smolin630_0

Leen Smolin and filial universe theory

I want to talk today of a continuation of my previous great commentary, which neither you read or you care.
It is a theory of theoretical physicist Lee Smolin Penrose diagram output and half founder of the theory of loop quantum gravity, which I have already spoken on another occasion father.

If you remember, the other day I comment that thanks to Minkowski space can represent the time of a “simple” form space and, Penrose, thanks to the representation of Minkowski space came up with an even simpler idea to represent space time through a two-axis system where the light cone is simply a triangle.

Hence, the idea that if we saw and we represented a black hole through the diagram Penrose was removed (what is inside, come on) seen from an observer who is out of the is seen to be a square instead of a triangle and therefore we were seeing the past, present and future (all at once) of what may be happening within that black hole.
This was the idea that black holes can be universes within a universe and that we, as observers outside, were watching all states of a universe par: big bang, expansion, contraction and big crunch, which happen from the event horizon to the singularity or the core of it.

Lee Smolin, pulling this thread and thanks to that there really can not observe more than the goings mathematics third (ie, skip the uniqueness mathematically string theory and its simplifications and then interpreted as oracles which can be going on, and bring back “math” about it) step in the field of physics to the field of metaphysics uniting some biology in the middle.

This is why I believe the theory of the universe subsidiary or fecund universe.

This theory suggests not only that black holes are universes that exist within our universe (like a fart that has poop, still fart, but contains poop is another world) but posit that in each of the black holes , the created universe is a copy of our with some small variation.

And that variation is that?. Since all that can vary in this universe and that is not the laws of physics constants.

According to his leg head unprovable speculation that these new universes have known constant variance, such as Newton, the Planck dielectric vacuum, Boltzmann, the maximum speed of light…

These small changes make the new universe may be little different from quite different depending on our constant (or constant) change and its magnitude. So a universe where I varié Newton’s constant of gravity get vary the critical mass or limit Chandresekhar and therefore there could be a kind of new star of stable neutron not become black hole and, therefore, a universe with less (or no) black holes.

As Darwin’s theory of natural selection, only universes with “best constant” would have more children than could be more proclibes to create new universes. This would be in the amount of black holes that these “have” and if we look at ours, must be one “outdone” as it has enough… and we know you have enough? by constant we have.

Even with all this, Leen has done nothing but put a cap metal tip and imagine associating different ideas at your convenience to fit onto what he means is that his “theory” has neither base nor, for now , can neither prove nor pull down (not even) being all mere speculation… a funny and coherent speculation, but speculation. Hence just be a nice mental exercise for fun.

Comment