Archive for the ‘Environment & science’ Category

What is Steenbergs’ carbon footprint?

Friday, June 5th, 2015

We seek to offset our carbon footprint so it is pretty small.

For 2014, Steenbergs has purchased carbon offsets for 72 tonnes of carbon dioxide (i), up from 17 tonnes in 2013.  This has increased, because we are now retiring even more of the greenhouse gases from our business.  This is in addition to using solar energy for 45% of our electricity usage and recycling as much of our waste as possible.

In previous footprints, we included direct greenhouse gases from energy consumed and business travel, together with those from the transport of goods to and from Steenbergs (ii).  In effect, this is the climate change impact resulting from what we do.

We actually reduced this direct carbon footprint by 25% between 2013 and 2014, down from 17 to 13 tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2014.

However, in looking more closely at our products’ lifecycle from farm-to-landfill, we were excluding virtual carbon embedded within our packaging and ingredients.  So that’s the greenhouse gases arising from farming and the manufacture of glass jars, steel lids and tins, together with impacts resulting from the disposal or recycling of packaging by our customers.  But this embedded carbon (or traded carbon) should be brought into consideration, or an oil trader becomes very green when you ignore the oil (iii).

This would be fine if our suppliers offset their climate costs, but they don’t.

82% of the carbon footprint in Steenbergs’ products is indirect:

Breakdown of carbon impact from Steenbergs in 2014

Breakdown of carbon impact from Steenbergs in 2014

42 tonnes of carbon dioxide relates to packaging, compared to the 13 tonnes from our business.

As for farming, we had naively assumed that its carbon costs are analogous to the carbon captured in the plants themselves.  Mike Berners-Lee in How bad are bananas? gives zero as the carbon footprint of an apple plucked from a tree in your garden.

Initial research gives the impact may be 0.87 kg CO2 per kg of spices; this compares to 12kg and 19 kg CO2 per kg of beef and lamb.  Farming might add another 17 tonnes carbon dioxide (iv).  Because this relates to what we sell, we will need to dig deeper.

But using this, Steenbergs’ total footprint over the lifecycle of its products is 72 tonnes carbon dioxide every year, or 6 families’ worth of carbon.  This has been offset through ClimateCare, which neatly uses projects such as its LifeStraw project that combine Steenbergs’ concern for water with issues of climate change.

Putting this into context, spices and herbs contribute a tiny proportion of the carbon footprint of a meal.

For example, the spices in rogan josh are 0.1% of the total footprint versus 89% for the lamb, or 0.5% in tandoori chicken compared to 85% for the poultry.  The herbs in spaghetti bolognaise are less than 0.01% of its total carbon footprint.  And last month we calculated the carbon footprints of your cup of tea, coffee and hot chocolate.


(i)    For ease, carbon dioxide is lazily used for carbon dioxide equivalent, so it includes carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide gases.

(ii)   Steenbergs direct carbon footprint includes: electricity, business travel, water supply and sewerage, trade waste and recycled waste.  Steenbergs indirect carbon footprint comprises: freight for raw materials and packaging into Steenbergs and distribution of packed goods to our trade and consumer customers.

(iii)  See: Roger Harrabin (2015) CO2 cuts claims challenged by experts, BBC News, 19 March 2015,; or John Barrett , Glen Peters , Thomas Wiedmann , Kate Scott , Manfred Lenzen , Katy Roelich & Corinne Le Quéré (2013) Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: a UK case study, Climate Policy, 13:4, 451-470, DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2013.788858

(iv)   I am unclear whether these figures are for the lifecycle of spices and/or include carbon captured in the plants themselves.  47.5% of carbon is locked in plant material, equivalent to 1.7kg CO2 per kilo.  So I am confused…

What’s the carbon footprint of your cuppa?

Tuesday, May 19th, 2015

It depends is perhaps the best answer.

It depends on what you drink and also on how you treat changes in land use.

For tea, the carbon footprint is 87 g CO2 for a mug of Steenbergs black tea taken with milk.

This includes the carbon footprint of brewed tea is 48 g CO2 for black tea, plus also probably for white, green and herbal teas.  But to this, we need to add another 39 g CO2 for any milk added, if (as most Brits do) your tea is made with milk.

If you use teabags, an extra 4 g CO2 is added, or 5% to the carbon footprint.

This compares with 129 g CO2 for a coffee.  About 60% of this comes from the coffee itself and the remainder from the milk.  For milkier coffees like a cappuccino or latte, the carbon footprint is much larger at 222 g CO2 and 318 g CO2, because more milk is used.

Hot chocolate have the biggest footprint with its major cost again the milk.  If you include land use changes for the cocoa, this becomes even larger with the cost of the mix doubling to 43 g CO2 per mug from 21 g CO2.

Carbon in hot beverages

Carbon footprint of hot drinks

What does this tell us?

We can all reduce our carbon footprints by drinking less milk.  We can have lighter teas drunk without milk, and cut back on large lattes and hot chocolates. White and green teas, Darjeeling or China teas and herbal infusions are other tasty possibilities.

Then, drink loose leaf infusions rather than teabags as this extra packaging ups your CO2.


Carbon dioxide is lazily used here to mean carbon dioxide equivalent, i.e. it includes carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide gases.

These are comparable to figures in Mike Berners-Lee’s book “How bad are bananas?: tea with milk 71 g CO2, tea without milk 21 g CO2, milky coffee 71 g CO2, cappuccino 235 g CO2 and a large latte 340 g CO2.  His book did not have figures for hot chocolate, or at least I couldn’t find any.

How much water is needed for a mug of coffee or tea?

Wednesday, March 25th, 2015

The simple answer is not much – about 225ml.

But look deeper and we need to consider the rainwater needed to grow the coffee beans and tea leaves, plus the water used to process these and make any packaging.

Over the last few years, we have been looking at the environmental costs within Steenbergs products.  We have looked at our carbon footprint, possible pollution from cleaning chemicals and our recycling rates.

Our main finding has been that over the lifecycle of Steenbergs’ products the biggest environmental burden by far is the virtual water (i) to grow Steenbergs’ herbs, spices and teas and which is then transferred when these move from India or Sri Lanka to the UK.

In money terms, the environmental costs of water usage are 2½ times larger than our carbon footprint.  It’s about 138 million litres, roughly 55 Olympic swimming pools.

Furthermore, this virtual water dwarfs the actual water used to make a mug of coffee or tea – the 225ml we glibly used for our initial answer.

The virtual water in a mug of coffee or tea is 635 times and 151 times the actual water used to make your drink.

So 143 litres of virtual water are needed to grow your morning coffee, but only 0.2 litre of water is needed to make it.  In contrast, the virtual water for tea is 34 litres, one quarter of the water consumed in a coffee.

If you include the virtual water in milk, this bumps up the figures to a hefty 169 litres of water needed for a mug of coffee and 60 litres for a mug of tea.

For a hot chocolate, it’s even higher.  415 litres of water, mainly rainwater, are needed for each hot chocolate.  That’s a whopping 2048 times more water than your mug holds.

For cappuccinos and lattes, more coffee is used in making the espresso and quite a lot of milk is then added.  This ups the virtual water content to 340 litres for a cappuccino and 381 litres of your latte.

So next time you have a drink, pause for a moment to think about the massive amounts of rainwater that were needed for your small cuppa.

Graph that shows breakdown of water between blue and virtual water in hot beverages

Breakdown of total water in hot beverages


(i) Virtual water is “the volume of water that is required to produce the product.”

(ii) Water footprint calculations:

water table

(iii) In our calculations, we have drawn heavily on the pioneering work of Chapagain and Hoekstra of the University of Twente (Netherlands):

Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y. (2004) Water footprints of nations, Volume 2: appendices, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Research Report Series No. 16, November 2004

Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y. (2007) The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in the Netherlands, Ecological Economics, 66: 109-118

Jefferies, D., Muñoz, I., Hodges, J., King, V. J., Aldaya, M., Ercin, A. E., Milà i Canals, L., Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012) Water footprint and life cycle assessment as approaches to asses potential impacts of products on water consumption.  Key learning points from pilot studies on tea and margarine, Journal of Cleaner Production, 33: 155-166

Time Please

Saturday, December 31st, 2011

For those who have suffered my thoughts on time before, you will know that time is something that concerns my little brain. In fact, what exactly time is has concerned much brainer people than me. And perhaps reconciling time with the two main paradigms in theoretical physics is key, for in the Einsteinean world time merges into space-time and is relative and has no standalone life, while in the standard model of the quantum world, time is fundamental to the theory. So in one, there is no “real” time while in the other there is. This anomaly needs mediating.

Anyway, what I have been pondering on for some months this year is a thought experiment: take an electron now, then consider where it is in the future, but also where it was in the past.

Now, in the quantum world, we do not know where that electron is in the future. In fact, it is everywhere in the universe, but that smearing of the electron throughout the universe collapses down to a point roughly where it was now at that point a nanosecond in the future. That is pretty much understood since Bohr proposed it in the early 20th century and then others like Heisenberg, for example, expanded these ideas further with his uncertainty principle and Feynman later with his diagrams. However much we do not like it, this idea works and has been tested by loads of scientists and shown to work.

But what perplexed me more was no-one ever mentions the past. If we take that electron and move backwards in time, do we know where it was?

At first, I decided that the inherent uncertainty worked both ways, so we could only be certain of a point in time now, but, because we had not measured (or observed) the electron in the nanosecond beforehand or a minute or year previous, then its past would also be uncertain and it would exist throughout the universe. So in this concept, the present is a unique point in time with uncertain existence on either side, and you can only be certain about that which you have measured and so brought into existence.

But I am not so sure now and think this idea is wrong. I now believe that the past is very different from the future.

Even if we have not measured or observed a particle in the past, its position/existence/velocity etc are effectively known (or at least knowable) and so the past is not uncertain in a theoretical sense, even if we do not actually have the evidence or answers or data measured.

But so what?

Well, it would mean that the past is fundamentally different from the future. For example, in the past, the world would be deterministic, so a particle has definite momentum and position at any point in time. In this classical Newtonian world, cause leads to effect. In other words, this is the world and universe of our experience, and does fit with our understanding of how the world seems to us to work. However, the future is more mysterious and a particle does not exist until it is measured, while between measurements such a particle does not exist anywhere specific but everywhere in the universe. This world is one of probabilities and possibilities, where cause does not lead necessarily to effect but to a whole array of different probabilities of outcomes.

So when it is said that an electron is a wave or a particle, is the difference in result how you are measuring it, i.e. when you are measuring in time rather than what you are observing? This is close to the Copenhagen Interpretation which effectively said energy quanta were a particle or wave, but not both, and what it was depends on how you set up your experiment. However, it gives no interpretation of why the how of setting up an experiment changes the answer. My suggestion is that it depends on what time-frame you are looking at.

As I have argued before scientists are very focused on “what” they are looking at and “how” they are observing, but perhaps not “when” they are looking at, yet Einstein was very interested in what time really is. For me, the present is a strange chimeral zone that is not quite the past nor the same as the future and is full of kooky mystery, and this is the strangeness that quantum physicists are looking at.

What Is Not?

Saturday, December 31st, 2011

E = mc2 (and so m=E/c2) is the iconic scientific equation. But what happens if you put E = 0, or m = 0, into the equations. In the first, the answer becomes E = 0 and also in the second m = 0. In other words, if there is no mass, there is no energy and vice versa. We are bounded by this idea that matter and mass are just parts of the same thing.

However, is this everything? I wonder whether the equation explains reality and so is complete, or rather whether it indicates the edges of our perception and so what can be observed, experimented on and experienced. It precludes objects that are mass without energy or energy without mass, things that are not both particle and wave. But why cannot there be particles that are particles but not waves, and waves that are just that: waves? The retort is simply that is the way it is, so shut up, deal with it and calculate, because it works. It does actually work.

But still I wonder whether this equation only explains what we can see, and whether there is more out there that we cannot? Are we created to experience only those things with wave-particle duality and mass-energy equivalence, and to be incapable of experiencing those things that are simply not paired up? In physics, for some bizarre reason, everything seems to need a pair, or a partner. But even if this reality is correct, it only explains the 20% (or less) that we can see and observe, but ignores the balance that we cannot see: the dark side, which just like the dark ages of medieval history means the stuff we do not comprehend because we do not have the data.

Perhaps we must accept that our universe is a limited and bounded experience that can only be perceived as things defined by the equations of theoretical physics. However, this feels just so limiting. I cannot believe that more is not possible, and that there is not a reality that exists without us, some equations and maths.

So ask what and where is the energy and matter we cannot define, i.e. dark energy and dark matter? Why can a wave and a particle not separate themselves?  Why cannot there be energy-less matter and vice versa? Why cannot two bodies of mass interact with each other faster than the speed of light? Why don’t planets and stars influence us on earth in real-time instantaneously rather than in astronomical time? And so on…

The Better Supermarket Beefs In The UK – More Thoughts On Burger Making

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

For the supermarkets, I have reviewed their offerings (see below) and made an initial selection of meats, going for beef from Booths, Sainsbury’sTesco and Waitrose

Next, we needed to make some burgers from these suppliers, so I chose the following: from Booths, chuck and rib eye steaks; from Sainsbury’s, rib eye steak and braising steak; from Tesco, rib eye steak and casserole steak; and from Waitrose, rib eye steak and braising steak.  To these, I then made simple burgers following my core recipe from my blog earlier in July 2011 without the onions to let the meat speak for itself.  The meats were ground through a 4½mm mincer and shaped using the Italian burger press from Weschenfelder. 

Tasting Beefburgers Made From Supermarkets' Steak

Tasting Beefburgers Made From Supermarkets' Steak

They were lightly fried in deodourised sunflower oil then tasted with fork & knife rather than in bread rolls.  We tasted them en famille so the results are across ages and sexes and the ranking was Booths and Waitrose first equal then Sainbsury’s and last Tesco.  However, it is important to state that Booths, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose were clearly good with Tesco’s quality lagging a long way behind.

As for Booth’s and Waitrose, the differences were that Booths had the best general flavour and mouthfeel, while Waitrose had a deeper, richer flavour.  I reckon this was because the Waitrose meat was hung for longer and so had more beefiness coming through whereas for Booth’s I was able to get exactly the cuts that I desired, so perhaps the ideal is as I argued in my previous blogs for a 1:1 mix of chuck and rib eye that has been matured for 21 – 28 days rather than a relatively quick 14 days as was the case for Booths.

As an aside, we also taste tested Sainsbury’s versus Waitrose dry aged sirloin and the Sainsbury’s beef was a clear winner, so it is not a case of Booths & Waitrose being clear winners across the board nor was the older beef the better as Sainsbury’s was 21 day and Waitrose 28 day aged.

Review of supermarket beef

At Asda, the choice of beef was from British or Irish meat with most coming from Ireland.  Mince was Irish beef and £6.08 for 1kg (in 500g amounts) or 2 for £5, braising steak was £8.75/kg and rump steak £7.00/kg (currently down from £11.48/kg) and from Ireland.  In ribeye steak there was the biggest choice – organic (£16.99/kg), Irish 14 day matured (£14.49/kg), British (£15.00/kg) or Yorkshire Dales steak (£21.94/kg).  Overall, I was impressed that they had Yorkshire sourced beef and some organic, but too much was from Ireland rather than Britain and very little provenance was given.

At Booths, they have a good minced steak at £4.00 for 700g which is very good value compared to Morrisons in spite of Morrisons claiming to be the value store and Booths having the reputation for being expensive.  They have a much smaller selection than the big highstreet multiples but the quality is much better, and I went for a mix of traditional chuck steak (£8.00/kg) and rib eye steak (£20.00/kg) with marbling a little light at around 10%, but I compensated with some beef fat that I took off another sirloin steak.  The beef at the butcher’s counter is hung for 21 days, but the instore staff did not know whether the steaks in the chillers were the same age, but presumed they could be.  If you go to one of their stores, try and get their 28 days National Trust beef, which often comes from Fountains Abbey for the Ripon store – it is just amazing kit and the best beef in any supermarket but that is for another blog.

At Morrisons, you can get either minced beef or steak, where I suggest that minced steak at £5.56/kg for 720g is a good bet or for the Butcher’s Mince at £6.99/kg.  Alternatively, you could buy from the Family Butcher rib eye steak (£14.49/kg) and braising steak (£7.99/kg) then cube them both up and grind them at home.  We tried their The Best Scotch Beef Quarter Pounder Burgers and they were tough, rubbery and full of gristle, plus lots of liquid came out during the cooking process, which left me feeling mighty suspicious.  Anyway one of the key reasons to make you own burgers is to look at the ingredients: beef (86%), breadcrumbs, beef fat, roasted onions, seasoning, then the horrors of sodium metabisulphite (horrible stuff!), sodium ascorbate and trisodium citrate.  Note that all supermarkets use heavy preservatives as they need to maximise the length in store to minimise wastage, so all superamrkets use these nasty chemicals.

For Sainsbury’s, there was beef mince (£4.40/kg), braising steak (£8.75/kg), Taste the Difference rump steak (£13.99/kg), sirloin (standard = £19.99/kg; 21 day dry aged Taste the Difference = £21.99/kg), rib eye steak in various guises – scotch beef (£16.30/kg); North Highland rib eye (£20.40/kg) and 21 day dry aged Taste the Difference (£23.99/kg).

At Tesco, there was steak mince (£5.74/kg) or organic beef mince (£5.75/kg)casserole steak from Britain or Ireland (£8.00/kg or £9.00/kg at the butcher’s counter even though it looked the same style of beef), rump steak (£11.79/kg for standard and £13.49/kg for Tesco Finest), sirloin (standard = £15.97/kg; Tesco Finest = £15.99/kg; organic sirloin £17.99/kg), rib eye steak in various guises – standard beef (£14.49/kg)Tesco Finest (£13.00/kg – should be £15.99/kg per but was mispriced in store at £13.00/kg so I got a bargain) and organic rib eye (£16.00/kg).

At Waitrose, there was beef mince from Aberdeen Angus cattle in 10% fat and 20% fat forms, with the 20% being £6.58/kg and the most appropriate for making burgers; there is a beef mince that is organic at £13.16/kg for their Duchy Original brand.  There is an organic rump steak from Duchy Originals (£16.49/kg) and sirloin (£21.99/kg).  Non-organic beefs are Hereford diced braising steak (£10.47/kg), 14 days aged sirloin (£23.99/kg) and rib eye steak (£26.99/kg),  plus 28 day dry aged Aberdeen Angus beef from the butcher’s counter – sirloin (£25.99/kg) and rib eye steak (£26.99/kg).  The butcher at the counter in Harrogate was really helpful and the best of all the supermarkets for knowledge and courtesy.

I make no warranties or claims on pricing or availability in store.  They are provided as guides, but as I visited the supermarkets at different times and in different places, these could have gone up or down or done some somersaults while some products may even have been delisted.  Booths prices at 28/6/2011; Morrisons prices at 26/6/2011; on 1 July 2011, I got prices for Asda, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose.  I went to Harrogate for Asda, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose; Ripon for Booths; Morrisons in Boroughbridge; and Tesco in Thirsk.

Weird Science As Explained To Emmy The Dog

Sunday, March 27th, 2011

I have been reading “How to Teach Quantum Physics to your Dog” by Chad Orzel, because I love reading about quantum physics, relativity and the creation of universe, partly as I am a geek and also as I do not understand what is going on at all and reckon that sooner or later I will get there and I will have a Eureka moment.  This book is really quite light hearted, yet tackles many of the core underlying themes in modern physics, e.g. wave particle duality, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, Schrödinger’s Cat and the Quantum-Zeno Effect.  It is built off the back of his amazing blog –

So while Chad was banging on about Heisenberg, he wrote:

“You can make the momentum change smaller by increasing the wavelength of the light (decreasing the momentum that the photon has available to give to the electron), but when you increase the wavelength, you decrease the resolution of the microscope, and lose information about the position.  If you want to know the position well, you need to use light with a short wavelength, which has a lot of momentum, and changes the electron’s momentum by a large amount.  You can’t determine the position precisely without losing information about the momentum, and vice versa.” [p48 from Chad Orzel’s book]

It was then that I had one of those small moments of understanding where I felt that physics teachers have been deliberately misleading me, obfuscating and confusing me and making it all seem harder than it really is: wave-particle duality does not mean that light, matter etc is two things at once, which is how they explain it.  Rather this idea of duality is simply artifice to explain light’s properties mathematically and physically, i.e. a model to explain the behaviour of things in the universe.  Light is light, matter is matter, the lamp post outside my window is a real physical object and the sycamore on the green lives and so on.  However, the physics and so maths needed to explain the properties of these objects and how electrons and light work needs more than one theme to get it all sorted out.  So measurable stuff comprises a physical form (the particle bit) and energy (the wave bit), and we need both bits to sense things.  By the way, both of these are relative to other things, so it is really relative physicality and relative energy, hence I cannot feel something that is too small for me to sense.

This raises an interesting thought, being what happens if you have energyless particles and particleless energy.  Now modern physics says that even the lowest energy particles have velocity and so you cannot get a no-energy state.  But what if you can decouple energy and physicality?  If you could get these “things”, then you would not be able to measure them and so they become voids or “dark”.  Is this what dark energy and dark matter are? Formless energy and energyless form.  Humanity is not coded to be able to sense these, or even really to understand such things.  But what happens if that is what these missing bits are, i.e. 23% for dark matter and a whopping 72% for dark energy of mass-density of universe? Could you actually measure them rather than infer them – the only way to measure these two missing parts of the universe would be to give them back what they have lost, i.e. give energy to dark matter and form to dark energy, but would that actually be possible, or even for that matter a good thing.

Thinking about it why shouldn’t there be energy without a physical side and matter without an energy side.  Yes that’s not what we see/measure, but these are things you cannot measure or see, so why not?  In fact, it makes physical things more unique and basically says that there is something special about “normal” matter and energy as these are things where matter and energy are linked together rather than separated.  It is quite easy to envisage energy without shape as that is simply energy, i.e. just a wave and no particle bit, however how do you have matter that you cannot see as wouldn’t we just bump into it as we try and measure things.  Perhaps dark matter is shape than has folded in on itself until it is so infinitesimally small that you just cannot measure it and that there is something about adding energy that enables pre-matter to unfold and become detectable.  But now I am really lost in my own explanation.

Another thing that Chad Orzel writes about is why quantum mechanics does not work in the real world very often and that systems collapse into old-fashioned Newtonian mechanics.  This is one of the reasons most of us simple punters find quantum physics so complex as it does not marry up with our experience of the physical world, even if the maths works and so has allowed loads of new discoveries.  The theories, or philosophies, as to how the quantum world collapses when things are measured/observed includes theories like the Copenhagen Interpretation, Everett’s Many Worlds Ideas and Feynman’s Shut Up and Calculate Concept [actually not Feynman but David Mermin, but he’s way less iconic].

I feel all these are too complex and perhaps too overthought and overwrought, i.e. everyone is simply trying to hard.  I think it is really just a matter of scale, so quantum theory works fine at a small level where there are very few components to a system.  However, as you scale up, you just need a new way of looking at things.  Nothing has changed with quantum physics as it still works at a micro level, but it just does not work on larger scales.  Different things need different ways of looking at it.

However, should you still want a mechanism for why it changes, here goes.  Everything can be described by a wave pattern using Schrödinger’s rules.  These are all different shapes and sizes, but everything big and everything small has a wave that describes them.  At a small scale where there are not many things about and the gaps between everything are relatively large, these waves have the space to take shape and grow to their full size, hence the properties of that wave become paramount in their behaviour.  So at this small scale and with little noise from other stuff kicking about, quantum physics and all those ideas work.  However, as you scale up, other waves start getting in the way, interfering with each other, changing the shapes of the waves, filling up the space with other waves and so preventing them fully expressing themselves.  In effect, quantum waves interfere with other quantum waves and they reduce their influence on their behaviour, so their impacts are nullified.  This means mathematically, there will be a point at which simply adding together quantum waves will cancel their individual effects and there will be no more measurable individual quantum effects anymore and classical mechanics takes centre stage.  I call this idea entanglement.

Size matters.  QED.

By the way, this means there are no parallel universes going on right now, ones where I am rich and famous or am the world’s greatest painter, and much of science fiction is well science fiction.  Sorry about that.

But it does mean that the sycamore tree on the green can exist even if no-one ever has observed it or a falling tree actually fall if not observed, because as all the individual waves of each particle entangle and interfere with each other they create existence, fixing things into space and time.  This philosophy and physics problem can be seen in works by George Berkeley or in physics forums, where a load of strange and complex answers are given.  Pragmatism should always rule over philosophy, as many things just are without being measured or proved; whether you can explain it is a different matter, but that does not stop it being so.

Axel’s Universe And Some Silly Thoughts About Time

Thursday, December 30th, 2010

Even though I never wear a watch, I am surrounded by time everywhere.  I have, also, always been fascinated by the idea of time – What exactly is time? What does time mean? Why does it go forwards as a natural progression and not backwards or sideways?

I love the story of John Harrison, who in the 1730s and 1740s invented two perfect precision instruments for keeping time, which (and this is the weird part) were needed to solve the issue of longitude or the position of objects on earth around its axis rather than from North to South.  Then there is Alfred Einstein who reinterpreted the way we need to think of the world and the universe as being a matrix of space-time rather than just space on its own, and that objects with mass morph the geometry of space-time, so creating forces that we sense as gravity, hence we must always consider everyone’s personal timeframe when making scientific observations.  Also, I used to puzzle over a stopped clock in the quad at Cotton House of Rugby School and wondered then (as I still do now) whether a stopped clock is more correct than one that is slightly incorrect in time, i.e. is a clock that is correct fleetingly twice in every 24 hours more accurate than one that is never correct but is always just out? The standard answer is the almost correct clock as it is correct ± a bit, but I think it is probably more important to be right twice in every 24 hours than never accurate.  Finally, I have never forgotten an answer by British Rail (or maybe it was the London Underground, so I ironically did forget some of it!) to the question of why British Rail minutes varied in length, being that British Rail minutes were not about standard time minutes but were estimates related to distance.  Then we measure the distance to stars in light years and not kilometres nor in time, so we are continuously mixing and matching time with distance.

For me, time is real quandary, a hidden framework that shapes our reality, which even now we do not fully understand.  I think it may be the key to reality and how we should conceptualise everything in the universe.  However, we are obsessed by hours, minutes and seconds as a way of diarising meetings and phone calls, rather than seeking to understand time as part of the matrix; time has shape and how we observe reality is modified by time.

We feel and experience time only as one fleeting dimension – the present – however the past is behind us and the future before us, even if as human beings we cannot comprehend these times as dimensions as they do not fit within our sensory model of reality.  We see light, hear sound waves and feel physical objects and energy like heat and the wind, but as for time we do not sense it except as part of the ageing process.  In fact, when we feel something or hear someone talk to us or taste a perfect chicken tikka masala or watch Usain Bolt run the 100 metres, we are sensing a past act, and so at the point of physical sensation, you had actually already touched that object or your friend had finished speaking or that molecule of spice flavour had moved away from your taste receptor and Usain Bolt had finished that muscle movement.  What we call the present is actually history by the time we sense it, however here on earth the impact of that petit morceau of time that we are out by is so miniscule as to be irrelevant; however, you can sense this weirdness by switching on a live football match on Radio 5 Live and then having the match simultaneously on the television in another room, so during the 2010 World Cup I could hear a goal being scored on the digital radio in the kitchen then charge into the TV room and watch the goal about to happen.  I accept the science behind that timing difference is different from what I have been talking about, but I use it to illustrate the weirdness of time as a concept.  Or to use a spatial analogy, I remember once getting a new pair of glasses and walking out of the optician and falling straight off the kerb like a drunk; the glasses had minutely changed my spatial model of reality and the road and the kerb had moved a small bit, yet my body had not had time physically to adjust to this change and the road was not quite where it used to be, so I was made to look the fool; however, the brain is an amazing thing and likes to reassert its model of reality, so within 20 minutes everything was back as it should be and I could walk up steps and jump off chairs without a care in the world. 

However, now look into the night sky, you are looking at the history of the universe, so we are sitting (or standing) in the present, looking at the past and are in the future for those bits of reality sitting in the past.  Doesn’t that mean that there is past, present and future co-existing simultaneously? As many have thought of the universe, so I sometimes imagine time as a sphere, where we sit as a dot on its surface – if you curve around that sphere on a horizontal line, then you have all the present realities, then if you go vertically upwards you move into future time or downwards into the past; however, this model of curved time suggests that future and past are simply directional and that they will meet and travel over each other back to our current position.  Is this a flaw or is that what actually happens?  And how many time dimensions are there – present and/or past and/or future? This is what you must conceptualise when you look into the night sky in the present looking at the past from the past’s future; in the end, we are not wired to visualise this, so it is well nigh impossible to comprehend as we go about our daily lives.  I accept that this view of the universe is not considered credible by current physicists, but maybe it is crazy enough to be possible?  And while it is basically irrelevant to worry about time as a dimension on earth as we live out our lives, it is crucial to an understanding of the universe and stuff that happens in these bigger time frames, so when you think about the distance to the Milky Way’s neighbouring galaxy, Andromeda, as being 2.5 million light years away and spinning at 225 km s-1 at its centre, your timeframe becomes very important as when we see some light it is hugely old already and the positional shape of Andromeda now is completely different by 2.5 million years and the speed of 225 km s-1; a day is a long time in politics and 2.5 million years is much, much longer!  This really is the idea behind Einstein’s thinking on relativity, being you need to consider time when you make observations, collect measurements and then formulate hypotheses about data, or when you make predictions, errors will arise because you have not adjusted for the impact of time, and going back to the previous paragraph, time is personal to whoever (or whatever) is making those observations and their answer will be different from that of another observer.  On earth, while making normal earth-based measurements, the differences have no impact, but at the miniscule scale of particle physics or the mammoth scale of stars and galaxies, time is so totally critical to getting a correct result.

In fact, we are a bit like the character in the Somerset Maughan story (if someone can tell me which story it is that will help as I have forgotten) who during World War 2 receives his newspapers to his remote Malaysian rubber plantation as bundles in the mail once a month, yet rather than go to the most recent date and read backwards, he stoically reads his newspapers in order but out of time and date.  So the information he gleans from the newspapers is old and the politics of the world and progression of World War 2 has evolved by the time he gets his news, so how should he construct his socio-political model of the world.  In fact, without current information can he construct a valid model for the world?  The answer is no, but because he lives remotely without any other observer to dissuade him of his way of modelling his life, he can continue unchanged even to the point of dressing formally for dinner to eat on his own a British meal.  How destructive instant communication is to those obdurate models of how to live and how frightened regimes like those in Burma and North Korea must be of information that can show citizens an alternative model for living?

So when you observe something a great distance away the actual time of that initial event must be considered, so time starts to impact your results and data, i.e. the light that you measure from Proxima Centauri is 4.2 years old or 3.97 x 1013 km away (39,700,000,000,000 km).  Now that would be fine if everything were static and nothing moved or changed, but the universe is supposedly expanding, earth is spinning on its axis and around the sun and our solar system is spinning around the galactic centre of the Milky Way completing a full turn every 225 – 250 million years, which in turn is moving through the universe towards the Great Attractor; in fact, it means that the Milky Way is moving at 600 km s-1 and so on earth we are moving at 51.8 million kilometres every day, which is not bad exercise for those of us, who just sit all day at a computer screen.  So you cannot just ignore time, or the shape of time; but I still remain unsure as to what time really is all about.

Going back to British Rail’s idea of time, time is not really about standard “diary” time, but is perhaps about relative time between observers and observation points, while absolute time relates to the period of time from the start of the universe, i.e. big bang to the edge of reality, and continues to progress as more time is created every moment and so absolute time moves out from the creation point endlessly.  However, at some point, the universe might collapse back in on itself, so would time then move the other direction and regress or at least progress in the opposite direction and would it then flow backwards (or become the new forwards)? I doubt this would mean that reality would wind itself backwards like an old movie reel, but rather the direction of time’s flow would be switched around.  Reality is fractal, so any change in direction would simply create a new fractal reality, rather than everyone walking backwards and growing young again, however amusing that might be.  Does this mean, however, that time is not absolute but totally relative and will go faster or slower, depending on the speed of expansion of a particular part of the universe, and did it grow more quickly at the start of the universe then become constant and perhaps will one day slow down to zero then switch directions?  In fact, as you reach a black hole, you would appear to slow down in terms of time from the point of view of an external observer on earth until you became frozen in time even though (from your perspective) time continues at its normal pace, i.e. relative time is different for you and your observer.

As an aside, the speed of light, c,  is used to fix time and so is the crucial constant, acting as the upper limit for energy, but why is it fixed at 299,792,458 m s-1, i.e. it is fixed but why is not quicker or slower?  Perhaps, it is fixed by the speed of expansion of the universe at its initial burst from big bang or the current rate of expansion of the universe, i.e. light cannot go quicker than time itself is made and the upper limit is set by the rate of expansion of universe.  However, as speed is a function of distance and time, if the rate of creation of time changes then for c to remain constant the distance travelled must also change to ensure that the distance travelled per unit of time remains unchanged, so would the speed of light appear from an external observer’s perspective to fluctuate?

But this is all just conjecture and frivolous play rather than science, you say.  I agree, but then I do not have a budget or the skill to use the Large Hadron Collider, so I shall live in my imaginary universe; it is far cheaper and involves venison casserole followed by chocolate rice pudding later, made by my own hands.

Let me go back to the idea of time; it niggles at my brain like the dog that did not bark in Sherlock Holmes’ “The Silver Blaze”.  What if scientists are wrong about time? What if there is more than one dimension to time? What if time is not about standard time but is really a function of the flexibility or at least rate of expansion of the universe, or our reality model?  How must we think about time when constructing a model for the universe?  Did Einstein get it all correct or are we really still building our models of the universe like one of those beautiful brass mechanical models that showed the solar system using Ptolomaic model?

So what is the shape of time.  The general shape of time is perhaps what is being measured by the double slit experiment, which is one of the most elegant experiments of all time.  And while it was originally done by Thomas Young in 1803 with light and later brought into the quantum age by Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer in 1927 with an electron beam, it remains one of the most puzzling experiments of all time and opened up the Alice-like world of quantum mechanics.  These types of experiment allow light, or a slow moving electron beam or indeed any small particle under the right conditions, to pass through a slit in a barrier and then an observation screen is placed a distance away where you can observe the patterns created by the light, or electron beam, as it impacts the screen.  When there is only a single slit open, it merely impacts the screen with greater intensity at the centre and then fades as you move away from the centre.  Now if you place two slits between the light or electron beam source and observe the pattern produced, you get a pattern of light and dark or higher and lower intensity.  Finally, if you fire individual electrons or photons at the screen rather than a continuous stream, you still get this pattern of light & dark/higher & lower intensity.  This is explained by the concept that light is a wave and that you are seeing the classic interference pattern of two waves as they meet and become more intense where they are in phase and less intense and cancel each other out where they are out of phase.  But what of the individual electron/photon and why does an individual particle act as a complete wave as if it were a constant stream of particles or a wave?

While most scientists explain the experiment by stating that photons, electrons etc act as a wave under quantum mechanics and even a bucky ball of carbon can under the right conditions act as a wave, for me the experiment provides a glimpse of the shape of time.  The future is a wave, which seems sensible as all things are possible in the future.  Hence, to return to my piece of string from my previous blog, you can imagine all things being all probabilities on that piece of string from 0 through to 1 and then this rolls forward forever into the future creating the shape of a wave.  However, this does not answer everything, for example why don’t all things behave in a quantum manner?

When I like Archimedes lie in the bath, I can look at the taps; if I close my eyes and then reopen them, they are still there, then if I close them for longer the taps are still there unchanged; if I close my eyes really tightly shut, then quickly reopen them, the taps are still there.  If I get out of the bath, get dressed, go for a walk and then come back, the taps look and feel the same.  Nor can I speed the taps up to such a great speed that they become like waves and become quantum objects. But why not?  If quantum mechanics is to unify everything, then it should be able to answer that question as well as predict the existence of baryons, mesons and the colours of quarks, all stuff from an imaginary Alice in Wonderland world of complex maths and strange realities.  Does everything need to be blasted at energies equivalent to 7 teraelectronvolts per proton to become real?

So why do objects persist and for that matter why don’t monkeys write Shakespeare and why don’t atoms zap off from my bath taps and zoom around the universe, but they stay put inside my tap or in my delicious cooking apples?  The physicists answer would be that they might do all these things, but it is down to probabilities and you need to consider every possible position for those quarks, neutrinos, electrons and atoms in the universe, draw some Feynman diagrams and you will come up with the most probable position for those atoms, which hopefully are in and around my taps and apples rather than in the Small Magellanic Cloud.  Now for me, that sounds like a lot of hard work, a bit elitist, as well as a slight cop out, i.e. we don’t know, but it’s a really hard sum that you would never, ever be able to understand!

I feel that something is missing in this analysis.  It has perplexed me for ages, but I think one of the keys is how we view time.  Objects like my tap and my apples have form, a history; they have a past and this impacts the future of those objects.  So in the future the tap will still be a tap and the apple will remain an apple until I eat it and then it will be chewed and broken down into useful molecules for my body to process, or be excreted and then go through the cycle of life again.  Time is more than just the future.  I call this latency, or maybe it should simply be called the past.

So time has more than just the one dimension of forwards/ the future/ progression, and there is a trace at least of the past.  I think it is more than a trace and that time has at least three dimensions of past, present and future, but (and this is key) time is not about standard time – that is a misnomer even if it is how we measure it.  Time is a measure of something else in the universe, rather than the answer itself, a symptom and not the illness.  The past acts like a drogue on the future, determining what happens in the present, so you must modify your understanding of reality to take into accounts these three dimensions of time.

Let me go back to time and how to conceive of it.  Imagine the universe is a balloon and you blow air into it.  As it expands, it stretches.  Now there is physical shape to it and it is expanding just like the universe.  Also, different points expand at different rates, so those further away expand more quickly and appear to be accelerating just like the universe.  That is a pretty standard way of thinking about the universe.  But there is something else happening – as you blow air into the balloon it stretches outwards and there is pressure that forces the balloon to expand outwards, but there is also resistance in the balloon that is trying to pull the rubber back in on itself bringing it to its starting position as an un-inflated piece of rubber.  Now tie an end onto the balloon and get a marker pen – draw a dot on it, that is us and then draw a line around the circumference horizontally.  That line is the present.  Draw a line upwards, that is the future and downwards for the past.  These appear to be directions, but that is not what I am thinking about; think of the forces that are acting – on the present line everything is experiencing an equal force, but there is a forwards force from the pressure of the air that is trying to push us upwards, while there is a downwards force that wants us to return to our starting position.  So it is with time – as the universe expands, it forces us forwards, but we also have a force that is pulling us backwards, yet while the universe grows that expansion force is the stronger, but the regressive force is still there and it determines what happens to us in the future.  Time is like these forces, i.e. a result of the air blown into the balloon rather than the energy source from the air actually being blown in, and so like British Rail it is really about distance from the start rather than a concept of seconds, minutes, hours, days and aeons.  Perhaps, that is how to conceive of dark energy – we are on the edge of a balloon shaped time bubble and the dark energy is simply the air and energy generated inside the balloon or bubble that we cannot see because we are on the outside of the shape itself?

In fact, taking a step back, the Ptomalaic view of the universe is perhaps correct as reality is a bubble of time that emanates from us, the observer, to the beginning of time and back to us.  It is like we are walking backwards into the future and looking around us to a snapshot across time, with time encircling us, with each of us at the centre of our own bubbles of reality.  Because remember what we are looking at has already been and is not how the universe looks now, so the edge of time measured at 13.7 billion years is in fact half the answer as it will have expanded at least another 13.7 billion light years by now, which is comforting to know as it would be a little bit tedious if it was now collapsing in on us and time had stopped.  In fact, time is created quicker than we observe it, so we age relative to the universe rather than stay forever young like Dorian Grey.

Returning to the double-slit experiment, the future is a wave of probabilities.  This effectively is a truism stating that until something is known and becomes fixed in time it is unknown and unknown things that are fractal like time can be anything.  However, when an event is observed, it becomes fixed in time and cannot change.  Similarly, the past can be seen as being a wave pattern, because the possibilities are fractal and so anything is possible.  However, I do not fully accept that model, as it is simply saying we do not know what happened in the past, so we must assume everything is possible until we can observe otherwise, but that does not mean my taps were not in my bath when I was not observing them nor does it mean that when my granny, Nora Steenberg, went for a walk on (say) 18th April 1953 things were not where they should be for her reality even though she did not observe everything around her and note down the data.  In fact, the past is different from the future as you could theoretically walk a set of data points from the present all the way back to my granny’s walk in the garden, so long as you now the starting point, but you could not walk forward from the present as the future is not yet real.  Things exist, stuff happens and all without the need for complex math.

For me, I visualise time as follows.  The future is a multidimensional wave; the further away time is in the future the bigger the waves and the greater the potential for anything to happen, so an electron could be anywhere in the universe in 100 million years while anything could happen to Proxima Centauri and any planets, exoplanets or comets around it over the next 3 billion years.  However, as something gets closer to the present and so closer to becoming fixed in time, the waves become shallower and fluctuate more, until they become a fixed point travelling in the past.  So the future is a wave, where those waves become shallower the closer you get to the present, with the past being a line of points of immovable data points.  Think of it like a piece of string stretching into the distance and attach it to a wall (although for time it would be attached to no wall and would move freely); you waggle the string until it starts to form a wave and imagine the waves are the future.  Now, get a large funnel and have the wide open end pointing towards the end attached to the wall and have some dangling onto the ground behind you, noting that it needs to be a snug fit in the long tube bit.  Start waggling again, then start moving forwards and have someone behind gently pulling the string through; the future is the wave pattern and this gets smaller with a quicker phase and the past is the line of string that just waggles a bit limply behind you on the ground.

The past acts as a break and pulls the future into a shape for your reality, so my taps do not suffer from randomly zooming off atoms and monkeys do not write Shakespearean sonnets or King Lear.  The future takes it shape from the past and while anything is possible in the distant future what happens in the near future is largely determined by the cards dealt it by the past.

But why does the past act on the future?  And why does the future have more of an impact on electrons than taps and apples? Perhaps it is a result of how the shape of space-time is affected by matter?

Perhaps we could rethink reality and reconstruct our model for the universe to incorporate time even more intrinsically than at present.  Think of it like this – imagine you want to create the shape of an object in 3D space, but you only have a cross-sectional slice that is 1 cell thick all the way across and of a slice that is ⅓ from the end of the shape and sliced at a 30o angle upwards; now imagine that object is an apple and you are positioned in one of the cells in the middle of the slice; would you be able to recreate the shape of the apple and explain what it was? Alternatively, consider the Mona Lisa, but imagine that you are placed somewhere within a slice that is 1 μm thick through the vertical strut of the wooden frame – could you reconstruct the shape and elemental structure of the Mona Lisa, and even if you were able to, would it be possible ever to recreate the face, piercing eyes and mesmerizing smile from your position within the structure itself?  So not only would it be unlikely that you could determine the shape of the painting, but you would never get the point of it as you would never see the painting from the outside.  It is as if you are on the comma on page 1006 of my copy of The Complete Works Of Shakespeare at the end of the line “Is this a dagger which I see before me?”[it does not end there] and trying not only to construct the physical shape of the book, but also learn all the lines and give me the meaning; I still do not understand much of what Shakespeare wrote and I can see the words, read the text, watch the play and be explained the meaning of the text through numerous critiques of his repertoire.  And we seek to explain the universe.

Now there is a tricky problem – how to see what you cannot see?  It is a bit like my apple thought experiment where you were focused on the chopping board and there were no apples on the board, but I asked you to count all the apples in the universe and everything still remains off your mental camera shot.  Tricky and perhaps when you sit in the experimental field itself it is actually impossible at times to see what is around you, since you need to have a different sense of perspective and as for a stereogram you need to be outside the picture and must squint your vision to see new pictures pop out of the 2D image, and, even then, some people just can never perceive those hidden pictures; could you ever see the hidden picture inside the pattern if you existed inside the picture itself?

That is really hard to do, but now try and reconstruct the shape from a time morphed map of these objects.  Imagine for each millimetre you move in a radius outwards from your starting point, you need to position each atom where it would be 500 years ago in time.  When you have plotted each of those positions, you must now need to look at it and work out what the shape of the original object is, plus what laws govern it and what its meaning is.  No way!

Now, let us move on to think about scale.  I always think of how reality changes when you examine that simple geography question – how long is the coastline of Great Britain?  The answer you were meant to give at school was 11,000 miles, but it really depends on the scale you are looking at it – so at the atomic scale it goes on forever while at the molecular scale it goes on for a long time, then at the human scale it is 11,073 miles, while at the universal scale it is but a mere pinprick.  It is much the same with the core fundamental theories of physics – Newton’s law of gravity works at a human scale, while Einstein’s theory of gravity works for quantum field theory.

So what if time has a much more complex structure than we think.  What if it works in reverse to how we see shape – so at small scales of shape it is effectively one dimensional and can be ignored but as you scale up it becomes like looking at a complex world of atoms and quarks.  Because when we look into the night sky we are actually looking at a slice of time relative to us and not really a physical shape.  Think about it – when we think of mass acting on us we need to consider where those objects are, however when you look into space you are seeing the universe as it has been, so to actually get how an object is acting on you, you must adjust its position to where it currently would be rather than where you can observe it now, which is actually in its past.

Maybe that is the problem – we have a spatial model for rationalising reality, so we are trying to force all our observations into that model, however we occupy a slice through time and not through space, so must adjust our observations to fit that world.  Like Newtonian mechanics, it works within its scale frame, but not at small scales and not at larger scales, while Einsteinian theories of relativity appear to work for all of these scales.  But perhaps even Einstein did not go far enough with how he visualised time impacting our space and instead we should think about how space impacts the structure of time.

Which brings me on to what is reality, or at least what is it that we are experiencing? And can we unify all theories of physics with some simple geometric ideas?  I am sure I will be knocked down here for attempting to interpret how we think of the universe, but let’s just go for it and wait for my bubble to be burst.  In effect, I am simply trying to interpret the maths that others have calculated but do not necessarily appear to understand why it works just that it does, however in trying to think it through I seem to have redefined the observable universe slightly as “time & space” rather than “space-time” (note the order of the words as that is key) and, where scaling up or down, to use time as the scale rather than a spatial scale.  I am not sure whether that is what is meant by the maths nor if this is right or wrong or changes the way the maths can be looked at, but it works in my head, and may shed some light on what might perhaps be happening.  Here goes:

  1. Firstly, when you look and observe perhaps you are not actually looking at physical shape per se.  When you look into the night sky or out at the world, you are not looking at a three dimensional spatial universe, but into time, where time emanates from the beginning of time to you as the observer, i.e. it is past time.
  2. Secondly, each person, each being and each observer (animate or inanimate) views a different set of time that is unique to that observer.
  3. Thirdly, past time is continuously being created and pushed out further as future time is converted into past time.  This constant creation of new time extends the observable universe continuously outwards, or further away in time.
  4. Fourth, the impact of time relative to space becomes stronger over longer time distances.
  5. Fifth, mass creates three-dimensional space (and vice versa, perhaps).  Three-dimensional space is relatively weak compared to time, reducing in strength the further from mass it is and collapsing in on itself without mass being present.  Hence, each point of mass has space attached to it, which impacts and works on other fields of space attached to other points of mass, and these can accumulate and build up to build larger shapes of three-dimensional space.
  6. Sixth, three-dimensional space operates like fields that are not destroyed but become weaker over longer time distances.
  7. Seventh, as time is foreshortened and/or energy is increased, the observer’s field of vision shifts to the present, and then in theory would turn around further and for massless energy shift to the future, i.e. an imaginary speed greater than the speed of light.
  8. Eighth, each time dimension has spatial dimensions attached to it depending on the levels of mass involved, so in past time there are the three dimensions that we expect, and in the present (at high energies, i.e. close to speeds of the speed of light), there are, also, perhaps three space dimensions, while in the future perhaps there are no space dimensions and no limit to the dimensions of time.
  9. Ninth, past time is linear but for the present and future these may become multi-dimensional fields, i.e. a line for the present and then wave functions expressed over greater degrees of freedom.
  10. Tenth, it is, therefore, not possible to determine the real physical shape of the universe as we can see only it as time through the lens of our three dimensional space.
  11. Finally, all mass, energy and force can be explained through geometry and time and the interaction between these multidimensional shapes and time.

Philosophically, can this explain the universe and marry up with the maths and experimental evidence?

Take the human scale, the key physical theories are Newton’s theories and Einstein’s theories of relativity.  This explanation of our time-space envisages that when we observe we are looking at time through a lens of space giving us a universe that over the small scale of solar systems is a three-dimensional shape that is impacted slightly by time, so per Newton you can largely (but not totally) ignore the time effect on the spatial force fields in our solar system.  The shape of the solar system is determined by the mass of the sun, modified by the mass of the planets, moons, asteroids and other matter including living species and atoms.  However, distant stars and planets have limited physical three-dimensional shape and so appear flat and have little spatial force effect on our solar system.  In the space beyond our solar system, three dimensional space will effectively collapse to almost nothing as the impact of mass reduces, but as waves of spatial force flow through or mass energy shoots through the apparent void space could appear to spontaneously jitter into being; if other mass is around that momentary quantum jitter, more mass might accrete to the initial piece of mass within the small momentary piece of three dimensional space, so stars, galaxies and planets can begin to form.  The impact of time is per Einstein and you need to take into account that time moves and that each observers’ timeframe is unique.  As such, while time always impacts mass and three dimensional space, it only becomes apparent and needs adjusting for over larger distances or higher energies, i.e. time is the overarching shape that creates our universes but over short timeframes, mass and space dominate as the observable frame but you need always to consider and potentially adjust for the effect of time.  This is gravity, i.e. gravity is a force deriving from the interaction between three-dimensional spatial fields, and relativity, i.e. time derives from the observer and when you have more than one observer you need to consider the relative impact of time on what each observer is seeing.  So this idea does not deny these exist per scientific theory, just that I seem to see it from a different angle, i.e. time first, space second, which is against our cultural view of the structure of reality where we see space coming first and time coming second as an adjustment per special relativity.

Other issues include how many dimensions are there and what is mass.  I will try and address these here.

The question of how many dimensions are there has been puzzling physicists for some time, partly as extra dimensions are very hard to conceive, but they are needed to help quantum field theory to explain the standard model of the physical world.  From my proposal, there are really only two sets of functions – time and space.  Time can be past, present and future, where we see the past in our daily vision of reality, but can only witness the present in rare occasions and never observe the future.  Then I propose that within each set of time, you get its own dimensional shape dependent on there being mass, as intuitively there can be no more than three dimensions in our past time but maybe more in the present.  So in the future where there is no mass, you will get no three dimensional space but also the shape of the time changes to never ending multidimensional fields of probability stretching forever and twisting and turning into every possibility, i.e. it has a new shape that differs from the past.  The present is something very unique and precious that we do not normally see in our daily lives as we are always slightly out of time, but this is what I think you are seeing when scientists get close to the speed of light and very large energies and is where the future gets pulled through into the past.  At the Large Hadron Collider, observers are looking into the present and hence witness reality coming into effect and so get some weird effects.  To see into the future, you need to go faster than the speed of light and effectively be massless energy.  So by saying that time has three distinct phases you can change the number of space dimensions to be different in each stretch of time and increase without any issue the number of dimensions that scientists are seeing and calculating, but how many there are and what they are can only be determined experimentally.

Now for some maths, although I can only hint at it as I am not a mathematician, but having thought about the universe, I suspect current maths is perhaps hinting at these thoughts and if not could be rationalised to take these thought experiments into account.  Also, it is difficult to explain in words about multidimensional shapes, however in pure maths you can show this and perhaps that is what quantum field theory really means.

For example, David Toms at Newcastle University has determined the renormalization group function for the running electric charge in quantum electrodynamics as (Toms, D (2010) Quantum gravitational contributions to quantum electrodynamics, Nature, 4  November 2010, Vol 468, p 56 – 59):

β (E, e) =   e3    –   k2(E2 + 3  Λ)e
                    12π2     32π2      2            

This equation means that while the electric charge increases as energy increases per the first term on the right hand side, but in the presence of no or a small value for gravity, Λ, the second term is negative and prevents the electric charge continuously increasing in energy and results in it falling to zero as gravity increases.

However beautiful these mathematical equations are, they still do not answer my original question of why do these forces occur or what is matter, or how did the universe begin and what are we seeing?  They beautifully describe mathematical patterns of how to predict results in quantum force fields and particle physics, but they do not bridge that gap of understanding from the complex maths to explaining to the world what is happening, so for example Newton invented his version of differential equations to explain gravity and we all understand gravity even if the math is beyond us; similarly, Einstein was able to explain a complex concept without detailed math.  Somehow, current quantum theory misses this simple idea and I worry that its sheer complexity hides the fact that something is missing, some piece of the jigsaw or at least that piece that opens up further understanding.

Now, I confess to being befuddled by the maths and I cannot give an answer as to how to unify all these forces.  But I do notice something that unites them all; all modern physics is about shapes, albeit very complex shapes.  It is about fields and symmetry, even though these include fields with infinite degrees of freedom and supersymmetry.  So I propose that you can explain all of the structure of the universe and reality through understanding how time and space are constructed around everything and how these shapes interact with each other.  If this is so, then what could the universe be like?

Imagine that the forces are simply the result of shapes and time interacting, so for example the weak nuclear force might just be the result of the three dimensional shapes caused by different particles interacting with each other just like gravity, so a weak force that weakens in strength with distance, with varying strengths between particles due to the different shape of the fields around each particle type.  Perhaps, the electrodynamic force is created by this three dimensional shape spinning around certain particles, so different directions of spin cause different charges, while a mixture of the different speeds of spin and shapes of the three dimensional space actually arcing around the particle results in different strengths of charge, shifting electrons up and down energy levels; once again the strength of the electrodynamic force falls with distance between particles as the three dimensional shape around the particles reduces with distance.  These forces are then connected to gravity via a scale change, as gravity is the result of the sum of all these individual small spaces around each individual mass creating a field of gravity that is built around the whole body of mass, so the strength of the force falls with distances.  Note the consequence of this is that if gravity can reduce the electrodynamic force then so ought the weak nuclear force, which perhaps is why the weak nuclear force is weak as were it stronger than the electrodynamic force, then there would be no electrodynamic force and so no chemistry or biology or life.   The strong force is more complex and results perhaps from the impact of time on each particle and its shape, so using my analogy from earlier of a piece of string being time – imagine two particles connected by a piece of string, then as the two particles get closer together the string becomes limp and so it weakens as the particles get closer together, but then as you pull them further apart the strength of the force gets stronger until it effectively no longer changes (until at some point it snaps releasing energy?).

So imagine the beginning of time, we might get the following pattern.  At T=-1, there is no mass so the universe has no shape.  At T=0, mass comes into being and space is created around the original body of mass. At T=1, you have one particle of mass and one unit of time, so there are no forces, as while you have space and time, there is nothing for these to interact with.  At T=2, you have two particles of mass and two units of time, so you have strong physical attraction between the two particles due to the weak nuclear force and gravity resulting from three dimensional shape, which at this stage are the same, but you have no electrodynamic force as gravity is too strong preventing space from spinning and the strong force is relatively weak as both particles of mass are close together.  At T=3, you have four particles of mass, and the weak nuclear force and gravity are still strong due to the high density of these mass particles but weakening as these points of mass become further apart, while the electrodynamic force is beginning to want to start spinning but is not yet able to.  At some point, however, after creation, you reach a point where the weak force and gravity are weak enough to enable mass to be separated and the electrodynamic force can start being formed.

Then perhaps supersymmetry and high forms of dimensions as used by mathematicians and physicists to explain what they are doing are simply time and space folding up into (semi) stable spinning shapes that can persist on their own or more usually only when interacting with each other.  So perhaps bosons, leptons and quarks are simply symmetrical foldings of time and space that are unstable unless together, so you would need to derive several unstable symmetries in the math that when you brought together would cancel out each others’ instability (accepting that I postulated earlier that forces are the interactions between time and space rather than from particles called bosons).  So what is matter?  It might simply be time and space folding up into stable symmetries, i.e. it is the symmetries and dimensions that are important in themselves rather than being a mathematical nicety (or complexity).  Then, antimatter and dark matter might be alternative symmetries that are less stable, where antimatter can be made stable in certain conditions, while dark matter might be all the unstable symmetries that come into existence but collapse into spaceless/shapeless/matterless time-space, i.e. I suppose flat, dimensionless “3 dimensional” space – the stuff that is everywhere but has no physicality.

So time is more important really than space and has a bigger impact on reality than space.  Time works over long distances while space works over shorter distances.  Space is formed by mass and becomes “shapeless” without mass, while conversely space can create mass.  Matter is caused by space and time folding into stable symmetries, either on its own or in interaction with other semi stable symmetrical shapes; dark matter is space and time that forms in unstable symmetries and so collapse in on itself into shapeless “flat” space.  Forces are caused by the interaction of space-space, space-time and time-time, taking into account shapes and spin.  There is more than one time dimension and we see time through a lens of space, and each time reality is unique to an individual observer.  We observe time not space, in fact we observe past time only (walking backwards into the future).  Evereything is possible in the future while the present is forced into being by the latency of the past. 

Finally, I can understand why maths is so key to this, as trying to explain this in words is well nigh impossible, so perhaps I need to get out some books in complex maths and get thinking, however I am not sure that current maths can quite meet the challenge and someone with more numerical ability will need to invent a way of describing reality, but it needs to be explainable to us ordinary folk.  So I leave the world of cosmology to those wiser than me, which is nearly everyone else in the world.

Axel’s Universe, And Some Thoughts On The Universe, Creation, Apples And Bits Of String

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

Having re-thought the origin of species, I became ridiculously ambitious and decided to really go for it and started to tackle Life, The Universe and Everything…

I have come back to science after many years of ignoring it.  At the end of university, it just became something I could not wait to leave behind; it had become a rigid discipline that no longer held any joy.  However, I have continued to relish the heart of science – to wonder at the beauty of the wisteria as it flowers every year outside my back door and the snowdrops and daffodils as they poke out there noses from the hard ground in springtime.  These continue to give me a juvenile sense of frivolous delight and I wonder at the world.  Then on clear dark nights, I look into the heavens and see pinpricks of light and think about planets, stars and the universe and whether there is something out there and what am I actually looking at? 

Science is not just about data, calculations and formulae, but a delight in learning, in having those fleeting glimpses of understanding and the continued amazement in things – for example, while I understand the physics behind flight and density, I still shake my head in amazement when I see an aeroplane fly or a metal ship float on the high seas.  For me, science is not about answers, but about questions and more questions, then again about maybe just one more little question.  For me, there can never be an answer to everything nor the perfect universal equation, but only ever more whys, hows; forever to wonder.

So I have to apologise now for my thoughts as they contain no theories, no experiments, no maths, but are simply random musings, thought experiments, or perhaps even the ramblings of a madman.  Per my blog on evolution, I have written it in the personal form to distinguish it from real science, but perhaps some may find a kernel of reality in it.  These thoughts hold none of the discipline of true scientific thought and maybe are pure and simple nonsense that have been synthesised mistakenly in my mind from lingering memories of interesting and unusual pieces of science mixed in with some misread and misunderstood factoids.  Yet I have been puzzled by ideas of cosmology since my school years and have turned these over like precious stones ever since for over 30 years now.  Every so often, I pick up these gemstones delicately as they are important to me, turn them over, look at them again and put them down like curiosities.  They are like museum exhibits that you know are important but cannot fit them into any overall picture.  Well, I still cannot build them into any masterpiece that will explain the universe to me (or anyone else for that matter), but as they remain perplexing to me and seem to answer some niggles, I thought I would share them.

My journey begins with numbers and mathematics.  I have never been especially good at maths, but have always liked playing with numbers.  However, I struggled with higher maths, which has held back a lifelong fascination with physics, especially quantum physics and cosmology, as my mathematical skills never matched my inquisitiveness.

Numbers are symbols, a human artificial construct.  They make life easier.  So for example, we learn from early age what 0, 1, 2, 3 and so on are and perhaps marvel at a series like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 etc. However, they are not necessarily complete and do not explain the world as it is, but rather serve to simplify the world around us into an easy and recognisable, universal symbolic language full of neat patterns and models.  But what if numbers are just what I have said pure artifice? A model, a methodology, that acts as the powerful lens through which we try and understand the universe, but nevertheless an artificial set of rules that is simple, communicable and versatile, yet still a human built, and a rather too convenient, model.  The teachers’ answer was always numbers are fundamental and pure, so just accept and get on with it.

Let me explain.  Imagine a chopping board.  Now looking at the chopping board, how many apples are there? None.  Now, place an apple on the board; how many apples are there? One.  Next, add another to give two, and another to give three.  Let us then assume that the universal apple has a mass of 100g, but we had here one apple of 95g, another of 110g and the final one at 103g; now how many apples are there on the board – 3 or 3.08 apples?  Next, take away the apples and ask yourself the question again – how many apples are there?  Is the answer now zero, three or infinity (a number equating to all the apples in the universe that we cannot necessarily see but know to exist in the past, present and future).  Well, it depends on how you look at the question, i.e. is it what you can see on the board, or in your mental kitchen, or the universe throughout time?  That is the crux of the scientific method – setting a framework to test a theory and collecting data within that experimental framework, but what if everything that is interesting was just off screen – like dark matter?  Finally, return the apples to the board and chop one in half and another into quarters and leave one alone; are there one, three or infinity apples?  So numbers simplify how we look at the apples, but they do not give us all the answers, and I really do not know the answer to that final question.  And where would we be as humans before we saw the first apples; would any apples have then existed?

Luckily, life is much simpler and we can make assumptions, since we can live very happily with the idea of there being as many apples as we see at any time within our own personal space, and who actually cares anyway whether there are more or less apples in existence.  Finally, those apples tasted really sweet as I picked them from our garden and, in my opinion, are far better than pears unless poached in red wine or saffron.  So we can make assumptions about life and get by really well without needing to know how many apples, pears or oranges there are now, have been or will be.

But perhaps our numbers are not always correct and as natural as we think them, as there are universal constants like π at 3.1416 and e at 2.7183, which would have been much simpler had they been round numbers that were easier to manipulate.  Also, numbers and constants change – feet and inches morph into metres and centimetres, while grams can be ounces or even cups and these change depending on which side of the Atlantic you live.  Even how we do maths changes and it was not until people started using base 10 that numbers became simpler to manipulate, resulting in a blossoming in theoretical maths.  Even without the ideas of relativity, time changes depending on where you live and what watch you are wearing and I, who do not wear a watch, have my own personal timescale which is particularly random and dependent on a car clock that is out of time by 22 minutes and widening!  So what is Axel’s time?

Then there are imaginary numbers that even characters in Alice in Wonderland would wonder at.  Yet √-1, complex numbers and other imaginary numbers are very real as they form the basis of semiconductors, digital communications and fluid dynamics inter alia, yet we cannot comprehend them and just must dream them.  So not all maths is touchable and pure.

So where does that leave us.  It leaves me perplexed and vexed.

Next, you have the theories of physics, the absolutes.  At school, I learnt of Newtonian mechanics and gravity, of apples that fall to the ground.  However, we then moved on to Einstein, only to discover that gravity does not exist, rather that mass distorts space-time and this deformation results in something we perceive as gravity.  However, we continue to talk and think of gravity, as well as to experience it day in-day out with windfall apples still falling to the ground and no visible sign of space-time becoming deformed in my back garden.  Einstein’s concepts of general relativity enable us to predict everything from big bang to black holes, as well as the expansion of the universe.  But Einstein also predicted dark energy that is pushing space apart, something which no-one has found, and nor does general relativity square up with gravity.  Have we, therefore, found the limit of Einstein’s laws of physics in much the same way that Newtonian physics ran out of gas and (going back a few paragraphs) is c really a constant at 299,792,458 m s-1 or can it change and flex in different parts of the universe or at different times in the development of our universe, and would it be the same in another universe or is it unique to where we exist?

For me, physics and my lack of maths throws up even more questions, but perhaps it can also free me up to think outside of a number system and speculate without the shackles of the scientific straightjacket and perhaps, to disagree with Stephen Hawking, philosophy is not quite dead and people outside of the scientific community can still be allowed to think: How did the universe start? Will the universe end? Is there a way to unify all basic theories of physics? Is light a wave or a particle? What is dark matter?

So I wander further in my mindscape and consider whether our numerical system is flawed.  Sometimes I think that perhaps numbers can be stretched and are flexible so perhaps you could have an imaginary thin 1, a fatter 1 and a high pitched or low pitched 1 and the same with 2, 3 and so on.  That would really cause issues for mathematicians and physicists, but would be a dream for accountants and investment bankers who would jump up and down with joy to know that the universal fudge factor was a real mathematical truth.  Perhaps that answers the question with my apples; each apple is a unit of 1 but that unit can be stretched and contracted, so it actually forms a bell curve around a mean and not just from a statistical perspective but in real universal laws?  How much havoc would that cause if numbers were not natural, unbending and stable but stretchy and creative rather than pure, simple and immutable, but imagine the impact that could have on almost all scientific theory, where the idea of standard deviation was not an error factor but simply a measure of stretchiness?  Perhaps, complex numbers hint that the universe is really a much more difficult question than we have the willingness to believe.

More importantly, I also think about nothing and I mean really nothing. We are taught that 0=0, 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, but what if this could be turned on its head?  Let us think about zero or nothing; these were concepts introduced into maths in ancient India and the Mayan kingdom, but are they real or simply an accounting tool and a mathematical convenience?  Let us think further about the two key numbers, zero and one.  Imagine that 0=1 rather than 0=0 and 1=1.  Why are these the two key numbers? Well, zero is where something does not exist and one encompasses all of something, e.g. every apple in the world (or universe), then all maths does is divide up the units between zero and one and call these numbers.

You can visualise this idea in a thought experiment: take a piece of string: at one end is 0 and the other is 1 and all the way between 0 and 1 are varying degrees of probability or improbability or points between 0 and 1 and so your number scale; now take the piece of string and curve it around so that you have a perfect circle with the 0 touching the 1; imagine they reform into a circle so that on one side of the join you have 0+∞ and on the other 1-∞ (where ∞ is an infinitesimally small amount); what is the number at the point where they touch? For me, I cannot get it out of my head that 0 and 1 must meld together, i.e. 0=1.  So there you have it, the start of the universe without complex maths, just a piece of string and some imagination.  Now this seems nonsense, but no more ridiculous than the √-1.

What would be the reality or consequence of this?  For most of us, not much in the same way as in our apple experiment when we have zero apples; we just buy some more or pick some from the tree, or simply do not care.  But for reality and the universe, perhaps it can answer some questions.  And going back to my thought experiment with the chopping board, you did not have no apples, but really just no visible apples within your observation matrix and apples still exist, i.e. it was not a case of zero, nothing, nada, but just not any in that place.  Therefore, zero, i.e. zero apples, is no more than an accounting convention, i.e. not any apples within my kitchen or personal inventory, rather than there being no apples at all. 

Whereas, at the beginning of the universe, there was nothing and I mean absolutely nothing.  As there was really absolutely completely nothing, you would be at that cusp point and immediately numbers would collapse and zero would really equal one, so at that point of absolute nothingness everything is created.  Think of it reverse, hold out your arms and collect all the mass, energy and dark energy and matter in the universe and bring it into the palm of your hand; now roll it into a ball and squeeze it tight to the size of a table tennis ball – it is a tad heavy but you can do it; now squash it even more down to the size of a water molecule, then an atom – it is really heavy now and quite unpredictable but squeeze even harder until you are at 0+∞mm in diameter.  What happens if you squish it down even more until it is nothing?  Where has all that mass and energy gone?  Are you a magician and it has gone forever or as I have predicted at absolute zero or nothingness everything is created, all matter, all energy, absolutely everything and it blossoms out as a big bang.  So there is no need for any external creators, no need for any complex higher physics, just simple number collapse.  I know that for superinflation to occur you might need a big bounce rather than a big bang, but I am talking about the ur-creation, the original start.  So there is no need for external creators, no external god question of who created god, just a simple fact, nothing simply does not exist, so immediately there must be everything.

Another question, then – what happens in the cosmic web in areas of empty space?  Are there parts of this emptiness that are actually voids and areas or pinpricks of absolute nothingness – if so, then whole new universes could bud out in these regions creating multi-verses.  Or perhaps areas of emptiness oscillate between 0 (pure absolute nothingness) and 1 (existence of everything), creating points that perhaps generate fleeting, massive amounts or smaller quantities of energy and matter (new universes ) that can push apart our universe like wedges driven into rock, but perhaps most of these new universes collapse under their own mass right back down to zero giving the appearance of a void again; effectively rocking from 0 to 1 at the number cusp point, yet still seeming to be nothingness from our position as an external viewer, because we can never see a new universe from where we are watching, nor can we see nearly nothing because we are not wired that way.

To find dark energy, therefore, maybe we should look for nothing rather than something?  I do not believe that nothing exists, so when I look up into the night sky I do not perceive empty voids but everything must be there, somewhere out of sight and out of mind.  Be a child again and think about the air – it is empty and clear, then later you learn it is full of invisible gases as well as bacteria and viruses and dust motes, the stuff of life; or remember the classic experiment with smoke to show Brownian motion where you must infer that there are invisible molecules buffeting the smoke around.  There is something in the void space and perhaps we are just trying too hard to fit it into our own paradigm of the universe and should just suspend our beliefs and dream again – perhaps it is other universes budding out of pinpricks of nothingness, which push out other universes in some never ending fractal pattern?

In fact, the empty space in space is not completely empty and stuff does just appear as if from no-where.  These are vacuum fluctuations where particles and fields appear spontaneously to be created out of nothing.  Hence, there really is no nothingness out there, simply spaces where there is not very much, but where energy and matter can spontaneously appear.  Perhaps that is what the cosmological constant really is – a background count of somethingness, a mysterious creative energy, that stops there being nothing, because nothing creates everything and you cannot have that happening too often, can we now; for my piece of string, it is as if the cusp point, the creation point, is constantly switching from 0=0 to 0=1 to 1=1 and back to 0=0, but instead of netting out to an answer of 0, there is always a remnant of energy that cannot be lost leaving the cosmological constant, effectively the background energy of failed creation events.  Now that means that even though everything was created in the single creation event at T=0 more energy is constantly being created than was possible ab initio and is actually increasing the energy within our universe, so forcing distant supernovas to expand at an ever increasing rate.

Perhaps all I am stating is a truism – we exist, we perceive ourselves as real, therefore the universe must have been created.  Truly, there is no nothing, no non-existence.

Interestingly, this idea of nothing as being not possible, Axel’s theory of the impossibility of impossibility, means that life in the universe had, also, to be created spontaneously straight away.  As the idea of creating life is impossible, it would have to occur immediately; however, can life start more than once in the same universe, now that is so very unlikely that it probably will not have occurred twice?  Does that mean that there are no other inhabited planets in this universe? No, it simply means that the spark of life occurred on creation, but how that has been distributed across the universe is a different question; I am merely saying that spark of life can perhaps only be created once per universe.

To sum up, there is no such thing as nothing, therefore at the point of completely and absolutely nothing, number systems collapse, 0=1 and the universe is created.  Thereafter, whenever there is nothing in existence, energy and matter will perhaps spontaneously be created as new universes (whether big or small), which may exist out of sight and out of mind, or might collapse back down to nothingness, but leaving a residue of energy that will increase the amount of energy in the universe.

Next I get lost in trying to unpick the standard model of everything

Towards An Updated Theory Of The Origin Of Species

Tuesday, December 28th, 2010

In my previous blog, I posted a stream of consciousness on evolution that suggested that perhaps evolutionary theory as currently presented was too simplistic and not necessarily a complete mechanism for the origin of species.  Therefore, I owe it to those who might happen upon that blog to propose an alternative idea.

There are at least two overarching competing forces ongoing to develop species on earth: one higher risk and one lower risk.  The higher risk process is random mutation and speciation (macroevolution), while on the other hand there is adaptation, which includes several processes including microevolution and lateral gene transfer.

Against this backdrop, life on earth follows at least three basic principles: (i) preservation of life on earth; (ii) conservation of the status quo rather than favouring radical change; (iii) relative efficiency (or laziness) of life that will co-opt good ideas as they arise.

By overlaying these forces and principles, you have constant competition between the process of mutational speciation and that of adaptation with limited speciation, i.e. between the higher risk and lower risk strategies.  However, as life and species become more interlocked and interdependent, the weight of the conservative and lazy principles of life becomes increasingly strong, which will work against mutational speciation, because it could destabilise the rest of life on earth, i.e. life normally selects naturally for the status quo and deselects for new species.  Furthermore, it appears that this conservative principle kicks in pretty quickly as microorganisms appear to almost always prefer adaptation, including lateral gene transfer, over speciation.  But why chose adaptation over speciation, because the status quo itself confers protective benefits to all current species on earth, whereas speciation results in the need to change the structure of a biological niche or life in general, which can be devastating for the rest if living species and resultsin a weak species without the protection conferred by the capability to adapt.

However, when new unoccupied niches become available, higher risk mutational speciation might become more attractive as opportunity outweighs inherent risks in generating new species and new ideas arising from genetic errors might prevail and can be tried out without the competitive pressure of life.  Therefore, new species might arise relatively quickly in these circumstances, as there is no negative pressure from the rest of life.  Such situations could occur at the start of life on earth, when life moved onto land or after mass extinctions, where opportunism reigns.  However, as life becomes established in a niche or set of niches, embedded life will act like a dead hand tending to prevent new ideas being tried out and so life will favour change via adaptation.  Generally completely new speciation is deselected as being normally negative for life.

However, a really radical new idea, like photosynthesis, can overcome this inherent conservatism and establish itself.  However, it has to be a crackingly good idea and not just a reinvention of the wheel, which will be prevented from establishing itself.  So in all these situations, life could be viewed to make a risk analysis, i.e. is it worth upsetting the status quo for this new idea? If not, then life works to squeeze it out, or if it is, then life will take the risk of potential extinctions for the future potential to increase the amount of DNA-RNA on earth.  So even though there is a background level of new potential species being created all the time, it is unlikely that many (or any) of these will establish themselves.

What I like about this theory is that you can see how a chaotic change in species can happen all the time, with even the amount of permitted speciation and adaptation being capable of variation as the situation and needs move around.  Also, it can explain why some species never disappear as it postulates that life only changes where and when changes are needed and better ideas arise, or when there is extinction in a niche, but for example no better solution to living in the hot springs at Rudeira has been found than stromatolites, so stromatolites it is then, but find a virgin untapped island like Galapagos then a finch can blossom out.  It also explains why changes in range and composition of species is a more normal response than speciation as life prefers to use what it already has got than go for radical new ideas.

[This is a raw idea so needs to be worked on by those better than me to articulate more succinctly and perhaps even build a model that could even be run on a computer to simulate the origin of species.  As for modelling, I envisage that whenever there is a change to the global environment (in its widest sense) species must consider whether it can adapt to these changes through behavioural changes, distribution changes, working together with other species, natural genetic variation, lateral gene transfer or finally speciation.  Or perhaps interested people could analyse competition and speciation by looking at what happens in the business world when new businesses are formed and new ideas are invented, and watch how these survive and/or are transferred through the economic community and/or how they compete and work together to maintain existing relationships rather than nurture new businesses that might alter the status quo.]