Is a String Truly One-Dimensional in The Elegant Universe?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LogicalAtheist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions String
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dimensionality of strings as described in Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe." Participants explore whether strings can be considered truly one-dimensional, particularly in the context of their oscillation and representation as loops.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assertion that strings are one-dimensional, suggesting that the nature of a string might imply two dimensions, especially for oscillation.
  • Another participant clarifies that a line is indeed one-dimensional and that strings can be embedded in higher-dimensional spaces without requiring more than one dimension themselves.
  • There is a discussion about the representation of strings as loops, with one participant arguing that a loop must be two-dimensional, while another counters that the string itself is merely the perimeter, which remains one-dimensional.
  • One participant introduces the idea of the inverse square law of expanding energy/matter as a potential description of dimensionality, although this point is not elaborated upon further.
  • Participants discuss the implications of curvature and how it does not affect the dimensionality of the string, emphasizing that a point on the string only requires one number to specify its location.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the dimensionality of strings, with no consensus reached. Some argue for the one-dimensional nature of strings, while others contend that the representation of strings as loops implies a two-dimensional aspect.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the need for further reading in Greene's work to understand the multi-dimensional aspects of strings, indicating that some assumptions may depend on interpretations of the text.

LogicalAtheist
Two days ago I bought THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE.

My first question is:

Mr. Greene states that a string is a one dimensionl string.

1. The nature of a string would require two dimensions, as I know it.

2. If these strings are to oscillate, needn't they be two dimensional?

3. How could it be one dimensional?

Is he meaning it's literally one dimensional, or is he being a bit lax..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Recall that a line is one dimensional.

You need to keep reading, he explains multi dimensionality of strings deeper in the book.
 
He actually means onedimensional.

Why do you say that "The nature of a string would require two dimensions"?

Imagine a cable, and make it extremely (infinitely) thin. In order to specify a point on it, you need only one number. By definition, it has then one dimension.

In order to oscillate, the can be embedded in a higher dimensional space, but the string itself does not need to have any more dimensions.
 
Maybe a rookie question, but can't the inverse square law of expanding energy/matter describe our dimensia?
 
ahrkron - Yes I understand, but the drawings show them as a loop. And he says they're like a rubber band. He doesn't say a straight string, he says a loop, and draws a loop.

A loop must be two dimensional.
 
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
A loop must be two dimensional.

Only if you are talking about the "interior" of the loop.

However, the string is only the perimeter itself, which is a line. As such, any point on it can be completely specified via one number.

It doesn't matter if such line is straight or not.

In a similar way, the surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional space, just as a table top is; as far as the numner of dimensions goes, the apparent curvature (as seen from the 3D space in which both are embedded) does not matter.

Maybe this will help: think about a point living on the string, able to travel along it. Regardless of the curves and twists the string may have, the point only needs one number to know any "address" within its world.

Put in a different way, the structure of the manifold resembles that of any other line (straight lines included): a point on it has neighbors only in two directions (which you can call "forward" and "backward").

On the other hand, on a 2D space, each point has an infinity of directions to choose neighbors from, and it can characterize locally its neighborhood by using a copy of R2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K