Wat, do you think other universes exist? I do for the simple reason that there is never one of anything, and perhaps in the future we could prove it. Universes of different laws of physics and such- as a matter of fact, at the highest levels of technology (Kardashev level 3 or 4), it's been conjectured that species that attain that high level of technology could create their own universes with their own laws of physics.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Pop%C5%82awski
Black holes as doorways
Popławski's approach is based on the Einstein-Cartan theory of gravity which extends general relativity to matter with intrinsic angular momentum (spin). Spin in curved spacetime requires that the affine connection cannot be constrained to zero and its antisymmetric part, the torsion tensor, must be a variable in Hamilton's principle of stationary action which gives the field equations. Torsion gives the correct generalization of the conservation law for the total (orbital plus intrinsic) angular momentum to the presence of the gravitational field, but also modifies the Dirac equation for fermions.
Gravitational effects of torsion on fermionic matter are significant at extremely high densities which exist inside black holes and at the beginning of the Universe. Popławski theorizes that torsion manifests itself as a repulsive force which causes fermions to be spatially extended and prevents the formation of a gravitational singularity within the black hole's event horizon. Because of torsion, the collapsing matter on the other side of the horizon reaches an enormous but finite density, explodes and rebounds, forming an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) to a new, closed, expanding universe. Analogously, the Big Bang is replaced by the Big Bounce before which the Universe was the interior of a black hole. This scenario explains why the present Universe at largest scales appears spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic, providing a physical alternative to cosmic inflation. It may explain the arrow of time, solve the black hole information paradox, and explain the nature of dark matter. Torsion may also be responsible for the observed asymmetry between matter and antimatter in the Universe. The rotation of a black hole could influence the spacetime on the other side of its event horizon and result in a preferred direction in the new universe. Popławski suggests that the observed fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background might provide evidence for his hypothesis.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smoli ... _selection
Cosmological natural selection
Smolin's hypothesis of cosmological natural selection, also called the fecund universes theory, suggests that a process analogous to biological natural selection applies at the grandest of scales. Smolin published the idea in 1992 and summarized it in a book aimed at a lay audience called The Life of the Cosmos.
Black holes have a role in natural selection. In fecund theory a collapsing[clarification needed] black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (masses of elementary particles, Planck constant, elementary charge, and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe thus gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes. The theory contains the evolutionary ideas of "reproduction" and "mutation" of universes, and so is formally analogous to models of population biology.
Alternatively, black holes play a role in cosmological natural selection by reshuffling only some matter affecting the distribution of elementary quark universes. The resulting population of universes can be represented as a distribution of a landscape of parameters where the height of the landscape is proportional to the numbers of black holes that a universe with those parameters will have. Applying reasoning borrowed from the study of fitness landscapes in population biology, one can conclude that the population is dominated by universes whose parameters drive the production of black holes to a local peak in the landscape. This was the first use of the notion of a landscape of parameters in physics.
Leonard Susskind, who later promoted 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.
However, Susskind also argued that, since Smolin's theory relies on information transfer from the parent universe to the baby universe through a black hole, it ultimately makes no sense as a theory of cosmological natural selection. According to Susskind and many other physicists, the last decade of black hole physics has shown us that no information that goes into a black hole can be lost. Even Stephen Hawking, who was the largest proponent of the idea that information is lost in a black hole, has reversed his position. The implication is that information transfer from the parent universe into the baby universe through a black hole is not conceivable.
Smolin has noted that the string theory landscape is not Popper-falsifiable if other universes are not observable. This is the subject of the Smolin–Susskind debate concerning Smolin's argument: "[The] Anthropic Principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science." There are then only two ways out: traversable wormholes connecting the different parallel universes, and "signal nonlocality", as described by Antony Valentini, a scientist at the Perimeter Institute.[clarification needed]
In a critical review of The Life of the Cosmos, astrophysicist Joe Silk suggested that our universe falls short by about four orders of magnitude from being maximal for the production of black holes. In his book Questions of Truth, particle physicist John Polkinghorne puts forward another difficulty with Smolin's thesis: one cannot impose the consistent multiversal time required to make the evolutionary dynamics work, since short-lived universes with few descendants would then dominate long-lived universes with many descendants. Smolin responded to these criticisms in Life of the Cosmos, and later scientific papers.
When Smolin published the theory in 1992, he proposed as a prediction of his theory that no neutron star should exist with a mass of more than 1.6 times the mass of the sun. Later this figure was raised to two solar masses following more precise modeling of neutron star interiors by nuclear astrophysicists. If a more massive neutron star was ever observed, it would show that our universe's natural laws were not tuned for maximal black hole production, because the mass of the strange quark could be retuned to lower the mass threshold for production of a black hole. A 1.97-solar-mass pulsar was discovered in 2010.
In 1992 Smolin also predicted that inflation, if true, must only be in its simplest form, governed by a single field and parameter. Both predictions have held up, and they demonstrate Smolin's main thesis: that the theory of cosmological natural selection is Popper falsifiable.