Applemcg reviewed Time Reborn by Lee Smolin
Review of 'Time Reborn' on 'LibraryThing'
3 stars
Smolin has a point: this business of timelessness needs a re-think. At the risk of sounding arrogant, his community shrinks because of his argument. I'm one of those curious, who likes to think i can appreciate what the serious thinkers think. I didn't say understand; i'm not that arrogant. But I think I'm clever enough to appreciate what's at stake. A recent reading of the Tao of Physics resurrected any recollection I had that quantum physics now tells us that time is an emergent property, rather than fundamental. At least according to the largest part of that community. I think many (most?) well-read people would find that a novel idea. So do I. So, I start this book in sympathy with where Smolin is going. He carefully lays out his plan. To paraphrase "First, let's see how time lost it's unquestioned status as fundamental", then he says he'll see why …
Smolin has a point: this business of timelessness needs a re-think. At the risk of sounding arrogant, his community shrinks because of his argument. I'm one of those curious, who likes to think i can appreciate what the serious thinkers think. I didn't say understand; i'm not that arrogant. But I think I'm clever enough to appreciate what's at stake. A recent reading of the Tao of Physics resurrected any recollection I had that quantum physics now tells us that time is an emergent property, rather than fundamental. At least according to the largest part of that community. I think many (most?) well-read people would find that a novel idea. So do I. So, I start this book in sympathy with where Smolin is going. He carefully lays out his plan. To paraphrase "First, let's see how time lost it's unquestioned status as fundamental", then he says he'll see why that has to be rethought. This is an honest approach for a scientist. "I'm with you, Lee". And he's thorough. By the end of Part I, he's taken us from Newton thru Einstein and Bohr, when in the 20's (I guess) "time" lost it's place in the equation's denominator.returnreturnHis restoring time on scientific grounds comes from cosmological questions: Einsteins forsaking the cosmological constant, and since his death, the need to insert it back to explain newer observations. I can appreciate (recall, not the same as understanding) that now, dark matter and dark energy explain the need for a cosmological constant, and help to model the observations. Smolin argues that physical laws have evolved in this universe to explain the measured changes in the distribution of the universe's constituents: photons, stars (matter), energy, and the dark versions. And evolution implies passage of time. The initial conditions and the "selection" of fundamental constants receive pro and con arguments. So too, the possibility of multiple (infinite numbers of) universes, and a single infinite universe. As his scope widens, his audience narrows. The problem he's trying to solve matters to fewer and fewer people. He confesses his real motive in the epilogue, where he sums up his argument as the need for a new philosophy. I suspect literary critics could easily tease out the circularity of his reasoning. To me, it's not unlike a local pastor of my witness who complains about those who complain, failing to see himself in that club. I rationalize my rating of 3* on my belief one's ratings should be a binomial distribution. Since the lowest I will go is 2.5, and I only allow a handful of books at that rating, this book is not one of those.
