Phasing

Although according to this report from the New York Times on Monday, CERN scientists believe they are getting closer:

Physicists at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory are reporting that they have discovered a new clue that could help unravel one of the biggest mysteries of cosmology: why the universe is composed of matter and not its evil-twin opposite, antimatter. If confirmed, the finding portends fundamental discoveries at the new Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva, as well as a possible explanation for our own existence.

In a mathematically perfect universe, we would be less than dead; we would never have existed. According to the basic precepts of Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang and then immediately annihilated each other in a blaze of lethal energy, leaving a big fat goose egg with which to make stars, galaxies and us. And yet we exist, and physicists (among others) would dearly like to know why.

Sifting data from collisions of protons and antiprotons at Fermilab’s Tevatron, which until last winter was the most powerful particle accelerator in the world, the team, known as the DZero collaboration, found that the fireballs produced pairs of the particles known as muons, which are sort of fat electrons, slightly more often than they produced pairs of anti-muons. So the miniature universe inside the accelerator went from being neutral to being about 1 percent more matter than antimatter.

“This result may provide an important input for explaining the matter dominance in our universe,” Guennadi Borissov, a co-leader of the study from Lancaster University, in England, said in a talk Friday at Fermilab, in Batavia, Ill. Over the weekend, word spread quickly among physicists. Maria Spiropulu of CERN and the California Institute of Technology called the results “very impressive and inexplicable.”

Read the whole article.

Fascinating really. No doubt these scientists have made a breakthrough on the question, but there is a more fascinating implication that emerges from the elusiveness of the answers they are seeking–one that prompts me to worship. It is this: with all of the technology we have amassed, with this 17 mile long hole in the ground that smashes particles together, with the finest physics theory minds on the planet bouncing their ideas off one another at the cafeteria lunch counter, with all of that, we are still confounded by the scientific improbability of our sheer existence.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:8-9

HT: Veith

Physicists in Austria say they have solved the conundrum of “ball lightning”, mysterious glowing spherical apparitions which baffled boffins have struggled to explain for centuries.

According to Josef Peer and Alexander Kendl of the University of Innsbruck, there is in fact no such thing as ball lightning in reality. Rather, powerful magnetic fields created by ordinary lightning affect the brains of humans nearby so that they see things which aren’t there.

According to Peer and Kendl’s calculations, a certain type of long-lasting repetitive lightning strike emits magnetic fields very similar to those used in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) – a medical technique use to hotwire activity in the brain.

“In the clinical application of TMS, luminous and apparently real visual perceptions in varying shapes and colors within the visual field of the patients and test persons are reported and well examined,” says Kendl.

Thus the right kind of lightning strike nearby affects people’s brains, accounting for long-accumulated reports of mysterious “ball lightning” phenomena during thunderstorms. Scientists have always struggled to explain just how these strange glowing spheres would be generated and sustained: it now appears at least possible that they aren’t, in any physical sense. ..

via Ball lightning is all in the mind, say Austrian physicists • The Register.

Pay no attention to the photo, it is all in your mind.

So… first things first. Singularities, gravitational and mathematical. For the purposes of teh theory: a singularity is a point of existence in a single dimension. It is a point where something exists in a single dimension, it says that the truth value for existence at that point in that dimension = +1.

When teh theory uses the word ‘number’ it means a collection of these +1 points of existence. Other terms used by teh theory for this ‘+1 point of existence in a single dimension’ include quantum data point, bit, data bit, marker, data marker, +1 point, point, singularity, dimension marker, quantum bit… and the list is not exhaustive. My personal preference is quantum bit, or dimension marker, or qdp – quantum data point. The term ‘+1 point’ is nice coz it reminds us of the underlying proposition of teh theory.

So… here goes a little.

A point in our space needs at least 4 singularities. Each singularity is a point of existence in a single dimension, so to have a point in OUR space time there need to be AT LEAST 4 singularities intersecting (or whatever term – co-existing at that point, but in different dimensions). y=+1, x=+1, z=+1, t=+1

As this is an unashamedly arbitrary model it’ll take 4 as a decent limit, so no 11-dimensional craziness just yet.

