Seeing how in 1999, Hubble Space Telescope estimated that there are about 125 billion galaxies in the Universe, and seeing how each galaxy has roughly 100 billion stars, it seems that life in the Universe is abundant.

Favourable conditions for the emergence of life on large scales did not appear until a few billion years after the Big Bang (lets say 2 billion years before our own sun appeared to scoup as much life as possible...so roughly 7 billion years).

So what does this mean? Well, before the emergence of life, matter behaved itself so to speak. It followed the physics laws that emerged with the Universe. As soon as intelligent life appeared (all life in general, but intelligent life is more interesting), matter no longer had to go with the flow. Instead of sitting there like dirt, matter was now able to gather energy and move around on its own, as it wishes (not completely, as laws of physics are still followed, but it has considerably more freedom in movement).

To understand/visualize this a little better, consider the following...
Imagine a galaxy (any galaxy will do), and consider whats happening only from a physical (how matter is rearranging/moving) point of view, in terms of intelligent life (but without any prejudice about culture, intentions etc.)

Usually, it would just sit there like dirt, as I mentioned above. But this new matter moves on its own, learns about itself, communicates with itself, and learns about the Universe and whats possible in general. Not only that, but it rearranges other matter, so that things like flying to other planets is possible. Also, if you think of lifespan, life is meaningless in terms of individuals on the large scale. That is to say, matter moves as it wishes for an insignificant amount of time, and then is not able to do so because of old age and eventually death...only for new such matter to arise.

Keeping the image of a galaxy in your head, and thinking in terms of physical location/relocation of matter (based on its own will), the idea of sending probes for exploration (during which constant light-speed communication is kept up) is amazing. Much like the fact that fact that these tiny attemts (thining in terms of galaxies) to move and explore are kept up by constant reproduction.

Instead of planets changing (volcanoes, rivers, asteroid impact) by itself through laws of physics, we have matter chosing where to go against where those laws of physics would otherwise tell them to go...

So why the second Big Bang? Well if life is abundant, and if "everybodys doing it", then life-matter is a new type of "thing", much like the Big Bang created a new type of "thing"...Assuming it sprouted everwhere at roughly the same time, it is trrully another Bang.

No longer does matter go with the flow, but it can change its environment on small scales...It really helps to think of it life with no history/culture attachment, but physical relocation of matter based on a new type of "antiforce" almost...

The sending of probes to other planets in terms of pure matter, its almost like a planet(big particle) is sending a smaller particle to see "whats up"...AMAZING! Keeping in mind/assuming life is abundant its even more amazing!

I kind of repeated myself a few times, but what do you think?

Interesting idea, Afterburner. Can I quote you in some correspondence I'm having with another person collecting novel ideas?

But while my mind has suffered a definite "Hmmmm..." factor initially with this idea, I might comment, on further reflection, this 2nd big bang assumes non-deterministic behavior of intelligent matter, doesn't it? Can we say for sure that we, as intelligent matter, are inherently unpredictable or that we represent some macro level of an uncertainty principle? Perhaps intelligent influences such as human life or other intelligent life are simply the result of a whole different level of entropy processes. Maybe intelligent manipulation, reorganization of other non-intelligent matter is the natural result of cosmological evolution.

On the other hand, perhaps we (hopefully as an example of intelligent matter) are actually the ultimate effect produced by natural processes once a system reaches a threshold of complex organization. Sort of like how the mind can be considered an "effect" produced by the brain once it reaches a certain threshold of complexity or sophistication.

__________________
Have you ever been just about to grasp the truth when somebody else suddenly yanked it out of your reach?
Eclectic Universe website and Eclectic Universe Forum
Eclectic's Blog and Thinking With Reason

Sure you can, Blue Fire.

As to your other questions, I think its better that you ask on the Q&A section of the forum, as I am no expert. However, I would guess that the answers to your questions are yes.

Thanks for the permission, Afterburner!

Additional thought: the 2nd Big Bang as an emergent property of the universe with perhaps an ultimate affectation of modifying itself. Then, light bulb, the universe Lives!

__________________
Have you ever been just about to grasp the truth when somebody else suddenly yanked it out of your reach?
Eclectic Universe website and Eclectic Universe Forum
Eclectic's Blog and Thinking With Reason

I think it's a nice way to look at this from a "birdseye" perspective. At first I didn't really like the phrase 'second Big Bang', because the first Big Bang is a pretty specific process that is not much like the appearance of life, but on second thought I think I see two of the reasons you chose it. One is that you expect life not just to appear, but literally to expand through space, maybe someday spanning the observable universe. Personally I don't think life actually does, or will do, that. I think intelligent life dies out, like forest fires, before it spreads everywhere else. But I could just as easily be wrong. Also, you may be intending the connotation that the Big Bang is actually not a creation model but a description of what kicks in after the appearance of a completely unknown process that is currently not described by physics. Perhaps you have the same idea about the appearance of life, although I think it's generally viewed that we do have the basic physics of the appearance of life fairly well constrained. That might not yet be true, but it certainly isn't true of the creation prior to the Big Bang. Or maybe it's the physics of the appearance of intelligent life that we are nowhere near having yet, as per the comments by Blue Fire about the potential for nondeterminism.

What that mean?

Actually big bang is our nature of life.

__________________
Matt


Website:
www.freewebs.com/mattweather/

Forums: http://stormshunters.informe.com/