A scientific multiverse theory

  • Thread starter marcus
  • Start date

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
A theory is scientific if it bets its life on at least one prediction that it makes about the outcome of a doable experiment

If a theory is part of science then there's a possibility it'll get shot down by an empirical observation---by some measurement----the theory makes predictions of so far unknown results that are that clear and unequivocal.

Smolin has come out with a Multiverse theory which can be shot down if anyone finds a neutron star of 1.6 solar mass or heavier.

Smolin Multiverse is not really part of LQG it just uses LQG-brand plumbing.
It happens to use LQG-brand fittings to connect the end of a black hole to the beginning of a universe.

But quantum gravity in general or LQG in particular does not need Smolin Multi to resolve some crisis. As far as QG goes it is fine if Smolin Multi gets shot down! We still have the good plumbing. And probably some other reason will turn up telling why 1/137 is 1/137 (which is for particle physicists to worry about anyway)

Smolin Multi is a falsifiable theory that offers a way to explain parameters in the standard model (particles) and the standard model(cosmology).
It should explain why 1/137 and why
planck/proton mass is 13E18
and why cosmo.constant is E-123
(Smolin says "the dimensionless parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology", these are examples). And if Multi fails and dies on the launchpad, well there will be other explanations of those parameters.

Smolin Multi says that sets of basic constants become very common if they promote the formation of black holes. this is testable.
Maybe there is one of our standard model parameters which is not adjusted to promote holes. OK find it.

So according to Multi if there actually is an ensemble of universes then those with hole-promoting ("holific"?) parameters are very common---the overwhelmingly most common are universes presumably like ours, in that they promote holes. The inference is that our parameters are not especially rare!

Conscious life is accidental to the theory. I suppose it could play a role in some variant theory but it doesnt----Multi is simple and doesnt need to consider that angle. In Multi what drives evolution is holes and only holes.
The conclusion is that what we've got is apt to be very common.

there are other Multiverse stories floating around in which our type of universe is very rare. there is an ensemble of a huge number of universes which are unfriendly to life or otherwise inconvenient. these are not predictive AFAIK because the premise cannot be shot down by some future empirical observation. those stories do not predict anything (we live in a rare exceptional case and are excused from explaining why it is like this) so they are cop-outs.

At least one such non-scientific Multiverse story seems to have been invented in response to the string theory Kachru crisis of too many vacuums.
But this doesnt matter. the main thing is we now have a Multiverse theory which (whether its wrong or right) predicts something definite for checking where we dont yet know the outcome.

http://arxiv.org/hep-th/0407213 [Broken]
Smolin
Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, what Smolin is saying is that at a black holes singularity, it will tear the facric in spacetime? Then a flop transition or something occurs and a new universe is born, or what?

Paden Roder
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
PRodQuanta said:
So, what Smolin is saying is that at a black holes singularity, it will tear the facric in spacetime? Then a flop transition or something occurs and a new universe is born, or what?

Paden Roder
about the plumbing that connects what used to be a singularity in BH to what used to be a singularity in BB there are some papers by other people.
it is essentially off the shelf connectors

getting rid of the BH singularity:
Leonardo Modesto
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0407097 [Broken]

getting rid of the BB singularity:
Martin Bojowald
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0102069 [Broken]

Bojo result has been extended and confirmed many times by many people in the years since 2001 and a recent paper is
Date and Hossain
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0407074 [Broken]

Bojo is the king of removing singularities
and the recent surprise is that although he was working
on eliminating the BH singularity and had not yet
posted, yet suddenly a new-comer Modesto (apparently a postdoc working
for Rovelli in Marseille) posted.

I think it is a safe bet Bojowald will present his removal of the BH
singularity and then (for me) that will be somewhat more trustworthy
than the work of Modesto, whom I never heard of till now.
----------------------------

Smolin's paper is more than just connecting the pit of a hole to the beginning of a universe.
(that part is the plumbing connectors bit)

what Smolin presents is a theory of how fundamental physical constants evolve
A. if every black hole terminates in a bounce from which buds a new universe
B. and if the constants of the laws of physics only change slightly as they go thru the hole

then it will lead to an overwhelming predominance of sets of constants which are good for making holes---a typical U will be one that makes a lot of holes.

so first of all it has to have enough gravity to pull stars together, and enough chemistry to radiate heat of condensation away, and enough lifetime to let stars and galaxies form, before the universe itself collapses, and when neutron stars form (as in a supernova) there has to be some limit to how big they can be before they too collapse and make a BH, and so on-----physical constants that influence these things (like a stable carbon atom is a Good Thing for radiating away heat when stars condense) will be affected by evolution and move towards high-fitness configurations.

So you can see ProdQ that Smolin is talking more about what makes the fundamental physical constants what they are. It is not just the LQG joint between a hole and a universe. he is making a theory with explanatory power which he neither believes nor disbelieves but challenges us to test.
Can you prove this wrong? Can you show the constants do not evolve so as to favor blackhole formation?

the aim, I think, is to exhibit a testable Multiverse theory. One that predicts something instead of just being a nice daydream
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(edit: never mind, I've already said all this in the other thread)
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
731
Interesting. Since the electron degeneracy limit is thought to be ~1.44 solar masses and the neutron degeneracy limit is thought to be ~ 3 solar masses. So the obvious question is what happens between 1.6 and 3 solar masses? [Maybe I just need to read Smolin's paper :)].
 

jeff

Science Advisor
658
1
marcus said:
A theory is scientific if it bets its life on at least one prediction that it makes about the outcome of a doable experiment
And scientific research programs have the goal of producing scientific theories.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
jeff said:
And scientific research programs have the goal of producing scientific theories.
I agree with jeff about this.
I imagine that what those who fund and direct research programs would
like to see, in some instances, is steady progress towards the goal of
a testable predictive theory----it wouldnt be reasonable to demand of a young theory still under construction that it be already at that point. (But I mustn't pretend to guess how NAS committee-wizards think, there could be a lot of politics to it.)
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
Chronos said:
Interesting. Since the electron degeneracy limit is thought to be ~1.44 solar masses and the neutron degeneracy limit is thought to be ~ 3 solar masses. So the obvious question is what happens between 1.6 and 3 solar masses? [Maybe I just need to read Smolin's paper :)].
chronos, I expect you have looked at pages 33-34 of smolin's paper
section 6.3 "why a single heavy pulsar would refute [the theory]"

It is a short passage (much of which i cant follow) that relies on work by Hans Bethe and George Brown. Bethe and Brown calculated a dependency between the strange quark mass mu and the upper limit on neutron star mass. If the real mu is below a critical value which they called mu-crit then there is a low upper bound on neutron star mass----Bethe and Brown estimated it to be 1.5 solar.

there is nothing special about the number 1.6, it is just something clearly bigger than the bethe and brown 1.5. Instead of 1.6 let us be generous and say 2.

If one would find a neutron star of 2 solar mass, then one would reason that the strange quark mass mu is greater than the mu-crit that Bethe-Brown calculated.

then one would say "if nature had made mu smaller then some of these more massive neutron stars would have collapsed to form holes! So nature is a slacker! She is not making as many black holes as she could be!"
And this would shoot down Smolin's conjecture that we live in a Multiverse which has evolved to produce lots of holes. It would make it very improbable that this is the case.

Now so far my grasp of this is only partial and I have to look at the Bethe Brown papers---since Smolin is building on their work---and make sure I have it right.

these papers are:
"Kaon condensation in dense matter"
"Observational constraints on the maximum neutron star mass"

plus 2 papers from 1994 in Astro. J.
and 1 paper from 1994 in Nucl. Phys. series A.

I will try to post a link to the "Observational Constraints" paper since that will have references to the others.
 

jeff

Science Advisor
658
1
marcus said:
I imagine that what those who fund and direct research programs would
like to see, in some instances, is steady progress towards the goal of
a testable predictive theory----it wouldnt be reasonable to demand of a young theory still under construction that it be already at that point.
Precisely my friend.
 
Thanks marcus.

Paden Roder
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
731
Bad news for Smolin?

Apparently, that neutron star mass limit thing has been stuck in the back of my mind ever since you pointed it out in this thread. This jolted it loose and it floated back to the surface.
http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/abs/2003/13/aah4013/aah4013.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
bad news for Smolin's CNS (cosmic natural selection) theory

maybe not conclusive yet, their lower limit 1.88 solar might not shoot it down but their upper limit 2.27 +/- 0.17 solar masses looks like it would refute the theory if it were confirmed that the neutron star was in fact that massive.

thanks for finding this! Now I must re-read Smolin's artilce to make sure that I have not made an error.

here is the online preprint of that article
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301243
 
Last edited:

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
731
marcus said:
bad news for Smolin's CNS (cosmic natural selection) theory

maybe not conclusive yet, their lower limit 1.88 solar might not shoot it down but their upper limit 2.27 +/- 0.17 solar masses looks like it would refute the theory if it were confirmed that the neutron star was in fact that massive.

thanks for finding this! Now I must re-read Smolin's artilce to make sure that I have not made an error.

here is the online preprint of that article
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301243
My bad, I am such a maverick. That prediction really bothered me and I could not help commenting about it. I admit to being a die hard skeptic. I wasn't even looking for that information, just stumbled upon it.
 
