Aw, come on, registration is free! Or are you overseas?
Anyway, I wouldn't want you to miss the fun, so I will skirt the law a bit this time. nytimes.com
10 Physics Questions to Ponder for a
Millennium or Two
By GEORGE JOHNSON
Who of us would not be
glad to lift the veil
behind which the future lies
hidden; to cast a glance at the
next advances of our science
and at the secrets of its
development during future
centuries?"
One hundred years ago, with
those inviting thoughts, the
German mathematician David
Hilbert opened his landmark
address to the International
Congress of Mathematicians in
Paris, laying out 23 of the great
unsolved problems of the day.
"For the close of a great
epoch," Hilbert declared, "not
only invites us to look back into
the past but also directs our
thoughts to the unknown
future."
With another century ending -- a whole millennium in fact -- the pressure
is all the greater to tabulate human ignorance with lists of the most
enticing cosmic mysteries.
In May, the Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Mass., emulated
Hilbert, announcing (in Paris, for full effect) seven "Millennium Prize
Problems," each with a bounty of $1 million.
The list is at: www.claymath.org/prize_problems/.
And last month physicists, with a typically lighter touch, ended a
conference on superstring theory at the University of Michigan with a
session called "Millennium Madness," choosing 10 of the most perplexing
problems in their field. It was like a desert island game, involving some of
science's smartest people.
"The way I thought about this challenge was to imagine what question I
would ask if I woke up from a coma 100 years from now," said Dr.
David Gross, a theoretical physicist at the University of California at
Santa Barbara, as he unveiled the winners. He and the other judges made
the selection, he noted, "in the middle and after this party in which we
were sufficiently drunk."
After weeding out unanswerable questions (like "How do you get
tenure?"), the judges came up with enough puzzles to occupy physicists
for the next century or so. There are no monetary prizes, though solving
any one of these would almost guarantee a trip to Stockholm.
1. Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that
characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some
merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and
uncalculable? Einstein put it more crisply: did God have a choice in
creating the universe? Imagine the Old One sitting at his control console,
preparing to set off the Big Bang. "How fast should I set the speed of
light?" "How much charge should I give this little speck called an
electron?" "What value should I give to Planck's constant, the parameter
that determines the size of the tiny packets -- the quanta -- in which
energy shall be parceled?" Was he randomly dashing off numbers to meet
a deadline? Or do the values have to be what they are because of a
deep, hidden logic?
These kinds of questions come to a point with a conundrum involving a
mysterious number called alpha. If you square the charge of the electron
and then divide it by the speed of light times Planck's constant, all the
dimensions (mass, time and distance) cancel out, yielding a so-called
"pure number" -- alpha, which is just slightly over 1/137. But why is it not
precisely 1/137 or some other value entirely? Physicists and even mystics
have tried in vain to explain why.
2. How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?
Two of the great theories of modern physics are the standard model,
which uses quantum mechanics to describe the subatomic particles and
the forces they obey, and general relativity, the theory of gravity.
Physicists have long hoped that merging the two into a "theory of
everything" -- quantum gravity -- would yield a deeper understanding of
the universe, including how it spontaneously popped into existence with
the Big Bang. The leading candidate for this merger is superstring theory,
or M theory, as the latest, souped-up version is called (with the M
standing for "magic," "mystery," or "mother of all theories").
3. What is the lifetime of the proton and how do we understand it? It
used to be considered gospel that protons, unlike, say, neutrons, live
forever, never decaying into smaller pieces. Then in the 1970's, theorists
realized that their candidates for a grand unified theory, merging all the
forces except gravity, implied that protons must be unstable. Wait long
enough and, very occasionally, one should break down.
The trick is to catch it in the act. Sitting in underground laboratories,
shielded from cosmic rays and other disturbances, experimenters have
whiled away the years watching large tanks of water, waiting for a proton
inside one of the atoms to give up the ghost. So far the fatality rate is
zero, meaning that either protons are perfectly stable or their lifetime is
enormous -- an estimated billion trillion trillion years or more.
4. Is nature supersymmetric, and if so, how is supersymmetry broken?
Many physicists believe that unifying all the forces, including gravity, into
a single theory would require showing that two very different kinds of
particles are actually intimately related, a phenomenon called
supersymmetry.
The first, fermions, are loosely described as the building blocks of matter,
like protons, electrons and neutrons. They clump together to make stuff.
The others, the bosons, are the particles that carry forces, like photons,
conveyors of light. With supersymmetry, every fermion would have a
boson twin, and vice versa.
Physicists, with their compulsion for coining funny names, call the
so-called superpartners "sparticles": For the electron, there would be the
selectron; for the photon, the photino. But since the sparticles have not
been observed in nature, physicists would also have to explain why, in
the jargon, the symmetry is "broken": the mathematical perfection that
existed at the moment of creation was knocked out of kilter as the
universe cooled and congealed into its present lopsided state.
5. Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space
dimensions? "Just because" is not considered an acceptable answer.
And just because people can't imagine moving in extra directions, beyond
up-and-down, left-and-right, and back-and-forth, doesn't mean that the
universe had to be designed that way. According to superstring theory, in
fact, there must be six more spatial dimensions, each one curled up too
tiny to detect. If the theory is right, then why did only three of them unfurl,
leaving us with this comparatively claustrophobic dominion?
6. Why does the cosmological constant have the value that it has? Is it
zero and is it really constant? Until recently cosmologists thought the
universe was expanding at a steady clip. But recent observations indicate
that the expansion may be getting faster and faster. This slight
acceleration is described by a number called the cosmological constant.
Whether the constant turns out to be zero, as earlier believed, or some
very tiny number, physicists are at a loss to explain why.
According to some fundamental calculations, it should be huge -- some
10 to 122 times as big as has been observed.
The universe, in other words, should be ballooning in leaps and bounds.
Since it is not, there must be some mechanism suppressing the effect. If
the universe were perfectly supersymmetric, the cosmological constant
would become canceled out entirely. But since the symmetry, if it exists
at all, appears to be broken, the constant would still remain far too large.
Things would get even more confusing if the constant turned out to vary
over time.
7. What are the fundamental degrees of freedom of M-theory (the
theory whose low-energy limit is eleven-dimensional supergravity and
that subsumes the five consistent superstring theories) and does the
theory describe nature? For years, one big strike against superstring
theory was that there were five versions. Which, if any, described the
universe? The rivals have been recently reconciled into an overarching
11-dimensional framework called M theory, but only by introducing
complications.
Before M theory, all the subatomic particles were said to be made from
tiny superstrings. M theory adds to the subatomic mix even weirder
objects called "branes" -- like membranes but with as many as nine
dimensions. The question now is, Which is more fundamental -- are
strings made from branes or vice versa? Or is there something else even
more basic that no one has thought of yet? Finally, is any of this real, or is
M theory just a fascinating mind game?
8. What is the resolution of the black hole information paradox?
According to quantum theory, information -- whether it describes the
velocity of a particle or the precise manner in which ink marks or pixels
are arranged on a document -- cannot disappear from the universe.
But the physicists Kip Thorne, John Preskill and Stephen Hawking have
a standing bet: what would happen if you dropped a copy of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica down a black hole? It does not matter whether
there are other identical copies elsewhere in the cosmos. As defined in
physics, information is not the same as meaning, but simply refers to the
binary digits, or some other code, used to precisely describe an object or
pattern. So it seems that the information in those particular books would
be swallowed up and gone forever. And that is supposed to be
impossible.
Dr. Hawking and Dr. Thorne believe the information would indeed
disappear and that quantum mechanics will just have to deal with it. Dr.
Preskill speculates that the information doesn't really vanish: it may be
displayed somehow on the surface of the black hole, as on a cosmic
movie screen.
9. What physics explains the enormous disparity between the
gravitational scale and the typical mass scale of the elementary
particles? In other words, why is gravity so much weaker than the other
forces, like electromagnetism? A magnet can pick up a paper clip even
though the gravity of the whole earth is pulling back on the other end.
According to one recent proposal, gravity is actually much stronger. It
just seems weak because most of it is trapped in one of those extra
dimensions. If its full force could be tapped using high-powered particle
accelerators, it might be possible to create miniature black holes. Though
seemingly of interest to the solid waste disposal industry, the black holes
would probably evaporate almost as soon as they were formed.
10. Can we quantitatively understand quark and gluon confinement
in quantum chromodynamics and the existence of a mass gap?
Quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, is the theory describing the strong
nuclear force. Carried by gluons, it binds quarks into particles like
protons and neutrons. According to the theory, the tiny subparticles are
permanently confined. You can't pull a quark or a gluon from a proton
because the strong force gets stronger with distance and snaps them right
back inside.
But physicists have yet to prove conclusively that quarks and gluons can
never escape. When they try to do so, the calculations go haywire. And
they cannot explain why all particles that feel the strong force must have
at least a tiny amount of mass, why it cannot be zero. Some hope to find
an answer in M theory, maybe one that would also throw more light on
the nature of gravity.
11. (Question added in translation). Why is any of this important? In
presenting his own list of mysteries, Hilbert put it this way: "It is by the
solution of problems that the investigator tests the temper of his steel; he
finds new methods and new outlooks, and gains a wider and freer
horizon."
And in physics, the horizon is no less than a theory that finally makes
sense of the universe. |
