[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Sorry Nobody, it's not like that. The Planck length is not an object - it does not exist and therefore has no gaps. It is simply the shortest measurement that you can make and is fundamental to QM but not part of the structure.

I have a suspicion that there is something wrong with the Planck mass as it's many orders of magnitude bigger than common sense would suggest from the size of the other Planck units.

We had a saying at SLAC, "If it doesn't fit, force it." Perhaps bosonic acceleration has something to do with the mass.

As for planck, I concede what you mean, but would 1.6 × 10−100 not constitute a similar theoretically-extended non-existent measurement?

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Plank length does provide us with a limitation. But if we believe in string theory, then would a string be longer than a Plank Length? If yes, then there might be something else smaller than a string and hence more fundamental..

Like a point particle? I think our new member, "Wick", has much to say about hyperplaning that can benefit Pat in his endeavor.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Great work Prof. These exotic particles are sometimes just proposed to satisfy someones ideas. They may not exist in reality.

Thanks Dipayankar;

Now if I could do the same with neutrinos. But neutrinos may actually exist. Thanks to you I haven't given up on them in fact I'm beginning to equate them with strings since there is little to no interactions and little to no mass. Same characteristics for both.

BTW: Dealing with length of strings, they are still theoritical particles and of theoritical length ( planck length )

From Wiki:

The basic idea is that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of the Planck length (about 10−35 m) which vibrate at resonant frequencies. Every string in theory has a unique resonance, or harmonic. Different harmonics determine different fundamental forces. The tension in a string is on the order of the Planck force (1044 newtons).

Best,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Plank length does provide us with a limitation. But if we believe in string theory, then would a string be longer than a Plank Length? If yes, then there might be something else smaller than a string and hence more fundamental..

Yes Dippy, a string is many, many times longer than the PL and must, indeed, have a structure consisting of something even more fundamental. The PL is about 10^-33 and the quarks/strings exist at about 10^-18 so there's plenty of detail to play with. My hope would be that the string is made of one fundamental 'substance' and the only variation is the length.

The current problem with 'string theory' is that they are trying to make the strings move through space and are endlessly seeking equations to describe this. If the strings don't move then everything is much easier to describe.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

As for planck, I concede what you mean, but would 1.6 × 10−100 not constitute a similar theoretically-extended non-existent measurement?

Probably! (but why 1.6, why not 1.4?)

[dipayankar]

I would certainly want to know from Wick as to how he defines a point particle. Isnt a string also a one diemensional particle? Is a point particle a zero dimensional particle in reality??

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Like a point particle? I think our new member, "Wick", has much to say about hyperplaning that can benefit Pat in his endeavor.

[dipayankar]

We never know Felix. A string might actually be an illusion (I never like string theory anyway). Probably the more fundamental particle might be much more easier to describe. More easy to prove and at some length, give the illusion of formation of strings..

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Yes Dippy, a string is many, many times longer than the PL and must, indeed, have a structure consisting of something even more fundamental. The PL is about 10^-33 and the quarks/strings exist at about 10^-18 so there's plenty of detail to play with. My hope would be that the string is made of one fundamental 'substance' and the only variation is the length.

The current problem with 'string theory' is that they are trying to make the strings move through space and are endlessly seeking equations to describe this. If the strings don't move then everything is much easier to describe.

[N0B0DY]

Felix,

I'm sure you're aware of the theoretical basis for constants, but the point is they are renormalized. So I would revert to:

"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!" (Paul Dirac: On Quantum Mechanics and Mathematics)

Dip,

The point particle is t=0 and carries throughout any and all arbitrary measurements extending to strings and membranes. So, essentially, the point particle - and for the above reason, all dimensions - have no reality until observed, intepreted, and categorized as such.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Yes Dippy, a string is many, many times longer than the PL and must, indeed, have a structure consisting of something even more fundamental. The PL is about 10^-33 and the quarks/strings exist at about 10^-18 so there's plenty of detail to play with. My hope would be that the string is made of one fundamental 'substance' and the only variation is the length.

The current problem with 'string theory' is that they are trying to make the strings move through space and are endlessly seeking equations to describe this. If the strings don't move then everything is much easier to describe.

You are right Felix if the strings don't move that would explain their lack of interaction. I never thought of that.

Best,

Pat

P.S. But they could wiggle and form loops right?

[Profpat]

Hi Felix, Dipayankar and Nobody;

Here is my problem of point particles and strings.

If point particles are 0 dimension and strings are a 1 dimensional entity, what could possibly be between the two. In math it goes from the point to the line, nothing in between.

So what could possibly come between the point particle and the string. In my view there can be no missing link. Only maybe different lengths for the string.

Just my thoughts.

Best to all,

Pat