Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2019

    added brief pointer to the derivation of SO(32)SO(32) gauge group via tadpole cancellation, and some references on type I phenomenology. Will add these also to string phenomenology and to GUT, as far as relevant there

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorAlizter
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2019
    • (edited Feb 5th 2019)

    My apologies Urs, you can delete this post.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2019

    To make up for this comment, I require you now to come up with an actual comment or question that has some intellectual substance.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2019

    Re your edited #2: No, actually I cannot delete posts on the nForum.

    But what’s going on? You must have had some thought or question, no? Let me know what it is, and then I can try to reply.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorAlizter
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2019

    I was simply surprised at the size of 32 in a superficial way. I regret essentially spamming this post.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2019

    You don’t have to regret a sensation of intellectual surprise where it’s due. On the contrary, that’s healthy curiosity. But you have to verbalize it in a way that allows others to understand how to engange in conversation with you.

    As with the number of spacetime dimensions in string theory, it may on first sight seem that also the ranks of gauge groups that appear are large compared to realistic values. But if one steps back and realizes that a priori in field theory, both the spacetime dimension and the rank of the gauge group may be any natural number whatsoever, it is actually striking that string theory exhibits theoretical mechanisms which constrain these possibly humongous numbers to values in the right ballpark, just a bit larger than observed.

    And it’s not all that much larger if you dig a bit deeper. For instance the most promising GUT-model compatible with experimental data is still what they call SO(10)SO(10)-GUT, which really has gauge group Spin(10)Spin(10). In view of this a theoretical reason that bounds the ultimate ambient gauge group at rank 32 should not appear that fantastic anymore, and in fact there are realistic breaking patterns from SO(32)SO(32) to Spin(10)Spin(10) to the Pati-Salam group SU(5)SU(5) and then finally to the standard model gauge group S(U(2)×(3))(SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1))/ 6S(U(2) \times (3)) \simeq \big(SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)\big) / \mathbb{Z}_6 (arXiv:1708.02078)

    This “in the right ballpark but a bit larger than observed”, both for spacetime dimension and rank of gauge groups, is all the more noteworthy as in quantum field theory a priori the observable spacetime dimension and gauge rank may always be smaller than the one that enters the fundamental Lagrangian, due to possible KK-compactification and symmetry breaking.

    So a little bit of reflection reveals that both the number of spacetime dimensions as well as the ranks of gauge groups in string phenomenology are actually surprisingly close to what one could hope for, instead of being surprisingly way off.

    That first rough fit notwithstanding, one will of course want to see further details on how the reduction takes place. There are many intersting observations on this. Striking is for instance the computer scan of Gepner model orbifold compactifications here which shows that spontaneous breaking to SU(5)SU(5)-GUT symmetry inhabits a special place in the space of all possibilities.

    Another curious observation in this direction I recently highlighted on slide 125 here.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)