Cosmology: In the Beginning, and Afterwards Too

Gravity rules the cosmos. You can’t come to terms with the origins, evolutions and ultimate fates associated with cosmology or astrophysics without understanding gravity and the theory of relativity. Quantum theory also has to apply to cosmology (and astrophysics) anytime you run across micro phenomena where quantum effects need to be considered and where they apply. Unfortunately, there are circumstances where both gravity and quantum physics need to be simultaneously considered - singularities. Unfortunately gravity and quantum physics aren’t compatible.

The Alpha: In the beginning was the Big Bang event origin of our Universe – 13.7 billion years ago. The origin of the Universe (the Big Bang) was a quantum event because the initial size of our Universe was such that quantum effects dominated. At least that’s what the standard model dictates. It was also a time of extreme gravity, since all the mass of the cosmos was situated at the same time and place. But the relevant and separate equations of relativity and quantum mechanics break down as one approachs such extremes as would of applied at the Big Bang Alpha, giving rise for the necessity of a new theory of quantum gravity in order to come to terms with the Alpha object.

There are two main pillars of modern physics – relativity (part of classical physics) and quantum mechanics or quantum physics. Alas, the two pillars aren’t compatible, and thus, a Holy Grail for physicists is to find a ‘Theory of Everything’ (TOE) that merges the two. Now in the day-to-day life of physicists, a TOE isn’t essential, because relativity deals with the very big (the macro-universe) and quantum mechanics the very small (the micro-universe), and rarely do the twains meet. But, meet the two do in exceptional circumstances. Relativity deals with gravity (in the main), and on quantum scales, gravity is so weak that gravity can safely be ignored. But, there are objects that are very small, yet very dense – that is, tiny objects that have high gravity. There are basically two such objects – the Alpha Big Bang object or singularity and Black Hole singularities, or, to be honest, singularities in general regardless of where or when. And thus, to come to terms with the physics of singularities (immense gravity; micro size), the relativity and quantum worlds need to combine. So, TOE is basically a search for a theory of quantum gravity, and there are various highly complex and theoretical scenarios that fit the bill (though not yet even remotely experimentally confirmed).

Now while theories of everything or theories of quantum gravity are, in the final analysis, necessary (it just doesn’t wash that relativity and quantum mechanics can’t be made compatible – you can’t have two separate software packages governing the overall Universe), it is my opinion that they aren’t necessary to come to terms with singularities, which are usually described as an object of zero (point) dimensions and infinite density.

However, it is my opinion that it is absurd, in the extreme; to even slightly entertain the idea that a (Big Bang or Black Hole) singularity even remotely approaches such limits, far less acquires them. One cannot have a zero (point) dimensional object; one cannot have an object of infinite density. A singularity must have some sort of volume, and must have a finite density, even if the volume is very tiny, and the density is extremely extreme.

The basic logic is that a singularity has a finite volume and finite density. As you add more stuff to the singularity, the volume might remain the same but the density increases. However, as more and more stuff gets added, ultimately the density reaches the maximum possible, and from that point onwards, the volume of the singularity increases, finally increasing beyond the point where quantum mechanics can play any useful role, and gravity alone is the lone player left standing in the game.

Thus, a singularity could be large enough in volume that relativity theory alone can deal with the extreme gravitational conditions. The Big Bang object, containing the mass of the entire Universe, would be (the ultimate as) such a singularity. Massive (Galactic) Black Hole singularities, ditto. Singularities aren’t quantum objects. If you continue to add mass to a Black Hole, it gets bigger; the singularity at the centre gets bigger. To believe otherwise is, IMHO, entering the realm of scientific fantasy.

The upshot off all this is that the Big Bang was not a quantum event, nor would a future Omega Big Crunch be, and likewise, Black Holes are not quantum objects.

The Omega: In the beginning was the Big Bang event origin of our Universe – 13.7 billion years ago. Now what? It’s taken 13.7 billion years to get to ‘now’; what’s the state of play in another 13.7 billion years, or even 137 billion years hence?

What’s the ultimate fate of our Universe? Our Universe is currently expanding post Big Bang – ever increasing in volume like a balloon blowing up and up. Now either our expanding Universe will one day cease to expand as gravity slows things down to a crawl, then a stop, then a reversal – a contracting Universe, or our Universe will keep on expanding forever and ever and a day, ultimately terminating in a Heat Death. A Heat Death is when the temperature of the entire Universe becomes uniform. Everyplace has the same temperature, and that’s going to be cold – as close to absolute zero as makes no odds. Thus the Heat Death is the death of heat. That’s the Universe ending not with a bang (or even a very Big Crunch) but with a whimper. I really don’t like that ending at all.

Assuming that the Universe will ultimately contract into a Big Crunch, what will happen? Well, as one gets ever closer to the Big Crunch, density increases (but will not, can not, become infinite) and temperature increases (but again, not infinitely so) and the volume of space decreases (but will never become infinitely tiny) and time just keeps ticking on. Further, we know there are lots of Black Holes out in the cosmos; both small and massive (such as exists at the centre of our own galaxy). As the Universe contracts, these Black Holes will get closer and closer, not only to each other, but to the rest of non-Black Hole stuff as well. Ultimately, all the non-Black Hole stuff will get sucked into existing Black Holes as the Universe shrinks and matter’s density increases. Of course large Black Holes will also suck in smaller Black Holes, until ultimately, at the time approaching Big Crunch; there will be one ultimate/universal Black Hole left containing all that was.

Then what happens? The conditions inside a Black Hole are still unknown, beyond the equations of current physics, but whatever parameters are present, infinities aren’t among them (which might put me at odds with most astrophysicists). My reasoning is that no matter what, there’s only a finite amount of stuff comprising the universal Black Hole. Squeezed into a tiny area, the density will be extreme, but not infinitely so. The volume will be tiny, but not infinitely so. That is because there is an ultimate limit to how small length (hence volume) can get. The smallest possible length is known as Planck length and anything less than that space ceases to exist. Planck length is 1.6 x 10 to the minus 35 meters. Gravity might be so intense that not even light can escape, but it doesn’t take an infinite amount of gravity to do that. And there can’t be a time equals zero, either at the beginning (Big Bang) or at the end (Big Crunch). Because time exists in discrete quantum units (Planck-Wheeler time units), one must go from a minus one (contracting phase) time unit directly to a plus one (expanding) time unit, as there can be no time unit where time equals zero.  In other words, you go from a Big Crunch directly to a Big Bang, contraction to expansion, endlessly cycling or recycling. Or, the universal Black Hole sucking in all matter and energy (approaching the Big Crunch) turns inside out and becomes a universal White Hole (the Big Bang) spewing out stuff (matter and energy).

That’s sort of akin to having four cars approach an intersection, on each from the north, south, east and west. If each car is one kilometre from the intersection, and each car is travelling at say 50 kilometres per hour, then it is clear this contraction of automobiles will result in a Big Crunch. However, it might be difficult to then go to an automobile expansion as the cars will be a wreck and in no condition to go anywhere! That’s one possibility.

