Unification Though

1. Chapter 6 The Turmoil in Today’s Godless Physics and
Today’
Its Future Prospects
Physics made two great advances in understanding the universe in the 20th century. One
was Einstein’s theory of relativity—which applies to the macrocosm of galaxies—and
the other was quantum mechanics—which applies to the microcosm of elementary
particles. Recently, however, such progress has stalled as scientists, excluding God from
their considerations, have fallen into conflict and confusion. In this chapter, we will first
examine the causes of this confusion, and then explain the future prospects for its
resolution.
I. Confusion of Cosmology
According to the Inflationary Theory proposed by Alan Guth, MIT theoretical
physicist, Katsuhiko Sato, professor of cosmology at the University of Tokyo, and
others, the universe started as follows: In the beginning, there was a ‘false vacuum’ with
an enormous latent energy. Then, in a brief moment, there was a rollover from one value
of this vacuum energy to another. This can be compared to the breaking of a dam
starting with a tiny crack. The rollover in the false vacuum released a torrent of energy
as the false vacuum inflated towards the true vacuum. The false vacuum can be
compared to the dammed river, and the true vacuum can be compared to the sea level.
According to the inflationary scenario, the radius of the universe increased by some
50
10 times, from being much smaller than a proton to larger than a softball, during the
first 10-30 seconds of time. During this brief but critical period, the universe was empty;
its potential energy could not condense as particles because space was expanding too
rapidly. At the end of the inflation, the latent vacuum energy precipitated out as particles
and antiparticles.
An asymmetry in the left-right symmetry in the natural laws—currently an
unsolved mystery in physics theories as discussed shortly—resulted in the creation of
matter to antimatter particles in the ratio of 100,000,000,001 to 100,000,000,000. When
the universe cooled and the matter and antimatter had all annihilated into the gamma ray
‘light’ of the Big Bang, it was the tiny imbalance of matter remaining that went on to
condense into the material universe of galaxies and stars, etc.
A. What Caused Big Bang and Inflation?
1

2. The inflationary theory does not answer the question as to what caused the Big
Bang. Paul Davies, one of the world’s most acclaimed science writers, has this to say
about this question, “Most people are prepared to accept that the universe as we know it
began suddenly with a huge explosion, but they inevitably ask two related but difficult
questions: What caused the big bang? What came before it?”1
John D. Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge,
says, “It [the Big Bang theory] also implied that there was a beginning to the Universe,
a past time before which it (and time itself perhaps) did not exist, but it was silent as to
the why or the wherefore of this beginning.”2
Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize winner for physics, who discovered the muon
neutrino and bottom quark, goes so far as to say, “For reasons we may never know, the
universe exploded and has been expanding and cooling ever since.”3
B. Was the Universe Created by a Quantum Fluctuation?
In quantum mechanics, the behavior of physical objects is inherently unpredictable
and some quantum processes have no cause at all. Edward Tryon of Hunter College,
City University of New York, proposed the idea that the universe was created out of the
vacuum as a result of a quantum fluctuation.
Alex Vilenkin, professor of physics at Tufts University, an emigrant from the
former Soviet Union, developed Tryon’s idea and advocated “creation of the universe
from nothing” where the universe appeared from nothing by tunneling. The universe,
which was microscopic after tunneling, immediately started to inflate. In a fraction of a
second, it blew up to a gigantic size. The original ‘nothing’ was a state with no matter,
no space, and no time. It was, however, not a total nothing, but rather it was imbued
with the potential for energy.
According to Alan Guth, the universe can spring out of the vacuum almost
effortlessly, and as he likes to say, “The universe may be a free lunch.” An unanswered
question in this viewpoint is how the current magnificent and beautiful structures of the
universe were developed from the inflation and Big Bang, which are almost the same as
a nuclear explosion in their character. Concerning this problem, today’s cosmologists
think that, at the beginning of the universe, there were ripple-like quantum fluctuations,
and when these inflated they produced clusters of galaxies, galaxies, solar system, the
earth, plants, animals, and human beings. Is this really true? In this view, we were born
from a quantum fluctuation, and not created by God.
Today’s cosmologists say that our universe came out of a fluctuation without any
design inherent in it. This is in accord with Darwinism where living beings evolve
2

3. through random mutations. Whatever the details, we see that current cosmological
thought assumes that the universe was born from a ‘free lunch’ and developed by
random fluctuations.
C. How the Laws of Universe Were Established
How did the laws of physics come to be imprinted on our universe if it was born
from a random fluctuation? Lederman states: “The laws of nature must have existed
before even time began in order for the beginning to happen. We say this, we believe it,
but can we prove it? No. And what about ‘before time began’? Now we have left
physics and are in philosophy.”4 The fact that there were mathematics and laws in the
beginning of the universe implies that, before the universe began, there existed a great
mathematician and a great physicist.
D. Does Inflation Continue Eternally?
Alex Vilenkin, together with Andrei Linde, a Russian cosmologist, proposed the
“eternal inflation” theory: within a vast expanding super universe, there appears
through inflations an infinite number of pocket universes scattered like bubbles. Our
universe is just one of these pocket universes. On the other hand, Katsuhiko Sato and
others proposed a multiple generation theory of the universe, according to which, the
first-born ‘mother’ universe gave rise to child universes, grandchild universes,
grand-grandchild universes and so on. All such theories together are called the
multiverse theory.
According to the multiverse theory, there are innumerable universes some of which
is similar to our universe and others that are fundamentally different. In this view there
might be innumerable planets where humans similar to us live. This theory has some
very odd implications—as Vilenkin explains, “A striking consequence of the new
picture of the world is that there should be an infinity of regions with histories
absolutely identical to ours. . . . There are infinitely many O-regions where Al Gore is
President and—yes! —Elvis is still alive.”5 Such a reality seems more science fiction
than science and is a tribute to how uncomfortable atheistic thinkers are with our
universe that is so clearly designed as a home for human life.
E. Mystery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Analysis of measurements made by the WMAP satellite launched in 2001
confirmed that 23% of the universe is composed of an unknown substance called dark
matter. Although invisible, this totally unexpected component to the universe can be
3

4. observed indirectly by its gravitational effects, such as holding stars together in galaxies,
and holding galaxies together in clusters and superclusters.
Just recently, an even greater surprise was the discovery that 73% of the universe is
composed of a totally unknown form of energy called dark energy. This component has
exactly the opposite type of gravity to both regular and dark matter. Rather than slowing
down the expansion of the universe by gravitational attraction, the dark energy is
speeding it up with an anti-gravity effect. Furthermore, while both regular and dark
matter are being diluted by the universal expansion, the dark energy is not being thinned
out, its concentration, so to speak, remains constant and the amount of it just increases
as the universe expands.
No one at the present time has any understanding of what this energy is or where it
comes from. What we can say is that the inexhaustible, fundamental energy is
constantly being added to the universe.
II. Confusion in Elementary Particle Physics
By the 1980s, all the fundamental matter particles (the quarks and leptons in three
generations) had been detected and classified. At the same time, the messenger particles,
or gauge bosons, of three of the four basic forces (excluding gravity) had also been
characterized. The picture was completed in 1983 when the ‘weak force’ gauge bosons
(W-, W+, Z°) were detected, and in 1995 when the top quark appeared in high-energy
collisions.
The result was the Standard Model of elementary particle physics that included 6
quarks, 6 leptons, and the 12 gauge bosons. While this Standard Model has had its great
successes, it is currently facing serious challenges.
A. Why are Elementary Particles so Mathematical?
Lederman accepts that we have no idea as to why electric charges come in plus and
minus varieties, and why these charges are always integers:
In nature, charges come in integers—0, 1, 2 . . . All the integers are understood to
be multiples of the number of coulombs given above. Charges also come in two
styles: plus and minus. We don’t know why. That’s the way it is. One might
imagine a world in which the electron could, in a bruising collision or in a poker
game, lose 12 percent of its electric charge. Not in this world. The electron, proton,
pion, etc. always have charges of 1.0000.6
4

5. At first, it seemed that the universe was made of just four matter particles: two
quarks (the U and D quark) and two leptons (the electron and neutrino). It was soon
found, however, that each matter particle came in three generations, giving rise to 6
quarks and 6 leptons. In addition, each quark came in one of three ‘color charges’,
giving a total of 18 quarks. Additionally, each matter particle has its partner, its
antiparticle. So, in total, there are 18 quarks, 18 antiquarks, 6 leptons and 6 antileptons.
Finally, there are the 12 gauge boson force carriers making, in total, sixty fundamental
particles.
Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Masukawa, Japanese physicists who received the
Nobel Prize for physics in 2008, predicted that there should be at least six quarks in
three generations. This at a time when only three quarks were confirmed, and they did
so in order to explain the slight difference between particles and antiparticles in what is
called the breaking of CP symmetry. If particles and antiparticles were symmetrical and
existed equally after the Big Bang, the universe could not have been formed from
particles. However, the reason why there are six quarks and six leptons and why there
are three generations of quarks and of leptons is still unknown.
In nature, there are four fundamental forces—the gravitational force, the
electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. There is an
unanswered question about this number four.
Material objects are composed of just of four elementary particles: the U-quark,
D-quark, electron, and electron-neutrino. All of chemistry can, at least in principle, be
derived from the interactions between just four elementary particles: photon, electron,
proton and neutron. This echoes the ancient Greek philosophers who proposed the four
elements of fire, water, soil and air as the root of all things. Why are there just these four
elementary particles used in the construction of all of nature? This is an unanswered
question.
B. Why Particles Have Masses?
The reason why particles have their particular masses is unknown. There are three
generations to the quarks and leptons, but it is a mystery as to why the masses are so
different among these generations.
One proposed solution to the question of why particles have their particular masses
is the Higgs mechanism. In the high-temperature state of the universe’s origin, all
particles were massless, like the photon. When the universe cooled, however, the Higgs
field ‘froze’ out pervading the vacuum with Higgs particles. Some particles interacted
with Higgs particles, which stick to it and give the particle a mass depending on the
5

6. stickiness. Most gauge particles, like the photon, have no interaction with the Higgs
field and remain massless. The weak bosons, however, do interact with the Higgs and
end up being very massive.
Another unanswered question in the standard model is the ‘hierarchy problem.’ The
Plank scale mass, where the three non-gravitational forces are united (GUT), and the
measured masses are different by a factor of 1016: The measured masses are extremely
smaller than the Plank scale mass. As Lisa Randall, a notable lady physicist, comments,
“The hierarchy problem is the most urgent of the mysteries confronting the Standard
Model.”7
C. Symmetry Breaking
When a magnet is heated to a high temperature, it becomes perfectly symmetrical,
as the tiny magnetic domains are oriented randomly in all directions. At a low
temperature, however, the symmetry is broken as the domains align in the same
direction. This is an example of ‘broken symmetry,’ a concept that has become
prominent in theories of elementary particle physics.
Until the 1950s, it was thought obvious that nature would be even-handed, that is to
say, that there would be no fundamental processes that were intrinsically right-handed
or intrinsically left-handed. However, it has become clear that nature does not obey this
expectation.
In 1961, Yoichiro Nambu, theoretical physicist at the university of Chicago,
proposed the theory of spontaneous breaking of symmetry, and based on this theory it
became possible to explain the origin of mass of particles. He received the Nobel Prize
in physics for this theory in 2008. He is also known as one of the founders of string
theory and the initiator of color theory in quarks. He is called a prophet of physics for
proposing such creative ideas.
It seems that while the universe began in a state of symmetrical perfection, it
evolved into the less symmetrical universe we live in today. Lederman suggests that it
was the Higgs field that was responsible for our complex and exciting universe:
So: before Higgs, symmetry and boredom; after Higgs, complexity and excitement.
When you next look out at the night sky you should be aware that all of space is
filled with this mysterious Higgs influence, which is responsible, so this theory
holds, for the complexity of the world we know and love.8
Just why the Higgs mechanism worked in this way to generate the broken
6

7. symmetry so fundamental to the development of the universe is just one of the many
‘open questions’ in current cosmology.
D. Natural Laws and Parameters
Physicists once thought that the natural laws were unique, that they were eternal
and unchanging from the beginning of the universe. This is not the case, however,
according to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin:
The use of spontaneous symmetry breaking in a fundamental theory was to have
profound consequences, not just for the laws of nature but for the larger question of
what a law of nature is. Before this, it was thought that the properties of the
elementary particles are determined directly by eternally given laws of nature. But
in a theory with spontaneous symmetry breaking, a new element enters, which is
that the properties of the elementary particles depend in part on history and
environment. The symmetry may break in different ways, depending on conditions
like density and temperature. . . . This signals a departure from the usual
reductionism, according to which the properties of the elementary particles are
eternal and set by absolute law (italics added).9
Another problem with the standard model is that there are unfixed parameters that
have to be ‘added by hand’ to the theory or measured by experiment. There are twenty
or so of these unfixed parameters.
These parameters are called “constants of nature,” since they look the same
everywhere in the universe as far as we can observe. Most physicists hope and believe
that these unfixed natural laws and parameters will one day be explained in a simple
manner through a unified theory, one that goes beyond the current Standard Model.
However, there is no current agreement as to what this unified theory might be.
III. Is Superstring the Unified Theory?
A current contender for the unified theory is Superstring Theory, which assumes
that the ultimate building blocks of nature consist of tiny vibrating strings. In this view,
all matter and forces in the natural world correspond to vibrational modes of such
strings, and that the natural world is the “music of superstrings.”
The advent of superstring theory aroused worldwide excitement among physicists,
since it seemed that superstring theory could accomplish the unity of the four
fundamental forces, a feat beyond the scope of the Standard Model.
7

8. A. Birth of String Theory
In 1970, a remarkable connection between pure mathematics and particle physics
was elaborated by Yoichiro Nambu, an eminent theoretical physicist at the university of
Chicago, Holger Bech Nielsen, a Danish physicist, and Leonard Susskind. They showed
that if one modeled elementary particles as tiny, vibrating, one-dimensional strings, then
their nuclear interactions were described exactly by Euler’s Beta Function. This is an
esoteric formula elaborated for purely mathematical reasons by the renowned Swiss
mathematician Leonhard Euler some two hundred years earlier. This function seemed to
describe numerous properties of strongly interacting particles in a unified way.
However, this string theory seemed to predict the existence of ‘tachyons,’ which are
particles that go faster than the speed of light. Also, physicists discovered that the string
theory was self-consistent only in ten or twenty-six dimensions. For these reasons,
string theory lost favor. In the same period, the theory of quantum chromodynamics that
explained much of particle physics emerged, and its overwhelming success in
describing the strong force led to loss of enthusiasm for string theory.
B. Supersymmetry and the First Superstring Revolution
In the 1970s, a new theory called “supersymmetry” emerged first in the Soviet
Union and then independently in the West. The new theory identified a symmetry
linking bosons, the carriers of force, with fermions, the stuff of matter.
In supersymmetric theory, every known particle is paired through a
‘supersymmetric transformation’ with another—its supersymmetric partner, also known
as a superpartner. A supersymmetric transformation turns a fermion into its partner
boson and a boson into its partner fermion. In this way, matter particles and force
particles were united by a supersymmetry.
In 1981, the physicists John Schwarz of the California Institute of Technology, and
Michael Green of Queen Mary College, proved that supersymmetry can be applied not
just to the string itself but to the full ten-dimensional space. Thus revived, string theory
became superstring theory.
In 1984, Schwarz and Green submitted a paper in which they demonstrated that
superstring theory in ten dimensions could yield fermions, bosons, Yang-Mills fields,
and gravitons in a way in which all the confounding infinities previously encountered
appeared to be completely absent. This seemed to open the possibility of unifying the
four forces.
Before long, this superstring theory began to attract intense interest from many
8

9. physicists. It was regarded as the only hope for a unified field theory, one that had the
potential to be a theory of everything—the holy grail of physics. This period is often
referred to as the First Superstring Revolution.
C. The Second Superstring Revolution
According to superstring theory, the number of dimensions to the universe should
be ten. The problem was, of course, that we only perceive four dimensions. String
theory responded with the idea that six of the ten had curled up to Plank scale size
which is why we do not observe them. This is called “compactification,” and these six
compact dimensions are “extra dimensions” added to the well-known four regular
dimensions to the universe.
In 1985, Philip Candelas, Gary Horowitz, Andy Strominger, and Edward Witten
described a compactification—known as Calabi-Yau spaces—as a way to curl up the
extra dimensions. Calabi-Yau spaces had the potential to lead to the four-dimensional
world of the particles and forces in the Standard Model. Furthermore, rolling up the
extra dimensions into a Calabi-Yau space preserved supersymmetry. With this
Calabi-Yau breakthrough, superstring theory began to really thrive.
“Duality” is also an important concept in both elementary particle physics and
superstring theory. Physicists use the term duality to describe theoretical models that
appear to be superficially different, but nevertheless can be shown to describe exactly
the same physics.
By the early 1990s, there were five kinds of superstring theory: type I, type IIA,
type IIB, heterotic-O, and heterotic-E. In 1995, Edward Witten of the Institute for
Advanced Study in Princeton, one of the leading experts in superstring theory, unveiled
a remarkable set of conjectures about how these five theories were interrelated, and he
proposed an eleven dimensional M-theory that could unify the five varieties of
superstring theory. In this view, superstring theory is the compactification of an eleven
dimensional M-theory into the ten dimensions of supersymmetry.
D. Extra Dimensions and Branes
In 1919, the mathematician Theodor Kaluza discovered that he could derive a
theory containing both electromagnetism and gravity using Einstein’s recently published
theory of general relativity. To do this, he needed five dimensions—four of space and
one of time, leaving unanswered the question of how the extra dimension of space is
different from the three that are observed.
In 1926, the Swedish mathematician Oskar Klein proposed that this extra
9

10. dimension was curled up in the form of a circle, and that it would be unobservedly small
at the Planck length of 10-33cm. This tiny rolled-up dimension would be everywhere:
each point in space would have its own minuscule circle of extra dimension attached.
Theories involving such extra dimensions became known as Kaluza-Klein theory.
Several decades later, Kaluza-Klein theory regained the spotlight in superstring
theory where six of ten dimensions are compactified. For many decades, string theorists
assumed that such extra dimensions were Planck-length sized, but recently this
assumption has come into question. Some physicists have suggested that some of the
hidden extra dimensions may be large enough to detect directly, and experiments are
currently probing the consequences of this idea.
In the fall of 1995, Joe Polchinski of the university of California showed that a
consistent string theory must include not only strings but also surfaces of higher
dimensions. He called them D-branes. What made D-branes a cause for celebration was
that they revealed that the many consistent string theories in ten dimensions were
different aspects of the same theory. Strings are one-branes, membranes as two-branes,
three dimensional ‘surfaces’ are three-branes, while those with four dimensions are
four-branes.
In this view, the three-dimensional observed world could be a slice of a
higher-dimensional world. In other words, our three-dimensional space is actually a
brane suspended in a world with four or more dimensions of space. Branes are
lower-dimensional surfaces that can house forces and particles, and they can be the
boundaries of higher-dimensional space. The particles of the Standard Model are
confined to a brane; only gravity is not confined and can move through the
multi-dimensional manifold.
Adding to this picture, Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum invoke an extra
dimension that is not ultra-compact, just curved or warped. Adding this extra dimension,
they say, opens the possibility the unification of all four forces including gravity, and
that, “The fifth dimension does not have to be very big in order to solve the hierarchy
problem.”10 Theoretical physicists Lawrence M. Kraus had this to say about such
speculations:
The result was a sudden new explosion of interest in—you guessed it—extra
dimensions—but not the hypothetical, ethereal, and perhaps illusory extra
dimensions that had so fixated the ten- or eleven-dimensional imaginations of string
theorists. Rather, they were concrete and even potentially accessible extra
dimensions that might literally be hiding behind the looking glass or on the other
10

11. side of the wardrobe.11
E. Problems with Superstring Theory
While superstring theory—which aims at being the theory of everything—has its
adherents, it has major problems. According to Brian Greene, one of the world’s leading
string theorists and commentator:
Briefly put, the equations of string theory are so complicated that no one knows
their exact form. Physicists have managed to write down only approximate versions
of the equations. It is these approximate equations that differ significantly from one
string theory to the next. And it is these approximate equations, within the context
of any one of the five string theories, that give rise to an abundance of solutions, a
cornucopia of unwanted universes (italicsadded).12
While Brian Greene admits that he does not know whether the string theory is right
or not, he thinks it is worth researching in spite of its difficulties.
In The Cosmic Landscape, Leonard Susskind, one of the founders of string theory,
has these comments about the present condition of string theory:
Today we know that the success “just around the corner” was a mirage. . . . Number
one was that new possibilities kept turning up, new mathematically consistent
versions of what was supposed to be a unique theory. During the 1990s, the number
of possibilities grew exponentially. String theorists watched with horror as a
stupendous Landscape opened up with so many valleys that almost anything can be
found somewhere in it. . . . Judged by the ordinary criteria of uniqueness and
elegance, String Theory has gone from being Beauty to being the Beast (italics
added).13
Three Nobel Prize winners in physics have also made critical comments about the
content of superstring theory:
Richard Feynman: “I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! . . . What is it you don’t
like about it? I don’t like that they’re not calculating anything. I don’t like that they
don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment,
they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, ‘Well, it still might be true’.”14
11

12. Sheldon Glashow: “Are string thoughts more appropriate to departments of
mathematics, or even to schools of divinity, than to physics departments?” 15
Gerard’t Hooft: “Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a
‘theory’ rather a ‘model’ or not even that: just a hunch.”16
As for the concept of Calabi-Yau spaces, which made the second superstring theory
revolution possible, it is confounded by a serious problem in that an enormous number
of possible Calabi-Yau spaces exist. As Peter Woit, lecturer in the Mathematics
Department of Columbia University, explains:
At the time [in 1984], very few such Calabi-Yau manifolds were known, so it was
not unreasonable to hope that one of them would do the trick and give one the
standard model structure. More than twenty years of research has shown that this
was wishful thinking. There is a huge and possibly infinite number of classes of
Calabi-Yau spaces, and the introduction of branes into the subject opened up vast
numbers of additional new possibilities.17
The picture gets even more complex and unreal. According to Susskind, there are at
least a million Calabi-Yau spaces that could be utilized for compactifying the sixth
dimension. Polchinski and Raphael Bousso, then a postdoc at Stanford, investigated
how many ways there are to fill hundreds of donut holes in a Calabi-Yau space with
fluxes. Susskind explains that, as in the case of magnetic fields, the flux through the
various donut holes is quantized. If the flux through the hole can be any integer between
zero and nine, then there are ten possibilities, and if there are five hundred donut holes
through which the fluxes wind, we get the stupendously large number of configurations
10500! 18
As a result, there are 10500 valleys in the cosmic Landscape, and each valley has its
vacuum energy. Our universe is born from a benign-to-life valley, which is just one of
the 10500 valleys.
Considering the current confused situation of string theory and its implications,
Edward Witten comments:
That is at best plausible that we will manage to ever understand what string theory
is all about, and, whether or not we do, that it is not at all clear whether we will be
able to use it to understand nature. This will depend upon factors beyond our
12

13. control, including how complex the ultimate answer may be, and what clues we
might be lucky enough to derive from experiment.19
It is clear that theory, the best currently available, is descending into chaos and
leaving reality far behind. In spite of this, however, there is a group of physicists who
still hope that superstring theory will be the theory of everything, the one and only
unified theory. Edward Witten and David Gross are both outspoken representatives of
this hope.
At a conference in Kyoto in 2003, David Gross, Nobel Prize winner in 2004,
quoting from a speech given by Churchill, exclaimed, “Never, never, never, never, never
give up.” He believes that to conclude that superstring theory cannot explain
fundamental features of our universe is premature:
We still do not know in a deep sense what string theory is. We do not have a
fundamental, background independent, formulation of the theory. We may have
101000 consistent metastable vacua, but not a single consistent cosmology. Perhaps
there is a unique cosmology.20
However, the dream that superstring theory will be the one unified theory may be
an impossible dream. An increasing number of theorists think this is just wishful
thinking. Gross’s colleague, Polchinski, who contributed much to superstring theory,
wrote this about the hopes of Gross and Witten:
In fact in string theory there is a cult of “monovacuism,” whose prophet resides in
New Jersey (or possibly in the office below mine), to the effect that some magic
principle will pick out a single vacuum, namely ours. I would like this to be true,
but scientists are supposed to be immune to believing something just because it
makes them happy (italics added).21
IV. The Rise of the Anthropic Principle
Physics today is in confusion with the concept of multiverse in cosmology, and the
500
10 possibilities in superstring theory. In this situation, the anthropic principle is
attracting physicists’ attention. The anthropic principle is that the universe is fine-tuned
so as to allow for life, consciousness and human being.
A. Evidence of a Fine-tuned Universe
13

14. Whether a Designer is admitted or not, the universe is precisely fine-tuned to allow for
life as we know it. These are some examples:
1. The Strong Force
If the strong force inside nucleus were several percent stronger, two protons could
stick together as a helium-2 nucleus. This is what would have been created by the Big
Bang and there would be little or no hydrogen remaining. In such a universe, the water
that is so necessary for life would not exist. On the other hand, if the strong force were
several percent weaker, nothing other than hydrogen would exist in the universe.
2. The Weak Force
If weak interactions were much stronger than they actually are, neutrinos would not
be able to escape from the core of a star as they currently do. If the interaction was
much weaker, neutrinos would fly freely through the outer layers of a dying star without
hindrance and supernova explosions would not happen. Without these titanic explosions,
all the elements generated by the nuclear burning of hydrogen inside stars—such as
carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc—would stay inside stars and be unavailable for
constructing life.
3. Gravity
If gravity were a bit stronger, stars would burn out at short time. If gravity were
somewhat weaker, supernovas—and the possibility of living beings—might never
happen.
B. Birth of the Anthropic Principle
The idea of a universe fine tuned for life was introduced in 1961 by Robert Dicke,
an American cosmologist. In 1974, English cosmologist and theoretical physicist
Brandon Carter called Dicke’s theory “the Weak Anthropic Principle” (WAP) and his
own development of the theory “the Strong Anthropic Principle” (SAP). According to
Carter, if the laws of physics were a little different, it would be impossible for living
thing to exist. Thus, the laws of physics are adjusted to be just right for life. The
anthropic principle was further developed by Martin Rees, Bernard Carr, Paul Davies,
John Barrow, and Frank Tipler.
The anthropic principle evoked an adverse and unusually temperamental response
from the physics community because the concept that the laws of physics are fine-tuned
for life opens the way to accept God as a designer. However, atheists began to take an
14

15. interest in the viewpoint asserting that there could be one such universe accidentally
suitable for life amidst the multitude of universes in the multiverse view of cosmology.
C. Strong and Weak Anthropic Principles
There are many variants of the anthropic principle. Roughly speaking, they can be
classified into ‘strong anthropic principle’ and ‘weak anthropic principle.’ The strong
anthropic principle leads to teleology, since the principle says that universe is
necessarily suited for life.
John Barrow and Frank Tipler explain that the central concept of the strong
anthropic principle is that the universe must be such as to give rise to observers at some
stage in its development. In other words, the laws of physics and the evolution of the
universe are in some unspecified manner destined to bring about life and mind. The
universe without life and observers does not exist.
Theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson says, “The universe must in some sense have
known we were coming.”22 Biologist Simon Conway Morris says, “There is, if you like,
seeded into the initiation of the universe itself the inevitability of intelligence.”23 While
Nobel prize-winning biologist Christian de Duve describes the universe as “pregnant
with life” and calls life “a cosmic imperative.”24
Atheistic physicists have poured scorn on such expressions of the strong anthropic
principle. However, with the appearance of the weak anthropic principle, atheistic
physicists developed an interest in the anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle
involves a passive selection mechanism: Our universe is accidentally selected from an
infinite number of universes, and the natural laws in our universe are accidentally
selected from infinite number of possible string theories.
To differentiate between the strong anthropic principle and the weak anthropic
principle, the philosopher John Leslie introduced a parable. When a prisoner survives an
execution by firing squad, there are two possible reasons: All the sharpshooters
accidentally missed or they intentionally missed. The weak anthropic principle
corresponds to the former, and the strong anthropic principle corresponds to the latter.
D. Physicists who Are Inclined to Weak Anthropic Principle
These days, many prominent physicists are accepting and using the anthropic
principle in its weak form. Steven Weinberg, who, together with Abdus Salam and
Sheldon Glashow, won a Nobel Prize for uniting the electromagnetic force with the
weak force, is one of them. Susskind joined this group, and Hawking also invokes the
anthropic principle in discussing brane theory:
15

16. With them [particle accelerators such as Large Hadron Collider] and with other
observations such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, we may be able
to determine whether or not we live on a brane. If we do, it will presumably be
because the anthropic principle picks out brane models from the vast zoo of
universes allowed by M-theory.25
Joe Polchinski, who introduced the brane concept into superstring theory, said that
there was no alternative to “the populated Landscape” introduced by Susskind. Nature
somehow makes use of all the possibilities, and there is a natural mechanism to turn
mathematical possibilities to physical realities. Sir Martin Rees, the British Astronomer
Royal, who introduced the term “multiverse,” is a enthusiastic supporter of the
anthropic principle. Andrei Linde, cosmologist at Stanford University, who proposed
scalar field models with no barrier between the false and true vacuum in developing
inflation theory, and Alexander Vilenkin, who advocated eternal inflation, are both
firmly in the weak anthropic Landscape camp.
Of course, there are physicists who are entirely against the anthropic principle.
David Gross—who said of superstring theory, “Never, never, never, never give up!”—is
a representative. He complains that the anthropic principle is like a virus. Today,
however, it seems that the majority of physicists are accepting the anthropic principle in
its weak form.
V. Physics Today Agrees with Darwinism
The dream of physicists since Einstein of the one unified theory that can explain
every phenomenon in the universe seems to be fading away. On the other hand, the
weak anthropic principle explains that our universe is just one of an infinite number of
universes. It is just an accident that this particular universe has conditions fit for life.
While this sounds more science fiction than science, the weak anthropic principle has
many adherents among physicists.
Underlying this situation is the spirit of Darwinism. This denies teleology and
explains that living beings have evolved by the natural selection of numerous random
mutations. Physicists today are deeply influenced by this perspective of Darwinism.
Susskind clearly testifies to this philosophy. He says that through the two basic
principles of Darwinism—random mutation and natural selection—the element of
magic was removed from the origin of life and the way opened to a purely scientific
explanation of creation. He says that cosmologists must do this as well:
16

17. Darwin and Wallace set a standard not only for the life sciences but for cosmology
as well. The laws that govern the birth and evolution of the universe must be the
same laws that govern the falling of stones, the chemistry and nuclear physics of
the elements and the physics of elementary particles. They freed us from the
supernatural by showing that complex and even intelligent life could arise from
chance, competition, and natural causes. Cosmologists would have to do as well:
the basis for cosmology would have to be impersonal rules that are the same
throughout the universe and whose origin has nothing to do with our own existence.
The only god permitted to cosmologists would be Richard Dawkins’s “blind
watchmaker (italics added).”26
Darwin explained how complex and sophisticated organs such as the human eye
were developed by natural selection. Similarly, Susskind claims that he can explain our
finely tuned universe by “the populated Landscape.”
The populated Landscape plays the same role for physics and cosmology as
Darwinian evolution does for the life sciences. Random copying errors, together
with natural selection, are the only known natural explanation of how such a finely
tuned organ as an eye could form from ordinary matter. The populated Landscape,
together with the rich diversity predicted by String Theory, is the only known
explanation of the extraordinary special properties of our universe which allow our
own existence (italics added).27
Furthermore, Susskind says that the idea of the populated Landscape is in
accordance with Darwinism:
For my own tastes, elegance and simplicity can sometimes be found in principles
that don’t at all lend themselves to equations. I know of no equations that are more
elegant than the two principles that underpin Darwin’s theory: random mutation
and competition. This book is about an organizing principle that is also powerful
and simple. I think it deserves to be called elegant, but again, I don’t know an
equation to describe it, only a slogan: “A landscape of possibilities populated by a
megaverse of actualities (italics added).”28
Finally, this statement by Susskind reminds us of Dawkins’s atheism:
17

18. And what about the biggest questions of all: who or what made the universe and for
what reason? Is there a purpose to it all? I don’t pretend to know the answers.
Those who would look to the Anthropic Principle as a sign of a benevolent creator
have found no comfort in these pages. The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics, and
a rich Landscape together with the laws of large numbers are all that’s needed to
explain the friendliness of our patch of the universe (italics added).29
Another influential thinker who sides with Dawkins is Steven Weinberg. He says:
If people believe that the universe has a point, then what is it? When astronomers
peer out into the vastness of the cosmos, with giant stars much larger than our Sun
being born and dying in a universe that has been explosively expanding for billions
of years, it is hard to see how all this could have been precisely arranged to give a
purpose to humanity dwelling on a tiny planet revolving around an obscure star.30
Alex Vilenkin also says that his view of inflation is, in some ways, similar to
Darwin’s theory of evolution:
But, apart from sociology, the long-term popularity of inflation is due to the appeal
and the power of the idea itself. In some ways, inflation is similar to Darwin’s
theory of evolution. Both theories proposed an explanation for something that was
previously believed to be impossible to explain. The realm of scientific inquiry was
thus substantially expanded. In both cases, the explanation was very compelling,
and no plausible alternatives have ever been suggested.31
Stephen Hawking also agrees that our improbable universe was born through an
evolutionary random process:
If the universe is indeed spatially infinite, or if there are infinitely many universes,
there would probably be some large regions somewhere that started out in a smooth
and uniform manner. It is a bit like the well-known horde of monkeys hammering
away on typewriters—most of what they write will be garbage, but very
occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.
Similarly, in the case of the universe, could it be that we are living in a region that
just happens by chance to be smooth and uniform? At first sight, this might seem
18

