An Infinite Cosmos: Part Two

The nature of, the size, the shape and the duration of our Universe has been speculated and debated upon ever since humans gazed in wonder at the night sky. Though ideas have waxed and waned, and though modern cosmology is more focused than ever on actual observations, speculations, well that’s still the case today. My take, albeit slightly more philosophically inclined, is that our Universe is just part of an overall infinite in space and infinite in duration cosmos. 

Continued from Part One.

As we noted in the example of the fridge and your body, it takes energy to reverse entropy or at least hold it at bay. A reversal of entropy is sort of like that closed box with Maxwell’s Demon (representing energy) that controls a slot that the Demon can either open or close that’s in the middle of that closed box that’s of a uniform temperature.  The Demon opens the slot whenever a rapidly moving (hot) molecule heads toward the left side or when a slower moving (cold) molecule heads toward the right side. After a while, the left side of the box will be containing just hot stuff (rapidly moving molecules) and the right side cold stuff (slowly moving molecules). Maxwell’s Demon is like a kid expending energy sorting a bag of 1000 various coloured marbles (maximum disorder) into piles of reds and greens and blues and yellows (maximum order).  Of course our infinite cosmos contains no demons, and marble-sorting kids need not apply if there’s ever a job ad for restoring order to an infinite cosmos.

Okay, without demons (or entropy reversing kids), our infinite cosmos heads towards a state of maximum entropy or maximum disorder or maximum uniformity. The cosmic temperature will be the same everywhere; matter will be evenly distributed. But, can an infinite cosmos ever reach such a state? It could or should take an infinite amount of time, but that’s also assumed. 

Yet alas, what even an infinite cosmos needs is a Maxwell’s Demon. The cosmos, if it is to retain a state of vitality for an infinite duration, needs something that recycles stuff that’s at maximum entropy (maximum disorder) back to the basics of minimum entropy (or minimum disorder) where useful things can continue to happen.

* The Role of Gravity

Gravity seems to be a Maxwell Demon’s kind of force that keeps on keeping on. As long as you have two bits of matter, even just two electrons, you have gravity. Radiation (electromagnetism) could be dispersed evenly in infinite space over infinite time, but it is hard to imagine that situation with gravity. The only real way gravity could be rendered inert and useless as an energy source would be if it was 100% concentrated in just one place – like a super ultra mother of all cosmic Black Holes. The only other way gravity could be nullified would be in matter were distributed so absolutely evenly such that every bit of matter were being gravitationally pulled on absolutely evenly in each and every direction. But the slightest nudge or deviation from this ideal theoretical state (inevitable given quantum fluctuations) would throw everything out of equilibrium. But because matter is energy and energy is matter, if gravity can disrupt the distribution of matter from a state of near perfect uniformity, then energy will follow the short and curly material bits. Light (photons) reacts to gravity as much as electrons do. Further, the one extra nice property that gravity has is that it can’t be blocked. You can block out light or shield yourself from electromagnetic effects, but nothing will shield you from gravity.

* The Recycling Role of Radioactivity

Fortunately, there are several basic ways of recycling complex cosmic stuff back into the cosmos in the form of simple stuff. The first of these however has issues. Gravity can contract and pull together interstellar gas and dust into a proto-star which will ignite under pressure via thermonuclear fusion to form a radiant star. Stars however fuse lighter elements into heavier elements, and when a star goes nova, or becomes a supernovae, those heavier elements increasingly form the next generation of interstellar gas and dust. Eventually, after many generations of enrichment, interstellar gas and dust is lacking in those lighter elements (mainly hydrogen and helium) which easily undergoes fusion. Heavy elements, like iron, just won’t fuse any more and so the continued formation of radiant stellar stuff grinds to a halt. But, there is an escape clause.

Among the heavy elements; elements that stars manufacture, are radioactive elements with unstable atomic nuclei. Radioactive decay re-releases back into the cosmos those fundamental bits and pieces that can reform into those lighter elements that are the basic building blocks for forming radiant stellar objects. There is cosmic recycling from the simple to the complex and back to the simple again.

* The Recycling Role of Cosmic Black Holes

The second way of cosmic recycling is, believe it or not, via cosmic Black Holes. Astronomical Black Holes, via the vacuum energy (quantum foam or fluctuations) and quantum tunnelling, can release elementary particles back into the cosmos. As mentioned earlier, this is known as Hawking Radiation, after theoretical cosmologist/astrophysicist Stephen Hawking. Complex stuff can go into a Black Hole, but just very simple stuff ultimately comes back out again.

* The Recycling Role of Life

Life can be an entropy buster as in the case of Maxwell’s Demon, the kid who sorts the marbles, the mum who does the housework, the bird or beaver who gathers up forest debris to make a nest. But, it takes outside energy to accomplish these things and at the end you haven’t decreased complexity – the marbles are still marbles; twigs are still twigs. But microbes like bacteria, etc. can break down complex stuff (like twigs) and turn it into less complex stuff which can be recycled into hundreds of new and different complex things. So, when our home planet eventually meets its Waterloo, and gets scattered back into the cosmic winds, thanks to bacteria, there will be more simple stuff floating around than would otherwise be the case

So complex stuff gets recycled back into simple stuff, all brought together again by gravity to ultimately form complex stuff again. The cosmos receives recycled stuff back, from which it can keep on keeping on!    

* A Fly in the Ointment

In a cosmos that’s both infinite in space and infinite in duration, here’s an interesting ‘angels on the head of a pin’ question. There are two forces which in theory can extend their influence indefinitely, that is, unto infinity. They are electromagnetism (of which light is a prime example) and gravity. So, can the influence of a force cross an infinite space if it has an infinite amount of time to do it in?

Perhaps Maxwell Demon’s ‘closed box’ isn’t really an appropriate ‘container’ for an infinite cosmos. If the cosmos is infinite, can it be described as a closed system? 

The Multiple You

And so finally, consider and reconsider the quantum mantra: “Anything that isn’t forbidden is compulsory; anything that can happen will happen”. That’s even more the case when you have infinite time and space to play around with! So, I add to that mantra “and will happen again and again and again, an infinite number of times”. That actually means, or at least very strongly suggests that every possible scenario, every possible history, and every possible variation on each and every scenario or on any theme that you care to think of or think up will happen again and again and again. That, by the way, includes you. You are a scenario, and you, and every possible variation of you and your history will transpire numerous times; actually an infinite number of times. If that isn’t spooky, I don’t know what is, but it’s a logical consequence of having an infinite cosmos. 

An Infinite Cosmos: Part One

The nature of, the size, the shape and the duration of our Universe has been speculated and debated upon ever since humans gazed in wonder at the night sky. Though ideas have waxed and waned, and though modern cosmology is more focused than ever on actual observations, speculations, well that’s still the case today. My take, albeit slightly more philosophically inclined, is that our Universe is just part of an overall infinite in space and infinite in duration cosmos. 

In the infinite beginning there was something rather than pure nothing – a finite amount of something in an infinite void of nothingness. This scenario eliminates the philosophical quandary of what’s beyond the boundary - that only other alternative. This eliminates the philosophical quandary of how much stuff there is. An infinite amount of stuff doesn’t leave you much elbow room.

In the infinite beginning, well there was no beginning; there can ever be an end. No Alpha – no Omega. This eliminates the philosophical quandary of what comes before the ‘beginning’ and what comes after ‘the end’. 

