Book Review: Steven Hawking’s “The Grand Design”

Posted on September 11, 2010 by Bruce Keener

As a strong believer that we should be continuous learners, regardless of age, I buy just about all the popular physics books. I am especially interested in the physics surrounding the origin of our universe, and so I bought Stephen Hawking’s and Leonard Mlodinow’s The Grand Design as soon as it was available.

I was hugely disappointed in the book. My first disappointment came on page 2, where the authors referred to the legendary physicist Richard Feynman as “a colorful character who worked at the California Institute of Technology and played the bongo drums at a strip joint down the road.” There is no mention of the fact that he won the Nobel prize and is generally considered to be among the most influential physicists of all times. (I recall reading that physicists had been surveyed on who they considered the most influential physicists, and Feynman ranked near the top, along with Einstein and Newton, while it seems to me that Hawking ranked somewhere around 40.) This is an example of a larger problem with the book: it has no references to other documents, and it looks as if the authors go out of their way to avoid giving credit to other physicists.

The book does a decent job with the history of physics, and science in general, although I really tire of seeing much of the same old history repeated in every popular science book. It would be nice if there were a Wikipedia page of science history that authors could refer to (and link to) and where they could add a paragraph or two emphasizing whatever they wanted to.

The book also does a decent job explaining the famous quantum mechanics two-slit experiment, and does pretty well in describing how Feynman’s “sum over histories” approach explains the results.

But, the book falls flat where it needs to really shine to make its case that there is no need for a creator god (because we supposedly understand the physics of how the universe created itself). For one, it does not give a lot of detail on how finely tuned this universe really is. It gives a few examples, but doesn’t even mention that the cosmological constant must be the value that it is, to within 1 part in 10^120 (10 followed by 120 zeros), or our universe could not exist. Nor does it give references to texts that elaborate in (much) more detail on the fine tuning of the universe.

Secondly, the book makes some claims that many in the physics community would not support. For example, the authors claim that cosmic inflation (the hyper inflation of the universe when it was only a fraction of a second old) is a fact. While recent analysis of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) gives some support for the theory of inflation, it is not sufficiently conclusive to state it as fact, and many well-known physicists think the theory is hogwash and “contrived.” It similarly claims that supersymmetry is a fact, when the evidence for it is even weaker, and while there are a number of theorists who do not think supersymmetry is true.

It even posits that gravity existed before the “big bang,” and that it and M-theory (the latest version of string theory, incorporating membranes as well as strings) fully account for our universe without any need for a creator’s involvement. I’ve never read of anyone assuming that gravity existed before the universe did … if one is going to posit that, one might as well posit God. The experimental support for both cases is the same (none).

And as for the authors’ statement that M-theory is the only solution to the origin of the universe, perhaps they need to do some additional reading. I would suggest Paul Davies’ The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?. The latter book provides a ton more information than Hawkings’ book, and covers several possible origins of the universe (including M-theory and its infinite number of universes, or at least 10^500 of them). And, by the way, none of the theories have been ruled out.

One of my favorite theories for the origin of the universe is John Wheeler’s “participatory universe,” in which consciousness plays a role in creating the universe now and in having a backward influence in time. Sounds bizarre, I know. But, it is an actual possibility. Davies discusses it in some detail in his book. (Davies noted that this is not so much a theory as what Wheeler called an “idea for an idea,” although the delayed-choice slit experiment on which it was formulated has confirmed an effective backward causality (not time travel, but backward causation).)

Actually, my favorite theory is one that is not discussed in either book (it was developed after Davies published his book): the colliding membrane version of a cyclic universe, developed by Turok and Steinhardt. I like it because it does away with the singularity, answers the question of what came before the universe, explains dark energy, and does away with the need for the theory of cosmic inflation. The one thing it has in common with Hawking’s theory is that both use M-theory (it may have more in common than that, but the theories at least share some mathematics).

By the way, have you ever thought about how planetary bodies know to follow Newton’s laws, or how electrons know how to follow the mathematical equations that Maxwell derived? If you think much about it, you may very well adopt the philosophy that most physicists have: the Platonic view that the equations (the laws of physics) are “beyond space and time”, but influence what is within space and time.

But, instead of taking the Platonic view, you might ask how the computations are carried out. How does an electron that is near a proton carry out the computation about how it is to behave next? One answer, is that the universe is a sort of computer, with each of the 10^80 atoms in it playing a role in the computation of what each of the atoms are doing.

Something to think about, isn’t it? You won’t get that out of Hawking’s book, but you can get it out of Davies’ book.

Anyway, if you have never read anything about the origin of our universe, Hawking’s short book (so short that it could be considered a rip-off) will give you some enlightenment. And, it does do a good job with the history of science. But, if you want a better understanding, and a more accurate one, Davies’ book is much better and is also written to a lay audience. The only downside to the latter is that it’s not available for Kindle (yet).

Hawking fell short of proving his claim that there is no need for a creator god. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there was one. But we do not yet know what caused this universe to come into existence, and a creator god is a distinct possibility. Even if we could determine that there are other universes, and that ours sprang from another one, it just pushes the question of god farther back in time and does not eliminate it. But, of course, Hawking knew he wasn’t proving that there is no need for a creator god … he was just doing the “Godmongering” that is popular these days and seems to result in best sellers.

Share


 

This entry was posted in Miscellaneous and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • celeste generaux

    It would seem to me, if Hawkings has the final answer to the universe, then he would also know how to time-space travel in human form already. CEG

  • Ashwini Kumar Lal

    I beg to differ with Stephen Hawking’s unfounded remarks about absence of God’s role in creation of the universe.The learned scientist’s pronouncement results from his myopic vision about the origins (of life and the universe). He is under false impression that the current knowledge of quantum physics and general theory of relativity alone was sufficient to unearth the mystery regarding origin of life, whereas fact of the matter is, study of origin of life is a multi-disciplinary pursuit involving good understanding of diverse subjects such as such as molecular biology, genetics, and astrobiology besides cosmology. It is ironic that despite considerable advancements in the above cited fields in recent years, science hitherto remains clueless about origin of life. My disagreement with the learned scientist’s claim is further substantiated by the fact that given any number of combinations of the basic building blocks of life viz., amino acids, nucleotide bases, sugar,and phosphate,etc., life has never been created in any of the laboratories the worldover. Life has never emerged from non-life (inanimate matter). This is very much suggestive of the evolution of life having bearing on the existence of some supernatural force, whom we rever as ‘Almighty’ or as ‘God’. Readers may like to refer to the review article “Origin of Life” published in the peer-reviewed European journal, ‘Astrophysics & Space Science’ (2008, Volume 317, Issue 3-4, pp. 267-278), e-print of which is posted at the website : http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.3552.pdf , for the latest update on the current status of scientific research in the inter-disciplinary field of ‘origin of life’.

    Moreover,Hawking appears to have wrongly referred to the ‘Big Bang Model’ as viable explanation for origin of the universe in his latest book, ‘The Grand Design’. The said model suffers from numerous inconsistencies.The review paper titled “Big Bang Model? A Critical Review” published in the April 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed US journal, ‘Journal of Cosmology’, modified version of which is posted at the website: http://vixra.org/pdf/1005.0051v8.pdf ,has detailed prominent inconsistencies with the said model. The persisting redshift controversy that has direct bearing on the expanse and age of the universe as pinpointed by several cosmologists from time to time, presence of full-bloomed galaxies with higher metallicity in the very early epoch of the universe, and the presence of superclusters of galaxies and supervoids in the cosmos are some of the unsolved mysteries that remain inexplicable by the Big Bang model. It is ironic that instead of addressing the existing anomalies with the said model, the mainstream cosmologists have taken it to be a prestige issue by perpetuating the status quo. Ironically, Hawking’s immense popularity as a popular science writer hinges on success of Hawking’s widely popular book, ‘A Brief History of Time’ which is all about the origin of the universe. Authencity of the information contained in his book depends on the validity of the ‘Big Bang Model’.When the said model itself in mired in deep controversy, what Hawking has been preaching to the world so far is mere a gossip without any iota of truth.

