Everything theory

Everything theory

Image by parameter_bond (Public Domain)

Originally published 16 June 1986

Let’s talk fash­ion in sci­ence. Let’s talk band­wag­ons. Let’s talk string.

String. It’s every­where in physics and astron­o­my these days. It’s begin­ning to look as if the whole uni­verse is tied togeth­er with string.

Last week in this col­umn I wrote about cos­mic strings, those super­mas­sive threads of ener­gy that were formed, accord­ing to some the­o­ries, in the first moments of the Big Bang and still wend their way through the fab­ric of space.

Anoth­er kind of string is fash­ion­able among the physi­cists who pon­der mat­ter and force on the sub­atom­ic scale. In fact, string is so hot among par­ti­cle physi­cists that some of them think they are close to a “the­o­ry of everything.”

At the heart of the new string the­o­ry is an idea of stun­ning sim­plic­i­ty: The fun­da­men­tal par­ti­cles of the uni­verse are not point­like objects, as pre­vi­ous­ly sup­posed, but lit­tle snip­pets of one-dimen­sion­al string.

Wriggling particle strings

The par­ti­cle strings (called “super­strings”) are very short: 100 bil­lion bil­lion times short­er than the diam­e­ter of the nucle­us of an atom. But even that lit­tle bit of length is enough to save string the­o­ry from some of the math­e­mat­i­cal prob­lems that plagued point the­o­ries of particles.

The lit­tle sub­atom­ic strings wrig­gle and rotate. Like vio­lin strings, the par­ti­cle strings can vibrate only in cer­tain deter­mined ways. For vio­lin strings, the allowed modes of vibra­tion give rise to the notes of the musi­cal scale. For par­ti­cle strings, the modes of vibra­tion give rise to the prop­er­ties (such as mass and spin) of par­ti­cles of mat­ter — quarks, elec­trons, muons, and neu­tri­nos. Mat­ter, then, appears as a kind of sub­atom­ic music, a devel­op­ment that would please Pythagoras.

More­over, the ways the vibrat­ing strings inter­act with one anoth­er — link­ing up end-to-end or mak­ing loops — cor­re­spond to the par­ti­cles of force: the gravi­ton (the car­ri­er of the grav­i­ta­tion­al force) and the gauge bosons (the car­ri­ers of the elec­tro­mag­net­ic, weak, and strong forces).

So super­strings wrig­gle and dance, and the ways they wrig­gle and dance account for the uni­verse we live in. What makes super­string the­o­ry so excit­ing is the way it com­pletes Ein­stein’s dream of uni­fy­ing all the forces of nature in one ele­gant math­e­mat­i­cal the­o­ry — the long sought for “grand uni­fi­ca­tion.” String the­o­ry is the first the­o­ry to suc­cess­ful­ly include grav­i­ty with the oth­er forces of nature. This uni­fi­ca­tion flows from super­strings with a sur­pris­ing sim­plic­i­ty — no fudge con­stants and few­er arbi­trary assumptions.

String the­o­ries of mat­ter and force have been around for a long time, but cal­cu­la­tions based on the the­o­ries kept pro­duc­ing trou­ble­some infini­ties, and oth­er incon­sis­ten­cies called “anom­alies.” Then, in the sum­mer of 1984, physi­cists John Schwarz of Cal­tech and Michael Green of Queen Mary Col­lege in Lon­don found a way to remove both the infini­ties and the anom­alies. Sud­den­ly the promise of string the­o­ries was real­ized and the band­wag­on began rolling. Since then it has been string, string, string.

The invisible dimensions

There are prob­lems, how­ev­er. For exam­ple, the the­o­ry of Schwarz and Green requires that the uni­verse have 10 dimen­sions: nine of space and one of time. And yet it is obvi­ous that the uni­verse we live in has only four dimen­sions. Schwarz and Green sup­pose that six of the space dimen­sions got some­how rolled up onto them­selves in the first moments of the Big Bang. Those tight­ly curled extra dimen­sions are pre­sum­ably still with us, but they are only appar­ent at the scale of the super­strings themselves.

And it must be admit­ted that super­string enthu­si­asts do not real­ly under­stand what lies behind the aston­ish­ing suc­cess of their the­o­ry. They have a beau­ti­ful math­e­mat­i­cal struc­ture that works, but no con­cise philo­soph­i­cal insight into why nature choos­es this struc­ture rather than another.

There are two prin­ci­ples that guide these elab­o­rate math­e­mat­i­cal games of the the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cists. One is that the end results of their cal­cu­la­tions must match what we observe in nature. Super­strings do well at account­ing for what we already know of mat­ter and force. How­ev­er, a direct obser­va­tion of the strings them­selves is far beyond the present capa­bil­i­ties of exper­i­men­tal physics.

The sec­ond prin­ci­ple guid­ing the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cists is that of explain­ing the most with the least. The ele­gance of a sci­en­tif­ic the­o­ry derives from its gen­er­al­i­ty and its sim­plic­i­ty. On both counts, super­strings score high.

Strings are hot. Don’t be sur­prised to see a Nobel Prize fall into the lap of Schwarz and Green. More than any­thing that has gone before, super­strings promise to be a the­o­ry of every­thing. What it all means is any­body’s guess.


String the­o­ry still resides on the fore­front of the­o­ret­i­cal physics. In 2014, Schwarz and Green were award­ed the Break­through Prize in Fun­da­men­tal Physics. ‑Ed.

Share this Musing: