Tag Archives: unraveling the universe’s mysteries

Close-up image of translucent blue cells or microscopic organisms against a dark background.

Virtual Particles – Spontaneous Particle Creation

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , , ,

This article is from chapter 1 of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. Enjoy!

Spontaneous particle creation is the phenomenon of particles appearing from apparently nothing (i.e., a vacuum), hence their name “virtual particles.” However, they appear real, and cause real changes to their environment. What is a virtual particle? It is a particle that only exists for a limited time. The virtual particle obeys some of the laws of real particles, but it violates other laws. What laws do virtual particles obey? They obey two of the most critical laws of physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (it is not possible to know both the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously), and the conservation energy (energy cannot be created or destroyed). What laws do they violate? Their kinetic energy, which is the energy related to their motion, may be negative. A real particle’s kinetic energy is always positive. Do virtual particles come from nothing? Apparently, but to a physicist, empty space is not nothing. Said more positively, physicists consider empty space something.

Before we proceed, it is essential to understand a little more about the physical laws mentioned in the above paragraph.

First, we will discuss the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Most physics professors teach it in the context of attempting to simultaneously measure a particle’s velocity and position. It goes something like this:

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

This makes sense to most people. However, it is an over simplification. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has greater implications. It embodies the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a set of laws and principles that describes the behavior and energy of atoms and subatomic particles. This is often termed the “micro level” or “quantum level.” Therefore, you can conclude that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle embodies the statistical behavior of matter and energy at the quantum level. In our everyday world, which science terms the macro level, it is possible to know both the velocity and position of larger objects. We generally do not talk in terms of probabilities. For example, we can predict the exact location and orbital velocity of a planet. Unfortunately, we are not able to make similar predictions about an electron as it obits the nucleus of an atom. We can only talk in probabilities regarding the electron’s position and energy. Thus, most scientists will say that macro-level phenomena are deterministic, which means that a unique solution describes their state of being, including position, velocity, size, and other physical attributes. On the other hand, most physics will argue that micro level (quantum level) phenomena are probabilistic, which means that their state of being is described via probabilities, and we cannot simultaneously determine, for example, the position and velocity of a subatomic particle.

The second fundamental law to understand is the conservation of energy law that states we cannot create or destroy energy. However, we can transform energy. For example, when we light a match, the mass and chemicals in the match transform into heat. The total energy of the match still exists, but it now exists as heat.

Lastly, the kinetic energy of an object is a measure of its energy due to its motion. For example, when a baseball traveling at high velocity hits a thin glass window, it is likely to break the glass. This is due to the kinetic energy of the baseball. When the window starts to absorb the ball’s kinetic energy, the glass breaks. Obviously, the thin glass is unable to absorb all of the ball’s kinetic energy, and the ball continues its flight after breaking the glass. However, the ball will be going slower, since it has used some of its kinetic energy to break the glass.

With the above understandings, we can again address the question: where do these virtual particles come from? The answer we discussed above makes no sense. It is counter intuitive. However, to the best of science’s knowledge, virtual particles come from empty space. How can this be true?

According to Paul Dirac, a British physicist and Nobel Prize Laureate, who first postulated virtual particles, empty space (a vacuum) consists of a sea of virtual electron-positron pairs, known as the Dirac sea. This is not a historical footnote. Modern-day physicists, familiar with the Dirac-sea theory of virtual particles, claim there is no such thing as empty space. They argue it contains virtual particles.

This raises yet another question. What is a positron? A positron is the mirror image of an electron. It has the same mass as an electron, but the opposite charge. The electron is negatively charged, and the positron is positively charged. If we consider the electron matter, the positron is antimatter. For his theoretical work in this area, science recognizes Paul Dirac for discovering the “antiparticle.” Positrons and antiparticles are all considered antimatter.

Virtual particle-antiparticle pairs pop into existence in empty space for brief periods, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which gives rise to quantum fluctuations. This may appear highly confusing. A few paragraphs back we said that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle embodies the statistical nature of energy at the quantum level, which implies that energy at the quantum level can vary. Another way to say this is to state the Heisenberg uncertainty principle gives rise to quantum fluctuations.

What is a quantum fluctuation? It is a theory in quantum mechanics that argues there are certain conditions where a point in space can experience a temporary change in energy. Again, this is in accordance with the statistical nature of energy implied by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This temporary change in energy gives rise to virtual particles. This may appear to violate the conservation of energy law, arguably the most revered law in physics. It appears that we are getting something from nothing. However, if the virtual particles appear as a matter-antimatter pair, the system remains energy neutral. Therefore, the net increase in the energy of the system is zero, which would argue that the conservation of energy law remains in force.

No consensus exists that virtual particles always appear as a matter-antimatter pair. However, this view is commonly held in quantum mechanics, and this creation state of virtual particles maintains the conservation of energy. Therefore, it is consistent with Occam’s razor, which states that the simplest explanation is the most plausible one, until new data to the contrary becomes available. The lack of consensus about the exact nature of virtual particles arises because we cannot measure them directly. We detect their effects, and infer their existence. For example, they produce the Lamb shift, which is a small difference in energy between two energy levels of the hydrogen atom in a vacuum. They produce the Casimir-Polder force, which is an attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates in a vacuum. These are two well-known effects caused by virtual particles. A laundry list of effects demonstrates that virtual particles are real.

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

Is Dark Energy Real or Simply a Scary Ghost Story?

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

If it is not real, it is an extremely scary ghost story. Unfortunately, the phenomena we call dark energy is real. If it plays out on its current course, we are going to be alone, all alone. The billions upon billions of other galaxies holding the promise of planets with life like ours will be gone. The universe will be much like what they taught our grandparents at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. It will consist of the Milky Way galaxy. All the other galaxies will have moved beyond our cosmological horizon, and be lost to us forever. There will be no evidence that the Big Bang ever occurred.

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, and eventually all mass in the universe would collapse to a single point in a “big crunch.” We were so sure that the “big crunch” model was correct, 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. 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, 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 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.

Here is the scary part. 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 as the stars eventually run out of fuel and die. All life will end. How is that for a scary story?

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

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

The Birth of the Universe – The Origin of the Big Bang

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

This post is based on material from my book,  Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, 2012, Louis A. Del Monte (available at Amazon http://amzn.to/Zo1TGn)

At the turn of the Twentieth Century, science held that the universe was eternal and static. This meant it had no beginning. Nor would it ever end. In other words, the universe was in “steady state.” At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, as I mentioned above, telescopes were crude and unable to focus on other galaxies. In addition, no theories of the universe were causing science to doubt the current dogma of a steady-state universe. All of that was about to change.

In 1916, Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity. It was termed “general” because it applied to all frames of reference, not only frames at rest or moving at a constant velocity (inertial frames). The general theory of relativity predicted that the universe was either expanding or contracting. This should have been a pivotal clue that the current scientific view of the universe as eternal and static might be wrong. However, Einstein’s paradigm of an eternal and static universe was so strong, he disregarded his own results. He quickly reformulated the equations incorporating a “cosmological constant.” With this new mathematical expression plugged into the equations, the equations of general relativity yielded the answer Einstein believed was right. The universe was in a steady-state. This means it was neither expanding nor contracting. The world of science accepted this, and continued entrenched in its belief of a steady-state universe. However, as telescopes began to improve, this scientific theory was destined to be shattered.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble, using the new Mt. Wilson 100-inch telescope, discovered the universe was expanding. In time, other astronomers confirmed Hubble’s discovery. This forced Einstein to call the cosmological constant his “greatest blunder.” This completely shattered the steady-state theory of the universe. In fact, this discovery was going to pave the way to an even greater discovery, the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory holds that the universe started 13.8 billion years ago as an infinitely dense energy point that expanded suddenly to create the universe. This is an excellent example of why the Big Bang theory belongs to the class of theories referred to as “cosmogonies” (theories that suggest the universe had a beginning). The Big Bang is widely documented in numerous scientific works, and is widely held as scientific fact by the majority of the scientific community.

However, what gave birth to the Big Bang? Where did the initial energy come from?

To unravel this mystery, we will start with an unusual phenomenon observed in the laboratory, namely spontaneous particle production or “virtual particles,” which are particles that form in a laboratory vacuum, apparently coming from nothing. This is a scientific fact, and there is a laundry list that documents virtual particles are real. Some physicists call this spontaneous particle production.

The best-known proponent of the idea that a quantum fluctuation gave birth to the energy of the Big Bang is Canadian-American theoretical physicist, Lawrence Maxwell Krauss. In the simplest terms, Dr. Krauss ascribes the creation of the universe to a quantum fluctuation (i.e., a quantum fluctuation results when a point in space experiences a temporary change in energy), similar to how virtual particles gain existence.

I found Dr. Krauss’ hypothesis convincing, especially in light of what we observe regarding virtual particles. However, one intriguing aspect about virtual particles is that we sometimes observe their occurrence in matter-antimatter pairs. This raised a question. Why would the Big Bang “particle” be a singularity? In this context, we can define a “singularity” as an infinitely energy-dense particle. Numerous observations about virtual particles suggest a “duality.” A “duality,” in this context, would refer to an infinitely dense energy particle pair (one matter particle, and the other an antimatter particle). How would all this play out?

