What is the shape of the universe?

Curvature of the universe seems flat but that just means its curvature is uniform.
Visible universe radius seems 13.7 billion years which is equivalent to 46 billion light years when expansion of the universe also considered.
All directions we look, start of the big bang (singularity?) is the border of the universe (which is a border in time).
The simplest geometry for the universe would be the surface of a sphere, but instead of 2 dimensional space curved in third space dimension, it is 3 dimensional space curved in time dimension.
(This means curvature of the universe can actually be calculated!)
Even though universe is physically similar from any point inside of it, from an observer point of view from anywhere in the universe,
it is like the observer and the point of big bang are located at the opposite poles of a sphere.
(Light rays sent in any direction would converge on the (same) big bang point at the other pole of the sphere.)
(But if so why Cosmic Microwave Background is not the same in all directions? It maybe explained by CMB origin is some time later than the big bang origin. That means CMB is like a circle around the big bang (pole) point. So light rays originated from the observer pole would hit the CMB circle at different points.
(Also density of the universe along each light ray could be different. Meaning CMB could be actually same in all directions.))
Also if the shape of the universe is really as described above,
that means size of the visible universe and size of whole universe must be actually equal!

Future of Computers

I do not know what the future of computer world actually be like but I have a bunch of ideas about what would be the best.
What should be the future of computer world?
Physically they keep getting smaller and/or more capable.
Speed and memory keep getting increased.
Graphics and networking keeps getting better.
(But Moore's Law ending?)

16, 32, 64,...-core (Network-On-A-Chip) processors?
I think number of processor cores should be increased as much as possible.
It is true that not all software could take advantage of it but there are plenty of computing tasks which are what is called embarrassingly parallel.

128-bit, 256-bit,... processors?
I think going beyond 64-bit processors would also help computers to get faster and faster.
There are always plenty of tasks a processor do which can be done faster by processing more bytes at the same time.

I think future of graphics cards should be a standard (voxel-based?) real-time (3d) ray tracing GPU.
(Just like sound cards became standard (after reaching stereo CD quality?).)

Optical processors/computers?
(Will most computers become optical someday?)

Quantum computers?
If quantum computers become common and cheap someday, can they replace all other computers?
I think they look like more fit for (hard) problem solvers than general purpose computers.
If so they may always stay separate than general purpose computers and/or they may become coprocessors in all computers.

ANN (Artificial Neural Network) coprocessors?
(Back in the 90s computers had separate math coprocessors (and/or DSP?).)
I think it is a good idea to add ANN coprocessors to computers to handle tasks which require human-like learning.
How about also adding Genetic Algorithm and/or Simulated Annealing coprocessors? (A quantum coprocessors could do both?)

How about creating standard RISC instruction sets for 8/16/32/64...-bit processors and be done with it?

What is the ultimate CISC processor? picoJava?
picoJava-like special processor design for each common programming language?
(FPGA coprocessor that can switch to any (high-level) language anytime?)

What should be the future of programming languages?
I think expressiveness is the most important characteristic of a programming language.
(I had read implementing the same algorithm in Python requires typing about 1/6 of number of characters compared to C++/Java.)
I think the most advanced programming language is the one that is closest to pseudocode.

Can AI replace programmers?
I think not. But I think AI can help a lot to programmers someday.
Imagine a programmer writes pseudocode and AI tries to convert it to a software in any target programming language.
Imagine AI analyses pseudocode and asks programmer to clarify anything that looks unclear.
Imagine AI and programmer working together to debug software.

Is mathematics invention or discovery?

I think although natural numbers and few basic kinds of geometry, basic polynomials could be seen as inventions, on the other hand, real/complex/quaternion/octonion/sedenion numbers, decimal/hexadecimal/binary/octal number systems,
infinite family of arithmetic operations (addition, multiplication, power, tetration, ... and their inverses), fractal geometry, prime numbers etc all look like discoveries.
I think evidence for discovery is much more than evidence for invention but ultimately it maybe impossible to prove either side of the argument.
I think math is discovery and so math has its own existence but it is truly an abstract existence.
If math is an abstract existence then could any mathematical objects come into real existence by itself?
I think not.

Is mathematics infinite (when trivially infinite stuff taken out)?
For example it is trivial that each type of polynomial has infinite degrees (and dimensions (number of unknowns)) but is the total number of non-trivially different kinds of polynomials infinite?
What if we assume all kinds of possible polynomials as just one part of math?
Are the total number of such parts of math infinite?

Is Physics infinite?
In other words, how many non-trivially different universes mathematically possible that could support life/(human-like) intelligence?
I think it is obvious that if we change number of dimensions of the universe and found that universe could support life/intelligence
that universe must be counted as a non-trivially different universe
but what if we change one of basic constants of physics just a tiny bit, should we count that as a non-trivially different universe also? If not, then how much difference (as a percentage maybe)
for which basic constant of physics should be counted as a non-trivially different universe?
And all such different universes, which still following laws of physics of this universe, are the only possibilities?
What if we allow any kind of physical laws? How many non-trivially different sets of physical laws (for a universe that could support life/intelligence) possible?
(Of course, is it even theoretically/practically possible to mathematically determine if a given set of physical laws for a universe could support life/intelligence (when using computer simulations for experimentation included)?
How we could test if any given universe (set of physical laws) could support life and/or intelligence?
There is a an idea in computer science for testing equivalency.
For example it is known that all kinds of (completely different looking) NP-complete problems are actually equivalent because it is known how each one can be converted to one of the others.
Also it is known all kinds of theoretical computers are equivalent because all can be converted to a (Universal) Turing Machine.
Can we use the same idea for testing if any given universe is equivalent to our universe?
And if a universe is equivalent to ours, would not it mean that universe could also support life and intelligence?
Also there maybe other ways to test a universe for equivalency:
If we had a computer simulation of a (simplest) kind of life (living cells) then we could try to convert that simulation to use the physical laws of any given universe.
If we had a computer simulation of a (human-like) AI then we could try to convert that simulation to use the physical laws of any given universe, also.
And if we find that each simulation still works, would not it mean that universe could also support life and intelligence?
Also if what we trying to convert are computer simulations, what if we just design a (physical) computer in each universe we want to test? Wouldn't that be enough?)

Is computer science infinite?
(How many real/theoretical non-trivially different computer designs (hardware/software) possible?
Are all have equal power/ability (which is universal calculation)?)

Is chemistry infinite? (How many non-trivially different elements/molecules/chemical reactions possible?)

Is biology infinite? (How many non-trivially different species possible?)

I think, in a similar way, we could ask if any given science is infinite or not.
If any given science is infinite, is that mean humanity can never understand it as a whole?

WHAT IS ARROW OF TIME?

I had read that laws of physics are symmetric in time.
If so then why we always see time moves forward?
I have the impression that most physicists think arrow of time must be caused by entropy.
Because it seems generally entropy is always increasing in the universe.
I know that entropy is a measure of disorder and it seems increasing the temperature of any gas/liquid/solid increases its entropy.
If so can we say increasing temperature of anything must be slowing down time for that thing?
(Can we try to measure slowing of time by keep heating a transparent gas and keep measuring speed of light when light passing in that gas?
Or are there other kinds of systems we can use as clock when getting heated up?)
My guess is answer is no that time would not slow down with increasing temperature.

Could there be another explanation for arrow of time?
If we are moving forward in time what keeps us from moving backward in time?
Is it Grandfather Paradox (which must apply to anything traveling backwards in time)?
Or is it what is called causality (cause and effect)?
(I think Grandfather Paradox is just another description of causality or more like a special case of it.)
I think causality is the real reason why we cannot move backwards in time, and causality itself is the arrow of time.
So I think if any physical system/experiment can break causality, then there will be something moving backwards in time in there.

TIME TRAVEL

Is time travel really possible?

I think science says time travel to future is possible but to past is more likely not possible.

I think traveling to past would break causality (which seems one of foundations of reality around us)
because of the Grandfather Paradox (which should be true even for subatomic particles; not just humans).
I think this is also called Cosmic Censorship (preventing events out of causality from happening).
But I also had read about some quantum particle experiments which could be interpreted as future events can have an effect in the past.
I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to fully support that interpretation but I think it is possible.
I had also read that anti-particles could be interpreted as particles moving backwards in time.
I have the same thought on that interpretation also.

