Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Why is there a deep mysterious relation between string theory and number theory (Langlands program), elliptic curves, modular functions, the exceptional group $E_8$, and the Monster group as in Monstrous Moonshine?

Surely it's not just a coincidence in the Platonic world of mathematics.

Granted this may not be fully answerable given the current state of knowledge, but are there any hints/plausibility arguments that might illuminate the connections?

share|improve this question
3  
At least this question is a bit childish. If anybody had an answer to this, he would publish it with a lot of "celebrations", and we all would know "why", in principle at least. –  Georg Feb 7 '11 at 14:48
3  
There are lots of interesting and appropriate questions involving these topics but this broad "why" question is not going to get any kind of reasonable answer. I'd suggest you reword the question to make it a more specific question about some aspect of these relations that you are interested in. –  pho Feb 7 '11 at 15:10
10  
I actually voted this question thumbs-up. It's a good question and I would like to know the most accurate answer, too. Clearly, the rough sketch of the answer is that string theory just knows about all important and exceptional structures in mathematics. But why does it know them? What is the logic that dictates that "other solutions" of a theory whose main physical goal is "only" to unify the interactions including gravity with quantum mechanics produces all other maths, including maths we used to think was totally abstract? Why did you close this very good question? –  Luboš Motl Feb 8 '11 at 6:37
4  
I agree with Luboš, the question should remain open. "Arduous" could also try asking at Math Overflow. (P.S. some of the specific connections listed come from the "modular invariance" of string theory, the need for one-loop amplitudes to be invariant under "large" reparametrizations of the world-sheet. This means that modular forms and their properties are relevant - thus Langlands - and also establishes a link to lattices - mathoverflow.net/questions/24604/… ) –  Mitchell Porter Feb 8 '11 at 7:54
6  
I still think a more specific question would be better, but I can see that there might be some interesting and useful answers so I've voted to reopen. –  pho Feb 8 '11 at 14:20

1 Answer 1

Let me first answer the relation between string theory and $E(8)$ (I don't think I can answer the rest.). A common appearance of $E(8)$ in strings theory, is in the gauge group of Type HE string theory, i.e., in $E(8)\otimes E(8)$. Now, this appears in Type HE string theory because of the fact that it is an even, unimodular lattice. But, it is interesting, for another reason; due to the embedding of the Standard Model Subgroup:

$$SU(3)\otimes SU(2)\otimes U(1)\subset SU(5)\subset SO(10)\subset E(6)\subset E(7)\subset E(8)$$

(Admittedly, this is a very common sequence to find in many string theory books (and old papers,.). )

.,,.
That's a lot of embeddings, but notice! The first group here, in the Standard Model subgroup, the second, third, fourth, fifth, are GUT subgroups. And $E(8)$ happens to be the "largest" and "most complicated" of the exceptional lie groups. So a TOE better deal with $E(8)$, somewhere!

I don't know about the relation between monstrous moonshine and string theory, but Wikipedia knows a bit (or in this case, perhaps a lot). .

There is definitely a connection with number theory, and more than just that. . And even more: .

$$1+2+3+4=10$$

Not joking! EM is the curvature of the $U(1)$ bundle . Weak is the curvature of the $SU(2)$ bundles. Strong is the curvature of the $SU(3)$ bundled ; . Gravity is the curvature of spacetime . I.e. 1D manifold, 2D, 3D, 4D $\implies$ 10 D .

I will also put Ron Maimon's commennt here, as comments are on the kill-list of SE:

There is another point, that E(8) is has embedded E6xSU(3), and on a Calabi Yau, the SU(3) is the holonomy, so you can easily and naturally break the E8 to E6. This idea appears in Candelas Horowitz Strominger Witten in 1985, right after Heterotic strings and it is still the easiest way to get the MSSM. The biggest obstacle is to get rid of the MS part--- you need a SUSY breaking at high energy that won't wreck the CC or produce a runaway Higgs mass, since it seems right now there is no low-energy SUSY.

share|improve this answer
1  
SO(10) is not a subgroup of U(5). Why would a TOE need E(8) just because it is the largest exceptional group? The 1,2,3,4 numerology is rather weak since you are just looking at groups with these numbers in them that appear in very different ways. –  Philip Gibbs Aug 9 '13 at 10:19
    
@PhilipGibbs: Fixed the SO(10) U(5) probem . The $E(8)$ logic was supposed to be intuitive . The 1,2,3,4 thing isn't numerology, it isn't so different, by the way . –  Dimensio1n0 Aug 9 '13 at 10:25
    
@PhilipGibbs: In fact, why do you think Kaluza - Klein theory is 5-dimensionals? –  Dimensio1n0 Aug 9 '13 at 10:26
1  
There is another point, that E(8) is E6xSU(3), and on a Calabi Yau, the SU(3) is the holonomy, so you can easily and naturally break the E8 to E6. This idea appears in Candelas Horowitz Strominger Witten in 1985, right after Heterotic strings and it is still the easiest way to get the MSSM. The biggest obstacle is to get rid of the MS part--- you need a SUSY breaking at high energy that won't wreck the CC or produce a runaway Higgs mass, since it seems right now there is no low-energy SUSY. –  Ron Maimon Aug 22 '13 at 22:04
    
@RonMaimon: Thanks, I added that in too. –  Dimensio1n0 Aug 23 '13 at 1:56

protected by Qmechanic Jul 25 at 22:25

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?