[bt_section][bt_row][bt_column width=”1/1″][bt_text]
Scientists agree that a more fundamental reality must exist: more basic, more intrinsic. However, the search for that master theory, the overarching integrator, this ‘Theory of Everything’ is proving to be elusive. The models which describe Quantum, Newtonian and Relativity mechanics are contra distinct, and to the current day do not superimpose upon each other well, having little intersection. Research to unify the Quantum with the Cosmological through the Quantum Gravity theory is still nascent. Stephen Hawking has applied quantum mechanics to blackholes with success with ‘Hawking Radiation’, but the intermingling of the quantum and cosmological has not gained further traction.
They do not know more.
The ardent champions of science’s team in the war of the world views may have unshakable conviction in its capability to provide all answers to life, but soldiers at its frontier are not too sure. Physicist Sean Carrol of Caltech admits to science’s limitations, “There is nothing new to explain about reality either at the quantum level or at the cosmological level and hence it is the end of an era in science”, he says with prosaic calm.
Must we contend with science’s limitations then? Don’t you think life’s basic questions are unanswered still, despite science?
Think about this – In the fifteenth century, there were no ‘gravity’, no sun centric solar system, and no physical laws of motion. In the nineteenth century, there was no probability mechanics, no vibrating strings, and no big bang. Does it mean that these forces/ phenomena did not exist? They did, in spite of our lack of conception of them. Science has undergone an ontological upgradation, and never faster than in the twentieth century. Our conception of fundamental reality has expanded; there have been constant new additions. With the discovery of more fundamentals, the rules of science morphed too.
Is there any denying then, that fundamental ‘reality’ may be in for further enhancement, for more revamps? Ideas, concepts, forces, ‘things’ often transition from the obscurity of the unknown realms, by discovery to the realm of the known. Common imaginations expand with these new discoveries, what was once unfathomable becomes a part of folklore. In line with this thought, we could create three broad categories of forces and particles: The Known Knowns, the Known Unknowns and the Unknown Unknowns.
The known knowns are our everyday, taken for granted, common sense, banal ideas. The earth revolves around the sun, gravity pulls us downwards and our mobile phones with WiFi are as indispensable as the air we breathe. However, we often forget that the science behind these conceptions was at one time not known to us, they were the known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
Why does the sun rise and set? Why do the seasons change? How? These must have been unfathomable questions for someone living in the fifteenth century. A known unknown. They fell toward the earth, some force made them, but what?
In the nineteenth century who would have thought writing letters could become archaic, only to remain as a cultural artifact of sweet sentimentalism? Radio waves and other frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum apart from visible light were unknown then. The unknown unknowns; we were ignorant even of our ignorance about them! The unknown unknowns always transition into the known unknown, and into the known known, becoming a part of prosaic, everyday reality, so interwoven into the fabric of the world it is incredible they were once unimaginable.
Scientists rubbish all alternate theories of reality, believing they will explain all the unknowns, sooner than later. They do so at the risk of ignoring blind spots in their own theories which have reached some controversial dead ends. Amidst raucous bravado, soldiers at science’s frontier have arrived, with tremendous advancement, at some rather unexpected places. They were hoping for vast expanses of lush, habitable lands, but instead, they reached the edges of an isolated island. No land to tread on anymore, just vast expanses of unchartered waters all around.
Within the current empirical paradigm, scientists can access only forces/ particles which interact strongly, are light, have low energy and long ranges. Thus, those forces/ particles which interact weakly, are heavy, have high energy and short ranges cannot be known. It is obvious from the above diagram that the attributes of strength of interaction, heaviness, energy level, and range make up a continuum. An entire spectrum, from complete unknown unknowns to the everyday known knowns. Scientists have conceded that apart from the known -unknowns like dark matter, there can be a class of forces/ particles – ‘unknown unknowns’, ones we are not even aware exist. These could be poorly interacting, too short lived, or too heavy. Any of them, or all.
When we cannot interact with a particle/ force, how can we expect to detect it? The limitations of our experimental apparatus limit our interaction and subsequent detection of that phenomena. Dark energy/ dark matter is one such phenomena, where these limits of detection come into play. Scientists posit that known particles and forces make up only 4% of the universe, with ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ comprising the remaining 96%. They have given it the epithet ‘dark’ not because of any attribute, but because of its complete lack of any cognizable attribute at all. They know a type of energy as that must exist in the universe, but have no other description for it.
Above chart tells us the current scientific paradigm cannot detect forces which have strength over 10-5 times the strength of gravity, or a range of over 1012 m. Hence, the constraint of detecting more forces is experimental. This admission of the scientific framework’s limitations on new discoveries has two strong implications.
First, the possibility of ‘unknown unknowns’ might not just be harmless, anecdotal imaginings, but a serious puzzle. We might be in blissfully unaware of many other aspects of existence. Second, the current epistemological framework of science, its empirical method has exhausted itself.
It would serve the flag bearers of rationality and science to be aware of this truth before reposing blind faith in the capabilities of science. I entreat you, be more open minded and less dismissive of ‘unknown’ phenomena. Irrespective of what may exist or not, science might not detect it, because it won’t interact! Also, if detection is impossible, it means that the empirical framework needs an overhaul. It means that the framework of valid means of experimentation is incomplete. At this stage, only an epistemological expansion, adding new methods of experimenting and validating can produce an ontological expansion. The addition of newer phenomena to the glossary of known reality can happen only this way.
Empiricism must be remodeled for reality to loosen its tight grip on deeper fundamentals.
[/bt_text][/bt_column][/bt_row][/bt_section]