Today, I Will Not Talk About IT

Today, I will not talk about IT.

I have been writing mostly about AI, cloud computing, and similar topics lately, so I thought I would write about something different for a change.

Long ago, I studied particle physics in graduate school. Because of that, I still occasionally read articles about physics.

I can no longer read the actual papers in any serious way, but I do read science magazines and articles online.

Recently, I came across an interesting one.

Apparently, a paper has been published that seems to strengthen the case for string theory.

What Is String Theory in the First Place?

String theory is the idea that the most fundamental components of the universe are not “points,” but extremely tiny “strings.”

Electrons and quarks, in this view, are not fundamentally different objects. They are merely different vibrational states of the same kind of string.

Another major attraction of the theory is that it can naturally include gravity.

Modern physics is built on two enormous frameworks: quantum mechanics and general relativity. But these two have not yet been fully unified.

String theory has long been studied as one candidate for that unification.

It is fair to call it one of the candidates for a “final theory” of physics.

However, there is a major problem.

No experimental evidence has been found.

That is why, for decades, people have kept saying about string theory:

“I understand that it is a beautiful theory, but is it actually correct?”

Strings Appeared Even Though Strings Were Not Assumed

The title of the paper is:

“Strings from Almost Nothing”

The researchers did not assume string theory from the beginning.

They only placed very basic conditions on particle scattering.

Then, as a result of the calculation, features of string theory apparently emerged naturally.

One of the authors described it this way:

“The strings just fell out.”

For a theorist, I imagine this is an exciting story.

I can understand the urge to say:

“See? String theory really is special after all.”

But That Does Not Make It Correct

From here on, however, this is just my personal reaction.

When I read about this paper, I did not think:

“String theory has been proven.”

Not at all.

Because what the paper showed was:

“It emerges naturally in mathematics.”

It did not show:

“This is what the universe is actually doing.”

Of course, mathematics is extraordinary.

Both relativity and quantum mechanics are described through mathematics.

I think mathematics is one of the most powerful inventions in human history.

But I have always felt that mathematics is not the universe itself.

It is a tool for understanding the universe.

It is like a telescope or a microscope.

An unbelievably powerful tool, yes.

But still only a tool.

There Is No Guarantee That Mathematics and the Universe Match

If we look at the history of physics, mathematics has described the universe with astonishing accuracy.

That is why we trust mathematics.

However, there is a difference between:

“It has worked until now.”

and:

“It will continue to work forever.”

A map is not the territory.

No matter how precise a map is, it is not reality itself.

I think mathematics is the same.

No matter how beautiful the equations of string theory may be, there is no guarantee that the universe is actually built that way.

What is ultimately needed is experiment.

Experimentalists Have Always Said the Same Thing

Whenever I see debates around string theory, I remember something.

Even when I was a student, theorists would get excited about the beauty of equations, while experimentalists would ask:

“So, did you measure it?”

This new paper looks to me like an extension of that old conversation.

The paper itself is interesting.

Very interesting.

But it is not an experimental result.

So I did not take it as news that:

“String theory was right!”

I took it as news that:

“String theory may be even more mathematically attractive than we thought.”

Connecting This Slightly Back to IT

Physicists may be annoyed by this comparison, but the story feels somewhat familiar.

In the IT industry too, we often see systems where:

• The design document is perfect.
• The architecture is beautiful.
• There are no problems in theory.
• The review feedback is excellent.

There are many such systems.

But it is not rare for problems to appear the moment they are released into production.

Engineers know this.

Passing a review and working in reality are two different things.

That is why, when I hear stories about string theory, I do not think theorists are wrong.

Nor do I think experimentalists are being mean.

If anything, I think it is a healthy relationship.

Someone says:

“That is a beautiful theory.”

And then someone else asks:

“So, does it actually work?”

That exchange is probably one of the things that has moved science forward.

And maybe IT works the same way.