<p>I have only one question on this passage; sorry about that. </p>
<p>Calling it a cover-up would be far too dramatic. But for
more than half a century—even in the midst of some of
the greatest scientific achievements in history—physicists
Line have been quietly aware of a dark cloud looming on a
5 distant horizon. The problem is this: There are two
foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests.
One is general relativity, which provides a theoretical
framework for understanding the universe on the largest
of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond
10 to the immense expanse of the universe itself. The other
is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical
framework for understanding the universe on the small-
est of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down to
subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through
15 years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed
to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions
made by each of these theories. But these same theoretical
tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion:
As they are currently formulated, general relativity and
20 quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories
underlying the tremendous progress of physics during
the last hundred years—progress that has explained the
expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure
of matter—are mutually incompatible.
25 If you have not heard previously about this ferocious
antagonism, you may be wondering why. The answer is
not hard to come by. In all but the most extreme situations,
physicists study things that are either small and light (like
atoms and their constituents) or things that are huge and
30 heavy (like stars and galaxies), but not both. This means
that they need use only quantum mechanics or only general
relativity and can, with a furtive glance, shrug off the bark-
ing admonition of the other. For 50 years this approach
has not been quite as blissful as ignorance, but it has been
35 pretty close.
But the universe can be extreme. In the central depths of
a black hole, an enormous mass is crushed to a minuscule
size. According to the big bang theory, the whole of the
universe erupted from a microscopic nugget whose size
40 makes a grain of sand look colossal. These are realms that
are tiny and yet incredibly massive, therefore requiring
that both quantum mechanics and general relativity simul-
taneously be brought to bear. The equations of general
relativity and quantum mechanics, when combined, begin
45 to shake, rattle, and gush with steam like a decrepit auto-
mobile. Put less figuratively, well-posed physical questions
elicit nonsensical answers from the unhappy amalgam of
these two theories. Even if you are willing to keep the
deep interior of a black hole and the beginning of the
50 universe shrouded in mystery, you can’t help feeling that
the hostility between quantum mechanics and general
relativity cries out for a deeper level of understanding.
Can it really be that the universe at its most fundamental
level is divided, requiring one set of laws when things are
55 large and a different, incompatible set when things are
small?
Superstring theory, a young upstart compared with the
venerable edifices of quantum mechanics and general
relativity, answers with a resounding no. Intense research
60 over the past decade by physicists and mathematicians
around the world has revealed that this new approach to
describing matter at its most fundamental level resolves
the tension between general relativity and quantum
mechanics. In fact, superstring theory shows more:
65 within this new framework, general relativity and
quantum mechanics require one another for the theory
to make sense. According to superstring theory, the
marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not
only happy but inevitable. Superstring theory has the
70 potential to show that all of the wondrous happenings
in the universe—from the frantic dance of subatomic
quarks to the stately waltz of orbiting binary stars—are
reflections of one grand physical principle, one master
equation.</p>
<p>Those who hold the “conclusion” referred to in line 18 would most likely believe that the “marriage” (line 68) was an</p>
<p>(A) inevitable result of their research
(B) unjustifiable elevation of their hypotheses
(C) inadvisable use of research funds
(D) unfortunate consequence
(E) impossible outcome</p>
<p>Text says: "According to superstring theory, the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but inevitable." So, using that, I thought "superstring theory" in the sentence probably accounts for the scientific community. How could Collegeboard have come to the answer that those who hold the "conclusion" would most likely believe that the "marriage" was an "impossible outcome"???</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>