Ok, I'm not very smart...but I'm curious.  I saw a televison show last
night where is was stated that matter is not made up of particles at
all, but of strings and wavelengths....all matter is connected. Also,
11 dimensional Universe? (part of "M" theory??)

 It also spoke about particle theory and that particles exist in
parallel universes (an idea I can't grasp).  

In plain english, what the current popular theory of physical matter?
Can you explain it in simple terms?

Thanks in advance.
T

The winning concept which emerged from the 20 century discoveries 
is the concept of scale.
 Physics was successful to REDUCE complex phenomena
to more simple ones, molecules to atoms, neutron to quarks, ...
and this process continues, and popular TV series and book talk mostly
about such fontiers.

However, there are limits to this trend, to 

REDUCTIONISM (search term)

Here is a simple visual tours, which explains the concept of scale:

http://www.wordwizz.com/pwrsof10.htm

 There are several sites like that, and worth of looking at.

http://www.vendian.org/envelope/dir0/scales.html

So, what are the theories of matter ?

 Today's material scientist does not care about strings, branes, and 11d.

 Depending on material (gas, liquid, solid) is sees as material as
made from molecules (or in case of crystals) from atoms, and 'goes up in scale'
using tools of discipline called 'statistical physics' or statistical rheology.
described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheology
http://dmoz.org/Science/Physics/Rheology/
  You will find nothing there about quarks, or strings or branes.

 Not that material scientists would deny their existence. 
Those are studies on a different scale.
Poetically you could say 'they are in a different universe'

 That does not mean that there was no progress,
 no change in material science lately.
 We understand the important meso scales (scales between micro and macro)
 much better. Whole field of 
SEARCH TERM: nanotechnology
emerged, dealing with scales of size over 100 nm to about 1e-6 m (1 micron)
(if you looked on the first two links, you do understand these symbols)

 All developements in physics progress in parallel,
on many scales, and popular science editors and writers 
would do a better job if they whould cover the whole range,
rather then focus on the gee-whiz science of the 'latest discovery'.

So to summarize it simply:

matter is made of molecules (range in size from macroscopic to atom)
          molecules are made of atoms.

There is no argument about that.

Whan you ask what are the atoms and their parts made of,
you get many theories, some with 11 dimensions, and all mostly
irrelevant to practical business of applied science.

Hedgie

Been on holiday.  Thanks everyone!!  I did buy the book by Bill Bryson
but left it on a hotel nightstand!!  I'll go re-purchase.

T

Fundamental particle of matter is atom with out any doubt.Atom is
having both particle and wave nature.
 Atom is made of protons(+)electron(-)neutron(0).Nucleus is made up of
proton and neutron around which electrons are revolving with high
velocities in the order of 300000KM/sec.Also atoms collide with each
other continously.In this process there is continuous exchange of
energy.So atom seems to be like a wave rather than particle in spectra
which is the only  way of studying atom for scientists

What you're refering to is called "string" theory. It doesn't
precisely say that matter isn't a menu of particles. These particles
are known by experiment to exist. The problem nowadays is by what
principle the various classes of particle come to have their specific
characteristics, expecially their measured masses.

   The proposition is that these properties correspond to vibrational
modes. A string having mode m1 may be an electron. Mode m2 could be a
photon. And so on. The only difference between any two species of
particle is its vibration mode as a string.

   As for parallel universes, it's not really so much that they are
"parallel". It's more that there are, as you say, a number of extra
space dimensions. To illustrate, I'll explain. Let's say you've a
"space" with only a single dimension. It's just a straight line that
extends indefinitely both to the left & the right. (Or, if you'd
rather, to the up & the down. Or whatever.) This is a 1-space, a
single axis which I'll call "x". A space with two dimensions would be
a flat plane. It has two dimensions, x & y, and is a 2-space. One axis
extends left/right, the other up/down. The two are at right angles to
each other. You can think of it as being one axis being dragged at a
right angle to itself, tracing out a surface. If you then drag the
plane x,y through a direction which is at a right angle to both x & y,
then it traces out a 3rd dimension, is a 3-space, with axes x,y,z.

   Now, if we play with this whole principle of an n-space being
dragged through a higher dimension which is at right angles to all of
the n-axes, making an (n+1)-space, then we can speculate about the
hypothetical consequences of real, physical space having more than
just the 3-axes with which we're usually familiar. (length, width,
height) The x,y,z dimensions of the world in which we find ourselves
are visually tangible. But our brains aren't equipped to easily
visualise more than three axes, so we can only explore them with
abstract math, representing dimensions with algebraic symbols, and
generalising how higher dimensions relate to one another from what we
know of lower n-spaces.

   Anyway, if there are extra dimensions, axes, present in our
universe, it's proposed within string theory that some closed strings
may be partially extended out of 3-space into 4-space, so that only
part of its energy is available in 3-space to interact with other
strings (particles) also in 3-space. This is proposed mainly to
address the differences in the relative strengths of the known
interactions, i.e., "forces". For example, gravity is measured to be
only about 1/10^42 as strong, per pound of mass, as the electrostatic
force. So string theory proposes that various vibration modes are
conducive to various partial immersions of the strings in higher
dimensions, isolating portions of their interactive potentials from
each other.

   It's a very interesting theory, but also highly speculative and
controversial. It's seen by many who can follow the eleborate
mathematics as being *too* perfect in its task. By this I mean that
it's been constructed so as to address all known empirical data (which
of course it should), but that it seems to reproduce *only* the extant
data, yet cannot be tested directly because the mathematics persist in
being "intractible", i.e., unsolvable for specific circumstances.

The official answer is missing the point. Here is a physically sound version.

I would like to dissect the question into three parts:

(1) What are the fundamental constituents of matter - particles or strings?
(2) Are there more dimensions?
(3) Are there parallel Universes?

Here are very brief answers to get you started:

(1) According to the "Standard Model" of particle physics the most
fundamental particles are leptons (e.g. electrons) and quarks (which
make up protons and neutrons). Protons, neutrons and electrons are the
constituents of atoms which are the building blocks of ordinary
matter. There is lots of observational evidence for the existence of
these particles. (Super-)String theory (or M theory) attempts to go
further and explain the existence and different properties of these
fundamental particles as manifestations of a single entity, the
superstring. The idea is that different vibrational states of the
superstring correspond to different particles. In contrast to the
Standard Model, there is no direct evidence in support of String
Theory.

(2) One of the features of String Theory is that there should be more
spatial dimensions than the three we know of - in fact, there should
be 10 dimensions if superstring theory is correct. The extra space
dimensions are supposed to be wrapped up in tiny regions, which is why
we cannot observe them. Again, there is no observational evidence for
these extra dimensions at present.

(3) The idea of parallel universes has cropped up in physics in a
number of ways. However, the idea is more speculative then even string
theory and extra dimensions. I think it is more a way of interpreting
physical theory than being a physical theory itself. This has to do
with the fact that the physical theory in question cannot give a
unique outcome, i.e. that different possible states of the Universe
are consistent with the theory. Examples include (i) the "many worlds"
interpretation of quantum theory (ii) the fact that string theory
cannot really pick a unique set of "fundamental constants" for the
Universe. Hence, the fact that these theories are ultimately unable to
give an answer to the question "why is the Universe *precisely* the
way it is" prompts some people to suggest that there ought to be other
Universes with different properties that are also consistent with the
laws of physics (or even with different laws of physics)!
    
Here is a link to a website that you may find interesting - it in turn
contains many relevant links:
http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/string.html

Happy reading!

You might enjoy Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly
Everything". It's written in a language that you will easily
understand and covers most, perhaps all, of the questions you asked
and much more.

'What is mind, no matter.  What is matter, nevermind."
Homer Simpson.