical principles.

Remember that scientific theories are not "correct", they only serve to organize our observations (according to organizational principles.) Therefore, its not that the universe has 11 dimensions, its that the best way to explain the universe is using 11 dimensions. And to me, 11 dimensions is not a very good way to explain anything (begs more questions than it resolves).
 
What are some of the better reasons?

Crosson said:
There are better reasons for why 11 dimensional spacetime is rediculous.

Sure Einstein overthrew classical space and time single handedly, but he was guided by evidence and physical principles.

Remember that scientific theories are not "correct", they only serve to organize our observations (according to organizational principles.) Therefore, its not that the universe has 11 dimensions, its that the best way to explain the universe is using 11 dimensions. And to me, 11 dimensions is not a very good way to explain anything (begs more questions than it resolves).
 
There are better reasons for why 11 dimensional spacetime is rediculous.

[Moderator's note: The word should be spelled "ridiculous". But strictly
speaking, it is not impossible that someone learns how to judge ideas
about quantum gravity before he learns how to write. LM]

Sure Einstein overthrew classical space and time single handedly, but
he was guided by evidence and physical principles.

Remember that scientific theories are not "correct", they only serve to
organize our observations (according to organizational principles.)
Therefore, its not that the universe has 11 dimensions, its that the
best way to explain the universe is using 11 dimensions. And to me, 11
dimensions is not a very good way to explain anything (begs more
questions than it resolves).--
Crosson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crosson's Profile: https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=21862
View this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=66834
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is an alert about a claim regarding the standard model, that got a burst of attention in the past two weeks. The original paper came out last year: "The electroweak η_W meson" by Gia Dvali, Archil Kobakhidze, Otari Sakhelashvili (2024) The recent follow-up and other responses are "η_W-meson from topological properties of the electroweak vacuum" by Dvali et al "Hiding in Plain Sight, the electroweak η_W" by Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Francesco Sannino, Jessica Turner "Astrophysical...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09804 From the abstract: ... Our derivation uses both EE and the Newtonian approximation of EE in Part I, to describe semi-classically in Part II the advection of DM, created at the level of the universe, into galaxies and clusters thereof. This advection happens proportional with their own classically generated gravitational field g, due to self-interaction of the gravitational field. It is based on the universal formula ρD =λgg′2 for the densityρ D of DM...
Back
Top