Uti index-papers-e-chapter6-todays-godless-physics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Uti index-papers-e-chapter6-todays-godless-physics

on

  • 1,582 views

Unification Though

Unification Though

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,582
Views on SlideShare
1,582
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Uti index-papers-e-chapter6-todays-godless-physics Document Transcript

  • 1. Chapter 6 The Turmoil in Today’s Godless Physics and Today’ Its Future ProspectsPhysics made two great advances in understanding the universe in the 20th century. Onewas Einstein’s theory of relativity—which applies to the macrocosm of galaxies—andthe other was quantum mechanics—which applies to the microcosm of elementaryparticles. Recently, however, such progress has stalled as scientists, excluding God fromtheir considerations, have fallen into conflict and confusion. In this chapter, we will firstexamine the causes of this confusion, and then explain the future prospects for itsresolution.I. Confusion of Cosmology According to the Inflationary Theory proposed by Alan Guth, MIT theoreticalphysicist, Katsuhiko Sato, professor of cosmology at the University of Tokyo, andothers, the universe started as follows: In the beginning, there was a ‘false vacuum’ withan enormous latent energy. Then, in a brief moment, there was a rollover from one valueof this vacuum energy to another. This can be compared to the breaking of a damstarting with a tiny crack. The rollover in the false vacuum released a torrent of energyas the false vacuum inflated towards the true vacuum. The false vacuum can becompared to the dammed river, and the true vacuum can be compared to the sea level. According to the inflationary scenario, the radius of the universe increased by some 5010 times, from being much smaller than a proton to larger than a softball, during thefirst 10-30 seconds of time. During this brief but critical period, the universe was empty;its potential energy could not condense as particles because space was expanding toorapidly. At the end of the inflation, the latent vacuum energy precipitated out as particlesand antiparticles. An asymmetry in the left-right symmetry in the natural laws—currently anunsolved mystery in physics theories as discussed shortly—resulted in the creation ofmatter to antimatter particles in the ratio of 100,000,000,001 to 100,000,000,000. Whenthe universe cooled and the matter and antimatter had all annihilated into the gamma ray‘light’ of the Big Bang, it was the tiny imbalance of matter remaining that went on tocondense into the material universe of galaxies and stars, etc.A. What Caused Big Bang and Inflation? 1
  • 2. The inflationary theory does not answer the question as to what caused the BigBang. Paul Davies, one of the world’s most acclaimed science writers, has this to sayabout this question, “Most people are prepared to accept that the universe as we know itbegan suddenly with a huge explosion, but they inevitably ask two related but difficultquestions: What caused the big bang? What came before it?”1 John D. Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge,says, “It [the Big Bang theory] also implied that there was a beginning to the Universe,a past time before which it (and time itself perhaps) did not exist, but it was silent as tothe why or the wherefore of this beginning.”2 Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize winner for physics, who discovered the muonneutrino and bottom quark, goes so far as to say, “For reasons we may never know, theuniverse exploded and has been expanding and cooling ever since.”3B. Was the Universe Created by a Quantum Fluctuation? In quantum mechanics, the behavior of physical objects is inherently unpredictableand some quantum processes have no cause at all. Edward Tryon of Hunter College,City University of New York, proposed the idea that the universe was created out of thevacuum as a result of a quantum fluctuation. Alex Vilenkin, professor of physics at Tufts University, an emigrant from theformer Soviet Union, developed Tryon’s idea and advocated “creation of the universefrom nothing” where the universe appeared from nothing by tunneling. The universe,which was microscopic after tunneling, immediately started to inflate. In a fraction of asecond, it blew up to a gigantic size. The original ‘nothing’ was a state with no matter,no space, and no time. It was, however, not a total nothing, but rather it was imbuedwith the potential for energy. According to Alan Guth, the universe can spring out of the vacuum almosteffortlessly, and as he likes to say, “The universe may be a free lunch.” An unansweredquestion in this viewpoint is how the current magnificent and beautiful structures of theuniverse were developed from the inflation and Big Bang, which are almost the same asa nuclear explosion in their character. Concerning this problem, today’s cosmologiststhink that, at the beginning of the universe, there were ripple-like quantum fluctuations,and when these inflated they produced clusters of galaxies, galaxies, solar system, theearth, plants, animals, and human beings. Is this really true? In this view, we were bornfrom a quantum fluctuation, and not created by God. Today’s cosmologists say that our universe came out of a fluctuation without anydesign inherent in it. This is in accord with Darwinism where living beings evolve 2
  • 3. through random mutations. Whatever the details, we see that current cosmologicalthought assumes that the universe was born from a ‘free lunch’ and developed byrandom fluctuations.C. How the Laws of Universe Were Established How did the laws of physics come to be imprinted on our universe if it was bornfrom a random fluctuation? Lederman states: “The laws of nature must have existedbefore even time began in order for the beginning to happen. We say this, we believe it,but can we prove it? No. And what about ‘before time began’? Now we have leftphysics and are in philosophy.”4 The fact that there were mathematics and laws in thebeginning of the universe implies that, before the universe began, there existed a greatmathematician and a great physicist.D. Does Inflation Continue Eternally? Alex Vilenkin, together with Andrei Linde, a Russian cosmologist, proposed the“eternal inflation” theory: within a vast expanding super universe, there appearsthrough inflations an infinite number of pocket universes scattered like bubbles. Ouruniverse is just one of these pocket universes. On the other hand, Katsuhiko Sato andothers proposed a multiple generation theory of the universe, according to which, thefirst-born ‘mother’ universe gave rise to child universes, grandchild universes,grand-grandchild universes and so on. All such theories together are called themultiverse theory. According to the multiverse theory, there are innumerable universes some of whichis similar to our universe and others that are fundamentally different. In this view theremight be innumerable planets where humans similar to us live. This theory has somevery odd implications—as Vilenkin explains, “A striking consequence of the newpicture of the world is that there should be an infinity of regions with historiesabsolutely identical to ours. . . . There are infinitely many O-regions where Al Gore isPresident and—yes! —Elvis is still alive.”5 Such a reality seems more science fictionthan science and is a tribute to how uncomfortable atheistic thinkers are with ouruniverse that is so clearly designed as a home for human life.E. Mystery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy Analysis of measurements made by the WMAP satellite launched in 2001confirmed that 23% of the universe is composed of an unknown substance called darkmatter. Although invisible, this totally unexpected component to the universe can be 3
