Предлагаем восстановить, заказать, купить диплом Вуза в любом городе России. Только настоящий бланк ГОЗНАК с гарантией.
Viewings: 4939Are there truths that will forever remain inaccessible to us? Whether there are storehouses of knowledge, which will be beyond even advanced civilization? Of all the technologies that we have discussed in this book, only the eternal engine and a vision of the future had to be carried to the III class of impossibility. Are there other, equally impossible technology?
In pure mathematics is full of theorems proving the impossibility of this or that event. A simple example: it is impossible to divide the angle NaTrue using only a compass and ruler; this has been proven in 1837
Even in simple systems, such as arithmetic, there are impossibilities. As I mentioned, it is impossible to prove all true assertions in arithmetic within the postulates of the arithmetic. In it there will always be true statements that can be proven only within a larger system, subsystem, which is arithmetic.
So, in math there are things impossible, but the physics is very dangerous to say that an event or action is absolutely impossible. Let me remind you of the speech where he said Nobel laureate albert Michelson in 1894, at the opening ceremony of the physics laboratory of Ryerson at the University of Chicago; Michelson said that it is impossible to open any new physics: "All the most important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have been opened and is firmly established; the likelihood of their ever as a result of new discoveries will be replaced by other laws and facts, extremely small... In the future, we should expect new discoveries only in the sixth decimal place".
His remarks sounded on the eve of the greatest upheaval in the history of science - quantum revolution 1900 and the opening of the theory of relativity in 1905, the fact that the events that we today consider impossible, violate the known laws of physics " but these laws can change.
In 1825, the great French philosopher Auguste Comte in his "philosophy" said that science will never be able to determine what we are made of stars. At the time this statement seemed quite reasonable, because of the nature of the stars were not known. It was obvious that they are very far and to reach them it is impossible. But just a few years after the statements of account of physics learned (using spectroscopy)that the Sun is made of hydrogen. Moreover, today we know that by analysis of spectral lines with the stars threw light billions of years ago, you can determine the chemical composition of the greater part of the Universe.
Pin challenged the scientific world, listing several "impossible event.
• He argued that "deep structure of the bodies will forever remain beyond our knowledge." In other words, it is impossible to know the true nature of matter.
• He believed that mathematics cannot be applied to biology and chemistry. He argued that these Sciences cannot be reduced to the level of mathematics.
• He believed that the study of celestial bodies can't bring humanity real benefit.
In the XIX century the philosopher had all the grounds for such statements, because the fundamental science was born and knew little. Almost nothing was known about the secrets of matter and life. But today we have the atomic theory, which opened new vistas for research and study the structure of matter. We know about DNA and quantum theory, revealing to us the secrets of life and chemistry. We know also about arriving from space meteorites, which are not only influenced the development of life on Earth, but perhaps participated in its origin.
Astronomer John barrow said: "Historians are still negotiating, have views conta one of the reasons that followed soon decline of French science".
Mathematician David Hilbert, denying the allegations of the Comte, wrote: "In my opinion, the real reason that the Comte could not find any really nerushimoj problem is that unsolvable problems do not exist".
But today, some scientists are trying to make a new list of impossible events: we will never know what happened before the Big Bang (or, say, what was the cause of it); we'll never have a "theory of everything".
Physicist John Wheeler wrote about the first "impossible" question: "two Hundred years ago you could ask any person: "if we can understand someday, how did life?" - and hear in response: "Absurd! This is impossible!" I'm about as belong to the question "Understand we ever, how did the universe?"".
Astronomer John barrow added: "the Speed of light is limited therefore limited and our knowledge of the Universe structure. We cannot determine the ultimate she or infinite, whether it had a beginning and will the end, are the same everywhere, its structure and, in General, in the end, the ordering of the universe or not... On all fundamental questions about the nature of the Universe from beginning to end - is impossible to answer",
Barrow is right that we can never know with absolute accuracy the true nature of the Universe in all its magnificence. But we are quite able to peck a piece from these eternal inexhaustible questions and gradually get closer to the truth. Statements about the impossibility of anything should probably not be viewed as absolute limits of our knowledge, and as a challenge to the next generation of scientists. These limits, like the crust of the pie, there to be destroyed.
