Questioning the Origins of the Universe

What if the Big Bang did not create the universe that we know today but instead destroyed it and we are remnants of the extinction of life that was spewed and fixed into 3-dimensional space. What if greater galaxies existed within the gather of energy that had been stored and collected until it had to be released. What existed may be a reflection of today’s existence, reshuffled and reorganised and therefore we cannot simply look at the Big Bang as the creation of a universe but as the destruction of another. Like a dying star whose existence we can only acknowledge from what we see, might long be dead when we notice. Our presence may equally be uncertain as there is no other known perspective other the what we see as elemental beings within the space in question. Like Schrödinger’s cat, we are fixed in space of uncertainty, unaware of the final outcome which we will never known, because it is not us who are the observer.

Like a camera that is set to take a long exposure that captures light and reveals in a fixed moment, a memory, of that which we cannot normally see, we may remain the extinctions of light that once existed. The expansion of the universe did not create life to exist, but rather set an copy of what had existed before, creating the perception that we are witnessing creation, when in fact we may be seeing fate and destiny pre-written. But in magnitude of infinite directions of how matter could have distributed, we may be too simple to understand the implications of the infinite number of timelines and tributaries of known events that have been prewritten to occur. We of course cannot see them or notice them as pre-determined, as we are too far seeing through the extinction of existence, as if living into the future following the determined paths created by memories we yet do not have.

And yet we feel free to have free will and choices that will reflect unknown outcomes. But if we think beyond the limits of time, that is focusing on events as they pass, but down to the tiniest re-arrangement of neutrons within atoms, as the smallest change known to occur, we may start to see the magnitude of chance and probability of what arrangement may come next. And each single re-arrangement event of the smallest known or unknown unit of matter or anti-matter, in that case, creates a set of infinite events from which subsequent events create infinite number of events, and so on. What we may not know is that all events have been predetermined as all combinations of how they might exist may actually exist at any single point. It may be that most probably our timelines would appear linear, although having at each event a divergent timeline from which a new series of infinite events originate. Under such conditions we may be not be able to travel through time, but that is not to say that no one would ever see the extinction of life passed, so long the observer has the correct perspective to see. What about life and death, and how can we be tricked by changes of those who exist and die? Well, it may up to every single atom or collection of atoms to have different values of extinction, which ascertain the amount of energy that is absorbed and reflected. This coefficient assigned to each atom or collection atoms may define how long they exist within the extinction of life that once existed.

It’s as if fast forwarding through the past then rewinding to see the future. We can only see things from our perspective of where we are in the timeline with observations not made of what exists, but what doesn’t exist anymore. We may now see the universe expand but later may see it shrink, not because it’s shrinking but rather the fading of it, as we observe from our biased perspective by where we are in the extinction timeline. But the universe expanding is an interesting phenomenon in this theory. It would need to expand as energy released needs to be used somewhere, if it is proposed that it’s not used to create the universe we know. What this implies is that without an external perspective, we cannot know whether we are dead or alive, then the universe itself must be both formed and destroyed. As thralls to our own existence or in an existence we cannot measure because our own perspective is that from within an experiment, we would simply be seeing what we’re meant to see. Every item, event of concept as a reflection of our own understanding having limited knowledge of it and missing critical information, and all information we create and learn only comes from the very existence that we question. This may explain why we form different hypotheses of a myriad of concepts, interactions or patterns that we may see or not see exist, parts of the universe that have yet to be explained, unsolved questions about space, time and mathematics. Why is it that can see different things exist and yet cannot explain them? The simple answer to that is because everything is and is not real.

Let’s talk about climate change.

How should we approach and discuss climate change? Engage with illustrations or with data? At the Experimental Vlog we discuss climate change with two personalities: Steven McEntyre (an artist) and Prof Nicklebreth (a scientist). While they have opposite thoughts on how to present scientific data, they both can appreciate that climate change is real and that we must do something about it. Being our first episode, we hope that these personalities join us later for more exciting discussions. Like all our Spawn Theory videos, this was completely unscripted and unplanned, anything that would suggest otherwise is just a coincidence.

Climate Change

3 min Thesis

Explaining our PhD research is as essential as conducting the research in the first place. And it’s already difficult to explain the research to other scientists in the field, but to present it to a non-science audience, in 3 minutes, now that’s the actual challenge!  

It’s training us to make fast and quick impact points.  But, training us for what exactly?  It’s like pitching a business idea to a panel who will interview hundreds in a day. The real question is how to be unique and credible  in 3 minutes.  What’s the real message that we are trying to say about science?

Spoken Art

The Challenge Episode 1 “Blinded Science”

Often times, we don’t get a chance to explain ourselves.  Ironically, when we do get ample time to explain ourselves, we don’t exactly know when to stop.  I know, I often run into those moments when my partner in conversation is grinning at me, with a look of confusion on their face.  Or when explaining an idea to a colleague, that I should have rehearsed beforehand, but thought I could explain it well.  When asked by a job interviewer “why do you want to work here”, those unprepared  would have a hard time finding an answer to such a broad question.  Even if prepared, getting all the thoughts together, so to sound natural, can be as difficult.  

But what if you weren’t allowed to speak naturally?  Anyone who has presented their research or interests to somebody with no prior knowledge about it, has surely wondered how much detail should be said or just talked until the other person started to think about anything else but what is being explained.   Surely, as scientists, as good presenters, we know that not everyone will have the same training or background for a particular subject.  Therefore, to get our word across, we must adapt to our audience.  

Here, we take this concept and make it even tougher–skip the intermediates and head to the extremes.  An extreme that our early ancestors may have called normal, thousands of years ago–back when hunting patterns or observations were recorded on cave walls.   We always like sharing an experience, they make great stories, great conversations.  But most importantly, experiences serve as small sticky notes for learning about the challenges that life may bring.  We have some of the most unique ways of communicating with each other, with varying degrees of complexity.  We live in a world where we can communicate via wired and wireless connections.  I don’t remember when the message in a bottle trend died out, but we have come a long way, that it’s almost as if we don’t appreciate the skills that were essential in the past.   The patience of writing a letter by hand or on an error-prone typewriter, to waiting days, some times months for a reply, when now it takes seconds to communicate with a friend half-way across the world.  Sure, we have other worries like the unforgiving ‘Seen’ at the bottom of the message.  We can simply correlate our ability to communicate better because we have more advanced resources of communication today, than we had in the past.   And we hope that these resources will develop as time passes. 

So the question is:  are the skills of our ancestors still within us or have we relied too much on our ability to express ourselves through writing or speech?   Or are these skills no longer needed?

Watch what happens when we ask an invited Guest speaker to present hiswork without the use of technology.  Things get interesting when we tell him that he is not allowed to say anything related to his project.  

Our first challenge tests the ability to present scientific research without the use of technology or relying on speech to communicate research information.  The video itself is unscripted and we try our best in guessing what our Guest speaker does in the lab.  The video was filmed in a noisy hotel lobby, which made communication and general comfort difficult, however our scientist performed extremely well, considering he had no time to prepare for this challenge.  This goes to show that although we may be die-hard fans of technology and chatter, we can still communicate, and others can get the picture, in a manner of speaking.