Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time?

Does that make it clearer?

Bikerman writes:In reality the physics does allow for a version of a wormhole, or perhaps something completely alien.
Smolin's hypothesis is that Black Holes spawn entire universes in separate spacetimes. A bit unusual for a physicists, but not much stranger than many current hypotheses.

In reality?? What observed reality? Multiverses is no more observable reality than science fiction stories concocted up in minds of men/mankind.

When a relative few science elitists ascribe to unproven mathmatical conclusions

contrary to logic, reason and real life observations

Whether alleged multiverses stack up like pancakes or whether they are scattered there is no model other than abstract mystical math applied by science.

In eather case, the logical model problem is multiple spacetimes, whether you stack them or scatter them.

omni writes:Easy tiger. First, he's talking about wormholes, not a multiverse system.Second of all, "in reality the physics allows for wormholes" simply means that the math supports the hypothesis.When a relative few science elitists ascribe to unproven mathmatical conclusionsCan you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis?contrary to logic, reason and real life observationsThe theory of relativity does just that, defies logic and reason and real life observations - yet is oh so true. Are you saying Einstein is wrong because logically you can't grasp relativity?Whether alleged multiverses stack up like pancakes or whether they are scattered there is no model other than abstract mystical math applied by science.Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis?In eather case, the logical model problem is multiple spacetimes, whether you stack them or scatter them.The actual problem is that your words are meaningless and don't make any sense.- Oni Easy tiger. First, he's talking about wormholes, not a multiverse system.Second of all, "in reality the physics allows for wormholes" simply means that the math supports the hypothesis. Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis? The theory of relativity does just that, defies logic and reason and real life observations - yet is oh so true. Are you saying Einstein is wrong because logically you can't grasp relativity? Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis? The actual problem is that your words are meaningless and don't make any sense.

Bikerman writes:There are several hypotheses.
One which I find attractive is the Lee Smolin Evolutionary Universe hypothesis. Basically we know that black holes form in our universe. They are still pretty mysterious to science, though we do know some things. One thing that is possible is a form of 'break' in normal spacetime at the singularity. Sci-Fi often uses this in the form of wormhole, to open a new story. In reality the physics does allow for a version of a wormhole, or perhaps something completely alien.
Smolin's hypothesis is that Black Holes spawn entire universes in separate spacetimes. A bit unusual for a physicists, but not much stranger than many current hypotheses.
The consequences are astonishing. Since a universe would then 'breed' by containing black holes, we can imagine that the fundamental quantum constants, that appear so highly tuned, are in fact the signature of a successful universe - one which is stable enough to allow the formation of Black Holes (and, as a by product, also supports life - hence us). Each universe would have slightly different fundamental constants. Most would quickly collapse or evaporate and a good number would never get past the quantum singularity stage. We know, however, that evolutionary algorithms home in very quickly on stable phenotypes - so the same is proposed for universes. There are potentially an infinite number of universes out there, but 'universal selection' means that only those stable enough for Black Holes to arise are actually 'fertile' and can pass their genes on (in the form of the physical constants) via their offspring (BHs).- but physicists have soul too and can spot beauty when they see it - and the symmetry here makes this quite breathtakingly good-looking :-)Amongst other nice outcomes/predictions, this hypothesis completely does away with the fine-tuning problem, since evolution naturally found the stable values of the constants in the same way as it finds creatures with the right physiological basics - chuck away the rejects. There is no need to invoke chance, divinities or any other gobbledygook.PS - some people cannot see the power of evolution to home in on a design. I normally illustrate with the coin-toss analogy.
What are the chances of flipping a coin ten times and calling correctly (Heads or Tails) each time? Fairly low? About one in a thousand. (2^10= 1024)So now I tell you that if you give me a few people and some coins, I will absolutely guarantee to have a person who has called ten straight flips correctly. What is more I'll do it in an hour or less. (no cheating btw - they will not simply toss and toss at incredible speed until they hit 10. They will ONLY make (or call) ten tosses and get every one right). How can I be so sure?Simple - make it evolutionary. Reward the winner, 'kill' the looser. So you simply have a league contest. Divide into 2s and each pair flip a coin. One wins and they go through to the next round. After 10 rounds someone HAS flipped 10 winning turns inevitably. Now of course in lots of ways this is not a true analogy with evolution - there is no inheritance of characteristics which is the main driver for evolution. BUT it does illustrate the 'power' of apparently random processes to hone in on pretty unlikely results, and do it inevitably.

Oni, I've highlighted the phrases in Bikerman's message implying mystery, undertainty and speculation.

I've also highlighted phrases aluding to multiverses hypothesised as eminating from wormholes.

The optically visible evidences are more supportive to the Biblical record and entails less speculation than anything in Bikerman's message.

My understanding is that there is indeed loss of matter/energy in nuclear fission. Additionally, I believe the consensus is that the distinction we make between matter and energy is a little blurrier than we have made it here.