The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Stability of vacua and domain walls in supergravity and superstring theory
Abstract
We address the possibility of false vacuum decay in N=1 supergravity theories, including those corresponding to superstring vacua. By establishing a Bogomol’nyi bound for the energy density stored in the domain wall of the O(4) invariant bubble, we show that supersymmetric vacua remain absolutely stable against false vacuum decay into another supersymmetric vacuum, including those from a Minkowski to an anti‐deSitter (AdS) one. As a consequence, there are no compact static spherical domain walls, while on the other hand there exist planar domain walls interpolating between non‐degenerate supersymmetric vacua, e.g., between Minkowski (topology R4 ) and AdS [topology S1(time)×R3 (space)] vacua.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Indeed, when considering the non-perturbative stability of false vacua [20,21], if supersymmetry is unbroken the decay rate will be zero, as the euclidean action of the instanton associated to the nucleation of a “true vacuum” bubble will diverge [22][23][24].”
From Nothing is certain in string compactifications (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
Citations
Cited by
Nothing is certain in string compactifications
Etxebarria, I. G., Montero, M., Sousa, K., & Valenzuela, I. (2020) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep12(2020)032 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Cvetič, M.
- Venue
- AIP Conference Proceedings
- Publisher
- AIP
- Published
- 1992
- Volume
- 272
- Pages
- 1479-1484
- ISSN
- 0094-243X
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
