The Russell Stannard Questions: Time & Space

There are many Big Questions in science, many of which go back to the ancients, even back into prehistory in all probability. One of the best modern set I’ve found recently were sidebars in a book by Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Open University, Russell Stannard. These are my answers, thoughts and commentary to those Big Questions. Many readers might have ‘fun’ trying to come to terms with these in their own way based on their own worldview.

The following questions (Q) are taken verbatim from those poised by Russell Stannard in his 2010 book The End of Discovery [are we approaching the boundaries of the knowable?]; Oxford University Press, Oxford. I consider these typical of the sorts of modern Big Questions that are part and parcel of the philosophy of modern science, especially physical science.

My answers are based mainly with the thought of our being in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe that has been constructed by one or more Supreme Programmers. However, some of the answers apply regardless of what the nature of our ultimate reality is.

Q. How are we to understand the true nature of space?

A. Space is a not-thing. You cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell space. Space is a concept, actually a mathematical concept called volume. Volume is the third dimension, and dimensions are also a concept – a not-thing. Space is the container that holds within real things, like you and me. So the true nature of space is the exact same as the true nature of Wednesday.

Q. Is space infinitesimally divisible?

A. Since space is a not-thing, that is just a concept invented and used by the human mind (as well as within the minds of numerous non-human life forms) to measure the mathematical concept of volume and to assist with navigation, then space is infinitesimally divisible since it has no physical properties that are so fundamental that they can’t be divided one more time.

Q. How many dimensions are there? And why are some curled up, and others extended?

A. There are no dimensions at all. Dimensionality is a human invention, attributing magical meaning to right angles, which do have a practical value in navigating around the world and the universe. Dimensions are a useful construct, just like addition; subtraction; algebra; trigonometry and the calculus are useful constructs. Since dimensions are mathematical constructs, and therefore not-things (you cannot detect points, length, area or volume – even the so-called fourth dimension of time - with any of your five senses) then how many dimensions there are is a pretty meaningless question.

Q. What is time?

A. Time is a not-thing. Time is a concept that resides in the mind and cannot be detected with any of your senses. Time has no physical properties. Time is mathematics (a human invention), a way of measuring a particular thing. That thing is change, or rate-of-change. If there is no change, it is meaningless to talk about time. Time does not exist independently of change.

Q. Is time infinitesimally divisible?

A. Since time is a not-thing, that is just a concept invented and used by the human mind (as well as within the minds of numerous non-human life forms) to measure and deal with change, then time is infinitesimally divisible since it has no physical properties that are so fundamental that they can’t be divided one more time.

Q. Does the loss of simultaneity for events separated by a distance invalidate the notion that only the presence exists?

A. This is one of those ‘paradoxes’ of those Theories of Relativity whereby, since things are relative, to one observer A happens before B; to another observer A and B are simultaneous happenings; and to yet a third observer, B happens before A. Since all observers are correct according to their specific frame of reference, the concept of ‘now’ is flexible. There is no absolute ‘now’. Another example is that whatever you observe, you observe ‘now’ yet what you observe actually happened in the past. The sunlight you see ‘now’ is now eight minutes old. However, it’s quite conceivable that you could instigate a universal ‘now’ and freeze the universe by snapping your fingers “STOP NOW”. That “STOP NOW” message would propagate instantaneously throughout the entirety of the universe. You, being immune from that “STOP NOW” command, would be free to navigate and explore the cosmos and see the universe as it appeared at that one ‘now’ instant – ‘now’ being of course the present. Only the present, the universal snapping your fingers ‘now’ exists. The interesting thing is that ‘now’ is such a short interval that your definition of the length of ‘now’ is vastly longer than what ‘now’ exists in in reality.

Q. Does the perceived flow of time require there to be two types of time?

A. The two types of time in question are physical time (the tick-tock of a clock; the cycle of the lunar phases) and mental time (where an hour can seem like a minute; a minute can seemly last for an hour). So there is real time, and subjective time. But time in any guise is a not-thing; an illusion; a concept. Only change is real and the rate of change, real or perceived, is what we call time – physical or mental. One could, if one wanted make a variable rate of change into a constant. Normally we hold physical time as a constant – tick-tick-tick-tick – at a rate of one-second-per-second (or one-day-per-day, etc.). We can count the number of ticks between say two red cars passing by on the road in front of our house. But you could say the interval between any two red vehicles is a constant. It is one unit or one tick per interval of red car time. That means that everything you associate as being regular like one-second-per-second or a 24-hour-day would become irregular. One ‘day’ might equate to 100 red car interval ticks. The next ‘day’ it might be 200 red car interval ticks long (since there happen to be double the number of red cars passing by on ‘day’ two as compared to ‘day’ one). If you define a ‘day’ as say 100 red car interval ticks, then ‘day’ two above would really be ‘day’ two plus ‘day’ three. Well, you can see how that sort of reckoning would screw up your biological clock! You’d have a ‘day’ off work between 1000 and 1100 red car interval ticks; the next ‘day’ off work between 2000 and 2100 red car interval ticks, etc. In the case of the 1000-1100 interval, that might be a long and restful ‘day’ but the 2000-2100 interval could be extremely short! You could do the above time experiment, at least as a silent and private intellectual exercise. Otherwise people would carry you off to the funny farm! However, if time were really real, then time couldn’t be manipulated as per the red car interval example. But time isn’t real so you can twist it around your little finger. Thus, the flow if time is indeed perceived, but that doesn’t make it something of substance. So, one kind of time, two kinds of time – it’s irrelevant. 

Q. Does four-dimensional spacetime imply that the future is, in some sense, fixed?

A. If causality rules like I think it does, then yes.

Q. Does this in turn compromise our sense of free will?

A. Free will? What’s that? We think we have free will but that’s an illusion. No doubt a character in a video game believes she has free will, but we know better, don’t we!



The Russell Stannard Questions: Part Four

There are many Big Questions in science, many of which go back to the ancients, even back into prehistory in all probability. One of the best modern set I’ve found recently were sidebars in a book by Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Open University, Russell Stannard. These are my answers, thoughts and commentary to those Big Questions. Many readers might have ‘fun’ trying to come to terms with these in their own way based on their own worldview.

Continued from Part Three.

Q. Why is there no evidence for the existence of magnetic monopoles?

A. Just like theory suggests there should be one heck of a lot of antimatter around, theory also suggests that magnetic monopoles (magnets with only a north pole or a south pole) should be in abundance. That fact that we do not see magnetic monopoles is given as evidence for cosmic inflation, which, due to extreme expansion, diluted the number of magnetic monopoles down to such a very few per volume of space that as far as our volume of space is concerned, magnetic monopoles are as rare as hens’ teeth. Inflation ‘explains’ why we have no evidence for the existence of magnetic monopoles, but only of course if you accept that inflation actually happened, and there was nobody around to cover that event and report it on CNN.

Q. Is it possible to account for the values of the parameters featured in the Standard Model?

A. No. One cannot determine what the values of the physical parameters should be for the particles in the standard model of particle physics from first principles. You cannot calculate from scratch what the mass or the charge, etc. of an electron, proton, neutron, etc. should be. The values can only be determined experimentally, and having done that, determine that there is no rhyme or reason to what those values are. There is no theory that explains why a proton has a mass nearly 2000 times that of an electron, for example, and not some other value.

Q. Is there a Higgs particle?

A. Apparently that has been confirmed by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

Q. How are we to account for the masses of the particles?

A. The masses of the particles cannot be calculated from first principles and can only be determined experimentally. Having done that, explaining why the particles have the value they do is apparently explained by resorting to the Higgs Boson and Higgs Field which does the trick. I gather the analogy is that all things Higgs are akin to a mass of people at a party randomly placed, but when a famous particle like an electron enters the room, the mass of people are no longer randomly placed but crowd around the celebrity electron and hinder its passage across the room. That hindrance, like treacle placed in its path, slows the particle down, or as we interpret it, gives the particle mass.

Q. Does supersymmetry hold and if so, why have we not as yet seen any of the supersymmetric partners?

A. Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of those dearly beloved concepts that could, if confirmed, put the icing on the cake for string theorists. SUSY basically suggests for every force particle there is a corresponding ‘kissing cousin’ matter particle and for every matter particle there is a corresponding ‘kissing cousin’ force particle. IMHO, string theory confirms the idea of GIGO – [string] garbage in; [supersymmetry] garbage out. The garbage out is SUSY, and, as if confirming that garbage, there has been no verification of SUSY at all. The supersymmetric partners haven’t been detected – they are conspicuous by their experimental absence. Why? Because SUSY is garbage and SUSY is garbage because string theory is garbage.

Q. Does the world-in-itself exist between our discontinuous observations?

A. This is a case of does the Moon exist even if no one is looking at it. Presumably, the answer is yes, even if the observer is just phytoplankton that absorbs photons reflected off the lunar surface. Presumably water must be observing the Moon as it does its tidal thing, a thing it wouldn’t otherwise do if the Moon wasn’t there. So hairy issue number one is what exactly is an observer? An observer can be anything. An electron observes another electron when the two come in close proximity and repel each other. Hairy issue number two is how does the Moon know it is being observed? It can’t, therefore it cannot respond to a state of non-observation by vanishing. What about software? Do those video game characters exist when the game isn’t being played and sitting on your shelf? If we’re simulated beings in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe and the Supreme Programmer leaves the room and does not observe us, presumably we keep on keeping on. So the answer is that the world-in-itself exists whether real or simulated. If real, well the world-in-itself (i.e. – the Universe) got along very nicely before there were observers as we traditionally define them and we traditionally define them as living things that react (observe) to their surroundings. The simulation exists as long as the software exists whether it’s running or not.  

Q. Is there any value in Everett’s many worlds hypothesis?

A. The Many Worlds Hypothesis (MWH) is an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum physics. The CI says that when faced with many possible possibilities or outcomes to a situation, once an observation is made, the many possibilities collapses down to just one outcome. For example, the value of the top card in a shuffled deck of card has 52 possible possibilities. Once an observation is made, only one of those 52 possibilities is realized. The MWH however suggests that all possibilities are realized – one possibility realized in our world; the rest in newly established worlds. So, when you observe the top card, your world divides into another 51 other worlds, each new world corresponding to each possible value of the top card that wasn’t observed when you looked. I guess there is value in that approach, but it’s sort of a sledge hammer approach. When you consider all of the forks-in-the-road the cosmos faces each and every nanosecond, well accepting the MWH means that there are multi-trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of worlds that have a really real existence somewhere out there and they are increasing at a rapid rate of knots to boot.

  

Q. Is the task of science to describe the world-in-itself, whether or not it is being observed, or must it confine itself to speaking only of our observations of the world?

