**An Evolutionary Cosmology**

** **

**A suggestion that could generate a "Complete Theory Of Everything".**

** **

** By Ian Kimber**

**1 Introduction**

Many people talk about a "Theory Of Everything" and mean a complete understanding of all the laws of physics that define how our universe works. This is in effect only part of the story. A true theory of everything should include a reasonable model describing how and why these physical laws exist and how and why they work together to produce our universe and any others if there are good reasons why they should exist. This is what I will call "A Complete Theory of Everything"

Most modern approaches to a conventional or cosmology "Theory Of Everything" are very vague about the origin of universes and see the laws of physics as possibly being defined randomly. This makes our universe appear very unlikely and therefore special in some way. This is very unsatisfactory from a philosophical point of view because in the past all approaches that put us in a special place have been proved erroneous.

Is it possible to have "A Complete Theory of Everything"? Most current cosmologies based on observation and modelling quite understandably give up at the extreme ends of the life of our universe so any Complete Theory of Everything must always enter a certain degree of speculation but there may be ways of getting round this limitation. If this is so it might be a good idea to give them some serious consideration.

Let me reiterate my proposal. A complete theory of everything would have, not only a good grasp of all the physical processes that are observable, it would also have a justifiable model for the creation and end of universe(s) and an explanation of how and why the physical laws we see in our universe have the relationships and fundamental constants have values that they do.

One scientific attempt to approach this problem has been made in the past. That is Fred Hoyle's "Continuous Creation" Hypothesis. This adopted the "Prefect Cosmological Principle" which states that the universe looks much the same everywhere and at all times. This aimed to create in effect a stasis in an expanding universe by suggesting that very small amounts of hydrogen appearing uniformly throughout the expanding universe could result in time in the replacement of galaxies which expanded out of observable range.

The opposition to this simple but disprovable idea created many proofs that our universe has in fact changed in time. This refuted this suggestion and drove innovative thinking for many years. Currently it appears that our ideas are again getting bogged down in a vast array of possible models so maybe "knocking down" another simple hypothesis could help. So here is something for others to have a serious think about.

The rest of this paper creates a plausible argument for a complete theory of everything as defined above and invites questions and comments. If you wish to have a cosmological principle that it obeys it is: that our universe evolved from the bulk as a result of fundamental interactions in basic energy this resulted in a “living universe” it was was created by a broadly similar universe, it developed and change through time and will eventually die away to silence. It is part of an indefinitely large bulk of broadly similar universes all at different stages of this process but during its life it will create many new universes many of which are broadly similar to itself. This does not also exclude the possibility of there being an indefinite number of vastly different sorts of universes all developing and existing isolated by horizons within this bulk.

This concept has already been introduced by several innovative thinkers in the past. Lee Smolin in his book “The Life of the Cosmos” gives a brief review of some of them together with some convincing arguments that our finely balanced physical laws are close to those needed to maximize the production of stellar mass black holes but does not take the next step as to exploring if a stellar mass black hole could be the source of a universe as large and complex as ours or the evolutionary processes that could be involved as an expanding universe cools. These are the main suggestions that I would like to bring to this chain of thought.

** An important Note**

I do not disagree with any of the current main stream results and thinking in any way. However I do feel we might do better by standing back a bit from the purely mathematical coal faces of cosmology, string theory, quantum theory and so on and trying to put together a truly physical hypothesis based on putting everything we have in physics, cosmology, communications, and information theory together in a slightly different way. This approach to thinking comes from my own personal experience of creating and stimulating innovative thinking in many other areas.

However it is important to realize that I am also not presenting this in any sort of anthropic principle justification all I am saying is that evolutionary processes bared on the increased “survival times” based on metastability in dynamic and changing systems lead to a natural complexity.

**2 Our Universe as Observed and Modelled**

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.

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 even though we may never be possible to observe them directly.

The vast number of potential string theories produced by current mathematical synthesis create 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. 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 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?

What I hope to show is that such an idea is not impossible and that more serious investigation by others with more skill than me in their own fields could be well worth while.

