"Another theoretical physicist Lee Smolin has developed a tempting Darwinian version of the multiverse theory, including both serial and parallel elements. Smolin's idea, outlined in The Life of the Cosmos, depends on the theory of universes were born child of the parent universe, not in a Big Crunch fully protected, but more localized black holes. Smolin adds a form of inheritance: the fundamental constants of a universe versions child are slightly "mutated" from his father's constant. Inheritance is the fundamental ingredient of Darwinian natural selection, and the rest of the Smolin theory flows naturally. Those universes that have what it takes to "survive" and "play" come to predominate in the multiverse. "What makes failure "includes long enough to reproduce. Given the fact that reproduction takes place in black holes, universes selected should have what it takes to generate black holes. This capability involves several other properties. For example, the trend matter to condense into clouds and then into stars is a prerequisite to generate black holes. Also, the stars are, as we have seen, precursor chemical is an interesting development, and hence to life. Thus, as Smolin suggests, has been a Darwinian natural selection of universes in the multiverse, indirectly favoring the evolution of fertility and indirectly black hole production of life. Not all physicists are enthusiastic about the idea of \u200b\u200bSmolin, although it is said that the physicist, Nobel winner Murray Gell-Mann said, "Smolin? Is this young with these crazy ideas? Can not be wrong ". A naughty biologist might like to know if some other physicists are in need of improvement Darwinian consciousness. "
In this excerpt from The God Delusion ( recently spoke of the great Richard Dawkins ) We are talking about a revolutionary scientific theory, mixing consistently in the top two branches of physics as diverse as cosmology and Darwinian theory natural selection. The process used for that Lee Smolin, and that Dawkins may not entirely satisfy explain, is simple:
1) Just as the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, the theory of "Big Crunch" predicts that the expansion of space-time due to that end being slowed by the force of gravity and all matter in the Cosmos will be gathered and compressed into a single point or "singularity." This instability may suffer so that they would have to expand again by another Big Bang, and perpetuating the Universe in a sequence ("infinite?) Expansion-contraction: Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches, which in turn provoke new Big Bangs.
2) According to this theory, it is logical to think that the Big Crunch not only causes the death of a universe, but also the birth of a new one. There would, therefore, a "child universe" born of a "parent universe."
3) But we know it "small Crunches" that exist in our universe, in the center of many galaxies is black holes. These are created when the immense gravity of a supermassive star comes to a collapse of the fabric of space-time into a singularity similar to that formed at the time of a Big Crunch, but a much smaller scale. Black holes would then be a Big Crunch in miniature.
4) According to Smolin's theory, the same way that a Big Crunch creates a new universe, black holes could perhaps do the same. Perhaps there is only one Big Crunch, but many, and these black holes. If the whole universe devoured by black holes ended, multiple and unstable singularities that would be established following the collapse (massive black holes) would lead to the formation of multiple expansions (Big Bangs), and therefore of new universes. We thus find a multiverse that is reproduced and multiplied, so as you would like a living organism.
5) The law of probability tells us that the new universes created from the "parent universe" could have very different characteristics, and in fact the possibilities are endless, but only a universe that has black holes could grow again. Thus the black hole becomes the "reproductive" universes contained in the multiverse, and any universe in which events do not occur as black holes would be doomed to extinction, and vice versa: a universe that has Black holes have many chances to reproduce.
6) But a universe that has black holes is quite different from one that does not possess. If black holes exist, it is because there are stars and they occur because the cosmological constant universe (the gravitational force, for example) are what you have in our universe. Sufficient a slight variation in the values \u200b\u200bof these constants for our universe was very different, but Smollin believe that the values \u200b\u200bof the constants of the "child universes" are similar or very similar to the "parent universe." We thus obtain a form of "inheritance", and that slight margin of error allowed in the values \u200b\u200bof "child universe" with respect to the "parent universe" would be the equivalent of a "mutation." Both factors (inheritance and mutation) are what make evolution possible, which means that would eventually dominate the Multiverse universes with black holes.
7) On the other hand, the existence of stars (which make the existence of black holes) also implies the existence of complex chemicals (formed only in the stellar core), which allow the existence of complex chemical interactions to turn give rise to life, and after intelligent life. This suggests that the existence of black holes in a universe more than likely the existence of intelligent beings within it. Therefore, the evolution of the multiverse would be at various levels.
All this is summarized in that we could live in a multiverse that is subject the same factors that living things: reproduction, multiplication, heredity, mutation and evolution, and therefore is an "agency" is born, grows, multiplies and evolves. Would live within a cell belonging to a cosmic being very similar to a living being, or at least subject to similar laws. In fact, that cosmic evolution would have reached the point where it arises in a mind capable of understanding, or at least trying. Not only have achieved the degree of "living organism", but also of "intelligent living organism."
is true that Smolin's theory is purely speculative and lacks any evidence for it. But it is an important theory is wrong but because it opens our minds to new concepts and potential future discoveries. On the other hand, if only the core of Smolin's theory have any credibility and the world also suffer some kind of cosmic evolution based on natural laws, this would have obvious implications, not only in science but also religion: just as that natural selection applied to living beings made unnecessary the concept of a Creator to explain the great complexity of them, the same law applied to the Cosmos could also explain the great complexity of this without any external factor to it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment