"Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths."

(Sir Karl Popper)

If you could turn back the hands of time, you would see the Hubble Expansion become a contraction and the logical conclusion of this contraction is that all the matter would eventually converge on a common point in space. That common point in space would be referred to as a cosmological singularity, or black hole, and from this singularity it is postulated that the Big Bang (Read: A BIG explosion or sudden expansion) occurred.

...the big bang theory maintains that the universe was born about 15 billion years ago from a cosmological singularity -- a state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these qualities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply then (The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe by Andrei Linde, Nov 1994 issue of Scientific American)

The Big Bang event itself is not a theory but a fact firmly rooted in observation; it is rooted in what are called the three cornerstones of Big Bang cosmology. These three cornerstones are:

1. The observed Hubble Expansion,
2. The three degree (Kelvin) cosmic microwave background, and
3. The primordial abundance of light elements such as hydrogen.

But there is a major problem with believing that anything could come from an infinitely small anything: infinitely small = non-existent. For proof of this, take an object, any object of your choosing, and slice it into pieces small enough until those pieces are infinitely small. What will you have left over after that exercise? Nothing! So when certain scientists insist that our universe came from a cosmological singularity, what they are really saying is that Big Bang started from nothing...clearly an impossibility, not to mention illogical and unscientific thinking.

Let us talk about what a black hole is. A black hole can be defined mathematically as when the mass of an object divided by it's radius becomes equal to or greater than c² over 2G. Interestingly enough, since the universe we live in is very massive, it wouldn't have to be very dense to form a black hole -- only one atom per cubic centimeter if we assume the total mass of the universe to be about 10⁵²kg. What the mathematical definition does not tell us is that black holes are singularities of infinite density or that black holes are "stingy" in that what goes in never ever comes back out again -- two things which are presumed by many scientists to be true. Our local universe supposedly started out as a black hole, but how could any matter within it escape to form our universe if blacks holes are stingy?

Think about what would be needed to escape from the event horizon of a black hole. The escape velocity would have to equal the speed of light. What happens to the mass of an electron when it is accelerated to the speed of light? It becomes infinite. How much energy would be required to accelerate an infinite mass to the speed of light? Infinite amounts. So it would take all the energy in the entire infinite universe to accelerate just one single electron out of this cosmological singularity, leaving no energy behind to accelerate any of other particles still leftover back in our initial cosmological singularity. If quantum black holes cannot and do not explode now, how could the Big Bang explode from one itself then? There is not even one single current viable theory to explain how a black hole could explode, and it isn't even remotely conceivable how it could do so.

Some scientists simply pretend that gravity somehow became a repulsive force as we approach the temperatures and densities present to create the initial Big Bang singularity. This is supposedly due to the influence of imaginary particles called Higgs bosons. When in the course of developing a scientific theory, one has to resort to inventing a whole new field of physics in order to justify one's theory, then that is resorting to fantasizing and not true science. It is a matter of inventing an ends to justify the means.

Einstein's confirmable belief that gravity is simply just a characteristic of spacetime distortions easily resolves those contradictions, since distortions are not actual physical objects they are therefore not subject to the same physical constraints placed upon actual physical objects existing within a black hole event horizon.

Any belief in any type of infinitely small singularity is just plain fantasy. It would require re-inventing new principles and new laws that are not observed anywhere at all in the universe. It would require inventing new principles and new laws that are unreproducible as well as unverifiable.

Then there is the matter of spacetime curvature. According to Schwarzschild, the curvature of spacetime due to gravity is (the simplified version):

      rC = RS-1/2r3/2
      Where:
         RS = Schwarzschild radius,
         r = linear distance to center, and
         rC = radius of curvature.

At the point that r = R_S, spacetime becomes so convoluted that it actually curves back on itself, ie -- meaning that a photon placed at that point will fold back on itself as it attempts to travel forward and in actually will remain stationary no matter which direction you point it. The photon will be frozen in time and space. So as far as singularities go, they are impossible to form to begin with since everything freezes at the event horizon.

So what this all comes down to is that although the Big Bang is a fact, it can't explain the first few milliseconds of the birth of our universe since the obvious conclusion of the Big Bang theory implies a singularity and therefore the Big Bang theory must be supplemented with something else to explain those

There was a certain scientist (Max Planck to be specific) who was observant enough to notice that all matter and energy must have a minimum amount of time and distance to react in before any outside force can have any influence on it. This smallest unit of time and distance that forces must have in order to react is named after Planck and the Planck time and the Planck length (both of which are calculated from the Planck constant, h) were named after him. The problem with the Big Bang singularity is also called the problem of the Planck time because there is no way to even guess what could exist prior to the Big Bang singularity before that time.

Certain solutions calculated by quantum electrodynamics (QED) have successfully predicted that subatomic particles should appear and disappear spontaneously from spacetime at times and distances measured close to the Planck length ( √[Ghc^-3] ). These particles are popularly called virtual particles. Virtual particles don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere but they appear as a result of Heinsenburg's Uncertainty Principle combined with the existence of something called vacuum energy (the factual existence of vacuum energy was confirmed by the Casimir Effect in 1996). What the existence of vacuum energy tells us is that there is no such thing as empty space for all of space is filled with virtual particles and vacuum energy. The density of this vacuum energy is not fixed but can very gradually vary in magnitude over large regions of spacetime, like swells in an ocean, and just like an ocean swell, there can be waves on top of top of waves -- wavelets. The difference is that in vacuum energy swells, these wavelets are chaotically churning like air bubbles in rapidly boiling water. John Wheeler (famous for his Wheeler Wormholes) referred to this chaotic churning as quantum foam. Physicists normally don't refer to the varying density of vacuum energy as swells but as variations of a scalar field magnitude and they refer to the individual bubbles in the quantum foam as quantum fluctuations.

Over the last twenty years, scientists have been in the process of developing new theories, based on knowledge acquired from QED, that do away with the need for the Big Bang singularity and without negating the obvious fact that the Big Bang happened. One of these new theories is called Inflationary Theory. If you carefully read what is said about chaotic inflation, you will see that an universe begins when the potential energy of the scalar field dominates the energy density of the vacuum energy density. In other words, when the slope of a vacuum energy swell is greater than the magnitude of vacuum energy present in the swell. This is the same concept that is behind the creation of surf upon a shallow beach. As the vacuum energy scalar field value reaches an unstable value, even the slightest little thing can cause the wave to catastrophically collapse. Why even something as small as a quantum fluctuation can trigger an inflation. But while a quantum fluctuation is very small, scalar field magnitude variations extend over a very large region of spacetime so that a small quantum fluctuation can turn a very large region of spacetime into a rather extremely large universe.

We now have enough information to begin to understand the chain of events that lead from an inflation to a big bang:

1. It all begins when the vacuum energy scalar field reaches some critical, unstable magnitude.
2. At this unstable magnitude, something as small as a quantum fluctuation can become the catalyst for the conversion of vacuum energy into matter in accordance with the equation, E = mc².
3. A chain reaction will then ensue in which particles of matter will start appearing one right behind the other, at the forefront of the collapsing scalar field wave. A perfect analogy to this event would be the exponential GROWTH of a bacteria colony in a petri dish.
4. This will result in the filling up of a large REGION OF SPACETIME with matter and this will occur at a SUPERLUMINAL rate. Since matter is not moving but only appearing during this time, the only thing expanding is an event horizon within a region of spacetime, therefore there will be no violation of the speed-of-light limit.
5. Matter will be appearing at a rate faster than gravity will have a chance to exert an influence over all of the matter appearing, since gravitational influence can only propagate at the speed of light and not superluminal speeds. Before gravity can have a chance to turn the inflationary afterbirth into a black hole the inflation will have already ended and the closely packed matter that has appeared will have a chance to rapidly expand without the restraint of gravity (it will start to explode before the region has had a chance to be overtaken by the gravity of the entire mass of the universe that has suddenly appeared).
6. It is at this point that the Big Bang theory will begin and the Inflationary Theory will end.

Since an inflation begins from a QED vacuum fluctuation and not from a singularity, there is no need to even mention cosmological singularities because the inflation process makes it irrelevant to talk about whatever happened before the Planck time or before the inflation. With the Big Bang theory this was a problem because of the densities and temperatures that would have to be involved, but with Inflation, the universe wouldn't have to start out with such unimaginably huge densities and temperatures, thereby making the problem of Planck time inapplicable. The Planck time becomes a pre-inflationary event and therefore is rendered irrelevant. So taking the Big Bang theory into account along with Inflation, we can see many of the previously known loopholes of the Big Bang theory resolved:

1. The flatness of the Universe would naturally correspond very closely to the critical density quite nicely. Note that the flatness of the universe is not constant with time, but changes with time as it has to do since the universe is expanding. Since W=1 is an unstable value in an expanding universe, eventually W will still either approach 0 or infinity. Since our universe has experienced about 14 to 16 billion years of expansion, starting at W=1, we should not expect the present day universe to still have an W=1 value but to have drifted in value either towards zero or infinity.
2. Inflationary theory does not require a mythical cosmological singularity since it does not require infinite temperatures or densities, therefore inflationary theory does not require one to assume that the current laws of physics did not apply then nor does it violate any known laws as it is required for the Big Bang theory to work by itself.
3. The "stringiness" of the galaxy clusters is inexplicable by just the Big Bang theory alone. Despite this stringiness, causally unconnected regions still have the same physical conditions. There hasn't been enough time for this degree of isotropy to come about, because we still have the speed of light as a limit to the speed in which the universe can develop. Inflation allows for the superluminal expansion of the horizon during the inflationary phase (and since the horizon isn't a physical object, that's OK), therefore everything we observe now was, at one time, in causal contact. And since quantum foam is theorized to be stringy this would account for the stringiness of galaxy clusters as well.

There are many other things that Inflation explains as well, but let's save that for a more advanced discussion.

There is a superstitious belief held amongst religious type people (and even among practicing physicists), that time and matter have a beginning and an end and that this beginning was called the Big Bang. Before Einstein had made his first appearance in the scientific community, physicists had already proven that energy and matter were conserved. This word conservation, implies that nothing can be added or subtracted from whatever initial amount of substance you start out with. For example, if I put you into an empty, sealed off room and hand you x amount of mass-energy, I will never be able come back and find you with more or less mass-energy then what you started out with. Thus the laws of conservation were another way of saying that neither matter nor energy can be can be either created or destroyed.

If this religious belief that energy and matter were not conserved during the birth of our Big Bang and that energy, matter, and time were created from nothing, then if we were to reproduce the conditions present at the beginning of the initial Big Bang, we too should be able to magically create matter, energy, and time from absolutely nothing. But notice that never ever happens! We have atom smashers and quantum black holes all over the visible part of the Big Bang that are able to reproduce the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe (albeit on a smaller scale), but we have yet to magically see matter or energy appearing out of nowhere that cannot be accounted for by the transformation of energy into mass or mass into energy according to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence equation, E=mc². Einstein's mass-energy equivalence equation was the result of his thoughts on mass and energy being interchangeable:

Einstein showed that if a body emits or absorbs radiation then its mass changes at the same time according to E = mc² (SpaceTime and Electromagnetism by JR Lucas and PE Hodgson, pg 193)

Einstein did not negate the laws of conservation of matter and energy, he just made it clear that they were interchangable. Interchangable is not a synonym for destruction or creation. A good analogy here would be black and white reversible socks. If you turn it inside-out so that only the white side shows, it doesn't mean that the black sock was destroyed. Likewise, matter is never destroyed, it is just exchanged for an equivalent amount of energy. Reverse the process and you get your missing matter back. It never was gone to begin with, it just appeared in another form.

Since the only place where the beginning of time can be found, ie -- the only place that the term T=0 can be found is in equations describing the MODEL of the Big Bang, the beginning of time is obviously only an artifact of whichever particular coordinate system one decides to use to describe a big bang and it is not meant to be provided as evidence that time had a beginning. When an equation for the model of a big bang reaches the point that T=0 it is proof that the equation is powerless to model anything else beyond that point in time and that we therefore will need another equation or model to substitute in its place to explain anything before that time. Before T=0, relative to the birth of our Big Bang, quantum fluctuations had to exist within the omnipresent vacuum energy (and they must have time in which to act or react). So the problem of what happened before T=0 is irrelevant to the subject of time itself since it isn't describing the birth of time but the birth of a big bang. Andrei Linde states in his version of inflation theory that our Big Bang could have been triggered by a previous big bang and that our Big Bang could trigger yet another big bang and so on ad infinitum, rendering the problem of the Planck time even more irrelevant:

Recent versions of the inflationary scenario describe the universe as a self-generating fractal that sprouts other inflationary universes...It consists of many inflating balls that produce new balls, which in turn produce more balls, ad infinitum (The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe by Andrei Linde, Nov 1994 issue of Scientific American)

So we see that the beginning and end of any event in spacetime is a worldline singularity (for example, one's birth and death). The ability of an event to influence other events in the universe is described in terms of worldlines and an event cannot influence other events before it happens and it cannot influence events after it has dissipated. Worldlines are not spacetime itself, they are the history of spacetime events. When the Big Bang we live in reaches the end of it's life-cycle history, whether it be by death by entropy or death by gravitational forces, time will cease to have any meaning for it. It won't be that time will cease to exist, it will be that matter won't have the space or the place to accomplish any useful work or influence events within itself.

The Law of Conservation of Energy and the Law of Conservation of Mass are laws, not merely principles or merely theories, but laws that would include even the initial conditions present at the Big Bang event or else we couldn't call them LAWS now then, could we? In fact there is no evidence or logic that indicates that those laws did not apply at the birth of this universe; there simply is neither evidence nor logic to support that false belief. Since energy must have time in which to exist and act (See Max Planck) and since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, as per the laws of conservation of energy and Einstein's mass-energy equivalency formula, then time too would have had to always existed...without beginning and without end.

Speaking of getting something from nothing, when Astronomers first observed galaxies outside of our own, they noticed something very peculiar about them: the stars in the outer edge of most galaxies did not obey Newton's Law. More specifically, the stars in the outer edge of most galaxies revolve around the galaxy core faster than they ought to. Much faster. All those stars should be zipping off into space but they don't. The presumption is, something else is keeping them within orbit, so what is that something? What Astronomers did next was just simply invent something out of thin air, something they have never observed to exist before and something that is by definition, completely unobservable: dark matter. So Astronomer's quickly busied themselves, desperately searching for some unobservable dark matter, to see if they could observe it. Does that make any sense? Astrophysicists then realized that for dark matter to exist, it can never interact with normal matter in any way, except for it's gravitational pull, because dark matter cannot be observed other then through it's gravitational pull. Dark matter is completely transparent to any radiation -- you can see right through as if it weren't even there. Fancy that!

Furthermore, dark matter is subject to entirely different laws of physics than ordinary matter -- all except for gravity that is. Dark matter is not subject to Planck's Law for Blackbody Radiation, hence the reason it neither absorbs nor emits radiation that would be detected if it did. Therefore it also cannot be subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics or entropy. Wow! It is like magic! Of course, no one wants to make Einstein out to be a liar, so dark energy was invented out of thin air to balance out the dark matter.

The greatest in-your-face flaw of all for the Dark Matter Theory is the fact that our own Sun exists right smack in the middle of a dark matter zone where all that dark matter is supposed to keep our Sun and all the stars around us from zipping off into space, just like it does for every other galaxy. For example, the Sun is orbiting the Milky Way at 220 km/sec, which is 60 km/sec faster than it should be according to Newton's Laws. In fact, the Sun and it's planets only represent 10% of the total mass of our Solar System -- the rest of the alleged mass is supposed to be dark matter! That means there are the equivalent of nine Suns permeating our entire Solar System, hiding all around us! If it is supposed to be all around us, then where is it? I bet dark matter, just like wave functions, instantaneously collapse into nothingness whenever one tries to observe them.

Since this new dark matter universe can only exist in the minds of Astronomers and Cosmologists and Astrophysicists, they have no need to fear anyone upsetting their delicate little delusion because as soon as you point out it doesn't actually exist anywhere except in their minds, they can counter with their assumption that it does exist, but by definition, it is something that you will never be able to hear, see, smell, taste, or feel. Interestingly enough, that is also the same definition for "non-existent".

A physical object at rest will have a certain mass called the object's rest mass or invariant mass. Everyday common sense tells us that as an object is accelerated to a particular velocity, it's mass shouldn't increase or decrease unless more matter is added or subtracted to the object but according to the reality of modern day physics, as objects increase in velocity they are said to increase in mass. The problem here is that term "mass" is a misleading term for the more proper term of inertia or "effective mass". It is only because inertia is a property of mass (ie -- whatever you can say about inertia you can also say about mass), that the terms are often mistakenly used for one another. It is the increase in relativistic inertia plus the rest mass that becomes what is called effective mass. Although the increase in effective mass is very small at low velocities, as the velocity approaches the speed of light it becomes very large.

The cyclotron offers confusing proof to some that the relativistic inertia of electrons effectively acts like a physically real mass. The radius of an electron's orbit in a cyclotron is directly dependant on the mass and charge of the electron according to the formula: Hev = mv²/radius. When this formula is used to calculate the mass of the relativistic electrons from their ever increasing orbit size, the calculated increase in radius with speed corresponds exactly with the calculated increase of mass as calculated by the Lorentz Transformation. But again, the m in Hev = mv²/radius doesn't actually refer to physical mass but to total inertia. What is happening in the cyclotron is that as the electron approaches the speed-of-light velocities, the rest mass remains constant but the electron requires more force to overcome it's energy of motion than it did at lower speeds, which is exactly the same effect as if the electron had physically increased in mass, hence a good example of where mass can easily be confused with inertia. If the mass really did increase, so would it's gravitational pull -- clearly something that does not happen.

If a relativistic electron collides with another sub-atomic particle and comes to a complete rest, that electron will still retain the same rest mass it did before it started it's journey. So if effective mass were a physically real mass, where did the real mass disappear to after the collision? Well, like I said, it really isn't a physically real mass but inertia. So what happens to the energy of inertia after the collision is a more appropriate question that is going to depend upon the nature of the collision. Sometimes the effective mass will appear as an additional physically real mass (ie - new particles created from the additional inertial energy in accordance with E=mc²) but many times it just dissipates in the form of kinetic energy. In fact, you will notice that in high energy particle-physics, the total mass and energy of particles is stated in terms of Gev, Mev, or kev but hardly ever in grams. Those terms are clearly energy units and it is that way only because of this unspoken, but confusing, convention that mass and energy are equivalent anyway, with the equivalence being E=mc².

Sometimes people forget that if two competing theories do not have exactly the same predictions of a phenomena, then the Razor is completely unnecessary anyways since all that would be required to distinguish one theory from the other is to just verify which of the dissimilar predictions between the two theories gives the correct prediction and which one does not.

No one can legitimately point out anywhere within Occam's Razor, a method for distinguishing between speculation and fantasizing, or honest scientific theorizing and hypothesizing. It just assumes, without evidence, that the simpler belief is the more accurate one. The Razor is forcing us to choose between the lessor of two evils, rather then force us to use our logical thinking abilities.

So it turns out that Occam's Razor is not that very useful to us afterall. It is only a rule of thumb and not even a scientific precept at all. In fact, it isn't even logical!

"Bohr used to say that if you aren't confused by quantum physics, then you haven't really understood it." (quote from John Wheeler)

Of all places where we would expect Occam's Razor to be welcomed the most, the strange world of Quantum Mechanics would be the perfect place to do so, but yet we don't see this happening for some strange reason. Might this observation have something to do with the fact that nowhere do we see the religious faith of scientists as strong nor as wildly imaginative as we do in the quantum mechanical cults? Take a look at how physicists typically explain a quantum mechanical event which, in the words of the ever-popular Copenhagen interpretation, is when an unobserved quantum entity exists in a 'coherent superposition' of all possible 'states' permitted by it's 'wave function', but as an observer attempts to make a measurement capable of distinguishing between those states, the wave function 'collapses' and the quantum entity is forced into a single state...Whew! From the Razor point-of-view, God did it would be the better theory because God did it is much simpler than having faith that superpositions, collapsing wavefunctions, nonlocality, and other Quantum Mechanical metaphysical constructs actually exist. But replacing one ludicrous idea (collapsing wavefunctions) with another ludicrous idea (God did it) is still not logical, factual, or scientific.

What these scientists are really practicing is science fiction and not science, but let's just keep that our little secret for now, because without realizing it, scientists the world over have been unconsciously validating the reality of Star Trek © with their experiments, instead of actual reality.

Let me explain...

In the late 1800s, Thomas Young conducted an experiment that proved that light was composed of waves and not particles. In this now famous two slit experiment, Thomas directed a light-beam through a beam-splitter, after which it passes through a two slit mask onto a CRT screen. A beam-splitter is a partially silvered mirror that has a 50:50 chance of passing or reflecting a photon, thereby allowing the photon a chance to take one of two possible paths to the CRT screen. Now if light consisted of point-like particles only, we would expect no region of overlap but we would expect each photon to pass through each slit like a bullet: straight from the slit and directly to the CRT screen. This is not what was observed. Instead an interference pattern was observed, proving that light consisted of waves.

Then, in the early 1900s, along came a scientist named Einstein who proved that light was not a wave, but it was a particle...no it wasn't a particle either, it was a quantinized particle-like wavepacket -- or photon. So then it was decided to retry Thomas Young's experiment but this time they let only one photon at a time through the apparatus...and guess what? Letting one photon at a time through the apparatus still produced an interference pattern (over time) yet the photon verifiably struck the CRT screen like a point-like particle should and exactly like a wave could not. In order for an interference pattern to develop, each single photon must travel both paths as a wave





so that it can emerge from both slits and interfere with itself at the CRT screen.

Interestingly, if one of the paths is blocked, the interference pattern will disappear, thereby seeming to prove that the photon actually was taking both paths. Hence lies the mystery: How could a single photon take both paths through the two-slit experiment so it could interfere with itself, and then magically reassemble itself into one particle upon arrival to the CRT screen? This is still an unsolvable mystery to this day, but what really interests me here is not the paradoxical observation but the interpretation of that observation.

Note: For a definition of what the various symbols represent in the following diagrams, refer to the right margin of this paragraph. If you hold your mouse over each symbol displayed on the right and wait one moment, the definition for each symbol will pop up.

So what is happening here? Is the photon a distinct particle as proven by the fact that it strikes one and only one spot on CRT screen or is the photon an indistinct wave that travels two paths at once as demonstrated by final interference pattern that develops? The actual answer is, Yes and no! That's right! The photon is said to take, both paths, neither path, and only one path through the two slit experiment. What the...!? Well, the most widely circulated story, I mean scientific explanation, is that the photon is in a superposition of all possible states, with the possible states in this case being that the photon can take both paths, neither path, or only one leg of both paths. This is the result of what is called the Copenhagen Interpretation. However, when one attempts to determine where the split-personality photon is at or what it is doing at any time during its travel, the ever-elusive never-before-observed photon wavefunction disappears before it can be detected by collapsing back down into normal spacetime to reappear as the familiar particle that is always the only thing ever actually observed.

The extremely obvious major problem with the two-slit experiment and its interpretation is that no one has ever been able to observe the photon going through both paths at once, nor has anyone observed the photon in its supposed wavelike state, therefore I propose that what this experiment is really demonstrating is, not the ridiculousness of the Copenhagen interpretation, but the existence of subspace because, since the photon takes both paths, neither path, and only one path, the only place the photon has left to actually travel through anything in order to reach the CRT through the two-slit mask is through subspace.

Here is simplified drawing of a standard two-particle interferometer, which is the standard starting configuration for the vast majority of quantum mechanical experiments: A light source is directed through a spontaneous parametric down conversion crystal, which spontaneously converts an incoming ultraviolet photon of 490nm into two lower energy infrared photons of 780nm. These two quantum entangled photons are said to exist in a higher dimensional Hilbert space, which continue to travel down the interferometer where they cross paths through a beam-splitter on their way to two detectors. Without the beam-splitter, the interferometer will not work since it would violate the principle demonstrated by the two slit experiment, that an interference pattern can only develop as long as no attempt is made to catch the photons in the act of developing the interference pattern.

Well anyways, as you watch the animated illustration, a phase rotator is inserted into one of the paths, whereupon which the interference pattern will disappear. The only way to restore the interference pattern is by inserting a polarizing filter into both paths. Somehow the photon knows that with this setup it has become possible to distinguish which particular path a photon took to the detector if, for example, the experimenter were to place a polarizing filter in front of one of the detectors. Whether or not the experimenter actually does so is completely irrelevent, because just the possibility of being able to do so will destroy the interference pattern. It is as if the photon knows when not to take chances of being detected as a wave and thereby remains a particle without causing an interference pattern to develop. So the Copenhagen Interpretation has bestowed intelligence to the lowly photon and furthermore, not only are photons smart, so far they are even smarter than the scientists trying to observe them in the wave-like state!

Did you notice the use of the special term: higher dimensional Hilbert space in the first paragraph of this section? What exactly is a higher dimensional Hilbert space? No one knows, except in someone's laboratory storybook, I mean notebook. Hilbert space is not known to actually exist but at least it does help explain the baffling effects of all interferometers, therefore it is accepted by all quantum mechanical scientists the world over. Are you beginning to understand the magnitude of what I am saying here? Hilbert space is actually a secret terminology for subspace, therefore correspondingly this must mean that a spontaneous parametric down conversion crystal is actually secret terminology for di-lithium crystal. Could it be that at the heart of every warp core drive is an interferometer?

The diagram below illustrates a concept called non-locality. This impressive apparatus is basically a highly modified two-particle interferometer with an extendable arm on the left side. Two identical photons leave the di-lithium crystal, and travel down two almost identical paths. Each photon has a 50:50 chance of going one way or the other at the first beam-splitter encountered, and likewise, each photon has another 50:50 chance of going one way or the other at the second beam-splitter encountered. Overall then, each photon has a 50:50 chance of taking the short path or the long path, with a 50:50 chance of being detected by either of the two detectors. But wait a moment! A strange thing will happen here and that is there will be a non-random correlation between detector #1 and detector #4. Although the pattern of photons detected in detector #1 are confirmably random, nevertheless that random pattern will almost perfectly match the confirmably random pattern being detected at detector #4! No matter how far apart the two arms are moved apart or no matter how uneven the length is between the two paths are when the extendable arm is varied in length, a non-random correlation will remain. Somehow the photon at the left knows which detector the photon on the right is going to strike, and changes its path accordingly. Since the distance between the two paths can be miles apart, this hidden decision making between the two photons as to which photon detector to take has actually been observed to occurs at many times the speed-of-light! Once again, the mystical, magical Copenhagen interpretation has lead us to the discovery and proof of warp speed travel!

If you look closely, this experiment is basically just a modified form of the Franson experiment for non-locality. Apparently, non-locality can be utilized in such a way as to make teleportation possible. In the setup illustrated here, advantage is taken of the back-reflection of the incoming light source against the di-lithium crystal, I mean down conversion crystal, that creates two pairs of quantum entangled photons, instead of one. The state of the photon traveling down the red path, photon #1, will be entirely determined by the state of the photon that is traveling down the path of photon #3. Photon #1 will become the transported photon while the original photons, photon #2 and photon #3, will be destroyed since the act of measuring photon #3 will collapse both of those photons. For example, if the beam-splitter for photon #3 is replaced with a polarized beam-splitter, the polarization angle of that beam-splitter will determine the polarization of photon #1. If needed, photon #4 can serve as an indicator that a transported photon is on its way to detectors #1 and #2.

I have finally solved the Schrodinger's cat in a box problem by actually performing the experiment. After the experiment was over, I discovered that the cat always came out alive but it either had 18 half-lives left (ie -- nine lives total) OR only 17 half-lives left over.

There are many hundreds of variations of the two slit experiment that have been tried, all futile attempts to resolve the paradox of the both-a-wave-and-a-particle-but-neither-a-wave-nor-a-particle photon and other quantum weirdness such as non-locality and collapsing wavefunctions. Likewise, there are many hundreds of hypothesis that have been invented to explain these phenomenon but they are almost all probabilistic and subjectivist pictures of what scientists imagine reality to be like, because it always comes down to this: no one has ever observed a wavefunction. The only exception that I know of is Bohm's theory as recast by Bell. This theory requires no special roles for the observer, no make believe superposition states, particles are real objects and not mathematical ones, and it is a good deal clearer (simpler, for you razor fans) than Copenhagen's interpretation. It isn't perfect and it has a few loopholes, but it a much better foundation than anything else on the market right now. Bohm's theory also harmonizes with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle because it is the nature of the pilot wave that places uncertainty on position and momentum. If you are really interested in finding out more about Bohm's theory try reading the book Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Z Albert or at least read his May 1994 article in Scientific American titled Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics.

But then again, the world is not ready for an alternative hypothesis that makes logical sense, at least not right now at its present state of evolution. Mark my words, someday the world will thank me for exposing this scientific conspiracy to hide the truth of the reality of Star Trek ©...no really!

I have thought about the problem with the dual-slit experiment for a long time, and my thoughts on this are based on simple observations.

Take, for example, cellphones. I have an unmodified black Motorola Razor. What could we say about our phones if you also have an unmodified black Motorola Razor? One of the things you could say is that my phone is not your phone, but neither are they different from each other. That reminds me of when Carl Jung said that, "We are not God but neither are we different from God". It also reminds me of when physicists describe a photon in a dual-slit experiment as "neither a particle nor a wave, but neither is it different from a photon or a wave". How do you resolve a paradoxal statement like that? Maybe because, like the cellphone "paradox", there is not just one photon in the dual-slit equipment, but two identical photons.

How can there be two photons when only one photon at a time is sent down the interferometer? I read a science journal article the other day which noted, "The fraction of light transmitted through a periodic array of subwavelength holes perforated in a metallic ?lm has been shown to exceed the open fraction occupied by the holes at certain wavelengths related to the array periodicity, and the observed transmission can be anomalously large as compared to well established predictions for isolated holes...Two different kinds of complementary interpretations of the enhanced transmission have been proposed so far, depending on whether surface plasmons, or dynamical diffraction resonances are invoked as the origin of the effect". Photons can do this because a photon's energy is transferred to surface plasmons and shuttled through the holes until the photon is recreated at the other end. So the resulting diffraction pattern we see is not that of a photon passing through a dual-slit mask, but of surface plasmons passing though the dual-slit array. Of course, this does not prove that a photon can be a particle or a wave, only how a photon can pass through two slits at the same time, even though only one photon can be detected before it is sent down the interferometer.

Is there a device that can identify if a photon is a wave or a particle or something else entirely then? You might think that Einstein's experiment with the photomultiplier tube would be proof that a photon is a particle, but that would not be correct. A photomultipler tube consists of charged metal plates (read: surface plasmons), therefore it cannot distinguish between particles or waves, since the plasmons would respond the same way to each.

Would not the Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved the ether theory, also be proof that photons are not waves, since there is nothing for them to "wave in"? It would seem so if we accept the Michelson-Morley experiment without question, but what is the question? Well remember, we are trying to figure out if light is a wave, a particle, neither, or both. What if "quark soup" acted liked an electron cloud plasmon -- an entirely conceivable concept since the analogy is perfect between the two? Then a particle we see now would not be the same particle we saw a second ago, even though the particle would not have moved or changed in any way. The Michelson-Morley interferometer would not be able to prove or disprove the existence of an Ether-like substance because the interferometer would be a part of the very thing it was trying to detect, no matter what it's speed or direction relative to the "Ether" was.

A particle that is moving through the quark soup plasmon would not be moving at all, but would actually be transmitted from one location to the next in sequence. The time taken to transmit a particle across the smallest possible distance that quark soup can exist in our macro-reality without violating Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, would determine the maximum speed that a particle could travel though it -- which would be the speed of light. And like the bow wave of a ship, the greater the speed of a particle, the smaller the wavefront would be. Since the particle is riding on the plasmon wave and being controlled by it, the higher the speed of a particle, the less it would be affected by disturbances surrounding it, since it would have less time to react to them, thereby making the particle appear more massive with speed.

So a quark soup plasmon could explain a lot of quantum weirdness. It would explain how a photon could go through two slits at once. It would explain how particles could appear to be like waveforms and it would explain how those waveforms could appear to collapse. It would also invalidate the Michelson-Morley experiment without resorting to a theory of the Ether all over again.

The second law of thermodynamics basically says that energy will always flow from a higher potential to a lower one. Anything that is said about the second law of thermodynamics other then that is only derived or implied from that fact.

In its broader significance the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction, and not in the opposite direction. (Thermodynamics, by Gordon J. Van Wylen and John Wiley & Sons Inc, pg 119)

In thermodynamic systems, the second law tells us that heat will flow from a hotter reservoir to a colder reservoir until both reservoirs reach the same temperature (thermal equilibrium). As Sadi Carnot first demonstrated to us, the amount of work that a system can perform is equal to the temperature difference between the hot and cold reservoirs. Therefore, when the entire system reaches an uniform temperature, no more work can take place and the system is considered thermally dead. Of course, all of this takes time (and in the case of our universe, it is an awfully long time before this will happen), so another way of re-stating the second law is that the amount of energy which cannot be converted into useful work will increase over time. It is this derivation of the second law which we call entropy.