First, we need to postulate a super-universe, one capable of quantum fluctuations. Cosmologists call the super-universe the “Bulk.” The Bulk is “empty” space, which gives existence to infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter virtual particles. These collide and initiate the Big Bang. If this view of reality is true, it makes the multiverse concept more plausible. Other infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter particles continually pop in and out of existence in the Bulk, similar to the way that virtual matter-antimatter particles do in the laboratory. When this occurs in the Bulk, a collision between the particles initiates a Big Bang. Therefore, considering the billions of galaxies in the universe, there may be billions of universes in the Bulk.

I have termed this theory the Big Bang Duality, and I discuss it fully in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), available on Amazon (http://amzn.to/Zo1TGn).

Multiple overlapping clock faces with various times, creating a surreal and abstract time concept in blue tones.

What Is Time? – The Existence Equation Conjecture – Part 3/3 (Conclusion)

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

This three part post is based on original theoretical research presented in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, 2012, Louis A. Del Monte (available at Amazon http://amzn.to/Zo1TGn)

In our last post we were left a significant unanswered question. Where does the enormous negative energy required for existence come from?

There are relatively few candidates. In fact, after much though and research, two emerge.

The gravitational fields of the universe. Gravitation’s reach is infinite. Everything in the universe pulls on everything else. However, to date, no experimental evidence supports that the energy for existence is being syphoned from the universe’s gravitational fields. Although, we know gravitational energy will cause time dilation, and extend a particle’s existence, we do not observe any reduction in gravitational fields between objects. In fact, the force of gravity, as measured on Earth, remains unchanged over centuries of measurement. It is theoretically possible that dark matter blocks any gravitational energy syphoning within a galaxy, but its absence between galaxies allows the gravitational fields between galaxies to be syphoned, and thus causes the distance between galaxies to increase. This squares with observation, but this hypothesis has a serious problem: most distant galaxies are moving away from us at speeds that exceed the speed of light. If this is due to weakening gravitational fields between galaxies, it suggests the galaxies themselves are moving faster than the speed of light, and that violates the special theory of relativity, making it unlikely. Based on the above reasoning, until new data is available to the contrary, syphoning energy from gravitational fields between galaxies does not appear to be a viable candidate.

Dark energy. Is it possible that the universe’s expansion is occurring to sustain its existence? We know that the accelerated expansion of the universe is real. We attribute its expansion to an unknown cause: dark energy. Is the energy required for existence being syphoned from the vacuums that exist between galaxies? If that is the case, as energy is removed from the vacuums between galaxies, mass is equivalently remove, based on Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence equation (E = mc2). As energy/mass is removed, the gravitational attraction within the vacuum decreases causing it to expand. In addition, the expansion of space, causing the most distance galaxies to move away faster than the speed of light, can be explained on the basis that those distant galaxies have been around longer and have had more energy removed from the vacuums that separate them. Therefore, the phenomenon of dark energy may be the existence equation conjecture at work (i.e., removing energy from the vacuums of space).

One important question remains. Why doesn’t the space within a galaxy expand? My speculation is that dark matter acts to block any removal of energy from the space within a galaxy. In effect, I am suggesting that dark matter causes a galaxy to act more like one galactic particle.

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.
  2. Time is a measure of energy, since change requires energy.
  3. Time is a measure of existence.
  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. If correct, it provides insight into the nature of dark energy. Essentially the negative energy we call dark energy is the existence equation conjecture removing energy from the vacuums between galaxies.

This theory 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 my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, 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.

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. 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. Lastly, it may contain one of the keys to time travel.

A black and white clock face with a spiral effect distorting the numbers inward.

What Is Time? – The Existence Equation Conjecture – Part 2/3

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

This three part post is based on original theoretical research presented in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, 2012, Louis A. Del Monte (available at Amazon http://amzn.to/Zo1TGn)

The empirical evidence demonstrates that time dilates, slows down, by adding kinetic energy or gravitational energy. Does this help us interpret the Existence Equation Conjecture we have developed to determine the kinetic energy of a mass as it moves in the fourth dimension? Yes! However, the interpretation is going to be speculative and imaginative. With this caveat, here is one interpretation: Movement in the fourth dimension is associated with existence, and requires negative kinetic energy. This is similar to the positive kinetic energy required for movement in the typical three spatial dimensions. The difference is movement in the three spatial coordinates requires positive kinetic energy, while movement in the fourth spatial coordinate (existence) requires enormous negative energy, as suggested by the Existence Equation Conjecture (KEX4 = -.3mc2). When we add kinetic energy or gravitational energy to a particle, we feed the negative energy that it requires to exist with the positive kinetic energy or gravitational energy. The negative kinetic energy of existence may be syphoning a portion of its energy from the particle. For a relatively small unstable particle at rest, such as a muon, we describe this existence as the expected life of the particle. If we add kinetic or gravitational energy to the particle, the negative kinetic energy of existence consumes less of the particle. Therefore, it increases its life.