    Ashwini Kumar Lal, New Delhi

  • Ashwini Kumar Lal

    The ‘Big Bang Model’ has failed the crucial acid test for its survival that relates to detection of remnant of gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe. Existence of gravitational – wave background, predicted by Einstein in 1916 in his general theory of relativity, is expected from the violent early moments of the Big Bang much like the cosmic microwave background that fills the sky with radio waves from the early universe. As per Einstein’s prediction, the cataclysmic ‘Big Bang’ is believed to have created a flood of gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of space-time that still fill the universe, albeit at a very feeble strength to be discernible by the conventional astronomical tools. The much hyped LIGO experiments, undertaken at whopping sum of over $365 million, for probe of remnant of the gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe have so far yielded nothing.

    • http://www.keenerliving.com/ Bruce Keener

      I’m not sure what your point is: we haven’t found gravitational waves, therefore God exists?

      Although I am still attracted to Steinhardt and Turok’s cyclic universe, because it avoids all the metaphysics of the Big Bang, the vast, vast majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists think the Big Bang model is valid. I have to respect that and assume that it is the correct model, unless and until a better model is found.

  • Ashwini Kumar Lal

    I never mean to say that God exists since grvitational waves have not been found. This is your interpretation only. What I am trying to convey through my postings at your website is that the present Big Bang model is not the correct explanation for the origin of the universe. If majority of cosmologists approve the said model, it does not mean that the model is actually correct. I reiterate, the persisting redshift controversy that has direct bearing on the expanse and age of the universe as pinpointed by several cosmologists from time to time, presence of full-bloomed galaxies with higher metallicity in the very early epoch of the universe, and the presence of superclusters of galaxies and supervoids in the cosmos are some of the serious inconsistencies with the Big Bang model that question validity of the Big Bang model. Brief write-up on the persistent ‘ redshift controversy ‘ that has direct bearing on the expanse and age of the universe may help you understand the reality.

    As per Hubble’s law, galaxies in the cosmos are observed to recede on account of expansion of universe. However, there remains nagging uncertainty whether the redshift calculated on the basis of Hubble’s law gives true value of the receding galaxies. Some astronomers (Narlikar 1989; Parker 1993; Harrison 1993; Longair 1995) have serious reservations about the authenticity of the galactic velocities catalogued by astronomers using the Hubble’s velocity- distance law, v = Hd. Expansion redshift does not arise from the Doppler effect, nor is the redshift related to velocity by the special relativistic relation, 1+z =[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]1/2 (Narlikar 1993). Einstein’s relativistic Doppler formula merely applies to the motion of galaxies through space, it does not apply to the recession of galaxies (Seeds 2007). Moreover, Doppler redshift is bound by the laws of Einstein’s special relativity, which dictates that an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light whereas in the case of cosmological redshift, v > c is possible since the space which separates the objects (e.g. a quasar from the Earth) through a vacuum can expand faster than the speed of light.

    Under the cosmological redshift interpretation, galaxies are not receding simply by a physical velocity in the direction away from the observer; instead, the intervening space is expanding, which accounts for large-scale isotropy of the effect demanded by the cosmological principle (Harrison 1981). In the current cosmological model (Gray and Davies 2008), cosmological redshift z(cos) is described as the observable time-dependent cosmic scale factor (a), governed by the expression, 1+z(cos)= a(now)/a(then). Bondi (1947) defined cosmological redshift as the summation of the Doppler shift due to an object’s motion through space, and the global gravitational shift (Einstein effect) due to the difference between the potential energy per unit mass at the source and the observer. Mathematically, cosmological redshift is expressed as z(cos) = z(dop)+ z(grav), where 1+ z(cos) =[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]1/2 (1+∆Ф/c2), and ∆Ф is the difference in gravitational potential between the points of emission and reception of a photon, which hints at the Doppler shift not being the correct measure of distance between the source and the observer. Wrongly computed redshift gives false picture of the expanse and age of the distant galaxies.

