Seeking answers to unanswered questions

einstein scrodinger
kaku brian_greene


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. Let me state my another idea about this so called dark energy. This is some sort of unexplained energy which is pushing our universe to expand at ever growing rate, some sort of 'gravitational push'. Why don't we think that it is some sort of centrifugal force pushing our universe outwards?.. Everything in our universe rotates, right? Stars rotate, solar systems rotate, galaxies rotate in cosmos. Why don't we think that our universe may also be rotating too? Scientific data reveals that all objects in universe is expanding, going farther away in ever increasing speed in all directions from us. If we are in a rotating universe or multiverse, then we can explain this dark energy as the centrifugal force that pushes everything outwards. If the universe is expanding then centrifugal outward force must also increase due to the mass increasing in outward areas, this also implies that if matter is not being generated no more at the center, then the boundaries of the universe is receiving more mass and creating the centrifugal force getting more and more at outbounds . You may say at this moment that there is only scientific data which implies linear outward motion and no sidereal vectoral motion is detected but what if we can not detect this vectoral momentum due to universe or multiverse being so colossal in size and we are too small, also this lack of vectoral motion data is unperceivable due to Quantum Ambiguity Principle of Heisenberg. There is always an uncertainity in detecting the exact speed, spin and position, never all. Not to mention that we are dealing with colossal distances. At this point we can elaborate a little on the shape of the universe. General assumption is that the shape of the universe is spherical, due to the fact that most common theory is the Big Bang, universe starting from a single point and expanding outwards in all directions. However if we are talking about a rotating universe, then we can think of different shapes. The shape must be some sort of disk but there will be some varieties due to different start scenario. We must think of a donut if it expanded instantly and continued to expand, thus matter getting more concentrated towards the boundaries. But if we are talking about a continuous creation and ejection of matter from a single point (like from the other side of a black hole), then the shape must be a disk with matter concentration even at all parts of it, or in varying amount of mass due to varying amount of mass ejected. We will have to wait a little more to collect a little more higher resolution data with James Webb Telescope...
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.

Talking about black holes, we must admit that we don't know anything about them. We don't know the physics and what is happening inside them. Can any theoretical physicist explain me in detail why some black holes have material jets bursting out at super high speeds to billions of kilometers? these jets are told to be from their poles. why do black holes have poles? do they have magnetic properties, if yes, why? they are told to suck material inside, then why are they ejecting material out? do they have theoretical limits of how much material they can digest, or is there a limit that can make a black hole totally unstable?... and finally if a black hole gets unstable, what happens...

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.

The oddities at micro cosmos levels may be because of the fact that when at Quantum levels we approach to other dimensions and parallel universes and pyhsics began to behave different than macro cosmos. The interaction and effects of other dimensions and parallel universes are more in quantum levels of micro cosmos. What theoretical physiciscts call dark matter and dark energy is something we cannot see and perceive but can feel the effects of its gravitational pull or push in our universe, thus it can well be from out of this universe. Indeed the so called dark energy which dominates our macro cosmos can be the same effect. The small interactions of the other dimensions and parallel universes add up to be a big force making our macro universe to expand at an increasing rate. Think multiverse...

Particle scientists and theoretical physicists sarcastically call Higgs boson the God's Particle... Because it seems to be responsible of assigning mass to matter, thus creation of matter. Well, recently some CERN scientists published their new theories about Higgs Boson (actually Higgs Field), they say that they will not be able to find Higgs Boson because it may not exist now. According to their assumption, Higgs field must exist only at the very early moments of the universe, did its job, created all the matter and stopped its existence. In another words, there was only singular energy at the very beginning, the Higgs field was there to convert the energy to matter and that was all. After converting all that energy to mass, the Higgs field vanished. Well, this looks like creation as religious minds find explanatory. The creation of universe in a fraction of time by God's particle (God's hand, God's touch as you may call). According to me this looks more like my perception of how universe started with an instant inflation. I beleive that these new assumptions are well matching with my thoughts about the instant inflation of the whole universe in a fraction of time. The universe started from sole singular energy and inflated to its actual size, after all these billions of years matter is trying to fill it with an increasing speed. The actual size and borders of our universe (or multiverse) is beyond my perception and I am still thinking about what will happen when matter fills it to its extent and reach its borders.

I do not understand the debate about the matter and dark matter about the universe. Scientists say that visible matter is 5% of our universe. There is another 25% what they call dark matter and 70% dark energy. Well, I can not understand how they calculate visible matter as 5%. As far as I understand they compute what they can see, but do they know about the limits and boundaries of our universe? We all know what we can see at this time (i.e. 13,8 billion light years) but is this the actual limit? These are the boundaries of Hubble telescope and from large earth based telescopes. The James Webb telescope which will be launched in few years will have 10 times more power. What if it sees 100 billion light years back? will it be the new age for our universe? will it mean that our visible universe is 10 times larger? We do not know the actual size of our universe.. It is beyond our perception, then how can we compute the actual mass of matter in our universe? Do we know how much matter is in black holes? Do we know how many black holes are there? We do not see the matter inside them. We do not know anything about black holes. Scientists say that there are around 200-500 billion stars in our galaxy. Well, according to me this is a vague estimate and 200 billion and 500 billion differs 2.5 times. this means that we can not even compute the exact mass and matter in our own galaxy. According to Hubble observations there are trillions of galaxies out there and this is what Hubble can see. After the deployment of James Webb telescope all these assumptions and calculations may change drastically. We know nothing about the size of the universe. So we cannot compute the exact amout of matter. According to me there is no need to invent fancy names as "dark matter or dark energy" in our universe. Do we know the exact amount of matter in our tiny solar system? There are debates about the existance of a 9th planet 10 times the mass of earth, a terrestrial planet. Far far away between the Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud. Do we know about anything about the Oort Cloud?. How big it is and how far it is?. Studies suggest that the Oort Cloud can be as 2,5 light years far and larger than we know, extending to nearly the premises of our closest neighbor star, Proxima Centauri. We cannot even calculate the exact amount of matter in our solar system. We must be more inventive and scientific in astrophysics...



Brainstorming about workings of our brain and digital processing...
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...




ana sayfa