TedPage: The Elegant Universe

I just finished reading The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. The book explains superstring theory in a very readable way. There is no excess math, I can't think of a single equation, and there are clever analogies for everything that he explains. He does a wonderful job of bring superstring theory to a more general audience (including myself). In the end, I'm still not sold on string theory.

String theory starts out trying to solve a very difficult problem in a very elegant way. It says that while we can't really see it, all of the basic particles that we know of today are made up of small, one-dimensional, strings. The different masses and charges that we see are caused by the different sizes of strings and different frequencies at which they vibrate. When making this key assumption, quantum physics cleans up and general relativity can be tied in. These are accomplishments that no other theory can claim. But, from these humble beginnings, things start to go awry and the whole theory becomes less... elegant.

It turns out that the math works out a lot better if there are ten dimensions instead of four. And, well, actually if you take out some assumptions that were made really 11 works better -- oh, and they're no longer strings but 2-d membranes shaped like rings. If we can have membranes, what about tri-branes, and di-branes, they're all possible in modern string theory. And, just if you were getting stuck on the only strings describing our universe thing, there are now zero-branes which are just like the point particles that string theory is trying to replace!

As with many intellectual pursuits there were differing camps in string theory, each having slightly different ideas for many of the core equations. Luckily, M-theory came along and said that they're all symmetrical and work together to describe the same phenomena, nobody is wrong. Nobody is wrong! This sounds like a theory designed by committee. Or, probably more correctly, everyone is missing equally the central core of what they should be getting at.

All in all, I think the most disheartening thing about string theory is how little experimental evidence there is. Basically there nothing that can prove the theory either way (at least in 2003 when the book was published). It seems that there are way too many theoretical physicists, to the point where they are working ahead of even the mathematicians, without the experimental research to back them up. In some ways this makes sense. To do high energy particle physics you need a supercolider. What this world needs is a good $10,000 supercolider. So most physicists are then stuck with theory, but it just seems there is so much risk that decades of work will become invalidated by an experiment in the future. But, that isn't to say that I know of a better theory, and it may turn out to be correct. I still don't like the theory itself.

After thinking about theoretical physics for a couple of weeks, I've decide that I don't believe in Quantum Mechanics. Yeah, that is kind of an odd statement, but I won't be the first or the last to make it. I'm not comfortable with the idea that we can't, in theory, make a model of what is happening at the sub-atomic level. I know, you're saying Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I read the principle like this:

All experiments have error. If the number you're trying to measure is smaller than the error bars that you have, your experiment is useless.

But, that doesn't effect the theoretical ability of someone to do a thought experiment where all the momentums and velocities are known. With Quantum Mechanics we can't do that, only probabilities.

Much of this steams from the double-slit experiment which is thought to confirm wave-mater duality. I'm curious if there aren't other explanations on what could be happening here. I have one. Perhaps, as the electrons are hitting the phosphors they are creating a ripple in spacetime. So, as there becomes large numbers of these interactions, a standing wave in spacetime is created. The next set of incoming electrons now have a very different route as their paths are modified by these standing waves in spacetime. As they try to maintain a straight line, the interference pattern that we see develops.

To experimentally verify this, one would have to find a way to cause this ripple to effect another, independent electron stream. No slits. If this standing wave does exist, then hitting the wave perpendicularly should have no effect. Likewise, two parallel beams, both hitting a plane of phosphors perpendicularly should have no effect on each other (in the traditional model). If there is a standing wave created, the ripple from one would effect the other. Now, all I need is a physics lab -- if anyone has one and would like to try this out for me...

While I'm bitching about physics I'll talk for a second about the Big Bang. The Big Bang is developed from taking the equations of General Relativity, and working them backwards based on cosmological data that we've acquired. Makes sense. Except that we already know that General Relativity doesn't work well with very small objects, hence why String Theory is need to connect it with Quantum Mechanics (or why there is Quantum Mechanics at all). So, we're taking a theory, working it back to a place where we know it doesn't work well and claiming that is the answer. I don't buy it. I don't have a better theory, but I do believe that the Big Bang needs a little more work.

Although it seems that I've been very negative, that shouldn't be seen as a reflection on Greene's book. It is a great book. It takes a subject that is very complex, and brings it to a much more general audience. He makes common analogies and adds his own antidotes about the people involved to make it more interesting. Whether or not you believe in String Theory, reading Greene's book will give you a good introduction to a theory that is taking the physics community by storm.