Okay, having postulated an infinite cosmos in space and in duration, well, other certain and not so philosophical issues come to the fore. If they can be addressed, well that’s all to the good. If not, well it’s back to the drawing board.

I’ll start with…

Olber’s Paradox

The night sky should be as bright as the daytime sky since in whatever direction you look, sooner or later you should see a star or galaxy that’s in your line of sight. That’s Olber’s Paradox because the night-time sky isn’t as bright as the daytime sky. One resolution is that our observable Universe is finite and there are only a finite number of stars and galaxies and thus, there will be lines of sight that do not intersect with an object that’s emitting light.

But what if the cosmos is infinite in size and has existed for an infinite amount of time? Does that resurrect or reinstate the validity or viability of Olber’s Paradox? Not necessarily.

Why is there something rather than nothing? That’s been a prime philosophical question that has raged for eons. But, on reflection, overall, there is a great deal more of nothing than of something. If everything was something, it would be rather difficult to move. There would be no elbow room. In other words, just because the cosmos is infinite in duration and in volume doesn’t mean that there has to be an infinite amount of something within.

Let’s say that pure nothing is a perfect vacuum. Then something within that nothing makes for an imperfect vacuum. One could image a cosmos so dilute that there could literally be gaps of pure nothingness between the bits and pieces of something. Or, one could imagine a universe that contained just one final cosmic Black Hole that had over all the infinite eons gobbled up everything else that had been a something within the cosmos, and thus 99.99999% of that cosmos would contain absolutely nothing. 

That aside…

Stars, like people, are born, and thus their light may not have yet reached us.

Stars, like people, die, and thus their light has ceased to reach us. It has all now passed by.

In an infinite space, stars maybe so far distant that by the time their light reaches us, it’s so diluted or spread out that only one photon per hour hits the eye and that threshold is too low to stimulate the optic nerve and thus register.  

Ever present cosmic Black Holes have gobbled up a lot of the radiation that is emitted and reflected. In fact, in a cosmos that’s infinite, why haven’t those astronomical Black Holes sucked up everything that can be sucked up thus terminating any and all evolving universes within that cosmos? Well the answer is Hawking radiation which theoretically predicts, on pretty substantial grounds, that eventually Black Holes will radiate away their mass. Once input is less than Hawking radiation output, the Black Hole will slowly, ever so slowly, radiate away, giving back to the cosmos what it once took away. There will be more on the significance of that shortly.

Entropy and Cosmic Recycling

Another concept that needs addressing is entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise known as the ‘arrow of time’ or sometimes as ‘time’s arrow’. If one considers an infinite universe to be a closed box or closed system, then over time, and we have an infinite amount of it, that closed box should reach absolute equilibrium and no further cosmic evolution would be possible. There would be a maximum amount of disorder, and there would be no further energy available to reverse that level of disorder.

It should be noted from the outset that in any closed box or closed system, entropy rules. Things will go from a state of order to a state of disorder without outside interference, that being an external source of energy to reverse the natural trend. The commonly cited example is if you have a closed box (the kitchen), and you turn off the fridge, the kitchen and the fridge will eventually reach absolute equilibrium, the same temperature. The kitchen warms up the fridge; the fridge cools down the kitchen, until both are at the same temperature – maximum disorder. It takes an outside energy source – electricity – to keep the fridge colder than the kitchen and thus in a state is disequilibrium or a state where entropy has not been maximalized. Trouble is, once energy is evenly spread out throughout a closed system (like the fridge in the kitchen), no matter how much of it there is, it’s useless in terms of doing useful things – like initiating change.

Another example: Your own body is a closed system. Your body’s energy is in equilibrium. You are at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit from head to toe. Within that state of affairs, your body can not do useful things. Fortunately, there’s a larger closed system that your body is a part of (like the fridge is part of the kitchen) that enables you to disrupt your body’s equilibrium and thus provide the means for your body to initiate change. Your outside energy source is food, which is good since once you invoke that larger closed system that contains you, that larger system absorbs your body heat that gets radiated away into it. So the fridge needs outside energy to replenish its supply of cold; you need energy to replenish your body heat and to provide the ways and means to keep you keeping on. Of course as we all know, that’s just postponing the inevitable. Sooner or later the fridge breaks down with wear; ditto you too. But in the meantime, and for a little while, you can keep your body’s entropy under control.  

Now any attempt to tunnel around various laws, principles and relationships of physics might be in vain, but not a total waste of time. The laws, principles and relationships of physics are constantly being refined, even overturned as in Einstein refined Newton’s gravity; the Sun going around the Earth got overturned by Copernicus. However, anyone attempting to tunnel over, around, or through the Second Law of Thermodynamics should abandon all hope. If you try to butt heads with entropy you’ll just end up with a sore head. You’d have better luck patenting a ‘perpetual motion’ machine, itself a violation of the ways and means of the entropy concept. In fact entropy is why you can’t construct a perpetual motion machine and why any patent officer worthy of the name would refuse you a patent for one.

Still, in an infinite cosmos, a cosmos that keeps on keeping on, there probably needs to be a way to go from a state of disorder (high entropy) back to a state of order (low entropy).

  

To be continued…

Profound Things & Concepts

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 is mine. 

1) There Is Something Rather Than Nothing! Why is there something rather than nothing? Let’s say there’s a 50-50 probability between a universe that contains nothing and one that contains something. Or even make the ratio 60-40 or 99-1 or even odds of a billion to one, as long as the probability of a something universe isn’t zero. Then, well that’s something to be said for a something universe. Now a nothing universe isn’t bio-friendly and a something universe can be, so since we’re a friendly bio-entity that must mean we live in a something universe. So, as far as we are concerned, that’s what there is something rather than nothing, because if there was nothing we wouldn’t be here to ponder the issue. Still, it’s one of the most profound and debated topics in all philosophy.

2) 95% of the Universe is Missing! If you add up all of the matter and energy in the Universe that is required to account for actual observations about the Universe, well, those in the know come up short – to the tune of 95% short in actual fact! The missing stuff is divided into Dark Matter (27%), which we know exists because of it’s gravitational influence though it doesn’t interact with electromagnetism (like light); and Dark Energy (68%) which we know exists because the expansion rate of the Universe is increasing, ever increasing. To accelerate the stuff of the Universe to ever faster velocities requires energy, hence the phrase “Dark Energy” – its energy Jim, but not as we know it. In a nutshell, we haven’t a clue what Dark Energy actually is; we have no idea exactly what Dark Matter is. Therefore, 95% of the Universe is missing, well that’s not really true. It’s not so much missing as astronomers have no rational explanation for Dark Matter or Dark Energy. What we have are two profound anomalies.

3) Black Holes! Black Holes are profound because nobody has the foggiest idea what actually transpires inside. What’s the substance and structure inside the Event Horizon? The equations break down that one normally relies upon for such insights. When the mystery is ultimately solved, no doubt the resolution will be a profound one.

4) The Universe Is Bio-Friendly! Our Universe is a Goldilocks Universe if you will – which doesn’t of necessity imply the Universe was deliberately fine-tuned for bio-friendliness, just that there are many more options for disorder than for order, so to there are many more ways to envision a bio-unfriendly not-just-right-for-life Universe than a just-right-for-life cosmos.  

