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.

This question is inspired from reading Mitchell Porter's nice answer here to a question asking why supersymmetry should be expected naturally. Among other things, he explains that since weak scale supersymmetry comes a bit under pressure now, theorists could in the future be lead to consider rather high scale suppersymmetry or even string theory without supersymmetry at all.

This last bit gives me quite a pause, I always thought string theory needs supersymmetry to be consistant? And now it seems that there can be string vacua in the landscape that have no supersymmetry at all? Or would they be in something I have heared about which is called the "swamp land" (I dont know exactly what this is)?

So can somebody explain how string theory would work and look like without supersymmetry?

share|improve this question
2  
related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/30703 –  user1504 May 15 '13 at 23:28
    
Thanks for the link @user1504, I like your question and Lumo's answer there :-) –  Dilaton May 15 '13 at 23:49
1  
Along with the type 0 string, arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9707148 is another example. –  Mitchell Porter May 16 '13 at 1:11
1  
Actually, the SO(16) x SO(16) string in that paper might already be an example of the type 0 string? Anyway, one thing to note is that some of these "nonsusy strings" still have a type of susy somewhere, e.g. on the worldsheet but not in spacetime. –  Mitchell Porter May 16 '13 at 2:01
    
There is a possibly related paper about non supersymmetric F-Theory compactifications discussed in the first part of this blog post. –  Dilaton Jul 24 '13 at 23:48
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 3 down vote accepted

If you spend some time looking in detail at the arguments that string theory requires supersymmetry, you'll find that they are not watertight. (How could they be, since we still can't say/don't know precisely what string theory is?)

Basically, some string theorists argue that that the usual classification depends too strongly on choosing nearly trivial boundary conditions and backgrounds, and that weirder things ought to be allowed -- like type 0 strings, Liouville backgrounds, gravitational duals of randomly-chosen CFTs, miscellaneous higher spin gauge theories, bosonic string tachyon condensation, strings above Hagedorn temperature. The experts differ on how believable these arguments are, and in whether the various bizarre things you get this way really should be thought of as part of string theory.

What this means is that no one can quite answer your question. No one knows for sure that SUSY is required. No one knows for sure that it isn't. This is why it is a very good idea to a) not believe most things you read in the popular literature, and b) not believe most things you read in the scientific literature.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks for this nice answer, do you have some explanatory links to the different possibilities? Quite some time ago I have stopped reading too popular stuff about these topics for some reason ;-) –  Dilaton May 16 '13 at 10:46
add comment

p-adic strings or the adelic approach created by B.Dragovich don't require SUSY at all. At least, not the usual SUSY symmetry...

Non-critical string theory, the so-called Liouville theory, is based on the hypothesis of non-imposing the condition that critical strings with fermions (superstrings) impose on the space-time dimension due to internal consistency.

share|improve this answer
1  
Speaking as a user (as opposed to a moderator), concerning the first claim in the answer (v1), i.e., that $p$-adic (quantum) string theory doesn't need SUSY at all, it might be good idea to at least give a heuristic physical reason, or point to a reference. –  Qmechanic Jul 6 '13 at 20:27
    
Search for Branko Dragovich papers in the arxiv or his talks. p-adic string theory and the adelic approach references were also studied by Arefeva and the russian school (not only the serbian physicists like Dragovich and collaborators). Do you mean I should post some concrete reference? By the way, Witten, Freund and some other people studied p-adic amplitudes during the eighties of the past century...I am amazed that they abandoned that approach. After all, it does not require (a priori) extra new particles, only to understand what is a p-adic worldsheet (unsolved problem to my knowledge). –  riemannium Jul 7 '13 at 22:59
    
Some concrete references would be nice, if you know them. –  Dilaton Jul 8 '13 at 13:11
1  
projecteuclid.org/… and references therein... –  riemannium Jul 12 '13 at 16:35
    
Most interesting to see p-adics cropping up in physics. Wonderful in one sense, perhaps not too surprising in another (Ostrowsky's theorem). I studied them a long time ago (late eighties) as part of a maths degree and applications to physics were spoken of but I never got around to looking up what they were. –  WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance Dec 2 '13 at 23:46
add comment

i think that the superstrings need not of supersymetry or better.all occur into of tolpology of smooth 4-dimension manifolds containing infinity families of smoth with differents metrics curvatures

share|improve this answer
add comment

protected by Qmechanic Nov 25 '13 at 20:55

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?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.