The era before the Big Bang
As for the Big Bang, it currently creates a new generation of devices that may help us to solve some eternal questions. Today, our cosmic radiation detectors register only microwave radiation that occurred after 300 000 years after the Big Bang, when he formed the first atoms. This radiation is not able to help us to understand what it was before, because radiation original ball of fire was too hot and random, so you can extract some useful information.
But it is possible that by means of the analysis of other types of radiation we can get close to the Big Bang little closer. For example, a lot of interesting information promises to study neutrinos. Neutrinos are so elusive that can fly through the leaden ball the size of a Solar system, so neutrino radiation can tell us about what happened in a few seconds after the Big Bang.
Finally same to understand the mysteries of the Big Bang, we will probably help "gravitational waves" - waves running through the fabric of space-time. Physicist rocky Kolb from the University of Chicago says: "Defining properties of the neutrino background, we can look at the time after one second after the Big Bang. But the gravitational waves from the zone inflation occurred in the Universe through 10 of about 35 seconds after the explosion.
First predicted gravitational waves Einstein in 1916; it is possible that with time they will become an important tool of astronomy. Turning to history, we can say that with curb each new form of radiation in astronomy begins a new era. First, there was only visible light with which Galileo studied the Solar system. Then it is supplemented by radio waves, which allowed the person to look into the centers of galaxies and discover there black holes. It is possible that the detectors of gravitational waves will open for us - as much of the mystery of creation.
In a sense, gravitational waves must exist. To see this, consider the old as the world question: what happens if suddenly disappear the Sun? According to Newton, we feel it immediately. The earth will be immediately thrown from orbit and plunged into darkness. The fact that the law of gravitation of Newton did not take into account the speed of interaction, so the gravitational force immediately act in the entire Universe. But, according to Einstein, nothing can move faster than light, and information about the disappearance of the Sun reaches the Earth only eight minutes. In other words, spherical "shock wave" of gravity will come out of the Sun and only after some time will hit the Earth. Outside spherical boundaries of this gravitational waves would seem that the Sun still shines and is on the site - after all, information about his disappearance has not reached the Earth. However, within a sphere of gravitational waves the Sun will be gone, because this wave propagates at the speed of light.
Another way to ensure that gravitational waves should exist, is to imagine a very large bed-sheet. According to Einstein, space-time is the fabric that can be rolled up or stretch like a bed sheet. If to grab a sheet over the edge and quickly shake, we will see that the canvas will run waves or ripples, and will run at a certain speed. Similarly, gravitational waves can be likened ripples running through the fabric of space-time.
Gravitational waves belong to the most rapidly developing topics of modern physics. In 2003, were entered in build the first large-scale gravitational wave detectors, called LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory); these detectors have a 4 km long and located in Hanford, Washington, and in Livingston-the parish, Louisiana. Scientists hope that the LIGO detectors that cost us in 365 million, will be able to register radiation from colliding neutron stars and black holes.
The next big event will happen in 2015, when will the launch of the satellites of new generation, intended for the analysis of gravitational radiation in space since the moment of creation. This is a joint project of NASA and the European space Agency; on the solar orbit is expected to launch three satellites, which together will constitute a system with a beautiful name LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna - space antenna with laser interferometer). These satellites will be able to register gravitational waves that occurred in less than one trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. Passing through one of the satellites, gravitational wave of the Big Bang, still walking along the entire Universe, will disturb the laser beams; these changes will be registered and measured as accurately as possible and give us a "picture" of the moment of creation.
The LISA project consists of three satellites that orbit the Sun and form a triangle; they are connected to each other by means of laser beams in length of 5 million km and together form the largest scientific instrument ever created by mankind. This system of three vehicles will revolve around the Sun at a distance of about 50 million miles from Earth.
Each satellite will emit a laser beam power of only polatta. Comparing laser beams coming from the other two satellites, each satellite will build appropriate interference pattern. If a gravitational wave will cause outrage laser beams, the interference pattern will change - and satellites will be able to register the change. (Gravitational wave will not alarm yourself satellites and will not force them to fluctuate. The result of its impact will be a distortion of space between the three satellites.)
