Maybe a solution to the anthropic principle?

[-Velocity-]

So I suppose this isn't a very original idea, but I was thinking the other day about how the universe appears so fine-tuned for life. I was thinking off Lee Smolin's black hole-based natural selection hypothesis.

Smolin's idea, which became widely publicized a few years ago, is that a new universe is created every time that a black hole is born, and that the new universe inherits the same basic physical constants as the parent universe, but with perhaps a few minor tweaks here and there (like, a bit higher value for the gravitational constant or a slightly weaker strong force, etc.). The idea is that in time, the whole ensemble of universes will

"evolve" towards physical laws that most favor the creation of the largest number of black holes. Very strong evidence in favor of this idea would be to discover that the laws of physics ARE in fact, fine-tuned for black hole creation.

Now, believe it or not, the same physical constant values that favor black holes also, in many ways, favor life. Life needs long term, large structures to form- galaxies, with star-forming regions, so that heavy elements can be manufactured, and planets can form around stable stars. That is much the same things that black holes require. Life needs long-term, stable atomic nuclei- and so do black holes, as the density of matter in a universe that was just a sea of subatomic particles would probably not ever get high enough to form black holes.

Anyway, I think an independent analysis of his idea was done already, and they said that the universe was NOT in fact, fine-tuned for black hole production. Of course, that doesn't rule his idea out entirely, because we don't know the exact mechanic for even how a black hole could form a new universe, how traits would be inherited, or even if this independent analysis was in fact, correct. Maybe, for example, only black holes of a certain size form new universes. Or maybe our universe falls within the standard "mutation" range for a new universe. Who knows.

But anyway, I was thinking of his idea, and then I remembered how many theoretical physicists had discussed the possibility of making a universe in a lab. It truly might be possible to design a particle physics experiment that creates a new universe. This possibility has been discussed for decades. From my memory of the last time I had read of this idea, the new baby universe would only, for the briefest fraction of a second, be connected with the universe of its creators through a small wormhole. The wormhole would quickly pinch off, and the new baby universe would undergo inflation, expansion, and in general, very likely end up resembling our own universe- but the creator universe would never again be able to interact with the created universe after the wormhole had closed (otherwise, they wouldn't be separate universes, would they?).

Don't ask me how exactly you could do this, that's above my pay grade. Maybe create a higher false vacuum state and then collapse it back down? I donno. Anyway, I realized that if it truly WAS possible to create a universe in a lab, then the number of universes in which the physical constants were fine-tuned for life could vastly outnumber the number of universes in which life could not exist. All you need is the first, original universe in which intelligent civilizations could arise. This universe might naturally arise through the "eternal inflation" concept or other multiverse theories. Anyway, this original life-bearing universe gives birth (through those civilization's particle physics experiments) to millions or billions of new universes, which inherit the same or similar properties of the parent universe, whether by design or by accident (if you were creating a baby universe in a lab, wouldn't you want your creation to have the possibility of one day hosting life?). Those children universes then give birth to billions of universes of their own, and so on, until the number of universes in which life is, or was, possible outnumber the lifeless universes by a ratio of infinity to one (as the lifeless universes produce no progeny). So it ends up infinitely (or nearly so) more likely for you to find yourself in a universe in which life is possible than in a universe in which life cannot exist.

Maybe life really does have a huge impact on the evolution of the multiverse. Maybe the universe really IS fine-tuned for life, and maybe we are not so insignificant after all. Just a thought.

Edited November 20, 2013 by |Velocity|

[Scotius]

Hmm, interesting theory And sounds plausible from the layman's POV. Though i'm not sure if we really want to create new universe in a lab. Especially one "inflating" We don't want to replace our Universe with something new, don't we?

[Nibb31]

So I suppose this isn't a very original idea, but I was thinking the other day about how the universe appears so fine-tuned for life.

