A few remarkable events or observations, Part II.

Date : 22 December, 2021
Version: 0.2
By: Albert van der Sel
Status: Ready.
Remark: Please refresh the page to see any updates.

Chapter 1. Is there...., a God?
Chapter 2. One possible "follow-up" for the theory of Chapter 1.
Chapter 3. The Antimatter-Matter BOMB.
Chapter 4. Philip, The (imaginary) Ghost.

Chapter 1. Is there...., a God?

Ofcourse, I cannot answer this question.

You might say "Yes". You might say "No". You might say "Only relevant from a human/sociological
perspective, but it's not relevant (non-existent) in the Universe".
Or, you might say something completely different.

So, I cannot answer the question.
But, maybe there are some facts that might be of interest to you. Anyway, I will tell you something
what is bothering me, occassionally.
Well, it's not really "bothering me", but it is a remarkable feature of our World (or Universe),
which sometimes makes me think in terms like "...Is There a God (or Creator) Afterall??".

It could well be, that the early humans, e.g. say 300000 years ago, saw spirits everywhere. In mountains, the wind,
Sun and Moon, fire, and what else not.

Maybe folks that went through academic studies like anthropology, sociology, theology, and related studies,
can (sort of) tell you how and when, humans gradually started to think in terms of "Gods", and much later, how Monotheism
came about, that is, the believe in one God (or Creator).
These are facinating sorts of science, and provides vast amounts of information. However, none of this
is a subject of this note, in any way.
No, here I will stick to some remarkable properties of our Universe, as is shown by Physics and related studies.
I know..., it is a bit "one dimensional", only to consider Physics, but you still might see some value here.

Let's face another thing: Planet Earth is a place full of Horror and Misery. Such a place could have nothing to do
with a "kind and loving God". If you think of all such terrible stuff, like people starving of hunger,
terrible deseases, all those endless wars, all the violence, all the Injustice...
It immediately annihilates the concept of "a kind and good God".

As another angle to view on matters: folks in neurosciences nowadays say that "you", is "your brain",
and (sorry to say) "nothing more". If the brain is gone, you are gone, end of program.

It seems as no way out for believers. Still, plenty of folks believe in "God", whatever He/She may be.

By the way, if God exists (in whatever form), it has to be a woman, since men are surely unworthy,
and completely unfit for the "job of God". With all respect: no joke here. Women are better.

Still, as I think, there are some remarkable arguments that "may" point to some sort of Creator.
One important item here, is often called the "fine tuning problem", which I like to discuss,
and also showing some further interpretations.
So, let's start...

The principle is actually very simple. We can for example observe that fundamental particles, have a
well-defined "charge", "spin" and many other properties. Furthermore, it seems as if fundamental forces
are the same everywhere in the observable Universe. For example, the nuclear force in a remote Milkyway as "M87"
works the same way as on Planet Earth. Or the Pauli principle, which works everywhere, as it seems.
You might say: that's not remarkable at all!

True, but all those "carefully" fine-tuned properties, are the cause that Atoms exist, with "carefully"
tuned energy levels, which leads to molecules, substances, Stars, Galaxies... etc.. etc..
All Those fundamentals together, ultimately result in having our Planet as well, with us living on it.
You still might rightfully say: Still not remarkable at all!

Well, it is generally assumed that the Universe had a (sort of) beginning (Big Bang, Inflation etc..)
where the conditions (during Inflation and later) have led to the World as we can see it today.
Some physicists and Cosmologists say that those conditions, actually correspond to "carefully tuned parameters".
Leading to a Universe, where we exist in.
Other conditions, probably (?) would give different results. That's a bit the heart of the matter:
Other conditions during Inflation/Big Bang, probably (?) would give different results.
In a nutshell, this is partly, a core concept of the socalled "fine tuning problem".

Is it a valid argument, which would favour the notion of a Creator? As always (or very often), I am not sure.

Is it something special at all??? Well, it is not strange to assume that slight variations at the Inflation/Big Bang,
might have lead to a different Universe. For example, when did the principles of Quantum physics became relevant?
Relevant fluctuations during Inflation/Big Bang, might have had an impact, on later structures and events.
Many physicists and Cosmologists even find it plausible, that the very very start of the Universe, was a
Quantum fluctuation to start with. Variations here, might have lead to different SpaceTime and matter
and possibly different physics.

