Haru Haru.

Today I watched the premiere episode of Curiosity, a show on Discovery Channel that will supposedly answer all the questions of life.

Today’s episode starred Dr. Stephen Hawking, discussing the origin of the universe.

Dr. Hawking made the argument that the Big Bang is actually more possible than we may realize due to the “laws of nature.” The laws of nature include that of equilibrium, which apparently also applies to space. Hawking compared the Big Bang to the creation of a large hill from dirt taken from the ground. The hill would be the universe, and the hole which was created would be the opposite of the universe, which I assume is antimatter (though the word was never mentioned in the programme).

Hawking also argued that the universe in which we now live came from a black hole smaller than a proton. I’m guessing he meant that the black hole was there long enough for everything in a previous universe to collapse into it. He also said something along the lines that through Quantum Mechanics, the black hole was able to create an explosion large enough to create the Big Bang.

Hawking ALSO argued that since black holes are so dense, that time and light would be distorted around it. And since there was nothing but this “infinitesimal” black hole, time, light and space could not have existed before the Big Bang.

Watching and listening to Dr. Hawking made me think of a few questions of my own. The discussion of the three physicists after the programme also brought up a few interesting points.

The quantum theory (to my knowledge) relies on the possibility of multiverses, or multiple universes that act separately from each other. This would mean that since the Big Bang only created our one universe, there has to be some other explanation for the existence of the theoretically-existing other universes. If Hawking used quantum mechanics to explain that the Big Bang could have happened on its own, then we need to be consistent and assume that the multiverse theory is also true.

We all have our own opinions of what the Big Bang might have looked like. But one thing should be the same throughout all our illustrations: an explosion. This means outward motion from a single center point or origin. While I think we are moving away from our origin (slowly but surely), since there is no friction is space to stop us from moving, this would not address the fact that there are other rocks in space that are going in different directions than we are. For example, asteroids. I saw a documentary about theories of how the moon became our moon, and there’s evidence that the moon used to be about twice as big before than it is now; it was struck by an asteroid that took off a large chunk of it. But how, if there was one Big Bang, can things be going in different directions? Is it possible that a chunk of rock flew away really really far, its path being altered by things of greater mass and their gravitational pull, then doing a 180 and hitting our moon? Or is it because there are multiple universes out there?

“Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot be broken.” Hawking makes this point quite clear. But from where do these laws of nature come? Honestly, I don’t think laws can just appear out of nowhere. Something or someone must have had to create them. That’s why they’re laws and not universal truths.



What is it?

In all honesty, I think art can be anything appealing to the five senses. Be it music, paintings, food… even things that feel or smell appealing that are crafted by humans can be considered art.

What what does it take for something to be considered art?

It’s just one of those questions that can’t be answered because the answer changes so frequently. Also because people have different opinions on what art is supposed to be. For example, someone can call a pile of poop art (it’s man-made, and theoretically visually appealing, right?), but many of us might say otherwise.

We have five senses, right?

something about medical science

Who cares? It’s just a jingle.

If you were on Cash Cab, you’d lose.