[thebrain13 (OP)]

Okay, knowing that this is the same as standard evolution but just with extra stuff added helps. Some more questions:

(1) Are the photons you propose generated by the latent heat in living organisms (i.e. are these thermal photons)?

(2) The photons emitted by living things typically have wavelengths on the order of hundreds of nanometers whereas nucleotides are less than one nanometer in length. How can a meaningful transfer of information occur when the size difference is so extreme?

(3) How much information is encoded per photon? Is it a single nucleotide or many? What is the mechanism that translates nucleotide sequences into photons and vice versa?

(4) How does the genetic machinery of the cell know where to insert these new mutations into the DNA without disrupting existing genes? Since there would be a wide array of photons being received with a variety of genetic information encoded on them, how does the cell distinguish between the genetic information that would be beneficial from that which is detrimental? Keep in mind that a gene that benefits one organism might do nothing for (or worse, even harm) another organism.

Okay, now we are talking. All four of these are great and pointed questions. We'll go one at a time.

1. Anything source of energy that creates photons is fair game. Heat is certainly one. Photosynthesis/sunlight is another. The biggest contributor is ion pumps, which is why I think the body uses 50% of its calories on just that. 25% comes from just the sodium potasium ion pump but there are other pumps. This is also why Eukaryotes attach their nucleus and organelles to the membrane where the electrical gradient is greatest. Prokaryotes who don't have this pump and don't have a true nucleus ( eukaryote actually means "true nuclei") does not bound their organelle or genetic material to the membrane. Another clue to its function.

It is also interesting to note that the brain uses 70% of it's energy for Ion pumps alone. If you also consider each neuron has slightly unique DNA this means the brain could have huge potential to gather information. This process is called somatic mosaicism and it leads to unique variance in DNA in each neuron. I'm not suggesting telepathy here, but I do think the brain can use "directed" mutations to drive learning and novelty as well. The immune system also uses somatic mosaicism to create new antibodies. This is a whole new discussion if you want to go down that road. We can form a whole new concept of the brain and immune system as well.

2. Its true that the nanometer length of DNA is pretty short 2.5 nanometers putting it in the X ray range. But we must also recognize that DNA is not the only helix there is. Because the DNA gets coiled into histones and then histones are coiled into nucleosomes, and then nucleosomes, get coiled into coils, and then coils get coiled into super coils. The biggest Helix structure is the supercoil and that is 250 nanometers in the U.V. That's why in my first post I did the math for how many photons can be created based on the energy level of a 250 nanometer photon. This is the photon that matters.

I would like to note here, that just because my theory says that waves play a role does not mean it is the ONLY thing that can play a role. I'm not saying everything every biologist ever created is stupid, I'm saying we need both of these viewpoints to paint the whole picture. My theory is superior when we are discussing the big picture and the chromosome as a whole.

Could X rays play a role on building one Gene? Possibly but I need to learn more about that. It could be genes are independent of the larger wave, or that there are other little photons being collectively shared by nearby organisms. But I do think that U.V. photons can dominate the functioning of the chromosome at large. It's tough to answer questions definitively when there is more than one viable option. I'm entertaining a few potential setups at the same time right now. It's tough to answer what x or why is if all you know is x+y=8. I think the real answer is some hybridized mechanical version, but generally speaking I'd like to entertain a pure field concept just to keep it simpler and to stress the parts people don't really know how to think about yet.

3. Two more very good, very loaded questions. The first one is, how much information can the photon carry? First off, I'd like to point out that there is a Quantum mechanics technical definition of information and I'd like to stress that we are NOT talking about that. If by information you mean, is it possible that we could transmit the entire genome on one photon, I would say absolutely yes. Does it is less clear. However, there are potential ways around a 250 nanometer length photon creating 2.5 nanometer length structures. The simplest answer could be that wave-functions have structures on them that are smaller than their wavelength. Like you could say an ocean wave has an amplitude of 8 feet, but a surfer could make a smaller wave on that wave from his board. He could then throw a pebble on his on wave on the bigger wave making three waves occupying the same space simultaneously. Can a single photon be the constituent of many waves simultaneously creating the many waves of the entire genome, I'm not sure, but I can't say that doesn't exist. I need more experts from the physics side around me to ask questions like this. And even if that was physically impossible, a bigger structure could be used that was capable of building a smaller structure afterwards. The pure field theory supports the former concept, the hybrid the latter. I would say though, I definitely think waves play a role somewhere or else there is no good reason DNA would be structured like that.

The second part of your question is. How do (chromosomes) create photons and vis a vis? Again there are a couple potential good models here for how photons build chromosomes. For the wave model we could say that photons being replicated over  the photons impart momentum on atoms directly based on the average potential of their wavefunctions summing up to impart physical change directly. The other concept is that these wavefunctions simply provide a "guide" for other structures to know where to build them by the presence of the photons. For instance if there are more photons in this quadrant build an A if there are the most in this quadrant build a T etc. Either one works but the former is the more pure field concept. I've watched a lot of animation videos on how the body builds itself, but I often find myself pondering, how much of these animations are "real" and how much is just what people think? How far are scientists over their skies when they claim they know how the body builds itself? I'm not sure.

4. The question of how the body differentiates good photons from bad ones is related to how the chromosome "builds" photons.

The first thing to realize is that the chromosome does not "build" the photons but photons build photons. Like a laser. A laser is an energy source in a mirrored cavity. The photons bounce around in this cavity stimulating the creation of more photons just like them.

This is basically the model of a chromosome and the concept behind the threshold point I wrote a lot about about in an earlier post. The role the chromosome plays is it creates a condition that only a very small amount of photons can achieve, which is to reach the Threshold Product which I define as multiplying the average number of bounces a photon makes when it enters the chromosome before escaping by the average amount of photons created per bounce.

So if the average amount of bounces a photon makes when it hits a chromosome is 20 as long as there is a greater than 5% chance of creating a photon per bounce the photon will replicate faster than it can escape which I call reaching the threshold point. If the threshold point is above 1, the photons will replicate indefinitely. Once this happens there will be many many photons capable of imparting physical change, which could be maintaining the structure of the chromosome or aiding in some sort of physical action in the body, whatever that may be.

Actually when I talk about a tumor photon mutating and attacking another chromosome, we need to think about it in the context of this new outlook of the chromosome. For starters, a photon can only hihack a healthy chromosome if it can outcompete the photons that are already there. If the threshold product for a tumor is higher than a healthy photon your body will lose control of the cell to the tumor and now you have problems.

This only happens if the tumor wavefunction matches the geometry of the chromosome better than the one that actually built the chromosome which is not usually the case unless one of two things happen.

One, the chromosome gets damaged. What I'm suggesting is that damage to the chromosome is not automatically permanent, but becomes permanent when it gets damaged while simultaneously encountering a photon whose wavefunction matches the damaged chromosome better than the original, that's when the damage can become a permanent mutation. Without that rogue photon the original photons still have an opportunity to rebuild. That is the connection between damage and tumors.

So photons can not actually dictate change in other chromosomes, but what they can do is they can make change permanent if something accidentally mutates, tumors specialize in capitalizing on this mistake, but usually mutations come from other lifeforms like yourself.

The other mistake that can lead to tumors is if the energy around the chromosome is to high. This may allow other populations of photons to cohabitate with the chromosome and if their numbers rise to high for too long they may begin to cause physical change in the chromosome to their advantage, causing their numbers to rise even higher until they outcompete the original and the body loses control of the cell to the tumor. Those are the two general ways I'm proposing tumors enter the body. These visuals explain everything I've ever learned about cancer if you think about them.

How does the body know that a photon is good or bad? Well it doesn't per se, but what it does know is that if a photon is able to replicate itself in your 3 billions base pairs better than anything else, probabilistically it's almost assuredly on your side and almost definitely from some form of successful life and if it's not, well you are screwed anyways so you might as well listen.

Interestingly though, when you think about it. Even though we associate tumors with death, tumors are not trying to kill you at all. A tumor is trying to exist and if you die, it dies. This is why tumors target non vital organs more like the breasts and the prostate, not things like the heart and why they spread the load through metastasis maximizing size without shutting down any individual organ. It's your body that wants you to die if it's too aggressive so they can't infect other versions of you somewhere else. This is why there is a 30% chance you make it to 90 and a 2.5 chance out of 10,000! that you make it to 100. Basically you are guaranteed to die within ten years when you are 90. A planned death is actually optimal to Universal Evolution. Just like how the body kills cells to avoid harming the whole body. You're body will plan its death based on its metrics to stop you from infecting others like you.








 

[Kryptid]

I'll come back to what you've just posted, but I wanted to throw this out there since I just got done with some of the math:

I’m going to see if I can help you with your initial request: trying to figure out the probability of a photon hitting a planet. I also want to request aid from anyone else who sees a problem with my methodology to point out what erroneous assumptions I may have made.

I’m going to start off with something that is better known: the density of stars in the Milky Way (since the density of stars in the Milky Way is significantly higher than the density of stars in the overall visible universe, it seems like a better place to start). I’m going to model the Milky Way as a disk. The diameter of the disk will be 150,000 light-years and the thickness 1,000 light-years. That results in an overall volume of 1.77 x 10¹³ cubic light-years.

The total number of stars in the Milky Way is between 100 and 400 billion, resulting in stellar density of 5.65 x 10^-6 to 2.26 x 10^-5 stars per cubic light-year. Most stars are red dwarfs, which are smaller than the Sun. Some stars are much, much larger than the Sun. We are going to go the middle road and assume that the Sun represents the average size of a star in the Milky Way. That would be a radius of about 7 x 10⁵ kilometers and a volume of 1.44 x 10¹⁸ cubic kilometers.

That makes the volume per cubic light-year that contains stars about (1.44 x 10¹⁸) x (5.65 x 10^-6) = (8.136 x 10¹²) cubic kilometers to (1.44 x 10¹⁸) x (2.26 x 10^-5) = (3.254 x 10¹³) cubic kilometers.

A cubic light-year equals 8.468 x 10³⁸ cubic kilometers, so the total volume of a cubic light-year that contains star material would be from (9.6079358 x 10^-27) to (3.8427 x 10^-26), or (9.6 x 10^-25)% to (3.8 x 10^-24)%.

Now here comes the iffy part: my assumption here is that a random straight line drawn through a cubic light-year would also have a 9.6 x 10^-25% to 3.8 x 10^-24% chance of passing through star material. A very, very, very low chance.

But we are talking about planets, not stars. If we are very generous, we can assume a single, Earth-sized habitable planet per star. Since the Earth has a volume about 1.3 million times smaller than the Sun, that would make the probability of a straight line passing through a planet 1.3 million times less than that of passing through a star. That makes the odds 7.38 x 10^-31% to 2.92 x 10^-30%. So the odds that any one photon will travel from one planet to another is awfully tiny.

In order to offset those odds, you’d have to produce many, many photons. I may get into that next.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Thank you for the reply Kryptid. I think you made a couple errors though. One is that the cross sectional area is going to scale with the chances of a photon running into it, volume will not so it shouldn't be used. Volume cubes with radius and cross sectional area squares. Surface area also squares and is easier to look up so I used that to compare the odds.

The volume of the sun may be 1.3 million times bigger than the earth but it's surface area is only about 12,000 times bigger. A photon doesn't care how thick something is.

Anything smaller has a greater surface area to mass or volume ratio, so dust and asteroids would have an even bigger ratio than the earth and must be accounted for as well.

Another thing that we both used is the assumption that the photon actually hits something. That is the tricky one for me.

We could set up a series to factor the odds of the acceleration of the universe since it doubles every 10 billion years. But I don't know how to calculate the dust asteroids, and especially to factor in the time interval it takes to hit anything at all.

[Kryptid]

Thank you for the reply Kryptid. I think you made a couple errors though. One is that the cross sectional area is going to scale with the chances of a photon running into it, volume will not so it shouldn't be used. Volume cubes with radius and cross sectional area squares. Surface area also squares and is easier to look up so I used that to compare the odds.

The volume of the sun may be 1.3 million times bigger than the earth but it's surface area is only about 12,000 times bigger. A photon doesn't care how thick something is.

I get your point, but am not sure how I'd tackle that for calculation purposes at the moment. I can say this much, though: it's definitely possible to make enough photons to travel light-years across space. The fact that we have taken infrared images of planets demonstrates as much. I suppose the question can then be: what percentage of photons can we expect coming from a habitable planet to be generated by living organisms versus non-living matter? Probably not very high, but we're talking about organisms making photons for billions of years of time. I'd say the odds are pretty good that at least some biogenic photons can travel between planets.

However, you're putting particular emphasis on ultraviolet photons with a wavelength of 250 nanometers. The ozone layer, which absorbs ultraviolet light, could be big impediment to those being received from distant planets by living things on Earth's surface.

Its true that the nanometer length of DNA is pretty short 2.5 nanometers putting it in the X ray range. But we must also recognize that DNA is not the only helix there is. Because the DNA gets coiled into histones and then histones are coiled into nucleosomes, and then nucleosomes, get coiled into coils, and then coils get coiled into super coils. The biggest Helix structure is the supercoil and that is 250 nanometers in the U.V. That's why in my first post I did the math for how many photons can be created based on the energy level of a 250 nanometer photon. This is the photon that matters.

What about the plasmids of bacteria, which are smaller? Do you predict a higher frequency photon associated with those?

The first thing to realize is that the chromosome does not "build" the photons but photons build photons. Like a laser. A laser is an energy source in a mirrored cavity. The photons bounce around in this cavity stimulating the creation of more photons just like them.

Sounds like you've got something testable there. Have an ultraviolet laser with the right frequency trained on a cellular culture and measure whether you get photomultiplication or not.

Interestingly though, when you think about it. Even though we associate tumors with death, tumors are not trying to kill you at all. A tumor is trying to exist and if you die, it dies. This is why tumors target non vital organs more like the breasts and the prostate, not things like the heart and why they spread the load through metastasis maximizing size without shutting down any individual organ.

I think that's giving tumors a bit too much credit, as if they can somehow strategize on the best way to grow without killing you. Even cancers of non-essential organs can kill you pretty quick.

Another question: what evolutionary benefit do males get from making photons? Generally, a trait isn't kept if it does not enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce. The fact that you say that males are optimally designed for making photons suggests that there has been a strong survival and reproductive benefit to doing that. That being said, are tiny males like those of black widow spiders or anglerfish also optimized for photon production? It seems like the larger females would be better for that, in which it makes you wonder why they aren't just parthenogenetic and produce only more females instead of males.

There's another thing that I'm not clear on: are you suggesting that photons from alien ecosystems on other planets were responsible for spreading mutations during the Cambrian explosion here on Earth? Or are you only saying that the photons generated by organisms already here just helped beneficial mutations spread faster?

Since you suggest that an entire genome can be encoded on a single photon, I've got to ask what the difference is between a pair of photons of the same wavelength (250 nanometers) when the information encoded by one is 4 billion base pairs and the other is of the exact same 4 billion base pairs, save for a single nucleotide substitution mutation? That's an extremely subtle difference, so there's got to be something also very subtly different about the photons, despite them having the same wavelength, frequency, and velocity.

We could set up a series to factor the odds of the acceleration of the universe since it doubles every 10 billion years.

I don't think that matters much. Universal expansion doesn't make the Milky Way galaxy bigger, and any habitable planets here are likely going to be far more important than those in other galaxies (due to the inverse-square law of how electromagnetic radiation weakens with distance).

