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

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

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