It’s About Time – For a Change: Part Two

Introduction: The real nature of what we call ‘time’ is one of the Big Questions. It’s been debated ever since humans evolved thought and language. That puzzlement remains true to the average person today, although ‘time’ has become the professional subject or province of philosophers, metaphysicists, and theoretical physicists, not to forget many a science fiction author! Here’s my two cents worth – ‘time’ is an illusion!

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Travel through Time? The question remains despite my earlier negation; 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?

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). Einstein’s Relativity 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* 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.

That’s one of many variations on the ‘grandfather paradox’ which in general has as a plot where you go back in time and somehow prevent your own birth by say, killing your grandfather before he met your grandmother, or in a less gruesome way, prevented them from ever meeting. When I was a teenager I remember writing a short story (never published) where a group of scientists travelled back in time some four billion years to just after the Earth formed and solidified and cooled. One of the scientists was a pipe smoker, and after finishing his smoke, tapped out the pipe ashes into a small puddle of water. Of course that puddle was the very puddle that was to have given rise to that first proto-cell, but the pipe ash polluted the puddle and so that origin of life event never happened, and so back in what would have been the 20^th Century, the sun shone down on a sterile planet! The only trouble with the story was that four billion years ago, there was no oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere so one couldn’t smoke. Still, it was the mother of all grandfather paradoxes!   

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 the Fermi Paradox referred to aliens that should be knocking on our collective doors (“where is everybody?”), if time travel were possible, as astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has so absolutely pointed out, then where are all those gawking time travelling tourists and historians from our future?

*Akin to astrophysicist Stephen Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture which states that there is as yet some undiscovered principle in physics which will make it impossible to travel back in time and thus make the Universe safe for historians.

Further recommended readings about time and time travel:

Carroll, Sean; From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time; Dutton, New York; 2010:

Davies, Paul; About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution; Penguin Books, London; 1995:

Gott, J. Richard; Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time; Phoenix, London; 2002:

Hawking, Stephen & Penrose, Roger; The Nature of Space and Time; Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey; 1996:

Hawking, Stephen W. et al.; The Future of Spacetime; W.W. Norton and Company, N.Y.; 2002:

Le Poidevin, Robin; Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2003:

Lockwood, Michael; The Labyrinth of Time: Introducing the Universe; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2005:

Mahid, Shahn (Editor); On Space and Time; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2008:

Randles, Jenny; Breaking the Time Barrier: The Race to Build the First Time Machine; Paraview Pocket Books, New York; 2005:

Toomey, David; The New Time Travelers: A Journey to the Frontiers of Physics; W.W. Norton & Company, New York; 2007:

It’s About Time – For a Change: Part One

Introduction: The real nature of what we call ‘time’ is one of the Big Questions. It’s been debated ever since humans evolved thought and language. That puzzlement remains true to the average person today, although ‘time’ has become the professional subject or province of philosophers, metaphysicists, and theoretical physicists, not to forget many a science fiction author! Here’s my two cents worth – ‘time’ is an illusion!

What Is Time? Time is, IMHO, an illusion. Time has no real independent existence – it can’t stand by itself. If you removed all the matter and energy from the Universe, would there be left anything we could address as time? Time is just our way of keeping track of, and measuring rate of change in matter and/or energy. If nothing ever changed it would be nonsense to talk about time. The flow of time; the arrow of time; is just the flow of macro things changing. If everything were somehow ‘frozen in time’ – like a single frame from a film – then there is no actual time that can be discussed or measured. So we don’t in any sense measure something that is time, we measure rate of change and call that time.

Actually you measure rate of change by another rate of change. For example, the rate of change from birth to death is usually measured by the rate of change in position of the Earth orbiting the Sun (years and fractions of years) and rate of change of position of the Earth rotating around on its axis (days and fractions of days). Another example: The rate of change between the beginning of your lunch hour and the ending of your lunch hour is usually measured by the rate of change of the hands of a clock (sixty 360 degree sweeps of the minute hand or a 30 degrees clockwise change in the hour hand) or the rate of change in the numbers on your digital watch, say from 1:00 to 2:00. Translated, a variable or uncertain rate of change (lifespan; length of a lunch ‘hour’) is usually measured by a standard, invariable, predictable rate of change.

Now rate of change is affected by gravity – a function of mass – the greater the mass the greater the gravity and the slower things change from A to B in that gravitational field, but that slowness is only relative to someone else also measuring A to B but who is in a lesser gravitational field. A clock at the top of a tall building (lesser gravity being further from Earth’s centre) ticks at a faster rate than an identical clock at street level (which has higher gravity due to being closer to Earth’s centre). Rate of change is also affected by velocity. The faster you go, the slower things change from A to B, again however it’s relative to someone else also measuring A to B but who is moving at a lower velocity relative to you. That’s why it’s the theory of relativity! The standard example is the twin paradox – if your identical twin zooms off in a spaceship at extreme velocities to the distant stars, stops, reverses direction, and returns at that high rate of speed to Planet Earth, and to you, you’ll find your twin has aged to a far lesser degree than you. You now have grey hair and wrinkles; your interstellar travelling twin is still in her youthful prime of life.

Time vs. Time Travel: I’ll poor water on this fire at the outset by stating again that time is but an illusion. Time doesn’t exist; therefore time travel isn’t possible. Time is but a label, like your own name 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, repeating myself, 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.

What we perceive as ‘time’ is, again repeating myself, 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 (cause and effect) 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.

Consider 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, albeit 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.

To be continued…

Origins and Ultimate Questions: Part Two

Who are we; where did we come from; what is my purpose in life; why is there something rather than nothing, etc. has probably been pondered by most of us at one time or another. One universal blanket answer is God (or in earlier times, the gods). A rival answer is that the abstract concept of Mother Nature can equally explain all, even if sometimes in the negative – the Universe and you have no ultimate purpose. It, you and I just are.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

The Origin of Humans: Did God Create Man (and Woman)?

To religious fundamentalists, it’s a no-brainer that God created man – in His image. Now if there were no fossils of manlike hominoid beings; if there were not any current living beings that shared our basic body plan (such as many of the primates do – apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, etc.); if humans were so unique that they stood out like a lone red sports car in a field of black & white model-T’s, or like a lone pineapple in a basketful of tomatoes, then ascribing a very unique origin to humankind would be a plausible hypothesis, of which God or gods might have appealing logic (albeit not proven). 

Alas, that’s not the case whether in terms of the fossil evidence or of body plans and fundamental biochemistry similarities between us and the other primates. We’re just another model-T or tomato (and some would argue rotten tomato at that).

