Can Our Universe Expand Forever Or Expand Then Contract Later Just So It Could Die?

From Einstein E=mc^2 to the conservation of energy theory, these concepts agree that energy cannot be created nor destroyed — after all these energies existed since singularity (even before the big bang).  Thus, if I agree with these concepts, it means everything within this universe can be deconstructed into the smallest of the smallest possible units, and each of these smallest units could be counted individually in a way that if they’re to be reunited they could be constructed into the whole universe again.  The question is if this is the case, is our universe static in quantity?

I surmise there is another possibility!  What if the first scenario is true but there is one exception!  The exception is that outside of the singularity there is a bigger container that could feed more energy into the already constructed universe which we’re living in.  This could mean the quantity of our constructed universe could be changed according to the limitation of the larger container which contains our universe.  If this is the case it could mean that our universe could be shrunk in size and quantity by somehow shredding off existing energy and feeding the lost energy back to the larger container.

Relatively then, from within our universe, it could be that our universe is infinite since it could be expanded forever or be shrunk forever depending on the situation.  We don’t know the limitation of the larger container so we could only see the direction of our universe as an infinite expansion or infinite contraction relatively!  There’s a saying that nothing could last forever, and so we know that even the sun and anything else that exists within our universe got an expiration date.  I suspect that our universe could be expanded forever until the larger container stops feeding energy to our existing universe which would then allow this universe to contract and die off eventually!

In A Haste, My Mind Ran Wild, And Aha, Time Is A Cup Of Tea!

I’m not a scientist, and so I won’t even bothered to pretend to be one.  I’m going to use casual terms and meanings to try to explain to everyone what I think time is.  In nature, time appears to be an arrow once shoots won’t be able to go back into the quiver.  Why?  It appears as if time travels only in one direction.  Which means, time is only moving forward.  Nonetheless, this would puzzle scientists as they would ask why time could not be rewound.

If you play a CD, DVD, or any digital storage medium, you would be able to rewind and fast forward recorded time, but real time could not be streamed backward.  In fact, many people who have regrets would love to wish that they could stream time in backward motion so they could jump into their past to fix their mistakes.  Nonetheless, it seems time could only decay forward.

I could be wrong but in some religions, these folks would promote time is a flat dimension in which this dimension would stretch on into the infinity.  They would argue that the clock is a manmade concept in which it maps relative, perceptive units of time.  Since time is an infinite to these folks, they would probably argue that the relative, perceptive manmade clock is creating a fictional timeline which would help humans to be able to weave out a history of time.

Many scientists nowadays believe Einstein is correct on how time is churning, because of his special relativity theory.  Basically, Einstein argues that time is relative to the observers.  If you’re on a spaceship that travels near the speed of light, time would move slower, but if your friend is stationed on earth time would move faster.  This means by the time you get back to him or her, this person would probably grow much older than you.  This phenomenon appears to allow you to travel through time, but only in a forwarding, dimensional motion.

I have a crazy idea, and there is no proof to back it up of course.  My imagination runs wild and I let it be.  Basically, I argue that time is like a cup of tea.  Imagine a cup of tea dips into an ocean of tea and extract out a full cup of tea, but before one drinks this cup of tea it needs some milk.  I would pour in a really good type of milk to improve my cup of tea, thus this cup of tea indeed is having a great future.  Nonetheless, what if I poison the cup of tea?  If I drink it I would surely have a very grave future indeed.

Imagine I extract a gazillion cups of tea out of the ocean of tea, and in each cup of tea I would either enhance it or sour it.  Thus each cup among the gazillion more would have a very different future according to what I would color it.  Imagine the tea inside each cup is time.  It’s more like captured or recorded time.  Nonetheless, this recorded, captured time is weaved almost as one with the fabric of the universe itself, thus when the tea begins to cool there is no way to warm it up again.

Of course, unless you have a way to jump out of the cup of tea, pick it up, put it in a microwave and start to warm it up again with godly microwave heat.  Otherwise, the tea will decay naturally and never get warm again.  Nonetheless, when you jump out of the cup of tea, what space/time have you jumped into?  Once you’re out of the cup of tea, you could pour it back into the ocean of tea.  Does this mean you create a new time?  Each new event you create with your cup of tea, it still seems to be impossible to revert time back in real time.

By that I mean when you warm up your cup of tea again, in your new space it means you’re just creating a new event with your cup of tea.  It does not seem like you’re reverting time so your cup of tea would travel back in time and become the original warmed cup of tea.  Nonetheless, according to Einstein, time is relative to the observers if I understand his theory correctly, this would mean the people who are inside the cup of tea would either feel like if they’re traveling back in time.  Because their whole universe is warming up to how it was warmed.

Given the condition is right which gives rise to an appropriate mixing of necessary elements to create the origin time period, perhaps this is how one would experience a reverting time inside a warm cup of tea.

If my imagination is on the right track with time, then I guess you could go back in time and kill your grandfather yet you would still exist in the future.  How come?  Once each cup of tea got filled, it is a universe in itself.  Thus what had happened in such a universe is and will always be existed in such a universe.  Like a forensic expert who could walk back the crime scene even though he or she isn’t there because existing matters would allow he or she to look back in time to figure out what had happened.  In the cup of tea, the universe won’t just erase its events unless you pour the tea out of the cup.

Basically, I think you could kill your grandfather in one cup of tea, and with the right conditions in another cup of tea, you would still exist.  This is rather confusing, but I think it does explain why I think you could travel back in time.  By this I mean you better find the right cup of tea to jump into.  With the right condition, the cup of tea would allow you to travel back in time.  Nonetheless, what other side effects and conditions you have created when you jump out of the cup of tea?  After all, it requires you to jump out of the cup of tea’s dimension into a bigger dimension so you could find another right cup of tea to jump back into.

In addition:  I forgot to mention that in our cup of tea, the tea could evaporate in time.  After all in our universe (cup of tea) water does evaporate — given it enough time — even though it is not going to be boiled.  So if I’m correct, can each cup of tea I’d constructed in earlier paragraphs be evaporated given it enough time?  If this is true, would our very own cup of tea (i.e., our universe) be very finite?  Personally, I think our cup of tea will eventually evaporate, but our species won’t be able to survive long enough to witness such an event.


World Powers Of Today Won’t Be Around When World War III Reshuffles World Players

I think we are living in a period in which is very similar to China’s Warring States period.  Of course, there are many things that will refute this point of view soundly.  For an example, we can say that this is the modern era with modern technologies of all sorts, weaponized or not, and so we should not go back too far into the past to figure out the future.  In respect to modernists and contemporary thinkers, I think they have an argument if they’re trying to make this case, but I don’t think they are 100% correct.  In a grander picture, China’s Warring States period reminds us how states were fighting for supremacy.  Once, there were many in the East, but once relatively modest Qin state became the supreme State of them all.  In today picture, we are seeing the same struggle in a larger scale of course, because we are talking about a possible World War III.

United States is trying to retain the global supremacy at a cost of spending greater sum of money for military and whatnot.  Russia is trying to stand up tall and strong again like it once was a super power.  China is re-emerging as a Middle Kingdom again.  Many other important region players such as Turkey, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and so forth are trying to carve out more world space for themselves by taking the advantages of the struggle between huge powers (e.g., United States, China, Russia).  If we look closer at this big picture, it seems the world is playing a similar rhyme to the one in China’s Warring States period.  In fact, this scary picture may also look like any other past period that got many world powers struggling for resources, territories, and cultural supremacy.

I’m sure there were ups and downs for a state that was trying to survive China’s Warring States period.  Thus, it is obvious that at the time, small state that should look harmless was able to dominate over the stronger ones.  Just like life, in natural state, things can go awfully weird and non-straight line.  This means, it’s possible for a harmless, small state of today to dominate the future, globally.  This means we should not think arrogantly that United States, China, and Russia would always be the dominant powers.  Furthermore, we can look back at World War II and see that this war had completely reshuffled many world players’ strengths at the time.  I think Britain was most noticeably shrunken and given way to the United States rise till now.  Although, I think the United States was risen for quite some time already before the WWII, but the rising pace was accelerated even faster and more intense as WWII played out.  Right after WWII, many European powers were drained out of resources, money, and whatnot, thus the United States and Russia became the two most dominant players that created the so called the Cold War.