    Some astrophysical observations (Burbidge 1973; Field 1974) have also raised doubts whether the large redshifts (Hubble redshift) related to the distant galaxies are due entirely to cosmological expansion. The strongest argument (Field et al. 1973) in favour of cosmological expansion is that there is no known hypothesis consistent with laws of physics (other than Doppler shift hypothesis) that can explain the observed redshifts. Crawford (1979) provides alternate explanation to the problem – the interaction of photon with curved space-time causes it to lose energy in the form of very low energy secondary photons, giving rise to the phenomenon of redshift. Marmet (1990) too was of the opinion that the cosmic redshifts could be explained without invoking the Doppler interpretation. According to him, photon, in its passage from a distant galaxy to the observer on the earth, loses some of its energy to the intergalactic medium. As such, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium between a galaxy and the observer, the more its light gets shifted toward the low-energy (red) end of the spectrum (Marmet and Reber 1989). Interactions of photons with atoms in the intergalactic medium always result in the production of secondary photon (bremsstrahlung photon) at longer wavelength (Jauch and Rohrlich 1980). Julia (2009)too has attributed cosmological redshift of distant galaxies to the loss of energy of the photon with time through transfer of its energy (heat) to the intergalactic space whereby redshift is shown to increase exponentially with the distance, z = e(H/c)d . These ideas suggest that the distant quasars might be much closer to the Earth than their redshift would indicate if they have an ‘intrinsic redshift’ due to their being surrounded by a ‘fuzzy’ atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual redshift as the light travels through it, and loses energy to these electrons by the Compton effect (Grey and Davies 2008).

    • http://www.keenerliving.com/ Bruce Keener

      Thank you for your clarification, but citing references that are predominately from the 1970′s and 1980′s does not strongly motivate me to agree that there is a “redshift problem.” But, even if there is, I don’t care. I think most physicists suspect, privately if not publicly, that Einstein’s equations, although confirmed through many observations, are not the final explanation. I personally am leery of dark energy as an explanation for the expansion of the universe, and am leery about cosmic inflation: both sound like contrived explanations of what we think we are observing. That’s part of why i like Steinhardt’s model (an eternal cyclic universe, created and recreated by colliding m-branes): it does away with both, and it answers my question of “why did the universe begin 14 billion years ago, instead of 30 or 50 or 100 billion …. why did it begin at all? But, what do I know? I’m just a 61 year old retiree who has an interest in how the world works. I do know that we do not have all the answers, and that our understanding of the universe in another 50 years will likely be vastly improved over our current understanding and modeling. That’s what I like about science: it keeps trying and changing models until it finds what works.

  • Ashwini Kumar Lal

    Thanks for your views. May I request you to kindly browse the website : http://goo.gl/Mhgsr , partially reproduced below?

    “On monday 11th October, BBC2 Horizon had a very good program on the state of the universe before the Big Bang. Hawkings seems to have almost written himself out of the scientific narative of discovery on the issue by adopting what seems to be a late entry based on M Theory. He was in the program, but only pictured at a lecture being given on inflation theory. Sir Roger Penrose was the only British contributor and his own theory, he admitted, had only been developed in the last five years. Five years being the period of time elapsed since he abandoned the Big Bang as accepted fact. Penrose also though rooted his alternative theory, like Hawkings, in M theory.

    The unifying principle amongst all the theories proposed by contributing physicists, was that most working actively in the field think there was something before the Big Bang. Some even disputed the Big Bang itself, postulating that the evidence of its existance is in fact related to some other event.

    What was evident was that most strands of research into the orgins of the universe operated on principles which British Physicists have yet to accept. Penrose and Hawkings seem to have left it too late, with all the good and persuable theories already having been ear marked by other Canadian and US based Phyisicists. In accepting for too long the orthodox belief that the Big Bang must have been the start of everything British physicists seem to be trailing the pack. Hawkings and Penrose respective but simular theories, also leave the Big Bang pretty much intact as a concept. M Theory is used to point towards (but not prove) an explanation regarding the breakdown between quantum laws and relativity laws. That the two dispirit sets of laws exist, will exist and have existed seperatly seems to underpin most research and theories that look away from or to a time before the ‘Big Bang’.

    Of all the theories put forward Hawkings current one not only seemed the most dead end and unprovable, but also derivitive. The concept of matter being created by a perfect energy vacuum was to my knowledge postulated by Michio Kaku. So Hawkings theory seems not only late, but yes, derivitive. While Hawkings theory does not ‘require god’, it is apparent that the most avidly debated creation theories portaining to the known (and unknown) universe do not require Hawkings.

