Lee Smolin: the laws of the universe are changing

An interview with the physics pioneer

We tend to think of the laws of nature as fixed. They came into existence along with the universe, and have been the same ever since. But once you start asking why the laws of the universe are what they are, their invariance also comes into question. Lee Smolin is the type of theoretical physicist who likes asking such “why” questions. His inquiries have led him to believe that the laws of the universe have evolved from earlier forms, along the lines of natural selection.  In this in depth interview he offers an account of how he came to this view of the evolving universe and explains why physics needs to change its view of time. 

 

Lee Smolin is a rare breed of theoretical physicist. Whereas most physicists see themselves in the business of discovering what the laws of the universe are, Lee Smolin goes a step further: he wants to know why the laws of the universe are what they are.

“I believe in an aspirational form of Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason. When seeking knowledge, we should act on the assumption that the principle of sufficient reason is true, otherwise we are likely to give up too soon.”

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Join the conversation

Mike Pollock 11 July 2022

The "Big Bang" should be a process that is familiar to science. Unfortunately, when time starts at the time of the Big Bang, there is no way to formulate a process. There is no ability to apply the laws of physics to the process. The laws are invented after the process that is assumed to have happened happened. This makes whatever science picks as the event that created our universe extremely important.

The laws of physics science knows of must be followed at the event that happened 13.8 billion years ago. Are they? Was there anything in our universe before time began? If time starts 13.8 billion years ago, it is only logical to assume nothing was here before because, if there was something here, the universe would be older than 13.8 billion years. Since there really wasn't anything here before time, that means the first law of thermodynamics is not followed and means that everything was already here when the Big Bang happened as far as we are concerned. Humans do not have the right, by law, to decide when the universe was "born". Our universe has no concept of time or size, only humans do.

The second law of thermodynamics must followed as well but is it? The universe was created hot as "quark-gluon plasma" but how did this happen? This plasma cooled to atoms but then turned hot again by turning back into stars. How? The second law states that is not possible. That's when George Gamow stated that it was gravity that became the free energy to accomplish this feat. Now, it is a fact that gravity can do this but is it? Unfortunately, gravity has been deemed a free energy which is impossible. Energy creates gravity, gravity doesn't create energy. The assumption that gravity created all the energy we see is exactly why science doesn't understand the force that it creates as it pushes us to the surface of our planet. Beginning time also makes Newton's third law unable to be applied because what force is expanding the universe to the point of acceleration?

All the scientists in the world are dealing with a stacked deck. It is impossible for them to win against the Big Bang theory but this theory is now a complete fact. Every, single attempt to solve any of the problems of the universe are based on our universe being "born". Nobody can win against that. Nobody will ever realize the "Theory of Everything" using the Big Bang parameters. It is impossible because the theory doesn't follow the laws that quantum mechanics follow. The most obvious manifestation of this problem is fusion. Science is absolutely positive it will work because after the Big Bang, the quark-gluon plasma cooled to atoms so what else was there to create the ultimate energy of the universe? There was only one choice and that was fusing the only element that was around. Science had no choice.

But how has it been going? It isn't like fusion has almost been created. It has been created for 80 years and never shown any sign it will work. This should be a red flag but it isn't because the Big Bang theory forces scientists to believe fusion must work as a fact. What if the theory is wrong? Would that explain why fusion has never created any energy?

I am here to say that this quagmire is over because I have devised a theory that follows all the laws of physics that the Big Bang theory should follow effortlessly but doesn't. First of all, everything already existed when the Big Bang happened. Is that so hard to imagine? When Edwin Hubble discovered the galaxies expanding, why assume it was the universe? What was the point Georges Lamaître was trying to make? Hubble and many of his peers wanted nothing to do with the expanding universe theory because of the lawlessness involved. Even Einstein stated the theory's law abiding aspect was "abominable" yet he still went with it. If Einstein ever had a true blunder in his life, it was accepting Lamaîtres version of the universe.

The event that took place 13.8 billion years ago happens on Earth all the time. Particle colliders create quark plasma shrapnel by colliding two atoms together. Well, our universe created quark plasma shrapnel by colliding two objects together that created the galaxies that are expanding to this day. That is the "Occam's Razor" philosophy of the event. The energy of the collision converted two maximum entropy objects like our Moon into minimum entropy matter that could eventually create life like us. The galaxies started cooling the second they were created in the collision so the second law is satisfied. The collision created an anisotropic expansion of matter just like any collision on Earth would create. This will seem like an accelerating expanding universe if it assumed the entire universe is expanding. Newton's third law is satisfied.

Quark plasma is what black holes are made of. They are just stars just like all the others and are optically invisible because all they emit are gamma rays. They are made of nothing but quarks and use the highly pressurized field of dark matter as the endless catalyst that makes them so efficient. Once quarks are separated from a sufficient enough reaction, it is the sheer density and pressure of space that keeps the quarks apart indefinitely. That is why quark plasma is so efficient. This plasma creates all the naturally occurring elements all by itself from the outside of the mass inward. Dark matter is made of extremely pressurized sterile electron neutrinos. Eventually, the quarks and neutrinos fuse on the surface of the black hole to form the first neutrons the mass will possess. Once enough neutrons congregate, they start decaying into the first hydrogen. Then, the constantly forming neutrons fuse with the hydrogen to form the first helium the mass will see using the beta minus decay reaction. That is the only "fusion" our universe carries out. This process continues creating heavier elements making the star darker until the light goes out and a surface forms. This is when the atmosphere is allowed to develop.

This is the theory that follows all the laws. There is only one way our universe could have produced what we see. There simply is no other way than a collision. Using gravity to explain all the energy has not worked and never will. The Big Bang assumption has created all the parameters that are not able to follow any observations ever made.

If the scientific community wants to finally understand the universe, it will have to erase everything that has been taught for the last century. That is what a paradigm shift does but these shifts are incredibly hard to come by because science is not willing to give up everything it knows even though it has never worked. It is impossible for science to realize that my theory is the truth just like it was impossible for science to accept Galileo when he claimed the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. Nobody wanted to hear it. Now, I'm saying the universe wasn't "born" and nobody wants to hear it. There is too much at stake to change everything. Unfortunately, that is what must happen for science to finally understand what it hasn't understood for 100 years.

Doug Huffman 1 10 July 2022

Time is real. Space is contingent. Time is infinite. Space is bounded. In an infinity all that can happen must happen, repeatedly and in all variations. Common time, tick-tock time is orthogonal to real time duration from one reality to another, as from a bang to the next with no ticking to count. In some reality God became and has persisted into this reality that is blind to or denies metaphysics.

The Identity of Indiscernables makes real time not one dimensional. The Principle of Precidence is effective. Sufficient Reason … ?

Mike Pollock 8 July 2022

The "Big Bang" was our universe turning itself into a gargantuan particle collider. The galaxies are quark plasma shrapnel. That is why they are expanding. Quark plasma is what black holes are made of. They consist of nothing but quarks and use dark matter as the catalyst. Quark plasma creates all the naturally occurring elements all by itself from the outside of the mass inward. Dark matter is a field of extremely pressurized sterile electron neutrinos. The quarks and neutrinos first fuse on the surface as neutrons. When enough have formed, they break down to the first hydrogen. The constantly forming neutrons then fuse with the hydrogen to form the first helium the mass will possess using the beta minus decay reaction. This process continues creating heavier elements making the star darker until the light goes out and a surface forms. This is when the atmosphere is allowed to develop. Supernovae simply do not exist.