String theory & Quantum Mechanics

AI Thread Summary
String theory did not arise as a solution to a paradox in quantum mechanics regarding objects being in multiple places simultaneously. The notion of such a paradox is largely a misunderstanding or oversimplification of quantum mechanics. While quantum mechanics does present many counterintuitive concepts, the specific idea of multiple locations is not a recognized paradox within the field. Further exploration in quantum mechanics subforums is encouraged for a deeper understanding. The discussion highlights the importance of distinguishing between popular interpretations and the actual principles of quantum mechanics.
Grajek
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Did string theory come about as a possible solution to quantum mechanic's "something being in several places at the same time" paradox so to speak? I am not a math-guy or pretend to know anything about physics. I m just curious. I was thinking that what appears as something being in multiple places at the same time is a vibration. Just like a guitar string when "plucked." It appears to be in several places at the same time but in fact it is not.

Thanks in advanced for anything that may satisfy my curiosity
-Grajek
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Grajek said:
Did string theory come about as a possible solution to quantum mechanic's "something being in several places at the same time" paradox so to speak?
No. Quantum mechanics doesn't really have such a paradox - you'll see it in popularizations but it's somewhere between an oversimplification and an outright misconception. There are many threads on this topic over in the QM subforum here.

(QM does have plenty of other weirdnesses and counterintuitive concepts though)
 
  • Like
Likes davidbenari
Thanks for the reply. I will out QM subforums
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
33
Views
7K
Replies
58
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top