Archive for March, 2010

Mass-creation From the Vacuum – Heisenberg Meets the 3-body Problem

March 27, 2010

I’ve been considering the conundrum of Mass-Energy conservation and the violation of this principle in light of the Big Bang. One of my friends described this as the “elephant in the room” with regard to the law of mass-energy conservation.

So we have to wonder if there are any existing mechanics that allow violation of this law. The first one that pops to mind is the Heisenberg time-energy relationship that allows virtual particles to pop into existence from the vacuum; the shorter the time, the greater the potential mass-energy. Sadly, the brief existence is confined to a duration so short that it’s impossible to detect, although certain effects, such as the Casimir effect, strongly suggest that virtual particle interactions are quite real (look it up on Wikipedia, if you’re curious).

Now put two of these virtual particle pair-productions adjacent to each other when they pop into existence (this has to happen some tiny fraction of the time) and the 4 particles produced are suddenly involved with the chaotic 4-body problem, interacting in such a way as to acquire stability before disappearing from our universe, potentially creating any variety of subatomic particles and pairs, half matter and half antimatter.

The net result is a continuous mass-creation with high-energy particles appearing from nowhere.

Your initial response will be, “Yes, but the antiparticles are going to combine with regular particles and annihilate a mass equal to that created.” Absolutely true. However, the energy produced will not be dragged back down into the closed-loop non-existence of a virtual particle. It will be released as two high-energy photons that go zipping around the universe and adding to the overall mass-energy of the universe, adding its little contribution to the light-pressure factor of its expansion.

Perhaps Fred Hoyle’s discounted steady-state universe still has a viable solution, and perhaps if we go back in time toward a Big Bang, we will find out that this mechanism decreases the mass of the universe so that there is no Big Bang at all, just a slow and continuous chaotic production of mass energy from the vacuum.

Perhaps it starting not with a bang, but a whisper.


March 27, 2010

While the whole idea behind voting is pretty simple, the dynamics, politics, and results are quite complex. The biggest problem, I think, is the 51% majority. Think about it. You now have a policy that allows laws to be passed that disenfranchise nearly half the people in the country. This is stupid.

I don’t believe that any law at all should be passed unless 80% of the people in the country agree on it. Yes, a law against murder would be a shoe-in. Against thievery, you bet. Raising taxes to fund a war in a foreign country, less likely. Legislation concerning religion would cease to exist; in fact, legislation for any subgroup of the population that constituted less than 80% of the population would cease to exist, unless there was a large portion of the population sympathetic to a minority’s cause. People who just hated a minority would be out of luck. Sympathy, accepted, hatred, rejected.

Furthermore, there are already a lot of laws on the books that were instituted on a very narrow (51%) majority that shouldn’t be there at all. If 30-50% of Americans think something is okay, then chances are you should not be making a law banning it. So I’d propose allowing laws to be eliminated on a 40% vote of Congress. Get rid of all the crap laws on the books. You want smaller government and lower taxes? There it is. You want laws that actually reflect the will of America, truly representing the blended society that it is? You can have it.

If there’s a close split in society, you should find a way to make the two sides understand and accept each other. One side isn’t “wrong,” they just have a different social norm in such a case. If you can get 80% of the legislature to agree on laws providing that interface between the two groups, that would make a hell of a lot more sense than ostracizing the minority, wouldn’t it? Smoking, for example; there are laws in place that keep one group from impinging on the airspace of the other; you can likely get smokers and non-smokers to buy-in on such laws. You might even get laws approved that require cigarette companies to spring for lung cancer treatments.

Getting the pro-life and pro-choice people to actually think about what would make both sides content with coexistence would be painful but finally productive. Get them to the table together to pound out a solution to both their concerns, not just try to legislate each other out of existence when their turn in power occurs.

Clearly the current state of affairs sucks. The Republicans get into power, they revoke Democratic legislation and vote in their own. The Democrats get into power, and the opposite occurs. Can American survive in such an atmosphere of divisiveness? There should be no law passed that the two groups can’t agree on by a mega-majority. Anything else is just idiocy.