More Random Thoughts In Physics

* In our Universe there are two kinds of astronomical objects. There are cosmic faucets like stars and anything else that gives off or reflects electromagnetic (EM) waves. That’s the cosmic “In Tray”. Then there are cosmic sinks and drains that absorb electromagnetic waves – Black Holes, the cosmic “Out Tray”.

It would seem to me that over the course of 13.7 billion years, an awful lot of EM (light, IR, UV, radio, microwave, gamma-ray, etc.) photons, not to mention neutrinos and cosmic rays, would have gobbled up and removed from the Universe’s inventory by being sucked into and forever residing in the insides of Black Holes. Since all astronomical observations, hence conclusions about the state of the Universe, rely on the detection of that which is emitted or reflected by cosmic faucets, then it stands to reason that in order to arrive at valid conclusions, what cosmic sinks and drains remove from the Big EM Picture must be taken into account. But is it? I’ve never read any account where the removal of EM photons from the Universe’s inventory has been considered.   

One example that springs to mind is the minor temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) – perhaps those slightly cooler spots are due to a large Black Hole between our measuring device and the CMBR that is sucking up those microwaves before they reach our measuring telescope or space probe or high altitude balloon. I seem to recall cosmologist George Gamow back in the 1940’s making a theoretical prediction that the (then undetected) CMBR would be somewhere between 5 to 7 degrees Kelvin, instead of the roughly 2.7 degrees Kelvin that eventuated. Perhaps, the overall cooler than Gamow expected CMBR is due to Black Holes sucking up lots of those CMBR photons over all those billions of years.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Another case of non-causality that’s oft given is when an electron gives off a photon, loses energy, and drops to a lower ‘orbit’ around a nucleus. The opposite isn’t lacking in causality however. A photon is absorbed by an electron which gives it additional energy which kicks it upstairs into a higher ‘orbit’ around a nucleus. Now it’s nuts to suggest that a process has causality in one direction while lacking causality in the exact opposite direction. We may not know why an electron gives up a photon and loses energy in the process, but there is most definitely a why causality – of that I’m convinced.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* To be honest, I reject the idea that space itself is expanding. To me distant galaxies are expanding farther and farther apart throughout an already existing space. That makes way more sense. Expanding space appears to me to be a case of getting a free lunch – something from nothing – in violation of standard conservation principles.

Is there any actual observational evidence that proves conclusively that it is space expanding and not cosmic flotsam and jetsam moving apart through existing space? Not to my knowledge but I can think of a possible test that might conclude the issue. Two objects receding apart, like the Earth and the Moon (due to tidal forces) are going with the expanding space grain and should be separating more rapidly than otherwise would be the case due to tidal forces alone. The experiment, measuring the increasing Earth/Moon separation should be a relatively easy experiment to do. Due to the reflective mirrors left on the lunar surface by the Apollo moonwalkers we know the Earth-Moon distance to extreme precision. It should be straightforward whether the Moon is receding from the Earth faster than tidal forces can account for.  

oooooOOOOOooooo

* The cosmos is easily divided into matter and energy related ‘things’ (products of nature) and space and time related ‘not things’ (concepts invented by humans and maybe by other animals). IMHO, ‘things’ are probably those which ultimately reside in the world of the quantum and are discrete. Many ‘not-things’ can be divided and divided indefinitely and are continuous.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* If an electron acquired enough mass (say by being accelerated to near light speed), would it become a Black Hole, and if so, would the ‘inside’ still be an electron, which after all, is considered a fundamental particle? 

oooooOOOOOooooo

* If you like symmetry, then the most perfect object of all things symmetrical is a sphere.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* We frequently read of a “world without time” or “time standing still” or “time doesn’t exist” when it comes to that never-never-land of singularities, be then Black Hole related or that which was at the moment of the Big Bang which somehow created time. I consider that an impossibility since the absence of time means that nothing changes or conversely if nothing every changes it would be meaningless to talk about the existence of time. But the froth and bubble of the vacuum energy is omnipresent (even inside a Black Hole or the structure that was the Big Bang event) and that involves change and therefore the concept of “no time at all” is kaput.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* It is said the electron is a fundamental particle that cannot be divided or split into simpler components. An electron can of course be converted to energy (all mass can be) say by coming into contact with a positron, the electron’s antimatter alter ego. An electron can emit and absorb a photon, but it doesn’t decay into anything simpler. So I gather if you could smash two electrons head on with as much oomph as one could muster, you’d end up with as close to as makes no odds, that is nearly, a case of the irresistible force failing to move (shatter) the immovable (un-shatterable) object. Another case illustrating the irresistible force and immovable state of affairs – it is impossible to isolate a quark (they come as a trio take all) or its force particle, a gluon.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Space is not the final frontier. The ultimate challenge is to ‘boldly go’ past the event horizon of a Black Hole and see what’s to be seen. 

Was Time Created?

Is it possible to create time? If you accept the modern cosmological paradigm that’s exactly what happened 13.7 billion years ago. If you accept that, was the creation of time a once only creation or is the creation of time occurring even as you read this? Or, is the whole idea of literally creating time something only those smoking the good stuff could conceive of, while those of a less befuddled mind view as total bovine fertilizer? It’s the latter IMHO, or should be.

According to the standard model of modern cosmology, the Big Bang event 13.7 billion years ago created both space and time. Exactly what the recipe was isn’t given, but there was this act of creation nonetheless. Again, the standard model gives a scenario that even after the Big Bang event, right up to the present time (and presumably beyond our present time) space is still be created (out of nothing) and thus to make room for all this additional space, space itself has to expand (into what isn’t stipulated) and thus we have the popular phrase that we exist in an “expanding universe”.

But if space itself is expanding, then space is a thing, and things cannot be created out of nothing which is what those advocating an expanding space are, well, advocating.

I have elsewhere examined this issue of expanding space and found it to be IMHO utter claptrap. That’s because the concept of expanding space treats space, as noted above, as if space were a thing. Space is not a thing anymore than society, atheism, Wednesday or velocity is a thing; or beauty. Some thing maybe beautiful, but beauty is not a thing.

Now what about time? The alleged creation of time, unlike that of space, seems to have been a one-off happening at that Big Bang event – or is it? Was time, 13.7 billion years ago, created for all time, unlike space, or is the creation of time an ongoing process?

Time only seems to exist up to and including this very moment – right ‘now’. One second from now is in the future and future time does not yet exist. So is time constantly being created in order for there to be a future?  If so, how is it being done, or again, what’s the recipe for creating or cooking up a batch of time? There can’t be a bona fide recipe; otherwise some nerdy geek could create a batch of time at the same time, or within time, which already exists! That concept of creating a bubble of time within existing time should make your head ache!

But relax, there’s no need for the aspirin. There has not been one nanosecond of time created by all the humans who ever were and are (and are likely to be), nor by any of humanity’s machines or devices. No theoretical physicist has ever claimed for example that the Large Hadron Collider could create time, even though it’s supposed to come as close as possible to creating the sort of energies though present at the Big Bang event. Tis a pity actually since many of us feel at times as if there’s not enough time in the day (week, month, or year) to accomplish everything. So wouldn’t it be nice if you could create a bit of extra time on the sly and have a 25 hour day or an eight day week.  Sadly, that’s to be realized only in your dreams (or science fiction books and films).  

The flipside that one second from now is in the future and future time does not yet exist, is what happened to the time that existed just one second ago?  It’s gone. The only record of what happened one second ago rests in your memory or in some recorded device, natural or artificial, all of which only exists or is accessible in the current now. You might remember an event from five years ago, but you remember it ‘now’. A fossil might be evidence of a previous time, but that evidence only exists for your consideration ‘now’. A newsreel film might document an event that happened decades ago, but when you view it you see it ‘now’. When you look at the stars, you see their starlight that was emitted years before, but you see it ‘now’.

It would seem that the only bona fide reality time has is ‘now’. Past time is no longer tangible; future time is yet to be tangible. There’s something very profound about ‘now’ – it’s only in the ‘now’ that things change, and of course change is what gives the concept of time meaning.

But let’s suppose that ‘in the beginning’ time was created ‘in the beginning’. There was a slice of time created at the alpha point – that “now” that gives time ‘reality’ that from the beginning onwards moves forward (in time) until it reaches the omega point. Or, perhaps there was a “now” slice of time created at the alpha point, but that slice stays put while reality moves past it until the omega point is reached. Think of a factory line where there is a row of gizmos (reality) and a worker (time) walks on up the line from gizmo to gizmo and attaches a doohickie to each gizmo in turn from alpha to omega. Or, the worker (time) stands still while a conveyor belt with the gizmos (reality) on it rolls past the worker from alpha to omega while he attaches to each a doohickie in turn.

However, a slice of time is awkward if there’s a different ‘now’ occurrence for different people as viewed by different people. That’s actually a consequence of Einstein’s Special Relativity (see further below).

Why postulate a ‘slice’ of time? Well, as already pointed out, time has no existence in the past and no existence in the future. There’s only that slice of ‘now’ time. How thin is that slice of ‘now’ time? How short is that duration of ‘now’ time? Well there is a concept of the shortest possible interval of time with the caveat that nothing can actually happen in any sense of the term meaningful in any shorter interval of time. Any interval of time can be infinitely subdivided, but there does come a point where nothing of substance can happen if the interval is too short. How short is short? Let’s just say the number of shortest yet meaningful time units that would fit into one traditional second of time vastly, vastly, vastly outnumbers the entire human population past and present. When we say “short”, we really, really, really mean “short”.

But if time were created for the entire duration it would be required for, then that implies some foresight or foreknowledge on the part of the process that created time (or the cook that owns the recipe book). Speaking of the cook, it’s like the cook knowing in advance how big a turkey to buy and prepare for Thanksgiving dinner by knowing in advance how many guests will be present.

If time can be created even if only as a slice of time, then time can cease to be created.

If time were to stop being created, we’d never know since nothing would or could change (which is what time measures – rate of change). We only perceive time because things change from second to second; minute to minute; hour to hour, etc. If time stopped, our hearts would stop in mid-beat, clocks wouldn’t tick, boiling water would stop in mid-boil, and photons on route from the Sun to your eyeball would freeze in mid-space. Presumably if this had ever happened, you’d be none the wiser since that would imply that time was rebooted.

Another fly in the ointment is that while everyone perceives their personal rate of time flow at one second per second (and a second of time by the way is an artificial manmade unit of measurement), not everyone views everyone else’s time flow rate as being one second per second. The flow rate of time, as Einstein pointed out (Special Relativity) is relative. Further, depending on frame of reference, one can see Event A happen before Event B while someone else sees Event B happen before Event A, while a third body sees Event A and Event B happen simultaneously. That’s because it’s the speed of light that’s the physical constant. It does seem odd that in the beginning (assuming a beginning) it wasn’t time or space that was created as being a constant rather it was the speed of light. Actually that makes some sense since both time and space are not things, but light is a thing. However, it’s as if the speed of a batted or thrown baseball was always fixed and the dimensions of the ballpark and the playing field shape-shifted from second to second to accommodate the required outcome!

But adding Special Relativity to the creation of time equation just makes the creation of time recipe super complex. So let’s just drop the idea of time as a thing. Depending on point of view, events happen more or less quickly to others than you think is natural from your frame of reality. You just by force of habit translate that into time units, a habit you need to break. 

When it comes to the concept of time, it is second nature to suppose that no matter what starting or alpha point you presume, a question “what came before that?” is obvious even to blind Freddy. Therefore, it is way easier to adopt the philosophy that there was no alpha point (or omega point) – that time has always existed (and will always exist). Therefore, there was no need for time to be created.

If time wasn’t created, was there ever a first moment when time came to be? That would be the case if (and that’s going to be a mighty bug if): 1) time was an intrinsic property of matter and energy, and 2) if matter and energy were created from scratch. Leaving Point 2 aside for another day, time is not a property of matter and energy*. It’s not difficult to imagine a universe with just one electron in it. As far as that electron is concerned there is no time since there is no change to the state of that universe since there is no change, cannot be any change, to the state of the sole inhabitant of that universe – the one and only electron. Therefore time is not an intrinsic property of matter (and energy).

Finally, you cannot see, hear, taste, touch or smell time, nor can any mechanical instrument. You can say that time can be measured, but what are you actually measuring? What you are measuring are the changing properties of things you (or an instrument) can see, hear, etc. What about a clock? What changes on a clock? Well the minute hand moves from 4 to 5 or on a digital watch the reading changes from 4 to 5. There is a change in the properties of the clock or the watch that you can see or hear. You just label that change in the clock’s properties, time. Your label of time is a concept, a human concept. 

All concepts, like society or beauty, are created, but in the minds of living things, and not just by human beings either since one can imagine non-humans appreciating beauty. No doubt my cats view a full food bowl as something of great beauty! Of course that means in another sense that time has been created, but by humans (and maybe by other animals) for humans. Just like mathematical concepts (more human inventions) help us come to terms with, or help us explain, reality, ditto our artificially constructed concept of time. You certainly don’t hear cosmologists talk about the Big Bang creating concepts like mathematics, society, Wednesday, birthdays, beauty, atheism or velocity. Concepts like these have no tangibility – you can’t weigh them or put them under a microscope.

Conclusion: Time is the most mysterious facet of the cosmos and of your daily life you ever have to come to terms with, though most people don’t bother. But it needn’t be if you stop thinking of time as a thing and view time as a concept, like say your birthday. Unfortunately, way too many cosmologists imply that time is a thing and that the thing we call time was literally created. It’s very easy to say that time was created at the Big Bang event and those hundreds of cosmologists say exactly that. But it’s quite another thing to produce the recipe for how that was accomplished, and on that point these same cosmologists are very strangely silent on the matter. Extraordinary claims (like stating that time was created) require extraordinary evidence – one of those mantras the scientific community love to hurl at those advocating anything they call pseudoscience – but none is given by those very same cosmologists. 

What the Big Bang event did do was set in train all those laws, principles and relationships that govern the cosmos and govern change in the cosmos, which is what our concept of time measures.

So, was time created ‘in the beginning’ – no; ‘once upon a time – that doesn’t work either. No matter how you slice and dice things, the idea that time can be created, like space, is also IMHO utter claptrap. That’s because the concept of creating time treats time as if time were also a thing. Time is no more a thing anymore than space is a thing. But if time itself is being created, then time is a thing, and again things cannot be created out of nothing which is what those advocating the creation of time are, well, advocating.

The easiest way to deal with the concept of time is that that’s exactly what time is – a concept, an abstraction, but not a thing. If time isn’t a thing then time could not be created. If time isn’t a thing, then time travel isn’t possible. You can travel in a thing (i.e. – a car), not in a concept.

*If you consult any science reference book on the fundamental properties of matter and energy, time will not be listed, though things like mass and charge and spin, etc. will be.

Scientists’ Doublespeak: Part Two

Even the very best of scientists can exhibit some sort of scientific sleight-of-hand and bamboozle their lay audience with absurdities. Actually, this approach often is just taking a lazy way out. Explaining things in sufficient detail, to avoid the absurdities, would either be too involved or take up too much text. At least I hope that’s the case. If some scientists actually believe what they write, then something is rotten in academia.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Dark Energy: Something from Nothing: This is really an extension of both the above and below in that apparently space is constantly being created as you read this and that explains why the Universe is expanding: more on that below. But the bit of creation that keeps on keeping on is with respect to Dark Energy which actually provides the oomph that drives bits of space further apart thus making available more volume to have additional space be created in. Since Dark Energy is a property of space, it all becomes very circular. Dark Energy creates more space and more space creates more Dark Energy and it’s all a sort of positive never ending feedback mechanism. It’s also something from nothing and you cannot create energy out of nothing. Wouldn’t it be great if the energy you use – gasoline, electricity, etc. – was available for free since you could create an endless supply of it out of nothing? Dark Energy is a free lunch – that’s an extraordinary claim!

Cosmology and the Expansion of Space: We are all aware, at least since the early 20^th Century, that our Universe is expanding in volume. That’s the result of a rather messy trilogy of oomph events. The initial Big Bang explosion; a secondary extremely sudden and short-lived burst of ‘inflation’ that transpired almost immediately after the Big Bang; and finally a mysterious force called Dark Energy (named but not explained) that keeps shoving the already expanding Universe to ever greater and greater velocities. In other words, our Universe is not only expanding but the expansion rate is accelerating. Okay, that’s pretty much based on observational evidence. But that still leaves two scenarios. Following on from the above “keep it simple, stupid” rule, the obvious scenario is that all of the stuff of the Universe is expanding through existing and pre-existing space and time. However, standard model cosmologists, in keeping with their “something from nothing” rule, suggest that space itself is expanding; space itself is constantly being created (out of nothing), and thus space itself is causing the stuff of the Universe to spread farther and farther apart, the bits and pieces being dragged apart kicking and screaming somehow glued to their particular patch of space like dots painted or glued on the surface of a balloon that’s being inflated. Again, no cookbook is on offer that gives a recipe for expanding space or how you too at home can expand your space or create more space in which to store your knick-knacks. That space is currently being created out of nothing – that’s an extraordinary claim!

The Atomic Structure of Space-Time (Planck scales: lengths, volumes, etc.): By the very act of suggesting that space and time or space-time has a structure, one is suggesting that space and time are things, and like all things, at extremely tiny scales are subject to the laws, principles and relationships of quantum physics. In other words, space and time (like matter and energy) come in quanta – indivisible discrete units. It is proposed that these fundamental units of space and time or space-time are Planck units which they suggest are the shortest possible length (hence area hence volume) you can have; and a Planck length of time is the shortest measure of time that can exist. Now you will certainly find reference to these Planck units in the scientific literature. That’s not in question. What is in question is the interpretation. It is my understanding that Planck units are the smallest units possible where one can discuss meaningful events or happenings. There comes a time where a volume is too small for any meaningful physics to happen therein. There comes a point where a length of time is too brief for any meaningful event to happen within that time frame. That doesn’t mean that one can’t further divide a Planck unit into smaller and smaller segments unto infinity. It just isn’t meaningful to deal with such smaller units since nothing of significance can happen within them. So, space and time are not things. They can be subdivided indefinitely until the cows come home. There just is however a threshold value below which it’s not overly meaningful to discuss happenings there. If something meaningful is an elephant, it’s not meaningful to talk about an elephant inside a shoebox, though clearly shoebox volumes exist. If it takes a baseball one second to reach home plate from the pitcher’s mound, and it takes the batter say one-tenth of a second to react, then it is not meaningful for any discussion of that scenario to focus on billionths of a second time frames, though a billionth of a second is a legit division of time. That space and time can be constructed or formed out of discrete space or time quanta units – that’s an extraordinary claim!

Black Holes: Crossing the Event Horizon: For some inexplicable reason, I’ve noted several times some scientific author suggest that an external observer (call him Clive) will note that someone (call her Jane) about to crossover a Black Hole’s event horizon, will not only be travelling slower and slower by Clive’s clock as Jane approaches that event horizon, but in fact at contact with the event horizon, again as recorded by Clive, time will have stopped for Jane. In other words, Clive will never witness Jane’s crossover from outside the Black Hole to inside the Black Hole. Jane will appear to be frozen in time at the event horizon, yet as far as Jane is concerned, everything is normal in terms of time flowing at one second per second.

Now that’s a major paradox. Jane can’t be crossing the event horizon at one second per second while at the same time being frozen in time at the time of crossing according to Clive – the external observer. Of course the paradox is bullshit. To an external observer, Clive, time only comes to a screeching halt for someone like Jane, external to them, if they witness Jane travelling at the speed of light. That’s a physical impossibility. There’s no reason to believe that someone like Jane can be crossing the event horizon at light speed. There’s no absolute requirement that Jane is in fact crossing the event horizon at the speed of light. So, in actual reality, our observer Clive will see someone, anyone, including Jane, cross the event horizon, albeit at a slower rate than Jane herself, because Jane is travelling and doing the event horizon cross-over at less than light speed. That time stands still at the Black Hole’s event horizon – that’s an extraordinary claim!

Conclusions: Scientists are extremely fond of invoking the mantra that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Unfortunately, I’m damned if I find any evidence, far less any extraordinary evidence, for the above statements or alleged truisms. The only way I know of that could give you something for nothing, or disregard causality with reckless abandon, would be if we were all products of a virtual reality, just existing in a software-generated simulated universe where anything goes. But that too is an extraordinary claim!

Scientists’ Doublespeak: Part One

Even the very best of scientists can exhibit some sort of scientific sleight-of-hand and bamboozle their lay audience with absurdities. Actually, this approach often is just taking a lazy way out. Explaining things in sufficient detail, to avoid the absurdities, would either be too involved or take up too much text. At least I hope that’s the case. If some scientists actually believe what they write, then something is rotten in academia.

You know there are really times I think some physical scientists spend way to much time wrapped up in their own tiny little academic world, embracing highly intricate mathematical equations, think these formula have some actual connection with reality, interacting with likeminded colleagues, attending conferences of the likeminded – preachers preaching to the converted, and writing texts that contain, well, commonsense absurdities. There are times when perhaps they should just stand back, try to view the entire forest, instead of focusing on just one tiny leaf. Or, if they can’t do that, at least proofread some of the bovine fertilizer they write, especially for the layperson, and somehow come to terms with what they postulate is so absurd, that they end up being laughed at, not only to the detriment of themselves, but of the science they represent and in fact the downgrading of public opinion in science and scientists in general.

For example, these are common points of view I’ve read again and again, and most involve either zero or infinity. I’m not talking here by the way about colleagues having discussions over alternative cosmologies; thinking above quantum gravity; speculations on String Theory; theorizing over the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, ideas surrounding the likelihood of extraterrestrial life; mulling over if we are really virtual reality; ramblings off the top of the head about the possibilities of time travel; “what if” statements about Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Should some scientists wish to ponder over how many angels can squat on the head of a thumbtack, that’s okay too as far as I’m concerned. But I take issue with “and that’s the way it is” nonsense statements. Truisms - truisms that are nonsense. Extraordinary claims that are nonsense.

Particle Physics: Elementary particles are point particles that have zero dimensionality hence zero volume. Now if that were really the case, one couldn’t have particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider that collide, well say protons together. You have to have some sort of dimensionality bulk if you are going to slam into something else – which must have bulk. Further, you are composed of those dimensionless (zero) point particles. In basic maths, zero plus zero plus zero plus zero (extend this millions of times on) equals zero. If all the stuff that makes you up is dimensionless, then you are dimensionless, you have no height, no front-back length, no left-right width, therefore no volume, which if true, ruins your breakfast and your sex life! Another point overlooked is that one of the fundamental properties of particles is spin – angular momentum. Now it has to be obvious to even Blind Freddy that something cannot spin unless it is spinning around a centre (axis of rotation – that’s normally the up-down dimension) and through the left-right and front-back dimensions – like a spinning ice skater. So, if something spins, it has to have a spatial extension, like a planet or a bicycle wheel or a baseball. That an elementary particle has zero volume – that’s an extraordinary claim!

Radioactivity’s Lack of Causality: If there is one thing that you absolutely rely on every day in every way it is causality. If A happens; B happens. If B happens; C happens. Everything happens because something previously happened. Ah, but take radioactivity. A pair of unstable radioactive atoms sits side-by-side. After say one hour, one decays; the other doesn’t, yet their environmental surroundings are the same; absolutely identical. What caused one to go poof but not the other? Who knows? All scientists say is that there was no causality involved. Personally, I think such a statement resides in fairy-dairy land along with the person who uttered it. Einstein summed it up best when he suggested that God does not play dice with the Universe. If one atom when poof and the other didn’t, well IMHO there was a reason for that. There was a cause why one did and one didn’t.  Invoking the absence of cause-and-effect in a physical happening – that’s an extraordinary claim!