Creation myths trying to explain human origins are, across the board, pretty wild and absurd in light of modern understandings that deal with life, our Universe, and everything. The fictional origin of Frankenstein’s monster (Frankenstein was the name of the scientist, not the name of the creation) makes more sense than breathing some sort of vital essence into dust (and does your basic pile of dust contain all the necessary chemical ingredients to make up and sustain a living human? If so, put some dust on your menu). And that bit about Adam’s rib – well, let me say that the Loch Ness Monster has way more credibility.

Darwin and those following him, those evolutionary biologists and physical anthropologists, have easily accounted for the broad-brush origin and rise of our modern human species.

The Origins of Faith & Belief vs. Blind Faith & Belief:

Do we have faith and belief in a God or gods because there really are gods or God, or maybe we’re hard-wired to believe in some sort of larger-than-life supreme being(s) regardless of evidence and the reality of such beings?

Many children have invisible, make-believe friends and have no trouble accepting Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Of course, kids have usually Mom and Dad, or an adult family of some sort to look after them, so they already have a sort of larger-than-life supreme being(s) in their life.

But when they grow up to adulthood, well, as adults, wouldn’t it be nice if someone or something more adult than ourselves, larger-than-life, were looking after us the way Mom and Dad did when we had our childhood? Someone who would pat us on the back with eternal life (we don’t really want to die) if we’re good men and women (as opposed to when we were boys and girls).  And so it’s easy and desirable to believe that and have faith.

I have no issue with those who have a belief or a faith in a God or gods or this or that religion – god knows there’s enough of them on the market to pick and choose from.  However, what I do have issues with are those who have an absolute blind faith or blind belief in, whatever, like kids have a blind faith in the existence of Santa, and for a similar reason. Kids are trusting of adults, their parents and family and will swallow the story – at least until old enough to think through the logic for themselves. Adults too, starting as children, are trusting of authority figures or people they trust – priests, their parents (again), teachers, friends, books, etc. authored by those apparently in the know – who told you it (a God or gods or brand of religion) was so, and so you swallow their version without any critical thought, hook, line and sinker, because unlike Santa, the logic doesn’t reveal itself quite so easily to be as absurd. It’s easier to be told what to think, than to actually think for yourself.

So, for those who still have faith and belief after they have thought for themselves through the issues, well again, I have no difficulty with that. For those of you who believe and have faith because it was rammed down your throat, and because it satisfies that hard-wired area of your brain that wants a larger-than-life figure to be their invisible, make-believe guardian, well, maybe that’s why religious figures refer to their subjects as their flock – sheep one and all.  

The Ultimate Questions (and Answers):

Is there one? I know that it (‘life, the universe and everything’) was asked in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” and that the answer was ‘42’, but I don’t think we’ll count that as philosophically meaningful. I also think we need to exclude personal reflections or personal ultimate questions like ‘who am I’ or ‘where am I going’ or ‘what is my purpose in life’, etc. Ultimately, when it comes to personal reflections, only you can ask and answer such questions yourself using whatever tools you have at your disposal.

Is there any preordained point or preconceived purpose to the Universe? That is do we have any implication that the ever evolving and expanding Universe has a goal or seeks to achieve something? Does the Universe possess some sort of special (undefined but natural) force or quality such that its origin and evolution has an ultimate unique meaning? Or does it just exist with no more purpose than say a cosmic ray has? This question is probably somewhat outside the realm of physics and cosmology, but that sure hasn’t stopped physicists and cosmologists from putting in their two cents worth! Anyway, here’s my two cents.

Well I think we can all agree that the fundamental particles (electrons, quarks, etc.) that make up all the matter and transmit all the forces, and the atoms they in turn make up, and the molecules that atoms form by linking up and bonding with other atoms, even the most complex of them, merely obey various natural physical and chemical ‘laws’ (they are very law abiding), having no choice in the matter given that they have no independent free will or decision making abilities or the ways and means of emitting emotions. They have no intellect, cannot comprehend themselves, far less anything else.

We’d all probably agree that all the macro non-organic things that particles and forces, atoms and molecules make up, like stars (and groups of stars like galaxies) and planets and associated debris likewise obey natural ‘laws’ and also have no intellect or ability to emote. In other words, the Sun and the Moon don’t know you, have no means of knowing you, they can’t deduce you exist and therefore can hardly care that you exist (or don’t exist or cease to exist for that matter). Since there was an era in the history of the Universe when only that sort of stuff existed, the sort of stuff we agree was never intellectual and emotive, one can hardly imagine the Universe then, all this collection of stuff, in a pre-life era, having any purpose or objective or goal, or agenda (or whatever other synonymous word you have in mind).

At this point, one question raises its head and requires an answer, and that is where did all the natural ‘laws’ that rule the Universe (and all that it contains) come from? Well, the way I see it, there are X number of fundamental particles – the ultimate building blocks from which all else flows – like quarks and electrons. Each type of fundamental particle has an intrinsic value to a number of properties, values unique to it and it alone. These properties are mass, and spin and charge, and the like. All of these fundamental particles, the bits and pieces of the Universe, interact with other bits and pieces. Anytime bit A interacts with piece B, you’ll get a result, AB. You’ll always get AB. If bit A interacts with particle C, you’ll get result AC and not, say, AB. And so on and so on. We interpret AB and AC, etc. as ‘laws’ because specific results occur in a consistent manner whenever specific bits and pieces interact. And so on up the scale it goes. Two atoms of hydrogen interact with one atom of oxygen, giving water – not, say table salt now and then. If the reverse were true, if two atoms of hydrogen plus one atom of oxygen sometimes yielded table salt, or if A + B sometimes gave AC, or BC or XYZ, then the stuff of the Universe would be unstable at best and hence we’d have a Universe not exactly conducive to life, and so we wouldn’t be around to ask the question in the first place.

At some stage however, by the laws of probability, sheer chance, by accident (no preconceived purpose or goal involved) a small part of our stuff, under the general natural ‘laws’ inherent in physics and chemistry, became organized enough, complex enough, to qualify as something we’d all agree on as ‘life’. Say a proto-cell, even a microbe. The question now is, does a microbe emote or have an intellect. No. It has however achieved purpose – survival and reproduction and things of that ilk. So, now a tiny part of the Universe has a purpose, but the microbe certainly didn’t absorb or learn this concept of purpose from the wider outside Universe since the wider outside Universe doesn’t have this concept as part of it’s makeup in the first place. 

Ultimately microbes evolve and life got even more complex, complex enough that traits such as intellect and emotion took on some form of reality. But again, it was inherited from what came before. So, does the Universe have a purpose? No. Do some parts of the Universe express a purpose, or intellect or ability to emote? Yes. But it’s not a universal one as different bits have (to a greater or lesser degree) somewhat different purposes, intellects and emotions. An electron is an electron is an electron, but an octopus (having a purpose, intellect and ability to emote) isn’t a cockatoo which isn’t a human both of which also have purposes, intellects and emotions. Even one human obviously differs from another human with respect to these traits. Question: does the fact that terrestrial life in general or humans in particular, exist, impart some sort of higher meaning or purpose to the Universe at large? Not on your Nellie!

Let’s take a simple case and assume that life is confined to Planet Earth (although the argument holds even if extraterrestrial life exists). Let’s further assume that an uncaring, un-intellectual,  asteroid, with no goal or purpose to its existence apart from the fact that it just is, slams into our planet and all life goes kaput! Or perhaps our uncaring Sun goes nova, achieving the same result. Then the Universe is totally back to square one – an assorted collection of primitive stuff with no laudable purpose, no intellect, no ability to emote – no agenda, hidden or otherwise. My conclusion is that life (high or low) is an unplanned for occurrence in a Universe that has no purpose – the Universe just is, in all its uncaring glory.

Thusly I will say again however that there is no purpose to the Universe – it just is, a given, totally inanimate like it or lump it. You are an irrelevancy as far as the Universe is concerned – not that it has a consciousness where the concept of concerned could even arise. So, the Universe, as far as we all are concerned, is impartial, uncaring, has no mercy for those foolish enough to put themselves in harms way, and ultimately doesn’t give a stuff about you, your existence, your suffering. In fact, if Planet Earth and all it contained were to disappear down a Black Hole this instant, the Universe would go on its merry way, no more noticing the loss than you notice the flaking off of a dead skin cell.  

Apart from that, I’d wager if you asked 1000 ordinary people, even 1000 philosophers, religious leaders, scientists, etc. about an ultimate question, you’d probably get 500 different answers! Therefore, I doubt that there is any such thing as an ultimate question (and therefore no ultimate answer), certainly nothing that’s going to enlighten us about ‘just who is this God person anyway?’ – And no, I don’t consider that to be an ultimate question. But we need a place to start with some sort of ultimate question, like, where did our Universe (including us) come from?  And so I refer back to the beginning of this little exercise!

Origins and Ultimate Questions: Part One

Who are we; where did we come from; what is my purpose in life; why is there something rather than nothing, etc. has probably been pondered by most of us at one time or another. One universal blanket answer is God (or in earlier times, the gods). A rival answer is that the abstract concept of Mother Nature can equally explain all, even if sometimes in the negative – the Universe and you have no ultimate purpose. It, you and I just are.

Cosmological Origins & Considerations: Did God create the Universe?

To be honest, cosmologists have no need of a God Hypothesis to explain the origin of our Universe, be it the standard model of the Big Bang event or a variation thereof (and there are cosmologists who don’t buy into the standard model) and you won’t find any mention of the God Hypothesis as a plausible possibility in their textbooks and given in university lecture halls.

Still, ‘In the beginning’ - that’s a good place to start, although I actually prefer the phrase ‘once upon a time’ for reasons that will become apparent. The standard cosmological model outlining the origin or our Universe via the Big Bang event is, well let me just say I don’t accept a word of it and I won’t go into massive detail about it. It’s very easy to get hold of any number of popular accounts that detail the standard Big Bang scenario. However, in extreme briefness, the standard Big Bang event postulates the origin of all matter where no matter existed before; the creation of all energy, where no energy existed previously; the creation of time itself where previously there was no time; and lastly the creation of space where before-the-fact there was no space. To add insult to our intelligence, the Big Bang was also a quantum event, so you are forced to believe that the entire contents of our Universe were once crammed into a space the size of an atom or less. Sure it was! In fact there’s so much philosophical baggage for the standard Big Bang scenario to have to lug around that even the standard Biblical account is slightly, ever so slightly, more believable, but only just – barely just.

In proposing an alternative scenario, I can’t really throw the Big Bang baby out along with the philosophical bathwater, because there’s too much real observational evidence in support of some sort of Big Bang event. My alternative just postulates that the Big Bang event happened in pre-existing space and time, and that the matter and energy of our Universe is just a recycling of the contents of a previous universe that, in the reverse of our expanding Universe, contracted until it all came together in a Big Crunch so warping the fabric of space and time that it ended up spewing the contents out in what we see as our Universe. Oh, the transition from a previous Big Crunch universe to our Big Bang Universe was a macro event, not a micro (quantum) one.

Anyway, either our Universe had a beginning (the Big Bang), and will have (based on current cosmological observations) an ultimate, albeit long drawn out termination (a Heat Death or Big Rip), or the Universe is infinitely cyclic (Big Crunch – Big Bang – expansion – contraction – Big Crunch – Big Bang – etc.).

In the former case, what’s the point of God creating and ruling over a Universe that’s ultimately going to spend an eternity in a very cold and dead state, or for there to be a Heaven (or Hell) that exists within such an ultimately dreary Universe? The realm of God, of Heaven and Hell, has ultimately got to be part of our Universe and subject to the same sort of fate as the Universe overall will share.

In the latter case, with infinitely cyclic universes, there is no need for a creator God at all. Or, maybe God, over an eternity, has created lots of various universes, one after the other, for His amusement, and perhaps like a kid tired of a new toy, abandoned it (or destroyed it via a Big Crunch) after a time. Our Universe could be but the latest in this series of amusements, sort of like a child playing with a doll house and dolls for a while. Perhaps God is akin to a child and we are toys to be played with and manipulated. God can sure throw tantrums like a spoiled brat! [Recall the original ‘Star Trek’ episode ‘Squire of Gothos’ for an illustration of what I’m on about – the episode illustrates a very similar idea.] Regardless, perhaps this is yet another interesting variation of the cyclic or oscillating universe scenario where there are lots of universes in turn, but supernaturally, not naturally created. However, I’d ultimately have to argue that if Mother Nature can create one universe, Mother Nature can create more than one universe. And while God can create as many universes as He likes, what’s the logical point of doing so? Isn’t our Universe a big enough playground for Him? 

The Origin of Life on Earth (or Elsewhere): Did God Create Life?

The upshot is that those biologists and biochemists who study the origin of life, whether an origin indigenous to our planet, or one arriving from the depths of outer space via a panspermia scenario, have not required resorting to supernatural explanations for the creation of life. You won’t find the phrase ‘and then a miracle occurred’ in the textbooks between discussions that link pre-biology with biology.

Life, even microbial life, is still very, very complex (try making a microbe from scratch if you doubt it). The fact that life arose from scratch on Earth within a very, very short span of geological time after the planet formed is a bit suspect IMHO. But what if Earth were seeded by microbial life forms already in existence from space (or deliberately seeded by extraterrestrials as the Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick has proposed)? Now I realize that just puts off the origin of life question to another time(s) and place(s). However, given the vastness of the cosmos is far greater than that of our finite globe, and given that the cosmos existed for vastly longer periods of time before our sun, solar system and home planet came into existence, such additional time and space easily turns the improbable into a near certainty. And once established somewhere, life could spread throughout that time and space, until it reached us.

