Chicken And Egg Theory Marches On!

When an egg decides to hatch a chick, an egg must have wondering who’d hatched it.  When we human beings came to being, we probably had wondered countless time who hatched us, right?  Furthermore, we probably had wondered about the purposes of all the wonders on this earth and within this universe.  For an example, we must have thought hard about the perfect marriage of male and female of all types of beings.  Furthermore, when there is day, night must follow soon.  Furthermore, these creations are for whom to enjoy?

With the chicken and egg curiosity, groups of different society within human population decided to form their own religions to explain the universe and all of its secrets.  Then science came to prominent, and it was too intended that it was a more proper way of approaching the chicken and egg curiosity.  Still, so far there is yet a satisfactory explanation to this chicken and egg question of our universe.  Whenever a specific religion or science tries to explain the chicken and egg curiosity, a complete satisfactory explanation isn’t really realized.

For an example, if a religion said that their God had created this universe, then we must have to wonder who had created God?  If a science said that Big Bang had created this universe, then we must have to wonder who had created Big Bang?  This curiosity seems like a question that cannot be answered clearly, because the chicken and egg theory can go into an infinity.  Furthermore, we have to wonder, if there is night, then there is day…  if there is infinity, then there is a limitation.  So, I guess if we are to be clever, we must have wondered the chicken and egg curiosity must have a finite explanation.

Still, I have to wonder, can an infinity gives birth to a finite existence, and then a finite existence would in turn giving birth to an infinity?  Otherwise, how can we explain what had given birth to an infinity?  Thus, the chicken and egg curiosity marches on!

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!!!

Imagination: Imagine, A Universe Is A Holy Womb Which Nourishes A Holy Infant

The supermassive black holes are all that rema...

The supermassive black holes are all that remains of galaxies once all protons decay, but even these giants are not immortal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is another blog post of which I’m sure will stir up some controversies regardless of its actual intention.  I guess, I’m calling it another fantastical imaginary session.  I won’t say what I’m about to spew is actually my belief, because I intend for this piece to be pure fiction.  Nonetheless, some people might take this as something real and be offended by it.  For me, I imagine this fantasy piece is of science fiction meets fictional Gods.

Anyhow, just imagine in a world that there are many Gods.  Before a new God can spring into the existence, God must be born.  Before God must be born, a hot soup of universe nourishes the planets, stars, black holes, and countless other energies.  In a way, we can imagine that each universe is a womb that nourishes a holy infant.  When the universe gives birth to a holy infant, the holy infant would become God eventually.  After the birth of a holy infant, the specific universe would cease to exist.

For those who think this is rather offensive to your religion, just think this is a writing of a fantasy, science fictional kind of writing.  For those who like to believe if there is some truth to this, you need to know this is just an imagination.  Make up yours!  OK?  This piece isn’t about religion, but it’s more of a fantasy prose where science fiction meets fictional Gods.

Afterthought:  In a way, isn’t it cool if a sperm knows that in its entire lifespan, it’s working toward the goal of creating a human being when it penetrates the egg?

A Galaxy Is A Universe?

Solar System

Solar System (Photo credit: Joe Plocki (turbojoe))

I can’t help but imagine up a crazy scenario in regarding to the bewilderment of the finding of Voyager 1 so far.  According to Arstechnica’s “Missing: Voyager 1 yet to find the boundary line of the Solar System” article, it seems that the model of predicting the borderline of our solar system has been wrong as the scientists cannot agree with the Voyager 1’s data in this regard.  Of course, I’m not going to lie, I barely understand the article since it is too science-nerdy.  Nonetheless, the article has suggested that Voyager 1’s data have somehow hinted that it is unexpectedly not yet being where it’s supposed to be, and where it’s supposed to be is to be near the border of the solar system.  Beyond the immediate surrounding of our solar system border is known as heliopause.  Anyhow, it’s clearly shown that we can only guess of how the stuffs in our universe behave according to the theories and models we think that are most likely to be correct, but the truth is that the reality of the stuffs out there, within our universe, can really be bizarre.  Especially, as the distance gets farther and farther away from our home planet, we can only truly guess.

So what is my crazy scenario?  Without any proof and fact to back up this scenario, and I know it’s probably and most likely inclining toward science fiction and pure fantasy, but this idea had entered my tiny brain regardless.  Let just dilly dally a bit more before I reveal the crazy scenario.  So, according to other people, just the Milky Way galaxy alone, which contains earth (our home planet), has roughly around 200 billion stars or even more.  I can be wrong on this next thing.  According to other people again, many solar systems in Milky Way galaxy might contain more than one star.  According to what we think we know, our solar system is unique as it contains only one star.  Still, even if there are solar systems that can contain unlimited amount of stars, 100 billion stars or more are plenty for plenty of solar systems to spring about.  We’re making the stars as the protagonists, because the stars are the most massive objects in any solar system.  With this knowledge, we can say the stars are the most important bodies in a solar system.  Hint, the emphasis of calling a smallest system (i.e., containing stars) of systems within a universe as a solar system.  Solar means sun.  Sun is a star.  My point of laying all these assumed facts out is that the distance and sizes of things in space are just mind boggling.