Although laser beams will be extremely weak, they will achieve astounding accuracy. The system will be able to register vibrations up to one share of the billion trillion - roughly the shift in 1/100 fraction of the size of the atom. Each of laser beams will be able to detect gravitational wave from a distance of 9 billion light-years, it covers much of the visible Universe.
Potentially apparatus sensitivity USA should be enough to distinguish several scenarios of the events before the Big Bang. Today one of the most "hot" topics in theoretical physics calculation of the characteristics of the Universe before the Big Bang. Currently inflationary theory is well explains how the universe evolved after came the Big Bang. But this theory is unable to explain why, in fact, that explosion has occurred. Thus, the goal is calculated using various approximate models era "before the Big Bang" parameters of gravitational radiation, which has given rise to arise at the moment of the explosion. Each of the theories predicts his own. For example, the radiation of the Big Bang, as predicted by the theory of Big splash, different from radiation which many predicted inflation theory, and LISA, it may be able to exclude part of existing theories. Obviously, directly verify the behavior of the Universe before the Big Bang is not possible because it requires you to understand the behaviour of the universe before the emergence of time, but we can try to check them indirectly, because each of these models predicts its radiation spectrum arising after the Big Bang.
Physicist Kip Thorne wrote: "somewhere between 2008 and 2030 will be discovered gravitational waves from the singularity of the Big Bang. This discovery will be the beginning of a new era, which will last until at least 2050... These efforts will reveal fine details and properties of the singularity of the Big Bang and so will check which version of string theory is a correct quantum theory of gravity".
If LISA will not be able to choose one of the many "pre-explosive" theories, it may be able to make its successor - the Observer of the Big Bang (Big Bang Observer, BBO. Its launch is tentatively scheduled for 2025 BBO will be able to scan the entire Universe in search of binary systems, including neutron stars and black holes with a mass less than a thousand Solar masses. But its main goal is to study gravitational waves that occurred during the inflationary phase of the Big Bang. In this sense we can say that BBO specially designed for testing the inflationary theory of the Big Bang.
On the device of input reminds LISA. It will consist of three satellites, consistently traded in an orbit around the Sun and separated by a distance of 50 000 km (these satellites will be to each other much closer than satellites LISA). Each satellite will be able to emit a laser beam power 300 W. BBO will be able to register gravitational waves with frequencies between available for LIGO and LISA, and thus will fill an important gap. (LISA will be able to register gravitational waves with frequencies from 10 to 3000 Hz, while LIGO available range from 10 mcgc to 10 MHz. BBO will be able to register wave in a wide frequency range, comprising both disbursed by the time range.)
"By 2040, we will have time to have to use these laws [quantum gravity] and get reliable answers to many deep is baffling questions - writes Thorne, including... that was before the singularity of the Big Bang and in General, was there anything "to"? Are there other universes? And if there are, how they are related or connected to our own Universe?.. If the laws of physics highly developed civilizations to create and maintain wormholes for interstellar travel, and to create the time machine to travel back in time?"
The conclusion: apparently, in the nearest decades the cosmic gravitational wave detectors will give us enough material to understand the different "to-explosive" theories and make a choice between them.
The poet TS Eliot asked in his time the question: will die if the universe in the rumble, or in tears? Robert frost said, what we lose, fire or ice? Recent data indicate that by the end of the Universe will be a Big frost; the temperature falls to near absolute zero, and intelligent life will disappear. But can we say that with confidence?
Someone asks this question of "impossibility": how can we know the final fate of the Universe, if this event is separated from us trillions and trillions of years? Scientists believe that the dark energy, or the energy of vacuum, pushes galaxies away from each other and causing them to scatter with increasing speed; it seems that the universe went Hawking. The expansion is expected to gradually lower the temperature in the Universe and in the end to lead us all to a Big Claus. But what if this extension is temporary? Is it possible that in the future will start the reverse process?
For example, a Large splash-one of the scenarios of the Big Bang, in which the universe occurs when the collision of two membranes - suggests that the membrane may face periodically. If so, then the extension that we are witnessing at the moment and which seems to cause a Great Claus, is only a temporary state, followed by a reverse process.
The current accelerated recession universes called dark energy, causing the existence of which is probably the "cosmological constant". So the main thing - to understand this mysterious constant, or the energy of the vacuum. Does this constant over time, or she really permanent? Currently, none of this probably does not know. The data of the WMAP satellite, currently in earth orbit, testify that this is the cosmological constant causes the current acceleration of rouzbehani Universe, but we don't know, constantly this condition or not.
Actually, this problem is not new and dates back to 1916, when Einstein introduced his equations cosmological term. Offering a year earlier, the General theory of relativity, he was then developed its cosmological consequences and found to his own surprise,that the universe is not static, that it must be either expanding or Contracting. But that thought seemed to be contrary to the actual data.
Einstein was faced with a paradox Bentley tormenting still Newton. In 1692 the honorable Richard Bentley wrote Newton innocent letter and asked terrible essentially a question. If Newtonian gravitational force is able to attract, asked Bentley, why the universe is not collapses? If the universe consists of a finite number of stars, which mutually attracted, then all the stars in theory would have to fly in one place-and then the entire universe would be converted into a ball of fire! Newton this letter very upset because it pointed to the major drawback to his theory: the theory of gravitation, which provides the only attraction, is inherently unstable. Any finite number of stars inevitably collapses under gravity.
Newton wrote in response that the only way to create a stable Universe is considered that, in her infinite number of uniformly distributed stars; every star pulled around, and all the forces cancel each other out. It was a very clever solution, but Newton was smart enough to understand; this stability is deceptive. The weakest fluctuations will cause a similar system to collapse like a house of cards. She "metastable"; that is stable up until any weak perturbation will not cause its collapse. Newton concluded that without God in this matter is necessary; it is God shall from time to time to ' fix ' the stars and put them away, to avoid a collapse of the UniverseNoah.
In other words, the universe by Newton like a giant clock, which were instituted by God in the beginning, and now there are obeying Newton's laws. Once opened, then the universe lives by herself, without divine intervention. However, according to Newton, from time to time God is supposed to correct the stars, not to give the Universe shlopnutsya in a single fireball.
When Einstein in 1916 came across a paradox Bentley, equations correctly told him that the universe is dynamic, it or expands or contracts; static universe unstable and would shlopnutsya under the influence of gravity. But astronomers at the time, insisted that the universe is static and unchanging. Therefore, Einstein, leaning in front of observational data astronomy, added the cosmological constant - force opposite to gravity and rastalkivaya stars away from each other; this power was to compensate for gravity and to withstand the collapse of the Universe. (This force, the opposite of gravity, corresponded energy enclosed in a vacuum. In other words, Einstein admitted that the vast empty spaces of the cosmos contain a large number of invisible energy.) It was assumed that this constant, which must exactly compensate the gravitational force of attraction, you must choose very carefully.
Later, in 1929, when Edwin Hubble showed that in fact the universe is expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest mistake." But now, 70 years later, it turns out that "error" Einstein - cosmological constant - it might still be the largest source of energy in the Universe; it represents 73% of all the matter and energy of the Universe. (In contrast, those elements that comprise our body, make up only 0,03% of the Universe.) It may well be that the error of Einstein will determine the ultimate fate of the Universe.
But where did the cosmological constant? Currently, no one knows. At the beginning of time, the force of anti-gravitation was probably large enough to make the Universe to swell and cause thus the Big Bang. She then for reasons unknown, suddenly disappeared. ST. this period, the universe continued to expand, but more slowly.) And then, after about 8 billion years after the Big Bang, the power of anti-gravitation boy again; she began pushing the galaxies and again accelerated the recession of the Universe.
Now, is "impossible" to determine the ultimate fate of the Universe? Or is it? Most scientists believed that the size of the cosmological constant is defined ultimately by quantum effects. But a simple calculation on a simplified version of the quantum theory shows that the theoretical value of the cosmological constant is different from the real one in 10 120 times. Of course, this is the greatest discrepancy in the history of science.
But physicists also agree that this oddity simply means that we lack theory of quantum gravity. Because the cosmological constant arises from quantum corrections, you must build a "theory of everything" - the theory that allows us to calculate not only the Standard model, but also the size of the cosmological constant, which will determine the ultimate fate of the Universe.
Thus, when determining the ultimate fate of the Universe we cannot do without a theory of everything. The irony is that some physicists believe that to develop such a theory is impossible.
The theory of everything?
As I mentioned, the best candidate for the role of a theory of everything today is string theory; but from this point of view, there are enemies who believe that string theory does not justify expectations. On the one hand, such a scholar as Professor at MIT Max Tegmark, writes: "I think that in 2056, it will be possible to buy a t-shirt with formulas that describe the unified physical laws of our Universe." On the other hand, at the moment the group is formed strong critics who claim that string theory still have a lot to prove. No matter how many appeared on her enthusiastic articles or documentary cinema projects; some say that string theory has not given a single fact, which could be verified. Disputes on this issue flared up in 2002, when Stephen Hawking was transferred to another camp and, referring to the theorem of incompleteness, said that the theory of everything, it may be even mathematically impossible.
No wonder heated debate has forced some physicists to go against other physicists because the goal is so noble, though slipping constantly. The desire to unite all the laws of nature for millennia teased and attracted equally and philosophers and physicists. Himself Socrates once said, "I saw it as a top - to know the only explanation why it arises, why is dying, why is there".
The first assumption is related to the theory of all, put forward about 500 BC; it is believed that around this time the Greek Pythagoreans guessed mathematical laws of music. Having analyzed the nodes and fluctuations liroy strings, they were able to show that music is subject remarkably simple mathematical rules. Then came the reasoning that maybe harmonies liroy strings can explain everything in nature. (In a sense of modern string theory brought back to life the dream of the Pythagoreans!)
It is safe to say that in our time, almost all the giants of the physics of the XXth century tried his hand in the development of a unified field theory. But, as warns Freeman Dyson, "the battle field of physical science entirely covered with corpses unified theories".
In 1928, the New York Times came out with a sensational headline: "Einstein on the verge of a great discovery; angry uninvited intrusion". Placed under him, the note has led the media into a frenzy, filed around the theory of the whole journalistic cluttered and brought tensions to breaking point. The headlines screamed: "Einstein affected by the turmoil around new theory! Holds 100 journalists in suspense for a whole week!" Dozens of journalists literally swarmed around his house in Berlin and carried round the clock vigil, hoping to find a genius at least the corner of their eyes and give material horse. Einstein was forced into hiding.
Astronomer Arthur Eddington wrote to Einstein: "You may be amused the news that one of the largest Department stores in London ("Selfridges") placed in the window of your article (those six pages in a row at one stand)that passers-by could read it from beginning to end. At the window gather large crowds, all read". (In 1923 Eddington suggested own a unified field theory, which then worked tirelessly until his death in 1944)
In 1946, Erwin Schroedinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, held a press conference where he announced his unified field theory. At the press conference appeared even Prime Minister of Ireland Emon de Valera. When a reporter asked what he would do if his theory is erroneous, Schroedinger replied: "I am sure that is right. If I'm wrong, I'll look like a complete idiot". (Schroedinger really hurt, when Einstein politely pointed out errors in his theory.)
The most ardent critic of any unification was the physicist Wolfgang Pauli. He rebuked Einstein, to paraphrase the Bible: "what therefore God has separated, let no one combines". He ruthlessly slashed any nedorabotanno theory, releasing sarcastic remarks: "This theory cannot even be called wrong. However, ironically, the greatest skeptic Pauli himself had contracted universal madness. In the 1950s, he together with Werner Heisenberg proposed its own unified field theory.
