|
Quantum mechanics are fairly well understood these days. There are classes on the subject at most technical schools (I'm not taking mine until the spring semester). The basic idea is that every interaction of particles with eachother (quarks, electrons, etc) is simply the manifestation of an intermediate particle. This, understandably, leads to many, many different kinds of particles, because there's one for every kind of subatomic interaction. But it's not just hypothetical. Most of the categorized (and predicted) particles have been physically detected in particle accelerators and a variety of other (often costly) experimental setups. We know that the subatomic world works the odd way quantum mechanics describes it to. There's also the fuzzy quality of "probablity" associated with particles in the quantum world (Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle for starters), meaning that there's never really a particle at a discrete point, only a field of probablity where the particle might be. It's extremely counterintuitive to think this way, in terms of mere probabilities instead of certainties, which is why quantum is nearly impossible to completely wrap your head around. Probability fields also matche up with a wave description of particles (that particles are just wave packets of probablity, not really discrete things). It's, well, really complicated. I can hardly get it, and I suspect a full-blown class will help my comprehension a lot.
As for String Theory, dude, I'm a physics major and I can barely understand the basics of the stuff. You can't really get a grasp of it until some serious graduate studies. The basic idea is that all different particles (electrons, quarks, muons, etc) are just vibrations of the same little loops, or "superstrings," much the same way that different vibrations of a musical string produce different notes (frequencies). But beyond simple analogies like that it gets waaaaaay out of my league.
There are tons of books written by physicists who boil down complicated physics concepts into simple explanations, but you can only go so far without mathematical accompaniment.
|