The other possibility is that it might be unrealistic to expect in a contracting Universe that each and every bit and piece will meet at exactly the same point in time and space. Using our car analogy, what if each car was one kilometre away from the intersection, but say the north car was going 46 kilometres per hour, the east car 48 kilometres per hour, the south car 50 kilometres per hour, and the west car 52 kilometres per hour. Then, we can go directly from automobile contraction to automobile expansion as each car passes through the intersection while only having near misses with the other vehicles.

Electron-ness: Why Are All Electrons Identical? Part Three

INTRODUCTION: Individual members of the fundamental or elementary particles are absolutely identical with one another. In a police identification line-up, you couldn’t tell them apart. Why? Rather than go into an exhaustive review of the entire particle zoo, I’ll just hit on the electron and its antimatter mirror twin, the positron.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Perhaps in other parallel universes, ones that have different physics, all electrons (if they have electrons at all) might not be identical. That possibility is akin to asking about numbers of angels dancing on pinheads. There’s just no way of ever knowing since parallel universes are beyond the reach of science as we know it.

But say each member of the particle zoo weren’t identical to every other member in kind – sort of like the family of man (young/old; female/male; short/tall; fat/thin; black, white yellow and red). Say electrons came in a thousand variations of mass and electric charge; ditto the other elementary particles. You’d have a particle jungle. If that were the case, presumably it would prove to be very difficult to create identical atoms of the elements and identical molecular compounds and ultimately it would prove difficult to build up the structure of our Universe as we know it, including us. An analogy might be that it’s far easier to assemble a ten piece jigsaw puzzle and one with a billion pieces. Our particle zoo seems to be a Goldilocks zoo – not too many particles and variations thereof; not to few either (I mean a universe composed of just identical electrons is equally as bad for life as we know it). Of course if that – the Goldilocks particle zoo – weren’t so, we wouldn’t be here to ponder the issue.

Moving on up the chain, assuming all members of the particle zoo are identical then atoms of any particular element must be identical – if you’ve seen one gold atom, you’ve seen them all (though owning them all is quite a different matter). If elements come in different isotopes, then all the specific isotope atoms of that element are identical.

Further moving on up the chain, if identical atoms combine with other different identical atoms, then presumably the resulting molecules will be identical.  While that’s true, it’s only true up to a point, because eventually you can get molecules that while seemingly identical, have handedness. That is, your hands, while identical, aren’t identical because one has a left-handed orientation; the other has a right-handed orientation. That’s the point things start to fall apart or break down.

That apart, macro objects, like golf balls, are composed of millions of atoms and/or molecules. If a golf ball has one more, or one less molecule than another, well the two aren’t identical.

MATHS CONNECTION: Here, there and everywhere, on a flat surface, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; triangles have a sum total 180 degrees; 2 + 2 = 4. In each case, it is so to as many decimal places as you care to calculate. Every 7 is identical to every other 7 – no more and no less. That’s true whether or not one is dealing with base ten, or in binary (base two).

So what’s the connection? All computer generated simulations, in whatever context, for whatever purpose, are ultimately software programs, which in turn are just mathematical constructions. All you see are ultimately expressions of maths, of binary bits, of 0’s and 1’s, something on or off. So if you simulate some object using binary software programming, and you create another object using the exact same binary software coding, then those two virtual objects are identical. Now, call what you have simulated, ‘electrons’. So if all electrons are identical, maybe it’s because they are mathematical constructions – the end products of computer software/programming.

In simulations, virtual objects can interact with other virtual objects (more mathematical wizardry). Change happens. Well, that’s what we observe in our reality too. The question is, is our reality really real reality, or simulated reality? Are our electrons identical because each is the product of an identical piece of binary software programming? That may not ultimately be the answer, but it’s an answer. Electrons are the same since they are all constructed from the same mathematical whole cloth of binary bits – of 0’s and 1’s. 

DISCUSSION: One may argue that there are indeed differences between electrons (and positrons), we just haven’t measured to enough decimal places yet. While that might be true, I personally wouldn’t want to bet on it.

CONCLUSION: I started out with the question of why all electrons are identical. The answer is, I don’t know and neither, I suspect does anyone else. However, the foundation of physics (itself the foundation for the other sciences) is grounded in maths, and maths, as noted above, has no problem with the concept. All identical equations yield identical results; the ‘equals’ sign itself demands identicalness. Perhaps maths has more fundamental ‘reality’ than anyone has given it credit for. That’s certainly the case if we should happen to be inhabiting a software generated, simulated Universe

Electron-ness: Why Are All Electrons Identical? Part Two

INTRODUCTION: Individual members of the fundamental or elementary particles are absolutely identical with one another. In a police identification line-up, you couldn’t tell them apart. Why? Rather than go into an exhaustive review of the entire particle zoo, I’ll just hit on the electron and its antimatter mirror twin, the positron.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

There is no violation of physical laws at the micro level in travelling through time (apart from going forward at a rate of one second per second which we do whether we like it or not), no exact causality mechanism has been proposed to explain how and why an elementary particle shifts gear into time reverse (or forward again). But, this is interesting, this time travel bit, so let’s explore it in some greater detail.

I’ll poor water on this fire at the outset by stating that time is but an illusion. Time doesn’t exist; therefore time travel** isn’t possible. Time is but a label and has no more reality than the label ‘Wednesday’. We just arbitrarily call every 7^th ‘day’ Wednesday, but you can no more hold Wednesday in your hands and you can time. Time has no independent reality. You can’t assign any physical properties to the concept. I mean time isn’t a solid, it isn’t a liquid, and it isn’t a gas. Time has no size, weight, colour, texture, density, it doesn’t vibrate or have a wavelength, ditto no odour or flavour, it has no temperature or pressure, it doesn’t consist of any known combination of known forces and/or elementary particles, it corresponds to no known element or compound. You can’t pour time into a bottle and store it; you can’t confine time in a force field or in a prison cell or trap it on a piece of sticky fly paper. Therefore, if time has no substance, one can not actually travel through time. Our sole electron (or positron) isn’t going anywhere – in time at least.

What we perceive as ‘time’ is nothing but change – change in our environment; in our natural world; in our mechanical devices; and even in ourselves and associated companions (animal and human). Repeat – time is but an illusion. Change is real since it involves forces and particles; energy and matter, the sorts of things that when you kick them, they kick back. We measure ‘time’ by the rate things change; rate of change is what we call ‘time’. Repeat - it’s the change (in something) that is real. 

Now on the macro scale, that is scales we interact with on a day-to-day basis, change appears to all intents and purposes to go one way (usually from a state or high order to a state of disorder) and so we view time as flowing from past to present to future – in one direction; order to disorder – past to present to future. But change in just one direction (order to disorder – past to present to future) is ultimately a function of numbers and probability. The simple illustration is to introduce a drop of ink into a bowl of water. That’s a high order situation. Now left to itself, there will be a change. The ink will disperse throughout the bowl of water. That’s a state of disorder. If a disordered uniform mix of ink and water separated all by itself into a drop of pure ink and a bowl of pure water (high order), that too is change, but we would interpret or view such an event as going backwards in time. If you viewed such a happening on film, you’d immediately conclude the film was being run backwards.

There’s a far greater probability for individual ink particles to spread out throughout a large volume than to come together in a small space. There’s lots of pathways to spread out; far fewer pathways to come together. But at the micro level, the level at which those individual ink particles do their thing, they don’t care where in the bowl of water they are. They are just as ‘happy’ to be all together as a drop of ink, as dispersed and diluted. If they do come together as a drop of ink from a dispersed/diluted state, that’s statistically unlikely, but such an event violates no laws of physics. It would be going from a state of maximum disorder to a highly ordered state; or, from an apparent future to present to past ordering. Such a change would appear for all practical purposes as apparent time travel – going backwards in time.

The catch – there’s always a catch – is while all those ink particles are defying statistical probability and undergoing apparent time-reversal, the rest of the cosmos is acting in a statistically normal way – going forward in ‘time’. So, perhaps we have a Universe where for 99.9999% of the time, 99.9999% of events within the Universe march to the beat of the standard past – present – future ordering of things. That is, in terms of change happening in a statistically probable way. While now and again tiny pockets of the Universe reverse direction, they do so at least just temporarily.  One can only defy statistically probability for only so long. So the ink particles come back together again as a drop of ink within a bowl of water – then what? They no doubt reverse direction again and proceed normally.

An analogy might be that while some individuals are winners while playing the slot machines (high order), the club still rakes in the profits from the vastly greater majority of (disordered) losers, and that no doubt the few highly ordered winners will eventually descend into a state of disorder and contribute ultimately to the club’s profit margin! It’s more statistically likely for a winner to become a loser than for a loser to become a winner.

Back to electrons, on average, any given electron has a very high probability of participating in a changing set of circumstances consistent with statistically probability. That is, the electron is moving forward in ‘time’. But if in those rare (loser to winner) occasions the changing set of circumstances goes against the grain of statistically probability, then we would view that electron as moving backwards in ‘time’. But there ultimately is no backwards or forwards in time, just change which statistically goes or moves in one general direction (order to disorder), but which can now and again, and briefly, go the reverse direction (disorder to order).

To belabour the point, what we call the past is change which has already happened; the present is change which is happening; the future is change that will happen.

The question remains, can you revisit and experience a past event? Can there be an instant (or not so instant) replay? Take the example of the now dispersed ink in the bowl of water. If all the ink bits (particles) were to exactly retrace their movements (that’s just so highly improbable that you’d wait longer than the age of our Universe to actually see it), they would eventually come together as an ink drop. If they now retrace those retraced movements (ditto on the statistical improbability) you get back to the exact same configuration of dispersed ink bits in the bowl of water. You will have witnessed an instant (or not so instant) replay of a past event. You would have in a sense travelled back in time to record an event that had already happened. Of course you would have ‘time’ travelled with respect to that specific event and only that event.

Ah, that word ‘record’. Of course you could have filmed the original ink drop to dispersed ink event then watched the film at a later date, but that’s cheating a bit, don’t you think?

Okay, all that was an aside – back to the original question, why are all electrons identical? Or not, as the case may be.

To be continued…

**Assuming for a moment that time is actually something tangible and that travel through it is possible (that’s in agreement with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity). That aside, I’d maintain that travel backwards in time is probably nonsense.

If you go back in time with a view to either preventing something from happening or inaugurating something and you succeed, then when you return to your own present time the original motive to go back in time in the first place has ceased to exist. That’s because in your now altered present, there’s nothing motivating you to go back in time and so you don’t, but if you don’t then you couldn’t have changed the past in the first place. That actually suggests that your actions have split the Universe and generated two timelines (or universes), one in which you go back to fix something, and one in which you don’t because there’s nothing that needs fixing.

If you don’t succeed, if you can’t tamper with the past (akin to Stephen Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture) then it’s all an exercise in futility and so there’s no point being a damn fool about it. If at first you don’t succeed, give up!

If you go back in time just to observe (as historian, scientist or even tourist), your very presence in the past has introduced a change that didn’t previously exist, and any change has a ripple effect which will change, even if only slightly, your own present, in you’re your before-the-fact time travelling present was different to your after-the-fact time travelling present, which could, as we’ll see, generate a paradox. You may not care about the alteration, but other people may not be so happy and laid back with your inadvertent meddling.

But wait a second. Those other people probably wouldn’t know or be aware that anything had altered. Having reset the clock when you went back in time, the ripples would have become part and parcel of their world view, so only you, upon your return (having bypassed all the rippling) would notice the change.

But what if you go back in time only to materialize in front of a speeding train and are killed. Of course that doesn’t affect your ancestors so presumably they still meet and marry and breed and ultimately your born – again – only to go back in time and get hit by that train!  

Or, you materialize back in time and so startling someone of that era into failing to notice that train and gets killed. Now say that someone was your father-to-be; your father before he met your mother. Now you have two universes – timelines – again. One timeline is where you went back in time and presumably returned; one in which you were never born.

Here’s another time travelling curve ball coming your way. You have a set of coordinates with respect to Planet Earth – latitude, longitude, and altitude. But you also have a set of coordinates with respect to the Moon – lunar latitude, longitude and altitude. You have a set of coordinates with respect to the Sun (solar latitude, longitude and altitude). Ditto Mars, and ditto the nearest star and ditto the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy, etc. In fact, although they change from moment because of relative motions of all the bodies concerned (that also applies to you and Planet Earth since you move around), you have a set of coordinates with respect to every bit of matter in the Universe. The question is, when you time travel, what set of coordinates do you take with you? Where exactly do you end up? It’s taken for granted in works of fiction that its Earth’s coordinates, but is it necessarily so? What if you retain your exact position (relative to where exactly is a mystery) but travel in time. Then presumably when you materialize else-when, the Earth will have moved far away, and there you are flailing around in empty space, breathing a deep vacuum!

So we see that while time travel stories are a staple of the sci-fi authors’ bag-of-tricks – they stir up those little grey cells – there doesn’t appear to be much chance of time travel in any physical reality we know of. Time travel is only a reality in the imagination. We in fact have a version of the Fermi Paradox here. While that referred to aliens knocking on our collective doors, if time travel were possible, then where are all those time travelling tourists from our future?

Electron-ness: Why Are All Electrons Identical? Part One

INTRODUCTION: Individual members of the fundamental or elementary particles are absolutely identical* with one another. In a police identification line-up, you couldn’t tell them apart. Why? Rather than go into an exhaustive review of the entire particle zoo, I’ll just hit on the electron and its antimatter mirror twin, the positron.

BEGINNINGS: Go to your local store and buy several items of the same product – say a package of three golf balls. Though the golf balls appear identical, closer examination will reveal ever so slight differences. One ball maybe fractionally larger; another ever so slightly less spherical; perhaps the third is ever so slightly lighter. The generality that extends from this is that any two seemingly identical products will have nevertheless slight variations in their properties.

Now buy a packet of three electrons (or their antimatter equivalent, the positron). Each electron, or positron, will be identical in size, mass and electric charge to as many decimal places as you care to measure. All electrons (and positrons) are 100% absolutely identical clones.

Take one electron and one positron and bring them together. They annihilate releasing a fixed amount of energy. Take another electron and another positron and repeat the scenario. The pair will annihilate releasing an identical amount of energy in the process. The amount of energy released in each electron-positron annihilation case is the same, to as many decimal places as you can measure. That’s quite unlike taking a match from a box of matches, striking same and releasing its stored chemical energy as heat energy. Another match from the same box wouldn’t release, to as many decimal places as you care to measure, the absolutely identical amount of heat energy.

WHY IS THIS SO? #1: How come identical golf balls aren’t but identical electrons (or positrons) are?

Electrons (or positrons), having mass, can be created from energy (just like mass can be converted to energy as in the case of the electron-positron annihilation process). You (human intelligence) can’t create identical golf balls, but a seemingly non-intelligent natural process (Mother Nature by any other name) can create or produce copies of a fundamental particle, like an electron (or positron), that are clones of one another down to the nittiest-grittiest detail.

Even with quantum mechanics in force, you’d think energy could create or be converted into an electron with twice the standard electron mass or twice the electric charge, or thrice even. But no. You see one electron you’ve seen them all – every electron that is, was or will be, anywhere, everywhere, anytime, every time in our Universe.  Electrons, like Black Holes, have no hair. That means they have no individual personality. In fact Black Holes can be said to have some fuzz because they can and do differ in terms of size, mass and electric charge. Electrons have the exact same size, mass and electric charge, so absolutely no hair!  Relative to Black Holes, electrons (and positrons) are absolutely bald!

Invoking all things quantum is still a bit of a copout in that while quantum means things are this or that, one unit or two, one energy level or two energy levels, there’s no explanation as to why it’s only one or two, not one & a half. It just is, but why remains a mystery.

SO, WHY IS IT SO? #2: Why are all electrons (and positrons) identical?

1) Of course THE copout answer is that that’s just the way God wanted it and no correspondence will be entered into regarding the matter.

Unfortunately, there is no real evidence for the existence of any deity past and/or present that stands up to any detailed scrutiny.

2) One could resort to an explanation via string theory merged with quantum physics. String theory just replaces elementary particles as little billiard balls for elementary little bits of string (albeit not string as we know it). Now maybe, as in all things quantum, these strings can be one unit in length, or two units, or three units, or four units, etc. Any positive whole number multiple of one string length is okay.  Now say that a two length unit of string is an electron. A two unit length of anti-string is therefore a positron.

Or, one can suggest that strings vibrate and can only vibrate at specific frequencies as any musician playing a stringed instrument knows. So, a string vibrating at one allowed frequency is an electron; if it vibrates at another allowable frequency maybe that’s a proton or a neutron. Again, a vibrating anti-matter string would produce manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron being dependent upon one of the allowable vibrating frequencies.

Of the two possibilities, it’s the vibration rate theory that’s preferred. All strings are of the same fundamental length – their rate of vibration can differ, but at precise intervals. What causes strings to vibrate at the rate they do, and how they can change rates of vibration (morph from one kind of particle into others) are questions better left for another time.

Unfortunately, string theory has no credibility in terms of any actual experimental evidence, and, to add insult to injury, it requires the postulation of ten to eleven dimensions in order to fit the pieces together. If string theory gets some experimental runs on the board then, and only then, will it be time to take strings seriously.

3) Well, one other possible explanation is that all electrons are absolutely identical because there is only one electron in actual existence. If you see the same object twice, thrice of a zillion times over, then it’s the same object and the fact that it is consistently identical is not a great mystery. But how can the Universe contain only one electron? That seems to be the least obvious statement anyone could ever make – the statement of a total wacko.

Well, one explanation goes something like this. Our one electron has zipped back and forth between the Alpha and Omega points again, and again, and again. Now multiply ‘again’ by zillions upon zillions upon zillions of times. When you take a cross section at any ‘now’ point in time between the Alpha and the Omega, there will be zillions upon zillions upon zillions of electrons visible ‘now’. Simple, isn’t it?

Unfortunately, while there is no violation of physical laws at the micro level in travelling through time (apart from going forward at a rate of one second per second which we do whether we like it or not), no exact causality mechanism has been proposed to explain how and why an elementary particle shifts gear into time reverse (or forward again). But, this is interesting, this time travel bit, so let’s explore it in some greater detail.

To be continued…

*The concept of identicalness can bring us into some weird scientific and philosophical territory. Two people examining the same object will not agree to the Nth degree that the object under consideration is the exact same object, an identical object, when compared from each person’s perspective. Perception is ultimately a function of brain chemistry and no two people have the exact same brain chemistry due to various factors like genetics, age, physiology, disease, fatigue, and/or intakes of various solid, liquid and gaseous elements and compounds that directly affect brain chemistry. The differences may be really tiny and nitpicky but nevertheless present. To take another case, if three court stenographers all record and transcribe a days worth of testimony, no doubt there will be (ever so) slight differences in the final three versions.

Even the same person experiencing the same object or event a second, third, etc. time – say watching a film again or listening to a CD track again, won’t have identical experiences, again due to the internal brain chemistry being slightly different on each occasion. That’s apart from the fact that external influences like temperature, humidity, pressure, and general wear and tear (entropy) all affect that object or event and the environment between that object/event and the person experiencing the object/event. Those external factors also change from moment to moment.  

People though tend to agree (brain chemistry not withstanding) on what an independent umpire says about an object or event – the independent umpire being an instrument or measuring device. Instruments are of course also subject to external influences, but aren’t affected by brain chemistry – they have no brains!

Measurements tend to be numerical, and numbers are pretty straight forward. However, all measurements are subject to some uncertainty or error margins, especially analogue devices like a ruler – is it 1.510 cm or 1.511 cm or 1.509 cm? Or a thermometer – is it reading 31.37 degrees or 31.38 degrees or 31.36 degrees? Or take a standard watch or clock – is it 12:00:00 or 12:00:01 or 11:59:59?

Digital instruments however have readouts that have a finite number of places in which to display the result, so they don’t tend to give you a plus or minus uncertainty error bar. A digital instrument will readout that the length IS 1.510 cm; the temperature IS 31.37 degrees; the time IS 12:00:00, and everyone looking at the readout will agree.   

In the case of an electron, the independent umpire gives the same numerical results for each electron it measures. Of course there are still error bars, but with each further decimal place reached, identicalness holds and the error bars get less and less.

Cosmology: The State of the Universe: Further Readings

COSMOLOGY: THE STATE OF THE UNIVERSE: FURTHER READINGS

Barrow, John D.; The Book of Universes; The Bodley Head, London; 2011:

Burbidge, Geoffrey & Narlikar, Jayant V.; Facts and Speculations in Cosmology; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2008:

Carr, Bernard (Editor); Universe or Multiverse?; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2007:

Chown, Marcus; Afterglow of Creation: Decoding the Message from the Beginning of Time; Faber and Faber, London; Revised Edition 2010:

Chown, Marcus; The Never-Ending Days of Being Dead: Dispatches from the Frontline of Science; Faber and Faber, London; 2007:

Clegg, Brian; Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe; St. Martin’s Press, New York; 2009:

Davidson, Keay & Smoot, George; Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of Creation; Little, Brown and Company, London; 1993:

Davies, Paul; The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?;

Allen Lane, London

; 2006:

Gilmore, Robert; Once Upon A Universe: Not-So-Grimm Tales of Cosmology; Copernicus Books, New York; 2003:

Goldsmith, Donald; The Runaway Universe: The Race to Find the Future of the Cosmos; Basic Books, New York; 2000.

Gribbin, John; In Search of the Multiverse;

Allen Lane, London

; 2009:

Guth, Alan H.; The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for A New Theory of Cosmic Origins; Vintage, London; 1998:

Hawking, Stephen; A Brief History of Time; Bantam Books, New York; 2^nd Edition; 1996:

Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard; A Briefer History of Time; Bantam Press, London; 2005:

Hooper, Dan; Dark Cosmos: In Search of Our Universe’s Missing Mass and Energy; Smithsonian Books, New York; 2006:

Kaku, Michio; Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos; Penguin Books, London; 2005:

Krauss, Lawrence M.; Quintessence: The Mystery of Missing Mass in the Universe; Vintage, London; 2001:

Lemonick, Michael D.; Echo of the Big Bang; Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey; 2003:

Lemonick, Michael D.; The Light at the Edge of the Universe: Leading Cosmologists on the Brink of a Scientific Revolution; Villard Books, New York; 1993:

Leslie, John (Editor); Modern Cosmology & Philosophy; Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York; 1998:

Liddle, Andrew & Loveday, Jon; The Oxford Companion to Cosmology; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2008:

Manly, Steven; Visions of the Multiverse; New Page Books, Pompton Plains, New Jersey; 2011:

Moring, Gary F.; The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Theories of the Universe; Alpha Books, New York; 2002:

Panek, Richard; The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality; Oneworld, Oxford; 2011:

Rees, Martin; Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others; Free Press, London; 2002:

Silk, Joseph; On the Shores of the Unknown: A Short History of the Universe; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2005:

Silk, Joseph; The Infinite Cosmos: Questions from the Frontiers of Cosmology; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2006:

Singh, Simon; Big Bang: The Most Important Scientific Discovery of All Time and Why You Need to Know About It; Harper Perennial, London; 2005:

Smolin, Lee; The Life of the Cosmos; Oxford University Press, New York; 1997:

Steinhardt, Paul J. & Turok, Neil; Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang; Phoenix, London; 2008:

Vilenkin, Alex; Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes; Hill & Wang, New York; 2006:

Cosmology: The State of the Universe

The answer to life, the Universe and everything isn’t really “42”. Okay, so here are the real answers (well, my answers anyway) to life, the Universe and everything cosmic!  Over the past 2000+ years, three undeniable trends have emerged in our on-going studies of life, the Universe and everything. It’s probably worth while keeping these in mind when pondering the cosmos and what future discoveries are likely to reveal.

Firstly, our place in the central scheme of things has gone from be-all-and-end-all uniqueness, a unique life form created in God’s image, the cream of all there is and ever will be, to, well, just another life form in the Darwinian scheme of things. Detection of extraterrestrial life, especially extraterrestrial intelligence will be the final straw (nail) in that scenario (coffin).

Secondly, we’ve shrunk in potential significance because the size of the Universe keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger as instrumentation and observations get better and better. We’ve become displaced as well. Earth is no longer all there is (the be-all-and-end-all of real estate) and the centre of everything (we’ve been moved from the CBD to the boonies several times over) as well. We’re not located at the centre of things and as our visions of the size of the Universe has ever increased over time, will there ever be an end to it?

Thirdly, cosmological common sense has decreased, given way to weirdness. Or, depending on your point of view (POV), weirdness has increased over time in all things cosmological. The well ordered and common sense cosmology of Genesis or the ancient Greeks was pretty straight forward.  Even up through the life and times of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Brahe and Newton that was still pretty much the case, albeit with the invention of the telescope things did get a little weirder (and more unsettling) with respect to Genesis (and the Church) and the ancient Greeks (and other ancient societies like the Chinese). Then, ever accelerating, the weirdness quotient, the scientific fertilizer, really hit the fan! In fairly short order, uncommon sense descriptions of the cosmos and the stuff in it. Concepts like relativity, space-time, quantum mechanics, black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, antimatter, atomic structure, and string/superstring theory. Nothing made much common sense anymore. I suspect that’s a trend that’s also likely to continue. In fact, you can probably bet on it.

Now on to the Big Questions (and little answers):

Q: Did God or Nature Create the Universe or Multiverse?

A:  Here I opt for nature. If God can create one universe, God can create more than one universe (but what would be the point of doing so?).  If nature can create one universe, then nature can create more than one universe. Since nature isn’t intelligent, creation of multi-universes (the Multiverse) is more like to be a natural than a supernatural event. That is, it’s probably illogical to create more than one universe where one will do – so that eliminates the God hypothesis since we assume that a God would be logical. Nature however tends to be prolific. Since nature, that is the laws of physics as we understand them, can adequately explain the creation of a universe(s), there is no need to appeal to a supernatural being or higher authority or universal designer, or whatever.

Q: Is There A Universe or A Multiverse?

A: Here I opt for the Multiverse. But the background to the Multiverse, that which contains the Multiverse, is something I call the “Superverse”. There is, always has been and always will be a super vast expanse (call it the all being “Superverse”) of nothing – that is, the vacuum (lowest possible) energy (state) which seethes with quantum activity and pervades everything. That’s the bottom line. I don’t know how big the Superverse of vacuum energy is, maybe it’s infinite (but cosmologists, physicists and I too like to steer clear of the can-of-worms that is infinity), but when I consider the following progression, logic suggests ‘pretty damn big’. Just as an atomic nucleus is tiny relative to an atom; an atom is tiny relative to you; you are tiny relative to Planet Earth; Planet Earth is tiny relative to our solar system; the solar system is tiny relative to the Milky Way Galaxy; our galaxy is tiny relative to the super-cluster of galaxies of which it is a part; our super-cluster of galaxies is tiny relative to the observable universe. That’s as far as knowledge can take us, but if the progression continues, then our observable universe will be tiny relative to our Universe; our Universe is tiny compared to the Multiverse, all of which resides with the Superverse energy vacuum!

Q: What is the Origin and Fate of Our Universe? Is the Universe Open or Closed? Will There Be A Heat Death or A Big Crunch? How Can A Universe Be Created?

A: I opt for death by Big Crunch despite all the evidence currently against it! I reason as follows – we know matter can create energy. The reverse is also possible – energy can create matter. That’s because, as per Einstein’s famous equation, matter and energy are opposite sides of the same coin. And thus the all pervasive, all surrounding, vacuum energy, seething with quantum uncertainty (albeit certain quantum activity), will now and again produce particles, thus reducing the overall energy of the vacuum. This energy debt must eventually be repaid, so said particles usually decay (annihilate actually) back into pure energy and rejoin the vacuum pretty quick-smart.  But, it’s possible that those particles, could, by chance, evolve into an entire universe. Particles, if they exist long enough, will be subjected to all manner of quantum effects and thus evolve into a universe instead of being immediately reabsorbed back into the energy vacuum. The energy debt however still must be eventually repaid, but who’s to say how quickly that is required? So, ultimately, in order to repay that energy debt, our Universe will need to ultimately collapse (undergo Big Crunch) back into the Superverse energy vacuum from which it originally came and pay the energy debt. The Universe (our Universe) begins and ends as pure energy – energy borrowed from the vacuum; energy returned to the vacuum. How exactly that Big Crunch is going to come about I know not, I’m just convinced it will happen.

