Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Georgina Woodward: on 3/3/17 at 21:41pm UTC, wrote To make that clearer- An observer can move with the clock and the light...

Georgina Woodward: on 3/1/17 at 23:30pm UTC, wrote And as well as the category error mentioned there is another logical error ...

Georgina Woodward: on 3/1/17 at 1:35am UTC, wrote Category error.

Thomas Ray: on 3/1/17 at 1:05am UTC, wrote Nah. Relativity is a physical theory, not a philosophical trope.

Georgina Woodward: on 3/1/17 at 0:10am UTC, wrote With a category error.

Thomas Ray: on 2/28/17 at 21:02pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, I am compelled to agree. Relativity lives and dies by...

Pentcho Valev: on 2/28/17 at 18:20pm UTC, wrote Einsteinians Want Granular Spacetime Sabine Hossenfelder: "...hints at a...

Robert McEachern: on 2/21/17 at 15:21pm UTC, wrote "As preposterous as it sounds, the idea is largely grounded in accepted...


alex: "bạn đang tìm một địa chỉ bán các dòng máy photocopy RIcoh..." in Wrinkles in Spacetime

Gary Simpson: "Lorraine & Eckard, Why, I was completely unaware of my acronym ... gee,..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Lorraine Ford: "P.S. Ethics is just an exercise in window dressing if reality is such..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

James Putnam: "Sears and Zemansky 13th ed. Summary of Chapter ! (page 26): "Physical..." in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Isent this email: March 25, 2017 Ref: Simple reality Dear..." in Bohemian Reality:...

Steve Agnew: "These are operational definitions just as S&Z state in the 13th Ed. just..." in Alternative Models of...

jay grey: "Thanks for the link, I believe it will be very useful for personal..." in Santa Barbara Gravity...

Joe Fisher: "Attempting to account for complex finite invisible particles will not help..." in Bohemian Reality:...

click titles to read articles

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

March 29, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Review of “A Big Bang in a Little Room: The Quest to Create New Universes” by Zeeya Merali [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Ian Durham wrote on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 16:51 GMT
In all the talk of the multiverse that gets tossed around these days, there's a subtle but important point that is often lost: there are really two completely different notions of a multiverse. What one thinks of when someone utters the word "multiverse" likely depends on whether one is most influenced by cosmology or by quantum physics. To the latter, the multiverse is typically viewed in the context of the Everett-DeWitt interpretation of quantum mechanics in which every process that includes more than one possible outcome, leads to a bifurcation of the universe in which the process occurred, into multiple universes, one for each possible outcome of the process. In such a multiverse (whose core idea is due more to DeWitt than Everett), everything that can happen, will happen.

In the inflationary multiverse, each "universe" is really a patch of space that becomes isolated due to eternal inflation. This is subtly different than the Everett-DeWitt model which suggests an actual bifurcation of reality. As it turns out, the difference could also have ethical and moral implications, some of which are discussed in Zeeya Merali's new book A Big Bang in a Little Room: The Quest to Create New Universes (Basic Books, 2017; $27.99).

Merali's book explores the quest by some physicists to produce new, "baby" universes in a lab. As preposterous as it sounds, the idea is largely grounded in accepted physics, though does remain highly speculative. In an Everett-DeWitt model, new universes are constantly being created ad infinitum as we blithely go about our day. There appears to be little we could do to affect change in any branching universe within this multiverse model. On the other hand, the inflationary universe model of the multiverse holds the promise of intentionally planning the creation of a baby universe which raises the thorny question of whether we would be responsible for the suffering of any living beings produced in that universe. We would, to some extent, be playing God.

These and other issues are tackled head-on in Merali's book, but in an engaging and subtle manner. The book is largely constructed from a series of interviews with physicists around the globe who are either actively thinking about how to create baby universes or who played a role in the development of inflationary theory. As someone who has been interviewed by Merali multiple times, I can personally attest to her ability to make the interviewee feel at ease and this sense clearly comes across in the book. Interviews are more like discussions with Zeeya.

One get’s the sense, though, that this project was less about writing a book and more about her own quest to more fully understand the universe. At times, one gets the impression that she is wrestling with some deeply personal questions. Far from detracting from the narrative, however, I think it adds to the human aspect of the story.

I did have a few minor quibbles here and there, but Merali is an accomplished scientist herself having received her PhD in physics from Brown University under noted cosmologist Robert Brandenberger, and so some of my quibbles might be considered "professional differences." In all, it was an enjoyable book that addressed an exciting area of modern physics research in a thought-provoking way. For anyone interested in the "big questions," this book is essential reading since it deals with perhaps the biggest question of all: can we—should we—humble human beings create a universe?

A Big Bang in a Little Room: The Quest to Create New Universes is available to buy here.