I’m not a history buff, but I think even with my measly historical knowledge it’s enough for me to see that if World War III to occur, the world will once again see a reshuffle of world powers.  Perhaps, the so called the superpowers of today will no longer be the lead countries after the next world war.  This is why it’s rather sad to see so many online commenters who joked casually about the next world war as if they wished for the next big war to happen, according to their online comments under various online news articles.  Perhaps, Einstein would be dead wrong on the next world war, because it’s possible that cooler heads in the future might use nuclear weapons in limited way, preventing the nuclear winter here on earth.  Nonetheless, such an aftermath won’t look pretty either, because the depopulation of earth in such a scale won’t be easily recovered.  It’s sad to see that us humans dare to think about depopulation, because we fear of running out of resources and spaces.  Why don’t we be constructive instead and think up way to share available resources.   Even better, we can improve our technology to allow us humans to colonize outer space planets and moons so we can mine for even more resources.  Basically, there is untold and near unlimited amount of resources that are waiting for us to mine out in space, and yet here on earth we are killing each other for scraps.

Why am I writing this blog post now?  I’m seeing so many countries are preparing for the next big war.  Especially, the big boys like the United States, China, and Russia are spending even more money on their military.  Perhaps, I’m just paranoid about this, but I fear that countries with stronger military incline to push for war as they think that their military can win war.  Of course, it’s not wrong for a country to have a strong military in case she needs to defend herself in an unexpected war.  With that being said, I don’t think it’s right for a country with strong military to encourage illogical war.  Furthermore, we are no longer in a time period in which weapons can only kill hundreds, but we are in a time period in which our weapons can annihilate a city in one go.  In such a scenario, the aftermath could render a city unusable for decades to come and more.  I don’t think war is wise, because death and destruction do come only when nothing can be agreed upon.  We humans are built to think, and so we should let common sense runs wild!  We should not be like animals that may eat their own children.  Bringing the next big war to fruition may have the consequence that is no different than animals that eat their children.  Such cannibalistic behavior should only be reserved for Hollywood films and not for real life.  In my opinion, the next big war will definitely reshuffle the world powers of today!

Quantum Entanglement Might Not Exist?

English: Illustration of the EPR paradox.

English: Illustration of the EPR paradox. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m nowhere near sufficient in QM (Quantum Mechanics) knowledge to dabble with the topic of quantum entanglement.  Nonetheless, I’ve found this topic to be very intriguing.  So, what is quantum entanglement anyway?  If I’m not wrong and had understood what I’d read correctly on quantum entanglement, to put in a way in which a layman can understand, quantum entanglement is a term which coins the phenomenon of two particles that physically interacted first but then separated on purpose (by design in whatever fashion) so one could test the correlative behaviors of one particle would exert on the other or vice versa while the two particles were separated by a mind boggling distance.  I think that was a run-on sentence, but anyhow…  Anyhow, quantum entanglement is acceptable to some quantum mechanics folks, because they had other theories and tests to prove that quantum entanglement is possible.  So, let us argue that the folks who believe quantum entanglement is possible might be wrong.  If quantum entanglement is possible, then how is it possible since Einstein’s special relativity theory (as other said) describes nothing can travel faster than light?  Quantum entanglement seems to violate this very rule.

When someone witnesses quantum entanglement somehow, the consensus is that some hidden mechanics had allowed the passing of information from one particle to another at the speed that is seemingly to be instantaneous.  With this speed, it appears not even light can travel this fast.  Then the same quantum mechanics folks all agree among themselves that so far they believe no classical information can be transferred back and forth by quantum entanglement phenomenon, therefore the classical modes of traveling in relation to the idea of nothing can travel faster than light still holds true.  For whatever to get to point B from point A or whatever information to get pass to point B from point A, a mode of travel or passing information has to occur.  Probably through the no faster than light rule proposed by Einstein’s special relativity theory which has quantum mechanics folks agree that quantum entanglement phenomenon cannot allow classical modes of traveling.  Also, in reality no classical mean of delivering information has been done with quantum entanglement, therefore these quantum mechanics folks still take the rule of no faster than light speed to be correct.

By now you probably would already confuse what is classical this and that right?  At first I was like what on earth is this classical this and that too.  Nonetheless, it’s just a term which describes the reality that humans perceive.  So here is an example of what I mean by classical this and that.  Let say classical mode of traveling is how a car would move normally on a street, and it’s still classical even though the car might move at the speed of light as long we humans can perceive the elements that allow the car to behave in such a way.  For quantum entanglement, we humans cannot perceive what specific mode of traveling or passing of information which quantum entanglement has used to allow the two particles of the same (i.e., the behaviors of the two particles are well known beforehand) to interact with each other.  OK, so I digress.

What interesting though is that some quantum mechanics folks think quantum entanglement exists, but they might have to contend with the EPR paradox.  According to Wikipedia, EPR paradox is the paper that proposed Quantum Mechanics is incomplete since quantum entanglement cannot be explained thoroughly, and this paper was the joint efforts of Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen.  If I’m not wrong, EPR paradox disagrees with how people perceive quantum entanglement is that classical modes of traveling must be accounted for, because the otherwise would prove to be rather imaginative.  For some reason, I find this sort of analysis makes more sense than otherwise.  Then again, what do I know since my knowledge on Quantum Mechanics is near zero.

I suspected that quantum entanglement might have been just how EPR paradox had suspected.  Of course, I don’t even know enough about EPR paradox proposal to know that my own quantum entanglement suspicion is actually correlated with EPR paradox’s quantum entanglement suspicion.  Quantum entanglement suspicion?  I meant this in a way that quantum entanglement might not actually occur!

The YouTube video right after this paragraph explains a theory known as Bell’s Inequality which disproves EPR paradox conclusion on Quantum Mechanics and quantum entanglement.  Basically, as I dug furthermore into EPR paradox, it seemed that Einstein and his fellows believed and proposed that besides the classical modes of traveling (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light unless there is something that is…), in order for quantum entanglement to be true, there must be hidden variables that inherited by the particles.  Perhaps EPR paradox argues that without the explanation of hidden variables, it is impossible for the two particles of the same (i.e., the behaviors of the two particles are well known beforehand) to have the ability to know about each other intentions and to correlate the behaviors, and on top of that to do so within the luxury of ignoring the classical distance limitation (i.e., distance doesn’t matter).  Nonetheless, as I had mentioned earlier, the video right after this paragraph disproves the idea of there would be hidden variables.

Of course, before I state anything further, I wish to state that this is what I think and have come to term with my understanding of quantum entanglement and I have no expertise at all in regarding to this topic, therefore what I state next will only be of my own belief and not have any value to anyone unless someone thinks in the same manner in regarding to quantum entanglement as I do.  In my opinion, perhaps Einstein and his fellows who proposed EPR paradox are half correct.  I also believe the video above this paragraph does make sense, therefore I think Bell’s Inequality might have been right about disproving EPR paradox’s hidden variables suggestion.  So, why am I think Einstein and his fellows who orchestrated the EPR paradox paper are half correct?  In my opinion, it’s because I think Einstein and his fellows might have  a point that two particles of the same (i.e., that we know how the two particles would behave if indeed one has the influence over the other or vice versa) cannot know each other intentions or even communicate with each other at such great distances without resorting to classical modes of traveling or passing (i.e., passing information).  Instead of believing there is quantum entanglement, I like to think that it’s all about probability.

