strings can't be fundamental

That’s a reference to string theory - the theory that all fundamental particles are vibrating strings of energy.

String theorists laud themselves as having discovered the fundamental constituent of reality. It’s all strings, they say, and there’s nothing else in existence.

Okay, but…

Strings can’t be fundamental, I say, especially if they’re vibrating. They have parts! These vibrations take the form of standing waves. Therefore, there have to be crests and troughs. Some strings are open. They have to have end- and mid-points. Even if they were perfectly still, they would still have parts - left and right sides (or top and bottom or whatever).

True, a thing can have parts without being divisible, but that bares no consequences to the fact that the parts must be more fundamental than the whole. If all fundamental particles really are one dimensional strings, then I say the most fundamental thing would have to be the infinitude of zero-dimensional points that compose these strings (point-particles).

As a matter of pragmatic definition, in an infinite regress, no-thing is fundamental, strings or otherwise.

It may be that due to limitations of current technology and empirical ability, the supposition of the “string” is the least erroneous of plausible answers. If you are asserting the subjectivity of strings, that is agreeable. But then, there is also the fact that much of what Einstein revealed was not “visible” at the time he posited the probabilities from mathematical experimentation.

That was always the asumption before string theory; that everything was point particles. I think it has a lot to do with quantum theory. If a photon was 0-dimensional how could it vibrate? Or are you saying a photon should be made of many 0-dimensional point particles that form a vibrating string?

That would lead to a hidden variable theory as you can’t ‘see’ anything smaller than the photon. Also only non-local hidden varables would be alowed because of bells theorem.

I guess its a possibility that thew fundemental ‘particles’ of the universe are 0-dimensional non-local particles.

My own view is that the string model is only a useful aproximation to the true nature of quantum particles in the same way a wave or a particle is an approximation. Strings work slightly better as an aproximation as they can vibrate like waves but also be particles in a quantised sense.

I think the truest way to express what matter is at a fundemental way is to say that its quantised pure energy. But then one is left with the question of ‘what is energy?’. Beacuse if there is just energy how do we picture that? When we experience energy in the macroscopic world we see a ball as having energy i.e a mass with some kintetic energy. But then we zoom in to the atomic level and we see that some of the mass of this ball is actually the kintetic energy of the electrons. Then further we see on the nuclear scale that some of the energy is just the potenial energy stored in the weak and strong forces holding the neutrons and protons together. Everytime we zoom in we see less of the mass of the macroscopic ball as mass but as energy of its particle compistion. Surely this implies that all matter is energy. But then you have the rest mass of an electron or a quark. But then even this energy can be annilhated with a positron to form a photon.

If the particles are 0-dimensional, then there would be an infinite amount of such particles per string (unless there are forces inside each that cause a moderate repulsion-attraction between each like the space between a nucleus and its e- shell.)

They don’t have parts. Problems in observation mean that when you look closer and closer you’re never going to see strings and waves. Strings and waves are the most comprehensive descriptive account of what we CAN see and thus are at current the amongst the prevailing theories. The structure is the most fundamental because it’s the postulate which accounts for the greatest number of observable phenomena.

I think it’s too soon to say anything on this topic.

I think that is the most prudent position. More information needs to be had before asserting certainty in this arena.

Not withstanding, it’s companion, Chaos Theory, is in its prenatal state.

What might be considered fundamental is not wave or particle, but the structure or pattern of what appears indeterminate. Strings are the most useful model at the moment, but we may not be peering deep enough…

I think I agree in saying that the pattern postulated as fundamental is best described as that which defines the limits of our observations.

In other words, fundamental for description.

conceptually, all things are threefold. A middle, a beginning and an end.
Three is one. A string is one, but three.

A conceptual approach to physics will gain conceptual definitions. Since we calculate in terms of numbers, our understanding is limited to a threefold understanding. Our brain has no means to conceptualize ‘one’ without making it necessary for there to be two others.

Okay enough rant - hope it makes some sense.

Yes. I think…