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 the Modern Universe
- Introduction
- The Irreconcilableness of Quantum Mechanics to General Relativity
- The Mutual Exclusiveness of Quantum Entanglement and Special Relativity
- The Problems with the Big Bang Theory
- The Nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter
- What is the Physical Nature of the Arrow of Time
- Conclusions
- Disclaimer
Introduction
Almost 120 years ago, in 1905, a Patent Clerk 2nd class from 1902–1909 at the Swiss patent office in Bern, Switzerland, the PhD Physicist Albert Einstein published a series of papers that ultimately shook the foundation of Physics so much so that Physics prior to 1905 is now known as Classical Physics, and from 1905 onwards would be known a Modern Physics. These papers proved the existence of atoms, the quantum nature of subatomic processes, and the relativity nature of the Universe (his famous papers on Brownian motion, the Photoelectric effect, and his Special Theory of Relativity and the equivalence of Mass and Energy). While it took several years for these papers to be recognized as revolutionary, they soon became the foundation of Modern Physics. In 1915, he published another paper on the curvature of spacetime (General Relativity), which, when proven in 1919, displaced Isaac Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, which had stood unchallenged for over 230 years.
Since that time, all scientific observations and experiments have shown these theories to be correct and have provided a solid foundation for the advancement of Modern Physics. However, in the last several decades, Modern Physics has several conundrums that need resolution for physics to be coherent and unified. Much of these conundrums have arisen from observations by Space Telescopes and significant technological improvements to Particle Accelerators that have occurred in the last several decades. Most of these conundrums are small-scale, but a few of them 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.
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 has 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 Mutual Exclusiveness of Quantum Entanglement and Special Relativity
Quantum Entanglement is the phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles is generated, interacts, or shares 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 large distances. 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 that is 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 other 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 Problems with the Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory of the creation and expansion of the Universe became a scientific fact with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation of the Universe. The Big Bang is a physical theory that describes how the Universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature. It was first proposed as a physical theory in 1931 by Roman Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître when he suggested, based on Einstein’s General Relativity, that the Universe emerged from a "primeval atom" and was expanding. Since that time, the primeval atom has been replaced by an eruption of a Gravitational Singularity, which is a condition in which gravity is predicted to be so intense that spacetime itself would break down catastrophically. As such, a singularity is, by definition, no longer part of regular spacetime and cannot be determined by "where" or "when".
Various cosmological models of the Big Bang explain the evolution of the observable Universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale form. These models offer a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena. Yet, there remain aspects of the observed Universe that are not yet adequately explained by the Big Bang models. These questions about the Big Bang have a direct bearing on the questions of Cosmology. Cosmology (from Ancient Greek κόσμος (cosmos) 'the universe, the world' and λογία (logia) 'study of') is a branch of physics and metaphysics dealing with the nature of the Universe, the cosmos. The following three questions about the Big Bang, when answered, will change the nature of our understanding of the Universe:
The Eruption of the Singularity and the Expansion of the Universe
The questions of what caused the eruption, what exactly happened in the first few hundred thousand years after the eruption, how the Universe expanded, and what was before the eruption are very unsettled questions about the Big Bang. The answers to these questions will dramatically reshape our understanding of the Universe and reshape Physical Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics. The question of what was before the eruption may be undeterminable, as we may never be able to observe the remnants nor create an experiment that deals with before our Universe’s space and time existed. It may even be a non sequitur, as there may have been nothing before the eruption. While there is much Scientific Speculation about what occurred before the eruption of the singularity, there is no scientific basis for whatever is being speculated. This question of before the singularity may require a non-scientific answer, as it could be a question of philosophy or theology.
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 is a type of variable star that pulsates radially, varying in both diameter and temperature. It changes in brightness, with a well-defined stable period and amplitude. The Cepheid Variable Stars Distance Scale is an important cosmic benchmark for determining galactic and extragalactic distances. A strong direct relationship exists between a Cepheid variable's luminosity and its pulsation period. 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 actual 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 and then by comparing the apparent brightness to its actual brightness, astronomers could calculate the distance of the star – and the galaxy in which it is found. The astronomer Edwin 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 in Hubble’s Laws of the Expansion of the Universe.
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB, CMBR) is microwave radiation that fills all space. It is a remnant of the creation of the Universe from the Big Bang in that it 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.
This has led to the other method for establishing the Hubble Constant, which 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. This model then produces a Hubble Constant that can be used to calculate the distance scale of the Universe.
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 in the value of the Hubble Constant, and this disagreement has not been 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 a new physics can account for this cosmic conundrum they have uncovered.
A Non-Uniform Universal Expansion
Since the time that Georges Lemaître proposed that the Universe was expanding, It was assumed that the Universe was expanding at a uniform rate throughout the Universe. Edwin Hubble’s measurements of the expansion of the Universe seem to validate this assumption, and other measurements since then have also seemed to validate this assumption.