So, why aren’t new universes being created from scratch in our backyards (where the energy vacuum holds sway as it does everywhere)? Because, for any given tiny area (like your backyard), under the relatively low probabilities of the exact circumstances coming together just so, it’s going to take trillions of years for it to happen. But, given the vast acreage of the Superverse, new universes probably pop into (and out of) existence on a fairly regular basis. It’s like you are fairly unlikely to have a meteor land in your backyard tomorrow, but somewhere tomorrow a meteor is likely to hit our planet. 

Now, what if the vacuum energy (Superverse) can not produce a universe? Well, the next best (second) option I suggest is the black hole as a universal motherhood idea. That is, the extreme conditions that produce a black hole in one universe ends up producing a new universe in a different place (obviously), maybe in a different time. Our black hole connects us to that new universe, but no physicist would advise you to make the trip! At least this origin-of-a-baby-universe doesn’t rely on a Big Crunch ending.

The third best option is the Big Crunch of one universe producing the Big Bang of the next, but from observations, the prospect of a Big Crunch is dicey at best. But, I like to give the prospect of a Big Crunch the benefit of the doubt. Further, there’s nothing to say that option two, black holes, couldn’t produce a baby universe that would end up cyclic – Big Bang – expansion – contraction – Big Crunch – Big Bang, etc.  Reproduction and reincarnation!

Lastly, albeit unlikely in the extreme yet I’ve sure sci-fi writers have a ball with this idea, is that advanced E.T. could manufacture a universe using the laws of physics, especially quantum physics, to do so. If nature can manufacture a universe, could not intelligence also manufacture a universe? Call it the mother of all engineering achievements. Now this differs from God creating universes, in that presumably God knows He/She/It can do so and knows the outcome to the Nth degree, but to E.T., this is just a scientific experiment. Whether an E.T. created universe would take on a life and evolution of its own, who knows? Now you’d think that creating a rapidly expanding universe in the laboratory would end up destroying said lab and surroundings. Of course maybe the physics of baby universe creation dictates that the universe forms elsewhere and/or elsewhen! One other scenario is that once universe creation becomes so routine as to end up being part and parcel of the science lab curricula at E.T. Junior High School, then it’s going to be universes galore – maybe that why we have a Multiverse!

Q: Does Our Universe or Multiverse Have an Existence that’s Finite or Infinite in Time?

A: The philosophical answer here is ‘infinite’. One can never get away from the question “Well that’s fine, but what happened before that?” Even if our specific Universe had a beginning, there was a before the Big Bang that extends the timeline back, and back, and back. If our Universe continues to expand forever, well forever equals infinity. If our Universe ends in a Big Crunch that kick-starts off the existence of another universe, then the timeline of the cosmos continues onward, ever onward.

Q: To Quantum or Not to Quantum the Big Bang?

A: Here I opt for the Big Bang as a non-quantum event. I just can’t figure out how you can cram the entire contents of our Universe into a space smaller than an atom at the point of origin. In any event, if the point of origin of the Big Bang were a singularity, then because singularities can’t have zero dimensions and infinite density – that just makes no sense at all – then said singularity could have been large enough to exceed the volumes commonly associated with quantum physics.

Q: Are the Laws of Physics the Same or Different in Various Universes?

A:  The answer here is unknown and probably unknowable. However, I suspect that there is only one type of physics possible – as Einstein is quoted, ‘did God have any choice in the matter?’ – or maybe not. Anyway, my reasoning is that assuming that all universes arise from a common cause, say the Superverse vacuum energy or via Lee Smolin’s black holes as universe generators, or the budding off of universes via chaotic/eternal inflation, with no evidence to the contrary, it’s probably more logical to suspect that only one type of physics exists, and each universe will be the same – physics wise.  But, what if you introduce extraterrestrial intelligence into the picture? Maybe, just maybe, intelligence advanced enough to create universes, may be intelligent enough to tweak the laws of physics and alter them. That certainly would be easy enough to do if you created computer software that simulated universes, each software package having different physics programmed in! So, maybe it’s just as well to fence sit on this issue. 

Q: Is our Universe (Hence Ourselves) Really Real or Simulated?

A: The odds overwhelmingly favor our reality as being a simulated one. If that could be proved, it would also be likely proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. If all terrestrial life is simulated, who else is left to simulate us but extraterrestrials? I just bet we’re some alien’s Ph D thesis. The possibility of course exists that humans from what we would term the future have simulated us and the running simulation has only reached a simulated early 21^st Century. Of course this is a fairly unpalatable theory, so I’ll just conclude here that the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of my being wrong. 

Don’t Beam Me Down, Scotty!

‘Beaming’, the near instantaneously conversion and transport of matter to energy and back to matter again is a staple of science fiction. Beaming technology is used extensively in “Star Trek”, but also for example in the TV series “Stargate: SG-1” as well, and no doubt in other sci-fi shows, films and novels. While obviously an extremely useful device in speeding up the action (just like faster-than-light warp drives and related), is it possible or is this just pure Hollywood sleight of hand? Alas, I find all sorts of problems with the physics, even the philosophy of this “Beam me down, Scotty” scenario.

OVERVIEW: Dr. Leonard H. (“Bones”) McCoy, late of the USS Enterprise (NCC 1701), always had an aversion to having his atoms converted to energy hence scrambled to the four winds while awaiting beam-down on the transporter pad in the USS Enterprise’s Transporter Room – not that he lacked faith in beam-down officer Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott (“Scotty”) – rather his gut feelings told him this ways and means of transport was somehow unnatural and somewhat dangerous. McCoy’s feels were more spot-on than even he could have ever realised. 

Physics Problem Number One: One common nightmare faced by those being subjected to having their atoms scattered to the four winds only to be reassembled elsewhere, an everyday scenario faced by cast and crew of the Starship Enterprise, is that elsewhere might be smack dab into a ‘solid’ structure. You wouldn’t want to be rematerialised inside a brick wall; it would sort of ruin your day.  However, being beamed down into an atmosphere is still being beamed into stuff, less dense than a brick wall admittedly, but still stuff. You’re being reassembled not in a vacuum but inside (atmospheric) stuff and non-you stuff is being incorporated into you as you rematerialise. At the minimum you’ll get a sort of bloated feeling.

DIRECT MATTER TRANSFER: Before considering the conversion of matter to energy and back to matter, which is what the “Star Trek” transporter technology does, what about the more direct matter transfer approach, the sort that we tend to do when we want to go from Point A to Point B? Can be somehow ‘beam’ matter (like you) directly to your destination without means of some sort of conveyance vehicle, like an automobile or a shuttlecraft? Of course you have to be taken apart first if you’re going to be beamed elsewhere.

Physics Problem Number Two: When you get disassembled, you’re taken apart, not just anatomical organ by organ, or tissue by tissue, or even cell by cell; not even molecule by molecule or atom by atom, but fundamental particle by fundamental particle. You’re stripped down to all those electrons and quarks that comprise you. Since a trio of quarks make up individual neutrons and protons, quarks are fundamental particles but protons and neutrons are not. Protons and neutrons are just composite particles, and therefore not fundamental or elementary.

