Abstract Theory: The Living Universe

[CWingfield]

This theory will certainly require the reader to think differently. It will also stretch the normal perception of time and size. I am putting this forward in the hopes that greater minds than myself will be able to advance the discussion – to one end or another.

Abstract Theory: The Living Universe – A Call for the Merging of the Fields of Astronomy and Biology
By: Christopher Wingfield

This theory first began to take shape as I attempted to visualize an atom in my mind. As I thought about the seemingly endless power and light of a nucleus, the only image that kept re-occurring to me was that of our sun. I took it one step further, and I started to imagine the sun as if it were a nucleus. To wit: If our sun were a nucleus, our solar system would form an atom. [Now, I know it is hard to grasp that you are currently sitting on an electron orbiting a nucleus. However, if you can oblige me this one courtesy, the theory is short, and I know the pain caused will be slight.]

If indeed the solar system was an atom, it led me to the next question: An atom residing in what? To find that answer, it required me to go back to the start.

In the beginning, the universe is described as "an extremely hot and dense state." Next, we have a Big Bang, and there is rapid expansion.

The "hot dense state", I would argue, is the exact state of a human egg (for lack of a better example) right before sperm comes into contact with it. A Big Bang, followed by rapid expansion, could be used to describe what happens after sperm initiates contact with the egg. Now, imagine if, at some point during that expansion, you were able to shrink down and take in the view from an electron orbiting around a random nucleus - what the view might look like. I think we are able to take in a similar view every time our sun retreats across the horizon.

So, to answer the original question, I feel our solar system is an atom that resides inside a living “host”. To further that point - it is when I tried to visualize what the view might look like from an atom inside my own body that I saw two further parallels.

First, I believe that advanced life shouldn’t exist in a healthy universe. In order to keep advanced life in check, the universe turns to its antibodies - in the form of asteroids. While asteroids are unable to destroy all life with a strike, they act as an excellent “reset button” to keep life from advancing too far up the evolutionary ladder. I would think the healthier the universe, the more strikes you would see.

Second, much like water/plasma makes up the majority of the mass of the human body, dark matter makes up the majority of the mass of the universe. I believe that dark matter is the “life blood” of the universe. The prevailing scientific opinion is that black holes pull in and crush matter down to a small dense ball. I see it as just the opposite. Though they pull in everything around them, I think black holes act as arteries that eventually open up and turn into veins. Therefore, instead of shrinking down, they will only get larger in size.

Finally, if this theory is correct, it would make it so every person could potentially be their own universe, possibly containing countless universes within each. You would also have to take into account the original universe "host" we are currently in, and those around it. The levels and numbers could be quite mind-blowing. Also, as we would currently be riding an electron around a nucleus, that would technically make us all sub-atomic particles. Perhaps, that could help explain some of the quantum mysteries we encounter.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

One thread per topic please. I know it seems like you'd get more input but it just ends up being confusing for the participants.

[jp255]

This theory is a little out there. You are drawing crude similarities between an atom and our solar system and using then proceeding to describe the solar system as an atom. If the sun is a nucleus, what is the neutron and proton of the sun? What element would the sun be in the larger universe? The electron shell structure certainly seems off, that's for sure!

 

You wrote:

First, I believe that advanced life shouldnt exist in a healthy universe. In order to keep advanced life in check, the universe turns to its antibodies - in the form of asteroids.

 

Have any evidence for this?

 

Not totally sure why this thread is in Biology forum.

[CharonY]

I can see no scientific basis for the any of the assertions. The similarities provided in the examples are crude at best and certainly share no structural similarities. Certainly speculations material.

[michel123456]

Quite astonishingly, on the basis of observation, the structure of the universe never repeats itself. It is a very big tentation to describe the atom as a planetary system, or the reverse. Things don't go that way. If you go deep in the infinitely small, you discover other kind of structures than those you have in macroscopic size. And when you observe the infinitely large, you discover other kind of structures. So that from the very small to the very big, there exist no repetition.

Galileo first observed that you cannot scale a horse and double its size just like that; the doubled horse would collapse. See a good small introduction here.

 

As it appears, you cannot change the scale of things just like that.

[CWingfield]

Crude? Perhaps. The general premise is: What if the Big Bang was a sperm/egg type event? Everything else led from there. It is for this is the reason I wanted it in the Biology forum.

 

Now, I do realize that this is "out there". However, I am not a scientist, and this is just a theory. It seemed that certain things could line up to make this plausible. However, that is why I wanted it to go forward to the greater minds. If it is completely wrong, so be it.

[SamBridge]

This theory will certainly require the reader to think differently. It will also stretch the normal perception of time and size. I am putting this forward in the hopes that greater minds than myself will be able to advance the discussion – to one end or another.

 

Abstract Theory: The Living Universe – A Call for the Merging of the Fields of Astronomy and Biology

By: Christopher Wingfield

 

This theory first began to take shape as I attempted to visualize an atom in my mind. As I thought about the seemingly endless power and light of a nucleus, the only image that kept re-occurring to me was that of our sun. I took it one step further, and I started to imagine the sun as if it were a nucleus. To wit: If our sun were a nucleus, our solar system would form an atom. [Now, I know it is hard to grasp that you are currently sitting on an electron orbiting a nucleus. However, if you can oblige me this one courtesy, the theory is short, and I know the pain caused will be slight.]

 

If indeed the solar system was an atom, it led me to the next question: An atom residing in what? To find that answer, it required me to go back to the start.

 

In the beginning, the universe is described as "an extremely hot and dense state." Next, we have a Big Bang, and there is rapid expansion.

 

The "hot dense state", I would argue, is the exact state of a human egg (for lack of a better example) right before sperm comes into contact with it. A Big Bang, followed by rapid expansion, could be used to describe what happens after sperm initiates contact with the egg. Now, imagine if, at some point during that expansion, you were able to shrink down and take in the view from an electron orbiting around a random nucleus - what the view might look like. I think we are able to take in a similar view every time our sun retreats across the horizon.

 

So, to answer the original question, I feel our solar system is an atom that resides inside a living “host”. To further that point - it is when I tried to visualize what the view might look like from an atom inside my own body that I saw two further parallels.

 

First, I believe that advanced life shouldn’t exist in a healthy universe. In order to keep advanced life in check, the universe turns to its antibodies - in the form of asteroids. While asteroids are unable to destroy all life with a strike, they act as an excellent “reset button” to keep life from advancing too far up the evolutionary ladder. I would think the healthier the universe, the more strikes you would see.

 

Second, much like water/plasma makes up the majority of the mass of the human body, dark matter makes up the majority of the mass of the universe. I believe that dark matter is the “life blood” of the universe. The prevailing scientific opinion is that black holes pull in and crush matter down to a small dense ball. I see it as just the opposite. Though they pull in everything around them, I think black holes act as arteries that eventually open up and turn into veins. Therefore, instead of shrinking down, they will only get larger in size.

 

Finally, if this theory is correct, it would make it so every person could potentially be their own universe, possibly containing countless universes within each. You would also have to take into account the original universe "host" we are currently in, and those around it. The levels and numbers could be quite mind-blowing. Also, as we would currently be riding an electron around a nucleus, that would technically make us all sub-atomic particles. Perhaps, that could help explain some of the quantum mysteries we encounter.

Yeah I did the same thing myself, there are similar shapes. Though there is no direct equation to relate all of matter and energy with each other, the process you are describing I think can be modeled as "fractal mathematics". But regardless with the current scientific definition of life, the universe itself isn't a living thing.

[CWingfield]

Thank you Michel. That is very enlightning. I wonder though - is an atom always an atom. In other words, could there exist a different form of an atom?

 

For the sake of argument, let's say the sun was a nucleus. I was asked where the proton and neutron were in the sun.

 

My question is: Could the structure of the atom itself possily have a completely different structure, in order to get around the scaling issue? In other words, would a nucleus necessarily have to have a proton and a neutron in order to make it an atom?

 

I do not wish wasting anyones time, and I don't want to be difficult or obtuse. I truely would like to learn these things, as I find them fascinating.

[SamBridge]

Essentially yes, electrons, neutrons and protons are all examples of fermions. You can have just random neutrons and protons floating about separately or in clumps such as in plasma or radioactive decay, but when electrons are no longer around a nucleus, it's not an atom anymore, it's just ions, an atom is the smallest unit of an element that sustains those element's properties, which doesn't happen without elections around a nucleus. As far as I know, there's no other way to have an atom.

A lot of your first post just doesn't really make sense, how would the universe even know if life is growing out of hand too much? Why would it really care anyway? A lot of your beliefs don't seem to be supported by any logical evidence.

Edited January 13, 2013 by SamBridge

[CWingfield]

As far as life growing out of hand. Look at our own bodies. How do our own antibodies know where to attack, and why? I am sure signals are sent and received. I would think the universe would care because it is a living being and is designed by nature for self preservation.

 

For an example, let's look at the dinosaurs. By most accounts, they had run amok across the planet - throwing it out of balance. Along comes an asteroid, and sets everything back to sorts. Now, whether that asteroid came by design or chance I do not know. However, the results were the same.

 

Unfortunately, I would see the human race in the same boat, and if (and I mean IF) this theory were right - I could see us potentially have a fleet of asteroids heading our way...

 

 

Sam - I forgot to respond to the first part of your response. In this scenerio, the planets would all be acting as electrons. I am basically viewing our solar system as a fusion source with viewable objects orbiting around it, and noticing the parallels.

 

 

 

Note to the Moderators: Feel free to move this thread to the Specualtions Forum. I now realise that, though the premise is based in Biology, the theory is too outside-the-box for the Biology Forum. I do apologise to the Biology Forum for muddling up your forum with my error in judgement.

Edited January 13, 2013 by CWingfield

[Phi for All]

I do apologise to the Biology Forum for muddling up your forum with my error in judgement.

!

Moderator Note

No need to apologize, this is easily fixed.

 

But when you said this:

 

 

However, I am not a scientist, and this is just a theory.

... you committed a scientific felony. I sentence you to twenty years of hard study. A theory is not synonymous with "an idea I've been mulling around for a while". A theory is as good as it gets in science, and is the result of tons of experiments, data, observation, prediction and peer review,

 

[SamBridge]

As far as life growing out of hand. Look at our own bodies. How do our own antibodies know where to attack, and why? I am sure signals are sent and received. I would think the universe would care because it is a living being and is designed by nature for self preservation.

 

For an example, let's look at the dinosaurs. By most accounts, they had run amok across the planet - throwing it out of balance. Along comes an asteroid, and sets everything back to sorts. Now, whether that asteroid came by design or chance I do not know. However, the results were the same.

 

Unfortunately, I would see the human race in the same boat, and if (and I mean IF) this theory were right - I could see us potentially have a fleet of asteroids heading our way...

 

 

Sam - I forgot to respond to the first part of your response. In this scenerio, the planets would all be acting as electrons. I am basically viewing our solar system as a fusion source with viewable objects orbiting around it, and noticing the parallels.

 

 

 

Note to the Moderators: Feel free to move this thread to the Specualtions Forum. I now realise that, though the premise is based in Biology, the theory is too outside-the-box for the Biology Forum. I do apologise to the Biology Forum for muddling up your forum with my error in judgement.

But what signals? What evidence is there for any signal and what form is it in? And what evidence do you have that it's in that form? There's just too many assumptions.

[CWingfield]

I will agree fully that I am making assumptions. This was the most tenuous part of the theory (and that is saying something), and a part that I considered leaving out altogether. The basis was simply that asteroids main purpose is to keep advanced life in check. They very well may be random strikes, and the human race just got lucky to hang on between strikes.

 

As to why a living universe would not want advanced life to take hold? I view it as almost like a baceria. It is fine if it is contained. The problem occurs when the bacteria begins to spread. If you were to view the human race like a bacteria, we would be a bacteria that has begun to leave our breeding ground and branch out - first to the moon, then Mars, then more planets, then outside of the solar system, etc.

 

If you are looking for proof, you will find none here - as I am not a scientist. My only goal was to lead the discussion in a different direction, and hopefully offer a fresh perspective.

[CWingfield]

Edit: I believe I can clarify this position a little better.

 

This theory has led me to believe that, inside our own bodies, a virus (I know I mentioned bacteria above, but I think a virus would be a better example) begins when our immune systems drop the ball at the atomic level. Then, atom infects atom within a cell and it spreads from there.

 

As a parallel, I see the universe as dropping the ball and allowing the human race to establish itself, and we are seeing the beginning stages of a similar type spreading of the human race out eventually beyond the solar system and out into the universe.

[SamBridge]

I will agree fully that I am making assumptions. This was the most tenuous part of the theory (and that is saying something), and a part that I considered leaving out altogether. The basis was simply that asteroids main purpose is to keep advanced life in check. They very well may be random strikes, and the human race just got lucky to hang on between strikes.

 

As to why a living universe would not want advanced life to take hold? I view it as almost like a baceria. It is fine if it is contained. The problem occurs when the bacteria begins to spread. If you were to view the human race like a bacteria, we would be a bacteria that has begun to leave our breeding ground and branch out - first to the moon, then Mars, then more planets, then outside of the solar system, etc.

 

If you are looking for proof, you will find none here - as I am not a scientist. My only goal was to lead the discussion in a different direction, and hopefully offer a fresh perspective.

