or

Superstrings, multiverses, and all that

Moataz H. Emam
Layout:
What do we mean by TOE “Theory Of Everything”?

The current state of fundamental physics review

String theory* and the “Landscape” – a promise or a waste

of talents?

Experimental physics?

The future?

*a.k.a superstring theory, M-theory, Brane theory

A TOE* is not:
An explanation of why we are here and/or whether or
not there is a Creator

A description of where we are going and what is our

purpose

About life, freedom or the pursuit of happiness

* Theory Of Everything
In physics, a TOE is (hopefully)
A theory that describes:
All matter (subatomic particles, atoms, molecules etc)
All forces (gravity, magnetismetc)
Only things we can observe (not necessarily see)

Mathematical

Falsifiable
 … etc.

A TOE should MEDICINE

• Provide a foundation to
physics, which is the BIOLOGY
foundation to
everything else
CHEMISTRY

PHYSICS
• Everything works
because of TOE

TOE
 Einstein

A TOEist’s dream: Newton

 Is the reductionist’s dream:

 To find the principles and/or Galileo

mathematical equations that are the
foundation of EVERYTHING and Anaximenes

discover that they can fit on one side

of a T-shirt!

 The fewer they are, the better

Anaximander

Thales
A TOE should be
unique and
inevitable
 There shouldn’t even be the possibility of another

 It should, once found, be immediately obvious in the

sense of “How come no one thought of this before?”

 What if more than one is found?

If there is more than one TOE
 Two options:

1) Only one describes the universe. If so:

 What, or who, chose this TOE over any other TOE

 Why are we here rather than there?

 Too many “unscientific” questions

Or
2) Possibility of other universes, each described by a
different TOE

 If so, it is not a TOE (Theory Of Everything) but a

TOTU (Theory Of This Universe)

 So if there is more than one TOTU, what is the TOE

that underlies them all?
So how far are we?
 Particle physics a.k.a High Energy physics:

 Studies the smallest possible scales of matter

 Studies forces and how they interact with matter

 Theoretical and experimental

So what is matter?

 Subatomic particles.
Ordinary matter
(me and you included)

 + four more quarks,

three neutrinos, a tau
and a muon (unclear
why these exist)
So what are forces?
 a.k.a fields, a.k.a interactions

 Historically studied independently from particles

 Today we know of four, seemingly different, forces:

All masses attract

 1) Gravity
Electric + Magnetic phenomena
 2) Electromagnetism
 3) Strong nuclear
Acts only inside nuclei
 4) Weak nuclear
Why not one force?

 Unification is another basic requirement of TOE

 TOE should show that ALL is ONE, relating forces to

each other and to particles

 Two apparently different ideas/forces turn out to be

really one and the same all the time
Example:
 18th and 19th Century
magnetism – unrelated to
the study of electricity
Unification!!
 James Clerk Maxwell (c. 1860)

 E & M: two sides of the same

coin:

 They cause each other, interact,

and form one tight bond!

 They are the same thing!!

Nice and short!
 The Maxwell equations:

dF = 0
~ ~
dF = J

 Short, elegant and fits on a T-shirt!

 TOE should be like this

Elegance!
 TOE should be (one hopes) “elegant”

 Does not necessarily mean mathematical simplicity

 Simplicity in the basic principles

 The lesser the assumptions one makes, the more

elegant
Einstein’s gravity (General Relativity)
 Simple and elegant Gµν + Λg µν = Tµν
 Space “bends” and “warps” around objects with mass
 Objects follow the shortest possible distances in such
warped spaces – like a bar of soap in a sink
The Standard Model – our most
successful theory yet
 Collection of theories that describe three of the four forces

 QED: Electromagnetism

 QCD: Strong Nuclear

 Weinberg-Salam: Weak Nuclear

 SM + Gravity (General Relativity) = the universe!

The Standard Model – our most
successful theory yet
 Based on everything being a particle – even forces!!

 Force particles:

 1) Gravity graviton (yet unobserved)

 2) Electromagnetism photon
 3) Strong nuclear gluon
 4) Weak nuclear W and Z particles
Particle interactions
 In the standard model particles collide and deflect
sharply.

 Example: Two electrons approach,

exchange a photon (electric force repulsion),
bounce away (think of billiard balls carrying canons)
The Standard Model:
Matter is particles, forces are particles

 Unification?

 All is particles! Different rules though

 Sadly, the elegance of the classical theories

(Maxwell/Einstein) is lost 
 Solves problems but inelegant

But …
 SM: not unified, just a
bunch of theories

 Explains E & M, strong and

weak nuclear forces, but not
gravity

 Suffers from weird infinite

results
1+1= ∞ ?
“The only game in town”*
 In terms of unification (everything including gravity) and
elegance, String Theory is pretty much the only game in
town

 Forty years old

 Went through several revisions

 No infinities, all forces included …

* Sheldon Glashow
String theory
 On a VERY small scale, ALL particles
(matter and force) are made of a single
object; an oscillating string

 The frequency (pitch) of the oscillations is

what distinguishes an electron from
a quark from a photon … etc

 All are string! Same rules!

Particle interactions
 In the standard model particles collide and deflect
sharply (a source of infinities)

 Example: Two electrons approach,

exchange a photon (electric force repulsion),
bounce away (think of billiard balls carrying canons)
Strings are smooth and elegant

No infinities – same
rules – one string

Elegance is restored!
The pros:
 All forces are included, even gravity – total unification!

 No infinities arise in the calculations

 The elegance of Maxwellian and

Einsteinian ideas is restored

 Do we have a winner?
The cons
 Not quite a winner yet!

 Strings are sooooo small there is no hope in observing

them directly – experimental verification is unlikely in
the near future

 Predicts unobserved particles (read: strings), an

infinity of them in fact
Even worse:
 String theory predicts we must live in a universe with
more than three spatial dimensions!!

 ST needs TEN!!

 Who ordered that?*

*Isidor Rabi
A possible solution
 The seven extra, unwanted, dimensions can be
suppressed, but not removed

 The technique is “Dimensional Reduction”, or

“Compactification”

 It doesn’t explain the why, just the how

Dimensional reduction
Dimensional reduction
Dimensional reduction
Unfortunately….
 When this is done, the one string theory splinters into
10500 different string theories

 10500 different TOE’s?

 Which one is our physics? Why are the others there?

 What does it all mean?

 Talk about TOE being unique!!
 Number of cells in the human body ≈ 1014 =100000000000000 cells

 Seconds since the beginning of the universe ≈ 5×1017 =100000000000000000 seconds

 Number of hydrogen atoms in the universe ≈ 4×1079 =

40000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000 atoms

 Number of possible TOE’s derived from string theory

≈ 10500
=10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000
The string theory landscape
 Is the collection of 10500 possible TOE’s if ST is correct!

 All are different, having different forces and different

interactions

 The hope for a single unique inevitable TOE is ruined?

 Seems so, so why are string theorists getting more grant

money than most other theoretical research groups?
The proponents say: Joe Polchinski

 It solves a lot of the SM problems

and is the only proposal with
gravity in it
Ed Witten

 Mathematicians love it! Nice and

elegant mathematical theorems
derived

 Really, how can something as

cool as string theory be wrong? Juan Maldacena
The opponents say:
 ST is un-falsifiable! You cannot
prove it and no one else can
disprove it! What is this?
Astrology?

 It is non-unique (to say the least)

 Math is nice but this is PHYSICS

 Give other people a chance at the

NSF grant money!!!
The Landscape:
A Darwinian Megaverse?
 The 10500 landscape universes all “exist”

 Nature goes through them, one

“mutating” into another

 Some survive – some don’t

 Some suitable for life, others aren’t

 Natural selection

 We live in one of the survivors that also

happens to be suitable for life!
The opponents say:

 “Oh, c’mon! You are just

patching up something that is
so obviously wrong!!”
More stuff: branes
 Solitonic solutions (like tidal waves) – nonlinear, nondispersive,
and violates superposition

p = 0  point particle (Angel and Bryan)

p = 1  string
p = 2  membrane
p = 3  3-brane
etc
Where are they?
 If branes are infinite surfaces, how come we do not see
them? Solution: We live inside one!

Braneworlds:
Consequences of Braneworlds
 Branes are macroscopic objects (we have come full circle)

 The extra dimensions are not all necessarily compactified

 Strings may be larger than originally thought: experimentally

accessible.
Experimental hopes:
The LHC; Large Hadron Collider
 €6.4 billion (≈ 3 B2 bombers )

 Our largest particle lab yet. In Geneva, Switzerland.

 Turned on September 10, 2008

 Found the Higgs Particle

 Will it (dis)prove ST?

An LHC detector being installed.
No!
 Finding:

Supersymmetric particles
Variations in the gravitational field
Indications of other dimensions

provides circumstantial evidence

 Not finding these things does not mean ST is wrong.

Proponents will argue that LHC is not powerful
enough. Opponents will yell: “Un-falsifiable, duh!”
Astronomical observations?
 Catastrophic cosmic events may be energetic enough
for ST findings (Very rare, too far)

 Close studies of black holes (Too far, too dangerous)

 Remnants of Big Bang (Too weak)

 Gravitational waves cosmology is where I will bet my

money on
The Future?

OR
The Future?

OR