A. Ideally, science tries to account for those actual observations one makes of the world-in-itself. However, there are numerous bits and pieces in scientific texts that rely on speculation and theory and what ifs and extrapolations and mathematical equations. We can’t observe inside the core of the Sun or inside a Black Hole. Nobody has actually observed an electron or a quark. There are many theoretical things we haven’t observed yet like monopoles or gravity waves or supersymmetric particles or extraterrestrials, yet they too are considered a legit part of science.

Q. How are we to understand quantum entanglement, i.e. ‘spooky action at a distance’?

A. We can’t understand quantum entanglement if the Universe is an ordered and comprehensible place. That’s why Einstein railed against it because it was ‘spooky action at a distance’ and there was no place in an ordered Universe for spooky events, but if there were spooky events, well they happened outside of an ordered and comprehensible Universe and thus weren’t understandable. Of course software can be programmed to produce as much spookiness as the programmer wants.

Q. How many dimensions are there? And why are some curled up, and others extended?

A. There are no dimensions at all. Dimensionality is a human invention, attributing magical meaning to right angles, which do have a practical value in navigating around the world and the universe. Since dimensions are mathematical constructs, and therefore not-things (you cannot detect points, length, area or volume – even the so-called fourth dimension of time - with any of your five senses) then how many dimensions there are is a pretty meaningless question.

Q. Is there an M-theory, and if so, what is it?

A. M-theory is just a consolidation of various string theories that now require even one more additional spatial dimension! IMHO, this is all a case of GIGO – garbage in; garbage out.

Q. Is there any way of proving the validity of some form of string theory?

A. IMHO string theory has no validity on the grounds that it has been examined to death over the past three-plus decades without the slightest experimental run being put on the board. Verifying supersymmetry (SUSY) is the closest string theorists can come to putting their money where their mouths are, but any hope of that has apparently gone by the boards as the Large Hadrn Collider (LHC) hasn’t verified any SUSY at all.

Q. Will we ever be able to formulate a fully satisfactory theory of quantum gravity?

A. No. Quantum gravity is the Holy Grail of physics, the Theory of Everything or TOE. It’s, to date, been another case of ‘never have so many worked so hard for so long for so little results’. The quantum is the realm of the discontinuous unclassical micro; gravity is the realm of the continuous and classical macro. They are, ultimately two entirely different sets of software running the cosmos. If the Universe were really real, a TOE should leap out of the woodwork since there would have to be one unified natural nature. The fact that there is no TOE strongly suggests that the Universe isn’t really real and does not have a unified natural nature. That is, the Universe is virtually ‘real’ and the Supreme Programmer has written two separate and apart sets of software to run it – the micro software and the macro software.

Q. Does complete understanding require more than solely physical explanations?

A. By complete understanding, one has to incorporate those seemingly nebulous things that reside within the time, thinks that seem far removed from the physical world of forces and fields and particles and actions and reactions, etc. These so-called nebulous things revolve around consciousness and the subconscious, thinking (that’s clearly a neurochemical process), memory (clearly chemically encoded), creativity, emotions (definitely chemically driven), morals and ethics, right and wrong, a soul, spirituality, free will, etc. However, all these sorts of concepts reside in the brain or in a part of the brain normally identified as the mind. Whether mind-in-the-brain, or just in or a part of the brain, the brain is ultimately composed of fundamental particles that make up atoms that make up molecules that ultimately make up your neurochemistry and thus your brain and structures within. The proof of the pudding that these so-called nebulous concepts reside in the realm of the physical is that these concepts or things can be altered by physical things – physical happenings like injury (you can be knocked unconscious) or lose consciousness in sleep; chemical things like drugs, lack of sleep, the aging process and related can have decided effects on aspects of your personality, etc.; biological happenings like disease also can have profound effects on some of those so-called nebulous things. They can also be altered by your own self, being creative and via thinking deep thoughts which is an electrochemical process (you might think ‘morals be damned, crime does pay’) and of course closely related, the lifelong learning process (as in learning and altering your learning about say morals/ethics; right/wrong) – as you learn, you may find that what you thought was crystal clear, black and white, is really murky and grey. The learning process (formal or otherwise) can have profound effects on your belief systems and worldviews. Learning clearly has foundations in neurochemistry.    



Time Reversal: Studies in Time and Motion: Part Two

Time reversal is not the same as actual time travel, rather its pseudo time travel in the sense that time reversal is more akin to a thought experiment yet one you can often perform with a motion picture camera. I’ll explain…

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Things left to the natural way of things tend to go downhill not uphill. That’s gravity for you. Things traveling uphill better be expending energy, if they aren’t then you are probably in The Twilight Zone. It’s the old saying ‘what goes up, must come down’, and thus Newton’s apple bonked him on the head instead of doing a Superman imitation. Film a waterfall. Reverse the film. Oops!

Things that don’t have front-back symmetry left to the natural way of things tend to move in one direction, and if you see the reverse, it looks odd. Humans and companion animals tend to move forward, not backward. The same applies for most modes of transport – you don’t normally pedal a bicycle backwards just like you don’t drive to work in reverse, and aircraft certainly don’t fly backwards. But things with front-back symmetry can, like a balloon or a rocket taking off vertically. [But said rocket, once it turns on its side loses front-back symmetry and hence looks weird flying backwards.]

The key to all of this interpretation of time reversal, IMHO, is motion, or change (there can be no change without motion and vice versa). Filming something that’s standing still (no motion; no change) and playing the film backwards is a no-brainer for ‘there’s nothing strange happening here’.

Motion (or change) can be exhibited as left-right (LR), forward-back (FB), down-up (DU) or bottom-top (BT) or a mix of the three. Since time is a measurement of rate of change (or motion), all motion (or change) must have in addition a time dimension to it. If it didn’t have a time dimension to it, it’s rather silly to talk about a time reversal!

Motion of course can also be constant per unit of time, or variable per unit of time. Reversing the former is not as strange as reversing the latter.

Now for some general observations - first and foremost with respect to all things anomalous or weird, might I suggest that all else being equal, time reversing objects with high symmetry or no symmetry tends to be less weird than something in-between. So filming an amoeba, an asteroid rotating or a cloud forming, moving and dissipating (no symmetry) or a sphere in motion (a ball, a balloon) or a cube (say a dice), or a rotating tire or a Black Hole (high symmetry) isn’t likely to appear strange.

Time reversing things with LR and FB symmetry, or BT asymmetry, like rockets, pencils, trees/plants (in the abstract), dry spaghetti, mountains (in the abstract), tornadoes (in the abstract), and CDs/DVDs, don’t tend to appear too anomalous over the short term, at least if they aren’t moving. If they are moving, then things might look odd, but within bounds of reasonableness. Of course the CDs/DVDs might be rotating the wrong way and playing from outer edge to inner edge; the rocket might be landing with all motors firing instead of taking off. Of course if filmed for a long enough period, as in time-lapse photography, you’ll find it odd that plants shrink instead of grow, mountains don’t erode away but grow higher, and pencil points don’t become blunt but ever sharper.

Time reversing objects with only LR symmetry (vertebrates; most modes of transport like cars and planes and boats) tends to look odd. Land animals and automobiles don’t tend to walk/drive backwards; fish and boats don’t tend to swim/tread water backwards; birds and planes don’t tend to fly backwards.

Time reversing a change in symmetry from high to low is not overly anomalous, but low to high is usually considered strange. Examples: A punctured tire (originally LR, BF, BT) deflating to (LR, BF) isn’t strange; the reverse is. A pencil (LR, BF) falling over from the vertical (its radial symmetry broken) isn’t anomalous, but the view in reverse is. When a car (LR symmetry) crashes (zero symmetry), that’s normal – a car un-crashing most certainly isn’t.

Time reversing inanimate objects (still life – natural or man-made) tends towards the less anomalous, so filming, over the short term, a cliff face, or a painting, doesn’t look all that strange in reverse.

However, most artificial, man-made objects, tend to have a purpose(s) which for the most part doesn’t include just sitting there looking pretty, like a painting. If such objects have a purpose, then they tend to have a before and after aspect to them - if before and after tends to be the same as after and before, then things will look the same in reverse. However, the nature of the before tends to be different than the nature of the after, so reversing the two will probably be noticed – and odd. For example, place the white bread in the toaster and toast. The bread pops up toasted. Now reverse and you go from toasted bread to un-toasted bread. Or, throw your dirty dishes in the dishwasher and wash them. Take your nice clean dishes out. Reverse the film and you now put clean dishes in the dishwasher, apparently ‘wash’ the dishes, and take out dirty dishes!

Time reversing simple animate objects is less anomalous than time reversing complex organisms. If I viewed a bacteria’s behavior for an hour, and my cat’s behavior for an hour, filmed same and reversed same, I bet I could tell that the film of the cat had been reversed, but not nearly as certain about the bacteria.

Things get odd if you time reverse events dependent upon not space, but on time itself, so time reversing objects that by their nature are affected by the passage of time will be more anomalous than objects that aren’t. Film an electron for a million years and reverse – yawn. Film a rock for a million years and reverse. Over a million years, a rock will tend to erode, so the reverse is an apparent violation of entropy. Film a drop of blue ink placed and entering a glass of water at its surface and let time strut its stuff. Reverse the picture and you have a glass of pale blue water becoming clearer as all the blue bits come together at the surface in what appears to be a drop of blue ink. That’s odd. Film a hot cup of coffee and place a thermometer in it. The mercury in the coffee thermometer goes up and levels off. Place another thermometer next to the cup of coffee. Over time, the coffee’s thermometer registers lower and lower temperatures as the coffee cools; the outside thermometer gains a bit in temperature as heat from the coffee warms up the surrounding area. Now reverse. The coffee appears to get warmer and warmer; the adjacent area cooler and cooler. That’s also odd.

Time reversing objects moving LR or FB will tend to exhibit less anomalous behavior relative to DU/BT. So, two tennis balls, one each entering upper right and lower right move towards the centre, collide, and rebound each moving off stage towards the upper left and lower left. Reverse the film – nothing strange. But, drop a tennis ball and it goes top bottom, bounces bottom top, stops, goes top bottom, etc. until friction takes its toll and the ball comes to rest on the surface. Played in reverse, a motionless ball starts vibrating, jiggling, and then bouncing ever higher and higher. That looks very odd indeed. Or, Humpty Dumpty shuffles across the garden wall left to right – reverse and Mr. Dumpty shuffles right to left. But, if someone pushes Mr. Dumpty off the garden wall and Humpty falls down and shatters, the reverse looks odd. Why? Basically, I think its because top bottom/bottom to (or up down/down up) is associated with gravity and gravity is a one way (pull) force. Time reversal makes gravity a push force, something that’s well outside our day-to-day experiences.

Time reversal of steady-as-she-goes motion (constant velocity) is bound to be less anomalous than accelerated motion. A tennis ball moves at constant velocity left to right; ditto right to left in a reversal. A tennis ball hit by the server decelerates (due to friction) as it moves toward the opposite court. If the opposing player returns the ball in the normal course of events, then the ball will also be decelerating as it approaches the original server. Reverse the film, and when you get to the original beginning, the original server finds the ball accelerating as it approaches. How very odd. 

Time reversal in the micro world is a lot less anomalous than in the macro. Drop a uranium atom and a piece of dry pasta in a pot of boiling water. Reverse the picture. Which now looks odd – the micro or the macro? In the world of the micro, an electron and a positron meeting up for a date will quickly find their relationship in strife as they mutually annihilate and give off energy. But, the reverse is also possible. The vacuum energy can spontaneously produce matter-antimatter particle pairs. Now look at a chemical macro situation. An acid plus a base will react to form a salt and water. For example, the base sodium hydroxide (NaOH), will react with hydrochloric acid (HCl) to form table salt (NaCl) and water (H2O). But note that salt water, brine – our oceans – don’t revert naturally back into sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid. Chemical reactions that proceed of their own accord in one direction can of course be reversed, but it takes a bit of prodding. Without evidence of that prodding, the reverse reaction looks odd. So, running a film of that chemistry experiment backwards will look odd.

Summaries:

There’s nothing strange happening here: Still life. Motion too can be within this category. Toss a ball up in the air and it comes down again. If you reverse that, you still get an up and then down trajectory. Dig a hole and make a pile of dirt; take a pile of dirt and drop it into a hole.

That’s possible: A rocket ship can blast off and head straight up; a rocket ship, all engines blasting, can descend and land. While that’s certainly not the way the Redstone, Atlas, Saturn rockets and space shuttle worked, it’s possible, as the Lunar Surveyors and LEM and how the Mars Viking surface craft, landed. It’s possible to film the launch of a V-2 and reverse the film and conclude that such an event was possible.

That’s odd: Events showing objects without front-back symmetry moving contrary to expectations is certainly odd, but possible. Humans can walk backwards. Cars can travel in reverse gear. Birds can fly backwards if the wind is strong enough; ditto fish if the current is strong enough. Seeing a plane fly backwards is probably odd enough as to send you heading off to see the optometrist, the shrink, or attend AA meetings. 

That’s really weird and highly improbable: You’d place viewings of apparent violations of the 2^nd ‘law’ of thermodynamics (like a box of air molecules all moving in such a fashion that the faster/warmer molecules congregate in one half of the box and the slower/cooler molecules get together in the opposite half); and events hinting at antigravity, in such a category. Another case might be relativities so called ‘twin paradox’. Take two identical twins. One stays at home and the other boldly goes and travels at near light speed to a faraway destination somewhere out there, then reverses direction and heads for home. Upon arrival home, the boldly going twin appears a lot younger than her stay-at-home twin sister. Reverse the chain of events and you’ll have the stay-at-home sister growing younger as a result of her twin gallivanting around the cosmos! Take an inflated balloon and pop it, or let go of the end and watch it fly erratically around. Reverse that image. You’re sure to bet your life’s savings which viewing is forwards and which is backwards.

That’s impossible: There’s only one real example here. Film a macro object entering a Black Hole. Reverse the film. Since nothing (except Hawking radiation) can escape from the gravitational pull of a Black Hole, any film showing such an event is not just suspect and highly improbable – it’s flat out impossible.

Conclusion: Watching film in reverse can be fun and if you think about what you’re watching – the behind the scenes – educational.

Our Simulated Universe: Part Four

Introduction: You don’t exist! I don’t exist either! At least we don’t exist in the way that we think we do. We’re simulated beings, maybe wetware simulated (as in someone else’s dream), more likely as not software simulated, like the characters in a video game.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Objection! We exist in a 3-D environment. Surely simulations, even dreams, are 2-D. Therefore, we’re not in a simulation! Unfortunately for that argument, 2-D technology is now old hat. Well, there’s now a plethora of 3-D films; 3-D TV is the latest thing. Can the 3-D Internet be far behind? Surely 3-D video games, etc. will soon be available too. Of course the Star Trek holodeck was 3-D, but that’s way future technology, but who knows how quickly those advances in future technology will come. I’m sure holodeck technology, or some reasonable variation of it, will be part and parcel of our future entertainment as well as being useful in training and other role playing scenarios.  

Apart from that, I’m sure the characters in computer or video games; the entities in your dreams, would, if they could, tell you that they do indeed navigate through a 3-D environment – as viewed through their senses. But wait a minute, that’s something that equally applies to us. You navigate in a 3-D world, yet the actual images, or your perception of 3-D reality of that apparent 3-D environment, lies totally inside your mind and in the biochemistry of your brain. Inside your brain, that projection of reality is actually 2-D; interpretation by you however is 3-D, in much the same way perhaps as that hologram image on your credit card is 2-D, but appears 3-D.  So, does that really make you any different from the video game or dream counterparts? They say they exist in 3-D; you say they are 2-D. You say you exist in 3-D, but…?

What If I Knew This? What if I knew that I and everything around me was but a simulation and I had no free will? Well, there’s not a hell of a lot I or you can do about it! At best, all we can wish for is that the Supreme Simulator’s wetware or software that’s responsible doesn’t contain any nasty surprises, or that the dreaming Supreme Simulator doesn’t have an alarm clock set to go off or the temptation to press the delete button.

Free Will: If you wrote (programmed) yourself into a video game; even if you star in your own dream as a whole separate character, you’re dancing to the beat of your drummer software or your drumming mind. The ‘You’ in your own creation, in your own dream, has no free will! If you’re dancing to somebody else’s tune either through their wetware dreams or software programming, you don’t have any free will. Sorry ‘bout that!

Ultimate Origins: Even if the simulation of our Universe / world / us is an accurate scenario, that doesn’t explain the origin of the simulator(s) or of their world and universe – which may, or may not, mirror this (our) simulated one. Ultimate origins get even harder if the Supreme Simulator(s) are in turn simulations from an even more remote reality. One could well argue that if we’re a simulation within a simulation within a simulation, etc., and we in turn are simulating, then the ultimate first cause is the one with the, presumably, free will – the first Supreme (flesh and blood) Simulator starts things off and all else that follows is just programming originating from him / her / it.  Knowledge of such ultimate origins might be forever beyond our reach.

Wetware Versus Software: For all their sophistication – to date anyway – no one has any real difficulty in recognising virtual reality software in the form of a training exercise, a video game, or even a cinema feature ‘filmed’ without real actors and real background. However, the evolution in realism in such media is improving by leaps and bounds. Still, the computer software behind such simulated generations isn’t yet in the same ballpark, or even the same league compared to wetware. Your dreams, nightmares, hallucinations, imaginings, etc. are very realistic indeed.

What If We Are Not Simulated? Well then its business as usual, though it still leaves scientists with a lot of hard work to do to explain the normal everyday life, the Universe and everything, with all its myriad of weird stuffs!

The Return of the Gods: Once upon a time there were many gods (Thor, Odin, Zeus, Apollo, Ares, etc.) and polytheism ruled the roost and the affairs of mortals. Unfortunately they were overthrown and monotheism became flavour of the month. That’s a pity as the old gods had way more appeal – they were flawed and thus way more interesting because they were way more ‘human’. Well, the gods have returned in their new form of Supreme Simulators; the writers of software and creators of video games, their associated characters and environments.

You too could be a Supreme Simulator and create your own video game. Why not? Others have done it. Not into writing software and creating brave new worlds and new life forms? Well, despite that you too can be (and have been) a Supreme Simulator – sleep, perchance to dream, and for a brief while at least create your own virtual realities.  

I rest my case!

Reality: Really Real, Pseudo-Real, or Unreal? Part Two

Reality – it could vary from your mind alone as the entirety of all existence to you being the figment of someone else’s imagination. Without your five senses and brain thingy, you wouldn’t experience any reality at all. There are as many versions of reality as there are living things, up through and including ‘living’ machines – artificial intelligence (AI). But is there any reality at all in the absence of living things, including AI?

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

The Reality of Both Nothing and Something:

There has to be some nothing as well as some something. If everything were something, then nothing could move as all the Universe would be chockablock – like the fad of a VW, or a phone booth being stuffed full to overflowing with college kids. You couldn’t push anything out of the way as there would be no nothing to push it into!

The Reality of Something: Matter & Energy:

We live in the world of the macro and in the realm of classical physics – the physics you were taught in high school. Your homes, cars and offices are probably filled with electronic gadgets that operate in the realm of the micro – quantum physics (which you probably weren’t taught in high school). You’d think that there should be a smooth and continuous transition from the macro/classical to the micro/quantum, and vice versa, as you go up or down the scale of size. However, I’m hard pressed to think of an example in reality where both quantum and classical physical concepts or laws have to be integrated in order to explain or predict something. Again, it’s like there are two different sets of software running the cosmos!

That said, the reality of matter and energy in our macro day-to-day existence, while obvious, depends on the reality of the bits and pieces that make up the realm of the micro. So, molecules had better be real, and atoms and the particles that make them up – things like quarks and electrons and neutrinos. Thus, it’s disturbing to read in various books on particle and quantum physics that these are treated as point (dimensionless) particles. Presumably this is to make the mathematics easier or simpler (and just pick up an academic text in these subjects, open to a random page, and see what I mean). Clearly a dimensionless particle can not have reality as particles have mass. That implies of necessity that the particles must have size – a volume. If you gather up an infinite number of dimensionless particles, you could fit them into zero volume. Since macro bits and pieces have volume – you have a volume – you can not be ultimately comprised of dimensionless micro bits!

Further, we have all these high energy ‘atom smashers’ (particle accelerators) where the objective is to smash one particle into another at higher and higher energies and see what happens. If the particles, usually electrons or protons, had zero volume, they couldn’t collide! Despite phrases like ‘point particles’, particles really have three dimensions (volume), and thus objects around you, including you, have volume. Particles have reality, and so do you. And because mass and energy are interchangeable, energy has reality. If you doubt that, put your hand on a hot stove!

In addition, the very fact that we experience variety in matter tells us that there must be more than one kind of matter. If there were only one kind of stuff – say electrons and only electrons – then everything we experience would be just that stuff; only that stuff; that stuff alone. No variety – it’s all things electron! That’s clearly not the case, so there’s more to matter than just, say, electrons!

The Reality of Nothing: Time & Space: 

Go into a dark, quiet room with no sensory distractions. You know that time is passing all around you, yet you can’t detect this time with any of your five senses. You can’t see time; hear time; smell time; taste time; or touch time. To detect time, you need some intermediary mechanism – look at your watch; listen to the ticking of a clock; feel your pulse. Translated, to detect time (and by the way ditto space), you need matter/energy which time as some effect on. Put another way, if matter/energy did not exist, the concept of time would be meaningless. (Ditto space – in the absence of matter/energy you couldn’t detect space with your five senses. There’d be nothing to see, hear, taste, touch or smell.)

Space has no meaning unless there is something inside it, and/or outside it, to give it some boundary and hence reality. If there’s no matter/energy, there’s no need of any space for it to reside in. So, time and space aren’t real without matter and energy. Only matter and energy have reality.

Since time and space are meaningless concepts without matter and energy, its nonsense to talk about creating time and space. You’d automatically create time and space if you could create matter/energy. Alas, the conservation laws of physics state that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed only changed in form. Presumably nothing can create matter/energy – certainly no human being has ever done it – and since I reject the concept of a supernatural creator being (God), I’m forced to conclude that matter and energy, therefore space and time, have always existed and will always exist. [Eliminating a creator God from consideration simplifies things no end.]

Your Pet’s Reality:

I’ll assume that as your pet (assuming you have one or more), or some other animal you have had a relationship with or observed closely, can’t speak for itself or themselves, and as you’re totally familiar with your pet’s personality, that you’re a good spokesperson for them – as good as it’s going to get anyway.  So, if you were your pet (bird, fish, cat, whatever) how would your perception or knowledge of reality shift – if it does.

Firstly there’s a near universal reality for all higher life forms – including humans. That universality is expressed in the phrase “empty what’s full; fill what’s empty; scratch where it itches”!

Humour aside let’s start with the initial gateways – the senses.  We’re all aware that our sensory apparatus can and has been exceeded by some animals – including common household pets. Not only is vision more acute in some animals, but extends further into the ultraviolet and/or infrared than ours. Hearing is keener; sense of smell is sharper; pressure gradients more noticeable, etc. Be all that as it may, I can’t see that altering basic perceptions of reality in any significant way.

Ditto for physical abilities - birds gotta fly; fish gotta swim; horses gotta run. Again, there’s nothing significantly different in principle here. The fact that a horse can run faster than you doesn’t give the horse a whole different perspective or outlook on the world. 

Yet, on our home world, there is a life form, with a most alien of realities, at least relative to us or from our perspective. The most alien of realities, from our point of view, must be experienced by that of a fish, even a pet goldfish. Consider, we live for all practical purposes in a two dimensional world – the surface of our planet. Fish live in a three dimensional world. They, for all practical purposes, experience no weather or climate. There’s not much temperature variation. They, depending on species and depth, may never experience a day-night cycle, rather live all the time in absolute darkness. They don’t experience gravity per say as the water and swim bladders produce neutral buoyancy.  From our point of view, I guess, their reality is not only quite different, but certainly more boring – although boring is a rather emotive term. The fish may not have any comprehension of what boring is.  So, having a conversation with a fish (a thought experiment obviously) might be about the closest one could come to terms with a substantial alternative reality. Except the absolutes, the basics are still there – survival, food, sex, etc.

Reality is ultimately perceived and processed by our brains, and our companion animals have brains, just as we do. Animals have a “The You” component to them. Pets clearly can think, make (to them anyway) intelligent decisions; they can and do dream. They have emotions. They can learn; they have memories. They have a world view.

Yet, I’m sure that 99.9% of the time your pets and mine have absolutely no comprehension of what you are doing or why. They may like warmth, but have no idea of what thermodynamics is. They like sex but the purpose and genetics of it all is beyond them. They like food but have no comprehension of agriculture and manufacturing and transport and distribution and money and shopping and all those bits and pieces that put doggie food in the doggie bowl. Yet your activities, warmth, sex, food is of course part of their reality, although not part of their understanding.

Now our companion animals are fairly closely related species to us. Felines, of which I have two, have a worldview. However, their worldview, concerns, philosophy, science, etc. revolves around whether there’s food in their food bowl; do they have a clean litter box to access; am I around when required to open doors for them and where are the mice hiding! I often envy their relatively uncomplicated lives. No pondering the great issues like looking at a star and wondering if an alien cat is looking back in this direction; no comprehension of taxes or money so-called compulsory voting or politics.

Four billions of years of evolution (assuming an origin of life within 500 million years of Earth’s origin) made no demands or requirements for living things to comprehend abstract things like philosophy or science (like cosmology or quantum mechanics) or mathematics, not to mention politics and economics. The sum total of our (meaning life, not just humans) concerns, over those four billion years, our worldview, or our reality, centered on food, shelter, sex and just plain survival. That’s also true for the hundreds of thousands of years, all through human evolution, into what we’ve become now. And that’s true today. I’m sure 99.9% of good folks (meaning humans) today pay near zero attention to these abstract non-essentials in their day-to-day existence. It’s bad enough that our lives have been enhanced by the abstractions of government and taxes and bills and nine-to-five jobs (or lack thereof).

So herein lays my fundamental question. If our companion animals can’t come to terms with the Big Picture, ultimate reality, relative to us, but we ourselves are only just that little bit further along in evolutionary (brain-related) advancement (call that advanced IQ or whatever) relative to them, then, what makes you think that the entire vista of reality is comprehensible to you? I sometimes wonder if we’re yet fully biologically or mentally equipped to ponder the great abstracts – comprehend the fullness of reality, not just the few bits and pieces that we have come to terms with and think as being the near be all and end all of what’s real. Perhaps our worldview of these things are not only limited, but of necessity will be limited. Translated, perhaps further eons yet worth of brain development might be necessary to fully comprehend our reality; what we comprehend currently might be, relatively speaking, just a tiny bit in advance of what our animal friends comprehend! There’s a long, long, road to hoe. 

To be continued…

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…

Parallel Universes: Part Two

Parallel universes, or alternative universes or mirror universes have had a long run of popularity in science fiction and science fantasy, in both print and visual formats. One need only look at an “Alice in Wonderland” or look no further than the “Star Trek” universe (our Universe in less than obvious disguise) to view the near endless plot variations that such parallel / alternative / mirror universes provide our heroes and heroines. Do they actually exist and do they explain anything?

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

As the collection of all universes is the Multiverse, and since the wave-particle duality is at the heart and soul of quantum mechanics, then it follows that perhaps quantum physics is just the physics of the Multiverse!

The double slit experiment can be (and has been) repeated with electrons, and neutrons and protons, etc. Same results! So, therefore, there must be virtual or shadow or ghost electrons and neutrons (or quark trios) and protons (or again quark trios). Now things get interesting! But before I get to that, David Deutsch never speculated above the level of shadow or ghost protons (or other elementary particles) as proof of parallel universes. The following extrapolations are my doing!

If there are virtual / shadow / ghost protons and neutrons, then there are (let’s just call them) ghost nuclei. Add your ghost electrons and you have ghost atoms, hence ghost molecules and on up the chain to… well, ghosts!

Now these parallel universe ghosts aren’t dead people, but people quite alive in said parallel universe. They could appear to us as dead acquaintances or even dead loved ones, but parallel universes aren’t of necessity identical copies of ours (recall the heads, tails and coin-on-edge example). Just because Mum is deceased in our Universe doesn’t mean she’s yet snuffed it in a parallel one.

These virtual or shadow or ghostly images don’t even have to be living things of course. There’s a long history of apparently sane and sober people seeing, quite unexpectedly, spectral images of non-living ‘things’, like a building appearing in a otherwise verified field-of-grass only.

There’s equally a long list of documented transient phenomena, unfortunately unpredictable and unverifiable - UFOs anyone?

Speaking of UFOs (as intelligently piloted vehicles from elsewhere and/or elsewhen), sceptics often will claim ‘it can’t be, therefore it isn’t’, where the ‘can’t be’ usually refers to the impossibility of interstellar spaceflight which would require faster-than-light velocities to make things practical and viable, blah, blah, blah…. Quite apart from the fact that that assessment is total nonsense as I’ve already elaborated on elsewhere, subluminal interstellar travel doesn’t, of necessity, violate any laws of physics, period. End of discussion. However, nobody, including me, says it will be easy, but that’s a different horse of another colour.

Anyway, if there can be some sort of now and again natural interaction between parallel universes, then it follows that an advanced technological race of beings (call them aliens if you will), might be able to artificially manipulate such ‘gateways’ and go exploring – not so much in time and space but as in crossing over from X-universe to a parallel Y-universe, which in distance terms might be as close to zero kilometres as makes no odds.

Cryptozoology is another ripe area potentially explainable in part at least by parallel dimensions. Take Loch Ness and its alleged monster, one of the most baffling of cases in all of cryptozoology. On the one hand, you’ve lots of seemingly credible witnesses with no axe to grind going back over many decades. Are they all lying, exaggerating, and being fooled or just hallucinating?  The odds of that are poor for the collective of all sightings. On the other hand, you have a relatively small and confined area offering little hiding room to a relatively large animal. It’s an area that has been combed many times with all the sophisticated technology we can muster – no animal. However, it doesn’t stretch the imagination to breaking point and beyond to suggest that in some parallel universe(s), plesiosaurs (or equivalent) still exist and that for some reason there is, albeit just a rarely now and again, some sort of harmonic resonance between that world and our world, and presto, a sighting of the elusive Loch Ness Monster.

Perhaps a most likely interaction between parallel universes is evident in our dreams. We often seemingly invent out of thin air quite unfamiliar people, places, and situations when dreaming, as well as finding ourselves in more familiar surroundings, albeit rarely something exactly parallel down to the Nth detail – at least that’s my experience. It’s maybe 90% familiar territory; never 100%.

If there is some sort of parallel universe interactions, your dreams could be, in a nebulous sort of way, a link with the lifestyle of your counterpart(s), and presumably said counterpart(s) now and again dream slightly unfamiliar scenarios that reflect your actual situations; your world and your lifestyle and relations.

It’s a sort of telepathy perhaps only achievable at the subconscious level when you’re asleep and all those day-to-day routines and constant mental activities can’t overwhelm that incredibly faint signal from a parallel universe(s).  

Now that’s not to say all dreams are parallel universe related, but some might be.

Since the double slit experiment with one photon at a time, produces interference patters 100% of the time, yet things like ghosts, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, even dreams, aren’t reproducible on demand, I can only conclude that it’s much easier for micro bits like photons and atoms to crossover from X-universe to Y-universe (our Universe) than it is for macro objects. But, that’s not an uncommon experience within our own world. Bacteria are vastly more common than humans – bacteria are everywhere; humans aren’t. Small things or objects can wriggle through small spaces where larger objects can not fit. It takes exceptional circumstances, an exceptional large gateway or hole between universes for a UFO or a Loch Ness Monster to make its ever so brief and unexpected appearance. So, lots of small holes or ‘gateways’ allowing lots of ghost photons (and presumably other particle types – very, very, few large holes or ‘gateways’, so actual sightings of living ghosts, etc. are very, vary rare.

Now more likely as not, it’s only a relatively few parallel universes that have a real resonance with ours. There could be other universes with physics so different that they are totally out of sight, even if not out of mind.     

Summary: The concept of parallel universes is a sound, yet novel way of explaining one of the (many) deep mysteries contained in the double slit experiment that illustrates the wave-particle duality of matter.  From that, the concept can be extrapolated or expanded to explain possible other, but more macro, anomalous phenomena.