19. very improbable, because such smooth regions would be heavily outnumbered by
chaotic and irregular regions. However, suppose that only in the smooth regions
were galaxies and stars formed and were conditions right for the development of
complicated self-replicating organisms like ourselves who were capable of asking
the question: Why is the universe so smooth? This is an example of the application
of what is known as the anthropic principle, which can be paraphrased as “We see
the universe the way it is because we exist (italics added).”32
All of the above makes it explicit how current thought in physics has become
closely united with the spirit of Darwinism.
VI. Current Atheistic Physics Excludes Teleology
All the teleological thinking developed since Aristotle was swept away by
Darwinism, not only in biology but also in physics. In consequence, teleology has
become a taboo subject in orthodox science. Murray Gell-Mann, the Nobel Prize winner
who initiated the quark theory, scorns teleological thinking entirely:
In its strongest form, however, such a [teleological] principle would supposedly
apply to the dynamics of the elementary particles and the initial conditions of the
universe, somehow shaping those fundamental laws so as to produce human beings.
That idea seems to me so ridiculous as to merit no further discussion (italics
added).33
It is not an exaggeration to say that current science is in the final throes of
teleological cleansing. The reason why teleology is avoided in science is that it leads to
God, since the question naturally arises as to who established the purpose. While the
strong anthropic principle is considered to go along with teleology, the weak anthropic
principle is not, and has become aligned with atheism.
Einstein made his well-known comment, “The most incomprehensible thing about
the universe is that it is comprehensible.” Elaborating on this, Weinberg said, “the more
the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.”34 Furthermore, he
thought that any sign of the workings of an interested God would not be found in the
final unified theory of physics.35
Hawking, together with Penrose, consolidated the concept that the universe has a
beginning in what is called the Big Bang. This concept delighted those religious leaders
who believed in an act of creation, for here was scientific proof of the Creator. Hawking
19

20. also commented that if we do discover a complete theory, we would know the mind of
God.36 On the other hand, he said, “If the universe is really completely self-contained,
having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply
be. What place, then, for a creator?”37 In this way, he excluded God from the universe.
Susskind, an advocate of the cosmic Landscape, reveals the militant spirit by which
he would fight creationism to the death:
But scientists—real scientists—resist the temptation to explain natural phenomena,
including creation itself, by divine intervention. Why? Because as scientists we
understand that there is a compelling human need to believe—the need to be
comforted—that easily clouds people’s judgment. It’s all too easy to fall into the
seductive trap of a comforting fairy tale. So we resist, to the death, all explanations
of the world based on anything but the Laws of Physics, mathematics, and
probability (italics added).38
Contemporary physics seems to be drowning in a mighty current of thought from
which teleology and God are excluded. As the starting point of this current is
Darwinism, when it is replaced by the true description of creation this current will
naturally disappear.
VII. God and Physics
Richard Dawkins rejoices that, “although atheism might have been logically tenable
before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”39 Since
the appearance of Darwinism, atheism has spread all over the world not only in biology
but also in all areas of natural sciences. Currently, it is mainstream thinking to assert the
denial of teleology and God, and that this is the correct scientific attitude.
However, if Darwinism proves to be false, the Godless physics will lose its support.
Moreover, if a new view of creationism appropriate to the current age of science is
established, the rehabilitation of teleology and of God will become possible. First, we
will look at what scientists thought of God before Darwin.
The great renaissance scientists—Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton—were
all men of deep and unquestioning faith. Copernicus, for example, credits gravity to
“the divine providence of the Creator.” Kepler felt he was gaining a deeper appreciation
of God’s handiwork through his astronomy: “Our worship is all the more deep, the more
clearly we recognize the creation and its greatness.” 40 In the works of these great men
there were echoes of the Biblical injunction, “The heavens are telling the glory of God;
20

21. and the firmament proclaims his handiwork (Psalms 19:1). Newton was not only a
scientist but also theologian. He had no doubt that his science, like his theology, would
resound to the greater glory of the Creator.
Einstein, who was not influenced by Darwinism, made it his motto to clarify how
God created the world. He said, “I want to know how God created this world. I am not
interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to
know His thoughts, the rest are details.” He also said, “What really interests me is
whether God had any choice in the creation of the world,” and maintained that God did
not have any choice in creating our universe. He encapsulated his views in the famous
phrase that “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
By the second half of 20th century, however, Darwinism had radically changed the
perspective of scientists. These days it seems that teleology is denied completely and
that God has been excluded from all areas of science. As stated above, however, when
Darwinism has been replaced, the storm of atheism will subside. When the darkness
retreats and the truth becomes clear, the figure of God will reappear and the aspiration
of renaissance scientists and Einstein to demonstrate the glory of God’s creation will be
realized.
There are those who think that religion has been an obstruction to the development
of science. This is not true. In human history, to be sure, there have been cases where
religious leaders have hindered the development of science with their self-righteous and
stubborn thinking. This was the fault of the religious leaders’ way of thinking rather
than religion itself.
Religion has no fundamental disagreement with mathematics and natural laws.
Scientists are free to research and uncover the truths of nature. However, as Einstein
noted, “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,” science that
denies God will inevitably lose its sense of direction, it will stray into the realm of
infinite, random possibilities. Religion can give science inspiration and a sense of right
direction.
It is unquestionable that spiritual inspiration has made important contributions in
the development of science. Today's physicists should take heed to these words of Leon
Lederman in his The God Particle:
If the religious metaphors offered up by the authors of texts comparing the new
physics to Eastern mysticism help you in some way to appreciate the modern
revolutions in physics, then by all means use them.41
21

22. VIII. Prospects for Future Physics
Today’s physicists are separating into two groups: One group seeks for the theory
of everything, the fundamental physical laws of the universe; the other group is inclined
to the weak anthropic principle which claims the existence of an infinite number of
universes and the cosmic Landscape.
Believers in the anthropic principle pour severe criticisms on the believers in
unique laws. Susskind fumes that, “String theorists were so blinded by the myth of
uniqueness”42 and, “The field of physics is littered with the corpses of stubborn old men
who didn’t know when to give up,”43 Polchinski says, “In fact in string theory there is a
cult of ‘monovacuism’. . . some magic principle will pick out a single vacuum.”44
On the other hand, the believers in unique laws also have denounced the believers
in the anthropic principle: Gross dismisses the anthropic principle as a grand principle
that explains why you’re unable to solve the problem, and that it is a ‘virus’ that has
infected many physicists who show no signs of ever recovering from the disease.
Princeton cosmologist Paul Steinhardt says anthropic principle is an act of desperation,
an untestable non-scientific theory, and he refers to the current anthropic craze as
millennial madness.45
We cannot but conclude that both groups have reached an impasse. The question is
what can break this impasse.
A. Reconsidering Darwinism
The reason why today’s physics has reached such an impasse is that it has excluded
teleology. The main culprit for this exclusion is Darwinism. If Darwinism, however,
proves to be false, the reasons for excluding teleology will evaporate. A critique of
Darwinism and the proposal of a new creationism is explained in the first chapter of this
book. Physicists should correct their stubborn attitude of treating teleology as a taboo.
B. Reinstatement of Teleology
If teleology is reinstated, current physics can be saved from the impasse into which
it has strayed. For particle physics, it will become possible to decide on definite
parameters rather than on arbitrary ones. For superstring theory, it will become possible
to choose a unique answer from the tremendous number of Calabi-Yau spaces, and the
valleys in the cosmic Landscape. For cosmology, it will become possible to choose one
appropriate universe, rather than infinite number of them. In this way, cosmology can be
rescued from entering the realm of scientific fiction. As for the weak anthropic principle,
it will merge into the strong anthropic principle.
22

23. The fact that all things exist with a purpose means that natural laws are designed to
fulfill this purpose. Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who founded Unification Thought, says:
Every existence definitely moves. This is a fundamental law of existence. This law
of movement applies not only to living things but also to non-living things. The
nature of the movement is orderly and principled. This is because the order and the
law cannot exist without a certain predetermined purpose. Therefore, every
existence moves by order and law centering on a very certain purpose.46
Using water as an example, we can see how natural laws are premised on a certain
purpose. Some of the examples of the ways in which water is designed for life are:47
(1) The density of water is maximum at 4 ℃ and it expands on freezing: As a
consequence of this unique property of water—every other chemical just gets denser on
cooling—ice floats in liquid water, and the deep waters of sea, lake, and river never
freeze, however cold it may be: only the ice on the surface is exposed to the freezing
atmosphere. This is how fish survive the cold weather without being frozen. A pine seed,
which is covered with hard shell, cannot sprout even when spring comes if it remains as
it is. In the cold weather in winter, however, the water contained in a seed expands when
it freezes and a crack is made in the shell. When such process repeats, the crack
becomes larger and the seed can sprout in spring.
(2) Water has a very high specific heat: About 70% of the Earth is covered with
water. Plants on land also contain a great deal of water. All this water moderates
temperature changes: it takes a lot of energy to warm it up, and it gives up a lot of
energy when it cools down. Everywhere on earth—except for the deserts—the water
moderates the temperature differential between day and night making the world more
comfortable to live in. In addition, the high specific heat of water also allows for
temperature control inside the animal body.
(3) Water has an extraordinarily high heat of vaporization: We have a remarkable
cooling system that is much more efficient than any engine’s: When it is hot, we sweat
profusely, whereby a lot of heat is taken out from our body. On the surface of the Earth,
when the water vapor taken into the atmosphere at the tropics moves to the cold
latitudes and condenses, the same amount of heat absorbed in the evaporation is emitted,
warming the cold latitudes. In this way, the Earth’s temperature differences are
moderated.
(4) Water has an unusually high heat of fusion: When ice melts a lot of heat is
absorbed, and when water freezes a lot of heat is emitted. Therefore, lakes or rivers
23

24. slowly freeze, and the surface of the Earth doesn’t become cold too rapidly.
(5) Water has an anomalously high surface tension: It is this surface tension that
allows water to rise in the thin tubes, or capillaries, of plants. When water evaporates
out of the pores, or stomata, of plant leaves, water is drawn up through the capillaries of
plants by the surface tension. Were it not for water’s unusually high surface tension and
the presence of stomata, there could be no tall vegetation.
With an understanding of the laws that give water its special characteristics, we can
see that they are not accidental but are arranged for the purpose of allowing living
beings to exist and multiply.
C. Reinstatement of Design
If teleology is restored in science, we can naturally accept design in the natural
world. The intelligent design theory (ID theory), now on the rise in the United States, is
a new movement in biology to establish design in living beings. It can make a great
contribution to the reinstatement of design in biology. In cosmology and in particle
physics as well we can recognize design.
A confident atheist Susskind explains the distinction between Landscape and
megaverse that “The Landscape is not a real place. Think of it as a list of all the possible
designs of hypothetical universes. Each valley represents one such design. . . . The
megaverse, by contrast, is quite real.”48 This means that, contrary to his intention, he is
admitting the design of our universe, which was born from one valley of the Landscape.
In the Bible, it states that God created all things with the Word. The Word is not like
a speech uttered by a mouth, but rather it is a blue print, or design for all things.
Mathematical principles are one aspect of Logos. Therefore, the specific mathematical
pattern observed in elementary particles can be understood when we realize that God
prepared them as the material to create all things and the universe. The particles are
designed, centered on the purpose of creation, in accordance with mathematical
principles.
D. Mathematical Principles
As Lederman states, “If the religious metaphors help you to appreciate the modern
revolutions in physics, then by all means use them.” Physicists should accept religious
or philosophical wisdom as a guide and reference.
According to the Oriental theory of yin and yang, there was T’aichi , or the Great
Ultimate in the beginning. T’aichi has the dual character of yin and yang, from which
24

25. four images, and then eight trigrams arose. The world is composed of these eight
trigrams circulating in harmony. When multiplied by eight, eight trigrams become sixty
four trigrams. For example, in DNA or RNA, the codon is a tri-nucleotide unit that
specifies a single amino acid. As there are four nucleotides, there 64 different codon
combinations possible for codons of three nucleotides. The codon translation table
consists of 64 codons, each of which specifies one of the twenty amino acids—some
specifying the same amino acid—along with a START and a STOP codon.
There is another theory, related to yin and yang, of the doctrine of the five
elements—wood, fire, earth, metal, and water. In this theory, the world is made of these
five elements continually influencing and balancing with each other.
Then there is the Unification Thought view about the meaning of numbers.
According to Unification Thought, number one means God, the oneness. Number two
means the duality of God and the duality of the world. The duality of God refers to the
spiritual aspect (mind) and physical aspect (original energy, or pre-energy), as well as
the Yang and Yin, to which Oriental philosophy referred. The duality of the world refers
to spirit (mind) and matter (body), and yang and yin life forms, such as man and woman.
The duality of spirit and matter has been elaborated in Western philosophy, while the
duality of yang and yin in Eastern philosophy.
The number three, which is called the number of heaven, means the three stages of
growth and three fundamental constituents. For example, in the body of a human and of
an animal, there are the three parts of head, body and limbs, while a hand or leg also has
three parts. Matter has the three states of solid, liquid and vapor. Color has its three
primary colors while there is the basic triad chord in music. Quarks and leptons come in
three generations; quarks have three quantum color charges; and baryons are made of
three quarks.
The number four, which is called the number of earth, means the extension or
spreading out of the world. For example, there are the four quarters of north, south, east
and west; and right, left, forward and backward. There are four seasons in a year.
Ancient Greek philosopher considered arché, the fundamental elements, to be fire,
water, air and soil. The chemistry of life is based on the four predominant elements of
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. In modern physics, the structure of matter
involves the four elementary particles of up quark, down quark, electron and electron
neutrino, all of which belong to the first generation. There are four fundamental forces
in nature: gravitation, the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force.
Love, which is realized on the basis of a family, consists of four loves: children’s love,
brothers and sisters’ love, husband and wife’s love, and parents’ love.
25

26. The number five, which is four plus one at the center, means the world. There are
four quarters of north, south, east, west and center. Our hand or leg has five fingers: four
fingers plus thumb.
The number seven, which is the union of number three (number of heaven) and
number four (number of earth), means perfection. For example, a week has seven days.
In color, there are seven basic colors: violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange and red.
The major scale in music has the seven notes of do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti. In the periodic
table of Mendeleev, there are seven active elements in each period.
The number eight means a restart, a circle, a sphere and a world. For example, there
are eight elements in the periodic table when including the inert noble gas at the end.
Gell-Mann and Neeman showed that the hundreds of hadrons could be organized into
patterns of eight, which eventually led them to the quark theory. Gell-Mann named his
theory the Eightfold Way, echoing the Buddhist doctrine of the Noble Eightfold Path.
The Eightfold Way can be compared to the Mendeleev periodic table. Japanese physicist,
Saburo Honma, commented that, “somehow, nature has given the number eight a
special, significant meaning.”49
The number five and number eight both means the world. The difference is that the
number five is the horizontal understanding of the world and the number eight is the
circular or spherical understanding of the world.
Finally, number twelve, which is number four multiplied by number three, means
the perfection of heaven and earth, or the perfection of the world. For example, a year
has four seasons, each of three months, making altogether twelve months. A day has two
cycles of twelve hours each, day and night. In the Standard Model of current physics,
there are twelve matter particles (six quarks and six leptons) and twelve force particles
(gauge bosons). When we include antiparticles, there are twelve quarks (six quarks and
six antiquarks) of each color charge, and twelve leptons (six leptons and six
antileptons).
The mystery of mathematical number cannot be solved just by mathematical
calculation, or by logical speculation. New insights occur when physics includes such
religious and philosophical wisdom.
E. Symmetry Breaking
Japanese cosmologist Ikeuchi said, “the creator of the world has earnestly been
engaged in the breaking of symmetry.”50 Yes, it is true; God has dual characteristics that
are in the relation of subject and object. The relation of subject and object is that of
active and passive, or initiating and responding. Thus, God’s duality is not symmetrical.
26

