Koch Foundation

NOVA Science Trust Logo





  
      <section class="entry-content instapaper_body clearfix" itemprop="articleBody">
<div class="add-container clearfix" id="add-block-placer">
</div>
<p>
  We all dream of finding the one: dependable, motivated, and beautiful, “the one” has it all. But can the search for perfection keep us from appreciating the good thing we already have?
 </p>
<p>
  I’m talking, of course, about the search for the one theory of everything, a theory of physics that works in all circumstances no matter how extreme, is motivated by observations, and can be expressed in a few elegant axioms. While some theorists devote their careers to finding the one, others believe that this ideal may be fundamentally unattainable. So we are left with the big question: Is the hope for the one theory of everything realistic, or should we be satisfied to settle down and grow alongside the theories we have?
 </p>
<div class="wp-caption alignnone" id="attachment_1348" style="max-width: 560px">

            <figure class="richtext-image full-width">
            <img alt="Is the Standard Model as Good as it Gets?-theonecover2_550.jpg" class="richtext-image full-width" height="417" width="550"
            src="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/media/images/theonecover2_550.width-800.jpg"/>
            <figcaption><div class="credit"></div></figcaption>
            </figure>
            
<p class="wp-caption-text">
   From the vastness of the cosmos to the inside of an atom: Can one theory accurately describe every layer of the cosmic onion? Image credit: Adapted from Brian Westin, ProLithic 3D &amp; NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle (SSC/Caltech) by Greg Kestin.
  </p>
</div>
<p>
  We are currently living with a beautiful theory, a theory that
  <em>
   almost
  </em>
  has it all: the Standard Model. It is the most precise theory in human history. The Standard Model can make predictions that match experiments to one part in 10 billion. That is like measuring the width of the United States to the accuracy of a human hair. The Standard Model explains the Sun’s glow, the inner workings of computers, and every atom that makes up our bodies. This theory is in our hands, it’s reliable, and we’re pretty happy…but it isn’t perfect.
 </p>
<p>
  There is one huge, glaring omission in the Standard Model: It doesn’t explain gravity. Of the four forces in the universe—electromagnetism, the strong force (holding nuclei together), the weak force (governing radioactive decay), and gravity—gravity is the black sheep. Not only is it the runt of the forces, with a strength around a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than the typical strength of the other forces, but our current theory of gravity is completely separate from, and at odds with, the Standard Model. Until we reconcile the two, humanity’s understanding of the universe will be incomplete.
 </p>
<p>
  Some scientists believe that this reconciliation is just around the corner. Theoretical physicist Garrett Lisi, for one, thinks that extensions of
  <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770">
   his model
  </a>
  , which aims to unify general relativity and the Standard Model within a single framework, can “reproduc[e] all known ﬁelds and dynamics through pure geometry.”
 </p>
<p>
  “The theory currently evolving from this observation is wonderfully complex and gives me hope that we might be getting close to the full picture,” says Lisi.
 </p>
<p>
  Others, like Dartmouth physicist Marcelo Gleiser, argue that we are stuck with at least partial ignorance. “As long as we can’t measure all there is in the natural world—and the point is that we simply can’t—we can’t have a theory of everything. As a consequence, any theory that we may have that purports to explain ‘all’ that we know of the world is also necessarily incomplete.”
 </p>
<p>
  Indeed, the more closely we examine the universe, the more levels of complexity we find. Will observing the world more deeply finally lead us to a theory of everything? Or will we be perpetually pulling layers from an infinite onion—a prospect that would make innumerable physicists cry?
 </p>
<p>
  If it is the latter, then we must be content with what physicists call an “effective field theory.” The idea is that one should describe the world with the same degree of complexity one wishes to understand. The smaller the details you aim to study, the greater the complexity you should expect from your theory. It is like looking at the sun. If we peer at it just for a moment, it seems to be a smooth, bright, glowing sphere (see on the left, below). This is an “effective theory” of the sun. But if you zoom in (on the right), there is more going on: solar flares, sunspots, and streams of hot plasma shooting into space.
 </p>

<p>
  In the same way, if you peer at a collision between two particles (say, electrons), then the effective theory would describe this as a simple bounce off each other (see on the left, below), but when you zoom in (on the right), there is more complexity: the electrons exchange other particles, causing them to repel each other and “bounce.”
 </p>

