An Infinite Cosmos: Part One

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

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

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

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

I’ll start with…

Olber’s Paradox

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

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

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

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

That aside…

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

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

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

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

Entropy and Cosmic Recycling

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

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

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

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

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

  

To be continued…

Certainty In Quantum Physics

It is absolutely impossible to read any popular account on quantum physics without running into the words “probability” or “uncertainty” if not in each and every paragraph, then at least on each and every page. Quantum physics and probability fit together like a left hand and a left handed glove! But it’s all bovine fertilizer since the concept of probability is a human concept that has no real application in Mother Nature’s realm.

It is claimed that quantum physics is based not on certainty (i.e. – causality) but on probability, and therefore Mother Nature places the cosmos ultimately under wraps, under a restriction that there just are some secrets that are Hers and Hers alone to know, and not for us mere mortals. However, truth be known, Mother Nature is just as restrictive at times even when probability doesn’t enter into the equation. Therefore, quantum physics isn’t some be-all-and-end-all of failing to come to terms with cosmic certainties. In any event, the concept of probability is a human concept, and quantum physics predates human concepts. Quantum physics maybe full of probabilities to us mortals, but not to Mother Nature.

Probability and quantum physics: the issue here is not whether quantum physics works – it’s been proven 100% accurate down to the 12^th decimal place and then some. It is ultimately responsible for over 1/3^rd of the global economy in technological gizmos and applications. The issue is rather does quantum physics play the game and operate under fixed and final rules of causality or does it play by its own on-a-whim ‘rules’ which aren’t really rules since they are meant to be broken.

Either causality operates or it doesn’t. If it does, then quantum physics does not, cannot, strut its stuff willy-nilly without any cause-and-effect in operation. If causality doesn’t operate then certainty doesn’t operate at any level since the certainty we associate with the macro is built on the uncertainty of the micro. 

Quantum uncertainty, or the opposite side of the coin, probability, is usually made explicit by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which basically states that through no fault of your own or your instrumentation, it is literally impossible to know various contrasting properties about a fundamental particle. The more you pin down and know about one property, the fuzzier another property becomes, and vice versa. You can never know both properties absolutely to a 100% certainty. In fact you can never know either property to the 100% certainty level. That’s because the very act of observing or of measuring changes the properties that you are trying to observe or measure. Mother Nature has forced or placed this not-to-be-negotiated and no-correspondence-will-be-entered-into restriction on you, the observer, or on your sidekick, your measuring gizmo. So there! Or is it really so? The key is that you, the observer, or your measuring doohickie device, is in the bloody way. You can’t know the precise state of affairs of the system you are interested in if you are part of that system. You are not part of the solution; you are the problem!

Probability is nothing more than a statement that you, the human you, don’t know something for absolute certain. That’s it. Once you find out for certain, it’s no longer probability but certainty. If you can’t find out, and the very act of observing or measuring can alter the properties of what you are trying to observe or measure (and that’s really what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is all about), what transpires or eventuates if there is no observation or measurement?

In every definition or explanation I’ve ever seen about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle it is either implied o explicitly stated that an observer and/or measurement is being attempted or considered.

Probability remains probability if you can’t ever know in practice or even in theory. However, one can postulate that an omniscient (all-knowing) deity must know all things not only in practice but in theory too. No person who believes in an all-knowing God could put any stock in quantum physics as operating in the realm of probability; ditto the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. However, I really don’t need to go down that pathway since I state with certainty that there is no God, all-knowing or otherwise.  

Even if you don’t know, but it is possible to know in theory, well that too results in at least theoretical certainty.

But what if it is not possible to know, even in theory, a.k.a. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Well, that too, doesn’t of necessity rule in probability and rule out certainty.  

As another example of so-called quantum probability, take radioactive decay which is alleged to be lacking is causality – it happens for no reason at all. As far as an observer is concerned, a radioactive atom, or its nucleus, will decay, but exactly when and under what conditions is unpredictable, maybe in 10 seconds, maybe not for a billion years. It’s all probability.

This is an example of Mother Nature hiding skeletons in Her closet. The observer is thwarted in coming to terms with radioactive decay other than through, or by computing, probabilities. Therefore, quantum physics is probability. But that’s only if you accept the lack of causality premise. I totally reject that and suggest that radioactive decay does have a cause – we just don’t know what it is. Thanks to Mother Nature’s closet, we are restricted or prevented with absolutes or limitations to our vision of reality. There are lots of examples of skeletons in Mother Nature’s closet that don’t involve probability (see below), so why should radioactive decay be an exception to the rule?

If a human observer is present, she might say based on computing probabilities, that the radioactive atomic nucleus has a 50-50 chance of going poof in one hour. But, if there is no human observer, the radioactive nucleus will go poof (absolutely certain) – eventually. There’s no probability involved because there are no artificial time units involved – time units are a human concept or invention not part of Mother Nature’s vocabulary. So probability in quantum physics is observer dependent (or dependent on there being an observer) – no observer, no probability, just certainty.

Mother Nature has imposed lots of other absolutes or limitations on us. Jump into a Black Hole and you’re not coming out again, even if you were born on Krypton. No probability here.

You cannot travel at the speed of light – period! No probability here.

If you are inside a closed room (no windows) you have no way of telling if you are on Earth and in Earth’s 1-G gravity field or in space being accelerated at 1-G. No probability here.

Akin to the above, you have no sense of motion while you are sitting comfortably on your sofa. Yet, the Earth is spinning on its axis; the Earth is orbiting around the Sun; the Sun is orbiting around the Milky Way Galaxy; and the Milky Way Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy are on a collision course (relax, not to intersect for another five billion years). Equally, if you were in a spaceship with no windows (no fair peeking outside), and that spaceship were travelling at a constant rate of speed, you wouldn’t feel it and thus you wouldn’t be aware that you we travelling at a rapid rate of knots. No probability here.

Mother Nature doesn’t require you to be hatched; She does require you to die. No probability here.

You are on a train stopped at the railway station. On your left is another train also stopped at the railway station. That other train starts moving to your rear, or, are you moving forward leaving the other train behind. Which is it? It’s soon going to be obvious, but just for a few seconds, you didn’t know. If all that existed were just the two trains and you with no other frames of reference, you’d never know if the other train was moving, or if your train was moving, or both. No probability here.

You cannot observe any part of the Universe that resides over the horizon that marks the observable boundary that contains the observable Universe (just like you can not observe a ship that has sailed over the horizon of the spherical Earth). No probability here.

When you look out into the night sky at the distant stars and galaxies, you are looking back in time, since it takes time for the light of those objects to reach us. But you cannot observe the cosmos further back than 300,000 years post that Big Bang event. That’s because the cosmos was still too thick with stuff to allow viewing. It’s akin to the fact that you cannot view the centre of the Sun because there’s too much sun-stuff in the way. In fact it takes extremely lengthy amounts of time for a photon to struggle its way from the centre to the surface of the Sun. So, 300,000 years is the limit, which is why it’s nonsense for cosmologists to dictate with absolute certainty what the structure and substance of the Universe was like prior to that time, especially that nonsense that a nanosecond after the Big Bang the Universe was just the size of a pinhead – they are just guesstimating and bad guesstimating at that. No probability here.

You cannot change the past. No probability here.

Finally, without our modern technology, the ‘Naked Ape’ could not detect gamma rays, or X-rays, or radio waves, or microwaves, cosmic rays, neutrinos, and a host of other bits and pieces that are part and parcel of the Universe. No probability here. 

So you see that Mother Nature has imposed all manner of absolute obstacles in our way of looking up her skirt and uncovering her ‘private’ nature as it were. That doesn’t mean the anatomy doesn’t exist, only we’re not allowed to peek and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. So, her anatomy is uncertain or probably is this, or that or the next thing but only to us, the wannabe observer.

Finally, consider and reconsider the quantum mantra: Anything that isn’t forbidden is compulsory; anything that can happen will happen. Does that sound like a probability statement to you?

In summary and in conclusion, references to quantum physics are full of the word “probability”. They are also filled with terms linking probability to someone like me or to someone like you – an observer. Remove or eliminate the observer and you remove or eliminate the probability in quantum probability.

Profound Events In Modern Science

Science has had many a profound impact on our lives since the turn of the 20^th Century and not always a positive one – depending on who you talk to. There have been literally hundreds of significant scientific concepts, events, including inventions that have had a profound impact on our individual selves and our society. Any list doesn’t bring justice, and there will be howls of protest for omissions, but still, here’s a baker’s dozen that I feel are pretty profound.

Here are some reasonably profound events in science from 1900 to date that I feel are important in the broader historical, social and cultural context.

1) Sputnik (1957): Unless you lived through it, it’s hard to imagine the impact that the launch of the Soviet artificial satellite Sputnik had all of a sudden on the public awareness of outer space as an actual place where things could happen. The shock-horror to the American psyche was profound, resulting in a massive boost to American science and technological education, acerbating the Cold War, and of course resulting in the Space Race which culminated with the first landing on the Moon (1969). Without Sputnik, there still might not have been any human involvement in space and space exploration in general, and where would we be without artificial satellites in orbit today.

2) Humans in Orbit (1961 to date): It may be ho-hum now, but back in the era of Project Mercury people were glued to their TV screens for the coverage of ‘man into space’. Ditto of course the first voyage to the Moon (Apollo 8) and the first landing on the Moon (Apollo 11). When the two Space Shuttle disasters happened, both re-awakened interest in no uncertain terms. Equally, the Russians were rapped in the many early successes of their space program while America suffered early humiliation after humiliation. But in an era of the Vietnam conflict, civil rights riots in the streets, the Cold War, and of course terrorism, manned space flight gave people something positive to cheer about. Further, there have been massive technological spin-offs as well that have filtered down to the general public. 

3) Modern Communications (1900 to date): It’s hard to believe that not all that long ago, a mere six or seven generations back, it took months to correspond between say Europe and America, or across America, or from America to Australia. However did those poor tweens, teens and young adults cope without instant communication feedback via their Facebook, Twitter or emails way back in those dark ages (how sad: sob; sob; sob). But then along comes wired technologies like the telegraph and telephone cabling and wireless technologies like ham radio and telecommunication satellites, the airplane sped things up too and then finally comes along the Internet and everything that’s i-this-gadget or i-that-doohickie, or i-the-next-damned-gizmo that’s under the proverbial sun (that you have to upgrade every six months). Whether ultimately this entire instant “I just gotta be in touch with everybody everywhere 24/7” will prove its worth or not remains to be seen. Back six or seven generations ago, if you had something to say and it took months to reach the person intended, it probably was important. Can one conclude the same today?  Recall how the automobile revolutionized everything and not necessarily for the better.  

4) Quantum Physics (1920’s): Though the first inklings of what would become quantum mechanics surfaced at the very turn of the century, the subject bloomed into a scientific revolution in the 1920’s. It wasn’t very long before applications were found, and today quantum physics is ultimately responsible for contributions to over one-third of the global economy in various gizmos and gadgets and their applications, many of which are in the possession of you readers.

5) First Nuclear Chain Reaction (1942) & Trinity A-Bomb Test (1945): Collectively these two experimental events gave rise to all of the nuclear issues part and parcel of our world today. That first chain reaction demonstrated that nuclear fission was more than just a theoretical idea and that controlled fission would lead to a nearly unlimited energy supply; uncontrolled fission, as demonstrated at Trinity, goes ka-boom, as in the A-Bomb. When controlled, radioactivity has many applications today, nuclear power (which doesn’t give off greenhouse gas emissions but has other issues) being of course one; nuclear medicine another; and radioactive traces are employed in all sorts of environmental work. Nuclear weapons, nuclear arms control, nuclear terrorism, radioactive waste, and related issues are of course on the opposite side of the nuclear coin.

6) Radar (1940’s): RAdio Detection And Ranging (RADAR) was developed in secret just before and during World War Two. Quite apart from all those obvious military applications, radar is central to modern airline operations and safe flying; the same applies to maritime safety; it’s a common tool for police in keeping those with a tendency to put the pedal to the metal under control; its use is obvious in weather forecasting and warning systems; radar helps keep track of all those bits and pieces we’ve put into orbit, and it has applications in geology (ground penetrating radar) to map subsurface terrain, even in astronomy bouncing radio and microwaves off the surface of nearly moons and planets be it from the ground or from space probes. Unless you’ve been caught speeding, you’re probably quite appreciative of all that radar does for you.   

7) First SETI Experiment (Project Ozma – 1960): Let’s for once try to answer that age old question “are we alone in the cosmos”. Make it so, and so it came to pass where experimental time and money was put where only just before the theoretical mouth was. As we are all too aware, that first experiment, conducted by Dr. Frank Drake, failed to detect ET. In fact every SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) experimental effort to date has failed, but there has to be a first time for everything, and Project Ozma was the first SETI effort, and the significance lies in the fact that for the first time ever, and it’s our generation that’s making it so, exobiology (or astrobiology) has become an experimental instead of just a theoretical science, albeit on still in search of its subject. 

8) Flying Saucers (1947 to date): More books, articles, websites, and documentaries have been done about the subject of UFOs than any other aspect of science. Yes science, since there is a case to be answered even if it is a social one, but even the possible connection with extraterrestrial life makes the study a profound and of course interesting one. Alas, if 65 is considered normal retirement then UFOs should already be pensioned off. Despite that, they do keep on keeping on despite all the best debunking efforts by those self-appointed to act as ‘professional’ sceptics.

9) Chariots of the Gods (1950’s to date): It has been pointed out that it would be extraordinary in terms of probability that ET via those pesky UFOs would pick the last generation or two to show up. This is true. However, negating that little objection, there’s the concept of the ‘ancient astronaut’ – ET has been around for over 100 generations (minimum) with suggestive evidence (not proof) cobbled together from anthropology, archaeology, literature, religions and mythology. While author Erich Von Daniken has been the most visible of the ‘ancient astronaut’ proponents, he wasn’t the first to advocate the idea that ET played a role in the development of mankind. The central issue of profoundness is that any study that suggests that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists, and even more to the point, has had a cultural impact on human society, can’t be easily shrugged off.   

10) King Tutankhamen’s Tomb (1922): Ever since Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt, Egyptology has been big business for publishers, private collectors, museums, Egyptian tourism, etc. However, Egyptology really took off in the mainstream consciousness following the discovery of the Pharaoh known as Tutankhamen, or the Boy King’s tomb, by archaeologist and Egyptologist Howard Carter. The impact on archaeology in general and Egyptology in particular has been and remains profound. There’s hardly anyone who hasn’t heard about Pharaoh Tutankhamen, and worldwide exhibition tours of artefacts found in his tomb attract huge crowds. 

11) Discovery of Penicillin (1928): We all know about that wonder drug penicillin, discovered rather accidentally by Alexander Fleming, which has been responsible for saving more lives than you can shake a stick at. That gave rise to a whole potpourri of antibiotics, but it also gave rise to the Pandora’s Box of antibiotic resistance and the rise of the super-bug, an issue that is both current, ongoing, and of concern to anyone and everyone ever likely be suffer from an infection. 

12) The First Heart Transplant (1967): Anyone who was around at the time can remember the massive amount of press coverage that very first human heart transplant that took place, in Cape Town, South Africa, under the direction of Christiaan Barnard. Back then, this was Big News. Thousands of human heart transplants are now preformed annually and of course it is no longer Big News – unless you are one of those on the receiving end.   

13) Genetic Code (the Discovery of DNA in 1953) & Associated Human Genome Project (2000 to date): Hands up anyone who hasn’t heard about Watson and Crick and the discovery of the substance and structure of DNA in 1953. No hands up? Well that’s not surprising as it is one of the most famous of the famous of scientific achievements in relatively modern times. Ultimately that discovery (along with massive amounts of additional genetically relevant biochemistry since then) has morphed into the Human Genome Project, the importance of which has yet to reach full potential. But full understanding of our genetic makeup is an important tool in coming to terms with all those hundreds of genetic afflictions we can suffer from, and curing (or preventing) same. 

And there’s a dozen dozens more, like the Discovery of X-Rays (1895) so that date is eliminated from ‘modern’ science, though where would modern medicine and dentistry be without X-Rays as well as applications in materials testing, etc. Most of the applications took place in the 20^th Century. Anyway, as I said, there are many more examples that could, probably should be included, but space is limited.

Honourable Mention: Where’s Einstein’s Special and General Relativity? Well, Einstein’s Relativity only rates an honourable mention since it has relatively little impact or application, apart from GPS, in modern society. When (and if) we start to boldly go, then horses will change their colour.

Time To Question Time: Part Two

Time is the most mysterious concept that you are likely to think about. You know exactly what time is, unless you actually have to explain it and then things bog down. If you admit that time is pure puzzlement, well you’re not alone as the nature of time has been endlessly debated by thinkers, good, bad and average, ever since humans had the ability to think. Okay, I’m a thinker, so here are my thoughts in Q & A form about time.  

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Q. Is time travel to the future possible?

A. Time travel to the future is easy – you’re doing it right now at the rate of one second per second – boring – or when you fall asleep (or pass out drunk), next thing you know you are in the future, ahead by several hours. You’ve skipped or jumped over some interval of time. That’s what one usually means by travel to the future. It is jumping over some significant interval of time without having to experience or live through it, like say going from 2013 to 2015 and avoiding 2014 entirely. Of course when you arrive in the ‘future’, be it the following morning or by skipping 2014, it’s no longer the future but the present – the ‘now’. It’s actually impossible to be in or to exist in the future, it’s only possible to head towards the future, which you do anyway at the rate of one minute per minute. 

I guess you could construct a philosophical argument that relative to your point of view of yesterday, if you say skipped a day and landed in tomorrow, you are now in the future, but such convolutions don’t get us very far since the you that existed yesterday no longer has any existence or meaning either today or tomorrow or post tomorrow. In fact, the person you call “you” that existed one second ago has now come and gone and passed away into history. The only you that has any reality is the person you call “you” that exists right now.

Apart from your normal modes of time travel into the future, you can accelerate the process. There’s also Einstein’s Relativity twin paradox whereby relative to an outside observer, time, as in rate of change, slows down for someone who is travelling at velocities that are approaching some goodly fraction of the speed of light. So, a twin who heads off at a rapid rate of knots and boldly goes, when returning to meet and greet her stay-at-home twin, will find that though twins they might be, their ages are now different. The stay-at-home twin has aged more quickly, or the boldly going twin has aged more slowly depending on your ‘relativity’ point of view, which isn’t really a paradox, rather the consequences of what happens when you travel at a very rapid rate of knots relative to someone who doesn’t.

However, the same philosophy or argument from those several paragraphs above applies in that you, in this case the you that’s the boldly going twin, is never in the future, only in the now or existing in what passes for the present (along with your stay-at-home twin). That applies even if that present is tens of thousands of years after you were born, which is possible (and thus your stay-at-home twin has long since died and returned to dust). No matter which way you slice and dice things, you only have reality in the present that you find yourself in. 

Q. And what do you conclude about the viability of time travel to the future from the above?

A. Ultimately, to my way of thinking, time travel, even to the future (by skipping over periods of time), is impossible since again time is a concept and not a thing, like a road or a river you have to travel continuously on, up and down on. If time is just a concept, then time travel is illogical.

Q. Is there any other likely impediment to time travel?

A. Yes there is. When you visualise standard time travel stories or films to the past or to the future, your time machine or device keeps you firmly attached to the same set of terrestrial coordinates from which you started, so if you say start in New York City (2013) and go plus or minus say 200 years either to the future (2213) or to the past (1813), you’ll end up in the New York City of that time. That’s bonkers! In that 200 years, either way, Planet Earth on which New York City is attached, but you are not, has moved. Planet Earth is attached to the Sun (gravitationally) and the Sun is in orbit around the Milky Way Galaxy, which itself is moving in space, so when you materialize 200 years in the past or future, the odds are extremely likely that you will materialize into the depths of outer space! Even if you ignore all that, the Earth will not make an exact number of solar orbits and axis revolutions over 200 years to bring you back into exact alignment with the terrestrial coordinates you started out from. So, you just might materialize smack dab in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Oops! What one really needs is a time and space machine like the Doctor’s TARDIS where you can also set spatial coordinates. 

Q. Have all billionaires been time travellers to the past?

A. Maybe! It’s easy to imagine looking up say all the long shot horses who won their races in say over one particular year. Now travel back in time to that year and start placing reasonable bets on each ‘long shot’ (that proved a sure thing), make a super-bundle of loot, and hop back to your own era; your own present day and start living the good life. Of course there are many, many variations on this go-back-in-time and get-rich-quick schemes.

Q. We spend our entire lives in the “now” moment, and eternal “now”, yet each “now” moment lasts way less than a nanosecond before the “now” you vanishes into the limbo-land of the past only to be replaced by the future you that was just a theoretical probability that now becomes reality, for just a nanosecond before that you too slips away into the unreachable past. That’s confusing!

A. There’s no real mystery here. There are many examples from daily life of the difference between the continuum and the part of the continuum.

You’re driving along the road in your car. Your car is the continuum since you’re always in your car for the duration (that eternal “now”); the specific section of road you are travelling over is your nanosecond “now” which changes from nanosecond to nanosecond.

You’re swimming with the current in a river. The surrounding water is your eternal “now”; the section of riverbed you’re passing over is your nanosecond “now”. Or, you can reverse the scenario. If you swim exactly against the speed of the river current or flow, the part of the riverbed you are stationary over is now your eternal “now”, while the patch of water around you is ever changing and thus becomes your nanosecond “now”.

If you walk across the stage with the spotlight on you, the light is your eternal “now” but your place on the stage is constantly shifting – your nanosecond “now”.

If you lie in bed all day (and night), the bed is your eternal “now”, but the ticking of the clock, even if only via the changing position of the sun (in the day) and the stars (in the night), or that change from sunrise to sunrise, is your nanosecond “now”.

Note that all of the examples involve motion. Motion is change and change is what the concept of time is all about.  

Q. Does God exist within time or outside of time?

A. There is no God (or gods) so the question is immaterial, irrelevant and has no bearing on the proceedings. But if there is a God(s) they would exist inside of time since to exist is to undergo change and time is nothing but a measure of change. 

Q. When do I exist?

A. Now, and only now. The “you” that existed an hour, even a minute ago is no longer. That past you, actually all those entities you called you (plural) that existed in the past have been consigned to the history books. The “you” that (probably) will exist an hour or even a minute from now, actually all those entities you will call you (plural) that will exist in the future do not yet have reality of any substance.

Q. So again, what is time?

A. One heck of a metaphysical mess!

Time To Question Time: Part One

Time is the most mysterious concept that you are likely to think about. You know exactly what time is, unless you actually have to explain it and then things bog down. If you admit that time is pure puzzlement, well you’re not alone as the nature of time has been endlessly debated by thinkers, good, bad and average, ever since humans had the ability to think. Okay, I’m a thinker, so here are my thoughts in Q & A form about time.  

Are you confused about time? If so, join the crowd. I’m part of that crowd, and I’m confused, but I’ll try to work through my befuddlement via this hypothetical question and answer session which hopefully will enlighten me and you too. 

Q. What is time?

A. Time is a concept, like Wednesday is a concept.

Q. A concept of what?

A. Change. Without change the concept of time is meaningless.

Q. What properties does time have?

A. Time has no properties, just like Wednesday has no properties. Time has no structure or substance; no mass or energy, no colour or spin or charge, it has no associated field, and it exerts no force and has no fundamental particles associated with it. 

Q. Does time have a beginning? Will time ever end?

A. No. Time is eternal. An eternal time removes those nasty philosophical questions of what came before; what comes after?

Q. Can time be created?

A. The concept of time can be created, but only by the mind blessed with some degree of sophistication, but that does not give substance and structure to time itself, any more than the JFK concept of ‘landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth before the end of the decade’ in and of itself made it so. The concept of a lunar landing is not a real lunar landing. Time itself cannot be created like a soufflé since there are no ingredients that collectively comprise time.

Q. Can time be destroyed?

A. Since time cannot be created, time cannot be destroyed. While that is similar to existing conservation laws, there is no conservation law in existence for time like there is for matter and energy since, unlike matter and energy, time cannot be altered from one form to another, since time is not a thing.

Q. Was the Big Bang event 13.7 billion years ago the start of time?

A. No. Since time cannot be created, the Big Bang banged in existing time which means there was a before the Big Bang. Something had to cause the Big Bang (a change) and that something could only have been an earlier event which happened in already existing time, since an event, a change, defines what time is.

Q. Where does time exist?

A. The concept of time exists only where change exists, and change only exists within that ongoing, yet ever paper-thin slice that we can the “now”. Change neither exists anymore in the past nor does it exist yet in the future.

Q. Are time’s related terms also concepts?

A. Absolutely. None of the following can be placed on the lab’s slab; none of the following are ‘things’, just mental concepts and conventions: past, present, and future; when, now and then; before and after; second, minute, hour, day, week, month, seasons, year, decade, century, millennia, and eon; any of the named days of the week; any of the names of the seasons; any digit that represents a year (i.e. – 2013); any date; yesterday, today and tomorrow; birthday, anniversary and holiday; weekend and weekday; noon and midnight.  A clock or calendar or metronome can be put on the lab’s slab, but a clock, etc. isn’t time, just like a thermometer isn’t temperature, and a Geiger counter isn’t radioactivity.

Q. Is time travel to the past possible?

A. Yes and no.

Einstein’s concepts of General and Special Relativity allow for time travel to the past (and the future), the usual scenario is via a rapidly rotating massive object that can twist space-time around in a loop where the starting point that joins up with itself to form the loop, like a snake swallowing its tail, isn’t any longer at the same point in time. However, the flaw I find with all of that is that this requires space and time, or space-time, to be a thing, which IMHO it is not. Space-time is a concept without substance and structure because both space and time are concepts without substance and structure. Be that as it may.  

The basic argument against going back in time is the creation of a paradox, something along the lines of killing your mother when she was a young girl thus preventing your very existence which means you couldn’t have gone back in time and murdered your mother, etc. Hells, bells, why not just do the suicide properly and go back in time a few months and kill your own self! But any trip back in time will create conditions back then that did not originally exist, and however minor, not only will they become an established part of history, but have that butterfly or ripple effect on down the line – chaos theory. If those new conditions, thanks to your time travelling presence, did not originally exist and now they do, that’s also a paradox as something cannot be and yet be at the same time, and that contradiction extends on down the line as history unfolds differently.

Further, you MUST go back in time (no free will in the matter) to ever create and ensure the conditions that came to pass back when, new conditions that you initially caused – only you never initially caused them since there’s an infinitely recycling causality loop here. You went back in time which caused a certain set of conditions which become a part of established history which means at some point in your life you are required to go back in time to create that certain set of conditions which become a part of established history, all to be endlessly repeated for all eternity. Presumably you couldn’t even commit suicide before you travelled back in time and thus break the cycle.

Of course if the past were somehow changed, then presumably you’d never know it since all records, including those of your memory, would be altered accordingly. But things would be messy if millions of people each travelled back in time and altered this, that and the next thing. History textbooks and other records would be rewritten and altered to conform to all those alterations every second. Then too, what if someone went back in time and altered history to the extent that mankind went extinct as a result – that’s the ultimate going back in time and killing your mother as a young girl!

Here’s a novel concept. Say it is the 10^th of the month. Go back in time to the 1^st of the month and meet and greet yourself. The both of you now wait until the 10^th of the month and then go back in time to the 2^nd of the month where you both can now meet and greet and join up with the other two of you that existed then. Then the four of you wait until the 10^th of the month and the four of you travel back in time to say the 3^rd of the month where the four of you link up with the four of you that existed on the 3^rd. The eight of you now wait until the 10^th of the month and then travel back in time to the 4^th of the month where you group together as a crowd of sixteen. Wait until the 10^th of the month and the sixteen of you travel back to the 5^th and join up with the other sixteen to form a mob of thirty-two, and so on and so on. Starting with just you, you could create an entire army of you!

Q. Where’s the paradox in creating an army just out of you?

A. The paradox here is that you are getting something for nothing, in this case extra copies of you. Where in fact does the extra matter and energy come from that creates that you army?

Q. Anything else?

A. Another reason time travel to the past is suss is that we don’t see any time travellers from our future paying us a visit. Though Einstein’s Special and General Relativity allows time travel to the past, and although the laws of physics are time invariant (they are valid from past to future and future to past), no visitors. Either our descendents don’t have any interest in us, or perhaps there aren’t any – descendents that is – if we go extinct or go back to the Dark Ages sooner rather than later. Or, perhaps time travel just isn’t possible after all or is in the too hard basket.

Q. You lie! What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

A. Ah yes, what about the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is held responsible for time’s arrow or the arrow of time (i.e. – things proceed from past (which you remember) to future (which you don’t remember). But the Second Law of Thermodynamics is misnamed since the second ‘law’ isn’t really a ‘law’, just a statement of probability, albeit extremely high probability. When things happen in a statistically probable way (eggs break or scramble; eggs don’t un-break or unscramble) that’s the arrow of time that we perceive. Put in a more thermodynamic context, a boiled egg cools off and heats up the kitchen until both are at the same temperature; the kitchen doesn’t cool down and transfer that energy to the raw egg and cook it.

Q. Anything else?

A. Yes, another postulate has it that one cannot travel further back in time than the time the time machine was constructed. So if our descendents come up with a first ever time machine in the year 2113, they couldn’t come visit us in 2013, though those living in the year 2213 could go back to 2113 (but no farther back).

The way out of that is what about an advanced extraterrestrial civilization’s time machine, say built in 2013 BCE, or over 4000 years ago. Say, what about those pesky UFOs? Instead of ET coming here from out there in their and our present, they come here from there in our present but from their future! The only problem with that is that UFO events and flaps are not clustered around what we would call historically important events, like say the Trinity A-Bomb test in 1945 or the launch of Apollo 11 in 1969 or the sinking of RMS Titanic in 1912. Of course, that they are conspicuous by their absence, well that just maybe our parochialism coming to the fore. Time travelling aliens may have a differing agenda. 

Aliens aside, you could easily imagine a time travelling Travel Agency existing several hundred years from now conducting guided tours to important historical events of their (and our) past, say tours in groups of one hundred per. After several thousand such tours, say to the battle of the Alamo or to Custer’s last stand at the Little Big Horn, things would be getting a mite crowded since each tour has to show up at the same place and date!

Q. And what do you conclude about the viability of time travel to the past from the above?

A. Ultimately, to my way of thinking, time travel, at least to the past, is impossible since time is a concept and not a thing, like a road or a river you can travel up and down on. You can travel in a car, but not in the concept of an automobile.

To be continued…

Virtual Reality: The Simulated Universe: Part Two

There really is a really real cosmos that has spawned an extraterrestrial intelligent civilization, or is home to our future descendents, or contains a dreamer, any of which has created a simulated universe that includes us as virtual reality occupants. In support of this, I postulate that the following are suggestive signs – evidence, not proof – of this idea. It all evolves around my observations that when it comes to the cosmos and human affairs, something is screwy somewhere.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

THE COSMIC CONNECTION (continued)

* Why are all (spin-up or spin-down) electrons, etc. identical? I mean can you think of many objects that are identical down to the absolute last decimal place? No two of anything apart from elementary force and matter particles are absolutely identical, so why are they the exception to the rule? Even ‘identical’ atoms aren’t of necessity identical (since their electrons can be in different energy states); that’s even more so with molecules (some of which can come in left and right-handed forms). However, you could have a software code of bits and bytes that specifies a spin-up electron so each time and place that code appears, you get an absolutely identical spin-up electron. Simple!

* Why is the vacuum energy, experimentally confirmed, 120 orders of magnitude less than theory predicts? This is in fact the worst discrepancy in all of modern physics. However, software programmers can’t think of everything so when they programmed in the value of the vacuum energy, they neglected to program in the theory that would lead to the observed value. 

* Why in various physical happenings, like radioactivity, is there an abandonment of operational cause-and-effect mechanisms? Causality is the absolute fundamental bedrock of just about anyone’s worldview. You have got to have 100% confidence that if X happens, Y follows. However, there are some areas within physics where that does not apply, like radioactivity. In one case, X happens (or doesn’t happen) and radioactive Y decays; in the other case X happens (or doesn’t happen) and radioactive Y doesn’t decay. It’s like sometimes the Sun rises in the morning and sometimes it doesn’t. Now that’s nuts, and only, IMHO, can a software program create such a scenario.

* Why when it comes to various physical happenings, like the Big Bang event or Dark Energy, are there postulated the creation of something-from-nothing in violation of standard conservation laws? Well, when it comes to virtual reality, if you’ve observed and/or played human-created or software-programmed video games, you’ll note that violations of standard physical laws, principles and relationships are frequently the norm.

* Why do we have physical constants that aren’t – constant that is? Have you ever known any software program not to be upgraded, upgraded, and upgraded some more. Computer software is not exempt from the standard “new and improved” spiel that marketing and advertising executives spew out as often as possible. Any software tweak (improvement) is bound to result in tweaks to the virtual reality that software is projecting.

* Why do waves behave like particles and particles behave like waves (wave-particle duality)? For WTF readers, look up the double-slit experiment. The standard explanation is that when emitted, an electron is a particle. When an electron is detected, it is a particle. In-between emission and detection, the electron is a wave, or actually a wave of probability or probability wave, where probability refers to the possibilities where the electron actually is while in transit. Since it can be in just about an infinite number of places at the same time, well that’s more characteristic of a wave than a particle – a wave is something that’s smeared or spread out over an area. Computer software can easily morph a particle into a probability wave and back to a particle again.

* Against all the odds, why do we find ourselves in a Goldilocks universe? I mean, if any of several dozens of variables had even slightly different values, physics as we know it; chemistry as we know it; hence biology as we know it wouldn’t; couldn’t, exist. The cosmos would either be too this or too that and not just absolutely right. Well, a computer programmer programming virtual reality entities in a simulated universe have got to mesh the two into some form of mutual compatibility.  There’s got to be some consistent logic in the simulation in order for the programmer to have a realistic scenario in which to interact with. Creating entities that are programmed as complex composites of matter and energy thus cannot logically exist in a programmed universe where nuclear forces, for example, haven’t been considered and hence never been programmed in.

* How can one explain the total incompatibly between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? Normally General Relativity (gravity) deals in the realm of the macro. Quantum Mechanics deals in the realm of the micro. There’s not usually much overlap. However, there is overlap when it comes to micro volumes with macro gravity – singularities that exist at the heart of Black Holes and at the time of the Big Bang event some 13.7 billion years ago. A definitive theory of quantum gravity, otherwise oft called a Theory of Everything (TOE), has proved elusive to thousands of theoretical physicists over many, many decades (ever since the era where Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity crawled out of the woodwork – the early years of the 20^th Century). Perhaps TOE just wasn’t meant to be. But on the other hand, there could be two separate and independently apart software programs running our programmer’s simulated universe!

