Category Archives: Big Bang Science Theory

Why is there more matter than antimatter?

August 2, 2015Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteriesabsence of antimatter, Big Bang Science Theory, louis del monte, Why is there more matter than antimatteradmin

According to the Big Bang theory, their should be equal parts of matter and antimatter in our Universe. Conventional wisdom states that they should have annihilated each other, resulting in radiation. If that were true, we should have a Universe filled with only radiation. However, the Universe we observe consists of both radiation and matter. If there were any significant quantities of antimatter in our Universe, we would see radiation emitted as it interacted with matter. We do not observe this. Therefore, it is natural to ask, “What happened to all the antimatter?”

Let’s start with a simple definition of antimatter. Antimatter is the mirror image of matter. For example, if we consider an electron matter, the positron is antimatter. The positron has the same mass and structure as an electron, but the opposite charge. The electron has a negative charge, and the positron has a positive charge.

In 2010 – 2013, scientists using the Large Hadron Collider have shown glimpses of evidence that suggest antimatter decays faster than matter, but the numbers are relatively small and do not fully explain why we have a Universe of matter and radiation. In addition, there is not full agreement in the scientific community regarding the different rates of decay of matter versus antimatter.

Several theories float within the scientific community to resolve the missing antimatter issue. The currently favored theories (baryogenesis theories) employ sub-disciplines of physics and statistics to describe possible mechanisms. The baryogenesis theories start out with the same premise, namely the early universe had both baryons (an elementary particle made up of three quarks) and antibaryons (the mirror image of the baryons). At this point, the universe underwent baryogenesis. Baryogenesis is a generic term for theoretical physical processes that produce an asymmetry (inequality) between matter and antimatter. The asymmetry, per the baryogenesis theories, resulted in significant amounts of residual matter, as opposed to antimatter. The major differences between the various baryogenesis theories are in the details of the interactions between elementary particles. Baryogenesis essentially boils down to the creation of more matter than antimatter. In other words, it requires the physical laws of the universe to become asymmetrical. We need to understand what this means.

The symmetry of physical laws is widely accepted by the scientific community. What does “symmetry” mean in this context?

First, it means that the physical laws do not change with time. If a physical law is valid today, it continues to be valid tomorrow, and any time in the future. This is a way of saying that a time translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.
Second, it means that the physical laws do not change with distance. If the physical law is valid on one side of the room, it is valid on the other side of the room. Therefore, any space translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.
Lastly, it means that the physical laws do not change with rotation. For example, the gravitational attraction between two masses does not change when the masses rotate in space, as long as the distance between them remains fixed. Therefore, any rotational translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.

This is what we mean by the symmetry of physical laws.

Next, we will address the asymmetry of physical laws. In this context, “asymmetry” means that the symmetry of physical laws no longer applies. For example, a law of physics may be valid in a specific location, but not in another, when both locations are equivalent. Is this possible? Maybe. There has been experimental evidence that the asymmetry is possible (a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws). For example, radioactive decay and high-energy particle accelerators have provided evidence that asymmetry is possible. However, the evidence is far from conclusive. Most importantly, it does not fully explain the magnitude of the resulting matter of the universe.

This casts serious doubt on the baryogenesis theories. In addition, the baryogenesis theories appear biased by our knowledge of the outcome. By making certain (questionable) assumptions, and using various scientific disciplines, they result in the answer we already know to be true. The universe consists of matter, not antimatter. Therefore, baryogenesis theories may not be an objective explanation.

Obviously, the absence of antimatter is a profound mystery of science. Future work at the Large Hadron Collider may help us resolve this mystery. Based on their current findings, we are close, but do not have the total answer yet. If there are any breakthroughs, I will post them.

The Top Five Unsolved Mysteries of Science

July 25, 2015Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Physics, Time Travel, Universe MysteriesBig Bang Science Theory, life, life on earth, louis del monte, origin of life, origin of life on earth, scientific mysteries, time, time travel, Top Five Unsolved Mysteries of Science, universe's mysteriesadmin

There are numerous unsolved mysteries in science. In this post, I will delineate the top five that I consider the most profound.

What caused the Big Bang? Cosmologist are in strong consensus that the Big Bang resulted in the evolution of the Universe, but there is no scientific consensus as to what caused the Big Bang. There are several theories, including one that I put forward in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. However, none of the current theories, including the one that I forward in my book, have garnered consensus in the scientific community. The origin of the Big Bang is arguably the greatest scientific mystery of all time, and it remains an area of considerable research.
How did life start on Earth? There are two fundamental theories regarding the origin of life on Earth. The first theory, panspermia, holds that life exists throughout the Universe and is distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids. This theory is compelling, but it still leaves us with another profound question, “How did life originate in the Universe?” There are no widely accepted theories to address that question. The second theory, regarding how life started on Earth, is termed biopoesis. It holds that life forms from inorganic matter through natural processes. This theory is also compelling, but no experimental process has resulted in life forming from inorganic matter. By simple logic, one or even both of these theories is correct. Obviously, in the early Universe, life had to form from inorganic matter. It is also possible that life also started on Earth via the same process. It is also possible that once life formed in the Universe, it was spread by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.
What is the nature of time? Some scientists, myself included, argue time is real. This stance suggests that time travel would also be possible. In my book, How to Time Travel, I devote considerable attention to the various philosophies of time and to experiments that suggest time is real. I also delineate experiments that prove time travel to the future is real, as well as experiments that prove reverse causality is real (i.e., literally, the effect precedes the cause). I also delineate experiments that prove that something in the future can alter the past. Some philosophers and scientists argue that time is a mental construct. It is not real. That humans invented time to measure change. If that is true, time travel would not be possible, except in your mind. However, scientific experiments, such as time dilation and reverse causality suggest otherwise. What do you think?
What is the fundamental theory of physics? Modern physics rests on two pillars, The first pillar is Einstein’s theories of relativity. The second pillar is quantum mechanics. Although Einstein’s theories explain phenomena on the macro-scale (i.e., the typical scale we observe in our every day life), it fails to explain phenomena on the quantum level (i.e., the level of atoms and subatomic particles). To explain phenomena on the quantum level we must turn to quantum mechanics. This would be acceptable, except Einstein’s theories of relativity are incompatible with quantum mechanics. They do not come together to adequately explain gravity. Physicists have long sought the “theory of everything.” Some physicists, like world renown cosmologist Stephen Hawking, suggest that M-theory (i.e., the most comprehensive string theory) fits the bill. However, there is no consensus or proof that M-theory is even valid. Until the next Einstein comes along and solves the problem, we don’t have a fundamental theory (i.e., a single unifying theory) of physics.
Does life exist on other planets or is the Earth unique? Almost every scientist agrees that given the vastness of the Universe and the numerous Earth-like planets that have been discovered, there must be life somewhere else in the Universe. Indeed, many believe, myself included, that advanced aliens, similar or more advanced than ourselves, must also exist. However, there has been no definitive publication that proves life exists elsewhere in the Universe. I will refrain from getting into UFOs, government conspiracies and similar material. I don’t refute such theories, but as a scientist I must base my conclusions on definitive evidence. To date, we have no definitive evidence (i.e., widely accepted by the scientific community) regarding life on other planets. However, mathematically, I think life on other planets is a certainty. What do you think?

Where Is All the Lithium?

April 11, 2015Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteriesaxions, discrepancy big bang model, Korn, less Lithium in the universe, louis del monte, strong CP problem, Where Is All the Lithiumadmin

According to standard cosmology theory, Lithium, together with hydrogen and helium, is one of three elements to have been synthesized in the Big Bang. Therefore, we should see a uniform abundance of Lithium throughout the universe. However, we don’t. By experimental observation, the older stars seem to have less Lithium than they should (by a factor of 2 or 3), and some younger stars have far more. This discrepancy regarding the uniform abundance of Lithium and experimental analysis of older stars is one of the most distressing discrepancies with the Big Bang theory. In science, one significant discrepancy can dispute a theory. Therefore, this raised serious questions regarding the validity of the Big Bang theory and cast doubt on the accuracy of the experimental measurements.

In 2006, astronomers Andreas Korn of Uppsala University in Sweden and colleagues in Denmark, France and Russia made an important discovery regarding the Lithium cosmic discrepancy. Using a spectrometer on the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope in Chile, Korn and co-workers studied 18 stars in a distant globular cluster called NGC 6397, which formed roughly a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Using their experimental data along with theoretical models of how nuclei behave in the atmospheres of stars, they put forward a new model. They hypothesized that the lithium diffuses into the interiors of stars over time, where it is burnt up at temperatures of over 2.5 million Kelvin. Their model suggested that these stars originally contained 78% more lithium than we observe today. In other words, the predicted initial amount of Lithium agrees with predictions from the Big Bang theory.

Even after Korn’s (and colleagues) discovery in 2006, some cosmologists continued to entertained a competing theory, namely that axions, hypothetical subatomic particles, may have absorbed protons and reduced the amount of Lithium created in the period just after the Big Bang. The axion particle was postulated by the Peccei–Quinn theory in 1977 to resolve the “strong CP problem” (CP standing for charge parity). In theoretical physics, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the theory of strong interactions, predicted there could be a violation of CP symmetry in the strong interactions (the mechanism responsible for the strong nuclear force that holds the nucleus of the atom together). However, there is no experimentally known violation of the CP-symmetry in strong interactions. In effect, cosmologists forwarding the axion theory to explain the cosmological Lithium discrepancy are attempting to explain one mystery (i.e., the cosmological Lithium discrepancy) with another mystery (hypothetical axions). Although, the strong CP problem continues to remain one of the most important unsolved problems in physics, axions appear to be a far less plausible solution to the cosmological Lithium discrepancy. If we apply Occam’s razor (i.e., the simplest of competing theories is preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities), Korn’s (and colleagues) model triumphs.

If we accept Korn’s (and colleagues) model, one of the great cosmological mysteries is resolved and questions regarding the Big Bang model and the experimental measurements are resolved. However, in science old paradigms seem to only die when the scientists holding them die. In my judgement, Korn and his colleagues have resolved the missing Lithium question and are potential candidates for the Nobel Prize.

Image: The Very Large Telescope is a telescope operated by the European Southern Observatory on Cerro Paranal in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile

Is the Universe Finite or Infinite?

January 27, 2015Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Multiverse, Universe MysteriesIs the Universe Finite or Infinite, louis del monte, multiverse, super-universeadmin

The universe we can see and measure is about 13.8 billion years old. However, the universe is larger than 13.8 billion light years in diameter due to the expansion and subsequent inflation of space, in accordance with the Big Bang theory. In fact, our best current estimate, taking expansion and inflation of space into account, puts the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away from Earth. This “edge” would represent our current cosmological horizon.

If you assume that the universe is infinite, then logically it would extend beyond the current cosmological horizon. Scientists have termed this infinite universe a “super-universe.” If the infinite universe theory is correct, our universe may be one universe out of uncountable billions in the super-universe. We cannot see the other universes because our current observation technology is unable to look through the cosmic microwave-background radiation, which originated when the matter in the universe was plasma (hot, ionized gas), and thus opaque. In theory, if we develop more advanced observation technology, such as a neutrino telescope (one capable of detecting neutrinos) or even a gravitational telescope (one capable of detecting the yet-undiscovered gravitation particle called a “graviton”), we would be able to look beyond the cosmic microwave-background radiation and see older events. We would have a new cosmological horizon, but we would never be able to examine the “edge” of an infinite universe. Why? It has no edge—and advances in cosmic observation technology will not matter. Even the hypothetical graviton (the theoretical particle of gravity), traveling at the speed of light, would never reach us from an infinitely distant universe.

Why is an infinite universe even plausible? We know from actual observations that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. The farther out our instruments allow us to observe, we can measure that the expansion is accelerating, and even exceeding the speed of light. The accelerating expansion is termed “inflation,” and was confirmed in the late 1990s. Until inflation’s confirmation, scientists believed that gravity would eventually slow the universe’s expansion, and even eventually cause the universe to contract in a “Big Crunch,” since gravity causes everything to pull on everything.

Long before we had any observable proof of the universe’s inflationary expansion, two scientists independently postulated its existence in 1979. Unfortunately, one scientist, Alexei Starobinsky of the L.D. Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics in Moscow, was unable to communicate his work to the worldwide scientific community due to the political policies of the former Soviet Union. Fortunately, the other scientist, Alan Guth, Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed an inflationary model independently, and communicated it worldwide. Guth’s model, however, was not able to reconcile itself with the isotropic, homogeneous universe we observe today. In other words, to the best of our current ability to measure it, the universe essentially looks the same in every direction. Andrei Linde, Russian-American theoretical physicist and Professor of Physics at Stanford University, solved Guth’s theoretical dilemma in 1986. Linde published an alternative model entitled “Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe” (known as “Chaotic Inflation theory”). In Linde’s model, our universe is one of countless others. A prediction of the chaotic inflation theory is an infinite universe with bubble universes within it. Would they be the same as our universe? No one knows. Perhaps one or more universes would be different from ours. However, being infinite, an infinite number of universes would be identical to ours, even down to the last atom, obeying the same physical laws.

The concept of an infinite universe would also imply an infinite number of us (you, me, and everyone else) are out there somewhere beyond the cosmic horizon. Given an infinite number of us, we are living out every possible scenario. This is difficult to comprehend because infinite numbers cannot be comprehended. Here is a simple way to think about this. If you play poker, what are the odds that you will be dealt a royal flush (Ace, King, Queen, Jack, Ten, all in the same suit) in the first five cards? They are 2,598,960 to 1. That means you will get a royal flush about once every 2,598,960 hands of five-card poker (known as five-card stud poker). Even if you play every day, and for numerous hours a day, you may never get one. However, if you have forever, and continue playing, eventually you will get one, then another, and with infinite time, an uncountable number (an infinite number). Using this example, if there are an infinite number of us in the universe, then each of us in some part of the universe will experience a possible scenario. Since there are an infinite number of us, as a group we will experience every conceivable scenario. For example, in one of these possible scenarios, you would be the President of the United States.

I recognize the implications of an infinite universe are difficult to comprehend. A natural question to ask is, is it possible? The fact is, it’s theoretically possible, but there is no conclusive physical evidence. Recently, it’s been suggested that irregularities observed in the cosmic microwave background may be evidence of another universe bumping into ours. However, there is no scientific consensus regarding that hypothesis, so I am going to leave that discussion for a future post. Currently, it is scientifically valid to assert we do not know if the universe is finite or infinite.

Why Is There Almost No Antimatter In the Universe?

January 12, 2015Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Multiverse, Physics, Universe Mysteriesantimatter, Antimatter In the Universe, big bang duality, big bang theory, louis del monte, unraveling the universe's mysteries, Why Is There Almost No Antimatter In the Universeadmin

One of the great mysteries of our universe, and a weakness of the Big Bang theory, is that matter, not antimatter, totally makes up our universe. According to the Big Bang theory, there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter. (Note: The Big Bang theory asserts that the universe originated from a highly dense energy state that expanded to form all that we observe as reality.)

If there were any significant quantities of antimatter in our galaxy, we would see radiation emitted as it interacted with matter. We do not observe this. It is natural to ask the question: where is the missing antimatter? (Recall, that antimatter is the mirror image of matter. For example, if we consider an electron matter, the positron is antimatter. The positron has the same mass and structure as an electron, but the opposite charge. The electron has a negative charge, and the positron has a positive charge. Antimatter bears no relationship to dark matter. (Dark matter is discussed in the next chapter.)

The symmetry of physical laws is widely accepted by the scientific community. What does “symmetry” mean in this context?

First, it means that the physical laws do not change with time. If a physical law is valid today, it continues to be valid tomorrow, and any time in the future. This is a way of saying that a time translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.
Second, it means that the physical laws do not change with distance. If the physical law is valid on one side of the room, it is valid on the other side of the room. Therefore, any space translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.
Lastly, it means that the physical laws do not change with rotation. For example, the gravitational attraction between two masses does not change when the masses rotate in space, as long as the distance between them remains fixed. Therefore, any rotational translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.

This is what we mean by the symmetry of physical laws.

The Big Bang Duality theory, described in my book Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries and also summarized below, provides a simpler explanation, which does not violate the fundamental symmetry of physical laws. From this viewpoint, it deserves consideration.

In essence, the Big Bang Duality theory hypothesizes that the Big Bang was the result of a collision of two infinitely dense matter-antimatter particles in the Bulk (i.e. A super-universe capable of holding countless universes. In theory, it contains our own universe, as well as other universes.).

This theory rests on the significant experimental evidence that when virtual particles emerge from “nothing,” they are typically created in matter-antimatter pairs. Based on this evidence, I argued in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, the Big Bang was a result of a duality, not a singularity as is often assumed in the Big Bang model. The duality would suggest two infinitely dense energy particles pop into existence in the Bulk. These are infinitely energy-dense “virtual particles.” One particle would be matter, the other antimatter. The collision between the two particles results in the Big Bang.

