Life might have been possible just seconds after the Big Bang

Mar 8, 2022
233
23
585
I actually like their opening up the definition of life.
One can define life as kinetic energies, events, actions and distinguish persistent forms that arise in that as life forms.
On Earth we generally only define life only as (active?) organized biochemical systems exclusively in celled enclosures that self replicate.
The almost incomprehensible intricate biochemical mechanisms that keep the active systems operating in a regulated manner are stunning.
They operate in a manner that seems quasi-independent of primary physics.
Viruses are categorized as nonlife which would be definition dependent.
We probably make the binary distinction between life and nonlife as kind of a defense mechanism to help preserve our dynamic systems and the self identity that supports its 'independent' ongoing operation(s).
Egos and psychology are a function of our sustained living states/systems so i wouldn't cavilarly dismiss them.
It probably dovetails with our immune systems.
Possibly cultural/societal immune systems as well as our biological ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jan Steinman
"Life has found a home on Earth for around 4 billion years. That's a significant fraction of the universe's 13.77 billion-year history. Presumably, if life arose here, it could have appeared anywhere. And for sufficiently broad definitions of life, it might even be possible for life to have appeared mere seconds after the Big Bang."

Very interesting concept. Life emerging just seconds after the postulated BB event. The CMBR does not become light until about 380,000 years after the BB event, thus that universe back to some seconds after BB, very different temperature apparently for life to appear. Charles Darwin in 1871 stated about the warm little pond.

"My dear Hooker I return the pamphlets, which I have been very glad to read.— It will be a curious discovery if Mr. Lowne’s observation that boiling does not kill certain moulds is proved true; but then how on earth is the absence of all living things in Pasteur’s experiment to be accounted for?—2 I am always delighted to see a word in favour of Pangenesis, which some day, I believe, will have a resurrection3 Mr Dyers paper strikes me as a very able Spencerian production.—4 It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.— Henrietta makes hardly any progress, & God knows when she will be well.—5 I enjoyed much the visit of you four Gentlemen, ie after the Saturday night, when I thought I was quite done for.—6 Yours affecy | C. Darwin" ref - https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-7471.xml&query=warm little pond#hit.rank2

URL is https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-7471.xml, To J. D. Hooker 1 February [1871], Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 7471,” accessed on 15 August 2023.

The appearance of life in this article from non-living matter by space.com goes well beyond the warm little pond thinking of Charles Darwin in 1871,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jan Steinman
Nov 1, 2023
2
0
15
I come to Space.com for science. Saying that life arose a few hundred million years after the first star ignited is reasonable scientific speculation. We all know that the building blocks of life are forged in the hearts of stars, and the first supermassive stars probably had lifespans measured in the few millions of years. After which they scattered those elements to be picked up by the next generation of stars. So possible? Sure. Personally I think the third generation had a better chance, and certainly more metallicity for life to develop technical civilizations.

But the last part of the article is drivel. Nothing more than theocratic speculation, really. Non-chemical life? LOL! I feel like that's better suited for the script of a sci-fi channel movie.

"They've come to get us. They want our.... chemicals!"
 
Dec 10, 2023
2
0
10
Extremely broad definition of life? Yes. Useful? Not really. It's my personal belief that life is a bit more finicky. The universe is just too old for it not to have happened somewhere, somewhen though. The Fermi paradox has a simple answer. The galaxy is simply too vast, to say nothing about the larger universe. The distances are nearly inconceivable to the human mind. It's all a simulation anyway lol.
 
At the extreme densities within one second of the Big Bang, would not the immense gravitational field slow time down to a near stop?
The densest density in physics is a hole, self-inflicting. A Menger Sponge infinitely holing in its contraction of volume (to discreet quanta) infinitizing in its asymptotic flat surface area expansion.

The total energy of the universe always and forever equals zero.
 
