The End and Beyond: The Decline of Science. Is this the end of the road or just a dead end?
Higgs boson? This is a theory of the 60s, which is now confirmed only experimentally. Gravitational waves? This is Albert Einstein's century-old concept. Such observations were made by John Horgan in his book The End of Science.
Horgan's book is not the first and not the only one. Much has been written about the "end of science". According to the opinions often found in them, today we only refine and experimentally confirm the old theories. We do not discover anything significant and innovative in our era.
barriers to knowledge
For many years, the Polish naturalist and physicist wondered about the limits of the development of science, Prof. Michal Tempczyk. In books and articles published in the scientific press, he asks the question - will we achieve such complete knowledge in the near future that further knowledge will not be needed? This is a reference, among other things, to Horgan, but the Pole concludes not so much about the end of science, but about destruction of traditional paradigms.
Interestingly, the notion of the end of science was just as, if not more prevalent, in the late nineteenth century. The voices of physicists sounded especially characteristic, that further development could only be expected in the form of correction of successive decimal places in known quantities. Immediately after these statements came Einstein and relativistic physics, a revolution in the form of Planck's quantum hypothesis and the work of Niels Bohr. According to prof. Tempcik, today's situation is basically no different from what it was at the end of the XNUMXth century. Many paradigms that have functioned for decades are facing developmental constraints. At the same time, as at the end of the XNUMXth century, many experimental results appear unexpectedly and we cannot fully explain them.
Cosmology of special relativity put barriers in the way of knowledge. On the other hand, the general is that, the consequences of which we cannot yet accurately assess. According to theorists, multiple components can be hidden in the solution of the Einstein equation, of which only a small part is known to us, for example, that space is curved near the mass, the deviation of a beam of light passing near the Sun is twice as large as follows from Newton's theory , or the fact that time is lengthened in a gravitational field and the fact that space-time is curved by objects of the corresponding mass.
Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein
The claim that we can only see 5% of the universe because the rest is dark energy and dark mass is considered by many scientists to be embarrassing. For others, this is a big challenge - both for those who are looking for new experimental methods, and for theories.
The problems facing modern mathematics are becoming so complex that, unless we master special teaching methods or develop new, easier-to-understand metatheories, we will increasingly have to simply believe that mathematical equations exist, and they do. , noted in the margins of the book in 1637, was proved only in 1996 on 120 pages (!), using computers for logical-deductive operations, and verified by order of the International Union by five selected mathematicians of the world. According to their consensus, the evidence is correct. Mathematicians are increasingly saying that the great problems in their field cannot be solved without the enormous processing power of supercomputers, which don't even exist yet.
In the context of low mood, it is instructive history of Max Planck's discoveries. Before introducing the quantum hypothesis, he tried to unify the two branches: thermodynamics and electromagnetic radiation, stemming from Maxwell's equations. He did it pretty well. The formulas given by Planck at the end of the 1900th century explained quite well the observed distributions of radiation intensity depending on its wavelength. However, in October XNUMX, experimental data appeared that differed somewhat from Planck's thermodynamic-electromagnetic theory. Planck no longer defended his traditionalist approach and chose a new theory in which he had to establish the existence of a portion of energy (quantum). This was the beginning of a new physics, although Planck himself did not accept the consequences of the revolution he had begun.
Models arranged, what's next?
Horgan, in his book, interviewed representatives of the first league of the world of science, such people as Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Richard Feynman, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins and Francis Fukuyama. The range of opinions expressed in these conversations was wide, but - which is significant - not one of the interlocutors considered the question of the end of science meaningless.
There are such as Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Prize winner in the field of elementary particles and co-inventor of the so-called. Standard Model of Elementary Particleswho speak not of the end of learning, but of learning as a sacrifice of one's own success. For example, it will be difficult for physicists to quickly repeat such a success as "arranging" the Model. In search of something new and exciting, theoretical physicists devoted themselves to the passion string theory. However, since this is practically unverifiable, after a wave of enthusiasm, pessimism begins to overwhelm them.
Standard model like a Rubik's Cube
Dennis Overbye, a well-known popularizer of science, presents in his book a humorous metaphor of God as a cosmic rock musician creating the universe by playing his XNUMX-dimensional superstring guitar. I wonder if God improvises or plays music, the author asks.
describing the structure and evolution of the Universe, also has its own, giving a completely satisfactory description with an accuracy of a few fractions of a second from that kind of starting point. However, do we have a chance to reach the last and primary causes of the origin of our Universe and describe the conditions that existed then? It is here that cosmology meets the hazy realm where the buzzing characterization of superstring theory resounds. And, of course, it also begins to acquire a “theological” character. Over the past dozen or so years, several original concepts have emerged regarding the earliest moments, concepts relating to the so-called quantum cosmology. However, these theories are purely speculative. Many cosmologists are pessimistic about the possibility of experimental testing of these ideas and see some limits to our cognitive abilities.
According to the physicist Howard Georgi, we should already recognize cosmology as a science in its general framework, like the standard model of elementary particles and quarks. He considers the work on quantum cosmology, along with its wormholes, infant and nascent universes, to be kind of remarkable. scientific mythas good as any other creation myth. A different opinion is held by those who firmly believe in the meaning of working on quantum cosmology and use all their mighty intelligence for this.
The caravan moves on.
Perhaps the “end of science” mood is the result of too high expectations that we have placed on it. The modern world demands "revolution", "breakthroughs" and definitive answers to the greatest questions. We believe that our science is sufficiently developed to finally expect such answers. However, science has never provided a final concept. Despite this, for centuries it has pushed humanity forward and constantly produced new knowledge about everything. We used and enjoy the practical effects of its development, we drive cars, fly planes, use the Internet. A few issues ago we wrote in "MT" about physics, which, according to some, has reached a dead end. It is possible, however, that we are not so much at the "end of science" as at the end of an impasse. If yes, then you will have to go back a little and just walk down another street.
