Ok, here goes. With this initial post, I'm introducing an alternative system of physical theory; that is, an alternative to Newton's system of physical theory. To many of you, the idea of using a system of physical theory is undoubtedly unfamiliar, since the system we ordinarily use to construct physical theory is taken for granted, and seldom explicity recognized.

However, when it is understood that Newton's great accomplishment was the inauguration of a program of research that made the systematic investigation of physical phenomena possible in an unprecedented manner, it's easy to see that underlying that program was a system of mechanics to investigate and classify the properties of all physical objects. Consequently, in the words of David Hestenes of Arizona State University, "Newtonian mechanics is, therefore, more than a particular scientific theory; it is a well defined program of research into the structure of the physical world." [1]

Similarly, Dewey B. Larson, in publishing his three volume treatise, The Structure of the Physical Universe, [2] has done much more than introduce a particular scientific theory, he has inaugurated a well defined program of research into the structure of the physical world. While this claim may seem startling and therefore incredulous at first, it becomes a very compelling pronouncement upon further investigation. Here's why: Larson redefines the fundamental concepts of space and time.

Since the fundamental concepts of space and time are the foundation of Newtonian mechanics, as well as general relativity and quantum mechanics, their redefinition necessarily redefines the science which is built upon them. Under Newton's program, our grand goal is to "describe and explain all properties of all physical objects." [1] Hestenes explains that the approach of this program is determined by two very important, general, assumptions: "first, that every physical object can be represented as a composite of particles, and second, that the behavior of a particle is governed by interactions with other particles." This means that we should be able to describe nature in terms of a few kinds of fundamental particles which interact in a few fundamental ways.

The great power of this approach, according to Hestenes, is that the properties of the particles and the relationships between them via interactions can be precisely formulated mathematically. The expression of the existence of a particle over time in the function x(t), "when specified for all times in an interval...describes a motion of the particle." From this it is clear that the central hypothesis of Newton's program of research is that "variations in the motion of a particle are completly determined by its interactions with other particles," leading to Newton's second law of motion. Thus, this hypothesis defines the entire program from Newton's day to this. As Hestene's puts it:

Hestenes adds, "The classification is not complete today, but it has been carried a long way." Indeed, it has. The long road has been both an exciting and frustrating adventure for several centuries, and has brought unimaginable changes to civilization, since its inception in the days of Newton. The really big news today, however, is that we are "stuck" in the words of Steven Weinberg. While we have the standard model, that, though "ugly and ad hoc" in the words of Hawking, is considered by many as the greatest intellectual achievement of the 20th Century, it is still missing a most fundamental interaction of physical objects, the very one that perplexed Newton himself: gravity. While this glaring failure has given rise to decades of effort leading to string theory, loop quantum gravity, and other lesser known approaches to find a solution, the inevitable conclusion, reached by more and more investigators, is that we can't get there from here, that something else is needed.

The trouble is, of course, that most suggestions all have one thing in common: they are constructed under the same system of physical theory; that is, they are constructed under Newton's program of research that focuses on the forces of interaction between particles contained in space and time. It might be argued that modern theoretical physics has long since abandoned the concept of particles for the field concept, and the concept of force interaction for the concept of particle exchange, but just as replacing Newton's concept of absolute space and time, with Einstein's space-time, doesn't alter the definition of motion, even so modifying the concepts of particles and interactions doesn't alter the definition of motion, and it's the definition of motion, the function x(t), upon which Newton's program of research is founded.

What Larson did was to redefine motion, thus making it possible to initiate a new program of research founded on the new definition. To understand Larson's new definition, it's important to recognize that motion in Newton's program is always the one-dimensional motion of objects, or fields, defined in terms of a stationary reference, or background, of space and time. This leads immediately to a conflict between general relativity (GR), which must be used to describe gravity, and quantum field theory (QFT), which is used to describe the rest of physical phenomena in the standard model. Since, in GR, gravity is space-time, but in QFT, fields must propagate in a fixed background of space and time, the perplexing question is, how can a wave function of gravity evolve over itself?

This predicament has lead to the dire need of a non-pertubative string theory, or a background-free string theory, in which a quantum theory of gravity can be formulated, which is currently, and has been for many years, the holy grail of modern theoretical physics. Whether or not this can be done remains to be seen and depends on such esoteric subjects as the evidence for SUSY, etc. However, the point here is that this predicament is fundamentally based in the definition of motion, which in QFT requires a fixed background of space and time, but which GR has eliminated. Thus, we have a choice; we can give up GR as a description of gravity, and by so doing free up the background of space and time, or we can keep our pet theory of gravity and give up our ability to describe fundamental particles in terms of fundamental interactions.

Of course, no one has the clout to do either, so we are "stuck." Unless, that is, we can find a way to define motion without having to incorporate a non-dynamic background of space and time to describe the time evolution of fields in the Schroedinger equations, and without having to incorporate a dynamic background of spacetime to describe gravity in the Einstein equations.

If such a prospect interests you, stay tuned.

References:

1) David Hestenes, "New Foundations for Classical Mechanics, Second Edition," Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1986.

2) Dewey B. Larson, "The Structure of the Physical Universe, Revised and Enlarged Edition, in Three Volumes," 1979.

HI Excal

Just a few thoughts.

In my opinion, referring to Newton’s “laws” of gravity as “laws” is misleading, despite the universal use of such a term. The relationship of F = g m1 m2 / D^2 is based upon observation rather than a theory or model. This is in contrast with E = mcc which was established from a theoretical model and then experimentally verified. E = mcc, is therefore, in my opinion, a law, F =gmm/dd is not.

General Relativity is a geometric model that does yield Newton’s “Laws”, hence it’s appeal.

I also somewhat agree with you when you stated the following..

“However, the point here is that this predicament is fundamentally based in the definition of motion, which in QFT requires a fixed background of space and time, but which GR has eliminated. Thus, we have a choice; we can give up GR as a description of gravity, and by so doing free up the background of space and time, or we can keep our pet theory of gravity and give up our ability to describe fundamental particles in terms of fundamental.”

but it could be argued that General Relativity has not eliminated the “fixed background”, it is just superfluous.

I look forward to a listing of your premises and the relationships proposed.

Good luck.

Snowflake.

Hi Excal,

We ahad someone on the Universe Today forum start to tell us about Dewey Lasron's ideas, but we didn't get very far.

Can you start us off with something simple and show how Larson would describe something that to me would look like a billiard ball traveling at 3 meters per second striking head-on another billiard ball that had been at rest?

Larson's physics never really sunk in for me, and I think it was because the previous poster mostly pointed us to some of Larson's work and didn't help guide us.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

In fact, Newton was troubled by the fact that he couldn't find the underlying motion of which the gravitational force is a property, and refused to propose a hypothesis without it. Today, however, modern investigators seem to have no such qualms. In fact, we have pretty much forgotten that force is a property of motion, and have permitted ourselves to accept autonomous forces that can exist by themselves without an underlying motion. The similarity of Newton's second law of motion to the gravitational law is intriguing, but it does not attract much attention in the mainstream community these days. Yet, Larson's opinion was that forces cannot exist as independent entities. In chapter 13 of the second volume of his work, The Basic Properties of Matter, he writes:

However, Newton's first and second laws are more often regarded as hypotheses that explain why massive objects move (or don't move), and thus are called laws because they are confirmed by all observations. Whereas, as you point out, the universal law of gravitation is observed, but it does not explain why objects are attracted to each other gravitationally. The gravitational force just exists, it cannot be applied, or manipulated, by an outside agency, as can other foces studied by Newton. Nevertheless, Newton realized that where there is a force, there must be an underlying motion, even if it hasn't been found. Larson's point is that we need to keep this in mind. Motion is prior to force.

I think the reason it's been hard to introduce Larson's ideas is that those who have attempted it have tried to present it as a new theory, when, as I have tried to establish in the initial post, it's much more than that. Hopefully, I will be able to get further with this new approach.

I'm glad you asked the question above concerning the billiard ball, because it gives me the chance to clarify an important point: Larson's new definition of motion introduces a new type of motion he called scalar motion, which is the only entity that exists in the theoretical universe that he develops in his works. This means that the theorectical universe based on the Reciprocal System, is a universe of motion; that is, it is a universe of nothing but motion, as defined in the system. In other words, matter is emergent in the universe of motion.

However, once matter exists in the universe, a spatial coordinate system may be used to identify locations that these physical entities occupy, or may occupy, and the change of locations, as a function of time, x(t), then defines the motion of these entities as has been developed under Newton's program of research. These motions, referred to as "vectorial motions," are distinquished from scalar motion in the system, as we shall see.

Therefore, Larson's new system, does not replace Newton's system, but actually subsumes it. Hence, the principles of classical mechanics, and even special relativity still apply in the new system, albeit time and the speed of light are treated in a manner that is different than the way Einstein treats them. Therefore, the answer to your question as to how Larson would describe the moving billiard ball is that he would describe it just as mainstream physicists describe it.

Having said that, however, there are some important caveats as to the currently accepted limits of the relative velocity of matter, which I will eventually explain.

Congratulations - keep up the good work!

__________________
taurus26

Dedicated to Graham Kennedy.

Excal, you've piqued my curiosity. I look forward to your explanations of this model.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

In the initial post of this thread, I introduced Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST) as a new system of physical theory that goes beyond Newton's system and thus provides the basis for a new program of research that, while it has the same grand goal of Newton's program, is based on a new definition of motion.

Larson's new definition of motion is based, in turn, on his novel definition of space and time. The nature of space and time has been at the center of the physics philosophical debate for centuries. Discussing this in a recent paper, Lee Smolin, of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, summarizes the, as yet unanswered, fundamental challenges facing the mainstream physics community for the last three decades: [1]

In his paper, Smolin shows how, in spite of some tantalyzing clues, the vigorous pursuit of a solution to these challenges by a cast of thousands of the most bright and talented people in the world, using the string theory approach, has only led to some perplexing and recalcitrant difficulties. This situation drives him to hypothesize that "some wrong assumption was made somewhere in the course of the development of [string] theory," and he further surmises that the false assumption has to do with the nature of space and time. Specifically, he refers to the age old debate between relational and absolute theories of space and time, "which, he notes, has been central to the thinking about the nature of space and time going back to the beginning of physics."

Thus, Smolin asserts that, if string theory is to succeed in meeting the key issues facing modern physics, as many hope it will, it must be reformulated in a way that does not depend on the current assumption regarding the nature of space and time as a background for physical phenomena. He writes:

The idea of background independence is the modern articulation of the famous debate between Newton and Leibniz over whether space and time are properly regarded as something that exists substantively and absolutely, or whether they have no meaning other than that given to them by the relative positions of objects in different spatial locations at different moments in time. Newton argued that space and time are to be regarded as absolute, and he eventually won the argument after presenting his famous water bucket thought experiment.

However, Smolin points out that Leibniz's argument for the "principle of sufficient reason," eliminates the philosophical problem that Newton's position raises, namely that "a theory that begins with the choice of a background geometry, among many equally consistent choices," must provide the justification for that choice. But, since no theory can justify the position or orientation of the universe as a whole, relative to a given background, the theoretical requirement for a fixed background of space and time becomes a philosophical liability. Smolin writes:

This is not the only philosophical argument Leibniz raised against a background dependent theory, there are others having to do with global symmetries and conserved charges that modern physics eventually has come to recognize in the context of general relativity. Nevertheless, Smolin notes, "a physics where space and time are absolute can be developed one particle at a time, while a relational view requires that the properties of any one particle are determined self-consistently by the whole universe." Of course, eventually, the dues have to be paid, and it appears that the time has come for modern theoretical physics to pay up.

Change comes slowly, however, and the recognition of the need for a background independent theory is not as universally acknowledged as Smolin would like. He and his colleagues, however, have tried to come to grips with the problem, and in so doing have arrived at a "rough consensus" as to what a relational view of space and time actually is. They refer to it as "the physicists' relational conception of space and time." There are three elements to this concept that Smolin discusses:

1) There is no background.

2) The fundamental properties of the elementary entities consist entirely in relationships between those elementary entities.

3) The relationships are not fixed, but evolve according to law. Time is nothing but changes in the relationships, and consists of nothing but their ordering.