            <figure class="richtext-image full-width">
            <img alt="Is the Standard Model as Good as it Gets?-particlecollision_550.jpg" class="richtext-image full-width" height="275" width="550"
            src="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/media/images/particlecollision_550.width-800.jpg"/>
            <figcaption><div class="credit"></div></figcaption>
            </figure>
            
<p>
  By looking closer, you realize your perfect, simple picture of what you may have thought was “the one” correct description is just an approximation of something more complicated and complete.
 </p>
<p>
  Indeed, every time we find a theory that seems to “have it all,” a closer look reveals gaps and errors in the theory. Yet from the time of Archimedes, who fathered the idea that we could describe all of nature from just a few axioms, to the modern era of the Standard Model, physicists have kept searching for the one, refusing to settle for “good enough” when flaws and omissions in their theories were revealed.
 </p>
<p>
  It is natural to wonder, then, is the Standard Model just an effective theory, the latest in a long line of close-but-not-quite ideas? The consensus among physicist is a resounding “yes,” leaving us with questions: Is there an infinite number of layers, or if we look closely enough can we find that there is one final center onion-core? And how does gravity fit into the onion?
 </p>
<p>
  There is reason to believe there may be a “core” to the onion. While historically physicists have peeled back the layers of the onion by “zooming in” on ever-smaller size scales, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle may limit the ultimate resolution at which we can observe the universe. If you go small enough, then particles don’t have a definite position, you can’t tell where they are, and looking closer could not improve the resolution. The size at which this occurs is called the “Planck scale.”
 </p>
<p>
  At the tiny size where we lose particle resolution, gravity, once the runt of the forces, may intensify to a strength similar to that of the forces in the standard model. Gravity would no longer be the weak outcast, giving hope that gravity may “fit in” with the standard model, producing a theory of everything that unites quantum and gravitational phenomena.
 </p>
<p>
  Unfortunately, current experiments are far from being able to confirm such a unification. Physicists’ most powerful experiment for examining tiny-distance physics is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), with its incredible smashing ability that can peel away layers of the onion. But to explore the physics of the Planck scale, we would need a machine more than a million billion times more powerful.
 </p>
<p>
  Despite experimental limitations, some of the greatest scientists have searched for a theory of everything.  Einstein spent last decades of his life looking for a theory of everything. Unfortunately he passed away before he was able to find it. Stephen Hawking also searched for the theory of everything, before having a change of heart. “Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind,” he has said. Richard Feynman, who is often considered “the best mind since Einstein” once said, “If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it—that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers… then that’s the way it is.”
 </p>
<p>
  So, while searching for a theory of everything is exciting, we may be well advised to take time to appreciate what we already have.
 </p>
<p>
<strong>
   Go Deeper
  </strong>
<br/>
<em>
   Author’s suggestions for further reading
  </em>
</p>
<p>
  American Museum of Natural History:
  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYeN66CSQhg">
   Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Theory of Everything
  </a>
<br/>
  A panel of acclaimed physicists, including Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, and Janna Levin, debates whether it is possible to explain the universe with a single, unifying theory.
 </p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html">
   Godel and the End of Physics
  </a>
<br/>
  In this lecture, Stephen Hawking asks whether it is possible to find a complete set of laws of nature.
 </p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Knowledge-Science-Meaning/dp/0465031714">
   The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning
  </a>
<br/>
  In his forthcoming book, Marcelo Gleiser asks if there are fundamental limits to how much science can explain.
 </p>
<p>
  NOVA:
  <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/theory-of-everything.html">
   A Theory of Everything
  </a>
<br/>
  In this essay, Brian Greene explores how string theory could unite quantum mechanics and general relativity.
 </p>
</section>

  



Is the Standard Model as Good as it Gets?





  
      <section class="entry-content instapaper_body clearfix" itemprop="articleBody">
<div class="add-container clearfix" id="add-block-placer">
</div>
<p>
  If you jumped into a black hole, not even the strongest rope could keep you from plunging into its depths toward singularity. Your plunge would be as unstoppable as the march of time is to you and me.
 </p>
<p>
  Even before you crossed the event horizon—the point of no return—the universe as you know it would become very strange. But at the event horizon, your fate becomes complicated and not fully understood. It depends on the perspective of who’s asking and which of the two pillars of physics—quantum mechanics or gravity—is ultimately correct.
 </p>
<p>
  Play the video below to begin your own adventure into a black hole:
 </p>
<div class="flex-video">
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="439" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vxsOqhqFNKY?feature=oembed" width="780">
</iframe>
</div>
<p>
  Play the video below to begin your own 360° dive into a black hole:
 </p>
<div class="flex-video">
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="439" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qF76Y0wAQtI?feature=oembed" width="780">
</iframe>
</div>
</section>

  



Ever wonder what it would be like to fall into a black hole? Dive in for a 360° adventure.