We could also consider what would happen if we traveled to the past anyway.
I think first of all we could be creating a Butterfly Effect on the weather which would change all future weather of our world, over time.
Think about how many wars in history won by weaker side because of the bad weather.
(I had read Mongols who conquered China tried twice to conquer Japan but failed because of the bad weather (a typhoon?).
Napoleon failed at conquering Russia because of the bad winter?)
Also think about how different weather would change history of traffic accidents and/or crimes, even daily routine of countless people.
I had read a counter argument against Butterfly Effect which was saying most (small scale) atmospheric disturbances actually would get dumped down.
If true then what scale disturbances do not cause Butterfly Effect must be determined, to know how we could preserve to future history, if we traveled to past.

Also I think there maybe psychological and/or sociological counterparts to Butterfly Effect (on weather).
Can we see daily thought history of each person like a dynamical system similar to an atmospherical system?
If we change daily thought history of a person in the past, would that can change whole future daily thought histories of that person?
If so, can that change propagate to other people and eventually to all humans of the future?
How about creating sociological disturbances like starting a new fashion, new words/expressions of language?
How about creating scientific and/or technological disturbances like bringing advanced knowledge/tech from the future?
I think Butterfly Effect is much more general than most people would estimate.
Which means traveling to the past would be very risky if we want to preserve our own history.

Time travel to the future on the other hand seems okay for causality.
Relativity says if a spaceship can approach speed of light then time would slowdown for the ship and anyone inside of it.
That means anybody inside of the ship would age slower.
But I think by far the most practical way to travel to future would be suspended animation.
When all biological processes inside an organism slowdown that organism would age slower naturally.
It seems there are many organisms on earth already can do it.

I think it is also interesting that there are even religious stories about time travel to the future.
One of them is "Seven Sleepers" in Christianity and Islam.
Another is the story of a prophet(?) in Judaism/Islam(/Christianity?) who "slept" for decades and came back to his town/city.

A COMPARISON OF UNIVERSE IDEAS

IMHO:
Science says there is this universe but maybe there are others.
Judaism and Christianity say there is this universe we live and there is another where there is God, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Demons.
I think they also imply the other universe is on top of this one.
Islam says there are seven universes, starting with this one and ending with which there is God, Heaven, Hell, Angels.
I think it also implies this universe is bottom and the second one is on top of this one and so on.
I think for all three religions it either could be spherical/cubic (?) universes on top of each other or it could be spherical/cubic (?) concentric universes one inside another.
I think all three religions also say there are doors (gateways) between each universe guarded by angels.
I think Judaism and Christianity say God created everything and now watches from Heaven.
I think Islam says God both watching from Heaven but also God is nowhere.
Islam says space and time are creations of God just like everything else and God does not need them to exist.
Christianity says God created man in his own image.
Islam says God does not look like any of God's creations and moreover God does not have any shape or size and does not have any gender.
Islam says God actually makes everything happen (down to the smallest scale).
Islam says if God stopped (even for an instant), everything in existence would disappear to nothing (in an instant).
(Which is I think kind of a similar description to a computer simulation.
I had also read some muslims believed/believing, everything in existence is like dream (imagination?) of God.)

ON THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

IMHO:

I think I read enough about theory of evolution so far to understand its basic ideas at least.
It says new species evolve from their common ancestor over time through random mutations and natural selection by their environment conditions as they live.
The ones which show more success against environmental conditions get more chance to pass on their genes to future generations.
(I had also read a translation of the book The Selfish Gene.
I think the basic idea was the genes in each living creature doing everything they can to pass on to the next generation.
It seemed to be implying the genes are so smart which did not make sense to me. I did not do further research on it.)

It seems all living creatures in nature want to live as much as possible as long as conditions do not get too bad, at least.
Even single celled organisms seem trying to run away from dangerous adversaries or even trying to fight back if they have to.
I am guessing some of them would even work together to attack or defend if we consider what happens when an animal get sick for example.
How can they do these seemingly complex behaviors without any kind of brain?

But if we supposed to take theory of evolution as a scientific fact/law,
should not we ask if it is proven scientifically or not?
What is the proof for theory of evolution I do not know.
I did not actually try to find out so far either really.
I read many articles on biology over the years like on Scientific American, Popular Science, and some other popular internet science tech websites which all seem to accept evolution without questioning.
I think what is exactly considered as the proof is the fossil records, which seem to indicate as we go from oldest living organisms to newer ones they go from single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms and they go more and more complicated.
Also there are what it looks like older version never version of similar organisms in different layers of ground often in the same location.
Isn't this proof enough?
Not to me at least IMHO.
I think it could also be that God (assuming exists) chose to do it in stages.
(Or it could be an alien race?
But then we must face the question how those aliens came to life and started to evolve exactly?
Was theirs same kind of evolution as ours or not? If same then that would lead to an infinite loop of logic questions and answers.
Which is something could we accept as the answer? IMHO no.)
Maybe God wanted to it in a similar way to geoengineering a whole planet (after creating the universe in a similar step by step method).
Why not create everything all at once instantly?
Which maybe possible for God, isn't it?
If it was not possible then still God would be exist (and still would be powerful enough for us), isn't it?.
And it was possible then why not create the universe and earth all at once?
I think it is also still possible God just made a decision and chose to create the universe and earth in stages.
If so then whether that decision make sense for us (or not) maybe irrelevant from God's point of view, who knows?

Are there any other proof candidates for evolution?

I think everything else could also be explained by adaptations of organisms to their environmental conditions.
I think viable offspring rule is the main difference between each species.
Which seems to me more compatible with design idea than natural occurrence.
Imagine the hardships we run into when trying to combine computer software which we created, for example.
Both combining complex software and machines seems to be requiring a new design (to create a more complex machine).
 
I think explaining how exactly chemicals and conditions existed in early earth started life would be a good proof for evolution
(Of course any such explanation would need to be repeatable by experiment to be scientifically accepted.)
(I think a physically realistic (atomic scale) simulation would also be acceptable at least for smart people.
Besides of showing how life could started, how about making atomic scale simulations of any kind of living cells or single celled microorganisms on earth?
Of course we would expect those simulated cells to behave same way as the real ones to be sure of accuracy of the simulation.)

There was a news about creating artificial life sometime ago.
I think the procedure was replacing the whole genome of a living cell with an artificial genome.
How about a completely artificial cell that made from completely artificial parts?
Without that, would not questions could still linger around?

Another scientifically acceptable proof would be finding any kind of alien life even in microorganism level.
It looks like decades of search did not find any signs of alien life so far.
Will it ever be found? Who knows for certain really? Do we have a proof for it or just opinions?

I also think yet another definitive proof could be finding a half-human species on earth.
Something similar to Big Foot or Yeti for example, because they appear to be close to half-human creatures from supposed sightings and stories.
If evolution was true I would expect to see all kinds of half-this half-that creatures to the point of a continuum of species.
And also would expect all kinds of different individuals inside each species currently trying new abilities, limbs, organs etc.
(For example, I think there are individual genes (or groups of few) controlling how many arms, legs, how much muscle etc.)
Instead it looks like there is always a big barrier between all species preventing viable offspring.
Would not make more sense from the view point of evolution to have no barriers as much as possible?

How about more indirect proofs for evolution?
I think creating human-level AI would be an indirect proof for evolution.
Because it would prove human-like minds can be created artificially without any help from God.
Or how about humanity creating perfectly realistic virtual realities to live any way, again without any help from God?

How about proofs against evolution?
Could be that the incredible complexity and order in the universe and on earth, laws of physics, complexity of living creatures,
incredibly precise balance of everything etc counted as the proof of God?
How about all kinds fruits made by plants on earth?
Aren't they a huge energy expenditure for plants?
Aren't there much easier ways to use for those plants?
How about their highly varied complex designs?
Aren't they look like created especially for humans?

Why it is necessary to have proof anyway?
I think history of science is full of ideas which were strongly thought to be true for a long time but later turned out to be false.
I think Newton physics is a good example.
String theory could be another.
Their lesson is as long as there is no real proof for any idea/theory, it can still turn out to be wrong later.

Also I would like clarify that my goal here was to present impartial views and opinions for all sides.
Everybody is free to think whatever they want and free to believe whatever they want.
This even includes what new evidence(s) could come in the future.
People of this earth can interpret everything in different ways.
I do not think everybody would always agree on what is really a proof or evidence or a strong sign for what.
Even some people seem to clearly reject almost any kind of scientific proof or evidence.

Some Personal Thoughts Open to Criticism

(All my published ideas are just my personal thoughts always open to criticism. But I reserve the right to not to respond.)

I think all great scientific and technological accomplishments should bring awards for people who did it, even after their death.

I think all kinds of computer software are equivalent to machines, just as any kind of machine is equivalent to a machine, also.
So software patents should be treated as designs of machines.
Just as any mechanical and/or electronic (and/or biologic) machine design would need to be creative enough to be non-obvious to an expert in the field same rule also should apply for software patents.
(But living creatures must not be legally counted as biological machines ever.)

Anything published on the internet should have the rights provided by the website published.
The creator of the work should be assumed to be accepted them.
If a website changes the rights then new rules should apply only to newer publishments (not to olders; not to re-publishments).
The original owners of works should have option to make them more public, but no less public.

BIG BANG

Universe maybe started not from a singularity (of infinite density?) nor a quantum fluctuation (how it can happen where even spacetime does not exists?)
but instead started from some kind of cosmic egg that contained three different kinds of energy that do not interact (and destroy each other):
Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Normal (positive) Energy.
And Dark Energy created (and still creating) spacetime, Dark Matter created the cosmic web, Normal (positive) Energy created matter, stars, galaxies which coalesced on the cosmic web.

FREE WILL EXISTS OR NOT

Clearly concepts of free will, mind (or consciousness), human-like AI are closely related.
I think mind could be explained as mental machinery/tools selected/manipulated by free will (if exists).
But free will really exists or it is just an illusion?
I think creating human-like AI requires creating a mind and creating a mind requires creating free will.
But I don't think randomness coming from quantum mechanics and/or determinism coming from relativity can really explain free will (assuming it really exists).
I think proving free will exists maybe impossible but disproving it is definitely possible.
If we can create a human-like AI someday (that passes Turing test and all similar tests we can think of)
(whether by keep advancing today's AI systems (bottom-up approach) or analyzing a human brain and creating a computer simulation of it (top-down approach))
that would definitely disprove free will (by showing it is just an illusion).
But if that never happens and somehow becomes clear that it never will be no matter how advanced science and technology get,
I think only then we could conclude free will must really exists.
(But then it would also mean free will is created by something beyond the laws of physics of our universe.)

Logical Fallacies must be a High School class

If we look at history of humankind since the beginning, there are so many examples of bad people (like dictators and demagogues) rising to power and manipulating masses to do bad things and causing big damage by using logical fallacies.
I have no doubt it also happens a lot everyday in smaller scales like in companies, schools, hospitals, stores, even in families.
Advertising industry also makes use of logical fallacies a lot.
Sometimes they used intentionally to manipulate people and sometimes it is just because no one with a good understanding of logical fallacies is around.
I think there are many more kinds of logical fallacies than most people realize.
(Of course many are just modified versions of some basic types.)
Each type of logical fallacy is like a software bug of human mind waiting to be exploited, just like software bugs in computers are used by viruses to take control and spread.
Also I think explaining logical fallacies to adults is never an easy task.
That is why I think logical fallacies must become a separate full time high school class, at least.
Of course starting to teach them even earlier would be much better.
K-12 students should come across testing for each and every kind of logical fallacy again and again with different examples until they have a good understanding of them all.
This is something extremely important for future of humankind!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Ultimate Space Telescope

I think it is obvious that keep building bigger and bigger space telescopes one at a time for (exponentially) higher and higher costs is not ideal for long term future of astronomy.
Then what is the best solution?
I think it must be using a modular design that allows easy expansion; linearly, instead of exponentially.

Imagine a space telescope made of completely independent hexagonal prism shaped units.
Imagine each hexagonal prism unit also allows easy attachment to another copy from any of its 6 sides.
Imagine the first unit sent to space and so we already have a working telescope.
Then we send another copy and it is attached to the first one (using a drone robot?).
Then we send another copy and another and so on and our telescope keep getting bigger and bigger.
The cost would indeed increase linearly obviously.
(Actually cost of each copy should come down over time.)
Also a big advantage of such a telescope would be much easier and cheaper repairs, compared to a similar size single telescope.

But of course a group of small telescopes attached together would not automatically mean they would be equivalent to a large single telescope.
For that what is called "Aperture synthesis" can be used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_synthesis).
Or another solution could be making each unit a "Planar Fourier capture array" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planar_Fourier_capture_array).

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?

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.)

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?

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).

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?

ATHEISM VS CREATIONISM

This is what I personally see as the arguments of both sides (some maybe just my interpretations and some maybe/are my own additions
and not all atheists and creationists are assumed would agree to all the listed statements about them):

Atheism says:

There is no God because there is no scientific proof of God.
We think science can explain everything w/o any need for any God.
We don't claim we can explain everything scientifically currently but we trust only what science discovers.
Our current science is vast and it explains (almost?) everything w/o any need for any god.
Creationism says humankind started after God created Adam and Eve
but we proved humankind is created through a natural process called Evolution of Species, as well as all life on Earth.
We think there is an almost certain chance of other life in the Universe and we are currently searching for it better and better everyday.
And if there was any proof of God then we would accept existence of God (and we would also follow orders/wishes of that proven God?)
Or we think if exists God could be good or bad.
We don't want to follow orders/wishes of any proven God?
Or we would follow only if we decide (as whole humanity or individually?) God is good?
We think a world/Universe without God is better than any with God?
If God was created us (and keeping us in existence constantly or just watching us from far away?),
do we accept that God would have a right to do anything with us?
Do we accept that God could judge us and reward and/or punish us with perfect justice?
Or we don't care God does justice or injustice?
Is apparent widespread injustice in world history and today can be seen as a proof of non-existence of God?
If God existed God could have any valid excuse for disasters, diseases, parasites, wars, poverty, slavery, crime?
Or do we think justice is a meaningless human invention; but it is useful for law and order in human social life?
If justice is important, is justice is absolute or relative?
(Apparently relative in the real world because of different laws/punishments/rewards from country to country at least.
Is this reality means all laws of justice are relative and open to interpretation?
Or is it just means justice is absolute and universal but humankind is not there yet?
Or major laws are absolute and minor laws are relative?)  

Creationism says:

Search for alien life was going on for many decades and there is still no proof of any kind.
How long search for alien life could/should/must continue until an answer is found/decided?
There is no scientific proof for how life started on this planet.
There are just a bunch of unproven conjectures.
We don't think Theory of Evolution is really proven.
(One time an atheist was saying yes there is no absolute proof for evolution
but there are lots of signs pointing towards it.
(I don't know what percentage of atheists would agree to that statement)).
We think the extremely (very complex) mathematical, and clearly very precisely adjusted nature of the Universe
(like constants of physics, perfect for life properties of Sun, Earth etc.),
laws of physics, chemistry, biology (extremely complex and advanced structures and functions of living organisms
are all signs (proofs?) of existence of God.
Also we think humans are clearly very distinct from all animals (way more distinct than the difference between any other animals)
(What is that great difference? How about way more intelligence, knowledge and abilities?
Whose cities, roads, vehicles, dams, etc covering this planet?) 
Where all the energy to create the Universe in the Big Bang came from?
We don't see any really contrary proof in science about about God (as we reject the offered proof(s) for Theory of Evolution).
We believe God sent us many prophets to show a better way of life.
We think God is testing humankind for who deserves rewards in Heaven and who deserves punishments in Hell and we accept judgement of God.
If we could choose between living in a Universe with God or without God, we would choose Universe with God.
Universe with God is required for providing perfect justice to all humans and all living creatures ever lived, living, will live.
Humans can never achieve perfect justice for neither themselves nor any other living species,
no matter how technologically and ethically advanced.
Can have life any meaning w/o God?
Science says Universe and life will certainly die someday.
Are the lives and accomplishments, discoveries, inventions, artworks, faith, selfless acts of anyone in history
deserve rewards from God, more rewards than humanity did provide?
There is no absolute scientific proof of God but science is also unable to prove God cannot exists theoretically.
Then isn't it believing in God is better? What we lose/win if we believe?
If a particular religion seems wrong or inconsistent, is that mean all religions are?
How many atheists really know and understand all world religions in detail to fairly judge them as wholly/partially right or wrong?
If Theory of Evolution is right then why we don't see way more variety between individuals of a species?
(Where are humans with four arms, giants, tiny humans, humans with eye(s) in the front and back, etc?)
Why we even have distinct species?
Living very close together under similar conditions for millions of years but unable to have viable offspring?
Why we don't see half-human half ape (Big Foot?) living today?
How come some species can stay unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?
Isn't it obvious for example, fruits were created for human consumption?
Animals really need them?
Also isn't it spending so much energy to make fruits is a smart choice for plants?
Because there are also many other plant species don't produce fruits and thus save much energy.
Except for (large/many) fruits, plants seem to be using energy extremely efficiently.