Alas, this leads to a problem. You cannot separate out and isolate individual quarks because of the strong nuclear force. It’s those strong nuclear force gluons that corral the trio of quarks into one location thus making up your basic neutron or proton. You see, unlike the electromagnetic force or the force of gravity which gets weaker with increasing distance, the strong nuclear force gets stronger with increasing distance. The more you try to pull the trio of quarks apart, the more they resist that pull. It’s like a rubber band. If there’s no pull, the rubber band is in a relaxed state. But as you increase the pull, the rubber band gets increasingly uptight and pulls back with an equal and opposite force. Translated, nobody has ever been able to isolate one individual quark. So, you cannot pull apart a proton or a neutron – however an isolated neutron will ‘decay’ in about 15 minutes into an electron, a proton and an antineutrino, but the quarks are now in the newly created proton.   

Now what if all that’s a tad too complicated or downright impossible? Then at what level in the hierarchy does Captain Kirk or Mr. Spock get disassembled? It has to be below cellular level since not even cells could be transmitted through seemingly ‘solid’ matter like the hull of the Enterprise itself. In fact, not even 100% of molecules; atoms; or even electrons, neutrons and protons will make it through the hull right on down to the surface, but I’m easy here for this is just a ‘what if’ thought experiment – so, let’s go with molecules; or atoms; or the trilogy of electrons, neutrons and protons. 

Physics Problem Number Three: If you beam out the fundamental bits (quarks and electrons); or the trilogy of electrons, neutrons and protons; or atoms; or molecules, well then you have differing masses. Quarks and electrons have different masses; electrons, protons and neutrons have different masses; an oxygen atom has a different mass from a carbon atom, etc.; and of course you are comprised of hundreds of different types of molecules, each with a unique mass. A protein molecule is much heaver than a water molecule for example. So why is this some sort of problem? Because, if all these bits with different masses are subjected to the same amount of “energise” oomph, they will arrive at their destination, at the same place, but at different times. If you kick a bowing ball and a billiard ball with the same force, the billiard ball at point-of-kick will arrive at point-of-destination faster than the bowling ball. That sort of problem is going to raise all sorts of havoc when it comes time for Captain Kirk to be reassembled!

MATTER TO ENERGY BACK TO MATTER TRANSFER: This is the approach actually used in various sci-fi beaming scenarios. You convert your matter stuff to energy stuff (photons) then reassemble the energy stuff back into the original matter stuff. Does that work or are there more difficulties? Well, IMHO, while it’s ‘easy’ to convert mass into pure energy, it’s no small matter to freeze that pure energy back into mass.

Physics Problem Number Four: If you can’t beam out particles or atoms, etc. with differing masses without screwing things up, then perhaps all those bits and pieces of mass can be converted to bits and pieces of pure energy, as per Einstein’s most famous of equations that equates mass with energy and vice versa. Converting a bit of mass into energy is routine – the atomic bomb, a flashlight, a laser, even lighting a match converts some mass into energy. This sort of approach seems to be in sync with the Star Trek beam-me-down command, “energise”.

If all the matter bits and pieces were converted to say electromagnetic energy or radiation (photons) that moved at light speed, then all and sundry bits and pieces of you would start off at Point A and arrive at Point B at the exact same time. But, and there’s always a but, you need to convert ALL of the mass you wish to transport into energy. Alas, to convert pure matter into pure energy with 100% efficiency requires the annihilation of equal amounts of matter and antimatter. None of our “beam me down” characters are composed of any amount of antimatter, nor is the “beam me down” technology equated with turning Captain Kirk into pure energy by irradiating said Captain with an equal but opposite (anti) amount of matter – or antimatter. And how does one then convert that pure energy back into matter Captain Kirk and not into say antimatter Captain Kirk or for that matter any other form of matter or antimatter?

Physics Problem Number Five: You’ve got a really Big Problem in reversing the matter to energy scenario. You can convert some tiny bit of mass into energy, but can you convert that energy back into that original bit of matter? Turn on your flashlight. A tiny bit of matter that makes up that flashlight (well the matter in the batteries and/or the glowing filament in the bulb) is converted to the radiant energy that is the flashlight’s light beam (photons). Now, can you gather up the light (those photons), ‘freeze’ them and thus recover that tiny bit of lost flashlight mass? Good luck and let me know if you succeed! 

Physics Problem Number Six:  If those unfortunate to be “energised” and have their ‘you’ bits and pieces beamed from Point A to Point B, there’s always the possibility, in fact a rather high probability, that some of those energetic bits and pieces (photons) are going to interact physically / chemically with some other non-you bits and pieces before they reach their intended destination, say a planet’s surface. Thus, when you rematerialise on some alien planet’s surface, some of your bits and pieces won’t be there! That sort of argument applies equally if it’s just your molecules; atoms; or that trilogy of electrons, neutron and protons that are beamed on their way. 

YOU HAVE A DEATH WISH! Beaming technology is a rather unique way of (temporarily) killing someone, or committing suicide!

Physics Problem Number Seven: If you are separated into your billions of fundamental, or even composite bits and pieces, ‘you’ could hardly be said to be still alive. That’s true whether I disassemble you into bits and pieces of matter or convert you to pure photonic energy! If you are disassembled in the Transporter Room of the USS Enterprise, beamed down and reassembled on the alien planet’s surface, then you have in fact died on the transporter pad, only in this case to be resurrected at planetary Ground Zero! But your brief ‘death’ is just the start of your problems. Quantum physics, often dominated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, means that you’re never reassembled back to the exact same configuration or specifications that your were in prior to being disassembled. The Transporter Room ‘you’ and the ‘you’ on the alien planet’s surface are not the same ‘you’. You haven’t been so much reassembled as imperfectly reconstructed. Your ‘death’ and your new identity raise all sorts of interesting philosophical, metaphysical and even ethical questions!

Physics Problem Number Eight: As related in Physics Problem Number Seven, if I separated you into your billions of fundamental, or even composite bits and pieces, ‘you’ could hardly be said to be alive. You’re now a dead billion piece jigsaw puzzle. But if I could somehow reassemble those billions of jigsaw puzzle bits and pieces back into ‘you’ (and violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but who’s looking), then you have in a manner of speaking returned from the grave! So every time Captain Kirk says “Beam me down, Scotty”, he’s being executed and resurrected, but that resurrection is a slight-of-hand bit of magic.

Unlike a real jigsaw puzzle which can be assembled and reassembled in just one way, the billion jigsaw puzzle bits and jigsaw puzzle pieces that made you, you, can be reassembled in more than one way. In fact your bits and pieces at the atomic level or below can be reassembled into anything and everything since anything and everything else is also made up of those same fundamental bits and pieces. It’s like taking apart a billion Lego pieces and putting them back together in a totally different configuration.

Since that reassembly – not that there has to be any of course; once scattered to the four winds the bits and pieces might stay scattered to the four winds – could be anything, you are really taking quite a chance that ‘you’ will reassemble back into ‘you’. Put it this way, if you take a billion Lego blocks assembled as a replica of the USS Enterprise, then scatter them in a heap, then put them back together again blindfolded, well odds are you won’t reconstruct a Lego USS Enterprise. Further, there are vastly more ways to assemble a billion Lego blocks into an unstructured mess than a structure with a high amount of organisation or symmetry or complexity or something even remotely recognizable (like the USS Enterprise). In the real world of fundamental bits and pieces, disassembly hence reassembly into something organised, include something living, is highly remote; and that something living would be a reconstructed ‘you’ is as close to impossible as makes no odds. If you are disassembled and beamed down, the reassembly will probably be just what’s most highly probable – an unorganised mess.

CONCLUSION: The USS Enterprise won’t be abandoning shuttlecraft technology anytime soon, and only a complete idiot would say “Beam me down, Scotty”. I wouldn’t want to be so rash as to predict that beaming technology will forever be unobtainable, only that it probably won’t yet be a practical reality even by Captain Kirk’s 23^rd Century.

Variations on a Theme Cosmological: Part Two

The standard model explaining the origin of our Universe basically attributes no causality to that origin. First there was nothing, and then there was something. The transition was the Big Bang event; the something was the creation of matter, energy, time and space. However, to my mind, any something must have a cause, and thus my variation on the standard model postulates that there was a cause; a before the Big Bang. The before recycled previous matter and energy to become our matter and energy; the Big Bang event itself happened within existing space and time.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

An Analogy: All analogies are a bit suspect, but this one I hope will illustrate my general idea from yesterday’s blog. I’m going to substitute a supernova for the Big Bang.

Interstellar gas and dust slowly come together, contracting under their mutual gravitational attraction, ultimately forming a massive star which ignites (via thermonuclear fusion). One could think of the process as a mini Big Crunch.

The star, being massive, rapidly exhausts its fuel supply, and the resulting imbalance between gravity (inward pressure) and radiation pressure (outward pressure), a balance of pressures that normally keeps a star’s size constant, results in a massive implosion hence explosion – a supernova. The supernova spews its stuff, most of it anyway, back into interstellar space. That’s a mini Big Bang.

Now supernovae occur in existing space-time; they don’t create space-time. They don’t create matter/energy; rather recycle it – from interstellar gas and dust, back to interstellar gas and dust. However, the intense energies and pressures can create new forms of matter (heavier elements) from their supply of lighter elements. This is ultimately necessary for the origin and development of carbon-based life.

So we have a micro system of mini Big Crunches (stellar formation) leading to mini Big Bangs (supernovae – stellar death) - a sort of cyclic universe in miniature.

Now we note that supernovae happen at specific coordinates. They happen at a point in space and time, like I suspect the real Big Bang did. A supernova is also not a quantum event, much like I suspect the actual Big Bang wasn’t.

It is claimed that our Big Bang had no point of origin, no specific coordinates in space-time. The Big Bang happened everywhere, since it created space-time in the first place. Thus, our telescopes can’t find or pinpoint where it happened.  In our supernova explosion, all the bits and pieces will, over the eons, become so spread out, and/or incorporated into other stellar/planetary bodies, as to be no longer detectable or associated with the supernova event. The core of the supernova might remain for a while as a neutron star or Black Hole, but they too will eventually radiate away – in the latter case via Hawking radiation. Thus, exactly where the supernova event happened, ultimately, over the eons, will no longer be identifiable on the cosmic map. I suspect the same for the real Big Bang.

Using another analogy, imaging a closed room with a fireplace and light the fireplace for, say an hour. Then put out the fire, and leave the room for a half hour. When reentering the room, it should be obvious, especially using an infrared detector, the exact point of origin for the heat – the fireplace. Now instead of reentering the room after a half an hour, delay reentry for a half year. By that time the fireplace will be equal in temperature to the rest of the room, and thus won’t stand out, infrared detector or no. Substitute the Big Bang for the fireplace; the Universe for the room. Too much time has elapsed for the Big Bang’s coordinates to be located. 

We note that the bits and pieces that are explosively emitted by supernovae are expanding throughout existing space, just like a mini Big Bang event and mirroring the real Big Bang event. Further, every bit ‘sees’ every other bit moving away from it at a velocity proportional to its distance away. The further away, the faster it’s going, just like a real Big Bang.

We note that a supernova has a cause. Supernovae don’t happen for no reason at all. That also mirrors what I feel must be the case for our own actual Big Bang.

One other word to make the analogy more complete – our Universe may have originated in a Big Bang, but it's unlikely to end in a Big Crunch. Well, that’s okay in our supernova analogy. A star doesn’t go supernova, spew out gas and dust, which then contracts in total to reform the star when then eventually explodes as a supernova, etc. Its explosive oomph is greater than the gravity needed to gather the gas and dust back together again.

So in our Universe we have local areas of gas and dust contraction – mini Big Crunches – stellar formation; local areas of expansion – mini Big Bangs – supernovae. Now expand the picture to the level of real large scale Big Crunches and real large scale Big Bangs, all inside a super-sized universe. This super-sized universe really is super-sized. It’s infinite in time and in space. It’s not a closed system in that there’s nothing outside of it. You can’t get any bigger than infinite volume.

This infinite cosmos contains lots of embedded universes, maybe even an infinite number of them. Some universes are expanding then contracting; some universes (like ours) are expanding, forever and ever expanding; some areas of ever expanding expansion can intersect with other universe’s ever expanding expansions, as in the case of two or more supernovae, causing local pockets of contraction, or Big Crunches.

As I said, analogies are not the actual same as what they are meant to represent, but, I think the supernova substitute for the Big Bang more exactly illustrates reality than some of the claptrap offered up by the professionals. 

Postscript: Can one however now logically ask whether or not our Universe arose directly from the vacuum energy 13.7 billion years ago and bypass all this Big Crunch, Singularity, space warping nonsense? While that’s of course a possibility - see references below - that specific scenario, as opposed to universes in general being so formed, hasn’t been considered as serious an option vis-à-vis the death of one universe giving rise, Phoenix-like, to the birth of another, as in ours. My gut feeling says that you wouldn’t have the same sort of observational evidence that we have to currently account for (i.e. – cosmic microwave background radiation, etc.) in an origin via the vacuum energy. Regardless, a vacuum energy origin still differs from the standard Big Bang model in that the vacuum energy, (time and space, matter and energy), preexisted the Big Bang – and that’s not on according to traditionalists.

References

Cole, K.C.; ‘The ultimate free lunch’ (in) The Hole in the Universe; Harcourt, San Diego; 2001; p.168-171:

Tryon, E.P.; ‘Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?’ (in) Nature, Vol.246, 1973; p.396-397:

Vilenkin, A.; ‘The universe as a quantum fluctuation’ (in) Many Worlds in One: The Search for other Universes; Hill and Wang, New York; 2006; p.183-186:

John’s Cosmology - Supernovae Analogy

1) Contraction of a universe                                          1) Contraction of interstellar gas/dust

2) Big Crunch   (Black Hole)                                        2) Massive star forms

3) Transition to                                                             3) Stellar life span

4) Big Bang (White Hole)                                             4) Supernovae

5) Expanding Universe                                                 5) Expulsion of gas/dust

6) Intersection with another expanding universe             6) Interaction with other gas/dust

7) Gravity rules                                                            7) Gravity rules

8) Contraction of new universe                                     8) Contraction of interstellar gas/dust