More Profound Things: The Non-Living

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Matter & Antimatter: Theory predicts there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe. Observation shows that there is a massive predominance of matter over antimatter. Something is screwy somewhere. Anytime something is screwy somewhere, profoundness is not far behind.

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

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

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

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

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

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



The Russell Stannard Questions: Philosophy & Metaphysics

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.

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. Why is there something rather than nothing?

A. If there was nothing rather than something you wouldn’t be here to ask the question! So perhaps the fact that there is something is another case of fine-tuning! Something could be a natural condition that’s part and parcel of any conceivable universe or something could be simulated, the simulation of course arising because something existed on up the line that created the simulation. It could be a case of fine-tuning in that universes than consisted of nothing couldn’t give rise or evolve into a something that could ask the question; only a universe that consisted of a something could evolve something that wondered why there was something rather than nothing.

Q. Where do the laws of nature come from?

A. It’s hard in our ordered cosmos to imagine anything but regularity, so the better question might be where do the irregularities, the violations to those laws of nature come from. When they happen we call them miracles or anomalies or if you’re a professional skeptic, pseudoscience (except those “Twilight Zone” anomalies in quantum physics of course – that’s science). Of course anomalies might be a reflection of our not understanding the laws of nature well enough. Or, violations might be due to intelligence. Intelligence is unpredictable, and often has a quirky sense of humor. So intelligence might be behind those exceptions to the rule, so if you see or experience an exception, an anomaly, think intelligence, and if it can’t be human intelligence in the here-and-now, think Supreme Programmer.  

Q. How are we to understand the built-in creativity of the physical world?

A. Human beings are highly creative beings. We create 2-D and 3-D art and architecture; sports and games; music and storytelling; designing experiments; create new food recipes, create computer simulations, etc. We love to indulge in the ‘what if’ game. Apparently so does the Universe! From a primeval ‘fireball’ of elementary particle ‘soup’, the cosmos created forces and fields, atoms and molecules, and stuff and structures* like galaxies and stars and solar systems full of planets and associated debris, but from our biased point of view or perspective the Universe created life and us. If this creation in particular was inadvertent, it borders on a near miracle given all those pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that have to come together just so. If life was a deliberate creation then you are down to postulating either an infallible supernatural deity (or deities) or a probable flesh-and-blood and fallible Supreme Programmer. 

·        But not just galaxies but spiral galaxies and barred galaxies and elleptical galaxies and irregular galaxies; not just stars but dwarf stars and giant stars and neutron stars and quasars and Black Holes and binary star systems too as well as stars that burp and stars that explode; not just planets but gas giants and icy giants and rocky planets (and I’m sure there’s no planet ever envisioned by any science fiction writer that doesn’t have a real counterpart somewhere out in the cosmos).

Q. What significance, if any, ought we to attach to the self-ordering nature of matter?

A. The cosmos is a highly ordered place. The only real question is why it is so. There are roughly about 60 elementary particles (and antiparticles) grouped into three generations. There’s no theoretical reason why there couldn’t have been trillions of elementary particles grouped into hundreds of generations, or no generational structure at all. The fundamental particles can only combine in just so many ways – you can’t have an atom consisting of one neutron, 5 protons and ten electrons. Atoms can only combine in just so many ways. There are a lot more ways atoms can’t combine than ways they do. The same applies for molecules combining. The ancients noted this ordering by suggesting that everything has its natural place in the cosmic scheme of things. Solids (earth) seek ground level; liquids (water) go down too but rest on top of solids; gases (air) hover above solids and liquids and heat (fire) tries to rise through gases and occupy the top rung. The planets don’t orbit the Sun in a square orbit one year, then switch to a rectangular orbit the next year and switch again to a triangular orbit the year after that. The lunar cycle follows its steady rhythm; ditto night follows day that follows night that follows day, etc. Thunder follows lightning. Plants grow upwards while plant roots grow downwards. In other words, causality operates. If you have X, Y follows (but not A, B and/or C). So the fact we have ordering is significant. But, consider this. Software is the same. Your PC is predictable. If X, then Y (but not A, B and/or C).