I'm not sure how you can make that assertion, as life has only been observed in an infinitesimally small part of it. The vast majority of the universe is void and quite unfit for life.

It's not that the universe is "fine-tuned" (whatever that means) for life, it's that the universe is so huge, with such a tremendous variety of chemical reactions and physical phenomena, that just about anything is statistically possible, including the occurence of the assembly of chemical elements that we call "life".

Edited November 20, 2013 by Nibb31

[peter1981]

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe." -- Carl Sagan.

[-Velocity-]

I'm not sure how you can make that assertion, as life has only been observed in an infinitesimally small part of it. The vast majority of the universe is void and quite unfit for life.

It's not that the universe is "fine-tuned" (whatever that means) for life, it's that the universe is so huge, with such a tremendous variety of chemical reactions and physical phenomena, that just about anything is statistically possible, including the occurence of the assembly of chemical elements that we call "life".

It's not me that makes that assertion. It is Nobel-prize winning physicists. If you want to tell them they are wrong, go ahead.

Basically, the physical constants of our universe could take any number of values. If we tweak them much outside the range they are in, then, for example, stars might not be able to form (we make gravity too weak, and no galaxies form). Or perhaps lithium is the heaviest element that is stable (maybe you could get that if we make the strong force too weak). Or perhaps nuclear fusion doesn't work (we make the electromagnetic force too strong or strong force too weak). You speak of chemical reactions, but from my understanding, you don't even GET chemical reactions in the overwhelming majority of configurations of physical constants, you just get unorganized seas of subatomic particles or black holes.

Anyway, the universe certainly does appear to have a very fortuitous range of natural constants that allows life to arise in some environments, and if you don't believe me, or that assertion, take it to the Ph.D-holding physicists who make that assertion and which holds up under peer review in the most respected scientific journals.

Edited November 20, 2013 by |Velocity|

[Warhorse]

But anyway, I was thinking of his idea, and then I remembered how many theoretical physicists had discussed the possibility of making a universe in a lab. It truly might be possible to design a particle physics experiment that creates a new universe. This possibility has been discussed for decades. From my memory of the last time I had read of this idea, the new baby universe would only, for the briefest fraction of a second, be connected with the universe of its creators through a small wormhole. The wormhole would quickly pinch off, and the new baby universe would undergo inflation, expansion, and in general, very likely end up resembling our own universe- but the creator universe would never again be able to interact with the created universe after the wormhole had closed (otherwise, they wouldn't be separate universes, would they?).

Don't ask me how exactly you could do this, that's above my pay grade. Maybe create a higher false vacuum state and then collapse it back down? I donno. Anyway, I realized that if it truly WAS possible to create a universe in a lab, then the number of universes in which the physical constants were fine-tuned for life could vastly outnumber the number of universes in which life could not exist. All you need is the first, original universe in which intelligent civilizations could arise. This universe might naturally arise through the "eternal inflation" concept or other multiverse theories. Anyway, this original life-bearing universe gives birth (through those civilization's particle physics experiments) to millions or billions of new universes, which inherit the same or similar properties of the parent universe, whether by design or by accident (if you were creating a baby universe in a lab, wouldn't you want your creation to have the possibility of one day hosting life?). Those children universes then give birth to billions of universes of their own, and so on, until the number of universes in which life is, or was, possible outnumber the lifeless universes by a ratio of infinity to one (as the lifeless universes produce no progeny). So it ends up infinitely (or nearly so) more likely for you to find yourself in a universe in which life is possible than in a universe in which life cannot exist.

Maybe life really does have a huge impact on the evolution of the multiverse. Maybe the universe really IS fine-tuned for life, and maybe we are not so insignificant after all. Just a thought.