When we measure the temperature of a substance, we are actually measuring the average kinetic energy of the molecules moving in that substance. The greater the temperature, the faster the molecules are moving and therefore the greater the kinetic energy they have. For air at 25 degrees C, the average speed of the molecules is 1100 feet per second -- the speed of sound (That is why the speed of sound in a gas is directly dependant on the temperature of the gas...the hotter the gas, the faster the molecules will move and the greater the speed of sound will become in that gas).

Now, the hotter a substance gets, the more disorderly the motions of the molecules become (ie -- the faster and more random their motions become), and the colder a substance gets, the more orderly the motions of the molecules become. A solid is more organized than a liquid, and a liquid is more orderly than a gas. A solid is generally more colder than a liquid, and a liquid is generally more colder than a gas (remember we are talking about a pure substance here and we are ignoring phase transistions since they are only temporary states of being, just to keep this discussion simple). So temperature is the most disorderly of all the energies known.

When a hot reservoir comes into contact with a cold reservoir, the hot parts are more disorganized then the cold parts. What we have then is a system in which if we examine individual locations, some will be more organized than other locations and vice versa. After the system has had a chance to reach thermal equilibrium, every location I look at then, will have an equal amount of organization (or an equal amount of disorganization...depending on which perspective you choose to view it from).

So what is meant by with an increase in time and entropy, systems will proceed from order to disorder? No one seems to know, although everyone parrots this statement like a religious mantra. Perhaps they wish it were true. But exactly what is proceeding from order to disorder? Obviously, not all thermodynamic processes proceed from more orderly to less orderly states. This becomes especially obvious when you consider that entropy is not a fixed property but varies with time. For a thermodynamic process in which no work has been extracted from the transfer of heat, we have what is called an irreversible process. In this case, entropy has irreversibly occurred. For a thermodynamic process in which the greatest amount of work possible is extracted from the transfer of heat, we have what is called a reversible process, because the work that was extracted from the process can be put back into it and restore it to it's initial state. The total entropy for this system would be almost zero since the entropy that is added during one cycle is subtracted during another cycle. But in all cases, the state of orderliness is irrelevant to entropy.

Any system is defined by a region in space with well-defined boundaries. If the matter enclosed by these boundaries does not increase or decrease with time, it is considered a closed system. If the matter enclosed by these boundaries does not vary with time, it is considered an open system. An isolated system is a special case of the closed system in which no heat or work can cross the boundary of that system. While entropy increases always apply to closed or isolated systems, the same cannot be said of open systems. Since the contents of an open system vary with time, the amount of energy entering and leaving the system vary with time also, and therefore the entropy of an open system varies with time. In other words, the definition for an open system does not say anything about an input of heat, it talks about a transfer of heat (which is associated with the a mass that contains greater thermal energy than the system in question). If heat enters an open system, entropy increases. If heat leaves an open system, entropy decreases:

In an open system the entropy is increased because the mass that crosses the boundary of the system has entropy. Thus as the mass m enters the system, the entropy is increased by the amount sm. Similarly, as the mass m leaves the system the entropy decreases by the amount sm. (Thermodynamics, by Gordon J. Van Wylen and John Wiley & Sons Inc, pg 157)

Since the universe we live in is without boundaries, the matter within the universe is of a fixed size and mass (ie -- it does not increase or decrease since you cannot add or subtract from infinity without it still remaining infinite). This rules out the universe being an open system. Since this universe is without boundaries, there is no place for heat or work to cross any boundaries as required by the definition for an isolated system. Therefore the universe is a closed system.

The sun acts like a heat pump for the earth; it inputs energy to cause the transfer of matter across the various boundaries WITHIN the earth's ecosystems (ie -- the weather system and erosion are the two most obvious ones). Remember that an open system only requires that I specify a particular boundary (cross section or volume in space) for analysis. The air circulates. The ocean circulates. There are many open systems within the earth's volume. Therefore the ecosystems on earth ARE open systems and not closed systems. This implies that entropy doesn't apply to life here on earth anyways. But pull the plug on the earth (ie -- the sun dies), and the earth will become a closed system, as it eventually will have to become.

While the earth has an energy source (the Sun), it also has an energy sink (outer space). The transfer of heat across the boundaries of the earth's systems vastly swamps out any supposed disorganizing effects of entropy but since entropy refers to the amount of energy present in a system that is not available to do work, it is the temperature difference available to do work within a system that is the important thing to remember when discussing evolution and abiogenesis and not entropy itself and as long as reversible processes exist to take advantage of the work being performed by that transfer of heat, evolution will have an opportunity to take place without violating the second law of thermodynamics or any other law.

As my textbook on thermodynamics continues to say, "A second point of view to be made regarding entropy is that frequently entropy is associated with probability. From this point of view an irreversible increase in entropy would be associated with a change of state from a less probable state to a more probable state". Take notice of the fact that it does not say anything about going from more complex to less complex because isn't it obvious that everything around us is proceeding from less complex to more complex all the time? For example, hydrogen atoms are combining together to become the more complicated helium atom in stars all the time. Complex crystals are forming from their less ordered constituents deep within the earth's crust as we speak. And more complicated lifeforms constantly evolve from simpler lifeforms because the odds are that they will. All of these examples I mentioned happen because probability favors them happening and not because the second law of thermodynamics supposedly is being violated. Two hydrogen atoms are more likely to combine together than a helium atom is to split apart. Many minerals are more likely to form crystals under heat and pressure than become more amorphous. And life is more likely to develop and evolve than is not to. Everything is proceeding from less probable states to more probable states, without ever violating the second law of thermodynamics as creationists ignorantly proclaim.

