Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In a previous question (Calabi-Yau manifolds and compactification of extra dimensions in M-theory), I was told that the $G(2)$ lattice can be used to compactify the extra 7 dimensions of M-theory and preserve exactly $\mathcal N=1$ supersymmetry.

However, since there is only 1 $G(2)$ lattice, there should be only 1 4-dimensional M-theory. Then, why is there such a huge fuss about the M-theory landscape?


share|cite|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

It's not a "$G(2)$ lattice" one has to compactify the M-theoretical dimensions upon (after all, the $G_2$ lattice is 2-dimensional); it's the $G_2$ holonomy manifolds. There are lots of different topologies of these seven-dimensional manifolds. They're analogous to the Calabi-Yau manifolds but don't allow one to use the machinery of complex numbers.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks. Now that I get it. – centralcharge Jun 2 '13 at 9:22

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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