|
Bwanika,
I am somewhat puzzled by the argument
presented here. As far as I am aware Hawking does indeed have a theory in
regards to the origin and evolution of the Universe. In a joint paper with James
Hartle in the 1980's entitled "wave function of the universe" Hawking and Hartle
developed what is called the no boundary condition theory. Now this is an
application of his Euclidean quantum gravity to the question of the origin
of the Universe. Notice that this does not have anything to do with black
holes. Also it must be stressed that the Hartle-Hawking theory is quite
speculative being an example of the genre of quantum cosmology. On the other
hand Hawking's work on gravitational entropy, i.e. exploding black holes, must
be a part of any quantum theory of gravity. For instance Juan Maladcena, a
string theorist, has derived Hawking's gravitational entropy using string
theory. So by no means is Hawking's theory on the origin of the
universe an established theory. Indeed for years Hawking was arguing that
the Universe is finite, that is that it will expand and eventually contract. But
notice how this has flied right in the face of the recent discovery that the
Universe is speeding up in its expansion, which could very well be the result of
the vacuum or zero point energy what is called dark energy, meaning that
the cosmological constant is non zero (which has string theorists
increasingly in a spin) meaning that the universe will not contract, it will
expand forever (this discussion is to ignore quintessence which may imply that
the universes speed up is temporary). There is an interesting exchange
between Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in The Nature of Space and Time
where Hawking emphatically states (before the recent discovery) he
wants the universe to be finite because of the no boundary proposal whereas
Penrose argues, given his approach to quantum gravity i.e. twistor theory,
he wants the universe to be infinite and to keep on expanding forever! So
Hawking could very well be wrong!
Evolution on the other hand is a tried and
tested theory. It is objectively correct., although I am aware that in saying
this I am inviting trouble! At any rate there is no connection between cosmology
and evolutionary theory. If Hawking is wrong the evolutionary biologist would be
quite right in exclaiming, so what!
The second part of your thesis is
very interesting with serious implications. I would be very interested in
reading a further elaboration of it. Also in regards to black holes and
evolution theory, does this steam from a reading of Lee
Smolin?
Marko.
|
- RE: Re: BHA: Re: Critical Realism for Natural Sciences, (continued)
- RE: Re: BHA: Re: Critical Realism for Natural Sciences, dbbwanika Tue 26 Mar 2002, 09:43 GMT
- RE: Re: BHA: Re: Critical Realism for Natural Sciences, dbbwanika Tue 26 Mar 2002, 10:28 GMT
- Re: Re: BHA: Re: Critical Realism for Natural Sciences, Marko Beljac Tue 26 Mar 2002, 12:33 GMT
- BHA: Critical Realism for Natural Sciences, dbbwanika Thu 21 Mar 2002, 10:44 GMT
- BHA: Re: Critical Realism for Natural Sciences, Marko Beljac Thu 21 Mar 2002, 14:33 GMT
- BHA: Critical Realism and Natural Sciences, ronnym Tue 26 Mar 2002, 19:13 GMT
- BHA: Re: Tobin Epistemological relativism, Marko Beljac Wed 20 Mar 2002, 15:19 GMT
- Re: BHA: Re: Tobin Epistemological relativism, viren viven murthy Wed 20 Mar 2002, 16:18 GMT
- Re: BHA: Re: Tobin Epistemological relativism, Mervyn Hartwig Wed 20 Mar 2002, 23:00 GMT