String Theory and 4 dimensions

Satya_Sen
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Anything that exists has to exist/interact with at least 4 dimensions, right? Stuff existing/interacting with other dimensions too (even if they can't be/haven't been observed) have to exist/interact with our 4D as well, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That sounds like the kind of question one asks first before preceding to ask about the underlying question one is thinking about.

For example, are you asking if the string must exist in all of the dimensions, or just some? And if just some, is it the higher dimensions that are optional with the lowest being required, or can a string exist in just the higher ones without the lower ones?

Or, you might be asking about the geometry itself; what kind of geometry and dimensions are required for the string with respect to the Relativity concept of "no preexisting geometry"... as in, what does that mean with respect to the geometric dimensionality of the string? Do the Euclidean dimensions even apply at this level or are these a different kind of dimension?

Or, you might be wondering about the existential dimensionality of the string with respect to the uncertainty principle. Much bigger things like protons are not thought to have a specific location prior to measurement... yet the ratio of the length of the string to the diameter of a proton is about the same as the ratio of your height (six feet?) to the distance between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies (2.5 million light years). That is, if you were the size of a string, the size of a proton would be like the distance to Andromeda. So strings are so small that attempting to locate a string, or even describing its parts and their relative positions while vibrating seems to suggest precision of location that uncertainty forbids.

So, how are you thinking about this?
 
bahamagreen said:
That sounds like the kind of question one asks first before preceding to ask about the underlying question one is thinking about.

For example, are you asking if the string must exist in all of the dimensions, or just some? And if just some, is it the higher dimensions that are optional with the lowest being required, or can a string exist in just the higher ones without the lower ones?

Or, you might be asking about the geometry itself; what kind of geometry and dimensions are required for the string with respect to the Relativity concept of "no preexisting geometry"... as in, what does that mean with respect to the geometric dimensionality of the string? Do the Euclidean dimensions even apply at this level or are these a different kind of dimension?

Or, you might be wondering about the existential dimensionality of the string with respect to the uncertainty principle. Much bigger things like protons are not thought to have a specific location prior to measurement... yet the ratio of the length of the string to the diameter of a proton is about the same as the ratio of your height (six feet?) to the distance between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies (2.5 million light years). That is, if you were the size of a string, the size of a proton would be like the distance to Andromeda. So strings are so small that attempting to locate a string, or even describing its parts and their relative positions while vibrating seems to suggest precision of location that uncertainty forbids.

So, how are you thinking about this?



Sir, please enlighten me on all the 3 scenarios.
 
I was asking which scenario or something else might be the basis for your question because it is not clear what you are asking.

Of the three things:

The first is based on strings existing in many dimensions, so when you ask about 4 dimensions one needs to know if you mean the four "flat" dimensions only ("our 4d"), or if you are including some or all of the "curled" dimensions.
Are you asking if four of the string dimensions are our flat 4d dimensions, or asking if the strings must be in all their dimensions?

The second is subtle, but is based on a re-examination of what the dimensions might be... the four flat dimensions may suggest Euclidean geometry, but the remaining curled dimensions might suggest otherwise. Maybe 4d alone is different than 4d as a subspace of 10d or 26d?

The third thing is about uncertainty and the supposed topologies and mechanics of the string (open/closed loops, "vibration", etc...). Atoms are small enough that the classical mechanics concepts don't seem to apply; strings are so much smaller that any sense of a string having attributes like length, tension, end points, vibration, etc... seems totally impossible. Yet, the strings are distinguished by their topologies and vibrations, which seems like assigning them hidden variables underneath the canonical quantum uncertainty.
In other words, how is it that an electron prior to measurement has no position attribute, yet a string is given enough attributes to describe its shape (the relative positions of its topological structure) and mode of periodic displacement (the relative positions of the string excursion describing the vibration, the nodes, the harmonics), etc...?

Anyway, just wonder from what basis you were presenting the question. If none of these apply, maybe you can clarify.
 
Thread 'LQG Legend Writes Paper Claiming GR Explains Dark Matter Phenomena'
A new group of investigators are attempting something similar to Deur's work, which seeks to explain dark matter phenomena with general relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity is systems like galaxies. Deur's most similar publication to this one along these lines was: One thing that makes this new paper notable is that the corresponding author is Giorgio Immirzi, the person after whom the somewhat mysterious Immirzi parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity is named. I will be reviewing the...
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09804 From the abstract: ... Our derivation uses both EE and the Newtonian approximation of EE in Part I, to describe semi-classically in Part II the advection of DM, created at the level of the universe, into galaxies and clusters thereof. This advection happens proportional with their own classically generated gravitational field g, due to self-interaction of the gravitational field. It is based on the universal formula ρD =λgg′2 for the densityρ D of DM...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
7K
Back
Top