Why does bosonic string theory require 26 spacetime dimensions?

Question

I do not think it is possible really believe or experimentally check (now), but all modern physical doctrines suggest that out world is NOT 4-dimensional, but higher. The least sophisticated candidate - bosonic string theory says that out world is 26 dimensional (it is not realistic due to presence of tachion, and so there are super strings with 10 dimensions, M-theory with 11, F-theory with 12).

Let us do not care about physical realities and ask: what mathematics stands behind the fact that 26 is the only dimension where bosonic string theory can live ? Definitely there is some mathematics e.g. 26 in that MO question is surely related.

Let me recall the bosonic string theory background. Our real world is some Riemannian manifold M which is called TS (target space). We consider the space of all maps from the circle to M, actually we need to consider how the circle is moving inside M, so we get maps from $S^1\times [0~ T]$ to M ( here $S^1\times [0~ T]$ is called WS - world sheet); we identify the maps which differs by parametrization (that is how Virasoro comes into game and hence relation with Leonid's question).

That was pretty mathematical, but now ill-defined physics begin - we need integrate over this infinite-dimensional space of maps/parametrizations with measure corresponding to exp( i/h volume_{2d}(image(WS))). This measure is known NOT to exist mathematically, but somehow this does not stop physists they do what they call regularization or renormalization or something like that and 26 appears...

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

Comments

The reason behind 26 dimensions for bosonic string is that quantization destroy conformal (Weyl) symmetry being this a two-dimensional theory. In order to have a sensible quantum theory one needs to fix dimension to 26. Adding fermions and so, supersymmetry, the situation can alleviated reducing dimensions to 10. See amazon.com/String-Cambridge-Monographs-Mathematical-Physics/dp/… for physicists or amazon.com/Quantum-Fields-Strings-Course-Mathematicians/dp/… for mathematicians.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jon

---

@Asaf MO does not allow title less than 15 chars.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

---

In the old days, in some countries, s p a c i n g was a substitute for nonexistent italics.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Gerald Edgar

---

One of the clearest explanation I've seen for a mathematical readership is in this old Bourbaki seminar of Bost: numdam.org/numdam-bin/fitem?id=SB_1986-1987__29__113_0

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Minhyong Kim

---

Alexander- Some would have taken that as a sign that a title with one word and one number wasn't actually a good choice (which is expanded on in the "how to ask").

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Webster

---

@Ben please feel free to edit

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

---

@Alexander Chervov: then how come "W h y 2 6 ?", which is less than 15 chars, is allowed?

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Federico Poloni

---

C'mon guys. It's a good question, with an ok title. Stop beeing arses!

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user André Henriques

---

Isn't the title also exceedingly uninformative? It should be obvious to mathematicians that a title "Why 26?" must refer to the number of sporadic finite simple groups. I suppose chemists might start wondering about Iron's properties or something.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jeff Burdges

---

@Alexander: Then ask "Why 26 dimensions?". You'll avoid the character limit, get people to make the connection with string theory more quickly, and escape the decade long internet battle-hardened spam detectors of their souls.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Gunnar Magnusson

---

@Jeff Burdges: and also the number of infinite families of finite groups. (Then there's the Tits group, which is not quite of linear type but is not usually counted among the sporadics either...)

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Noam D. Elkies

---

all modern physical doctrines suggest that out world is NOT 4-dimensional, but higher Not all modern physical theories, just string theory -- which is probably wrong.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell

Answer 1

In addition to Chris Gerig's operator-language approach, let me also show how this magical number appears in the path integral approach.

Let $\Sigma$ be a compact surface (worldsheet) and $M$ a Riemannian manifold (spacetime). The string partition function looks like

$$Z_{string}=\int_{g\in Met(\Sigma)}dg\int_{\sigma\in Map(\Sigma,M)}d\sigma\exp(iS(g,\sigma)).$$ Here $Met(\Sigma)$ is the space of Riemannian metrics on $\Sigma$ and $S(g,\sigma)$ is the standard $\sigma$-model action $S(g,\sigma)=\int_{\Sigma} dvol_\Sigma \langle d\sigma,d\sigma\rangle$. In particular, $S$ is quadratic in $\sigma$, so the second integral $Z_{matter}$ does not pose any difficulty and one can write it in terms of the determinant of the Laplace operator on $\Sigma$. Note that the determinant of the Laplace operator is a section of the determinant line bundle $L_{det}\rightarrow Met(\Sigma)$. The measure $dg$ is a 'section' of the bundle of top forms $L_g\rightarrow Met(\Sigma)$. Both line bundles carry natural connections.

