Category Archives: Universe Mysteries

Abstract fractal pattern resembling a cosmic or underwater scene with glowing blue and white textures.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Part 1/4

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

In this series of posts I will explain the fundamental nature of dark matter, dark energy and their relationship to the accelerating universe. Much of what I will discuss comes from my original research delineated in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012). However, this article (i.e., the series of posts taken as a whole) will go beyond what was explained in the book and provides for the first time, to my knowledge, a comprehensive theory of the aforementioned phenomena.

Let us start by understanding the phenomenon we are going to explain, namely the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Mainstream science widely accepts the Big Bang as giving birth to our universe. Scientists knew from Hubble’s discovery in 1929 that the universe was expanding. However, prior to 1998, scientific wisdom was that the expansion of the universe would gradually slow down, due to the force of gravity. We were so sure, so we decided to confirm our theory by measuring it. Can you imagine our reaction when our first measurement did not confirm our paradigm, namely that the expansion of the universe should be slowing down?

What happened in 1998? The High-z Supernova Search Team (an international cosmology collaboration) published a paper that shocked the scientific community. The paper was: Adam G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team) (1998). “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant.” Astronomical J. 116 (3). They reported that the universe was doing the unthinkable. The expansion of the universe was not slowing down—in fact, it was accelerating. Of course, this caused a significant ripple in the scientific community. Scientists went back to Einstein’s general theory of relativity and resurrected the “cosmological constant,” which Einstein had arbitrarily added to his equations to prove the universe was eternal and not expanding. Previous chapters noted that Einstein considered the cosmological constant his “greatest blunder” when Edwin Hubble, in 1929, proved the universe was expanding.

Through high school-level mathematical manipulation, scientists moved Einstein’s cosmological constant from one side of the equation to the other. With this change, the cosmological constant no longer acted to keep expansion in balance to result in a static universe. In this new formulation, Einstein’s “greatest blunder,” the cosmological constant, mathematically models the acceleration of the universe. Mathematically this may work, and model the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, it does not give us insight into what is causing the expansion.

The one thing that you need to know is that almost all scientists hold the paradigm of “cause and effect.” If it happens, something is causing it to happen. Things do not simply happen. They have a cause. That means every bubble in the ocean has a cause. It would be a fool’s errand to attempt to find the cause for each bubble. Yet, I believe, as do almost all of my colleagues, each bubble has a cause. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to believe something is countering the force of gravity, and causing the expansion to accelerate. What is it? No one knows. Science calls it “dark energy.”

That is the state of science as we know it today. The universe’s expansion is accelerating. No one knows why. Scientists reason there must be a cause countering the pull of gravity. They name that cause “dark energy.” Scientists mathematically manipulate Einstein’s self-admitted “greatest blunder,” the “cosmological constant,” to model the accelerated expansion of the universe.

The accelerated expansion of the universe suggests, in time, we will be entirely alone in the galaxy. The accelerated expansion of space will cause all other galaxies to move beyond our cosmological horizon. When this happens, our universe will consist of the Milky Way. The Milky Way galaxy will continue to exist, but as far out as our best telescopes will be able to observe, no other galaxies will be visible to us. What they taught our grandparents will have come true. The universe will be the Milky Way and nothing else. All evidence of the Big Bang will be gone. All evidence of dark energy will be gone. Space will grow colder, almost devoid of all heat, as the rest of the universe moves beyond our cosmological horizon. The entire Milky Way galaxy will grow cold. Our planet, if it still exists, will end in ice.

There are currently two principal schools of thought regarding the theory of dark energy. I already mentioned the “cosmological constant” group. The second is “quintessence.”

The quintessence model attributes the universe’s acceleration to a fifth fundamental force that changes over time. The quintessence school of thought has its own equation. It differs from the cosmological constant equation by allowing the equation itself to change over time. In brief, the cosmological constant is a constant, and does not vary with time. The quintessence equation varies with time.

In my opinion, neither theory (i.e., schools of thought) explains the nature of the accelerated expansion. The theories simply mathematically model the accelerated expansion.

Here is another important piece of the puzzle. From confirmed observation, entire galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it is accelerating away from us. However, here is another piece of the puzzle. The galaxies themselves are not expanding. This is a scientific fact. Our Milky Way galaxy is behaving exactly as we would expect, with no expansion of the space between stars within the galaxy. The question becomes why. Is space between stars equal to space between galaxies? No, it is not. The space between stars and other celestial bodies within our galaxy appears glued together with dark matter. Dark matter does not exist between galaxies. Gravitational attraction exists between galaxies, but no dark matter connects one galaxy to another.

In the next post, we will understand more about the nature of dark matter and the role it plays in this new theory of the accelerating universe.

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

Introdution to Unraveling the Universe's Mysteries Book

Original Theories & Concepts Introduced In “Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries”

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , , , ,

In this post, I delineate original theories and concepts, which I first delineated in my book Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012).  The theories and concepts are the result of original research. To the best of my knowledge, they do not appear in any prior book or scientific paper. However, I acknowledge that it is possible that other authors may have expressed similar theories and concepts. I offer them for your consideration. If there are any scientific terms used, which are unfamiliar to you, please consult the “Glossary of Terms” under the “About” section found at the bottom of this website.

1. The Big Bang Duality theory

Rationale of importance:

The Big Bang Duality theory explains the origin of the Big Bang. It postulates the Big Bang is due to the collision of infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter particles in the Bulk (super-universe). In addition, it suggests that the physical laws of our universe originate in the Bulk. Lastly, the Big Bang Duality theory explains the absence of antimatter in our universe, without requiring a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws.

Discussion:

It is reasonable to consider that a quantum fluctuation in the Bulk resulted in an infinitely energy-dense particle-antiparticle pair, not a single infinitely energy-dense particle. This equates to an energy neutral system, and aligns with the conservation-of-energy law.

If the quantum fluctuation theory is correct, it makes a strong case that the scientific laws of our universe are the scientific laws of the Bulk. This implies the physical laws of the universe pre-date the Big Bang, and that if there were other universes created via quantum fluctuations, they too would follow the laws of the Bulk.

Lastly, by postulating a spontaneous creation of infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter particle pairs that collide in the Bulk to create what is commonly referred to as the Big Bang, we are able to explain the absence of antimatter in our universe. In effect, it was consumed during the initial matter-antimatter particle collision and the subsequent interactions. This model, unlike other models of the Big Bang, does not require a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws.

2. Minimum Energy Principle

Rationale of importance:

The Minimum Energy Principle states: 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. This implies the Big Bang went “bang” at the instant it came to exist.

Discussion:

The Minimum Energy Principle is a generalized statement of similar laws in the physical sciences. In its current formulation, it is independent of the scientific context.

3. Consider dark matter a form of energy, not a particle.

Rationale of importance:

This provides a new thrust for research, and explains why the Standard Model of particle physics does not predict the dark matter particle—WIMP (weakly interactive massive particle). In addition, it explains why efforts to detect it have been unsuccessful.

Discussion:

The existence of dark matter is not in dispute. However, serious efforts to prove that dark matter is a particle—WIMP (weakly interactive massive particle) —have been unsuccessful. In fact, The Standard Model of particle physics does not predict a WIMP particle. The Standard Model of particle physics, refined to its current formulation in the mid-1970s, is one of science’s greatest theories. If the Standard Model does not predict a WIMP particle, it raises serious doubt about the particle’s existence. All experiments to detect the WIMP particle have, to date, been unsuccessful. Major effort has been put forth by Stanford University, University of Minnesota, Fermilab, and others to detect the WIMP particle. Millions of dollars have been spent over last decade to find the WIMP particle. Despite all effort and funding, there has been no definitive evidence of its existence. This appears to beg expanding our research scope. One approach suggested is that science attempt to model dark matter using M-theory.

4. The Existence Equation Conjecture

Rationale of importance:

The Existence Equation Conjecture is, arguably, the most important theory put forward in this book. It relates time, existence, and energy. It explains the physical process related to time dilation. It rests on three pillars:

  1. The fourth dimension, although a spatial coordinate, is associated with existence in time.
  2. Movement in the fourth dimension (existence) requires enormous negative energy as suggested by the Existence Equation Conjecture (KEX4 = -.3mc2).
  3. When we add kinetic energy or gravitational energy to a particle, we reduce the amount of negative energy it requires to exist and, thus, increase its existence.

Discussion:

This equation is dimensionally correct, meaning it can be expressed in units of energy, which is an important test in physics. The equation is highly unusual. First, the kinetic energy is negative. Second, the amount of negative kinetic energy suggested by the equation, even for a small object like an apple, is enormous. The energy, for even a small object, is about equivalent to a nuclear weapon, but negative in value. This led me to postulate that the source of energy to fuel the Existence Equation Conjecture is dark energy. Modern science believes dark energy is a negative (vacuum) form of energy causing space to expand. From the Existence Equation Conjecture, we know existence requires negative energy to fuel existence. Comparing the Existence Equation Conjecture’s need for negative energy seems to suggest existence may be siphoning its required negative energy from the universe. This implies that existence and dark energy may be related.

In summary, we have a more complete picture of time’s nature, namely:

  1. Time is related to change (numerical orders of physical events)
  2. Time is related to energy via its relationship to change, since change requires energy
  3. Time is related to existence, and existence requires negative energy per the Existence Equation Conjecture
  4. The energy to fuel time (existence) may be being acquired from the universe (dark energy), causing the universe to expand (via the negative pressure we describe as dark energy). This aligns conceptually with the form of the equation, and the accelerated change in the universe.
  5. The enormousness changes in entropy (disorder) in the universe may be the price we pay for time. Since entropy increases with change, and time is a measure of change, there may be a time-entropy relationship.

The derivation and experimental verification of the Existence Equation Conjecture can be found in Appendices I and II of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries.

5. The Quantum Universe theory

Rationale of importance:

This theory postulates that all reality, including space, consists of quantized energy.

Discussion:

The majority of experimental and theoretical data argues that the macro world, the universe in which we live, is the sum of all matter and energy quanta from the micro world (quantum level). Recent experiments demonstrate that the micro level and quantum level can influence each other, even to the point they become quantum entangled. In addition, space itself appears quantized, considering the Dirac sea, the particle theory of gravity, and the irreducible Planck length. This allows us conceptually to describe the universe as a Quantum Universe.

6. The existence of God (deity) is not scientifically provable

Rationale of importance:

This debate, God versus Science, is centuries old. It revolves around the question: can science prove or disprove God (deity) exists? The effects of such a proof would be profound.

Discussion:

This debate is essentially unresolvable. The nature of being “God” implies a supernatural being. Science deals with natural phenomena. Logically, it appears irrational to believe that science, which attempts to understand, model, and predict natural phenomena, is extendable to investigate supernatural phenomena. Obviously, if the existence of God were provable, religious leaders would not ask for faith. It is a choice, to believe or not to believe. Conversely, science does not require belief as the final step in the process. Belief plays a role in science, especially as new theories surface, but ultimately scientists seek experimental verification.

All of the above theories and concepts are fully discussed in my book Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries.

A glowing plasma globe with electric arcs radiating from the center in purple and blue hues.

Is All Energy Quantized? – Do We Live In A Quantum Universe? – Part 3/3

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

Lastly, one element of reality remains to complete our argument that all reality consists of quantized energy—energy itself. Is all energy reducible to quantums? All data suggests that energy in any form consists of quantums. We already discussed that mass, space, and time are forms of quantized energy. We know, conclusively, that electromagnetic radiation (light) consists of discrete particles (photons). All experimental data at the quantum level (the level of atoms and subatomic particles) tells us that energy exists as discrete quantums. As we discussed before, the macro level is the sum of all elements at the micro level. Therefore, a strong case can be made that all energy consists of discrete quantums.

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. As a side note, 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 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 book you are holding to read these words appears solid. We cannot feel the atoms that form book. 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.

If we have a quantum universe, we should be able to use quantum mechanics to describe it. However, we are unable to apply quantum mechanics beyond the atomic and subatomic level. Even though quantum mechanics is a highly successful theory when applied at the atomic and subatomic level, it simply does not work at the macro level. The macro level is the level we experience every day, and the level in which the observable universe operates. Why are we unable to use quantum mechanics to describe and predict phenomena at the macro level?

Quantum mechanics deals in statistical probabilities. For example, quantum mechanics statistically predicts an electron’s position in an atom. However, macro mechanics (theories like Newtonian mechanics, and the general theory of relativity) are deterministic, and at the macro level provide a single answer for the position of an object. In fact, the two most successful theories in science, quantum mechanics and general relativity, are incompatible. For this reason, Einstein never warmed up to quantum mechanics, saying, [I can’t accept quantum mechanics because] “I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.” In other words, Einstein wanted the moon’s position to be predictable, and not deal in probabilities of where it might be.

Numerous scientists, including Einstein, argue that the probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics suggests something is wrong with the theory. Aside from the irrefutable fact that quantum mechanics works, and mathematically predicts reality at the atomic and subatomic level, it is counterintuitive. Is the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics a proper interpretation? Numerous philosophical answers to this question exist. One of the most interesting is the well-known thought experiment “Schrödinger’s cat,” devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It was intended to put an end to the debate by demonstrating the absurdity of quantum mechanic’s probabilistic nature. It goes something like this: Schrödinger proposed a scenario with a cat in a sealed box. The cat’s life or death is depended on its state (this is a thought experiment, so go with the flow). Schrödinger asserts the Copenhagen interpretation, as developed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and others over a three-year period (1924–27), implies that until we open the box, the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box). When we open the box, per the Copenhagen interpretation, the cat is alive or dead. It assumes one state or the other. This did not make much sense to Schrödinger, who did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility. As mention above, it went against the grain of Einstein, who disliked quantum mechanics because of the ambiguous statistical nature of the science. Einstein was a determinist as was Schrodinger. He felt that this thought experiment would be a deathblow to the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, since it illustrates quantum mechanics is counterintuitive. He intended it as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935 and today). However, far from ending the debate, physicists use it as a way of illustrating and comparing the particular features, strengths, and weaknesses of each theory (macro mechanics versus quantum mechanics).

Over time, the scientific community had become comfortable with both macro mechanics and quantum mechanics. They appeared to accept that they were dealing with two different and disconnected worlds. Therefore, two different theories were needed. This appeared to them as a fact of reality. However, that view was soon about to change. The scientific community was about to discover but one reality exists. The two worlds, the macro level and the quantum level, were about to become one. This tipping point occurred in 2009-2010.

Before we go into the details, think about the implications and questions this raises.

  • Do macroscopic objects have a particle-wave duality, as assumed by quantum mechanics at the atomic and subatomic level?
  • Can macroscopic objects be modeled using wave equations, like the Schrödinger equation?
  • Will macroscopic reality behave similar to microscopic reality? For example, will it be possible to be in two places at the same time?

To approach an answer, consider what happened in 2009.

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 an integrated circuit. The micromechanical resonator can resonate, moving up and down much like a plucked guitar string. The intriguing part is Dr. Aspelmeyer was able to establish an interaction between a photon and a micromechanical resonator, creating “strong” coupling. This is a convincing and noticeable interaction. This means he was able to transfer quantum effects to the macroscopic world. This is a first in recorded history: we observed the quantum world in order to communicate with the macro world.

In 2010, Andrew Cleland and John Martinis at the University of California (UC), Santa Barbara, working with Ph.D. student Aaron O’Connell, became the first team to experimentally induce and measure a quantum effect in the motion of a human-made object. They demonstrated that it is possible to achieve quantum entanglement at the macro level. This means that a change in the physical state of one element transmits immediately to the other.

For example, when two particles are quantum mechanically entangled, which means they have interacted and an invisible bond exists between them, changing the physical state of one particle immediately changes the physical state of the other, even when the particles are a significant distance apart. Einstein called quantum entanglement, “spukhafte Fernwirkung,” or “spooky action at a distance.” Therefore, the quantum level and the macro level, given the appropriate physical circumstances, appear to follow the same laws. In this case, they were able to predict the behavior of the object using quantum mechanics. Science and AAAS (the publisher of Science Careers) voted the work, released in March 2010, 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.”

It appears only one reality exists, even though historically, physical measurements and theories pointed to two. The macro level and quantum level became one reality in the above experiment. It is likely our theories, like quantum mechanics and general relativity, need refinement. Perhaps, we need a new theory that will apply to both the quantum level and the macro level.

This completes our picture of a Quantum Universe. We do not know or understand much. Even though we can make cogent arguments that all reality consists of quantized energy, we do not have consensus on a single theory to describe it. When we examine the micro level, as well as the atomic and subatomic level, we are able to describe and predict behavior using quantum mechanics. However, in general, we are unable to extend quantum mechanics to the macro level, the level we observe the universe in which we live. We ask why, and we do not have an answer. Recent experiments indicate that the micro level (quantum level) influences the macro level. They appear connected. Based on all observations, the macro level appears to be the sum of everything that exists at the micro level. I submit for your consideration that there is one reality, and that reality is a Quantum Universe.

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

Image: iStockPhoto.com (licensed)

Are Space and Time Qunatized?

Are Space and Time Quantized? – Do We Live In A Quantum Universe? – Part 2/3

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

Next, let us consider space. Is space quantized? In previous posts, we discussed the theory that a vacuum, empty space, is like a witch’s cauldron bubbling with virtual particles. This theory dates back to Paul Dirac who, in 1930, postulated a vacuum is filled with electron-positron pairs (Dirac sea). Therefore, most quantum physicists would argue that a vacuum is a sea of virtual matter-antimatter particles. This means, even a vacuum (empty space) consists of quantums of energy.

Other forms of energy are in a vacuum. We will illustrate this with a simple question. Do you believe a true void (empty space) exists somewhere in the universe? We can create an excellent vacuum in the laboratory using a well-designed vacuum chamber hooked to state-of-the-art vacuum pumps. We can go deep into outer space. However, regardless of where we go, is it truly void? In addition to virtual particles in empty space, are the gravitational fields. (Viewing gravity as a field is a classical view of gravity. As discussed previously, gravity may mediate via a particle, termed the graviton. For the sake of simplicity, I will use classical phasing, and view gravity as a field.) The gravitational fields would be present in the vacuum chamber, and present even deep in space. Even if the vacuum chamber itself were deep in space, gravitational fields would be present within the chamber. Part of the gravitational field would come from the chamber itself. The rest of the gravitational field would come from the universe. The universe is made up of all types of matter, and the matter radiates a gravitational field infinitely into space. Everything pulls on everything in the universe. The adage, “Nature abhors a vacuum,” should read, “Nature abhors a void.” Voids do not exist in nature. Within each void is a form of energy. Even if it were possible to remove every particle, the void would contain virtual particles and gravitational fields. As said before, we have not found the graviton, the hypothetical massless particle that mediates gravity, but if you are willing to accept its existence, it is possible to argue that empty space consists of quantums of energy. It bubbles with virtual particles and gravitons.

We can posit another argument that space, itself, is quantized. We will start by asking a question. Is there an irreducible dimension to space similar to the irreducible elements of matter? The short answer is yes. It is the Planck length. We can define the Planck using three fundamental physical constants of the universe, namely the speed of light in a vacuum (c), Planck’s constant (h), and the gravitational constant (G). The scientific community views the Planck length as a fundamental of nature. It is approximately equal to 10-36 meters (10-36 is a one divided by a one with thirty-six zeros  after it), smaller than anything we can measure. Physicists debate its meaning, and it remains an active area of theoretical research. Recent scientific thinking is that it is about the length of a “string” in string theory. Quantum physicists argue, based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is the smallest dimension of length that can theoretically exist.

Does all this argue that space consists of quantized energy? To my mind, it does.

  • First, it contains quantized matter-antimatter particles (Dirac sea).
  • Second, it contains gravitons (the hypothetical particle of gravity).
  • Third, and lastly, space has an irreducible dimension; a finite length termed the Planck length.

Thus far, we have made convincing arguments that mass and space consist of quantized energy. Next, let’s turn our attention to time. In previous posts, we discussed Planck time (~ 10-43 seconds, which is a one divided by a one with forty-three zero after it). As stated in those posts, theoretically, Planck time is the smallest time frame we will ever be able to measure. In addition, Planck time, similar to the Planck length, is a fundamental feature of reality. We can define Plank time using the fundamental constants of the universe, similar to the methodology to define the Planck length. According to the laws of physics, we would be unable to measure “change” if the time interval were shorter that a Planck interval. In other words, the Planck interval is the shortest interval we humans are able to measure or even comprehend change to occur. This is compelling evidence that time, itself, may consist of quantums, with each quantum equal to a Planck interval. However, this does not make the case that time is quantized energy. To make that case, we will need to revisit the Existence Equation Conjecture discussed in previous posts:

KEX4 = -.3mc2

Where KEX4is the energy associated with an object’s movement in time, m is mass and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

The Existence Equation Conjecture implies that movement in time (or existence) requires negative energy. The equation, itself, relates energy to the mass (m) that is moving in time. However, in the last post (Part 1) we argued that all mass is reducible to elementary particles, which ultimately are equivalent to discrete packets of energy via Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation (E=mc2). This suggests the Existence Equation Conjecture implies that movement in time embodies a quantized energy element. Therefore, if we combine our concept of the Planck interval with the quantized energy nature of time implied by the Existence Equation Conjecture, we can argue that time is a form of quantized energy.

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

Image: iStockphoto (licensed)

Nature of Light

Do We Live In A Quantum Universe? – Part 1/3

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

The notion that all reality (mass, space, time, and energy) consists of discrete energy quantums is counterintuitive. For example, an electric current consists of individual electrons flowing in a wire. However, you do not notice your television flickering as the electrons move through the circuits. The light you read by consists of individual photons. Yet, your eyes do not sense individual photons reflected from the page. The point is that our senses perceive reality as a continuum, but this perception is an illusion. In the following, we will examine each element of reality one by one to understand its true nature. In this post, “Do We Live In A Quantum Universe? – Part 1/3,” we will start by exploring the qunatized nature of mass.

Mass—the sum of all its atoms.

We will start with mass. Any mass is nothing more than the sum of all its atoms. The atoms themselves consist of subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons, which consist of even more elementary particles, like quarks. (Quarks are considered the most elementary particles. I will not describe the six different types of quarks in detail, since it will unnecessary complicate this discussion.) The point is any mass reduces to atoms, which further reduces to subatomic particles. The atom is a symphony of these particles, embodying the fundamental forces (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnet, and gravity). Does all this consist of energy quantums? In the final analysis, it appears it does, including the fundamental forces themselves. How can this be true?

In the early part of the Twentieth Century, the theory of quantum mechanics was developed. It is able to predict and explain phenomena at the atomic and subatomic level, and generally views matter and energy as quantized (discrete particles or packets of energy). Quantum mechanics is one of modern science’s most successful theories. At the macro level, which is our everyday world, any mass is conceivably reducible to atoms, subatomic particles, and fundamental forces.

Science holds that the fundamental forces (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnet, and gravity) mediate (interact) via particles. For example, the electromagnetic force mediates via photons. We have verified the particle for all the fundamental forces, except gravity. A number of theoretical physicists believe a particle is associated with gravity, namely the graviton. The graviton is a hypothetical elementary massless particle that theoretical physicists believe is responsible for the effects of gravity. The problem is that all efforts to find the graviton have failed. This is an active area of research, and work continues to find the graviton, and to develop a quantum gravity theory. If we assume gravity mediates through a particle, the case is easily made via Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equations (E = mc2) that all mass, as well as the fundamental forces, reduces to energy quantums.

Although, we are unable to prove conclusively that all masses, including the fundamental forces, consists of discrete energy packets, numerous scientists believe they are. This realization caused Albert Einstein great distress. He wrote in 1954, one year prior to his death, “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” Einstein, who grew up in the world of classical physics, was a product of his time. Classical physics utilizes the concept of fields to explain physical behavior. The fields of classical physics are a type of invisible force that influences physical behavior. For example, classical physics explains the repulsion of two positively charged particles due to an invisible repulsive field between them. Modern physics explains this repulsion due to the mediation of photons, which act as force carriers. The main point is that mass and the fundamental forces are ultimately reducible to discrete elements, which equate to discrete packets of energy (quantums).

In the next post, “Do We Live In A Quantum Universe? – Part 2/3,” we will explore the nature of space. We will address the question: Is space quantized?

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2013), Louis A. Del Monte

Image: iStockPhoto (licensed)

Abstract digital art featuring a radiant white light at the center surrounded by intricate geometric patterns and electric green lines.

The Mysterious Nature of Energy

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

We scientists talk about energy, and derive equations with energy mathematically expressed in the equation as though we understand energy. The fact is: we do not. It is an indirectly observed quantity. We infer its existence. For example, in physics, we define energy as the ability of a physical system to do work on another physical system. Physics is one context that uses and defines the word energy. However, the word energy has different meanings in different contexts. Even the average person throws the term energy around in phrases like, “I don’t have any energy today,” generally inferring a lack of vigor, force, potency, zeal, push, and the like. The word energy finds its way into both the scientific community and our everyday communications, but the true essence of energy remains an enigma.

The concept of energy is an old concept. It comes from the ancient Greek word, “enérgeia,” which translates “activity or operation.” As previously stated, we do not know the exact essence of energy, but we know a great deal about the effects of energy. To approach a better understanding, consider these four fundamental properties of energy:

1. Energy is transferable from one system to another.

Transferring mass between systems results in a transfer of energy between systems. Mass and energy have been inseparably equated, since 1905, via Einstein’s famous mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. This equation is widely held as a scientific fact. Experimental results over the last century strongly validate it. Typically, mass transfers between systems occur at the atomic level as atoms capture subatomic particles or bond to form products of different masses.

Non-matter transfer of energy is possible. For example, a system can transfer energy to another by thermal radiation (heat). The system that absorbs the thermal radiation experiences an increase in energy, typically measured by its temperature. This is how the radiators in a house raise the room temperature. Here is another example: If an object in motion strikes another object, a transfer of kinetic energy results. Consider billiard balls. When one ball strikes another, it imparts kinetic energy to the ball it strikes, causing it to move.

2.  Energy may be stored in systems.

If you pick up a rock from the ground and hold it at shoulder height, you have stored energy between the rock and ground via the gravitation attraction created between the Earth and rock. You may consider this potential energy. When you open your hand, the rock will fall back to the ground. Why? The answer is straightforward. It required your energy to hold the rock in its new position at shoulder height. As soon as you, by opening your hand, released the energy that you were providing, it reduced to a lower energy state when the gravitational field pulled the rock back to the ground.

Any type of energy that is stored is “potential energy,” and all types of potential energy appear as system mass. For example, a compressed metal spring will be slightly more massive than before it was compressed. When you compress the spring, you do work on the system. The work on the system is energy, and that energy is stored in the compressed spring as potential energy. Because of this stored potential energy, the spring becomes more massive.

3. Energy is not only transferable–it is transformable from one form to another.

Our example regarding the rock falling back to the ground is an example of energy transformation. The potential energy was transformed to kinetic energy when you opened your hand and released the rock. This is what caused the rock to fall back to the ground. Here is an industrial example. Hydroelectric plants generate electricity by using water that flows over a falls due to gravity. In effect, they are transforming the falling water (gravitational energy) into another form of energy (electricity).

4. Energy is conserved.

This is arguably the most sacred law in physics. Simply stated: Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. The word “isolated” implies the system does not allow other systems to interact with it. A thermos bottle is an example of an isolated system. It is preventing the ambient temperature from changing the temperature inside the thermos. For example, it keeps your coffee hot for a long time. Obviously, it is not a perfectly isolated system since eventually it will lose heat to the atmosphere, and your coffee will cool to the ambient temperature that surrounds the thermos bottle. For example, in your house, the coffee in a cup will cool to room temperature.

In summary, energy may be transferred, stored, and transformed, but it cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. This means the total energy of an isolated system does not change.

Next, we will consider energy in different contexts. Unfortunately, since we do not know the true essence of energy, we need to describe it via the effects we observe in the context that we observe them. Here are two contexts:

1)   Cosmology and Astronomy

Stars, nova, supernova, quasar, and gamma-ray bursts are the highest-output mass into energy transformations in the universe. For example, a star is typically a large and massive celestial body, primarily composed of hydrogen. Due to its size, gravity at the star’s core is immense. The immense gravity causes the hydrogen atoms to fuse together to form helium, which causes a nuclear reaction to occur. The nuclear reaction, in effect, transforms mass into energy. In the cosmos, mass-to-energy transformations are due to gravity, and follow Einstein famous equation, E = mc2 (discussed previously). The gravity can result in nuclear fusion, as described in the above example. It can cause a dying star to collapse and form a black hole.

2) Chemistry

Energy is an attribute of the atomic or molecular structure of a substance. For example, an atom or molecule has mass. From Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation, (E = mc2), we know the mass equates to energy. In chemistry, an energy transformation is a chemical reaction. The chemical reaction typically results in a structural change of the substance, accompanied by a change in energy. For example, when two hydrogen atoms bond with one oxygen atom, to form a water molecule, energy emits in the form of light.

Other scientific contexts give meaning to the word energy. Two examples are biology and geology. Numerous forms of energy are accepted by the scientific community. The various forms include thermal energy, chemical energy, electric energy, radiant energy, nuclear energy, magnetic energy, elastic energy, sound energy, mechanical energy, luminous energy, and mass. I will not go into each form and context for the sake of brevity. My intent is to illustrate that the word energy in science must be understood within a specific context and form.

As mentioned above, we truly do not know the essence of energy; we infer its existence by its effects. The effects we measure often involve utilizing fundamental concepts of science, such as mass, distance, radiation, temperature, time, and electric charge. Adding to ambiguity, energy is often confused with power. Although we often equate “power” and “energy” in our everyday conversation, scientifically they are not the same. Strictly speaking, in science, power is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed. For example, a 100-watt light bulb transforms more electricity into light than a 60-watt light bulb. In this example, the electricity is the energy source. Its rate of use in the light bulbs is power. It takes more power to run a 100-watt bulb than a 60-watt bulb. Your electric bill will verify this is true.

What is it about energy that makes it mysterious? Science does not understand the nature of energy. We have learned a great deal about energy in the last century. The word energy has found its way into numerous scientific contexts as well as into our everyday vernacular, but we do not know the fundamental essence of energy. We can infer it exists. Its existence and definition is context sensitive. We do not have any instrument to measure energy directly, independent of the context. Yet, in the last century, we have learned to harness energy in various forms. We use electrical energy to power numerous everyday items, such as computers and televisions. We have learned to unleash the energy of the atom in nuclear reactors to power, for example, cities and submarines. We have come a long way, but the fundamental essence of energy remains an enigma.

In the next post, we will discuss another aspect of energy that haunts the scientific community. Does all reality consist of discrete packets (quantums) of energy? Are mass, space, time, and energy composed of quantized energy? We can make a reasonably strong case that they are. It is counterintuitive because we do not experience reality that way. For example, when you pick up a rock, you do not directly experience the atoms that make up the rock. However, the rock is nothing more than the sum of all its atoms. If all reality is made of quantized energy, we live in a Quantum Universe. What exactly is a Quantum Universe? Stay tuned, and we will explore what a Quantum Universe is in the next post.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (20120, Louis A. Del Monte

Abstract fractal pattern resembling a cosmic or underwater scene with glowing blue and white textures.

Do We Need M-Theory? Maybe!

Categories, Multiverse, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , ,

Most high school science classes teach the classical view of the atom, incorporating subatomic particles like protons, electrons, and neutrons. This is the particle theory of the atom dating to the early Twentieth Century. In about the 1960s, scientists discovered more subatomic particles. By the 1970s, scientists discovered that protons and neutrons consist of subatomic particles called quarks (an elementary particle not known to have a substructure). In the 1980s, a mathematical model called string theory, was developed. It is a branch of theoretical physics. String theory sought to explain how to construct all particles and energy in the universe via hypothetical one-dimensional “strings.” Subatomic particles are no longer extremely small masses. Instead, they are oscillating lines of energy, hence the name “strings.” In addition, the latest string theory (M-theory) asserts that the universe is eleven dimensions, not the four-spacetime dimensions we currently experience in our daily lives. String theory was one of science’s first attempts at a theory of everything (a complete mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and matter).

In about the mid-1990s, scientists considered the equivalences of the various string theories, and the five leading string theories were combined into a one comprehensive theory, M-theory. M-theory postulates eleven dimensions of space filled with membranes, existing in the Bulk (super-universe). The Bulk contains an infinite number of membranes, or “branes” for short.

According to M-theory, when two branes 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 branes).

Does this explain the true origin of the energy? No! It still begs the question: where does the energy come from to create the membranes? The even-bigger question: is there any scientific proof of the multiverse? Recently, several scientists claim unusual ring patterns on the cosmic microwave background might be the result of other universes colliding with ours. However, even the scientists forwarding this theory suggest caution. It is speculative. At this point, we must admit no conclusive evidence of a multiverse exists. In fact, numerous problems with the multiverse theories are known. This does not mean there are no multiverses. Currently, though, we have no conclusive experimental proof, but do have numerous unanswered questions.

All multiverse theories share three significant problems.

1) None of the multiverse theories explains the origin of the initial energy to form the universe. They, in effect, sidestep the question entirely.

2) No conclusive experimental evidence proves that multiverses exist. This is not to say that they do not exist. It just means we cannot prove they exist.

3) 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.

However, in the last hundred years, we have made discoveries, and experimentally verified phenomena that in prior centuries would have been considered science fiction, metaphysics, magic, and unbelievable. We discovered numerous secrets of the universe, once believed to be only the Milky Way galaxy—to now being an uncountable number of galaxies in a space that is expanding exponentially. We also unlocked the secrets of the atom, once believed to be the fundamental building block of matter (from the Greek atomos “uncut”). Currently, we understand the atom consists of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which themselves consist of subatomic particles like quarks. The list of discoveries that have transformed our understanding of reality over the last century is endless. From my perspective, skepticism can be healthy. However, one cannot be entirely closed-minded when it comes to exploring the boundaries of science.

This brings us to the crucial question: Do we need M-Theory? My answer is: Maybe! Right now, it’s the only “mainstream” game in town. It has numerous respected proponents, including world-renowned cosmologist/physicist Stephen Hawking. However, the “mainstream” has been wrong before, and we are in uncharted waters. It may be right, and the mathematics is elegant. The only thing missing is experimental evidence (i.e., proof). On this one, you’ll have to weigh the facts and draw your own conclusion.

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

Image: iStockPhoto (licensed)

 

 

Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Searching for Potential Alien Artifacts to Establish Proof of their Existence

Categories, Life, Universe Mysteries, , , , , , ,

Similar to the way archaeologists uncover lost civilizations on Earth by analyzing the artifacts left behind, various researchers believe the past presence of advanced aliens could be detected in a similar manner. This is a reasonable approach. It has historically provided evidence of civilizations that appear to have simply vanished. For example, the Mayan calendar is supposedly predicting the end of the world on December 21, 2012. Unfortunately, this is a poor example of a lost civilization, since it never disappeared. In fact, the Maya and their decedents still populate the Maya area, and continue to honor traditions that date back centuries. Millions of Mayans still speak the Mayan language. As for the Maya calendar, most scholars do not interpret it to predict the end of the world.

A real example of a lost civilization can be found in our own North American backyard. The Anasazi lived in the bordering parts of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. The Anasazi civilization emerged about 1100 BC, and appeared to vanish about 1100 AD. However, did they really vanish? Most archeologist think not. They did abandon their traditional homeland. In a number of cases, the “lost” civilizations are not lost. They move to a different location for reasons that generally relate to survival, like water and food availability. However, the point is that we know about the Anasazi civilization by studying the artifacts lefts behind, including their dwellings, pottery, tools, and the like.

Proponents of ancient alien visits to Earth point to the numerous alien-like artifacts. These include:

  • References in religious texts, such as the Book of Ezekiel (Biblical Old Testament)
  • Physical evidence such as Nazca Lines, which depict drawings that can only be fully seen from the air (Peru)
  • Ancient aircraft-type models, like the Saqqara Bird (1898 excavation of the Pa-di-Imen tomb in Saqqara, Egypt), and small gold model “planes” (Central America and coastal areas of South America)
  • Unusual ancient monuments and ruins such as the Giza pyramids in Egypt, Machu Picchu in Peru, Baalbek in Lebanon, the Moai on Easter Island, and Stonehenge in England. Proponents of ancient alien visits argue these structures could not have been built without alien help. They argue that the ability to build them was beyond the capability of humankind at the time they were built.

This is a sampling that proponents of ancient aliens provide as evidence that the Earth has been visited since ancient times by advanced aliens. Numerous books forward this theory. The most famous was written by Erich von Däniken, and published in 1968 (Chariots of the Gods?).

Obviously, this is a speculative theory, and not everyone agrees. In fact, there is considerable disagreement. Several disagree on religious grounds, like the Christian creationist community. Other critics simply say the evidence is subject to various interpretations. In reality, we have not found irrefutable evidence—the “smoking gun.” For example, if we found an electromagnetic transmitter (a radio) of unknown origin inside a newly discovered 3,000-year-old pyramid, that would be a smoking gun.

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

Image: iStockPhoto

M-theory

Using Wormholes as a Time Machine

Categories, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

Scientists have proposed using “wormholes” as a time machine. A wormhole is a theoretical entity in which space-time curvature connects two distant locations (or times). Although we do not have any concrete evidence that wormholes exist, we can infer their existence from Einstein’s general theory of relativity. However, we need more than a wormhole. We need a traversable wormhole. A traversable wormhole is exactly what the name implies. We can move through or send information through it.

If you would like to visualize what a wormhole does, imagine having a piece of paper whose two-dimensional surface represents four-dimensional space-time. Imagine folding the paper so that two points on the surface are connected. I understand that this is a highly simplified representation. In reality, we cannot visualize an actual wormhole. It might even exist in more than four dimensions.

How do we create a traversable wormhole? No one knows, but most scientists believe it would require enormous negative energy. This is interesting, since the Existence Equation Conjecture, discussed in previous posts, implies moving in time requires negative energy. A number of scientists believe the creation of negative energy is possible, based on the study of virtual particles and the Casimir effect.

Assuming we learn how to create a traversable wormhole, how would we use it to travel in time? The traversable wormhole theoretically connects two points in space-time, which implies we could use it to travel in time, as well as space. However, according to the theory of general relativity, it would not be possible to go back in time prior to the creation of the traversable wormhole. This is how physicists like Stephen Hawking explain why we do not see visitors from the future. The reason: the traversable wormhole does not exist yet.

Stephen Hawking did a fascinating time-traveler experiment in his popular TV series, “Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking.” He held a reception for time travelers from the future. He sent the invitations out after the reception had already occurred. His hope was that someone in the far-distant future would come across the invitation, and travel back in time to attend the reception. In the TV series, you see the reception room and Stephen Hawking, but no time travelers. He was disappointed.

However, we have four possible explanations why no time travelers attended:

1.    The invitation did not survive into the far-distant future, a future whose science enabled time travel to the past.

2.    Time travel into the past is not possible in the future, regardless of how far into the future the invitations survive.

3.    The human race does not exist in the distant future, destroyed by our own hand, or a cosmic calamity.

4.    Time travelers showed up at the party, but it was in another universe (an alternate reality suggested by the “Many-Worlds of Quantum Mechanics” theory). Perhaps in that reality, the TV series broadcasts a reception room filled with time travelers.

Although, we are discussing time travel, it is essential to note that wormholes imply connections between different points in space. This means that they may provide a faster-than-light connection between two planets, for example. Although faster-than-light travel is not possible, the wormhole may represent a shortcut. Travel inside the wormhole may remain below the speed of light, but be faster than the time it would take light to traverse the same two points outside the wormhole. Think of this simple picture.

You are on one side of the mountain. If you want to travel to the other side of the mountain by traversing its circumference, the journey will take longer than using a tunnel that connects to the other side of the mountain. The speed you travel is the same, but the tunnel allows a shortcut, and it appears that you traveled faster.

Will we ever be able to create traversable wormholes? Theoretically, it appears possible. Experiments are being conducted, as I write, using the Large Hadron Collider to create small wormholes, small black holes, and dark matter. The next decade holds considerable promise to address these questions.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2013), Louis A. Del Monte

Image: iStockPhoto (licensed)

A row of large white satellite dishes under a partly cloudy sky in an open field.

Searching for Radio Emissions from Advanced Aliens

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

Since our discovery of the radio in 1895, we have been beaming radio transmissions into space. Most scientists believe the invention of the radio and radio telescopes would be a natural technological evolution by any intelligent life. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that advanced aliens may have transmitted proof of their existence. The timeframe of their transmissions would depend on when they evolved. If their evolution were concurrent with ours, their transmissions would have started about a century ago. However, if they evolved millions of years ahead of us, their transmissions could have started millions of years ago.

In fact, the whole notion of listening for radio transmissions from aliens dates back to 1896, when Nikola Tesla promoted the idea that the radio could be used to contact advanced extraterrestrial life. In the early 1900s, Guglielmo Marconi, the inventor of the radio, claimed to have picked up Martian radio signals. Other iconic scientists, like Lord Kelvin, credited with inventing the telegraph, added fuel to the radio search for advanced aliens by publicly stating that the radio represented a possible way to detect and even contact them.

When scientists of the stature of Tesla, Marconi, and Kelvin speak, the world listens. In 1924, Mars was closer to Earth than any time in the last 100 years before or since. Obviously, this would be an excellent time to listen for radio transmissions from Mars. To avoid cluttering the Martian signals with our own, a “National Radio Silence Day” was promoted by the United States. For a 36-hour period, during August 21-23, 1924, all radios were silent for five minutes at the beginning of each hour. Concurrently, a dirigible was used to lift a radio up in order to receive signals 3 kilometers above the United States Naval Observatory. A select few listened, including the chief cryptographer of the U.S. Army, William F. Friedman. No radio transmissions from Mars were reported.

The most famous human enterprise listening for alien radio transmissions is SETI, which is not a single organization, but rather a group of organizations that employ radio technology to search for advanced extraterrestrial life. This includes Harvard University, the University of California, Berkeley, and the SETI Institute. Astronomer Frank Drake, using a small radio telescope, undertook the first SETI experiment in 1960. In 1961, the first SETI conference was held at Green Bank, West Virginia. From this humble beginning, SETI was launched. It is still highly active in its search for extraterrestrial radio transmissions as of this writing.

SETI technology has improved vastly. They are searching more frequencies than ever before. However, to date we have no confirmable evidence. SETI researchers have intercepted signals twice, once in 1977 and once in 2003, that may have been alien in nature, but they were not able to confirm the results. In fact, after more than five decades of searching, no confirmable radio transmission evidence of advanced aliens exists. However, to be fair to SETI, we need to examine their two greatest obstacles.

1.    Scale Problems—The universe is enormous, and SETI has had to confine its search to sun-like solar systems within about 200 light years of Earth. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light years across. This may appear as if they have examined about 20% of our galaxy, but that would be incorrect. They focus on high-probability solar systems (ones similar to our own), and thinly slice space looking for the radio transmission. Therefore, the real number is much less than 20%. If it is viewed in terms of the volume, SETI has covered one-fifteen millionth of our own Milky Way galaxy. This, however, is likely to improve. If we add the recent upgrades that SETI made in 2007, namely the Allen Telescope Array, located in northern California, SETI is able to extend its search radius to 25,000 light years. This enables SETI to examine the 40 billion solar systems closer to the center of our galaxy. Still though, we are looking for a needle in a very large galactic haystack.

2.    Technical Hurdles—Our transmitted radio and television signals disperse relatively rapidly in space. They would require extremely sensitive radio telescopes to detect. To understand this, imagine someone holding a candle at night a few feet from you. You are able to see it clearly. This is because numerous photons from the candle are reaching your eyes. Next, imagine that person moves farther away from you. The farther away the person moves, the dimmer the candle becomes. After a while, you will not be able to see the candle at all. The photons of the candle spread out over distance. Initially, when you were close to the candle, numerous photons reached your eyes. As the candle moved farther away, the photons spread out over a larger area, and fewer of them reach your eyes. This is why the candle became dimmer. Eventually, the candle was so far away, too few photons were reaching your eyes for your eyes to sense them.

SETI estimates that even with a sensitive radio telescope, as the extremely large Arecibo Observatory radio telescope in Puerto Rico, the Earth’s radio and televisions transmissions would only be detectable at a distance within 0.3 light years. Therefore, unless the advanced aliens used highly directed transmissions, we would likely not detect them. In addition, if the advanced aliens compressed their data, similar to data downloads from the Internet, the compressed data would appear as noise to us. In addition, advanced aliens may be using frequencies we are not monitoring or do not penetrate our atmosphere. The list of technical hurdles is numerous. Their sheer number and complexity has cast doubt on the entire SETI methodology. Critics believe the SETI efforts are futile, since the technical hurdles regarding the interception of advanced alien radio transmissions are enormous.

Image: iStockphoto (licensed)