Academia Arena

Strong nuclear force: This force holds together the protons and neutrons inside the nucleus of an atom. And it is this same force that holds together the quarks to form protons and neutrons. Unleashed in the hydrogen bomb, the strong nuclear force could one day end all life on earth.

The inherent goal of unification is to show that all of these forces are, in fact, manifestations of a single super force. We can't perceive this unity at the low energies of our everyday lives, or even in our most powerful accelerators (capable of accelerating particles nearly up to the speed of light) at Fermi lab or LHC, the Large Hadron Collider, at CERN (European Centre for Nuclear Research), in Switzerland. But close to the Big Bang temperatures, at inconceivably high energies…

If the forces unify, the protons − which make up much of the mass of ordinary matter− can be unstable, and eventually decay into lighter particles such as antielectrons. Indeed, several experiments were performed in the Morton Salt Mine in Ohio to yield definite evidence of proton decay. But none have succeeded so far. However, the probability of a proton in the universe gaining sufficient energy to decay is so small that one has to wait at least a million million million million million years i.e., longer than the time since the big bang, which is about ten thousand million years.

What is the Ultimate Fate of the Universe?

“Some Say the World Will End in Fire, Others Say in Ice.”

The strength of the gravitational force is measured by the dimensionless parameter α_G, which in standard international units is Gm²/ħc (where m is the mass of the proton or the electron). And the ratio α_G / α is =136.25 × (m /Planck mass) ². And since m is < than Planck mass (the fundamental unit of mass constructed solely out of the three fundamental constants, ħ = h /2π, G and c, about the same as a large bacteria or very small insect − which we can produce in a bubble chamber in the Fermi lab accelerator at the present time), it is clear that from the above equation α is > than α_G (i.e., the strength of electromagnetic force is > than the strength of gravitational force). But why? The answer is at the heart of the basic questions of particle physics. The eminent laws do not tell us why the initial configuration was such as to produce what we observe. For what purpose? Must we turn to the anthropic principle for an explanation? Was it all just a lucky chance? That would seem a counsel of despair, a negation of all our hopes of understanding the unfathomable order of the universe. However, this is an extended metaphor for many puzzles in physics uncovered with painstaking labor, and it is especially relevant to particle physics. Still, particle physics remains unfathomable to many people and a bunch of scientists chasing after tiny invisible objects.

If string theory is correct, then every particle is nothing but a vibrating, oscillating, dancing filament named a string. A string does something aside from moving – it oscillates in different ways. Each way represents a particular mode of vibration. Different modes of vibration make the string appear as a dark energy or a cosmic ray, since different modes of vibration are seen as different masses or spins.

If Higgs theory (which is the last piece of the Standard Model that has still eluded capture –which is one of the theories LHC experimentalists hope to discover and it is the capstone for conventional big bang cosmology --which biblical creationists reject) is correct, then a new field called the Higgs field which is analogous to the familiar electromagnetic field but with new kinds of properties permits all over the space (considered the origin of mass in Grand Unified Theory – a theory that unifies the weak, strong, and electromagnetic interactions, without gravity). Different masses of the particles are due to the different strengths of interaction of the particle with the Higgs field (more the strength of interaction of the particle with the Higgs field, more the mass of the particle).To make this easier for you, let's say it is cosmic high-fructose corn syrup − the more you go through it, the heavier you get.

If both the theories are right, then the different masses of the particles are due to (the different modes of vibration of the string plus the different strengths of interaction of the string with the Higgs field).

Which explanation is right?

Higgs theory runs rampant in the popular media claiming that String Theory Is Not The Only Game In Town. However, by the end of the decade, we will have our first glimpse of the new physics, whatever it well may be

STRING or HIGGS

The new physics will point to even more discoveries at the TeV scale and opens the door beyond the Standard Model and raise new questions like: if the Higgs field generate masses for the W and Z, and for the quarks and leptons− does it generate its own mass and if so how? What is its mass?

