Category Archives: Universe Mysteries

M-theory

Are There Any Real Time Machines? Part 2/2 (Conclusion)

Categories, Physics, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

Are there any real time machines?

In my opinion, we are in about the same place space travel was at the beginning of the twentieth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, all we knew about space travel came from science fiction. We knew that birds could fly, and this observation provided hope that human air flight would eventually be possible. However, at this point we could only fly using balloons, which was a long way from controlled air flight. We knew about projectiles, such as cannonballs and simple rockets, and this provided hope that one day humankind would be able to travel into space. However, at the beginning of the twentieth century we were still three years away from building the first successful airplane. The first successful airplane did not come from a well-respected theory or formal scientific investigation. Most early attempts at air flight tended to focus on building powerful engines, or they attempted to imitate birds. The early attempts at air flight were dismal failures. The first successful heavier-than-air machine, the airplane, was invented in 1903 by two brothers, Orville and Wilbur Wright. They were not scientists, nor did they publish a scholarly paper in a scientific journal delineating their plans. Quite the contrary, the two brothers had a background in printing presses, bicycles, motors, and other machinery. Clearly, their background would not suggest they would invent the first airplane and lead humankind into space. However, their experience in machinery enabled them to build a small wind tunnel and collect the data necessary to sustain controlled air flight. From the beginning, the Wright brothers believed that the solution to controlled air flight lay hidden in pilot controls, rather than powerful engines. Based on their wind tunnel work, they invented what is now the standard method of all airplane controls, the three-axis control. They also invented efficient wing and propeller designs. It is likely that many in the scientific community in the beginning of the twentieth century would have considered aeronautics similar to the way the scientific community in the early part of the twenty-first century considers time travel—still something outside the fold of legitimate science. However, on December 17, 1903, at a small, remote airfield in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the two brothers made the first controlled, powered, and sustained heavier-than-air human flight. They invented the airplane. It was, of course, humankind’s first step into the heavens.

I believe the invention of the airplane is a good analogy to where we are regarding time travel. We have some examples, namely, time dilation data, and a theoretical basis that suggests time travel is potentially real. However, we have not reached the “Kitty Hawk” moment. If Dr. Mallett makes his time machine work, and that is a big “if,” numerous physicists will provide the theoretical foundation for its success, essentially erasing any errors that Dr. Mallett may have made in his calculations. He will walk as another great into the history of scientific achievement.

My point is a simple one. The line between scientific genius and scientific “crank” is a fine one. When Einstein initially introduced his special theory of relativity in 1905, he was either criticized or ignored. Few in the scientific community appreciated and understood Einstein’s special theory of relativity in 1905. It took about fifteen years for the scientific community to begin to accept it. Einstein was aware of the atmosphere that surrounded him. In 1919, he stated in the Times of London, “By an application of the theory of relativity to the taste of readers, today in Germany I am called a German man of science, and in England I am represented as a Swiss Jew. If I come to be represented as a bête noire, the descriptions will be reversed, and I shall become a Swiss Jew for the Germans and a German man of science for the English!”

Dr. Mallett is on record predicting a breakthrough in backward time travel within a decade. Only time and experimental evidence will prove if his prediction becomes reality. Even if the Mallett time machine works, it would still represent only a baby step. We would still be a long way from human time travel, but we would be one step closer.

Source: How to Time Travel (2013), Louis A. Del Monte

science of time & time dilation

Are There Any Real Time Machines? Part 1/2

Categories, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , ,

There are no existing time machines capable of sending humans forward or backward in time. The closest we have come to time travel is using particle accelerators to cause subatomic particles to experience time dilation (i.e., forward time travel). There is a significant amount of time dilation data available. Particle accelerators succeed in achieving time dilation by accelerating subatomic particles close to the speed of light. Unfortunately, though, backward time travel has no similar body of experimental data. The major problems with creating backward time travel appear to fall into three categories:

  1. Backward time travel appears to require negative energy, based on arguments made by American theoretical physicist Kip Thorne and British theoretical physicist/cosmologist Stephen Hawking. Many in the scientific community acknowledge that negative energy likely exists, and point to the Casimir effect, discussed previously, as an example in nature. However, today’s science is unable to harness negative energy in any meaningful way to make a time machine.
  2. Many in the scientific community, like physicists Dr. Olum and Dr. Everett, believe the amount of energy required to twist space sufficiently for spacetime manipulation and enable Dr. Mallett’s time machine to work is enormous. Conceptually, we may be talking about the amount of energy provided by a star, similar to our own sun. Harnessing this level of energy is far beyond today’s science. Science’s best efforts to study high-energy physics has to date been confined to particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider. There is no experimental evidence that Dr. Mallett has succeeded in manipulating spacetime.
  3. Many in the scientific community are concerned with causality violations, especially regarding backward time travel. However, as we learned in the section titled “Twisting the arrow of time,” there can also be causality violations regarding forward time travel. The causality violations are generally termed “time travel paradoxes,” which we will discuss in detail in the next chapter.

Having made the above points, I think it is important to point out that some physicists believe subatomic antimatter particles travel in the opposite direction in time (i.e., backward in time) versus their matter counterparts. For example, some physicists assert that positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons, travel backward in time, while electrons travel forward in time. In solid-state physics, if we consider a current flowing in a semiconductor, electrons in a semiconductor move as a current in one direction, while the “holes” (i.e., the position the electron occupied in the semiconductor, which becomes vacant when the electron moves as a current) move in the opposite direction. Physicists differ on whether the “holes” represent positrons (i.e., actual physical antimatter particles). I mention this for completeness. There is no scientific consensus that antimatter travels backward in time.

Where does this leave us? I think this question deserves a complete answer. Stay tuned for part 2.

Source: How to Time Travel (2013), Louis A. Del Monte

A bright comet with a glowing white nucleus and a blue-green tail streaks across a starry night sky.

Ten Key Facts About Comets

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

Comets are sometimes called “dirty snowballs” or “snowy dirtballs.”  There is a lot we don’t know about comets, but here are ten facts we do know:

  1. Comets orbit the Sun, similar to the way planets in our solar system orbit the Sun.
  2. Comets contain dust, ice, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane originating from the early formation of the solar system (about 4.5 billion years ago).
  3. Comets are  are generally thought to come from two areas – 1) the Oort Cloud and 2) the Kuiper Belt. Both areas are in the outer regions of our solar system. These are areas containing materials left over from the formation of our solar system, which have condensed into icy objects. Although these regions extend beyond the orbits of planets in our solar system, they are still considered part of our solar system.
  4. Comet have elliptical orbits, which brings them close to the sun and takes them far away.
  5. Comets have obits around the Sun that range at the extremes from about 20 years to 200 years. Comets with obits between the extremes are called Halley-type comets.
  6. Comets have three parts:
    1. The nucleus, which is the solid center component made of ice, gas and rocky debris
    2. The coma, the gas and dust atmosphere around the nucleus, which results when the Sun heats the comet’s surface
    3. The tails, which are formed when energy from the Sun turns the coma so that it flows around the nucleus and forms a fanned out tail behind it. Comet tails can extend millions of miles and point away from the Sun, not the direction the comet is moving
  7. We are able to see a comet’s coma and tail when the sunlight reflects off the dust and when it excites some molecules so that they form a bluish tail called an ion tail and a yellow one made of neutral sodium atoms.
  8. Comets range in size from less than 1 km (about 3000 feet) in diameter to as much as 300 km (over 186 miles) in diameter.
  9. A a comet could impact Earth. It is important to understand the nature of comets so we can design better methods to protect ourselves should a large one be on a collision path with Earth.
  10. From NASA’s Deep Impact mission (2005) with the Tempel 1 comet, we now know:
    • The comet’s nucleus is spongy, with holes inside
    • Parts of the surface are fragile and weak
    • The surface of the nucleus is covered with fine dust, like baby powder
    • The surface is composed of carbon-based black material
    • Some parts of the nucleus are smooth and young (likely due to the Sun melting effects), while other areas are cratered and old (likely due to celestial impacts)
    • The nucleus seems to have formed from overlapping layers of different materials, similar to the way the Earth is formed in layers of different materials
    • There is water ice just below the surface and carbon dioxide ice (also known as “dry ice”) farther down
    • The Tempel 1 comet contains materials from the outer, middle, and inner parts of the solar system. We are not sure why or how this occurred

One last point: Comets lose ice and dust each time they come near the sun, leaving behind trails of debris. Eventually, they can lose all their ices, with some turning into fragile, inactive objects similar to asteroids.

Sources:

1) Comets: “Formation, Discovery and Exploration,” by Charles Q. Choi, SPACE.com Contributor, November 15, 2010

2) http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/educ/CometFacts.html

3) http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-comet-and-a-meteor.htm

Image: Wikimedia Commons – Comet Holmes (17P/Holmes) in 2007, showing blue ion tail on right

A black and white aerial image showing a rough, cratered surface with several raised mounds or small hills.

Life on Mars? NASA News Conference January 24, 2014

Categories, Life, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

Is there or has there been life on Mars? Conspiracy theorists say yes and that NASA is covering it up. Often, conspiracy theorists argue that Mars photos (taken by NASA), such as the face on Mars, Pyramids on Mars, and a photo of what appears to be an ape like figure sitting on a rock are proof of a past civilization. While mainstream science debunks these photos as “tricks of light,” they have also admitted that they believe liquid oceans once covered the surface of Mars before its magnetic field disappeared. Did those ancient oceans harbor life?

NASA’s Opportunity rover, one of NASA’s twin Mars Exploration Rovers, reached the Red Planet Jan. 24, 2004 (PST), and has continued to transmit valuable scientific data. It landed three weeks after its twin, named Spirit. Both rovers made important discoveries that suggests a wet environment may have once existed on Mars, and that environment could have supported microbial life on ancient Mars. Spirit stopped communicating in 2010, but Opportunity continues to communicate with Earth.

According to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “NASA will reflect on the rover’s work in a news conference at 11 a.m. PST (2 p.m. EST) Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014.

The event will originate from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and be carried live on NASA Television and streamed online.

Participants will be: — Michael Meyer, lead scientist, Mars Exploration Program, NASA Headquarters, Washington — Ray Arvidson, Mars Exploration Rovers deputy principal investigator, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. — John Callas, Mars Exploration Rovers project manager, JPL — Steve Squyres, Mars Exploration Rovers principal investigator, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.”

Will we get an irrefutable answer to the question of life on Mars? Let’s tune in on the news conference and find out.

Sources: NASA JPL Website: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-018

Image: Wikimedia Commons – Small part of the Cydonia region, taken by the Viking orbiter and released by NASA/JPLon July 25, 1976

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

The Mysterious Nature of Light

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nature of Light

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did the Big Bang go bang?

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

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

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

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

Where Is the Missing Antimatter? Part 2/2

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

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.

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

Where Is the Missing Antimatter? Part 1/2

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Universe Mysteries, ,

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)

A row of black server racks with multiple network cables and hardware components in a data center.

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

Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

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