Skip to main content

The Allure of the Multiverse - Paul Halpern *****

What with multiverses and metaverses, you just can't move for verses at the moment (amusingly, the 'verse' part essentially refers to a turn, which makes no sense in either case). 'Multiverse' as a concept was always going to be a trifle confusing, as 'universe' is supposed to refer to everything in existence, but as we will see, there are plenty of different ways, both philosophically and physically, that the term is applied to something beyond the familiar, four dimensional universe.

Paul Halpern packs plenty into this book - in order to put the various kinds of multiverse concept into context he pretty much goes through quantum physics, Big Bang cosmology and string theory (plus a touch of loop quantum gravity) in a fair amount of detail. We see how the most straightforward multiverse concept of a series of bubble universes in the same normal spacetime has been used to explain the fine tuning of the universe or is put forward as a consequence of the contentious notion of eternal inflation. But we also get the quantum multiverse of the Many Worlds Interpretation, the potential for brane universes that collide, the multiverses that are effectively generated by adding extra dimensions to the familiar ones, and the statistical multiverses where a theory such as string/M-theory gives us inconceivably vast numbers of alternate possibilities for the state of a universe.

Halpern tries hard to be neutral, always pointing out that there is not a consensus acceptance of any one of these theories - they all have plenty of cosmologists and physicists who think they don't make sense. We get both sides of the argument, though you do get the feel that the author would rather like a multiverse theory to be true, if only for the fun of it. Many of these theories are considered by their detractors to be ascientific in the sense that while they (to some degree) fit what observe, there is no way of disproving them - they can feel like clever people playing with maths that will never be anything more than mathematical puzzles and diversions.

Although Halpern's writing style is approachable, he does pack in so much that you sometimes have to let statements go over your head and just get on with it in the hope it will eventually all make sense (on the whole, it does). I'm disappointed he doesn't mention the mathematical error in the strong anthropic principle argument that says fine tuning implies a multiverse. He also revivifies the Bruno myth, referring to the 'assertion by sixteenth-century Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno that there are myriad worlds in space - which led, in part, to him being burned at the stake.' Bruno was martyred for religious views - his cosmological speculations were suspiciously similar to those of Nicholas of Cusa from 100 years earlier, who suffered no such fate, instead being made a cardinal.

I am not a great fan of highly speculative 'science' that is never likely to have evidential claims that can be falsified. However, I surprised myself by very much enjoying this journey through the weird and wonderful speculations of some leading cosmologists and mathematicians. Recommended.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more