  • 4. observed indirectly by its gravitational effects, such as holding stars together in galaxies,and holding galaxies together in clusters and superclusters. Just recently, an even greater surprise was the discovery that 73% of the universe iscomposed of a totally unknown form of energy called dark energy. This component hasexactly the opposite type of gravity to both regular and dark matter. Rather than slowingdown the expansion of the universe by gravitational attraction, the dark energy isspeeding it up with an anti-gravity effect. Furthermore, while both regular and darkmatter are being diluted by the universal expansion, the dark energy is not being thinnedout, its concentration, so to speak, remains constant and the amount of it just increasesas the universe expands. No one at the present time has any understanding of what this energy is or where itcomes from. What we can say is that the inexhaustible, fundamental energy isconstantly being added to the universe.II. Confusion in Elementary Particle Physics By the 1980s, all the fundamental matter particles (the quarks and leptons in threegenerations) had been detected and classified. At the same time, the messenger particles,or gauge bosons, of three of the four basic forces (excluding gravity) had also beencharacterized. The picture was completed in 1983 when the ‘weak force’ gauge bosons(W-, W+, Z°) were detected, and in 1995 when the top quark appeared in high-energycollisions. The result was the Standard Model of elementary particle physics that included 6quarks, 6 leptons, and the 12 gauge bosons. While this Standard Model has had its greatsuccesses, it is currently facing serious challenges.A. Why are Elementary Particles so Mathematical? Lederman accepts that we have no idea as to why electric charges come in plus andminus varieties, and why these charges are always integers: In nature, charges come in integers—0, 1, 2 . . . All the integers are understood to be multiples of the number of coulombs given above. Charges also come in two styles: plus and minus. We don’t know why. That’s the way it is. One might imagine a world in which the electron could, in a bruising collision or in a poker game, lose 12 percent of its electric charge. Not in this world. The electron, proton, pion, etc. always have charges of 1.0000.6 4
  • 5. At first, it seemed that the universe was made of just four matter particles: twoquarks (the U and D quark) and two leptons (the electron and neutrino). It was soonfound, however, that each matter particle came in three generations, giving rise to 6quarks and 6 leptons. In addition, each quark came in one of three ‘color charges’,giving a total of 18 quarks. Additionally, each matter particle has its partner, itsantiparticle. So, in total, there are 18 quarks, 18 antiquarks, 6 leptons and 6 antileptons.Finally, there are the 12 gauge boson force carriers making, in total, sixty fundamentalparticles. Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Masukawa, Japanese physicists who received theNobel Prize for physics in 2008, predicted that there should be at least six quarks inthree generations. This at a time when only three quarks were confirmed, and they didso in order to explain the slight difference between particles and antiparticles in what iscalled the breaking of CP symmetry. If particles and antiparticles were symmetrical andexisted equally after the Big Bang, the universe could not have been formed fromparticles. However, the reason why there are six quarks and six leptons and why thereare three generations of quarks and of leptons is still unknown. In nature, there are four fundamental forces—the gravitational force, theelectromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. There is anunanswered question about this number four. Material objects are composed of just of four elementary particles: the U-quark,D-quark, electron, and electron-neutrino. All of chemistry can, at least in principle, bederived from the interactions between just four elementary particles: photon, electron,proton and neutron. This echoes the ancient Greek philosophers who proposed the fourelements of fire, water, soil and air as the root of all things. Why are there just these fourelementary particles used in the construction of all of nature? This is an unansweredquestion.B. Why Particles Have Masses? The reason why particles have their particular masses is unknown. There are threegenerations to the quarks and leptons, but it is a mystery as to why the masses are sodifferent among these generations. One proposed solution to the question of why particles have their particular massesis the Higgs mechanism. In the high-temperature state of the universe’s origin, allparticles were massless, like the photon. When the universe cooled, however, the Higgsfield ‘froze’ out pervading the vacuum with Higgs particles. Some particles interactedwith Higgs particles, which stick to it and give the particle a mass depending on the 5
  • 6. stickiness. Most gauge particles, like the photon, have no interaction with the Higgsfield and remain massless. The weak bosons, however, do interact with the Higgs andend up being very massive. Another unanswered question in the standard model is the ‘hierarchy problem.’ ThePlank scale mass, where the three non-gravitational forces are united (GUT), and themeasured masses are different by a factor of 1016: The measured masses are extremelysmaller than the Plank scale mass. As Lisa Randall, a notable lady physicist, comments,“The hierarchy problem is the most urgent of the mysteries confronting the StandardModel.”7C. Symmetry Breaking When a magnet is heated to a high temperature, it becomes perfectly symmetrical,as the tiny magnetic domains are oriented randomly in all directions. At a lowtemperature, however, the symmetry is broken as the domains align in the samedirection. This is an example of ‘broken symmetry,’ a concept that has becomeprominent in theories of elementary particle physics. Until the 1950s, it was thought obvious that nature would be even-handed, that is tosay, that there would be no fundamental processes that were intrinsically right-handedor intrinsically left-handed. However, it has become clear that nature does not obey thisexpectation. In 1961, Yoichiro Nambu, theoretical physicist at the university of Chicago,proposed the theory of spontaneous breaking of symmetry, and based on this theory itbecame possible to explain the origin of mass of particles. He received the Nobel Prizein physics for this theory in 2008. He is also known as one of the founders of stringtheory and the initiator of color theory in quarks. He is called a prophet of physics forproposing such creative ideas. It seems that while the universe began in a state of symmetrical perfection, itevolved into the less symmetrical universe we live in today. Lederman suggests that itwas the Higgs field that was responsible for our complex and exciting universe: So: before Higgs, symmetry and boredom; after Higgs, complexity and excitement. When you next look out at the night sky you should be aware that all of space is filled with this mysterious Higgs influence, which is responsible, so this theory holds, for the complexity of the world we know and love.8 Just why the Higgs mechanism worked in this way to generate the broken 6
  • 7. symmetry so fundamental to the development of the universe is just one of the many‘open questions’ in current cosmology.D. Natural Laws and Parameters Physicists once thought that the natural laws were unique, that they were eternaland unchanging from the beginning of the universe. This is not the case, however,according to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin: The use of spontaneous symmetry breaking in a fundamental theory was to have profound consequences, not just for the laws of nature but for the larger question of what a law of nature is. Before this, it was thought that the properties of the elementary particles are determined directly by eternally given laws of nature. But in a theory with spontaneous symmetry breaking, a new element enters, which is that the properties of the elementary particles depend in part on history and environment. The symmetry may break in different ways, depending on conditions like density and temperature. . . . This signals a departure from the usual reductionism, according to which the properties of the elementary particles are eternal and set by absolute law (italics added).9 Another problem with the standard model is that there are unfixed parameters thathave to be ‘added by hand’ to the theory or measured by experiment. There are twentyor so of these unfixed parameters. These parameters are called “constants of nature,” since they look the sameeverywhere in the universe as far as we can observe. Most physicists hope and believethat these unfixed natural laws and parameters will one day be explained in a simplemanner through a unified theory, one that goes beyond the current Standard Model.However, there is no current agreement as to what this unified theory might be.III. Is Superstring the Unified Theory? A current contender for the unified theory is Superstring Theory, which assumesthat the ultimate building blocks of nature consist of tiny vibrating strings. In this view,all matter and forces in the natural world correspond to vibrational modes of suchstrings, and that the natural world is the “music of superstrings.” The advent of superstring theory aroused worldwide excitement among physicists,since it seemed that superstring theory could accomplish the unity of the fourfundamental forces, a feat beyond the scope of the Standard Model. 7
  • 8. A. Birth of String Theory In 1970, a remarkable connection between pure mathematics and particle physicswas elaborated by Yoichiro Nambu, an eminent theoretical physicist at the university ofChicago, Holger Bech Nielsen, a Danish physicist, and Leonard Susskind. They showedthat if one modeled elementary particles as tiny, vibrating, one-dimensional strings, thentheir nuclear interactions were described exactly by Euler’s Beta Function. This is anesoteric formula elaborated for purely mathematical reasons by the renowned Swissmathematician Leonhard Euler some two hundred years earlier. This function seemed todescribe numerous properties of strongly interacting particles in a unified way. However, this string theory seemed to predict the existence of ‘tachyons,’ which areparticles that go faster than the speed of light. Also, physicists discovered that the stringtheory was self-consistent only in ten or twenty-six dimensions. For these reasons,string theory lost favor. In the same period, the theory of quantum chromodynamics thatexplained much of particle physics emerged, and its overwhelming success indescribing the strong force led to loss of enthusiasm for string theory.B. Supersymmetry and the First Superstring Revolution In the 1970s, a new theory called “supersymmetry” emerged first in the SovietUnion and then independently in the West. The new theory identified a symmetrylinking bosons, the carriers of force, with fermions, the stuff of matter. In supersymmetric theory, every known particle is paired through a‘supersymmetric transformation’ with another—its supersymmetric partner, also knownas a superpartner. A supersymmetric transformation turns a fermion into its partnerboson and a boson into its partner fermion. In this way, matter particles and forceparticles were united by a supersymmetry. In 1981, the physicists John Schwarz of the California Institute of Technology, andMichael Green of Queen Mary College, proved that supersymmetry can be applied notjust to the string itself but to the full ten-dimensional space. Thus revived, string theorybecame superstring theory. In 1984, Schwarz and Green submitted a paper in which they demonstrated thatsuperstring theory in ten dimensions could yield fermions, bosons, Yang-Mills fields,and gravitons in a way in which all the confounding infinities previously encounteredappeared to be completely absent. This seemed to open the possibility of unifying thefour forces. Before long, this superstring theory began to attract intense interest from many 8
  • 9. physicists. It was regarded as the only hope for a unified field theory, one that had thepotential to be a theory of everything—the holy grail of physics. This period is oftenreferred to as the First Superstring Revolution.C. The Second Superstring Revolution According to superstring theory, the number of dimensions to the universe shouldbe ten. The problem was, of course, that we only perceive four dimensions. Stringtheory responded with the idea that six of the ten had curled up to Plank scale sizewhich is why we do not observe them. This is called “compactification,” and these sixcompact dimensions are “extra dimensions” added to the well-known four regulardimensions to the universe. In 1985, Philip Candelas, Gary Horowitz, Andy Strominger, and Edward Wittendescribed a compactification—known as Calabi-Yau spaces—as a way to curl up theextra dimensions. Calabi-Yau spaces had the potential to lead to the four-dimensionalworld of the particles and forces in the Standard Model. Furthermore, rolling up theextra dimensions into a Calabi-Yau space preserved supersymmetry. With thisCalabi-Yau breakthrough, superstring theory began to really thrive. “Duality” is also an important concept in both elementary particle physics andsuperstring theory. Physicists use the term duality to describe theoretical models thatappear to be superficially different, but nevertheless can be shown to describe exactlythe same physics. By the early 1990s, there were five kinds of superstring theory: type I, type IIA,type IIB, heterotic-O, and heterotic-E. In 1995, Edward Witten of the Institute forAdvanced Study in Princeton, one of the leading experts in superstring theory, unveileda remarkable set of conjectures about how these five theories were interrelated, and heproposed an eleven dimensional M-theory that could unify the five varieties ofsuperstring theory. In this view, superstring theory is the compactification of an elevendimensional M-theory into the ten dimensions of supersymmetry.D. Extra Dimensions and Branes In 1919, the mathematician Theodor Kaluza discovered that he could derive atheory containing both electromagnetism and gravity using Einstein’s recently publishedtheory of general relativity. To do this, he needed five dimensions—four of space andone of time, leaving unanswered the question of how the extra dimension of space isdifferent from the three that are observed. In 1926, the Swedish mathematician Oskar Klein proposed that this extra 9
  • 10. dimension was curled up in the form of a circle, and that it would be unobservedly smallat the Planck length of 10-33cm. This tiny rolled-up dimension would be everywhere:each point in space would have its own minuscule circle of extra dimension attached.Theories involving such extra dimensions became known as Kaluza-Klein theory. Several decades later, Kaluza-Klein theory regained the spotlight in superstringtheory where six of ten dimensions are compactified. For many decades, string theoristsassumed that such extra dimensions were Planck-length sized, but recently thisassumption has come into question. Some physicists have suggested that some of thehidden extra dimensions may be large enough to detect directly, and experiments arecurrently probing the consequences of this idea. In the fall of 1995, Joe Polchinski of the university of California showed that aconsistent string theory must include not only strings but also surfaces of higherdimensions. He called them D-branes. What made D-branes a cause for celebration wasthat they revealed that the many consistent string theories in ten dimensions weredifferent aspects of the same theory. Strings are one-branes, membranes as two-branes,three dimensional ‘surfaces’ are three-branes, while those with four dimensions arefour-branes. In this view, the three-dimensional observed world could be a slice of ahigher-dimensional world. In other words, our three-dimensional space is actually abrane suspended in a world with four or more dimensions of space. Branes arelower-dimensional surfaces that can house forces and particles, and they can be theboundaries of higher-dimensional space. The particles of the Standard Model areconfined to a brane; only gravity is not confined and can move through themulti-dimensional manifold. Adding to this picture, Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum invoke an extradimension that is not ultra-compact, just curved or warped. Adding this extra dimension,they say, opens the possibility the unification of all four forces including gravity, andthat, “The fifth dimension does not have to be very big in order to solve the hierarchyproblem.”10 Theoretical physicists Lawrence M. Kraus had this to say about suchspeculations: The result was a sudden new explosion of interest in—you guessed it—extra dimensions—but not the hypothetical, ethereal, and perhaps illusory extra dimensions that had so fixated the ten- or eleven-dimensional imaginations of string theorists. Rather, they were concrete and even potentially accessible extra dimensions that might literally be hiding behind the looking glass or on the other 10
  • 11. side of the wardrobe.11E. Problems with Superstring Theory While superstring theory—which aims at being the theory of everything—has itsadherents, it has major problems. According to Brian Greene, one of the world’s leadingstring theorists and commentator: Briefly put, the equations of string theory are so complicated that no one knows their exact form. Physicists have managed to write down only approximate versions of the equations. It is these approximate equations that differ significantly from one string theory to the next. And it is these approximate equations, within the context of any one of the five string theories, that give rise to an abundance of solutions, a cornucopia of unwanted universes (italicsadded).12 While Brian Greene admits that he does not know whether the string theory is rightor not, he thinks it is worth researching in spite of its difficulties. In The Cosmic Landscape, Leonard Susskind, one of the founders of string theory,has these comments about the present condition of string theory: Today we know that the success “just around the corner” was a mirage. . . . Number one was that new possibilities kept turning up, new mathematically consistent versions of what was supposed to be a unique theory. During the 1990s, the number of possibilities grew exponentially. String theorists watched with horror as a stupendous Landscape opened up with so many valleys that almost anything can be found somewhere in it. . . . Judged by the ordinary criteria of uniqueness and elegance, String Theory has gone from being Beauty to being the Beast (italics added).13 Three Nobel Prize winners in physics have also made critical comments about thecontent of superstring theory: Richard Feynman: “I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! . . . What is it you don’tlike about it? I don’t like that they’re not calculating anything. I don’t like that theydon’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment,they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, ‘Well, it still might be true’.”14 11