UNIVERSE OUT OF NOTHING

Could Universe create itself out of nothing?

I had read that another physicist once asked Einstein that
since total negative gravitational field energy of a star is equal to total positive energy of mass of the star,
isn't that mean total energy of the star is zero?
Isn't that mean a star could come to existence out of nothing (since apparently no energy is required)?
Isn't that also imply maybe the whole Universe could come into existence out of nothing?

Quantum Mechanics already tells us that all kinds of particles, called virtual particles,
come in and out of existence everywhere in the Universe(?) all the time (due to Quantum Uncertainty).
The reason they called "virtual" particles is because they cannot be detected directly.
And the reason for that is because they stay in existence for a very short time, not nearly enough to detect them.

Now the question is why we never see stars or anything else in the Universe come in or out of existence?
What we see instead is mass and gravitational field of all stars always stay separate.
Even when a star collapsed to a Black Hole, central positive mass/energy and its negative gravitational field energy around,
never destroy each other.
And while virtual particles come in and out of existence, real particles always stay in existence,
just like stars, just like Universe itself.

Then why virtual particles must go back out of existence so fast, after they come in each time?
It must be due to their mass/energy being borrowed from the vacuum (space-time or some other Universal energy field?).
If so, isn't that imply mass/energy of real particles is not borrowed?
And isn't that also imply mass/energy of Universe is not borrowed?
If not borrowed then what that means?
Isn't it mean, there is no way for (any) Universe to create itself out of nothing and stay in existence?

Quantum VS Relativity

Currently there are two great theories of physics, quantum and relativity.
Countless experiments and observations show both to be true to extreme precision.
But both theories fundamentally at disagreement with each other.
One says space-time is flat other says it is curved.
One says time is absolute other says it is relative.
One says information must be conserved other says black holes must destroy it.
One says nothing can move faster than speed of light other says entanglement (information?) can.

But I think the biggest disagreement is nature of time, whether future can be predicted or not.
Quantum says future is indeterminate at fundamental level.
Nobody can predict the future. (Because it is not observed yet (became concrete reality).)
(But some quantum experiments imply retrocausality and particles can move backwards in time??)
Relativity says "now" is relative which means past and future always must exist simultaneously.
It implies past and future are static, already determined, we exist in a 4D block universe.
How both can be true about nature of time?
If both true then is it mean time in quantum scale is independent from time in relativity scale?
Or is it mean time in quantum scale must create time in relativity scale?
(That is quantum world always create the reality according to (static) reality in relativity (block universe)?)

Before relativity and later quantum mechanics came, Newton mechanics was verified with
countless experiments and observations to great precision also.
But ultimately it was proven wrong at fundamental level.
(Some people say it was not wrong; just needed little corrections at some extreme situations?)

Actually I like to propose all three theories of physics are equally correct!
Quantum mechanics is correct at micro scale.
Relativity is correct at macro scale.
Newton mechanics is correct at normal/human/everyday/world/average scale.

I think all these three theories are actually different emergent properties (set of rules/laws) operating at different size scales.
(So all three are mathematically/physically equally valid in their own level of reality/domain.)
If so are these three emergent properties are independent of each other?
Or higher scale realities must be created from lower scale realities?
(Cellular Automata world shows macro scale emergent properties are created by micro scale rules.)
So isn't this mean quantum world is creating everyday world and everyday world is creating relativity world?

At smallest (Planck) scale Universe maybe a Cellular Automata (CA). If so then the other three theories are its emergent properties at different macro scales. There are many well known CA that create an emergent property (world) at macro scale, like Game of Life, FHP, LBM,
The big question is whether a CA can directly create more than one emergent property at different macro scales? Or is it always one emergent property creates the next in the chain (of scales)?

Value of Science and Meaning of Proof

We live in times people question the value of science.
Is science good for us or bad for us?
Can people simply refuse to accept or refuse to apply parts of science?

If we compare the living conditions of people in the past and in the future we see that people in the future living with better conditions.
Isn't that right? If so, then progress of science is responsible for the improvement or not?
If science is responsible then practical value of science is obvious.

If we want to refuse science, is it because thinking science has no practical value?
Or are we thinking too much science is bad?
Or are we thinking some parts of science may not be correct?

Of course establishing any part of science is correct or not depends on the proof for it.
In mathematics a logically valid proof is absolute.
There is no way to argue against it (assuming a valid counter-argument).
In physics it seems there is no way for absolute proof.
There are two great theories of physics (relativity and quantum)
and there are countless experiments and observations for both showing them to be true.
But the situation looks like trying to prove Riemann Hypothesis by checking integers one by one.
One can never complete the proof that way because there are infinite cases to check.
Newton mechanics looked pretty good that way but later turned out to be ultimately wrong.
Is that mean we can disregard relativity and quantum theories?
Obviously not, unless we have a better theory to replace them.

What about proof in other branches of science?
How certain a proof in chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology?
Which proofs we can refuse or argue against in science?

What is an Emergent Property?

It seems world of physics is talking about "emergent properties" more and more.
People may ask what is an emergent property?
When any kind of system (physical/computer/game/mathematical) acts with different set of laws/rules at two different scales
then the set of laws/rules of the higher scale are emergent properties of the set of laws/rules of the lower scale.

For example think about the relationship between world of chemistry and world of quantum mechanics.
They seem to be worlds run by completely different rules.
But we know (proven?) that every rule of chemistry can be explained by quantum physics.
That means quantum mechanics creates chemistry.
That means chemistry is emergent property of quantum mechanics.

Similar situation exists between chemistry and biology.
The rules of chemistry is very different than rules of biology.
World of chemical reactions is very different than world of cells, multi-cellular organisms.
And actually when going upwards (in scale) from world of single cells, as the number of cells in an organism increases cell by cell,
each of those species are living in worlds with more and more complicated set of rules.
Each species is an independent emergent property.

Beyond biology there is human psychological world, as another level of emergent property,
beyond psychological world there is social world.
Social world has branches and levels like what happens with species in biology.
For example think of the difference between rules operating in a family, in a school, in a hospital, in a factory/company/store,
town/city/country./inter-country/planetary.

Can we agree that all these emergent properties of existence must be expressible by math?
If so can we always mathematically theoretically predict a higher level emergent property from a lower one?
Can we always predict a lower one from a higher one?

What all these complicated mathematical structure of existence mean?
We are forced to say, if God exists and created and operates all these existence,
God must be an incredible mathematician humans cannot ever hope to match! :-)

Vortex Ramjet Idea

Ramjet is a really great idea that it has no moving parts to have problems with.
(Pulsejet is another similar great idea.)
The problem with ramjet is that it does not work efficiently in low aircraft speeds.
Normal jet engines work efficiently in low speeds, but why?
What is the difference?
I think it must be because normal jet engines create a vortex when they run.
A vortex like the vortex of a tornado.
So how a ramjet could create a vortex?
What if there is a (non-moving) helicoid in the middle (fire chamber) of the ramjet.
It would force the movement of gas into a vortex motion.
If the helicoid designed with more and more turns, it would increase the speed of gas going thru the vortex motion.
I think that means then the ramjet engine could work at lower and lower aircraft speeds.
(Until at some point it would be possible to start the ramjet while aircraft is not moving on the ground.
In the front of the ramjet there maybe an airpump to start it if necessary.
Also there maybe many little gas fuel (LPG/LNG?) outlets around the fire chamber, inside the engine,
located like equal distant points on a helix
to start/help continue the vortex motion.
I think this ideas could also help improve the pulsejet engines.

Simple Derivation Of Special Relativity

Once I had read somewhere that Einstein claimed speed of all objects in the Universe, when measured in 4 dimensions, always equal to c (speed of light)!
(The object can be anything from subatomic particles to stars.)
(This also implies if the speed of an object in space increases toward c then its speed in time must decrease toward 0 and vice versa.)
It seemed farfetched at first but then I realized if assumed to be true it leads back to Special Relativity (SR).
Meaning it is a direct consequence of SR and if SR is accepted to be true then so it must accepted to be true also.

Let's start with assuming it to be true:
(Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2+Vt^2)^(1/2)=c {4D speed equal to c}
Let's reduce 4 dimensions to 1 space and 1 time dimensions:
(Vxyz^2+Vt^2)^(1/2)=c
Or just:
(Vx^2+Vt^2)^(1/2)=c {Vx: speed in space; Vt: speed in time}
then:
Vt=(c^2-Vx^2)^(1/2) {and also Vx=(c^2-Vt^2)^(1/2)}

Since Vt:0 to c (also Vx:0 to c as a consequence of above)
then Vt/c:0 to 1
and if deltaT'=alpha*deltaT
where deltaT':traveler time and deltaT:observer time
then
alpha=Vt/c=(c^2-Vx^2)^(1/2)/c

If alpha is squared, simplified, square-rooted:
(c^2-Vx^2)/c^2 -> 1-Vx^2/c^2 -> (1-Vx^2/c^2)^(1/2)

Continuing from above:
deltaT=deltaT'/alpha=(1/alpha)*deltaT'
if gamma=1/alpha=1/(1-Vx^2/c^2)^(1/2)
which is Lorentz Factor of Special Relativity!

(Also notice that the equations of space and time are the same meaning time is a dimension similar to dimensions of space.)

Virtual Machine Based Secure Operating System

Needless to say computer viruses, malware, hacker intrusions are really big problems today.
I believe the main cause of this is most computer software (including Operating Systems themselves)
are written using unsecure programming languages, C/C++ and alike.

C programming language was created to write an Operating System (OS) back in the 70s.
It is a minimalist language provides a deep level of control over a computer system hardware, close to Assembly language(s).
It allows creating software that has minimal size and maximal speed.
But it comes with a big trade-off which is minimal security.
All large computer software contain bugs (which are mistakes made by programmers).
The problem with unsecure programming languages is that any bug (big/small) anywhere in a software allows a malware/hacker/virus to take full control of a computer system (like modify/delete any files/settings etc).

The simple solution would be re-write/replace all computer software written in unsecure languages.
But this could easily take decades.
A more practical solution would be to modify popular computer operating systems to be resistant against software bugs.
One existing solution used today is called Sandboxing in which OS runs each application software in isolated way from others.
(Which obviously does not solve the problem completely.)

A better solution:
Imagine a computer OS which is also a VM (or OS and VM working closely together always).
Let's call it VMOS.
So only software that actually executes using physical processor(s) is VMOS
and all other software applications executed by VMOS (so they never have direct access to the processor(s)).
That means in this computer system no software can do anything w/o going thru the VMOS.
And imagine that if the VMOS has a set of security rules that it checks whenever appropriate
then there would be no way for any software to circumvent those security rules.
(And no software could ever access those security rules and modify/delete them either since
they have to go thru the VMOS and it would not allow it.)

Those security rules would be rules like:
No software can modify any OS files (including its security rules).
No software can modify any executable file (especially if it is not a part of that same software package).
(More security rules can be added as needed in the future.)

Also it should be easy to see whenever a bug causes a software (application) to crash it would be easily contained by the VMOS w/o allowing anyone to take control of the computer system.
(Because remember all software is actually run by the VMOS so they can easily be stopped by the VMOS also.)

Geoengineering Mars

I don't believe simply sending any kind of (micro)organisms would succeed in turning Mars to a livable planet similar to Earth.
Truly and realistically it requires much more.
We need to have the necessary technologies first and even then it could take hundreds of years.

First needed tech is a small (nuclear) power generator that can produce a lot of power.
Something almost like the fictional Arc Reactor in Iron Man/Marvel movies.
(Of course if cheap enough that kind of power generator would allow a lot more for humanity like turning all deserts to farmland
(because it would allow producing a lot of drinkable water from seas/oceans and cheaply pumping it anywhere with pipelines),
or it could be used to produce a lot of really cheap titanium, aluminum, carbon-fiber etc and make all kinds vehicles, buildings, even roads from them.)

Second needed tech is a pure electric drive for space probes, satellites, vehicles.
It must not be using any kind of fuel.
I think this maybe possible by creating giant dynamic electric/magnetic fields around the space vehicles.
Because space is always filled with charged particles, ions flying around.
If a space vehicle can create giant electric/magnetic fields and apply their force(s) to the charged particles/ions flying around
then it should get a counter force applied on the vehicle itself.
(So for example if the charged particles/ions are pushed towards to the rear of the vehicle that would create a force pushing the vehicle forward.)
(This kind of space drive should also reduce radiation damage on space vehicles.)
(The field would probably need to be dynamic. Imagine how propeller of a ship/plane works, or arms of a swimmer, or even motions of a snake etc.)

Now assume we have these two technologies (in the future).
Assume we first created thousands(?) of probes and sent them everywhere in the solar system.
So that we can track all planets, moons, large asteroids, comets in the solar system in real time.
Imagine we also created a computer simulation of the whole solar system by using the tracking data we have.
That would allow us to predict both short and long term changes in the solar system. 
We could see what would happen if we changed the orbit of a large asteroid/comet and made it collide with Mars.
Imagine we started choosing larger and larger asteroids/comets and sent lots of probes to them.
Those probes later attached themselves to their target objects and started slowly changing their orbits
so that eventually each would enter into a collision course with Mars.
If we could do that then overtime we could increase mass of Mars and maybe even bring it closer to sun.
(Comets would also provide lots of water for Mars.)
(I think it should be possible to simulate today, one by one changing orbits of asteroids/comets and colliding them with Mars
and watch how it would effect the stability of solar system in short/long term.)

Not just for Mars, but for all kinds of human space exploration activities there is still one more critical tech needed.
A true oxygen generator.
Keep carrying tons of water or other chemicals to space just to generate oxygen for people cannot be practical for long term.
There is a huge need for a device that can filter CO2 from air, separate it into oxygen and carbon, release back oxygen to the air
and by using only electricity, nothing else.

Virtual Lens For Astronomy

Modern astronomy started with telescope lenses made of glass.
The lenses got bigger and bigger until limits of the tech was reached.
Later mirrors took over and today their technological limits approaching.
That means building new astronomical observatories with bigger mirrors becoming too expensive/hard.

But what if lenses have more to give to astronomy?
What if there was a way to combine the powers of biggest mirrors with biggest lenses?

I think it is possible to change the refraction index of air with (infrared?) lasers and/or ultrasound.
Imagine a laser scanner that scans the air in front of an astronomical telescope
or a big (phased) array of ultrasound emitters
and both/either of which creates a giant virtual lens in the air in front of the telescope.
(Imagine, by doing adjustments, the focal length/point of the virtual lens can be adjusted as needed.)

The Ultimate Weapon Against Terrorism

Probably the best solution for terrorism is education but is it always doable practically?
Then what would be the next best thing?
I think the answer would be a near perfect lie detection system.

Imagine that whenever any operative or associate of any terrorist organization got into custody
he/she easily tells everything and answers all questions truthfully.
Wouldn't that be an immense help for law enforcement people?

