physicists oddly refer to as their “flavors；” and theseare further divided into the colors red； green； and blue。 （one suspects that it was not altogethercoincidental that these terms were first applied in california during the age of psychedelia。） eventually out of all this emerged what is called the standard model； which is essentially asort of parts kit for the subatomic world。 the standard model consists of six quarks； sixleptons； five known bosons and a postulated sixth； the higgs boson （named for a scottishscientist； peter higgs）； plus three of the four physical forces： the strong and weak nuclearforces and electromagnetism。
the arrangement essentially is that among the basic building blocks of matter are quarks；these are held together by particles called gluons； and together quarks and gluons formprotons and neutrons； the stuff of the atom’s nucleus。 leptons are the source of electrons andneutrinos。 quarks and leptons together are called fermions。 bosons （named for the indianphysicist s。 n。 bose） are particles that produce and carry forces； and include photons andgluons。 the higgs boson may or may not actually exist； it was invented simply as a way ofendowing particles with mass。
it is all； as you can see； just a little unwieldy； but it is the simplest model that can explainall that happens in the world of particles。 most particle physicists feel； as leon ledermanremarked in a 1985 pbs documentary； that the standard model lacks elegance and simplicity。
“it is too plicated。 it has too many arbitrary parameters；” lederman said。 “we don’t reallysee the creator twiddling twenty knobs to set twenty parameters to create the universe as weknow it。” physics is really nothing more than a search for ultimate simplicity； but so far all wehave is a kind of elegant messiness—or as lederman put it： “there is a deep feeling that thepicture is not beautiful。”
the standard model is not only ungainly but inplete。 for one thing； it has nothing at allto say about gravity。 search through the standard model as you will； and you won’t findanything to explain why when you place a hat on a table it doesn’t float up to the ceiling。 nor；as we’ve just noted； can it explain mass。 in order to give particles any mass at all we have tointroduce the notional higgs boson； whether it actually exists is a matter for twenty…first…century physics。 as feynman cheerfully observed： “so we are stuck with a theory； and we donot know whether it is right or wrong； but we do know that it is a little wrong； or at leastinplete。”
in an attempt to draw everything together； physicists have e up with something calledsuperstring theory。 this postulates that all those little things like quarks and leptons that wehad previously thought of as particles are actually “strings”—vibrating strands of energy thatoscillate in eleven dimensions； consisting of the three we know already plus time and sevenother dimensions that are； well； unknowable to us。 the strings are very tiny—tiny enough topass for point particles。
by introducing extra dimensions； superstring theory enables physicists to pull togetherquantum laws and gravitational ones into one paratively tidy package； but it also meansthat anything scientists say about the theory begins to sound worryingly like the sort ofthoughts that would make you edge away if conveyed to you by a stranger on a park bench。
here； for example； is the physicist michio kaku explaining the structure of the universe froma superstring perspective： “the heterotic string consists of a closed string that has two types ofvibrations； clockwise and counterclockwise； which are treated differently。 the clockwisevibrations live in a ten…dimensional space。 the counterclockwise live in a twenty…six…dimensional space； of which sixteen dimensions have been pactified。 （we recall that inkaluza’s original five…dimensional； the fifth dimension was pactified by being wrappedup into a circle。）” and so it goes； for some 350 pages。
string theory has further spawned something called “m theory；” which incorporatessurfaces known as membranes—or simply “branes” to the hipper souls of the world ofphysics。 i’m afraid this is the stop on the knowledge highway where most of us must get off。
here is a sentence from the new york times； explaining this as simply as possible to a generalaudience： “the ekpyrotic process begins far in the indefinite past with a pair of flat emptybranes sitting parallel to each other in a warped five…dimensional space。 。 。 。 the two branes；which form the walls of the fifth dimension； could have popped out of nothingness as aquantum fluctuation in the even more distant past and then drifted apart。” no arguing withthat。 no understanding it either。 ekpyrotic； incidentally； es from the greek word for“conflagration。”
matters in physics have now reached such a pitch that； as paul davies noted in nature； it is“almost impossible for the non…scientist to discriminate between the legitimately weird andthe outright crackpot。” the question came interestingly to a head in the fall of 2002 when twofrench physicists； twin brothers igor and grickha bogdanov； produced a theory of ambitiousdensity involving such concepts as “imaginary time” and the “kubo…schwinger…martincondition；” and purporting to describe the nothingness that was the universe before the bigbang—a period that was always assumed to be unknowable （since it predated the birth ofphysics and its properties）。
almost at once the bogdanov paper excited debate among physicists as to whether it wastwaddle； a work of genius； or a hoax。 “scientifically； it’s clearly more or less pletenonsense；” columbia university physicist peter woit told the new york times； “but thesedays that doesn’t much distinguish it from a lot of the rest of the literature。”
karl popper； whom steven weinberg has called “the dean of modern philosophers ofscience；” once suggested that there may not be an ultimate theory for physics—that； rather；every explanation may require a further explanation； producing “an infinite chain of more andmore fundamental principles。” a rival possibility is that such knowledge may simply bebeyond us。 “so far； fortunately；” writes weinberg in dreams of a final theory； “we do notseem to be ing to the end of our intellectual resources。”
almost certainly this is an area that will see further developments of thought； and almostcertainly these thoughts will again be beyond most of us。
while physicists in the middle decades of the twentieth…century were looking perplexedlyinto the world of the very small； astronomers were finding no less arresting an inpletenessof understanding in the universe at large。
when we last met edwin hubble； he had determined that nearly all the galaxies in our fieldof view are flying away from us； and that the speed and distance of this retreat are neatlyproportional： the farther away the galaxy； the faster it is moving。 hubble realized that thiscould be expressed with a simple equation； ho = v/d （where ho is the constant； v is therecessional velocity of a flying galaxy； andd its distance away from us）。 ho has been knownever since as the hubble constant and the whole as hubble’s law。 using his formula； hubblecalculated that the universe was about two billion years old； which was a little awkwardbecause even by the late 1920s it was fairly obvious that many things within the universe—not least earth itself—were probably older than that。 refining this figure has been an ongoingpreoccupation of cosmology。
almost the only thing constant about the hubble constant has been the amount ofdisagreement over what value to give it。 in 1956； astronomers discovered that cepheidvariables were more variable than they had thought； they came in two varieties； not one。 thisallowed them to rework their calculations and e up with a new age for the universe offrom 7 to 20 billion years—not terribly precise； but at least old enough； at last； to embrace theformation of the earth。
in the years that followed there erupted a long…running dispute between allan sandage； heirto hubble at mount wilson； and gérard de vaucouleurs； a french…born astronomer based atthe university of texas。 sandage； after years of careful calculations； arrived at a value for thehubble constant of 50； giving the universe an age of 20 billion years。 de vaucouleurs wasequally certain that the hubble constant was 100。
2this would mean that the universe wasonly half the size and age that sandage believed—ten billion years。 matters took a furtherlurch into uncertainty when in 1994 a team from the carnegie observatories in california；using measures from the hubble space telescope； suggested that the universe could be as littleas eight billion years old—an age even they conceded was younger than some of the starswithin the universe。 in february 2003； a team from nasa and the goddard space flightcenter in maryland； using a new； far…reaching type of satellite called the wilkinsonmicrowave anistropy probe； announced with some confidence that the age of the universe is13。7 billion years； give or take a hundred million years or so。 there matters rest； at least forthe moment。
the difficulty in making final determinations is that there are often acres o