Cosmologist: Black holes produce new universes, physics laws

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 3, 2014

Cosmology, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Multiverse, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Astrophysicist Robert Matthews offers a synopsis of Lee Smolin’s 2013 book, Time Reborn, arguing that time really exists:

Formed from the collapse of giant stars, black holes are notorious for having gravitational fields so strong not even light can escape them. Exactly what happens inside them isn’t known for sure, but there are hints from quantum theory that the centre of black holes may be the birth-places of whole new universes, each with different laws of physics.

Smolin points out that if this is correct, then a kind of cosmic version of Darwinian natural selection could apply, in which the most common universes will be those most suitable for producing black holes. And this, he says, can be put to the test in our Universe. After countless aeons of cosmic evolution, our Universe should by now be ruled by laws of physics well-suited to producing black holes. According to Smolin, astrophysicists can check to see if this is actually true – and to date the evidence suggests it is.

The most striking evidence, though, may be our own existence. Black holes are formed from the death of huge stars in supernova explosions. Intriguingly, these are the very same stars that produce the carbon, oxygen and other elements required for life. If there were no giant stars, there would be no universe-spawning black holes and no evolving laws of physics – and no us, either.

Smolin is thus suggesting that our very existence may be evidence for cosmic evolution. And since evolution can only happen over time, that in turn suggests time is real. It’s an astonishing line of argument for the reality of time – and one that doesn’t convince everyone. “I find these ideas very speculative – to say the least,” says theorist Prof Claus Kiefer of the University of Cologne in Germany. He doubts even the starting point for Smolin’s argument for the reality of time: “There is no evidence whatsoever that new universes are born inside black holes.”

Evidence? The whole concept went out with the idea of a universe. The multiverse dispenses with evidence.

In fairness, it’s not easy to get all the science kitsch (Darwinism, multiverse, black hole woo) together in just one theory; gotta give Smolin credit for that.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology) for how and why evidence no longer matters.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Do black holes produce more heat than light? HT: Granville SewellMung_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

semi related: A Matter of Considerable Gravity: On the Purported Detection of Gravitational Waves and Cosmic Inflation - Bruce Gordon - April 4, 2014 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/a_matter_of_con084001.htmlbornagain77_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Black Holes depend on incredible fine-tuning. Cosmological Constant is an irreducible component of Multiversal Black Holes?ppolish_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Jacoby:
Dennis Venema is currently in the process of debunking Luskin’s nonsense.
Having read DV's earlier alleged debunkings I am sure this one will be as entertaining and evidence-free.Joe_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

polish @ 26 Yes, that's a logical conclusion. The color variety seems appealing too ;-) well, as long as it does not contradict the establishment.Dionisio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

chris Haynes @ 24 That's a pretty logic conclusion. Also, option # 1 sells much better in this gullible world.Dionisio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @ 13 Agree. Thanks. BTW, my comments on # 11 were sarcastic, as you probably realized if you opened the links. Have a good weekend.Dionisio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Mapou @ 25 The sad thing is that their books are on the "science" section shelves in many bookstores. Words don't mean what they used to anymore. Anything is called any arbitrary name. No one seems to care. However, they sell well. This gullible world buys anything that sounds interesting, specially if it looks magic / witchcraft :(Dionisio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Black Holes emerge from the physical laws of our Universe. Wouldn't a Multiverse with other laws have Red Holes & Blue Holes? Rainbow Holes?ppolish_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

None of this stuff is science. Smolin, Hawking and the other physics religionists might as well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.Mapou_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Dr Smolin's reasoning is very clear and lucid In his 2007 book he gave 3 explanations for Fine Tuning 1) There are an infinte number of universes 2) There is an unknown theory that explains fine tuning 3) Creationism No 2 is ruled out, because you cant sell books with nothing written in them. No 3 is out on three counts. First its too downscale for a Tenured Prof. Second, its against the Constitution. Third, it poses certain logical inconsistencies to devout Atheists like Dr. Smolin and his coluegues So he flies with No 1.chris haynes_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for our Darwinian Dreamers who refuse to be bothered by empirical evidence, ENCODE 2012 called for a redefinition of the entire concept of the gene: i.e. ENCODE 2012 argued that the RNA transcript, not the gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance
Landscape of transcription in human cells – Sept. 6, 2012 Excerpt: Here we report evidence that three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene.,,, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11233.html Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? - Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8
which is interesting since mRNA transcripts are not nearly as cooperative as genes were to the gerrymandering tactics of Darwinists
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution - Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. - Elie Dolgin - 27 June 2012 Excerpt: “I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. "...they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist - Kevin Peterson) Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says. Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong. http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885
bornagain77_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

