M-Theory: Are P-Branes & Strings Made of Matter/Energy?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mwyn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    M-theory Strings
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of P-branes and strings in M-theory, specifically whether these entities are composed of matter or energy. Participants explore theoretical implications, the relationship between matter and spacetime, and the conceptual challenges posed by classical physics in understanding these advanced topics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how P-branes and strings could be made of matter or energy if matter is fundamentally composed of particles, suggesting a need for a fundamental point of existence.
  • Others propose that mass is equivalent to energy, speculating that matter might be a manifestation of spacetime movement or curvature.
  • A participant expresses a basic understanding that matter and energy consist of strings vibrating at different frequencies, likening atoms to singing entities, while acknowledging the speculative nature of string theory.
  • Concerns are raised about the discontinuities in string theory and the need for particles to be spatially extended objects to account for their properties like mass and charge.
  • Some participants suggest that a hypersurface might be responsible for holding particle properties, questioning the necessity of strings and considering higher-dimensional objects instead.
  • One participant shares a personal perspective on the complexity of the universe and the challenge of reconciling classical physics with the concept of vibrating strings as a natural representation of matter.
  • Another participant emphasizes that any proposed solution must accommodate the already established four-dimensional framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of strings and their relationship to matter and energy, with no consensus reached. The discussion includes both supportive and critical perspectives on string theory and its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the speculative nature of string theory and the challenges posed by classical physics in understanding these advanced concepts. There are references to unresolved mathematical steps and the dependence on definitions related to dimensions and properties of particles.

Mwyn
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Ok about M-theory, are the P-branes or strings or closed and open loops suppose to be made out of matter/energy? if they are then how could that be possible if matter/energy is suppose to be composited out of particles to explain chemical reactions, that would mean for the strings to move they would have to be composite even though that's already impossible because there always has to be some sort of fundamental point to it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
According to Einstein, mass is equivalent to energy. The question is how is this possible? There seems to be something in common between bit of matter and spacetime itself. I can only imagine that matter is itself movement of spacetime. If matter is waves of spacetime curvature, then motion of the particle through space would only add to that how much space was waving.
 
From my very basic understanding (been studying this for 3 weeks so excuse me if I'm very very wrong!) at the quantum level matter/energy is composed of strings each of which vibrates at a different frequency. It's nice to think that every atom sings it's own song!

I can easily grasp this if I forget everything previously learned about classical physics and the planetary model of an atom.
 
darrenkarp said:
From my very basic understanding (been studying this for 3 weeks so excuse me if I'm very very wrong!) at the quantum level matter/energy is composed of strings each of which vibrates at a different frequency. It's nice to think that every atom sings it's own song!

I can easily grasp this if I forget everything previously learned about classical physics and the planetary model of an atom.
String theory is rather speculative at this point. The trouble I have with string theory is that you still have quantities that instantly change as you cross the string; this is still a type of discontinuity just like a singularity is.

It would seem that particles must be some sort of spatially extended object in order to account for the properties of the particle like mass, spin, charge, etc. For otherwise you would expect the properties of a point to dissipate away from the point. It would be like a membrane being pulled at a point. What is pulling the membrane? If nothing, then you'd expect the point to be released and the energy to be released as the membrane is allowed to relax. Something is holding the point in such a tension and is responsible for concentrating the energy.

So I suspect that it must be some sort of hypersurface, a 2D surface in a 3D space, for example, that is holding the particle properties. Then there is no crossing such a boundary because there is no space on the other side to cross over to. Why strings? Why can't the vibration be of some higher dimensional objects?
 
Pesonally (and I am almost certain my feelings will change over time!) I cannot imagine any more than 4 dimensions nor can I at this point imagine that the Universe we live in was created to be so complex. Energy quanta and the thought of these to be in the form of vibrating harmonic strings is both a quant and natural way of thinking about matter as I've already said.

Personally and again this has not been guided by any textbook in a major way strings seem to be a natural way of thinking about matter. The only problem is when you start to think of classical physics! This is where a cloud starts to form and you begin to overthink!

I'm not even certain at this point whether time exists but that's another story!
 
Mike2 said:
It would seem that particles must be some sort of spatially extended object in order to account for the properties of the particle like mass, spin, charge, etc. For otherwise you would expect the properties of a point to dissipate away from the point. It would be like a membrane being pulled at a point. What is pulling the membrane? If nothing, then you'd expect the point to be released and the energy to be released as the membrane is allowed to relax. Something is holding the point in such a tension and is responsible for concentrating the energy.

So I suspect that it must be some sort of hypersurface, a 2D surface in a 3D space, for example, that is holding the particle properties. Then there is no crossing such a boundary because there is no space on the other side to cross over to. Why strings? Why can't the vibration be of some higher dimensional objects?
Mike, your logic is similar why people like Lou Kauffman think about knots and quantum topology. There must be some fixing, then you can build up higher.
A link to a Lou Kaufmann lecture at the perimeterinstitute.ca site: http://perimeterinstitute.ca/activities/scientific/seminarseries/alltalks.cfm?CurrentPage=8&SeminarID=290 .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I understand, strings are loops of energy.


:smile:
 
Any solution must permit the 4 dimensional solution already known to be valid. That is the only gauntlet that must be picked up.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K