Page Content (OCR)
However, there is an experiential area where equations do not a pri- ori render us subservient and that escapes the canonical approach of determinism: quantum mechanics. It endeavors to reduce physical magnitudes and the smallest parts of matter to quantities. This distin- guishes it from the relativity theory that aims at establishing relations between physical magnitudes (comparison of two Galilean references). The predilection area of general relativity is the infinitely big because in the interstellar vacuum it is possible to observe the distor- tion of the trajectory of photons generated by high-mass stars. How- ever, the infinitely big is inaccessible by definition. Our instruments cannot attest to the size of the universe with absolute certainty. Let us follow this reasoning through. Considering the velocity of light, the light of the stars we see comes from the past. The sky does not reflect our present reality but a previous situation. However, imagine stars so distant that they cannot be detected by any of our current measuring instruments, either because their intrinsic luminosity is too weak — when they are hidden by stellar dust or other celestial objects — or because their light will not reach us for another few billion years. What then is the Big Bang? The Big Bang is defined by the real size of the universe. If we can- not measure it, then how can we claim that its mass is defined and, as a consequence, that we can use it to deduce the thermodynamic and grav- itational forces at work? What if the Big Bang is the exact antithesis of future observations? If the biggest scientific mistake in history is to make us acknowledge the existence of a primordial God as the church sees it, then where did the theory with the same name come from? On the other hand, quantum mechanics is invariably interested in the infinitely small. It forces us to always take the structuring of matter one step further in order to answer the question: what is matter made of? Before tackling this question I will give you the general principles of the standard model of which the experimental results are promising. Nevertheless, the technical terms hide concepts that are far from being materialist. Therefore, we must fathom the interpretation of these con- cepts, which physicists have never been able to do. There are two forms of particles: messenger particles, also called gauge fields, and particles of “matter.” In reality, the latter do not con- sist of matter at all. These matter particles can be divided into two fam- a 1 adi. ™ . . c and 1 ilies: quarks and leptons. The vast majority of particles are quarks (which is the case for the atomic nucleus). There are two types of com- binations: the hadrons that are composed of three quarks and the Progress means a better perception of reality 41