Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

122 submissions , 103 unreviewed
3,497 questions , 1,172 unanswered
4,548 answers , 19,352 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
409 active unimported users
More ...

What is the relationship between string net theory and string / M-theory?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
44 views

I've just learned from this one of Prof. Wen's answers that there exists a theory called string net theory. Since I've never heard about this before it picks my curiosity, so I`d like to ask some questions:

How is string net theory related to the "usual" string /-M-theory framework? I mean if there is a relationship between them ...

Are the strings in string net theory and in string / M-theory the same?

What are the differences in the goals one wants to achieve or phenomena in nature one can describe with those two theories?

asked May 27, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Dilaton (4,175 points) [ revision history ]

1 Answer

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

Goals one wants to achieve with those two theories are similar.

We know that superstring theory is a potential theory of everything. One may want to ask what is the difference between the string-net-liquid approach and the superstring approach?

Our understanding of the superstring theory has been evolving. According to an early understanding of the superstring theory, all the elementary particles correspond to small segments of superstrings. Different vibration modes of a small superstring result in different types of elementary particles.

The above point of view is very different from that of the string-net liquid. According to the string-net picture, everything comes from simple qubits that form the space. The qubits fill the whole space, and the qubits are the space. No qubits no space. The string-nets are fromed by the "1" qubits. The strings can be as long as the size of universe. Light (photons) correspond to the collective motion of the string-nets that fill the space and an electron corresponds to a single end of string. (See a picture of string-net "vaccum". See also a talk)

A modern understanding of the superstring theory is still under development. According to Witten, one of the most important questions in superstring theory is to understand what is superstring. So at this time, it is impossible to compare the modern understanding of the superstring theory with the string-net theory. In particular it not clear if the superstring theory can be viewed as a local bosonic system (ie a qubit system). The string-net theory is fundamentally a local bosonic system (ie a qubit system).

So, if superstring theory is a qubit model (or a quantum spin model in condensed matter physics), then superstring theory and the string-net theory is the same, since the string-net theory is a qubit model (or a quantum spin model in condensed matter physics).


This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Xiao-Gang Wen

answered May 27, 2012 by Xiao-Gang Wen (3,309 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 4, 2014 by Xiao-Gang Wen
Thanks for these nice explanations, it already helps. Before I`ll gonna watch the slides of the talk, there are some further things I`m not sure if I get it right: conserning the qubits of value 1 that make up space, are they some kind of excitations of the spin net too? When you say photons are excitations of collective motions of the string net (?), is this true for all of the bosons in the theory? The part with the electrons (and other fermions too?) that correspond to a single end of a string I dont understand yet. Are they attached at the ends

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
...(similar as the querks in the string model for meson scattering) or do the electrons (and other fermions) correspond to the motion of just the respective endpoint? BTW is string net theory supersymmetric too and what number of spacetime dimensions is needed to formulate it consistently? Ok, now I better gonna watch the slides :-)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
The space is made of qubits of value 1 or 0. The string is formed by qubits of value 1. The ground state is a superposition of all string-net configurations, which is particular quantum entangled state of qubits. The collective excitation of this particular entangled many-qubit state happen to be light. The end of string correspond to a topological excitations above the ground state which correspond to electrons. Any gauge charged particle correspond to string ends, bosons or fermions. String-net does not have to be supersymmetric, and lives in any dimensions.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Xiao-Gang Wen
Doesn't that mean that string-net theory is lorentz-violating?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0
@Dimension10: Yes, string-net theory is lorentz-violating in general.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Xiao-Gang Wen
Dear @Xiao-GangWen , Is the Lorentz-invariance-violating scale supposed to be the Planck scale?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user drake
Yes, the Lorentz-invariance-violating scale suppose to be the Planck scale.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Xiao-Gang Wen

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\varnothing$ysicsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...