Life Origins: Here or There?

[paddoboy]

The only model of the universe, its origin, dynamics and evolution, for which enough supporting evidence has been found to qualify as a respectable hypothesis, is the Big Bang.

It most definitely hypothesizes a universe that is finite in both extent (volume) and content (mass and energy).

Firstly, I did say probable, secondly the BB does not 100% imply a finite Universe.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Other than that reference, I'm reasonably sure the question of the Universe being finite or infinite is rather undecided.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/S...ite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...-universe-its-very-flat-and-probably-infinite


Personally its one aspect of cosmology that sometimes has me confused, with the variety of opinions and data supporting both possibilities.

 

[paddoboy]

The only model of the universe, its origin, dynamics and evolution, for which enough supporting evidence has been found to qualify as a respectable hypothesis, is the Big Bang.

I have no qualms in regards to the BB/Inflationary model, being as close to certainty as we can wish, and as supported by the evidence.
In fact I see any future QGT as encompassing the BB by extending the parameters of the model, rather then invalidating it.
But it does not seal the question of whether the Universe/spacetime is finite or Infinite.
Also the BB is far more than a respectable "Hypothesis"...

 

[paddoboy]

Any other model is speculation, arm-waving, or science fiction.

Agreed.

 

[wellwisher]

If the universe began as the singularity of the BB, it began as a tiny finite sized universe. If it is currently infinite, we should see an infinite red shift due to the speed of expansion needed to go from a point, to infinite size, in a finite amount of time of 15 billion years. We don't see this.

If the universe is infinite, how can our universe continue to expand. What is larger than infinite so it can expand more? The other way to explain this is, if the universe was infinite, our universe aspects, could be expanding, as a local expansion, within an infinite universe. Picture a pan of water near the bubble point, where bubbles begin to form and expand within the larger liquid continuum. That would be our finite universe in an infinite universe.

Water in the Uiverse:

As far as water being the second most abundant molecule in the universe, all you need to do is look at the 10 most abundant atoms in the universe as shown below. Water of H20 is very stable and make use of two atoms of number 1 and one atom of number 3. Hydrogen molecules are the most common due to being two parts atom number 1.

CO or carbon monoxide is one atom number 3 and one atom number 6. Even if all the carbon (3.5 units) combined with oxygen to form CO, there is still 18.5 units of O left over to bind with hydrogen and the rest of the top atoms. CO2 is more stable than CO but is not as common CO, because of the amount of Oxygen is limiting, due to oxygen being tied up as water and some NOx. Also with hydrogen so common by orders of magnitude, this will also scavenge the C and N to form methane and ammonia.

Based on abundance, we get H2, H2O, CO, NOx, NH3, CH4, which is what you need to form animo acids. In life, water still remains the dominant molecule; follows the universal pattern.

Element Abundance
measured relative to silicon
Hydrogen 40,000
Helium 3,100
Oxygen 22
Neon 8.6
Nitrogen 6.6
Carbon 3.5
Silicon 1
Magnesium 0.91
Iron 0.6
Sulfur 0.38

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Firstly, I did say probable, secondly the BB does not 100% imply a finite Universe.

Reading through the articles you linked to, I'd say that this issue is more semantic than scientific. The Big Bang occurred a finite period of time ago, and the universe has been expanding at a finite rate since then. Therefore the outer edge of the universe must still be a finite distance from its center.

Even taking into account the expansion of space, that expansion too is occurring at a finite rate. There is no way that the matter and energy that comprise the universe (plus whatever else is lurking out there) can have expanded into an infinite volume at a finite velocity during a finite time.

I suspect that what these guys are talking about is not the universe, but the space-time continuum. There is considerable argument about whether there is any, uh, uh, "stuff" of any kind beyond the outer boundary of the universe. Is there actually space and time out there? Does the phrase, "seven googol light-years from our galaxy" mean anything?

The currently fashionable version of the Big Bang insists that it wasn't just the matter and energy in the universe that popped into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Now they're telling us that the space-time continuum came into existence then too, and it's just our space-time continuum with our measures of distance, duration, velocity, temperature, etc. So this means that the laws of nature came into existence then too... that pV=nrT, f=ma, e=mc^2--all of these laws that define how reality operates--are associated only with our universe and may not be true any... uh, anywhere? anywhen? else? Well let's just say not in any other universe that may pop into existence. Furthermore, the rules of arithmetic fall into that same category. There might be another universe in which 1+1 does not =2. Same for the rules of logic: there might be another universe in which if all A's are B's and all B's are C's, there might be a few A's that are not C's.

The space-time continuum itself, then (in this model) is an artifact of our little universe and the Big Bang that brought it into existence. There may be another universe that doesn't have space, time, motion, etc., but a bunch of other measures that we'd be unlikely to be able to understand.

So... I think what these guys mean when they wonder if the universe is infinite, is really whether the space-time continuum is infinite. If it is, then if there are other universes, they will have the same laws of nature, arithmetic and logic that rule our universe.

And who says there can't be others? The Big Bang is nothing more or less than a spatially and temporally local reversal of entropy, a phenomenon that the Second Law of Thermodynamics happily allows. Not only does it place no limits on the size of these anomalies, but also not on their number.

Other than that reference, I'm reasonably sure the question of the Universe being finite or infinite is rather undecided.

I'd edit that statement to "is rather undefined."

Also the BB is far more than a respectable "Hypothesis"...

Although, as I have often lamented, most scientists are crappy communicators, especially with laymen, they nonetheless have a vocabulary which, if they'd simply use it, is rather precise.

A hypothesis is the next-to-top level of respectability for a statement. The topmost level is a theory.

A hypothesis can only be promoted to the status of a theory by being proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. This allows a little leeway for a theory to be occasionally overturned, and somewhat more often to be merely elaborated (such as Einstein's elaborations to Newton's Laws of Motion, which are completely irrelevant to creatures who live at the bottom of a gravity well and will never travel faster than a few ten-thousandths of the speed of light), but on the balance the scientific canon is not assaulted on a daily basis so we're safe in relying on it.

A hypothesis, on the other hand, is nothing more or less than a statement that is not obviously false, is based on a respectable volume of evidence, and is at least theoretically capable of being disproven. A hypothesis is tested by a search for more evidence, by experimentation, and by peer review. If it passes all the tests, it may be elevated to the status of a theory.

That's all there is in science. Other terminology, such as "hunches" and "gut feelings" and "unprovable assertions" are the language of laymen--including everyone from dreamers to police detectives to outright crackpots.

I left out "faith" because "reasoned faith" (my dog has been faithful for 14 years so I have faith that she will continue to be so) has a place in the scientific method, whereas "unreasoned faith" (our Bronze Age ancestors observed the oceans rise to cover the highest mountains--a level that would have required six times as much water as there is on the entire planet--I know that doesn't make sense but God assures me that it's true anyway) is the playground of religion.

 

[wellwisher]

Space-time is a mathematical construct, with this construct, as defined by humans, going from zero to infinite. Einstein showed the relative nature of the space-time construct, which can change with observational reference. All references in space-time will not see the same thing. What is missing from a pure space-time construct universe, is all the tangible matter, which is invariant with respect to reference. Unlike space-time that changes with reference, matter does not change with reference.

Matter, that does not change with reference; invariant, is immersed within space-time, with can changes with reference. Matter sets a finite limit to this paradox, because the imagination can't teleport matter in the same way as it can teleport space-time. We can teleport space-time all the way to infinity simply by defining it that way due to relative reference. We can do this with space-time, but we can't with matter, since to do this with matter takes lots of energy, and not just imagination.

We can construct the space-time grid of the solar system, but the mass of the planets did not appear due to human intervention like the grid appearing last century; new universe of space-time. Space-time is a way for humans to play God, with the real God/nature connected to the substance of the universe, which humans can't alter by looking at it a certain way.