However, the space $Met(\Sigma)$ is enormous: for example, it has a free action by the group of rescalings $Weyl(\Sigma)$ ($g\mapsto \phi g$ for $\phi\in Weyl(\Sigma)$ a positive function). It also carries an action of the diffeomorphism group. The quotient $\mathcal{M}$ of $Met(\Sigma)$ by the action of both groups is finite-dimensional, it is the moduli space of conformal (or complex) structures, so you would like to rewrite $Z_{string}$ as an integral over $\mathcal{M}$.

Everything in sight is diffeomorphism-invariant, so the only question is how does the integrand change under $Weyl(\Sigma)$. To descend the integral from $Met(\Sigma)$ to $Met(\Sigma)/Weyl(\Sigma)$ you need to trivialize the bundle $L_{det}\otimes L_g$ along the orbits of $Weyl(\Sigma)$. This is where the critical dimension comes in: the curvature of the natural connection on $L_{det}\otimes L_g$ (local anomaly) vanishes precisely when $d=26$. After that one also needs to check that the connection is actually flat along the orbits, so that you can indeed trivialize it.

Two references for this approach are D'Hoker's lectures on string theory in "Quantum Fields and Strings" and Freed's "Determinants, Torsion, and Strings".

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Pavel Safronov

Comments

Pavel, thank you very much for yours wonderful answer. Let me ask something. Is it possible to clarify the general setup and general question which lead us to 26 ? I mean something like that 1) we have manifold M (e.g. all metrics) 2) we have measure on it (right ? or it is not measure?) 3) we want to push down the "measure" on the factor M/G , (in this example G is diffeomorphisms+Weyl). Now we see the phenomena - this "push down" cannot be defined in general only for 26. Is this correct setup ? What we cannot ? What are general conditions on M, g which will allow to do it ?

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

---

Before pushing forward $dg$ and $Z_{matter}$ from $M$ to $M/G$, you would like to pushforward the line bundles with connections that they are sections of. Separately $L_{det}$ and $L_g$ can not be pushed forward (anomaly), but $L_{det}\otimes L_g$ can (cancellation of anomalies). If $c\neq 26$, the curvature along the orbits is nonzero and so the line bundle cannot possibly come from $M/G$ (any such pullback carries a flat connection along the orbits). Essentially, you defer the definition of $dg$ until you work with $M/G$, which is finite-dimensional.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Pavel Safronov

Answer 2

I think this is standard in some String Theory textbooks:
The quantum operators form the Virasoro algebra, where the generators obey $[L_m,L_n]=(m-n)L_{m+n}+\frac{c}{12}m(m^2-1)\delta_{m+n,0}$. Here "c" is the central charge, which is the space-time dimension we are working over. We need this algebra to interact appropriately with the physical states of the system (i.e. $L_m|\phi\rangle$ information), and only when $c=26$ do we guarantee that there are no negative-norm states in the complete physical system.

[Addendum] In the method I described, $c=26$ arises correctly as the critical dimension so that no absurdities occur. What I believe David Roberts is thinking about (in his comment below) is another way to get the same answer: You consider light-cone coordinates and write down the mass-shell condition (summing over the worldsheet dimension $D−2$), and you end up with the requirement $\frac{D-2}{24}=1$. In other words, $c=D=26$.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Chris Gerig

Comments

@Chris thank you, I need some time to get GSW in hands... It is not on-line ? Do you have idea of the other examples where similar thing happens ? What is the mathematical setup for this ? I think that Virasoro arises because our configuration space = "something / diffeomorphisms," so we can say (as usually) functions on quotient - are invariant functions on upper space, so should be annihilated by Vir, but why only by positive part of Vir ? what do you think ?

