Comments on: Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One

By: Coast to Coast | Cosmic Variance

Coast to Coast | Cosmic Variance — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:02:25 +0000

[...] Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One [...]

By: simoshka

simoshka — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:13:53 +0000

Oops, the link didnâ€™t work. Here it is again if anybody still cares:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-10/000767.html

By: simoshka

simoshka — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:51:48 +0000

There is a recent review of Vilenkin’s book written by the founder of Autodesk, Inc. John Walker and posted in Switzerland. I found this review EXTREMELY INTERESTING and informative. Here is the link:
Fourmilog: None Dare Call It Reason: Reading List: Many Worlds in One

By: The Trouble With Physics | Cosmic Variance

The Trouble With Physics | Cosmic Variance — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:12:18 +0000

[...] It is perhaps not surprising that there has been a backlash against string theory. Lee Smolin’s The Trouble With Physics is a paradigmatic example, along with Peter Woit’s new book Not Even Wrong. Both books were foreshadowed by Roger Penrose’s massive work, The Road to Reality. But string theorists have not been silent; several years ago, Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe was a surprise bestseller, and more recently Leonard Susskind’s The Cosmic Landscape has focused on the opportunities presented by a theory with 10500 different phases. Alex Vilenkin’s Many Worlds in One also discusses the multiverse, and Lisa Randall’s Warped Passages enthuses over the possibility of extra dimensions of spacetime â€“ while Lawrence Krauss’s Hiding in the Mirror strikes a skeptical note. Perhaps surprisingly, these books have not been published by vanity presses â€“ there is apparently a huge market for popular discussions of the problems and prospects of string theory and related subjects. [...]

By: Plato

Plato — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 00:51:31 +0000

simoshka,

Yes I did indeed copy your link, to the book on “your reference” to Vilenken.

I just purchased Lee Smolins “What’s the troube with physics” so I am going through that slowly. I will definitiely have a look. Yours and others who gave good comments, are encouraging.

Thank you

By: simoshka

simoshka — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:22:48 +0000

Plato,
I did buy the book and almost finished it already. I would strongly recommend you to do the same. Itâ€™s a wonderful book, a delight to read, it is very different from all other pop-physics books I ever read. Vilenkin is a very good writer, he writes in a literary language which is normally reserved for fiction. He does not give you all the answers immediately, so you are interested in what is coming next. He is also witty and illustrates his text with great cartoons. His book presents the whole picture of the Universe, not just Anthropic arguments, and all pieces of the puzzle fit remarkably well. (If you are specifically interested in anthropic discussion, there is a great piece from the book on Edge.com, I put the link in my previous post).
For some unknown reason (to me!) the book didnâ€™t attract a lot of attention; it doesnâ€™t get exposure and publicity it deserves in my view, it has practically no reviews in the press. There are 8 reviews from readers on Amazon, all gave the book 5 stars, well justified. In short you will never regret spending 15 bucks for such a wonderful reading, itâ€™s truly a BARGAIN!

By: Plato

Plato — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:13:19 +0000

By implcation, we can say a lot?

By: Plato

Plato — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:39:57 +0000

While I have not read the book either I am still “drawn to the debate” about what the “anthropic reasoning” is talking about at a fundamental level?

So as a layman I am curious too ,about views here and what the basis could lead too, in terms of what our universe had become?

If “carbon” wasn’t present at the beginning, then how would you explain “our universe?”

By: simoshka

simoshka — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 05:10:38 +0000

O-regions are NOT spatially infinite. Itâ€™s just a sphere with radius equal to the cosmic horizon. Itâ€™s finite by definition but each â€œisland universeâ€ contains an infinite number of them. I recently found a very clear explanation by Vilenkin himself on Edge.org. Here is the link:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/vilenkin06/vilenkin06_index.html. You might also find it helpful.

By: Don Severs

Don Severs — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:12:14 +0000

Can anyone elucidate this key point that Vilenkin doesn’t explain: Why are his O-regions spatially infinite? How can there be an infinite amount of matter in them? These traits are central to his claim that there are a finite number of histories, thus an infinite number of copies of those histories.

By: Don Severs

Don Severs — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:05:47 +0000

I don’t see any difference between extrapolating from the observable universe to the multiverse and extrapolating from the observed universe to the observable universe. Both involve guesswork and are still valuable. I admired Vilenkin’s courage in going so far afield from empirical physics, just to see what he could learn. I think his investigations are extremely fruitful, particularly in identifying limiting cases and flaws in prevalent ideas.

By: Jeffsan

Jeffsan — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:18:41 +0000

Re Euguene’s and Another Amanda’s posts (# 5 & 6) on making conclusions re the unobservable from the observable, Einstein made an insightful and amusing comment in a letter to Willem de Sitter in 1917. It was at the time when Einstein had just developed his cosmological solution to the GR field equations and had introduced his cosmological constant to keep his model universe static. He admitted to de Sitter “I have erected but a lofty castle in the air”, noting that his model was untestable by observation. He wrote: “I compare the space to a cloth floating (at rest) in the air, a certain part of which we can observe. This part is slightly curved similarly to a small section of a sphere’s surface. We philosophize on how we must construe the continuation of the cloth so that an equilibrium is reached in its tangential tension, whether it is fastened in position at the edges, extends infinitely, or has a finite size and is a closed unit. Heine has provided the answer in a poem: ‘And a fool waits for an answer.’ So let us be satisfied and not expect an answer…” De Sitter replied “Well, if you do not want to impose your conception on reality, then we are in agreement.” But he ended up arguing with Einstein and hated the cosmological constant. Thought you’d enjoy this historical tidbit.

