Você está na página 1de 336

Chapter 1 - Our Picture of the Universe Chapter 2 - Space and Time Chapter 3 - The Expanding Universe Chapter 4 - The

The Uncertaint Princip!e Chapter " - E!ementar Partic!es and the #orces of $ature Chapter % - &!ac' (o!es Chapter ) - &!ac' (o!es *in+t So &!ac' Chapter , - The Origin and #ate of the Universe Chapter - - The *rro. of Time Chapter 1/ - 0ormho!es and Time Trave! Chapter 11 - The Unification of Ph sics Chapter 12 - Conc!usion 1!ossar *c'no.!edgments 2 *3out The *uthor #O4E0*45 I didnt write a foreword to the original edition of A Brief History of Time. That was done by Carl Sagan. Instead, I wrote a short piece titled Acknowledgments in which I was ad ised to thank e eryone. Some of the fo!ndations that had gi en me s!pport werent too pleased to ha e been mentioned, howe er, beca!se it led to a great increase in applications. I dont think anyone, my p!blishers, my agent, or myself, e"pected the book to do anything like as well as it did. It was in the #ondon Sunday Times best$seller

list for %&' weeks, longer than any other book (apparently, the )ible and Shakespeare arent co!nted*. It has been translated into something like forty lang!ages and has sold abo!t one copy for e ery '+, men, women, and children in the world. As -athan .yhr old of .icrosoft (a former post$doc of mine* remarked/ I ha e sold more books on physics than .adonna has on se". The s!ccess of A Brief History indicates that there is widespread interest in the big 0!estions like/ 1here did we come from2 And why is the !ni erse the way it is2 I ha e taken the opport!nity to !pdate the book and incl!de new theoretical and obser ational res!lts obtained since the book was first p!blished (on April 3ools 4ay, 5677*. I ha e incl!ded a new chapter on wormholes and time tra el. 8insteins 9eneral Theory of :elati ity seems to offer the possibility that we co!ld create and maintain wormholes, little t!bes that connect different regions of space$time. If so, we might be able to !se them for rapid tra el aro!nd the gala"y or tra el back in time. ;f co!rse, we ha e not seen anyone from the

A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=A )rief <istory in Time.html (5 of %* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5&/+7 A.@ f!t!re (or ha e we2* b!t I disc!ss a possible e"planation for this. I also describe the progress that has been made recently in finding d!alities or correspondences between apparently different theories of physics. These correspondences are a strong indication that there is a complete !nified theory of physics, b!t they also s!ggest that it may not be possible to e"press this theory in a single f!ndamental form!lation. Instead, we may ha e to !se different reflections of the !nderlying theory in different sit!ations. It might be like o!r being !nable to represent the s!rface of the earth on a single map and ha ing to !se different maps in different regions. This wo!ld be a re ol!tion in o!r iew of the !nification of the laws of science b!t it wo!ld not change the most important point/ that the !ni erse is go erned by a set of rational laws that we can disco er and !nderstand. ;n the obser ational side, by far the most important de elopment has been the meas!rement of fl!ct!ations in

the cosmic microwa e backgro!nd radiation by C;)8 (the Cosmic )ackgro!nd 8"plorer satellite* and other collaborations. These fl!ct!ations are the finger$ prints of creation, tiny initial irreg!larities in the otherwise smooth and !niform early !ni erse that later grew into gala"ies, stars, and all the str!ct!res we see aro!nd !s. Their form agrees with the predictions of the proposal that the !ni erse has no bo!ndaries or edges in the imaginary time directionA b!t f!rther obser ations will be necessary to disting!ish this proposal from other possible e"planations for the fl!ct!ations in the backgro!nd. <owe er, within a few years we sho!ld know whether we can belie e that we li e in a !ni erse that is completely self$contained and witho!t beginning or end. Stephen <awking A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=A )rief <istory in Time.html (% of %* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5&/+7 A.@ C(*PTE4 1 OU4 P6CTU4E O# T(E U$67E4SE A well$known scientist (some say it was )ertrand :!ssell* once ga e a p!blic lect!re on

astronomy. <e described how the earth orbits aro!nd the s!n and how the s!n, in t!rn, orbits aro!nd the center of a ast collection of stars called o!r gala"y. At the end of the lect!re, a little old lady at the back of the room got !p and said/ 1hat yo! ha e told !s is r!bbish. The world is really a flat plate s!pported on the back of a giant tortoise. The scientist ga e a s!perior smile before replying, 1hat is the tortoise standing on. Bo!re ery cle er, yo!ng man, ery cle er, said the old lady. )!t its t!rtles all the way downC .ost people wo!ld find the pict!re of o!r !ni erse as an infinite tower of tortoises rather ridic!lo!s, b!t why do we think we know better2 1hat do we know abo!t the !ni erse, and how do we know it2 1here did the !ni erse come from, and where is it going2 4id the !ni erse ha e a beginning, and if so, what happened before then2 1hat is the nat!re of time2 1ill it e er come to an end2 Can we go back in time2 :ecent breakthro!ghs in physics, made possible in part by fantastic new technologies, s!ggest answers to some of these longstanding 0!estions. Someday these answers may seem as ob io!s to !s as the earth orbiting

the s!n D or perhaps as ridic!lo!s as a tower of tortoises. ;nly time (whate er that may be* will tell. As long ago as &E, )C the 9reek philosopher Aristotle, in his book On the Heavens, was able to p!t forward two good arg!ments for belie ing that the earth was a ro!nd sphere rather than a <at plate. 3irst, he realiFed that eclipses of the moon were ca!sed by the earth coming between the s!n and the moon. The earths shadow on the moon was always ro!nd, which wo!ld be tr!e only if the earth was spherical. If the earth had been a flat disk, the shadow wo!ld ha e been elongated and elliptical, !nless the eclipse always occ!rred at a time when the s!n was directly !nder the center of the disk. Second, the 9reeks knew from their tra els that the -orth Star appeared lower in the sky when iewed in the so!th than it did in more northerly regions. (Since the -orth Star lies o er the -orth Gole, it appears to be directly abo e an obser er at the -orth Gole, b!t to someone looking from the e0!ator, it appears to lie H!st at the horiFon. 3rom the difference in the apparent position of the -orth Star in 8gypt and 9reece,

Aristotle e en 0!oted an estimate that the distance aro!nd the earth was E,,,,,, stadia. It is not known e"actly what length a stadi!m was, b!t it may ha e been abo!t %,, yards, which wo!ld make Aristotles estimate abo!t twice the c!rrently accepted fig!re. The 9reeks e en had a third arg!ment that the earth m!st be ro!nd, for why else does one first see the sails of a ship coming o er the horiFon, and only later see the h!ll2 Aristotle tho!ght the earth was stationary and that the s!n, the moon, the planets, and the stars mo ed in circ!lar orbits abo!t the earth. <e belie ed this beca!se he felt, for mystical reasons, that the earth was the center of the !ni erse, and that circ!lar motion was the most perfect. This idea was elaborated by Gtolemy in the second cent!ry A4 into a complete cosmological model. The earth stood at the center, s!rro!nded by eight spheres that carried the moon, the s!n, the stars, and the fi e planets known at the time, .erc!ry, Ien!s, .ars, J!piter, and Sat!rn. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen

<awking $ A brief history of time=n.html (5 of '* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/,K A.@ 3ig!re 5/5 The planets themsel es mo ed on smaller circles attached to their respecti e spheres in order to acco!nt for their rather complicated obser ed paths in the sky. The o!termost sphere carried the so$called fi"ed stars, which always stay in the same positions relati e to each other b!t which rotate together across the sky. 1hat lay beyond the last sphere was ne er made ery clear, b!t it certainly was not part of mankinds obser able !ni erse. Gtolemys model pro ided a reasonably acc!rate system for predicting the positions of hea enly bodies in the sky. )!t in order to predict these positions correctly, Gtolemy had to make an ass!mption that the moon followed a path that sometimes bro!ght it twice as close to the earth as at other times. And that meant that the moon o!ght sometimes to appear twice as big as at other timesC Gtolemy recogniFed this flaw, b!t ne ertheless his model was generally, altho!gh not !ni ersally, accepted. It was adopted by the Christian ch!rch as the

pict!re of the !ni erse that was in accordance with Script!re, for it had the great ad antage that it left lots of room o!tside the sphere of fi"ed stars for hea en and hell. A simpler model, howe er, was proposed in 5+5E by a Golish priest, -icholas Copernic!s. (At first, perhaps for fear of being branded a heretic by his ch!rch, Copernic!s circ!lated his model anonymo!sly.* <is idea was that the s!n was stationary at the center and that the earth and the planets mo ed in circ!lar orbits aro!nd the s!n. -early a cent!ry passed before this idea was taken serio!sly. Then two astronomers D the 9erman, Johannes A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=n.html (% of '* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/,K A.@ Lepler, and the Italian, 9alileo 9alilei D started p!blicly to s!pport the Copernican theory, despite the fact that the orbits it predicted did not 0!ite match the ones obser ed. The death blow to the Aristotelian=Gtolemaic theory came in 5K,6. In that year, 9alileo started obser ing the night sky with a telescope, which had H!st been

in ented. 1hen he looked at the planet J!piter, 9alileo fo!nd that it was accompanied by se eral small satellites or moons that orbited aro!nd it. This implied that e erything did not ha e to orbit directly aro!nd the earth, as Aristotle and Gtolemy had tho!ght. (It was, of co!rse, still possible to belie e that the earth was stationary at the center of the !ni erse and that the moons of J!piter mo ed on e"tremely complicated paths aro!nd the earth, gi ing the appearance that they orbited J!piter. <owe er, Copernic!ss theory was m!ch simpler.* At the same time, Johannes Lepler had modified Copernic!ss theory, s!ggesting that the planets mo ed not in circles b!t in ellipses (an ellipse is an elongated circle*. The predictions now finally matched the obser ations. As far as Lepler was concerned, elliptical orbits were merely an ad hoc hypothesis, and a rather rep!gnant one at that, beca!se ellipses were clearly less perfect than circles. <a ing disco ered almost by accident that elliptical orbits fit the obser ations well, he co!ld not reconcile them with his idea that the planets were made to

orbit the s!n by magnetic forces. An e"planation was pro ided only m!ch later, in 5K7', when Sir Isaac -ewton p!blished his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, probably the most important single work e er p!blished in the physical sciences. In it -ewton not only p!t forward a theory of how bodies mo e in space and time, b!t he also de eloped the complicated mathematics needed to analyFe those motions. In addition, -ewton post!lated a law of !ni ersal gra itation according to which each body in the !ni erse was attracted toward e ery other body by a force that was stronger the more massi e the bodies and the closer they were to each other. It was this same force that ca!sed obHects to fall to the gro!nd. (The story that -ewton was inspired by an apple hitting his head is almost certainly apocryphal. All -ewton himself e er said was that the idea of gra ity came to him as he sat in a contemplati e mood and was occasioned by the fall of an apple.* -ewton went on to show that, according to his law, gra ity ca!ses the moon to mo e in an elliptical orbit aro!nd the earth and ca!ses the earth and the planets to

follow elliptical paths aro!nd the s!n. The Copernican model got rid of Gtolemys celestial spheres, and with them, the idea that the !ni erse had a nat!ral bo!ndary. Since fi"ed stars did not appear to change their positions apart from a rotation across the sky ca!sed by the earth spinning on its a"is, it became nat!ral to s!ppose that the fi"ed stars were obHects like o!r s!n b!t ery m!ch farther away. -ewton realiFed that, according to his theory of gra ity, the stars sho!ld attract each other, so it seemed they co!ld not remain essentially motionless. 1o!ld they not all fall together at some point2 In a letter in 5K65 to :ichard )entley, another leading thinker of his day, -ewton arg!ed that this wo!ld indeed happen if there were only a finite n!mber of stars distrib!ted o er a finite region of space. )!t he reasoned that if, on the other hand, there were an infinite n!mber of stars, distrib!ted more or less !niformly o er infinite space, this wo!ld not happen, beca!se there wo!ld not be any central point for them to fall to. This arg!ment is an instance of the pitfalls that yo! can enco!nter in talking abo!t infinity. In an infinite

!ni erse, e ery point can be regarded as the center, beca!se e ery point has an infinite n!mber of stars on each side of it. The correct approach, it was realiFed only m!ch later, is to consider the finite sit!ation, in which the stars all fall in on each other, and then to ask how things change if one adds more stars ro!ghly !niformly distrib!ted o!tside this region. According to -ewtons law, the e"tra stars wo!ld make no difference at all to the original ones on a erage, so the stars wo!ld fall in H!st as fast. 1e can add as many stars as we like, b!t they will still always collapse in on themsel es. 1e now know it is impossible to ha e an infinite static model of the !ni erse in which gra ity is always attracti e. It is an interesting reflection on the general climate of tho!ght before the twentieth cent!ry that no one had s!ggested that the !ni erse was e"panding or contracting. It was generally accepted that either the !ni erse had e"isted fore er in an !nchanging state, or that it had been created at a finite time in the past more or less as we obser e it today. In part this may ha e been d!e to peoples tendency to belie e in eternal tr!ths, as well

as the comfort they fo!nd in the tho!ght that e en tho!gh they may grow old and die, the !ni erse is eternal and !nchanging. 8 en those who realiFed that -ewtons theory of gra ity showed that the !ni erse co!ld not be static did not think to s!ggest that it might be e"panding. Instead, they attempted to modify the theory by making the A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=n.html (& of '* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/,K A.@ gra itational force rep!lsi e at ery large distances. This did not significantly affect their predictions of the motions of the planets, b!t it allowed an infinite distrib!tion of stars to remain in e0!ilibri!m D with the attracti e forces between nearby stars balanced by the rep!lsi e forces from those that were farther away. <owe er, we now belie e s!ch an e0!ilibri!m wo!ld be !nstable/ if the stars in some region got only slightly nearer each other, the attracti e forces between them wo!ld become stronger and dominate o er the rep!lsi e forces so that the stars wo!ld contin!e to fall toward each

other. ;n the other hand, if the stars got a bit farther away from each other, the rep!lsi e forces wo!ld dominate and dri e them farther apart. Another obHection to an infinite static !ni erse is normally ascribed to the 9erman philosopher <einrich ;lbers, who wrote abo!t this theory in 57%&. In fact, ario!s contemporaries of -ewton had raised the problem, and the ;lbers article was not e en the first to contain pla!sible arg!ments against it. It was, howe er, the first to be widely noted. The diffic!lty is that in an infinite static !ni erse nearly e ery line of sight wo!ld end on the s!rface of a star. Th!s one wo!ld e"pect that the whole sky wo!ld be as bright as the s!n, e en at night. ;lbers co!nter$arg!ment was that the light from distant stars wo!ld be dimmed by absorption by inter ening matter. <owe er, if that happened the inter ening matter wo!ld e ent!ally heat !p !ntil it glowed as brightly as the stars. The only way of a oiding the concl!sion that the whole of the night sky sho!ld be as bright as the s!rface of the s!n wo!ld be to ass!me that the stars had not been shining fore er b!t had t!rned on at some

finite time in the past. In that case the absorbing matter might not ha e heated !p yet or the light from distant stars might not yet ha e reached !s. And that brings !s to the 0!estion of what co!ld ha e ca!sed the stars to ha e t!rned on in the first place. The beginning of the !ni erse had, of co!rse, been disc!ssed long before this. According to a n!mber of early cosmologies and the Jewish=Christian=.!slim tradition, the !ni erse started at a finite, and not ery distant, time in the past. ;ne arg!ment for s!ch a beginning was the feeling that it was necessary to ha e 3irst Ca!se to e"plain the e"istence of the !ni erse. (1ithin the !ni erse, yo! always e"plained one e ent as being ca!sed by some earlier e ent, b!t the e"istence of the !ni erse itself co!ld be e"plained in this way only if it had some beginning.* Another arg!ment was p!t forward by St. A!g!stine in his book The ity of !od. <e pointed o!t that ci iliFation is progressing and we remember who performed this deed or de eloped that techni0!e. Th!s man, and so also perhaps the !ni erse, co!ld not ha e been aro!nd all that long. St. A!g!stine accepted a

date of abo!t +,,, )C for the Creation of the !ni erse according to the book of 9enesis. (It is interesting that this is not so far from the end of the last Ice Age, abo!t 5,,,,, )C, which is when archaeologists tell !s that ci iliFation really began.* Aristotle, and most of the other 9reek philosophers, on the other hand, did not like the idea of a creation beca!se it smacked too m!ch of di ine inter ention. They belie ed, therefore, that the h!man race and the world aro!nd it had e"isted, and wo!ld e"ist, fore er. The ancients had already considered the arg!ment abo!t progress described abo e, and answered it by saying that there had been periodic floods or other disasters that repeatedly set the h!man race right back to the beginning of ci iliFation. The 0!estions of whether the !ni erse had a beginning in time and whether it is limited in space were later e"tensi ely e"amined by the philosopher Imman!el Lant in his mon!mental (and ery obsc!re* work riti"ue of Pure #eason, p!blished in 5'75. <e called these 0!estions antinomies (that is, contradictions* of p!re reason beca!se he felt that there were e0!ally

compelling arg!ments for belie ing the thesis, that the !ni erse had a beginning, and the antithesis, that it had e"isted fore er. <is arg!ment for the thesis was that if the !ni erse did not ha e a beginning, there wo!ld be an infinite period of time before any e ent, which he considered abs!rd. The arg!ment for the antithesis was that if the !ni erse had a beginning, there wo!ld be an infinite period of time before it, so why sho!ld the !ni erse begin at any one partic!lar time2 In fact, his cases for both the thesis and the antithesis are really the same arg!ment. They are both based on his !nspoken ass!mption that time contin!es back fore er, whether or not the !ni erse had e"isted fore er. As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the !ni erse. This was first pointed o!t by St. A!g!stine. 1hen asked/ 1hat did 9od do before he created the !ni erse2 A!g!stine didnt reply/ <e was preparing <ell for people who asked s!ch 0!estions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the !ni erse that 9od created, and that time did not e"ist before the beginning of the !ni erse.

1hen most people belie ed in an essentially static and !nchanging !ni erse, the 0!estion of whether or not it had a beginning was really one of metaphysics or theology. ;ne co!ld acco!nt for what was obser ed e0!ally well on the theory that the !ni erse had e"isted fore er or on the theory that it was set in motion at some finite A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=n.html (E of '* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/,K A.@ time in s!ch a manner as to look as tho!gh it had e"isted fore er. )!t in 56%6, 8dwin <!bble made the landmark obser ation that where er yo! look, distant gala"ies are mo ing rapidly away from !s. In other words, the !ni erse is e"panding. This means that at earlier times obHects wo!ld ha e been closer together. In fact, it seemed that there was a time, abo!t ten or twenty tho!sand million years ago, when they were all at e"actly the same place and when, therefore, the density of the !ni erse was infinite. This disco ery finally bro!ght the 0!estion of the beginning of the !ni erse into the realm of science.

<!bbles obser ations s!ggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the !ni erse was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Mnder s!ch conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the f!t!re, wo!ld break down. If there were e ents earlier than this time, then they co!ld not affect what happens at the present time. Their e"istence can be ignored beca!se it wo!ld ha e no obser ational conse0!ences. ;ne may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply wo!ld not be defined. It sho!ld be emphasiFed that this beginning in time is ery different from those that had been considered pre io!sly. In an !nchanging !ni erse a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being o!tside the !ni erseA there is no physical necessity for a beginning. ;ne can imagine that 9od created the !ni erse at literally any time in the past. ;n the other hand, if the !ni erse is e"panding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. ;ne co!ld still imagine that 9od created the !ni erse at the instant of the big bang, or e en

afterwards in H!st s!ch a way as to make it look as tho!gh there had been a big bang, b!t it wo!ld be meaningless to s!ppose that it was created before the big bang. An e"panding !ni erse does not precl!de a creator, b!t it does place limits on when he might ha e carried o!t his HobC In order to talk abo!t the nat!re of the !ni erse and to disc!ss 0!estions s!ch as whether it has a beginning or an end, yo! ha e to be clear abo!t what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simpleminded iew that a theory is H!st a model of the !ni erse, or a restricted part of it, and a set of r!les that relate 0!antities in the model to obser ations that we make. It e"ists only in o!r minds and does not ha e any other reality (whate er that might mean*. A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two re0!irements. It m!st acc!rately describe a large class of obser ations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it m!st make definite predictions abo!t the res!lts of f!t!re obser ations. 3or e"ample, Aristotle belie ed 8mpedocless theory that e erything was made o!t of fo!r elements, earth,

air, fire, and water. This was simple eno!gh, b!t did not make any definite predictions. ;n the other hand, -ewtons theory of gra ity was based on an e en simpler model, in which bodies attracted each other with a force that was proportional to a 0!antity called their mass and in ersely proportional to the s0!are of the distance between them. Bet it predicts the motions of the s!n, the moon, and the planets to a high degree of acc!racy. Any physical theory is always pro isional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis/ yo! can ne er pro e it. -o matter how many times the res!lts of e"periments agree with some theory, yo! can ne er be s!re that the ne"t time the res!lt will not contradict the theory. ;n the other hand, yo! can dispro e a theory by finding e en a single obser ation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Larl Gopper has emphasiFed, a good theory is characteriFed by the fact that it makes a n!mber of predictions that co!ld in principle be dispro ed or falsified by obser ation. 8ach time new e"periments are obser ed to agree with the

predictions the theory s!r i es, and o!r confidence in it is increasedA b!t if e er a new obser ation is fo!nd to disagree, we ha e to abandon or modify the theory. At least that is what is s!pposed to happen, b!t yo! can always 0!estion the competence of the person who carried o!t the obser ation. In practice, what often happens is that a new theory is de ised that is really an e"tension of the pre io!s theory. 3or e"ample, ery acc!rate obser ations of the planet .erc!ry re ealed a small difference between its motion and the predictions of -ewtons theory of gra ity. 8insteins general theory of relati ity predicted a slightly different motion from -ewtons theory. The fact that 8insteins predictions matched what was seen, while -ewtons did not, was one of the cr!cial confirmations of the new theory. <owe er, we still !se -ewtons theory for all practical p!rposes beca!se the difference between its predictions and those of general relati ity is ery small in the sit!ations that we normally deal with. (-ewtons theory also has the great ad antage that it is m!ch simpler to work with than 8insteinsC*

The e ent!al goal of science is to pro ide a single theory that describes the whole !ni erse. <owe er, the A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=n.html (+ of '* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/,K A.@ approach most scientists act!ally follow is to separate the problem into two parts. 3irst, there are the laws that tell !s how the !ni erse changes with time. (If we know what the !ni erse is like at any one time, these physical laws tell !s how it will look at any later time.* Second, there is the 0!estion of the initial state of the !ni erse. Some people feel that science sho!ld be concerned with only the first partA they regard the 0!estion of the initial sit!ation as a matter for metaphysics or religion. They wo!ld say that 9od, being omnipotent, co!ld ha e started the !ni erse off any way he wanted. That may be so, b!t in that case he also co!ld ha e made it de elop in a completely arbitrary way. Bet it appears that he chose to make it e ol e in a ery reg!lar way according to certain laws. It therefore seems e0!ally reasonable to s!ppose that there are also

laws go erning the initial state. It t!rns o!t to be ery diffic!lt to de ise a theory to describe the !ni erse all in one go. Instead, we break the problem !p into bits and in ent a n!mber of partial theories. 8ach of these partial theories describes and predicts a certain limited class of obser ations, neglecting the effects of other 0!antities, or representing them by simple sets of n!mbers. It may be that this approach is completely wrong. If e erything in the !ni erse depends on e erything else in a f!ndamental way, it might be impossible to get close to a f!ll sol!tion by in estigating parts of the problem in isolation. -e ertheless, it is certainly the way that we ha e made progress in the past. The classic e"ample again is the -ewtonian theory of gra ity, which tells !s that the gra itational force between two bodies depends only on one n!mber associated with each body, its mass, b!t is otherwise independent of what the bodies are made of. Th!s one does not need to ha e a theory of the str!ct!re and constit!tion of the s!n and the planets in order to calc!late their orbits.

Today scientists describe the !ni erse in terms of two basic partial theories D the general theory of relati ity and 0!ant!m mechanics. They are the great intellect!al achie ements of the first half of this cent!ry. The general theory of relati ity describes the force of gra ity and the large$scale str!ct!re of the !ni erse, that is, the str!ct!re on scales from only a few miles to as large as a million million million million (5 with twenty$fo!r Feros after it* miles, the siFe of the obser able !ni erse. N!ant!m mechanics, on the other hand, deals with phenomena on e"tremely small scales, s!ch as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. Mnfort!nately, howe er, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other D they cannot both be correct. ;ne of the maHor endea ors in physics today, and the maHor theme of this book, is the search for a new theory that will incorporate them both D a 0!ant!m theory of gra ity. 1e do not yet ha e s!ch a theory, and we may still be a long way from ha ing one, b!t we do already know many of the properties that it m!st ha e. And we shall see, in later chapters, that we already know a fair

amo!nt abo!t the predications a 0!ant!m theory of gra ity m!st make. -ow, if yo! belie e that the !ni erse is not arbitrary, b!t is go erned by definite laws, yo! !ltimately ha e to combine the partial theories into a complete !nified theory that will describe e erything in the !ni erse. )!t there is a f!ndamental parado" in the search for s!ch a complete !nified theory. The ideas abo!t scientific theories o!tlined abo e ass!me we are rational beings who are free to obser e the !ni erse as we want and to draw logical ded!ctions from what we see. In s!ch a scheme it is reasonable to s!ppose that we might progress e er closer toward the laws that go ern o!r !ni erse. Bet if there really is a complete !nified theory, it wo!ld also pres!mably determine o!r actions. And so the theory itself wo!ld determine the o!tcome of o!r search for itC And why sho!ld it determine that we come to the right concl!sions from the e idence2 .ight it not e0!ally well determine that we draw the wrong concl!sion.2 ;r no concl!sion at all2 The only answer that I can gi e to this problem is based on 4arwins principle of nat!ral selection.

The idea is that in any pop!lation of self$reprod!cing organisms, there will be ariations in the genetic material and !pbringing that different indi id!als ha e. These differences will mean that some indi id!als are better able than others to draw the right concl!sions abo!t the world aro!nd them and to act accordingly. These indi id!als will be more likely to s!r i e and reprod!ce and so their pattern of beha ior and tho!ght will come to dominate. It has certainly been tr!e in the past that what we call intelligence and scientific disco ery ha e con eyed a s!r i al ad antage. It is not so clear that this is still the case/ o!r scientific disco eries may well destroy !s all, and e en if they dont, a complete !nified theory may not make m!ch difference to o!r chances of s!r i al. <owe er, pro ided the !ni erse has e ol ed in a reg!lar way, we might e"pect that the reasoning abilities that nat!ral selection has gi en !s wo!ld be alid also in o!r search for a complete !nified theory, and so wo!ld not lead !s to the wrong concl!sions. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5

file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=n.html (K of '* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/,K A.@ )eca!se the partial theories that we already ha e are s!fficient to make acc!rate predictions in all b!t the most e"treme sit!ations, the search for the !ltimate theory of the !ni erse seems diffic!lt to H!stify on practical gro!nds. (It is worth noting, tho!gh, that similar arg!ments co!ld ha e been !sed against both relati ity and 0!ant!m mechanics, and these theories ha e gi en !s both n!clear energy and the microelectronics re ol!tionC* The disco ery of a complete !nified theory, therefore, may not aid the s!r i al of o!r species. It may not e en affect o!r lifestyle. )!t e er since the dawn of ci iliFation, people ha e not been content to see e ents as !nconnected and ine"plicable. They ha e cra ed an !nderstanding of the !nderlying order in the world. Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from. <!manitys deepest desire for knowledge is H!stification eno!gh for o!r contin!ing 0!est. And o!r goal is nothing less than a complete description of the !ni erse we li e in.

G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=n.html (' of '* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/,K A.@ C(*PTE4 2 SP*CE *$5 T68E ;!r present ideas abo!t the motion of bodies date back to 9alileo and -ewton. )efore them people belie ed Aristotle, who said that the nat!ral state of a body was to be at rest and that it mo ed only if dri en by a force or imp!lse. It followed that a hea y body sho!ld fall faster than a light one, beca!se it wo!ld ha e a greater p!ll toward the earth. The Aristotelian tradition also held that one co!ld work o!t all the laws that go ern the !ni erse by p!re tho!ght/ it was not necessary to check by obser ation. So no one !ntil 9alileo bothered to see whether bodies of different weight did in fact fall at different speeds. It is said that 9alileo demonstrated that Aristotles belief was false by dropping weights from the leaning tower of Gisa. The story is almost certainly !ntr!e, b!t 9alileo did do something e0!i alent/ he rolled balls of

different weights down a smooth slope. The sit!ation is similar to that of hea y bodies falling ertically, b!t it is easier to obser e beca!se the Speeds are smaller. 9alileos meas!rements indicated that each body increased its speed at the same rate, no matter what its weight. 3or e"ample, if yo! let go of a ball on a slope that drops by one meter for e ery ten meters yo! go along, the ball will be tra eling down the slope at a speed of abo!t one meter per second after one second, two meters per second after two seconds, and so on, howe er hea y the ball. ;f co!rse a lead weight wo!ld fall faster than a feather, b!t that is only beca!se a feather is slowed down by air resistance. If one drops two bodies that dont ha e m!ch air resistance, s!ch as two different lead weights, they fall at the same rate. ;n the moon, where there is no air to slow things down, the astrona!t 4a id :. Scott performed the feather and lead weight e"periment and fo!nd that indeed they did hit the gro!nd at the same time. 9alileos meas!rements were !sed by -ewton as the basis of his laws of motion. In 9alileos e"periments, as a

body rolled down the slope it was always acted on by the same force (its weight*, and the effect was to make it constantly speed !p. This showed that the real effect of a force is always to change the speed of a body, rather than H!st to set it mo ing, as was pre io!sly tho!ght. It also meant that whene er a body is not acted on by any force, it will keep on mo ing in a straight line at the same speed. This idea was first stated e"plicitly in -ewtons Principia Mathematica, p!blished in 5K7', and is known as -ewtons first law. 1hat happens to a body when a force does act on it is gi en by -ewtons second law. This states that the body will accelerate, or change its speed, at a rate that is proportional to the force. (3or e"ample, the acceleration is twice as great if the force is twice as great.* The acceleration is also smaller the greater the mass (or 0!antity of matter* of the body. (The same force acting on a body of twice the mass will prod!ce half the acceleration.* A familiar e"ample is pro ided by a car/ the more powerf!l the engine, the greater the acceleration, b!t the hea ier the car, the smaller the acceleration for the same engine. In

addition to his laws of motion, -ewton disco ered a law to describe the force of gra ity, which states that e ery body attracts e ery other body with a force that is proportional to the mass of each body. Th!s the force between two bodies wo!ld be twice as strong if one of the bodies (say, body A* had its mass do!bled. This is what yo! might e"pect beca!se one co!ld think of the new body A as being made of two bodies with the original mass. 8ach wo!ld attract body B with the original force. Th!s the total force between A and B wo!ld be twice the original force. And if, say, one of the bodies had twice the mass, and the other had three times the mass, then the force wo!ld be si" times as strong. ;ne can now see why all bodies fall at the same rate/ a body of twice the weight will ha e twice the force of gra ity p!lling it down, b!t it will also ha e twice the mass. According to -ewtons second law, these two effects will e"actly cancel each other, so the acceleration will be the same in all cases. -ewtons law of gra ity also tells !s that the farther apart the bodies, the smaller the force. -ewtons law of

gra ity says that the gra itational attraction of a star is e"actly one 0!arter that of a similar star at half the distance. This law predicts the orbits of the earth, the moon, and the planets with great acc!racy. If the law were that the gra itational attraction of a star went down faster or increased more rapidly with distance, the orbits of the planets wo!ld not be elliptical, they wo!ld either spiral in to the s!n or escape from the s!n. The big difference between the ideas of Aristotle and those of 9alileo and -ewton is that Aristotle belie ed in a preferred state of rest, which any body wo!ld take !p if it were not dri en by some force ;r imp!lse. In partic!lar, he tho!ght that the earth was at rest. )!t it follows from -ewtons laws that there is no !ni0!e A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (5 of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5+ A.@ standard of rest. ;ne co!ld e0!ally well say that body A was at rest and body B was mo ing at constant speed with respect to body A, or that body B was at rest and body A was mo ing. 3or e"ample, if one sets

aside for a moment the rotation of the earth and its orbit ro!nd the s!n, one co!ld say that the earth was at rest and that a train on it was tra eling north at ninety miles per ho!r or that the train was at rest and the earth was mo ing so!th at ninety miles per ho!r. If one carried o!t e"periments with mo ing bodies on the train, all -ewtons laws wo!ld still hold. 3or instance, playing Ging$Gong on the train, one wo!ld find that the ball obeyed -ewtons laws H!st like a ball on a table by the track. So there is no way to tell whether it is the train or the earth that is mo ing. The lack of an absol!te standard of rest meant that one co!ld not determine whether two e ents that took place at different times occ!rred in the same position in space. 3or e"ample, s!ppose o!r Ging$Gong ball on the train bo!nces straight !p and down, hitting the table twice on the same spot one second apart. To someone on the track, the two bo!nces wo!ld seem to take place abo!t forty meters apart, beca!se the train wo!ld ha e tra eled that far down the track between the bo!nces. The none"istence of absol!te rest therefore meant that

one co!ld not gi e an e ent an absol!te position in space, as Aristotle had belie ed. The positions of e ents and the distances between them wo!ld be different for a person on the train and one on the track, and there wo!ld be no reason to prefer one persons position to the others. -ewton was ery worried by this lack of absol!te position, or absol!te space, as it was called, beca!se it did not accord with his idea of an absol!te 9od. In fact, he ref!sed to accept lack of absol!te space, e en tho!gh it was implied by his laws. <e was se erely criticiFed for this irrational belief by many people, most notably by )ishop )erkeley, a philosopher who belie ed that all material obHects and space and time are an ill!sion. 1hen the famo!s 4r. Johnson was told of )erkeleys opinion, he cried, I ref!te it th!sC and st!bbed his toe on a large stone. )oth Aristotle and -ewton belie ed in absol!te time. That is, they belie ed that one co!ld !nambig!o!sly meas!re the inter al of time between two e ents, and that this time wo!ld be the same whoe er meas!red it, pro ided they !sed a good clock. Time was

completely separate from and independent of space. This is what most people wo!ld take to be the commonsense iew. <owe er, we ha e had to change o!r ideas abo!t space and time. Altho!gh o!r apparently commonsense notions work well when dealing with things like apples, or planets that tra el comparati ely slowly, they dont work at all for things mo ing at or near the speed of light. The fact that light tra els at a finite, b!t ery high, speed was first disco ered in 5K'K by the 4anish astronomer ;le Christensen :oemer. <e obser ed that the times at which the moons of J!piter appeared to pass behind J!piter were not e enly spaced, as one wo!ld e"pect if the moons went ro!nd J!piter at a constant rate. As the earth and J!piter orbit aro!nd the s!n, the distance between them aries. :oemer noticed that eclipses of J!piters moons appeared later the farther we were from J!piter. <e arg!ed that this was beca!se the light from the moons took longer to reach !s when we were farther away. <is meas!rements of the ariations in the distance of the earth from J!piter were, howe er, not ery acc!rate, and so his al!e for the speed

of light was 5E,,,,, miles per second, compared to the modern al!e of 57K,,,, miles per second. -e ertheless, :oemers achie ement, in not only pro ing that light tra els at a finite speed, b!t also in meas!ring that speed, was remarkable D coming as it did ele en years before -ewtons p!blication of Principia Mathematica. A proper theory of the propagation of light didnt come !ntil 57K+, when the )ritish physicist James Clerk .a"well s!cceeded in !nifying the partial theories that !p to then had been !sed to describe the forces of electricity and magnetism. .a"wells e0!ations predicted that there co!ld be wa elike dist!rbances in the combined electromagnetic field, and that these wo!ld tra el at a fi"ed speed, like ripples on a pond. If the wa elength of these wa es (the distance between one wa e crest and the ne"t* is a meter or more, they are what we now call radio wa es. Shorter wa elengths are known as microwa es (a few centimeters* or infrared (more than a ten$tho!sandth of a centimeter*. Iisible light has a wa elength of between only forty and eighty millionths of a

centimeter. 8 en shorter wa elengths are known as !ltra iolet, O rays, and gamma rays. .a"wells theory predicted that radio or light wa es sho!ld tra el at a certain fi"ed speed. )!t -ewtons theory had got rid of the idea of absol!te rest, so if light was s!pposed to tra el at a fi"ed speed, one wo!ld ha e to say what that fi"ed speed was to be meas!red relati e to. It was therefore s!ggested that there was a s!bstance called the PetherP that was present e erywhere, e en in PemptyP space. #ight wa es sho!ld tra el thro!gh the ether as so!nd wa es tra el thro!gh air, and their speed sho!ld therefore be relati e to the ether. 4ifferent obser ers, mo ing relati e to the ether, wo!ld see light A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (% of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5+ A.@ coming toward them at different speeds, b!t lightQs speed relati e to the ether wo!ld remain fi"ed. In partic!lar, as the earth was mo ing thro!gh the ether on its orbit ro!nd the s!n, the speed of light meas!red in the direction of the earthQs motion thro!gh the ether

(when we were mo ing toward the so!rce of the light* sho!ld be higher than the speed of light at right angles to that motion (when we are not mo ing toward the so!rce*. In 577'Albert .ichelson (who later became the first American to recei e the -obel GriFe for physics* and 8dward .orley carried o!t a ery caref!l e"periment at the Case School of Applied Science in Cle eland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the earthQs motion with that at right angles to the earthQs motion. To their great s!rprise, they fo!nd they were e"actly the sameC )etween 577' and 56,+ there were se eral attempts, most notably by the 4!tch physicist <endrik #orentF, to e"plain the res!lt of the .ichelson$.orley e"periment in terms of obHects contracting and clocks slowing down when they mo ed thro!gh the ether. <owe er, in a famo!s paper in 56,+, a hitherto !nknown clerk in the Swiss patent office, Albert 8instein, pointed o!t that the whole idea of an ether was !nnecessary, pro iding one was willing to abandon the idea of absol!te time. A similar point was made a few weeks later by a leading

3rench mathematician, <enri Goincare. 8insteins arg!ments were closer to physics than those of Goincare, who regarded this problem as mathematical. 8instein is !s!ally gi en the credit for the new theory, b!t Goincare is remembered by ha ing his name attached to an important part of it. The f!ndamental post!late of the theory of relati ity, as it was called, was that the laws of science sho!ld be the same for all freely mo ing obser ers, no matter what their speed. This was tr!e for -ewtons laws of motion, b!t now the idea was e"tended to incl!de .a"wells theory and the speed of light/ all obser ers sho!ld meas!re the same speed of light, no matter how fast they are mo ing. This simple idea has some remarkable conse0!ences. Gerhaps the best known are the e0!i alence of mass and energy, s!mmed !p in 8insteins famo!s e0!ation 8Rmc% (where 8 is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light*, and the law that nothing may tra el faster than the speed of light. )eca!se of the e0!i alence of energy and mass, the energy which an obHect has d!e to its motion will add to its mass. In other words, it will make it harder to increase

its speed. This effect is only really significant for obHects mo ing at speeds close to the speed of light. 3or e"ample, at 5, percent of the speed of light an obHects mass is only ,.+ percent more than normal, while at 6, percent of the speed of light it wo!ld be more than twice its normal mass. As an obHect approaches the speed of light, its mass rises e er more 0!ickly, so it takes more and more energy to speed it !p f!rther. It can in fact ne er reach the speed of light, beca!se by then its mass wo!ld ha e become infinite, and by the e0!i alence of mass and energy, it wo!ld ha e taken an infinite amo!nt of energy to get it there. 3or this reason, any normal obHect is fore er confined by relati ity to mo e at speeds slower than the speed of light. ;nly light, or other wa es that ha e no intrinsic mass, can mo e at the speed of light. An e0!ally remarkable conse0!ence of relati ity is the way it has re ol!tioniFed o!r ideas of space and time. In -ewtons theory, if a p!lse of light is sent from one place to another, different obser ers wo!ld agree on the time that the Ho!rney took (since time is

absol!te*, b!t will not always agree on how far the light tra eled (since space is not absol!te*. Since the speed of the light is H!st the distance it has tra eled di ided by the time it has taken, different obser ers wo!ld meas!re different speeds for the light. In relati ity, on the other hand, all obser ers must agree on how fast light tra els. They still, howe er, do not agree on the distance the light has tra eled, so they m!st therefore now also disagree o er the time it has taken. (The time taken is the distance the light has tra eled D which the obser ers do not agree on D di ided by the lights speed D which they do agree on.* In other words, the theory of relati ity p!t an end to the idea of absol!te timeC It appeared that each obser er m!st ha e his own meas!re of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different obser ers wo!ld not necessarily agree. 8ach obser er co!ld !se radar to say where and when an e ent took place by sending o!t a p!lse of light or radio wa es. Gart of the p!lse is reflected back at the e ent and the obser er meas!res the time at which he

recei es the echo. The time of the e ent is then said to be the time halfway between when the p!lse was sent and the time when the reflection was recei ed back/ the distance of the e ent is half the time taken for this ro!nd trip, m!ltiplied by the speed of light. (An e ent, in this sense, is something that takes place at a single point in space, at a specified point in time.* This idea is shown here, which is an e"ample of a space$time diagram... A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (& of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5K A.@ 3ig!re %/5 Msing this proced!re, obser ers who are mo ing relati e to each other will assign different times and positions to the same e ent. -o partic!lar obser ers meas!rements are any more correct than any other obser ers, b!t all the meas!rements are related. Any obser er can work o!t precisely what time and position any other obser er will assign to an e ent, pro ided he knows the other obser ers relati e elocity. -owadays we !se H!st this method to meas!re

distances precisely, beca!se we can meas!re time more acc!rately than length. In effect, the meter is defined to be the distance tra eled by light in ,.,,,,,,,,&&&+KE,6+% second, as meas!red by a cesi!m clock. (The reason for that partic!lar n!mber is that it corresponds to the historical definition of the meter D in terms of two marks on a partic!lar platin!m bar kept in Garis.* 80!ally, we can !se a more con enient, new !nit of length called a light$second. This is simply defined as the distance that light tra els in one second. In the theory of relati ity, we now define distance in A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (E of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5K A.@ terms of time and the speed of light, so it follows a!tomatically that e ery obser er will meas!re light to ha e the same speed (by definition, 5 meter per ,.,,,,,,,,&&&+KE,6+% second*. There is no need to introd!ce the idea of an ether, whose presence anyway cannot be detected, as the .ichelson$.orley e"periment showed. The theory of relati ity does, howe er, force !s to

change f!ndamentally o!r ideas of space and time. 1e m!st accept that time is not completely separate from and independent of space, b!t is combined with it to form an obHect called space$time. It is a matter of common e"perience that one can describe the position of a point in space by three n!mbers, or coordinates. 3or instance, one can say that a point in a room is se en feet from one wall, three feet from another, and fi e feet abo e the floor. ;r one co!ld specify that a point was at a certain latit!de and longit!de and a certain height abo e sea le el. ;ne is free to !se any three s!itable coordinates, altho!gh they ha e only a limited range of alidity. ;ne wo!ld not specify the position of the moon in terms of miles north and miles west of Giccadilly Circ!s and feet abo e sea le el. Instead, one might describe it in terms of distance from the s!n, distance from the plane of the orbits of the planets, and the angle between the line Hoining the moon to the s!n and the line Hoining the s!n to a nearby star s!ch as Alpha Centa!ri. 8 en these coordinates wo!ld not be of m!ch !se in describing the position of the s!n

in o!r gala"y or the position of o!r gala"y in the local gro!p of gala"ies. In fact, one may describe the whole !ni erse in terms of a collection of o erlapping patches. In each patch, one can !se a different set of three coordinates to specify the position of a point. An e ent is something that happens at a partic!lar point in space and at a partic!lar time. So one can specify it by fo!r n!mbers or coordinates. Again, the choice of coordinates is arbitraryA one can !se any three well$defined spatial coordinates and any meas!re of time. In relati ity, there is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates, H!st as there is no real difference between any two space coordinates. ;ne co!ld choose a new set of coordinates in which, say, the first space coordinate was a combination of the old first and second space coordinates. 3or instance, instead of meas!ring the position of a point on the earth in miles north of Giccadilly and miles west of Giccadilly, one co!ld !se miles northeast of Giccadilly, and miles north$west of Giccadilly. Similarly, in relati ity, one co!ld !se a new time coordinate that was the old time (in seconds* pl!s

the distance (in light$seconds* north of Giccadilly. It is often helpf!l to think of the fo!r coordinates of an e ent as specifying its position in a fo!r$ dimensional space called space$time. It is impossible to imagine a fo!r$dimensional space. I personally find it hard eno!gh to is!aliFe three$dimensional spaceC <owe er, it is easy to draw diagrams of two$dimensional spaces, s!ch as the s!rface of the earth. (The s!rface of the earth is two$dimensional beca!se the position of a point can be specified by two coordinates, latit!de and longit!de.* I shall generally !se diagrams in which time increases !pward and one of the spatial dimensions is shown horiFontally. The other two spatial dimensions are ignored or, sometimes, one of them is indicated by perspecti e. (These are called space$time diagrams, like 3ig!re %/5.* A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (+ of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5K A.@ 3ig!re %/% 3or e"ample, in 3ig!re %/% time is meas!red !pward in years and the distance along the line

from the s!n to Alpha Centa!ri is meas!red horiFontally in miles. The paths of the s!n and of Alpha Centa!ri thro!gh space$time are shown as the ertical lines on the left and right of the diagram. A ray of light from the s!n follows the diagonal line, and takes fo!r years to get from the s!n to Alpha Centa!ri. As we ha e seen, .a"wells e0!ations predicted that the speed of light sho!ld be the same whate er the speed of the so!rce, and this has been confirmed by acc!rate meas!rements. It follows from this that if a p!lse of light is emitted at a partic!lar time at a partic!lar point in space, then as time goes on it will spread o!t as a sphere of light whose siFe and position are independent of the speed of the so!rce. After one millionth of a second the light will ha e spread o!t to form a sphere with a radi!s of &,, metersA after two millionths of a second, the radi!s will be K,, metersA and so on. It will be like the ripples that spread o!t on the s!rface of a pond when a stone is thrown in. The ripples spread o!t as a circle that gets bigger as time goes on. If one stacks snapshots of the ripples at different times

one abo e the other, the e"panding circle of ripples will mark o!t a cone whose tip is at the place and time at which the stone hit the water 3ig!re %/&. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (K of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5K A.@ 3ig!re %/& Similarly, the light spreading o!t from an e ent forms a (three$dimensional* cone in (the fo!r$ dimensional* space$time. This cone is called the f!t!re light cone of the e ent. In the same way we can draw another cone, called the past light cone, which is the set of e ents from which a p!lse of light is able to reach the gi en e ent 3ig!re %/E. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (' of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5K A.@ 3ig!re %/E 9i en an e ent G, one can di ide the other e ents in the !ni erse into three classes. Those e ents that can be reached from the e ent G by a particle or wa e tra eling at or below the speed of light are said to

be in the f!t!re of G. They will lie within or on the e"panding sphere of light emitted from the e ent G. Th!s they will lie within or on the f!t!re light cone of G in the space$time diagram. ;nly e ents in the f!t!re of G can be affected by what happens at G beca!se nothing can tra el faster than light. Similarly, the past of G can be defined as the set of all e ents from which it is possible to reach the e ent G tra eling at or below the speed of light. It is th!s the set of e ents that can affect what happens at G. The e ents that do not lie in the f!t!re or past of G are said to lie in the elsewhere of G 3ig!re %/+. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (7 of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5K A.@ 3ig!re %/+ 1hat happens at s!ch e ents can neither affect nor be affected by what happens at G. 3or e"ample, if the s!n were to cease to shine at this ery moment, it wo!ld not affect things on earth at the present time beca!se they wo!ld be in the elsewhere of the e ent when the s!n went o!t 3ig!re %/K.

A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (6 of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5K A.@ 3ig!re %/K 1e wo!ld know abo!t it only after eight min!tes, the time it takes light to reach !s from the s!n. ;nly then wo!ld e ents on earth lie in the f!t!re light cone of the e ent at which the s!n went o!t. Similarly, we do not know what is happening at the moment farther away in the !ni erse/ the light that we see from distant gala"ies left them millions of years ago, and in the case of the most distant obHect that we ha e seen, the light left some eight tho!sand million years ago. Th!s, when we look at the !ni erse, we are seeing it as it was in the past. If one neglects gra itational effects, as 8instein and Goincare did in 56,+, one has what is called the special theory of relati ity. 3or e ery e ent in space$time we may constr!ct a light cone (the set of all possible paths of light in space$time emitted at that e ent*, and since the speed of light is the same at e ery e ent and in e ery direction, all the light cones will be identical and

will all point in the same direction. The theory also tells !s that nothing can tra el faster than light. This means that the path of any obHect thro!gh space and time m!st be represented by a line that lies within the light cone at each e ent on it (3ig. %.'*. The special theory of relati ity was ery s!ccessf!l in e"plaining that the speed of light appears the same to all obser ers (as shown by the .ichelson$.orley e"periment* and in describing what happens when things mo e at speeds close to the speed of light. <owe er, it was inconsistent with the -ewtonian theory of gra ity, which said that obHects attracted each other with a force that depended on the distance between them. This meant that if one mo ed one of the obHects, the force on the other one wo!ld change instantaneo!sly. ;r in other gra itational effects sho!ld tra el with infinite elocity, instead of at or below the speed of light, as the special theory of relati ity re0!ired. 8instein made a n!mber of !ns!ccessf!l attempts between 56,7 and 565E to find a theory of gra ity that was consistent with special relati ity. 3inally, in 565+, he proposed what we now call the general theory

of relati ity. 8instein made the re ol!tionary s!ggestion that gra ity is not a force like other forces, b!t is a conse0!ence of the fact that space$time is not flat, as had been pre io!sly ass!med/ it is c!r ed, or warped, by the distrib!tion A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (5, of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5K A.@ of mass and energy in it. )odies like the earth are not made to mo e on c!r ed orbits by a force called gra ityA instead, they follow the nearest thing to a straight path in a c!r ed space, which is called a geodesic. A geodesic is the shortest (or longest* path between two nearby points. 3or e"ample, the s!rface of the earth is a two$dimensional c!r ed space. A geodesic on the earth is called a great circle, and is the shortest ro!te between two points (3ig. %.7*. As the geodesic is the shortest path between any two airports, this is the ro!te an airline na igator will tell the pilot to fly along. In general relati ity, bodies always follow straight lines in fo!r$dimensional space$time, b!t they

ne ertheless appear to !s to mo e along c!r ed paths in o!r three$dimensional space. (This is rather like watching an airplane flying o er hilly gro!nd. Altho!gh it follows a straight line in three$dimensional space, its shadow follows a c!r ed path on the two$ dimensional gro!nd.* The mass of the s!n c!r es space$time in s!ch a way that altho!gh the earth follows a straight path in fo!r$dimensional space$time, it appears to !s to mo e along a circ!lar orbit in three$dimensional space. 3act, the orbits of the planets predicted by general relati ity are almost e"actly the same as those predicted by the -ewtonian theory of gra ity. <owe er, in the case of .erc!ry, which, being the nearest planet to the s!n, feels the strongest gra itational effects, and has a rather elongated orbit, general relati ity predicts that the long a"is of the ellipse sho!ld rotate abo!t the s!n at a rate of abo!t one degree in ten tho!sand years. Small tho!gh this effect is, it had been noticed before 565+ and ser ed as one of the first confirmations of 8insteins theory. In recent years the e en smaller de iations of the orbits of the other planets from

the -ewtonian predictions ha e been meas!red by radar and fo!nd to agree with the predictions of general relati ity. #ight rays too m!st follow geodesics in space$ time. Again, the fact that space is c!r ed means that light no longer appears to tra el in straight lines in space. So general relati ity predicts that light sho!ld be bent by gra itational fields. 3or e"ample, the theory predicts that the light cones of points near the s!n wo!ld be slightly bent inward, on acco!nt of the mass of the s!n. This means that light from a distant star that happened to pass near the s!n wo!ld be deflected thro!gh a small angle, ca!sing the star to appear in a different position to an obser er on the earth (3ig. %.6*. ;f co!rse, if the light from the star always passed close to the s!n, we wo!ld not be able to tell whether the light was being deflected or if instead the star was really where we see it. <owe er, as the earth orbits aro!nd the s!n, different stars appear to pass behind the s!n and ha e their light deflected. They therefore change their apparent position relati e to other stars. It is normally ery diffic!lt to see

this effect, beca!se the light from the s!n makes it impossible to obser e stars that appear near to the s!n the sky. <owe er, it is possible to do so d!ring an eclipse of the s!n, when the s!ns light is blocked o!t by the moon. 8insteins prediction of light deflection co!ld not be tested immediately in 565+, beca!se the 3irst 1orld 1ar was in progress, and it was not !ntil 5656 that a )ritish e"pedition, obser ing an eclipse from 1est Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the s!n, H!st as predicted by the theory. This proof of a 9erman theory by )ritish scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two co!ntries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later e"amination of the photographs taken on that e"pedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to meas!re. Their meas!rement had been sheer l!ck, or a case of knowing the res!lt they wanted to get, not an !ncommon occ!rrence in science. The light deflection has, howe er, been acc!rately confirmed by a n!mber of later obser ations. Another prediction of general relati ity is that time sho!ld appear to slower near a massi e body like

the earth. This is beca!se there is a relation between the energy of light and its fre0!ency (that is, the n!mber of wa es of light per second*/ the greater the energy, the higher fre0!ency. As light tra els !pward in the earths gra itational field, it loses energy, and so its fre0!ency goes down. (This means that the length of time between one wa e crest and the ne"t goes !p.* To someone high !p, it wo!ld appear that e erything down below was making longer to happen. This prediction was tested in 56K%, !sing a pair of ery acc!rate clocks mo!nted at the top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was nearer the earth, was fo!nd to r!n slower, in e"act agreement with general relati ity. The difference in the speed of clocks at different heights abo e the earth is now of considerable practical importance, with the ad ent of ery acc!rate na igation systems based on signals from satellites. If one ignored the predictions of general relati ity, the position that one calc!lated wo!ld be wrong by se eral milesC -ewtons laws of motion p!t an end to the idea of absol!te position in space. The theory of relati ity

gets rid of absol!te time. Consider a pair of twins. S!ppose that one twin goes to li e on the top of a mo!ntain while the other stays at sea le el. The first twin wo!ld age faster than the second. Th!s, if they met again, one wo!ld be older than the other. In this case, the difference in ages wo!ld be ery small, b!t it wo!ld be m!ch larger if one A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (55 of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5K A.@ of the twins went for a long trip in a spaceship at nearly the speed of light. 1hen he ret!rned, he wo!ld be m!ch yo!nger than the one who stayed on earth. This is known as the twins parado", b!t it is a parado" only if one has the idea of absol!te time at the back of ones mind. In the theory of relati ity there is no !ni0!e absol!te time, b!t instead each indi id!al has his own personal meas!re of time that depends on where he is and how he is mo ing. )efore 565+, space and time were tho!ght of as a fi"ed arena in which e ents took place, b!t which was not

affected by what happened in it. This was tr!e e en of the special theory of relati ity. )odies mo ed, forces attracted and repelled, b!t time and space simply contin!ed, !naffected. It was nat!ral to think that space and time went on fore er. The sit!ation, howe er, is 0!ite different in the general theory of relati ity. Space and time are now dynamic 0!antities/ when a body mo es, or a force acts, it affects the c!r at!re of space and time D and in t!rn the str!ct!re of space$time affects the way in which bodies mo e and forces act. Space and time not only affect b!t also are affected by e erything that happens in the !ni erse. J!st as one cannot talk abo!t e ents in the !ni erse witho!t the notions of space and time, so in general relati ity it became meaningless to talk abo!t space and time o!tside the limits of the !ni erse. In the following decades this new !nderstanding of space and time was to re ol!tioniFe o!r iew of the !ni erse. The old idea of an essentially !nchanging !ni erse that co!ld ha e e"isted, and co!ld contin!e to e"ist, fore er was replaced by the notion of a dynamic, e"panding !ni erse that seemed to

ha e beg!n a finite time ago, and that might end at a finite time in the f!t!re. That re ol!tion forms the s!bHect of the ne"t chapter. And years later, it was also to be the starting point for my work in theoretical physics. :oger Genrose and I showed that 8insteins general theory of relati ity implied that the !ni erse m!st ha e a beginning and, possibly, an end. G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter % file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=a.html (5% of 5%* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/5K A.@ C(*PTE4 3 T(E E9P*$56$1 U$67E4SE If one looks at the sky on a clear, moonless night, the brightest obHects one sees are likely to be the planets Ien!s, .ars, J!piter, and Sat!rn. There will also be a ery large n!mber of stars, which are H!st like o!r own s!n b!t m!ch farther from !s. Some of these fi"ed stars do, in fact, appear to change ery slightly their positions relati e to each other as earth orbits aro!nd the s!n/ they are not really fi"ed at allC This is beca!se

they are comparati ely near to !s. As the earth goes ro!nd the s!n, we see them from different positions against the backgro!nd of more distant stars. This is fort!nate, beca!se it enables !s to meas!re directly the distance of these stars from !s/ the nearer they are, the more they appear to mo e. The nearest star, called Gro"ima Centa!ri, is fo!nd to be abo!t fo!r light$ years away (the light from it takes abo!t fo!r years to reach earth*, or abo!t twenty$three million million miles. .ost of the other stars that are isible to the naked eye lie within a few h!ndred light$years of !s. ;!r s!n, for comparison, is a mere light$min!tes awayC The isible stars appear spread all o er the night sky, b!t are partic!larly concentrated in one band, which we call the .ilky 1ay. As long ago as 5'+,, some astronomers were s!ggesting that the appearance of the .ilky 1ay co!ld be e"plained if most of the isible stars lie in a single disklike config!ration, one e"ample of what we now call a spiral gala"y. ;nly a few decades later, the astronomer Sir 1illiam <erschel confirmed this idea by painstakingly cataloging the positions and

distances of ast n!mbers of stars. 8 en so, the idea gained complete acceptance only early this cent!ry. ;!r modern pict!re of the !ni erse dates back to only 56%E, when the American astronomer 8dwin <!bble demonstrated that o!rs was not the only gala"y. There were in fact many others, with ast tracts of empty space between them. In order to pro e this, he needed to determine the distances to these other gala"ies, which are so far away that, !nlike nearby stars, they really do appear fi"ed. <!bble was forced, therefore, to !se indirect methods to meas!re the distances. -ow, the apparent brightness of a star depends on two factors/ how m!ch light it radiates (its l!minosity*, and how far it is from !s. 3or nearby stars, we can meas!re their apparent brightness and their distance, and so we can work o!t their l!minosity. Con ersely, if we knew the l!minosity of stars in other gala"ies, we co!ld work o!t their distance by meas!ring their apparent brightness. <!bble noted that certain types of stars always ha e the same l!minosity when they are near eno!gh for !s to meas!reA therefore, he arg!ed, if we fo!nd s!ch

stars in another gala"y, we co!ld ass!me that they had the same l!minosity D and so calc!late the distance to that gala"y. If we co!ld do this for a n!mber of stars in the same gala"y, and o!r calc!lations always ga e the same distance, we co!ld be fairly confident of o!r estimate. In this way, 8dwin <!bble worked o!t the distances to nine different gala"ies. 1e now know that o!r gala"y is only one of some h!ndred tho!sand million that can be seen !sing modern telescopes, each gala"y itself containing some h!ndred tho!sand million stars. 3ig!re &/5 shows a pict!re of one spiral gala"y that is similar to what we think o!rs m!st look like to someone li ing in another gala"y. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter & file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=b.html (5 of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/%E A.@ 3ig!re &/5 1e li e in a gala"y that is abo!t one h!ndred tho!sand light$years across and is slowly rotatingA the stars in its spiral arms orbit aro!nd its center abo!t once e ery se eral h!ndred million years. ;!r s!n is H!st an ordinary,

a erage$siFed, yellow star, near the inner edge of one of the spiral arms. 1e ha e certainly come a long way since Aristotle and Gtolemy, when tho!ght that the earth was the center of the !ni erseC Stars are so far away that they appear to !s to be H!st pinpoints of light. 1e cannot see their siFe or shape. So how can we tell different types of stars apart2 3or the ast maHority of stars, there is only one characteristic feat!re that we can obser e D the color of their light. -ewton disco ered that if light from the s!n passes thro!gh a triang!lar$shaped piece of glass, called a prism, it breaks !p into its component colors (its spectr!m* as in a rainbow. )y foc!sing a telescope on an indi id!al star or gala"y, one can similarly obser e the spectr!m of the light from that star or gala"y. 4ifferent stars ha e different spectra, b!t the relati e brightness of the different colors is always e"actly what one wo!ld e"pect to find in the light emitted by an obHect that is glowing red hot. (In fact, the light emitted by any opa0!e obHect that is glowing red hot has a characteristic spectr!m that depends only on its temperat!re D a thermal spectr!m. This means that we can tell a stars

temperat!re from the spectr!m of its light.* .oreo er, we find that certain ery specific colors are missing from stars spectra, and these missing colors may ary from star to star. Since we know that each chemical element absorbs a characteristic set of ery specific colors, by matching these to those that are missing from a stars spectr!m, we can determine e"actly which elements are present in the stars atmosphere. In the 56%,s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars in other gala"ies, they fo!nd something most pec!liar/ there were the same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in o!r own gala"y, b!t they were all shifted by the same relati e amo!nt toward the red end of the spectr!m. To !nderstand the implications of this, we m!st first !nderstand the 4oppler effect. As we ha e seen, isible light consists of fl!ct!ations, or wa es, in the electromagnetic field. The wa elength (or distance from one wa e crest to the ne"t* of light is e"tremely small, ranging from fo!r to se en ten$millionths of a meter. The different wa elengths of light are what the h!man eye sees as different

colors, with the longest wa elengths appearing at the red end of the spectr!m and the shortest wa elengths at the bl!e end. -ow imagine a so!rce of light at a constant distance from !s, s!ch as a star, emitting wa es of light at a constant wa elength. ;b io!sly the wa elength of A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter & file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=b.html (% of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/%E A.@ the wa es we recei e will be the same as the wa elength at which they are emitted (the gra itational field of the gala"y will not be large eno!gh to ha e a significant effect*. S!ppose now that the so!rce starts mo ing toward !s. 1hen the so!rce emits the ne"t wa e crest it will be nearer to !s, so the distance between wa e crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wa elength of the wa es we recei e is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the so!rce is mo ing away from !s, the wa elength of the wa es we recei e will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars mo ing

away from !s will ha e their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectr!m (red$shifted* and those mo ing toward !s will ha e their spectra bl!e$shifted. This relationship between wa elength and speed, which is called the 4oppler effect, is an e eryday e"perience. #isten to a car passing on the road/ as the car is approaching, its engine so!nds at a higher pitch (corresponding to a shorter wa elength and higher fre0!ency of so!nd wa es*, and when it passes and goes away, it so!nds at a lower pitch. The beha ior of light or radio wa es is similar. Indeed, the police make !se of the 4oppler effect to meas!re the speed of cars by meas!ring the wa elength of p!lses of radio wa es reflected off them. ln the years following his proof of the e"istence of other gala"ies, :!bble spent his time cataloging their distances and obser ing their spectra. At that time most people e"pected the gala"ies to be mo ing aro!nd 0!ite randomly, and so e"pected to find as many bl!e$shifted spectra as red$shifted ones. It was 0!ite a s!rprise, therefore, to find that most gala"ies appeared red$shifted/ nearly all were mo ing away from !sC .ore

s!rprising still was the finding that <!bble p!blished in 56$%& e en the siFe of a gala"ys red shift is not random, b!t is directly proportional to the gala"ys distance from !s. ;r, in other words, the farther a gala"y is, the faster it is mo ing awayC And that meant that the !ni erse co!ld not be static, as e eryone pre io!sly had tho!ght, is in fact e"pandingA the distance between the different gala"ies is changing all the time. The disco ery that the !ni erse is e"panding was one of the great intellect!al re ol!tions of the twentieth cent!ry. 1ith hindsight, it is easy wonder why no one had tho!ght of it before. -ewton, and others sho!ld ha e realiFed that a static !ni erse wo!ld soon start to contract !nder the infl!ence of gra ity. )!t s!ppose instead that the !ni erse is e"panding. If it was e"panding fairly slowly, the force of gra ity wo!ld ca!se it e ent!ally to stop e"panding and then to start contracting. <owe er, if it was e"panding at more than a certain critical rate, gra ity wo!ld ne er be strong eno!gh to stop it, and the !ni erse wo!ld contin!e to e"pand fore er. This is a bit like what happens when one fires a rocket !pward from the s!rface of the earth. If it has a

fairly low speed, gra ity will e ent!ally stop the rocket and it will start falling back. ;n the other hand, if the rocket has more than a certain critical speed (abo!t se en miles per second*, gra ity will not be strong eno!gh to p!ll it back, so it will keep going away from the earth fore er. This beha ior of the !ni erse co!ld ha e been predicted from -ewtons theory of gra ity at any time in the nineteenth, the eighteenth, or e en the late se enteenth cent!ry. Bet so strong was the belief in a static !ni erse that it persisted into the early twentieth cent!ry. 8 en 8instein, when he form!lated the general theory of relati ity in 565+, was so s!re that the !ni erse had to be static that he modified his theory to make this possible, introd!cing a so$called cosmological constant into his e0!ations. 8instein introd!ced a new antigra ity force, which, !nlike other forces, did not come from any partic!lar so!rce b!t was b!ilt into the ery fabric of space$ time. <e claimed that space$time had an inb!ilt tendency to e"pand, and this co!ld be made to balance e"actly the attraction of all the matter in the !ni erse, so that a

static !ni erse wo!ld res!lt. ;nly one man, it seems, was willing to take general relati ity at face al!e, and while 8instein and other physicists were looking for ways of a oiding general relati itys prediction of a nonstatic !ni erse, the :!ssian physicist and mathematician Ale"ander 3riedmann instead set abo!t e"plaining it. 3riedmann made two ery simple ass!mptions abo!t the !ni erse/ that the !ni erse looks identical in whiche er direction we look, and that this wo!ld also be tr!e if we were obser ing the !ni erse from anywhere else. 3rom these two ideas alone, 3riedmann showed that we sho!ld not e"pect the !ni erse to be static. In fact, in 56%%, se eral years before 8dwin <!bbles disco ery, 3riedmann predicted e"actly what <!bble fo!ndC The ass!mption that the !ni erse looks the same in e ery direction is clearly not tr!e in reality. 3or e"ample, as we ha e seen, the other stars in o!r gala"y form a distinct band of light across the night sky, called the .ilky 1ay. )!t if we look at distant gala"ies, there seems to be more or less the same n!mber of them. So the

!ni erse does seem to be ro!ghly the same in e ery direction, pro ided one iews it on a large scale compared to the distance between gala"ies, and ignores the differences on small scales. 3or a long time, this was s!fficient H!stification for 3riedmanns ass!mption D as a ro!gh appro"imation to the real !ni erse. )!t more recently a l!cky accident !nco ered the fact that 3riedmanns ass!mption is in fact a remarkably acc!rate A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter & file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=b.html (& of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/%E A.@ description of o!r !ni erse. In 56K+ two American physicists at the )ell Telephone #aboratories in -ew Jersey, Arno GenFias and :obert 1ilson, were testing a ery sensiti e microwa e detector. (.icrowa es are H!st like light wa es, b!t with a wa elength of aro!nd a centimeter.* GenFias and 1ilson were worried when they fo!nd that their detector was picking !p more noise than it o!ght to. The noise did not appear to be coming from any partic!lar direction. 3irst they disco ered bird droppings in their

detector and checked for other possible malf!nctions, b!t soon r!led these o!t. They knew that any noise from within the atmosphere wo!ld be stronger when the detector was not pointing straight !p than when it was, beca!se light rays tra el thro!gh m!ch more atmosphere when recei ed from near the horiFon than when recei ed from directly o erhead. The e"tra noise was the same whiche er direction the detector was pointed, so it m!st come from outside the atmosphere. It was also the same day and night and thro!gho!t the year, e en tho!gh the earth was rotating on its a"is and orbiting aro!nd the s!n. This showed that the radiation m!st come from beyond the Solar System, and e en from beyond the gala"y, as otherwise it wo!ld ary as the mo ement of earth pointed the detector in different directions. In fact, we know that the radiation m!st ha e tra eled to !s across most of the obser able !ni erse, and since it appears to be the same in different directions, the !ni erse m!st also be the same in e ery direction, if only on a large scale. 1e now know that whiche er direction we look, this noise ne er aries by more

than a tiny fraction/ so GenFias and 1ilson had !nwittingly st!mbled across a remarkably acc!rate confirmation of 3riedmanns first ass!mption. <owe er, beca!se the !ni erse is not e"actly the same in e ery direction, b!t only on a erage on a large scale, the microwa es cannot be e"actly the same in e ery direction either. There ha e to be slight ariations between different directions. These were first detected in 566% by the Cosmic )ackgro!nd 8"plorer satellite, or C;)8, at a le el of abo!t one part in a h!ndred tho!sand. Small tho!gh these ariations are, they are ery important, as will be e"plained in Chapter 7. At ro!ghly the same time as GenFias and 1ilson were in estigating noise in their detector, two American physicists at nearby Grinceton Mni ersity, )ob 4icke and Jim Geebles, were also taking an interest in microwa es. They were working on a s!ggestion, made by 9eorge 9amow (once a st!dent of Ale"ander 3riedmann*, that the early !ni erse sho!ld ha e been ery hot and dense, glowing white hot. 4icke and Geebles arg!ed that we sho!ld still be able to

see the glow of the early !ni erse, beca!se light from ery distant parts of it wo!ld only H!st be reaching !s now. <owe er, the e"pansion of the !ni erse meant that this light sho!ld be so greatly red$shifted that it wo!ld appear to !s now as microwa e radiation. 4icke and Geebles were preparing to look for this radiation when GenFias and 1ilson heard abo!t their work and realiFed that they had already fo!nd it. 3or this, GenFias and 1ilson were awarded the -obel GriFe in 56'7 (which seems a bit hard on 4icke and Geebles, not to mention 9amowC*. -ow at first sight, all this e idence that the !ni erse looks the same whiche er direction we look in might seem to s!ggest there is something special abo!t o!r place in the !ni erse. In partic!lar, it might seem that if we obser e all other gala"ies to be mo ing away from !s, then we m!st be at the center of the !ni erse. There is, howe er, an alternate e"planation/ the !ni erse might look the same in e ery direction as seen from any other gala"y too. This, as we ha e seen, was 3riedmanns second ass!mption. 1e ha e no scientific e idence for, or

against, this ass!mption. 1e belie e it only on gro!nds of modesty/ it wo!ld be most remarkable if the !ni erse looked the same in e ery direction aro!nd !s, b!t not aro!nd other points in the !ni erseC In 3riedmanns model, all the gala"ies are mo ing directly away from each other. The sit!ation is rather like a balloon with a n!mber of spots painted on it being steadily blown !p. As the balloon e"pands, the distance between any two spots increases, b!t there is no spot that can be said to be the center of the e"pansion. .oreo er, the farther apart the spots are, the faster they will be mo ing apart. Similarly, in 3riedmanns model the speed at which any two gala"ies are mo ing apart is proportional to the distance between them. So it predicted that the red shift of a gala"y sho!ld be directly proportional to its distance from !s, e"actly as <!bble fo!nd. 4espite the s!ccess of his model and his prediction of <!bbles obser ations, 3riedmanns work remained largely !nknown in the 1est !ntil similar models were disco ered in 56&+ by the American physicist <oward :obertson and the )ritish mathematician Arth!r 1alker, in response to

<!bbles disco ery of the !niform e"pansion of the !ni erse. Altho!gh 3riedmann fo!nd only one, there are in fact three different kinds of models that obey 3riedmanns two f!ndamental ass!mptions. In the first kind (which 3riedmann fo!nd* the !ni erse is e"panding s!fficiently slowly that the gra itational attraction between the different gala"ies ca!ses the e"pansion to slow down and e ent!ally to stop. The gala"ies then start to mo e toward each other and the !ni erse contracts. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter & file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=b.html (E of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/%E A.@ 3ig!re &/% 3ig!re &/% shows how the distance between two neighboring gala"ies changes as time increases. It starts at Fero, increases to a ma"im!m, and then decreases to Fero again. In the second kind of sol!tion, the !ni erse is e"panding so rapidly that the gra itational attraction can ne er stop it, tho!gh it does slow it down a bit. 3ig!re &/& 3ig!re &/& Shows the Separation between

neighboring gala"ies in this model. It starts at Fero and e ent!ally the gala"ies are mo ing apart at a steady speed. 3inally, there is a third kind of sol!tion, in which the !ni erse is e"panding only H!st fast eno!gh to a oid recollapse. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter & file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=b.html (+ of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/%E A.@ 3ig!re &/E In this case the separation, shown in 3ig!re &/E, also starts at Fero and increases fore er. <owe er, the speed at which the gala"ies are mo ing apart gets smaller and smaller, altho!gh it ne er 0!ite reaches Fero. A remarkable feat!re of the first kind of 3riedmann model is that in it the !ni erse is not infinite in space, b!t neither does space ha e any bo!ndary. 9ra ity is so strong that space is bent ro!nd onto itself, making it rather like the s!rface of the earth. If one keeps tra eling in a certain direction on the s!rface of the earth, one ne er comes !p against an impassable barrier or falls o er the edge, b!t e ent!ally comes back to where one

started. In the first kind of 3riedmann model, space is H!st like this, b!t with three dimensions instead of two for the earths s!rface. The fo!rth dimension, time, is also finite in e"tent, b!t it is like a line with two ends or bo!ndaries, a beginning and an end. 1e shall see later that when one combines general relati ity with the !ncertainty principle of 0!ant!m mechanics, it is possible for both space and time to be finite witho!t any edges or bo!ndaries. The idea that one co!ld go right ro!nd the !ni erse and end !p where one started makes good science fiction, b!t it doesnt ha e m!ch practical significance, beca!se it can be shown that the !ni erse wo!ld recollapse to Fero siFe before one co!ld get ro!nd. Bo! wo!ld need to tra el faster than light in order to end !p where yo! started before the !ni erse came to an end D and that is not allowedC In the first kind of 3riedmann model, which e"pands and recollapses, space is bent in on itself, like the s!rface of the earth. It is therefore finite in e"tent. In the second kind of model, which e"pands fore er, space is bent

the other way, like the s!rface of a saddle. So in this case space is infinite. 3inally, in the third kind of 3riedmann model, with H!st the critical rate of e"pansion, space is flat (and therefore is also infinite*. )!t which 3riedmann model describes o!r !ni erse2 1ill the !ni erse e ent!ally stop e"panding and start contracting, or will it e"pand fore er2 To answer this 0!estion we need to know the present rate of e"pansion of the !ni erse and its present a erage density. If the density is less than a certain critical al!e, determined by the rate of e"pansion, the gra itational attraction will be too weak to halt the e"pansion. If the density is greater than the critical al!e, gra ity will stop the e"pansion at some time in the f!t!re and ca!se the !ni erse to recollapse. 1e can determine the present rate of e"pansion by meas!ring the elocities at which other gala"ies are mo ing away from !s, !sing the 4oppler effect. This can be done ery acc!rately. <owe er, the distances to the gala"ies are not ery well known beca!se we can only meas!re them indirectly. So all we know is that the

!ni erse is e"panding by between + percent and 5, percent e ery tho!sand million years. <owe er, o!r !ncertainty abo!t the present a erage density of the !ni erse is e en greater. If we add !p the masses of all A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter & file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=b.html (K of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/%E A.@ the stars that we can see in o!r gala"y and other gala"ies, the total is less than one h!ndredth of the amo!nt re0!ired to halt the e"pansion of the !ni erse, e en for the lowest estimate of the rate of e"pansion. ;!r gala"y and other gala"ies, howe er, m!st contain a large amo!nt of dark matter that we cannot see directly, b!t which we know m!st be there beca!se of the infl!ence of its gra itational attraction on the orbits of stars in the gala"ies. .oreo er, most gala"ies are fo!nd in cl!sters, and we can similarly infer the presence of yet more dark matter in between the gala"ies in these cl!sters by its effect on the motion of the gala"ies. 1hen we add !p all this dark matter, we still get only abo!t one tenth of the amo!nt re0!ired to halt the

e"pansion. <owe er, we cannot e"cl!de the possibility that there might be some other form of matter, distrib!ted almost !niformly thro!gho!t the !ni erse, that we ha e not yet detected and that might still raise the a erage density of the !ni erse !p to the critical al!e needed to halt the e"pansion. The present e idence therefore s!ggests that the !ni erse will probably e"pand fore er, b!t all we can really be s!re of is that e en if the !ni erse is going to recollapse, it wont do so for at least another ten tho!sand million years, since it has already been e"panding for at least that long. This sho!ld not !nd!ly worry !s/ by that time, !nless we ha e coloniFed beyond the Solar System, mankind will long since ha e died o!t, e"ting!ished along with o!r s!nC All of the 3riedmann sol!tions ha e the feat!re that at some time in the past (between ten and twenty tho!sand million years ago* the distance between neighboring gala"ies m!st ha e been Fero. At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the !ni erse and the c!r at!re of space$time wo!ld ha e been infinite. )eca!se mathematics cannot really handle infinite

n!mbers, this means that the general theory of relati ity (on which 3riedmanns sol!tions are based* predicts that there is a point in the !ni erse where the theory itself breaks down. S!ch a point is an e"ample of what mathematicians call a sing!larity. In fact, all o!r theories of science are form!lated on the ass!mption that space$ time is smooth and nearly fiat, so they break down at the big bang sing!larity, where the c!r at!re of space$time is infinite. This means that e en if there were e ents before the big bang, one co!ld not !se them to determine what wo!ld happen afterward, beca!se predictability wo!ld break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we co!ld not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, e ents before the big bang can ha e no conse0!ences, so they sho!ld not form part of a scientific model of the !ni erse. 1e sho!ld therefore c!t them o!t of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang. .any people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably beca!se it smacks of di ine

inter ention. (The Catholic Ch!rch, on the other hand, seiFed on the big bang model and in 56+5officially prono!nced it to be in accordance with the )ible.* There were therefore a n!mber of attempts to a oid the concl!sion that there had been a big bang. The proposal that gained widest s!pport was called the steady state theory. It was s!ggested in 56E7 by two ref!gees from -aFi$ occ!pied A!stria, <ermann )ondi and Thomas 9old, together with a )riton, 3red <oyle, who had worked with them on the de elopment of radar d!ring the war. The idea was that as the gala"ies mo ed away from each other, new gala"ies were contin!ally forming in the gaps in between, from new matter that was being contin!ally created. The !ni erse wo!ld therefore look ro!ghly the same at all times as well as at all points of space. The steady state theory re0!ired a modification of general relati ity to allow for the contin!al creation of matter, b!t the rate that was in ol ed was so low (abo!t one particle per c!bic kilometer per year* that it was not in conflict with e"periment. The theory was a good scientific

theory, in the sense described in Chapter 5/ it was simple and it made definite predictions that co!ld be tested by obser ation. ;ne of these predictions was that the n!mber of gala"ies or similar obHects in any gi en ol!me of space sho!ld be the same where er and whene er we look in the !ni erse. In the late 56+,s and early 56K,s a s!r ey of so!rces of radio wa es from o!ter space was carried o!t at Cambridge by a gro!p of astronomers led by .artin :yle (who had also worked with )ondi, 9old, and <oyle on radar d!ring the war*. The Cambridge gro!p showed that most of these radio so!rces m!st lie o!tside o!r gala"y (indeed many of them co!ld be identified with other gala"ies* and also that there were many more weak so!rces than strong ones. They interpreted the weak so!rces as being the more distant ones, and the stronger ones as being nearer. Then there appeared to be less common so!rces per !nit ol!me of space for the nearby so!rces than for the distant ones. This co!ld mean that we are at the center of a great region in the !ni erse in which the so!rces are fewer than elsewhere. Alternati ely, it

co!ld mean that the so!rces were more n!mero!s in the past, at the time that the radio wa es left on their Ho!rney to !s, than they are now. 8ither e"planation contradicted the predictions of the steady state theory. .oreo er, the disco ery of the microwa e radiation by GenFias and 1ilson in 56K+ also indicated that the !ni erse m!st ha e been m!ch denser in the past. The steady state theory therefore had to be abandoned. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter & file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=b.html (' of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/%E A.@ Another attempt to a oid the concl!sion that there m!st ha e been a big bang, and therefore a beginning of time, was made by two :!ssian scientists, 8 genii #ifshitF and Isaac Lhalatniko , in 56K&. They s!ggested that the big bang might be a pec!liarity of 3riedmanns models alone, which after all were only appro"imations to the real !ni erse. Gerhaps, of all the models that were ro!ghly like the real !ni erse, only 3riedmanns wo!ld contain a big bang sing!larity. In 3riedmanns

models, the gala"ies are all mo ing directly away from each other D so it is not s!rprising that at some time in the past they were all at the same place. In the real !ni erse, howe er, the gala"ies are not H!st mo ing directly away from each other D they also ha e small sideways elocities. So in reality they need ne er ha e been all at e"actly the same place, only ery close together. Gerhaps then the c!rrent e"panding !ni erse res!lted not from a big bang sing!larity, b!t from an earlier contracting phaseA as the !ni erse had collapsed the particles in it might not ha e all collided, b!t had flown past and then away from each other, prod!cing the present e"pansion of the the !ni erse that were ro!ghly like 3riedmanns models b!t took acco!nt of the irreg!larities and random elocities of gala"ies in the real !ni erse. They showed that s!ch models co!ld start with a big bang, e en tho!gh the gala"ies were no longer always mo ing directly away from each other, b!t they claimed that this was still only possible in certain e"ceptional models in which the gala"ies were all mo ing in H!st the right way. They arg!ed that since there

seemed to be infinitely more 3riedmann$like models witho!t a big bang sing!larity than there were with one, we sho!ld concl!de that there had not in reality been a big bang. They later realiFed, howe er, that there was a m!ch more general class of 3riedmann$like models that did ha e sing!larities, and in which the gala"ies did not ha e to be mo ing any special way. They therefore withdrew their claim in 56',. The work of #ifshitF and Lhalatniko was al!able beca!se it showed that the !ni erse could ha e had a sing!larity, a big bang, if the general theory of relati ity was correct. <owe er, it did not resol e the cr!cial 0!estion/ 4oes general relati ity predict that o!r !ni erse should ha e had a big bang, a beginning of time2 The answer to this carne o!t of a completely different approach introd!ced by a )ritish mathematician and physicist, :oger Genrose, in 56K+. Msing the way light cones beha e in general relati ity, together with the fact that gra ity is always attracti e, he showed that a star collapsing !nder its own gra ity is trapped in a region whose s!rface e ent!ally shrinks to Fero siFe.

And, since the s!rface of the region shrinks to Fero, so too m!st its ol!me. All the matter in the star will be compressed into a region of Fero ol!me, so the density of matter and the c!r at!re of space$time become infinite. In other words, one has a sing!larity contained within a region of space$time known as a black hole. At first sight, Genroses res!lt applied only to starsA it didnt ha e anything to say abo!t the 0!estion of whether the entire !ni erse had a big bang sing!larity in its past. <owe er, at the time that Genrose prod!ced his theorem, I was a research st!dent desperately looking for a problem with which to complete my Gh.4. thesis. Two years before, I had been diagnosed as s!ffering from A#S, commonly known as #o! 9ehrigs disease, or motor ne!ron disease, and gi en to !nderstand that I had only one or two more years to li e. In these circ!mstances there had not seemed m!ch point in working on my Gh.4.D I did not e"pect to s!r i e that long. Bet two years had gone by and I was not that m!ch worse. In fact, things were going rather well for me and I had gotten engaged to a ery nice girl, Jane

1ilde. )!t in order to get married, I needed a Hob, and in order to get a Hob, I needed a Gh.4. In 56K+ I read abo!t Genroses theorem that any body !ndergoing gra itational collapse m!st e ent!ally form a sing!larity. I soon realiFed that if one re ersed the direction of time in Genroses theorem, so that the collapse became an e"pansion, the conditions of his theorem wo!ld still hold, pro ided the !ni erse were ro!ghly like a 3riedmann model on large scales at the present time. Genroses theorem had shown that any collapsing star must end in a sing!larityA the time$re ersed arg!ment showed that any 3riedmann$like e"panding !ni erse must ha e beg!n with a sing!larity. 3or technical reasons, Genroses theorem re0!ired that the !ni erse be infinite in space. So I co!ld in fact, !se it to pro e that there sho!ld be a sing!larity only if the !ni erse was e"panding fast eno!gh to a oid collapsing again (since only those 3riedmann models were infinite in space*. 4!ring the ne"t few years I de eloped new mathematical techni0!es to remo e this and other technical conditions from the theorems that pro ed that

sing!larities m!st occ!r. The final res!lt was a Hoint paper by Genrose and myself in 56',, which at last pro ed that there m!st ha e been a big bang sing!larity pro ided only that general relati ity is correct and the !ni erse contains as m!ch matter as we obser e. There was a lot of opposition to o!r work, partly from the :!ssians beca!se of their .ar"ist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of sing!larities was rep!gnant and spoiled the bea!ty of 8insteins theory. <owe er, one cannot really arg!e with a mathematical theorem. So in the end o!r work A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter & file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=b.html (7 of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/%E A.@ became generally accepted and nowadays nearly e eryone ass!mes that the !ni erse started with a big bang sing!larity. It is perhaps ironic that, ha ing changed my mind, I am now trying to con ince other physicists that there was in fact no sing!larity at the beginning of the !ni erse D as we shall see later, it can disappear once

0!ant!m effects are taken into acco!nt. 1e ha e seen in this chapter how, in less than half a cent!ry, mans iew of the !ni erse formed o er millennia has been transformed. <!bbles disco ery that the !ni erse was e"panding, and the realiFation of the insignificance of o!r own planet in the astness of the !ni erse, were H!st the starting point. As e"perimental and theoretical e idence mo!nted, it became more and more clear that the !ni erse m!st ha e had a beginning in time, !ntil in 56', this was finally pro ed by Genrose and myself, on the basis of 8insteins general theory of relati ity. That proof showed that general relati ity is only an incomplete theory/ it cannot tell !s how the !ni erse started off, beca!se it predicts that all physical theories, incl!ding itself, break down at the beginning of the !ni erse. <owe er, general relati ity claims to be only a partial theory, so what the sing!larity theorems really show is that there m!st ha e been a time in the ery early !ni erse when the !ni erse was so small that one co!ld no longer ignore the small$ scale effects of the other great partial theory of the twentieth

cent!ry, 0!ant!m mechanics. At the start of the 56',s, then, we were forced to t!rn o!r search for an !nderstanding of the !ni erse from o!r theory of the e"traordinarily ast to o!r theory of the e"traordinarily tiny. That theory, 0!ant!m mechanics, will be described ne"t, before we t!rn to the efforts to combine the two partial theories into a single 0!ant!m theory of gra ity. G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter & file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=b.html (6 of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/%E A.@ C(*PTE4 4 T(E U$CE4T*6$T: P46$C6P;E The s!ccess of scientific theories, partic!larly -ewtons theory of gra ity, led the 3rench scientist the .ar0!is de #aplace at the beginning of the nineteenth cent!ry to arg!e that the !ni erse was completely deterministic. #aplace s!ggested that there sho!ld be a set of scientific laws that wo!ld allow !s to predict e erything that wo!ld happen in the !ni erse, if only we knew the complete state of the !ni erse at one time. 3or e"ample, if we knew the positions and speeds of the s!n and the planets at one time, then we co!ld

!se -ewtons laws to calc!late the state of the Solar System at any other time. 4eterminism seems fairly ob io!s in this case, b!t #aplace went f!rther to ass!me that there were similar laws go erning e erything else, incl!ding h!man beha ior. The doctrine of scientific determinism was strongly resisted by many people, who felt that it infringed 9ods freedom to inter ene in the world, b!t it remained the standard ass!mption of science !ntil the early years of this cent!ry. ;ne of the first indications that this belief wo!ld ha e to be abandoned came when calc!lations by the )ritish scientists #ord :ayleigh and Sir James Jeans s!ggested that a hot obHect, or body, s!ch as a star, m!st radiate energy at an infinite rate. According to the laws we belie ed at the time, a hot body o!ght to gi e off electromagnetic wa es (s!ch as radio wa es, isible light, or O rays* e0!ally at all fre0!encies. 3or e"ample, a hot body sho!ld radiate the same amo!nt of energy in wa es with fre0!encies between one and two million million wa es a second as in wa es with fre0!encies between two and three million million wa es a second. -ow since the n!mber of wa es a second is !nlimited, this wo!ld

mean that the total energy radiated wo!ld be infinite. In order to a oid this ob io!sly ridic!lo!s res!lt, the 9erman scientist .a" Glanck s!ggested in 56,, that light, O rays, and other wa es co!ld not be emitted at an arbitrary rate, b!t only in certain packets that he called 0!anta. .oreo er, each 0!ant!m had a certain amo!nt of energy that was greater the higher the fre0!ency of the wa es, so at a high eno!gh fre0!ency the emission of a single 0!ant!m wo!ld re0!ire more energy than was a ailable. Th!s the radiation at high fre0!encies wo!ld be red!ced, and so the rate at which the body lost energy wo!ld be finite. The 0!ant!m hypothesis e"plained the obser ed rate of emission of radiation from hot bodies ery well, b!t its implications for determinism were not realiFed !ntil 56%K, when another 9erman scientist, 1erner <eisenberg, form!lated his famo!s !ncertainty principle. In order to predict the f!t!re position and elocity of a particle, one has to be able to meas!re its present position and elocity acc!rately. The ob io!s way to do this is to shine light on the particle. Some of the wa es of light will be scattered by the particle and this will indicate its position. <owe er, one will not be able

to determine the position of the particle more acc!rately than the distance between the wa e crests of light, so one needs to !se light of a short wa elength in order to meas!re the position of the particle precisely. -ow, by Glancks 0!ant!m hypothesis, one cannot !se an arbitrarily small amo!nt of lightA one has to !se at least one 0!ant!m. This 0!ant!m will dist!rb the particle and change its elocity in a way that cannot be predicted. moreo er, the more acc!rately one meas!res the position, the shorter the wa elength of the light that one needs and hence the higher the energy of a single 0!ant!m. So the elocity of the particle will be dist!rbed by a larger amo!nt. In other words, the more acc!rately yo! try to meas!re the position of the particle, the less acc!rately yo! can meas!re its speed, and ice ersa. <eisenberg showed that the !ncertainty in the position of the particle times the !ncertainty in its elocity times the mass of the particle can ne er be smaller than a certain 0!antity, which is known as Glancks constant. .oreo er, this limit does not depend on the way in which one tries to meas!re the position or elocity of the particle, or on the type of particle/ <eisenbergs !ncertainty principle is a

f!ndamental, inescapable property of the world. The !ncertainty principle had profo!nd implications for the way in which we iew the world. 8 en after more than se enty years they ha e not been f!lly appreciated by many philosophers, and are still the s!bHect of m!ch contro ersy. The !ncertainty principle signaled an end to #aplaces dream of a theory of science, a model of the !ni erse that wo!ld be completely deterministic/ one certainly cannot predict f!t!re e ents e"actly if one cannot e en meas!re the present state of the !ni erse preciselyC 1e co!ld still imagine that there is a set of laws that determine e ents completely for some s!pernat!ral being, who co!ld obser e the present state of the !ni erse witho!t dist!rbing it. <owe er, s!ch models of the !ni erse are not of m!ch interest to !s ordinary mortals. It seems better to employ the principle of economy known as ;ccams raFor and c!t o!t all the feat!res of the theory that cannot be obser ed. This approach led <eisenberg, 8rwin Schrodinger, and Ga!l 4irac in the 56%,s to reform!late mechanics into a new theory called 0!ant!m mechanics, based on the !ncertainty principle. In this theory particles no longer had separate, well$defined positions and elocities that

co!ld not be obser ed, Instead, they had a 0!ant!m state, which was a combination of position and elocity. In general, 0!ant!m mechanics does not predict a single definite res!lt for an obser ation. Instead, it predicts a n!mber of different possible o!tcomes and tells !s how likely each of these is. That is to say, if one made the same meas!rement on a large n!mber of similar systems, each of which started off in the same way, one wo!ld find that the res!lt of the A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter E file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=c.html (5 of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/E, A.@ meas!rement wo!ld be A in a certain n!mber of cases, ) in a different n!mber, and so on. ;ne co!ld predict the appro"imate n!mber of times that the res!lt wo!ld be A or ), b!t one co!ld not predict the specific res!lt of an indi id!al meas!rement. N!ant!m mechanics therefore introd!ces an !na oidable element of !npredictability or randomness into science. 8instein obHected to this ery strongly, despite the important role he had played in the de elopment of these ideas. 8instein was awarded the -obel GriFe for his contrib!tion to 0!ant!m theory. -e ertheless,

8instein ne er accepted that the !ni erse was go erned by chanceA his feelings were s!mmed !p in his famo!s statement 9od does not play dice. .ost other scientists, howe er, were willing to accept 0!ant!m mechanics beca!se it agreed perfectly with e"periment. Indeed, it has been an o!tstandingly s!ccessf!l theory and !nderlies nearly all of modern science and technology. It go erns the beha ior of transistors and integrated circ!its, which are the essential components of electronic de ices s!ch as tele isions and comp!ters, and is also the basis of modern chemistry and biology. The only areas of physical science into which 0!ant!m mechanics has not yet been properly incorporated are gra ity and the large$scale str!ct!re of the !ni erse. Altho!gh light is made !p of wa es, Glancks 0!ant!m hypothesis tells !s that in some ways it beha es as if it were composed of particles/ it can be emitted or absorbed only in packets, or 0!anta. 80!ally, <eisenbergs !ncertainty principle implies that particles beha e in some respects like wa es/ they do not ha e a definite position b!t are smeared o!t with a certain probability distrib!tion. The theory of 0!ant!m mechanics is based on an

entirely new type of mathematics that no longer describes the real world in terms of particles and wa esA it is only the obser ations of the world that may be described in those terms. There is th!s a d!ality between wa es and particles in 0!ant!m mechanics/ for some p!rposes it is helpf!l to think of particles as wa es and for other p!rposes it is better to think of wa es as particles. An important conse0!ence of this is that one can obser e what is called interference between two sets of wa es or particles. That is to say, the crests of one set of wa es may coincide with the tro!ghs of the other set. The two sets of wa es then cancel each other o!t rather than adding !p to a stronger wa e as one might e"pect 3ig!re E/5. 3ig!re E/5 A familiar e"ample of interference in the case of light is the colors that are often seen in soap b!bbles. These are ca!sed by reflection of light from the two sides of the thin film of water forming the b!bble. 1hite light consists of light wa es of all different wa elengths, or colors, 3or certain wa elengths the crests of the wa es reflected from one side of the soap film coincide with the tro!ghs reflected from the other side. The colors corresponding to these

wa elengths are absent from the reflected light, which therefore appears to be colored. Interference can also occ!r for particles, beca!se of the d!ality introd!ced by 0!ant!m mechanics. A famo!s e"ample is the so$called two$slit e"periment 3ig!re E/%. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter E file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=c.html (% of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/E, A.@ 3ig!re E/% Consider a partition with two narrow parallel slits in it. ;n one side of the partition one places a so!rce of fight of a partic!lar color (that is, of a partic!lar wa elength*. .ost of the light will hit the partition, b!t a small amo!nt will go thro!gh the slits. -ow s!ppose one places a screen on the far side of the partition from the light. Any point on the screen will recei e wa es from the two slits. <owe er, in general, the distance the light has to tra el from the so!rce to the screen ia the two slits will be different. This will mean that the wa es from the slits will not be in phase with each other when they arri e at the screen/ in some places the wa es will cancel each other o!t, and in others they will reinforce

each other. The res!lt is a characteristic pattern of light and dark fringes. The remarkable thing is that one gets e"actly the same kind of fringes if one replaces the so!rce of light by a so!rce of particles s!ch as electrons with a definite speed (this means that the corresponding wa es ha e a definite length*. It seems the more pec!liar beca!se if one only has one slit, one does not get any fringes, H!st a !niform distrib!tion of electrons across the screen. ;ne might therefore think that opening another slit wo!ld H!st increase the n!mber of electrons hitting each point of the screen, b!t, beca!se of interference, it act!ally decreases it in some places. If electrons are sent thro!gh the slits one at a time, one wo!ld e"pect each to pass thro!gh one slit or the other, and so beha e H!st as if the slit it passed thro!gh were the only one there D gi ing a !niform distrib!tion on the screen. In reality, howe er, e en when the electrons are sent one at a time, the fringes still appear. 8ach electron, therefore, m!st be A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter E file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=c.html (& of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/E, A.@

passing thro!gh both slits at the same timeC The phenomenon of interference between particles has been cr!cial to o!r !nderstanding of the str!ct!re of atoms, the basic !nits of chemistry and biology and the b!ilding blocks o!t of which we, and e erything aro!nd !s, are made. At the beginning of this cent!ry it was tho!ght that atoms were rather like the planets orbiting the s!n, with electrons (particles of negati e electricity* orbiting aro!nd a central n!cle!s, which carried positi e electricity. The attraction between the positi e and negati e electricity was s!pposed to keep the electrons in their orbits in the same way that the gra itational attraction between the s!n and the planets keeps the planets in their orbits. The tro!ble with this was that the laws of mechanics and electricity, before 0!ant!m mechanics, predicted that the electrons wo!ld lose energy and so spiral inward !ntil they collided with the n!cle!s. This wo!ld mean that the atom, and indeed all matter, sho!ld rapidly collapse to a state of ery high density. A partial sol!tion to this problem was fo!nd by the 4anish scientist -iels )ohr in 565&. <e s!ggested that maybe the electrons were not able to orbit at H!st any distance from the central n!cle!s b!t only at certain

specified distances. If one also s!pposed that only one or two electrons co!ld orbit at any one of these distances, this wo!ld sol e the problem of the collapse of the atom, beca!se the electrons co!ld not spiral in any farther than to fill !p the orbits with e least distances and energies. This model e"plained 0!ite well the str!ct!re of the simplest atom, hydrogen, which has only one electron orbiting aro!nd the n!cle!s. )!t it was not clear how one o!ght to e"tend it to more complicated atoms. .oreo er, the idea of a limited set of allowed orbits seemed ery arbitrary. The new theory of 0!ant!m mechanics resol ed this diffic!lty. It re ealed that an electron orbiting aro!nd the n!cle!s co!ld be tho!ght of as a wa e, with a wa elength that depended on its elocity. 3or certain orbits, the length of the orbit wo!ld correspond to a whole n!mber (as opposed to a fractional n!mber* of wa elengths of the electron. 3or these orbits the wa e crest wo!ld be in the same position each time ro!nd, so the wa es wo!ld add !p/ these orbits wo!ld correspond to )ohrs allowed orbits. <owe er, for orbits whose lengths were not a whole n!mber of wa elengths, each wa e crest wo!ld e ent!ally be canceled o!t by a tro!gh as the electrons went

ro!ndA these orbits wo!ld not be allowed. A nice way of is!aliFing the wa e=particle d!ality is the so$called s!m o er histories introd!ced by the American scientist :ichard 3eynman. In this approach the particle is not s!pposed to ha e a single history or path in space$time, as it wo!ld in a classical, non0!ant!m theory. Instead it is s!pposed to go from A to ) by e ery possible path. 1ith each path there are associated a co!ple of n!mbers/ one represents the siFe of a wa e and the other represents the position in the cycle (i.e., whether it is at a crest or a tro!gh*. The probability of going from A to ) is fo!nd by adding !p the wa es for all the paths. In general, if one compares a set of neighboring paths, the phases or positions in the cycle will differ greatly. This means that the wa es associated with these paths will almost e"actly cancel each other o!t. <owe er, for some sets of neighboring paths the phase will not ary m!ch between paths. The wa es for these paths will not cancel o!t S!ch paths correspond to )ohrs allowed orbits. 1ith these ideas, in concrete mathematical form, it was relati ely straightforward to calc!late the allowed orbits in more complicated atoms and e en in molec!les, which are made !p of a n!mber of atoms held together

by electrons in orbits that go ro!nd more than one n!cle!s. Since the str!ct!re of molec!les and their reactions with each other !nderlie all of chemistry and biology, 0!ant!m mechanics allows !s in principle to predict nearly e erything we see aro!nd !s, within the limits set by the !ncertainty principle. (In practice, howe er, the calc!lations re0!ired for systems containing more than a few electrons are so complicated that we cannot do them.* 8insteins general theory of relati ity seems to go ern the large$scale str!ct!re of the !ni erse. It is what is called a classical theoryA that is, it does not take acco!nt of the !ncertainty principle of 0!ant!m mechanics, as it sho!ld for consistency with other theories. The reason that this does not lead to any discrepancy with obser ation is that all the gra itational fields that we normally e"perience are ery weak. <ow$e er, the sing!larity theorems disc!ssed earlier indicate that the gra itational field sho!ld get ery strong in at least two sit!ations, black holes and the big bang. In s!ch strong fields the effects of 0!ant!m mechanics sho!ld be important. Th!s, in a sense, classical general relati ity, by predicting points of infinite density, predicts its

own downfall, H!st as classical (that is, non0!ant!m* mechanics predicted its downfall by s!ggesting that atoms sho!ld collapse to infinite density. 1e do not yet ha e a complete consistent theory that !nifies general relati ity and 0!ant!m mechanics, b!t we do know a n!mber of the feat!res it sho!ld ha e. The conse0!ences that these wo!ld ha e for black holes and the big bang will be described in later chapters. 3or the moment, howe er, we shall t!rn to the recent attempts to bring together o!r !nderstanding of the other forces of nat!re into a single, !nified 0!ant!m theory. G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter E file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=c.html (E of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/E, A.@ A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter E file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=c.html (+ of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/E, A.@ C(*PTE4 " E;E8E$T*4: P*4T6C;ES *$5 T(E #O4CES O# $*TU4E Aristotle belie ed that all the matter in the !ni erse was made !p of fo!r basic elements D

earth, air, fire, and water. These elements were acted on by two forces/ gra ity, the tendency for earth and water to sink, and le ity, the tendency for air and fire to rise. This di ision of the contents of the !ni erse into matter and forces is still !sed today. Aristotle belie ed that matter was contin!o!s, that is, one co!ld di ide a piece of matter into smaller and smaller bits witho!t any limit/ one ne er came !p against a grain of matter that co!ld not be di ided f!rther. A few 9reeks, howe er, s!ch as 4emocrit!s, held that matter was inherently grainy and that e erything was made !p of large n!mbers of ario!s different kinds of atoms. (The word atom means indi isible in 9reek.* 3or cent!ries the arg!ment contin!ed witho!t any real e idence on either side, b!t in 57,& the )ritish chemist and physicist John 4alton pointed o!t that the fact that chemical compo!nds always combined in certain proportions co!ld be e"plained by the gro!ping together of atoms to form !nits called molec!les. <owe er, the arg!ment between the two schools of tho!ght was not finally settled in fa or of the atomists !ntil the early years of this cent!ry. ;ne of the important pieces of physical e idence was pro ided by 8instein.

In a paper written in 56,+, a few weeks before the famo!s paper on special relati ity, 8instein pointed o!t that what was called )rownian motion D the irreg!lar, random motion of small particles of d!st s!spended in a li0!id D co!ld be e"plained as the effect of atoms of the li0!id colliding with the d!st particles. )y this time there were already s!spicions that these atoms were not, after all, indi isible. Se eral years pre io!sly a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, J. J. Thomson, had demonstrated the e"istence of a particle of matter, called the electron, that had a mass less than one tho!sandth of that of the lightest atom. <e !sed a set!p rather like a modern TI pict!re t!be/ a red$hot metal filament ga e off the electrons, and beca!se these ha e a negati e electric charge, an electric field co!ld be !sed to accelerate them toward a phosphor$coated screen. 1hen they hit the screen, flashes of light were generated. Soon it was realiFed that these electrons m!st be coming from within the atoms themsel es, and in 5655 the -ew Sealand physicist 8rnest :!therford finally showed that the atoms of matter do ha e internal str!ct!re/ they are made !p of an e"tremely tiny, positi ely charged n!cle!s, aro!nd which a n!mber of

electrons orbit. <e ded!ced this by analyFing the way in which alpha$ particles, which are positi ely charged particles gi en off by radioacti e atoms, are deflected when they collide with atoms. At first it was tho!ght that the n!cle!s of the atom was made !p of electrons and different n!mbers of a positi ely charged particle called the proton, from the 9reek word meaning first, beca!se it was belie ed to be the f!ndamental !nit from which matter was made. <owe er, in 56&% a colleag!e of :!therfords at Cambridge, James Chadwick, disco ered that the n!cle!s contained another particle, called the ne!tron, which had almost the same mass as a proton b!t no electrical charge. Chadwick recei ed the -obel GriFe for his disco ery, and was elected .aster of 9on ille and Cai!s College, Cambridge (the college of which I am now a fellow*. <e later resigned as .aster beca!se of disagreements with the 3ellows. There had been a bitter disp!te in the college e er since a gro!p of yo!ng 3ellows ret!rning after the war had oted many of the old 3ellows o!t of the college offices they had held for a long time. This was before my timeA I Hoined the college in 56K+ at the tail end of the bitterness, when similar

disagreements forced another -obel GriFe D winning .aster, Sir -e ill .ott, to resign. Mp to abo!t thirty years ago, it was tho!ght that protons and ne!trons were elementary particles, b!t e"periments in which protons were collided with other protons or electrons at high speeds indicated that they were in fact made !p of smaller particles. These particles were named 0!arks by the Caltech physicist .!rray 9ell$ .ann, who won the -obel GriFe in 56K6 for his work on them. The origin of the name is an enigmatic 0!otation from James Joyce/ Three 0!arks for .!ster .arkC The word "uar' is s!pposed to be prono!nced like "uart, b!t with a ' at the end instead of a t, b!t is !s!ally prono!nced to rhyme with lar'. There are a n!mber of different arieties of 0!arks/ there are si" fla ors, which we call !p, down, strange, charmed, bottom, and top. The first three fla ors had been known since the 56K,s b!t the charmed 0!ark was disco ered only in 56'E, the bottom in 56'', and the top in 566+. 8ach fla or comes in three colors, red, green, and bl!e. (It sho!ld be emphasiFed that these terms are H!st labels/ 0!arks are m!ch smaller than the wa elength of isible light and so do not

ha e any color in the normal sense. It is H!st that modern physicists seem to ha e more imaginati e ways of naming new particles and phenomena D they no longer restrict themsel es to 9reekC* A proton or ne!tron is made !p of three 0!arks, one of each color. A proton contains two !p 0!arks and one down 0!arkA a ne!tron contains two down and one !p. 1e can create particles made !p of the other 0!arks (strange, charmed, bottom, and top*, b!t these all ha e a m!ch greater mass and decay ery rapidly into protons and ne!trons. 1e now know that neither the atoms nor the protons and ne!trons within them are indi isible. So the 0!estion is/ what are the tr!ly elementary particles, the basic b!ilding blocks from which e erything is made2 Since the wa elength of light A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter + file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=d.html (5 of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/+E A.@ is m!ch larger than the siFe of an atom, we cannot hope to look at the parts of an atom in the ordinary way. 1e need to !se something with a m!ch smaller wa e$length. As we saw in the last chapter, 0!ant!m mechanics tells !s that all

particles are in fact wa es, and that the higher the energy of a particle, the smaller the wa elength of the corresponding wa e. So the best answer we can gi e to o!r 0!estion depends on how high a particle energy we ha e at o!r disposal, beca!se this determines on how small a length scale we can look. These particle energies are !s!ally meas!red in !nits called electron olts. (In Thomsons e"periments with electrons, we saw that he !sed an electric field to accelerate the electrons. The energy that an electron gains from an electric field of one olt is what is known as an electron olt.* In the nineteenth cent!ry, when the only particle energies that people knew how to !se were the low energies of a few electron olts generated by chemical reactions s!ch as b!rning, it was tho!ght that atoms were the smallest !nit. In :!therfords e"periment, the alpha$particles had energies of millions of electron olts. .ore recently, we ha e learned how to !se electromagnetic fields to gi e particles energies of at first millions and then tho!sands of millions of electron olts. And so we know that particles that were tho!ght to be elementary thirty years ago are, in fact, made !p of smaller particles. .ay these, as we go to still higher energies, in

t!rn be fo!nd to be made from still smaller particles2 This is certainly possible, b!t we do ha e some theoretical reasons for belie ing that we ha e, or are ery near to, a knowledge of the !ltimate b!ilding blocks of nat!re. Msing the wa e=particle d!ality disc!ssed in the last chapter, e ery$thing in the !ni erse, incl!ding light and gra ity, can be described in terms of particles. These particles ha e a property called spin. ;ne way of thinking of spin is to imagine the particles as little tops spinning abo!t an a"is. <owe er, this can be misleading, beca!se 0!ant!m mechanics tells !s that the particles do not ha e any well$defined a"is. 1hat the spin of a particle really tells !s is what the particle looks like from different directions. A particle of spin , is like a dot/ it looks the same from e ery direction 3ig!re +/5$i. ;n the other hand, a particle of spin 5 is like an arrow/ it looks different from different directions 3ig!re +/5$ii. ;nly if one t!rns it ro!nd a complete re ol!tion (&K, degrees* does the particle look the same. A particle of spin % is like a do!ble$headed arrow 3ig!re +/5$iii/ it looks the same if one t!rns it ro!nd half a re ol!tion (57, degrees*. Similarly, higher spin particles look the same if one t!rns them thro!gh smaller

fractions of a complete re ol!tion. All this seems fairly straightforward, b!t the remark$able fact is that there are particles that do not look the same if one t!rns them thro!gh H!st one re ol!tion/ yo! ha e to t!rn them thro!gh two complete re ol!tionsC S!ch particles are said to ha e spin T. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter + file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=d.html (% of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/+E A.@ 3ig!re +/5 All the known particles in the !ni erse can be di ided into two gro!ps/ particles of spin T, which make !p the matter in the !ni erse, and particles of spin ,, 5, and %, which, as we shall see, gi e rise to forces between the matter particles. The matter particles obey what is called Ga!lis e"cl!sion principle. This was disco ered in 56%+ by an A!strian physicist, 1olfgang Ga!li D for which he recei ed the -obel GriFe in 56E+. <e was the archetypal theoretical physicist/ it was said of him that e en his presence in the same town wo!ld make e"periments go wrongC Ga!lis e"cl!sion principle says that two similar particles can$not e"ist in the same stateA that is, they cannot ha e both the same

position and the same elocity, within the limits gi en by the !ncertainty principle. The e"cl!sion principle is cr!cial beca!se it e"plains why matter particles do not collapse to a state of ery high density !nder the infl!ence of the forces prod!ced by the particles of spin ,, 5, and %/ if the matter particles ha e ery nearly the same positions, they m!st ha e different elocities, which means that they will not stay in the same position for long. If the world had been created witho!t the e"cl!sion principle, 0!arks wo!ld not form separate, well$defined protons and ne!trons. -or wo!ld these, together with electrons, form separate, well$defined atoms. They wo!ld all collapse to form a ro!ghly !niform, dense so!p. A proper !nderstanding of the electron and other spin$T particles did not come !ntil 56%7, when a theory was proposed by Ga!l 4irac, who later was elected to the #!casian Grofessorship of .athematics at Cambridge (the same professorship that -ewton had once held and that I now hold*. 4iracs theory was the first of its kind that was consistent with both 0!ant!m mechanics and the special theory of relati ity. It e"plained mathematically why the electron had spin$TA that is, why it didnt look the same if yo!

t!rned it thro!gh only one complete re ol!tion, b!t did if yo! t!rned it thro!gh two re ol!tions. It also predicted that the electron sho!ld ha e a partner/ an anti$electron, or positron. The disco ery of the positron in 56&% confirmed 4iracs theory and led to his being awarded the -obel GriFe for physics in 56&&. 1e now know that e ery particle has an antiparticle, with which it can annihilate. (In the case of the force$carrying particles, the antiparticles are the same as the particles themsel es.* There co!ld be whole antiworlds and antipeople made o!t of antiparticles. <owe er, if yo! meet yo!r antiself, dont shake handsC Bo! wo!ld both anish in a great flash of light. The 0!estion of why there seem to be so many more particles than antiparticles aro!nd !s is e"tremely A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter + file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=d.html (& of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/+E A.@ important, and I shall ret!rn to it later in the chapter. In 0!ant!m mechanics, the forces or interactions between matter particles are all s!pposed to be carried by particles of integer spin D ,, 5, or %. 1hat happens is that a

matter particle, s!ch as an electron or a 0!ark, emits a force$carrying particle. The recoil from this emission changes the elocity of the matter particle. The force$ carrying particle then collides with another matter particle and is absorbed. This collision changes the elocity of the second particle, H!st as if there had been a force between the two matter particles. It is an important property of Q the force$carrying particles that they do not obey the e"cl!sion principle. This means that there is no limit to the n!mber that can be e"changed, and so they can gi e rise to a strong force. <owe er, if the force$ carrying particles ha e a high mass, it will be diffic!lt to prod!ce and e"change them o er a large distance. So the forces that they carry will ha e only a short range. ;n the other hand, if the force$carrying particles ha e no mass of their own, the forces will be long range. The force$ carrying particles e"changed between matter particles are said to be irt!al particles beca!se, !nlike real particles, they cannot be directly detected by a particle detector. 1e know they e"ist, howe er, beca!se they do ha e a meas!rable effect/ they gi e rise to forces between matter particles. Garticles of spin ,, 5, or % do also e"ist in some circ!mstances as real

particles, when they can be directly detected. They then appear to !s as what a classical physicist wo!ld call wa es, s!ch as wa es of light or gra itational wa es. They may sometimes be emitted when matter particles interact with each other by e"changing irt!al force$carrying particles. (3or e"ample, the electric rep!lsi e force between two electrons is d!e to the e"change of irt!al photons, which can ne er be directly detectedA b!t if one electron mo es past another, real photons may be gi en off, which we detect as light wa es.* 3orce$carrying particles can be gro!ped into fo!r categories according to the strength of the force that they carry and the particles with which they interact. It sho!ld be emphasiFed that this di ision into fo!r classes is man$madeA it is con enient for the constr!ction of partial theories, b!t it may not correspond to anything deeper. Mltimately, most physicists hope to find a !nified theory that will e"plain all fo!r forces as different aspects of a single force. Indeed, many wo!ld say this is the prime goal of physics today. :ecently, s!ccessf!l attempts ha e been made to !nify three of the fo!r categories of force D and I shall describe these in this chapter. The 0!estion of the

!nification of the remaining category, gra ity, we shall lea e till later. The first category is the gra itational force. This force is !ni ersal, that is, e ery particle feels the force of gra ity, according to its mass or energy. 9ra ity is the weakest of the fo!r forces by a long wayA it is so weak that we wo!ld not notice it at all were it not for two special properties that it has/ it can act o er large distances, and it is always attracti e. This means that the ery weak gra itational forces between the indi id!al particles in two large bodies, s!ch as the earth and the s!n, can all add !p to prod!ce a significant force. The other three forces are either short range, or are sometimes attracti e and some$times rep!lsi e, so they tend to cancel o!t. In the 0!ant!m mechanical way of looking at the gra itational field, the force between two matter particles is pict!red as being carried by a particle of spin % called the gra iton. This has no mass of its own, so the force that it carries is long range. The gra itational force between the s!n and the earth is ascribed to the e"change of gra itons between the particles that make !p these two bodies. Altho!gh the e"changed particles are irt!al, they certainly do prod!ce a meas!rable effect D they make the

earth orbit the s!nC :eal gra itons make !p what classical physicists wo!ld call gra itational wa es, which are ery weak D and so diffic!lt to detect that they ha e not yet been obser ed. The ne"t category is the electromagnetic force, which interacts with electrically charged particles like electrons and 0!arks, b!t not with !ncharged particles s!ch as gra itons. It is m!ch stronger than the gra itational force/ the electromagnetic force between two electrons is abo!t a million million million million million million million (5 with forty$two Feros after it* times bigger than the gra itational force. <owe er, there are two kinds of electric charge, positi e and negati e. The force between two positi e charges is rep!lsi e, as is the force between two negati e charges, b!t the force is attracti e between a positi e and a negati e charge. A large body, s!ch as the earth or the s!n, contains nearly e0!al n!mbers of positi e and negati e charges. Th!s the attracti e and rep!lsi e forces between the indi id!al particles nearly cancel each other o!t, and there is ery little net electromagnetic force. <owe er, on the small scales of atoms and molec!les, electromagnetic forces dominate. The electromagnetic attraction between

negati ely charged electrons and positi ely charged protons in the n!cle!s ca!ses the electrons to orbit the n!cle!s of the atom, H!st as gra itational attraction ca!ses the earth to orbit the s!n. The electromagnetic attraction is pict!red as being ca!sed by the e"change of large n!mbers of irt!al massless particles of spin 5, called photons. Again, the photons that are e"changed are irt!al particles. <owe er, when an electron changes from one allowed orbit to another one nearer to the n!cle!s, energy is released and a real photon is emitted D which can be obser ed as isible light by the h!man eye, if it has the right wa e$length, or by a photon detector s!ch as photographic film. 80!ally, if a real photon collides with an atom, it may mo e an electron from an orbit nearer the n!cle!s to one farther away. This !ses !p the energy of the photon, so it is absorbed. The third category is called the weak n!clear force, which is responsible for radioacti ity and which acts on all matter particles of spin$T, b!t not on particles of spin ,, 5, or %, s!ch as photons and gra itons. The weak n!clear force was not well !nderstood !ntil 56K', when Abd!s Salam at Imperial College, #ondon, and Ste en 1einberg

at <ar ard both A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter + file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=d.html (E of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/+E A.@ proposed theories that !nified this interaction with the electromagnetic force, H!st as .a"well had !nified electricity and magnetism abo!t a h!ndred years earlier. They s!ggested that in addition to the photon, there were three other spin$5 particles, known collecti ely as massi e ector bosons, that carried the weak force. These were called 1U (prono!nced 1 pl!s*, 1$ (prono!nced 1 min!s*, and SV (prono!nced S na!ght*, and each had a mass of aro!nd 5,, 9eI (9eI stands for gigaelectron$ olt, or one tho!sand million electron olts*. The 1einberg$Salam theory e"hibits a property known as spontaneo!s symmetry breaking. This means that what appear to be a n!mber of completely different particles at low energies are in fact fo!nd to be all the same type of particle, only in different states. At high energies all these particles beha e similarly. The effect is rather like the beha ior of a ro!lette ball on a ro!lette wheel. At high energies (when the wheel is sp!n 0!ickly* the ball beha es

in essentially only one way D it rolls ro!nd and ro!nd. )!t as the wheel slows, the energy of the ball decreases, and e ent!ally the ball drops into one of the thirty$ se en slots in the wheel. In other words, at low energies there are thirty$ se en different states in which the ball can e"ist. If, for some reason, we co!ld only obser e the ball at low energies, we wo!ld then think that there were thirty$se en different types of ballC In the 1einberg$Salam theory, at energies m!ch greater than 5,, 9eI, the three new particles and the photon wo!ld all beha e in a similar manner. )!t at the lower particle energies that occ!r in most normal sit!ations, this symmetry between the particles wo!ld be broken. 18, 1, and SV wo!ld ac0!ire large masses, making the forces they carry ha e a ery short range. At the time that Salam and 1einberg proposed their theory, few people belie ed them, and particle accelerators were not powerf!l eno!gh to reach the energies of 5,, 9eI re0!ired to prod!ce real 1U, 1$, or SV particles. <owe er, o er the ne"t ten years or so, the other predictions of the theory at lower energies agreed so well with e"periment that, in 56'6, Salam and 1einberg were awarded the -obel GriFe for physics,

together with Sheldon 9lashow, also at <ar ard, who had s!ggested similar !nified theories of the electromagnetic and weak n!clear forces. The -obel committee was spared the embarrassment of ha ing made a mistake by the disco ery in 567& at C8:(8!ropean Centre for -!clear :esearch* of the three massi e partners of the photon, with the correct predicted masses and other properties. Carlo :!bbia, who led the team of se eral h!ndred physicists that made the disco ery, recei ed the -obel GriFe in 567E, along with Simon an der .eer, the C8:-engineer who de eloped the antimatter storage system employed. (It is ery diffic!lt to make a mark in e"perimental physics these days !nless yo! are already at the topC * The fo!rth category is the strong n!clear force, which holds the 0!arks together in the proton and ne!tron, and holds the protons and ne!trons together in the n!cle!s of an atom. It is belie ed that this force is carried by another spin$5 particle, called the gl!on, which interacts only with itself and with the 0!arks. The strong n!clear force has a c!rio!s property called confinement/ it always binds particles together into combinations that ha e no color. ;ne cannot ha e a single

0!ark on its own beca!se it wo!ld ha e a color (red, green, or bl!e*. Instead, a red 0!ark has to be Hoined to a green and a bl!e 0!ark by a string of gl!ons (red U green U bl!e R white*. S!ch a triplet constit!tes a proton or a ne!tron. Another possibility is a pair consisting of a 0!ark and an anti0!ark (red U antired, or green U antigreen, or bl!e U antibl!e R white*. S!ch combinations make !p the particles known as mesons, which are !nstable beca!se the 0!ark and anti0!ark can annihilate each other, prod!cing electrons and other particles. Similarly, confinement pre ents one ha ing a single gl!on on its own, beca!se gl!ons also ha e color. Instead, one has to ha e a collection of gl!ons whose colors add !p to white. S!ch a collection forms an !nstable particle called a gl!eball. The fact that confinement pre ents one from obser ing an isolated 0!ark or gl!on might seem to make the whole notion of 0!arks and gl!ons as particles somewhat metaphysical. <owe er, there is another property of the strong n!clear force, called asymptotic freedom, that makes the concept of 0!arks and gl!ons well defined. At normal energies, the strong n!clear force is indeed strong, and it binds the 0!arks tightly together. <owe er, e"periments

with large particle accelerators indicate that at high energies the strong force becomes m!ch weaker, and the 0!arks and gl!ons beha e almost like free particles. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter + file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=d.html (+ of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/+E A.@ 3ig!re +/% 3ig!re +/% shows a photograph of a collision between a high$energy proton and antiproton. The s!ccess of the !nification of the electromagnetic and weak n!clear forces led to a n!mber of attempts to combine these two forces with the strong n!clear force into what is called a grand !nified theory (or 9MT*. This title is rather an e"aggeration/ the res!ltant theories are not all that grand, nor are they f!lly !nified, as they do not incl!de gra ity. -or are they really complete theories, beca!se they contain a n!mber of parameters whose al!es cannot be predicted from the theory b!t ha e to be chosen to fit in with e"periment. -e ertheless, they may be a step toward a complete, f!lly !nified theory. The basic idea of 9MTs is as follows/ as was mentioned abo e, the strong n!clear force gets weaker at high

energies. ;n the other hand, the electromagnetic and weak forces, which are not asymptotically free, get stronger at high energies. At some ery high energy, called the grand !nification energy, these three forces wo!ld all ha e the same strength and so co!ld H!st be different aspects of a single force. The 9MTs also predict that at this energy the different spin$T matter particles, like 0!arks and electrons, wo!ld also all be essentially the same, th!s achie ing another !nification. The al!e of the grand !nification energy is not ery well known, b!t it wo!ld probably ha e to be at least a tho!sand million million 9eI. The present generation of particle accelerators can collide particles at energies of abo!t one h!ndred 9eI, and machines are planned that wo!ld raise this to a few tho!sand 9eI. )!t a machine that was powerf!l eno!gh to accelerate particles to the grand !nification energy wo!ld ha e to be as big as the Solar System D and wo!ld be !nlikely to be f!nded in the present economic climate. Th!s it is impossible to test grand !nified theories directly in the laboratory. <owe er, H!st as in the case of the electromagnetic and weak !nified theory, there are low$energy conse0!ences of the

theory that can be tested. The most interesting of these is the prediction that protons, which make !p m!ch of the mass of ordinary matter, can spontaneo!sly decay into lighter particles s!ch as antielectrons. The reason this is possible is that at the grand !nification energy there is no essential difference between a 0!ark and an antielectron. The three 0!arks inside a proton normally do not ha e eno!gh energy to change into antielectrons, b!t ery occasionally one of them may ac0!ire A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter + file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=d.html (K of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/+E A.@ s!fficient energy to make the transition beca!se the !ncertainty principle means that the energy of the 0!arks inside the proton cannot be fi"ed e"actly. The proton wo!ld then decay. The probability of a 0!ark gaining s!fficient energy is so low that one is likely to ha e to wait at least a million million million million million years (5 followed by thirty Feros*. This is m!ch longer than the time since the big bang, which is a mere ten tho!sand million years or so (5 followed by ten Feros*. Th!s one might think that the possibility of

spontaneo!s proton decay co!ld not be tested e"perimentally. <owe er, one can increase ones chances of detecting a decay by obser ing a large amo!nt of matter containing a ery large n!mber of protons. (If, for e"ample, one obser ed a n!mber of protons e0!al to 5 followed by thirty$ one Feros for a period of one year, one wo!ld e"pect, according to the simplest 9MT, to obser e more than one proton decay.* A n!mber of s!ch e"periments ha e been carried o!t, b!t none ha e yielded definite e idence of proton or ne!tron decay. ;ne e"periment !sed eight tho!sand tons of water and was performed in the .orton Salt .ine in ;hio (to a oid other e ents taking place, ca!sed by cosmic rays, that might be conf!sed with proton decay*. Since no spontaneo!s proton decay had been obser ed d!ring the e"periment, one can calc!late that the probable life of the proton m!st be greater than ten million million million million million years (5 with thirty$one Feros*. This is longer than the lifetime predicted by the simplest grand !nified theory, b!t there are more elaborate theories in which the predicted lifetimes are longer. Still more sensiti e e"periments in ol ing e en larger 0!antities of matter will be needed to test them.

8 en tho!gh it is ery diffic!lt to obser e spontaneo!s proton decay, it may be that o!r ery e"istence is a conse0!ence of the re erse process, the prod!ction of protons, or more simply, of 0!arks, from an initial sit!ation in which there were no more 0!arks than anti0!arks, which is the most nat!ral way to imagine the !ni erse starting o!t. .atter on the earth is made !p mainly of protons and ne!trons, which in t!rn are made !p of 0!arks. There are no antiprotons or antine!trons, made !p from anti0!arks, e"cept for a few that physicists prod!ce in large particle accelerators. 1e ha e e idence from cosmic rays that the same is tr!e for all the matter in o!r gala"y/ there are no antiprotons or antine!trons apart from a small n!mber that are prod!ced as particle= antiparticle pairs in high$energy collisions. If there were large regions of antimatter in o!r gala"y, we wo!ld e"pect to obser e large 0!antities of radiation from the borders between the regions of matter and antimatter, where many particles wo!ld be colliding with their anti$particles, annihilating each other and gi ing off high$energy radiation. 1e ha e no direct e idence as to whether the matter in other gala"ies is made !p of protons and ne!trons or antiprotons

and anti$ne!trons, b!t it m!st be one or the other/ there cannot be a mi"t!re in a single gala"y beca!se in that case we wo!ld again obser e a lot of radiation from annihilations. 1e therefore belie e that all gala"ies are composed of 0!arks rather than anti0!arksA it seems impla!sible that some gala"ies sho!ld be matter and some antimatter. 1hy sho!ld there be so many more 0!arks than anti0!arks2 1hy are there not e0!al n!mbers of each2 It is certainly fort!nate for !s that the n!mbers are !ne0!al beca!se, if they had been the same, nearly all the 0!arks and anti0!arks wo!ld ha e annihilated each other in the early !ni erse and left a !ni erse filled with radiation b!t hardly any matter. There wo!ld then ha e been no gala"ies, stars, or planets on which h!man life co!ld ha e de eloped. #!ckily, grand !nified theories may pro ide an e"planation of why the !ni erse sho!ld now contain more 0!arks than anti0!arks, e en if it started o!t with e0!al n!mbers of each. As we ha e seen, 9MTs allow 0!arks to change into antielectrons at high energy. They also allow the re erse processes, anti0!arks t!rning into electrons, and electrons and antielectrons t!rning into anti0!arks and 0!arks. There was a time in

the ery early !ni erse when it was so hot that the particle energies wo!ld ha e been high eno!gh for these transformations to take place. )!t why sho!ld that lead to more 0!arks than anti0!arks2 The reason is that the laws of physics are not 0!ite the same for particles and antiparticles. Mp to 56+K it was belie ed that the laws of physics obeyed each of three separate symmetries called C, G, and T. The symmetry C means that the laws are the same for particles and antiparticles. The symmetry G means that the laws are the same for any sit!ation and its mirror image (the mirror image of a particle spinning in a right$ handed direction is one spinning in a left$handed direction*. The symmetry T means that if yo! re erse the direction of motion of all particles and antiparticles, the system sho!ld go back to what it was at earlier timesA in other words, the laws are the same in the forward and backward directions of time. In 56+K two American physicists, Ts!ng$4ao #ee and Chen -ing Bang, s!ggested that the weak force does not in fact obey the symmetry G. In other words, the weak force wo!ld make the !ni erse de elop in a different way from the way in which the mirror image of the !ni erse wo!ld

de elop. The same year, a colleag!e, Chien$Shi!ng 1!, pro ed their prediction correct. She did this by lining !p the n!clei of radioacti e atoms in a magnetic field, so that they were all spinning in the same direction, and showed that the electrons were gi en off more in one direction than another. The following year, #ee and Bang recei ed the -obel GriFe for their idea. It was also fo!nd that the weak force did not obey the symmetry C. That is, it wo!ld ca!se a !ni erse composed of antiparticles to beha e differently from o!r !ni erse. -e ertheless, it seemed that the weak force did obey the combined symmetry CG. That is, the !ni erse wo!ld de elop in the same way as its mirror image if, in addition, e ery particle was swapped with its antiparticleC <owe er, in 56KE two more Americans, J. 1. Cronin and Ial 3itch, disco ered that e en the CG symmetry was not obeyed in the decay of certain particles called L$mesons. Cronin and 3itch e ent!ally recei ed the -obel GriFe for their work in 567,. (A lot of priFes ha e been awarded for showing that the !ni erse is not as simple as we might ha e tho!ghtC* A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter +

file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=d.html (' of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/+E A.@ There is a mathematical theorem that says that any theory that obeys 0!ant!m mechanics and relati ity m!st always obey the combined symmetry CGT. In other words, the !ni erse wo!ld ha e to beha e the same if one replaced particles by antiparticles, took the mirror image, and also re ersed the direction of time. )!t Cronin and 3itch showed that if one replaces particles by antiparticles and takes the mirror image, b!t does not re erse the direction of time, then the !ni erse does not beha e the same. The laws of physics, therefore, m!st change if one re erses the direction of time D they do not obey the symmetry T. Certainly the early !ni erse does not obey the symmetry T/ as time r!ns forward the !ni erse e"pands D if it ran backward, the !ni erse wo!ld be contracting. And since there are forces that do not obey the symmetry T, it follows that as the !ni erse e"pands, these forces co!ld ca!se more antielectrons to t!rn into 0!arks than electrons into anti0!arks. Then, as the !ni erse e"panded and cooled, the anti0!arks wo!ld annihilate with the 0!arks, b!t since there wo!ld be

more 0!arks than anti0!arks, a small e"cess of 0!arks wo!ld remain. It is these that make !p the matter we see today and o!t of which we o!rsel es are made. Th!s o!r ery e"istence co!ld be regarded as a confirmation of grand !nified theories, tho!gh a 0!alitati e one onlyA the !ncertainties are s!ch that one cannot predict the n!mbers of 0!arks that will be left after the annihilation, or e en whether it wo!ld be 0!arks or anti0!arks that wo!ld remain. (<ad it been an e"cess of anti0!arks, howe er, we wo!ld simply ha e named anti0!arks 0!arks, and 0!arks anti0!arks.* 9rand !nified theories do not incl!de the force of gra ity. This does not matter too m!ch, beca!se gra ity is s!ch a weak force that its effects can !s!ally be neglected when we are dealing with elementary particles or atoms. <owe er, the fact that it is both long range and always attracti e means that its effects all add !p. So for a s!fficiently large n!mber of matter particles, gra itational forces can dominate o er all other forces. This is why it is gra ity that determines the e ol!tion of the !ni erse. 8 en for obHects the siFe of stars, the attracti e force of gra ity can win o er all the other forces and ca!se the star to collapse. .y work in the

56',s foc!sed on the black holes that can res!lt from s!ch stellar collapse and the intense gra itational fields aro!nd them. It was this that led to the first hints of how the theories of 0!ant!m mechanics and general relati ity might affect each other D a glimpse of the shape of a 0!ant!m theory of gra ity yet to come. G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter + file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=d.html (7 of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5E/+E A.@ C(*PTE4 % &;*C< (O;ES The term blac' hole is of ery recent origin. It was coined in 56K6 by the American scientist John 1heeler as a graphic description of an idea that goes back at least two h!ndred years, to a time when there were two theories abo!t light/ one, which -ewton fa ored, was that it was composed of particlesA the other was that it was made of wa es. 1e now know that really both theories are correct. )y the wa e=particle d!ality of 0!ant!m mechanics, light can be regarded as both a wa e and a particle. Mnder the theory that light is made !p of wa es, it was not clear how it

wo!ld respond to gra ity. )!t if light is composed of particles, one might e"pect them to be affected by gra ity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are. At first people tho!ght that particles of light tra eled infinitely fast, so gra ity wo!ld not ha e been able to slow them down, b!t the disco ery by :oemer that light tra els at a finite speed meant that gra ity might ha e an important effect. ;n this ass!mption, a Cambridge don, John .ichell, wrote a paper in 5'7& in the Philosophical Transactions of the #oyal Society of (ondon in which he pointed o!t that a star that was s!fficiently massi e and compact wo!ld ha e s!ch a strong gra itational field that light co!ld not escape/ any light emitted from the s!rface of the star wo!ld be dragged back by the stars gra itational attraction before it co!ld get ery far. .ichell s!ggested that there might be a large n!mber of stars like this. Altho!gh we wo!ld not be able to see them beca!se the light from them wo!ld not reach !s, we wo!ld still feel their gra itational attraction. S!ch obHects are what we now call black holes, beca!se that is what they are/ black oids in space. A similar s!ggestion was made a few years later by the

3rench scientist the .ar0!is de #aplace, apparently independently of .ichell. Interestingly eno!gh, #aplace incl!ded it in only the first and second editions of his book The System of the )orld, and left it o!t of later editionsA perhaps he decided that it was a craFy idea. (Also, the particle theory of light went o!t of fa or d!ring the nineteenth cent!ryA it seemed that e erything co!ld be e"plained by the wa e theory, and according to the wa e theory, it was not clear that light wo!ld be affected by gra ity at all.* In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in -ewtons theory of gra ity beca!se the speed of light is fi"ed. (A cannonball fired !pward from the earth will be slowed down by gra ity and will e ent!ally stop and fall backA a photon, howe er, m!st contin!e !pward at a constant speed. <ow then can -ewtonian gra $ ity affect light2* A consistent theory of how gra ity affects light did not come along !ntil 8instein proposed general relati ity in 565+. And e en then it was a long time before the implications of the theory for massi e stars were !nderstood. To !nderstand how a black hole might be formed, we first need an !nderstanding of the life cycle of

a star. A star is formed when a large amo!nt of gas (mostly hydrogen* starts to collapse in on itself d!e to its gra itational attraction. As it contracts, the atoms of the gas collide with each other more and more fre0!ently and at greater and greater speeds D the gas heats !p. 8 ent!ally, the gas will be so hot that when the hydrogen atoms collide they no longer bo!nce off each other, b!t instead coalesce to form heli!m. The heat released in this reaction, which is like a controlled hydrogen bomb e"plosion, is what makes the star shine. This additional heat also increases the press!re of the gas !ntil it is s!fficient to balance the gra itational attraction, and the gas stops contracting. It is a bit like a balloon D there is a balance between the press!re of the air inside, which is trying to make the balloon e"pand, and the tension in the r!bber, which is trying to make the balloon smaller. Stars will remain stable like this for a long time, with heat from the n!clear reactions balancing the gra itational attraction. 8 ent!ally, howe er, the star will r!n o!t of its hydrogen and other n!clear f!els. Garado"ically, the more f!el a star starts off with, the sooner it r!ns o!t. This is beca!se the more

massi e the star is, the hotter it needs to be to balance its gra itational attraction. And the hotter it is, the faster it will !se !p its f!el. ;!r s!n has probably got eno!gh f!el for another fi e tho!sand million years or so, b!t more massi e stars can !se !p their f!el in as little as one h!ndred million years, m!ch less than the age of the !ni erse. 1hen a star r!ns o!t of f!el, it starts to cool off and so to contract. 1hat might happen to it then was first !nderstood only at the end of the 56%,s. In 56%7 an Indian grad!ate st!dent, S!brahmanyan Chandrasekhar, set sail for 8ngland to st!dy at Cambridge with the )ritish astronomer Sir Arth!r 8ddington, an e"pert on general relati ity. (According to some acco!nts, a Ho!rnalist told 8ddington in the early 56%,s that he had heard there were only three people in the world who !nderstood general relati ity. 8ddington pa!sed, then replied, I am trying to think who the third person is.* 4!ring his oyage from India, Chandrasekhar worked o!t how big a star co!ld be and still s!pport itself against its own gra ity after it had !sed !p all its f!el. The idea was this/ when the star becomes small, the matter particles get ery near each other, and so

according to the Ga!li e"cl!sion principle, they m!st ha e ery different elocities. This makes them mo e away from each other and so tends to make the star e"pand. A star can therefore maintain itself at a constant radi!s by a balance between the attraction of gra ity and the rep!lsion that arises from the e"cl!sion principle, H!st as earlier in its life A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter K file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=e.html (5 of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/,7 A.@ gra ity was balanced by the heat. Chandrasekhar realiFed, howe er, that there is a limit to the rep!lsion that the e"cl!sion principle can pro ide. The theory of relati ity limits the ma"im!m difference in the elocities of the matter particles in the star to the speed of light. This means that when the star got s!fficiently dense, the rep!lsion ca!sed by the e"cl!sion principle wo!ld be less than the attraction of gra ity. Chandrasekhar calc!lated that a cold star of more than abo!t one and a half times the mass of the s!n wo!ld not be able to s!pport itself against its own gra ity. (This mass is now known as the Chandrasekhar limit.* A similar disco ery was made abo!t the

same time by the :!ssian scientist #e 4a ido ich #anda!. This had serio!s implications for the !ltimate fate of massi e stars. If a stars mass is less than the Chandrasekhar limit, it can e ent!ally stop contracting and settle down to a possible final state as a white dwarf with a radi!s of a few tho!sand miles and a density of h!ndreds of tons per c!bic inch. A white dwarf is s!pported by the e"cl!sion principle rep!lsion between the electrons in its matter. 1e obser e a large n!mber of these white dwarf stars. ;ne of the first to be disco ered is a star that is orbiting aro!nd Siri!s, the brightest star in the night sky. #anda! pointed o!t that there was another possible final state for a star, also with a limiting mass of abo!t one or two times the mass of the s!n b!t m!ch smaller e en than a white dwarf. These stars wo!ld be s!pported by the e"cl!sion principle rep!lsion between ne!trons and protons, rather than between electrons. They were therefore called ne!tron stars. They wo!ld ha e a radi!s of only ten miles or so and a density of h!ndreds of millions of tons per c!bic inch. At the time they were first predicted, there was no way that ne!tron stars co!ld be obser ed. They were not act!ally

detected !ntil m!ch later. Stars with masses abo e the Chandrasekhar limit, on the other hand, ha e a big problem when they come to the end of their f!el. In some cases they may e"plode or manage to throw off eno!gh matter to red!ce their mass below the limit and so a oid catastrophic gra itational collapse, b!t it was diffic!lt to belie e that this always happened, no matter how big the star. <ow wo!ld it know that it had to lose weight2 And e en if e ery star managed to lose eno!gh mass to a oid collapse, what wo!ld happen if yo! added more mass to a white dwarf Qor ne!tron star to take it o er the limit2 1o!ld it collapse to infinite density2 8ddington was shocked by that implication, and he ref!sed to belie e Chandrasekhars res!lt. 8ddington tho!ght it was simply not possible that a star co!ld collapse to a point. This was the iew of most scientists/ 8instein himself wrote a paper in which he claimed that stars wo!ld not shrink to Fero siFe. The hostility of other scientists, partic!larly 8ddington, his former teacher and the leading a!thority on the str!ct!re of stars, pers!aded Chandrasekhar to abandon this line of work and t!rn instead to other problems in astronomy, s!ch as the

motion of star cl!sters. <owe er, when he was awarded the -obel GriFe in 567&, it was, at least in part, for his early work on the limiting mass of cold stars. Chandrasekhar had shown that the e"cl!sion principle co!ld not halt the collapse of a star more massi e than the Chandrasekhar limit, b!t the problem of !nderstanding what wo!ld happen to s!ch a star, according to general relati ity, was first sol ed by a yo!ng American, :obert ;ppenheimer, in 56&6. <is res!lt, howe er, s!ggested that there wo!ld be no obser ational conse0!ences that co!ld be detected by the telescopes of the day. Then 1orld 1ar II inter ened and ;ppenheimer himself became closely in ol ed in the atom bomb proHect. After the war the problem of gra itational collapse was largely forgotten as most scientists became ca!ght !p in what happens on the scale of the atom and its n!cle!s. In the 56K,s, howe er, interest in the large$scale problems of astronomy and cosmology was re i ed by a great increase in the n!mber and range of astronomical obser ations bro!ght abo!t by the application of modern technology. ;ppenheimers work was then redisco ered and e"tended by a n!mber of people.

The pict!re that we now ha e from ;ppenheimers work is as follows. The gra itational field of the star changes the paths of light rays in space$time from what they wo!ld ha e been had the star not been present. The light cones, which indicate the paths followed in space and time by flashes of light emitted from their tips, are bent slightly inward near the s!rface of the star. This can be seen in the bending of light from distant stars obser ed d!ring an eclipse of the s!n. As the star contracts, the gra itational field at its s!rface gets stronger and the light cones get bent inward more. This makes it more diffic!lt for light from the star to escape, and the light appears dimmer and redder to an obser er at a distance. 8 ent!ally, when the star has shr!nk to a certain critical radi!s, the gra itational field at the s!rface becomes so strong that the light cones are bent inward so m!ch that light can no longer escape 3ig!re K/5. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter K file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=e.html (% of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/,7 A.@ 3ig!re K/5 According to the theory of relati ity, nothing can tra el faster than light. Th!s if light cannot

escape, neither can anything elseA e erything is dragged back by the gra itational field. So one has a set of e ents, a region of space$time, from which it is not possible to escape to reach a distant obser er. This region is what we now call a black hole. Its bo!ndary is called the e ent horiFon and it coincides with the paths of light rays that H!st fail to escape from the black hole. In order to !nderstand what yo! wo!ld see if yo! were watching a star collapse to form a black hole, one has to remember that in the theory of relati ity there is no absol!te time. 8ach obser er has his own meas!re of time. The time for someone on a star will be different from that for someone at a distance, beca!se of the gra itational field of the star. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter K file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=e.html (& of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/,7 A.@ S!ppose an intrepid astrona!t on the s!rface of the collapsing star, collapsing inward with it, sent a signal e ery second, according to his watch, to his spaceship orbiting abo!t the star. At some time on his watch, say 55/,,, the star wo!ld shrink below the critical radi!s at which the

gra itational field becomes so strong nothing can escape, and his signals wo!ld no longer reach the spaceship. As 55/,, approached his companions watching from the spaceship wo!ld find the inter als between s!ccessi e signals from the astrona!t getting longer and longer, b!t this effect wo!ld be ery small before 5,/+6/+6. They wo!ld ha e to wait only ery slightly more than a second between the astrona!ts 5,/+6/+7 signal and the one that he sent when his watch read 5,/+6/+6, b!t they wo!ld ha e to wait fore er for the 55/,, signal. The light wa es emitted from the s!rface of the star between 5,/+6/+6 and 55/,,, by the astrona!ts watch, wo!ld be spread o!t o er an infinite period of time, as seen from the spaceship. The time inter al between the arri al of s!ccessi e wa es at the spaceship wo!ld get longer and longer, so the light from the star wo!ld appear redder and redder and fainter and fainter. 8 ent!ally, the star wo!ld be so dim that it co!ld no longer be seen from the spaceship/ all that wo!ld be left wo!ld be a black hole in space. The star wo!ld, howe er, contin!e to e"ert the same gra itational force on the spaceship, which wo!ld contin!e to orbit the black hole. This scenario is not entirely

realistic, howe er, beca!se of the following problem. 9ra ity gets weaker the farther yo! are from the star, so the gra itational force on o!r intrepid astrona!ts feet wo!ld always be greater than the force on his head. This difference in the forces wo!ld stretch o!r astrona!t o!t like spaghetti or tear him apart before the star had contracted to the critical radi!s at which the e ent horiFon formedC <owe er, we belie e that there are m!ch larger obHects in the !ni erse, like the central regions of gala"ies, that can also !ndergo gra itational collapse to prod!ce black holesA an astrona!t on one of these wo!ld not be torn apart before the black hole formed. <e wo!ld not, in fact, feel anything special as he reached the critical radi!s, and co!ld pass the point of no ret!rn witho!t noticing it <owe er, within H!st a few ho!rs, as the region contin!ed to collapse, the difference in the gra itational forces on his head and his feet wo!ld become so strong that again it wo!ld tear him apart. The work that :oger Genrose and I did between 56K+ and 56', showed that, according to general relati ity, there m!st be a sing!larity of infinite density and space$time c!r at!re within a black hole. This is rather like

the big bang at the beginning of time, only it wo!ld be an end of time for the collapsing body and the astrona!t. At this sing!larity the laws of science and o!r ability to predict the f!t!re wo!ld break down. <owe er, any obser er who remained o!tside the black hole wo!ld not be affected by this fail!re of predictability, beca!se neither light nor any other signal co!ld reach him from the sing!larity. This remarkable fact led :oger Genrose to propose the cosmic censorship hypothesis, which might be paraphrased as 9od abhors a naked sing!larity. In other words, the sing!larities prod!ced by gra itational collapse occ!r only in places, like black holes, where they are decently hidden from o!tside iew by an e ent horiFon. Strictly, this is what is known as the weak cosmic censorship hypothesis/ it protects obser ers who remain o!tside the black hole from the conse0!ences of the breakdown of predictability that occ!rs at the sing!larity, b!t it does nothing at all for the poor !nfort!nate astrona!t who falls into the hole. There are some sol!tions of the e0!ations of general relati ity in which it is possible for o!r astrona!t to see a naked sing!larity/ he may be able to a oid hitting the

sing!larity and instead fall thro!gh a Pwormhole and come o!t in another region of the !ni erse. This wo!ld offer great possibilities for tra el in space and time, b!t !nfort!nately it seems that these sol!tions may all be highly !nstableA the least dist!rbance, s!ch as the presence of an astrona!t, may change them so that the astrona!t co!ld not see the sing!larity !ntil he hit it and his time came to an end. In other words, the sing!larity wo!ld always lie in his f!t!re and ne er in his past. The strong ersion of the cosmic censorship hypothesis states that in a realistic sol!tion, the sing!larities wo!ld always lie either entirely in the f!t!re (like the sing!larities of gra itational collapse* or entirely in the past (like the , big bang*. I strongly belie e in cosmic censorship so I bet Lip Thorne and John Greskill of Cal Tech that it wo!ld always hold. I lost the bet on a technicality beca!se e"amples were prod!ced of sol!tions with a sing!larity that was isible from a long way away. So I had to pay !p, which according to the terms of the bet meant I had to clothe their nakedness. )!t I can claim a moral ictory. The naked sing!larities were !nstable/ the least dist!rbance wo!ld ca!se them either to disappear or to be hidden behind an

e ent horiFon. So they wo!ld not occ!r in realistic sit!ations. The e ent horiFon, the bo!ndary of the region of space$time from which it is not possible to escape, acts rather like a one$way membrane aro!nd the black hole/ obHects, s!ch as !nwary astrona!ts, can fall thro!gh the e ent horiFon into the black hole, b!t nothing can e er get o!t of the black hole thro!gh the e ent horiFon. (:emember that the e ent horiFon is the path in space$time of light that is trying to escape from the black hole, and nothing can tra el faster than light.* ;ne co!ld well say of the e ent horiFon what the poet 4ante said of the entrance to <ell/ All hope abandon, ye who enter here. Anything or anyone who falls thro!gh the e ent horiFon will soon reach the region of infinite density and the end of time. 9eneral relati ity predicts that hea y obHects that are mo ing will ca!se the emission of gra itational wa es, ripples in the c!r at!re of space that tra el at the speed of light. These are similar to light wa es, which are ripples of the electromagnetic field, b!t they are m!ch harder to detect. They can be obser ed by the ery slight change in separation they prod!ce between neighboring freely mo ing

obHects. A n!mber of detectors are being b!ilt in the Mnited States, A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter K file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=e.html (E of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/,7 A.@ 8!rope, and Japan that will meas!re displacements of one part in a tho!sand million million million (5 with twenty$one Feros after it*, or less than the n!cle!s of an atom o er a distance of ten miles. #ike light, gra itational wa es carry energy away from the obHects that emit them. ;ne wo!ld therefore e"pect a system of massi e obHects to settle down e ent!ally to a stationary state, beca!se the energy in any mo ement wo!ld be carried away by the emission of gra itational wa es. (It is rather like dropping a cork into water/ at first it bobs !p and down a great deal, b!t as the ripples carry away its energy, it e ent!ally settles down to a stationary state.* 3or e"ample, the mo ement of the earth in its orbit ro!nd the s!n prod!ces gra itational wa es. The effect of the energy loss will be to change the orbit of the earth so that grad!ally it gets nearer and nearer to the s!n, e ent!ally collides with it, and settles down to a stationary state. The rate

of energy loss in the case of the earth and the s!n is ery low D abo!t eno!gh to r!n a small electric heater. This means it will take abo!t a tho!sand million million million million years for the earth to r!n into the s!n, so theres no immediate ca!se for worryC The change in the orbit of the earth is too slow to be obser ed, b!t this same effect has been obser ed o er the past few years occ!rring in the system called GS: 565& U 5K *PS# stands for p!lsar, a special type of ne!tron star that emits reg!lar p!lses of radio wa es*. This system contains two ne!tron stars orbiting each other, and the energy they are losing by the emission of gra itational wa es is ca!sing them to spiral in toward each other. This confirmation of general relati ity won J. <. Taylor and :. A. <!lse the -obel GriFe in 566&. It will take abo!t three h!ndred million . years for them to collide. J!st before they do, they will be orbiting so fast that they will emit eno!gh gra itational wa es for detectors like #I9; to pick !p. 4!ring the gra itational collapse of a star to form a black hole, the mo ements wo!ld be m!ch more rapid, so the rate at which energy is carried away wo!ld be m!ch higher. It wo!ld therefore not be too long Q before

it settled down to a stationary state. 1hat wo!ld this final stage look like2 ;ne might s!ppose that it wo!ld depend on all the comple" feat!res of the star from which it had formed D not only its mass and rate of rotation, b!t also the different densities of ario!s parts of the star, and the complicated mo ements of the gases within the star. And if black holes were as aried as the obHects that collapsed to form them, it might be ery diffic!lt to make any predictions abo!t black holes in general. In 56K', howe er, the st!dy of black holes was re ol!tioniFed by 1erner Israel, a Canadian scientist (who was born in )erlin, bro!ght !p in So!th Africa, and took his doctoral degree in Ireland*. Israel showed that, according to general relati ity, non$rotating black holes m!st be ery simpleA they were perfectly spherical, their siFe depended only on their mass, and any two s!ch black holes with the same mass were identical. They co!ld, in fact, be described by a partic!lar sol!tion of 8insteins e0!ations that had been known since 565', fo!nd by Larl SchwarFschild shortly after the disco ery of general relati ity. At first many people, incl!ding Israel himself, arg!ed that since

black holes had to be perfectly spherical, a black hole co!ld only form from the collapse of a perfectly spherical obHect. Any real star D which wo!ld ne er be perfectly spherical D co!ld therefore only collapse to form a naked sing!larity. There was, howe er, a different interpretation of Israels res!lt, which was ad ocated by :oger Genrose and John 1heeler in partic!lar. They arg!ed that the rapid mo ements in ol ed in a stars collapse wo!ld mean that the gra itational wa es it ga e off wo!ld make it e er more spherical, and by the time it had settled down to a stationary state, it wo!ld be precisely spherical. According to this iew, any non$rotating star, howe er complicated its shape and internal str!ct!re, wo!ld end !p after gra itational collapse as a perfectly spherical black hole, whose siFe wo!ld depend only on its mass. 3!rther calc!lations s!pported this iew, and it soon came to be adopted generally. Israels res!lt dealt with the case of black holes formed from non$rotating bodies only. In 56K&, :oy Lerr, a -ew Sealander, fo!nd a set of sol!tions of the e0!ations of general relati ity that described rotating black holes. These

Lerr black holes rotate at a constant rate, their siFe and shape depending only on their mass and rate of rotation. If the rotation is Fero, the black hole is perfectly ro!nd and the sol!tion is identical to the SchwarFschild sol!tion. If the rotation is non$Fero, the black hole b!lges o!tward near its e0!ator (H!st as the earth or the s!n b!lge d!e to their rotation*, and the faster it rotates, the more it b!lges. So, to e"tend Israels res!lt to incl!de rotating bodies, it was conHect!red that any rotating body that collapsed to form a black hole wo!ld e ent!ally settle down to a stationary state described by the Lerr sol!tion. In 56', a colleag!e and fellow research st!dent of mine at Cambridge, )randon Carter, took the first step toward pro ing this conHect!re. <e showed that, pro ided a stationary rotating black hole had an a"is of symmetry, like a spinning top, its siFe and shape wo!ld depend only on its mass and rate of rotation. Then, in 56'5, I pro ed that any stationary rotating black hole wo!ld indeed ha e s!ch an a"is of symmetry. 3inally, in 56'&, 4a id :obinson at Lings College, #ondon, !sed Carters and my res!lts to show that the conHect!re had been correct/ s!ch a black hole had indeed to be the Lerr sol!tion. So

after gra itational collapse a black hole m!st settle down into a state in which it co!ld be rotating, b!t not p!lsating. .oreo er, its siFe and shape wo!ld depend only on its mass and rate of rotation, and not on the nat!re of the body that had collapsed to form it. This res!lt became known by the ma"im/ A black hole has no hair. The no hair theorem is of great practical importance, beca!se it so greatly restricts the possible types of black holes. ;ne can therefore make detailed models of obHects that might contain black holes and compare the predictions of the models with obser ations. It also means that a ery large amo!nt of information abo!t A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter K file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=e.html (+ of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/,7 A.@ the body that has collapsed m!st be lost when a black hole is formed, beca!se afterward all we can possibly meas!re abo!t the body is its mass and rate of rotation. The significance of this will be seen in the ne"t chapter. )lack holes are one of only a fairly small n!mber of cases in the history of science in which a theory was de eloped in

great detail as a mathematical model before there was any e idence from obser ations that it was correct. Indeed, this !sed to be the main arg!ment of opponents of black holes/ how co!ld one belie e in obHects for which the only e idence was calc!lations based on the d!bio!s theory of general relati ity2 In 56K&, howe er, .aarten Schmidt, an astronomer at the Galomar ;bser atory in California, meas!red the red shift of a faint starlike obHect in the direction of the so!rce of radio wa es called &C%'& (that is, so!rce n!mber %'& in the third Cambridge catalog!e of radio so!rces*. <e fo!nd it was too large to be ca!sed by a gra itational field/ if it had been a gra itational red shift, the obHect wo!ld ha e to be so massi e and so near to !s that it wo!ld dist!rb the orbits of planets in the Solar System. This s!ggested that the red shift was instead ca!sed by the e"pansion of the !ni erse, which, in t!rn, meant that the obHect was a ery long distance away. And to be isible at s!ch a great distance, the obHect m!st be ery bright, m!st, in other words, be emitting a h!ge amo!nt of energy. The only mechanism that people co!ld think of that wo!ld prod!ce s!ch large 0!antities of energy seemed to be the

gra itational collapse not H!st of a star b!t of a whole central region of a gala"y. A n!mber of other similar 0!asi$stellar obHects, or 0!asars, ha e been disco ered, all with large red shifts. )!t they are all too far away and therefore too diffic!lt to obser e to pro ide concl!si e e idence of black holes. 3!rther enco!ragement for the e"istence of black holes came in 56K' with the disco ery by a research st!dent at Cambridge, Jocelyn )ell$)!rnell, of obHects in the sky that were emitting reg!lar p!lses of radio wa es. At first )ell and her s!per isor, Antony <ewish, tho!ght they might ha e made contact with an alien ci iliFation in the gala"yC Indeed, at the seminar at which they anno!nced their disco ery, I remember that they called the first fo!r so!rces to be fo!nd #9. 5 D E, (!M standing for #ittle 9reen .en. In the end, howe er, they and e eryone else came to the less romantic concl!sion that these obHects, which were gi en the name p!lsars, were in fact rotating ne!tron stars that were emitting p!lses of radio wa es beca!se of a complicated interaction between their magnetic fields and s!rro!nding matter. This was bad news for writers of space westerns, b!t ery hopef!l for the small n!mber

of !s who belie ed in black holes at that time/ it was the first positi e e idence that ne!tron stars e"isted. A ne!tron star has a radi!s of abo!t ten miles, only a few times the critical radi!s at which a star becomes a black hole. If a star co!ld collapse to s!ch a small siFe, it is not !nreasonable to e"pect that other stars co!ld collapse to e en smaller siFe and become black holes. <ow co!ld we hope to detect a black hole, as by its ery definition it does not emit any light2 It might seem a bit like looking for a black cat in a coal cellar. 3ort!nately, there is a way. As John .ichell pointed o!t in his pioneering paper in 5'7&, a black hole still e"erts a gra itational fierce on nearby obHects. Astronomers ha e obser ed many systems in which two stars orbit aro!nd each other, attracted toward each other by gra ity. They also obser e systems in which there is only one isible star that is orbiting aro!nd some !nseen companion. ;ne cannot, of co!rse, immediately concl!de that the companion is a black hole/ it might merely be a star that is too faint to be seen. <owe er, some of these systems, like the one called Cygn!s O$5 3ig!re K/%, are also strong so!rces of O$rays. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking...

Chapter K file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=e.html (K of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/,7 A.@ 3ig!re K/% The best e"planation for this phenomenon is that matter has been blown off the s!rface of the isible star. As it falls toward the !nseen companion, it de elops a spiral motion (rather like water r!nning o!t of a bath*, and it gets ery hot, emitting O$rays 3ig!re K/&. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter K file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=e.html (' of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/,7 A.@ 3ig!re K/& 3or this mechanism to work, the !nseen obHect has to be ery small, like a white dwarf, ne!tron star, or black hole. 3rom the obser ed orbit of the isible star, one can determine the lowest possible mass of the !nseen obHect. In the case of Cygn!s O$l, this is abo!t si" times the mass of the s!n, which, according to Chandrasekharr res!lt, is too great for the !nseen obHect to be a white dwarf. It is also too large a mass to be a ne!tron star. It seems, therefore, that it m!st be a black hole.

There are other models to e"plain Cygn!s O$5 that do not incl!de a black hole, b!t they are all rather far$fetched. A black hole seems to be the only really nat!ral e"planation of the obser ations. 4espite this, I had a bet with Lip Thorne of the California Instit!te of Technology that in fact Cygn!s O$5 does not contain a black holeC This was a form f ins!rance policy for me. I ha e done a lot of work on black holes, and it wo!ld all be wasted if it t!rned o!t that black holes do not e"ist. )!t in that case, I wo!ld ha e the consolation of winning my bet, which wo!ld bring me fo!r years of the magaFine Private +ye. In fact, altho!gh the sit!ation with Cygn!s O$5 has not changed m!ch since we made the bet in 56'+, there is now so m!ch other obser ational e idence in fa or of black holes that I ha e conceded the bet. I paid the specified penalty, which was a one$year s!bscription to Penthouse, to the o!trage of Lips liberated wife. 1e also now ha e e idence for se eral other black holes in systems like Cygn!s O$5 in o!r gala"y and in two neighboring gala"ies called the .agellanic Clo!ds. The n!mber of black holes, howe er, is almost certainly ery m!ch higherA in the long history of the !ni erse, many

stars m!st ha e b!rned all their n!clear f!el and ha e had to collapse. The n!mber of black holes may well be greater e en than the n!mber of isible stars, which totals abo!t a h!ndred tho!sand million in o!r gala"y alone. The e"tra gra itational attraction of s!ch a large n!mber of black holes co!ld e"plain why o!r gala"y rotates at the rate it does/ the mass of the isible stars is ins!fficient to acco!nt for this. 1e also A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter K file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=e.html (7 of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/,7 A.@ ha e some e idence that there is a m!ch larger black hole, with a mass of abo!t a h!ndred tho!sand times that of the s!n, at the center of o!r gala"y. Stars in the gala"y that come too near this black hole will be torn apart by the difference in the gra itational forces on their near and far sides. Their remains and gas that is thrown off other stars, will fall toward the black hole. As in the case of Cygn!s O$l, the gas will spiral inward and will heat !p, tho!gh not as m!ch as in that case. It will not get hot eno!gh to emit O rays, b!t it co!ld acco!nt for the ery compact so!rce of radio wa es

and infrared rays that is obser ed at the galactic center. It is tho!ght that similar b!t e en larger black holes, with masses of abo!t a h!ndred million times the mass of the s!n, occ!r at the centers of 0!asars. 3or e"ample, obser ations with the <!bble telescope of the gala"y known as .7' re eal that it contains a disk of gas 5&, light$ years across rotating abo!t a central obHect two tho!sand million times the mass of the s!n. This can only be a black hole. .atter falling into s!ch a s!permassi e black hole wo!ld pro ide the only so!rce of power great eno!gh to e"plain the enormo!s amo!nts of energy that these obHects are emitting. As the matter spirals into the black hole, it wo!ld make the black hole rotate in the same direction, ca!sing it to de elop a magnetic field rather like that of the earth. Iery high$energy particles wo!ld be generated near the black hole by the in$falling matter. The magnetic field wo!ld be so strong that it co!ld foc!s these particles into Hets eHected o!tward along the a"is of rotation of the black hole, that is, in the directions of its north and so!th poles. S!ch Hets are indeed obser ed in a n!mber of gala"ies and 0!asars. ;ne can also consider the possibility that there might be

black holes with masses m!ch less than that of the s!n. S!ch black holes co!ld not be formed by gra itational collapse, beca!se their masses are below the Chandrasekhar mass limit/ stars of this low mass can s!pport themsel es against the force of gra ity e en when they ha e e"ha!sted their n!clear f!el. #ow$mass black holes co!ld form only if matter was compressed to enormo!s densities by ery large e"ternal press!res. S!ch conditions co!ld occ!r in a ery big hydrogen bomb/ the physicist John 1heeler once calc!lated that if one took all the hea y water in all the oceans of the world, one co!ld b!ild a hydrogen bomb that wo!ld compress matter at the center so m!ch that a black hole wo!ld be created. (;f co!rse, there wo!ld be no one left to obser e itC* A more practical possibility is that s!ch low$mass black holes might ha e been formed in the high temperat!res and press!res of the ery early !ni erse. )lack holes wo!ld ha e been formed only if the early !ni erse had not been perfectly smooth and !niform, beca!se only a small region that was denser than a erage co!ld be compressed in this way to form a black hole. )!t we know that there m!st ha e been

some irreg!larities, beca!se otherwise the matter in the !ni erse wo!ld still be perfectly !niformly distrib!ted at the present epoch, instead of being cl!mped together in stars and gala"ies. 1hether the irreg!larities re0!ired to acco!nt for stars and gala"ies wo!ld ha e led to the formation of a significant n!mber of primordial black holes clearly depends on the details of the conditions in the early !ni erse. So if we co!ld determine how many primordial black holes there are now, we wo!ld learn a lot abo!t the ery early stages of the !ni erse. Grimordial black holes with masses more than a tho!sand million tons (the mass of a large mo!ntain* co!ld be detected only by their gra itational infl!ence on other, isible matter or on the e"pansion of the !ni erse. <owe er, as we shall learn in the ne"t chapter, black holes are not really black after all/ they glow like a hot body, and the smaller they are, the more they glow. So, parado"ically, smaller black holes might act!ally t!rn o!t to be easier to detect than large onesC G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter K file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen

<awking $ A brief history of time=e.html (6 of 6* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/,7 A.@ C(*PTE4 ) &;*C< (O;ES *6$=T SO &;*C< )efore 56',, my research on general relati ity had concentrated mainly on the 0!estion of whether or not there had been a big bang sing!larity. <owe er, one e ening in -o ember that year, shortly after the birth of my da!ghter, #!cy, I started to think abo!t black holes as I was getting into bed. .y disability makes this rather a slow process, so I had plenty of time. At that date there was no precise definition of which points in space$time lay inside a black hole and which lay o!tside. I had already disc!ssed with :oger Genrose the idea of defining a black hole as the set of e ents from which it was not possible to escape to a large distance, which is now the generally accepted definition. It means that the bo!ndary of the black hole, the e ent horiFon, is formed by the light rays that H!st fail to escape from the black hole, ho ering fore er H!st on the edge 3ig!re '/5. It is a bit like r!nning away from the police and H!st managing to keep one step ahead b!t not being able to get clear awayC 3ig!re '/5

S!ddenly I realiFed that the paths of these light rays co!ld ne er approach one another. If they did they m!st e ent!ally r!n into one another. It wo!ld be like meeting someone else r!nning away from the police in the opposite direction D yo! wo!ld both be ca!ghtC (;r, in this case, fall into a black hole.* )!t if these light rays were swallowed !p by the black hole, then they co!ld not ha e been on the bo!ndary of the black hole. So the paths of light rays in the A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter ' file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=f.html (5 of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/57 A.@ e ent horiFon had always to be mo ing parallel to, or away from, each other. Another way of seeing this is that the e ent horiFon, the bo!ndary of the black hole, is like the edge of a shadow D the shadow of impending doom. If yo! look at the shadow cast by a so!rce at a great distance, s!ch as the s!n, yo! will see that the rays of light in the edge are not approaching each other. If the rays of light that form the e ent horiFon, the bo!ndary of the black hole, can ne er approach each other, the area of the e ent horiFon might stay the same or

increase with time, b!t it co!ld ne er decrease beca!se that wo!ld mean that at least some of the rays of light in the bo!ndary wo!ld ha e to be approaching each other. In fact, the area wo!ld increase whene er matter or radiation fell into the black hole 3ig!re '/%. 3ig!res '/% W '/& ;r if two black holes collided and merged together to form a single black hole, the area of the e ent horiFon of the final black hole wo!ld be greater than or e0!al to the s!m of the areas of the e ent horiFons of the original black holes 3ig!re '/&. This nondecreasing property of the e ent horiFons area placed an important restriction on the possible beha ior of black holes. I was so e"cited with my disco ery that I did not get m!ch sleep that night. The ne"t day I rang !p :oger Genrose. <e agreed with me. I think, in fact, that he had been aware of this property of the area. <owe er, he had been !sing a slightly different definition of a black hole. <e had not realiFed that the bo!ndaries of the black A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter ' file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=f.html (% of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/57 A.@

hole according to the two definitions wo!ld be the same, and hence so wo!ld their areas, pro ided the black hole had settled down to a state in which it was not changing with time. The nondecreasing beha ior of a black holes area was ery reminiscent of the beha ior of a physical 0!antity called entropy, which meas!res the degree of disorder of a system. It is a matter of common e"perience that disorder will tend to increase if things are left to themsel es. (;ne has only to stop making repairs aro!nd the ho!se to see thatC* ;ne can create order o!t of disorder (for e"ample, one can paint the ho!se*, b!t that re0!ires e"pendit!re of effort or energy and so decreases the amo!nt of ordered energy a ailable. A precise statement of this idea is known as the second law of thermodynamics. It states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases, and that when two systems are Hoined together, the entropy of the combined system is greater than the s!m of the entropies of the indi id!al systems. 3or e"ample, consider a system of gas molec!les in a bo". The molec!les can be tho!ght of as little billiard balls contin!ally colliding with each other and bo!ncing off the

walls of the bo". The higher the temperat!re of the gas, the faster the molec!les mo e, and so the more fre0!ently and harder they collide with the walls of the bo" and the greater the o!tward press!re they e"ert on the walls. S!ppose that initially the molec!les are all confined to the left$ hand side of the bo" by a partition. If the partition is then remo ed, the molec!les will tend to spread o!t and occ!py both hal es of the bo". At some later time they co!ld, by chance, all be in the right half or back in the left half, b!t it is o erwhelmingly more probable that there will be ro!ghly e0!al n!mbers in the two hal es. S!ch a state is less ordered, or more disordered, than the original state in which all the molec!les were in one half. ;ne therefore says that the entropy of the gas has gone !p. Similarly, s!ppose one starts with two bo"es, one containing o"ygen molec!les and the other containing nitrogen molec!les. If one Hoins the bo"es together and remo es the inter ening wall, the o"ygen and the nitrogen molec!les will start to mi". At a later time the most probable state wo!ld be a fairly !niform mi"t!re of o"ygen and nitrogen molec!les thro!gho!t the two bo"es. This state wo!ld be less ordered, and hence ha e more entropy,

than the initial state of two separate bo"es. The second law of thermodynamics has a rather different stat!s than that of other laws of science, s!ch as -ewtonQs law of gra ity, for e"ample, beca!se it does not hold always, H!st in the ast maHority of cases. The probability of all the gas molec!les in o!r first bo" fo!nd in one half of the bo" at a later time is many millions of millions to one, b!t it can happen. <owe er, if one has a black hole aro!nd there seems to be a rather easier way of iolating the second law/ H!st throw some matter with a lot of entropy s!ch as a bo" of gas, down the black hole. The total entropy of matter o!tside the black hole wo!ld go down. ;ne co!ld, of co!rse, still say that the total entropy, incl!ding the entropy inside the black hole, has not gone down $ b!t since there is no way to look inside the black hole, we cannot see how m!ch entropy the matter inside it has. It wo!ld be nice, then, if there was some feat!re of the black hole by which obser ers o!tside the black hole co!ld tell its entropy, and which wo!ld increase whene er matter carrying entropy fell into the black hole. 3ollowing the disco ery, described abo e, that the area of the e ent horiFon increased whene er matter fell into

a black hole, a research st!dent at Grinceton named Jacob )ekenstein s!ggested that the area of the e ent horiFon was a meas!re of the entropy of the black hole. As matter carrying entropy fell into a black hole, the area of its e ent horiFon wo!ld go !p, so that the s!m of the entropy of matter o!tside black holes and the area of the horiFons wo!ld ne er go down. This s!ggestion seemed to pre ent the second law of thermodynamics from being iolated in most sit!ations. <owe er, there was one fatal flaw. If a black hole has entropy, then it o!ght to also ha e a temperat!re. )!t a body with a partic!lar temperat!re m!st emit radiation at a certain rate. It is a matter of common e"perience that if one heats !p a poker in a fire it glows red hot and emits radiation, b!t bodies at lower temperat!res emit radiation tooA one H!st does not normally notice it beca!se the amo!nt is fairly small. This radiation is re0!ired in order to pre ent iolation of the second law. So black holes o!ght to emit radiation. )!t by their ery definition, black holes are obHects that are not s!pposed to emit anything. It therefore seemed that the area of the e ent horiFon of a black hole co!ld not be regarded

as its entropy. In 56'% I wrote a paper with )randon Carter and an American colleag!e, Jim )ardeen, in which we pointed o!t that altho!gh there were many similarities between entropy and the area of the e ent horiFon, there was this apparently fatal diffic!lty. I m!st admit that in writing this paper I was moti ated partly by irritation with )ekenstein, who, I felt, had mis!sed my disco ery of the increase of the area of the e ent horiFon. <owe er, it t!rned o!t in the end that he was basically correct, tho!gh in a manner he had certainly not e"pected. In September 56'&, while I was isiting .oscow, I disc!ssed black holes with two leading So iet e"perts, Bako Seldo ich and Ale"ander Starobinsky. They con inced me that, according to the 0!ant!m mechanical !ncertainty principle, rotating black holes sho!ld create and emit particles. I belie ed their arg!ments on physical gro!nds, b!t I did not like the mathematical way in which they calc!lated the emission. I therefore set abo!t de ising a better mathematical treatment, which I described at an informal seminar in ;"ford at the end of -o ember 56'&. At that time I had not done the calc!lations to find o!t how m!ch wo!ld act!ally be emitted. I was e"pecting

to disco er H!st the radiation that Seldo ich and Starobinsky had predicted from rotating black holes. <owe er, when I did the calc!lation, I A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter ' file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=f.html (& of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/57 A.@ fo!nd, to my s!rprise and annoyance, that e en non$rotating black holes sho!ld apparently create and emit particles at a steady rate. At first I tho!ght that this emission indicated that one of the appro"imations I had !sed was not alid. I was afraid that if )ekenstein fo!nd o!t abo!t it, he wo!ld !se it as a f!rther arg!ment to s!pport his ideas abo!t the entropy of black holes, which I still did not like. <owe er, the more I tho!ght abo!t it, the more it seemed that the appro"imations really o!ght to hold. )!t what finally con inced me that the emission was real was that the spectr!m of the emitted particles was e"actly that which wo!ld be emitted by a hot body, and that the black hole was emitting particles at e"actly the correct rate to pre ent iolations of the second law. Since then the calc!lations ha e been repeated in a n!mber of different forms by other

people. They all confirm that a black hole o!ght to emit particles and radiation as if it were a hot body with a temperat!re that depends only on the black holes mass/ the higher the mass, the lower the temperat!re. <ow is it possible that a black hole appears to emit particles when we know that nothing can escape from within its e ent horiFon2 The answer, 0!ant!m theory tells !s, is that the particles do not come from within the black hole, b!t from the empty space H!st o!tside the black holes e ent horiFonC 1e can !nderstand this in the following way/ what we think of as empty space cannot be completely empty beca!se that wo!ld mean that all the fields, s!ch as the gra itational and electromagnetic fields, wo!ld ha e to be e"actly Fero. <owe er, the al!e of a field and its rate of change with time are like the position and elocity of a particle/ the !ncertainty principle implies that the more acc!rately one knows one of these 0!antities, the less acc!rately one can know the other. So in empty space the field cannot be fi"ed at e"actly Fero, beca!se then it wo!ld ha e both a precise al!e (Fero* and a precise rate of change (also Fero*. There m!st be a certain minim!m

amo!nt of !ncertainty, or 0!ant!m fl!ct!ations, in the al!e of the field. ;ne can think of these fl!ct!ations as pairs of particles of light or gra ity that appear together at some time, mo e apart, and then come together again and annihilate each other. These particles are irt!al particles like the particles that carry the gra itational force of the s!n/ !nlike real particles, they cannot be obser ed directly with a particle detector. <owe er, their indirect effects, s!ch as small changes in the energy of electron orbits in atoms, can be meas!red and agree with the theoretical predictions to a remarkable degree of acc!racy. The !ncertainty principle also predicts that there will be similar irt!al pairs of matter particles, s!ch as electrons or 0!arks. In this case, howe er, one member of the pair will be a particle and the other an antiparticle (the antiparticles of light and gra ity are the same as the particles*. )eca!se energy cannot be created o!t of nothing, one of the partners in a particle=antiparticle pair will ha e positi e energy, and the other partner negati e energy. The one with negati e energy is condemned to be a short$li ed irt!al particle beca!se real particles always ha e

positi e energy in normal sit!ations. It m!st therefore seek o!t its partner and annihilate with it. <owe er, a real particle close to a massi e body has less energy than if it were far away, beca!se it wo!ld take energy to lift it far away against the gra itational attraction of the body. -ormally, the energy of the particle is still positi e, b!t the gra itational field inside a black hole is so strong that e en a real particle can ha e negati e energy there. It is therefore possible, if a black hole is present, for the irt!al particle with negati e energy to fall into the black hole and become a real particle or antiparticle. In this case it no longer has to annihilate with its partner. Its forsaken partner may fall into the black hole as well. ;r, ha ing positi e energy, it might also escape from the icinity of the black hole as a real particle or antiparticle 3ig!re '/E. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter ' file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=f.html (E of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/57 A.@ 3ig!re '/E To an obser er at a distance, it will appear to ha e been emitted from the black hole. The smaller the black hole, the

shorter the distance the particle with negati e energy will ha e to go before it becomes a real particle, and th!s the greater the rate of emission, and the apparent temperat!re, of the black hole. The positi e energy of the o!tgoing radiation wo!ld be balanced by a flow of negati e energy particles into the black hole. )y 8insteins e0!ation 8 R mc% (where + is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light*, energy is proportional to mass. A flow of negati e energy into the black hole therefore red!ces its mass. As the black hole loses mass, the area of its e ent horiFon gets smaller, b!t this decrease in the entropy of the black hole is more than compensated for by the entropy of the emitted radiation, so the second law is ne er iolated. .oreo er, the lower the mass of the black hole, the higher its temperat!re. So as the black hole loses mass, its temperat!re and rate of emission increase, so it loses mass more 0!ickly. 1hat happens when the mass of the black hole e ent!ally becomes e"tremely small is not 0!ite clear, b!t the most reasonable g!ess is that it wo!ld disappear completely in a tremendo!s final b!rst of emission, e0!i alent to the e"plosion of millions of <$bombs.

A black hole with a mass a few times that of the s!n wo!ld ha e a temperat!re of only one ten millionth of a degree abo e absol!te Fero. This is m!ch less than the temperat!re of the microwa e radiation that fills the !ni erse (abo!t A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter ' file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=f.html (+ of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/57 A.@ %.'V abo e absol!te Fero*, so s!ch black holes wo!ld emit e en less than they absorb. If the !ni erse is destined to go on e"panding fore er, the temperat!re of the microwa e radiation will e ent!ally decrease to less than that of s!ch a black hole, which will then begin to lose mass. )!t, e en then, its temperat!re wo!ld be so low that it wo!ld take abo!t a million million million million million million million million million million million years (5 with si"ty$si" Feros after it* to e aporate completely. This is m!ch longer than the age of the !ni erse, which is only abo!t ten or twenty tho!sand million years (5 or % with ten Feros after it*. ;n the other hand, as mentioned in Chapter K, there might be primordial black holes with a ery m!ch smaller mass that were made by the collapse of irreg!larities in the

ery early stages of the !ni erse. S!ch black holes wo!ld ha e a m!ch higher temperat!re and wo!ld be emitting radiation at a m!ch greater rate. A primordial black hole with an initial mass of a tho!sand million tons wo!ld ha e a lifetime ro!ghly e0!al to the age of the !ni erse. Grimordial black holes with initial masses less than this fig!re wo!ld already ha e completely e aporated, b!t those with slightly greater masses wo!ld still be emitting radiation in the form of O rays and gamma rays. These O rays and gamma rays are like wa es of light, b!t with a m!ch shorter wa elength. S!ch holes hardly deser e the epithet black/ they really are white hot and are emitting energy at a rate of abo!t ten tho!sand megawatts. ;ne s!ch black hole co!ld r!n ten large power stations, if only we co!ld harness its power. This wo!ld be rather diffic!lt, howe er/ the black hole wo!ld ha e the mass of a mo!ntain compressed into less than a million millionth of an inch, the siFe of the n!cle!s of an atomC If yo! had one of these black holes on the s!rface of the earth, there wo!ld be no way to stop it from falling thro!gh the floor to the center of the earth. It wo!ld oscillate thro!gh

the earth and back, !ntil e ent!ally it settled down at the center. So the only place to p!t s!ch a black hole, in which one might !se the energy that it emitted, wo!ld be in orbit aro!nd the earth D and the only way that one co!ld get it to orbit the earth wo!ld be to attract it there by towing a large mass in front of it, rather like a carrot in front of a donkey. This does not so!nd like a ery practical proposition, at least not in the immediate f!t!re. )!t e en if we cannot harness the emission from these primordial black holes, what are o!r chances of obser ing them2 1e co!ld look for the gamma rays that the primordial black holes emit d!ring most of their lifetime. Altho!gh the radiation from most wo!ld be ery weak beca!se they are far away, the total from all of them might be detectable. 1e do obser e s!ch a backgro!nd of gamma rays/ 3ig!re '/+ shows how the obser ed intensity differs at different fre0!encies (the n!mber of wa es per second*. <owe er, this backgro!nd co!ld ha e been, and probably was, generated by processes other than primordial black holes. The dotted line in 3ig!re '/+ shows how the intensity sho!ld ary with fre0!ency for gamma rays gi en off by

primordial black holes, if there were on a erage &,, per c!bic light$year. ;ne can therefore say that the obser ations of the gamma ray backgro!nd do not pro ide any positi e e idence for primordial black holes, b!t they do tell !s that on a erage there cannot be more than &,, in e ery c!bic light$year in the !ni erse. This limit means that primordial black holes co!ld make !p at most one millionth of the matter in the !ni erse. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter ' file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=f.html (K of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/57 A.@ 3ig!re '/+ 1ith primordial black holes being so scarce, it might seem !nlikely that there wo!ld be one near eno!gh for !s to obser e as an indi id!al so!rce of gamma rays. )!t since gra ity wo!ld draw primordial black holes toward any matter, they sho!ld be m!ch more common in and aro!nd gala"ies. So altho!gh the gamma ray backgro!nd tells !s that there can be no more than &,, primordial black holes per c!bic light$year on a erage, it tells !s nothing abo!t how common they might be in o!r own gala"y. If they were,

say, a million times more common than this, then the nearest black hole to !s wo!ld probably be at a distance of abo!t a tho!sand million kilometers, or abo!t as far away as Gl!to, the farthest known planet. At this distance it wo!ld still be ery diffic!lt to detect the steady emission of a black hole, e en if it was ten tho!sand megawatts. In order to obser e a primordial black hole one wo!ld ha e to detect se eral gamma ray 0!anta coming from the same direction within a reasonable space of time, s!ch as a week. ;therwise, they might simply be part of the backgro!nd. )!t Glancks 0!ant!m principle tells !s that each gamma ray 0!ant!m has a ery high energy, beca!se gamma rays ha e a ery high fre0!ency, so it wo!ld not take many 0!anta to radiate e en ten tho!sand megawatts. And to obser e these few coming from the distance of Gl!to wo!ld re0!ire a larger gamma ray detector than any that ha e been constr!cted so far. .oreo er, the detector wo!ld ha e to be in space, beca!se gamma rays cannot penetrate the atmosphere. ;f co!rse, if a black hole as close as Gl!to were to reach the end of its life and blow !p, it wo!ld be easy to detect the final b!rst of emission. )!t if the black hole has

been emitting for the last ten or twenty tho!sand million years, the chance of it reaching the end of its life within the ne"t few years, rather than se eral million years in the past or f!t!re, is really rather smallC So in order to ha e a reasonable chance of seeing an e"plosion before yo!r research grant ran o!t, yo! wo!ld ha e to find a way to detect any e"plosions within a distance of abo!t one light$ year. In fact b!rsts of A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter ' file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=f.html (' of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/57 A.@ gamma rays from space ha e been detected by satellites originally constr!cted to look for iolations of the Test )an Treaty. These seem to occ!r abo!t si"teen times a month and to be ro!ghly !niformly distrib!ted in direction across the sky. This indicates that they come from o!tside the Solar System since otherwise we wo!ld e"pect them to be concentrated toward the plane of the orbits of the planets. The !niform distrib!tion also indicates that the so!rces are either fairly near to !s in o!r gala"y or right o!tside it at cosmological distances beca!se otherwise, again, they wo!ld

be concentrated toward the plane of the gala"y. In the latter case, the energy re0!ired to acco!nt for the b!rsts wo!ld be far too high to ha e been prod!ced by tiny black holes, b!t if the so!rces were close in galactic terms, it might be possible that they were e"ploding black holes. I wo!ld ery m!ch like this to be the case b!t I ha e to recogniFe that there are other possible e"planations for the gamma ray b!rsts, s!ch as colliding ne!tron stars. -ew obser ations in the ne"t few years, partic!larly by gra itational wa e detectors like #I9;, sho!ld enable !s to disco er the origin of the gamma ray b!rsts. 8 en if the search for primordial black holes pro es negati e, as it seems it may, it will still gi e !s important information abo!t the ery early stages of the !ni erse. If the early !ni erse had been chaotic or irreg!lar, or if the press!re of matter had been low, one wo!ld ha e e"pected it to prod!ce many more primordial black holes than the limit already set by o!r obser ations of the gamma ray backgro!nd. ;nly if the early !ni erse was ery smooth and !niform, with a high press!re, can one e"plain the absence of obser able n!mbers of primordial black holes.

The idea of radiation from black holes was the first e"ample of a prediction that depended in an essential way on both the great theories of this cent!ry, general relati ity and 0!ant!m mechanics. It aro!sed a lot of opposition initially beca!se it !pset the e"isting iewpoint/ <ow can a black hole emit anything2 1hen I first anno!nced the res!lts of my calc!lations at a conference at the :!therford$Appleton #aboratory near ;"ford, I was greeted with general incred!lity. At the end of my talk the chairman of the session, John 9. Taylor from Lings College, #ondon, claimed it was all nonsense. <e e en wrote a paper to that effect. <owe er, in the end most people, incl!ding John Taylor, ha e come to the concl!sion that black holes m!st radiate like hot bodies if o!r other ideas abo!t general relati ity and 0!ant!m mechanics are correct. Th!s, e en tho!gh we ha e not yet managed to find a primordial black hole, there is fairly general agreement that if we did, it wo!ld ha e to be emitting a lot of gamma rays and O rays. The e"istence of radiation from black holes seems to imply that gra itational collapse is not as final and irre ersible as we once tho!ght. If an astrona!t falls into a black

hole, its mass will increase, b!t e ent!ally the energy e0!i alent of that e"tra mass will be ret!rned to the !ni erse in the form of radiation. Th!s, in a sense, the astrona!t will be recycled. It wo!ld be a poor sort of immortality, howe er, beca!se any personal concept of time for the astrona!t wo!ld almost certainly come to an end as he was torn apart inside the black holeC 8 en the types of particles that were e ent!ally emitted by the black hole wo!ld in general be different from those that made !p the astrona!t/ the only feat!re of the astrona!t that wo!ld s!r i e wo!ld be his mass or energy. The appro"imations I !sed to deri e the emission from black holes sho!ld work well when the black hole has a mass greater than a fraction of a gram. <owe er, they will break down at the end of the black holes life when its mass gets ery small. The most likely o!tcome seems to be that the black hole will H!st disappear, at least from o!r region of the !ni erse, taking with it the astrona!t and any sing!larity there might be inside it, if indeed there is one. This was the first indication that 0!ant!m mechanics might remo e the sing!larities that were predicted by general relati ity.

<owe er, the methods that I and other people were !sing in 56'E were not able to answer 0!estions s!ch as whether sing!larities wo!ld occ!r in 0!ant!m gra ity. 3rom 56'+ onward I therefore started to de elop a more powerf!l approach to 0!ant!m gra ity based on :ichard 3eynrnans idea of a s!m o er histories. The answers that this approach s!ggests for the origin and fate of the !ni erse and its contents, s!ch as astrona!ts, will be de$scribed in the ne"t two chapters. 1e shall see that altho!gh the !ncertainty principle places limitations on the acc!racy of all o!r predictions, it may at the same time remo e the f!ndamental !npredictability that occ!rs at a space$time sing!larity. G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter ' file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=f.html (7 of 7* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/57 A.@ C(*PTE4 , T(E O4616$ *$5 #*TE O# T(E U$67E4SE 8insteins general theory of relati ity, on its own, predicted that space$time began at the big bang sing!larity and wo!ld come to an end either at the big cr!nch sing!larity (if the whole !ni erse recollapsed*, or

at a sing!larity inside a black hole (if a local region, s!ch as a star, were to collapse*. Any matter that fell into the hole wo!ld be destroyed at the sing!larity, and only the gra itational effect of its mass wo!ld contin!e to be felt o!tside. ;n the other hand, when 0!ant!m effects were taken into acco!nt, it seemed that the mass or energy of the matter wo!ld e ent!ally be ret!rned to the rest of the !ni erse, and that the black hole, along with any sing!larity inside it, wo!ld e aporate away and finally disappear. Co!ld 0!ant!m mechanics ha e an e0!ally dramatic effect on the big bang and big cr!nch sing!larities2 1hat really happens d!ring the ery early or late stages of the !ni erse, when gra itational fields are so strong that 0!ant!m effects cannot be ignored2 4oes the !ni erse in fact ha e a beginning or an end2 And if so, what are they like2 Thro!gho!t the 56',s I had been mainly st!dying black holes, b!t in 5675 my interest in 0!estions abo!t the origin and fate of the !ni erse was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organiFed by the Jes!its in the Iatican. The Catholic Ch!rch had made a bad mistake with 9alileo when it tried to lay down

the law on a 0!estion of science, declaring that the s!n went ro!nd the earth. -ow, cent!ries later, it had decided to in ite a n!mber of e"perts to ad ise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an a!dience with the Gope. <e told !s that it was all right to st!dy the e ol!tion of the !ni erse after the big bang, b!t we sho!ld not in0!ire into the big bang itself beca!se that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of 9od. I was glad then that he did not know the s!bHect of the talk I had H!st gi en at the conference D the possibility that space$time was finite b!t had no bo!ndary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of 9alileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly beca!se of the coincidence of ha ing been born e"actly &,, years after his deathC In order to e"plain the ideas that I and other people ha e had abo!t how 0!ant!m mechanics may affect the origin and fate of the !ni erse, it is necessary first to !nderstand the generally accepted history of the !ni erse, according to what is known as the hot big bang model.

This ass!mes that the !ni erse is described by a 3riedmann model, right back to the big bang. In s!ch models one finds that as the !ni erse e"pands, any matter or radiation in it gets cooler. (1hen the !ni erse do!bles in siFe, its temperat!re falls by half.* Since temperat!re is simply a meas!re of the a erage energy D or speed D of the particles, this cooling of the !ni erse wo!ld ha e a maHor effect on the matter in it. At ery high temperat!res, particles wo!ld be mo ing aro!nd so fast that they co!ld escape any attraction toward each other d!e to n!clear or electromagnetic forces, b!t as they cooled off one wo!ld e"pect particles that attract each other to start to cl!mp together. .oreo er, e en the types of particles that e"ist in the !ni erse wo!ld depend on the temperat!re. At high eno!gh temperat!res, particles ha e so m!ch energy that whene er they collide many different particle=antiparticle pairs wo!ld be prod!ced D and altho!gh some of these particles wo!ld annihilate on hitting antiparticles, they wo!ld be prod!ced more rap$idly than they co!ld annihilate. At lower temperat!res, howe er, when colliding particles ha e less energy, particle=antiparticle pairs wo!ld be

prod!ced less 0!ickly D and annihilation wo!ld become faster than prod!ction. At the big bang itself the !ni erse is tho!ght to ha e had Fero siFe, and so to ha e been infinitely hot. )!t as the !ni erse e"panded, the temperat!re of the radiation decreased. ;ne second after the big bang, it wo!ld ha e fallen to abo!t ten tho!sand million degrees. This is abo!t a tho!sand times the temperat!re at the center of the s!n, b!t temperat!res as high as this are reached in <$ bomb e"plosions. At this time the !ni erse wo!ld ha e contained mostly photons, electrons, and ne!trinos (e"tremely light particles that are affected only by the weak force and gra ity* and their antiparticles, together with some protons and ne!trons. As the !ni erse contin!ed to e"pand and the temperat!re to drop, the rate at which electron=antielectron pairs were being prod!ced in collisions wo!ld ha e fallen below the rate at which they were being destroyed by annihilation. So most of the electrons and antielectrons wo!ld ha e annihilated with each other to prod!ce more photons, lea ing only a few electrons left o er. The ne!trinos and antine!trinos, howe er, wo!ld not

ha e annihilated with each other, beca!se these particles interact with themsel es and with other particles only ery weakly. So they sho!ld still be aro!nd today. If we co!ld obser e them, it wo!ld pro ide a good test of this pict!re of a ery hot early stage of the !ni erse. Mnfort!nately, their energies nowadays wo!ld be too low for !s to obser e them directly. <owe er, if ne!trinos are not massless, b!t ha e a small mass of their own, as s!ggested by some recent e"periments, we might be able to detect them indirectly/ they co!ld be a form of dark matter, like that mentioned earlier, with s!fficient gra itational attraction to stop the e"pansion of the !ni erse and ca!se it to collapse again. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (5 of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ Abo!t one h!ndred seconds after the big bang, the temperat!re wo!ld ha e fallen to one tho!sand million degrees, the temperat!re inside the hottest stars. At this temperat!re protons and ne!trons wo!ld no longer ha e s!fficient energy to escape the attraction of the strong

n!clear force, and wo!ld ha e started to combine together to prod!ce the n!clei of atoms of de!teri!m (hea y hydrogen*, which contain one proton and one ne!tron. The de!teri!m n!clei wo!ld then ha e combined with more protons and ne!trons to make heli!m n!clei, which contain two protons and two ne!trons, and also small amo!nts of a co!ple of hea ier elements, lithi!m and berylli!m. ;ne can calc!late that in the hot big bang model abo!t a 0!arter of the protons and ne!trons wo!ld ha e been con erted into heli!m n!clei, along with a small amo!nt of hea y hydrogen and other elements. The remaining ne!trons wo!ld ha e decayed into protons, which are the n!clei of ordinary hydrogen atoms. This pict!re of a hot early stage of the !ni erse was first p!t forward by the scientist 9eorge 9amow in a famo!s paper written in 56E7 with a st!dent of his, :alph Alpher. 9amow had 0!ite a sense of h!mor D he pers!aded the n!clear scientist <ans )ethe to add his name to the paper to make the list of a!thors Alpher, )ethe, 9amow, like the first three letters of the 9reek alphabet, alpha, beta, gamma/ partic!larly appropriate for a paper on the beginning

of the !ni erseC In this paper they made the remarkable prediction that radiation (in the form of photons* from the ery hot early stages of the !ni erse sho!ld still be aro!nd today, b!t with its temperat!re red!ced to only a few degrees abo e absol!te Fero (D%'&VC*. It was this radiation that GenFias and 1ilson fo!nd in 56K+. At the time that Alpher, )ethe, and 9amow wrote their paper, not m!ch was known abo!t the n!clear reactions of protons and ne!trons. Gredictions made for the proportions of ario!s elements in the early !ni erse were therefore rather inacc!rate, b!t these calc!lations ha e been repeated in the light of better knowledge and now agree ery well with what we obser e. It is, moreo er, ery diffic!lt to e"plain in any other way why there sho!ld be so m!ch heli!m in the !ni erse. 1e are therefore fairly confident that we ha e the right pict!re, at least back to abo!t one second after the big bang. 1ithin only a few ho!rs of the big bang, the prod!ction of heli!m and other elements wo!ld ha e stopped. And after that, for the ne"t million years or so, the !ni erse wo!ld ha e H!st contin!ed e"panding, witho!t anything m!ch

happening. 8 ent!ally, once the temperat!re had dropped to a few tho!sand degrees, and electrons and n!clei no longer had eno!gh energy to o ercome the electromagnetic attraction between them, they wo!ld ha e started combining to form atoms. The !ni erse as a whole wo!ld ha e contin!ed e"panding and cooling, b!t in regions that were slightly denser than a erage, the e"pansion wo!ld ha e been slowed down by the e"tra gra itational attraction. This wo!ld e ent!ally stop e"pansion in some regions and ca!se them to start to recollapse. As they were collapsing, the gra itational p!ll of matter o!tside these regions might start them rotating slightly. As the collapsing region got smaller, it wo!ld spin faster D H!st as skaters spinning on ice spin faster as they draw in their arms. 8 ent!ally, when the region got small eno!gh, it wo!ld be spinning fast eno!gh to balance the attraction of gra ity, and in this way disklike rotating gala"ies were born. ;ther regions, which did not happen to pick !p a rotation, wo!ld become o al$shaped obHects called elliptical gala"ies. In these, the region wo!ld stop collapsing beca!se indi id!al parts of the gala"y wo!ld be orbiting stably ro!nd

its center, b!t the gala"y wo!ld ha e no o erall rotation. As time went on, the hydrogen and heli!m gas in the gala"ies wo!ld break !p into smaller clo!ds that wo!ld collapse !nder their own gra ity. As these contracted, and the atoms within them collided with one another, the temperat!re of the gas wo!ld increase, !ntil e ent!ally it became hot eno!gh to start n!clear f!sion reactions. These wo!ld con ert the hydrogen into more heli!m, and the heat gi en off wo!ld raise the press!re, and so stop the clo!ds from contracting any f!rther. They wo!ld remain stable in this state for a long time as stars like o!r s!n, b!rning hydrogen into heli!m and radiating the res!lting energy as heat and light. .ore massi e stars wo!ld need to be hotter to balance their stronger gra itational attraction, making the n!clear f!sion reactions proceed so m!ch more rapidly that they wo!ld !se !p their hydrogen in as little as a h!ndred million years. They wo!ld then contract slightly, and as they heated !p f!rther, wo!ld start to con ert heli!m into hea ier elements like carbon or o"ygen. This, howe er, wo!ld not release m!ch more energy, so a crisis wo!ld occ!r, as was described in the chapter on

black holes. 1hat happens ne"t is not completely clear, b!t it seems likely that the central regions of the star wo!ld collapse to a ery dense state, s!ch as a ne!tron star or black hole. The o!ter regions of the star may sometimes get blown off in a tremendo!s e"plosion called a s!perno a, which wo!ld o!tshine all the other stars in its gala"y. Some of the hea ier elements prod!ced near the end of the stars life wo!ld be fl!ng back into the gas in the gala"y, and wo!ld pro ide some of the raw material for the ne"t generation of stars. ;!r own s!n contains abo!t % percent of these hea ier elements, beca!se it is a second$ or third$ generation star, formed some fi e tho!sand million years ago o!t of a clo!d of rotating gas containing the debris of earlier s!perno as. .ost of the gas in that clo!d went to form the s!n or got blown away, b!t a small amo!nt of the hea ier elements collected together to form the bodies that now orbit the s!n as planets like the earth. The earth was initially ery hot and witho!t an atmosphere. In the co!rse of time it cooled and ac0!ired an A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7

file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (% of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ atmosphere from the emission of gases from the rocks. This early atmosphere was not one in which we co!ld ha e s!r i ed. It contained no o"ygen, b!t a lot of other gases that are poisono!s to !s, s!ch as hydrogen s!lfide (the gas that gi es rotten eggs their smell*. There are, howe er, other primiti e forms of life that can flo!rish !nder s!ch conditions. It is tho!ght that they de eloped in the oceans, possibly as a res!lt of chance combinations of atoms into large str!ct!res, called macromolec!les, which were capable of assembling other atoms in the ocean into similar str!ct!res. They wo!ld th!s ha e reprod!ced themsel es and m!ltiplied. In some cases there wo!ld be errors in the reprod!ction. .ostly these errors wo!ld ha e been s!ch that the new macromolec!le co!ld not reprod!ce itself and e ent!ally wo!ld ha e been destroyed. <owe er, a few of the errors wo!ld ha e prod!ced new macromolec!les that were e en better at reprod!cing themsel es. They wo!ld ha e therefore had an ad antage and wo!ld ha e tended to replace the original macromolec!les. In this

way a process of e ol!tion was started that led to the de elopment of more and more complicated, self$reprod!cing organisms. The first primiti e forms of life cons!med ario!s materials, incl!ding hydrogen s!lfide, and released o"ygen. This grad!ally changed the atmosphere to the composition that it has today, and allowed the de elopment of higher forms of life s!ch as fish, reptiles, mammals, and !ltimately the h!man race. This pict!re of a !ni erse that started off ery hot and cooled as it e"panded is in agreement with all the obser ational e idence that we ha e today. -e ertheless, it lea es a n!mber of important 0!estions !nanswered/ 5. 1hy was the early !ni erse so hot2 %. 1hy is the !ni erse so !niform on a large scale2 1hy does it look the same at all points of space and in all directions2 In partic!lar, why is the temperat!re of the microwa e back$gro!nd radiation so nearly the same when we look in different directions2 It is a bit like asking a n!mber of st!dents an e"am 0!estion. If they all gi e e"actly the same answer, yo! can be pretty s!re they ha e comm!nicated with each other. Bet, in the model described abo e,

there wo!ld not ha e been time since the big bang for light to get from one distant region to another, e en tho!gh the regions were close together in the early !ni erse. According to the theory of relati ity, if light cannot get from one region to another, no other information can. So there wo!ld be no way in which different regions in the early !ni erse co!ld ha e come to ha e the same temperat!re as each other, !nless for some !ne"plained reason they happened to start o!t with the same temperat!re. ,. 1hy did the !ni erse start o!t with so nearly the critical rate of e"pansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on e"panding fore er, that e en now, ten tho!sand million years later, it is still e"panding at nearly the critical rate2 If the rate of e"pansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by e en one part in a h!ndred tho!sand million million, the !ni erse wo!ld ha e recollapsed before it e er reached its present siFe. E. 4espite the fact that the !ni erse is so !niform and homogeneo!s on a large scale, it contains local irreg!larities, s!ch as stars and gala"ies. These are tho!ght to ha e de eloped from small differences in the density of the early

!ni erse from one region to another. 1hat was the origin of these density fl!ct!ations2 The general theory of relati ity, on its own, cannot e"plain these feat!res or answer these 0!estions beca!se of its prediction that the !ni erse started off with infinite density at the big bang sing!larity. At the sing!larity, general relati ity and all other physical laws wo!ld break down/ one co!ldnt predict what wo!ld come o!t of the sing!larity. As e"plained before, this means that one might as well c!t the big bang, and any e ents before it, o!t of the theory, beca!se they can ha e no effect on what we obser e. Space$time would ha e a bo!ndary D a beginning at the big bang. Science seems to ha e !nco ered a set of laws that, within the limits set by the !ncertainty principle, tell !s how the !ni erse will de elop with time, if we know its state at any one time. These laws may ha e originally been decreed by 9od, b!t it appears that he has since left the !ni erse to e ol e according to them and does not now inter ene in it. )!t how did he choose the initial state or config!ration of the !ni erse2 1hat were the bo!ndary conditions at the beginning of time2

;ne possible answer is to say that 9od chose the initial config!ration of the !ni erse for reasons that we cannot hope to !nderstand. This wo!ld certainly ha e been within the power of an omnipotent being, b!t if he had started it off in s!ch an incomprehensible way, why did he choose to let it e ol e according to laws that we co!ld !nderstand2 The whole history of science has been the grad!al realiFation that e ents do not happen in an arbitrary manner, b!t that they reflect a certain !nderlying order, which may or may not be di inely inspired. It wo!ld be only nat!ral to s!ppose that this order sho!ld apply not only to the laws, b!t also to the conditions at the bo!ndary of space$time that specify the initial state of the !ni erse. There may be a large n!mber of models of the !ni erse with different initial conditions that all obey the laws. There o!ght to be some principle that picks o!t one initial state, and hence A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (& of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ one model, to represent o!r !ni erse. ;ne s!ch possibility is what are called chaotic

bo!ndary conditions. These implicitly ass!me either that the !ni erse is spatially infinite or that there are infinitely many !ni erses. Mnder chaotic bo!ndary conditions, the probability of finding any partic!lar region of space in any gi en config!ration H!st after the big bang is the same, in some sense, as the probability of finding it in any other config!ration/ the initial state of the !ni erse is chosen p!rely randomly. This wo!ld mean that the early !ni erse wo!ld ha e probably been ery chaotic and irreg!lar beca!se there are many more chaotic and disordered config!rations for the !ni erse than there are smooth and ordered ones. (If each config!ration is e0!ally probable, it is likely that the !ni erse started o!t in a chaotic and disordered state, simply beca!se there are so many more of them.* It is diffic!lt to see how s!ch chaotic initial conditions co!ld ha e gi en rise to a !ni erse that is so smooth and reg!lar on a large scale as o!rs is today. ;ne wo!ld also ha e e"pected the density fl!ct!ations in s!ch a model to ha e led to the formation of many more primordial black holes than the !pper limit that has been set by obser ations of the gamma ray backgro!nd.

If the !ni erse is indeed spatially infinite, or if there are infinitely many !ni erses, there wo!ld probably be some large regions somewhere that started o!t in a smooth and !niform manner. It is a bit like the well$known horde of monkeys hammering away on typewriters D most of what they write will be garbage, b!t ery occasionally by p!re chance they will type o!t one of Shakespeares sonnets. Similarly, in the case of the !ni erse, co!ld it be that we are li ing in a region that H!st happens by chance to be smooth and !niform2 At first sight this might seem ery improbable, beca!se s!ch smooth regions wo!ld be hea ily o!tn!mbered by chaotic and irreg!lar regions. <owe er, s!ppose that only in the smooth regions were gala"ies and stars formed and were conditions right for the de elopment of complicated self$replicating organisms like o!rsel es who were capable of asking the 0!estion/ why is the !ni erse so smooth.2 This is an e"ample of the application of what is known as the anthropic principle, which can be paraphrased as 1e see the !ni erse the way it is beca!se we e"ist. There are two ersions of the anthropic principle, the weak and the strong. The weak anthropic

principle states that in a !ni erse that is large or infinite in space and=or time, the conditions necessary for the de elopment of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent beings in these regions sho!ld therefore not be s!rprised if they obser e that their locality in the !ni erse satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their e"istence. It is a bit like a rich person li ing in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any po erty. ;ne e"ample of the !se of the weak anthropic principle is to e"plain why the big bang occ!rred abo!t ten tho!sand million years ago D it takes abo!t that long for intelligent beings to e ol e. As e"plained abo e, an early generation of stars first had to form. These stars con erted some of the original hydrogen and heli!m into elements like carbon and o"ygen, o!t of which we are made. The stars then e"ploded as s!perno as, and their debris went to form other stars and planets, among them those of o!r Solar System, which is abo!t fi e tho!sand million years old. The first one or two tho!sand million years of the earths e"istence were too hot for the de elopment of anything complicated. The

remaining three tho!sand million years or so ha e been taken !p by the slow process of biological e ol!tion, which has led from the simplest organisms to beings who are capable of meas!ring time back to the big bang. 3ew people wo!ld 0!arrel with the alidity or !tility of the weak anthropic principle. Some, howe er, go m!ch f!rther and propose a strong ersion of the principle. According to this theory, there are either many different !ni erses or many different regions of a single !ni erse, each with its own initial config!ration and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these !ni erses the conditions wo!ld not be right for the de elopment of complicated organismsA only in the few !ni erses that are like o!rs wo!ld intelligent beings de elop and ask the 0!estion, 1hy is the !ni erse the way we see it2 The answer is then simple/ if it had been different, we wo!ld not be hereC The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many f!ndamental n!mbers, like the siFe of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. 1e cannot, at the moment at least, predict the al!es of these n!mbers from theory

D we ha e to find them by obser ation. It may be that one day we shall disco er a complete !nified theory that predicts them all, b!t it is also possible that some or all of them ary from !ni erse to !ni erse or within a single !ni erse. The remarkable fact is that the al!es of these n!mbers seem to ha e been ery finely adH!sted to make possible the de elopment of life. 3or e"ample, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either wo!ld ha e been !nable to b!rn hydrogen and heli!m, or else they wo!ld not ha e e"ploded. ;f co!rse, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of e en by writers of science fiction, that did not re0!ire the light of a star like the s!n or the hea ier chemical elements that are made in stars and are fl!ng back into space when the stars e"plode. -e ertheless, it seems clear that there are relati ely few ranges of al!es for the n!mbers that wo!ld allow the de elopment of any form of intelligent life. .ost sets of al!es wo!ld gi e rise to !ni erses that, altho!gh they might be ery bea!tif!l, wo!ld contain no one able to wonder at that bea!ty. ;ne can take this either as e idence of a di ine p!rpose in Creation and the

choice of the A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (E of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ laws of science or as s!pport for the strong anthropic principle. There are a n!mber of obHections that one can raise to the strong anthropic principle as an e"planation of the obser ed state of the !ni erse. 3irst, in what sense can all these different !ni erses be said to e"ist2 If they are really separate from each other, what happens in another !ni erse can ha e no obser able conse0!ences in o!r own !ni erse. 1e sho!ld therefore !se the principle of economy and c!t them o!t of the theory. If, on the other hand, they are H!st different regions of a single !ni erse, the laws of science wo!ld ha e to be the same in each region, beca!se otherwise one co!ld not mo e contin!o!sly from one region to another. In this case the only difference between the regions wo!ld be their initial config!rations and so the strong anthropic principle wo!ld red!ce to the weak one. A second obHection to the strong anthropic

principle is that it r!ns against the tide of the whole history of science. 1e ha e de eloped from the geocentric cosmologies of Gtolemy and his forebears, thro!gh the heliocentric cosmology of Copernic!s and 9alileo, to the modern pict!re in which the earth is a medi!m$siFed planet orbiting aro!nd an a erage star in the o!ter s!b!rbs of an ordinary spiral gala"y, which is itself only one of abo!t a million million gala"ies in the obser able !ni erse. Bet the strong anthropic principle wo!ld claim that this whole ast constr!ction e"ists simply for o!r sake. This is ery hard to belie e. ;!r Solar System is certainly a prere0!isite for o!r e"istence, hand one might e"tend this to the whole of o!r gala"y to allow for an earlier generation of stars that created the hea ier elements. )!t there does not seem to be any need for all those other gala"ies, nor for the !ni erse to be so !niform and similar in e ery direction on the large scale. ;ne wo!ld feel happier abo!t the anthropic principle, at least in its weak ersion, if one co!ld show that 0!ite a n!mber of different initial config!rations for the !ni erse wo!ld ha e e ol ed to prod!ce a !ni erse like the one we

obser e. If this is the case, a !ni erse that de eloped from some sort of random initial conditions sho!ld contain a n!mber of regions that are smooth and !niform and are s!itable for the e ol!tion of intelligent life. ;n the other hand, if the initial state of the !ni erse had to be chosen e"tremely caref!lly to lead to something like what we see aro!nd !s, the !ni erse wo!ld be !nlikely to contain any region in which life wo!ld appear. In the hot big bang model described abo e, there was not eno!gh time in the early !ni erse for heat to ha e flowed from one region to another. This means that the initial state of the !ni erse wo!ld ha e to ha e had e"actly the same temperat!re e erywhere in order to acco!nt for the fact that the microwa e back$gro!nd has the same temperat!re in e ery direction we look. The initial rate of e"pansion also wo!ld ha e had to be chosen ery precisely for the rate of e"pansion still to be so close to the critical rate needed to a oid recollapse. This means that the initial state of the !ni erse m!st ha e been ery caref!lly chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It wo!ld be ery diffic!lt to e"plain why the !ni erse sho!ld

ha e beg!n in H!st this way, e"cept as the act of a 9od who intended to create beings like !s. In an attempt to find a model of the !ni erse in which many different initial config!rations co!ld ha e e ol ed to something like the present !ni erse, a scientist at the .assach!setts Instit!te of Technology, Alan 9!th, s!ggested that the early !ni erse might ha e gone thro!gh a period of ery rapid e"pansion. This e"pansion is said to be inflationary, meaning that the !ni erse at one time e"panded at an increasing rate rather than the decreasing rate that it does today. According to 9!th, the radi!s of the !ni erse increased by a million million million million million (5 with thirty Feros after it* times in only a tiny fraction of a second. 9!th s!ggested that the !ni erse started o!t from the big bang in a ery hot, b!t rather chaotic, state. These high temperat!res wo!ld ha e meant that the particles in the !ni erse wo!ld be mo ing ery fast and wo!ld ha e high energies. As we disc!ssed earlier, one wo!ld e"pect that at s!ch high temperat!res the strong and weak n!clear forces and the electromagnetic force wo!ld all be !nified into a single force. As the !ni erse

e"panded, it wo!ld cool, and particle energies wo!ld go down. 8 ent!ally there wo!ld be what is called a phase transition and the symmetry between the forces wo!ld be broken/ the strong force wo!ld become different from the weak and electromagnetic forces. ;ne common e"ample of a phase transition is the freeFing of water when yo! cool it down. #i0!id water is symmetrical, the same at e ery point and in e ery direction. <owe er, when ice crystals form, they will ha e definite positions and will be lined !p in some direction. This breaks waters symmetry. In the case of water, if one is caref!l, one can s!percool it/ that is, one can red!ce the temperat!re below the freeFing point (;VC* witho!t ice forming. 9!th s!ggested that the !ni erse might beha e in a similar way/ the temperat!re might drop below the critical al!e witho!t the symmetry between the forces being broken. If this happened, the !ni erse wo!ld be in an !nstable state, with more energy than if the symmetry had been broken. This special e"tra energy can be shown to ha e an antigra itational effect/ it wo!ld ha e acted H!st like the cosmological constant that 8instein introd!ced into general

relati ity when he was trying to constr!ct a static model of the !ni erse. Since the !ni erse wo!ld already be e"panding H!st as in the hot big bang model, the rep!lsi e effect of A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (+ of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ this cosmological constant wo!ld therefore ha e made the !ni erse e"pand at an e er$increasing rate. 8 en in regions where there were more matter particles than a erage, the gra itational attraction of the matter wo!ld ha e been o!tweighed by the rep!lsion of the effecti e cosmological constant. Th!s these regions wo!ld also e"pand in an accelerating inflationary manner. As they e"panded and the matter particles got farther apart, one wo!ld be left with an e"panding !ni erse that contained hardly any particles and was still in the s!percooled state. Any irreg!larities in the !ni erse wo!ld simply ha e been smoothed o!t by the e"pansion, as the wrinkles in a balloon are smoothed away when yo! blow it !p. Th!s the present smooth and !niform state of the !ni erse co!ld ha e e ol ed

from many different non$!niform initial states. In s!ch a !ni erse, in which the e"pansion was accelerated by a cosmological constant rather than slowed down by the gra itational attraction of matter, there wo!ld be eno!gh time for light to tra el from one region to another in the early !ni erse. This co!ld pro ide a sol!tion to the problem, raised earlier, of why different regions in the early !ni erse ha e the same properties. .oreo er, the rate of e"pansion of the !ni erse wo!ld a!tomatically become ery close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the !ni erse. This co!ld then e"plain why the rate of e"pansion is still so close to the critical rate, witho!t ha ing to ass!me that the initial rate of e"pansion of the !ni erse was ery caref!lly chosen. The idea of inflation co!ld also e"plain why there is so m!ch matter in the !ni erse. There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (5 with eighty Feros after it* particles in the region of the !ni erse that we can obser e. 1here did they all come from2 The answer is that, in 0!ant!m theory, particles can be created o!t of energy in the form of

particle=antiparticle pairs. )!t that H!st raises the 0!estion of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the !ni erse is e"actly Fero. The matter in the !ni erse is made o!t of positi e energy. <owe er, the matter is all attracting itself by gra ity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other ha e less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, beca!se yo! ha e to e"pend energy to separate them against the gra itational force that is p!lling them together. Th!s, in a sense, the gra itational field has negati e energy. In the case of a !ni erse that is appro"imately !niform in space, one can show that this negati e gra itational energy e"actly cancels the positi e energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the !ni erse is Fero. -ow twice Fero is also Fero. Th!s the !ni erse can do!ble the amo!nt of positi e matter energy and also do!ble the negati e gra itational energy witho!t iolation of the conser ation of energy. This does not happen in the normal e"pansion of the !ni erse in which the matter energy density goes down as the !ni erse gets bigger. It does happen, howe er, in the inflationary e"pansion beca!se

the energy density of the s!percooled state remains constant while the !ni erse e"pands/ when the !ni erse do!bles in siFe, the positi e matter energy and the negati e gra itational energy both do!ble, so the total energy remains Fero. 4!ring the inflationary phase, the !ni erse increases its siFe by a ery large amo!nt. Th!s the total amo!nt of energy a ailable to make particles becomes ery large. As 9!th has remarked, It is said that theres no s!ch thing as a free l!nch. )!t the !ni erse is the !ltimate free l!nch. The !ni erse is not e"panding in an inflationary way today. Th!s there has to be some mechanism that wo!ld eliminate the ery large effecti e cosmological constant and so change the rate of e"pansion from an accelerated one to one that is slowed down by gra ity, as we ha e today. In the inflationary e"pansion one might e"pect that e ent!ally the symmetry between the forces wo!ld be broken, H!st as s!per$cooled water always freeFes in the end. The e"tra energy of the !nbroken symmetry state wo!ld then be released and wo!ld reheat the !ni erse to a temperat!re H!st below the critical temperat!re for symmetry between the forces. The !ni erse

wo!ld then go on to e"pand and cool H!st like the hot big bang model, b!t there wo!ld now be an e"planation of why the !ni erse was e"panding at e"actly the critical rate and why different regions had the same temperat!re. In 9!ths original proposal the phase transition was s!pposed to occ!r s!ddenly, rather like the appearance of ice crystals in ery cold water. The idea was that b!bbles of the new phase of broken symmetry wo!ld ha e formed in the old phase, like b!bbles of steam s!rro!nded by boiling water. The b!bbles were s!pposed to e"pand and meet !p with each other !ntil the whole !ni erse was in the new phase. The tro!ble was, as I and se eral other people pointed o!t, that the !ni erse was e"panding so fast that e en if the b!bbles grew at the speed of light, they wo!ld be mo ing away from each other and so co!ld not Hoin !p. The !ni erse wo!ld be left in a ery non$!niform state, with some regions still ha ing symmetry between the different forces. S!ch a model of the !ni erse wo!ld not correspond to what we see. In ;ctober 5675, I went to .oscow for a conference on 0!ant!m gra ity. After the conference I ga e a seminar on

the inflationary model and its problems at the Sternberg Astronomical Instit!te. )efore this, I had got someone else to gi e my lect!res for me, beca!se most people co!ld not !nderstand my oice. )!t there was not time to prepare this seminar, so I ga e it myself, with one of my grad!ate st!dents repeating my words. It worked well, and ga e me A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (K of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ m!ch more contact with my a!dience. In the a!dience was a yo!ng :!ssian, Andrei #inde, from the #ebede Instit!te in .oscow. <e said that the diffic!lty with the b!bbles not Hoining !p co!ld be a oided if the b!bbles were so big that o!r region of the !ni erse is all contained inside a single b!bble. In order for this to work, the change from symmetry to broken symmetry m!st ha e taken place ery slowly inside the b!bble, b!t this is 0!ite possible according to grand !nified theories. #indes idea of a slow breaking of symmetry was ery good, b!t I later realiFed that his b!bbles wo!ld ha e to ha e been bigger than the siFe of the !ni erse at the timeC I

showed that instead the symmetry wo!ld ha e broken e erywhere at the same time, rather than H!st inside b!bbles. This wo!ld lead to a !niform !ni erse, as we obser e. I was ery e"cited by this idea and disc!ssed it with one of my st!dents, Ian .oss. As a friend of #indes, I was rather embarrassed, howe er, when I was later sent his paper by a scientific Ho!rnal and asked whether it was s!itable for p!blication. I replied that there was this flaw abo!t the b!bbles being bigger than the !ni erse, b!t that the basic idea of a slow breaking of symmetry was ery good. I recommended that the paper X p!blished as it was beca!se it wo!ld take #inde se eral months to correct it, since anything he sent to the 1est wo!ld ha e to be passed by So iet censorship, which was neither ery skillf!l nor ery 0!ick with scientific papers. Instead, I wrote a short paper with Ian .oss in the same Ho!rnal in which we pointed o!t this problem with the b!bble and showed how it co!ld be resol ed. The day after I got back from .oscow I set o!t for Ghiladelphia, where I was d!e to recei e a medal from the 3ranklin Instit!te. .y secretary, J!dy 3ella, had !sed her not inconsiderable charm to pers!ade

)ritish Airways to gi e herself and me free seats on a Concorde as a p!blicity ent!re. <owe er, I .was held !p on my way to the airport by hea y rain and I missed the plane. -e ertheless, I got to Ghiladelphia in the end and recei ed my medal. I was then asked to gi e a seminar on the inflationary !ni erse at 4re"el Mni ersity in Ghiladelphia. I ga e the same seminar abo!t the problems of the inflationary !ni erse, H!st as in .oscow. A ery similar idea to #indes was p!t forth independently a few months later by Ga!l Steinhardt and Andreas Albrecht of the Mni ersity of Gennsyl ania. They are now gi en Hoint credit with #inde for what is called the new inflationary model, based on the idea of a slow breaking of symmetry. (The old inflationary model was 9!ths original s!ggestion of fast symmetry breaking with the formation of b!bbles.* The new inflationary model was a good attempt to e"plain why the !ni erse is the way it is. <owe er, I and se eral other people showed that, at least in its original form, it predicted m!ch greater ariations in the temperat!re of the microwa e backgro!nd radiation than are obser ed. #ater work has also cast do!bt on

whether there co!ld be a phase transition in the ery early !ni erse of the kind re0!ired. In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, altho!gh a lot of people do not seem to ha e heard of its demise and are still writing papers as if it were iable. A better model, called the chaotic inflationary model, was p!t forward by #inde in 567&. In this there is no phase transition or s!percooling. Instead, there is a spin , field, which, beca!se of 0!ant!m fl!ct!ations, wo!ld ha e large al!es in some regions of the early !ni erse. The energy of the field in those regions wo!ld beha e like a cosmological constant. It wo!ld ha e a rep!lsi e gra itational effect, and th!s make those regions e"pand in an inflationary manner. As they e"panded, the energy of the field in them wo!ld slowly decrease !ntil the inflationary e"pansion changed to an e"pansion like that in the hot big bang model. ;ne of these regions wo!ld become what we now see as the obser able !ni erse. This model has all the ad antages of the earlier inflationary models, b!t it does not depend on a d!bio!s phase transition, and it can moreo er gi e a reasonable siFe

for the fl!ct!ations in the temperat!re of the microwa e backgro!nd that agrees with obser ation. This work on inflationary models showed that the present state of the !ni erse co!ld ha e arisen from 0!ite a large n!mber of different initial config!rations. This is important, beca!se it shows that the initial state of the part of the !ni erse that we inhabit did not ha e to be chosen with great care. So we may, if we wish, !se the weak anthropic principle to e"plain why the !ni erse looks the way it does now. It cannot be the case, howe er, that e ery initial config!ration wo!ld ha e led to a !ni erse like the one we obser e. ;ne can show this by considering a ery different state for the !ni erse at the present time, say, a ery l!mpy and irreg!lar one. ;ne co!ld !se the laws of science to e ol e the !ni erse back in time to determine its config!ration at earlier times. According to the sing!larity theorems of classical general relati ity, there wo!ld still ha e been a big bang sing!larity. If yo! e ol e s!ch a !ni erse forward in time according to the laws of science, yo! will end !p with the l!mpy and irreg!lar state yo! started with. Th!s there m!st ha e been initial

config!rations that wo!ld not ha e gi en rise to a !ni erse like the one we see today. So e en the inflationary model does not tell !s why the initial config!ration was not s!ch as to prod!ce something ery different from what we obser e. .!st we t!rn to the anthropic principle for an e"planation2 1as it all H!st a l!cky chance2 That wo!ld seem a co!nsel of despair, a negation of all o!r hopes of !nderstanding the !nderlying order of the !ni erse. In order to predict how the !ni erse sho!ld ha e started off, one needs laws that hold at the beginning of time. If the classical theory of general relati ity was correct, the sing!larity theorems that :oger Genrose and I pro ed show that A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (' of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ the beginning of time wo!ld ha e been a point of infinite density and infinite c!r at!re of space$ time. All the known laws of science wo!ld break down at s!ch a point. ;ne might s!ppose that there were new laws that held at sing!larities, b!t it wo!ld be ery diffic!lt e en to form!late s!ch laws at s!ch badly beha ed

points, and we wo!ld ha e no g!ide from obser ations as to what those laws might be. <owe er, what the sing!larity theorems really indicate is that the gra itational field becomes so strong that 0!ant!m gra itational effects become important/ classical theory is no longer a good description of the !ni erse. So one has to !se a 0!ant!m theory of gra ity to disc!ss the ery early stages of the !ni erse. As we shall see, it is possible in the 0!ant!m theory for the ordinary laws of science to hold e erywhere, incl!ding at the beginning of time/ it is not necessary to post!late new laws for sing!larities, beca!se there need not be any sing!larities in the 0!ant!m theory. 1e dont yet ha e a complete and consistent theory that combines 0!ant!m mechanics and gra ity. <owe er, we are fairly certain of some feat!res that s!ch a !nified theory sho!ld ha e. ;ne is that it sho!ld incorporate 3eynmans proposal to form!late 0!ant!m theory in terms of a s!m o er histories. In this approach, a particle does not ha e H!st a single history, as it wo!ld in a classical theory. Instead, it is s!pposed to follow e ery possible path in space$time, and with each of these histories

there are associated a co!ple of n!mbers, one represent$ing the siFe of a wa e and the other representing its position in the cycle (its phase*. The probability that the particle, say, passes thro!gh some partic!lar point is fo!nd by adding !p the wa es associated with e ery possible history that passes thro!gh that point. 1hen one act!ally tries to perform these s!ms, howe er, one r!ns into se ere technical problems. The only way aro!nd these is the following pec!liar prescription/ one m!st add !p the wa es for particle histories that are not in the real time that yo! and I e"perience b!t take place in what is called imaginary time. Imaginary time may so!nd like science fiction b!t it is in fact a well$defined mathematical concept. If we take any ordinary (or real* n!mber and m!ltiply it by itself, the res!lt is a positi e n!mber. (3or e"ample, % times % is E, b!t so is D % times D %.* There are, howe er, special n!mbers (called imaginary n!mbers* that gi e negati e n!mbers when m!ltiplied by themsel es. (The one called i, when m!ltiplied by itself, gi es D 5, %i m!ltiplied by itself gi es D E, and so on.* ;ne can pict!re real and imaginary n!mbers in

the following way/ The real n!mbers can be represented by a line going from left to right, with Fero in the middle, negati e n!mbers like D 5, D %, etc. on the left, and positi e n!mbers, 5, %, etc. on the right. Then imaginary n!mbers are represented by a line going !p and down the page, with i, %i, etc. abo e the middle, and D i, D %i, etc. below. Th!s imaginary n!mbers are in a sense n!mbers at right angles to ordinary real n!mbers. To a oid the technical diffic!lties with 3eynmans s!m o er histories, one m!st !se imaginary time. That is to say, for the p!rposes of the calc!lation one m!st meas!re time !sing imaginary n!mbers, rather than real ones. This has an interesting effect on space$time/ the distinction between time and space disappears completely. A space$time in which e ents ha e imaginary al!es of the time coordinate is said to be 8!clidean, after the ancient 9reek 8!clid, who fo!nded the st!dy of the geometry of two$ dimensional s!rfaces. 1hat we now call 8!clidean space$time is ery similar e"cept that it has fo!r dimensions instead of two. In 8!clidean space$time there is no difference between the time direction and directions in space. ;n the

other hand, in real space$time, in which e ents are labeled by ordinary, real al!es of the time coordinate, it is easy to tell the difference D the time direction at all points lies within the light cone, and space directions lie o!tside. In any case, as far as e eryday 0!ant!m mechanics is concerned, we may regard o!r !se of imaginary time and 8!clidean space$time as merely a mathematical de ice (or trick* to calc!late answers abo!t real space$time. A second feat!re that we belie e m!st be part of any !ltimate theory is 8insteins idea that the gra itational field is represented by c!r ed space$time/ particles try to follow the nearest thing to a straight path in a c!r ed space, b!t beca!se space$time is not flat their paths appear to be bent, as if by a gra itational field. 1hen we apply 3eynmans s!m o er histories to 8insteins iew of gra ity, the analog!e of the history of a particle is now a complete c!r ed space$time that represents the history of the whole !ni erse. To a oid the technical diffic!lties in act!ally performing the s!m o er histories, these c!r ed space$times m!st be taken to be 8!clidean. That is, time is imaginary and is indisting!ishable from directions in space. To

calc!late the probability of finding a real space$ time with some certain property, s!ch as looking the same at e ery point and in e ery direction, one adds !p the wa es associated with all the histories that ha e that property. In the classical theory of general relati ity, there are many different possible c!r ed space$times, each corresponding to a different initial state of the !ni erse. If we knew the initial state of o!r !ni erse, we wo!ld know its entire history. Similarly, in the 0!ant!m theory of gra ity, there are many different possible 0!ant!m states for the !ni erse. Again, if we knew how the 8!clidean c!r ed space$ times in the s!m o er histories beha ed at early times, we wo!ld know the 0!ant!m state of the !ni erse. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (7 of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ In the classical theory of gra ity, which is based on real space$time, there are only two possible ways the !ni erse can beha e/ either it has e"isted for an infinite time, or else it had a beginning at a sing!larity at some finite time in the past. In the 0!ant!m theory of gra ity, on the

other hand, a third possibility arises. )eca!se one is !sing 8!clidean space$times, in which the time direction is on the same footing as directions in space, it is possible for space$time to be finite in e"tent and yet to ha e no sing!larities that formed a bo!ndary or edge. Space$time wo!ld be like the s!rface of the earth, only with two more dimensions. The s!rface of the earth is finite in e"tent b!t it doesnt ha e a bo!ndary or edge/ if yo! sail off into the s!nset, yo! dont fall off the edge or r!n into a sing!larity. (I know, beca!se I ha e been ro!nd the worldC* If 8!clidean space$time stretches back to infinite imaginary time, or else starts at a sing!larity in imaginary time, we ha e the same problem as in the classical theory of specifying the initial state of the !ni erse/ 9od may know how the !ni erse began, b!t we cannot gi e any partic!lar reason for thinking it began one way rather than another. ;n the other hand, the 0!ant!m theory of gra ity has opened !p a new possibility, in which there wo!ld be no bo!ndary to space$time and so there wo!ld be no need to specify the beha ior at the bo!ndary. There wo!ld be no sing!larities at which the laws of science broke

down, and no edge of space$time at which one wo!ld ha e to appeal to 9od or some new law to set the bo!ndary conditions for space$time. ;ne co!ld say/ The bo!ndary condition of the !ni erse is that it has no bo!ndary. The !ni erse wo!ld be completely self$contained and not affected by anything o!tside itself. It wo!ld neither be created nor destroyed, It wo!ld H!st )8. It was at the conference in the Iatican mentioned earlier that I first p!t forward the s!ggestion that maybe time and space together formed a s!rface that was finite in siFe b!t did not ha e any bo!ndary or edge. .y paper was rather mathematical, howe er, so its implications for the role of 9od in the creation of the !ni erse were not generally recogniFed at the time (H!st as well for me*. At the time of the Iatican conference, I did not know how to !se the no bo!ndary idea to make predictions abo!t the !ni erse. <owe er, I spent the following s!m$mer at the Mni ersity of California, Santa )arbara. There a friend and colleag!e of mine, Jim <artle, worked o!t with me what conditions the !ni erse m!st satisfy if space$time had no bo!ndary. 1hen I ret!rned to Cambridge, I contin!ed this work with two of

my research st!dents, J!lian #!ttrel and Jonathan <alliwell. Id like to emphasiFe that this idea that time and space sho!ld be finite witho!t bo!ndary is H!st a proposal& it cannot be ded!ced from some other principle. #ike any other scientific theory, it may initially be p!t forward for aesthetic or metaphysical reasons, b!t the real test is whether it makes predictions that agree with obser ation. This, how$e er, is diffic!lt to determine in the case of 0!ant!m gra ity, for two reasons. 3irst, as will be e"plained in Chapter 55, we are not yet s!re e"actly which theory s!ccessf!lly combines general relati ity and 0!ant!m mechanics, tho!gh we know 0!ite a lot abo!t the form s!ch a theory m!st ha e. Second, any model that described the whole !ni erse in detail wo!ld be m!ch too complicated mathematically for !s to be able to calc!late e"act predictions. ;ne therefore has to make simplifying ass!mptions and appro"imations D and e en then, the problem of e"tracting predictions remains a formidable one. 8ach history in the s!m o er histories will describe not only the space$time b!t e erything in it as well, incl!ding any complicated organisms like h!man beings who

can obser e the history of the !ni erse. This may pro ide another H!stification for the anthropic principle, for if all the histories are possible, then so long as we e"ist in one of the histories, we may !se the anthropic principle to e"plain why the !ni erse is fo!nd to be the way it is. 8"actly what meaning can be attached to the other histories, in which we do not e"ist, is not clear. This iew of a 0!ant!m theory of gra ity wo!ld be m!ch more satisfactory, howe er, if one co!ld show that, !sing the s!m o er histories, o!r !ni erse is not H!st one of the possible histories b!t one of the most probable ones. To do this, we m!st perform the s!m o er histories for all possible 8!clidean space$times that ha e no bo!ndary. Mnder the no bo!ndary proposal one learns that the chance of the !ni erse being fo!nd to be following most of the possible histories is negligible, b!t there is a partic!lar family of histories that are m!ch more probable than the others. These histories may be pict!red as being like the s!rface of the earth, with the distance from the -orth Gole representing imaginary time and the siFe of a circle of constant distance from the -orth Gole representing the spatial

siFe of the !ni erse. The !ni erse starts at the -orth Gole as a single point. As one mo es so!th, the circles of latit!de at constant distance from the -orth Gole get bigger, corresponding to the !ni erse e"panding with imaginary time 3ig!re 7/5. The !ni erse wo!ld reach a ma"im!m siFe at the e0!ator and wo!ld contract with increasing imaginary time to a single point at the So!th Gole. 8 er tho!gh the !ni erse wo!ld ha e Fero siFe at the -orth and So!th Goles, these points wo!ld not be sing!larities, any more than the -orth aid So!th Goles on the earth are sing!lar. The laws of science will hold at them, H!st as they do at the -orth and So!th Goles on the earth. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (6 of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ 3ig!re 7/5 The history of the !ni erse in real time, howe er, wo!ld look ery different. At abo!t ten or twenty tho!sand million years ago, it wo!ld ha e a minim!m siFe, which was e0!al to the ma"im!m radi!s of the history in imaginary time. At later real times, the !ni erse wo!ld e"pand like

the chaotic inflationary model proposed by #inde (b!t one wo!ld not now ha e to ass!me that the !ni erse was created somehow in the right sort of state*. The !ni erse wo!ld e"pand to a ery large siFe 3ig!re 7/5 and e ent!ally it wo!ld collapse again into what looks like a sing!larity in real time. Th!s, in a sense, we are still all doomed, e en if we keep away from black holes. ;nly if we co!ld pict!re the !ni erse in terms of imaginary time wo!ld there be no sing!larities. If the !ni erse really is in s!ch a 0!ant!m state, there wo!ld be no sing!larities in the history of the !ni erse in imaginary time. It might seem therefore that my more recent work had completely !ndone the res!lts of my earlier work on sing!larities. )!t, as indicated abo e, the real importance of the sing!larity theorems was that they showed that the gra itational field m!st become so strong that 0!ant!m gra itational effects co!ld not be ignored. This in t!rn led to the idea that the !ni erse co!ld be finite in imaginary time b!t witho!t bo!ndaries or sing!larities. 1hen one goes back to the real time in which we li e, howe er, there will still appear to be sing!larities. The poor astrona!t

who falls into a black hole will still come to a sticky endA only if he li ed in imaginary time wo!ld he enco!nter no sing!larities. This might s!ggest that the so$called imaginary time is really the real time, and that what we call real time is H!st a figment of o!r imaginations. In real time, the !ni erse has a beginning and an end at sing!larities that form a bo!ndary to space$time and at which the laws of science break down. )!t in imaginary time, there are no sing!larities or bo!ndaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is H!st an idea that we in ent to help !s describe what we think the !ni erse is like. )!t according to the approach I described in Chapter 5, a scientific theory is H!st a mathematical model we make to describe o!r obser ations/ it e"ists only in o!r minds. So it is meaningless to ask/ which is real, real or imaginary time2 It is simply a matter of which is the more !sef!l description. ;ne can also !se the s!m o er histories, along with the no bo!ndary proposal, to find which properties of the !ni erse are likely to occ!r together. 3or e"ample, one can calc!late the probability that

the !ni erse is e"panding at nearly the same rate in all different directions at a time when the density of the !ni erse has its present al!e. In the simplified models that ha e been e"amined so far, this probability t!rns o!t to be highA that is, the proposed no bo!ndary condition leads to the prediction that it is e"tremely probable that the present rate of e"pansion of the !ni erse is almost the same in each direction. This is consistent with the obser ations of the microwa e backgro!nd radiation, which show that it has almost e"actly the same intensity in any direction. If the !ni erse were e"panding faster in some directions than in others, the intensity of the radiation in those directions wo!ld be red!ced by an A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (5, of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ additional red shift. 3!rther predictions of the no bo!ndary condition are c!rrently being worked o!t. A partic!larly interesting problem is the siFe of the small depart!res from !niform density in the early !ni erse that ca!sed the formation first of the

gala"ies, then of stars, and finally of !s. The !ncertainty principle implies that the early !ni erse cannot ha e been completely !niform beca!se there m!st ha e been some !ncertainties or fl!ct!ations in the positions and elocities of the particles. Msing the no bo!ndary condition, we find that the !ni erse m!st in fact ha e started off with H!st the minim!m possible non$!niformity allowed by the !ncertainty principle. The !ni erse wo!ld ha e then !ndergone a period of rapid e"pansion, as in the inflationary models. 4!ring this period, the initial non$ !niformities wo!ld ha e been amplified !ntil they were big eno!gh to e"plain the origin of the str!ct!res we obser e aro!nd !s. In 566% the Cosmic )ackgro!nd 8"plorer satellite (C;)8* first detected ery slight ariations in the intensity of the microwa e backgro!nd with direction. The way these non$ !niformities depend on direction seems to agree with the predictions of the inflationary model and the no bo!ndary proposal. Th!s the no bo!ndary proposal is a good scientific theory in the sense of Larl Gopper/ it co!ld ha e been falsified by obser ations b!t instead its predictions ha e been confirmed. In an e"panding !ni erse in which the

density of matter aried slightly from place to place, gra ity wo!ld ha e ca!sed the denser regions to slow down their e"pansion and start contracting. This wo!ld lead to the formation of gala"ies, stars, and e ent!ally e en insignificant creat!res like o!rsel es. Th!s all the complicated str!ct!res that we see in the !ni erse might be e"plained by the no bo!ndary condition for the !ni erse together with the !ncertainty principle of 0!ant!m mechanics. The idea that space and time may form a closed s!rface witho!t bo!ndary also has profo!nd implications for the role of 9od in the affairs of the !ni erse. 1ith the s!ccess of scientific theories in describing e ents, most people ha e come to belie e that 9od allows the !ni erse to e ol e according to a set of laws and does not inter ene in the !ni erse to break these laws. <owe er, the laws do not tell !s what the !ni erse sho!ld ha e looked like when it started D it wo!ld still be !p to 9od to wind !p the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the !ni erse had a beginning, we co!ld s!ppose it had a creator. )!t if the !ni erse is really completely self$contained, ha ing no bo!ndary or edge, it wo!ld ha e neither

beginning nor end/ it wo!ld simply be. 1hat place, then, for a creator2 G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 7 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=g.html (55 of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/%6 A.@ C(*PTE4 T(E *44O0 O# T68E In pre io!s chapters we ha e seen how o!r iews of the nat!re of time ha e changed o er the years. Mp to the beginning of this cent!ry people belie ed in an absol!te time. That is, each e ent co!ld be labeled by a n!mber called time in a !ni0!e way, and all good clocks wo!ld agree on the time inter al between two e ents. <owe er, the disco ery that the speed of light appeared the same to e ery obser er, no matter how he was mo ing, led to the theory of relati ity D and in that one had to abandon the idea that there was a !ni0!e absol!te time. Instead, each obser er wo!ld ha e his own meas!re of time as recorded by a clock that he carried/ clocks carried by different obser ers wo!ld not necessarily agree. Th!s time became a more personal

concept, relati e to the obser er who meas!red it. 1hen one tried to !nify gra ity with 0!ant!m mechanics, one had to introd!ce the idea of imaginary time. Imaginary time is indisting!ishable from directions in space. If one can go north, one can t!rn aro!nd and head so!thA e0!ally, if one can go forward in imaginary time, one o!ght to be able to t!rn ro!nd and go backward. This means that there can be no important difference between the forward and backward directions of imaginary time. ;n the other hand, when one looks at real time, theres a ery big difference between the forward and backward directions, as we all know. 1here does this difference between the past and the f!t!re come from2 1hy do we remember the past b!t not the f!t!re2 The laws of science do not disting!ish between the past and the f!t!re. .ore precisely, as e"plained earlier, the laws of science are !nchanged !nder the combination of operations (or symmetries* known as C, G, and T. (C means changing particles for antiparticles. P means taking the mirror image, so left and right are

interchanged. And T means re ersing the direction of motion of all particles/ in effect, r!nning the motion backward.* The laws of science that go ern the beha ior of matter !nder all normal sit!ations are !nchanged !nder the combination of the two operations C and G on their own. In other words, life wo!ld be H!st the same for the inhabitants of another planet who were both mirror images of !s and who were made of antimatter, rather than matter. If the laws of science are !nchanged by the combination of operations C and G, and also by the combination C, G, and T, they m!st also be !nchanged !nder the operation T alone. Bet there is a big difference between the forward and backward directions of real time in ordinary life. Imagine a c!p of water falling off a table and breaking into pieces on the floor. If yo! take a film of this, yo! can easily tell whether it is being r!n forward or backward. If yo! r!n it backward yo! will see the pieces s!ddenly gather themsel es together off the floor and H!mp back to form a whole c!p on the table. Bo! can tell that the film is being r!n backward beca!se this kind

of beha ior is ne er obser ed in ordinary life. If it were, crockery man!fact!rers wo!ld go o!t of b!siness. The e"planation that is !s!ally gi en as to why we dont see broken c!ps gathering themsel es together off the floor and H!mping back onto the table is that it is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics. This says that in any closed system disorder, or entropy, always increases with time. In other words, it is a form of .!rphys law/ things always tend to go wrongC An intact c!p on the table is a state of high order, b!t a broken c!p on the floor is a disordered state. ;ne can go readily from the c!p on the table in the past to the broken c!p on the floor in the f!t!re, b!t not the other way ro!nd. The increase of disorder or entropy with time is one e"ample of what is called an arrow of time, something that disting!ishes the past from the f!t!re, gi ing a direction to time. There are at least three different arrows of time. 3irst, there is the thermodynamic arrow of time, the direction of time in which disorder or entropy increases. Then, there is the psychological arrow of time. This is the direction in which we feel time passes, the

direction in which we remember the past b!t not the f!t!re. 3inally, there is the cosmological arrow of time. This is the direction of time in which the !ni erse is e"panding rather than contracting. In this chapter I shall arg!e that the no bo!ndary condition for the !ni erse, together with the weak anthropic principle, can e"plain why all three arrows point in the same direction D and moreo er, why a well$ defined arrow of time sho!ld e"ist at all. I shall arg!e that the psychological arrow is determined by the thermodynamic arrow, A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 6 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=h.html (5 of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/&7 A.@ and that these two arrows necessarily always point in the same direction. If one ass!mes the no bo!ndary condition for the !ni erse, we shall see that there m!st be well$defined thermodynamic and cosmological arrows of time, b!t they will not point in the same direction for the whole history of the !ni erse. <owe er, I shall arg!e that it is only when they do point in the same direction that conditions are s!itable for the

de elopment of intelligent beings who can ask the 0!estion/ why does disorder increase in the same direction of time as that in which the !ni erse e"pands2 I shall disc!ss first the thermodynamic arrow of time. The second law of thermodynamics res!lts from the fact that there are always many more disordered states than there are ordered ones. 3or e"ample, consider the pieces of a Higsaw in a bo". There is one, and. only one, arrangement in which the pieces make a complete pict!re. ;n the other hand, there are a ery large n!mber of arrangements in which the pieces are disordered and dont make a pict!re. S!ppose a system starts o!t in one of the small n!mber of ordered states. As time goes by, the system will e ol e according to the laws of science and its state will change. At a later time, it is more probable that the system will be in a disordered state than in an ordered one beca!se there are more disordered states. Th!s disorder will tend to increase with time if the system obeys an initial condition of high order. S!ppose the pieces of the Higsaw start off in a bo" in the ordered arrangement in which they form a pict!re. If

yo! shake the bo", the pieces will take !p another arrangement. This will probably be a disordered arrangement in which the pieces dont form a proper pict!re, simply beca!se there are so many more disordered arrangements. Some gro!ps of pieces may still form parts of the pict!re, b!t the more yo! shake the bo", the more likely it is that these gro!ps will get broken !p and the pieces will be in a completely H!mbled state in which they dont form any sort of pict!re. So the disorder of the pieces will probably increase with time if the pieces obey the initial condition that they start off in a condition of high order. S!ppose, howe er, that 9od decided that the !ni erse sho!ld finish !p in a state of high order b!t that it didnt matter what state it started in. At early times the !ni erse wo!ld probably be in a disordered state. This wo!ld mean that disorder wo!ld decrease with time. Bo! wo!ld see broken c!ps gathering themsel es together and H!mping back onto the table. <owe er, any h!man beings who were obser ing the c!ps wo!ld be li ing in a !ni erse in which disorder decreased with time. I shall arg!e that s!ch beings wo!ld ha e a

psychological arrow of time that was backward. That is, they wo!ld remember e ents in the f!t!re, and not remember e ents in their past. 1hen the c!p was broken, they wo!ld remember it being on the table, b!t when it was on the table, they wo!ld not remember it being on the floor. It is rather diffic!lt to talk abo!t h!man memory beca!se we dont know how the brain works in detail. 1e do, howe er, know all abo!t how comp!ter memories work. I shall therefore disc!ss the psychological arrow of time for comp!ters. I think it is reasonable to ass!me that the arrow for comp!ters is the same as that for h!mans. If it were not, one co!ld make a killing on the stock e"change by ha ing a comp!ter that wo!ld remember tomorrows pricesC A comp!ter memory is basically a de ice containing elements that can e"ist in either of two states. A simple e"ample is an abac!s. In its simplest form, this consists of a n!mber of wiresA on each wire there are a n!mber of beads that can be p!t in one of two positions. )efore an item is recorded in a comp!ters memory, the memory is in a

disordered state, with e0!al probabilities for the two possible states. (The abac!s beads are scattered randomly on the wires of the abac!s.* After the memory interacts with the system to be remembered, it will definitely be in one state or the other, according to the state of the system. (8ach abac!s bead will be at either the left or the right of the abac!s wire.* So the memory has passed from a disordered state to an ordered one. <owe er, in order to make s!re that the memory is in the right state, it is necessary to !se a certain amo!nt of energy (to mo e the bead or to power the comp!ter, for e"ample*. This energy is dissipated as heat, and increases the amo!nt of disorder in the !ni erse. ;ne can show that this increase in disorder is always greater than the increase in the order of the memory itself. Th!s the heat e"pelled by the comp!ters cooling fan means that when a comp!ter records an item in memory, the total amo!nt of disorder in the !ni erse still goes !p. The direction of time in which a comp!ter remembers the past is the same as that in which disorder increases. ;!r s!bHecti e sense of the direction of time, the