    Brief outline of the BBC2 Horizon program here:

    BBC – BBC Two Programmes – Horizon, 2010-2011, What Happened Before the Big Bang?

    … but sadly no access to bbc iplayer from Ireland.

    For the record Ashwini Kumar Lal is dead right I think”.

    • http://www.keenerliving.com/ Bruce Keener

      Ashwini,
      I have used a URL shortener to shorten the link you provided … because of its length, it could break the sidebar on some operating systems (I’ve noticed this problem on some Windows systems and some versions of Internet Explorer).

      I was tempted to edit the comment to reduce part of the quoted material, since it quotes one individual’s remarks in their entirety. But, rather than me editing it at this point, I ask that you contact the individual you quoted to see if the extent of your quoting is acceptable to them. I do not want this site to be viewed as a scraping site that grabs a wad of someone’s else’s material and reprints it. Limited quoting is helpful, but too much of it is just not right. I’ll leave it to you to check with the original commenter on this.

      That said, your commenting seems to be getting a bit repetitious at this point and is not adding any additional value from what I can see.

  • Ashwini Kumar Lal

    The inflationary concept (in the Inflationary Big Bang Model), supporting a vacuum-dominated universe (arising out of quantum fluctuations) during phase transition in the early history of the universe was evolved by some cosmologists (Guth 1981; Linde 1982) to circumvent problems of ‘flatness’, ‘horizon’ and the ‘primordial magnetic monopole’ associated with the Big Bang model. The hypothetical inflation field giving rise to inflation, however, is very speculative lacking sound scientific explanation.There is no general consensus among cosmologists regarding the timing of the beginning and end of the inflationary epoch. In Linde’s ‘chaotic inflation’, inflation starts at the Planck time ,10 -43 sec when the temperature was 10 32 K, whereas in other models, inflation starts when the temperature falls to the point (10 -35 sec after Big Bang when the temperature was ~10 28 K) at which the symmetry of the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is spontaneously broken.

    Element of arbitrariness is also quite prominent in regard to interpretation of the cosmological costant in Einstein’s equations of general relativity. Some cosmologists have related the cosmological cosnstant to the dark energy following observations in 1998 of very distant galaxies that were suggestive of accelerating expannsion of the universe. Ironically, the true nature of the 73% dark energy and 23% dark matter ( as per the latest WMAP intertretations) pervading the universe hitherto remains elusive.

  • Ashwini Kumar Lal

    The concept of “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC) floated by the Oxford physicist, Sir Roger Penrose refutes the widely accepted inflationary Big Bang model. Recent observation of the circular patterns seen in the WMAP mission data on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that hints at the space and time not originating at the Big Bang supports Penrose’s concept of CCC. Our universe continually cycles through a series of ‘aeons’, with each ‘ big bang’ marking the start of a new ‘aeon’ in the history of the universe (http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706) .

    • http://www.keenerliving.com/ Bruce Keener

      Very interesting paper. Way above my head in spots, but I could get the gist of it. Pretty much demolishes the theory of inflation, while giving an explanation of dark matter as well. Plus, no metaphysics. Also, I like that it debunks the idea that the bang created space-time.

      Thanks.

  • Ashwiini Kumar Lal

    In the light of revelation made in Penrose’s recent paper titled ‘ Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity ‘ , the age of the universe calibrated as 13.75 billion years according to NASA’s latest interpretation of the WMAP data hardly holds any relevance.

  • Ashwini Kumar Lal

    Every variant of cosmological model, be it inflationary or cyclic, predicts possible detection of the primordial gravitational waves created in the immediate aftermath of the cataclysmic Big Bang (the latest in the present universe as per the cyclic model). Futile experiments undertaken by the LIGO (Laser Interferometry Gravitational Wave Observatory) project since 2002, and by the Virgo interferometer since 2007 are suggestive of the fact that we are still far from finding tangible clues regarding the origin of the universe.

    • http://www.keenerliving.com/ Bruce Keener

      You seem to be obsessed with this. You are getting repetitive and are turning into an annoyance.

      If you have a compulsion to express your views on this, start your own blog.

  • Ashwini Kumar Lal

    If revealing the facts is a crime, you may delete all my postings on your blog, Bruce.

