David Berlinski - The Devil's Delusion

A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg.

Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like?

A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird.

Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions?

A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious.

Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name?

A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter.

Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe?

A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein’s field equations. You may think of that as a good thing.

Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg?

A: It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac.

Q: When was it there?

A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery.

Q: Where did the egg come from?

A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing.

Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there?

A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal.

Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg?

A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things.

This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is quantum cosmology.

Readers lacking faith will, I imagine, wish to know something more about its crucial step, and that is the emergence of a mini-universe from nothing at all. They will be disappointed to learn that insofar as the mini-universe is actual, it did not emerge from nothing, and insofar as it is possible, it did not emerge at all. What can be said about the mini-universe according to either interpretation is that Hawking has designated it as probable because he has assumed that it is probable. He has done this by restricting the wave function of the universe to just those universes that coincide with the de Sitter universe at their boundaries. This coincidence is all that is needed to produce the desired results. The wave function of the universe and the de Sitter mini-universe are made for each other. The subsequent computations indicate the obvious: The universe most likely to be found down there in the sac of time is just the universe Hawking assumed would be found down there. If what Hawking has described is not quite a circle in thought, it does appear to suggest an oblate spheroid.

The result is guaranteed— one hunnerd percent, as used-car salesmen say.

Among philosophers concerned to promote atheism, satisfaction in Hawking’s conclusion has been considerable. Witness Quentin Smith: “Now Stephen Hawking’s theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused.” Smith is so pleased by the conclusion of Hawking’s argument that he has not concerned himself overmuch with its premises. Or with its reasoning.

While Hawking’s scheme has since its inception been the subject of many technical and philosophical criticisms, disputes have been, I must say, disappointingly courteous. Unlike particle physicists, whose natural level of aggression compares favorably with that of the timber wolf, cosmologists are often languid in argument, and they attend to the deficiencies of one another’s work with the studied elegance of men who keep silk handkerchiefs in their sleeve.

In 1984, Alexander Vilenkin published a paper adverting to the creation of the universe out of nothing. According to his view, the universe tunneled its way into becoming a de Sitter universe. Twenty years later, he was moved in a paper entitled “Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation” to ask whether his original paper might not have been his “greatest mistake.” Clearly he was not in this regard worried about an embarrassment of riches. On more sober reflection, he decided the point in his favor. At the conclusion of his paper, he observed that “sadly, quantum cosmology is not likely to become an observational science.”

Correct. Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics. It provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, and so does not answer the first cosmological question, and it offers no reason for the existence of the universe, and so does not address the second. If the mystification induced by its modest mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would not appear appreciably different in kind from various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities.

“THOUSANDS HAVE lived without love,” W. H. Auden observed, “not one without water.” Love is important; water is necessary. If water is necessary, so, too, a great many other things. In a paper entitled “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology,” published in 1974, the physicist Brandon Carter observed that many physical properties of the universe appeared fine-tuned to permit the appearance of living systems.

What a lucky break— things have just worked out.

What an odd turn of phrase— fine-tuned.

What an unexpected word— permit.

Whether lucky, odd, or unexpected, the facts are clear. The cosmological constant is a number controlling the expansion of the universe. If it were negative, the universe would appear doomed to contract in upon itself, and if positive, equally doomed to expand out from itself. Like the rest of us, the universe is apparently doomed no matter what it does. And here is the odd point: If the cosmological constant were larger than it is, the universe would have expanded too quickly, and if smaller, it would have collapsed too early, to permit the appearance of living systems. Very similar observations have been made with respect to the fine-structure constant, the ratio of neutrons to protons, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force, even the speed of light.

Why stop? The second law of thermodynamics affirms that, in a general way, things are running down. The entropy of the universe is everywhere increasing. But if things are running down, what are they running down from ? This is the question that physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose asked. And considering the rundown, he could only conclude that the runup was an initial state of the universe whose entropy was very, very low and so very finely tuned.

Who ordered that ?

“Scientists,” the physicist Paul Davies has observed, “are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth—the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient ‘coincidences’ and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal.”

These arguments are very much of a piece with those that Fred Hoyle advanced after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis. “The universe,” he grumbled afterward, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick. When aliens are dropped from the argument, there remains a very intriguing question: Why do the constants and parameters of theoretical physics obey such tight constraints?