By: simoshka

simoshka — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:12:58 +0000

Thank you very much, Mark. Youâ€™ve convinced me 100%, I am getting the book. I do appreciate you taking time to respond. After all itâ€™s a totally trivial and insignificant issue.

By: Delia

Delia — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:04:04 +0000

Speaking of reviews, I thought Lubos Motl’s review on Amazon.com was very interesting and quite funny too. Although Motl is a strong opponent of anthropic reasoning, he says that Vilenkin’s book is clearly written, very entertaining and worthy of a 5 star rating!

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:02:32 +0000

I don’t have much time to answer today, but I would say it is pretty well written, and that it is enjoyable because the writing is succinct, explaining the concepts in a clear and economical way. I enjoyed it and think you might.

I think review have just been slow coming out - I know a number are in the works at various publications.

By: simoshka

simoshka — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 03:43:02 +0000

I think I did a poor job explaining myself.
Apart from general subject of particle physics/cosmology, I donâ€™t care much about bookâ€™s specific contents, and since I donâ€™t (and wonâ€™t) read scientific articles, â€œold newsâ€ for you are â€œnew newsâ€ for me. I wasnâ€™t trying to find out what is in the book but rather if itâ€™s a GOOD book, an INTERESTING book, a book that is enjoyable reading. I failed because of â€˜on one handâ€™ vs. â€˜on the other handâ€™ problem. So, I am asking a slightly more general question: if the book is really good, why there is not a SINGLE review and nobody even mentions it in the media? I read only few pop science books but they all had reviews, radio shows, etc., and they were not particularly good or well written. Does anybody have an explanation or a clue? What does Mark think? After all, he read it. Thank you.

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:22:04 +0000

simoshka,

Many posters here are insiders who regularly read scientific articles. By the time some scientist writes a popular book, the contents are “old news”. If you’ve read the reviews you can pretty much guess what’s in the book.

There are actually two articles by Vilenkin that are accessible to lay people:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302071

By: island

island — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:01:19 +0000

I personally think that you can learn a lot from Alexander Vilenkin, so a popular book should be good. As far as which *cosmology* is “right” or wrong, this is yet to be determined, possibly to be decided by a complete theory of quantum gravity or a theory of everything.

Until that happens, all assumptions are supposed to be subject to suspect review, given new physics, and regardless of popular opinion. Even then, a less complex or more accurate representation will be, more-”right”.

By: simoshka

simoshka — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:06:32 +0000

Dear Mark and blog participants,
Iâ€™ve never written anything on the Internet, never mind to a blog. In fact, this is the first blog, Iâ€™ve ever READ in my life. I canâ€™t evaluate physics in the book and participate in the discussion whether the authorâ€™s scientific theories are right, or his assumptions are correct, etc. - I am not qualifiedâ€¦ I am simply trying to decide whether to BUY this book, whether itâ€™s interesting to read, and will I learn something new without being BORED to death (I was with Brian Greeneâ€™s greatest bestseller on Earth).
Iâ€™ve noticed a strange phenomenon that I want to offer for discussion and get some of your feedback. Here are my observations.
On one hand:
1) All 8 â€˜Readersâ€™ Reviewsâ€™ on Amazon gave it 5 stars - 100% rating. You donâ€™t see that very often. 2) Mark, who wrote this thorough and very interesting review, â€˜liked this book very muchâ€™. 3) Christine Dantas (thanks for the link, island!) found it a â€˜fascinating readingâ€™. (She also thinks that the front cover is â€˜outstandingâ€™ which is kind of funny).
But on the other hand:
1) It looks like other blog participants never read it â€“ not a good sign; 2) Very few people read â€˜Readersâ€™ Reviewsâ€™ on Amazon as well; 3) Amazon Sales Rank is next to zero â€“ nobody buys it; 4) This book does not have any reviews in the news media, not even one â€“ forget about New York Times, Washington Post, Times, Newsweek, any other major paper or magazine. But where are reviews in Scientific American, Discover Magazine, Physics Today, at least?
I read Lisa Randallâ€™s book several months ago. Itâ€™s a good, well-written book. Before I bought it I researched it on the Internet as well. It has plenty of coverage in the press: reviews in New York Times, New Yorker, Newsweek and Boston Globe, to mention a few; over 3 HUNDRED clicks on readersâ€™ â€˜Spotlight Reviewsâ€™ on Amazon. I can and Boston Globe, to mention a few; over 3 HUNDRED clicks on readersâ€™ â€˜Spotlight Reviewsâ€™ on Amazon. I can go on… If Vilenkinâ€™s book is so interesting, why nobody even mentions it or talks about it? How can a layman decide if he is like me interested in science? I donâ€™t understand this phenomenon but may be you do. I found plenty of coverage for other physics books, e.g. Smolinâ€™s â€œThe Trouble With Physicsâ€, Woitâ€™s â€œNot Even Wrongâ€ or Primackâ€™s â€œThe View from the Center of the Universeâ€. Shall I buy one of them instead? What do you think?

By: island

island — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:29:13 +0000

Yeah, but what’s even worse is that law of morons: People that don’t know didley squat about whtat they’re looking at, but think that they can differentiate a crackpot from adam, without any support whatsoever for their lame statements.

I think it’s about numer 2 in the crackpot index.