Home > Positioning > Persons > Smolin

Lee Smolin (1955–)

Smolin works at the intersection of quantum gravity, cosmology, and the philosophy of physics. He is a co-developer (with Rovelli and Ashtekar) of loop quantum gravity — the principal alternative to string theory for quantising general relativity. His most distinctive contribution is cosmological natural selection: a speculative hypothesis that universes reproduce through black holes, with the fundamental constants of each daughter universe slightly varied, so that universes that produce more black holes are “selected for.” This applies Darwinian logic to cosmology — the fine-tuning of the constants is explained not by design or by the anthropic principle but by a selection process operating on universes themselves. His later work argues that time is real and fundamental, not an illusion — against the dominant view in theoretical physics that treats time as emergent or eliminable.

Life

Born in New York in 1955. He studied physics at Hampshire College, Harvard (PhD, 1979), and held positions at Yale, Syracuse, and Penn State before co-founding the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, in 1999, where he remains a faculty member. He is also adjunct professor at the University of Waterloo.

He is one of the most publicly engaged theoretical physicists of his generation, writing accessibly about the state of fundamental physics. The Trouble with Physics (2006) — a critique of string theory’s dominance and the sociology of theoretical physics — was widely read and widely debated. His intellectual partnerships with Rovelli (on loop quantum gravity) and with Stuart Kauffman (on the TAP — theory of the adjacent possible — at the intersection of physics, biology, and complexity) reflect his interest in cross-disciplinary boundary work.

Loop quantum gravity

Loop quantum gravity (LQG), developed from the late 1980s, quantises general relativity without requiring extra dimensions or supersymmetry (the features that define string theory). The central result is that space is discrete at the Planck scale: area and volume come in quanta, and the geometry of spacetime is described by spin networks (graphs whose edges carry quantum numbers representing units of area and volume). At large scales, smooth spacetime emerges from the underlying discrete structure.

Smolin’s contributions to LQG include work on the cosmological applications (loop quantum cosmology, which replaces the big bang singularity with a “big bounce”), the role of the Barbero-Immirzi parameter, and the black hole entropy calculation — showing that loop quantum gravity can reproduce the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula from a counting of microscopic states. He has also worked on the problem of dynamics in LQG — how the spin network evolves — which remains the programme’s most difficult open problem.

Cosmological natural selection

The Life of the Cosmos (1997) proposes cosmological natural selection (CNS): when a black hole forms, it creates a new universe on the other side of its singularity, with fundamental constants slightly varied from the parent universe. Universes that produce more black holes — because their constants favour star formation, heavy element production, and gravitational collapse — leave more descendants. Over many generations, the population of universes is dominated by those whose constants are “tuned” for black hole production.

The hypothesis is speculative but makes a testable prediction: the constants of our universe should be near-optimal for black hole production. If any small change in the constants would produce more black holes, the hypothesis is falsified. Smolin has argued the prediction holds; critics have challenged specific calculations. The deeper significance is methodological: CNS offers a scientific alternative to both the anthropic principle (the constants are what they are because we are here to observe them) and design (the constants are chosen). It treats the fine-tuning problem as a scientific question with a scientific answer — selection, not coincidence.

The reality of time

Time Reborn (2013) and The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time (with Roberto Mangabeira Unger, 2015) argue that time is real and fundamental — not an illusion, not emergent from a timeless substrate, not a dimension to be “spatialised” and treated on a par with space. The dominant view in theoretical physics (from Einstein through Wheeler to many contemporary approaches) treats the block universe — the four-dimensional spacetime manifold in which past, present, and future are equally real — as the correct picture. Smolin argues this view is a mistake inherited from Newtonian mechanics (where the laws are timeless) and extended uncritically into cosmology.

If time is real, then the laws of physics themselves may evolve — they are not eternal regularities but the current state of regularities that have developed over time. This connects to the CNS hypothesis (the constants vary across universe-generations) and to Smolin’s collaboration with Kauffman on the adjacent possible (novelty is real, not merely the rearrangement of timeless constituents). The claim that the laws themselves may be historical is the most radical element: it challenges the conception of physics as the discovery of timeless truths.

Where Smolin stops

Cosmological natural selection is a bold hypothesis with a specific testable prediction, but the mechanism (black holes producing baby universes with varied constants) is speculative — there is no known physics that produces the variation. The hypothesis stands or falls on the prediction, not on the mechanism, which limits its explanatory power even if the prediction holds. Whether it is best understood as a scientific hypothesis (falsifiable, though not yet falsified) or as a philosophical argument (showing that Darwinian reasoning can in principle explain fine-tuning) is debated.

The reality-of-time thesis puts Smolin at odds with most of theoretical physics and with his own collaborator Rovelli, whose relational quantum mechanics treats time as relational and perspectival rather than fundamental. The disagreement is instructive: both reject the Newtonian backdrop, but Rovelli dissolves time into relations while Smolin insists on its irreducibility. The question of whether time is real-and-fundamental or real-but-relational is the point where two close allies diverge.

Key works

See also: Rovelli · Kauffman · Einstein