What does this imply? It implies that the Big Bang was the result of a matter-antimatter collision. What do we know about those types of collisions from our experiments in the laboratory? Generally, when matter and antimatter collide in the laboratory, we get “annihilation.” However, the laws of physics require the conservation of energy. Therefore, we end up with something, rather than nothing. The something can be photons, matter, or antimatter.

You may be tempted to consider the Big Bang Duality theory a slightly different flavor baryogenesis theory. However, the significant difference rests on the reactants, those substances undergoing the physical reaction, when the infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter particles collide. The Big Bang Duality postulates the reactants are two particles (one infinitely energy-dense matter particle and one infinitely energy-dense antimatter particle). When the two particles collide, the laboratory evidence suggests the products that result are matter, photons, and antimatter. Contrary to popular belief, we do not get annihilation (nothing), when they collide. This would violate the conservation of energy. Consider this result. Two of the three outcomes, involving the collision of matter with antimatter, favor our current universe, namely photons and matter. This suggests that the collision of two infinitely dense matter-antimatter pairs statistically favor resulting in a universe filled with matter and photons. In other words, the universe we have. While not conclusive, it is consistent with the Big Bang being a duality. It is consistent with the reality of our current universe, and addresses the issue: where is the missing antimatter? The answer: The infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter pair collides. The products of the collision favor matter and energy. Any resulting antimatter would immediately interact with the matter and energy. This reaction would continue until all that remains is matter and photons. In fact, a prediction of the Big Bang Duality theory would be the absence of observable antimatter in the universe. As you visualize this, consider that the infinitely energy-dense matter and antimatter particles are infinitesimally small, even to the point of potentially being dimensionless. Therefore, the collision of the two particles results in every quanta of energy in each particle contacting simultaneously.

You may be inclined to believe a similar process could occur from a Big Bang singularity that produces equal amounts of matter and antimatter. The problem with this theory is that the initial inflation of the energy (matter and antimatter) would quickly separate matter and antimatter. While collisions and annihilations would occur, we should still see regions of antimatter in the universe due to the initial inflation and subsequent separation. If there were such regions, we would see radiation resulting from the annihilations of antimatter with matter. We do not see any evidence of radiation in the universe that would suggest regions of antimatter. Therefore, the scientific community has high confidence that the universe consists of matter, and antimatter is absent.

I have sidestepped the conventional baryogenesis statistical analysis used to explain the absence of antimatter, which is held by most of the scientific community. However, the current statistical treatments require a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws. Essentially, they argue the initial expansion of the infinitely dense energy point (singularity) produces more matter than antimatter, hence the asymmetry. This appears to complicate the interpretation, and violate Occam’s razor. The Big Bang Duality theory preserves the conservation of energy law, and does not require a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws.

Let me propose a sanity check. How comfortable is your mind (judgment) in assuming a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws? I suspect many of my readers and numerous scientists may feel uncomfortable about this assumption. The most successful theory in modern physics is Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which requires the laws of physics to be invariant in any inertial frame of reference (i.e., a frame of reference at rest or moving at a constant velocity). If you start with the Big Bang Duality theory, it removes this counterintuitive assumption. This results in a more straightforward, intellectually satisfying, approach, consistent with all known physical laws. Therefore, this theory also fits Occam’s razor (i.e., A principle of science that holds the simplest explanation is the most plausible one, until new data to the contrary becomes available.).

Are There Other Universes?

November 25, 2014Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Multiverse, Physics, Universe MysteriesAre There Other Universes, Big Bang Science Theory, louis del monte, M-theory, multiiverse, unraveling the universe's mysteriesadmin

With the advent of M-theory (i.e., membrane theory, the most comprehensive string theory), the concept of other universes (i.e., multiverse) has gained some traction in the scientific community. According to M-theory, when two membranes collide, they form a universe. The collision is what we observed as the Big Bang when our universe formed. From that standpoint, universes continually form via other Big Bangs (collisions of membranes). Is this believable? Actually, It is highly speculative. At this point, we must admit no conclusive evidence of a multiverse exists. In fact, numerous problems with the multiverse theories are known.

All multiverse theories share three significant problems.

None of the multiverse theories explains the origin of the initial energy to form the universe. They, in effect, sidestep the question entirely. Mainstream science believes, via inference, in the reality of energy. Therefore, it is a valid question to ask: what is the origin of energy needed to form a multiverse? M-theory does not provide an answer.
No conclusive experimental evidence proves that multiverses exist. This is not to say that they do not exist. Eventually, novel experiments may prove their existence. However, to date no experiment or observation has proved M-theory as correct or the existence of other universes.
Critics argue it is poor science. We are postulating universes we cannot see or measure in order to explain the universe we can see and measure. This is another way of saying it violates Occam’s razor, which states states that the simplest explanation is the most plausible one.

Is it possible to use technologies associated with astronomy to detect other universes? The answer is maybe, and that is a big MAYBE! What does astronomy teach us? The the farthest-away entity we can see in space is the cosmic microwave background, which is thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the Big Bang. The cosmic microwave background actually blocks us from looking deeper into space. However, some highly recent discoveries regarding the cosmic microwave background have been made that suggest there may be other universes. Let’s look at those discoveries.

A growing number of scientists 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 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 (http://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.

What does this all add up to? First, from both a mathematical perspective and observations from astronomy, we have evidence that suggests the theory of other universes (i.e., multiverse) may be correct. However, the evidence, though compelling to some, is not conclusive. I suggest keeping an open mind. What we don’t understand via today’s science may yield to tomorrows science.

The Nature of Reality

November 20, 2014Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Physics, Universe Mysterieslouis del monte, nature of reality, quantum universeadmin

This article addresses a deceptively simple question, what is reality? Our first response is to simply say look around you. Everything you see is part of reality. What’s wrong with that as an answer? Actually nothing is wrong with that answer if you’re trying to explain reality to a young child. As the child grows older, you will likely explain that reality also consists of things you can’t see as well, like radio waves. When the child goes to school, at some point they will teach the child about gravity and likely describe it as an invisible field between two masses that draws them together. The typical classroom lesson talks about Newton being hit on the head with an apple and as a consequence discovering gravity. So, if we sum up the typical description of reality taught to us as school children it consists of entities we can see and entities we can’t see.

Today we know that reality, our universe, is fundamentally made of mass and electromagnetic energy (i.e., photons and electrons). We also know that even vacuums contain energy, which has been proven by laundry list of experiments, such as the Casimir-Polder force (i.e., an attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates in a vacuum). Since Einstein’s special theory of relativity equates energy with mass via his famous equation E = mc^2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in empty space, we can argue that the entire universe is made of energy in different forms. This should not surprise us since the most accepted theory of the universe’s evolution is the big bang theory. The big bang theory holds that the universe originated from an infinitely dense-energy point that expanded to form the universe we now observe.

From quantum mechanics we learn that all energy is quantized (i.e., made up of discrete packets of energy termed quantums). For example, light is made up of photons, and mass is made of atoms, which in turn is made of discrete subatomic particles, like protons and electrons. Although the science of physics breaks down when we attempt to model the infinitely dense-energy point that constituted the big bang at the point it came into existence, it’s logical to believe the energy that constituted the big bang must have also been quantized. However, this point should be considered a hypothesis, since it has not been proven.

What does all of the above say about reality? The answer is two points:

All reality is energy, which manifests itself in different forms
All energy is quantized (This is a fundamental pillar of quantum mechanics)

In a recent previous post, The Nature of Time Parts 1 and 2, I delineated that science holds that time itself is also quantized into small intervals termed Planck time. I also presented a conjecture that movement in time was related to energy. Please see that post for a more complete understanding. If you are willing to accept that all reality (mass, space, time, and energy) is composed of discrete energy quantums, we can argue we live in a Quantum Universe (i.e., a universe that is made up of discrete quantum of energy, including for example photons, atoms, subatomic particles, etc.).

I would like to add that this view of the universe is similar to the assertions of string theory, which posits that all reality consists of a one-dimensional vibrating string of energy. I intentionally chose not to entangle the concept of a Quantum Universe with string theory. If you will pardon the metaphor, string theory is tangled in numerous interpretations and philosophical arguments. No scientific consensus says that string theory is valid, though numerous prominent physicists believe it is. For these reasons, I chose to build the concept of a Quantum Universe separate from string theory, although the two “theories” (actually hypotheses) appear conceptually compatible.

A Quantum Universe may be a difficult theory to accept. We do not typically experience the universe as being an immense system of discrete packets of energy. Light appears continuous to our senses. Our electric lamp does not appear to flicker each time an electron goes through the wire. The computer you are using to read these words appears solid. We cannot feel the atoms that form the computer. This makes it difficult to understand that the entire universe consists of quantized energy. Here is a simple framework to think about it. When we watch a motion picture, each frame in the film is slightly different from the last. When we play them at the right speed, about twenty-four frames per second, we see, and our brains process continuous movement. However, is it? No. It appears to be continuous because we cannot see the frame-to-frame changes.