But I don't know how to calculate the dust asteroids, and especially to factor in the time interval it takes to hit anything at all.

It's so incredibly sparse that you can probably ignore it.

[Bored chemist]

Okay, knowing that this is the same as standard evolution but just with extra stuff added helps. Some more questions:

(1) Are the photons you propose generated by the latent heat in living organisms (i.e. are these thermal photons)?

(2) The photons emitted by living things typically have wavelengths on the order of hundreds of nanometers whereas nucleotides are less than one nanometer in length. How can a meaningful transfer of information occur when the size difference is so extreme?

(3) How much information is encoded per photon? Is it a single nucleotide or many? What is the mechanism that translates nucleotide sequences into photons and vice versa?

(4) How does the genetic machinery of the cell know where to insert these new mutations into the DNA without disrupting existing genes? Since there would be a wide array of photons being received with a variety of genetic information encoded on them, how does the cell distinguish between the genetic information that would be beneficial from that which is detrimental? Keep in mind that a gene that benefits one organism might do nothing for (or worse, even harm) another organism.

Okay, now we are talking. All four of these are great and pointed questions. We'll go one at a time.

1. Anything source of energy that creates photons is fair game. Heat is certainly one. Photosynthesis/sunlight is another. The biggest contributor is ion pumps, which is why I think the body uses 50% of its calories on just that. 25% comes from just the sodium potasium ion pump but there are other pumps. This is also why Eukaryotes attach their nucleus and organelles to the membrane where the electrical gradient is greatest. Prokaryotes who don't have this pump and don't have a true nucleus ( eukaryote actually means "true nuclei") does not bound their organelle or genetic material to the membrane. Another clue to its function.

It is also interesting to note that the brain uses 70% of it's energy for Ion pumps alone. If you also consider each neuron has slightly unique DNA this means the brain could have huge potential to gather information. This process is called somatic mosaicism and it leads to unique variance in DNA in each neuron. I'm not suggesting telepathy here, but I do think the brain can use "directed" mutations to drive learning and novelty as well. The immune system also uses somatic mosaicism to create new antibodies. This is a whole new discussion if you want to go down that road. We can form a whole new concept of the brain and immune system as well.

2. Its true that the nanometer length of DNA is pretty short 2.5 nanometers putting it in the X ray range. But we must also recognize that DNA is not the only helix there is. Because the DNA gets coiled into histones and then histones are coiled into nucleosomes, and then nucleosomes, get coiled into coils, and then coils get coiled into super coils. The biggest Helix structure is the supercoil and that is 250 nanometers in the U.V. That's why in my first post I did the math for how many photons can be created based on the energy level of a 250 nanometer photon. This is the photon that matters.

I would like to note here, that just because my theory says that waves play a role does not mean it is the ONLY thing that can play a role. I'm not saying everything every biologist ever created is stupid, I'm saying we need both of these viewpoints to paint the whole picture. My theory is superior when we are discussing the big picture and the chromosome as a whole.

Could X rays play a role on building one Gene? Possibly but I need to learn more about that. It could be genes are independent of the larger wave, or that there are other little photons being collectively shared by nearby organisms. But I do think that U.V. photons can dominate the functioning of the chromosome at large. It's tough to answer questions definitively when there is more than one viable option. I'm entertaining a few potential setups at the same time right now. It's tough to answer what x or why is if all you know is x+y=8. I think the real answer is some hybridized mechanical version, but generally speaking I'd like to entertain a pure field concept just to keep it simpler and to stress the parts people don't really know how to think about yet.

3. Two more very good, very loaded questions. The first one is, how much information can the photon carry? First off, I'd like to point out that there is a Quantum mechanics technical definition of information and I'd like to stress that we are NOT talking about that. If by information you mean, is it possible that we could transmit the entire genome on one photon, I would say absolutely yes. Does it is less clear. However, there are potential ways around a 250 nanometer length photon creating 2.5 nanometer length structures. The simplest answer could be that wave-functions have structures on them that are smaller than their wavelength. Like you could say an ocean wave has an amplitude of 8 feet, but a surfer could make a smaller wave on that wave from his board. He could then throw a pebble on his on wave on the bigger wave making three waves occupying the same space simultaneously. Can a single photon be the constituent of many waves simultaneously creating the many waves of the entire genome, I'm not sure, but I can't say that doesn't exist. I need more experts from the physics side around me to ask questions like this. And even if that was physically impossible, a bigger structure could be used that was capable of building a smaller structure afterwards. The pure field theory supports the former concept, the hybrid the latter. I would say though, I definitely think waves play a role somewhere or else there is no good reason DNA would be structured like that.

The second part of your question is. How do (chromosomes) create photons and vis a vis? Again there are a couple potential good models here for how photons build chromosomes. For the wave model we could say that photons being replicated over  the photons impart momentum on atoms directly based on the average potential of their wavefunctions summing up to impart physical change directly. The other concept is that these wavefunctions simply provide a "guide" for other structures to know where to build them by the presence of the photons. For instance if there are more photons in this quadrant build an A if there are the most in this quadrant build a T etc. Either one works but the former is the more pure field concept. I've watched a lot of animation videos on how the body builds itself, but I often find myself pondering, how much of these animations are "real" and how much is just what people think? How far are scientists over their skies when they claim they know how the body builds itself? I'm not sure.

4. The question of how the body differentiates good photons from bad ones is related to how the chromosome "builds" photons.

The first thing to realize is that the chromosome does not "build" the photons but photons build photons. Like a laser. A laser is an energy source in a mirrored cavity. The photons bounce around in this cavity stimulating the creation of more photons just like them.

This is basically the model of a chromosome and the concept behind the threshold point I wrote a lot about about in an earlier post. The role the chromosome plays is it creates a condition that only a very small amount of photons can achieve, which is to reach the Threshold Product which I define as multiplying the average number of bounces a photon makes when it enters the chromosome before escaping by the average amount of photons created per bounce.

So if the average amount of bounces a photon makes when it hits a chromosome is 20 as long as there is a greater than 5% chance of creating a photon per bounce the photon will replicate faster than it can escape which I call reaching the threshold point. If the threshold point is above 1, the photons will replicate indefinitely. Once this happens there will be many many photons capable of imparting physical change, which could be maintaining the structure of the chromosome or aiding in some sort of physical action in the body, whatever that may be.

Actually when I talk about a tumor photon mutating and attacking another chromosome, we need to think about it in the context of this new outlook of the chromosome. For starters, a photon can only hihack a healthy chromosome if it can outcompete the photons that are already there. If the threshold product for a tumor is higher than a healthy photon your body will lose control of the cell to the tumor and now you have problems.

This only happens if the tumor wavefunction matches the geometry of the chromosome better than the one that actually built the chromosome which is not usually the case unless one of two things happen.

One, the chromosome gets damaged. What I'm suggesting is that damage to the chromosome is not automatically permanent, but becomes permanent when it gets damaged while simultaneously encountering a photon whose wavefunction matches the damaged chromosome better than the original, that's when the damage can become a permanent mutation. Without that rogue photon the original photons still have an opportunity to rebuild. That is the connection between damage and tumors.

So photons can not actually dictate change in other chromosomes, but what they can do is they can make change permanent if something accidentally mutates, tumors specialize in capitalizing on this mistake, but usually mutations come from other lifeforms like yourself.

The other mistake that can lead to tumors is if the energy around the chromosome is to high. This may allow other populations of photons to cohabitate with the chromosome and if their numbers rise to high for too long they may begin to cause physical change in the chromosome to their advantage, causing their numbers to rise even higher until they outcompete the original and the body loses control of the cell to the tumor. Those are the two general ways I'm proposing tumors enter the body. These visuals explain everything I've ever learned about cancer if you think about them.

How does the body know that a photon is good or bad? Well it doesn't per se, but what it does know is that if a photon is able to replicate itself in your 3 billions base pairs better than anything else, probabilistically it's almost assuredly on your side and almost definitely from some form of successful life and if it's not, well you are screwed anyways so you might as well listen.

Interestingly though, when you think about it. Even though we associate tumors with death, tumors are not trying to kill you at all. A tumor is trying to exist and if you die, it dies. This is why tumors target non vital organs more like the breasts and the prostate, not things like the heart and why they spread the load through metastasis maximizing size without shutting down any individual organ. It's your body that wants you to die if it's too aggressive so they can't infect other versions of you somewhere else. This is why there is a 30% chance you make it to 90 and a 2.5 chance out of 10,000! that you make it to 100. Basically you are guaranteed to die within ten years when you are 90. A planned death is actually optimal to Universal Evolution. Just like how the body kills cells to avoid harming the whole body. You're body will plan its death based on its metrics to stop you from infecting others like you.








 

The biggest problem you have is that the only photos emitted by biology - mainly heat and a little light- are indistinguishable from photons emitted by essentially every solid thing in the universe (and also quite a lot on gaseous things).

Silicon valley won't take long to notice that.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Sorry for the late response Kryptid, but you know. Life.

First off, ABSOLUTELY I'm suggesting life on alien ecosystems was responsible for the Cambrian Explosion. It's the point of the whole theory and hence the name of the original post, it's evolution theorized on the universe wide scale.

First off, we need to be very careful when we are comparing big numbers. There is a quip that in peoples minds there are only 3 probabilities. 0% 50% and 100%. Obviously a joke but there is some truth there.

But this theory forces a lot of comparison between very big numbers and we need to keep them straight.

If like you suggested, we give light unlimited time to travel somewhere, we don't factor dust and the expansion of the universe. Then the amount of photons that could hit a person would be approximately 1 F***ing s***tload per day. So U.V. filtering of the atmosphere would not matter.

Let's compare other numbers.

1: 10^80. Cute little number, is the odds of closing your eyes and picking the right atom out of the universe accidently. We know how big the universe is and how small atoms are right? Pretty impossible to do that but if the odds are expressed this way "to the power of 80" may seem like a nice little manageable number. I mean 80 is not that big, I could make that number in a few hours! But if we calculate the odds are 1 in 10^80 I am not trying to tell you that you have a chance! The chances are zero, okay!? They are zero.

Meanwhile, 1: 16^1,500,000,000 is the odds that a randomly generated photon could match any individual human genome given that there are 3 billion base pairs with 4 possible letters.