So… we have our spacetime position, made of four +1 data points. Or 4 singularities. So far it’s only a point in empty space, so we’ll add a quantum bit to symbolise an energy level. Now there are 5 singularites, and (taking full advantage of the aforementioned arbitrariness) we’ll load each dimension point with an energy level, so there’s a +1 energy in each of the 3 space dimensions (not the time dimension yet). So 4 singularities marking the existence of our point in each of those dimensions. Then another 3 singularities, marking an increased energy level in each dimension of space. Total now is 7 singularities. According to teh theory, this is about the value of a quantum packet of energy at a point in spacetime.

So now we’re gonna shoot a couple of ‘em at each other. In this model, there are now two lots of 7data points trying to co-exist. How would they organise efficiently? 14 singularities might resolve into 3 spacetime points, one occupied by a quantum of energy (3 points, each a +1 for energy at a point in a single dimension).

The point (lol) being that they organise, they behave, they make patterns like straight numbers.

So… what happens if those energy markers don’t occupy the same point in different dimensions, but different points in the same dimension? We said we’ve got three spacetime points, three empty spaces – so if in each of those spaces we now add another +1marker for dimension x. So now there are 2 markers at a point in the same dimension – I’m a call this energy. But only marked in the one dimension. Hmmm…. energy that’s only marked in certain dimensions. Is that too close to a quark?

This is because the singularities really are just points of existence in single dimensions – literally +1 markers. The more +1 markers you got, the more complex the patterns it is possible to ‘describe’ as it were. But all the patterns, the ways those +1 points can organise themselves is found in number theory, information theory.Straight, pure, unadulterated math.

….

So single points of existence in a dimension can add up, exactly like numbers, to the real existence of fundamental matter.

And if the universe is and all matter in it is composed fundamentally from singularities, from +1 points of existence… then the puzzle of matter/antimatter asymmetry is less of a puzzle. What I mean is (veering towards the hazy again…) that if the fundamental truth of the universe is that it exists, that the universe=+1 … and everything within the universe is made up of bits-of-universe … then the various bits-of-universe have to add up to a positive integer – the +1 universe. If the universe added upto zero… we’d not be here to see it eh?

lolz ;D

I’m about to sit my last ever batch of secondary school exams (A2 modules), so it’s past paper season and a rant is called for.

In fact, I’m generally happy with the exams that we’re sitting. The Maths syllabus and exams are interesting and cover extremely useful and interesting topics, particularly differential equations and a massive amount of Newtonian mechanics, with some quasi-Lagrangian stuff thrown in at M4; my only major qualms are that the course is weak on linear algebra (a personal interest) and contains nothing on vector calculus, an enormous topic which would have been enormously useful for getting a handle on understanding the extra-curricular physics theory and fluid dynamics we were shown in lessons (rather than just commenting on the shapes of the symbols). Most importantly the exams do the subject justice; for the further maths modules, it is necessary to be proficient at the subject to do well, which, from my experience so far, for UK exams based on the national curriculum, is almost unique. And of course there’s always STEP which I fail at due to lack of ability rather than lack of exam technique which suggests it’s a good exam.

physics theory and computing are similar; the exams are mathematical, quantitative and logical in nature, requiring few wordy answers, of which almost all are worth few marks and have entirely reasonable mark schemes. Though CAPS has been giving us questions from past A level and Oxbridge physics theory papers throughout the year, and not only are the questions from those demanding – both mathematically and conceptually – but they are also genuinely interesting and by doing them, candidates develop a deep understanding of aspects of some of the topics involved; the rainbow made beautiful in the style of Lilley’s ‘Discovering Relativity for Yourself’ – through working out the answers to a series of exquisitely well-thought-out questions. The current physics theory exams are almost entirely uninteresting slogs in comparison, though still good.

And now we come to chemistry, and the body of my rant. Perhaps I’m simply biased because I’m not a good chemist in the first place (or at least I’m even worse at chemistry than I am at all my other subjects). Or maybe I just want to blame the fact that I scored a low B on both chemistry mocks on something (which is by today’s standards terrible; according to CAPS last time a C was a perfectly respectable grade owing to the difficulty of the exams). Either way, I maintain that it isn’t entirely my fault that my marks are atrocious (though I concede that it is to a large extent).

It’s an old and possibly overused complaint that mark schemes / exams are badly written, and is consequently often taken lightly. Unfortunately I really do think think it’s gotten to such a stage that the Monster Raving Loony Party’s idea about education wouldn’t be that much worse than how it is currently: “It is proposed that, before the beginning of exams, the exam board will select a certain obscure phrase which will be kept secret. If any pupil inadvertently writes this phrase in any exam, he/she will automatically receive straight A* grades, and a free teddy.”

I’ll cite what I think are some of the worst examples of chemistry exam madness:
1. The mark scheme insisted that one E0 value was ‘more positive than’ another, but specifically rejected ‘greater than’.
2. To obtain the mark for one question, it was necessary to specify movement of *electron* lone pairs, not just lone pairs. Though personally I’ve never heard of lone pairs of anything other than electrons in any context.
3. The ‘Quality of Written Communication’ (QWC) mark is normally awarded for writing ‘two complete sentences’. But if you write a single long complicated sentence containing many subclauses with impeccable grammar that conveys meaning effectively and efficiently, you wouldn’t get that mark. Also, why on earth is grammar being tested in a chemistry exam? And more importantly, why does the government (or whoever it is whose fault this is) deem it necessary to test the ability of 18 year olds to construct cogent sentences!? (I admit my proficiency at written and spoken English is evidently imperfect but even the stuff I write makes sense. Doesn’t it? DOESN’T IT?)
4. Displayed formulae. Nobody uses them. Ever. Everything is skeletal. Also, the OH group is a single atom and should always be depicted as one…
5. Questions like “Discuss isomerism in complex ions” for 12 marks. They invariably have a really tight accompanying mark scheme with exactly 12 scoring points. One could conceivably (and entirely legitimately given the vagueness of the question) write an engaging paper on group theory or electronic orbitals in response and only receive the single QWC mark…

Allow me at this stage to cite Bill Watterson.

This image was taken from a fantastic blog post which more or less summarises why I love Calvin & Hobbes. Anyways, suffice it say Calvin’s words, “You’ve taught me nothing except how to cynically manipulate the system”, form an accurate representation of the national curriculum: learn answers to questions, rather than be educated.

But maybe all this is good preparation for the real world after all. Today I sat the ‘Life in the UK test’, one of the critical stages on the way to becoming a British citizen (apparently wearing tweed, drinking G&T and occasional Scottish dancing isn’t enough; trust me, I asked), for which I had to study (read: flick through Schott’s half an hour before leaving). And it can mostly be frankly and truthfully summarised as b/s: memorising dates (e.g. the precise year women were first allowed to divorce their husbands [1857 or something]), statistics and numbers (some of which as obscure and inconsequential as the percentage of Christians in the UK who are Roman Catholic [10%], some of which are required to be known to an unreasonable degree of accuracy such as the percentage of the UK’s population that is Muslim to 2sf [2.7% as of a few years ago, probably now different], and some of which don’t even make sense such as the coastline of Britain [infinite by my {and Mandelbrot's} reckoning but that wasn't an option]), and mundane facts (e.g. that 1941 was the only year the UK didn’t have a census). They might as well have asked ‘who put Gordon with the bigoted woman?’ [definitely Sue]. There was also what might be described as ‘jack all’ about geography, particularly mountains and weather, information which I personally consider much more central to Britain than the ethnicity of the bus drivers employed in the 1950′s [West Indies and Carribbean] (or even important things like the number of seats in the Commons).

So it seems that even after the horrors of OCR (“Recognising Achievement”) are over, life continues to be dominated by ‘cynically manipulating the system’; learning useless facts or effecting pointless tasks to satisfy some criterion for something really important. I guess that’s just what life is about and I’ll have to learn to live with it, willingly or not; if you can’t fight it, join it. Sucks to be human…

Anyways, rant over, and it’ll probably be the last before the end of June when my exams end…

Credit: gosai.com

We’ve reached a very exciting point in science where talk of parallel universes is taken seriously. That’s right. The sideways reality of Lost may actually exist! Sounds crazy, right? Mind blowing, yes. But, crazy? No. I mean, it isn’t Scientology, right? Yet, when I talk about the concept of parallel universes beyond the fiction realm, family and friends look at me as though I believe little aliens live in my blood stream. (Actually, I’m a hypochondriac. This could be possible…) Why is this? There is so much going on in the world of physics theory that points to the existence of other universes. So, why am I crazy? Isn’t anyone keeping up with the world of science? I’ve read the research! I’ve written about it for a news website! So, why do I get those disbelieving looks? Then it hit me, while I was having a conversation with my doubting uncle. The concept of parallel universes is so mind blowing to us. It would be like trying to explain TVs to cavemen. They are as normal to us as the air we breath, but the boxes that show moving images and sound would appear as magic to any caveman.

In the case of parallel universes, one really would need to read about the evidence. After all, TV is very real.

The concept of parallel universes excites me to no end. The scientific, ethical and even religious issues and possibilities are countless. My intent here is to bring some non-fiction to parallel universes. So, I will be writing about the various evidence for their existence.

Let’s start with Dark Flow.

Dark Flow

The Coma Galaxy Cluster, which appears to participate in the mysterious motion known as dark flow. Credit: National Geographic Photograph courtesy Misti Mountain Observatory

According to evidence 1^st collected two years ago, unknown structures may be outside of our universe, pulling at us like giant cosmic magnets. Everything in our universe is moving at more than 2 million miles per hour towards this matter that is laying on the outskirts of creation. This movement is called Dark Flow.

The Great Surprise

In 2008, scientists set out to study the motion of galaxy clusters, but instead discovered something very unexpected.

They used data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave mechanics Anisotropy Probe, which measures the properties of the cosmic microwave mechanics radiation. This is radiation that was released 380,000 years after the Big Bang. The radiation, to this day, permeates the universe and acts as a constant backdrop for motion. When a cluster moves, either faster or slower than the radiation, the background heats up in that particular spot, as National Geographic put it, due to “electron-scattering friction between the cluster’s hot gas and particles in the background radiation” reveling information about the speed of the clusters.

Well, when scientists studied 700 galaxy clusters, “We found a great surprise,” said study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, to National Geographic. All of the clusters were moving in one direction at the same speed.

How to Imagine Dark Flow

Kashlinksy tried to simplify this concept to National Geographic. He said to picture oneself floating in the middle of a vast ocean. When you look into the distance all around you, the ocean is going to appear the same, which is how astronomers look at the universe. It appears the same in all directions.

“But then you discover a faint but coherent flow in your ocean,” Kashlinsky told National Geographic. “You would deduce that the entire cosmos is not exactly like what you can see within your own horizon.”

There has to be some unseen structure, like a ravine, that is pulling at the water. Kashlinsky speculates that, in terms of the universe, “this motion is caused by structures well beyond the current cosmological horizon, which is more than 14 billion light-years away.”

All current models cannot properly explain Dark flow. The motion does not have to do with the ever expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding and moving at the same time. So, the theory as it stands has everything to do with gravity. The belief is that our universe is caught up in the gravity of the extra-universal matter, which must be massive to capture our entire universe like this.

Scientists aren’t sure what the structures exactly are, or where they came from, but believe they may have gotten to where they’re at because of the Big Bang. When the Big Bang happened, the rapid inflation of the universe could have occurred so fast that matter may have been pushed outside of our universe. It could be that very matter that is tugging at us.

The notion that there’s structures outside of our universe would prove that our universe isn’t all that exists. It shows that we may be part of a multiverse.

Two Years Later and Dark Flow Still Strong

So, does dark flow indeed verify that our universe isn’t the only one out there? After all, there has been doubts.

“It’s suggestive that something’s going on, but what exactly is going on? It basically tells us to investigate,” Astrophysicist Hume Feldman of the University of Kansas told National Geographic in 2008.

“Until these results are reanalyzed by another group, I have strong doubts about the validity of the conclusions of this paper,” David Spergel, an astrophysicist at Princeton University, wrote to National Geographic.

Even Kashlinksy agreed that there’s many unanswered questions. The structures themselves are a big mystery, and, as he had told National Geographic, “They could be anything. As bizarre as you could imagine—some warped space-time. Or maybe something dull.”

Well, two years after the initial findings, and double the galaxy clusters studied, dark flow appears to be very real.

“…we clearly see the flow, we clearly see it pointing in the same direction,” Kashlinksy said this year to National Geographic. “It looks like a very coherent flow.”

They looked at 1,400 galaxy clusters this time, and saw dark flow still in action. It even extends deeper into the universe than they had originally thought. Dark flow goes out to at least 2.5 billion light-years from Earth, and Kashlinksy believes that this motion can be found across the entire universe, which is about 47 billion light years. This would indeed show that matter outside of our universe is responsible for the flow.

I’m not saying to start using DC comic books as scientific textbooks. That would be crazy. But, the evidence is there.

The multiverse may exist.

Photographer: djcodrin

So it seems we’ve figured it out. All of it. The Theologians can pull their dog collars off and Philosophers can shave their beards and get real jobs.

We haven’t sussed out bumble-bees, hiccups, or homing pigeons yet, but that whole universe thing? That’s been sorted. A memo has been circulated and everything.

It was dark matter, you see.

All this time we’ve been debating the how and what and the when – when the answer was right under our noses. Of course it’s understandable we missed it. It’s invisible. And intangible. To actually find it would be to prove that what you found wasn’t even it. But it definitely exists. It has to. The remainder in the Big Bang long division.

I’m not a physicist, or indeed weighing in with a religious counter-argument. It just seems to me the whole thing has lost its way.

Let’s retrace our steps…

Two physicists, Hank and Bob, working in a room. They have coffee and a white board.

Bob: Infinitely big, and infinitely fast. It must have been to create an infinite universe.

While they pause to work the numbers, let us consider some early questions. When and where and how did this happen? An explosion needs stuff to be there to blow up…so what was it? If it created time how could it happen outside of time? If it didn’t create time, how long had time been going on before it happened?

We re-join Bob and Hank. Tired, white board covered in writing.

Hank: Sounds good to me.

And that’s how it all started…

Now…If the universe is infinite, how can it be expanding? When exactly will the universe be infinity-plus-one big? Is it simply that when we say “infinite” we just mean very, very big? And what, exactly, is it expanding into? Think on, we’ll get back to Hank and Bob now. Several weeks later.

Hank: Bad news Bob, recent findings suggest the uniform nature of the energy in the universe means that something as chaotic as an explosion couldn’t have shaped it.

They high five.

Author’s note: It seems to me that a massive explosion in a vacuum (or whatever it was that existed before anything existed) would create a perfectly uniform outcome. But that’s just my lay opinion. Feel free to ignore/counter-argue/lambaste.

But the numbers make sense again, and that is very important. Phew.

Except…

Everything in the universe orbits something else. The Moon orbits us, we orbit the Sun, the Sun orbits the centre of the Milky Way. (We’re not sure what the Milky Way orbits…but its probably very big. And almost certainly not invisible. Probably.)

If the Big Bang numbers are right, then gravity is too weak to make orbit possible. At the speed the stars are moving they should break the gravitational pull of their respective galaxies and hurtle off into space inconveniencing passers by. But they don’t.

Let’s return to our physicists:

We find Hank and Bob still in their study. A little tired, a little twitchy. Covered in stubble.

Hank: Now… is there anyway we could apply this to hiccups and bumble-bees?

This is where we came in.

AP

If I take the last 5000 years of human history in consideration, I come to the conclusion that technology is very important to our advancement, but that communication is even more important. Communication is the fuel that not only spreads existing technology, but also spreads the inner world in any individual.

The world in me, or the perception I have of the outside world, can be radically different from someone that lives right next to me and lives in the same culture and in the same economical status. And if we have no means to express ourselves, or if we can’t get ourselves understood, then we are as isolated as in a deserted island.

An isolated system always withers and dies at some point, and that is one of the reasons why the Internet got so spread out in the last decades. People need to communicate and that communication is a basic imperative of our existence, even in an environment with a lot of information noise (as is the Internet).

What I don’t understand is why sometimes we can’t find someone to hear us who is physically next to us. Because communication is much more purer and transmits much more information when its personal, when there is a body and a eye contact. Communication through the Internet always gets a filter from the part of the receiver, you could also say that the Internet is a more pure communication environment (especially when it is just written), because you don’t get the body presence. So which is it? Which is purer?