Graduate Negative cosmological constant from string theory

Click For Summary
String theory, in its simplest form, is suggested to predict a negative or zero cosmological constant, but there is no definitive result supporting this claim. Witten's statement highlights the difficulty of deriving de Sitter space from string theory or M-theory due to classical no-go theorems and challenges in stabilizing moduli at the quantum level. The discussion emphasizes that while anti-de Sitter backgrounds can be constructed in certain supergravity theories, de Sitter backgrounds face restrictions due to the Jacobi identities of the underlying algebra. References to relevant literature, including works by Maldacena, Nunez, and Freedman & Van Proeyen, are provided to support these points. The complexity of the topic indicates deeper issues related to supersymmetry and the nature of cosmological constants in string theory.
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
14,608
Reaction score
7,219
Allegedly, string theory (in it's simplest form) predicts that cosmological constant must be negative (or zero). Can someone explain where does this result come from? A reference would also be welcome.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no such "result".
 
mitchell porter said:
There is no such "result".
Not even in older literature? Then how to interpret the statement by Witten
"In fact, classical or not, I don’t know any clear-cut way to get de Sitter space from string theory or M-theory. This last statement is not very surprising given the classical no go theorem. For, in view of the usual problems in stabilizing moduli, it is hard to get de Sitter space in a reliable fashion at the quantum level given that it does not arise classically."
in http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0106109 ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
String theory in AdS is a modern topic.
 
I'm not up to date to all the stringy constructions of backgrounds, but I think the problem you're addressing is deeper: it has to do with supersymmetry. E.g., pure N=1 D=4 supergravity can be constructed in a anti-deSitter background, but not a deSitter background. The reason is that the Jacobi identities of the underlying algebra don't allow for one particular sign of the cosmological constant (corresponding to dS).
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
haushofer said:
I'm not up to date to all the stringy constructions of backgrounds, but I think the problem you're addressing is deeper: it has to do with supersymmetry. E.g., pure N=1 D=4 supergravity can be constructed in a anti-deSitter background, but not a deSitter background. The reason is that the Jacobi identities of the underlying algebra don't allow for one particular sign of the cosmological constant (corresponding to dS).
Thanks! Can you give a reference for that?
 
Hey, you changed the question from "must be negative" to "must be negative (or zero)". For the record, my answer pertained to the original version.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
And you edited comment #3 to add the quote by Witten.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #10
Demystifier said:
Thanks! Can you give a reference for that?
See e.g. Freedman& Van Proeyen their sugra textbook, page 251 onward. My supervisor Eric Bergshoeff also published on construction of deSitter sugra on the arxiv, e.g.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.08264

but I haven't read it.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
757
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
15K