Is the concept of strings still relevant in modern physics?

  • Thread starter Herringbone
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Strings
In summary, strings are made of "string stuff" and their tension is created by the electromagnetic force. There is no other fundamental force, and strings can't break under their tension.
  • #36
What is defined as being fundamental? If I'm not mistaken, it means something that cannot be broken down further?

It doesn't really have a rigorous definition in physics. But your description is roughly correct, depending on what you mean by "broken down".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
That means energy is fundamental according to the fact that it can't be broken down into simpler forms and particles aren't fundamental because they can be broken down further.

In string theory, it is established that strings are fundamental.

Hmm... Interesting.

Can 2 different things exhibit identical properties? Or maybe I should phrase it this way -----> Is it possible for strings and energy to be fundamental building blocks and yet be different at the same time since your view is that energy is a property of strings?
 
  • #38
That means energy is fundamental according to the fact that it can't be broken down into simpler forms

Like I said, it doesn't make sense to speak of energy as "fundamental" in this sense. Energy is not an object, so it doesn't even make sense to talk about whether it can be "broken down" into parts or not.


Is it possible for strings and energy to be fundamental building blocks and yet be different at the same time since your view is that energy is a property of strings?

You don't take "pieces of energy" and stick them together to make things. Energy is not a "building block", fundamental or otherwise. Energy simply is not a physical object or substance, it's a property (among many) that a physical object can have.
 
  • #39
Ok then in the words of your argument, can you tell me what really is physical/object?
 
  • #40
i'm not a physicist, but i don't think that this question can be answered before we understand the whole string theory... in fact we might never answer this question, just like we can't explain "where did the uniwerse come from?"- we can only tell how it began, but not why it began, or where it came from...
i have a question: do you think that it's possible to unify space and matter (just like einstein unified space and time)...? we can't call something "the theory of everything" if it leaves space, in which everything takes place, and matter, that fills the space as two separate things. that's just my opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
Well I was just going to mention space.

What do you guys think of space? Standard human understanding/definition of space is that it is emptiness. Nothing. Absolutely empty.

Now my question to you is ----> How can something exist and yet is empty (no mass no substance no nothing... ie. a vacuum)?

This is getting interesting :smile:

I want to see what you guys think.
 
  • #42
Perhaps I should phrase it this way ----> What makes space? Space just can't exist for the sake of existence isn't it? I know you guys are all rational beings who are into science. You don't just accept "its simply there" as an answer. Now try to answer my question and I'll see if I agree with your point of view.
 
  • #43
Bump for Ambitwistor's point of view/comments :smile:
 
  • #44
Originally posted by diverz
Now my question to you is ----> How can something exist and yet is empty (no mass no substance no nothing... ie. a vacuum)?
1. See spacetime as unbreakable and elastic.
2. Let it penetrates itself.
3. A new quantum package (QP)is created with two separate but joined layers.
So it's still empty but the spacetime layers will oscillate locally in a different way.
4. Such QP's can interact and build up other QP's. They all are still empty.
5. A human is thus a house build by empty packages.
6. The human observer can see only other QP's that are resonant to his observing QP's system.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
There isn't any experimental evidence that strings even exist, let alone are fundamental. But in string theory, strings are fundamental. (If you try to break a string to see what it's made of, you just get two strings.)

Is there any theoretical limit to how small a string you can create by breaking a larger string? Or can the process theoretically proceed ad infinitum?
 
  • #46
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I really don't like it when people treat energy (or mass) as some kind of substance that things are made out of. Energy and mass are just some physical properties that objects can have, among many others (charge, momentum, angular momentum, etc.)

This is an interesting take. However, it seems as if this position leaves us with a conglomeration of physical properties without a central object to "have" them in the first place. If there is no such thing as "substance," then what is the object that has physical properties, and by what mechanisms does it 'enforce' its ownership of these physical properties? (Sorry if that's a little metaphorical, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it for now.)
 
  • #47
Originally posted by diverz
Perhaps I should phrase it this way ----> What makes space? Space just can't exist for the sake of existence isn't it? I know you guys are all rational beings who are into science. You don't just accept "its simply there" as an answer. Now try to answer my question and I'll see if I agree with your point of view.


Of course reality must be reducible to logic itself. Physics must be derivable from the principles of reason alone. For otherwise, you are right, it only begs the question as to how the fundamentals came to be. A theory based on the existence of just some particle or field that is not itself justified only give us better engineering, but it is certainly not psychologically satisfying because it leaves questions unanswered. We will not stop until we can say that physics is the result of some description of logic. That is my effort here.

On http://www.sirus.com/users/mjake/StringTh.html#consider I show how the principles of logic and probabilities can be described graphically is some sort of "sample space". Then I show that we can impose a coordinate system on it. And then we can describe a type of string theory as being the propogation of some open "event" in sample space.

But this in itself does not answer your question, where did it all come from. The question reduces to how the manifold of space-time came into existence in the first place. I've read that no dimensionality can exist at a mathematical critical point where all partial derivatives are zero. But such a point is also unstable, any movement whatsoever will only accelerate in that direction. So it seems that the universe started from such a critical point. And the manifold of reality has been growing ever since. It's curious that general relativity predicts an expanding manifold of space-time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
I know its a bot of a "grey" answer but strings are not a predetermined definate in size so we should theorize that a string is in fact made up of smaller strings, and those strings are made up of even smaller strings and so forth. It just keeps going to an inherent fuzziness of open strings that automatically incorporate one of the key ingredients in string theory.

All of physical reality is made out of different states of the superstring. Roughly speaking, each vibrational mode of the string can be thought of as a point particle. Hence, one superstring gives rise to infinitely many local fermion and boson fields. All of the observed bosons and fermions can be cosidered as a vibrational mode of the fundamental superstring. It must be noted that the string is both constituent and interaction. Superstrings can be either open or closed.

I also think that strings could be made or from the inflation of the universe or Gravity differentiates and even symmetries -- but I use this term loosely because there is no given via axioms in theories.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Jeebus
I know its a bot of a "grey" answer but strings are not a predetermined definate in size so we should theorize that a string is in fact made up of smaller strings, and those strings are made up of even smaller strings and so forth. It just keeps going to an inherent fuzziness of open strings that automatically incorporate one of the key ingredients in string theory.

It might be that closed strings can be made up of smaller closed string on some sort of membrane. If the smaller inside strings cancel at their boarders, then the result is the one larger string on the outside edge.

Maybe that's how strings interact, when one meet another they share a common boarder that cancels to leave only one larger string?
 
  • #50
How can a string be elemental if it can be cut into smaller strings,
or for that matter if it can be cut? Wouldn't an absolute findamental be indivisable? If a string needed time or space in which to exist, then how can bit be fundamental? To say that it exists but is fundamental is rather like saying matter exists in the ether
 
  • #51
Strings would be fundamental if no matter what you did to them the only possible result were strings. Atoms were once considered the same way. It wasn't so much that atoms were pointlike in size. They simply were thought to be indivisible. As soon as it was realized that smaller bodies that were not atoms (electrons) could be removed from atoms, then atoms weren't fundamental any more.
 
  • #52
But it is true that strings remain strings no matter what you do to them. If you cut them apart you have two strings. If you join two together you have one string. Twisting them, knotting them doesn't change their stringyness, and the whole of string theory accepts the unsplittible stringiness of strings. The theory may be wrong about that, but so far there has appeared no reason to think so.
 
  • #53
Hold on, I thought M-Theory postulated a minimum size (the Planck's size) for all physical entities...wouldn't this mean that you can't "cut" a string any smaller than it already is?
 
  • #54
According to Pat Schwartz:

""
The string tension in string theory is denoted by the quantity 1/(2 π a'), where a' is pronounced "alpha prime"and is equal to the square of the string length scale.
""
.
link -->
http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3a.html

Tstring = 1/2πα' (string tension from length scale)

Lmin ~ 2√α' (minimum length from length scale)

Then Lmin ~ √(2/π)(1/√Tstring)
.

So, is the minimum length bounded below or is the string tension bounded above?

------

bonus: lecture slides on branes.
The Physics of Branes by Sunil Mukhi -->
http://www.ias.ac.in/meetings/annmeet/68am_talks/smukhi/index.html

Branes are more fundamental than strings?
 
  • #55
String tension is to mechanical tension as Planck's constant is to angular momentum.
 
  • #56
isn't there something called "string coupling constant" which defines (correct me if I'm wrong) how easy it is for a string to divide itself into smaller strings? if strings have a tension, then it is possible to tear them apart, if one pulls hard enough ;).
 
