Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Universe

The Universe can be pulled apart and put back together again, like Lego blocks. What might such a deconstruction and reconstruction tell us about the real nature of the Universe? Maybe that real nature is of a virtual nature.

Deconstructing the Universe: The most complex structure in our Universe are chemical compounds as everything that’s apparently more complex can actually be separated into their component chemical compounds, and of course there are multi-millions of compounds, some more complex than others.

Compounds can be deconstructed down to their component atoms, so water can be reduced to hydrogen and oxygen. Atoms in turn can be deconstructed down to electrons, protons and neutrons and protons and neutrons in turn deconstructed to up and down quarks.

Lurking in all of this are the neutrinos as well. Like electrons, neutrinos can’t be deconstructed down to anything more fundamental.

There are also three generations of particles that the above deconstruction can be applied to, although the second and third generations are so short-lived that they can for all practical purposes be ignored.

A similar deconstruction can be applied to antimatter as well as to matter.

All of the above deconstructions down to the fundamentals yields a small zoo worth of elementary bits and pieces. That’s Part One of our deconstruction.

Part Two: Such a deconstruction could actually be our (as in our Universe’s) fate. In the far, far, far future there might be a deconstruction of the Universe via the Big Rip, or perhaps just through complex stuff decaying into simple stuff. For example, any neutrons that get isolated will decay into a proton, and electron and a neutrino. The latter two are basic, but some speculate that protons too will ultimately decay into a positron and a neutral pion. The neutral pion then decays into a couple of high energy photons. So, any standard atom will eventually become just a bunch of electrons, positrons, neutrinos and photons, all basic staff that can’t be further deconstructed – unless of course the electrons and positrons deconstruct into pure fundamental electromagnetic energy.

Part Three: Because particles interact, we can deconstruct the fundamental bits and pieces responsible for those interactions. Those bits and pieces are the force particles and they can’t be deconstructed from anything more complex. Photons are photons and gravitons and gravitons and they don’t combine to form something else further on up the complexity chain.

Collectively the matter particles and the force particles all together consists or makes up that small zoo of elementary things called the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

One can now ask, what are the fundamental properties that these mass and force particles have? They would all seem to share motion – even if just vibration – and to exhibit mathematically predictability and have absolute causality in their actions and reactions.

Reconstructing the Universe: The simplest universe one could imagine would be an absolutely empty one – a universe of pure absolute nothingness. Boring!

The next rung on the ladder would be a universe with just one particle in it, like a lone electron universe.

Some interesting issues arise with a one electron universe. If there is a one electron universe, can there be any properties associated with said single electron? There can’t be mass hence gravity since there is no other object that can be attracted gravitationally. Our one electron can’t orbit anything. In fact our lone electron can’t even have motion. There can’t be motion for the motion of one particle is and can only be apparent if another particle is present. Lastly, though electric charge is a fundamental property of an electron, in a one electron universe there’s nothing for that charge to act on so one has to ask whether or not it is meaningful to attribute that electric charge property to that lone electron.

Logically, the next step would be a universe with lots of just one type of particle. One might imagine a universe that contained nothing but a multitude of electron-neutrinos.

Before you can even have atoms (hence molecular compounds) you actually need a variety of fundamental building blocks that can fit together like, well, Lego Blocks or like a jigsaw puzzle. If any of the variety of fundamental building blocks have the wrong shape or the wrong properties, then there can be no atomic structure.

Presumably there could have been a near infinite variety of fundamental particles and associated properties which could never physically associate with each other in order to build up more complex structures. That the fundamental particles and associated properties were just-so is in and of itself suggestive (but not proof) of intent or design.

For some reason(s) the Standard Model of Particle Physics is enabled or fine-tuned in such a way as to result in atoms and molecular compounds. That probably needs some explanation on the grounds that it would have been more likely as not, based on chance, that the variety of fundamental building blocks would have the wrong shape or the wrong properties. It would really appear that some degree of fine-tuning and design is afoot.

For example, the electric charge on the electron is EXACTLY equal and opposite to that on the proton although the electron and the proton are otherwise as alike as chalk and cheese. Even weirder, the electric charges on the up-quark and the down-quark have to be just so in order to form protons and neutrons, and how weird is it that one has a charge of -1/3 and the other +2/3? But, without those exact values, no protons and no neutrons.

Further, because positive charged protons will not willingly congregate in cheek-by-jowl arrangements, there’s the apparently designed and fine-tuned strong nuclear force (gluons) to bind them together. And because negatively charged electrons would be attracted to positively charged protons there has to be another apparently designed and finely-tuned mechanism in place to keep that from happening; to keep electrons in their ‘orbits’ and not spiral down and smash into their oppositely charged protons.

So, for an atom to exist at all, it’s not just one just-so element that needs to be in place but many just-so elements.

Now one would argue that using a card analogy that any one hand that is dealt is as probable as any other. However, we give special significance to, say, a Royal Flush. As far as we, the card player is concerned, a Royal Flush is finely-tuned to our needs (profit) and the wider community of card players have attached special meaning to that particular design. A Royal Flush was designed by the card playing community to be special. However, there was no intelligence or design behind you’re being dealt a Royal Flush.

So, are the laws, principles and relationships inherent in physics designed and fine-tuned in any way such that our fundamental particles can interact to form atomic and ultimately molecular structures? If our Royal Flush Universe is just as probable as any other type of universe, then we are indeed lucky to have been dealt that hand and there was no intelligence behind that design or fine-tuning involved just like there’s no intelligence behind you being dealt a Royal Flush. Or, and this can’t be absolutely ruled out, perhaps there was some intelligent design and fine-tuning involved and our Royal Flush Universe was deliberately dealt!

There’s one other piece of evidence I need to introduce here. That’s “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” (as stated by physicist Eugene Wigner) in describing those laws, principles and relationships inherent in physics and related natural sciences. Physicist Max Tegmark goes one step further to state that the natural (physical) world IS completely mathematical. Many a philosopher (like Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell) and scientist (like Albert Einstein) have pondered the meaning of this observation.

One related facet, the mathematics tends to be relatively simple with exponents and coefficients that tend to be low value whole numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) or relatively simple fractions (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 2/3, 3/4, etc.). That would appear to defy probability based on random chance.

Now combining apparent design with apparent fine-tuning with the apparent unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics all suggests to me one possibility – software.

Now philosopher Nick Bostrum (Oxford University) has put forth a strong argument why our Universe could just be a software-generated computer simulation. My discussion here doesn’t duplicate that or draw on it in any way, and so is just complementary.

Now if you have a software program, any software program, it has to be intelligently designed (which doesn’t exclude design via an artificial intelligence). Software programs don’t write themselves. The software has to be fine-tuned such that you don’t get GIGO – garbage in; garbage out. That is, if, for example, you have a shoot-’em-up video game, the game has to be fine-tuned such that if you shoot straight you hit the target. And of course programmed software is mathematical, just bits and bytes.

So software produces the fundamental matter and force particles as simulations or virtual reality. Software then combines them in precise ways to generate simulations of atomic and molecular structures.

Comments are closed.