The Mysteries of the Universe

There are some big questions out there. Why are we here? What's life all about? Is there a god?
The answer to that last one is fairly obvious (No, of course there isn't. Grow up.), but as for the first two questions, I've been pondering whether the human race will ever figure it all out.

I guess non-specific questions of life, the universe and everything can be answered to some high degree of uncertainty by philosophers and genius-like sci-fi comedy writers, but I hope to look at it all from a scientific standpoint. ...Unfortunately, I seem to have mislaid own my personal standpoint (of the scientific variety) the last time I went time travelling, but I can pretty much recall the view from it.


At the cutting edge of physical science there are mysteries that have been left unanswered (although I know we have people working on them):

• In the field of classical mechanics, there's What causes gravity? 

• In the field of astrophysics, there's What is the shape/size of the universe?

• In the field of quantum physics, there's the question Why does matter exist?

You may notice that these are all basically the same question. That question is How?
Or to be less succinct ... How did the universe form?
This is because all answers are easily revealed once you know the origin of the universe. Other big questions you may have thought of like How did life begin? can be answered with a simple sequence of 'cause and effect' that started when the universe began. Even little questions can be answered this way (although it isn't always necessary to go so far back): Can you explain Miley Cyrus' behaviour?... Well, first the universe came into existence...

Not only that, but I strongly suspect that if some genius (almost certainly not me*) is ever going to figure out the answer to just one of those big questions, then the answers to all the other questions will soon fall into place. And here's why (and how):
 

• The 'force' of gravity is caused by physical matter distorting space-time. All matter does this but no one knows how. They only know that it does, and that it distorts all space-time in the universe. I suspect the answer will be perfectly obvious once they've figured out how matter came into existence.

 

• Matter came into existence at the very beginning of the universe. We've currently got top men (and women) colliding particles under Switzerland to figure out what they're made of. In doing so, there may be some clue as to how they appeared from nothing. Which in effect is answering the question of how the universe came into existence.

• Once we have a scientific model for the origin of the universe, then we can figure out the shape of it, the size of it now, and where we are in it. At the moment we can only see a mere 13.7 billion light years away. We have no idea where the centre is, whether it's even viewable from where we are, or which way is up.

Personally, I believe in the omniverse theory. Sometimes. Ok, it really depends on which day of the week you ask me. But whether that's true or not, I believe the key to it all lies in matter. Specifically the nature of gravity/space-time.

You see, matter is this big mystery. It's stuff that the whole universe is made of, and it all sits in a 4 dimensional web of space-time (which incidentally, was also created at the birth of the universe). The two things are inextricably linked. Matter affects the whole universe and the whole universe is made of matter. They are one and the same. This is how matter came into being from nothing; it was all extrapolated from nothing, and the remnant of the 'nothing' that was left over, is the space-time continuum.

Therefore, to figure out the true nature of matter, is to figure out the true nature of everything.


But can it be done?

Science has come a very long way, in a very short space of time. I know that more hurdles will be overcome in the following decades which will give some clues to all this, as well as sparking new questions. However...

The answers are getting progressively difficult to obtain. Science is getting better still, but it's slowing down. I predict that if it's gonna happen at all, then the answers will start to flood in thick and fast, within the next 65 years. But after that, I don't think we'll ever figure it out.
Ask me in 30 years time, and I'll give you a more accurate prediction. But right now there's a 50/50 chance of us finding the answers in the next 65 years, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that.

* I'm so modest these days.

The Train Break Turbine

Here's a quick energy generating idea. As well as all the usual green ways of energy production, why not tap into the wasted energy of breaks on a train.

You'd still keep the breaking mechanism on a train as a safety measure for the driver (and also for slowing near bends), but primarily breaking entering a station can be done by 'break turbines'. These are just a number of large turbine wheels built under the sections of track approaching the station, which will connect with long strips of break pad under each carriage. The break turbines will be adjustable from the signal box, so that they're only there if a train needs to stop. The turbines can be lowered so that they don't affect through-trains not intended to stop at the station.

For trains that should stop, the whole thing will be automated. There will be sensors on the track that register the speed of a train's approach to the station. The computer then knows how much pressure the turbine breaks need to initially exert on the train. This pressure is then gradually released until the train comes to a smooth stop at the platform.

Every time a train pulls into a station, a turbine will be turned which will generate electricity. Imagine the amount of power generated if every railway and tube station had these turbines spinning every time a train approached a platform. Enough to power the trains? Probably not, but I imagine there'd be a lot more force there than in wind or tidal power.

Naturally it would take much time and expense to convert both stations and trains to this method of breaking and energy production. But once all up and running, I should think they'd easily pay for themselves within a year.

Also, it would be easier to include this genius idea within the designs of new trains and train lines, rather than retrofitting it to existing ones.

I really like the proposed idea of the almost-frictionless vacuum tube train system* that they're gonna build in the USA or Japan**. I hereby give them permission to use my train break turbine generator idea as part of it's design. Just let me know if you've any questions guys.


* AKA The vactrain. A genius idea that's so crazy, it's like the sort of shit that I'd make up.
** I figure one of these 2 countries is bound to do it first.

Perpetual Super Fluid Motion

Yep, I'm giving the old perpetual motion machine a third and final stab.

Before I explain it in detail, I'd like to remind everyone that I am not a mathematician or a scientist, and my understanding of theoretical physics is basic at best. So perhaps you can chalk this one up to 'great idea, but the numbers don't quite add up'. On the other hand, perhaps I've stumbled upon something that no-one else has, and would therefore need to seriously consider removing the negative adverb from the title of this website.

It's all about superfluids. As with all my 'genius' ideas, this one is fairly straight forward ...(and ill thought out).

If you cool helium down to at least 2 degrees above absolute zero, it becomes a superfluid. Superfluids have many interesting properties. One of these is that they have no surface tension, and will continue to flow at a thickness of mere atoms over itself, the effect of which means it can effectively flow up the side of a bowl. My idea exploits this property.

If a superfluid can crawl up the vertical side of a bowl with a minimum of encouragement, then I see no reason why the same substance can't flow up the lesser angled slope, of a hellical structure. A reverse helterskelter if you will.

If enough liquid helium we're to make this trip, then at the top, when it reached an appropriate shaped spout, it would fall through a traditional water wheel turbine. This turbine would produce electricity. The superfluid would then return to the shallow pool where it came from, then it continues the cycle of moving up the hellical tower.

Now, if enough liquid helium was used in enough helterskelter/turbine systems, then a greater amount of electricity can be generated. In fact there has to be an optimum quantity of superfluid per turbine for it to run most efficiently (cos you don't want a surplus of superfluous superfluids). On top of this, there has to be an optimum scale of the turbines to produce the greatest amount of power, as well as an optimum number of such turbines per squared metre to produce the most power by recycling the liquid helium as efficiently as possible. If you take all these variables and make this gravity-defying liquid powerstation (for that is what it is) as energy efficient as possible, then you'll have your solution as to whether super fluid perpetual motion is possible.

Once you've figured out the optimum measurements, quantities and ratios, then you need to figure out the optimum freezer configuration, (which is to say, the minimum power input needed to maintain the necessary near-absolute-zero temperatures).

So then... you've figured out the maximum possible power output for the most energy efficient turbine/helterskelter/superfluid configuration (A), as well as the minimum power input required to keep this machine constantly cooled at the most energy efficient level possible (B).

Then you just do the maths to see if the machine can power itself as well as produce extra energy...

A - B = C

If C > 0 then you've got yourself a pepectual motion machine!

You're welcome.

Beep Beep

I almost find it ridiculous that in this day and age, a new car still only has one beep sound for it's horn. A sound that is supposed to convey numerous messages to fellow road users, from 'Cheers mate!' and 'look out, I'm approaching the corner' to 'Get the fuck out of my way! This is my road!' ...and everything in between.  The only current difference between all of the above, is the length of the beeeep.

Cars should have more than one horn sound.

I'm not suggesting that you have a great myriad of polyphonic sounds, just three or four alternative beep sounds, which better articulate the sentiment you're going for.
For example, for a simple 'Thank you' noise, you're going to want a lighter meep-meep sound  - not too dissimilar to the horn on Postman Pat's van. You know the one. Everybody knows his bright red van. So Pat's got that one sorted already, but what if he's in a pile up? What if Ted's truck's broken down, and Pat's got an urgent delivery for the vicar? He's gonna want the extra aggressive grunt in his beep. If only to help him let of a little steam. Unfortunately he's only got that little 'meep' horn; It doesn't really do the trick when what he really wants to say is 'Yo momma!' to Ted Glenn.
This could have also been a contributing factor for Post Office workers who have been known to 'go postal'. Despite the inadequacies of Pat's van, it has been recorded for the record that he feels he's a really happy man. Mind you, that was before news of the Royal Mail's impending privatisation.

The multi-horned car is an idea I came up with many years ago. In the interim I've heard one or two other people mention the same idea to me independently. I definitely thought if it first though. Oh, what's that? You came up with the idea too? ...When was that?...  Oh really? Well I thought of it about five years before then.

The Size of the Universe

Whilst we're taking about what scientists don't know, dark energy isn't the only bollocks phrase they've invented to explain things they don't know. The other one is dark matter (not to be idiotically confused with anti-matter). This was invented to explain away the reason why they can't account for the massive lack of mass in the universe.

Again the answer is obvious. All the mass in the viewable universe only accounts for about 4% of all the mass there should be. The remaining 96% lies in the areas of space we can't see, because they exist more than 13.7 billion lightyears away. Cosmologists think this is wrong because they've misjudged the current size of the universe, by assuming that they know it's current speed. Mystery solved.

It just goes to show, if you make an ill-informed, half thought out assumption in one instance, it'll have a logical knock on effect for all the rest of your reasoning. Obviously all of my scientific arguments are flawless and impeccable, so there's absolutely no reason to even doubt their credibility. All have been scientifically peer reviewed by the equally genius and sound mind of my assistant Ziggy, the invisible time-travelling hamster.

The State of the Universe (aka Gravity Part V)

There's a fairly large question about the universe that cosmologists have been unable to definitively answer, and that's 'Why does the universe look like it does?'. An amazingly simple question, I think you'll agree, and it doesn't take a genius to come up with an amazingly simple answer to this question... or perhaps it does.

In the likely event that you're in the dark as to what the universe looks like, let me enlighten you. This universe (for it is probable that there are many) is comprised of a few hundred billion galaxies. These galaxies are not scattered completely randomly, but are instead spread out in a three dimensional stringy web-like pattern. A good analogy that has been made for this is a load of washing-up bubbles, where the washing-up liquid that makes up the bubbles themselves represent the galaxies, and the air within the bubbles represents the vast gaps of nothing in the universe.

Theoretical physicists have the problem that they don't know how the universe got into this state. Well, it seems pretty obvious to me. I mean, I'm no astrophysicist, but it's hardly rocket science: The galaxies remain in a stretched out web pattern because matter naturally distorts space-time, which has an instantaneous effect on the propagation of any and all matter relative to both the distance and the combined mass of any and all of the masses within the system. The net effect of all of this intergalactic mass is a sort of mass intergalactic net effect, and the appearance of the universe as it has been observed fits in exactly as predicted by the above model.

You probably realised that this is a description of gravity, but I really wanted to explain what is happening without confusing matters... and people seem to get confused whenever someone mentions the G-word. They think it's a force or something!  ...the idiots.

So what's the prob?
The cosmic boffins still have the issue of explaining why the universe is still expanding, when gravity should've started making it contract by now. They've attributed this to Dark Energy [cue mystical/scary music].
Dark energy is just a phrase they've invented, because they can't think of they're own explanation that doesn't involve magic, witchcraft, god or anything else made up.

It all seems quite self-evident to this genius: The universe is still expanding because the explosion that created this universe was bloody massive. You can't even begin to imagine how big it was. Sure, the effect of gravity has slowed the expansion substantially since the universe began, but that's small beans compared to how fast it was originally going at 13.7 billion years ago. Back then it was all relatively pretty close to the cosmic speed limit. So of course gravity hasn't put the breaks on fully. If/when that eventually happens, our universe will start to contract slowly. But then as time goes on, the speed of contraction will continue to accelerate... to the point that it will eventually reach a point (by which I mean a singularity) just at the point when the relative speed reaches the cosmic speed limit of the universe.

Improving the Capital - part 4

So tell us Jon, tell us how we can make London a less crappy place to live.

Why should I?

Because geniuses are few and far between and you're so awesome, I just know you'll have another genius idea to improve the capital.

You're right. I am awesome.

And with that, Jon stopped talking to himself, turned away from the mirror and returned to his antiquated electronic writing device to type out his latest idea in a most unconventional manner.

After a while he decided that writing his blog in the third person probably wasn't his greatest idea, and that hopefully nobody would notice when I reverted to the first person half way through a sentence....
Seamless!


So as promised...

Picture the scene.  You're a London local. You're in a tube station. You're on your way down the escalator towards the station platform. And because you're not an idiot or a tourist, and you understand the English language, you'll know you have the choice of either standing on the right or walking down the left side of the escalator.

If your not a small child or an elderly person or an American, then you'll have chosen to walk down the escalator as every able-bodied adult with even the loosest understanding of the concept of gravity should. But then you have two further types of people to contend with...

There'll be the usual moronic-foreign-elderly-child type of person who's stood on the left of the escalator.  You need to be patient with these, and ask them politely to move out of the way. Some people ought to know better, but it's quite hard to tell from behind which of the people are simpletons and which are just arseholes.

Then there's the tailgater. The teenager who runs down the escalator who then has to stop becuase you're in the way, and then continues just inches behind you. The city-boy with the stupid pointy shoes who has to leg it down three steps at a time. The businessman who absolutely must get to the platform in order to get the train that's waiting there, lest he miss and have to wait for the next train, all of 90 seconds later. Run businessman, run! Oh my god, I can hear the doors beeping already! Quick! RUN!!

Pedestrian tailgating is not nice. You can hear them coming, then you're ever conscious that they're just behind you.  No, I will not speed up for you. I usually walk faster than most people but I'm not going to speed up going down a staircase, let alone a staircase that's moving. Nor am I going to find a place to my right to move to so that you can go past. I like my personal space. Why are you in such a rush in the first place.

The solution of course is obvious. Have a third option; Are you going to take the stairs, the escalator, or the slide?

Fun for kids. Great if you're genuinely in a rush. Perfect if you find that walking speed plus the speed of an escalator isn't fast enough for you. There could even be an extra steep slide... just for thrill seekers and really impatient people.
If that's not fast enough for you (and let's face it, we're talking about the arseholes who always need to be some place 5 minutes ago), then you can choose the fireman's pole. No training given. Use it at your own risk.  And if your maximum acceleration due to gravity isn't enough for you, then I'm sure we can think up some sort of explosive upside-down human cannon.