(00:00:00) Let me explain what is in fact my nightmare about the end of science for there are real dangers that science will end one of them not my nightmare was gone through stance nightmare, whether it was a nightmare I'd or not. I don't know. It was a value free statement that perhaps one day science will decide Society will decide that the Enterprise of science is not worthwhile. I don't know if that's a danger because to some it might be regarded as a realistic and attainable political goal. It is not my goal and it is not my nightmare I am talking about. a something very specific to my special eat a particle physics, (00:00:47) which (00:00:50) Particle physics, which is the search for the rules and the regulations of nature. I like to say we have got ourselves over the past 20 years or so called standard model of elementary particle physics. We very modestly call it that it can also be called Quantum chromodynamics and the Electoral electroweak Theory like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid It answers a lot of questions and answers them. Well, however, there are also lots of questions. It simply doesn't address. For example, it tells us just how the three quarks that are within a proton may wiggle and jiggle between themselves. So as to produce all of the sisters the cousins and the nephews of the proton particles that we have discovered after many years of hard research. However, it does not answer questions like why is there a proton or why does the proton way to thousand times more than the electron? There's a clear dividing line in the theory between the questions that it does answer and the question questions that it doesn't it is its own metaphysics in a sense. There's a crystal clear Division and we are not satisfied with the theory because we would like to answer the questions that it simply intrinsically cannot address now the trouble with our field is that experiments for the past 10 years experiments done at CERN at fermilab at a half dozen other Laboratories where particle physics can be done? Because the instruments there exists. The only result of these experiments has been to confirm the standard theory in its every miniscule detail. There are no flaws. It seems in the theory and yet the theory doesn't answer the most important questions at all. Now, we in physics learn from the past and in the past when we've had a theory which was pretty good but didn't ask to answer some questions. We would look very carefully and find floors contradictions like the inability to describe blackbody radiation or the mysterious fact that photons are neither particle nor wave and these observations would lead us to build a new theory in the case of particle physics. Is not a Nick or a scratch on the standard model that can lead us to some better Theory. So we are perhaps unique in the world of scientists. We particle people because we pray for experiments that will demolish the theory that we have built in the past 50 years because only by I shouldn't say demolish, but by only by finding the limits of validity of the theory can we hope to create an edifice that can answer the questions that we so far cannot That was kind of digressive also kind of digressive is perhaps an answer to the previous speaker Miss Harding she held up for us six false idols, and I have to say that she was described as a reformist become a revolutionary but and I was prepared to disagree with her on every count and I will disagree with her later on my talk on the basis of some things. She's otherwise written when she was a revolutionary, but it seems she wishes to become a conciliatory and so by and large I can agree with her. I would agree. For example that scientists know little about how science Works they learn new things, but we don't know why how we do it why we do it are Mysteries to us, perhaps less so to the social sciences. However, it is a non sequitur to think that a person who doesn't know any science can understand that any better than we Is there such a thing as pure science? I'm pure the existence of pure Sciences hogwash is mythology. Well, there are some things that are awfully close to pure and I don't really know how they can have any social relevance at all. In fact, most of my favorite things are socially totally irrelevant. I used to say that when the number of particles were smaller than it is today. There were two families of particles half of them were the relevant ones the ones with social implication the others the irrelevant ones when the number of irrelevant ones doubled as they did a decade ago. I tried to argue that my salary should be doubled because the particles upon which my salary is based. Was twice as large as the particles upon which the sociologist celery was based. another story when new ones were discovered they were actually first scene in 1938 and 1947 people began to understand something about what they were there was a meeting of theoretical physicists and experimental physicists in a Chinese restaurant in New York for physicists always eat in Chinese restaurants, except when there aren't any around and the subject of new ones was brought up new ones which are now 51 years old Isidor rabi responded to the statement that this new funny particle had been discovered with the statement who ordered vat And the strange thing is we still don't know and here's a particle which people have tried to make relevant. They've tried to use it to induce nuclear fusion. It doesn't work too. Well. They tried to use it for lots of things. It's totally useless and it's one of many of these particles that are useless. So I don't know if pure science exists but useless science certainly exists, and it's my favorite kind of science. I guess I've run out of these remarks. I have to turn to my talk. I am honored to have been called to Gustavus Adolphus College to discover discover to deliver a talk at this 25th. Officially authorized Nobel Symposium. I have to say officially authorized because there are in fact no Bell symposia, which are not officially authorized and which the Nobel Foundation would like to eliminate not this one past meetings in this prestigious series have dealt with specific issues in science or economics. (00:07:30) the (00:07:30) subject material of this symposium Sorry, I wrote this when I wasn't feeling very well to put it politely rather than scatological e is (00:07:40) softer. (00:07:44) This is not the kind of talk. I liked it did give first of all I don't like to read. I'm not a very good reader and secondly I much prefer to talk about the substance of science. My particular fancy at the moment which are the champions of the universe the particles that are the Greek quintessence like to talk about that. I'd like to talk about the teaching of science. I'd like to talk about the fact that we are translating the Soviet Journal of problems in math and physics for American High School students. It's a journal called font in the Russian which sells 300,000 issues a year and we hope to sell 30,000 of them or so translated in English to American students. But no I have to discuss today science as an issue political philosophical sociological or whatever illogical. I'm completely off my normal Turf and the things that I shall reluctantly read to you would be obvious trite and trivial to all my colleagues to all my students and hopefully it will be to you as well. That science is nearer to its beginning than to its end. That science offers the last great. Hope for a Humane and Lasting Society. That science is the unique truly International forum and has been so for at least five centuries Copernicus Tycho, brahe Kepler Galileo Newton five men from five nations. Taught us our place in the universe. And today at one of the very few International agencies that really works and does what it's supposed to do 15 European nations. Operate the world's Premier particle physics laboratory CERN at which it does in other countries, including ours China and Russia are actively engaged in pure scientific research. The pursuit of Science in this nation though. It is very far from ending is slowing down. And what is being done in this country is more and more being done by our new immigrants and by Foreign Nationals in this country the reasons for this have little to do with science per se but with our in-depth teaching are all too often ill motivated Youth and the shortsightedness of many of our Industries, but that's not what this Symposium is all about. The big questions here in Minnesota are is science some kind of grown-up boys. Only game of Let's Pretend. And can a new and gentler version of science be recreated with Force replaced by love and Power by tenderness. I could stop at this point with the with the words no and no again, but I haven't used up my our yet. I've come to the beginning of my talk. The end of Science and in some funny way. I always thought until it was pointed out to me the day before yesterday that the title of this conference was the death of Science and that was some kind of perhaps Freudian slip I read the word end is death the end of science May mean different things to different Souls some scientists worry that we have reached a plateau of understanding from which further progress will be difficult in unlikely because in the view of the great success of our theories, like my standard model that I was talking about the future can be no more than commentary or elaboration on the past or because in view of the enormous real expense of are envisaged Endeavors things like the advanced x-ray satellite the supercollider, otherwise known as The Gipper Tron, otherwise known as the ring around Texas or the ring around. What's a Hachi a six billion dollar toy or the Genome Project Because these things are so expensive we can no longer afford such luxury when we have so many other serious demands for our money and our effort. Some non scientists think that science is actively pernicious that it is responsible for the pollution the contamination and the desperation of our air our water and our Earth. Science was tried In Absentia and found guilty and the scientific Enterprise should be terminated. This is not a view that is reflected here. My distinguished colleague Sandra Harding on the other hand finds and now I start on my apologies this represents writings from another time. They're not place science as an objective search for knowledge must be quote reinvented from scratch science as it is and has always been is quote inextricably connected with specifically masculine needs and desires unquote and thus a remarkable thus it cannot serve to make sense of women's social experience and even more remarkable conclusion in her review. It seems to follow that and the last quote there is nothing morally and politically worth redeeming in the scientific. (00:13:22) Worldview, (00:13:25) those are some of the views of the end of science. I subscribe to none of them. I find some of them absurd. I believe that science has contributed immensely to our health our welfare and our fulfillment and that we have yet to realize its full potential. I believe that we have made enormous strides in understanding the mysteries of nature of life and of mind, but that even grander challenges remain to be met by Future generations of scientists. Only by the wise application of science. Can we learn to live in peace comfort and Harmony as the crew of spaceship earth? Only by the understanding of science can we come to terms with our own personal mortality as well as that of our species and that of our planet? In this morbid connection, let us all recall that God art history communism nature last week have already left this Mortal coil. No discipline seems to be immune. Washington University where my son graduated from last year is liquidating it sociology department and today this or Gus the assembly examines the entirely inane proposition that science to has succumbed whatever does it all mean. Why am I such an ingrate? And why on Earth did I agree to participate in this farce? Let me begin with a we're back to that famous document again is coming. Every speaker is going to talk about that document my letter Unforgettable and irresistible with invitation to this Symposium actually wasn't my letter but it was the letter sent to Jerry Holt and I lost my letter. But anyway, I will now present a slightly modified and annotated version of the letter. We've heard this sentence before science as a unified unified Universal objective. Endeavor is currently being questioned but it doesn't say and others have not said by whom so permit me to embody an imaginary and genderless Sydney. I've chosen the name because I have had both a male friend and a female friend by that name to act as our courageous and thoroughly misguided Inquisitor. Sydney regards science as a more subjective and relativistic project. I have no comment on this incomplete comparative substance not syntax as my beep. We never do find out more than what. He she believes that science is currently re-examining itself as the product of paradigmatic foci. Ideological struggles in the basic instruments of power and maybe even has something to do with Marxism and feminism and maybe even amphetamine no scientist. I know is undergoing such an agonizing and polysyllabic reappraisal. It is very curious. Is it not that the stern critics of scientists are so very often those who do not know it at all. Sydney doubts that science reflects extra hysterical external and Universal truths science Sydney feels his social temporal and local and it evolves like a species or a society since science is what we know about nature. And since what we know is a function of time place and social accident. You've all read this in your programs. There is simply no way of speaking about something real behind science science is merely an account of the imaginations of The Observers of nature moreover Sydney see science as culturally influenced and even repressive and hardly as a fortress of objectivity that is the sense in which science is science is presumed to be dead end of my mutilated quote from The Letter of Invitation them's fighting words. So you see why I had to come to this meeting. Thousands of impressionable students you all of whom should be but probably in all fact will not study. Some science are going to be exposed to those who would bury science and not Praise Him. Let me struggle as best I can with what I have now been told is a gei a grave epistemological issue forgive me if I thrash around a bit. It's not easy to beat it that oxymoron. There have always been those who would deny the reality of physical constructs that are not a familiar part of everyday life. We all turn back to Galileo when Galileo spied the moons of Jupiter a seemingly incontrovertible Discovery. He was assured that and I quote translating the satellites are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth and therefore would be useless and therefore do not exist to protect himself from an intolerant Church. Galileo was obliged to concoct concoct a myth. It is the myth upon which this Symposium is founded. He began his revolutionary Treatise on planetary astronomy with the following defensive apology translated from the Italian. It is necessary to say that the poetic imagination comes in two varieties. There are those like me who invent fables and there are those certainly not you who maybe so disposed to believe them. So in effect said The Letter of Invitation I have just so gently ridiculed. The lay Community almost always confuses. I will now repeat some of the things that Miss Harding has said and things with which I agree with her 100% the lay Community almost always confuses the notion of science with that if it's close cousin technology, Which is certainly socially influenced and culture dependent after all what good would penicillin be to an alien life form based on compounds of silicon or birth controls to parthenogenetic extraterrestrials. Would Burroughs wellcome have developed a ZT had there been no bath houses in San Francisco and no intravenous abusers in New York. Why should firemen care about Fortran or Eskimos by air conditioners? All of these things are the products of Technology? Not at all science. Technology is the designer fruit of Science and Society must decide upon its nature and must wisely choose. Its applications science enables technology which opens up enormous and rapidly growing ranges of human opportunity. Our motto life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is accessible today in principle to all of us in the world. So also our death slavery and then the endurance of misery Society must determine its means and its goals the choices that must be made are not scientific. Although each decision may have its technical aspects and science. Sometimes may tell us what can be done and how to go about doing it. We all agree that science. The technology is influenced by political societal and Commercial forces, but don't blame the drivel of American television programming on our scientists nor our firm, but absolutely tasteless Tomatoes newer our preference for Toyota's that worked to Ford's. Nor the AIDS epidemic you're the ozone hole north of threat of nuclear winter nor the lack of female mathematicians and of black astrophysicists. These are all problems real problems, but they are societal problems not scientific (00:22:01) problems (00:22:03) science impels technology Quantum Optics. Let us to lasers with which to repair our damaged eyes Nuclear Physics promises us and provides the French a source of power free from oil spills acid rain black lung disease strip mining and a greenhouse effect. Chemists devised wonderful new materials which have become household necessities such as Teflon and nylon, super glue and silly putty. Biologists have made possible the abolition of such medical scourges as smallpox polio myelitis and even pimples. Condensed matter physics. We used to call it solid-state physics, but the phrase has been preempted as a trademark by a Japanese company gave us transistors and thereby pocket calculators video games and workmen yet technology is not merely the useful offspring of science. The linkage is far more incestuous because the parent-child relationship is often reversed. Science is culture dependent because technology fuels the progress of science and technology is Hostage to social perversion. Arabic astronomy chemistry and Mathematics were once unrivalled throughout the world. Early in this Millennium tuck lead the doctrine that no truth exists beyond that revealed in the Quran was instituted in the Islamic world. It's Scholars were banished the only remaining Trace today if Arabic Sciences in our language in words from Alkali to zenith. today, unfortunately Most of the Muslim countries are consumers of science not producers of soil the Chinese to had their fling with science. They invented gunpowder printing the compass and they were the greatest Navigators on Earth until they decided in the 15th century. Just as Gunther stent is afraid that we may decide today that nothing beyond their Celestial Empire was worthy of Discovery. They burnt their ships and soon afterwards Columbus at forth with his tiny flotilla to discover this new world. Science is culturally driven because it's progress depends upon technological innovation a few examples. A Dutch optician happened upon the invention of the telescope Galileo hearing about the device built his own got his salary doubled were successful in I and he discovered mountains on the moon phases of Venus spots on the sun and satellites of Jupiter within a few weeks for genuine examples of objective reality only the church thought otherwise and sadly perhaps a few of us. Another Dutch invention the microscope opened up the we Frontier of microbes and let us inexorably to develop a powerful new science of life. Germs, by the way are seen and killed they are not imagined and dis imagined. The compass was more than a child's toy at a navigational tool. It was the key to Jose Earth dad's discovery of the intimate connection between electricity and magnetism newly devised electric batteries invented in Italy in the hands in Britain of Sir humphry Davy and Michael Faraday generated tremendous breakthroughs both in chemistry and in physics bunsen's the lowly burner revealed the characteristic Spectra of the chemical elements the nuclear reactor revealed the ghostly and quite useless neutrino and the bubble chamber was our window to the world of elementary particle physics technology begets science, which generates new technologies in its turn. American taxpayers or their elected representatives choose to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on the abstract disciplines of particle physics and cosmology with little thought and no demand for immediate or even for an eventual payoff. However, thankful. I am for their kind generosity. I am certain that Charmed quarks mentioned before W bosons, excuse me, pulsars and quasars are not a mere phantasmagoria of the collective scientific imagination nor were they imposed Upon Us by the funding agencies these hidden wonders of the natural world are there to be seen like atoms or like the recently found rings around Neptune by Americans by Russians by Japanese by Ugandan, 's by men and by women Our remarkable insights and triumphant theories are socially affected only in the sense. I argue that Society pays the bills quarks are a reflection of our culture only in the sense that we were smart enough to figure out that we are made out of them. So are any other subjectively imagine cultural agent culture Laden intelligent asexual Ami Boyd's somewhere in a galaxy far far away. Should I try that again? So already subjectively imagine culture Laden intelligent asexual amoeboid somewhere in a galaxy far far away. I can do it their understanding of the physical Universe must be much like ours, although they would certainly disagree with us on what are the GE eye. Excuse me, the gravest epistemological issue. I shall focus on the thesis that science is totally objective and is in no sense related to or dependent upon humankind's particular circumstances to be as precise and incisive as I can let me include within science only such disciplines as mathematics physics chemistry astronomy and cosmology. I am not saying that biology psychology paleontology and terrestrial geology and all those other allergies are not Sciences. I'm excluding them just for the sake of this discussion because they're kind of tied up with our planet and ourselves. Life on Earth after all is built up built up out of very special compounds organic compounds like RNA and DNA and amino acids for all we know it could have been in elsewhere. It may well be quite different. Although the study of human physiology is certainly in my mind objective and not culture ridden. It is also species and site-specific to us and to this Earth. Let us avoid the complications inherent in such questions as whether sentient life on other worlds exists, but follows other patterns or for that matter whether human life begins at conception, The very nature of this planet is affected by its inhabitants so that the study of Earth and if it's Creatures Great and Small is of immediate social impact plants over the course of a billion years made our atmosphere what it is today, but we shall determine what it will become in a century. How many species do we carelessly obliterated how many rainforests have we cut down elephants mutilated virgin streams or oh sorry Sandra pristine streams polluted. The excluded Sciences moreover are those that more than any others have been subject to pernicious corrupting and overbearing societal forces such as Nazi Eugenics and that obscure and wonderful discipline of Nazi geology such as Freudian psychology pretending at science and lysenko ism. No comparable forces have ever been mustard against the transcendental nature of pie. Or against the atomic hypothesis or against the special theory of relativity. Indeed those German scientists who remained within the Third Reich knowing the truth argued that the so-called Jewish theory of relativity should be accepted by the Nazis because it surely would have been discovered by an Aryan had Einstein never lived. Science in the truncated very very severely truncated since I intend Physical Science and Mathematics depends upon to unspoken but fundamental assumptions. Neither assertion can be proven and neither is even obviously true and I agree with several previous Speakers by saying that our faith in these principles is partly religious and partly pragmatic. We believe that the world is knowable. That there are simple rules governing the behavior of matter and the evolution of the universe. We affirm that there are Eternal objective extra historical socially neutral external and Universal truths and that the assemblage of these truths is what we call physical science and the proof of our assertion lies as has been said in the pudding of our success. the second principle amplifies the word Universal we believe that the laws of science are the same everywhere and everywhen. In fact, the statement that the laws of science are the are the same everywhere. There's nothing other than the law of conservation of momentum curiously enough and the law that the statement that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in is nothing more than the law of conservation of energy. That our time and place in the universe is neither chosen nor distinguished new or unique nor special. Natural laws can be discovered that are Universal invariant in Violet genderless and verifiable. They may be found by men or by women or by mixed collaborations of any obscene proportions. They are not the oedipal preoccupation of males. Any intelligent alien anywhere sooner or later would have come upon the same logical system as we have to explain the structure of protons and the nature of supernovae this statement. I cannot prove this statement. I cannot justify. This is my faith. While our faith is certainly irrational its success is undeniable. Percy Bridgman Gerald hurt holton's our teacher and once my colleague at Harvard observed at those science and a logical positivist the boot observed that those scientists who believe in the underlying Simplicity of nature are those who are successful in their quests in other words, you got to believe in this God because if you believe in him good things happen to you and if you don't bad things happen to you Nuclear Physics as deduced by earthlings from a remote corner of an unexceptional Galaxy. Explain the behavior of the Stars. We see throughout the Universe. For example, occasionally a star goes Supernova the last Supernova in our galaxy took place in 1604. It was visible at midday and it was bright enough to read by at night. We haven't had such a supernova. But we do understand what a supernova is and astrophysicists believe that 99.99% a larger fraction than the purity of Ivory soap of the energy released by a supernova should emerge as an intense and invisible flash of ghostly neutrinos. You remember them. They were discovered at a nuclear reactor the 1950s. Thus the Titanic explosion. We see a Starlight is but the palest palest shadow of the death of a giant star. That was the theory invented imagined by astrophysicists two years ago a new star appeared in the southern hemisphere as light from the first relatively nearby Supernova. It's not quite in our galaxy but almost in almost 400 years arrived at our planet gigantic detector situated deep under the ground in Ohio and Japan looked for the predicted neutrinos and they were there and let me digress once again from my text because there are those who would say that we have created these monstrous expensive detectors to find phenomena, which don't exist until we find them. Well, in fact in this particular case, the situation was kind of mysterious and entirely serendipitous these detectors were built because I had some crazy Theory at one time together with some of my friends that everything is radioactive even Jane Fonda and that radioactivity is common to all of matter that all matter will Sunday Decay that not even diamonds are forever. And as a consequence these large experiments were deployed to search for proton decay and despite my Prestige with my Nobel Prize and all the stuff. They tried very hard. Everybody wanted them to find it. They wanted to find it. They didn't find proton decay. Neither did the Japanese find proton decay. Neither did the Indians nor anyone else who had looked for them, but these wonderful detectors that happen to be built because of my false Theory were just at the right place at at the right time and they saw the neutrinos that came from the Supernova and thank God we don't have to wait another four hundred years to know that we should give tenure to certain astrophysicists. Scientists, let me say we had correctly analyzed an event that took place hundreds of thousands of years ago and a billion billion miles away their prediction now established by observation was based upon the universal laws revealed by experiments performed by the men and women of planet Earth. One should be proud. Is there not a sacred Covenant that we must understand as best we can the world we are born to is it not is not our comprehension of nature as proud