Hmmm ... I think there's a snag to this theory. If we accept that the laws of physics are fine tuned to produce a life-bearing universe, then that means that most of the possible combinations *won't* give you a life-bearing universe. That in turn means that most likely, the original universe was non-life-bearing, and its children gradually evolved to the point where at least one of them reached a state where life was possible. But, if there was enough variability possible between generations to get from non-life-bearing to life-bearing, there has to be enough variability for the reverse to occur as well, and the finer the tuning needs to be to produce life, the more likely it is that any changes take you out of the sweet spot. Thus, most of the experimentally produced universes should still be sterile ...

[Pyre]

I will never understand why some people think it's strange that we live in a universe where life is possible. Wouldn't it be stranger if the universe where life isn't possible? And if we didn't live, regardless of if life was possible or not, we wouldn't be wondering about it anyway.

[Thourion]

It's not me that makes that assertion. It is Nobel-prize winning physicists. If you want to tell them they are wrong, go ahead...

...SNIP...

... Anyway, the universe certainly does appear to have a very fortuitous range of natural constants that allows life to arise in some environments, and if you don't believe me, or that assertion, take it to the Ph.D-holding physicists who make that assertion and which holds up under peer review in the most respected scientific journals.

Well firstly, if it was possible to make universes with life on a lab, then we could already be a micro-verse in someone elses lab.

As for the rest, i really dont know, but one can simply go with .. 42-> Big bang -> create universe -> expand -> shrink -> Big anti-bang -> 42 ..

He can go ..42 -> Alien Multidimensionals -> Lots of drinks and 9 months later -> create universe -> 24 ..

All im saying, is when the discussion is going at this scale, you really dont talk about physics, but Philosophy. Tell that to the Nobel and PHd lads for me.

Just a small final edit to just say that the discovery of the fitness or otherwise of our universe, really doesnt add or change anything about our perception of the kosmos. It is (at least for us humans) something of a big deal already, it doesnt make a difference in the "wonder" part, if we were ment to be or just barelly made it in here. At least for me.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Thourion

[-Velocity-]

Hmmm ... I think there's a snag to this theory. If we accept that the laws of physics are fine tuned to produce a life-bearing universe, then that means that most of the possible combinations *won't* give you a life-bearing universe. That in turn means that most likely, the original universe was non-life-bearing, and its children gradually evolved to the point where at least one of them reached a state where life was possible. But, if there was enough variability possible between generations to get from non-life-bearing to life-bearing, there has to be enough variability for the reverse to occur as well, and the finer the tuning needs to be to produce life, the more likely it is that any changes take you out of the sweet spot. Thus, most of the experimentally produced universes should still be sterile ...

To my knowledge, most cosmologists believe that the process that created the Big Bang most likely still continues, and has produced countless other universes- at least, that is certainly the case with the eternal inflation model. Basically, while universes are finite in age, the multiverse that gives rise to them may not be. You only need ONE of those countless universes to be life bearing to get the ball rolling, if we assume that laboratory-created universes actually inherit the characteristics of the parent universe.

[Dispatcher]

I'd bet that a real science forum would be interested in discussing this one (as opposed to a science sub forum in a game forum).

[-Velocity-]

Well firstly, if it was possible to make universes with life on a lab, then we could already be a micro-verse in someone elses lab.

As for the rest, i really dont know, but one can simply go with .. 42-> Big bang -> create universe -> expand -> shrink -> Big anti-bang -> 42 ..

He can go ..42 -> Alien Multidimensionals -> Lots of drinks and 9 months later -> create universe -> 24 ..

All im saying, is when the discussion is going at this scale, you really dont talk about physics, but Philosophy. Tell that to the Nobel and PHd lads for me.

Just a small final edit to just say that the discovery of the fitness or otherwise of our universe, really doesnt add or change anything about our perception of the kosmos. It is (at least for us humans) something of a big deal already, it doesnt make a difference in the "wonder" part, if we were ment to be or just barelly made it in here. At least for me.

The idea is that yes, we would be a universe created in a lab, and that the vast majority of universes in existence (if you can say that something you can fundamentally *never* interact with truly exists) were created in labs. Only an infinitesimally small number of universes were created by natural false vacuum collapse.

