Non-physicist: nothing is actually "moving"?

unifieur

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I was wondering if the string theory says that photons are actualy\nwaves in the space-time fabric.\n\nAlso I would like to know if their is a theory that says, instead of\nhaving many tiny strings, space-time itself would be The String and\nwhat appeared to be tiny strings would be ripples (interference?)in\nthe space-time fabric.\n\nI\'m not really a physicist so I might not make sense.\nThank you.\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I was wondering if the string theory says that photons are actualy
waves in the space-time fabric.

Also I would like to know if their is a theory that says, instead of
having many tiny strings, space-time itself would be The String and
what appeared to be tiny strings would be ripples (interference?)in
the space-time fabric.

I'm not really a physicist so I might not make sense.
Thank you.

Lubos Motl

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, unifieur wrote:\n\n> I was wondering if the string theory says that photons are actualy\n> waves in the space-time fabric.\n\nPhotons have been quanta of electromagnetic waves since they were first\nproposed in the early 20th century. Theodor Kaluza made a shocking\nsuggestion back in 1919 when he proposed that the electromagnetic waves\nare actually ripples on the shape of spacetime in the 5th dimension. This\n"Kaluza-Klein theory" was the first serious proposal to unify gravity and\nelectromagnetism.\n\nThis KK theory has become a part of string theory. In some cases (in some\nspacetimes that solve the constraints of string theory), the\nelectromagnetism can be interpreted as curvature of spacetime (including\nan extra, hidden, small dimension). In all cases, electromagnetism and\ngravity are unified into something like a "generalized geometry".\n\nMoreover, a photon, much like a graviton, can be interpreted as a string\nmoving in space and vibrating in a certain way. Gravitons are always\nclosed strings (circle-shaped loops) while photons can be both closed\nstrings as well as open strings (in the braneworlds).\n\n> Also I would like to know if their is a theory that says, instead of\n> having many tiny strings, space-time itself would be The String and\n> what appeared to be tiny strings would be ripples (interference?)in\n> the space-time fabric.\n\nActually, there is one proposal that sort of matches your - otherwise a\nbit confusing - remark. Some authors have proposed that the whole Universe\nstarted, a very short time after the big bang, as a single string. No\nfour-dimensional spacetime really existed at that moment; the Universe\ncould have been interpreted using two-dimensional theory describing two\ndimensions of stringy worldsheets (one spatial dimension, one time).\n\nMoreover, in some sense, the spacetime is always made of strings - it is a\ncondensate of strings organized in a very specific fashion.\n\nSee my new blog - http://motls.blogspot.com/ - for related texts.\n_______________________________________________________________ _______________\nE-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/\neFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/384-9488 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, unifieur wrote:

> I was wondering if the string theory says that photons are actualy
> waves in the space-time fabric.

Photons have been quanta of electromagnetic waves since they were first
proposed in the early 20th century. Theodor Kaluza made a shocking
suggestion back in 1919 when he proposed that the electromagnetic waves
are actually ripples on the shape of spacetime in the 5th dimension. This
"Kaluza-Klein theory" was the first serious proposal to unify gravity and
electromagnetism.

This KK theory has become a part of string theory. In some cases (in some
spacetimes that solve the constraints of string theory), the
electromagnetism can be interpreted as curvature of spacetime (including
an extra, hidden, small dimension). In all cases, electromagnetism and
gravity are unified into something like a "generalized geometry".

Moreover, a photon, much like a graviton, can be interpreted as a string
moving in space and vibrating in a certain way. Gravitons are always
closed strings (circle-shaped loops) while photons can be both closed
strings as well as open strings (in the braneworlds).

> Also I would like to know if their is a theory that says, instead of
> having many tiny strings, space-time itself would be The String and
> what appeared to be tiny strings would be ripples (interference?)in
> the space-time fabric.

Actually, there is one proposal that sort of matches your - otherwise a
bit confusing - remark. Some authors have proposed that the whole Universe
started, a very short time after the big bang, as a single string. No
four-dimensional spacetime really existed at that moment; the Universe
could have been interpreted using two-dimensional theory describing two
dimensions of stringy worldsheets (one spatial dimension, one time).

Moreover, in some sense, the spacetime is always made of strings [itex]- it[/itex] is a
condensate of strings organized in a very specific fashion.

See my new blog - http://motls.blogspot.com/ - for related texts.
__{____________________________________________________________________ ________}
E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: [itex]+1-617/496-0110[/itex] Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: [itex]+1-801/454-1858[/itex] work: [itex]+1-617/384-9488[/itex] home: [itex]+1-617/868-4487[/itex] (call)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

Patrick Powers

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Lubos Motl <motl@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.31.0410102104410.7758-100000@feynman.harvard.edu>...\n\n> This KK theory has become a part of string theory. In some cases (in some\n> spacetimes that solve the constraints of string theory), the\n> electromagnetism can be interpreted as curvature of spacetime (including\n> an extra, hidden, small dimension). In all cases, electromagnetism and\n> gravity are unified into something like a "generalized geometry".\n\nHow is it known that the extra dimension is small?\n\n\nL.M.:\n\nIn the models without branes, the dimensions must be small, otherwise we\nwould already have seen them: they must be smaller than 10^{-18} meters\nbecause we have probed Nature up to these small distances, and everything\nis consistent with theories based on 3+1 dimensions, and inconsistent with\ntheories in other dimensions.\n\nIn the braneworld models, we may be attached to a brane, and only gravity\ncan propagate to the extra dimensions. These extra dimensions, transverse\nto the branes, may be much larger, but they must still be smaller than 10\nmicrons because we\'ve checked that the gravitational 1/r^2 force holds up\nto 10 microns, and an extra dimension would modify this formula.\n\nThere are many other ways how to argue that the dimensions should be\nrather small, but these are the basic two.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Lubos Motl <motl@feynman.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.31.0410102104410.77...arvard.edu>...

> This KK theory has become a part of string theory. In some cases (in some
> spacetimes that solve the constraints of string theory), the
> electromagnetism can be interpreted as curvature of spacetime (including
> an extra, hidden, small dimension). In all cases, electromagnetism and
> gravity are unified into something like a "generalized geometry".

How is it known that the extra dimension is small?

L.M.:

In the models without branes, the dimensions must be small, otherwise we
would already have seen them: they must be smaller than [itex]10^{-18}[/itex] meters
because we have probed Nature up to these small distances, and everything
is consistent with theories based on 3+1 dimensions, and inconsistent with
theories in other dimensions.

In the braneworld models, we may be attached to a brane, and only gravity
can propagate to the extra dimensions. These extra dimensions, transverse
to the branes, may be much larger, but they must still be smaller than 10
microns because we've checked that the gravitational [itex]1/r^2[/itex] force holds up
to 10 microns, and an extra dimension would modify this formula.

There are many other ways how to argue that the dimensions should be
rather small, but these are the basic two.

DivineNathicana

Quote by Patrick Powers

How is it known that the extra dimension is small?

Read The Elegant Universe. Greene explains that the theory is only mathematically coherent if only four dimensions expand. I don't want to give false information as it's been a while sine I read the book, so just go read it yourself. = )

- Alisa

CJames

This KK theory has become a part of string theory. In some cases (in some
spacetimes that solve the constraints of string theory), the
electromagnetism can be interpreted as curvature of spacetime (including
an extra, hidden, small dimension). In all cases, electromagnetism and
gravity are unified into something like a "generalized geometry".

Moreover, a photon, much like a graviton, can be interpreted as a string
moving in space and vibrating in a certain way. Gravitons are always
closed strings (circle-shaped loops) while photons can be both closed
strings as well as open strings (in the braneworlds).

I suppose this question can't be answered yet but I'll ask it anyway. If both gravity and electromagnetism can be viewed as spacetime curvature, and if both can also be viewed as strings, which creates which? Is the string a product of spacetime curvature or visa versa? And if the string is fundamental, wouldn't that imply that spacetime itself is secondary to energy? That is, space and time are products of particles, not fundamental aspects of the universe but rather dirived from quantum mechanical computations?

Similar Threads for: Non-physicist: nothing is actually "moving"?
Thread	Forum	Replies
The Should I Become a Physicist? Thread	Academic Guidance	182
When you are falling down, is the earth moving ever so slightly "up" towards you?	General Physics	17
Was Galileo Galilei the first "real" physicist?	General Discussion	22
Task on MTV "Battle of the Sexes": Obstacle course atop moving trucks	General Physics	1