Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of Nature.

Sir Isaac Newton was the first theoretical physicist, although in his own time his profession was called "natural philosophy". By Newton's era people had already used algebra and geometry to build marvelous works of architecture, including the great cathedrals of Europe, but algebra and geometry only describe things that are sitting still. In order to describe things that are moving or changing in some way, Newton invented calculus. The most puzzling and intriguing moving things visible to humans have always been been the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars we can see in the night sky. Newton's new calculus, combined with his "Laws of Motion", made a mathematical model for the force of gravity that not only described the observed motions of planets and stars in the night sky, but also of swinging weights and flying cannonballs in England. Today's theoretical physicists are often working on the boundaries of known mathematics, sometimes inventing new mathematics as they need it, like Newton did with calculus. Newton was both a theorist and an experimentalist. He spent many many long hours, to the point of neglecting his health, observing the way Nature behaved so that he might describe it better. The so-called "Newton's Laws of Motion" are not abstract laws that Nature is somehow forced to obey, but the observed behavior of Nature that is described in the language of mathematics. In Newton's time, theory and experiment went together. Today the functions of theory and observation are divided into two distinct communities in physics. Both experiments and theories are much more complex than back in Newton's time. Theorists are exploring areas of Nature in mathematics that technology so far does not allow us to observe in experiments. Many of the theoretical physicists who are alive today may not live to see how the real Nature compares with her mathematical description in their work. Today's theorists have to learn to live with ambiguity and uncertainty in their mission to describe Nature using math.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, Newton's mathematical description of motion using calculus and his model for the gravitational force were extended very successfully to the emerging science and technology of electromagnetism. Calculus evolved into classical field theory. Once electromagnetic fields were thoroughly described using mathematics, many physicists felt that the field was finished, that there was nothing left to describe or explain. Then the electron was discovered, and particle physics was born. Through the mathematics of quantum mechanics and experimental observation, it was deduced that all known particles fell into one of two classes: bosons or fermions. Bosons are particles that transmit forces. Many bosons can occupy the same state at the same time. This is not true for fermions, only one fermion can occupy a given state at a given time, and this is why fermions are the particles that make up matter. This is why solids can't pass through one another, why we can't walk through walls -because of Pauli repulsion -- the inability of fermions (matter) to share the same

space the way bosons (forces) can. While particle physics was developing with quantum mechanics, increasing observational evidence indicated that light, as electromagnetic radiation, travelled at one fixed speed (in a vacuum) in every direction, according to every observer. This discovery and the mathematics that Einstein developed to describe it and model it in his Special Theory of Relativity, when combined with the later development of quantum mechanics, gave birth to the rich subject of relativistic quantum field theory. Relativistic quantum field theory is the foundation of our present theoretical ability to describe the behavior of the subatomic particles physicists have been observing and studying in the latter half of the 20th century. But Einstein then extended his Special Theory of Relativity to encompass Newton's theory of gravitation, and the result, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, brought the mathematics called differential geometry into physics. General relativity has had many observational successes that proved its worth as a description of Nature, but two of the predictions of this theory have staggered the public and scientific imaginations: the expanding Universe, and black holes. Both have been observed, and both encapsulate issues that, at least in the mathematics, brush up against the very nature of reality and existence.

Relativistic quantum field theory has worked very well to describe the observed behaviors and properties of elementary particles. But the theory itself only works well when gravity is so weak that it can be neglected. Particle theory only works when we pretend gravity doesn't exist. General relativity has yielded a wealth of insight into the Universe, the orbits of planets, the evolution of stars and galaxies, the Big Bang and recently observed black holes and gravitational lenses. However, the theory itself only works when we pretend that the Universe is purely classical and that quantum mechanics is not needed in our description of Nature. String theory is believed to close this gap. Originally, string theory was proposed as an explanation for the observed relationship between mass and spin for certain particles called hadrons, which include the proton and neutron. Things didn't work out, though, and Quantum Chromodynamics eventually proved a better theory for hadrons. But particles in string theory arise as excitations of the string, and included in the excitations of a string in string theory is a particle with zero mass and two units of spin. If there were a good quantum theory of gravity, then the particle that would carry the gravitational force would have zero mass and two units of spin. This has been known by theoretical physicists for a long time. This theorized particle is called the graviton. This led early string theorists to propose that string theory be applied not as a theory of hadronic particles, but as a theory of quantum gravity, the unfulfilled fantasy of theoretical physics in the particle and gravity communities for decades. But it wasn't enough that there be a graviton predicted by string theory. One can add a graviton to quantum field theory by hand, but the calculations that are supposed to describe Nature become useless. This is because, as illustrated in the diagram above, particle interactions occur at a single point of spacetime, at zero distance between the interacting particles. For gravitons, the mathematics behaves so badly at zero distance that the answers just don't make sense. In string theory, the strings collide

over a small but finite distance, and the answers do make sense. This doesn't mean that string theory is not without its deficiencies. But the zero distance behavior is such that we can combine quantum mechanics and gravity, and we can talk sensibly about a string excitation that carries the gravitational force. This was a very great hurdle that was overcome for late 20th century physics, which is why so many young people are willing to learn the grueling complex and abstract mathematics that is necessary to study a quantum theory of interacting strings.

Think of a guitar string that has been tuned by stretching the string under tension across the guitar. Depending on how the string is plucked and how much tension is in the string, different musical notes will be created by the string. These musical notes could be said to be excitation modes of that guitar string under tension. In a similar manner, in string theory, the elementary particles we observe in particle accelerators could be thought of as the "musical notes" or excitation modes of elementary strings. In string theory, as in guitar playing, the string must be stretched under tension in order to become excited. However, the strings in string theory are floating in spacetime, they aren't tied down to a guitar. Nonetheless, they have tension. The string tension in string theory is denoted by the quantity 1/(2 p a'), where a' is pronounced "alpha prime"and is equal to the square of the string length scale. If string theory is to be a theory of quantum gravity, then the average size of a string should be somewhere near the length scale of quantum gravity, called the Planck length, which is about 10-33 centimeters, or about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter. Unfortunately, this means that strings are way too small to see by current or expected particle physics technology (or financing!!) and so string theorists must devise more clever methods to test the theory than just looking for little strings in particle experiments. String theories are classified according to whether or not the strings are required to be closed loops, and whether or not the particle spectrum includes fermions. In order to include fermions in string theory, there must be a special kind of symmetry called supersymmetry, which means for every boson (particle that transmits a force) there is a corresponding fermion (particle that makes up matter). So supersymmetry relates the particles that transmit forces to the particles that make up matter. Supersymmetric partners to to currently known particles have not been observed in particle experiments, but theorists believe this is because supersymmetric particles are too massive to be detected at current accelerators. Particle accelerators could be on the verge of finding evidence for high energy supersymmetry in the next decade. Evidence for supersymmetry at high energy would be compelling evidence that string theory was a good mathematical model for Nature at the smallest distance scales.

<< Previous Next >> There are several ways theorists can build string theories. Start with the elementary ingredient: a wiggling tiny string. Next decide: should it be an open string or a closed string? Then ask: will I settle for only bosons ( particles that transmit forces) or will I ask for fermions, too (particles that make up matter)? (Remember that in string theory, a particle is like a note played on the string.) If the answer to the last question is "Bosons only, please!" then one gets bosonic string theory. If the answer is "No, I demand that matter exist!" then we wind up needing supersymmetry, which means an equal matching between bosons (particles that transmit forces) and fermions (particles that make up matter). A supersymmetric string theory is called a superstring theory. There are five kinds of superstring theories, shown in the table below. The final question for making a string theory should be: can I do quantum mechanics sensibly? For bosonic strings, this question is only answered in the affirmative if the spacetime dimensions number 26. For superstrings we can whittle it down to 10. How we get down to the four spacetime dimensions we observe in our world is another story.

A Brief Table of String Theories


Type Spaceti me Dimensi ons Details

Boson ic

26

Only bosons, no fermions means only forces, no matter, with both open and closed strings. Major flaw: a particle with imaginary mass, called the tachyon Supersymm etry between forces and matter, with both open and closed strings, no

10

tachyon, group symmetry is SO(32) Supersymm etry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, massless fermions spin both ways (nonchiral) Supersymm etry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, massless fermions only spin one way (chiral) Supersymm etry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings differ, group symmetry is SO(32) Supersymm etry between

IIA

10

IIB

10

HO

10

HE

10

forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings differ, group symmetry is E8 x E8

If we ask how to get from ten spacetime dimensions to four spacetime dimensions, then the number of string theories grows, because there are so many possible ways to make six dimensions much much smaller than the other four in string theory. This process of compactification of unwanted spacetime dimensions yields interesting physics on its own. But the number of string theories has also been shrinking in recent years, because string theorists are discovering that what they thought were completely different theories were in fact different ways of looking at the same theory! This period in string history

has been given the name the second string revolution. And now the biggest rush in string research is to collapse the table above into one theory, which some people want to call M theory, for it is the Mother of all theories. Stay tuned to this web site, we may some day soon be changing the name to The Official M Theory Web Site!

