The Universe and its beginnings

The theory of general relativity already contains and explains the possibility of a finite and unlimited universe, that possibility pretends to be a discovering and development from the quantum mechanics, it is proposed as a possibility that can only be generated from the theory of the quantum gravity, however the general theory of relativity already proposes it but by being proposed by Einstein together with the hypothesis that the radius of the universe would be independent of time, it was completely discarded with the discovering of an expanding universe.

This idea is not quite right because the solutions of Friedman of an expanding universe do not (in any way) exclude the idea of a universe finite but unlimited, this is it does not imply that the universe should be infinite or with a limit or singularity completely defined.

Given that the idea of a finite and unlimited universe contains without any trouble the ability of this to be under expansion. However the idea of a finite and unlimited universe under expansion seems to be not comprehended completely, as well as its considerations about the beginning of the same.

In fact a finite and expanding universe leads inevitably to a initial state where the distances in between anything would be null, this is in a concept similar to the Bing-Bang; in the other hand an infinite universe would prevent this inevitable consequence because there would be no center on which the whole universe could concentrate in, because any point could be considered the “center” inside a infinite universe; however it is necessary to comprehend that an infinite universe should be infinite since the beginning of the “time” because in any other way it would have to be finite without any possibility of mistake; it is not the same an infinite quantity and a quantity that reaches the infinite, this is that the universe could be expanding and had started with a finite magnitude means that it is still finite and would become infinite only if it keeps expanding during a interval of time infinite.

Because of this, an infinite universe would exist since ever or would be there forever. In the other hand a finite universe expanding would have consequently a point in time that could be called the “beginning of time” whatever that would mean. Under these perspectives we can divide the possible models of the universe in the following way:

A) An infinite universe which by definition is unlimited, because as much as you travel the universe in one given direction there always be more universe to travel, this does not imply in any way that it would be possible to return to the starting point because as it can be observed, an infinite universe has no limits or singularities which will define the frontier of the universe. Also an infinite universe (even under expansion) should be infinite at any given time, and by which there's no place for a singularity such as the Big-Bang to generate it, the infinite universe is infinite independent of the time. In this way the concept of “universe under expansion” is not well defined as the universe is infinite since ever and forever.

B) In other way, a finite universe can be limited or unlimited, if it is unlimited it implies that there is not frontier or singularity on which the universe ends, in this case the expansion means that at the beginning this could be collapsed into a point of length zero; and it was created indeed in a singularity such as the Big-Bang, and could end in a Big-Crunch, given that being finite in extension, exists therefore a center to collapse; or perhaps it could keep expanding forever, reaching an infinite extension at the end of time.

C) The last case implies a finite and unlimited universe; this case if it were not expanding it will illustrate the primary model (defined by Einstein), where obviously there is no place for a singularity, such as the Big-Bang because in fact, the universe is static; this is it is not expanding. However, in the case of a finite and unlimited universe that is expanding the panorama changes radically; because necessarily it begins in a singularity such as the Big-Bang where unavoidably the universe hast a null magnitude.

Now, before explaining why this is the case, first we should account that the universe, either will continue expanding forever or finally it will collapse around itself in a Big-Crunch; going back to the beginning of the universe in a singularity, let's assume a tri-dimentional universe (this is, two spatial coordinated and one temporal coordinate) which is finite and unlimited, meaning, the universe is formed exclusively by the surface of a ellipse (or a sphere as well, however the ellipse generalizes the model, because it does not pre-establishes the perfection of the shape of a sphere), because obviously it has two spatial coordinates; in this case the expansion of the universe is given by the increase of the radius of the sphere that “contains” our universe, as you can clearly see this means that the expansion should have started with a radius of null size, which in consequence will yield a null surface; meaning, a state where the universe collapsed around itself in a null space; this describes clearly the image of the Big-Bang; if we translate the analogy to a quadric-dimensional the consequences are the same.

As you can see this theory does not completely clarify the initial state of the universe, the difficulties are still there.

In another way, the ideas of a universe in contraction remembering the future; are equally unnecessary and absurd; because in any case for a person in this state; simply their “past” will be what we know their “future” and vice versa; this would imply in the case of a universe that at any moment it would stop expanding, that in the precise moment where the universe stops its expansion to start its compression there should exist a singularity in which “time” would stop to start its backwards flow; this is absurd, it would imply that truly the universe will return to its initial state from that point on.

However, the previous problem is defined by thermodynamic questions related to the entropy, these complications can be eliminated if we conceive a closed cyclical universe; this is, in the initial state totally chaotic and unordered of the universe, it emerges in an instant of time a state of “apparent order” (meaning an ordered state just as we perceive it); which favors and starts the evolution of the universe of which we are part of; of course at that instant we could identify that the disorder or entropy of the universe, not really being null, it is in a minimal state; through the evolution process of the universe the entropy of the universe starts to increase through the destruction of stars, primitive planets, etc.; which gives birth to galaxies and new systems, and of course to us, obviously we keep contributing more entropy to the universe.