We are certainly *not* a "micro-verse" in someone else's lab. If that were the case, we wouldn't be a separate universe. There might have been a wormhole connecting us to the lab until like 10^-30 after the Big Bang, but after that, we would have become an entirely separate universe that was not located ANYWHERE in the parent universe.

[Warhorse]

To my knowledge, most cosmologists believe that the process that created the Big Bang most likely still continues, and has produced countless other universes- at least, that is certainly the case with the eternal inflation model. Basically, while universes are finite in age, the multiverse that gives rise to them may not be. You only need ONE of those countless universes to be life bearing to get the ball rolling, if we assume that laboratory-created universes actually inherit the characteristics of the parent universe.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. My objection is not that life bearing universes wouldn't happen, merely that, even ignoring any considerations of eternal inflation, they will be a tiny minority, since there is no reason to expect that a universe spawned from a life bearing universe will itself be life bearing. (A few probably will be, most probably won't.) Throw in eternal inflation, and it just gets worse. Unless the boys and girls in the lab have the ability to control which laws of physics get selected in the child universe, your theory, although quite interesting, does not appear to solve the problem.

[Nibb31]

It's not me that makes that assertion. It is Nobel-prize winning physicists. If you want to tell them they are wrong, go ahead.

I beg your pardon? Since when was there a Nobel Prize of Metaphysics?

If you are basing this creationist drivel on some sort of scientific paper, then I'm pretty sure that you are misinterpreting it. This isn't science, it's philosophical cosmology.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Nibb31

[Winter Man]

I had exactly the same idea - and if you look into it a little more, so has Smolin. That was weird, reading his book for the first time and actually having someone with credentials back up a gut feeling! It's certainly not a theory without weight, in fact it's looking more likely to be the case.

You have a universe that forms a singularity. Something that's infinitely dense? That's a ridiculous idea if you think about it. Get something soft - plasticine maybe - and squeeze it between your fingers. It squashes and expands into and fills a new axis. If you're compressing something enough, who's to say at this point you don't, solely inside the singularity, unravel the much-talked-about 'coiled hidden dimensions' and force matter to expand into them? Adding more matter into the black hole would cause the dimensions to expand more, appearing on the inside like an expanding universe with matter just coming into existence here and there (much like spontaneous pair production in our universe).

At least, that's what I gleaned from the whole idea.

edit: Forgot to mention that the observable universe lies within its own Schwarzschild radius, meaning we're technically inside a black hole

Edited November 21, 2013 by Winter Man
Science!

[Depth]

There is a very good theory that every black hole contains a universe, and our universe is inside a black hole. http://www.insidescience.org/content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

It has some holes, like whether there is a "mother" universe or if it stretches back for infinity.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I like your idea, it's fun to imagine. But I think it unlikely that universes are created by black holes. Our universe does not seem to lose any mass or energy, but black holes do lose energy. Therefore I think that they are still contained within our own universe.

I prefer the hypothesis that life is more likely to arise in the universes that are better tuned for it, thus most life lives in universes that seem unreasonably well-tuned for life. Similar to how we find ourselves on a planet unreasonably well-tuned for life. To some degree we develop and evolve to suit our home, but our home must be pretty nice from the start or else we'd never have grown on it.

[Winter Man]

Our universe needn't be not losing energy/mass, because as it stands it's expanding, meaning if the above were true the black hole connecting us to a parent universe would currently be 'eating' something. Anything it loses would be immeasurable next to the gain. As soon as it's done with that (the time scales could be bloody anything, we're talking about a parent universe of a sheer scale big enough that just one of its black holes is as massive as our entire universe!), we'd expect cosmic inflation to slow down and slowly start to reverse. It's accelerating at the moment, but that could easily be due to the size of the event horizon on the 'other side' expanding and being able to absorb more of whatever's currently falling into it. Once our universe starts to lose mass appreciably to the outside again, we would see it shrink in size incredibly slowly (appearing at first to be absolutely stationary) then shrinking faster. The vacuum energy would lower until there's virtually nothing left and then *poof*. Everything collapses into a nice little gamma ray emission on the other side.