5) Extraterrestrial Life! Either we are alone in the Universe or we have cosmic company. Either scenario has profound philosophical implications. Related to that profound concept is the profound observation that advanced intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations, assuming advanced intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations, should be bloody obvious, having already visited us. Where is everybody? That’s the profound observation (or lack of observation) known as the Fermi Paradox. If they exist, we should know about it. 

6) Now! “Now” is the only period where anything can happen. The past (what has happened) is unchangeable; the future (what will happen) is yet to be. And there are more “now” moments in one standard second than all the numbers of all the humans who have ever lived and are currently alive to boot. That only “now” has any real significance is a pretty profound idea. Fortunately, “now” is an ongoing process.

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

8) Wave-Particle Duality! The general picture here is that when a particle is given off, it is in fact a particle – a little billiard ball is emitted. When a particle is absorbed or detected it is in fact a particle that’s detected – a little billiard ball. What about the in-between times? Well, then apparently the little billiard ball undergoes a phase transition into a wave. Now I don’t believe for a moment that the particle actually turns into a nebulous or undefined maybe-here-maybe-there smeared out wave. It’s weird enough that it waves around though truth be known the ‘wave’ is actually a wave of probability. The little billiard ball, well it’s most likely to be in this vicinity or in this volume of space, a bit less likely to be over there, though some say that means there’s a tiny percentage of probability that it’s now on the other side of the Universe – which is nuts since that would imply superluminal velocities. The best analogy that springs to mind is that when the baseball leaves the pitcher’s hand, it’s a particle and when it impacts the catcher’s mitt, it’s a particle, but in-between it’s like a wave – a knuckleball, a slider, a spitter, a curve, etc. The batter (and sometimes the catcher) has to estimate the probability of where that baseball-particle actually is so as to placing the bat (or the mitt) in the right place at the right time. 

9) The Concept of Infinity! There are many things claimed to have (or have had) the property of infinity, though that cannot be. Things like infinite temperature at the Big Bang, or infinite density of the singularity inside a Black Hole. Nonsense isn’t profound. What is profound however - concepts that logically could be infinite. I refer in particular to the concepts (not things) that we call space and time. There’s no reason that if you headed off in a particular direction, that you could not just keep on keeping on without end. There’s no reason that if you headed off in a particular direction, that you could not just keep on keeping on for all eternity. There’s no requirement for there to be an alpha or omega in space or in time. In general you cannot indefinitely divide things, but you can when it comes to non-things or concepts, like the idea of a line that can be chopped into smaller and smaller segments indefinitely, or say of time. Of course not all not-things make logical sense in terms of dividing them. You can’t split Xmas indefinitely or the concept of a car.  

 

10) Self-Awareness! It’s not too difficult to comprehend increasing levels of complexity, from fundamental particles to atoms to molecules to 3-D structures of substance. However, while one branch of increasing complexity (or organisation) – dust and gas, debris, stars and planets, galaxies, clusters of galaxies – doesn’t achieve self-awareness (to the best of our knowledge anyway), another branch undergoes a phase change on the organisational road that’s ever upwards. That’s a change from structures with substance that have no self-awareness (like a rock) to structures with substance that are self-aware (like a bird or mammal). Exactly how that phase change has been accomplished is still one of those profound mysteries. Related, your brain, and my brain, in fact all normal human brains, share one thing. The brain is the only organ capable of studying itself! Now that’s profound!

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

12) Man Not On the Moon! Humans from Earth landed on the Moon and returned safely to Earth during the period 1969-1972. Three further missions were scrubbed for economic reasons – sort of like buying the car then not driving it because you couldn’t afford gasoline. Since then, economics apparently haven’t improved since we’ve never been back. That we haven’t returned in over 40 years is unprecedented in the history of manned exploration. It’s like if Charles Lindbergh had flown the Atlantic in 1927 and nearly 90 years on there was still no sign of any trans-Atlantic air travel on the horizon. There are currently no plans yet set in concrete for a lunar return mission(s). It’s one of the most shameful and ill-profound examples of human stupidity yet on the public record. There is no logical reason humans shouldn’t have established at least one lunar colony 20 years ago; there’s no logical reason why humans shouldn’t have already landed on Mars.   

Honourable Mention! How is it profoundly possible that the Boston Red Sox (the wild card entry no less) could end up beating the New York Yankees four straight games after being behind three games to zip in the 2004 ALCS? It’s profoundly good if you’re a Boston fan (which I’m not) and profoundly bad if you are a Yankee’s fan (which I am). But no matter which way you slice it, the end result was profound as it was the first time in Major League Baseball playoff history that a team lost the first three games and went on to win the next four to prove victorious in an overall best of seven game series. It’s still a nightmare episode out of “The Twilight Zone” as far as I’m concerned.

Scientists’ Doublespeak: Part One

Even the very best of scientists can exhibit some sort of scientific sleight-of-hand and bamboozle their lay audience with absurdities. Actually, this approach often is just taking a lazy way out. Explaining things in sufficient detail, to avoid the absurdities, would either be too involved or take up too much text. At least I hope that’s the case. If some scientists actually believe what they write, then something is rotten in academia.

You know there are really times I think some physical scientists spend way to much time wrapped up in their own tiny little academic world, embracing highly intricate mathematical equations, think these formula have some actual connection with reality, interacting with likeminded colleagues, attending conferences of the likeminded – preachers preaching to the converted, and writing texts that contain, well, commonsense absurdities. There are times when perhaps they should just stand back, try to view the entire forest, instead of focusing on just one tiny leaf. Or, if they can’t do that, at least proofread some of the bovine fertilizer they write, especially for the layperson, and somehow come to terms with what they postulate is so absurd, that they end up being laughed at, not only to the detriment of themselves, but of the science they represent and in fact the downgrading of public opinion in science and scientists in general.

For example, these are common points of view I’ve read again and again, and most involve either zero or infinity. I’m not talking here by the way about colleagues having discussions over alternative cosmologies; thinking above quantum gravity; speculations on String Theory; theorizing over the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, ideas surrounding the likelihood of extraterrestrial life; mulling over if we are really virtual reality; ramblings off the top of the head about the possibilities of time travel; “what if” statements about Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Should some scientists wish to ponder over how many angels can squat on the head of a thumbtack, that’s okay too as far as I’m concerned. But I take issue with “and that’s the way it is” nonsense statements. Truisms - truisms that are nonsense. Extraordinary claims that are nonsense.

Particle Physics: Elementary particles are point particles that have zero dimensionality hence zero volume. Now if that were really the case, one couldn’t have particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider that collide, well say protons together. You have to have some sort of dimensionality bulk if you are going to slam into something else – which must have bulk. Further, you are composed of those dimensionless (zero) point particles. In basic maths, zero plus zero plus zero plus zero (extend this millions of times on) equals zero. If all the stuff that makes you up is dimensionless, then you are dimensionless, you have no height, no front-back length, no left-right width, therefore no volume, which if true, ruins your breakfast and your sex life! Another point overlooked is that one of the fundamental properties of particles is spin – angular momentum. Now it has to be obvious to even Blind Freddy that something cannot spin unless it is spinning around a centre (axis of rotation – that’s normally the up-down dimension) and through the left-right and front-back dimensions – like a spinning ice skater. So, if something spins, it has to have a spatial extension, like a planet or a bicycle wheel or a baseball. That an elementary particle has zero volume – that’s an extraordinary claim!

