Nuclear fission occurs when an unstable uranium nucleus, which is like a liquid drop, is hit by a neutron; the nucleus stretches into the shape of a dumb bell and then splits into two separate nuclei -- but not of uranium, but barium and krypton in some cases. Now uranium is heavier than barium and krypton.²²⁴ It is Einstein's relativity formula E=mc² that describes this process of splitting the atom. The central phenomenon of nuclear fission is that matter is converted into energy -- the explosive energy of the atom bomb! "If the large uranium nucleus split into two smaller nuclei, the smaller nuclei would weigh less in total than their common parent. How much less? That was a calculation she could easily work: about one-fifth the mass of a proton less. Process one-fifth of the mass of a proton through E=mc². 'One fifth of a proton mass, ' Frisch exclaims, 'was just equivalent to 200 MeV. So here was the source for that energy; it all fitted! ' "²²⁵ Think of how heavy lead is. Recall the history of alchemy and efforts to transform lead into gold. Something not so unlike this occurs in nuclear fission. However, it is not the resulting matter that is most important in this transformation process, but the release of atomic energy!...The creation and use of the atom bomb, thus ending World War II, did not mark the end to nuclear weapons development, only its beginning. Once tasted, power becomes addictive. Teller comments that the atomic bomb was the primary objective at Los Alamos during the war, but Oppenheimer and other prominent physicists believed their work at Los Alamos would not be finished until they knew if it was possible to construct a thermonuclear bomb.²⁵¹ The hydrogen bomb was to be vastly more powerful than the atomic bomb. The idea was to add about 12 kilograms of liquid heavy hydrogen to the ordinary fission bomb. The fission bomb would explode creating extremely high temperatures enabling the hydrogen to undergo a fusion reaction resulting in a heavier element and a burst of energy -- a force 500 times greater than was released by the first fission bomb. It was Teller who master-minded this nuclear fusion bomb. There was a fear among some scientists that these powerful bombs could ignite the nitrogen in the atmosphere or the hydrogen in the oceans causing a chain reaction to spread wildly out of control destroying the entire planet.²⁵² This evidently did not happen, but the long term environmental consequences of this nuclear weapons madness is by no means clear. When witnessing the disruption of ocean temperatures, weather patterns and nature's seasonal cycles, one cannot help but wonder if there are causes beyond the official explanations for these calamitous changes. One thing is certain, this kind of information is held in secret for "eyes" only that have a need to know. Unless we demand to know, unless we choose to entangle ourselves with the all too difficult lessons of twentieth century nuclear physics, we will become the automatons of the new millennium. We won't need to know anything because all thought of any value will be reduced to calculation, and the momentum will shift toward soul-less machines, the collective property-of-The-State that we ourselves are becoming.

If you wish to understand this book, you should see it whole � and the place to start is the homepage: Heaven-Words � copyright 2005 WEBb1910473801 (All rights reserved by the author) You may view any or all chapters of this very long book simply by clicking on the links below.

Fox News Bill O�Reilly Sean Hannity Savage Double Talk Radio with Their Forked Tongue Tales of Islamofascism in Eurabia

Keys To Heaven-Words: The Art And Science Of Revolution

Gordon Press-ing realities in a surreal world

Cold War origins of totalitarianism in North America and Western Europe

Rise and fall of Roman Catholic Church: revisionist history

Salvador Dali portrays two-timing artists of today: from religious to ideological war with Jewish genius

Quantum theory made easy:  an introduction to the new physics

Creators of the atomic bomb: debasing nuclear power into a totalitarian order in the new world

Quantum brain theory: splitting classical-physical reality..from the inside-out

Breakdown of madness dawns on genius of collective consciousness

Chaos Theory: gravity bends of spiraling space-time

Emile Durkheim: sacred symbols conceal unholy conviction: believers-in-themselves are sacred..chosen people

From String Theory To A Final Theory: Back To The Origins of Nuclear Weapons

However impressive the claims of a final theory may seem, there are still those who think that this chaotic universe is not quite ready to be reduced to ten commandments unifying all symmetries. I also am not completely sold on that old time religion called reductionism. Reductionism is a hierarchical view of nature; for example, biology is seen to be based on chemistry, which is based on physics, which is based on the most fundamental elements of matter. The reductionist argues that the answers to all scientific inquiries are to be found at the most elementary level: atoms -- which did not exactly prove to be the basic building blocks of nature.¹⁰⁹ The objective of reborn reductionists, such as Steven Weinberg, is to discover what they call a "final theory".

Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum theory are the primary physical models of the universe in use today. All these theories have short comings, and at best can be described as incomplete. Most physicists believe that there are laws of nature, all of which have not yet been discovered, that operate at such a fundamental level that their influence is unlimited; they call these laws symmetries. These scientific truths are connected and form a pattern "... and if followed backward they all seem to flow from a common starting point. This starting point, to which all explanations may be traced, is what I mean by a final theory."¹¹⁰ This is an appeal to simplicity much like Occam's razor. A unified theory would combine all existing theories. It would do this by "embedding the different symmetries associated with individual theories into a bigger overriding pattern....These symmetries are built up by operation of a finite number of variations upon a single theme."¹¹¹ The prominent astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington sought to emulate the success of Russell and Whitehead, who are credited with reducing mathematics to the most basic logical propositions possible; he aimed to boil down all of known physics to its simplest possible laws, and from this discover whether these principles are inherent to nature itself, or rather a clever creation of man's mathematical mind.¹¹²

"In our century it was Albert Einstein who most explicitly pursued the goal of a final theory."¹¹³ Einstein spent three decades searching for a unified field theory. He intended to explain electromagnetism in terms of his own relativistic theory of gravitation. Both Einstein and Bohr sought a unified theory, and that has been the aim of theoretical physics up to the present day. Physicists, such as Steven Weinberg, are reductionists. They intend to reduce physics to a set of basic laws called symmetries, and then inter-weave all these symmetries into one unifying symmetry. This is similar to a movement code-named Bourbaki in mathematics, which we will examine several pages hence.

The concern of some is that a final theory would be the end of physics. Weinberg assures us "... A final theory will be final in only one sense -- that it will bring to an end a certain sort of science, the ancient search for those principles that cannot be explained in terms of deeper principles."¹¹⁴ There are also scientists who are uneasy with concepts of a final theory; they find such reductionism presumptuous and inconsistent with the spirit of science as an endless exploration of the limitless mysteries of the universe. They would even go so far as to suggest that there are actually physical principles operating in this universe of which modern science is unaware. It might be argued that reductionists are like Einstein, who failed in creating his unified field theory largely because the science of his day provided him with insufficient information about nuclear forces. A final theory would need to accomplish what Einstein sought in his unified field theory; but in addition to this, it would also include the standard model that describes weak and strong nuclear forces, as well as electromagnetic forces. Steven Weinberg was awarded the Nobel prize in 1979 for his work involving the standard model, particularly the unifying of strong and weak nuclear forces. In conclusion then, a final theory would unify Einstein's principle of gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear forces binding atoms together, and the weak nuclear forces evident in the decay of radioactive materials such as uranium. The labors of an entire century of theory and experimentation would be condensed into a handful of unified symmetry principles.¹¹⁵

The primary concerns of physics are: forces, matter, and space-time. Because superstring theory unifies these primary themes of physics, it is considered to be a leading candidate for a final theory.¹¹⁶ Such a theory would have to reconcile the fundamental laws of physics, which are called symmetries, and the natural world we experience. A perfect set of symmetries has not yet been worked out. Even when a final theory is formulated, getting it to agree with experimental observation is another and more challenging matter still. A successful string theory should not only accurately predict the masses of various types of particles, but account for all the properties of nature's fundamental elements. The secret of the string is energy, which can be described in terms of the string's tension. At low energies, the string behaves like a particle, and at high energies, when the tension of the string is low -- the wave like behavior of the string is manifested.¹¹⁷

Superstring theory developed from efforts to design a final theory. The basic idea is that initially the universe was highly symmetric, and everything evolved by means of a gradual symmetry breaking process. Superstring theory necessitated that physicists employ more than the familiar four-dimensional space-time architecture of relativity theory. Problems still plagued the theories until 1984 when Green and Schwarz introduced a ten dimensional superstring hypothesis, which solved many problems and inconsistencies that discredited so many earlier efforts. The splitting apart and joining together of strings were the fundamental processes that accounted for the traditional known natural forces. Soon, gravity was included into the theory by means of a geometry of closed loops superimposed on a space-time background. All the natural forces manifest themselves as these ten-dimensional strings undergo compactification to four dimensions.¹¹⁸

The mathematics of superstrings has resulted in remarkable achievements in "... that a consistent theory exists that is compatible with quantum theory, relativity, and causality; that the theory incorporates gravity in such a profound way; and that it is able to explain so many features of the standard model of the elementary particles."¹¹⁹ While it seems as though the final unification of nature's forces, along with matter and space-time are all within the reach of physics, there is a problem: ".... the theory has moved too rapidly; the mathematics has been pushed forward at times without the guidance of some underlying principle. The real message of superstrings, Green believes, awaits a vital new intuition."¹²⁰ That new intuition most likely must be physical, rather than more abstract mathematics. The eventual success or failure of this superstring theory is believed to rest on how mathematically persuasive this process of compactification turns out to be. The miracle of computer technology rests on the success of engineers in compressing more and more capability into smaller and smaller components. The computing power of a room full of refrigerator sized mainframe computers of the 1970s can now be contained in a portable Internet linked laptop computer of 2002. The intent here is not to attribute the success of computers to string theory, but to notice they have something important in common: compression. Variations on this theme of compactification are among the most practical ideas in modern scientific thought, whether one is in search of a unified theory or not. Never-the-less, compression is akin to the fusion of symmetries into a final theory. One might argue that there is an inevitable momentum in the direction of unification ...fusion, and that we will arrive there whether we pursue it as a goal or not ....whether we are physicists or poets -- it is the One-thought riveting the attention of a new millennium. Much has been accomplished by the superstring paradigm; the poetry of this book is modeled on the compressed dimensions of "multiple universes". The dramatic reading of upcoming passages involves the energy of decompressing encoded dimensions of perception.

Real world physicists do not have the time for the impracticalities and complexities of all the new variations on string theory. They may seem very impressive, as they solve so many theoretical problems of the new physics, but they are not testable in laboratory experiments. Many physicists consider string theory to be mathematics and not physics at all. However, general relativity and quantum mechanics are founded on geometry and probability statistics respectively, so how can the synthesis of these two great schools of physics be accomplished by a final theory that is not inherently mathematical? Consequently, the distance between experimental physics and theoretical physics, such as string theory, is becoming almost insurmountable. H.M. Georgi observes that string theory is evidently very enchanting because of its mathematical beauty, but it does not appear that all the mysterious new dimensions it introduces have any observable impact on the physical world. He worries that theoretical physicists are becoming so fascinated with their mathematical games that they loose touch with nature, and the practical applications of physical ideas. He recommends that theorists, specifically Steven Weinberg, come down to earth. He even refers to theoretical physicists as parasites, who must depend on the labor of real scientists: the experimental physicists. He goes on to warn of the danger of being seduced by dreams of unifying all the forces of physics. He refers to this lofty, but experimentally impractical ambition as an "Einstein complex". Einstein is not held in such unreserved admiration by physicists as by popular opinion. He is understood to have wasted decades indulging his "mystical desire" to "unify everything."¹²¹

Richard Feynman challenged the usefulness of string theory in making calculations in physics. Others have complained that the mathematics of string theory is of technically limited value because its complex form has not proven itself reliable in the field of practical applications.¹²² String theory requires a professional understanding of very advanced mathematics; most physicists cannot gain easy access to these very subtle ideas, the way it was once possible for scientists like Einstein to simply turn to mathematics for a ready made solution to a problem in physics. String theorists, for their part are so specialized that they are unable to keep up with developments taking place in other areas of physics, including the high energy experimental research that is supposed to be the physical foundation of string theory and the justification of their claim to being physicists and not merely mathematicians. Weinberg believes that the solution to this situation is to create new mathematical methods, rather than relying on existing techniques.¹²³ I would argue that the only significant thought is that which is radically creative, and that we waste time, energy and resources trying to solve truly challenging problems using standard techniques. However, creative thought must be connected to the most vital real world issues of one's time; it cannot be sanitized. In this book, I have entangled very complex metaphysical ideas with forbidden political themes as a means of bringing these abstractions down to Earth, so that they might be felt and then understood at a human level. This is not so unlike the efforts of some theoretical physicists to make their theories experimentally testable. Unfortunately, the most basic ideas of string theory can never be tested experimentally because of the massive Plank energy levels that would be required. Consequently, physics is forced to be contented with a mathematical proof and not a physical one.¹²⁴ Physics is becoming more an art than a science. "Its goals may well turn out to be aesthetic rather than practical."¹²⁵ String theory may be more art than experimental physics, at least in comparison to Newtonian laboratory science. The beauty of string theory is central to what it is, more so than experimental verification. In this regard, it seems more like a complex piece of music than practical physics.

Some scientists have an unfortunate prejudice against the arts, particularly those expressed in words. It seems that failed scientific theories are discovered to actually have either originated in the arts or turned into an art, which evidently explains their failure. Many prominent scientists, such as Weinberg, Crick, Dennett and others are hostile to philosophy and spirituality; they seem unwilling to acknowledge the importance "thought experiments" have played in both relativity and quantum physics. Others such as Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Bohm, and Penrose seem to have drawn considerable inspiration from the arts. As will be demonstrated later, many of the most critical ideas in the new physics not only are philosophical in origin, but mystical. Peat acknowledges that string theory has developed very quickly and is so mathematically complex that no one understands it. He unambiguously states that it is time for physicists to step back and think about the meaning of these theories philosophically.¹²⁶ However, some have not responded to the frustrations they face quite so philosophically. Weinberg complains that a number of his colleagues " ... have reacted to this unhappy predicament with some hostility to string theory."¹²⁷ He does not share their anger, and reminds them that string theories provide their only candidates for a final theory. In the spirit of the time, he declares with some resignation that "...It is a pity that it has not yet been more successful, but string theorists like everyone else are trying to make the best of a very difficult moment in the history of physics."¹²⁸ While Weinberg may not have succeeded in his efforts to create a final theory, many of the youngest and brightest stars in the best physics programs throughout the world have followed Einstein's and Weinberg's dream of a unified theory for well over two decades -- and not without some success. Among the youngest and brightest of these stars is Brian Greene. Along with Edward Witten, Greene master-minded a second  superstring revolution in the late 1990's.¹²⁹  While not intending to denigrate their considerable achievements, it is necessary to approach their work judiciously. 

Around the turn of the millennium, Greene wrote a book that became an instant classic, and established him as the leading figure in the field of theoretical physics -- The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory.  Greene is different than most other physicists; he is compared by some to Isaac Newton, for he is also a first rate creative mathematician. �Physicists such as Greene are having to invent unspeakably complex mathematics to describe this surreal landscape, just as Isaac Newton had to develop calculus to elucidate how forces act on objects.�¹³⁰

Much as Newtonian physics is absorbed by Einstein�s relativity theories, string theory assimilates relativity into itself. This occurs because Einstein�s General Theory of Relativity is super-imposed on the framework of Riemann�s four dimensional geometry. �But string theory limits how precisely Riemann�s geometrical formalism can be realized by the physics of gravity, because there is a limit to how small we can make any object. Once you get down to strings, you can�t go any further...." There are no point particles in string theory, thus emphasizing "... that Riemann�s geometrical framework, which relies fundamentally upon distances between points, is modified on ultra-microscopic scales by string theory.�¹³¹  On the grand scale of the cosmos, general relativity is sufficient for predicting the movement of very large objects. �But in the ultramicroscopic realm, the extended nature of the string ensures that Riemann�s geometry simply will not be the right mathematical formalism.�¹³² In its place, string theory introduces a quantum geometry with surprising characteristics. Greene argues that the most difficult concept of string theory to understand is why the theory requires a particular number of dimensions, namely eleven. This number is arrived at through mathematical calculation; �no one has an intuitive, nontechnical explanation for the particular number that emerges.�¹³³ What is happening is that physics is centering itself on the mystery of these dimensions, and trying to figure-out their implications. About 1919, the Polish mathematician Theodor Kaluza got this whole ball rolling when he theorized �that both gravity and electromagnetism are associated with ripples in the fabric of space. Gravity is carried by ripples in the familiar three space dimensions, while electromagnetism is carried by ripples involving the new, curled-up dimension."¹³⁴

Perhaps the most critical concept to understand about string theory is that the universe is composed of these unobservable strings �.. whose resonant patterns of vibration are the microscopic origin of particle masses and force charges."¹³⁵ The great leap of faith being made by theorists like Greene and Witten is to base "everything" on something that can not be directly examined by scientific instruments; in addition, it is necessary to imagine "..extra space dimensions that must be curled up to a very small size to be consistent with our never having seen them."¹³⁶ Strings oscillate and vibrate as they zip around ..and through things. The critical insight here is that the geometry -- the form -- of these curled-up dimensions greatly influences these all important "...resonant patterns of vibration. Because the patterns of string vibrations appear to us as the masses and charges of the elementary particles, we conclude that these fundamental properties of the universe are determined, in large measure, by the geometrical size and shape of the extra dimensions.�¹³⁷ Shape is the thing! As noted, the characteristics of these many dimensional strings are defined and limited by mathematics; in the mid-1980�s, Candelas, Horowitz, Strominger, and Witten �showed that a particular class of six-dimensional geometrical shapes can meet these conditions. They are known as Calabi-Yau spaces (or Calabi-Yau shapes)..�¹³⁸ As stated, string theory is so impossibly abstract because it necessitates visualizing a geometry of spaces ..of shapes having anywhere from one to nine dimensions. 

According to Einstein�s General Theory, the fabric of space-time cannot rip without resulting in the area involved collapsing into such a state of chaos that the known laws of physics would cease to apply.¹³⁹ Modern theoretical physics posits the existence of wormholes; they are  thought to be passageways or shortcuts connecting distant sectors of the universe.¹⁴⁰ However, as Hawking would point out, there is much stronger experimental evidence associated with another kind of irregularity in the spatial fabric: black holes.¹⁴¹ �..the enormous gravitational field of a black hole results in such extreme curvature that the fabric of space appears to be pinched or punctured at the black hole�s center.�¹⁴² Witten and Greene have set themselves at odds with Einstein's position and persuasively argue that ��there are physical circumstances � differing from wormholes and black holes in certain ways � in which the fabric of space can tear.�¹⁴³ The consequences of this observation are considered by some to be earth-shattering, so we must gradually unfold the implications of their insight. 

There are five variations on this string theory of everything. I have focused on Type I thus far in this book: Type I string theory highlights "open strings with two loose ends", while placing somewhat less emphasis on "closed loops".¹⁴⁴ Other versions of the theory accentuate these closed loops. The other four versions are: Type IIA, Type IIB, Heterotic-O, and Heterotic-E. "... Their vibrational patterns determine the possible mass and force charges, they require a total of 10 spacetime dimensions, their curled-up dimensions must be in one of the Calabi-Yau shapes etc�.�¹⁴⁵ For several years, these five competing versions of string theory were almost as much a scandal to physics as the split between relativity and quantum theory. This confusion could occur because �the equations of string theory are so complicated that no one knows their exact form. Physicists have managed to write down only approximate versions of the equations. It is these approximate equations that differ significantly from one string theory to the next. And it is these approximate equations, within the context of any one of the five string theories, that give rise to an abundance of solutions, a cornucopia of unwanted universes."¹⁴⁶ Recall the many universes theory introduced in the previous chapter; we are about to discover that string theory leads some physicists to speculate that there may in fact be many universes -- each as physically real as the one we inhabit ..and their observations are based on physics, not only mathematics. But there is something more urgent for us to disclose right now. With the advent of innovation sparked by Witten and Greene in the second half of the 1990's, there is increased confidence and developing evidence suggesting that the precise equations needed to reconcile all five theories are solvable, even though their exact form is still unknown; once these equations are figured out, the implications of string theory will unify the physics of the large and the small. Most string theorists hold the conviction that not only can these equations be solved, but that when these very precise equations are formulated, it will be undeniable that all five string theories are actually variations on one integrated theme, and that "...Like the appendages on a starfish, they are all part of one connected entity��¹⁴⁷ The name given to that unifying vision of strings is M-theory!¹⁴⁸ Witten and Greene are clearly standing on the shoulders of Einstein and Bohr as they advance their theories. Witten sounds something like Bohr as he makes the principle of duality the engine of his new theory: "Physicists use the term duality to describe theoretical models that appear to be different but nevertheless can be shown to describe exactly the same physics.�¹⁴⁹ In his now legendary Strings '95 lecture �...Witten gave evidence for a new, profound kind of duality. �he suggested that the five string theories, although apparently different in their basic construction, are all just different ways of describing the same underlying physics. Rather than having five different string theories, then, we would simply have five different windows onto this single underlying theoretical framework.�¹⁵⁰ It is Witten who is most credited with replacing ten dimensional string theories with an eleven dimensional unified theory he named M-theory. Prior to the second superstring revolution, the consensus was that we live in a ten dimensional universe, but M-theory has demonstrated mathematically that eleven is the correct number (one time and ten space dimensions). Much as Kaluza introduced an extra dimension to unify electromagnetism and general relativity, M-theorists like Witten and Greene discovered that adding an eleventh dimension "allows for a deeply satisfying synthesis of all five versions of the theory.�¹⁵¹ But M-theory differs from other theories of vibrating strings by something more than this extra dimension; "it also includes other objects: vibrating two-dimensional membranes, undulating three-dimensional blobs (called �three-branes�), and a host of other ingredients as well.�¹⁵² The meaning of this M seems to be a mystery, but Greene prefers to think of it as Membrane Theory, since it suggests many dimensional entities and not only the one-dimensional strings prominent many years ago.¹⁵³ To summarize, within M-theory, there are one-dimensional strings. There are also two-dimensional membranes. �But, the surprise is that yet others are three-dimensional, four-dimensional � in fact, the range of possibilities encompasses every spatial dimension up to and including nine. String theory or M-theory, or whatever it is finally called, actually contains extended objects of a whole slew of different spatial dimensions.�¹⁵⁴  

Thus far, our examination of M-theory has centered entirely on the brilliant intricacy of its mathematical geometry, but in order to qualify as physics it must be applicable to this physical universe that science explores. Let us return now to the many universes alluded to just a moment ago.  In unifying relativity and quantum physics, M-theory must then reconcile the physics of the large and the small. It must address issues on the cosmic level as well as in the ultra-microscopic realm of strings. Amazingly, it not only can do that, but suggests a very unexpected connection between them. In order to understand the laws governing this chaotic universe, it is necessary for physicists to discover the secrets of its initial conditions. Greene discusses the phase transitions of H₂O going from steam to water and then to ice; these phase transitions occur at the critical temperatures of 100 degrees Celsius and 0 degrees Celsius. Astronomers have observed that between 10^-43 seconds and a hundredth of a second After The Bang, the universe was transformed by "..at least two analogous phase transitions. At temperatures above 10²⁸ Kelvin, the three nongravitational forces appeared as one, as symmetric as they could possibly be. �But as the temperature dropped below 10²⁸ Kelvin, the universe underwent a phase transition in which the three forces crystallized out from their common union in different ways. Their relative strengths and the details of how they act on matter began to diverge. And so, the symmetry among the forces evident at higher temperatures was broken as the universe cooled. �The two phase transitions are responsible for the three apparently distinct nongravitational forces at work in the world, even though this review of cosmic history shows that the forces, in fact, are deeply related.�¹⁵⁵ These phase transitions occurred during an infinitely brief period of time when "everything" inflated. The universe is known to be expanding. The early universe was much smaller, a whole lot hotter, and matter was many times more densely packed then it is in our time. What physicists are doing is trying to imagine what happened just after the big bang, but by "after" they mean an infinitely brief fraction of a second. The key idea to grasp here is: in-the-Beginning ..the universe was infinitely small --no larger than a light string - with a temperature and density beyond measurement. Neither relativity nor quantum mechanics alone can describe such a singular event -- but string theory can.¹⁵⁶ Lee Smolin has noted �..the similarity between conditions at the big bang and the centers of black holes � each being characterized by a colossal density of crushed matter � has suggested that every black hole is the seed for a new universe that erupts into existence through a big bang�like explosion, but is forever hidden from our view by the black hole�s event horizon.�¹⁵⁷ Let's step back for a moment and examine the implications of tearing the fabric of space, as Witten and Greene have proposed occurs. Because Calabi-Yau spaces can tear, they can be transformed into other Calabi-Yau shapes.¹⁵⁸ After recalling that a person unfamiliar with the phase transition converting water to ice may not realize the two very distinct substances are simply different forms of H₂O, Greene observers that �..physicists had not realized previously that the kinds of black holes we were studying and elementary particles are actually two phases of the same underlying stringy material.�¹⁵⁹ ...and that "..an initially massive black hole becomes ever lighter until it is massless and then it transmutes into a massless particle � such as a massless photon � which in string theory is nothing but a single string executing a particular vibrational pattern. In this way, for the first time, string theory explicitly establishes a direct, concrete, and quantitatively unassailable connection between black holes and elementary particles.�¹⁶⁰ 

 What you should notice here is that M-theory is now moving closer to what may be considered to be observable physics, namely the physics of very large black holes and very small elementary particles. So we are no longer just talking about mathematics, as was the case in the previous chapter when we discussed the many universes theory. M-theorists also talk about many universes, but they are speaking as theoretical physicists and not only as mathematicians.  Like Hawking, the focus of their interest centers largely on the massive gravitation force of black holes. Anything getting too close to its opening "event horizon" is inescapably pulled into the core of the black hole. Nothing is more final than the center of a black hole, where neither light nor time exist. Scientists studying Einstein's relativity equations have been fascinated to note that they imply the extraordinary prospect that the core of a black hole ��might be a gateway to another universe that tenuously attaches to ours only at a black hole�s center. Roughly speaking, where time in our universe comes to an end, time in the attached universe just begins.�¹⁶¹ Smolin goes on to suggest the existence of many universes within a limitless multiverse.  �..We have also seen that our universe may merely be one of the innumerable frothing bubbles on the surface of a vast and turbulent cosmic ocean called the multiverse.�¹⁶²  

M-theory is truly fascinating and mathematically very persuasive. We have all seen so many science fiction movies by now that we are no longer certain as to what is and isn't real science. Many people believe that a �Theory of Everything� has already been discovered because they heard the announcement on the highly rated TV program �West Wing�. If you have not yet learned to doubt what you see and hear on television, you are encouraged to use the search engine of your choice to locate articles matching �West Wing� and �theory of everything�. What you will discover is that �West Wing� is fiction. I believe the most relevant site to visit is: The West Wing Continuity Guide.htm (westwing.bewarne.com/sitemap.html) This is the official site for West Wing, and there you will find very unambiguous statements from knowledgeable people concerning this "Theory of Everything" controversy.       

�In #25 'The Midterms' Aaron Sorkin claims that on November 2, 2000 physicists at Caltech and Fermilabs "announced" that String Theory had produced a Theory of Everything. This was written/filmed around July and broadcast October 18, 2000 so Sorkin does seem to be dealing with psychics (as C.J. claims) not physicists (as Josh claims). And we believe those psychics are wrong and that physicists are NOT THAT close to a Unified Field Theory --- at least not in this world!�¹⁶³

�On November 9, we heard from Mike Perricone, Fermilab Office of Public Affairs who wrote:
 �No, we don't have a Theory of Everything. Superstrings is a nice theory, along with extra dimensions, but they aren't yet in the realm of something that can be proven experimentally.�¹⁶⁴

 Witten, Greene and their colleagues did make some remarkable advances with their development of M-theory, but they have not discovered a final theory anymore than Weinberg did. They have attempted to bring their mathematical theory closer to practical physics, but the banner headline experiment needed to give their theory real credibility is still a dream. Greene himself concludes The Elegant Universe with a very somber evaluation of the state of theoretical physics -- and in doing so, sounding very much like Steven Weinberg. �We don�t know what the initial conditions of the universe were, or even the ideas, concepts, and language that should be used to describe them. We believe that the outrageous initial state of infinite energy, density, and temperature that arises in the standard and inflationary cosmological models is a signal that these theories have broken down rather than a correct description of the physical conditions that actually existed..." While Greene's generation has made improvements on the theories of Weinberg's generation, the mystery of "The Creation" remains. "...In fact, our ignorance persists on an even higher plane: We don�t know whether the question of determining the initial conditions is one that is even sensible to ask or whether.... it is a question that lies forever beyond the grasp of any theory."¹⁶⁶ He acknowledges the partially successful efforts of scientists such as Hawking, who have attempted  to "... bring the question of cosmological initial conditions within the umbrella of physical theory, but all such attempts remain inconclusive. In the context of string/M-theory, our cosmological understanding is, at present, just too primitive to determine whether our candidate �theory of everything� truly lives up to its name and determines its own cosmological initial conditions, thereby elevating them to the status of physical law. This is a prime question for future research."¹⁶⁷ Greene goes on to add that there are significant arguments suggesting that there may be inescapable limits to the predictive capability of any final theory. He concludes the main body of his work on a note of scientific uncertainty -- entangling the future of both a final theory and its doubters.¹⁶⁸ 

We have yet to see any practical benefits in the "real world" resulting from recent advances in theoretical physics. As with the promise of clean and limitless energy from nuclear fusion so "imminent" decades ago, physicists like Witten and Greene are forced to join with Wienberg in confessing: "But now we are stuck. The years since the mid-1970s have been the most frustrating in the history of elementary particle physics."¹⁶⁹ Peat suggests that the problems of modern physics may open the way for " .... the whole structure to come tumbling down and for the theoretical world view to fail to cohere with experience."¹⁷⁰ Physicists realize the inadequacies and even absurdities of quantum theory, relativity and classical physics; but they also lack any substantial unified theory to substitute for this smorgasbord they call the new physics. All that is possible is to make do with the systems they have, hoping it will not be too long before sense, reality, and order return to science. The recent success of the physics of non-local photon teleportation suggests that expectations of logical reality returning may be unrealistic. I would like to emphasize that not all physicists are reductionists searching for a final theory. These are now the glory days of quantum weirdness; the champions of unreality are on a roll. They are the ones who have successful and practical experiments to their credit.

Science has taken a decisive turn in the past decade or two. We will get around to discussing this paradigm shift in a while, but first we should get some idea of why big budget official physics has fallen on such hard times. This failure of ideas has consequences in the real world. The failure of physicists to solve fundamental long standing problems, such as nuclear fusion, has resulted in a loss of confidence in the once almighty "rocket scientists". Lack of confidence translates into much reduced financial support, and makes it increasingly difficult for physicists to carry out experiments because ever more powerful and expensive accelerators are needed to enable advances in high energy physics. I would suggest that physicists, more than other scientists, have lost the trust of society. It is physicists in general who are associated with nuclear weapons, nuclear power plant accidents, and the nuclear waste they seem unable to dispose of. So when they admit another string of failures, whether it be cold fusion or a final theory, people are unimpressed and definitely unsympathetic to pleas for new multi-billion dollar top secret projects. People distrust and fear government and its instruments of power, and for good reason. Given generous funding, these veteran pragmatists are far more likely to develop some new anti-matter weapon than solve the environmental problems their profession has played such a key role in creating. The military-industrial-complex is not well loved by the "taxpayers".

Today, advances in research depend increasingly on low budget mathematical "thought experiments" called string theory. This is a serious challenge to a science Neils Bohr declared was based on experimental observation. High energy physicists have lost much status in recent years, and Weinberg's dreams of a final theory have not been enough to restore the triumphant bravado of World War II and the nuclear arms race of the Cold War. Amazingly, when thinking is sanitized and people are made into technicians, they don't seem to be brilliantly imaginative; without the innovative passion of genius, scientists end up stuck like these recently demoted low energy physicists.

There is not much freedom left within official society. Scientists, like everybody else, feel the constraints of formality and the official methods of thinking it imposes. Bohm complains that ..."The only insight available now is through mathematics: that's the only place people allow themselves any freedom."¹⁷¹ Scientists have believed in mathematics as a special kind of truth, even to the extent of accepting the mathematical elegance of an argument as a valid support for a theory in place of experimental evidence. This last bastion of intellectual freedom has not been left untouched by the social engineers who are eager to provide us with designer genes.

Even though a mathematician may arrive at a conclusion by an unexpected procedure,"... he will hide all those intuitive steps when he comes to present the conclusions of his thinking...." ..He reduces his work to a bare skeleton of information... "...As a result, the pure mathematical research literature is virtually impenetrable to outsiders...." ...This economy does more than save space, it "... very effectively disguises the natural train of thought that led to the original results. To a great extent, this unfortunate trait was encouraged by the Bourbaki project."¹⁷² The name Bourbaki was initially intended as a joke, but in time was used to conceal the identities of the group's members. The number of Bourbaki remains fixed, and membership changes, as these mathematicians must resign at the age of fifty. Not all the identities of the Bourbaki are known.¹⁷³ " ....They represent the last hopes of the formalists: axiomatics, rigour, and elegance prevail; diagrams, examples, and the particular are excluded...." ..These books are not a source of new ideas. Well established concepts are compressed into very abstract forms... "...They are the ultimate textbooks for the cognoscenti. Even within the mathematical ranks, Bourbaki has vociferous critics.... ."¹⁷⁴ A prominent spokesman for the Bourbaki, Laurent Schwarz, argued that the scholasticism of their work is just as valuable to mathematics as the creative efforts of their colleagues. So while mathematicians are developing new models they hope will be useful to scientists, the Bourbaki are busily concealing mathematics from those who do not have "a need to know". I believe that the creation of a final theory would serve much the same purpose in physics as the Bourbaki do in mathematics.

What should be noted here is that the only language in which substantial ideas are permitted is mathematics. However, it appears that mathematics may not be able to fulfill all the expectations of the official thinkers. So what must be done is to lower our expectations. Paul Davies and John Gribbin are well respected authors of popular books on theoretical physics. Together they wrote the book The Matter Myth: Beyond Chaos and Complexity. In this book, one of them explains that the concepts of relativity are not intuitively understandable, and that much of the confusion surrounding relativity theory arises because people expect that they will be able finally to arrive at a common-sense comprehension of how it all works. But such expectations can only lead to bewilderment. He admits not being able to imagine time behaving in the strange ways relativity theory indicates. He thought this inability to visualize the paradoxes of relativity meant that he lacked some fundamental insight into the theory, which people more clever than himself had discovered. That is not to say that he couldn't do the mathematics of relativity problems. He found no difficulty in getting correct answers. The problems he worked on lacked a sense of reality. Then he discovered why he had been so perplexed. All that was required of him was that he work out the mechanics of these strange problems -- and nothing more. He did not need to intuitively grasp some kind of deeper meaning. He learned to take measurements from the perspectives of different observers. All he needed to understand was that each observer was equally correct in his relativistic point of view. All points of reference are equally valid in relativity theory. There was no overall vision he needed to see, just many local limited outlooks on the universe. It is of critical importance to recognize what the author was describing here. He was introducing a methodology of modern science called positivism. It is a pragmatic technique whereby the scientist simply describes what is observed. Most importantly, the scientist does not try to fit what is observed into the context of a pre-existing model of some absolute reality in which he happens to believe. Just record the data and do not be concerned with what it all "really" means. The author emphasizes the importance of positivism not only for dealing with relativity, but all of modern physics.¹⁷⁵ This peculiar outlook that reality depends on impersonal observation seems strange from the perspective of our practical experience, but actually is common practice when describing the quantum world of physics. Familiarity with abstract models seems to give a kind of reality and concreteness which makes initially bewildering ideas easier for scientists to discuss and manipulate, even though these models remain beyond intuitive understanding.¹⁷⁶

If reality consists only of scientific measurements, then it is meaningless to speak of the quantum world as though it exists independently of the instruments scientists employ to measure it. Only measured data matters, the rest does not yet exist; most scientists, however, prefer to speak of the quantum world as though it really exists outside of scientific observation -- for all practical purposes -- or FAPP, as John Bell describes it. Penrose, along with Einstein and Schrodinger, emphasizes that the quantum world may be strange from a common sense perspective, but that does not mean it is unreal. He wonders how this very real world in which we live can be composed of "unreal" elements of the quantum world. He also points to the marvelously exact mathematics that describes the quantum world. Mathematics appears to affirm not only the reality of the classical world we can see, but the quantum world of which we are so uncertain. Mathematics then is the measure of all reality and a self-verifying language, but Penrose is not so convinced that the mathematics of statistical calculations is capable of expressing a final theory.¹⁷⁷

Quantum phenomena are not "real" until they are measured by physicists. Bohr left the subatomic world in a limbo of mere potentialities. Practical physicists adapt to this ambiguity by simply treating subatomic phenomena as if they are real. This practical approach leads to useful results, so it has become standard operating procedure. For pragmatic reasons it is necessary to focus on the mechanics of quantum physics and suspend trying to interpret the meaning of quantum theory. The FAPP approach used by most quantum physicists is a pragmatic effort to over-look the paradoxes of quantum theory, but it does not solve any theoretical problems; FAPP simply allows physicists to use quantum mechanics without actually understanding the theory. What has made quantum physics so successful is that it works without any theoretical interpretation. The positivist approach to science encourages the reduction of all activity to technique. Nothing has meaning; and any activity that cannot be made into a uniform technique is inconsequential, unreal.¹⁷⁸ Traditionally, physicists have relied on intuition, but relativity and quantum mechanics are counter-intuitive. All the physicists have to go on are rules. They have the quantum wave function. They apply an operator to the wave function and obtain their measurements. -- It's all technique without meaning or intuitive understanding.¹⁷⁹

Returning to Davies and Gribbin, we discover a critical factor in their perspective: they do not try to see the wholeness, the context of things. "I remember my resolution not to try to envisage an absolute reality, not to struggle for some sort of God's-eye-view of the whole Universe from outside."¹⁸⁰ Rather, he would view things from the limited perspective of some distant space voyager investigating the universe from his unique vantage point. The author confesses that while he may have become familiar, perhaps even comfortable, with the weirdness of relativity, he cannot intuitively grasp or visualize "space-warps", "curved space", "singularity", "time dilation" and many universes. "I believe that the reality exposed by modern physics is fundamentally alien to the human mind, and defies all power of direct visualization."¹⁸¹ He sees these terms as models of a physical reality we can never adequately define. However, he finds that if concepts are encountered frequently, even though they may not be intuitively understandable, people will become familiar with them and eventually come to believe that they understand them. "The realization that not everything that is so in the world can be grasped by the human imagination is tremendously liberating."¹⁸² He goes on to acknowledge repeatedly that so many of the abstract technicalities of relativity theory are beyond the capability of human insight. "Yet having learned to overcome the need for simple images I can tackle such topics without fear. With mathematics as an unfailing guide, I am able to explore the territory beyond the boundaries of my own meagre imagination to produce meaningful answers about things that can be observed."¹⁸³

It is this abandonment of creative intelligence that has allowed the world we live in to become a wasteland. Among more imaginative scientists, it has been understood that this technician's mentality is a dead end. Let us look back at the difficulties that have slowed the advance of string theory. "Unfortunately, at present, the mathematical expertise required to reveal these properties is somewhat beyond us. For the first time, modern physicists have found that off-the-shelf mathematics is insufficient to extract the physical content of their theories."¹⁸⁴ Technicians who have relied upon pre-fabricated mathematics as an "unfailing guide" to the mysteries of the physical world have had to face the pragmatism of other positivists, perhaps in the form of insufficient funding for their work and a loss of respect. Quantum theory makes it obvious that nature cannot be circumscribed by mathematical determinism. "The laws of physics are not deterministic but statistical, a discovery which implies the end of a mathematical description of all of nature."¹⁸⁵ Because of this limited capacity of mathematics to describe nature, it becomes a more complicated tool to use. The physicist prefers simple illustrations to explain abstract mathematical principles that are relevant to his practical problems. However, the mathematical methods needed to study string theory are among the newest and most complex in all of advanced mathematics. This is extremely frustrating to physicists who may not have the time to pick up a Ph.D in Bourbaki mathematics at night school.¹⁸⁶

Davies and Gribbin point out that Einstein was interested in illusions, and add that illusions involving motion are familiar to everyone. They conclude by suggesting that our observation that time flows is an illusion having its origins in the way in which the human brain functions. Demoralizing as it may be, we are forced to acknowledge failure in our efforts to determine what time is, and adapt ourselves to the limited images of time flowing in our efforts to make sense of the universe's illusory dimensions. By confessing defeat, physicists affirm the need for a new paradigm that reaches beyond the horizon of our familiar scientific theories.¹⁸⁷ Prior to disclosing their understanding that new ways of thinking are called for, Davies and Gribbin had mentioned Eddington and his claim to being the only other person besides Einstein to grasp the meaning of the general theory of relativity. Davies and Gribbin suggested that what he meant was not that he and Einstein were able to visualize abstractions such as "curved space-time", but rather that they were "... among the first physicists to appreciate that in this subject true understanding comes only by relinquishing the need to visualize."¹⁸⁸ Davies and Gribbin unwittingly idealized the error which side-tracked Einstein for the second half of his professional life. It is essential to notice that Einstein became too impressed with ready made mathematical solutions to problems in physics. The thrust of this book is toward genius and not technique and mediocrity. Glick mentions in his book Genius: Richard Feynman and Modern Physics that Feynman saw Einstein's capacity to think in images as his genius; when he turned to relying on formulas his genius abandoned him. Much as physicists may try, it is not an easy thing for them to give up visualizing physical problems. "A certain kind of pragmatic, working theorist valued a style of thinking based on a kind of seeing and feeling. That was what physical intuition meant. Feynman said to Dyson, and Dyson agreed, that Einstein's great work had sprung from physical intuition and that when Einstein stopped creating it was because 'he stopped thinking in concrete physical images and became a manipulator of equations.' Intuition was not just visual but also auditory and kinesthetic."¹⁸⁹

There is an embarrassing split within science that divides the technicians from those driven by creative vision. During his earlier years, Einstein, like Dirac, could "smell" beauty. Weinberg finds it odd that beauty should be "a useful guide in scientific research". He anticipates that this beauty is " 'but a dream' of the kind of beauty that awaits us in the final theory."¹⁹⁰ I believe that beauty must always be a fresh creation, and that no time worn formula, no final theory will put an end to the limitless questions of new generations. We will later see the significance of understanding nature to be incomplete. The visions of earlier ages can be rediscovered, but doing so is never anywhere near as easy as may be expected. My aim is to use the concepts of the new physics in describing spirituality -- making science intuitive and spirituality natural, and consequently both more accessible to all of us. Barrow argues that the potentiality of nature can never be fully exhausted by any formula, nor can any computer program create all possible beauty. He asserts that "No non-poetic account of reality can be complete....No Theory of Everything can ever provide total insight."¹⁹¹

In the same spirit, Penrose focuses clearly on the mathematician G�del, who explained the limits of logical thought. "Mathematicians do not have absolutely definite beliefs about the soundness or consistency of the formal systems they use. Can one be utterly completely sure that 1 is different from 2, for example?" Uncertainty is the rule of the new physics, but the hardness of life obligates us to take a stand on un-firm ground. "A reasonable stand would be to take some body of beliefs and principles as being unassailably true and to argue from there onwards. ....What the G�del argument shows is that whatever standpoint is adopted, that standpoint cannot be (known to be) encapsulated in the rules of any knowable formal system."¹⁹²

Penrose recognizes that working mathematicians do not concern themselves with the foundations of mathematics. They simply accept that fundamental principles cannot be proven. They merely assume those premises necessary for their work so that they can accomplish something practical in the competitive business of mathematics.¹⁹³ This pragmatic view of mathematicians may seem of little consequence, but recall that physicists accept mathematical proofs as a substitute for experimental evidence: " ... the advanced theories of physics have little direct connection with anything that can be measured, and those experiments that are suggested by the theory are probably decades away from being designed. Theories today are really emerging out of other theories, and their testing ground is no longer the experimentalist's laboratory but aesthetics, mathematical consistency, and their interrelationship to yet other theories."¹⁹⁴

Physics must distinguish itself from mathematics, and can do this only by emphasizing physical experimentation. However, this forces us back upon the problem of the observer becoming entangled in the quantum experiment. As with Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics uses clocks and measuring instruments that are assumed not to interfere with the experiments; it is also presumed that precise measurements can be made.¹⁹⁵ But it is unseemly for tough as nails physicists to flaunt their latest failures, while refusing to discuss the contradictions at the heart of their experimental technique. A critical inconsistency of quantum theory concerns the fact that "... while urging us to transcend the old observer/observed duality, quantum physics as presently written actually sustains it."¹⁹⁶ It is particularly important to understand that the new physics is implemented using old physics methodology. This is a serious contradiction and it will be resolved only by the most rigorous of solutions: paradigm shift. Greene attempts to initiate a paradigm shift by moving away from the classical standard of physics toward one that accounts for initial conditions. �..Once we realize that the universe is governed by quantum mechanical principles, our theories really should be quantum mechanical from the start. We have successfully gotten away with starting from a classical perspective until now because we have not been probing the universe at a deep enough level for this coarse approach to mislead us. But with the depth of string/M-theory, we may well have come to the end of the line for this battle-tested strategy.�¹⁹⁷ Greene's turn towards Bohr's fascination with duality was visibly influenced by Witten's concept of M-theory, and their shared interest in a "dual language" for quantum relativity is clearly opening theoretical physics to promising new possibilities. �..The dualities underlying the unity of the five string theories show us that physical processes that occur in any one string formulation can be reinterpreted in the dual language of any of the others. This rephrasing will at first appear to have little to do with the original description, but, in fact, this is simply the power of duality at work: Through duality, one physical process can be described in a number of vastly different ways.�¹⁹⁸ Greene zeros in on the critical observation that quantum mechanics cannot be separated from the duality of complex numbers at its core. �..Quantum mechanics is thoroughly intertwined within the duality symmetries underlying string/M-theory: They are inherently quantum-mechanical symmetries, since one of the dual descriptions is strongly influenced by quantum considerations. This indicates forcefully that the complete formulation of string/M-theory � a formulation that fundamentally incorporates the new found duality symmetries � cannot begin classically and then undergo quantization, in the traditional mold. A classical starting point will necessarily omit the duality symmetries, since they hold true only when quantum mechanics is taken into account."¹⁹⁹ The error of standard physics is to solve problems classically and then make a few after-the-fact mathematical modifications to convert the results into a form that merely appears to be quantum physics. What Greene requires is genuine quantum relativity -- a unified physics sensitive to the critical importance of initial conditions in determining the evolution of any phenomenon under scientific investigation. We can now see why Greene emphasizes that the space-time fabric can tear ...because these Calabi-Yau spaces are the many-dimensional mystery connecting elementary particles to black holes and consequently to the initial conditions determining the laws governing this particular eleven dimensional universe -- and that is what a final theory is after: the enigma of beginnings! "Everything" is about initial conditions! "Rather, it appears that the complete formulation of string/M-theory must break the traditional mold and spring into existence as a full-fledged quantum-mechanical theory. ...Currently, no one knows how to do this. But many string theorists fore-see a reformulation of how quantum principles are incorporated into our theoretical description of the universe as the next major upheaval in our understanding�.²⁰⁰ We will tangle with this deadlock in the concluding chapter of Heaven-Words � It is knot to be skipped! A multi-dimensional language unwinds chaotic strings tangled in the loops of complex numbers ..unfolding a quantum relativistic theory of everything relevant to scientists who must discover their own human nature while knotted in a technology of oppression. A revolutionary paradigm shift reduces quantum chaos to a quantum relativistic stereogram vision of "reality". You surely get the picture by now: dimensions shape our thinking .."about-everything" in modern theoretical physics; and as you might expect, this multi-dimensional perspective will inevitably influence other disciplines. Given this moving picture of the universe, you can figure-out why this book will turn itself in-side-out ..in-order ..to create a multi-dimensional language able to convey ideas that have previously been considered too abstract for words. Language may prove more useful than geometry when trying to deal with 11 dimensional phenomena. How many permutations of meaning can you spot in the following poetic paradox: It is never an easy call telling the Holy Rollers from the high rollers when the good timers are rocking and rolling in their joints. By re-creating language, that paradigm we call "reality" can be transformed from a one-dimensional dead-end into some mysterious Calabi-Yau space with a multiverse of possibilities. 

Witten and Greene have been trying to initiate a shift from a paradigm of fractured physics to one of genuine quantum relativity. But the paradigm shift they have proposed is not radical enough. The sum total of the ideas we assume to make up the reality in which we belief is called a paradigm. Because a paradigm is much more than a recognizable theory, scientists are not aware of what the paradigm actually is. It is the totality of their reality. It is everything they share in common with their colleagues, from formal methodology to informal unspoken taboos.²⁰¹ But most of all, a paradigm incorporates within itself its own inconsistencies, its own denials, and the failures that result from these unrecognized, unresolved riddles. The unresolved paradoxes concealed within a paradigm develop a life of their own, making the inconsistencies of the paradigm increasingly intolerable for all but the most unquestioning minds of the community. A new paradigm is finally introduced as science returns to its origins in revolution.²⁰²

Kuhn emphasized no paradigm could declare itself to be universally valid, not even science. Because there is no overall paradigm that is the measure of all others, it is not possible to judge one to be superior to any other. They simply are not comparable. A paradigm has credibility as long as the society it serves has faith in it, believes it. Paradigms seem to have limited life spans, and when the worn model is displaced by fresh vision, a "paradigm shift" has occured.²⁰³ Kuhn resists the idea of a final theory, as does Popper; and Weinberg acknowledges that perhaps it is possible that every theory, including a "final theory", will always be open to criticism and inclusion into a more universal perspective.²⁰⁴ Weinberg's reductionist final theory has a disturbingly permanent and inflexible feel to it. I much prefer to speak of a theory of everything. Thinkers throughout the course of history have tried to shape models of reality that explained the whole of their experience. The measure of brilliance has always been appreciated as a facility for discovering or creating a "... unifying pattern to phenomena and bringing ideas together within the compass of a single insight."²⁰⁵ A theory of everything might be thought of as being open ended --- promising to open our minds, whereas a final theory threatens to shut them down.

A scientific theory is understood to be the creation of human intelligence, and while it may not be possible to prove that it is true, it is possible to prove that it is false. Therefore, every scientific hypothesis is subject to challenge, and should the lowliest of scientists doubt even the most highly regarded scientific theory...exposing inconsistency with observable fact -- then that grand hypothesis must be called into question by the whole of the scientific community. "Any theory that cannot be tested to destruction is not a theory."²⁰⁶ It is not science. It is the dogma of religion. This principle of science applies to the social dogma of racial equality, just as it does to grand theories of relativity. When prominent government officials, with many credentials from major universities, refuse to allow the preferred doctrines of socialism to be challenged, not only do they forfeit their claims to being scientists, but they call into question the credibility of the institutions they represent as well. Are intellectuals willing to listen to a hypothesis which presents clear evidence that the Jews maintain totalitarian control over international societies, that academia itself has been subverted? Hardly! Scientific objectivity is just as much a myth as freedom of expression. Power alone matters and scientists think according to the paradigm they are trained to accept. For a long time, it was believed that while science may not be able to discover truth, it could disclose reality. The power of science resided in its rationality and objective methodology. But the traumas of history have made it apparent even to academics that in spite of all the claims of intellectual integrity, rationality, and truth, " ... ' there is only one principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is the principle: anything goes.' This was a message few even within shouting distance of orthodox science could stomach...."²⁰⁷ It was Kuhn who forced those who chose to use their intelligence to realize that the deep admiration and trust they placed in science and its methods was naive.

For scientists and mathematicians, words do not contain that truth which is most worth knowing; they fail to understand that powerful ideas which shape their lives may have their origins in words more subtle than visually oriented scientists can hear. For others, words are all important, and they fail to see into the depths of nature's design. It is this one-sidedness in us that seems to always catch us off balance. We trust too much what we see or hear, and fail to account for that which we did not want to hear, for that which we did not know how to see. So our grandest creations come tumbling down around us. "A universal, objective reality, and the science that seeks to reveal it, was the great sustaining myth of the modern age."²⁰⁸ Woolley then asks what the consequences will be when the myth of scientific objectivity is ruptured. Where will the paradigm shift? "The paradigm shift that we are now living through is a shift away from reductionism and towards holism; it is as profound as any paradigm shift in the history of science."²⁰⁹ In time, we will encounter what psychologists call a "global existential shift". It might be thought of as a radical change in perception not so unlike our astonishment in-seeing the curved-dimensional stereograms we fell into earlier. "In the overthrow of the old world view - a paradigm shift that is dramatically transforming our understanding of reality - the chief casualty is common sense."²¹⁰ Not only are our ideas changed, but more fundamentally: our perceptions. We can see the consequences of this event in the surrealist perversions of the new media world order which twist and spin truth beyond recognition. Common sense and intuition used to be reliable guides in the real world of Newtonian democracy. But today, the unreality of a twisted society far more resembles relativity and the unbelievable universes of quantum theory than it does the old-fashioned straight and narrow reality of the British Empire that was built upon the engines and forces of Newtonian mechanics.

Any scientific, religious, or political perspective needs to have credibility, and it can achieve this status only by either explicitly or implicitly asserting that it is the best, the highest, and final authority. For instance, we have all heard that democracy is an unsatisfactory form of government, but unfortunately all other forms of government are much worse. By default, democracy is best. As you may have noticed, you have no voice in this wonderful democracy unless you belong to the party and have money and privilege. When shown to be inadequate, or even wrong, regarding some significant matter, the prevailing paradigm does not merely lose a proportional degree of credibility. The loss of authority is not incremental, it is total, because the claim to power has been absolute. It is an all or nothing quantum kind of thing. What good is a God who is not all powerful? Likewise, a second rate science cannot long hold the confidence of its practitioners. People seek a unified perspective. One that has not been discredited, even though not well understood, has an air of mystery about it like the strange physics of non-locality, and is far preferable to a science that is familiar but acknowledged to be of limited value. Both classical physics and relativity have been shown repeatedly to be incorrect or unable to account for observed phenomena, such as non-locality. These limited perspectives must eventually be incorporated into a more complete version of quantum physics. It seems inevitable that quantum physics will take on a shape that allows it to appear as classical or quantum in shifting images of complementarity. Eventually, we will come to recognize many things we see in opposition as being complementary. We will begin to see this shifting, these changing aspects of nature, everywhere we turn. When we can adapt ourselves to this universe of multiple realities, we will have internalized quantum physics as an intuitively obvious reality and come to grips with it as our own nature.

This paradigm shift has actually been underway for almost a century, but that change has been concealed from those who do not have "a need to know" the total picture. Leading scientists today are like the Bourbaki; they are thinking as quantum physicists, but explaining their work in terms of classical physics, leading less imaginative scientists to conclude that the new physics is beyond human comprehension. A fragmented perspective was imposed on physics during the creation of the atom bomb, and a modified version of that restricted access to science became the rule during the "cold war" nuclear arms race. Those with real power see their science whole, the rest are stuck with FAPP physics, and live in a compartmentalized world in which ambitious scientists, with an ear to the ground, avoid asking questions that are not career enhancing. They simply accept being technicians, and do not expect to understand the meaning of what they are doing. Most importantly, physicists such as Weinberg are seeking to create a final theory that reduces fundamental scientific thought to a set of counter-intuitive laws called symmetries in which only a mathematician could detect beauty, much as the Bourbaki have condensed mathematics to abstract axioms that conceal the intuitive dimensions of those powerful ideas. Thus the living spirit of science would become accessible only to a chosen elite, much as has happened in mathematics. The consequence of this is that physics must rely on the genius of the chosen few. Their work becomes so specialized that other scientists cannot understand its meaning, nor can outsiders help them when they get stuck, and thus progress comes to a stand still. This is precisely what is happening with string theory. We simply do without! --- without nuclear fusion, without clean oceans, without fresh air, without the creatures and plants of this Earth, without... . Objective scientific exploration is not what it used to be. Scientists have learned the discipline of self-censorship, just like everybody else in the "free world". As we learn from chaos theory, the brightest minds cannot be entirely contained..... and in the true spirit of quantum physics some have jumped ship and leaped into computer engineering, where they have created real freedom in an unreal universe, a place they call cyber-space, where the ghost in the machine is Adolf Hitler. But let us return to those thrilling days of yester-year when physics was "The Bomb", and nuclear power ruled the world.

Quantum theory made easy - Origin of nuclear weapons 

Morality, truth, justice and integrity are all merely frills that embroider the rock solid foundation of any society: power. In a book titled Condition of Post modernity, Lyotard takes a harsh look at the real world we live in, where the validity of a scientific theory is determined by its funding agency. Because of the high cost of scientific equipment, only that research is carried out which is supported by a funding agency. " 'In the discourse of today's financial backers of research, he wrote, 'the only credible goal is power. Scientists, technicians and instruments are purchased not to find truth, but to augment power'."²¹¹ Since 1945, nuclear weapons have been the ultimate appeal to authority. For this reason, it is essential that we learn something of how these weapons of tyranny came to be.

The best known scientist of the twentieth century was Albert Einstein. He played a political as well as a scientific role in the development of the first atom bomb. But he was more an associate professor of this horrendous technology gone mad, and not the primary intelligence behind the bomb. In his prize winning classic The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes traces its origin to a close friend and prot�g� of Einstein's: Leo Szilard. He was inventive, aggressive and far less charming than Einstein. Szilard's dream was to materialize in a surreal world of secrecy code named: "Manhattan". The bomb was to be built at Los Alamos, New Mexico, and tested in the desert of the American southwest in a valley between the Rio Grande and the Sierra Oscura mountains. The valley was called Jornada del Muerto. This event took place July 16, 1945 under its own code-name: Trinity. It was necessary to conceal funding for this top secret project from virtually all Americans, so it was buried inconspicuously in the largest budget allocated by congress for domestic purposes, that of the district of Manhattan.

But who was this mysterious beneficiary of humanity who could imagine this ultimate weapon of mass destruction? We will gradually get to know him, but for now let us just say he was an ambitious student who knew how to make the right connections. His friend from Hungary, Eugene Wigner, noted Szilard's rapid acceptance by Einstein while studying at the University of Berlin. He quickly made himself known to both Einstein and Max Plank, and convinced both of them to take him under their tutelage.²¹² It was Einstein who was influential in seeing that Szilard's Ph.D. thesis was accepted. Einstein and Szilard were both inventors; they were also partners and shared credits for many patents.²¹³

In 1934, Szilard was getting involved in efforts to release energy from the nucleus of the atom.²¹⁴ This was the same year Joliot-Curies stated in a Nobel prize speech that the transmutation of elements could lead to explosive consequences, and the release of enormous quantities of energy.²¹⁵ He understood that by bombarding a nuclei with neutrons, it was possible to produce radio-active substances.²¹⁶ Fermi knew that by exposing uranium to a stream of neutron bullets that first isotope uranium²³⁹ would be created, and then a new element, with atomic number 93, would form which never existed in nature.²¹⁷ Bombardment by neutrons caused the uranium atom to split into two lighter elements which themselves spontaneously emitted neutrons. The implications of this phenomenon, called chain reaction, were not missed by Szilard.²¹⁸ Bombarding a small quantity of pure U²³⁵ isotope with neutrons would initiate a chain reaction resulting in an atomic explosion.²¹⁹ Enrico Fermi, at the University of Chicago, succeeded in establishing the first nuclear chain reaction on December 2, 1942.²²⁰ To give a sense of how important Szilard actually was, consider that he held a joint patent with Fermi for the invention of the nuclear reactor. You don't get too much more important than that in the world of nuclear physics.²²¹

When Szilard told Einstein about his own research into uranium chain reactions, he was surprised to learn that Einstein was not aware of chain reactions. He quickly understood the implications when Szilard explained the nuclear bomb to him. Einstein was willing to allow his colleagues to utilize his prestige to simplify the process of informing and persuading government authorities in America and England to engage in constructing a nuclear weapon. Above all, scientists do not like to appear foolish, but Einstein held a special status so he could lend his name to a risky bomb project without fear of endangering his reputation.²²² Alexander Sachs was an economist who was known to Einstein and Szilard; he also had the ear of President Roosevelt. It was Sachs who delivered the letter from Einstein and Szilard to Roosevelt. He explained the meaning of the atom bomb in non-scientific terms, and sold the president on this project of constructing the first nuclear weapon.²²³ My point is that the man most associated with originating the idea of the atom bomb was Einstein's student, colleague and close friend, and together these two new-comers to America petitioned the president of the United States to authorize the Manhattan project. The concept of nuclear fission was critical to the creation of the bomb, and this idea was best understood by Einstein's famous formula: E=mc².

Nuclear fission occurs when an unstable uranium nucleus, which is like a liquid drop, is hit by a neutron; the nucleus stretches into the shape of a dumb bell and then splits into two separate nuclei -- but not of uranium, but barium and krypton in some cases. Now uranium is heavier than barium and krypton.²²⁴ It is Einstein's relativity formula E=mc² that describes this process of splitting the atom. The central phenomenon of nuclear fission is that matter is converted into energy -- the explosive energy of the atom bomb! "If the large uranium nucleus split into two smaller nuclei, the smaller nuclei would weigh less in total than their common parent. How much less? That was a calculation she could easily work: about one-fifth the mass of a proton less. Process one-fifth of the mass of a proton through E=mc². 'One fifth of a proton mass, ' Frisch exclaims, 'was just equivalent to 200 MeV. So here was the source for that energy; it all fitted! ' "²²⁵ Think of how heavy lead is. Recall the history of alchemy and efforts to transform lead into gold. Something not so unlike this occurs in nuclear fission. However, it is not the resulting matter that is most important in this transformation process, but the release of atomic energy!

Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch were refugees living in Scandinavia, and had learned of the transformation of uranium into lighter substances, particularly barium, from the recent experimental results of her former German colleagues Hahn and Strassmann. Otto Hahn, who shared his discovery of nuclear fission with Lise Meitner,²²⁶ believed that it would be dangerous for the world as a whole if Hitler should have sole access to nuclear weapons.²²⁷ The person Meitner and Frisch turned to with this vital information from Germany was the most prominent physicist in Europe: Neils Bohr.²²⁸ In 1932, the Danish Academy awarded Bohr and his family the right, for life, to live in the Danish House of Honor, and this elevated Bohr to a stature in society almost rivaling that of the king himself.²²⁹ Frisch visited Bohr to inform him of these extraordinary developments, and disclosed how he and Lise Meitner interpreted the revolutionary discovery made by the Germans Hahn and Strassman. It took Bohr but an instant to recognize the importance of what he was being told. He was so struck by the implications of this revelation that he graciously dismissed his visitor after a meeting of only a few minutes. Bohr clearly had urgent matters on his mind.²³⁰ The missing piece to the atomic puzzle had been found by the Germans, but perhaps they did not yet realize what they had witnessed with their own eyes: nuclear fission. His mission was to pass this vital insight to those who would not fail to appreciate its immense value. Bohr now understood the long sought secret of the atom bomb, and this, combined with his social stature and political influence made him the most powerful man on Earth. He would waste no time in taking full advantage of a discovery less prudent men had squandered.

According to official history, "Bohr's contributions to twentieth-century physics would rank second only to Einstein's. He would become a scientist-statesman of unmatched foresight."²³¹ But that was not necessarily the way the heavy hitters in the game of geopolitical nuclear power saw things. Einstein had established himself at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. His reputation guaranteed him a fine, spacious office. However, when his long time rival Neils Bohr came on the scene with his victorious solution to the problem of nuclear fission, Einstein relocated to a secretary's office nearby.²³² What I mean to suggest here is that Bohr was second to no one in the academic or political world, and both he and Einstein knew it. The little "Swiss watchmaker's" influence was fading, and the man calling the shots in the most important research ever engaged in the history of physics was Neils Bohr. This is not to say that Bohr single handedly masterminded the bomb, or that he had not made his share of miscalculations, but only that he was the one person to whom both scientists like Oppenheimer and political leaders around the world would turn for guidance in both making the bomb and deciding to deploy it. Most incredibly, not only did the bomb makers at Los Alamos seek his counsel, but so also did those from Berlin!

In 1941 Heisenberg understood the procedure for converting uranium into a form suitable to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. German scientists, including Werner Heisenberg, von Weizsacker and Houtermans, saw few obstacles preventing them from developing an atomic bomb. Heisenberg was very troubled about creating such a weapon, and wished to exchange thoughts on this matter that so tormented him with his old friend Neils Bohr. Such a meeting with a prominent ally of Germany's enemy was dangerous for Heisenberg and suspicious from Bohr's perspective. Heisenberg evidently wished to inform Bohr that Germany would not develop an atom bomb in the hope that Bohr might some day act as a restraining force in the face of those who would use such a weapon against Germany. Heisenberg and Bohr could not speak openly about bomb research and this led to a misunderstanding between the two men. Heisenberg gave Bohr a sketch of a reactor he planed to build. Bohr was unable to determine if Heisenberg was sincere or operating on a mission of dis-information with nazi approval. Whatever Heisenberg's purpose may have been, Bohr could not trust him. He could hear only one message from Heisenberg: the Germans knew a great deal about the atomic bomb.²³³ Even with Bohr's public campaign for international openness in the exchange of scientific information, it is hard to imagine that Heisenberg could expect an outspoken adversary of Nazi Germany to share highly sensitive information concerning the atom bomb with a nuclear scientist of the Third Reich, however close their friendship might once have been. Heisenberg's drawing of a nuclear reactor indicated to those on the Manhattan Project that Heisenberg did not yet have an accurate understanding of how such a reactor must be designed. Some dismissed his drawing as mere dis-information.²³⁴ Rhodes gives the impression that Heisenberg sought to discourage the German leadership from focusing full energy on the bomb. Hitler was known to oppose research that could lead to a nuclear accident in the heart of Germany.²³⁵

While the Germans and Japanese understood the possibilities of nuclear power, they did not realize that the Manhattan team was working with a resolve and efficiency that would surprise even Neils Bohr. When visiting Los Alamos to monitor the development of the atom bomb, Bohr was extremely pleased that the vast industrial capacity of America had been marshaled to solve the most difficult step in constructing the bomb: separating U²³⁵ from U²³⁸. ²³⁶ Both Bohr and the Japanese over-estimated the difficulty of this uranium separation process.²³⁷ With the removal of this obstacle, the bomb had ceased to be a possibility and became an inevitability. As so often happens, success finds many possessive parents. The inventors of the bomb were not exactly from the heartland of America, and they found themselves at odds with their sponsor: the United States Government. As U.S. government officials saw it, the bomb was theirs and they were not willing to share this windfall of power with some international alliance simply because the men who created it wanted it that way.²³⁸ We will return to a very detailed discussion of these political scientists and their ambitions after learning something of the new physics. For now, I would simply like to introduce them as nuclear physicists, and continue this brief account of how nuclear weapons came to be.

General Groves was the military supervisor of the Manhattan Project. The method of compartmentalization was seen as critical to maintaining security in the bomb making process. Only the leading scientists, such as Oppenheimer and Teller, would hold a complete understanding of how the bomb was to be constructed. The others would be informed about the top-secret Manhattan Project only on a need to know basis. Oppenheimer was director of the Manhattan Project and in an exceedingly sensitive position with respect to the national security of the United States. This security conscious general had fought bullishly to get Oppenheimer in the director's position. General Groves did not have a free hand to operate the Manhattan Project; he was accountable to Army counter-intelligence, "and that organization adamantly refused to clear someone whose former fianc�e, wife, brother and sister-in-law had all been members of the Communist Party once and perhaps, gone underground, still were. The general wanted Oppenheimer anyway."²³⁹

This battle of loyalty was to explode after the war in what came to be known as the McCarthy hearings, and was to be fought not only over Oppenheimer, but many other pro-communist activists associated with the bomb. There had been strict government censorship surrounding the Manhattan Project, but Bohr, Szilard and others were making serious efforts to share the secret of the bomb with the Soviet Union. The U.S.S.R. started work on the atom bomb in 1939. The Soviets knew the Americans were working on a nuclear bomb because the names of leading physicists, chemists, mathematicians and metallurgists vanished from the major scientific journals.²⁴⁰ In 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in the United States for having passed secrets concerning the bomb to the Soviet Union during the war. Wigner, Szilard, Wheeler, and Teller had tried to persuade Bohr to keep their nuclear fission research secret so that they would not assist the nazis in developing the bomb, and of course Bohr had no intentions of assisting Germany in that deadly matter. But allies such as the Soviet Union were a different case all together. This was not State Department policy, this was the political vision of Neils Bohr, a man very close to the bomb. He saw physics as an international activity that could not flourish in secrecy. The free exchange of ideas in the world wide scientific community was as essential to physics as free speech is to an open society.²⁴¹ He and his fellow bomb makers had certainly benefited from the flow of information coming from Germany. But he had something more in mind. He was a leading advocate of internationalism. He had the bright idea that the terror of a maddening nuclear standoff between nations offered the hope that internationalism might emerge as the only sane alternative to the ancient passions of national rivalries.²⁴² It is precisely this kind of reasoning which was suggested regarding Wallerstein's interpretation of the cold war. This was the meaning of complementarity, and Bohr was its primary advocate. After the discussion of the new physics that we are about to begin, we will return to other issues involving the bomb, including the internationalist connections of major bomb makers, such as Oppenheimer, Bohr and Szilard.

Germany surrendered just months before the bomb was ready for testing, not merely in the New Mexico desert, but in the theatre of world power -- and there would indeed need to be a cast of hundreds of thousands of unwilling players. A real concern of the U.S. Air Force was that if the bomb makers did not complete their tests on schedule, there would be no Japanese cities remaining on which they could demonstrate their spanking new bomb.²⁴³ Eisenhower did not volunteer an opinion when he was told that the military planned to drop the atom bomb on Japan. His fight had been in Europe and not in Asia so he felt it was not his place to offer advice. However, when pressed to respond, Eisenhower said he opposed using it for two reasons. In the first place, he thought it obvious that the Japanese were already trying to surrender and could be defeated by continued use of conventional bombs. Eisenhower's second objection was simply that he did not wish to see his country be the first to use such a horrendous weapon, particularly when it was not necessary.²⁴⁴ This suggests to me that perhaps, in the European arena where Eisenhower had a voice in decision making, he would have rejected using the atom bomb, although the firebombing of women and children in Dresden and elsewhere in Germany seemed morally acceptable to him. As we shall later see, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and Teller had worked out their own nuclear plans for attacking Germany.

The United States and Great Britain both deliberately bombed civilians, although neither would publicly admit it. They used the same kind of dehumanizing terms as the Germans did to conceal their actions from public opinion back home. In this case, Churchill spoke of "de-housing" the Germans; the fact that German women and children were being killed in the process seemed inconsequential.²⁴⁵ Amazingly, those who win wars are never found to have committed war crimes. The efforts of these bomb makers were not going to be in vain because of the Japanese bowing out of a losing fight. There could be no surrender when a demonstration of power was so pains-takingly prepared for the whole world to witness. They weren't about to engage in foreplay for a few years and then just walk away. The American intelligence community had intercepted and translated messages from Tokyo to their Moscow embassy indicating that they were trying to engage the Soviets in arranging a Japanese surrender. The problem was that the U.S. and England were making it very difficult for the Japanese to surrender.²⁴⁶ Americans should reflect for a moment on the necessity of having demanded the Japanese accept unconditional surrender. Upon hearing of the devastation caused in Japan by the atom bomb, uncle Joe Stalin could not let the Japanese pleas for peace go unanswered. He immediately declared war on Japan.²⁴⁷ One bombing of Japan was not sufficient. It was necessary to drop a second bomb in the event the Japanese had failed to notice the horror of Hiroshima, and to suggest to them that there were many more to follow if they did not agree to an immediate unconditional surrender. Actually the Americans could be slightly more flexible on terms of surrender now that the Japanese had so graciously assisted them in accomplishing their primary goal of demonstrating both Little Boy and Fat Man.²⁴⁸ Those racist Japs sure were taught a lesson by our boys in Air Force blue, weren't they?

The atom bomb was not an accidental discovery, or the idea of stupid men. The sharpest scientific minds of the age are to be credited with this ungodly creation. The man who projected the body count from the bomb blasts was a genius named John Von Neumann, the prominent mathematician. He was the compressions specialist in the atom bomb project. Teller recalls that everyone's friend "Johnny" was an explosives expert.²⁴⁹ But we will learn later that "Johnny" was not your all American boy, at least not the kind that fought and died on the beaches of Normandy or in the jungles of Asia. There were not many Johnnys among the major league players from Manhattan; they had names like: Einstein, Szilard, Fermi, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Teller, von Neumann, Wigner, Meitner, Frisch, and Feynman.

In a section titled "Hitler: 'Psychic', Shaman, or Paranoiac?", Ehrenwald condemns Hitler for uncritical reliance on intuition, for lacking rational judgement. But he and others praise Einstein, Dirac and creative thinkers in general for their intuitive approach to the arts and sciences. Harmless mystical types, removed from the instruments of power, are to be appreciated for their psychic qualities, but these same features in the leaders of nations have invariably catastrophic results.²⁵⁰ This is the judgement of history, or so we are told. Long before this journey has run its course, we will discover that the intuitive genius of honored men and women of science has shaped our world in destructive ways that we today can see with something of the horror Hitler saw, as he tried to resist the assaults from this devastating tidal wave of one world socialism.

The creation and use of the atom bomb, thus ending World War II, did not mark the end to nuclear weapons development, only its beginning. Once tasted, power becomes addictive. Teller comments that the atomic bomb was the primary objective at Los Alamos during the war, but Oppenheimer and other prominent physicists believed their work at Los Alamos would not be finished until they knew if it was possible to construct a thermonuclear bomb.²⁵¹ The hydrogen bomb was to be vastly more powerful than the atomic bomb. The idea was to add about 12 kilograms of liquid heavy hydrogen to the ordinary fission bomb. The fission bomb would explode creating extremely high temperatures enabling the hydrogen to undergo a fusion reaction resulting in a heavier element and a burst of energy -- a force 500 times greater than was released by the first fission bomb. It was Teller who master-minded this nuclear fusion bomb. There was a fear among some scientists that these powerful bombs could ignite the nitrogen in the atmosphere or the hydrogen in the oceans causing a chain reaction to spread wildly out of control destroying the entire planet.²⁵² This evidently did not happen, but the long term environmental consequences of this nuclear weapons madness is by no means clear. When witnessing the disruption of ocean temperatures, weather patterns and nature's seasonal cycles, one cannot help but wonder if there are causes beyond the official explanations for these calamitous changes. One thing is certain, this kind of information is held in secret for "eyes" only that have a need to know. Unless we demand to know, unless we choose to entangle ourselves with the all too difficult lessons of twentieth century nuclear physics, we will become the automatons of the new millennium. We won't need to know anything because all thought of any value will be reduced to calculation, and the momentum will shift toward soul-less machines, the collective property-of-The-State that we ourselves are becoming ..slaves.

Creators of the atomic bomb: debasing nuclear power into a totalitarian order in the new world

                                     END NOTES

109.Barrow, p.139

110.Weinberg, p.3

111.Barrow, p.76

112.Barrow, p.91

113.Weinberg, p.13

114.Weinberg, p.13

115.Weinberg, p.169

116.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.29

117.Barrow, p.77-8

118.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.285-8

119.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.328

120.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.126

121.Davies, Paul (Editor), The New Physics, Effective Quantum Field Theories by H.M.Georgi, pp.454-457

122.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.330

123.Weinberg, p.174

124.Davies, Paul (Editor), The New Physics , Overview of Particle Physics by Abdus Salam , p.489

125.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.280

126.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.335

127.Weinberg, p.174

128.Weinberg, p.174

129.Greene, Brian R. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory � 1999 Vintage U.K. Random House 2000 London, p.298

130.Scientific American, April 2000, Volume 282 Number 4. Profile: A Greene Universe, pp.22-23

131.Greene, pp.233-234

132.Greene, p.234  

133.Greene, p. 203 

134.Greene, p.197

135.Greene, p.206

136.Greene, p.206

137.Greene, p.206

138.Greene, p.207

139.Greene, p.263

140.Greene, p.264

141.Greene, p.265

142.Greene, p.265

143.Greene, p.266

144.Greene, p.284 

145.Greene, p.284 

146.Greene, p.285

147.Greene, p.285

148.Greene, p.287

149.Greene, p.298

150.Greene, p.299

151.Greene, p.287

152.Greene, pp.287-288

153.Greene, p.312

154.Greene, p.316

155.Greene, p.352

156.Greene, p.357

157.Greene, p.369

158.Greene, p.333

159.Greene, p.332

160.Greene, pp.331-332

161.Greene, p.344

162.Greene, p.387

163.The West Wing Continuity Guide.htm (westwing.bewarne.com/sitemap.html)

164.The West Wing Continuity Guide.htm (westwing.bewarne.com/sitemap.html)

165.The West Wing Continuity Guide.htm (westwing.bewarne.com/sitemap.html)

166.Greene, pp.365-366

167.Greene, p.366

168.Greene, p.366

169.Weinberg, p.1

170.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.279

171.Davies and Brown, p.134

172.Barrow, p.191

173.Gleick, James, Chaos: Making a New Science , p.88

174.Barrow, p.191

175.Davies and Gribbin, p.95

176.Davies and Brown, p.25

177.Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind , p.313

178.Davies and Brown, p.133

179.Davies and Brown, p.136

180.Davies and Gribbin, p.98

181.Davies and Gribbin, p.104

182.Davies and Gribbin, p.104

183.Davies and Gribbin, p.104

184.Barrow, p.78

185.Pagels, pp.309-310

186.Barrow, pp.190-191

187.Davies and Gribbin, pp.132-133

188.Davies and Gribbin, p.105

189.Gleick, James, Genius: Richard Feynman and Modern Physics , p. 244

190.Weinberg, p.12

191.Barrow, pp. 209-210

192.Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind , p.103

193.Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind , p.106

194.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , pp. 275-276

195.Davies, Paul (Editor), The New Physics , What Is Chaos, That We Should Be Mindful of It? by Joseph Ford, p.370

196.Zohar, Danah, The Quantum Self: Human Nature and Consciousness Defined by the New Physics � 1991 Flamingo, London, p. 33

197.Greene, p.381

198.Greene, p.381

199.Greene, p.382

200.Greene, p.382 

201.Bohm, David and F. David Peat, Science, Order and Creativity � 1987 Bantam Books, New York, pp.52-53

202.Bohm, David and F. David Peat, Science, Order and Creativity , p.53

203.Woolley, p.185

204.Weinberg, p.184

205.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.71

206.Woolley, pp.217-218

207.Woolley, pp.186

208.Woolley, p.187

209.Davies and Gribbin, p. 23

        210.Davies and Gribbin, p.11

211.Woolley, Benjamin, Virtual Worlds: A Journey in Hype and Hyperreality � 1992 Blackwell Publishers, Oxford,  p.216

212.Rhodes, Richard, The Making of the Atomic Bomb  � 1988 Simon & Schuster, New York,  pp.16-17

213.Rhodes,  p.20

214.Rhodes,  p.213

215.Rhodes,  p.202

216.Rhodes,  p.203

217.Rhodes,  p.212

218.Rhodes,  p.266

219.Rhodes,  p.297

220.Rhodes,  p.496

221.Rhodes,  p.508

222.Rhodes,  p.305

223.Rhodes,  p.313

224.Rhodes,  p.259

225.Rhodes,  p.260

226.Rhodes,  pp.260-261

227.Rhodes,  p.312

228.Rhodes,  p.261

229.Rhodes,  p.226

230.Rhodes,  p.261

231.Rhodes,  p.54

232.Rhodes, p.284

233.Rhodes,  pp.383-385

234.Rhodes, p.524

235.Rhodes, pp.404-405

236.Rhodes, p.500

237.Rhodes, p.464

238.Rhodes, p.635

239.Rhodes, p.448

240.Rhodes, pp. 500-501

241.Rhodes, p.294

242.Rhodes, p.644

243.Rhodes, p.639

244.Rhodes, p.688

245.Rhodes, p.476

246.Rhodes, pp.684-685

247.Rhodes, p.736

248.Rhodes, p.738

249.Rhodes, p.480

250.Ehrenwald,  p.197

251.Rhodes, p.546

252.Rhodes, p.418