THE DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT PART 2, PROVE OR DISPROVE

 

My first paper looking at the double slit experiment hypothesizes that the wave function could be the result of quantum entanglement. This conclusion was reached through an evaluation of the information from the original double slit experiment involving individual particles. In other words, I simply carried the original experiment one step further. Given that the hypothesis is based on information from the first experiment, it is a valid experimentally based hypothesis. The next step would be to try and experimentally validate the hypothesis. This paper outlines steps that can be added to the original double slit experiment that can be used as an initial evaluation toward proving, or disproving, my quantum entanglement hypothesis for the wave function of a particle as established in the original double slit experiment. My first paper is also posted on this blog.

The original double slit experiment is such that a single particle is independently sent toward double slits. The slits are monitored to see which one the particle goes through. The particle continues on hitting a screen leaving a dispersed particle pattern on the screen. The act of measuring the particle for the slit it travels through determines it position and in essence removes the wave function of the particle. This results in a particle only dispersion pattern on the screen. My experiment simply builds on this.

On the screen where the particle pattern has been determined, cut another double slit. This way after traveling through the first double slit and determining which slit the particle goes through, which removes the wave function, we can see if the particle still acts like a particle after traveling through the second double slit and hitting a screen behind the second double slit. The pattern on the screen after the second double slit will show us if the particle is still a particle after traveling through both double slits, or if at some point the particle obtained another wave function. If the particle obtains a second wave function the questions would be where did the wave function come from, and is it the “same” as the initial coherent particle from the original source?

It should be noted that there are multiple versions or variations that could be done with this experimental set up. For example, there could be two sets of double slits set up on the second screen after the initial set, one at each particle dispersal pattern to see if one or both of the particle dispersal patterns have the same pattern on the final screen. One additional parameter that I would add to the experiment at some point, a complete account, tracking and total count of all particles released from the source.

My initial hypothesis is that the measurement at the first set of double slits removes the wave function of the particle and that from this measurement point forward the only thing left is a particle. In my experimental setup we know that when the particle reaches the second set of double slits it is acting as a particle. This was established in the original double slit experiment. This means that there is only a particle reaching the second double slits, which is the exact same process for the first double slits. The difference is that there is no longer a guarantee of particle coherence that was established in the initial particle source. From this point forward there are only two basic things that can return a wave function to the particle, the second set of double slits, or the virtual field. But, not just any wave function can be returned, it has to be the wave function corresponding to the original coherence of the source. A return of the wave function would by necessity have to be associated with quantum mechanics. The question would be what quantum process could return a distinct or specific wave function to what is in essence a free particle. Furthermore, returning the particle to its original state established at the particle source would require energy. At this point the most likely source of this energy is the virtual field. However, removing this energy from the field would result in an energy drain from the field which in turn results in a number of other issues.

My hypothesis for this experiment is that it will show that the measurement done at the first set of double slits removes the wave function and creates a “wave-free” particle. Furthermore, the establishment of wave-free particles does not result in a significant change to current quantum physics. Rather, it simply adds another characteristic to be used and evaluated as physics moves forward. The wave function is still a part of many aspects of particle interactions thus keeping relevant parts of quantum physics intact. Having a wave-free particle is not that much different many other aspects associated with the standard model of particles.

THE DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT

 

My position on what we know about physics is that the information we have discovered clearly shows us that there is so much more for us to learn. For me the evidence starts with UFOs/ETs and Beings/Ghosts. We have thousands of years of history telling us all about these things that do not correspond with the physics we think we know. However, rather than telling ourselves that there has to be more for us to learn from these things, scientists will continue to tell us that they cannot be real because the physics we know will not allow for them. In other words, since science and physics cannot explain these things, these things cannot be real.

Well, from everything I read and research, the physics we know is telling us that there is more for us to learn. But for one reason or another today’s scientists simply want to try and built further on what we know rather than looking hard at what is known and asking questions. One of the crowning glories of quantum physics is the Standard Model of Particles. I have already written about what is one of the most glaring questions of many questions associated with the Standard Model and will post that in this blog. The questions I have are real, and they represent areas that we need to dig into rather than just ignoring them for convenience sake.

The standard model is not the only thing that points to more physics for us to learn about, there is experiment that is so ingrained in today’s quantum physics, the Double Slit Experiment that presents a huge question that needs to be answered. The Double Slit Experiment is the experiment that is responsible for giving us one of the most confusing and complicated aspects of quantum physics, Wave-Particle Duality. This is the quantum property of atoms and particles where they act like both a particle and a wave at the same time.

In 1801 physicist and physician Thomas Young performed the double slit experiment. He sent the light from the sun through a single slit, which made the sunlight somewhat in phase. After passing through the single slit the sunlight continued through to two closely spaced narrow slits. From the two slits the light went onto a screen where it showed wave interference patterns. Young’s experiment settled the debate on the nature of light and from this point on light was accepted as traveling as a wave.

Fast forward to 1961 when the first double slit experiment was done with electrons as individual particles and the wave interference pattern first observed by Young was observed with the individual electrons/particles. Further experiments done by sending single particles one at a time through the double slits still showed the wave interference pattern on the final screen. So, the wave nature of individual particles in quantum physics was verified and this is where we stand today.

However, there is a second part to the double slit experiment that I do not believe has been completely evaluation for further interpretations and conclusions. This second part is when the individual particles are measured after going through one of the slits so that it can be determined which slit the particle went through. That is it, a simple measurement telling us which slit the particle used. Well it turns out that this determination changes the whole dynamic of the experiment. There is no longer a wave interference pattern on the final screen. Rather there are just two piles or particles behind each slit. The wave is gone and the particle is acting like a particle when it hits the final screen. In other words, the simple act of measuring which slit the particle went through removes the wave nature of the particle.

So here is the question, I have a particle go through one of the slits and I measure that particle to see which slit it went through. Because of this measurement the particle is no longer a wave, it is now moving as a particle toward the final screen as clearly shown on the screen. What if right before the particle hits the screen and is brought to a stop, I move the screen an infinite distance away, or I move the screen at a speed just above that of the particle so that it cannot reach the screen? In other words, the particle is now moving through space as a particle with no wave form.

This completely upsets the wave-particle duality as now there is a particle moving through space as a only a particle with no “wave function.” The duality is gone. However, the standard answer maybe that a particle has to move through space as a wave so there must be something in quantum physics that gives the wave function back. In other words, unknown quantum magic that cannot be explained occurs and the particle regains a wave function. Or maybe there is another possible explanation, and nature is trying to tell us to dig deeper.

The double slit experiment gives us a particle without an associated wave, which is clear in the experiment itself. Additionally, without going into a lot of detail, the measurement of the slit that the particle uses corresponds with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Specifically, we measured position through the slit determination so the momentum (velocity) of the particle is still present. This accounts for the particle striking the final screen. So, if the wave is removed from the particle, and the particle still exists there are two basic questions;

Where did the wave form come from in the first place?

If there is still a wave form with the particle as it moves through space where did it come from?

Regarding the first question, how about another form of quantum entanglement? As for the second question, the answer is simple, nobody knows.

Regarding quantum entanglement, let’s recall that for this experiment there has to be a particle source, and this source has to in essence make the particles sent through the slits coherent. In other words, the source gives all of the particles a common characteristic. This common characteristic is pretty much what quantum entanglement is all about. Once you give a particle a common characteristic, it is related to other particle(s) by this consistent characteristic. In the case of the individual coherent particles, the common characteristic is the wave form embedded into the particles by the source of the particles. So, as long as you do not measure the particle position, which slit it goes through, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is intact and the particles will form the wave pattern on the final screen. This can also show in the measurement portion of the double slit experiment. Measuring the slit used removes the wave and gives a particle pattern on the final screen. Stop the measuring and the wave form returns for the individual particles on the final screen.

The wave particle duality associated with quantum physics is ingrained in so many things that are part of the physics of life. In particular atomic and molecular structures of the atoms we need and work with every day. But we really need to look at what this wave form does for us that cannot be handled in some other manner. Looking specifically at atomic structure, the wave form gives us the probability of finding an electron in a certain place. Since it is a probability, the electron may or may not be where the wave form says it is most likely to be. It could actually be in the area of the least probability. Furthermore, this wave is not static it is dynamic in that it oscillates. In other words, the position of the electron moves within its orbital, which means the most probable place the electron is supposed to be also moves which is also as expected. When we look at all of the other restrictions on electron placement in an atom, it just seems logical that the whole wave-particle duality and probability function is not the only way to find an electron.

The overriding question is why we have accepted things to be so complicated without even looking at other possible solution, especially when nature itself seems to be telling us there is more for us to find?

STANDARD MODEL AND NEXT GENERATION OF MATTER

 NOTE: This piece is posted to go along with piece above, THE DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT

The Standard Model of Particles (Standard Model) is the building blocks and basis of the matter of our universe. However, this model is not without questions and issues. Despite the fact that the Standard Model is presented as the crowning glory of quantum physics, in my humble opinion there are so many questions with the Standard Model that at best it only represents a rough sketch for the matter in our universe. It is not possible to talk about the Standard Model without first giving some information about it. One of the easiest ways to do this is through one of the many charts that give a pictorial view of what the standard model is. However, these charts can be confusing with all of the numbers and symbols on them. So for the discussion I am about to have a brief description will be better. 

There are 16 different “elementary particles” that make up the Standard Model. However, there could be up to 18 “elementary particles” if you choose to include a couple of other elementary particles that are new or theorized. However, for the first part of our discussion I only want to focus on 4 of the elementary particles in the Standard Model. The 4 particles have different classification but their names are most likely familiar to you, they are;

1. Electron
2. Neutrino (more precisely the Electron Neutrino)
3. Two Quarks, the Up (u) quark and the Down (d) quark.

These 4 particles are commonly referred to as the “first generation” or “first family” of the Standard Model. And, these 4 particles make up all of the matter known and seen in our universe. Therefore, they can be considered the basic particles of our universe. And yes, there is the question of Dark Matter, but for now we will talk about what we can see. The reality of this situation is that it is the Electron and the two Quarks are really the elementary particles that make up all of the matter of our universe. The Neutrino is actually kind of an odd man out. It is formed in high energy events and it is the most abundant particle in our universe. Other than being a “placeholder” to help balance energy and momentum collisions it simply runs around our universe doing its own thing, whatever that may be.

Working with the two quarks, these elementary particles are the building blocks of the proton and neutron. The proton is made up of two up quarks and one down quark, common notation I will use is (uud = P), while the neutron is made up of two down quarks and one up quark, (udd = N). Recall, the Proton and Neutron make up the nucleus of the atom and the electron hangs out just outside of the nucleus. The atom is part of every piece of matter in our universe, and the two quarks and the electron make the atom. Three easy pieces to everything we see.

This really is all there is to the makeup of all of the stars, galaxies and particles everywhere in our universe. It is that straight forward, quarks and electrons represent all there is to putting the matter in our universe together, and there is nothing more than that. I do have to say that there are a lot of “issues and questions” associated with respect to how the quarks build the Proton and Neutron, but they do and that is the bottom line for now. And, not to worry as there will be a lot more forthcoming discussion on the Standard Model.

Before moving forward I have to tell you about a very important concept in physics, symmetry. Symmetry is all about making sure that things look the same no matter where they may be or where they may be moved to or how they may be moved. Violations of symmetry are a big deal that need special circumstances and conditions in order to cover for them in physics. If solutions for symmetry violations cannot be found, then there is a major problem.

Keeping symmetry in mind, it turns out that there is a second generation or family of elementary particles, these particles are;

1. Muon
2. Muon Neutrino
3. Two Quarks, the Charm Quark (c) and the Strange Quark (s).

Notice the comparison symmetry of the second generation with respect to the first. But, for clarity,

The Muon is exactly the same as the Electron except that the Muon is bigger.

The Muon Neutrino is the same as the Electron Neutrino except that the Muon Neutrino is bigger

The Charm Quark is the same as the Up Quark, except the Charm Quark is bigger and the Strange Quark is the same as the Down Quark, except the Strange Quark is bigger.

And next, there is a third generation or family of elementary particles, these particles are;

1. Tau
2. Tau Neutrino
3. Two Quarks, the Top quark (t) and the Bottom quark (b)

For clarity once again,

The Tau is the same as the Muon and Electron, only it is bigger than they are

The Tau Neutrino is the same as the Muon Neutrino and Electron Neutrino, only it is bigger than they are

The Top Quark is the same as the Charm and Up Quarks only it is bigger than they are, and the Bottom Quark is the same as the Strange Quark and the Down Quark, only it is bigger than they are.

Nice clean natural symmetry between the three generations except for the increase in weight moving from the first to second generation and then the second to third generation. The change in mass between the generations means the third generation of particles is much, much larger than the first generation.

So, since the first generation of particles gives us the Proton and Neutron, where are the second and third generation of Protons and Neutrons? Well, they do not exist in our world. It turns out that the second and third generations of the Standard Model that I covered above do not naturally exist in our world as they are too heavy. They really only show up in high energy experiments. It turns out that there are a whole lot of particles that are found in high energy experiments that simply do not exist in our world.

Notice how I stated “do not exist in our world” and did not say anything about existence in our universe. I did this because I believe that when we look at the standard model with respect to symmetry, it is telling us that second and third generations of Protons and Neutrons must exist.  Since we do not see them they must exist in a part of our universe where we have not looked. For example, an infinite 4th dimension above our three dimensions. In other words, our own discoveries are telling us that we are not seeing all there is to see in our universe.

Here is the question that has to be asked, why would nature make up two whole generations of particles without there being some purpose to the particles? In fact, it is not possible to say that there are not a fourth, fifth and beyond generation of particles that are simply too heavy to ever exist in our world.

There really is so much more to our universe, we just have to start asking questions rather than accepting the status quo.

 

 

MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS, GO BIG or GO HOME

 

One of the major things that today‘s physics is working on is String Theory. This theory is all about the basic particles of our universe being made up of one-dimensional strings that exist in multiple extra dimensions of space. These extra dimensions are more than the three dimensional space we live in and they are rolled up into the smallest possible distance we can imagine, known as the Planck Length. This distance is smaller than the distance that separates the proton and the neutron that are crammed together in the nucleus of an atom.

Let me be clear about this and say it another way, go to the absolutely smallest distance you can possibly think of, drop into the space of this distance and now add multiple more infinite spaces into this small distance. And, in these extra spaces that are now in the smallest distance you can think of, you have to put a bunch of one-dimensional strings that make up all of the matter in our universe. In other words, take every piece of matter in the universe and cram it onto a bunch of spaces that exist in the smallest distance in the universe.

This is in essence what string theory is all about, and it gets a bit worse. You see there is Super-symmetry, aka SUSY, a version of string theory that is generally considered necessary to be consistent with the universe that we live in. Well, SUSY basically doubles the number of particles in the universe, which means you now have to double the amount of matter in the universe and you actually have two universes of matter that have to be crammed into multiple rolled up infinite dimensions that exist in the smallest distance in the universe.

We will not go into how these one-dimensional strings existing in multiple dimensions of space crammed into the smallest distance in the universe communicate with the space where we live in order to create all of the matter that really does exist in our universe. Nor will we go into the fact that string theory is a mathematical model that cannot be proven. Hey, very simple, easy, understandable and straightforward right? Not even close. String Theory is a mess. It is a house of cards with so many caveats and unknowns that there is no way that it can be real.

So, does the mess that is String Theory with is multiple dimensions mean that all multi-dimensional models are unacceptable? No it does not. Rather than going to the smallest space possible why not go up? This was idea was actually first introduced in a paper by the German Physicist and Mathematician Theodor Kaluza around 1920. His theory of going up with extra dimensions was based on the work of German Mathematician Bernard Riemann regarding ‘n’ dimensional geometries published in a paper in 1868. Another way to say ‘n’ dimensional geometries is multi-dimensional space. That is spaces that go above and beyond the three-dimensional space of the universe where we live.

It is important to note that when Riemann did is work in multi-dimensional geometries the Planck Length had not yet to be theorized. The presumption here is that Riemann was looking at geometries above our three-dimensional geometry. That is there would be a fourth dimension of space that wraps around out entire three dimensional space just like our three dimensional space wraps around a two dimensional shape, (think of a sheet of paper as a two dimensional space). An example of a four-dimensional space object is the Klein Bottle. See the included three dimensional representation of the bottle, which can only be opened up in a four dimensional space. Under Riemann’s geometry, the number of dimensions that can exist above our three-dimensional space is basically infinite.

Does Reimann’s geometry prevent smaller dimensions down in the Planck Length? Not specifically as the math can go big or small. But the actual representation of the String Theory dimensions appears to be simply impossible and is at the very least impossible to prove or disprove. So looking at String Theory logically, it really just does not make sense. Going one more step, looking at String Theory with respect to the philosophical principle of Occam’s Razor, which in essence states that nature will take the simplest path, any multi-dimensional theory is simpler than String Theory and SUSY.

So are multiple dimensions out of the physics picture? No, they are not. Rather than going small to explain our universe like String Theory did, let’s make the dimensions big and embed our three dimensional space into a four dimensional space just like Russian Nesting Dolls. Consider the following for explanation purposes only;

Zero-Dimension = a point

One-Dimension = a string

Two-Dimensions = a sheet of paper

Three-Dimension = our universe

Zero, One and Two Dimensions are all embedded in our three dimensional universe. So, in order to follow the theory, our Three-Dimensional Universe is embedded into a Fourth-Dimension. And, a Fourth-Dimension can be embedded into a Fifth-Dimension and so on and so on.

This sounds almost as strange as all of the extra dimensions stuck down in the Planck Length with string theory. Except that Riemann showed multi-dimensional spaces was real back in 1868. And, as shown above with the embedding of smaller dimensions in our universe, there is real physical evidence supporting that a multi-dimensional universe can exist. Additionally, looking at some of the modern physics and modern discoveries there is even more evidence for the embedding our Three-Dimensional Universe into higher dimensions. It is possible to use the higher dimensions to account for the anti-symmetry associated with the lack of any anti-matter in our universe. I believe it is even possible to account for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, as well as provide further explanation of black holes along with many other puzzles associated with today’s modern physics and our universe.

Another consideration looking at the Klein Bottle above, look how four-dimensions can be viewed in our three dimensional world. There are so many shortcuts within the bottle to get from one surface area to another without having to travel along the surface. In other words, short cut travel paths in higher dimensions for UFOs and ETs to travel about our three-dimensional universe, visit us and then “go back home.”

Let’s take a moment to put this in perspective, going up or bigger in dimensions in our universe not only provides potential solutions to unanswered questions in physics, it also allows for travel about the universe. This seems to me to make larger dimension an area requiring research.

STANDARD MODEL A HINT FOR UFOs

Sometimes it is not about what you know, instead it is about understanding what you have. Nature has provided us with a distinct view of the makeup of the matter that we see in our universe. Nature has gone so far as to give us a view and knowledge of the building blocks for even more matter in our universe. But, science does not really care about these extra building blocks, they simply accept them as being there without understanding why they are there or even asking about what they might do. Maybe alien civilizations did ask about these extra building blocks and now they travel about the universe, I give you the Standard Model.

The Standard Model of Particles (Standard Model) is the building blocks and basis of the matter of our universe. However, this model is not without questions and issues. Despite the fact that the Standard Model is presented as the crowning glory of quantum physics, in my humble opinion there are so many questions with the Standard Model that at best it only represents a rough sketch for the matter in our universe. It is not possible to talk about the Standard Model without first giving some information about it. One of the easiest ways to do this is through one of the many charts that gives a pictorial view of what the standard model is. However, these charts can be confusing with all of the numbers and symbols on them. So for the discussion I am about to have a brief description will be better. 

There are 16 different “elementary particles” that make up the Standard Model. However, there could be up to 18 “elementary particles” if you choose to include a couple of other elementary particles that are new or theorized. However, for the first part of our discussion I only want to focus on 4 of the elementary particles in the Standard Model. The 4 particles have different classification but their names are most likely familiar to you, they are;

1. Electron
2. Neutrino (more precisely the Electron Neutrino)
3. Two Quarks, the Up (u) quark and the Down (d) quark.

These 4 particles are commonly referred to as the “first generation” or “first family” of the Standard Model. And, these 4 particles make up all of the matter known and seen in our universe. Therefore, they can be considered the basic particles of our universe. And yes, there is the question of Dark Matter, but for now we will talk about what we can see. The reality of this situation is that it is the Electron and the two Quarks are really the elementary particles that make up all of the matter of our universe. The Neutrino is actually kind of an odd man out. It is formed in high energy events and it is the most abundant particle in our universe. Other than being a “placeholder” to help balance energy and momentum collisions it simply runs around our universe doing its own thing, whatever that may be.

Working with the two quarks, these elementary particles are the building blocks of the proton and neutron. The proton is made up of two up quarks and one down quark, common notation I will use is (uud = P), while the neutron is made up of two down quarks and one up quark, (udd = N). Recall, the Proton and Neutron make up the nucleus of the atom and the electron hangs out just outside of the nucleus. The atom is part of every piece of matter in our universe, and the two quarks and the electron make the atom. Three easy pieces to everything we see.

This really is all there is to the makeup of all of the stars, galaxies and particles everywhere in our universe. It is that straight forward, quarks and electrons represent all there is to putting the matter in our universe together, and there is nothing more than that. I do have to say that there are a lot of “issues and questions” associated with respect to how the quarks build the Proton and Neutron, but they do and that is the bottom line for now. And, not to worry as there will be a lot more forthcoming discussion on the Standard Model.

Before moving forward I have to tell you about a very important concept in physics, symmetry. Symmetry is all about making sure that things look the same no matter where they may be or where they may be moved to or how they may be moved. Violations of symmetry are a big deal that need special circumstances and conditions in order to cover for them in physics. If solutions for symmetry violations cannot be found, then there is a major problem.

Keeping symmetry in mind, it turns out that there is a second generation or family of elementary particles, these particles are;

1. Muon
2. Muon Neutrino
3. Two Quarks, the Charm Quark (c) and the Strange Quark (s).

Notice the  comparison symmetry of the second generation with respect to the first. But, for clarity,

The Muon is exactly the same as the Electron except that the Muon is bigger.

The Muon Neutrino is the same as the Electron Neutrino except that the Muon Neutrino is bigger

The Charm Quark is the same as the Up Quark, except the Charm Quark is bigger and the Strange Quark is the same as the Down Quark, except the Strange Quark is bigger.

And next, there is a third generation or family of elementary particles, these particles are;

1. Tau
2. Tau Neutrino
3. Two Quarks, the Top quark (t) and the Bottom quark (b)

For clarity once again,

The Tau is the same as the Muon and Electron, only it is bigger than they are

The Tau Neutrino is the same as the Muon Neutrino and Electron Neutrino, only it is bigger than they are

The Top Quark is the same as the Charm and Up Quarks only it is bigger than they are, and the Bottom Quark is the same as the Strange Quark and the Down Quark, only it is bigger than they are.

Nice clean natural symmetry between the three generations except for the increase in weight moving from the first to second generation and then the second to third generation. The change in mass between the generations means the third generation of particles is much, much larger than the first generation.

So, since the first generation of particles gives us the Proton and Neutron, where are the second and third generation of Protons and Neutrons? Well, they do not exist in our world. It turns out that the second and third generations of the Standard Model that I covered above do not naturally exist in our world as they are too heavy. They really only show up in high energy experiments. It turns out that there are a whole lot of particles that are found in high energy experiments that simply do not exist in our world.

Notice how I stated “do not exist in our world” and did not say anything about existence in our universe. I did this because I believe that when we look at the standard model with respect to symmetry, it is telling us that second and third generations of Protons and Neutrons must exist.  Since we do not see them they must exist in a part of our universe where we have not looked. For example, an infinite 4th dimension above our three dimensions. In other words, our own discoveries are telling us that we are not seeing all there is to see in our universe.

Here is the question that has to be asked, why would nature make up two whole generations of particles without there being some purpose to the particles? In fact, it is not possible to say that there are not a fourth, fifth and beyond generation of particles that are simply too heavy to ever exist in our world.

There really is so much more to our universe, we just have to start asking questions rather than accepting the status quo. I believe that nature has given us a great big hint about there being so much more to our universe and all we have to do is ask some simple questions about the rest of the Standard Model. Asking the right questions and finding answers may give us the key to traveling throughout the universe.

WITH AGE COMES WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING

As for individuals of the human species, it is safe to say that with age and experience comes an increase in our own personal wisdom and understanding. I believe that it is fair to say that we can say the same for our species/society as a whole. The evidence for this can be seen by simply looking at how far we have come with technology and how we continue to grow. If growth in wisdom and understanding occurs with us as a species, it is reasonable to presume that it occurs with ETs also. There is no way that we can know how old an ET species may be or how much knowledge and understanding of the universe they may have. However, it is possible to make some age estimates based the age of the universe and what we know now. Specifically, the age of the universe puts limits on the age of life in the universe, and we can use our timeline of life as a basis.

The following are the current best estimates;

Age of the Universe, about 13.8 billion years old

Age of our own galaxy about 13.5 billion years old

Age of oldest star (sun) in our galaxy, about 13.2 billion years old

Age of our sun about 4.6 billion years old

Age of earth, about 4.5 billion years old

Age of intelligent life on earth, about 7,000-10,000 years old

Age of human technology about 250 years old

For comparison and additional information the following is for our nearest neighbor, the Andromeda Galaxy;

Age of Andromeda, about 10 billion years old

Distance from Milky Way Galaxy (earth) about 2.5 million light years

Number of stars in Andromeda Galaxy, about 1 trillion

Number of stars in Milky Way Galaxy, about 250 million, (25% of the number of stars in Andromeda)

Diameter of the Andromeda Galaxy, about 220,000 light years

Diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy, about 100,000 light years

A brief explanation is necessary, a light year is primarily a measure of distance, how far light travels in a year, about 5,878,499,817,000 miles. However, it can also be thought of in terms of time with respect to a specific distance. That is, traveling at the speed of light, it would take 250 million years for the light of stars in the Andromeda galaxy to reach us here on Earth. In other words, the Andromeda Galaxy is a really, really long way away from earth in both time and distance. This is the argument used by UFO and ET skeptics to say that UFOs and ETs simply cannot exist. The caveat to this skepticism is that it is based on the limits of the physics we know today. This is why I am going to dig a little deeper into age.

The biggest question that you have to ask yourself: is the physics and science we know today, or are currently working on, the end of physics and discoveries? That is, once we have the current theories solved we will be done because there is no more science to learn. I do not believe anything remotely like this to be true. I believe that there is so much more for us to learn in physics and the sciences, and I strongly believe that today’s scientists are mired down in narrow historic beliefs. This is actually a discussion for another paper, but it is important to say this as often as possible. Continuing on.

More and more potential life supporting planets are being found almost every day. As a result of these findings, more and more scientists believe that life exists elsewhere in our galaxy and the universe. And, for us today we only have to look at a couple of things to know that there has to be more physics and science in our future. There is the issue of dark matter and dark energy. Nobody has a clue on what this stuff is, how it came into being or how to study it. There is another significant reality of our universe that nobody has a clue about, anti-matter. It has been created in experiments so it is a fact that it exists. So why does our universe not have free anti-matter? Many scientists and physicists believe that as our society continues to age, there will be a lot more science and physics learned. There simply has to be in order for us to even understand the universe we live in today.

So, if age can bring about new discoveries in science and physics how much age are we looking at for other life in the universe? As listed in the beginning, the estimated age of the universe is close to the estimated age of our galaxy. This makes it possible to relate conclusions for our galaxy to the rest of the universe. The available estimates show that the first star (sun) in our galaxy is about 13.2 billion years old. Using this as a starting point and the age of our solar system with life here on earth, about 4.6 billion years old, this means that there has been about 8.6 billion years for life to develop and age in our galaxy before our own existence. Same calculation for the Andromeda galaxy, our next door neighbor, shows that it had about 5 billion years for life to develop. And recall, it is 4 times the size of our galaxy.

A simple evaluation of age shows that there have been billions of years for ET civilizations to come into existence and flourish before us. How many other civilizations could be in our galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy or the universe that are millions of years older than we are. How much knowledge and understanding of the universe could some of these older species have?

Could it be a universal trait that as we as a civilization grow older we gain knowledge and grow a little smarter? Given the number of civilizations that could be hundreds, thousands or even millions of years older than we are, isn’t it a bit naïve to believe that we are close to learning all there is to learn?

ARE WE WORTHY?

One of the many questions asked by UFO and ET skeptics is “If UFOs and ETs are real how come they have not contacted us?”

This is a valid question. And to be perfectly honest it has no answer. Why? Because the only ones who can answer this question are the ETs. If we wish to think about and speculate about an answer to this question, we also have to consider history. Specifically, the answer to this question for today’s world is definitely different then the answer to the same question 5,000-10,000 years ago, or longer.

There is a lot of strong evidence in the form of oral histories, ancient writings and ancient pictograms on buildings and stone walls showing that ETs were here thousands of years ago. Given that this is a historical perspective for the question for today’s world, I am only bringing up history for discussion purposes. Individual readers can form their own interpretation of the historical evidence.

