Undergrad Is Supersymmetry required by String theory?

Click For Summary
Supersymmetry (SUSY) is considered essential for the consistency of the particle spectrum in string theory, as it prevents the emergence of tachyonic particles, which are difficult to interpret physically. While some interpretations suggest that non-perturbative formulations can reinterpret tachyonic states as unstable, the need for SUSY remains due to its role in incorporating fermions, which are observed in nature. Many theoretical physicists assert that SUSY is necessary as a low-energy approximation of string theory. However, the necessity of SUSY can depend on how string theory is defined, with stricter definitions supporting its requirement more strongly. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the ongoing debate about the foundational aspects of string theory and its relationship with supersymmetry.
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.
 
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...

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