Then the question is if a near perfect lie detection system really possible or not?
I think the answer must be yes with technology of today.

The main tech of today that can help is AI.
Today AI systems are getting even better than human experts for analyzing all kinds of data, text, image, video.
What needs to be done is to use as many different sensors as possible (heart rate, EEG, speech (voice stress), even brain scans,...)
and train an advanced deep learning AI system to detect lying.

Of course if it succeeds and nobody can find a way to beat it then all subjects would try to stay silent.
But I believe that problem maybe solvable using so called "Truth Serum" chemicals which makes a person talkative.

A More Democratic Voting System For United Nations

The problem with UN is its Security Council.
It has permanent member countries that can veto any UN decision even if all other countries in the world voted in favor of it.
Is this really democratic enough?
If not then what would be the best way?

Clearly the fundamental feature of democracy is majority rule.
So one possible improvement would be to make Security Council use majority rule.
(But Security Council having permanent members still would be a problem for democracy.)

I think the best solution would be to get rid of Security Council.
But that by itself would cause a big problem.
Because big powerful countries in the world having the same voting power with small countries would not be fair really.
The solution is to give a weight to the vote of each country. But how?
Calculating the weights (each year) based on military power would lead to a global arms race.
Which would be really bad for the world.
Calculating the weights based on population would lead to a population race which would be also bad for the world.

Then clearly the vote weights must be based on "more the merrier" kind of indicators/statistics about a country like economic power (including distribution of wealth), scientific/technological power.
Even education and/or healthcare quality/distribution can be added to the weight calculation formula.

A Better Alternative To Nobel Prizes

The Nobel Prize Organization provided really great service to science
but it clearly has shortcomings and considering the importance of the work for humanity,
we need a better system/organization.

What are its shortcomings?
1) Very few fields of science get rewarded.
(There are other prizes besides Nobel which reward accomplishments in other fields of science
but they don't bring the same level of rewards/recognition to the recipients.)
2) There are always many great accomplishments in science that never get the chance to be rewarded.

Humanity is always rewarding its stars in movies, TV, music, sports, politics and so on
much more effectively compared to science, even though science makes the greatest contribution to
quality of life and progress of human civilization.

Then what would be the best way to reward great accomplishments in science?
Imagine a new international reward organization under United Nations.
Imagine every year all countries in the world donate any amount they like to this reward organization.
(There maybe a certain minimum amount for each country based on its economic power.)
Imagine every year this organization rewards great accomplishments in many branches of science
(which branches to reward could be decided/changed each year).
Imagine it also rewards single/multiple different accomplishments (instead of only rewarding a single accomplishment) in the same branch of science each year (depending on available candidates and budgets). (Like for example imagine last year 2 accomplishments in physics got the rewards and this year 5.)

Answering The Biggest Question

Let's first think about what is the biggest question for humankind.
Theory Of Everything (TOE)?
What is meaning of life?
Is there an afterlife?
Do(es) God(s) exist?
Do aliens exist?
Time travel to future/past possible?
Wormholes, teleportation, warp drives?
If you think about it there is only one question that every person would/should care.
Which is whether God(s) exist or not.
Because it is really important when it comes to how we would/should want to spend our lives.

We have mainly two competing theories.
One side predicts the answer is no and the other side predicts yes.
There are many religions claiming different God or Gods.
Let's for simplification reduce the question to whether God exists or not.

Now the question is, can science find an answer.
Because science is objective.
It can provide objective answers.
For example a math proof is impossible to argue against unless someone can find (logical) mistake in it.

One argument against existence of God is, if God created Universe then who created God?
If one says God does not need another creator then why we cannot apply the same logic to Universe itself?
Why not accept The Big Bang as the creator of the Universe and stop there?

Can science provide a better answer than this?
I think we must ask: What makes a God a God? How we could recognize God if we found God?
What are the abilities a God has but we don't.
I think those properties are mainly:
Ability to create a Universe/reality.
Ability to create life.
Ability to create mind/intelligence.
Realize that if can do all these 3 things artificially ourselves, using science/tech,
then it would be at least highly questionable why still there is a need for any God to exist.
Luckily we living in times humanity tackling all three abilities of God head-on!

There are great advancements in computer simulations using realistic physics and also virtual reality.
To create a truly realistic simulation of Universe we may need TOE first.
Because known laws of physics breakdown in the center of Black Holes and in the beginning of the Big Bang.
So that means we cannot create a truly realistic copy of the real Universe (at least in theory) until we have TOE. 
But also I still think if we can eventually create artificial reality that is almost impossible to distinguish from the real world
then ability to create Universe/reality should be considered done.

There are also great advancements in artificial life.
Not long ago the scientists created a living cell that is completely using an artificially created DNA.
Really great success but it can be argued that it is like artificially creating only the software of a computer system.
Because it was done by just replacing the DNA of a living cell.
A greater success would be to create a living cell by using only artificially created DNA, protein etc molecules
without using parts from any living cell.
If we don't have technology for that (yet) then how about doing it as a fully realistic computer simulation?
(Meaning it needs to be atomic level and must use only chemical reactions to work.
Also it needs to re-create all known behaviors of a similar real living cell to be considered living the same.)

But creation of life (w/o God) question maybe answered in another way.
Theory of Evolution already suggesting an answer but does it provide a proof that cannot be argued against really?
Theory of Evolution is based on the idea that new species emerge by accumulation of small (permanent) changes (called mutations).
So if we look at fossil records we should see each species is slowly changing to another, if we keep going past in history.
The problem is fossil records is far from perfect/through/continuous going past.
So it is practically impossible to show a very clear picture to public.
But there is another way:
Today there are thousands of known extra-solar planets and we keep discovering new ones at exponential speed.
What if we can find alien life? Obviously that would be a very clear proof for Theory of Evolution.
Because, would it be easier to believe God also created aliens or that Theory of Evolution must be correct?
(Thinking that God and Evolution can co-exist does not make any sense (to me at least).
Because if you have one of them why you would still need the other?)

There are also great advancements in artificial intelligence.
The main question is, can we artificially create human-like intelligence?
The question is tackled with both top-down and bottom-up approaches at the same time.
One group of scientists trying to create AI by using purely algorithmic approach (and having success after success!).
(Think of Watson, Siri etc.)
Another group of scientists working towards mapping the full neural network of human brain.
The hope is that if we have the full map and use it to create a realistic computer simulation of a human brain
then sooner or later we would learn how to make it work, completely in a computer.
(And then we would have artificially created a human-like intelligence/mind.)

Are there any other ways to scientifically prove or disprove existence of God?

One really important feature of the Universe is that everything seems to be perfectly designed for us.
From laws of physics enabling this particular Universe to orbit of Earth enabling liquid water and life as we know it.
Isn't this a proof of intelligent design (ID) and isn't that a proof of existence of God?
Anthropic Principle provides an alternative explanation without God.
It basically says what if all other possibilities already played out in a Cyclic Universe (that keeps reborn)
or what if there is a multiverse that new Universes bubbles up and die all the time
with different possibilities playing out in each (like a movie theater keep playing multiple movies at different times)?
So we still have explanations both ways. The question (existence of God) is not really answered.

There was another attempt for a scientific proof not long ago.
There is a general (guiding) principle in physics that says, laws of physics are the same everywhere in the Universe at all times.
Idea is, if that is true then it means there cannot be any (supernatural) miracles anywhere in the Universe at any time in the past/future.
And that means there is/are no such thing as any act(s) of God and that implies no real prophet(s)/religion(s) of God, so no God.
But the problem is, the idea works great if we assume there is no God but if we assume there is then it is still possible
for God to exist because how we can really rule out if some miracles happened in the past (when there were no cameras to record them)?

Is True Virtual Reality Possible?

There are many Virtual Reality (VR) devices sold today but they only provide video and sound.
What I mean by true VR is The Matrix type where it is almost impossible to distinguish from the real world.
So not just vision and hearing but all senses must be provided realistically.

First issue is whether computers today have enough power for it or not.
Answer depends on whether the VR world(s) need to be realistic physics simulations
running at atomic scale or not. (Quantum scale is already beyond our computing power.)
I think just providing solid/fluid/gas simulations could be enough, just like in computer games, instead of realistic atomic level physics simulation.
So computing power shouldn't be a really big problem.

