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.