Three Scientific Revolutions: How They Transformed Our Conceptions of Reality (29 page)

Although published many years ago and therefore somewhat dated, the quotation presents an excellent summary of developments up to that time showing how radically different the scientific framework had become since the time of Newton. Not only is the world no longer completely deterministic and limited to the atomic domain, the recent advances in physics have become so dependent on the mathematical formalism that it is impossible to render it intelligible in more familiar, pictorial, or visualizable concepts. Perhaps an exaggeration, but in 1992 Weinberg skeptically claimed like Einstein in the EPR article that

quantum mechanics by itself is not a complete physical theory. It tells us nothing about the particles and forces that may exist. Pick up any textbook on quantum mechanics; you find as illustrative examples a weird variety of hypothetical particles and forces, most of which resemble nothing that exists in the real world, but all of which are perfectly consistent with the principles of quantum mechanics. . . . Most of these theories can be logically ruled out because they would entail nonsense like infinite energies or infinite reaction rates.
¹¹⁷

Yet perhaps influenced by the constant references to the experimental confirmation of new discoveries and explanations, I found that most of the physicists at the time were reminiscent of John Trowbridge who had discouraged students at the beginning of the twentieth century from pursuing graduate work in physics believing that nearly everything of importance had been explained. In the latter decades of the century most physicists thought that the final answers would be found in the near future. As Harald Fritzsch, a coworker of Gell-Mann's, wrote in 1943 in the original German then translated into English in l983 with no retraction:

Today we can state unequivocally that the physics of the atom is understood. A few details need to be cleared up, but that is all. . . . Important and fascinating discoveries have been made in high energy physics, especially since 1969, and today it appears that physicists are about to take the important leap toward a complete understanding of matter.
¹¹⁸

Also in his inaugural lecture in April 1980, titled “Is the End in Sight for Theoretical Physics?” when he assumed the Lucasian Chair in physics at Trinity College at Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, the world's most famous cosmologist, had the following read (because he has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis):

In this lecture I want to discuss the possibility that the goal of theoretical physics might be achieved in the not-to-distant future, say, by the end of the century. By this I mean that we might have a complete, consistent, and unified theory of the physical interactions which would describe all possible observations. Of course one has to be very cautious about making such predictions. . . . Nevertheless, we have made a lot of progress in recent years and . . . there are some grounds for cautious optimism that we may see a complete theory within the lifetime of those present here.
¹¹⁹

In fairness, owing to developments in physics since then, he has lately rescinded his statement. In his recent book previously referred to,
The Grand Design
, written with Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking describes the cosmological theory of “multiuniverses,” which would contain a vast number of alternate universes whose laws of nature would be very different from ours, thus making a final theory extremely difficult or unlikely.
¹²⁰
Still, as Johnson states in
Strange Beauty
:

Whatever one's philosophical inclinations, it was hard not to be in awe of the Standard Model. Discovery or invention, it was a work of art. Whether it was the art of nature or the art of human kind could never be known for sure. But it was pleasing to think that humans, on their tiny planet, with their blinkered senses and animal brains, could weave observation and imagination into such a powerful theory. (p. 296)

Before concluding this discussion of the accomplishments of the second revolution I should mention the accurate discovery of the age of the universe since the Big Bang. Hubble had detected the recession of the galaxies from the earth thereby indicating the expansion of the universe, and devised an equation to calculate the rate of the recession as “
Ho
=
v
/
d
(where
Ho
is the constant,
v
is the recessional velocity of a flying galaxy, and
d
its distance away from us).”
¹²¹
Based on his formula he calculated the age of the universe to be “about two billion years old.” It wasn't until “February 2003 that NASA and the Goddard Space Flight Center, using a new type of satellite called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, announced the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years . . .” (pp. 169–70). Just recently the European Space Agency, using their Planck telescope, determined the age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years. It was in l953, after many other unsuccessful efforts, that Clair Patterson by measuring the amount of radioactive decay of uranium to lead in ancient earth rock crystals, determined the age of the earth to be about “4,550 million years (plus or minus 70 million year)—a figure that stands unchanged 50 years later . . .” (p. 157).

Chapter VIII

THE IMPENDING FOURTH TRANSITION ALONG WITH THE FUTURE PROSPECTS OF SCIENCE

Having described the third revolution, the challenge now is to access what physics portends for the future. In the last decades of the twentieth century the main problems confronting physicists were the unification of the electroweak and electromagnetic forces, forging a more definitive model of the atom, and confronting the revisions in physics owing to the discovery of the strange quantum of energy. Along with other outstanding contributors, two contrasting worldviews were offered as solutions by the two most influential physicists of the century, Einstein and Bohr.

Despite being the originator that light and matter consist of swarms of quanta that raised all the perplexing questions as to if and how they compose physical reality, Einstein was adamant in his defense of an eventual interpretation based on the discoveries of the
underlying objective properties
of an independently existing physical world. As he wrote: “The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science.”
¹²²

In contrast, Bohr defended the view that given the impossibility of observing quanta due to their infinitesimal size it was necessary to rely on measurements based on the
interactions
of the measuring instruments with the quanta, despite realizing that as a result the measured data were not inherent properties of independently existing particles as normally believed, but “complementary” because they could not exist separately. It also meant that the measurements were uncertain and probable and that the quantum itself did not exist until measured! As Bohr stated: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum mechanical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”
¹²³

This limitation to the measurable data led to what has been called the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of Quantum Mechanics named after Bohr's Institute whose extremely brilliant visiting students and scholars, usually with his guidance, played the leading role in the development of quantum mechanics. The interpretation was that since all the quantum evidence was based on and limited to the mathematical measurements the resultant
experiential phenomena
composing the theory consisted solely of the system of measurements without representing or being dependent on any independent underlying physical reality as it's cause! This in turn led to fantastic interpretations by psychedelics, Eastern mystics, and Christians who claimed that it was the direct word of God.

