Tag Archives: Big Bang Science Theory

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

Why is there more matter than antimatter?

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

According to the Big Bang theory, their should be equal parts of matter and antimatter in our Universe. Conventional wisdom states that they should have annihilated each other, resulting in radiation. If that were true, we should have a Universe filled with only radiation. However, the Universe we observe consists of both radiation and matter.  If there were any significant quantities of antimatter in our Universe, we would see radiation emitted as it interacted with matter. We do not observe this. Therefore, it is natural to ask, “What happened to all the antimatter?”

Let’s start with a simple definition of antimatter. 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.

In 2010 – 2013, scientists using the Large Hadron Collider have shown glimpses of evidence that suggest antimatter decays faster than matter, but the numbers are relatively small and do not fully explain why we have a Universe of matter and radiation. In addition, there is not full agreement in the scientific community regarding the different rates of decay of matter versus antimatter.

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.

Obviously, the absence of antimatter is a profound mystery of science. Future work at the Large Hadron Collider may help us resolve this mystery. Based on their current findings, we are close, but do not have the total answer yet. If there are any breakthroughs, I will post them.

 

 

Close-up of a fingerprint being examined under a magnifying glass with a blue-toned background.

The Top Five Unsolved Mysteries of Science

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

There are numerous unsolved mysteries in science. In this post, I will delineate the top five that I consider the most profound.

  1. What caused the Big Bang? Cosmologist are in strong consensus that the Big Bang resulted in the evolution of the Universe, but there is no scientific consensus as to what caused the Big Bang. There are several theories, including one that I put forward in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. However, none of the current theories, including the one that I forward in my book, have garnered consensus in the scientific community. The origin of the Big Bang is arguably the greatest scientific mystery of all time, and it remains an area of considerable research.
  2. How did life start on Earth? There are two fundamental theories regarding the origin of life on Earth. The first theory, panspermia, holds that life exists throughout the Universe and is distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids. This theory is compelling, but it still leaves us with another profound question, “How did life originate in the Universe?” There are no widely accepted theories to address that question. The second theory, regarding how life started on Earth, is termed biopoesis. It holds that life forms from inorganic matter through natural processes. This theory is also compelling, but no experimental process has resulted in life forming from inorganic matter. By simple logic, one or even both of these theories is correct. Obviously, in the early Universe, life had to form from inorganic matter. It is also possible that life also started on Earth via the same process. It is also possible that once life formed in the Universe, it was spread by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.
  3. What is the nature of time? Some scientists, myself included, argue time is real. This stance suggests that time travel would also be possible. In my book, How to Time Travel, I devote considerable attention to the various philosophies of time and to experiments that suggest time is real. I also delineate experiments that prove time travel to the future is real, as well as experiments that prove reverse causality is real (i.e., literally, the effect precedes the cause). I also delineate experiments that prove that something in the future can alter the past. Some philosophers and scientists argue that time is a mental construct. It is not real. That humans invented time to measure change. If that is true, time travel would not be possible, except in your mind. However, scientific experiments, such as time dilation and reverse causality suggest otherwise. What do you think?
  4. What is the fundamental theory of physics? Modern physics rests on two pillars, The first pillar is Einstein’s theories of relativity. The second pillar is quantum mechanics. Although Einstein’s theories explain phenomena on the macro-scale (i.e., the typical scale we observe in our every day life), it fails to explain phenomena on the quantum level (i.e., the level of atoms and subatomic particles). To explain phenomena on the quantum level we must turn to quantum mechanics. This would be acceptable, except Einstein’s theories of relativity are incompatible with quantum mechanics. They do not come together to adequately explain gravity. Physicists have long sought the “theory of everything.” Some physicists, like world renown cosmologist Stephen Hawking, suggest that M-theory (i.e., the most comprehensive string theory) fits the bill. However, there is no consensus or proof that M-theory is even valid. Until the next Einstein comes along and solves the problem, we don’t have a fundamental theory (i.e., a single unifying theory) of physics.
  5. Does life exist on other planets or is the Earth unique? Almost every scientist agrees that given the vastness of the Universe and the numerous Earth-like planets that have been discovered, there must be life somewhere else in the Universe. Indeed, many believe, myself included, that advanced aliens, similar or more advanced than ourselves, must also exist. However, there has been no definitive publication that proves life exists elsewhere in the Universe. I will refrain from getting into UFOs, government conspiracies and similar material. I don’t refute such theories, but as a scientist I must base my conclusions on definitive evidence. To date, we have no definitive evidence (i.e., widely accepted by the scientific community) regarding life on other planets. However, mathematically, I think life on other planets is a certainty. What do you think?
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.

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 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk).
  • Is Our Universe Inside a Bubble? First Observational Test of the “Multiverse.” ScienceDaily.com, August 3, 2011.

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

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

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

Why did the Big Bang go bang?

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

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

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

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

What Made the Big Bang Go Bang? Part 1/2

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, , , ,

This is a little play on words. The Big Bang theory holds that the evolution of the universe started with an infinitesimal packet of near infinite energy (termed a “singularity”) that suddenly expanded and continues to expand. If this is true, was it big? No, it was infinitesimally small. Did it go bang? No, it expanded. Space is a vacuum, and it is unable to transmit sound waves. Therefore, there were no sound waves to make a bang noise. Granted, I was not there since it took place 13.7 billion years ago, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I am only jesting, but the description above of the Big Bang theory is what the scientific community holds to be responsible for the evolution of the universe. However, a significant question remains unanswered: What made the Big Bang go bang?

Throughout the theories of science, there appears to be a common thread based on well-observed physical phenomena regarding the behavior of energy. That common thread states that differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential always seek equilibrium if they are in an isolated physical system. For example, with time, a hot cup of coffee will cool to room temperature. This means it reaches equilibrium (balance, stability and sameness) with the temperature of the room, which is the isolated physical system in this example. Readers familiar with thermodynamics will instantly attribute this behavior of energy as following the second law of thermodynamics. However, the same law, worded differently, exists in numerous scientific contexts. In the interest of clarity, I am going to restate this law, describing the behavior of energy, in a way that makes it independent of scientific contexts. In a sense, it abstracts the essence of the contextual statements, and views applications of the law in various scientific contexts as specific cases. I am not the first physicist to undertake generalizing the second law of thermodynamics to make it independent of scientific contexts. However, I believe my proposed restatement provides a simple and comprehensive description of the laws that energy follows, and it will aide in understanding concepts presented in later chapters. For the sake of reference, I have termed my restatement 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.

Consider these two examples to illustrate the Minimum Energy Principle.

1)   Radioactive substances. Radioactive substances emit radiation until they are no longer radioactive (they become stable). However, by introducing other radioactive substances under the right conditions, they can transition to a new state. Indeed, if the proper radioactive elements combine under the right circumstances, the result can be an atomic explosion.

2)   A thermodynamic example. Consider a branding iron fresh from the fire. It emits thermal radiation until it reaches equilibrium with its surroundings. In other words, once a branding iron leaves the fire, it will start to cool by transferring energy to its surrounding. Eventually, it will be at the same temperature as its surroundings. (This illustrates the first part of the Minimum Energy Principle: Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible.) However, if we increase the temperature of the branding iron by placing it back in the fire, the branding iron will absorb energy until it again reaches equilibrium with the temperature of the fire. (This illustrates the second part of the Minimum Energy Principle: It transitions to this new state by being acted on by the fire. The fire acts as an energy source.)

The Minimum Energy Principle is consistent with the law of entropy. To understand this, we will need to discuss entropy. In classical thermodynamics, entropy is the energy unavailable for work in a thermodynamic process. For example, no machine is one hundred percent efficient in converting energy to work. A portion of the energy is always lost in the form of waste heat. An example is the miles per gallon achievable via your car engine, ignoring other factors such as the weight of the vehicle, its aerodynamic design, and other similar factors. Several car manufacturers are able to build highly efficient engines. However, no car manufacturer can build an engine that is one hundred percent efficient. As a result, a fraction of total energy is always lost, typically in the form of waste heat.

Entropy proceeds in one direction, and is a measure of the system’s disorder. Any increase in entropy implies an increase in disorder and an increase in stability. For example, the heat lost in a car engine is lost to the atmosphere, and is no longer usable to do work. The heat lost is adding to the disorder of the universe, and is a measure of entropy. Oddly, though, the lost heat is completely stable.

In a given system, entropy is either constant or increasing, depending on the flow of energy. If the system is isolated, and has no energy flow, the entropy remains constant. If the system is undergoing an energy change, such as ice melting in a glass of water, the entropy is increasing. When the ice completely melts, and the system reaches equilibrium with its surrounding, it is stable. This has a significant implication. Entropy is constantly increasing in the universe since everything in the universe is undergoing energy change. In theory, the entropy of the universe will eventually maximize, and all reality will be lost to heat. The universe will be completely stable and static. I have termed this the “entropy apocalypse.” I know I am being a little dramatic here, but most of the scientific community believes the entropy (disorder) of the universe is increasing. Eventually, all energy in the universe will be stable and unusable, all change will cease to occur, and the universe will have reached the entropy apocalypse.

Based on the above discussion of entropy, we can argue that entropy seeks to maximize and, therefore, reduce energy to the lowest state possible. This is why I stated that the Minimum Energy Principle, which asserts that energy seeks the lowest state possible, is consistent with law of entropy.

How does this help us understand what made the Big Bang go bang? The Minimum Energy Principle, along with our understanding of the behavior of entropy, makes answering this question relatively easy. The scientific community agrees that the Big Bang started with a point of infinite energy, at the instant prior to the expansion. From the Minimum Energy Principle, we know “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.” Since we know it went “bang,” we can make three deductions regarding the infinitely dense-energy point. First, it was not stable. Second, it was not in the lowest energy state possible. Third, the entropy of the infinitely dense-energy point was at its lowest state possible, which science terms the “ground-state entropy.” These three conditions set the stage for the Minimum Energy Principle and the laws of entropy to initiate the Big Bang.

By the very nature of “playing the tape” of the expanding universe back to discover its origin, namely the Big Bang, we can conclude a highly dense energy state. It will be a highly dense energy state because we are going to take all the energy that expanded from the Big Bang, and cause it to contract. As it contracts, the universe grows smaller and more energy-dense. At the end of this process, we have a highly dense energy state. I think of it as a point, potentially without dimensions, but with near-infinite energy. This view is widely held by the scientific community. If it is true, all logic causes us to conclude it was an infinitely excited energy state, and we would have every reason to question its stability—and to believe it was at the “ground-state” entropy (the lowest entropy state possible).

Our observations of unstable energy systems in the laboratory suggest that as soon as the point of infinite energy came to exist, it had to seek stability at a lower energy level. The Big Bang was a form of energy dilution. In the process of lowering the energy, it increased the entropy of the universe. Once again, we see the Minimum Energy Principle and the law of entropy acting in concert.

How long did the infinitely dense-energy point exist? No one really knows. However, we can approach an answer by understanding more about time.  We will discuss this aspect in Part 2.

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