Category Archives: Physics

A circular image of the center of a building.

Predicting the Singularity

Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Physics, ,

Futurists differ on the technical marvels and cultural changes that will precede the singularity. In this context, let us define the singularity as a point in time when an artificially intelligent machine exceeds the combined cognitive intelligence of the entire human race. In effect, there is no widely accepted vision of the decade leading to the singularity. There are reasons why this is the case.

The most obvious reason is that futurists differ on when the singularity will occur. Respected artificial intelligence technology futurists, like Ray Kurzweil and the late James Martin (1933 – 2013), predict the singularity will occur on or about 2045. At the 2012 Singularity Summit, Stuart Armstrong, a University of Oxford James Martin research fellow, conducted a poll regarding artificial generalized intelligence (AGI) predictions (i.e., the timing of the singularity) and found a median value of 2040. If you scour the Internet, you can find predictions that are substantially earlier and a century later. Therefore, let me preface everything I say with “caveat emptor,” Latin for “Let the buyer beware.” In this context, you may interpret it, “Let the reader be skeptical.” Although I strongly believe that my predictions regarding the singularity are correct, I also caution that the reader be skeptical and examine each prediction using their own judgment to ascertain its validity.

After much research and thought, I have concluded that the world will experience the singularity between 2040 -2045. In effect, I agree with Kurzweil, Martin, and the 2012 Armstrong survey. That suggests that the singularity will occur within the next twenty-five years. In the next post, I’ll explain how I arrived at my projection in the next post.

A futuristic, sleek turbine engine with a conical front and illuminated blue accents in a dark setting.

Stephen Hawking Proposes Nanotechnology Spacecraft to Reach ‘Second Earth’ in 20 years

Categories, nanotechnology, Nanoweapons, Physics, Technology, Threats to Humankind, , , ,

Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking is proposing a nanotechnology spacecraft that can travel at a fifth of the speed of light. At that speed, it could reach the nearest star in 20 years and send back images of a suspected “Second Earth” within 5 years. That means if we launched it today, we would have our first look at an Earth-like planet within 25 years.

Hawking proposed a nano-spacecraft, termed “Star Chip,” at the Starmus Festival IV: Life And The Universe, Trondheim, Norway, June 18 – 23, 2017. Hawking told attendees that every time intelligent life evolves it annihilates itself with “war, disease and weapons of mass destruction.” He asserted this as the primary reason why advanced civilizations from another part of the Universe are not contacting Earth and the primary reason we need to leave the Earth. His advocates we colonize a “Second Earth.”

Scientific evidence appears to support Hawking’s claim. The SETI Institute has been listening for evidence of extraterrestrial radio signals, a sign of advanced extraterrestrial life, since 1984. To date, their efforts have been futile. SETI claims, rightly, that the universe is vast, and they are listening to only small sectors, which is much like finding a needle in a haystack. Additional evidence that Hawking may be right about the destructive nature of intelligent life comes from experts surveyed at the 2008 Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at the University of Oxford, whose poll suggested a 19% chance of human extinction by the end of this century, citing the top four most probable causes:

  1. Molecular nanotechnology weapons – 5% probability
  2. Super-intelligent AI – 5% probability
  3. Wars – 4% probability
  4. Engineered pandemic – 2% probability

Hawking envisions the nano-spacecraft to be a tiny probe propelled on its journey by a laser beam from Earth, much the same way wind propels sailing vessels. Once it reaches its destination, Hawking asserts, “Once there, the nano craft could image any planets discovered in the system, test for magnetic fields and organic molecules, and send the data back to Earth in another laser beam.”

Would Hawking’s nano-spacecraft work? Based on the research I performed during my career and in preparation for writing my latest book, Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity (Potomac Books, 2017), I judge his concept is feasible. However, it would require significant engineering, as well as funding, to move from Hawking’s concept to a working nano-spacecraft, likely billions of dollars and decades of work. However, in Nanoweapons, I described the latest development of bullets that contain nanoelectronic guidance systems that allow the bullets to guide themselves, possibly to shoot an adversary hiding around a corner. Prototypes already exist.

Hawking’s concept is compelling. Propelling a larger conventional spacecraft using a laser would not attain the near light speed necessary to reach a distant planet. Propelling it with rockets would also fall short. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, a large conventional spacecraft would require close to infinite energy to approach the speed of light. Almost certainly, Hawking proposed a nano-spacecraft for just that reason. Its mass would be small, perhaps measured in milligrams, similar to the weight of a typical household fly.

Hawking’s concept represents a unique application of nanotechnology that could give humanity its first up-close look at an inhabitable planet. What might we see? Perhaps it already harbors advanced intelligent life that chose not to contact Earth, given our hostile nature toward each other. Perhaps it harbors primitive life similar to the beginning of life on Earth. We have no way of knowing without contact.

You may choose to laugh at Hawking’s proposal. However, Hawking is one of the top scientists on Earth and well aware of advances in any branch of science he speaks about. I judge his concerns are well founded and his nano-spacecraft concept deserves serious consideration.

Book cover titled 'Nanoweapons: Growing Threat to Humanity' by Louis A. Del Monte, featuring a small insect image.

Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity

Categories, nanotechnology, Nanoweapons, Physics, Technology, Threats to Humankind, War, , , , , ,

In 2008, experts surveyed at the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at the University of Oxford judged nanoweapons to be the #1 threat to humanity’s survival in the 21st century. The majority of people, worldwide, have never even heard of nanoweapons. Yet, a new nanoweapons arms race is raging between the United States, China, and Russia. Each side is spending billions of dollars to gain dominance in nanoweapons. Nanoweapons are based on nanotechnology. This naturally begs the question, What is nanotechnology? According to the United States National Nanotechnology Initiative’s website, nano.gov, “Nanotechnology is science, engineering, and technology conducted at the nanoscale, which is about 1 to 100 nanometers.” A nanometer is about 1/1000 the diameter of a human hair. Ironically, the next big thing in military weapons will be small and invisible to the naked eye. But make no mistake, nanoweapons promise to be potentially more destructive and harder to control than nuclear weapons. They may the last weapons humanity invents, paving our way to extinction.

In this short post, my goal is to introduce nanoweapons and their potential to lead to human extinction. My new book (available for pre-order on Amazon), Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity, describes this new class of military weapons in layperson prose. It discusses the nanoweapons in development and deployment. It projects the nanoweapons likely to dominate the future battlefield in the second half of this century. It addresses a critical question, Will it be possible to develop, deploy and use nanoweapons in warfare, without rendering humanity extinct? Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity is the first book to broach the subject. My goal in writing the book is summed up in a quote by Thomas Jefferson, “An informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy.” I invite you to become “informed,” thus forewarned. Our future is in the balance.

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

Why is there more matter than antimatter?

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

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.

 

 

Close-up of a fingerprint being examined under a magnifying glass with a blue-toned background.

The Top Five Unsolved Mysteries of Science

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Physics, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , , , , , , , , ,

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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?