and achievement as our art or music or art literature can one doubt that culture and science are indivisible surely. There is no need to sing Sciences Praises nor to participate in this premature wake for what is in fact a vibrant youth even in this country the Glorious images that Voyager has given us of the outer planets and their moons and rings are accessible to every Couch Potato. They are no fancy of NASA's truly minuscule imagination. The millions of Z bosons which will soon be produced and studied it started as a few thousand so far as of yesterday at the gigantic new European accelerator lept large electron-positron ring. They didn't call it leper for obvious reasons. Those are real things though Z bosons the Proto Galaxy just serendipitously does observed by a man and a woman working together at the immense are osito. Arecibo radio. Telescope is no human win. It is what the Milky Way may have been like billions of years ago. Well, unfortunately, it didn't work out that way because the next woman I'm going to talk to I bumped into yesterday and she told me that this observation of a Proto Galaxy was completely wrong and you shouldn't believe it because these stupid people didn't bother to look at old astronomical plates, which revealed the fact that this so-called wonderful new Proto Galaxy is another nothing else that an irregular blue galaxies such as has been known since 1933. Anyway, sorry about that things change quickly in science, so skip the lessons The selfsame woman Margaret Geller just taught us that the distributions of galaxies in the universe is the woman who told me that the other Woman's Work is wrong that the distribution of galaxies in the universe resembles in her words the suds in a kitchen sink take that for a metaphor. And it was another woman's work who established the existence of the mysterious and massive invisible Halos surrounding each and every Galaxy the Halos of dark matter the final proof that the Greeks were right and the quintessence does exist. Vera Rubin, that was cold fusion. However, I have to come back to my old friend coldfusion. However is an irreducible effect alleged to have been seen by a few men in a four-letter state and that I accept as human for Abel. So what is this meeting all about and what is bothering our parrot? I don't even know how to say these long words Paradigm attic (00:40:11) sociopaths. The immortality of the Soul was said also to be protected by the ecology. That was an astounding idea. ethologists Donald Griffin (00:40:26) have something to do with the scientists rather careless and Casual use of the word theory and truth and let me explain how we confuse people take for example Boyle's law that there be a spring to the are one of the first precise quantitative laws to be established describing the behavior of macroscopic matter double the pressure on a gas and its volume will have it is a fundamental law and it led us by the nose to believe in Adams. But is it true under all conditions? Of course not if you squeeze any gas too much its atoms will touch one another the stuff will liquefy and Boyle's Law no longer applies. Even at ordinary conditions you can do measurements to find small departures (00:41:17) from Boyle's (00:41:18) Law. So Boyle's law is just wrong the same goes for Newton's Laws. They're fine for predicting. The trajectories of icbms were the times of eclipses, but they make a tiny tiny arrow in the description of Mercury's orbit and they fail to describe the bending of Starlight by the Sun. So Newton's laws are wrong. So our Maxwell's laws wrong. So where are a lot of other so-called laws maybe even all laws. So what is science other than a bunch of old fashioned broken down mostly man-made laws? What is true today? Maybe in usually is false tomorrow. So how can science be anything other than a societal construct like Keynesian economics laughers law marriage with the laws of Point count (00:42:10) bidding. (00:42:13) The misunderstanding is simply this boils laws and Newton's laws and all those other laws are true after all. It's just that they have a limited range of ability within their domains. They were true. They are true. They will be forever true unlike the social sciences for which there is no absolute standard of Truth. And in which diam diametrically opposite views can and do perpetually coexist physical science is a vertical construction and any alteration or addition to its edifice must be compatible with what is already firmly in place. Falling bodies are still uniformly accelerated Allah Galileo, although sometimes they may be made to circle the Earth. We still live under torricelli's ocean of air even though it's carbon dioxide content has been by us dangerously increased. Maxwell's equations are still valid, but they've been quantized. So as to explain how light is neither wave nor particle. The new Theory must comprehend the old as quantum theory and relativity reduced the quantum physics in the slow and clumsy work a day world. Truly we see so far today because we sit on the shoulders of such Giants as Galileo Newton and boil their results are recapitulated today in terms of a far more powerful and wide-ranging Theory but a theory that accepts their truths and offers many more. Newton's laws are true, but Einsteins are even true worry Newton's accomplishments are as great as ever they were but they are embedded within a grander scheme encompassing galaxies and their inhabitants as well as atoms and their (00:44:13) constituents. (00:44:16) Consider the search for the ultimate constituents of matter and the rules by which they combined The Logical structure underlying all of science the discipline now known as elementary particle physics in the 19th century some scientists suspected that atoms might be more than a useful mathematical construct and mnemonic with which to codify the empirical rules of