All posts by admin

A digital blue background with glowing horizontal lines and light flares creating a futuristic effect.

The Mysterious Nature of Light

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , ,

To almost everyone, there is nothing mysterious about light. In fact, the opposite is true. When we are in the dark and mystery abounds, the first thing we do is turn on the lights. So, why is “The Mysterious Nature of Light” the title of this post?

The first thing that makes light mysterious is that it can exhibit both the properties of a wave and a particle. For all of the Nineteenth Century, and for the early part of the Twentieth Century, most scientists considered light “a wave,” and most of the experimental data supported that “theory.” However, classical physics could not explain black-body radiation (the emission of light due to an object’s heat). A light bulb is a perfect example of black-body radiation. The wave theory of light failed to describe the energy (frequency) of light emitted from a black body. The energy of light is directly proportional to its frequency. To understand the concept of frequency, consider the number of ocean waves that reach the shore in a given length of time. The number of ocean waves than reach the shore, divided by the length of time you measure them, is their frequency. If we consider the wave nature of light, the higher the frequency, the higher the energy.

In 1900, Max Planck hypothesized that the energy (frequency) of light emitted by the black body, depended on the temperature of the black body. When the black body was heated to a given temperature, it emitted a “quantum” of light (light with a specific frequency). This was the beginning of Quantum Mechanics. Max Planck had intentionally proposed a quantum theory to deal with black-body radiation. To Planck’s dismay, this implied that light was a particle (the quantum of light later became known as the photon in 1925). Planck rejected the particle theory of light, and dismissed his own theory as a limited approximation that did not represent the reality of light. At the time, most of the scientific community agreed with him.

If not for Albert Einstein, the wave theory of light would have prevailed. In 1905, Einstein used Max Planck’s black-body model to solve a scientific problem known as the photoelectric effect. In 1905, the photoelectric effect was one of the great unsolved mysteries of science. First discovered in 1887 by Heinrich Hertz, the photoelectric effect referred to the phenomena that electrons are emitted from metals and non-metallic solids, as well as liquids or gases, when they absorb energy from light. The mystery was that the energy of the ejected electrons did not depend on the intensity of the light, but on its frequency. If a small amount of low-frequency light shines on a metal, the metal ejects a few low-energy electrons. If an intense beam of low-frequency light shines on the same metal, the metal ejects even more electrons. However, although there are more of them, they possess the same low energy. To get high-energy electrons, we need to shine high-frequency light on the metal. Einstein used Max Planck’s black-body model of energy, and postulated that light, at a given frequency, could solely transfer energy to matter in integer (discrete number) multiples of energy. In other words, light transferred energy to matter in discrete packets of energy. The energy of the packet determines the energy of the electron that the metal emits. This revolutionary suggestion of quantized light solved the photoelectric mystery, and won Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921. You may be surprised to learn that Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his work on quantizing light—and not on his more famous theory of relativity.

The second property of light that makes it mysterious is its speed in a vacuum. The speed of light in a vacuum sets the speed limit in the universe. Nothing travels faster than light in a vacuum. In addition, this is a constant, independent of the speed of the source emitting the light. This means that the light source can be at rest or moving, and the speed of light will always be the same in a vacuum. This is counterintuitive. If you are in an open-top convertible car speeding down the highway, and your hat flies off, it begins to move at the same speed as the car. It typically will fall behind the car due to wind resistance that slows down its speed. If you are in the same car, and throw a ball ahead of the car, its velocity will be equal to the speed of the car, plus the velocity at which you throw it. For example, if you can throw a ball sixty miles per hour and the car is going sixty miles per hour, the velocity of the ball will be one hundred twenty miles per hour. This is faster than any major league pitcher can throw a fastball. Next, imagine you are in the same car and have a flashlight. Whether the car is speeding down the highway or parked, the speed of light from the flashlight remains constant (if we pretend the car is in a vacuum). The most elegant theory of all time, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, uses this property of light as a fundamental pillar in its formulation.

  • Why does light have a wave-particle duality?
  • Why is the speed of light in a vacuum the upper limit of anything we observe in the universe?
  • Why is the speed of light a constant independent of the movement of the source emitting the light?

No one knows. We learned an enormous amount about light in the last hundred years. We know it is composed of photons (packets of energy) that have no mass, and when emitted instantaneously, they travel at exactly 299,792,458 meters per second—about 186,000 miles per second. This means they do not accelerate to that speed. They instantaneously exist at that speed. We know the speed of light is a constant independent of the velocity of the source that emits the light. Lastly, we know photons can exhibit the properties of a wave and a particle. The one thing we do not know is “why.”

