The major question that stands before cosmologists is – how did the universe come into being if it is not eternal? For many years, most scientists held on strongly onto the belief that the universe is eternal because otherwise, how to account for its beginning? It is generally accepted that a Big Bang occurred some 14 billion years ago, but how did this happen and what were the steps afterwards?

Some scientists do not like the idea of the Big Bang but the evidence is so strong that they have no choice but to deal with it. The problem with the Big Bang, as they see it, is that it almost implies that the universe was created and this would suggest a Creator. But the Big Bang has another Big Surprise in store with it.

If we look up at the sky at night we see huge expanses of darkness where there is no matter. It is just simply empty space. But, quantum mechanics tells us that this is not so. This space – which is called, in modern physics, the quantum vacuum – is teeming with all kinds of activities as particles come into existence and then, almost immediately disappear. One attempt to explain the Big Bang uses this concept of the quantum vacuum. It goes along the following lines.

Before the existence of space and time, the only thing that existed was the quantum vacuum. 14 billion years ago a colossal amount of energy appeared in this vacuum in a space much smaller than the smallest atom and this produced the explosion which we have termed the Big Bang. This shot out all the potential matter and energy that went on to form our universe. At this stage there were two counteracting forces. There was the force of the explosion which drove everything out and there was the force of gravity which tended to bring everything back to the tiny particle that started the whole thing going. There was also a strange force – for want of a better term we would call anti-gravity – which caused the whole primeval egg to inflate to the size of the known universe within a millionth of a second. The rate and strength of inflation was in such a balance that the universe grew without reverting back to the primeval egg but expanding in such a manner that galaxies, and stars and planets had the ability to form. In other words, fine-tuning was already operating within the very first instants of the universe.

From this we see that fine tuning seems to be something that is almost innate to the universe and the existence of fine tuning in the universe is now well established. Some have tried to deny it but the evidence is overwhelming and argues against the chance occurrence of the universe. There is something underlying the universe and it is not chance. By fine tuning what is meant is that certain quantities/constants need to have such a specific and precise value that even an unbelievably small variation from that value would make the universe impossible. I am not going to go over the details of this fine tuning because we have already looked at this issue in the past but I will list just a few of them (there’s about sixty in all). The size, temperature and brightness of our sun are just right for biological life. The orbit of the earth, the fact that we have only one moon, the distance of the Earth from the sun, the Earth’s axial tilt are all important factors which if violated, would preclude the existence of life on Earth.

Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind understands what is at stake here for the naturalists who believe there is only physical reality and nothing else. Susskind admits quite frankly that without some alternative explanation of nature’s fine tuning we (meaning physicist adhering to a naturalistic explanation of everything in the cosmos) will be hard pressed to answer those who claim that there is an agency which is directing the universe. Interestingly, what this shows is that scientists are hoping that something will come up – they are expressing, contrary to their mantra of evidence only, their hope in some ‘miraculous explanation’ for the existence of fine tuning. At. least Susskind is forthright. When a theory depends on ‘extraordinary claims’ about fantastic quantum behavior (see the last letter), imaginary singular events, and principles defying known physical laws, all that remains is unswerving faith in scientism. This is hardly what most people consider the essence of science or the scientific method.

So, how does the concept of a multiverse address the question of fine tuning in our universe?

What is claimed is that there is an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possible laws and we just happen to be living in the universe conducive to the existence of intelligent beings. Living in this specific universe we have discovered that the constants are exactly what they need to be to have a fruitful universe.

I am truly astounded that educated and knowledgeable scientists would buy into this kind of fiction. Any time infinity is invoked we can be sure that we are on the wrong track because with an infinite number of universes everything is possible and this position could be classified as a form of mental illness which isolates a person from reality. Science journalist John Horgan writes that “Multiverse theories aren’t theories; they’re science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence.” And Paul Steinhardt, the winner of the very prestigious Dirac Medal in theoretical physics in 2002 explains: “For the last 400 years, most people would say that the key thing that distinguishes science from non-science is that scientific ideas have to be subject to tests.” He goes on to say that these theories, such as that of the multiverse, are unfalsifiable and can be made to fit any possible set of experimental observations. What’s more, the theory of the multiverse makes no predictions that could be verified, and offers no promise of advancement in our scientific knowledge since the various ‘universes’ are isolated from each other with their own sets of laws.

Cosmologist Bernard Carr warned his colleagues. If there is only one universe you might have to have a fine-tuner. And he adds: ‘If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” It seems that the object is not to follow the evidence which points to the existence of fine tuning but to follow the wishes of the physicists who desperately hope that they are on the right track. And this is espoused by people who are proud to say that unlike people of faith, their beliefs are not based on faith or wish-fulfillment, but on hard evidence.

The latest studies on dark holes have also been disappointing for the multiverse believers. Above, we considered the formation of the Big Bang through a quantum fluctuation whereby a tiny, tiny nugget exploded and produced the potential for our universe. This tiny nugget would form through chance fluctuations in the quantum vacuum which is what we conclude is happening with the appearance and disappearance of subatomic particles. In this case the particle went on to explode, something that has never happened before. The hope was that black holes offer a possible explanation, in reverse, as to how the Big Bang occurred. As a star ages, and its energy starts to decrease the force and heat that drives it outwards starts to decline and gravity takes over, eventually causing the whole star to collapse and form what we call the black hole. This black hole has such a strong gravitational attraction that nothing, not even light (that is why it is a ‘black’ hole), can escape from it.

It was conjectured that black holes shrank down to the size of an atom and thereby offered a doorway into alternate universes since the black hole did not allow anything, even light, to enter our universe. At a conference in Dublin, in 2004, Steven Hawking said that his new calculations showed that black holes did not offer a possible passage to other universes through worm holes and other means. This brought on consternation from those who supported the theory of the multiverse. University of Chicago physicist, Robert Wald, who was present at Hawking’s lecture, expressed the angst felt by many there: “He’s running away from what we still believe.” What a statement, almost religious in its tone, of what some ‘scientists’ believe and hope for.

One senses a feeling of desperation on the part of the naturalists because the neat and tidy world of Newton and classical physics is gone and in its place we have the rule of probability and the existence of phenomena which would be deemed impossible in our every day world. But the evidence for this quantum world is undeniable and has been empirically verified time and time again. In fact, we are now attempting to invent quantum computers which would be much faster than the present ones.

So, what does all this mean for people who are believers? We will see some answers to this question in the next letter.

Sincerely,
Bar-Abbas.