from the glacier

I was thinking. . .

While doing my lunchtime reading I stumbled across a lovely little book with BBC interviews of physicists about "string theory". Personally, with the minimal knowledge I have of it, I find it very compelling. The mathematics is way beyond me, but the basic ideas I find interesting (aside - I plan on eventually remedying the defect in mathematical knowledge - eventually). String theory basically breaks down like this:
Wait. Back up. Preview. Remember in general relativity how Einstein loves his gravitational theory because it is based on a geometrical interpretation of space time in four dimensions? Recall how gravitation of massive bodies 'bends' the continuum to create fields? Even if we look at the field equations we see that one half, at least, is geometrical. Also recall how in quantum physics energy is measured as only a difference in energy, (per Shulamite's complaints of energy) whereas in general relativity absolute energy is important. Finally, remember the difficulties in reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity.

In quantum physics the basic particles are treated as point-like entities without extension. This is false. Everyone knows that this is false. The basic building blocks of atoms (protons, etc.) are made up of quarks. In string theory a proton is made of the same three quarks as regular particle physics, but on a 'string'. (usually a closed loop) In fact all of space-time and all 'fundamental' particles are made of little Planck-sized strings. The benefit of this is a purely geometrical interpretation of the cosmos, which I find appealing. There are drawbacks, though...

First, the cosmos must not be four-dimensional. Instead, string theory dictates that there must be nine spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Ten dimensional space-time is very unattractive to some, but the particular mathematical choices of string theory (certain ones, that is) show how six of the spatial dimensions must 'curl up' into little tiny six-dimensional mathematical topologies, that would be undetectable. I guess if it isn't hard to swallow four dimensions, then it shouldn't be too hard to swallow ten (especially when six of them are considered in a size scale of the Planck size). Secondly, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that this should be the case. No experiments to confirm predictions, or any of the sort that is usually required by the metrical reductionist scientific method. Again, I find this rather appealing. Top-down is the way to go in science (generically).

There are also some good things. Unlike regular quantum gravity equations - that always give you the answer: infinity - string theory has quantum gravitational equations that are actually calcuable. Additionally, string theory describes the cosmos as entirely made up of strings. These strings vibrate in different resonances. These resonances make up different particles and forces. So we can imagine the universe as a giant symphony of resonating strings, all playing the chords of existence - I find this an elegant and attractive - if medieval - conception of nature. Opposing the brutality of force and inertia we have the harmony of creation. . . I daydream . . . innumerable nearly-infinitesimal orchestral choirs of strings. . .

Like Einstein, I think physics should be beautiful and elegant, and that is more the mark of truth than laboratory quantization...