The Many Lives Of Radioactive Nuclei

When you study radioactivity in high school or anything that relates to radioactive dating, you’re drilled in the fact that any and every radioactive (unstable) nuclei decay at a fixed mathematical rate called the half-life. Each ‘brand’ of nuclei has its own half-life that’s applicable or unique to those particular nuclei. What’s probably not drilled into you is that unstable nuclei decay for no reason at all and that tends to make a bit of a hash of the half-life relationship which in turn can’t be explained. Something is screwy somewhere.

Is there a relationship between causality and radioactive decay and the precise pattern to that decay? Why is this important or interesting? Because, at least in IMHO, there’s something screwy somewhere between the three that needs resolution. Radioactivity – exactly when something decays, in this case unstable (i.e. – radioactive) nuclei, is totally random. There is no rhyme or reason for the when. There is no cause according to quantum or particle physicists; therefore there should be no pattern according to me. If, contrary to scientific opinion, cause and effect operate at the quantum level (the micro realm where unstable nuclei go poof) then there are plausible mechanisms, again according to me*, that could account for a pattern – the half-life pattern – which is what we observe. So there’s a conflict here, or as I have stated, there’s something screwy somewhere. 

The central theme here is why do unstable nuclei decay according to a precise mathematical relationship termed the half-life? There are potentially dozens of other precise mathematical possibilities, and a near infinite ones if you abandon any mathematical symmetry altogether. Let’s explore a few of those.

For the sake of what follows, let’s assume a barrel full of 1000 marbles. Each marble represents one of the 1000 identical unstable radioactive nuclei ‘marbles’ or atomic ‘marbles’ that sooner or later will go poof and decay giving off, radioactivity – Alpha, Beta and/or Gamma Rays. The barrel is just to keep all of them in place – say like a 1000 atom lump of uranium. The decay or the poof will originate when someone removes a marble or the marble from the barrel.

Now how many ways can one remove marbles from the barrel – how many ways can unstable radioactive nuclei be made to decay.

For the standard half-life relationship to hold, you are restricted to pulling out half of the marbles that are in the barrel per fixed unit of time. You remove one half of the original lot of 1000 marbles per unit of time; then one half of the remaining 500 marbles per unit of time; then one half of the remaining 250 marbles per unit of time; then one half of the remaining 125 marbles, and so on and so forth – 62, 31, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1 and finally all 1000 marbles have been removed and there is no more instability left. All the 1000 radioactive atoms have now gone poof and decayed. You can plot that on a graph and get a nice pattern. That’s what’s in the textbooks.

Since the half-life works on an ever diminishing scale, one-half of the original, then one-half of what remains, then one-half of what remains after that, and so on, why that and why not other possible but similar relationships?

What about three-quarter lives? If you start with 1000 unstable marbles, after one unit of time you decay 750, leaving 250. Three-quarters of 250 is 188 that bite the dust after another identical interval of time leaving 62 to go. Three-quarters of 62 is 46 more who have decayed. That just leaves 16 radioactive marbles in the barrel. 12 of them go poof in the next time interval, leaving a bare quartet. One more time interval sees just one lone radioactive marble left, which of course will give up the ghost in the next (and final) time interval. 

Now what about two-third lives? If you start with 1000 unstable marbles, after one unit of time you decay 667, leaving 333. Two-thirds of 333 are 222 that bite the dust after another identical interval of time leaving 111 to go. Two-thirds of 111 are 74 more who have decayed. That just leaves 37 radioactive marbles in the barrel. 25 of those go poof in the next time interval, leaving a bare 12. One more time interval sees just four lone radioactive marbles left, three of which of course will give up the ghost in the next to last round, the lone and final survivor going down the gurgler in that next (and final) time interval. 

For another example, why a one-half life relationship in favour of an ongoing diminishing reciprocal to the above one-third relationship? Remove one-third of the 1000 marbles leaves 667. One-third now removed from those 667 leaves behind 445 ‘radioactive’ marbles. Remove one-third of those 445 marbles and you’re left with 297. One-third taken away from 297 leaves 198, then 132, then 88, then 59, then 39, then 26, then 17, then 11, then 7, then 5, then 3, then 2, then one is left which goes poof at that last pick of the draw; in that final unit of uniform time.

In a similar sort of exercise to a third-life, you can substitute the standard half-life for a quarter-life (1000, 750, 562, 421, 316, etc.) or a half-life for a fifth-life (1000, 800, 640, 512, 410, etc.).

Another variation on the theme might revolve around why does not Mother Nature decide, per fixed unit of time, on one-half of the original then one-third of the remaining then one-quarter of what remains after that, hence one-fifth, one-sixth, etc. In our 1000 marble in the barrel analogy, that’s one-half of the 1000 removed or 500 left, then one-third removed of the 500 or 333 remain, then one-quarter removed of the remaining 333 leaves 250 remaining, then one-fifth removal of the 250 leaves 200 remaining, then remove one-sixth of the 200 leaves 167, and so on down the diminishing line.

Or what about an inverse square relationship which is a common relationship in physics. So the diminishing relationship is one quarter, followed by one ninth of what remains, followed by one sixteenth of that, followed by one twenty-fifth, followed by one thirty-sixth, etc.  That is, start with 1000 marbles, then removing one quarter of those 1000 leaves 750, then removing one ninth of those 750 leaves 667, and removing one sixteenth of those 667 leaves 625, then removing one twenty-fifth of those 625 leaves 600, then removing one thirty-sixth of those 600 leaves 583, and so on. Why didn’t Mother Nature opt for that mathematical relationship for radioactive decay?

Now consider the near infinite number of alternatives or possibilities.

You could grab out all 1000 marbles in one fell swoop.

You could equally grab out 500, catch your breath, then grab out 500 more.

You could pull out 1 or 2 or 5 or 10, etc. marbles per unit of time. From say the initial 1000, pull out 25 each grab: 1000, 975, 950, 925, 900, 875, etc. Or, one could pull out any random number of marbles every 25 seconds.

You could pull out 1, then 2 then 3 then 4 then 5, etc. per unit of time. Starting with 1000, you’d have 1000, 999, 997, 994; 900; 985; 979; 972, etc. Or, pull out 1, then 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32 then 64, etc. doubling each time. Or 1, then 4, then 9, then 16, then 25, then 36 more, then 47 more, then 64 more, then 81 more, then 100 more, etc., the squares of 1, 2, 3, etc. Or there’s the cubes of 1, 2 3, etc. – 1, 8, 27, 64, 125 and so on until all the marbles have been grabbed. Another relationship could be pulling out 1, then 2 more, then 3 more, then 5 more, then 8 more, then 13 more, then 21 more, then grab another 34, then another 55, etc. where what you grab out is the sum of the previous two grabs. Then there are the primes – grab 1, then 2 then 3 then 5 then 7 then 11 then 13 then 17, etc. There’s no end to the possible mathematically related sequences that have nothing to do with a half-life. 

If radioactive nuclei go poof for absolutely no reason at all – there’s no cause for the effect – as scientists claim**, then all radioactive nuclei decay should be absolutely random. It just so happens that mathematically the most probable way is a totally random way, a totally random selection of marbles from the barrel since there are way more ways of doing something (removing marbles from the barrel) randomly than doing something by the mathematical book – engineering some precise mathematical relationship that one can put down in equation form and graph as a symmetrical line or curve.

Take say two decks of cards, each numbered 1 to 52 and each shuffled well – then each shuffled again. A randomly chosen card from Deck A decides the number of marbles to be removed; a randomly chosen card from Deck B decides the time before you remove them. Picked cards are re-entered back into their respective decks and the decks shuffled again.

Now this is just a convenient-sized quasi-random number generator one can apply to our 1000 ‘radioactive’ marble sample. In reality, the first ‘deck of cards’ would have to represent every possible positive whole number, and the second time generator ‘deck of cards’ every possible increment of the smallest possible time unit – the Planck unit of time – in which anything meaningful can take place, like a nucleus decaying and going  poof.  Both random number generating ‘decks’ together then can deal with every radioactive nucleus that ever was and is in the entire cosmos.

Meantime, back to the 1000 marbles in the barrel and the two finite shuffled deck of cards from which numbers of marbles and time frames are picked randomly. I think you’d agree that if you followed the logic of picking and removing the number of marbles from the barrel based on a random shuffling of one deck of cards and doing so at time intervals based on the random shuffling of a second deck of cards, you are unlikely in the extreme to end up with the standard half-life relationship. Something is indeed screwy somewhere.

In conclusion, if you buy say a 24-can case of beer, there will come a point in time when half the contents (12 cans) have been consumed. But you couldn’t call that time interval the half-life of that case of beer since there is no reason to assume that the next six cans (half of the remaining 12 cans) will be consumed in the next identical time interval and the next three cans in an identical time interval following that. The same argument applies to radioactive (unstable) nuclei. The fact that the half-life relationship exists and has been verified in defiance of all that is logical given the lack of causality is suggestive evidence IMHO for the reality of, our reality being; the Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe scenario. It’s all just software programming done from a higher reality. 

* In the nanosecond that separates no decay from decay, something must of happened IMHO to trigger the decay event. I’ve gone on record elsewhere that a plausible mechanism might be neutrinos slam-banging into unstable nuclei, the impact being the tipping point that triggers the decay event.

**Scientists probably conclude that because nothing they do to radioactive nuclei, either chemically or physically makes any difference to the poof rate of that specific type of unstable nuclei. You can hammer them, boil them in oil, piss on them, feed them to bacteria, give them the evil eye, soak them in Holy Water, oxygenate then, play heavy metal music to them, shine a laser beam on them, freeze them, put them in a vacuum, and for all the good those things do, nothing changes. 

Further Reading:

Malley, Marjorie C.; Radioactivity: A History of A Mysterious Science; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2011:



Those Oops In Physics: Part Two

Some physical scientists – professional skeptics – are quick to jump on what in their opinion are the flaws inherent in what they term pseudoscience or the paranormal. Perhaps they should gaze at their own navels first before criticizing others, as the following hopefully points out.

Continued now from yesterday’s blog…

Oops in Causality     

Causality (the future is contained in the past), cause-and-effect, has to operate across the board if Mother Nature is to be predictable, and prediction and predictability is at the heart of what makes science, science. Yet, some scientists insist some phenomena have no causality. Lack of causality implies that what happens is the result of some sort of ‘free will’ (or variations thereof) which is absurd. That would imply that an electron or a radioactive uranium atom has an independent ‘mind’ of its own. Lack of causality alone in IMHO is nearly sufficient evidence to justify the hypothesis that we are ‘living’ in a simulated (virtual reality) universe.

# Big Bang: Apparently the creation of the Universe (the Big Bang event) happened for absolutely no rhyme or reason at all. That means there was no first cause attributable for the effect that was Big Bang event. Does that strike anyone besides me as odd, as in absolutely impossible?

# Radioactivity: That two identical radioactive (unstable) nuclei will decay (go poof) at different times despite both being in the same place, in the same environment, at the same time. That’s therefore because of the ‘fact’ that an unstable radioactive nucleus will go poof for absolutely no reason at all. If there is no causality behind radioactive decay, then obviously any two identical radioactive nuclei can go poof in a totally random way. But random events shouldn’t result in a precise mathematical relationship, which is what is claimed by observation – the concept of the half-life.

# Electrons: That an electron will drop to a lower energy level by emitting a photon for absolutely no reason at all is strange given that an electron will jump to a higher energy level by absorbing a photon’s worth of energy. There’s no causality in the downward direction; there’s causality in the upwards direction. That’s nuts!  

# Pane in the Glass:  You have one light source. You have one normal everyday clear and clean pane of glass. Some of the light (photons) from the light source will pass clear through the clear glass, but some of those identical photons will reflect off the clear surface of the pane of glass. One set of circumstances yields two differing but simultaneous outcomes. That violates cause-and-effect. That’s crazy, but it happens as you can verify for yourself. 

Oops in Probability     

# Electric Charge: The electric charge of the proton is exactly equal and opposite to the electric charge on the electron, despite the proton being nearly 2000 times more massive. There’s no set in concrete theoretical reason why this should be so.

# Fine Tuning: In fact, you tend to a violation in probability when it comes to numerous examples of fine-tuning – the fine-tuning that allows the Universe to be bio-friendly. For example, if the force of gravity were slightly stronger, the Universe would have re-collapsed into a Big Crunch rather quickly, and thus there would have been no time allowed for life to form and evolve. If the force of gravity had been slightly weaker stars and galaxies wouldn’t have formed. No stars and galaxies: thus, again, a lifeless Universe.       

Oops in Theory vs. Observation

# Matter & Antimatter: Theory predicts there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe. Observation shows that there is a massive predominance of matter over antimatter. Something is screwy somewhere.

# Vacuum Energy: Theory suggests a certain value for the vacuum energy. Experimental observation shows quite a different value for the vacuum energy. In fact, the difference between theory and observation is 120 orders of magnitude. Something is definitely screwy somewhere.

# Protons: Some theories suggest that like an isolated neutron, the proton is, over the long term, unstable and should go poof and decay. Alas, experiments, and there have been many of them, have failed to detect even one proton decay event. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

General Oops: WTF?

# Inflation: In addition to the above, the Big Bang event as a standalone event raised lots of problems, collectively known as the flatness problem; the horizon problem; and the monopole problem. To resolve those issues, a secondary theoretical and rather ad hoc expansion event, termed Inflation, was proposed. Alas, it lacks any shred of actual independent and observational evidence (apart from dealing with the Big Bang issues as noted), and has its own set of problems, not least of which there are many variations on the Inflation theme; how and why Inflation started and how and why Inflation stopped. If the Big Bang were really a comprehensive theory of everything with respect to the origin and early evolution of the cosmos, there wouldn’t be a horizon, flatness and monopole problem requiring an ad hoc tack-on.

# Dark Matter: There apparently isn’t enough mass contained within our galaxy (and others as well) to account for its structure and how it stays together as a collective conglomerate of stars, planets, interstellar dust, etc. So, with a wave of a magic physics wand, physicists and astrophysicists invent out of thin air an ad hoc explanation – all that missing matter must be “dark matter”, matter which we can’t see, can’t detect, and haven’t a real clue as to what it might be

# Cosmic Rays: Cosmic rays tend to be very high energy particles like electrons and positrons, protons and antiprotons, alpha particles and other atomic nuclei that originate from beyond our solar system. After that, things get iffy. Their actual point(s) of origin are anywhere and everywhere and to be honest their origin(s) are rather mysterious. You name the astronomical object and someone will have tagged it as a, if not the, source of cosmic rays. Among the candidates are supernovae, active galactic nuclei, magnetic variable stars, quasars, gamma-ray bursts, even the Crab Nebula (a pulsar) and the radio galaxy Centaurus A. It all seems to be a case of picking a number out of a hat or throwing a dart at a dartboard labeled with astronomical structures. Your guess (and that’s what they are) is as good as mine.

