Is string theory an approximation to QFT?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between string theory and quantum field theory (QFT), particularly whether string theory serves as an approximation to QFT or if both theories may be approximations to a more fundamental framework. Participants explore theoretical implications, historical context, and the potential for dualities between the two theories.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that gauge theories resemble string theories in the large N limit, raising questions about the applicability of this limit in QCD.
  • There is a proposal that AdS/CFT could be a useful computational tool, implying that string theory might not be fundamental but rather a method for calculations in QFT.
  • Others argue that the lack of a rigorous proof for an exact duality leaves the question of which theory is more fundamental unresolved, suggesting that it may depend on philosophical perspectives.
  • Concerns are raised about the artificiality of string theory and its distance from empirical reality, with some participants advocating for a reformulation of renormalizable QFTs to address divergences.
  • A participant questions whether a successful supergravity theory could lead to the abandonment of string theory, or if there would still be reasons to consider strings as fundamental.
  • Some express skepticism about string theory's ability to produce the correct physics, viewing it as a mathematical exercise rather than a physical theory.
  • There is a discussion about the potential of string theory to generate a set of QFTs, with differing opinions on its validity as a framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on whether string theory is an approximation to QFT or if both are approximations to a deeper theory. There is significant disagreement regarding the validity and applicability of string theory in relation to empirical physics.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the current understanding of both theories, including unresolved mathematical steps and the dependence on specific definitions and assumptions. The discussion reflects ongoing debates in theoretical physics without reaching definitive conclusions.

Finbar
Messages
342
Reaction score
2
The historic roots of string theory are in an explanation of the strong force. Nowadays QCD is the accepted theory of strong force. But having heard several lectures on the large N limit (SU(N)) of gauge theories it seems these theories start to looklike string theories in this limit. I believe this idea (that gauge theories look like string theory in the large N limit) may have inspired AdS/CFT...you take the large limit in the orginal paper i believe. One question in QCD is if 3 is close enoght to infinity to take the large N limit as a good approximation? If it is and we take use Ads/CFT we can then use string theory to do real QCD calculations even if strings are not fundemental. In this way Ads/CFT and string theory could be just useful calclation tool but not a fundamental description of nature. We could then be in a situation where QFT is still more fundamental than String theory or(more likely) they are both approximations to something still more fundemental.
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: ilper
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks for this summary!

To me it seems that there is some correspondence of strings and QFT in some appropriate limit. Therefore it's not clear which theory is more fundamental. The proof of an exact duality is still missing.

In case of an successfully established duality based on a rigororous proof my conclusion would be that both theories are on the same level. Or a decision which one is more fundamental is more a subject of belief and philosophy instead of physics.

In case of a disproof the experiment must decide which theory is closer to the facts. Currently QFT is in the pole position (it may be uggly due to the many free parameters and the incompleteneness in terms of divergences etc., but it allows us to do calculations).

Having neither a proof nor a disproof it's a hint to search for some deeper structure. A very strong argument for this deeper structure is the spin-2 particle in the string spectrum. This is the main hint to take string theory (M-theory ...) as a serious as a candidate for a ToE.

Question: how would this reasoning change if we find a SUGRA that is both finite a capable to reproduce the standard model in the low energy limit? Would we abandon string theory completely - or is there another reason to believe that strings (or M ...) are more fundamental?
 
Strings and Q gauge FT have a long history, an old account of which being available for instance in A. Polyakov's diary "Gauge field and strings" published in the "Contemporary concepts in physics" series (1987).

The simple answer to "why 3=infinity" is that we take the square of the amplitude and end up with roughly 10% accuracy already at first order.
 
I believe that the renormalizable QFTs can be reformulated to bypass the divergences and thus give a complete physical and mathematical "satisfaction" to researchers. At least one will be able to sort out correct theories from incorrect.

String theory is still far from any reality and seems to me extremely artificial.
 
Bob_for_short said:
I believe that the renormalizable QFTs can be reformulated to bypass the divergences and thus give a complete physical and mathematical "satisfaction" to researchers.

Do you have any idea how this reformulation may work?


Bob_for_short said:
String theory is still far from any reality and seems to me extremely artificial.

Why don't we take string theory as a kind of machine to produce a certain set of QFTs?
 
tom.stoer said:
Do you have any idea how this reformulation may work?
Yes, see my strict results in the independent research section.
Why don't we take string theory as a kind of machine to produce a certain set of QFTs?

None machine can produce the right physics. The string theory is based on a bad idea - artificial cut-off of a vague nature. It is good as a mathematical exercise but it does not correspond to physics.
 
Bob_for_short said:
Yes, see my strict results in the independent research section.
can you post a link?

Bob_for_short said:
The string theory is based on a bad idea - artificial cut-off of a vague nature. It is good as a mathematical exercise but it does not correspond to physics.
I was only trying once more to convince myself that string theory might be helpful in some sense. But in the very end my conclusion is similar to yours. So I am still waiting for string theory results - haven't seen them so far (see the discussion regarding David Gross' questions :-)
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Unifying string theory and loop quantum gravity
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Graduate Basic Scheme and Fundamental Equations of String Theory
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Undergrad Is loop quantum gravity dual to CFT?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Graduate Why Is AdS Space Ideal for Formulating String Theory and Holography?
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Graduate What is the Best Resource for Learning String Theory as a Side Project?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Is the Randall-Sundrum model background independent?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate Gauge/Gravity correspondence, string theory or any QG?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Different symmetries or no symmetries in string theory?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate New string formulae for Higgs mass and cosmological constant
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Graduate A couple of long questions on positivity bounds for UV-complete EFTs
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K