Michio Kaku: Theoretical Physicist, Bestselling Author, Popularizer of Science: "Ask Michio Kaku"
Just in the process of finishing Michio's amazing book Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos but I have a few problems with it. Not with what he is saying or how he is saying it but more the community in general. Like giving absolutes like nothing travels faster than the speed of light.. now in general relativity that is correct, but when we go to the infantesimally small in the quantum world or for that matter to dark matter and dark energy which make up about 22% and 74% respectively and we know almost nearly nothing of either of these states can we truly say with absolute certainty that NOTHING TRAVELS FASTER THAN LIGHT.
When we know (kind of) that during the inflationary period of the creation of the universe that something must have travelled faster than light to create the size of the current universe.. if not we remodel a theory to fit the hypothesise that nothing travels faster than light.
Now I know that maybe I am being a simpleton here and I would imagine I am missing something key here but....
Another thing that I always wondered when it came to the Quantum world was the theory of observation that made things real or pop into existence (ok another gross simplification here). In essence again electrons defy our traditional world view (of the very large) in how they orbit around each other and their friends. Its like a frantic drunken drug induced dance, rather than the majestic almost preordained ballet of how the moons orbit the planets, planets orbit the star, solar systems orbit each other within the galaxy etc and etc.
Here again I see the electron (again I could and more than likely are wrong because of my gross misunderstanding of the field) as been something else (when mathematically positioned it is within an area of probabilities that it is by the window just beside the bit of dust I meant to clean away) so it is in now a nice static fixed location. But in the Quantum world they say it isn't because before I observed it, it could have been elsewhere. It was only because I saw this (figuratively speaking of course) that it was and is really there.
I think our view of the world with things in static position and when we assume that they are mathematically is wrong (again I add my lack of knowledge here could make this whole post a waste of my and your time and I am missing something because of it). I will hopefully over the next few days create an animation to show the following:
My little electron is sitting my the mote of dust happily static and in its fixed position (relativity speaking).
I take a step back and now the mote of dust and the electron are sitting in position on the window sill.
I take another step back and the window sill is sitting statically in my wall of my house fixed solidly in the ground.
Take another step back (and have to go above my house here but go with me on this) my house is sitting statically on the ground (no earth quake zone here thank whatever) immovable, fixed not moving... but hold on it is cause I am hovering fixed above my house and the house is moving with the rotation of the earth, infact so am I but now at a slightly different speed, I move further up and out and I see now that my house and the earth are moving at quite a speed within its non fixed position within time and space, the further out I move the more the electron that was sitting happily dancing in its location beside the mote of dust was always moving, but infact that bit more because when it is taken within its own position within time and space and the position of the observer is taken within their own everything is moving and nothing is fixed >:¬}.
So when Heisenberg came up with the uncertainty principle, that when trying to locate the position of a particle in a small region of space the momentum of the particle makes it almost impossible to precisely locate its position. Should not we also take into consideration the position of the observer and the actual position of the space we are trying to observe at the time, in order to attempt to precisely locate its position. But because we do not know the exact position of the universe and extrapolating that our own position within it how can we ever work out when taking all the other forces into account that can influence a particle its exact position. Can we not be happy with an approximation.. god my head hurts! >:¬}
Either way back to Michio Kaku's book Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos, read it, its brilliant and written in such away that even I can grasp the sniff of what he is saying, but it gives you a real true understanding on how small we really are and how wonderful the universe really is. It has everything a great book needs to have, excitement, knowledge, passion, romance, thrills (ok maybe not traditional romance but.... >:¬} buy it, borrow it steal it.. but what you must do is read it!
If Michio actually reads this post I only really said buy it!