Brainstorming about the unanswered questions of cosmos...
I am an ordinary man with scientific mind. I always ask questions and seek for answers about the functioning of the cosmos. There are many brilliant minds, scientists and theoretical physicists tinkering on the subject and seeking answers. They provide us with many ideas and theories but I see a common weakness in all of them. All of them are talking with formulas and want to formulate the cosmos. This is normal because they are scientists and seek for experimental harmony and compatibility for definition. Actually we are takling about cosmos and how it works. Therefore prejudice and shaped minds may not have the ability to conceive the big picture. In a seminar or presentation, a theoretical physicist uses the sentence " as you know" frequently while trying to explain his/her theory. I don't know. Do I have to accept a well known theory as true?.. What is truth? Relativity suggests that everthing is relative, Quantum Mechanics suggest that everything depends on possibilities and uncertainity, String Theory admits that what it implies can not be perceived and tested, Parallel Universes Theory says that what it can not be tested in the universe we live in. Theoretical scientists of the world are all trying to establish a unified and common formula to explain the functioning of the universe. According to me this is totally wrong and not acceptable because it lacks the curiosity of seeking answers. If you accept something as true then you stop asking questions. Scientific curiosity comes to an end if we assume something as ultimate truth. I call this scientific conservatism. If you accept that speed of light is fixed, then you don't argue on this and build your theory on an assumption. Of course engineers and designers need working scientific laws and formulas to do their work, but a theoretical physicist must not start a presentation saying that “ according to the second law of thermodynamics ...”
As I said before I am an ordinary man with scientific mind, and I don't know formulas about scientific theories. Therefore I can think more flexible about workings of cosmos, just like a child will do. Children can be more creative on many basic designs because their brains are not yet sculpted with education. I do a lot of brainstorming about these big questions and working of cosmos. I have my humble explanations about some unanswered problems of theoretical physics.
What if the speed of light is not fixed as we assume? Einstein has deducted that the speed of light is fixed and everything else is relative. Nothing can exceed the speed of light. Yes it is true that we measure the speed of light as roughly 300000km/sec in scientific experiments. But it may not be the case at all times. The speed of light that we measure can be true for our time and space. What if it was 1000 or 1000000 times faster at the beginning of the universe? what if it will be much slower in the future, for example, 100000km/sec when some billion years from now on? This changes everything and all scientific formulas and theories. Just thinker on Einstein’s famous formula E=MC2 with an infinite C, this may explain the huge amount of energy vs matter at the start of the universe. We must think flexible.
I also have ideas about the Big Bang Theory. I think similar to some theoretical phsicists who are defining it as inflation not a bang. I also think that this inflation was instant. The speed limit was not there and everything inflated almost instantly creating the whole universe, and now we are witnessing all that matter which is trying to fill the universe bubble. The perception of time can also be a problem for us (everything seem to be static because of our life span which is too small for the universe) and it may be the totality of Quantum Instances which were already there and we are experiencing them one by one in the direction which we perceive. This may explain the oddities in many theories. The so called dark energy which causes the ever increasing expansion of the perceived universe may be actually like anti-gravity which pushes the matter towards the borders of the universe (gravitational push) which is actually a pull of the forces that act like filling in the universe vacuum. Just like when you have a bunch of smoke in the air between your hands and you suddenly open your hands to both sides. The smoke will try to fill the new big space between your hands. I know that this was a stupid example.
I am an ordinary man with scientific mind. You may think that I don't have the scientific background and sufficiency to create theoretical explanations to such big questions. But remember that all those brilliant theoretical physicists had bad times when they had to admit that they were wrong on some of their theories. Einstein had problems with his theories and formulas. He had to include a Cosmological multiplier in his formulas to explain the oddities in his formulas. This constant was %60 which is ridiculous. All those complex formulas reflect the truth with %60 error. He then admitted his formulas were insufficient to explain everything. Later other scientists called this cosmological constant as the dark energy which is not explained and fuelling the expansion of universe.
Leonard Susskind who won a debate with Stephen Hawking on information loss in black holes was a plumber. Hawking had to admit on 2004 that his theory was wrong. Peter Higgs first presented his work on how sub atomic particles gain mass to CERN and was rejected. Its a pity that CERN has later invested more than 10 billion dollars on LHC to find so called Higgs Bozon when Peter Higgs is still alive.
I beleive that you have to be flexible in thinking and asking questions. Never constrain your mind with previous assumptions. This is a must for creating answers and keeping up with questioning. I do beleive that black holes are the places we must explore and can find many answers about the functioning of our universe. The other side of a black hole can be the start of new universe and I beleive that there is a white instant expansion on the other side of a black hole in which the arrow of time is on the opposite direction of ours. This makes the correlation with Parallel Universes which we never parceive. Scientist are arguing about micro and macro cosmos differences and most accept that Quantum Theory works well in micro cosmos whereas Relativity Theory explains macro cosmos better. Even Newtonian physics works well in macro cosmos. Why do we have all those theories and formulas if they do not explain the big picture? Why are we still working on them? Scientists at CERN are trying to collide protons at higher speeds to break up them and find new particles.
