← Back to context

Comment by JulianPGough

4 days ago

Yes, this is a very common, and understandable, question; I get asked it a lot. But in fact new (child) universes aren't constrained in size by the initial energy/mass entering the parent black hole. Actually, that's one of the most attractive aspects of the theory. Universes have a huge reproductive advantage over, say, animals.

We know that in our own universe, the (positive) mass energy of matter and its (negative) gravitational energy net out to zero. But that means the amount of energy required to build a universe like ours is essentially… well, none. (See Laurence Krauss’s book, A Universe from Nothing; or Stephen Hawking and James Hartle’s 1983 paper, The Wave Function of the Universe, and Hawking’s later book with Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, etc.)

Child universes are therefore effectively free to produce. Thus, over time, evolution will favor making more (and smaller) black holes from the same amount of matter. Yes, the black holes will get smaller – but the universes they give birth to, through Big Bangs, will still be full sized.

And universes aren’t constrained by a shared environment with limited resources – newborn universes aren’t all competing in a valley with a limited amount of grass. Indeed, each new universe is entirely self-contained and self-sufficient, being both organism and environment – it supplies its own energy for its own development, efficiently and frugally, through stellar fusion, gravitational collapse, et cetera.

This means evolution should ultimately favour runaway black hole production. (And that checks out: in the most recent estimate, in 2022, by a team from the International School of Advanced Studies in Trieste, our universe was estimated to have already generated up to a trillion supermassive black holes – and 40 quintillion stellar-collapse black holes.)

9 comments

JulianPGough

Reply
ifdefdebug  4 days ago

But since the mass that entered the black hole continues to produce gravitational pull in our universe, the child universe must still be anchored within ours, at least gravitationally, and we should feel the pull from all the additional mass the new universe generates?

flir  4 days ago

Not convinced you've got evolution there. You've got adaptive radiation, but where's the natural selection?

The low-black-hole universes aren't going to stop "procreating" because high-black-hole universes exist. At most, all you can say is that if you select a universe at random, it's likely to be a high-black-hole universe.

And I think you can use that fact to argue the theory's wrong: because surely our own universe is an LBH universe? A trillion is rookie numbers. There must be universes that produce vastly more black holes than ours, so the chances of us ending up in such an LBH universe at random are vanishingly small.

> And universes aren’t constrained by a shared environment with limited resources – newborn universes aren’t all competing in a valley with a limited amount of grass.

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. Without competition, it's not evolution.

  • andrewflnr  4 days ago

    Evolution doesn't specifically require competition, just for replication rate to vary depending on some property of the thing replicating. Competition for finite resources is only one way to create that variation.