That is, the vibrations are taking place not within some isotropic field located throughout space, but within some entity located in some very specific region of space. For one thing the word string invokes (perhaps incorrectly) an image of an object localized in space. Now in the more recent case of string theory, here's where I think the rub is for most of us who are not immersed in it on a daily basis: The very word "string" invokes the image of a vibrating entity that is a good deal more complicated and specific than some isotropic wave medium. In those cases I understand immediately why the outcomes are considered "fundamental." After all, they started out with clunky material-science analogies, and then managed over time to strip away the encumbering analogies, leaving for us shiny little nuggets of pure math that to this day are gorgeous to behold. That one nicely demonstrates the remarkable progress of the associated physics theories away from using physical media, and towards more universal mathematical constructs. The history of Maxwell's equations and then SR is a gorgeous example. Over time and with no small amount of insight, these early analogies were transformed into sets of equations that increasingly removed the need for physical media analogies. While most of modern mathematical physics arguably is derived from materials analogies, early wave analogies tended towards placing waves within homogeneous and isotropic "water like" or "air like" media, e.g. They will be hoping for more, and here's why. While such answers are sincere and certainly well-intended, I suspect that most people reading my original question will find them a bit disappointing and almost certainly not terribly insightful. All of the initial answers were variants of that answer. The simplest answer to my question is that strings are pure mathematical abstractions, and so need no further explanation. But I don't want to trash the great responses that addendum produced, so I'm trying to walk the razor's edge by creating an entirely new addendum that I hope expands on the intent of my question without changing it in any fundamental way. OK, I'm trying to go back to my original question after some apt complaints that my addendum yesterday had morphed it into an entirely new question. So how does string theory handle all of this? What are the strings in string theory made of, and what is it about this substance that makes string-theories simple in comparison to the emergent and non-obvious complexities required to produce string-like vibrations in real, matter-based strings? Real strings are composed out of a statistically unlikely form of long-chain bonding, which in turn depend on the rather unlikely properties that emerge from highly complex multiparticle entities called atoms. Its composition - what is is made of - is particularly complex. In short, a matter-based vibrating real string is the outcome of the interplay of most of the more important physics rules of our universe. The vibration modes of a real string are the non-obvious emergent outcome of a complex interplay of mass, angular momentum, various conservation laws, and convenient linearities inherent in of our form of spacetime. That bonding gets even more complicated when you add in elasticity. Strings made of matter are complex objects that require a highly specific form of long-chain inter-atomic bonding (mostly carbon based) that would be difficult to implement if the physics parameters of our universe were tweaked even a tiny bit. What are the strings in string theory composed of? This is a follow-up to an intriguing question last year about tension in string theory.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |