SO(32) in Superstring Theory: Physical Meaning

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arivero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Strings
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physical meaning of the SO(32) groups in superstring theory, exploring their role as symmetries and how they relate to classical models and gauge fields. The scope includes theoretical implications and conceptual clarifications within the framework of superstring theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that SO(32) represents a symmetry of the quantum superstring, but question whether it is a symmetry of any underlying classical model.
  • Others argue that gauge degrees of freedom in string theory manifest only at the quantum level, drawing parallels to classical gauge fields viewed as first quantized wave functions.
  • A later reply questions the validity of string field theory, suggesting it may not be the correct approach, while referencing specific papers that discuss group theory in the context of string theory.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the recovery of gauge fields at a classical level, particularly in contrast to the SO(32) symmetry, which appears to be intrinsically quantum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit uncertainty regarding the relationship between SO(32) and classical models, with no consensus on whether SO(32) is fundamentally different from GUT groups or if gauge fields can be recovered classically.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific papers that may provide additional insights into the discussion, but the implications of these references remain unresolved within the thread.

arivero
Gold Member
Messages
3,485
Reaction score
188
Could someone tell about the physical meaning of these SO(32) groups in superstring theory?

I am under the impression that it is a symmetry of the quantum superstring, but that it is not a symmetry of any underlying classical model, is it? Because if it is so, it is very different of the GUT groups, which are also symmetries of the field Lagrangian.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
arivero said:
Could someone tell about the physical meaning of these SO(32) groups in superstring theory?

I am under the impression that it is a symmetry of the quantum superstring, but that it is not a symmetry of any underlying classical model, is it? Because if it is so, it is very different of the GUT groups, which are also symmetries of the field Lagrangian.
You are right, the gauge degrees of freedom in string theory appear only on the quantum level. But in a sense, it is not much different from that in particle physics. Namely, you can view a classical gauge field as a first quantized wave function, so you can say that the gauge degrees of freedom of particles also appear only at the quantum (first quantized) level. By the way, most of the results in string theory are expressed in the first quantized language, while second quantization of string theory (string field theory) is not well understood and there are even indications that string field theory is not the correct approach.
 
By the way, most of the results in string theory are expressed in the first quantized language, while second quantization of string theory (string field theory) is not well understood and there are even indications that string field theory is not the correct approach.

What are all these papers by this guy Shnabl, then?
 
Demystifier said:
Namely, you can view a classical gauge field as a first quantized wave function, so you can say that the gauge degrees of freedom of particles also appear only at the quantum (first quantized) level.

Yep, I though, while writing the question that this was the answer. But I asked anyway because I am not sure. One gets the feeling that gauge fields, or at least abelian gauge fields, can be recovered in a classical level, while the SO(32) etc of string theory seem to be intrinsically quantum. Part of the answer seems to lie in
N. Marcus and A. Sagnotti, “Group Theory From ’Quarks’ At The Ends Of Strings,”
Phys. Lett. B188 (1987) 58. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?j=PHLTA,B188,58

Further references:
http://www.roma2.infn.it/stringaperta/berlin.ps
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/answering-few-string-related-questions.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208020
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0204089
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0203098v1
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K