The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (3 page)

The second anomaly to which Lord Kelvin referred led to the quantum revolution, one of the greatest upheavals to which modern human understanding has ever been subjected. By the time the fires subsided and the smoke cleared, the veneer of classical physics had been singed off the newly emerging framework of quantum reality.

A core feature of classical physics is that if you know the positions and velocities of all objects at a particular moment, Newton's equations, together with their Maxwellian updating, can tell you their positions and velocities at any other moment, past or future. Without equivocation, classical physics declares that the past and future are etched into the present. This feature is also shared by both special and general relativity. Although the relativistic concepts of past and future are subtler than their familiar classical counterparts (Chapters 3 and 5), the equations of relativity, together with a complete assessment of the present, determine them just as completely.

By the 1930s, however, physicists were forced to introduce a whole new conceptual schema called
quantum mechanics.
Quite unexpectedly, they found that only quantum laws were capable of resolving a host of puzzles and explaining a variety of data newly acquired from the atomic and subatomic realm. But according to the quantum laws, even if you make the most perfect measurements possible of how things are today, the best you can ever hope to do is predict the
probability
that things will be one way or another at some chosen time in the future, or that things were one way or another at some chosen time in the past. The universe, according to quantum mechanics, is
not
etched into the present; the universe, according to quantum mechanics, participates in a game of chance.

Although there is still controversy over precisely how these developments should be interpreted, most physicists agree that probability is deeply woven into the fabric of quantum reality. Whereas human intuition, and its embodiment in classical physics, envision a reality in which things are always definitely one way
or
another, quantum mechanics describes a reality in which things sometimes hover in a haze of being partly one way
and
partly another. Things become definite only when a suitable observation forces them to relinquish quantum possibilities and settle on a specific outcome. The outcome that's realized, though, cannot be predicted—we can predict only the odds that things will turn out one way or another.

This, plainly speaking, is weird. We are unused to a reality that remains ambiguous until perceived. But the oddity of quantum mechanics does not stop here. At least as astounding is a feature that goes back to a paper Einstein wrote in 1935 with two younger colleagues, Nathan Rosen and Boris Podolsky, that was intended as an attack on quantum theory.
³
With the ensuing twists of scientific progress, Einstein's paper can now be viewed as among the first to point out that quantum mechanics— if taken at face value—implies that something you do over here can be
instantaneously
linked to something happening over there, regardless of distance. Einstein considered such instantaneous connections ludicrous and interpreted their emergence from the mathematics of quantum theory as evidence that the theory was in need of much development before it would attain an acceptable form. But by the 1980s, when both theoretical and technological developments brought experimental scrutiny to bear on these purported quantum absurdities, researchers confirmed that there
can
be an instantaneous bond between what happens at widely separated locations. Under pristine laboratory conditions, what Einstein thought absurd really happens (Chapter 4).

The implications of these features of quantum mechanics for our picture of reality are a subject of ongoing research. Many scientists, myself included, view them as part of a radical quantum updating of the meaning and properties of space. Normally, spatial separation implies physical independence. If you want to control what's happening on the other side of a football field, you have to go there, or, at the very least, you have to send someone or something (the assistant coach, bouncing air molecules conveying speech, a flash of light to get someone's attention, etc.) across the field to convey your influence. If you don't—if you remain spatially isolated—you will have no impact, since intervening space ensures the absence of a physical connection. Quantum mechanics challenges this view by revealing, at least in certain circumstances, a capacity to transcend space; long-range quantum connections can bypass spatial separation. Two objects can be far apart in space, but as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, it's as if they're a single entity. Moreover, because of the tight link between space and time found by Einstein, the quantum connections also have temporal tentacles. We'll shortly encounter some clever and truly wondrous experiments that have recently explored a number of the startling spatio-temporal interconnections entailed by quantum mechanics and, as we'll see, they forcefully challenge the classical, intuitive worldview many of us hold.

Despite these many impressive insights, there remains one very basic feature of time—that it seems to have a direction pointing from past to future—for which neither relativity nor quantum mechanics has provided an explanation. Instead, the only convincing progress has come from research in an area of physics called
cosmology.

To open our eyes to the true nature of the universe has always been one of physics' primary purposes. It's hard to imagine a more mind-stretching experience than learning, as we have over the last century, that the reality we experience is but a glimmer of the reality that is. But physics also has the equally important charge of explaining the elements of reality that we actually do experience. From our rapid march through the history of physics, it might seem as if this has already been achieved, as if ordinary experience is addressed by pre-twentieth-century advances in physics. To some extent, this is true. But even when it comes to the everyday, we are far from a full understanding. And among the features of common experience that have resisted complete explanation is one that taps into one of the deepest unresolved mysteries in modern physics—the mystery that the great British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington called the arrow of time.
⁴

We take for granted that there is a direction to the way things unfold in time. Eggs break, but they don't unbreak; candles melt, but they don't unmelt; memories are of the past, never of the future; people age, but they don't unage. These asymmetries govern our lives; the distinction between forward and backward in time is a prevailing element of experiential reality. If forward and backward in time exhibited the same symmetry we witness between left and right, or back and forth, the world would be unrecognizable. Eggs would unbreak as often as they broke; candles would unmelt as often as they melted; we'd remember as much about the future as we do about the past; people would unage as often as they aged. Certainly, such a time-symmetric reality is not our reality. But where does time's asymmetry come from? What is responsible for this most basic of all time's properties?

It turns out that the known and accepted laws of physics show no such asymmetry (Chapter 6): each direction in time, forward and backward, is treated by the laws without distinction.
And that's the origin of a huge puzzle.
Nothing in the equations of fundamental physics shows any sign of treating one direction in time differently from the other, and that is totally at odds with everything we experience.
⁵

Surprisingly, even though we are focusing on a familiar feature of everyday life, the most convincing resolution of this mismatch between fundamental physics and basic experience requires us to contemplate the most unfamiliar of events—the beginning of the universe. This realization has its roots in the work of the great nineteenth-century physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, and in the years since has been elaborated on by many researchers, most notably the British mathematician Roger Penrose. As we will see, special physical conditions at the universe's inception (a highly ordered environment at or just after the big bang) may have imprinted a direction on time, rather as winding up a clock, twisting its spring into a highly ordered initial state, allows it to tick forward. Thus, in a sense we'll make precise, the breaking—as opposed to the unbreaking— of an egg bears witness to conditions at the birth of the universe some 14 billion years ago.

This unexpected link between everyday experience and the early universe provides insight into why events unfold one way in time and never the reverse, but it does not fully solve the mystery of time's arrow. Instead, it shifts the puzzle to the realm of
cosmology
—the study of the origin and evolution of the entire cosmos—and compels us to find out whether the universe actually had the highly ordered beginning that this explanation of time's arrow requires.

Cosmology is among the oldest subjects to captivate our species. And it's no wonder. We're storytellers, and what story could be more grand than the story of creation? Over the last few millennia, religious and philosophical traditions worldwide have weighed in with a wealth of versions of how everything—the universe—got started. Science, too, over its long history, has tried its hand at cosmology. But it was Einstein's discovery of general relativity that marked the birth of modern scientific cosmology.

Shortly after Einstein published his theory of general relativity, both he and others applied it to the universe as a whole. Within a few decades, their research led to the tentative framework for what is now called the
big
bang theory,
an approach that successfully explained many features of astronomical observations (Chapter 8). In the mid-1960s, evidence in support of big bang cosmology mounted further, as observations revealed a nearly uniform haze of microwave radiation permeating space—invisible to the naked eye but readily measured by microwave detectors—that was predicted by the theory. And certainly by the 1970s, after a decade of closer scrutiny and substantial progress in determining how basic ingredients in the cosmos respond to extreme changes in heat and temperature, the big bang theory secured its place as the leading cosmological theory (Chapter 9).

Its successes notwithstanding, the theory suffered significant shortcomings. It had trouble explaining why space has the overall shape revealed by detailed astronomical observations, and it offered no explanation for why the temperature of the microwave radiation, intently studied ever since its discovery, appears thoroughly uniform across the sky. Moreover, what is of primary concern to the story we're telling, the big bang theory provided no compelling reason why the universe might have been highly ordered near the very beginning, as required by the explanation for time's arrow.

These and other open issues inspired a major breakthrough in the late 1970s and early 1980s, known as
inflationary cosmology
(Chapter 10). Inflationary cosmology modifies the big bang theory by inserting an extremely brief burst of astoundingly rapid expansion during the universe's earliest moments (in this approach, the size of the universe increased by a factor larger than a million trillion trillion in less than a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second). As will become clear, this stupendous growth of the young universe goes a long way toward filling in the gaps left by the big bang model—of explaining the shape of space and the uniformity of the microwave radiation, and also of suggesting why the early universe might have been highly ordered—thus providing significant progress toward explaining both astronomical observations and the arrow of time we all experience (Chapter 11).

Yet, despite these mounting successes, for two decades inflationary cosmology has been harboring its own embarrassing secret. Like the standard big bang theory it modified, inflationary cosmology rests on the equations Einstein discovered with his general theory of relativity. Although volumes of research articles attest to the power of Einstein's equations to accurately describe large and massive objects, physicists have long known that an accurate theoretical analysis of small objects—such as the observable universe when it was a mere fraction of a second old— requires the use of quantum mechanics. The problem, though, is that when the equations of general relativity commingle with those of quantum mechanics, the result is disastrous. The equations break down entirely, and this prevents us from determining how the universe was born and whether at its birth it realized the conditions necessary to explain time's arrow.

It's not an overstatement to describe this situation as a theoretician's nightmare: the absence of mathematical tools with which to analyze a vital realm that lies beyond experimental accessibility. And since space and time are so thoroughly entwined with this particular inaccessible realm—the origin of the universe—understanding space and time fully requires us to find equations that can cope with the extreme conditions of huge density, energy, and temperature characteristic of the universe's earliest moments. This is an absolutely essential goal, and one that many physicists believe requires developing a so-called
unified theory.

Over the past few centuries, physicists have sought to consolidate our understanding of the natural world by showing that diverse and apparently distinct phenomena are actually governed by a single set of physical laws. To Einstein, this goal of unification—of explaining the widest array of phenomena with the fewest physical principles—became a lifelong passion. With his two theories of relativity, Einstein united space, time, and gravity. But this success only encouraged him to think bigger. He dreamed of finding a single, all-encompassing framework capable of embracing all of nature's laws; he called that framework a
unified theory.
Although now and then rumors spread that Einstein had found a unified theory, all such claims turned out to be baseless; Einstein's dream went unfulfilled.

Einstein's focus on a unified theory during the last thirty years of his life distanced him from mainstream physics. Many younger scientists viewed his single-minded search for the grandest of all theories as the ravings of a great man who, in his later years, had turned down the wrong path. But in the decades since Einstein's passing, a growing number of physicists have taken up his unfinished quest. Today, developing a unified theory ranks among the most important problems in theoretical physics.

For many years, physicists found that the central obstacle to realizing a unified theory was the fundamental conflict between the two major breakthroughs of twentieth-century physics: general relativity and quantum mechanics. Although these two frameworks are typically applied in vastly different realms—general relativity to big things like stars and galaxies, quantum mechanics to small things like molecules and atoms—each theory claims to be universal, to work in all realms. However, as mentioned above, whenever the theories are used in conjunction, their combined equations produce nonsensical answers. For instance, when quantum mechanics is used with general relativity to calculate the probability that some process or other involving gravity will take place, the answer that's often found is not something like a probability of 24 percent or 63 percent or 91 percent; instead, out of the combined mathematics pops an
infinite
probability. That doesn't mean a probability so high that you should put all your money on it because it's a shoo-in. Probabilities bigger than 100 percent are meaningless. Calculations that produce an infinite probability simply show that the combined equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics have gone haywire.

Scientists have been aware of the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics for more than half a century, but for a long time relatively few felt compelled to search for a resolution. Instead, most researchers used general relativity solely for analyzing large and massive objects, while reserving quantum mechanics solely for analyzing small and light objects, carefully keeping each theory a safe distance from the other so their mutual hostility would be held in check. Over the years, this approach to détente has allowed for stunning advances in our understanding of each domain, but it does not yield a lasting peace.

A very few realms—extreme physical situations that are both massive and tiny—fall squarely in the demilitarized zone, requiring that general relativity and quantum mechanics simultaneously be brought to bear. The center of a black hole, in which an entire star has been crushed by its own weight to a minuscule point, and the big bang, in which the entire observable universe is imagined to have been compressed to a nugget far smaller than a single atom, provide the two most familiar examples. Without a successful union between general relativity and quantum mechanics, the end of collapsing stars and the origin of the universe would remain forever mysterious. Many scientists were willing to set aside these realms, or at least defer thinking about them until other, more tractable problems had been overcome.

But a few researchers couldn't wait. A conflict in the known laws of physics means a failure to grasp a deep truth and that was enough to keep these scientists from resting easy. Those who plunged in, though, found the waters deep and the currents rough. For long stretches of time, research made little progress; things looked bleak. Even so, the tenacity of those who had the determination to stay the course and keep alive the dream of uniting general relativity and quantum mechanics is being rewarded. Scientists are now charging down paths blazed by those explorers and are closing in on a harmonious merger of the laws of the large and small. The approach that many agree is a leading contender is
superstring
theory
(Chapter 12).

