Summary of entire document
There are many scenarios of how our universe will end it’s life. I’m sure you have heard of a number of them:
- the big crunch as all the universe matter collapses to a single point
- the big cold freeze where our universe expands forever and all the suns run out of fuel and all the lights in the universe go out.
Well scientists now have now looked at how our world here on earth might end, due to a laboratory accidentally creating strange-matter.
Is it possible that strange-matter could end up eating the entire earth? This article thinks so: http://bit.ly/bwoXGc.
Interestingly enough, The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), an instrument which is mounted on the International Space Station, could detect strangelets: http://ams.nasa.gov/ assuming that strangelets do fly around the universe.
CERN will also be generating strangelets that could potentially result in the formation of strange-matter. Currently it is thought that strangelets will decay very quickly and not be able to form strange matter.
If the earth were converted to strange-matter, the earth would end up as a small ball of extremely hot strange matter–the heat being generated from the earths more unstable atoms (the entire earth is made up of these atoms) being converted to the much more stable strange-matter. The earth would then be reclassified as a Quark Star.
Not wanting to be outdone by these scientist types, I wondered if there might be a Strange-Matter-B that might be able to slowly eat away at the very fabric of our universe or a force that would cause all matter to dissolve. Here is what I came up with:
- What if there was a thing called “strange matter b” could slowly eat away our universe?
- What if there was a thing called “strange force b” that could dissolve all matter in our universe?
Another interesting question is: could you come up with the totally brilliant and highly technical theories or “ideas” that I have produced above in points 1 & 2. Ummmm… Ummmm… I think you could
However the question would then be: are you taking a serious risk by producing your own theories?
Scientific and technical people might call your theory a hypothesis, idea, speculation or something else.They might be highly offended that you would be allowed to make a theory–so say sorry to them now! Shame on you. How could you!
However nature does not care what you call it, what scientists call it, who tells you off for making it, or how many people votes for or against your theory; nature will just continue to do what it does and if your theory happens to match what nature does, then that simply wonderful–your theory is correct.
So you would not expect a scientist–who apparently is one of the few people other scientists accept can make make up new theories–to be forced to resign from their job because they made up a theory based on results that were scientifically tested.
However that is what happened to one fellow that made a theory that things could travel faster then light:
- Neutrino ‘faster than light’ scientist resigns: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379
Explaining What The Rest Of This Article Is About
The rest of this article simply goes into more detail about what is said in the summary, so feel free to read it if you have spare time.
If you actually want to risk making your own theory–take heed from the last person that did it–then you might also find it interesting to read the rest of this article.
This article will discuss strange matter eating up normal matter. Strange matter is apparently made up of strange quarks and is currently part of investigations into the possibility that a thing called a quark star might exist.
Its hard to tell if strange matter will eat dark matter or dark energy as we currently don’t know what it is.
Strange-matter (made up of equal numbers of strange quarks, up quarks, and down quarks) is theoretical and scientists are still considering if some stars called neutron stars might contain it, or some stars called quark stars might contain it.
Currently CERN is trying to produce a Higgs Boson. A Higgs Boson is made up of 6 quarks: up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top quark. Thus CERN will certainly be generating strange quarks, however it is thought that both the Higgs Boson and the Strange Quark are short lived and will decay quickly.
This section will also discuss making a new theory or hypothesis as some like to call them IMNH–http://bit.ly/b7EHAu. Of late I think scientists are too scared to use any of those words, and prefer to use the word “idea”. Is there really such a thing as “speculative theory?” A speculative theory: wonder what the accepted definition of that word is.
The substance I will use in my new IMNH (new hypothesis essentially) is a stuff called Strange Matter B and it’s a elementary particle, and its associated force Strange Force B. Two different scenarios will be presented on how our universe might look like it’s being gobbled up by something. more on this later.