The ever growing number and types of particles showed only one thing. There is no matter which can not be divided into smaller particles. They are saying that they found new sub-atomic particles when higher energy collisions achieved. This means to me that if you have a small enough knife, you can divide the matter into smaller particles. When you can increase the resolution and sensitivity of your knife you can make higher definition cuts and have smaller particles. Until it can not be incised. That you reach an energy plasma. Matter in its first form. Energy. Like first created in the instant inflation. This explains the heavy nuclear force level of the atomic substance the singularity. We now can see the similarities with a black hole. The so called singularity state of the matter. It is sole energy. Therefore we cannot or must not talk about material exchange between colliding black holes. Matter may not exist as hadronic matter inside them. We must thinker about what happens when two extremely compact energy fields collide. An energy singularity collision. Not a bunch of protons colliding at high speeds.
The atom in itself has more mysteries that even a simple mind can think of some questions about it. Scientists say that 99% of the atom is sole emptiness, that is as of mass, which is the nucleus and the electrons. We can think of a Helium atom like a stadium with a big baseball at the center and a tennis ball wandering in the field. In this case a lot of people can run pass the stadium without touching any balls, and even wander around. Someone can ask why that is not the case?. An atom behaves like a solid stadium which you can not pass through. The simple answer may be in the Quantum Theory. It says that the electron which is orbiting the nucleus can be at any place with some probability until you try to measure it ( see it and try to take measurements about its location and speed and spin). Weird, isn’t it?.. What if its not that weird and electron is everywhere just like Quantum Theory suggests. But when we measure, it is said to collapse to a single state. What if it is acually everywhere but we only perceive one state of it? The one state which we can perceive in our dimension and perceivable universe. The other states are also in existence but in other parallel universes which are occupying the same space. In other words, all quantum states of the electron exists at the same time and space but in different dimensions, that is different universes which co-exist. We are talking about parallel universes here not multiverse, which means infinite number of universes which are nested and bubbling out from each other. The string theorists say that there are 6 more dimensions ( our perceivable 3 dimensions plus 3 more lower and 3 more higher) in which extra dimensions are too small to be perceived ( much smaller than the size on an atom) which actually can mean parallel universes nearly occupying the same space. The lack of experimental data to explain the good assumptions of the String Theory nicely matching with the Quantum Theory. My assumption about the mystery in solid behaviour of the atom can be exactly what they are seeking for. All states of the electron is actually existing there and the atom is thus acting like a total solid without the so thought empty space between the electron and nucleus. Indeed, if you look at atoms under a powerful electron microscope they look like cloud balls that line up in a close formation. At this point we must also dig the concept of time too. We think of the time as another dimension which is flowing forward. We must also thinker on the time. Scientists say that there is no rule that prohibits the negative time. But what if the time is also 3 dimensional? This may also explain the mysterious quantum existence of the electron within the atom. Every single quantum state of the electron is its existence in a 3 dimensional time, forward-backward, left-right and up-down too. Thus depicting its state in a 3 dimensional time matrix which consists its total quantum co-existance. Each state is in different quantum moment and in different dimension, the quantum moments which add on one another to construct our perceivable universe. The quantum moments may be the smallest time unit which is beyond our perception. This way we perceive our time and space flowing smoothly just like the individual still frames which build up to be a live video.
Brainstorming about workings of our brain and digital processing...
Everyone thinks about how our brain works and processes data. We usually think that our brain is like a computer and try to make computers which work like our brains. The misunderstanding is that the only similarity is brain is a controller and has some sort of data storage. Lately scientists try to simulate brain activity with parallel computers and say that the level of technology is not sufficient to make a powerful enough parallel computer like our brain. Some computer scientists beleive that quantum computers will be answer and work on the subject. According to me none of these approaches are the answers to the understanding of how our brain works. The more we think on more complex processing technologies, the more we are getting away from the answers. Nature does not work that way. We must think simpler and more efficient processes. The problem is, our computers are actually processes the data one by one, in some sort of multitasking but actually making computations. However our brain must be working in a different way. It is a data processor, a controller, has some sort of data storage and some sort of intelligence what we can call our personality. We should be more focusing on the instant sharing of data processing. Trying to make more powerful computers is not the answer. We already have simpler data processing and job execution equipment which are called microcontrollers. These simpler devices does the job just like our brain does. Collecting data from sensors, sending control commands to all sorts of peripherals (like moving a finger), making computing and comparisons with already stored data and so on. The only thing is that these microcontrollers and embedded sysytems work like a computer and process data one by one just like a PC. Instant sharing of the data and reaching to data storage is not possible like our brain does. A microcontroller has a program running and reaches to I/O ports to read a sensor or send a controller signal to them. It sends requests to carry out the job. However our brain works with a neuron network in which the data is available realtime shared with the totality of the brain network. Lots of data flows into the system which is shared instantly with all parts of our brain. Data from sensors all over our body flows into the system and shared instantly. The control signals are also created according to our past experiences which are stored somewhere and shared instantly too. However a microcontroller program has to reach a sensor ( to read an input from a port) with a request signal which is processed one by one from a program and then make a comparison from a previously stored data and decide to send a control signal ( for example to move a servo). We must concentrate more on the working of microcontrollers and try to make them accessible realtime on shared data. We must quit working on making programs that execute commands step by step. Maybe we should more concentrate on designing microcontroller software instead of designing more powerful and faster ones...
Indeed there are promising studies and algorithms on the issue which is called Artificial Neural Network. In this approach to programming microcontrollers a virtual layer of neurons are added between the input (sensor) and output (action) layers instead of directly associating the input and output layers. This artificial neurons are used as a neuron network between the input and output layers providing the data available to be processed parallel and shared. Moreover, the link matrix can be provided with different judgement factors (or weights) to be used by the system to behave as desired and this also leads to some sort of learning. A simple neural network like this can learn to do a desired task unsupervised...