1. Is there a mathematical nature to reality OR is maths just in our head?
  2. Why do fibonacci nos. occur so often in Botany and Nature?
  3. Why does Pi show up in places like probability where there are no circles?

The best explanation for this is : The reason Mathematics seems to describe reality so well, is coz it’s all there is. For instance a simulated world of a computer game is just Maths, it’s the same with the design of the real world.

32 Constants and a handful of equations describe the entire universe and all there is.

So this means that there are no inventions in Maths, only discoveries

A more subtle Q is : Is Mathematics a truth of nature, or just the way we humans perceive nature?

Math models of Systems like weather, stock mkt and weather aren’t very effective…so this raises the Q : Is maths really all there is and then only reason these models are only reasonable effective due to the complexity of the system , OR there is something other than Maths at play here?

On Maths being invention or discovery, one way to look at is that we invented the nos. (meaning we saw 1 nose and 2 hands and then abstracted the no. 1 and 2) but then we Discovered the Relationship between nos. So it’s both inventions and discoveries

Have We Found Alien Life? | Popular Science

Have We Found Alien Life? | Popular Science.


For most living, air-breathing creatures, Nealson says, “The glucose that we eat supplies the electrons, the oxygen we breathe receives the electrons, and that electron flow is what runs our bodies.” That’s basic metabolism. The challenge for every organism is finding both sources of electrons and places to discard them in order to complete the circuit. Shewanella consumes electrons from carbohydrates, but it sheds them in an unusual way: “It swims up to the metal oxide and respires it.” Nealson says. “We call this ‘breathing rocks.’ ” Here is where the scientific heresies begin.

Shewanella’s outer membrane is full of tiny chemical wires, enabled by specialized proteins, that let it move electricity out of the cell. The wires make direct contact with the manganese oxide, which is how it can deposit electrons and “breathe” a solid substance. Furthermore, Nealson realized that the bacterium doesn’t even care whether the substance on the outside of its membrane is manganese oxide or something else entirely, so long as it will complete the electric circuit.

Formation of Elements and what is entropy?

Hydrogen is converted to helium (and then to heavier elements) by the process of nuclear fusion, not spontaneous decay. A helium atom is dramatically more massive than a hydrogen atom (about four times as massive, since it has 2 protons & 2 neutrons instead of just 1 proton), so hydrogen can’t just decay into helium. Helium-4 is also a very stable nucleus which does not decay. Two of the main kinds of radioactive decay are known as alpha decay and beta decay. Alpha decay is when an atomic nucleus ejects a Helium-4 nucleus. An example is Uranium-235 into Thorium-231. Beta decay is when a neutron in the nucleus decays into a proton and an electron, ejecting the electron. In general, decay is a process which tends to create lighter nuclei, rather than heavier ones.

When the universe was a few minutes old, it was hot and dense enough that the hydrogen could be fused into helium, but the universe was rapidly becoming less dense due to expansion and there wasn’t enough time for the helium to fuse into anything heavier, except for an extremely scant amount of lithium and maybe some beryllium. After that, it was a boring few hundred million years until the first stars were born. Stars derive their energy from converting hydrogen to helium, and helium into heavier elements, up through iron. Past the iron-nickel peak in thenuclear binding energy curve[1] , you can’t extract energy from fusion. However, some such elements are nevertheless formed during the lifetime of stars, due to the slow neutron capture process[2] . In supernovae, elements are quickly converted to heavier and heavier elements through the r-process[3] .

Entropy isn’t necessarily going to turn the universe into a homogeneous blur. Entropy isn’t a force or anything, it’s purely a statistical mechanics quantity. The Second Law of Thermodynamics comes entirely from a mathematical argument that it is more likely for a system to land in a higher-entropy state than in a lower-energy state. To determine what actual processes are going on in the universe, you need to use general relativity & quantum mechanics to understand the processes that drive the evolution of the universe. It’s thought that black holes will eventually decay (on staggeringly long timescales) due to Hawking radiation[4] , though this hasn’t been experimentally verified. To really understand the future entropy state of the universe, we’d need to have an actual understanding of dark energy and how to characterize its entropy. But in general it’s necessary that the final entropy state of the universe will be higher than the entropy of the early universe.