Entropy would also seem imply that systems would lose information rather than gain information since systems are proceeding from more probable to less probable, and therefore random, states. But the gain in information by developing life was gained at the expense of the loss of information contained in the original ordering of the starting materials so there wouldn't be any violation of second law here either because it isn't just simply increased information but it is rearranged information. No new information was created but it was old information being utilized differently. For example, the number p is a random string of digits when you run the chi-squared test on the individual string of digits it contains. But we know that there is a pattern to the number p and we can derive it non-randomly. It isn't that p is no longer a random series of digits anymore, but rather our ability to find a pattern within it has changed. From this point of view, there is no such thing as a random series of digits because every number has a pattern to it, it is only a matter of finding out what it is. The science of chaos is one successful attempt at this very thing. So is the science of probability which enabled us to measure the randomness of p using the chi-squared test. So when we take one series of random digits and rearrange them into another, it isn't that new information was gained but only rearranged. Unless the old number was recorded somewhere, the ordering of the original number is lost. The DNA of a tree does the same thing to the nutrients in the soil.

For those of you who still had a difficult time following what I have said here, just think about this: The one most important fact about the earth and it's relationship to entropy is the fact that the earth cannot reach thermal equilibrium with the surrounding universe because it keeps having it's temperature offset by the heat from the sun. For entropy to be significant in a situation like this is impossible because the amount of energy unavailable to do work on earth due to entropy is swamped out by the amount of energy being input by the sun that is available to do work...therefore entropy is irrelevent to the subject of evolution.

Even in this modern era of mass scientific education and enlightenment, it isn't very hard to find huge numbers of people, including those who should know better (such as practicing physicists) who still blindly believe in superstition and pseudoscience. Here is a statement of fact from a typical textbook source:

If the body of weight W tied to the end of a cord whirls in a circle of radius R on a smooth horizontal plane (friction is negligible) with a constant velocity v, then the centripetal force acting toward the center of the circle is F = ma = Wv² / gR = S {S in kgf} and ACCORDING TO NEWTON'S THIRD LAW EQUALS THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE ACTING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. The tension S in the cord also equals F. (Handbook of Physical Calculations, by Jan Tuma Phd, pg 69 [EMPHASIS is mine])

Most textbooks will substitute a yo-yo tied to the end of a string for the body of weight W tied to the end of a cord.

For the yo-yo cord to be under tension requires two forces -- one force on each end of the cord. The cord is obviously being stretched (pulled apart) by the centrifugal/centripetal forces and not being compressed by a single centripetal force. No object can be under tension with only one force applied to it so obviously the cord is resisting being pulled apart by two equal and opposite forces and not one. Resistance is always the reaction of an object to some outside action, such as a push or a pull, hence the reason Jan Tuma correctly states in his quote above that it is the centripetal force that is the result of Newton's Third Law (ie -- that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). In the example of the whirling yo-yo, the action is the centrifugal force and the reaction or fictional force is actually the centripetal force and not the other way around as you mistakenly assume.

The only object that has any energy available for creating forces of tension in the cord comes from that of the yo-yo. Note the fact that centrifugal force can be derived solely from the energy of motion of the yo-yo:

     By textbook definition:
        F  = centrifugal force
           = Wv2/gR
        Ft = impulse
           = momentum
           = mv
        w  = angular velocity
           = v/R
           = radians/second
        t  = 1/w
        m  = W/g
     Where:
        m  = mass
        F  = Force
        W  = weight
        t  = time
        v  = velocity
        R  = Radius
        g  = gravitational constant
     Proof:
       If t  = 1/w then t = R/v
       If Ft = mv  then F = mv/t
       Substituting R/v for t gives...
       F = mv2/R
       Substituting W/g for m gives...
       F = Wv2/gR...check!

 By textbook definition:
   Uniform motion
	   w = constant, a = 0
   Uniformly accelerated motion
	   w = variable, a = constant
   Nonuniformly accelerated motion
	   w = variable, a = variable
   Where:
     w = angular velocity and
     a = angular acceleration.

Taking a look at another classical elementary physics textbook example for calculating the total distance, velocity, and acceleration of an object acted upon by one force, as a function of time, we have:

     By textbook definition:
       Distance    : F (t) = .5at2  + vt + h
       Velocity    : F'(t) =   at   + v
       Acceleration: F"(t) =   a
     Where:
       t = time,
       v = velocity,
       h = height
         = initial starting point.

Applying this simple elementary textbook example to the case of the whirling yo-yo we find that...

       For linear distance: F (t) = 2×pi×f×r×t
       For velocity       : F'(t) = 2×pi×f×r
       For acceleration   : F"(t) = 0
     Where:
       t = time
       f = revolutions/sec
       r = radius.

So even simple High School algebra proves that the whirling yo-yo is not accelerating but is in equilibrium. In the case of the whirling yo-yo, F = ma = 0 and since m is not zero, it can logically only be a that must equal zero as the definition for equilibrium says it must be equal to and as simple math says it must be equal to.

A little more sophisticated proof of this would be the fact that accelerating electrons will radiate according to the General Theory of Relativity and therefore we should expect electrons in orbit about the nucleus of atoms to be continually radiating and losing energy since they are supposedly being constantly accelerated in the centripetal direction in order to remain in orbit. Since electrons don't radiate continuously in atoms, the most factual and logical conclusion is that the electrons are not being subjected to an acceleration, but are travelling at a constant velocity.