The Foreground of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

Karki, Ravi

doi:10.3126/hj.v1i0.5186

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The major phase transitions and phases of complexity growth in the Universe, as well as their dating in Notes. Data sources for Tables 2 : Baumann, 2022;Chaisson, 2001;Coc, 2017;Coc et al, 2014;Gorbunov & Rubakov, 2018;Hawking, 2009;Karki, 2010;Loeb, 2006;May et al, 2008;Morison, 2015;Mukhanov, 2005;Panov, 2008;Petter, 2013;Ryden, 2017;Spier, 2010;Sunayev & Chuba, 2009. Note that the list of phase transitions above does not include the transition from the radiationdominated era to the matter-dominated one around 47 thousand years after the Singularity and the transition from the matterdominated era to the dark-energy-dominated one [accompanied by the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe] around 9.8 billion years after the Singularity, as both of these important milestones of the cosmic history do not appear to have been accompanied by any clear increase in complexity.…”

Section: Decelerating Universal (Cosmic) Evolutionary Development Aft...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity growth patterns in the Big History: Preliminary results of a quantitative analysis

Korotayev

2024

JBH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents preliminary results of a quantitative analysis of two patterns of complexity growth in the Big History – decelerating universal (cosmic) evolutionary development evidenced in the Universe for a few billions of years after the Big Bang (around 13.8 billion BP) and accelerating global (biosocial) evolutionary development observed for about 4 billion years on the planet Earth since the emergence of life on it and until the early 1970s. It is shown that the first pattern can be described with an astonishing accuracy (R2 = 0.999996) by the following equation: y = C1/(t-t1*), where y is the rate of the universal complexity growth (measured as a number of phase transitions [accompanied by the growth of complexity] per a unit of time), C1 is a constant, and t-t1* is the time since the Big Bang Singularity (t1*~13.8 billion years BP). In the meantime, it was earlier shown that the second pattern could be described with an almost as high accuracy (R2 = 0.9989 to 0.9991) by the following equation: y = C2/(t2*-t), where y is the rate of accelerating global (biosocial) evolutionary development, C2 is another constant, and t2*-t is the time till the 21st century Singularity (t2*, estimated to be around 2027, or 2029 CE). Thus, the post-Big-Bang hyperbolic decrease of universal complexity growth rate and the hyperbolic increase of the growth rate of global complexity in the last 4 billion years proceeded following the same law. We are dealing here with a perfect symmetry: (1) the rate of the universal (cosmic) complexity growth decreases when we move from the Big Bang Singularity, whereas the rate of the global complexity growth increase when we approach the 21st century Singularity; (2) more specifically, as the time since the Big Bang Singularity increases n times, the universal (cosmic) complexity growth rate decreases the same n times, whereas when the time till the 21st century Singularity decreased n times, the global complexity growth rate increased the same n times. A somehow more complex symmetry is observed as regards the interaction between energy dynamics and complexity growth within both processes. The implications of the symmetry of both patterns are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Decelerating Universal (Cosmic) Evolutionary Development Aft...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity growth patterns in the Big History: Preliminary results of a quantitative analysis

Korotayev

2024

JBH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The major phase transitions and phases of complexity growth in the Universe, as well as their dating in Notes. Data sources for Tables 2 : Baumann, 2022;Coc, 2017;Coc et al, 2014;Gorbunov & Rubakov, 2018;Hawking, 2009;Karki, 2010;Loeb, 2006;May et al, 2008;Morison, 2015;Mukhanov, 2005;Panov, 2008;Petter, 2013;Ryden, 2017;Spier, 2010;Sunayev & Chuba, 2009. Note that the list of phase transitions above does not include the transition from the radiationdominated era to the matter-dominated one around 47 thousand years after the Singularity and the transition from the matterdominated era to the dark-energy-dominated one [accompanied by the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe] around 9.8 billion years after the Singularity, as both of these important milestones of the cosmic history do not appear to have been accompanied by any clear increase in complexity.…”

Section: Decelerating Universal (Cosmic) Evolutionary Development Aft...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2024

JBH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although complexity plays a significant role in big history, substantial gaps persist in our comprehension. While the papers in this issue do not provide definitive answers to these gaps, they contribute to the ongoing discussion on how to address these issues and propose potential pathways for resolution. These gaps encompass measurement, focus, organization, relevance, consistency, and interpretation. While there may not be unanimous agreement on the specific direction to take, the academic discussions evident in these papers aim to elucidate the issues and foster understanding within the expansive and diverse scientific community.The theme of this special edition is "Evolving Continuously to Bridge Substantial Gaps in Our Understanding of Complexity." Comprising 14 articles, including this Introduction, the issue is organized with a focus on complexity growth, evolution, and various aspects. The articles on growth explore methodologies for measuring, assessing, and examining the symmetry of singularity trends in complexity within the framework of Big History. Those addressing complexity and evolution delve into perspectives such as chaotic cascades, general evolution, selection, and chemical evolution. The aspects section encompasses discussions on integration with traditional academic disciplines, handling the multidirectional aspects of complexity, practical applications of complexity science, proposing an approach to interpreting the Big History journey, and comparing the process to cybernetic models.The significance of the concept of complexity, along with its various facets, is not merely substantial; it forms the very structure of understanding. When contemplating the broadest concepts that can encompass the entirety of Big History or the field of evolutionary studies, only a handful stand out. These include notions tied to evolutionary dynamics, such as development, change, and progress, yet these concepts often spark debates. Central among them are energy and entropy, and to a lesser extent, self-organizationencompassing crucial aspects of energetic and structural ordering. Information is also a contender, though the period at which it becomes an independent aspect of evolution remains a subject of debate. However, we contend that one can fundamentally discuss information from the inception of Big History.Arguably, few would dispute that complexity stands as one of the key concepts in Big History. Yet, given the substantial gaps in our understanding of the complexity concept, any novel ideas or hypotheses are warmly welcomed.The complexity growth papers delve into fundamental questions of measurement, assessment, and symmetry of patterns. Nick Nielsen ("A Complexity Ladder for Big History") suggests that big history could draw inspiration from astronomy, where a unifying ladder of distance measurement was constructed to handle diverse spatial and temporal scales. This ladder extended from the size and distances of the Earth-moon-sun system to other stars and galaxies, allowing telescopes across the ele...

show abstract

“…At the end SBBN predicts that the Universe is composed of about 75% of Hydrogen and 25% of 4 He and small amounts of D, 3 He, 7 Li and 6 Li. In addition, insignificant amounts of 3 H, 7 Be and 8 Be were formed, but these are unstable and are quickly lost again (e. g., Karki, 2010). Figure 2 shows the periodic table of elements about 250 seconds after the Big Bang.…”

Section: On Big Bang Nucleosynthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Nucleosíntesis en el cosmos: lo que creemos que sabemos y las preguntas por venir

Uribarri¹,

Cervantes-Cota²

2022

CES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Se da una breve descripción de lo que creemos saber hasta el día de hoy sobre la nucleosíntesis de elementos en el universo. Por medio de una reseña cronológica se indican los periodos y mecanismos de su formación. Se formula una prospectiva crítica sobre investigaciones futuras que permitirán validar, modificar o rechazar hipótesis hechas, las cuales involucrarán observaciones conjuntas que abarcan mediciones más finas de radiación cósmica de fondo, cúmulos de galaxias y de ondas gravitacionales producidas por choques de estrellas de neutrones. La información obtenida se combinará con restricciones dadas por modelos teóricos. Tal vez, muchas dudas actuales serán aclaradas, pero nuevas preguntas surgirán.

show abstract

The Foreground of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

Abstract: Not available.Key words: Big Bang NucleosynthesisThe Himalayan Physics Vol.1, No.1, May, 2010 Page: 79-82 Uploaded Date: 29 July, 2011

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Complexity growth patterns in the Big History: Preliminary results of a quantitative analysis

Complexity growth patterns in the Big History: Preliminary results of a quantitative analysis

Untitled

Nucleosíntesis en el cosmos: lo que creemos que sabemos y las preguntas por venir

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About