What are strings made of?

  • #26
16
0
"Strings" are just manifestations of energy. Vibration is a form of energy in itself because energy by itself is formless and without mass.

All in all, everything in the universe is made up of energy. "Vibrations" and combinations of "Vibrations" make up the assortment of particles we see.

Thats my opinion.

What is mass? Mass feels solid isn't it? Why does it feel solid? Does solid itself have any meaning or is it just a word to describe the sensation we human beings feel when we touch something solid?
 
  • #27
841
1
Originally posted by diverz
"Strings" are just manifestations of energy. Vibration is a form of energy in itself because energy by itself is formless and without mass.

All in all, everything in the universe is made up of energy. "Vibrations" and combinations of "Vibrations" make up the assortment of particles we see.
I really don't like it when people treat energy (or mass) as some kind of substance that things are made out of. Energy and mass are just some physical properties that objects can have, among many others (charge, momentum, angular momentum, etc.)

Thats my opinion.


Mass feels solid isn't it? Why does it feel solid?
Matter in solid form feels solid. That's because the matter in your hand doesn't interpenetrate the matter in an object. And that's because the matter in your hand repels the matter in an object (due to fermionic and electrostatic repulsion).
 
  • #28
16
0
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I really don't like it when people treat energy (or mass) as some kind of substance that things are made out of. Energy and mass are just some physical properties that objects can have, among many others (charge, momentum, angular momentum, etc.)

Thats my opinion.
You don't like it just because you feel that energy and mass are just some physical properties? Then what do you feel that strings are made of?
 
  • #29
841
1
Originally posted by diverz
You don't like it just because you feel that energy and mass are just some physical properties?
I don't "feel" that energy and mass are physical properties. Energy and mass are physical properties. Particles and strings have energy, but it's not correct to say that they "are" energy or are "made up of" energy; energy is just one of many physical properties that a particle or string may have.

Then what do you feel that strings are made of?
String's aren't made out of anything more fundamental, because they are fundamental. This is just like how quarks and leptons in the Standard Model aren't made out of anything more fundamental, because they are fundamental.
 
  • #30
16
0
How sure are you that strings are fundamental? I mean people used to think that atoms are fundamental but discovered there's something more to that.
 
  • #31
841
1
Originally posted by diverz
How sure are you that strings are fundamental? I mean people used to think that atoms are fundamental but discovered there's something more to that.
There isn't any experimental evidence that strings even exist, let alone are fundamental. But in string theory, strings are fundamental. (If you try to break a string to see what it's made of, you just get two strings.)
 
  • #32
One has to start somewhere with something. Anything capable of generating all phenomena at higher levels must have an intricate set of attributes built into it, a spectrum of potentialities. Someone else can demand furthur explanation of the basis for all these attributes. But it isn't likely anyone can provide a significant theory that offers explanation all the way down.

------
"The world is held up by the trunks of three giant elephants."
"What holds up the elephants?"
"The elephants are standing on the shell of an even larger tortoise."
"What does the tortoise stand on?"
"It stands on the shell of yet an even larger tortoise."
"What does..."
"Sorry, it's tortoises from here on."
 
  • #33
16
0
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
There isn't any experimental evidence that strings even exist, let alone are fundamental. But in string theory, strings are fundamental. (If you try to break a string to see what it's made of, you just get two strings.)
Ok I agree with you that strings are fundamental in string theory. The point I'm trying to make is if strings can be broken down further, its not fundamental anymore. However, we can stop this discussion at this point because there's no experimental evidence.

Now I have another question. Do you think energy can be broken down into smaller parts?
 
  • #34
841
1
Do you think energy can be broken down into smaller parts?
Energy isn't an object that can be broken into parts; your question makes no more sense than asking whether, say, momentum can be "broken into parts".
 
  • #35
16
0
What is defined as being fundamental? If I'm not mistaken, it means something that cannot be broken down further? Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
  • #36
841
1
What is defined as being fundamental? If I'm not mistaken, it means something that cannot be broken down further?
It doesn't really have a rigorous definition in physics. But your description is roughly correct, depending on what you mean by "broken down".
 
  • #37
16
0
That means energy is fundamental according to the fact that it can't be broken down into simpler forms and particles aren't fundamental because they can be broken down further.

In string theory, it is established that strings are fundamental.

Hmm..... Interesting.

Can 2 different things exhibit identical properties? Or maybe I should phrase it this way -----> Is it possible for strings and energy to be fundamental building blocks and yet be different at the same time since your view is that energy is a property of strings?
 
  • #38
841
1
That means energy is fundamental according to the fact that it can't be broken down into simpler forms
Like I said, it doesn't make sense to speak of energy as "fundamental" in this sense. Energy is not an object, so it doesn't even make sense to talk about whether it can be "broken down" into parts or not.


Is it possible for strings and energy to be fundamental building blocks and yet be different at the same time since your view is that energy is a property of strings?
You don't take "pieces of energy" and stick them together to make things. Energy is not a "building block", fundamental or otherwise. Energy simply is not a physical object or substance, it's a property (among many) that a physical object can have.
 
  • #39
16
0
Ok then in the words of your argument, can you tell me what really is physical/object?
 
