The Principle (2014) - full transcript

(whooshing) (light piano music)

- The Copernican principle,

named after Nicolaus Copernicus,

states that the Earth is
not in any specially favored

or central location.

Welcome to The Principle.

- It only seems like we're
the center of the universe.

But we're not.

- There's nothing special about humans.

- It's tremendous to be human.

So why wouldn't we want to be



in a special place in the
universe made by a special god?

- Then there's cosmology.

- Then there are probably

100 billion solar systems
in our galaxy alone.

- The Copernican principle...

- The universe on large
scales is extremely simple.

It's the same in all directions.

- There's nothing special about the Earth.

In fact, our universe may
be one among many universes.

- What our universe is
really trying to tell us.

- If our Earth really
turns out to be special,

then I would say, hey, God made a mistake.

- God.

That's the only infinity.



- How're we gonna move
into the next decade?

- Philosophically speaking,
it's very uncomfortable.

Because if the Earth is in
the center of the universe,

that means that somebody put it there.

- We've always believed that
there was a Garden of Eden.

- I believe in God.

I believe the universe was created by God.

- We've realized that
maybe Earth is more special

than we thought after all,
but for a different reason.

- We live in a very special time.

- Life is extremely special.

- This idea that we're
not in any special place

in the universe,

there's something wrong with that.

- All these things are rather strange,

and we don't know why
they're occurring right now.

It's a mystery that's
frustrating many of us.

- There's all this stuff out there.

That must mean we're insignificant.

That must mean there's nothing
special about this place.

- On the largest possible
scales, the universe is uniform.

- [Man] So why would they
expect to see anything special?

- Just because we are smaller than a star

or the Andromeda Galaxy, we're
somehow less significant.

- For better or worse,

there's gonna be a
debate over this matter,

and it's proper that the debate continue

until the resolution has been hit upon.

- Always question the scientists
and their foundations.

- At the moment, modern physics

is not making a lot of sense.

- What is everything made of?

You, know, oops.

There is about 95% stuff we don't know.

(thunder crashing)

- And what have they discovered?

Absolutely nothing.

Zilch.

- They've tried all the answers,

and none of the answers work.

- We are in a special place.

I do believe that.

- I don't think that this
is telling us that we humans

are in a particular, special place.

- It seems to make it special,

but we don't like being special.

- It's the moment of truth for science.

- [Narrator] The principle is simple.

(light piano music)

It tells us we're nothing special.

As Carl Sagan has put it,

"We live on an insignificant planet

"of a humdrum star

"lost in a galaxy tucked away

"in some forgotten corner of a universe,

"in which there are far
more galaxies than people."

Whether we call it the
Copernican principle

or the cosmological principle

or the mediocrity principle,

it all boils down to the same thing.

We're nothing special.

There are no special places
or directions in the universe,

no center, no edges,

no up, no down, no left or right.

For almost 500 years,

as we have looked further and
further out into the cosmos,

everything has seemed to
confirm this principle

over and over again.

And yet,

(dramatic orchestral music)

we have never seen anything like Earth.

(giggling)

A baby's smile,

the finale of a great symphony,

the lights of all of the cities

of our Earth shining out into space.

We observe these things nowhere
else in all this vastness.

We have yet to find evidence
of other intelligent life,

or any other life, for that matter.

If we really are nothing
special, then where is everybody?

Over the past decade or so,

we have seen out to the very limits

of the observable cosmos.

We've mapped its largest structure,

the cosmic microwave background,

the oldest light in the universe,

according to the standard
big bang model of cosmology.

What we have discovered is shocking.

- There is a crisis in cosmology.

- It's an exciting time for cosmology

because everything has changed.

- We are asking about ultimate things.

- Seeing the fingerprint of God

or the hallmarks of the creator.

- You see, in some
sense what is happening,

our concept of what the
universe is has changed.

- The pendulum has kind
of swung all the way over

and kind of a bit back again
on the Copernican principle.

- Big bang cosmology
assumes that the only thing

that exists is the physical world,

and there's nothing beyond that.

- People want to save the existing models,

because there's a lot
that's invested in them.

- The standard model
is a really good model.

It fits the observations very, very well.

- We have a conflict

between what is well-established,
mainstream thought

and what is the testimony of experiments.

- They've essentially run into dead ends.

- This is the moment of truth,

because they have nowhere to go.

- The colors we see here

in the cosmic microwave background map

are kind of like a weather
map, showing hotter and colder,

showing how hot the radiation is that's

coming from different places.

This is just radio noise from
our own Milky Way Galaxy.

We're supposed to see the same number

and types of hot and cold
spots in all directions,

'cause there is no up in
the universe that's special.

And that is sort of what
we see, except not quite.

This map here can be decomposed

into what we call multipoles.

You blur out all the little spots

and you still have the bigger ones remain.

Like here is an area with a lot of blue.

So when you smudge it,
this will be one single,

big blue spot.

Whereas when I smudge this,

where there's a lot of red and yellow,

it'll be one big, blurry hot spot.

On the very largest scales,

we see a pattern of really
big hot and cold spots,

which line up around a special axis,

which has been dubbed the Axis of Evil.

And it's quite puzzling.

Why is there a special direction in space?

- [Narrator] Our most recent
large-scale observations

challenge the basic assumption

upon which our modern
scientific worldview rests,

the Copernican principle.

If the principle is wrong,

it could mean that
everything we think we know

about our universe is wrong.

- All of us are born with an innate need,

in fact, it's hardwired into us,

to answer the question, who are we?

Where did we come from?

What does it all mean?

- Was there a beginning?

And if there was a beginning,
was there a creator?

- Cosmology used to be
a very flaky subject,

somewhere out there between
philosophy and metaphysics.

- In the early days,

cosmology was really very
much a matter of almost

speculating about the
universe without the data.

- There weren't any empirical proofs

for what they were finding.

There were theories.

- Cosmology,

the study of the origins, structures,

laws and ultimate fate of the universe.

- Now the remarkable thing about cosmology

is that we have the data.

- What counts as science and what doesn't?

- Traditionally, people have said,

well, once you get to the big bang itself,

you're in the domain of
philosophy or even theology.

And so it doesn't make
sense to ask the question,

you know, what happened at the big bang,

let alone what happened
before the big bang.

- Philosophy was useful
before we had natural science,

namely, you can speculate about
the origin of the universe,

you can speculate till the cows come home,

but until you measure
things and predict things,

you don't know if they happen.

- But today, we think we have it.

We think we have the
theory of all creation,

the theory of everything.

- [Narrator] The theory of everything,

the system of the world.

It has always been the dream of scientists

and, earlier, of
philosophers and theologians

to achieve a consistent and
complete description of reality.

In the Book of Genesis, God tells Abraham,

"Look up and number
the stars, if you can."

This is the beginning of faith,

and the beginning of science.

In the beginning, they're
both the same thing.

It was the natural assumption
of the ancient world

to see the movements in the
heavens as centered upon us.

From the location of Stonehenge,
near Salisbury, England,

we can see the standing ruins

of what may be the very first
astronomical observatory,

constructed from an
Earth-centered, fixed viewpoint,

around which the heavens revolve.

(dramatic orchestral music)

If we imagine ourselves
standing on a fixed world

at a latitude of 51
degrees during the summer,

the circle of the sun seems
to rise toward the North Pole,

giving us the long days of summer.

Over the full course of the year,

the circle of the sun will
rise and fall 23.5 degrees.

Add stars, and our world can
be described by this diagram.

(dramatic orchestral music)

Ptolemy refined a system
with Earth at the center,

and the puzzling back-and-forth
motions of the planets,

as seen from Earth,

attributed to a series of epicycles,

deferent and equant.

The general assumption at the time

was that the heavenly bodies

should move in perfect uniform circles,

and Ptolemy's addition of
the epicycles disturbed

this metaphysical notion.

- Ironically, the problem

with the Ptolemaic system

was a particular feature
in it, which was actually,

in my opinion,

by far the greatest
discovery made in antiquity.

He had the planets moving on

what was called a deferent, nonuniformly.

He broke the hallowed tradition

that everything must
move at a uniform speed

on a perfect circle.

And he was forced to do
that because his theory,

which initially had that
property, didn't fit the data.

- In that regard, it
should be kept in mind

that if you look at

pictures of medieval cosmology,

then you see not only the
Earth and the planets,

but the outer sphere beyond
that, you would have heaven.

So that the Earth was
considered to be at rest

ultimately with respect to heaven,

with respect to the throne of God.

- [Narrator] For 1,500 years,

Ptolemy's system was used as the basis

of astronomy and calendars,

and it worked quite well.

But there were always those
who detested its departure

from the purely uniform, circular motion

assumed to be perfect and
appropriate for heavenly bodies.

Among these was Nicolaus Copernicus.

- Copernicus hated that.

And Copernicus set about

to undo Ptolemy's greatest discovery.

- [Narrator] While working
at the request of Pope Leo X

on improvements to the Julian calendar,

Copernicus conceived what turned out to be

the foundational idea of modernity itself,

the idea that the Earth moved.

(light orchestral music)

- The Copernican principle
is theological dynamite.

- It did in a way all
start with Copernicus,

because Copernicus, we started
off with a geocentric view,

and Copernicus showed that that is wrong,

that actually it's the sun is
the center of the universe,

as it seemed then.

The Earth goes around the sun.

So then we had the heliocentric view.

- Copernicus told us

that we're not the center of the universe,

certainly not the center
of the solar system.

The sun doesn't go around the Earth.

The Earth goes around the sun.

- That's the Copernican principle,

that if we are not really special,

then this gigantic universe
of ours doesn't care about us.

We are nothing, absolute nothing.

- In the concepts of cosmology,

this is called the cosmological principle.

So the point is that we might think

we're at the center of the
universe, because it looks,

everything should look pretty symmetric

as we look around us, around the sky.

But actually, any other observer
would see the same thing.

- It's the basis of the
standard cosmologies,

and it's taken for granted by
almost everybody in cosmology.

- When Copernicus first
came along and said,

"Hey, we humans are not so special

"that everything centers around us,"

a lot of people viewed
this Copernican principle

as something bad.

- The Copernican revolution
is the revolution

of the mobility of the Earth.

- Copernican principle
leads to, ultimately,

the idea that there is no God.

- That we are nothing compared

to this splendorous universe of ours.

- I think it was actually
one of the greatest things

that ever happened to us.

We were, we had this arrogance,

and we got it knocked out of us.

And we realized that, actually,

(beeping) not the center of everything,

and so we can't just say,

oh, I'm not gonna look at
what the world looks like,

'cause I have a book here,

or my authority told me this is how it is.

I don't need to do observations.

And instead, say, hey, you know,

it doesn't all center around us.

We humans have to be humble.

We have to look and ask Mother
Nature, how do you work?

- [Narrator] Not all were
persuaded by Copernicus, however.

The greatest astronomer
of the time, Tycho Brahe,

developed a new geocentric model.

The Earth occupies the center,

the planets orbit the sun,
and the sun orbits the Earth.

- Tycho Brahe, who is a
great unsung hero of this,

because he did an immense
number of observations,

very accurate ones, very precise,
for a long period of time.

- Well, the Tychonic geocentric system,

the sun is traveling around
the Earth, literally,

and carrying the planets with it.

So the sun is making the
ecliptic, it's not the Earth.

- [Narrator] Tycho hired a young assistant

named Johannes Kepler in 1600.

Kepler, working on his own development

of the Copernican system,

needed Tycho's observations,

but Tycho refused to part with them.

When Tycho died suddenly
and mysteriously in 1601,

Kepler took charge of Tycho's observations

and used them to develop his own system.

- Kepler's great insight was that

the sun must be playing a significant role

in the motion of the planets.

They are following very definite paths,

we know that for sure.

How on Earth do they do it?

And what moves them?

So he said, "The sun must be somehow

"causing them to go round."

So he postulated that the sun is rotating

and had sort of spokes,

which somehow got weaker as
you were further from the sun.

- [Narrator] In Kepler's system,

the sun is in the center,

while the planets move
on ellipses nonuniformly.

The ellipse, with its two foci,

allows us to see that
Ptolemy's epicycles and equant

were actually a brilliant attempt

to express nonuniform motion,
centuries before Kepler.

Indeed, once the concept of
nonuniform motion is introduced,

all of these systems can be shown

to be geometrically identical.

It was Kepler's idea that the sun

must somehow be moving the
planets in their orbits

that set the stage for Isaac
Newton's great breakthroughs.

But observational tools equal

to the task would first
have to be developed.

- Now, it's good old
Galileo was the first person

in the modern age who made this clear.

He made the distinction between what,

I think it's Locke, then,
the philosopher Locke,

described as primary qualities
and secondary qualities.

The primary qualities
are the shapes of objects

and the way they move in the
space in which they move.

- [Narrator] Galileo
employed the telescope

to establish that Jupiter
was itself orbited by moons.

This contradicted Ptolemy's idea

that all bodies orbited the Earth,

and was seen as proof that the Earth

must likewise orbit a
much larger body, the sun.

For the first time, observational science

claimed to have established

an error in the Church's
understanding of scripture,

and the first great battle between faith

and science was joined.

- The criticism has been
made back in Galileo's time

that it was the Church

that was controlling knowledge,

only allowing people to think
within certain boundaries.

- Science and theology were wed together.

They were one basic entity.

Theology always had the
supremacy over science.

- [Narrator] After years of house arrest,

but seemingly quite sincerely nonetheless,

Galileo eventually recanted.

- A year before Galileo died,

he rejected the
heliocentric, or Copernican,

universe that he had
defended for about 30 years.

A friend of his named Francesco
Rinuccini came to him,

because he thought he had evidence

from this astronomer
named Giovanni Pieroni

to prove that the Earth was moving.

And so they brought this
evidence to Galileo,

and Galileo said,

"Well, there's no way I'm
going to accept this."

It was a very long letter that he wrote,

explaining the theology, the science

and everything he needed to explain

that Pieroni couldn't have found proof

that the Earth was moving.

Rinuccini got the letter,

and as soon as he got it and read it,

he erased Galileo's
signature off the letter,

because he didn't want
anybody to know that Galileo

had finally repented of
his heliocentric views.

- [Narrator] However, when
Giordano Bruno's ideas

were similarly condemned,

Bruno resisted to the bitter end.

- Giordano Bruno got burned
at the stake the year 1600

for writing about an infinite space.

(screaming)

- He was burned alive
in the streets of Rome

in the year 1600

for simply saying that there
are other worlds out there,

that there's nothing essentially
special about our world.

So why would the Catholic Church burn

this person alive in the streets of Rome?

Because think about it,
if there are other worlds,

then the question is, are there people

on these other planets?

If so, do they have a savior?

If so, do they have a pope?

If so, how many saints do they have?

Imagine, a billion
popes, a trillion saints.

How many Trinities are there?

The mind goes crazy
contemplating a universe,

a universe of universes.

And so, what did the Church do?

They simply burned him alive.

(fire crackling)
(dramatic orchestral music)

- [Narrator] Bruno told his
inquisitors at his sentencing,

"It may be that you fear
more to deliver judgment

"upon me than I fear judgment."

Henceforth, science would increasingly

assert its independence

from the influence of the Church.

(dramatic orchestral music)

Extending Kepler's famous
laws of planetary motion,

Isaac Newton published his
Principia Mathematica in 1687.

This most influential work
in all of scientific history

introduced Newton's theory
of universal gravitation,

the first and still the greatest attempt

to construct a true system of the world.

- When Newton came with his
theory in the late 1600s,

it was felt by many people

that he had resolved the whole situation,

and the choice between
Copernicus and Tycho,

by means of his equations for mechanics.

- But what happened was
people misunderstood

what Newton really said.

- Actually, what Newton said was that

both Copernicus and Tycho
would have been wrong,

because neither the sun nor the Earth

would be the center of the
solar system or universe,

but you'd have to look at centers of mass

and things of that nature.

- He didn't say that the
smaller goes around the larger.

He said that both bodies go
around the center of mass.

So even in the heliocentric system,

it's not the Earth going around the sun.

Scientifically and technically,

we'd say that the Earth and the sun

are going around one point
called the center of mass.

It just so happens that Newton agrees

that you could have a rotating
star field, and if you do,

then the center of mass
is going to be somewhere

in the middle of that rotating star field.

And it just so happens that any object

can occupy that center of mass.

What that does is it
nullifies the objection

that the smaller always has
to go around the larger.

That would be true in
99.999% of the universe.

But there's one place where
that wouldn't be true,

and that's where that
star field is rotating

around the center of mass.

- Newton had introduced the
idea of absolute space and time,

which is something a bit
like, as regards space,

which is the more important concept,

a bit like this room, a rigid framework

in which you can sensibly say

that a thing is moving in a straight line.

- [Narrator] Newton's
theory was based on the idea

of an absolute space,

through which objects could
be shown to be in motion.

His famous bucket experiment was designed

to show that motion was not relative,

but had to be occurring
within absolute space.

- Newton had hung a bucket full of water

in his room in Cambridge,

and he'd wound the bucket round,

and then held it still with the
cord of the rope all twisted

and the bucket, the water
in the bucket level.

Then he'd let go of the bucket,

and the bucket had started to spin,

and its centrifugal force makes it

go up the side of the bucket.

And Newton argues from that

that that concavity of the water's surface

can't be explained by relative motion,

because when the relative motion

between the bucket wall
and the water was greatest,

the water was flat,
and when it had stopped

and there was no relative motion,

the concavity was greatest.

- [Narrator] Newton argues, therefore,

there must be an absolute space

that allows us to say that
motion is not relative.

(water splashing)

- Newton didn't provide a mechanism.

He just provided the behaviors of objects

in gravitational fields.

He never accounted for
what caused the field.

- So although it was widely thought

that Newton had proven the
Earth to be in absolute motion,

this was by no means proven
to everyone's satisfaction.

- [Narrator] Physicist Ernst Mach provided

an alternate explanation.

According to Mach's principle,

the Earth could be considered

as the pivot point of the universe.

The fact that the universe
is orbiting around the Earth

will create the exact same forces

that we usually ascribe to
the motion of the Earth.

Mach's ideas would strongly influence

the later development of
the theory of relativity.

- And Mach's principle says

that you should get
exactly the same effects,

whether the Earth is
rotating in the universe,

or whether the Earth is
fixed and the universe

is rotating about it.

- Motion is relative.

All the objects in the universe

must be moving relative to each other.

- Mach's principle, that
because all we observe

is relative motion,

then once you start talking
about absolute motion,

that means you've imported
a metaphysical principle

into the system.

- Mach had such absolute conviction

that motion must be relative,

he said, "Well, actually,

"it's nothing to do
with the Earth rotating

"relative to absolute space.

"It's the Earth and the stars
are in relative rotation."

There's a relative rotation between them.

- Rotation is relative.

That is, you cannot tell
by measuring centrifugal

and inertial forces

whether you are rotating or
the universe is rotating,

because you will see the same effect,

no matter which one it is.

- And Mach then said,

"That's the cause of the
oblation of the Earth,

"that it's not a perfect sphere.

"Whenever there is relative rotation,

"however you like to look at
it, there will be that effect."

In fact, he goes back and says,

"You can actually look at this

"from either the Ptolemaic or
the Copernican point of view."

You have to just concentrate
on what is objectively true

and say that if there
is a relative rotation,

then the Earth will be oblate.

(light orchestral music)

- [Narrator] By the end
of the 19th century,

the triumph of the Copernican
system seemed complete.

Only one tiny detail had
eluded the experimenters.

Physics at the time,

including Maxwell's famous
equations for electrodynamics,

was based on the assumption that space

was filled with a substance,

an ether, through which light

and other electromagnetic
waves would propagate.

But all attempts to directly
measure the motion of the Earth

around the sun through this ether

had paradoxically resulted in
an apparent velocity of zero.

The stage was set for
one of the most important

events in the history of physics,

the Michelson-Morley experiment.

- 1887, Michelson-Morley experiment.

If the Earth were moving through an ether,

then a sort of ether wind would be created

at the surface of the Earth.

A light beam projected
directly into this ether wind

would be expected to move slower

than a light beam projected
across the ether wind.

If we project the beams
across a known distance

and then recombine them,

we would expect the two
waves to be out of phase

by an amount that would tell us

the distance the Earth had moved.

- If the Earth is moving
through the ether,

then light waves going one
direction relative to us

should travel at a different
speed than another direction.

It's like if you're in a fast-moving river

and you're swimming
along with the current,

you're swimming much faster
relative to the shore

than you are if you're
swimming against the current.

So what the Michelson-Morley
experiment was designed to do

was measure the speed of light

in one direction versus another direction

to see how fast we're
moving through the ether.

And what it discovered was,

it's the same in one
direction as the other.

- Michelson-Morley couldn't measure

any effect of Earth's orbit,

even though the assumption
was, at the time,

that that would affect the
measured speed of light.

(dramatic orchestral music)

- [Narrator] The experiment failed

to detect the Earth moving
in or against the ether.

The problem was serious.

Although various solutions were advanced,

in the end, science was
faced with a choice,

either discard the ether,

or admit that the Earth
wasn't orbiting the sun.

It was Albert Einstein who
came up with the solution,

which now forms the basis of our physics

and which we call the
theory of relativity.

(light orchestral music)

- What they thought they were discovering

in terms of the ether,

there just wasn't any ether there.

There were relative
motions between objects.

- Which told us there wasn't an ether,

and laid the basis for
Einstein's theory of relativity,

which says there is no ether,

that light always travels the same speed,

no matter which direction it's going,

or even whether it's
emitted from a moving source

or a source that's standing still.

- [Narrator] So how did Einstein do it?

An earlier explanation,

proposed by physicist Hendrik Lorentz,

had suggested that the measuring arm

of the Michelson-Morley apparatus

was being compressed by the ether

in the direction of motion,

just enough to make it look
like we were standing still.

- Lorentz says, "Well,

"the length must contract a little bit

"to make it look like it's the
same, even though it's not."

I believe that interpretation
is still correct,

that we do, in fact,
have length contraction.

He was closer to the correct explanation

than Einstein's later theories.

- [Narrator] Einstein eliminated
the ether as the cause

and said that it was simply
a principle of nature,

that when objects move
through empty space,

they contract in length.

They decrease in the time
traveled and their mass increases,

all by the same proportion,

which is now known as
the Lorentz transform.

Hence, in order to maintain
the Copernican principle,

the length, time and mass of
moving objects were altered,

and this is the essence of Einstein's

special theory of relativity.

- It was a null experiment.

They were very disappointed,

because they couldn't measure the motion

of the Earth through the ether.

Michelson himself was
extremely disappointed

that he couldn't do it.

- And the fact that he wasn't able

to measure anything was
startling to a lot of people.

(dramatic orchestral music)

- [Narrator] One of the
remarkable consequences

of the adoption of relativity

was that every argument
advanced, from Galileo forward,

to prove the motion of
the Earth around the sun

had to be abandoned.

This point is made by Einstein

in a book he published in 1938.

"The struggle, so violent in
the early days of science,

"between the views of
Ptolemy and Copernicus,

"would then be quite meaningless.

"Either coordinate system could be used

"with equal justification.

"The two sentences, 'The sun is at rest

'and the Earth moves, '

or, 'The sun moves and
the Earth is at rest, '

"would simply mean two
different conventions

"concerning two different
coordinate systems."

- But if Einstein is wrong,

then we have the problem

that all these measured
velocities of the Earth being zero

stand unchallenged and unqualified,

so the Earth is not moving

exactly like the
Michelson-Morley interferometer

says it's not moving.

- Albert Einstein himself said that

if Michelson-Morley is wrong,
then relativity is wrong.

- All you have to do to
shut up a geocentrist

is to run this experiment up on the moon

and see what's going to happen.

Of course, Einstein dies on the
vine the second that you get

a nonzero result on the moon

with the Michelson-Morley interferometer,

and also that Earth is not moving,

and all of physics collapses
with that experiment.

I think there's a reason
not to put the experiment

on the moon

and to pretend that we already

know the result and to whistle in the dark

and mock the opposition.

- If one day, God comes down
from above and says, look,

these two great theories,

relativity and the
quantum theory, are wrong,

what would I say?

First of all, I would say, oh, my God.

All my published works are wrong.

I mean, I'll have to look for another job.

- And I've heard people say

that the reason they don't
want to publish papers

that disagree with special relativity

or general relativity is that

they've built their careers on this,

and that it would be
admitting a major mistake.

- But second of all,
once I collect my wits,

I would simply say, but of course.

You see, we are approaching truth,

but can you actually
get to absolute truth?

- If you were paranoid, you'd
say there's a conspiracy.

Whatever it is, there
is a lot of resistance

to getting something published

that disagrees with either
of Einstein's two theories.

(dramatic orchestral music)

- [Narrator] By the end of the 1920s,

astronomer Edwin Hubble,

working with the large 100-inch
telescope atop Mount Wilson,

outside Los Angeles,

had established that
our galaxy was only one

of many galaxies in the universe.

His observations presented
serious new challenges

to the Copernican principle.

- He looks through his telescope,

and he sees galaxies for the first time.

We had powerful telescopes back then.

And not only does he see galaxies,

but he sees these galaxies
with what they call redshift.

The wavelength of the light
is now being stretched,

so you see more red than you see blue.

- Redshift,

a shift in the wavelength
of light toward the red,

or lower-energy, end of the spectrum,

giving the appearance that the
light has either lost energy

or has had its wavelength
stretched by some physical force,

as in the expansion of space.

- Amazing law.

We look out at other galaxies.

On average, they're moving away from us.

And those that are twice as far away

are moving twice as fast,

and those that are three times as far away

are moving three times as fast,

Of course, that makes us
look like we're the center

of the universe, but it's not true.

It just means the universe
is expanding uniformly.

- Now, he struggled with this.

He didn't know whether to say

that the redshift was
a velocity indicator,

that is, that the galaxies

were being stretched apart from us

and that's why the wavelength

of that light is being
stretched, so we see red,

or it could be something else, you see.

But he was pressured a lot

by the Copernican principle to say,

well, okay, let's say
it's a velocity factor,

the redshift is a velocity factor,

and yet I'm not quite
comfortable with that,

because that puts us in the center.

- [Narrator] "Such a condition would imply

"that we occupy a unique
position in the universe,

"analogous, in a sense,

"to the ancient conception
of a central Earth.

"This hypothesis cannot be
disproved, but it is unwelcome

"and would only be
accepted as a last resort

"in order to save the phenomena.

"Therefore, we disregard this possibility,

the unwelcome position
of a favored location

"must be avoided at all costs.

"Such a favored position is intolerable."

- Hubble never believed
in the expanding universe,

because he had the wrong
value of the Hubble constant.

- Hubble constant,

the presumed rate at
which space is created

and galaxies are believed
to be moving away

from each other in the
expanding universe theory.

- Now, it's one of the most
important numbers in cosmology.

Because once we know how fast
a galaxy a million light-years

away from us is moving,

simple physics to work
backwards and figure out

how long ago we were together.

- [Narrator] But that left
the centrality issue unsolved.

A new idea would be required.

- Friedmann came up with
the expanding models,

which have this kind of
paradoxical property,

that it is spatially
homogeneous and isotropic

so everything looks the same everywhere,

and everything looks the same
in every direction everywhere.

And therefore, although
from your viewpoint,

it looks as if everything
is expanding away from you,

from every other galaxy's viewpoint,

it looks as if everything
is expanding away from you.

- You can say that they're being expanded,

because you see their redshift.

- People that believe in the
expansion of the universe

claim that it's like a
muffin with raisins embedded.

- [Narrator] Exactly as the
Copernican principle requires,

imagine a cake in an oven with raisins.

As the dough rises, the raisins
move apart from each other,

just as galaxies would
move away from each other

on the surface of a balloon.

- So if you curve it,

and you put these galaxies
on the surface of that curve,

and then you expand it...

- If you're big enough,

then anywhere you look, it's
expanding at the same rate

from that spot.

- Relativity tells us that in the presence

of mass and energy,

space can curve.

Space is dynamical.

It can bend, it can expand and contract.

And one of the great
holy grails of cosmology,

in fact, the reason I got
into cosmology originally

as a particle physicist,

was to determine which kind
of universe we live in.

Because the fact the
universe is curved means

it can exist in one of
three different forms:

so-called closed, open or flat.

- The bottom line is experiment.

We can simply speculate as much as we want

about this great universe of ours,

but the bottom line is you
have to look at the data.

The data shows that the universe

seems to be remarkably flat.

And how do you get a flat
universe from a big bang?

Well, one possibility is inflation.

In fact, it is the simplest
way to get a flat universe.

- Inflation, the hypothesis
that the universe had,

at its very beginning, an extremely rapid,

exponential expansion
that exceeded the limit

on the speed of light

set by the special theory of relativity,

resulting in a space that
is flat and homogenous.

- Think of a balloon and put a bug on it.

The bug thinks that the balloon is flat,

because he's very small and
the balloon is very big.

However, it's a balloon.

It is curved.

However, it looks flat only
because the bug is very small.

We are the bugs.

(upbeat jazz music)

- [Man] Five, four, three, two,

one, zero.

Liftoff.

- We choose to go to the moon.

- [Michael] How is the quality of the TV?

- [Capsule Communicator]
Oh, it's beautiful, Mike,

it really is.

- [Alan] Cabin pressure is holding at 5.5.

Cabin holding at 5.5.

- [Narrator] Coming on the
heels of Hubble's discoveries,

observations in the middle
part of the 20th century

showed that spiral galaxies didn't appear

to be obeying the laws of gravity.

- Several decades ago, we found a problem,

a problem so great that it
was brushed under the carpet

for many a decade.

And this is the fact that
galaxies spin too fast.

We believe in the work of Isaac Newton,

at least on planetary scales,

but when you apply Newton's
laws of motion to the galaxy,

the galaxy spins too fast,
in fact, 10 times too fast.

By rights, the galaxy should fly apart.

Therefore, scientists said

that we have to have dark matter,

a halo of matter that surrounds the galaxy

and holds the galaxy together.

- Dark matter,

hypothesized form of matter introduced

to allow conventional theories of gravity

to explain the observed anomalies

in galaxy rotation and expansion.

- I mean, if you're going to
use Newton's laws, F = ma,

and you're going to use
Einstein's tensor equation,

then you better have the matter and energy

in the universe to make it work.

But it ain't there.

- Between one and 3% of the universe

is all the stuff we can see,

and somewhere between 99%
and 97% of the universe

is stuff we can't see.

This dark matter that
dominates our galaxy,

we think, we're virtually certain now,

is made of some new type
of elementary particle,

different than the stuff
that makes you and I up.

- And what have they discovered?

Absolutely nothing.

Zilch.

- What is a little bit perturbing
is that after 50 years,

we still haven't found
what the dark matter is.

On the other hand, that
doesn't mean they're not there.

It just means they're harder
to find than we thought.

(dramatic orchestral music)

- Turns out the gravitational energy

of every galaxy moving
away from us is zero.

That's strongly suggestive
that we actually,

that the universe actually
came from nothing.

In fact, every measurement we
can make about the universe

is really consistent with a
universe that came from nothing.

- Nothing, generally understood
as the absence of anything,

but sometimes used in
modern cosmology to refer

to an unseen form of something,

virtual particles and the quantum vacuum.

Something from nothing,

a key concept in modern cosmology.

But this turns out to be a
very unusual kind of nothing,

since it apparently contains
at least two somethings,

energy and a law of gravity.

- Well, yeah, it's a
strange time in cosmology.

It's an interesting time,

because we don't understand anything,

or rather, we don't understand nothing.

(audience applauding)

Because it turns out nothing
is almost everything.

- If you understand nothing,
you understand everything.

- Turns out the dominant stuff
of the universe is nothing,

and we don't have the
slightest understanding of why.

Nothing is really not quite nothing.

Nothing is really a boiling,

bubbling brew of virtual particles

that pop in and out of existence

in a time scale so short,
you can't actually see them.

Now, you might say,

if they exist for a time that's so short

you can't even see them,

it's like counting angels
on the head of a pin.

It's like philosophy.

It's not like physics.

But in fact, while we can't see

those virtual particles directly,

they do have an impact,
an indirect impact,

on atoms and the structure of atoms

in a way that we can actually predict.

- So we now realize that
nothingness is foamy.

It's foam created by subatomic particles

darting in and out of existence.

Well, if subatomic particles can do this,

why not universes?

We now believe that in the quantum foam,

baby universes are constantly appearing.

So if I had a supermicroscope

and could look down at the fabric,

the instantaneous fabric
of space-time itself,

I would see a bubble bath

with baby universes being
formed all the time.

- If you have nothingness,

quantum fluctuations will
always produce something.

And when you add gravity in the mix,

it's even possible that whole universes

could come from nothing.

- Big bangs happen all the time,

but most of them don't get anywhere.

They pop back into the vacuum.

But our universe was special.

Our universe, for some reason,

popped out of nothing
and just kept on going.

- So not only is all
the evidence suggestive

that we came from nothing,

but the laws of physics tell
us that it's to be expected

that something comes from nothing.

- They impose on the science,
on their observations,

they impose their world view,

which is really their
religious belief system.

- So the problem with cosmology

is that we keep inventing theories,

ad hoc theories,

to try to explain the
data, such as inflation,

dark matter, dark energy and so on,

just to keep patching the theory up.

- The energy of the vacuum,
dark energy, as we call it,

is the greatest mystery
in all of creation.

- Dark energy,

a hypothetical form of energy

that allows an accelerated
expansion of the universe.

- Nobody knows what the dark energy is.

There are thousands of
people out there trying

to work out what the dark energy is.

- What they do is, they
have to invent it now.

And if you've ever read
the science magazines,

they say, well, there's dark energy

and dark matter out there,

and they constitute 96% of our universe.

The reason they say that
is because they need it.

It's not going to work.

Their big bang universe
is not going to work

without that matter and energy.

(light orchestral music)

- [Narrator] The necessity of
adding unobserved entities,

such as dark matter and dark energy,

to the big bang theory

might be a sign that
there is something wrong

in the fundamental assumptions.

- In our universe, we
have two great theories,

God, in some sense, has a
left hand and a right hand.

The theory of the big and
the theory of the very small.

The theory of the big is relativity.

It gives us black holes and big bangs

and things we can see with
the naked eye in outer space.

Then there's the quantum
theory, the theory of the atom.

Now, the juncture between the two,

that's when all bets fail.

- You can actually split
the two giant sides,

the relativity side for the large

and the quantum side for the small,

and we haven't been able
to unify all these things

back together again.

- There is a crisis in cosmology.

- Because the quantum field theory says

there's this vast amount of
energy in the quantum vacuum.

If you do a simpleminded application

of that to general relativity,

it tells you the universe
should be accelerating

at an incredible number of orders

of magnitude faster than it is.

- Usually in science,
if we're off by a factor

of two or a factor of 10,

we call that horrible.

We say, something's wrong with the theory.

We're off by a factor of 10.

However, in cosmology,

we're off by a factor of 10 to the 120.

That is one with 120 zeros after it.

This is the largest mismatch
between theory and experiment

in the history of science.

- [Narrator] Recently, some
theorists have proposed

that the need for dark
energy can be dispensed with

if we dispense with the
Copernican principle itself.

- There's an important point here

because if you then said, okay,
let's stop here for a minute

and let's suppose dark
energy doesn't exist.

Now, the raw data's correct.

It's what we observe.

But let's just change the model a bit.

Let's say, okay,

let's suppose for a
minute that the universe

is not homogenous.

- [Narrator] Or, to put it another way,

let's suppose the universe does not follow

the Copernican principle after all.

- Let's see if we can
fit exactly the same data

with no dark energy,

and the answer is yes, you can.

- [Narrator] If we assume that Earth

is in a special position

near the center of a local void,

we can account for all observations

without the necessity of dark energy.

- This is using a
description of the universe

that has us somewhere
near the local center,

a spherically symmetric universe.

But when you apply that type of a model,

it actually does fit the
data without dark energy.

- What I'm saying is that
is a possible alternative

which needs to be looked at.

(upbeat electronic music)

- [Narrator] Among the
recent large-scale surveys

of our universe, the
Sloan Digital Sky Survey

has given us our most
complete look to date

at the distribution of
galaxies in the sky.

Professor John Hartnett

has researched these galaxy distributions

and has discovered evidence

of non-Copernican periodic structure

in the galaxy distributions.

- We looked at,

of the order upward of
over 400,000 galaxies,

and sort of posed the question, well,

how are these things arranged in the sky?

These are three-dimensional map.

And had a look at whether or not

there was any structure in that.

To my surprise, the mathematics bore out,

and there is some very unusual structure.

Now, if you look at a picture of this map,

when I first saw that, it looked
to me like there was, like,

concentric shells, as if the
galaxies preferred to lie

at some periodic spacing
out from the Earth.

This is sort of like
saying that our galaxy

is somewhere near the
center of the universe,

and when you look at the
galaxies arrayed all around us,

they're on sort of, like, giant shells.

They prefer to lie on
these concentric shells

spaced out by about 250 million
light-years' separation.

- [Narrator] One of the chief difficulties

faced by cosmologists is that,
as we look out at the cosmos,

our view is partially blocked
by our own Milky Way Galaxy.

We are able to see only about
a quarter of the whole sky.

As we pull up from Earth,

we see the two pie-shaped wedges,

which constitute the data of
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

Each one of these dots
represents an entire galaxy

containing, on average,
hundreds of billions of stars,

giving us a visual indication
of just how astonishingly vast

our cosmos actually is.

As we look down upon this
two-dimensional slice of the sky,

we notice that there is regular,

periodic, concentric structure,

with a preferred redshift
spacing, or interval,

or Delta-Z value,

between each shell of approximately .0246

or about 250 million light-years.

If we fill in the
missing areas of the sky,

on the assumption that the distribution

is more or less similar,

we are in a position to get a look

at how the whole 3-D structure

might appear as viewed from Earth.

The first thing to notice is

if we looked at the
universe from some point

far removed from our location,

we would not see the same
concentric shell structure,

which is directly contrary
to the assumptions

of the Copernican principle.

In 3-D, we can slice open
the galaxy distributions,

almost as if we were looking
at the layers of an onion,

disclosing the concentric
shell structure around us.

- So every phenomenon that you
see out there in the universe

is all in concentric shells around where?

The Earth.

I mean, how do you avoid this evidence?

- Whether it would lead to
an Earth-centered universe

in itself, I'm not that sure,
because it certainly leads

to our galaxy maybe being a special place.

- Now, that is controversial,

because anyone in the
standard cosmology community

would not even entertain such a notion.

- Cosmologists should be open-minded

and not suppress, if you like,

the exploration of non-mainstream ideas.

(light electronic music)

- [Narrator] The oldest
light in the universe,

according to the big bang theory,

is the cosmic microwave background,

the leftover radiation
from the big bang itself,

the only source of radiation
we've ever discovered

that comes to us from all
directions of the sky.

- The cosmic microwave background

is the afterglow of the big bang.

It's the radiation coming
at us from the big bang,

the leftover radiation.

It's amazing.

In fact, it's highly visible, in a sense,

but it wasn't discovered until 1965,

in New Jersey, of all places,

by two people who didn't know
what the heck they were doing.

But they won the Nobel Prize anyway.

But in fact, you've actually seen it.

Well, if you've ever
disconnected your cable TV,

or if you're, like me,

old enough to remember before cable TV,

when the stations went
off the air at night,

after the test pattern,

there'd be static.

If you disconnect the cable
on your TV, you'll see static.

Turns out about 1% of the static

you can see in your TV

is radiation left over from the big bang.

- [Narrator] This background
radiation should be isotropic.

It should define no special
direction in the universe

and certainly not one
related in any way to us.

Max Tegmark decided to look

at the cosmic microwave
background in a new way,

and he discovered something amazing.

- I decided to look at the
data in a different way,

by separating it into what
we call spherical harmonics.

And each one of those
harmonics corresponds

to a picture you can
look at on your screen.

And I wrote this computer program at,

like, three in the morning.

I was done and I hit enter, and poof!

Up came a picture.

And whoa.

Crazy.

I had typed in two,

which was the lowest one of these modes,

and it didn't look at all
like it was supposed to.

I had looked at this because
there had been previous papers

saying maybe there was
something a little fishy

about this lowest harmonic,

but nobody had ever made
a picture of it before

'cause they couldn't
clean out all the junk.

And I checked my program.

There was nothing seemingly wrong with it.

So I thought, I'm kind of tired,

but I have to type in three

and see what the next one looks like.

And that one looked even more crazy.

It had this big band, like
a pancake across the sky,

and it was lined up with what came out

when I had typed in two.

Whoa.

(chuckling)

What is going on here?

So we mentioned this sort of in passing

at the end of our paper,

that there was this little,
this funny alignment,

which later got dubbed the Axis of Evil,

and we did another paper and realized

that it's actually quite
unlikely that it's just a fluke.

And then later on, other
people like Dragan Huterer

and many others

picked up on this and did
much more careful studies

and found that, actually,
there was nothing wrong

in my computer program

and the effect was there,
and even more strongly

so than we had guessed.

- When you look at the
cosmic microwave background,

it's uniform in all directions,

which is what you'd expect
for the universe, in fact.

Another bit of evidence that
there really was a big bang.

But there have been some anomalies.

- There's one point about it that

the radiation isn't exactly
isotropic, it's almost.

- So they sent up this
satellite, and they find out,

wow, there's anisotropies out there.

It's not smooth.

Not only did they find anisotropies,

what they found was
that these anisotropies,

these disturbances, these
temperature disturbances

throughout the universe,

were all pointing to the Earth.

- This is if you just look
at the galaxies out there

in the universe,

it doesn't matter whether
you look at them like this

or whether you tilt your
head like this, or like that,

'cause there is no special direction,

there's no up or down in space.

- One of the fundamental
principles of cosmology

is the Copernican principle,

that we believe that the Earth

does not occupy a special position.

- Yet there is this very
special direction imprinted

in these baby pictures of the universe,

and it's pretty clear now,
since many different groups

have hammered at this,

that it's real, it's in there in the data.

What's much less clear is what it means.

- [Narrator] The cosmic
microwave background alignments

do not define a center,

but instead, an axis,

a preferred direction
spanning the entire universe.

The fact that these
alignments are correlated

to our own neighborhood

is highly difficult to explain

from within the assumptions
of big bang cosmology.

The dipole, which is
aligned with our equinox,

is usually attributed to a relative motion

between our solar system and
the cosmic background itself.

However, the quadrupole
and octopole alignments

are also, with respect to the ecliptic,

the plane of the orbit of
the planets around the sun.

- Some people have actually suggested

that there's structure

in the cosmic microwave
background radiation

that's related to where the Earth is

and how it's going around the sun.

Which is crazy, because
we're nothing special.

- [Narrator] Professor Lawrence Krauss,

writing back in 2006,

addressed these strange anomalies

in the cosmic microwave
background as follows.

- He says this,

"But when you look at the CMB map,

"you also see that the
structure that is observed

"is, in fact, in a weird way,

"correlated with the plane
of the Earth around the sun.

"Is this Copernicus
coming back to haunt us?

"That's crazy.

"We're looking out at the whole universe.

"There's no way there should
be a correlation of structure

"with our motion of the
Earth around the sun.

"The plane of the Earth
around the sun, the ecliptic.

"That would say we are truly
the center of the universe."

Unquote.

- In 2005, I was talking
about the observation

and what it would imply.

But it's so strange that
it's likely to be wrong.

Now, that doesn't mean it's always wrong,

and some things are so strange
that they're actually right,

but in this case, I
suspect that the structure

that was seen by some people

that suggests that, you know,

the whole microwave background
is arranged around us

is probably not right.

- If you run up against an interpretation

that sounds viable and credible,

that's not Copernican, it's thrown out.

- And so I can see the
resistance there, you know,

that if you, like a heretic, you know,

you come out and you say,
hey, no, this is not right.

There is evidence that this
cosmological principle,

this idea that we're
not in any special place

in the universe,

there's something wrong with that.

- [Max] That whole cosmic
microwave background

is pointing to us,

this tiny little space in the universe,

and that happens to be where we live.

- I frankly try to keep an open mind

about what this ultimately means

'cause I still don't know.

- As a matter of fact, you can
go on some Web sites of NASA

and see that they've
started to take down stuff

that might hint to a geocentric universe.

- Now, whenever there's something weird,

it's wonderful if you get
a fresh measurement of it,

so I'm really keen to see

what the Planck satellite's
pictures are gonna look like,

if they are going to have
the same weird alignment.

And they're going to
have even better ability

also to clean out

noise from the galaxy and other sources,

so I'm keeping all options
on the table until then.

- [Narrator] The
strangeness of the alignment

of cosmic microwave background

with the ecliptic and equinoxes of Earth

led many cosmologists to believe

that the Planck satellite mission

would finally show these
alignments to have been a mistake,

a foreground that wasn't
subtracted properly,

or a scanning beam anomaly
in the WMAP telescope.

Would the Axis of Evil
turn out to be real?

Finally, on March 21, 2013,

at the headquarters of the
European Space Agency in Paris,

the results of the
Planck satellite mission

were publicly released.

- Today we're going to present

to you the cosmic microwave background,

progress toward the future
by understanding the past.

- This map is a gold mine of information.

- [Narrator] The stakes were high.

If Planck were to confirm the
existence of the Axis of Evil,

it could mean the foundational principle

of modern cosmology,

the Copernican principle, is wrong.

Planck was expected by
many to show instead

that the strange CMB Axis of Evil

was nothing more than
foreground contamination

or a scanning beam anomaly
somehow missed by the WMAP team.

We flew back to Boston to
interview Max Tegmark at MIT.

We asked him whether his
discovery of the Axis of Evil

had been confirmed or debunked by Planck.

- It was just so exciting.

I'm standing there shaving
at five in the morning

while I'm watching George Efstathiou

on the live feed press conference,

and when the first image
comes up on the screen,

I had lined it up with this
cleaned image of the data

that we had made way back in the past

and it all matches.

This part matches this part,
this one matches this part.

And I'm thinking to myself,
whoa, this is so awesome.

And the Axis of Evil is obviously there

because all the big spots
are in the same places,

so all these puzzling
anomalies have survived.

And the Axis of Evil is still with us.

And we have to actually
ask us what it means.

- [Narrator] But what about the alignments

with the ecliptic and equinoxes,

which Lawrence Krauss had said would mean

we were really the center of the universe?

We asked Max Tegmark if Planck's
results had convinced him

that the Axis of Evil actually was aligned

with our ecliptic and equinoxes.

- I have to, I have to confess

that I was bothered by the fact

that the Axis of Evil seemed linked

to a special direction
in our solar system,

and something in my gut was telling me

that this might, even though
I greatly trust the people

on the WMAP team,

point to something
fishy in their analysis.

But I also feel very strongly

that I have to actually override my gut

by using my brain and by looking at data.

And now we have completely
independent data

with better detectors,

completely different people
seeing the same thing.

So there's just no way we can
blame this on the WMAP team.

There is, I think, a real possibility

that the Axis of Evil and
other strange things we see

in the large scales of the
cosmic microwave background

are a hint of something really big,

just the tip of an
iceberg of something huge.

- [Narrator] So now we're in a position

to look at the entire microwave sky.

First, we introduce the multipoles,

the dipole, usually attributed
to a relative motion

between our local system
and the CMB itself.

The quadrupole,

the north and south ecliptic poles

and the spring and fall equinoxes.

The S-shaped line represents
the plane of the ecliptic,

the plane of the orbit of
the planets around the sun.

Notice how it neatly divides
warm and cold sections

of the CMB map.

This is our first hint

that something very unusual is going on.

Now we transform our Mollweide projection

into a sphere and rotate our universe,

so that the S-shaped line of the ecliptic

becomes the dark line across
the center of the sphere.

This plane, lying between
the warm and cold areas

of the CMB,

will become the grid along

which we fly through the
entire visible universe,

from the point at which space
first becomes transparent

and structure begins to form

through the Virgo supercluster

and finally to our own Milky Way Galaxy.

As we enter it, amazingly,

we arrive at our own local neighborhood,

our sun and, finally, our home.

So does this mean that the
pendulum has started to swing

back away from the Copernican principle?

Could this, in fact, be Copernicus
coming back to haunt us?

- Now today, fortunately,

we don't burn astronomers alive anymore,

which I think is a good thing.

- Life may be very rare,
and we may be very special,

but that doesn't mean the
universe was created just for us.

- I really changed my
opinion in a major way,

how I feel about our place in the cosmos.

For many years, I was feeling
more and more insignificant.

We realized that we
humans were just living

on a small planet,

in a solar system, in a
galaxy, in this universe.

We just kept getting
smaller, and then we realized

we're not even made of the
majority kind of substance,

dark matter, dark energy.

And then we realized that
we're also very brief.

100-year life-spans

compared to the 14-billion-year
age of the universe.

So how could we possibly be significant?

But I've really completely
changed my mind,

and now I actually think
we're very significant.

- [Narrator] The very successes of science

have led it to this moment of truth.

It now confronts the very same questions

which were once considered
the domain of metaphysics,

even of theology.

- We are asking about ultimate things.

What is the bedrock of the world?

What is time?

What is motion?

These are the most fundamental things.

- Oh, this cosmic microwave background

is like we are seeing
the fingerprint of God,

the hallmarks of the creator.

- Because nobody believes that
the universe comes to an end.

Just where we can see.

- It's been remarkably
difficult to come up

with any physical theory

that just makes exactly what we see,

and then stops.

(light orchestral music)

- You know, I'm a great
advocate of the multiverse

and the idea that, you know,

our universe is just one of many,

you know, this progression
in the Copernican concept.

- Multiverse,

the hypothesis that an unending
number of universes exist,

the main purpose being to answer
what is commonly understood

as the fine-tuning problem,

namely, that our single universe operates

within a very narrow margin
of physical constants

and could not have come
into existence by chance.

- We are made out of electrons.

If each electron is at multiple
places at the same time,

then am I not also multiple
places at the same time?

And the answer is yes.

Now apply this quantum
principle to the universe.

If the universe obeys uncertainty,

then you don't know
where the big bang was.

The big bang could have been here,

the big bang could have been there.

Just like electrons, you don't
know where the electron is.

So this means you have multiple universes.

So as soon as you apply
the quantum principle

to the universe,

immediately, you get parallel universes.

- And some people don't like
it and call it a crisis.

I call it a multiverse.

- I think the multiverse
has really come about

because of a whole range
of fine-tuning issues,

the Goldilocks-type universe,

the laws of physics finely tuned,

the existence of humans.

- The multiverse is an attempt
to take quantum mechanics

and give every possible answer as a yes.

- There could be an infinite
number of universes,

and the energy and empty space

would be different in each one.

And only in those in which the energy

and empty space is comparable

to what we see

would galaxies have formed
and life would have formed.

So it's kind of a cosmic
natural selection.

And it's not fine-tuning.

It's not religious,
like some people think.

It's the opposite.

- Yes, you get all sorts
of answers, predictively,

but it doesn't provide the mechanisms

and it doesn't determine things properly.

- There are actually a
variety of approaches

that come from both cosmology
and from particle physics

which predict that there
could be many other universes.

- By inventing all of
these other universes

that are unobservable, unverifiable.

- If you have a mechanism
for producing one big bang,

it's going to produce other big bangs

and therefore, it would
seem fairly logical

there should be many other universes.

- The multiverse hypothesis,
the problem in a sense is

it can explain too much.

In a multiverse, as various
people have proposed,

anything you want happens
here or something else.

You can take anything you
want and you can explain it

by the multiverse.

That means it has incredible
explanatory power,

but it also means there's
effectively nothing

you can do to test it.

- In trying to figure
out all these anomalies

that they see in the universe

that don't fit the Copernican principle,

what this leads to is creating
a whole bunch of universes,

billions and billions.

It goes on ad infinitum.

Somewhere in all those universes,

there's going to be something

that's not geocentric, you see,

and that's how we can
get out of the problem.

- There's a geocentric
universe in the multiverses.

There's a heliocentric one.

There's a Jovicentric one centered

on Jupiter by this hypothesis.

- It's a very, very
interesting hypothesis.

One can make good reasons
why it's a good model

to believe in,

but there isn't any direct way

to prove the multiverse is
correct observationally.

- We cannot directly observe
these other universes

because, remember, the point is,

we cannot observe beyond
40 billion light-years.

- We've got to be careful when we

claim the mantle of science

for some of what comes out.

I'm very happy to claim the mantle

of scientifically based philosophy

for what comes up,

and I'm worried when we're
claiming the mantle of science.

- The fine-tunings,

if we're the only universe,

the fine-tunings are
really hard to explain

unless you're going to invoke
a creator or something.

- We seem to find ourself
in a part of the universe

that is perfectly tuned for life.

- On the other hand, if
you have got a multiverse,

then it's fairly natural by
a simple selection effect

that we are going to be
in one of the universes

which is going to allow life to arise.

- Saying there's many universes

doesn't really answer anything, does it,

'cause it doesn't deal
with the universe we're in,

assuming it's even true.

- Where are we going to find
ourselves in a multiverse?

The only place we're
going to find ourselves

is where we can survive.

- I would agree that the alternative

is between a multiverse and God.

- It's just too perfect

to be a happenstance or a coincidence.

- The reason the universe appears to be

so tuned for our existence

is not because some divine
intelligence decided,

I want to create a universe
so people can be in it,

but rather, if it were any
different, we wouldn't be here.

- Once you eliminate the creator,

you have this gradation of learning,

and all of a sudden, you reach this point

where you can't go any further.

- The universe could not
have been an accident.

It is so gorgeous, when it
could have been random and ugly.

It is so beautiful and elegant,

when it could have been random

and an unwieldy collection
of subatomic particles.

Here it is, this glorious universe

of ours that creates consciousness.

- To me, that's evidence of
a, of a creator behind it.

- What is particularly worrying about some

of the discussion of the multiverse

is the use of the word infinity.

- God.

That's the only infinity.

- Infinity is a number that can never,

ever, ever be attained.

Infinity is the unattainable.

- Big bang cosmology
assumes that the only thing

that exists is the physical world,

that there's nothing beyond that.

- You don't confront the
face of God in a multiverse.

You're just the result

of a mathematical equation
splitting infinitely.

- If that were true,

there would be no room at all for spirits,

or for God, or for any of
the mutual interactions.

- People have had a brick
wall placed in front of them

because science has said certain things,

and they said, you must stay
over in this category here

and you cannot go into the God category

because that's going
to destroy our science.

- It does tend to be taboo

to call on God or a creator
for anything in science.

- There's no evidence
of planning or purpose

in the universe, as far as we can tell.

- They're not really referring

to a Genesis, biblical creator.

They're referring to some innate,

inanimate universe that created itself.

- So, George, if you don't,

if you do take the fine-tuning seriously

but you don't believe it actually

is due to being a multiverse,

what is your explanation
of the fine-tunings?

- Uh, you really want to push me on this?

(laughing)

- Even if it's a
nonscientific explanation.

- Um, it's absolutely possible
that there is a multiverse.

It's possible this was just
the way things happened,

that there's nothing more to say about it.

It's possible that, in some sense,

it was meant to be that way

and that, in fact, all the
other evidence about meaning,

purpose and so on in the universe

might help one to say that

there's some element of
meaning underlying all of this.

- But is that tantamount to saying

that there was a fine-tuner or a creator?

- That would be tantamount to saying that.

- [Narrator] And so,
at the end of the day,

the question remains,

are we significant, or
just a cosmic accident?

- Well, I think it's now
very well established

that our universe

is a very special universe

within the space of
universes we can imagine.

- When you look at all the parameters

that have to be just right

temperature, solar radiation

or stars' radiation nearby, et cetera.

So when you really look at the details,

it takes a phenomenal number
of parameters to be correct

in order to support life on the Earth.

When I see how barren
the other planets are

and how bountiful the Earth is,

something's different.

And we're in just the right spot for it.

- We gotta get away from
that Copernican principle

and the notion that man means nothing.

From just a meaningless
molecule to a human being

that's in a special location

for presumably a special purpose,

and therefore men are
driven by their purpose,

and they can see themselves
in a very different light

than the fact that they
are simply chaotic blobs.

- So that according to big bang cosmology,

the future looks very bleak.

Either the universe is going
to keep on expanding forever,

and eventually it'll run out of energy

and all life will die,

or it will re-collapse again,

and then everything will die as well.

- The two lessons of cosmology

that I like to give people are,

one, we're more insignificant

than we thought we were before.

You're completely insignificant.

All of our human drama and everything else

is more irrelevant when
it comes to the cosmos

than it was before.

So we're insignificant,
and the future's miserable.

So those are the two things we've learned.

- One shouldn't be too pessimistic.

- 'Cause astronomy is ripe for
a new Copernican revolution,

perhaps back in the other direction.

- The Earth is a very special
place, no two ways about it.

- Human beings are very wonderful.

- You are so special that
consciousness is so powerful

and so hard to create

that it's the defining principle
of the universe itself.

- But if we are significant,

and if there's something special

about our home, this planet,

then those concepts have
tremendous implications,

and we need to be then
focused on our commitments

as stewards over the
creation that we have.

- We need to take that brick wall away

so that we can make that bridge

between science and theology.

- I have a minority view
as to what this means.

I think it means that life of
advanced form we enjoy here

is extremely rare

and that we are, in fact,

the only life in our
entire observable universe

that's gotten to the point
that we have telescopes.

And if that's true, then
we are very significant.

- The carbon, the nitrogen, the oxygen,

the iron in your body

wasn't created in the big bang.

It was created in the
fiery nuclear furnaces

of the cores of stars,

and the only way it could
have gotten in your body

was if the stars exploded.

So, and the atoms in your left hand might

have come from a different star

than your right hand.

And not only are you intimately
connected to the cosmos,

every atom in your body has experienced

the most cataclysmic explosion in nature,

a supernova explosion.

When a star explodes,

it burns with the brightness
of 10 billion stars,

and every atom in your
body's experienced it.

- So what I take away from this is

we simply always need to keep an open mind

and listen to all viewpoints

and let Mother Nature be the
one who gets the final word.

- There's always a
revolution coming in science

because science is
necessarily provisional.

It cannot make a final statement

because it doesn't know everything.

It cannot examine what's
going on at the four corners

of the universe.

- As to how many angels
dance on the head of a pin,

I think it's still an open question.

- You know, I can tell you
what the future might be.

But it could be something different.

- I mean, it's absolutely extraordinary.

When you look at it, there's
this little ball of rock

with this thin layer of air,

and here we are, dependent on the rock

and the air and the sun,

floating through this immense space.

I just think one ought
to have that picture

of what we are

in order to have a full
concept of being a human being.

- We also know that there is nothing

about the laws of physics that says

that life has to be limited
to being stuck on this planet

and can't ultimately engulf our
entire universe, come alive.

If that happens in the distant future,

I think it will be
because of what we humans

decide to do here on this planet.

And it's probably going to
be settled in my lifetime,

whether we just permanently screw it up

or get our act together and
can seed space with life.

If in the distant future, our
whole universe has come alive,

I don't know how our distant ancestors

are going to think about us,

but I'm sure they're not going to think

of us as insignificant.

(dramatic synth music)

- [Narrator] For nearly 400 years,

ever since the trial of Galileo,

there has often been tension,
if not outright conflict,

between faith and science.

Remarkably, the Copernican
principle seems to be the ground

upon which faith and science
are again, at long last,

approaching one another.

Perhaps we can hope to
achieve a more fruitful

and successful dialogue this time around.

♪ I see the clouds in the distance ♪

♪ And the winds have changed ♪

♪ There's a look in your eyes ♪

♪ I can't explain ♪

♪ I feel your soul's in the desert ♪

♪ And I can't make it rain ♪

♪ The sky stands still ♪

♪ As the heavens turn around ♪

♪ You will always be remembered ♪

♪ Be remembered ♪

♪ I see the light of the morning ♪

♪ Takes my breath away ♪

♪ And so much has
changed since yesterday ♪

♪ I put my faith in the future
'cause I know it's okay ♪

♪ The sky stands still ♪

♪ As the heavens turn around ♪

♪ You will always be remembered ♪

♪ Be remembered ♪

♪ Under the stars, I am amazed ♪

♪ I will say bye, yesterdays ♪

♪ And I'll wait right here until ♪

♪ The sky stands still ♪

♪ The sky stands still ♪

♪ The sky stands still ♪

♪ The sky stands still ♪

♪ The sky stands still ♪

♪ In the heat of the sun,
I never felt so alive ♪

♪ I saw 1000 different worlds
in the midnight skies ♪

♪ I wish I could hold on to this moment ♪

♪ For the rest of our lives ♪

♪ The sky stands still ♪

♪ As the heavens turn around ♪

♪ The sky stands still ♪

♪ As the heavens turn around ♪

♪ You will always be remembered ♪

♪ Be remembered ♪

♪ Under the stars, I am amazed ♪

(light classical music)