General Relativity Quantum Mechanics and the new String Theory

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Here's something for you to ponder...strings are the smallest definable fundamental entities that we know of, much smaller than protons, quarks, gluons, photons, or any of the other particles in the Standard Model. They are made up of pure energy, according to theory.

If they are pure energy (whatever that may be), then what is that pure energy made out of?? In effect, what are strings??

Strings are mathematical objects... constructs.
We do not need to know "what they really are made of", especially if they are "really" fundamental....

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Strings are mathematical objects... constructs.
We do not need to know "what they really are made of", especially if they are "really" fundamental....

Yes, they are described by mathematics, but are you proposing that reality is made up of an abstract entity. If so, then everything is an illusion.

Physicists believe in the physical reality of the presence of strings, since they believe in the physical reality of every other particle and type pf energy present in the Universe...and they think that strings are the basic building blocks of everything else.

Even if they are "fundamental", why would you stop at wanting to know what they're made of?? What is "fundamental" in the first place?? If something is made of something, then what is that other "something"??

So, if a string is made of "pure energy", what is that energy?? What is it made of?? That also brings up the point...what/when do you call something as being "fundamental"??

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, they are described by mathematics, but are you proposing that reality is made up of an abstract entity. If so, then everything is an illusion.

Physicists believe in the physical reality of the presence of strings, since they believe in the physical reality of every other particle and type pf energy present in the Universe...and they think that strings are the basic building blocks of everything else.

Even if they are "fundamental", why would you stop at wanting to know what they're made of?? What is "fundamental" in the first place?? If something is made of something, then what is that other "something"??

So, if a string is made of "pure energy", what is that energy?? What is it made of?? That also brings up the point...what/when do you call something as being "fundamental"??

Hmmm this can evolve into a deep philosophical discussion.
How does one define a force (both real and fictitious) in this context.
Therefore does it make any sense to ask what W and Z bosons are made out of?

Steven

[bojan]

Well, the definition of "fundamental" is that it can not be made of other stuff.. otherwise it is not fundamental.

And, it is about the definition of reality and illusion.
If something fundamental can only be described as mathematical concept, it is perfectly OK.. and it does not imply that everything else build from those is illusion. It only means that we can not describe those fundamental entities (strings or whatever) in other, more simpler terms.
If we can, then they are not fundamental.

[sebastien]

Very interesting discussion, good thinking renormalised, this is exactly the kind of discussions I was looking forward to, Bojan, great answering to

Now first of all, because quantum mechanics laws are so different to the ones of general relativity, is it not that if string theory was found to be correct, would we not find very puzzling questions, such as what happens in a black hole etc.. and if so, we would be finding more theories on more things, so, we are not so far exactly sure on what strings are made of, but we are hoping, that we will, by applying those things such as what happens in a black hole, and apply them to these strings so like that we DO know these things about the strings.

Also in quantum mechanics, it states that everything is 11-Dimensional, if that makes any sense, so what happens in the sub-atomic level, happens in other parallel universes, and if string theory unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity, that we wouldn't be surprised, that what happens to the strings, ALSO happen in other parallel universes, which kind of means, that there may be other neighboring universes, which is something that is very odd, and doesn't make much sense, but anyway, if string theory is the unified theory, then what happens to strings DOES happen to other neighboring universes, and like, that it kind of is an illusion, to answer the illusion part.

The fundamentals, to tell you the truth I am not exactly sure on that one, sorry, but Bojan I think can explain more than me on this question.

Great discussion everyone, exactly the sort of discussion i would like to see more of on this thread

Regards
Sebastien.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Hmmm this can evolve into a deep philosophical discussion.
How does one define a force (both real and fictitious) in this context.
Therefore does it make any sense to ask what W and Z bosons are made out of?

Steven

Yes, it can

Science, Steven, without philosophy is like knowing the mechanics of how a car works...all the physics behind its workings...but not knowing why it should work. All the relationships between the parts and their surroundings, where those workings might lead and any consequences that might come out it working. Science is the mechanics of why things are the way they are, philosophy is the soul and the reason of the why. It's a grave mistake to try and separate the two, doing so has done and will lead to unforeseen consequences, many of which have been and will be detrimental to our wellbeing.

A force would be defined as it always has.

Since the force carriers and all other particles of the Standard Model are composed of strings, or combination of strings, then they would be defined by what the strings are...what they're made out of. The only difference being the vibratory mode of the string/s in question. Each particle species having a string/s vibrating at a frequency and wavelength particular to that species...also possibly the geometry of that vibration.

But that still doesn't answer the question...if strings are made of energy, then what is that energy?? Then, if that energy has any sort of structure or definable quality/quantity, then strings themselves are not fundamental entities, as we would normally define the concept of fundamental.

Which answers your statement, Bojan...if the last statement is true, then they're not fundamental entities. Fundamental, as you so rightly observe, means they have no "parts". They are complete unto themselves. Which causes a problem. A mathematical construct or abstraction, by definition, is a derived entity. It is made up of "parts" and is derived from other constructs which are formulated and reduced to give a final product. Therefore, in this case, it can be said that no mathematical construct or abstraction is truly fundamental. In which case, anything that is truly fundamental can only be approximated by mathematical derivations and any subsequent physics, it can't be truly described in of itself. Except in terms of the philosophical expression "I am"...pure thought. Which is as close as written or spoken language can come to expressing the singular definition of existence.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, it can

Science, Steven, without philosophy is like knowing the mechanics of how a car works...all the physics behind its workings...but not knowing why it should work. All the relationships between the parts and their surroundings, where those workings might lead and any consequences that might come out it working. Science is the mechanics of why things are the way they are, philosophy is the soul and the reason of the why. It's a grave mistake to try and separate the two, doing so has done and will lead to unforeseen consequences, many of which have been and will be detrimental to our wellbeing.

I have no idea what you are going on about Carl. Seems to me the reading far more into the post then what is there.

Since the force carriers and all other particles of the Standard Model are composed of strings, or combination of strings, then they would be defined by what the strings are...what they're made out of. The only difference being the vibratory mode of the string/s in question. Each particle species having a string/s vibrating at a frequency and wavelength particular to that species...also possibly the geometry of that vibration.

No it isn't. The force carriers in the Standard Model are gauge bosons. The underlying theories are Gauge theories where the Lagrangian (difference between kinetic and potential energies of the electromagnetic/ weak and strong fields) is invariant under local symmetries.

The Standard Model is based on Quantum Field Theories not String theory.

But that still doesn't answer the question...if strings are made of energy, then what is that energy?? Then, if that energy has any sort of structure or definable quality/quantity, then strings themselves are not fundamental entities, as we would normally define the concept of fundamental.

As pointed out by Bojan it nothing more than a mathematical construct. The idea of defining a "string" is to produce a renormalizable QFT of gravity. The fact is the string can also be a "point" or a "surface".

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

No it isn't. The force carriers in the Standard Model are gauge bosons. The underlying theories are Gauge theories where the Lagrangian (difference between kinetic and potential energies the electromagnetic/ weak and strong fields) is invariant under local symmetries.

The Standard Model based on Quantum Field Theories not String theory.

I know that Steven....that's not what I was on about. What I was saying is that since they believe that the particles that are found in the Standard Model are composed of strings (if you follow Brian Greene and Co), the differences between the particles are due to different vibrational modes of the strings that make them up and their topology.

As pointed out by Bojan it nothing more than a mathematical construct. The idea of defining a "string" is to produce a renormalizable QFT of gravity. The fact is the string can also be a "point" or a "surface".

That still doesn't answer the question...mathematical construct or not, they are believed to have a basis in physical reality and if that's the case, and they are made out of energy, then what, precisely, is that energy. Their topology is neither here nor there in so far as this is concerned.

I have no idea what you are going on about Carl. Seems to me the reading far more into the post then what is there.http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/..../shrugging.gif

I knew you wouldn't. What I read into the post was exactly what you had written there in your previous response...

Hmmm this can evolve into a deep philosophical discussion.

I just took that a bit further than maybe you were prepared to consider in this case. What I said, in a nutshell, is that you can't or shouldn't separate the philosophy of science from the "mechanics" of science. Leave out the ethics and reasoning behind what you are pursuing and what you're left with is nothing but an amoral exercise. Anything goes, then, and the consequences of your actions become moot. They maybe harmless, but they can also be very harmful. It's one thing to know you have the knowledge to do something, but is it ethical to actually go ahead and do it.

[cwjohn (Chris)]

"Believed to have a basis in physical reality"

I am not sure that you can state this. The strings (only one theory in many) are composed of probabilistic energies over multiple dimensions (I believe 10 is in vogue at this time). If something has a varying probability that it exists I dont know whether you can class it as having a basis in physical reality, but then again that may be a "philosophical question"

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by cwjohn

"Believed to have a basis in physical reality"

I am not sure that you can state this. The strings (only one theory in many) are composed of probabilistic energies over multiple dimensions (I believe 10 is in vogue at this time). If something has a varying probability that it exists I dont know whether you can class it as having a basis in physical reality, but then again that may be a "philosophical question"

Stranger things have been considered real, or possibly real, before strings came along. It's actually 11 dimensions. If Supersymmetry holds (and they hope the LHC can say something about this), you will have to have 11 dimensions, in order to account for all the particles in the Standard Model and their supersymmetric counterparts. All matter and energy exists a set of probabilities...take light. Are the photons particles or waves?? Or are they both simultaneously. Your choice, you know. The observer affects the observed. Choices, choices, choices. How do you want to look at them...what method of detection?? Is the cat alive or dead?? Is the electron "here' or what speed is it traveling at?? I just flipped over that electron's spin, but why did that other electron all the way over there do exactly as my electron did, at the same time?? If I decide not to directly measure something, how many possible paths can that something take to arrive at an answer...how many states of existence can it possibly be in simultaneously...how many other universes does it occupy before I make the decision??

What is reality?? You tell me.

[Nesti (Mark)]

May I add two quotes which may throw the cat among the pigeons at this point.

1. A quote from H.A. Lorentz 1919 paper called ‘The Einstein Theory of Relativity’,
“Till now it was believed that time and space existed by themselves, even if there was nothing else – no Sun, no Earth, no Stars – while now we know that time and space are not the vessel for the universe, but could not exist at all if there were no contents, namely, no Sun, Earth and other Celestial bodies”

2. A quote from Einstein, “Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. Physical objects are not in space but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept ‘empty space’ loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high.”

In these two quotes, you may see that it becomes impossible to define material/energy without defining the field (gravitation, electromagnetic, whatever!). Conversely, it is equally impossible to define any field without defining the material/energy.

SO, the big issue here is that a general (universal) definition would need to be found - one which describes both the field and the constituents at the same time - before any TRUE understanding of what stuff is could ever be asked. Our TOE perhaps.

Interesting to see that Einstein didn’t really believe in space and/or time, in that he talked about objects being spatially and temporally separated. This probably leads straight back to his assertion of synchronicity being the primary hand rail for understanding.

So in the context of this thread, asking what Strings are becomes as meaningless as asking what space and time are…

This is exactly why I prefer to look at events/laws/energy etc as ‘associations’ which form and die-off between particles and how these ‘associations’ affect fields…the electromagnetic field, gravitational field, whatever! Looking at association between one particle and another, between one field and another, or many particles in many fields (strings operating within 11 dimensions for instance, or perhaps just 4 in our spacetime brane) it is much simpler to get a picture that energy, matter and fields may be shared and are connected with each other.

This means that one photon moving within a field can and does affect another photon moving in the same field, or perhaps another field, IF an association between the two exists.

An association simply being a link (related frequencies within string particles perhaps) between as Einstein put it, one “energy density” and another “energy density”. With this in mind, it should be easy to believe in say isospin and 'spooky action at a distance', the outcomes and strange behavior in Young's double slit experiment, quantum tunneling, and even probability itself may somehow be related to regions of varying strengths of "field densities" and the associations, the shared string frequencies operating within fields themselves or across manifolds (many-folds, or many fields).

Mathematically, it might not change anything, maybe only additions to current formulations in quantum mechanics and relativity, but it is only a suggestion of a cause.

Cheers
Mark

[sebastien]

To Mark- Thanks a lot for the post very interesting, and I definetly get what you are saying They are both good quotes ad I am just wondering where you came across them? Thanks
Once again thanks for bringing new light on the subject, appreciate it a lot

Regards,
Sebastien

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by sebastien

To Mark- Thanks a lot for the post very interesting, and I definetly get what you are saying They are both good quotes ad I am just wondering where you came across them? Thanks
Once again thanks for bringing new light on the subject, appreciate it a lot

Regards,
Sebastien

Hi Sebastien,

The quote from Einstein came from my book and the one from Lorentz was extracted from an Amazon Kindle paper (H.A. Lorentz 1919 paper ‘The Einstein Theory of Relativity’) which cost me all of $2.

Cheers
Mark

[AlexN]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, they are described by mathematics, but are you proposing that reality is made up of an abstract entity. If so, then everything is an illusion.

Why not? Havent we all seen the Matrix?

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by AlexN

Why not? Havent we all seen the Matrix?

Yes, but that movie still had a reality in it. One which supported the illusion of the matrix itself.

Everything we touch or conduct experiments with, and even our perception of reality itself - from the light coming into our eyes, to our senses, and even the firing of neurons in our brain - are almost exclusively aspects and properties of light...and light has been the most surprising of all of the constituents of the universe in that it's behavior is entwined with, not just itself (a single photon), but often other photons and even the space (continuum) in which it is traveling.

The Standard Model may well explain the constituents of the universe, but I feel the whole well and truly exceeds the sum of the parts. Almost as if there is a great deal of organisation, a cosmic balancing act, happening behind the scenes.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Nesti

The Standard Model may well explain the constituents of the universe, but I feel the whole well and truly exceeds the sum of the parts. Almost as if there is a great deal of organisation, a cosmic balancing act, happening behind the scenes.

On the subject of maths and behind the scenes action.....

The Standard Model may not be complete but one of it's components, Quantum Electrodynamics, is one of the most profound theories ever devised. The maths is very abstract but given that QE is able to produce theoretical values that are accurate to within 10 parts in a billion of the experimental (actual) values brings up the age old question. Is mathermatics discovered or invented?

Scientists like Paul Davies and the man who should won the Nobel Prize for Physics, Freeman Dyson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson) point to idea that if maths is a part of nature which is discovered, then nature possesses an intelligence which may indicate the existence of a Supreme Being.

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

Originally Posted by sjastro

On the subject of maths and behind the scenes action.....

...... then nature possesses an intelligence which may indicate the existence of a Supreme Being.

Regards

Steven

This is metaphysics, not physics.. with all due respect to aforementioned gentlemen, in short, it is not science.

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

On the subject of maths and behind the scenes action.....

Scientists like Paul Davies and the man who should won the Nobel Prize for Physics, Freeman Dyson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson) point to idea that if maths is a part of nature which is discovered, then nature possesses an intelligence which may indicate the existence of a Supreme Being.

Regards

Steven

I have a somewhat different viewpoint on this. Pure mathematics is totally independent of nature. Consider the definition of a prime number and the conjectures and theorems regarding them. Conceptually, these exist regardless of whatever particles and ensuing laws are deemed part of our known Universe. If our theories of the origins and evolution of the Universe change, the pure mathematics remains as an invariant conceptual backdrop. Here the mathematics is discoverable only in the sense that a new conjecture is found or a theorem is proved.
Mathematics that is intimately tied to the physics of our Universe (applied mathematics) can be used to both explain its laws and make predictions. However, incorrect physical assumptions cannot lead to mathematical models which reflect the true Universe. New mathematical concepts may originate to explain physical structures but, in essence, it is only really the physics that is discoverable in the natural sense i.e. as existing in nature. The physics depends on observation and measurement for its confirmation.
Music is another entity which can exist purely in the conscious sphere or the mind. It may rely on physical instruments for propagation but I can "play" a tune mentally without any recourse to the physical world. In fact, people can write the music before they play it out with instruments.
In theory, pure mathematical concepts and music are translatable into any Universe to any sentient conscious being regardless of it's physical particles or the laws it operates under. It is one of the riddles of our Universe that consciousness (involving mental concepts) can evolve from unconscious and mindless matter. Perhaps, consciousness is a gift reflecting the mind of a Supreme Being.
Thus, mathematics is not discoverable as one would discover a physical law or property of nature. To discover mathematics, one need only conceptualize and make mental and logical connections. Nature itself is irrelevant to this invention process.

Regards, Rob.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Robh

Thus, mathematics is not discoverable as one would discover a physical law or property of nature. To discover mathematics, one need only conceptualize and make mental and logical connections. Nature itself is irrelevant to this invention process.

Regards, Rob.

Rob, you put this very precisely. It is my view also. Wrong assumptions may result in mathematically consistent model, which is not necessarily applicable to nature.
There are many mathematical concepts that are TOTALLY un-related to reality, but are beautiful from pure mathematical point of view and 100% consistent within themselves. But they are not "real".

Originally Posted by Robh

Perhaps, consciousness is a gift reflecting the mind of a Supreme Being.

Regards, Rob.

Perhaps, the consciousness is just a by-product of chaotic evolution of central nervous system - the vast over-kill from the point of view of functionality required for a living thing to survive, but necessary to have all this so that this minimal but essential functionality is there.
I do not subscribe for too important role of our minds in our existence.. it is just there and lets enjoy it's presence - this way it is becoming even more valuable than just un-avoidable consequence of some speculative "higher" reality.

[avandonk]

Dat is a hellova good question!

Bert