Return to Question

I was watching a program on the future of the Universe and it got into the eventual heat death resulting from Hawking Radiation as the last hurdle till nothingness (assuming the unproven theory of proton decay is real).
One of the scientists in the show (Michio Kaku) presented a Darwinistic model, an idea by Lee Smolin, of Universe creation where through cosmogenesis... we would create a new universe with a similar set of parameters as our own. Essentially encouraging life through forced probabilities.
Now I've heard this before, and when I heard this I got the initial question and strong uncertainty as to why the child universe being created through a particle accelerator would not grow within our own universe rather than bending space-time and creating a wormhole that links to it. What proof (even in the form of thought experiments) do we have that this would work?

Mind you... my background in Mathematics comes from Computer Science and not from theoretical physics.

Any takers on explaining why the universe wouldn't just take over our own?

If I'm asking in the wrong group let me know... I'm unable to delete it now.

I was watching a program on the future of the Universe and it got into the eventual heat death resulting from Hawking Radiation as the last hurdle till nothingness (assuming the unproven theory of proton decay is real).
One of the scientists in the show (Michio Kaku) presented a Darwinistic model, an idea by Lee Smolin, of Universe creation where through cosmogenesis... we would create a new universe with a similar set of parameters as our own. Essentially encouraging life through forced probabilities.
When I heard this I got the initial question and strong uncertainty as to why the child universe being created through a particle accelerator would not grow within our own universe rather than bending space-time and creating a wormhole that links to it. What proof (even in the form of thought experiments) do we have that this would work?

Mind you... my background in Mathematics comes from Computer Science and not from theoretical physics.

Any takers on explaining why the universe wouldn't just take over our own?

If I'm asking in the wrong group let me know... I'm unable to delete it now.

I was watching a program on the future of the Universe and it got into the eventual heat death resulting from Hawking Radiation as the last hurdle till nothingness (assuming the unproven theory of proton decay is real).
One of the scientists (Lee Smolin) proposed a Darwinistic model of Universe creation where through cosmogenesis... we would create a new universe with a similar set of parameters as our own. Essentially encouraging life through forced probabilities.
Now I've heard this before, and when I heard this I got the initial question and strong uncertainty as to why the child universe being created through a particle accelerator would not grow within our own universe rather than bending space-time and creating a wormhole that links to it. What proof (even in the form of thought experiments) do we have that this would work?

Mind you... my background in Mathematics comes from Computer Science and not from theoretical physics.

Any takers on explaining why the universe wouldn't just take over our own?

If I'm asking in the wrong group let me know... I'm unable to delete it now.

I was watching a program on the future of the Universe and it got into the eventual heat death resulting from Hawking Radiation as the last hurdle till nothingness (assuming the unproven theory of proton decay is real).
One of the scientists in the show (Michio Kaku) presented a Darwinistic model, an idea by Lee Smolin, of Universe creation where through cosmogenesis... we would create a new universe with a similar set of parameters as our own. Essentially encouraging life through forced probabilities.
Now I've heard this before, and when I heard this I got the initial question and strong uncertainty as to why the child universe being created through a particle accelerator would not grow within our own universe rather than bending space-time and creating a wormhole that links to it. What proof (even in the form of thought experiments) do we have that this would work?

Mind you... my background in Mathematics comes from Computer Science and not from theoretical physics.

Any takers on explaining why the universe wouldn't just take over our own?

If I'm asking in the wrong group let me know... I'm unable to delete it now.

I was watching a program on the future of the Universe and it got into the eventual heat death resulting from Hawking Radiation as the last hurdle till nothingness (assuming the unproven theory of proton decay is real).
One of the scientists (Michio Kaku) proposed a Darwinistic model of Universe creation where through cosmogenesis... we would create a new universe with a similar set of parameters as our own. Essentially encouraging life through forced probabilities.
Now I've heard him talk before, and when I heard this I got the initial question and strong uncertainty as to why the child universe being created through a particle accelerator would not grow within our own universe rather than bending space-time and creating a wormhole that links to it. What proof (even in the form of thought experiments) do we have that this would work?

Mind you... my background in Mathematics comes from Computer Science and not from theoretical physics.

Any takers on explaining why the universe wouldn't just take over our own?

If I'm asking in the wrong group let me know... I'm unable to delete it now.

I was watching a program on the future of the Universe and it got into the eventual heat death resulting from Hawking Radiation as the last hurdle till nothingness (assuming the unproven theory of proton decay is real).
One of the scientists (Lee Smolin) proposed a Darwinistic model of Universe creation where through cosmogenesis... we would create a new universe with a similar set of parameters as our own. Essentially encouraging life through forced probabilities.
Now I've heard this before, and when I heard this I got the initial question and strong uncertainty as to why the child universe being created through a particle accelerator would not grow within our own universe rather than bending space-time and creating a wormhole that links to it. What proof (even in the form of thought experiments) do we have that this would work?

Mind you... my background in Mathematics comes from Computer Science and not from theoretical physics.

Any takers on explaining why the universe wouldn't just take over our own?

If I'm asking in the wrong group let me know... I'm unable to delete it now.