Ask A Genius 654: IC and Statistical Logic
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/12/19
[Recording Start]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s a thought: existence is a characteristic of entities that are real, which makes perfect sense. So, when we say the universe exists, we’re grounding it in statistical logic. This is a foundational aspect of informational cosmology. Within this framework, I had an insight…
Rick Rosner: In recent months, I’ve noticed a few things about informational cosmology (IC) versus the real world. We’ve discussed how the most verifiable aspect of IC might be its suggestion that the universe is much older than it appears. If we’ve correctly understood IC, despite lacking a substantial mathematical framework, the idea is that the universe’s age extends beyond its apparent Big Bang origin. If we find objects older than 14 billion years, it would strongly suggest that the universe is older than it seems. I believe I shared an article with you about this.
One area to examine is the creation of heavy elements, those heavier than iron. Normal fusion processes in stars can create elements up to iron. Typically, stars fuse hydrogen into helium, but as they age and hydrogen depletes, they start fusing helium into heavier elements. This leads to the formation of red giants. However, fusion stops at iron, as further fusion would consume more energy than it releases.
Iron is relatively low on the elemental list, I think in the 20s by atomic number, but naturally occurring elements extend up to uranium, which is atomic number 92. So, there’s a significant number of elements that need to be accounted for. The prevailing theory is that these heavier elements form in supernova explosions. When a star’s energy is exhausted and fusion ceases, the star collapses, leading to an explosion where heavy elements are created. However, calculations suggest that supernovas alone can’t account for the abundance of heavy elements. Another theory involves neutron stars colliding, but even that doesn’t seem to suffice.
I propose that if the universe is much older than its perceived age from the Big Bang, then there’s been ample time for these rare events to produce all the heavy elements we observe. In a significantly older universe, processes that destroy or erode celestial bodies also occur, preventing the universe from becoming overly saturated with black holes or heavy elements. In such an ancient universe, there would be enough time for the formation of heavy elements, dark matter, and evidence of colossal events like star collapses or collisions.
In the early universe, we wouldn’t expect to find much of these elements due to the lack of time for their formation. If we can’t reasonably explain the abundance of heavy elements like gold, it might indicate that the universe is older than it appears.
A theory without testable predictions is weak, as per the history and philosophy of science. A good theory should be verifiable; otherwise, it’s just conjecture. In our case, although not fully developed, a potential area for validation is searching for objects older than 13.8 billion years.
[Recording End]
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 