psychological arrow of time, is therefore determined within o!r brain by the thermodynamic arrow of time. J!st like a comp!ter, we m!st remember things in the order in which entropy increases. This makes the second law of thermodynamics almost tri ial. 4isorder increases with time A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 6 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=h.html (% of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/&7 A.@ beca!se we meas!re time in the direction in which disorder increases Bo! cant ha e a safer bet than thatC )!t why sho!ld the thermodynamic arrow of time e"ist at all2 ;r, in other words, why sho!ld the !ni erse be in a state of high order at one end of time, the end that we call the past2 1hy is it not in a state of complete disorder at all times2 After all, this might seem more probable. And why is the direction of time in which disorder increases the same as that in which the !ni erse e"pands2 In the classical theory of general relati ity one cannot predict how the !ni erse wo!ld ha e beg!n beca!se all the known laws of science wo!ld ha e broken

down at the big bang sing!larity. The !ni erse co!ld ha e started o!t in a ery smooth and ordered state. This wo!ld ha e led to well$defined thermodynamic and cosmological arrows of time, as we obser e. )!t it co!ld e0!ally well ha e started o!t in a ery l!mpy and disordered state. In that case, the !ni erse wo!ld already be in a state of complete disorder, so disorder co!ld not increase with time. It wo!ld either stay constant, in which case there wo!ld be no well$ defined thermodynamic arrow of time, or it wo!ld decrease, in which case the thermodynamic arrow of time wo!ld point in the opposite direction to the cosmological arrow. -either of these possibilities agrees with what we obser e. <owe er, as we ha e seen, classical general relati ity predicts its own downfall. 1hen the c!r at!re of space$time becomes large, 0!ant!m gra itational effects will become important and the classical theory will cease to be a good description of the !ni erse. ;ne has to !se a 0!ant!m theory of gra ity to !nderstand how the !ni erse began. In a 0!ant!m theory of gra ity, as we saw in the

last chapter, in order to specify the state of the !ni erse one wo!ld still ha e to say how the possible histories of the !ni erse wo!ld beha e at the bo!ndary of space$time in the past. ;ne co!ld a oid this diffic!lty of ha ing to describe what we do not and cannot know only if the histories satisfy the no bo!ndary condition/ they are finite in e"tent b!t ha e no bo!ndaries, edges, or sing!larities. In that case, the beginning of time wo!ld be a reg!lar, smooth point of space$time and the !ni erse wo!ld ha e beg!n its e"pansion in a ery smooth and ordered state. It co!ld not ha e been completely !niform, beca!se that wo!ld iolate the !ncertainty principle of 0!ant!m theory. There had to be small fl!ct!ations in the density and elocities of particles. The no bo!ndary condition, howe er, implied that these fl!ct!ations were as small as they co!ld be, consistent with the !ncertainty principle. The !ni erse wo!ld ha e started off with a period of e"ponential or inflationary e"pansion in which it wo!ld ha e increased its siFe by a ery large factor. 4!ring this e"pansion, the density fl!ct!ations wo!ld ha e

remained small at first, b!t later wo!ld ha e started to grow. :egions in which the density was slightly higher than a erage wo!ld ha e had their e"pansion slowed down by the gra itational attraction of the e"tra mass. 8 ent!ally, s!ch regions wo!ld stop e"panding and collapse to form gala"ies, stars, and beings like !s. The !ni erse wo!ld ha e started in a smooth and ordered state, and wo!ld become l!mpy and disordered as time went on. This wo!ld e"plain the e"istence of the thermodynamic arrow of time. )!t what wo!ld happen if and when the !ni erse stopped e"panding and began to contract2 1o!ld the thermodynamic arrow re erse and disorder begin to decrease with time2 This wo!ld lead to all sorts of science$fiction$like possibilities for people who s!r i ed from the e"panding to the contracting phase. 1o!ld they see broken c!ps gathering themsel es together off the floor and H!mping back onto the table2 1o!ld they be able to remember tomorrows prices and make a fort!ne on the stock market2 It might seem a bit academic to worry abo!t what will happen when the !ni erse collapses again, as it will not start to

contract for at least another ten tho!sand million years. )!t there is a 0!icker way to find o!t what will happen/ H!mp into a black hole. The collapse of a star to form a black hole is rather like the later stages of the collapse of the whole !ni erse. So if disorder were to decrease in the contracting phase of the !ni erse, one might also e"pect it to decrease inside a black hole. So perhaps an astrona!t who fell into a black hole wo!ld be able to make money at ro!lette by remembering where the ball went before he placed his bet. (Mnfort!nately, howe er, he wo!ld not ha e long to play before he was t!rned to spaghetti. -or wo!ld he be able to let !s know abo!t the re ersal of the thermodynamic arrow, or e en bank his winnings, beca!se he wo!ld be trapped behind the e ent horiFon of the black hole.* At first, I belie ed that disorder wo!ld decrease when the !ni erse recollapsed. This was beca!se I tho!ght that the !ni erse had to ret!rn to a smooth and ordered state when it became small again. This wo!ld mean that the contracting phase wo!ld be like the time re erse of the e"panding phase. Geople in the

contracting phase wo!ld li e their li es backward/ they wo!ld die before they were born and get yo!nger as the !ni erse A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 6 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=h.html (& of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/&7 A.@ contracted. This idea is attracti e beca!se it wo!ld mean a nice symmetry between the e"panding and contracting phases. <owe er, one cannot adopt it on its own, independent of other ideas abo!t the !ni erse. The 0!estion is/ is it implied by the no bo!ndary condition, or is it inconsistent with that condition2 As I said, I tho!ght at first that the no bo!ndary condition did indeed imply that disorder wo!ld decrease in the contracting phase. I was misled partly by the analogy with the s!rface of the earth. If one took the beginning of the !ni erse to correspond to the -orth Gole, then the end of the !ni erse sho!ld be similar to the beginning, H!st as the So!th Gole is similar to the -orth. <owe er, the -orth and So!th Goles correspond to the beginning and end of the !ni erse in

imaginary time. The beginning and end in real time can be ery different from each other. I was also misled by work I had done on a simple model of the !ni erse in which the collapsing phase looked like the time re erse of the e"panding phase. <owe er, a colleag!e of mine, 4on Gage, of Genn State Mni ersity, pointed o!t that the no bo!ndary condition did not re0!ire the contracting phase necessarily to be the time re erse of the e"panding phase. 3!rther, one of my st!dents, :aymond #aflamme, fo!nd that in a slightly more complicated model, the collapse of the !ni erse was ery different from the e"pansion. I realiFed that I had made a mistake/ the no bo!ndary condition implied that disorder wo!ld in fact contin!e to increase d!ring the contraction. The thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time wo!ld not re erse when the !ni erse begins to recontract, or inside black holes. 1hat sho!ld yo! do when yo! find yo! ha e made a mistake like that2 Some people ne er admit that they are wrong and contin!e to find new, and often m!t!ally inconsistent, arg!ments to s!pport their case D as

8ddington did in opposing black hole theory. ;thers claim to ha e ne er really s!pported the incorrect iew in the first place or, if they did, it was only to show that it was inconsistent. It seems to me m!ch better and less conf!sing if yo! admit in print that yo! were wrong. A good e"ample of this was 8instein, who called the cosmological constant, which he introd!ced when he was trying to make a static model of the !ni erse, the biggest mistake of his life. To ret!rn to the arrow of time, there remains the 0!estion/ why do we obser e that the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows point in the same direction2 ;r in other words, why does disorder increase in the same direction of time as that in which the !ni erse e"pands2 If one belie es that the !ni erse will e"pand and then contract again, as the no bo!ndary proposal seems to imply, this becomes a 0!estion of why we sho!ld be in the e"panding phase rather than the contracting phase. ;ne can answer this on the basis of the weak anthropic principle. Conditions in the contracting phase wo!ld not be s!itable for the e"istence of intelligent beings

who co!ld ask the 0!estion/ why is disorder increasing in the same direction of time as that in which the !ni erse is e"panding2 The inflation in the early stages of the !ni erse, which the no bo!ndary proposal predicts, means that the !ni erse m!st be e"panding at ery close to the critical rate at which it wo!ld H!st a oid recollapse, and so will not recollapse for a ery long time. )y then all the stars will ha e b!rned o!t and the protons and ne!trons in them will probably ha e decayed into light particles and radiation. The !ni erse wo!ld be in a state of almost complete disorder. There wo!ld be no strong thermodynamic arrow of time. 4isorder co!ldnt increase m!ch beca!se the !ni erse wo!ld be in a state of almost complete disorder already. <owe er, a strong thermodynamic arrow is necessary for intelligent life to operate. In order to s!r i e, h!man beings ha e to cons!me food, which is an ordered form of energy, and con ert it into heat, which is a disordered form of energy. Th!s intelligent life co!ld not e"ist in the contracting phase of the !ni erse. This is the e"planation of why we obser e that the thermodynamic and

cosmological arrows of time point in the same direction. It is not that the e"pansion of the !ni erse ca!ses disorder to increase. :ather, it is that the no bo!ndary condition ca!ses disorder to increase and the conditions to be s!itable for intelligent life only in the e"panding phase. To s!mmariFe, the laws of science do not disting!ish between the forward and backward directions of time. <owe er, there are at least three arrows of time that do disting!ish the past from the f!t!re. They are the thermodynamic arrow, the direction of time in which disorder increasesA the psychological arrow, the direction of time in which we remember the past and not the f!t!reA and the cosmological arrow, the direction of time in which the !ni erse e"pands rather than contracts. I ha e shown that the psychological arrow is essentially the same as the thermodynamic arrow, so that the two wo!ld always point in the same direction. The no bo!ndary proposal for the !ni erse predicts the e"istence of a well$defined thermodynamic arrow of time beca!se the !ni erse m!st start off in a smooth and ordered

state. And the reason we obser e this thermodynamic arrow to A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 6 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=h.html (E of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/&7 A.@ agree with the cosmological arrow is that intelligent beings can e"ist only in the e"panding phase. The contracting phase will be !ns!itable beca!se it has no strong thermodynamic arrow of time. The progress of the h!man race in !nderstanding the !ni erse has established a small corner of order in an increasingly disordered !ni erse. If yo! remember e ery word in this book, yo!r memory will ha e recorded abo!t two million pieces of information/ the order in yo!r brain will ha e increased by abo!t two million !nits. <owe er, while yo! ha e been reading the book, yo! will ha e con erted at least a tho!sand calories of ordered energy, in the form of food, into disordered energy, in the form of heat that yo! lose to the air aro!nd yo! by con ection and sweat. This will increase the disorder of the !ni erse by abo!t twenty million million million million !nits D or abo!t ten million million

million times the increase in order in yo!r brain D and thats if yo! remember everythin- in this book. In the ne"t chapter b!t one I will try to increase the order in o!r neck of the woods a little f!rther by e"plaining how people are trying to fit together the partial theories I ha e described to form a complete !nified theory that wo!ld co er e erything in the !ni erse. G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 6 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=h.html (+ of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/&7 A.@ C(*PTE4 1/ 0O48(O;ES *$5 T68E T4*7E; The last chapter disc!ssed why we see time go forward/ why disorder increases and why we remember the past b!t not the f!t!re. Time was treated as if it were a straight railway line on which one co!ld only go one way or the other. )!t what if the railway line had loops and branches so that a train co!ld keep going forward b!t come back to a station it had already passed2 In other words, might it be possible for someone to tra el into the f!t!re or the

past2 <. 9. 1ells in The Time Machine e"plored these possibilities as ha e co!ntless other writers of science fiction. Bet many of the ideas of science fiction, like s!bmarines and tra el to the moon, ha e become matters of science fact. So what are the prospects for time tra el2 The first indication that the laws of physics might really allow people to tra el in time came in 56E6 when L!rt 9odel disco ered a new space$time allowed by general relati ity. 9odel was a mathematician who was famo!s for pro ing that it is impossible to pro e all tr!e statements, e en if yo! limit yo!rself to trying to pro e all the tr!e statements in a s!bHect as apparently c!t and dried as arithmetic. #ike the !ncertainty principle, 9odels incompleteness theorem may be a f!ndamental limitation on o!r ability to !nderstand and predict the !ni erse, b!t so far at least it hasnt seemed to be an obstacle in o!r search for a complete !nified theory. 9odel got to know abo!t general relati ity when he and 8instein spent their later years at the Instit!te for Ad anced St!dy in Grinceton. <is space$time had

the c!rio!s property that the whole !ni erse was rotating. ;ne might ask/ :otating with respect to what2 The answer is that distant matter wo!ld be rotating with respect to directions that little tops or gyroscopes point in. This had the side effect that it wo!ld be possible for someone to go off in a rocket ship and ret!rn to earth before he set o!t. This property really !pset 8instein, who had tho!ght that general relati ity wo!ldnt allow time tra el. <owe er, gi en 8insteins record of ill$ fo!nded opposition to gra itational collapse and the !ncertainty principle, maybe this was an enco!raging sign. The sol!tion 9odel fo!nd doesnt correspond to the !ni erse we li e in beca!se we can show that the !ni erse is not rotating. It also had a non$Fero al!e of the cosmological constant that 8instein introd!ced when he tho!ght the !ni erse was !nchanging. After <!bble disco ered the e"pansion of the !ni erse, there was no need for a cosmological constant and it is now generally belie ed to be Fero. <owe er, other more reasonable space$times that are allowed by general relati ity and which permit tra el into the past

ha e since been fo!nd. ;ne is in the interior of a rotating black hole. Another is a space$time that contains two cosmic strings mo ing past each other at high speed. As their name s!ggests, cosmic strings are obHects that are like string in that they ha e length b!t a tiny cross section. Act!ally, they are more like r!bber bands beca!se they are !nder enormo!s tension, something like a million million million million tons. A cosmic string attached to the earth co!ld accelerate it from , to K, mph in 5=&,th of a second. Cosmic strings may so!nd like p!re science fiction b!t there are reasons to belie e they co!ld ha e formed in the early !ni erse as a res!lt of symmetry$breaking of the kind disc!ssed in Chapter +. )eca!se they wo!ld be !nder enormo!s tension and co!ld start in any config!ration, they might accelerate to ery high speeds when they straighten o!t. The 9odel sol!tion and the cosmic string space$ time start o!t so distorted that tra el into the past was always possible. 9od might ha e created s!ch a warped !ni erse b!t we ha e no reason to belie e he did. ;bser ations of the microwa e backgro!nd and

of the ab!ndances of the light elements indicate that the early !ni erse did not ha e the kind of c!r at!re re0!ired to allow time tra el. The same concl!sion follows on theoretical gro!nds if the no bo!ndary proposal is correct. So the 0!estion is/ if the !ni erse starts o!t witho!t the kind of c!r at!re re0!ired for time tra el, can we s!bse0!ently warp local regions of space$ time s!fficiently to allow it2 A closely related problem that is also of concern to writers of science fiction is rapid interstellar or intergalactic A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5, file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=i.html (5 of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/E+ A.@ tra el. According to relati ity, nothing can tra el faster than light. If we therefore sent a spaceship to o!r nearest neighboring star, Alpha Centa!ri, which is abo!t fo!r light$years away, it wo!ld take at least eight years before we co!ld e"pect the tra elers to ret!rn and tell !s what they had fo!nd. If the e"pedition were to the center of o!r gala"y, it wo!ld be at least a h!ndred tho!sand years before it came back. The theory

of relati ity does allow one consolation. This is the so$called twins parado" mentioned in Chapter %. )eca!se there is no !ni0!e standard of time, b!t rather obser ers each ha e their own time as meas!red by clocks that they carry with them, it is possible for the Ho!rney to seem to be m!ch shorter for the space tra elers than for those who remain on earth. )!t there wo!ld not be m!ch Hoy in ret!rning from a space oyage a few years older to find that e eryone yo! had left behind was dead and gone tho!sands of years ago. So in order to ha e any h!man interest in their stories, science fiction writers had to s!ppose that we wo!ld one day disco er how to tra el faster than light. 1hat most of thee a!thors dont seem to ha e realiFed is that if yo! can tra el faster than light, the theory of relati ity implies yo! can also tra el back in the, as the following limerick says/ There .as a youn- lady of )i-ht )ho traveled much faster than li-ht. She departed one day, /n a relative .ay, And arrived on the previous ni-ht The point is that the theory of relati ity says hat there is no !ni0!e meas!re of time that all

obser ers will agree on :ather, each obser er has his or her own meas!re of time. If it is possible for a rocket tra eling below the speed of light to get from e ent A (say, the final of the 5,,$meter race of the ;lympic 9ames in %,%* to e ent ) (say, the opening of the 5,,,,,Eth meeting of the Congress of Alpha Centa!ri*, then all obser ers will agree that e ent A happened before e ent ) according to their times. S!ppose, howe er, that the spaceship wo!ld ha e to tra el faster than light to carry the news of the race to the Congress. Then obser ers mo ing at different speeds can disagree abo!t whether e ent A occ!rred before ) or ice ersa. According to the time of an obser er who is at rest with respect to the earth, it may be that the Congress opened after the race. Th!s this obser er wo!ld think that a spaceship co!ld get from A to ) in time if only it co!ld ignore the speed$of$light speed limit. <owe er, to an obser er at Alpha Centa!ri mo ing away from the earth at nearly the speed of light, it wo!ld appear that e ent ), the opening of the Congress, wo!ld occ!r before e ent A, the 5,,$ meter race.

The theory of relati ity says that the laws of physics appear the same to obser ers mo ing at different speeds. This has been well tested by e"periment and is likely to remain a feat!re e en if we find a more ad anced theory to replace relati ity Th!s the mo ing obser er wo!ld say that if faster$than$light tra el is possible, it sho!ld be possible to get from e ent ), the opening of the Congress, to e ent A, the 5,,$ meter race. If one went slightly faster, one co!ld e en get back before the race and place a bet on it in the s!re knowledge that one wo!ld win. There is a problem with breaking the speed$of$ light barrier. The theory of relati ity says that the rocket power needed to accelerate a spaceship gets greater and greater the nearer it gets to the speed of light. 1e ha e e"perimental e idence for this, not with spaceships b!t with elementary particles in particle accelerators like those at 3ermilab or C8:- (8!ropean Centre for -!clear :esearch*. 1e can accelerate particles to 66.66 percent of the speed of light, b!t howe er m!ch power we feed in, we cant get them beyond the speed$of$light

barrier. Similarly with spaceships/ no matter how m!ch rocket power they ha e, they cant accelerate beyond the speed of light. That might seem to r!le o!t both rapid space tra el and tra el back in time. <owe er, there is a possible way o!t. It might be that one co!ld warp space$time so that there was a shortc!t between A and ) ;ne way of doing this wo!ld be to create a wormhole between A and ). As its name s!ggests, a wormhole is a thin t!be of space$time which can connect two nearly flat regions far apart. There need be no relation between the distance thro!gh the wormhole and the separation of its ends in the nearly <at backgro!nd. Th!s one co!ld imagine that one co!ld create or find a wormhole that world lead from the icinity of the Solar System to Alpha Centa!ri. The distance thro!gh the wormhole might be only a few million miles e en tho!gh earth and Alpha Centa!ri are twenty million million miles apart in ordinary space. This wo!ld allow news of the 5,,$meter race to reach the opening of the Congress. )!t then an obser er mo ing toward Ke earth sho!ld also be able to find

another wormhole that wo!ld enable him to get from the opening of A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5, file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=i.html (% of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/E+ A.@ the Congress on Alpha Centa!ri back to earth before the start of the race. So wormholes, like any other possible form of tra el faster than light, wo!ld allow one to tra el into the past. The idea of wormholes between different regions of space$time was not an in ention of science fiction writers b!t came from a ery respectable so!rce. In 56&+, 8instein and -athan :osen wrote a paper in which they showed that general relati ity allowed what they called bridges, b!t which are now known as wormholes. The 8instein$:osen bridges didnt last long eno!gh for a spaceship to get thro!gh/ the ship wo!ld r!n into a sing!larity as the wormhole pinched off. <owe er, it has been s!ggested that it might be possible for an ad anced ci iliFation to keep a wormhole open. To do this, or to warp space$time in any other way so as to permit time tra el, one can show that one needs a

region of space$time with negati e c!r at!re, like the s!rface of a saddle. ;rdi$nary matter, which has a positi e energy density, gi es space$time a positi e c!r at!re, like the s!rface of a sphere. So what one needs, in order to warp space$time in a way that will allow tra el into the past, is matter with negati e energy density. 8nergy is a bit like money/ if yo! ha e a positi e balance, yo! can distrib!te it in ario!s ways, b!t according to the classical laws that were belie ed at the beginning of the cent!ry, yo! werent allowed to be o erdrawn. So these classical laws wo!ld ha e r!led o!t any possibility of time tra el. <owe er, as has been described in earlier chapters, the classical laws were s!perseded by 0!ant!m laws based on the !ncertainty principle. The 0!ant!m laws are more liberal and allow yo! to be o erdrawn on one or two acco!nts pro ided the total balance is positi e. In other words, 0!ant!m theory allows the energy density to be negati e in some places, pro ided that this is made !p for by positi e energy densities in other places, so that the total energy re$mains positi e. An e"ample of how 0!ant!m theory can

allow negati e energy densities is pro ided by what is called the Casimir effect. As we saw in Chapter ', e en what we think of as empty space is filled with pairs of irt!al particles and antiparticles that appear together, mo e apart, and come back together and annihilate each other. -ow, s!ppose one has two parallel metal plates a short distance apart. The plates will act like mirrors for the irt!al photons or particles of light. In fact they will form a ca ity between them, a bit like an organ pipe that will resonate only at certain notes. This means that irt!al photons can occ!r in the space between the plates only if their wa elengths (the distance between the crest of one wa e and the ne"t* fit a whole n!mber of times into the gap between the plates. If the width of a ca ity is a whole n!mber of wa elengths pl!s a fraction of a wa e$length, then after some reflections backward and forward between the plates, the crests of one wa e will coincide with the tro!ghs of another and the wa es will cancel o!t. )eca!se the irt!al photons between the plates can ha e only the resonant wa elengths, there will be slightly

fewer of them than in the region o!tside the plates where irt!al photons can ha e any wa elength. Th!s there will be slightly fewer irt!al photons hitting the inside s!rfaces of the plates than the o!tside s!rfaces. ;ne wo!ld therefore e"pect a force on the plates, p!shing them toward each other. This force has act!ally been detected and has the predicted al!e. Th!s we ha e e"perimental e idence that irt!al particles e"ist and ha e real effects. The fact that there are fewer irt!al photons between the plates means that their energy density will be less than elsewhere. )!t the total energy density in empty space far away from the plates m!st be Fero, beca!se otherwise the energy density wo!ld warp the space and it wo!ld not be almost flat. So, if the energy density between the plates is less than the energy density far away, it m!st be negati e. 1e th!s ha e e"perimental e idence both that space$time can be warped (from the bending of light d!ring eclipses* and that it can be c!r ed in the way necessary to allow time tra el (from the Casimir effect*. ;ne might hope therefore that as we ad ance in

science and technology, we wo!ld e ent!ally manage to b!ild a time machine. )!t if so, why hasnt anyone come back from the f!t!re and told !s how to do it2 There might be good reasons why it wo!ld be !nwise to gi e !s the secret of time tra el at o!r present primiti e state of de elopment, b!t !nless h!man nat!re changes radically, it is diffic!lt to belie e that some isitor from the f!t!re wo!ldnt spill the beans. ;f co!rse, some people wo!ld claim that sightings of M3;s are e idence that we are being isited either by aliens or by people from the f!t!re. (If the aliens were to get here in reasonable time, they wo!ld need faster$than$light tra el, so the two possibilities may be e0!i alent.* <owe er, I think that any isit by aliens or people from the f!t!re wo!ld be m!ch more ob io!s and, probably, m!ch more !npleasant. If they are going to re eal themsel es at all, why do so only to those who are not A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5, file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=i.html (& of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/E+ A.@ regarded as reliable witnesses2 If they are trying

to warn !s of some great danger, they are not being ery effecti e. A possible way to e"plain the absence of isitors from the f!t!re wo!ld be to say that the past is fi"ed beca!se we ha e obser ed it and seen that it does not ha e the kind of warping needed to allow tra el back from the f!t!re. ;n the other hand, the f!t!re is !nknown and open, so it might well ha e the c!r at!re re0!ired. This wo!ld mean that any time tra el wo!ld be confined to the f!t!re. There wo!ld be no chance of Captain Lirk and the Starship +nterprise t!rning !p at the present time. This might e"plain why we ha e not yet been o err!n by to!rists from the f!t!re, b!t it wo!ld not a oid the problems that wo!ld arise if one were able to go back and change history. S!ppose, for e"ample, yo! went back and killed yo!r great$great$grandfather while he was still a child. There are many ersions of this parado" b!t they are essentially e0!i alent/ one wo!ld get contradictions if one were free to change the past. There seem to be two possible resol!tions to the parado"es posed by time tra el. ;ne I shall call

the consistent histories approach. It says that e en if space$time is warped so that it wo!ld be possible to tra el into the past, what happens in space$time m!st be a consistent sol!tion of the laws of physics. According to this iewpoint, yo! co!ld not go back in time !nless history showed that yo! had already arri ed in the past and, while there, had not killed yo!r great$great$grandfather or committed any other acts that wo!ld conflict with yo!r c!rrent sit!ation in the present. .oreo er, when yo! did go back, yo! wo!ldnt be able to change recorded history. That means yo! wo!ldnt ha e free will to do what yo! wanted. ;f co!rse, one co!ld say that free will is an ill!sion anyway. If there really is a complete !nified theory that go erns e erything, it pres!mably also determines yo!r actions. )!t it does so in a way that is impossible to calc!late for an organism that is as complicated as a h!man being. The reason we say that h!mans ha e free will is beca!se we cant predict what they will do. <owe er, if the h!man then goes off in a rocket ship and comes back before he or she set off, we

.ill be able to predict what he or she will do beca!se it will be part of recorded history. Th!s, in that sit!ation, the time tra eler wo!ld ha e no free will. The other possible way to resol e the parado"es of time tra el might be called the alternati e histories hypothesis. The idea here is that when time tra elers go back to the past, they enter alternati e histories which differ from recorded history. Th!s they can act freely, witho!t the constraint of consistency with their pre io!s history. Ste en Spiel$berg had f!n with this notion in the Bac' to the 0uture films/ .arty .c3ly was able to go back and change his parents co!rtship to a more satisfactory history. The alternati e histories hypothesis so!nds rather like :ichard 3eynmans way of e"pressing 0!ant!m theory as a s!m o er histories, which was described in Chapters E and 7. This said that the !ni erse didnt H!st ha e a single history/ rather it had e ery possible history, each with its own probability. <owe er, there seems to be an important difference between 3eynmans proposal and alternati e histories. In 3eynmans s!m, each history comprises a complete space$time and e erything

in it. The space$time may be so warped that it is possible to tra el in a rocket into the past. )!t the rocket wo!ld remain in the same space$time and therefore the same history, which wo!ld ha e to be consistent. Th!s 3eynmans s!m o er histories proposal seems to s!pport the consistent histories hypothesis rather than the alternati e histories. The 3eynman s!m o er histories does allow tra el into the past on a microscopic scale. In Chapter 6 we saw that the laws of science are !nchanged by combinations of the operations C, G, and T. This means that an antiparticle spinning in the anticlockwise direction and mo ing from A to ) can also be iewed as an ordinary particle spinning clockwise and mo ing backward in time from ) to A. Similarly, an ordinary particle mo ing forward in time is e0!i alent to an antiparticle mo ing backward in time. As has been disc!ssed in this chapter and Chapter ', empty space is filled with pairs of irt!al particles and antiparticles that appear together, mo e apart, and then come back together and annihilate each other. So, one can regard the pair of particles as a

single particle mo ing on a closed loop in space$ time. 1hen the pair is mo ing forward in time (from the e ent at which it appears to that at which it annihilates*, it is called a particle. )!t when the particle is tra eling back in time (from the e ent at which the pair annihilates to that at which it appears*, it is said to be an antiparticle tra eling forward in time. The e"planation of how black holes can emit particles and radiation (gi en in Chapter '* was that one member A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5, file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=i.html (E of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/E+ A.@ of a irt!al particle= antiparticle pair (say, the antiparticle* might fall into the black hole, lea ing the other member witho!t a partner with which to annihilate. The forsaken particle might fall into the hole as well, b!t it might also escape from the icinity of the black hole. If so, to an obser er at a distance it wo!ld appear to be a particle emitted by the black hole. ;ne can, howe er, ha e a different b!t e0!i alent int!iti e pict!re of the mechanism for emission from black

holes. ;ne can regard the member of the irt!al pair that fell into the black hole (say, the antiparticle* as a particle tra eling backward in time o!t of the hole. 1hen it gets to the point at which the irt!al particle=antiparticle pair appeared together, it is scattered by the gra itational field into a particle tra eling forward in time and escaping from the black hole. If, instead, it were the particle member of the irt!al pair that fell into the hole, one co!ld regard it as an antiparticle tra eling back in time and coming o!t of the black hole. Th!s the radiation by black holes shows that 0!ant!m theory allows tra el back in time on a microscopic scale and that s!ch time tra el can prod!ce obser able effects. ;ne can therefore ask/ does 0!ant!m theory allow time tra el on a macroscopic scale, which people co!ld !se2 At first sight, it seems it sho!ld. The 3eynman s!m o er histories proposal is s!pposed to be o er all histories. Th!s it sho!ld incl!de histories in which space$time is so warped that it is possible to tra el into the past. 1hy then arent we in tro!ble with history2 S!ppose, for e"ample, someone had gone back and gi en the

-aFis the secret of the atom bomb2 ;ne wo!ld a oid these problems if what I call the chronology protection conHect!re holds. This says that the laws of physics conspire to pre ent macroscopic bodies from carrying information into the past. #ike the cosmic censorship conHect!re, it has not been pro ed b!t there are reasons to belie e it is tr!e. The reason to belie e that chronology protection operates is that when space$time is warped eno!gh to make tra el into the past possible, irt!al particles mo ing on closed loops in space$time can become real particles tra eling forward in time at or below the speed of light. As these particles can go ro!nd the loop any n!mber of times, they pass each point on their ro!te many times. Th!s their energy is co!nted o er and o er again and the energy density will become ery large. This co!ld gi e space$time a positi e c!r at!re that wo!ld not allow tra el into the past. It is not yet clear whether these particles wo!ld ca!se positi e or negati e c!r at!re or whether the c!r at!re prod!ced by some kinds of irt!al particles might cancel that prod!ced by other kinds. Th!s the possibility of time tra el remains open.

)!t Im not going to bet on it. .y opponent might ha e the !nfair ad antage of knowing the f!t!re. G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5, file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=i.html (+ of +* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/E+ A.@ C(*PTE4 11 T(E U$6#6C*T6O$ O# P(:S6CS As was e"plained in the first chapter, it wo!ld be ery diffic!lt to constr!ct a complete !nified theory of e erything in the !ni erse all at one go. So instead we ha e made progress by finding partial theories that describe a limited range of happenings and by neglecting other effects or appro"imating them by certain n!mbers. (Chemistry, for e"ample, allows !s to calc!late the interactions of atoms, witho!t knowing the internal str!ct!re of an atoms n!cle!s.* Mltimately, howe er, one wo!ld hope to find a complete, consistent, !nified theory that wo!ld incl!de all these partial theories as appro"imations, and that did not need to be adH!sted to fit the facts by picking the al!es of certain arbitrary n!mbers in the theory. The 0!est for s!ch a

theory is known as the !nification of physics. 8instein spent most of his later years !ns!ccessf!lly searching for a !nified theory, b!t the time was not ripe/ there were partial theories for gra ity and the electromagnetic force, b!t ery little was known abo!t the n!clear forces. .oreo er, 8instein ref!sed to belie e in the reality of 0!ant!m mechanics, despite the important role he had played in its de elopment. Bet it seems that the !ncertainty principle is a f!ndamental feat!re of the !ni erse we li e in. A s!ccessf!l !nified theory m!st, therefore, necessarily incorporate this principle. As I shall describe, the prospects for finding s!ch a theory seem to be m!ch better now beca!se we know so m!ch more abo!t the !ni erse. )!t we m!st beware of o erconfidence D we ha e had false dawns beforeC At the beginning of this cent!ry, for e"ample, it was tho!ght that e erything co!ld be e"plained in terms of the properties of contin!o!s matter, s!ch as elasticity and heat cond!ction. The disco ery of atomic str!ct!re and the !ncertainty principle p!t an emphatic end to that. Then again, in 56%7, physicist and -obel

GriFe winner .a" )orn told a gro!p of isitors to 9ottingen Mni ersity, Ghysics, as we know it, will be o er in si" months. <is confidence was based on the recent disco ery by 4irac of the e0!ation that go erned the electron. It was tho!ght that a similar e0!ation wo!ld go ern the proton, which was the only other particle known at the time, and that wo!ld be the end of theoretical physics. <owe er, the disco ery of the ne!tron and of n!clear forces knocked that one on the head too. <a ing said this, I still belie e there are gro!nds for ca!tio!s optimism that we may now be near the end of the search for the !ltimate laws of nat!re. In pre io!s chapters I ha e described general relati ity, the partial theory of gra ity, and the partial theories that go ern the weak, the strong, and the electromagnetic forces. The last three may be combined in so$called grand !nified theories, or 9MTs, which are not ery satisfactory beca!se they do not incl!de gra ity and beca!se they contain a n!mber of 0!antities, like the relati e masses of different particles, that cannot be predicted from the theory b!t ha e to be chosen

to fit obser ations. The main diffic!lty in finding a theory that !nifies gra ity with the other forces is that general relati ity is a classical theoryA that is, it does not incorporate the !ncertainty principle of 0!ant!m mechanics. ;n the other hand, the other partial theories depend on 0!ant!m mechanics in an essential way. A necessary first step, therefore, is to combine general relati ity with the !ncertainty principle. As we ha e seen, this can prod!ce some remarkable conse0!ences, s!ch as black holes not being black, and the !ni erse not ha ing any sing!larities b!t being completely self$contained and witho!t a bo!ndary. The tro!ble is, as e"plained in Chapter ', that the !ncertainty principle means that e en empty space is filled with pairs of irt!al particles and antiparticles. These pairs wo!ld ha e an infinite amo!nt of energy and, therefore, by 8insteins famo!s e0!ation + 1 mc$, they wo!ld ha e an infinite amo!nt of mass. Their gra itational attraction wo!ld th!s c!r e !p the !ni erse to infinitely small siFe. :ather similar, seemingly abs!rd infinities occ!r in the other partial theories, b!t in all these cases the infinities

can be canceled o!t by a process called renormaliFation. This in ol es canceling the infinities by introd!cing other infinities. Altho!gh this techni0!e is rather d!bio!s mathematically, it does seem to work in practice, and has been !sed with these theories to make predictions that agree with obser ations to an e"traordinary degree of acc!racy. :enormaliFation, howe er, does ha e a serio!s drawback from the point of iew of trying to find a complete theory, beca!se it means that the act!al al!es of the masses and the strengths of the forces cannot be predicted from the theory, b!t ha e to be chosen to fit the obser ations. In attempting to incorporate the !ncertainty principle into general relati ity, one has only two 0!antities that can be adH!sted/ the strength of gra ity and the al!e of the cosmological constant. )!t adH!sting these is not A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 55 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (5 of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ s!fficient to remo e all the infinities. ;ne therefore has a theory that seems to predict that certain 0!antities,

s!ch as the c!r at!re of space$time, are really infinite, yet these 0!antities can be obser ed and meas!red to be perfectly finiteC This problem in combining general relati ity and the !ncertainty principle had been s!spected for some time, b!t was finally confirmed by detailed calc!lations in 56'%. 3o!r years later, a possible sol!tion, called s!pergra ity, was s!ggested. The idea was to combine the spin$% particle called the gra iton, which carries the gra itational force, with certain other particles of spin &=%, 5, T, and ,. In a sense, all these particles co!ld then be regarded as different aspects of the same s!perparticle, th!s !nifying the matter particles with spin T and &=% with the force$ carrying particles of spin ,, 5, and %. The irt!al particle=antiparticle pairs of spin T and &=% wo!ld ha e negati e energy, and so wo!ld tend to cancel o!t the positi e energy of the spin %, 5, and , irt!al pairs. This wo!ld ca!se many of the possible infinities to cancel o!t, b!t it was s!spected that some infinities might still remain. <owe er, the calc!lations re0!ired to find o!t whether or not there were any infinities left !ncancelled were so

long and diffic!lt that no one was prepared to !ndertake them. 8 en with a comp!ter it was reckoned it wo!ld take at least fo!r years, and the chances were ery high that one wo!ld make at least one mistake, probably more. So one wo!ld know one had the right answer only if someone else repeated the calc!lation and got the same answer, and that did not seem ery likelyC 4espite these problems, and the fact that the particles in the s!per$gra ity theories did not seem to match the obser ed particles, most scientists belie ed that s!pergra ity was probably the right answer to the problem of the !nification of physics. It seemed the best way of !nifying gra ity with the other forces. <owe er, in 567E there was a remarkable change of opinion in fa or of what are called string theories. In these theories the basic obHects are not particles, which occ!py a single point of space, b!t things that ha e a length b!t no other dimension, like an infinitely thin piece of string. These strings may ha e ends (the so$called open strings* or they may be Hoined !p with themsel es in closed loops (closed strings* 3ig!re 55/5 and 3ig!re

55/%. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 55 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (% of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ 3ig!res 55/5 W 55/% A particle occ!pies one point of space at each instant of time. Th!s its history can be represented by a line in space$time (the world$line*. A string, on the other hand, occ!pies a line in space at each moment of time. So its history in space$time is a two$dimensional s!rface called the world$sheet. (Any point on s!ch a world$sheet can be described by two n!mbers, one specifying the time and the other the position of the point on the string.* The world$sheet of an open string is a strip/ its edges represent the paths thro!gh space$time of the ends of the string 3ig!re 55/5. The world$sheet of a closed string is a cylinder or t!be 3ig!re 55/%/ a slice thro!gh the t!be is a circle, which represents the position of the string at one partic!lar time. Two pieces of string can Hoin together to form a single stringA in the case of open strings they simply Hoin at the ends 3ig!re 55/&, while in the case of closed

strings it is like the two legs Hoining on a pair of tro!sers 3ig!re 55/E. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 55 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (& of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ 3ig!re 55/& A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 55 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (E of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ 3ig!re 55/E Similarly, a single piece of string can di ide into two strings. In string theories, what were pre io!sly tho!ght of as particles are now pict!red as wa es tra eling down the string, like wa es on a ibrating kite string. The emission or absorption of one particle by another corresponds to the di iding or Hoining together of strings. 3or e"ample, the gra itational force of the s!n on the earth was pict!red in particle theories as being ca!sed by the emission of a gra iton by a particle in the s!n and its absorption by a particle in the earth 3ig!re 55/+. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking...

