What is the meaning of this generic equation in String Theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ZeroZero2
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of a specific equation related to String Theory, as mentioned in an article by Michio Kaku. Participants seek to understand the meaning and implications of the equation, which appears to involve various notations and concepts from theoretical physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the equation and requests clarification on its meaning.
  • Another participant compares the equation to the well-known equation E=mc², seeking a similar straightforward interpretation.
  • Some participants suggest that the equation may contain typographical errors and inconsistencies in notation, particularly regarding bra-ket and wavefunction notation.
  • A participant claims the equation is from Michio Kaku and describes it as representing strings in ten dimensions.
  • Another participant critiques the equation as being poorly constructed and mixes different notational conventions.
  • One participant speculates on the components of the equation, suggesting various interpretations for symbols like g, H, and i, and discusses the implications of string collisions.
  • A later reply asserts that the equation is a generic Lagrangian for a quantum field with a quartic self-interaction, noting the ambiguity in its application and the unspecified background spacetime.
  • One participant dismisses much of another's explanation as nonsensical.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and clarity of the equation, with no consensus reached on its meaning or correctness. Some participants agree on the presence of notation issues, while others defend the equation's integrity.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in understanding due to the mixing of notational systems and the lack of context for the equation's application within String Theory.

ZeroZero2
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
what is this equation??

I remember an article on String Theory on either Popular Science or Scientific America, and it had this equation:

attachment.php?attachmentid=25592&stc=1&d=1272997753.png


I no longer have the article and would like to know what this equation means.

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-05-04 at 1.26.05 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-05-04 at 1.26.05 PM.png
    2.5 KB · Views: 794
Physics news on Phys.org


no one knows? :rolleyes:


not a history of it, just what it represents...
like how E=mc[tex]^{2}[/tex] means energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
 


It looks like a lagrangian miss-spelled...

g<psi^dagger | psi >^2

it should read
 


ansgar said:
It looks like a lagrangian miss-spelled...

g<psi^dagger | psi >^2

it should read

I don't think so...

I copied it directly from the magazine (I have the actual clipping of the equation).
 
Last edited:
Found it!
It's Michio Kaku's equation and it describes strings in 10 dimensions

It was on Discover magazine

attachment.php?attachmentid=25601&stc=1&d=1273046597.jpg


http://discovermagazine.com/2005/aug/cover/article_view?b_start:int=3"
 

Attachments

  • string-math.jpg
    string-math.jpg
    6.6 KB · Views: 643
Last edited by a moderator:


sorry but that equation is crap
 


ansgar said:
sorry but that equation is crap

haha.. troll
 


imean they are mixing bra-ket and wavefunction notation, you don't usally write <psi^dagger| since <psi| is the dual correspondence to |psi> ..
 


ansgar said:
imean they are mixing bra-ket and wavefunction notation, you don't usally write <psi^dagger| since <psi| is the dual correspondence to |psi> ..
Actually that's right... maybe the magazine mistranscribed it or something. (Unless this is some sort of weird notation unique to string theory, but I have my doubts... I've studied some string theory and never come across that sort of notation)
 
  • #10


That equation is using a lot off different equations and comparing them. The derivative of i with respect to a certain time interval and the it, obviously, has the wave function Psi which is the derivative of uppercase gamma and I am pretty sure the g is referring to gravity or some kind of force acting on it. H could be planks constant or like an angular momentum symbol. The i may be an imaginary number which could change the whole format of the equation. As far as L it could be length or momentum or something. The guy who discovered that equation must have done something wrong otherwise we would have heard of it before and there would be no doubts the string theory exists. But there are multiple string theories and not just one so it could pretain to a certain one we haven't heard of before. It could also be saying that when the strings collide and when that happens it creates a force, tourque, which is tau in that equation and it creates angular momentum and they are using it to find the length or shape of the string. Torque is frsin theta so idk there is many ways one could think of it. I really don't know the one Kaku is referring to though.
 
  • #11


The equation has some typos and mixes different kinds of notation...I would write it

[tex]L = \psi^\dagger (i\partial_t - H) \psi + g(\psi^\dagger \psi)^2[/tex]

Unfortunately, it's hard to guess what Kaku could possibly mean by this, because this is actually something quite generic: It is just the Lagrangian for a quantum field [itex]\psi[/itex] with a quartic self-interaction. H is the Hamiltonian, and g is a coupling constant.

It is completely unspecified what sort of background spacetime the field Psi lives in, or what representations of what groups Psi might carry. This expression could really mean almost anything.

Note: Practically everything in bradley613's post above is complete nonsense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K