  • #40
FilipKunc
i'm not a physicist, but i don't think that this question can be answered before we understand the whole string theory... in fact we might never answer this question, just like we can't explain "where did the uniwerse come from?"- we can only tell how it began, but not why it began, or where it came from...
i have a question: do you think that it's possible to unify space and matter (just like einstein unified space and time)...? we can't call something "the theory of everything" if it leaves space, in which everything takes place, and matter, that fills the space as two separate things. that's just my opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
16
0
Well I was just gonna mention space.

What do you guys think of space? Standard human understanding/definition of space is that it is emptiness. Nothing. Absolutely empty.

Now my question to you is ----> How can something exist and yet is empty (no mass no substance no nothing.... ie. a vacuum)?

This is getting interesting :smile:

I wanna see what you guys think.
 
  • #42
16
0
Perhaps I should phrase it this way ----> What makes space? Space just can't exist for the sake of existence isn't it? I know you guys are all rational beings who are into science. You don't just accept "its simply there" as an answer. Now try to answer my question and I'll see if I agree with your point of view.
 
  • #43
16
0
Bump for Ambitwistor's point of view/comments :smile:
 
  • #44
138
0
Originally posted by diverz
Now my question to you is ----> How can something exist and yet is empty (no mass no substance no nothing.... ie. a vacuum)?
1. See spacetime as unbreakable and elastic.
2. Let it penetrates itself.
3. A new quantum package (QP)is created with two separate but joined layers.
So it's still empty but the spacetime layers will oscillate locally in a different way.
4. Such QP's can interact and build up other QP's. They all are still empty.
5. A human is thus a house build by empty packages.
6. The human observer can see only other QP's that are resonant to his observing QP's system.
 
  • #45
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
There isn't any experimental evidence that strings even exist, let alone are fundamental. But in string theory, strings are fundamental. (If you try to break a string to see what it's made of, you just get two strings.)
Is there any theoretical limit to how small a string you can create by breaking a larger string? Or can the process theoretically proceed ad infinitum?
 
  • #46
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I really don't like it when people treat energy (or mass) as some kind of substance that things are made out of. Energy and mass are just some physical properties that objects can have, among many others (charge, momentum, angular momentum, etc.)
This is an interesting take. However, it seems as if this position leaves us with a conglomeration of physical properties without a central object to "have" them in the first place. If there is no such thing as "substance," then what is the object that has physical properties, and by what mechanisms does it 'enforce' its ownership of these physical properties? (Sorry if that's a little metaphorical, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it for now.)
 
  • #47
1,306
0
Originally posted by diverz
Perhaps I should phrase it this way ----> What makes space? Space just can't exist for the sake of existence isn't it? I know you guys are all rational beings who are into science. You don't just accept "its simply there" as an answer. Now try to answer my question and I'll see if I agree with your point of view.

Of course reality must be reducible to logic itself. Physics must be derivable from the principles of reason alone. For otherwise, you are right, it only begs the question as to how the fundamentals came to be. A theory based on the existence of just some particle or field that is not itself justified only give us better engineering, but it is certainly not psychologically satisfying because it leaves questions unanswered. We will not stop until we can say that physics is the result of some description of logic. That is my effort here.

On http://www.sirus.com/users/mjake/StringTh.html#consider [Broken] I show how the principles of logic and probabilities can be described graphically is some sort of "sample space". Then I show that we can impose a coordinate system on it. And then we can describe a type of string theory as being the propogation of some open "event" in sample space.

But this in itself does not answer your question, where did it all come from. The question reduces to how the manifold of space-time came into existence in the first place. I've read that no dimensionality can exist at a mathematical critical point where all partial derivatives are zero. But such a point is also unstable, any movement whatsoever will only accelerate in that direction. So it seems that the universe started from such a critical point. And the manifold of reality has been growing ever since. It's curious that general relativity predicts an expanding manifold of space-time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
249
0
I know its a bot of a "grey" answer but strings are not a predetermined definate in size so we should theorize that a string is in fact made up of smaller strings, and those strings are made up of even smaller strings and so forth. It just keeps going to an inherent fuzziness of open strings that automatically incorporate one of the key ingredients in string theory.

All of physical reality is made out of different states of the superstring. Roughly speaking, each vibrational mode of the string can be thought of as a point particle. Hence, one superstring gives rise to infinitely many local fermion and boson fields. All of the observed bosons and fermions can be cosidered as a vibrational mode of the fundamental superstring. It must be noted that the string is both constituent and interaction. Superstrings can be either open or closed.

I also think that strings could be made or from the inflation of the universe or Gravity differentiates and even symmetries -- but I use this term loosely because there is no given via axioms in theories.
 
  • #49
1,306
0
Originally posted by Jeebus
I know its a bot of a "grey" answer but strings are not a predetermined definate in size so we should theorize that a string is in fact made up of smaller strings, and those strings are made up of even smaller strings and so forth. It just keeps going to an inherent fuzziness of open strings that automatically incorporate one of the key ingredients in string theory.
It might be that closed strings can be made up of smaller closed string on some sort of membrane. If the smaller inside strings cancel at their boarders, then the result is the one larger string on the outside edge.

Maybe that's how strings interact, when one meet another they share a common boarder that cancels to leave only one larger string?
 
  • #50
How can a string be elemental if it can be cut in to smaller strings,
or for that matter if it can be cut? Wouldn't an absolute findamental be indivisable? If a string needed time or space in which to exist, then how can bit be fundamental? To say that it exists but is fundamental is rather like saying matter exists in the ether
 

Related Threads on What are strings made of?

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
10K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
5K
Top