This article will go into the problem with speaking the forbidden word: “new theory, new hypothesis, or new idea.” In the real world challenging existing theories can have serious consequences even in the year 2012, “the year of the faster then light neutron, or so someone once said before they resigned.”
If your not a scientist, then this stuff may still be very relevant to you. Poets that challenge the wise “#俳句 ❤ #haiku masters” of twitter, or if you are a farmer trying out a new technique or “idea” in farming: then might understand and experience similar problems to the ones faced here. Even kids will have problems challenging mums well established theory that all kids must or should be asleep before 7 or 8 pm
The question is how would you form their own theories, hypothesis, and or “ideas.”
What is discussed in the IMNH (new hypothesis) section is very complex, at least for people of today (just as integration and differentiation–now learned in high school–was for people of the distant past). So the author may have misinterpreted stuff, and will have to read and learn lots of stuff to see if the theory can be broken–the author loves breaking things, especially ones own IMNH hypothesis; it kind of better, and more fun then bursting bubbles in bubble wrap.
For people who don’t understand this stuff, the author has made sure you can understand the basics of what is going on by comparing it to getting a snack of “omelet on noodles :D”
Strange matter tries to eat the earth and possibly the entire universe
If we created strange matter in the laboratory, and it was more stable than other matter and it was attracted to other matter, then the strange matter would consume the entire earth eventually.
The most likely place for strange matter is a neutron star (and I assume it may exist in a quark star as well). It can be spread around our universe by having two stars collide. It would seem unlikely that strange matter spread around our universe by this method would get the chance to eat all matter in our universe however as the below discussion points about the expanding universe points out. even in a galaxy where stars are clumped together, the distance between stars is very large.
The most likely place for stars to collide is near a galaxies central black hole, and probably to a lesser degree in multiple-star systems where the orbits of the many stars are unstable. When a star sheds its mass–like when it gets old–orbits between that sun and other orbital objects including other suns tend to get bigger.
Suns that crash together near black holes can also be accelerated causing any resultant strange matter to shoot out at high speeds. It would be hard to believe that such strange-matter or cloud of strange-matter would ever collide with a star in our galaxy because the distance between stars us usually very large (often measured in many light years or more).
Because the universe is expanding forever, the chance of two stars colliding or strange-matter from other galaxies reaching us is very unlikely… now all we have to worry about is the big freeze instead of the big crunch
Okay, I admit it, our galaxy–the Milky Way– will be eventually colliding with the Andromida galaxy
Shortened link to video: The Milky Way–will be eventually collide with the Andromeda galaxy : http://youtu.be/dJRc37D2ZZY
So yes there is a very small chance strange-matter from another galaxy could get us and eat the earth for a snack in that particular case.
So from the information at hand currently it seems very unlikely that strange matter would eat up the entire universe.
Feel free to prove me wrong
IMNH Yeah, I’m going to make a new THEORY, HYPOTHESIS or IDEA… YAY
If you want to grow and understand things, sometimes you have to make up your own IMNH: http://bit.ly/b7EHAu in the authors opinion. But don’t get upset if you read stuff later that proves your new IMNH or “hypothesis” is wrong; and then later on as more discoveries are made partly wrong
IMNH should be allowed to exist for a time period because that is an allowance for your research and for people working in the field to make new discoveries that might help you see how correct or wrong the line you drew in the sand of theories is.
However I’m not an author afraid to make up “theories” (or hypothesis as the stuffy scientist would term it, or idea as the frightened scientist would say, or speculative theory as the uncertain scientist would say) IMNH–http://bit.ly/b7EHAu:
1) we already think that the gravitons (theoretical sub-atomic particle) can travel between BRANS (a “theory”–or they claim it is so) that multiverses exist rather then just our one universe that we can currently sense). This is why the gravity force is so weak.
The Higgs Boson is an other “idea” that appears to oppose the gravitron “idea” and is explained quickly in the video below.
The analogy b/t water, H2O & the Higgs field & Higgs Boson
Shortened link to video: The analogy b/t water, H2O & the Higgs field & Higgs Boson : http://youtu.be/RIg1Vh7uPyw an “idea…”
2) The thin line between a theory and hypothesis is based on using established theories to make additional hypothesis (eventually called theories if they hold up against a number of tests in most cases) and if they are proved wrong then the original theory is called into question. Newtonian mechanics versus the theory of relativity might be a example of this: in that case well established Newtonian mechanics only failed in certain circumstances, and those cases were explained by the then new the theory of relativity.
This is why, when you label something as a theory rather then a hypothesis you might receive hate and flaming–because you (and possibly me) are calling fundamental things we think of as fact into question and resultant uncertainty. However science is built on this tradition. Still a lot of stuff is built in our physical world around those theories that we think of as facts, so reputations (and funding) are going to be hurt if a theory comes into question.
If you think, not me: just remember the scare about CERN creating a black hole that would gobble up the earth–was that fact or fiction? Feel free to have a vote on that!
Now you get to fear an extra thing: that strange-matter could also gobble up the earth if some lab accidentally produced it.
The current argument I hear is that we don’t want the ignorant people to believe something is solid fact when it is not. This argument is so false it smells like rotting fish. No theory is ever 100% certain–Newtonian mechanics versus the theory of relativity for example. So scientists are in fact asking people to believe they–because they form their theories on things that are not 100% certain, hold all rights to making theories and hypothesis. This is not true, we have a right to question our surroundings and test to see if our theories, hypothesis, or ideas are true.
The other thing that stinks about scientists pretending that theories are not able to be produced by anyone, is that science is not based on consensus of the people, nature does not ask for our permission to exist; it just does exist, and it behaves as it does regardless of how we feel, or vote on it. Thus scientists can’t really vote an unscientific or unskilled persons theories, hypothesis, or ideas out the door–because nature does not care what scientists think or vote for.
As scientists–and we all have the capability to be that–we should be allowed to wonder about things, and write those thoughts down on paper and call it a theory, hypothesis or idea without the statement that “people get frightened if you do that”–that is not the way to advance our civilization!
Scientists do have one power over us–that has been weakened because lots of people can now publish their ideas on the internet for example. Scientists can publish their ideas, hypothesis, and theories in trusted publications and media that essentially vote who can say stuff and who can not. This sort of technique has been used in the past and often–but not always–works and produces good results. However that should not prevent people who would not be accepted by such media or publications, from publishing their ideas, hypothesis, or theories in media or publications that might not be considered acceptable by scientists. Ultimately, nature does not care about where a correct theory is published–it will still do what it has always done. Nature does not care if scientist published incorrect theories in trusted sources of information, as voted for by scientists–nature will not change its ways just because a scientists publishing reputation is at stake.
This freedom to publish your idea, hypothesis, or theory is not a joke and it’s not funny: a person who should have been free to publish–even in what might be considered as trusted publications and media for other scientists–had to resign because instruments reported a neutron as going faster then the speed of light. Astronomers of early times knew this same fear when they mentioned that the earth might orbit the sun! However people might expect we have moved on from those ancient times, that we are more free to make up theories, hypothesis, and ideas without the risk of harsh punishments.
- Neutrino ‘faster than light’ scientist resigns: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379
3) Like a story, a theory may not be complete. Making predictions about things based on a theory does not always work. Newtonian mechanics versus the theory of relativity as an example. People who expand the frontiers of science using one or often more then one theories may have to literally read between the lines–and that’s not easy when complex maths, experiments and even numerical methods have been used to prove the original theories. The chance of making a error must be very frightening: if people have to resign their posts for simply making a measurement that determines something goes faster then light.
Standing ready to resign my post it would seem with my new IMNH
The Mission Statement That Is Totally Logical But Seems To Not Make Sense
MISSION STATEMENT 1
To allow as many people as possible to read this article
MISSION STATEMENT 2
To wrap up all the loose edges for the IMNH (defined here: http://bit.ly/b7EHAu).
MISSION STATEMENT 3
Cover the basic idea in more then one way.
ACHIEVING MISSION STATEMENT 1
THE BASIC STATEMENT
To allow a many people as possible to read this article–very difficult to achieve this one I think. This is why I have made this part a little longer; the information here is probably quite unusual.
EXPLAINING HOW A IMNH IS MADE IN SIMPLE TERMS
The next few statements are perfectly logical and yet do not make any sense. Who says engineering and science cant be fun
For that reason I have compared them to getting some food–like omelet on noodles. The stuff I say here is then compared to an every day event that you might have experienced and I hope that will give you some idea of how I produce an IMNH hypothesis, theory, and/or “idea.”
I also hope this section will give you some way to make your own IMNH–or whatever you like to call it–if you feel the desire, also feel free to learn form experience as there is no wrong way to do this; but make sure you have lots of fun.
STATEMENT TO PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE
If you are a science person, or engineering person, I have only one thing to say to you if you don’t like the words I make up or dislike me comparing it to “theory” and /or “idea:” De Bono. I don’t think I should have to live in fear because of you, and I think that sort of attitude in not going to advance science. If you don’t like what I say, go vote on it–I’m sure the universe will take note of your vote, but it may not necessarily obey it…
While the above paragraph might be nasty to all those nice scientists, and engineers out there: it’s these people, and resultant body of references that I hope will break my IMNH and prove it wrong. I will of course be happy if it turns out to be right also, but I like and enjoy the effort of trying to break it first. By break my IMNH: I mean prove it wrong to those with more dry, less fun tastes in words.
ACHIEVING MISSION STATEMENT 2
HOW TO BUILD AN IMNH AND GET A NICE MEAL OF OMELET ON NOODLES: “WRAP UP ALL THE LOOSE EDGES”
First of all I have learned from making previous IMNH hypothesis that a lot of things need to be considered and I need to wrap up all the loose edges–it’s a lot like buying my favorite meal: omelet on noodles; I will need a jumper, umbrella, money, tissues, ear-plugs for excessive noise, mobile telephone, and get to know when your favorite shop is open if I want to get take away “omelet on noodles.”
This IMNH hypothesis will need to wrap up any loose edges. Making up a IMNH hypothesis, theory &/or “idea” is not easy and there are many things to consider–such as the fact that if space is a vacuum and vacuum is nothing, how the heck can something devour it like “a tasty omelet on noodles?”
ACHIEVING MISSION STATEMENT 3
HOW TO BUILD AN IMNH AND GET A NICE MEAL OF OMELET ON NOODLES: “COVER THE BASIC IDEA IN MORE THEN ONE WAY”
Aim: To create IMNH hypothesis that covers as much of the basic idea that I have in possibly more then one possible way. After all I can buy, cook, or order “my tasty omelet on noodles.”
With IMNH hypotheses, theories, and/or “ideas:” I consider them to be built, since I can’t seem to find a good take away to buy one–and some people might accuse me of cheating if I did
I suppose you might consider building an idea, theory, or hypothesis similar to assembling a meal, the process many of us would call cooking a meal of “omelet on noodles.”
IMNH: theory, and/or “idea, might be built in different ways and still achieve the same result.
While this might make easy sense when referring to how I could get a meal of “omelet on noodles,” in this case we are dealing with the real world and literally parallel realities that might not be able to coexist in a single universe–hopefully one of them can exist in our universe since that is what is the desired result here.
Thus, two examples of things that could result in what we see as our universe being eaten might be (and this gets very technical):
- A form of “Strange-Matter B” eating everything including outer-space (vacuum). Of course where that matter goes to is left open to debate. It could go into another universe, possibly passing through a link between our Brane and another brane (not an unusual idea since we already believe gravitrons pass between Branes) or our universe could be altered to become a different universe (in terms of a Brane, it might be similar to changing an existing Branein some way; I suppose you might consider this as our Brane changing into a zero sized Brane if you want to model it). Branes are different universes, and are like bread slices as they lie very close to each other. If you want to read more about this check out the reference section. Branes come from string theory and string theory is one of many theories about how our universe (and in this case other universes) works.
- All matter simply dissolving–the idea that elementary particles are related to forces. A force will be applied to matter that will make it dissolve. The author has avoided the word tearing, weakening, changing, and so on because all these might result in a effect that looks as if is matter dissolving. The author likes to use the very abstract analogy of foam on a surf wave dissolving or disappearing when the wave looses it’s height and stops breaking in this particular case. This “dissolving” of all matter (but not necessarily dark matter or dark energy) would still leave our universe intact unlike point 1 above because vacuum and possibly dark matter, and dark energy would still exist–strange matter would be the new thing, but is was derived from normal visible matter. At the moment I see it as more or less a wide spread force that affects all the galaxy or sweeps across it. The time scale is left open–I believe scientist predict that all matter will eventually dissolve, but I think it had to do with the assumption that all matter would be sucked into black holes. This section does not assume this process–it assumes Strange-Matter B associated with a force that causes all matter (and thus energy–with the exception of dark matter and dark energy possibly–to dissolve).
Additional Effort To Achieve Mission statement 1
THE ANALOGY “EGGS ON OMELET” THAT MAKES THE MISSION STATEMENT 1 MAKE SENSE
This section explains how a IMNH is built using an analogy of getting a snack of omelet on noodles. I think this section is necessary because if people want to attempt to build their own IMNT or whatever they like to call them, they will need a reference that is easy to remember and real to them. I think we can all associate with this real life example and apply it to the problem of making our own IMNH.
I suppose a simple analogy to building a IMNH would be: if you went to the shops to buy a snack (like omelet on noodles).
however last time you went to the do that: it rained; snowed; a dog barked at you loudly; your nose ran and you had no tissues; your forgot your money; you left your mobile telephone behind–but got a really really important call; and the shop was closed when you got there and you ended getting food you did not really like.
The solution might be to make sure you have a jumper, umbrella, money, tissues, ear-plugs for excessive noise, mobile telephone, and get to know when your favorite shop is open.
An alternative solution might be to telephone and get it delivered to your house or to not bother and cook it your self.
Here the loose edges are all the stuff you might need, & information you might need to know so that you can get that take away meal.
While the basic idea is to get omelet on noodles, it can be done in three ways here:
- go out and get take away food (omelet on noodles)
- order omelet on noodles to be delivered to your house
- cook omelet on noodles
This is similar to the statement “cover the basic idea in more then one way.”
Yeah this is my new IMNH hypothesis, idea or whatever dangerous word is in action for scientist of today:
Before I go into the details of the theories that are produced here, this video will show how force and elementary particles are related and more or less the same thing (the force is discussed as a field rather then a force and it is not continuous but rather it is discrete).
‘The God Particle’: The Higgs Boson
Shortened link to video: how “force” fields (virtual particles) and elementary particles are related : http://youtu.be/1_HrQVhgbeo
1) what if there were a version of strange matter that ate not only matter but our universe, it would indeed literally eat up our entire universe if it ever came into existence.
2) Just some facts you might not be aware of: the hard empty vacuum of deep space is in fact filled with all sorts of stuff and is so complex that scientists find it hard to model! recently we have found out that space is smooth and that we can actually make light particles from vacuum: http://bit.ly/sivbn5. The author now thinks of the so called “empty vacuum of deep space” as a sort of very smooth bubble wrap or foam.
While not relevant here, the Casimir Effect (that causes a strong force–around 1 atmosphere–to exist when objects that are very close together–around 100 standard atoms distance) that was used to make two virtual particles appear from the vacuum also plays a significant role in emerging microtechnologies and nanotechnologies.