Despite its having no empirical content, it nonetheless helped create many of the outstanding technological innovations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, such as radios, television, computers, mobile phones, iPod
^®
s, and quantum cryptography, leading most physicists to accept it despite its obscurity and tenuousness. Although Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation claimed that there was no possibility of a credible theoretical interpretation, several new theories were introduced such as a “Cosmic Multiverse,” an “Inflationary Universe,” “Parallel Worlds,” and “String Theory.” The first three present different explanations of the inflationary universe or that in addition to our known universe there are multiple universes each with its own unique laws. Since it is not practical to discuss and evaluate all four theories, I will restrict my discussion to String Theory, which is perhaps the best known and that has been the subject of intensive research for about four decades and yet still has not produced any supporting experimental evidence, even though nearly all the predicted—though probable—experimental evidence for quantum mechanics, as bewildering as it is, has been confirmed, which is the reason so many physicists accept it as a final state.

Yet the confirmation of other new theories continue to be announced sustaining a certain confidence in the continuing progress of physics. The
Washington Post
(July 5, 2012) published an article subtitled, “Subatomic Particle Is Breakthrough in Understanding [the] Basics of the Universe” declaring that “scientists in Europe [announced] that they'd found the Higgs boson or something remarkably Higgs-like, [that] was a stunning triumph of both theory and experiment” (brackets added).
¹²⁴
The particle was so crucial that it was called the “God particle” by Leon Lederman, its discovery hailed in the article as “a tremendous breakthrough with enormous explanatory significance.”

Yet the particle itself has never been
directly
detected, the evidence for its existence inferred from the confirmation of what has been mathematically predicted characteristic of quantum mechanical inquiries. As the authors state:

Regardless of whether it's the Higgs or a Higgs imposter, it's a very real particle, and newly known to science, and apparently fundamental to the texture of the universe. . . . It was also the most important, because it is thought to give rise to the “Higgs field,” a sort of force field that permeates everything. (pp. A1, A2)

Whether this is true or not is one of the crucial questions facing physicists today. Still, many have retained their confidence in their ability to solve such problems, as implied in the statement by Michael S. Turner, a professor of physics at the University of Chicago, at the end of the Higgs article: “Okay, the particle physicists got their Number 1 wish—the Higgs. Now we cosmologists want ours—the dark-matter particles.”

Although it is undeniable that extraordinary progress has been made since the seventeenth century in understanding those domains of the universe that we have attained access to, is it realistic to assume, given the duration, extent, and complexity of the universe, especially in contrast to the finitude of human existence, that we are capable of attaining a final or complete understanding of the cosmos as most physicists aspired to and many still do? A number of diverse views regarding the future prospects of physics and cosmology have been published, such as
The Shaky Game: Einstein Realism and the Quantum Theory
, by Arthur Fine (1986);
The End of Physics
: The Myth of a Unified Theory
, by David Lindley (1993);
Dreams of a Final Theory,
by Steven Weinberg (1993);
The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age
, by John Horgan (1996);
The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason
, by Charles Freeman (2003);
The Beginning of Infinity: Expla
nations that Transform the World
, by David Deutsch (2011); and,
Physics of the Future
: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Lives by the Year 2100,
by Michio Kaku (2012).

However, as discussed in the previous chapter, that the existence of the observed world, along with the subatomic realm and especially the even more basic quantum domain that had been accepted by many scientists as the “standard model,” are now believed to depend solely upon the instruments of detection and the type of mathematics used, this does not necessarily mean that they have no “objective” nor “real status” independently of the method of inquiry. However bewildering quantum mechanics seems to be, it represents the only credible view of physical reality at that level of inquiry, but not the final truth.

How could the Periodic Table have been organized; contagious epidemics eliminated by inoculations; Hubble's first telescope built at Mount Wilson's Observatory that disclosed the existence of additional galaxies and the accelerating inflationary universe; Hubble's later space telescope followed by the James Webb Space Telescope that revealed trillions of stars and exoplanets existing in about 125 billion galaxies, enabling astronomers eventually to examine the exoplanets more closely to determine whether intelligent beings exist on those other planets, if nothing we have learned about the universe were true? In addition, the new technology includes nuclear reactors; computers and artificial intelligence; an enormous cyclotron constructed to simulate the early physical conditions of the big bang; and the decoding of the human genome. Any prognoses of the future of science must acknowledge our past and impending achievements, even if attaining a conclusive, all encompassing final theory may be beyond our reach.

Since quantum mechanics especially has risen in significance in scientific inquiry with an increasing reliance on a mathematics with inherent uncertainties and probabilities, this has reduced the traditional definiteness, firmness, and pictographic nature of theories and explanations making them more conditional, contingent, and obscure. It is this that has led to the disbelief expressed by David Lindley and also by Gregory Chaitin, as quoted by John Horgan in
The End of Science
, who denounced real numbers as “nonsense” declaring that “Physicists know that every equation is a lie . . . .”
¹²⁵
But surely this is not true!