In 1958 Pauli presented a unified theory of the Heisenberg-Pauli at Columbia University. At the Niels Bohr, who was present in the hall, it has not made much impression. Bor stood up and said: "We are here in the back row, are convinced that your theory is crazy. But our opinions are divided into whether or not she's insane". The theory was subjected to derogatory criticism. Since all of the obvious ways unified theory were considered and rejected, a true unified field theory was to appear suddenly and radically different from all previous versions. The theory of the Heisenberg-Pauli was simply too traditional, too plain, too sensible to be true. (In the same year, Pauli was very alarmed when Heisenberg noticed in one of the radio that in their General theory missing only some technical details. Pauli was sent to friends an email with an empty rectangle and signature under it: "So I want to show the world that is able to draw, as Titian. My picture is not enough only technical details.")
Criticism of string theory
Today the leading (and only) candidate for the role of theory just is string theory. But there is, of course, and negative reactions. Opponents argue: now, to get a permanent position in one of the best universities, you should work on string theory. If you do not do this theory, will remain without work. This craze of today - and physics, of course, suffers from this.
I only smile when I hear such statements, because physics, like any other human activity, subject to fads and fashions. The fate of the great theories, especially those that are born on the edge of human cognition, may experience unexpected and even the occasional UPS and downs. In General, the situation changed not so long ago; historically string theory was an outcast, a theory is a turncoat and a victim of the mainstream.
String theory was born in 1968, when two young freshly baked doctor Gabriel InVeneziano, Machico Suzuki - came across a formula describing problems like the collision of subatomic particles. It was soon discovered that this wonderful formula can be obtained as a description of the collision vibrating strings. But in 1974, the work on this theory has almost died. Appeared on the horizon of the new theory of quantum chromodynamics, or the theory of quarks and strong interactions, is like the car of Juggernaut, pressing its power all other theories. Physics crowds threw string theory for work on a new promising theory. All funding, all workplaces and recognition was given to the scientists who worked on the quark model.
I remember those dark years. Over string theory continued to work just downright stubborn and adventurers. And when it became clear that the strings in question, can fluctuate only destinaron space theory in General has become an object of ridicule. Pioneer string theory John Schwartz of Caltech sometimes experienced in the Elevator with Richard Feynman. Feynman, who had always loved to joke, often asked: "Well, John, how many dimensions in space, where you're at tonight?" We even joked that the only place where you can find theoretical physicist, expert in string theory, is a turn on labour exchange.
(Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann, the founder of the quark model, once told me that out of pity to the theorists-string players had hosted the California Institute of technology "sanctuary for endangered species, specialists in the theory of strings", so that people like John did not lose his job.)
Mention the fact that today many young physicists tend to work on string theory, Steve Weinberg wrote: "string Theory is, at the moment, the only contender for the role of a final theory, " so can we expect that many of the most capable young theorists will not want to work on it?"
Whether or not string theory cannot be verified?
One of the main objections of string theory is that it is impossible to verify. Its opponents argue that for real test this theory would require a particle accelerator the size of a galaxy.
But critics forget that a lot in science is not right; very often the result easier to get indirectly. No one has been in the Sun to spend a direct measurements, but we can analyze the spectral lines of the sunlight and therefore know that the Sun is made of hydrogen.
Or consider black holes. The theory of black holes dates back to 1783, when John Michell published an article in "Philosophical transactions of the Royal society. He claimed that the star may be so massive that "all radiated such a light body will be forced to return to him under the influence of its own gravity." For several centuries, the theory of dark stars Michell was struggling, because to check it directly it was impossible.
In 1939 Einstein wrote an article in which he argued that such dark star cannot be formed in a natural way. The main argument was that dark stars cannot be detected by their very nature because they are, by definition, invisible. But today, due to space telescope named Hubble we have a great proof of the existence of black holes. Currently, we are convinced that in the centers of galaxies can hide billions of black holes; in our own Galaxy may have dozens of stray black holes. But the point is that all the data about black holes obtained indirectly; namely, that we have a black hole by examining the accretion disk that rotates around it.
Moreover, many "unverifiable" theory will eventually become checked. To prove the existence of atoms, predicted by Democritus, it took two thousand years. In the XIX century physics like Ludwig Boltzmann, who believed in atomic theory, could hunt to death, and today we have a great pictures of atoms. Great skeptic Pauli introduced in 1930, the concept of a neutrino particles are so elusive that it is able to fly through the leaden ball the size of a Solar system and with nothing not to interact. Pauli said, "I have committed a terrible sin; I entered the particle, which is impossible to observe". To detect neutrinos was "impossible", so for several decades unusual particle was considered an almost fantastic. And today we can create neutrino beams.