JacobyShaddix you claim
If we’re interested in calculating the percentage difference between humans and chimps, it only makes sense to consider the sequences that can be aligned. To count all the other bases that can’t be aligned due to large scale insertions and deletions and to count repetitive sequences that prevent us from fully sequencing either genome will only produce a misleading figure.
Actually, contrary to whatever respect you may have for Venema's opinion in the matter (which is clearly much more than I have), the plain fact of the matter is that it is misleading to presuppose that only similar sequences count and to throw out all dissimilar sequences, since it will, of course, give you an answer that is favorable to the Darwinian presuppositions you started with. i.e. It is called 'assuming your conclusion' beforehand!
DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps - Fazale Rana Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be. http://www.reasons.org/dna-comparisons-between-humans-and-chimps-response-venema-critique-rtb-human-origins-model-part-2
,,,it is especially true that Darwinists should not 'assume their conclusion' into their investigation, considering the fact that Darwinists have yet to demonstrate that their RM-NS mechanism is adequate for the task assumed for it:
Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies http://eebweb.arizona.edu/nachman/Suggested%20Papers/Lab%20papers%20fall%202010/Burke_et_al_2010.pdf Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282
Further note, where sequence differences are radical is in the regulatory regions:
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/
But regulatory regions, despite being radically different, are, by far, the places in the genome that will render catastrophic effects to a organism if 'randomly mutated'
Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress - Paul Nelson - April 7, 2011 Excerpt: The problem may be summarized as follows: -- There are striking differences in the early (embryonic) development in animals, even within classes and orders. -- Assuming that these animals are descended from a common ancestor, these divergences suggest that early development evolves relatively easily. -- Evolution by natural selection requires heritable variation. -- But heritable variations in early development, in major features such as cleavage patterns, are not observed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept_1045581.html Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/ A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html
bornagain77_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

JacobyShaddix: If the problem is about common descent, I am not really interested in the debate. As known, I accept common descent. But if the problem is about why humans are so different from chimps (and they are!), then everything changes. If I were in your shoes (which, luckily, I am not) I would not be so certain that those sequences that do not align are certainly non functional, or non important. Among those sequences which do not align, there can be a lot of regulatory sequences, and even new orphan genes. How can you exclude that? Just to know...gpuccio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

JacobyShaddix: The thread is: "Why Earth isn’t fine tuned for life" My comments are #11, #13, #14.gpuccio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

JacobyShaddix: Are you so sure you understand basic statistics? I made some comments on one of your statements on another thread, and I have not yet seen any answer from you.gpuccio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

sbrown: I can try to give you my interpretation. If we invoke infinite universes, which can have infinite events and laws, so that even the most unlikely things may happen, observed things do not need any more an explanation based on laws or regularities. IOWs, if we want to explain OOL by chance, however unlikely it is, or a functional protein by chance, however unlikely it is, saying that in an infinite number of universes there will be one universe where so many unlikely outcomes come out by chance, then any hope of rational interpretation of what we observe is definitely lost.gpuccio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

@bornagain77 Dennis Venema is currently in the process of debunking Luskin's nonsense. If we're interested in calculating the percentage difference between humans and chimps, it only makes sense to consider the sequences that can be aligned. To count all the other bases that can't be aligned due to large scale insertions and deletions and to count repetitive sequences that prevent us from fully sequencing either genome will only produce a misleading figure. Warning: An understanding basic statistics and the Law of large numbers might be required.JacobyShaddix_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

News: It's called crackpot solidarity.gpuccio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

gpuccio writes, "Ah, I forgot: except for darwinism. That remains true by default, even in the multiverse scenario. Indeed, I would suggest that we define “universe” as anything that can undergo darwinian evolution… :)" Yes, it is symptomatic of crackpot cosmologies that the one thing they don't deny is their biology twin, Darwinism. Everything else is up for grabs. That's because Darwinism claims to produce information from random movements of matter, elsewhere called magic.News_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Hi, new to the site. Could you tell me a bit more about what you mean by "Evidence? The whole concept went out with the idea of a universe." No flame, I'm genuinely trying to understand the point. Thanks!sbrown_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Dionisio: The only way darwinists can (and do) use the multiverse argument is by saying that if universes are really infinite, there will always be an universe where something, however defined, will happen. That is the same as saying that no rules of cognition are valid. It is the best denial of science and truth that one can imagine. Ah, I forgot: except for darwinism. That remains true by default, even in the multiverse scenario. Indeed, I would suggest that we define "universe" as anything that can undergo darwinian evolution... :)gpuccio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

