Carr, Ellis: Multiverse

Defending the multiverse

Bernard Carr, resistance to the idea that science could be there is surely some probabilistic sense in which
Astronomy Unit, extended beyond our galaxy. Indeed many one can extrapolate models at least some way
Queen Mary
astronomers refused to believe that there was beyond it. Also the smooth dependence of the
University of London.
anything beyond. Although Kant had specu­ CMB fluctuations on angular separation (what­
From a historical per­ lated as early as 1755 that some nebulae are ever the source of those fluctuations) gives no
spective, the multi­ “island universes” similar to the Milky Way, reason to suppose that anything strange hap­
verse is just one more most astronomers continued to adopt a galacto­ pens just beyond the horizon. George himself
step in our progress centric view until the 1920s. Indeed, the most seems to accept this, which illustrates the prob­
from geocentric to popular model of the galaxy at the start of the lem of regarding speculations as non-scientific
heliocentric to galac­ 20th century – Kapteyn’s Universe – even had just because they involve the unobservable.
tocentric to cosmocentric worldview. Indeed, the Sun at its centre! The controversy came to a Admittedly one’s confidence in any proposed

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/49/2/2.36/246838 by guest on 24 August 2020

several lessons of relevance to the multiverse head in 1920 when Heber Curtis defended the model must decrease as one extrapolates ever
debate can be gleaned from considering the his­ island universe theory in a famous debate with further beyond the horizon, but one should
tory of this progression. Harlow Shapley. The issue was finally resolved beware of using Rees’s slippery slope argument
in 1924, when Edwin Hubble measured the in reverse: we cannot extrapolate to scales
Lessons of history distance to M31 using Cepheid variable stars. much larger than the horizon, so we should not
To the ancient Greeks, the heavenly spheres were In many ways this parallels the current debate extrapolate to scales only slightly outside it.
the unchanging domain of the divine and there­ about whether anything exists beyond our hori­ The problem comes when one makes the jump
fore outside science by definition. It required zon. Lesson 3: More conservative cosmologists from the Level I to Level II multiverse (which is
Tycho de Brahe’s observation of a supernova in might prefer to maintain the cosmocentric view where George’s argument that the FRW solu­
1572 and the realization that its apparent posi­ but perhaps the tide of history is against them. tion extends everywhere must fail). In fact, the
tion did not change as the Earth moved around The evidence for other universes can never be inflationary scenario does provide an answer to
the Sun to dash that view. Because this contra­ as decisive as that for extragalactic nebulae but this. For if the amplitude of the density fluctua­
dicted the Aristotelian view that the heavens the transformation of worldview required may tions increases slightly with scale (as appears to
cannot change, the claim was at first received be just as necessary. be the case), one can predict the scale at which
sceptically. Frustrated by those who had eyes A few years later Hubble obtained radial the FRW approximation breaks down. Current
but would not see, Brahe wrote: “O crassa velocities and distance estimates for several data suggest that this happens at around 10100
ingenia. O coecos coeli spectators.” (Oh thick dozen nearby galaxies, thereby discovering that horizon scales.
wits. Oh blind watchers of the sky.) Lesson 1: all galaxies are moving away from us with a ➋  T he existence of a multiverse is implied by
Theoretical prejudice should not blind one to speed proportional to their distance. The most inflation, which is verified by the CMB aniso­
the evidence. Of course, we will never see the natural interpretation of this is that space itself tropy observations. In particular, known phys-
other universes themselves – in that sense we is expanding, as indeed had been predicted by ics leads to chaotic inflation and this implies a
are necessarily blind, so this point might seem Alexander Friedmann in 1920 on the basis of multiverse.
irrelevant to the multiverse. However, I would general relativity. Einstein rejected this model at There are two distinct issues here: does one
claim that the analogue of Tycho’s supernova is the time because he believed the universe (i.e. the believe in inflation and does inflation lead to
the fine-tunings. Milky Way) was static and he even introduced a multiverse? Inflation is attractive because it
Long after Galileo had speculated that the an extra repulsive term into his equations – the resolves several cosmological conundra. Quan­
Milky Way consists of stars like the Sun and cosmological constant – to allow this possibil­ tum fluctuations of the scalar field can also
Newton had shown the laws of Nature could ity. After Hubble’s discovery, he described this generate the small density perturbations that
be extended beyond the solar system, there was as his “biggest blunder”. Lesson 4: One should eventually give rise to galaxies and large-scale
still a prejudice that the investigation of this not necessarily reject theoretical predictions structure and it is impressive that the predicted
region was beyond the domain of science. In because they have no observational support. dependence of the CMB fluctuations on angu­
1842 August Comte said of the study of stars: In fact, Einstein continued to uphold the static lar separation is almost exactly as observed by
“Never, by any means, will we be able to model even after the evidence was against it – he the WMAP satellite (Spergel et al. 2003). Of
study their chemical compositions. The field only accepted the Friedmann model in 1931, course, the evidence for inflation is not conclu­
of positive philosophy lies entirely within several years after Hubble published his data sive – there is still no evidence for any scalar
the Solar System, the study of the universe – so knowing how much weight to attach to field in Nature! – but the Level I multiverse is
being inaccessible in any possible science.” theory and observation can be tricky. still a good bet. As regards the second issue,
Comte had not foreseen the advent of spectros­ I agree with George that the evidence for the
copy, which identified absorption features in Bones of contention sort of chaotic inflation that leads to a Level
stellar spectra with chemical elements. Lesson Let me now address George’s specific issues. II multi­verse is more equivocal, and certainly
2: New observational developments are hard ➊  There are plausibly galaxies just beyond the one cannot infer this from the form of the CMB
to anticipate. Perhaps we will find extra dimen­ visual horizon, where we cannot see them, so we anisotropies. There are now around 100 models
sions at the Large Hadron Collider or even cre­ can extend this argument, step by step, to way of inflation and, while Linde (1990) claims that
ate baby universes in the laboratory one day. beyond the horizon and infer there are many the existence of other domains with different
Cosmology attained the status of a proper different universes that we cannot see. coupling constants is generic, this is debatable.
science in 1915, when the advent of general Even though we can never prove what hap­ ➌  The multiverse idea is testable, because it can
relativity gave it a secure mathematical basis. pens outside our visual horizon, the standard be disproved if we determine there are closed
Nevertheless, for a further decade there was FRW model has been well tested within it, so spatial sections in the universe (for example, if

2.36 A&G • April 2008 • Vol. 49

 Carr, Ellis: Multiverse

the curvature is positive). tions still qualify as science and that is why Rees to observe and speculations about processes at
This is really a straw man argument because has stressed the importance of calculating the very early and very late times have to be viewed
we have seen that inflation is only one of several probability distribution for various parameters as ultra-speculative. For this reason, more
multiverse proposals – for example, quantum across the universes. Indeed, a core difference conservative physicists regard even relatively
cosmology models give closed spatial sections between the Bayesian and frequentist views standard cosmological speculations as trespass­
– and not all inflationary models require that is the former’s willingness to make inferences ing into metaphysics. George places a lot of
the spatial sections be open anyway. However, from single, and possibly unrepeatable, pieces emphasis on falsifiability, but not everybody in
George is surely right to stress the importance of data. George rejects the Λ argument but there the philosophy of science agrees with Popper on
of looking for circles in the CMB. The idea of is no doubt that this has been very influential this and it is surely dangerous to impose a phil­
small universes is not mainstream but it has the in attracting many physicists to the multiverse osophical prescription that prevents scientists
advantage that it can be tested. cause. It used to be thought that Λ was exactly changing the border of their field. As Susskind
➍  The existence of a multiverse is the only phys- zero and it was then plausible that there might cautions, it would be a pity to miss out on some
ical explanation for the fine-tuning of param- be some physical (non-anthropic) explanation fundamental truth because of an over-restrictive
eters that leads to our existence. for this. However, the fact that Λ is non-zero but definition of science. Of course, one needs some
In the absence of direct evidence for other uni­ very tiny is a profound mystery that completely degree of falsifiability, but the question is, how

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/49/2/2.36/246838 by guest on 24 August 2020

verses, I regard the anthropic fine-tunings as the changes the situation. Critics say that we can­ much? It is certainly not fair to put M‑theory in
best indirect evidence. (A multiverse in which not know what distribution for Λ is predicted the same class as astrology. On the other hand, I
the constants were the same everywhere would across the multiverse and that is correct. It may share George’s scepticism of the Level IV multi­
have no explanatory value.) I agree with George be simplistic to assume that the distribution is verse, which corresponds to universes governed
that the fine-tunings do not constitute proof, but uniform, but postulating that there is a spike in by different mathematical structures. The view
they still carry weight. One can argue about how precisely the observed region is just as improb­ that any mathematically possible universe must
impressive the fine-tunings are (could we really able as what we are trying to explain. exist somewhere seems untestable in a deeper
exclude life if the constants changed a lot?), but ➏  Even if one does not accept inflation, multi– sense than Levels I to III.
verses are predicted by many theories of particle
Summing up

