Tag Archives: unraveling the universe’s mysteries

The Mysterious Nature of Energy

March 24, 2014Categories, Physics, Universe MysteriesEnergy, louis del monte, mystery of energy, nature of energy, unraveling the universe's mysteriesadmin

We scientists talk about energy, and derive equations with energy mathematically expressed in the equation as though we understand energy. The fact is: we do not. It is an indirectly observed quantity. We infer its existence. For example, in physics, we define energy as the ability of a physical system to do work on another physical system. Physics is one context that uses and defines the word energy. However, the word energy has different meanings in different contexts. Even the average person throws the term energy around in phrases like, “I don’t have any energy today,” generally inferring a lack of vigor, force, potency, zeal, push, and the like. The word energy finds its way into both the scientific community and our everyday communications, but the true essence of energy remains an enigma.

The concept of energy is an old concept. It comes from the ancient Greek word, “enérgeia,” which translates “activity or operation.” As previously stated, we do not know the exact essence of energy, but we know a great deal about the effects of energy. To approach a better understanding, consider these four fundamental properties of energy:

1. Energy is transferable from one system to another.

Transferring mass between systems results in a transfer of energy between systems. Mass and energy have been inseparably equated, since 1905, via Einstein’s famous mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc², where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. This equation is widely held as a scientific fact. Experimental results over the last century strongly validate it. Typically, mass transfers between systems occur at the atomic level as atoms capture subatomic particles or bond to form products of different masses.

Non-matter transfer of energy is possible. For example, a system can transfer energy to another by thermal radiation (heat). The system that absorbs the thermal radiation experiences an increase in energy, typically measured by its temperature. This is how the radiators in a house raise the room temperature. Here is another example: If an object in motion strikes another object, a transfer of kinetic energy results. Consider billiard balls. When one ball strikes another, it imparts kinetic energy to the ball it strikes, causing it to move.

2. Energy may be stored in systems.

If you pick up a rock from the ground and hold it at shoulder height, you have stored energy between the rock and ground via the gravitation attraction created between the Earth and rock. You may consider this potential energy. When you open your hand, the rock will fall back to the ground. Why? The answer is straightforward. It required your energy to hold the rock in its new position at shoulder height. As soon as you, by opening your hand, released the energy that you were providing, it reduced to a lower energy state when the gravitational field pulled the rock back to the ground.

Any type of energy that is stored is “potential energy,” and all types of potential energy appear as system mass. For example, a compressed metal spring will be slightly more massive than before it was compressed. When you compress the spring, you do work on the system. The work on the system is energy, and that energy is stored in the compressed spring as potential energy. Because of this stored potential energy, the spring becomes more massive.

3. Energy is not only transferable–it is transformable from one form to another.

Our example regarding the rock falling back to the ground is an example of energy transformation. The potential energy was transformed to kinetic energy when you opened your hand and released the rock. This is what caused the rock to fall back to the ground. Here is an industrial example. Hydroelectric plants generate electricity by using water that flows over a falls due to gravity. In effect, they are transforming the falling water (gravitational energy) into another form of energy (electricity).

4. Energy is conserved.

This is arguably the most sacred law in physics. Simply stated: Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. The word “isolated” implies the system does not allow other systems to interact with it. A thermos bottle is an example of an isolated system. It is preventing the ambient temperature from changing the temperature inside the thermos. For example, it keeps your coffee hot for a long time. Obviously, it is not a perfectly isolated system since eventually it will lose heat to the atmosphere, and your coffee will cool to the ambient temperature that surrounds the thermos bottle. For example, in your house, the coffee in a cup will cool to room temperature.

In summary, energy may be transferred, stored, and transformed, but it cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. This means the total energy of an isolated system does not change.

Next, we will consider energy in different contexts. Unfortunately, since we do not know the true essence of energy, we need to describe it via the effects we observe in the context that we observe them. Here are two contexts:

1) Cosmology and Astronomy

Stars, nova, supernova, quasar, and gamma-ray bursts are the highest-output mass into energy transformations in the universe. For example, a star is typically a large and massive celestial body, primarily composed of hydrogen. Due to its size, gravity at the star’s core is immense. The immense gravity causes the hydrogen atoms to fuse together to form helium, which causes a nuclear reaction to occur. The nuclear reaction, in effect, transforms mass into energy. In the cosmos, mass-to-energy transformations are due to gravity, and follow Einstein famous equation, E = mc² (discussed previously). The gravity can result in nuclear fusion, as described in the above example. It can cause a dying star to collapse and form a black hole.

2) Chemistry

Energy is an attribute of the atomic or molecular structure of a substance. For example, an atom or molecule has mass. From Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation, (E = mc²), we know the mass equates to energy. In chemistry, an energy transformation is a chemical reaction. The chemical reaction typically results in a structural change of the substance, accompanied by a change in energy. For example, when two hydrogen atoms bond with one oxygen atom, to form a water molecule, energy emits in the form of light.

Other scientific contexts give meaning to the word energy. Two examples are biology and geology. Numerous forms of energy are accepted by the scientific community. The various forms include thermal energy, chemical energy, electric energy, radiant energy, nuclear energy, magnetic energy, elastic energy, sound energy, mechanical energy, luminous energy, and mass. I will not go into each form and context for the sake of brevity. My intent is to illustrate that the word energy in science must be understood within a specific context and form.

As mentioned above, we truly do not know the essence of energy; we infer its existence by its effects. The effects we measure often involve utilizing fundamental concepts of science, such as mass, distance, radiation, temperature, time, and electric charge. Adding to ambiguity, energy is often confused with power. Although we often equate “power” and “energy” in our everyday conversation, scientifically they are not the same. Strictly speaking, in science, power is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed. For example, a 100-watt light bulb transforms more electricity into light than a 60-watt light bulb. In this example, the electricity is the energy source. Its rate of use in the light bulbs is power. It takes more power to run a 100-watt bulb than a 60-watt bulb. Your electric bill will verify this is true.

What is it about energy that makes it mysterious? Science does not understand the nature of energy. We have learned a great deal about energy in the last century. The word energy has found its way into numerous scientific contexts as well as into our everyday vernacular, but we do not know the fundamental essence of energy. We can infer it exists. Its existence and definition is context sensitive. We do not have any instrument to measure energy directly, independent of the context. Yet, in the last century, we have learned to harness energy in various forms. We use electrical energy to power numerous everyday items, such as computers and televisions. We have learned to unleash the energy of the atom in nuclear reactors to power, for example, cities and submarines. We have come a long way, but the fundamental essence of energy remains an enigma.

In the next post, we will discuss another aspect of energy that haunts the scientific community. Does all reality consist of discrete packets (quantums) of energy? Are mass, space, time, and energy composed of quantized energy? We can make a reasonably strong case that they are. It is counterintuitive because we do not experience reality that way. For example, when you pick up a rock, you do not directly experience the atoms that make up the rock. However, the rock is nothing more than the sum of all its atoms. If all reality is made of quantized energy, we live in a Quantum Universe. What exactly is a Quantum Universe? Stay tuned, and we will explore what a Quantum Universe is in the next post.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (20120, Louis A. Del Monte

$Abstract fractal pattern resembling a cosmic or underwater scene with glowing blue and white textures.$

Do We Need M-Theory? Maybe!

March 12, 2014Categories, Multiverse, Physics, Universe Mysteriesdo we need M-theory, louis del monte, M-theory, unraveling the universe's mysteriesadmin

Most high school science classes teach the classical view of the atom, incorporating subatomic particles like protons, electrons, and neutrons. This is the particle theory of the atom dating to the early Twentieth Century. In about the 1960s, scientists discovered more subatomic particles. By the 1970s, scientists discovered that protons and neutrons consist of subatomic particles called quarks (an elementary particle not known to have a substructure). In the 1980s, a mathematical model called string theory, was developed. It is a branch of theoretical physics. String theory sought to explain how to construct all particles and energy in the universe via hypothetical one-dimensional “strings.” Subatomic particles are no longer extremely small masses. Instead, they are oscillating lines of energy, hence the name “strings.” In addition, the latest string theory (M-theory) asserts that the universe is eleven dimensions, not the four-spacetime dimensions we currently experience in our daily lives. String theory was one of science’s first attempts at a theory of everything (a complete mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and matter).

In about the mid-1990s, scientists considered the equivalences of the various string theories, and the five leading string theories were combined into a one comprehensive theory, M-theory. M-theory postulates eleven dimensions of space filled with membranes, existing in the Bulk (super-universe). The Bulk contains an infinite number of membranes, or “branes” for short.

According to M-theory, when two branes 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 branes).

Does this explain the true origin of the energy? No! It still begs the question: where does the energy come from to create the membranes? The even-bigger question: is there any scientific proof of the multiverse? Recently, several scientists claim unusual ring patterns on the cosmic microwave background might be the result of other universes colliding with ours. However, even the scientists forwarding this theory suggest caution. It is speculative. At this point, we must admit no conclusive evidence of a multiverse exists. In fact, numerous problems with the multiverse theories are known. This does not mean there are no multiverses. Currently, though, we have no conclusive experimental proof, but do have numerous unanswered questions.

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.

2) No conclusive experimental evidence proves that multiverses exist. This is not to say that they do not exist. It just means we cannot prove they exist.

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.

However, in the last hundred years, we have made discoveries, and experimentally verified phenomena that in prior centuries would have been considered science fiction, metaphysics, magic, and unbelievable. We discovered numerous secrets of the universe, once believed to be only the Milky Way galaxy—to now being an uncountable number of galaxies in a space that is expanding exponentially. We also unlocked the secrets of the atom, once believed to be the fundamental building block of matter (from the Greek atomos “uncut”). Currently, we understand the atom consists of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which themselves consist of subatomic particles like quarks. The list of discoveries that have transformed our understanding of reality over the last century is endless. From my perspective, skepticism can be healthy. However, one cannot be entirely closed-minded when it comes to exploring the boundaries of science.

This brings us to the crucial question: Do we need M-Theory? My answer is: Maybe! Right now, it’s the only “mainstream” game in town. It has numerous respected proponents, including world-renowned cosmologist/physicist Stephen Hawking. However, the “mainstream” has been wrong before, and we are in uncharted waters. It may be right, and the mathematics is elegant. The only thing missing is experimental evidence (i.e., proof). On this one, you’ll have to weigh the facts and draw your own conclusion.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), Louis A. Del Monte

Image: iStockPhoto (licensed)

Searching for Potential Alien Artifacts to Establish Proof of their Existence

February 27, 2014Categories, Life, Universe Mysteriesalien artifacts, extraterrestrial intelligent life, louis del monte, proof of advanced aliens, proof of alien life, Search for Extraterrestrial Life, Searching for Potential Alien Artifacts, unraveling the universe's mysteriesadmin

Similar to the way archaeologists uncover lost civilizations on Earth by analyzing the artifacts left behind, various researchers believe the past presence of advanced aliens could be detected in a similar manner. This is a reasonable approach. It has historically provided evidence of civilizations that appear to have simply vanished. For example, the Mayan calendar is supposedly predicting the end of the world on December 21, 2012. Unfortunately, this is a poor example of a lost civilization, since it never disappeared. In fact, the Maya and their decedents still populate the Maya area, and continue to honor traditions that date back centuries. Millions of Mayans still speak the Mayan language. As for the Maya calendar, most scholars do not interpret it to predict the end of the world.

A real example of a lost civilization can be found in our own North American backyard. The Anasazi lived in the bordering parts of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. The Anasazi civilization emerged about 1100 BC, and appeared to vanish about 1100 AD. However, did they really vanish? Most archeologist think not. They did abandon their traditional homeland. In a number of cases, the “lost” civilizations are not lost. They move to a different location for reasons that generally relate to survival, like water and food availability. However, the point is that we know about the Anasazi civilization by studying the artifacts lefts behind, including their dwellings, pottery, tools, and the like.

Proponents of ancient alien visits to Earth point to the numerous alien-like artifacts. These include:

References in religious texts, such as the Book of Ezekiel (Biblical Old Testament)
Physical evidence such as Nazca Lines, which depict drawings that can only be fully seen from the air (Peru)
Ancient aircraft-type models, like the Saqqara Bird (1898 excavation of the Pa-di-Imen tomb in Saqqara, Egypt), and small gold model “planes” (Central America and coastal areas of South America)
Unusual ancient monuments and ruins such as the Giza pyramids in Egypt, Machu Picchu in Peru, Baalbek in Lebanon, the Moai on Easter Island, and Stonehenge in England. Proponents of ancient alien visits argue these structures could not have been built without alien help. They argue that the ability to build them was beyond the capability of humankind at the time they were built.

This is a sampling that proponents of ancient aliens provide as evidence that the Earth has been visited since ancient times by advanced aliens. Numerous books forward this theory. The most famous was written by Erich von Däniken, and published in 1968 (Chariots of the Gods?).

Obviously, this is a speculative theory, and not everyone agrees. In fact, there is considerable disagreement. Several disagree on religious grounds, like the Christian creationist community. Other critics simply say the evidence is subject to various interpretations. In reality, we have not found irrefutable evidence—the “smoking gun.” For example, if we found an electromagnetic transmitter (a radio) of unknown origin inside a newly discovered 3,000-year-old pyramid, that would be a smoking gun.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), Louis A. Del Monte

Image: iStockPhoto

Using Wormholes as a Time Machine

February 19, 2014Categories, Time Travel, Universe Mysterieslouis del monte, Traversable Wormholes, unraveling the universe's mysteries, Using Wormholes as a Time Machine, Wormholesadmin

Scientists have proposed using “wormholes” as a time machine. A wormhole is a theoretical entity in which space-time curvature connects two distant locations (or times). Although we do not have any concrete evidence that wormholes exist, we can infer their existence from Einstein’s general theory of relativity. However, we need more than a wormhole. We need a traversable wormhole. A traversable wormhole is exactly what the name implies. We can move through or send information through it.

If you would like to visualize what a wormhole does, imagine having a piece of paper whose two-dimensional surface represents four-dimensional space-time. Imagine folding the paper so that two points on the surface are connected. I understand that this is a highly simplified representation. In reality, we cannot visualize an actual wormhole. It might even exist in more than four dimensions.

How do we create a traversable wormhole? No one knows, but most scientists believe it would require enormous negative energy. This is interesting, since the Existence Equation Conjecture, discussed in previous posts, implies moving in time requires negative energy. A number of scientists believe the creation of negative energy is possible, based on the study of virtual particles and the Casimir effect.

Assuming we learn how to create a traversable wormhole, how would we use it to travel in time? The traversable wormhole theoretically connects two points in space-time, which implies we could use it to travel in time, as well as space. However, according to the theory of general relativity, it would not be possible to go back in time prior to the creation of the traversable wormhole. This is how physicists like Stephen Hawking explain why we do not see visitors from the future. The reason: the traversable wormhole does not exist yet.

Stephen Hawking did a fascinating time-traveler experiment in his popular TV series, “Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking.” He held a reception for time travelers from the future. He sent the invitations out after the reception had already occurred. His hope was that someone in the far-distant future would come across the invitation, and travel back in time to attend the reception. In the TV series, you see the reception room and Stephen Hawking, but no time travelers. He was disappointed.

However, we have four possible explanations why no time travelers attended:

1. The invitation did not survive into the far-distant future, a future whose science enabled time travel to the past.

2. Time travel into the past is not possible in the future, regardless of how far into the future the invitations survive.

3. The human race does not exist in the distant future, destroyed by our own hand, or a cosmic calamity.

4. Time travelers showed up at the party, but it was in another universe (an alternate reality suggested by the “Many-Worlds of Quantum Mechanics” theory). Perhaps in that reality, the TV series broadcasts a reception room filled with time travelers.

Although, we are discussing time travel, it is essential to note that wormholes imply connections between different points in space. This means that they may provide a faster-than-light connection between two planets, for example. Although faster-than-light travel is not possible, the wormhole may represent a shortcut. Travel inside the wormhole may remain below the speed of light, but be faster than the time it would take light to traverse the same two points outside the wormhole. Think of this simple picture.

You are on one side of the mountain. If you want to travel to the other side of the mountain by traversing its circumference, the journey will take longer than using a tunnel that connects to the other side of the mountain. The speed you travel is the same, but the tunnel allows a shortcut, and it appears that you traveled faster.

Will we ever be able to create traversable wormholes? Theoretically, it appears possible. Experiments are being conducted, as I write, using the Large Hadron Collider to create small wormholes, small black holes, and dark matter. The next decade holds considerable promise to address these questions.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2013), Louis A. Del Monte

Image: iStockPhoto (licensed)

The Mysterious Nature of Light

January 15, 2014Categories, Physics, Universe Mysterieslouis del monte, nature of light, unraveling the universe's mysteries, wave particle duality of lightadmin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 7, 2014Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Universe Mysteriesbig bang duality, Big Bang origin, Big Bang Science Theory, big bang theory, louis del monte, unraveling the universe's mysteries, What made the big bang go bangadmin

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Why did the Big Bang go bang?

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

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

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

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

December 30, 2013Big Bang Science Theory, CategoriesBig Bang Science Theory, big bang theory, louis del monte, unraveling the universe's mysteries, What made the big bang go bangadmin

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.

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

November 20, 2013Artificial Intelligence, Categories, Universe Mysteriesare we real or a computer simulation, louis del monte, Self-Conscious Supercomputer, simulated universe, unraveling the universe's mysteriesadmin

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

Two words: Artificial Intelligence. Most people have heard about it. Perhaps you have read science-fiction books or seen science-fiction movies about it. What is it in the ideal fictional case? A computer that is able to learn and adapt on its own. If it becomes self-aware, it can legitimately be considered another life form or even another universe.

Science fiction? No! Look at real-life results from the last 15 years.

In 1997, IBM’s chess-playing computer “Deep Blue” became the first computer to beat world-class chess champion, Garry Kasparov. In a six-game match, Deep Blue prevailed by two wins to one with three draws. Until this point, no computer was able to beat a chess grandmaster. This garnered headlines worldwide, and was a milestone that embedded the reality of artificial intelligence into the consciousness of the average person.

In 2005, a robot conceived and developed at California’s Stanford University, was able to drive autonomously for 131 miles along an unrehearsed desert trail, winning the DARPA Grand Challenge (the government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency prize for a driverless vehicle).

In 2007, Carnegie Mellon University’s self-driving SUV called Boss made history by swiftly and safely driving 55 miles in an urban setting while sharing the road with human drivers. It, too, won the DARPA Urban Challenge.

In 2011, on an exhibition match on the popular TV quiz show, Jeopardy! , IBM’s computer “Watson,” defeated both of Jeopardy! greatest champions, Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings.

Today, we take artificial intelligence (AI) for granted. For example, computers and even smart phones have sophisticated chess-playing software. AI is part of the Xbox 360’s algorithms for games. However, have we reached the point where a computer replicates a human mind? Not yet. One test held as the “gold standard” for this is the Turing test, proposed in 1950 by Alan Turing, an English mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst, and computer scientist. Turing is widely acknowledged as the father of computer science and artificial intelligence. In fact, Turing developed an electromechanical machine during WWII that helped break the German Enigma machine’s code. The Turing test, which a computer must pass to demonstrate the computer replicates the human mind. The test requires that a machine (for example, a computer with voice synthesis) carry on a conversation with a human, and that other humans are able to hear the conversation (and not see the participants), and cannot distinguish the machine from the human.

Apple’s Seri application for the iPhone is a small step in that direction. If you see Apple’s TV commercials, people are talking to their phones, and phones are talking back. The conversations consist of the phone owners asking questions or giving simple commands to their iPhones. The commercial makes it appear that the iPhone passes the Turing test, but in reality, the conversations are limited to simple questions and simple commands. However, imagine what conversations with the iPhone will be like in about 20 years. The iPhone, and smart phones like it, will almost certainly pass the Turing test.

How close are we to a true artificial life form (similar to Lt. Commander Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation)? Most scientists believe we are extremely close. In fact, Ray Kurzweil (American author, scientist, inventor and futurist) has used Moore’s law to calculate that desktop computers will be equivalent to human brains by the year 2029. Moore’s law states the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. By 2045, Kurzweil predicts, artificial intelligence will be able to improve itself faster than anything we can conceive. If this is true, by the mid Twenty-First Century, we may appear no smarter than insects to those machines. This is sometimes the theme of “how-will-the-world-end” type of documentaries, science-fiction books and movies. This is the whole premise behind the popular Terminator movies.

Now, we will return to our main point of a supercomputer universe. If indeed, computers one day will replicate a human mind, one can postulate that with time, it can replicate millions and eventually billions of such minds, each with its own self-awareness and personality. The minds inside the “machine” think they are real, and are in a universe. As more time passes, the machine can create another “universe.” This scenario can continue forever, or until an unknown entity pulls the plug.

Could we be those people (minds inside a computer)? If you have a religious belief in a supreme being, in effect, we are those people in God’s computer. If you do not hold religious beliefs, we could be those people in a race of advanced aliens’ computer. In this scenario, a supernatural being or technology-advanced aliens gave the command to begin our existence. The command was simply, “Let there be light,” and the super-computer program, simulating our existence and reality, began to run. If this is true, do we exist? The answer to that question depends on your viewpoint. We do not exist in the way we think we exist. We are all part of a sophisticated computer program in a supercomputer. If this is our reality, we are trapped in a supercomputer capable of replicating human minds, and imposing the construct of a universe on those minds.

At this point, I am going back to Occam’s razor, namely, the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred. With that as my guiding premise, I postulate our universe is real (exactly the way we experience it), we are real, and this post is real.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012) Louis A. Del Monte

Image: Wikimedia Commons – The Blue Gene/P supercomputer at Argonne National Labruns over 250,000 processors using normal data center air conditioning, grouped in 72 racks/cabinets connected by a high-speed optical network

Dark Matter Explained – Most of the Universe Is Missing!

October 31, 2013Categories, Universe Mysteriesdark matter, louis del monte, missing mass of the universe, universe's missing mass, unraveling the universe's mysteriesadmin

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).

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 reenergized 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, dark matter is still a mystery. 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.

This material is from Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), Louis A. Del Monte.

What Made the Big Bang Go Bang?

October 24, 2013Big Bang Science Theory, CategoriesBig Bang Science Theory, big bang theory, louis del monte, Minimum Energy Principle, unraveling the universe's mysteriesadmin

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 13.8 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.

What initiated the Big Bang’s expansion?

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. 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.

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.” (Some physicists term this “heat death.”) 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.

How long did the infinitely dense-energy point exist? No one really knows. However, we can approach an answer by understanding more about time.

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 time-frame 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.

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. From this standpoint, 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 crucial question: What made 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. 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, it is reasonable to assert 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.

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), Louis A. Del Monte, available on Amazon.com