Last edited:
Apr 16, 2023
15
0
10
The definition of life should be based on independent action. So the minimum requirement is the ability to store energy, use that energy later and replicate itself using that energy. Living things are heat engines and so life is possible only when the average temperature of the universe is less than the surface temperature of Earth. So 4 billion years, l think, is the best estimate.
 
At the extreme densities within one second of the Big Bang, would not the immense gravitational field slow time down to a near stop?
I have asked that question several times before, and the theorists are ridiculously quiet about it. Sometimes there is some mumbling about the density being uniform, so there is no "slow" and no "fast" in the early universe.

It seems that the simplifying assumptions used to get solutions to Einstein's field equations would be incompatible with spontaneous development of structures. And, out to the CMBR, it seems that theorists have been happy with the idea that things were uniform down to quantum fluctuation levels.

So, is life supposed to be derived from quantum fluctuations?

I have proposed an experiment to actually try to measure whether time dilation is a matter of being in proximity of mass, or if it requires a differential in mass distribution. Basically, we have the math and measurements to show that time dilation is covariant with escape velocity from a mass when measured outside of that mass. But, what happens to time dilation when it is measured as a function of depth inside the mass? Does it still follow the escape velocity, which continues to increase with depth? Or does it follow the local gravitational acceleration, which decreases with depth and reaches zero at the "center of gravity" of that mass.

I have seen people spout theory to answer that question, but that is just a head in the sand response. It seems to me that it would be a fundamental test worth conducting. Unfortunately, it is probably not so simple to do, given the changes in environment that can affect instrumentation as a function of depth in the Earth. But, I think it would be within our current technological capabilities. It just would not be cheap.
 
We have had this discussion before. Gravitational time dilation is a function of the gravitational field strength, not whatever weight a scale would show. This number is at a maximum at the center of the Earth. You would be floating but your clock would run slow to an outside observer.
 
Yes, we had this discussion before, and you provided your answer based on your interpretation of theory. That interpretation of theory would also predict, as you previously posted, that clocks in the early universe should run extremely slowly. But, theorists don't seem to want to discuss that.

Which calls into question the "seconds after the "Big Bang" stories we always see. What is a second under those conditions? Does "inflation" really need to exceed the speed of light for the universe to evolve as theorized? For that matter, what is the "speed of light" that "all observers agree on" when the whole universe is less than a (current) atom wide. so a "meter" is certainly not what we now perceive as a meter, either.

The whole theory seems inconsistent at that point, with respect to the sizes and times assumed, especially the "horizon" issues related to cause/effect and "smoothness".

The real problem seems to be that the theorists jump between a concept of an in-the-universe frame of reference and a concept of an outside-the-universe-with-constant-time-and-physical-dimensions frame of reference without explaining any differences.

As I said before, the test I proposed would directly address that theoretical position. It would be a useful test for the "show me" folks like myself who want some basis for realism in the theoretical discussions which seem to be only based on opinions.
 
Mar 8, 2022
233
23
585
If one were 1/2 radius from the Earth's center wouldn't the escape velocity increase as one moved outward until a maximum escape velocity at the Earth's surface then decreasing further from the surface one got?

One problem with DM is its absolute perfect distribution which makes it 'flat' which means no ner effect. It's equivalent to it not being there.
 
Mar 8, 2022
233
23
585
So maybe one could dig a deep enough hole to really sensitively test time dilation.
To see if it directly correlates with escape velocity.
 
You would be floating but your clock would run slow to an outside observer.
I think this answers your earlier question. Time ticks normally within one’s own inertial frame, even if just after a few seconds following the Bang.

Similarly, those falling into a BH will not see their own clocks act funny, ignoring spaghettification.
 
Questioner,
The escape velocity does increase as you go deeper into a mass. Think of it as the velocity/energy needed to rise to the surface as you go deeper.

On the other hand, what time does as you go deeper does not seem to have been measured.

And, the astronomy observations we have about how things behave as you go deeper into the mass of galaxies do not seem to match our theories - at least until you add "dark matter" to the theory. But, we still can't find dark matter, and it looks to me like there are some logical inconsistencies with that part of the theorizing, too.

So, why are we not trying to test the theory for time dilation below the surface of a massive object? Is it really an effect of local gravitational acceleration, or an effect of gravitational energy level difference? And, if energy level difference, compared to what - somewhere else or some theoretical zero?
 
Mar 8, 2022
233
23
585
Escape velocity might not be the precise term.
Maybe the additonal energy needed to overcome stasis positioning conditions?
If 3/4ths of a mass is on one side and 1/4 is on the other then there is only 1/2 mass to overcome exactly there.
So at the Earth's center (in an imaginary void) initiating a change takes almost zero energy.
So there might be zero time dilation at the Earth's center which is a really interesting idea.
Is that the question you are looking to experimentally determine?
 
The time dilation due to gravity, as one goes down a well, is the same as the time dilation due to the velocity of something falling down that well.
The velocity of that item, at any instant, is the same as the "escape velocity" from that point upward. Thus, clocks run slower at the center of the Earth.
I can't find where time dilation has been measured at the bottom of a well. I'll keep looking.
 
Mar 8, 2022
233
23
585
At the center of the Earth in an imaginary viod wouldn't one essentially be in freefall?

Gravity is the change in space in the gravity dimension.

Isn't freefall essentially 'flat', unchanging?

Supposedly we don’t feel/measure dark matter's gravity locally is because it is so perfectly uniformly distributed ('flat', unchanging).
It supposedly has zero net effect.
 
To be clearer, if an object falls down a well hole in a massive object, starting from an infinite distance above that well, then its velocity down the well will be the escape velocity from any position in that well. But, if it starts falling from zero velocity on the surface of that mass, then its velocity in the well is much below its escape velocity from the mass - if there is no frictional losses, then the velocity of the object starting at rest on the surface would only be enough to get it back to the surface if the velocity could be reversed.

And, it is true that the time dilation in the vicinity of a mass is directly related to the escape velocity (to infinity) from that mass. Which is one reason it seems almost like space is flowing into the mass, since the calculation for the time dilation is the same as looking at the differences in the rate of time passage at two different velocities associated with 2 different distances from the mass with 2 different escape velocities. But, mentioning that concept really sets off the theorists.

Anyway, yes, Questioner, what I would like some experimental verification for is the assertion that time dilation follows escape velocity, rather than local gravitational acceleration, at points inside a massive object. They all follow the same relationships outside of the mass, but that does not logically require them to follow the same relationships inside the mass. And, we are having trouble making our observations of velocities within the masses of galaxies fit our theories. So, why not do the experiment?

There is a school of thought that gravity doesn't "bend space" to make light curve, but rather it curves time to make light curve. See https://www.askamathematician.com/2...ved-space-time-cause-gravity-a-better-answer/ for example.

How we tend to think about things is based on our experiences, and we are finding that our experiences are not a good intuitive basis for some of our theoretical predictions. I think we are really bad at understanding time, for instance.
 
Mar 8, 2022
233
23
585
So i suppose the question is,
is gravity the 'elevation' in the gravity (time-speed dimension) or a change ('slope') in space-time in that dimension, or some more intricate/complex relationship in conjunction of them?
 
Mar 8, 2022
233
23
585
Are 1) gravity and time dilation synonymous (inseparable),
and is 2) gravity (that we know of) purely a function of inequitable distribution(s) of mass?
And so with uniform nonzero mass distributions is there still identifiable time dilation or not?
Certainly gravity as we know it would not be identifiable except as time dilation.

If only one element of an entangled pair encounters time dilation is its paired element drawn into dilated time as well? Would that increase the mass of the responding element?
 
Dec 10, 2023
2
0
10
Time dilation is special relativity. It happens only at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. We can't entangle anything beyond photons at this point, and they don't experience time dilation. Far as I know, nobody has entangled any particle with mass. How would you measure it? It would be incredibly difficult.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts