Break?

Blog activity is low, and I think it may be a good idea to take a break until next semester. Opinions?

Testing Technology: Hyperspeed Transportation

I think just about everyone has at one point in time wished they could get somewhere faster. How fast will we be able to go places? What is the best form of extremely fast transportation? In this topic we can look at multiple options.

Let's start smaller first. How fast could we get cars to go? The first challenge would be obtaining as much energy as possible in a car without building an extremely large engine. This is tough, so I think we need to rely on multiple resources.

We need to use a combination of fossil fuels, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric, and other forms of fuel. If we could have a neverending supply of renewable energy going into the car's battery/engine, we could use a lot more energy for a longer amount of time.

With this in mind, we could get a car to go 300 mph if we wanted to. Then there's dealing with friction. As we increase the speed, we have to make sure a car doesn't overheat and that the g forces do not rip a person's face off. That wouldn't be good.

For the overheating, I think we need to have the hydroelectric power also act as a cooling agent. The water would help cool the engine. Also that wind powering the car could cool it. Just throwing out some ideas for keeping the engine cool.

To control the g forces, we pressurize the air in the car, sort of like they do in a plane. With really fast "hyperspeed" cars, we need to build them more like airplanes, but as smaller personal ground jets. Cars would be more like a jet than a car.

Another option for really fast transportation would be to have a very extensive network of super fast trains. It would be sort of like the road system we have today. A few mainlines of super speed trains branch out into smaller branches with even smaller branches of trains. These trains could get away with having much larger engines and would probably be allowed to pick up much more speed than cars, but the trains are a form of public transportation, and are required to make stops at certain areas, while the cars are not.

What about teleportation? If we built teleportation pads at thousands of locations all over the globe, then it would be the ultimate fast way to get somewhere. The problem with that idea would be that the energy that the people were turned into while teleporting could collide, causing a major problem. I think that form of transportation, although the fastest, is unsafe in many ways.

What if we gave everyone a jetpack (provided they earn their jetpack license)? Traffic would be a lot easier to avoid. However, it is not necessarily very fast transportation, and the amount of fuel necessary to power a useful jetpack is quite large. That is a problem, and we can't put a lot of fuel into it without making it far too heavy to be propelled in the air.

Those are just a few options. What do you think will become the fastest form of transportation?

Testing Technology: Mind Control!

This is the last post before the start of school. There are a few options available at the start of school. Those will be discussed at a later time. Let's move on to the topic, shall we?

This probably is not the best time, but I am going to start a new series on the blog called Testing Technology, in which we will explore what possibilities we can uncover using the technology we already have and the laws of Physics and Quantum Mechanics which we have discovered thus far on the blog. The discussions in this series of posts will be like the Star Trek Transporter post. Can we do it? How?

This time the topic is mind control. Can we gain control of the minds of other living things? How? Let's find out.

Obviously the human brain is very complicated and nobody really knows exactly how it works. We need to start with what we already know how to do. Supposedly the brain functions via electricity and chemicals. What has electricity and chemicals? Computers!

We can command robots to do things we want them to by putting together certain electric wires or certain chemicals. We can already control non living things. Computers seem to be the key to the mind.

We know that the human brain can be connected to computers because that's how bionic arms work. Your brain still sends the same electrical impulses to the arm, and that computer reads your electrical impulses to perform the commands your brain has sent! But controlling computers is one thing. Controlling the brain itself is something else altogether.

However, we can't be too far away. However, controlling the brain is a monumental task. The organ is extremely complex. We need more information in order to specifically figure out how to control it. However, I think it can be done.

Here is the simplest version of mind control that I can think of.

Step 1: Overload brain. This will cause the brain to shut down.
Step 2: Remove brain. Be sure not to damage any other parts of the body unless you intend on replacing them.
Step 3: Insert computer. This computer would sort of replicate a brain by being able to send out electrical impulses and chemicals. If we can receive impulses with the bionic arm, we can simply take those impulses that we received at first, and have the computer send those impulses. Now you can send the impulses to other parts of the system.
Step 4: Reboot the system: Have the computer start sending out impulses to get the body moving again. You now have control.

Congratulations! You have control! Or do you?

This is not really mind control, this is mind replacement. You have total control of the body of that person, but really what have we accomplished? We might as well have built a robot!

So this version is not practical and we did not really acquire control of the brain. However, we did prove many things by doing this. We can figure out how to send out impulses from the computer. We have in a sense built a brain. Now that we know how the brain works, we can figure out how to control it without removing the brain.

We need to find the decision engine of the brain. The portion that gives the person freedom of choice. We think that portion of the brain is the frontal lobe. This section is responsible for planning, organizing, problem solving, selective attention, personality and a variety of "higher cognitive functions" including behavior and emotions. According to http://www.waiting.com/brainanatomy.html "A Guide to Brain Anatomy". This map is also from the site.


The cerebellum is the part that is in charge of movement. Walking, talking, eating, etc. This could also be important in mind control.

The brain allows for different types of mind control. We could control the decisions of the brain which would be the key to the body. Or we could just control the movement portion, controlling all of the movements of the body while the person is stuck thinking about what is going on. A much more torturous method if I do say so myself!

How can we do this? How do we take over the brain without killing the living person inside of it? After the mind control, we may want to undo the interaction. Therefore we need to keep the old brain intact. With our technology I think we can manage this.

We would need to send in some sort of small remote controlled robot to go into the brain and send impulses to control the body. The only problem is that the old brain would be struggling for control. Maybe we could have the robot insert some sort of anesthesia into the frontal lobe. However, we would have to make sure the anesthesia doesn't spread everywhere or else nothing in the body would work. I'm not exactly sure how we could do that.

What do you think? Is mind control possible? How can we do it? Comment with your ideas and opinions.

Please note that I am not in favor of introducing mind control to the average human. I just want to know if it is possible.

Does the universe need life to "exist"?

I will be on vacation for a week starting Thursday. Therefore I am going to leave you with this topic.

Does the universe need life to "exist"?

If there was no universe, then there would be no life. The universe sets the stage for life to live. That's quite clear. Life does not occur in nothing. There must be something for life to live in, and that happens to be our universe.

But does the universe need us? Does the universe need life to actually exist?

Don't answer this question too quickly. Right now you are probably thinking, "No, why would the universe need us? We will probably cause more damage to it than help!"

But really, why does the universe exist? You may say, "It just does" but really, why would the universe need to exist? What difference does it make if the universe is around or not?

Think again. Why does it exist?

To support life.

That is probably the only thing that the universe accomplishes by existing, is supporting life like us. That is its only purpose. It only exists for us. The universe as far as we know does nothing else with any direction.

The big bang. Massive explosion of "stuff" into the vast nothingness that surrounds it. The forming of nonliving material. It cools, and things align into systems. Galaxies full of solar systems that are full of planets. Planets that contain material required to support life. It all exists for life! Why else would it even happen?

We go back to the original question: Does the universe need life to "exist"? I say it does! Without life, there is no purpose of the universe! It would accomplish nothing in it's being, so it wouldn't "exist". Think of it this way:

What does it mean to exist? To exist means to have animation or life. If the universe does not "live", then it doesn't exist. It's not really... there.

It's a tough thought, isn't it? That something really doesn't exist if there is no life to witness it. Think of it a different way.

On a distant planet named Distant Planet (how imaginative I am today) a rock tumbles down a cliff. This rock causes a massive chain reaction which causes many major cliffs on the planet to crumble to dust. There is no life on Distant Planet. After millions of years Distant Planet is finally swallowed up by Distant Star, never to be seen again. Did anything happen?

Technically, stuff happened, but since no life saw it, there was absolutely no significance to the event. Did Distant Planet ever exist at all? Not really. The fact is that there probably was a Distant Planet out there somewhere in the universe, but it never existed because there was no life to witness it.

I am quite positive that the story above did not help anyone. I am sure it only further confused your train of thought. You were once sure that the universe didn't need us, but now you are hopefully starting to think that maybe it does.

Here's a better example. Does Santa Claus exist?
You might say he doesn't. Can you prove it? Not really, but you might say that we haven't seen or heard him, so he doesn't exist. You have basically just proven my point by saying that, then. Santa Claus doesn't exist because we did not witness it.
Does the Tooth Fairy exist? Never saw it, so it doesn't exist. Proves my point.
Does another universe exist? Not to us it doesn't. Now you might say "It's possible for there to be another universe! Don't rule that option out!". Guess what? It is also possible for there to be a Santa Claus and a tooth fairy. Don't rule it out.

I think that clears things up. Nothing exists to us unless we see it. Or unless we truly believe in it, in the case of Santa Claus. It may "exist" to us, even though it may not exist to others. However, without life, nothing would exist. Enjoy that thought.

Does Technology Help or Hurt Mankind?

Understanding that this question could be considered more philosophical than scientific, it has quite a bit to do with science, and very much applies to our world. Mankind ever since the stone age has been technologically advancing, making more discoveries about life and the universe and creating many more inventions. Does this technology help or hurt the chances of the survival of mankind?

First we have to define technology. Computers come up in our minds when we think technology, but really technology gets a lot simpler. Isn't the wooden club technology? It is an invention of sorts, created by humanity. Therefore, when considering if technology helps or hurts mankind, we do need to consider the primitive as well as the modern.

Let's start at the early age of man. There were the neanderthals and the homosapiens. Neanderthal and homosapien were both considered primitive man, but each had different characteristics. Neanderthals were stronger and had thicker bones, but homo sapiens were smarter and quicker. Both survived until the ice age. At the ice age, the feeding patterns changed. The animals that man ate had to move to survive. Neanderthal did not follow the food and ended up dying out. Homo sapien on the other hand adapted and survived the ice age. Although they weren't the strongest species, they were the smartest, allowing them to survive. Homo sapien then became the only specie of man. This shows that, as Charles Darwin said, "It is not the strongest of species that survive, but the ones most responsive to change".

Early humans used tools like stone axes and knives to get food and resources. They also used fire to cook meat and do other things. This technology I would say was vital to the survival of humanity. Without tools, life for the human would have been quite difficult, and they may have not been able to survive.

Technology begins to become questionable 1700 BC, when man begins to fight man. Spears and chariots are used to attack other people and expand their territory. Man is now man's greatest enemy. Technology is used to gain advantage over other humans and expand their empire. Weaponry becomes very important to humanity. As technology advances, more and more weaponry is invented, but also more and more luxury items. People begin to build homes of great comfort and luxury furniture.

Is there anything wrong with luxury? The technology helps humanity to live in comfort. Some may argue that luxury causes laziness in humanity, while others argue that laziness is a natural human attribute. When the bell rings at school, you are not going to take a long way to get to the door for no reason. Most likely you will be "lazy" and go the shortest way to the door. I think that although laziness in many cases is a problem, it makes sense in other cases.

As technology improves, people have to do less to survive. In that way, technology greatly increases our survival chances. However, technology begins to become extremely questionable in the atomic era. Nuclear bombs are capable of demolishing entire cities. If we aren't careful, we could end up destroying the entire planet! At what point does technology become bad?

Although technology has led to such a monstrous danger, technology can also stop the problem. We can use technology to find a way to stop the nuclear bomb and save the Earth. Therefore, does technology help or hurt mankind? I think it helps our chances of survival as long as scientists always stay on top of the dangers that threaten mankind's survival.

Why ask this question? If technological advances are a threat to our species, then the government should halt technological advances. However, I think that technology will keep itself in check.

There are many different branches of this topic that you can comment on. Should the gov. stop technological advances? Should the gov. regulate certain technologies? Do we need to get rid of technology altogether and return to the stone age to maintain our survival? Comment with ideas and opinions.

Does Dark Matter Exist?

Scientists first came up with the idea of dark matter when studying clusters. Clusters in space which contain galaxies and any other material in between. Clusters are held together by the gravity of all of the matter. In between the matter of the cluster is hot gas. Scientists studied the hot gas to find that it was reacting abnormally. Scientists calculated how much gravity should exist in the cluster, and found that there is more gravity acting on the hot gas than should be. That means that there must other matter where this gravity is coming from. Therefore, dark matter is born. Is that the right explanation, though?

Dark matter is basically the same as matter except it is invisible. It is matter that does not give off radiation. No light comes from it. It is quite possible that the matter is simply not giving off any light. If a small star burns out, it no longer emits radiation. It could be dark matter because we would not be able to detect it is it no longer gave off radiation. Since our universe has been around for a long time, many stars could have died out that weren't large enough to supernova. But it was calculated that in a cluster 5/6 of the matter in the universe is dark matter. What could some of this matter be?

It is a possibility that the matter could be in the center of the black holes in the galaxies. The black holes would hide a ton of matter because no light can escape them. They also have huge gravitational effects.

Material near the dead stars would not be reflecting any light because they have no light to reflect. Therefore they could also be hidden.

There is also a possibility that the dark matter is just a different type of matter. We are most familiar with baryonic matter, which is matter that has protons, neutrons, and electrons. However, there are other types of matter. Some types of matter do not have any of those three subatomic particles! Some matter is just made up of two quarks. The types of matter made out of subatomic particles with only two quarks are called mesons. However, I am not sure that this type of matter is much different than baryons.

Perhaps the gravity isn't coming from matter in our universe. Perhaps an object in another brane is affecting our universe. You know what that means. String theory! If a parallel brane to the brane of our universe has gravity, it could affect our universe. The gravitons (gravity enforcing particles) could move out from the parallel brane into ours, which would change the gravity amount without any apparent cause.

Is there dark matter? I think there is, and it is not as mysterious as we think. Dark matter is just ordinary matter without reflecting any light. Just because we can't detect it doesn't mean that it isn't there! I don't think it is all that mysterious. We won't know for sure though until we find it!

Are Star Trek Transporters Possible?

The Television series Star Trek has inspired many technological advances, including the cell phone and language translators. One advancement we have yet to achieve is the transporter. Can it be possible, though? Let's first figure out how the Star Trek transporter works.

The transporter converts matter, such as a person, into energy. This energy is beamed to a target, where it materializes back into matter. Is this possible? Well, considering that we have determined that mass is directly correlated to energy, it could be physically possible. If E=Mc^2, then it takes a ton of mass just to make a small amount of energy! That could work with the transporter. The object would become a much smaller amount of energy that could be beamed to the desired location. It is mathematically possible. The question is can we make mass become energy?

If we move the mass particles at close enough to or at the speed of light, the particles could become energy. Perhaps to use this transporter, we have to accelerate an object to the speed of light and then shoot the energy to the target destination, where the energy will once again become mass due to slowing down. However, this process seems very shaky for a few reasons.

First of all, how do we know that the energy will realign in the correct position? If it takes all that mass just to make a small amount of energy, then it may not realign at all! It would have to return to the same particles, but the matter would probably be randomly scrambled!

Secondly, are we sure that the energy will once again become mass in the end? At such speeds, it could even become other particles! Is there any guarantee that we can get the energy to once again become mass?

Also, can anything survive such a transportation? Actually, it could work. When you look at any living thing, there are certain bodily functions that allow it to work. If we could figure out everything about the functions of the human body, we could better understand why things die and why they live. I think all of that depends on the brain. If we can figure out how the brain works, we could probably create life and resurrect the dead(not that I approve of such ideas).

The point is that if when the particles were put back together they made the exact same thing as they started out as, it should be a living thing because it would have all of the body parts in order, so why wouldn't it survive? It's an idea that I am sure many of you will criticize, but I think that it could be done. However, there must be a few conditions for it to work.

First of all, the start of the transportation must take place in a vacuum. If while accelerating the mass it slides across other mass of any type, the friction would kill a human or any living thing.

Secondly, the beaming must be precise to the quantum level. If that energy is given any opportunity to split, human is toast. Not that I wouldn't mind that. I think turning humans into toast would be fun. Great, now I'm hungry. Moving on.

Finally, we must know that the energy will once again become mass when it slows down. It won't slow down until it reaches an atmosphere of some sort, and if it does, it must become the same mass it was before.

There is one thing that is also easily forgotten. Just because something is the same mass doesn't mean it is going to be the same matter. Bricks and feathers can both have the same mass depending on the quantity of each material! I find that uncertainty to be quite scary.

In my opinion, it is possible to build a transporter, and with a greater understanding of our universe we may someday find ways to satisfy the conditions stated above. However, I wouldn't step on a transporter if I were you until many, many, many, many tests have been successfully completed with good results.

The Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy: What's enforcing them?

The laws of conservation of mass and energy are not new concepts. Ancient Greece philosophy stated "nothing comes from nothing". 13th century Persian wrote "A body of matter cannot disappear completely. It only changes its form, condition, composition, color and other properties and turns into a different complex or elementary matter". The law is now that the mass of a closed system will remain constant. The question is: Where does this system end? And how valuable is this law if our system is constantly influenced by other systems? Also, if mass in general relativity is equivalent to energy, are we in need of a new law?

Do we really exist in a closed system? That entails a huge question: Is our universe the extent of everything? If you believe in multiple universes, then you have to ask this question: Are these universes connected? If you believe our universe is the extent of everything, then is our universe truly a closed system within itself?

Let's look at the scenario that our universe is truly alone first because it is easier to work with. The universe is our "closed system" and it is surrounded by a vast nothing. How secure is our system within itself? If there are wormholes all around us on an extremely small scale, that means that mass and energy are being transported through many different frames of time and space. At one time there could be more mass and energy than at another time, which would mean that the mass and energy are not constant in space over time. However, if the closed system is all four dimensions, then it would still be conservation of mass and energy in that mass is being transported through time, but still contained within the closed four dimensions of our universe.

However, if this is legal, then so is all of the mass and energy existing at one time, which can't be possible if there are an infinite amount of time units. In other words, there are an infinite amount of frames that you could stop time at and see the universe. If you don't understand how this works, then allow me to explain.

Life is sort of like a giant 3D movie. Notice, though, that 3D movies are called that because they only involve the three space dimensions. The 3D scenes of the movie have a limited amount of frames. You could watch it frame by frame and reach the end of the movie. Our four dimensional universe has an infinite amount of frames, though. If you tried to watch it frame by frame, you would not reach the next second, or the next nanosecond. That's because the time dimension is not made of finite units. Or at least so we think.

What if time is made of finite units. What if our universe is a decillion frames per second? Then it could be possible to have all of energy and mass exist at one time frame by transporting it via wormholes. However, that would be a ton of mass and energy compressed into one universe. If there were wormholes in our universe, then they could spread all of this mass and energy out evenly among time, but that means in order for the universe to exist properly, then each frame would have to be perfectly built just like the time frame before it with extremely slight differences in it! That's unlikely to happen via wormhole. The odds are so far against such a phenomenon that I am not going to consider that theory a possibility.

However, if our universe was a closed system in all four dimensions, then the wormholes could transport mass and energy amongst time and space and not be violating the laws of conservation of energy and mass. Then why isn't our universe changing much more? How come these wormholes aren't making an obvious impact? The sad truth is that we would not notice if a particle of matter randomly disappeared. It probably would not affect much. Therefore, it could be possible, but that idea is quite debatable. Earlier in the blog, it was generally decided that wormholes wouldn't work, and any particle going through the wormhole would collapse it. So if wormholes don't work, then that means that Our universe could be a closed system within its three dimensional space, and not have to worry about the complexities of time.

Of course, there is always another option. Quantum mechanics is going to attempt to tear apart conservation of mass. Matter particles disappearing and appearing supposedly destroy this theorem, but does it really? When a positron and an electron annihilate each other, they create a new particle and it's antiparticle. However, these new particles have more mass than the old ones! Note that antiparticles still have a positive mass. Therefore, this interaction does not make sense according to classical physics. But wait! There is another variable that has been forgotten! The electron and positron were collided at high energy! Now energy comes into play. By adding energy to the particles at high speed, the mass increases, and the particles collide. The new particles do not have this energy, only a greater mass. Therefore, energy has become mass!

Of course! According to one of the most well known equations in science, E=Mc^2, Energy and Mass are related! This equation shows that an amount of energy is equivalent to an amount of mass. Therefore, energy and mass are interchangeable!

Why doesn't this happen more often? Why doesn't energy become mass all the time? Well, the truth is that it does. Any time you apply a force to anything, mass is gained. However, as the energy is turned into friction and heat energy, the energy as mass is lost. On a quantum mechanics level, the effect is much more permanent.

Therefore, a new concept must be introduced. If Mass and Energy are equivalent, then they must be combined into something. I guess they could call it the Law of Conservation of Stuff (I couldn't think of any other names).

The Law of Conservation of Stuff should work within our closed system, but where does our closed system end? Let's look at a multiverse. If black holes or wormholes connected our universe to another universe, then would that other universe become a closed system? I think that our universe is a closed system as long as there is no transportation from our universe to somewhere else. However, if a wormhole connected us to another universe, then the closed system would be between the two universes. If they disconnect, then we are back by ourselves in our closed system.

I know most of you hate it, but let's try entering sting theory into this idea. The law of conservation of stuff would also make sense in M-theory because energy and mass particles are all made of strings, so the law holds. The strings would simply change vibration or whatever they have to do.

The one question now is where does all that stuff come from? Is it just there? We will probably never figure that out.

Now it's time for your input. Is it conservation of both mass and energy, with them being interchangeable? Or do the original laws of classical physics need to stay as they were?

String Theory: An Attempt to Tie Up the Loose Ends in Physics.

Happy 4th, everyone. We are going to celebrate in the only way we can: argue. By now I think everybody has heard of string theory, now known as M-theory. I am going to attempt to explain how this theory works, using a wide variety of sources if possible. I wish I still had "The Universe in a Nutshell", but with the internet at my disposal I am sure that I can get you some concrete information about this extremely controversial theory.

M-theory is a massive theory that is in the end supposed to be "the theory of everything". Everything has to do with string theory. I think that this is not going to provide all of the answers, just provoke more question. Great, isn't it? It turns out, this theory isn't complicated at all! According to Wikipedia, "Some cosmologists are drawn to M-Theory because of its mathematical elegance and relative simplicity". Relative simplicity? This is why all of your teachers tell you NOT to use Wikipedia.

According to string theory, everything is made up of strings. We see particles the way we do because of how the string oscillates, or ripples. "Fundamental particles" such as electrons or quarks are made up of these strings. Electrons and quarks are said to be closed strings, which means the string is in a loop like this:
Note that the loop is not a perfect circle. It has waves in it because it is oscillating.

What exactly is a string? It is basically the infinitely small building block of everything. The thing that a string makes up depends on how much it oscillates or how much tension it has (yes, even though they are floating in spacetime, they have tension).

String oscillation could relate to particle wavelength, as particles are also waves. Strings in particles are one dimensional and are called world lines. However, strings do not just apply to particles. When a string oscillates, it affects space and time, which creates a world sheet. The string at any one time is one dimensional, but because it moves through time, it is two dimensional.

Strings exist in multiple dimensions. When affecting more than one dimension, p-branes come into play. The letter "p" is a variable which stands for the amount off spatial dimensions it affects, so time is not counted in p. This is why M-theory should be able to relate everything.

It even can explain the Big Bang. If two branes collide, it somehow causes our universe to expand. The problem is that I can't find anything that tells me how that works on the internet. Perhaps somebody could help us out, here.

How can something be infinitely small? That's one of my problems with this theory. For something to be one dimensional, it has to be infinitely small. Something with a length, but no width. Unfortunately for us, we can't detect anything that is one dimensional because it doesn't have a size! If it doesn't have a size, can it exist? I'm not sure. That's why there is so much controversy to this theory. It can't be proven.

That was my attempt to explain string theory. Is it true, or not? Is it the theory of everything? We may never know, which will be a huge headache for physicists everywhere in our universe. I see how it could be possible, but I could easily make up a theory like that. Every time there is a problem, alter it so that we can't disprove it. Because right now, we can't disprove string theory. We don't have the equipment, and probably never will. Then again we also can't disprove that magic dinosaur fairies which have powers to transform komodo dragon lung cells into solid hydrogen just by breathing on them live in some 75,000 dimensional multiverse 23 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion kilometers away from the edge of our universe. We can't disprove that, but it certainly doesn't make it true. String theory may not be true either. I doubt it actually exists, but we will just have to wait and see. Comment with your opinions. Is string theory correct?

Big Bang: Are We Assuming Too Much?

Just about everybody has heard of the Big Bang. It is probably the concept that common people are most skeptical about besides time travel. How do we know that the universe started at a Big Bang? Are we assuming too much?

Thanks to Edwin Hubble, we have discovered that just about all galaxies are moving away from us, which is where the big bang came from. If everything is moving away, then everything had to be closer before. Not only are they moving away, but their speeds are proportional to their distances from the Earth. In other words, the moving away is not random, but has some sort of correlation.

We can also detect old radioactivity from when the universe was hotter. That means the universe used to have a much higher temperature, as it should if it used to be just the big bang singularity, or the point in which everything existed.

Many scientists believe this information is enough to say that the Big Bang theory is the most likely event that started off our universe. Does that make it true? Not necessarily. I think just about every scientist has assumed that the Big Bang exists and has formed many other assumptions off of it. What if it didn't actually happen?