  • 12. Sheldon Glashow: “Are string thoughts more appropriate to departments ofmathematics, or even to schools of divinity, than to physics departments?” 15 Gerard’t Hooft: “Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a‘theory’ rather a ‘model’ or not even that: just a hunch.”16 As for the concept of Calabi-Yau spaces, which made the second superstring theoryrevolution possible, it is confounded by a serious problem in that an enormous numberof possible Calabi-Yau spaces exist. As Peter Woit, lecturer in the MathematicsDepartment of Columbia University, explains: At the time [in 1984], very few such Calabi-Yau manifolds were known, so it was not unreasonable to hope that one of them would do the trick and give one the standard model structure. More than twenty years of research has shown that this was wishful thinking. There is a huge and possibly infinite number of classes of Calabi-Yau spaces, and the introduction of branes into the subject opened up vast numbers of additional new possibilities.17 The picture gets even more complex and unreal. According to Susskind, there are atleast a million Calabi-Yau spaces that could be utilized for compactifying the sixthdimension. Polchinski and Raphael Bousso, then a postdoc at Stanford, investigatedhow many ways there are to fill hundreds of donut holes in a Calabi-Yau space withfluxes. Susskind explains that, as in the case of magnetic fields, the flux through thevarious donut holes is quantized. If the flux through the hole can be any integer betweenzero and nine, then there are ten possibilities, and if there are five hundred donut holesthrough which the fluxes wind, we get the stupendously large number of configurations10500! 18 As a result, there are 10500 valleys in the cosmic Landscape, and each valley has itsvacuum energy. Our universe is born from a benign-to-life valley, which is just one ofthe 10500 valleys. Considering the current confused situation of string theory and its implications,Edward Witten comments: That is at best plausible that we will manage to ever understand what string theory is all about, and, whether or not we do, that it is not at all clear whether we will be able to use it to understand nature. This will depend upon factors beyond our 12
  • 13. control, including how complex the ultimate answer may be, and what clues we might be lucky enough to derive from experiment.19 It is clear that theory, the best currently available, is descending into chaos andleaving reality far behind. In spite of this, however, there is a group of physicists whostill hope that superstring theory will be the theory of everything, the one and onlyunified theory. Edward Witten and David Gross are both outspoken representatives ofthis hope. At a conference in Kyoto in 2003, David Gross, Nobel Prize winner in 2004,quoting from a speech given by Churchill, exclaimed, “Never, never, never, never, nevergive up.” He believes that to conclude that superstring theory cannot explainfundamental features of our universe is premature: We still do not know in a deep sense what string theory is. We do not have a fundamental, background independent, formulation of the theory. We may have 101000 consistent metastable vacua, but not a single consistent cosmology. Perhaps there is a unique cosmology.20 However, the dream that superstring theory will be the one unified theory may bean impossible dream. An increasing number of theorists think this is just wishfulthinking. Gross’s colleague, Polchinski, who contributed much to superstring theory,wrote this about the hopes of Gross and Witten: In fact in string theory there is a cult of “monovacuism,” whose prophet resides in New Jersey (or possibly in the office below mine), to the effect that some magic principle will pick out a single vacuum, namely ours. I would like this to be true, but scientists are supposed to be immune to believing something just because it makes them happy (italics added).21IV. The Rise of the Anthropic Principle Physics today is in confusion with the concept of multiverse in cosmology, and the 50010 possibilities in superstring theory. In this situation, the anthropic principle isattracting physicists’ attention. The anthropic principle is that the universe is fine-tunedso as to allow for life, consciousness and human being.A. Evidence of a Fine-tuned Universe 13
  • 14. Whether a Designer is admitted or not, the universe is precisely fine-tuned to allow forlife as we know it. These are some examples:1. The Strong Force If the strong force inside nucleus were several percent stronger, two protons couldstick together as a helium-2 nucleus. This is what would have been created by the BigBang and there would be little or no hydrogen remaining. In such a universe, the waterthat is so necessary for life would not exist. On the other hand, if the strong force wereseveral percent weaker, nothing other than hydrogen would exist in the universe.2. The Weak Force If weak interactions were much stronger than they actually are, neutrinos would notbe able to escape from the core of a star as they currently do. If the interaction wasmuch weaker, neutrinos would fly freely through the outer layers of a dying star withouthindrance and supernova explosions would not happen. Without these titanic explosions,all the elements generated by the nuclear burning of hydrogen inside stars—such ascarbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc—would stay inside stars and be unavailable forconstructing life.3. Gravity If gravity were a bit stronger, stars would burn out at short time. If gravity weresomewhat weaker, supernovas—and the possibility of living beings—might neverhappen.B. Birth of the Anthropic Principle The idea of a universe fine tuned for life was introduced in 1961 by Robert Dicke,an American cosmologist. In 1974, English cosmologist and theoretical physicistBrandon Carter called Dicke’s theory “the Weak Anthropic Principle” (WAP) and hisown development of the theory “the Strong Anthropic Principle” (SAP). According toCarter, if the laws of physics were a little different, it would be impossible for livingthing to exist. Thus, the laws of physics are adjusted to be just right for life. Theanthropic principle was further developed by Martin Rees, Bernard Carr, Paul Davies,John Barrow, and Frank Tipler. The anthropic principle evoked an adverse and unusually temperamental responsefrom the physics community because the concept that the laws of physics are fine-tunedfor life opens the way to accept God as a designer. However, atheists began to take an 14
  • 15. interest in the viewpoint asserting that there could be one such universe accidentallysuitable for life amidst the multitude of universes in the multiverse view of cosmology.C. Strong and Weak Anthropic Principles There are many variants of the anthropic principle. Roughly speaking, they can beclassified into ‘strong anthropic principle’ and ‘weak anthropic principle.’ The stronganthropic principle leads to teleology, since the principle says that universe isnecessarily suited for life. John Barrow and Frank Tipler explain that the central concept of the stronganthropic principle is that the universe must be such as to give rise to observers at somestage in its development. In other words, the laws of physics and the evolution of theuniverse are in some unspecified manner destined to bring about life and mind. Theuniverse without life and observers does not exist. Theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson says, “The universe must in some sense haveknown we were coming.”22 Biologist Simon Conway Morris says, “There is, if you like,seeded into the initiation of the universe itself the inevitability of intelligence.”23 WhileNobel prize-winning biologist Christian de Duve describes the universe as “pregnantwith life” and calls life “a cosmic imperative.”24 Atheistic physicists have poured scorn on such expressions of the strong anthropicprinciple. However, with the appearance of the weak anthropic principle, atheisticphysicists developed an interest in the anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principleinvolves a passive selection mechanism: Our universe is accidentally selected from aninfinite number of universes, and the natural laws in our universe are accidentallyselected from infinite number of possible string theories. To differentiate between the strong anthropic principle and the weak anthropicprinciple, the philosopher John Leslie introduced a parable. When a prisoner survives anexecution by firing squad, there are two possible reasons: All the sharpshootersaccidentally missed or they intentionally missed. The weak anthropic principlecorresponds to the former, and the strong anthropic principle corresponds to the latter.D. Physicists who Are Inclined to Weak Anthropic Principle These days, many prominent physicists are accepting and using the anthropicprinciple in its weak form. Steven Weinberg, who, together with Abdus Salam andSheldon Glashow, won a Nobel Prize for uniting the electromagnetic force with theweak force, is one of them. Susskind joined this group, and Hawking also invokes theanthropic principle in discussing brane theory: 15
  • 16. With them [particle accelerators such as Large Hadron Collider] and with other observations such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, we may be able to determine whether or not we live on a brane. If we do, it will presumably be because the anthropic principle picks out brane models from the vast zoo of universes allowed by M-theory.25 Joe Polchinski, who introduced the brane concept into superstring theory, said thatthere was no alternative to “the populated Landscape” introduced by Susskind. Naturesomehow makes use of all the possibilities, and there is a natural mechanism to turnmathematical possibilities to physical realities. Sir Martin Rees, the British AstronomerRoyal, who introduced the term “multiverse,” is a enthusiastic supporter of theanthropic principle. Andrei Linde, cosmologist at Stanford University, who proposedscalar field models with no barrier between the false and true vacuum in developinginflation theory, and Alexander Vilenkin, who advocated eternal inflation, are bothfirmly in the weak anthropic Landscape camp. Of course, there are physicists who are entirely against the anthropic principle.David Gross—who said of superstring theory, “Never, never, never, never give up!”—isa representative. He complains that the anthropic principle is like a virus. Today,however, it seems that the majority of physicists are accepting the anthropic principle inits weak form.V. Physics Today Agrees with Darwinism The dream of physicists since Einstein of the one unified theory that can explainevery phenomenon in the universe seems to be fading away. On the other hand, theweak anthropic principle explains that our universe is just one of an infinite number ofuniverses. It is just an accident that this particular universe has conditions fit for life.While this sounds more science fiction than science, the weak anthropic principle hasmany adherents among physicists. Underlying this situation is the spirit of Darwinism. This denies teleology andexplains that living beings have evolved by the natural selection of numerous randommutations. Physicists today are deeply influenced by this perspective of Darwinism. Susskind clearly testifies to this philosophy. He says that through the two basicprinciples of Darwinism—random mutation and natural selection—the element ofmagic was removed from the origin of life and the way opened to a purely scientificexplanation of creation. He says that cosmologists must do this as well: 16
  • 17. Darwin and Wallace set a standard not only for the life sciences but for cosmology as well. The laws that govern the birth and evolution of the universe must be the same laws that govern the falling of stones, the chemistry and nuclear physics of the elements and the physics of elementary particles. They freed us from the supernatural by showing that complex and even intelligent life could arise from chance, competition, and natural causes. Cosmologists would have to do as well: the basis for cosmology would have to be impersonal rules that are the same throughout the universe and whose origin has nothing to do with our own existence. The only god permitted to cosmologists would be Richard Dawkins’s “blind watchmaker (italics added).”26 Darwin explained how complex and sophisticated organs such as the human eyewere developed by natural selection. Similarly, Susskind claims that he can explain ourfinely tuned universe by “the populated Landscape.” The populated Landscape plays the same role for physics and cosmology as Darwinian evolution does for the life sciences. Random copying errors, together with natural selection, are the only known natural explanation of how such a finely tuned organ as an eye could form from ordinary matter. The populated Landscape, together with the rich diversity predicted by String Theory, is the only known explanation of the extraordinary special properties of our universe which allow our own existence (italics added).27 Furthermore, Susskind says that the idea of the populated Landscape is inaccordance with Darwinism: For my own tastes, elegance and simplicity can sometimes be found in principles that don’t at all lend themselves to equations. I know of no equations that are more elegant than the two principles that underpin Darwin’s theory: random mutation and competition. This book is about an organizing principle that is also powerful and simple. I think it deserves to be called elegant, but again, I don’t know an equation to describe it, only a slogan: “A landscape of possibilities populated by a megaverse of actualities (italics added).”28 Finally, this statement by Susskind reminds us of Dawkins’s atheism: 17
  • 18. And what about the biggest questions of all: who or what made the universe and for what reason? Is there a purpose to it all? I don’t pretend to know the answers. Those who would look to the Anthropic Principle as a sign of a benevolent creator have found no comfort in these pages. The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics, and a rich Landscape together with the laws of large numbers are all that’s needed to explain the friendliness of our patch of the universe (italics added).29 Another influential thinker who sides with Dawkins is Steven Weinberg. He says: If people believe that the universe has a point, then what is it? When astronomers peer out into the vastness of the cosmos, with giant stars much larger than our Sun being born and dying in a universe that has been explosively expanding for billions of years, it is hard to see how all this could have been precisely arranged to give a purpose to humanity dwelling on a tiny planet revolving around an obscure star.30 Alex Vilenkin also says that his view of inflation is, in some ways, similar toDarwin’s theory of evolution: But, apart from sociology, the long-term popularity of inflation is due to the appeal and the power of the idea itself. In some ways, inflation is similar to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Both theories proposed an explanation for something that was previously believed to be impossible to explain. The realm of scientific inquiry was thus substantially expanded. In both cases, the explanation was very compelling, and no plausible alternatives have ever been suggested.31 Stephen Hawking also agrees that our improbable universe was born through anevolutionary random process: If the universe is indeed spatially infinite, or if there are infinitely many universes, there would probably be some large regions somewhere that started out in a smooth and uniform manner. It is a bit like the well-known horde of monkeys hammering away on typewriters—most of what they write will be garbage, but very occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Similarly, in the case of the universe, could it be that we are living in a region that just happens by chance to be smooth and uniform? At first sight, this might seem 18
  • 19. very improbable, because such smooth regions would be heavily outnumbered by chaotic and irregular regions. However, suppose that only in the smooth regions were galaxies and stars formed and were conditions right for the development of complicated self-replicating organisms like ourselves who were capable of asking the question: Why is the universe so smooth? This is an example of the application of what is known as the anthropic principle, which can be paraphrased as “We see the universe the way it is because we exist (italics added).”32 All of the above makes it explicit how current thought in physics has becomeclosely united with the spirit of Darwinism.VI. Current Atheistic Physics Excludes Teleology All the teleological thinking developed since Aristotle was swept away byDarwinism, not only in biology but also in physics. In consequence, teleology hasbecome a taboo subject in orthodox science. Murray Gell-Mann, the Nobel Prize winnerwho initiated the quark theory, scorns teleological thinking entirely: In its strongest form, however, such a [teleological] principle would supposedly apply to the dynamics of the elementary particles and the initial conditions of the universe, somehow shaping those fundamental laws so as to produce human beings. That idea seems to me so ridiculous as to merit no further discussion (italics added).33 It is not an exaggeration to say that current science is in the final throes ofteleological cleansing. The reason why teleology is avoided in science is that it leads toGod, since the question naturally arises as to who established the purpose. While thestrong anthropic principle is considered to go along with teleology, the weak anthropicprinciple is not, and has become aligned with atheism. Einstein made his well-known comment, “The most incomprehensible thing aboutthe universe is that it is comprehensible.” Elaborating on this, Weinberg said, “the morethe universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.”34 Furthermore, hethought that any sign of the workings of an interested God would not be found in thefinal unified theory of physics.35 Hawking, together with Penrose, consolidated the concept that the universe has abeginning in what is called the Big Bang. This concept delighted those religious leaderswho believed in an act of creation, for here was scientific proof of the Creator. Hawking 19
  • 20. also commented that if we do discover a complete theory, we would know the mind ofGod.36 On the other hand, he said, “If the universe is really completely self-contained,having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simplybe. What place, then, for a creator?”37 In this way, he excluded God from the universe. Susskind, an advocate of the cosmic Landscape, reveals the militant spirit by whichhe would fight creationism to the death: But scientists—real scientists—resist the temptation to explain natural phenomena, including creation itself, by divine intervention. Why? Because as scientists we understand that there is a compelling human need to believe—the need to be comforted—that easily clouds people’s judgment. It’s all too easy to fall into the seductive trap of a comforting fairy tale. So we resist, to the death, all explanations of the world based on anything but the Laws of Physics, mathematics, and probability (italics added).38 Contemporary physics seems to be drowning in a mighty current of thought fromwhich teleology and God are excluded. As the starting point of this current isDarwinism, when it is replaced by the true description of creation this current willnaturally disappear.VII. God and Physics Richard Dawkins rejoices that, “although atheism might have been logically tenablebefore Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”39 Sincethe appearance of Darwinism, atheism has spread all over the world not only in biologybut also in all areas of natural sciences. Currently, it is mainstream thinking to assert thedenial of teleology and God, and that this is the correct scientific attitude. However, if Darwinism proves to be false, the Godless physics will lose its support.Moreover, if a new view of creationism appropriate to the current age of science isestablished, the rehabilitation of teleology and of God will become possible. First, wewill look at what scientists thought of God before Darwin. The great renaissance scientists—Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton—wereall men of deep and unquestioning faith. Copernicus, for example, credits gravity to“the divine providence of the Creator.” Kepler felt he was gaining a deeper appreciationof God’s handiwork through his astronomy: “Our worship is all the more deep, the moreclearly we recognize the creation and its greatness.” 40 In the works of these great menthere were echoes of the Biblical injunction, “The heavens are telling the glory of God; 20
  • 21. and the firmament proclaims his handiwork (Psalms 19:1). Newton was not only ascientist but also theologian. He had no doubt that his science, like his theology, wouldresound to the greater glory of the Creator. Einstein, who was not influenced by Darwinism, made it his motto to clarify howGod created the world. He said, “I want to know how God created this world. I am notinterested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want toknow His thoughts, the rest are details.” He also said, “What really interests me iswhether God had any choice in the creation of the world,” and maintained that God didnot have any choice in creating our universe. He encapsulated his views in the famousphrase that “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” By the second half of 20th century, however, Darwinism had radically changed theperspective of scientists. These days it seems that teleology is denied completely andthat God has been excluded from all areas of science. As stated above, however, whenDarwinism has been replaced, the storm of atheism will subside. When the darknessretreats and the truth becomes clear, the figure of God will reappear and the aspirationof renaissance scientists and Einstein to demonstrate the glory of God’s creation will berealized. There are those who think that religion has been an obstruction to the developmentof science. This is not true. In human history, to be sure, there have been cases wherereligious leaders have hindered the development of science with their self-righteous andstubborn thinking. This was the fault of the religious leaders’ way of thinking ratherthan religion itself. Religion has no fundamental disagreement with mathematics and natural laws.Scientists are free to research and uncover the truths of nature. However, as Einsteinnoted, “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,” science thatdenies God will inevitably lose its sense of direction, it will stray into the realm ofinfinite, random possibilities. Religion can give science inspiration and a sense of rightdirection. It is unquestionable that spiritual inspiration has made important contributions inthe development of science. Todays physicists should take heed to these words of LeonLederman in his The God Particle: If the religious metaphors offered up by the authors of texts comparing the new physics to Eastern mysticism help you in some way to appreciate the modern revolutions in physics, then by all means use them.41 21
  • 22. VIII. Prospects for Future Physics Today’s physicists are separating into two groups: One group seeks for the theoryof everything, the fundamental physical laws of the universe; the other group is inclinedto the weak anthropic principle which claims the existence of an infinite number ofuniverses and the cosmic Landscape. Believers in the anthropic principle pour severe criticisms on the believers inunique laws. Susskind fumes that, “String theorists were so blinded by the myth ofuniqueness”42 and, “The field of physics is littered with the corpses of stubborn old menwho didn’t know when to give up,”43 Polchinski says, “In fact in string theory there is acult of ‘monovacuism’. . . some magic principle will pick out a single vacuum.”44 On the other hand, the believers in unique laws also have denounced the believersin the anthropic principle: Gross dismisses the anthropic principle as a grand principlethat explains why you’re unable to solve the problem, and that it is a ‘virus’ that hasinfected many physicists who show no signs of ever recovering from the disease.Princeton cosmologist Paul Steinhardt says anthropic principle is an act of desperation,an untestable non-scientific theory, and he refers to the current anthropic craze asmillennial madness.45 We cannot but conclude that both groups have reached an impasse. The question iswhat can break this impasse.A. Reconsidering Darwinism The reason why today’s physics has reached such an impasse is that it has excludedteleology. The main culprit for this exclusion is Darwinism. If Darwinism, however,proves to be false, the reasons for excluding teleology will evaporate. A critique ofDarwinism and the proposal of a new creationism is explained in the first chapter of thisbook. Physicists should correct their stubborn attitude of treating teleology as a taboo.B. Reinstatement of Teleology If teleology is reinstated, current physics can be saved from the impasse into whichit has strayed. For particle physics, it will become possible to decide on definiteparameters rather than on arbitrary ones. For superstring theory, it will become possibleto choose a unique answer from the tremendous number of Calabi-Yau spaces, and thevalleys in the cosmic Landscape. For cosmology, it will become possible to choose oneappropriate universe, rather than infinite number of them. In this way, cosmology can berescued from entering the realm of scientific fiction. As for the weak anthropic principle,it will merge into the strong anthropic principle. 22
  • 23. The fact that all things exist with a purpose means that natural laws are designed tofulfill this purpose. Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who founded Unification Thought, says: Every existence definitely moves. This is a fundamental law of existence. This law of movement applies not only to living things but also to non-living things. The nature of the movement is orderly and principled. This is because the order and the law cannot exist without a certain predetermined purpose. Therefore, every existence moves by order and law centering on a very certain purpose.46 Using water as an example, we can see how natural laws are premised on a certainpurpose. Some of the examples of the ways in which water is designed for life are:47 (1) The density of water is maximum at 4 ℃ and it expands on freezing: As aconsequence of this unique property of water—every other chemical just gets denser oncooling—ice floats in liquid water, and the deep waters of sea, lake, and river neverfreeze, however cold it may be: only the ice on the surface is exposed to the freezingatmosphere. This is how fish survive the cold weather without being frozen. A pine seed,which is covered with hard shell, cannot sprout even when spring comes if it remains asit is. In the cold weather in winter, however, the water contained in a seed expands whenit freezes and a crack is made in the shell. When such process repeats, the crackbecomes larger and the seed can sprout in spring. (2) Water has a very high specific heat: About 70% of the Earth is covered withwater. Plants on land also contain a great deal of water. All this water moderatestemperature changes: it takes a lot of energy to warm it up, and it gives up a lot ofenergy when it cools down. Everywhere on earth—except for the deserts—the watermoderates the temperature differential between day and night making the world morecomfortable to live in. In addition, the high specific heat of water also allows fortemperature control inside the animal body. (3) Water has an extraordinarily high heat of vaporization: We have a remarkablecooling system that is much more efficient than any engine’s: When it is hot, we sweatprofusely, whereby a lot of heat is taken out from our body. On the surface of the Earth,when the water vapor taken into the atmosphere at the tropics moves to the coldlatitudes and condenses, the same amount of heat absorbed in the evaporation is emitted,warming the cold latitudes. In this way, the Earth’s temperature differences aremoderated. (4) Water has an unusually high heat of fusion: When ice melts a lot of heat isabsorbed, and when water freezes a lot of heat is emitted. Therefore, lakes or rivers 23
  • 24. slowly freeze, and the surface of the Earth doesn’t become cold too rapidly. (5) Water has an anomalously high surface tension: It is this surface tension thatallows water to rise in the thin tubes, or capillaries, of plants. When water evaporatesout of the pores, or stomata, of plant leaves, water is drawn up through the capillaries ofplants by the surface tension. Were it not for water’s unusually high surface tension andthe presence of stomata, there could be no tall vegetation. With an understanding of the laws that give water its special characteristics, we cansee that they are not accidental but are arranged for the purpose of allowing livingbeings to exist and multiply.C. Reinstatement of Design If teleology is restored in science, we can naturally accept design in the naturalworld. The intelligent design theory (ID theory), now on the rise in the United States, isa new movement in biology to establish design in living beings. It can make a greatcontribution to the reinstatement of design in biology. In cosmology and in particlephysics as well we can recognize design. A confident atheist Susskind explains the distinction between Landscape andmegaverse that “The Landscape is not a real place. Think of it as a list of all the possibledesigns of hypothetical universes. Each valley represents one such design. . . . Themegaverse, by contrast, is quite real.”48 This means that, contrary to his intention, he isadmitting the design of our universe, which was born from one valley of the Landscape. In the Bible, it states that God created all things with the Word. The Word is not likea speech uttered by a mouth, but rather it is a blue print, or design for all things.Mathematical principles are one aspect of Logos. Therefore, the specific mathematicalpattern observed in elementary particles can be understood when we realize that Godprepared them as the material to create all things and the universe. The particles aredesigned, centered on the purpose of creation, in accordance with mathematicalprinciples.D. Mathematical Principles As Lederman states, “If the religious metaphors help you to appreciate the modernrevolutions in physics, then by all means use them.” Physicists should accept religiousor philosophical wisdom as a guide and reference. According to the Oriental theory of yin and yang, there was T’aichi , or the GreatUltimate in the beginning. T’aichi has the dual character of yin and yang, from which 24
  • 25. four images, and then eight trigrams arose. The world is composed of these eighttrigrams circulating in harmony. When multiplied by eight, eight trigrams become sixtyfour trigrams. For example, in DNA or RNA, the codon is a tri-nucleotide unit thatspecifies a single amino acid. As there are four nucleotides, there 64 different codoncombinations possible for codons of three nucleotides. The codon translation tableconsists of 64 codons, each of which specifies one of the twenty amino acids—somespecifying the same amino acid—along with a START and a STOP codon. There is another theory, related to yin and yang, of the doctrine of the fiveelements—wood, fire, earth, metal, and water. In this theory, the world is made of thesefive elements continually influencing and balancing with each other. Then there is the Unification Thought view about the meaning of numbers.According to Unification Thought, number one means God, the oneness. Number twomeans the duality of God and the duality of the world. The duality of God refers to thespiritual aspect (mind) and physical aspect (original energy, or pre-energy), as well asthe Yang and Yin, to which Oriental philosophy referred. The duality of the world refersto spirit (mind) and matter (body), and yang and yin life forms, such as man and woman.The duality of spirit and matter has been elaborated in Western philosophy, while theduality of yang and yin in Eastern philosophy. The number three, which is called the number of heaven, means the three stages ofgrowth and three fundamental constituents. For example, in the body of a human and ofan animal, there are the three parts of head, body and limbs, while a hand or leg also hasthree parts. Matter has the three states of solid, liquid and vapor. Color has its threeprimary colors while there is the basic triad chord in music. Quarks and leptons come inthree generations; quarks have three quantum color charges; and baryons are made ofthree quarks. The number four, which is called the number of earth, means the extension orspreading out of the world. For example, there are the four quarters of north, south, eastand west; and right, left, forward and backward. There are four seasons in a year.Ancient Greek philosopher considered arché, the fundamental elements, to be fire,water, air and soil. The chemistry of life is based on the four predominant elements ofcarbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. In modern physics, the structure of matterinvolves the four elementary particles of up quark, down quark, electron and electronneutrino, all of which belong to the first generation. There are four fundamental forcesin nature: gravitation, the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force.Love, which is realized on the basis of a family, consists of four loves: children’s love,brothers and sisters’ love, husband and wife’s love, and parents’ love. 25
  • 26. The number five, which is four plus one at the center, means the world. There arefour quarters of north, south, east, west and center. Our hand or leg has five fingers: fourfingers plus thumb. The number seven, which is the union of number three (number of heaven) andnumber four (number of earth), means perfection. For example, a week has seven days.In color, there are seven basic colors: violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange and red.The major scale in music has the seven notes of do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti. In the periodictable of Mendeleev, there are seven active elements in each period. The number eight means a restart, a circle, a sphere and a world. For example, thereare eight elements in the periodic table when including the inert noble gas at the end.Gell-Mann and Neeman showed that the hundreds of hadrons could be organized intopatterns of eight, which eventually led them to the quark theory. Gell-Mann named histheory the Eightfold Way, echoing the Buddhist doctrine of the Noble Eightfold Path.The Eightfold Way can be compared to the Mendeleev periodic table. Japanese physicist,Saburo Honma, commented that, “somehow, nature has given the number eight aspecial, significant meaning.”49 The number five and number eight both means the world. The difference is that thenumber five is the horizontal understanding of the world and the number eight is thecircular or spherical understanding of the world. Finally, number twelve, which is number four multiplied by number three, meansthe perfection of heaven and earth, or the perfection of the world. For example, a yearhas four seasons, each of three months, making altogether twelve months. A day has twocycles of twelve hours each, day and night. In the Standard Model of current physics,there are twelve matter particles (six quarks and six leptons) and twelve force particles(gauge bosons). When we include antiparticles, there are twelve quarks (six quarks andsix antiquarks) of each color charge, and twelve leptons (six leptons and sixantileptons). The mystery of mathematical number cannot be solved just by mathematicalcalculation, or by logical speculation. New insights occur when physics includes suchreligious and philosophical wisdom.E. Symmetry Breaking Japanese cosmologist Ikeuchi said, “the creator of the world has earnestly beenengaged in the breaking of symmetry.”50 Yes, it is true; God has dual characteristics thatare in the relation of subject and object. The relation of subject and object is that ofactive and passive, or initiating and responding. Thus, God’s duality is not symmetrical. 26
