Unidentified Fundamental Obsession

Article Tools

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

The universe, the subject of the first question, started out so small it had no physical dimensions whatsoever. At the earliest moment in its history that can be described in physical dimensions, it was still far smaller than the head of a pin. How it sparked into existence is still a matter limited to theory rather than observation.

The essence of matter and energy? Could be 'strings,' little trembling loops that vibrate in 10 dimensions of space-time. Space itself is said to be created by these strings. Unfortunately, string theory is baffling to all but a few geniuses. For the moment, the world of physics relies on the so-called Standard Model for an explanation of the subatomic world. There are flaws with the model. No one understands gravity, at least not at the quantum level, the territory of quarks and leptons and all those exotic critters produced in collisions in particle accelerators. The Standard Model lacks simplicity. Physicists would like to junk it and come up with something more aesthetically pleasing. Not long ago, Japanese researchers working in a zinc mine 3,000 feet below Earth's surface determined that the enigmatic particles called neutrinos have mass--a devastating blow to the Standard Model. Neutrinos weren't supposed to have mass.

As for the origin of life, it's hard for any human being who is not at this very moment wearing a lab coat to find the drama in a search unfolding on the molecular level. And consciousness? Possibly the most elusive question in the list. There is general agreement that consciousness isn't a single operating element of the brain but, rather, an 'emergent' property, the product of multiple mental processes. Some scientists would say that the brain is fundamentally a complex machine and that in principle there is no reason a computer could not someday be designed to think for itself. Others, the 'mysterians,' believe that consciousness cannot be reduced to a wiring diagram. Again, the riddle plays out on a microscopic level, requiring an understanding of tiny cells working in strange and perplexing patterns.

Now you see the magic of question five. Aliens are large. Aliens (as we imagine them) exist at the same scale as humans, roughly speaking. They are dynamic. Aliens do things. Aliens pilot starships and cruise across the galaxy and invade other planets. Aliens lay fat, oozy, pulsing, glow-in-the-dark eggs containing their repulsive larval offspring. What I'm trying to say is that, even though aliens are completely strange, we can still relate to them.

And aliens might have answers. If the aliens were to send us a message, or land on the White House lawn (crushing Sam Donaldson in the middle of his nightly stand-up), they might well pony up the answers to some of the other big unknowns.

But even aliens wouldn't know everything. Presumably they wouldn't be able to see the future (let's assume that even advanced interstellar travelers can't indulge in time travel), and the future, as it turns out, is the most intriguing unknown of them all. One reason the concept of making contact with aliens is so dazzling to the imagination is that it is a narrative that shows where humans are going. Contact with our space brothers and sisters would affirm our sense of being involved in progressive development, in emergence from terrestrial barbarism, on our way toward cosmic citizenship. We want something like that because we know there are more awful alternatives. We know that as we use the tools of science to discover the secrets of nature, we are also misusing that knowledge to design weapons of mass destruction and other technologies that ravage Earth. There has been, in this era of thrilling science, a steady drumbeat of doom.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print