Limit to breaking strings?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by John J. Bannan, Aug 5, 2008.

  1. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Reiku doesn't know any physics so his uninformed opinions are worthless in this discussion.
    What do you think 'the string scale' is? If strings could split, there'd be no definition of the string length. Instead, \(\alpha ' = \sqrt{l_{s}}\) where \(l_{s}\) is the string length.

    Branes can split, fundamental strings cannot. If you want specific details, read a book.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    Didn't we go through this the other day? Given enough time, your slightly juvenile questioning technique will always trace back to the axioms of whatever theory of physics is in question. If you want to question the axioms of quantum field theory, you will need to study (rather a lot) of something known as "constructive field theory", in which things like qft are built up from a set of mathematical axioms.

    I have explained, several times now, that you will never, ever, reach a stage at which you can't say "but why". As we've been witness to...
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Well, of course, string theory says there is a string scale. You're just saying the same thing BenTheMan implied, which it is an assumption of string theory that fundamental strings can't be subdivided. This isn't proof that strings can't subdivide - only proof that string theory describes nature best when we assume strings can't subdivide. Moreover, there is a difference between saying strings won't subdivide and claiming they can't subdivide. How do you know a string can't subdivide? If strings can divide, why pick an arbitrary point at which they can no longer divide? Seems very counter-intuitive. Moreover, you can't prove fundamental strings can't subdivide, but only point out that your theory doesn't permit it. Well, even you have to admit it's possible that your theory is incomplete and that there is a possibility that fundamental strings could subdivide.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    All true!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    You can't, not the way you can prove that something got delivered, by someone who got you to sign something.

    If you actually get close to fundamental particles, by studying their behaviour for a few years, reading lots of books, like you need to to get to the bar, then spend a few more years becoming a lecturer, and writing papers, and doing a lot more research and all the math that entails, then you might have a shot at it.
     
  9. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    So if you realize your line of questioning is fruitless, why do you persist? Wouldn't your time be better spent learning about the areas of physics in which you can ask questions?
     
  10. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    A shot that has yet to hit its mark.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Actually, there is one answer to a persistant questioning of "why?" The answer is that all comes from nothingness, which requires no explanation for its existence. So, it's not completely fruitless, if nothingness happens to be the final answer.
    Also, it is far easier for me to simply ask you guys for the answers than to read books. I like the abridged version.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238

    1) I use the word fundamental in this case to say nothing can exist below the Planck Level. In fact, Ben said something similar.

    2) A soliton can be an object that exists below Planck scales.

    3) Fuck off.
     
  13. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    Why does it? (that was surprisingly easy)
     
  14. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    You aren't asking "why does nothingness exist." Your question is less fundamental.
     
  15. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    No, I'm asking why the universe originated from nothing. This is a valid question.

    But why, but why, but why...
     
  16. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I think any model with a start defies the cause and effect principles. This was one of the reasons why Hoyle disliked it.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    The string is, by definition, one dimensional. Therefore it has a length. What length? Well it's defined by a natural combination of universal constants. So it is not a free parameter in the theory, it's a consequence of what is basically dimensional analysis.

    I suppose if you want a simple explaination, it's energetically unfavourable for the string to split further, not least because it's tension would increase so much the ends of the string would have to move faster than light in order to to keep the string from collapsing to a point.

    So it's not counter intuitive. Infact, it's discussed in detail in the first chapter of Polchinski. But you assume, you always assume, that because people don't instantly spoon feed you information you ask for and understand that they don't know. You must really suck at your job if that's your attitude!
    Branes can.
    Yes, but it doesn't mean all objects on that scale are solitons. There exist solitons on normal everyday scales too.
    I'll stop when you stop pretending you know about things you so obviously don't.

    Euler on PhysOrg, who does research into such things as solitons, went to a graduate course on 'Solitons and Field Theory' (or something like that) and it was mind bogglingly complicated, and he's not stupid. And given you are stupid, such things are obviously beyond you. High school physics is beyond you.
     
  18. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    ''Branes can. ''

    Fine. Branes are smaller than strings then?

    ''Yes, but it doesn't mean all objects on that scale are solitons. ''

    Did i say it was. Yet another example of how you like to add details to arguements that have nothing to do with what i was saying.

    'Euler on PhysOrg, who does research into such things as solitons,''

    Good for Euler. Give him my regards bless him.
     
  19. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Branes can be any size and any shape and any number of dimensions.
    You said "Now, there may be smaller things, solitons, but we don't have the technology to even test this.". This would imply there's nothing else smaller than the Planck scale but solitons and it would imply that 'solitons' are the general name for such things.

    Neither of which is true. And given you don't know anything about solitons or Planck scale physics or string theory or branes or relativity or quantum mechanics or vector calculus or basic algebra, your attempts to appear knowledgable in this area are somewhat laughable. No, not 'somewhat laughable'..... downright pathetic. Yeah, that's it.

    No doubt you'll whine about that and tell me to F off but I bet you won't step up and show you can do such things.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    True, i don't know much about string theory. I know lots about relativity, and i also know you just like disturbing the peace when around me. So i won't bother anymore in this thread.

    You are just... annoying to say the least. The very least.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    No, you don't.
     
  22. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Asking why the universe originated out of nothing is not the same as asking why nothingness exists. Your question is not more fundamental than my question. You are asking about the application of nothingness, whereas I am asking about the very existence of nothingness. I could answer your question by saying because multiple nothingnesses exists. You could then ask, "why do multiple nothingnesses exist?" I could answer, "from the very fact that nothingness exists, that existence itself creates the division among multiple nothingnesses." You could then ask, "why does nothingness exist?" I could answer, "because there is nothing." You could then ask, "why is there nothing?" And, then I could answer, "because there is nothing." And that is where you line of questioning ends.
     
  23. John J. Bannan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    There is no start to nothingness. That's the beauty of the answer.
     

Share This Page