
We shouldnât be obsessed with finding a theory of everything, says Lisa Randall, one of the worldâs most prominent theoretical physicists
Doesnât every physicist dream of one neat theory of everything?
There are lots of physicists! I donât think about a theory of everything when I do my research. And even if we knew the ultimate underlying theory, how are you going to explain the fact that weâre sitting here? Solving string theory wonât tell us how humanity was born.
So is a theory of everything a myth?
Itâs not that itâs a fallacy. Itâs one objective that will inspire progress. I just think the idea that we will ever get there is a little bit challenging.
Advertisement
But isnât beautiful mathematics supposed to lead us to the truth?
You have to be careful when you use beauty as a guide. There are many theories people didnât think were beautiful at the time, but did find beautiful later â and vice versa. I think simplicity is a good guide: the more economical a theory, the better.
Is it a problem, then, that our best theories of particle physics and cosmology are so messy?
Weâre trying to describe the universe from 1027 metres down to 10-35 metres, so itâs not surprising there are lots of ingredients. The idea that the stuff weâre made of should be everything seems quite preposterous. Dark matter and dark energy â these are not crazy ingredients weâre adding.
Did the discovery of the Higgs boson â the âmissing ingredientâ of particle physics â take you by surprise last July?
I was surprised that the Large Hadron Collider experiments reached that landmark. I thought the teams would say something very affirming but the announcement of the discovery was amazing. It was a feat of engineering that they got the collision rate up to what it had to be, and the experiments did a better job at analysing the data.
Are you worried that the Higgs is the only discovery so far at the LHC?
Iâm not worried that nothing else exists. But I am worried that the LHC might have too low an energy. Had the Superconducting Super Collider been built in Texas, it would have had almost three times the energy. There is a distinct possibility weâll discover things when the LHCâs energy is nearly doubled next year. But itâs too early to see signs of warped extra dimensions â they will take longer to find.
What would an extra dimension look like?
The best signature of the warped extra dimensions would be seeing a so-called Kaluza-Klein particle. These are partners of the particles that we know about but they get their momentum from extra dimensions. They would look to us like heavy particles with properties similar to the ones we know, but with bigger masses.
What if we donât see one? Some argue that seeing nothing else at the LHC would be best, as it would motivate new ideas.
I donât know what dream world they are living in. It would be very hard to make the argument to build a higher energy machine based on the fact that you didnât see something.
Profile
Lisa Randall is a professor of physics at Harvard University. Her recent books are Knocking on Heavenâs Door (Vintage) and Higgs Discovery: The power of empty space (Bodley Head)