This question, asking about how in string theory the quanta corresponding to the different elementary particles are related to the particular excitations of only one single fundamental string, has been wrongly and brutally closed before it was even an hour old for no good reason.

It is absolutally NOT a duplicate of this question, which deals only with the general properties of quanta in quantum mechanics. Conversely, it is a very different and quite good (as one can see by the 7 upvotes (and only 1 downvote) and 4 times marked as a favorite) specific string theory question. I yesterday tried to explain this to dmckee, but it was in vain.

So can this question please be reopened, such that finally interesting answers can start to turn in (and the very stupid undeserved automatic downvote gets hopefully removed too ...) ?


Despite the impassioned defense of the question as a sophisticated inquiry into the foundations of advanced physics, it still reads to me like a jumble of concepts from pop-sci presentation thrown together.

I agree that there are interesting question to be asked about string theory and about how the modes of strings might interact, but taking the language in the question at face value this is not a good question. No longer a duplicate of the OP's earlier question it is now a badly misinformed mess.

I really recommend that the interesting question I identified in the comments be pulled out and re-asked without the baggage in the rest of the text.

  • $\begingroup$ Hi dmckee, as I first saw the question, it contained only about two confused sentences apart from the useful question you agreed upon in the other comments. So back at this time, it would have been pretty easy to edit the question such that it would have just contained the useful part. Neo even allowed me to do it, but that this does not work (review), I have learned now. So I finally agree with you, Anna, Ron, and his hamster (he should put a nice picture of himself into his profile too) :-), that at present it is best to start a new (short) question containing just the interesting thing. $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 17 '12 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidZ and dmckee, I have now tried to restart the useful part of the question here. Can my new question be associated with Neo's account? It was his idea and I dont want to steal it ... Thanks $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 19 '12 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Dilaton It would take a team member to do that, and I don't recall hearing of a case where there did. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Nov 19 '12 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ thanks, could you ask them (is Shog9 a team member?). I really just wanted to save the good stuff for our site since people were interested in it. And Lumo has already given a nice answer but he is angry now with me, because he thinks I've asked a too simple question about ST, etc ... :-/ $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 19 '12 at 14:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK. I'll bring it up on the Moderation chat (where a number of team people hang out). And yeah, Shog9 is on the team. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Nov 19 '12 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks again dmckee that is nice of you, ahm ... and all mods can forget now about my stupid flag asking for exactly this (embarassed) :-/ $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 19 '12 at 14:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dilaton I rather doubt they will do it, but I've asked. Reply could take a few minutes to a few hours. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Nov 19 '12 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ Word came back: no. Basically, they don't want to be attributing something to a user that the user did not write (that's why edit histories are maintained). You could use a bounty to reward Neo some approximation to the points you get. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Nov 19 '12 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ Darn :-(. Hm, I dont see how I can transfer reputation via bounty? Maybe the fairest thing would be to disassociate the question from my account, such that nobody has the points (I've read about this on MSO). Can this be done? $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 19 '12 at 19:04

Dilaton, I am sorry to say that I agree with @user1504, Ron's hamster. Neo does not seem to understand what a quantum is. He/she thinks it is an entity like a particle I guess, at least from the way he/she uses the word in his/her last edit:

In one word i'm asking about possibility of Quantum-String duality.

It also shows that he/she did not understand or bother to understand my answer to his/her previous question.

You think he/she is asking

about how in string theory the quanta corresponding to the different elementary particles are related to the particular excitations of only one single fundamental string,

but in my opinion he/she is just enamored by the vocabulary of "quantum" .

Edit after noticing 3 up and 2 down votes on my reply and 4 up 3 down in Ron's.

Meta is supposed to exist so we can thresh out any disagreements, at least know where we disagree. It is not useful just down voting here. Is the disagreement on a matter of principle "all questions that are not incoherent should be left open" ?

It would be good to know if people see no problem with leaving questions which add apples to oranges as long as one could deduce a real question out of them.

So please leave a comment if you down vote. It is not terrible.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear Anna if the question contains something useful that can give rise to interesting answers, the question should not stay closed. There are plenty of other people who potentially are interested in the topic to and would like and understand the incoming answers, even if the OP himself does not. Just look at the number of upvotes and stars the question now has. Leaving it closed is blatantly against the will of a not negligible number of people here. $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 16 '12 at 21:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, Dilaton, but if these people see something they want to understand in this question, they should ask their own correctly stated question. Somebody answering the question as it is would have to battle through from he bottom up once more to correct the misconceptions, and this would encourage sloppy questioning. Have you thought that maybe most of the people ( excluding you) upvoting are upvoting the misconceptions? $\endgroup$ – anna v Nov 17 '12 at 5:36
  • $\begingroup$ Ok Anna, you probably have a point here. I sometimes upvote questions if I see something interesting in them, gracefully overlooking some language or other problems which I expect to be getting cleared in the answers. $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 17 '12 at 8:38
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Dilaton: May I suggest that the problem with not culling poor questions is that it makes p.se look like a forum for cranks and loons, which makes it less likely that experts will spend time here. $\endgroup$ – user1504 Nov 17 '12 at 14:52

I downvoted that question, because I thought it was a lousy question. No evidence at all that the OP had done his homework. Reads like the OP is developing his own private language. Generally not the sort of question I want to see more of on this site.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ He has some trouble with the English generally as he says ... $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Nov 16 '12 at 15:42
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I don't care about the translation issues. Neo's English isn't that bad, anyways. My problem is with the terminology, which I see as indicative of shaky conceptual foundations. This is supposed to be a site for well-posed, well-grounded questions about "actual problems that you face". Neo's problem is that he's asking questions about string theory without knowing elementary quantum mechanics. $\endgroup$ – user1504 Nov 16 '12 at 16:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user1504: It's true, but perhaps just answer it: "string excitations are quanta, there is no duality, it's just what it means to be a quanta." I think is a sufficient answer. I am very busy now and have to avoid this site somewhat, but I like to answer dippy questions rather than close them. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon Nov 17 '12 at 16:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .