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

Please welcome our new moderators!

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
4,543 answers , 19,337 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
407 active unimported users
More ...

Fundamental equation(s) of string theory?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
19 views

I often hear about string theory and its complicated mathematical structure as a physical theory, but I can't say that I've ever actually seen any of the related math. In general, I'm curious as to what the mathematics of string theory look like, can anyone point me to some references? In specific, I want to know if there is a fundamental equation in string theory that is assumed as a starting point for most problems, something comparable to Newton's second law in mechanics or the Schrodinger equation in QM?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Sigma
asked Apr 24, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Sigma (65 points) [ no revision ]
If you like this question you may also enjoy reading this and this Phys.SE post.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic

2 Answers

+ 6 like - 1 dislike

I've long been interested in this, but the impression I get is (speaking as a strict amateur with a reasonable understanding of QM and relativity) there is simply nothing like e.g. the Schrodinger equation or Einstein's field equation in string theory. String theory is developed by writing down the action (which is the area of the string world sheet), using this to find the (classical) equations of motion, trying to find a consistent quantisation of these (building in supersymmetry somewhere along the way) then solving the resulting impossibly messy and hard equations using perturbation theory. The impression I get (NB as an outsider) is that because it's so hard people have attacked it from many different angles in many different ways so what we know as string theory is really lots of overlapping bits rather than an elegant monolith like GR.

The best non-non-nerd introduction I've read is String Theory Demystified by David McMahon. If you work through this you can at least get an idea of how it's all put together, though it will still leave you (and me!) far short of anyone who actually works in the field. The Amazon link I've given allows you to read selected chapters from the book, and in any case it's pretty cheap second hand.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user John Rennie
answered Apr 24, 2013 by John Rennie (470 points) [ no revision ]
String theory is formulated using Feynman's sum over history formalism. The basic equation is just the path integral. The thing that makes strings difficult, in some sense, is that we don't understand very well what variables we should be using in this path integral.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1504
@John Rennie. Thanks, this is great!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Sigma
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

What I want to say here is related to user1504's comment.

As Lenny Susskind explains in this and this lecture, how to describe the scattering behavior of particles is nearly the definition of string theory. So formulas for scattering amplitudes can in some way be considered as fundamental equations defining the theory. Very schematically, the equation to calculate the scattering amplitude $A$ can be written down as

$$ A = \int\limits_{\rm{period}} d\tau \int\limits_{\rm{surfaces}} \exp^{-iS} \Delta X^{\mu}(\sigma,\tau)$$

Considering for example the process of two strings joining and splitting again, one has to integrate over all world sheets $\Delta X^{\mu}(\sigma,\tau)$ that start and end with two distinct strings. A second integral has to be done over all possible periods of time $d\tau$ the strings join. The action $S$ may for example be given by

$$ S = \int d\tau d\sigma \left[ \left( \frac{\partial X^{\nu}}{\partial\tau} \right)^2 - \left( \frac{\partial X^{\nu}}{\partial\sigma} \right)^2 \right] $$

The information about the incoming and outgoing particles themself is still missing in the first equation and has to be inserted by hand by including additional multiplicative factors (vertex operators)

$$ \prod\limits_j e^{ik_{j_\mu} X^{\mu}(z_j)}$$

These factors represent a particle with wave vector $k$, and $z$ is the location of injection (for example on the unit circle when conformally transforming the problem to the unit disk) over which has finally to be integrated too.

answered May 12, 2013 by Dilaton (4,175 points) [ revision history ]
The incoming/outgoing particles (vertex operators) are "put in by hand" but naturally so given the state-operator correspondence.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 04:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user lionelbrits

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$\hbar$ysicsOverflo$\varnothing$
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
...