Is empty space made of 1-dimensional strings?

Are you saying that the string curves the CY? Also, what is the string made of then?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes and conversely the CY affects the dynamics of the string.

It's a quantum of a field, it doesn't have 'substance' any more than electrons. Electrons are made of electrons. Strings are made of strings. If you want a generally inaccurate and vacuous answer, how about 'condensed energy'?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought electrons were made of strings? Also, Ed Witten says there is no lower constitutent part to a string.

Ed Witten said. " In the case of string theory, with our present understanding, there would be nothing more basic than the string."

So, I take your answer as you have no idea what a string really is, except that it is smaller than anything else and it can affect the CY - and visa versa? So, if you don't know what a string is, do you know what a CY is made of?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, we have a string affecting the CY, and a CY affecting the string? So, the dynamics of their interaction is changed by their previous interactions in a sort of self-sustaining chaotic turmoil?

 

It's not chaotic. Just because something is complicated doesn't mean its chaotic. It's known as 'back reaction' and is a well understood principle in things like neutron star collisions.

 

Do you have an answer to Posts #60 & #63?

 

Here is my version: String theory is a mathematical model, and within this mathematical model there is no basic constituent than the string. It makes no sense to argue that strings should be made of something (within the model). If you want, you can construct even more complicated models assuming that the strings are made of even more elementary stuff. This will not be the string theory as is understood today, and it would be a kind of refinement to today's string theory, like special relativity to Newtonian mechanics. But the main question is if this model describes the Nature accurately, and we don't even have answer to this question for string theory.

 

I think someone is asking how long is a string?..:shrug:

 

From a QED point of view.

It's the fluctuation of a quantum field. If you don't understand the concept of a field (which you don't) then simply repeating your questions just shows ignorance and an attempt to back people into a corner, as if you have a clue what you're talking about.

A Calabi Yau is a space-time with a particular topology. In a full string theory non-perturbative model (as yet unknown) it would be formed by virtual closed loop string processes producing a particular effective theory on real strings.

You're an idiot aren't you? You don't stop to think that perhaps you don't grasp what he's talking about?

Full string theory is formulated in 10 dimensional Minkowski space-time, to be consistent. We know from observations there's only 4 dimensions which are 'large', so phenomenological string theory is then formed by compactifying 6 of the 10 dimensions down. This is done by hand, there's no natural process known which says "10 goes to 4+6". This is the problem Witten is talking about, why is the uiverse 4 dimensional on large scales but string theory is 10 dimensional? If string theory is right, what makes 6 and only 6 dimensions compactify?

Learn the difference between a 'cosmic string' and a 'string theory string'.

And while you're at it, stop thinking you understand anything about string theory and have managed to back myself or anyone else into a corner. Every attempt you've made you've just shown you're ignorant of string theory. Watching the PBS documentary doesn't make you all knowing.

Swallow your jackass attitude or **** off.

 

I have a question. Does this zero-point vacuum consist of virtual virbrating strings that answers for the connection to electrons being buffeted in the Dirac Sea? Are the vibrations what causes the phenomena of the buffeting electron?

 

O.K. So, what's a quantum field made of and why does it exist?

 

It's a fundamental entity. From your implied method of questioning, you could continue asking this forever. If I said "It's energy", you'd say "So what's energy?" and then "What's..." to whatever I said energy was.

As for why it exists, you're asking "Why is the universe the way it is?".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Only religious people claim to have answers for that.

 

How do you know a quantum field is a fundamental entity? It's just the simplest form that you happen to know of - and correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot exclude the possibility of a more fundamental entity. As to why it exists, of course, you can't answer that either. I am only questioning you this way to get to your "ground zero". Now, I've found it.
Now, how is a quantum field different than a dimension? Is a Brane a quantum field? And how come quantum fields can come in different sizes? Seems odd that a fundamental entity could come in different sizes, as that would seem to indicate a more fundamental entity at play.

 

In what sense are they similar?

What makes you think this?

Who said anything about coming in sizes? What does "size" mean?

You seem to be proceding into a deeper line of questioning. You should first understand the answers we've already given you, and (as evidenced by these questions) you haven't done that yet.

 

If a quantum field is responsible for the creation of strings, than strings are made from a quantum field. If the string can be smaller than the quantum field from which it sprang, then the size of the quantum field is greater than the size of the string. Therefore, a quantum field has size.

As far as the Brane goes, if the quantum field is the most fundamental entity, than either the Brane is also a quantum field or it is made from a quantum field. In either case, I want to know if a Brane is a fundamental entity - or not.

As far as dimension goes, it seems that dimension and quantum fields occupy the same space. However, I want to know whether you think of dimension as just a concept consisting of a degree of freedom in space, or do you think of dimension as an actual entity, such as a quantum field.

Finally, if you want to think of a quantum field as an apple, I am not asking you how to make apple pie. Nor, do I think it necessary for me to understand how to make an apple pie in order to understand an apple. I am asking you about the apple. What do you know about a quantum field besides the fact that you can turn it into an apple pie? Is it red? Is it sweet? Does it have seeds in it? I hope you get the point. If you don't know anything about a quantum field, except that it can create strings, then just say so.

 

Let me stop you there, pal. The size any quanta have are a property of the field, possibly the quanta interact with more than one field, or they exist because of an interaction, with a field.
In fact, most quanta that we know about are not defined in terms of a single field.

Electrons have mass and charge - two things. This is modeled as a quantum that couples to two separate fields. Both the fields are infinite in size, but electrons have a finite "size".

 

"A quantum field is a quantum mechanical system containing a large, and possibly infinite, number of degrees of freedom." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
Now, what exactly is the difference between a quantum field and a dimension? Is there any space not occupied by a quantum field, such that it would make sense to differentiate between dimension and a quantum field? Moreover, if a quantum field is infinite in size, again why should we differentiate between dimension and quantum field. Couldn't you just as easily say that quantum fields create dimension, and as dimension always exists in the same space as quantum fields, that dimension and quantum fields are the same thing? Unless, of course, you simply want to differentiate between the two by defining a dimension as a conceptual degree of freedom and a quantum field as a physical reality that gives a degree of freedom.

 

Spacetime is a field. EM is a quantised, or quantisable field (quantum field for short), which is part of spacetime.
The Higgs field is presumed to be the part that mass quanta come from, since mass and charge appear together, they must both be integral parts of spacetime.

What dimensions does spacetime have?

 

Could somebody explain how string theory is actualy a real evidence based theory please?, because to me it appears like a model not a theory. its like 80% speculation and assumption.


peace.

 

And you don't know what the difference is between a model and a theory?

You should, if you went to high-school. So did you?