Category Archives: Universe Mysteries

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 (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.

The Quantum and Macro Level Follow the Same Natural Laws

December 11, 2013Categories, Physics, Universe MysteriesEinstein general theory of relativity, Einstein special theory of relativity, louis del monte, Quantum and Macro Level Follow the Same Natural Laws, Quantum entanglement, quantum mechanics, theory of everything, universe's mysteriesadmin

The two pillars of modern physics are quantum mechanics and Einstein’s special/general relativity. We generally use quantum mechanics to describe how reality behaves at the quantum level (i.e., the level of atoms and subatomic particles). In our everyday world, the macro level, we generally use Einstein’s special or general relativity to describe the behavior of reality. Thus, it appears we need two separate set of “laws” to describe reality, one for the quantum level and one for the macro level. In addition, quantum mechanics is incompatible with general relativity. This suggests that quantum mechanics may not apply at the macro level. However, in 2010, an important experiment suggested that quantum mechanics is applicable to the macro level.

What happened on December 2010? Scientists at the University of Santa Barbara, United States, published a paper “Quantum mechanics applies to the motion of macroscopic objects”. The University of Santa Barbara scientists made a clear demonstration that the theory of quantum mechanics applies to the mechanical movement of an object large enough to be seen with the naked eye. Now, before we go into the detail, just think about the implications and questions this raises if this proves to be true. Do macroscopic objects have a particle-wave duality? Can macroscopic objects be modeled using wave equations, like the Schrödinger equation? Will macroscopic reality behave, under the right circumstances, similar to microscopic reality? To approach an answer, let’s take a look at what the University of Santa Barbara scientists demonstrated.

Our story starts out with Dr. Markus Aspelmeyer, an Austrian quantum physicist, who performed an experiment in 2009 between a photon and a micromechanical resonator, which is a micromechanical system typically created in a silicon chip and sometimes an integrated circuit, which may or may not contain additional electronic integrated circuits. The micromechanical resonator can be caused to resonate, i.e. move up and down much like a plucked guitar string. The interesting part is Dr. Aspelmeyer was able to established an interaction between a photon and a micromechanical resonator, creating the so-called strong coupling (i.e. a strong and noticeable interaction), able to transfer quantum effects to the macroscopic world. This is the first recorded time in history that the quantum world communicated with the macro world.

So what happened at the University of Santa Barbara at 2010? Andrew Cleland and John Martinis at the University of California (UC), Santa Barbara, worked with Ph.D. student Aaron O’Connell. This team became the first to experimentally induce and measure quantum effect in the motion of a human made object. The work, released in March 2010, was voted by Science and AAAS (the publisher of Science Careers) as the 2010 Breakthrough of the Year “in recognition of the conceptual ground their experiment breaks, the ingenuity behind it and its many potential applications,” according to a AAAS press release.

What exactly did they do? They showed that a mechanical resonator (i.e. in this case a small metal strip that can vibrate freely), which was cooled to its ground state energy (ground state), works at the macro level. To understand how profound this is we need to understand the ground state. The ground state is the lowest fundamental level of energy of vibration a physical entity may have according to quantum mechanics. It is not zero energy, but close. A particle with zero energy would violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We would know where it is and how fast it is going simultaneously! The act of putting a system in its ground state energy has never been done before. Their method was brilliant. They first built a mechanical resonator to the frequency of the microwave. Then, the resonator was physically connected to a superconducting qubit (i.e. a quantum system controlled with great precision, used in research of quantum computers). The set was then cooled to near absolute zero. But, how could they be sure that they were at the ground state. They used quantum qubit as a thermometer and demonstrated that the mechanical resonator contained no extra vibration. In other words, it had been cooled to a level equivalent to its ground state energy. At this point, the experiment is already in the history books, but wait an even larger punch line is coming.

The mechanical resonator is as close as possible to being perfectly still, i.e. the ground state. The scientists then added a single quantum of energy, a phonon, the smallest physical unit of mechanical vibration, thus the lowest possible level of excitement. What they observed next is astounding. When the mechanical resonator absorbed this fundamental unit of energy, the qubit and resonator became entangled quantum mechanically (i.e., quantum entanglement). This means that any change in the quantum state of one of them will be immediately cause a change in the state of the other.

Measurements of the vibrational energy showed that the results exactly followed the predictions of the quantum mechanics. The quantum level and the macro level, given the appropriate physical circumstances, follow the same natural laws. This one experiment may have put us one step closer to a unified theory of everything, the “holy grail” of physics.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Where Is the Missing Antimatter? Part 1/2

November 23, 2013Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Universe Mysterieslouis del monte, missing antimatter, Where is the missing antimatter? Unraveling the Universe's Mysteriesadmin

Where Is the Missing Antimatter? 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. If there were any 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 other posts.)

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. However, apart from the Big Bang Duality theory, it is science’s best theory of the missing antimatter dilemma.

The Big Bang Duality theory provides a simpler explanation, which does not violate the fundamental symmetry of physical laws. From this viewpoint, it deserves consideration, and we will discuss it in Part 2.

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

Are We All Just Trapped in a Self-Conscious Supercomputer?

November 20, 2013Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Universe Mysteriesare we real or a computer simulation, louis del monte, Self-Conscious Supercomputer, simulated universe, unraveling the universe's mysteriesadmin

Are We All Just Trapped in a Self-Conscious Supercomputer?

Two words: Artificial Intelligence. Most people have heard about it. Perhaps you have read science-fiction books or seen science-fiction movies about it. What is it in the ideal fictional case? A computer that is able to learn and adapt on its own. If it becomes self-aware, it can legitimately be considered another life form or even another universe.

Science fiction? No! Look at real-life results from the last 15 years.

In 1997, IBM’s chess-playing computer “Deep Blue” became the first computer to beat world-class chess champion, Garry Kasparov. In a six-game match, Deep Blue prevailed by two wins to one with three draws. Until this point, no computer was able to beat a chess grandmaster. This garnered headlines worldwide, and was a milestone that embedded the reality of artificial intelligence into the consciousness of the average person.

In 2005, a robot conceived and developed at California’s Stanford University, was able to drive autonomously for 131 miles along an unrehearsed desert trail, winning the DARPA Grand Challenge (the government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency prize for a driverless vehicle).

In 2007, Carnegie Mellon University’s self-driving SUV called Boss made history by swiftly and safely driving 55 miles in an urban setting while sharing the road with human drivers. It, too, won the DARPA Urban Challenge.

In 2011, on an exhibition match on the popular TV quiz show, Jeopardy! , IBM’s computer “Watson,” defeated both of Jeopardy! greatest champions, Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings.

Today, we take artificial intelligence (AI) for granted. For example, computers and even smart phones have sophisticated chess-playing software. AI is part of the Xbox 360’s algorithms for games. However, have we reached the point where a computer replicates a human mind? Not yet. One test held as the “gold standard” for this is the Turing test, proposed in 1950 by Alan Turing, an English mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst, and computer scientist. Turing is widely acknowledged as the father of computer science and artificial intelligence. In fact, Turing developed an electromechanical machine during WWII that helped break the German Enigma machine’s code. The Turing test, which a computer must pass to demonstrate the computer replicates the human mind. The test requires that a machine (for example, a computer with voice synthesis) carry on a conversation with a human, and that other humans are able to hear the conversation (and not see the participants), and cannot distinguish the machine from the human.

Apple’s Seri application for the iPhone is a small step in that direction. If you see Apple’s TV commercials, people are talking to their phones, and phones are talking back. The conversations consist of the phone owners asking questions or giving simple commands to their iPhones. The commercial makes it appear that the iPhone passes the Turing test, but in reality, the conversations are limited to simple questions and simple commands. However, imagine what conversations with the iPhone will be like in about 20 years. The iPhone, and smart phones like it, will almost certainly pass the Turing test.

How close are we to a true artificial life form (similar to Lt. Commander Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation)? Most scientists believe we are extremely close. In fact, Ray Kurzweil (American author, scientist, inventor and futurist) has used Moore’s law to calculate that desktop computers will be equivalent to human brains by the year 2029. Moore’s law states the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. By 2045, Kurzweil predicts, artificial intelligence will be able to improve itself faster than anything we can conceive. If this is true, by the mid Twenty-First Century, we may appear no smarter than insects to those machines. This is sometimes the theme of “how-will-the-world-end” type of documentaries, science-fiction books and movies. This is the whole premise behind the popular Terminator movies.

Now, we will return to our main point of a supercomputer universe. If indeed, computers one day will replicate a human mind, one can postulate that with time, it can replicate millions and eventually billions of such minds, each with its own self-awareness and personality. The minds inside the “machine” think they are real, and are in a universe. As more time passes, the machine can create another “universe.” This scenario can continue forever, or until an unknown entity pulls the plug.

Could we be those people (minds inside a computer)? If you have a religious belief in a supreme being, in effect, we are those people in God’s computer. If you do not hold religious beliefs, we could be those people in a race of advanced aliens’ computer. In this scenario, a supernatural being or technology-advanced aliens gave the command to begin our existence. The command was simply, “Let there be light,” and the super-computer program, simulating our existence and reality, began to run. If this is true, do we exist? The answer to that question depends on your viewpoint. We do not exist in the way we think we exist. We are all part of a sophisticated computer program in a supercomputer. If this is our reality, we are trapped in a supercomputer capable of replicating human minds, and imposing the construct of a universe on those minds.

At this point, I am going back to Occam’s razor, namely, the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred. With that as my guiding premise, I postulate our universe is real (exactly the way we experience it), we are real, and this post is real.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012) Louis A. Del Monte

Image: Wikimedia Commons – The Blue Gene/P supercomputer at Argonne National Labruns over 250,000 processors using normal data center air conditioning, grouped in 72 racks/cabinets connected by a high-speed optical network