As a remarkable consequence of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics (which implies that certain pairs of quantities, such as the energy and time, cannot both be predicted with complete accuracy) the empty space is filled with what is called vacuum energy (energy that is present even in apparently empty space which has the curious property that unlike the presence of mass, the presence of vacuum energy would cause the expansion of the universe to speed up) − i.e., the empty space has energy and its energy density is constant and given by: ρ = Λc ² /8πG where Λ is the cosmological constant (which give space-time an inbuilt tendency to expand and measures the amount of dark energy in the universe. At present, the data supports density parameter (the parameter that measures the average density of matter in the universe) + cosmological constant = 1, which fits the prediction of inflation for a flat universe), c is the speed of light (which is 299,792,458 meters per second, or (approximately) 186,282 miles per second) and G is the universal gravitational constant. Since c ² /8πG is constant, ρ and Λ are in fact equivalent and interchangeable. And since c² is >8πG, therefore Λ is < ρ which means: a very large amount of dark energy attributes to a fairly small vacuum energy density. Moreover, since c is not just the PHYSICAL constant but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as space-time, does the equation ρ = Λc² /8πG mean that as a consequence of dominance of the unification of space and time over a force called gravity − a very large amount of dark energy attributes to a fairly small vacuum energy density? And c² /8πG is = 5.36 × 10 ²⁵ kg/m. What does the value 5.36 × 10 ²⁵ kg per meter imply? Dr. Science remains silent on these profound questions. Ultimately, however, one would hope to find complete, consistent answers that would include all the mathematical techniques as approximations. The quest for such answers is known as the grand unification of the two basic partial theories: the general theory of relativity (which states that space and time are no longer absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they are dynamical quantities that are shaped by the matter and energy in the universe) and quantum mechanics (a theory of the microcosm which has upended many an intuition, but none deeper than this one − developed by 1900 physicists in response to a number of glaring problems that arose when 19^th century conceptions of physics were applied to the microscopic world, where subatomic particles are held together by particle like forces dancing on the sterile stage of space-time, which is viewed as an empty arena, devoid of any content). Unfortunately, however, these two theories are inconsistent with each other – i.e., quantum mechanics (which grew out of the inability of classical mechanics (the classical theory which demonstrates: Equation of motion ↔ Action principle) to explain atomic phenomena, such as black body radiation and atomic spectra) and general relativity (which is the most experimentally vindicated theory of gravity in existence. It has not ‘disproved’ Newton’s laws, but has absorbed them within a larger framework, being a more accurate description under certain conditions) do not work together. How the ideas of general relativity can be consolidated with those of quantum theory is still a? until we progress closer toward the laws that govern our universe.

The latest theory of subatomic particles (the quantum theory) gives an estimated value of vacuum energy density that is about 120 orders of magnitude larger than the measured value — claiming our best theory cannot calculate the value of the largest energy source in the entire universe. Dr Science advances over the wreckage of its theories by continually putting its ideas to experimental test; no matter how beautiful its idea might be; it must be discarded or modified if it is at odds with experiment. It would have been clearly be nice for quantum theory if the value of vacuum energy density were in the order of 10 ⁹⁶ kg per cubic meter, but the measured value were in the order of 10 ⁻²⁷ kg per cubic meter. Thus, the best candidate we have at the moment, the quantum theory, brought about its downfall by predicting the value of vacuum energy density that is about 120 orders of magnitude larger than the measured value.

We a lot of exposure with darkness and disbelief and a state of not having an immediate conclusion, and this vulnerability is of great significance, I think. When we don’t comprehend the mind of nature, we are in the middle of darkness. When we have an intuitive guess as to what the outcome is; we are unsealed. And when we are fairly damn sure of what the final result is going to be, we are still in some uncertainty. And uncertainty being too complex to come about randomly is evidence for human continuing quest for justification. Sometimes, very hard, impossible things just strike and we call them thoughts. In most of the self-reproducing organisms the conditions would not be right for the generation of thoughts to predict things more or less, even if not in a simplest way, only in the few complex organisms like us spontaneous thoughts would generate and what is it that breathes fire into a perception. The human perception is enormous; it’s extensive and unlimited, and outrageous that we can ask simple questions. And they are: What the dark energy is up to? What it is about? Why this mysterious form of energy permeates all of space blowing the galaxies farther and farther apart? How accurate are the physical laws (which are essentially the same today as they were at the time of Newton despite the scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts), which control it? Why it made the universe bang? Unfortunately, the laws that we are using are not able to answer these questions because of the prediction that the universe started off with infinite density at the big bang singularity (where all the known laws would break down). However, if one looks in a commonsense realistic point of view the laws and equations which are considered as inherent ingredients of reality − are simply the man-made ingredients introduced by the rational beings who are free to observe the universe as they want and to draw logical deductions from what they see − to describe the objective features of reality. The scientific data is fallible, changeable, and influenced by scientific understanding is refreshing. Here’s an example of what I mean. In most physics textbooks we will read that the strength of the electromagnetic force is measured by the dimensionless parameter α = e²/4πε₀ħc (where e is the charge = 1.602 × 10 ^{− 19} Coulombs, ε₀ is the absolute permittivity of free space = 8.8× 10 ^{– 12} F/m, c is the speed of light in vacuum and ħ is the reduced Planck’s constant), called the fine structure constant, which was taught to be constant became variant when the standard model of elementary particles and forces revealed that α actually varies with energy.

The Quantum theory of electrodynamics (a relativistic quantum field theory or a quantum field theory – arguably the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever advanced which seems to govern everything small – through which we have been able to solidify the role of photons (photons, from a Greek word meaning light) as the “smallest possible bundles of light” and to reveal their interactions with electrically charged particles such as electrons, in a mathematically complete, predictive, and convincing frame work) and General Relativity (which dominates large things and is now called a classical theory which predicts that the universe started off with infinite density at the big bang singularity) both try to assign mass to the singularity. But according to generally accepted history of the universe, according to what is known as the hot big bang model. At some finite time in the past i.e., between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. At this time, all matter (which is characterized by the physical quantity we define as mass) would have been on top of each other − which is called the singularity, the density ρ would have been INFINITE. If density → infinite then volume V which is M/ ρ approaches zero. So if V approaches zero then mass M which is density times volume approaches zero. Hence the singularity cannot have mass in a zero volume, by definition of mass and volume. However, a good mathematical theory can prove anything with that amount of wiggle room, and findings are really determined by nothing except its desire. For all theoreticians and tens of thousands of university graduates at least know, the universe started off with infinite density at the hot big bang singularity with infinitely hot temperatures. And at such high temperatures that are reached in thousands of H-bomb explosions, the strong and weak nuclear forces and the gravity and electromagnetic force were all unified into a single force. What was before the Big Bang? Was the Big Bang created? If the Big Bang was not created, how was this Big Bang accomplished, and what can we learn about the agent and events of creation? Is it the product of chance or was been designed? What is it that blocked the pre-Big Bang view from us? Is Big Bang singularity an impenetrable wall and we cannot, in physics, go beyond it? To answer one question, another question arises. Erickcek‘s model suggests the possibility of existence of space and time before the big bang. But the world famed Big Bang theory abandons the existence of space and time before the big bang. Both the theories are consistent and based upon sophisticated experimental observations and theoretical studies. Truth must be prejudiced with honest scientific inquiry to illuminate the words of Genesis. And this is possible only if the modern scientific community would simply open its eyes to the truth.

Do black holes really exist? If they exist, why we haven't observed one hole yet? Can black holes be observed directly, and if so, how? If the production of the tiny black holes is feasible, can particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland at the famed CERN nuclear laboratory create a micro black hole that will eventually eat the world? If not − if there are no black holes, what are the things we detect ripping gas off the surface of other stars? What is the structure of space-time just outside the black hole? Do their space times have horizons?: are the major questions in theoretical physics today that haunts us. The effort to resolve these complex paradoxes is one of the very few things that lifts human mind a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of province inspiring new ideas and new experiments.

Most people think of a black hole as a voracious whirlpool in space, sucking down everything around it. But that’s not really true! A black hole is a place where gravity has gotten so strong that even light cannot escape out of its influence.