What if in actuality, we were recently spewed out of a white hole? We were sucked into a black hole long ago along with many other galaxies and have recently popped out in some other area. The radioactivity of extreme heat is coming from inside the white hole because of all the energy that exists there. The galaxies are all moving away from the white hole at a similar rate because they all came out of the same white hole. How do you disprove this theory?

In fact, the previously stated could go in hand with the Ultimate Black Hole theorem. If all of the black holes eventually merged and sucked everything into it, and it all came out of a white hole in either a different universe or in a different part of nothing, how can this be disproved? The old black hole would finally suck itself in and the entire universe would have basically moved! The white hole would eventually dissipate when there is nothing more to spew, and the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass would not be violated!

Of course the Big Bang Theory is more easily fathomable because it provides an explanation for how the universe began, whereas white holes continuously moving the universe provides no explanation for the beginning. It instead destroys just about all chances of finding the way the universe began, and also makes it seem quite possible for the existence of our universe to never end.

I am not saying that I know better than the entire Astrophysicist community and the Big Bang is completely wrong. In fact, the theory that I just put together could go in hand with the Big Bang. After all, if the universe must begin, why not let it have a big bang, then Ultimate Black Hole theorem seemingly ends the universe, but it actually just moves it somewhere else by popping it out of a white hole, and so the universe is reborn, possibly following a cycle of moving forever. The point is that we don't really know that the Big Bang is true. Or do we? Is there more evidence that I am missing? Comment with your ideas. You can stick up for the Big Bang, or totally rip it apart. I don't care what side you are on, as long as you take one.

Classical Physics and Quantum Mechanics: Can they possibly be combined?

A topic for discussion among scientists has always been: Can there be an ultimate theory of quantum mechanics and physics? As Stephen Hawking has said:

"My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all."

But how simple is it? Can our universe be completely understood when physics and quantum mechanics are so far apart? Their laws constantly conflict. Is it possible that perhaps one of them is wrong? Or are they both right, just under different conditions? If the conditions determine the laws, then couldn't the conditions be unified under one quantum theory of gravity?

I think that there should be a way to unify the two. If only the conditions separate them, then perhaps we need to better understand the conditions. How can these two sets of laws coexist if they conflict so much? I think there must be something we are missing in the whole grand scheme of things. Why can't the law of conservation of mass apply to the microscopic world of quantum mechanics? Why should wormholes supposedly be able to pop up in the quantum world? Doesn't gravity affect the quantum world? Scientists say that a particle will take every possible path to get to a certain spot including through time as well as space. If that's true, then how come the universe isn't flooded with an infinite amount of particles? Richard Feynman said that the universe must have multiple histories. That means that everything has existed an infinite amount of times, because there are an infinite amount of paths to get to something, because there is an infinite smallness that can be measured in the universe! I think this is outrageous and far too fantastic to be true.

If one of these two sciences had to be wrong, I would say quantum mechanics needs some help. Perhaps we will eventually figure out what the problems are with either of these sciences. Maybe they are both absolutely right, but I just don't see how it makes sense. We need more information. I think that these sciences should be able to be related, but we need to gather more evidence and understanding.

Is there a smallest particle in the universe?

Ever since the microscope, scientists have been finding new ways to look deeper and find smaller particles. Ancient Greece believed the atom was the smallest particle in the universe. It was later discovered (much later) that there are subatomic particles called protons, electrons, and neutrons. Then, quarks were discovered of six different flavors. The you have gluons to connect all of those particles. Where does it end? Or does it?

I think we are getting very close to finding the smallest particle. Atoms make more sense than ever, although there are still a few questions to be answered. Why do quarks have a charge? I propose that inside quarks are particles that cause it to be positive or negative. Why should up quarks have a 2/3 positive charge? Why do down quarks have a 1/3 negative charge? I think that answer lies in even smaller particles that determine a quark's flavor. Perhaps a certain amount of a particle changes the charge. Also, different flavors of quarks still have the same charge, but are of different mass. Charm quarks have the same charge as up quarks, but a much greater mass. Why is that? That answer probably lies in the particles within.

That is why I don't think we have reached the smallest particle yet. Should there be one? I think there would have to be an initial particle in order to form any other particles later. There needs to be a starting particle to form the particles which form larger particles which after many particles are formed, forms quarks, which form protons, neutrons, and electrons which form atoms which form... you get the idea.

There must be a starting point. Everything had to come from some starting particle, which we have yet to discover, or perhaps already have. Therefore, I believe there is a smallest particle in the universe and hopefully someday, humans will be able to find it.

Summer Session Begins! Do wormholes actually exist?

Many modern scientists believe that there are wormholes on a microscopic level that appear and disappear, taking particles through time and space. My question is: do these actually exist?

The idea of a wormhole was first conceived by Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen. Hence, the Einstein-Rosen bridge was born. The only reason these were created was because they had to exist according to Einstein's equations. Couldn't his equations in some cases not work? I think many of Einstein's ideas are very correct, but does anybody remember what happened with the cosmological constant? He used that to make his equations "correct" even though it did not exist! He called it the biggest mistake of his life, and rightly so. Are wormholes the second biggest mistakes?

Einstein-Rosen bridges were abandoned by most scientists, but the newer theories of wormholes do not sound very possible. The modern type of wormhole is called the traversable wormhole. To function, the wormhole requires a negative energy density and a negative mass. Wait a minute. How can anything have negative mass? I don't understand how this is possible. According to Newton's law that F=MA, if an object has a negative mass, it would also have a negative acceleration. If you pushed a ball with negative mass (the push is a positive force), it would go in the opposite direction that you pushed it! That could really hurt if you pushed a ball with negative mass too hard.

Scientists believe that wormholes do exist on nanoscopic scales and occur all the time. If that is true, then wouldn't there be infinitely many particles in the universe? Couldn't the universe fill up with particles in all times? If wormholes can go through time, particles would move in and out of time until they eventually have gone through just about every time that ever existed, and keep on going through time. That would violate the law of conservation of mass in so many ways, because you would have particles appearing and disappearing, and the universe would gain and lose mass all the time! Then again, wormholes already break pretty much all of the other rules that have been established, so why not ruin that one too?

I do not think wormholes can exist. I do not see how it would make sense in accordance with the current laws of our universe. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me on how they exist. Why should they?

The Last Post: Not!

Hello, all. I am sorry to tell you that there are no more independent reading posts for the year, since the school year is coming to a close. However, I have a proposition. If anyone is interested, I could continue with the blog. It would no longer be an independent reading blog, just a discussion blog. I could try to get as many people involved as possible, and it could actually be serious discussion, but I need to have people interested. Since the blog is not independent reading, we could discuss any topic for as long as we want with no time limits, and I would not necessarily have to pick all of the topics. If you are interested, please say so by commenting with your thoughts. If you are interested and know anybody else who might be interested, please spread the word. If I do not get enough interest, then this will indeed be the last post.

The Universe in a Nutshell 4

The human race has always wanted to predict the future. That's why fortune cookies are so popular. Really, they tell you nothing that you can prove wrong. Messages on them can almost always relate to you in some way, shape, or form. Astrology is another attempt to predict the future. By looking at the stars, astrologers think they can predict the future. They could be right, but not in the way that they would expect. Astrologers could be beat by astrophysicists, such as Dr. Stephen Hawking. Scientists have wondered if there is determinism in our universe, where by knowing the location and speed of every particle in the universe, you could predict the future. Allow me to explain the possibility.

If I kick a soccer ball at a certain angle at a certain speed, it can be predicted how far the ball will go. If we could calculate the strength of every force in the universe, and know the location and velocity of every particle in the universe, could we predict the future? One problem is that we have not been able to predict what decisions a life form will make. The brain of an animal is very complex and hard to understand completely. Each life form was raised to have a different thought process due to its surroundings. How could anybody predict what every life form is going to do?

It is a very difficult idea. I am quite positive that humans will never be able to predict the future of every particle. The question is: could it be possible? Many astrophysicists say no. The biggest point against determinism is the uncertainty principle. According to this principle, the easier it is to locate the position of a particle, the harder it is to find its velocity. This is because particles have wavelengths, which is how speed and position are found. Wavelengths vary, and depending on the wavelength, it may be easier to predict speed or position, but we cannot find both.

If the uncertainty principle holds true, then determinism is impossible. Think about this, though. Say determinism is possible. Would you want to be able to predict everything? I think that a little uncertainty in the world is perfectly OK. I would find it very boring if we could predict everything that would happen. There could be no surprise parties! You would always know where the Easter eggs were hidden, what you are going to get for Christmas, and who is going to win the World Cup. I think that would be very boring.

Overall, I am very glad that we cannot predict everything that is going to happen in the future. I think that life on Earth could be very dull, and would really defeat the purpose of living. You would always know what the right choices to make were, because you could predict what the consequences would be. If we always knew what would happen, why exist at all?

The Universe in a Nutshell 3.14159265358979323846264338327950...

Black holes are very mysterious things that we have pondered for many years. Why do black holes exist? Are there wormholes within black holes? What role do black holes play in the universe? All of these questions may or may not have answers, but nonetheless I will cover these topics with the help of Dr. Hawking and his book, The Universe in a Nutshell.

First of all, how come black holes exist? The most accepted theory is that a black hole occurs when a star of a very large size collapses (we consider some stars small even though most of these stars are much larger than our Earth.). A star constantly bonds atoms together in a process called fusion, which creates heat and light. Eventually, the star will no longer have enough energy to fuse any more atoms, so the star collapses. Because fusion creates heavier elements, the density of the star has increased. The star proceeds to collapse in on itself because of its own gravity. The gravity compacts the star into a very dense and heavy mass. This mass creates a gravity that is so powerful, that not even light can escape it! That is why a black hole is seen as black.

The black hole continues to pull in more and more mass, forever increasing its gravity. As the gravity increases, the black hole compacts more and more, making it denser and smaller. At what point does this process end? If it continues to get smaller, does it eventually disappear? I think that this can't be possible. According to the law of conservation of matter, matter cannot be created or destroyed. So, where does all that mass go?

I think that it only ends when the universe does. In other words, the black hole will get more and more dense forever finally the universe ends. Think for a moment. If the gravity is continually increasing, then eventually won't everything be sucked into the black hole? It is very possible that this is the case, that the gravity will become so great, that black holes will suck the universe back in on itself. If that happens, then all existence would be inside the center of a black hole. This would create such high temperatures that atoms would have all become a soup of quarks and gluons, which is what the beginning of the universe was like!

This leads to many more ideas. Perhaps our universe has had multiple existences. Each time, the universe was sucked back into its previous state until something set it off again. What sets off the universe we do not know, and perhaps we never will. However, this still leads to more questions. Are we the first big bang, the twentieth, the millionth? Why did the first one start? Where did our universe come from? Did it one day just appear? I guess there are still so many questions that we simply can't answer.

How about this one? What was the state of our universe at the beginning. Did it have time? According to the general theory of relativity, gravity slows down time! In my opinion, it makes sense for the beginning of the universe to have a slower time. If the universe was having a very slow time, then millions of years to us would be a few seconds to them. In other words, every few seconds in this miniature universe, large universes are being born and destroyed. This works in that once the universe ends, it will once again begin in a few seconds. That means if there is some sort of reaction that takes a long time to work, it really will not take that long in the universe.

I know that it sounds very confusing, but it means that almost as soon as the universe crunches into the infinitely small particle during an event known as the big crunch, it will expand once again. There is a counterpoint to this theory. If the gravity is so great, how can the universe possibly expand? It would just be crunched into the infinitely small universe forever! I am not sure how to answer that. I have just recently made all of these connections (five minutes ago...).

If this is indeed what black holes will do, then they play a much bigger role in the universe than we have ever thought possible. Dr. Hawking is an optimist, and thinks the universe will expand forever. I can't say that I totally agree with him. These connections I have made are based on facts, but involve a lot of thought as well, and I hope whoever may read this will take a little time to think about if this indeed is how our universe ends: by black hole?

Think about this. There is a good chance that there is a super-massive black hole in the middle of our galaxy, the Milky Way. There may be black holes at the center of every galaxy. Eventually, the black hole may swallow the entire galaxy, picking up mass and gravity! Then, black holes may start to merge to form even larger black holes. Then the universe would enter a phase of only black holes merging until they make the ultimate black hole. This ultimate black hole will suck in the rest of the universe until it compacts into something very much like the beginning of our universe!

Perhaps this is the correct theory. It may also be totally wrong. Either way, it is my current theory of the end of our universe: the ultimate black hole.

The Universe in a Nutshell 2

Stephen Hawking is at it again! Streaming astrophysical nonsense into the minds of everyday human beings! This time, the topic is: are we alone? There are many different reasons why we may not be the only life that exists in the universe. Or is the problem that we believe there is only one universe? Are there other universes out there? Dr. Hawking puts forth many ideas in his book The Universe in a Nutshell.

Are there possibly aliens in our universe? When you think about how vast the universe is, the possibilities are endless! We have not seen the edge of our universe, so we have no idea where the universe ends! Not only that, but the universe is always expanding! Therefore, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger. There are billions of stars, and any of them could have planets around them. Even though the universe is so large, there are many details that have to be in effect to support life.

The best way to think about it is by looking at what life on Earth needs to survive. Life requires liquid water to survive, at least on our planet. That in itself is hard to find on any other planet. Earth has liquid water on the surface because it is not too close to sun, and not too far away. It is in a safe zone, so to speak. Another thing that life requires is some sort of atmosphere to protect it. Our Earth has an atmosphere that includes many things that life needs. Oxygen is important to life on Earth. Without our atmosphere, we would have no oxygen, so we would die!

Another thing the atmosphere does is acts as a filter. Most life on Earth requires the Sun's light and heat to survive, but there is a limit. Too much radiation can kill life. That is why the ozone layer is so important. If too much heat reaches the surface of the Earth, the entire Earth would be a vast desert, with no oceans at all. That would not be good for life, now would it? Everything that makes up our Earth came from the supernova of a star. It is not very likely that another planet will be produced with the right combination of elements to make up an atmosphere like ours.

Another factor that we do not often think about is the Earth's magnetic field. The core of our Earth is divided into two parts: a liquid and a solid core. The liquid core flows around the solid core to produce the magnetic field. The significance of the magnetic field is that it protects the earth from all sorts of space junk and debris. The chances that another planet will have such an effective magnetic field is very slim.

When you consider all of the requirements, life somewhere else seems very unlikely. However, there may be ways around many of these requirements. Even on Earth, there are chemo-synthetic life forms that live in the deep ocean. These microorganisms do not need light to live, just certain chemicals from the rock. Perhaps there are chemo-synthetic aliens somewhere in the universe. Or maybe there is life that does not need water somewhere else.

What if we expand the possibilities a little bit. What if there are more "universes" than just ours. What if beyond our universe was a vast sea of universes, all with different laws of physics? Although there is no real way to know for sure, I don't think there are any more universes than our own. If there were other universes, it might have crashed into ours by now. I think that ours is alone, but that's my opinion. Dr. Hawking believes there are others, connected to ours by wormholes.

I do not think there are other universes, but I do think there could be other life. However, because of the probability of having life on a planet is so slim, the life is probably somewhere very far away. Most likely, we will not meet other life forms because of how far away they would probably be. I for many reasons hope we don't meet other life forms.

If we meet aliens, they will probably be more advanced than we are. They would have to come from such a long distance that they would need a great amount of technology to get here. They would likely take over the human race, and that would be no good! Dr. Hawking agrees in that regard. Also, if the aliens are weaker than us, we will probably eliminate them, getting rid of more life forms, rather than trying to be diplomatic with them for our benefit.

All in all, it is very unlikely that we will meet any other life forms. I think that it is quite possible for there to be other life out there, but not in other universes, just in ours. I do not want humans to come in contact with other forms of life because it would probably result in our destruction. That's my view of aliens in a nutshell.

The Universe in a Nutshell 1

Thirteen years had passed since Stephen Hawking first published A Brief History of Time. When you think about it, a great many things happen in thirteen years! In one second, trillions of events are occurring across the globe, and that's just Earth! We humans only consider major events in common everyday life, but if you stop to think, one second means a lot more than you may think! If we erase one second from the history of the universe, so many things would be changed! If one second means that much, thirteen years is huge! The number of events that occur in thirteen years is unimaginable! The point is that a lot of ideas and concepts were discovered in terms of astrophysics, so Stephen Hawking decided to publish a new book called The Universe in a Nutshell that takes many of the concepts from A Brief History of Time and expands on them. However, many new concepts are also introduced. One concept is, what is the limit of human technology, if any limit at all? Consider the following.

Ever since the beginning of the universe, exponential growth has occurred among everything that exists. After the big bang, it would take billions of years for heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen to first form! Then over millions of years the planets, stars, and galaxies would form. Think about the history of Earth. It took three eons for the Earth to be suitable for life. We are currently in the fourth eon, called the Phanerozoic Eon. The Phanerozoic Eon is divided up into three eras. We are in the third era, called the Cenozoic Era. Each of the three eras has been shorter than the previous era. The Paleozoic Era was about 300 million years long. The Mesozoic Era lasted 185 million years. We are now in the Cenozoic Era, which has so far lasted 65 million years, believe it or not! As you should be able to see by now, it takes less and less time for changes to occur. Below is a sample Geologic Time Scale to help you better understand the exponential change of the Earth over time.
Now consider the exponential growth of the human race in this chart below.
The world population has been growing faster and faster! The big question is, does it ever stop? Will the human race ever come to an end? Or will technology continue to advance forever?

It is most likely that humans will eventually die out, but when? There are two definite boundaries to the human race. Boundary number one is the edge of the universe. There has to be a point in which humans can no longer expand. In a four dimensional universe, there must be limits! It is somewhat like a massive box. Eventually, unless the box can be broken, there will be no more room to expand once the box is filled. However, the universe is a little bit larger than the box that your pop tarts come from. In fact, the universe is more like a balloon, because it is expanding. So, one of two scenarios could take place. One, the universe could expand forever, allowing the exponential growth of the human race to be unlimited and continue on, never overtaking the size of the universe. Two, the universe could stop expanding at one point and become static, allowing humans to catch up to its size. Three, the universe could not only stop growing but start contracting, bringing absolute destruction of mankind, for I don't think all of those humans will fit in a microscopic area and survive!

I believe that it really does not matter which of the three possibilities you think will occur. Being the pessimist that I am, I think that humans will bring extermination upon themselves, or they will be destroyed in some other way. Look at the history of the Earth as an example. Over the process of evolution, many species have died out over the course of time! If that did not occur, the dinosaurs would still be around! Notice that species evolve and change over time or in some cases are completely eliminated from existence. There are three possible ways the human race could end up over time. One, humans will be wiped out by natural phenomena. Two, humans will be wiped out by humans. Three, humans will survive and live on until the end of time (if it ends). Also, there are two ways to view humans in their role on Earth. For one, they could be the ultimate living species, and life cannot evolve further past the human stage. The other idea is that humans will evolve into or give way to another greater, stronger, smarter specie that is superior to humanity!

Of all of the given possibilities, I think that humans are the prime race. We will bring about the end to all life on Earth forever, because we have that capability. The only way that life will continue on after us would be through alien life. Here is how I see the future unfold. We will destroy all other forms of life, leaving only humans. Humans will fight and advance in technology until eventually we will have developed such destructive weapons that not even those who have created them are safe in any way. I know that I sound like a pessimist, but I don't think the outlook on the future looks good.

Think about this possibility put forward by Dr. Hawking: genetic engineering of humans. We could someday create a super-human race that would replace ourselves. In that case, humans would somewhat evolve, but at the hands of the human race. Once again, self-extermination. We would make ourselves obsolete by creating smarter, faster, stronger super-humans! Then exponential growth would increase even more!

Another idea of Dr. Hawking's is that computers could be created with intelligence just like humans! Therefore, robots could start to build better robots, who would proceed to build better robots, until electronic intelligence overtakes human intelligence! With all of these possibilities, it is hard to see a limit! I think there is a limit, though. Nothing is truly infinite. There is a finite quantity of everything in some way in my opinion. Therefore, I believe that humans will exterminate themselves, and either super-humans or super computers will take over, but they will eventually destroy themselves too, if they are anything like humans. But who are we to judge that?

A Brief History of Time 3

Well, here it goes. Time travel. Time travel is probably the most disputed and most popular topic about the laws of our universe and the effects of time. People have long wondered if you could go back in time and change things that you did wrong. People have also wanted to go into the future to see what's in store for the rest of their lives. In my opinion, time travel is physically impossible, at least for living creatures! However, many attempts have been made at creating a possibility to travel time.

One of the theories among common people is that traveling faster than the speed of light will allow you to go back in time. I believe that not only is it physically impossible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light, but I argue that even if we could, it would not be going back in time! Take a look again at Dr. Hawking's fabulous light cones diagram.
As we look at the light cone, over time, light travels farther and farther. An object slower than light can only travel inside the boundaries of the light cone. However, something faster than light can go outside the light cone. Here's the problem. Even though you are going outside the light cone, you are still going forward in time. No matter how fast you get, you cannot go so fast that you go back in time. In fact, the only way to move downwards on the time axis is to travel at a negative speed! That means you would have to travel a negative distance over time (which is impossible) or that you would have to travel a distance in negative time (which is the item being disputed). Nothing can go anywhere in a negative amount of time though.

Something that is also missing in this example is that if you were going backwards in time, what makes you think you can go forward again? So now there is this idea that you can switch between negative and positive speeds at any time, traveling negative or positive distances at will! I highly doubt this is possible, and I would like to hear someone tell me how to travel at a negative speed!

I think that theory is pretty much destroyed in my mind. However, there are many more interesting theories out there. One such theory is that of a wormhole, and wormholes are becoming a more popular theory. Wormholes connect two areas in space time in a shorter distance than three dimensions allow. Space time is said to be curved, and wormholes supposedly could connect two portions of spacetime as shown in this diagram.
The wormhole can take you to somewhere before many events have happened there! Here's the problem. A wormhole also moves you somewhere else in space. So, congratulations! You went back in time! But now you are stuck somewhere else in an earlier time period. Since light shows us what happens somewhere else, you may be going back i time, but you cannot change the past. You are actually still affecting the future of your previous location from your current location! Here's an attempt at a better explanation. Say I am on Earth right now on April 22, 2010. I am sucked through a wormhole and end up on the sun on April 14, 2010. If it takes light 8 days to get to the Earth, I am still technically only able to affect the "present" or the "future". I am not greatly familiar with wormholes, but what if this was the case? What if wormholes were still only able to take you back relatively, but not in actuality? This scenario I doubt has ever been examined. If wormholes can take you back in time, is it back far enough? Further research is required to answer that question.

Where are these wormholes? There are supposed to be microscopic wormholes that allow small particles of matter and antimatter to enter and leave our existence. This involves quantum mechanics, which is a very uncertain science. Experiments have shown particles to appear and disappear in a vacuum tube (that means no matter was inside, and no matter could get in or out through physical means!). Where do these particles come from? Scientists believe wormholes may be the answer, allowing particles to jump in and out of space and time. One key question. How come we do not do the same? Why don't wormholes appear in a person's brain and cause his memory cells to be whisked away to some other time period, resulting in the man forgetting where he left his house key? I suppose wormholes can only occur under certain conditions. One condition is thought to be in a black hole.

A black hole is a very complex system. Black holes will be covered more in depth in a later post, but for now, you only need to know the basics of a black hole. Black holes form when a star of a very large mass collapses on itself, creating a ton of gravitational force, forces so great, that even light cannot escape. This massive amount of gravity bends space time so much that it is said to create a singularity, or a point in which the laws of general relativity cannot mathematically explain the result. This is because according to relativity, the space time curvature would be infinite. Scientists believe this radical conclusion can be solved by entering wormholes. The problem with that is that the gravity would crush matter drastically, and you would have to travel faster than the speed of light to get through the wormhole.

Allow me to further explain why you cannot go faster than the speed of light. According to our current laws of physics (which I believe are very much correct) energy and mass are proportional. If you have two masses, one of 10 grams and one of 5 grams, the 10 gram mass will have more energy. Speed and mass are also related. The faster an object is traveling, the greater amount of mass an object has. Finally, speed and energy are related, because to move an object of any mass requires energy. As explained by Dr. Hawking, as an object picks up speed, it acquires more mass. As it picks up mass, the object needs more energy to increase its speed. As you get closer to the speed of light, the object needs more and more energy to speed it up because it is accumulating more and more mass. An object of any mass cannot reach the speed of light because an object would acquire an infinite amount of mass in the process, requiring an infinite amount of energy to make the object go faster. The only thing that can travel as fast as light is something with no mass, such as a particle of light (amazing!).

That, however, does provide evidence as to why wormholes only affect small particles! Because only a small particle of no mass can travel fast enough to go through a wormhole! However, this also shows that humans cannot physically travel time through a wormhole (sad face). Humans have mass, so that ends that! Also, a human would be absolutely destroyed in a black hole! The intense amount of gravity would rip a human being to shreds! Say goodbye to wormhole time travel (for humans, anyway).

A few final thoughts. If we could travel time, then how come we haven't seen any beings appear? Or, even more intriguing, are history professors of the future among us, learning what they can about us to tell their students in the future? Are they the aliens that we supposedly see? Are they what we interpret as ghosts? How come we aren't all destroyed? Most likely if we could travel time, someone would ruin it for everyone and destroy the world with nukes before humans even existed! Dr. Hawking makes a point that there could be multiple histories, and if you go back in time, you are creating another history. However, that would mean you live more than once, or if time travel occurred in the new histories, you would live infinitely many times! I find that ridiculous! Therefore, I believe time travel is impossible for certain for a human being, and even if microscopic particles could travel time, it would have very little effect on humans. That is my current stand. If you have any other time travel theories or protest my reasoning for any of the above mentioned theories, comment and I may or may not respond.

A Brief History of Time 2

Very few people know and understand space time in its entirety, but you could probably ask any common person on the street if they have heard of the equation E=Mc squared and find that they have heard of it. Many people can tell you what the equation stands for, that energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Some people also know that this equation comes from Einstein's theory of relativity. However, few actually understand what general and special relativity entail. In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking helps us to understand what relativity is all about, and where even this well known theory has its weaknesses.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is broken up into two parts: Special Relativity, and General Relativity. Special Relativity has to do with the light cones discussed in A Brief History Of Time 1. Those cones in special relativity are always the same anywhere in the universe in this theory. Any event can only effect other events that occur in the future light cone. So if the sun were to burn out, I will still wake up to the sunlight the next morning, and I will still go about my day as normal. That event cannot be effected by the sun, because it is too far away in space to be in the future light cone. However, eight days later, I will not wake up to the sun because that event is in the future light cone of the sun's burning out. Over time, the area in space that the light cone covers increases, and more events can be affected by the event of the sun burning out. However, Einstein did not take into account the force of gravity. When gravity is included, the theory of General Relativity is referred to.

It used to be thought that space time was smooth and continuous (space time being the four dimensional realm in which we live in). However, it has been shown by observing an eclipse that light is bent by gravity. If light is bent by gravity, then the light cones must also be bent, and so the general theory of relativity is created! If the light cones are bent, then space time supposedly must also be curved. It is said that the Earth orbits the sun elliptically because gravity causes the Earth to move along a curved space time track. Earth in space time is actually going straight, but we see it as curved. Because of this curvature, general relativity predicts that time should run slower near larger planets.

The idea that time can be slowed by the curvature of space time is a key point to general relativity, because in this theory, all things are relative to the observer. Distance, size, and even time depend on the observer's view of reality. The most intriguing relativity in my opinion is that of time, that depending on the observing, time may appear to run slower or faster. I think that the key word in this case is appear. A small insect may only live a day, but to that insect, that one day is a lifetime. Many scientists use this a reason to believe that we can go backwards in time, but I find that a relatively poor reason (haha, puns...). In a later chapter, Stephen Hawking puts forth the idea of real and imaginary time. The idea that imaginary time will continue at a steady rate while real time is curved and reversed and other interesting ideas. I think he has it backwards. The fact that all things are relative should imply that we believe in imaginary time! The real time is the one that continues at a steady rate. Let's face it, even though the small insect thinks one day is extremely long, we still see it die at our own rate. Just because the insect thinks it is a lifetime, does not mean it is right. I think that there is one absolute time that is the real time, and the way we experience this time is our imaginary time. Therefore, going back in time is not going to happen! Time marches on, and we can't change that, no matter how long our interpretation of reality thinks time is.

Next week we will discuss time travel in greater detail, and I will do my absolute best to trump any time travel theory that I can find! Send me your theories on time travel and I will do my best to provide evidence as to why they are false, or if they are possibly true, for what reasons it is possible using evidence from either A Brief History of Time or from other sources if necessary (but considering how much information is in this book, I should not need many other sources). Stephen Hawking discusses one time travel theory in great depth: wormholes. So many great time travel theories, so little time!

A Brief History of Time 1

The vast universe which we live in is full of questions. How did our universe begin, or did it even have a beginning. If it has a beginning does it have an end? What are the boundaries of our universe if any? And what about time? Does time have a beginning or end? What does time have to do with the whole scheme of things? Is time its own dimension, is it relative, or is it absolute? Can we alter time, or travel back to the past? Can we go into the future? So many questions that we may never be able to answer, but nevertheless we try to approach these questions with the best of our knowledge. One of the greatest minds in our world is that of Stephen Hawking, a very intellectual scientist and doctor who tries to answer these questions, or at least get us closer to the answers, in his book A Brief History of Time.

One of the many concepts pondered by many is the idea of time as a fourth dimension. For most of mankind's existence, we have only recognized three dimensions: length, width, and height. We can plot a point in a coordinate space using these three dimensions as shown below:

The three dimensions of length, width, and height are represented as x, y, and z axis respectively. But have you ever considered that when plotting an event in our universe, a point in space is not enough information. Consider this example. If you are walking down the sidewalk, then the event of you being in a certain position occurs in a specific space of three dimensions. However, you are no longer in that same position five seconds later. You are now farther down the sidewalk at a different location. To plot an event, the time is extremely important. We cannot plot an event in three dimensions because events often times only occur in certain positions at a certain time. Therefore, a fourth dimension, time, must be added. Dr. Hawking believes we cannot imagine a fourth dimensional object. However, I think we in our lives imagine things in fourth dimensional terms all the time. For example, recall that person walking down the sidewalk. If you think about it, it is in four dimensions, because time is allowing it to move. I think scientists are thinking too hard, coming up with objects like tesseracts that are supposed to represent four dimensional objects in three dimensions. Perhaps it is not so difficult as we make it seem.

Another way of thinking of time in three dimensions besides a tesseract, which i prefer, is shown here from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time:

In this diagram, Space is represented on a two dimensional plane, while time extends upward through space, almost like a three dimensional space. You may be wondering what the cones are in this diagram. The cones represent light cones that are emitted from an event. For example, if the sun burnt out, we would not know it for another eight days. Why? Because light travels in a cone over time, and since we are so far away from the sun, it takes eight days for the "light cone" to reach us. All this cone really represents is that it takes time for an event to be seen in different parts of the world. As time goes on, the event affects more and more of space. This is the way I see it relate to our view of the universe. In our realm of 3 dimensional space, this light cone appears to be a sphere. Imagine looking at this diagram from above. It would appear to be a circle. Over time the circle would get bigger and bigger until it covered the entire space. Because space is represented in two dimensions on this diagram, it appears to be a circle, but in 3 dimensions, it is a sphere! Light from the sun goes out in all directions, acting as a sphere, so if it were to burn out, the following darkness would also be spherical.

One might ask what purpose this all has, and maybe there will be nothing gained other than a greater understanding of our universe. Nevertheless, over the course of this independent reading, I will attempt to explain what Stephen Hawking has to say about our universe and add input wherever possible. Often times, I will have to enter my own interpretations in order to make more sense of what Dr. Hawking is trying to tell us. I think that this kind of knowledge of how our universe works is very fascinating, and could show great importance to us in the future. If we know more about the universe, perhaps we can predict our future, and know more about our past. But with knowledge comes responsibility, and I have a bad feeling that the knowledge we may gain will in the end destroy us all. In attempt to predict the end of the world, we may cause it! A Brief History of Time is full of great questions, and many attempts at answering them, and I hope that as I proceed in reading it, I will be able to answer some of the many questions I have about time and the universe in general.

Independent Reading Day 7

I completed Pebble in the Sky by Isaac Asimov this week. Pebble in the Sky was an excellent book. It encompassed many areas of not just the future, but modern life. The book showed the greed and corruption of governments very well. It also introduced galactic life without ever leaving the Earth. I thought that this book was very clever.

The plot that is brought together in Pebble in the Sky is that the government on Earth uses Dr. Shekt's synapsifier on the biologists of the government. They used the biologists to develop biological warfare weapons against the rest of the world. Because Earth had been exposed to diseases such as the flu virus for so long, they became immune, but the Outsiders of the Galaxy do not have this immunity, so Earth has that advantage, and exploits it. The weapons are filled with disease, and the Galaxy will not be able to stop it.

