Can string theory predict particle masses such as neutrinos?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

String theory has the potential to predict particle masses, including neutrinos, by modeling them as vibrations of strings. However, the current state of string theory is not sufficiently developed, relying heavily on model-dependent parameters and additional structures like D-branes. The inherent complexity and the necessity of tuning parameters by hand present significant challenges, as no model has accurately replicated the standard model without additional structures. The field requires theoretical breakthroughs to advance beyond current limitations and refine the selection of models.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of string theory fundamentals
  • Familiarity with particle physics and the standard model
  • Knowledge of D-branes and their role in string theory
  • Concepts of model dependence and parameter tuning in theoretical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of D-branes in string theory
  • Study the challenges of parameter tuning in theoretical models
  • Explore the relationship between string theory and the standard model of particle physics
  • Investigate current theoretical breakthroughs in string theory
USEFUL FOR

Theoretical physicists, researchers in particle physics, and students interested in advanced concepts of string theory and its implications for particle mass predictions.

bananan
Messages
173
Reaction score
0
since presumably electrons, photons, gravitons, and neutrinos are just vibrations of a string?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Presumably it will. However, it doesn't appear that it has been developed enough.
 
Its better to say its model dependent.. String theory phenomonologists have to take a stringy inspired version of reality, make various choices, tune a bunch of parameters and throw in some extra string inspired structures (for instane Dbranes) and then they can indeed output various particle masses like neutrinos.

The problem is the choices are sort of inherently put in by hand to fit things, at a higher level. Which is fine, the standard model is no better (except that we had experiment to put things in by hand for us), but the problem is

1) Lots of presumably different ways you can do this
2) The phenomology is complicated, no one has ever gotten the vanilla standard model exactly, with everything just right, and no additional structure (which again is probably a good thing, b/c we hope to see more structure eventually). The problem is often this additional 'put in by hand' structure might lead to problems down the line, or it has various nagging finetuning problems, or it can violate astrophysics constraints, or it has hard to believe exotics, too many fcncs, etc etc. Its a monumentally difficult problem to solve, and no real first principle way on how to choose the best angle of attack. This is why some people believe breakthroughs have to first occur on the theory side, before progress in discarding models can really take place.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K