Question to Weinberg: On Believing in Multiple Universes and Religious Faith
Gingerich: Steve, here’s a final question for you. You completely
reject any notion of a divine designer, but on what basis beyond faith can you
justify the idea of multiple universes being more valid?
Weinberg: Oh, I thought I had answered that but I would be happy to
say it again. I don’t maintain that that idea is true. I mean, that is a
possibility that has emerged and it remains a possibility. When I become
convinced of its truth, it will be because the equations of physics that unify
the various forces - quantum mechanics, relativity, all that - have that as a
consequence. It won’t be an act of faith. It will be a deduction from laws
which we, unfortunately, at present don’t know. Now you may say that it is an
act of faith because we will not be able to observe these other Big Bangs, or
these other terms in the wave function. But that’s the fate that science has
been in for a long time. We don’t really observe quarks and we never will see
the track of a quark. And yet we believe in quarks because the theories that
have quarks in them work. And in the same way, if we come to that - and we have
not yet come to that - we will believe in these other Big Bangs or these other
terms in the wave function because the theories in which they appear work.
Gingerich: ... Ladies and gentlemen, let me just remind you ... that this
is the very room in which in April of 1920 the very famous Shapley/Curtis
debate on the scale of the universe took place; a debate that has gone down in
astronomical lore ever sense. And I think you have been very lucky to have been
present at this debate today which I suspect will also assume mythic
proportions.
Contributed by: Sir John Polkinghorne and Steven
Weinberg
|
