If there were a chance that Darwin would reincarnate in the shoes of a theoretical physicist, the result could be none other than Lee Smolin. From his laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania, this shy and controversial scientist thinks of natural selection, the laws of evolution and Darwinian adaptation from a very peculiar point of view: instead of applying his ideas to apes, birds or galapagos, uses them to study the galaxies, particles and physical constants of the cosmos.
–Does that mean that galaxies are like living things to you?
-I believe that galaxies are systems that spontaneously organize themselves according to processes that resemble living processes. So we can say that the universe closely resembles a biological system. But, of course, I don’t think the stars are alive.
–The similarities go so far that, according to their theories, the very laws of natural selection could be applied to galaxies …
-Well, it’s a hypothesis. I think it is possible to build a theory according to which the universe that we see around us and that was born from the Big Bang is part of a population of many other universes. And some of them may come from previous universes as occurs with animal species. In this conception of the cosmos, galaxies self-organize, reproduce, and undergo mutations and selections.
–And how do you come to this conclusion?
-It seems to me that the only principle powerful enough to explain the high degree of self-organization of the cosmos is natural selection. Rather than thinking that chance is the cause of the current state of the universe, I prefer to find a mechanism by which Darwin’s laws can be extended to the stars.
–What can that mechanism be?
-The key is in the number of black holes that inhabit a universe. The more black holes there are, the more likely the cosmos is to reproduce and dominate its competitors.
–In other words, just as natural selection can be exercised on genes, the selection of universes works on black holes?
-Something like that. The properties of the particles and forces are selected to achieve the greatest number of black holes. Then we could compare the universes with animals and the properties of physics with the genes that carry selection.
–You will be aware that this idea is not accepted by many scientists …
-I know, but I don’t care. For me, the important thing is that soon hypotheses about self-organization at the astronomical level will be widely applauded. We know that life organizes itself and there is no external intelligence that infuses this order into it. And I think cosmology can also benefit from this knowledge.
–If so, there would be a direct relationship between the number of stars and the presence of life in the cosmos.
-Sure. The basic organic components for the creation of life, such as carbon, are also essential for the formation of stars and black holes. So we could say that if a universe creates a certain number of stars -and, therefore, certain probabilities that some of them collapse-, and in that universe there is life, it is thanks to the quantities of basic products such as carbon that occur in it. If these quantities are modified, the number of black holes varies and the probabilities of sustaining life also change. In this way, it would seem that we are here as an inevitable consequence of the very process of creation of galaxies.
–Does the fact that our universe has been able to generate life through this process, does it mean that it is the best possible cosmos, the one that has best adapted?
-I don’t know if it’s the best, but it’s a pretty good one, of course.
–Are there better universes?
-Yes, there may be other universes better than ours. But here the idea of better or worse refers to terms of particle physics. A more evolved universe, with a greater number of black holes, would be a good cosmos, but it would not be better for human beings.
–The evolution of life on Earth has left its mark on fossils. Are there cosmic fossils that could be used as working material to confirm your theories?
-Maybe we have fossils at an astronomical level. For example, in the cosmic background radiation, which gives us a pattern of the formation of matter in the first moments after the Big Bang.
–And you say that all these complicated things occur to you in your spare time, while browsing!
-Sailing is a very good practice not to think, to be in a very relaxed and very open state of mind. So it is the moment when you are ready to change the way you have seen things in the laboratory.
–Some experts believe that scientists at the end of the century are peaking, that they are only speculating on already known ideas. It is what they call the phenomenon of the end of science.
-In the last 15 years, a lot of good things have happened in science, technology, society, politics … However, a kind of academic pessimism has been implanted, especially in the universities of the United States. United. That is why the voices that say that physics, cosmology and biology are reaching their limits have proliferated. I disagree. What happens, simply, is that it is impossible to continue the pace of scientific revolutions that this century has experienced. Perhaps we are in a period of rest, in a valley point, but not in the process of decline.
–Does being a theoretical physicist allow you to play philosophy from time to time?
-That’s one of the things I like the most about my profession. Some aspects that previously belonged to philosophy have now passed into the field of physics. For example, space and time. At heart, scientists are lucky people: we can play whatever we want for a lifetime.
–And are you one of those who believe in the marriage between science and philosophy?
– I do not know if I will be too optimistic, but I believe that natural philosophy is being reborn based on three principles that can be applied to all things: evolution, complexity and self-organization. There are still many humanists who become entangled in Nietzsche’s heritage and create agonizing and pessimistic worldviews. But what we can learn from the new science and the new philosophy is that the world is not going to end soon, that everything is evolving for the better, that the 21st century is going to be an extraordinary time.
–Taking advantage of the fact that you like philosophy … How do theoretical physicists get along with the idea of God?
-I believe that God is not an objective of scientific study. As much as we know, there will always be an unanswered question. And that space of mystery will inevitably invite a certain mysticism. There will always be people who will find a place to place God. Given this, scientists must make an ethical decision. You have to choose in which ethical setting you want to work. For me, the most correct thing is for the researcher to give an answer to his questions based on scientific evidence, leaving God out of the laboratory, even if he believes in him.
–How is the daily routine of a theoretical physicist?
-First I will tell you how it should be: we would have to spend part of the day doing research, playing with mathematical formulas, thinking and, above all, talking with many other people. Theoretical physics is a very social discipline. We really enjoy talking to each other, going to conferences and meetings, listening to each other and exchanging ideas that cannot be translated into reports and articles.
However, the reality of our routine is very different. Most of us physicists work for a university and this means that you have to teach. As much as you like teaching, and I like it, being a teacher is a pain. You have to do other administrative and bureaucratic work, find money for your department … I think that scientific authorities, at least in the United States, have a great challenge for the future: reorganizing research methods, because a scientist spends too much time today to tasks that are not purely science.
–Why are there so few women in theoretical physics?
-That’s a great question. It is true that there should be more. But I’m afraid I can’t answer you … To be a good scientist you have to know how to say “I don’t know” in time.
But hey, I’ll try to answer. It is clear that in theoretical physics there is nothing that makes men or women better. Of course, we are not all the same and each has their special talents: some are better at spatial relationships and others at speculation. But those differences have nothing to do with sex. I’m afraid there is a lot of discrimination and a lot of underground machismo among physicists. A friend of mine teaches physics at university and has detected that while her students are capable of defending tooth and nail their theories even if they are wrong, the students always believe that their ideas are not correct even though, in reality, they are brilliant.
–Can the theoretical physics of the space research boom benefit from missions to Mars or new manned travel projects?
-I do not know. I am not an expert in space exploration. Clearly, NASA’s new policy of projecting ever smaller and cheaper missions will allow us to make exciting discoveries. But I think even more could be done. The cost of space exploration and science in general is ridiculous compared to the military budget. Every time the army budget is cut a few dollars, in science dramatic cuts are made that almost bankrupt us. There is a great gap between the fascinating possibilities of the moment and the fascination that politicians feel about science at election time. A politician has short-term decisions to make, but science is a slow investment that requires patience, comprehensive strategies, and longer deadlines.
Jorge Mayor
This interview was published in November 1997, in number 198 of VERY Interesting.