This theoretical interpretation appears to fit the evidence presented regarding time dilation. For example, a muon at rest has an expected life in the order of 10-6 seconds. However, when muons naturally form via comic-ray collisions with our atmosphere, the resultant muon travels at speeds close to the speed of light before it reaches the ground. Therefore, its kinetic energy (KE) becomes extremely high. According to this interpretation, this high kinetic energy is providing the muon a portion of the energy required to exist. Therefore, it is increasing its expected life. This is consistent with the Rossi and Hall experiment performed in 1941, and the 1963 Frisch and Smith confirmation of their findings.

What does this suggest about the nature of time? According to our interpretation above, time is a measure of existence—and existence requires negative kinetic energy. Therefore, a relationship between time and energy exists. Is this too far out to be believable? I agree it stretches credibility to the limit. However, although the special theory of relativity has provided excellent equations to calculate time dilation, insight into the physical process behind time dilation remains elusive. The Existence Equation Conjecture may provide a framework to understand the actual physics behind time dilation.

It’s still a dilemma. Where does the energy come from if existence requires negative energy? A simple examination of the Existence Equation Conjecture suggests the energy required for even a small mass, like an apple, to exist, would be equivalent to a nuclear bomb. In addition to that dilemma, the Existence Equation Conjecture suggests the energy expended to exist is negative. Theoretical physics has postulated the existence of negative energy. In 1930, the Dirac sea was postulated to reconcile the negative-energy quantum states, as predicted by Dirac in his mathematical modeling of electrons. However, science has not found a way to create negative energy. Currently, scientists are exploring the Casimir-Polder effect as a potential generator for negative energy. This may eventually yield fruitful results. This leaves us with a significant unanswered question. Where does the enormous negative energy required for existence come from?

Stay tuned for part 3 (conclusion).

A detailed spiral galaxy with bright stars scattered around a glowing blue core in deep space.

What Is Time? – The Existence Equation Conjecture – Part 1/3

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

This three part post is based on original theoretical research presented in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, 2012, Louis A. Del Monte (available at Amazon http://amzn.to/Zo1TGn)

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 at the wall, 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 we will use a vector space called Minkowski space. In addition, we will also use relativistic mechanics, from Einstein’s special theory of relativity and the mathematical discipline of calculus. In Minkowski space, the X4 coordinate is equal to ict, where i = square root of minus one, t is time as measure with clocks and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

If we use the above methodology, which is derived in Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, 2012, appendix 1, the resulting equation is 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.” Please understand I have labeled the equation a conjecture, which in scientific terms means it is an opinion, specifically my opinion. Next, we will examine the features and implications of the equation.

Although, this equation is dimensionally correct (expressible in units of energy), which is a crucial test in physics, the equation is highly unusual from two standpoints. First, the kinetic energy is negative. The kinetic energy is always a positive value for real masses moving in three-dimensional space. However, as discussed previously, it can be negative for virtual particles. Second, the amount of negative kinetic energy suggested by the equation is enormous, approximately equal to a nuclear bomb, but negative in value.

To further our understanding of the nature of time, we will need to understand time dilation. The theory of time dilation has been around for about a century. It results from Einstein’s special theory of relativity (circa 1905), and his general theory of relativity (circa 1916). What is time dilation? It is the difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by different observers, when the observers are moving relative to each other or the events. Time dilation also occurs when the observers are in stronger or weaker gravitational fields, relative to each other.

Here are two examples to illustrate time dilation.

1)   Picture yourself in a spaceship moving away from another observer who is at rest. When you look at your clock, it appears to be running normally. When the observer at rest looks at your clock, it appears to be running slower than his clock at rest. If the speed of your spaceship approaches the speed of light, the difference between the clocks is significantly exaggerated. The clock on the spaceship, from the viewpoint of the observer at rest, appears to have almost stopped.

2)   Let’s explore gravitational time dilation. When Einstein developed his general theory of relativity (circa 1916), he developed the theory of gravitational time dilation. Picture yourself in a spaceship near the sun, and another observer on a spaceship near the earth. To simplify things, assume you are both at rest relative to each other, and that each of you has a telescope capable of seeing the clock on the other’s spaceship. The clock on the spaceship nearer the sun (in a much greater gravitational field) will move slower than the clock on the spaceship near the earth (in a lesser gravitational field). The observer near the sun sees his clock moving normally, but sees the observer’s clock near the earth moving faster. The observer near the earth sees his clock moving normally, but sees the clock on the spaceship near the sun moving slowly.

Sounds like science fiction, but it is not. Time dilation is an experimentally verified fact. We are dealing with science fact, not science fiction. It is independent of the technical aspects of clocks, and not related to the speed of the signals, which is typically the speed of light. Science believes it is a fundamental of reality.

Stay tuned for part 2. 

Close-up view of translucent blue spherical cells or microscopic organisms against a dark background.

Virtual Particles – Something from Nothing – Part 3/3 (Conclusion)

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

This three part post is the first chapter of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. Here is part 3. Enjoy!

Are there hidden dimensions or is this science fiction? The scientific answer is: we don’t know. However, as Edward Witten (American theoretical physicist) said, “As far as extra dimensions are concerned, very tiny extra dimensions would not be perceived in everyday life, just as atoms are not: we see many atoms together but we do not see atoms individually.” We know atoms exist, but we cannot see them. Could this be true of hidden dimensions? How do we experimentally prove the hidden dimensions of M-theory? Currently, scientists are using the largest particle colliders to create near speed-of-light collisions between subatomic particles. To understand this approach to prove hidden dimensions, we need to understand what is occurring when a particle with a mass is accelerated near the speed of light, resulting in a relativistic kinetic energy (energy due to its motion). The total mass-energy of the accelerated particle is equal to the mass plus the relativistic kinetic energy. By causing two particles of known mass-energy to collide, they are able to determine if the sum of all the mass-energy before the collision equals the mass-energy after the collision. Two important laws are utilized to make this calculation. Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum), and the conversation of energy law (which states energy cannot be created nor destroyed). By painstakingly accounting for all of the mass-energy before the collision to the mass-energy after the collision, they are able to look for missing mass-energy. If they find such a result, it could imply additional dimensions. That is to say, the mass-energy went into another dimension. These experiments continue as I write. The next few years should be very exciting.

This brings up a crucial question that may have already occurred to you. Could the Big Bang itself be the result of a quantum fluctuation, similar to how virtual particles form? We will scientifically examine that possibility in the next chapter.

Author’s note: I hope you enjoyed chapter 1 of Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. You can browse the table of contents and addtional portions of the book on Amazon. Just click on this link:  Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries.

Close-up view of translucent blue spherical cells or microscopic organisms against a dark background.

Virtual Particles – Something from Nothing – Part 2/3

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , ,

This three part post is the first chapter of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. Here is part 2. Enjoy!

According to Paul Dirac, a British physicist and Nobel Prize Laureate, who first postulated virtual particles, empty space (a vacuum) consists of a sea of virtual electron-positron pairs, known as the Dirac sea. This is not a historical footnote. Modern-day physicists, familiar with the Dirac-sea theory of virtual particles, claim there is no such thing as empty space. They argue it contains virtual particles.

This raises yet another question. What is a positron? A positron is the mirror image of an electron. It has the same mass as an electron, but the opposite charge. The electron is negatively charged, and the positron is positively charged. If we consider the electron matter, the positron is antimatter. For his theoretical work in this area, science recognizes Paul Dirac for discovering the “antiparticle.” Positrons and antiparticles are all considered antimatter.

Virtual particle-antiparticle pairs pop into existence in empty space for brief periods, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which gives rise to quantum fluctuations. This may appear highly confusing. A few paragraphs back we said that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle embodies the statistical nature of energy at the quantum level, which implies that energy at the quantum level can vary. Another way to say this is to state the Heisenberg uncertainty principle gives rise to quantum fluctuations.

What is a quantum fluctuation? It is a theory in quantum mechanics that argues there are certain conditions where a point in space can experience a temporary change in energy. Again, this is in accordance with the statistical nature of energy implied by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This temporary change in energy gives rise to virtual particles. This may appear to violate the conservation of energy law, arguably the most revered law in physics. It appears that we are getting something from nothing. However, if the virtual particles appear as a matter-antimatter pair, the system remains energy neutral. Therefore, the net increase in the energy of the system is zero, which would argue that the conservation of energy law remains in force.

No consensus exists that virtual particles always appear as a matter-antimatter pair. However, this view is commonly held in quantum mechanics, and this creation state of virtual particles maintains the conservation of energy. Therefore, it is consistent with Occam’s razor, which states that the simplest explanation is the most plausible one, until new data to the contrary becomes available. The lack of consensus about the exact nature of virtual particles arises because we cannot measure them directly. We detect their effects, and infer their existence. For example, they produce the Lamb shift, which is a small difference in energy between two energy levels of the hydrogen atom in a vacuum. They produce the Casimir-Polder force, which is an attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates in a vacuum. These are two well-known effects caused by virtual particles. A laundry list of effects demonstrates that virtual particles are real.

The above discussions distill to three key points. First, in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, virtual particles pop in and out of existence in a vacuum. Second, we cannot measure virtual particles directly. Third, modern science believes virtual particles are real because they cause measurable changes to their environment.