Earth arose billions of years after our Universe and our galaxy had evolved, ample time for life to have arisen elsewhere, and seed the early Earth. This is the concept of panspermia. We know that comets, meteors, and the cosmic dust within outer space are chock-o-block full of complex organic molecules. We know that simple terrestrial life can survive the outer space environment if suitably shielded – and it doesn’t take much to do the shielding. We know that surface bits from planets and their moons can be ejected into space, carry a cargo of microbes, and land on another planet, even eons later with the microbes still viable. Of course 99.999% of all such microbial life will be doomed to forever wander in space or crash onto a cold, surface of a planet with no atmosphere or water, or plunge into a star, etc. But, sheer numbers, like terrestrial plant seeds, will insure that now and again some microbes will land on a hospitable abode and be fruitful and multiple and evolve. The interesting bit is that if then, then now. And thus panspermia will be happening today. Certainly some meteorites which have impacted Earth have inside them ‘organized elements’ suggestive of microbial structures – the Murchison Meteorite from Australia is one such stone. The problem is terrestrial contamination as there are often lengthy time periods between their fall and their discovery. As an aside, if Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe are correct (and I believe they are), microbes (bacteria and viruses) impacting Earth today are largely responsible for some select and various disease epidemics or pandemics, past, present, and no doubt future.

Further readings:

Crick, Francis; Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature; Simon and Schuster, New York; 1981: 

Davies, Paul; The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life; Allen Lane, Ringwood, Victoria; 1998:

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Lifecloud: The Origin of Life in the Universe; J.M. Dent  & Sons Ltd, London; 1978:

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Diseases from Space; J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London; 1979

Ponnamperuma, Cyril (Editor); Comets and the Origin of Life; D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland; 1981:

Seargent, David A. J.; Genesis Stone? The Murchison Meteorite and the Beginnings of Life; Karagi Publications, The Entrance, NSW: 1991:

To be continued…

A Perfect Vacuum, Not

I recall the movie “Alien” had a tagline along the lines of ‘In space, no one can hear you scream’. Why? Because space is a vacuum, and sound (as in screaming) cannot travel from point A to point B if there’s a vacuum in-between. But the question really is, is space a perfect vacuum? Can one achieve a perfect vacuum? If not, why not?

One of the big scientific oops often depicted in Hollywood (and other country’s equivalents) sci-fi space operas is an external view of spaceships, etc. in deep space chug-chug-chugging along with all appropriate sound effects, and/or blasting away with laser cannons or photon torpedos, ditto with appropriate sound effects. Of course, if you really were an external viewer, what would you actually hear? - Absolutely nothing. It would be, or should be, like viewing a silent film from the pre-talkies era. But, for the sake of dramatics, Hollywood (etc.) ignores the physics of it all. ‘Artistic licence’ is what it’s called I believe. 

However, in the physics classroom, where artistic licence isn’t allowed, I’m sure we can all recall from our student days a demonstration of the ringing alarm clock inside the bell jar. As the air was pumped out from the bell jar, the ringing got softer and softer and softer until you heard nothing at all, even though the alarm clock was still jangling away. Of course the science teacher or physics professor told you there was now a total vacuum inside the bell jar and thus no sound could travel from point A – the alarm clock inside the vacuum inside the bell jar, to point B – your ears which were outside the bell jar.

Of course it should be obvious to blind Freddy that there was no such thing as a total or perfect vacuum inside the bell jar. Firstly, no pump is good enough or efficient enough or strong enough to remove each and every last molecule of air from the bell jar. [Of course there is no such thing as a molecule of air, rather atoms and molecules of the various substances that together make up what we call air, but for the sake of simplicity let’s make believe there are molecules of air.] Even discounting those rarefied air molecules left within the bell jar, molecules few and far enough in-between as to prevent the sound of the alarm clock from reaching your ears, the inside of the bell jar still wasn’t a total vacuum.

Why? Well assuming the bell jar was made of glass; light was pouring through the bell jar, and light is a something. The inside of the bell jar was full of visible light. Okay, let’s make the bell jar out of solid lead. That blocks out the light – right? Wrong. Visible light is but a small part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Radio waves (a form of non-visible ‘light’) will probably pass through the leaden bell jar, or gamma rays. Even if you succeed in blocking out all of the wavelengths and frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, there are still cosmic rays. If you make the leaden bell jar thick enough you might block out all of the cosmic rays, but that still leaves neutrinos, and in order to block all of those, you’d need a bell jar that had a lead thickness of hundreds of light years. Neutrinos can pass through leaden walls as easily as Casper the Friendly Ghost – even easier!

Okay, so you’ve got a perfect pump to remove all the air molecules and sufficient shielding to prevent even neutrinos from entering and passing through. That’s that; now you have your perfect vacuum – right? Wrong again.

You still have gravity not only surrounding but inside the otherwise perfectly shielded bell jar. Even if there were no other matter in the entire Universe, the bell jar itself is made of matter and has its own gravity which resides inside the jar as well as extending to infinity outside of it. Since nothing we know of can block the force of gravity, well that alone puts the kibosh on the perfect vacuum. Gravity is really a real thing, and if you doubt it, I invite you to try to leap tall buildings at a single bound!

Now a perfect vacuum would have to have a temperature of absolute zero, given the total absence of any material substance within. Temperature of course is just a measurement of the average molecular or atomic motion of molecules, atoms, even their fundamental particles. No stuff means a temperature of absolute zero. However the Universe isn’t lacking in stuff which moves around from place to place

For quite another reason however, absolute zero, zero degrees on the Kelvin scale, (or minus 273.15 degrees Celsius or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit) is only theoretical and can never be obtained. That’s because the concept of absolute zero violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which states that it is impossible, no matter how good your measuring instruments are, to simultaneously know the position and momentum of anything, because the very act of measuring something must alter both parameters. That’s because something must bounce off what you are trying to measure and hence interact with your measuring device, but that bounce alters the position and momentum of that in which you are interested. At a theoretical absolute zero, nothing moves and thus you would know both the position and momentum of that or any object, even say an electron, with absolution precision. The momentum is zero and thus your object is in, and stays in, a fixed location – and besides, there’s nothing to bounce off it anyway, because that something (usually a photon) must also have zero energy and is thus at rest.

And thus we have the concept of the vacuum energy, or quantum fluctuations or the quantum jitters. That is to say, at the extreme micro level, there is always activity and thus motion and thus temperature above the theoretical minimum of absolute zero - thus, no perfect vacuum is possible. Even the best vacuum will have the quantum jitters. Oh, and by the way, the quantum jitters or the vacuum energy has been experimentally verified.

So, if you were somehow expecting that there was such a thing as a perfect vacuum, you’re out of luck, not that that I’m sure will cause anyone any loss of shuteye. However, that doesn’t alter the fact that in space, no one can hear you scream! You don’t need a perfect vacuum for that to be true.

A Unified Theory of Time Travel: Part Two

The work of Albert Einstein and the ideas of Stephen Hawking differ when it comes to the even theoretical possibilities of time travel to the past. However, both points of view can be accommodated by invoking the concept of parallel worlds. It’s a case then of having your time travel cake and eating it too but without fear of creating a paradox tummy ache.  

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

What’s to prevent those from a parallel universe meddling and altering our time stream? It’s not enough for them to have a Prime Directive against that – we all know Prime Directives are meant to be broken! So, it looks like Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture must apply to those visitors from parallel universes to our Universe as well. I mean what difference does it make to your existence whether you travel back in time within your own universe and kill your mother before you were conceived, or some serial killer escaping from a parallel universe to our Universe who kills your mother before you were conceived – even though in the latter case there’s no paradox, you still wouldn’t have been conceived of here in anyone’s philosophy!

OK, so relativity allows time travel back in time, but only to parallel universes. The Hawking Chronology Protection Conjecture not only prevents time travel paradoxes in general, but it also prevents parallel universe time travellers meddling and altering our timeline; ditto we humans time travelling to someone else’s parallel universe. But how would the Hawking Chronology Protection Conjecture actually accomplish this? My best guess is that parallel universes aren’t in phase – they aren’t polarized or synchronized in-phase like a laser beam, or the light that passes through your polarized sunglasses – otherwise we’d have some rather hard evidence of them; certainly way more than we do now.

So, if we go to parallel universe B or those from parallel universe B visits us, we’ll, or they’d be respectively out of phase with respect to the universe they are now in. Translated, they, or we, could look, but not touch for all practical purposes. I say for all practical purposes as now and again what’s out of phase (high probability – the usual state of affairs) will sync into phase (that’s rare). But the in-phase times are so few and far between, and last for such a brief duration that it’s unlikely to result in any inadvertent or deliberate timeline alterations. That’s my rendering of the Hawking Chronology Protection Conjecture – he could well have other ways and means in mind.

So another way of putting this is that time travellers would be spectral or ghostlike in their host universe, and maybe that’s where our traditions of ghosts and other things that go bump in the night come from! This is much like the parallel universe ghost or shadow photons that are conjectured to explain some highly mysterious aspects or phenomena contained within the famous quantum double slit* experiment. Now an obvious question is how do all the parallel universe ghost photons get into our physics labs where double slit experiments are carried out? I mean there are no local macro Black Hole or wormhole exits present – are there? Yes in fact there are! Not a macro wormhole, but a micro wormhole – actually wormholes. Theoretically, micro wormholes should exist all around you. It’s just that they are at quantum levels – incredible tiny; way subatomic in size. And they exist for just nanoseconds before collapsing.  They are just part of the quantum foam** reality at super microscopic levels, a reality at the level where all things exhibit the quantum jitters or quantum fluctuations. Thus, every second of every day, everywhere, there are little quantum gateways – quantum sized wormholes connections between universes which quantum sized particles – like photons – can traverse! From the standpoint of the double slit experiment, it doesn’t matter whether the parallel universe’s ghost photons came from the past, future or present – just as long as they are, indeed, present!

Now you may think it would be easy to detect these ghostly photons. Just put a photon detector in a totally dark and sealed room. Well, not quite so easy. Some photons can pass through ‘solid’ matter. X-Ray photons anyone? Radio wave photons pass through the walls of your home. If you look at a bright light, you’ll still see light even if you close your eyes. So, your photon detector in your dark and sealed room could easily detect our local variety.

The ghostly bits aside, parallel universe time travelers (or even ordinary time travelers from within our Universe assuming Hawking is wrong)) might explain the sometimes uncanny, often incredible look-a-likes that we all seem to have. A long shot to be sure, but something interesting to ponder.

There’s still one more problem on the horizon. Just because a macro Black Hole or wormhole plunks you into a parallel universe (and of course you’ve got to be able to survive the trip itself which might be problematical), doesn’t mean you’re going to be with spitting distance of your ultimate destination(s) – say a parallel Earth(s). So, time travelers might also need more conventional transport – like Flying Saucers (okay, forget the saucers – like spaceships with fins and rocket motors). But then what’s really there to distinguish a visiting time traveler from a parallel universe from say a  run-of-the-mill extraterrestrial from within our own Universe? Maybe you could just put out the welcome mat for both options!

One final thought. Could there be a Clayton’s time travel? - Time travel without traveling in time? At the risk of making Einstein turn over in his grave; I’m going to propose a universal NOW across all universes. Now I know that NOW, when it comes to observers, is a relative thing. An observer in Martian orbit sees Mars’ NOW somewhat before you on Planet Earth sees the same Mars’ NOW because the speed of light is finite. And relative motions and velocities complicate what is NOW. But, I propose (a thought experiment remember) to instantaneously freeze-frame the entire collection of universes’ NOW. Everyone and everything everywhere comes to an instant standstill. Right! We now have a universal NOW that we can study at our leisure (the freeze doesn’t apply to you and me – we’re outside the space-time continuum).

Let’s focus on that subset of all parallel universes – all parallel Earths and time travel between them. Now there’s no reason to assume that all parallel Earths are identical in all aspects. Indeed, some parallel universes may not even contain a parallel Earth! There maybe some parallel Earths identical or so close to identical to our Planet Earth as makes no odds – abodes you’d feel right at home in. Other Earths would differ in various ways, some minor, some major. Still others might be really weird and alien, as in having evolved a dinosaur society, civilization and technology. There was no parallel asteroid impact 65 million years ago; thus no human beings around the traps 65 millions later.

Your subset of parallel Earths would show near infinite diversity in infinite combinations. I say ‘near’ because you can only stretch the term ‘Earth’ or ‘Earth-like’ so far and no farther, before it’s not Earth or Earth-like. A 100% oceanic world is not Earth. If a parallel ‘Earth’ has Venus-like temperatures, it is not Earth-like. If it has a density approaching that of a neutron star, it is not Earth-like. If it has no life on it, even though in all other respects it is a near carbon copy of our Earth, it is not Earth-like. 

Now it’s back to the NOW subset of parallel Earths and Earth-like abodes. There’s no reason to assume that evolutionary development; that evolutionary development rates would proceed in each and every case in an identical fashion. Some parallel Earths would still be in the dinosaur era (if they had dinosaurs of course). In some parallel Earths, cavemen and sabre tooth tigers rule. In others, it’s Biblical times, or Medieval times or the era when Britannia ruled the waves. Others in our absolute NOW, on yet other parallel Earths, or parallel earthlings, might have just invented the wireless or landed on their Moon (if they have one). On some parallel Earths it may already be what to us will be the 23^rd or 24^th Century with interstellar warp drive capabilities at hand – and even way beyond that. So, you could seemingly travel to the past and future while actually remaining in our NOW. You’ve travelled in time without really travelling in time, or, time travel without the paradoxes – but maybe that spoils all the intellectual fun of contemplating time travel in the first place!

*The problem solved here is how can you get a classic wave interference pattern behind two slits you fire photons through; even when you fire the photons at say a rate of one per hour? Who you gonna call – ghost photons of course to the rescue.

**Quantum foam – the world may look pretty smooth from a distance, but as you keep magnifying the finer details, the micro world gets ever so slightly bumpier. Close in some more and things get rougher still, until at quantum level everything is a seething cauldron of tumultuous activity. It’s like the sea that looks perfectly smooth and tranquil from Earth orbit, but at rowboat level, you’re terrified as that 50 foot wave comes crashing down on you.

Further recommended readings about time travel:

Gott, J. Richard; Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time; Phoenix, London; 2002:

Hawking, Stephen W. et al.; The Future of Spacetime; W.W. Norton and Company, N.Y.; 2002:

Randles, Jenny; Breaking the Time Barrier: The Race to Build the First Time Machine; Paraview Pocket Books, New York; 2005:

Toomey, David; The New Time Travelers: A Journey to the Frontiers of Physics; W.W. Norton & Company, New York; 2007:

A Unified Theory of Time Travel: Part One

The work of Albert Einstein and the ideas of Stephen Hawking differ when it comes to the even theoretical possibilities of time travel to the past. However, both points of view can be accommodated by invoking the concept of parallel worlds. It’s a case then of having your time travel cake and eating it too but without fear of creating a paradox tummy ache.  

Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity suggests that time travel to the past is possible via rotating wormholes and/or black holes.  The actual technical practicality of actually carrying out such journeys need not concern us since this essay is in the realm of the thought experiment.  Now Stephen Hawking says time travel to the past is not possible because he proposes that there is such a thing as a yet undiscovered Chronology Protection Conjecture that prevents this and thus makes the world safe for historians. I’ve come up with a unified theory of time travel into the past that incorporates Einstein’s general theory of relativity; Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture, along with other assorted bits like parallel universes that are thrown into the mix.

Time travel is a staple in sci-fi stories, novels, films and TV series. And, time travel is possible – in theory. We all know about journeying to the future which we do at the rate of one second per second whether we like it or not.  Apart from that, if one travels at close to light speeds relative to your  place of origin then you can travel to the distant future (with respect to that place of origin) without aging an equivalent number of years (the twin paradox). Travel to the past is apparently allowed too, via the weird physics inherent in rotating worm holes and maybe Black Holes which is where Einstein’s general theory of relativity comes into play.  The problem there is that relativity theory predicts worm holes, if they exist at all, will exist for nanoseconds and be very tiny to boot, and thus not very useful in the foreseeable future for the purposes of time travel. Because we don’t know exactly what the inside of a Black Hole is, and where it leads, if anywhere, current thinking suggests that jumping into Black Holes are a more useful means for committing suicide than for travelling to the past, but the jury is still out on that one.

Anyway, the fun bit about time travel is the various paradoxes that arise, the most famous one being the grandfather paradox. That is, what if you travel back in time and kill your grandfather before he sired your father (or mother). If you did that it means that you could never have been born, but if you were never born you couldn’t go back in time to kill your ancestor. This is the sort of stuff sci-fi authors (and philosophers) love – ditto physicists! My favourite time travel paradox however is the one where you get something for nothing. Say you have this edition of “Hamlet”, and you want Shakespeare to autograph it. So back you go in time to Shakespeare’s era. You knock on his door, but the housekeeper says he’s out for the day but if you leave the book he’ll autograph it and you can come by and collect it next morning. When Shakespeare comes home, he sees the book, reads it, and is so impressed he spends the night making a copy. You come back the next morning, collect your now autographed edition of “Hamlet”, and return to the present day with your now very valuable book.  The question now becomes, where did the original “Hamlet” come from? You didn’t write it; but Shakespeare didn’t either as he plagiarized your copy which he then passed it off as his own work.

Another favourite is you meeting yourself. Say you’re 50 and not all that well off. You get the brilliant idea to travel back in time and convince your younger self to invest in some stocks you know will pay off big time later on down the track. And so it comes to pass that your younger self so invests, and becomes filthy rich, only, in leading such a high life, dies of a heart attack at the age of 45! Or you always regretted not proposing to the love of your life when you were young, and thus go back and convince your younger self to muster up the courage and do so. He does, but as they fly off on their honeymoon, the plane crashes with no survivors. Sometimes you don’t know when you’re well off.

Or if you can travel back in time, then of course others can to. Naturally there’s going to be lots of people interested in particular events, maybe even at the time, seemingly trivial events (yet which turn out in the long run to have had major impact(s)). And so you might have any number of people going back to particular historical focal points, each with their own particular agenda (most of which will be mutually exclusive), and ultimately causing havoc. I mean if person one goes back and influences an event producing a new outcome, then person two might go back and has a go at that result and things get altered again, which will then prompt person three to go back and influence things more to his liking, etc. In other words, history would never be fixed, rather always be fluid. The world is not safe for historians. Since we believe that history (or the past) is fixed, then that what’s written on your history book page today will not alter overnight. Thus, you have probably concluded that time travel cannot happen, will not happen, and has not happened, however much you yourself might wish to go back in time yourself and change something. (Don’t we all really wish some past something, personal and trivial, or perhaps something of major significance could be changed and you’d be that instrument of change?)

Its paradoxes and situations such as the above that prompted Stephen Hawking to postulate that there is as yet an undiscovered law or principle of physics which prohibits time travel to the past – he calls it his ‘Chronology Projection Conjecture’. Since we have never seen, according to Hawking, to the best of our knowledge at least, any time travellers – tourists or historians - from our future, he’s probably right.

So, putting it all together, here’s my theory of time travel: my unified theory of time travel, at least to the past.

Relativity theory has passed every experimental test thrown at it, so the theory isn’t in much doubt and one can have a high degree of confidence in what it predicts, even if that prediction is currently beyond any experimental test. Relativity theory allows for time travel into the past, but, IMHO, only to parallel universes (otherwise known as alternative or mirror or shadow universes) where no paradoxes can happen.

Why only parallel universes? The ways and means by which you can use relativity theory to time travel backwards involves rotating Black Holes or wormholes. There are serious reasons behind the speculation that what’s on the other side of a Black Hole and/or wormhole is another universe. So, therefore it’s relativity’s time travel allowance, but probably to another universe. The Black Hole or wormhole ‘exit’ isn’t within our Universe.

Whatever you do in that parallel universe is predetermined. It’s fate. It’s destiny - all because causality rules. Therefore, there are no unexpected ripple effects other than what was destined to happen. You were meant to be there and do what you do. Therefore, there will be no paradoxes arising.

Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has proposed his Chronology Protection Conjecture that prohibits time travel to the past within your own universe because of the possible paradoxes that could arise. Why can’t you go back in time in your own universe? That would mean that at a specific time and place you both were not (originally) and were (as a result of going back) present. That’s a paradox. And if you were to travel back in time to a set of time and space coordinates you were actually originally at, then there would be two copies of you occupying the same space at the same time – also a paradox.

But take the grandfather paradox. If you go back in time and kill your grandfather, but your grandfather in a parallel universe, then you don’t prevent your existence, just the eventual existence of yourself, your other self, in that parallel universe.  In the case of Shakespeare and “Hamlet”, you gave your copy to a parallel universe Shakespeare. In your original (our) Universe, Shakespeare is still the legitimate author. 

Once you time travel from your universe A, to parallel universe B, you can’t return again to universe A because of Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture – paradoxes could arise. However, you could go from parallel universe B to parallel universe C, but, hence never return to either universe A or B – Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture again.

Perhaps some people you’ve seen or known or heard about might be time travelers from a parallel universe’s future. If they then time travel to another parallel universe, then that might account for some missing persons’ cases!

In short, we can time travel to other parallel universes but not to our own; entities from other parallel universes can visit our Universe. No paradoxes need arise. Both Einstein (relativity) and Hawking (Chronology Protection Conjecture) are satisfied and happy campers. 

Is that right? No, it’s wrong! There’s still one very nasty loose end here.

To be continued…

The Simulation Hypothesis in Outline Form: Part Two

INTRODUCTION: The odds are fairly high that we reside in a computer software generated simulation (video game) universe. The chain of logic leading to this conclusion and what a simulated Universe might help explain, are outlined.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

In cosmology, there’s a fundamental imbalance between the relative amounts of matter and antimatter that just shouldn’t be. Physics predict that there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe because equal amounts should have been created ‘in the beginning’. There apparently isn’t, so there apparently wasn’t. Why that is so is of fundamental importance. You wouldn’t expect God or Mother Nature to goof this up.

In cosmology, ‘dark energy’ is apparently causing our expanding Universe to accelerate that expansion rate ever faster and faster. Trouble is, the greater the expanded space, the more ‘dark energy’ exists which further creates more space creating more ‘dark energy’ in a never ending vicious circle. So ‘dark energy’ is apparently being continually created out of absolutely nothing in total violation of the conservation laws of physics, a concept drummed into every high school student’s grey matter. Again, God or Mother Nature is unlikely to create exceptions to an otherwise apparently universal rule.

In astronomy, there are distant objects (quasars) with wildly differing red-shifts (velocities) which are apparently connected or in close association. If true, it makes a mockery of physics as we know it. I’m sure God or Mother Nature doesn’t make a mockery of physics.

Why are there two separate and apart sets of software running the Universe? There’s the three quantum forces (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear and the weak nuclear) and then there’s gravity. These two arenas, the micro scale quantum and the macro scale where gravity holds sway, just can not be unified, despite attempts by the greatest intellects over many, many decades. Is this the result of an all knowing, all powerful creator God? Would Mother Nature design more than one unified software package when creating Her Universe? 

There’s a concept in physics called the vacuum energy which has been experimentally verified. The trouble is, there are 120 orders of magnitude difference between those experimental results and what theory predicted. It’s the worst discrepancy ever known in science between theoretical expectations and experimental results. To put that in perspective, the difference between one and one hundred is only two orders of magnitude; between one and one thousand is three orders of magnitude; between one and ten thousand is four orders of magnitude, etc.  120 orders of magnitude difference boggles the mind. Something sure is screwy somewhere, and I’m reluctant to blame God or Mother Nature for the stuff up.

Physical constants, like the fine structured constant – aren’t. How can you have a constant in physics that refuses to stick to a constant value? That’s hardly a rational action of a God or Mother Nature.

Then there’s the whole category of quantum weirdness. First up, we have the phenomena of wave-particle duality where sometimes an electron (for example) behaves like a wave; other times like it’s a tiny billiard ball.  Secondly, quantum entanglement where two elementary particles light years apart can seemingly ‘communicate’ with each other instantaneously (something Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”). All things quantum are nightmares created by an irrational mind – hardly the stuff worthy of a God or Mother Nature.

Why are all members of any one of the types of fundamental particles identical? Well, the simulation software code for each type of particle is the exact same, so the particles are the same.

Who ordered that? Speaking of the elementary particles, there’s not only a 2^nd generation or family of these fundamental particles, but a 3^rd generation as well. Why is there a second and third generation or family of the elementary particles that play no role whatsoever in the physics of the Universe? Generation one is the electron, neutrino, up quark and down quark which make up the proton and neutron (and the antiparticle equivalents), but there’s a second generation that’s more massive (the muon instead of the electron but with the same charge) and ditto the third, in this case the electron equivalent being the tauon with the same charge. The interesting bit is that they play absolutely no role in our everyday observable universe. Again, why these 2^nd and 3^rd generation family of particles? Again, why don’t they play any role in life, the Universe and everything? What’s the point of their being? Why create a second and third story on your house if you never use them? Strange doings! In the simulation scenario, well the Supreme Simulator says ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time, but they weren’t ultimately needed’

That feeling of deja vu we all seemingly get once in a while. Well, our Supreme Simulator might stop, reverse, and restart bits and pieces of his overall simulation run – if we’re in that part, well we get the feeling of ‘been there, done that’.

As a general rule of thumb, just about anything science says is near impossible, yet for which there’s some degree of credible eyewitness testimony to the contrary, might be a candidate as a quirk courteous of our Supreme Simulator! Collectively, these topics fall under a general umbrella called ‘anomalies’ and whole books can be read that are full of case histories. For example, your attention is directed to the many volumes compiled by William R. Corliss of anomalies culled from the scientific literature in his Sourcebook Project series. Then there are those wonderful collections of anomaly tomes penned by Charles Fort.

Crop circles have no adequate explanation. Theories revolving around the natural, or human, or alien ultimately make little if any sense. Perhaps crop circles are one of the Supreme Simulator’s ways of making our hum-drum lives ‘interesting’.

Ghosts are explainable as a previously deleted simulated software program that still has some residue left.

The afterlife is just another piece of simulation software.

A final resolution to the ‘is there / isn’t there’ ‘free will’ debate. There isn’t – only the illusion of one – if we live in a simulated Universe. We dance to the tune of the programmer or ‘computer game’ player, if player they be. 

So, in conclusion, to paraphrase a rather famous observation, the Universe is a rather anomalous place, and we probably haven’t seen the end of the weirdness yet. I maintain it’s plausible that some geek (maybe a highly technologically sophisticated extraterrestrial), somewhere out there, created a computer software generated simulation video game called “Planet Earth” or “The Universe” or some such, and, well, the rest is history and here we are.

The Simulation Hypothesis in Outline Form: Part One

INTRODUCTION: The odds are fairly high that we reside in a computer software generated simulation (video game) universe. The chain of logic leading to this conclusion and what a simulated Universe might help explain, are outlined.

EVOLUTION: In the beginning…

There was a natural cause and effect origin to our Universe – the Big Bang event (or something closely related).

From that event the galaxies formed – naturally – galaxies comprised of naturally formed stars, planets and associated debris (like interstellar gas and dust).

On one or more (probably lots more) of these planets there was a natural origin of life event resulting in first a sort of proto-cell, hence a simple, probably unicellular life form.

Such life forms could naturally spread throughout the galaxy via various panspermia mechanisms.

From these simple proto-cells/unicellular life forms, via a process termed ‘evolution by natural selection’, there arose ever more structured and complex multicellular life forms.

Some of those multicellular life forms, via evolutionary pressures, gained an attribute which we call ‘intelligence’ – the ability to figure things out.

Levels of intelligence varied from species to species depending on the specific requirements for their survival needs. Not all species need intelligence to be successful at survival.  

In some species however, intelligence aided survival and reached levels where the species concerned could manipulate objects in their environment to their advantage.

These species could build structures and make use of primitive tools and exhibit behaviour that wasn’t just on a purely instinctive (hardwired) level. [Birds, beavers, ants, termites, spiders, bees, etc. all build structures but purely by instinct, not conscious design.]

From that point, tool use and environmental manipulation could grow ever more sophisticated until ultimately there was a subtle crossing of the threshold between the natural environment controlling the species and the species controlling the environment.

Now things get interesting because that subtle shift is an evolution from the natural towards the artificial – from natural selection to artificial selection.

Our species can now construct artificial environments and products – cities, houses and other artificial artefacts – and manipulate them to their advantage.

The species has now evolved a sophisticated technology.

Part of that technology can be put to use to artificially simulate the…

Origin and evolution of the Universe, galaxies, stars, planets and associated debris. [This is a standard tool of theoretical cosmologists and astrophysicists.]

Technology can simulate possible ways leading to (and maybe ultimately recreate) life’s origins – plural since it may be possible for there to be more than one pathway to an origin of life event.

Technology can now simulate actual or potential biological evolutionary pathways (the roads not taken) up through and including the development of high levels of intelligence.

Simulation technology can hence simulate the artificial technological environments that helped create the simulation technology in the first place.

Such simulations might simulate or recreate the actual roads taken as well as roads not taken (perhaps what we’d call ‘fiction’).

Ultimately, the sophistication of the simulation technology will be such that one can not tell apart simulated ‘reality’ from the actual ‘reality’ it’s simulating.

This is akin to the Turing test for artificial intelligence (A.I.) where if you (in one closed room) hold a conversation with a fellow human being, and an artificially constructed ‘intelligence’ (like those talking computers in Star Trek) who are in a separate closed room, without being able to ultimately figure out which was which or who was who, then you’d have to accept the fact that A.I. exists.

We need to pause here and note that while there is but one real Universe we need concern ourselves with, there could be, within that Universe, thanks to intelligent technologically minded species scattered throughout, the creation of thousands, millions, even billions or more simulated universes or parts thereof.

One of the parts thereof could be the part containing ourselves and our immediate surroundings and environment.

EXPLANATIONS: The usual ways and means of explaining all things in our life, the Universe and everything is to observe and research the natural – what’s Mother Nature up to? That’s one possibility. The second is to appeal to a supernatural creator being – God. But there’s another- the idea that we’re part and parcel of a simulated universe. However, the simulation idea is as much of a copout in explaining life, the Universe, and everything as that of a supernatural creator God, in that anything goes. No matter what, it’s explainable. However, the simulation idea does a better job of rationally or logically explaining a few things that to date just aren’t really explainable in the same satisfactory sense, even when appealing to a supernatural God. The key difference is that one assumes a supernatural God is rational, all powerful, all knowing, and infallible. His life, the Universe and everything should make sense and be totally comprehensible to those creatures (us) supposedly created in His image. However, a Supreme Simulator being, being a biological being (say for argument a human being) does not have the attributes of a supposed supernatural God. A Supreme Simulator’s life, the Universe and everything will not always be rational and make sense and be comprehensible because the Supreme Simulator is not infallible or all knowing or all powerful, and thus his (small ‘h’) creation – his simulation of life, the Universe and everything – will not always be comprehendible to the great unwashed. But, by postulating a fallible Supreme Simulator, a lot of puzzlements start to fall into place.

Overall, there appears to be a quasi-artificial structure to the Universe over many scales or orders of magnitude. That is, there seems to be a sort of fractal pattern, a pattern that repeats from the micro through the macro, the macro squared, the macro cubed, etc. There appears to be intense concentrations of matter/energy separated by vast distances from the nearest similar concentrations of matter/energy. For example, an atomic nucleus is vastly separated from a ‘nearby’ atomic nucleus. Translated, even in a ‘solid’ object, most of the space is just that – space, empty space. Stars are vastly distant from their stellar neighbours relative to the size of typical stars. Galaxies are concentrations of stars, but galaxies are separated by vast distances, distances vastly larger than the dimensions of galaxies themselves. Moving on up the scale of structure, clusters of galaxies mirror the same pattern, in that clusters of galaxies are widely separated. Ditto super-clusters of galaxies shun other super-clusters of galaxies. Finally, entire walls of galactic conglomerations feature, but separated by vast voids where little matter/energy resides. It’s like the bubbly foam when you shake up a soft drink – there are walls, the surfaces of the bubbles that enclose large volumes of empty space. From the incomprehensibility of the extremely tiny to the incomprehensibility of the incredibility vast, there’s empty space that alternates with regions of high density. Now, the question is, would such a regular pattern happen naturally, via Mother Nature, or would it be the result of deliberate planning, say by a Supreme Simulator? 

To be continued…