Think Science .

How can we judge the degree of complexity in the universe to be too much, too little or just right ? What are we comparing it too ? If we are comparing it to the complexity perceived by us in the problems of our day to day lives, then I argue that it must appear complex to us. This is why.

Evolution equips creatures to handle their given circumstances best with minimal resources. That is why tigers cannot run ten times faster than gazelles, which would have upset the predator-prey cycle too much. Tigers and gazelles have evolved together to achieve running speeds which form an equilibrium of sorts. Man too has evolved in a manner which has sharpened his mental abilities enough to tackle problems he faces in his day to day life, but not enough to solve the Schrodinger equation for all the particles in a glass of water, mentally. His circumstances have not necessitated that acumen, and thus he has not developed it.

Thus, it is inevitable that a species would find itself in a position where it’s skills are sufficient to survive with a fair chance, but not advanced enough to outdo all problems it can conceive of. So, while the universe might seem extremely complex to us, and we may wonder how “so much” complexity could have come into being, this notion of “so much” complexity is more a result of the bounds of our comprehension than a feature of the universe itself.

Quite interesting. It raises few questions in my mind. Why the used gigantic PHENIX detector to record virtually every type of particle expelled at a right angle from the collision. After analyzing their data, the team found significantly fewer particles than conventional theory predicts. What do we mean by detectors and recorders capable of recording virtually every thing that is scattered by the collision? Do these record anything if it is dark?

My this quriy is based on the recent observation of the Dark Energy occupying as high as 72% of universe. If this energy which is extremely cold happens to be a constituent of mass and is released as impact of the collision would not get detected and recorded and would account for the missing mass that is the difference in the expected and detected particles. Based on this and such many other scientific experimental results/observations and other possible interpretations I am working on a new conceptual theory for “Beginning of Universe as duality and formation of particles with mass and observed properties and characteristics” which is nearing completion. This theory is purely philosophical as I am very poor at math. There are no mathematical expressions in it.

Abiogenesis simply that the life here on earth once came into existence from non-living (and replicating) things. Theists who criticize Abiogenesis, should, by the way, know that creationism too is a type of Abiogenesis. God created life from non-life. Abiogenesis is a fact, regardless of how we think it happened. There are many theories and we’re still trying to crack the code. The theory which I find convincing (well, yeah I haven’t read many either) is given by a Scottish Chemist, Cairns Smith. Although I haven’t read his book, R. Dawkins describes his theory at quite a length. A fan site explains the theory very nicely.

[http://originoflife.net/]

For anyone interested, Cairns Smith was written a book “Seven clues to the Origins of Life”. The book is presented in a Sherlock Holmes kind of a mystery. For people who are seriously in this field, There’s a book “Genetic Takeover” by the same author.

Consider a large library. Let us assume that the books are neatly arranged in the beginning. Now, you open the library and people start coming in, take books, read, return, and they do not, in most cases, return it to the exact section from which they took it.

It is immediately obvious that, assuming no one from the staff comes and puts the books in orderly condition again, the number of possible combination’s in which the library will be messed up is always far far more than the number of possible combination’s in which it will be neat, like before.

This, to put it simply, the second law of Thermodynamics. Any system (here, library) which is isolated from external energy (here, staff members don’t re-arrange the books) will never decrease in entropy (here, the disorder of the books), it’s entropy will either remain the same or increase (since the total number of combination’s which result in disorder are always far more than the total number of combination’s which result in orderliness).

This makes many people (mostly creationists) think that the theory of evolution is false since any system (here, earth) kept on its own will always tend to increase in its entropy and, therefore, life cannot evolve. (Life is information neatly stored, opposite of high entropy)

But, the Earth is not an Isolated system. Earth continuously receives energy from the sun. Apart from that, unlike what most creationists think, Evolution via natural selection is not a random process. Infact, Natural Selection is the complete opposite of randomness.

Super symmetric string theory does need 11 dimensions for exploiting the T and M symmetries but mathematically speaking, the number of dimensions cannot go to infinity. The reason string theory is gaining ground is because of the fact that it does not lead to infinities while considering fundamental particles as point particles does.

This is very similar to how Maxwell and Pauli both described the electrons behavior pretty accurately but one used a wave analogy while the other treated the electron as a particle. String theory is emerging as a good model for describing sub atomic interactions but that does not guarantee its physical reality. Science fiction writers have probably glorified the term “dimensions” and hence the common misconception that it is a fantastic concept. Mathematically speaking, constructing a higher dimensional set using matrices is kid stuff actually and any communication theorist (dealing with CDMA, Viterbi algorithms etc) does this on a daily basis.