Tag Archives: unraveling the universe’s mysteries

A vibrant cosmic explosion with bright orange and red hues surrounded by a dark purple and blue starry background.

Why Is There Almost No Antimatter In the Universe?

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

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. (Note: The Big Bang theory asserts that the universe originated from a highly dense energy state that expanded to form all that we observe as reality.)

If there were any significant 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 the next chapter.)

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, described in my book Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries and also summarized below, provides a simpler explanation, which does not violate the fundamental symmetry of physical laws. From this viewpoint, it deserves consideration.

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. In theory, it contains our own universe, as well as other universes.).
 
This theory rests on the significant experimental evidence that when virtual particles emerge from “nothing,” they are typically created in matter-antimatter pairs. Based on this evidence, I argued in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, 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. This suggests that the collision of two infinitely dense matter-antimatter pairs statistically favor resulting in a universe filled with matter and photons. In other words, 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 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. Therefore, the scientific community has high confidence that the universe consists of matter, and antimatter is absent.
 
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. 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. The most successful theory in modern physics is Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which requires the laws of physics to be invariant in any inertial frame of reference (i.e., a frame of reference at rest or moving at a constant velocity). 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 also fits Occam’s razor (i.e., A principle of science that holds the simplest explanation is the most plausible one, until new data to the contrary becomes available.).
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 (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.

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.

science of time & time dilation

Will Time Have Meaning in the Post Singularity World? Part 1/3

Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Physics, Technology, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

Will time have meaning in the post singularity world? Let’s start by understanding terms. The first term we will work at understanding is “time.”

Almost everyone agrees that time is a measure of change, for example, the ticking of a clock as the second hand sweeps around the dial represents change. If that is true, time is a measure of energy because energy is required to cause change. Numerous proponents of the “Big Bang” hold that the Big Bang itself gave birth to time. They argue that prior to the Big Bang, time did not exist. This concept fits well into our commonsense notion that time is a measure of change.

Our modern conception of time comes from Einstein’s special theory of relativity. In this theory, the rates of time run differently, depending on the relative motion of observers, and their spatial relationship to the event under observation. In effect, Einstein unified space and time into the concept of space-time. According to this view of time, we live on a world line, defined as the unique path of an object as it travels through four-dimensional space-time, rather than a timeline. At this point, it is reasonable to ask: what is the fourth dimension?

The fourth dimension is often associated with Einstein, and typically equated with time. However, it was German mathematician Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), who enhanced the understanding of Einstein’s special theory of relativity by introducing the concept of four-dimensional space, since then known as “Minkowski space-time.”

In the special theory of relativity, Einstein used Minkowski’s four dimensional space—X1, X2, X3, X4, where X1, X2, X3 are the typical coordinates of the three dimensional space—and X4 = ict, where i = square root of -1, c is the speed of light in empty space, and t is time, representing the numerical order of physical events measured with “clocks.” (The mathematical expression i is an imaginary number because it is not possible to solve for the square root of a negative number.) Therefore, X4 = ict, is a spatial coordinate, not a “temporal coordinate.” This forms the basis for weaving space and time into space-time. However, this still does not answer the question, what is time? Unfortunately, no one has defined it exactly. Most scientists, including Einstein, considered time (t) the numerical orders of physical events (change). The forth coordinate (X4 = ict) is considered to be a spatial coordinate, on equal footing with X1, X2, and X3 (the typical coordinates of three-dimensional space).

However, let’s consider a case where there are no events and no observable or measurable changes. Does time still exist? I believe the answer to this question is yes, but now time must be equated to existence to have any meaning. This begs yet another difficult question: How does existence give meaning to time?

We are at a point where we need to use our imagination and investigate a different approach to understand the nature of time. This is going to be speculative. After consideration, I suggest understanding the nature of time requires we investigate the kinetic energy associated with moving in four dimensions. The kinetic energy refers to an object’s energy due to its movement. For example, you may be able to bounce a rubber ball softly against a window without breaking it. However, if you throw the ball at the window, it may break the glass. When thrown hard, the ball has more kinetic energy due to its higher velocity. The velocity described in this example relates to the ball’s movement in three-dimensional space (X1, X2, and X3). Even when the ball is at rest in three-dimensional space, it is it still moving in the fourth dimension, X4. This leads to an interesting question. If it is moving in the fourth dimension, X4, what is the kinetic energy associated with that movement?

To calculate the kinetic energy associated with movement in the fourth dimension, X4, we use relativistic mechanics, from Einstein’s special theory of relativity and the mathematical discipline of calculus. Intuitively, it seems appropriate to use relativistic mechanics, since the special theory of relativity makes extensive use of Minkowski space and the X4 coordinate, as described above. It provides the most accurate methodology to calculate the kinetic energy of an object, which is the energy associated with an object’s movement.

If we use the result derived from the relativistic kinetic energy, the equation becomes:

KEX4 = -.3mc2

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

For purposes of reference, I have termed this equation, KEX4 = -.3mc2, the “Existence Equation Conjecture.” (Note: With the tools of algebra, calculus, and Einstein’s equation for kinetic energy, along with the assumption that the object is at rest, the derivation is relatively straightforward. The complete derivation is presented in my books, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, appendix 1, and How to Time Travel, appendix 2.)

According to the existence equation conjecture, existence (i.e., movement in time) requires negative kinetic energy. This is fully consistent with our observation that applying (positive) kinetic or gravitational energy to elementary particles extends their existence. There may also be a relationship between entropy (a measure of disorder) and the Existence Equation Conjecture. What is the rationale behind this statement? First, time is a measure of change. Second, any change increases entropy in the universe. Thus, the universe’s disorderliness is increasing with time. If we argue the entropy of the universe was at a minimum the instant prior to the Big Bang—since it represented an infinitely dense-energy point prior to change—then all change from the Big Bang on, served to increase entropy. Even though highly ordered planets and solar systems formed, the net entropy of the universe increased. Thus, any change, typically associated with time, is associated with increasing entropy. This implies that the Existence Equation Conjecture may have a connection to entropy.

What does all of the above say about the nature of time? If we are on the right track, it says describing the nature of time requires six crucial elements, all of which are simultaneously true.

  1. Time is change. (This is true, even though it was not true in our “thought experiment” of an isolated atom at absolute zero. As mentioned above, it is not possible for any object to reach absolute zero. The purpose of the thought experiment was to illustrate the concept of “existence” separate from “change.”)
  2. Time is a measure of energy, since change requires energy.
  3. Time is a measure of existence. (The isolated atom, at absolute zero, enables us to envision existence separate from change.)
  4. Movement in time (or existence) requires negative energy.
  5. The energy to fuel time (existence) is enormous. It may be responsible for the life times associated with unstable elementary particles, essentially consuming them, in part, to satisfy the Existence Equation Conjecture. It may be drawing energy from the universe (dark energy). If correct, it provides insight into the nature of dark energy. Essentially the negative energy we call dark energy is required to fuel existence (please see my posts: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Parts 1-4).
  6. Lastly, the enormousness changes in entropy, creating chaos in the universe, may be the price we pay for time. Since entropy increases with change, and time is a measure of change, there appears to be a time-entropy relationship. In addition, entropy proceeds in one direction. It always increases when change occurs. The directional alignment, and the physical processes of time, suggests a relationship between time and entropy.

This view of time is speculative, but fits the empirical observations of time. A lot of the speculation rests on the validity of the Existence Equation Conjecture. Is it valid? As shown in appendix 2 of Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012) and appendix 2 of How to Time Travel (2013), it is entirely consistent with data from a high-energy particle-accelerator experiment involving muons moving near the speed of light. The experimental results agree closely with predictions of the Existence Equation Conjecture (within 2%). This data point is consistent with the hypothesis that adding kinetic energy can fuel the energy required for existence. The implications are enormous, and require serious scientific scrutiny. I published the Existence Equation Conjecture in the above books to disseminate information, and enable the scientific scrutiny.

The Existence Equation Conjecture represents a milestone. If further evaluation continues to confirm the validity of the Existence Equation Conjecture, we have a new insight into the nature of time. Existence (movement in time) requires enormous negative energy. The Existence Equation Conjecture, itself, provides insight into the physical processes underpinning time dilation (i.e., why time slows down when a mass is moving close to the speed of light or is in a high gravitational field). It answers the question why a subatomic particle’s life increases with the addition of kinetic or gravitational energy. It offers a solution path to a mystery that has baffled science since 1998, namely the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe (please see my posts: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Parts 1-4). Lastly, it may contain one of the keys to time travel.

In the next post (part 2), we will explore what the technological singularity and the post singularity world in our quest to determine if time has meaning in the post singularity world.

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Part 3/4

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

In the last two posts, we established five facts.  First,  the universe is expanding (i.e., the space between galaxies) and the expansion is accelerating. Second, there is no expansion of space within a galaxy. Third, science believes that the accelerating expansion of the universe is caused by a mysterious new force, dark energy. Fourth, it appears galaxies are glued together via another mysterious entity, dark matter. Lastly, dark matter only exists within a galaxy and not between galaxies. These facts have been confirmed and are widely accepted in the scientific community.

In the last post (part 2), I suggested that  a galaxy on a cosmic level acts essentially like a particle. This view of a galaxy as a particle is based on the observation that dark matter, which makes up over 90% of the matter of a galaxy, acts like a “glue” holding all the celestial bodies (stars, planets, etc.) in place. As odd as this may sound, most cosmologists accept this view of dark matter.  

Lastly, we asked the key question. What is really causing the space between these “particles” (i.e., galaxies) to expand. In other words, we are back to the question: What is dark energy? This post will endeavor to address that question. However, while the first two posts provided factual information, the nature of dark energy is speculative. This post will delineate my view, which has been published in my first book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, and in an article for the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louis-a-del-monte/dark-energy-explained_b_2853962.html). However, let me emphasize that this is my view (i.e., theory). While it has been published in both my books and in the Huffington Post, it has not be adequately peer reviewed. Therefore, you should treat this as a conjecture (i.e., an opinion). To delineate my view, I will quote (in part) from the article I published in the Huffington Post: 

In my book, I put forward a new theory that explains both the fundamental cause of time dilation and accelerating universe. I name the theory “The Existence Equation Conjecture.”

What is the Existence Equation Conjecture? It is a mathematical equation I derived using Einstein’s special theory of relativity and Minkowski space-time coordinates. It delineates the energy required for a mass to move in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space. Unfortunately, this sounds more like science fiction than science fact. In addition, all the scientific jargon tends to confuse the explanation. Rather than going through the derivation and experimental verification, which are in the appendices of my book, let me just get to the punch line. Here is the Existence Equation Conjecture:

KEX4 = -.3mc^2

Where KEX4 is the kinetic energy associated with an object’s movement in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space, m is the rest mass of an object, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

What does all this mean? The interpretation is speculative. With this caveat, I interpret the equation to imply that a mass requires energy to move in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space. Although, Einstein never called the fourth dimension time, it includes a time component, and I interpret the mass’ movement in the fourth dimension to equate to its existence. The equation is dimensionally correct (expressible in units of energy), but highly unusual from two standpoints. First, the kinetic energy is negative, which suggests a mass requires energy to move in the fourth dimension. Second, the amount of negative kinetic energy suggested by the equation is enormous. Although, the equation’s roots extend to special relativity, and it correlates well with experimental time dilation data, I termed it a conjecture. It requires further peer review and additional experimental verification.

If the Existence Equation Conjecture actually models the energy a mass needs to exist, how does this explain the accelerating universe? If correct, the amount of energy required for existence is enormous, and it has to come from somewhere. I looked at a number of potential candidates. In the end, I concluded the most likely candidate is the vacuum of space. We know from our experiments with vacuums in the laboratory that vacuums contain energy. An example of this is virtual particle production, which gives rise to the Casimir effect, where two closely spaced electrically neutral plates are pushed together in a vacuum. Although counter intuitive, a laundry list of effects demonstrates vacuums contain energy.

If we think of galaxies as masses, we can postulate to exist they are removing energy from the vacuums that surround them. We know from Einstein’s famous mass energy equivalence (E = mc^2), that removing energy is equivalent to removing mass. This suggests that as the mass/energy density decreases, the gravitational attraction within the vacuum decreases, which in turn causes the vacuum to expand.

While the Existence Equation Conjecture does mathematically express the energy required for a mass to move in time, how do we know it is correct? Here are some facts for consideration:

1. The derivation of the equation follows from Einstein’s special theory of relativity and its expression in Minkowski’s vector space. The derivation was first delineated in Appendix 1 of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), and further refined in Appendix 2 of my book, How to Time Travel (2013).

2. Verification of the equation to accurately predict experimental time dilation results was provided in Appendix 2 of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), and further discussed in Appendix 3 of my book, How to Time Travel (2013).

If you accept that the Existence Equation Conjecture is correct, it implies that existence, movement in time, continually requires energy. In a sense, this should not surprise us. Elementary physics teaches that a mass moving in three-dimensional space has kinetic energy. The energy to start the mass moving results in its kinetic energy. Intuitively, we should expect a mass moving in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space to also require energy. We already know from numerous time dilation experiments that adding significant kinetic energy to a mass. such as a muon (i.e., an unstable subatomic particle of the same class as an electron, but with a mass around 200 times greater), increases its decay time by more than an factor of ten (i.e., an order of magnitude). Many books on special and general relativity provide time dilation formulas, but do not explain the fundamental scientific mechanism. I judge, based on this work, that the fundamental mechanism is that existence requires energy and supplying energy to a mass will extend it life (i.e., dilate time).

The above discussion provides a theory why the space between galaxies expands. In summary, the galaxies drain energy from the vacuums of space to sustain their (i.e., the galaxies) existence. As energy is removed from the vacuums of space, so is mass (based on Einstein’s mass energy equivalence formula E = mc^2). With less energy/mass in the vacuums, the gravitational force defining the vacuum is diminished, which in turn causes the vacuum to expand.

As I said at the beginning of this post, the above is the result of my original research, published in my books and the Huffington Post. I welcome peer reviewed. However, until the Existence Equation Conjecture gains widespread scientific acceptance, I will continue to label it a conjecture (i.e., an opinion). In the next post, concluding this series, I will explain (my view) why galaxies more distant from us appear to be moving away from us the fastest.

dark matter

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe – Part 2/4

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

In the last post (part 1), we discussed the phenomenon of the accelerating universe, namely  that the universe is expanding and all galaxies are moving away from all other galaxies. Based on the paradigm of “cause and effect,” mainstream science argued a mysterious new force was causing the expansion. The force was named dark energy.

We also noted, that the accelerating universe was characterized by two unusual features:

1. The more distant a galaxy, the faster it is accelerating away from us.

2. There is no expansion of space occurring within a galaxy.

We ended the last post with questions: Why was there no expansion of space within a galaxy? Was the space between stars and other celestial bodies within our galaxy somehow different than the space between galaxies? In this post we will address those questions. Let’s start at the beginning.

In 1933, Fritz Zwicky (California Institute of Technology) made a crucial observation. He discovered the orbital velocities of galaxies were not following Newton’s law of gravitation (every mass in the universe attracts every other mass with a force inversely proportional to the square of the difference between them). They were orbiting too fast for the visible mass to be held together by gravity. If the galaxies followed Newton’s law of gravity, the outermost stars would be thrown into space. He reasoned there had to be more mass than the eye could see, essentially an unknown and invisible form of mass that was allowing gravity to hold the galaxies together. Zwicky’s calculations revealed that there had to be 400 times more mass in the galaxy clusters than what was visible. This is the mysterious “missing-mass problem.” It is normal to think that this discovery would turn the scientific world on its ear. However, as profound as the discovery turned out to be, progress in understanding the missing mass lags until the 1970s.

In 1975, Vera Rubin and fellow staff member Kent Ford, astronomers at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, presented findings that re-energized Zwicky’s earlier claim of missing matter. At a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, they announced the finding that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed. They made this discovery using a new, sensitive spectrograph (a device that separates an incoming wave into a frequency spectrum). The new spectrograph accurately measured the velocity curve of spiral galaxies. Like Zwicky, they found the spiral velocity of the galaxies was too fast to hold all the stars in place. Using Newton’s law of gravity, the galaxies should be flying apart, but they were not. Presented with this new evidence, the scientific community finally took notice. Their first reaction was to call into question the findings, essentially casting doubt on what Rubin and Ford reported. This is a common and appropriate reaction, until the amount of evidence (typically independent verification) becomes convincing.

In 1980, Rubin and her colleagues published their findings (V. Rubin, N. Thonnard, W. K. Ford, Jr, (1980). “Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R=4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R=122kpc).” Astrophysical Journal 238: 471.). It implied that either Newton’s laws do not apply, or that more than 50% of the mass of galaxies is invisible. Although skepticism abounded, eventually other astronomers confirmed their findings. The experimental evidence had become convincing. “Dark matter,” the invisible mass, dominates most galaxies. Even in the face of conflicting theories that attempt to explain the phenomena observed by Zwicky and Rubin, most scientists believe dark matter is real. None of the conflicting theories (which typically attempted to modify how gravity behaved on the cosmic scale) was able to explain all the observed evidence, especially gravitational lensing (the way gravity bends light).

Currently, the scientific community believes that dark matter is real and abundant, making up as much as 90% of the mass of the universe. However, the nature of dark matter itself is still a mystery. Just what is this mysterious substance that appears to glue a galaxy together?

The most popular theory of dark matter is that it is a slow-moving particle. It travels up to a tenth of the speed of light. It neither emits nor scatters light. In other words, it is invisible. However, its effects are detectable, as I will explain below. Scientists call the mass associated with dark matter a “WIMP” (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle).

For years, scientists have been working to find the WIMP particle to confirm dark matter’s existence. All efforts have been either unsuccessful or inconclusive. The Department of Energy Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) experiment is ongoing, in an abandoned iron mine about a half mile below the surface, in Soudan, Minnesota. The Fermilab is a half mile under the earth’s surface to filter cosmic rays so the instruments are able to detect elementary particles without the background noise of cosmic rays. In 2009, they reported detecting two events that have characteristics consistent with the particles that physicists believe make up dark matter. They may have detected the WIMP particle. However, they are not making that claim at the time of this writing. The Fermilab stopped short of claiming they had detected dark matter because of the strict criteria that they have self-imposed, specifically there must be less than one chance in a thousand that the event detected was due to a background particle. The two events, although consistent with the detection of dark matter, do not pass that test. Where does that leave us? To date, we are without conclusive evidence that the WIMP exists.

Does the WIMP particle exist? Consider the facts.

1)   The Standard Model of particle physics does not predict a WIMP particle. The Standard Model, refined to its current formulation in the mid-1970s, is one of science’s greatest theories. It successfully predicted bottom and top quarks prior to their experimental confirmation in 1977 and 1995, respectively. It predicted the tau neutrino prior to its experimental confirmation in 2000, and the Higgs boson prior to its experimental confirmation in 2012. Modern science holds the Standard Model in such high regard that a number of scientists believe it is a candidate for the theory of everything. Therefore, it is not a little “hiccup” when the Standard Model does not predict the existence of a particle. It is significant, and it might mean that the particle does not exist. However, to be totally fair, the Standard Model has other issues. For example, it doesn’t explain gravity. Because of these issues, numerous variations of the Standard Model have been proposed, but none have gained wide acceptance.

2)   All experiments to detect the WIMP particle have to date been unsuccessful, including considerable effort by Stanford University, University of Minnesota, and Fermilab.

That is all the evidence we have. Where does this leave us? The evidence is telling us the WIMP particle might not exist. We have spent about ten years, and unknown millions of dollars, which so far leads to a dead end. This appears to beg a new approach.

To kick off the new approach, consider the hypothesis that dark matter is a new form of energy. We know from Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation (E = mc2), that mass always implies energy, and energy always implies mass. For example, photons are massless energy particles. Yet, gravitational fields influence them, even though they have no mass. That is because they have energy, and energy, in effect, acts as a virtual mass.

If dark matter is energy, where is it and what is it? Consider these properties of dark-matter energy:

  • It is not in the visible spectrum, or we would see it.
  • It does not strongly interact with other forms of energy or matter.
  • It does exhibit gravitational effects, but does not absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation.

Based on these properties, we should consider M-theory (the unification of string theories discussed in previous posts). Several prominent physicists, including one of the founders of string theory, Michio Kaku, suggest there may be a solution to M-theory that quantitatively describes dark matter and cosmic inflation. If M-theory can yield a superstring solution, it would go a long way to solving the dark-matter mystery. I know this is like the familiar cartoon of a scientist solving an equation where the caption reads, “then a miracle happens.” However, it is not quite that grim. What I am suggesting is a new line of research and theoretical enquiry. I think the theoretical understanding of dark matter lies in M-theory. The empirical understanding lies in missing-matter experiments.

What is a missing-matter experiment? Scientists are performing missing-matter experiments as you read this post. They involve high-energy particle collisions. By accelerating particles close to the speed of light, and causing particle collisions at those speeds, they account for all the energy and mass pre- and post-collision. If any energy or mass is missing post-collision, the assumption would be it is in one of non-spatial dimensions predicted by M-theory.

Why would this work? M-theory has the potential to give us a theoretical model of dark matter, which we do not have now. Postulating we are dealing with new unknown form of energy would explain why we have not found the WIMP particle. Postulating that the energy resides in the non-spatial dimensions of M-theory would explain why we cannot see or detect it. Real-world phenomena take place in the typical three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. If dark matter is in a different dimension, it cannot interact with “real”-world phenomena, except to exhibit gravity. Why is dark matter able to exhibit gravity? That is still a mystery, as is gravity itself. We have not been able to find the “graviton,” the mysterious particle of gravity that numerous particle physicists believe exists. Yet, we know gravity is real. It is theoretically possible that dark matter (perhaps a new form of energy) and gravity (another form of energy) are both in a different dimension. This framework provides an experimental path to verify some of the aspects of M-theory and the existence of dark matter (via high-energy particle collisions).

Although dark matter is a mystery, we know from scientific observation it is real. Without dark matter our galaxy would fly apart. In fact, dark matter makes up most of the mass of a galaxy, over 90%. In a sense, you can think of a galaxy similar to the way we think of an atom. An atom can act like a single particle, an entity unto itself. However, we know the atom is composed of subatomic particles, like electrons, protons and neutrons. We also know that some of those particles are composed of other subatomic particles, which I will not go into detail here. The point is a galaxy may act on a cosmic scale as though it is particle, similar to an atom, with subatomic particles we call stars, planets and other celestial bodies. I know this is mind boggling, but it fits the observable evidence. It provides insight into the difference regarding space between galaxies and the space within a galaxy. It is consistent with our observations of the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Let us summaries our understanding from the first two post. First, the universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. Second, there is no expansion of space within a galaxy. Third, science believes that the accelerating expansion of the universe is caused by a mysterious new force, dark energy. Fourth, it appears galaxies are glued together via another mysterious entity, dark matter. Lastly, dark matter only exists within a galaxy and not between galaxies.

If we are willing to accept that a galaxy on a cosmic level acts essentially like a particle, as discuss above, we are still left with a mystery. What is really causing the space between these “particles” (i.e., galaxies) to expand. In other words, we are back to the question: What is dark energy? In the next post we will discuss a new theory, first proposed in my book Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, that seeks to explain the fundamental nature of dark energy.

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)