Skip to main content

The Multiverse - Brian Clegg ****

‘When One Universe Isn’t Enough’, it says on the undeniably eye-catching cover of this book. But why should anyone feel short-changed by the universe we happen to live in? The most obvious answer is if they’re fans or creators of science fiction, who may be distinctly unimpressed by the un-SF-like reality we’re lumbered with. As Brian Clegg points out early in the book, even now  – almost 70 years after the invention of the space rocket – only a tiny fraction of astronauts have ever travelled more than 300 miles from the Earth’s surface. If we’re looking for all those ‘strange new worlds’ that Star Trek promised us, we’re not going to find them that way. What we need is a portal to a parallel universe – or, preferably, a whole collection of them.

Since this is a non-fiction book, I hope I’m not spoiling any surprises by saying that we never actually get to this point, or anywhere near it. Like so many other science-fictional ideas that are claimed to have parallels in modern physics, it turns out the reality is highly abstract and totally lacking in the practical applications of its sci-fi counterpart. Even so, the book is a fascinating and enjoyable read, as Clegg takes us through a whole series of theoretical arguments in favour of a multiverse. Or perhaps that should be ‘multiverses’, plural, since the arguments are largely self-contained – dreamed up by experts in their own particular field – and not always compatible with each other. The one thing that most of them have in common is that they are basically ‘meta-theories’ – i.e. high-level, overarching theories that sit above a much more practical, but often unsatisfyingly arbitrary-looking, theory and give it greater cohesion and sense of completeness. Whether that’s something physicists should be spending any time doing, or whether it should really be left to the philosophers, is a debatable point (and one that Clegg discusses in his final chapter) – but it’s still interesting to sit on the sidelines and watch them at it.

Essentially, each chapter – after a few introductory ideas are out of the way – deals with a different theoretical argument for the multiverse. The first three of these aren’t really physics at all, but pure mathematics, dealing with concepts like dimensions, probability and infinity. Then we move on to real physics, in a sequence of chapters that, to me at least, seemed to get increasingly sophisticated and abstract – almost to the point of merging back into pure mathematics at the end. We start on relatively familiar ground with the Big Bang and quantum theory, before moving forward in time to string theory, black holes and – perhaps surprisingly, in this context – quantum computing and information theory. As a rough estimate, I’d say around half of each chapter is background on the field in question rather than being about the multiverse as such, but that’s not a bad thing. I’m an unabashed supporter of ‘bait-and-switch’ tactics in popular science writing – appearing to talk about some exciting sci-fi-like topic while actually explaining really quite serious and difficult physics. It’s the best way to communicate material like this, and Clegg is a master at it.

If there’s anything negative to say about this book – or about its subject matter, rather – then Brian Clegg says it himself in his final chapter, when he dismisses a lot of the arguments he’s been discussing as ‘pointless debate’. The thing that distinguishes a scientific theory from mere speculation is that there should be something in it that has an observable consequence in the real world – for example, it predicts how a machine or electronic circuit will work, or how an experimental measurement will turn out. Arguably, not one of these multiverse theories falls in this category – which puts us right back where we started, in the realm of science fiction.

Paperback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Andrew May - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Please note, this title is written by the editor of the Popular Science website. 
Our review is still an honest opinion – and we could hardly omit the book 
– but do want to make the connection clear.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...