I prefer substance, which is universal and the same for all and not dependent, like space-time. For example, relative to mass, our sun is average sized with respect to stars. But with space-time we can find a reference that makes it look better or more mythological. We can make it smaller or larger by standing somewhere else in space-time, since this all relative to reference. Einstein showed how the trick works.

Life is not about space-time or any trick references. It is about the interaction of invariant matter. It is not based on a random universe that helps space-time tricks, but on specific combinations of atoms to form repeatable templates. Proteins fold with probability equal to 1.0. Life is not part of the random assumption of the universe; relative, but rather heads away from this.

There is a reason connected to scale-up. Matter is composed of particles and waves, with waves more like space-time in that the waves will change with reference. The particle nature of matter is more invariant The red shift of the universe is seen via energy waves not new forms of matter. As matter combines sub particles into atoms, and atoms combine into molecules, the wave functions combine causing the particle/wave ratio to increase toward the invariance of matter and particles.

For example, an electron in motion will generate a magnetic field based on magnetic waves. If we take a large atom, we don't see the magnetic wave output based on the number of individual electrons, because the waves add and cancel. The wave aspects combines and cancel, but the particle aspects do not change in terms of numbers, charge and mass. With life the relativity of reference narrows down to invariance of particle matter.

 

[exchemist]

If the universe began as the singularity of the BB, it began as a tiny finite sized universe. If it is currently infinite, we should see an infinite red shift due to the speed of expansion needed to go from a point, to infinite size, in a finite amount of time of 15 billion years. We don't see this.

If the universe is infinite, how can our universe continue to expand. What is larger than infinite so it can expand more? The other way to explain this is, if the universe was infinite, our universe aspects, could be expanding, as a local expansion, within an infinite universe. Picture a pan of water near the bubble point, where bubbles begin to form and expand within the larger liquid continuum. That would be our finite universe in an infinite universe.

Water in the Uiverse:

As far as water being the second most abundant molecule in the universe, all you need to do is look at the 10 most abundant atoms in the universe as shown below. Water of H20 is very stable and make use of two atoms of number 1 and one atom of number 3. Hydrogen molecules are the most common due to being two parts atom number 1.

CO or carbon monoxide is one atom number 3 and one atom number 6. Even if all the carbon (3.5 units) combined with oxygen to form CO, there is still 18.5 units of O left over to bind with hydrogen and the rest of the top atoms. CO2 is more stable than CO but is not as common CO, because of the amount of Oxygen is limiting, due to oxygen being tied up as water and some NOx. Also with hydrogen so common by orders of magnitude, this will also scavenge the C and N to form methane and ammonia.

Based on abundance, we get H2, H2O, CO, NOx, NH3, CH4, which is what you need to form animo acids. In life, water still remains the dominant molecule; follows the universal pattern.

No, I think there's a fallacy here. Molecules can only exist at fairly low temperatures, considering the spectrum of temperature that matter is exposed to in the cosmos, and in particular can't exist at all in stars. Furthermore, molecules can only form where concentrations of atoms are fairly high, in the cosmic scheme of things, so may only form rarely in the interstellar spaces. So atomic abundance may not be a good way to predict molecular abundance.

 

[paddoboy]

Even taking into account the expansion of space, that expansion too is occurring at a finite rate. There is no way that the matter and energy that comprise the universe (plus whatever else is lurking out there) can have expanded into an infinite volume at a finite velocity during a finite time.

I suspect that what these guys are talking about is not the universe, but the space-time continuum. There is considerable argument about whether there is any, uh, uh, "stuff" of any kind beyond the outer boundary of the universe. Is there actually space and time out there? Does the phrase, "seven googol light-years from our galaxy" mean anything?

