1
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Sep 7 at 15:33
  • $\begingroup$ I've edited it back to Kaku and made the caveat that he was presenting an idea by Lee Smolin. I wish Lee Smolin would have been on the program, would have loved learning from him. $\endgroup$ – Shay Maor Sep 7 at 20:10
-4
$\begingroup$

When we smash particles in an accelerator and a black hole is formed (after colliding protons with anti-protons, for example) this will be a mini BH. I.e., not a giant BH that can eat our entire Universe (and luckily so; much debate was going on if this could happen when colliding protons with ultra-high velocities; rest assure...). This hole is very short-lived because of the fast evaporation due to Hawking radiation. This mini BH won't have the time to grow. It's gone in a flash which means our Universe can't get sucked in.
In Smolin's model huge BH's enter the stage and these are able to suck in the matter in the Universe surrounding them, leading to an increasingly massive BH's, (with an associated growing event horizon or Schwarzschild radius). Smolin says that a new Universe is born on "the other side" (of an ER-bridge AKA a wormhole). This process can happen at random points in spacetime. But who says a wormhole will develop. If the baby Universe emerges on the other side of a wormhole (if such an ER (Einstein-Rosen)-bridge will develop, and won't swallow our own Universe) then why it will inherit the same qualities as there are in our own Universe?
So the reason that the universe wouldn't just take over our own in the case of a collision of two high energy protons producing BH, is that these BH's are min BH's. Before they are able to "eat "the Universe it's already evaporated by Hawking-Radiation.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That does not sound like Smolins theory at all! It has multiple branching, and no big central BH. $\endgroup$ – Anders Sandberg Sep 7 at 14:25
  • $\begingroup$ @AndersSandberg The Universe is (nearly) infinite (or nearly flat), so a BH-baby Universe can be born from a supermassive BH in many places. Will all these BH's push through and develop an EPR bridge (wormhole), which is the thing in question? (hence the question mark) Will a wormhole develop and give birth to a new baby Universe (including inflation and the same conditions as in our Universe)? Who knows? This is pure mataphysics. $\endgroup$ – Deschele Schilder Sep 7 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ @AndersSandberg I did some editing. $\endgroup$ – Deschele Schilder Sep 7 at 15:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.