Thursday, March 30, 2017

Virtual Particles

According to Quantum Mechanics, sub-atomic particles called "virtual" particles constantly pop in and out of existence in space-time everywhere.
They are not directly detectable as they appear and disappear extremely fast.
Is it possible that they always get created as pairs of particle-antiparticle?
And if so, is it possible one particle in each pair always has negative mass/energy so that when they destroy each other back,
they completely cancel out and so they do not create (gamma) photons, unlike what happens when "real" particle-antiparticle pairs destroy each other?

Friday, March 24, 2017

Dark Energy And Conservation Of Energy

If Dark Energy causing the expansion of universe
and unit volume of space-time must have a constant amount of zero point energy then how this is consistent with conservation of energy?

I read that one opinion is conservation of energy simply does not apply at cosmological scale.
(To me that seems quite unreasonable! So conservation is okay everywhere in smaller scales but somehow gets broken in bigger scales? Isn't that kind of like if you add up a really big number of zeros and you get a total different from zero?)

Another opinion seems that (if I understood correctly) gravitational energy is negative and as galaxies get farther away from each other
it gets more negative, so there is an energy loss, and that provides the energy needed for the expansion (and also photons in the universe lose energy as their wavelengths increase?).
(To me this logic seems like chicken-and-egg problem!)
(Also I would think that, compared to energy needed to create new space-time for expansion of the universe, energy coming from gravitational binding energy should be minuscule!)

My opinion is Dark Energy maybe a (very different) kind of particle that creates new space-time cells (each size of Planck length) when it decays. And if so that means total amount of Dark Energy in the universe must be higher in the past and lower in the future
(which maybe possible to prove/disprove with astronomical observations). (Isn't it also imply space-time maybe some kind of fluid/gas?)

Also if Dark Energy runs out someday, is that mean universe would end in a Big Crunch? How all space-time created previously would get destroyed back? For that to happen wouldn't Black Holes need the ability to pull back and destroy space-time?
(Isn't it also imply space-time maybe some kind of fluid/gas?)

Also if Dark Energy causing the expansion of universe why we still need inflation?
Isn't it possible Dark Energy was expanding universe since Big Bang by keep creating space-time?

How Old Is Universe Really?

Currently age of universe is calculated to be about 13.8 billion years.
But according to Relativity matter/energy bends space-time and causes time to slowdown.
And according to Big Bang Theory, as we go backwards in time and get closer and closer to the beginning of the universe,
matter/energy density of the universe increases exponentially.
That means time must slowdown exponentially also.
But it does not make any difference for the observers inside the Universe.
So 13.8 billion years is still would be correct from our point of view.
But an imaginary observer outside of the universe would measure age of the universe much higher than 13.8 billion years.

If so then can we calculate age of the universe from an outside observer point of view?
I think it should be possible to calculate it using an expansion model of the universe (to get the changes in energy density of the universe since the Big Bang) and equations of Relativity.

(Currently radius of the universe is calculated to be about 46 billion light years.
If I had to guess, maybe that means age of the universe from an outside observer point of view could be 46 billion years.)

Monday, March 20, 2017

What Is Really Conservation Of Energy?

What is the most basic law of physics?
Can we say it is conservation of energy?
Consider the main theories of physics, Quantum Mechanics (micro scale), Relativity (macro scale),
and even Newtonian Mechanics which is highly accurate for human scale (everyday world).
Even though there are known fundamental disagreements between them, aren't they all agree on conservation of energy?
Isn't that show how fundamental conservation of energy is for all physics?
Is there any experiment or observation that breaks it?
On the contrary, whenever an experiment/observation seems to break it at first, assuming it to be still correct leads to solution/progress.
For example Neutrinos were predicted to exist long before they actually detected, just because assuming conservation of energy must always hold.

There are countless highly accurate computer physics simulations today based on QM, Newtonian Mechanics, Relativity.
Aren’t all of them conserve energy?
But is there really such thing as energy in those simulations or what is really conserved is just information?

Are we saying it is theoretically impossible to make a realistic simulation of the Universe(, even if we find TOE someday)?
If we can, would not be everything in that simulation be information, including energy and its conservation?
Many physicists already think Universe could be a computer simulation.
But regardless, Universe is completely mathematical.
(Or we think some things in the Universe cannot be completely described by math?)
Isn’t everything in math just information?
Isn’t that clearly says conservation of energy must be actually conservation of information?

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Is Future Predictable?