The currently fashionable version of the Big Bang insists that it wasn't just the matter and energy in the universe that popped into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Now they're telling us that the space-time continuum came into existence then too, and it's just our space-time continuum with our measures of distance, duration, velocity, temperature, etc. So this means that the laws of nature came into existence then too... that pV=nrT, f=ma, e=mc^2--all of these laws that define how reality operates--are associated only with our universe and may not be true any... uh, anywhere? anywhen? else? Well let's just say not in any other universe that may pop into existence. Furthermore, the rules of arithmetic fall into that same category. There might be another universe in which 1+1 does not =2. Same for the rules of logic: there might be another universe in which if all A's are B's and all B's are C's, there might be a few A's that are not C's.

The space-time continuum itself, then (in this model) is an artifact of our little universe and the Big Bang that brought it into existence. There may be another universe that doesn't have space, time, motion, etc., but a bunch of other measures that we'd be unlikely to be able to understand.

So... I think what these guys mean when they wonder if the universe is infinite, is really whether the space-time continuum is infinite. If it is, then if there are other universes, they will have the same laws of nature, arithmetic and logic that rule our universe.

And who says there can't be others? The Big Bang is nothing more or less than a spatially and temporally local reversal of entropy, a phenomenon that the Second Law of Thermodynamics happily allows. Not only does it place no limits on the size of these anomalies, but also not on their number.

I'd edit that statement to "is rather undefined."

Although, as I have often lamented, most scientists are crappy communicators, especially with laymen, they nonetheless have a vocabulary which, if they'd simply use it, is rather precise.

A hypothesis is the next-to-top level of respectability for a statement. The topmost level is a theory.

A hypothesis can only be promoted to the status of a theory by being proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. This allows a little leeway for a theory to be occasionally overturned, and somewhat more often to be merely elaborated (such as Einstein's elaborations to Newton's Laws of Motion, which are completely irrelevant to creatures who live at the bottom of a gravity well and will never travel faster than a few ten-thousandths of the speed of light), but on the balance the scientific canon is not assaulted on a daily basis so we're safe in relying on it.

A hypothesis, on the other hand, is nothing more or less than a statement that is not obviously false, is based on a respectable volume of evidence, and is at least theoretically capable of being disproven. A hypothesis is tested by a search for more evidence, by experimentation, and by peer review. If it passes all the tests, it may be elevated to the status of a theory.

That's all there is in science. Other terminology, such as "hunches" and "gut feelings" and "unprovable assertions" are the language of laymen--including everyone from dreamers to police detectives to outright crackpots.

I left out "faith" because "reasoned faith" (my dog has been faithful for 14 years so I have faith that she will continue to be so) has a place in the scientific method, whereas "unreasoned faith" (our Bronze Age ancestors observed the oceans rise to cover the highest mountains--a level that would have required six times as much water as there is on the entire planet--I know that doesn't make sense but God assures me that it's true anyway) is the playground of religion.

Mainstream Cosmology does see the BB as a theory and beyond a reasonable doubt.
According to the BB theory, it was an evolution of space and time, which with the advent of SR, we call spacetime.
It did not happen in a pre-existing space. Space and time itself were created and matter and energy evolved from that.
I don't see that as a recent addition, and suggest it was always the scientific picture from the beginning, although as relayed to the general populace, a different, incorrect picture may have been given.
Like you say, the fault of scientists themselves in not conveying their thoughts and observations correctly.
Any talk of before t+10-43 seconds is not covered by our current model, but It does appear reasonably logical that one should be able to extrapolate back to the instant it all came into existence.
Like all scientific theories, no matter how certain, it does remain open to "tinkering with", and some modification.....Inflation is an example of this. But just as tinkering with a motor car to make it go faster does not change the basic concept, the basic BB concept should remain.
That concept was not in anyway related to an explosion in the conventional sense that we understand an explosion. [a term of derision applied by Hoyle who was pushing Steady State]

I do also love my personal hunches and speculations, but differ from some of our alternative hypothesis pushers here, in that I do recognise them as hunches and speculation.
One of those hunches speculative scenarios, is that the BB is actually the arse end of a BH from another Universe....A White Hole no less.
And that BH's within our Universe may lead via wormholes and ERB at the Singularity regions to other out pourings of spacetime, and other Universes.

