The Flooded Student Mind

The students’ mind is a void, a black hole that sucks in everything around it. It selfishly absorbs the constant stream of mindless entertainment from glowing screens in dark rooms, only outputting what is required of it. This overpowering stream prevents ideas from being born. These ideas cannot overpower the torrent.
 

Turn down the torrent.

 

These ideas are spawned from fragile thoughts from inspiration, weak in their infancy. They need attention. They need time. They want to grow. In their true and final form, ideas have the power to move the masses, revolutionize thought, and inspire monuments. Alas, the overwhelming flood of mindless entertainment washes away these seeds of great ideas and creation. However, with determination and will, you can dam away the flood by following these guidelines. Perhaps you can find more and better ways of provoking thought.

•  Research a topic interesting to you. Let it lead you places.
•  Spend idle time in your thoughts, no matter the topic.
•  Observe things - figure out what makes them what they are.
•  Be curious. Question things – ask why, ask how.
•  Be patient in your endeavors. 
•  Do not put an idea into action until it is good and ready.

 

 Think.

Questions of the Universe

The following are several thoughts that came to mind when reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time (Chapters 1-3). Any "facts" in this post are credited to him and the scientists he mentions.

The "Big Bang" is a popular theory nowadays. As humans, we have to know the origins of life, the universe, everything (42). We have to know a theory that unifies all that we observe (I don't think this is possible, yet it's fun to think that this unifying theory would predict the outcome of humans finding or not finding this theory). The Big Bang does a good job of explaining what we see in the universe today - except for the part where the theory breaks down at the quantum level. Though the Big Bang was proven to have happened by Hawking and Roger Penrose, it is based on Einstein's general theory of relativity which breaks down at the quantum level. First of all, everything was condensed into an infinitely dense ball of matter (a singularity). Then this ball exploded its matter into infinite space. Infinity has had scientists scratching their heads forever, yet, it's there. It's hard to accept that the universe is not infinite when one can ask "What's outside the universe?" Here are my thoughts:
1. It has been "proven" that the universe is expanding. Alexander Friedmann came up with a possible model where the universe  is in constant oscillation in which the universe magically shrinks in on itself after it reaches a maximum and then another Big Bang happens. This also makes it convenient to explain what may have happened before the Big Bang. However, there is no evidence to support the oscillation of the universe. Friedmann made two other models: the universe may be expanding more and more slowly but never quite reaches zero just to avoid collapsing in on itself, or it could reach the Big Freeze scenario - all matter and energy spreads apart and dissolves away into space until energy is so diluted in the universe, it's as if it's not there. This implies that there is a finite amount of energy in this infinite universe. What kind of universe is this where everything dies and no one is there to bask in its wonder? It boggles the mind to really think on this (I see where religion can have a say in this).
2. We can look to the edge of the observable universe and watch galaxies wink to life. This is essentially a time machine where we can see billions and billions of years into the past when the universe came to being. The thought that the universe had a beginning is valid because if there was an infinite amount of time before humans looked to the stars, we would be able to see much further past the orb of the observable universe than we do now - the light from those distant stars would have had time to reach us. Now, Friedmann made two assumptions (upon which the above models were based) in 1922: the universe (generally) looks the same in whatever direction we look, and the same observation can be made from any other galaxy. While the first assumption was later proven by Edwin Hubble, there's no evidence to support the second - it was made out of modesty because the first alone implied we had a special place in the "center" of the universe. If the second assumption is true, that could imply one of two things: there is an infinite number of galaxies and an infinite amount of matter, or gravity is so strong that space is bent on itself such that there is a finite amount of space and matter, but there is no boundary to the universe. This can be easily visualized when taken down a dimension. It's like the surface of the Earth - one can travel a straight line on its two-dimensional surface, not hit any boundaries, and end up where he/she started. The same goes for the universe in 3D space. One can travel in one direction and eventually end up where he/she started (though this is not allowed because one cannot travel faster than the speed of light). However, if Friedmann's second assumption is false, we are indeed in the "center" of the universe (I find this unlikely), or the universe has an edge, and time has not existed long enough for us to observe it. Whatever the case, this all make for some awesome science-fiction thinking.
3. The universe is not expanding from a central point, rather from everything else. But what is pushing everything apart? The book suggested, then refuted that gravity could be repulsive over long distances. It used a scale of a distance between two stars in this argument. However, it left a lot open to question. What if we upped the distance to about the distance between two galaxies? Is there some length of space where the anti-gravity is just "switched on"? Black holes are shreds of impossibility in this universe, and there is a super massive one in the center of every galaxy. Why not suggest that they have the key to anti-gravity, and they interact with the other super massive black holes in other galaxies? Hubble observed that there was no randomness to the rate at which distant galaxies were moving away (by using the Doppler effect with light). The speed at which any two galaxies are moving apart is proportional to the distance between them i.e. the further away the galaxy, the faster it's moving away. There could be some reliable math behind this anti-gravity if it exists.  I could be missing something that shuts these suggestions down, but hey, I'm just a college student.
4. This is just a fun fact that I want to relay - I can actually understand this now. Einstein suggested that gravity is a consequence of the fact that space-time is warped by the mass and energy in it. Bodies in space-time do not travel in orbits due to a force called gravity, rather it follows the nearest thing in a straight line in curved space (a geodesic). This geodesic once again can be easily visualized when it is taken down a dimension. It's much like how the distance between two points on a piece of paper is a line, but if you bend the paper through three dimensional space, the line is now a curve. The new shortest distance between those same points is now a different line, or a three dimensional geodesic.

I now leave you with a crazy suggestion. Time may not have existed until this very moment. We were just implanted with all of these memories by a higher being.

A Sixth Sense?

A very strange event happened to me about a week ago. Right after I woke up, I somehow logically deduced exactly what time it was. I looked at my clock, and sure enough, it was EXACTLY that time - down to the minute. I had an alarm set an hour and 26 minutes before that time, but I had turned it off and went back to sleep. The strange thing is, that I don't know how I knew that was how much time had passed. I used this logic in sort of a dream state between sleeping and consciousness. So, I let this event go and continued on with my life.
Then it happened again.
It was a couple days ago. Right before waking up, I dreamed, woke up, dreamed again, then woke up again all within ten seconds. In the second short dream, I looked at the clock on my phone and read the time. Then, I woke up, and that was exactly that time I saw in my dream. Now, it is possible that I was not dreaming at all, but I'm pretty sure I was. I don't remember picking up the phone or putting it back down in the "dream."

This brings to mind an article I read almost a month ago: Click here.
Could what I experienced be a form of seeing the future? Did I know exactly when I would wake up and look at the clock? Or do I have a really accurate body clock?
My thoughts now go back to a blog I did a long time ago, "Two Thoughts on Dreams." Particularly the second thought. Are dreams just view ports through the eyes of ourselves from a parallel universe? Did I see through the eyes of myself in another universe who woke up shortly before me? If so, can this ability be enhanced and exploited so we can see the other universe or see the future at will?

I'm not crazy.

Evolving Capacity

It took mankind many millennia to develop what we call the "basic" knowledge we have today. Most of us consider elementary-level math and science to be easy. However, back when the peak of technology was a sharpened stick, such knowledge was unheard of. Drawing pictures on cave walls with perspective was profound and advanced. We didn't know what caused the wind to blow, the Sun to shine, or the lightning to strike. We thought such events to be so profound and out of reach that it must have been the hand of a god that was behind it all. So we gave them names such as Apollo and Zeus. Now that we know the "science" behind it, these gods faded into mythology. This tells us that we have evolved our capacity to think. We can comprehend relatively advanced topics with little trouble. Now this leads me to this interesting thought:
Who says we're done evolving?
In the millenia to come, calculus may be taught in first grade, if in fact, schools have not become obsolete. In the later years, everyone will be learning some subject we don't even know exists today. Calculus was only discovered a few centuries ago, and now it's taught in high school. The secrets of wormholes, warp travel, and black holes will be common knowledge, and scholars will be studying some phenomena we haven't even discovered yet. The speed of light will be broken. Everyone will be able to comprehend exactly what infinity is. I am not describing the evolution of math and science, rather the evolution of the human race's capacity to think - the keyword being "capacity." Now, it is impossible to comprehend infinity, but with time (lots of time) the human brain may evolve enough to make that possible.
Here's an analogy: Think of the human brain as a box. We can fill it with ideas of calculus, physics, chemistry, and so on. However, now the box isn't big enough to fit incomprehensible ideas such as infinity. But as we evolve, the box will get bigger such that those ideas may fit and we may understand such complex thoughts. Just as our Paleolithic ancestors' box  was too small to fit calculus into it, our modern-day boxes are too small to fit the secrets of black holes.

Today's science was yesterday's magic. Is it possible that today's magic will be tomorrow's science?

Another branching thought: Why haven't other species of animals evolved their capacity of thought? Why haven't they gotten smarter? If all animals adapt to survive, why did humans evolve the brain rather than camouflage or brute strength as other species have?

On the note of creationism versus evolution - who says we have to chose one over the other? Why not both?

The Price of Progress

I never would have thought that my school work would be what I would stay up late thinking about, but alas, I was wrong. Below is a paper for one of my engineering classes that has been modified for this blog.

On May 6, 1937, a zeppelin called the Hindenburg blew up and crashed in Lakehurst, New Jersey. Thirty-six people perished. It was the most state-of-the-art, fastest, and most luxurious way to travel overseas at the time. It made 10 successful sea crossings the year before, but on this day, something went wrong. The hydrogen used to keep the craft afloat ignited and sent the ship down in a massive fireball. Fifty-six people managed to escape with their lives.

            Although helium had been known to be safer than hydrogen, the latter was chosen because it allowed the ship to maneuver easier. However, this choice ended up being the wrong one. The engineering community realized that hydrogen-filled airships were no longer the safest way to travel – even a small gas leak can lead to disaster. Thus, airship travel quickly dissipated.

            This failure has already shaped the present – there are currently no airships in service that are made for passenger transport. This is partly because airplanes are now more efficient. Also, society regards hydrogen with a lot more caution. Every time I think of the element, I think of the Hindenburg disaster. This is interesting because it shows a bit of human psychology. Why didn’t engineers just replace the hydrogen with helium and just sacrifice the mobility? People still ride on cruise liner ships on the ocean after the Titanic disaster. Why didn’t engineers think passengers wouldn’t ride on safer helium airships? Was it because the Titanic accident was clearly avoidable while the Hindenburg failure was unforeseen and unpredictable? The fear factor may have a big role in this case – fire is apparently scarier than water, falling is apparently scarier than drowning.

            It is worth noting at this point that airship advances were not completely abandoned. Regardless of what disaster happens, society goes back and fixes the problem and continues with the project. Humanity is a race of risk-takers. We all advance knowing that loss of life is possible. We all advance knowing that failure may happen. Even when it does happen, we recover, fix the problem, learn from the mistakes made, and continue on. This makes me wonder – what price do we actually put on a human life when we consider carrying out our projects for progress? This aspect of humanity leads us to think that we are willing to die to advance our technology and make life easier. It’s sort of an ironic existence.

Dimensions

There are 10 dimensions that we can imagine, if you don't count the zero dimension (a point) and the dimension of imagination. Here's a video explaining them if you are unfamiliar:
"Imagining the Tenth Dimension"
This is interesting all in itself, and it took me a while to digest it. But then I read a pretty inspiring short story that got me thinking about the dimensions (Thank you Kelli for showing me). To understand the rest of this blog, it'd be best to both watch the video and read the story. Here's the story:
"The Egg" by Andy Weir

First, I'd like to explain what I think of time. I think the dimension of time somewhat co-exists in each dimension. If you move a point (0D) to another point in space over a duration of time, the path it makes creates a line, making the first dimension. If you move the line (1D) to another location over a period of time, the path makes a 2 dimensional plane. Move the plane (2D), you get a 3D object. Move a 3D object, you get a 4D object, like the snake shown in the video. If a 4D object is moved over time, does the path make a 5D object? Now, a being in one dimension can only perceive the dimension above it in cross-sections. For example, the Flatlander (2D being) can only perceive a 3D object in 2D cross-sections over a period of of time. Just as we, being 3D beings can only perceive a 4D object in 3D cross-sections over time. Does this mean that "time"exists in every dimension rather being a dimension itself? Or is "time" perceived as the dimension above the being's current dimension?
In the story, God explains that time doesn't really exist where he's from. How did He and the deceased person have that conversation? According to this story, I inferred that God exists in the 4th dimension, and views the universe as a 4D object, an egg. This somewhat explains that time "doesn't exist" with him - at least not the person's version of time. God will have a conversation with all of the alternate endings of that one person. This suggests that God's version of time is the 5th dimension. He sees all of the alternate endings of that person as cross-sections over a period of "time." If this is true, that means that the 3rd dimensional person was made into a 4th dimensional being to talk to God.
Now. This this theory I'm going to explain may have many holes in it. It is based on my very basic knowledge of theoretical physics. It is based on the suggestion that beings exist in all dimensions, and they cannot see or communicate with a being in another dimension (yet). As far as we know, we are 3D beings who see the 4th dimension in cross-sections. Now, what if we were 4D beings like God in the story? We would see all of the alternate realities of ourselves (myself?) over time. But who says we aren't now? If, in fact, everyone is the same person, he (she?) is observing all of the possible endings of that life. But this still leaves the question of the universe's endings. Let's say for the sake of this theory that the universe is also "reincarnated" at the end of its life just like the human. That way, we (I?) can observe that too as if it is a cross section of the 5th dimension. Also, we could be observing the possible endings of the universe (and ourselves) right now. You may be thinking, "What? The universe couldn't have ended a second ago - nothing would have caused it." Remember that the ending possibilities of the universe are infinite. You can't say that couldn't have been one of them. The universe could end on a whim with no rhyme or reason (assuming the universe does end). But it doesn't really end, does it? It is reincarnated and starts again.
So what is the 3rd dimension? If we are 4D beings, that means everything we observe is a 4th dimensional object. To us, it would be like a 3D object (the snake in the video). As far as we know, atoms have been found to be made of subatomic particles (whose names escape me). But what are they made of? What if they were made of many tiny 4D objects? Say, the universe from the dimension below us. All of the infinite endings of the universe as 4D objects combined to make up our 4th dimensional universe.
Woah.
That means that those universes are made up of (again) their version of 4D objects from the dimension below them. All the way to infinity. The same can be said the other way. Our dimension is below an infinite number of dimensions above us. We are made of infinity, not determinate sizes of matter we call atoms. Could this be possible? Are there actually an infinite number of dimensions rather than 10? However, this theory all goes down the drain if a 4th dimensional object doesn't have the same properties to a 4th dimensional being as a 3rd dimensional object as observed by a 3rd dimensional being.

I hope you understood this. I have a headache. I'll let you decide where religion comes into this. I will keep my thoughts of that to myself.

Remember: Treat others the way you want to be treated... wait... Treat yourself the way you want to be treated. Yeah. That works.

Puzzle Pieces

I saw an article the other day about a girl who had a problem with her spine, and she could not walk. She worked with physical therapists her whole high school career so that she could walk across the stage on graduation day. When the day finally came, she did just that, and received a standing ovation. It was a very inspiring story. She was very excited as she explained that she had always wanted to "fit in" and be able to walk with her classmates. This got me thinking.

I disagree with the concept of fitting in. I understand that this girl did not want to be unique by being defined by her wheelchair, and I applaud her efforts and determination. However, I'm talking about other things like style, abilities, talents, interests, and so on. We've all seen this scenario before in movies and/or TV shows (For me, recently it was Doctor Who: Season 2 episodes 6 and 7). Although uniform, interchangeable parts in machines may be beneficial, humans should not work that way in society. It means we are easily replaced, predictable, boring. And no one wants to feel that way.

So now I introduce my metaphor of the puzzle piece. People should strive to be like the puzzle piece. Sorry if I sound like your 4th grade camp counselor, but this still applies. Every piece is different, and each piece has individual aesthetic appeal that is unlike any other piece. Now when people with a common goal come together, they can create something greater than any individual person could create. Each person brings their own unique abilities and talents to benefit the whole group. Just like puzzle pieces can come togther to make a whole image. (Got to throw in a teamwork metaphor while I'm in camp counselor mode.) Now there are many whole puzzles out there in the world. Whether or not those fit together, I'm not sure. I'll leave that to your imagination.

With that, I leave you with a paradox: Remember, you're unique, just like everyone else.