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)