Cosmological Singularities: Infinite density has been the state of affairs often attributed to the state of the singularity, an entity which exists in two places. Firstly, a singularity is postulated at the time of the Big Bang event. Secondly, you’ll find the term singularity attributed to the inside of a Black Hole. So what’s this all about? If you cram a lot of mass into a tiny volume, you’ll get a singularity. The Big Bang event contained all the mass there is in our Universe, and because the Universe is expanding, one can run the film backwards to the beginning, and that’s postulated to end up as a rather tiny volume – I say theoretically postulated since it’s theoretically impossible to see what happened until roughly 300,000 years after the Big Bang actually happened. Okay, so we have a Big Bang singularity. The Black Hole singularity is straightforward – a Black Hole by definition contains enough mass, therefore enough gravity, to prevent even light from escaping its grasp. Now that’s a lot of mass. Also, a Black Hole is a relatively small object as astronomical objects go. So, that combination of lots of mass in a small volume arises again. Now mass and associated gravity are within the realm of General Relativity. Tiny volumes are the realm of Quantum Mechanics. The fly in the ointment is that the equations of General Relativity aren’t compatible with the equations of Quantum Mechanics. Physics breaks down when it comes to describing a singularity. Lazy physicists just take the easy option and say that as more and more mass is squeezed into smaller and smaller volumes the density rises and rises until it hits infinity! Lazy physicists fail to engage their wetware and come to terms with what an absurd phrase ‘infinite density’ is. Density is mass per volume. To have infinite density you’d need either infinite mass, and that’s nonsense since the mass inside a Black Hole is hardly infinite nor is the mass of our entire Universe infinite, or zero volume, and that’s equally nonsense. You can’t cram an infinite amount of stuff into zero space. Infinite density – that’s an extraordinary claim!

Infinite Gravity: If, any only if you had infinite mass gathered together in zero volume would you generate infinite gravity. The Universe doesn’t have infinite mass so infinite gravity bites the dust on that basis alone. You can’t have zero volume that contains something, so infinite gravity also bites the dust from that perspective. Any finite amount of mass contained in an extremely tiny volume will generate extreme gravity, but there’s a universe of difference and distinction between extreme gravity and infinite gravity. That’s more soiled underwear for any scientist prone to use the phrase ‘infinite gravity’. There’s no such animal in the zoo of physics. Infinite gravity – that’s an extraordinary claim!

The Big Bang’s Infinite Temperature: At the time of the Big Bang, the temperature therein was no doubt extreme. Any explosive event generates heat, be it a firecracker, an H-Bomb, or a supernova. But no temperature can be infinitely hot. Why? Heat is energy. ‘Infinitely hot’ is therefore something requiring an infinite amount of energy necessary to generate something that’s ‘infinitely hot’. Temperature is also just a measurement of the average velocity of matter/energy. If one had an infinitely hot temperature, the average velocity of the matter/energy would be infinite. One cannot have an infinite velocity since the cosmic speed limit is the speed of light which is 186,000 miles/second. Therefore, the scientist who uses the phrase ‘infinite temperature’ is talking pure bullshit, and I’ve read accounts by some of the greats using that very phrase.  Infinite temperature - that’s an extraordinary claim!

The Big Bang’s Creation of Matter and Energy: It’s rammed down the throats of students starting in junior high school that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only changed from one form to another form. No argument there, from me at least. However, modern cosmologists postulate exactly that at the moment of the Big Bang event – matter and energy were created, a clear violation of basic conservation laws. That’s an extraordinary claim!

The Big Bang’s Creation of Space and Time: Now the question is, can space and/or time be created? Standard model cosmologists say “yes”, space and time were literally created at the moment of the Big Bang event. Space and time had no meaning and no existence prior to that event. The common analogy given is that to ask if there was time and space before the Big Bang is akin to asking if there is something south of the South Pole. In other words, it’s a nonsense question. However, IMHO, it’s those standard model cosmologists who advocate the nonsense. It’s quite easy for them to say that time and space was created. It’s nearly infinitely more difficult for them to write the cookbook that gives the actual recipe. They haven’t; they can’t, because they are advocating the creation of “something from nothing”. Applying Occam’s Razor, that “keep it simple, stupid” rule, it’s way more believable that space and time have always existed and that the Big Bang event happened inside existing space and time. That somehow space and time can be created, was created at the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago – that’s an extraordinary claim!

To be continued…

Baby Universes & Black Holes

There are numerous ways of theoretically generating a collection of separate and apart universes, commonly called a Multiverse. One such novel approach uses two accepted entities, a universe and a Black Hole to generate each other in turn in either a linear or a cyclic fashion. While the linear approach runs out of puff, the cyclic version doesn’t, but only if you postulate a form of time travel!

You exist somewhere on Planet Earth, which orbits a rather average star we call the Sun, which in turn orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy which is but one of billions and billions of galaxies within our observable Universe. That’s what you’d include in any description of your reality.

However, perhaps the observable Universe itself exists within a Black Hole. That’s an alternative reality, or at least an extension of your reality. Just what rationale might lead one to suggest that our observable Universe and a Black Hole could be in parallel?

Since you cannot escape from the prison we call the Universe; and since you could not escape from the inside of a Black Hole – another type prison – perhaps they are one and the same sort of prison. Perhaps not only do Black Holes exist inside our Universe but the Universe itself resides inside a Black Hole with perhaps no end of the inside-the-inside-the-inside in either direction. In a manner of speaking, that’s a Multiverse!

Actually you can in theory escape this Universe by hopping down into a Black Hole, but if, and it’s a very big ‘but if’, you survive, you’ve just traded in one maximum security prison for another.

Let’s explore this concept a little further and see where, if anywhere, it leads us.

Our Universe and Black Holes certainly share some things in common.

A Black Hole can expand and surprisingly contract (due to Hawking radiation; the technicalities need not concern us here). Our Universe is expanding, but in theory could also contract if there was enough stuff, matter, hence gravity to slow down the expansion to an eventual halt hence reverse direction and start to shrink.

A Black Hole has temperature (that Hawking radiation); our Universe has a temperature (the cosmic background microwave radiation).

A Black Hole has mass (hence gravity); our Universe has mass (hence gravity).

A Black Hole could have a net charge; our Universe could have an excess of one kind of charge over another, but to the best of our knowledge our Universe is electrically neutral, and we suspect, so might an average Black Hole be too.

A Black Hole may be spinning; our Universe maybe rotating but the only way of knowing if you are rotating is if something else in your line of sight isn’t rotating or rotating at a different rate. If everything in our Universe is rotating together at the same rate, then there’s no way of telling since there isn’t anything else to relate that rotation to. 

Now the question arises was there a prime cause; a first universe inside a Black Hole  that gave birth to millions more Black Holes each of which generated an interior universe each of which spawned million more Black Holes hence interior universes and so on and so on and so on. It’s all very circular in that Black Holes generate universes which generate more Black Holes which generate more universes, etc. But that is something circular in a very linear sort of way for what you end up with is like an ongoing (maybe infinite) series of funnels. Sooner or later all the stuff that existed in the first cause Black Hole universe will funnel down into the first generation of Black Hole universes and all the stuff there eventually finds its way down into the second generation of Black Hole universes, hence funnelled down to the third, and fourth and down unto infinity. Now the point here is that there was only a finite amount of stuff (matter/energy) in that first cause Black Hole universe. All that stuff is constantly being diluted as one passes from one generation to the next generation. The stuff of the prime cause first Black Hole universe is dispersed unto millions and eventually billions of later universes. Eventually every baby universe in some umpteenth generation of universes would be so dilute no further Black Holes could form and that’s then the end of that.

But, what if things were cyclic or really circular? All of these universes do not exist in separate and apart timeframes, just like great grandpa; grandpa; father and son do not of necessity exist in separate and apart timeframes but can co-exist at the same time. When you talk of Black Holes, you can also go the one yard further and talk wormholes, which I guess is really that passageway from a Black Hole to the baby universe it generated. But if that first Black Hole universe generates say a million Black Holes each generating a baby universe, what’s to say that a Black Hole created in that baby universe might not funnel back stuff, not to a newer next generation, but dump their contents back to the original first cause Black Hole universe. Wormholes can, in theory, under the right conditions, serve as time machines. So it’s almost akin as if the son travelled back in time and fathered what would ultimately become his great grandpa. Cyclic! If cyclic, the amount of stuff (matter/energy) is still fixed (that which existed in the original Black Hole universe), but never gets diluted enough to bring things to a halt. Now about those quasars, gamma ray bursts and related ultra-energetic astronomical enigmas – White Holes perhaps; the exit of the Black Hole entrance – impregnations by those baby universe Black Holes?  

Where actually do these new (and improved?) baby universes reside? I doubt that a Black Hole opens up a portal and creates a never-before-in-existence arena of space-time where stuff pouring into a Black Hole, hence exiting this portal, finds a ready made newly constructed house to live and evolve in. Rather, the baby universe IS the interior of a Black Hole. A Black Hole forms, a new baby universe forms inside that Black Hole, and that universe in turn produces new Black Holes that form new baby universes, etc. But everything takes place, generation after generation, inside that first Black Hole (which just might be our Universe). The baby universes spawned inside say Black Hole generation #3 in turn creates Black Hole generation #4 which also exist within the earlier Black Hole generation #3 as do the generation #4 baby universes. So instead of a series of dolls sitting all-in-a-row on a long shelf, it’s more akin to those Russian dolls, one inside the other inside the other inside the other. But, as suggested above, one of the smaller dolls can ultimately funnel stuff back up into one of the larger dolls. 

Aside #1: Now you may feel that any baby universe inside a Black Hole in our Universe is going to be a pretty small universe indeed. Well I’m not aware that the definition of a universe comes attached with a one size fits all clause. Universes might well come is small, medium, large and extra-large sizes. Maybe a baby universe inside a Black Hole is like Dr. Who’s TARDIS – bigger on the inside than on the outside. Truth is, nobody, and I do mean nobody has a clue what’s inside the event horizon of a Black Hole. Once inside the event horizon all the laws, principles and relationships of physics break down. Nobody and no measuring instrument have ever been inside to have a look at what’s what and report back. It’s akin to those maritime charts of the ancient seafarers – here be dragons! It’s the greatest of the great unknowns. If space is the final frontier, the inside of a Black Hole is the Absolutely Final Frontier. Now there’s no reason of necessity why any of these baby universes need be inhabited. Extraterrestrial intelligence isn’t part of the definition of a universe either. A universe is really a self-contained space where matter and energy interact; where things happen; where there is change from moment to moment. The interior of a Black Hole is self-contained. There’s matter and energy but whether there’s activity or not, well IMHO the answer is affirmative since the Black Hole isn’t static. It’s either expanding as matter and energy enters and passes the event horizon or contracting thanks to the abovementioned Hawking radiation. Actually both incoming and outgoing are going on simultaneously.

Aside #2: Something about this entire concept reminds me of the old sci-fi pulp magazine era. It was a staple plot of shrinking down to the atomic level only to discover a civilization on a ‘planetary’ electron orbiting a ‘stellar’ nucleus.

Aside #3: A Black Hole that might spew out another universe might have that universe stillborn in that that universe may not in turn be able to give rise to internally created Black Holes and thus another generation of baby universes. Not all universes will of necessity have the same physics, physics that allow the creation of Black Holes, and so some universes will be eternal bachelors or spinsters.

Aside #4: Yet another interesting question is what happens to the two baby universes when and if their parent Black Holes merge, as most certainly can happen. That would seem to be a rather nasty scenario for inhabitants of either of the baby universes!

Now clearly this is all speculation, but then speculation, that “what if” scenario, is the bread-and-butter staple of science fiction, and how often has science fiction evolved into science fact? It’s an oft quoted saying, attributed to J. B. S. Haldane (1924) that “The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”

A Voyage To A Black Hole: Part Two

Suicide missions are hardly unknown happenings, so presumably it wouldn’t be too hard to find a volunteer to take a long walk off a short pier and dive into the heart of a Black Hole. Well, let’s trade in the walk and the pier for a spaceship, with our suicidal pilot crewmember willing to boldly go. What might she expect? For that matter what might a chickenhearted outside observer expect to see?

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Now for the speculation: Let us suppose that our suicidal voyager survives her voyage (curses, foiled again) and gets to play tourist. What will she see or will she see anything at all? Well, yes, she will – see that is. The event horizon is like a one-way mirror. Light can pass through the event horizon into the interior of the Black Hole, but light cannot pass from the interior of the Black Hole through the event horizon to be witnessed by an outside observer. Okay, let there be light, and there was light. Light is energy, so there’s energy inside a Black Hole. It’s also been shown that a Black Hole has entropy, or in other words a temperature. That too is energy. 

There’s matter (mass) inside a Black Hole – obviously, since there’s gravity. Now the big unknown is what kind of matter is that matter? We don’t know. Outside of a Black Hole matter exists in four states – solid, liquid, gas and plasma. The transition from one state of matter to another is called a phase change, as in ice to water to steam. One speculation is that the matter inside a Black Hole undergoes a phase change to something even more solid and denser than, well a dense solid.

We sort of observe this in a Neutron Star, a star extremely massive with extreme gravity, but just short of enough gravity to form an event horizon and turn into a Black Hole. Why is it called a Neutron Star? Well, the gravity is so great that the bits and pieces of the atom, electrons, neutrons and protons are squashed together into one big glob. The positive protons fuse with the negative electrons – these electric charges thus cancelling out – to make neutrons, hence join with the already neutral neutrons, so everything forms into just one huge glob of neutron soup, or a Neutron Star. Rapidly spinning Neutron Stars are also known as Pulsars.

Now if atoms lose all sense of identity, there is no atomic structure, no isotopes, no molecules, no elements, no compounds, no electrons and no protons, then I’d have to define that as a phase transition, but one we don’t witness on Earth. Given the even more extreme gravity inside a Black Hole, would that same phase transition to a neutron soup hold sway, or might there be another beyond that found in Neutron Stars? 

Neutrons are not fundamental particles. A glob of neutron soup is ultimately a glob of quark soup, as quark trios comprise the identity we call a neutron. Neutrons are actually composite particles. However, as quarks are fundamental particles, it’s unlikely they can be crushed or fused together. Electrons too are fundamental, but it is well known – to particle physicists at least – that an isolated neutron will in fairly quick-smart order decay to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. Reactions are reversible so it is straightforward to create a neutron if the ingredients are brought together with sufficient energy.

Since a Neutron Star is just one coin short of a Black Hole dollar, the inside of a Black Hole could well be akin to a Neutron Star, only slightly more massive. One thing is certain IMHO, the interior will not be matter crushed down to the infinitely small (i.e. – zero volume); the interior will not be infinitely dense.

What lies at the heart of a Black Hole? The traditional answer is a ‘singularity’ – a point of (near) infinite density and (close to) zero volume, matter crushed down to the final, ultimate limit – or maybe not.

Start with a hunk of matter. Keep on keeping on adding more and more and more matter (mass) to it. Your original hunk grows larger, ever denser; its gravity swells in proportion. Finally it’s just a fraction away from achieving Black Hole status – meaning its gravity is so strong not even light can escape from its grasp. It’s that Neutron Star entity.

So you are a thimbleful of salt away from crossing the not-quite-yet a Black Hole to an actual Black Hole boundary. You can (barely) still see your now super-sized hunk of Neutron Star stuff. Now toss in that final thimbleful of stuff onto the hunk. No light now reaches you – you’ve crossed the threshold or boundary and have got a Black Hole. But do you doubt that lurking on the other side of the not-quite-yet a Black Hole to an actual Black Hole boundary, though unseen, you still have that super-sized hunk of stuff, not a singularity, but a really real solid 3-D hunk of stuff? Or, in other words, if the escape velocity of your hunk is 185,999 miles per second, no Black Hole and no singularity, but if it climbs to 186,001 miles per second you have a Black Hole and your hunk morphs into a singularity? A two mile a second difference makes that much difference? I don’t think so.

The other issue though is this really going to be a one-way trip for our boldly going voyager, dead or alive? One of the 64,000 $64,000 questions: Can you pour stuff down a Black Hole indefinitely, or does the Black Hole have a finite capacity and ultimately or eventually will have to spew stuff out the ‘other side’ (i.e. – producing a White Hole) as you keep pouring in more and more and more? I’d wager the conservation relationships and principles of physics and chemistry hold sway here. What goes in ultimately comes out. That doesn’t mean there’s not a temporary holding vessel. Or, in more human terms, you fill what’s empty; you empty what’s full, but in-between those two there’s storage in the stomach and the intestines; the lungs and the bladder.

Let’s adopt that point of view that what goes in, ultimately has to come out.

And so, our intrepid voyager might well exit elsewhere, maybe even elsewhen. The exit could be deemed the opposite of a Black Hole, or a White Hole; the passageway from Black Hole entrance to White Hole exit is that staple of sci-fi, albeit based in the realm of theoretical physics, the Wormhole. That the exit could be elsewhen is based on the theoretical ‘fact’ that a wormhole could be manipulated in such a manner as to allow for time travel. If that’s too far out for you, then a Wormhole elsewhere shouldn’t be. The apt analogy is with an apple. Mr. Worm can crawl around the outside of the apple to get from one side to the other, or Mr. Worm could take a shortcut and worm his way through the apple to get to the other side, or elsewhere.

Now the question arises, is there any observational evidence that White Holes and associated exits exist? Astronomers and cosmologists would argue in the negative, but I’m not convinced. What would be the signature of a White Hole? Well, it would be roughly stellar-sized, not planetary or galactic. It would be vomiting out one heck of a lot of stuff including lots of energy. Does the cosmos contain such beasties? Obvious candidates are quasars – quasi-stellar objects. Quasars are roughly stellar in size, but violently emitting the froth and bubble of nearly an entire galaxy worth of stuff and energy. The other high-energy astrophysical anomaly is gamma ray bursts. They occur way out back of beyond, in the outer fringes of the cosmos, which is all to the good for if a gamma ray burst happened in our stellar neck of the woods, the results would be akin to Kentucky Fried Humans! Still, we don’t know enough squat about them to be able to predict exactly where and when one will happen. So, astronomers who are into studying these cosmic critters are akin to sleeping fireman who never knows when they will be rudely awakened to respond to that rare five-alarm event.

So, in short, we have Black Holes that are your ultimate in garbage disposals; Quasars and gamma ray bursts that are your ultimate in, IMHO, recycling that garbage back into useful cosmic stuff – matter and energy. In other words, they are the exit to the Black Hole’s entrance. 

No matter. Either our boldly going voyager has snuffed it going into a Black Hole; is forever trapped in a Black Hole; or has been turned into a Kentucky Fried Human and vomited back out again via a White Hole quasar or gamma ray burst to become as one with the cosmos. We all started out as starstuff – and so shall we (or what’s left of our remains) all ultimately return to become starstuff again a millennia of millennia from now. 

A Voyage To A Black Hole: Part One

Suicide missions are hardly unknown happenings, so presumably it wouldn’t be too hard to find a volunteer to take a long walk off a short pier and dive into the heart of a Black Hole. Well, let’s trade in the walk and the pier for a spaceship, with our suicidal pilot crewmember willing to boldly go. What might she expect? For that matter what might a chickenhearted outside observer expect to see?

Space isn’t really the final frontier; rather the inside of a Black Hole that’s inside of space really is the final frontier. Only the insanely suicidal need boldly go and explore, as it’s unlikely that the innards of a Black Hole will become a popular tourist attraction for many a millennia to come – if ever.

Okay, we have a depressed, suicidal, boldly going spaceship pilot, and she’s determined to go out in a blaze of glory and make her mark in the history books. No ordinary suicide for this woman! It’s across the event horizon threshold and down the hatch of a Black Hole. I need point out here and explain that technical term ‘event horizon’ – it’s just that location that divides the ability to return home safely from the point of no return, ever.

Countdown: Five, four, three, two, one – we have lift-off on the maiden voyage to boldly go and see what’s to be seen from the inside of a Black Hole.

As far as our suicidal pilot is concerned, everything from launch to crossing the event horizon is as normal as taking the cross-town bus to work. Time will tick by at one second per second; her mass will register normal; length ditto. However, due to Einstein’s concepts in all things being relative, an external observer will see our boldly going pilot’s reality slightly differently. 

An external observer, say relaxing back on Earth with a super powerful telescope, follows ionization trail of the boldly going voyager’s spaceship to the nearest Black Hole. Basically, what this person sees is that as the suicidal voyager blasts off from Earth, picks up speed, her ship and contents (including herself) start to shrink in length, increase in mass, and her rate-of-change (time) ticks by more slowly compared to Mr. Stay-At-Home’s own. Okay, that’s in keeping with Einstein’s relativity proclamations. 

But for some inexplicable reason, I’ve read several times some scientific author suggest that to an external observer, the suicidal pilot will not only be travelling slower and slower by the external observer’s clock as she approaches the event horizon, but in fact at contact with the event horizon her time, again as recorded by the external observer, will have stopped. In other words, the external observer will never witness the pilot’s crossover from outside the Black Hole’s event horizon to inside the Black Hole’s event horizon. The pilot will appear to be frozen in time at the event horizon, yet as far as the pilot is concerned, everything is normal in terms of time flowing at one second per second.

Now that’s a major paradox. The pilot can’t be crossing the event horizon at one second per second, while at the same time being frozen in time at the time of crossing, according to our stay-at-home observer. Of course the paradox is bullshit. To an external observer, time only comes to a screeching halt for someone external to them if they witness that someone travelling at the speed of light. Firstly, that’s a physical impossibility. There’s no reason to believe that our suicidal pilot is crossing the event horizon at light speed. There’s no absolute requirement that our suicidal pilot is crossing the event horizon at the speed of light. She in fact might have fired her retro-rockets to slow down just prior to crossing the event horizon in order to better savour the moment! So, in actual reality, our observer will see the pilot cross the event horizon, albeit at a way slower rate than the pilot herself because the pilot is travelling, hence doing the event horizon cross-over at less than the speed of light. IMHO, some ‘experts’ need to go back and redo Physics 101. 

In any event, once the external observer observes our boldly going suicidal voyager cross the event horizon, the show is over for him. Nothing that’s part and parcel of the voyager, not her ship’s reflected or emitted light, not her radio signals nor information signalling of any kind, will recross the event horizon in the outward bound direction and heading back to Earth. Our external observer can pack away his telescope and get back to more interesting pursuits, like watching daytime television. But that’s not quite the end of the story. 

And so it’s now over to the (never-to-be-revealed) recorded flight log of the voyager on her one-way trip to the Black Hole’s never-never land. Up to and including the crossover from the safe side of the event horizon to the ‘abandon hope all who enter here’ side of the event horizon, all is logged as 100% normalcy. Nothing shrinks, nothing grows in weight (increases in mass), and time does its one second per second thing as it always has done. It’s as easy as a trip from your home driveway to the supermarket parking lot, only once in the grip of the supermarket parking lot, forever in the grip of the supermarket parking lot. It’s a one-way ‘enter’ gate without a corresponding ‘exit’ sign.

Since we have no idea what the inside of a Black Hole actually is, since theoretical physics, quantum and relativity physics, break down into a mathematical mess, what our intrepid voyager will actually observe or experience is anybody’s guesstimate. There does appear to be one consensus however. Gravity rules, OK? Almost by definition there’s a hell of a lot of gravity to contend with once inside the supermarket parking lot – oops, sorry, inside the event horizon.

Now here on Earth, when standing up, gravity is pulling at your feet ever so slightly greater than it is tugging at your head – because your feet are slightly closer to Earth’s centre of mass. Earth’s gravity however is so weak that you don’t know or can’t feel the difference, but tests or experiments with extremely accurate atomic clocks show that this is true. Rate of change – time – is affected by gravity, so a clock atop a tall building runs slightly faster than an identical clock in the building’s basement. Now the gravity of a Black Hole is many, many, many orders of magnitude stronger than it is here on Terra Firma. So, it is speculated that if you are inside a Black Hole, say in free-fall, and say in a vertical position, then the gravity pulling on your feet will be not only vastly greater than if you were on Earth, but also the differential between feet and head will be orders of magnitude greater. Translated, gravity inside a Black Hole is going to stretch you out like a piece of taffy. Like in one of those fun house mirrors, you will be very, very, very tall and very, very, very thin. Ultimately you will be akin to a piece of string or spaghetti, but by that time you’ll be very, very, very dead as the human body wasn’t designed to be viable under such a state of affairs. Okay, that’s the consensus.

To be continued…

You and the Vacuum Energy

The electron, the proton and the quark are all entities within the realm of particle hence quantum physics. All three carry electrical charge. All three have mass. After those observations, things get interesting, or messy, depending on your point of view.

An electron has a negative charge exactly equal and opposite to that of a proton. Note: the charge is exactly equal, even though the proton has a far greater mass than the electron (some 2000 times heavier in fact, not that there has to be of necessity any relationship between mass and charge).

Now that’s strange since the electron is a fundamental particle but the positively charged proton is a composite particle, made up of a trio of quarks (as it the neutron with no net charge). The proton has two quarks each with a positive 2/3rds charge (up quark) and one quark with a negative 1/3^rd charge (down quark) for an overall balance of one positive charge. (The neutron on the other hand has one up quark with a positive 2/3rds charge and two down quarks each with a negative 1/3^rd charge, for an overall balance of zero charge – neither positive nor negative.)

Now you might suggest that an electron might be a fusion of a trio of down quarks, each with a negative 1/3^rd charge, except the electron, again, isn’t a composite particle, and the mass is all wrong for that scenario. If an electron were a composite of a trio of down quarks, each with a minus 1/3^rd charge, the electron would be thirty times more massive than it is – not something particle physicists would fail to take notice of. 

Further, the force particle that governs the electron is the photon; that which governs the quarks inside the proton and the neutron is the gluon, which further differentiates the two things – quarks and electrons. In any event, if you could have a composite particle of a trio of negative 1/3^rd down quarks, if that were the case, and it is the case, and it’s called the Negative Delta, you’d also need a composite particle that’s the fusion of a trio of positive 2/3rds up quarks for an overall charge of plus two. To the best of my knowledge there is only one such critter in the particle zoo and it’s called the Doubly Positive Delta. I’m sure you’ve never heard of these Delta particles, which goes to show how much bearing or impact they have on life, the Universe, and everything.

In case you were wondering, there would be an anti-quark of minus 2/3rds charge, and an anti-quark of a positive 1/3^rd charge, to yield an anti-proton and an anti-neutron. The anti-proton would of course have an equal and opposite charge to the anti-electron (which has a formal name – the positron). So things are equally as mysterious in the realm of the anti-world.

Question: How do you get 1/3^rd or 2/3rds of an electric charge in any event? Of course one could just multiply by three and that does away with the fractions, but that doesn’t resolve the larger issues, like for that matter, what exactly is electric charge and how does it come to be?

Presumably quarks inside of protons and neutrons, and electrons, could have taken on any old values of charge, separate and apart, but didn’t. Why? Is this evidence for a Multiverse (where anything that can happen does happen in all possible combinations); intelligent design (which does not of necessity imply a deity – just a creator, or a programmer); or just a coincidence?

Why is it so? What does it mean? Equal and opposite charges between the proton and the electron would just seem to be one of Mother Nature’s little mysteries.

But something else is odd here. The proton, as noted above, is 2000 times more massive than the electron, but if you weigh up the trio of quarks* that make up the proton, the proton should only come in at roughly 20 times that of an electron. That’s 100 times too small. So where does the other 1980 bits of mass come from? Well the gluon that holds the proton’s (and the neutron’s) quarks together, like the electron’s photon and gravity’s (theoretical or hypothetical) graviton, have no rest mass that add to the total. But the internal jiggling of the quarks and their gluon companions does add a bit more mass to the proton. Remember that motion equals energy which equals mass. Finally, that leaves the vacuum energy to fill the remaining gap.

Vacuum energy: what’s that? There’s no such state as zero energy, so there’s energy around even where you don’t expect it – like in a vacuum. If you have a finite amount of energy in a finite volume, you cannot dilute that amount of energy such that you end up with no energy present. That’s a violation of fundamental conservation laws. So this vacuum energy is present everywhere and experimentally confirmed so that’s not an issue to be debated. The next bit is to recall that Einstein’s famous equation relates the equality between energy and mass. Mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass. So this vacuum energy can produce what’s known as virtual particles, which exist for nanoseconds (actually way less than that) before recombining, going poof, and returning to the environment again as energy.

Everywhere, anywhere, all the time, these virtual particles pop into and out of existence – your basic transformation of energy into matter (mass) and back to energy again. Again, matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. A little bit of mass can create a lot of energy as the atomic bomb; a lot of energy can create a tiny bit of mass, and virtual particles are tiny, so it doesn’t take much energy to manufacture them. As you might expect, it’s cheaper (uses less energy) to create virtual ‘ping pong balls’ than virtual ‘bowling balls’, and so you get way more of the lighter particles created than the heavier ones. Further, the heavier they are the quicker they go poof again. Not that it ultimately matters but these pop-in pop-out events transpire so quickly that not even the finest and most accurate of Olympic timers could measure their duration. Quantum’s vacuum energy’s virtual pop-in pop-out is all over in the blink of a blink of a blink of a blink (add some more blinks) of an eye.

Oh, one other thing to note, when the vacuum energy creates these virtual particles, they are created in pairs – matter-antimatter pairs to be precise. Now why, when virtual particles are created are they in that form? Matter-antimatter pairs are the only viable way of returning to the vacuum energy the energy that was ‘borrowed’ to create the particles in the first place. It’s like borrowing money from the bank. You’ve got to repay it. If the vacuum energy created, say a pair of electrons, well the energy debt couldn’t be repaid since two electrons can’t annihilate each other back to pure energy. The bank’s money wouldn’t be repaid and there’d be hell to pay instead!

This constant froth and bubble is commonly called quantum fluctuations or the quantum jitters. All that activity, those virtual matter-antimatter particles, completely accounts for the missing mass – the differential between the proton’s quarks’s mass and the proton’s mass. In a similar way, presumably all matter is more massive as a result of these quantum jitters that take place in the vacuum energy, jitters which even permeate the insides of protons and neutrons. So, and I hope you’re sitting down while reading this, a large part of your mass is due to the jittery happenings of the vacuum energy!  

Given the above, I can’t help now but wonder what affect this constant froth and bubble, the quantum jitters, has on the biological body – your biological body. In theory, barring external agents like accidents, there is no real reason why we should age and die. Some diseases are obviously caused by outside agents like bacteria and viruses, but others have more mysterious origins. There are external agents like smoking, alcohol, radioactivity and ultraviolet light which can have detrimental effects. But if you exclude all nasty external agents, why would we age and ultimately snuff it?

The body, your body, my body, your pet’s body, is ultimately a composite of the fundamental particles that make up life, the universe and everything. These fundamental or elementary particles are subject to quantum phenomena. These particles have a volume for those phenomena to operate in. Even in space external to those particles, quantum phenomena operate all the time, anywhere and everywhere. The vacuum energy isn’t somewhere ‘out there’ in never-never-land. It’s everywhere including inside you from head to toe. Virtual particles are being created and destroyed inside you even as you read this, like it or not. All of this too-ing and fro-ing, the constant creation of virtual particles and hence their annihilation (literally a matter-antimatter annihilation) – energy to matter and matter back to energy – must have some sort of wear and tear on biological systems starting at the quantum or micro level and moving on up the line. If something goes wrong at the micro level, it has an obvious ripple effect on up that line to the macro level. Perhaps modern medicine should pay closer attention to quantum and particle physics!

There are probably multi hundreds of thousands of monographs exploring and explaining the workings and maladies of the human body from conception to ultimate demise; from the whole of physiology and anatomy down to the individual organ systems (i.e. – digestive system, respiratory system, nervous system, etc.); the individual organs (stomach, lungs, spinal cord); the tissues that comprise these; the cells that make up the tissues and the biochemistry that works its magic inside the cells. But I doubt if you’ll find in any medical library too many tomes on particle and quantum physics. Yet without particle and quantum physics there could be no cellular biochemistry on up to gross physiology and anatomy.

If all those quantum jitters, those now-you-see-them now-you-don’t virtual particles consisting of matter-antimatter annihilations inside you weren’t bad enough, the micro world isn’t quite through with you. You’re being bombarded 24/7/52 by millions of cosmic rays and neutrinos every second, though fortunately nearly all pass right through you as if you didn’t exist at all. However, the same can’t be said for those matter-antimatter annihilations. There’s no way I can see the creation and destruction of virtual particles (in matter-antimatter pairs) having any beneficial effect on your body, hence my postulating that these quantum jitters might have some, even if partial, effect on some diseases, infirmities, the ageing process, even ultimately death.

There’s no point is worrying about this for there’s not a damn thing you or anyone, not even your family doctor or a particle physicist, can do about it.        

The one saving grace is that the virtual energy is 120 orders of magnitude less than theory predicts, otherwise you and the Universe would be ripped apart – well actually you and the Universe would never have formed in the first place.

*There is some degree of uncertainty in the exact mass of those various quarks because they cannot be weighed in isolation. However, the estimates are probably pretty close to the mark. The error bars aren’t that great.

Reality: Heads or Tails? Part Two

In science as well as in metaphysics there are often competing ideas about what’s real and what’s not real but might be real – an alternate reality not yet proven. Here are a baker’s dozen of examples of what we believe is a truism today, but could easily be shown to be mistaken tomorrow. In one case, the last, tomorrow is already here!

What was reality yesterday (a Flat Earth orbited by the Sun; Unicorns and Dragons, etc.) isn’t of necessity what is accepted reality today, and what’s reality today may not of necessity be reality tomorrow. Here are a few more possibilities for tomorrow-land.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

6) Black Holes (reality) vs. White Holes (alternate reality): Black Holes are known to exist, though once they were just a theoretical construct of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (and Einstein himself only thought of them as an abstract concept, not an actual thing). They were originally termed ‘dark stars’ though the later phrase Black Holes was proposed, and being catchy, took on with both the academic and general communities. Now Black Holes are objects with so much mass, and therefore so much gravity, that not even light (at 186,000 miles per second) can escape the clutches of such an object. You can’t see a Black Hole, hence the descriptive ‘black’. That’s the reality part. The alternative reality bit is the opposite of a Black Hole, obviously a White Hole. If a Black Hole sucks in stuff, a White Whole spews stuff out. The turning point is, can a Black Hole become so bloated with incoming stuff that it ultimately has to exit elsewhere?  One of the 64,000 $64,000 questions: Can you pour stuff down a Black Hole indefinitely, or does the Black Hole have a finite capacity and ultimately or eventually will have to spew stuff out the ‘other side’ (i.e. – producing a White Hole) as you keep pouring in more and more and more? I’d wager the conservation relationships and principles of physics and chemistry hold sway here. What goes in ultimately comes out. That doesn’t mean there’s not a temporary holding vessel. Or, in more human terms, you fill what’s empty; you empty what’s full, but in-between those two there’s storage in the stomach and the intestines; the lungs and the bladder.

7) You Exist Within Our Galaxy (reality) vs. The Universe Exists Within A Black Hole (alternate reality): Since you cannot escape from the jail cell within the prison we call the Universe; and since you could not escape from the inside of a Black Hole – another type of a jail cell within a prison – perhaps they are one and the same sort of prison. Perhaps not only do Black Holes exist inside the Universe but the Universe itself resides inside a Black Hole with perhaps no end of the inside-the-inside-the-inside in either direction. In a manner of speaking, that’s a Multiverse! Actually you can in theory escape this Universe by hopping down into a Black Hole, but if, and it’s a very big ‘but if’, you survive, you’ve just traded in one jail cell for another, or one maximum security prison for another.

8) Big Bang (reality) vs. Before the Big Bang (alternate reality): The standard cosmological model postulates based on observable evidence that our Universe began roughly 13.7 billion years ago as a Big Bang event that created all of matter, energy, time and space. The Universe was created out of nothing. There was no ‘before the Big Bang’ since the Big Bang started the universal clock ticking. Fortunately, for those who find such a scenario unsatisfactory, like me, there are alternative proposals that postulate, indeed require a ‘before the Big Bang’. But while the Big Bang rests on solid evidence, all ‘before the Big Bang’ proposals are highly theoretical and remain alternative realities. 

9) There’s Just One You (reality) vs. There’s Many of You (alternate reality): Even if you have an identical twin, that twin is not you. You are unique with a unique set of experiences and memories with individual brain chemistry and a hardwired neural network. Of all the people, who have ever lived, are living now, and who will exist in the future, you are unique – that’s a reality you and the world have to deal with; right? Maybe not; there are legit scenarios that allow for another you, even an infinite number of you. The most oft quoted possibility is if our Universe is infinite in extent and/or duration, another you just isn’t possible or probable, but mandatory. If our Universe is finite but part of an infinite set of universes – a Multiverse - another you just isn’t possible or probable, but mandatory. If the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, another you just isn’t a possibility or a probability, but mandatory. If one accepts the basic mantra of quantum mechanics which is anything that can happen, does happen then another you just isn’t possible or probable, but mandatory. If we exist in a simulated universe as virtual reality, and there are many copies of this piece of software in existence another you just isn’t possible or probable, but mandatory. At least the saving grace is that you’ll never have to meet yourself – oops, that might not be true either if time travel is ever realized!

10) Really Real Reality (reality) vs. Virtual Reality (alternate reality): You obviously believe that you are part and parcel of Really Real Reality (RRR). The world socks it to you; you do your best to sock it to the world! However, there are two forms of an alternate reality, or virtual reality, that you might be part and parcel of. Firstly, it comes as no surprise that you create versions of alternate/virtual reality all the time. If you stop and think about it, your dreams create virtual worlds and characters. As you dream up an alternate reality landscape, and animate it, perhaps you too and your landscape (what your worldview accepts as RRR) is a dream-world of someone or something else! Secondly, you’d be aware of computer simulations, software programs that also create virtual worlds and characters. You might be an active participant, if not creating same, then engaging with those programs, like playing video games. As you create and/or participate in an alternate reality animated landscape, perhaps you too and your landscape (what your worldview accepts as RRR) is an animated video game or simulated world of someone or something else! 

11) Free Will (reality) vs. No Free Will (alternate reality): You have free will. You absolutely know you have free will. But you can’t prove you have free will. Any action(s) you perform which you state exhibits your free will; well the ‘no free will’ counterargument is that you have no choice but to believe in your own free will. It’s an illusion which you have been pre-programmed to accept as given, just as a pocket calculator has no choice but to calculate that 2 + 3 = 5. But as long as you believe you have free will, well, there’s no harm done.

12) We Are the Proverbial It (reality) vs. ETI [ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence] Is Teeming Throughout the Cosmos (alternate reality): Despite all the decades of active SETI [Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence], including lots of computer crunch power at their command including SETI @ Home; despite over six decades of UFO investigation, both official and private; plus all manner of amateur insights into the possibility of ‘ancient astronauts’; and those thousands of books written on these subjects (plus essays/articles, blogs, TV shows, DVD documentaries, etc.) no ETI smoking gun – proof positive – has surfaced of their existence to the satisfaction of all and sundry. But tomorrow is another day.

13) Your World (reality) vs. Your Cyber-World (alternate reality): You of course exist in a four space-time dimensional reality. You were born into it; you live your life in it; you’ll die in it. However, recent advances in technology have given us the ways and means to disconnect from that reality for lengthy periods of time and voluntarily adopt a cyber-world reality for a large part of our time. Many people and you see them all the time on the bus, in the mall, at the dinner table, at a social gathering, walking the dog, first thing awake, last thing before sleep, ignoring to the best of their ability their real surroundings for their cyber-surroundings. Between their PCs and tablets and smart-phones and emails and Twitter and Facebook and texting, while totally immersed in their tiny little cyber-world, they are near totally oblivious to their immediate surroundings and the real world immediately in front of them, which is one reason you get ‘funny’ videos of people so engrossed in their cyber-world that they totally fail to observe their surroundings and fall down stairs or into ponds of water or walk in front of buses. Reality has a way of biting back!