Last edited:
I looked at the paper and saw it was dated back to January 2003 but in the Edge discussion (posted after Jan. 2003) Smolin still defends his CNS scenario, so I don't believe it has been falsified.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
Chronos said:
My bad,...
On the contrary, your good

scientific theories are meant to be shot down.

Maybe this observation does not absolutely conclusively shoot down CNS.
But it seriously crowds it IMHO.

My guess is that Smolin did not know about this observation, or he would have mentioned it (challenged it, or pointed out that it was not conclusive because 1.88 solar masses is still a possible interpretation.)

It is interesting to notice what Smolin gives as his reason for presenting CNS theory in this paper. He uses it to show that one can have a multiverse theory which makes testable predictions and does not appeal to the Anthropic Principle.

Smolin's quantum gravity ideas do not depend on CNS. It is an intriguing idea but disproving CNS does not disprove LQG.

Maybe one of us should write Smolin email about this 2003 observation.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
Curious6 said:
I looked at the paper and saw it was dated back to January 2003 but in the Edge discussion (posted after Jan. 2003) Smolin still defends his CNS scenario, so I don't believe it has been falsified.
I can only assume no one told him about this observation of a rather massive neutron star. Or does he require TWO observations of a neutron star that is too massive for his theory before he cries "uncle"?
I dont know what we should do about it, if anything. Write Smolin? He should at least insert a footnote in his essay to be published ("this theory has subsequently been shot down, see, I told you it was falsifiable!")

I look on this with some degree of equanimity. CNS is a nifty theory but there will be other explanations offered for why the constants have the values we see and at least some of the theories will be testable, like CNS,
by making predictions.

maybe Smolin himself will come up with another candidate.

I suspect the values of some of the basic physical constants really are explainable by a predictive theory---and applaud the ambition of anyone audacious enough to propose one.
 
452
0
I have always suspected that Smolin WANTS to have the CNS through BH theory shot down- just to proove his point that falsifiable multiverse theories are possible and that it isn't necessary to rest on the Anthropic principle-
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
setAI said:
I have always suspected that Smolin WANTS to have the CNS through BH theory shot down- just to proove his point that falsifiable multiverse theories are possible and that it isn't necessary to rest on the Anthropic principle-
:smile:
that thought has crossed my mind too
(maybe in 1995 he proposed it seriously and hopefully but
now in 2004 is using it in just the way you indicate)
 

Tsu

Gold Member
353
63
Well... so who's going to email him????!!!!!! Let's get this goin! :smile:
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
Tsunami said:
Well... so who's going to email him????!!!!!! Let's get this goin! :smile:
commendable impatience Tsunami, he has been notified
(someone I know just emailed him)

If there is any credit for Chronos noticing this he should write Smolin
himself. my friend did not mention PF or the source of the information, just sent the link to the paper.
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
731
Well, that is unfair. PF should get all the credit for bringing the skeptics and their microscopes to the table.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
Chronos said:
Well, that is unfair. PF should get all the credit for bringing the skeptics and their microscopes to the table.
then why dont you write smolin yourself
and refer to the board in what terms you think appropriate!
Please correct me if I am mistaken, I believe smolin's email is

lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca

Bravo chronos, by the way. You are the only skeptic who
showed up with a microscope, so if I knew your name i would
be glad to credit you in my private narrative of the
Cosmic natural selection saga.

but I dont know whether, at this point, the information is
new to Smolin or not. we may not even get a reply.
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
731
Flattery will get you everywhere. I suspect Dr. Smolin has better things to do than flush my naive observations down the email toilet. I am fairly certain his collegues have already told him about the overweight neutron star by now... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of that paper gave him the news before they went to print. Scientiscts tend to be pretty well read and understand the implications of their discoveries.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
Chronos, the omission has been rectified.
Smolin has been informed that the information came to light at PF
where it was posted by one Chronos.

sorry about the earlier omission
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,714
783
Chronos said:
Flattery will get you everywhere. I suspect Dr. Smolin has better things to do...
Focus on the main thing. Nothing is a fools errand if Tsunami asks you to do it. Tsunami said "write Smolin about the star" and it was promptly done.
Now we can get back to thinking about guy stuff.

have you ever seen Tsunami use smilies?

no, that isnt guy stuff.
you think of something
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top