“
physics.
One needs some degree of It is still legitimate to invoke the existence The notion of a multiverse entails a new per­
falsifiability, but the question

”
of other universes for which there can be no spective of the nature of science and it is not sur­
is, how much and how soon? direct evidence if one has a theory (like M- prising that this causes intellectual discomfort.
theory) that predicts this. It is not necessary But this situation has often occurred before and
to check all predictions of the theory for it to one should not be surprised if it happens again.
I still think the number and precision of the tun­ be considered scientific (e.g. we cannot probe The Cosmic Uroborus in figure 2 shows that
ings is remarkable. Nearly 30 years ago I wrote inside black holes and we cannot see quarks the history of physics might be regarded as the
a review with Martin Rees about these fine-tun­ but we still regard these as subjects for scientific extension of knowledge into ever smaller and
ings (Carr and Rees 1979). In the intervening discourse); it is only necessary to test some of ever larger scales. The ideas encountered at the
period a few of them have gone away (e.g. infla­ them. Does M-theory qualify in this respect? two frontiers have often been viewed as part of
tion may explain the value of the cosmologi­ George claims no; it does not come under the philosophy rather than science, so in a sense the
cal density parameter) but most of them have purview of science because our confidence in it debate is nothing new.
got stronger. Without a multiverse one may be is based on faith and aesthetic considerations However, there is another sense in which the
forced to adopt a non-physical explanation like (mathematical beauty etc) rather than experi­ current situation is very special. This is because
a fine-tuner, which is why Neil Manson (2003) mental data. Certainly he is not alone in this – for the first time – the boundaries at the largest
claims that “the multiverse is the last resort of attitude. For example, Woit (2006) and Smolin and smallest scales have connected, as indicated
the desperate atheist”. This is not necessarily (2007) dismiss M-theory as mathematics rather by the top of the Cosmic Uroborus, so the two
true – Paul Davies (2006) advocates a “third than physics because it has not made contact science/philosophy frontiers have merged. Does
way” in which the laws of Nature evolve in a with observations after 20 years. However, I this merging represent the completion of science
single universe in such a way that life can arise feel this rejection is premature. It may take 200 or merely the sort of transformation in the per­
– but if you reject the multiverse, you certainly years to solve the equations of M-theory and ceived nature of science that accompanies every
lower the scientific status of the anthropic argu­ test them, but the definition of what constitutes paradigm shift? This is a contentious issue and
ments. I agree with George’s argument against a scientific question should not depend on how clearly we do not yet know the answer. I accept
physical infinities. However, we do not need an difficult it is. that there may eventually be a limit to the sort of
infinity to validate the anthropic principle – just ➐  T he nature of science changes, so what is questions that science can address; George and
a large number. illegitimate science today may be legitimate I merely disagree on whether we have reached
➎  The existence of a multiverse is implied by a tomorrow. that limit with the multiverse. In any case, we
probability argument: the universe is no more The fundamental issue in the dispute between are surely behoven to try to take science as far
special than it need be to create life. In particu- myself and George concerns which features as possible. I will end with a comment by Steven
lar, the small value of the cosmological constant of science are to be regarded as sacrosanct. Weinberg (2007) in his contribution to Universe
shows that other universes exist. Experimentation used to be regarded as sac­ or Multiverse?:
George argues that multiverse theories are rosanct but by that criterion all of astronomy “We usually mark advances in the history
not useful because they cannot be disproved: if would be excluded since one cannot experiment of science by what we learn about Nature,
all possibilities exist somewhere, then they can with stars and galaxies. Fortunately, one can but at certain critical moments the most
explain all conceivable observations. However, still make observations and – since there are important thing is what we discover about
the fact that we only observe one sample of the billions of these objects – Nature effectively per­ science itself. These discoveries lead to
multiverse still allows the proposal to be refuted forms experiments for us. Cosmologists are in changes in how we score our work, in what
at a given confidence level. Statistical predic­ worse shape because there is only one universe we consider to be an acceptable theory.” ●

A&G • April 2008 • Vol. 49  2.37