Timeline for Topologically distinct Calabi-Yau threefolds
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2010 at 3:08 | answer | added | Clay Cordova | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 23, 2010 at 1:10 | vote | accept | algori | ||
| Jan 19, 2010 at 20:01 | history | edited | algori | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
fixed an inaccuracy
|
| Jan 19, 2010 at 17:56 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | @José: Agreed: it isn't manifestly impossible. | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 17:47 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | @Steve: Different CY 3-folds do give rise to different particle phenomenology, so you can in fact rule some compactifications out based on existing data. The problem is that even when you do that there is still a large landscape of possible compactifications. (It's even worse in that CY is not the most general geometry for realistic compactifications: when fluxes are present you expect a Generalized CY geometry.) I insist that the crucial different is absence of experimental input. I agree this looks unlikely at present, but certainly not impossible. | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 15:36 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | @José: fair enough, though it might be worth restating that selecting a CY 3-fold based on some experimental input doesn't appear feasible. Meanwhile the choice of (e.g.) the rep for SU(3) was directly motivated by Gell-Mann's (and Ne'eman's) observation associating particles to a weight diagram. | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 12:48 | history | edited | Dmitri Panov | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 28 characters in body
|
| Jan 19, 2010 at 10:41 | answer | added | Dmitri Panov | timeline score: 35 | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 9:58 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | @Steve: most physical theories have "landscape". Quantum field theories like the ones the predictive standard model are based, have landscape: take any compact Lie group with any ad-invariant inner product, then take any unitary representation of that group,... This is already an infinite choice, and nothing intrinsic to the theory will pick one. To make a choice one needs experimental input and that is the crucial difference with string theory. Woit understands this, but it is not nearly as controversial. | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 9:18 | comment | added | Dmitri Panov | "Complex analytic" is not a correct terminology, this just means a a manifold with holomorphic strucutre planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ComplexAnalyticSubmanifold.html In dimension 2 you have infinite number of topological types of Kodaira surfaces, they have $c_1=0$. So you should ask this question about Kahler manfiolds (or complex algebraic) instead of complex analytic | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 8:32 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | I seem to recall that Batyrev has done some work in these directions. This paper might be of some interest to you: arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/0505432 | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 7:55 | answer | added | Richard Eager | timeline score: 14 | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 6:15 | comment | added | algori | Steve, thanks, I've seen the wikipedia article, but would like to see more details. Which of the references there (if any) would be suitable for a mathematician with no background in string theory? | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 6:10 | history | edited | algori | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
woops, forgot the 2-torus
|
| Jan 19, 2010 at 5:43 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | BTW, one of the principal themes of Peter Woit's blog at math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress is that string theory is fundamentally not capable of prediction because of the landscape. | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 5:40 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape | |
| Jan 19, 2010 at 5:25 | history | asked | algori | CC BY-SA 2.5 |