i keep reading that strings are 1 dimensional. if all they have is length, then wouldn't they also exist in time, making them 2 dimensional at least?

 

they vibrate, so wouldn't that infer they exist in time, or am i completely missing something?

When people say 'one dimensional' they are not including time. Just like you would say that a photograph is 'two dimesional' but an object is 'three dimensioal'. You don't say a TV picture is 3d just because it changes with time, do you?

 

Strings have one space dimension, but do change wit time.

thanks for answering that.

 

i'm still confused on the whole idea of them being one dimensional. i wish there was more written about all this.

'One dimensionaa' just means that you need one number to tell someone how far along the string you are (just the distance from one end). If you were on a sheet of paper, you would need 2 numbers, so it would be two-dimensional.

i guess my confusion is centered around how a 1D object could exist in a 3D universe (on a spatial level). but, i've got to keep in mind that space at that microscopic level is theoretically "foamy", so a lot of strange things are supposed to be happening.

You should also keep in mind it's a model, and thus if what it's modelling is remotely close to reality, it's probably still an oversimplification.

as i've read more and more about the whole thing, the less i like it. i don't like how it's pushed as a theory of everything and how so much of it is untestable, yet so many physicists seem to waste a lot of their time on it. it kinda reminds me of intelligent design in that aspect.

i don't like how it [string theory'] is pushed as a theory of everything and how so much of it is untestable, yet so many physicists seem to waste a lot of their time on it.

 

I don´t think that many physicists actually work in string theory. Of course it depends on what you call "many" but if you compare the percentage of physics-board visitors interested in (asking and replying to questions about it) string theory and the percentage of physicists dealing with it, then I think the former percentage is much bigger.

I don´t think that many physicists actually work in string theory. Of course it depends on what you call "many" but if you compare the percentage of physics-board visitors interested in (asking and replying to questions about it) string theory and the percentage of physicists dealing with it, then I think the former percentage is much bigger.

 

I would dispute that. While it is true that phenomenology is more active in Europe (particularly Germany), string theory is much bigger in the US. In fact, they don't do much phenomenology in the US at all.

Hi Mattd,

 

Length is the only dimension talked about when you refer to strings. There is no time involved when it comes to 1 dimension. How? Have you ever seen or heard of a string die or at least change its position or the way it is present? No! Why? Because there is no time. But they vibrate as a result of their minute length and the dimensions invloved.

 

gagsrcool

Length is the only dimension talked about when you refer to strings. There is no time involved when it comes to 1 dimension. How? Have you ever seen or heard of a string die or at least change its position or the way it is present?

 

 

I don't think anyone has ever seen a string, but the idea of something 1D existing is fascinating (hell, I'd settle for 2D). Of course, I'm talking about things that don't have 4D qualities like you or I are accustomed to.

 

I don´t think that many physicists actually work in string theory.

 

I guess what I meant by my statement above was concerning the ideas that flow through to the general public. I go by book stores or magazine racks, and in all the science sections, it seems superstrings dominates the subject matter. It just appears there are a lot of people who are working on this. I would like to see alternative viewpoints.

I guess what I meant by my statement above was concerning the ideas that flow through to the general public. I go by book stores or magazine racks' date=' and in all the science sections, it seems superstrings dominates the subject matter. It just appears there are a lot of people who are working on this. I would like to see alternative viewpoints.[/quote']

 

You see lots of books in your book store because it's popular with the general public they think it's new and cool...

true