The point here which I've mentioned before "yet is always used as an argument against my theory" is that there is not a snowballs chance in hell, no matter how many photons or what percentage of photons can reach a properly functioning chromosome that it is going to supplant the original photon that built it by chance, there are strategies to invade chromosomes, but bombarding with random photons is NOT one of them.

The chances a random photon could guess 25% of the base pairs could be basically 100% since you will accidentally guess each base pair correctly 25% of the time, but accidentally guessing 26% could be basically impossible since a deviation of 1% with a sample size of 3 billion would be extremely unlikely.

Sex changes the game though and sets up a whole new meta, because it creates probabilistic conditions that would virtually never occur naturally. For instance, you could guess half my genome if you knew my mothers and vis a vis. That is what sex does for communication without life has no good why to realistically guess what is out there.

The body could create a condition where in order to get "hijacked" by a tumor, it would require guessing a certain percentage of base pairs. The body knows that accidentally guessing 49% of BP's correctly is zero for any natural object. But a hybrid creature with near 50% of those base pairs (offspring) could do it perhaps reliably. This is the real purpose of sex.

Sex allows life a way to "guess" other genomes. This is also why life doesn't like to cheat the 50 50 ratio of genes.

Females could overpower the DNA of a male 70:30 99:1 and maximize it's genes (which I would argue it would if the goal was simply passing on genes and regular evolution were correct) but it would be silly in U.E because the 50:50 ratio is optimal for communication. It may take some getting used to to think about this "encryption style meta" of sex but there are many things you can figure out if you take the time think about them.

Kryptid, the point that one sex is getting a lesser "deal" than the other is astute, but I would say it a little differently.

I would argue females get a "raw" deal compared to males because males can create more "signal" yet females make their progeny anyways! So men get the best of both worlds. Males create more signal AND get to create just as many progeny since females do it for them. Since there is more signal coming from males, there should be an asymmetry between the sexes and we could end up with "death by sausage fest". There are many other "problems" just like this and I thought about them for a while before I figured out there is pretty much one way to solve all of them. This can be a bit tricky to think about because a sexual meta ensues here, so bare with me.

This is how I think about it. Females are doing males a "favor" by making their progeny, so in order for females to optimize themselves, they require a "favor" from males.

If males optimize for signal, and females optimize for offspring, they can outproduce creatures that don't due to specialization of  tasks, but not if they don't work together fairly.

The favor is males must demonstrate that they are making their progeny as females somewhere else! (WTF?!)

I think the way it works is that females will look for evidence that you are building their offspring or they won't make yours. So what females do is they devise a test males must pass, to "prove" that they are indeed making the females own offspring somewhere else. Most males will pass this test, so we take it for granted, but if males can't show evidence that they are doing what females want, females could make successful pregnancy impossible.

This test can take many forms. An example of one of these tests is that males must demonstrate that they are capable of building a female in utero.

If a male couldn't construct a female version of itself, how could it do it somewhere else?

What is the best way to prove this concept?

Do it. Build a female first, then we'll talk!

Turns out that ALL mammals start out as females in utero.

That is an example of a test.

For this reason, as pointless as it may seem all mammals start out as female instead of just getting straight to the desired sex.

What I'm suggesting is that MOST photons that build any life contain not just the information to make one sex but the information to make two sexes. This is why I suggest sexual characteristics can be expressed in all lifeforms. This is why men have female characteristics and vice versa instead of keeping the two lineages completely separate. Seems strange and unnecessary and most people probably couldn't figure out why this is even a problem in the first place, but if females didn't do this they could get cheated right out of existence. So they do.

One last thing to point out about this as well. The size and gestation period also matters to evolution as well. Since you can not communicate effectively before you mix gametes. The embryo must start gaining size before the chances photons can enter become practical. I don't think the defining characteristics of life start at cell one, but somewhere down the line. This is why I think all mammalian embryos start with that "stock standard" tailed embryo thing. (whatever it is called lul) Before it starts transforming into its ultimate form upon the entry of the novel new photon for life. The body needs to build many new "hybrid" chromosomes before the chances becomes large enough for the "communication" event (entry of photon) to occur.

There are many different things you can figure out and explain with that concept as well.

[Bored chemist]

The biggest problem you have is that the only photos emitted by biology - mainly heat and a little light- are indistinguishable from photons emitted by essentially every solid thing in the universe (and also quite a lot on gaseous things).

Silicon valley won't take long to notice that.

[Bored chemist]

You may also find this informative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle

[Kryptid]

These replies are pretty big and there is a lot to sift through. I think it might be best to focus on one thing at a time.

I just did some more math, using the estimated total biomass of the Earth (545.8 gigatons) at the average temperature of the Earth (288 kelvins, because the overwhelming majority of life isn't warm-blooded) and assuming that life is all packed into a sphere in order to estimate a minimum possible surface area for photons to be emitted from (which would represent a lower limit of photon production, since life is obviously spread out much more thinly than a sphere). I used an equation that calculates the number of photons emitted by a black body at a given temperature to estimate photon production per second per square centimeter. Roughly half of the photons emitted by living things would be going down towards the Earth, so those are absorbed. The other half go upward and potentially into space.