  • 27. If God’s duality were symmetrical, He could not have started the work of creation; Hewould have remained static and silent forever. In fact, God, who has the duality ofsubject and object, started the work of creation. Therefore, while God is engaged in thework of creation, symmetry is broken in the physical world.F. Creation from Nothing In Christianity as well as in Islam, God (Allah) created the world from nothing.Unification Thought accepts that nothing material existed before His creation. However,God, did not create matter from spirit as Augustine claimed. God, who has the dual characteristics of spiritual aspect and physical aspect(original pre-energy), mobilized his energy when He started the work of creation. Isaiahin the Bible says, “Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who bringsout their host by number, calling them all by name; by the greatness of his might, andbecause he is strong in power not one is missing” (Isaiah 40:26). Thus, God is notmerely a spiritual being, but He is also great in might and strong in power. In otherwords, He has infinite energy. Therefore, God started the work of creation with Hisenergy, and has continued the work of creation until now, supporting and supplying theuniverse with His energy. A new light will be cast on the mystery of dark energy, orvacuum energy, when we accept that God is sustaining the universe.G. Discovery of the Spirit World Until now, it is mostly religionists and spiritualists who have researched the worldafter death, and their results are not something that everyone can agree on. Today,scientists for the most part regard research into the spirit world as taboo. This was notalways the case. Marie Curie, the prominent woman scientist who received two NobelPrizes, was interested in researching the spirit world. Edison, the king of inventors,aimed to design a spiritual communication machine in his later years. Such prominentscientists faced the possibility of the spirit world with a sincere mind. Unexpectedly, however, physicists today are unconsciously going in a direction thataccepts the spirit world. Lisa Randall, in a dialogue with Japanese astronaut KoichWakata, said that our three dimensional world is incorporated in an invisible fivedimensional world and, furthermore, that the other world may be near our world.51 Michio Kaku, an authority on superstring theory, writes in Parallel Worlds, “Ouruniverse may be a membrane with a parallel universe just a millimeter from ours,floating in hyperspace. If so, then the Large Hadron Collider may detect it within thenext several years.”52 27
  • 28. In The Universe in a Nutshell, Stephen Hawking also states, “In this brane world,we would live on one brane but there would be another ‘shadow’ brane nearby. Becauselight would be confined to the branes and would not propagate through the spacebetween, we could not see the shadow world.”53 Hawking also said, “This history of thebrane in imaginary time would determine its history in real time.”54 He states that theworld in imaginary time is the causal to the world in real time: In this chapter we have seen how the behavior of the vast universe can be understood in terms of its history in imaginary time, which is a tiny, slightly flattened sphere. It is like Hamlet’s nutshell, yet this nut encodes everything that happens in real time. So Hamlet was quite right (italics added).55 To be sure, they may not admit that the another dimensional world, shadow world,or the world in imaginary world is the spirit world. It can be said, however, that theirviews are on a track that leads to the spirit world. When the existence of the spirit worldis clarified, new light will be cast on the problems of the origin of the universe,supersymmetry, extra dimension and so on.H. God’s Existence God’ When Darwinism collapses and teleology is reintroduced into science, the questionnaturally arises of who established the purpose. This leads to accepting that Godestablished the purpose of creation. Also, if we admit to design in nature, this leads tothe concept God as the designer. Commenting on the non-Euclidean geometry established about 100 years before byGauss and Riemann that was used by Einstein to construct his theory of relativity,Steven Weinberg, atheist physicist, said, “The mathematics was there waiting forEinstein to make use of.”56 In the same way, the group theory developed by Galois, Lie, and Cartan was laterused by Gell-Mann to describe his quark theory. Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner,called such phenomenon “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.” Weinbergobserved that “Physicists generally find the ability of mathematicians to anticipate themathematics needed in the theories of physicists quite uncanny.”57 In this occurrence we can see God’s providence at work—which Weinberg may notadmit to—in which God gave an inspiration to mathematicians and then later guidedphysicists to find physical laws using the mathematics prepared for them. In this way,we can see that God has guided human history not only through religious figures but 28
  • 29. also through scientists. Whether they accept God or not, we can say that scientists haveoften unconsciously contributed to the God’s providence. As a matter of fact, even atheist scientists have contributed to God’s providence,albeit unintentionally. Dawkins displayed explicit hostility towards God in writing TheGod Delusion. However, as shown in chapter 2, where Dawkins’ evolutionism iscriticized, it can be said that Dawkins has explained the history of creation from thestandpoint of materialism. Weinberg, in an article about the launch of Large Hadron Collider (LHD) in Europe,said, that from now, “There will be less room for religion” (Newsweek, September 15,2008). However, as explained above, it can be said that Weinberg admits to a mysteriouspower behind history that has guided scientists. Susskind, who said that “we resist to the death” all explanations about God’screation of the world, says that the cosmic Landscape is something like a list of all thedesigns of the hypothetical universes. In this way he admits that our universe is createdbased on a design. Hawking, who said “What place for a creator?” and thus excluded God from theuniverse, states that the world in imaginary time is causal to the world in real time. Hisview is in on a track that leads to the spirit world and away from materialism. Brian Greene views historical providence as a human ladder. That is to say,scientists have climbed the mountain of truth, aiming for the top, passing the baton oneby one through human history. We are all, each in our own way, seekers of the truth and we each long for an answer to why we are here. As we collectively scale the mountain of explanation, each generation stands firmly on the shoulders of the previous, bravely reaching for the peak. . . . And as our generation marvels at our new view of the universe—our new way of asserting the world’s coherence—we are fulfilling our part, contributing our rung to the human ladder reaching for the stars (italics added).58 In conclusion, he offers this hope: It is possible, of course, that such studies may one day convince us that, indeed, there is a limit to scientific explanation. But it is also possible, to the contrary, that they will usher in a new era—an era in which we can declare that a fundamental explanation of the universe has finally been found (italics added).59 29
  • 30. The era is coming in which we can declare that the fundamental explanation of theuniverse has finally been found. It is the era in which scientists rediscover God andpraise God’s glorious Creation. 30