Particles actually being strings?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter questionpost
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles Strings
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of particles in string theory, specifically whether particles can be understood as strings and how this relates to concepts of mass and energy. Participants explore theoretical implications, definitions, and the fundamental nature of strings versus particles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how particles like electrons can have mass if they are considered to be strings, which leads to discussions about the nature of energy.
  • There is a contention regarding the definition of strings and whether they can be described as "pure energy," with some arguing that this term is misleading.
  • Participants discuss that in string theory, strings are the fundamental objects, and their vibrational modes correspond to observed particles, but the exact nature of strings remains unclear.
  • One participant suggests that strings should not be reducible to simpler concepts, indicating their fundamental role in the theory.
  • Another participant emphasizes the distinction between mass and energy, suggesting that mass is a manifestation of a string's vibration.
  • There is an ongoing inquiry about what strings are if they are not energy, with some participants proposing that the question should be approached from the perspective of quantum field theory (QFT).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of strings and their relationship to energy and mass. There is no consensus on the definitions or implications of these concepts, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining strings and their properties, indicating that assumptions about energy and mass may not fully capture the nuances of string theory.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring theoretical physics, particularly string theory, and the foundational concepts of mass and energy in relation to particle physics.

questionpost
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Particles actually "being" strings?

I've heard that particles and the fabric of space can consist of many small strings, but then I heard that things like electrons are actually single 1-dimensional strings themselves...how could they have mass if they were just pure energy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


What do you mean by they are pure energy? As you said they are strings.
 


martinbn said:
What do you mean by they are pure energy? As you said they are strings.

Doesn't string theory predict that the strings themselves are made of energy?
 


questionpost said:
Doesn't string theory predict that the strings themselves are made of energy?

No, it doesn't.
 


martinbn said:
No, it doesn't.

Well that's the first I've heard that from any source, so what are they then?
 


questionpost said:
Doesn't string theory predict that the strings themselves are made of energy?

No more than saying contemporary theory predicts an electron, which is a point particle, is made out of 'pure energy'. It's quite a ridiculous term.

Simply, in string theory the fundamental object is a string, not a point as it is in the standard model. Vibrational modes of the string correspond to what are observed as different particles.
 


Nabeshin said:
No more than saying contemporary theory predicts an electron, which is a point particle, is made out of 'pure energy'. It's quite a ridiculous term.

Simply, in string theory the fundamental object is a string, not a point as it is in the standard model. Vibrational modes of the string correspond to what are observed as different particles.

Ok, but the question still remains: what are strings exactly if they are not energy?
 


questionpost said:
Ok, but the question still remains: what are strings exactly if they are not energy?

Fascinating... you thing that energy is a concept easier than strings, or particles? I think that the question should not bias towards an answer. Just ask "what are strings exactly", mark stop.

An approach to an answer could be to ask the question first for the QFT, the field theory of point particles, and then see if the answer can be applied to strings or why not.
 


questionpost said:
Ok, but the question still remains: what are strings exactly if they are not energy?

I think you're missing the point. Strings are fundamental within the theory. They are not made of or reducible to any simpler concept.
 
  • #10


Nabeshin said:
I think you're missing the point. Strings are fundamental within the theory. They are not made of or reducible to any simpler concept.

Somehow that still doesn't answer my question. Your saying strings=strings, when in order for them to even exist they have to at the very least be in some way y=sin(x).
 
  • #11


questionpost said:
how could they have mass if they were just pure energy?
You need to tell us a bit about the difference between mass and energy, and perhaps the difference between energy and pure energy, as you understand these terms.
 
  • #12


Energy is a property of objects. Saying that strings are made of energy is like saying strings are made of velocity.
 
  • #13


They are more fundamental than matter or energy. The property of matter that we call mass is actually a manifestation of the string's vibration at a particular frequency in a particular number of dimensions.
 
  • #14


So, basically strings are the most fundamental concept that causes all other things to exist and that strings just are?
 
  • #15


rglong said:
So, basically strings are the most fundamental concept that causes all other things to exist and that strings just are?

I think so, yes. Been a little while since I've read up on it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K