Re: OT> Cosmology

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:27:53 GMT, Rufus <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

RS wrote:

Physicist Lee Smolin (the "Loop Quantum Gravity" guy) has proposed
a model for Darwinian-type evolution of
universes, based on their ability to produce black holes, and the
assumption that each black hole is a gateway to another universe.
That model relates our own big bang to a singularity that occurred in
another universe.

The idea is: heavy elements (heavier than iron) -> neutron stars
(which collapse) -> black holes -> universes. The universes that are
produced will have different cosmological constants. When those are
suitable for creation of heavy elements by fusion, the cycle
continues. If not, that universe does not reproduce.

Pretty wild idea, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection

...now that's really interesting. Hadn't heard or thought about
survival of the fittest universe...so, global warming is just a Darwin
thang, and we shouldn't waste any energy mucking with it...I can see that.

While I can appreciate what you're saying...and the universe may
manage to survive and possibly reproduce without us, I still think
it's good for us to avoid extinction. <g>

Anyway, Smolin's theories are interesting on a few different levels.
One, that black hole formation could possibly be 'big bangs' in
another universe. That's just a cool concept.

But also...Theorists have good models for what happened microseconds
after the big bang, but nothing much for time-zero of the big bang
itself. So there's the question of whether the physics of our universe
even applies--conservation of matter and energy, for instance. Rich L
probably has more to say about that, but there are a whole set of
'magic numbers' that make our particular universe work, and support
life.

And that's the thing I had left out of the Smolin model above: Each
'child universe' whose magic numbers (cosmological constants) fall
within the range necessary to produce heavy elements -> neutron stars
-> black holes, etc....... will -also- be generating conditions that
support life. (We require those heavy elements, and a number of the
other physical laws)

Coincidence? The whole thing seems precariously close to a religious
'creation' theme, but on an incredibly huge scale. Nope, I'm not going
that direction...just interesting is all. Creationists tend to think
of their god as a micromanager...moving in time, with the same kind of
objectives that we have. But what if it's more the -principle- of
creation that's the driving force...A tendency for the 'multi-verse'
(or whatever you'd want to call it) not just to create, but to create
universes that can generate and sustain life. Physics meets some kind
of future theology, I suppose.

We now return you to your regular programming. <g> (I think Keefy got
me started down this path with his comments about Australia. Thanks a
lot, ya ***)
.

Loading