The Answer is the Question

"The success of the scientific method in the past has encouraged us to think that with enough time and effort we can unravel nature's mysteries. But hitting the absolute limit of the scientific explanation - not a technological obstacle or the current but progressing edge of human understanding - would be a singular event, one for which past experience could not prepare us." [385]

This is quite the statement. It is potent with meaning and value beyond just the context of this novel. Greene is trying to establish the concept of pushing into the unknown; travelling farther down the rabbit hole. The reason for doing so is because he is concluding his novel. As it becomes more relevant throughout the novel, Greene does not have all the answers to every question we ask. Although it may seem ridiculous to think otherwise, we at least need to be assured that his work has the potential to provide us with the answers. If he can demonstrate that his work will provide us with new knowledge, then we will be convinced and amazed at the capabilities of Theoretical Physics, and come to use it in more common practice.

Up to this point in the novel, Greene has gone about building his structure. This structure is a collaborative process much like any academic subject would be: you must have the basics installed before you can progress. Sure you can buy a spoiler, some fluffy dice, and a little hula girl, but what good are they if you don't have car. The same applies to Greene's novel: if he didn't introduce you his premises you would never have understood nor accepted his ideas. So from that we can deduce that Greene has intentionally led us up to this point, and that if his structure and presentation were both sufficient, we should come to accept his final point.

We revisit Greene's purpose when he precedes the quote above with this idea; "The road from this "in principle" ratiocination to an "in practice" fact is encumbered by many hurdles." [383]

Here he is again, proving his intention of convincing society that his academic does, in fact, fit into the category of the Sciences. He labels the "gap" I discussed in my first blog as "hurdles". Then he goes on in explanation to fill this gap, the beautiful thing about this concluding chapter is that it is built from the previous ones. Due to this form of logic, it becomes so easy for the reader to follow his thoughts and agree with them. Because his previous arguments in each chapter were concise, clear, and well presented; appealing to the human’s intuition, we were led to accept each thesis from each chapter. If not, it was at least clear to see the point he had made, and like a well performed lawyer in a court of law, Greene leaves these points discretely disconnected until the very end when he collaborates his arguments and asserts his verdict to the jury. He shows the reader the path to believing and understanding conclusion and so I am awed at not just the material of the book, but the art of it as well. In any situation, Greene is proclaiming that we should expect the unexpected – as cliché as that may be. In doing so he has essentially grouped Theoretical Physics and Science into the same generalized idea; that if Theoretical Physics hits a dead end, then can be associated with the limits of Science as a whole. This brilliantly, again, persuades the reader to assume that they are of the same origin and nature. Nonetheless, he eloquently finishes his novel with a quote assuring us that life and life’s work is not about finding all the answers, but living fully in the pursuit of the answers. I, for one, was left satisfied and hopeful, with dazzling stars in my eyes.

“As we fix our sight on the future and anticipate all the wonders yet in store for us, we should also reflect back and marvel at the journey we have taken so far. The search for the fundamental laws of the universe is a distinctly human drama, one that has stretched the mind and enriched the spirit... We are all, each seekers of the truth and we each long for an answer to why we are here... And as our generation marvels at our new view of the universe – our new of asserting the world’s coherence – we are fulfilling our part; contributing our rung to the human ladder reaching for the stars” [387]

Physics is in Everything: is Theory?

"What happens to space if a massive object like the sun is present? Before Einstein the answer was nothing;... Einstein [led] to the remarkable suggestion that the presence of mass, such as the sun, causes the fabric of space around it to warp," [68]

Incredible! This picture illustrates Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. As you can see, the object in orbit to the earth is in fact falling down a curved slope. Another image you can have to understand this is that of a whirlpool in a sink or bath tub. You can see the small bits of soap or shampoo accelerating towards the drain, then once those items are in the whirlpool, they swirl downward into the drain. My first immediate thought was that this implies all objects in orbit are falling toward the earth. Which is frightening to think of at first, but then I realized that there is a simple explanation that fits nicely into this theory. The only thing that causes an object to fall into the earth is something that slows it velocity down. The reason why an object is slowing down might be friction. If there is friction experienced in outer space then, yes, the objects will slow down. Our atmosphere extends way beyond in outer space, as it does so, it decreases in it size and its dispersion increases. So a satellite for example comes into contact with a very small amount of our atmosphere while in orbit. This means that yes, our satellite is therefore falling towards earth, but at a very slow rate; so slow in fact that we don't need to worry about it in our lifetime. Although there are a great deal of unexplained reasons to this theory, it would seem at least intuitively correct to some degree.

The novel thus far has done an excellent job at portraying conceptual ideas to the reader. Through the use of visual diagrams and common analogies, Greene invites the intuition of the reader and captivates the imagination with his ideas. Now going back to my first point, I've labelled Greene's purpose to not only educate the reader, but to shift societies perspective on Theoretical Physics. As of late, he has done an exceptional job in my opinion because he has related his ideas to the same tangible and empirical ideas we use in Science. Once he shows us that the method of Theoretical Physics is the same as the Scientific Method, and yields exact and parallel results to that of Science, he can begin to shift societies perspective through our faith in logical reasoning.

We Must Accept; but how?

"...A book that takes on such an abstract subject with the intention of emphasizing the science, not the scientific personalities or the personal anecdotes, might cater to an even smaller audience."

Who would honestly want to read the Almanac? It would appear to be insane to pick up a book with facts and call it a "novel". Brian Greene is a famous physicist in the world of theoretical physics who understands the important connection between the appeal for learning, and the appeal for factual data. In the preface to his novel The Elegant Universe; he sets up the reader with, what appears to be, an honest remark: "This book will not appeal to everyone." (note: not actual quote from book)

After analyzing the first section, I have come to conclude other meanings for why he has used this quoted phrase. In order for you understand what this quote means to me, I must first inform you of its proper context. The page is roughly an introduction to why he wrote the book, how he did it, and to get the reader in a mindset that prepares them for the read ahead. He goes on to say that he was dedicated to writing the book regardless of its social appeal; that he would be satisfied if, "[He] reached one person,...that it would be enough." Of course the word "enough" means enough reason behind his purpose. So from the start we are made to believe that he intends to portray the Science as accurately as possible, regardless of its general appeal to society.

Science is the philosophy of deducing knowledge from your senses; Empiricism. Its hilariously ironic to call Theoretical Physics a form of Science because "theoretical" implies we haven't experienced it yet. Of course if Brian Greene came out and said, "This is technically not Science, but it does use the same process to achieve equally valid conclusions," his book and life's work would lose the potency of its meaning, especially in the hands of the layman. A book is written for society. If the intention of the book is to educate society with your knowledge, you appeal to the bias of the society. This is why Aristotle included the gods in Sophocles; that everyone would derive similar connections and meaning and use that connection to embrace Aristotle's ideas. So when Greene says this quote, and it implies that he is writing something similar to an Almanac, we assume that (because he his absolutely honest in this intention) we are receiving his facts with confidence; that they are accepted as true, and can be used as knowledge.

Today's society is infatuated with Empiricism; that is our bias. If Greene intends to write a novel about his subject, he must appeal to that bias; which he has done. He has underlined his preface with the idea that his knowledge is acceptable as Empirical knowledge. This underlying idea influences our intuition about his work; that we must strive to understand it rather than revoke it. This is brilliant because he has setup the reader's attitude with a bias towards the information he is presenting; we are no longer open minded about the subject matter. Again, there's irony in a Scientific novel proving itself to an Empirical audience. If we accept Science as true because we are Empirical, it would be redundant to write a novel proving what we already believe. Yet, he chooses to write a novel; a way through which we can accept his ideas as true, versus an almanac; just the result.

When we reconsider the irony of Theoretical Physics as a Science, we recall that there is a small disconnect between the two. Greene in this manner is no longer just proving the validity of his work, he's also trying to bridge that small gap between his field of study, and Science. I would love to go into detail regarding the various reasons as to why he might be doing that, but from here on I will keep my bias in perspective and continue to learn form what the novel offers.

Evolution is Nature

“Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” (p. 9)
This is an outrageously false comment. It would seem to defy the laws of nature to have something exist in our world that never changes. That is, of course, any tangible object, or abstract of the mind will always be subject to change. If literature was never evolving, or improving, the world would have never given birth to Homer, Cervantes, or Shakespeare. We as humans would have been satisfied with cave markings as a representation of our imagination and humanity. Of course one could debate at length whether or not literature "improves" however, we see blatant evidence of its change. Sure Romeo and Juliet still strike the heart of every audience member with passion and tragedy, but only its value has stood the test of time. The language and dynamics used to portray the story have vastly gone askew from Shakespeares' work. Words change, plots change; although not by much, the presentation changes, but most importantly, we as humans change. A hundred years from now, "honesty" may not be "the best policy", and the literature of that generation will demonstrate that above anything else. Plays such as A Doll's House would not have been thought of if the literature of that time wasn't attempting to reflect and provide insights on humanity at that time. The single agreeable implication of Frye's quote: “Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” (p. 9) is its application to the goal of literature. Just as science will never stop attempting to define nature in terms of itself, or to describe the world we experience with great accuracy, literature will never cease to capture the essence of mankind and to display it with poweful meaning. Just as David McCullough said in his speech to the graduating class of Boston College in 2008, "It can be like the old piano teacher's lament to her student, I hear all the notes, but I hear no music" and in my opinion, literature will, at least, always be playing music.