Does this multiverse discussion make any difference as far as the alleged age of this universe and the alleged age of this planet we happen to be in? Multiverse or not, biology still has to deal with a very limited time to account for the complexity of biological life we see. Therefore, for Darwinian theorists, there's no such thing as multiverse to the rescue, no help seems to be coming their way, regarding available time.Dionisio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

I'm more interested in learning about the complex specified purpose-oriented functional information aspects of biological processes, specially during human development, but this OP caught my attention this morning. Isn't this black hole issue a done deal? hasn't it been settled? at least the top scientific VIP opinions on that matter seem to agree in complete harmony, right? So why do they keep writing about this? Here are a few links that show the subject has been clarified, therefore the discussion is over: http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583 http://www.universetoday.com/108870/why-hawking-is-wrong-about-black-holes/ http://time.com/2048/black-holes-hawking/Dionisio_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

The Karaite Heretic, Yes there is:
The Mismeasure of Man: Why Popular Ideas about Human-Chimp Comparisons Are Misleading or Wrong - Ann Gauger March 10, 2014 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/the_mismeasure083011.html
Here is another recent article along the same line:
Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Casey Luskin - March 13, 2014 (references on page) Excerpt: (1) Dr. Venema argues that high human-chimp genetic similarity is at least 95%, and that this shows common our ancestry. Response: Dr. Venema overstates the degree of human-chimp similarity and seems to disregard the obvious the possibility of common design for human-chimp functional genetic similarities.,,, (2) Dr. Venema argues that redundancy in codon-use (e.g., reuse of synonymous codons) is far in excess of what is required for functionality, suggesting common ancestry. Response: Dr. Venema's argument depends on the standard evolutionary presumption that synonymous mutations are phenotypically equivalent. This is a good example of how evolutionary biologists use molecular biology that is outdated; while synonymous codons do encode the same amino acids, they can have different, and important phenotypic or functional effects relating to gene expression.,,, (3) He argues that the highly similar spatial organization of the genes (synteny) across different species suggests common ancestry. Response: Again, Dr. Venema's molecular biology is outdated. He assumes the ordering of genes (or chromosomal structure) is functionally unimportant, but molecular biology has discovered that nothing could be further from the truth. As the revolution in epigenetics has taken hold, molecular biologists now know that the structure of chromosomes, and their 3-dimensional arrangement(s) within a cell, are important parts of genomic regulation.,,, (4) Dr. Venema argues that shared pseudogenes suggest common ancestry. Response: Here Dr. Venema is assuming that what we don't understand is functionless. in this case, we have lots of evidence that many pseudogenes -- including pseudogenes that are prominent examples used by ID-critics -- are likely functional.,,, in each of these four areas, Dr. Venema's argument depends on the presumption that the similarity between humans and chimps (whether [1] protein sequence or overall genome similarity; [2] similar use of synonymous codons; [3] synteny; and [4] shared "pseudogenes") is functionally unimportant--i.e., it's a "junk" property of the genome. And in each of these four areas, the latest findings of molecular biology show that the property is not "junk" or unimportant, but in fact represents newly discovered important functional elements of molecular biology. As time goes on, ID's predictions are being confirmed. Meanwhile, Darwinian presumptions -- that many aspects of genomes exist for no reason other than "they were put there by unguided evolutionary mechanisms" -- are turning out to be wrong. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/does_genome_evi083181.html
Here is another article from a few years ago:
Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity - Sternberg - 2009 Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html
and here is another fairly recent article from YEC Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. - Genetics:
Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome
bornagain77_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

Is there an article on this, BA77?The Karaite Heretic_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

OT: podcast - Why Popular Ideas about Human-Chimp Comparisons Are Misleading or Wrong http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-04-02T14_44_17-07_00 On this episode of ID the Future, biologist Ann Gauger discusses the popular science myth that human DNA is only 1% different from that of chimps. Dr. Gauger shows why this common claim is false, looking at genomic evidence as well as large-scale differences between humans and chimps.bornagain77_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

Oh OK, I am to take it on faith... Nada, I prefer Ethical Monotheism, thank you.The Karaite Heretic_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

OK, but can this be proven? Where is the real empirical proof that black holes can create new universes?The Karaite Heretic_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

"Exactly what happens inside them isn’t known for sure, but there are hints from quantum theory that the centre of black holes may be the birth-places of whole new universes, each with different laws of physics."
One of them, ours perchance, has a supreme being who creates laws of physics and also life, and judges His creatures whom he had given free will as to whether they were with Him or against Him?awstar_{April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply