In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. In Quantum Mechanics There is no difference between one Quantum to another one.

According to string theory, absolutely everything in the universe—all of the particles that make up matter and forces—is comprised of tiny vibrating fundamental strings. Moreover, every one of these strings is identical.

The only difference between one string and another, whether it's a heavy particle that is part of an atom or a massless particle that carries light, is its resonant pattern, or how it vibrates.

"how quanta of different particles are related to different vibration patterns of the corresponding excited string in string theory."

Isn't a single Quantum one single string? if so, then how we can still say There is no difference between one Quantum to another one while there is one difference between one string and another, that is, its resonant pattern.

How exactly are the different motions of one kind of fundamental strings assumed to give rise to the spectrum of elementary particles we observe?

I'm perty sure about a few things, first: according to experimental physics there is nothing more fundamental than a single quantum. second: according to Theoretical Physics there is nothing more fundamental than one single string. Third, it is possible that they both are one thing but there are a lot of misunderstanding with both of them. Fourth, if a quantum is not one single string may itself prove a lack of strings.

Quantum Mechanics space-time is like waves caused by a lot of Quanta so bumpy and chaotic, maybe it is not waves, it's strings resonant pattern.

In one word i'm asking about possibility of Quantum-String duality.


Levels of magnification:

  1. Macroscopic level –Matter

  2. Molecular level

  3. Atomic level – Protons, neutrons, and electrons

  4. Subatomic level – Electron

  5. Subatomic level – Quarks

  6. Quantum-String duality level

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee This is NOT a doublicate of the question you linked to. It asks about how quanta of different particles are related to different vibration patterns of the corresponding excited string in string theory. Please, anybody should read the question carefully to see that it is NOT a doublicate but rather an interesting question. Please reopen this, dmckee you were way too fast and injodicious once more with closing :-(! $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 15 '12 at 20:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee elementary particles correspond to the quante of different quantum fields in QFT. This question now asks about how in ST the quanta of the different elementary particles are related to the particular excitations of only one single fundamental string. The question is very different from the other one. People in the know could give quite an interesting answer to this if you dont prevent it by leaving this questio closed ... $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 15 '12 at 22:05
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Dmckee ... conserning quanta of angular momentum in ordinary QM asked about in the other question it is right that they are just a notion that something is discrete, but in QFT and ST the quanta are things, they are elementary (sometimes only virtual) particles. This second question is clearly about the this second notion of quanta. It is very unfair to close a rather theoretical question unilaterally without asking any other more theoretically inclined mod or other person for their opinion ... $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 15 '12 at 22:23
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee but this one is about the quanta of the elementary particles and how they are related to the motion or exitation of only one kind of fundamental string. It is a good question and it IS different from the one Anna answered. This question should really not be closed. I dont know why you cant see the difference between the two questions. The other one is a broad question about quanta in QM and this one is a specific ST question. I know that you dont particularly like ST, but this is no reason to close the question ...! $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 15 '12 at 22:43
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee, please reconsider your decision. This question now has 7 upvotes versus only 1 downvotes, 4 stars and at least one reopen vote. I would like to see Dilaton's answer which could be enlightening to me, at the very least. I am not a string theorist and would appreciate their view about this question. $\endgroup$ – FrankH Nov 16 '12 at 19:38