|

Issue No. 4
The Poetry of Imagination Without Boundaries
Lawrence M. Krauss
Two Essays:
Celebrating the Poetry of Imagination without Boundaries.
And
Atom: An Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth...and Beyond”.
|
Editorial remark:
We
are pleased to bring to our readers two essays written by the famous
American physicist and science writer Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss.
The first essay entitled “Celebrating the Poetry of Imagination Without Boundaries”
should be regarded, in our view, as a tribute to Einstein and his
general theory of relativity in this unique year WYP 2005. The second
essay is actually an excerpt from the now famous bestseller book by
Lawrence Krauss, published recently – “Atom: An Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth...and Beyond”. We are grateful to Prof. Kraus for granting us permission to reproduce these essays.
Stephen Hawking
wrote that "Lawrence Krauss has Carl Sagan's knack of expanding the
imagination and explaining the mysteries of the universe in simple
terms." Unique to his authoritative writing, Krauss draws on his
experience and judgments as an active research cosmologist with over
180 scientific publications and numerous popular articles discussing
issues related to physics, science, and society.
===
Celebrating the Poetry of Imagination Without Boundaries
Lawrence M. Krauss
In the bitter cold
of Antarctica and the blistering heat of Texas, scientists recently
coaxed the universe to display its hidden structure. In the past weeks,
two different high altitude balloon experiments studying the microwave
radiation left over from the Big Bang independently reported that the
universe is very close to being "flat." This is a
geometric concept. Einstein's general theory of relativity tells us
that light rays bend in a gravitational field because space is "curved"
in the presence of such a field, meaning that the standard Euclidean
rules of geometry taught in high school need not always apply. The
recent observations, however, imply that when crossing the entire
visible universe, light seems to travel in straight lines. The
Antarctic announcement, first in print of the two, was impressive
enough to be reported in local and national newspapers, but it did not,
to my knowledge, produce even a slight blip in the stock market. Nor
should it have. Nothing in the entire course of human history would
have been noticeably different if the universe were not flat Yet
precisely for this reason there is poetry in the recent discoveries
that I believe is worth celebrating, even if one is not a cosmologist.
They represent on the one hand a triumph of the human imagination, and
on the other a valuable reminder that science can never be purely
cerebral. The universe always seems to surprise us. In a century
full of scientific revolutions, Einstein's discovery of general
relativity stands as a monument to the power of human reasoning. In
1915, not a single direct piece of evidence existed that clearly
suggested that space might be curved in the presence of massive bodies.
However, indirect reasoning, based on careful observations of the
nature of light and the motion of massive bodies, led to the
realization that the Newtonian gravity theory would have to be revised.
Empirically,
the observable effects of general relativity were minuscule. Light, for
example, was predicted to bend around the Sun by about five
10-thousandths of a degree. But small as these effects were, they
changed the way we think about space and time. Einstein's
theory paved the way for interpreting Edwin Hubble's remarkable
discovery that the universe is expanding. For it is only within the
context of general relativity that such a global expansion can be
consistently described. But, there remained a problem: if the universe
is currently expanding, will the expansion stop, or continue unabated
forever? The answer
to this question appeared to depend upon the specific geometry of our
universe, and could not be determined within the context of the theory
alone, without further observations. Moreover, it seemed to depend on a
very careful tuning of the initial conditions in the expanding
universe. Twenty years
ago, when I was a graduate student beginning to get interested in
cosmology, a poll of astronomers and physicists would have yielded
almost no support for the possibility that we live in a flat universe. In the first
place, none of the data then seemed to point in such a direction. In
the second, a flat universe seemed very special, merely the boundary
between two more generic geometric possibilities, the so-called open or
closed universes. In the former case, light rays would diverge as they
traveled across the universe and in the latter case they would converge
together. But there
was a problem, first voiced by the remarkable experimental physicist
Dr. Robert H. Dicke and his colleague, the distinguished cosmological
theorist Dr. P. James E. Peebles. They pointed out that living in a
flat universe was like sitting atop a very steep mountain. If one moved
slightly away from the top in either direction, one would very quickly
come tumbling down. But our
universe is over 10 billion years old. Surely if the universe were not
essentially flat, it would long ago either have collapsed back upon
itself, or have expanded so fast that matter would have long ago been
diluted to irrelevancy on a cosmic scale. This
theoretical argument led Dr. Alan Guth, a physicist now at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to develop a new cosmological
model, called inflation, which would naturally ensure that the early
universe would be driven to being so close to being flat that it should
remain indistinguishable from being flat for virtually an eternity
thereafter. Dr. Guth's theory was itself so compelling that within a
decade, again without any direct evidence for a flat universe, many
cosmologists had been converted. This
theoretical argument led Dr. Alan Guth, a physicist now at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to develop a new cosmological
model, called inflation, which would naturally ensure that the early
universe would be driven to being so close to being flat that it should
remain indistinguishable from being flat for virtually an eternity
thereafter. Dr. Guth's theory was itself so compelling that within a
decade, again without any direct evidence for a flat universe, many
cosmologists had been converted.
