Posted on 06/25/2017 9:53:55 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Zeeya Merali
is a freelance science writer and author of A Big Bang in a Little Room: The Quest to Create New Universes. Her work has appeared in Nature, Scientific American, Discover, Science, New Scientist, and on the BBC. She has also published two textbooks with National Geographic and has worked on NOVA's television series The Fabric of the Cosmos. She has a PhD in theoretical cosmology and lives in London.
Artwork illustrating the concept of an alternate bubble universe in which our universe (left) is not the only one. Some scientists think that bubble universes may pop into existence all the time, and occasionally nudge ours. NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)
Physicists arent often reprimanded for using risqué humour in their academic writings, but in 1991 that is exactly what happened to the cosmologist Andrei Linde at Stanford University. He had submitted a draft article entitled Hard Art of the Universe Creation to the journal Nuclear Physics B. In it, he outlined the possibility of creating a universe in a laboratory: a whole new cosmos that might one day evolve its own stars, planets and intelligent life. Near the end, Linde made a seemingly flippant suggestion that our Universe itself might have been knocked together by an alien physicist hacker. The papers referees objected to this dirty joke; religious people might be offended that scientists were aiming to steal the feat of universe-making out of the hands of God, they worried. Linde changed the papers title and abstract but held firm over the line that our Universe could have been made by an alien scientist. I am not so sure that this is just a joke, he told me.
Fast-forward a quarter of a century, and the notion of universe-making or cosmogenesis as I dub it seems less comical than ever. Ive travelled the world talking to physicists who take the concept seriously, and who have even sketched out rough blueprints for how humanity might one day achieve it. Lindes referees might have been right to be concerned, but they were asking the wrong questions. The issue is not who might be offended by cosmogenesis, but what would happen if it were truly possible. How would we handle the theological implications? What moral responsibilities would come with fallible humans taking on the role of cosmic creators?
Theoretical physicists have grappled for years with related questions as part of their considerations of how our own Universe began. In the 1980s, the cosmologist Alex Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts came up with a mechanism through which the laws of quantum mechanics could have generated an inflating universe from a state in which there was no time, no space and no matter. Theres an established principle in quantum theory that pairs of particles can spontaneously, momentarily pop out of empty space. Vilenkin took this notion a step further, arguing that quantum rules could also enable a minuscule bubble of space itself to burst into being from nothing, with the impetus to then inflate to astronomical scales. Our cosmos could thus have been burped into being by the laws of physics alone. To Vilenkin, this result put an end to the question of what came before the Big Bang: nothing. Many cosmologists have made peace with the notion of a universe without a prime mover, divine or otherwise.
At the other end of the philosophical spectrum, I met with Don Page, a physicist and evangelical Christian at the University of Alberta in Canada, noted for his early collaboration with Stephen Hawking on the nature of black holes. To Page, the salient point is that God created the Universe ex nihilo from absolutely nothing. The kind of cosmogenesis envisioned by Linde, in contrast, would require physicists to cook up their cosmos in a highly technical laboratory, using a far more powerful cousin of the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva. It would also require a seed particle called a monopole (which is hypothesised to exist by some models of physics, but has yet to be found).
The idea goes that if we could impart enough energy to a monopole, it will start to inflate. Rather than growing in size within our Universe, the expanding monopole would bend spacetime within the accelerator to create a tiny wormhole tunnel leading to a separate region of space. From within our lab we would see only the mouth of the wormhole; it would appear to us as a mini black hole, so small as to be utterly harmless. But if we could travel into that wormhole, we would pass through a gateway into a rapidly expanding baby universe that we had created. (A video illustrating this process provides some further details.)
We have no reason to believe that even the most advanced physics hackers could conjure a cosmos from nothing at all, Page argues. Lindes concept of cosmogenesis, audacious as it might be, is still fundamentally technological. Page, therefore, sees little threat to his faith. On this first issue, then, cosmogenesis would not necessarily upset existing theological views.
But flipping the problem around, I started to wonder: what are the implications of humans even considering the possibility of one day making a universe that could become inhabited by intelligent life? As I discuss in my book A Big Bang in a Little Room (2017), current theory suggests that, once we have created a new universe, we would have little ability to control its evolution or the potential suffering of any of its residents. Wouldnt that make us irresponsible and reckless deities? I posed the question to Eduardo Guendelman, a physicist at Ben Gurion University in Israel, who was one of the architects of the cosmogenesis model back in the 1980s. Today, Guendelman is engaged in research that could bring baby-universe-making within practical grasp. I was surprised to find that the moral issues did not cause him any discomfort. Guendelman likens scientists pondering their responsibility over making a baby universe to parents deciding whether or not to have children, knowing they will inevitably introduce them to a life filled with pain as well as joy.
