Will string theory explain what electric and magnetic fields really are?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of electric and magnetic fields and their existence. It is pointed out that while we know what these fields are, we do not necessarily know why they exist. The conversation also touches on Einstein's theories and how they have been confirmed, but also how they have created problems that string theory may be able to address. However, it is emphasized that in physics, it is more important to focus on how things exist rather than why. The conversation also mentions the limitations of asking "why" in science and how the standard model adequately explains electromagnetism. It is also noted that string theory, while currently just a mathematical curiosity, may have potential for further understanding in the future.
  • #1
jaydnul
558
15
I mean we really don't know what they are, right? We just know they can be positive or negative, north or south, but we really don't know why they exist. Will string theory give a definite answer to this? And also gravity. Will it confirm Einsteins theories?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
1) We do know what electric and magnetic fields are.
2) Einstein's theories have already been confirmed, but so has quantum field theory/mechanics. This creates problems that string theory fixes.
3) Never ask why in physics only ask how. Why is way too hard/impossible to answer and quite frankly useless.

By point one I thus mean we know how electric and magnetic fields exist thus we know what they are.
 
  • #3
3) Never ask why in physics only ask how. Why is way too hard/impossible to answer and quite frankly useless.

That is a great point that I wish was emphasized more in basic science classes. In most sciences any question of 'why...' is answered by appealing to a more 'basic' or 'fundamental' science. This poses a problem when you get to physics which deals with the most basic phenomenon we have observed. There is no more fundamental science to appeal too.

Why society? Because of biology. Why biology? Because of chemistry. Why chemistry? Because of physics. Why physics? Irrelevant. We observe phenomenon and define the players of the phenomenon by their attributes. The electric field is that which has a particular set of characteristics we have observed and chosen to define as the electric field.
 
  • #4
conquest said:
1) We do know what electric and magnetic fields are.
2) Einstein's theories have already been confirmed, but so has quantum field theory/mechanics. This creates problems that string theory fixes.
3) Never ask why in physics only ask how. Why is way too hard/impossible to answer and quite frankly useless.

By point one I thus mean we know how electric and magnetic fields exist thus we know what they are.

But Einstein's theories were exactly what i am asking, just on a different subject. He didn't just settle for knowing gravity exists, he asked WHY gravity exists, which turned out to be the warps and curves of space-time. So why not ask WHY the electromagnetic fields exists? isn't that the point of science?
 
  • #5
isn't that the point of science?

Not really. Science is more about creating quantitative and qualitative predictions and descriptions of our observations. Einstein developed the theory of general relativity to reconcile special relativity and gravity. He was inspired by the early work done to reconcile the electric and magnetic fields. "Why" did not come into play, its not a relevant question in science.
 
  • #6
lundyjb said:
He didn't just settle for knowing gravity exists, he asked WHY gravity exists, which turned out to be the warps and curves of space-time.
And why is that? The string of "why" questions is inherently infinite. Sometimes it can be kind of useful to look at it from that perspective, purely for insights, but generally speaking, we don't know why, and we aren't going to. So we shouldn't be trying to answer these questions.

And if we get right down to it, we don't know that's why gravity works. Curvature of space-time is just one representation of mathematics which agrees with experiment. Since the space-time cannot be embedded, asking if it's really a curvature or some other effect that merely happens to look like curvature is silly. We wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

So anyways, electromagnetism is explained adequately by the standard model, where electromagnetic field is a gauge field corresponding to the U(1) local symmetry of the Lagrangian governing particle fields. There isn't anything near as simple to visualize as "curving of space-time" that corresponds to it, but it effectively answers the question in the same kind of way.

I'm not entirely sure what questions string theory is meant to answer, because I'm not aware of any prediction it makes that are distinct from standard model and are experimentally verified. Until it does, it's nothing more than mathematical curiosity. Not that it's a reason not to pursue it. Most theories start out as curiosities.
 

FAQ: Will string theory explain what electric and magnetic fields really are?

What is string theory and how does it relate to electric and magnetic fields?

String theory is a theoretical framework in physics that suggests that the fundamental building blocks of the universe are not particles, but tiny one-dimensional vibrating strings. These strings are believed to be the foundation of all matter and energy in the universe, including electric and magnetic fields.

How does string theory explain electric and magnetic fields?

In string theory, the vibrations of these tiny strings create different particles and forces in the universe, including electric and magnetic fields. The different vibrations of the strings correspond to different types of particles and the interactions between these strings create the forces that we observe in nature, such as electric and magnetic fields.

Will string theory provide a complete explanation for electric and magnetic fields?

String theory is still a developing theory and there is ongoing research to fully understand its implications. While it is a promising framework for understanding the fundamental forces of the universe, it is not yet complete and cannot provide a definitive explanation for electric and magnetic fields.

How does string theory differ from traditional explanations of electric and magnetic fields?

Traditional explanations for electric and magnetic fields involve the exchange of particles, such as photons, to create the forces. In string theory, the forces are created by the vibrations of strings, rather than the exchange of particles.

Is there any evidence to support the idea that string theory can explain electric and magnetic fields?

While there is no direct evidence to support string theory's explanation for electric and magnetic fields, there is ongoing research and theoretical work that suggests it is a promising framework. However, more research and experimentation is needed to fully understand and confirm its predictions.

Similar threads

I Defining the Forces from Magnetic Fields and Electric Fields
Replies
4
Views
1K
B Is the Direction of Magnetic Fields Truly Conventional?
Replies
6
Views
1K
I Induced Electric and Magnetic Fields Creating Each Other
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Hall effect -- is it always applicable?
Replies
7
Views
2K
B What is the difference between B and H?
Replies
10
Views
851
I String theory vs Quantum field theory
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Magnetic field as result of length contraction
Replies
20
Views
3K
What exactly is magnetism, anyway?
Replies
7
Views
12K
I Resulting magnetic field due to the passage of an AC current
Replies
27
Views
2K
How can we deduce the kink effect in the electric field?
Replies
5
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top