Can strings increase length without changing their energy?

In summary, according to the speaker, string theory must first be defined in order to answer the question of whether it is ill-defined.
  • #1
Nickyv2423
46
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
  • #2
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".
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
I would be surprised if a classical approach works here.
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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 ?
 
  • #7
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?
 

1. Can strings physically increase in length without adding energy?

No, according to the laws of physics, energy is required for an object to change its length. This is known as the principle of conservation of energy.

2. How do strings maintain their length without changing energy?

Strings, like any other object, maintain their length due to the forces acting on them. In the case of strings, tension force is responsible for keeping them taut and maintaining their length.

3. Can the tension force in a string change without adding energy?

Yes, the tension force in a string can change without adding energy. This can happen when one end of the string is fixed and the other end is pulled or released, causing the tension force to increase or decrease, respectively.

4. Can strings increase in length due to external factors without changing energy?

No, strings can only increase in length if energy is added to them, either through an external force or through heat. Without energy, the length of a string will remain constant.

5. Is it possible for a string to increase in length without changing energy in theory?

In theory, it is not possible for a string to increase in length without changing energy. This is because any change in length requires energy, according to the principle of conservation of energy.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
212
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
26
Views
695
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top