Dear Mr. Maddox,

 

                The greatest physicist since Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, spent the last thirty years of his life looking for a theory which would unite all four elementary forces in the universe; unfortunately, he failed.  Since then, the goal of many theoretical physicists has been to find something known as a T.O.E., or a “theory of everything.”  Presently, there are two theories that dominate modern physics: general relativity and quantum (field) theory – the former which presides over the realm of the large and slow and the latter which dominates the realm of the small and fast.  Sadly, the theories do not intertwine at all- what physicists are looking for is quantum gravity, a theory that merges quantum mechanics and general relativity. 

In 1985, however, a promising new theory emerged to explain all basic interactions in our universe – string theory.  This theory is perhaps the best candidate for a theory that will lead to humans having a T.O.E.  Dr. Brian Greene of Columbia University is one of the world’s leading string theorists and his explanation of string theory is that it is a “Unified Theory of the universe postulating that fundamental ingredients of nature are not non zero-dimensional point particles but tiny one-dimensional filaments called strings.  String theory harmoniously unites quantum mechanics and general relativity, the previously known laws of the small and the large, that are otherwise incompatible” (Greene 422).  As it turns out, string theory really is not a theory at all because a theory must put forth conjectures, a task which string theory has yet to accomplish.  Some physicists say that string theory is actually ahead of its time and that humans are not yet smart enough to solve the complex mathematics that the theory produces.  I would have to say that overall, string theory is a long term proposition that leads to the question- are we smart enough to truly understand a theory of everything?  Hawking thinks that there is a 50% chance that within the next twenty years we will be able to – what do you think?

 

Sincerely,

Lawrence Bronk

Dearest Lawrence,

               

I thoroughly agree with you that we are at the brink of a new era in physics, one which could ultimately rattle the contemporary framework of our knowledge, creating a new paradigm for the way we view the world around us. It is for this reason that String Theory is often described in such grandiose terms as a “T.O.E.” or the “ultimate” and “final” theory of everything. String Theory is to underlie all other theories and provide a perfect and infallible base for our theoretical thought that there would be no need – and even no possibility – for a more thorough and deeper explanatory base.

                Yet as we reach the frontier of such a T.O.E. or “theory of everything,” we must begin to think of –and perhaps fear – the new paradigms of who we are as living things. A staunch reductionist would tend to believe that once we know the exactly how the constituents of our universe –  atoms, molecules, quarks and “strings”, if you will – work, we can understand any process, no matter how complex, that takes place in our universe. Would this then mean that we can abstract our memories, our lives, our feelings, and our love down to mere vibrations of these cosmic “strings”? According to one eminent theoretical physicist, Steven Weinberg, this reductionist view is “chilling and impersonal,”[1] and personally I find it flat-out frightening.

                Thus, I posit that we must be cautious in proceeding in this arrogant quest for a “theory of everything.” I fear that the indelible lure of such a grand unified theory in physics will attract the majority of young physicists, and the other divisions of physics such as condensed matter theory and nuclear physics, will be underrepresented in the near future sue to the popularity of this “theory.” String Theory currently has little-to-no basis in the modern school of physical thought primarily from the scientific point of view that String Theory does not have any experimental basis, and the chances of one arising at any point in the near future is diminutive at best. I ask what are your feelings in regard to the aforementioned implications of String Theory?

 

Sincerely,

Mike Maddox

 

 

My Friend Mike,

                After much thought and reflection on your last letter I have to say that I do agree with you to some extent.  While these reductionists propound a rather frightful idea of a world where there is no free will, only the interaction between elementary particles.  However, the world renowned physicist Steven Hawking makes an argument that I strongly agree with: “Even if we do discover a complete unified theory, it would not mean that we would be able to predict events in general, for two reasons.  The first is the limitation of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics sets on our powers of prediction.  There is nothing we can do to get around that” (Hawking 186).  Even though Hawking is a strong supporter of the idea of a T.O.E., he even openly admits its limitations.  While it is true that String Theory does not have any true experimental basis, the fact is that this idea is so revolutionary and ahead of its time that we must be patient until technology allows us to not only solve the equations, but also to test it fully. Also, Hawking is pointing out that even if we are able to finally understand the workings of the very smallest constituents of our universe, we would never be able to make calculations or predict the future, thus there is no threat to become a kind of incredibly advanced super-society overnight due to the realizations and developments of said theory.

Perhaps to name any theory a “theory of everything” is a misnomer.  One has to understand that String Theory would only be able to make predictions in simple circumstances – as the complexity of a system increases, chaos theory comes into play.  I will leave you with these words from Greene: “The discovery of the T.O.E…would provide the firmest foundation on which to build our understanding of the world.  Its discovery would be a beginning, not an end.  The ultimate theory would provide an unshakable pillar of coherence forever assuring us that the universe is a comprehensible place” (Greene 17).  Write me back to inform me of any new ideas you may have or just to chat.

 

Sincerely Yours,

Lawrence

 

 

 

Dear Lawrence,

 

 

                I appreciate the time you have taken to discuss your thoughts with me on this hotly debated topic. I see your point that while we may be able to understand the motion and behavior of elementary particles such as atoms, molecules, and “strings” if you must, yet this knowledge is insufficient to describe the complexity of all the processes in the world as we know it. Allow me to bring to your attention another theory in modern physics which related to your question.

                Consider, for example, a somewhat new brink in the field of physics which you may or may not be familiar with: Chaos Theory. In a nutshell, Chaos Theory tells us that as we increase the complexity of a system, say by coupling a million oscillating springs together, that new physical laws comes into play which govern this complex system, independent of the old laws which governed the numerous constituents of this system. Yet there is also a debate with Chaos Theory much analogous to the debate in String Theory and exactly related to the question which you brought forth in your previous letter. We must ask ourselves whether or not the laws which govern elementary particles such as atoms and quarks are related, if not identical, to those which govern large complex systems such as a tornado or the motion of the planets. If we fully comprehend the former, do we understand the latter, and vice versa? If there truly is one “Theory of Everything” which truly encompasses everything in our universe from the infinitesimally small to the enormously large, then this theory must also solve every other theory of physics, including Chaos Theory, and every unfinished equation and thought in every other branch of physics, for it is a “Theory of Everything.” Yet if such a theory were to come into existence, I fear for humanity and religion, as humans have truly discovered the omniscience once believed only to belong to God himself, if one such exists.

                The questions you bring up repeatedly intrigue me and force me to look deeper into the subject. I encourage you to pursue work in the field of String Theory if it interests you so; I, however, will watch and wait and the universe unfolds before us on papers and chalkboards around the globe.

 

Sincerely,

Michael Maddox