Q. The problem of understanding things in themselves.

A. No matter what sort of thing you wish to describe, its properties, you eventually exhaust appropriate concepts and language to dig any deeper. You often hit an ultimate barrier when you come up against the ‘what’ and ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. We know there is gravity but ‘why’ gravity at all and ‘how’ does gravity actually work. We know an electron has a negative electric charge of one unit but ‘what’ exactly is electric charge and ‘why’ does the electron have the value of electric charge that it has. The problems disappear if one suggests well, this is the programming, the software code that gives us the illusion of all things gravitational and another software code that determines that there be an negative electric charge on an electron and what the value is, also properties that are totally an illusion, or virtual reality. Ultimately those ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions like why introduce gravity and why have an electric charge can best be answered by those who do the (supreme) programming.

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. 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. Can one prove mathematically that science will be forever incomplete?

A. I don’t know about a mathematical proof, but science cannot ever be complete if for no other reason than there is always something over that next hill which we haven’t seen and explored yet. Further, there are just some restrictions on what we can know about, like the fact that there is probably more to the Universe than just the observable Universe, since what we observe or cannot yet observe is related to and by the speed of light. If light from Object X hasn’t had time to reach us yet, will science can’t yet deal with the nature of Object X. The same philosophy applies to say the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, whereby, through no fault of our own, the very act of observing something changes the properties of that something. Other parts of the cosmos might forever be inaccessible to our sciences, like say exploring the insides of a Black Hole. One could explore the inside of a Black Hole but forever be forbidden from getting the nitty-gritty scientific details of what they found out to a wider peer-reviewed audience.

Q. What is the status of mathematics?

A. Mathematics has no status outside of the human mind. Mathematics is an invention of the human mind (since I know of no other life form that makes use of mathematics in any abstract sort of way) to assist humans in dealing with the many (also invented) complexities of human society (like trade, commerce and economics). Mathematics provides practical applications like navigation and provides ordering and predictability in the natural world that rule the human roost. Mathematics is a not-thing since it has no physical properties and cannot be detected via any of your sensory apparatus. Of course if we’re in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe then we totally exist as, and in, a mathematical construct.

*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.



The Speed of Light (and Gravity?)

Within Relativity Theory, if there is anything unintuitive it is the fact that in the entire Universe, it is the speed of light (and gravity?) alone that is absolute or fixed, not something like space being absolute or time being absolute. It’s unintuitive in that all the other not-light bits and pieces that are in motion can be added or subtracted. The lone exception to that universal rule that velocities can be mathematically combined is the speed of light (and gravity?).

Repeat for emphasis: the anomaly here is that in any other scenario, anything that is not-light and in motion, velocities can be added and subtracted. Repeat again: with that one speed of light exception, velocities may be added or subtracted. If you are on a treadmill that’s moving left at 5 MPH, and you’re on it walking to the right at 5 MPH, to an external observer you are waking yet standing still. You’re much more likely to hit a home run if the wind is blowing towards the outfield fences; planes fly faster with a tailwind than with a headwind; you swim in the river faster going with the flow than against the current. If you are in a train that is moving at say 100 km/hour and you throw a ball at 10 km/hour in the direction at which the train is moving, to an observer outside the train, your ball is traveling at 110 km/hour. If you throw the ball towards the rear of the train, an outside observer will measure the ball as moving at 90 km/hour. If on the other hand, you shine a flashlight in the train, an outside observer will see the velocity of the resulting light beam moving at the speed of light – not the speed of light PLUS the velocity of the train, or the speed of light MINUS the velocity of the train, but at the speed of light! That’s nuts, but it’s scientifically nuts and been proven again and again in any experiment you care to devise. I have no issue with experimentally verified results. That doesn’t mean I don’t have issues with the anomaly.

The velocity of light is a constant to an external observer no matter what. Why that should be no one knows, but it is so. However, my take on this can of worms, which as a consequence requires somewhat counter-intuitively that both time and length have to be flexible, is one should always be a bit suspect when it comes to the lone ranger, the lone ranger being the exception to the rule*. I don’t tend to like exceptions to the rule. There’s something weird afoot here. Mother Nature is trying to tell us something we haven’t figured out yet.

All that said, the speed of light isn’t really a constant if you take into consideration the differing mediums that light can travel through. However, the speed of light is probably also a constant within whatever other medium it happens to be in. The speed of light in air at STP (standard temperature and pressure) is less than the speed of light in the relative vacuum of outer space; even less traveling through pure water and less again traveling through clear glass. One would presume that just as the speed of light in space is constant for observers regardless if they are traveling in a high velocity spaceship or as an astronaut ‘stationary’ on the International Space Station, the speed of light in water sould be a constant for the crew in a submarine that’s underway thus in motion or a diver standing on the seabed.  

That makes me sort of wonder, theoretically, if you could get an underwater submarine to go faster than the speed of light in water (or an aircraft to outpace the speed of light in air), though in either case that would be less than the speed of light in a vacuum, could you then claim, albeit with qualifiers (in water; in air), that you actually traveled faster than the speed of light, if only for the bragging rights? 

Apart from light (photons), presumably gravity, or gravity-waves, also propagate at the speed of light and thus a gravity-wave would have a constant speed regardless of any frame of reference for any observer. But I also presume that necessitates finding the hypothetical graviton particle (to mirror the photon) and that, for the moment, resides in the unknown basket.

That brings up yet another puzzlement. Is gravity just geometry as per General Relativity or is gravity a force transmitted by a force particle, the theoretical graviton, and thus more akin to electromagnetism’s photons (infinite extension; obeys the inverse square relationship) apart from lacking EM’s negative counterpoint – in the case of gravity, that’s antigravity.

Speaking of gravity (gravitons) and light (photons), if gravity can have an effect on light (i.e. – the gravitational lens), then it should be a two-way street and light should be able to have an observable affect on gravity, but I can’t recall ever reading about that aspect of the relationship. 

As per the speed of light being medium dependent; one speed in a vacuum, another in water, well that makes for an interesting question when considering gravity. If a gravity-wave is approaching Earth, will it have one constant velocity in the vacuum of space for all observers, then a differing velocity as it passes through our atmosphere, then another value as it passes through the ocean and yet others as it hits the various density layers inside the planet?    

As is often the case, there tends to be more questions than answers!

*Not that the differing rules for the speed of light vis-à-vis other not-light velocities is the only exception to the rule in modern physics. Quantum tunneling is one of those exceptions to the rule of causality. With respect to the standard model of cosmology and the Big Bang, first there was nothing; then there was something. That means the Big Bang event created both matter and energy out of less than thin air. That’s also a free lunch and one of those exceptions to the rule of physical law usually expressed as the conservation of matter and energy. All these exceptions to the norm suggest that some of the final chapters in modern physics haven’t yet been written.



Origins and Ultimate Questions: Part Two

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

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ultimate Questions (and Answers):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Unified Theory of Time Travel: Part One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued…

Time Reversal: Studies in Time and Motion: Part One

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…

The laws of physics do not recognize the arrow of time, at least on the micro or quantum scale. The fundamental particles do not age. Their interactions can proceed in either time direction – past to present to future, or, future to present to past. Since the macro (like us), is made up of the micro, how come we age? Macro relationships often tend to be unidirectional, past to present to future only, what we call time’s arrow or the arrow of time. 

Make a film. Run it backwards. That’s what I call a pseudo time reversal thought experiment. We’ve all seen them. They are usually funny, not so much funny ha-ha, but funny peculiar. So, at what point do you go from a viewing where there’s ‘nothing strange happening here’, to ‘that’s possible’ to ‘that’s odd’ to ‘that’s really weird and highly improbable’ to ultimately ‘that’s impossible’. Or, at what point do you go from acceptance of what you are seeing, albeit back-to-front, to suspecting a time reversal, to knowing you’re watching a film backwards, and are their any generalities that can be drawn from this? Let’s look at some ordinary examples.

There’s a man sitting in his living room with the lights on, crossing and uncrossing his legs. Reverse the film – no anomaly. The man now picks up a book and reads it from front to back. Reverse the film – It’s now slightly odd in that the book is being read from back to front. The lights go out. Reverse the film and the lights come on – nothing strange. The lights go out and the man picks up a flashlight and turns it on. Reverse the film – this is very strange as the light from the flashlight is instead now entering the flashlight from somewhere stage left (or right). The lights come back on and the man lights up a cigar and smokes it. Reverse the film – Now you absolutely know the film is the reverse because the cigar smoke and ash turns into cigar which grows ever longer!

Let’s film that same man sitting in his chair for one hour. Run the film backwards and the odds are you won’t see anything too strange. Now film the man for one second each day over the course of a decade – roughly the amount of film. Reverse the latter film – you should now certainly see something strange. The man is getting visibly younger!

Let’s film a military person standing at attention for say ten minutes. Now that’s not exactly an exercise in still life because the person is still moving – the eyes are blinking, the person is breathing, the heart is beating, etc. So, run the film backwards and there’s nothing overly unusual. The eyelids open and close; the chest expands and contracts, the heart beats. But if you could look a bit deeper, beneath the surface, you’d note a lot of strange activity. Photons aren’t entering the person’s eyes; they are exiting (so in the reverse film, the person is blind). The person is breathing in lots of carbon dioxide and exhaling lots of oxygen. The heart may be beating, but the blood is flowing in the wrong direction! Food in the stomach is becoming undigested. Those are odd happenings indeed.

You’re standing on the railway platform filming as the express train, the ‘4:50 from Paddington’ (thanks Agatha) thunders by blowing its whistle. Reverse the film. There’s nothing odd to be seen here. Well, trains can travel in both directions (especially if they have an engine at both ends) and you can’t tell standing on and filming the platform which direction Paddington is in as there is no signage to that effect visible. But, the change in pitch of the train’s whistle (the Doppler Effect*) will not be the same regardless whether it thunders by left-to-right or right-to-left. As you are filing, as the train approaches and passes you, you go from hearing a high pitch (the sound waves are compressed) to a low pitch (the sound waves are now spread apart). Reverse the film, and the order is low pitch to high pitch, even though the train is approaching (in the reverse film viewing) and receding (in the reverse film viewing). That’s contrary to expectations. Ah, but also in the film frame is the station’s clock, the hands of which are now going counter-clockwise! That gives the game away – unless you assume that’s due to an electrical fault! [*Contrast with the filming of a galaxy moving ever faster away from us – the expanding Universe – with insert of the galaxy’s spectrum lines shifting ever further towards the red. Reverse the film and the galaxy is now approaching us and the spectrum is moving in the other direction – towards the blue. That’s exactly according to expectations.]

Say there’s a tree swaying in the breeze. Reverse the film – no anomaly. Keep filming, and note the clouds are moving from right to left. Reverse the film – still nothing unusual. Keep rolling the film and watch the light get dimmer and dimmer as dusk approaches. Reverse the film – okay, so it’s now dawn dawning. You see a bird fly away from one of the tree branches. Reverse the film – now that’s odd. The bird is flying toward the tree branch, but tail first. Still, maybe it’s just a very strong gust of wind blowing the bird backwards. The bird is flying away from the tree branch because the wind has cracked and broken the branch and it falls to the ground. Reverse the film – now you know its time reversed as the branch moves from the ground up and attaches itself to the tree.

Film the city late at night. The office lights go on and off; the neon signs are flashing, and the traffic lights are doing their red-green-amber-red-green-amber-red thing. Reverse the film – it’s now slightly odd in that the traffic lights are going red-amber-green-red-amber green-red. That’s not the normal sequence. Still, maybe its an electrical fault. Resume forward filming and see this lone automobile cruise on up the street. Reverse the film – so the car is now moving backwards. Well, it’s odd but cars can move in reverse. Resume normal filming. The car is actually being driven by a drunk driver and he hits a pedestrian killing same before crashing and totally destroying his car by driving at speed into a building. Now reverse the film. Now you know it’s a reversal because cars don’t un-crash and the dead don’t come back to life.

Film a clear sky that slowly over time shows a cloud developing and turning into a traditional storm cloud with anvil top. Reverse what you just filmed. There’s no anomaly as clouds can dissipate as well as form. Continuing filming and watch the storm cloud develop a funnel and turn into a waterspout hitting the water before running out of puff and returning to its parent cloud. Reverse – nothing unusual to be seen, the water looks the same before and after regardless of time flow. Resume filming and note the funnel reforming and becoming a waterspout again, but there’s this unfortunate ship that’s caught up in the event and sinks. Reverse the film and because you rather suspect that ships don’t un-sink, you know it’s a time reversal image you’re watching. Continue normal filming and see this cloud produce ball lightning that dances and floats around. Reverse the film, and I’d suspect you wouldn’t suspect anything. Resume filming, and see the ball lighting go ‘poof’ and disappear. Now reverse the film and see the ball lighting ‘un-poof’ and appear from out of nowhere and out of nothing. That’s very odd, but you’re no expert on ball lighting so maybe it’s possible. Now our cloud, in normal filming mode, produces a traditional sideways, cloud-to-cloud lighting bolt and crash of thunder. Reverse the film. What’s odd, and a giveaway that the film is running back-to-front, is that you’ll hear the thunder before you see the lightning. [It’s also slightly odd in that the thunder starts off faint and builds in intensity, finally cutting out fairly abruptly – not in a fade-away fashion as per norm.] If that doesn’t cinch it, continue filming while the cloud produces a hailstorm that batters the waters below. Reverse the picture – hail doesn’t go from the ground up (hail can go up and down and up and down again and again within its parent cloud due to updrafts and downdrafts, but once it reaches the surface, that’s the end of the journey).

Finally, film a symphony orchestra playing a concert. Reverse the film. There’s probably nothing unusual to be witnessed. Now add the sound of the music and reverse the film – now that’s weird (the ‘music’ that is), but maybe it’s just some of that highly modern experimental atonal ‘music’ – except the concert program said it was to be an all Mozart concert, not that that is definitive proof – maybe it’s a different Mozart! Now resume filming in the normal way and get the audience’s applause. Reverse the film. There’s nothing too odd here except, like the thunder example above, the applause started off softly, softly, builds up in intensity, and cuts off fairly abruptly.

One can easily come up with thousands or ordinary everyday scenarios that can evolve from being time reversible without question to ‘whoa’ – that’s funny peculiar.

Things left to the natural way of things tend to go from order to disorder. If you see the reverse, it’s suspect, probably highly improbable, but not impossible. It’s just the second ‘law’ of thermodynamics in operation, but it’s a statistical ‘law’ that can be broken, but rarely is, due to chance. There are lots of possible arrangements for disorder; few arrangements for something in a ordered state, so statistically, the odds favor disorder and thus you have to go to a lot of time and effort (energy expenditure) to go from disorder to order. Thus, seeing a film of a nuclear explosion in reverse, or a firearm shooting bullets in reverse or a plane un-crashing is suspect.

For example, pour out a really hot cup of coffee then start filming. Reverse the film. Apparently there’s nothing odd to look at – just a cup of coffee - except, if you’ve filmed in infrared. If you run that infrared film backwards, you’d have the coffee get ever warmer, and the surrounding environment get ever cooler. In real life, the coffee would cool down and the immediate environment would warm up slightly. So, this is a case of things appearing normal, backwards or forwards in the visible spectrum, yet odd indeed with viewed backwards in the infrared.

To be continued…

Time & Time Travel: Part Two

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

“PLAY IT SAM. PLAY ‘AS TIME GOES BY’” We’ve all heard of the ‘arrow of time’ which points in one direction – from past to present and present to future. It’s related obviously to the concept of entropy, that left to themselves, things go from an orderly state to a disorderly state – a clean desk gathers dust! One way of dramatically illustrating this concept is to look at a film of some event which runs from past to present to future, and thus looks normal, and then look at the same film running backward – i.e. from the present to the past. We’ve all seen films of a broken egg and associated mess on the kitchen floor mysteriously reassembling, leaping up into the air, and gently landing on the kitchen table top. We KNOW we’re seeing the wrong arrow of time; we know we’re seeing entropy as it isn’t – going from a disordered state to an ordered state. Nature doesn’t happen that way. Or does it?

We’ve all seen paint dry. We can film paint drying. We can tell if that film is running backwards because we know dry paint doesn’t turn into wet paint.

We’ve seen films of a thunderstorm. The lightning flashes, the thunder rumbles, and wind howls, and the rain pelts down. That film in reverse would be obvious, because the thunder rumbles, then the lightning flashes, and though the wind still howls, the rain is pelting upwards!

What if you had a lump of coal? It obviously has some amount of radioactive carbon-14 in it, which slowly but surely decays. If a film showed the amount of radioactive carbon-14 increasing, in the lump of coal, you’d guess that the film was being run backwards.

Take a piece of paper and set it on fire. If you saw a film showing the reverse, ashes burning and turning into paper, you’d be pretty dense not to know something wasn’t quite right.

Take a container with a divider in the middle. In one half, fill it with hot coffee. In the other half, fill it with hot cream. Lift out the divider and start filming. Pretty soon the white cream and the black coffee produce a uniform brownish/grey mix. If you saw that film in reverse, you’d be bewitched, bothered and bewildered, because things don’t happen that way.

Lastly, let’s film your life – birth, childhood, teenager, young adult, adult, mature aged citizen, elderly, [until death was finally on the near horizon]. Again, you’d immediately know someone put the film in backwards of you saw yourself growing ever more visibly younger.

Now, instead of filming the BIG PICTURE – drying paint, a thunderstorm, radioactive carbon-14 in coal, burning paper, that nice cup of coffee with cream, and this is your life, let’s film just one elementary particle or atom or molecule contained within each of those events. If you focused on just that one bit particle / atom / molecule, and then ran the film backwards, would anything seem strange? The answer is ‘NO’.

The molecule of paint is there whether of not the wetting agent is arriving or leaving, and the wetting agent, say an alcohol molecule, can potentially arrive just as readily as leave as a molecule of same.

A water molecule (making up a rain drop) can rise into the atmosphere just as readily as it can descend.

Atomic particles can impact and turn an ordinary non-radioactive carbon atom into a radioactive (carbon-14) one. I mean radioactive carbon was somehow created in the first place, so the reverse process obviously can happen. So, even if a particle decays into other particles, the reverse is not anomalous as particles can merge – think of hydrogen fusing into helium (plus energy) in the sun for example.

The carbon in a molecule of cellulose (paper) will, when the paper is burned, remain an atom of carbon, either as carbon ash or as carbon dioxide. But then carbon, or carbon dioxide, can be incorporated into cellulose, so filming in reverse breaks no laws of physics or chemistry. In other words, chemical reactions are reversible. Hydrogen and oxygen can combine in a ratio of two to one for form water. Water in turn can be broken down by electrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen.

There’s nothing unusual if a molecule of cream goes to the left and a molecule of coffee right next to it goes to the right (i.e. – cream and coffee components separate).

Lastly, each and every particle, atom or molecule in your body doesn’t age. Film any particle, atom or molecule that’s part and parcel of your body, view it backwards, and you wouldn’t notice anything anomalous from the time it becomes part and parcel of you until it leaves. Viewed forward or backward, particles, atoms or molecules enter your body, do their thing, and ultimately get replaced by other particles, atoms or molecules.

So, if the micro components of these macro systems don’t exhibit any preferred arrow of time, or exhibit entropy, or have some sort of inevitable destiny, then in theory, the macro systems can defy the arrow of time or entropy or their inevitable destiny. Paint can un-dry; rain can pelt upwards; atomic particles can make something non-radioactive, radioactive; carbon atoms can participate in reversible chemical reactions; creamy coffee can separate into coffee and cream; and lastly, you don’t apparently have to age (but you probably will anyway). Or, put another way, an electron is immortal, so even though you will age and die, not that its much of a consolation, but all your component particles, etc. ultimately live on (and on, and on) to strut their stuff again, and again.

In conclusion, it would appear that there is a very fundamental difference between the macro- and micro-verses. It’s almost as if there were two highly different software packages written in order to run the Universe, one with an arrow of time and entropy, and one without!

TIME TRAVEL: Time travel is a staple in sci-fi stories, novels, films and TV series. And, time travel is possible – in theory. We all know about journeying to the future if one travels at close to light speeds relative to your destination (the twin paradox). Travel to the past is apparently allowed to, via rotating worm holes. The problem there is that theory predicts worm holes, if they exist at all, will exist for nanoseconds and be very tiny to boot.

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

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

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

It’s paradoxes and situations such as the above that prompted Stephen Hawking to postulate that there is as yet an undiscovered law of physics which prohibits time travel to the past – he calls it ‘chronology projection conjecture’. Since we have never seen – to the best of our knowledge – any time travellers from our future, he’s probably right.

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

Reality - Your reality isn’t really real. That’s because you’re the product of someone else’s imagination. That could be imagination via wetware – their brain, say in a dreaming state; or that could be imagination via creativity in producing computer software, where you’re coded within that software. In other words, you’re a simulated being – and so am I.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Let’s assume that there are one or more extraterrestrial civilizations that are thousands, probably tens of thousands of years more advanced (in technology) vis-à-vis ourselves. Tens of thousands of years is a tiny, tiny fraction of the age of our Universe such that extraterrestrial civilizations should vary widely in their technological abilities. Project in your mind what sort of computing prowess human civilization is likely to have in a thousand, or ten thousand years. You’d guess it would be pretty impressive. Well, somewhere out there, there’s an ET civilization that already processes that level of computing power!

Put another way, what’s the smallest ‘device’ (level of technology) that could contain the entire information content of the Universe? Could it be fitted onto some super-CD or super-DVD or a box set of same, or stored in a quantum computer? I don’t know. We can’t do it – yet. Maybe it can’t be done. Maybe the smallest device that can contain the information content of ‘The Universe’ IS ‘The Universe’. But if not, then having ‘The Universe’s’ information as or in a piece of software/hardware combination would enable someone operating such software and hardware to simulate any or all of what’s in ‘The Universe’! 

Our simulated Universe theory is potentially 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 that we too are simulated beings.  No computer software is perfect. 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. So, if there are any 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 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). 

So, do you exist? I mean really, really exist and have a physical reality? That would be a pretty dumb question had I not outlined the reality vs. simulation concept above. The answer is no longer an obvious ’yes’ because what if I were to suggest (again) 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! Yet again, in other words, what if we are a computer simulation? Put another way, you can visualize X, dream Y, program Z. So, in turn, perhaps you are someone (something) else’s X, Y and/or Z!

Let us however continue to remain with the computer analogy relative to dreams or hallucinations, etc. Of course as Microsoft, etc. demonstrates, there’s not just one copy of a software package around. Of course if there are multiple copies of that computer program containing you (not to mention file sharing), 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 Multiverse! Or, perhaps each version of ourselves could be viewed loosely is being akin to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics – which is just another variation on the Multiverse concept.

So, and I keep drumming this point home, is our Universe real or simulated? The odds overwhelmingly favour our reality as being a simulated one as outlined above. If that could be proved, it would also be proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. If all terrestrial life is simulated, who else is left to simulate us but extraterrestrials? I just bet we’re some alien’s Ph D thesis. Of course this is a fairly unpalatable theory, so I’ll just conclude here that the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of my being wrong – maybe – well maybe not.

If we, Planet Earth, and our observable universe are nothing but a simulation, that can explain (or at least rationally account for) any and all anomalies (miracles?) that you care to bring up. Software (be it of the wetware [brains] or of the computer variety) can create any sort of simulated reality – it doesn’t even have to be logical or explainable by science. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head.

When considering things cosmological, it’s become apparent that astronomers only observe about 4% of the matter that should be present. That is, about 96% of the matter that should be present and detectable to account for the observed behaviour of our observable universe is missing! Now 1% might be understandable givens measurement uncertainty (error bars), but hardly 96%! So, cosmologists have postulated concepts termed ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ to make up the deficit. However, nobody has the foggiest idea what exactly ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ actually is. Neither has actually been detected – obviously. Of course in an artificial simulated universe, one needs no correlation between cause (amount of matter) and effect (behaviour of the observable universe). In fact, it makes the programming that much simpler. By human analogy, I’m sure a detailed study of our video/computer games would show gross violations of the laws of physics. 

No astronomer can explain how galaxies form and stay formed, at least without incorporating ‘dark matter’. Yet we see them in lots of shapes and sizes. Maybe it’s as if our hypothetical simulator thought that these were sort of pretty and thus threw several billions of them into the background as decorative wallpaper.

Since the Big Bang was first documented by the redshift (Doppler effect) data, there’s been reoccurring problems with the discovery of parts of the Universe that appeared to be older than the Universe itself (as implied by the Big Bang) – which is a nonsense. Recalibrations have always rectified this situation, but there are still current unresolved issues here. 

Then we have the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics – both are right to a high degree of experimental precision, but they aren’t compatible with each other. Apparently, one (or both) of these theories must be wrong, or at best incomplete. That’s why the unification of the two (a theory of quantum gravity) is physic’s Holy Grail. However, that Holy Grail is proving as difficult to find as the Grail itself! But for the moment, it’s like the universe has two independent sets of laws – one governing the very large; one the very small. This makes no natural or scientific sense. It’s beyond me how that can be if our reality is really reality, but easily explained if our reality is just someone’s simulation.

Within quantum physics there’s something called the wave-particle duality. That is, something can exhibit the properties of both a wave and a particle at the same time. There really is no entirely rational explanation for this, it just is.

Within General Relativity Theory, if there is anything unintuitive it is the fact that in the entire Universe, it is the speed of light that is absolute or fixed, not something like space or time. It’s unintuitive in that all other bits and pieces in motion can be added or subtracted. So, if you are in a train that is moving at say 100 km/hour and you throw a ball at 10 km/hour in the direction at which the train is moving, so an observer outside the train, your ball is travelling at 110 km/hour. If you throw the ball towards the rear of the train, an outside observer will measure the ball as moving at 90 km/hour. If on the other hand, you shine a flashlight in the train, an outside observer will see the velocity of the resulting light beam moving at the speed of light – not the speed of plight PLUS the velocity of the train, or the speed of light MINUS the velocity of the train, but at the speed of light! That’s nuts, but it’s scientifically nuts and been proven again and again in any experiment you care to devise. I suggest here that a really natural universe wouldn’t have that property, and that this weird absolute in physics has been imposed on us by someone (something) else. 

In our Universe, there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but there’s not. Our antimatter has gone walkabout. While there is one viable physics explanation for this, when considering a simulated universe, it would be easy to program out the antimatter quota which makes for a less complex universe one needs to simulate. Or, perhaps our simulator hadn’t realized the simulation of physical laws would have predicted antimatter hence never bothered to program it in from the get-go. 

Explain the parting of the Red Sea in the Bible! It’s easy to do in the movies, on a computer, or in your head.

Then there’s this Biblical bit about Joshua commanding the sun to stand still (at least that’s the way I recall it). That’s either a tall tale or myth or the result of a simulation. Whatever, it can’t be a physical reality. 

In the Bible we have this tale of the multiplying of loaves and fishes out of virtually nothing. Again, you can imagine it, but that’s about it. Likewise with any sort of miracle it’s easy to visualize the event, but infinitely harder to explain it. But, as in the case of loaves and fishes, it’s easy to write a software package that can do this multiplication feat as a simulation exercise.

Heaven and Hell can be created as easily as any other sort of place, complete with either harps and haloes, or devils and pitchforks!

If someone (or something) is calling the simulation shots, you could obviously and easily be resurrected or reincarnated or just allowed to cease to be (that is, deleted from the program).

How can reports of a Bigfoot or a Loch Ness Monster continue for decades without physical verification as if these creatures were but phantoms? Again, it’s easy to visualize such creatures, but far harder to explain how a rather largish sea (lake) monster can elude detection in a confined lake seemingly indefinitely. All these observers can’t be totally mistaken. But what if the ‘monsters’ AND their observers are both simulations, where the ‘monsters’ are simulated to be phantom-ish – a sort of game to play with your simulated observers?

What about ghosts and fairies and all of their various relations? You can create them on film, in your mind, or on a computer screen, so, if you can, so could another – and create you as well in the process.

How can aliens abduct humans or mutilate cattle, decade after decade, without ever being seen? It’s easy to do in a computer simulation; difficult in reality.

The crop circle phenomena is totally unexplainable, but it doesn’t have to be explainable in a physical sense if it’s all created by an ET intelligence including the observers who see the circles and wonder how on earth it was done.

From the examples above, I conclude that it almost seems as if someone (something) is ultimately responsible for our Universe, but he / she / it / they didn’t quite think things through sufficiently. Methinks an all knowing, all powerful supernatural God type being wouldn’t have stuffed things up. So either the Universe is naturally stuffed up, or it was created stuffed up!

To be continued…