This creation of virtual particles is sometimes termed spontaneous particle creation. Spontaneous particle creation raises an intriguing question. Are there hidden dimensions? Assume the Dirac sea model is correct, and that empty space (a vacuum) consists of a sea of virtual electron-positron pairs. If you are willing to accept this assumption, where are they located? It is a reasonable question. We are dealing with a vacuum, and at the same time asserting it contains electron-positron pairs. Where are they located? A possible explanation is they are in another dimension. As mind bending as this sounds, a formidable scientific theory known as M-theory asserts reality consists of eleven dimensions, not simply the four (three spatial, one temporal) we typically encounter. M-theory is “string” theory on steroids. At this point, I suspect you may be ready to blow a time-out whistle. This theory explains one puzzle using another puzzle. Therefore, in the interest of clarity, we will take it one step at a time, and start by explaining more about M-theory. This will be a conceptual modeling of the theory.

In a sense, science has been working its way to M-theory since the discovery of atoms and subatomic particles, culminating in the discovery of the quarks (circa 1970s) as the fundamental building blocks for protons and neutrons. (Protons, neutrons, and electrons are the fundamental building blocks of atoms. Quarks are the fundamental building blocks of protons and neutrons.) In the 1980s, scientists claimed that these fundamental building blocks could be further reduced to infinitely small building blocks of vibrating energy, having only the dimension of length, termed “stings.”

Conceptually, the “strings” vibrate in multiple dimensions. The vibration of the string determines whether it appears as matter or energy. According to string theory, every form of matter or energy is the result of the string’s vibration.

By the 1990s, science recognized five different string theories, each with their own set of equations. The five string theories appeared valid, but scientists became uneasy. Surely, they could not all be right. In 1994, string theorist Edward Witten (Institute for Advanced Study), and other researchers, proposed a unifying theory called “M-theory.” The “M” stands for “membrane.” M-theory asserted that strings are one-dimensional slices of a two-dimensional membrane vibrating in eleven-dimensional space.

I understand it is hard, if not impossible, to picture an eleven-dimensional space because we live in a four-dimensional world. My picture goes something like this. The membrane (referred to as a “brane”) is like a shadow of a million spread-out toothpicks. A shadow has two dimensions, and is the brane in this analogy. Each toothpick represents a string, having only the dimension of length. In this example, we are considering the toothpicks to have no width. Next, I think about this shadow being able to float off the surface and move around the room in three-dimensional space. It continually changes position in time. That is to say at time t1, it is in one place, and at another time t2, it is in another place. In this mind-bending analogy, we have accounted for seven dimensions. A two-dimensional shadow made from one-dimensional toothpicks accounts for three dimensions. The shadow floating in three-dimensional space accounts for three additional dimensions. Now, picture the shadow floating to a specific place at a specific time. When it moves to another place, time will have passed. The shadow, changing positions in time, accounts for one additional dimension (a temporal coordinate). How do I picture the other four? I think of there being small, invisible holes in space. The shadow can slip into, move around in, and disappear from view in these holes. The holes would represent a hidden three-dimensional space accounting for another three dimensions. The shadow moving in the holes would again represent another temporal coordinate. This analogy, which may be difficult to understand, is how I picture eleven-dimensional space. We live in a four-dimensional world. It is difficult to imagine seven other hidden dimensions.

Scientists, too, have a problem with the eleven-dimensional model of reality that M-theory provides. The mathematics of M-theory is elegant, but correlating the mathematics to reality has frustrated numerous scientists. However, M-theory did accomplish one main goal. It unified the previous five spring theories into one. It demonstrated that each of the five was a specific case of M-theory. Well-known scientists, like Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking, and Leonard Mlodinow, became proponents of M-theory, applauding its mathematical elegance, and suggesting it may be a candidate for The Theory of Everything. (The Theory of Everything would be a comprehensive scientific theory that explains the physical behavior of all matter and energy.) The one thing missing to make this picture perfect is experimental evidence. To date, we have no experimental evidence for M-theory. This does not mean M-theory is wrong or should be dismissed. Scientists continue to work on it, and experimental proof may eventually emerge.

“Fascinating,” as Mr. Spock would say on Star Trek, but where does that leave us? Why am I bringing up M-theory and hidden dimensions? The answer is that spontaneous particle creation may have a connection to the hidden dimensions of M-theory. The entire Dirac sea (a vacuum filled with particle-antiparticle pairs) may exist in the hidden dimensions predicted by M-theory. Of course, it is easy for me, a theoretical physicist, to make this assertion since we have no proof of M-theory. However, we do have experimental evidence that enables us to infer that virtual particles exist. If they do exist, where are they located? Even if they exist as pure packets of energy (quanta), where are they located? One suggestion is to look into the hidden dimensions predicted by M-theory.

Stay tuned for part 3 (conclusion)

Close-up view of translucent blue spherical cells or microscopic organisms against a dark background.

Virtual Particles – Something from Nothing – Part 1/3

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , , ,

This three part post is the first chapter of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. Here is part 1. Enjoy!

How did the universe begin? Did it even have a beginning, or is it eternal? Scientists and philosophers have been asking these questions for thousands of years. Theologians have been providing supernatural explanations that require a supreme being and, in several religions, numerous supreme beings. For example, Christians believe in one God, and in accordance with their belief, their God created the universe. The Egyptians, on the other hand, believed in many gods, and attributed the creation of the universe to them. However, in the early part of the Twentieth Century, a scientific answer began to emerge.

The entire question of the “birth” of the universe was brought into scientific focus when, in 1929, Edwin Hubble determined that the universe was expanding. The expanding-universe discovery led to what most scientists ascribe to as the Big Bang theory of the universe.

The Big Bang theory holds that the universe started 13.7 billion years ago as an infinitely dense energy point that expanded suddenly to create the universe. This is an excellent example of why the Big Bang theory belongs to the class of theories referred to as “cosmogonies” (theories that suggest the universe had a beginning). The Big Bang is widely documented in numerous scientific works, and is widely held as scientific fact by the majority of the scientific community.

The Big Bang theory provides an excellent framework of how the universe evolved, but it does not give us insight into what predated the Big Bang itself, or what caused it suddenly to go “bang.” Indeed, these are two serious issues of the Big Bang theory, which are widely acknowledged by the scientific community.

Although the Big Bang has won the hearts and minds of most of the scientific community, other theories compete with the Big Bang. Of all the new theories, none has captured more attention than the multiverse theory. The multiverse theory is speculative, which means that it lacks direct experimental confirmation.

The multiverse theory holds that this universe is but one of a set of disconnected universes. There are numerous theories about the multiverse itself, which we will discuss in later chapters. None of the theories under serious consideration by the scientific community explains the origin of energy to create a Big Bang or a multiverse. The crucial question is deceptively simple. Where did the initial energy come from to fuel a Big Bang or create a multiverse? This is the largest mystery in science.

To unravel this mystery, we will start with an unusual phenomenon observed in the laboratory, namely spontaneous particle production or “virtual particles.” The explanations below may become intimidatingly technical at times. Please do not be put off by the technical terms. Providing the scientific basis for virtual particles is crucial to understanding the next chapter. As you read on, most of your questions regarding the technical terms and the science will likely be resolved. You may consult the Glossary at the end of this book for further information on the technical terms and theories used throughout. You are not alone if you become confused. We are on the edge of science, where even scientists argue over the interpretation of observations and theories. With this in mind, we will continue with understanding spontaneous particle creation.

Spontaneous particle creation is the phenomenon of particles appearing from apparently nothing, hence their name “virtual particles.” However, they appear real, and cause real changes to their environment. What is a virtual particle? It is a particle that only exists for a limited time. The virtual particle obeys some of the laws of real particles, but it violates other laws. What laws do virtual particles obey? They obey two of the most critical laws of physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (it is not possible to know both the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously), and the conservation energy (energy cannot be created or destroyed). What laws do they violate? Their kinetic energy, which is the energy related to their motion, may be negative. A real particle’s kinetic energy is always positive. Do virtual particles come from nothing? Apparently, but to a physicist, empty space is not nothing. Said more positively, physicists consider empty space something.

Before we proceed, it is essential to understand a little more about the physical laws mentioned in the above paragraph.

First, we will discuss the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Most physics professors teach it in the context of attempting to simultaneously measure a particle’s velocity and position. It goes something like this:

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

This makes sense to most people. However, it is an over simplification. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has greater implications. It embodies the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a set of laws and principles that describes the behavior and energy of atoms and subatomic particles. This is often termed the “micro level” or “quantum level.” Therefore, you can conclude that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle embodies the statistical behavior of matter and energy at the quantum level. In our everyday world, which science terms the macro level, it is possible to know both the velocity and position of larger objects. We generally do not talk in terms of probabilities. For example, we can predict the exact location and orbital velocity of a planet. Unfortunately, we are not able to make similar predictions about an electron as it obits the nucleus of an atom. We can only talk in probabilities regarding the electron’s position and energy. Thus, most scientists will say that macro-level phenomena are deterministic, which means that a unique solution describes their state of being, including position, velocity, size, and other physical attributes. On the other hand, most physics will argue that micro level (quantum level) phenomena are probabilistic, which means that their state of being is described via probabilities, and we cannot simultaneously determine, for example, the position and velocity of a subatomic particle.

The second fundamental law to understand is the conservation of energy law that states we cannot create or destroy energy. However, we can transform energy. For example, when we light a match, the mass and chemicals in the match transform into heat. The total energy of the match still exists, but it now exists as heat.

Lastly, the kinetic energy of an object is a measure of its energy due to its motion. For example, when a baseball traveling at high velocity hits a thin glass window, it is likely to break the glass. This is due to the kinetic energy of the baseball. When the window starts to absorb the ball’s kinetic energy, the glass breaks. Obviously, the thin glass is unable to absorb all of the ball’s kinetic energy, and the ball continues its flight after breaking the glass. However, the ball will be going slower, since it has used some of its kinetic energy to break the glass.

With the above understandings, we can again address the question: where do these virtual particles come from? The answer we discussed above makes no sense. It is counter intuitive. However, to the best of science’s knowledge, virtual particles come from empty space. How can this be true?

 Stay tuned for part 2.

A dramatic view of Earth from space with the sun rising behind it, symbolizing cosmic mysteries and the universe's origin.

The Universe’s Unsolved Mysteries – Part 2/2 (Conclusion)

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , ,

This is from the Introduction section of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. Enjoy!

The Twentieth Century stands as the golden age of science, yielding more scientific breakthroughs than any previous century. Yet, in the wake of all the scientific breakthroughs over the last century, profound mysteries emerged. To my eye, there appears a direct correlation between scientific discoveries and scientific mysteries. Often, it appears that every significant scientific breakthrough results in an equally profound mystery. I have termed this irony of scientific discovery the Del Monte Paradox, namely:

Each significant scientific discovery results in at least one profound scientific mystery.

I’ll use two examples to illustrate this paradox. For our first example, consider the discovery of the Big Bang theory. We will discuss the Big Bang theory in later chapters. For this discussion, please view it as a scientific framework of how the universe evolved. While the scientific community generally accepts the Big Bang theory, it is widely acknowledged that it does not explain the origin of the energy that was required to create the universe. Therefore, the discovery of the Big Bang theory left science with a profound mystery. Where did the energy originate to create a Big Bang? This is arguably the greatest mystery in science, and currently an area of high scientific focus. For the second example, consider the discovery we discussed above—the universe’s expansion is accelerating. This leaves us with another profound mystery. What is causing the universe’s expansion to accelerate? Numerous theories float within the scientific community to explain these mysteries. None has scientific consensus.

This book will investigate and provide insight on some of science’s greatest mysteries. Although there are numerous scientific mysteries, we will concentrate on three main “classes” of mysteries by section:

Section I: What Caused the Big Bang?

Section II: What Mysteries Still Baffle Modern Science?

Section III: Are We Alone?

All are highly active areas of scientific research, and bring us to the edge of scientific knowledge. All influence the direction scientific research is taking. One scientific breakthrough on any one of these mysteries could literally change the world of science.

The scientific community is not in complete consensus with numerous theories forwarded to address the mysteries. This is how it should be, since the theories reside on the edge of scientific knowledge. In a way, this is a righteous thing. Science moves forward via rigorous debate, experimentation, and independent validation of scientific findings and theories. All significant scientific theories have gone through this process. This is the scientific method. Remember that Einstein’s special theory of relativity, published in 1905, took about 15 years to gain acceptance by the majority of the scientific community (circa 1920). Here I’ll dispel a commonly held belief about Einstein. Most people have heard of Albert Einstein. They consider him one of the greatest scientists that ever lived. They believe that he jotted down equations, and created new theories, while working separate from the rest of the scientific community. This view of Einstein quietly working at his desk and dreaming up theories and equations is completely erroneous. Nothing could be further from the truth. Einstein let the experiments and observations of the scientific community guide his theoretical work. He cared deeply about the acceptance of his theories. In fact, in 1919, three years after publishing his general theory of relativity, he stated, “By an application of the theory of relativity to the taste of readers, today in Germany I am called a German man of science, and in England I am represented as a Swiss Jew. If I come to be regarded as a bête noire (black beast or a person strongly detested) the descriptions will be reversed, and I shall become a Swiss Jew for the Germans and a German man of science for the English!”

Einstein can rest in peace. Science holds the special theory of relativity as the golden standard, having withstood the rigor of over 100 years of scientific investigation. Elements of the general theory of relativity have also withstood vigorous investigation. To that point, scientists believe that other theories, such as string theory and dark energy, which we discuss in later chapters, needs to meet the same standards of scrutiny before they too can become scientific fact.

Scientific mysteries are intriguing. Almost everyone loves a good mystery. Unlike fiction, these mysteries are real. Their reality is wondrous and sometimes scary. This book will “unravel” each mystery by presenting the currently held scientific theories to explain the observed phenomena. However, in the absence of a viable scientific explanation, when possible I will propose an explanation based on original research. Regardless of the origin of the explanations, please understand, we are on the edge of science where scientific proof is elusive, and scientific consensus is rare. Therefore, consider all such theories with an open, but cautious mind. Nobel Laureate Max Born said, “I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy.” Therefore, often the explanation will read like metaphysics or even science fiction. This is how life is on the edge of science, where mysteries abound.