As we will see, superstring theory starts off by proposing a new answer to an old question: what are the smallest, indivisible constituents of matter? For many decades, the conventional answer has been that matter is composed of particles—electrons and quarks—that can be modeled as dots that are indivisible and that have no size and no internal structure. Conventional theory claims, and experiments confirm, that these particles combine in various ways to produce protons, neutrons, and the wide variety of atoms and molecules making up everything we've ever encountered. Superstring theory tells a different story. It does not deny the key role played by electrons, quarks, and the other particle species revealed by experiment, but it does claim that these particles are not dots. Instead, according to superstring theory, every particle is composed of a tiny filament of energy, some hundred billion billion times smaller than a single atomic nucleus (much smaller than we can currently probe), which is shaped like a little string. And just as a violin string can vibrate in different patterns, each of which produces a different musical tone, the filaments of superstring theory can also vibrate in different patterns. These vibrations, though, don't produce different musical notes; remarkably, the theory claims that they produce different particle properties. A tiny string vibrating in one pattern would have the mass and the electric charge of an electron; according to the theory, such a vibrating string would
be
what we have traditionally called an electron. A tiny string vibrating in a different pattern would have the requisite properties to identify it as a quark, a neutrino, or any other kind of particle. All species of particles are unified in superstring theory since each arises from a different vibrational pattern executed by the same underlying entity.

Going from dots to strings-so-small-they-look-like-dots might not seem like a terribly significant change in perspective. But it is. From such humble beginnings, superstring theory combines general relativity and quantum mechanics into a single, consistent theory, banishing the perniciously infinite probabilities afflicting previously attempted unions. And as if that weren't enough, superstring theory has revealed the breadth necessary to stitch all of nature's forces and all of matter into the same theoretical tapestry. In short, superstring theory is a prime candidate for Einstein's unified theory.

These are grand claims and, if correct, represent a monumental step forward. But the most stunning feature of superstring theory, one that I have little doubt would have set Einstein's heart aflutter, is its profound impact on our understanding of the fabric of the cosmos. As we will see, superstring theory's proposed fusion of general relativity and quantum mechanics is mathematically sensible only if we subject our conception of spacetime to yet another upheaval. Instead of the three spatial dimensions and one time dimension of common experience, superstring theory requires
nine
spatial dimensions and one time dimension. And, in a more robust incarnation of superstring theory known as
M-theory,
unification requires
ten
space dimensions and one time dimension—a cosmic substrate composed of a total of eleven spacetime dimensions. As we don't see these extra dimensions, superstring theory is telling us that
we've so far
glimpsed but a meager slice of reality.

Of course, the lack of observational evidence for extra dimensions might also mean they don't exist and that superstring theory is wrong. However, drawing that conclusion would be extremely hasty. Even decades before superstring theory's discovery, visionary scientists, including Einstein, pondered the idea of spatial dimensions beyond the ones we see, and suggested possibilities for where they might be hiding. String theorists have substantially refined these ideas and have found that extra dimensions might be so tightly crumpled that they're too small for us or any of our existing equipment to see (Chapter 12), or they might be large but invisible to the ways we probe the universe (Chapter 13). Either scenario comes with profound implications. Through their impact on string vibrations, the geometrical shapes of tiny crumpled dimensions might hold answers to some of the most basic questions, like why our universe has stars and planets. And the room provided by large extra space dimensions might allow for something even more remarkable: other, nearby worlds—not nearby in ordinary space, but nearby in the extra dimensions—of which we've so far been completely unaware.

Although a bold idea, the existence of extra dimensions is not just theoretical pie in the sky. It may shortly be testable. If they exist, extra dimensions may lead to spectacular results with the next generation of atom smashers, like the first human synthesis of a microscopic black hole, or the production of a huge variety of new, never before discovered species of particles (Chapter 13). These and other exotic results may provide the first evidence for dimensions beyond those directly visible, taking us one step closer to establishing superstring theory as the long-sought unified theory.

If superstring theory is proven correct, we will be forced to accept that the reality we have known is but a delicate chiffon draped over a thick and richly textured cosmic fabric. Camus' declaration notwithstanding, determining the number of space dimensions—and, in particular, finding that there aren't just three—would provide far more than a scientifically interesting but ultimately inconsequential detail. The discovery of extra dimensions would show that the entirety of human experience had left us completely unaware of a basic and essential aspect of the universe. It would forcefully argue that even those features of the cosmos that we have thought to be readily accessible to human senses need not be.