-- 173 --

Already, cutting-edge research on aspects of M-theory, spearheaded by Stephen Shenker, Edward Witten, Tom Banks, Willy
Fischler, Leonard Susskind, and others too numerous to name, has shown that something known as a zero-brane—possibly the
most fundamental ingredient in M-theory, an object that behaves somewhat like a point particle at large distances but has
drastically different properties at short ones—may give us a glimpse of the spaceless and timeless realm. Their work has revealed
that whereas strings show us that conventional notions of space cease to have relevance below the Planck scale, the zero-branes
give essentially the same conclusion but also provide a tiny window on the new unconventional framework that takes over. Studies
with these zero-branes indicate that ordinary geometry is replaced by something known as noncommutative geometry, an area of
mathematics developed in large part by the French mathematician Alain Connes.140 In this geometrical framework, the
conventional notions of space and of distance between points melt away, leaving us in a vastly different conceptual landscape.
Nevertheless, as we focus our attention on scales larger than the Planck length, physicists have shown that our conventional notion
of space does re-emerge. It is likely that the framework of noncommutative geometry is still some significant steps away from the
blank-slate state anticipated above, but it does give us a hint of what the more complete framework for incorporating space and
time may involve.

Finding the correct mathematical apparatus for formulating string theory without recourse to a pre-existing notion of space and
time is one of the most important issues facing string theorists. An understanding of how space and time emerge would take us a
huge step closer to answering the crucial question of which geometrical form actually does emerge.

Will String Theory Lead to a Reformulation of Quantum Mechanics?

The universe is governed by the principles of quantum mechanics to fantastic accuracy. Even so, in formulating theories over the
past half century, physicists have followed a strategy that, structurally speaking, places quantum mechanics in a somewhat
secondary position. In devising theories, physicists often start by working in a purely classical language that ignores quantum
probabilities, wave functions, and so forth—a language that would be perfectly intelligible to physicists in the age of Maxwell and
even in the age of Newton—and then, subsequently, overlaying quantum concepts upon the classical framework. This approach is
not particularly surprising, since it directly mirrors our experiences. At first blush, the universe appears to be governed by laws
rooted in classical concepts such as a particle having a definite position and a definite velocity at any given moment in time. It is
only after detailed microscopic scrutiny that we realize that we must modify such familiar classical ideas. Our process of discovery
has gone from a classical framework to one that is modified by quantum revelations, and this progression is echoed in the way that
physicists, to this day, go about constructing their theories.

This is certainly the case with string theory. The mathematical formalism describing string theory begins with equations that
describe the motion of a tiny, infinitely thin piece of classical thread—equations that, to a large extent, Newton could have written
down some three hundred years ago. These equations are then quantized. That is, in a systematic manner developed by physicists
over the course of more than 50 years, the classical equations are converted into a quantum-mechanical framework in which
probabilities, uncertainty, quantum jitters, and so on are directly incorporated. In fact, in Chapter 12 we have seen this procedure in
action: The loop processes (see Figure 12.6) incorporate quantum concepts—in this case, the momentary quantum-mechanical
creation of virtual string pairs—with the number of loops determining the precision with which quantum-mechanical effects are
accounted for.

The strategy of beginning with a theoretical description that is classical and then subsequently including the features of quantum
mechanics has been extremely fruitful for many years. It underlies, for example, the standard model of particle physics. But it is
possible, and there is growing evidence that it is likely, that this method is too conservative for dealing with theories that are as far-
reaching as string theory and M-theory. The reason is that once we realize that the universe is governed by quantum-mechanical
principles, our theories really should be quantum mechanical from the start. We have successfully gotten away with starting from a
classical perspective until now because we have not been probing the universe at a deep enough level for this coarse approach to
mislead us. But with the depth of string/M-theory, we may well have come to the end of the line for this battle-tested strategy.

We can find specific evidence for this by reconsidering some of the insights emerging from the second superstring revolution (as
summarized, for example, by Figure 12.11). As we discussed in Chapter 12, the dualities underlying the unity of the five string
theories show us that physical processes that occur in any one string formulation can be reinterpreted in the dual language of any of
the others. This rephrasing will at first appear to have little to do with the original description, but, in fact, this is simply the power
of duality at work: Through duality, one physical process can be described in a number of vastly different ways. These results are
both subtle and remarkable, but we have not yet mentioned what may well be their most important feature.

140
If you are familiar with linear algebra, one simple and relevant way of thinking about noncommutative geometry is to replace conventional Cartesian coordinates, which commute
under multiplication, with matrices, which do not.