**3 Basic requirements for an evolving multiverse**

What are the basic requirements for a multiverse consisting of evolving universes ?

**An origin for universes**

Firstly we need to have a process for the origin of universes. Currently most thinking avoids this question by saying "some sort" of quantum process could kick things off. This may well be enough at the very beginning. However for an evolutionary process we need more. We need a process in which a universe can itself, or by some interaction between universes can create other universes.

W**hat would its properties be? **

It would have to be where part of our universe is cut off from the rest of the originating universe(s) by some process and then continues on with its own existence independently leaving only a shadow of its creation. Ideally it should also be seeded in some way with elements of the originating universe.

**Are we aware of such a process?**

Currently we are well aware of a process like this. That is, the creation of a black hole during the latter stages in the life of a high mass star. This is the most common sort of black hole in our universe. So that is a good place to start. The big question is how can such a small object lead to a big universe?. The simple answer is that collapse to a singularity under an inverse square law not only results in an infinite energy density it also releases an infinite quantity of energy! This would be ample to create a universe that is large and complex. This matter is dealt with in more detail in section 4.

**The evolution of physical laws**

We now need to think a little more deeply about the potential "evolution" of the physical laws and "constants" that define how these physical laws interact. At this stage In the thinking process I will discuss the ideas in the most general way.

The first part of this process is to stress the fact that it is important to bear in mind the physics underlying the way our universe operates. Quantum mechanical uncertainty defines a “veil” of space and time within which we cannot observe individual events but only observe the collective results of what is going on behind the veil. These results we know are described with great precision by the mathematics of quantum field theory. The basic mathematics of this involves integrals of wave functions over all of space and time (within the universe) describing in a probabilistic way the positions and motions of particles that can be observed outside of the veil of uncertainty. Within this veil almost anything that is allowed can (and possibly does) happen.

The very success of the pure mathematics of quantum field theory has to an extent hidden the physical insights underlying the origins of quantum mechanics from more recent generations of mathematical physicists. Let us go back to the early origins of quantum theory and consider the original de Broglie model of the Hydrogen atom which led to the full development of quantum theory.

This showed that the electron orbitals of the isolated hydrogen atom were essentially "cavity resonances" of the electron De Broglie wavelength. This is an experimentally observable wave property of electrons that is defined by the electron's momentum by thinking of the electron as a particle "orbiting" the nucleus under electrostatic attraction. Quantum uncertainty adds "noise" to this process resulting in the familiar statistical spread of the orbitals determined by the results of quantum electrodynamics. Following this sort of analysis to more complex atoms gets extremely difficult particularly as energies get higher and momenta get relativistic. Nuclear interactions were also originally viewed as resonances producing subatomic particles that were metastable.

All this was superseded by the mathematical simplification of the Dirac notation and quantum electro and chromo dynamics which takes these infinite integrals as symbols that can be manipulated. This has tended to hide the underlying physical principles of these integrals from succeeding generations of quantum physicists.

String theory also sees particles as resonances in waves that create persistent effects. What I am trying to illustrate is that there are "physical" processes going on inside the uncertainty veil which produce longer term observable effects. Current teaching of quantum mechanics tends to ignore this physical background in favour of the much more precise and successful pure mathematical quantum field theory.

There is also an interesting aside here as far as our universe is concerned, because there is a limit to space and time defined by the age of our universe and the velocity of light. This sets a lower limit on the frequency of any wave in our universe. This is probably not significant for electromagnetic interactions but gravitational interactions in our universe could easily include frequencies below this limit and this could have an effect on dark matter and dark energy in the same way that electromagnetic wells restrict the range of frequencies and give rise to spectral lines and resonances in atomic and nuclear spectra.

It is important to keep in mind the fact that we live in a physical universe and not a strictly mathematical one even though mathematics vital to support the modelling of the underlying physics. That is the probabilistic results of the mathematical process are in fact the most probable way a classical system would behave given the physical "noise" in the process introduced by quantum mechanical uncertainty and that this uncertainty is (probably!) the result of the underlying dynamics of the physical processes involved.

**The nature of our physical laws and the constants that determine their interaction.**

** **

The values of the critical physical constants are often seen as a result of "random" symmetry breaking as the universe cools from its initial extremely hot conditions. However physical experience shows that in real life when symmetries are broken in this way what happens is usually far from random, often producing structure of great order, because of the interactions of the particles involved. A good example of this is crystallisation. What I am trying to say is the laws that we observe are not the result of random but resonant processes that effectively extend the time for which any structures associated with underlying interaction probabilities exist for long enough to be observed outside of the veil of the uncertainty principle. The suggestion therefore is that the processes that will be favoured as things settle out are the ones that will extend longevity the greatest. That is resonant and or recycling processes. Noise well that this does not mean that the resonant processes are fully stable a metastable process will cause an increase in the duration of the interaction. This creates an evolutionary drive in physical processes that may be initially seen to be purely random. It also fits well with the mathematical process which calculates the probabilities of various observations happening.

Mathematics is and always will be a powerful tool for analysis and synthesis. However it does have limitations in that physical process simplifications always have to be made to the model to allow the process to be modelled. A good example of this can be seen in "string theory" in which an arbitrary concept of a resonant vibrating string is used to replace the concept of point particles. This has produced a vast array of potential models which could possibly result in a universe like ours but it says nothing about the nature of the "string". A tensioned elastic string is essentially the simplest concept after a point and it allows awkward infinities to be avoided. All this work is good but it will need some sort of physical insight to point the way towards the more likely models. I would like to suggest that the simplest physical insight is a local space time vortex and that the development of a concept of a “classical” but relativistic space time computational fluid dynamics based on gravitation and gravitimagnetic interactions in our familiar 3 space +1 time dimensions could prove interesting and offer insight into what a quantum string geometry might be like and help to point towards a preferred selection from the vast array of string theories under consideration.

The next stage is to look a little deeper at the two processes above and check if it is possible, using physical rather than pure mathematical processes, in the most basic sense, to end up with a universe as large and complex as ours by applying them. Hopefully this will then be able to be linked into the vast array of mathematical thinking that already exists and lead to a real breakthrough in fundamental physics and cosmology leading to a true "theory of everything".

**4. The Continued Collapse inside Black Hole**

The first and most obvious question to answer is, could a universe as large and complex as ours come from the collapse of a stellar mass black hole inside its event horizon?

It is accepted that the basic physics does not change as the event horizon is crossed and locally there are no significant changes other than the increasing gravity gradient. Let us then consider the collapse of material inside a stellar mass black hole starting immediately after an event horizon has first formed. Let us initially consider the simple Schwarzschild or non rotating case.

The collapsing material is hot and turbulent and will continue heat up as a result of the release of gravitational potential energy being turned into kinetic energy. As it collapses further the gravitational field continues to increase as the inverse square of the radius. During the collapse of a spherical mass from radius r to r/2 simple mechanics shows that an individual particle at the surface of this mass will gain energy in proportion to the reciprocal of the radius change. This will tend to infinity as r approaches zero. This collapse is over a finite distance and takes a finite time but the conditions under which it takes place allow the particles to have a vast number of interactions while this takes place. It follows that in the collapse of even a small stellar mass black hole towards the theoretical singularity there is therefore plenty of energy available to create a whole new universe as large as or even larger than our own! With this amount of energy available inside the event horizon any subsequent material falling into the black hole after the initial collapse event has taken place is largely irrelevant.

Mathematics clearly states that once the event horizon has formed, the matter inside a non rotating black hole collapses to a mathematical singularity of zero dimensions containing an infinite quantity of energy within a finite time. This is clearly very bad physics and does not make sense in the real world but it is what all the text books say and most people accept. I have been unable to find any analysis of what might be a real physical solution to this but will offer you a simple one based totally upon accepted physics now.

Let us assume we have a body collapsing under gravity in empty space and forming a black hole. Let us assume that no other particles or radiation are entering the hole.

Consider the instant that the event horizon forms. This is the moment that photons cannot escape "to infinity" however photons can always escape some short distance from the contracting central mass because the massive particles cannot be travelling at the speed of light before being dragged back into the main body of matter. Let us call this limit the "photon sphere". The collapsing mass will be inside this "photon sphere" this will also contract as the gravitational field increases. The "photon sphere" represents a sort of second "event horizon" defining the limit of the radiation from the collapsing mass. As the field increases this photon sphere will contract with the rest of the mass. Between this and the real event horizon in our universe superficially there is absolutely nothing other than the quantum mechanical vacuum as long as no matter or radiation is falling into the hole.

Now is there absolutely nothing there? It is currently accepted that the event horizon of a black hole to our universe radiates energy in the form of Hawking radiation and that this can cause black holes in totally empty space to decay very slowly to nothing. The total energy radiated is proportional to the gravitational gradient at the event horizon. This energy loss is incredibly small for all gravitational gradients that we can expect to encounter in our universe however as the gradient increases it increases without limit. That is, a gravitational gradient radiates energy away from a gravitating source into its photon sphere.

This result implies that the photon sphere of material collapsing inside the event horizon of a Schwarzschild Black Hole will radiate energy in proportion to the gravitational gradient at its surface. This radiation will of course eventually fall back into the hole but it will take some time doing it, let us call this time the "return time".

The rate of energy loss over the return time is in effect a drain on the total energy in the hole As the main mass continues to contract towards the "singularity" and the gravitational gradients increase further this energy loss rate will increase as the inverse square of the radius (source http://http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ ) The energy gain by the collapse as worked out above increases only as the inverse first power of the radius. This means that the energy loss would eventually overtake the energy gain from gravity and the structure will become a stable (tiny) radiating fuzzball of an incredible (but not infinite) quantity of energy.

Note this estimate is only very rough and does not take into account the effect of changes in the return time. Again using http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ and inputting that the radiated energy should be around 10e20 solar luminosities to approximately equal that of the whole observable universe comes out with the result that the radius would be around the Planck length. However small this it is still vastly bigger than the infinitesimal size of a mathematical point. It may also be the starting point for our first and most important constant, the constant of quantum mechanics itself, the Planck constant.

The non rotating black hole is of course also a mathematical simplification. All black holes will contain some angular momentum and follow the Kerr structure This approach will be the start of the next stage of the argument.

**A more detailed analysis of the continued collapse of a Rotating black hole inside its event horizon**

** Part 1 An overall view of the collapse process**

Firstly let us assume for simplicity that the angular momentum is (slightly) less than the absolute maximum that the mass of the hole may contain and that no further matter or radiation are coming into the hole. The gravitational collapse continues inside the event horizon. The initial collapse will continue the particles will interact and the material will heat up further. Let us assume that it is rotating as a fluid body and eventually the outer surface will be rotating with a velocity approaching that of light at the equator and this cannot contract further. Particle interactions will then cause the angular momentum to be shared out and the inner particles will gain more angular momentum and it will settle down to a toroidal structure heading towards the theoretical "ring singularity" as described by the Kerr solution to the equations.

It is unlikely that there is no residual angular momentum in other dimensions so as this settling down continues a toroidal rotation in one direction around the orbital axis will happen and the end result is likely to be a toroidal surface. Particles will be spiralling round the position of the theoretical ring singularity. However a significant local change has taken place. There has been a change in the local dimensionality from spherical (3 dimensions) to cylindrical (2 dimensions) which means that the local gravity follows an inverse first power law rather than an inverse square law. (see the appendix dimensionality of universes and conservation laws) this slows down any collapse allows more freedom of movement and will result in the particles oscillating about the

Now consider in detail what happens on the smaller scale as the collapse continues. As the temperature rises collisions between particles will become more violent and particle antiparticle pairs will be created this will in effect drain energy and angular velocity from the system and reduce the temperature rise. It will also allow the torus to collapse to a smaller diameter thus releasing more gravitational energy.

