September
15, 2000
By Peter Schwartz
In the past year, we have
discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and is
probably flat rather than curved. We have found evidence that dark matter fills
the universe. We have completed the first draft of the human genome and started
building the fastest computer to solve even more complex problems in biology.
All these events and more are hints that a scientific revolution is under way.
They challenge old accepted ideas and ways of doing things and open pathways
into the future.
A world of accelerating discontinuities was the core
of the message in Future Shock . The
next scientific revolution, which we can now see emerging will bring at an even
faster pace still greater discontinuities. Recent developments in physics,
biology, chemistry, mathematics, and other disciplines will alter in
revolutionary ways our understanding of the natural world. Such shifts in our
worldview often lead to fundamental shifts in social and political thinking and
to huge jumps in technical capabilities.
New tools
Scientific advances often rely on new tools to open
arenas for exploration. The telescope and the microscope changed our view of the
very large and the very small. Atom smashers, now called particle accelerators,
made it possible to explore the interior of the atom. X-ray crystallography made
possible the discovery of the double helix of the DNA molecule.
New scientific tools are leading to profound insights
into the realities of nature. Astronomical instruments, including space-based
technologies such as the Hubble telescope have taken us almost all the way to
the edge of the universe and back to its origins in the Big Bang. Over the
coming decade, we anticipate adding significantly to the existing ranks of
enormous and powerful telescopes. At the other end of the spectrum, the scanning
tunneling microscope has given us the ability to see and manipulate individual
atoms. New imaging techniques have allowed us to observe the dynamics of very
fast chemical reactions. The most important new tool, however, is the computer.
It has given us the ability to create remarkably faithful simulations of
phenomena such as turbulent flow and complex chemical reactions. It has allowed
us to study very large numbers of examples, millions instead of dozens. It has
given us the control systems to manipulate very complex and/or microscopic
processes. Attempts to solve difficult scientific problems continue to advance
the frontiers of computing power. Today’s supercomputers already allow us to
simulate many thousands of potential chemical reactions in order to bring the
most productive few to test in the lab. IBM is currently building the world’s
most powerful computer, Blue Gene, to simulate the complex 3D geometry and
dynamics of protein molecules.
The Internet was first a tool for accelerating
scientific communication. Research used to be subjected to an extended process
that included peer review, publishing, challenges, retesting, and so on. It took
months or even years. Today, an experiment is conducted in the morning and the
results are posted on the Net by lunchtime. By midafternoon, they are being
validated elsewhere in the world and confirmed by the end of the day.
Ideas can be key tools, too. An important new idea has
emerged in recent years, the mathematics of chaos. A whole new way of seeing
change in evolving systems has been rigorously described by this new
mathematical discipline. Two new principles of change emerge from chaos theory.
Small changes at the beginning of a process of evolution can have very large
effects further downstream. Second, the outcome of a process is dependent upon
the path it took to get there. Small, almost random changes accumulate over time
to make the developmental path of every system in nature unique, if only
slightly. On every tree, the leaves are very similar, but not identical. In the
universe, there are many spiral galaxies, but none is the duplicate of our own
Milky Way. Uniqueness is the product of every unique event that occurs along the
way, adding up in this instance to leaves or galaxies of slightly different
shapes and sizes.
There is an interplay among science, technology, and
society. New scientific principles may enable new technologies that lead to new
scientific tools and the social consequences of new technology. The issues
surrounding cloning, for example, embody all these dimensions. New tools also
lead to new scientific ideas. New ideas can lead to social change. The science
of Newton influenced the philosophy of Hume. Relativity, uncertainty, and
evolution continue to have enormous effects on social thought, as well as major
technological consequences.
Big rewards
The technological fruits of scientific advances usually motivate those who
fund research. The solutions to many scientific problems came through meeting
the needs of military establishments. Today’s microchips and micro-manufacturing
are the result of the military’s need to miniaturize equipment.
Now, however, commercial interests drive research. The federal Human Genome
Project was driven to complete its work much faster by commercial competition.
Abundant venture capital and megacorporations are all channeling risk capital to
the frontiers of science and technology, trying to develop profitable
intellectual property. The rewards for technological advances can be huge,
providing a powerful incentive for funding.
Along with the traditional motives of scientific curiosity, the same financial
rewards also draw many of the best minds into scientific research. The
combination of powerful new tools, abundant talent, and financial resources
creates an environment conducive to fundamental breakthroughs. There is no
guarantee of such advances; there is always an element of serendipity. But these
are the optimum conditions.
Is the story over?
There are those, such as writer John Horgan, who
believe we are at The End of Science .
The important questions are either almost all answered, with only a few details
to be filled in, or they are forever beyond the limits of science. The edifice
of physics is nearly complete, while the relationship between the mind and the
brain will remain forever illusive. But those who advance this line of thought
are no more likely to be right than the committee of the American Physical
Society that worried near the end of the 19th century that there soon would be a
large surplus of physicists because all the important questions had been
answered.
People working from the knowledge base that existed in
1890 could not have anticipated the great discoveries of the 20th century.
Relativity, quantum theory, and DNA were literally unimaginable. Many great
questions remain with us today. And history tells us that answering questions
often opens up entirely new terrain to be explored. Unifying the competing
theories of physics, discovering how the human genome works and how the brain
functions are only a few of the current questions. Some may be answered soon and
others may still be with us at the end of this century. We can, however, see
some of what may be near at hand.
A broad, deep revolution
Part of what makes these advances revolutionary is
that fundamental changes are developing across many disciplines. Although I
focus here on physics, biology, and chemistry, I could have covered many
additional disciplines. And, as we shall see, they all feed each other.
In physics, we are experiencing profound changes in
the way we understand the universe–at both ends of the scale, from the boundless
reaches of the stars to the space at the heart of subatomic particles. The
deepest problem in physics today is that there is a fundamental conflict between
relativity, which describes the nature of the large-scale universe very well,
and quantum mechanics, which is useful at the other end of the scale. One or the
other could be right, but not both.
The powerful new tools of astronomy and
astrophysics–which include not only the more traditional Hubble and ground-based
Keck Observatory, but also instruments that explore using X-rays, gamma-rays,
and radio waves–are leading to often-surprising discoveries. We have found that
the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate rather than a constant or
decelerating rate. This challenges our model of the composition of the universe.
Some unknown force is causing the acceleration.
Meanwhile, new findings in particle research and new
theoretical concepts such as superstrings are leading to a revision of our ever
more subtle model of the subatomic realm. Superstring theory has the potential
to resolve the conflict between relativity and quantum theory; it may be the
unifying theory of everything. (The best book on the subject is Brian Greene’s
The Elegant Universe .)
One of the consequences of the previous revolution in
physics, which occurred at the beginning of the past century, was that reality
got weird. In the 19th century, physics made the world more comprehensible. It
was assumed that the real world operated like a vast clock. If we were to
identify all its pieces and figure out how they work, we would understand the
nature of things. It was not hard to visualize the causal cascade of events that
would explain why things are as they are.
Then along came relativity and quantum theory.
Suddenly space and time became malleable and fluid. Heisenberg showed us that
thanks to the dynamics of very small things, it was impossible to know just
where a thing was or how fast it was moving in what direction and so on.
Uncertainty is in the nature of things. We now have great difficulty imagining
the workings of physical reality. After all, can anyone really imagine the Big
Bang…a unique discontinuity in the fabric of space-time that suddenly exploded
in a flash of enormous energy to create the universe? We’ve been here before. In
the West, one of the earliest models of the universe was erected by Ptolemy. It
worked fairly well, except for the fact that it assumed that our planet was the
center of the universe and that everything rotated around the Earth. As
astronomy got more sophisticated, we had to invent ever more elaborate
mathematical models to make Ptolemy’s picture of reality work. The astral cycles
of heavenly movement became cycles within cycles within cycles. Until finally
Copernicus suggested we imagine the Sun was the center of the system. The way we
conceived the workings of the universe literally shifted and it was simple again
both in perception and in mathematics.
The present moment in physics has the whiff of
Ptolemaic epicycles about it. Perhaps the universe is actually incredibly
complex and incomprehensible. Or, just maybe, it is our models that have become
complex and incomprehensible. Perhaps new theories will yield ways of seeing
things that are not as simple minded as the clockwork universe of the 19th
century or as illusive as the unimaginable world of the 20th century. In our new
understanding of the relationships of the very large to the very small, we may
literally revisualize the universe around us.
Scenarios for the revolution
The outcome of these revolutionary dynamics is
uncertain. Perhaps those who argue that there is no new revolution are right.
It’s all details from here on, or we’ll never figure it out, but in any case the
story is mostly over. In this scenario, we are unlikely to be surprised by much
in the coming decades. The world of 2030 will mostly resemble today–maybe a bit
higher-tech, but no radical departures from current science and technology.
But what if these developments are truly revolutionary
and they interact, feeding on one another along with many other fields to drive
an explosive period of change? In part, of course, the drive comes from the high
rewards now available for new technology. But wealth, ideas, talent, and power
could combine to fuel a revolution in science and technology–leading to the
development of a conceptual "singularity," in the words of Vernor Vinge. Indeed,
it becomes progressively difficult to imagine the emerging world as the pace and
magnitude of change continue to accelerate.
Still, we can picture a highly interconnected universe
in which human action matters, but one in which control is extremely difficult.
We could have remarkable new capabilities to manufacture new devices and new
materials in ecologically benign ways. We might even develop new clean energy
sources. It would be as different from today as our world of airplanes and
automobiles is from the world when people traveled about in horse-drawn buggies
and steamships.
If history is a guide and the signals of revolution we
already can see are significant, then I would bet on the singularity scenario
unfolding with the coming scientific revolution.