I then calculated how many photons would make it out to different distances, assuming no obstacles got in the way. My results were that you'd get about 8,780 photons per square meter per year at the distance of Alpha Centauri. At 10 light-years out, it's about 1,600 photons per square meter per year. At 100 light-years it's 16. At 1,000 light-years it's 0.16. So I think it's plausible that biogenic photons can make it out to planets around other stars. That being said, I think we can move on to other matters.

What I'd like to focus on now is how the information is encoded in the photons. I don't know that I got a good answer for my question about that. What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?

[Origin]

I then calculated how many photons would make it out to different distances, assuming no obstacles got in the way. My results were that you'd get about 8,780 photons per square meter per year at the distance of Alpha Centauri. At 10 light-years out, it's about 1,600 photons per square meter per year. At 100 light-years it's 16. At 1,000 light-years it's 0.16. So I think it's plausible that biogenic photons can make it out to planets around other stars. That being said, I think we can move on to other matters.

Seems like since we are bathed in these magical photons at about 10^20 times the amount of these exoplanets, so we must be evolving at 10^20 times the rate of these exoplanet animals.

The whole idea is so silly it doesn't even deserve to be on the forum.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

So I think it's plausible that biogenic photons can make it out to planets around other stars. That being said, I think we can move on to other matters.

What I'd like to focus on now is how the information is encoded in the photons. I don't know that I got a good answer for my question about that. What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?

I never know somebodies notions about Q.M. I think it is a wildly inconsistent mess in peoples minds from person to person but it's actually really simple to understand if you don't believe a bunch of things about Q.M. that aren't really right.

A lot of people hear this story of Einstein getting schooled by Neils Bohr and the Copenhagen Interpretation is the only way to think. F*** that and Bohr for a second and try to imagine probability is deterministic like Einstein suggested. I'm not saying you have to abandon all sense of probability, (I don't) but don't overapply it to things that you shouldn't because you will end up in crazy town real fast. Obviously the body on some level has tamed even individual atoms to some extent or we couldn't exist, but for now just put probability on the back burner for a sec before it is really necessary.

Imagine a photon.

This photon can replicate itself in energy in a process called cloning. Cloning is an actual quantum term, and there is a theorem called the no perfect cloning theorem, but....cloning can be pretty close to perfect. There are scientists continuing to try to perfect this process today.

When we say it's "cloning" we mean it is cloning its entire wavefunction! It automatically does this. Not everything a photon does is binary like spin that people tend to focus on. What can be encoded in the wavefunction can be infinite. It sums to equal the E.M. wave which is a double helix, but the individual photon cloned and not observed can pass down small differences from photon to photon. The average wavefunction of large numbers of photons forms a perfect wave, but an individual can vary slightly from one another. If one photon is isolated, allowed to replicate and not observed it can pass on slight differences from the norm.

Photon cloning acts a lot like life.

When a photon "clones" it passes these little differences to the next generation of photons.

When life clones it passes little differences to the next generation of life.

Each circularly polarized photon is associated with its own unique helix (the wavefunction)
Each lifeform is associated with its own unique helix (DNA)

Photons will "evolve" to fit their environment by matching their wavelengths to their container like oven walls or a chromosome to extract energy and replicate.

Life will "evolve" to fit their environment to extract energy and replicate.

Increase the energy of photons: increase average frequency
Increase the energy of life: increase average frequency of death

The origin of "randomness" in my theory is created by the creation of new "random" wavefunctions.

(theoretically life would be willing to sacrifice half its life as long if it could produce twice as many photons in that time to make up for it. This is a concept of U.E. So we could attempt to predict lifespan based on caloric intake, it would vary for size but we could do it for each specific creature. For Max Planck we could figure there would be a certain relationship between his frequency of death with the energy he consumed. We could call this the Literal Plank relation and define it mathematically as E=hf. This means if Max Planck at twice as much food all the time, two dinners, two lunches and breakfasts as he did every single day, that we could predict that his frequency of death would also double and he would live to 45 instead of 90!) See what I did there?

Conventionally in modern science we keep physics and biology separate. To me, not so much. I don't think my analogy between photons and life is really that surprising when you consider the hypotheses it's just another example of the link between fields and life. We could go on a journey through physics with evolution analogies just like that or we could go on a journey through evolution with physics analogies.

I'd tone it down if I was talking to Harvard, but on forums and in my own mind. Screw it, I do what I want!

[thebrain13 (OP)]

So Kryptid to not get off track like you suggested. To answer your question, photons replicate, then they carry little differences in their wavefunctions when they replicate. In normal geometries like an oven, they will indeed tend to adapt to the shape of the oven to an extent. For instance, if the oven has 2 meter walls, there will be more photons with wavelengths that are some integer of that wavelength. You could deduce that from the little cloning concept.

If you apply this to something ultra small and specific like a chromosome it can prevent the degradation of the wavefunction over time. The chromosome will not stop the normal drift of photon cloning but if these photons drift to far they will not be able to occupy the energy of the chromosome as well and either peter out or escape. If you alter and damage the chromosome though, the photons can "evolve" to the new shape and then things can become permanent without some physical intervention like the immune system reconstructing the damage.

Nucleotides get built by aggregations of these photons either directly by the combined force of the photons imparting momentum like "optical tweezers" which is what the 2019 Nobel prize was won in. Or the differences in energy levels based on the amplitude of photons in an area acts as a "pilot" for the body to know where and what nucleotide to construct.

The optical tweezers concept is important though, because with that you can see the body could use photons to aid in construction directly. It doesn't always need a little "molecular robot" to build every single thing, sometimes it can alter construction by simply changing the probability of where light goes.

People think that a photon can only carry a "bit" of information. Which is true in a certain context, one photon can only interact with one particle. But take that one photon and replicate it a trillion times over and it can "communicate" with a trillion particles. That's "the catch".

[Bored chemist]

What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?

None.
That was my point.
A photon from an ant looks identical to a photon from the rock it is standing on,

That's why we know you are wrong.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?

None.
That was my point.
A photon from an ant looks identical to a photon from the rock it is standing on,

That's why we know you are wrong.

Yawn. Just go away Bored Chemist.
I was a little restless tonight, woke up and was going to write a detailed response to post number 67 because by some miracle you managed to not send some lame insult or response, but thanks for reminding me why I don't take anything you say seriously. You are not clever.....at all. I'm done with you. Go back to intellectually bullying somebody who is still doubting themselves on their learning and intellectual journey like I've seen you do in other threads. You are talking to somebody who knows for a fact they are way out of your league. Now please go away so I continue the adult conversation with Kryptid.

[Bored chemist]

Imagine a photon.

This photon can replicate itself

Since that would break the energy conservation laws it is impossible.
You are relying on magical thinking.
That's not science.

[Bored chemist]

What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?

None.
That was my point.
A photon from an ant looks identical to a photon from the rock it is standing on,

That's why we know you are wrong.

Yawn. Just go away Bored Chemist.
I was a little restless tonight, woke up and was going to write a detailed response to post number 67 because by some miracle you managed to not send some lame insult or response, but thanks for reminding me why I don't take anything you say seriously. You are not clever.....at all. I'm done with you. Go back to intellectually bullying somebody who is still doubting themselves on their learning and intellectual journey like I've seen you do in other threads. You are talking to somebody who knows for a fact they are way out of your league. Now please go away so I continue the adult conversation with Kryptid.

Shouting "go away" is not what most people think of as "adult conversation".
It won't even distract people from the fact that you are plainly wrong, and you know it.
That's why you try to attack me- because you know that you can't actually address my point.
A photon is just a photon.
The thing it hits can't "know" if it came from an ant or a rock.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?

None.
That was my point.
A photon from an ant looks identical to a photon from the rock it is standing on,

That's why we know you are wrong.

Yawn. Just go away Bored Chemist.
I was a little restless tonight, woke up and was going to write a detailed response to post number 67 because by some miracle you managed to not send some lame insult or response, but thanks for reminding me why I don't take anything you say seriously. You are not clever.....at all. I'm done with you. Go back to intellectually bullying somebody who is still doubting themselves on their learning and intellectual journey like I've seen you do in other threads. You are talking to somebody who knows for a fact they are way out of your league. Now please go away so I continue the adult conversation with Kryptid.

Shouting "go away" is not what most people think of as "adult conversation".
It won't even distract people from the fact that you are plainly wrong, and you know it.
That's why you try to attack me- because you know that you can't actually address my point.
A photon is just a photon.
The thing it hits can't "know" if it came from an ant or a rock.

Get real dude. In spite of being twice my age you have not talked like an adult this entire time and your responses have been pure trash. You've been posting lame insults or responses that have NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about the whole time because that is all YOU have. Your responses are a joke. Maybe a lot of people on this site can't see that, but I am not one of those people.

[Bored chemist]

What physical property about photons are different when they encode different nucleotide sequences?

None.
That was my point.
A photon from an ant looks identical to a photon from the rock it is standing on,

That's why we know you are wrong.

Yawn. Just go away Bored Chemist.
I was a little restless tonight, woke up and was going to write a detailed response to post number 67 because by some miracle you managed to not send some lame insult or response, but thanks for reminding me why I don't take anything you say seriously. You are not clever.....at all. I'm done with you. Go back to intellectually bullying somebody who is still doubting themselves on their learning and intellectual journey like I've seen you do in other threads. You are talking to somebody who knows for a fact they are way out of your league. Now please go away so I continue the adult conversation with Kryptid.

Shouting "go away" is not what most people think of as "adult conversation".
It won't even distract people from the fact that you are plainly wrong, and you know it.
That's why you try to attack me- because you know that you can't actually address my point.
A photon is just a photon.
The thing it hits can't "know" if it came from an ant or a rock.

Get real dude. In spite of being twice my age you have not talked like an adult this entire time and your responses have been pure trash. You've been posting lame insults or responses that have NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about the whole time because that is all YOU have. Your responses are a joke. Maybe a lot of people on this site can't see that, but I am not one of those people.

And, when you have finished ranting ignorantly, it is still true that a photon from an ant is indistinguishable from a photon from a rock.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Yes you can. Now go away please. I'm not wasting my time trying to teach you Q.M.

[Origin]

To answer your question, photons replicate, then they carry little differences in their wavefunctions when they replicate. In normal geometries like an oven, they will indeed tend to adapt to the shape of the oven to an extent. For instance, if the oven has 2 meter walls, there will be more photons with wavelengths that are some integer of that wavelength. You could deduce that from the little cloning concept.

You Just make this silliness as you go along right?  Sort of like a stream of consciousness fantasy.