Martin Rees: The RealClearReligion Interview
Today the Templeton Foundation announced that Cambridge cosmologist Martin Rees has won its annual Templeton Prize. Rees is author of 7 books, former president of the Royal Society, and a life peer in the House of Lords. The announcement will be followed by a formal presentation by Prince Philip at Buckingham Palace in June. Rees spoke with RCR this week about the award, the Church of England, Richard Dawkins's allergies, and the future of life on this planet -- and, perhaps, elsewhere.
RealClearReligion: In addition to the prestige, the Templeton Prize also pays a million pounds. What are you going to do with all that money?
Martin Rees: I haven't decided.
RCR: You say a few things as part of your news conference statement that are quite provocative. You cast doubt on a "Theory of Everything." To wit, you say that reduction is "true in a sense, but it's seldom true in a useful sense." Please reduce that to an explanation for us.
Rees: I wasn't casting doubt on it. What I was saying was, I thought it was an inappropriate phrase because what's called a "theory of everything" would, in effect, be a grand unified theory of the forces. That would be a great intellectual achievement: the end of a quest that started with Newton and went on through Maxwell, etc. What I wanted to emphasize was that, even if you have this theory, it's irrelevant to 99 percent of scientists.
If you're a biologist or a chemist you're not held up because you don't have a fundamental theory. You're held up because things are just very complicated. So I was objecting to the phrase rather than to the thing because I think it's a great intellectual quest but it's not going to answer the questions which most scientists are thinking about, which are questions of complex phenomena in our world.
RCR: One of your books is titled Just Six Numbers. What are those six numbers and what might they have to do with a so-called Anthropic principle?
Rees: The six numbers are numbers whose values are important for the way in which our universe has evolved. If those numbers had had rather different values, it's less likely that our universe could have developed from its simple beginnings via the formation of atoms, stars, planets, and the periodic table to create the conditions for life and for us.
It was to emphasize that our universe evolved the way it did because of physical processes, and the way those processes work depends on those numbers. How you interpret that, of course, depends on, in particular, whether we believe that the laws of nature are truly universal, or whether they are local bylaws in our cosmic patch, as it were, and that there are domains beyond our direct universe where they have different values. In the latter case, there would be some domains where the necessary "tuning criterion" would be fulfilled, and we need not be surprised to find ourselves existing in such a domain.
RCR: What are your thoughts on Stephen Hawkings's belief that the universe can arise spontaneously from the laws of physics, and his statement about how this eliminates God from the equation altogether?
Rees: I know Stephen well enough to know that he's read not much philosophy and less theology, so I think his views on theology should not be given any great weight.
RCR: In your news conference statement, you also muse about the possibility of life on other planets. Do you think we are likely to discover intelligent life out there any time soon?
Rees: Well, I don't know. I think one of the most exciting developments in astronomy is discovering planets around other stars and pretty firm evidence that planets are very common and that there are likely going to be lots of planets like the Earth. But biology is a much harder subject than astronomy and we don't even know how life got started on Earth.
Therefore we can't say how likely it would be to get started in other earthlike environments. So it's too early to place any betting odds at all on this. It's a fundamental question and we're too ignorant to say whether it's likely or unlikely. But it's such an important question that I think it's something we should study and seek evidence about by all possible techniques.
RCR: You also worry that we've entered something called the Anthropocene Era. What is that and why does it matter?
Rees: One point which I think is important is that we've entered an era where the future of the entire biosphere depends on one species, namely us. One of the concerns about this coming century is that the numbers of people are going going up and each is having a greater impact on the environment, through using more energy, more food, etc. So collectively we are having a possibly deleterious effect on the entire biosphere.
Another concern I have, which I addressed in a book a wrote a few years ago, is that small groups of human beings and even individuals, are more empowered by technology than they were in the past. In our networked and interconnected world, that makes us more vulnerable.
And so I think for those two reasons, our collective effects and the growing effect of individuals, we are in an era when the entire future of our civilization depends very much on ensuring that we avoid the worst disasters. Those would be no longer natural disasters but human-induced disasters.
RCR: What should be done to avoid those disasters?
Rees: This is not a scientific question. It's a question for politicians and the public. I think the past record indicates that it is hard to be too optimistic that we will avoid all these threats, because it requires wise choices. If you look at present at the contrast between what we could do to improve the lives of the poorest people in the world and what's actually happening, you realize it's a big gap. Unless that gap narrows between what should be done and what actually happens, we're going to have problems in the future.
RCP: You've been at the cosmology game for quite some time. How has cosmology changed in your professional lifetime?
Rees: I've been fortunate to have been involved for nearly 40 years now in the subject. I think when the history of science is written, the chapter about cosmology in recent decades will be one of the most interesting chapters. When I started, very little was known about cosmology. We didn't know if there was a Big Bang or not.
In the late 60s, we acquired firm evidence for a Big Bang, the first evidence of black holes, etc. etc., and now we have a fairly detailed picture of the Big Bang and we are addressing questions that couldn't even be posed back then. We are firming up a picture for how our universe has evolved from a dense amorphous state 13.7 billion years ago via the formation of the first atoms stars and planets into the universe we see around us and of which we are a part.
We are understanding how this depends upon the physical laws. Also, we are perhaps realizing that the next step forward in physics, a sort of unified theory, will allow us to have a deeper understanding of the Big Bang, which will tell us the status of the fundamental constants of nature and also whether there were other Big Bangs as well as the one that we are the aftermath of.
RCR: About those other Big Bangs, you say in your statement, "Our big bang may not be the only one: we may be living in a 'multiverse' -- an archipelago of cosmoses." What is the best evidence for the controversial multiverse?
Rees: This is speculative science but I would say that it is science and not metaphysics. I'm hopeful that as our understanding of the physics of the very early Big Bang firms up, we will gradually develop clearer ideas about whether our Big Bang was the only one and about the overall extent of physical reality, which is probably much greater than the domain that we could see with our telescopes.
RCR: What is your most important contribution to cosmology and scientific knowledge?
Rees: I would say that my work has not been on a single theme but I've contributed to a number of areas -- galaxy formation, the astrophysics of black holes, extreme explosive phenomenon in the universe, as well as, in moments of relaxation, the more philosophical aspects of philosophy and cosmology.
RCR: Assume not so much that the multiverse is true but that there could be alternate realities. If you had it to do all over again, would you have gone into the same field?
Rees: [Laughs] I think I would. I think I've been very fortunate to have been in a field that has developed steadily over the last 40 years. It was exciting when I started. It's developing at an exceptional rate now with discussions of planets around stars etc. and new theoretical ideas. So it's been a wonderful field to be in.
I think for me it's been a bonus not just to have contributed towards some of these discoveries but to have participated in the debates and discussion which have settled old controversies and identified new ones. And also the subject is of interest not just to a few specialists but a wide public. Lots of people are interested in the universe and stars and planets and is there life out there. It adds to my satisfaction that what I am doing is something which addresses big questions which fascinate very many people.
RCR: Your parents were educators and founders of the Bedstone boarding school...
Rees: I grew up in the country in the West of England, yes.
RCR: One assumes that has had something to do with your inherited love of learning.
Rees: Well, most certainly. I've had a very supportive environment which I'm very grateful for, right from the start, from my family and excellent teachers.
RCR: Were your parents religious?
Rees: Not particularly, no.
RCR: You are often presented in the press as a respecter of the gods but not a believer in them.
Rees: I think that's true. I don't have any religious beliefs but I'm not allergic to religion. I participate in the religious services of the Church of England, which is the culture in which I grew up. I'm an analogue to the substantial fraction of Jews who don't believe in God but still practice some of the traditional rituals. The liturgy and music of the English Church are part of my culture that I value and would like to see preserved.
RCR: How does that put you at odds with some scientists, say, Richard Dawkins?
Rees: You should ask him, not me. But I would say I don't share his allergy to religion.
