The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson
Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).
Mysteries of Modern Physics
Modern physics has several conundrums that need resolution for physics to be coherent. Most of these conundrums are of a small scale, but a few of these conundrums are large and strike at the heart of physics. The following are, in my opinion, the large-scale conundrums that need resolution, and such resolution will significantly impact modern physics and our understanding of the workings of the Universe.
Table of Contents- The Mutual Exclusiveness of Quantum Entanglement and Special Relativity
- The Irreconcilableness of Quantum Mechanics to General Relativity
- The Unsettlement of the Expansion of the Universe
- The Nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter
- What is the Physical Nature of the Arrow of Time
The Mutual Exclusiveness of Quantum Entanglement and Special Relativity
Quantum Entanglement is the phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles is generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical and quantum physics: entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics not present in classical mechanics. This Quantum Entanglement is only one example of the many perplexities of Quantum Mechanics, as I have examined in my article on The Strangeness of Atomic Physics.
In physics, The Special Theory of Relativity, or Special Relativity for short, is a scientific theory of the relationship between space and time. In Albert Einstein's original treatment, the theory is based on two postulates:
- The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration).
- The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or observer.
One of the consequences of Special Relativity is that whenever we observe something, we are observing it as it was in the past, with the time in the past determined by the distance, i.e., if something is 1,000 light years away from us, we are seeing it as it was 1,000 years ago. It will take another 1,000 years for us to see it as it is today. This, along with the other consequences of Special Relativity, as I have explained in my article "What's So Special about Special Relativity", puts a limit on the minimum time (the speed of light) of an exchange of information between two entities. For information exchange to occur between the two entities, it would be double the time based on the distance between the two entities, assuming that the distance between the two entities does not change (and in an expanding Universe and the independent motions of an entity the distance is always changing).
As a result of Quantum Entanglement, when these entangled particles separate, anything that changes the property of one particle is instantly changed in the properties of the entangled particles, no matter how far apart the particles are from each other. This would be a violation of Special Relativity, as information exchange would only occur after the changed particle communicates this change at the speed of light, which takes time based on the distance between each particle.
Yet, in over 100 years of experimentation on Special Relativity, this theory has proven to be correct, and recent experiments have proven that Quantum Entanglement is also correct. As these two theories are mutually exclusive, the question is how can we have a Universe where these two proven mutually exclusive theories coexist?
The Irreconcilableness of Quantum Mechanics to General Relativity
Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.  It is the foundation of all quantum physics, including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science. The Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is a model in particle physics in which, at high energies, the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model comprising the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces are merged into a single force. Although this unified force has not been directly observed, many GUT models theorize its existence. If the unification of these three interactions is possible, it raises the possibility that there was a grand unification epoch in the very early universe in which these three fundamental interactions were not yet distinct.
General relativity, also known as the general theory of relativity and Einstein's theory of gravity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and is the current description of gravitation in modern physics, as I have examined in my article The Universality of Gravity. General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time or four-dimensional spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of second-order partial differential equations.
Yet, the Grand Unified Theory does not account for Gravity, and a theory that combines GUT with Gravity is needed to fully understand the workings of the Universe. Much thought and effort have been expended to try to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity without much success. Without such a unified theory, we cannot fully understand the workings of the Universe.
The Unsettlement of the Expansion of the Universe
The Universe is known to be expanding, and this expansion has been measured at a different rate based on two different measurements; The Cepheid Variable Stars Distance Scale and The Cosmic Microwave Background rippling pattern model.
The Cepheid Variable Stars Distance Scale is an important cosmic benchmark for scaling galactic and extragalactic distances. A strong direct relationship exists between a Cepheid variable's luminosity and its pulsation period. Cepheid variables have played a critical role in our understanding of the expansion of the universe. These stars, which are relatively common, vary in brightness over periods of days or weeks. In 1908 Henrietta Leavitt discovered there was a relationship between the brightness of a Cepheid variable star and the time it took to go through a full cycle of change in its luminosity.
As a result, by measuring the period of a Cepheid variable, it became possible to calculate its true brightness. Then, by comparing this to its apparent brightness, astronomers could calculate the distance of the star, and the galaxy in which it is found. Hubble used this understanding in his work to calibrate cosmological distances, and Cepheids today continue to provide key calibration for astronomical distances for the local method for calculating the Hubble constant.
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB, CMBR) is microwave radiation that fills all space. It is a remnant of the Big Bang creation of the Universe that provides an important source of data on the primordial universe. With a standard optical telescope, the background space between stars and galaxies is almost completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope detects a faint background glow that is almost uniform and is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other objects. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum.
The other method for establishing the Hubble constant has involved astronomers looking at the rippling pattern of light in the Cosmic Microwave Background, which formed just after the big bang birth of the cosmos 13.8 billion years ago. This background has been surveyed with increasing precision by US and European satellites most recently by the European Space Agency's Planck observatory, and these observations have allowed scientists to build a model that takes account of dark energy and dark matter and that shows how the early universe's growth would probably have produced an expansion that astronomers can measure today.
Both methods are utilized to ascertain the Hubble Constant, which determines the expansion rate and the size of the Universe. However, these two methods to determine the Hubble constant disagree with each other, and this disagreement cannot be rectified. The Guardian article, "The Hubble constant: a mystery that keeps getting bigger", provides a fuller and more understandable explanation of these two methods and their discrepancies.
As a result of this discrepancy, astronomers have reached a fundamental impasse in their understanding of the universe, as each method has provided a different expansion rate, and they cannot agree on how fast the Universe is expanding, which also determines the size of our universe. And unless a reasonable explanation can be found for their differing estimates, they may be forced to completely rethink their ideas about time and space. Many astronomers believe that only new physics can now account for this cosmic conundrum they have uncovered.
The Nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter
Dark Energy and Dark Matter account for about 96% of the composition of the Universe (74% Dark Energy and 22% Dark Matter). Yet, we have little understanding of the physical nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. In my article, "What is Reality?", I devote two sections to the questions of Dark Energy and Dark Matter that examine why we know of the existence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
Modern Quantum Theory has no explanation as to what Dark Energy and Dark Matter may be, and, therefore, the existence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter calls into question the completeness of Quantum Theory. Astrophysicists cannot directly detect Dark Energy and Dark Matter but only infer their existence from their measured impacts on the workings of the Universe. Astrophysics and Quantum Physics are in a quandary, as Quantum Physics needs a measurement of the physical properties of each to formulate an explanation of the physical nature of each, while Astrophysics need an explanation of each to measure the properties of Dark Energy and Dark Matter (i.e., which comes first, the chicken or the egg?).
Astrophysics and Quantum Physics have no answers as to the physical nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter; we only know that they are real and affect the workings of the Universe. Their effect is huge, as they determine the gravitational interactions of celestial bodies and the rate of expansion of the Universe. Consequently, when scientists determine the physical nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, it will impact both Astrophysics and Quantum Physics.
What is the Physical Nature of the Arrow of Time
The arrow of time also called time's arrow, is the concept positing the "one-way direction" or "asymmetry " of time. It was developed in 1927 by the British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington, and it is an unsolved general physics question. This direction, according to Eddington, could be determined by studying the organization of atoms, molecules, and bodies and might be drawn upon a four-dimensional relativistic map of the world.
Physical processes at the microscopic level are believed to be either entirely or mostly time-symmetric: i.e., if the direction of time were to reverse, the theoretical statements that describe them would remain true. Yet at the macroscopic level, it often appears that this is not the case: there is an obvious direction (or flow) of time (i.e., from the past to the present and onto the future).
In my article, The Arrow of Time, I point out that our current scientific understanding of the arrow of time is woefully inadequate and often contradictory. Scientists who are interested in this question are often warned by their colleagues that they are entering a rabbit hole from which they may not escape. Indeed, the few scientists that have studied the Arrow of Time have not made any significant progress, and their scientific careers have suffered as a result.
The solution to the arrow of time enigma will have consequences for all of physics. Many scientific hypotheses will have to be discarded or significantly modified to account for the true nature of time. Many of the time paradoxes will be resolved or determined to be not possible and thus can be safely ignored by science (it would also make science fiction stories about time travel irrelevant). Therefore, more scientific investigations of the nature of time are imperative to our understanding of the workings of the Universe.
* * * * *
Modern science has walked hand-in-hand with the progress of humankind, and it has often led in this progression of humankind. Advances in modern science have advanced all other endeavors of human progress, from political science, social science, medicine, psychology and psychiatry, economics, technology, and the arts, to religion, morality, and ethics, and to other arenas of human progress. I expect the answers to the Mysteries of Modern Physics will also contribute to the advancement of humankind.
Science does not have all the answers to the workings of the Universe, but it is the best means to obtain the answers of the workings of the Universe, as I have examined in my article "On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry". Science must continue to probe the mysteries of the Universe, and science must always question the current answers to determine the facts and truths of the Universe. To not do so is to wallow in ignorance and to stymie the progress of humankind.
Disclaimer
Please Note - many academics, scientist and engineers would critique what I have written here as not accurate nor through. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intentions to be accurate or through, as I am not qualified to give an accurate nor through description. My intention was to be understandable to a layperson so that they can grasp the concepts. Academics, scientists, and engineers entire education and training is based on accuracy and thoroughness, and as such, they strive for this accuracy and thoroughness. I believe it is essential for all laypersons to grasp the concepts of this paper, so they make more informed decisions on those areas of human endeavors that deal with this subject. As such, I did not strive for accuracy and thoroughness, only understandability.
Most academics, scientist, and engineers when speaking or writing for the general public (and many science writers as well) strive to be understandable to the general public. However, they often fall short on the understandability because of their commitment to accuracy and thoroughness, as well as some audience awareness factors. Their two biggest problems are accuracy and the audience knowledge of the topic.
Accuracy is a problem because academics, scientist, engineers and science writers are loath to be inaccurate. This is because they want the audience to obtain the correct information, and the possible negative repercussions amongst their colleagues and the scientific community at large if they are inaccurate. However, because modern science is complex this accuracy can, and often, leads to confusion amongst the audience.
The audience knowledge of the topic is important as most modern science is complex, with its own words, terminology, and basic concepts the audience is unfamiliar with, or they misinterpret. The audience becomes confused (even while smiling and lauding the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer), and the audience does not achieve understandability. Many times, the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer utilizes the scientific disciplines own words, terminology, and basic concepts without realizing the audience misinterpretations, or has no comprehension of these items.
It is for this reason that I place understandability as the highest priority in my writing, and I am willing to sacrifice accuracy and thoroughness to achieve understandability. There are many books, websites, and videos available that are more accurate and through. The subchapter on “Further Readings” also contains books on various subjects that can provide more accurate and thorough information. I leave it to the reader to decide if they want more accurate or through information and to seek out these books, websites, and videos for this information.
If you have any comments, concerns, critiques, or suggestions I can be reached at mwd@profitpages.com.
I will review reasoned and intellectual correspondence, and it is possible that I can change my mind,
or at least update the content of this article.