But not only does you're body WILLINGLY harbor bacteria, especially to digest food, but there's still no scientific basis for your claims, they are merely metaphors at best. There's no reason why the universe would even think living things are bacteria. How do you know we aren't cells instead of pathogens? Then we would be essential to the universe. What if the universe only exists because we are perceiving it?

Edited January 15, 2013 by SamBridge

[CWingfield]

I will agree that bacteria was a poor choice, that is why I adjusted it to a virus. Therefore, in our own bodies, a virus would be created from a single rogue atom that somehow escaped the bodies immune system. Then, that infected atom will proceed to infect atom to atom within a cell. Now, within the context of our universe, we, as the human race, would be a type of virus in the very beginning stages of spreading out to slowly infect the universe.

 

I would really like to think the human race wasn't a pathogen, and that it was a benefit to the universe. However, the human race seems to have a "rape and pillage" gene hardwired into its collective DNA. Besides the obvious trashing of this planet at ground level, we already have a large amount of junk floating in orbit around earth. When you look at the damage done in the relatively short time of human existence, and then imagine how much damage we could do given trillions of years at our current rate of advancement - it should give pause.

 

I must say though, I had never considered us as cells. In this scenerio, I had always pictured our galaxy as a cell. That certainly will give my mind something to ponder....

[SamBridge]

I will agree that bacteria was a poor choice, that is why I adjusted it to a virus. Therefore, in our own bodies, a virus would be created from a single rogue atom that somehow escaped the bodies immune system. Then, that infected atom will proceed to infect atom to atom within a cell. Now, within the context of our universe, we, as the human race, would be a type of virus in the very beginning stages of spreading out to slowly infect the universe.

 

I would really like to think the human race wasn't a pathogen, and that it was a benefit to the universe. However, the human race seems to have a "rape and pillage" gene hardwired into its collective DNA. Besides the obvious trashing of this planet at ground level, we already have a large amount of junk floating in orbit around earth. When you look at the damage done in the relatively short time of human existence, and then imagine how much damage we could do given trillions of years at our current rate of advancement - it should give pause.

 

I must say though, I had never considered us as cells. In this scenerio, I had always pictured our galaxy as a cell. That certainly will give my mind something to ponder....

The existence of humans doesn't benefit or not benefit the universe, theoretically the amount of matter and energy stays fixed no matter what due to conservation laws, or is hypothetically continually being created by an expanding universe. Besides, if you think humans are bad wait until you see how real nature works.

[CWingfield]

!

Moderator Note

No need to apologize, this is easily fixed.

 

But when you said this:

 

 

... you committed a scientific felony. I sentence you to twenty years of hard study. A theory is not synonymous with "an idea I've been mulling around for a while". A theory is as good as it gets in science, and is the result of tons of experiments, data, observation, prediction and peer review,

 

Understood. From now on, I will simply refer to it as a notion. I will also accept my sentence, happily.

 

Now, I think I can further clarify this notion, though in a crude and simple way. Sam sees me as using metaphors to describe this notion. I prefer to see it as seeing patterns. Here is a pattern I see.

 

If you were to look at an atom in the human body, at a very crude level, you would see: a nuclear source with observable objects orbiting around it, suspended in water, with the chance that it may at some point be sucked into an artery.

 

If you look at a random star in the universe, at a crude level, you would see: a nuclear source with observable objects orbiting around it, suspended in dark matter, with the chance that it may at some point be sucked into a black hole.

[SamBridge]

 

If you were to look at an atom in the human body, at a very crude level, you would see: a nuclear source with observable objects orbiting around it, suspended in water, with the chance that it may at some point be sucked into an artery.

 

If you look at a random star in the universe, at a crude level, you would see: a nuclear source with observable objects orbiting around it, suspended in dark matter, with the chance that it may at some point be sucked into a black hole.

Yeah? And? So what? stars and humans are completely different structures. The similarities you point out are things you extrapolate between the objects, those objects themselves will just continue to exist however they exist regardless of your acknowledged of any sort of similarity between them. There isn't really any evidence for what you're saying, and there's hardly any logic, you still have to use at least logic and evidence with philosophy. I could say "stars are like potatoes because they are both round". That doesn't mean stars are full of starch. and it doesn't mean stars and potatoes are in any way identical objects.

Edited January 17, 2013 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

I don't think you'll find atoms suspended in water. Nor will you find electrons orbiting. Nor is an atom a 'nuclear source'.

 

Your metaphors are faulty.

