Chairman: I approve of that thing of yours—we should cultivate talent in the basic sciences. But your theory was not clearly explained.

Li: Quite right, I did not explain it clearly.

Chairman: Where does theory come from? It comes from applied science, and then it guides applied science in turn.

For example: the major premise of formal logic, "All men must die," that is a major premise. "All men must die"—this is observed from the fact that since ancient times, all old people in China have died. That is the major premise. (Pointing to Tang) "Tang Wensheng is a man" is the minor premise, and this minor premise is contained within the major premise. Does not "all men" include "man"? "Tang Wensheng is a man"—is that not contained within the major premise? Therefore, Tang Wensheng must die. This is the conclusion. That is the syllogism.

Her name is Tang Wensheng. I advised her to change her name to Tang Wensi (Tang Smells Death). She said it doesn’t sound nice! (To Tang) Will you change it when you turn forty? I bet you won’t!

It is simply this: theory comes from practice, and theory in turn guides practice. Theory alone does not exist; all theory comes from practice.

Look, the Earth revolving around the sun is called revolution, and this revolution is contained within rotation. Three hundred and sixty-five revolutions make one year, and in fact, that is revolution. And this revolution exists within rotation—it is the unity of opposites. Without rotation, how could there be revolution? Without the relative, how can one speak of the absolute? Absolute truth exists within the relative truths of every era.

Li: Yes, absolutely correct.

Chairman: All absolute truth cannot be seen or touched, yet it exists within relative truth. Both relative and absolute—the unity of opposites, unity of opposites.

Why do you all agree with me completely? Why don’t you refute me?

Li: Because what you say is correct. What we seek are all relative truths, not absolute truth.

Chairman: Relative truth contains absolute truth within it.

Li: Yes. In physics, every truth is relative and temporary, but we regard the entire process as if it were absolute truth. Each step in the process is a relative advance, and this process seems to be absolute truth, but what we understand is only relative truth.

Chairman: Within it, there is the absolute.

Tell me about your inventions and discoveries.

Li: We don’t have any inventions to speak of. It’s just that through experiments we obtain results, and through results we seek understanding. Then we try to extend it, take a step back, and consider whether we can conduct some new experiments to verify and prove whether the original ideas were correct or not. The experimental results then modify the ideas, and this process is repeated continuously. Starting from experiments, we derive theories, make interpretations and conjectures, and then conduct more experiments. From perceptual knowledge to rational knowledge, then a leap occurs, leading to further understanding and further experiments. The process is roughly like this—starting from practice and returning to practice.

Chairman: Practice—theory—practice, not theory—practice—theory.

Zhu Guangya (hereafter Zhu): (To Li) Tell him about the discovery from over a decade ago.

Li: That is, is the universe absolutely symmetrical? For example: there are positive particles and negative particles, positive electricity and negative electricity, positive protons and negative protons, and so on. But later, theory became detached from practice, claiming that everything in the universe is absolutely symmetrical. In 1956, Yang Zhenning and I saw some new experiments that were very difficult to explain, so we questioned whether the theories at that time had any basis and found that many had no basis. We conducted experiments and discovered that the earlier absolute conjectures were wrong. Many facts show that positive and negative, left and right, are not symmetrical.

Chairman: (Laughs) My shoulder here is higher (pointing to the right shoulder), and this side is lower (pointing to the left shoulder). My eye on this side is better (pointing to the left eye), and this one is worse (pointing to the right eye).

Li: It is often said that people are not entirely symmetrical. For example: the heart is on the left side.

Chairman: The heart is on the left, the stomach is on the right, and from the stomach to the small intestine goes to the right.

Li: But the heart being asymmetrical does not mean that everything in nature is asymmetrical. Most things are symmetrical. There are also cases where the heart is on the right side in humans, though the number is very small, about one in a million. However, asymmetry in phenomena does not mean that the fundamental principles are asymmetrical.

Chairman: According to Lenin’s words, there is a philosophical principle. He spoke of balance. Are balance and symmetry the same thing?

Zhu: According to my understanding, in terms of the laws of specific physical phenomena, they are not the same thing. In philosophy, they are the same thing.

Li: (While speaking, demonstrates balance and symmetry in physics. Places a pencil on a flatly held toothpick box.) This is balance. (Holds the box at two opposite angles in succession, letting the pencil roll off the box from two different directions.) This is symmetry.

Chairman: The Greeks’ Euclidean three-dimensional universe (Note: Euclid, Greek mathematician, ca. 330–275 BC, author of Elements of Geometry) was immobile; objects were immobile. It dealt exclusively with space and did not address time. Time is motion. You are forty-seven this year—that is motion, from the age of one to forty-seven. Time is an attribute of space; without space, there is no motion. Scientific research must be placed in a state of stillness to be studied; otherwise, it is difficult to proceed. But the results, for example: purification—the world is always impure. Zero point zero zero zero zero zero zero percent—you can keep counting further.

I’d like to consult you two (pointing to Li and Zhu). I have never studied physics, but I often ponder this question. For example: your high-energy physics—will it still be the same a million years from now?

Li: A hundred years from now, or even twenty years from now, it will be completely different, let alone a million years.

Chairman: I think there are two reasons. One is that the scientific community has not yet studied it. The other is that the atom still undergoes changes. According to what you said, there are now over a thousand of those particles (referring to the nucleons in "unusual atomic nuclei").

Li: It may be so. This is a very preliminary speculation; I don’t know if it’s correct—it still needs experimentation.

Chairman: I ponder this question. The universe is infinite. What is called the universe is space, and it is infinite. Time is infinite. What constitutes the universe is the microcosmic world. Could the microcosmic world be finite? I am thinking here that it may also be infinite. Over two thousand years ago in China, someone proposed twenty-one theses. One of them said, "A rod one foot long, if you take half of it each day, will never be exhausted in ten thousand generations." (Note: From Gongsun Long, ca. 4th century BC.) Some people say this is sophistry. As for me, I am skeptical. According to your account, an invisible atom—even in a million years, we still won’t fully understand it! If it were fully understood in some year, then scientists would be out of work, wouldn’t they?

Li: Our pursuit of scientific truth is endless. We say that the structure of the atom is infinite; what we see at any given time is finite.

Zhu: But there was a time when metaphysics called them "fundamental particles." (Laughs)

Li: That was a mistake. They are particles, but not fundamental. This was not a term we coined; before us, some people called them "fundamental particles." We believe that was wrong. This is only a relative understanding. Now most scientists believe that "fundamental particles" are not fundamental at all.

Chairman: The Greeks said that the atom was fundamental and indivisible. Now it has been divided into utter chaos. Many questions are still unclear now, for example: optics—what is the structure of the light emitted by the sun?

Li: We think it is the fluctuation of the electromagnetic field.

Chairman: What about its internal structure?

Li: We know that when a photon travels, it is a combination of a positron and an electron pair, and then below that, a combination of a positive meson and a negative meson pair. It is roughly a structure like that, and it is also complex.

Chairman: What about the electron?

Li: Mainly electrons, and also some photons—that is, electrons plus two photons. Then below that, electrons combined with other positron-electron pairs. Further down, again electrons combined with positron-electron pairs. It’s roughly a structure that continues in this way.

Chairman: I was referring to peripheral electrons.

Li: There are no isolated electrons either. Every electron is bound together with other things.

Chairman: There are no books on this.

Li: There are books, but none of them are well written.

Chairman: Let’s put this issue aside for now. Let’s talk a bit about the world situation! What are your views?

Li: It would be better for the Chairman to speak.

Chairman: My view is that the world is in great chaos, with storms gathering on the horizon! It is impossible to avoid war, because the social systems are different. Even with the same social system, they would still fight, because they are imperialists. For example, in the Second World War, Germany, Italy, and Japan formed one faction, while Britain, France, the United States... formed another, and later they fought with Russia. In the First World War and the Second World War, they all believed in the same God. Even God fought against God! (Asking Li) Do you believe in religion?

Li: No.

Chairman: That Englishman Bacon (Note: 1561–1626) believed in religion. His cosmic mechanics is now criticized because it required an external driving force—first a push, and then it moved on its own.

The first to discover the structure of the universe was the German Kant (Note: 1724–1804), who proposed the theory called the nebular hypothesis. Later, the Frenchman Laplace (Note: 1749–1827) developed it. Laplace was Napoleon’s teacher. Have you been to France?

Li: Yes, I have.

Chairman: England’s Darwin (Note: 1809–1882), Lyell (Note: 1797–1875), and Bacon were all remarkable scholars. I don’t know whether the Pole Copernicus (Note: 1473–1543) came before Bacon or after. Copernicus lived four hundred years ago. I’m not clear on this history.

Li: I think Bacon probably came later, because England developed a bit later. Copernicus was in the early period of the European Renaissance.

Chairman: Lyell worked in geology. Darwin worked in biology.

(Asking Zhu) In which country did you study?

Zhu: Professor Li and I studied together at Southwest Associated University, and later we went to the United States together. I returned in 1950.

Chairman: What are you in charge of now?

Zhu: I am now at the Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense, working on applied science.

Chairman: I am afflicted with illnesses all over, and I can’t even speak clearly.

Li: Your speech is very clear.

Chairman: (To Comrade Luo Qingchang) Are you also hosting him?

Comrade Luo Qingchang: I am hosting him.

Chairman: (To Li) Let me recommend to you a book written by a foreigner, compiled by the Englishman Thomson (Note: 1861–1933), translated by many people in China, called *The Outline of Science*. I have read that book. It has a section on theology, which you probably don’t read.