Its the fault of the uncertainity principle. A photon should be able to see and position any
other particle except another photon of course

sciam.com
excerpt
LK: If you asked a child how much energy there is in empty space, he'd say "none," because that's
the sensible answer.

still something there.
What's worse is: if you put a little amount of energy into empty space, then everything we know
about the laws of physics says you should be able to put a tremendous amount of energy into it. Once
you open the dam and allow empty space to have energy, you ask how much it should naturally have.
Our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics says that empty space should have about
120 orders of magnitude more energy than the amount we measure it to have. That is 1 with 120 zeroes
after it! How to reduce the amount it has by such a huge magnitude, without making it precisely
zero, is a complete mystery I strongly opposed this. I wanted them to say that scientists are
continuing to critically examine everything.
As I feared, this sentence opened the door for the creationists' claiming that there is controversy
about the accuracy of evolutionary theory. And it's come back to haunt us. Just the other week, I
had to put everything I was doing aside because the creationists were back at their old games again
in Ohio. One of the model lessons that came out was an intelligent-design diatribe. Basically, they
snuck the whole thing in again, through the back door. This becomes so tiresome that you just want
to say, "Forget about it, go on." But then you realize that this is exactly what Phillip Johnson,
this lawyer who first proposed the intelligent-design strategy, proposed when he said something
like, "We'll just keep going and going and going till we outlast the evolutionists."
SA: Do scientists trap themselves when they try to be "fair" and "give equal time" in their
debates with the anti-Darwinists?
LK: Yes. Because science isn't fair. It's testable. In science, we prove things by empirical
methods, and we toss out things that have been disproved as wrong. Period. This is how we make
progress.
I'm not against teaching faith-based ideas in religion classes; I'm just against teaching them as if
they were science.

Both these theories are based on the idea that you can't go down to zero in a point particle, and
that's one way to get rid of mathematical infinities. The main difference, I think, between the two
theories is that string is intellectually and mathematically far richer.
String theory hasn't accomplished a lot in terms of solving physical problems, but it's produced a
lot of interesting mathematical discoveries. That's why it fascinates. Loop quantum gravity hasn't
even done that, at least in my mind.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We live in a society where it's considered okay for intelligent people to be scientifically
illiterate."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SA: Are you saying that string theory hasn't really gotten us anywhere?

LK: Neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity has told us much about the key unsolved physical
problems--most important, why does the universe have dark energy? That's the biggest question right
now. One thing that has come out of string theory is the idea of plural universes or extra
dimensions, and that's because string theory is based on extra dimensions. The only consistent
string theory originally had 26 dimensions, and then it got lowered to 10. But the universe we live
in is four-dimensional [three spatial plus time]. A lot of talk went into explaining how all these
extra dimensions were invisible. Recently some people have been trying to turn that defect into a
virtue by suggesting that the extra dimensions might actually be detectable.