Nothing That Matters

While the Standard Model goes overboard with quantum effects that prevail at less than Planck's length (10^-33 CM). Its almost a boiling cauldron with virtual particle and breaking of various conservations/symmetries. The String theory is rather mum about what is there besides strings at such scale of universe. How does it make or break the theories?

While its not so devastating for String Theory, since Strings are Planck-length sized and hence even if you do not look below that length, your theory works at Planck length - where the boiling cauldron effect of smaller lengths is not there.
But Standard Model - Hmm.... As German would have said "Ganz Schlim". Very Bad. The particle like neutrino, quarks and electrons as per this theory are point sized. That is they are singularity with no size at all. So you have to drill down to zero length to work the theory. It gets into problems. Its only by sleight of Renormalization that anomalies and infinities are kept away. Read my earlier post on Renormalizarion.
String or Standard, no theory can expect to be complete unless it can explain what is beyond their particles in the Vacuum. You cannot do just "Nothing" about "nothing". Nothing cannot be left alone.
Even String theory has to come about the vacuum states of universe.
In that sense both theories are inadequate. Standard Model by not being able to handle vacuum states till the point sized particles and String Theory by trying to avoid dealing with vacuum states at all.
This round goes Zero-Zero to Both. With score remaining 3-1/6 in favour of String Theory.

Read full post >>

Both String Theory and the Quantum Field Theories treat Time in a cavalier manner. It is taken as a given, evenly, continuosly flowing irreversibly.
Both do not explain the arrow of time. In fact the whole of Physics, except for perhaps indirectly Thermodynamic (2nd law: Entropy) can account for this arrow. String Theory does now talk of time being grainy.
But the treatment of time is inadequate in both the theories. An ideal theory should show that the theory is consistent only for forward moving time. It should show by its equations - whether time is continuous or grainy, not simply as an assumption.
Hence both theories score ZERO in this round. The score now is still (3-1)/5 in favour of String Theory.

Read full post >>

When in Euclidean Geometry we work with space we talk of three co-ordinates: x, y and z. Geometry is all built up from definition of a point, then leading to a straight line and then to an area and then to a volume. Thus whatever flavour of geometry (polar co-ordinates or Euclidean) is used, we have to use three numbers to define a position in space - and three co-ordinates. Since this very geometry is also used in Models of Space-Time in physics, we call space 3 dimensional. But does each co-ordinate of geometrical space qualifies as "DIMENSION" in the sense of String Theory. Do semantically and conceptually 3 dimensions of space stand on the same footing as other dimensional entities like 'Time' or other curled-up dimensions of String Theory? No! No! definitely NOT!!
The 3 dimensions used to describe space are an inadequacy of our mathematics. In vector representation of space there is no need for three dimensions. The three co-ordinates are isotropic, not a dimension in its own right.
Space should be seen as a single String Theory Dimension, just like Time or any other dimension.
So we should not talk of 10 dimensional String Models but only 8 dimensional ones!!!

Read full post >>

Quantum Field Theories (as epitomised by Standard Model), use 4-dimensional space-time, rather 3-D space and unidirectional Time. Number of dimensions in this theory are actually 'filled-in by pen' as the initial fact of universe. Ironically the 4-D space-time is an a-priory borrowed by Standard Model from Einstein's General Theory Of Gravity - a theory which Standard Model fails to encompass within its structure of other three Forces. Therefore space-time and its dimensions are external factors for such theories.

On the other hand the number of dimensions in string theory arise out of the formulation of string-theory itself. The 10 dimensions arise out of the fact that string theory mathematics show that its only with these many dimensions the theory would work. This is a more satisfying and complete situations as compared to assuming the dimensions a-priory as in Standard Model.
This round also therefore goes to String theory. The score-card thus far is 3-1 in favour of String Theory.
But I have a fundamental objection to space hogging 3 dimensions. I would therefore break from this String Theory vs Standard Model slug-fest and revert to this aspect in next post, with your indulgence please!!

Read full post >>

In many quizzes in the newspaper or the web, the answer is given somewhere partially hidden. You are not supposed to cheat and look at the answer before attempting the quiz. String Theory has done something like that. It started with the answer! Quantum Field Theories moved from known to unknown. The approach evolved like peeling the onion skin by skin. It started from electrons to protons, Neutrons and further down to Quark. On the way it took into its unifying fold the three fundamental forces - Electro-magnetism, Weak Force and Strong Force - failing only to grapple with gravity. It was an organic, natural step-by-step evolution. Finally it had still to peel the layer of skin that could explain what the quark is in-turn made of? And the skin to take gravity into its fold?
The string theory started off by first saying what the elementary constituent of all particles and Forces that we know? Simply because its a good mathematical framework and answers many questions - some which quantum Field theories cannot answer.
So this round 3 about starting from an uncertain fundamentals to build super-castles is against String theory. This round goes to Quantum Field Theory. The score so far is 2:1 in favour of string Theory.

Read full post >>