Can strings increase length without changing their energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether strings in string theory can increase their length without a corresponding change in energy. Participants explore theoretical implications, comparisons with branes, and the status of string theory as a mathematical versus physical framework.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the relationship between energy, tension, and length in string theory suggests that increasing length would require increasing energy.
  • Others argue that strings and branes behave differently, with branes capable of developing features without changing energy, implying a potential distinction in behavior.
  • A participant suggests that string theory is still in a mathematical phase and lacks definitive physical answers, which complicates the question of whether length can increase without energy change.
  • Some express skepticism about applying classical approaches to this problem, indicating a belief that classical physics may not adequately describe string behavior.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of allowing strings to become arbitrarily long, suggesting that this could lead to inconsistencies in the theory, particularly regarding the discrete particle spectrum.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of defining string theory fully before addressing whether it is ill-defined, with some suggesting that mathematical models could allow for scenarios that do not correspond to physical reality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether strings can increase in length without changing energy, with no consensus reached. Some believe it is not possible, while others suggest that the theoretical framework may allow for such scenarios under certain conditions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the current understanding of string theory, emphasizing that it remains largely a mathematical framework without fully established physical predictions. The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions and the unresolved nature of certain theoretical aspects.

Nickyv2423
Messages
46
Reaction score
3
For a string in string theory,
Energy = string tension * length
So I'm wondering if it can increase its length with increasing its energy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Short Answer: Yes, Solve and you get Tension = 0.

But since string theory is not yet a physical theory there is not yet a physical "can it happen that-a-way" answer. Whether the premises of the theory allow it will depend on what premises have been adopted (beyond my knowledge here) but I suspect zero tension strings would be considered "un-physical".
 
Nickyv2423 said:
For a string in string theory,
Energy = string tension * length
So I'm wondering if it can increase its length with increasing its energy.
No, I don''t think so. In this respect strings and branes differ. Brane surface/volumes/... can develop spikes without changing its energy.

I don't understand jambaugh's Answer.
 
I would be surprised if a classical approach works here.
 
To clarify my answer. In the example of special relativity, a physical theory, the answer to "can an object travel faster than c" is a definitive "no". It is physically impossible. In the example of say, "geometry" which is a mathematical theory not a physical one, if you ask "can two lines intersect at more than one point?" then the answer is "it depends on which geometry you consider". String/brane theories are still in the "mathematical theory" category though they are aimed at constructing a physical theory at some point. They rather represent classes or possible physical theories.
 
jambaugh said:
To clarify my answer. In the example of special relativity, a physical theory, the answer to "can an object travel faster than c" is a definitive "no". It is physically impossible. In the example of say, "geometry" which is a mathematical theory not a physical one, if you ask "can two lines intersect at more than one point?" then the answer is "it depends on which geometry you consider". String/brane theories are still in the "mathematical theory" category though they are aimed at constructing a physical theory at some point. They rather represent classes or possible physical theories.
I don''t understand. I regard this as a mathematical question which should be answered by looking at the Nambu-Goto action. String theory would be ill-defined if the answer to the OP would be "yes", because nothing would prevent the string from becoming arbitrarily long. How would you obtain a discrete particle spectrum then, for instance ?
 
haushofer said:
I don''t understand. I regard this as a mathematical question which should be answered by looking at the Nambu-Goto action. String theory would be ill-defined if the answer to the OP would be "yes", because nothing would prevent the string from becoming arbitrarily long. How would you obtain a discrete particle spectrum then, for instance ?

Right, the empirical evidence of discrete particle spectra rules out theories which contradict this. As to nothing preventing the string from becoming arbitrarily long, that's an aesthetic preference until you link it to some empirical predictions. But as it stands currently there's not a full physical string/brane theory with testable quantitative predictions, there are a few qualitative predictions. Until a reasonably complete *physical* theory is hashed out (as in "here's the string-theory equation of a propagating electron" etc) one cannot be certain such qualitative predictions are consistent. Consider for example charge quantization predicted by Dirac if monopoles exist.

I am asserting that (physics) string theory must first be *defined* before the question of whether it is ill-defined can come up. Mathematical string theory might perfectly well allow the "yes" answer and consistently represent a non-physical toy model (or apply in a totally different domain. Consider a dynamical equation for e.g. rivers evolving over geological time. Mightn't someone consider modeling it via a 2-D string theory? possibly with 0 tension?? and thence we see length growing without restraint until an overlap occurs?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K