compactifications

It has something to do with maximal supersymmetry, orbifold compactifications, Calabi-Yau spaces and other matters a bit beyond the scope here.

Telekinesis and Quantum Field Theory Sean 2008

There may (or may not) be one (or more, maybe many more) compactifications of string theory that are consistent with the Standard Model.

String Theory is Losing the Public Debate Sean 2007

At the end of the section about the G2 compactifications the authors state:

String Theory is Losing the Public Debate Sean 2007

In fact, if you check the original paper on these G2 compactifications, there is already a very interesting prediction from the entire class of the G2 compactifications without fluxes: light gauginos with masses

String Theory is Losing the Public Debate Sean 2007

I generally disagree with this, although it may be true of some flux compactifications, which seem rather unnatural to me.

String Theory is Losing the Public Debate Sean 2007

Simple string compactifications that you can make real predictions with give wrong physics (e.g. no supersymmetry breaking, extra long range forces).

String Theory is Losing the Public Debate Sean 2007

You say you want to look at “inter-relations that arise in different compactifications”.

String Theory is Losing the Public Debate Sean 2007

The set of compactifications string phenomenologists look at is extremely complicated, and getting more and more complicated as time goes on and people find new constructions.

String Theory is Losing the Public Debate Sean 2007

It seems to me that this is exactly analogous to statements that certain classes of compactifications in string theory make certain predictions, but when all possible classes are considered, no prediction is common to all.

String Theory is Losing the Public Debate Sean 2007

Can you get M1 smaller than M2 smaller than M3 in the G2 compactifications?

String Theory is Losing the Public Debate Sean 2007