  • #57
Also, open strings can wrap around compact dimensions, even multiple times. So I guess string length is variable.

The wrap count serves as a quantum number?
 
  • #58
Originally posted by quartodeciman

The wrap count serves as a quantum number?

yup
 
  • #59
Agnst

It has been historically true that one theory of what is the most fundamental conceptual unit of existence had later been challanged by another theory of something even smaller, (and/or larger). I would like to know an elequent 'theory of everything'. Is it possible that there is no fundamental elements/strings/whatever, nor 'theory of everything'? String theory poses one problem for me; when asked, why do strings 'exist'?, the answer, (please correct me if I am wrong), is that strings 'exist' because strings 'exist'. Before (I believe it was Einstein) all 'things' 'existed' in something called the ether (sp?). Einstein had asked, what is ether made from? Isn't saying that strings 'exist' because strings 'exist' like saying strings 'exist' in an 'ether'? That strings 'exist' because strings 'exist' is taking it on faith that strings 'exist' because strings 'exist'. For what reason does this not lead to existentalist angst?

Is there a mathematical proof that there is such a thing as a fundamental?
 
  • #60


Originally posted by S = k log w
It has been historically true that one theory of what is the most fundamental conceptual unit of existence had later been challanged by another theory of something even smaller, (and/or larger). I would like to know an elequent 'theory of everything'. Is it possible that there is no fundamental elements/strings/whatever, nor 'theory of everything'? String theory poses one problem for me; when asked, why do strings 'exist'?, the answer, (please correct me if I am wrong), is that strings 'exist' because strings 'exist'. Before (I believe it was Einstein) all 'things' 'existed' in something called the ether (sp?). Einstein had asked, what is ether made from? Isn't saying that strings 'exist' because strings 'exist' like saying strings 'exist' in an 'ether'? That strings 'exist' because strings 'exist' is taking it on faith that strings 'exist' because strings 'exist'. For what reason does this not lead to existentalist angst?

Is there a mathematical proof that there is such a thing as a fundamental?

We are looking for physical laws that are logical in every way, and which can be described by mathematics. You've seen Venn diagrams used to show how to construct AND's and OR's of logic. And these AND's and OR's can just as easily be describe in a sample space. These spaces can be parameterized with coordinates. And they look very much like the manifolds talked about in physics. AND's and OR's are included in both.

If we ever expect to find mathematical laws of physics that are logical in every way, then we should realize that they will be a description of how events grow in sample space.

We seem tantilizingly close to justifying the geometry of physics. The Action integral is proportional to the surface area of the world sheet. The Lagrangian is the generalized gradient and is equal to zero so that it describes a geodesic, etc. But they have no reason for this geometry other than to say it works. It might be possible to recognize these world-sheets as growing events in sample space, and the geodesics as the most probable direction of its growth. But this would take a leap of faith on their part to believe that there is a logical explanation for everything even if we don't know it yet. How can we escape the conclusion that physics is a mathematical description of logic when we impose the requirement of logic and mathematics on our physics to begin with?
 
  • #61


Originally posted by Mike2
We are looking for physical laws that are logical in every way, and which can be described by mathematics. You've seen Venn diagrams used to show how to construct AND's and OR's of logic. And these AND's and OR's can just as easily be describe in a sample space. These spaces can be parameterized with coordinates. And they look very much like the manifolds talked about in physics. AND's and OR's are included in both.

If we ever expect to find mathematical laws of physics that are logical in every way, then we should realize that they will be a description of how events grow in sample space.

We seem tantilizingly close to justifying the geometry of physics. The Action integral is proportional to the surface area of the world sheet. The Lagrangian is the generalized gradient and is equal to zero so that it describes a geodesic, etc. But they have no reason for this geometry other than to say it works. It might be possible to recognize these world-sheets as growing events in sample space, and the geodesics as the most probable direction of its growth. But this would take a leap of faith on their part to believe that there is a logical explanation for everything even if we don't know it yet. How can we escape the conclusion that physics is a mathematical description of logic when we impose the requirement of logic and mathematics on our physics to begin with?

We can't "escape the conclusion that physics is a mathematical description of logic when we impose the requirement of logic and mathematics on our physics to begin with". This is my point. How can we avoid agnst? Do all theories lead to questions? It is certainly fun to pursue this, but is it possible to find a 'theory of everything'?
 
  • #62


Originally posted by S = k log w
We can't "escape the conclusion that physics is a mathematical description of logic when we impose the requirement of logic and mathematics on our physics to begin with". This is my point. How can we avoid agnst? Do all theories lead to questions? It is certainly fun to pursue this, but is it possible to find a 'theory of everything'?

Please see my Website at:

http://www.sirus.com/users/mjake/StringTh.html

where I show how it might be possible to derive physics from logic. If we impose a coordinate system on Venn diagrams and assume a function that tells us whether samples exist or not within a region, then we have the mathematics to describe logic. Then since physical situations are the propositions of logic, and we have a mathematical description of propositions, therefore, we have a mathematical description of physics.

Following the geometry invovled with this scenario, I've come up with something that is beginning to look a lot like string theory.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63


Originally posted by Mike2
If we impose a coordinate system on Venn diagrams and assume a function that tells us whether samples exist or not within a region, then we have the mathematics to describe logic. Then since physical situations are the propositions of logic, and we have a mathematical description of propositions, therefore, we have a mathematical description of physics.

The question comes up as to what physical thing are we sampling with time. What is this density function, where did the boundaries of these events come from, etc?

The answer is that it doesn't matter. Whatever it is, the mathematics will be the same.
 
  • #64
For more on LQG, see next month's Scientific American article by Lee Smolin.
 
  • #65
On strings

If Strings are THE fundamental building blocks of everything, and they have a 'tension', then does that mean that they are deformable, and how can anything that is NOT built of other smaller things be deformable ?

It would be nice to have a definitive answer on this preferably from someone who thought these things up in the first place.

And if they aren't deformable, then how does the 'tension' manifest itself; is it just a 'virtual tension' ?
 
  • #66


Originally posted by Seafang
If Strings are THE fundamental building blocks of everything, ...
If any kind of integration is done along the length of the string, then they are adding up infinitesimal portions of something that is physical. This also implies a continuous variable that has physical meaning.
 
  • #67
The Logic of angst etc.

I found that discussion to be interesting, particularly the question 'is it possible to have a 'theory of everything' ?

To me the mathematics is all pure fiction; we made it up in our heads, and nothing that we discuss in mathematics exists in nature.

Some won't believe that but it is true. there are no points or lines or circles or any of those things in the universe. But there are approximations to them in our models of the universe. The equation for a sphere does not explain the existence of 8000 meter mountains on the surface.

So it may be possible to create a theory (mathematics) of a 'model of everything'. But I doubt that we can ever construct a model that behaves like the real universe.
 
  • #68


Originally posted by Seafang
So it may be possible to create a theory (mathematics) of a 'model of everything'. But I doubt that we can ever construct a model that behaves like the real universe.

right. The mathematics comes from imposing an arbitrary coordinate system over the location of the physical objects which are being considered. The set of objects exists independently of the coordinates we impose. And the math we use is an attempt to describe the relationships we see between these objects.

Since the coordinates are arbitrary, we expect the underlying objects to be described by functions that do not change with whatever coordinate system is imposed. These intrinsic characteristics are "invariant" with coordinate transformations. They are "symmetric" with respect to coordinate changes.

It turns out that this requirement of symmetry or invariance is the only thing we need to discern characteristic values that are conserved and do not change with time or position. And because of that we can know when interactions have taken place and what they produced. For we measure these characteristics to have increased or decreased due to interactions with others. We can know that particular events must have taken place because we can see how things have changed.
 
  • #69
I think strings are made out of either taffy or mozerella cheese.

mmmmmm, cheeese.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
I have the book "Three roads to quantum gravity", and it says that strings are composed of little pieces called string bits. I'm not sure if these pieces are fundamental though
 

Similar threads

A The Emergence of Space-time in String Theory
Replies
33
Views
4K
I Unifying string theory and loop quantum gravity
Replies
2
Views
746
A Different symmetries or no symmetries in string theory?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Theories without Fundamental Space and Time
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
I Why String Theory Is Still Not Even Wrong
2
Replies
41
Views
9K
A "Monstrous Higgs and Leech Spacetime"
Replies
0
Views
2K
Constants of nature as determined by string theory
Replies
4
Views
4K
String Theory and the Concept of Time
Replies
3
Views
3K
A Explaining the Hubble tension with fundamental physics
Replies
6
Views
3K
I Trying To Conceptualize Two Dimensions Of Time
Replies
2
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top