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 https://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 (https://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 https://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 https://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).