Chapter 55 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (+ of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ 3ig!res 55/+ W 55/K In string theory, this process corresponds to an <$shaped t!be or pipe 3ig!re 55/K (string theory is rather like pl!mbing, in a way*. The two ertical sides of the < correspond to the particles in the s!n and the earth, and the horiFontal crossbar corresponds to the gra iton that tra els between them. String theory has a c!rio!s history. It was originally in ented in the late 56K,s in an attempt to find a theory to describe the strong force. The idea was that particles like the proton and the ne!tron co!ld be regarded as wa es on a string. The strong forces between the particles wo!ld correspond to pieces of string that went between other bits of string, as in a spiders web. 3or this theory to gi e the obser ed al!e of the strong force between particles, the strings had to be like r!bber bands with a p!ll of abo!t ten tons. In 56'E Joel Scherk from Garis and John SchwarF from the California Instit!te of Technology p!blished a paper in which they showed that string theory co!ld

describe the gra itational force, b!t only if the tension in the string were ery m!ch higher, abo!t a tho!sand million million million million million million tons (5 with thirty$nine Feros after it*. The predictions of the string theory wo!ld be H!st the same as those of general relati ity on normal length scales, b!t they wo!ld differ at ery small distances, less than a tho!sand million million million million millionth of a centimeter (a centimeter di ided by 5 with thirty$three Feros after it*. Their work did not recei e m!ch attention, howe er, beca!se at H!st abo!t that time most people abandoned the original string theory of the strong force in fa or of the theory based on 0!arks and gl!ons, which seemed to fit m!ch better with obser ations. Scherk died in tragic circ!mstances (he s!ffered from diabetes and went into a coma when no one was aro!nd to gi e him an inHection of ins!lin*. So SchwarF was left alone as almost the only s!pporter of string theory, b!t now with the m!ch higher proposed al!e of the string tension. In 567E interest in strings s!ddenly re i ed, apparently for two reasons. ;ne was that people were not really

making m!ch progress toward showing that s!pergra ity was finite or that it co!ld e"plain the kinds of particles that we obser e. The other was the p!blication of a paper by John SchwarF and .ike 9reen of N!een .ary College, #ondon, that showed that string theory might be able to e"plain the e"istence of particles that ha e a b!ilt$in left$handedness, like some of the particles that we obser e. 1hate er the reasons, a large n!mber of people soon began to work on string theory and a new ersion was de eloped, the so$called heterotic string, which seemed as if it might be able to e"plain the types of particles that we obser e. String theories also lead to infinities, b!t it is tho!ght they will all cancel o!t in ersions like the heterotic string A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 55 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (K of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ (tho!gh this is not yet known for certain*. String theories, howe er, ha e a bigger problem/ they seem to be consistent only if space$time has either ten or twenty$si" dimensions, instead of the !s!al fo!rC ;f co!rse, e"tra

space$time dimensions are a commonplace of science fiction indeed, they pro ide an ideal way of o ercoming the normal restriction of general relati ity that one cannot tra el faster than light or back in time (see Chapter 5,*. The idea is to take a shortc!t thro!gh the e"tra dimensions. ;ne can pict!re this in the following way. Imagine that the space we li e in has only two dimensions and is c!r ed like the s!rface of an anchor ring or tor!s 3ig!re 55/'. 3ig!re 55/' If yo! were on one side of the inside edge of the ring and yo! wanted to get to a point on the other side, yo! wo!ld ha e to go ro!nd the inner edge of the ring. <owe er, if yo! were able to tra el in the third dimension, yo! co!ld c!t straight across. 1hy dont we notice all these e"tra dimensions, if they are really there2 1hy do we see only three space dimensions and one time dimension2 The s!ggestion is that the other dimensions are c!r ed !p into a space of ery small siFe, something like a million million million million millionth of an inch. This is so small that we H!st dont notice it/ we see only one time dimension

and three space dimensions, in which space$time is fairly flat. It is like the s!rface of a straw. If yo! look at it closely, yo! see it is two$dimensional (the position of a point on the straw is described by two n!mbers, the length along the straw and the distance ro!nd the circ!lar direction*. )!t if yo! look at it from a distance, yo! dont see the thickness of the straw and it looks one$ dimensional (the position of a point is specified only by the length along the straw*. So it is with space$time/ on a ery small scale it is ten$dimensional and highly c!r ed, b!t on bigger scales yo! dont see the c!r at!re or the e"tra dimensions. If this pict!re is correct, it spells bad news for wo!ld$be space tra elers/ the e"tra dimensions wo!ld be far too small to allow a spaceship thro!gh. <owe er, it raises another maHor problem. 1hy sho!ld some, b!t not all, of the dimensions be c!rled !p into a small ball2 Gres!mably, in the ery early !ni erse all the dimensions wo!ld ha e been ery c!r ed. 1hy did one time dimension and three space dimensions flatten A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 55

file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (' of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ o!t, while the other dimensions remain tightly c!rled !p2 ;ne possible answer is the anthropic principle. Two space dimensions do not seem to be eno!gh to allow for the de elopment of complicated beings like !s. 3or e"ample, two$dimensional animals li ing on a one$dimensional earth wo!ld ha e to climb o er each other in order to get past each other. If a two$dimensional creat!re ate something it co!ld not digest completely, it wo!ld ha e to bring !p the remains the same way it swallowed them, beca!se if there were a passage right thro!gh its body, it wo!ld di ide the creat!re into two separate hal es/ o!r two$dimensional being wo!ld fall apart 3ig!re 55/7. Similarly, it is diffic!lt to see how there co!ld be any circ!lation of the blood in a two$ dimensional creat!re. 3ig!re 55/7 There wo!ld also be problems with more than three space dimensions. The gra itational force between two bodies wo!ld decrease more rapidly with distance than it does in three dimensions. (In three dimensions, the

gra itational force drops to 5=E if one do!bles the distance. In fo!r dimensions it wo!ld drop to 5=+, in fi e dimensions to 5=K, and so on.* The significance of this is that the orbits of planets, like the earth, aro!nd the s!n wo!ld be !nstable/ the least dist!rbance from a circ!lar orbit (s!ch as wo!ld be ca!sed by the gra itational attraction of other planets* wo!ld res!lt in the earth spiraling away from or into the s!n. 1e wo!ld either freeFe or be b!rned !p. In fact, the same beha ior of gra ity with distance in more than three space dimensions means that the s!n wo!ld not be able to e"ist in a stable state with press!re balancing gra ity. It wo!ld either fall apart or it wo!ld collapse to form a black hole. In either case, it wo!ld not be of m!ch !se as a so!rce of heat and light for life on earth. ;n a smaller scale, the electrical forces that ca!se the electrons to orbit ro!nd the n!cle!s in an atom wo!ld beha e in the same way as gra itational forces. Th!s the electrons wo!ld either escape from the atom altogether or wo!ld spiral into the n!cle!s. In either case, one co!ld not ha e atoms as we know them.

It seems clear then that life, at least as we know it, can e"ist only in regions of space$time in which one time dimension and three space dimensions are not c!rled !p small. This wo!ld mean that one co!ld appeal to the weak anthropic principle, pro ided one co!ld show that string theory does at least allow there to be s!ch regions of the !ni erse D and it seems that indeed string theory does. There may well be other regions of the !ni erse, or other !ni erses (whate er that may mean*, in which all the dimensions are c!rled !p small or in which more than fo!r dimensions are nearly flat, b!t there wo!ld be no intelligent beings in s!ch regions to A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 55 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (7 of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ obser e the different n!mber of effecti e dimensions. Another problem is that there are at least fo!r different string theories (open strings and three different closed string theories* and millions of ways in which the e"tra dimensions predicted by string theory co!ld be c!rled

!p. 1hy sho!ld H!st one string theory and one kind of c!rling !p be picked o!t2 3or a time there seemed no answer, and progress got bogged down. Then, from abo!t 566E, people started disco ering what are called d!alities/ different string theories and different ways of c!rling !p the e"tra dimensions co!ld lead to the same res!lts in fo!r dimensions. .oreo er, as well as particles, which occ!py a single point of space, and strings, which are lines, there were fo!nd to be other obHects called p$branes, which occ!pied two$ dimensional or higher$dimensional ol!mes in space. (A particle can be regarded as a ,$brane and a string as a 5$brane b!t there were also p$branes for pR% to pR6.* 1hat this seems to indicate is that there is a sort of democracy among s!pergra ity, string, and p$brane theories/ they seem to fit together b!t none can be said to be more f!ndamental than the others. They appear to be different appro"imations to some f!ndamental theory that are alid in different sit!ations. Geople ha e searched for this !nderlying theory, b!t witho!t any s!ccess so far. <owe er, I belie e there may

not be any single form!lation of the f!ndamental theory any more than, as 9odel showed, one co!ld form!late arithmetic in terms of a single set of a"ioms. Instead it may be like maps D yo! cant !se a single map to describe the s!rface of the earth or an anchor ring/ yo! need at least two maps in the case of the earth and fo!r for the anchor ring to co er e ery point. 8ach map is alid only in a limited region, b!t different maps will ha e a region of o erlap. The collection of maps pro ides a complete description of the s!rface. Similarly, in physics it may be necessary to !se different form!lations in different sit!ations, b!t two different form!lations wo!ld agree in sit!ations where they can both be applied. The whole collection of different form!lations co!ld be regarded as a complete !nified theory, tho!gh one that co!ld not be e"pressed in terms of a single set of post!lates. )!t can there really be s!ch a !nified theory2 ;r are we perhaps H!st chasing a mirage2 There seem to be three possibilities/ 5. There really is a complete !nified theory (or a collection of o erlapping form!lations*, which we will someday

disco er if we are smart eno!gh. %. There is no !ltimate theory of the !ni erse, H!st an infinite se0!ence of theories that describe the !ni erse more and more acc!rately. ,. There is no theory of the !ni erse/ e ents cannot be predicted beyond a certain e"tent b!t occ!r in a random and arbitrary manner. Some wo!ld arg!e for the third possibility on the gro!nds that if there were a complete set of laws, that wo!ld infringe 9ods freedom to change his mind and inter ene in the world. Its a bit like the old parado"/ can 9od make a stone so hea y that he cant lift it2 )!t the idea that 9od might want to change his mind is an e"ample of the fallacy, pointed o!t by St. A!g!stine, of imagining 9od as a being e"isting in time/ time is a property only of the !ni erse that 9od created. Gres!mably, he knew what he intended when he set it !pC 1ith the ad ent of 0!ant!m mechanics, we ha e come to recogniFe that e ents cannot be predicted with complete acc!racy b!t that there is always a degree of !ncertainty. If one likes, one co!ld ascribe this randomness to the inter ention of 9od, b!t it wo!ld be a ery strange kind of inter ention/

there is no e idence that it is directed toward any p!rpose. Indeed, if it were, it wo!ld by definition not be random. In modern times, we ha e effecti ely remo ed the third possibility abo e by redefining the goal of science/ o!r aim is to form!late a set of laws that enables !s to predict e ents only !p to the limit set by the !ncertainty principle. The second possibility, that there is an infinite se0!ence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all o!r e"perience so far. ;n many occasions we ha e increased the sensiti ity of o!r meas!rements or made a new class of obser ations, only to disco er new phenomena that were not predicted by the e"isting theory, and to acco!nt for these we ha e had to de elop a more ad anced theory. It wo!ld therefore not be ery s!rprising if the present generation of grand !nified theories was wrong in claiming that nothing essentially new will happen between the electroweak !nification energy of abo!t 5,, 9eI and the grand !nification energy of abo!t a tho!sand million million 9eI. 1e might indeed e"pect to find se eral new layers of str!ct!re more

A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 55 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (6 of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ basic than the 0!arks and electrons that we now regard as elementary particles. <owe er, it seems that gra ity may pro ide a limit to this se0!ence of bo"es within bo"es. If one had a particle with an energy abo e what is called the Glanck energy, ten million million million 9eI (5 followed by nineteen Feros*, its mass wo!ld be so concentrated that it wo!ld c!t itself off from the rest of the !ni erse and form a little black hole. Th!s it does seem that the se0!ence of more and more refined theories sho!ld ha e some limit as we go to higher and higher energies, so that there sho!ld be some !ltimate theory of the !ni erse. ;f co!rse, the Glanck energy is a ery long way from the energies of aro!nd a h!ndred 9eI, which are the most that we can prod!ce in the laboratory at the present time. 1e shall not bridge that gap with particle accelerators in the foreseeable f!t!reC The ery early stages of the !ni erse, howe er, are an arena

where s!ch energies m!st ha e occ!rred. I think that there is a good chance that the st!dy of the early !ni erse and the re0!irements of mathematical consistency will lead !s to a complete !nified theory within the lifetime of some of !s who are aro!nd today, always pres!ming we dont blow o!rsel es !p first. 1hat wo!ld it mean if we act!ally did disco er the !ltimate theory of the !ni erse2 As was e"plained in Chapter 5, we co!ld ne er be 0!ite s!re that we had indeed fo!nd the correct theory, since theories cant be pro ed. )!t if the theory was mathematically consistent and always ga e predictions that agreed with obser ations, we co!ld be reasonably confident that it was the right one. It wo!ld bring to an end a long and glorio!s chapter in the history of h!manitys intellect!al str!ggle to !nderstand the !ni erse. )!t it wo!ld also re ol!tioniFe the ordinary persons !nderstanding of the laws that go ern the !ni erse. In -ewtons time it was possible for an ed!cated person to ha e a grasp of the whole of h!man knowledge, at least in o!tline. )!t since then, the pace of the de elopment of science has made this

impossible. )eca!se theories are always being changed to acco!nt for new obser ations, they are ne er properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people can !nderstand them. Bo! ha e to be a specialist, and e en then yo! can only hope to ha e a proper grasp of a small proportion of the scientific theories. 3!rther, the rate of progress is so rapid that what one learns at school or !ni ersity is always a bit o!t of date. ;nly a few people can keep !p with the rapidly ad ancing frontier of knowledge, and they ha e to de ote their whole time to it and specialiFe in a small area. The rest of the pop!lation has little idea of the ad ances that are being made or the e"citement they are generating. Se enty years ago, if 8ddington is to be belie ed, only two people !nderstood the general theory of relati ity. -owadays tens of tho!sands of !ni ersity grad!ates do, and many millions of people are at least familiar with the idea. If a complete !nified theory was disco ered, it wo!ld only be a matter of time before it was digested and simplified in the same way and ta!ght in schools, at least in o!tline. 1e wo!ld then all be able to ha e some

!nderstanding of the laws that go ern the !ni erse and are responsible for o!r e"istence. 8 en if we do disco er a complete !nified theory, it wo!ld not mean that we wo!ld be able to predict e ents in general, for two reasons. The first is the limitation that the !ncertainty principle of 0!ant!m mechanics sets on o!r powers of prediction. There is nothing we can do to get aro!nd that. In practice, howe er, this first limitation is less restricti e than the second one. It arises from the fact that we co!ld not sol e the e0!ations of the theory e"actly, e"cept in ery simple sit!ations. (1e cannot e en sol e e"actly for the motion of three bodies in -ewtons theory of gra ity, and the diffic!lty increases with the n!mber of bodies and the comple"ity of the theory.* 1e already know the laws that go ern the beha ior of matter !nder all b!t the most e"treme conditions. In partic!lar, we know the basic laws that !nderlie all of chemistry and biology. Bet we ha e certainly not red!ced these s!bHects to the stat!s of sol ed problems/ we ha e, as yet, had little s!ccess in predicting h!man beha ior from mathematical e0!ationsC So e en if we do find a complete set

of basic laws, there will still be in the years ahead the intellect!ally challenging task of de eloping better appro"imation methods, so that we can make !sef!l predictions of the probable o!tcomes in complicated and realistic sit!ations. A complete, consistent, !nified theory is only the first step/ o!r goal is a complete understandin- of the e ents aro!nd !s, and of o!r own e"istence. G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 55 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (5, of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 55 file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=H.html (55 of 55* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5+/+K A.@ C(*PTE4 12 CO$C;US6O$ 1e find o!rsel es in a bewildering world. 1e want to make sense of what we see aro!nd !s and to ask/ 1hat is the nat!re of the !ni erse2 1hat is o!r place in it and where did it and we come from2 1hy is it the way it is2 To try to answer these 0!estions we adopt some

world pict!re. J!st as an infinite tower of tortoises s!pporting the fiat earth is s!ch a pict!re, so is the theory of s!perstrings. )oth are theories of the !ni erse, tho!gh the latter is m!ch more mathematical and precise than the former. )oth theories lack obser ational e idence/ no one has e er seen a giant tortoise with the earth on its back, b!t then, no one has seen a s!perstring either. <owe er, the tortoise theory fails to be a good scientific theory beca!se it predicts that people sho!ld be able to fall off the edge of the world. This has not been fo!nd to agree with e"perience, !nless that t!rns o!t to be the e"planation for the people who are s!pposed to ha e disappeared in the )erm!da TriangleC The earliest theoretical attempts to describe and e"plain the !ni erse in ol ed the idea that e ents and nat!ral phenomena were controlled by spirits with h!man emotions who acted in a ery h!manlike and !npredictable manner. These spirits inhabited nat!ral obHects, like ri ers and mo!ntains, incl!ding celestial bodies, like the s!n and moon. They had to be placated and their fa or so!ght in order to ens!re the fertility of the soil and the

rotation of the seasons. 9rad!ally, howe er, it m!st ha e been noticed that there were certain reg!larities/ the s!n always rose in the east and set in the west, whether or not a sacrifice had been made to the s!n god. 3!rther, the s!n, the moon, and the planets followed precise paths across the sky that co!ld be predicted in ad ance with considerable acc!racy. The s!n and the moon might still be gods, b!t they were gods who obeyed strict laws, apparently witho!t any e"ceptions, if one disco!nts stories like that of the s!n stopping for Josh!a. At first, these reg!larities and laws were ob io!s only in astronomy and a few other sit!ations. <owe er, as ci iliFation de eloped, and partic!larly in the last &,, years, more and more reg!larities and laws were disco ered. The s!ccess of these laws led #aplace at the beginning of the nineteenth cent!ry to post!late scientific determinismA that is, he s!ggested that there wo!ld be a set of laws that wo!ld determine the e ol!tion of the !ni erse precisely, gi en its config!ration at one time. #aplaces determinism was incomplete in two

ways. It did not say how the laws sho!ld be chosen and it did not specify the initial config!ration of the !ni erse. These were left to 9od. 9od wo!ld choose how the !ni erse began and what laws it obeyed, b!t he wo!ld not inter ene in the !ni erse once it had started. In effect, 9od was confined to the areas that nineteenth$cent!ry science did not !nderstand. 1e now know that #aplaces hopes of determinism cannot be realiFed, at least in the terms he had in mind. The !ncertainty principle of 0!ant!m mechanics implies that certain pairs of 0!antities, s!ch as the position and elocity of a particle, cannot both be predicted with complete acc!racy. N!ant!m mechanics deals with this sit!ation ia a class of 0!ant!m theories in which particles dont ha e well$defined positions and elocities b!t are represented by a wa e. These 0!ant!m theories are deterministic in the sense that they gi e laws for the e ol!tion of the wa e with time. Th!s if one knows the wa e at one time, one can calc!late it at any other time. The !npredictable, random element comes in only when we try to interpret the wa e in terms of the positions

and elocities of particles. )!t maybe that is o!r mistake/ maybe there are no particle positions and elocities, b!t only wa es. It is H!st that we try to fit the wa es to o!r preconcei ed ideas of positions and elocities. The res!lting mismatch is the ca!se of the apparent !npredictability. In effect, we ha e redefined the task of science to be the disco ery of laws that will enable !s to predict e ents !p to the limits set by the !ncertainty principle. The 0!estion remains, howe er/ how or why were the laws and the initial state of the !ni erse chosen2 In this book I ha e gi en special prominence to the laws that go ern gra ity, beca!se it is gra ity that shapes the large$scale str!ct!re of the !ni erse, e en tho!gh it is the weakest of the fo!r categories of forces. The laws of gra ity were incompatible with the iew held !ntil 0!ite recently that the !ni erse is !nchanging in time/ A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5% file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=k.html (5 of E* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5K/,7 A.@ the fact that gra ity is always attracti e implies that the !ni erse m!st be either e"panding or

contracting. According to the general theory of relati ity, there m!st ha e been a state of infinite density in the past, the big bang, which wo!ld ha e been an effecti e beginning of time. Similarly, if the whole !ni erse recollapsed, there m!st be another state of infinite density in the f!t!re, the big cr!nch, which wo!ld be an end of time. 8 en if the whole !ni erse did not recollapse, there wo!ld be sing!larities in any localiFed regions that collapsed to form black holes. These sing!larities wo!ld be an end of time for anyone who fell into the black hole. At the big bang and other sing!larities, all the laws wo!ld ha e broken down, so 9od wo!ld still ha e had complete freedom to choose what happened and how the !ni erse began. 1hen we combine 0!ant!m mechanics with general relati ity, there seems to be a new possibility that did not arise before/ that space and time together might form a finite, fo!r$dimensional space witho!t sing!larities or bo!ndaries, like the s!rface of the earth b!t with more dimensions. It seems that this idea co!ld e"plain many of the obser ed feat!res of the !ni erse, s!ch as

its large$scale !niformity and also the smaller$ scale depart!res from homogeneity, like gala"ies, stars, and e en h!man beings. It co!ld e en acco!nt for the arrow of time that we obser e. )!t if the !ni erse is completely self$contained, with no sing!larities or bo!ndaries, and completely described by a !nified theory, that has profo!nd implications for the role of 9od as Creator. 8instein once asked the 0!estion/ <ow m!ch choice did 9od ha e in constr!cting the !ni erse2 If the no bo!ndary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions. <e wo!ld, of co!rse, still ha e had the freedom to choose the laws that the !ni erse obeyed. This, howe er, may not really ha e been all that m!ch of a choiceA there may well be only one, or a small n!mber, of complete !nified theories, s!ch as the heterotic string theory, that are self$consistent and allow the e"istence of str!ct!res as complicated as h!man beings who can in estigate the laws of the !ni erse and ask abo!t the nat!re of 9od. 8 en if there is only one possible !nified theory, it is H!st a set of r!les and e0!ations. 1hat is it that breathes

fire into the e0!ations and makes a !ni erse for them to describe2 The !s!al approach of science of constr!cting a mathematical model cannot answer the 0!estions of why there sho!ld be a !ni erse for the model to describe. 1hy does the !ni erse go to all the bother of e"isting2 Is the !nified theory so compelling that it brings abo!t its own e"istence2 ;r does it need a creator, and, if so, does he ha e any other effect on the !ni erse2 And who created him2 Mp to now, most scientists ha e been too occ!pied with the de elopment of new theories that describe .hat the !ni erse is to ask the 0!estion .hy. ;n the other hand, the people whose b!siness it is to ask .hy, the philosophers, ha e not been able to keep !p with the ad ance of scientific theories. In the eighteenth cent!ry, philosophers considered the whole of h!man knowledge, incl!ding science, to be their field and disc!ssed 0!estions s!ch as/ did the !ni erse ha e a beginning2 <owe er, in the nineteenth and twentieth cent!ries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else e"cept a few specialists.

Ghilosophers red!ced the scope of their in0!iries so m!ch that 1ittgenstein, the most famo!s philosopher of this cent!ry, said, The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of lang!age. 1hat a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to LantC <owe er, if we do disco er a complete theory, it sho!ld in time be !nderstandable in broad principle by e eryone, not H!st a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and H!st ordinary people, be able to take part in the disc!ssion of the 0!estion of why it is that we and the !ni erse e"ist. If we find the answer to that, it wo!ld be the !ltimate tri!mph of h!man reason D for then we wo!ld know the mind of 9od. A#)8:T 8I-ST8I8insteins connection with the politics of the n!clear bomb is well known/ he signed the famo!s letter to Gresident 3ranklin :oose elt that pers!aded the Mnited States to take the idea serio!sly, and he engaged in postwar efforts to pre ent n!clear war. )!t these were not H!st the isolated actions of a scientist dragged into the world of politics. 8insteins life was, in fact, to

!se his own words, di ided between politics and e0!ations. 8insteins earliest political acti ity came d!ring the 3irst 1orld 1ar, when he was a professor in )erlin. Sickened by what he saw as the waste of h!man li es, he became in ol ed in antiwar demonstrations. <is A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5% file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=k.html (% of E* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5K/,7 A.@ ad ocacy of ci il disobedience and p!blic enco!ragement of people to ref!se conscription did little to endear him to his colleag!es. Then, following the war, he directed his efforts toward reconciliation and impro ing international relations. This too did not make him pop!lar, and soon his politics were making it diffic!lt for him to isit the Mnited States, e en to gi e lect!res. 8insteins second great ca!se was Sionism. Altho!gh he was Jewish by descent, 8instein reHected the biblical idea of 9od. <owe er, a growing awareness of anti$Semitism, both before and d!ring the 3irst 1orld 1ar, led him grad!ally to identify with the Jewish comm!nity, and later to become an o!tspoken

s!pporter of Sionism. ;nce more !npop!larity did not stop him from speaking his mind. <is theories came !nder attackA an anti$8instein organiFation was e en set !p. ;ne man was con icted of inciting others to m!rder 8instein (and fined a mere si" dollars*. )!t 8instein was phlegmatic. 1hen a book was p!blished entitled 233 Authors A-ainst +instein, he retorted, If I were wrong, then one wo!ld ha e been eno!ghC In 56&&, <itler came to power. 8instein was in America, and declared he wo!ld not ret!rn to 9ermany. Then, while -aFi militia raided his ho!se and confiscated his bank acco!nt, a )erlin newspaper displayed the headline 9ood -ews from 8instein D <es -ot Coming )ack. In the face of the -aFi threat, 8instein reno!nced pacifism, and e ent!ally, fearing that 9erman scientists wo!ld b!ild a n!clear bomb, proposed that the Mnited States sho!ld de elop its own. )!t e en before the first atomic bomb had been detonated, he was p!blicly warning of the dangers of n!clear war and proposing international control of n!clear weaponry. Thro!gho!t his life, 8insteins efforts toward

peace probably achie ed little that wo!ld last D and certainly won him few friends. <is ocal s!pport of the Sionist ca!se, howe er, was d!ly recogniFed in 56+%, when he was offered the presidency of Israel. <e declined, saying he tho!ght he was too nai e in politics. )!t perhaps his real reason was different/ to 0!ote him again, 80!ations are more important to me, beca!se politics is for the present, b!t an e0!ation is something for eternity. 9A#I#8; 9A#I#8I 9alileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. <is renowned conflict with the Catholic Ch!rch was central to his philosophy, for 9alileo was one of the first to arg!e that man co!ld hope to !nderstand how the world works, and, moreo er, that we co!ld do this by obser ing the real world. 9alileo had belie ed Copernican theory (that the planets orbited the s!n* since early on, b!t it was only when he fo!nd the e idence needed to s!pport the idea that he started to p!blicly s!pport it. <e wrote abo!t Copernic!ss theory in Italian (not the !s!al

academic #atin*, and soon his iews became widely s!pported o!tside the !ni ersities. This annoyed the Aristotelian professors, who !nited against him seeking to pers!ade the Catholic Ch!rch to ban Copernicanism. 9alileo, worried by this, tra eled to :ome to speak to the ecclesiastical a!thorities. <e arg!ed that the )ible was not intended to tell !s anything abo!t scientific theories, and that it was !s!al to ass!me that, where the )ible conflicted with common sense, it was being allegorical. )!t the Ch!rch was afraid of a scandal that might !ndermine its fight against Grotestantism, and so took repressi e meas!res. It declared Copernicanism false and erroneo!s in 5K5K, and commanded 9alileo ne er again to defend or hold the doctrine. 9alileo ac0!iesced. In 5K%&, a longtime friend of 9alileos became the Gope. Immediately 9alileo tried to get the 5K5K decree re oked. <e failed, b!t he did manage to get permission to write a book disc!ssing both Aristotelian and Copernican theories, on two conditions/ he wo!ld not take sides and wo!ld come to the concl!sion that man

co!ld in any case not determine how the world worked beca!se 9od co!ld bring abo!t the same effects in ways !nimagined by man, who co!ld not place restrictions on 9ods omnipotence. The book, 4ialo-ue oncernin- the T.o hief )orld Systems, was completed and p!blished in 5K&%, with the f!ll backing of the censors D and was immediately greeted thro!gho!t 8!rope as a literary and philosophical masterpiece. Soon the Gope, realiFing that people were seeing the book as a con incing arg!ment in fa or of A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5% file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=k.html (& of E* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5K/,7 A.@ Copernicanism, regretted ha ing allowed its p!blication. The Gope arg!ed that altho!gh the book had the official blessing of the censors, 9alileo had ne ertheless contra ened the 5K5K decree. <e bro!ght 9alileo before the In0!isition, who sentenced him to ho!se arrest for life and commanded him to p!blicly reno!nce Copernicanism. 3or a second time, 9alileo ac0!iesced. 9alileo remained a faithf!l Catholic, b!t his belief

in the independence of science had not been cr!shed. 3o!r years before his death in 5KE%, while he was still !nder ho!se arrest, the man!script of his second maHor book was sm!ggled to a p!blisher in <olland. It was this work, referred to as T.o Ne. Sciences, e en more than his s!pport for Copernic!s, that was to be the genesis of modern physics. ISAAC -81T; Isaac -ewton was not a pleasant man. <is relations with other academics were notorio!s, with most of his later life spent embroiled in heated disp!tes. 3ollowing p!blication of Principia Mathematica 5 s!rely the most infl!ential book e er written in physics D -ewton had risen rapidly into p!blic prominence. <e was appointed president of the :oyal Society and became the first scientist e er to be knighted. -ewton soon clashed with the Astronomer :oyal, John 3lamsteed, who had earlier pro ided -ewton with m!ch$needed data for Principia, b!t was now withholding information that -ewton wanted. -ewton wo!ld not take no for an answer/ he had himself appointed to the go erning body of the :oyal ;bser atory and then tried

to force immediate p!blication of the data. 8 ent!ally he arranged for 3lamsteeds work to be seiFed and prepared for p!blication by 3lamsteeds mortal enemy, 8dmond <alley. )!t 3lamsteed took the case to co!rt and, in the nick of time, won a co!rt order pre enting distrib!tion of the stolen work. -ewton was incensed and so!ght his re enge by systematically deleting all references to 3lamsteed in later editions of Principia. A more serio!s disp!te arose with the 9erman philosopher 9ottfried #eibniF. )oth #eibniF and -ewton had independently de eloped a branch of mathematics called calc!l!s, which !nderlies most of modern physics. Altho!gh we now know that -ewton disco ered calc!l!s years before #eibniF, he p!blished his work m!ch later. A maHor row ens!ed o er who had been first, with scientists igoro!sly defending both contenders. It is remarkable, howe er, that most of the articles appearing in defense of -ewton were originally written by his own hand D and only p!blished in the name of friendsC As the row grew, #eibniF made the mistake of appealing to the :oyal Society to resol e the disp!te.

-ewton, as president, appointed an impartial committee to in estigate, coincidentally consisting entirely of -ewtons friendsC )!t that was not all/ -ewton then wrote the committees report himself and had the :oyal Society p!blish it, officially acc!sing #eibniF of plagiarism. Still !nsatisfied, he then wrote an anonymo!s re iew of the report in the :oyal Societys own periodical. 3ollowing the death of #eibniF, -ewton is reported to ha e declared that he had taken great satisfaction in breaking #eibniFs heart. 4!ring the period of these two disp!tes, -ewton had already left Cambridge and academe. <e had been acti e in anti$Catholic politics at Cambridge, and later in Garliament, and was rewarded e ent!ally with the l!crati e post of 1arden of the :oyal .int. <ere he !sed his talents for de io!sness and itriol in a more socially acceptable way, s!ccessf!lly cond!cting a maHor campaign against co!nterfeiting, e en sending se eral men to their death on the gallows. G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Chapter 5%

file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=k.html (E of E* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5K/,7 A.@ 1;OSS*4: *3so!ute >ero/ The lowest possible temperat!re, at which s!bstances contain no heat energy. *cce!eration/ The rate at which the speed of an obHect is changing. *nthropic princip!e/ 1e see the !ni erse the way it is beca!se if it were different we wo!ld not be here to obser e it. *ntipartic!e/ 8ach type of matter particle has a corresponding antiparticle. 1hen a particle collides with its antiparticle, they annihilate, lea ing only energy. *tom/ The basic !nit of ordinary matter, made !p of a tiny n!cle!s (consisting of protons and ne!trons* s!rro!nded by orbiting electrons. &ig 3ang/ The sing!larity at the beginning of the !ni erse. &ig crunch/ The sing!larity at the end of the !ni erse. &!ac' ho!e/ A region of space$time from which nothing, not e en light, can escape, beca!se gra ity is so strong. Casimir effect/ The attracti e press!re between two flat, parallel metal plates placed ery near to each other in

a ac!!m. The press!re is d!e to a red!ction in the !s!al n!mber of irt!al particles in the space between the plates. Chandrase'har !imit/ The ma"im!m possible mass of a stable cold star, abo e which it m!st collapse into a black hole. Conservation of energ / The law of science that states that energy (or its e0!i alent in mass* can neither be created nor destroyed. Coordinates/ -!mbers that specify the position of a point in space and time. Cosmo!ogica! constant/ A mathematical de ice !sed by 8instein to gi e space$time an inb!ilt tendency to e"pand. Cosmo!og / The st!dy of the !ni erse as a whole. 5ar' matter/ .atter in gala"ies, cl!sters, and possibly between cl!sters, that can not be obser ed directly b!t can be detected by its gra itational effect. As m!ch as 6, percent of the mass of the !ni erse may be in the form of dark matter. 5ua!it / A correspondence between apparently different theories that lead to the same physical res!lts. Einstein-4osen 3ridge/ A thin t!be of space$

time linking two black holes. Also see 1ormhole. E!ectric charge/ A property of a particle by which it may repel (or attract* other particles that ha e a charge of similar (or opposite* sign. E!ectromagnetic force/ The force that arises between particles with electric chargeA the second strongest of the fo!r f!ndamental forces. E!ectron/ A particle with negati e electric charge that orbits the n!cle!s of an atom. E!ectro.ea' unification energ / The energy (aro!nd 5,, 9eI* abo e which the distinction between the electromagnetic force and the weak force disappears. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... 9lossary file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=l.html (5 of E* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5K/56 A.@ E!ementar partic!e/ A particle that, it is belie ed, cannot be s!bdi ided. Event/ A point in space$time, specified by its time and place. Event hori>on/ The bo!ndary of a black hole. Exc!usion princip!e/ The idea that two identical spin$5=% particles cannot ha e (within the limits set by the !ncertainty principle* both the same position and the same elocity.

#ie!d/ Something that e"ists thro!gho!t space and time, as opposed to a particle that e"ists at only one point at a time. #re?uenc / 3or a wa e, the n!mber of complete cycles per second. 1amma ra s/ 8lectromagnetic rays of ery short wa elength, prod!ced in radio$acti e decay or by collisions of elementary particles. 1enera! re!ativit / 8insteins theory based on the idea that the laws of science sho!ld be the same for all obser ers, no matter how they are mo ing. It e"plains the force of gra ity in terms of the c!r at!re of a fo!r$dimensional space$time. 1eodesic/ The shortest (or longest* path between two points. 1rand unification energ / The energy abo e which, it is belie ed, the electro$magnetic force, weak force, and strong force become indisting!ishable from each other. 1rand unified theor @1UTA/ A theory which !nifies the electromagnetic, strong, and weak forces. 6maginar time/ Time meas!red !sing imaginary n!mbers. ;ight cone/ A s!rface in space$time that marks o!t the possible directions for light rays passing

thro!gh a gi en e ent. ;ight-second @!ight- earA/ The distance tra eled by light in one second (year*. 8agnetic fie!d/ The field responsible for magnetic forces, now incorporated along with the electric field, into the electromagnetic field. 8ass/ The 0!antity of matter in a bodyA its inertia, or resistance to acceleration. 8icro.ave 3ac'ground radiation/ The radiation from the glowing of the hot early !ni erse, now so greatly red$shifted that it appears not as light b!t as microwa es (radio wa es with a wa elength of a few centimeters*. Also see C;)8, on page 5E+. $a'ed singu!arit / A space$time sing!larity not s!rro!nded by a black hole. $eutrino/ An e"tremely light (possibly massless* particle that is affected only by the weak force and gra ity. $eutron/ An !ncharged particle, ery similar to the proton, which acco!nts for ro!ghly half the particles in an atomic n!cle!s. $eutron star/ A cold star, s!pported by the e"cl!sion principle rep!lsion between ne!trons. $o 3oundar condition/ The idea that the !ni erse is finite b!t has no bo!ndary (in imaginary time*.

$uc!ear fusion/ The process by which two n!clei collide and coalesce to form a single, hea ier n!cle!s. $uc!eus/ The central part of an atom, consisting only of protons and ne!trons, held together by the strong A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... 9lossary file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=l.html (% of E* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5K/56 A.@ force. Partic!e acce!erator/ A machine that, !sing electromagnets, can accelerate mo ing charged particles, gi ing them more energy. Phase/ 3or a wa e, the position in its cycle at a specified time/ a meas!re of whether it is at a crest, a tro!gh, or somewhere in between. Photon/ A 0!ant!m of light. P!anc'=s ?uantum princip!e/ The idea that light (or any other classical wa es* can be emitted or absorbed only in discrete 0!anta, whose energy is proportional to their wa elength. Positron/ The (positi ely charged* antiparticle of the electron. Primordia! 3!ac' ho!e/ A black hole created in the ery early !ni erse. Proportiona!/ YO is proportional to B means that

when B is m!ltiplied by any n!mber, so is O. YO is in ersely proportional to B means that when B is m!ltiplied by any n!mber, O is di ided by that n!mber. Proton/ A positi ely charged particle, ery similar to the ne!tron, that acco!nts for ro!ghly half the particles in the n!cle!s of most atoms. Pu!sar/ A rotating ne!tron star that emits reg!lar p!lses of radio wa es. Buantum/ The indi isible !nit in which wa es may be emitted or absorbed. Buantum chromod namics (NC4*/ The theory that describes the interactions of 0!arks and gl!ons. Buantum mechanics/ The theory de eloped from Glancks 0!ant!m principle and <eisenbergs !ncertainty principle. Buar'/ A (charged* elementary particle that feels the strong force. Grotons and ne!trons are each composed of three 0!arks. 4adar/ A system !sing p!lsed radio wa es to detect the position of obHects by meas!ring the time it takes a single p!lse to reach the obHect and be reflected back. 4adioactivit / The spontaneo!s breakdown of one type of atomic n!cle!s into another. 4ed shift/ The reddening of light from a star that

is mo ing away from !s, d!e to the 4oppler effect. Singu!arit / A point in space$time at which the space$time c!r at!re becomes infinite. Singu!arit theorem/ A theorem that shows that a sing!larity m!st e"ist !nder certain circ!mstances D in partic!lar, that the !ni erse m!st ha e started with a sing!larity. Space-time/ The fo!r$dimensional space whose points are e ents. Spatia! dimension/ Any of the three dimensions that are spacelike D that is, any e"cept the time dimension. Specia! re!ativit / 8insteins theory based on the idea that the laws of science sho!ld be the same for all obser ers, no matter how they are mo ing, in the absence of gra itational phenomena. Spectrum/ The component fre0!encies that make !p a wa e. The isible part of the s!ns spectr!m can be seen in a rainbow. Spin/ An internal property of elementary particles, related to, b!t not identical to, the e eryday concept of spin. A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... 9lossary file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=l.html (& of E* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5K/56 A.@

Stationar state/ ;ne that is not changing with time/ a sphere spinning at a constant rate is stationary beca!se it looks identical at any gi en instant. String theor / A theory of physics in which particles are described as wa es on strings. Strings ha e length b!t no other dimension. Strong force/ The strongest of the fo!r f!ndamental forces, with the shortest range of all. It holds the 0!arks together within protons and ne!trons, and holds the protons and ne!trons together to form atoms. Uncertaint princip!e/ The principle, form!lated by <eisenberg, that one can ne er be e"actly s!re of both the position and the elocity of a particleA the more acc!rately one knows the one, the less acc!rately one can know the other. 7irtua! partic!e/ In 0!ant!m mechanics, a particle that can ne er be directly detected, b!t whose e"istence does ha e meas!rable effects. 0aveCpartic!e dua!it / The concept in 0!ant!m mechanics that there is no distinction between wa es and particlesA particles may sometimes beha e like wa es, and wa es like particles. 0ave!ength/ 3or a wa e, the distance between two adHacent tro!ghs or two adHacent crests.

0ea' force/ The second weakest of the fo!r f!ndamental forces, with a ery short range. It affects all matter particles, b!t not force$carrying particles. 0eight/ The force e"erted on a body by a gra itational field. It is proportional to, b!t not the same as, its mass. 0hite d.arf/ A stable cold star, s!pported by the e"cl!sion principle rep!lsion between electrons. 0ormho!e/ A thin t!be of space$time connecting distant regions of the !ni erse. 1ormholes might also link to parallel or baby !ni erses and co!ld pro ide the possibility of time tra el. G:8II;MS -8OT A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... 9lossary file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=l.html (E of E* ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5K/56 A.@ *C<$O0;E518E$TS .any people ha e helped me in writing this book. .y scientific colleag!es ha e witho!t e"ception been inspiring. ; er the years my principal associates and collaborators were :oger Genrose, :obert 9eroch, )randon Carter, 9eorge 8llis, 9ary 9ibbons, 4on Gage, and Jim <artle. I owe a lot to them, and to my research st!dents, who ha e always gi en me

help when needed. ;ne of my st!dents, )rian 1hitt, ga e me a lot of help writing the first edition of this book. .y editor at )antam )ooks, Geter 9!FFardi, made inn!merable comments which impro ed the book considerably. In addition, for this edition, I wo!ld like to thank Andrew 4!nn, who helped me re ise the te"t. I co!ld not ha e written this book witho!t my comm!nication system. The software, called 80!aliFer, was donated by 1alt 1altosF of 1ords Gl!s Inc., in #ancaster, California. .y speech synthesiFer was donated by Speech Gl!s, of S!nny ale, California. The synthesiFer and laptop comp!ter were mo!nted on my wheelchair by 4a id .ason, of Cambridge Adapti e Comm!nication #td. 1ith this system I can comm!nicate better now than before I lost my oice. I ha e had a n!mber of secretaries and assistants o er the years in which I wrote and re ised this book. ;n the secretarial side, Im ery gratef!l to J!dy 3ella, Ann :alph, #a!ra 9entry, Cheryl )illington, and S!e .asey. .y assistants ha e been Colin 1illiams, 4a id Thomas, and :aymond #aflamme, -ick Ghillips, Andrew 4!nn,

St!art Jamieson, Jonathan )renchley, Tim <!nt, Simon 9ill, Jon :ogers, and Tom Lendall. They, my n!rses, colleag!es, friends, and family ha e enabled me to li e a ery f!ll life and to p!rs!e my research despite my disability. Stephen Ha.'in *&OUT T(E *UT(O4 Stephen <awking, who was born in 56E% on the anni ersary of 9alileos death, holds Isaac -ewtons chair as #!casian Grofessor of .athematics at the Mni ersity of Cambridge. 1idely regarded as the most brilliant theoretical physicist since 8instein, he is also the a!thor of Blac' Holes and Baby 6niverses, p!blished in 566&, as well as n!mero!s scientific papers and books. G:8II;MS A )rief <istory of Time $ Stephen <awking... Acknowledgments file/===C>=1I-4;1S=4esktop=blahh=Stephen <awking $ A brief history of time=m.html ?%=%,=%,,5 &/5K/&, A.@