At micro scale Quantum Mechanics says future is unpredictable
and at macro scale Relativity says future is predictable!
It seems almost all physicists think future is unpredictable based on QM.
But we must keep in mind Relativity is also extensively verified with countless experiments and observations, just like QM.
How both QM and Relativity can be true, if they say opposite of each other?
We must realize that scales where QM and Relativity reign supreme are different!
(And at Human scale (Newtonian Mechanics) both of them have influences.)

(2D) FHP Lattice Gas Cellular Automata (CA):
At micro scale:
Particles move at random fashion (Brownian motion):
Outcome of (most?) particle collisions selected random (using a PRNG (Pseudo-Random Number Generator) algorithm (software)).
Then future is unpredictable!
At macro scale:
Fluid behavior matching Navier-Stokes equations: Newtonian Mechanics
Then future is predictable!

If a (what is called) True Random Number Generator (TRNG) (hardware) used for FHP LGCA (at micro scale)
then would we expect macro scale behavior no longer match to Navier-Stokes equations?
I think it is obvious that using PRNG or TRNG would not make any significant difference at macro scale behavior.

Then for FHP LGCA, as we look at the behaviors starting from micro scale and go towards macro scale,
at what scale future changes from unpredictable to predictable?
I think it is obvious that there is no sharp boundary between them.
And same thing happens when we increase scale from QM (micro scale) to Relativity (macro scale).

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

How To Find Theory Of Everything?

If TOE is a CA then how we can find its definition/rules?

Theoretically the problem of TOE could be expressed as:
Find any/simplest CA that can recreate Quantum Mechanics(, Newtonian Mechanics), Relativity (each in their own different (macro) scales)
as its emergent properties.
I think using our knowledge of CA and the general laws of physics (like conservation of energy etc.)
we could find some of the general properties of the target CA(s).
Then maybe we could setup a massive super computer search to find any one target CA.
The computer could create new CA candidates one by one/N by N, using random selection
and would test them as a potential solution by numerically simulating them
and checking for 2(3) different macro scale behaviors, if matching to Quantum Mechanics(, Newtonian Mechanics), Relativity.
The search maybe done faster by using any general intelligent search algorithms, like Genetic Algorithms as an example.
Also it maybe possible to train a deep learning AI network to gain expertise about CAs and use that to try to find a solution,
find candidates and/or try to develop an algorithm for faster search.

Experimentally what we could do is to build more and more powerful particle accelerators.
Because what we see already happening is, as the scale increases from size of particles to size of humans
and to size of stars, the laws of physics change slowly,
from Quantum Mechanics to Newtonian Mechanics, and from that to Relativity (Einstein Mechanics?).
So as we build more and more powerful particle accelerators,
and check the laws of Quantum Mechanics at smaller and smaller scales
then we may expect to see the rules of Quantum Mechanics followed less and less precisely,
giving us the first glimpses of the TOE CA operating at Planck Scale.
And of course we may find new surprises (gifts for physics) when keep going smaller scales.
(Should we worry about creating micro Black Holes?
I read that it is practically impossible to reach the necessary energy using any kind of accelerator.
(Could we send particle detectors to space to observe the cosmic ray behaviors for highest energies?
Could we expect to see any micro Black Holes then?)
But if we could someday then should we really try?
I think that depends on how much faith we have on Hawking Radiation. :-)
Especially if it is observed in space someday it should not be a problem.
Creating micro Black Holes could also allow us to observe and experiment with them and answer some big questions.)

If we find any CA as the solution of TOE problem then why we should accept it as the TOE?
I think first question to answer would be how unique it is as a CA.
Can it be simplified any further?
Can we create equivalent CAs from it in same level of complexity or higher?
Can we find any other solutions by keep searching?
Are there any other theories of physics that has the same powers of explanation/validity?
I think it is highly possible that the solution will be unique but only as the simplest CA (that can do it).

What we could do with it?
I think if TOE is a Planck Scale CA then it would not be useful to create perfect virtual reality (like the Matrix)
because amount of computation required to simulate any volume close to human scale, using Planck Scale cells,
would be way beyond any computer we could create.
But it should be possible to use it to answer some of the biggest questions in physics,
like what really happens in the center of a Black Hole or its event horizon,
and/or what are the true values of all constants in physics,
and/or what is the full structure, shape/geometry of the Universe,
what is the true nature of spacetime, Dark Energy/Matter, inflation,
what are the all possible forms of matter and energy,
what fully (?) happened in Big Bang,
what is the expected future of the Universe,
is it really possible to create wormholes, warp drives, teleporters, time machines, (true) artificial gravity, super energy sources.

What would be next for physics if we found TOE?
Keep creating better computer simulations for all kinds of physical systems/processes/experiments.
Try to design and simulate our own artificial Universes?
Try to answer if Multiverse really physically possible?