In summary, this article argues the nature of reality, the universe, consists of energy and that energy is quantized, resulting in a Quantum Universe.

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

January 7, 2014Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Universe Mysteriesbig bang duality, Big Bang origin, Big Bang Science Theory, big bang theory, louis del monte, unraveling the universe's mysteries, What made the big bang go bangadmin

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 (http://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.

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

December 30, 2013Big Bang Science Theory, CategoriesBig Bang Science Theory, big bang theory, louis del monte, unraveling the universe's mysteries, What made the big bang go bangadmin

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.

Where Is the Missing Antimatter? Part 2/2

November 26, 2013Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Universe Mysteriesbig bang duality, big bang theory, louis del monte, missing antimatter, Where is the missing antimatter? Unraveling the Universe's Mysteriesadmin

In essence, the Big Bang Duality theory hypothesizes that the Big Bang was the result of a collision of two infinitely dense matter-antimatter particles in the Bulk (i.e., a super-universe capable of holding countless universes, including our own). This theory rests on the significant experimental evidence that when virtual particles emerge in a vacuum, they are thought by some physicists to be created in matter-antimatter pairs. Based on this evidence, I argue the Big Bang was a result of a duality, not a singularity as is often assumed in the Big Bang model. The duality would suggest two infinitely dense energy particles pop into existence in the Bulk. These are infinitely energy-dense “virtual particles.” One particle would be matter, the other antimatter. The collision between the two particles results in the Big Bang.

You may be tempted to consider the Big Bang Duality theory a slightly different flavor baryogenesis theory. However, the significant difference rests on the reactants, those substances undergoing the physical reaction, when the infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter particles collide. The Big Bang Duality postulates the reactants are two particles (one infinitely energy-dense matter particle and one infinitely energy-dense antimatter particle). When the two particles collide, the laboratory evidence suggests the products that result are matter, photons, and antimatter. Contrary to popular belief, we do not get annihilation (nothing), when they collide. This would violate the conservation of energy. Consider this result. Two of the three outcomes, involving the collision of matter with antimatter, favor our current universe, namely photons and matter. In 2010, CERN scientists announced that they experimentally verified that the collision of matter with antimatter slightly favored the formation of matter (versus antimatter) by approximately 1%. This suggests that the collision of two infinitely dense matter-antimatter pairs statistically favor resulting in a universe filled with matter (equivalent to 1% of the total matter we started with) and photons. In other words, it favors the universe we have. While not conclusive, it is consistent with the Big Bang being a duality. It is consistent with the reality of our current universe, and addresses the issue: where is the missing antimatter? The answer: The infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter pair collides. The products of the collision favor matter and energy. Any resulting antimatter would immediately interact with the matter and energy. This reaction would continue until all that remains is matter (equivalent to 1% of what we started with) and photons. In fact, a prediction of the Big Bang Duality theory would be the absence of observable antimatter in the universe. As you visualize this, consider that the infinitely energy-dense matter and antimatter particles are infinitesimally small, even to the point of potentially being dimensionless. Therefore, the collision of the two particles results in every quanta of energy in each particle contacting simultaneously.

I have sidestepped the conventional baryogenesis statistical analysis used to explain the absence of antimatter, which is held by most of the scientific community. However, the current statistical treatments require a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws. Essentially, they argue the initial expansion of the infinitely dense energy point (singularity) produces more matter than antimatter, hence the asymmetry. This appears to complicate the interpretation, and violate Occam’s razor (a principle of science that holds the simplest explanation is the most plausible one, until new data to the contrary becomes available). The Big Bang Duality theory preserves the conservation of energy law and does not require a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws.

Let me propose a sanity check. How comfortable is your mind (judgment) in assuming a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws? I suspect many of my readers and numerous scientists may feel uncomfortable about this assumption. If you start with the Big Bang Duality theory, it removes this counterintuitive assumption. This results in a more straightforward, intellectually satisfying approach, consistent with all known physical laws. Therefore, this theory fits Occam’s razor.

The above post is based on material from Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), available in paperback and Kindle editions at Amazon.com.

Louis A. Del Monte

Award Winning Physicist, Author, Featured Speaker, and CEO