Smolin characterizes the dynamics of such a concept as consisting of the changes of the relationship of its entities over time, which he summarizes in statement 3 above. "Thus," he continues, "we often take background independent and relational as synonymous. The debate between philosophers that used to be phrased in terms of absolute vrs relational theories of space and time is continued in a debate between physicists who argue about background dependent vrs background independent theories."

In this debate, Smolin articulates a strategy for those seeking background-independent theories:

Smolin cites Mach's ideas, and Einstein's successful exploitation of them, as an encouraging indication that the correct paradigm for the relational strategy is Mach's principle:

However, this is obviously a compromise, since Mach's principle provides a relational background, which, while, in the final analysis, it clearly is better than an absolute background of space and time, it is a background nevertheless, and, though it addresses the global symmetry problem, it does not affect the description of motion, which still must be defined as a function of x(t).

(see continuation in following post)

Larson takes a completely different approach to the problem. Instead of seeking a background independent theory directly, as Smolin et al do, that is motivated by modern theoretical perplexities, he concludes that the definition of motion not only does not require a background of space and time, but he also realizes that it does not even require a separate entity in its definition; that is, in the equation of motion, v = ds/dt, the only requirement is a change of two reciprocal magnitudes, space and time. In retrospect, we might imagine him thinking that since the universal "march of time" is observed locally, and the universal "march of space," is observed globally, in the recession of the distant galaxies, that one approach might be to assume that these observed phenomena are the reciprocal aspects of a universal motion.

However, this was not the avenue by which he arrived at the conclusion. Rather, he arrived at it because he noticed that the data from his studies of inter-atomic distances in solids made more sense, if he assumed a reciprocal relation between space and time. Of course, if we think of space and time as a background, then the idea of space being the reciprocal of time seems absurd, but in considering the equation of motion, the reciprocal relationship of these two enigmatic concepts makes perfect sense.

Recognizing that this approach to the nature of space and time would work if space and time were quantized, he soon arrived at the basis for a new system of physical theory: if somehow the progression of space/time formed discrete units of motion, they could provide the basis for physical entities consisting of nothing but space/time.

Of course, Larson knew nothing of Smolin's work in the decades before he published a preliminary edition of his work in 1959. In fact, Smolin wasn't even alive at that time. More importantly, the perplexities that dog background dependent physical theories had not yet emerged, and physicists were fascinated with QFT and fixating on gauge symmetries, and applying group theory to quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, a comparison of the RST with Smolin et al's concept of relational space and time, is very revealing:

1) There is no background.
Larson's concept of space and time as nothing more than the reciprocal aspects of a universal motion eliminates entirely the concept of a space and time background as the initial condition of the theory. It thus complies perfectly with Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason in this regard. In fact, it will be shown later that the degrees of freedom associated with space and time in modern theories are actually more properly attributed to motion, and that exactly three degrees of freedom are sufficient for all geometries, including non-Euclidean geometries such as elliptical and hyperbolic geometries.

2) The fundamental properties of the elementary entities consist entirely in relationships between those elementary entities.
Again, in Larson's RST, the elementary entities of the theoretical universe are not pre-existing particles of matter. They are discrete units of the universal motion, which Larson called scalar motion, because it consists of a scalar increase of space and time, reciprocally related. The initial state of this scalar motion is altered when a continuous reversal in the scalar "direction" of the progression of one or the other of the reciprocal aspects occurs at a given point in the progression. A more detailed explanation of this change in state will be provided later, but the result is that emerging degrees of freedom produce various properties in these entities due to the relationships between them.

3) The relationships are not fixed, but evolve according to law. Time is nothing but changes in the relationships, and consists of nothing but their ordering.
Larson's universe of motion consists entirely of units of motion, combinations of units of motion, and relations between units of motion. These entities emerge and evolve soley as a result of, and as the necessary consequences of, the two fundamental assumptions of the system that Larson called the Fundamental Postulates. Time, in this system, is on an equal footing with space. However, all the dynamics of the system stem from the initial dynamic relationship of space and time. Therefore, while time is the change in the relationships, it does not exist apart from space in the equation of motion. Neither space nor time can exist as separate entities apart from motion. In the RST, space is ordered by time, and time is ordered by space. Hence, the spatial position of physical entites cannot change without time, neither can the temporal position of physical entities change without space.

