https://youtu.be/rFgpKlcpzNM
Do Black Holes Create New Universes?
PBS Space Time

What if every single black hole that formed in our universe sparked the big bang of a new universe? Cosmological natural selection proposes exactly this - but even better, it claims to be able to test the hypothesis.

Physicists have been struggling for some time to figure out why our universe is so comfy. Why, for example, are the fundamental constants - like the mass of the electron or the strength of the forces - just right for the emergence of life? Tweak them too much and life, stars, galaxies, the universe as we know it wouldn’t exist. In recent episodes we explored one possible explanation for this - the anthropic principle and the idea of the multiverse. If there are countless universes with different fundamental constants, then it’s not surprising that a few exist with the right numbers for life - and certainly not surprising that we find ourselves in one of those good ones. But if you don’t like the anthropic principle - and many scientists don’t - then rest assured, there’s an alternative. You only need to accept two things: that our universe formed inside a black hole, and that universes can evolve.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2020 06:01PM by Tevai.

Joseph Smith knew about this but declined to teach it because he knew it wouldn’t get him laid.

Some holes are cursed with blackness because of their iniquity.

There was never a hole that Joseph Smith did not want to explore in some way, he being of a curious mind and nature. The Smith family farm, where the men were men, and sheep were scared to death.

More of your nature worshiping theological preaching, using pop-science for your scriptures (could you imagine if a another religious leader came and posted regularly about various scriptures and religious views like you do?), but I'll bite...

The universe wasn't created "just right for the emergence of life"... There is no proof for that. Life exists in this universe the way it does because the conditions worked out that way. Life here is constrained by those conditions, not the other way around.

"Physicists have been struggling..." Who are these "physicists"? Are they the majority? Is there importance in the field being inflated for entertainment purposes? Are their statements being taken out of context? Were they stating metaphors to simplify statements for people who aren't physicists? I have a feeling that you can guess my answers to these questions.

Here's a quote that I like that demonstrates the problem with starting from the idea that the universe was created for life, rather than life working because the rules of the universe allow it:

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
-- Douglas Adams

You, schrodingerscat, are the puddle, arrogantly assuming that the universe was created for you. Starting from the assumption, rather than seeing where the data takes you. There is a danger in that. It easily leads us down incorrect paths and can keep one from finding the truth.

But of course, TV shows like this don't care about that. It's popular science to get viewers, which can be very problematic. At best, it's science for entertainment, at worst it's misleading and misinformation. Usually, it's all of the above.

"You only need to accept two things: that our universe formed inside a black hole, and that universes can evolve."
The proof for this is what exactly and why must I accept it? This show's description jumps from asking a question of "What if" to "we have to accept it"... That makes me very wary.

"More of your nature worshiping theological preaching, using pop-science for your scriptures (could you imagine if a another religious leader came and posted regularly about various scriptures and religious views like you do?), but I'll bite..."

COMMENT: Don't be ridiculous. The evolution of the universes (including ours) as deriving from natural selection of black holes is a well-developed theory by a highly respected physicist, namely Lee Smolin. It is not "pop-science." (See Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos, Chapter 7) Moreover, there are numerous books by highly respected physicists that take the anthropic principle (that life appears to be fine-tuned for life) seriously. So, this is not pop-science either.
_______________________________________

"The universe wasn't created "just right for the emergence of life"... There is no proof for that. Life exists in this universe the way it does because the conditions worked out that way. Life here is constrained by those conditions, not the other way around."

COMMENT: Absolutely wrong! It is well-established that the laws of the universe *are* as a matter of fact "fine-tuned" for life. Many books address this issue. For example, physicist Paul Davies stated:

"If almost any of the basic features of the universe, from the properties of atoms to the distribution of the galaxies, were different, life would very probably be impossible. Now, it happens that to meet these various requirements, certain stringent conditions must be satisfied in the underlying laws of physics that regulate the universe, so stringent in fact that a bio-friendly universe looks like a fix -- or a "put-up job," to use the pithy description of the late British cosmologist Fred Hoyle. It appeared to Hoyle as if a superintellect had been "monkeying" with the laws of physics. He was right in his impression. On the face of it, the universe *does* look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings."

This is just one example from one physicist. There are hundreds of similar statements, although perhaps not this strong. It is hardly even controversial that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for life. What *is* controversial is explaining it. That is precisely why Smolin came up with his evolution through black holes theory, and why cosmologist insist on the idea of multiple universes, partly to explain cosmological selection to life.
________________________________________________

"Physicists have been struggling..." Who are these "physicists"? Are they the majority? Is there importance in the field being inflated for entertainment purposes? Are their statements being taken out of context? Were they stating metaphors to simplify statements for people who aren't physicists? I have a feeling that you can guess my answers to these questions.

