The Universe.

Sorry for such a late update!  So today, I looked into the sky and began thinking more about the Universe and all that it may hold.  Now, I had recently read-up more on Stephen Hawking (interest grasped me when I was reading up on Lou Gehrig's disease and other neurological-degenerative disorders.  I'm a medical nerd).  He's a figure that I associate with Einstein, in that he is one who only focuses on the sciences.  Well I was right, but only partially.  Bottom-line: his theories and work in revealing the constructs of the Universe and astronomical physics has got me to pondering about what the Universe actually is.  Hawking noted skepticism with contacting aliens, and I hold a similar mindset in that if one were to get into contact with aliens (i.e. they come to our planet), then it would mirror what happened when Columbus came to America.  That is not to say that we will be always able to avoid contact with aliens, but given the probability of different factors that take into account the chances of an alien coming in contact with Earth (or planets that harbor, what we consider to be, Homo sapiens), it will be much like the proverbial rattlesnake: don't poke the snake with a stick, and most likely, the snake will not bother you.  One must think that with the development of different technologies that aliens may also seek other life forms to come in contact with, to which I would say you may be right.  Right in the case that we cannot dismiss aliens as being an inferior race due to their lack of rational thinking, for it would then require our knowledge of what an alien is.  Basing evidence of what we define aliens to be, without having come in contact with one we believe to be an extraterrestrial, we base our impulses off of creatures that do not have the capacity for rational thought: much like comparing aliens to animals.  But this may not be the case for aliens, since it can also be assumed that it is within a certain probability that aliens themselves are also capable for rational thinking.  Saying so, aliens may also have come across the situations that other life forms may exist on other planets within the said Universe, to which they may also have the same predisposition that those life forms are inferior for they lack a rational capacity for thought.  But, as Homo sapiens, we clearly see ourselves, for the most part, to be rational beings.  Saying as much, if aliens were to come to Earth, a mere language barrier may be what serves as this main discrimination towards the lack of rational thought.  Does this mean we can assume that aliens are inferior to ourselves? No.  My first assumption would be to say that aliens are equal to humans, but that may be incorrect in itself.  Basing on different aspects within species, there exists portions where one species may have an edge over another, based on Darwinian thought of natural selection.  To which, the difference between Homo sapiens and what we consider to be aliens, may in fact be differences determined by natural selection based on environments that may be entirely different.

Now, Hawking noted that the main difference that may have arisen between animals that exist on Earth, and humans, was the capacity for imagination, which may have lead to the foundations of rational thought.  Looking at the size of the Universe (to which if you are actually able to come up with a quantitative answer to that question, I would require you to prove it.  For even I believe that the size of the Universe is without measure, based on the limitations of what we perceive as the visible universe, constrained by the fact that the speed of light is, for the most part, fixed at a particular speed, given the medium it travels through.  Ergo, proof of parts of the Universe is limited by the rate at which we are able to perceive it; geometry would tell us that the optimal shape of this is a sphere for the rate of expansion of the shape is equal on all points of the surface [again, that is assuming that light travels through a fixed medium, which we can approximate the overall shape being that of a sphere]), I can understand how the visible parts expand as a function of a spherical shape based on parts of my intelligence pertaining to visual-spatial intelligence, but among an innumerable amount of planets and galaxies, it is more than likely that a form of life exists on one of them.  This does not take into account the fact as to whether there are rational beings on any one of those other planets or galaxies, but if we assume that the laws of natural selection apply as one of the laws of the Universe, and that development of life follows the laws of natural selection, then it is probable to assume that other rational forms exist as well.  As such, it is my assumption that aliens are in fact rational beings, despite the possibility of their inability to communicate with Homo sapiens, in the event that contact is ever established.  Now, what is the probability of aliens ever coming in contact with us?  If it is ever through telecommunication, we would first need to factor in the different types of communication, the type they will use to establish communication, probability that they will attempt communication, probability of being in the same galaxy, let alone solar system, to use the form of communication, and so forth.  This leads to, what would seem to be, a relatively small chance of this contact ever happening.  To say that physical contact is to occur between aliens and Homo sapiens, the chances of this drop more, for it takes into account all the above, also the time-frame at which the aliens attempt to contact us (the sun is theorized to have a semi-fixed lifespan, not going to write about it on here), chances of having enough fuel to reach Earth, etcetera. That being said, I doubt we'll ever have extraterrestrial contact, unless we go out of our way to seek it.

But back to one of the first problems addressed, if aliens were to come to Earth, there is a chance that Homo sapiens may be completely, and utterly annihilated.  Much like introducing a new disease into a population (I'll use the example of the Irish and their potato famine), if the population holds no resistance to the disease, then most of the population will be susceptible to the disease and may be destroyed.  However, upon this experience, there may be individuals who are able to develop some form of resistance to the disease, but damage will have been done already.  We will not know the extent of the disease, whether it is only localized to humans; it may also affect animals, plants, microorganisms, etcetera.  So even if humans do survive with disease-resistance, that does not mean they will survive since the disease may also exhibit natural selection as a form of bacteria, capable of multiple generations within a short period of time, ultimately leading to no substantial cure to the disease.  Now, you must be thinking, why not develop antibiotics?  Similar to bacterial diseases now, it is not completely effective towards the eradication of bacteria for bacteria will develop resistance as well, and new versions of the antibiotic must be developed, only to repeat the never-ending cycle.  So, this may paint what demise may look like if this event does occur with physical alien contact.  There are many other factors that pose risk in this situation, but I won't address them for now.  But there is also no way of telling that the opposite situation may occur as well, where aliens are the ones who get sick, or if nothing happens at all.


**I will differentiate between universe and Universe.  Keep this in mind.


A lot of these must take into account that the outcomes that will result are based on, what many refer to, a notion that there exists multiple outcomes at a specific time/scenario, and that the resulting outcome that occurs is selected and expressed in the form of a timeline.  But one must realize that for every action taken, outcomes are not limited by a quantitative amount, for there is divergence within each action that produces multiple pathways towards the multiple results (i.e. drink water = choking, satisfaction, continuing to drink while thinking of drinking, drinking and thinking about food, and so forth).  In a nutshell, this is much like the Many-worlds interpretation, where it is believed there exists multiple realities based on the different pathways (as described above).  One can think of this as being much like parallel universes, but we take an internal view towards it (we only think about ourselves, and do not think about the possibility of other factors that may diverge results in parallel universes).  The amount of possibilities, again, are innumerable for there is no way to possibly account for every action and occurrence that can happen at a particular moment.  In short, at the time of less than what can be imaginable as the smallest amount time (imagine much of a snapshot, for time has completely ceased at the moment a picture is taken), there are an infinite [that term is used loosely for infinity itself is viewed as a number beyond measure, but I am skeptical to constitute it as a number for it is a symbol for a shape that has has no end when you start at a point on the shape] amount of factors that can change which may or may not change the outcome of the next moment, which if we were to apply a numerical value here, would differ by the smallest amount of time imaginable by 1 (i.e. if it were to be 1 ns, then the next moment would be 2 ns; although, it is already known that there are smaller measures than nano, for example pico-).  To which a new set of innumerable possibilities will result, based on the outcomes of the previous moment, resulting in an infinite amount of outcomes. The amount is quite unimaginable, for the magnitude of outcomes is almost equal to the amount of possibilities; given the assumption that each change in a possibility in combination with other possibilities either kept constant or changed, will always yield a different result.  With that, we can see how, if there were parallel universes that existed, it would in fact be bound by the above construct where life can be similar to how it is on Earth, only varying as a function of multiple different actions taken at a particular moment, leading to different results.

In this case, if it were true, I would think that it does not exist as a separate dimension or universe (although those are possible and valid assumptions, based on the idea that organization of the different outcomes and possibilities that can occur based on small changes [the scale of one possibility within a moment] would be easier).  However, I would like to take a different pathway and assume that the observable Universe is a small portion of what the Universe actually is.  The assumption that the center of the visible portion of the Universe is our solar system, to which comparing the size of Earth with Betelgeuse shows the clearly evident difference in sizes, let us assume that our solar system is merely a point within the spherical Universe (the edges of the Universe to produce the optimal spherical shape is actually non-existent for I use the sphere to merely show that the Universe has bounds for easier visualization [I do not believe there exist bounds to the Universe, for it is something without measure]).  Within the sphere of the Universe, lies our solar system which has a sphere around it which we know to be the visible Universe (picture sucks, but this is sort of how I imagine it, although the circle can be at any point within the Universe's circle).

Now, the sphere of the Universe is vastly larger than the sphere inside the larger circle meant to represent the sphere of the visible Universe, as well as the small circle expanding at a slower rate than the larger circle due to the limited rate of visibility based on the speed of light.  The sphere of the Universe is not limited by the constraints of light, and as such, expands at a much quicker rate than does the sphere of our visible Universe.  As such, this is why I say the bounds of the Universe do not exist to form an optimal spherical shape, for the spherical shape applies mainly to the optimization of equal distribution of expansion for visibility of current methods of viewing the horizons of the Universe (also it is not constrained by other factors, such as gravity's effects on photons, speed of light differentiation through different mediums, reflection and refraction of wavelengths of light, etcetera).  If "parallel universes" do exist, in which our different actions yield different outcomes in different dimensions/universes, I would propose that it does not do it in the scope that it occurs within separate universes, but in fact occurs on different astronomical bodies.  In this context, parallel universe does not refer to the scifi that everyone wants to believe.  I use the definition universe in parallel universe in the terms of thermodynamics: a universe consists of a system and its surroundings, where the system is observed, and the surroundings are everything else.  In those terms, the solar system is what we observe in terms of what we designate as the surroundings to the solar system; i.e. everything else observable around the solar system as the horizons of the visible Universe that we know.  However, this itself leads to a new definition of what a universe is for the observable system is now the visible Universe that we know, while the parts we cannot see beyond the visible Universe serves as the surroundings, to lead to the larger definition of what the Universe is.  But let us take a step back from that, and focus on the solar system definition of universe.  Taking that a step further and applying it to, what I believe to be, parallel universes in the form of celestial bodies [different planets in other galaxies or systems], we can now assume that those inhabited by our "parallel universe" selves are similar to us in visualization of the Universe.  As such, now there are different points within the sphere of the Universe that expand at the rate of a sphere constrained by the speed of light, such that now there may exist different visible Universes within the Universe that are not overlapping, hence multiple visible Universes based on the definition provided by thermodynamics.  Now parallel, in my definition of parallel universe, notes the linear-nature of the function of time.  All these universes as described above look much like this.

Except, there are no bounds for these inner spheres known as the visible Universes of the different universes present in terms of the different systems by which is observing the Universe. Also, the large circle is not constraining the small spheres for it is the bounds of the Universe, and is ever-expanding at a faster rate than the visible Universes (as above).  Now, applying that each one of these systems which are seen as a sphere is occupying different points within the space of the Universe, this notes that all of them are occurring at the same notion of time (Our notion of time is as a fixed construct as a function of the apparent speed of rotation around the sun, to which the definition of time for these other systems may be different if in comparison with our own.  However, basing this idea off of the assumption that time is fixed for all portions of the Universe, then all parts of the Universe are subject to the same rate of elapsing, although this rate will most likely never be known).  This is what may lead to the theory of a parallel universe, in that there may exist different points in the Universe that are most completely similar to how life is set-up on Earth, however they simply differ as a function of the rates of changes between moments.  That is sort of how I visualize what a parallel universe is: simply different points within the Universe that may be subject to different laws of physics based on environment, or the above described situation.  In short, a parallel universe may not in fact be the same space that is occupied within a particular universe, but in fact different spaces that are occupied within the same period of time.

But all of the above is in the case that parallel universes do exist, to which they may or may not.  Since there is no conclusive evidence to show that the above is true or not true, I assume that within the varying possibilities of the Universe, there may exist at least one parallel universe that follows the constructs that I have outlined above, similar to the assumption that rational life forms exist beyond Earth.  But again, these are simply theories and until they can be proven, will remain that way.

Sorry for the long post, but hopefully this will suffice for the amount of time I was gone.  I will most likely talk about the Universe in some later posts, as I develop a better understanding of it, and I will attempt to touch black holes and dark matter in later posts, to voice what my opinions are of it.



***There may be points in this post that are not accurate, and I am sorry if I mixed up some parts of it, or had gotten them incorrect.  Please, correct me if I am wrong.