How a black hole might be formed?

The slightly denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed atoms (mostly hydrogen) which lack sufficient energy to escape the gravitational attraction of the nearby atoms, would combine together and thus grow even denser, forming giant clouds of gas, which at some point become gravitationally unstable, undergo fragmentation and would break up into smaller clouds that would collapse under their own gravity. As these collapses, the atoms within them collide with one another more and more frequently and at greater and greater speeds – the gas heats up i.e., the temperature of the gas would increase, until eventually it become hot enough to start nuclear fusion reactions. And a consequence of this is that the stars like our sun (which are made up of more than one kind of gas particle) are born to radiate their energy as heat and light. But the stars of radius:

r = 2GM/c²

or

Mc² = 2GM²/r

Since GM²/r = −5U/3 (where U = gravitational binding energy of a star):

Mc² = − 3.33U

i.e., stars of rest mass energy = 3.33 times their negative gravitational binding energy further collapse to produce dark or frozen stars (i.e., the mass of a star is concentrated in a small enough spherical region, so that its mass divided by its radius exceeds a particular critical value, the resulting space-time warp is so radical that anything, including light, that gets too close to the star will be unable to escape its gravitational grip). And these dark stars are sufficiently massive and compact and possess a strong gravitational field that prevent even light from escaping out its influence: any light emitted from the surface of the star will be dragged back by the star’s gravitational attraction before it could get very far. Such stars become black voids in space and were coined in 1969 by the American scientist John Wheeler “the black holes” (i.e., black because they cannot emit light and holes because anything getting too close falls into them, never to return). Classically, the gravitational field of the black holes (which seem to be among the most ordered and organized objects in the whole universe) is so strong that they would prevent any information including light from escaping out of their influence i.e., any information is sent down the throat of a black hole or swallowed by a black hole is forever hidden from the outside universe (this goes by the statement that “black holes have no hair”—that is, they have lost all information, all hair, except for these three parameters: its mass, spin and charge), and all one could say of the gravitational monster what the poet Dante said of the entrance to Hell: “All hope abandon, ye who enter here.” Anything or anyone who falls through the black hole will soon reach the region of infinite density and the end of time. However, only the laws of classical general relativity does not allow anything (not even light) to escape the gravitational grip of the black hole but the inclusion of quantum mechanics modifies this conclusion− quantum fields would scatter off a black hole. Because energy cannot be created out of nothing, the pair of short-lived virtual particles (one with positive energy and the other with negative energy) appears close to the event horizon of a black hole. The gravitational might of the black hole inject energy into a pair of virtual particles... that tears them just far enough apart so that one with negative energy gets sucked into the hole even before it can annihilate its partner... its forsaken partner with positive energy... gets an energy boost from the gravitational force of the black hole... escape outward to infinity (an abstract mathematical concept that was precisely formulated in the work of mathematician Georg Cantor in the late nineteenth century)... where it appear as a real particle (and to an observer at a distance, it will appear to have been emitted from the black hole). Because E= mc squared (i.e., energy is equivalent to mass), a fall of negative energy particle into the black hole therefore reduces its mass with its horizon shrinking in size. As the black hole loses mass, the temperature of the black hole (which depends only on its mass) rises and its rate of emission of particle increases, so it loses mass more and more quickly. We don't know does the emission process continue until the black hole dissipates completely away or does it stop after a finite amount of time leaving black hole remnants.

The attempt to understand the Hawking radiation has a profound impact upon the understanding of the black hole thermodynamics, leading to the description of what the black hole entropic energy is.

Black hole entropic energy = Black hole temperature × Black hole entropy

E_s = T × S_BH

E_s =1/2 × Mc²

This means that the entropic energy makes up half of the mass energy of the black hole. For a black hole of one solar mass (M = 2 × 10 ³⁰ kg), we get an entropic energy of 9 × 10 ⁴⁶ joules – much higher than the thermal entropic energy of the sun.

Given that power emitted in Hawking radiation is the rate of energy loss of the black hole:

P = – c ² (dM / dt) or P = 2 × (– dE_s / dt)

The more power a black hole radiates per second, the more entropic energy being lost in Hawking radiation. However, the entropic energy of the black hole of one solar mass is about 9 × 10 ⁴⁶ joules of which only 4.502 × 10 ^–29 joules per second is lost in Hawking radiation.

Mc² = 2 T × S_BH

If M→ 0, then S_BH which is (4π k_B GM²/ ħc) → 0

T = Mc² / 2S_BH = 0/0

But according to the equation

T = (ħc³ / 8πGMk_B)

When M → 0

T = (ħc³ / 8πGMk_B) = ħc³ / 0

2 different results for T (i.e., T = 0/0 and T = ħc³ / 0) when M → 0 – which is never justified.

Taking the analogy between the laws of black holes (which govern the physics of black hole: (first law): The variation of the mass M of the black hole is given by the Smarr formula -- dM = (κ/8π) dA+ ΩdJ + ΦdQ (where M stood for mass, κ for surface gravity, A for area of the event Horizon, J for angular momentum, Ω for angular velocity, Q for charge and Φ for the electrostatic potential) – which implies the size and shape of the black hole depends only on its mass, charge and rate of rotation, and not on the nature of the star that had collapsed to form it; (second law): No physical process can decrease the area A of the horizon, dA ≥ 0; (third law): surface gravity κ = 0 cannot be reached in a finite time) and laws of thermodynamics (which govern the physics of heat: (first law) the total amount of matter and energy is conserved; (second law) total entropy always increases and (third law) we cannot reach absolute zero) seriously... would... force one to assign a temperature to the black hole (its precise value determined by the formula: T = ħc³/ 8πGMk_B). In this formula the symbol c stands for the speed of light (an awkward conversion factor for everyday use because it’s so big. Light can go all the way around the equator of the Earth in about 0.1 seconds), ħ for reduced Planck’s constant, G for universal gravitational constant, and k_B for Boltzmann’s constant. Finally M represents the mass of the black hole. This formula confirms that a black hole ought to emit particles and radiation as if it were a hot body with a temperature that depends only on the black hole’s mass: the higher the mass, the lower the temperature. And this formula can also be rewritten as:

T / Planck temperature = Planck mass / 8π M

If T equals Planck temperature, then M equals Planck mass / 8π which mean: even if the temperature of the black hole approaches Planck temperature, the black hole cannot attain a mass = Planck mass. The factor 1/8π prevents the black hole from attaining a mass = Planck mass. We do not know what the factor 1/8π really means and why this factor prevents the black hole from attaining a mass = Planck mass because the usual approach of Dr. Science of constructing a set of rules and equations cannot answer the question of what and why but how. And if M equals the mass of the electron, then T becomes > than Planck temperature. If T becomes > than Planck temperature, then current physical theory breaks down because we lack a theory of quantum gravity (and temperature > than Planck temperature cannot exist only for the reason that the quantum mechanics breaks down at temperature > than 10 to the power of 33 Kelvin). However, it is only theoretically possible that black holes with mass M = mass of the electron could be created in high energy collisions. No black holes with mass M = mass of the electron have ever been observed, however – indeed, normally the creation of micro black holes (with mass <= mass of the electron) take place at high energy (i.e., >10²⁸ electron volts − roughly greater than million tons of TNT explosive), which is a quadrillion times beyond the energy of the LHC. Even if the quantum black holes (with mass <= mass of the electron) are created, they would be extremely difficult to spot - and they are the large emitters of radiation (because T = ħc³/ 8πGMk_B) and they shrink and dissipate faster even before they are observed. Though the emission of particles from the primordial black holes is currently the most commonly accepted theory within scientific community, there is some disputation associated with it. There are some issues incompatible with quantum mechanics that it finally results in information being lost, which makes physicists discomfort and this raises a serious problem that strikes at the heart of our understanding of science. However, most physicists admit that black holes must radiate like hot bodies if our ideas about general relativity and quantum mechanics are correct. Thus even though they have not yet managed to find a primordial black hole emitting particles after over two decades of searching. Despite its strong theoretical foundation, the existence of this phenomenon is still in question. Alternately, those who don’t believe that black holes themselves exist are similarly unwilling to admit that they emit particles.

In the nuclear reaction mass of reactants is always greater than mass of products. The mass difference is converted to energy, according to the equation which is as famous as the man who wrote it.

For a nuclear reaction: p +Li₇ → α + α + 17.2 MeV

Mass of reactants:

p= 1.0072764 amu

Li₇ = 7.01600455 amu

Total mass of reactants = 7.01600455 amu + 1.0072764 amu = 8.02328095 amu

Mass of products:

α= 4.0015061amu

Total mass of products = α + α = 2α = 8.0030122 amu

As from above data it is clear that

Total mass of reactants is greater than Total mass of products. The mass difference (8.02328095 amu − 8.0030122 amu = 0.02026875 amu) is converted to energy 18.87 MeV, according to the equation E = mc². However, the observed energy is 17.2 MeV.

Expected energy = 18.87 MeV (i.e., 0.02026875 amu × c²)

Experimentally observed energy = 17.2 MeV

Expected energy is ≠ observed energy

Energy difference = (18.87 − 17.2) MeV = 1.67 MeV

Where the energy 1.67 MeV is gone? The question is clear and deceptively simple. But the answer is just being blind to the complexity of reality suggesting that experiment must be re-conducted for proper understanding. However, questions are guaranteed in Science; Answers aren’t.

If we could peer into the fabric of space-time at the Planck length (the distance where the smoothness of relativity’s space-time and the quantum nature of reality begin to rub up against each other), we would see the 4 dimensional fabric of space-time is simply the lowest energy state of the universe. It is neither empty nor uninteresting, and its energy is not necessarily zero (which was discovered by Richard Dick Feynman, a colorful character who worked at the California Institute of Technology and played the bongo drums at a strip joint down the road− for which he received Nobel Prize for physics in 1965). Because E = mc squared, one can think that the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs of mass m are continually being created out of energy E of the 4 dimensional fabric of space-time consistent with the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics (which tells us that from a microscopic vantage point there is a tremendous amount of activity and this activity gets increasingly agitated on ever smaller distance and time scales), and then, they appear together at some time, move apart, then come together and annihilate each other giving energy back to the space-time without violating the law of energy conservation (which has not changed in four hundred years and still appear in relativity and quantum mechanics). Spontaneous births and deaths of virtual particles so called quantum fluctuations occurring everywhere, all the time − is the conclusion that mass and energy are interconvertible; they are two different forms of the same thing. However, spontaneous births and deaths of so called virtual particles can produce some remarkable problem, because infinite number of virtual pairs of mass m can be spontaneously created out of energy E of the 4 dimensional fabric of space-time, does the 4 dimensional fabric of space-time bears an infinite amount of energy, therefore, by Einstein’s famous equation E = mc², does it bears an infinite amount of mass. If so, according to general relativity, the infinite amount of mass would have curved up the universe to infinitely small size. But which obviously has not happened. The word virtual particles literally mean that these particles cannot be observed directly, but their indirect effects can be measured to a remarkable degree of accuracy. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics. However, they can be materialized into real particles by several ways. All that one require an energy = energy required to tear the pair apart + energy required to boost the separated virtual particle-antiparticles into real particles (i.e., to bring them from virtual state to the materialize state).

The equation m = m₀ / (1 − v²/c²) ^½ is the same as: mvdv + v²dm = c²dm which on rearranging we get:

dm/dv = mv / (c² − v²)

Assuming that mass of non-relativistic particle varies with velocity and under the condition:

v << c, the above equation may be rewritten as:

dm/dv = mv /c² which on rearranging:

dm/m = dv v /c² and integrating over m from m₀ (the rest mass of the particle) to m (the mass of the moving particle) and over v from zero to v we get:

ln (m/m₀) = v²/2c²

From this it follows that

m = m₀ exp (v²/2c²)