Entangled closed oriented strings / closed string chains

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of closed (oriented) strings that are entangled in target space, similar to two rings of a chain. The stability of this structure is questioned and the idea of adding a second string field to the Polyakov action with strong constraints is suggested. The topic is further explored and it is mentioned that the length of the strings being at the Planck scale could have an impact on the accessibility of the "inside" of the string. Additionally, the relevance and potential implications of this idea are debated.
  • #1
bjurke@gmx.de
This morning an odd thought struck me: Is it possible to consider
closed (oriented) strings which are entangled into each other in target
space (like two rings of a chain)? Due to the topologic properties of
this construction the structure should be stable, since both strings
cannot interact with each other.

But I'm wondering how to obtain such a structure in the first place.
One must certainly add a second string field to the Polyakov action
with strong constraints to ensure the entanglement to hold. Developing
this further, entire chains of closed strings should be a possible
stable structure, if the thing works for two strings. Currently I don't
know of a definite argument which would rule out such a kind of
structure - it just seams very complicated to construct it.

I searched for a while for some papers who perhaps followed a similar
idea, but did not find anything. So I would be grateful for some
further hints on this idea, or an argument why it doesn't make sense in
the first place.

Thanks,
Benjamin Jurke
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi, i got quite the same idea but not in the same way...

About your idea, i believe it could exists, because with an open string theory we can construct such a weird thing. In a closed string theory, I'm not convince it is stable, because nothing can't stop it to fuse with the other one, so to interact. However, i don't think we can separate them trivially, so it is clearly not equivalent to 2 independent separated strings. But it can disintegrate into 2 separated particles ! Now is it relevant...? An other question, with the fact that the length of the strings is at Planck scale order, is the 'inside' of the string really accessible ? I mean, probably in the end, we'll have to consider fields of string, so reaching a second quantization of string, and then, in such a field theory of strings, this sort of configuration will be ejected by the Heisenberg incertitude at small distances...

Nevertheless, as i said before, i have also a similar idea. You can construct a vacuum to vacuum 1-loop amplitude with 2 closed string. You have the 2 separated rings and the 2 entangled rings. The latter are static, because it is an amplitude. And they are inequivalent, because if we cross the rings then we have a 2-loop amplitude. Is that interesting ?
I think probably no...because it will, i believe, give after some calculation a 2-loop order amplitude (maybe between 1 and 2). Because, suppose it is not equivalent to 2 separated rings, then it is an irreducible 1st order vacuum amplitude that should be counted with the same priority than the 1-loop amplitude, That is, we have a vacuum amplitude basis. So if we have an infinity of rings entangled in the first ring this will be also an irreducible 1st order vacuum amplitude that should be part of the basis. Then the vacuum 1st order amplitude is infinite, and so it is not cool. And as i think string theory is cool, it should not be at 1-loop amplitude order. Seriously, as it is not equivalent to 2 1-loop amplitude, i think it will be next order, so not so important.

So, i don't say we don't care, but it is not of first priority...

Hope it helps a bit...

Flavien Kiefer
 
  • #3
As a fellow scientist, I find your idea of entangled closed oriented strings or closed string chains to be intriguing. It is certainly an interesting concept to consider and explore.

Firstly, let's define what we mean by entanglement. In the context of quantum mechanics, entanglement refers to the phenomenon where two or more particles become correlated in such a way that the state of one particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other particle. This means that the particles are connected in a non-local way, even if they are separated by large distances.

In the case of closed oriented strings, entanglement could be thought of as a way for the strings to become connected in a non-local way, similar to how entangled particles are connected. This could potentially lead to interesting effects and behaviors for the strings.

However, as you mentioned, there are challenges in constructing such a structure. Adding a second string field to the Polyakov action with strong constraints may be one way to achieve entanglement, but it may not be the only way. It would require further exploration and development to fully understand the implications and feasibility of such a construction.

In terms of existing research on this idea, I suggest looking into the concept of string networks, which have been studied in the context of string theory and cosmology. These networks involve multiple strings interacting and evolving together, and may provide some insights into your idea of closed string chains.

Overall, I believe your idea is worth exploring and could potentially lead to new insights and discoveries in the field of string theory. Keep exploring and don't be discouraged by the complexity of the concept – that's what makes it exciting and challenging for scientists like us. Best of luck in your research!
 

1. What are entangled closed oriented strings/closed string chains?

Entangled closed oriented strings, also known as closed string chains, are a theoretical construct in string theory. They are considered the building blocks of the universe and are composed of tiny one-dimensional strings that vibrate at different frequencies. These strings are closed loops, meaning they have no endpoints, and are thought to be the fundamental building blocks of all matter and energy.

2. How are entangled closed oriented strings/closed string chains different from open strings?

The main difference between entangled closed oriented strings and open strings is their topology. Open strings have two endpoints, while closed strings have no endpoints. This difference in topology leads to different mathematical properties and behavior. Additionally, closed strings are thought to be responsible for gravity, while open strings are responsible for the other fundamental forces of the universe.

3. How are entangled closed oriented strings/closed string chains related to the concept of string theory?

String theory is a theoretical framework that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity by describing all particles and forces in the universe as vibrations of tiny strings. Entangled closed oriented strings, also known as closed string chains, are a fundamental concept in string theory and play a crucial role in the theory's mathematical formulation and predictions.

4. Are there any real-world applications of entangled closed oriented strings/closed string chains?

Currently, there are no direct real-world applications of entangled closed oriented strings or closed string chains. However, string theory, as a whole, has led to advancements in other fields of physics, such as quantum gravity and particle physics. It also has potential implications for technology and the understanding of the universe, although these are still speculative at this point.

5. What are the current challenges in studying entangled closed oriented strings/closed string chains?

One of the main challenges in studying entangled closed oriented strings/closed string chains is the lack of experimental evidence. As these strings are thought to be incredibly tiny, it is currently impossible to observe them directly. Other challenges include the complexity of the mathematical framework and the lack of a unified theory that could fully explain the behavior of these strings in all scenarios.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
12
Replies
388
Views
169K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
22
Views
6K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
3
Replies
96
Views
5K
Replies
90
Views
5K
Back
Top