smile

6/28/2006 2:38 PM String Theory: Disaster for Physics

As I was browsing through articles in the paper, I came across an interesting one about 'String Theory.' Apparently it's a theory that became popular in 1984 - it "posits that elementary particles (electrons) are not points, which is what standard physics says. Instead, they are vibrations of one-dimensional strings 1/100 billionth the size of an atomic nucleus. Different vibrations supposedly produce all the subatomic particles from quarks to gluons. They exist in a space of 10 or 11 dimensions (no one knows exactly what or where the dimensions are, but assuming their existence makes the math work." The reason I read this scary jumble of complicated terms was because this 'theory' has never generated a single prediction. It isn't a concise set of solvable equations describing the behavior of the physical world and because of all the dimensions it involves if a prediction is made, it cannot be disproved (whatever answer you get, even if it doesn't accord with physical reality here on earth, you could say it was correct in another universe). So basically, it shouldn't be called a theory. This article was in the Wall Street Journal, and Lee Smolin is quoted as blaming string theory for a "crisis in particle physics."

Mr. Kerr, what is your opinion of the string theory - do you think it has tied up the time of physicist who otherwise might pursue bigger questions--like why there is more matter than antimatter? Why the 18 key numbers in the standard model of fundamental particles have the values they do, or why the proton's mass in 1,836 times the electron's?
(the technical information in this post was taken from the Wall Street Journal and a Biology textbook.)

-Cate Pilgrim

6/29/2006 2:16 PM Re: String Theory: Disaster for Physics

Uh, as a male, this is difficult for me to say, but, uh, I don't know...

-Dr. Kerr