Electron pair production cooling processes have already been considered as the process driving some rare exceptionally violent large supernovas.

A balance of annihilation and creation of particles will be achieved but it is known that there can be a slight imbalance that allow one form of matter to dominate in time this may well be related to the final stable geometry established. This means that the collapse process will create a lot more matter(or antimatter?). The collapse process will also gradually cause a cooling down of the temperature as the particles and radiation settle down to their orbits the energy differentials reduce and the mean free time between collisions will increase.

So far there is one big omission in this analysis and that is the effect that all this is happening with the particles moving in orbits at relativistic velocities and the effect of frame dragging or gravitomagnetism has not been considered these effects cannot easily be included in this thought experiment at this time and will probably require more expert analysis than I can provide but here is a suggestion. one of the main analyses of the Kerr black hole shows a gravitational repulsion effect in some areas of the space around the ring singularity and this leads us on to the next question.

**Part 2 The Reversal Problem**

I understand from comments in other review papers there are some mathematical Physicists working on the problem of converting a collapsing system into an expanding "big bang". clearly this is a vital requirement for the concepts presented here to work and currently I can think of three physical properties that might do this of which any or all may describe the process of converting a collapse towards a singularity to a big bang when seen from the point of view of the particles involved.

To clear up any uncertainty it is clearly not possible for whatever happens to explode out of the event horizon because that is irrevocably sealed and limited by the physical laws in our or any other similar universe. There are however plenty more dimensions available for expansion to occur because all main theories of everything have far more than the conventional three of space and one of time available to them.

Firstly supersymmetry includes both bosonic and fermionic particles of all types this could include the concept of a gravitino a particle that interacts only through gravity but has the property of fermionic exclusion. This in effect will create a repulsive gravity effect and would reverse collapse provided it mass was large enough to prevent it from becoming relativistic at the energies involved in the final stages of collapse when it would be generated.

Secondly There is a broken symmetry between matter and antimatter that is as yet unexplained and this could be caused by the geometry of the collapse which is not totally symmetrical. This would also play a part in establishing the large scale geometry of the resulting universe which may be detectable at the limits in our universe.

Thirdly It may just be a relativistic effect of the way a universe looks from the point of view of something that is inside it that is what are really small dimensions just "look" large because of the coherent behaviour of the particles involved. Remember relativity says time and space always look perfectly "normal" to you and with things that are moving in the same way and in a similar gravitational field to you time and space only distort in your perspective when you look to places where fields and velocities are different at a distance.

**What does the collapse process look like from the point of view of the particles and space time**

This is a vital part of this thought experiment. Relativity rules apply! There is a strong tendency for people to visualise black holes as looking from the outside as if the event horizon was transparent this is bad thinking, it is important to consider what this "universe" looks like from the point of view of the particles involved as the space time collapses towards this theoretical ring (or toroidal) singularity

Orbital motion implies that there is always a certain amount of coherency in the particle movements. Initially the temperature will rise as gravitational energy is released and then cool down as particles are created and motions become more and more coherent, The gravitational field and potential will become higher and particle velocities closer and closer to the velocity of light and particle interactions less frequent.

Although the particles are moving in a tight set of toroidal "orbits" around a linear orbit around the main centre of gravity from the point of view of the individual particles time dilation will mean that they will become more spaced out from their own point of view.

It is also important to consider the effects of the local "dimensional restriction" on the conservation laws. The classic inverse square law requires the existence of three local dimensions. see appendix 1.

Now the standard texts describe that inside the event horizon space becomes time like and time space like. Roger Penrose with his Penrose diagrams of space and time considers the possibility of moving past "the singularity" to get to another universe like a wormhole. Can I now suggest that we consider that the "time like" space collapses towards a linear or toroidal surface singularity to become time in a new universe and the "space like" time expands to become space in a set of dimensions different from the space that has just collapsed. It is now interesting to note that antimatter is often described in texts as identical to ordinary matter running backwards through time so it seems likely that our new universe could be dominated by what is in our universe called antimatter. Please note this is an important symmetry breaking that is not discussed in the development of our own big bang.

This could now represent a process similar to our observed big bang however the process has also been "seeded" with particles from our universe and although there may be changes on physical laws, There will be restraints caused by this seeding.

After this collapse process has happened, further material may fall through the original event horizon but it will appear only as a small number of extremely high energy (antimatter?) particles in the vast new universe that has in effect expanded from the small amount of matter that first created the "singularity" in the black hole. This may result in one of the potentially observable confirmations of these concepts.

**Recapitulation**

This concedes the bald statement of the concept that I wish to communicate. Before going on to look how these ideas may fit with our current ideas I will recapitulate the basic concepts.

The collapse of even a stellar mass black hole inside its event horizon can produce enough energy to create an entire universe as large and complex as ours. It is seeded with particles from our universe and there will be a tendency for physical laws to be similar. It is logical to consider that the universe created by this collapse will be in some way dependant on the nature of the collapse process. The critical initial collapse of a stellar mass black hole is probably quite precisely defined leading to a reasonably precisely defined final structure for "new" universes.

The critical constants in the universe arise out of important resonances in the interaction of the fields involved. It is to be expected that as with the processes in life, marginal stability is important to enable this evolutionary process. It is also possible that the ranges of the short range forces notably the strong, weak and quantum uncertainty could fit with this model.

There are also some important new facts. The small structure that collapsed to form the large new universe as seen from the point of view of the particles in the new universe, still exists and is a fundamental part of that universe, that is, the universe is simultaneously very large and very small at the same time. Accepting this as a simple fact helps to solve some of the peculiar features of quantum mechanics like entanglement which can just be seen as essentially "instantaneous" phase changes in the small recycling dimensions even though the large dimension may be separated by large distances.

**Could there be any observational confirmation of these ideas?**

If during the collapse of material towards the formation of a rotating black hole there could a brief period where gravitinos escape from the poles of the rotating mass. They could act as a driver for the incredibly intense outflows of energy and also create extra space over and above the residual expansion of the universe from the original creation of space. Therefore it follows that the increase in space expansion currently being observed is being driven by the total rate of creation of black holes in the universe. This could be estimated.

Extreme energy cosmic rays could be particles from our precursor universe falling into the original black hole in which case they would be most likely to be "antimatter" particles. These would appear "out of nowhere" throughout our universe and so could easily be of such high energy that they could not travel far. The most probable particles to fall into our originating black hole would be neutrinos because there are more of them of the particles we know in that case as most neutrinos in our universe are in fact antineutrinos the originating universe would be expected to produce neutrinos so ultra energy neutrinos would be expected to be neutrinos and not antineutrinos.

The Ice Cube detector aimed at ultra energy neutrinos could detect these.

The probabilities for this sort of event could be calculated they would be far from frequent.

Other astronomical and high energy physics observations may also be possible as the result of further analysis and understanding of the concepts

**Awkward questions.**

** **

I have been thinking of these ideas for more than 20 years now and have developed them slowly all the time I have been looking for anything that can prove them false. I may have missed a fundamental fact that rules the whole thing out if so I will be glad to hear it. however I have considered answering a few awkward questions that could be asked.

**Black hole mass**

** **

Q. if all this mass is being created inside a small stellar mass black hole shouldn't this show in the gravitational field outside of it.

A. No because like light which cannot escape any additional gravitational fields created by new particles cannot escape from the event horizon.

**Black Hole Mergers**

** **

Q. If our universe is, in effect, inside a small black hole in another universe what would happen if it merged with another similar black hole or even fell into a massive black hole.

A. Firstly to generate enough energy to create a whole universe the actual "size" of our universe inside this small black hole is almost infinitesimally small it would also have a powerful but short range hawking radiation barrier around it and the two baby universes could well in effect bounce off each other and never merge. If that is true a very large black hole will in effect contain a whole swarm of tiny universes all milling around and bouncing off each other. This could describe the "brane world" description of a big bang in which two "dead" universes are revived by a collision between them.