chemistry to model the behavior of gases to explain the growth of crystals. They began to believe that Adams really do exist. And so what if you couldn't see him after all you could only see the moons of Jupiter with a telescope, but this was no longer a reason to deny their reality and in any case today is scanning tunneling microscope does allow us to see single atoms. Well before we could the size and the mass of an atom was measured as well as its spectral lines and its chemical and physical properties men and women of all Races and Creeds were forced by the data to conclude that atoms are genuine. We real things and I think no one at this meeting would dispute that. Their existence conceded it was only a matter of time before scientists would ask of what simpler things be Adams made there were simply too many different kinds of atoms for them to be Elementary Aesthetics plays a primary role in the construction of theory electrons and nuclei were discovered not imagined or contrived mind you but observed and measured in the laboratory and Niels. Bohr and Copenhagen introduced a set of ad hoc Quantum rules to explain how these particles could be assembled into Adams since the classical rules. No longer worked in this new Arena of atomic size. Bors mysterious and unjustifiable rules evolved into a consistent Theory called quantum mechanics and scientists went on to unravel many of the secrets very many of the secrets of matter perceived. Why is copper red the sky is blue water. Sorry, why is copper red the sky is blue water is wet and diamonds few. They are still at it for example, trying to understand how the new and technologically promising high temperature superconductors work. It's like an impossibly intricate game and indeed science is more than anything else a game that is that five percent of pure science (00:46:49) that is funded by our government. (00:46:52) The quantum rules of Atomic Collisions are set in stone like the rules of Chess. They are absolutely true in the relevant domain. Scientists must use their Ingenuity experimental Ingenuity and their theoretical insight to try to figure it out. And so they shall but the solution found by mere mortals with mortgages to pay children to raise will be another of are verifiable predictive truths that these superconductors behave as they do is neither a social accident nor an imaginary account. It is of course true as Ian would say that these superconductors would not have existed if we had not made them that is of course true. We make wonderful new things and science is not sick and it is not dead and it thrives as it answers our deepest questions, but not the deepest mystery of them all the one question that science cannot possibly ever solve the mystery that we seem to be able to solve all of Nature's Mysteries. Other scientists wanted to learn what a nucleus is going back 50 years or so, they found it to be made up of protons and neutrons things harder to see than Adams as cosmic rays were studied and large particle accelerators were deployed lots more particles were discovered hundreds of them with names like California license plates. Ultimately, we realize that most of these seemingly Elementary particles are not Elementary at all. They're made of (00:48:28) quartz. (00:48:30) Now the reality of these new objects work on struggles is vulnerable to philosophical inquiry and it would be a delight to argue about them because quarks presents several engaging epistemological puzzles. There's no such thing as a piece of string with only one end. We all know that analogously we physicists argue that the court cannot exist as other than a part of an observable particle. It has no reality in itself. It only exists within the particle moreover. These quarks are held together by the effects of gluons another kind of particle, which is themselves which itself is in isolable and cannot be seen in and of itself the gluons only exist to hold the quarks together at this point the borderline between mathematical invention and physical reality does Tobler perhaps you might say the cork is truly a mere mathematical construct a useful artifice with which may we may organize knowledge? Even Murray gell-mann who introduced the name and the notion of quarks once held this view that it was merely a useful idea. But our experimental skills in our theoretical understanding have advanced really quite dramatically to the point that we can see the court if you grant us some leeway and what we mean by seeing in reality, which is a phrase I shouldn't ever use here. We do not really see much of anything or we do is to sense some of the photons that enter our eyes when we see an apple. I should have that demonstration. I don't have it at hand, but you can imagine the Apple when we see an apple. We merely react to the light that it reflects the Apple exists in the dark to be touched to be smelled to be eaten or by God even imagine it is detectable because it can interact. act in an observable way with other forms of matter and energy concede this and I think most people will and you have conceded the existence of quarks. We do not see a core quite as the way we see an apple because light is just too feeble a probe nor can we taste it or smell it or hear it or touch it, but we can and we do detect its effects its interactions. Such as the jet of particles which is the Spore of a newly-born energetic Quark from these and other experiments. We can determine the properties of the quarks in detail. We have so far identified five distinct species of corpse, and we have measured their masses their electrical Chargers their spins Etc quarks are neither more nor less real than Apples or Adams. Now social forces can affect the rate of scientific discovery that's clear, but they cannot I argue affect the eventual outcome and let me give one example from my own experience. The experimental search