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

---

Well now that this bullshit SOPA was brought to everyone's attention, it's hard to find online textbooks, so you'll probably have to go to the library. Your questions will be answered there, and also here: math.kth.se/~dogge/files/virasoro.pdf

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Chris Gerig

---

@Chris Thank you ! The reference is short and concise. (Well I do not think it answers the questions but does not matter). PS The reference given by Tom Dickens damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string.pdf is also very nice it based on lectures by Tong which in turn based on M. Green lectures.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

---

PSPS Below I also asked Pavel some questions - might you can also comment...

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

---

I don't know this path-integral approach.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Chris Gerig

---

Addendum: you can represent space-time using coordinates $X^\pm$ and these have an expansion involving the double sum I wrote in a comment below (denote it $N$). The mass-shell condition is $M^2=N-x$ (up to some factor) for some a priori unknown constant $x$, and when looking at massless states ($M=0$) and invoking Lorentz invariance it turns out that $x=1$. This constant is called the normal-ordering constant and appears in the definition of $L_0$ (which involves a special type of ordering of the terms in $N$); writing the terms out, you get $x=-\frac{1}{2}(D-2)\zeta(-1)$.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Chris Gerig

---

@Chris Thank you for the answer ! Can you suggest some reference (preferbly open access) ? Can the sentence "We need this algebra to interact appropriately with the physical states of the system (i.e. information), and only when do we guarantee that there are no negative-norm states in the complete physical system." be analysed to produce something more close to mathematician's heart ? I understand this vague question, but still...

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

Answer 3

The value of 26 ultimately comes from the need to rid the theory of negative-norm states, as previously noted. This involves regularizing the sum $\sum_{n=0}^\infty n,$ which of course diverges. One obtains a finite part equaling $-\frac{1}{12},$ which leads to the 24, and from there to 26 for the number of dimensions (25 space, 1 time). (Analytic continuation of the zeta function gives $\zeta(-1) = -\frac{1}{12}$).

Rather than me writing the details in here, I suggest this nice introductory reference, where the number of dimensions required for consistency of the bosonic string is derived in Ch. 2:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string.pdf

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Tom Dickens

Comments

Thank you ! it is nice reference.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

Answer 4

Just to correct a small misconception: Physicists aren't claiming that an integral over the space of smooth maps from $WS$ to $X$ exists. The path integral measure for the bosonic string is defined on something more like the "space of distributions on $WS$ valued in $X$". It's not a problem that no integral exists on the space of smooth maps, because this space shows up only as a convenient shorthand for discussing the renormalization procedure which is used to define the path integral measure.

The quantum mechanics of the simple harmonic oscillator is subject to a similar abuse of language. You discuss the theory in terms of functions on the timeline $[0,t]$, but if you're careful, the path integral measure (aka, the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck measure) is actually defined on the space of distributions on $[0,t]$. (What makes life easy in this case is that the Wiener measure is supported on distributions which are almost everywhere continuous functions.)

The situation is somewhat more complicated for the 2d nonlinear sigma model, because there isn't really anything you'd want to call the distributions valued in $X$. Instead you try to define the measure as a linear functional on observables which are well approximated by functions of the form $\phi \mapsto ev_{\sigma} \phi^*f$, where $f$ is a function on $X$ and $ev_\sigma$ evaluation at a point $\sigma \in WS$. The correlation function of observables $\hat{\mathcal{O}}_1$, $\hat{\mathcal{O}}_2$ should be approximated by integrals of the form

$\int_{Map(L,X)} \mathcal{O}_1(\phi) \mathcal{O}_1(\phi) e^{i S_L(\phi)} d\phi$

for some finite set of points $L \subset WS$, and some approximation $S_L$ of the classical action $S$ defined using only finite differences among the points in $L$. When you refine the set of points $L$ to fill in $WS$, you get an expectational value functional on the set of observables. This expectation value functional should have the same properties (like OPE) that you see in QFTs where the classical fields take values in linear spaces.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user userN

Comments

@AJ Tolland Thank you for yours answer! It seems I indeed had some missunderstanding, let me ask you later. I asked Pavel some question above (after his answer) to clarify the general setup - may be you can comment on it also ?

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

---

Weiner measure is supported on _everywhere_ continuous functions, not "almost everywhere", which is far too weak. Random walks are continuous at all points. In 2d, quantum fields are very mildly discontinuous, the two-point function is only log-divergent, and this allows sigma-models, in 3d and higher, they are violently discontinuous, actual divergent distributions, and then you can't have sigma models without some sort of modification of the kind of field theory at short distances.

Answer 5

I'm not an expert on this so bare with me, but I don't think you must require $\dim(M) = 26$, you must only require that the worldsheet is conformally invariant - i.e., the Weyl anomaly vanishes. You can do this by adding 26 bosons (which represent the coordinates of $M$) - which is called critical string theory - or you can turn on the dilaton expectation value - which is then called non-critical string theory. There's a lot of interesting research involving these non-critical string theories, for e.g. check out $c=1$ matrix models and type 0 string theories.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Kevin Wray

Comments

Thank you for the answer. Indeed i heard something about noncritical strings. This was active at early nineties. Some matrix model description werefound. I am not expert neither but it seems to me this is even more beyond math understanding than critical 26 dims. If you. Can comment more this would be great.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alexander Chervov

Answer 6

I am quite late answering this question, even though I followed it when it first appeared, but it must have slipped my mind. Anyway, it's been a while now and nobody seems to have mentioned my favourite (algebraic) reason for this.

In the covariant BRST quantisation of the bosonic string, the space of physical states can be interpreted as the relative semi-infinite cohomology group $H^\bullet(\mathfrak{V},\mathfrak{z};\mathfrak{M})$, where $\mathfrak{V}$ is the Virasoro algebra, $\mathfrak{z}$ is its centre and $\mathfrak{M}$ is a $\mathfrak{V}$-module in the category $\mathcal{O}_o$, the subcategory of category $\mathcal{O}$ consisting of graded modules with finite-dimensional homogeneous subspaces.

The standard complex computing semi-infinite cohomology is the tensor product $\mathfrak{M}\otimes\bigwedge^\bullet_{\frac\infty2}\mathfrak{V}'$ of $\mathfrak{M}$ with the semi-infinite forms on $\mathfrak{V}$. To compute relative cohomology we need to consider forms which are both horizontal and invariant relative to the centre. Now, it so happens that $\bigwedge^\bullet_{\frac\infty2}\mathfrak{V}'$ is a $\mathfrak{V}$-module where the central element acts with eigenvalue (central charge) $-26$, so that for the relative subcomplex to be nontrivial, the central charge of $\mathfrak{M}$ must be $+26$.

Now then why do people say that the bosonic string needs $26$ dimensions? This, which is actually imprecise, comes from the fact that when considering the conformal field theory of string propagating on $d$-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, the resulting (Fock) modules $\mathfrak{M}$ have central change $d$.

Why do I say that this is imprecise? Because the relation between the central charge and the dimension is very much dependent on the space on which the string is propagating. It is not inconceivable that there might exist (non-flat) spacetimes $M$ for which the Virasoro modules resulting from the conformal field theory of string propagating on $M$ (were this actually possible to compute) have a central charge which is not equal to the dimension of $M$.

Said differently, there certainly exist $\mathfrak{V}$-modules with central charge $26$ with no clear/known geometric interpretation at present, and there is no reason to discard their eventual interpretation in terms of geometries with dimension $\neq 26$.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user José Figueroa-O'Farrill

Answer 7

Note, that here, the $\hat L_n$ are operators on the state given by the sums of the dots of the mode operators, i.e. $\hat L_0=\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty\hat\alpha_{-n}\cdot\hat\alpha_n$.

Also note that The Virasoro Algebra is the central extension of the Witt/Conformal Algebra so that explains why we have a $D$, it is equivalent to the central charge.

I'll expand on Chris Gerig's answer.

Not only do we need $D=26$, we also need the normal ordering constant $a=1$. The normal ordering constant is the eigenvalue of $\hat L_0$ with the eigenvector the state.