* How is it possible that an electron can occupy just this orbit around an atomic nucleus, or just that orbit, but can quantum jump from one to the other (giving off or absorbing energy), yet cannot ever be found in the in-between space between the two? It’s like if you take the orbits of all eight planets (sorry ‘bout that Pluto) and each planet could jump to the orbit of any other (i.e. – Jupiter to Saturn’s orbit; Saturn to the orbit of Venus; Venus to Jupiter’s orbit, etc.) without ever having to cross the interplanetary space in-between. Well, you can imagine a film where the first few frames have Uranus and Neptune in there appropriate orbits, then the next few frames switch the two so that Neptune is in the orbit of Uranus and vice versa, and the next few frames exchange Jupiter’s and Saturn’s positions with that of Neptune and Uranus, and then the next few frames restore everything back to normalcy. The point is, there are no frames showing Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune anywhere except in a standard orbit, never in-between any two standard orbits. Now what a motion picture can show, computer software programming can equally accomplish.

* How can a fundamental electron particle and a composite proton particle have an equal and opposite electric charge? What are the odds that just by chance, the two balance each other out and so you have electrically neutral atoms? Presumably there’s no natural reason why their charge values couldn’t have been vastly different, as for example are their masses (a proton being some 2000 times more massive than an electron). Of course if there was intelligent design behind those values, the intelligence being that of our software programmer, well, that answers that.

* Neutrinos come in three types or a trilogy of generations. There’s the electron-neutrino; the muon-neutrino; and the tau-neutrino. While that’s straightforward enough, apparently as they all wind their way throughout the cosmos they can oscillate or morph or shape-shift from one kind to another. That’s weird! It’s in fact weird enough having three generations of particles without having them constantly exchanging Halloween masks! If the electron, muon and tau exchanged identities here on Earth, it would play havoc with the electric power grid systems (and home appliances). Well, we’ve all seen shape-shifting in the movies or on TV or in video games. Special effects that seemingly violate common sense are standard operating procedures in the entertainment industry.  

* A cyclic universe is more philosophically satisfying than one that just fades away into an eternal cold state where nothing happens and entropy has reached maximum. A simulation can account for a cyclic universe – the software just loops around and around and so again you get another go and another and another and another though in this case not everything that can happen does happen if the software isn’t reprogrammed.

HUMAN AFFAIRS

* Mythologies sharing many, many common themes are absolutely universal throughout all human cultures. Mythologies tend to be interwoven composites of horror, fantasy, and sci-fi featuring all manner of totally implausible entities like human-animal hybrids, animal-animal hybrids, shape-shifters, those with super-human abilities, and populated with other strange humanoids like giants, the Cyclops and the wee people. Then too there’s all manner of otherworldly places from the depths of Hades to the summit of Mount Olympus and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Of course to us modern humans, there’s nothing strange about faraway places with strange sounding names and monsters and superheroes. There’s no doubt a film playing at your local cinema right now that features some of the above. The upshot is that Mother Nature is hard-pressed to account for what’s featured in nearly all mythologies; a Supreme Programmer just sits back, relaxes and says “run program”.

* Why are ghosts clothed even though they shouldn’t be? Well, there are G-rated video games and then there are X-rated video games and no doubt our Supreme Programmer wanted a family-friendly rating for their “Life and Times of Planet Earth” software program. Thus, though ghosts should be starkers, sensitivities took precedence and thus our virtual reality reveals our ghosts to be suitably dressed for the occasion.

* How can those Easter Island statues walk on their own accord to their assigned positions? How can Superman fly? How can Captain Kirk beam down thanks to Mr. Scott? CGI special effects rule, OK?

* How did our uniquely human characteristics (i.e. – bipedal gait) naturally come to pass? The high number of rather highly improbably human characteristics just begs for an explanation, explanation lacking IMHO from within the academic confines of physical anthropology. A high IQ, baldness, relative nakedness (furless-ness), facial features, and racial features being other examples, can be easily accounted for if we’re the product of someone’s (or something’s) software design; not so easily explained by natural selection (though artificial selection is another possibility).

* Why Déjà vu? Is this phenomenon perhaps a case of run computer program; then rerun computer program? 

* Why is there such universe belief in an afterlife? Apart from the fact that most of us are nervous about trading in our life for a non-life, and therefore we eagerly clutch at any straw that trades in our life for a life-after-death, there’s no rational or logical reason why you should get another go-round following your allotted (roughly) three score and ten. Near death experiences are not convincing evidence of an afterlife since there never seems to be independent witnesses and alterative biochemical explanations are plausible. In other words, nobody who was a normal mortal has ever made an appearance after they kicked-the-bucket to confirm an afterlife. While the clutching-at-straws explanation is probably satisfactory as a be-all-and-end-all that-explains-that, computer software, if it’s responsible for your life, can also be responsible for your afterlife. So, if a universal belief in an afterlife suggests such a concept, then that concept can be accounted for by computer software. 

* How can one explain miracles? Miracles are basically violations of the known laws, principles and relationships that have been established by the scientific method over the past several centuries. In general, miracles are attributed to supernatural beings and their associated powers. However, there’s no problem showing miracles in film, TV and video games. Violations of the known laws, principles and relationships that have been established by the scientific method over the past several centuries are absolutely commonplace in nearly all sci-fi, fantasy or horror productions, from Saturday morning cartoons to epic Hollywood blockbusters. It would be difficult for you to go down to the seaside and part the waters. It would not be difficult for you to create a CGI film of you heading seaside and parting the waters enabling you to walk from New York City to London without getting your feet wet!

* How can one account for cryptozoology where there are sightings of unknown animals yet we have forever and a day an inability to ever catch them?

Now, if all of these anomalies were trivial ones, they could be easily dismissed, but most aren’t. Some, like miracles and the concept of an afterlife are taken very seriously by a significant proportion of the world’s population although there’s no rational explanation for them. A simulated universe can provide a plausible explanation, even more plausible than that other copout, “God works in mysterious ways”.

Virtual Reality: The Simulated Universe: Part One

There really is a really real cosmos that has spawned an extraterrestrial intelligent civilization, or is home to our future descendents, or contains a dreamer, any of which has created a simulated universe that includes us as virtual reality occupants. In support of this, I postulate that the following are suggestive signs – evidence, not proof – of this idea. It all evolves around my observations that when it comes to the cosmos and human affairs, something is screwy somewhere.

THE COSMIC CONNECTION

* If someone (or something) were to create a simulated ‘universe’ called something like “The Life and Times of the Third Rock Outbound from Sol”, in of course incredibly realistic detail, one could probably skimp on the software programming that give rise to the details for the rest of that simulated cosmos – the Universe perceived by the virtual beings of that Third Rock. Why spend unnecessary bits and bytes creating a super realistic Andromeda Galaxy all those ‘light years’ away?

Modern cosmology seems to be at a stage now that the Solar System went through in terms of coming to terms with its construction. Way back then, to explain the motions of all the planets that (obviously) went around the Earth (being the centre of all things), epicycles, and epicycles within epicycles, and epicycles within epicycles within epicycles had to be postulated until the who concept became so unwieldy that it collapsed in a heap. Copernicus picked up the bits and pieces and put the Sun in the centre and put the Earth going around the Sun with all the other (known) planets and then things simplified vastly and all fell into place without the need for any epicycles at all (though Einstein still had some final tweaking to do, but that was minor).

Modern cosmology seems to be full of ad hoc epicycles. We have the observation of an expanding Universe that requires explanation. Epicycle number one, the original explanation – a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago kick-started things off, though the energy source isn’t explained. That left some anomalies unexplained so ad hoc epicycle number two – a violent super-burst of explosive inflation immediately post Big Bang which apparently can come, like Heinz, in some 57 varieties. Okay, inflation started up and shut down just as quickly but it covers the anomalies that the Big Bang doesn’t. But then comes another anomaly, the expansion rate of the Universe is accelerating, and the collective oomph from the Big Bang and inflation isn’t enough oomph. The Universe should in fact be decelerating under the influence of gravity. So, ad hoc epicycle number three – Dark Energy. Dark Energy provides that keep-on-keeping-on additional oomph and keeps the Universe’s pedal to the metal. Unfortunately, nobody has the foggiest idea what Dark Energy actually is which is strange since Dark Energy should be everywhere, even inside your living room, so it shouldn’t be that hard to gather some up and put it on the lab’s slab and figure it out! 

The Big Bang has a couple of other epicycles attached as baggage. The first one imposed on the Big Bang is entropy, which is a measure of order vs. disorder. Low entropy is orderly; high entropy is disorderly. There are vastly more ways of something being in a state of disorder than order, as any parent knows when it comes to the state of their child’s bedroom. Left to natural forces (including the kid), a neat and tidy bedroom will ‘decay’ into a chaotic mess. That’s also an illustration of the arrow of time. Eggs do not unscramble. Unless you deliberately thwart entropy locally (tidy up the messy bedroom), but at the cost of increasing entropy elsewhere, time goes from neat past to messy future. Like the bedroom, the Universe too has an arrow of time and the Universe too is getting more, more and ever messier as it slides into increasing disorder. That means ‘in the beginning’ (the Big Bang), the Universe started off neat as a pin. But, that doesn’t follow of necessity. Which is more likely – any number of possible disordered piles of bricks and timber, or an orderly constructed house? There are vastly more ways of having an ‘in the beginning’ that was messy than one that was neat and tidy. Yet against all probability, ‘in the beginning’ was pristine. That’s so unlikely that cosmologists have to postulate and accept that ad hoc epicycle of low entropy ‘in the beginning’. 

The Big Bang also requires a epicycle called quantum gravity because existing equations trying to describe the structure and substance of the creation event, crumble into dust when faced with a realm that is (allegedly) tiny (that’s the quantum bit) and yet has immense gravity (a Universe worth of gravity). Unfortunately, to get a theory of quantum gravity requires the marriage between quantum physics and general relativity. The potential bride and bridegroom however are not, and never have been, on speaking terms. So, quantum gravity (that epicycle required for the Big Bang to bang), has remained elusive despite generations of scientific effort trying to figure it out. However, that highly theoretical mathematical concept called string theory can come to terms with quantum gravity, but it has its own ad hoc epicycle burden to bear. String theory requires an additional six spatial dimensions, which IMHO is utter bovine fertilizer. So round and round we go with no actual tail being pinned on the donkey.

But that’s not the end of the ad hoc epicycles. Apparently the galaxies are rotating too fast for the amount of gravity belonging to objects that astronomer’s can see, like stars. The galaxies should have long since flown apart, their stars, planets, dust and gas scattered throughout space. So, ad hoc epicycle number four – Dark Matter. Dark Matter is postulated to have gravity, enough gravity to hold the galaxies together and prevent them from flying apart. Okay, but Dark Matter doesn’t interact with the electromagnetic force (nor apparently the strong nuclear force), so it doesn’t emit or reflect light (or photons of any wavelength) so we can’t see it. Dark Matter is actually invisible matter. Unfortunately, no matter that we can deal with has those sorts of properties. Now like Dark Energy, Dark Matter has go to be present in your living room too so it too shouldn’t be that hard to gather some up and put it on the lab’s slab and figure it out! Now all of that wouldn’t be that serious were it not for calculations that suggest that Dark Energy plus Dark Matter make up 95% of the Universe, and we haven’t a clue what that 95% is.

Resolution: Perhaps all the anomalies that the (standard model) Big Bang, inflation, Dark Energy and Dark Matter have been postulated to explain, are merely examples of lax software programming in filling in the nitty-gritty details of the Universe associated with “The Life and Times of the Third Rock Outbound from Sol”.         

To be continued…