-- 68 --

made of sentences, sentences are made of words, and words are made of letters. What makes up a letter? From a linguistic
standpoint, that's the end of the line. Letters are letters—they are the fundamental building blocks of written language; there is no
further substructure. Questioning their composition has no meaning. Similarly, a string is simply a string—as there is nothing more
fundamental, it can't be described as being composed of any other substance. That's the first answer. The second answer is based on
the simple fact that as yet we do not know if string theory is a correct or final theory of nature. If string theory is truly off the mark,
then, well, we can forget strings and the irrelevant question of their composition. Although this is a possibility, research since the
mid-1980s overwhelmingly points toward its being extremely unlikely. But history surely has taught us that every time our
understanding of the universe deepens, we find yet smaller microscopic ingredients constituting a finer level of matter. And so
another possibility, should strings fail to be the final theory, is that they are one more layer in the cosmic onion, a layer that
becomes visible at the Planck length, although not the final layer. In this case, strings could be made up of yet-smaller structures.
String theorists have raised and continue to pursue this possibility. To date there are intriguing hints in theoretical studies that
strings may have further substructure, but there is as yet no definitive evidence. Only time and intense research will supply the final
word on this question.

Aside from a few speculations in Chapters 12 and 15, for our discussion here we approach strings in the manner proposed in the
first answer—that is, we will take strings to be nature's most fundamental ingredient.

Unification through String Theory

Besides its inability to incorporate the gravitational force, the standard model has another shortcoming: There is no explanation for
the details of its construction. Why did nature select the particular list of particles and forces outlined in previous chapters and
recorded in Tables 1.1 and 1.2? Why do the 19 parameters that describe these ingredients quantitatively have the values that they
do? You can't help feeling that their number and detailed properties seem so arbitrary. Is there a deeper understanding lurking
behind these seemingly random ingredients, or were the detailed physical properties of the universe "chosen" by happenstance?

The standard model itself cannot possibly offer an explanation since it takes the list of particles and their properties as
experimentally measured input. Just as the performance of the stock market cannot be used to determine the value of your portfolio
without the input data of your initial investments, the standard model cannot be used to make any predictions without the input data
of the fundamental particle properties.44 After experimental particle physicists fastidiously measure these data, theorists can then
use the standard model to make testable predictions, such as what should happen when particular particles are slammed together in
an accelerator. But the standard model can no more explain the fundamental particle properties of Tables 1.1 and 1.2 than the Dow
Jones average today can explain your initial investment in stocks ten years ago.

In fact, had experiments revealed a somewhat different particle content in the microscopic
world, possibly interacting with somewhat different forces, these changes could have been
fairly easily incorporated in the standard model by providing the theory with different
input parameters. The structure of the standard model, in this sense, is too flexible to be
able to explain the properties of the elementary particles, as it could have accommodated a
range of possibilities.

String theory is dramatically different. It is a unique and inflexible theoretical edifice. It

requires no input beyond a single number, described below, that sets the benchmark scale
for measurements. All properties of the microworld are within the realm of its explanatory
power. To understand this, let's first think about more familiar strings, such as those on a
violin. Each such string can undergo a huge variety (in fact, infinite in number) of different
vibrational patterns known as resonances, such as those shown in Figure 6.1. These are the
wave patterns whose peaks and troughs are evenly spaced and fit perfectly between the
string's two fixed endpoints. Our ears sense these different resonant vibrational patterns as
different musical notes. The strings in string theory have similar properties. There are Figure 6.1 Strings on a violin can
resonant vibrational patterns that the string can support by virtue of their evenly spaced vibrate in resonant patterns in
peaks and troughs exactly fitting along its spatial extent. Some examples are given in which a whole number of peaks
Figure 6.2. Here's the central fact: Just as the different vibrational patterns of a violin string and troughs exactly fit between the
give rise to different musical notes, the different vibrational patterns of a fundamental two ends.
string give rise to different masses and force charges. As this is a crucial point, let's say it

44
The standard model does suggest a mechanism by which particles acquire mass—the Higgs mechanism, named after the Scottish physicist Peter Higgs. But from the point of view of
explaining the particle masses, this merely shifts the burden to explaining properties of a hypothetical "mass-giving particle"—the so-called Higgs boson. Experimental searches for this
particle are underway, but once again, if it is found and its properties measured, these will be input data for the standard model, for which the theory offers no explanation.