On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:58:11 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Pierz <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > \ > > > > > >> Not sure about Smolin's theory making a comeback. His idea depended on >> the notion of black holes spawning new universes, with each BH tweaking the >> laws of physics slightly in the new universe. But black hole theory has >> progressed a lot since then and I don't think anything in the modern >> theories allows for them to spawn new universes. >> > > > Richard Dawkins > said > "*The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only > theory we know of that is, in principle, capable of explaining the > existence of organized complexity*." > That's certainly true for biology, for it to be true for physics too you > need reproduction and mutation. Some say the singularity at the center of > a Black Hole is infinitely small and spacetime is infinitely curved and > space and time comes to an end at that point. > But > > Smolin > > says the singularity is very small but not infinitely small and spacetime > is highly curved but not infinitely curved there and space and time will > not end but bounce off the singularity producing a new universe. And > because of quantum uncertainty a dozen or so physical constants in the > offspring universe will be slightly different from its parent. > > As for recent developments ruling it out....for Smolin's theory > > to work at least some > > information > > would be needed to be > > transferred > > from the parent universe to the baby universe through a black hole > , and that may not be possible but there is no scientific consensus on > that yet. > > John K Clark > > > I enjoyed Smolin's book when I read it years ago, but conceptually as an explanation for complexity I'm not so sure. I like the evolutionary cosmology, because I agree with Smolin that purely anthropic explanations for fine-tuning are unsatisfying, but Smolin's idea itself rests on a remarkable "coincidence": the fact that tuning for black holes also happens to be good for the evolution of life. It would be a great theory if the problem were explaining the surprising number of black holes, but it isn't. It's explaining fine-tuning for life. With Smolin's theory we're still left wondering why the universe isn't just a giant swiss cheese of black holes getting better and better at reproducing themselves with no trace of life anywhere. For his theory really to work, the life itself would need to contribute to the generation of black holes, otherwise the development of life looks like a "third wheel".
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
