QUANTIME

With Cassini having plunged into the unfathomable depths of Saturn, I had to wipe a few tears. The mission has been completed, so much is clear. But I could see the look in the eyes of the mission controllers as if they were hoping for a miracle: Cassini would transmit: "I'm not done yet, I overshoot Saturn for a visit to Uranus and Neptune, if you're okay with that". But of course that wouldn't happen, although the thought crossed my mind that in the afterlife one might run into Cassini once more... As if it were alive, with thoughts and feelings. Quite like V'ger (Voyager 6 in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"). Back to reality: Cassini wasn't our latest or last probe into the depth of space. Mankind keeps building new and more intelligent space missions, because what we already achieved is quite a lot, but still just not enough. Therefore I truly hope that we keep educating brilliant youngsters who keep up the good work that somany cosmo-, a...

Observation I have been looking at a 3D model of the Laniakea supercluster of galaxies, containing among others the Virgo Cluster, in which we know our Milky Way to exist. Regardless of me being an observer down on Earth in that Milky Way, or an observer even outside the imaginary 3D box in which Laniakea was situated, from any random point in the universe, I can only observe things that have already happened, have already come to be or have already extinguished. I can never see things that must yet come into existence. Therefore anything that is observed is a result of events that have already occurred and as it only becomes visible when its emitted or reflected light has had the time to reach me/the observer, I can only look into the past. Figure 1. Laniakea supercluster Planck Units Outside of planck length one can only observe the effect of a cause , or causes, that are an effect of something else. The present, the ‘right now’, the ‘here’ within one planck time, is al...

As of young age, I have always had a huge fascination for astronomy. At times, already an adult, I would devour the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy or gaze at the heavens at night to sense the depth of space. It did however not run down to an interest in the technology to get there, but merely the awe about all that is, how it came to be and how it works.  I could have sat and regret my lack of mathematical abilities, but in practice I seemed to have developed a sensitivity for various areas of physics, like that of equilibrium, momentum and resistance. With this Fingerspitzengefühl I dared into the realm of astrophysics and quantum field theory.  I am deeply amazed by the works of the great minds, that drove this area of science into the 21st century status quo. From all the ancient Greek philosophers, Galilei, Copernicus and Newton via Planck, Bohr, Einstein and Russel to Hawking, Greene, Higgs, Filippenko, DeGrasse Tyson, Rebecca Smethurst, Matt O'Dowd and man...

If a human on Earth (or through the Hubble telescope, because of its relatively low orbit) gazes into space, he looks into the past. A glance at the Sun shows it as it was eight minutes ago. On the edge of the observable universe, one sees object who have been there at least 13.8 billion years ago. Observing far away objects is not time traveling. If it were, that would mean that our line of sight would be a moving object. We only collect light that reached us from that distance and so this light (and other wavelengths of electromagnetic emissions) is what travelled the distance. If we want to observe a far object as it really is, we will have to go there. Let us imagine that we go on board a space vessel which can reach nearly the speed of light, let’s say 99,99%  c  (for further ease of use:  c -  [c superscript minus]). This is a thought experiment because: Motion at nearly light speed is impossible according to Einstein’s theories and: As no sc...

Because I did not graduate in physics or mathematics, most of quantum field technology or quantum mechanics is beyond my comprehension. The ‘double slit experiment’ seems to show that also insiders fail to understand why the particle pops up at another location than expected or predicted. The outcome of the experiment forces us to accept it as an axiom. In essence: the fact that, once we start measuring the location of a particle in a wave, the wave starts behaving as a dispersion of particles and the particular particle showed up at a location, solely based on probability. That could indicate that the particle ‘knows’ or ‘anticipates’ that a measurement takes place, before as well as after it has passed the double slit. I do not accept the idea that a particle can ‘know’ or ‘anticipate’ and therefore something different is happening. Assuming it is correct that flow and radiation of matter really behave like a wave and particles simultaneously, then perhaps such a flow does not ne...