27. If God’s duality were symmetrical, He could not have started the work of creation; He
would have remained static and silent forever. In fact, God, who has the duality of
subject and object, started the work of creation. Therefore, while God is engaged in the
work of creation, symmetry is broken in the physical world.
F. Creation from Nothing
In Christianity as well as in Islam, God (Allah) created the world from nothing.
Unification Thought accepts that nothing material existed before His creation. However,
God, did not create matter from spirit as Augustine claimed.
God, who has the dual characteristics of spiritual aspect and physical aspect
(original pre-energy), mobilized his energy when He started the work of creation. Isaiah
in the Bible says, “Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings
out their host by number, calling them all by name; by the greatness of his might, and
because he is strong in power not one is missing” (Isaiah 40:26). Thus, God is not
merely a spiritual being, but He is also great in might and strong in power. In other
words, He has infinite energy. Therefore, God started the work of creation with His
energy, and has continued the work of creation until now, supporting and supplying the
universe with His energy. A new light will be cast on the mystery of dark energy, or
vacuum energy, when we accept that God is sustaining the universe.
G. Discovery of the Spirit World
Until now, it is mostly religionists and spiritualists who have researched the world
after death, and their results are not something that everyone can agree on. Today,
scientists for the most part regard research into the spirit world as taboo. This was not
always the case. Marie Curie, the prominent woman scientist who received two Nobel
Prizes, was interested in researching the spirit world. Edison, the king of inventors,
aimed to design a spiritual communication machine in his later years. Such prominent
scientists faced the possibility of the spirit world with a sincere mind.
Unexpectedly, however, physicists today are unconsciously going in a direction that
accepts the spirit world. Lisa Randall, in a dialogue with Japanese astronaut Koich
Wakata, said that our three dimensional world is incorporated in an invisible five
dimensional world and, furthermore, that the other world may be near our world.51
Michio Kaku, an authority on superstring theory, writes in Parallel Worlds, “Our
universe may be a membrane with a parallel universe just a millimeter from ours,
floating in hyperspace. If so, then the Large Hadron Collider may detect it within the
next several years.”52
27

28. In The Universe in a Nutshell, Stephen Hawking also states, “In this brane world,
we would live on one brane but there would be another ‘shadow’ brane nearby. Because
light would be confined to the branes and would not propagate through the space
between, we could not see the shadow world.”53 Hawking also said, “This history of the
brane in imaginary time would determine its history in real time.”54 He states that the
world in imaginary time is the causal to the world in real time:
In this chapter we have seen how the behavior of the vast universe can be
understood in terms of its history in imaginary time, which is a tiny, slightly
flattened sphere. It is like Hamlet’s nutshell, yet this nut encodes everything that
happens in real time. So Hamlet was quite right (italics added).55
To be sure, they may not admit that the another dimensional world, shadow world,
or the world in imaginary world is the spirit world. It can be said, however, that their
views are on a track that leads to the spirit world. When the existence of the spirit world
is clarified, new light will be cast on the problems of the origin of the universe,
supersymmetry, extra dimension and so on.
H. God’s Existence
God’
When Darwinism collapses and teleology is reintroduced into science, the question
naturally arises of who established the purpose. This leads to accepting that God
established the purpose of creation. Also, if we admit to design in nature, this leads to
the concept God as the designer.
Commenting on the non-Euclidean geometry established about 100 years before by
Gauss and Riemann that was used by Einstein to construct his theory of relativity,
Steven Weinberg, atheist physicist, said, “The mathematics was there waiting for
Einstein to make use of.”56
In the same way, the group theory developed by Galois, Lie, and Cartan was later
used by Gell-Mann to describe his quark theory. Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner,
called such phenomenon “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics.” Weinberg
observed that “Physicists generally find the ability of mathematicians to anticipate the
mathematics needed in the theories of physicists quite uncanny.”57
In this occurrence we can see God’s providence at work—which Weinberg may not
admit to—in which God gave an inspiration to mathematicians and then later guided
physicists to find physical laws using the mathematics prepared for them. In this way,
we can see that God has guided human history not only through religious figures but
28

29. also through scientists. Whether they accept God or not, we can say that scientists have
often unconsciously contributed to the God’s providence.
As a matter of fact, even atheist scientists have contributed to God’s providence,
albeit unintentionally. Dawkins displayed explicit hostility towards God in writing The
God Delusion. However, as shown in chapter 2, where Dawkins’ evolutionism is
criticized, it can be said that Dawkins has explained the history of creation from the
standpoint of materialism.
Weinberg, in an article about the launch of Large Hadron Collider (LHD) in Europe,
said, that from now, “There will be less room for religion” (Newsweek, September 15,
2008). However, as explained above, it can be said that Weinberg admits to a mysterious
power behind history that has guided scientists.
Susskind, who said that “we resist to the death” all explanations about God’s
creation of the world, says that the cosmic Landscape is something like a list of all the
designs of the hypothetical universes. In this way he admits that our universe is created
based on a design.
Hawking, who said “What place for a creator?” and thus excluded God from the
universe, states that the world in imaginary time is causal to the world in real time. His
view is in on a track that leads to the spirit world and away from materialism.
Brian Greene views historical providence as a human ladder. That is to say,
scientists have climbed the mountain of truth, aiming for the top, passing the baton one
by one through human history.
We are all, each in our own way, seekers of the truth and we each long for an
answer to why we are here. As we collectively scale the mountain of explanation,
each generation stands firmly on the shoulders of the previous, bravely reaching for
the peak. . . . And as our generation marvels at our new view of the universe—our
new way of asserting the world’s coherence—we are fulfilling our part,
contributing our rung to the human ladder reaching for the stars (italics added).58
In conclusion, he offers this hope:
It is possible, of course, that such studies may one day convince us that, indeed,
there is a limit to scientific explanation. But it is also possible, to the contrary, that
they will usher in a new era—an era in which we can declare that a fundamental
explanation of the universe has finally been found (italics added).59
29

30. The era is coming in which we can declare that the fundamental explanation of the
universe has finally been found. It is the era in which scientists rediscover God and
praise God’s glorious Creation.
30