Jump to content

Lee Smolin's cosmological natural selection.


too-open-minded
 Share

Recommended Posts

A physics professor at the university of Waterloo has a hypothesis that the universe evolves and has natural selection through black holes. Where a new universe begins.

 

Personally I really like the idea, actually had though of it myself then I saw it on through the wormhole with Morgan Freeman. I felt compelled to email Mr. Smolin, no reply but i'm sure he is a busy man and probably thinks i'm just a nut lol.

 

Anyways I really like the concept of a multiverse and had pondered if black holes could give birth to new universes as well.

 

What do you think about all this?

 

here is a link -

http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/index.php/Cosmological_natural_selection_%28fecund_universes%29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps, somehow, when the fabric of space-time is compressed and "Big Crunched", and then "Big Bangs" in re-expansion, then the fundamental constants (and laws?) are modified slightly? That could account for the "variation" half of the natural selection effect; "selection" would occur by whether the space-time was stable and persisted, or re-collapsed into another "Big Crunch"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All quantum "particles" (for lack of better term, "everything with a wave-function") have energy; but not all have mass. Perhaps energy -- literally representing "the ability to do work, the ability to effect changes in the rest of the universe, the ability to make a difference and be noticed" (without which no effects could be generated, and the "thing" would not exist, in any philosophical sense) -- is the most fundamental, and least alterable, most "conserved" quantity? Somehow, during a "Big Crunch" event, as the (mass-)energy densities diverge towards infinity, some "miracle" occurs (for lack of better term) -- perhaps even to protect space-time + energy from an actual infinity singularity -- with the result, that another "Big Bang" (eventually) ensues, with all the fundamental parameters altered slightly. Would that imply, that the forms of fundamental physical laws, e.g. inverse square laws, would remain invariant; and only the constants of proportionality would change (h, c, G, e0, u0, Weak/Strong coupling constants) ? I.e. all the equations survive BC/BB, but the specific numbers get tweaked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be misunderstanding you, my education is kind of poor right now. It is improving though!

 

I wouldn't so much as say that a universe has different laws of physics than from a parent universe 100 generations ago. If the theory is correct then all I think happens is every bit of energy and every particles is broken down to its most primitive form during the "big crunch" as you call it and then re-configures during and after the "big bang."

 

The laws of physics stay the same but what happens in that universe, individual galaxies, planets, stars, etc are different than that of its parent universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A physics professor at the university of Waterloo has a hypothesis that the universe evolves and has natural selection through black holes. Where a new universe begins.

 

Personally I really like the idea, actually had though of it myself then I saw it on through the wormhole with Morgan Freeman. I felt compelled to email Mr. Smolin, no reply but i'm sure he is a busy man and probably thinks i'm just a nut lol.

 

Anyways I really like the concept of a multiverse and had pondered if black holes could give birth to new universes as well.

 

What do you think about all this?

 

here is a link -

http://evodevouniver...nd_universes%29

Since this is a mainstream forum, what you are asking for or considering is either alternative mainstream theory, alternative cosmology, or opinions and conjecture.

 

This idea has been proposed before by more than just one author. The most well known idea, I think, is on the other side of some or all Black holes exists a white hole which can create a new universe. The idea was proposed to answer the question, "what happens to matter falling into black holes?" The present answer, that I recall, is that the matter destroyed falling into the black hole, is conserved in the form of the gravitational and other energy of the black hole.

 

The main purpose of conjecture is most often to solve problems that are considered not-well-answered. What problems would a new theory solve? What problems might multi-verse theory solve? Why do you think black holes are a better source for the creation of multiverses than somewhere else? Why is this increased complexity of theory needed in the first place? The answers to these questions presently could only be conjecture.

 

What evidence is there to support such an idea? None that I know of. So even if you like the idea there should be a very clear reason for your "liking it" in the absence of any evidence for its existence.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right i'm biased towards the idea, not going to lie. I don't stand anywhere to make a claim, I just like the idea probably because I too thought it possible. I am very well aware that it could be and to our current knowledge is complete BS.

Then I think you have a good foundation concerning the odds against such a proposal. Personally I think Lee Smolin wrote a great book though:

"The Trouble with Physics."

//

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simplistically, if the "form" of fundamental physical laws survive BC/BB, whilst the constants of proportionality change:

[math]F_g = \frac{G M m}{r^2} \longrightarrow \frac{G' M m}{r^2}[/math]

then somehow the "form" of physical laws would be "intrinsic" to the fabric of space-time, like GR says about gravity; and the fabric of space-time would somehow survive BC/BB more or less intact. The minor modification "variations", [math]G \rightarrow G'[/math], would somehow be "superficial", a little like some adjustable pressure setting on a hydraulic system. Through every BC/BB, the forms of fundamental laws would persist ('product of masses over distance squared"); only the "adjustable strengths" of interactions, which strengths are reflected in the fine-structure constant(s), would change ("the new G is 7.76e-12").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found out that the last book I read on physics was wrong :/\

Have you read the book and is it factual?

I presume you were talking to me?

 

Yes, I read Lee Smolin's book. Such books are not based upon facts in general. I'm sure all the facts he presented are true. Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist. Nothing in theoretic physics has any certainty to it. I think Dr. Smolin makes some very good points concerning what kinds of problems are involved with today's theoretical physics.

//

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.