    • http://www.keenerliving.com/ Bruce Keener

      Revealing facts is not a crime. Discussing opinions is not a crime (although that might be up for debate in some countries).

      The point is that you are being repetitive and adding no value. I liked your comment about Penrose, as it enlightened me regarding a relatively new theory, and I am open to learning. But I am not obsessed with this topic. This is not a blog about cosmology. I mentioned Hawkings’ book because I thought a lot of my technically oriented readers would have a moderate interest in it, and wanted them to know that the book could be a waste of their time. I value their time. I value mine. I am 61 years old and I am tired of spending my time on this topic, covering the same ground over and over. I have better things to do with my life than spend my Sunday afternoon on this.

      You’ve made several points, many of them interesting, some subjective and debatable. You clearly love the topic and love to talk about it. I don’t love it THAT much. Out of about 15 comments, most of them are yours.

      So, given that you love the subject, I am serious that you should start a blog on it, or make your remarks on a blog that specializes in cosmology (I see you have made several comments on the Cosmic Variance blog).

      Yes, I will likely delete your future comments, just as I did with one a while ago. I don’t want to have to spend my time doing that, though, so I’d appreciate it if you would just recognize that you have overstayed your welcome. I hate that it came to this, but you seem to be obsessed with this topic, and I am not and I know my readers are not.

      Bruce

  • Greg

    All things are held together by the power of His word,

  • Udaybhanu Chitrakar

    “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
    - Stephen Hawking in “The Grand Design”
    “As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
    – Stephen Hawking in the same book.

    Here three questions can be asked:
    1) Which one came first, universe, or laws of gravity and quantum theory?
    2) If the universe came first, then how was there spontaneous creation without the laws of gravity and quantum theory?
    3) If the laws of gravity and quantum theory came first, then Hawking has merely substituted God with quantum theory and laws of gravity. These two together can be called Hawking’s “Unconscious God”. Therefore we can legitimately ask the question: Who, or what, created Hawking’s unconscious God?
    Not only this, but there are other problems also. If the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes spontaneously appearing from nothing, then initially there was nothing. Then wherefrom appear those laws of gravity and quantum theory to allow universes appearing spontaneously from nothing? In which container were those two laws of nature?
    Now regarding the M-theory: I have already written something on multiverse theory (not yet published anywhere). There I have come to the conclusion that if there are an infinite number of universes, then only within that infinite number of universes there will certainly be at least one universe in which life will emerge. If the number of universes is only 10 to the power 500, then it is very much unlikely that any one of them will support life, because no universe will know which set of values the other universes have already taken, and if everything is left on chance, then there is every probability that all the universes will take only those set of values that will not support life. There will be no mechanism that will prevent any universe from taking the same set of values that have already been taken by other universes. There will be no mechanism that will take an overview of all the universes already generated, and seeing that in none of them life has actually emerged will move the things in such a way that at least one universe going to be generated afterwards will definitely get the value of the parameters just right for the emergence of life. Only in case of an infinite number of universes this problem will not be there. This is because if we subtract 10 to the power 500 from infinity, then also we will get infinity. If we subtract infinity from infinity, still then we will be left with infinity. So we are always left with an infinite number of universes out of which in at least one universe life will definitely emerge. Therefore if M-theory shows that it can possibly have 10 to the power 500 number of solutions, and that thus there might be 10 to the power 500 number of universes in each of which physical laws would be different, then it is really a poor theory, because it cannot give us any assurance that life will certainly emerge in at least one universe. So instead of M-theory we need another theory that will actually have an infinite number of solutions.

    • http://www.keenerliving.com/ Bruce Keener

      Hello Udaybhanu,
      Thank you for your comment.

      I’m at a bit of a loss with your suggestion that 10^500 universes is insufficient in number for one of the universes to have properties that support life. 10^500 is an incredibly large number … for example, there are “only about 10^85 atoms in the known universe, and even that number is almost beyond imagination.

      As to creation “mechanisms,” I think there is still a lot of “new physics” that we have to discover and understand. We are geared to thinking in terms of cause and effect (our survival depended on it as we evolved to our current state), but it is not clear that cause and effect apply at the creation “moment” and “before” that … that is, it is not clear that the “arrow of time” was built into the universe, although it probably arose within the Planck time or “shortly thereafter.” While some say time existed before the Big Bang, others say that the Big Bang created time (actually space-time). We still need to determine which.

      I’m not sure there are actual infinities in nature, so I am not convinced that we need an M-theory that has an infinite number of solutions. 10^500 seems “pretty infinite” to me.

      Again, thank you for the comment. Good food for thought.
      Bruce

  • Udaybhanu Chitrakar

    In “The Grand Design” Hawking has really messed up things. In his earlier book “A Brief History of Time” he advocated a no-boundary model. According to this model the universe will have no beginning and no end, it would simply be. It means that the universe has never begun, it was always there. Only that it has gone through unending cycles of expansion and contraction, but it has never completely died down. When the universe has come to a zero size after a contraction, all the physical laws of the earlier universe remained intact. From there the universe has again started a new life. But this beginning cannot be said to be an absolute beginning, and this beginning should not be confused with the beginning of a universe practically from nothing due to a vacuum energy fluctuation in a void. The latter beginning can be called an absolute beginning, because in this case there will be no pre-history, no prior universe that has left its seed at its demise. In “The Grand Design” Hawking has never said that he has abandoned his earlier model. Rather he has written in one place that in no boundary model the universe will have no beginning. Or if it was having a beginning, then that beginning was governed by the laws of science and does not need to be set in motion by some god. This generation of the universe cannot be called a spontaneous generation from nowhere, because the seed of the universe was already there. Therefore a scientist who is advocating the no-boundary model cannot at the same time say that as because there is a law such as gravity, so the universe can and will create itself from nothing. A universe that would simply be cannot again pop into existence from nothing. So it is presumed that Hawking in his book “The Grand Design” has mixed up two distinct models of cosmology that try to explain origin of the universe:
    1) The no-boundary model,
    2) The popping-up model.
    In case of no-boundary model we will not raise any question regarding the origin of the physical laws that will govern the beginning of the universe, because all those laws will already be there in the seed of the universe. But in case of popping-up model we will ask just those questions. Whence appeared those laws that governed its beginning? In case of no-boundary model we will rather question the validity of the model itself. This model is valid only if time is imaginary, not only at the beginning of the universe, but throughout its life, from beginning to end, because Hawking himself has written in “A Brief History of Time” that if at any point of its past history the universe had entered from imaginary time into real time, then there would be a singularity, and all the laws of science would break down there. Scientists will also be at a loss to specify as to how the universe began its course. Here is a quote from Hawking’s book: “…the universe could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries or singularities. When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.” Here he is admitting that we live in real time and that in real time there will be singularities. Only in imaginary time there will be no boundaries or singularities. Then he goes on to suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the real time, and that what we call real time is just a figment of our imagination. So as per Hawking himself the no-boundary model is a valid model so long time is imaginary, not real. Imaginary time behaves just like space, and so in imaginary time the universe instead of having three dimensions of space and one dimension of time will have only four dimensions of space and no time dimension. If imaginary time is another dimension of space, and if present time is imaginary time, then present time must also exhibit all the characteristics of space. Time is imaginary means we can go back to the earlier periods of our life if we wish. But I can go back to the place where I have spent my childhood days, but that does not mean that I can go back to my childhood period also. So there is no evidence that present time is imaginary time. If present time is real time, then as per Hawking there was a singularity in the past, and therefore this present universe was having an absolute beginning. But Hawking proposed the no-boundary model in order to eliminate this singularity at the beginning of the universe, and if singularity again comes back, then there is no reason for upholding that model any more.
    Perhaps the most serious objection that can be raised against no-boundary model is this: Even if it is conceded that in no-boundary model beginning of the universe will be governed by known laws of science, still one thing is sure and certain in this scenario. Beginning of any universe can never be governed by its own laws, because a universe that has not yet come into existence cannot have any laws in it. Its beginning can only be governed by physical laws left by the universe just prior to it. If what I have said here is correct, then how could Hawking apply quantum gravitational law and Feynman’s sum over histories at the beginning of our universe? So how could he say that there would be no singularity at the beginning? How did he come to know that the physical laws left by the earlier universe just prior to ours were exact replica of the laws of our universe?