The Evolution of Matter(?)

  • Thread starter baywax
  • Start date
  • #1
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1
At first I was completely against the use of the term evolution to describe non-living things changing... such as stars and planets etc..

But, when I thought about it, it became increasingly obvious that life is composed of matter and that matter had evolved in order to produce life as we know it.

Then I googled my questions about "the evolution of matter" and was surprised to find a number of papers on that very same topic.

My main question is... can we call the evolution of matter a result of "natural selection"? And the answer is beginning to look like ,yes we can. what do you think?

Here are some of the ideas and links to the thousands of papers on the net regarding the evolution of matter.



Gustave Le BON
The Evolution of Matter

Translated by F. Legge
The Walter Scott Publishing Co., Ltd. (London)
Ch. Scribner’s Sons (New York)
1909

This work is devoted to the study of the Evolution of Matter --- that is to say, of the fundamental components of things, of the substratum of the worlds and of the beings which exist on their surface.

It represents the synthesis of the experimental researches which I have during the last 8 years published in numerous memoirs. In their result they have shown the insufficiency of certain fundamental scientific principles on which rests the edifice of our physical and chemical knowledge.
http://www.rexresearch.com/lebonmat/lebonmat.htm


The Quantum Evolution of Matter:
The Mechanical Unit of Complexification
A Sketch

George L. Farre
Department of Philosophy
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C. USA 20057

What follows is a sketch of the Evolution of Matter, which began with a so-called Hot Bang estimated to have occurred some 15 giga years ago, and is still going on in the cosmic context. The focus on matter is due to a number of factors, the chief one being the observability of its behavior in Space-Time, the sole empirical ground for the representation of nature (Heelan). The evolutionary genesis of natural systems is thus reconstructed on the basis of the Science of Matter, and is articulated by means of its language, quantum mechanics (QM for short).
What natural systems have in common is their genesis in the same cosmos, born of a burst of radiant energy of enormous magnitude. This energy is the protean substrate of all that exist, matter being a compacted form of this radiation [Wilczek 1999: 11, 2000: 11]. The materialisation of radiant energy is presently thought to be the effect of vibrations of the primal energy field (Strings, M-branes, etc.), which becomes entangled in complex topologies. The complexity of these entanglements is governed in part by the density of the radiant energy, which decreases progressively as the cosmos expands, the energy filling an increasing volume of space-time where the relevant processes of energy transformation occur.
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol2-2/2-2 resolved/Farre_abstract.htm

There's plenty more of these if you take a look.
(this thread may belong somewhere else... please feel free to move it ... thank you)
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,512
545
"Evolution" is just an adjective. The word existed before Darwin's theory and so it is perfectly applicable to describe change.
 
  • #3
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1
"Evolution" is just an adjective. The word existed before Darwin's theory and so it is perfectly applicable to describe change.
Thanks chemisttree... maybe move this to the bin then?!!
 
  • #4
115
0
Well can we call it natural selection? Was there a point in which particles were created at random and the only stable particles formed from it were protons and electrons (or quarks in general)?
 
  • #5
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1
Well can we call it natural selection? Was there a point in which particles were created at random and the only stable particles formed from it were protons and electrons (or quarks in general)?
Look at the evolution of life. Natural selection results in an organism with traits that will adapt best to a specific environment. It also seems to go in a direction toward complexity or conglomeration. It appears that life started out as something less than a single cell and evolved from there into more complex combinations of cells working together because that configuration survived and interacted better with the environment. Can we say the same thing about the evolution of matter?
 
  • #6
205
0
So long as you don't confuse the two concepts I really don't think it matters, most people are able to tell the difference between the evolution of the stars and the survival of those most able to adapt, commonly called the fittest.

Look at the evolution of life. Natural selection results in an organism with traits that will adapt best to a specific environment. It also seems to go in a direction toward complexity or conglomeration. It appears that life started out as something less than a single cell and evolved from there into more complex combinations of cells working together because that configuration survived and interacted better with the environment. Can we say the same thing about the evolution of matter?
Not really but most people don't mix biology and star formation. :tongue2:

Besides overall the Universe, as far as we can tell, appears to be headed in the opposite direction ultimately.
 
  • #7
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1
So long as you don't confuse the two concepts I really don't think it matters, most people are able to tell the difference between the evolution of the stars and the survival of those most able to adapt, commonly called the fittest.