While you might think we can produce free energy from vacuum, there is a danger in that. It is thought our universe rests on the equivalent of a hill–unstable position–and that if we allow our universe to be set into motion–down hill–by using the vacuum energy, it will cause the equivalent of the destruction of the entire universe–all life and possibly matter will be destroyed. Unfortunately at the current moment, the author can not remember if this comes from a reference source or a colleague. A reference will provided if one can be found at a later date if possible. This idea is not that far fetched either since this entire document talks about atoms being unstable and the more stable thing matter wants to become is strange matter–fortunately certain conditions seem to be needed before that can occur.
3) after learning from the last IMNH hypothesis, an attempt will be made to “wrap up all the obvious edges” : Of course where that matter goes to is left open to debate. It could go into another universe, possibly passing through a link between our Brane and another brane (not an unusual idea since we already believe graitrons pass between Branes) or our universe could be altered to become a different universe (in terms of a Brane, it might be similar to producing another Brane from a existing one; I suppose you might consider this as our Brane passing into a zero sized Brane if you want to model it). Brane are different universes, and are like bread slices as they lie very close to each other. If you want to read more about this check out the reference section. Branes come from string theory and string theory is one of many theories about how our universe (and in this case other universes) works.
4) after learning from my last IMNH hypothesis: since we have learned that 95% to 97% of our universe is made out of stuff (matter –currently called dark matter) and energy (currently called dark energy), and elementary particles tend to be related to forces. An alternative theory, but still related to stuff being eaten is the dissolving of the part of the universe we live in (matter and energy). But the dissolving of all matter (possibly with the exception of dark matter and dark energy) will be due to a new force shifts in some way so that all visible-matter and possibly visible-energy (collectively–in astronomy terms–called Baryonic Matter) can no longer exist in our universe in it’s current states. In this case the disappearing baryonic matter might change into energy, other stuff–such as dark matter or dark energy, or it may end up in another brane (as the above example in point 2 discusses).
5) Wrapping up the obvious loose edges of this alternative: The author has avoided the word tearing, weakening, changing, and so on because all these might result in a effect that looks as if is matter dissolving. The author likes to use the very abstract analogy of foam on a surf wave dissolving or disappearing when the wave looses it’s height and stops breaking in this particular case. This “dissolving” of all matter (but not necessarily dark matter or dark energy) would still leave our universe intact unlike point 1 above. At the moment I see it as more or less a wide spread force that affects all the galaxy or sweeps across it. The time scale is left open–I believe scientist predict that all matter will eventually dissolve, but I think it had to do with the assumption that all matter would be sucked into black holes. This section does not assume this process–it assumes Strange-Matter B associated with a force that causes all matter (and thus energy–with the exception of dark matter and dark energy possibly–to dissolve).
- http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2006/pr200611.html multiple star systems are more common [accessed 2012]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star#Distribution single star systems are more common [accessed 2012]
- http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/ also a nice effort in making this website and the information it contains. This website also contains many useful links. This article shows skill that is not common in most of the authors references. This is a good supporting reference simply out of strong respect for the way this author has presented their information and some advanced topics that the author has not fully explored such as exact models of orbits of in multi-star systems.
- http://www.optcorp.com/edu/articleDetailEDU.aspx?aid=1611 Unlike the above article this article while good, only has one source–wikipedia and thus is not really a good reference IMO. Respect for the article: the facts in the article are in line with reliable references the author has read, and it’s very possible the author of this article has a good understanding of this topic or expertise.
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998A%26A…334..169V: mass ratios of multi-star systems.
- http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/stringtheory.html gravitron, Higgs Boson, string theory, quantum mechanics.
- “The scientist who headed a European research team that last year measured particles travelling faster than light has resigned, weeks after a rival team cast doubt on the accuracy of those findings.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2123105/Scientist-led-team-measured-particle-going-faster-light-quits-following-doubts-rival-team.html