A new theory I made.

[Traveling_Templar]

Here’s a speculative theory combining the Miller-Urey experiment, life, and the Big Bang:

Imagine the primordial conditions simulated in the Miller-Urey experiment not just as the origin of life on Earth, but as a microcosmic event that could exist universally. In this view, primordial systems like Earth's prebiotic soup might arise throughout the cosmos, forming basic organic compounds.

Now, consider that once these systems evolve into lifeforms, they release energy as heat—a byproduct of metabolism. If such life proliferated on a universal scale, the cumulative heat energy could potentially interact with the surrounding universe. Over eons, this heat might act as a catalyst for cosmic-scale reactions.

The speculative leap is that this accumulated energy might reach a critical point, triggering a universal reaction akin to a chain explosion—the Big Bang. Essentially, life might have created feedback loops of energy intense enough to destabilize the fabric of pre-existing conditions, leading to an expansion event.

This theory reimagines the Big Bang not as a singular, uncaused event, but as the product of life-driven processes, merging the origins of biology and the cosmos into one interconnected phenomenon. It’s a stretch, but such ideas push the boundaries of how we think about existence.

 

Here’s the speculative theory in syllogistic form:

Premise 1: The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates that organic molecules, the precursors of life, can form spontaneously under specific conditions.
Premise 2: Lifeforms produce heat energy as a byproduct of metabolism.
Premise 3: If life exists universally and on a massive scale, the cumulative heat energy could interact with the cosmos, causing significant reactions.
Premise 4: The universe's conditions might reach a tipping point where accumulated life-driven heat energy triggers a cosmic expansion.
Conclusion: Therefore, the existence of widespread life might have catalyzed the Big Bang, creating the universe as we know it.

Although, i'm aware it's a stretch, I simply love theorizing about the creation of the universe, if there's any problems, let me know. I'll post a follow up to the theory soon.

-Gavin H.

And no, i'm not an AI, I just  type like one.

[Eise]

Hmmm... Don't stars produce much more energy than the metabolism of life? Latter is chemical reactions, stars nuclear reactions, which produce about a factor of 1 million more energy.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, Traveling_Templar said:

Here’s a speculative theory combining the Miller-Urey experiment, life, and the Big Bang:

Imagine the primordial conditions simulated in the Miller-Urey experiment not just as the origin of life on Earth, but as a microcosmic event that could exist universally. In this view, primordial systems like Earth's prebiotic soup might arise throughout the cosmos, forming basic organic compounds.

Now, consider that once these systems evolve into lifeforms, they release energy as heat—a byproduct of metabolism. If such life proliferated on a universal scale, the cumulative heat energy could potentially interact with the surrounding universe. Over eons, this heat might act as a catalyst for cosmic-scale reactions.

The speculative leap is that this accumulated energy might reach a critical point, triggering a universal reaction akin to a chain explosion—the Big Bang. Essentially, life might have created feedback loops of energy intense enough to destabilize the fabric of pre-existing conditions, leading to an expansion event.

This theory reimagines the Big Bang not as a singular, uncaused event, but as the product of life-driven processes, merging the origins of biology and the cosmos into one interconnected phenomenon. It’s a stretch, but such ideas push the boundaries of how we think about existence.

 

Here’s the speculative theory in syllogistic form:

Premise 1: The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates that organic molecules, the precursors of life, can form spontaneously under specific conditions.
Premise 2: Lifeforms produce heat energy as a byproduct of metabolism.
Premise 3: If life exists universally and on a massive scale, the cumulative heat energy could interact with the cosmos, causing significant reactions.
Premise 4: The universe's conditions might reach a tipping point where accumulated life-driven heat energy triggers a cosmic expansion.
Conclusion: Therefore, the existence of widespread life might have catalyzed the Big Bang, creating the universe as we know it.

Although, i'm aware it's a stretch, I simply love theorizing about the creation of the universe, if there's any problems, let me know. I'll post a follow up to the theory soon.

-Gavin H.

And no, i'm not an AI, I just  type like one.

Haven't you got your chronology back to front, though? The Big Bang preceded the development of life by billions of years. You would need a time machine for life to go back and cause it! 

And then consider: life requires complex biochemical molecules. These molecules require (i) a range of elements to be present and (ii)  a temperature regime below ~350K, so that their complex structure is not disrupted by thermal motion.

After the Big Bang, it took a while before any chemical elements at all were formed, and when they were, there was initially only H, He and a bit of Li. All the heavier elements were formed later, by nuclear fusion in stars. Also, initial temperatures after the Big Bang were very high. It was only after a considerable degree of expansion had taken place that cool enough locations developed in which complex molecules could remain stable.     

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Traveling_Templar said:

Lifeforms produce heat energy as a byproduct of metabolism.

This doesn’t happen spontaneously; metabolism requires intake of whatever is used to fuel the metabolism. 

5 hours ago, Eise said:

Hmmm... Don't stars produce much more energy than the metabolism of life? Latter is chemical reactions, stars nuclear reactions, which produce about a factor of 1 million more energy.

On a per-reaction basis. Then you have the number of particles/entities engaging in the reactions. The fusion rate in the sun is almost 10^38 reactions/sec

[Traveling_Templar]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Criticism 1: Haven't you got your chronology back to front, though? The Big Bang preceded the development of life by billions of years. You would need a time machine for life to go back and cause it! 

Counter Argument 1: This theory is based off of the   The quantum eternity theorem.

This goes off of the predispisition, that since energy is eternal, it would either preserve/ and or create life through existing matter, Eg; the Miller-Urey experiment.

Need to go to school, so i'll fully reply to these later.

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Traveling_Templar said:

Counter Argument 1: This theory is based off of the   The quantum eternity theorem.

This goes off of the predispisition, that since energy is eternal, it would either preserve/ and or create life through existing matter, Eg; the Miller-Urey experiment.

Need to go to school, so i'll fully reply to these later.

What is the quantum eternity theorem?

[Traveling_Templar]

I got the name wrong. Poincaré recurrence theorem. 

That's the correct one.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Hmmm... Don't stars produce much more energy than the metabolism of life? Latter is chemical reactions, stars nuclear reactions, which produce about a factor of 1 million more energy.

True, however, this theory proposes that the production of life happens overtime. For example, let's say this is true and there was a universe before. The surplus and or creation of life through existing matter indicates that (because some extremophiles can) emitted such a mass in a large area that it caused significant heat through body heat. However, the stars have died out, and cannot reproduce like lifeforms.

9 hours ago, exchemist said:

Haven't you got your chronology back to front, though? The Big Bang preceded the development of life by billions of years. You would need a time machine for life to go back and cause it! 

And then consider: life requires complex biochemical molecules. These molecules require (i) a range of elements to be present and (ii)  a temperature regime below ~350K, so that their complex structure is not disrupted by thermal motion.

After the Big Bang, it took a while before any chemical elements at all were formed, and when they were, there was initially only H, He and a bit of Li. All the heavier elements were formed later, by nuclear fusion in stars. Also, initial temperatures after the Big Bang were very high. It was only after a considerable degree of expansion had taken place that cool enough locations developed in which complex molecules could remain stable.     

Well secondly, this is going off of the assumption that the lifeforms produced at such a rate that it outpaced the destruction at which it was made. Although it does sound a bit ridiculous, assume there were tardigrades that reproduced at that crazy rate and quickly. Not impossible, given enough time. 

Thirdly, this is also going off of the theory that there has always been (the universe) and many big bangs have happened and always happened due to this process, and that life is a biproduct of the universe and that matter ( non living matter ) can create living organisms, see the mention of the Miller-Urey experiment.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, Traveling_Templar said:

I got the name wrong. Poincaré recurrence theorem. 

That's the correct one.

True, however, this theory proposes that the production of life happens overtime. For example, let's say this is true and there was a universe before. The surplus and or creation of life through existing matter indicates that (because some extremophiles can) emitted such a mass in a large area that it caused significant heat through body heat. However, the stars have died out, and cannot reproduce like lifeforms.

Well secondly, this is going off of the assumption that the lifeforms produced at such a rate that it outpaced the destruction at which it was made. Although it does sound a bit ridiculous, assume there were tardigrades that reproduced at that crazy rate and quickly. Not impossible, given enough time. 

Thirdly, this is also going off of the theory that there has always been (the universe) and many big bangs have happened and always happened due to this process, and that life is a biproduct of the universe and that matter ( non living matter ) can create living organisms, see the mention of the Miller-Urey experiment.

I can’t make sense of this, I’m afraid. 

[Eise]

11 hours ago, Traveling_Templar said:

True, however, this theory proposes that the production of life happens overtime. For example, let's say this is true and there was a universe before. The surplus and or creation of life through existing matter indicates that (because some extremophiles can) emitted such a mass in a large area that it caused significant heat through body heat.

But you know that life needs energy, it does not produce it. The body heat stems from processing food, which in the end is 'conserved energy' of the sun by plants e.g. Plants do not grow without this external energy source. You run in definite problems with the second law of thermodynamics...

[Traveling_Templar]

11 hours ago, Eise said:

But you know that life needs energy, it does not produce it. The body heat stems from processing food, which in the end is 'conserved energy' of the sun by plants e.g. Plants do not grow without this external energy source. You run in definite problems with the second law of thermodynamics...

I too am suggestting that these extremophiles fed off of the existing matter.

19 hours ago, exchemist said:

I can’t make sense of this, I’m afraid. 

Do you disagree with it? Or can you not understand? If it's the former, Well sorry. If it's the ladder, let me oversimplify it without trying to lose extreme vital information.
 

Premise 1: The general premise of it is that, the universe is infinite, life has always been and always will be, the universe forms off of the heat of life; once all time of the universe runs out and most of the stars are dead and many of the galaxies are dead, etc, only extremophiles, and existing matter and energy remain. 

If all microbial lifeforms do all die out, they are created through matter, and then feed off of it as a source of energy to get it, causing them to emit heat in such a large area that, the cold universe, not knowing what to do with this heat essentially, causes an explosion essentially, eg; the big bang.

Hope you understand now, agreeing with it is up to you, and I respect if you do or don't.

[exchemist]

17 minutes ago, Traveling_Templar said:

I too am suggestting that these extremophiles fed off of the existing matter.

Do you disagree with it? Or can you not understand? If it's the former, Well sorry. If it's the ladder, let me oversimplify it without trying to lose extreme vital information.
 

Premise 1: The general premise of it is that, the universe is infinite, life has always been and always will be, the universe forms off of the heat of life; once all time of the universe runs out and most of the stars are dead and many of the galaxies are dead, etc, only extremophiles, and existing matter and energy remain. 

If all microbial lifeforms do all die out, they are created through matter, and then feed off of it as a source of energy to get it, causing them to emit heat in such a large area that, the cold universe, not knowing what to do with this heat essentially, causes an explosion essentially, eg; the big bang.

Hope you understand now, agreeing with it is up to you, and I respect if you do or don't.

Nope, it still seems rather nonsensical, to be honest. You are dealing with neither the point I made, about life being impossible at the high temperatures of the early universe, nor the other point about life merely releasing low temperature waste heat, converted from the stored chemical energy in nutrients and from high temperature energy absorbed from the radiation from the sun  - and similar stars in other solar systems.

There is no reason to think that life contributes greatly to the rundown of energy , i.e. the increase in entropy, of the universe, when there are so many other large-scale inorganic processes that already do that.

So I can’t at the moment see how your idea can get off the ground.

[Traveling_Templar]

I'm going to write a paper on it explaining it indepth. Later, i'll show you once it's done. It'll get off of the ground.

Trust me.