If the Inflationary Theory (start of the Universe, with a sort of Big Bang), has indeed substance (it is accepted
by many Astronomers/Cosmologists), then ripples in the early SpaceTime (vacuum), might have started new
inflationary "bubbles"..., in effect a Multiverse (many Universes), likely each with it's own sort of Physics.

I am only saying that the "fine tuning problem" cannot be neglected. It's remarkable that the properties
of elementary particles and fields, have resulted in the Universe we can observe, and ourselves included.
It thus could have been totally different. Was it "tuned" to be that way?

Slightly different conditions during the Inflation/Big Bang, might have ended with a different state
of the vacuum (false vacuum), with not all fields and force carriers as we observe them today.

You might say:
- "You traded one believe system, with another one.". Yes, might be so.

Or, You might say:
- "You think humans are so important in the Universe, that you fantasize that the properties
of elementary particles/fields, were carefully designed, just to make human life possible...".
Yes, might be so.

Or, You might say:
- "It's just by coincidence (or luck) that the Universe turned out to be this way."
Yes, might be so.

Or, You might say:
- "Nothing has been proven, yet."
Yes, that's certainly true.

You see, I don't know. But I am a Baboon, so that explains it. I usually only bake "patattes frites" (french fries).

It could be viewed that the "fine tuning problem", might be a pointer (no proof) to the existence of a Creator....
Nothing is certain, but it might be a valid pointer. The logic behind it, certainly has "substance".

I find the subject Remarkable, and that's why I placed it in this note.

By the way, I am not religious myself (I think..., but I am not sure...).

Chapter 2. One possible "follow-up" for the theory of Section 1.

If you read section 1, and you still do not think that I am a total idiot, then there still are lots of
issues with that hypotheses, ofcourse.

Suppose there was (or is) a Creator, as was sketched as a "possibily" in Section 1.
One very stone hard question then is....: How can it be that there is so much Misery in our World ?
How on earth can one solve/explain that?

It's not solvable. However, with all respect, one can think of a couple of (dare I say it?), "strange" solutions.

Yes, what I will sketch here, is indeed rather weird. Please keep in mind that I respect all Religions,
as long as the believers do not force anyone else to believe in the same way.

You must know that what I will write here, are simply some very far-fetched hypotheses....
Well, I don't have to worry much, since there are hardly any readers..., if any at all.

None of this all, is my "original" thoughts, that is..., countless of other folks have had
similar idea's.

The Creation That Failed.

One song of Metallica, bears the title "The God That Failed". At this moment, it's one of my favourites.
But the meaning of the song, is very different from what I mean here (actually, the song is very profound
in it's own way).

I read the hypotheses "The Creation That Failed" once, somewhere in the '80's, but I forgot the source.
Recently, I thought it might be an aspect of the Kaballah (a rather deep Jewish religious system).
So, I tried to "browse" through some academic articles on the Kaballah, but I see no relation to
the phrase "The Creation That Failed". But I might be wrong here.

In Jip and Janneke language, it "sort of" goes like this...

The Allmighty intended to create a good and perfect Universe. During the (unknown) process of Creation,
an (unknown) sort of terrible "flaw" occurred, leading to an inperfect Universe, where evil is introduced.
At the same time, the Creator got trapped (sort of freezed), and was not able to interfere anymore.

Basically, that's the hypotheses. It's weird. And ofcourse most likely to be completely false.

However, there is one collary which I find appealing. You know as well as I do, that the World is one big Toilet,
with lots of terrible stuff going on. Now, a "trapped God", unable to correct things, is not such a bad idea.
It could "explain" the state of our World, with all those evil things going around.

Now, how would the process go further? Good intentions and acts, would counterbalance "The Flaw", and if
done massively, might even lower "The Flaw" to "0".
There certainly are some parallels to the regular Biblical Theory.

You may find this all absurd, which indeed maybe so. Still, I think it's important to see the core idea,
so that you can evaluate it properly:

The creation went wrong (early in the Universe), and a certain "flaw" is responsible for introducing
"evil", and at the same time, the Creator collapsed (froze), so that a "+/- balance", or "positive/negative balance"
came into existence. The plus stands for "good", the minus stands for evil. The netto sum is still "0".
The believe system now tries to maximize the "plus" and lower the "minus", in order to counteract the flaw.
In effect, the netto sum becomes "plus".
By doing good, a person simply contributes, and that is the true essence of "faith".
So, you do not need to believe in something, or worship something, but just follow your concience..

Well...., Something like that....

Ok, I hope you do not think I am crazy. It's just a theory. But, as said, the hypotheses has an appealing touch to it.
Simply put, it tells us why there exists so much evil, everywhere, and why the Allmighty does not (or cannot) interfere.

Chapter 3. The Antimatter-Matter BOMB.

It does not exist yet, but when it exist, it will dwarf a Thermonuclear weapon.

-Well over hunderd years, physicists know of the existence of "anti-matter". Over that period, gradually
anti-particles were discovered like the "positron" (anti particle of the electron), the "anti-proton" (anti-particle
of the proton), and even more complex structures like the "anti-hydrogen atom", which has one anti-proton
in the nucleus, and one positron around it (instead of one proton, and one electron).

Certainly the last 50 years or so, at high-energy particle accelerator experiments, the creation of anti-particles
is rather common in collision events.

-"free" anti-matter, will immediately react with "normal" matter, resulting in annihilation, thereby converting
almost all mass into energy. This is nearly 100% effecient, in terms of energy production.
Contrary, a nuclear fission bomb, or using fusion (thermonuclear), will generally have around 1% mass conversion,
which is responsible for the energy release of such weapon.

Though particles of antimatter have the same mass as their sisters of "normal" matter, they have an opposite
charge and other quantum differences. Ultimately, it means is that when matter and antimatter meet,
they are both annihilated in a flash of gamma rays and neutrinos.

It's established, and no doubt exists, that a theoretical weapon using anti-matter/matter annihilation,
will be at least 100 times more powerful than atombombs using fission (or fission with fusion).
Believe it or not, the following is just simply physics: 1 gram of anti-matter is roughly equivalent
to the Hiroshima bomb (of roughly 20kT).

You will probably say that, fortunately, it's abnormally difficult to create (and store) anti-matter
in significant amounts. That's true..., for now!

Suppose it would be feasable, to create and store, let's say as an example, 10 kg of antimatter.
Then that is the basis for a Planet-smasher bomb.

Physicist will laugh and assure us that even extremely tiny fractions of a gram, are almost impossible to store, since
antimatter will immediately react with matter. Very difficult solutions today, with sorts of vacuum magnetic bottles,
can only store extremely tiny fractions of antimatter, for a short time.

But things are changing rather fast. Already in 2011, one storage-lenght record for containing anti-Hydrogen,
is somewhere around 16 minutes.

CERN is working on BASE-STEP, PUMA, ASCUSA, ISOLDE and similar facilities, in order to create and/or
store antimatterfor longer periods, and even transport of antimatter to different research facilities.

This is all good and well, since study to symmetries in our Universe are very important.
For example, Antimatter tests of the socalled "Lorentz violation", and CPT violation.

Furthermore, does indeed gravitational repulsion exists between matter and antimatter, as is proposed
by some physicists?

Notwithstanding the fact, that studies using antimatter will yield great results, it also is quite
reasonable to expect large improvements in creation and storage of antimatter.

To my knowledge, there are no international constraints defined, on storage and the amount
of antimatter. In my view, this is getting more important as technical barriers are overcome.

Suppose a significant amount of antimatter can be stored. One argument for not having a "bomb" is
the terrible instability of not letting that stuff annihilate with regular matter.
Indeed. The traditional thermonuclear weapons are very stable, and will never "just" explode.
Contrary, an antimatter bomb is thus much more dangerous for the possessor, than for the adversary.

I don't agree to that argument. In my view, it's certain that "reliable" storage facilities will come into existence.
Sure, it may still take a while, but science have already proved that it can do so, with small amounts.

So, yes. This bomb will come. Unless the International community sets stringent rules for creation and
storage, to which everyone will/must adhere.

Otherwise, this bomb maybe Russian, or USA, or Chinese, or Iran, or whatever country have set this development
of creation and storage as their priority. By the way, "Iran" is extremely unlikely ofcourse.
But for China...? Well... There also is associated a lot of "Status" having an annihilation weapon.
Tragically, many... just simply want to have... "The Biggest Gun".


- very small amounts of antimatter could serve as a trigger for lithiumDeuteride to perform
nuclear fusion. In effect, mixed bombs may become a reality. The problem now, is that you do not need
very large amounts, to get annihilation with regular fusion. This might produce quite ugly weapons.
I know, the current ones, are already ugly enough, so why bother at all?

- I must not forget to mention, that even (relatively) small amounts of antimatter, in principle, would allow
for deep space missions to the outer Planets in our Solar system, with rather short trip durations.
The energy involved is tremendous, and if a way is found to harness it for missions in Deep Space,
that would be exciting times. I must say, that the technical challenges are "without words", as to
illustrate how difficult those would be. Even Interstellar missions, to nearby stars, with a
Robotic crew / AI, is not unthinkable. Many articles have been written on such subject.
With acceleration and decelleration phases, a craft could attain a speed of 20% of of the speed of light.
Many authors even have arguments for higher percentages.
Still, you may say that the Spacecrafts involved are "conventional", meaning that they don't
use speculative stuff like Wormholes etc.. No, these crafts simply still have action/reaction drives,
just like the chemical rockets of today, use that principle.

Chapter 4. Philip, The (imaginary) Ghost.

During the '80's, I studied Physics. The University was home for an enormous Library. Practically, all domains
were there. If you were in "Physics", and wandered around a bit, you (almost unnoticable) entered Math,
and a bit furher down the hallway, you were in "Geology" etc... etc.., but also "Psychology" ofcourse.
Like with all disciplines, countless of Volumes with articles were collected. You could see endless walls of volumes,
one after the other...

When I was in the "Psychology" section, my eye fell on few Volumes, carrying the letter ψ on the cover, which drew my attention
since this is a wellknown symbol used in Quantum Physics, for example to symbolize the wavefunction.
Those particular Volumes were titled "Psychoenergetic Systems" (if I remember correctly).
So, I borrowed a few Volumes.

Later that night, I browsed through some articles. One of the themes seemed to be, to describe paranormal events
with the use of Quantum Mechanics. For example, "Telepathy" was tried to explain with "QM wavefunctions"
and so forth. All in all, not so bad, but a tiny bit far fetched, I you would ask me.

However, one article was quite remarkable. It tell you that it is quite a while back, and I forgot many details.
But the main theme is still pretty much clear in my mind.

Below, you will see the usage of "seance sessions". This *most* certainly, is not my cup of thee.
Simply put: I absolutely do *not* believe that such sessions can make contact with spirits, in any way.
So, I am most definitely not a "believer" in such stuff...

Here is the crux of this section:

A group of psychologists, students, and members from other sciences, came up with the plan
to "invent" a spirit, which they later may try to summone in a seance session.
I believe that was somewhere in the early '70's (or so).

So, they created a hypothetical person, from the seventeenth century (I believe),
and attributed quite some details to this "person". This person was called "Philip". Tragically,
he committed suicide somewhere around at the age of 30.
There are quite some details, I have skipped here, simply because I don't remember them anymore.
But I know that the details were quite massive, and not just a few lines of text if you would
write it down.

Now..., could the group "contact" Philip???

I remember that the article, astonishing enough, reported success in one of the seances.
By some means, "Philip" was able to answer questions, well..., at least in the set of
properties which the group had attributed to this hypothetical person.
How exactly the information of Philip was conveyed to the group, is not clear to me.
It's probably on how the table moves, or how some object which is usually used in such sessions,
moves, or something like that.

Is this a hoax? Or..., that a group of people were in a "whisfull thingking mode", where they
simply misinterpreted the "signals", as if they were really from Philip?

At least, if find it remarkable. That's why I have placed it in this note.

It must be clear that Philip could ONLY answer questions, from the (limited) set of
information, which the group themselves had assigned to the fictitious person.
This seems to point to the fact, that there was (ofcourse) "no Philip at all....

But suppose for the moment, that the observed "signals" were real.... Then what?

Ofcourse, I do not believe in an "entity" like Philip.

But another explanation could be quite shocking as well. What if a group of persons
are themselves able to produce the observable answers... Yes, they did it themselves...
Then, how did the group "synchronize" between the members in such a way, "as if" an external
agent was responsible???

But... I don't know for sure, ofcourse. I don't believe it: But what if... there exists
an "imprint" of some construct, or call it an entity, which does exist?
Not a human spirit ofcourse, but something else...?
As if mental activity is registered in something..., some unknown ether.. or something...

Maybe it's remarkable. But you can easily dismiss it all, since proof is non existent.