However, recent observations of the new James Webb space telescope may have shown that this assumption may be incorrect, as the expansion of the Universe may not be the same in all directions. One of the pillars of cosmology – the study of the history and fate of the entire Universe – is that the Universe is ‘isotropic,’ meaning the same in all directions. If the expansion of the Universe is non-isotropic, then we will need a new physical cosmological model to explain how this can happen, as there is no current cosmological model that allows for a non-isotropic Universe. Such a non-isotropic model of the Universe would displace all current models of the Universe and lead to a different understanding of the functioning of our Universe.
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.
Basically, Dark Matter was inferred by measurements of the masses of galaxies and the orbital motion of bright stars in these galaxies. When astrophysics created a computer model for the rotation of a galaxy based on these measurements, they discovered that galaxies could not exist for long periods of time. This was because there was insufficient mass in a galaxy to overcome the Centrifugal force that would tear apart a galaxy. When they adjusted the computer model to add more mass to a galaxy, they discovered that galaxies had only 20% of the measurable mass needed to retain their shape. This 20% figure remained consistent for all galaxies that they measured. Thus, 80% of the mass of a galaxy was undetectable, which they named Dark Matter.
Dark Energy was inferred when cosmologists began to measure the expansion rate of the Universe based on Space Telescope measurements. Prior to these measurements, it was assumed that the expansion rate was uniform and linear. This begged the question of whether the Universe would expand forever based on the Expansion Force being greater than the attractive Gravitational Force or whether the Universe would stop expanding and collapse upon itself if the Gravitational Force was greater than the Expansion Force. There was also the slim chance that the Expansion Force and the Gravitational Force were in equilibrium, which would have resulted in the eventual static state of the Universe.
When they measured the expansion rate of the Universe, they discovered that the expansion was uniform but not linear. At the beginning of the Universe, there was a period of slowing expansion, and then about 7.5 billion years ago, the Universe began an accelerating expansion. For this to occur there must be an increasing Expansion Force energy in the Universe. They were also able to determine how much Expansion Force was needed to explain this accelerating expansion. As no such energy force had ever been detected, they named this Expansion Force Dark Energy.
Given what we now know, we can confidently say that about 74% of the Universe is composed of Dark Energy, and about 22% of the Universe is composed of Dark Matter, while only 4% of the Universe is Baryonic matter, which we can observe and measure. This means that the “Standard Model” of Quantum Physics only accounts for 4% of what the Universe is composed of.
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 as they do not know what to look for; thus, they can 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 needs an explanation of what each is to measure the properties of Dark Energy and Dark Matter (i.e., which comes first—the chicken or the egg?).
Therefore, Astrophysics and Quantum Physics have no answers 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 if they choose to pursue this interest, they are entering a rabbit hole from which they may not escape. Indeed, the few scientists who have studied the Arrow of Time have not made any significant progress, and their scientific careers have often 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 times, time paradoxes will be resolved or determined to be impossible, and thus, they can be safely ignored by science (it would also make science fiction stories about time travel irrelevant). However, more scientific investigations of the nature of time are imperative to our understanding of the functioning of the Universe.
Conclusions
Modern science has walked hand-in-hand with the progress of humankind, and it has often led to 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 arts, and 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.
For more of my observations and opinions on scientific issues and concerns, I would direct you to my web page on Science Articles.
Disclaimer
Please Note - many academics, scientists, and engineers would critique what I have written here as neither accurate nor thorough. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intention to be accurate or thorough, as I am not qualified to give an accurate or thorough description. My intention was to be understandable to a layperson so that they could grasp the concepts. Academics, scientists, and engineers’ entire education and training are 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 can 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 but compromised on these principles to help with the general public's understanding.
Most academics, scientists, 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 of understandability because of their commitment to accuracy and thoroughness, as well as some audience awareness factors. Their two biggest audience awareness factors are as follows.
Accuracy and thoroughness are a problem because academics, scientists, engineers, and science writers are loath to be inaccurate or not thorough. 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 or not thorough. However, because modern science is complex, this accuracy and thoroughness can, and often, lead to confusion amongst the audience.
The audience’s knowledge of the topic is also important, as most modern science is complex, with its own words, terminology, and basic concepts the audience may be unfamiliar with or that they misinterpret. The audience becomes confused (even while smiling and lauding the academics, scientists, engineers, or science writers), and thus the audience does not achieve understandability. Many times, academics, scientists, engineers, or science writers utilize the scientific disciplines' own words, terminology, and basic concepts without realizing the audience's unfamiliarity or misinterpretations of these words, terminology, and basic concepts or if the audience has a 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 thorough. I have compiled a short list of “Further Readings” 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 thorough 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.