If this is true it almost literally means black holes are a way for universes to make children. If we apply Darwin’s principles of the strongest survive this must mean that universes that produce the most black holes are the “best”. If correct, what does this actually mean?
There is a theory of cosmological evolution. The child universes have slightly different physical constants and universes that produce more black holes will leave behind more offspring universes so over many generations, the universes evolve toward parameters that favour black hole production.
That's what Blowtorch theory predicts, it notes three stages of black hole formation:
- direct collapse after the big bang. Those supermassive black holes now from the center of galaxies and are the earliest and simplest form of how universes reproduced
- stellar collapse, requires the formation of stars, but those can be much more plentyfull than previous supermassive direct collapse black holes, so many more universes will have those
- black holes created by technology. Since black holes are incredibly efficient at converting mass to energy, in a universe that has the capability to form intelligent life, this life will eventually find a way to harness black holes as an energy source. In doing so they would create even more tiny black holes (maybe to power spaceships?), so such universes would form the most offspring.
It requires imperfect reproduction where the imperfections alter the probability of further reproduction.
If each black hole in our universe contained a pocket universe with very slightly different laws of physics (to each other and to us), but the same amount of mass-energy on the inside as our universe had when it started, then (1) those pocket universes able to create stars and black holes would also go on to create black holes with pocket universes, but also (2) those pocket universes not able to create black holes, would not create more pocket universes.
I have never seen a reason to think that this could happen, nor why such pocket universes might have more mass on the inside than they appear to have on the outside, but that's the argument.
i partly agree, but the fact that those blades cant even be recycled [0] but are instead dug down in the ground after use will probably be an ecological issue relatively soon.
2k years is a long time for gas dispersion in such a "small" volume as the earth's atmosphere. early weather behaviour probably affected the distribution unevenly, but by now it should be relatively evenly distributed across the globe. no more or less in rome or italy. this is, however, as we say in sweden, a "guy's guess".
Farts are low in nitrogen, but certainly do contain some. And the carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc., are made out of atoms some of which were in Caesar's farts.
isnt the half life of most types of molecules in air far shorter than 2k years? maybe i am nitpicking, but would it not be more to correct to say we are breathing the same atoms as those in caesers last breath?
edit: itchy trigger finger, think i subconsciously wanted to be the first to comment. it is stated quite early that molecules preservation is assumed. still think it would be more correct and just as interesting to discuss atoms, not molecules.
edit 2: quick research has taught me that nitrogen gas, n2, and naturally occurring isotopes do not even have a half life. they do not radioactively decay. til.
I have seen the similar assertion "some of the water molecules you drank today were once part of a dinosaur", which is false because water molecules do not last very long when in liquid phase (they continuously swap protons, turning into hydronium ions and back).
The O-O and N-N bonds are much stronger than H-O bonds, but there are still atmospheric processes that can break them. For instance, O2 undergoes photodissociation under ultraviolet light and recombines into O3 ozone, and N2 likely also undergoes photodissociation. And obviously, the fact that living beings breathe O2...
The atmosphere is estimated to have ~830PgC worth of CO₂, and plants are estimated to photosynthesize ~120PgC worth of CO₂ every year, so a given molecule would have 14% chance to be broken down in a year. The probability to survive for 2000 years would be around 1e-60.
Of course, CO₂ contents of the atmosphere have varied over the last 2000 years, and not all CO₂ is produced into or consumed from the atmosphere (it can be dissolved in surface water, etc).
EDIT: since there's much more O₂ than CO₂ in the atmosphere, a given O₂ molecule has a 8% chance to not be broken down by respiration over 2000 years.
Why quarks? There are untold bazillions of those inside each proton, and there's no quark conservation law (rather than conservation of (for example) isospin and strangeness, but only under electromagnetism not under weak interactions, so quark counts get furiously complex in bigger nuclei).
For a single proton, though, one always measures (with available measurement technology) a small excess of quarks: two excess up quarks and one excess down quark. That the valence quark model of hadrons works is weird. Who ordered that?
The excess quarks are not "the same" quarks every time you probe your carefully selected and isolated and cold sample proton. Indeed, today's valence quarks in your pet proton are not guaranteed to exist tomorrow, even if the proton stays trapped -- particle creation and annihilation are furious inside, and there are all sorts of other disturbances of quarks that go on in there.
Why atoms? While much calmer, there's still plenty of crazy stuff happening in atoms -- even a neutral hydrogen atom has a bunch of photons and positrons and excess electrons floating around "inside", with an energy fraction proportional to the fine structure constant and with no guarantees that they were there yesterday. Is it the "same" atom at that level? Also, for most of the hydrogen in an exhalation, it probably will be in and out of various electron-swapping configurations over the years. Water gets pretty crazy with its ions, for example.
What's the 'half-life' you're thinking of? Your basic gas molecules will last a lot longer than 2k years short of being involved in some reaction or another. And a lot of these reactions aren't that easy in atmospheric conditions- e.g. pulling nitrogen out of the atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle
That's true for most timescales, however plants and other organisms fix nitrogen in the atmosphere into biologically useful molecules so nitrogen gets cycled in and out of the atmosphere. Similar things apply for carbon dioxide and oxygen.
indeed it seems so, i thought all atoms (except hydrogen) had some kind of decay. i thought so called stable atoms still had half-lives of 10^{very large number} years.
If we're talking about these kinds of scales, N2 molecules are not stable because there's a non-zero probability for the atoms to fuse into a heavier element through tunneling. And this will release more than enough energy to break the chemical bonds, of course.
Also, bismuth was once thought to be the most massive "fully" stable element, but turns out does decay with a half life of 10^19 years, compared to the universe's age of ~10^10 years.
Neutrons decay into a proton/electron pair after 15 minutes when not part of a nucleus.
Protons appear to be fully stable for any practical considerations, however they might decay after 10^30 years.
In this scenario, you can think of a reaction as terminating a molecule's life. So if there's a 50% chance that an H2O (or CO2) molecule reacts in a certain period, that could be its half-life time.
> would it not be more to correct to say we are breathing the same atoms as those in caesers last breath?
You may be right, but according to quantum mechanics, you can't really meaningfully talk about the "same" atoms, or any particles, because they don't have identities. There was a particle here, now there's a particle there, but we can't say exactly where it was at all the times in between, and it may not have been at any particular place: its amplitudes may have passed through two doors at once.
