String Theory suggests the substitution of tiny vibrating strings for little billiard ball particles, but requiring in the process an extra six spatial dimensions. It gets the thumb’s down until such time as proponents of String Theory get some experimental runs on the board, something not accomplished in over four decades.
String Theory is one of those proposed challenges to mainstream physics and replaces the standard model of particle physics by substituting tiny vibrating strings for all those little billiard ball particles, like electrons and quarks and neutrinos, etc. that we know so well. Differing string vibration rates determine whether some particle is an electron or an up-quark or a down-quark or a neutrino, etc. That in itself isn’t too bad an alteration. Where String Theory falls off the rails IMHO is that in order to work, the Universe has got to be comprised of not the standard three spatial dimensions and the one dimension in time we’re used to existing in, but a total of nine, even ten spatial dimensions (plus one of time). Sorry, it’s those extra spatial dimensions that tip the weirdness quotient off the scales.
Spatial dimensions are just a useful mathematical concept consisting of points, length, area and volume that has no actual structure or substance. There’s nothing magical about a right angle. Spatial dimensions are a not-thing, a human invention. That there are up to ten spatial dimensions (not three) if Superstring Theory or M-Theory* is correct turns a useful concept into nonsense. In the words of the late physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that’s “not even wrong”** which was a phrase adopted by and which gave rise to the title of the anti-String Theory book by Peter Woit (2006).
String Theory wouldn’t be too bad were there the slightest tad of experimental evidence for string ‘particles’ and those additional spatial dimensions. There isn’t. String Theory just resides as a pure hypothetical, albeit elegant (and extremely difficult to understand), branch of mathematics (you could hardly call it real physics). That wouldn’t be all that unusual a situation if String Theory were something that was brand new. However, String Theory in its earliest form dates back to the late 1960’s with Gabriele Veneziano hence Leonard Susskind and others. So, alas, this theoretical can-of-worms is now four decades old without the worms even reaching first base, far less getting so much as even one run on the board. In fact, nobody has even ever seen one of the theoretical worms, which is obviously why they are still theoretical four decades on. Pioneering string theorists nearly qualify for a pension by now and should be looking forward towards downsizing to their retirement village, albeit not quite yet a nursing home!
String Theory just is not going anywhere. It’s a dead end. As far as I’m concerned, String Theory is impossible physics (even if elegant mathematics) until such time as even the tiniest shred of experimental evidence is on the board. String, Superstring, or M-Theory (as substitutes for the standard model of particle physics) is pure bovine fertilizer on the grounds that after four decades it remains a purely abstract mathematical concept with no experimental verification. I’m not holding my breath that experimental verification will come anytime soon, if ever.
In conclusion, never in the history of physics have so many spent so much time and energy for so little results.
* M-Theory is a unified String Theory or Superstring Theory that incorporates differing versions of String Theory that has no substance or structure apart from pure abstract mathematics an thus gets the same thumb’s down as String Theory itself and for the same reason. Another negative is that it must postulate the existence of even a further extra spatial dimension, as if an extra six weren’t already too much of a good thing.
** If you’re ‘not even wrong’, well that’s just about the ultimate insult to a practicing scientist since it’s no crime to be wrong, and most scientists are wrong a lot of the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment