You seem to differentiate between the destruction of matter and the conversion of it into energy, for wjich I presume you assume it is not destroyed.

Most physicists as I define that destruction of matter as its conversion to energy. You may be thinking that to destroy matter you must make its energy equivalent also disappear. That is impossible.

So our disconnect may be purely semantic.

However, there is one place in the universe where the matter/energy conservation may not hold up. According to the hypothesis of Smolin, which he now discounts, and as described in Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe", within the 26-d singularity of a supermassive black hole, as so-called white hole of entirely new spacetime can precipitate. The white hole is not part of our universe, being a new spacetime that then expands in a big bang into a new universe that presumably becomes similar ours in size and energy. So from the unified field in the singularity of a black hole, if the hypothesis is correct, a tremendous amount of new matter/energy is created.

Practically the whole new universe is a free lunch.

Smolin went on to claim that universes would be selected by maximizing the number of black holes in it, and our universe is such a one- for presumably after infinite time, the age of the multi-vers, only universes with the maximum number of black holes would exist.

Its a Darwinian theory of universes on the multiuniverse scale. On the microscopic scale there is a Darwinian quantum theory just published. Wamt the reference?

Richard
The Yanniru Foundation
Cambridge, Massachusetts

• Umm.. I think I'll pass.. - tjf603 - September 12, 2003 - 15:45 UTC
  • I'll give this a try... - splat - October 3, 2003 - 06:57 UTC