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 printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

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

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,853 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Could strings be geons?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
15 views
  • Is it possible that string theory strings are geons? This may be an overly speculative or naive question, but is there an obvious reason why not? Both strings and geons seem to have roughly the same length scale (comparing the rq from here to thePlanck length).
This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:44 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1247
asked Jan 14, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by user1247 (530 points) [ no revision ]
It's usually best to stick to one question per post, or at least ensure that if there are multiple questions per post, that they're very closely related. I think this would be much better off split into a few different posts.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:44 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Z
Did I not explain myself clearly enough? I think the questions are very closely related: all are about geons.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:44 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1247
Just being about the same thing does not make multiple questions related. If one is an immediate prerequisite for another, that might make them related, but I don't believe that's the case here. Each of your bullet points is a separate question. A good rule of thumb (I think) is that if you can't distill the contents of your post into a single question to put in the post title, it's probably better off split up.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:44 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Z
My main concern is that this topic is extremely specialized, and that it would be poor form to spam the forum with a whole lot of separate questions about a specialized topic. Also, I'm worried that some of the questions, the 2nd and the last 3 particularly (I guess basically all of them), will be interpreted differently if not in the context provided by the other questions.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1247
What is the best way to spin off questions anyways? Close this one? or Modify this one and create a few others?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1247
It's best to edit this question to only contain one logical question, and then make a separate post for each other question you want to ask. Of course you don't have to literally copy and paste the text of each bullet point; you can add extra text to give the context, including linking to other related questions. And it's not poor form at all to post a lot of questions about a specialized topic; that's exactly what this site (not a forum) is for. You're not spamming the site as long as the questions are on topic, which these are.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Z
OK, splitting questions.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1247

1 Answer

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

The classical objects which correspond to quantum strings have been identified, they are extremal black holes. Geons are (unstable) gravitationally bound configurations of massless fields, and they cannot be identified well with strings because they are not primitive holographic objects, as black holes are.

The physics of string world sheet, with its emission vertex operators which correspond to all the spectrum of the theory, is only sensibly interpreted as a holographic reconstruction on the world-sheet of the surrounding space-time theory. The connections between world-sheet physics and space-time physics was one of the seeds that led to AdS/CFT, and there is no longer any confusion regarding the classical notion corresponding to the world sheet--- it is an extended charged black hole.

The correspondence is more general, so that the D0 branes of IIA theory used to construct the matrix version of M-theory are point black holes, while the D3 branes are described by 4d gauge theory, and most recently, that the M2 branes by a strange 3 dimensional Chern Simons theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
answered Jan 15, 2012 by Ron Maimon (7,535 points) [ no revision ]
I am having trouble understanding from your answer whether or not the relationship between strings and black holes are merely a mathematical duality, or if it really makes physical sense to equate the two dual objects as one and the same. Is the black hole that is dual to the string that forms an electron (for example) of roughly the same size and charge and so on, so that the two objects can be physically identified?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user user1247
Slightly off topic @Ron Maimon (sorry): Reading Your answer I`m wondering again why there can only be even OR odd dimensional D-branes in a theory ...? Prof. Susskind said this in a video-lecture without further justification while explaining how turning up the string coupling constant can lead to the emergence of an additional dimension from S-duality.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Dilaton
This is just an accident of type II string theory. The odd dimensional branes and even dimensional branes swap under T-duality (making one dimension small). The dimensions of the branes in type IIA can be understood from the dimensional reduction of the form field in 11 dimensional supergravity, plus the Kaluza-Klein field of a circle, which gives 0 branes carrying momentum along the small circle. These 0 branes reveal the circle to be there. everything in supergravity is insanely constrained--- it is a miracle that 11 dimensional SUGRA exists at all, same for 10D SUGRA's. It's all form dim's.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
@user1247: Yes, the two can be identified. The electron is a small quantum black hole.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-04-11 10:45 (UTC), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon

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$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflow
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
...