Putting God Back in the Universe?

One evening more than 70 years ago, in a small village in Hungary, my grandfather turned to his mother, pointed toward the night sky and said: "One of these days humans will walk on the moon." My great-grandmother, a deeply religious women, was totally shaken by what she just heard and uttered: "You are sinning, George." She bowed her head and repeatedly crossed herself. Unfortunately, just like my great-grandmother, people too often become prisoners of their beliefs and are afraid to explore.

In contrast, Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace pushes ideas to the limit with theories about parallel universes, time warps, and higher dimensions. If you are a scientist, you should have no problem grasping all of the material. My physics background is limited; consequently, I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing Quantum, String, or multidimensional theories outlined in Kaku's book. But a smaller portion of his book is devoted to the beginning and the end of the universe and humanity's achievements. That's the part I will concentrate on. Much of what you will hear is excerpts from Kaku's book Hyperspace.

But first let's touch on the creation story from Genesis I: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. In Genesis 20 God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky... The story goes on and on...

Creation is spelled out for Believers who have their roots in the Old Testament. For others, the Big Bang theory is the only logical beginning. Out of this turmoil anthropic principles were born. Kaku believes there is some scientific merit to the anthropic principle, which revolves around the indisputable fact that if the physical constants of the universe were altered by the smallest amount, life in the universe would be impossible. Is this remarkable fact just a fortunate coincidence? Or does it show the work of some Supreme Being?

There are two versions of the anthropic principle. The "weak" version states that the fact that intelligent life (us) exists in the universe should be taken as an experimental fact that helps us understand the constants of the universe. As Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg explains, "the world is the way it is, at least in part, because otherwise there would be no one to ask why it is the way it is." Stated in this way, the weak version of the anthropic principle is hard to argue with.

To have life in the universe, you need a rare conjunction of many coincidences. Life, which depends on a variety of complex biochemical reactions, can easily be made impossible if we change some of the constants of chemistry and physics by a small amount. The very fact that we exist in the universe to ask these questions about it means that a complex sequence of events must necessarily have happened. It means that the physical constants of nature must have a certain range of values, so that the stars lived long enough to create the heavy elements in our bodies, so that protons don't decay too rapidly before life has a chance to germinate, and so on. In other words, the existence of humans who can ask questions about the universe places a huge number of rigid constraints on the physics of the universe - for example, its age, its chemical composition, its temperature, its size, and its physical processes.

Remarking on the cosmic coincidences, physicist Freeman Dyson once wrote, "As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming." This takes us to the "strong" version of the anthropic principle, which states that all the physical constants of the universe have been precisely chosen (by God or some Supreme Being) so that life is possible in our universe. The strong version, because it raises questions about a deity, is much more controversial among scientists.

Conceivably, it might have been blind luck if only a few constants of nature were required to assume certain values to make life possible. However, it appears that a large set of physical constants must assume a narrow band of values in order for life to form in our universe. Since accidents of this type are highly improbable, perhaps a divine intelligence (God) precisely chose those values in order to create life.

When scientists first hear of some version of the anthropic principle, they are immediately taken aback. Physicist Heinz Pagels recalled, "Here was a form of reasoning completely foreign to the usual way that theoretical physicists went about heir business."

The anthropic argument is a more sophisticated version of the old arguments that God located the earth at just the right distance from the sun. If God had placed the earth too close, then it would be too hot to support life. If God had placed the earth too far, then it would be too cold. The fallacy of this argument is that millions of planets in the galaxy probably are sitting at the incorrect distance from their sun, and therefore life on them is impossible. However, some planets will, by pure accident, be at the right distance from their sun. Our planet is one of them, and hence we are here to discuss the question.

Eventually, most scientists become disillusioned with the anthropic principle because it has no predictive power, nor can it be tested. Pagels reluctantly concluded that "unlike the principles of physics, it affords no way to determine whether it is right or wrong; there is no way to test subject to experimental falsification-the sure sign that it is not a scientific principle." Physicist Alan Guth says bluntly, "Emotionally, the principle is something that people do if they can't think of anything better to do."

To Richard Feynman, the goal of a theoretical physicist is to "prove yourself wrong as fast as possible." However, the anthropic principle is sterile and cannot be disproved. Or, as Weinberg said, "although science is clearly impossible without scientists, it is not clear that the universe is impossible without science."

===============

Will we ever be able to prove these theories?