[-Velocity-]

I beg your pardon? Since when was there a Nobel Prize of Metaphysics?

If you are basing this creationist drivel on some sort of scientific paper, then I'm pretty sure that you are misinterpreting it. This isn't science, it's philosophical cosmology.

What I'm saying is that it is a known fact agreed upon by physicists that if we changed the physical constants much, then life could not exist in our universe. I have never heard a real dissenting opinion on this, and I have read a lot of physics articles. We have no reason to believe that the values that the physical constants take in our universe should be somehow preferred. This is the so called "fine-tuning", but many physicists would not like the words "fine-tuning" because it indirectly implies a creator. Physicists may debate whether our natural laws appear to be "fine-tuned" but they would not debate that if they were changed very much, then life could not exist.

Here an an except I found from a book by Stephen Hawking, retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244

By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.

If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.

The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.

So please, let's not argue about whether our natural constants appear to be set up in a very fortunate way to allow the existence of life.

ANYWAY, in the end, I am only defending my idea AS A POSSIBILITY. I *DO NOT THINK IT IS VERY LIKELY*. Is it possible though? As far as I know, yes, it is in fact possible that the majority of universes are in fact suitable for life because the majority of universes are created in physics experiments by advanced civilizations.

I actually kind of hate calling it "my idea" because I'm sure that many, many people have thought of the same thing over the last several decades. It's a pretty obvious idea.

Edited November 22, 2013 by |Velocity|

[-Velocity-]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. My objection is not that life bearing universes wouldn't happen, merely that, even ignoring any considerations of eternal inflation, they will be a tiny minority, since there is no reason to expect that a universe spawned from a life bearing universe will itself be life bearing. (A few probably will be, most probably won't.) Throw in eternal inflation, and it just gets worse. Unless the boys and girls in the lab have the ability to control which laws of physics get selected in the child universe, your theory, although quite interesting, does not appear to solve the problem.

I'm pretty sure that I already said that I was *assuming* that the created universes do in fact have the same, or similar physical laws as the parent universe. If this is the case, then yes, the number of universes in which life can exist should vastly outnumber the ones in which life cannot.

Now, is this a valid assumption? Who knows. There is probably no way to know yet. This whole idea depends on so many assumptions and unknowns that it is very unlikely to be true. But I think it's a fun possibility to consider.

[Seret]

I think the simple answer to the anthropoic principle is that life has spent billions of years working hard to be as well-adapted to the universe as possible. It's not that the universe is tuned to suit life, it's that life has tuned itself to suit the universe.

We don't know that even if the laws of physics were radically different life wouldn't still arise.

[Warhorse]

I'm pretty sure that I already said that I was *assuming* that the created universes do in fact have the same, or similar physical laws as the parent universe. If this is the case, then yes, the number of universes in which life can exist should vastly outnumber the ones in which life cannot.

Now, is this a valid assumption? Who knows. There is probably no way to know yet. This whole idea depends on so many assumptions and unknowns that it is very unlikely to be true. But I think it's a fun possibility to consider.

You did indeed say that "the new universe inherits the same basic physical constants as the parent universe, but with perhaps a few minor tweaks here and there." However, this does not solve the problem. If you assume that the initial universe was life bearing, then it's reasonable to assume that most of its descendants might also be life bearing, but that begs the question of how the first universe managed to be life bearing. If on the other hand you assume that the first universe was not life bearing, then there is enough flexibility in the evolutionary process for a descendant to reach the sweet spot. However, that in turn means there's enough flexibility for *that* universe's descendants to *leave* the sweet spot, and most of them will. Either way, you're not solving the problem ...