At the IFT workshop28/Sep., 2012

1. Challenges for String Theory at the LHC era2. Constraints on GUT 7-brane Topology in F-

theory3. Challenges for String Phenomenology after

the String Revolution in 90’s

Taizan Watari (IPMU)

Challenges for String Theory at the LHC Era

• Hadron scattering

• SM physics (except higgs)

• New particle (like the SM higgs)

• Things for which @7-8TeV is not enough 110 fb

needle

haystackuse of AdS/CFT

creative ideas ?

some perspectives from string phenomenology?

Constraints on GUT 7-brane Topology in F-theory

arXiv:1112.2032 (Phys.Lett. B)with H. Hayashi and T. Kawano

• Aldazabal Ibanez Quevedo Uranga 2000– D-branes at singularity: a bottom up approach to…

• Friedman Witten 2002

All info in Calabi-Yau All info on the real world physics

partial info of “geometry” partial info easier

an approach made possible after the revolution in 90’snon Het, non Type I

2/M G in 3-cycle(5)GUTSU

matter localized rel. to gauge field

0( )( )p ep

diff. from 4D field theory

• Aldazabal Ibanez Quevedo Uranga 2000– D-branes at singularity: a bottom up approach to…

• Friedman Witten 2002

All info in Calabi-Yau All info on the real world physics

partial info of “geometry” partial info easier

an approach made possible after the revolution in 90’snon Het, non Type I

2/M G in 3-cycle(5)GUTSU

matter localized rel. to gauge field

0( )( )p ep

diff. from 4D field theory

Yukawa flavor str. not doing well. [Tatar TW ’06]

• Aldazabal Ibanez Quevedo Uranga 2000– D-branes at singularity: a bottom up approach to…

• Friedman Witten 2002

All info in Calabi-Yau All info on the real world physics

partial info of “geometry” partial info easier

an approach made possible after the revolution in 90’snon Het, non Type I

2/M G in 3-cycle(5)GUTSU

matter localized rel. to gauge field

0( )( )p ep

diff. from 4D field theory

U(1)_Y flux not in [Beasley et.al. 0806.]

* 23( )i H B

GUT kS dP works well

Yukawa hierarchy problem in F-theory

• singl. pt of type

• Yukawa matrix in eff. theory below KK-scale

6" "D 6" "E

6D6E

10 .repr

5 .reprmatrix ( )d

iY ( )uaY

approx. rank-1

S = P^1 x P^1g( 10repr. ) = 1.

( ) ( ) ,d dii

Y Y( ) ( ) .u u

aaY Y

6 0#(" " pt) 2 .E ZHayashi et.al. 0910.Cordova 0910.

known solutions to the problem

• g(10-repr. curve) = 1 (or higher) &– cf. magnetized torus Type I– idea: Arkani-Hamed Schmaltz ’00, Hall Salem TW ’07

• factorize matter curve– factorize spectral surface– an issue of global CY_4 geometry – unbroken U(1) and Majorana mass of RH nu

• discrete sym. to identify singl. pts.

Im ( ) 10 100. Hayashi et.al. 0910.

[Heckman Vafa ’08 Nov., Caltech 0904.]

[Tatar et.al. 0906.]

[Hayashi et.al. 1004. Grimm Weigand 1006.]

Hayashi et.al. 0910.

Cremades Ibanez Marchesano ‘04

• Discrete sym. solution keeps– approx rk-1 flavor str.– appropriate RH nu Majorana

mass in R-parity scenario

(4)4( , )X Gacts on

3

2 .GUTRHnu cpx str mdl

str

MM M M

also on and Higgs bdl. data GUTS

If we require 6

6

#(" ") (5 ) (4 ) | |,#(" ") (5 ) (3 ) | |,

S S

S S

E K KD K K

6 60 #(" ") #(" ") (5 ) ( ).S SD E K K

10-rep. matter curve

positive for del Pezzo

6 66 6#(" ") | | / | |, #(" ") | | / | | .E DE H D H loop hole:but not big enoughhole to rescue Z_2

Challenges for String Phenomenology

after the String Revolution in 90’s

my thoughts that led to Tatar TW hep-th/0602238

and all of my papers that follow

What does stringpheno (try to) do?What has it done in the last 27yrs?

• to senior undergrad students– use Schroedinger eq. to study earthquakes

• to experts in neighboring fields– use pheno as a motif to study math/fund. aspects– existence proof of our universe in string landscape– provide perspectives, ideas or predictions,

knowledge not available within (4D) eff. field theory

determination, strategy and creativity

broader specific

ideasperspectives

predictions,constraints,no go

broader specific

ideasperspectives

predictions,constraints,no go

risk:what is the advantage over the field theory model building?

Planck-scale related things (cosmo, SUSY-breaking)high scale phys. (RHnu, Yukawa..)

correlation between diff. sectors

general strategy

But, how much of string vacua do we cover?

perspectives / landscape

2 3M/ or IIA /G CY

4 3F/ or IIB /CY CY3Het /CY

[ D=4 N=1 SUSY vacua ]New way to look at landscape after the revolution in 90’s.

--- formulation oriented --- physics oriented topology algebra, moduli

geography choice of “coordinates” and description

non-geometric phase (CFT) whole picture, unification and Planck/GUT hierarchy

more wild classes of vacua