Technology expands exponentially, which is difficult for our minds to comprehend. To understand how fast exponential growth is, imagine a bacterium that splits in half every 30 minutes. If its growth is unimpeded, then within a few weeks this single bacterium will produce a colony that will weigh as much as the entire planet earth.

Although humans have existed on this planet for perhaps 2 million years, the rapid climb to modern civilization within the last 200 years was possible due to the fact that the growth of scientific knowledge is exponential; that is, its rate of expansion is proportional to how much is already known. The more we know, the faster we can know more. We have amassed more knowledge since World War II than all the knowledge amassed in our 2-million-year evolution on this planet. In fact, the amount of knowledge that our scientists gain doubles approximately every 10 to 20 years.

From an energy point of view, for about 99.99% of the existence of humanity on this planet, the technological level of our species was only one step above that of animals. When humans roamed the earth in small bands, hunting and foraging for food, the basic energy source was the power of our own hands, about one-eighth of a horsepower. The discovery of nuclear force within the past 60 years has increased the power available to a single human by a factor of a million or more. We have developed tools to search for life beyond our planet.

For decades we have scanned all sun-like star systems but have found no traces of radio emissions from intelligent life. The puzzle deepens when we realize that the probability of intelligent life emerging with our galaxy is surprisingly large. Drake derived a simple equation to calculate the number of planets with intelligent life forms in the galaxy. Our galaxy contains about 200 billion stars. To get a ballpark figure for the number of stars with intelligent life forms, we can make the following very crude estimate. We can be conservative and say that 10% of these stars are yellow stars much like the sun, that 10% of those have planets orbiting them, that 10% of those have earthlike planets orbiting them, that 10% of those have earthlike atmospheres with life forms growing in them, and, finally, 10% of those have some form of intelligent life. This implies that a staggering 200,000 stars will have planets harboring some form of intelligent life and may be as close as 15 light-years from our sun.

Planets are subject to constant bombardment. Our planet has been relatively protected; others may not fare as well. The gravitational pull of Jupiter-like planets is essential to sweep out swarms of comets and debris that would eventually hit earthlike planets. Without Jupiter-like planets comets would hit earthlike planets about 1,000 times more frequently than they do in reality, making a life-destroying impact every 100,000 years or so. Thus in a compelling (but certainly not rigorous) conclusion that the laws of probability favor the presence of other intelligence within the galaxy. The fact that our galaxy is perhaps 10 billion years old means that there has been ample time for scores of intelligent life forms to have flourished within it. Yet we have been unable to detect signs of intelligent life out to 100 light-years from our planet. Maybe Drake's equation predicts intelligent life forms that existed millions of years before us, or will exist millions of years after us.

Our solar system is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life started on the earth about 3 to 4 billion years ago, but only within the past million years has intelligent life developed on the planet (and only within the past few decades has this civilization built radio stations capable of sending signals into outer space). However, 1 million years, on the time scale of billions of years, is but an instant of time. It is reasonable to assume that thousands of advanced civilizations existed before our distant ancestors even left the forest and have since perished, or that thousands more civilizations will develop long after ours has died. Either way, we would not be able to detect them via our instruments.

Another theory holds that there are advanced forms of civilizations, which conceal their existence. They may be millions of light years ahead of us and we would mean nothing to them. Historically and unfortunately, the meeting of two unequal civilizations has often had catastrophic implications for the weaker one. So it is not surprising that some Scientists scanning the heavens for life would prefer not to make contact.

While we continue the search for life beyond our planet, humanity speculates about the inevitable.

Robert Frost wrote: Some say the world will end in fire. Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire, I hold with those who favor fire.

The Aztecs believed that the end of the world would come when the sun one day falls from the sky. They foretold that this would come "when the Earth has become tired..., when the seed of Earth has ended." Perhaps they were close to the truth.

Billions of years from now, there will be a last perfect day on Earth... The arctic and Antarctic icecaps will melt, flooding the coasts of the world. The high oceanic temperatures will release more water vapor into the air, increasing cloudiness, shielding the Earth from sunlight and delaying the end a little. But solar evolution is inexorable. Eventually the oceans will boil, the atmosphere will evaporate away to space and a catastrophe of the most immense proportions imaginable will overtake our planet. Our sun is a middle-aged star. When it exhausts its supply of hydrogen several billion of years from now, it will burn helium, become vastly inflated - a red giant, its atmosphere will extend out to the orbit of Mars, and the earth will evaporate in its orbit. One can hope that long before, humanity will have long since left the solar system.

Next, our galaxy and our nearest galactic neighbor, Andromeda, 2 million light-years away and 2-3 times larger than our own, are hurling toward each other at 125 km per second and should collide in 5-10 billion years.

Inevitably, all the stars will flicker out and we face the death of the universe itself. Either the universe is open, in which case it may expand forever until temperatures gradually reach near absolute zero or the universe is closed, which will cause the expansion to be reversed and the universe will die in a fiery Big Crunch.

Yogi Berra once said "It ain't over 'til it's over. I doubt that he was referring to the end of the universe. But the crux of the book Hyperspace is that our universe is one of several parallel universes, similar to sheets stacked on top of each other, connected through "wormholes" allowing us to escape to another universe.

===============
Historically, scientists have often been asked to debate the laws of nature with theologians. For example, the great British biologist Thomas Huxley was the foremost defender of Darwin's theory of natural selection against the church's criticisms in the late nineteenth century. Similarly, quantum physicists have appeared on radio debates with representatives of the Catholic Church concerning whether the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle negates free will, a question that may determine whether our souls will enter heaven or hell.

But scientists usually are reluctant to engage in theological debates about God and Creation. One problem is that "God" means many things to many people, and the use of loaded words full of unspoken, hidden symbolism only clouds the issue. To clarify, it is useful to distinguish carefully between two types of meanings for the word God - the God of Miracles and the God of Order.

When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. Most scientists, it is safe to say, believe that there is some form of cosmic Order in the universe. However, to the nonscientist, the word God almost universally refers to the God of Miracles, and this is the source of miscommunication between scientists and nonscientists. The God of Miracles intervenes in our affairs, performs miracles, destroys wicked cities, smites enemy armies, drowns the Pharaoh's troops, and avenges the pure and noble.

If scientists and nonscientists fail to communicate with each other over religious questions, it is because they are talking past each other, referring to entirely different Gods. This is because the foundation of science is based on observing reproducible events, but miracles, by definition, are not reproducible. They happen only once in a lifetime, if at all. Therefore, the God of Miracles is, in some sense, beyond what we know as science. This is not to say that miracles cannot happen, only that they are outside what is commonly called science.

Biologist Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University has puzzled over this question and asked whether there is any scientific reason why humans cling so fiercely to their religion. Even trained scientists, he found, who are usually perfectly rational about their scientific specialization, lapse into irrational arguments to defend their religion. Furthermore, he observes, religion has been used historically as a cover to wage hideous wars and perform unspeakable atrocities.

Religion, notes Wilson, is universally found in every human culture ever studied on earth. Anthropologists have found that all primitive tribes have an "origin" myth that explains where they came from. Furthermore, this mythology sharply separates "us" from "them," provides a cohesive (and often irrational) force that preserves the tribe, and suppresses divisive criticism of the leader.

Although the God of Order cannot give humanity a shared destiny or purpose, what Kaku finds most astonishing about this discussion is that we humans, who are just beginning our ascent up the technological scale, should be capable of making such audacious claims concerning the origin and fate of the universe.

Technologically, we are just beginning to leave the earth's gravitational pull; we have only begun to send crude probes to the outer planets. Yet imprisoned on our small planet, with only our minds and few instruments, we have been able to decipher the laws that govern matter billions of light-years away. With infinitesimally small resources, without even leaving the solar system, we have been able to determine what happens deep inside the nuclear furnaces of a star or inside the nucleus itself.

According to evolution, we are intelligent apes who have only recently left the trees, living on the third planet from a minor star, in a minor spiral arm of a minor galaxy, in a minor group of galaxies near the Virgo supercluster. If the inflation theory is correct, then our entire visible universe is but an infinitesimal bubble in a much larger cosmos. Even then, given the almost insignificant role that we play in the larger universe, it seems amazing that we should be capable of making the claim to have discovered the theory of everything.

Instead of being overwhelmed by the universe, Kaku thinks that perhaps one of the deepest experiences a scientist can have, almost approaching a religious awakening, is to realize that we are children of the stars, and that our minds are capable of understanding the universal laws that they obey. The atoms within our bodies were forged on the anvil on nucleosynthesis within an exploding star aeons before the birth of the solar system. Our atoms are older than the mountains. We are literally made of star dust. Now these atoms, in turn, have coalesced into intelligent beings capable of understanding the universal laws governing the event.

Let me wrap up by saying that on a cosmic scale, we are still awakening to the larger world around us. Yet the power of even our limited intellect is such that we can abstract the deepest secrets of nature.

Erika Blakely
7/22/01