Second/real issue is Brain-Computer Interface (BCI).
I think none of existing technologies are really anywhere near what is needed.
Clearly the perfect solution would be a device that can read/write any/all neuron(s) in human brain in real time.
Also clearly it needs to be non-invasive.
Because any surgical operation on brain/nerves is a huge risk.
Not many people, besides of people who cannot move, would want to take such a risk I believe.

So the main problem is whether it is possible to create a device that can write (force/suppress its firings) a selected neuron,
and also can read it (detect its firings), in a non-invasive way.
I think there maybe only two possibilities to investigate.
One is by focusing ultrasound and other is by focusing radio waves.
Also even if write operation is possible (which should be easier), there is no guarantee read operation also will be.

Realize that if only write is possible then VR experience will be like a replay of memories of a person.
For a person to be able to respond/interact with VR world, read operation would be necessary.
But even having only write operation could allow applications like education/training.
(Imagine you first create a recording of someone going thru pilot training and later replaying that (fast and multiple times) using VR.)

Why Universe must be a Cellular Automata?

I think Universe must be a Cellular Automata operating at Planck scale.
(If so failure of GUTs/String Theory etc would not be surprising.)

Some reasons to consider:

Universe needs to be computable why because it is clearly a mathematical structure and it is dynamic so it should be doing calculations.
That also means no real infinities anywhere (infinities break calculations in computers (unless added as special, non-natural treatments)).
So center of BHs or size/scale of 4 dimensions cannot be infinite.
Also if Universe doing calculations it means it is some kind of computer and CA are the simplest (thus the best) candidates.

And the reason why it must operate at Planck scale is because
known laws of physics indicate that is their limit.
It is where they breakdown.
There is absolutely no way to measure a distance shorter than Planck length and a duration shorter than Planck time.
(This means when measured using Planck length as the unit all distances are integers
and when measured using Planck time as the unit all durations are integers.)
That means if Universe is a CA than Planck length must be the size of its cells
and Planck time must be its unit of time steps.
(So every cell would update at each Planck time step.)

If Universe is a CA then it means Quantum and Relativity are its emergent properties.
If this is hard to believe then realize chemistry is the emergent property of quantum
and biology is the emergent property of chemistry.
Notice that trying to use quantum to predict chemistry or
trying to use chemistry using quantum and vice versa are really hard problems!
Also notice when you moving from quantum to chemistry, chemistry to biology back and forth
scale changes exponentially (compare size of a particle with sizes of atoms/molecules,
compare their sizes with sizes of cells/organisms).
(Actually organisms are the emergent property of cells.)
This implies when you go from quantum to underlying TOE, size must get smaller exponentially again.
(So strings are not small enough! :-)

To see how powerful even the simplest CA are consider that
emergent properties of Conway's Game Of Life studied for decades
and I think its full range of different behaviors still unknown (could it be infinite?).
There is another very simple CA called FHP that creates Navier-Stokes behavior at macro scale.
(Today a little more advanced CA called LBM is used to simulate all kinds of liquids.)

If Universe is a CA then considering entanglement (non-local interactions between quantum particles)
for example, it is possible to deduce at least some of the properties it must have.
Another property it must have is conservation of energy (which is really conservation of information (states of the CA)).

I think the best expert on CA today is Stephen Wolfram who also thinks Universe must be a CA.
But as far as I know the idea first proposed by a German computer pioneer named Konrad Zuse. 

A PROPOSAL FOR REPLACING HTML

SCREEN RESOLUTION INDEPENDENT WEBPAGE MARKUP OR GUI LANGUAGE

Currently, web-page markup languages (HTML etc.) and desktop application GUI's (Graphical User Interface) define size and/or location of graphical elements and objects on the screen using actual pixel coordinates or sometimes using inches etc. The main problem with that is as computer screens gets larger in size and resolution, old web-page and GUI designs do not look as intended in the beginning. So there is a need to constantly re-design web-pages and GUI’s.

Even though scale-free text fonts and graphical image formats already exists, they do not provide a general solution that can be used to  create screen resolution independent web-pages and/or GUI's for desktop or smart-phone applications.

What needed is a general markup language that allows defining location and size of all graphical elements of a web-page or GUI, in a screen resolution independent way.

Here is the solution:

Assume location and size of all graphical elements on a web-page or GUI are defined in a screen resolution (or actual size) independent way. Assume the width (horizontal resolution) of a browser or application window is always 10000 units and define all location and size values of the graphical elements accordingly.

When a web browser or an application needs to display the graphical design, it would need to calculate actual screen pixel locations and pixel-based sizes of the graphical elements using these formulas:

SCRX = X / (10000 – 1) * W + TLX
SCRY = Y / (10000 – 1) * W + TLY

X: X coordinate of the graphical element in markup script.
X: Y coordinate of the graphical element in markup script.
W: Width of the browser or application window in pixels.
TLX: Top-left X pixel coordinate of the browser or application window.
TLY: Top-left Y pixel coordinate of the browser or application window.
SCRX: Actual X pixel coordinate of the graphical element on the screen.
SCRY: Actual Y pixel coordinate of the graphical element on the screen.

X values of the graphical element in the markup script, normally would be between 0 to 9999. (Fractional values like 3600.76 are allowed because some applications, like publishing, can require higher resolution then 10000 units.)
But if there are greater X values then the browser or application window would display a horizontal sliding bar to allow user to see those graphical elements completely.  
Similarly if Y values require actual pixel values outside (below) of the visible window then a vertical sliding bar would be displayed.

Similarly, actual pixel-based sizes of graphical elements on the screen can be calculated using these formulas:
SCRW = SX / 10000 * W
SCRH = SY / 10000 * W

SX: Width of the graphical element in markup script.
SY: Height of the graphical element in markup script.
W: Width of the browser or application window in pixels.
SCRW: Actual width of the graphical element on the screen in pixels.
SCRH: Actual height of the graphical element on the screen in pixels.

(If the graphical element requires an image or video to be displayed then each image or video frame must be re-scaled to fit the actual target size on the screen in real-time.)

Since calculating actual pixel-based values, to display graphical elements on the screen, depends on the current width of the browser or application window, then every-time user changes the width of the window, all graphical elements would need to be re-calculated and re-rendered (in real-time).  

A very simple example script in this markup language could be like:
(The actual syntax can differ in practice.)

Window
RGB Color: 255,255,255

Text
Position: 0,0
Size: 100,12
Text: "Hello World!"
Font: "Courier New", 12
RGB Color: 255,0,0

Image
Position: 0,12
Size: 100,200
ImageFile: "/TestImage.jpg"

Video
Position: 0,500
Size: 200,200
ImageFile: "/Test.mpg"

Notice that each graphical item have a position (top-left x,y) and size (width and height) to appear on the window, and each item can be placed anywhere on the window directly.

The web-page may have many other elements, like tables, buttons, check-boxes, radio buttons, drop-down menus etc. and each element can have many properties that can be set, like color, border etc. Some properties would be obligatory and some could be optional.
To allow existing web browsers to display web-pages created in this kind of markup language, a freely download-able plug-in software would need to be created, for each browser brand.

Also the plug-in software can be designed to accept scripts like in above format or in XML format.

The scripts can be created using any text editor, or visually by using a special GUI design software (Microsoft Visual Basic 6 is a good example of visual GUI design capability).

The format also can be extended to allow embedded scripts in other languages, to manipulate the graphical elements etc.

Does Time Really Exists?

Or Why time must be a dimension?