Since it’s just crazy enough to contemplate on the things we think we know about our solar system, imagine that we have to also think about other galaxies.  Even crazier, we like to think about the universe itself.  Perhaps, I might be even crazier and suggest that each galaxy is a universe of itself.  This is the very (crazy) scenario which I had hinted about.  Of course, you can’t disprove me yet until there is a technology which allows you to travel beyond our galaxy.  Sure, you can try to disprove this crazy scenario with your naked eyes and cameras and say that your naked eyes and cameras had seen the galaxies such as Andromeda.  But let me ask you this, how do you know what you see isn’t another universe but just a galaxy?  Of course, you can argue and say a galaxy is a universe, but a universe in a galaxy manner, because the real universe would encompass all objects we think there are in space.  Even with this argument, how can you be so sure of what you have seen with the eyes and the tools (e.g., camera, telescope)?  The Voyager 1 so far has proved that the model which we rely on for the calculation the distance from here on out, nearing the border of our solar system, has been wrong.  It had taken 35 years for the Voyager 1 to travel that far out, and yet it seems the evidence is suggesting the Voyager 1 is nowhere near the edge of the solar system.  Perhaps, Voyager 1 isn’t sufficient enough to actually bring about the evidences we need to prove that we have seen the border of our solar system?  In any regard, things out there are simply too complex for us to know exactly unless we actually travel there ourselves.  Even then, let us contemplate on these things even more.

In conclusion, I’ve no idea what I’m talking about, but the crazy scenario had already entered my tiny brain.  I let it sprouts, because it is just so fascinating.  Nonetheless, like I say, it might just be simply a crazy, idiotic scenario.  I chuckle, a galaxy is a universe.  By the way, don’t talk about this idea in your science class, because your fellow classmates might laugh at you and think you’re an idiot.  So, you have been warned!  For me, sometimes, it’s great to be an idiot.


How Energy Was Created In The First Place?

Single cover for "Big Bang Theory Theme&q...

Single cover for “Big Bang Theory Theme” by Barenaked Ladies (2007) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From a person who has very little knowledge of science, but I do often wonder about the weirdness of the law of conservation of energy.  Obviously, the law of conservation of energy is indeed making sense since people are using this very law in many applications.  Still, I have to wonder, if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then how energy was created in the first place?  Sure, you can always use the big bang theory and say that it must have been the singularity that created everything, and then the whole phenomenon must have set a universal law which prescribed that energy could neither be created nor destroyed.  This argument somewhat helps us ease our mind a little on the subject, but the question persists, and it has morphed into this — how singularity was created in the first place?  Of course, I don’t think anyone now can answer such a question, because our current technology is still gazillions of light years away from having the capability of allowing us to take a peek inside what had created the singularity.  We might need a second Einstein to help us solve this very question.


A Universe Was Formed Out Of Nothingness?

Krauss at the American Atheists Convention in ...

Image via Wikipedia

Lawrence Krauss, Arizona State University physicist, published a new book with title “A Universe From Nothing.”  Although I haven’t yet read this particular book of his, but I watched a lecture of his through a YouTube video with the same title as his book, and I have to say it was rather fascinating; at times I could only understand half of the things he had said.  Anyhow, if you don’t mind few headache moments, you can watch Lawrence Krauss’s “A Universe From Nothing” lecture right after the break.

The title “A Universe From Nothing” which has been named for both of his book and his lecture which made readily available through a YouTube video in itself is quite mind boggling and fascinating.  Nonetheless, what I refer to is of philosophy and not of exact science which requires experimentation.  On the other hand, I think what Lawrence Krauss had inferred to why a universe from nothing might actually happen is probably backed by certain scientific formulas, experiments and proofs.  Regardless, I still have to wonder is it really that how our universe was formed?  That’s, from nothing that is really something!

Philosophically speaking (i.e., without any real experimentation and mathematical proof), if nothing is actually something, then we still have to wrestle with the idea that there might be a nothing that is actually nothing, and this actual nothing might have been existed before everything.  Another way to phrase this is to ask it in a question.  What is actually nothing?  So, in a sense it’s rather implausible to see a universe could be formed from actual nothing.  As how Lawrence Krauss lectured which you could watch in the YouTube video above, his nothing is something (i.e., matters) as it has a mysterious mass or energy or however he had explained, therefore it was possible for him to see a universe of ours in a current state.  Without this picture, even if the calculation of the eventual sum of all matters that made known to humankind (i.e., protons, neutrons, etc…)  — in total could not have come up with the scale of the universe in which we have witnessed (e.g., measured, weighed, computed) today.  So, his answer was what we thought of nothing is really something after all.

Still, the question which has always lingered in the back of my mind is the kind of nothing which Lawrence Krauss had spoken of might have been created by something in the first place.  In a way, it’s rather implausible if such a scenario is to be probed, not because it might not be possible to do an experiment to probe for such a scenario, although it’s probably impossible to do so with exactness, but it’s also about the philosophical aspect where we have to wonder perhaps the actual nothing might exist.  If the actual nothing isn’t existed in nature ever, it would be an infinite scenario where the nothing we’ve now knew as something, if we’ve believed Lawrence Krauss’s explanation, might always have been created by something, and there was and has been such an infinite pattern of nature.  In the end, it’s only a curiosity of mine, because I might not know what on earth I’m taking about — philosophical or not.