December 1, 2007
POST-SCIENTIFIC SCIENCE:
In a parallel universe, this theory would make sense: If only we could prove that the multiverse was real, we could explain the contradictions of quantum mechanics (Jim Al-Khalili, December 1, 2007, The Guardian)
Many cosmologists are quite keen on an idea that requires the existence of other realities as an anthropic argument. That is, in order to explain why our universe seems to be just right for humans we need simply appeal to the obvious: that our universe is not unique. There must be an infinite number of universes in a much larger multiverse and we happen to be in the one that by definition had to be just right. While this is a very attractive idea, I find it rather lazy. In fact, I would argue that it is no more satisfying than creationism. But the notion of parallel universes has a more serious raison d'etre; one that was introduced to science exactly half a century ago.Quantum mechanics - the theory that describes the workings of the subatomic world - is based on many counterintuitive ideas. This is not news. Most physicists learn to live with the notion of a subatomic particle being in two places at once. We put up with this because quantum mechanics, as a mathematical framework for describing how atoms behave, is so successful. Indeed, I would argue that it is the most important theory in the whole of science - beating Darwin with one hand behind its back, since it explains why our universe is the way it is. Indeed, this year's Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of something called giant magneto-resistance, a neat quantum effect that has led directly to the technology that allows for more than one song to be stored on your iPod. But there is this frustrating weirdness at the heart of quantum mechanics that won't go away.
It is difficult to translate what is essentially advanced mathematics into words that make sense. Another way of putting it is that while the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is not in doubt, nobody has yet found a satisfactory explanation of what it means that is agreeable to everyone. Should this not be a cause for concern? Many physicists feel strongly that there is no problem. They would argue that drawing attention to the conflicts between different interpretations is unnecessary.
But there are ways of explaining quantum weirdness, albeit with yet more weirdness. One such interpretation as to how subatomic particles can do more than one thing at once is for there to be more than one universe.
It used to be that when your theory failed to explain the Universe you changed the theory. Now you pretend to change the Universe. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 1, 2007 8:19 AM
Pardon me for being so crass (or for tiptoeing up to the line), but isn't this awfully close to the underlying concept of the old "If my aunt had (insert crude name for male sex organ component here), she'd be my uncle?"
Posted by: Brian McKim at December 1, 2007 12:20 PMCareful out there. Every time you think about it, it shrivels up a bit. The universe, that is, not your aunt's reproductive organ.
Or so I've heard.
Posted by: ghostcat at December 1, 2007 1:42 PMWhat a misguided confabulation of the multiverse speculation to explain the values of the fundamental physical constants and the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics to "explain" the collapse of the wave function (which does not happen under this idiocy -- instead infinite new forking universes mysteriously arise), which has nothing to do with the fundamental constants! Besides the extravagant invocation of infinite universes, these ideas have nothing in common. Such is the fruit of the muddled philosophical thinking of modern physics.
Posted by: jd watson at December 1, 2007 2:02 PMWe exist because, in a universe consisting of 10s of trillions of stars, probability makes our existence a certainty.
The multiverse just means there is also a bizarro version of Earth, an evil Star Trek version, and a version where George Lucas doesn't screw up the prequels.
Posted by: Pete at December 1, 2007 9:45 PMYou don't have to have faith, but you ought to try grasping the rudiments of the science. According to physics it is because we exist that the Universe does, which is the trap they're trying to escape.
Posted by: oj at December 1, 2007 11:53 PMBy "we" do you mean you or mankind. I'm pretty sure the universe has no idea we exist. We barely exist just in terms of our own solar system, let alone the Milky Way or even our galactic cluster.
If and when our sun goes nova and kills us all, the universe will continue on it's merry way.
Posted by: Pete at December 2, 2007 2:08 AMThat's a quaint belief, just not a scientific one.
Posted by: oj at December 2, 2007 8:50 AM"That's a quaint belief, just not a scientific one."
Glib, but unsubstantiated. As always. How about a link to your assertion.
Posted by: Pete at December 2, 2007 12:23 PMLink? It's basic physics. Is Schroedinger's cat alive or dead?
Posted by: oj at December 2, 2007 1:44 PMAll theories are fine tuned after they are established. If future observations require some slight modifications to the theory, it does not mean the theory is bad.
However, when observations continually don't macth what the theory predicts, we see this type of baroque scaffolding built, trying to hold the theory up. It is just like the epicycles needed to make the Ptolemaic orbits work. It is almost always the case that the theory is wrong. Science just hasn't been able to come up with a new model yet, and once a new model is suggested, there is always resistance to it.
There have been so many problems with both the Many Universes theory and the Dark Matter theory that I feel very safe in predicting that both will go the way of phlogistan and epicycles.
Occam's Razor will win in the end.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at December 2, 2007 3:08 PM