There are at least two clear proofs for it.
Time dilation and bending of space-time.
Both of which verified to great accuracy by countless experiments and observations.
It should be very clear that if time was an artificial human invented concept neither would be possible.
In fact any kind of verification of special/general relativity should be seen as a time being a dimension.
That is because all relativity calculations based on time being accepted as the fourth dimension.
By looking at all kinds of clocks used in daily life it is easy to get the idea that time is just a human invented concept.
So that it can set set and measured in any way wanted.
But scientists today also have atomic clocks which are extremely precise.
And it really easy for them to see and measure time dilation due to changes in speed and/or gravity.
And what they clearly see is those time dilation measurements match to calculations (to extreme precision) using equations of relativity!
Hopefully someday costs of atomic clocks will be cheap enough so that verifications of time dilation could be done in high school physics labs.
The experiments could be like start with two atomic clocks next to each other.
Make sure the clocks are calibrated to match exactly (synchronized).
Later move one the clocks around so that it will experience different speed and/or gravity and bring it back to its starting point.
Measure the changes in speed and/or gravity with enough precision using suitable measurement devices.
Later compare the difference in the clocks with the time dilation calculations using equations of relativity.
What will become clear is the results match extremely closely within the error margin(s) of the measurements.

I want to speculate that I think Universe could be really some kind of cellular automata operating in Planck scale.
(Meaning made of Planck length cells which updated every Planck time steps.)
If so it would mean both Quantum and Relativity are emergent properties,
But even if that is true, dimensions of both space and time would still be dimensions.
Only with difference that whereas dimensions in math have infinite size and scale (continuity), real dimensions of the Universe have neither.
When physicists see infinities in calculation results they interpret it as breakdown of the theory.
I do not believe that Universe really has any real infinity anywhere, neither in its dimensions nor in centers of Black Holes.
Because it is very clear from known physics is that Universe is based on extremely advanced mathematics.
I think mathematics is based on calculation, so the Universe must be calculable.
(Because we clearly see Universe is a dynamical system; it is not a static mathematical structure.)
That means it must be digital. That means it must be some kind of computer.
And the simplest and thus the best candidate would be some kind of computer called Cellular Automata.
(But it may still be a more advanced CA probably nobody thought/studied before.
Especially considering entanglement (which is non-local) property it must have to be compatible with Quantum Mechanics.)

What if it turns out there are real infinities in the Universe?
I think Universe would still need to be calculable.
That means infinities in the calculations need to be treated as special values.
(Many computer programming languages today allow setting a constant/variable to positive/negative infinity and use it in calculations as specially treated values.
For example using rules like infinity plus or minus any non-infinite number is infinity; any positive non-infinite number divided by zero is infinity, etc.)

A Sci-Fi Movie Idea

The title: World of Tomorrow

The plot:

The year is 2040 and NASA sends a manned space vehicle to Mars.
Since the journey takes months, all crew is in suspended animation.
After about a month of traveling an unknown comet crosses their path.
While the vehicle trying to avoid passing through the huge tail of the comet, it start getting hit w/ ice particles. The vehicle gets badly damaged and all crew members die except one man.

The vehicle also goes out of control and enters into a new elongated orbit around the sun which will bring it back more than 300 years later.
At that time vehicle will be recovered by a large space-ship of the future.

In the future world, all people are living and working in high rise giant buildings (there are no small buildings anymore), and commuting around w/ car-like flying vehicles (which has no wheels, wings, jet engines) called pods. The pods are completely autonomous and manual driving is impossible.
All top floors of the buildings are dedicated as parking structures.
All ground spaces in the cities are covered w/ forests and almost all the remaining parts of the land are covered w/ automated agriculture fields to be able to feed a world population of 16 billion!

All cops are 6 feet tall and have big muscles. That is because becoming a cop requires lifetime contract and includes mandatory genetic enhancements.
They also wearing computerized visors at all times which gives them
perfect vision under any condition plus instant information of all kinds.

There is even cure for aging in the future world but it is illegal!

Unfortunately for our hero, a large corporation wants him to make medical/genetic experiments because his "ancient" DNA/body.
They manage to kidnap him secretly and take him to a hidden underground lab.
In there he gets subjected to many harsh experiments; in one experiment his consciousness put into a virtual reality and tested against all kinds of fear triggering events. However a secret government operative finds and contacts him in the virtual world to plot an escape.

A New Movie Idea For The Matrix Franchise

Title: The Matrix 4: Rebirth

The Plot:

In the end of the Matrix Trilogy (made by WB), a peace agreement between
the humans and the machines was reached, but most of the humans
stayed connected to the matrix (because of dependence of the machines
on them) and the real Earth was still a desert-like wasteland.

This movie starts long time after the trilogy ended (a completely new cast).
The peace between the machines and humans is deteriorating because
some humans illegally continue to revive more people from the matrix; the
machines growing impatient against to attack and kill all freed humans.

But an outcast human researcher secretly goes around the desert wasteland
of the real world and finds the remains of a old human military outpost.
In there he finds documents talking about a secret military human facility
that was built deep underground and it contains a command center to control
a stealth satellite network. When triggered the satellite network would generate
a massive EMP pulse that would destabilize the artificial smog in the Earth's
atmosphere and thus clearing the smog away. The control center also contains a
vault which has DNA samples from all species lived on Earth before the war started.

Unfortunately when the researcher goes back the human city (Zion) he gets imprisoned
and nobody believes him.
Now some people must find a way (a new Neo) to evade all the machines and humans in both
the real world and the matrix, to find the secret base and start the rebirth of real world!

A SUPER REALITY SHOW IDEA

I was never interested in any Reality Show and still don't (Shark Tank seems kind of interesting though :-).
If I have to tell why I am guessing it must be because they are unrelatable to me (maybe because of my cultural background).
But first what would make a reality show better than others?
I think number of viewers would be a good measure and that is ultimately what TV producers would care about, isn't it?
Then what would be the best bet to get more viewers?
Find something almost everybody can relate to!
If so then wouldn't you say that if you really find such an idea it could be the biggest reality show ever?

Here is my idea to offer a candidate:
I think almost everybody in the world sometime(s) in their lives thought that
"Look at that rich guy(s) keep making tons of money!
If that was me I could do even better!
"But dang it I didn't born rich and I never have nowhere near enough money to make the investments I want!"
But what if a rich guy came to you and said (gasp!)
"Put you money where your mouth is! (nah!) Here is N million dollars!
I give you N week(s)/month(s)/year(s?)!
Until the end of that time, you tell me how to invest this money (buy/sell anything anytime)
but you just need to make sure, by the end of your given time, all money is back in the same currency as it started!
Let us see if you are really the great investor you always claimed to be!"

For adaptation to a reality show, imagine you (the TV producer),
selected N contestants any way you want,
put them in a Big Brother style house that has no communication to outside,
and made all or each of them the same offer as above!
And you let the whole country/world watch how things really went and turned out in the end!
(So everyone can take lesson(s) for themselves!)

PAPER OR PLASTIC?

I always thought paper grocery bags are better for the environment and everybody should use those.
But still I always chose plastic bags at the grocery shopping!
Because I didn't want to spend extra money for trash bags!
Now I finally realized that is why plastic is better actually!

Or one of the reasons anyway:

You can use plastic bags as trash bags and save money!
(Which also means less number of trash bags need to be produced for everyone.)
Paper bags are not really suitable as trash bags.
Neither when accumulating trash at home,
neither when carrying them to a dumpster,
neither when they are waiting in the dumpster to be picked up by garbage pick up service
(Paper or plastic bags would smell more?;
Paper or plastic bags would be torn open and leak more?
Paper or plastic bags would attract flies, cats, birds etc more?
What if it rains?),
neither when letting your trash on the street to be pickup in some places,
(On top of the other reasons as above (for waiting in the dumpster),
if you were a garbage pickup person, which kind of bags would be easier for you to handle?)

If your answer is, then just use trash bags, instead of paper or plastic grocery bags,
then I would like to remind you, they mean extra cost for everybody!
Also big trash bags harder to carry especially for children and teenagers,
and so are more prone to accidents also.

Also isn't paper bags mean many trees to cut?
(I really don't know if trees are always thoroughly checked for nests of birds or any other animals before they cut down.)
Also plastic bags are made from petroleum which is an nonrenewable global resource.
That means if you don't use it to make plastic bags, sooner or later, someone else will use it some other way.
I think chances are it most likely will be used as fuel to burn, for vehicles, for power plants, for heating instead!
Also keep in mind, plastic bags maybe recycled from landfills to produce new plastic bags etc.
Can same be done with paper bags? I think possibly but with more cost.