Skip to main content

The Goldilocks Enigma – Paul Davies ****

The anthropic principle, depending on whom you believe, is either the most profound idea in cosmology or a load of old hokum. Essentially the principle says that the universe has to be the way that it is otherwise we would not be here to observe it in the first place. This may at first glance appear to stating the obvious – but this idea has very deep implications about our universe.
In particular, some cosmologists have appealed to the principle to help explain what is know as the fine tuning problem. The constants of nature such as Planck’s constant, the speed of light, the universal gravitational constant, etc. have very precise values, in fact if some of these constants were even slightly different (i.e. to the nth decimal place) then the physical nature of our universe would be radically different to what it is. Stars, galaxies and in fact life itself would not be able to exist in such conditions. The problem is, of course, why these constants should have values that have made our universe so hospitable to life.
This is a question that science authors have written about before, most notably Martin Rees’ two superb books: Just Six Numbers, and Our Cosmic Habitat. These two books put forward the hypothesis that we live in a multiverse – where the constants of nature have all possible values – leading to some universes being hospitable to life like ours, and others being completely unfriendly to life.
Davies’ book is far more ambitious and sweeping in providing an overview of the anthropic principle than Rees’ work. He considers several explanations including the possibility that we live in a computer simulation, an infinite sea of ‘habitable regions’ in a single universe as predicted by inflation theory, and the possibility of the universe obeying a self organizing principle. The most remarkable suggestion though is Davies own idea that revolves around the delayed choice experiment.
A thought experiment first proposed by John Wheeler, this is a variation of the famous double-slit experiment, except that the detector screen can be removed at the last moment, directing light into two remote telescopes, each focused on one of the slits. In a conventional double-slit experiment, the light acts as waves, causing interference patterns, if no check is made as to which slit a photon goes through, but acts as individual, non-interacting photons if the photons’ paths are checked. In Wheeler’s version there is a ‘delayed choice’ for the observer, not making the decision on which way to observe until after the light has passed the slits. Physicists are currently working on a real version of this experiment, and in fact Wheeler himself suggested an astronomical equivalent of his delayed choice set up – which may give observational weight to his idea.
Davies suggests that our universe may well operate in a similar ‘delayed choice’ manner and that the observations we make now have retroactively fixed into place the constants of nature which existed in a ‘fluid’ state shortly after the big bang.
Unfortunately the material that gets to the heart of the book’s subject matter only takes up its second half. The first half is a very readable account of the current state of big bang cosmology and how it leads to the anthropic principle, but readers who are familiar with these ideas may find the first half of the book a little long winded. Nevertheless this is an excellent read, though some might find Davies’ own ideas at the end of the book a bit impenetrable and improbable.
Paperback:  
Review by Scotty_73

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Where are the chemistry popular science books?

by Brian Clegg
There has never been more emphasis on the importance of public engagement. We need both to encourage a deeper interest in science and to counter anti-scientific views that seem to go hand-in-hand with some types of politics. Getting the public interested in science both helps recruit new scientists of the future and spreads an understanding of why an area of scientific research deserves funding. Yet it is possible that chemistry lags behind the other sciences in outreach. As a science writer, and editor of this website, I believe that chemistry is under-represented in popular science. I'd like to establish if this is the case, if so why it is happening - and what can be done to change things. 


An easy straw poll is provided by the topic tags on the site. At the time of writing, there are 22 books under 'chemistry' as opposed to 97 maths, 126 biology and 182 physics. The distribution is inevitably influenced by editorial bias - but as the editor, I can confirm …

The Case Against Reality - Donald Hoffman ***

It's not exactly news that our perception of the world around us can be a misleading confection of the brain, rather than a precise picture of reality - everything from optical illusions to the apparent motion of video confirms this - but professor of cognitive science Donald Hoffman goes far beyond this. He wants us to believe that spacetime and the objects in it are not real: that they only exist when we perceive them. It's not that he believes everything to be totally illusory, but suggests that the whole framework of the physical world is a construction of our minds.

To ease us into this viewpoint, Hoffman gives the example of the Necker cube - the clever two-dimensional drawing apparently of a cube which can be seen in two totally different orientations. Calling these orientations 'Cube A and Cube B' he remarks that our changing perceptions suggest that 'neither Cube A nor Cube B is there when no one looks, and there is no objective cube that exists unobserve…

The Universe Speaks in Numbers - Graham Farmelo ****

Theoretical physics has taken something of a hammering lately with books such as Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math. The suggestion from these earlier titles is that theoretical physics is so obsessed with mathematics that many theoretical physicists spend their careers working on theory that doesn't actually apply to the universe, because the maths is interesting. Even experimental physics can be tainted, as the driver for new expenditure in experiments, such as the proposed new collider at CERN, is not driven by discoveries but by these mathematically-directed theories. Graham Farmelo presents the opposite view here: that this speculative mathematical work is, in fact, a great success.
As I am very much in the Hossenfelder camp, I expected to find Farmelo's book rather irritating, as it's effectively a love letter to mathematically-obsessed theoretical physics - but in reality (an entertaining phrase, given the context) I found it both interesting and enjoyable. Far…