COMMENT: They are all over. This is a controversial, but well-established and serious issue. It is NOT pop-science. You obviously have not read the literature on this issue, and have no idea what you are talking about.
_______________________________________

Here's a quote that I like that demonstrates the problem with starting from the idea that the universe was created for life, rather than life working because the rules of the universe allow it:

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
-- Douglas Adams

COMMENT: This is a ridiculous and false analogy. It is perfectly legitimate to assess the laws of the universe, and consider what parameters of such laws were necessary for life; and how life would be precluded if such laws were changed. Once it is determined that such laws are rigidly "fixed" in favor of life, it is appropriate to ask why our universe has laws that are conducive to life in the context of an infinity of possibilities, the vast majority of which could not sustain life.
__________________________________________

You, schrodingerscat, are the puddle, arrogantly assuming that the universe was created for you. Starting from the assumption, rather than seeing where the data takes you. There is a danger in that. It easily leads us down incorrect paths and can keep one from finding the truth.

COMMENT: SC can often be criticized, but not this time. It is you that are ill-informed.
_______________________________________

But of course, TV shows like this don't care about that. It's popular science to get viewers, which can be very problematic. At best, it's science for entertainment, at worst it's misleading and misinformation. Usually, it's all of the above.

COMMENT: Although this may be a popularized presentation, this is an established scientific theory by a highly regarded cosmologist.

I agree with Henry Bemis and schrodingerscat, though I'm not as articulate with words or know quite as much book learning on this subject. But I'll just reiterate what was said above that if the universe was expanding just a little bit faster it would be too unstable to have a stable living condition for organisms (we'd just blow apart and explode). And if the the universe wasn't going fast enough then gravity would have pulled us back to the beginning long ago. Yes the universe was created just for us to exist.

Now that's science!

You're speaking of the hubble constant. Except we keep getting different answers to what it is. So, no we can't say if it were faster or slower than what we thought it was we wouldn't exist. It seems there's a range of answers that would work without us ceasing to exist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2020 08:29PM by dogblogger.

What if huge spiders came out of your ass.

Huge spiders...in Corona country those spiders would be considered a delicacy.

The spiders would be defined as gods. Their webs, string theory.

Then Joseph Smith was right about there being worlds without end. Although he probably cribbed that from someone else as with most of his doctrine. The really dumb stuff like reformed Egyptian was probably original.

If a Universe with many black holes spawns new universes, matter and energy are not conserved. It all comes from nothing. The breath of Brahma.

Purple rain?

There are a lot of things we have no answers for.

The Gods must be spacey.

Kevin?

Kelvin.

Oh, man, that's cold...

Lordy!

I have absolutely zero comments.

Much as it pains me to agree with SC and Henry, I have to side with them on this one. :)

I think this falls into the realm of speculative cosmology. Then again the gaps in our understanding of cosmology are large enough, that you could fairly say all cosmology is speculative.

The Big Bang should have been the ultimate huge black hole. So how and why did it explode?

How do we know we are not inside a black hole right now? I think that very unlikely, but I can't say for sure that it is impossible. I mean, a universe-sized black hole exploding in the Big Bang seems basically impossible too, but if current cosmology is correct, *that* happened.

We still don't know what dark matter and dark energy are. We believe energy only exists in discrete quanta. We don't know if the same thing is true of space, or time, though we can't rule it out.

I have this fantasy that we humans will one day figure out how to create mini-Big-Bangs. Then we will become as gods, at least in one sense of the word.

As for the universe being perfectly designed for life, if it were not, we wouldn't be here to know the universe can't support life. If you deal out four bridge hands from a well-shuffled deck of cards, it is quite likely that those same exact four hands have never been dealt in all of human history. Of course the odds that you have those four hands sitting in front of you are 1.000. You just dealt them out.

It doesn't matter how unlikely something is. If it has happened, it is possible. Figuring out exactly what did happen can be a challenge sometimes!

> As for the universe being perfectly designed for
> life, if it were not, we wouldn't be here to know
> the universe can't support life.

I wish we could avoid transitive verbs like "design" or "create" in these discussions. There is no evidence of an actor in all of this and the use of such terms tips the balance in favor of a subset of the conclusions that should be considered.

The lack of substantive information if we could even understand it to conclude much of anything at a level of possible worlds doesn't stop bad actors from speculative information passed off as such.

It's impossible to evaluate objectively the origins of the universe if the language you use predisposes people to think in terms of a creator.

Yes, and are we not predisposed to believe in causation as a reality? Causation by definition is reductive in our need for predictive information. We are natural creatures often denying ourselves the limitations we evolved with in speculations on the grandest edit: themes (replace "things") in our existences.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2020 06:21PM by Elder Berry.

   

If anyone looked, the odds would be 50% that the universe would no longer exist.

Play chicken with your own galaxy, elderly canine.