Radioactivity’s Lack of Causality: If there is one thing that you absolutely rely on every day in every way it is causality. If A happens; B happens. If B happens; C happens. Everything happens because something previously happened. Ah, but take radioactivity. A pair of unstable radioactive atoms sits side-by-side. After say one hour, one decays; the other doesn’t, yet their environmental surroundings are the same; absolutely identical. What caused one to go poof but not the other? Who knows? All scientists say is that there was no causality involved. Personally, I think such a statement resides in fairy-dairy land along with the person who uttered it. Einstein summed it up best when he suggested that God does not play dice with the Universe. If one atom when poof and the other didn’t, well IMHO there was a reason for that. There was a cause why one did and one didn’t.  Invoking the absence of cause-and-effect in a physical happening – that’s an extraordinary claim!

Cosmological Singularities: Infinite density has been the state of affairs often attributed to the state of the singularity, an entity which exists in two places. Firstly, a singularity is postulated at the time of the Big Bang event. Secondly, you’ll find the term singularity attributed to the inside of a Black Hole. So what’s this all about? If you cram a lot of mass into a tiny volume, you’ll get a singularity. The Big Bang event contained all the mass there is in our Universe, and because the Universe is expanding, one can run the film backwards to the beginning, and that’s postulated to end up as a rather tiny volume – I say theoretically postulated since it’s theoretically impossible to see what happened until roughly 300,000 years after the Big Bang actually happened. Okay, so we have a Big Bang singularity. The Black Hole singularity is straightforward – a Black Hole by definition contains enough mass, therefore enough gravity, to prevent even light from escaping its grasp. Now that’s a lot of mass. Also, a Black Hole is a relatively small object as astronomical objects go. So, that combination of lots of mass in a small volume arises again. Now mass and associated gravity are within the realm of General Relativity. Tiny volumes are the realm of Quantum Mechanics. The fly in the ointment is that the equations of General Relativity aren’t compatible with the equations of Quantum Mechanics. Physics breaks down when it comes to describing a singularity. Lazy physicists just take the easy option and say that as more and more mass is squeezed into smaller and smaller volumes the density rises and rises until it hits infinity! Lazy physicists fail to engage their wetware and come to terms with what an absurd phrase ‘infinite density’ is. Density is mass per volume. To have infinite density you’d need either infinite mass, and that’s nonsense since the mass inside a Black Hole is hardly infinite nor is the mass of our entire Universe infinite, or zero volume, and that’s equally nonsense. You can’t cram an infinite amount of stuff into zero space. Infinite density – that’s an extraordinary claim!

Infinite Gravity: If, any only if you had infinite mass gathered together in zero volume would you generate infinite gravity. The Universe doesn’t have infinite mass so infinite gravity bites the dust on that basis alone. You can’t have zero volume that contains something, so infinite gravity also bites the dust from that perspective. Any finite amount of mass contained in an extremely tiny volume will generate extreme gravity, but there’s a universe of difference and distinction between extreme gravity and infinite gravity. That’s more soiled underwear for any scientist prone to use the phrase ‘infinite gravity’. There’s no such animal in the zoo of physics. Infinite gravity – that’s an extraordinary claim!

The Big Bang’s Infinite Temperature: At the time of the Big Bang, the temperature therein was no doubt extreme. Any explosive event generates heat, be it a firecracker, an H-Bomb, or a supernova. But no temperature can be infinitely hot. Why? Heat is energy. ‘Infinitely hot’ is therefore something requiring an infinite amount of energy necessary to generate something that’s ‘infinitely hot’. Temperature is also just a measurement of the average velocity of matter/energy. If one had an infinitely hot temperature, the average velocity of the matter/energy would be infinite. One cannot have an infinite velocity since the cosmic speed limit is the speed of light which is 186,000 miles/second. Therefore, the scientist who uses the phrase ‘infinite temperature’ is talking pure bullshit, and I’ve read accounts by some of the greats using that very phrase.  Infinite temperature - that’s an extraordinary claim!

The Big Bang’s Creation of Matter and Energy: It’s rammed down the throats of students starting in junior high school that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only changed from one form to another form. No argument there, from me at least. However, modern cosmologists postulate exactly that at the moment of the Big Bang event – matter and energy were created, a clear violation of basic conservation laws. That’s an extraordinary claim!

The Big Bang’s Creation of Space and Time: Now the question is, can space and/or time be created? Standard model cosmologists say “yes”, space and time were literally created at the moment of the Big Bang event. Space and time had no meaning and no existence prior to that event. The common analogy given is that to ask if there was time and space before the Big Bang is akin to asking if there is something south of the South Pole. In other words, it’s a nonsense question. However, IMHO, it’s those standard model cosmologists who advocate the nonsense. It’s quite easy for them to say that time and space was created. It’s nearly infinitely more difficult for them to write the cookbook that gives the actual recipe. They haven’t; they can’t, because they are advocating the creation of “something from nothing”. Applying Occam’s Razor, that “keep it simple, stupid” rule, it’s way more believable that space and time have always existed and that the Big Bang event happened inside existing space and time. That somehow space and time can be created, was created at the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago – that’s an extraordinary claim!

To be continued…

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

Reality – It’s all relative; it’s reversible; it’s symmetric; it’s personal; it kicks back when you kick it; it’s conceptual; it’s theoretical; it’s actual; it’s abstract; it’s bio-friendly; it’s unforgiving; it’s emotional; and ultimately the reality of life, the Universe and everything resides in your mind.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Is Your Reality Certainty or A Fluke?

If there is one thing you are absolutely certain of it’s that you exist, and I won’t dispute that (even of you are a figment of my imagination or exist only as the creation of some kind of computer software). Seriously, you exist as a three dimensional, flesh-and-blood, absolutely unique entity inside a three dimensional Universe. However, is your reality something wildly improbable or 100% guaranteed?

On the surface, you are an absolute fluke. Think of those millions of sperm that could have won that race to your mother’s egg, but didn’t. Or that winning sperm could have fertilized some other of your mother’s eggs. Either case, you’re a total nothing in anyone’s philosophy! Now think of all the males and females available at any given time and the odds are against your parents having met, courted, married, etc. Potentially, millions of other males could have married your mother; and potentially millions of other females could have married your father. And of course your mother and father are flukes because a similar argument holds for them via your grandparents, and further backwards for them to your great grandparents, etc, etc. Go back with those sorts of odds a hundred, a thousand, a million, a trillion, generations; back through your mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, etc. ancestry; back through your family tree of invertebrate ancestors (untold generations worth), right down to your unicellular ancestors. What are the odds, all those chance meetings be they sperm and egg, or male and female, of organisms that survived long enough through to a reproductive age (and relatively few, apart from humans do), that you would someday grace the world? Zillions upon zillions to one! You’re an absolute fluke! Or are you?

There appear to be ultimately three sets of either/or conditions which ultimately govern that. The first is, is there one universe, our Universe, or many universes (a Multiverse)? Secondly, is there absolute causality resulting in a deterministic clockwork Universe where once the initial set of relationships were set into play, things evolved with 100% certainty from that point on? Lastly, is there one, and only one possible physics, or could our physics have been different, or are different in another universe?

But first some definitions are in order.  

Universal Physics – One and only one kind of physics is possible, throughout all universes. If you believe in God, She didn’t have any choice in the matter!

Variable Physics – Each universe could have its own individual brand of physics, and the physics that rule our Universe could have turned out differently.

Determinism Rules – There’s 100% causality; there’s absolute certainty.

Chance Rules – Represents less than 100% causality; free will if you will.

Multiverse – Lots of separate and apart universes, perhaps even an infinite number of them.

Universe – The one and only Universe; our Universe. However, if our Universe is near infinite in space and time and stuff, then for all practical purposes it’s the same as the Multiverse since there’s enough space and time and stuff for nearly all possibilities to take place within.

Combining the various possibilities suggests how fluky you really are! But first, let’s deal with the supernatural, instead of natural scenario. If God exists and wanted you to exist, assuming there is a God of course, then you’re Probability One – no contest. You’re no fluke. Seeing however as how there is no evidence for any God (or gods), we’d better get back to all things natural and plough on.

Scenario 1: Universal Physics [+] Determinism [+] Multiverse = the exact same set of outcomes in all universes is predicted. If you exist in one universe, you exist in all universes. You’re not a fluke. But if you don’t, you don’t, full stop. However, you probably don’t since you’re existence would be equivalent to tossing a coin several billion times in a row all billion coming up heads. The assumption here is that the initial set of conditions was identical in each and every single universe within the Multiverse. If not, then they won’t be identical further on down the track. If that assumption is incorrect, you could exist in one or more universes; not exist in one or more other universes.

Scenario 2: Universal Physics [+] Determinism [+] Universe = if you exist, then you were a certainty from the get-go. If you don’t, that too was a certainty. On balance, a betting person would probably bet against your existence ever happening because only one exact set of circumstances gives the universe you, while billions of other sets of circumstances don’t.

Scenario 3: Universal Physics [+] Chance [+] Multiverse = your existence in one universe has nothing to do with your existence in any other universe. You’re a fluke in whatever universe(s) you exist in. But, the saving grace is that you do probably exist in at least one universe.

Scenario 4: Universal Physics [+] Chance [+] Universe = If you exist, you’re a fluke. The probability is extremely high given the odds against your existence such that nobody would have been willing to wager anything on your eventual behalf.

Scenario 5: Variable Physics [+] Determinism [+] Multiverse = assuming one universe has our kind of physics, then you’re existence is a 100% certainty, or 100% against. In all other universes, since the physics are different, nothing remotely like you, or anyone else, will exist. If you exist, you’re not just a fluke, but a super-fluke!

Scenario 6:  Variable Physics [+] Determinism [+] Universe = if there’s only one universe, then there can only be one physics, so assuming that that universe is our Universe, the outcome is the same as Scenario 2.

Scenario 7: Variable Physics [+] Chance [+] Multiverse = in the Multiverse, nearly all possibilities are realised (except in Scenario 1), so in at least one universe, you exist. You’re not a fluke due to the vast number of universes that could contain you. But you’re still a fluke in that you don’t exist in the near infinite other possible universes.

Scenario 8: Variable Physics [+] Chance [+] Universe = again, one universe must equal one physics. Since things however are based on a throw of the dice, if you exist, you’re a fluke.

In short, the betting odds towards your existence are to count on there being a Multiverse. If you’re dealt one hand (one universe), the odds against a royal flush are extreme. Being dealt a near infinite number of hands (the Multiverse) doesn’t ensure a royal flush, but it damn well improves the odds. So, if you exist and there’s one universe, our Universe, you’re a real fluke. In the Multiverse, you might be a fluke in any one universe, but there are so many universes that in that broader context, you’re not a fluke.

Do you want to improve the odds in favor of your existence? There’s a variation that could apply to the Multiverse theme called the Many Worlds interpretation of all things quantum. In the Many Worlds scenario, absolutely all possibilities are realized within any given ‘moment’ within the timeline. In terms of eggs and sperm, at any given moment, the universe splits into as many universes such that all sperm available fertilize all eggs available, and that applies regardless of species (so all possible males that can meet and mate with all possible females do so – or vice versa); all possible seeds that could have been are, and produce viable plants somewhere. 

You might note the subtle combining of both the Multiverse and the Many Worlds concepts. Each universe within the Multiverse has the additional complication (or added attraction) of having to jump through the Many Worlds hoops.

Universes within the Multiverse can have differing timelines. Thus Cleopatra, assuming a Cleopatra, in another universe might have been born into a 21^st Century Egypt, or Australia for that matter (assuming these nations exist or existed in this other universe). Likewise, in another, that other, universe, you may have been born a slave (or as Royalty) in an ancient Egypt, again, assuming such a nation existed. So, who knows, in some other universe (modern or ancient) you and (modern or ancient) Cleopatra (or substitute any modern or historical hunk male of your choice if you’re female) have this thing going! I’m not that likely going to be, in any universe, the one to mate with Cleopatra, any more than you’re (if female) are likely to get your act together with Marc Anthony. But, unlikely becomes Probability One when you merge the Multiverse with Many Worlds. The universe that contains you and Marc Anthony, or you (or me) and Cleopatra, will split when it come to that fork in the road. Many Worlds universe #1 split #1 fork – no pairings; Many Worlds universe #1 split #2 fork – you (we) live happy ever after! That’s because all possibilities are realized; have to be realized.

That’s a real headache inducer! So, to repeat, take a near (or actual) infinity of universes, each with its own unique timeline (which will not of necessity mirror our own). Then, multiply all those existences by all the possible forks in the road encountered by each of those universes since all paths are taken. Anything not forbidden is compulsory. You’re wildest dreams may not come true in this, our Universe, and on this particular pathway you’re experiencing, but somewhere you did, or will – but ditto that your worst nightmares, so perhaps be thankful for what you got in the here and now.

Now let’s reduce that headache somewhat by unmerging again the Multiverse and the Many Worlds ideas. Say in one alternate timeline universe Cleopatra and I get our act together (‘we do’). In another alternate timeline universe we don’t (‘we do not’). In both universes, the Many Worlds forks would now have us respectfully ‘we do not’ and ‘we do’ instead. But that’s already happened in the two universes, so do we now have two universes where ‘we do’ and two universes where ‘we do not’? Rather than accept that, perhaps the Multiverse and the Many Worlds concepts are ultimately, for all practical purposes, the same thing.

Ah, but the ‘we do’ in the first alternate universe took place in an alternate Australia thus the Many Worlds fork had us ‘we do not’ also in an alternate Australia. The original ‘we do not”  in the second alternate universe too place in that alternate ancient Egypt, so that Many Worlds fork now has us as a ‘we do’, also in an alternate ancient Egypt. So the two ‘we do’ universes and the two ‘we do not’ universes aren’t the same after all.

But then again, all those four possibilities could also be catered for in four actual separate and apart universes that are part of the Multiverse, so again there’s no need to bring into consideration the Many Worlds interpretation of all things quantum! Back to square one! And this sort of adding on further qualifiers, isn’t going to ultimately alter the apparently near equivalence of the Multiverse and the Many Worlds.

I’m not however entirely sure this apparent equivalence will sit well with quantum physicists, because I’m not entirely sure this is what quantum physicists mean by the phrase ‘Many Worlds’ (indeed, lots of quantum physicists deny any such interpretation at all exists – it’s too big an ask for them). However, it seems to deal with the issue of That Cat! In two separate physical universes you have Schrodinger’s Cat (in the box) experiment. Identical cats; identical setups; identical observers (and they can be identical because the fundamental bits that make them all up are identical – all electrons (neutrons, protons, etc.) are 100% clones of each other – absolutely identical). In one unverse, the observer observes the cat alive; the other, well it’s the demise of the feline. Neither universe has to split into two. All possibilities have been exhausted without resorting to the requirement of a Many Worlds either/or split. The only real difference I can see between the Multiverse and the Many Worlds interpretation is that with Many Worlds, the outcome (all possibilities realized) is certainty; with the Multiverse it’s only probable or possible.

In conclusion, you may think our planet is an example of total biodiversity, but imagine what things would be like if all the theoretical possibilities had come to pass (the Many Worlds and/or the Multiverse)!!! How many Einstein’s were never born - on the other hand, how many Hitler’s? Then throw in all the plants and animals that never were but could have been, and you could come up with multi-trillions upon trillions of alternative Earths! Ouch!

Perhaps it’s easier to accept that there’s just one Universe (our Universe) and no such a thing therefore as a Multiverse, and no such an animal as the Many Worlds interpretation of all things quantum. You’re therefore a total fluke, and so just enjoy the company of the rest of us total flukes! That’s unless of course our Universe is near infinite enough in extent, all on its lonesome, to allow for a duplicate copy (or three or four) of you – recall those elementary particles that make you, you, can be identically assembled elsewhere to accomplish exactly that.

To be continued…

Parallel Universes: Part One

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?

There are apparently two theoretical counterparts in our real world, or in our physics. Firstly, there’s the idea that from the beginning, there’s an infinite number of parallel universes where all things that can happen, do happen. Our Universe is just one of that infinite set. In five of those universes, you 1) flip a coin – in one, it’s a heads you flip; in another, tails; in the third, the coin stands on edge! Or, in a fourth universe you decide not to flip a coin at all, or in universe #5 you decide to flip something else instead.

The other theoretical set of parallel universes is a set that ever increases, staring with just one. Universes split whenever an either/or choice is forced upon it, such that all results that can happen, happen. In this (our) Universe you decide not to flip a coin – but that decision results in a division, the universe splits and in that split, in the new universe, you do flip a coin. In that universe it comes up heads. But, that universe then splits into two and yet another universe where your flip has tails comes up. There’s also another universe where the coin lands on edge! There’s also a universe that originally splits off where you decide to flip something other than a coin. This is known as the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ theory, (which resulted out of a need to explain certain quantum phenomena). With every passing second, more and more universes branch off (actually trillions per second).

I’ve never been a fan of the Many Worlds Interpretation of all things quantum. That is, the universe keeps splitting each time it comes to a fork in the road. The question of where all the matter/energy comes from – created out of nothing apparently – I’ve yet to see addressed in the texts. But, many top notch scientists adopt it – perhaps as the least of all the evils certain quantum phenomena dish up. As to where they fit, all those extra universes, that’s not as much of a problem. A motel with an infinite number of rooms never has to put out a ‘no vacancy’ sign – if you get the analogy. Oh, the Many Worlds Interpretation also means that there’s no such thing as free will. You may think you have free will in deciding to wear your red dress instead of your green dress, but in the Many Worlds Interpretation, you do both – so no free will.

However, I myself go for the Copenhagen Interpretation* – when you come to a fork in the road, one and only one choice is made – the other possible choice(s) are never realized and ultimately never have any reality. But, if you start out from scratch with an infinite number of universes, or at least a vast number, then the issue of ‘where’ all the universes are is irrelevant, and the creation of all the stuff that makes them up is equally irrelevant. In the beginning, it was so!

You can have an infinite number of universes in an infinite amount of space. An analogy – there are an infinite number of whole numbers like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. There’s also an infinite number of even numbers such as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, etc. Ditto an infinite number of odd numbers. Yet the infinite set of even numbers, plus the infinite number of odd numbers, equals the infinite set of whole numbers. Infinity + infinity = infinity! Or, if you like, think of your house (volume) with just one molecule (universe) in it. You’d agree there’s room for one hell of a lot more molecules (universes). If your house had infinite volume, then…

I had always assumed, and followed the assumptions of others infinitely more brilliant than I, that such theoretical constructions, such parallel / alternative / mirror universes, was forever beyond our actual reach – works of fiction aside of course. We could construct them as an intellectual exercise, but could never verify and understand the actual existence of these mental or thought experiments. That’s because these universes, if they exist, would not be part of our space-time continuum and thusly we could never interact with them.

But what if that assumption is wrong? What if parallel / alternative / mirror universes not only exist, but can and do interact with ours, and thereby give some additional credence to the adventures of our “Alice in Wonderland” and “Star Trek” characters, not to mention the reputations of those physicists who propose infinite universes or Many Worlds Interpretation theories. 

Micro & Macro Mysteries: Well, those assumptions just might now be put to the test. I’d love to be able to say I thought of this idea, even independently, it’s just that brilliant. Alas, I didn’t, and I’m kicking myself because it’s just so simple and elegant.  The credit for this goes to physicist David Deutsch, and for a fuller and better outline of his proposals, see his book cited below**. 

The basics are as follows and deals with the paradoxical and famous ‘double slit’ experiment with light – an experiment with photons.

If you shine a light (millions of photons worth) at a slit, you’ll get a blob of light on the surface behind the slit. No problems – the photon ‘bullets’ go through the slit and impact on the surface behind.

Now you shine the light (millions of photons) at two slits. Contrary to expectation, you don’t get two blobs of light – one opposite each slit – but a classic wave interference pattern of alternating light and dark areas on the surface behind. So photons aren’t ‘bullets’; light must be a wave.

Thus is demonstrated the classic wave-particle duality or paradox of light. Is light a continuous wave, or is it a collection of individual ‘bullet’ particles?

Instead of firing millions of photons at these slits at a go, redo the experiment by firing off photons one at a time – say one per hour. That can actually be done. If you fire the one per hour photons at a single slit, the picture that emerges over time is your blob of light behind the slit. Photons are behaving as ‘bullet’ particles as before.

Now, fire the photons – one per hour – at the two slits. Clearly, you’d expect two blobs of light to ultimately form on the (say photographically sensitive) surface that is behind each slit. Sometimes the single photon would go through one slit; sometimes the other. Alas, you still get a wave-like interference pattern! How can this be? What’s interfering in real time with the actual photons that you’re shooting off?

The only object capable of interfering with photons, to cause wave-like interference, an alternating light-dark pattern, is other photons. But there are no other photons in the vicinity if they are shot out at one per hour and your photon source is the only photon source!

The inescapable conclusion is that there must be other photons around that can’t be detected (seen). Call these photons virtual photons, or shadow photons or ghost photons. Where do they come from? The answer is from our parallel / alternative / mirror universes. There is therefore a form of weak interaction between universes.

How do they, parallel universe photons say, actually get here? Well, at the quantum level, all manner of virtual particles pop into and out of existence from what’s called the vacuum energy. At the extremely microscopic level, what’s often called the ‘quantum foam’, is a level seething with activity, including the popping into and out of existence of micro wormholes, wormholes that can connect one universe with another, even if only for nanoseconds. But, that’s enough to allow the transfer of micro objects, like photons, and electrons, etc. from one universe to another. It’s like seeing the ocean from space. It looks really smooth and tranquil. However, at rowboat level, there’s this twenty foot wave about to come crashing down on top of you.

To be continued…

*But with one very, very important caveat. The Copenhagen Interpretation of the quantum requires that Nature makes up Her mind when, and only when an observer or an observer’s measurement is made. Until then all is probability and nothing has reality or actual existence. The Moon has no reality unless someone is observing or measuring it! To me, observers are irrelevant – reality is reality, with or without observers. 

**Deutsch, David; The Fabric of Reality; Penguin Books, London; 1998:

Multiroads to the Multiverse: Part Two

If Mother Nature can create one Universe (ours), Mother Nature can create more than one universe – a Multiverse! The concept of a Multiverse, that there exists more than one universe, that is our Universe – perhaps an infinite number of them existing sequentially in time, or at one go in space, maybe both, is one of the hottest topics in current cosmology.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

The Multiverse Solves These Puzzles:

In reality, the idea of a Multiverse is more a logical outcome of current thinking and evolving understanding of various discoveries and trends in modern quantum/particle physics and cosmology, relative to being a tool used to explain actual data or anomalies or observations. The basic reason is that other universes, if existing, will tend to be so far away from us in time and/or in space as to exert no influence on what we observe; what data we collect. That’s not to say that the concept of a Multiverse, in one guise or another, can’t be used to help account for actual or philosophical anomalies.

For example, if the computer simulation of our and by extension any Multiverse is correct, that accounts for why there are apparently two sets of independent and incompatible software physics (quantum and classical) running the cosmos.

A computer generated Multiverse (lots of different computer generated simulations coupled with possible multiple copies of each) is in one sense a copout in that it can be used to explain anything. You can account for all data, all anomalies, all weirdness, everything natural and everything supernatural, everything logical and illogical, everything possible, and for that matter impossible. In a computer generated and simulated universe, you can indeed believe six impossible things before breakfast – ‘Alice in Wonderland’ or rather ‘Through the Looking Glass’ rules – OK? The existence of ‘impossible things’ does not of necessity invalidate the possibility however.

The concept of a Multiverse does provide the ways and means of examining other possible origins for our own Universe, which currently is (the standard Big Bang event) that first there was nothing and the there was something.

The there’s the Anthropic Principle: In order to explain why our Universe is so fine-tuned in terms of the laws and relationships of physics that make our universe life-friendly, it is necessary to either postulate one hell of an incredible luck of the draw, or a supernatural creator being who exists outside of space-time. The Multiverse solves the quandary by postulating that with so many universes in existence, with so many combinations of possible laws and relations of physics, that at least one universe, based on sheer chance alone, would be life-friendly. Since we can only exist in a life-friendly universe, the Multiverse helps explain our very existence, without having to resort to bucking incredible improbability or relying on the supernatural. 

Double Slit Experiment: If you fire one photon, say one every minute, at two parallel slits with a photographic plate behind them, you might expect that plate to show, eventually, two blobs of light – one behind each slit, as each individual photon bullet passed through one, or the other, slit. However, what you get is instead a classic interference pattern – alternating light bands with dark bands. Why is this so? Rather, how can this be? Since the one per minute photons aren’t apparently acting like individual bullets, and yet since the only thing that can possibly cause classic wave interference is the presence of other, in addition to these one per minute photon bullets, photons, then where did these other photons come from?  A logical explanation is that these photons are photons that enter or interact with our Universe from another parallel universe(s).

Time Travel Paradoxes: If time travel to the past is possible, and there is only one universe, our Universe, then paradoxes can arise. You can go back in time and murder your mother before you were conceived, which means you were never born, so you couldn’t have gone back in time and murdered your mother, which means you were born…  However, if you travel back in time to another universe, part of the Multiverse, and kill what for all appearances looks exactly like your real mother, but is in fact a parallel universe copy or look-alike, then there is no paradox, because your real biological mother, in the universe in which you were born and raised, remains alive.  

Variations on the Many Worlds Interpretation Theme:

There’s a variation that could apply to the Multiverse theme via the Many Worlds Interpretation of all things quantum. In the Many Worlds scenario, absolutely all possibilities are realized within any given ‘moment’ within the timeline. Each universe within the Multiverse has the additional complication (or added attraction) of having to jump through the Many Worlds hoops. So, to use a simple example, in one universe (A) within the Multiverse, you flip a coin and its heads. Coming to that fork in the road, a choice of heads or tails, that universe then splits into two, and you have flipped tails in the counterpart (B). Both possibilities have been realized. However, it is just as probable that there are enough universes within the Multiverse such that there was another universe (C) where you performed the identical flipping exercise and the coin came up tails (as in universe B). Postulating a Many Worlds Interpretation where there’s a split and you toss heads (universe D), well that’s already something that’s happened (in universe A) – not in a Many Worlds scenario, but in another actual physical universe. Therefore, what need for any Many Worlds interpretations at all? 

I’m not however entirely sure this apparent equivalence will sit well with quantum physicists, because I’m not entirely sure this is what quantum physicists mean by the phrase ‘Many Worlds’ (indeed, lots of quantum physicists deny any such interpretation at all exists – it’s too big an ask for them). However, it seems to deal with the issue of That Cat! In two separate physical universes you have Schrodinger’s Cat (in the box which has been constructed to have a 50/50 chance of killing it within one hour) experiment. Identical cats; identical setups; identical observers (and they can be identical because the fundamental bits that make them all up are identical – all electrons (neutrons, protons, etc.) are 100% clones of each other – absolutely identical). In one universe, the observer observes the cat alive after one hour; the other universe, well it’s the demise of the feline. Neither universe has to split into two to cater for both possibilities of a living cat, and a dead cat. All possibilities have been exhausted without resorting to the requirement of a Many Worlds either/or split.

While I have little difficulty coming to terms with an infinite (or as close to infinite as makes no odds) number of universes (the Multiverse) that have collectively existed since the get-go in order to cater for all possibilities, I have some trouble coming to accept the idea that (Many) Worlds are created in an ongoing manner, as spin-offs, in response to evolving events that require this choice or that choice or the next choice. The difficulty, which I’ve never seen addressed in any books I’ve read on the subject is, where does all the additional matter/energy for the extra world – actually universe - come from? If a whole new universe is created to allow for the existence of both a cat that’s alive and a dead cat (in that cat-in-the-box thought experiment), that additional universe (to cater for the other option) seems to be a free lunch – something created from nothing. That seems to be a violation of the conservation of matter/energy. That’s much too big an ask for me to swallow! Therefore, I vote solely for the Multiverse, which because of the sheer numbers involved, allows for the incorporation of the Many Worlds Interpretation as a bonus. The only real difference I can see between the Multiverse and the Many Worlds Interpretation is that with Many Worlds, the outcomes (all possibilities realized) is certainty; with the Multiverse it’s only probable or possible.

Further recommended readings:

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

Gribbin, John; In Search of the Multiverse; Allen Lane, London; 2009:

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

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

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

Wolf, Fred Alan; Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds; Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York; 1988:

Cosmology and the Multiple You: Part Two

The quantum mantra revolves around the theory that in physics, anything not forbidden is compulsory - given enough time and/or space. While there is nothing forbidden about an identical twin(s) of yourself existing elsewhere in the cosmos, how compulsory that is depends on what sort of cosmological model you adopt.

You are unique, aren't you? There never has been a person exactly like you before, there isn't now, and there never will be. Maybe! Depending on what's really real in all things cosmological, the odds that there are identical copies of you out there can range from plausible if improbable, to plausible and probable, to in fact near certainty, even certainty. The key issue revolves around the concept of infinity, or near infinity. If one has an infinite number of universes to play around with (a Multiverse), and/or infinite time, then every possible history is, sooner or later, somewhere, compulsory.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

How exactly a Multiverse would come about is neither here or there. But there is at least one theory. To help explain various observational cosmological anomalies that would follow a traditional Big Bang, several decades ago the idea was floated that immediately following the Big Bang came a period of ultra-rapid inflation, before the expansion settled down to a far slower rate. Today, inflation is widely accepted as part and parcel of the Big Bang model. However, inflation need not have ceased at the exact same nanosecond everywhere. That is, if inflation continued on at one point, another Universe would quickly form, and if inflation didn't shut down exactly at the same moment, another bubble or pocket or baby universe would bud off, and so on and so on, resulting in a sort of bubble/foam collective of universes - the Multiverse.

The upshot is that lots of universes (a Multiverse), could mean a lot of you! However, distances separating the various copies of you are now even vaster, so again, getting together for dinner and drinks isn't possible.

Fourthly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you in Parallel Universe(s)? It's plausible, but perhaps not all that probable.

Discussion: We've all seen various sci-fi shows where our heroes get propelled into some sort of parallel or mirror universe. The characters they meet are close to, but not identical to themselves. The history they encounter is similar to, but not identical to the history they know. Of course that's for the sake of the plot. A parallel universe could easily contain a parallel you. Unfortunately, sci-fi aside, while there's theoretical reasons to postulate parallel universes, there's no known way of getting to them (and therefore no way of meeting yourself - assuming another yourself exists). But like in the Multiverse concept, if there are multi-billions of parallel universes, that increases the odds of a duplicate you.

Fifthly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you in the 'Many Worlds Interpretation' of quantum physics? That's taken as given!

Discussion: There is a theory known as the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics that each time anything, from fundamental particle to human being, comes to a fork in the road as it were, and has to make a choice(s), both/all forks are taken (something can be, and not be at the same time). To accommodate both/all alternatives, this quantum decision making (in the case of the micro), or macro decision making (in the case of scales we're familiar with), the entire Universe splits, and where we had one Universe, we now have two (or more), one for each fork. Of course when you consider the number of forks that the Universe encounters, well it's been calculated that every second, some 10 to the 100th power of Universes need to be created. (Just think how many hundreds, perhaps thousands of decisions (usually quite trivial, often subconsciously) you make every day. There has to be a new Universe to accommodate every alternative. Of course that means that when you add up all these collected Universes, there must be a lot of you, and a lot of everything else, each one ever so subtly different. In the case of deciding between wearing a green dress or a red dress there are now two Universes - one with you in a green dress; one with you in a red dress. And as in the case of parallel universes, there's no known, even theoretical, way of getting from this (say green dress) one to say another one of them (say red dress) and thus exchanging greetings with your identical self or selves.

Lastly, could there be another you or multiple copies of you as a Simulation? That too is as close to certainty as makes no odds!

Discussion: Do you exist? I mean really, really exist and have a physical reality? That's a pretty dumb question you'll probably ask! The answer is an obvious 'yes'. But, what if I were to suggest that the odds are very high that you have no actual physical reality, and that I have no actual physical reality, and that in fact all terrestrial life, Planet Earth, perhaps the entire observable universe has no actual physical reality! In other words, what if we are a computer simulation!

Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that in the real physical Universe, there exists some tens of thousands of extraterrestrial civilizations which have evolved technology our equal or better; even more advanced than we can conceive of. The odds are high that most would have invented computers - hardware and software. Any one civilization, such as our own, have (to date) produced multi-thousands of computer programs, many of which simulate life forms - think of the hundreds, indeed thousands of computer or video games. No doubt these programs will grow, over time, ever more complex and lifelike until they simulate reality to the same degree as reality itself.

If one advanced civilization produces multi-thousands of individual computer programs that simulate an actual, or imagined, reality, what are the odds that we aren't one of those simulated thousands vis-à-vis being that advanced civilization that actually exists in real reality? How could you know if you were real (hardware), or imaginary (software)? I maintain there's no way of you knowing, at least for absolute sure.

There's only a relatively few actual civilizations, but untold numbers of created false (simulated) realities - what odds we are one of the real ones and not one of the imaginary/simulated many?

Perhaps our concept of 'God' is nothing more than a mythological version of some advanced, but hardly supernatural, extraterrestrial computer programmer! Now as long as nobody hits the delete key!

But of course if there are multiple copies of that computer program containing you then that equates to a lot of you! You could exist hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of times over, all leading perhaps identical, but more likely as not, similar 'lives'. Now you quite obviously could not meet yourself as each piece of software is akin to a one universe - the collection of all the units of that software is akin to a type of multiverse!

Is the idea really so way out in left field that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it could be right? We have to look to advances in our own terrestrial computing power to determine that. Computer generated simulations are already realistic enough that they are used to train pilots and MDs and other humans in professional activities where mistakes in training, if done in real situations, could be disastrous. Our cinema industry has already produced computer generated virtual reality films, bypassing real actors and real scenery. It's entirely possible to bring back in a sense dead actors to star again in new productions. We've all be awed by computer generated special effects in films that are so realistic that if you didn't actually know better, you'd swear they were real.

Walk into any DVD store and you'll find thousands of video (computer) games and/or simulations that you can run on your PC. Most have 'humans' in various role-playing guises that are software generated and which you interact with. The reality factor is increasing by leaps and bounds. At what point will the software become complex enough such that these simulated 'beings' are advanced enough to have self-awareness? What happens when the computer software programming these virtual 'humans' becomes equal to the software (brains) that program us? What happens when the computer software complexity exceeds that of the human brain? Far fetched? Methinks not. Now just replace our virtual 'humans' with ourselves, and maybe, just maybe, we're the virtual reality in somebody (something) else's actual reality.

That theory is testable. While I can think of no way to prove I'm not a simulated being, one can find evidence that we do live in a simulated universe, and by implication, we too are simulated beings. No software (computer or human wetware - brains) is perfect. If there are any glitches, or software upgrades, they might be detectable as anomalous phenomena in some context or another. Like say one of the physical constants were tweaked and altered ever so slightly (and there is some evidence for that - the fine structure constant for example or the proton-electron mass ratio has apparently changed over astronomical time periods), or say the expansion of the Universe began to accelerate for no real apparent reason (that sounds familiar - recall dark energy). Computer software - from our experience - is always being upgraded and updated. If the same applies elsewhere, we could perhaps notice it if we're a product of that software.

Even though there could be multiple copies of a video game that contains you as a character, it's one you per copy, so again, no meeting yourself. That's not to prevent the creator of the game from including multiple copies of you within the one game - if so; well a conversation between you and copies of you won't be very interesting since you each know what you're going to say before you say it!

Finally, one bright note is evident. Even as you approach your own demise, take heart and rejoice, for somewhere out there, there is another you(s) to carry on, and on, and on, and on, and on! As the sun (once upon a time) never set on the British Empire, so to will the sun never set on you.

By the by, if you want to split hairs, you could insist that any copies of you aren't really identical in that the elementary particles, atoms and molecules making up your twin aren't the same elementary particles, atoms and molecules making you up. The flaw in that argument is that all fundamental particles, like say all electrons, are identical to as many decimal places as you care to measure and calculate.