Comments on a "Final Theory"
                      ___________________________
 
                              Jim McBride
                          jpm2729@dns.elmg.com
 
                         LXE Inc., Norcross, GA.
             (first printed - Vol. 2, No. 8 - May 1996)
 
	After reading the March Issue, specifically the article by Timothy 
Paul Smith, I began thinking about the definition of the term "Final Theory". 
A theory consists of a group of hypotheses that can be tested in some manner. 
In order for this theory to be the FINAL theory it must be proven to be 
correct. Is this a realistic goal to pursue? Can we really decide once and for 
all that we know how the universe functions?
 
	I think the term "Comprehensive Model" would be more appropriate than 
"Final Theory". After all, isn't our whole view of the universe simply a model 
that we have devised that explains what we observe around us? We use the 
mathematics we have developed to elegantly describe the universe. But there 
are multiple ways to develop a given theory mathematically. I think we 
sometimes lose sight of the fact that the math is not the fundamental truth, 
but just a logical method we have devised to create a model of the world that 
we can understand.
 
	If we can create a model, or framework, that explains all of the known 
phenomenon in the universe, will this be a "FINAL THEORY" or just a consistent 
model that explains what we have observed so far? Maybe there could be 
multiple models that are equally comprehensive.
 
	To illustrate the point on a less philosophical note, I'll give an 
example. The typical response to the question "Is light a particle or a 
wave?", is to say both. We say that light acts as a wave in some situations 
and as a particle in others. My response is that it is neither. The ideas of 
"particle" and "wave" are simply models that science has developed to explain 
what we see. Light has some properties that can be modeled by the idea of a 
wave, and others that can be modeled by the idea of a particle. Maybe one day 
we will come up with a single model that fits all of the properties of light - 
but it will still be just a model.
 
	Another example is the notion of the propagation of energy through the 
electromagnetic field. We explain this phenomenon by saying that an 
electromagnetic wave is produced when a time-varying electric field creates a 
time-varying magnetic field which in turn creates a time-varying electric 
field etc... The result is the propagation of energy through empty space. When 
asked by the novice "how can you have a wave without anything for it to travel 
through?" we talk about the proof of the non-existence of the ether and then 
resort to discussion of Maxwell's equations. Are Maxwell's wonderful 
equations really the FINAL THEORY of electromagnetics or are they just a very 
good model that explains all of the observed electromagnetic phenomenon?
 
	I think of science, and specifically of Physics, as the pursuit of 
consistent models that explain what we see around us. We discover principles 
and develop tools that are used to create these models. As for the underlying 
truth of these models, I choose not to worry about it.