Hard Landscape

Finding our universe in string theory appears impossible

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Cosmology was always going to be trouble for particle physics. Traditional quantum theory predicts that the vacuum of space should bubble over with short-lived "virtual" particles, whose combined energy, represented by the so-called cosmological constant, would have long ago blown galaxies far and wide like grease on water at the touch of detergent. Lately, trying to make sense of why the cosmological constant is tiny, physicists have toyed with a concept based on string theory. Called the landscape model, it supposes that many universes with different cosmological constants are realized in a larger multiverse. Despite long-standing hopes to the contrary, landscapers now have found that singling out a universe from this array is mathematically nigh impossible.

In 1998 astronomers discovered that the universe's expansion is accelerating at a rate consistent with a cosmological constant 10-120 times the value predicted by quantum theory. String theory, which unites gravity with quantum mechanics, offered the hope of explaining the attenuated cosmological constant. It recasts particles as one-dimensional strings, or filaments of energy, which play around in tiny tangles of extra spatial dimensions. The shape of the tangles influences the properties of strings and therefore the vacuum's energy. But no mathematical principle forces the extra dimensions to fold in a unique way.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American