At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.”
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on.”
“You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”
Most
people would find the picture of our universe as an infinite tower of tortoises
rather ridiculous, but why do we think we know better? What do we know about
the universe, and how do we know it? Where did the universe come from, and
where is it going? Did the universe have a beginning, and if so, what happened before
then? What is the nature of time? Will it ever come to an end? Can we go back
in time? Recent breakthroughs in physics, made possible in part by fantastic
new technologies, suggest answers to some of these long standing questions.
Someday these answers may seem as obvious to us as the earth orbiting the sun –
or perhaps as ridiculous as a tower of tortoises. Only time (whatever that may
be) will tell.
We find
ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of what we see around
us and to ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and
where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is? To try to answer these
questions we adopt some “world picture.” Just as an infinite tower of tortoises
supporting the fiat earth is such a picture, so is the theory of superstrings.
Both are theories of the universe, though the latter is much more mathematical
and precise than the former. Both theories lack observational evidence: no one
has ever seen a giant tortoise with the earth on its back, but then, no one has
seen a superstring either.
However,
the tortoise theory fails to be a good scientific theory because it predicts
that people should be able to fall off the edge of the world. This has not been
found to agree with experience, unless that turns out to be the explanation for
the people who are supposed to have disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle!
Einstein
once asked the question: “How much choice did God have in constructing the
universe?” If the no boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to
choose initial conditions. He would, of course, still have had the freedom to
choose the laws that the universe obeyed. This, however, may not really have
been all that much of a choice; there may well be only one, or a small number,
of complete unified theories, such as the heterotic string theory, that are
self-consistent and allow the existence of structures as complicated as human
beings who can investigate the laws of the universe and ask about the nature of
God.
Even if
there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and
equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a
universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a
mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a
universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother
of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own
existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect
on the universe? And who created him?
A Brief
History of Time by Stephen Hawkins
No comments:
Post a Comment