for what are today called neutral currents which culminated with their Discovery their first observation in Europe in it and a month later in America in 1973. This very important Discovery was among the first confirmations of the so-called unified theory. Sorry about that word actually the unified theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions is really not unified at all. And I'm sure you would like it very much because it's nothing not the least trace of unity. So I'm willing to expunge the word Unity. I don't like the word we like we have Trinity's they're much (00:51:59) better. (00:52:03) It was one of the first confirmations of the three of you know, that three quarks are a proton. The proton is one but it is 3 and those that's a much more sophisticated Christian concept and its it is today's model of the nature of matter. I've lost myself anyway in 1973. They discovered neutral current. So I would I was quite important because that was to get me my Nobel Prize which got me here and got me the honorary degree enforced you people to listen to me go on interminably. However, these neutral currents could easily have been found in 1963. Why were they not look for before? Why was there almost a conspiracy not to find them? They weren't look for because very few physicists were aware of this electroweak Theory and they weren't aware of the electroweak theory because the theory will really wasn't very much of a believable Theory until the work of a young Dutch graduate student in 1971 who show that this Theory made mathematical sense and only then did the experimenters leap into the search for neutral currents finding it just two years later. So we see the theoretical physicist through their Endeavors can certainly establish a climate propitious for experimental Discovery, but the object has simply got to be there to be found. We can't force it to be there proton decay, which I mentioned a few other things that you've never heard of a good reason because they don't exist Maya Ron's accion's magnetic monopoles are examples of You do radical Innovations inventions. However, they have not been confirmed in the laboratory. No matter the power and the beauty of theoretical argument nor for that matter the will of the masses repeatable objective experiments are really the only basis upon which to judge the reality of the creatures of the scientific imagination creatures of the scientific imagination. There are many many of them. Some of them are real and some of them are not the same ones here as their we particle physicists as the unreformed reductionists. We often are have reason to believe that there are at least 17 apparently fundamental particles in nature may be more of which all but three have been directly quote seen unquote in the laboratory. This is an awfully large number of fundamental building blocks for was enough for the ancient Greeks and it seems to contradict our faith in the Simplicity (00:54:35) of nature (00:54:36) surely our universe has should have simpler Beginnings for this reason many many theoretical physicists the best and the brightest of them today struggle with a strange discipline of mathematical physics called superstring Theory. They seem to have created the first consistent quantum theory of gravity, which is a very important long sort of accomplishment and with some luck they may one day understand all of the particles. We see as twists and turns of a tiny Loop of string embedded within a 10 dimensional space. They will have reduced our 17 or however many particles 2121 fundamental Loop of string in ten dimensions. We do not know yet, whether these this is really crazy. And incidentally, I'm well known within my own tiny Community as a very harsh critic of superstring theory. However, if they can do what they set out to do it would be a marvelous accomplishment and they are truly at a speculative Frontier. We do not know yet whether these ideas represent creatures of thought. Or of reality whether these people are going to get tenure in physics departments or in Divinity departments. Whether this idea will go the way of phlogiston or of quarks. We simply do not know much the same can be said about contemporary cosmology with its inflationary scenarios having nothing to do with economics. It's wormholes having nothing to do with worms its baby universes having nothing to do with babies and the notion of an eternal and self-replicating reality. Here at the newest and fastest growing roots of particle physics cosmology and particle physics fastest routes of physics particle, whatever we are admittedly unsure totally unsure of whether or not there is something real something substantive behind our science. However, I feel that this is a sin a symptom of health and vitality of Science of this part of Science and not at all an indication of its imminent end uncertainty is what makes all these wild disciplined so much fun and so much of a challenge. Every new idea in science at its Inception is very certainly a function of time and place and social accident. And most of these are these new ideas do evolve much like species or cultures and soon find themselves extinct simply because they do not correspond to external reality. They are unambiguously wrong much easier to show it idea wrong and to show it right the scrap heap of discarded hypotheses and trashed theories is far larger than the edifice of established knowledge only a very tiny few of our ideas turn out to survive experimental scrutiny to be valid within their domain to be external objective. And yes, damn it even true. What Joy such an event producers for the lucky Scientist by whom - by whose imagination a hidden facet of reality becomes known to all and forever pity the social scientist with the ideologist or the pseudo philosopher who may never know anything at all with such certainty. Thank you Long Live Science.