I
remember progressing from graduate student to professor during this
time, as we in the "flat-universe trenches" began to win the day, and
others in the field and out began to come around. The argument seemed
so compelling that it appeared that nature would have had no choice but
to adopt it, even if there was always a slight equivocation that what
seemed natural to us might not be so natural for the universe.
`The
universe always seems to surprise us.'
So
had the discoveries in Antarctica taken place 20 years ago, most
physicists would have been shocked, and perhaps dubious. Now, however,
many in the cosmological community can be seen patting themselves on
the back for their foresight.
When
I ponder these developments, I remain amazed that we have come to
understand the universe so intimately that we may have suspected in
advance that it should be flat. We are, after all, confined to the
immediate proximity of our spinning globe on the outskirts of the Milky
Way galaxy.
No
one could guess by simply peering with a naked eye at the night sky
that our galaxy is one of 100 billion or so in the visible universe, or
that the universe is expanding, much less that space on large scales
might be curved. Fortune indeed favors the prepared mind, and it is
hard to over-emphasize the intellectual journey required before the
very question of the naturalness of a flat universe could even be
discussed.
But
this essay is written in praise of cosmology, not cosmologists. I have
made it sound as if the universe willingly followed the demands of
human reason. Nothing could be further from the truth. The models we
invented in the 1980's to try to bring a flat universe into accord with
the observations at the time are clearly wrong. Much to our surprise
the energy that dominates in the expanding universe is not associated
matter of any sort, pedestrian or exotic.
Rather,
it appears that our universe is only flat because empty space is
endowed with some sort of funny energy, whose origin we can only begin
to imagine at the present time. Although Einstein had been the first to
speculate about such a possibility by introducing what became known as
a cosmological constant (in order to explain why an apparently static
universe might not collapse of its own gravity) he later found it so
abhorrent that he dismissed it as his greatest blunder.
It
is fair to say that if observations had not driven us to this
precipice, no one would have traveled there in advance or later
revisited it. Indeed, theoretical a priori arguments suggest that a
cosmological constant tuned to produce a flat universe today is as
unnatural on fundamental grounds as a flat universe now seems natural.
It
gets worse. We were driven to determine whether the universe is flat or
not with one main goal in mind: to constrain eternity. The classical
arguments in pre-1995 cosmology books, mine included, stressed that if
we could determine the geometry of the universe, we would know its
ultimate destiny. How very marvelous to imagine that in our lifetimes
we might determine, for certain, whether the universe would end with a
bang or a whimper.
But
the universe has outsmarted us once again. The realization that empty
space might in fact provide the dominant source of energy in the
universe has again changed everything. We now recognize that any
universe, open, closed or flat, can collapse or expand forever,
depending upon the magnitude of this new form of energy. Geometry and
destiny have been disentangled.
Indeed,
my colleague Michael Turner and I have argued that there will never be
any finite set of astronomical measurements made over a finite time
that will allow us to determine the ultimate fate of our universe. Some
things, it seems, may be forever shrouded in mystery.
So
we find ourselves at the dawn of the 21st century strangely
self-satisfied and at the same time confused. A flat universe doesn't
matter a tinker's damn, an expression my wife likes to use, in the
everyday course of human events. Yet the lessons that arise from these
discoveries can leave us with a completely new perspective of our place
in the cosmos. That is what the progress of culture is all about.
Ultimately this, not technology, may be the greatest legacy of science.
Finally,
we learn that the universe is a stranger and more interesting place
than human imagination alone can ever foretell. If we stop looking
outward, we are likely to end up going nowhere.
===
The Universe in an Atom
By Lawrence Krauss
In
the year 1281, the second Mongol invasion of Japan began, and ended.
The invaders were defeated as much by the force of nature as by the
Japanese warriors, as the Mongol ships suffered grievous losses due to
the Kamikaze, or "divine wind". This routed the invaders and boosted
Japanese pride in their island's invincibility, much as the storms that
helped repel the Spanish Armada from British shores 307 years later -
immortalized in a commemorative medal with the words "God Blew, and
they were" - helped affirm the sense of Divine Right harbored by Mother
England for centuries thereafter.
