![]() To your last question: You can convert particles into each other or into photons(energy). However, because their length is so small they are at last when it comes to the size of an atom essentially point like. These fundamental strings are not points but one-dimensional objects. ![]() Mathematical sense (thus having no width or height). In the standard model quarks (and other fundamental particles) are regarded as points in the From this we can infer that protonsĪre in fact composite particles and we can determine that there is a lot of empty space between them. Of different directions of deflection (so to speak) form. Of electrons inside the proton and due to the different electromagnetic interactions a couple Take the example of a proton which consists of three quarks. So it is more a measure of how far spread out the fundamental particles are. Usually talk about the radius that surrounds all the particle that build up the proton or atom etc. When you talk about the size of a proton or of an atom (or of any composite particle) you Could you then change a proton into an electron or vice versa? Say you could change the vibration frequency of a string (and I realize that this is an impossibility as far as we know but suppose you could). Else, the physical properties of a proton or electron could, on some level, be a function of the string infrastructure and not just the vibrating frequency which seems to run counter to what string theory suggests. So my basic question is this: What are we seeing when we “see” a proton? Or what is it that we are measuring when we say that a proton is 1.65e-15m in diameter?Īnother thing: How do quarks figure into any discussion of string theory? If a proton is said to be a string but quantum physics says a proton is made up of three quarks, then does this mean that a proton is actually made up of three strings?Īnd a final question: Are strings uniform in nature? I would assume that there are no such things as electron strings and proton strings. If a proton were magnified to the size of the earth, its constituent string, enlarged by the same factor, would still be ten times smaller than the original size of the proton (if, in fact, strings are Plank length in size.) That’s mind boggling to me. I know I probably did not ask a coherent question so maybe a visualization would be better. If a proton is really a Plank length string, what gives the proton its “size”? Its constituent string is substantially smaller, probably on the order of the Plank length (i.e. But I don’t understand the size connection. I can understand why mass, and perhaps charge, are functions of the string’s vibration frequency. So if a string vibrates at a higher frequency, it will “appear” more massive. Einstein’s equation e=mc^2 says, among other things, that the mass of a particle is proportional to its energy. String theory, as I understand it, says that all of the particles in the Standard Model are really infinitesimally small vibrating strings and that the physical properties of the fundamental particle (such as mass and charge) are all properties of the frequency of vibration. I am hoping that some experts in this forum might be able to help. That said, his book left several questions unanswered. Greene certainly has a way of dumbing down theoretical physics (substituting analogy for mathematics) so that even someone like myself can get the basic idea. I thoroughly enjoyed it - almost a "String Theory for Dummies". I just read Brain Greene’s “The Elegant Universe”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |