Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A Negative cosmological constant from string theory

  1. Jun 30, 2018 #1

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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: Jun 30, 2018
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 30, 2018 #2
    There is no such "result".
     
  4. Jun 30, 2018 #3

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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: Jun 30, 2018
  5. Jun 30, 2018 #4
    String theory in AdS is a modern topic.
     
  6. Jun 30, 2018 #5

    haushofer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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).
     
  7. Jun 30, 2018 #6

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thanks! Can you give a reference for that?
     
  8. Jun 30, 2018 #7

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  9. Jun 30, 2018 #8
    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.
     
  10. Jun 30, 2018 #9
    And you edited comment #3 to add the quote by Witten.
     
  11. Jul 1, 2018 #10

    haushofer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted