Question about SO(32) heterotic - Type I duality, M-theory perspective

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the duality between M-theory and Type I' theory, specifically examining the implications of orbifold compactifications on R^9 × S^1. It highlights that M-theory on the orbifold R^9 × S^1 × S^1 / Z_2(1) results in Type I' with a gauge group of SO(16) × SO(16), while M-theory on R^9 × S^1 / Z_2 × S^1(2) leads to E_8 × E_8. The key distinction lies in the ordering of orbifold application and circular compactification, which affects the resulting gauge groups. The discussion emphasizes the concept of duality in string theory, particularly strong-weak duality (S-duality) and T-duality, as they relate to moduli spaces.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of M-theory and its compactifications
  • Familiarity with Type I' and heterotic string theories
  • Knowledge of gauge groups, specifically SO(16) and E_8
  • Concepts of dualities in string theory, including S-duality and T-duality
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Wilson lines in string theory
  • Study the details of orbifold compactifications in M-theory
  • Explore the moduli space of string theories and their dualities
  • Examine the differences between strong-weak duality and T-duality
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, string theorists, and researchers interested in the intricacies of M-theory and its dualities, particularly those exploring gauge group structures and compactification techniques.

PelleJW
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble understanding the arguments in http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9510209

They propose that M-theory on the orbifold [itex]R^9 \times S^1 \times S^1 / Z_2[/itex](1) yields Type I' on [itex]R^9 \times S^1[/itex], wheras M-theory on [itex]R^9 \times S^1 / Z_2 \times S^1[/itex](2) is [itex]E_8 \times E_8[/itex] on [itex]R^9 \times S^1[/itex]. What exactly is the difference between (1) and (2)? Does it imply a different ordering of applying the orbifold and the circular compactification? In other words: what happens when the two last factors are exchanged?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PelleJW said:
I'm having trouble understanding the arguments in http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9510209

They propose that M-theory on the orbifold [itex]R^9 \times S^1 \times S^1 / Z_2[/itex](1) yields Type I' on [itex]R^9 \times S^1[/itex], wheras M-theory on [itex]R^9 \times S^1 / Z_2 \times S^1[/itex](2) is [itex]E_8 \times E_8[/itex] on [itex]R^9 \times S^1[/itex]. What exactly is the difference between (1) and (2)? Does it imply a different ordering of applying the orbifold and the circular compactification? In other words: what happens when the two last factors are exchanged?

Check the bottom of page 12. In the Type I' theory (1), the gauge group is ##SO(16)\times SO(16)##, while the heterotic theory has ##E_8\times E_8## gauge group. So Horava and Witten argue that we get from (2) to (1) by turning on Wilson lines to break ##E_8\times E_8 \rightarrow SO(16)\times SO(16)##.

This illustrates an important concept about these kinds of dualities. In general, we have a theory characterized by some moduli space of coupling constants, geometric parameters (like radii) and Wilson lines. At some particular point or neighborhood in the moduli space, the theory can be clearly expressed in terms of the degrees of freedom of some perturbatively defined string (or 11d) theory, call it X. At a different point, the obvious description is in terms of some other theory Y. We conclude that the theories X and Y, after including the appropriate compactification data, share the same moduli space. This is what we mean when we say that X and Y are dual to one another.

When the modulus that we have to vary to get from the perturbative description X to that of Y is a coupling constant, we might call this a strong-weak duality or S-duality. When the modulus is a radius of a circle, it is a T-duality. But a specific type of duality might also include the other types of moduli, like Wilson lines, and we don't have a special name for this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
18K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
3K