Biocosmology

[Genady]

Let me be the first to announce the birth of a new science. Lee Smolin et al. explain it in a new paper, Biocosmology: Towards the birth of a new science.

Quote

There is however one number which we have not accounted for: the number of states in our complex biosphere. What is the entropy of life and is it sizeable enough to need to be accounted for at the Big Bang? Building on emerging ideas within theoretical biology, we show that the configuration space of living systems, unlike that of their fundamental physics counterparts, can grow rapidly in response to emerging biological complexity. A model for this expansion is provided through combinatorial innovation by the Theory of the Adjacent Possible (TAP) and its corresponding TAP equation, whose solutions we investigate, confirming the possibility of rapid state-pace growth. While the results of this work remain far from being firmly established, the evidence we provide is many-fold and strong. The implications are far-reaching, and open a variety of lines for future investigation, a new scientific field we term biocosmology. In particular the relationship between the information content in life and the information content in the Universe may need to be rebuilt from scratch.

 

[beecee]

On 4/22/2022 at 8:01 AM, Genady said:

Let me be the first to announce the birth of a new science. Lee Smolin et al. explain it in a new paper, Biocosmology: Towards the birth of a new science.

 

Interesting. Just a point....I have often heard that the universe as we see it today, was all compressed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus at the BB. I see that as misleading. What was or could be termed as being compressed to within that volume was just space, time and the four forces in a phase of unification  we call the superforce. As pressures and temperatures dropped with expansion, different phases and decoupling of that superforce, gave rise to what we see today.

[Genady]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Interesting. Just a point....I have often heard that the universe as we see it today, was all compressed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus at the BB. I see that as misleading. What was or could be termed as being compressed to within that volume was just space, time and the four forces in a phase of unification  we call the superforce. As pressures and temperatures dropped with expansion, different phases and decoupling of that superforce, gave rise to what we see today.

Yes, but I think (1) time was not compressed, (2) IIRC, the time when it was compressed to a nucleus size was before inflation and then even the unified force did not exist yet; it supposedly appeared in decay of inflation field, when the universe was of a size of a marble.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Yes, but I think (1) time was not compressed, (2) IIRC, the time when it was compressed to a nucleus size was before inflation and then even the unified force did not exist yet; it supposedly appeared in decay of inflation field, when the universe was of a size of a marble.

Yep, agreed....time essentially evolved as space evolved may be more correct.

[MigL]

If time is the result of geometry, then it ceases to make sense below a certain scale.
The 'quantum foam' is postulated to be composed of tiny wormholes, bubbling in and out of existence, connecting different regions and different tmes, such that distance and time don't exist as we know them anymore.

The original inflationary model, proposed by A Guth, involved the drop in vacuum energy from the symmetry break of electroweak dissociation. Many other, competing models have since been proposed, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to find evidence supporting a specific model.