Is Space and Time Truly Nonexistent at the Subatomic Level?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mad1kas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spacetime
Mad1kas
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
hey boys i was watching a video the other day about string theory and the guy presenting said that space and time don't function properly at the subatomic level.. for instance there is not left and right , no up and down, no forward and backward, no before and after , not here and there..


is this correct?

thanks in advance :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mad1kas said:
hey boys i was watching a video the other day about string theory and the guy presenting said that space and time don't function properly at the subatomic level.. for instance there is not left and right , no up and down, no forward and backward, no before and after , not here and there..

Consider that string theory and so on are up this point entirely speculative theories, or conceptual frames to develop theories, which don't have yet any connection with observable reality - but could one day turn out to make correct predictions - or could turn out to be entirely misguided.
What is true is that we know that our currently experimentally validated theories are prone to run into conflict at scales which are for the moment still beyond experimental access. So most probably "something will have to give in". And it is the theorist's job to think of ways in which it could give in, and string theory is one of these possibilities.

"subatomic" on this level is really really much smaller than what is usually called "subatomic".
Up to the Tevatron energies, in any case, space and time still behave as Einstein had foreseen more than 100 years ago. Whether the LHC will start hinting at deviations is to be seen.
 
Mad1kas said:
hey boys i was watching a video the other day about string theory and the guy presenting said that space and time don't function properly at the subatomic level.. for instance there is not left and right , no up and down, no forward and backward, no before and after , not here and there..is this correct?

thanks in advance :D

As I've asked in this thread

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=262927

where did you hear something like that? What "video" is this?

If this is true, then the CPT symmetry that is so fundamental, and the "broken symmetry" in elementary particles that just got awarded with this year's Nobel Prize would be completely meaningless.

Zz.
 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
its the first video in the second column
did i get it right?
is that what he means? :S

vanesch, i think you mean that it hasnt been proofed yet?

i am a newbie as you see :D

edt: i am only 14 simple words please :S
:D:D:D
 
hey can someone reply if its really true?
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
This is still a great mystery, Einstein called it ""spooky action at a distance" But science and mathematics are full of concepts which at first cause great bafflement but in due course are just accepted. In the case of Quantum Mechanics this gave rise to the saying "Shut up and calculate". In other words, don't try to "understand it" just accept that the mathematics works. The square root of minus one is another example - it does not exist and yet electrical engineers use it to do...

Similar threads

Replies
33
Views
7K
Replies
48
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Back
Top