Those
Mongol ships that survived the crossing of the Sea of Japan may have
noticed the range of mountains that rise sharply from the water near
the town of Toyama. These are known by some as the Japanese Alps, a
popular skiing attraction today. Deep below these snowy peaks, where
the sun never shines, indeed has never shone, may lie the secret of our
existence, forged from a fiery wind, not necessarily divine, but more
intense than any that has ever swept the Earth and as old as creation
itself.
The Super-Kamiokande Detector
In
the deep Mozumi mine in the town of Kamioka lies an immense tank of
pure, clear water, recycled daily to remove contaminants. Forty meters
in diameter and over 40 meters high, the Super-Kamiokande detector (see
figure 1), as it is known, contains 50,000 tons of water, enough to
quench the thirst of everyone in a city the size of Chicago for a day.
Yet this device, located in a working mine, is maintained with the
spotless cleanliness of an ultra-purified laboratory clean room. It has
to be. The slightest radioactive contaminants could mask the
frustratingly small signal being searched for by the scores of
scientists who monitor the tank with 11,200 phototubes, eerily
resembling television tubes (see figure 2), lining the outside of the
tank. If the scientists' attention wavers for even a second, they could
miss an event that might not occur again in the lifetime of the
detector, or the scientists. A single event could
 Figure 1. The super-Kamiokande detector. |
explain
why we live in a universe of matter, and how long the universe as we
know it may survive. The signal they are searching for has been hidden
for at least 10 billion years, older than the Earth, older than the
sun, and older than the galaxy. Yet compared to the timescale of the
process behind the event being searched for, even this stretch is just
the blink of a cosmic eye.
We
are about to embark on a journey through space and time, traversing
scales unimaginable even a generation ago. A tank of water located in
the dark may seem an odd place to begin, but it is singularly
appropriate on several grounds. The mammoth detector contains more
atoms by a factor of 1 billion or so than there are stars in the
visible universe. Yet amid the 10 (1 followed by 34 zeroes) or so
identical atoms in the tank is a single oxygen atom whose history is
about to become of unique interest to us. We
do not know which one. Nothing about its external appearance can give
us any clue to the processes that may be occurring deep inside. Thus we
must be ready to treat each atom in the tank as an individual.
The vast expanse of scale separating the huge Super-Kamiokande tank and
the minute objects within it is a prelude to a voyage inward where we
will leave all that is familiar. The possible sudden death of a single
atom within the tank might hearken back to events at the beginning of
time.
 Figure 2. Handling the giant photo-multiplier tubes |
But
beginnings and endings are often inextricably tied. Indeed, each Sunday
one can hear proclaimed loudly in churches across the land: "As it was
in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end." But do
those who recite these words expect that they refer to our world of
human experience? Surely not. Our Earth had a beginning. Life had a
beginning. And as sure as the sun shines, our world will end.
Can
we nevertheless accept this prayer as metaphor? Our world will end, but
our world is merely one of a seemingly infinite number of worlds,
surrounding an unfathomable number of stars located in each of an even
larger number of galaxies. This state of affairs was suspected as early
as 1584 when the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno penned his De
l'infinito universo e mondi. He wrote:
There
are countless suns and countless earths all rotating around their suns
in exactly the same way as the seven planets of our system. We see only
the suns because they are the largest bodies and are luminous, but
their planets remain invisible to us because they are smaller and
non-luminous. The countless worlds in the universe are no worse, and no
less inhabited than our Earth.
If,
in the context of this grander set of possibilities, we contemplate
eternity, what exactly is it that we hope will go on forever? Do we
mean life? Matter? Light? Consciousness? Are even our very atoms
eternally perdurable?
And
so that is ultimately why our journey begins in the water in this dark
mineshaft. If we explore deeply enough into even a drop of water,
perhaps located in the Super-Kamiokande tank, we may eventually make
out the shadows of creation, and the foreshadows of our future.
The
water is calm, clear, and colorless, but this apparent serenity is a
sham. Probe deeper, plop a speck of dust into a drop of water under a
microscope, say, and the violent agitation of nature on small scales
becomes apparent. The dust speck will jump around mysteriously, as if
alive. This phenomenon is called Brownian motion, after the Scottish
botanist Robert Brown, who observed this motion in tiny pollen grains
suspended in water under a microscope in 1827, and who at first thought
that this exotic activity might signal the existence of some hidden
life force on this scale. He soon realized that the random motions
occurred for all small objects, inorganic as well as organic, and he
thus discarded the notion that the phenomenon had anything to do with
life at all. By the 1860s, physicists were beginning to suggest that
these movements were due to internal motions of the fluid itself. In
his miracle year of activity, 1905, Albert Einstein proved, within
months of his famous paper on relativity, that Brownian motion could be
understood in terms of the motion of the individual bound groups of
atoms making up molecules of water. Moreover, he showed that simple
observations of Brownian motion allowed a direct determination of the
number of molecules in a drop of water. For the first time, the reality
of the previously hidden atomic world was beginning to make itself
manifest.
Atoms are Real
It
is difficult today to fully appreciate how recent is the notion that
atoms are real physical entities, and not mere mathematical or
philosophical constructs. Even in 1906, scientists did not yet
generally accept the view that atoms were real. In that year the
renowned Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann took his own life, in
despair over his self-perceived failure to convince his colleagues that
the world of our experience could be determined by the random behavior
of these "mathematical inventions."
But
atoms are real, and even at room temperature they live a more turbulent
existence than a farmhouse in a tornado, continually pulled and pushed,
moving at speeds of hundreds of kilometers an hour. At this rate a
single atom could in principle travel in 1 second
a distance 10 trillion times its own size. But real atoms in materials
change their direction at least 100 billion times each second due to
collisions with their neighbors. Thus in the course of one minute, a
single water molecule, containing two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms,
might wander only one-thousandth of a meter from where it began, just
as a drunk emerging from a bar might wander randomly back and forth all
night without reaching the end of the block on which the bar is located.
Imagine,
then, the chained energy! A natural speed of 100 meters per second is
reduced to an effective speed of one-thousandth of a meter per minute!
The immensity of the forces that ensure the stability of the world of
our experience is something we rarely get to witness directly. In fact,
it is usually reserved for occasions of great disaster.
You
can get some feeling for the impact that tiny atoms can have on one
another by inflating a balloon and tying the end, then squeezing the
balloon between your hands. Feel the pressure. What is holding your
hands back, stopping them from touching? Most of the space inside the
balloon is empty, after all. The average distance between atoms in a
gas at room temperature and room pressure is more than ten times their
individual size. As the nineteenth-century Scottish physicist James
Clerk Maxwell, the greatest theoretical physicist of that time, first
explained, the pressure you feel is the result of the continual
bombardment of billions and billions of individual atoms in the air on
the walls of the balloon. As the atoms bounce off the wall, they impart
an impulse to the wall, impeding its natural tendency to contract. So
when you feel the pressure, you are "feeling" the combined force of the
random collisions of countless atoms against the walls of the balloon.
Although
this collective behavior of atoms is familiar, the world of our direct
experience almost never involves the behavior of a single atom. But
attempting to visualize the world from an atomic perspective opens up
remarkable vistas, and gives us an opportunity to understand more
deeply our own circumstances. The eighteenth-century British essayist
Jonathan Swift recognized the inherent myopia governing our worldview
when he penned Gulliver's Travels, which noted that the rituals and
traditions of any society may seem perfectly rational for one who has
grown up with them. Swift's Lilliputians fought wars over the
requirement that eggs be broken from their smaller ends. From our
vantage point, the requirement seems ridiculous. The same may be true
for our view of the physical world, which is colored by a lifetime of
sensory experience.
The Journey of an Oxygen Atom
And
so, as we approach the beginning of our oxygen atom's journey forward,
we have to stretch our minds in the tradition of Swift. The atoms
getting thrashed today in a drop of water may have a hard life, but
this can't even begin to compare to the difficulties associated with
their birth. To imagine these moments, we must go back to a time before
water existed in the universe. We must venture back to when things were
vastly more violent, back to a time more than 10 billion years ago, and
perhaps less than 1 billionth
of a billionth of a second after the beginning of time itself. We must
visualize the universe on a scale that is so small, words cannot
capture it. Indeed, we must go back to a time when there were no atoms
...or Eves.
We
begin when what is now the entire visible universe of over 400 billion
galaxies, each containing over 400 billion stars, each 1 million times
more massive than the Earth, encompassed a volume about the size of a
baseball. The simplicity of this statement belies its outrageousness.
It is impossible to intuitively appreciate this era by making the leap
from here to there in one giant step. But it is possible to imagine a
series of smaller steps, each of which itself pushes the limits of
visualization, but each of which gets us closer to fathoming the truly
extreme environments we are about to enter.
Our
first step begins with our own sun. Almost a million times as massive
as the Earth, at its center the temperature is almost 15 million
degrees, cooling by more than a factor of 1,000 at the surface to a
mere 6,000 degrees, about twice the temperature of boiling iron.
Nevertheless, the sun's average density is only marginally greater than
that of water, not much different than the average density of the
Earth, in fact. If we squeeze the sun in radius by a factor of 10, so
that it is now 10 times the radius of the Earth, it is now much denser
than any planet in the solar system. A teaspoon of its material would,
on average, now weigh several pounds. Compress the sun by an additional
factor of 10. Now the size of the Earth, with a mass 1 million times as
great, each teaspoon of its material weighs almost 10 tons. Compress
the sun now by another factor of 1,000. It is now about 6 kilometers in
radius, the size of a small city. A single teaspoon of its material
weighs 1 billion tons! (The amount of work required to perform this
feat of compression, by the way, is equivalent to the total radiant
energy released by the sun over the course of 3 billion years!).
At
this density, the atoms in the sun lose their individual identity.
Under normal conditions, a single atom is composed of a dense nucleus,
made up of the elementary particles called protons and neutrons, which
are themselves made up of smaller fundamental particles called quarks.
The nucleus contains more than 99.9 percent of the total mass of the
atom. It is surrounded by a "cloud" of electrons that occupy a space
more than 10,000 times larger in radius than the nucleus but carrying
almost none of the mass of the atom.
By
"cloud" I actually mean nothing of the sort. "Cloud" is simply a name
we give to the electron distribution because we have no really
appropriate label. It is impossible to describe in words what the
electrons "do" as they surround the nucleus. At this scale they are
described by the laws of quantum mechanics, under which material
objects behave completely unlike they do on human scales so that our
normal experience is no guide whatsoever. Individual elementary
particles such as electrons do not behave like "particles." They are
not localized in space when they are orbiting the nucleus, as planets
are when they orbit the sun, rather they are "spread out." I say this
even though we know that electrons can, under certain carefully
controlled conditions, be localized on scales so small that we have not
yet been able to put a lower limit on its intrinsic size, with no
evidence whatsoever of any internal structure. Our language, derived
from our intuitive experience of the world, has no place for such
behavior.
But
the electrons in an atom are not spread out over all space, merely in a
volume approximately 1,000 billion times larger than the volume of the
nucleus. When we compress the sun to the size of downtown Washington,
D.C., we squish the atoms to the point where their electron clouds are
essentially pushed inside the nuclei, which in turn are touching each
other. The entire mass of the sun is then essentially like one huge
atomic nucleus.
As
bizarrely unrealistic as such a scenario for an object like the sun may
seem, it actually happens about a hundred times every second in the
visible universe. In our own galaxy, about once every thirty years the
inner core of a star ends its life in such a state after a massive
stellar explosion - a supernova - of the type that created us.
Let
us keep on compressing. Take this gigantic solar atomic nucleus of mass
10 times the mass of a hydrogen nucleus, and compress it further by
another factor of 100,000, so that a single teaspoonful of material now
weighs a million billion billion tons, the mass of 1,000 Earths! The
sun is now the size of a basketball.
However,
there are about 400 billion suns in our galaxy, and at least as many
galaxies in the visible universe. Even if every star was compressed
down to the size described above and all the stars in all the galaxies
were packed closely together, they would still encompass a volume as
large as that of the Earth. (Implying, by the way, in case it ever
proves useful to you to know it, that one can fit as many basketballs
inside the Earth as there are stars in the visible universe.
We
have one more a large step to take. Compress all of this mass, 160,000
billion billion times the mass of the sun, down by another factor of 10
million in radius. The matter in the entire presently visible universe
is now contained in a space the size of a baseball.
The mass of a teaspoonful of this matter alone equals as much as a
million galaxies, containing a total mass of a billion billion of our
sun! In the space traditionally occupied by a single atomic nucleus,
the amount of matter contained would be more
than enough to construct all of New York City! In the space
traditionally occupied by a single atom, including the region in which
the electrons normally orbit, the amount of matter would be almost the
mass of the entire Earth!
These
numbers may seem staggering, but they do not tell the whole story. In
fact, they miss the most important part of it. As one compresses
matter, the energy exerted heats the material up. A larger and larger
fraction of the total energy of a closed system is contained in the
radiant energy emitted and absorbed by the hot particles. Well before
the whole system is compressed to the unfathomable levels I have
described above, in fact, when the observable universe is compressed by
merely a factor of 10,000, about a million light-years across, its
energy would be dominated not by matter, but by the energy of radiation.
The
radiation at this point is so hot and dense that it beats out the
gravitational pull of all 160,000 billion billion stars! But by the
time we compress the visible universe down to the size of a baseball,
the fraction of the total energy associated with the
mass of all the matter making up all galaxies today is only about 10,
or about 1 part in 10 million billion billion! (This radiation has a
huge pressure and it does work on an expanding universe, so that after
a few thousand years, its energy dwindles away
and becomes negligible, leaving just the matter contribution to
dominate the universe today.) Thus, while in the region normally
occupied today by a single atom the matter contained at that time would
have a rest mass comparable to that of the Earth, the
actual amount of energy contained in this region, including radiation
energy, would have been much larger. In fact, it would correspond to
the energy of the entire presently visible universe!
The universe in an atom!
Let's
pause and reflect on our voyage. Even after the baby steps, it is still
mind-boggling to try to picture what conditions are like when each
atomic volume contains an amount of energy equivalent to that contained
in our whole visible universe today. But you may wonder whether it is
even worth trying. After all, under such conditions the whole meaning
of "atoms," the protagonists of our story, dissolves. How can we
connect individual entities like the oxygen atoms that help make up the
molecules of our DNA with anything in that incredible morass?
You
also might have wondered why, if we are going to go back this far, we
don't go back all the way, and begin our story at the infinitely dense
Big Bang itself. Let's address this second concern first. The reason we
do not take our story all the way back to t=0 is that this instant is
still shrouded in mysteries beyond our scientific purview, so there is
nothing concrete to say. But we do not think we have to go all the way
back to t=0 in order to understand the origin of our atoms. We believe
that the Super-Kamiokande experiment, or a larger one that may follow
it, may allow us to infer the events that would have had to occur at
the precise moment when the existence of atoms in our universe first
became a real possibility. And, to respond to the first concern, that
moment occurred very early in the history of the universe. It is
appropriate to argue that each atom in our bodies began life precisely
then, even though atoms themselves would not exist for what would seem
like an eternity at that moment.
Although
no events have yet been observed in the Super-Kamiokande tank that
would let us re-create with some certainty the events at that time, we
know that a specific, if subtle, series of events had to occur in that
primordial baseball in order for our oxygen atom to exist today. So
subtle and rare, in fact, that had anyone been around then to notice
what was taking place, they probably wouldn't have.
Indeed,
it seems that without an early series of rare events —at least as rare
as a single person buying two winning lottery tickets for two different
state lotteries in the same year - no one should be around today to
celebrate creation, or lotteries.
Nevertheless,
there is a maxim I am constantly reminded of in my work: Because the
universe is big and old, no matter how unlikely something is, if it can
happen it will happen. Accidents more remote than anything that might
occur during our lifetime occur every
second somewhere in the vast reaches of the cosmos. The most important
question of modern science, and perhaps theology as well, is then: Are
we merely one such accident?
Because
Super-Kamiokande has not yet given us the empirical evidence we need to
infer precisely what series of events occurred at this early time, we
only know that some specific challenges, which I shall describe, had to
have been met in order for our oxygen atom to exist today. In this
sense the story of our atom takes on a Rashomon-like quality. In his
famous film, Akira Kurosawa followed three different versions of the
same event, a rape and murder, as remembered by three participants.
Because of their different vantage points, and their different past
experiences, each describes a different story. None is universally
accurate, but each contains at least a germ of truth.
Suggestion for further reading:
|
Two articles by Lawrence M. Krauss
About the Author
: Lawrence M. Krauss is Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy, and Chair of the Physics Department at Case Western Reserve University. His research has focused primarily on the interface between elementary particle physics and cosmology, where his studies include the early universe, dark matter, general relativity and quantum gravity, stellar evolution, and neutrino astrophysics. Previous awards for his research include the Gravity Research Foundation First Prize Award (1984), and the Presidential Investigator Award (1986). He is also a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He received his B.Sc. in Mathematics and Physics from Carleton University in Ottawa, his Ph.D. in Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982 then joined the Harvard Society of Fellows. In 1985 he joined the faculty of Physics at Yale University, and moved to take his current appointment in 1993. Prof. Krauss is the author of 6 books, over 180 scientific publications, numerous popular articles, and appears frequently on radio and television discussing issues related to physics, science, and society.
|