Back to *An evolutionary Cosmology

2 Our Universe as Observed and Modelled

This is not the place to give a full description of all the science here there are many texts that cover this including the ones I have chosen as reference examples.

We are now confident that we live in a universe that had an origin, a life, and appears to have a "death" in the far future. This is now fully accepted by most of the scientific community.  It is also accepted that our essentially flat universe is a "Zero sum game" in that there must be a balance between matter and energy to allow space time to be flat.  This results in a universe with

5% Matter  27% dark matter and 68% dark energy.  The dark matter can be detected by the motions of galaxies and galaxy clusters but the dark energy is as yet unexplained.

The concept of a "multiverse", that is, there are very many other universes, isolated from ours, in all of multidimensional  "space" and "time"  existing in what is generally called a “bulk” of vastly high energy possibilities is now becoming widely accepted.  

The vast number of potential string theories produce possibilities where the nature of physical properties of a universe are determined by the structures that develop. So models now exist for the determination of the physical laws of a universe.  The big problem is to find ways in which any of the models may be verified or at least selected as a result of experimental evidence.

Several books have been published recently telling us how finely balanced the critical constants driving the laws of physics are in our universe, and that if there was only a small change in any of these, our universe would be radically different and almost certainly not conducive to life as we know it.  A good explanation of this is in the book "The Goldilocks Enigma"  By Paul Davies.   This is seen as implying that, if these values were allocated "randomly" when a universe was "created", most universes would be sterile and boring places, also many universes would have very short lives briefly blinking into and out of existence, and that ours being to us large, long lived and complex is therefore in some way very exceptional. 

Scientific history has clearly shown that putting life in some special place is a bad thing and to be avoided because it stultifies good original thinking, so how might we be able to avoid this problem? 

It is also known that when energy is converted into matter it always appears as particle-antiparticle pairs.  That is matter and antimatter are created equally.  It is now very clear that our universe consists almost entirely of matter and any antimatter is converted back into energy when it encounters matter.  It was considered for many years that there must be some slight imbalance that allowed matter dominated universes to form but the latest experiments suggest that this imbalance is vanishingly small.  A potential solution to this problem is that universes come in pairs that are linked but not directly visible to each other one of these is matter dominated and the other antimatter dominated. One is expanding and the other is contracting.  This possibility was described by Neil Turock in 2020  See ref 

It is now fully accepted (except for a few fringe thinkers) that life on earth has evolved from simple chemical beginnings without the intervention of any higher guiding force.  The process of evolution by natural selection produces complex creatures that are well suited to their (reasonably stable) environment in which relatively small changes would disrupt.   One of the important features of successful evolution processes that is gradually becoming recognised is that absolute stability is not a good thing because it reduces the "ability to evolve" which is also selected for in the long term as conditions change.

Is it therefore possible to devise an evolutionary process for the origin, life and death of universes that would allow its physical properties to evolve in such a way that complex "living" universes like ours were not exceptional?

Before we can talk about a fully evolved universe we must first prove that we live in a cyclic universe.  Previous approaches have assumed that in order to create a large universe you need to start with a large universe and that universes collapse and "bounce"  this method of recycling has been rejected.  Although some papers have in the past suggested that it may not be the case that we need a large universe but they have not gone much further than this suggestion

What I hope to show is that what I call an episodic cyclic universe originating from the collapse of a small amount of matter into a black hole  is not impossible and  what is more it explains this matter antimatter imbalance problem and furthermore offers a simply understandable explanation of the more unusual properties of the quantum world like entanglement.  I strongly suggest that these ideas are worthy of that more serious investigation by others with more skill than me in their own fields. 

3 The Basic requirements for a cyclic universe