When I speak of probability, I meant that perhaps the measurements of the results of the behaviors of any two particles might occur within the probability, and this probability allows the capability of any two particles to behave according to their maximum potential (i.e., their inherited possible behaviors).  So, in this way, if Alice is measuring particle number 1 and thinking that Bob will see particle number 2 to behave as how she would think it would have in this particular scenario/experiment, then Alice assumes that there is a quantum entanglement going on between the two particles (i.e., that meant to be of the same).  Nonetheless, I think Alice would be wrong on assuming like that since I believe that particle number 2 might have the probability to behave in a way that Alice assumes it would be.  Confusing?  Don’t be, because I might be completely wrong anyway.  With my limited knowledge, if there is any, on Quantum Mechanics and quantum entanglement, I cannot be too sure that I know what I’m talking about.  Still, with what I understood so far on this particular topic (i.e., quantum entanglement), even if I’m wrong, nothing has yet changed my mind about why I think quantum entanglement might just be only an imagination.  Come to think of it, imagination does exist, because we imagine it in our mind.  Nonetheless, some imagination might become something real, others just stay as the figments of imagination.


Should We Dare To Question Einstein On The Possibility Of He Is Wrong About Nothing Can Travel Faster Than Light?

English: Albert Einstein, official 1921 Nobel ...

English: Albert Einstein, official 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics photograph. Français : Albert Einstein, photographie officielle du Prix Nobel de Physique 1921. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Who are we to question Einstein on the accuracy of his relativity theory right?  We shouldn’t, but we should!  OK, that doesn’t make sense at all.  I know right?  What I meant was that thanks to Einstein, we have been using his e = mc^2 theory to form so many modern marvels.  Some marvels though should never have existed such as nuclear weapon for obvious reasons.  Then comes the part where I said we should question Einstein e=mc^2 theory even though the majority of us will never be able to achieve what Einstein had achieved.  Why should we question his theory?  Well, imagine what if Einstein is wrong about nothing can travel faster than light as how Mr. Michio Kaku phrased in the video which I will post near the end of this blog post, we will be able to travel faster than light (according to Mr. Michio Kaku).  I sure like the sound of travel faster than light, because Mr. Michio Kaku mentioned in the video that time travel would be possible if light’s constant speed could be beat.

Personally, without anything to backup my belief, I think nothing is finite and nothing is infinite.  You can say this is a philosophical thought, because it’s really contradictory in a sense.  OK, perhaps philosophical thought doesn’t have to be contradictory, but for me and in this case it is.  For one thing we know for sure, we don’t know if the speed of light is the ultimate speed of the universe even though Einstein said it is.  How come?  Remember how Einstein was a nobody who came along and changed how we would think about sir Isaac Newton’s gravity theory altogether?  Because of Einstein, we came to understand that Newton’s gravity way of thinking could be off if gravity is to be calculated at extreme levels (i.e., super large or super small sizes such as black hole or quantum mechanical elements).  Nowadays, we can use Newton’s gravity way of calculation for things that aren’t as grand as black hole and so on — and things won’t be off too much.  When we need a much fine tune calculation on all gravitational concerns, we have to use Einstein’s relativity theory as many in the past and now have agreed that Einstein’s relativity theory is more suitable for much more accurate gravitational calculations (i.e., for things at extreme scales).  So in a sense, we might not know that in the future there will be a genius in the making which will prove Einstein wrong, right?  Of course, such a genius won’t be me and you.  It ain’t that easy to have a genius at Einstein caliber to come along, really!

I guess, the point I’m making is that when we thought the earth was flat, it became round.  When we thought the earth was the center of everything, then came the sun said no it’s not “How dare you be so wrong earth?”  When the thought of  the sun is at the center of a solar system wasn’t enough, we amazed at the scale of our galaxy.  Who would have thought that we could not count all the galaxies there ever were and are in space?  To think there would also be unimaginable amount of stars and space whatever within each galaxy alone… mind explosion!  With every twist and turn, we had it wrong.  How could we have not think of what if our universe has had an edge, and beyond this edge would lie a much bigger universe that would encompass the one we are in for an eternity to come unless…  Imagine a russian nested doll which would not end (i.e., there would always be another layer of dolls).  So, I think we should question Einstein often even if Einstein is currently correct!  By questioning Einstein often, we open up a hope that one day we might be able to travel faster than light and achieve time travel.  For what purposes do we need faster than light speed and time travel?  I would leave that for you to decide.  Check out “Michio Kaku: What if Einstein Is Wrong?” video right after the break.  Enjoy!!!