Reference: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, available at Amazon.com

Nature of Light

What Made the Big Bang Go Bang? Part 2/2 (Conclusion)

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , , ,

Discussing the Big Bang in terms of time, as we typically understand time, is difficult. It will not do any good to look at your watch or think in small fractions of a second. Stop-motion photography will not work this time. Those times are infinitely large compared to Planck time (~ 10-43 seconds, which is a one divided by a one with forty-three zero after it). Theoretically, Planck time is the smallest timeframe we will ever be able to measure. So far, we have not even come close to measuring Planck time. The best measurement of time to date is of the order 10-18 seconds.

What is so significant about Planck time? The fundamental constants of the universe formulate Planck time, not arbitrary units. According to the laws of physics, we would be unable to measure “change” if the time interval were shorter that Planck time. In other words, Planck time is the shortest interval we humans are able to measure, or even comprehend change to occur. Scientifically, it can be argued that no time interval is shorter that Planck time. Thus, the most rapid change can only occur in concert with Planck time, and no faster. Therefore, when we discuss the initiation of the Big Bang, the smallest time interval we can consider is Planck time.

The whole notion of Planck time, and its relationship to the Big Bang, begs another question. Did time always exist? Most physicists say NO. Time requires energy changes, and that did not occur until the instant of the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking, one of the world’s most prominent physicists and cosmologists, is on record that he believes time started with the Big Bang. Dr. Hawking asserts that if there was a time before the Big Bang, we have no way to access the information. However, an argument can be made that time pre-dates the Big Bang. How is this possible?

If we consider the Big Bang is the result of a quantum fluctuation in the Bulk, energy changes are occurring in the Bulk. This implies time exists in the Bulk and pre-dates the Big Bang. This begs the question: is there any evidence of a Bulk and other universes? A growing number of scientists say YES. They cite evidence that our universe bumped into other universes in the distant past. What is the evidence? They cite unusual ring patterns on the cosmic microwave background. The cosmic microwave background is leftover radiation from the Big Bang, and is the most-distant thing we can see in the universe. It is remarkably uniform, with the exception of the unusual ring patterns. Scientists attribute the ring patterns to bumps from other universes. Two articles discuss this finding.

  • First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own after scientists spot “cosmic bruises,” by Niall Firth, December 17, 2010 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk).
  • Is Our Universe Inside a Bubble? First Observational Test of the “Multiverse.” ScienceDaily.com, August 3, 2011.

Obviously, this is controversial, and even the scientist involved caution the results are initial findings, not proof. It is still intriguing, and lends fuel to the concept of there being other universes. This would suggest time, in the cosmic sense, transcends the Big Bang. As impossible as it would seem to prove other universes, science has founds ways of proving similar scientific mysteries. The prominent physicist, Michio Kaku, said it best in Voices of Truth (Nina L. Diamond, 2000), “A hundred years ago, Auguste Compte, … a great philosopher, said that humans will never be able to visit the stars, that we will never know what stars are made out of, that that’s the one thing that science will never ever understand, because they’re so far away. And then, just a few years later, scientists took starlight, ran it through a prism, looked at the rainbow coming from the starlight, and said: ‘Hydrogen!’ Just a few years after this very rational, very reasonable, very scientific prediction was made, that we’ll never know what stars are made of.” This argues that what seems impossible to prove today might be a scientific fact tomorrow.

A theoretical case argues that cosmic time in the Bulk pre-dated the Big Bang. Eventually we may be able to prove it. It is reasonable to believe time for our universe started with the Big Bang. This is our reality. This is consistent with Occam’s razor, which states the simplest explanation is the most plausible one (until new data to the contrary is available). For our universe, the Big Bang started the clock ticking, with the smallest tick being Planck time.

We are finally in a position to answer the two crucial questions. First, what made the big bang go bang? Second, how long did the infinitely dense energy point exist before it went bang?

Why did the Big Bang go bang?

The Big Bang followed the Minimum Energy Principle, “Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible, and will not transition to a new state unless acted on by another energy source.” The infinitely dense energy point, which science terms a “singularity,” sought stability at the lowest energy state possible. If it was “duality,” as argued in Chapter 2, the collision of the infinitely energy-dense matter and antimatter particles would represent the unstable infinitely energy-dense state. Therefore, the arguments presented apply equally to a “singularity” or “duality.” Being infinitely energy-dense, implies instability and minimum entropy (ground-state entropy). Thus, it required dilution to become stable, which caused entropy to increase. The dilution came in the form of the “Big Bang.” Since we were dealing with an unstable infinitely energy-dense point, the Big Bang went bang at the instant of existence. The instant of existence would correlate to the smallest time interval science can conceive, the Planck time. This process is continuing today as space continues its accelerated expansion.

This gives us a reasonable explanation of why the Big Bang went bang. It argues that it went “bang” at the exact instant it came to exist.

This post is based on my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), available from Amazon.

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

What Made the Big Bang Go Bang? Part 1/2

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, , , ,

This is a little play on words. The Big Bang theory holds that the evolution of the universe started with an infinitesimal packet of near infinite energy (termed a “singularity”) that suddenly expanded and continues to expand. If this is true, was it big? No, it was infinitesimally small. Did it go bang? No, it expanded. Space is a vacuum, and it is unable to transmit sound waves. Therefore, there were no sound waves to make a bang noise. Granted, I was not there since it took place 13.7 billion years ago, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I am only jesting, but the description above of the Big Bang theory is what the scientific community holds to be responsible for the evolution of the universe. However, a significant question remains unanswered: What made the Big Bang go bang?

Throughout the theories of science, there appears to be a common thread based on well-observed physical phenomena regarding the behavior of energy. That common thread states that differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential always seek equilibrium if they are in an isolated physical system. For example, with time, a hot cup of coffee will cool to room temperature. This means it reaches equilibrium (balance, stability and sameness) with the temperature of the room, which is the isolated physical system in this example. Readers familiar with thermodynamics will instantly attribute this behavior of energy as following the second law of thermodynamics. However, the same law, worded differently, exists in numerous scientific contexts. In the interest of clarity, I am going to restate this law, describing the behavior of energy, in a way that makes it independent of scientific contexts. In a sense, it abstracts the essence of the contextual statements, and views applications of the law in various scientific contexts as specific cases. I am not the first physicist to undertake generalizing the second law of thermodynamics to make it independent of scientific contexts. However, I believe my proposed restatement provides a simple and comprehensive description of the laws that energy follows, and it will aide in understanding concepts presented in later chapters. For the sake of reference, I have termed my restatement the Minimum Energy Principle.

Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible, and will not transition to a new state unless acted on by another energy source.

Consider these two examples to illustrate the Minimum Energy Principle.

1)   Radioactive substances. Radioactive substances emit radiation until they are no longer radioactive (they become stable). However, by introducing other radioactive substances under the right conditions, they can transition to a new state. Indeed, if the proper radioactive elements combine under the right circumstances, the result can be an atomic explosion.

2)   A thermodynamic example. Consider a branding iron fresh from the fire. It emits thermal radiation until it reaches equilibrium with its surroundings. In other words, once a branding iron leaves the fire, it will start to cool by transferring energy to its surrounding. Eventually, it will be at the same temperature as its surroundings. (This illustrates the first part of the Minimum Energy Principle: Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible.) However, if we increase the temperature of the branding iron by placing it back in the fire, the branding iron will absorb energy until it again reaches equilibrium with the temperature of the fire. (This illustrates the second part of the Minimum Energy Principle: It transitions to this new state by being acted on by the fire. The fire acts as an energy source.)

The Minimum Energy Principle is consistent with the law of entropy. To understand this, we will need to discuss entropy. In classical thermodynamics, entropy is the energy unavailable for work in a thermodynamic process. For example, no machine is one hundred percent efficient in converting energy to work. A portion of the energy is always lost in the form of waste heat. An example is the miles per gallon achievable via your car engine, ignoring other factors such as the weight of the vehicle, its aerodynamic design, and other similar factors. Several car manufacturers are able to build highly efficient engines. However, no car manufacturer can build an engine that is one hundred percent efficient. As a result, a fraction of total energy is always lost, typically in the form of waste heat.

Entropy proceeds in one direction, and is a measure of the system’s disorder. Any increase in entropy implies an increase in disorder and an increase in stability. For example, the heat lost in a car engine is lost to the atmosphere, and is no longer usable to do work. The heat lost is adding to the disorder of the universe, and is a measure of entropy. Oddly, though, the lost heat is completely stable.

In a given system, entropy is either constant or increasing, depending on the flow of energy. If the system is isolated, and has no energy flow, the entropy remains constant. If the system is undergoing an energy change, such as ice melting in a glass of water, the entropy is increasing. When the ice completely melts, and the system reaches equilibrium with its surrounding, it is stable. This has a significant implication. Entropy is constantly increasing in the universe since everything in the universe is undergoing energy change. In theory, the entropy of the universe will eventually maximize, and all reality will be lost to heat. The universe will be completely stable and static. I have termed this the “entropy apocalypse.” I know I am being a little dramatic here, but most of the scientific community believes the entropy (disorder) of the universe is increasing. Eventually, all energy in the universe will be stable and unusable, all change will cease to occur, and the universe will have reached the entropy apocalypse.

Based on the above discussion of entropy, we can argue that entropy seeks to maximize and, therefore, reduce energy to the lowest state possible. This is why I stated that the Minimum Energy Principle, which asserts that energy seeks the lowest state possible, is consistent with law of entropy.

How does this help us understand what made the Big Bang go bang? The Minimum Energy Principle, along with our understanding of the behavior of entropy, makes answering this question relatively easy. The scientific community agrees that the Big Bang started with a point of infinite energy, at the instant prior to the expansion. From the Minimum Energy Principle, we know “Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible and will not transition to a new state unless acted on by another energy source.” Since we know it went “bang,” we can make three deductions regarding the infinitely dense-energy point. First, it was not stable. Second, it was not in the lowest energy state possible. Third, the entropy of the infinitely dense-energy point was at its lowest state possible, which science terms the “ground-state entropy.” These three conditions set the stage for the Minimum Energy Principle and the laws of entropy to initiate the Big Bang.

By the very nature of “playing the tape” of the expanding universe back to discover its origin, namely the Big Bang, we can conclude a highly dense energy state. It will be a highly dense energy state because we are going to take all the energy that expanded from the Big Bang, and cause it to contract. As it contracts, the universe grows smaller and more energy-dense. At the end of this process, we have a highly dense energy state. I think of it as a point, potentially without dimensions, but with near-infinite energy. This view is widely held by the scientific community. If it is true, all logic causes us to conclude it was an infinitely excited energy state, and we would have every reason to question its stability—and to believe it was at the “ground-state” entropy (the lowest entropy state possible).

Our observations of unstable energy systems in the laboratory suggest that as soon as the point of infinite energy came to exist, it had to seek stability at a lower energy level. The Big Bang was a form of energy dilution. In the process of lowering the energy, it increased the entropy of the universe. Once again, we see the Minimum Energy Principle and the law of entropy acting in concert.

How long did the infinitely dense-energy point exist? No one really knows. However, we can approach an answer by understanding more about time.  We will discuss this aspect in Part 2.

This post is based on my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), available from Amazon.

 

Multiple overlapping clock faces with various times, creating a surreal and abstract time concept in blue tones.

Do Time Travel Paradoxes Negate the Possibility of Time Travel?

Categories, Time Travel, , ,

Do time travel paradoxes spell doom to time travel? The short answer is no. Many in the scientific community do not think time travel paradoxes present an insurmountable barrier to time travel. Many physicists have suggested solutions to time travel paradoxes. In fact, discussing them all would result in a book. I will discuss the major ones. For the sake of convenience, I have divided them into four categories:

  1. Multiverse hypothesis—The multiverse hypothesis argues that time travel paradoxes are real, but they lead to alternate realities. The most famous theory in this category is American physicist Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. According to Everett (1930–1982), certain observations in reality are not predictable absolutely by quantum mechanics. Instead, there is a range of possible observations associated with physical phenomena, and each is associated with a different probability. Everett’s interpretation is that each possible observation corresponds to a different universe, hence the name “many-worlds.”  Let us consider a simple example. If you toss a coin in the air, it can come down heads or tails. The probability of getting heads is equal to the probability of getting tails. If you toss the coin, and it comes down heads, then there is another you, in another universe, who observes tails. This sounds like science fiction. However, according to a poll published in The Physics of Immortality (1994), 58% of scientists believe the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, 13% are on the fence (undecided), 11% have no opinion, and 18% do not believe it. Among the believers are Nobel laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman, and world-famous physicist/cosmologist Stephen Hawking. In our everyday reality, many of us would reject the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics because we do not experience it directly. However, let me point out, we do not experience the individual atoms of a book when we hold it. Yet, we know from sophisticated experimental analysis that the book is a collection of atoms. Unfortunately, in the strange world of quantum mechanics, our intuition and experience rarely serve us. I leave it to you to formulate your own conclusions.
  2. Timeline-protection hypothesis—The timeline-protection hypothesis asserts that it is impossible to create a time travel paradox. For example, if you travel back in time and attempt to prevent your grandfather from meeting your grandmother, you fail every time. If you attempt to shoot yourself through a wormhole, the gun jams, or something else happens, which prevents you from changing the past. Several other paradox resolutions fit under this category. They are:
    • The Novikov self-consistency principle, suggested by Russian physicist Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov in the mid-1980s, which asserts anything a time traveler does remains consistent with history. For example, if you travel to the past and attempt to keep your grandfather from meeting your grandmother, something interferes with any attempt you make, causing you to fail in the attempt. In other words, the time traveler is unable to change history.
    • The self-healing hypothesis theory, which states that whatever a time traveler does to alter the present by traveling to the past sets off another set of events to cause the present to remain unchanged. For example, if you attempt to prevent Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, you may succeed in preventing John Wilkes Booth from carrying out the assassination only to find someone else assassinated Lincoln. In essence, time heals itself.
  3. Timeline-corruption hypothesis—The timeline-corruption hypothesis suggests that time paradoxes are inevitable and unavoidable. Any time travel to the past creates minute effects that inevitably alter the timeline and cause the future to change. For example, if you inadvertently step on an ant in the past, it changes the future. Popular science fiction literature calls this the “butterfly effect,” namely, that the flutter of a butterfly’s wings in Africa can cause a hurricane in North America. Under this theory, anything you do will have a consequence. It may be small and benign. Alternatively, it may be large and disastrous. The destruction-resolution hypothesis fits in this category. It holds that anything a time traveler does resulting in a paradox destroys the timeline, and even the universe. Obviously, if the destruction-resolution hypothesis is true, any time travel would be disastrous. However, I doubt the validity of the destruction-resolution hypothesis, since we are able to perform time dilation (i.e., forward time travel) experiments with subatomic particles using particle accelerators.
  4. Choice timeline hypothesis—The choice timeline hypothesis holds that if you choose to travel in time, it is predestined, and history instantly changes. This implies you can time travel to the future and leave an item there that you will need sometime in the future. It will be there for you when the future becomes the present. For example, assume you are in New York City, and someone is about to assault you. You have no escape or means of protection. According to the choice timeline hypothesis, you can use your time machine to travel to the future. You hide a gun near the place where the assault is about to occur. When the assault occurs, you retrieve the hidden gun and scare off the attacker.

There are numerous other time-paradox resolution hypotheses. Most fall under one of the above categories, or are not as popular as the above. I left them out in the interest of clarity and brevity. The four categories above give us a reasonable framework to understand the major time-paradox resolution theories, and the current thinking regarding their impact on the timeline.

The majority of the scientific community does not think time paradoxes inhibit time travel. For example, Kip Thorne, an American theoretical physicist and professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology until 2009, argues that time paradoxes are imprecise thought experiments which can be resolved by numerous consistent solutions. The scientific consensus appears to be that time paradoxes may or may not occur, but they do not exclude the possibility of time travel. This position appears validated by the time dilation (i.e., forward time travel) experiments routinely performed using particle accelerators.

This post is based on my book, How to Time Travel (2013)

Aliens and UFOs

Warp Drive – Time Travel to the Future – Science or Science Fiction?

Categories, Physics, Time Travel, , , ,

Is a warp drive spaceship feasible? Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre thinks it is.

In 1994, Dr. Alcubierre published a 1994 paper, “The Warp Drive: Hyper-Fast Travel Within General Relativity,” in the science journal Classical and Quantum Gravity.

The Alcubierre drive appears to allow a spaceship to travel faster than light, but it requires the existence of negative mass to make the Alcubierre drive work. In principle, the drive works by contracting the space in front of the spaceship and expanding the space behind the spaceship faster than the speed of light. In this fashion, the spaceship rides like a surfer on a wave. As the space behind the spaceship expands faster than the speed of light, the spaceship appears to move faster than the speed of light. However, it does not. Only the space behind the ship is expanding faster than the speed of light. In this way, Dr. Alcubierre avoids violating the laws of special relativity, namely, that no mass can exceed the speed of light.

There is no law in physics that prohibits space from expanding faster than the speed of light. From this viewpoint, the Alcubierre drive has merit. The Alcubierre drive is a mathematically valid solution to Einstein’s field equations. However, requiring negative mass as part of the mechanism for the Alcubierre drive makes the theory highly speculative and, once again, beyond the reach of today’s science. As a side note, Dr. Alcubierre got this idea by watching Star Trek and its use of the warp drive.

Often today’s science fiction becomes tomorrow’s science fact.

This post is based on my new book, How to Time Travel (2013), Louis A. Del Monte.