[CWingfield]

Let me say that, in my defense, I very well knew that this notion was going to be on the edge of scientific possibility and that I was going to do it no favors in trying to explain it to this crowd (I must say, though, I was prepared for much more venom coming my way for my scientific naivety - so, I do appreciate everyones' collective restraint). Which is why I kept paring it back almost to an outline (yes, sadly there is even more, but the main points are here). However, this seemed important enough on the .0000000001% chance it could be right, that I might as well post it.

 

Now, I am not vain enough to think I have the answers to much of anything, let alone the universe, but, for whatever reason, this notion resonated deep within my core. It is just something I can't explain, as most other ideas I come up with tend to be rather vanilla and centainly don't resonate.

 

I felt that in order for this to be proved right, it would have to resonate to the core of a person wired very differently than I am. For again, I am no scientist. I could no sooner prove this, than I could flap my arms and fly to the moon.

 

Does that person even exist? No idea. If they do not, that is fine. There is no harm in trying, and I will have to chalk up the deep resonance as just a missed frequency.

- Side note: As I figure the question will come up as to how it could even be proved. I was wondering if you could look for traces of a DNA/RNA-type pattern to explain the order and structure of the expanding universe (again - if even possible to do). However, this is just a guess, I can't pretend to really know how to prove it.

[SamBridge]

Let me say that, in my defense, I very well knew that this notion was going to be on the edge of scientific possibility and that I was going to do it no favors in trying to explain it to this crowd (I must say, though, I was prepared for much more venom coming my way for my scientific naivety - so, I do appreciate everyones' collective restraint). Which is why I kept paring it back almost to an outline (yes, sadly there is even more, but the main points are here). However, this seemed important enough on the .0000000001% chance it could be right, that I might as well post it.

 

Now, I am not vain enough to think I have the answers to much of anything, let alone the universe, but, for whatever reason, this notion resonated deep within my core. It is just something I can't explain, as most other ideas I come up with tend to be rather vanilla and centainly don't resonate.

 

I felt that in order for this to be proved right, it would have to resonate to the core of a person wired very differently than I am. For again, I am no scientist. I could no sooner prove this, than I could flap my arms and fly to the moon.

 

Does that person even exist? No idea. If they do not, that is fine. There is no harm in trying, and I will have to chalk up the deep resonance as just a missed frequency.

 

- Side note: As I figure the question will come up as to how it could even be proved. I was wondering if you could look for traces of a DNA/RNA-type pattern to explain the order and structure of the expanding universe (again - if even possible to do). However, this is just a guess, I can't pretend to really know how to prove it.

You could argue that anything has an infinitessimally small probability, and in fact there are an infinite number of infenitessimally small possibilities, but that doesn't mean we should consider them, because if we did we would never get anywhere.

[CWingfield]

Alas, I have one final hail mary to throw at this notion before I place it in permanent cold storage...

 

Through the Higgs Boson, a Dr. Joseph Lykken has discovered the potential (inevitability?) for a second universe to be created and then consume our universe from within. This is set to occur much further down the road once our universe has reached a mature state.

 

I wonder if, instead of being completely consumed from within, our universe might be able to able to eject (or rather birth) this newly created universe.

 

My thinking was: If our universe were a living thing (just humor me for a bit here), it would seem possible that, as a living thing, it could reproduce. If it could reproduce, it would seem possible that a second universe could spawn within our own universe. Since sceintists have only scratched the surface of the information the Higgs Boson could provide, it makes me wonder if it could contain the information needed to prove a living universe.

 

Again, I know this is a reach. However, it is the best that this muggle to science will be able to do. Either it will bear fruit or rot on the vine.

[sunshaker]

 

Hi CWingfield,

I to think along the same lines, i believe our universe to be an electron, and every electron that makes us who we are is a universe, everything is within us and we are within everything,

 

I see us as multiuniversal entities, sometimes we have to step outside the box to see the bigger picture.

 

Here is a post i made at astralpulse if you are interested,

 

 

 

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_quantum_physics/extended_periodic_tablethe_electron_multiverse-t39639.0.html

[Ophiolite]

Hi CWingfield,

I to think along the same lines, i believe our universe to be an electron, and every electron that makes us who we are is a universe, everything is within us and we are within everything,

Let us suppose that I believe the universe to be a unicorn. How would we distinguish between your notion that it is an electron, with my notion that it is a unicorn?

 

We should have to seek evidence to support or refute both notions. Whichever gathered the best suite of evidence would be, provisionally, accepted as the more likely.

 

Do you see any way we can currently gather such evidence? I certainly don't, which renders the beliefs wholly valueless in any scientific sense. Would you agree?