Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 09, 2015

Effect then Cause?

Before you read any of what I'm about to write, you first need to visit this link and read the article to know where I'm coming from.  Don't worry...I'll wait for you.
 
 
If your head hurts after reading that, I completely understand.  Apparently it has that effect on some people.  For others, like me, all it did was create more questions.
 
So, basically, in a nutshell, what scientists discovered was that when observing a helium atom passing through a slit, the atom could behave like a particle or a wave as it then passed through one grate towards a wall.  But as it became possible to randomly drop a second grate behind the first one, the atom would behave like a wave every time the second grate was dropped.  The mind-blowing part about all of this is that the atom didn't change as the second grate was dropped...it changed seemingly in anticipation of the dropping of that second grate.  More simplified:  it's as if the atom KNEW that the second grate would be there, so the atom changed immediately into a wave upon its release.  Quantum physicists believe this is an example of a future event affecting the past, but they're not sure how or why it happens.
 
After reading this, I began to formulate my own questions.  The article brought up the experiments done in the large particle accelerators, like the Hadron super collider, and I wondered if this new information could be applied to this situation.  When particles are sent around the super collider, energy is given off in different forms by the traveling particles.  I'm wondering if the same can be said for atoms traveling in wave form.  In wave form under conditions of a vacuum, would two atoms in wave form be fluid enough to pass through each other or would they collide in the same way particles do?  If they do, indeed, slip by as two people passing on the street, is there any friction inside that vacuum which would cause the waves to slow?  If they didn't slow by any type of friction force and if they gave off energy as they traveled the accelerator, would that energy be able to be harnessed for usage?  Saying all that is possible, we could be looking at a sustainable form of energy yet to be explored.  Obviously, we'd have to weigh the cost factor involved with building accelerators, as well as investigating possible health risks, but it would be worth a try.
 
The article also brought up Schroedinger's cat, one of my favorite quantum quandaries.  As some of you may know, the theory of Schroedinger's cat states that in a box exists a cat that is possibly alive or dead.  Until we actually open the box to see which statement is true, both statements coexist and are true.  I'm sure others have already thought of this, but I suggest that there are more than just those two possibilities.  If the box is never opened, how are we sure that what's inside is actually a cat?  Could it be some other sort of animal or inanimate object?  Could there be NOTHING in the box?  Being that this is a quantum physics issue, could a tiny black hole have opened in the box, causing all matter inside to be sucked in, thus leaving nothing there?  Perhaps my favorite one of all, though, is this one.  What if we opened the box and immediately we found ourselves inside the box looking out?  Is there a possibility we are already in the box, waiting for it to be opened, or would the act of opening the box cause us to switch inside?  Maybe when the box is opened and we're inside, we'll see Schroedinger's cat on the outside observing us.
 
So, yeah, I'm sure a lot of you will just pass this off as an over-active imagination trying to find something to do while performing repetitive tasks at work, but others of you might take my questions and try to answer them or maybe come up with questions of your own.  To me, this is what science should be:  people coming up with the whys and why-nots and discussing them.  With this type of science, even the greatest minds still don't have the answers, so in a lot of ways they are in the same boat (or box) as us.  That should give you a vote of confidence to use your brain on issues like this and not feel as if you need a degree in quantum physics to join the conversation. 
 
As you come up with your own ideas, please feel free to comment here or on one of my various forms of social media.  I look forward to see what you think...or is it backward?  Seems we may have to revisit the order of how things happen from here on out.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Quantum Physics for Dummies

Most of the time when my mind wanders, it finds its way to dead ends.  The random problems that my brain thinks up work themselves out when I realize that the answer was either so obvious or I decide that the problems weren't worth the time to solve.  But then there are the rarities where I ask myself a question that I can't answer and it just leads to more questions.  That's when, if I'm feeling ambitious enough, I start scouring the Net for the answers.
 
About a week ago, I started thinking about parallel universes.  I know, that's not really a light subject to just conjure up out of thin air.  I'm not sure how it came up, but I'm sure it was because of a TV show or something I had been watching.  Being a sci-fi geek, this happens quite often.  So here was the multi-tiered question that occured to me:  Has a parallel universe, if it exists, always existed or is it created because of some event?  If created by an event, does all history prior to that creation cease to exist for the parallel world, does it use the history of the universe from which it was spawned, or does a completely new history get assumed by the people living in it and recorded as if it had actually happened?
 
Right now you're probably thinking one of a couple of possible responses.  "Huh?"  "Are you on drugs?"  "This is completely stupid."  "That just blew my mind."  There probably are a few more I didn't account for, but to answer those:  no, I'm not on drugs and yes, it may be completely stupid, but then again, it may be mind-blowing,  In preparation for writing this, I did a Google search for "Albert Einstein parallel universe" and clicked on the first link I found that looked like it would have some interesting information.  http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/parallel-universe.htm was very short in length, but rich in information about theories concerning parallel universes.  My questions still haven't been answered, but at least it's a start.  Basically, Albert Einstein believed that alternate universes are altogether possible, but was never able to prove it.  Other scientists in the years following his death, like Hugh Everett III & Dr. Michio Kaku have picked up the torch to prove he wasn't off his rocker and some have gotten closer, but still no concrete proof.  Their individual theories like "Many-Worlds", "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", and "String Theory" sound impressive and that's because they are, but no one can confirm them.  That's why they're still theories.  But with every day that passes, we're getting closer to some confirmation.

From what I'm reading, some theories, like the Many-Worlds or Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle,  hinge on some sort of event that actually creates the parallel universe, such as a scientist simply observing the state of a quantum object (whether in wave or particle form, wave vibration, etc...) or even by making the decision to not make a determination at all.  Such an event can cause the split of the universe to accomodate for all possible outcomes of the observation.  What a powerful thing to consider:  that even the THOUGHT of multiple outcomes could create those multiple outcomes somewhere.  If we'd ever find this to be true, the human mind should be considered the greatest object ever created.  Sort of makes you reconsider trying to discuss Schroedinger's cat (Google it).  Using this information to my question, my question still remains unanswered; we could still share history, there could be no history prior to the event for the alternate world, or they could create a history from shared thought-pooling once it is established.  If we follow the theory of Dr. Kaku, which is called String Theory, it's much easier to believe that the universes have their own histories different from each other.  His theory states that all objects in the universe, even on down to the smallest particles known currently as quarks, are made up of tinier building blocks that resemble rubber bands and what matter they create depends on these bands and how they vibrate.  This creation happens across eleven separate dimensions.  Because of how it's created, our universe is therefore separated by itself inside of a "bubble", which exists along side of the other parallel universes in their own "bubbles".  It's theorized that they can interact with each other by sharing gravity, but that would create an explosion similar to what some scientists believe happened at the Big Bang.  Probably not a good idea for this to happen.  BUT, this string theory would then, as I said, give credence to the idea that any alternate worlds would have a unique history, some being just slightly out-of-phase from each other, but definitely unique to that "bubble".

These theories are just the most prominent; we've barely scratched the surface.  Plenty of other scientists have their own ideas on if any of this is possible.  The truth could be a combination of a couple or all of them, it could be one singular idea, or another possibility is that none of these can actually occur.  Possibly by considering these in this blog, we've created some alternate realities of our own.  Maybe some day we'll know...or in another reality, we already know.  One thing I do know:  I'm not anywhere even CLOSE to answering my own questions.  But I think it's fun to keep trying! 

If I haven't driven you nuts by this discussion, I invite you to join in.  Any of your own theories?  Questions that you think I or someone else that reads this may be able to answer?  Post them here!