It is also interesting to note that this concept could in fact explain the biggest "error" in physics namely why the energy density of the universe to be expected from quantum theory is out by a factor of 10 to the power of 120.

**The conservation of information**

One of the big questions about black holes was the fact that information appeared to be lost from our universe and it was felt that information was conserved like energy in our universe. It has now been agreed that the eventual evaporation of a black hole would result in the release of this information so no information is actually lost.

The release of energy during gravitational collapse in effect creates information in the form of particles and this continues the link between energy and information so no problems are created here.

**What about quantum gravity?**

So far I have not discussed quantum gravity because initially this is not needed. Current thinking in this area based on the equations which show that the simple collapse inside the event horizon of a black hole leads to the formation of a "mathematical singularity" in a finite amount of time. String theory approaches to particle physics using the classic pure mathematical approach and an arbitrary vibrating string offer a vast number of solutions with little prospect of physical proof without the ability to restrict this selection in some way.

I strongly feel that some physical insight will be needed to solve the problem of creating a quantum gravity and I would like to return to one of the first ideas I had about the universe when I was a teenager and first became aware of space time distortion and general relativity. I considered that the ultimate structure of the universe would in the end turn out to be that the entities in any universe were in effects bits of the universe screwed up in one way or another. Now a simple vortex in a fluid creates a linear string like structure and can be quite stable in conventional fluid media as can a toroidal "smoke ring" structure this together with some concepts of the physical properties a multidimensional "bulk" fluid medium and the concept of the dimensionality effects on conservation laws could be a starting point with a bit of physical insight to those who wish to solve this problem. and they might find a lot of help on this from people currently solving problems in computational fluid dynamics.

**Where does the second law of thermodynamics fit into all of this? **

This is probably the most misunderstood law in all of physics. I do not dispute simple facts of the universe continuing downhill run towards a final state of heat death as we can see in the eventual demise of our universe as the black holes in it finally evaporate into mostly very low energy quanta but this aspect of the law only applies to NON INTERACTING PARTICLES! If particles interact, the route to this final state can be very different because as it is well known and accepted that the precursor state of our universe evaporating is a collapse into black holes! The same is also true for the crystallisation of substances into highly ordered crystals not a diffuse gas. The eventual evaporation of a black hole in our universe should not affect the existence of the new universe it created because other dimensions in "the bulk" must be involved for these ideas to work

**Appendix 1 dimensionality and conservation laws**

Energy conservation laws constrain the laws relating to the forces associated with long range fields based on the local dimensionality. The classic inverse square law for gravity and electric fields is because we live in a universe with three spatial dimensions because the surface area of a sphere around a point increases as the square of the radius. This defines the way the radiated energy is spread out as one moves away from the point source. I have used the term "local dimensionality" because most root cosmological theories envisage larger numbers of dimensions (possibly infinite) at the most fundamental levels of the bulk from which universes originate.

This can be seen in the cases of pseudo restricted dimensionality. For a source which is an “infinite” line we have only two local dimensions and the energy is spread over the perimeter. This becomes a simple inverse law and for an infinite plane flat surface radiator this spreading becomes a constant because the energy does not fall off. Expanding this concept to more than three dimensions implies that the fields fall off as the number of dimensions less one; for example, the case of four dimensions results in an inverse cube falloff of force with distance.

The inverse square law is the only one that allows reasonably stable orbits to form. any variation from this results in collapse or breakup of an orbit with the slightest disturbance from its metastable position

**Beware of Cranks!**

The concept of our universe being very small in most of its dimensions while at the same time being very large because of the effects of relativistic time and space expansion offers cranks a field day allowing them to conceive hopping easily from place to place or even between whole universes. However these concepts imply that even though one might do this it is clear that it will not be possible as complex entities because of the size of the hole one will be in effect pushed through and the energy densities that are involved in the process.

## Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.