Clearly, Larson's Reciprocal System anticipated the requirements of a background independent theory. Meeting the need for a modern theory that can explain how the physical entities that populate the universe as constituents of radiation, matter, and energy, can acquire the observed properties they have without invoking a background of space and time, is exactly what it claims it can do. I hope to be able to present, and sucessfully defend, the bonafides of that claim in the ensuing discussion that I anticipate will take place here. Let me close this post by providing you with the formal expression of the basis of the Reciprocal System, composed by Larson, the two Fundamental Postulates from which the entire universe of motion is deduced:

First Fundamental Postulate: The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.

Second Fundamental Postulate: The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is Euclidean.

References:

1) Lee Smolin, The Case for Background Independence, hep-th/0507235, 25 July 2005

Excal - I agree with both of the Postulates.

I wish it had been you rather than me trying to explain and justify my theories.

__________________
taurus26

Dedicated to Graham Kennedy.

Hi Excal
A few clarification comments.

You state that,
"First Fundamental Postulate: The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time. "

And earlier you state,
"In fact, it will be shown later that the degrees of freedom associated with space and time in modern theories are actually more properly attributed to motion, and that exactly three degrees of freedom are sufficient for all geometries, "

In these statements the term “space” is actually referring to a distance measure, (v = ds/dt ). The volume of spacetime is realized by incorporating three degrees of freedom. Also the first postulate includes so many ideas, that the meaning of the first postulate is diffused. Might I suggest the following?

Rewriting the first postulate.

First fundamental postulate : the physical universe is compose of one component, motion. Motion describes a reciprocal relationship between distance and time, V = ds/dt.

Second postulate. Motion is expressed in space by allowing motion to exist with three degrees of freedom.

Third postulate : Motion is expressed in discrete (or Quanta sized ?) units.

Snowflake.

Larson initially composed the postulates from seven assumptions, I believe, and later decided, for the sake of conciseness, not to explicitly include those that were clearly implicit. He observed that at least one of these implicit assumptions, could later be expressed explicitly, if omitting it caused confusion.

However, the fact that you infer from the postulates that "the term 'space' is actually referring to a distance measure," indicates the difficulty inherent in clearly, yet succinctly, expressing the assumptions. The term "distance" indicates a span of space measured by a velocity over time. Thus, ds = v*dt. However, we can also indicate the same measure of space in terms of an interval of time. Thus, dt = ds/v. This fact reveals that velocity may be interpreted as a meter of space and time wherein it, in a sense, creates space (distance), given time, or time (interval), given space.

However, there is another interpretation that, although subtle, reveals an important distinction. This interpretation is that the equation v = ds/dt states that motion is equivalent to a ratio of a change in space to a change of time; that is, they are the same thing. Given this interpretation, motion cannot exist except in terms of this ratio of changing space and time. The first fundamental postulate posits the existence of motion, as the sole constituent of the universe. Therefore, it posits the existence of its equivalent, a ratio of changing space and time, as the sole constituent of the physical universe.

Thus, your second postulate, that posits "motion expressed in space" presents a conundrum, similar to the one we see arising from the conflict of GR and QFT: how do we describe motion in space, when space is defined as an aspect of motion? It's like trying to write a wave equation for gravity that must evolve over time, when time is an aspect of gravity! There's a built in contradiction stemming from the definition of things.

Dear Excal

I hope my suggestions do not come off too much as criticisms; the intent is to clarify. It is from my perspective which is biased from a personal theoretical model that I am being particular at to how you use the term “space”.

You said
“The term "distance" indicates a span of space measured by a velocity over time. Thus, ds = v*dt. However, we can also indicate the same measure of space in terms of an interval of time. Thus, dt = ds/v. This fact reveals that velocity may be interpreted as a meter of space and time wherein it, in a sense, creates space (distance), given time, or time (interval), given space.”

This confuses, for me, the difference between the meaning of distance and space. ( more specifically, note “creates space (distance)”

Defining “space” is not that easy, but blurring the distinction or meaning between the words “distance” and “space” only makes things worse. Looking ahead, once time is integrated into the relationships of spatial configurations, the description of what is Spacetime, will become particularly confusing.