The universe keeps its expansion and after all with a natural transition it starts its contraction; its entropy keeps growing, until the unavoidable happens; the collapse of the universe in the Big-Crunch, of course in this state planets are so close to each other that the start to collide between each other, generating their destruction and augmenting the entropy, stars explode, finally the universe collapses disintegrating matter as we know it and augmenting the chaos; there is a time where chaos is total, there is a state where only elemental particles coexist; from this state of chaos, which we don't know how long it will last; it will be generated at any moment a state of “apparent order” and the cycle will start again.

This model that could be supported by quantum mechanics developed under the premises of the general relativity and its definition of the relativity fields; would be also naturally supported by the unified theory.

It is my opinion that there is no sufficient empirical knowledge that prevents supporting quantum mechanics through the general relativity theory; contrarily it everything seems to signal that this is possible; even generating conclusions about the origin of the universe.

First draft originally written in Spanish during Feb 2006

The way we measure the world

Probably the way we measure the world would seem so obvious than any attempt to perform those measurements on a different way would be simply ignored and discarded, without any more prove on its fundamentals than the “common sense”. This is easily observable on any aspect of our daily life, let's suppose as an example that a man must cut a stick of a given metal in some way that its length will adjust as much as possible to the length of a side of a rectangular metal body, the most “obvious” way would be of course to take a tape and perform a measurement of the reference body and then transfer the measurement to the stick of metal, a process so simple that does not require any more explanation.

In a similar way, we can point out the way on which the classic mechanics bases the measurements of positions using a euclidean system with the implication and limitations that this measurement system contracts and that they are revealed by the relativity theory by Einstein.

However the measurements we perform and the way we perform them condition the kind of results we obtain, this does not imply that the results are wrong or right, but it conditions the complications we will have to derive over those basis the theories that will explain the world we irremediably try to explain, in order to be more verbose on this (and explain) we can take as an example the theory of the general relativity and how it changed the fundamentals of measurements of reality by proposing the equivalency between non-euclidean systems of coordinates, it simplifies and unifies several hypothesis that previously where not clearly related.

At this point it is necessary to introduce an specific example to allow me to explain what this is about: let's suppose that we have a pool table in the center of a room, on its surface we draw (an imaginary Gaussian system where the ʋ curves are parallel in between them and separated by a distance of an arbitrarily chosen unit; the ʊ curves will be perpendicular to the ʋ curves and they will be parallel in between them and separated by the same unit chosen.

As you can see the system of coordinates could be an euclidean system, however we define it as an specific case of the Gaussian system to solve the implications that the first system will bring to a surface as is described by the general theory of relativity for those systems.

Now let's assume that we have a ball on the table which we will locate it on an arbitrarily point A of the table and we send it with a constant speed to an arbitrarily point B on the table, this movement implies however ignoring the breaking action that the table will apply on the ball and of course any change of direction that an irregularity on the table will generate on the ball.

This is, the ball will obey the laws of movement on which the ball on a resting state will begin to move with an uniform movement determined by the force that broke its initial state. To perform the measurement of the position of the ball we will locate a video camera hanging on top of the table in a way that we can observe at any given instant on time where is the ball located.

Once we have this experimental table we turn on the lights on the room in a way that the table is completely illuminated y we can clearly see it as well as the initial position of the ball; we start recording with the video camera and we perform the experiment, this is, we hit the ball to move it around from A to B. Once the trajectory have been finished we stop the video camera and with the video recorded we can know the precise position and the speed of the ball at any given instant of time. This experiment is so simple that does not have any mayor complications to prove and use the results.

Now, let's assume for a moment that there's no light on the room (and the video camera is not able to provide it or record what's happening on those conditions), let's assume also that the only or more evident way to solve this issue is:

In some way we can determine (say arbitrarily) the four corners of the table so we can (as well as in the previous example) draw a Gaussian system to help us to identify the position of the ball. Now, to “see” the ball we assume that it has on its surface a substance X which we are not interested on what it is only on the fact that when it crash with another ball covered with the same substance it generates a small spark that can be observed and captured by the video camera.

We are ready to execute the experiment again to send the ball from an arbitrarily point A to a point B, however we still need to consider some problems we need to solve. First, we should realize that in order to observe the position of the ball, we need intercept it with another ball, this is, hit it with other ball so it will generate an spark which will indicate us its position, however this position is not exact anymore, because the second ball can hit our experimental ball on different parts of its surface depending on the direction the second ball is traveling.

As we can see, we cannot (not even closely) know the real position of the ball, however let's assume that to obtain a more satisfactory result we send a third ball which will hit our ball under study, this approach will give us two sparks that will allow us to know better the position of the ball.

Now we have two points (or set of coordinates) and the position of the ball should be closely in between those, however as we realized previously the result does not necessarily needs to be the same every time we perform the experiment, this is, there's “uncertainty” on the position of the ball, in the way that we can only obtain a series of points on which the ball can be on a given instant of time, without being able to determine with precision the position of it.

Once the ball is hit with other ball its trajectory is modified significantly as well as its speed. Given that in the first place the third ball should hit our target on a position which does not correspond to its original trajectory because it has already been modified by the second ball, increasing with this the uncertainty on the measurements.

This effect could be minimized if the speed of the balls two and three is increased, achieving with this that that the interception from the third ball will happen as soon as possible, on this way the trajectory and speed of the initial ball will be modified the the less possible amount of time decreasing with this the error of the measurement.

However, this takes is to our second problem: an increase on the force used to send the balls two and three will increase the amount of disturbance in the original position and speed of the ball.

We should clarify on this matter that the speed or the force applied to the balls two and three should be the always the same for both balls, this consideration is quite important for following considerations. As you can see and analyze with the vectors, an attempt to to reduce the first problem, will increase in the same amount the error on the measurements.

It can be clearly observable that the uncertainty on the measurements cannot be avoided, leading that we can only obtain a set of possible places where the ball can be and statistically, if we expand the number of measurements, the probability that the ball will be on any of those places.

We could even generate equations and theories which could predict the probability of happening; however it will still exist an aleatory factor which will prevent us to know with certainly the position of the ball, we could only know the probability of the ball being on a certain place, which as we can appreciate by increasing the precision of the measurements the probability will decrease consequently.

Now let's try to imagine the problems we would have to fight if we had to base the theories that explain the world under these kind of measurements. Probably we will reach something close to the theories we have in the present day, but clearly with a big amount of problems and limitations that we would have to fight on the way; or maybe we would keep on an initial state tying to solve those problems and limitations a measurements system like this will impose on us.

However, at this point let's make a consideration about this problem (example) we've been working with, it might seem absurd frankly to move from the original problem to the second one when we know beforehand the first way to approach it. In this direction the second approach seems absurd and unnecessary, given that the first approach is clearly more reliable and simple (not simplistic) not only to solve this particular problem but to define with this kind of measurements the base to create, prove and measure the theories that explain the world.

But this idea seems less (or not at all) absurd if for a moment we assume that we are not aware of the first approach to the problem, if we only know the second approach it will acquire validity and by not having any reason to doubt about it, it will then get general acceptance and become the base for the creation, prove and measurement of all the theories.

Seeing from this perspective the situation, it does not seem so absurd a measurements system like that. However it can be clearly observable that discovering a new approach like the initial one would be a revolution which will completely change the way to see the world and more important it would be a step forward on simplifying and obtaining the theories we are interested in.

Up to this point, the present essay is not more than an imaginative story without any real meaning, however it necessary to reveal the considerations behind this example and present the conclusion of it. We'll do that by modifying the problem we've been using on the following way:

Assume now that our pool table is a portion of the space, the ball a particle which we want to know its position and speed, balls two and three are the light used to illuminate the particle and given the wave-particle duality if the light we represent them as balls as well. The particle moves from a point A in space to a point B, the speed of balls two and three is the wave length of the light used to illuminate the particle.

As you can see, the problem just described is the way the quantum mechanics used to measure the position and speed of particles, and as you can see it implies a big quantity of obstacles and by finding a way to perform the measurements similar or equivalent to the first approach of our problem (this is a way that does not require to interfere with the object of study) would be a great advance for the measurement and understanding of the universe.

Probably finding such a way of measuring under the quantum mechanics which will simplify its contents would be far less than impossible and we will not be even close to imagine it; however this is not true, however we just have in the theory of fields from relativity the solution we are looking for.

Let me explain a bit why is this: the theory of fields will allow to define a particle's position (and speed as well) by measuring how the particle disturbs its environment, we can “see” the particle on the same way we can define the position of a planet on the space (by the disturbance and curvature of the space it generates), this approach is closer to our first approach on our example as we don't disturb our object of measurement but perceive its effects on the space.

We could argue that the environment will also disturb our object of measurement, but let's analyze how it will work: on the assumption that a particle is also a wave we can define an artifact that given several sensors places strategically would allow is to sense the waves and define the position of the origin of those waves (similar to an earthquake), those sensors can be placed on a way that they do not disturb our particle on an irregular way and will allow is to take the required measurements.

Einstein believed on this possibility, and in case we could prove its capacity to explain the world of quantum mechanics as a field, it will imply on a natural and practically transparent way the solution to a unified theory of the world.

First draft originally written in Spanish during Jan-Feb 2006

Frases Domingueras

Las frases por lo generan son una especie de resumen, sobre algo en particular, tratan de obtener la escencia sobre lo que hablan y mostrarla tal cual, hay muchas frases por ahi, sueltas, algunas en compendios, ya mayoria no me dicen a mi nada, sin embargo para alguien mas puede ser todo lo contrario, todo depende de la manera de pensar del que las lee, lo que pueda obtener de ella y si va con su manera de pensar o no.

Tatare de escribir sobre algunas frases que se me han ocurrido en alguna epoca pasada, posiblemente plagiadas de alguien mas que no puedo ubicar, de manera que creo que se me han ocurrido a mi.

Algunas de ellas, las utilizare como punto de partida para escribir un poco mas, ampliarlas y darles un soporte mas elaborado en posts separados, explicar su origen y su sentido para que no se queden solo como frases sueltas, ya vere.

Otras solo las trascribire, en este post para que no se pierdan por ahi, como estas:

• hope in the time when everything will be as we dreamed
• when nothing remains only a hope can get you alive
• como saber cuando te aferras a algo que no te pertenece?
• You're Just like a dream, Just so perfect, Just so real...

Algunas otras, no creo que den para un post separado, sobre todo por el hecho de que su origen es mas superficial, eso no importa, no quiere decir que por ello sean frases vacias, que no merezcan ser escritas.

Esta es una lista de las se me han ocurrido mientras chateaba con un buen amigo:

• llenemos el vacio emocional que nos acarrea una vida sin sentido con objetos materiales que alimenten nuestro consumismo sin control
• ...hasta que el futuro nos alcanzo
• los lujos ya no seran para ti, sino para tu esposa

Son frases medio sin sentido, medio al aire, medio locas, pero se me hacen chidas, no tengo idea como salen, aparte de tener algo de creativas no le cambian la vida a nadie, pero me agradan bastante.

Las frases, igual que todo lo que tenga que ver con puntos de vista, queda completamente abierto a interpretaciones y gustos personales, esto de acuerdo con ello, al final de cuentas alguien que las lea puede darle risa, alguien mas se ofendera, a mi me da igual, no estan ahi para levantar polemica, ni nada por el estilo, estan porque de alguna manera estan relacionadas conmigo y... ya.


---

Inicio

La Pregunta es: Por que crear un Blog?


Basicamente, como un ejercicio para mi, mas que para compartir algo, para escribir de cualquier idiotez que se me ocurra y de la que quiera escribir, para mas adelante poder darme cuenta de la basura que escribo ahora y la que escribire en ese entonces, y darme cuenta de como estan las cosas ahora y como estaran entonces.

Es de una manera, una forma de ir dejando algo de las etapas por las que paso en mi vida, ya que cada vez que escriba sera diferente y bajo la manera de ser y pensar de ese entonces; si hubiera comenzado este blog hace algun tiempo atras habrian quedado fragmentos de etapas pasadas que, quizas ahora, me daria flojera recordarlas o me preguntaria: WTF??

Es una manera de ir marcando algunas partes de mi evolucion como individuo, y que tal vez mas de uno podria darse cuenta de las etapas de su pensamiento con la manera en que ha ido cambiando la musica que escucha.

No espero en realidad que haya lectores de esto, posiblemente ni yo mismo regrese a leer lo que escribi, pero una vez comenzado, quiero ver hasta donde puedo llevar esto, no espero escribir cosas muy elaboradas o extensas, la verdad me dan flojera, y prefiero escribir poco, cada vez menos.

Este es el primer post, que no me ha quedado como lo imagine cuando me decidi a comenzar con esto, pero aqui esta.

Espero escribir, de manera constante, aunque a veces las ideas se me van por un buen tiempo, y regresan, a veces, en grupos, tratare de darme tiempo de ponerlas aqui, y de vez en cuando poner algo sobre antes de comenzar este blog. Como una manera de recapitular, pero ya vere, espero que no sea el unico post que haga.



Esto de escribir es algo extrano, termine regresado a escribir esto, en este post, porque al parecer despues de poner dos o tres palabras juntas, como que todo resulta mas facil, las ideas aparentemente comienzar a salir, se conjuntan y se despiertan despues de un buen rato de estar adormecidas por la flojera de dejarlas salir frente al teclado, la misma flojera que en este preciso momento, me dice que ya es suficiente por hoy, supongo que mi cabeza hizo un esfuerzo muy grande para escribir estas lineas que, de seguro no quedaron como me gustaria, pero que no quiero tener que repasarlas varias veces para que queden como deberian quedar (segun yo).

---