[neutralino]

Hi Bob,

Originally Posted by Bob Campbell Hi MJA, Thanks for the pun. Sometimes it is very appropriate. The problem that I have with superstrings is that they are unimaginably smaller than a single proton.

But anything else that you decide is a fundamental building block of matter would be unimaginally smaller than the proton as well. An electron, for example, is far smaller than a proton. (well, ok, so it probably makes no sense to formally talk of the "size" of the particles, but an electron is definitely a lot less massive than the proton, and thus I would say it is "smaller" for this argument).

I don't how it is more difficult to believe that particles are made up of strings, than particles are made up of smaller point particles.

They are believed to physically exist and yet can never be observed in experience of any kind. They are believed to be the source of space and time and yet there is zero evidence that space and time exist as things independent from the phenomenal world around us.

I've never heard a theory where strings are supposed to be the source of space and time. All the versions of string theory that I have heard involve a spacetime manifold on which string move (just like 4-space and particles). Perhaps you could enlighten me if I've missed something?

Superstrings can never be more than a mathematical exercise in fantasy.

This is somewhat of a valid point. String theory is a mathematical theory, and will remain so until it makes predictions for experiments that can perceivably be undertaken in the future.

I am in the same camp as Einstein, Planck, de Broglie, Fred Hoyle and certain other contributors to modern physics when it comes to these mathematical extrapolations of space and time back to a singular beginning.

Einstein invented a theory that said that massive particles curve spacetime. How more mathematical a theory can you get?