Already planned several experiments, which, as we hope physics, will help indirectly to test string theory.
• Large hadron Collider, might be powerful enough to get the superparticle that predicted by the theory of superstrings (as well as other theories of supersymmetry) and represent a higher vibration modes.
• As I mentioned, in 2015 in space will be launched LISA - space antenna with a laser interferometer. LISA and its successor, the Observer of the Big Bang, will be probably quite sensitive for checking several theories about what was before the Big Bang, including different versions of string theory.
• Many laboratories are now trying to discover whether in the millimeter scale famous Newton's law that the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Deviations from this law can speak about the existence of higher dimensions. (If there is, for example, the fourth spatial dimension, the force of gravity must decrease proportionally to the cube, not the square of the distance.) The latest version of string theory (M-theory) argues that the measurement is actually 11.
• Many laboratories are trying to detect dark matter, or hidden mass, as the Earth moves in the space stream of dark matter. String theory allows us to formulate concrete testable predictions about the physical properties of the dark matter - because it probably is a higher vibration of the strings (for example, the Photinos).
• There is hope that a series of additional experiments (for example, experiments on determination of polarization neutrinos held at the South pole) will detect black mini-holes and other strange objects by analysis of anomalies of cosmic rays with energies exceeding perhaps the energy of particles in the Large hadron Collider. Experiments with cosmic rays and with the Collider will discover new horizons beyond the Standard model.
• Some of physics admit that the power of the Big Bang could disperse some tiny superstring to truly cosmic scales. Physicist Alexander Vilenkin from tufts University writes: "One very interesting feature is that superstring... can reach astronomical proportions... In this case we could see them in the sky and thus directly to test the theory of superstrings". (The probability to find in space giant relic of the superstring, preserved from the moment of the Big Bang, is very small.)
The incompleteness of physics
In 1980, Stephen Hawking reignited interest in theory only; it procellaria called "Coming whether the end of theoretical physics?", in which he said: "we May see a complete theory during the life of some of those present here". He argued that with 50 percent probability of full and final theory will be found within the next 20 years. But when we came to 2000, and the consensus theory of everything still was not, Hawking changed his mind and moved the same probability of 50% for the next 20 years.
Then in 2002, Hawking once again changed his mind and said that the theorem of incompleteness, it may indicate a fundamental error in its original reasoning. He wrote: "Some people will be very disappointed that there is no definitive theory, which can be formulated in a finite number of points. I had also belonged to this camp, but now changed my mind... the Theorem guarantees that for mathematicians work will always remain. I think that M-theory will do the same for physicists".
His arguments are not new: since mathematics is incomplete, and the language of physics is mathematics, physics, there will always be beyond our true statements, and therefore the theory just can't be. Theorem of incompleteness, who killed the dream of the Greeks that all true statements in mathematics have been proven, would make it impossible and the theory of everything.
Freeman Dyson was more eloquent: "g?del proved that the world of pure mathematics inexhaustible; any finite number of logical axioms and rules are not able to cover all the math... I hope that a similar situation exists in the world of physics. If my view of the future of the faithful, the world of physics and astronomy too inexhaustible; no matter how much time - we will always observe new phenomena and new information; there will always be new worlds to explore, is constantly expanding ownership of life, consciousness and memory."
Astrophysicist John barrow so he summarized this logical approach: "Science is based on mathematics, mathematics is not able to reveal all the truth; therefore, science is not able to reveal all the truth."
Similar arguments can be correct or incorrect, but potential drawbacks from this point of view there. Professional mathematicians largely ignored in their work the theorem of incompleteness. The fact that theorem of incompleteness begins with an analysis of statements that refer to themselves; in the logic of such claims is called self-referential. Examples paradoxical statements:
This statement is false.
I'm a liar.