360° Dive into a Black Hole





  
      <section class="entry-content instapaper_body clearfix" itemprop="articleBody">
<div class="add-container clearfix" id="add-block-placer">
</div>
<p>
  How can you train yourself to be a quantum detector? Quantum interactions happen at impossibly small scales. But the life-size effects are all around you. You can detect quantum mechanics all over — if you know how to look for it.
 </p>
<p>
  In the video below, see how simply squinting at a lamp highlights the quantum nature of light.
 </p>
<div class="flex-video">
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="439" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YiZP6YpnMds?feature=oembed" width="780">
</iframe>
</div>
</section>

  



How to See Quantum with the Naked Eye





  
      <p></p><p>Sometimes the world seems suspiciously perfect. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for why gravity is 10 36 times weaker than electromagnetism. Or why a neutron is 1.00137841870 times heavier than a proton. But these seemingly random, yet precise, values landed in the extremely narrow window that would allow life to exist.</p><p>How did we end up in such a precariously balanced universe? How did we get so lucky?</p><p>Some physicists think there could be many—maybe infinite—universes. Other universes could be empty—or they could be full of things we never imagined. Perhaps we just live in the only one that can support us.</p><p></p><p></p><div>
    <iframe width="480" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FFptpW3jPdw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div>
<p></p><p></p><p><b>Go Deeper</b><br/> <i>Picks for further reading</i></p><p>Harper’s Magazine: <a href="https://harpers.org/archive/2011/12/the-accidental-universe/">The Accidental Universe: Science’s Crisis of Faith</a> Alan Lightman delves into the history of the fine-tuning problem—and makes a case for the multiverse.</p><p>The Nature of Reality: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/">Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?</a> Anil Ananthaswamy examines the scientific community’s support for and resistance against the possibility of a multiverse.</p>
  



Do We Live in a Multiverse?





  
      <section class="entry-content instapaper_body clearfix" itemprop="articleBody">
<div class="add-container clearfix" id="add-block-placer">
</div>
<p>
<span style="font-weight: 400">
   If you jumped into a black hole, not even the strongest rope could keep you from plunging into its depths toward singularity. Your plunge would be as unstoppable as the march of time is to you and me.
  </span>
</p>
<p>
<span style="font-weight: 400">
   Even before you crossed the event horizon—the point of no return—the universe as you know it would become very strange. But at the event horizon, your fate becomes complicated and not fully understood. It depends on the perspective of who’s asking and which of the two pillars of physics—quantum mechanics or gravity—is ultimately correct.
  </span>
</p>
<p>
<span style="font-weight: 400">
   Play the video below to begin your own adventure into a black hole.
  </span>
</p>
<div class="flex-video">
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="439" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vxsOqhqFNKY?feature=oembed" width="780">
</iframe>
</div>
<p>
  Play the video below to take a 360-degree dive into a black hole!
 </p>
<div class="flex-video">
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="439" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qF76Y0wAQtI?feature=oembed" width="780">
</iframe>
</div>
</section>

  



Choose Your Own Adventure into a Black Hole





  
      <p></p><p>The discovery that light gets redder as its source moves away from Earth led astronomers to uncover some of the universe’s strangest truths, including dark energy, dark matter, and the expansion of the universe.</p><p>How well can you read these five clues and decode the universe’s best kept secrets?</p>
  



5 of the Biggest Puzzles about the Universe





  
      <section class="entry-content instapaper_body clearfix" itemprop="articleBody">
<div class="add-container clearfix" id="add-block-placer">
</div>
<p>
  What makes a brain or a machine conscious? How conscious is your computer? Could robots become more conscious than we are?
 </p>
<p>
  While there are a number of theories of consciousness, there is one theory that actually provides a means to calculate “consciousness,” and it is beginning to provide some answers to these questions. The theory is called the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness – watch
  <strong>
   the video below
  </strong>
  to learn more!
 </p>
<div class="flex-video">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="439" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/laOZjSFdj24?feature=oembed" width="780">
</iframe>
</div>
</section>

  



Greg Kestin

Articles