some basic properties of a string

I know different vibrational modes of a string correspond to different
kinds of particle and different energies of a string correspond to
different masses. A string vibrating vigorously would result in a
heavier mass of a particle than a string vibrating less vigorously. So
how is the size of a string related to the size of a particle? Clearly
a string is smaller than any particle. Second, is a string truly
vibrating? Particles can be at rest.

Dear kajlina:

"kajlina" wrote in message
oups.com...
I know different vibrational modes of a string
correspond to different kinds of particle and
different energies of a string correspond to
different masses. A string vibrating vigorously
would result in a heavier mass

.... "more massive" ...

of a particle than a string vibrating less vigorously.
So how is the size of a string related to the size
of a particle? Clearly a string is smaller than any
particle. Second, is a string truly vibrating?
Particles can be at rest.

It is a model. What does "truly" have to do with anything in
science?

Imagine there is a piece of fruit on the table in front of you.
It is "at rest". It has thermal energy, which means all of its
molecules are vibrating. It is transpiring. It is absorbing
light and reemitting it. It has all sorts of potential.
Gyroscopes can be at rest, but their rotor is spinning. Can all
this be "really true" of a "body at rest"?

Since you noted that vibration = mass, aren't you simply asking
if mass is "real"?

David A. Smith

"kajlina" wrote in news:1163048649.780736.243720
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

I know different vibrational modes of a string correspond to different
kinds of particle and different energies of a string correspond to
different masses. A string vibrating vigorously would result in a
heavier mass of a particle than a string vibrating less vigorously. So
how is the size of a string related to the size of a particle? Clearly
a string is smaller than any particle. Second, is a string truly
vibrating? Particles can be at rest.


You are making the error of thinking that an abstract human explanation for
some aspect of reality is the aspect itself. Scientific explanations are
just models used to try and explain/predict the observed behaviour of the
world. The map is not the territory.

Klazmon.

Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:
"kajlina" wrote in news:1163048649.780736.243720
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

I know different vibrational modes of a string correspond to different
kinds of particle and different energies of a string correspond to
different masses. A string vibrating vigorously would result in a
heavier mass of a particle than a string vibrating less vigorously. So
how is the size of a string related to the size of a particle? Clearly
a string is smaller than any particle. Second, is a string truly
vibrating? Particles can be at rest.


You are making the error of thinking that an abstract human explanation for
some aspect of reality is the aspect itself. Scientific explanations are
just models used to try and explain/predict the observed behaviour of the
world. The map is not the territory.

Klazmon.

I know string theory might not be correct. But whenever a theory is
proposed, it should be able to provide an explanation for the observed
phenomenon. I didn't know how a string was related to the mass of a
particle but later I found an answer in a book. The book didn't tell
how the a string was related to the size of a particle and I want to
know how. String theory should have an explanation for this
funadamental quality of a particle. I just want to know what this
explanation is. I never think this explanation is an aspect of reality,
as you said.

"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" wrote...
in message 7.6...

"kajlina" wrote...
in oups.com:

I know different vibrational modes of a string correspond to different
kinds of particle and different energies of a string correspond to
different masses. A string vibrating vigorously would result in a
heavier mass of a particle than a string vibrating less vigorously. So
how is the size of a string related to the size of a particle? Clearly
a string is smaller than any particle. Second, is a string truly
vibrating? Particles can be at rest.

You are making the error of thinking that an abstract human explanation
for
some aspect of reality is the aspect itself. Scientific explanations are
just models used to try and explain/predict the observed behaviour of the
world. The map is not the territory.

Klazmon.

Wonderful "Hayakawaesque" thinking, LK, but you
are speechifyin' to a world of people who still cringe
when you say the word "SPIDER", or any particular
word that "is not the thing" that scares the beejesus
out of them.

This is not an easy thing to shake, even for a budding
scientist. There is no easy "fix" for our feelings, even
when there is no logical reason to feel them.

So if you and science want someone to understand
fully whatever it is that you think someone needs to
know, then you must combine the two...

1) the unemotional language of reason and logic, and

2) the feelings/emotions of the someone being reached.

That's the "dynamic" way to get it across.

That's why it sometimes takes so long to get "the public"
to accept a scientific discovery. That's why this video,
posted in another thread, is so moving...

http://geeksaresexy.blogspot.com/200...ant-image.html

I think the reason string theory (not as a reality, but as
a line of study) hasn't caught on very well is that it has
not been popularized, sort of like E=mc² and the Theory
of Evolution have been popularized.

The OP has asked what sounds to me to be a pertinent
question about the strings of string theory. What i,
myself would like to know first, though, is...

How do the strings of string theory relate to more well-
known strings? e.g., Are these strings like a string of
race cars lining up and increasing speed in anticipation
of the green flag? or, Are these strings more like the
strings on Taylor Swift's guitar? and like that.

Just a word or so about popularizing science... It seems
to me that many scientists are against this. I often see
people who try to popularize science snobbed, even
shunned by other scientists. But how do these trained
and well-focused scientists ever expect to get their
important ideas known to the public? How do they
expect the vast majority of untrained people to be able
to understand, much less follow, their lead?

I don't see how they can, unless they're willing to put
their ideas in terms that people will become emotional
about. Like this guy did...

http://www.planetary.org/about/founders/carl_sagan.html

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.painellsworth.net
http://www.savethechildren.org

"Painius" wrote in
:

"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" wrote...
in message 7.6...

"kajlina" wrote...
in oups.com:

I know different vibrational modes of a string correspond to
different kinds of particle and different energies of a string
correspond to different masses. A string vibrating vigorously would
result in a heavier mass of a particle than a string vibrating less
vigorously. So how is the size of a string related to the size of a
particle? Clearly a string is smaller than any particle. Second, is a
string truly vibrating? Particles can be at rest.

You are making the error of thinking that an abstract human explanation
for
some aspect of reality is the aspect itself. Scientific explanations
are just models used to try and explain/predict the observed behaviour
of the world. The map is not the territory.

Klazmon.

Wonderful "Hayakawaesque" thinking, LK, but you
are speechifyin' to a world of people who still cringe
when you say the word "SPIDER", or any particular
word that "is not the thing" that scares the beejesus
out of them.

This is not an easy thing to shake, even for a budding
scientist. There is no easy "fix" for our feelings, even
when there is no logical reason to feel them.

So if you and science want someone to understand
fully whatever it is that you think someone needs to
know, then you must combine the two...

1) the unemotional language of reason and logic, and

2) the feelings/emotions of the someone being reached.

That's the "dynamic" way to get it across.

That's why it sometimes takes so long to get "the public"
to accept a scientific discovery. That's why this video,
posted in another thread, is so moving...

http://geeksaresexy.blogspot.com/200...most-important
-image.html

I think the reason string theory (not as a reality, but as
a line of study) hasn't caught on very well is that it has
not been popularized, sort of like E=mc² and the Theory
of Evolution have been popularized.

It would help if string/brane theory actually made a testable prediction.

Klazmon.