-2
$\begingroup$

According to (super)string theory, each fundamental particle represents a different vibrational mode of a relativistic string and each type of vibration pattern represents a different particle. But since the vibration only changes the energy of the string, how then are particles of different spin (bosons and fermions) distinguishable?

In other words, does the vibrating pattern of the string alter the spin of the particle?

ADDENDUM: Actually, unless i'm missing something, it seems the fundamentals of String Theory are inconsistent with the Standard Model of high energy physics.

Indeed, suppose that superstring theory is a valid theory of nature. That is, every fundamental particle of nature is a vibrating string, with each vibrational mode corresponding to a different particle. Consider a string from special relativity. That is, the string is moving at the speed of light but not accelerating, so that its angular momentum (hence spin) remains constant. Since the spectrum of this string would contain particles of the same spin, it follows in particular that the spectrum cannot contain both fermions and bosons, thus is inconsistent with Nature. In particular, since the present Standard Model of high energy physics incorporates special relativity, it follows in particular that the fundamentals of String Theory are not consistent with the Standard Model, as claimed.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/22559/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/22795/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jan 20 at 22:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Well, this is a chance for someone to explain a bit of string theory, and no doubt someone will be along to do so shortly. But I marvel at the confidence with which you think you have deduced that string theory is inconsistent with reality, on completely elementary grounds. Do you really think no-one would have noticed this in the fifty years since string theory began? $\endgroup$ – Mitchell Porter Jan 20 at 23:04
  • $\begingroup$ Mitchell Porter, i read science for the pure love of it, wherever it leads me (a significant discovery/elementary mistake) is always an opportunity to learn and have fun. And BTW, even Stephen Hawking, in a comparably short argument, mistakenly thought he had deduced that QM is inconsistent, after fifty odd years since inception. So if i turn out to be wrong, i would be in fine company. $\endgroup$ – user632013 Jan 20 at 23:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic, the answers to those questions are quite comprehensive, but they are based on results that were deduced from very questionable foundations. So i would rather be thoroughly satisfied with the foundational principles first, and then explore their (high energy) implications with more comfort. There is every reason to believe that it's the foundational principles that are not sufficiently rigorous, and their deficiencies become more apparent in the high energy realms. $\endgroup$ – user632013 Jan 21 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ maybe you could expand your comment “they are based on results that were deduced from very questionable foundations” $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Jan 21 at 0:33

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.