Not really but most people don't mix biology and star formation. :tongue2:

Besides overall the Universe, as far as we can tell, appears to be headed in the opposite direction ultimately.
I wonder if we can call it "the evolution and survival of processes" with regard to the formation of the elements and the establishment of natural laws. The natural laws of condensation, coagulation , gravity and so on did not just appear overnight... they had to evolve out of a process of natural selection as well.

edit) this would have to include the process of entropy. There had to be a natural selection of this process as well.
 
  • #8
115
0
See thats the problem, I don't think there was any choice. Matter didn't choose to be attracted by gravity, it has always existed. So one would think that the early universe would be almost identical every time because it lacks any variation compared to complex chemical bonding which causes us to exist.
 
  • #9
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1
See thats the problem, I don't think there was any choice. Matter didn't choose to be attracted by gravity, it has always existed. So one would think that the early universe would be almost identical every time because it lacks any variation compared to complex chemical bonding which causes us to exist.
I'm not sure if anyone knows or not but I don't think gravity has, as you suggest, "always existed"... what's your source for this statement.

Also, entropy may not have "always existed".

My suggestion is that these processes developed in the face of necessity or through "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" processes.

In the link below they're talking about how the universe started from a "low entropy state".

oops.... http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512070

I'm not sure how one would measure the state of entropy that was taking place 13 billion years ago... but it seems probable to me that during the BB and soon afterwards there was absolutely no entropy. My guess is that there would be no gravity as well and especially no coagulation. So, these states and processes had to develop or "evolve" at some point due to conditions and some criteria that allowed (or resulted in) the universe surviving.
 
  • #10
299
1
In order for there to be "natural selection" there must be reproduction with variation. Because atoms don't reproduce (each atom formed "separately" as far as I know, one does not cause another to form), it doesn't make sense to say that they evolve in the same sense that life does.
 
  • #11
107
0
Take a look at these two links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes#Fecund_universes"

Perhaps it is not that matter itself that is evolving, but the evolution of different universes whose parameters dictate the formation and stability of matter? The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe" [Broken].

The fecund universes theory by Lee Smolin says that universes with stable fundamental constant parameters (fine structure, strong coupling, particle masses) could give birth to new universes via black holes with slightly different parameters. This suggests that the more stable and "successful" universes would have more "offspring", and that they would be slightly different than the parent universe, possibly leading to a kind of universal evolution.

I hope at least some of this helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
205
0
I wonder if we can call it "the evolution and survival of processes" with regard to the formation of the elements and the establishment of natural laws. The natural laws of condensation, coagulation , gravity and so on did not just appear overnight... they had to evolve out of a process of natural selection as well.

edit) this would have to include the process of entropy. There had to be a natural selection of this process as well.
In a sense yes, but often creationists like to compare the two so I'm wary of using them in the same sentence. That said you could stretch evolution to say it was a form of negative entropy, creating order from disorder, but again you are anthropomorphising it too much, it is essentially just what happens given the initial variables x and y,z etc. Of course the Earth is not a system that is enclosed, like the Universe is, so it is not a system that stands on the laws of entropy.
 
  • #13
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1
Take a look at these two links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes#Fecund_universes"

Perhaps it is not that matter itself that is evolving, but the evolution of different universes whose parameters dictate the formation and stability of matter? The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe" [Broken].

The fecund universes theory by Lee Smolin says that universes with stable fundamental constant parameters (fine structure, strong coupling, particle masses) could give birth to new universes via black holes with slightly different parameters. This suggests that the more stable and "successful" universes would have more "offspring", and that they would be slightly different than the parent universe, possibly leading to a kind of universal evolution.

I hope at least some of this helps.
That's pretty damn cool.

And it still reflects the idea of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Its not anthropomorphic to look at the evolution of a universe in terms of natural selection etc... if anything... if there is a bias... it is "biopomorphic".

But, biomorphoic doesn't describe the process of "successful" selection and formation of matter or natural laws because life (bio) is part and parcel with the formation and natural selection of forms with in nature. Life is simply an extension of the evolution of a universe. Using the terms that were developed to describe the evolution of life does not mean we are showing bias or "biopomorphism"... it just means we do not have other terms for the "macro/micro processes" of universal evolution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on The Evolution of Matter(?)

  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
110
Views
9K
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
316
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
4K
Top