As the title says I am a biology student I want to understand string theory and all the controversy behind it.

 

String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles), I understand what this says, but I don't understand how this would apply to real life or how would change the current understanding of our universe.

 

Please try to explain in general terms, with minimal use of complex terminology, when it comes to physics I'm dumber than a sack of bricks.

This is a personal answer to your question. If you are a biology student and wonder what connections there might be between fundamental physics and biological reality.. I'd pose the things like... arrow of time / time reversal, and creation / evolution processes. And what about consciousness? Is a yeast cell conscious? Is a DNA molecule conscious? If so, what does it mean? If not, why not? Is a bug consious? Is a dog consious? Concepts like self-information? The self? Is that evening meaningful? Why? why not?

 

The biological evolution supposedly didn't start with an "egg in space", the first step beeing formation of particles, then atoms and molecules...

 

But that isn't specific to "string theory". I personally thing there are more interesting theories of fundamental physics.

 

I used to be a physics student, that asked the opposite question. From the point of view of a "reduced" physical reality, why do I need to study biology? I couldn't see it. It took me some time... but now I see it. There are many interesting links to the philosophically minded. And solving some of these deep problems will provide keys to many fields.

 

How come a tiny cell can perfom a tasks that we have a hard time to have supercomputers do with our big brains? Are we just plain stupid, or what is the problem?

 

Orienting yourself in physics could possible be fruitful also for your future biology endeavours. But it tooke me some time to find the motivation. My motivation was that I walked the reductionist line... and ended up with the conclusion that something is wrong here, and I went back to where I came from.

 

/Fredrik