# The Fine Structure Constant: The mysticism over the number 137 (i.e. - actually 1/137) – the Fine Structure Constant – has the same sort of cultist fascination and impact on some physicists and the physics community in general as the dimensions and mathematical relationships and their significance inherent in the Great Pyramid (at Giza, Cairo) has to occultists, numerologists, mystics and pseudo-archaeologists. Then there’s all that endless numerological speculations on and significance of 666 to Christians. A rose by any other name applies here.

Conclusions

As we have seen, there are many ghosts that haunt the academic corridors of academic physics. Physicists need to exorcise those demonic spirits first, before trying to inflict their exorcisms on the rest of the irrational world.

* What can escape from a Black Hole is called Hawking radiation, but in that massive a Black Hole, the one required for a pinhead sized start to the cosmos, that radiation leakage would take a very, very, very long time to ooze out; hardly what you’d call an explosive event.

     

Some Interesting Reading

Baggott, Jim; Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth; Pegasus Books, New York; 2013:

Jones, Sheilla & Unzicker, Alexander; Bankrupting Physics: How Today’s Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility; Palgrave Macmillan, New York; 2013:

Smolin, Lee; The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of Science and What Comes Next; Penguin Books, London; 2006:

Woit, Peter; Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics; Vintage Books, London; 2007:



Those Oops In Physics: Part One

Some physical scientists – professional skeptics – are quick to jump on what in their opinion are the flaws inherent in what they term pseudoscience or the paranormal. Perhaps they should gaze at their own navels first before criticizing others, as the following hopefully points out.

Some people for example claim that some UFOs are actually extraterrestrial spacecraft and get bucketed for their point of view. No evidence; no proof is the mantra of the skeptic – usually a physical scientist. However, IMHO, some physicists (or other equivalent physical scientists like astronomers) make even greater outrageous claims without a shred of evidence, far less proof. The attitude of some scientists seems to be along the lines of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

Physics tends to be a subject that lots of ordinary folks shy away from, probably because physics tends to rely heavily on mathematics, and usually highly complex mathematics at that, advanced mathematics that aren’t taught until well into third or fourth year at university and into gradate school. However, even when modern physics is explained minus the mathematics, in what I guess would be termed layman’s language, physics turns out to be really, really weird. The mathematics tends to hide the weirdness from the uninitiated (since everything is double Dutch to them) but it’s there all the same. These are some of the examples I’ve come up against – a wall that one tends to bang one’s head against in frustration. The frustration tending to be in the first instance, what’s wrong with me that I can’t do an end run around the (only apparent) weirdness? Once one accepts that it’s not you, but the physics that’s weird, well that doesn’t eliminate the frustration or the feeling that one still needs to bang their heads against the wall! Of course maybe it’s not the physics that are weird but the physicists. It wouldn’t be the first time – but that’s another story.

Oops in Common Sense - Theory

Now I am aware that common sense is not an acceptable criterion in science, but there is a limit to what pills I will swallow. With the exceptions of the speed of light and neutron decay (see below under observations) there is no observational or experimental evidence for any of this theoretical nonsense.

# Point Particles: Particle physicists often use the term “point particles” when talking about the fundamental or elementary particles that make up matter, like electrons, etc. However, a point particle has zero dimensions, and as such takes up zero volume. The upshot is, if particles have no dimensionality, then matter cannot exist. Matter is made up of these elementary particles, and if each particle has zero volume, well zero plus zero plus zero equals zero. All of matter would have zero volume and that’s clearly not the case. Alternatively, point particles couldn’t smash together in say the Large Hadron Collider or in any other particle accelerator.

# Dimensions: That there are up to ten spatial dimensions (not three) if Superstring Theory or M-Theory is correct. In the words of the late physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that’s “not even wrong”. 

# Big Bang: That the first nanosecond of creation crammed the contents of our observable Universe into a volume less than a pinhead. In any event, if you could squeeze the contents of the observable Universe down into a pinhead’s volume, you’d end up with the Mother of all Black Holes from which nothing* would escape. Therefore there would be no Big Bang and thus our Universe would not have been brought into existence. 

# Big Bang: That the Big Bang event created time itself. This can’t even be done in theory, far less in actual practice. Pull the left leg!

# Big Bang: That the Big Bang event created space itself. This too is beyond the theoretical limits of modern physics and certainly cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Now pull the right leg!

# Theory of Everything (TOE): There are three quantum (micro) forces that rule the roost – the strong nuclear; the weak nuclear; and electromagnetism. All three have been unified into the Standard Model of particle physics that’s called the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). There is also one force that rules that rules supreme in the classical (macro) world – gravity. Since the micro and the macro are both part of the larger picture – Mother Nature – it should seem obvious that gravity can and should be unified with the Standard Model to provide what’s known in the trade as a Theory of Everything (TOE). Alas, despite the best minds working on unification over many, many decades, nothing of substance has surfaced. The realm of the micro and the realm of the macro are incompatible, like two different sets of software that are separate and apart but collectively run the cosmos. That makes no sense. It should be relatively easy to unify all four forces.    

# Gravity: Centuries after Isaac Newton, the puzzlement that is gravity has still not been completely solved. There appears to be two competing theories. One, gravity is geometry, otherwise wrapped around Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Mass tells space how to curve; curved space tells mass how to move. Two, gravity is a force somewhat akin to electromagnetism in that it has an associated particle that conveys the gravitational force, like a photon conveys the electromagnetic force. That hypothetical or theoretical particle is termed the graviton, and remains to date undetected. You’d think by now the issue would have been settled. 

# Observation/Measurement: That the lack of observation or of measurement (same difference) has a bearing on the reality of what’s not being observed or not being measured is absurd. That’s like saying the Moon doesn’t exist, or may or may not exist, or exists and yet doesn’t exist at the same time, if nobody is looking at it. In any event, to but the worms back into that can, during the early history of our Universe, there were no observers (i.e. – no life forms of any kind) and the cosmos got along just hunky-dory. The Universe doesn’t give a rat’s ass about observers. Things either are, or they are not.

# Electrons: When an electron rises or falls from one energy level to another, when in-between the electron is in limbo, in Never-Never-Land, in The Twilight Zone, in another dimension for all we know. It just can’t be anywhere that’s locatable in-between for if it was – in-between that is – it would possess an in-between energy state that it is not allowed to have.

Oops in Common Sense - Observations  

# Velocities: Velocities maybe added or subtracted. If you are on a treadmill that’s moving left at 5 MPH, and you’re on it walking to the right at 5 MPH, to an external observer you are waking yet standing still. Now the exception to that universal rule is the speed of light. The velocity of light is a constant to an external observer no matter what. Why that should be no one knows, but it is so. However, my take on this can of worms which as a consequence require both time and length to be flexible, is one should always be a bit suspect when it comes to the lone ranger, the exception to the rule. There’s something weird afoot here.  

# Neutron Decay: One isolated neutron will decay in roughly 15 minutes into an electron, a proton and an antineutrino. That’s probably why a hydrogen atom hasn’t a neutron you’d think; there’s only one electron around a nucleus of one proton. Unfortunately heavy hydrogen is heavy because it has one neutron, so that blows that idea. Apparently therefore, any neutron inside or part of a nucleus is stable. So obviously two or more neutrons together (i.e. – part of a nucleus or within a neutron star) will not decay. Why one isolated neutron is unstable, yet a neutron or neutrons (two or more together) as part of a nucleus or as a neutron star are stable, is to me a mystery that defies logic. I mean, by analogy, an isolated radioactive (unstable) nucleus behaves no differently than its clone or twin that is cheek-by-jowl with others of its kind. 

Oops in Conservation Laws – The Free Lunch     

# Dark Energy: Apparently the density of Dark Energy remains constant while the volume of the Universe expands. That’s something from nothing. That’s a free lunch.

# Big Bang: First there was nothing; then there was something. That means the Big Bang event created both matter and energy out of less than thin air. That’s also a free lunch.

To be continued…



Even More Random Thoughts In Physics

Sometimes you have a new thought, an idea, or eureka moment, but it’s not gutsy enough to expand into a reasonable length article or essay. So, here’s yet another potpourri of thoughts dealing with physics and related too good not to record, but with not enough meat available to flesh out. 

oooooOOOOOooooo

* In reviewing several of my essays I’ve noted that I’ve occasionally said that there is just the one physics, yet I’ve often said for the record that quantum physics and classical physics (General Relativity) are incompatible and forever will be. In other words, there’s no quantum gravity and no Theory of Everything (TOE). Is this in conflict? No. There is the one physics even though you’d be hard pressed to unify thermodynamics with levers, inclined planes and pullies.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Universal Parameters: You cannot determine from first principles what the properties of the Universe, or the fundamental particles that make up the Universe, are. They apparently can have free range. A proton is 2000 times more massive than an electron, but you can’t calculate that from the theoretical laws, principles and relationships of physics. It’s only determined experimentally. There doesn’t seem to be any reason why the proton couldn’t have been 0.2, 2, 20, 200 or 20,000 times the mass of an electron. The same applies to the relative forces. The theoretical laws, principles and relationships of physics do not require an opposite yet of equal value charge between the negative electron and the positive proton. Presumably the value of each could have been as far apart as their masses – that is a proton could have been 2000 times as positive as the electron is negative. Why not? There’s no reason why not apart from the fact that the Universe as we know it wouldn’t work, but then we wouldn’t be here to worry about that or what might have been. 

oooooOOOOOooooo

* We’re all taught in high school the above, that the electric charge of an electron is equal and opposite to that of a proton. The ‘why’ of the relationship is never explained in any shape, manner or form. I’ve never seen an explanation given in any popular particle or quantum physics book. Now either the explanation is so bloody obvious authors don’t feel the need to explain the ‘why’ of the matter and insult the reader’s intelligence, or else the ‘why’ is in the way, way, way too hard basket and authors avoid the question and the issue to avoid appearing ignorant about so fundamental a fact.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Black Holes would make excellent, in fact perfect, thermos (vacuum) flasks. Pour into a Black Hole the contents of a star, say like the Sun. All that heat is then trapped and I do mean trapped!

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Light is a thing; gravity is a thing; things can effect each other, so when it comes to the bending of light in a gravitational field, there’s no need for all this nonsense of warped space, time or space-time, which, after all, are not-things but just mental concepts.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* If something quantum happens for no reason at all (i.e. – unstable nuclei goes poof) why doesn’t everything micro happen for no reason at all. Or, if some quantum happenings are just probabilities, why aren’t all micro happenings probabilities.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* An isolated neutron has a half-life of roughly 15 minutes before going poof or decaying into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. Neutrons that ‘live’ in a community of neutrons like in the nucleus of atoms; as in a neutron star, don’t decay. They are stable in these community relations. That seems like something is screwy somewhere. Why is it so? I thought that might explain why the hydrogen atom (otherwise known as protium) had no neutron (just one electron and one proton), but then heavy hydrogen (deuterium) does have one neutron (plus one electron and one proton) so things get weirder and weirder.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* You obviously relate to being a human in a human-sized world. You can imagine being a cat or a dog and living in their world. You can probably extend that down to the world of insects and imagine yourself as a fly or ant or butterfly. At a stretch, you might be able to relate to and imagine yourself as a micro-organism living in say a drop of pond water or in the blood stream. But what about navigating down to the worldview of a photon or an electron? That I suspect is way, way, way too alien to imagine in your wildest dreams.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* We conceive of nanotechnology as building up from micro scratch what technology we want (say micro devices to traverse our blood vessels and clean them up from the inside) by manipulating atoms from the ground up and building whatever we want from those fundamental ‘Lego’ blocks. But what if the fundamental particles are themselves products of nanotechnology?  



Chemistry Is Weird

Despite the fact that most of us were exposed to the subject in high school, I’d wager that 99.99% of us don’t give a passing moments thought to the reality in our world, the reality which makes you, you – chemistry. Yet, even if you did chemistry in high school, you probably never gave a passing moments thought to how weird chemistry really is. Weirdness aside, chemistry works. We all rely on that, except when it comes to the chemistry that rules the roost of that brain thingy of yours.

Chemistry is really weird if you stop and think about it. The basics from the ground up, those fundamental constituents, protons, neutrons and electrons, have the properties of charge, mass and spin and presumably exist in a solid state at STP (standard temperature and pressure) or otherwise. In other words, they have none of the properties, apart from mass, associated with any of the properties associated with the chemical elements (like being other than a solid, liquid or gas at STP (standard temperature and pressure); having colour;

Given those elementary particles, if you start to pile them up, well charge plus charge equals a greater or lesser overall charge; mass plus mass equals more mass; spin plus spin – well I’m not sure spin is a property that can be added or subtracted.

If it could be so arranged, but we’ll make it so since this is a thought experiment, a baseball-sized collection of electrons or neutrons or protons at STP would obviously have mass, and a lot of electric charge in the case of protons and electrons. But what would the colour be? What would it taste like? What would it smell like? What would it feel like? These are unanswered and probably unanswerable questions.

But assemble these fundamentals in various combinations and all of a sudden you do get all of the elements with their associated colours and tastes and so on. That’s a bit weird for starters.

How many atoms of gold (for example but any other element would do) have to come together or be assembled before you have the properties of gold? It surely has to be more than one atom worth surely. 

But even weirder is when you start to combine the various elements with associated properties into molecules that have properties totally unlike the parent elements. You have hydrogen and oxygen as dry gases at STP that make water which is wet and liquid at STP. Silicon is a solid at STP and Carbon is a solid at STP, and Oxygen is a gas at STP, but Carbon Dioxide is a gas at STP whereas Silicon Dioxide (sand) is a solid at STP, yet Carbon and Silicon are like mother and daughter in terms of similarity. Then you have Chlorine, a poisonous yellow gas at STP, and Sodium, which is a solid shiny metal at STP, and volatile enough such that if you swallow any you will really do yourself a very serious mischief. However, Sodium Chloride is just pure table salt and a compound your body requires to survive and thrive!

Carbon isn’t a poison, Oxygen you can breathe, but you’d die in a pure Carbon Dioxide environment, or even in a pure Carbon Monoxide environment.

All of chemistry is deterministic and predictable, both inorganic and organic, with the apparent exception of brain chemistry, which I’ll get to shortly. 

You’d think chemistry would be straightforward, but chemistry can act in rather weird, even unpredictable ways. I mean, if you have an atom of Sodium and an atom of Chlorine, you get a straight-forward molecule of table salt (salty). If you have two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen you get, in a straightforward fashion, a molecule of water at STP (wet). Combine Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen in a certain way and you get sugar (sweet). Another arrangement can give you chlorophyll (green).

Now how is this weird? Well, the basic constituents, protons, electrons and neutrons aren’t salty, wet, sweet or green. Sodium and Chlorine atoms aren’t salty; table salt is salty. Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms aren’t wet at STP; water is wet at STP. Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms aren’t sweet; sugar is sweet. The constituent atoms comprising the chlorophyll molecule (Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Magnesium) aren’t green; chlorophyll is green. 

So how do the properties of saltiness, wetness, sweetness, greenness, arise from those constituents that don’t have those properties? It’s not quite as strange as getting something from nothing or something happening for no reason at all, but nevertheless IMHO something’s screwy somewhere. And enigmas like these all lead back to that most fundamental of all issues – what is reality?

Or take another case – Carbon. You’d think Carbon is Carbon is Carbon, but no. Carbon can be charcoal or coal; Carbon can be graphite; Carbon can be a diamond. The various properties of these substances, all just Carbon, drastically differ. Chemistry is indeed weird.

Let’s re-ask the question: How do properties (like charge, spin, mass or presumably being either a solid liquid or gas depending on how you vary temperature and pressure) that all matter (like the fundamental particles, the building blocks of atoms/elements, in turn the building blocks of molecules/compounds) has, morph into properties that only some kinds of matter have, like sweetness, transparentness, hardness, colour, malleability, etc. or properties drastically different from their constituents – like two gases making a liquid.

I’ll just note here that while the fundamental particles, the atoms/elements and molecules/compounds have specific properties, composites like humans do not. The human body for example is collectively a solid, a liquid and a gas. Actually I don’t even tend to think of the human body as an organism but rather a colony composed of billions of micro-organisms, both the cells that make you up as well as all those other microbes that your body plays host to. But that’s an aside.

Speaking of the human body, the body (including the brain and therefore the mind) is one huge chemical processing factory. What goes in is not the same as what comes out!

When it comes to the most of your bodily bits and pieces, your body chemistry is pretty damn deterministic. You breathe in Oxygen and out will come Carbon Dioxide. If you eat X today, your digestive juices process it in the same way as when you ate X the week before. You expect your liver chemistry to detoxify those beers you had with the boys last night. If you take medication, whether it is prescription or self prescribed, you count on the fact that X + Y = Z yesterday, today and tomorrow. If your doctor prescribes various blood and/or urine tests, there’s an extremely high degree of expectation that the results of those tests will exhibit enough absolute certainty for the doctor to then follow-up on, and you will have confidence in that follow-up.

The brain is just a soup vat of chemicals, organic chemicals and bio-chemicals, but chemicals all the same. Therefore anything and everything rooted within the confines of the brain is rooted in chemistry. 

But it is absolutely amazing what chemistry can accomplish when it is part and parcel of your brain chemistry. Things don’t seem quite as deterministic then. Your brain chemistry holds sway over your sensory inputs, memory, desires, emotions, creativity, etc. and we know that those sorts of attributes in humans can be pretty unpredictable.

Still, perhaps one afternoon you smell (sensory input) your next door neighbour’s southern fried chicken cooking which then triggers off a whole potful of internal responses, all triggered in turn by your brain chemistry. The chain reaction might start off by all of a sudden feeling hungry (desire) then remembering (memory) that frozen chicken you have in the freezer and how it has been quite a while since you had a good finger-lickin’ chicken dinner but you’ll need to pop into the corner store to pick up some of those 57 herbs and spices. But then you get an inspiration (creative thought) to stuff the chicken as you would a turkey and forgo the Colonel’s secret recipe, even though you get all teary-eyed (emotions) when you recall how your significant other proposed to you at your local KFC outlet following the senior prom: all that from what’s basically just chemicals doing their chemical thing.  

If you recall something (as per the above example), presumably matter and energy are interacting since there’s no such thing as a free lunch. You don’t get something, in this case memory recall, for nothing – at no cost to you. But how can chemistry result in memory? Chemicals are products. Chemical reactions (those matter-energy interactions) produce new chemical products. Does that make memory a product (and ditto all those other nebulous mental ‘products’ like emotion, desire, morality, and creativity)? Computer memory recall isn’t chemistry of course – there aren’t any chemical reactions going on in your PC – but rather physics (energy expenditure moving electrons around, etc.) Anyway, laptops (to date anyway) don’t have those other nebulous human (and animal) traits like emotion, desire, morality, and creativity that are presumably chemistry driven. But there is more to the anomalies of brain chemistry that just equating a memory or creativity with a chemical, if in fact the two can be equated at all.

Actually I can’t accept the proposition that a molecule (however complex) can equal a memory or be a new creative idea. There must be trillions and trillions of unique memories and creative thoughts (that probably become memories) stored within the brains of the collective of human and animal societies, yet that number would vastly outnumber the possible combos of types of molecules available. It would appear that there has to be more to memory and creativity than just chemistry – it would appear so, but is it so? 

How is it that you can ‘train’ your brain chemistry to wake you up at a certain time – no alarm clock – and it doesn’t matter what time you went to sleep and how many hours of sleep you actually had? How is it that your brain chemistry likes one piece of music but not another piece, or how you can turnoff liking a particular piece of music that used to be your favourite, or type of food, or type of animal – the list is endless. How can your brain chemistry remember X one day, but not the next day? Presumably that creative thought you had today could have been thought of yesterday but wasn’t – same brain, same chemistry (apparently), different results. How does your chemistry-driven feelings for your better half change over time? How come your brain chemistry can result in sexual arousal from viewing one image but not from another image? And it’s not just human brain chemistry either. Given seemingly identical circumstances, my cats will not of necessity perform identical actions. I’m sure there is a logical chemically driven deterministic explanation, except that it’s all so complex and interwoven that it gives more the appearance of indeterminacy and free will. If 99.99% of chemistry is deterministic, I’m sure brain chemistry will prove to be also.



The Quantum Realm: Part Two

Now the really interesting thing about quantum physics isn’t so much the physics but the philosophy behind it all. Why is it so? What does it mean? That these philosophical issues matter and should be of interest is because you, the macro reader, is made up entirely – from the ground up – out of the residents of the realm of the micro, the inhabitants of the realm of the quantum.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

As a review, with commentary, these are my takes on quantum strangeness:

Case Study #1 deals with that double slit experiment. IMHO photons fired one at a time at the double slit should not form a classic wave interference pattern with or without slit detectors in place. The concept of superposition belongs in “The Twilight Zone”, though apparently, so the scenario goes, what’s emitted is a particle; what’s detected is a particle; but the flight or pathway in-between is a wave-of-probability. It’s the slit detector that changes wave-of-probability into location, but that exact location must have existed even had the detector (our stand-in observer) not been in place. How does that explain the one photon at a time interfering with itself and causing that classic wave interference pattern? It doesn’t, but it’s a better bet than trying to come to terms with the idea of a thing being in two places at the same time.

Case Study #2, dealing with entanglement, well let’s just say that a particle on one side of the Universe should be independent of the fate of a particle on the opposite side of the Universe. More superposition equals more of “The Twilight Zone”.

Case Study #3: There needs to be a bona fide causality inspired reason why an electron gives away a photon and drops to a lower energy level. It’s not a whim thing. Maybe it’s another photon bumping into the electron and discharging the absorbed photon, maybe not, but it’s not a whim thing.

Case Study #4: Neutrinos should not endlessly change their clothes on route. The fact that they do contributed to some serious reflection that the core of our Sun had actually shut down. Scientists when looking for electron-neutrinos emitted by the Sun’s solar furnace didn’t see enough of them and thought the worst. It wasn’t until much later that they realised they had missed all those electron-neutrinos that the Sun had actually given off but which had changed their attire between the Sun and the Earth.

Case Study #5 notes that if you are made of matter, it would not be a good idea to shake hands with your antimatter twin self! But why matter and antimatter should go poof at all is a bit strange. An electron has a negative charge and its antimatter twin has a positive charge (hence the name positron). They go poof upon contact. But a proton has a positive charge equal and opposite to that of an electron and they don’t go poof when brought into contact so there’s more than just opposite charges annihilating each other at work here obviously. There’s no question that chemical reactions can give off energy, but total annihilation – wow. 

Case Study #6: Quantum Tunnelling should happen for a reason – it doesn’t. Quantum Tunnelling shouldn’t happen instantaneously since that violates the cosmic speed limit – the speed of light. The fact that in the micro world, barriers, well ain’t, makes all human inmates wish they were subatomic particles! 

The overall image that keeps springing to mind is all those Hollywood special effects. They would be an excellent explanation for all of the above weirdness. Think about it!

Finally, we should also note that most of the above examples or case histories involve quantum probability, uncertainty, indeterminism, etc. with respect or relative to the observer which could be you or me.

Case Study #1 suggests that photons (or electrons or any other fundamental particle) are in a superposition of state, which suggests that they can be apparently in two (or more) locations at the same time, and it’s only based on probability as to exactly where that location is. But it is in just one location as the addition of actual slit detectors verifies. So, the key point is that the photon or electron or whatever is 100% at a specific set of coordinates even if the double slit experiment suggests that the photon or electron or whatever is smeared out over a wide ranging area and only probably here or probably there.  So probability really bites the dust since location (one slit or the other) is confirmed by observation – there’s location, location, location; not probable, probable, probable!

In Case Study #2 we have more about that superposition of state whereby a particle may actually be a particle or an antiparticle (probability is 50/50) or spin up or spin down (probability 50/50). But you know, and I know, that in reality, one particle IS a particle (probability 100%) and the other IS an antiparticle (probability 100%) or one particle IS spin up (100% probability) and the other IS spin down (100% probability). There is no indeterminacy even if there is no observer, there is only determinacy, positive actuality, whether or not one or the other is observed. There is no across the universe communication. There is no ‘spooky action at a distance’. There is no probability involved other than 100% probability, otherwise known as a sure thing.

In Case Study #3 we have an electron that absorbs a photon’s energy and thus quantum jumps to a higher energy level. It then becomes a matter of probability as to when that electron emits that photon and jumps back down to a lower energy level. But, as in the case of radioactive decay, the odds are 100% that it will happen. Probability need not apply here. Probability is not applicable. The key concept here is again, ‘sooner or later’.

In Case Study #4, we might not know why the neutrino changes clothes, or exactly when and under what circumstances, so, as far as we are concerned it’s all boiled down to statistical probability what clothes any particular neutrino will be wearing when detected. However, there’s no doubt in my mind that causality is operating and that it’s 100% certain that the neutrino is wearing the clothes that causality has dictated. There’s no probability involved, only the probability that we’re probably pretty dumb for not figuring out why.   

Finally, in Case Study #5 somehow particles and antiparticles seemingly ‘know’ when they meet and greet whether to go poof or not go poof. The mystery is how they ‘know’. But it’s total certainty one way or the other and the observer has no relevance or say in the matter.

Case Study #6: Quantum Tunnelling, as already noted, happens for no reason at all. It’s responsible for radioactive decay which happens for no apparent reason at all. There is no way, rhyme or reason that enables one to predict when a quantum tunnelling event will transpire. It’s all probability. Either that, or a subatomic particle has a free will mind of its own and the knowledge and the ability of a Harry Houdini.

I have one other observation while on the issue of causality and probability if you please. If something quantum happens for no reason at all (i.e. – unstable subatomic nuclei goes poof) why doesn’t everything micro happen for no reason at all. Or, if some quantum happenings are just probabilities, why aren’t all micro happenings probabilities. Now IMHO if 99.999% of all physical effects can be traced back to one or more causes, it’s pretty safe to suggest, even conclude if you’re a betting person, that 100% of all physical can be traced back to one or more causes, even if those causes remain as yet unknown.

Lastly, consider and reconsider the quantum mantra: Anything that isn’t forbidden is compulsory; anything that can happen will happen. Does that sound like a probability statement to you?

I suggest this puts the kibosh on quantum physics being steeped in probability. There is no probability once you eliminate the observer and the observer’s fixation on either where things are; where something is, or whether something is or is not going to happen, and when something is going to happen. Before there were observers, things were somewhere, fixed and absolute, things did their thing without any guesswork or decision-making involved, and things happened sooner or later with absolute certainty.



The Quantum Realm: Part One



Now the really interesting thing about quantum physics isn’t so much the physics but the philosophy behind it all. Why is it so? What does it mean? That these philosophical issues matter and should be of interest is because you, the macro reader, is made up entirely – from the ground up – out of the residents of the realm of the micro, the inhabitants of the realm of the quantum.

If you take quantum physics to its logical conclusion, you can only deduce that those residents of the quantum realm, those elementary particles, have some very strange properties bordering  on self-awareness, consciousness, quasi-free will, a sort of ‘mind’ of their own but programmed with the social mores of quantum-land. They have the ability to ‘know’ things about their external world and their relationship to that. They can make decisions with respect to those relationships and act accordingly within their programming. They are not totally unresponsive and inert little billiard balls.

I’m also aware that such an assertion crosses the boundary between my being rational and being irrational. I mean how could an electron for example ‘know’ anything and make decisions? Such a proposition makes alien abductions, the Loch Ness Monster and the realm of astrology seem downright normal and acceptable and within the realm of conventional logic! But there is experimental evidence and observations to back this up.  

Case Study #1 – The Double Slit Experiment: Take the infamous double slit experiment (referenced in any and all tomes on quantum physics). Send a stream (lots and lots and lots) of photons at two parallel slits that have a target board of sorts behind them that show where the photons land after they pass through the dual slits. The photons pass through both slits and form on the target board a classic wave interference pattern, thereby showing that electromagnetic radiation, in this case visible light, is a wave. So far; so good. Now fire one light photon at a time at the dual slits, such that one photon will pass through the slits and reach the target board before the next photon is released. What you get – wait for it – is a classic wave interference pattern! That’s ridiculous. It’s as if one photon passes both slits at the same time and interferes with itself. That’s very funny peculiar, not funny ha-ha. In fact, it’s straight out of the “Twilight Zone” again. But wait, it gets worse. Now rerun the one photon at a time experiment but set up a detection device at each slit in order to determine if the photon goes through just one slit or through both. What happens is that the lone photons, fired one at a time, is indeed detected going through one slit or the other slit but not both simultaneously and thus, as you would expect, the classic wave interference pattern vanishes to be replaced with two separate and apart lines on the target board. That’s totally nuts since without detectors at the slits you get that classic wave interference pattern; with detectors, no such pattern. The question is, how did the photon ‘know’ the detectors were there and thus change their behaviour?

Case Study #2 – Entanglement: In the double slit experiment where one photon went through both slits simultaneously, the photon was said to be in a state of superposition – it could be in two places at the same time. In this new study we have two particles with a common origin, linked in some way, and released together out into the wilderness, sort of like Hansel and Gretel. Unlike the fairy tale, the two particles fly off in differing directions. So far; so good. The particles are not quite identical, just like Hansel and Gretel are not quite identical, but complementary, as one particle might be the antiparticle of the other or one is either spin up or spin down and the other is either spin down o spin up. The two particles are again considered to be in a state of superposition – each is simultaneously a particle and its antiparticle; or both are in a state of spin up and spin down. In other words, as in the case of the double slit experiment, there is doubt about who’s who and what’s what until a detector is put into place. I this example both particles fly off until they are on opposite sides of the Universe. Then, a detector is put into position in the pathway of one of the pair (i.e. – someone peeks). When someone peeked (i.e. – the detector detected) as in the double slit experiment, the photon was required to go into an either/or state. Ditto here. If the particle turns out to be Hansel, you know the particle on the opposite side of the Universe must be Gretel. Or, if one particle is observed to be an antiparticle, or say spin up, its partner clear across the Universe instantaneously must cease its superposition of state and become a particle or solidify into a spin down state. That one particle across the Universe somehow ‘knows’ that the superposition of state jig is up since its counterpart has been caught in the act (i.e. – observed or detected). Einstein had a phrase for this. He called it “spooky action at a distance”. Einstein wasn’t happy since this instantaneous communication implied superluminal speeds, faster than the speed of light, which his Special Theory of Relativity gave the thumbs down to. Now apparently, if I’m to understand things correctly, it’s noted that restrictions on the speed of light as the ultimate cosmic speed limit only applies if actual information is being transmitted. Pure gibberish can be transmitted instantaneously and ‘communication’ between two entangled particles isn’t actually information. How the cosmos ‘knows’ whether or not something is, or is not, bona fide information and thus employs photons travelling at the speed of light, or gibberish and thus allows instantaneous ‘communication’, is, IMHO gibberish! The whole issue is resolved if you just eliminate the concept of superposition of state. Something cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same place.

Case Study #3 – Electron Energy Levels: We are aware from elementary chemistry class that there is a cloud of electrons that surround the nucleus (protons plus neutrons) of atoms. Nucleus plus electrons equal whole atoms. The electrons only exist in specific quantified energy states. If they didn’t, they’d collapse and crash into the nucleus and that would be the end of chemistry as we know it! An electron can absorb a unit (or a quanta) of energy, or maybe two (or more) units and jump up a notch or two or three, or give off a unit(s) of energy and drop down a notch or two or three (but never to zero and hit the nucleus). The energy is absorbed or emitted by the absorption or emission of photons. So here comes along a photon minding its own business and runs smack into an electron which gobbles it up and jumps into the next higher energy state. Okay, that makes sense, so far; so good. That’s an example of cause-and-effect. The issue arising is how and why does the electron release the photon from bondage at a later stage and drop back down a level in energy? There seems to be causality working in one direction (absorbing the photon) but not the other way around. So it almost appears as if the self-aware electron wills itself rid of the photon at some point in time and drops down into a more comfortable energy state. However, I gather that there’s a possible explanation in that another photon comes along, hits the electron, and knocks the first photon out thus dropping the electron to a lower energy state. Since nobody has ever witnessed a photon hitting an electron, I guess that’s all conjecture. Still, any natural explanation is better than none.

However there are many other instances apart from the scenario of an electron in ‘orbit’ where electron-photon intersections (absorption and emission) are described, most notably in those [Richard] Feynman diagrams known and loved by particle physicists everywhere. These diagrams illustrate the various electron-photon exchanges but lack explanation as to how photons are given off or escape from the electron’s clutches. It’s all rather mysterious, rather like radioactive decay. 

While on this subject, I should point out another anomaly. Electrons can have just-so quanta energy levels, like 1, 2 3, etc. but not in-between. Energy states of say 1.5 or 2.2 or 3.7 are not allowed. So, when an electron jumps up or down an energy level or two to another energy level, they must do so without going through the spatial intermediaries. First they are here; then they are there, but never in-between. That’s all closely related to the concept of quantum tunnelling where say you are on one side of a wall and then you are on the other side of the wall but you didn’t go through, up over, dig under, or go around the wall. You can’t do that, but elementary particles can. Neat trick that one.

Case Study #4 – Neutrinos: There are three types of neutrinos. There are electron-neutrinos; muon-neutrinos and tau-neutrinos (just like there are electrons, muons and tau particles). Neutrinos, and their antiparticle counterparts, are given off in numerous ways like in various nuclear reactions taking place in the hearts of stars, including our Sun. Billions of these neutrinos pass right through you (without harm) each second. So far; so good. What’s odd is that while in transit, each morphs or shape-shifts into the other neutrino forms and back again and forth and back and forth. It’s like one was in its birthday suit, one in casual wear and one in formal attire and on their journey always keep changing their attire. There doesn’t appear to be any causal reason for this, so perhaps this is what is known as neutrino free will!

Case Study #5 – Antimatter: We’re all aware of the concept of antimatter. Each fundamental particle has an equal but opposite counterpart called its antiparticle. The most common example is the electron and the anti-electron, otherwise known as the positron. We’re also aware that when a particle meets and greets its antiparticle you get a big ka-boom! The two will annihilate each other producing pure energy. But, and this is my understanding, it has to be a particle and its very own corresponding antiparticle. So an electron meets and greets a positron – ka-boom. And so if a proton and an anti-proton meet and greet – ka-boom. But if a proton and an anti-electron (positron) meet and greet – nothing happens because they are not equal and opposite though they are matter and antimatter. Ditto if an anti-proton and neutron meet and greet – nothing happens. The question arises, how do these various particles and antiparticles recognise friend from foe? When foes meet like the positron and the electron, its annihilation. When a positron meets a proton, it’s a friendly meet and greet. How do these particles ‘know’?

Case Study #6 - Quantum Tunnelling: Every now and again we just want to bust out of our day-to-day existence and escape to that greener grass on the other side of the fence. Alas, there’s usually some barrier, economic, geographical, language, cultural, etc. that prevents us from busting out. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could wave a magic wand and bust through whatever factor(s) is holding us back? Well, sadly to say, it’s not usually the case where we can. Lottery wins are few and far between, and even if money were no object, there are other considerations holding us back from that get-up-and-go. Subatomic particles also face barriers in their micro world, barriers of matter and energy, fields and forces, which prevent them from doing their thing. However, subatomic particles have sold their soul to the devil that inhabits quantum land and in exchange have been issued a get-out-of-jail card. It’s called quantum tunnelling and it suggests that subatomic particles can tunnel around, over or through any matter and energy, force or field, restriction. The interesting bit is that the tunnelling happens for no reason at all, involves absolutely no effort on the part of the tunneller, and it all happens instantaneously. So, an electron on one side of a brick wall can instantaneously find itself on the other side without any causality in operation. It’s like our Edgar Rice Burroughs hero John Carter who just wishes himself to Barsoom (i.e. – Mars) and there he is! Perhaps quantum tunnelling is the micro version of the macro wormhole!

In general I think you’d need to agree that there are some decidedly odd goings on here from lack of causality to tiny particles that seem to ‘know’ how to behave either when face-to-face with an observer, or in other either/or situations. Now the odds that these tiny particles actually have the ability to make decisions and exhibit free will divorced from causality, and to ‘know’ things that influence that decision making process is, well nearly infinity to one against. Yet, these anomalies exist and have been verified again and again. So, IMHO, the only other rational explanation is that there must be some sort of guiding power or force, some sort of as yet uncovered hidden variables, maybe programming of some sort, which is responsible. Exactly what that might be – well your guess is as good as mine.

To be continued.

The Simulated Universe Concept

Nearly everyone, if asked, will tell you that there is a really real universe out there and that they are part of that natural universe. However, that might not be the case. The case might be that there is a really real virtual universe out there and that you are a part of that simulated universe. In other words, you are akin to being just a character in what are commonly termed video games, only this video game that you are a character in was created by an unknown – let’s call this creator the Supreme Programmer; maybe a human; maybe not. 

THE SIMULATED UNIVERSE!

Q. What Is The Simulated Universe Hypothesis?

A. The human species, especially since the proliferation of the computer and associated technologies, have created thousands of simulated landscapes and virtual beings, from the humble Microsoft office assistant to pilot training simulators to video games that cater to all types of interests and age groups. Entire movies are now computer generated simulations – no actual on-location travel required; no humans need apply in hopes of earning an eventual Oscar for best actor. In view of the explosion of simulation technologies, and it’s only going to increase and get ever more realistic than it already is, the question has arisen, if we can create virtual worlds, might not we in turn be virtual beings ‘living’ in a simulated landscape programmed for some purpose or other, by other beings which might be futuristic humans recreating their past history, or ET’s video game version of “The Life and Times on the Third Rock in the Sol Planetary System”. It’s a best seller on Krypton! Though once just sci-fi speculation, that profound idea that we don’t really exist as flesh-and-blood is now taken very seriously indeed. However, there are many more questions arising from this scenario.

Q. Who gets prime credit for coming up with the Simulated Universe hypothesis?

A. I wish I could, but I can’t. Prime credit should probably go to Professor Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University as well as the Director of the Future of Humanity Institute. His original paper, “Are you living in a computer simulation” appeared in the Philosophical Quarterly, volume 53, number 211, 2003. 

Q. How Is The Simulated Universe Created?

A. In the exact same way as computer nerds and geeks here on Earth create all the various thousands of instructional and recreational simulations here on Terra Firma. It’s all in the programming.

Q. Who or what is the Supreme Programmer?

A. Obviously those of a religious leaning would call the Supreme Programmer God, except God is identified with creating a really real reality, not virtual reality. I much prefer a flesh-and-blood Supreme Programmer, which offers up one of two possibilities. The Supreme Programmer could be a human(s) with computing and programming skills far in advance of our own, or the Supreme Programmer could be a non-terrestrial, an alien or an extraterrestrial. Hey, if we can create aliens in out video games, well what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Q. Can software create matter and energy?

A. No. Software can only create virtual or simulated matter and energy.

Q. Is the matter and energy that we experience in our world matter and energy that doesn’t exist?

A. The matter and energy we experience in our world doesn’t really exist because we don’t really exist as a manifestation of matter and energy. Think of those animated cartoons – Bugs Bunny doesn’t exist as matter nor does the carrot he eats, but he still eats the carrot!

Q. How can a mind exist if there is no matter in our world to make our brains?

A. If our mind, and the brain it is housed in, is virtual matter – as it would be if we were simulated – then there’s no need for there to be really real matter in our world. 

Q. There must be really real matter somewhere in order for the Supreme Programmer to exist so he / she / it can create the really real software program.

A. Of course. We may be virtual beings in a simulated universe but that would still require a really real universe and really real reality for the creator of the software to create in – our Supreme Programmer. An analogy is that the characters in our video games or cartoons (like Bugs Bunny) reside in a simulated or cartoon world, but their simulated or cartoon world resides in what we think of as 3-D reality – our universe. 

Q. Does the Supreme Programmer manipulate us in real time as per a terrestrial video game, or has he / she / it just created an initial set of conditions; laws, principles and relationships, and then hit “enter” or “run program” and see how events unfold?

A. The latter. I certainly don’t get the sensation I’m being manipulated by outside forces beyond my everyday comprehension as if I were a character in a video game.

Q. Instead of being the product of computer software, might we be the product of wetware – someone dreaming or daydreaming (or even hallucinating)?

A. Absolutely. We all know how vivid, real, lifelike, and detailed dreams can be. The mind is capable of painting incredibly realistic imagery. The mind is more than capable of constructing virtual reality. Each day billions of virtual reality landscapes are created and dissolved – dreamland landscapes.

Q. What’s in it for me if the Simulated Universe scenario is correct?

A. Well, the Supreme Programmer isn’t much help when it comes to you paying your dues, bills, taxes, or in assisting you when dealing with those day-to-day issues we all have. But, it just might be a key element to your afterlife. End sub-programme routine “Life: Jane Doe”; run sub-programme routine “Afterlife: Jane Doe”. 

Q. Is there anyway we can know that we are just virtual beings in a Simulated Universe?

A. If the Supreme Programmer really knows his (or her or its) stuff, no. You’re programmed not to know.

Q. Is there anyway we can suspect that something’s screwy somewhere, that we are just virtual beings in a Simulated Universe?

A. Computer software often needs tweaking – so look for anomalous tweaks around us. Computer software is often overridden, though usually never 100% completely – so look for the residue of overridden software, like ghostly images. Computer software programming will vary in the detail required – so look to areas that have been given the broad brush treatment where detail is lacking or so glossed over as to present anomalies. Computer programming might contain contradictions, backgrounds not thought through properly – so look around for enigmas – things that can’t be yet are. Look in general for all those ‘oops’ bits. Look in general for anything and everything than can best be explained by software programming or technology, as opposed to any natural forces at work.

Q. I gather therefore that the Simulated Universe hypothesis is like God-of-the-gaps arguments. Anything and everything is explainable.

A. Yes. Unfortunately there’s no getting around this. Religion explains all since “God works in mysterious ways” – that’s a copout. Anything God can explain away software programming can explain away too. 

Q. What is the best argument against the Simulated Universe scenario?

A. Crunch power! The sheer amount of bits and bytes that could be required to simulate to the detail required our existence, life, the Universe and everything, would be massive. Now that’s not to say lots of shortcuts wouldn’t be taken. You could skimp on a lot of the micro details and a lot of the cosmic details, but even taking into account quantum computing it would be a massive set of software programmes. However, if it is a really advanced technological society, human or extraterrestrial, creating our virtual world, well who’s to say what might or might not be possible.

Discussion

When it comes to the Simulated Universe concept, there’s probably a time differential in operation. Just as in some of our simulations we speed up the unfolding action, compressing say a million years of galactic evolution into a few minutes, so too might our Supreme Programmer unravel our virtual reality such that a week, month or year to us might occupy the Supreme Programmer for a few of their seconds or minutes. Presumably it is the broad-brush evolving big picture of interest, not the nitty-gritty second-by-second details of your boring life. 

Then too there are some people to whom the idea of a Simulated Universe and a Supreme Programmer is deeply disturbing. As one person wrote to me, “If I felt I was a puppet on a string, I might just give up and fall in a heap.” Of course the puppet-on-a-string hands-on character in a video game analogy is just one possibility. It’s also quite possible that you are left to your own evolutionary fate with no direct interference or manipulation by the Supreme Programmer other than he / she / it set the initial parameters and then just stood aside as an interested but non-interfering observer.

Actually I find it disturbing and quite incredible that some people might be upset by the Simulated Universe proposal (or any other state of the cosmos for that matter). As one person put it to me, “I can cope with an indifferent universe but not with a malicious one”, the idea being that a Supreme Programmer must of necessity be malicious. The more positive view might be that the Supreme Programmer, the puppeteer pulling the strings, might be pulling your strings in a nice way; in a beneficial way, so that you can and do enjoy “the beauty of the natural world, friendship, music, and the taste of good food, wine and beer!”  Apart from the Supreme Programmer, there actually really is a puppeteer (of sorts) that you dance to – that puppeteer is called society and society pulls your strings! Your days, weeks, months, and years are full of society telling you to do this and don’t do that, from formal legalities to conventional mores. When society says “jump”, you ask, “how high?” 

The Universe simulated or otherwise just is. The Universe is what it is. The Universe is whatever it is. There’s nothing you can do about the state of the Universe. Therefore, cross it off your “I’m concerned about this” list. There’s no point in fretting over what you have no control over.

If the Universe really might be malicious, if someone or something is yanking your chain, and that possibility disturbs you, then it is in your interest to show it otherwise, or if it is, you owe it to yourself to come to terms with that and then move on to newer and better concepts to occupy your mind.