Pular para o conteúdo principal

A Cosmologia de Lee Smolin e Mangabeira Unger


Este é um post da Roda de Ciência. Por favor, deixe os comentários lá.

O astrofísico Lee Smolin é um de meus heróis (vocês já leram o sensacional "A Vida do Cosmos"?). Sua teoria do Darwinismo Cosmológico é mais testável que as idéias mais simples de Multiverso, e mais cedo ou mais tarde todo mundo vai reconhecer isso, como já ocorreu com Susskind. Da Wikipedia:
Leonard Susskind who now promotes a similar string theory landscape, stated:

"I'm not sure why Smolin's idea didn't attract much attention. I actually think it deserved far more than it got."[3]


Smolin e Susskind viraram personagens no meu conto Demiurgo, colocado na STOA.

Fico agora sabendo, via o blog Laboratório da Folha, que Mangabeira Unger colabora com Smolin em suas pesquisas físico-filosóficas. E Mangabeira está pensando em concorrer para presidente do Brasil, por um partido (PRB, do vice presidente José Alencar) que é dominado pela Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus, que basicamente é um sincretismo entre neopentecostalismo, umbanda e empreendedorismo neoliberal. Incrível, não é mesmo?

Jun 2, 2009 - IOP

The unique universe

Many cosmological theories not only see our universe as one of many but also claim that time does not exist. Lee Smolinargues against the timeless multiverse

Three decades ago, talk of other universes was not seen by most physicists to be part of science. Most research in theoretical physics and cosmology concerned observable features in our universe and most papers and seminars referred to experimental results. However, since then there has been a gradual shift, during which it first became acceptable to work on theories that described not only our universe, but other possible universes, universes with less or more dimensions, or universes with different kinds of particles and forces. In the last few years, we have moved further away from theories of our one universe, as these other worlds went from being logically possible to hypothetically actual. It is now common to hear about the multiverse — a quantum cosmology that takes for granted that the visible universe that we see around us is just one of a vast or infinite number of universes.


The multiverse assumption often comes hand in hand with a metaphysical assumption regarding the nature of time. It has been argued by many experts in quantum cosmology that time is not a fundamental concept, but an approximate and emergent one. If this is correct, then we experience time in a timeless universe for reasons similar to why we, who live in a quantum universe, experience one that obeys classical physics: we are composed of very large numbers of fundamental particles and emergent statistical regular ities determine much of what we experience.

Furthermore, the combination of the multiverse assumption and the timeless assumption effectively gives us a static meta-universe. Even if our own universe evolves in time, at a deeper level it is part of a timeless, eternal, ensemble of universes.

There are good reasons for these conclusions, and like many others in the field of quantum cosmology I have explored them. However, in the last few years I have come to believe that these conclusions are profoundly mistaken. In collaboration with the Brazilian philosopher Roberto Mangabeira Unger, we have been trying to understand the source of the problems and develop an alternative notion of time and law on the cosmological scale. Our reasons for doing so are based partly on concerns about whether these theories are testable by doable observations, partly on the current results of attempts to realize the timeless approach and partly on philosophical considerations.

(Continua aqui)



Comentários

Anônimo disse…
She is THE best

MHL
Xavier Terri disse…
To LEE SMOLIN

I read your book ‘Las dudas de la física en el siglo XXI’, 2007, Ed. Crítica. Wonderful. I have seen that you are looking for a new big idea, the fundamental simply idea for the progress and unification of physics. Seems that you got the conviction that both quantum mechanics and GR theorys don’t understand the deep nature of time (page 355). It is right for GR unless.

Here is what i say:
No more Lorentz’s Transformations. The new alternatives transformations (’relational transformations’) are deduced on ‘La paradoja de los gemelos de la teoría de la relatividad especial de Einstein’, f.i., equations (22) and (23) with “C” and “D” given by (42) and (43) , pages (33) to (36). From them arises the ‘teoría relacional’, an alternative to special relativity.
The generalitation of this ‘teoría relacional’, the unique possible classic alternative to GR, appears on ‘Extracto de la Teoría Conectada’. 3 are the fundamental equations. (84), (171) and (172), pages (146) and (182). This 3=24 equations are necessary in order to eliminate the Newton-Einstein’s absolute space. There ara not absolutes accelerations (neither absolutes velocities, of course).

The Dark Matter problem is solved in ‘Apéncice C’, page 205 (Exponential factor gets important at large distance from the center).

What about a “quantum teoría conectada”? I believe that you can say something important about it.

Xavier Terri
Terrassa 2009 august 6



P.D.: You are completely certain when you tell that the great historic mistake comes from Descartes-Galileo ('Las dudas de la física en el s.XXI', pages 355-356). This great historic error is the Principle of Inertia (movement is a relational concept. It is completely false that the movement of ALL free bodies is a straight line. Some of them move, respect the SAME reference system, in a curved way. Pure evidence beyond the reason: at night, see the stars). Also, Principle of Inertia leads us to the inertial-non inertial dichotomy. Where is INVARIANCE of physical laws? (pages 45 on 'Paradoja' and 141, eq. (77), on 'Teoría Conectada').

Teoría Conectada: The best physic's theory since 1687.

Postagens mais visitadas deste blog

O SEMCIÊNCIA mudou de casa

Aborto: um passo por vez

Wormholes