- Email: [email protected]
The possibilities are endless
Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert/Getty
LEADERS
LOCATIONS USA 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Please direct telephone enquiries to our UK office +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 UK Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Australia Tower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067 Tel +61 2 9422 8559 Fax +61 2 9422 8552
Subscription Service For our latest subscription offers, visit newscientist.com/subscribe
The possibilities are endless
Customer and subscription services are also available by:
What if…? The multiverse can help us find the best answers
Telephone 1-888-822-3242 Email [email protected] Web newscientist.com/subscribe Mail New Scientist, PO Box 3806, Chesterfield, MO 63006-9953 USA One year subscription (51 issues) $154 cONTACTS Contact us newscientist.com/contact Who’s who newscientist.com/people General & media enquiries [email protected] Editorial Tel 781 734 8770 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Display advertising Tel 781 734 8770 [email protected] Recruitment advertising Tel 781 734 8770 [email protected] Newsstand Tel 212 237 7987 Distributed by Time/Warner Retail Sales and Marketing, 260 Cherry Hill Road, Parsippany, NJ 07054 Syndication Tribune Content Agency Tel 800 637 4082 © 2014 Reed Business Information Ltd, England. New Scientist ISSN 0262 4079 is published weekly except for the last week in December by Reed Business Information Ltd, England. New Scientist at Reed Business Information, c/o Schnell Publishing Co. Inc., 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451. Periodicals postage pending at Waltham, MA and other mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to New Scientist, PO Box 3806, Chesterfield, MO 63006-9953, USA. Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in USA by Fry Communications Inc, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
WE LIVE in the best of all possible worlds. So said Gottfried Leibniz in 1709. For him, this was the only explanation for why a loving, allpowerful and all-knowing god tolerated evil. Any attempt to improve our lot would backfire, making it still worse. The world was not perfect, but optimal; and Leibniz was its first optimist. His argument did not go unchallenged. Voltaire parodied it through the character of Doctor Pangloss in Candide, who clings to his Leibnizian optimism despite endless torments. But the idea endured and evolved: “The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true,” wrote James Branch Cabell in 1926.
Now the question of possible worlds is back on the agenda. Fifty years ago, Hugh Everett decided that the neatest explanation for the oddities of quantum physics was that new universes were continually being created – each slightly different from our own. Many physicists now agree, with one even using it to again address the problem of evil (see page 32). Popular culture, too, has embraced the idea of parallel worlds, even if they are frequently depicted in ways that depart considerably from Everett. There’s obvious appeal in what-ifs, and they aren’t confined to science fiction: they feature in everything from romcoms (Sliding Doors) to thrillers (Fatherland).
Hope not heat? VETERAN climate negotiators arriving at this week’s talks in New York faced an uphill struggle. There has been little real progress since the failure of the 2009 talks in Copenhagen, and the Global Carbon Project’s latest report suggested global emissions are consistent with the worst of four scenarios – threatening up to 5 °C of warming by 2100. Those on the People’s Climate
March in New York, and around the world, were both determined and sceptical. “You have to keep up hope, but I don’t think things will change,” said one. Their banners testified to the issue’s complexity: no-nukes signs next to calls for zero-carbon power, “grandparents for climate action” next to signs deploring pension funds’ fossil-fuel investments. Did the summit deliver? We
What-if thinking has seriousminded uses, too. Historians use “counterfactuals” to probe key events: Winston Churchill was an early exponent. Companies use scenario analysis to evaluate how imaginary, but plausible, geopolitical events might affect them. And climate scenarios are critical in persuading negotiators to strike deals (see below). So should we make more use of the power of what-if thinking? The multiverse feels like a far-out concept, but it can nevertheless provide a useful framework for considering our decisions. And thinking about all possible worlds may help us to make this one the best we can. Perhaps there’s reason to be optimistic after all. n
won’t really know unless and until a new climate accord is signed in Paris next year. But New York has already improved on Copenhagen by persuading countries to do their climate homework, and in inviting big investors, who duly pledged to decarbonise $100 billion of investments. Both were significant advances. “You can make history or you will be vilified,” Leonardo DiCaprio told world leaders. The message from everyone: you have to keep up hope. n 27 September 2014 | NewScientist | 5
LEADERS
LOCATIONS USA 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Please direct telephone enquiries to our UK office +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 UK Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Australia Tower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067 Tel +61 2 9422 8559 Fax +61 2 9422 8552
Subscription Service For our latest subscription offers, visit newscientist.com/subscribe
The possibilities are endless
Customer and subscription services are also available by:
What if…? The multiverse can help us find the best answers
Telephone 1-888-822-3242 Email [email protected] Web newscientist.com/subscribe Mail New Scientist, PO Box 3806, Chesterfield, MO 63006-9953 USA One year subscription (51 issues) $154 cONTACTS Contact us newscientist.com/contact Who’s who newscientist.com/people General & media enquiries [email protected] Editorial Tel 781 734 8770 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Display advertising Tel 781 734 8770 [email protected] Recruitment advertising Tel 781 734 8770 [email protected] Newsstand Tel 212 237 7987 Distributed by Time/Warner Retail Sales and Marketing, 260 Cherry Hill Road, Parsippany, NJ 07054 Syndication Tribune Content Agency Tel 800 637 4082 © 2014 Reed Business Information Ltd, England. New Scientist ISSN 0262 4079 is published weekly except for the last week in December by Reed Business Information Ltd, England. New Scientist at Reed Business Information, c/o Schnell Publishing Co. Inc., 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451. Periodicals postage pending at Waltham, MA and other mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to New Scientist, PO Box 3806, Chesterfield, MO 63006-9953, USA. Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in USA by Fry Communications Inc, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
WE LIVE in the best of all possible worlds. So said Gottfried Leibniz in 1709. For him, this was the only explanation for why a loving, allpowerful and all-knowing god tolerated evil. Any attempt to improve our lot would backfire, making it still worse. The world was not perfect, but optimal; and Leibniz was its first optimist. His argument did not go unchallenged. Voltaire parodied it through the character of Doctor Pangloss in Candide, who clings to his Leibnizian optimism despite endless torments. But the idea endured and evolved: “The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true,” wrote James Branch Cabell in 1926.
Now the question of possible worlds is back on the agenda. Fifty years ago, Hugh Everett decided that the neatest explanation for the oddities of quantum physics was that new universes were continually being created – each slightly different from our own. Many physicists now agree, with one even using it to again address the problem of evil (see page 32). Popular culture, too, has embraced the idea of parallel worlds, even if they are frequently depicted in ways that depart considerably from Everett. There’s obvious appeal in what-ifs, and they aren’t confined to science fiction: they feature in everything from romcoms (Sliding Doors) to thrillers (Fatherland).
Hope not heat? VETERAN climate negotiators arriving at this week’s talks in New York faced an uphill struggle. There has been little real progress since the failure of the 2009 talks in Copenhagen, and the Global Carbon Project’s latest report suggested global emissions are consistent with the worst of four scenarios – threatening up to 5 °C of warming by 2100. Those on the People’s Climate
March in New York, and around the world, were both determined and sceptical. “You have to keep up hope, but I don’t think things will change,” said one. Their banners testified to the issue’s complexity: no-nukes signs next to calls for zero-carbon power, “grandparents for climate action” next to signs deploring pension funds’ fossil-fuel investments. Did the summit deliver? We
What-if thinking has seriousminded uses, too. Historians use “counterfactuals” to probe key events: Winston Churchill was an early exponent. Companies use scenario analysis to evaluate how imaginary, but plausible, geopolitical events might affect them. And climate scenarios are critical in persuading negotiators to strike deals (see below). So should we make more use of the power of what-if thinking? The multiverse feels like a far-out concept, but it can nevertheless provide a useful framework for considering our decisions. And thinking about all possible worlds may help us to make this one the best we can. Perhaps there’s reason to be optimistic after all. n
won’t really know unless and until a new climate accord is signed in Paris next year. But New York has already improved on Copenhagen by persuading countries to do their climate homework, and in inviting big investors, who duly pledged to decarbonise $100 billion of investments. Both were significant advances. “You can make history or you will be vilified,” Leonardo DiCaprio told world leaders. The message from everyone: you have to keep up hope. n 27 September 2014 | NewScientist | 5