Darwin...in...spaaaaaace!

If galaxies like the Milky Way have giant black holes in their centers, is it any coincidence that they so closely resemble water flowing down the drain?

In this analogy, spacetime is the bathtub. The black hole is the drain. Matter and energy are the water. The shape of the tub is the curvature of spacetime by gravity. Dark energy is some exotic and invisible water flowing into our bathtub through the black whole whose collapse fourteen billion years ago was the impetus for our big bang. Here's how an extremely drunk Ford explains it to Arthur in The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe:

"All right," said Ford, "imagine this. Right. You get this bath. Right. A large round bath. And it's made of ebony...And it's conical."

"Conical?" said Arthur. "What sort of..."

"Shhh!" said Ford. "It's conical. So what you do is, you see, you fill it with fine white sand, all right? Or sugar. Fine what sand, and/or sugar. Anything. Doesn't matter. Sugar's fine. And when it's full, you pull the plug out...are you listening?"

"I'm listening."

"You pull the plug out, and it all just twirls away, twirls away you see, out of the plughole."

"I see."

"You don't see. You don't see at all. I haven't got to the clever bit yet. You want to hear the clever bit?"

"Tell me the clever bit."

"I'll tell you the clever bit."

Ford thought for a moment, trying to remember what the clever bit was.

"The clever bit," he said, "is this. You film it happening."

"Clever," agreed Arthur.

"You get a movie camera, and you film it happening."

"Clever."

"That's not the clever bit. This is the clever bit. I remember now that this is the clever bit. The clever bit is that you then thread the film in the projector...backward!"

"Backward?"

"Yes. Threading it backward is definitely the clever bit. So then, you just sit and watch it, and everything just appears to spiral upward out of the plughole and fill the bath. See?"

"And that's how the Universe began, is it?" asked Arthur.

"No," said Ford. "But it's a marvelous way to relax."

The bathtub analogy isn't perfect. Spacetime isn't rigid like porcelain; it's stretchy like rubber. A better analogy might be a balloon animal. Spacetime is a single 'sausage link' worth of rubber in an enormous and complex balloon creature. Matter and energy are the air molecules in our region of the balloon, including the dark energy exerting ever-greater outward pressure on the balloon's 'sides'. A black hole is a twist in the balloon leading to another link in the giant rubber hypersausage.

Lee Smolin has suggested that a black hole's collapse in one region of the higher-dimensional bulk starts a big bang in its own new region of bulk. My naïve imagination goes like this: In stars, collapsing inwards produces violent reactions outwards. If the violence can be contained within our spacetime, we get supernovas. If the violence ruptures spacetime, by making a singularity for example, the explosion happens in another region of the bulk, setting off another big bang, putting another twist in the balloon animal.

The balloon animal analogy isn't perfect either. A balloon animal in 3D space customarily only has two 'links' in a given stretch of balloon, while spacetime can have as many 'links' as it wants. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies out there that we know of, many if not most of which probably have gargantuan black holes at their centers. On top of that are the countless smaller black holes scattered around. Also, Brian Greene thinks that electrons might be micro black holes. So that's a whole lot of twists to the balloon animal.

So in all likelihood, there are many other universes out there. Sadly, though, most of the other universes are likely to be boring. Lee S thinks that each big bang event produces a slightly different set of laws of physics from its 'parent' universe: different starting distributions of matter and antimatter, different value of basic physical constants, and so on. As it turns out, few of the possible outcomes result in the formation of stars and galaxies as we know them. If a universe has too much matter, then it collapses quickly back on itself into a pointlike singularity before anything can really happen. If it has too little matter, then the bang disperses everything before gravity can clump it together into structures, so you wind up with a homogenous gas of, say, a single proton every trillion cubic miles. Different starting ratios of matter to antimatter give you universes full of light and nothing else, or a bunch of black holes and nothing else, or other similarly barren cosmic landscapes. To get the complex structures, the 'interestingness' our universe, things have to be in that Goldilocks state: just right.

Here's a model of the primordial gas filling universe after our Big Bang collapsing under its own gravity, from the Millenium Simulation.

Information theorists have observed that all big self-organizing systems tend to have the kind of fractal, scale-invariant qualities of the images above, from your heart rate to the shape of a lichen to the porpoise population. Erwin Schrödinger and Tor Nørretranders have both compared organisms to standing waves, eddies in the spacetime continuum as Douglas Adams puts it. Since evolution as modeled by Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene appears to be operating at every different size scale here on Earth, why not at the cosmic scale too?

The 'interesting' Big Bang outcomes that produce recognizable chemistry, macroscopic objects, stars and copious black holes are highly improbable. An interesting universe with a lot of galaxies will probably produce more black holes, which will in turn produce more universes similar to the interesting parent. If I understand him correctly, Lee Smolin is arguing that the collapse/explosion cycle selects for black hole production in the same way that natural selection selects for snails that are good at making more snails. The bang/collapse cycle cumulative generates complexity over many iterations in the same way evolution does here on Earth.

Specialists, I ask you: Is Lee Smolin for real? Do these ideas stand up to rigorous scrutiny? Or do I just want him to be right because he seems like such a cool guy, and because he went to the same college as my sister? Because I do want him to be right. This is a materialist cosmological worldview I can get excited about. Darwin saves!

© ethan hein 2007 | back to memebase | back to top