Three Scientific Revolutions: How They Transformed Our Conceptions of Reality (30 page)

How could terrestrial motions be predicted with accuracy if Newton's formula F = ma were a lie; the atomic and hydrogen bombs have been constructed if Lisa Meitner's explanation of uranium fission or Einstein's equation
E
=
m
c
²
were false; or the successful landing of the rover Curiosity on Mars if all the precise calculations were erroneous? Like Kant's assertion that to know the independent “noumenal world” we would have to know “things as they are in themselves,” which he declared impossible, Lindley also denied that we have knowledge of “an objective, real world,” in opposition to Einstein's assertion, quoted previously, that “[to] believe in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science.”

It seems to me that there is considerable evidence that Einstein's assertion has been vindicated, as in our theory of electromagnetism, light waves and photons, charged particles such as the electron, proton, neutron, and positron, strong and weak nuclear forces, gluons, gravitons, quarks, the structure of biological cells, evolutionary theory, the discovery of the helical design of the genome, and the Big Bang theory of the universe. Among the things we still do not understand is what caused the massive concentration of energy known as the “big bang” or what preceded it. Was it just an offshoot of multiuniverses perhaps having inherently different laws? If the universe, as some claim, is composed of 23% dark matter (including dark holes), about which little is known, and 72% of equally mysterious dark energy (but considered the expansive force that counteracts gravity causing the earth to recede at an accelerated rate) totaling 95%, that leaves only 5% of the universe of which we have any understanding on which to base a definitive conclusion.

Yet as is usual in scientific inquiry, there now is an attempt to discover the nature of this dark energy believed to surround every galaxy, surmising that it is composed of subatomic particles called WIMPs standing for “weakly interacting massive particles.” As described in an article in the
Washington Post
:

The idea is to hang densely packed strands of DNA — quadrillions per layer — from thin sheets of gold foil. When a dark matter particle smacks into a gold atom, it would knock the nucleus through the DNA, shearing strands as it goes. Researchers could figure out
the path the particle traveled
by seeing where the strands were cut.
¹²⁶

Katherine Freese, one of the theoretical physicists involved in the investigation, said that “if the detector works, finding evidence of just 30 WIMPs will be enough to prove that these elusive particles do, in fact, exist. . . . An 80-year cosmic mystery solved” (E-5). Yet some cosmologists hoping to achieve a greater unification, along with a simpler and more elegant theory perhaps compressible into a single equation, as Einstein aspired to, have created string or superstring theory as the solution. Michio Kaku's dissertation topic being on problems in Gabriele Veneziano and Mahiko Susuki's string theory introduced in 1968, along with his collaboration with Keiji Kikkawa at Osaka University, enabled him to “successfully extract” from “the field theory of strings . . . an equation barely an inch and a half long” that “summarized all the information contained within string theory”
¹²⁷
shows his own involvement in working out the theory.

Attempting to explain all the diverse particles and forces of recent physics in terms of a deeper level of reality, they have returned, ironically, to the ancient Greek philosophy of Pythagoras who conceived of the universe as a musical harmony. As Kaku states:

If string theory is correct . . . the link between music and science was forged as early as the fifth century B.C., when the Greek Pythagoreans discovered the laws of harmony and reduced them to mathematics. They found that the tone of a plucked lyre string corresponded to its length. If one doubled the length of a lyre string, then the note went down by a full octave. If the length of a string was reduced by two-thirds, then the tone changed by a fifth. Hence, the laws of music and harmony could be reduced to precise relations between numbers. . . . Originally, they were so pleased with this result that they dared to apply these laws of harmony to the entire universe. Their effort failed because of the enormous complexity of matter. However, in some sense, with string theory, physicists are going back to the Pythagorean dream. (p. 198)

As there is no point in my trying to paraphrase Kaku's excellent description of string theory, I will quote his own account.

According to string theory, if you had a supermicroscope and could peer into the heart of an electron, you would see not a point particle but a vibrating string. (The string is extremely tiny, at the Planck length of 10
^-33
cm, a billion billion times smaller than a proton, so all subatomic particles appear pointlike.) If we were to pluck this string, the vibration would change; the electron might turn into a neutrino. Pluck it again and it might turn into a quark. In fact, if you plucked it hard enough, it could turn into any of the known subatomic particles. In this way, string theory can effortlessly explain why there are so many subatomic particles. They are nothing but different “notes” that one can play on a superstring. . . . The “harmonies” of the strings are the laws of physics. (pp. 196–97)

Moreover, he believes the theory also can explain their interactions and most of the problems of theoretical physics.

Strings can interact by splitting and rejoining, thus creating the interactions we see among electrons and protons in atoms. In this way, through string theory, we can reproduce all the laws of atomic and nuclear physics. The “melodies” that can be written on strings correspond to the laws of chemistry. The universe can now be viewed as a vast symphony of strings. (p. 197)

He goes on to show how field string theory can explain Einstein's special and general theories of relativity and even provide a possible explanation of the “riddle of dark matter” and “black holes.” But while he asserts that string theory can “effortlessly explain” the creation and interaction of the basic physical particles and many other puzzles confronting physics, one can understand why none of it has ever been confirmed. To me it reads like scripture in which declarations are presented with a kind of doctrinal authority, but based on mathematics rather than revelation.

It not only seems unlikely that minuscule vibrating strings can be the source of the universe, the theory requires a multi-dimensional hyperspace for their existence.

Only in ten-or eleven-dimensional hyperspace do we have “enough room” to unify all the forces of nature in a single elegant theory. Such a fabulous theory would be able to answer the eternal questions: What happened before the beginning? Can time be reversed? Can dimensional gateways take us across the universe? (Although its critics correctly point out that testing this theory is beyond our present experimental ability, there are a number of experiments currently being planned that may change this situation. . . . (p. 185; italics added)

He goes on to discuss refinements in the theory, such as “supersymmetry,” “M-theory,” “heterotic string theory,” and the “Brane World,” along with the possible experiments being planned to confirm it, though no supporting empirical evidence that I know of has been announced since 2005 when Kaku's book was published.

Yet despite his somewhat optimistic assessment of the theory, he seems to have the same reservations about it that I have expressed, as the following quotation indicates. Recalling Pauli's version of the unified field theory that he developed with Werner Heisenberg described by Niels Bohr as “crazy,” but not “crazy enough,” Kaku states:

One theory that clearly is “crazy enough” to be the unified field theory is string theory, or M-theory. String theory has perhaps the most bizarre history in the annals of physics. It was discovered quite by accident, applied to the wrong problem, relegated to obscurity, and suddenly resurrected as a theory of everything. And in the final analysis, because it is impossible to make small adjustments without destroying the theory, it will either be a “theory of everything” or a “theory of nothing.” (pp. 187–88)

Given how much is still unknown or conjectured about the universe, how likely is it that we are close to a “final theory of everything” that would resemble string theory, or that it is even attainable? I have recently read Marcelo Gleiser's work titled
The Island of Knowledge
, published in 2014 after I had written my book, thus I did not have the benefit of reading his exceedingly informed and, in my opinion, correct interpretation of the current controversy in physics, as to whether quantum mechanics represents a realistic and final account of physical reality. His conclusion is that “Unless you are intellectually numb, you can't escape the aweinspiring feeling that the essence of reality is unknowable” (p. 193), although there is no sounder method of inquiry now than science. While one can concede that quantum mechanics is in a sense
correct
in that it mainly agrees with the current experimental evidence, this does not mean that it is true and is thus a
final theory
of reality. I strongly recommend reading Gleiser's book if one is interested in the prospects of quantum mechanics.

In addition to the question of whether it is presumptuous or realistic to suppose that finite creatures living in this infinitesimal speck and moment of the universe will ever arrive at a final theory, there is the additional problem of whether we can afford the tremendous costs of further research. The discovery of the Higgs or Higgs-like boson cost 10 billion dollars involving 6,000 researchers and the creation of a 17-mile circular tunnel under the border of France and Switzerland with thousands of magnets. The international fusion mega-project now in construction in southern France is estimated to cost 23 billion dollars and whose completion is projected to take a decade. Even continuing research on whether WIMPS exist will ultimaely depend upon the costs, as well as the experimental and theoretical ingenuity.

As examples of how difficult it has become to finance such projects, in 1993 the US Congress discontinued the financing of the superconducting, supercollider after already spending 2 billion dollars digging a tunnel 15 miles long in Texas in which to house it on the grounds that the cost of completing the project was too great. Given the current economy, President Obama has requested a budge cut for our fusion research by 16% to 248 million dollars, a foreboding sign of the future.

I am not suggesting that funding scientific research has not paid off; just consider all the technological, economic, social, medical, and intellectual benefits derived from scientific inquiry to acknowledge the opposite. Everything we know about the universe and human existence and all the economic, educational, social, and medical improvements and advances in our standard of living we owe entirely to the genius and dedication of scientists. But one can't help wondering whether the cost of delving further into the universe will overreach at some point our financial assets and/or capacities. Thus, though I admire most of what he says in his very stimulating book, I question Alex Rosenberg's confident assertion that “Physics is
causally closed
and
causally complete
. The only causes in the universe are physical. . . . In fact, we can go further and confidently assert that the physical facts
fix
all the facts.”
¹²⁸
If true, this would confirm Einstein's worldview. I wish I could be so confident.

Having expressed my reservations that attaining a final theory of the universe is within reach or even possible, I will conclude this study of the major transitions in our conceptions of reality and way of life by citing the amazing scientific and technological advances that are predicted to take place by the end of this century or the next based on the knowledge already attained or anticipated. This, fortunately, has also been comprehensively described by Michio Kaku in his prophetic book previously cited,
Physics of the Future
:
How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Lives by the Year 2100.
As described on the back cover of the book:

Renowned theoretical physicist Michio Kaku details the developments in computer technology, artificial intelligence, medicine, and space travel that are poised to happen over the next hundred years . . . interview[ing] three hundred of the world's top scientists—already working in their labs on astonishing prototypes. He also takes into account the rigorous scientific principles that regulate how quickly, how safely, and how far technologies can advance . . . forecast[ing] a century of earthshaking advances in [science and] technology that could make even the last centuries' leaps and bounds seem insignificant.
¹²⁹
(brackets added)

An unexpected and exceptional added attraction of the book is his occasional indication of how the extraordinary modern scientific and technological achievements have often replicated the divine exploits attributed to the gods in ancient mythologies and current religions, such as creating miraculous cures and performing marvellous feats like conferring on humans supernatural powers and eternal life.

The challenge is to present as briefly, clearly, and objectively as possible the range of the incredible developments, greater than the Industrial Revolution, that are predicted to radically change the conditions and nature of human existence in this century or the next, and try to discriminate between the fanciful and the possible, along with the beneficial and harmful outcomes. According to Kaku, one of the basic factors driving this process is the rapidity in the development of computers and how this has altered our lives owing to what is called Moore's law.

The driving source behind . . . [these] prophetic dreams is something called Moore's law, a rule of thumb that has driven the computer industry for fifty or more years, setting the pace for modern civilization like clockwork. Moore's law simply says that computer power doubles about every eighteen months. First stated in 1965 by Gordon Moore . . . this simple law has helped to revolutionize the world economy, generated fabulous new wealth, and irreversibly altered our way life. (p. 22; brackets added)