Re: Cosmological Natural Selection
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > > > Right, but can these constants be seen as information that can be > > copied? I am not a physicist so my intuition for such matters is > > limited. > As far as we know there is nothing special about those constants and so they can be treated as information no different from any other type of information, and that's the problem , they can't be derived but must be discovered experimentally, and yet they determined the very nature of our universe. If they can't be derived from first principles where did those numbers come from? Smolin says they evolved; some numbers produced more Black Holes than others and thus produced more offspring universes than others and they are the ones that predominate in the multiverse. Fortunately for us universes that are good at producing Black Holes also happen to have conditions favorable for life. A important question is , can information of any sort actually cross the event horizon of a Black Hole ? Smolin thinks it can but some thin k information is deposited on the 2D surface of the event horizon and never enters the interior of the Black Hole. We probably won't know who's right until we have a quantum theory of gravity. John K Clark > > >> > > >> Or > >> is it just speculation to fit the evolutionary model? > >> . > > > > > > No Evolutionary idea can work without inheritance with variation and > natural > > selection, and there is certainly a lot of speculation in Smolin's idea, > but > > it does make falsifiable predictions; if a 2.5 solar mass neutron star is > > found Cosmological Natural Selection is dead. > > Yes, I got that from the article. It's a very compelling idea, that's for > sure. > > Telmo. > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Cosmological Natural Selection
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:04 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Is there any reason to think that mutations of fundamental constants >> would take place when new universes are created inside black holes? > > > In our world on the outside of a Black Hole no known information copying > process is 100% accurate, there is no reason to believe things would be > different on the inside. Even a Black Hole can't get around the > Heisenberg > Uncertainty Principle. Right, but can these constants be seen as information that can be copied? I am not a physicist so my intuition for such matters is limited. >> > >> Or >> is it just speculation to fit the evolutionary model? >> . > > > No Evolutionary idea can work without inheritance with variation and natural > selection, and there is certainly a lot of speculation in Smolin's idea, but > it does make falsifiable predictions; if a 2.5 solar mass neutron star is > found Cosmological Natural Selection is dead. Yes, I got that from the article. It's a very compelling idea, that's for sure. Telmo. > John K Clark > > > > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Cosmological Natural Selection
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > > Is there any reason to think that mutations of fundamental constants > > would take place when new universes are created inside black holes? In our world on the outside of a Black Hole no known information copying process is 100% accurate, there is no reason to believe things would be different on the inside. Even a Black Hole can't get around the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. > > Or > > is it just speculation to fit the evolutionary model? > . > No Evolutionary idea can work without inheritance with variation and natural selection, and there is certainly a lot of speculation in Smolin's idea, but it does make falsifiable predictions; if a 2.5 solar mass neutron star is found Cosmological Natural Selection is dead. John K Clark > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Cosmological Natural Selection
Is there any reason to think that mutations of fundamental constants would take place when new universes are created inside black holes? Or is it just speculation to fit the evolutionary model? Telmo. On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:21 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've just read Lee Smolin's book > "Time Reborn" > and it reminded m > e > of his previous book > "The Life Of The Cosmos" > that was about > Cosmological Natural Selection. Smolin's idea is that when a star collapses > into a Black Hole a Singularity does not form in it's center, instead > everything bounces back before infinite density is reached. You would not > see this from the outside of the Black Hole but from the inside such a thing > would look like a big bang, and a new universe would be formed. > In that new universe the constants of physics, the 20 or so number > s > that can't be derived and must be put in by hand by physicists to make > there theories conform with observation, are similar to their parent > universe but not identical, there would be some > small > random variation. > Universes that have laws encouraging the formation of black holes will > thus > have more descendants than those that don't > . > > And > all this sounds very much like Darwin's idea written on a cosmic scale > because it has the 2 things that are needed, natural selection and > inheritance (although some have questioned the inheritance part wondering if > information can really cross the event horizon, even mutated information). > > Smolin > does not > predict > that > as a result of this Evolution > the physical > constants > in our universe > are > perfect for the formation of Black Holes, > but he does predict no small change > in them > will make more Black Holes. And Black Holes need stars that go supernova, > and > hose stars > produce carbon and oxygen that also causes dust clouds to cool more and > collapse into > yet > more > large stars that go supernova > and form more Black Holes > . > Those heavy elements also cause life to form but as far as > Cosmological Natural Selection > is concerned that's just a unimportant byproduct. > > But what about Primordial Black Holes, you don't need stars to make them. > According to inflation theory expansion of > our > universe started slow but then in just > 10^-36 seconds space expanded by a factor of 10^78, during that time the > universe grew by a larger personage than it has form then to now > 13.8 billion years > later. There is a number called the Size Density Constant, if it were much > larger all the matter in the universe would form Black Holes almost > immediately, but it turn out then the universe would inflate for even less > than 10^-36 seconds so there would be much less matter in it, so although > all its matter would be in the form on Black Holes it would have fewer Black > Holes than out universe does. > > Smolin makes another prediction this one is about Neutron Stars. > Cosmological Natural Selection > predicts that the maximum mass a Neutron Star can be is lower than > previously thought and thus more Black Holes can be produced due to a > particle called the Kaon. The conventional idea is that in a Neutron Star > the pressure is so high electrons are forced into protons forming neutrons > and that's the end of the story, and if that's true then the maximum mass of > a Neutron star is > somewhere between > 2.5 > and > 2.9 solar masses > . > But that's without considering Kaons, Smolin found that theory says some > interesting things happens to them when the pressure gets very high. > > Normally Kaons are much more massive than electrons and thus unstable, but > under ultra high pressure suddenly the individual wave function of the > particles will merge, much like what happens to electrons in > superconductors, and their effective mass should be reduced > by > a lot, perhaps even to less than that of a electron. If that actually > happens then things would be reversed and electrons would become unstable > and decay into Kaons (and Neutrinos which fly out of the star and play no > further part in the story). In this scenario the upper mass limit for a > neutron star is > between > 1.6 > and > 2 solar masses. More than that and a Black Hole forms because the > Kaon-Proton-Neutron soup at the center would be even more dense than > degenerate neutron matter > , > so the Neutron Star would be smaller > and > its surface gravity greater, and thus a Black Hole can be formed with less > mass. > > But would the effective mass of the Kaon really become less than that of the > electron? Nobody knows for sure but we do kn
Cosmological Natural Selection
I've just read Lee Smolin's book "Time Reborn" and it reminded m e of his previous book "The Life Of The Cosmos" that was about Cosmological Natural Selection. Smolin's idea is that when a star collapses into a Black Hole a Singularity does not form in it's center, instead everything bounces back before infinite density is reached. You would not see this from the outside of the Black Hole but from the inside such a thing would look like a big bang, and a new universe would be formed. In that new universe the constants of physics, the 20 or so number s that can't be derived and must be put in by hand by physicists to make there theories conform with observation, are similar to their parent universe but not identical, there would be some small random variation. Universes that have laws encouraging the formation of black holes will thus have more descendants than those that don't . And all this sounds very much like Darwin's idea written on a cosmic scale because it has the 2 things that are needed, natural selection and inheritance (although some have questioned the inheritance part wondering if information can really cross the event horizon, even mutated information). Smolin does not predict that as a result of this Evolution the physical constants in our universe are perfect for the formation of Black Holes, but he does predict no small change in them will make more Black Holes. And Black Holes need stars that go supernova, and hose stars produce carbon and oxygen that also causes dust clouds to cool more and collapse into yet more large stars that go supernova and form more Black Holes . Those heavy elements also cause life to form but as far as Cosmological Natural Selection is concerned that's just a unimportant byproduct. But what about Primordial Black Holes, you don't need stars to make them. According to inflation theory expansion of our universe started slow but then in just 10^-36 seconds space expanded by a factor of 10^78, during that time the universe grew by a larger personage than it has form then to now 13.8 billion years later. There is a number called the Size Density Constant, if it were much larger all the matter in the universe would form Black Holes almost immediately, but it turn out then the universe would inflate for even less than 10^-36 seconds so there would be much less matter in it, so although all its matter would be in the form on Black Holes it would have fewer Black Holes than out universe does. Smolin makes another prediction this one is about Neutron Stars. Cosmological Natural Selection predicts that the maximum mass a Neutron Star can be is lower than previously thought and thus more Black Holes can be produced due to a particle called the Kaon. The conventional idea is that in a Neutron Star the pressure is so high electrons are forced into protons forming neutrons and that's the end of the story, and if that's true then the maximum mass of a Neutron star is somewhere between 2.5 and 2.9 solar masses . But that's without considering Kaons, Smolin found that theory says some interesting things happens to them when the pressure gets very high. Normally Kaons are much more massive than electrons and thus unstable, but under ultra high pressure suddenly the individual wave function of the particles will merge, much like what happens to electrons in superconductors, and their effective mass should be reduced by a lot, perhaps even to less than that of a electron. If that actually happens then things would be reversed and electrons would become unstable and decay into Kaons (and Neutrinos which fly out of the star and play no further part in the story). In this scenario the upper mass limit for a neutron star is between 1.6 and 2 solar masses. More than that and a Black Hole forms because the Kaon-Proton-Neutron soup at the center would be even more dense than degenerate neutron matter , so the Neutron Star would be smaller and its surface gravity greater, and thus a Black Hole can be formed with less mass. But would the effective mass of the Kaon really become less than that of the electron? Nobody knows for sure but we do know that the mass of the Kaon depends on the mass of the Strange Quark, and the Strange Quark has little involvement with everyday matter in our everyday world, so in a universe that had a Strange Quark with a mass very different from our own things would be pretty much the same as they are here except the maximum size of a Neutron Star and thus the minimum size of a Black Hole would be different. The two most massive neutron stars where the mass ha s been been accurately measured are PSR J0348+0432 with 2.01±0.04 solar masses and PSR J1614–2230 with 1.97 ± 0.04 solar masses.
