Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow suggest our Universe isn't all that special, finds Michael Turner.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
I [Michael Turner] am contributing a 1,000-word essay to a forthcoming book by Lucy Hawking for which I am receiving payment. This arrangement was entered into before I was asked to review her father’s book, The Grand Design.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Turner, M. Cosmology: No miracle in the multiverse. Nature 467, 657–658 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/467657a
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/467657a
This article is cited by
-
Cosmology: A life in space-time
Nature (2011)
Nicholas Bauer
Mr. Albertini: I am not expert enough to dissect the web of concepts that the rest of your post is describing, but I do know that your initial assumption is incorrect. There is no "problem of the observer" because a conscious observer is not required. The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment simply illustrates the absurdity of this assumption. On the contrary, it is the radiation detector inside the box that would act as the "observer" and which would interact with the decaying atom.
Take any of the experiments which seem to demonstrate an act of "choice" on the part of the experimenter, including the delayed quantum eraser. The conscious observer does not bend the photons to act one way or another; the behavior of the photons is directly dependent on the set up of the experimental apparatus. Any natural physical system that acts on the photons in a way similar to such apparati should produce the same results, and we have no good reason to think otherwise.
Nicholas Bauer
As to the review itself, Dr. Turner raises the issue that we cannot answer the question of "why something rather than nothing"?
The problem with this question, of course, is that it assumes that it is possible for there to be "nothing" which is a good alternative to "something" and that "something" is impossible without "something else" that started it.
Often people suggest the possibility of our universe (or multiverse, as it were) being created by some advanced civilization. However, every one of these people neglect to say how it is that this postulated non-divine creator could be "self-existent" while our own universe somehow still requires a creator. What would have to be true of a universe for it to be clearly self-existing?
The only possible answers to this question then are: 1) Infinite regression; 2) Looping regression; 3) A special class of thing that can self-exist; 4) The underlying "something" is itself self-existent.
I say we assume Occam's razor should be in full effect. Until and unless we have evidence to think that the underlying reality (quantum nothingness, if M-theory as Dr. Hawking lays out) cannot self-exist, the simplest explanation must hold: the underlying reality is self-existent and does not require creation.
Nicholas Bauer
I should clarify after further reflection. There are actually only two possible solutions, that of a special class of thing that can self-exist or that reality is itself self-existent. Even an infinite regression or looping regression would have to fall into one of those categories.