'Three-Dimensional-String' Theory
Ken Stahl
had problems. And the 1-dimensional 'building block' String Theory also
seems to have challenges. Has anyone attempted a 3-dimensional 'building
block' String Theory? That is, a theory in which the elemental, extended
object, String, is 3-dimensional instead of 1-dimensional.
FrediFizzx
news:56Bvk.20054$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
I believe they are called "branes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branes
Best,
Fred Diether
Ken Stahl
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6i8r7nF...@mid.individual.net...
to exist in their own right and that the strings that 'live' in or on them
are once again 1- dimensional. That is, the elemental String is not
extended, and not 3 - dimensional. It would seem that in the universe in
which we carryout our experiments, and do our modeling, the elemental,
extended object should be of dimension 3; not dimension 0, 1 or 2.
Igor
> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6i8r7nF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > "Ken Stahl" <kenst...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:56Bvk.20054$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >> The 0-dimensional 'building block' , point, theory of the Standard Model
> >> has had problems. And the 1-dimensional 'building block' String Theory
> >> also seems to have challenges. Has anyone attempted a 3-dimensional
> >> 'building block' String Theory? That is, a theory in which the elemental,
> >> extended object, String, is 3-dimensional instead of 1-dimensional.
>
> > I believe they are called "branes".
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branes
>
> > Best,
>
> > Fred Diether
>
> Thanks Fred. But it's my understanding that n-dimensional branes are posited
> to exist in their own right and that the strings that 'live' in or on them
> are once again 1- dimensional. That is, the elemental String is not
> extended, and not 3 - dimensional. It would seem that in the universe in
> which we carryout our experiments, and do our modeling, the elemental,
> extended object should be of dimension 3; not dimension 0, 1 or 2
Since nbranes are n-dimensional variations of the 1-dimensional
strings, I'm not sure what else you would want.
FrediFizzx
>
> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6i8r7nF...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Ken Stahl" <kens...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:56Bvk.20054$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> The 0-dimensional 'building block' , point, theory of the Standard
>>> Model has had problems. And the 1-dimensional 'building block'
>>> String Theory also seems to have challenges. Has anyone attempted
>>> a 3-dimensional 'building block' String Theory? That is, a theory
>>> in which the elemental, extended object, String, is 3-dimensional
>>> instead of 1-dimensional.
>>
>> I believe they are called "branes".
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branes
> Thanks Fred. But it's my understanding that n-dimensional branes are
> posited to exist in their own right and that the strings that 'live'
> in or on them are once again 1- dimensional. That is, the elemental
> String is not extended, and not 3 - dimensional. It would seem that
> in the universe in which we carryout our experiments, and do our
> modeling, the elemental, extended object should be of dimension 3;
> not dimension 0, 1 or 2.
Are you mixing up cosmological branes with microscopic branes? Would
a spherical shell type of brane be 3D even though it is a 2-brane?
Best,
Fred Diether
Ken Stahl
number of concentric, spherical shell type 3D 2-branes and still end up with
a 2-brane because a 2-brane is an abstraction; it has no defined thickness.
We for sure don't carry out experiments in less than 3-dimensions so why
should we attempt our modeling using extended elements that are less than
3D?!
Ken Stahl
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:8b686b70-8684-4f3a...@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
2-dimensional strings; no matter how ya might try wiggle them, loop them,
stretch them, tie them in knots, or what-have-you. They aren't really there.
And when we try to model something that is there, using as a foundation,
stuff that isn't there we're gonna have challenges. Give me a nice, fat,
long, 3-dimensional string dancing in Einstein Space (the one in which we
carry out our experiments, not the current 10 / 11-dimensional String Space)
and I believe some of the gyrations we go through to 'fix' our models,
(regularization, renormalization, prestidigitation, etc.) will disappear.
Igor
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
Ah, but they might be a good model for something that is really
there. Your objection can be applied to pretty much all of
theoretical physics. In the end, all we have are mathematical
abstractions modelling nature.
> And when we try to model something that is there, using as a foundation,
> stuff that isn't there we're gonna have challenges. Give me a nice, fat,
> long, 3-dimensional string dancing in Einstein Space (the one in which we
> carry out our experiments, not the current 10 / 11-dimensional String Space)
The main problem is that GR is complete, at least as far as the metric
goes. There's just is no room for any other structures. That's where
the additional dimensions come in. Much of this is rooted in Kaluza-
Klein geometry, a famous template for multi-dimensional extensions of
GR ever since the 1920s.
> and I believe some of the gyrations we go through to 'fix' our models,
> (regularization, renormalization, prestidigitation, etc.) will disappear.
Regularization is just a convenient way to write the equations of one
system in the form of another. For example, time regularization is a
good way to express the equations of the Kepler problem as the
equations of a linear oscillator. Renormalization is just
perturbation theory, which exists in traditional classical mechanics
as well. Quite often we don't know how to solve the equations of a
particular system, so we approximate it as being similar to one we
know we can solve. It's an iterative procedure that can solve the
equations of the original system to an arbitrary accuracy. Not all
problems in physics can be solved in a nice neat closed form. Indeed,
most cannot. That's where perturbation methods such as
renormalization come in.