Undergrad Is Supersymmetry required by String theory?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is essential for maintaining a consistent particle spectrum in string theory, as it prevents the emergence of tachyonic particles, which are difficult to interpret physically. The non-perturbative formulation of bosonic string-field theory can reinterpret tachyonic states as unstable, but SUSY remains necessary to incorporate fermions, which are observed in nature. The necessity of SUSY in string theory is supported by multiple theoretical physicists, particularly when adhering to strict definitions of string theory or M-theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Supersymmetry (SUSY)
  • Familiarity with string theory and M-theory
  • Knowledge of particle physics, particularly tachyonic particles
  • Concept of tachyon condensation in field theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of Supersymmetry in particle physics
  • Study the non-perturbative formulation of bosonic string-field theory
  • Explore the implications of tachyon condensation in string theory
  • Examine the definitions and frameworks of string theory and M-theory
USEFUL FOR

Theoretical physicists, students of particle physics, and researchers in string theory seeking to understand the implications of Supersymmetry in the context of particle spectrum consistency.

TheHeraclitus
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Supersymmetry is often mentioned together with String theory, but do all String theories require it?
From what I understood Supersymmetry means there are more particles than we currently know about and they are predicted by (some/all, I do not know) versions of String theory.
Is it so important to String theory or can it work without SUSY?

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Susy is, as far as we know, required for the particle spectrum to be consistent. Without susy you get e.g. tachyonic particles which are hard to interpret as physical particles. So yes.
 
haushofer said:
Susy is, as far as we know, required for the particle spectrum to be consistent. Without susy you get e.g. tachyonic particles which are hard to interpret as physical particles. So yes.
Non-perturbative formulation of bosonic string-field theory reinterprets tachyonic state as an unstable state, very much like tachyonic Higgs field before symmetry breaking is reinterpreted as an unstable state. By a process of tachyon condenzation the unstable state (local maximum of the potential) settles down into a stable state (local minimum of the potential) and excitations around the stable state are no longer tachyonic. So I would say no.

But we still need susy in string theory because that's the only known way (as fas as I am aware) to incorporate fermions into string theory, and we need fermions because they are observed in nature.
 
Last edited:
I have seen multiple knowledgeable theoretical physicists state authoritatively that supersymmetry is necessary as a low energy approximation of string theory.

To some extent, however, it boils down to definitions.

If you use a fairly strict definition of string theory or M-theory, then this is probably correct.

If you use a loose definition of string theory that, for example, borrows heavily from its mathematical methods without embracing the entire discipline's canonical form for it, perhaps you could get a stringy theory that doesn't have supersymmetry as a low energy approximation.
 
"Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models" https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.15143 The paper claims: We compare the standard homogeneous cosmological model, i.e., spatially flat ΛCDM, and the timescape cosmology which invokes backreaction of inhomogeneities. Timescape, while statistically homogeneous and isotropic, departs from average Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker evolution, and replaces dark energy by kinetic gravitational energy and its gradients, in explaining...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
15K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K