All in all, except for your original claim that the Universe/spacetime is finite, and your apparent opnion the BB as being less then a scientific theory, I have no problem with your lengthy post.


I accept your editing of my use of the word "undecided" in regards to finite or Infinite, to "undefined"

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Mainstream Cosmology does see the BB as a theory and beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'll take your word for it. I don't know any mainstream cosmologists.

According to the BB theory, it was an evolution of space and time, which with the advent of SR, we call spacetime.

Then I assume this "space and time" is only associated with our universe, so there are no limits on the nature of other universes? That they might indeed not have mass and energy, arithmetic and logic as we know it, but a bunch of other characteristics that we probably couldn't understand, much less observe?

It did not happen in a pre-existing space. Space and time itself were created and matter and energy evolved from that.

This still supports my supposition that the spacetime continuum is finite and does not extend beyond the boundaries of our universe.

I don't see that as a recent addition, and suggest it was always the scientific picture from the beginning, although as relayed to the general populace, a different, incorrect picture may have been given.

I surely never encountered these thoughts in my late-1950s high school investigations of the Big Bang. I would hate to discover that I was lumped in with the "general populace."

Like you say, the fault of scientists themselves in not conveying their thoughts and observations correctly.

And now that Climate-Gate has sullied the reputation of scientists, and therefore science itself, merely because the internal memos that the press acquired were written by scientists with both poor communication skills AND complete naivete about the attitudes of the general public, the discipline is now aggressively attacking that problem. Writing for non-scientists is now a required course in many universities, and the few scientists who happen to have good communication skills are being wooed into careers as authors and columnists.

Hopefully there will now be many more than one Carl Sagan or Neil Degrasse Tyson explaining science to us in vernacular English in any one era.

Any talk of before t=10^43 seconds is not covered by our current model, but It does appear reasonably logical that one should be able to extrapolate back to the instant it all came into existence.

Well sure, but that's easier said than done. How do you approach the assignment of extrapolating backward from "something" to "absolutely nothing?"

That concept was not in any way related to an explosion in the conventional sense that we understand an explosion.

Sure, but we needed a word and that one seemed as good as any. "Puff" doesn't quite get the idea across.

One of those hunches speculative scenarios, is that the BB is actually the arse end of a BH from another Universe....A White Hole no less. And that BH's within our Universe may lead via wormholes and ERB at the Singularity regions to other out pourings of spacetime, and other Universes.

In order for these universes to interact in any way, you seem to tacitly accept the notion that they all have some important traits in common. If one universe has a space-time continuum filled with various combinations of matter and energy, whereas the next universe down the street has an axolotl-potrzebie continuum filled with quorban and fiddlywhup, what mechanism exists for their interaction? To me this question seems just as important, and just as vexing, as the question about just exactly what was happening during those first 10^-43 seconds in our universe.

If it turns out to be true that there are multiple universes, the structural similarities and/or differences among them will become a rather important branch of cosmology.

 

[paddoboy]

Reading through the articles you linked to, I'd say that this issue is more semantic than scientific. The Big Bang occurred a finite period of time ago, and the universe has been expanding at a finite rate since then. Therefore the outer edge of the universe must still be a finite distance from its center.

It's rather counter intuitive [just as the concept of the non absolute nature of time and space was counter intuitive] but the BB was the evolution of space and time [spacetime]
At the instant of the BB, all of spacetime was packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus, and then suddenly started to expand. [probably due to CC/DE or some other inherent property of spacetime]
The BB happened everywhere at the same time, because everywhere was packed within that tiny volume.
There is no edge and/or center one can speak of, except the center of our own observable Universe.And any Alien species, anywhere would also naturally infer they are the center of their observable Universe.

Even taking into account the expansion of space, that expansion too is occurring at a finite rate. There is no way that the matter and energy that comprise the universe (plus whatever else is lurking out there) can have expanded into an infinite volume at a finite velocity during a finite time.

I'm unable to answer that any better then I already have, and according to the links I have given.

The currently fashionable version of the Big Bang insists that it wasn't just the matter and energy in the universe that popped into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Now they're telling us that the space-time continuum came into existence then too, and it's just our space-time continuum with our measures of distance, duration, velocity, temperature, etc. So this means that the laws of nature came into existence then too

I disagree with your inferences there.
It's been more then a 100 years since cosmologists thought of the Universe as just the matter we see...moons, planets, stars, galaxies etc, ignoring spacetime as just plain emptiness.
Einstein showed that the space [spacetime is far more than just the emptiness, but is something which is bent, warped and twisted in the presence of mass/energy.
Personally I generally refer to the Universe as the Universe/spacetime.

The following may help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

We only know this about the kinds of living things that exist on our planet. There's no reason to assume that all life, everywhere in the universe, has the same blueprint as ours.

For each of these elements, it's not too difficult to imagine a lifeform on another planet (or for that matter a red giant star or in interstellar space) that doesn't have it.

Thank you! I so rarely see or hear such from anyone else. Seems to me it is too difficult for some.

When we finally develop the transportation technology to visit other solar systems, it's quite possible that on some distant planet there will be so many living things that we walk all over them without realizing what they are, because they are so different from terrestrial life.

Or walk under or thru them.

Perhaps there is an environment in which abiogenesis occurs constantly, so there's no need for living things to reproduce.

Perhaps there's an environment in which it's unnecessary for living things to grow once they pop into existence. For that matter, right here on this planet, single-cell living things don't exactly grow. They simply split in two to become two new cells.

Perhaps 1 without evolution. Perhaps there are many planets with life that could not survive anywhere on Earth. Perhaps there is intelligent life which we could see is life yet could not recognize as intelligent. Perhaps there are aliens who "know" there can be no life on Earth because it is too close to the sun.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Personally I generally refer to the Universe as the Universe/spacetime.

Which does not tell us whether, in your model, there is only one universe and one space-time continuum, or other universes which may have significantly different properties and dimensions.

Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

Again, this leaves the question unanswered as to whether our familiar dimensions of distance, mass, time, energy, etc. are the only dimensions that can possibly exist, or if other universes exist with utterly different properties. As I said, logic and arithmetic as we know them may not even be properties of all universes.

Since we can't see "outside" of our own universe, surely it would be arrogant to assume that there is no other possible way for a universe to pop into existence and commence operation.

 

[paddoboy]

Which does not tell us whether, in your model, there is only one universe and one space-time continuum, or other universes which may have significantly different properties and dimensions.

Again, this leaves the question unanswered as to whether our familiar dimensions of distance, mass, time, energy, etc. are the only dimensions that can possibly exist, or if other universes exist with utterly different properties. As I said, logic and arithmetic as we know them may not even be properties of all universes.

Since we can't see "outside" of our own universe, surely it would be arrogant to assume that there is no other possible way for a universe to pop into existence and commence operation.

Fraggle Rocker:
I don't nor ever have claimed that higher dimensions and multiverses cannot exist.
In fact, as a rather Imaginative character I often speculate our BB to be the arse end of a BH in another Universe.
But at this point in time, our models do not extend that far. The parameters of GR and the BB stop at 10-43 seconds after the Initial event.

All I'm saying, is that we have no evidence and no data of any sort to validate those concepts.

 

[wellwisher]

Life has some properties, connected to laws of physics/thermodynamics, but in an unique reverse type of way. Life gains energy value, within its structures, as it grows. The larger tree will have more energy value (wood) than a smaller version of the same tree. Humans contain fats and protein, both which have caloric value that increases as we grow.

This trend in life follows the first law of thermodynamics; energy conservation, but the accumulation of energy value is somewhat unique, in that life builds energy value (grows), whereas most inanimate systems attempt to lower overall energy. This building of energy value is important to cell division, in that when the internal energy value reaches a critical amount, the mother cell will behave more like inanimate matter and will lower this internal energy value (burn the internal fuel) and divide into two daughter cells, which each attempt to gain energy value within it structures.

Life's structures also goes in the wrong direction with respect to the second law, which is connected to entropy. The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase, but the structures within cells and life lower entropy into order. The templates of life, such as the DNA and RNA are not designed with random and entropy in mind, but with order in mind; specific base pairing. Entropy is a minor player, with order dominate. Proteins form very specific folding patterns which even escape the laws of statistics, since these folds are not about entropy but repeatable order.

Life is somewhat separated from the random universe, but is nevertheless impacted by the random universe, which adds disorder and entropy. Any good biogenesis model would take this into account. It would begin life as inanimate matter where energy is attempting to lower and entropy is trying to increase. Changes gradually occur which will begin to reverse this pattern, until energy building (growing) and entropy lowering (within its internal structures) become the rule. The external environment is still having an impact, adding traces of random into the system to promote change. The cell will adapt through this induction.

These reverse thermodynamic properties of life structures; increase energy and lower entropy, are grounded via the interaction of water with organics. If we mix oil and water to form an emulsion, we will maximize entropy/random within this system. This system is not stable with that much entropy, but rather will need to phase separate out, into two layers, one of water and one of oil. The water-oil system defines a lowered entropy ceiling. This is the foundation of life with life staying below this ceiling.

The reason water and oil do this is because of surface tension within the emulsion. The water and oil emulsion defines higher surface energy. This energy attempts to lower energy, by forming two layers, so the surface tension can decrease; minimizes the surface area of contact. This lowering of energy defines an energy floor, with life attempting to stay above this floor.

During cell cycles, the entropy goes up (structures change) and the internal structural energy goes down (burn internal fuel). This causes the mother cell to approach the floor ands the ceiling but not to exceed these.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Life gains energy value, within its structures, as it grows. The larger tree will have more energy value (wood) than a smaller version of the same tree. Humans contain fats and protein, both which have caloric value that increases as we grow.

Nothing more than a local reversal of entropy, as specifically allowed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And talk about "local"! Everything in the vicinity of an organism of any kingdom (animal, plant, fungus, algae, bacterium or archaea) is in danger of having its own organization summarily destroyed and used (in an extremely inefficient manner) to keep the creature alive.

This trend in life follows the first law of thermodynamics; energy conservation, but the accumulation of energy value is somewhat unique, in that life builds energy value (grows), whereas most inanimate systems attempt to lower overall energy.

A scientific-sounding but not really very scientific definition of "life" is: "A rather long-sustaining local reversal of entropy."

Life's structures also goes in the wrong direction with respect to the second law, which is connected to entropy. The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase, but the structures within cells and life lower entropy into order. The templates of life, such as the DNA and RNA are not designed with random and entropy in mind, but with order in mind; specific base pairing. Entropy is a minor player, with order dominate. Proteins form very specific folding patterns which even escape the laws of statistics, since these folds are not about entropy but repeatable order.

You read the Cliff Notes version of the Second Law. It specifically allows for spatially local or temporally local reversals of entropy, and it places no limits on their size, duration or effect.

Thus, don't overlook the fact that the Big Bang itself is nothing more than a rather large reversal of entropy. It's all slowing down and getting ready to collapse in on itself (or at the very least become a soup of undifferentiated points with no energy differentials) as we speak.

 

[paddoboy]

Thus, don't overlook the fact that the Big Bang itself is nothing more than a rather large reversal of entropy. It's all slowing down and getting ready to collapse in on itself (or at the very least become a soup of undifferentiated points with no energy differentials) as we speak.

OK, on the question of entropy and the BB I may be a bit shaky........The Universe is expanding and although apparent pockets of galactic formation may seem to suggest that increased order is occurring, the maximum "allowable" entropy is increasing overall due to the expansion, hence the second law is not violated.
At least that's the way I understand it.

Also, any chance of re collapse has been literally discarded at this time, due to the discovery of the acceleration in that expansion via DE.
And the topological geometry determined by WMAP, suggests the Universe is flat, which further supports that we will continue to expand for ever.

 

[paddoboy]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html