# String Particle vs Wave

1. Feb 4, 2009

### hoth

Just thinking out loud... What if strings could interact in the same manner as quantum particles in that they can act both as particle and as wave depending on the observation apparatus. That is, there is a singular force in the universe which affects all things, by it can manifest in two forms. If you diffract the waves of this force by causing the strings to interact through moving electrons, then you get electromagnetic waves in a characteristic diffraction banding pattern. The electrons are like a a mesh screen or spaced slits. However, as you move to larger things and scale up, there are times when there is no more diffraction and the force acts as a particle would as there are no more "slits" to cause diffraction. This force could act as gravity does, uniformly in the 3D space except for diminishing with distance and increasing with mass.

2. Feb 5, 2009

### Demystifier

String theory is a quantum theory, so yes, strings have both "particle" and "wave" properties.

3. Feb 5, 2009

### tomtom637

In the string theory, the mass of an object depends on the way its strings vibrate. Waves are strings that would not vibrate I suppose.

4. Feb 6, 2009

### Demystifier

No. Waves are strings for which you do not know where exactly they are and how exactly they vibrate.

5. Feb 11, 2009

### viperau

I dont have any degrees or anything but I like to think outside the box, my theory is things appear as they do depending on your perspective.
If you look at a front view of a wave form you see the wave, if you look at it from a plan view you see a line, that lines end view it a dot (particle)
So this leads me to believe what we see in this dimension as a wave, can be seen in other dimensions as a particle (when frequency peaks close to another dimension) or particle trail.
I wont get cut if you delete this post, its just a theory from a uneducated storeman.

6. Feb 24, 2009

### SimonA

Which kind of sums up string theory...

Why has theoretical physics become so dominated by number crunchers that it actually makes no sense to anyone ? Non locality itself points to a dimensional like separation between things that have mass and things that don't (as suggested by the person that replied to this quote of yours).

The fact that such a key point is reliably and continually wiped under the carpet suggests to me that we have extremely able calculators in their ivory towers who don't actually strive for truth. We all (I would hope) love the magic of the symmetry in nature represented by the "=" sign, and how that opens up the nature of things to maths. But to divorce the epistemology from the maths seems overtly crass to me.