The Catholic Multiverse

The Large Hadron Collider, the Multiverse, and Me (and my friends) - First Thoughts

You don't often see particle physics discussed at the religious blog First Things, but I see that Stephen Barr (a physicist who is a Catholic and writes about religion and science) is doing a bit of bragging that he and some colleagues had suggested quite a while ago (1997) that a multiverse could perhaps account for the odd weight of the Higgs particle.

Barr links to an article that recently appeared at Scientific American about this, which details the argument that comes down to this:

The spectacular discovery of the Higgs boson in July 2012 confirmed a nearly 50-year-old theory of how elementary particles acquire mass, which enables them to form big structures such as galaxies and humans. “The fact that it was seen more or less where we expected to find it is a triumph for experiment, it’s a triumph for theory, and it’s an indication that physics works,” Arkani-Hamed told the crowd.

However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.

With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.

Peter Woit, at Not Even Wrong, who hates the multiverse being invoked as a solution, has also seen the article and is dismissive of it.

I am curious as to how theology would really cope with a multiverse if it was shown to definitely exist. 

Just last night, I was skimming through The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace, the book by Margaret Wertheim that got a lot of attention when it came out in 1999.  (Interestingly, some of it about how the internet could develop - talking about the potential for cyberworlds like Second Life, for example - already reads as very dated.   Spending time as an avatar turned out not to be all that it was cracked up to be.)

Anyhow, the key theme of the book is that cyberspace essentially now serves as the "space" in which heaven and immortality can reside.  She starts off talking about the medieval (or earlier) understanding of the universe as involving a finite, onion like arrangement of spheres, with the heavenly world existing beyond the outer shell.  (I think it is sometimes said that stars were taken to be pinpricks in the outer shell, letting in the eternal light of heaven.)

Well, with a multiverse, you may have an entirely new way to locate something that could pass for heaven.  Or so it seems to me.  The only problem being that there is no obvious way to access it.  Unless you can information leakage from one universe to the next, I suppose.

Don Page is the only other religious scientist I can recall who talks about such things.  I referred to his papers on the multiverse back in 2008.   Perhaps I should re-read him, but I still think there is more room for interesting speculation on the topic.

Update:  Well, that's a co-incidence.  Margaret Wertheim has an interesting article just published in which she covers the big questions of physics, and explains the likes Lee Smolin's book which I just mentioned a couple of posts back.   Here's her take on string theory's version of the multiverse:

The idea of a quasi-infinite, ever-proliferating array of universes has been given further credence as a result of being taken up by string theorists, who argue that every mathematically possible version of the string theory equations corresponds to an actually existing universe, and estimate that there are 10 to the power of 500 different possibilities. To put this in perspective: physicists believe that in our universe there are approximately 10 to the power of 80 subatomic particles. In string cosmology, the totality of existing universes exceeds the number of particles in our universe by more than 400 orders of magnitude....

What is so epistemologically daring here is that the equations are taken to be the fundamental reality. The fact that the mathematics allows for gazillions of variations is seen to be evidence for gazillions of actual worlds.

This kind of reification of equations is precisely what strikes some humanities scholars as childishly naive. At the very least, it raises serious questions about the relationship between our mathematical models of reality, and reality itself. While it is true that in the history of physics many important discoveries have emerged from revelations within equations — Paul Dirac’s formulation for antimatter being perhaps the most famous example — one does not need to be a cultural relativist to feel sceptical about the idea that the only way forward now is to accept an infinite cosmic ‘landscape’ of universes that embrace every conceivable version of world history, including those in which the Middle Ages never ended or Hitler won.

As for Smolin's book, she writes:

Time indeed is a huge conundrum throughout physics, and paradoxes surround it at many levels of being. In Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe (2013) the American physicist Lee Smolin argues that for 400 years physicists have been thinking about time in ways that are fundamentally at odds with human experience and therefore wrong. In order to extricate ourselves from some of the deepest paradoxes in physics, he says, its very foundations must be reconceived. In an op-ed in New Scientist in April this year, Smolin wrote:

The idea that nature consists fundamentally of atoms with immutable properties moving through unchanging space, guided by timeless laws, underlies a metaphysical view in which time is absent or diminished. This view has been the basis for centuries of progress in science, but its usefulness for fundamental physics and cosmology has come to an end. 

In order to resolve contradictions between how physicists describe time and how we experience time, Smolin says physicists must abandon the notion of time as an unchanging ideal and embrace an evolutionary concept of natural laws.

I should look around for other reviews of the Smolin book...