1

I sometimes read that strings in string theory are actually little black holes, or can be interpreted that way. Is this true? How is that consistent with that the particle that a string represents depends on the oscillation of the string? I have read that here:

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gthpub/BH_interpretation_stringtheory.pdf

here: What is your simplest explanation of the string theory?

(Maimon's answer)

And this: Does gravity require strings? (Also Maimon's answer)

Maimon is refering to a paper in "Under the spell of the gauge principle" by 't Hooft.

The abstract of this paper is:

"ABSTRACT

We explain the principles of the laws of physics that we believe to be applicable for the quantum theory of black holes. In particular, black hole formation and evolution should be described in terms of a scattering matrix. This way black holes at the Planck scale become indistinguishable from other particles. This S-matrix can be derived from known laws of physics. Arguments are put forward in favor of a dlscrete algebra generating the Hilbert space of a black hole with its surrounding space-time including surrounding particles."

Community
  • 1
JonnyPython
  • 219
  • 6
    Where have you read that, and what is that actually supposed to mean? – ACuriousMind Jun 27 '16 at 15:51
  • I have read that: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gthpub/BH_interpretation_stringtheory.pdf and that: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2/what-is-your-simplest-explanation-of-the-string-theory/14795#14795 (see Ron Maimon's answer) Why the downvote? Ask before you do that. – JonnyPython Jun 27 '16 at 15:53
  • 2
    The 't Hooft paper you link seems to actually proceed to make precise what it means and show that. Are you essentially asking someone else to read that paper for you? – ACuriousMind Jun 27 '16 at 15:56
  • You asked me where I read that, that's the answer. Maybe there are some expert guys here who know about this. Simple question. Only because you don't know about it don't justifies a downvote. – JonnyPython Jun 27 '16 at 15:57
  • 2
    I don't think it's fair, if somebody cites a paper which they have read a bit and picked up some information from, if they are then asking for an explanation, to tell them to read the paper. Useless for the OP and useless for a lot of readers, who understand the question but for whom the paper is far above their level of knowledge. – Matt Jun 27 '16 at 16:07
  • 1
    This is really interesting me but I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand it. Maybe someone here does. (except Ron who is banned). I never said that someone should read the papers. I'm just hoping someone already knows about it. Just like in other questions where no one assumes that the people who answer have to learn everything from scratch to understand the question. – JonnyPython Jun 27 '16 at 16:11
  • 2
    @ACuriousMind, I don't agree with your criticism of the question. I too have read in various places the strings-BH correspondence, but you also DON'T read it in a lot of places. There is a lot of silence around what would seem to be an interesting concept, so a non-string-expert doesn't know what to think. Is it a minority view, a misleading heuristic, flat wrong, technically correct but less interesting than it sounds, etc, or what? – user1247 Jun 27 '16 at 16:27
  • A scientific text that has "...we believe..." in it should probably not be taken too seriously. Science is not religion, the strengths of an individual's faith in an idea is completely irrelevant and so are past accomplishments (which 't Hooft does, of course, not lack). What the author needs to provide here is evidence, lacking that it's all just intellectual nonsense. – CuriousOne Jun 27 '16 at 21:22
  • This is not an area of physics which I have any confidence in. But I think I agree with @MattS. The answers you seek ought to be found in the papers that you cite. The purpose of t'Hooft's paper seems to be to justify a connection between strings and black holes. As MattS says, you appear to be asking us to study the paper and decide if a Nobel Prizewinner is correct. I doubt if anyone here is competent to judge. – sammy gerbil Jun 28 '16 at 01:14
  • I didn't say that; that was ACuriousMind, and I disagreed with him!! :P – Matt Jun 28 '16 at 10:09

0 Answers0