If we already know what fundamental particles are meant to be, based on the universal symmetries of spacetime, how is it that they get to be described as strings?
For instance something like an electron is supposed to not have any more internal structure. It should not have "vibration modes" or size.
Does all that come from the extra dimensions?
String theory does not describe the electron as a vibrating string. Anyone that tells you otherwise does not understand string theory, or at best is being deceitful because it is easier to explain things that way, and they know no one will be able to correct them (but it's probably the former).
String theory does indeed describe zero mass particles like gravitons (as well as lots of other exotic things you've never heard of) as the lowest energy states of vibrating strings. The states of the vibrating string with higher energy have masses on the order of the Planck mass, and they have nothing to do with the electron. The standard model fields including the electron are supposed to come about through some convoluted Kaluza-Klein compactification scheme involving the zero mass string states.
sum it up, do electrons in string theory have additional structure, i.e new quantum numbers or a greater range of values for them, besides what is known from conventional QED?
No. There is only a very indirect connection between strings and electrons, even within string theory itself.
2 months ago
Anonymous
so is it all just gravitons?
What about photons?
Also, what makes the gravitons in string theory actually be related to gravity?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>so is it all just gravitons?
Sort of. There are other things like "dilatons" and various antisymmetric tensor fields, and all of these things have supersymmetric partners if we are talking about superstring theory. All of this mess of lowest energy string states can really just be related to waves in a "supergravity" theory, which is a field theory which is like a supersymmetric generalization of general relativity in 10d, with matter fields related to all those strange things like dilatons and so on.
>What about photons?
There is a way to produce things like photons or gauge bosons directly from open string theories where strings have end points, but not in closed string theories where strings only form loops. The original version of string phenomenology in the mid 80s involved a form of closed string theory, so the gauge bosons in the standard model aren't derived directly from strings at least in this framework.
i remember this guy humiliated himself in front of the entire world with his quantum computer book, even joe 'caveman' rogan was able to spot his bullshit
and your strings are made out of balls
But how?double balls are also made out of strings
My foreskin is made of strings. I call it a forestring
Aliens are made out of strings
This explains why I shoot ropes
Rope theory
why all the new scientific theories sound like something a cartoon writer would have write?
Mine are made out of the platonic solids.
If we already know what fundamental particles are meant to be, based on the universal symmetries of spacetime, how is it that they get to be described as strings?
For instance something like an electron is supposed to not have any more internal structure. It should not have "vibration modes" or size.
Does all that come from the extra dimensions?
String theory does not describe the electron as a vibrating string. Anyone that tells you otherwise does not understand string theory, or at best is being deceitful because it is easier to explain things that way, and they know no one will be able to correct them (but it's probably the former).
String theory does indeed describe zero mass particles like gravitons (as well as lots of other exotic things you've never heard of) as the lowest energy states of vibrating strings. The states of the vibrating string with higher energy have masses on the order of the Planck mass, and they have nothing to do with the electron. The standard model fields including the electron are supposed to come about through some convoluted Kaluza-Klein compactification scheme involving the zero mass string states.
sum it up, do electrons in string theory have additional structure, i.e new quantum numbers or a greater range of values for them, besides what is known from conventional QED?
No. There is only a very indirect connection between strings and electrons, even within string theory itself.
so is it all just gravitons?
What about photons?
Also, what makes the gravitons in string theory actually be related to gravity?
>so is it all just gravitons?
Sort of. There are other things like "dilatons" and various antisymmetric tensor fields, and all of these things have supersymmetric partners if we are talking about superstring theory. All of this mess of lowest energy string states can really just be related to waves in a "supergravity" theory, which is a field theory which is like a supersymmetric generalization of general relativity in 10d, with matter fields related to all those strange things like dilatons and so on.
>What about photons?
There is a way to produce things like photons or gauge bosons directly from open string theories where strings have end points, but not in closed string theories where strings only form loops. The original version of string phenomenology in the mid 80s involved a form of closed string theory, so the gauge bosons in the standard model aren't derived directly from strings at least in this framework.
Strings are stored in the balls
i remember this guy humiliated himself in front of the entire world with his quantum computer book, even joe 'caveman' rogan was able to spot his bullshit
What? How so?
He appears on Ancient Aliens. Do you think he is for real? He made me believe in 12 dimensional hyperspace.
He lied to you
So I guess string theory turning out to be bullshit was the reason he went full schizo.
Hello. They are made out of strings, but produce ropes. Amazing, yes.