| String Theory Discussion Forum |
| [ String Theory Home ] [ Forum Index ] |
Re: Superstrings cannot be 'fundamental'Posted by alen on July 23, 2002 at 07:35:58: In Reply to: Re: Superstrings cannot be 'fundamental' posted by Jfnewell7 on July 21, 2002 at 07:00:52: I agree with you that there must be some organising principle that allows a superstring to display the values of a function along its length. In fact, there can really be no such thing as a one-dimensional string, with zero cross-section. The cross-section can be very small relative to the length of the string, so that the string can be treated, mathematically, as if it were a one-dimensional reality. Exactly, however, it must have a finite cross-section, and be structured in a manner that can sustain the concept of 'tension'. In general, if you approach quantum physicists in order to be enlightened regarding the most fundamental foundation of real things, I think you will have to be prepared for a disappointment. Quantum theory involves such concepts as, for example, that of a 'wave function' as representing a particle such as an electron. At one time this was interpreted to mean that an electron was physically 'spread out' along its orbit around an atomic nucleus, in the form of a 'wave'. That view was then abandoned in favour of the current interpretation, that the wave function represents the probability of locating the particle. This means that from the value of the wave function at any point, you can calculate the probability that the particle will manifest itself at that point. But if the wave function, as a probability distribution, actually exists in space, and you ask, 'what is this, and what is it made of?', you will not get an answer. Or if you ask 'if an 'operator' is not always associated with a wave function, in what manner does it exist in the meantime? Or, if it is created when necessary, what is the actual mechanism for this to occur?', again, you will not get an answer. Why not? I say that it is because quantum theorists are too busy with another task, involving the mathematics itself. That is, they want to find a universal mathematical basis, a universal 'Lagrangian', from which can emerge the mathematical description of all forces, including gravity, and all particles, thus providing a 'grand mathematical unification'. But I say that, even if they achieve this, they will still be faced, in the end, with questions like, 'what exactly is a wave function?'. These remarks do not have to constitute a criticism. Quantum physicists, like other people, are entitled to freely select the task that, in their opinion, is likely to bear the most fruit. But other people are also free to choose, and can therefore apply their minds to any topic in the sphere of quantum theory. One remark that I think needs to be made is that the peculiarities of quantum theory provide a temptation to exalt the mathematics itself above and outside of all former or spontaneous concepts of space, time, and 'real' things, which creates the possibility that this science could easily descend, inadvertently and unnoticed, into a realm of metaphysical nonsense.
Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)
|