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 16:54 GMT
Thank you Ian for those lovely words! The book includes interviews with many FQXi members and other eminent scientists, so I hope that there is plenty here for our community members to enjoy.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 18:48 GMT
Hello Mr Durham,Zeeya,

It is a beautiful article.These multiverses are more subtil than we imagine considering many paramters.It is even intriguing when we correlate with the singularities, the souls and the uniquenss.Thanks for sharing.

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 18:58 GMT
Thanks Steve.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 15:26 GMT
You are welcome Zeeya,

I like these mathematical extrapolations because the subjectivity and objectivity can converge considering that earch we can create our own universe Inside the universe and the multiverse returning towards this uniqueness considering the quantum singularities and main gravitational codes turning aroung a king of matjematical physical complex cosmological singularity.The central BH in my model.It is intriguing when we insert the spherical volumes for these singularities and we extraopolate with multiverses,multispheres for me I see it like that.We have many roads of analyses, subjectives and objectives for the quantum scale and the cosm scale.The fact to have different spherical volumes for the central singularity for the different universes imply that we have different gravitational aether Inside this universe.Wowww the combinations are incredible for both electromagnetic and gravit forces in each closed evolutive system.In all case the spherisation by encoding is foundamental in all universes.The relevance is to correlate thje constants like c with these volumes for example.If all this is correct, mr tegmark has made a relevant work.Because when we consider that all we have a road Inside all these universal sphères Inside the main sphere, and that our central main mathematical physical codes, our souls is correlated, it is incredible the combinations.I am intrigued by these multiverses multispheres about this main centyral biggest singularity.If Mr Tegmark is right, so our central BH is not the main central sphere of God if I can say.The imagination appears to be infinite in its intuitive extrapolation.We can create so for our singular soul, our own universe if we go still farer with this singularity.It is crazy in fact this universal mechanic.Wowww

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 15:38 GMT
At the begining, several years ago ,I didn't understand well this multiverses.Now Of course in strudying on this Platform since many years,I see better this generality.I didn't understand this problem of uniquenss if I can say.But now after all when we consider these spherical volulmes for the centyral mathematical physical singularities ,thazt becomes very relevant considering these multispheres because we have a central main singularity at all this system.That permits to ask ourself better asks about the center where all has began in our model of Big Bang to make simple.If we insert these volumes and this matter not baryonic ,we can have better answer for our central singularity but also a road for the others spherical volumes of others singularities of others universal sphères.If I correlate with the encoding and the spherisation, so the fact that matters evolves and encode, so we can even extrapolate the different electromagnetic and gravitational systems for each universes.Where is this singularity,entropical, the main center ?in our universal sphere or no? The other relevance is to correlate with the body soul mind problem and this quantum gravitation more this subjective analyse of own universe where intentions and souls could converge.It is fascinating considering that main entropy is infinite in its potential.You imagine the kinetic distribution with these spherical volumes ? wowwww wowww wowww very relevant .

report post as inappropriate

MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 12:02 GMT
Dear Zeeya Merali

Why we need another universe ( or univereseS) created by Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

1. For writting new papers to Phys. Rev. Letters ?

2. To play one game in town

3. To find that Old Creator maked the faults?

My answae is


2. 3%

3. 2%..

To the point I cite David Bohm

In some sense man is a microcosmos of the Universe therefore what man is, is a clue to the Universe. We are enfolded in the Universe

David Bohm

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 16:40 GMT
Peter Woit defines "Fake Physics" and gives examples:

Fake Physics

Here is some elaboration:

A Big Bang in a Little Room

Yet what Peter Woit describes are metastases, not the Original Malignancy. Here it is, presented by Neil deGrasse Tyson as "a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order":

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 15:21 GMT
"As preposterous as it sounds, the idea is largely grounded in accepted physics..."

That ought to be viewed as an indictment of "accepted physics", rather than as support for the hypothesis.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 18:20 GMT
Einsteinians Want Granular Spacetime

Sabine Hossenfelder: "...hints at a deeper truth: that space-time is made of small elements whose collective motion gives rise to the force we call gravity. In this case, gravity would not be a truly fundamental phenomenon, but an emergent one."

My comment in Forbes:

This "deeper truth" is not even wrong. Spacetime is not an ab initio model that one can modify (by introducing granularity for instance). It is a CONSEQUENCE of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, and if the consequence is unsatisfactory, the postulate must be false (logic forbids the combination "true postulate, wrong consequence"):

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 21:02 GMT

I am compelled to agree. Relativity lives and dies by mathematical completeness.

It is complete, however.


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 00:10 GMT
With a category error.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 01:05 GMT
Nah. Relativity is a physical theory, not a philosophical trope.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 01:35 GMT
Category error.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'R' and 'T':

Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.