String Theory in 500 Words or Less

Today we’re going to stray off the beaten path and talk about particle physics and String Theory. What’s in it for you, you ask? Well, for one, since I’m going to take a shot at explaining it in 500 words or less, you can learn quite a lot in a very short time. Also, if this set of ideas that some call "The Unified Theory of Everything" proves out someday, you’ll be able to nod knowingly and say, “Yes, yes, I have always thought so.” If neither of those are enough to keep you, then go away and come back tomorrow when we'll talk about something easier like how screwed up the Supreme Court is these days.

So. We’ve been told that ordinary matter is made of atoms, which are in turn made of electrons whirling around a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. We call the electron a fundamental particle belonging to a nice little particle family called “leptons," and we believe that its neutrons and protons are made of even smaller fundamental particles called “quarks.” Our current beliefs about the subatomic universe are summed up nicely in what we call the Standard Model of particle physics. This model describes what we say are the twelve basic building blocks: six types of quarks, and six types of leptons. Quarks go by the interesting names of up, down, charm, strange, bottom and top. (For example, a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark.) The leptons include the electron and its two heavier pals, the muon and the tauon, plus three neutrinos.

The Standard Model also describes the four known fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. It is believed that each of these forces are produced by particles that act as carriers of that force. The most familiar of these is the photon, otherwise known as a light particle, which is the mediator of electromagnetic forces. The graviton is the particle associated with gravity (and is already familiar to Star Trek fans). The strong force is carried by eight different particles known as gluons, and the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- and the Z. (Disappointing little labels after names like “charm” and “strange” – but I digress.)

The Standard Model pretty thoroughly describes all particles and forces, with one exception: gravity. The gravitational force has proven difficult to describe or map. For years this has been one of the most important problems in theoretical physics. We seem unable to come up with a viable quantum theory of gravity. In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as one possible means for developing a microscopic theory of gravity as well as possibly being the possible Holy Grail of quantum physics, the aforementioned Unified Theory of Everything.

The fundamental idea supporting String Theory is that all the different particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: something that is too small to be visible on any existing microscope and which looks like a little piece or loop of string. So, whereas we would commonly picture an electron as a point with no dimensions and no internal structure – a point that cannot do anything but stay where it is, or move to another place in space-time – String Theory says that if we had an adequately powerful microscope, we would see that the electron is not really a point and is instead more like a tiny string. And we would see that this string is able to do something besides sit still, or move: it can oscillate and/or vibrate.

So, if one of these strings, of a certain mass, oscillates and/or vibrates a certain way, then from a distance we would be unable to tell it is a string and might see what we call an electron. But if it had a different mass, or oscillated and/or vibrated in some other way, we might call it a photon, or a quark. If String Theory is correct, the entire universe is made of these tiny strings of varying mass that oscillate and/or vibrate at different speeds or “resonances”…and it is our ability to see (and/or hear? and/or sense?) them that will lead to further knowledge and possible theoretical breakthroughs.

Update: I asked my brother to fact-check this post; he emailed with this: "Good summary; you excluded anti-particles, but that's not a big deal. Also, the standard model doesn't contain gravity at all; it doesn't predict gravitons. More importantly, though, is that the key behind string theory is that strings exist in more than 3 spatial dimensions (various theories have different "extra" dimensions, up to 8, I think). This makes it a highly mathematical theory with few testable predictions with current technology."

Update 2: There's now a comment by someone who says I'm wrong in other ways, too. I'm just glad someone besides my brother (and Mom) read the whole thing. But I guess I'd better give up my Dreams of becoming a world renowned String Theory Expert...

I'm with Stupid

This past weekend we went to see Ben Stein’s new docu-film “Expelled.” Though I could’ve done without the insertion of old black-and-white film clips for dramtic effect, I thought the rest of the film was pretty good mainly because Stein did a decent job of choosing representatives from both sides (i.e. Intelligent Design vs. Evolution). He asked respectful and thoughtful questions; he never interrupted; and he gave everyone ample time to speak their respective pieces. For the most part, he got out of the way, which I find admirable in this day and age of unrepentant Me-ism.

The most unlikable scientist in the film heatedly called anyone who does not believe in evolution – as in, ancient lifeless primordial goop spontaenously birthing a living cell which then evolved into every species on the planet – “stupid.” Whatever his beliefs, I don’t see how that sort of name calling is necessary, constructive, or scientific. For one thing, the stupidity of a human being has no bearing whatsoever on a Fact. If a scientist thinks he has a waterproof case, then he ought to thoughtfully and logically present it. If the evidence is sufficient, then no amount of stupidity in the universe matters. It is what it is and eventually all will know it. If, on the other hand, his “scientific” theory is birthed from the loins of pre-existing assumptions, carries numerous unanswered questions in its backpack, is missing key evidence, and therefore requires a series of additional assumptions in order to make it a unified whole, then perhaps he ought to pluck the log out of his own eye and realize that the ignorance may be his – or, at the very least, that he still has some work to do.

Secondly, there is simply no rational justification for calling scientists who reject evolution, or those who believe in a Creator and who think they see both Design and Designer in the universe “stupid,” even if they are one day found to be wrong (which I don’t think will be the case, but allowing for the possibility helps my argument). Very smart people are wrong all the time. Throughout history, very well-educated scientists and researchers have been proven incorrect by later discoveries. Wrong does not equal stupid. It’s a blatant Fallacy, and it’s incredibly annoying to hear puffed-up and self-congratulating scientists use it on their fellow citizens as if it says something meaningful.

I believe there is no conflict between True Science and the existence of a Creator. I believe that serious, exploratory science can, has, and will continue to lead to the discovery of absolutely amazing Truths about the cosmos. Quantum physicists and certain sub-sets of chaos theorists are perhaps coming closest at present, but other newer branches of science may replace these in the future. It is my unapologetic view that what evolutionists call “natural selection” – mutations within species – may well be true, but evolution as a unified theory of the origin of all life on Earth is inadequate, unlikely, and as of yet, unproven. I can accept the fact of changes in a finch’s beak over time, as supported by fossil records. I cannot accept that a single-celled organism rode on the back of some magic crystal, suddenly came to life, and evolved into Me after passing “Go” and dumping off two million other species along the way. Call me crazy - or stupid, as the case may be.

I longingly wait for the day when more scientists acknowledge, as atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins finally did at the end of Stein’s film, that science still cannot explain the existence of a living cell, that neither Nothingness nor non-living matter could possibly have birthed it without some “spark” or “pre-existing” force or yet-unknown element, that the discoveries of microbiology have utterly astounded the scientific community in the years since Darwin, and that the inner-workings of a living cell (reproduction, metabolism, transport, repair) do indeed appear to be fabulously and wondrously engineered and/or designed. When pressed to name possible Sources of that first living blob on earth, Dawkins became uncomfortable and hestitatingly cited ancient alien DNA as one feasible font-o-life. When asked where THAT came from, he smiled and seemed to realize his predicament.

The so-called conflict between science and God is an illusion. The origin of life is neither a scientific question nor a religious question. It transcends both. When we all finally realize this, men and angels can rejoice – and Dawkins and Stein can have a beer and laugh.