It is well known that quantum theory is ridden with foundational problems such as the measurement problem, nonlocality, wavefunction collapse, etc. Moreover, it seems that all those problems continue to persist even in relativistic quantum field theory. However, does string theory help resolve or understand those foundational problems in any manner?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
7
-
5$\begingroup$ Those are problems with quantum mechanical treatments of everything. Including relativistic strings. $\endgroup$– Connor BehanCommented Aug 24, 2022 at 14:10
-
3$\begingroup$ There are no foundational problems with quantum mechanics. None of the things you mentioned are problems at all. Further, string theory is simply a special type of quantum theory so any feature of quantum mechanics is most definitely also a feature of string theory. $\endgroup$– PraharCommented Aug 24, 2022 at 17:10
-
2$\begingroup$ @Prahar: Thanks, but I don't quite agree. It would be long debate that we could perhaps have elsewhere. But I found this answer by Peter Shor quite interesting and insightful: physics.stackexchange.com/a/4152/92343 $\endgroup$– Girish KulkarniCommented Aug 24, 2022 at 17:23
-
2$\begingroup$ For the uninitiated, here is a short and nice book that describes the foundational issues in quantum theory quite well: amazon.com/Foundations-Quantum-Mechanics-Elements-Philosophy/dp/… $\endgroup$– Girish KulkarniCommented Aug 24, 2022 at 18:01
-
1$\begingroup$ The measurement problem and wavefunction collapse are problems with the Copenhagen interpretation specifically. It doesn't really emerge if you are willing to abandon the idea of point-particles and embrace wave-mechanics as fundamental, which isn't such a big sacrifice as point particles never made much sense to begin with. QFT does go some way to expanding on that idea with the concept of fields (no one takes Copenhagen seriously these days). Nonlocality is problematic as it doesn't play nice with relativity, but you could just as well argue that it's relativity's problem. $\endgroup$– Matt ThompsonCommented Aug 25, 2022 at 4:39
|
Show 2 more comments
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
No
String Theory builds on the same foundation laid by QFT, which builds on the same foundation laid in QM. Generally the laws that yield probabilities - which lead to scattering cross sections - are the same in these theories. They share the same general framework, and the notion of "measurement" is not any more well-defined in any of them.
answered Aug 24, 2022 at 20:57
-
$\begingroup$ Why people like to talk about what they do not know? $\endgroup$– NogueiraCommented May 16 at 13:04
-
$\begingroup$ I guess you were referring to me. I have thought about the measurement problem in QM and QFTs (including string theory) for years, so you can rest assured that answer was not just rattled off. Measurement in quantum theories is my primary interest in physics. $\endgroup$ Commented May 20 at 14:16
-
$\begingroup$ Foundations in quantum mechanics goes beyond pseudo-problems $\endgroup$– NogueiraCommented May 20 at 19:53
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
Yes, it does.
For example, Kontsevich approach to deformation quantization leads to the A-model topological string which can be alternatively be reached through path integral, due to Witten. This lead to a program called quantization by branes which shed light on the relation between deformation quantization and geometrical quantization.
See also
- https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9904055v1 (heavy)
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3116 (light)
-
$\begingroup$ see also u2b lectures by Nekrasov where he touches some of these topics. The punch-line is essentially the following: topological (and holomorphic?) field theories are theories of "operations" (whatever that is supposed to be) $\endgroup$– NogueiraCommented May 16 at 13:12
-
$\begingroup$ I think an important thing to share in your answer would be: How do you define the measurement problem, and how does string theory resolve that problem? I have spent a long time thinking on measurement in quantum-based theories, and my answer did not come from an uninformed impulse. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17 at 15:02
-
$\begingroup$ What else would an algebra do if not be represented? $\endgroup$– NogueiraCommented May 20 at 0:32
-
$\begingroup$ Yes, the time evolution of a state (of knowledge) of a given system changes when one measures it. $\endgroup$– NogueiraCommented May 20 at 19:55