260
R. Barrett and P. P. Delsanto
device became known as “deus ex machina”, or “god out of a machine”. Today
it is a term applied to any highly contrived theatrical ending that does not
arise from earlier events in the play.
Not all the ancients were enamoured of deus ex machina. Aristotle believed
that: it is obvious that the solutions of plots too should come about as a result of
the plot itself, and not from a contrivance [32]. Many centuries later, Anton
Chekhov maintained that: if in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall,
then in the following act it should be fired. Otherwise don’t put it there [33].
So what do these theories of dramatic structure have to do with our
journey in this book? If all the world really is a stage, as Shakespeare stated
[34], is there a storyline that science, and in particular, physics is following?
Up until Einstein’s “magical” year of 1905, physics had proceeded more
or less linearly, albeit with a few revolutions, such as Newton’s unification of
terrestrial and astronomical gravity, and Maxwell’s unification of electricity
and magnetism. Then along came Einstein and QM, followed by a “zoo”
of unexpected elementary particles, and billions of galaxies, each containing
billions of stars, to replace our all-inclusive solar system. To further increase
the confusion, all these seemingly disparate fields (Relativity, QM, Particle
Physics and Cosmology, plus others, such as Complexity Theory) seem to be
for certain aspects intimately related, and for others, conflicting. The “cures”
for this chaos (multiverses, String Theory, etc.), seem at times to be worse
than the problems they are trying to solve, and we are flooded on a daily
basis with new data, new conjectures, and new theories.
Our stage has become littered with various versions of Chekhov’s gun, and
we are not yet able to decide which ones will go off sometime in the future
to clarify our storyline, and which ones, as was the case with the Steady State
Theory of Cosmology, we may safely discard as being of no relevance to the
plot.
In this book, and especially in this chapter, we have attempted to present
a sample case of what is going on in physics, with no pretence that it is
complete, nor that we have selected the most promising pathways, nor even
presented the chosen ones in the right way. Other writers would have made
their own, different choices.
Ultimately science is driven by the quest to determine the essence of
our world: what is its origin? How does it work? What is its future? These
mysteries are precursors to the ultimate question: what is the origin, purpose
and ultimate fate of humanity, which has fascinated homo sapiens for thousands of years. Such questions have been tackled since the time of Pericles,
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle using the tools of religion, philosophy and
science.
R. Barrett and P. P. Delsanto
device became known as “deus ex machina”, or “god out of a machine”. Today
it is a term applied to any highly contrived theatrical ending that does not
arise from earlier events in the play.
Not all the ancients were enamoured of deus ex machina. Aristotle believed
that: it is obvious that the solutions of plots too should come about as a result of
the plot itself, and not from a contrivance [32]. Many centuries later, Anton
Chekhov maintained that: if in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall,
then in the following act it should be fired. Otherwise don’t put it there [33].
So what do these theories of dramatic structure have to do with our
journey in this book? If all the world really is a stage, as Shakespeare stated
[34], is there a storyline that science, and in particular, physics is following?
Up until Einstein’s “magical” year of 1905, physics had proceeded more
or less linearly, albeit with a few revolutions, such as Newton’s unification of
terrestrial and astronomical gravity, and Maxwell’s unification of electricity
and magnetism. Then along came Einstein and QM, followed by a “zoo”
of unexpected elementary particles, and billions of galaxies, each containing
billions of stars, to replace our all-inclusive solar system. To further increase
the confusion, all these seemingly disparate fields (Relativity, QM, Particle
Physics and Cosmology, plus others, such as Complexity Theory) seem to be
for certain aspects intimately related, and for others, conflicting. The “cures”
for this chaos (multiverses, String Theory, etc.), seem at times to be worse
than the problems they are trying to solve, and we are flooded on a daily
basis with new data, new conjectures, and new theories.
Our stage has become littered with various versions of Chekhov’s gun, and
we are not yet able to decide which ones will go off sometime in the future
to clarify our storyline, and which ones, as was the case with the Steady State
Theory of Cosmology, we may safely discard as being of no relevance to the
plot.
In this book, and especially in this chapter, we have attempted to present
a sample case of what is going on in physics, with no pretence that it is
complete, nor that we have selected the most promising pathways, nor even
presented the chosen ones in the right way. Other writers would have made
their own, different choices.
Ultimately science is driven by the quest to determine the essence of
our world: what is its origin? How does it work? What is its future? These
mysteries are precursors to the ultimate question: what is the origin, purpose
and ultimate fate of humanity, which has fascinated homo sapiens for thousands of years. Such questions have been tackled since the time of Pericles,
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle using the tools of religion, philosophy and
science.