Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, May 2, 1994                   TAG: 9405030015
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Monty S. Leitch
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

GUTLESS

Dear Ms. Cellany: Given all the time they've devoted to the effort, why is it that our theoretical physicists haven't yet been able to come up with a Grand Unification Theory - or GUT? Signed, G.U.T., Hematite, Va.

Dear G.U.T.: It is a sad truism of our universe that results don't always follow effort. But you are indeed fortunate, in this instance, that Ms. Cellany has only just this week read Dr. Stephen Hawking's very nice little book entitled "A Brief History of Time," so she is, happily enough, now thoroughly well-versed in these very theoretical physics about which you ask. Consequently, she can answer!

(Perhaps Ms. Cellany should here pause and clear up the use of the word "read" in the foregoing paragraph. Ms. Cellany more accurately "listened" to Dr. Hawking's book while she was driving around town. It was a young man who actually "read" the book-on-tape. He had a very pleasant and soothing voice.)

But to return to your question. Ms. Cellany can't be sure, of course, but it is her guess that the failure of theoretical physicists to arrive at a Grand Unification Theory lies largely in their unfortunate choice of acronym. Indeed, would you want another GUT in your life?

(Well, perhaps you would. A dear little G.U.T., Jr.? But most individuals, Ms. Cellany feels certain, would demur.)

Dear Ms. Cellany: I don't think we need a G.U.T., either. And I'm glad to hear someone else say it out loud! What is it, anyway? Signed, T.U.G., Endicott, Va.

Dear T.U.G.: My goodness, dear! Such vehemence! Please note that Ms. Cellany didn't say we don't "need" a GUT, only that we don't "want" one. It's another sad truism of the universe that you can't always get what you want.

But, to your question. A Grand Unification Theory would explain the currently inexplicable interrelationship of gravity, quarks, the curvature of the space-time continuum, wormholes, black holes, all the little particles, and the uncertainty principle - in one fell swoop.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Ms. Cellany suspects that whether we want a GUT or not, we're going to get it.

Which thought, by the way, prompts Ms. Cellany to boldly go where no mere columnist has gone before and offer her opinion that theoretical physicists wouldn't need to question the relationship between gravity and GUT if they weren't all so young. Mercy! Don't most of us recognize the awe-inspiring effects of gravity on GUT whenever we look in the mirror?

Dear Ms. Cellany: May I point out that you didn't answer T.U.G.'s question: "What is it, anyway?" Please do so now. Signed, U.G.T., Gogginsville, Va.

Dear U.G.T.: My, my! But this discussion of gravity and GUT is making Ms. Cellany's correspondents testy!

Surely you know, U.G.T., that while Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (EGTR: completely unpronounceable, by the way, which reinforces Ms. Cellany's point), that while EGTR explains the very large, it does nothing for the very small, where no longer is a rose, a rose, a rose, but a particle is a place, a speed, a wave? Surely you know that? Surely!

So, U.G.T., our theoretical physicists are seeking a GUT that explains both EGTR and QM (quantum mechanics: another nicely unpronounceable acronym that no doubt enhanced its development). An EGTRQM, if you will.

Ms. Cellany is certain that should theoretical physicists refocus their search for an EGTRQM, and give up this search for GUT, they'd be successful in no time.

Monty S. Leitch is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.