- #1

- 2

- 0

In the string theory, a string exists in a 26 or 11 or 10 dimensional spacetime. But could the spacetime exists as some kind of container for the string?

Is spacetime some kind of material or a

*priori*notion of physics?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Timeismatter
- Start date

- #1

- 2

- 0

In the string theory, a string exists in a 26 or 11 or 10 dimensional spacetime. But could the spacetime exists as some kind of container for the string?

Is spacetime some kind of material or a

- #2

- 11,543

- 4,065

- #3

- 102

- 0

Is spacetime some kind of material or apriorinotion of physics?

Time is ticks on the observer's clock.

- #4

- 312

- 0

You may be interested to know that one of the endpoints (I hesitate to say conclusions) of the mini-program on singularity resolution at the Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics (Jan. 2007) was that **a new view of space-time **is needed by both the Loop Quantum Gravity approach and the String Theory approach to understand what happens physically at or near black holes and/or the Big Bang.

In Thomas Thielmann's first seminar at the mini-program, he considers the problem of time to be 1. the lack of a canonical Hamiltonian in generally covarient theories, and 2. there is no time evolution of observables, resulting in a frozen picture.

More simply, I should say your question is an open problem of some importance in the theoretical physics community.

R

In Thomas Thielmann's first seminar at the mini-program, he considers the problem of time to be 1. the lack of a canonical Hamiltonian in generally covarient theories, and 2. there is no time evolution of observables, resulting in a frozen picture.

More simply, I should say your question is an open problem of some importance in the theoretical physics community.

R

Last edited:

- #5

- 2

- 0

Many results from the string theory are beautiful and have a clear brand of Ed Witten's influence. But I guess to distinguish physics and mathematics is a necessary job we need to do. Compared with the era of Newton, Newton needed to develop the necessary mathematics calculus to describe his mechanics. Einstein didn't need to develop Riemann geometry to write the equation of GR. Heisenberg didn't need to invent the matrix and spectral theory to develop the Matrix mechanics. But today we even don't know what kinds of basic mathematics tools we need. String theoreticians are just speculating on every kind of physics/mathematics.

Share:

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 4K