String theory, string dimensions?

Nav

39
1
Strings are said to be one dimensional, due to the math. And I understand that there are problems in the math when they put the strings in 3 or 2 dimensions.
According to string theory, lengths smaller than planck length have no physical significance.
Could it be that strings are 3 dimensional but their height and width dimensions are so small and insignificant they they cannot be taken into consideration or calculated by the mathematics?
 

Dr. Courtney

Education Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
2,959
1,883
Sure it could be. String theory is so far from making much in terms of verifiable predictions that anything is possible.

The word "theory" is only loosely applicable to the body of hypothetical work associated with strings.
 

bapowell

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,236
259
Strings are said to be one dimensional, due to the math. And I understand that there are problems in the math when they put the strings in 3 or 2 dimensions.
According to string theory, lengths smaller than planck length have no physical significance.
Could it be that strings are 3 dimensional but their height and width dimensions are so small and insignificant they they cannot be taken into consideration or calculated by the mathematics?
It has not been possible to construct a quantum theory of objects having more than 1 dimension.
 
Last edited:

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
10,227
3,092
It has not been possible to construct a quantum theory of objects having more than 1 dimension.
Higher dimensional branes can be quantized too, but this leads to UV divergences. Still, one can always tame these divergences by regularization and renormalization.
 

Nav

39
1
Higher dimensional branes can be quantized too, but this leads to UV divergences. Still, one can always tame these divergences by regularization and renormalization.
Are you saying that it is possible for strings to have higher dimensions like branes?
 

bapowell

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,236
259

Nav

39
1
I see. I thought it had something to do with stability: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321389902149
A string can still have three dimensions it's just that those other two dimensions are insignificant.
It comes down to actual dimensions. 1-D is a mathematical convenience that often works if the size in 1 dimension is much larger than the other two.
Think of a real guitar string. If it is 24" long, but only 0.005" in diameter, a 1-D model is a good approx.
 

Nav

39
1

bapowell

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,236
259
A string can still have three dimensions it's just that those other two dimensions are insignificant.
It comes down to actual dimensions. 1-D is a mathematical convenience that often works if the size in 1 dimension is much larger than the other two.
Think of a real guitar string. If it is 24" long, but only 0.005" in diameter, a 1-D model is a good approx.
I understand that a 3-dimensional object can look 1-dimensional, but these objects behave very differently when quantized. Are you saying that it is possible to quantize a 3-dimensional object without stability issues or other problems? In string theory, the other dimensions are not simply ignored -- the string is not "portrayed to be one dimensional" -- it actually is, exactly.
 
Last edited:

Nav

39
1
I understand that a 3-dimensional object can look 1-dimensional, but these objects behave very differently when quantized. Are you saying that it is possible to quantize a 3-dimensional object without stability issues or other anomalies? In string theory, the other dimensions are not simply ignored -- the string is not "portrayed to be one dimensional" -- it actually is, exactly.
I never said that they are ignored, what i meant was that the other dimensions are too small to be considered in the calculations
 

bapowell

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,236
259
I never said that they are ignored, what i meant was that the other dimensions are too small to be considered in the calculations
Right, and I'm saying this is wrong. The strings of string theory are *exactly* 1-dimensional. If you add more dimensions, the quantization procedure is very different.
 

haushofer

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,227
562
Higher dimensional branes can be quantized too, but this leads to UV divergences. Still, one can always tame these divergences by regularization and renormalization.
Could you give a link where this is done or discussed?
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
10,227
3,092
Could you give a link where this is done or discussed?
I don't know a specific reference, but it looks obvious. First quantization of a p-brane is essentially a quantum (p+1)-dimensional field theory, which in general leads to UV divergences (p=1 is exception due to the large group of conformal symmetry). Each UV divergent field theory can be renormalied in the sense of an effective theory.
 

bapowell

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,236
259
I don't know a specific reference, but it looks obvious. First quantization of a p-brane is essentially a quantum (p+1)-dimensional field theory, which in general leads to UV divergences (p=1 is exception due to the large group of conformal symmetry). Each UV divergent field theory can be renormalied in the sense of an effective theory.
But what about the free field theory? I understand "UV divergences" only in the context of interactions.
 

samalkhaiat

Science Advisor
Insights Author
1,616
806
The other dimensions of the string are too small to be taken into account by the calculations and therefore are just portrayed to be one dimensional.
Branes are different, you can't construct a quantum theory on branes because all of its dimensions are taken into account by the calculations because they are so big.
Can you show me those "calculations"?
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
10,227
3,092
But what about the free field theory? I understand "UV divergences" only in the context of interactions.
Even for free theory there is a UV infinite energy of the ground state, but this can always be removed by normal ordering.
 

haushofer

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,227
562
I don't know a specific reference, but it looks obvious. First quantization of a p-brane is essentially a quantum (p+1)-dimensional field theory, which in general leads to UV divergences (p=1 is exception due to the large group of conformal symmetry). Each UV divergent field theory can be renormalied in the sense of an effective theory.
Ah, ok, I understood your statement in the sense that these qft's are fully renormalizible.
 

bapowell

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,236
259
Even for free theory there is a UV infinite energy of the ground state, but this can always be removed by normal ordering.
Right, but those are just the normal divergences we find with any free quantum field theory. I had always read that there were stability issues when attempting to quantize fundamental objects of dimension greater than 1.
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
10,227
3,092
I had always read that there were stability issues when attempting to quantize fundamental objects of dimension greater than 1.
Can you give a reference on that stability issues?
 

Related Threads for: String theory, string dimensions?

  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
19K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
929
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
764

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top