This apparently minor issue is more important to me than most, which is a result of my own theoretical perspective. Since my theoretical perspective is unique and not conventional, my suggestions may or not have any validity. It is rude to interject one’s own personal “agenda” on another’s thread, so I will refrain from interjecting too much of my ideas on your work.

Snowflake

I have a couple basic questions I'm hoping you can clarify before this goes further, Excal:

1) What is meant by the term "background" in this context?

2) It is stated that the relationships between these entities are relative "according to law." What law is being referred to here? How is it a law when, apparently, everything is relative?

3) Of course, if we think of space and time as a background, then the idea of space being the reciprocal of time seems absurd, but in considering the equation of motion, the reciprocal relationship of these two enigmatic concepts makes perfect sense.

I'm not certain that the conclusion ("makes perfect sense") follows. Perhaps you can clarify what is meant by "space being the reciprocal of time." Mathematically, I see it in the equation, but I'm not sure what this means in a practical sense.

4) The model basically reduces all measurements to a form of motion, correct? As snowflakeuniverse points out, this seems to complicate things such as distance. In this model, how would one express a measurement such as "three feet from point A to point B" and why would it rely on a function of time? Or, is the time considered negligible somehow?

Thanks for dealing with this. It's a very fascinating idea, though I'm reserving judgement until I see more and understand it a little better.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

For some reason, my browser often freezes on this site. I've just spent time answering Snowflake and Kesh, but apparently have lost it in another browser freeze. I will have to defer rewriting it until I have more time, sorry.

Excal

Update:
This is ridiculous. My browser is freezing 9 times out 10 when I try to post to this site. Other sites are fine. Anybody know what's going on?

Never mind, I think I found the problem.

As explained in the previous posts, Larson realized that the definition of motion does not require a change in the location of a physical entity, measured in terms of a background of space and time. He realized that motion is the equivalent of a space/time ratio, marking the continuous march, or a progression, of space and time. Consequently, he posited the existence of such motion, or ratio of progressing space and time, as the sole constituent of a theoretical universe.

Since the entire Newtonian system of physical theory is based on the definition of motion as the change of a physical entity's location, x, in some interval of time, t, or the function x(t), the change in this definition requires a new system of physical theory. One that is based on the new definition of motion. However, as mentioned previously, the new definition of motion does not replace the former definition. Rather, it expands the range and meaning of motion into a new realm, while preserving the results obtained on the basis of the former definition in the Newtonian system, even though some of these may now need to be reinterpreted in light of the new definition.

Needless to say, when one considers the significance of such a prospect, given the almost mind-boggling body of work accomplished in the Newtonian system, it's rather difficult to assimilate it adequately. Especially, when one regards the level of technical sophistication, which modern theoretical physics has reached in the last 100 years. The disconnect between the practicing professionals in the Newtonian system, and the neophytes endeavoring to embrace the possibilities of the new system, is immense to say the least.

Yet, there is a crisis in the Newtonian system today, as Smolin points out so eloquently in the paper we've been discussing. Such a crisis is exactly the sort of development that, according to Thomas Kuhn, presages a scientific revolution. [1] In fact, the shift in paradigm that Kuhn describes as necessary to precipitate the revolution has been widely anticipated for many years, but no one in the community has had a clue as to what it might be, except that there seems to be a consensus that, whatever it is, it is likely to have something to do with our understanding of the nature of space and time.

David Gross, a recent recipient of the Nobel Prize in physics, and a leading light in string theory, discussed this subject with a PBS NOVA correspondent in an interview for the show "The Elegant Universe," based on Briane Green's book with the same title. [2] Gross clearly expects that the coming revolution will change our view of the nature of space and time:

Gross, like many physicists today, places his bets on string theory, but he understands that string theory may only be a harbinger of what's to come:

Indeed. By the same token, however, it's clear that the change needed must be a "sea change," a revolution cannot be precipitated by a minor change. As Gross puts it:

Clearly, the pursuit of string theory has raised some startling issues about our most fundamental assumptions regarding the nature of space and time. This implies in turn that a change in these assumptions, when it comes, will have an astonishing impact on the science of physics. Gross characterizes it as a new idea that breaks with the concepts of the past that have been the basis of physical theory historically: