Category Archives: Universe Mysteries

Close-up of translucent marbles with swirling colors against a vibrant red background.

Are There Other Universes?

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

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

All multiverse theories share three significant problems.

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

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

A growing number of scientists  cite evidence that our universe bumped into other universes in the distant past. What is the evidence? They cite unusual ring patterns on the cosmic microwave background. The cosmic microwave background is remarkably uniform, with the exception of the unusual ring patterns. Scientists attribute the ring patterns to bumps from other universes. Two articles discuss this finding.

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

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

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

A stunning spiral galaxy with bright core and swirling arms filled with stars and cosmic dust in deep space.

The Nature of Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

science of time & time dilation

Philosophy on the Nature of Time – Part 2/2 (Conclusion)

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , ,

In the conclusion of this post, we will discuss Planck time and a new hypothesis, the time uncertainty principle.

Planck Time

Planck time is the smallest interval of time that science is able to define. The theoretical formulation of Planck time comes from dimensional analysis, which studies units of measurement, physical constants, and the relationship between units of measurement and physical constants. In simpler terms, one Planck interval is approximately equal to 10-44 seconds (i.e., 1 divided by 1 with 44 zeros after it). As far as the science community is concerned, there is a consensus that we would not be able to measure anything smaller than a Planck interval. In fact, the smallest interval science is able to measure as of this writing is trillions of times larger than a Planck interval. It is also widely believed that we would not be able to measure a change smaller than a Planck interval. From this standpoint, we can assert that time is only reducible to an interval, not a dimensionless sliver, and that interval is the Planck interval. Therefore, our scientific definition of time forces us to acknowledge that time is only definable as an interval, the Planck interval.

The time uncertainty interval

Since the smallest unit of time is only definable as the Planck interval, this suggests there is a fundamental limit to our ability to measure an event in absolute terms. This fundamental limit to measure an event in absolute terms is independent of the measurement technology. The error in measuring the start or end of any event will always be at least one Planck interval. This is analogous to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states it is impossible to know the position and momentum of a particle, such as an electron, simultaneously. Based on fundamental theoretical considerations, the scientific community widely agrees that the Planck interval is the smallest measure of time possible. Therefore, any event that occurs cannot be measured to occur less than one Planck interval. This means the amount of uncertainty regarding the start or completion of an event is only knowable to one Planck interval. In our everyday life, our movements consist of a sequence of Planck intervals. We do not perceive this because the intervals are so small that the movement appears continuous, much like watching a movie where the projector is projecting each frame at the rate of approximately sixteen frames per second. Although each frame is actually a still picture of one element of a moving scene, the projection of each frame at the rate of sixteen frames per second gives the appearance of continuous motion. I term this inability to measure an event in absolute terms “the time uncertainty interval.”

Summary

1. Time is real, not a mental construct, but there is no consensus on the scientific definition of time. Instead, science describe how time behaves during an interval, a change in time. Science is unable to point to an entity and say “that is time.” The reason for this is that time is not a single entity, but scientifically an interval.

2. Planck time is the smallest interval of time that science is able to define. The theoretical formulation of Planck time comes from dimensional analysis, which studies units of measurement, physical constants, and the relationship between units of measurement and physical constants.

3. Since the smallest unit of time is only definable as the Planck interval, this suggests there is a fundamental limit to our ability to measure an event in absolute terms, independent of the measurement technology. The error in measuring the start or end of any event will always be at least one Planck interval. I term this inability to measure an event in absolute terms “the time uncertainty interval.”

A green translucent die with white pips floating above a reflective surface against a light blue background.

Implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, ,

Let us start our discussion by understanding the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Most physics professors teach it in the context of attempting to simultaneously measure a particle’s velocity and position. It goes something like this:

• When we attempt to measure a particle’s velocity, the measurement interferes with the particle’s position.
• If we attempt to measure the particle’s position, the measurement interferes with the particles velocity.
• Thus, we can be certain of either the particle’s velocity or the particle’s position, but not both simultaneously.

This makes sense to most people. However, it is an over simplification. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has greater implications. It embodies the statistical nature of reality. This last statement may not seem true, since we live and experience nature at the macro level (i.e., our everyday world). At the macro level we generally do not talk in terms of probabilities. For example, we can predict the exact location and orbital velocity of a planet using Einstein’s theories of relativity. Thus, most scientists will say that macro level phenomena are deterministic, which means that a unique solution describes their state of being, including position, velocity, size, and other physical attributes.

In practice, we only see the effects of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle at the micro or quantum level (i.e., the level of atoms and subatomic particles). At the quantum level, Einstein’s theories of relativity break down, and we are forced to use the theory of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a set of laws and principles that describes the behavior and energy of atoms and subatomic particles. At the quantum level we are unable to simultaneously measure the position and velocity of an atom or subatomic particle. The reality of the quantum level is expressed in terms of probabilities. While we can predict the exact location and orbital velocity of a planet at the macro level, we are not able to make similar predictions about an electron as it obits the nucleus of an atom at the quantum level. We can only talk in probabilities regarding the electron’s position and energy. Thus, most physicists will argue that quantum level phenomena are probabilistic, which means that their state of being is described via probabilities, and we cannot simultaneously determine, for example, the position and velocity of a subatomic particle.

What does this really mean? Do we really have two different levels of reality with different laws. The short answer is no. While we observe differences between the macro and quantum level, the differences really don’t exist. Measurements at the macro level are typically large compared to measurements at the quantum level. However, the laws of physics remain the same at both the macro and quantum level. In fact, the laws of quantum mechanics at the quantum level reduce to the laws of classical physics at the macro level. This means that all reality is statistically based, even at the macro level.

You may ask, is it possible to observe this statistical nature of reality at the macro level? The answer is yes. For example, it is possible to observe the statistical nature of reality via the creation of virtual particles that give rise to the Casimir-Polder force. The Casimir-Polder force is the attractive force between two parallel plates placed extremely close together (approximately a molecular distance) in a vacuum. Science believes the “attraction” is due to a reduction in virtual particle formation (i.e., spontaneous particle production) between the plates. This, in effect, results in more virtual particles outside the plates whose pressure pushes them together. Spontaneous particle creation is the phenomenon of particles appearing from apparently nothing, hence their name “virtual particles.” However, they appear real and cause real changes to their environment, as discussed above. Science believes that the particles form as the energy within a vacuum statistically varies and occasionally becomes dense in a specific region giving rise the virtual particles. This may sound odd, but it is a scientific fact that vacuums contain energy and that energy statistically varies giving rise to virtual particles.

How important is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? It is fundamentally important to understanding reality, especially at the quantum level and occasionally at the macro level. It unequivocally states that the nature of all reality is statistically based.

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

Philosophical Thoughts About Science and Truth

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , ,

Theoretical physics, often refereed to as the purist form of science, rests on two incompatible theories:

1. Einstein’s theory of special and general relativity

2. Quantum mechanics

Both theories work well in their limited range of application, relativity at the macro-level and quantum mechanics at the micro-level of atoms and subatomic particles. However, the mathematical underpinnings of each theory are not mutually compatible. Attempting to combine them mathematically has led to numerous singularities (i.e., mathematical expressions that equate with one or more infinities and remain undefined). They also do not mutually explain gravity. While general relativity does propose a physical and mathematical theory of gravity, it cannot be extended to the quantum level.

New theories have been proposed to resolve this dilemma. The current most widely proposed solution is M-theory (i.e., the highest level string theory). Without going too deeply into the details, it proposes that all reality is composed of one-dimensional vibrating strings of energy. The mathematics is elegant and apparently highly compelling to world-class physicists like Stephen Hawking, who argues it is the theory of everything and we no longer need a God to explain the universe. There are only two problems with Dr. Hawking’s assertions. First, M-theory has not been verified by any scientific experiment or observation. Today’s science is unable to measure the one-dimensional vibrating strings of energy, if they indeed exist. The second problem is that even if M-theory is correct, there is still an unanswered question. What is it that established that level of order in the universe that would allow us to understand it mathematically? Some reply God, and some ignore the questions entirely. Others, like Lawence Maxwell Krauss, an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, have gone to great lengths to prove the universe is energy neutral and, thus, could have came from nothing. Still, even if Dr. Krauss is correct, what gives rise to the organized nature of the universe? I think that is the most difficult question to answer, and no one has proposed an widely accepted scientific answer.

Given the current state of theoretical physics, it is reasonable to ask how close is today’s science to reality (i.e., the truth)? Factually, I don’t think we know. We only know that various theories, like quantum mechanics, work well in their limited range of application. We also know that we don’t have a single provable theory of everything. While science has made remarkable strides over the last century, we still do not have one provable theory that explains all observed phenomena at both the macro and quantum level.

What does this mean? I think it means that while the experiments and observations of reality may be indisputable, the science and mathematics are not. If you think about it, theoretical physics is in a terrible schizophrenic state.

Let us turn our attention to Dr. Hawking’s claim that we don’t need a God since we have M-theory. Dr. Hawking has been severely criticized for this assertion. Most critics simply ask, where did M-theory come from? Again, we get back to the apparent order of the universe. My view is that we cannot prove or disprove a supernatural entity, like God, using the natural sciences. If God exists, then by the nature of being God, we are dealing with an entity that is outside the physical realm. God would be a supernatural entity. Thus, we would be unable to use the natural sciences, like physics, to prove or disprove  a supernatural entity exists.

Every person, scientist or lay person, needs to make up their own mind about God. In addition, since we are dealing with beliefs and not facts, we should respect each other’s right to believe or disbelieve as each of us sees fit.