More Profound Things: The Non-Living

There are many things and concepts within the collective worldviews of humanity that are considered pretty mundane. However, there’s certainly a collection of things and ideas which rise to the top in profoundness when compared and contrasted with the ordinary everyday routine. These are the sorts of profound things and concepts which keep you awake at night, pondering the Big Issues. No two people will come up with identical lists. Without further ado, here are some more of mine. 

* Matter: Matter is profoundly just frozen energy. Matter and energy are not different things but the same thing, as Einstein theoretically proposed and the Manhattan Project demonstrated. Even burning a match turns some matter into energy; a nuclear reaction even more so; and the ultimate – matter-antimatter annihilation. Energy is probably more fundamental than matter since it’s much easier to turn matter into energy than energy into matter, at least on the macro scale.  

* Electrons in the Twilight Zone: When an electron rises or falls from one atomic energy level to another, when in-between levels the electron is in a profound 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.

* Delayed Double Slit Experiment & Time Travel: We all know about the infamous Double Slit experiment, which in one variation allows the experimenter to peek and thus see if one particle (photon, electron, etc.) can actually pass through two slits at the same time, which is what happens when the experimenter turns her back. Of course the particle will only go through one slit or the other if there is a Peeping-Tomboy around. But what if someone, human or independent observation device, peeks, but only after the particle has already passed through presumably but absurdly both slits? That shouldn’t affect the outcome since it’s now too little to late for the particle to change its mind. But again, irregardless, the normal particle-that-passes-through-both-slits that results in an eventual wave interference pattern, that pattern disappears even after the peeking is done, even after the particle has passed through both slits. The one very nasty implication is that the particle travels back in time to just before or when it was emitted so as to now make the correct choice (pass through one and only one slit) to correlate what it does with what is detected - A profound conclusion indeed.  

* 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. One could almost say photons exhibit a restricted form of ‘free will’. That’s crazy, that’s profound, but it happens as you can verify for yourself. 

* Electric Charge: The electric charge of the proton is exactly equal and opposite to the electric charge of the electron, despite the proton being nearly 2000 times more massive. There’s no set in concrete theoretical reason why this should be so. This could be considered a profound example of ‘fine tuning’ that makes our cosmos a ‘Goldilocks’ (bio-friendly) Universe.

* 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. Anytime something is screwy somewhere, profoundness is not far behind.

* Mother Nature: Why are there laws of Nature? Why is Nature organised? Why is Nature creative? Why is Nature self-ordering? One could imagine a universe where there was nothing but an endless cosmic ‘soup’ of quarks and electrons and neutrinos and photons and there were no interactions between them. All was just chaos and there was no mathematics, hence no physics, hence no chemistry, hence no biology. That the in-the-beginning chaotic state profoundly evolved into laws and organization and creativity and the self-ordering of things, instead of remaining forever and a day in a chaotic state, gave rise to Goldilocks.  

* Goldilocks: Why is the cosmos bio-friendly? Well the Universe, or at least our Universe, has to be bio-friendly otherwise we wouldn’t be here to wonder why our Universe was, well, bio-friendly. But why is it so, when one can envision all sorts of universes where the laws, relationships and principles of physics could be just ever so slightly differently that would make your existence, and all other life-as-we-know-it life forms, impossible. That makes our bio-friendly Universe a rather profound Universe.

* Time and Time Again: What is time? We all know what time is, at least until we’re required to actually have to explain it. It’s pretty profound that we have such trouble coming to terms with something so fundamental in our lives; a concept that has been philosophically and scientifically been bounced around like a ping-pong ball since the beginnings of recorded history and probably even before that.

* Grandma, Ma and Baby Make Three: There are three generations of particles. There are three generations of quarks; three generations of electrons; three generations of neutrinos. That’s profound because there’s absolutely no theoretical reason why that should be, especially seeing as how only one generation plays any sort of substantial role in life, the Universe and everything, including those bits and pieces that make you, you.

* Spooky Action at a Distance: It’s not too difficult to imagine two entangled objects or concepts such that if you uncover the properties of one, you immediately know the properties of the other. If you know that Jane goes shopping on Fridays, and only on Fridays, and you see Jane at the supermarket, you also immediately know that it is Friday! Jane and Fridays are entangled. But things get spooky when two objects are entangled but their properties are only statistical probabilities. The vacuum energy might spontaneously produce two particles, one matter, and the other antimatter. Say they separate and eventually are light years apart. You track down one particle and it’s a 50/50 chance that it’s matter, or antimatter. Both are actually in a superposition of state, both particles equally matter and antimatter at the same time until such time as you observe the properties of one (or the other), then the collective probabilistic wave-function of the two particles collapses down into an either/or state. Say the particle you tracked down then observed collapses into a matter particle. You then immediately know that the other particle light years away is an antimatter particle. Somehow the particle you observed communicated to its entangled partner that the gig was up – instantaneously even though it was light years away. And of course you acquired the knowledge about the status of the unobserved particle instantaneously even though it was light years away. So profound was this scenario that Einstein finally rejected the whole concept of quantum mechanics being probabilistic, calling this “spooky action at a distance”. 

* Impressive Space! If you remove all the empty space within an atom, and do that for each and every atom that’s part and parcel of each and human being on the planet, one could in theory fit the entirety of the human race into a volume the size of a sugar cube. But that’s just a baby step towards a theoretical singularity and since the constituents are now already in direct contact (no space, remember), so what’s left to compress. Can an electron be squeezed down and further than its normal volume? 



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.

You and the Vacuum Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reality: Mother Nature Is A Bitch

Coming to terms with your reality is hard enough under ordinary circumstances, but Mother Nature’s a bitch and likes to baffle us with one hand in the observed reality this-is-nuts cookie jar while giving us with the other hand her middle finger by ignoring a more theoretical alternate reality common sense cookie jar, just to make life difficult and hard to understand for us mere mortals.

There are seemingly zillions of things that are theoretically proposed yet which makes no sense in our reality. The classic modern example is String Theory which requires six additional spatial dimensions apart from latitude (north-south), longitude (east-west or left-right) and altitude (up-down) you are familiar with. But there’s also a whole pot-load full of observations and experimental reality which equally makes no sense.

Some parts of reality have been demonstrated to death as reality yet as Mr. Spock would have it, are illogical.

For example, there is a trilogy of generations of the elementary particles. For example, there’s the electron, the heavier muon (father or son to the electron) and the even heavier tau (the electron’s grandfather or grandson). Now you’d think their relative masses would bear some sort of logical relationship like 1,2,3 units or 1,2,4 units or 1,3,9 units. But no, it’s all ad hoc like numbers determined by three spins of the roulette wheel though with vastly more numbers. Now this wouldn’t be too bad if the muon and the tau particle actually did anything. They can be created, but they decay and go ‘poof’ so quickly that they play no active role in any reality dealing with life, the universe and everything. This is the first impossible reality, or an alternate reality, you need to accept before being served breakfast.

There’s matter or mass that interacts with electromagnetism, the sort of stuff we know and deal with every day. You are that sort of matter. But, reality also has it that there is matter or mass that does NOT interact with electromagnetism, like light. You can’t see this matter. It’s invisible matter. It’s called Dark Matter. If you had a ‘basketball’ made out of Dark Matter and it was a foot in front of your face, you couldn’t see it even in a brightly lit room. That’s nuts. This is the second impossible reality, another alternate reality, you need to accept before being served breakfast.

Dark Matter makes up roughly 23% of our universe, but that doesn’t mean that 77% of the universe is composed of I’m-made-of-that normal matter. In fact only 4% of the universe is normal stuff. The remaining 73% of the universe’s stuff is Dark Energy. You can’t see Dark Energy either, but then again you can’t see most forms of normal energy either so that in itself does make Dark Energy any sort of an alternative non-intuitive reality. Why Dark Energy belongs in the realm of alternate reality is that it’s a ‘free lunch’; it’s something-from-nothing. That’s because although the Universe is expanding, its volume is getting bigger, the density of Dark Energy remains the same. Translated, as time goes by, the Universe contains more and more of Dark Energy. Where does it come from? Apparently it originates out of even less than thin air. This is the third impossible reality you need to accept before being served breakfast.

When you look around your room at all of the familiar objects contained therein, you pretty much think of stability. The objects don’t pop in and out of existence willy-nilly; all of the bits and pieces that make up the objects equally don’t pop in and out of existence willy-nilly. If you put one of your knick-knacks on a weighing scale, the weight stays constant. That’s reality. Alas, at the micro level, the quantum level, bits and pieces do just that – they pop in and out of existence seeming at random. They’re called ‘virtual particles’ since they don’t stick around long enough to contribute anything to your nick-knacks. They originate from the vacuum energy; the quantum jitters. The guts of the phenomena are that all space is permutated by energy. There’s no such thing as an absolutely pure vacuum. Energy can be converted to mass. When that happens, two virtual particles are created, equal and opposite – one matter, the other its antimatter counterpart. They quickly recombine, go poof, and return the energy borrowed to create them in the first place back to the vacuum energy bank vault. So, you have solid reality – you have nebulous virtual reality. This is the fourth impossible reality you need to accept before being served breakfast.

  

The observed value for the vacuum energy, confirmed by experiment, and the predicted or theoretical value for the vacuum energy differ by 120 orders of magnitude, so real reality and theoretical reality are on near opposite sides of the universe! Mother Nature has a sense of humour. This discrepancy is the fifth impossible reality you need to accept before being served breakfast.

Matter-Antimatter is one of those reality symmetries beloved by physicists. Theory predicts, indeed demands that at the moment of creation (that Big Bang event) matter and antimatter would be formed in equal amounts. Unfortunately for physicists, but fortunately for you, other life, the universe and everything, there’s not a heck of a lot of antimatter around. Why? Who knows? It’s the case of the missing antimatter: whodunit? It’s like tossing a balanced coin a zillion times and coming up with a zillion matter heads and no antimatter tails - Something’s screwy somewhere. This is the sixth impossible reality you need to accept before being served breakfast.

Gravity reality and quantum reality exist as two separate and apart realities. There’s no doubting the reality of each. However, as both are part and parcel of our natural Universe, you’d think that there would have to be some reality connection between the two. There’s not. To unify the two is the Holy Grail of physics; a Nobel Prize is a certainty for accomplishing it. Alas, it appears that flapping your arms and flying to the Moon is a more realistic objective. This is the seventh impossible reality you need to accept before being served breakfast.

Wave-particle duality is one of those quantum realities that quantum physicists tear their hair out about because it just doesn’t jive with real reality where bullets don’t wave all over the place and sound waves don’t behave like bowling balls. To make a very long story short, little fundamental particle bullets, like electrons, when fired at a target with a barrier but also with an opening in front pass through the opening and impact the target in just one place: so far, so good. However, when these little electron bullets are fired at the same target, with the same barrier in front, only now with two openings, the impacted target shows a smear of  areas of high impacts (plural) alternating with areas of near zero impacts – a classic wave interference pattern. This also happens when the electron bullets are fired at the double set of holes in front of the target one at a time! It’s like the electrons ‘know’ when there’s just one hole, or two holes in front of the target, and change their behavior from bullets to waves accordingly. Thus, the description of wave-particle duality since particles behave like waves and waves can behave like particles.  This is the eighth impossible reality you need to accept before being served breakfast.

The observed speed of light is constant – 186,000 miles per second. That in itself isn’t so bad, except the speed of light is REALLY constant and that is counter intuitive based on everyday experiences where velocities can be added and subtracted. If a train is moving eastwards at 100 miles per hour, and someone on the train throws a baseball at 100 miles per hour in an eastwards direction, an observer on the outside railway platform will clock the baseball as moving at a velocity of 200 miles per hour in an eastwards direction. If the baseball is thrown westward at 100 miles per hour, the outside observer will see the baseball apparently standing still and floating in midair as the train thunders past. If you now substitute a light beam for the baseball, when beamed eastwards you’d think the beam’s velocity would be 186,000 miles per second plus the 100 miles per hour of the train, and if pointed westwards the velocity would be 186,000 miles per second minus the 100 miles per hour of the train as viewed by that person on the railway platform. Negative! The beam of light viewed from inside the train, outside the train, or from a jet plane in the distance will be 186,000 miles per second. Now that’s a constant! Unfortunately, the counterintuitive aspects don’t stop there. To accommodate that quirk, something else has to bend, and that something is actually a trilogy: to an external observer, as you increase your velocity your mass increases; as you increase your velocity your length shrinks; as you increase your velocity time (rate of change) slows down. So, if you could travel at the speed of light, your mass would be infinite; your length would be zero; and time would stop for you. That’s why you can’t travel at the speed of light. All of this has been absolutely verified by experiment, but still, it’s the ninth impossible reality you need to accept before getting your breakfast.   

The Twin Paradox: Following on from the above, say you have a twin sister. Say you decide to boldly go and take an interstellar voyage to some stellar system thousands of light years away, travelling at velocities some considerable fraction of the speed of light. Your twin sister stays put on Terra Firma. Because you’re going closer to light speed than your stay-at-home twin, time passes at a slower rate for you. So by the time you return home, though you still are relatively young, say still of childbearing age, your twin sister might now be a great grandmother!  It’s a form of time travel to the future at a faster rate than just getting there the usual way, at one second per second. And so it’s the tenth (and for now last) impossible reality you need to accept before getting your breakfast.   

Singularities: The Heart of Black Holes and the Big Bang

Singularities are fascinating objects and places, yet entirely ‘inaccessible’ in the sense that you can’t actually go there on vacation and send back a postcard, or travel to one on a government grant as a scientific expedition and report back via a peer-reviewed article in a technical scientific journal about the local environment, geography, inhabitants, etc. In a sense singularities are like Heaven in terms of accessibility. You have to rely on intuition or theory or second-hand observations as to what’s what and who’s who.  

Okay, for those readers I’ve already befuddled, I’d better tell you exactly what a singularity is! You’ve all heard of the phrase ‘Black Hole’ and not the one in Calcutta either! I refer to astronomical or cosmic Black Holes. Black Holes are ‘black’ because they have packed inside them so much stuff, so much mass, and hence so much gravity that not even particles of electromagnetic energy (photons) can escape their gravitational clutches. If photons, and that includes visible light photons, are jailed, can not pass go, can not collect $200, then they might as well as, as far as your perception of them is concerned, not exist. If what you don’t see exists, that existence is of no matter (well lots of matter actually). Translated, Black Holes are black because visible light can’t get from them to your eyeball! The absence of light is well, blackness.

So, is a Black Hole just a big lump of stuff, albeit stuff you can’t see? Well, ‘yes’ and ‘no’.  First off, we can ‘see’ Black Holes indirectly because of their gravitational influence on stellar objects we can see. I mean if you see a star whirling around something you can’t see, then the logical interpretation is that the star you can see is in orbit around something you can’t see – i.e. a Black Hole. Well ‘no’, you can’t ‘see’ a Black Hole because light from the Black Hole can’t get away from the crush of that Black Hole’s gravity.

What’s all this got to do with singularities? Well, the stuff composing a Black Hole, all that stuff that clumps together and is the centre of the massive all-encompassing gravity that prohibits the photons to escape the house (Hole) that Jack built is the Black Hole’s singularity. An analogy: The extent of the Black Hole is the extent of the Earth’s outer atmosphere; the singularity is the solid Earth proper. So think of a nebulous outer edge with a solid core of stuff in the middle. The stuff in the middle generates the intense gravity; the nebulous outer edge marks the boundary between gravity below the threshold of light escaping and light not escaping. That boundary is referred to as the ‘event horizon’; the stuff in the middle is the singularity.

Now the idea of a singularity doesn’t stop with the idea behind an astronomical Black Hole. No, a singularity is any concentration of stuff or mass that has such a massive amount of gravity as to prevent photons from leaving the gravitational well or prison so created. What’s the ultimate Black Hole – the Mother of all Black Holes? Well, if bits of our Universe can clump together to form astronomical Black Holes, then our entire Universe, when clumped together and in a relativity tiny state, would have been the Mother of all Black Holes and hence the Mother of all singularities. When was our Universe in such a state? Well, in the beginning!

Our Universe is expanding. That’s verified by direct cosmological observation. Every cluster of galaxies has such astronomically bad ‘body odour’ that every other cluster of galaxies is moving out of the vicinity quick-smart! Well actually you can’t have ‘body odour’ in space, so that’s not the real reason. The real reason is that in the beginning or once upon a time, there was some sort of explosive oomph event that started the expansion process. We call that the ‘Big Bang’ event. At the time of the Big Bang event, our entire Universe had a close encounter with, well, our entire Universe. Our entire Universe was roughly all in the same space at the same time. Translated, if you run the film of an expanding Universe backwards, you eventually get the entire contents of our Universe on collectively very intimate terms. Such a massive collection of stuff, matter, mass, hence gravity, all of the stuffs, matter or mass that the Universe possesses, well let’s just say you’d have the Mother of all singularities – in the Big Bang beginning; or anyway once upon a Big Bang time at least .  

Well surely one didn’t have this Mother of all singularities just sitting around for eons then for no apparent reason go ‘poof’ and thus have an explosive oomph moment which kick-started things off as far as our Universe is concerned. The intense gravity of the Mother of all singularities probably would have muted any oomph to begin with; the birth of our Universe stalled at the onset.

But, let’s throw some momentum into the mix. What’s the opposite of a Big Bang? It’s a Big Crunch! So let’s propose that we have this other universe which, the bits and pieces thereof, under all those mutual gravitational attractions, is slowly, ever so slowly, but ever so surely, coming together. And as it comes together, the contracting velocity gets faster, and faster, and faster. Eventually, you have this massive collection of stuff rushing together to meet at a single point in space and in time at a fantastic velocity. There is such momentum present that the contracting Big Crunch universe just can’t stop on a dime any more than an automobile going a hundred miles an hour can stop with inside of a foot of having the brakes applied. The Big Crunch at the omega point obviously forms the Mother of all Black Holes and singularities, but the sheer momentum of that contracting universe just tears the fabric of things (space and time) apart, and like a glove turning inside-out, the contraction passes through the omega point, spewing its gets out, becoming an alpha point, which is our Big Bang event and the start of our new expanding Universe.

Okay, so we have two sources that have singularities – singularities at the centre of astronomical Black Holes, and the Mother of all singularities residing inside the Mother of all Black Holes, the one that existed at the Big Bang beginning of the Universe.

We of course can’t see a singularity directly (unless you’re willing to take a one-way trip down a Black Hole, but even if you survived that and landed safely on the singularity, you couldn’t ever broadcast back your findings – that speed of light restriction that by definition a Black Hole imparts regarding sending stuff out). So, we have to rely 100% on what theoretical equations predict a singularity to be. Unfortunately, those equations, when pushed to the sorts of mass and gravitational extremes that a singularity would represent, well you get nonsense answers. Translated, if taken at face value, the equations note that the intense gravity crushes the stuff that itself is responsible for that gravity down to a point of zero dimensions and hence infinite density.

The essential problem behind this nonsense is that gravity is represented by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity which is a classical physics smooth continuum phenomenon. That is, you can have this gravitational value, and that gravitational value, and every possible value in-between. However, tiny objects, which is what a singularity is postulated to be, is in the realm of the quantum, which is a non-continuum phenomena. Think of a staircase. You can be on this step, or the next step, but there is no step in-between the two. That is, you can have this value, or that value, but only certain other values in-between. It’s also like money – you can have a five dollar bill, and a ten dollar bill, but not a six and a third dollar bill, or an eight and three-quarters dollar bill, or even a seven or a nine dollar bill. Money and staircases are non-continuum quantum-like; money and staircases are not a smooth continuum like gravity is.  

So, to adequately come to terms with the really real properties of singularities, you need a theory of quantum gravity. Alas, despite the best efforts of thousands of theoretical physicists over many, many decades, no quantum gravity theory to be had. There’s no quantum gravity dice.

So, let’s abandon that theoretical track and go back to common sense predictions.

Either Black Hole singularities, or the Big Bang singularity, are infinitely dense and have zero volume, or they do not. If they do not (and the alternative defies common sense and is IMHO ridiculous), then singularities have a finite volume and can grow in size as more stuff is added on. You have an original tiny singularity with extremely high, but not infinite density. You keep piling stuff onto it. For a while, the density keeps on increasing, but since it can’t become infinite, there will be a point reached where further increases cease. As more and more stuff continues to be piled on, the only other option is that the size of the singularity must grow. The volume increases, and increases and increases. The upshot is that singularities can reach a size where quantum effects become negligible. Or, in other words, singularities can grow to where they aren’t quantum objects anymore, and while theories of quantum gravity might be still be useful in explaining their properties, it’s probably no longer essential. Singularities have entered the realm of classical physics.

One property of singularities I find interesting is that the stuff that eventually forms the singularity isn’t the same sort of stuff that went down the Black Hole’s throat in the first place. There’s been a phase transition of one kind of stuff to another kind of stuff. You’re quite familiar with phase transitions in your day-to-day life. There’s nothing mysterious about the concept. The most common example is steam or water vapour condensing to liquid water condensing or freezing to ice; ice melting to liquid water hence boiling or evaporating into steam or water vapour.  Apart from your division into solid, liquid and gas, there’s also plasma. Now the sort of matter that composes a singularity is probably something else yet again, a phase transition that only extreme gravity can achieve. That such a new state of matter exists is predicted by the following: If you have an ordinary matter star, and if it should happen to collide with an antimatter star, what you get is one hell of a big Ka-Boom; the annihilation of matter/antimatter into pure energy.  However, say your matter star implodes into a Black Hole with singularity. And say your antimatter star implodes into a Black Hole with singularity. Now have these two Black Holes collide. No Ka-Boom results, just a larger Black Hole! 

Three Jokers in the Deck of Physics: Part One

In physics you have four fundamental forces and four fundamental dimensions and two fundamental types of stuff with associated properties and fates. In each case you have something, the odd one out – the one that is not symmetrical – the jokers in the physics deck. What are they?

1) You have four fundamental forces of which three have symmetry.

*Electromagnetism or the Electromagnetic Force where symmetry abounds – magnetism can generate electricity; electricity can generate magnetism. Electricity/magnetism symmetry includes the positive vs. the negative; the northern pole vs. the southern pole of a magnet; attraction vs. repulsion; the negative electron vs. the antimatter twin, the positron.

*Strong Nuclear Force has symmetry in that within the nucleus of an atom, positively charged protons repel each other – protons push outwards, yet gluons keep them in their assigned place within the nucleus – gluons pull inwards: attraction vs. repulsion. 

*Weak Nuclear Force has symmetry in that particle interactions can go in either direction. Weak interactions govern radioactivity. Radioactive nuclei can obviously be created; they also obviously can come apart at the seams (radioactive decay)!

*Gravity (the Joker): Gravity is unidirectional – it is attractive only. There is no equal and opposite antigravity except in the minds of science fiction writers.

2) There are four fundamental dimensions (ignoring unverified string theory) of which three have symmetry.

You need all four dimensions (space-time) in order to specify any particular event. You cannot have a happening in space without also having it happen in time; you cannot have an event that happens in time without it also happening in a three dimensional space. Yet only three of these dimensions are symmetrical.

*Left & Right is obviously symmetrical. These movements can be undone or reversed.

*Back & Forth is also obviously symmetrical. These movements can be undone or reversed.

*Up and Down are two directions that are obviously symmetrical. These movements can be undone or reversed.

*Time (the Joker): Time is unidirectional. Time flows in one direction only, from past to present to future. There is no equal and opposite arrow of time that extends from the future to the present and onto the past. Time cannot be undone or reversed. You cannot go back in time and change what has already happened. You remember the past; you do not remember the future. 

3) There are two kinds of stuff plus the properties of stuff (like velocity, temperature, pressure and density) and the ultimate fate of stuff.

*Mass: There’s a conservation law – the conservation of mass/matter – which states that matter can neither be created not destroyed, only changed in form. Matter (mass) can be converted to other forms of matter. You can go from a solid to a liquid to a gas and back again. You can go from hydrogen and oxygen to water and from water to hydrogen and oxygen. You can fuse hydrogen into helium (which powers the Sun) which is also an example of the equivalence between matter and energy (see below) since that fusion process releases a lot of energy at the expense of a tiny bit of mass. Matter (mass) also has another form of symmetry – antimatter. Antimatter is the same as matter only with opposite electric charge (like the negatively charged electron and its antimatter counterpart, the positively charged positron).

*Energy: There’s another conservation law – the conservation of energy – which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. Energy can be converted to other forms of energy. The chemical energy inherent in petrol gets converted to the kinetic energy of motion and heat energy. The electromagnetic heat and light energy from the Sun powers up green plants, which in turn convert that solar radiation to chemical energy and ultimately your petrol as a fossil fuel, or fuel you directly as you munch on your salad.. Unlike matter however, there is no anti-energy since energy doesn’t have any charge. But I hear an objection here. What about electrical energy? Surely electricity is the flow of electrons and electrons have negative charge.

There’s another conservation law – the conservation of charge. An electron just cannot shed its negative charge and remain an electron. The electron in fact doesn’t shed its charge after electrical energy has been converted to other forms of energy. Just think of your everyday household electrical appliances. Electrical energy gets converted to sound, heat and motion in your electric razor; ditto your electric tea kettle. Your TV set receives electrical energy which is converted to light, sound, and heat. Your electric radiator converts electrical energy to heat and light; your flashlight battery converts chemical energy to electrical energy hence to light (and some heat). But sound, heat, light, motion etc. doesn’t not contain any charge. The electron’s negative charge does not literally get converted to heat or light or motion or sound. So it’s not the electron’s charge itself that’s the source of the energy in electrical energy. 

There’s one other broader conservation law which combines the conservation of matter and the conservation of energy. One of the forms matter can be changed into is energy; one of the forms energy can be changed into is matter. The symmetries between mass and energy relate as we all know from Einstein’s most famous of equations, mass equals energy; energy equals mass. Mass has often been described as ‘frozen’ energy. So antimatter should also obey that relationship. Matter can be converted to energy; antimatter can be converted to energy. If matter of one charge and antimatter of the opposite charge meet, you also get energy – a 100% conversion to energy – but there’s no longer any charge since energy isn’t electrically charged. The positive charge and the negative charge cancel.

But there’s an exception to that rule – we think. If you have a matter Black Hole, and an antimatter Black Hole, and they merge, you just get a bigger Black Hole without the ka-boom. The ‘we think’ bit is because we can’t actually see inside a Black Hole so we don’t really know what’s happening inside. For all we know, all the hell of matter-antimatter annihilation has broken loose, but the resulting conversion of matter and antimatter to pure energy is energy that still can’t escape the gravity of the Black Hole to let us know what transpired. For the sake of argument, I’ll assume real events in real time can happen inside a Black Hole; real physics can happen inside a Black Hole. 

If the merger of equal amounts of both matter and antimatter can be converted to 100% energy, then energy can create both matter and antimatter in equal amounts. And in fact the vacuum energy; quantum fluctuations, verify that virtual particle pairs – one matter, one antimatter can and are in fact created. However, these particle pairs usually then immediate annihilate again to pure energy, restoring the borrowed energy that created them back to the cosmos. More symmetry!

The properties of stuff (like temperature) can go up and they can go down (symmetry). There’s no preferred direction.

The joker comes into play when you ask what eventually happens to stuff. Left to themselves, things go from order to disorder; things cool off; eggs don’t unscramble; your automobile doesn’t un-rust, an exploded firecracker doesn’t revert back into an unexploded firecracker. That unidirectional fate of life, the universe and everything is termed entropy. Entropy is not symmetrical. The Universe ultimately ‘dies’ when everything that is in the Universe, is in the ultimate state of disorder it can achieve. Translated, that means when the Universe attains the same temperature everywhere, what’s referred to as the ‘Big Chill’ or the ‘Heat Death’ of the Universe. Don’t lose any sleep over that – it won’t come to pass for trillions of years yet.

 To be continued…

Don’t Beam Me Down, Scotty!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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