A new picture of string theory


At one time, string theorists believed there were five distinct superstring theories: type I, types IIA and IIB, and the two heterotic string theories. The thinking was that out of these five candidate theories, only one was the actual correct Theory of Everything, and that theory was the theory whose low energy limit, with ten dimensions spacetime compactified down to four, matched the physics observed in our world today. The other theories would be nothing more than rejected string theories, mathematical constructs not blessed by Nature with existence. But now it is known that this naive picture was wrong, and that the the five superstring theories are connected to one another as if they are each a special case of some more fundamental theory, of which there is only one. These theories are related by transformations that are called dualities. If two theories are related by a duality transformation, it means that the first theory can be transformed in some way so that it ends up looking just like the second theory. The two theories are then said to be dual to one another under that kind of transformation. These dualities link quantities that were also thought to be separate. Large and small distance scales, strong and weak coupling strengths -- these quantities have always marked very distinct limits of behavior of a physical system, in both classical field theory and quantum particle physics. But strings can obscure the difference between large and small, strong and weak, and this is how these five very different theories end up being related.

Large and small distance


The duality symmetry that obscures our ability to distinguish between large and small distance scales is called T-duality, and comes about from the compactification of extra space dimensions in a ten dimensional superstring theory. Suppose we're in ten spacetime dimensions, which means we have nine space and one time. Take one of those nine space dimensions and make it a circle of radius R, so that traveling in that direction for a distance L=2 R takes you around the circle and brings you back to where you started. A particle traveling around this circle will have a quantized momentum around the circle, and this will contribute to the total energy of the particle. But a string is very different, because in addition to traveling around the circle, the string can wrap around the circle. The number of times the string winds around the circle is called the winding number, and that is also quantized. Now the weird thing about string theory is that these momentum modes and the winding modes can be interchanged, as long as we also interchange the radius R of the circle with the quantity Lst2/R, where Lst is the string length. If R is very much smaller than the string length, then the quantity Lst2/R is going to be very large. So exchanging momentum and winding modes of the string exchanges a large distance scale with a small distance scale. This type of duality is called T-duality. T-duality relates Type IIA superstring theory to Type IIB superstring theory. That means if we take Type IIA and Type IIB theory and compactify them both on a circle, then switching the momentum and winding modes, and switching the distance scale, changes one theory into the other! The same is also true for the two heterotic theories. So T-duality obscures the difference between large and small distances. What looks like a very large distance to a momentum mode of a string looks, looks to a winding mode of a string like a very small distance. This is very counter to how

More than just strings


Another surprising revelation was that superstring theories are not just theories of one-dimensional objects. There are higher dimensional objects in string theory with dimensions from zero (points) to nine, called p-branes. In terms of branes, what we usually call a membrane would be a two-brane, a string is called a one-brane and a point is called a zero-brane. What makes a p-brane? A p-brane is a spacetime object that is a solution to the Einstein equation in the low energy limit of superstring theory, with the energy density of the nongravitational fields confined to some p-dimensional subspace of the nine space dimensions in the theory. (Remember, superstring theory lives in ten spacetime dimensions, which means one time dimension plus nine space dimensions.) For example, in a solution with electric charge, if the energy density in the electromagnetic field was distributed along a line in spacetime, this onedimensional line would be considered a p-brane with p=1. A special class of p-branes in string theory are called D branes. Roughly speaking, a D brane is a p-brane where the ends of open strings are localized on the brane. A D brane is like a collective excitation of strings. These objects took a long time to be discovered in string theory, because they are buried deep in the mathematics of T-duality. D branes are important in understanding black holes in string theory, especially in counting the quantum states that lead to black hole entropy, which was a very big accomplishment for string theory.

How many dimensions?


Before string theory won the full attention of the theoretical physics community, the most popular unified theory was an eleven dimensional theory of supergravity, which is supersymmetry combined with gravity. The eleven-dimensional spacetime was to be compactified on a small 7-dimensional sphere, for example, leaving four spacetime dimensions visible to observers at large distances. This theory didn't work as a unified theory of particle physics, because it doesn't have a sensible quantum limit as a point particle theory. But this eleven dimensional theory would not die. It eventually came back to life in the strong coupling limit of superstring theory in ten dimensions. How could a superstring theory with ten spacetime dimensions turn into a supergravity theory with eleven spacetime dimensions? We've already learned that duality relations between superstring theories relate very different theories, equate large distance with small distance, and exchange strong coupling with weak coupling. So there must be some duality relation that can explain how a superstring theory that requires ten spacetime dimensions for quantum consistency can really be a theory in eleven spacetime dimensions after all. Since we know that all string theories are related, and we suspect that they are but different limits of some more fundamental theory, then perhaps that more fundamental theory exists in eleven spacetime dimensions? These question bring us to the topic of M theory.

The theory currently known as M


Technically speaking, M theory is is the unknown eleven-dimensional theory whose low energy limit is the supergravity theory in eleven dimensions discussed above. However, many people have taken to also using M theory to label the

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi