The Big TOE

Quantum Gravity otherwise known as the Theory of Everything (TOE) is the Holy Grail of all things physics. Why? Well, there are two types of physics. There is classical physics, the physics you have to deal with in your day-to-day macro world. Then there is quantum physics, the physics of the very, very tiny; the micro worlds which for all practical purposes are, if not irrelevant, at least unnoticed in your day-to-day existence.

Another distinction is that macro or classical physics is a continuum, like a ruler. Quantum or micro physics are bits and pieces; discrete units, like money. You can have one and three quarter inches; you can’t have one and three quarter cents. So what’s the problem?

Well, there are four fundamental forces that control life, the Universe and everything. Three of these are quantum forces or operate from or within the realm of the micro-micro-microscopic. This trilogy is comprised of the strong nuclear force (which hold atomic nuclei together); the weak nuclear force (which allows atomic nuclei to break apart – radioactivity) and electromagnetism (which gives you light to see by and radio and TV to enjoy). The other and final force however is a continuum – gravity. It’s like there being three brothers and one sister!

As in the sibling’s case, physicists suspect that all four are born of one parentage. Alas, the DNA doesn’t match up!  Gravity apparently has different parents! Now that just won’t do. One Universe should allow for, indeed require, one ultimate parentage. Alas, despite all the best efforts of all the finest physics in the world over many generations, the three brothers just don’t share a common DNA with their alleged sister. My resolution is that perhaps that really is the case. The idea that there is quantum gravity is just a straightforward impossibility. There are indeed two sets of parents – one resulting in quantum triplets; the other producing an only child – gravity. The two are unrelated.

To restate the situation, we have the theory of general relativity (gravity) and quantum physics. Both are bedrocks of modern physics. Both are accurate to a high degree of experimental precision. Both 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 physics’ Holy Grail. However, that Holy Grail is proving as difficult to find as the Biblical Grail itself! But for the moment, it appears as if the universe has two independent sets of laws (or sets of running software) – one governing the very large (gravity); one the very small (the quantum). This makes no natural or scientific sense.

We have observations of four physical forces yet no theory which unites the three quantum forces (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force) with the one classical force – gravity. Theory needs to be satisfied. All of the four fundamental forces should be interconnected; some sort of unification principle must be in operation that relates all four, one to the other. However, these four fundamental forces that govern the Universe show no signs of any obvious unification – well actually the three quantum ones do (known as the GUT – Grand Unified Theory), but that’s where the unification ends. Gravity remains the wallflower. If the Big Bang theory is to be proven correct as stated, scientists must of necessity come up with a viable theory of Quantum Gravity that is an acceptable unification of the trio of quantum forces with gravity. There is, to date, no viable theory of Quantum Gravity despite thousands of physicists searching for one over many generations now. Even for the final 30 years of his life Einstein searched for his big TOE but never found it.

In summary, the realm of the micro and the realm of the macro are incompatible, like two different sets of software that are separate and apart but collectively run the cosmos. Again, that makes no sense. It should be relatively easy to unify all four forces. Einstein and thousands in his footsteps have found out the hard way that it’s damn hard to get a TOE. Mother Nature is a bitch!

Now, the real question is what are the implications if there is no such animal as a unified theory or a TOE? What if we have a case of never have so many spent so much time and effort over so little (actually nothing)? With the passage of every day, the missing TOE appears unlikely ever to be found. Then what?

My prediction is that there will never be a TOE because there really are two incompatible sets of software governing the virtual reality cosmos.



Those Oops In Physics: Part Two

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

Continued now from yesterday’s blog…

Oops in Causality     

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

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

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

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

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

Oops in Probability     

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

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

Oops in Theory vs. Observation

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

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

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

General Oops: WTF?

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

     

Some Interesting Reading

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

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

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

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



Theory vs. Observation: Part Two

There’s many a conflict that rages between observation and theory. What is observed cannot be; what cannot be alas is observed. Sceptics, those supporting theory, dump down on those who contradict theory because they witnessed something to the contrary. “It can’t be therefore it isn’t.” The witness dumps down on the sceptic with the statement, “I know what I saw”. Impasse! Perhaps there is a third option, one where both theory and observation can coexist.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

If you observe something that is impossible, and it really is impossible, and if the observation can’t be faulted, and the impossibility of the theory can’t be faulted, what possible resolution can there be? Well one possibility is that some as yet undiscovered genius marries theory and observation and both live happy ever after. That’s certainly happened before and no doubt will happen again. The other is that there needs be a realm where both theory and observation can illogically both exist, same time; same place. That incompatibly of theory and observation, side-by-side, being ultimately compatible is itself a contradiction. Fortunately, there are such realms apart from Alice’s looking glass wonderland.

Now one such realm is your dreams. Though I haven’t experienced it, apparently dreaming of yourself flying (as in Superman, not as in a aircraft) is a common scenario. You’re not Superman; you can’t fly. Your dreams however provide contrary observational evidence that you did fly. And so something both is (observation), and is not (theoretical logic), at the same time. In your dreams you can accomplish six impossible things before breakfast – that is before you wake up.

Even when wide awake it’s relatively easy to imagine images from within your own wetware (that mind within the brain) that can contradict what you know to be impossible with images of doing just that, like for example pitching a perfect game in the seventh game of the World Series and also hitting the winning home run in the bottom of the ninth inning with thousands of female fans rushing onto the field to (well it’s your imagination so fill in the blank)!

Cinema provides another medium. Well there are Superman movies after all, one with a tag line, if I recall correctly along the lines of “you really will believe a man can fly”. Theory: in space no one can hear you scream, yet you hear (that’s a form of observation) the sound of spaceships battling it out with their photon torpedoes and phasers on the big screen.

Closely related, video games or something cut from the same cloth, computer or other simulations. You’re an astronaut simulating a lunar landing. Oops, you slipped up and crashed on the Moon and should have died, but you didn’t really crash and you most certainly didn’t die. You live to simulate another day. Just about any action-oriented video game (observation) will contain so many massive physics anomalies (theoretical impossibilities) as to cause any physics professor to take up the bottle in despair.

And so, if we have mediums that can reconcile theory and observation though both are incompatible, then who’s to say the contradictions we note and log in ‘real’ life may not be really real at all (well we know they can’t be) but perhaps the result of someone else’s dreams or video games and thus we’re not really real at all either! If we exist in a simulated universe, then, as the song title goes, “Heaven knows, anything goes”.

Let’s assume for the moment that the concept of a simulated universe or a virtual reality is actually via computer software, say something akin to a video game or a simulated reality as used for training purposes.

It’s unlikely that your virtual reality can be the product of quasi current day technology, although it’s possible that some human(s) in the 25^th Century have concocted up a 25^th Century equivalent of an ancient history video game titled 21^st Century Planet Earth. That aside, perhaps the programmer is not human at all but an extraterrestrial! Perhaps that extraterrestrial(s) has inserted itself into our virtual reality as our ‘ancient astronauts’ concept, otherwise known as those mythological polytheistic deities part and parcel of nearly all cultures, but could incorporate the more ‘modern’ monotheistic concept as well.

Anyway, one subset of all those thousands of polytheistic deities are those trickster gods known throughout all polytheistic mythologies. As the name suggest, these were deities who weren’t quite always on the up-and-up, but loved to play tricks, sometimes nasty and malevolent tricks. The bottom line is that trickster gods couldn’t be trusted.

But I can imagine that our virtual reality computer programmer fashions itself in the guise of a trickster god. Such a being would delight in creating our virtual reality that contains all of the anomalies we note and log in our seemingly real reality. What better trick than to create dozens of anomalies along the lines of conflicts between theory and observation; that something can both be and not be at the same time, and having ‘his’ created subjects try to figure it all out! What delicious fun enjoying their befuddlement!

Common or well known trickster gods of ancient mythology include Satan (Christianity), Loki (Norse), Maui (Polynesia), Raven & Coyote (North America), and Eros, Prometheus and Hermes (Ancient Greece).

Theory vs. Observation: Part One

There’s many a conflict that rages between observation and theory. What is observed cannot be; what cannot be alas is observed. Sceptics, those supporting theory, dump down on those who contradict theory because they witnessed something to the contrary. “It can’t be therefore it isn’t.” The witness dumps down on the sceptic with the statement, “I know what I saw”. Impasse! Perhaps there is a third option, one where both theory and observation can coexist.

In any sort of legal dispute, if you’re the prosecutor, it’s good to have documents – a paper trail – fingerprints, video camera footage, someone caught red-handed in the act or with the goods, as well as a documented trilogy of available time, substantive motive and ample opportunity against the alleged perpetrator.  But sometimes all you have to base your case on is the observation of a witness or witnesses. That’s often been enough, even more than enough, to either convict someone or provide and substantiate that someone with a legal alibi.  Eyewitness testimony alone, well it’s not perfect but it’s not something inadmissible in court either. 

While documents, including pictographs, rock carvings/paintings, hieroglyphs and related archaeological relics, including human remains; films and photographs too, are all excellent means to document history, an awful lot of what we accept as historical gospel comes from what someone or a group of people have witnessed, especially in the days before sound recordings and film. Then too many a document is nothing more than the recorded word of an eyewitness; an observer(s). 

Lastly, you couldn’t last or survive a day without your powers of observation being accurate and reliable. If your vision was unreliable or faulty, could you drive to work? You’d better know a red light when you see one, and exercise superb judgment based of your observations if thinking about overtaking and passing another vehicle. Ditto if you cross a busy street. You’d better be spot-on in your observation if approaching a down staircase. You’d better be able to observe and tell the difference when meeting up with a bear or a deer in the woods if you intend to pet it. Your ability to observe and report accurately (if only to yourself) those observations are absolutely critical to your survival.

You probably tell lots of people every week events that you observed and many people no doubt relate to you things they have witnessed. Nobody bats an eyebrow – nobody questions anyone’s bona fides. Expect of course when its something that expert authorities, professional sceptics included, say cannot be. Then eyebrows get raised. 

Issue number one: If 99.99% of what you observe is accurate, believable, a no-brainer in terms of  credibility, then why are you all of a sudden an unreliable witness if you observe something others, so-called expert others, dismiss as an impossible anomaly?

Issue number two: So-called, and really-real experts can indeed dismiss an impossible anomaly, witnesses be damned, if it is indeed an impossibility by the science of the day.

Issue number three: We have a contradiction between theory (what the experts say) and observation (what the witness sees)

On the one hand, throughout history, there’s been many an observation of something anomalous and considered downright impossible, according to the sceptics, that’s now part and parcel of the standard norm, like meteorites – stone that fall from the sky. Score points for the observer.

On the other hand, how many observations have been credited as legit though later found to be less than credible. Score points for the sceptic.

Now if someone has a track record of telling tall tales or taking substances that are known to hinder accurate observations and judgments, that’s one thing, but if not, are you prepared to call someone into doubt just because their observation are anomalous according to the state of the world?

For the purposes of this essay, I’ll ignore the philosophical concept inherent in quantum physics that the observer actually creates what is being observed; or in other words, nothing exists or has reality unless it is being observed. Let’s go with the more down to earth philosophy that something has, or has not, a reality regardless of whether it is being scrutinized or not.

Let’s examine a quintuplet listing of those it-can’t-be-therefore-it-isn’t anomalies contradicted by observations of just that, which could easily be expanded by two orders of magnitude, but then this is an essay and not a book-length encyclopaedia.

The realm of the once animate: Ghosts – Even if you haven’t seen a ghost, you probably know of someone who has or lacking that, you can go to your nearest library or the Internet and find ultimately hundreds of thousands of reported observations of ghostly manifestations. Are you prepared to call all these witnesses deluded or liars or under the influence? Now, try to come up with a viable explanation that’s compatible with physics, chemistry and biology that explains the relationship between a dead body and its post-death yet animated counterpart. Good luck!

Apart from the gap between observation and there being no theoretical way for ghosts or phantoms or spirits or wraiths, call them what you will, those remnants of the dead of people recently, or even not so recently, deceased, to exist, there is also the question, why aren’t sighted ghosts, or phantom hitchhikers, etc. naked? I mean it’s the person who died, not what they were wearing, so if a ghost is the essence of a former living person, and clothing doesn’t contribute to the nature of that essence, then ghosts should be seen naked! They’re not, so that’s anomaly number two between theory (should be undressed) and observation (ghosts are decently attired).

The realm of the animate: Botany: Crop Circles – This time there is absolutely no doubting the observational bona fides of the anomaly.  Thousands of witness and thousands of photographs and more measurements than you can shake a stick at have been made of (mainly British) crop circles. Sceptics counter that since natural complex geometric crop circles cannot be; and aliens obviously didn’t make them since there are no aliens on or near Planet Earth, then, since not even sceptics can explain away the reality of the circles, it has to be all a human hoax. Sceptics of the sceptics point out that the sheer logistics of human involvement, in total darkness, without mistakes, without leaving traces, without ever being caught, are also as close to theoretically impossible as makes no odds. Observations can’t be disputed; no theory can adequately explain them.

The realm of the animate: Zoology: Loch Ness – Let’s take at face value that numerous witnesses have sighted, some have photographed even filmed some sort of relatively biologically large ‘sea monster’ in Scotland’s Loch Ness. No matter how good the testimony or reliable the witness, no matter the quality of the photograph or the film, can it be so? Unfortunately for us romantic naturalists, the odds that ‘can it be so’ are so low that no sane person would bet a sawbuck on the positive. And so it’s Biology 101 to the fore for a theoretical reality check. You cannot have just a one-off ‘monster’. At the very least you need a male ‘monster’ and a female ’monster’. In fact you need a viable breeding herd of ‘monsters’ in order to keep the lake population of ‘monsters’ an ongoing proposition, since if you had just the one male or the one female and either one was infertile or somehow both failed to get their act together, well it’s by-by birdie or rather Nessie. Unfortunately, if Loch Ness contained a breeding herd of ‘monsters’ then snags would have to rear their ugly head that would argue the contrary. One would be that sightings would be vastly more frequent. Two, sooner or later one of the herd has gotta die, then another, then another. Sooner or later a corpse, fresh or decayed, has got to get washed ashore. If that happens, mystery solved. Thirdly, well there’s the issue of an adequate food supply. Loch Ness could probably feed one ‘monster’, but not a herd of them. Loch Ness is large, but still quite finite in volume. Fish in the open ocean can roam the wide open spaces for a meal; not so in a relatively small fish tank like Loch Ness. So we have another unresolved conflict between observation and theory. 

The realm of the inanimate: The Vacuum Energy - This is probably the Mother of All Anomalies! A temperature of absolute zero, that is a state in which there is no available energy, is impossible. That’s because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is one of those rock solid foundations of quantum physics. So there is always a minimum amount of energy available that pervades the Universe. It’s called the ‘vacuum energy’. Theoretically the vacuum energy should exist with such-and-such a value. The vacuum energy indeed exists (is has been observed and it has been experimentally confirmed) with such-and-such a value. However, you have a 120 order-of-magnitude (that’s one followed by 120 zeros) discrepancy between the observed vacuum energy and the theoretical value of the vacuum energy. This discrepancy is the most embarrassing ‘oops’ in all of modern physics and nobody can figure out how to resolve the discrepancy. Oops indeed!  

The realm of the cosmos: Quasars - Quasars are ‘quasi-stellar objects’. They are ‘stellar’ because they aren’t all that large (unlike a galaxy). They are ‘quasi’ because they give off energy way, way, way more times greater than any star known in any astronomical catalogue. They seem to be primordial objects – they formed long ago and are now far away.  Quasars, like stars or galaxies, are their own entities and if two or more show very close and special causality relationships then they should show identical recessional velocities (since the Universe is expanding and they are part of the Universe and that expansion). Recessional velocities are measured by an object’s red-shift. Theory identifies red-shift with velocity. However, you apparently have observations of causality connected quasar pairs with vastly differing red-shifts (measurements of their recessional velocities). The anomaly, in an analogy, is that you can not have a runner running at 15 miles per hour holding hands with another runner running at 3 miles per hour!

To be continued…

UFOs: They Can’t Be, Therefore They Aren’t: Part Two

UFO skeptics, that is those scientists who are skeptical against the position that some hardcore bona fide UFOs are serious indications of the existence of an advanced civilization of extraterrestrial beings, and unable to put a dent into any other pro-UFO position, go to their final fallback objection which is that the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) can’t be, therefore it isn’t; alright it might be but it still isn’t; don’t bother me with any facts to the contrary, my mind is absolutely made up; and in any event UFOs are just pseudoscience and I only deal with real science. Please trust me on this for I’m a scientist! And we all know scientists are 100% rational and right 100% of the time!

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

I’ll just list a few once-upon-a-time scientific impossibilities that have proved to be anything but impossibilities; here are some further examples of what some might call an equivalent of the pseudo UFO ETH but under another guise.

*It used to be quite obvious that the Sun went around the Earth – any other configuration was considered against the acceptable grain.

*Once upon a time, our Universe couldn’t’ be static – It was neither expanding nor contracting. Albert Einstein however knew our Universe should be contracting because of the pulling force of gravity. To counter that, and keep the static Universe he and the scientists of the times believed in, he invented his ‘cosmological constant’, a repulsive force to exactly counter gravity’s attractive force. He later considered that his greatest scientific blunder. However, that ‘cosmological constant’ has resurfaced in the form of ‘dark energy’, a sort of antigravity, so Einstein might have been right after all!

*Black Holes, while existing theoretically on paper according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, could not exist in real reality - in real reality, they were quite the impossible object.

*No one pre-Darwin (even often post-Darwin) would in their right mind consider the possibility that it was possible for mankind to have had any actual evolutionary relationship with ‘lower’ life forms, most noticeable being the primates.

*For a very long time the notion that matter actually consisted of tiny undividable bits called atoms – well that atomic theory was obviously pure nonsense.

*That ‘island universes’ were actually independent conglomerations of stars, what well call today galaxies, and not nebulous conglomerations that formed part of our own Milky Way Galaxy was deemed at best improbable if not downright impossible by astronomy’s experts.

*Catastrophism in physical geology was considered a no-no for much of the time since it began as a legit part of earth science. All geology (especially landforms) could be explained as a gradual softly-softly, slowly-slowly, process. Violent events need not apply to explain things. Tell that to the dinosaurs! Of course we know better today. Catastrophism has taken its place and role playing in the geologic scheme of things.

*Speaking of physical geology, the idea that continents could drift around the globe was considered preposterous. How dare a meteorologist (Alfred Wegener in 1912) tell geologists what should have been bleeding obvious based on cartography! Geologists of course countered that there were no plausible physical mechanisms that could push the continents around. Well, there was such a mechanism as it turned out, only we may no longer call it ‘continental drift’ but rather plate tectonics. So, the meteorologist caught the geologists flatfooted after all. 

*Once upon a time, the concept of atomic energy was pie in the sky. It was  a subject no serious physicist would take at all seriously.

*Prior to its initial detonation, there were ‘experts in explosives’ who said that the atomic bomb could never work.

*Energy-powered airflight was once considered absolutely impossible – hot-air balloons were the only feasible means of air travel, and even they were a bit suss.

*Rocket travel Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon style was utter bilge given that there was nothing in outer space for their rocket exhaust to push against.

*It was near impossible for the human body to survive any velocities faster than the speed of a horseless carriage, or a horse for that matter, without suffering fatal anatomical consequences. However, the iron horse soon put the lie to that belief.

*The sound barrier could never be broken; to claim otherwise was to disgrace your scientific kudos in aerodynamics. 

*It was once upon a time considered utterly impossible for rocks to fall from the sky; any witnesses to the contrary are damned. We now somewhat incorrectly call them ‘shooting stars’; more correctly meteors, and when then hit the ground, meteorites. 

*The “RMS Titanic” was absolutely ‘unsinkable’; everyone and their grandmother knew that God himself couldn’t sink that ship!

*The city of Troy in Homer’s “Iliad” was pure mythology. There was no such place in reality until such time as amateur pseudo-archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann found Troy based on information in, Homer’s “Iliad”.   

Now let’s look at some current commonly accepted notions by scientists that they consider impossible or wildly improbable, but which, in IMHO are ultimately flawed concepts, as per the above examples, they have – flawed to the point where I suggest these scientist’s ‘impossibilities or implausibility’s’ range from an actual near certainty to only somewhat implausible.

As per the point of this essay, the UFO ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) immediately comes to mind, as well as that closely related concept, the ‘ancient astronauts’ (the UFO ETH and associated subject ‘ancient astronauts’ are really two fraternal twins). Why? The answer is twofold. Firstly, there is the ‘Fermi Paradox’ (“where is everybody?”) issue; that’s the theoretical argument that underpins the two. Secondly, there is much observational, mythological and archaeological evidence supporting both. Considering each in turn…

Theoretical Underpinnings: I’d like to think that Planet Earth would be among the cosmic real estate of some interest to any advanced technological species of extraterrestrial being, especially since the Cambrian Explosion over 500 million years ago when complex (multi-cellular) life forms became noticeable. Like the Star Trek mantra says, “to seek out new life…”

Now in terms of galactic or interstellar real estate, comets and asteroids are pretty common. That equally applies to airless rocky worlds. Gas giants (like Jupiter and Saturn) seem to be dime-a-dozen based on discoveries of extra-solar planets, but planetary real estate that has an atmosphere, a hydrosphere, a lithosphere, and a biosphere aren’t exactly your everyday dime-a-dozen celestial bodies. So, when one such abode is detected on an extraterrestrial’s ‘radar’, either through personal or robotically ‘boldly going’, or via at a distance remote sensing (for example our oxygen rich atmosphere is an obvious giveaway that just screams out as something that should be singled out for extra attention), well, that’s us! We have a biosphere. We have life. Well, that’s interesting.

Of course for most of our biosphere’s existence, we’ve been interesting in the same way that an ant hill is interesting to an entomologist or a bacterium is interesting to a microbiologist. Just like it doesn’t take all that much effort for an entomologist to seek out an ant hill or a microbiologist to find a microbe, so, in the cosmic scheme of things, it doesn’t take all that much effort for an alien technological civilization to reach us. Many might dispute that statement, but the fact is, going from point A in our galaxy, to point B in our galaxy, violates no known laws or principles of physics. Once they have the desire and the ways and means of ‘boldly going’, the rest are mere technical details. And Planet Earth can no more hide from exploring alien eyes than an ant hill can hide from an inquisitive entomologist! Now you take local A, somewhere in our galaxy, home to an alien civilization. Now take place B – Planet Earth. What’s the distance between the two? It doesn’t matter. If the civilization can achieve 1% to 10% light speed interstellar travel – no violation of physics in that – calculate how long it would take them to get from A to B. Now, compare that with the overall age of our galaxy! You’ll find the ratio is somewhere in the same ballpark as how long it took humans to migrate, explore and colonize Planet Earth!

Observational Evidence: Well, for starters, regarding UFOs (as extraterrestrial vehicles), how about over six decades on, hundreds of thousands of sightings in all countries of the globe, by all walks of life - male & female; rich & poor; professional & illiterate; the young and the elderly, all religions; all races; all nationalities; no category has been left out. Then how about witnesses, passing lie detector exams all the while insisting “I know what I saw”? Then how about the fact that there are those experts in aerial phenomena who should be able to, but can’t explain all the sightings – the usual unexplained residue being between 5% and 10% - the hardcore, bona-fide UFOs. Now throw in multiple and independent witness accounts! You don’t care for eyewitness testimony? Too unreliable you say? Well, chuck in a pot-full of unexplained photographic and motion pictures, lots of unexplainable radar returns, ground traces, and all manner of other bits and pieces that instrumentation has detected or can do analysis on – no human brain entered into, just iron and silicon.  Also, you have the undisputed fact that many countries have undertaken official investigations into the UFO issue – that in itself suggests that the issue has been taken seriously at the highest levels, unlike say, ghosts, astrology or stigmata!

Ancient astronauts are a slightly murkier kettle-of-fish because of the massive separation in time between when the polytheistic ‘gods’ ruled and now. Its way easier to come to terms with what’s been happening over the past 60 year’s vis-à-vis 6000 years ago. Still, I’d maintain that there exists a reasonable amount of artistic and literary remnants from those long ago and far away cultures that are suggestive of otherworldly influences. For example, nearly every civilization has a mythology of legends if you will of ‘sky beings’ who obviously, in most cases at least, were considered some sort of ‘gods’, but ‘gods’ that were in reality, far beyond their comprehension, and thus really extraterrestrials. Since nobody in our more modern sophisticated age actually believes in supernatural deities; that leaves the pigeonholes of human imagination or aliens as being those ‘sky beings’. 

When it comes to mythology, my basic premise is that anytime you have near universal themes between wildly dispersed in space and/or time cultures, ethnic groups, nationalities, whatever, then you sit up and take notice that something more than just human imagination is at work.

Now, is all of that super-ultra hardcore proof? No it isn’t! Is all of that real hardcore evidence? Yes it is! It’s the sort of evidence that’s lacking in most of the other paranormal/supernatural/pseudoscience bits and pieces that the sceptics love to collectively debunk and rubbish. But, that evidence makes my assertion that some paranormal claims are more equal than other paranormal claims more credible.

In conclusion, I note that it is very interesting that for each and every anti-UFO ETH argument, there’s an equal and opposite pro-UFO ETH argument. After six plus decades, the debate is still finely balanced. That in itself is a pro-UFO ETH observation, because if the ‘can’t be, therefore it isn’t’ observation were so compelling, the interest in the UFO ETH would have dried up decades ago.

UFOs: The Skeptics, the Scientists and the Double Standards

We’d nearly all be aware that when it comes to the subject of UFOs, most scientists shun away from them like they would a skunk who let fly. Scientists and UFOs tend to party together in much the same way as oil and water mix. Professional sceptics have a field day with the topic by usually picking and choosing to give their middle finger to the easy targets, not the hardcore issues. For example, it’s easy to rubbish someone who says they took a trip in a flying saucer with the ‘space brothers’ to Saturn; it’s much harder to ridicule a military pilot who reports engaging in a dogfight with a UFO. So, is this behaviour rational or are there hidden agendas and double standards?

The UFO Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) can’t be therefore it isn’t; alright it might be but it still isn’t; don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up; and in any event it’s all pseudoscience and I just deal with real science. Trust me on this – I’m a scientist! And we all know scientists are 100% rational and right 100% of the time!

Many professional scientists, and other sceptics, when and if they think about UFOs at all, have been preconditioned to think of them in terms of the lunatic fringe, nutters who accept any and all pseudoscience associated with the paranormal and therefore not worthy of their attention, or if worthy, then worthy in a negative sense as only something to ridicule. They like to in a sense ‘pour water on a drowning man’ and pat themselves on the back as how superior they are relative to the astrology-minded; the great unwashed set who believe non-avian dinosaurs and humans coexisted together.  

Firstly, let’s dispose of the sceptics, professional and otherwise, since their double standard amounts to treating all pseudoscience or all paranormal topics equally. Actually therefore sceptics only have a single standard – no shades of grey. One size fits all. That is to say, no matter what the anomaly, it’s rubbish. Sceptics just lump together all that’s paranormal, and call it pseudoscience as any sceptics’ website or monograph will more than adequately demonstrate – all pseudoscience is nonsense and all = all. However, I suggest that instead of all anomalies being equal; some anomalies are more equal than others. In short, some anomalies are really bovine fertiliser, but hardly all. To lump astrology and UFOs in the same basket is a double standard, since the theoretical and observational evidence for each isn’t really equal. Likewise, there’s more theoretical and actual evidence for the existence of the Sasquatch (Bigfoot) than there is for say telepathy. Since sceptics can’t distinguish serious anomalies from trivial ones, well I can’t treat sceptics seriously since when crunch comes to the crunch, they can’t be bothered to do the proper research and make distinctions.

Scientists on the other hand should take everything on their individual merits, and clearly in any scientific field, not all topics have equal merits. Saying life exists on Mars is not in the same league as saying life exists on Venus. Despite that, some topics do have equal merits, but that doesn’t stop scientists from pretending they don’t. Take SETI for example.

SETI (that’s the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) scientists tend to poo-poo ufology buffs for failing to come up with a UFO ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) smoking gun, or any compelling evidence, especially physical evidence for hardcore UFOs, in over six decades. That’s one topic. Of course they conveniently forget that SETI is entirely based on theory and SETI hasn’t produced a smoking gun conclusive of the existence of ETI either, over a near equal five decades of searching. But that’s another topic. However, both topics are in fact equal in that neither has produced a smoking gun that’s ‘killed’ the alien and provided a corpse for study. In fact, the amount of SETI evidence, including physical evidence, is but a short story compared to the full length UFO novel.

There is one other up-close-and-personal reason SETI scientists dump on the UFO ETH and/or ‘ancient astronauts’ is because they have a vested interest in SETI. They have spent careers, building equipment designed to look for alien intelligence out there, often been made fun of by other scientists (and the American Congress) in their hunt for ‘little green men’. It would be a serious blow to their egos, careers, reputations and an actual downright embarrassment if ET proven to be down here all along. So, it’s almost a natural reaction to rubbish any alternative idea. We’ve seen that any number of times in the history of science – Darwinian evolution vs. Lamarckian evolution; the Big Bang cosmology vs. the Steady State cosmology; catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism in geology. Debates have often been controversial, personal and bitter. So it’s interesting to note that when I communicate some of my unorthodox ideas to a well known SETI scientist, if I get under his skin, at worst I get no response; at best one that starts with “Dear Mr. Prytz”. Now if I say something he considers sensible (by his standards) the reply is “Dear John”. That’s a bit of a double standard too in its own right.

Now when it comes to SETI vs. the UFO ETH, that’s not to say SETI scientists shouldn’t continue to do SETI – they should – nothing ventured, nothing gained. But it gains them nothing to reject out of hand the rival idea that ET is or was down here are well as being up there.  

Quite apart from SETI, the majority of scientists, especially physical scientists, usually poo-poo the UFO ETH with a there’s ‘no evidence’ mantra. But such scientists leave themselves wide open to the double standard. Many a scientist will profess a firm belief in something that has absolutely ‘no evidence’ of any kind, conveniently forgetting that they have rubbished other people’s beliefs for having faith in six impossible things that appear on their dining room table prior to breakfast. And so we see here the beginnings of more general double standards.

A prime example of how some scientists have their lack of evidence and belief too is with respect to religion. Even as recently as 2009, a public opinion poll found that a significant (albeit minority) percentage of scientists had a belief in a God that was up close and personal in their lives. There’s not the slightest bit of evidence, physical or otherwise, that God exists. There’s absolutely no evidence for any deity (monotheistic or polytheistic), yet many scientists have no trouble accepting on faith and having a belief in a deity (or deities) sight unseen by anyone and everyone. No one verifiable has seen the monotheistic deity God and all the polytheistic deities are apparently, according to scholars, entirely mythological. Go figure. This essay could just as easily been constructed around a theme of double standards with respect to God: Show Me the Evidence!’ There just isn’t any.

That reminds me of God’s double standard of ‘do as I say, not as I do’. It’s just like God (of the Old Testament) to command “Thou shall not kill” while He goes off and nearly exterminates the entire terrestrial human and animal population vis-à-vis the universal deluge. Anyway, back to the scientist.

There are valid cases within science itself of scientists not only ‘having a lack of evidence for X’s reality but never-the-less a belief in X’s reality too’. Now without meaning to accuse scientists of pure hypocrisy, there are lots of current concepts in science that have absolutely no evidence of any sort apart from the purely theoretical to support them, yet are taken quite seriously by physical scientists. A partial list would include concepts like the Multiverse (there is more than one universe – ours - within the overriding cosmos); the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics; particle physic’s string theory; the Higgs Boson; the possible existence of ten or eleven dimensions; the Ekpyrotic (two string theory [mem]branes colliding and accounting for the origin of our) Universe theory; and, shock-horror for those interested in SETI , the total lack of any under-the-microscope, hardcore evidence whatsoever for any intelligent life forms anywhere out there other than intelligent terrestrial life forms (humans). Yet it is acceptable for scientists to research these areas without being subjected to having their sanity questioned. I fail to see why the UFO ETH is an exception to this. Even forget the UFO ETH – just the UFO phenomena full-stop is off limits. Be that as it may, it is.

Understandably for scientists, there is one very big and fundamental problem with UFOs. They tend to be unpredictable in time and space, and when they do show up; they don’t stand still and grant you an interview and allow you the leisure of taking out your yardstick or whatever other scientific instrument you care to name and measuring them.

But there are other case histories from the annals of science regarding ‘the nature of the evidence’ that have parallels with UFOs – physical phenomena that are unpredictable in time and space, that don’t stand still; that you can’t poke and prod, and that you can not put under the microscope and , examine at your leisure. These various phenomena; well ball lightning comes to mind; ditto Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP); and you can’t rewind the clock and prepare for (instruments at the ready) and witness the one-off Tunguska event are akin to UFOs in that scientists lack the means to lock them down, isolate them, and study the unfolding event at their leisure. Yet, it is one rule for one (ball lightning, TLP, Tunguska); one rule for another (UFOs).

So there seems to be a double standard for acceptable evidence here. UFOs have apparently no verifiable evidence and a ‘giggle factor’; ball lightning and TLP have unverifiable evidence but no ‘giggle factor’, yet all of these have theoretical underpinnings that make their existence plausible. In the case of the UFO ETH, it’s the Fermi Paradox – that’s the ‘where are they, if they exist they should be here’ observation.

Ultimately the question here boils down to finding an answer (a smoking gun) to the question that humans have asked and speculated on for thousands of years – are we alone in the universe? There shouldn’t be any double standards employed when it comes down to addressing this issue. There are ultimately four choices: 1) We can choose not to answer the question because the world has bigger priorities than proving the existence of ‘little green men’; 2) we can, as SETI does, search out there, which obviously is a very logical thing to do even though it’s a proverbial ‘needle in the haystack’ search; 3) we can search down here – ancient astronauts and UFOs – which is a positive in that it restricts the haystack’s geography required to be examined, but on probability is less likely statistically that the needle will be there (another parallel being someone looking for a lost key underneath the lamppost just because the light’s better there); 4) or we can do both – search out there AND search down here and not put our quest for the ‘little green men’ into an either/or basket. Unfortunately, that’s way too idealistic a position to have accepted given the historical double standard already taken.

In conclusion, when it comes to the scientific community and evidence, there is often a double standard employed.  There’s not one shred of physical evidence for string theory, yet it’s an accepted area of funded academic research and has been for decades. On the UFO issue, many scientists while happy to accept the accuracy of eyewitness testimony when it provides data that turns a UFO event into an IFO, for some strange reason reject eyewitness testimony when it reinforces the unidentified or unknown status of the UFO event. That’s another double standard. Go figure!

Of course the ultimate conclusion to be drawn is that scientists are human too and have their own agendas, backgrounds and personalities which can and do colour their belief systems. Apart from the ever logical Mr. Spock, is there any human, past or present (and probably future) who hasn’t at one time or other employed a double standard? Not that that makes the double standard acceptable of course, but theoretical idealism and practical reality is two very separate things.

So, IMHO, the double standard fails because though sceptics and scientists rally against the UFO ETH, and perhaps they are right in their conclusions, skeptics and scientists aren’t all-knowing and often base their conclusions on faith or belief. They too are human with all the accompanying baggage that implies and they can, and do, make mistakes, and such is the case I believe when it comes to labeling the pro UFO ETH a pseudoscience. Once upon a time Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus would have been considered pseudo-astronomers; Heinrich Schliemann (of Troy fame) someone who dabbled in pseudo-archaeology; Charles Darwin was a pseudo-naturalist; and Alfred Wegener, obviously put forth a theory (continental drift) that could only be described as pseudo-geology at the time. Even originally Albert Einstein was so far out in left field that his scientific seniors and superiors could easily have described his physics as pseudo-physics. Only time and history will be the judge whether or not the UFO ETH is or was pseudoscience or real science. The jury IMHO is still out on that issue. 

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…

Our Simulated Universe: Part Two

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

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

OOPS: Tweaking, Miracles, Upgrades and Patches: So say you feel like playing God and creating a universe, not a real one of course but a simulated one, on your supercomputer (which presumably has greater capacity than your wetware brain which could also create one). So, you (the Supreme Simulator) start writing the initial ‘in the beginning’ set(s) of software with a view to creating a Big Bang and dictating the parameters that will control the subsequent evolution of your cosmos. Of course, not being a real God, it’s hard to think of everything and initially Part ‘A’ may not mesh totally well with Part ‘B’, and by the time you get to Part ‘Z’, everything’s an absolute mess. So, you start rewriting and revising and patching things up by tweaking the software here and there so that you end up, down the track, with a cosmos that’s a unified and consistent whole.

Oops #1 – Part ‘A’ created matter; Part ‘B’ you dictated and created an equal amount of antimatter, making Parts ‘C’ through ‘Z’ pretty irrelevant because your cosmos is now pretty boring – just a universe of pure energy!  So, tweak #1 is to create Part ‘B’ but under the surface set the value to an extremely low number. You now have a matter dominated universe.

Oops #2 – In Part ‘C’ you create gravity along with your matter so as to keep your universe orderly and behaving in a nice clockwork way. Oops, your universe now quickly contracts and undergoes a Big Crunch – end of evolution; end of simulation. Tweak #2: create some antigravity in the form of Dark Energy to prevent that Big Crunch while allowing gravity to maintain the desired clockwork predictability.

Oops #3 – Having taken care of the macro (you’ve evolved your matter via gravity into planets and stars and galaxies and associated debris) in Part ‘D’, you now polish off the software, all the bits and pieces needed to control the micro – Part ‘E’. Oops, you find that turns out not to be compatible with your macro software. Well, that apparently has no actual bearing on the other parts of your cosmic creation and since you’re ultra busy dealing with 1001 other problems and issues, you don’t bother to tweak this. You ignore this – no one will be any the wiser! (Oops, you didn’t plan on the eventual evolution of cosmologists and quantum physicists!!)

OOPS: Why Are Miracles A Tweak? A miracle is something unexplained and unexplainable. It’s a direct violation of the known laws of science. To my mind, a miracle is something that corrects a mistake; a mistake that never should have happened in the first place if the Supreme Simulator had been on the ball. For example, say you have to have a limb amputated, only at a later date it grows back! That’s a miracle that corrects what presumably the Supreme Simulator hadn’t counted on or programmed or desired. So, count up the number of alleged miraculous events that have been recorded over the eras of human history – that’s a lot of alleged tweaks!

Why Don’t I Know This? If you and everything around you (out to the farthest boundaries of the Universe) are just a simulation (created either inside the wetware mind or as software in a machine – the Supreme Simulator’s supercomputer) you wouldn’t know. You’d be programmed not to know or otherwise plain ignorant in the same way that the character in your dream in unaware it’s a mental creation – an artefact of your mind. Ditto the characters in a video game – they don’t know they are an artificial creation; an artificial life form. Since you are a simulated entity, you are not in control since you are pre-programmed and have to just go with the predetermined flow – the Supreme Simulator’s puppet. You can no more control your activity than a calculator can help but calculate that the cube root of 27 is 3. Ditto the entity in your dreams does what your mind commands it to do, even if you aren’t aware at the time that your mind is a puppeteer. Your dream character(s) has/have no free will in other words.

Never-the-less there may be ways to come to terms with the correctness or otherwise of the basic scenario that you are simulated and a Supreme Simulator is in control. The hint comes from the above – the need for The Boss to tweak their simulation creation to eliminate discrepancies or paradoxes, which is the same as saying there’s evidence that the Supreme Simulator has failed to tweak. The fact that tweaks are necessary in our natural environment is suggestive that we are indeed in a simulation; otherwise parts of the Universe (assuming it’s really real) make no real sense. Either Mother Nature screwed up, or the Supreme Simulator did. The fact that macro and micro physics don’t mesh is but one illustration. Another is that matter on the micro scale has a wave/particle duality. A third is quantum entanglement, where two objects can influence each other at faster than light speeds.

Mysteries abound when something can not be, yet apparently is. One whole set of issues here revolves around the conflict between what theory says isn’t possible, yet what eyewitness testimony says is. Translated, it’s the sceptics vs. the ‘I know what I saw’ mob. A tweak could resolve their differences.

Example: Take the Loch Ness Monster and related lake monster sightings. Biologists claim that one can not have a viable population of large creatures in such a confined space. You need a relatively large population for reproductive purposes and a large food supply for same, all in a relatively small volume. It should be easy to verify the existence of large animals in a natural cage. On the other hand, you have to account for, and then discredit all eyewitness testimony. A tweak could resolve the differences.

Example: Crop circles exist. No explanation for their existence makes total sense. They are obviously made by intelligence, but Mother Nature isn’t the guilty party in this case (although Mother Nature is responsible for some geometrical shapes like the spirals in some sea shells, flowers, snowflakes, etc.). No known natural force can account for crop circles. Human intelligence is the most likely explanation, but problems abound like the making of complex patterns in the dark of the night and why haven’t those responsible been caught and dealt with? I could list other problems like why England and not Australia? Surely Australia has its share of pranksters. Is an extraterrestrial intelligence responsible perhaps? But what’s their possible motive? I’m damned if anything rational comes to the fore. So, I think a tweak is in order here for this puzzlement has gone on far too long

As a general rule of thumb, just about anything science says is near impossible, yet for which there’s some degree of credible eyewitness testimony to the contrary, might be a candidate as a quirk courteous of our Supreme Simulator! Collectively, these topics fall under a general umbrella called ‘anomalies’ and whole books can be read that are full of case histories. For example, your attention is directed to the many volumes compiled by William R. Corliss of anomalies culled from the scientific literature in his Sourcebook Project series. Then there are those wonderful collections of anomaly tomes penned by Charles Fort.

Mysteries abound where something should or shouldn’t be, yet apparently isn’t or is. There often is a conflict between what sciences theoretically say should or should not be, yet scientific observations end up producing opposite findings. Perhaps the conflict between theory and observation/experiment is evidence that our Universe needs tweaking.

Example: Theoretical physics predict that the vacuum energy should have a certain value. Experimental evidence suggests that the vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude less than theory predicts. This by the way is the greatest discrepancy between theory and observation ever recorded in all of science. A tweak could resolve the differences. Another case, noted above, is that theoretical physics says there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe. Observation says that theory is just plain nuts because we don’t detect any antimatter remotely close to that predicted!

So why are these discrepancies allowed to continue? Why hasn’t the Supreme Simulator tweaked these? My best guess is that probably its because having set the simulation program in motion, and since none of the quirks are serious enough to cause the program simulation to crash, it’s easier just to allow everything to run its course and not ‘end program’ for the sake of relatively major, but not Universe-threatening, repairs. Minor fixes, like those ‘miracle’ tweaks can be fixed on the run without interrupting the simulation, just like some upgrades to your computer software can take place while you work, while others don’t take effect unless you shut down and boot up again. If you can soldier on and not shut down your operation and live without the upgrade(s), that’s okay.

So does that mean our Supreme Simulator, The Boss, is at least 13.7 billion years old since the program running our (presumably) simulated Universe is 13.7 billion years old because it’s been 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang? Not really, since there doesn’t have to be any relationship between time as experienced by the Supreme Simulator and our perception of time, just like you can watch a two hour movie, but as far as the characters in the movie are concerned, perhaps two days, two weeks, two months, two years or two decades have elapsed. So, perhaps one second passing to The Boss is the equivalent of a decade going by the boards to us.

And just like watching a movie, you can speed the film up, or slow it down – even freeze frame it if you’re so inclined. Now if our Supreme Simulator decided to speed up, slow down, even freeze frame (stop) the action, we wouldn’t notice because all of our surroundings would be speeded up, or slowed down, or stopped by the exact same amount (which has some obvious parallels with general relativity).

To be continued…