So, if ETs were here thousands of years ago more questions are raised; why were they here then and why did they leave? Again, these are questions that we can only speculate answers for because ETs are the ones that know the answers. However, I believe that there is enough available information that allows for educated, potential answers to these last two questions.

The technology to get to our planet from another planet is not simple or straight forward. And, the expectation is that there is significant physics associated with interstellar travel.  It was much simpler times and societies thousands of year ago that simply were not capable of grasping or understanding the physics and technology needed for interstellar travel. There is evidence for this in the ancient writings and information in that the ancient societies looked at ETs with their interstellar travel technology and physics as Gods. It would not be possible for any ETs to move from a God status to an average human status given their possession of science and/or powers far beyond what was known 5000 years ago. Society’s first attempts at physics and understanding the world through thought rather than the belief in gods originated with the Greeks about 2600 years ago. In other words, ancient societies relied on gods and the power they possessed for guidance because they simply knew nothing to tell them differently. Visiting ETs with their technology would clearly be viewed as Gods.

Looking at this from the ET perspective from 5000+ years ago, what real value does a society who does not understand and does not possess the ability to learn from you have for your own greater good and improvement? Conversely, given the limited understanding of physics, how could ETs really help the ancient societies? Honestly, there was nothing ETs could do for these societies, or that these societies could do for ETs so why stick around?

As for the question, why were they here 5000 years ago and/or longer, because that is when they found us. We have to remember that the universe is HUGE and until the late 19^th century there was no electromagnetic energy leaving our planet. Nothing was being transmitted out into space telling any ETs hey, our little planet is inhabited. Until we invented radios earth looked like any other unassuming planet orbiting an average star in the universe.

Fast forward to today. Given the amount of “stuff” we have shot into orbit around our planet as well as the vast amount of electromagnetic energy we are shooting out into space it is obvious that there is life on our planet. But now the real question is one for the ETs, has the life on our planet reached a point where it will be beneficial to an advanced species capable of interstellar travel and advanced physics? The question can be asked another way, particularly with respect to ETs that have previously visited our planet, have we really progressed far enough forward to warrant or have earned contacted by ETs?

This is a question each individual reader can ask themselves.

Before ending this piece I would like to present some information in an area I take very seriously and is part of the title of this blog, “Today’s Physics.” Looking at technology advancements, we are leaps and bounds ahead of where we were 5000+ years ago, that is obvious. The same is true for physics. However, regarding today’s physics, our scientists and physicist are so engaged and focused on so very little. Today’s scientist does not see the problems with what they believe to be the final answer to everything. That is, they do not even know or clearly understand the science and physics that they have today. The classic example that clearly shows we are not as smart as we think we are, quantum physics. The mere fact that today’s scientists currently believe that they are working on the final answers shows their own arrogance and ignorance. This is especially true given there are so many different places to look for more answers. But rather than ask questions, or think outside of the box and use their own imagination today’s scientist would rather try and disprove anything that questions the direction of their current beliefs.

If what I just said is true and our scientists are in fact so close minded about things are we that much better than societies were 5000+ years ago? Another question becomes important; why would any ETs want to make contact with us today when so many in the science community routinely say; “UFOs and ETs are impossible because they violate the laws of physics.” This statement is not even remotely true. It presumes that we know all there is to know about the physics of our universe and we are not even close.

If we as a society and the majority of our scientists are not willing to open up our minds and imagination to new frontiers in physics why would any ETs want to stop or believe it is worthwhile to stop on planet Earth? This is a question for ETs to answer, not us.

There is another question that routinely comes along with the question about contact, and that is “what are the intentions of ETs?” Previous visitations and leaving seems to indicate the benevolent intentions of ETs. That is, if ETs wanted us or our planet it was here for the taking 5000+ years ago. And, who can conclusively say that they have left Earth?

GUTs, TOEs and UFOs

GUTs are Grand Unification Theories, TOEs are Theories of Everything and we all know what UFOs is. Finding a GUT or a TOE is the Holy Grail of today’s physics and it is generally referred to as “Unification.” Unification is all about unifying the electromagnetic forces of Quantum Theory with the gravitational force of Relativity Theory thus bringing the four known basic physical forces under a single theory. String Theory is the most commonly known of the unification theories. I want to look closer at String Theory in order to show just how unreal it really is. But first, it is necessary to cover a few basic need to know things about unification in general.

First there is nothing in any of the sciences, Quantum Theory or Relativity Theory that requires the unification of Quantum and Relativity theories and their associated forces into a single theory. The “need” to unify these things into a single theory is completely man made. This really does beg the question, if nature doesn’t require unification why does today’s science feel the necessity to do this? An even bigger question, if there is nothing in nature that says unification is necessary what make science think that unification is even possible and that there is only “one” theory for everything?

Another consideration, there are significant differences between Quantum and Relativity that common sense indicates cannot be overcome for a single theory for both. Relativity has to do with the very big things and long separation distances. Such as stars, galaxies and the universe. Quantum deals with the very smallest things and very, very short distances. Like quarks, atoms and molecules. Additionally, Relativity is deterministic while Quantum is probabilistic. In Relativity information leads to a real and specific determination while in Quantum things are imaginary and based on a probability. In other words, at the most basic level for Quantum and Relativity they simply do not match up, and there is in all likelihood no way to get them to come together.

Also, in order to find a single theory that unites Quantum and Relativity shouldn’t science completely understand both Quantum and Relativity? It seems that simple logic would dictate that science should pretty much need to know all there is to know about Quantum and Relativity before it might be possible to combine these things. You have to know all that you can about things that you combine together before you can really understand what they mean when they are combined. This is actually backwards from the position that science currently has. It is believed that by unifying Quantum and Relativity and coming up with a single all-inclusive theory for both this single theory can be used to answer questions about both that will allow science to understand things that are currently not understood. All of this begs a straightforward question, if Quantum and Relativity are not completely understood in the first place how can science know that the answers from a unified theory are right?

So now, let’s take a quick look at String Theory and see just how far science is away from being able to provide any simple answers about unification and any of the GUTs and TOEs that are supposed to go with it.

String Theory is the most common of all of the various unification theories. There has been a lot written about it and the amount of publicity it has received is such that pretty much everybody has heard of it. The most famous characteristic of String Theory is that this theory is based upon multiple dimensions. These are not dimensions like the three dimensions we are familiar with because of the world we live in. No, these dimensions are supposed to occur in the space below the smallest distance we know of. Let me give you a few more details about this; one form of String Theory has 10 dimensions, 9 space dimensions and one of time, another one has 11 dimensions, 9 of space, one of time and one of energy, and another one has 26 dimensions. And, in all of these different String Theories these extra dimensions are “compactified” down into a space that has a distance so small we can never ever see it or work within it. This really does beg the questions can science really understand a distance this small? If we cannot ever see this distance or work within it, how can we know what is really happening in String Theory? The name of this distance is the “Planck Length.”

Are we really supposed to accept something such as this that can never be proven, or disproven? Oh, and it gets better; String Theory actually has an infinite number of possible dimensions. That is, pick a number, any number and that number of dimensions can exist in String Theory. The current number of String Theory dimensions has been “discovered” because they do not blow up mathematically. In other words, out of an infinite number of possible dimensions, science will only look at a couple because they work. Let’s go one step further, given that there are an infinite number of possible dimensions how does science know that in theory 500, 5000 or even more dimensions are not possible? If 10, 11 or 26 dimensions are acceptable who is to decide that this is where we stop? And, an infinite number of possible dimensions also means that there are also an infinite number of impossible dimensions.

A last bit to think about. In order to overcome the scale difference between Relativity (really large and great distances) and Quantum (really small and very short distances) scientist have come up with the “graviton.” The graviton is a particle, so in fits in Quantum, that mediates gravity, so it fits in Relativity. This is an interesting solution to the problem. However, according to Relativity nothing, including particles, travels faster than the speed of light. If this is the case how can a black hole that has gravity as strong as the speed of light have gravity away from the black hole? Wouldn’t the gravitons be stuck inside the event horizon of a black hole because their speed is not high enough to allow for escape?

Let’s take a moment to consider all of the problems discussed above with respect to the science of unification and String Theory. And let’s also consider all of the evidence that exists throughout history and even today regarding UFOs and ETs. Science tells me that String Theory and unification are real, but UFOs are not. This just seems a little backwards to me.

I leave it up to the reader to judge and decide.

FASTER THAN A SPEEDING PHOTON (LIGHT)

I talk and I write about UFOs. Those who actually believe in UFOs still wonder about Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity and the effect it can have on travelling faster than the speed of light. The UFO skeptics always come back with Einstein’s light speed limit to say that even if ETs exists, the universe is too big and they could never get here. Well, here is the thing; Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity does not specifically say anything about limiting speed of an object to the speed of light. Rather what Einstein’s Special Theory of relativity talks about is time, distance and mass dilation. The part that is of concern here is the mass dilation. Specifically, according to the Special Theory of Relativity as an object that has mass reaches speed approaching the speed of light the mass starts to significantly increase. Many have said that a massive object going to the speed of light ends up with infinite mass at the speed of light. It is this “infinite” mass which in turn relates to an “infinite energy” issue many use to say that light speed and faster than light speed is not possible.

Is this really true, no I don’t think so, read on.

First off, before addressing the mass issue let’s go to the exceptions to the speed of light “rule,” starting with Cherenkov radiation. The speed of light is fastest when it is in a vacuum. As light moves through a medium like glass, water and other things the speed of light slows down. In a dielectric medium an electron can, and does, travel faster than the speed of light in that medium. This results in a blue glow that is seen in the water around nuclear reactors. In this case the electron, which has mass, is moving faster than the speed of light and it does not have infinite mass. This example shows that the speed of light can and in fact varies, and there are a number of theories that go deeper into this concept.

Another is Gamma Ray Bursts coming from other parts of our universe. Without going into a lot of detail here, Gamma rays from the universe have been seen traveling faster than the speed of light. There are various theories for this, but the fact of the matter is that faster than light travel is occurring once again with a particle that has mass. If you want to know more about this you can Google “Faster than Light Gamma Ray.” And lastly, there is the issue of “Quantum Entanglement.” This is where two particles are entangled to act like one at the quantum level. Send them off in different directions and no matter where these particles are in the universe when you measure one of them you automatically know stuff about the other one. Again, if you want to know more you can Google “Quantum Entanglement.” I do have say that this whole quantum entanglement issue is very interesting and I will be talking more about it in the future.

There is also a very unique argument, actuality a loophole in Relativity that I recently heard. This loophole is that there is no restriction on a particle that starts out traveling faster than the speed of light. The restriction on travelling faster than light applies to the process of accelerating a massive particle to the speed of light. There is a theoretical particle known as the Tachyon that always travels faster than the speed of light. One of the things that are supposed to make String Theory work is known as Super-Symmetry. There was one version of Super-Symmetry that actually required there be particles (tachyons) that travel faster than the speed of light. This did not make physicists happy, so they kind of ignore this version and go with one that is more to their liking.

The point to be taken from theoretical tachyons is that there is a reality that exists beyond the speed of light. So, there are cracks in the “proposed” faster than light travel restriction. My argument is that the basic speed of light limit is not a restriction, rather it is a transition from the below speed of light reality to the faster than the speed of light reality.  

As stated at the beginning of this piece, the Special Relativity Theory does not say that speeds faster than the speed of light are forbidden. Instead, there is a dilation effect as speeds increases. Specifically, this effect is such that time slows down, distances decrease and mass increases. In other words, as speeds increase there is a conversion factor that calculates the dilation effect changes on an object. This conversion factor is generally known as the Lorentz Transformation. It is my position to stay away from math when writing about things. However, this is one time that I cannot as it is important to see this conversion factor in order to move forward and physically show the transition phase. The following is the conversion factor:

 

 The funny looking symbol to the left of the equal sign is the Greek letter gamma. In English this reads, “gamma is equal to one divided by the square root of one minus velocity squared divided by speed of light squared,” (‘c’ is used to represent the speed of light). Now here is the part that we have to look at closely, the “v-squared divided by c-squared.” In word processing applications like what I am using, this is written as; v^2/c^2

IF, ‘v’ the velocity of the object is exactly the speed of light, ‘c’, then

“v-squared divided by c-squared” is equal to 1, which leads to;

1 – 1= 0

The square root of 0 is 0, so now we have 1 divided by zero (1/0) in the conversion factor, and this is where the problem/discussion lies.

Many believe 1 divided by zero is undefined so we have a situation where the math blows up and things are said to go to infinity. However, I have been taught that this is not the case because zero is a place holder. This means that division by zero is something that we do not understand yet. There is also another way to look at this, will ‘v’ ever exactly equal ‘c’? As long as the two are never “exactly” equal there are no problems.

Currently when doing experiments colliding protons and atoms, the colliders can accelerate a proton up to 99.9999991 percent of the speed of light, which is awfully close to the speed of light. Let’s think about this for a moment, what if something happens and there is suddenly a power surge that instantly accelerates the proton up to 100.000001 percent of the speed of light (there are other ways this could happen but going into them would make this piece too long). In other words, a speed that is just barely faster than the speed of light. What happens? Look at the math in the conversion factor. In this case that v^2/c^2 (v-squared divided by c-squared) becomes greater than 1 (one) so the number under the square root sign is not zero, rather it is a negative number.

A negative number under the square root sign is not a problem as it is mathematically acceptable. In essence the negative number under the square root sign represents a transition into another branch of math that is used for many things. In other words, there is nothing mathematically or physically incorrect with the above evaluation, which means it represents a valid interpretation of the currently available information.

One last point to cover, we have an electron traveling very close to the speed of light. Would not the expectation be that its mass would be significantly increased because it has to be approaching an infinite mass? Since the Lorentz transformation is available I did the math. At 99.9999991% of the speed of light, the mass of the electron increased by a factor of 7454. This is a long way from infinite. And, there are many other consideration for accelerating up to and then above the speed of light that I have not discussed.

The point for consideration here, we are still learning about the today’s physics so we should not be so quick to write off anything.

RIP Professor Freeman Dyson

I need to take a moment to recognize an outstanding mathematician and physicist who passed away on February 28, 2020, Professor Freeman Dyson. Professor Dyson really was a brilliant man who motivated me in many ways. He won numerous awards and recognition and has theorems and mathematical processes named after him. Despite his many achievements and recognition he was never considered for a Nobel Prize, an oversight many of his colleagues questioned. There was a theory for this Nobel oversight of Professor Freeman’s accomplishments and contributions to math and science, he was not a Ph.D., he had a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Mathematics. To me this was actually his greatest contribution all of us, he was proof that intelligence and understanding is not based on the kind or amount of initials a person has after their name.

God Speed Professor Dyson. I greatly appreciate all that you have done for math and the sciences and the help you provided me. I hope that this new stage of your life brings you new opportunities and the chance to see one of your greatest predictions, a Dyson Sphere.

ARE UFOs TRYING TO HIDE FROM US

On my previous post, NOW YOU SEE ME NOW YOU DON’T, I discussed and incident involving the Chilean military in 2014. Quick recap, a Chilean military helicopter was out testing a new infrared device and filmed a UFO in the infrared wave length of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. And, this UFO was not physically seen by the helicopter crew, picked up by the visual camera or seen on the helicopter or ground control RADAR. In other words, if this helicopter crew had not been testing new infrared equipment, this UFO would have never been seen by anybody here on the planet earth.

The ‘dumb luck’ observation of this UFO raises a couple of different questions. The first one, which is not the most important one, is how many UFOs are visiting our planet and we have no idea they are here? Since these “masked” UFOs cannot be seen and/or are not seen, there is no way that this question can ever be answered. As for not being seen on RADAR, this is not that unusual as there have been many visual UFO sightings without being picked up on RADAR. Reversing this, how many objects have been picked up on RADAR but not visual seen? This too is a number that we cannot specifically know.

So, considering all of the ways that we just discussed for UFOs not to be seen, it is easy to conclude that the visual sightings that do occur and are documented represent a fraction of the total number of UFOs visiting Earth.

The second question and the more important one, are these UFOs and their occupants specifically trying to avoid detection? Said another way, are these UFOs coming to our planet and then specifically trying do to all they can to avoid detection? This poses a related secondary question, why would any UFO/ET do this? It is easy enough to think of both good and bad reasons as to why UFOs/ETs would want to “hide” their presence.

The above question is actually related to a question regarding UFOs that has been around for a long time; why are UFOs/ETs here in the first place? I have been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to read multiple papers on this topic. The general consensus is that UFOs/ETs have been coming to Earth for a long time and that their intentions are peaceful. Of course this is something we can never know for sure as ETs are the only ones that really know why they are here. But, there really is no indication that they have any harmful intentions. Me personally, I believe that they are here just watching to see how we progress.  I also believe that when the time is right, they will show themselves. When is the right time? Only ET knows.

Our universe is filled with wonders and for humans it has many unanswered questions. I firmly believe that in due time all questions will get answers. And, this includes all questions associated with UFOs and ETs.

NOW YOU SEE ME, NOW YOU DON’T

In 2014 a Chilean Military helicopter was out testing a new infrared device and they picked up a UFO. This case was unusual because according to the information supplied the helicopter crew could not visually see the UFO, it did not show up on an HD visual camera, and it was not on the helicopter or ground control RADAR. Specifically, if not for the fact that this military helicopter crew was trying out a new infrared device this UFO would have never been seen. This got me to thinking, how many UFOs may actually be visiting us every day that we cannot see?

The first thing necessary to answer the above questions is to figure out how hard is it to hide from our sight and our radar? Physically, it is not that difficult. Technologically, for us here on earth this is where the problem lies.

Around the year 1672 Sir Isaac Newton was doing experiments with light and prisms. He discovered that white light, the light we use to see, is actually made up of 6 individual colors. These colors are red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. Newton went on to theorize that objects we see do not actually have color; instead every object absorbs some of the colors and reflects the others. It is the reflected color that we see thus giving any object the color of the light reflected. In other words, if white light and all of its associated colors are absorbed creating a situation of no reflected light by an object we will never see the object.

For clarity, this needs to be explored a bit more. Visible light and RADAR are considered to be part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, EM for short, which is the figure below.

RADAR waves are included in the microwave portion of the spectrum. We also have to note that the above figure shows us that energy of the EM spectrum increases as you move to the left of the spectrum, the shorter wave lengths. The above figure shows us that the Visible Light that we are able to see is a very small part of the EM spectrum. Our own daily experience and the physics discovered by Newton clearly shows us that absorption of visible light is not that difficult. Physically, the Chilean UFO simply has to absorb the visible light portion of the EM spectrum and we will never see it. Another way to look at this, the UFO can simply not reflect the visible light. This has to be stated because absorption and non-reflection is not necessarily the same thing.

The absorption/non-reflection of visible light discussed above also applies to microwaves. Microwave absorption is very familiar in that microwave ovens are used in almost every kitchen around to assist with cooking. Here is the other thing about microwaves; their absorption is generally associated with heat. Our food absorbs the microwaves, it gets hot and cooks. And, as our food cooks it gives off heat. Therefore, it is a reasonable presumption that anything else that is absorbing microwaves, RADAR waves in this case, is also going to tend to heat up to some extent. I need to note here that on average RADAR waves are generally at the low end of the microwave portion of the EM spectrum which in turns means they are the lower energy microwaves.  

One other thing that the energy from our sun does, it heats up our atmosphere. And, on bright sunny days we can also get hot. In simplest terms, this heating is associated with absorption of the light-wave energy. We can see from the figure that the EM spectrum is directly related to energy. So, if the Chilean UFO is absorbing visible light waves and radar waves there is a reasonable expectation that the UFO is going to heat up. Well, guess what part of the EM spectrum a heated object gives off….. Infrared.

Putting this all together, absorption of EM spectrum waves, specifically visible light and RADAR, is straight forward physics and to some extent it is something that occurs in our everyday lives. So, a UFO that absorbs or does not reflect these two types of waves is not radical physics. And by absorbing and not reflecting this particular wave energy, the UFO becomes invisible to us. However, there is a cost to this absorption of energy, heat that has to be radiated resulting in an infrared signature. But, we do not see or look in the infrared part of the EM spectrum so unless we were close enough to feel the heat being radiated; a UFO could be flying around us and our world without ever being noticed. In this case the Chilean helicopter just happened to be in the right place at the right time using the right equipment to see the UFO.

In other words, the UFOs that we actually see could easily be just a small portion of the UFOs that are actually visiting our planet. There is no way of knowing how many craft are flying around our world every day because their technology is better than ours and it allows them to absorb and/or non-reflect the EM spectrum waves that we use to see them. 

ENTERTAINMENT OVER FACTS, UNACCEPTABLE

Recently I was watching a show on the structures at Nan Madol. These structures are another incident of nobody knows how they were built. Here are a few basic facts for background. Nan Madol is on the Island of Pohnpei in Micronesia. There are around 130 structures built out of Basalt pillars that were believed to have been mined about 25 miles away. The actual date of the building of these structures is believe to be sometime around the 11th to 13th century. It is estimated that 827,000 tons of material was used to build the structures. Some of the stones/pillars are light enough to be carried by hand while others weigh up to 50 tons. And, parts of some of the structures are built in the surrounding sea. As stated above, nobody knows how these structures were built with the limited tools available at the time.

As part of the show they wanted to show what the structure under the water looked like. So, they had a small underwater drone they sent over toward the structure. Well, as the drone approached the structure under the water the video signal from the drone was lost. It just so happened they had another similar drone that was also sent over to the same area of the structure under the ocean and it too lost the video signal. They made it a point to say that both drones had been checked the day before and were operating properly.

Given the signal loss from two underwater drones it was determined that both drones failed due to some type of electro-magnetic (EM) interference from the under the ocean water part of the structure. Considered with the unique aspects and unknowns associated with Nan Madol a secondary conclusion was reached that there had to be some type of ET assistance in building the structures. And, it was further concluded that because the underwater portion of the structure had some type of electro-magnetic charge the ET help had have used some kind of anti-gravity ET technology that charged the Basalt stones.

All things considered the above line of thinking and conclusions make for a legitimate hypothesis. However, there was no testing of this hypothesis even though testing of it could have easily been done, and should have been done, given the adjacent surrounding structures. The failure to test the hypothesis and obtain further evidence regarding ET involvement in the building of the structures was a significant error. This missed evidentiary opportunity can result in significant questioning of any further conclusions associated with Nan Madol and ET involvement.

As for testing the hypothesis/conclusions stated in the show, if alien anti-gravity technology was used for the underwater part of the structures and contaminated these Basalt columns, then it was also used for the above water portions of the structure. If the ET anti-gravity technology resulted in an EM charge to the underwater portion of the structure, then it should have also caused an EM charge to the above water portions of the structure. Testing for this EM contamination could have been done by simply turning the drone on and walking up to above water wall and see if this area of the wall caused the drone signal to fail. This simple test could have been done all over the Nan Madol area. At the very least the quarry where the Basalt columns was believed to have been mined should have also been tested to verify there was nothing associated with the area of the mining that could have caused the EM charge to the underwater Basalt used for the construction.

There is a secondary evidentiary issue regarding the EM conclusion for the Basalt columns, always make sure that there is no contamination of your evidence. So, you have Basalt columns under ocean water that you are trying to view but you cannot because your underwater drones keep losing signal and your conclusion is that the Basalt columns have an EM charge due to being put into place by alien anti-gravitational technology. So what does sea water have that fresh water does not have? Salt. Salt is an ionic compound, meaning it has an extra electric charge. So if the underwater Basalt columns do in fact have an EM charge isn’t the most likely reason due to the constant sea water motion around the columns?

Let’s recap;

Two underwater drones that were working failed when they get near Basalt columns that are under sea water.

The conclusion is these columns picked up an EM charge and this is what is caused the drones to fail.

Because of the unique characteristics of the structures that are underwater and their age, the conclusion is that the Basalt columns had to have been put into place by alien anti-gravity technology.

This conclusion can easily be tested by testing nearby columns above the sea water, and testing at the quarry site. However, no verification testing is done.

And, the fact that these columns are under salt water which could account for the EM charge is never considered.

Put all of these things together and you have evidence contamination by the salt water surrounding the Basalt columns in question that could have caused any EM charge on the underwater columns. And, no side testing was done which could have easily confirmed or denied the EM charge on the underwater columns.

The issue of alien and UFO visitation is a very important topic with respect to today’s physics and science so it needs to be investigated completely and more important legitimately. Reporting rushed, unsupported, untested conclusions based on contaminated evidence for the sake of audience entertainment only degrades this important topic. The UFO community deserves and is entitled to much better than this. Furthermore, the unique overall design and history of the Nan Madol structures speak for themselves. They do not need sloppy and incomplete work to try and justify a pre-existing conclusion. In other words, the UFO and ET community already has an uphill fight for legitimacy; do not make this fight any harder for the sake of entertainment.

I believe that there is change afoot in the scientific community. My position has always been that when it comes to UFOs and ETs today’s scientists should not be saying they are impossible, rather they should be asking what do those flying the UFOs know that I don’t. Pushing entertainment over facts only sets back the coming changes in physics and the sciences.

PHILOSOPHICAL PHYSICS

“Physics.” Say this word in a conversation or bring it up as a topic to talk about and you will completely kill the conversation or people will immediately start walking away. The word strikes fear into the hearts of the average person. Not because it is associated with anything bad. To the contrary, the word refers to basic rules and laws regarding what makes our world and universe work. However, these universal laws and rules have the bad rap of being hard to understand and this is what scares the average person. This is especially true in our world today because of other words associated with the word “Physics.” The words “quantum,” “relativity” and “string theory” are the key words of today’s physics and in the case of these words there are so few people that understand what these things are. Today’s physics has progressed to the point well beyond the level of understanding of today’s average person. 

Is this what nature and our universe intended for us? I for one do not believe so.

How do we address the complexity of today’s physics with respect to the average person of today? One way to do this is to go back to the beginning and look at how things were at the start. In this case the start is with the ancient Greeks about 2,600 years ago.

The word “Physics” in ancient Greek comes from the word “nature” and/or “natural science.” This in turn morphs into the study of nature, and then gives us the meaning we have today which is the science that studies nature and the properties of matter and energy. And, since the word “Physics” comes from the ancient Greeks, there must be some accompanying ancient Greek Physicists. The first Greek Physicist is believed to be Thales of Miletus, (c. 624 BCE – c. 546 BCE). Also in the mix of early physicists are Pythagoras of Samos (c. 570 BCE - c. 495 BCE), known for developing the Pythagorean Theorem, and Aristotle (c. 384 BCE - c. 322 BCE).

There is another factor associated with all three of these ancient Greek Scholars that must also be addressed, and that is they were also some of the first ancient Greek Philosophers. In other words, physics and philosophy both started about 2,600 years ago, and these three scholars are part of the beginning of both of these disciplines. Since these scholars defined physics from its beginning, we should also look at how they and their contemporaries in ancient Greek also defined philosophy in its beginning.

“The love of wisdom” is the general translation of the ancient Greek word for philosophy. In essence, the ancient Greeks were working on understanding the world through their intelligence and by gaining knowledge. They were trying to move away from a world view based on religion and myths. It is important to note that nothing about this view relates to having a thorough understanding of the mathematical concepts and formalism of the physics 2,600 years ago. In today’s world the philosophical undertaking for what we are discussing is the connection of human thought and the basic workings of the universe we live in.  Again, there is nothing in the current view of philosophy that requires a working knowledge of complex mathematical concepts and formalism of any of today’s sciences. Rather, it is our own thoughts on the basic workings of our universe.    

Fast forward around 2,000 years to another philosophical principle from the 14th century, “Occam’s Razor.” The current general interpretation of this principle is that if there is more than one solution to a problem the simplest solution is most likely the correct solution. Another title for Occam’s Razor is Occam’s Principle, which it is important to note, is a philosophical principle and not a scientific principle. According to this Occam’s Principle if there is an incident/event that has two solutions/explanations, the one with the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct solution/explanation. Stated another way, the greater the complexity of a solution/explanation, the greater the probability the solution/explanation is incorrect.

Around 1830 - 1840 Occam’s Razor led to the Law or Principle of Parsimony. In essence the Principle of Parsimony says that a theory should be the most economical or simplest explanation of an event or phenomenon. It has also been said that Parsimony suggests that a theory should be natural and have an aesthetic quality. Considering today’s physics with the Law of Parsimony indicates that Quantum Physics, String Theory and, to some extent, maybe even Relativity should be simpler and more natural. In other words, saying the word “Physics” should not be sudden death for a conversation or gathering.

Even though Occam’s Razor and the Law of Parsimony are recognized as philosophical principles, there is nothing that states they cannot also be applied to theories in physics.

I am reminded of a quote an old friend of mine used to say, “I am not a weatherman but I can still tell you when it is raining.” By extension, it is possible for anyone to say, “I am not a physicist, but I can still question things that don’t make sense.” I believe that we owe it to ourselves to question today’s physics. This is not to say that today’s physics is wrong, rather it is to question it to make sure that it is at least partially right and in its simplest form.