This statement cannot be proved.<br />
In the first case, if the expression is true, it means that it is false. If the statement is false, then the statement is true. Similarly, in the second: if I tell the truth, it means that I lie; but if I lie, then I tell the truth. In the latter case, if the expression is true, then to prove its truth impossible.
(Second statement is the famous paradox of the liar. Cretan philosopher of Epimenide usually illustrated this paradox is the following statement: "All Cretans are liars". However, St. Paul didn't catch the meaning of this statement and wrote in his Epistle to Titus: "one Of themselves poet said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies". This witness is true".)
Theorem of incompleteness is based on statements like "This statement cannot be proved using the axioms of arithmetic" and weaves complex web of such self-referential paradoxes.
Hawking, however, uses's incompleteness theorem to show that the theory is just impossible. He argues that the key to the theorem for ?-the one the fact that mathematics in General samotnemu and that physics is also suffering from this illness. The observer cannot be isolated from the process of observation; this means that physics will always refer to itself - after all, we are not able to leave the Universe. In the end, the observer also consists of atoms and molecules, and therefore inevitably is an integral part of and participant in the experiment, which conducts.
But there is a way around objections Hawking. To avoid the paradoxes inherent in the theorem, professional mathematicians do today is very simple: they exclude in advance of its work, self-referential statements. In this case, the theorem of incompleteness can be circumvented. In General, the explosive development of mathematics since adequately largely achieved by ignoring it's incompleteness theorem, i.e., by postulating the fact that the last work do not allow self-referential statements.
Similarly, it may be possible to formulate a theory of everything that will explain all the known experimental data regardless of the endless dispute about the division of the observer from the observed phenomena. If this theory be able to explain everything from the Big Bang to the present visible Universe, there is already no matter how we will describe the interaction between the observer and the observed. Moreover, it is possible to speak about one of the criteria for the correctness of this theory: its conclusions should be completely independent of how we share the observer and the observed.
We say more. Nature can be infinite and inexhaustible, even if it is based on several principles. Consider chess. Ask the alien from another planet to define rules only from observations of the game. After some time, the newcomer will be able to say, as there are pawns, bishops and kings. Game rules are simple and end. But variants in it a truly astronomical number. Similarly, the laws and rules of nature, perhaps, simple and end, but the application of these rules can be inexhaustible. Our goal is to find these rules.
In a sense, we already have a complete theory of many phenomena. No one has ever seen that violated the Maxwell equations for light. The standard model is often called the theory of almost everything. Imagine for a moment that we can exclude gravity. In this case, the Standard model becomes quite reliable theory of all phenomena, with the exception of gravity. Maybe this theory is ugly, but it works. Even theorem of incompleteness does not prevent us to have a reasonable theory of everything (except gravity).
It seems to me a truly remarkable that on one sheet of paper you can write the laws that govern all known physical phenomena within 43-order-largest - from the furthest reaches of space at a distance of more than 10 billion light-years to the microcosm of quarks and neutrinos. This worksheet will only two formulas: the theory of gravitation of Einstein and the Standard model. In my opinion, it speaks of absolute simplicity and harmony of nature on a fundamental level. The universe could be wrong, casual or permanent. But we see that in fact it is a single, harmonious and beautiful.
Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg compares our search theory of everything with the search for the North pole. For centuries the ancient sailors used the cards that the North pole is simply absent. Arrow all compasses, all routes point to this missing piece of the map, but in reality no one was able to go there. Likewise, all our data and theory unmistakably point to the theory of everything. It is not enough for us to complete the equation.
There will always be things that lie far beyond the capabilities of our science; the objects and phenomena that cannot be investigated (for example, the exact position of the electron or the world existing beyond the speed of light). But I am convinced that the fundamental laws of knowable and end. And the next few years may be the most interesting in the history of physics - because we'll have to explore the Universe with the help of a new generation of particle accelerators, cosmic gravitational wave detectors and other new technologies. We are not at the end of the path; rather, we are on the threshold of new physics. But, whatever we find, for any achievements will open new horizons. They are waiting for us.
You are reading news Физика невозможного - Будущее невозможного if You liked the article Физика невозможного - Будущее невозможного, prokomentiruet her.