Other physicists are more wary. Nobuyuki Sakai of Yamaguchi University in Japan, one of the theorists who proposed that a monopole could serve as the seed for a baby universe, admitted that cosmogenesis is a thorny issue that we should worry about as a society in the future. But he absolved himself of any ethical concerns today. Although he is performing the calculations that could allow cosmogenesis, he notes that it will be decades before such an experiment might feasibly be realised. Ethical concerns can wait.
Many of the physicists I approached were reluctant to wade into such potential philosophical quandaries. So I turned to a philosopher, Anders Sandberg at the University of Oxford, who contemplates the moral implications of creating artificial sentient life in computer simulations. He argues that the proliferation of intelligent life, regardless of form, can be taken as something that has inherent value. In that case, cosmogenesis might actually be a moral obligation.
Looking back on my numerous conversations with scientists and philosophers on these issues, Ive concluded that the editors at Nuclear Physics B did a disservice both to physics and to theology. Their little act of censorship served only to stifle an important discussion. The real danger lies in fostering an air of hostility between the two sides, leaving scientists afraid to speak honestly about the religious and ethical consequences of their work out of concerns of professional reprisal or ridicule.
We will not be creating baby universes anytime soon, but scientists in all areas of research must feel able to freely articulate the implications of their work without concern for causing offence. Cosmogenesis is an extreme example that tests the principle. Parallel ethical issues are at stake in the more near-term prospects of creating artificial intelligence or developing new kinds of weapons, for instance. As Sandberg put it, although it is understandable that scientists shy away from philosophy, afraid of being thought weird for veering beyond their comfort zone, the unwanted result is that many of them keep quiet on things that really matter.
As I was leaving Lindes office at Stanford, after wed spent a day riffing on the nature of God, the cosmos and baby universes, he pointed at my notes and commented ruefully: If you want to have my reputation destroyed, I guess you have enough material. This sentiment was echoed by a number of the scientists I had met, whether they identified as atheists, agnostics, religious or none of the above. The irony was that if they felt able to share their thoughts with each other as openly as they had with me, they would know that they werent alone among their colleagues in pondering some of the biggest questions of our being.
“In that case, cosmogenesis might actually be a moral obligation.” Really, by whose “morality?”
Where would you put it?
Can they make one without democrats?
How about in your thumbnail, like Larry Kroger in Animal House?
, by whose morality?
So what?
Even granting this, how would the universe of the alien that created our universe have come from?
The infinity of God is absolute. These ideas don’t bother me, and my relationship with God, one bit.
Instead of libs moving to Canada, we can just send them to the new universe where they can create their perfect utopia.
At least one scientist thought they’d ignite the atmosphere with the Trinity test. One day, they may conduct an experiment with an untested technology that has greater consequences.
“At least one scientist thought theyd ignite the atmosphere with the Trinity test.”
And yet, they went right ahead with the test. Someday, some experiment is gonna bite mankind in the a$$.
They already did, Welfare + Voting.
I wonder if these physicists deity would-Be’s have thought out the consequences of sparking a new universe? Would everything they see in this universe be sucked down the worm-hole with that monopole? I can see it. Some civilization in the future would have scientist talking about what happened to the planet Earth. They would be saying, “Let those Earth people be a lesson to why we must not play God. They got the ultimate Darwin Award!”
The people that can’t cure the common cold, can’t predict the weather two weeks in advance, do know what happened the first one trillionth of a second in the big bang.
We’ll put a spatially tessalated void inside a vacuum until a word develops intelligent life. Then we can introduce the people to eletricity which they’ll generate for us on a global scale.
I saw it on Rick and morty
Now try creating it without the lab.
I have a PhD in theoretical cosmetology, and I agree with every point in this article.
If everything they see in this universe was sucked down the worm-hole, how would the future scientists even know that planet earth even existed? In addition, if planet earth went down the hole, wouldn't it have taken the future scientists with it as well?
The people of the new universe would have time travel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.