Paper detail

Arguments Against a Finite N=8 Supergravity

I present arguments based on dispersion theory and the existence of charged BPS states of small charge, that maximally supersymmetric SUGRA is not a finite theory. The essence of the argument is that the perturbative construction of the theory implies that scattering amplitudes are invariant under a continuous SU(8) global symmetry, which is broken by contributions from virtual BPS states. Conventional estimates of the contributions of those states above production threshold, shows that they should be order one. If the amplitude satisfies a dispersion relation with a finite number of subtractions, as has recently been argued by Giddings and Porto [1], then SU(8) violating amplitudes appear at finite orders in the low energy expansion. We also make a brief remark about the inconsistency of the idea of classicalization in non-gravitational theories.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Authors

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.