The plot is ingenious. I was surprised that Earth would be able to have a weapon to take on the entire Galactic Empire! However, the Earth government was extremely greedy in this case. They would annhilate the entire Galaxy so that they could reign supreme over what? Just Earth anyways! Eventually, the galaxy would be recolonized, and Earth would once again be shoved off as a poor planet. Yet the government did not care, so long as they had power. I hope that Iran will not make that kind of decision with its nuclear weapons, just for power.

Independent Reading Day 6

Joseph Schwartz is living with the farmers once again. Once, Schwartz was walking in the farmland when he felt something. He realized he felt walking. Not long after this odd feeling, Arbin, one of the farmers, appeared in the distance, and walked up to Schwartz. Schwartz could feel that Arbin was coming towards him without hearing or seeing it. It is discovered then that Schwartz can read minds! When he is playing chess with one of the farmers, Grew, he beats him almost every time because he can see what Grew is thinking with what Schwartz calls the "Mind Touch".

I would be very nervous knowing that someone could read minds. After all, everyone has thoughts that they do not want others to know about. Just imagine if someone like Schwartz was wandering around discovering the secrets of anyone nearby. Every person on the face of the planet would appear to be some sort of monster. Also, we think many things which we would not even actually consider doing. What if everyone could read minds? There would be many horrible misunderstandings, and no one would appear to be a good person. Even if I could be a mind reader, I am not sure I would want to be burdened with the knowledge of all of my friends' personal thoughts. It would be very creepy.

The idea of mind reading being possible comes from Schwartz's intellect being improved by Dr. Shekt's machine. Could your intellect become so advanced that you could perceive the thoughts of others? I don't think it could be possible. Thoughts are mostly determined by calculations inside the brain, and I don't think a human being can hear or see within another person's own mind. After all, we can't see or hear the brain at work, even if the brain was exposed. Therefore, I have a hard time believing that mind reading is possible.

Independent Reading Day 5

After all of the chaos in Chica, the events are interpreted by the secretary of the High Minister of Earth. The two men represent the government and it hasn't really changed from 2010 politics. The High Minister is the man who is elected and who everyone sees as a hero of the country. I think that the High Minister relates to the President of the United States. While the President may be the one in power, he is not really in charge.
The secretary who works for the High Minister is extremely attentive to detail, and tries to find the hidden coincidences that in actuality are plots against the government. Although the High Minister is theoretically in control, it is the unknown secretary who is really in charge. It is almost like the US government in a sense that although the president is seen by the people as having a lot of power, the Senate and the Congress make all of the decisions. Also, the president relies on his advisors to help him make decisions, which is the role the secretary plays for the High Minister.
This system can fail, as proven in Pebble in the Sky. The secretary believes that Schwartz and Dr. Arvadan are working together. He also believes that Shekt purposefully let Schwartz go to meet Arvadan, therefore Schwartz is an outsider working with Arvadan. All of this is untrue, but the High Minister believes it must be correct because there is no other explanation. Now Schwartz is in huge trouble for something he did not do. I think that president will sometimes make huge mistakes because of his advisor's ideas. However, the president cannot keep track of everything, so he needs good advisors.

Independent Reading Day 4

Bel Arvadan arrives in Chica on the same day that Schwartz escapes from the laboratory. He runs into a huge commotion, and people think that Schwartz has radiation fever. They think so because Dr. Shekt's daughter is running around looking for Schwartz, so people believe he must have been her patient, and now everyone is after Schwartz. Dr. Arvadan helps Shekt's daughter who is named Pola. Pola looks up to Arvadan until she finds out Arvadan is an outsider.
Arvadan comes from Sirian Sector, and anybody from a different planet is looked down upon to Earth people. This deeply hurts Pola, because she wants to be loyal to Earth people, but she likes Dr. Arvadan because he helped her. I think that Pola will get over the discrimination against Outsiders and start to see how they feel.
I have a prediction. The story appears to be leading to revolution, with Joseph Schwartz being the center in which it revolves around. Pola and Arvadan will meet again, and both of them will be able to see both sides of the story. I think Arvadan will try to convince Pola to see the fight his way, and vice versa. It will be a heated battle, and I think Arvadan will see Earth as a good place and fight for Earthmen against the Galaxy.

Independent Reading Day 3

In the third section of Pebble in the Sky, by Isaac Asimov, two chapters, Chapter six and Chapter seven, were covered. In chapter six, the Procurator of Earth awake at his palace later than normal. Procurator Ennius was stargazing when his wife came out to see him. Ennius cannot sleep thinking about Dr. Skekt's machine called the Synapsifier, the machine that is supposed to make Schwartz smarter. Ennius believes that Dr. Shekt is building the synapsifier to increase the intelligence of the entire "Earthman" race. This worries Ennius because Earth has rebelled against the Galaxy before. Maybe the Synapsifier will turn Earth into super geniuses! If Earth becomes a planet of super-intellectuals, they might succeed in taking over the Galaxy, as attempted in the past! What's funny about that is the fact that Ennius thinks Earth can take over the galaxy! There are thousands of other planets! It seems nearly impossible!
Ennius is also worried because Bel Arvadan plans on proving Earth as the original home of mankind by entering radioactive areas, which is forbidden to men. This concerns Ennius because the High Minister of Earthmen may use Arvadan's intrusion as an excuse to rebel against the Galaxy! It appears as though no matter what, there is going to be a rebellion. I predict that before the end of Pebble in the Sky, there will be a rebellion of some sort! I think that the Galaxy will win, though, because Earth is just not big enough. Maybe Earth will have to be destroyed!
The next day, Arvadan began touring around Earth to learn what he could about "Earthmen". Pebble in the Sky takes special interest in Arvadan's flight with only "Earthmen" in it. Arvadan tries not to be prejudiced against them, but he can't help being a little self-conscious. On this plane, he realizes that Earthmen look just like ordinary men, such as himself, even though he is from Sirius. Arvadan learns about how when somebody turns sixty, they must die! Imagine having a timetable for how long you are going to live! And the strangest part, that those turning sixty are perfectly happy about it! Happy for death? That confuses me! Eventually, the people on the plane find out Arvadan is from Sirius, not Earth, and everyone turns away from him. Everyone, that is, except for a man named Creen, who begins talking to him and sort of befriending him, but trying to find out facts about him. It turns out, Creen is from the Society of Ancients, an organization with mysterious objective. It is not said what they are, nor why they exist! What is this Society of Ancients? I think they are trying to wipe out Earthmen or trying to help Earth rebel. As to which side I am unsure. Perhaps answers will be revealed in chapters eight and nine in Pebble in the Sky by Isaac Asimov!

Day 2 of Reading

In the next couple chapters of the book I am reading, Pebble in the Sky, by Isaac Asimov, the main character, Joseph Schwartz, ends up at a house in which three farmers live. However, the farmers believe Schwartz to be mentally insane because he is speaking rapidly in what sounds like complete gibberish. The farmers fear him, and decide to get rid of him by volunteering him for a research project by a scientist in the nearby city of Chica. The scientist is experimenting with a method of increasing human intelligence, and the farmers decide that if Schwartz can become more intelligent, they can get him to help them on the farm.
Like some science fiction novels, Pebble in the Sky shows two different stories that combine together to show the same point or idea. While Joseph Schwartz is being driven to Chica to become part of an experiment, a man by the name of Bel Arvadan from another planet in the galaxy arrives at the palace of Earth's Procurator, Lord Ennius. Lord Ennius considers himself in some kind of exile because Earth is one of the lowliest planets. However, Arvadan believes that Earth is where humankind first originated. The funny thing about Arvadan's theory is that it is true, for we humans are currently nowhere but Earth in our current time period, yet most people of the galaxy do not believe Arvadan. He has come to Earth to try and prove his point, and while speaking with the Procurator, he basically lays out what is happening in today's world, but is only a theory to the people of the future. One thing Arvadan must first do is prove to the Galaxy that people on Earth are not all savages, and sends Lord Ennius to Chica to speak with a Dr. Shekt, an "Earthman" scientist believed to have invented a mechanism which can increase human intelligence. I will not go into detail of how it works, as it is explained quite thoroughly in the book. The connection is that Dr. Shekt's machine is the one which Joseph Schwartz is being experimented with.
Joseph Schwartz ends up much more intelligent after the experiment is over, but resents being stuck in one room all of the time like some kind of prisoner. He eventually escapes the room. I think this plot build is interesting. This allows Schwartz to learn the new language and understand the society of Earth. Where will Schwartz go now? That question is one that I am sure will be answered in the next couple of chapters of Pebble in the Sky.