The Planck length and string theory

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the significance of the Planck length in string theory, particularly its role in unifying quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity. John Thompson raises concerns about the assumption that gravitational laws extend to sub-Planck lengths, questioning the justification of this perspective among physicists and mathematicians. Brian Greene's book, "The Elegant Universe," is referenced as a popular science source that lacks the rigor of academic texts, emphasizing the need for valid, peer-reviewed sources to support claims regarding string theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics (QM)
  • Familiarity with general relativity
  • Knowledge of the Planck length and its implications
  • Ability to differentiate between popular science literature and academic research
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical foundations of string theory
  • Study the implications of the Planck length in theoretical physics
  • Explore peer-reviewed articles on the unification of QM and general relativity
  • Examine the criticisms of popular science interpretations of complex theories
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of string theory and the Planck length.

john t
Messages
33
Reaction score
3
String theorists frame much of their studies in the context of Planck length. The theories are meant to fold together QM and general relativity. The equation for Planck length includes the gravitational constant, G. It seems to me the theorists are assuming the gravitational laws extend to the sub-Planck length and are trying to force the conclusions along those lines. Is this considered justifiable by physicists/mathematicians?

John Thompson

<< Mentor Note: personal e-mail address deleted >>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
john t said:
. It seems to me the theorists are assuming the gravitational laws extend to the sub-Planck length and are trying to force the conclusions along those lines.

Why do you think this is what they are doing?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Why do you think this is what they are doing?
Brian Greene, in his book "The Elegant Universe" couches all the arguments around the Planck Length. He is a physicist/mathematician at Columbia U.
 
And this book is not a textbook, so you can't draw any conclusion from that. Pop-sci books are made for entertainment, if you want to really learn something you have to use textbooks.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Craftek_Ana
The Planck length defines a length scale, this in turn, because of the units used, defines an energy scale. At these very short distances new physics is thought to come into play and the gravitational effect becomes comparable to the other forces. I know this is waffling but you haven't received much of an answer so far, so this will give people something to argue about. :-)

Cheers
 
john t said:
Brian Greene, in his book "The Elegant Universe"

Which, as has been noted, is a pop science book, not a textbook or peer-reviewed paper. So it's not a valid source for discussion here at PF.

If you want to support your claim about string theory you will have to find a valid source. In the meantime, this thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K