We want to promote the time-like states to spurious, zero-norm states, right? So, we impose the (level 1) spurious state conditions on the state as ffollows ($|\chi\rangle$ are the basis vectors to build the spurious state $\Phi\rangle$ on.)$:

$$\begin{gathered} 0 = {{\hat L}_1}\left| \Phi \right\rangle \\ {\text{ }} = {{\hat L}_1}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle \\ {\text{ }} = \left[ {{{\hat L}_{ - 1}},{{\hat L}_1}} \right]\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle + {{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{{\hat L}_1}\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle \\ {\text{ }} = \left[ {{{\hat L}_{ - 1}},{{\hat L}_1}} \right]\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle \\ {\text{ }} = 2{{\hat L}_0}\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle \\ {\text{ }} = 2{c_0}\left( {a - 1} \right)\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle \\ \end{gathered}$$

That means that $a=1$.

Now, for a level 2 spurious state,

$$\begin{gathered} \left[ {{{\hat L}_1},{{\hat L}_{ - 2}} + k{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}} \right]\left| \psi \right\rangle = \left( {3{{\hat L}_{ - 1}} + 2k{{\hat L}_0}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}} + 2k{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{{\hat L}_0}} \right)\left| \psi \right\rangle {\text{ }} \\ {\text{ }} = \left( {3 - 2k} \right){{\hat L}_{ - 1}} + 4k{{\hat L}_0}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{\text{ }}\left( {3 - 2k} \right){{\hat L}_{ - 1}} + 4k{{\hat L}_0}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{\text{ }} \\ 0 = {{\hat L}_1}\left| \psi \right\rangle = {{\hat L}_1}\left( {{{\hat L}_{ - 2}} + k{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}} \right)\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle = \left( {\left( {3 - 2k} \right){{\hat L}_{ - 1}} + 4k{{\hat L}_0}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}} \right)\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle \\ {\text{ }} = \left( {\left( {3 - 2k} \right){{\hat L}_{ - 1}} + 4k{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}\left( {{{\hat L}_0} + 1} \right)} \right)\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle \\ {\text{ }} = \left( {3 - 2k} \right){{\hat L}_{ - 1}}\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle \\ 2k = 3 \\ k = \frac{3}{2} \\ \end{gathered}$$

Since this level 2 spurious state can be written as:

$${\left| \Phi \right\rangle = {{\hat L}_{ - 2}}\left| {{\chi _1}} \right\rangle + k{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}\left| {{\chi _2}} \right\rangle }$$

So, then,

$$\begin{gathered} {{\hat L}_2}\left| \Phi \right\rangle = 0 \\ {{\hat L}_2}\left( {{{\hat L}_{ - 2}} + \frac{3}{2}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}} \right)\left| {{\chi _2}} \right\rangle = 0 \\ \left[ {{{\hat L}_2},{{\hat L}_{ - 2}} + \frac{3}{2}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}} \right]\left| {{\chi _2}} \right\rangle + \left( {{{\hat L}_{ - 2}} + \frac{3}{2}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}} \right){{\hat L}_2}\left| {{\chi _2}} \right\rangle = 0 \\ \left[ {{{\hat L}_2},{{\hat L}_{ - 2}} + \frac{3}{2}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}} \right]\left| {{\chi _2}} \right\rangle = 0 \\ \left( {13{{\hat L}_0} + 9{{\hat L}_{ - 1}}{{\hat L}_{ - 1}} + \frac{D}{2}} \right)\left| {{\chi _2}} \right\rangle = 0 \\ \frac{D}{2} = 13 \\ D = 26 \\ \end{gathered}$$  

Q.E.D.

So, this was done essentially to remove the imaginary norm ghost states and using the Canonical / Gupta - Bleuer formalism.

It's also possible to use , say, e.g. Light Cone Gauge (LCG) quantisation. However, in other quantisation methods, the conformal anomaly is manifest in other forms. E.g., in LCG quantisationn, it is manifest as a failure of lorentz symmetry. A good overview of this method can be found in Kaku Strings, Conformal fields, and M-theory.

Comments

Dear Abhimanyu. Your answer has the potential of being very informative. However, you shouldn't forget that the readers don't know all the notation and all the terminology that you use. First of all, what is the "normal ordering constant"? Then, I have a plethora of questions, such as: what is $|\chi_1\rangle$? what is $|\chi_2\rangle$?... Finally, and most importantly, what is the relation of $D$ with all the symbols that appear before it? That is, what is the relation between $D$ and the operators $\hat L_n$ from the Virasoro algebra?

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user André Henriques

---

@AndréHenriques: Done.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2014-04-28 05:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0