Observations don’t always agree with theory. That’s not usually a problem as theorists can often accommodate the observations as often the error bars around the measurements are wide enough to accommodate the theory. But, when observation and theory really collide, especially when it comes to those fundamental Big Questions, and also especially with the conflicts continue over many, many, years; then it’s time for Mr. Spock to raise those eyebrows! However, there is an easy solution, albeit one which won’t sit well with 99.99% of readers. The solution is that you, the reader, don’t exist! Well you do exist, just not in a real reality sense but as a virtual reality created by others. What’s the evidence?
Continued from yesterday’s blog…
QUASARS: Quasars are ‘quasi-stellar objects’. They are ‘stellar’ because they aren’t all that large (like a galaxy). They are ‘quasi’ because they give off energy way, way, way more times greater than any star known in any astronomical catalogue. They seem to be primordial objects – they formed long ago and are now far away.
Theory: Quasars, like stars or galaxies are their own entities and if two or more show very close special causality relationships then they should show identical recessional velocities. Recessional velocities are measured by any objects’ red-shifts. Theory identifies red-shift with velocity.
Observation: You have observations of quasars with vastly differing red-shifts (measurements of their recessional velocities) yet pairs of quasars which appear to be causality connected.
Conflict: You can not have a runner running at 15 miles per hour holding hands with another runner running at 3 miles per hour!
Discussion: If the observations are correct, then something really is screwy somewhere! If red-shifts have no actual relationship with velocity, then the entirety of accepted cosmology is right down the gurgler. Of course ETI is probably most interested in the virtual creation of us, not so much the wider environment we observe like the relations between two quasars, and so that’s one of those backdrop ‘oops’.
VACUUM ENERGY: Since a temperature of absolute zero, that is a state in which there is no available energy that exists, is impossible because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle – a rock solid foundation of quantum physics. So there is always a minimum amount of energy available that pervades the Universe. It’s called the ‘vacuum energy’.
Theory: The vacuum energy should exist with such-and-such a value.
Observation: The vacuum energy exists (is has been observed and it has been experimentally confirmed) with such-and-such a value.
Conflict: You have a 120 order-of-magnitude (that’s one followed by 120 zeros) discrepancy between the observed vacuum energy and the theoretical value of the vacuum energy.
Discussion: This discrepancy is the most embarrassing ‘oops’ in all of modern physics and nobody can figure out how to resolve the discrepancy. Oops indeed! Of course all manner of ‘oops’ can exist when creating or simulating a cosmic backdrop.
WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY: You have particles that behave both as a wave and as little billiard balls – observed but theoretically impossible in classical physics.
Theory: You have waves – obviously. You have particles – obviously. You theoretically don’t have waves that behave as little billiard balls – obviously. You theoretically don’t have particles that wave all over the place and interfere with each other – obviously.
Observation: You have waves that behave as little billiard balls. You have particles that wave all over the place and interfere with each other. That’s just nuts!
Conflict: There’s no way you can turn a little billiard ball into a wave; you can’t turn a wave into a little billiard ball.
Discussion: There are two theories to explain wave-particle duality. The first is that at point of origin or emission the bit in question is a little billiard ball – a particle. At point of impact or termination the bit is a little billiard ball – a particle. In-between, the pathway, the flight of the bit, well the bit has transformed into a wave. The second idea owes its genesis to the late quantum physicist Richard Feynman who stated that everything is particles – no waves. But, to account for the wave behaviour, he invented his ‘sum over histories’ approach to explain wave-particle duality. Any one particle that travels from Point A to Point B traverses each and every possible pathway between A and B simultaneously. It’s like you can go from home to work in dozens of different ways; alternate routes. Only you take each and every route possible at the same time! As far as I’m concerned, neither idea solves the Big Question. Why wave-particle duality at all? Perhaps our hypothetical ETI can explain.
MASS: Speaking of particles, there are three fundamental properties of particles (like the electron, neutrinos, the numerous quarks, etc.) and their anti-particles (like the positron). They are charge, spin and mass. As the song goes, two out of three ain’t bad, but that still leaves one out of three out of joint. In this case, it’s mass.
Theory: Nobody can predict from first principles what the masses of the fundamental particles should be. That’s fairly disturbing for something as fundamental as mass.
Observation: Despite the relatively large number of particles (including the equal and opposite anti-particles), there are only a few allowed values for charge and spin, values pretty much confined to the infield. But, for some reason, the mass (usually expressed in equivalent energy units – Einstein’s famous equation) of the various particles are not only scattered throughout the ballpark but are all over the city map and beyond. They take on values (albeit one value per type of particle) over many orders of magnitude without any apparent pattern or regularity or relationship between them – and nobody has the foggiest idea why, not a validly theoretical idea, or even a ‘far out’ idea.
Conflict: Why should mass differ so greatly from the other fundamental properties part and parcel of particles? It’s like someone just drew a few dozens of numbers out of a hat containing multi hundreds of thousands of values and assigned them to the few dozens of particles willy-nilly.
Discussion: Something is screwy somewhere because something so fundamental shouldn’t be so anomalous. But looking at our own virtual reality video games, there tends to be more than just a few bits and pieces that are anomalous between our virtual characters and their abilities and the operational physics that should constrain those abilities - Superman anyone?
PARITY: In physics, parity deals with left-right, mirror image, symmetry. Parity is one of a trio of symmetries, the other two being charge (positive and negative) and time. At the most basic of levels, physical forces and their operations aren’t changed just because you could reverse the flow of time; change all relevant charges to their opposite; or you alter left with right.
Theory: In theory, each of the four fundamental forces, gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force should reflect and obey the three symmetries of time, charge and parity.
Observation: The weak nuclear force is asymmetrical with respect to parity (which potentially accounts for why the discrepancy between the amounts of matter versus antimatter in the cosmos).
Conflict: Why is this parity violation by the weak nuclear force the lone exception to the otherwise ironclad rule?
Discussion: Who knows? It’s just one of those cosmic quirks. Perhaps it was just an unintended oversight ‘oops’ on the part of our proposed ETI or a glitch in their software program.
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment