Universe or Multiverse? (new w/cosmic natural selection chapter)

Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the upcoming book "Universe or Multiverse?" from Cambridge University Press, featuring contributions from prominent physicists like Lee Smolin and Stephen Hawking. The book aims to explore the implications of the Anthropic Principle and multiverse theories, with a focus on the cosmological natural selection (CNS) hypothesis, which posits that fundamental physical parameters are optimized for black hole formation. This hypothesis remains unrefuted despite challenges, suggesting a significant scientific inquiry into the nature of our universe. The book is expected to generate considerable interest and controversy within the scientific community. Overall, it serves as a platform for diverse perspectives on cosmology and the multiverse concept.
  • #31
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/

Here is Sean Carroll's Blog.

Multi-verse is the answer to cosmology.

It is the ONLY way to find the 'mechanisms' for "How things are working'.

MBH's ARE the 'mechanisms'! For the Darkness/Exotic Dark Matter/Point Particles, which gets here FIRST!

And for the Light/Energy/EM/Strong/Weak forces, which get here when the MBH's are created IN OUR UNIVERSE.

The Problem: the universe's initial conditions are due to singularities, BUT NOTHING can come 'through' a "NAKED SINGULARITY"!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
RussT said:

quite a mix of fashionable ideas but so scattered I can't get much out of it. I can see why the cosmologist Bernard Carr, when he was putting this Uni/Multi book together, might have chosen not to include an essay along those lines. In any case he put in people with established track-records and scholarly reputation, like Steven Weinberg, Lee Smolin, Frank Wilczek, George Ellis, Jim Hartle, Max Tegmark, Leonard Susskind (for better or worse), Stephen Hawking etc. These people have had something definite and nontrivial to say in the past, whether it was right or wrong, so there should be some interesting essays in the book.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
The real problem is that science has defined itself right into a no-win corner where the answer for how the universe works is actually Career Suicide to even consider!
 
  • #34
RussT said:
The real problem is that science has defined itself right into a no-win corner where the answer for how the universe works is actually Career Suicide to even consider!

Regardless of anything, I think there is a clear conflict of the measure of optimation in any similar situation.

The idea to get payed and at the same time do what is close to your heart sure sounds nice, but is that really the way it works?

It's like they say, business is business. At some point it's a personal choice, what is more important in life. Fight for what you believe in, or get food on the table :cry: It seems the choice tends to be a balance.

/Fredrik
 
  • #35
For those interested you can listen to a short 15 minute discussion about the Universe/Multiverse debate http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/thematerialworld_20070531.shtml" with Martin Rees, Neil Turok and Bernard Carr.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K