Falsification of fecund universes

[Royston]

All I'm asking (as I'm not a subscriber) is if anyone knows of any other articles for the following...

 

NATURAL selection has been proved wrong - at least for the ancestry of our universe. For more than a decade' date=' a novel theory that used Darwinian evolution to explain why our universe seems improbably well-suited for life has defied criticism. Now a cosmologist claims to have falsified it, once and for all.

 

Lee Smolin, then at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, first proposed his theory that multiple universes follow a kind of natural selection in the early 1990s. It attempts to explain why the physical constants in our universe seem perfectly tuned for life to evolve. Smolin was inspired when other physicists suggested that at the centre of black holes space-time can become so warped that it breaks off and forms a new, disconnected universe. He proposed that each such baby universe would inherit similar physical constants to its parent (New Scientist, 15 January 1994, p 38). [/quote']

 

I've been scouring arxiv, but to no avail. I found the proposal of incorporating a reproduction and mutation approach to the eventual birth of our universe (and beyond) as quite attractive, but I'd also be very interested in how this explanation has been falsified, if anyone knows of any sources, I'd really appreciate it !

[Martin]

All I'm asking (as I'm not a subscriber) is if anyone knows of any other articles for the following...

 

 

 

I've been scouring arxiv, but to no avail. I found the proposal of incorporating a reproduction and mutation approach to the eventual birth of our universe (and beyond) as quite attractive, but I'd also be very interested in how this explanation has been falsified, if anyone knows of any sources, I'd really appreciate it !

 

 

False alarm,

 

A couple of months ago (October) Vilenkin claimed to have showed that Smolin CNS conjecture is wrong. But it was a pretty weak article and I didn't see that anyone was persuaded by Vilenkin.

 

Then just within the past few weeks (December) Smolin posted an article that rebutted, and pretty well demolished Vilenkin.

Here is Smolin's article:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0612185

 

Don't know about the NewSci. Their journalism is sometimes not so great. Maybe they just talked with Vilenkin, who is in the UK, and didn't do their research very well.

Or maybe the NewSci article is balanced and gives both Vilenkin POV and then Smolin's reply. Can't tell without full quotation.

 

I don't have subscription either:mad:

[Royston]

A couple of months ago (October) Vilenkin claimed to have showed that Smolin CNS conjecture is wrong. But it was a pretty weak article and I didn't see that anyone was persuaded by Vilenkin.

 

Then just within the past few weeks (December) Smolin posted an article that rebutted, and pretty well demolished Vilenkin.

Here is Smolin's article:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0612185

 

Glad to hear it, thanks for the link Martin, I'll have a read this evening.

 

Don't know about the NewSci. Their journalism is sometimes not so great.

 

One of the reasons I don't subscribe. I must admit, I'm wary of most scientific journalism. I cross reference when I can (on here mainly) if I find an article of interest, it's always good to get a second opinion.