Physicists have created a ‘black hole’ in the lab that could finally prove Hawking radiation exists


Will Stephen Hawking get his Nobel prize?

Some 42 years ago, renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking proposed that not everything that comes in contact with a black hole succumbs to its unfathomable nothingness. Tiny particles of light (photons) are sometimes ejected back out, robbing the black hole of an infinitesimal amount of energy, and this gradual loss of mass over time means every black hole eventually evaporates out of existence.

Known as Hawking radiation, these escaping particles help us make sense of one of the greatest enigmas in the known Universe, but after more than four decades, no one’s been able to actually prove they exist, and Hawking’s proposal remained firmly in hypothesis territory.

But all that could be about to change, with two independent groups of researchers reporting that they’ve found evidence to back up Hawking’s claims, and it could see one of the greatest living physicists finally win a Nobel Prize.

So let’s go back to 1974, when all of this began. Hawking had gotten into an argument with Princeton University graduate student, Jacob Bekenstein, who suggested in his PhD thesis that a black hole’s entropy – the ‘disorder’ of a system, related to its volume, energy, pressure, and temperature – was proportional to the area of its event horizon.

As Dennis Overbye explains for The New York Times, this was a problem, because according to the accepted understanding of physical laws at the time – including Hawking’s own work – the entropy and the volume of a black hole could never decrease.

Hawking investigated the claims, and soon enough, realised that he had been proven wrong. “[D]r Hawking did a prodigious calculation including quantum theory, the strange rules that govern the subatomic world, and was shocked to find particles coming away from the black hole, indicating that it was not so black after all,” Overbye writes.

Hawking proposed that the Universe is filled with ‘virtual particles’ that, according to what we know about how quantum mechanics works, blink in and out of existence and annihilate each other as soon as they come in contact – except if they happen to appear on either side of a black hole’s event horizon. Basically, one particle gets swallowed up by the black hole, and the other radiates away into space.

The existence of Hawking radiation has answered a lot of questions about how black holes actually work, but in the process, raised a bunch of problems that physicists are still trying to reconcile.

“No result in theoretical physics has been more fundamental or influential than his discovery that black holes have entropy proportional to their surface area,” says Lee Smolin, a theoretical physicist from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada.

While Bekenstein received the Wolf Prize in 2012 and the American Physical Society’s Einstein prize in 2015 for his work, which The New York Timessays are often precursors to the Nobel Prize, neither scientist has been awarded the most prestigious prize in science for the discovery. Bekenstein passed away last year, but Hawking is now closer than ever to seeing his hypothesis proven.

The problem? Remember when I said the escaping photons were stealing an  infinitesimal amount of energy from a black hole every time they escaped? Well, unfortunately for Hawking, this radiation is so delicate, it’s practically impossible to detect it from thousands of light-years away.

But physicist Jeff Steinhauer from Technion University in Haifa, Israel, thinks he’s come up with a solution – if we can’t detect Hawking radiation in actual black holes thousands of light-years away from our best instruments, why not bring the black holes to our best instruments?

As Oliver Moody reports for The Times, Steinhauer has managed to created a lab-sized ‘black hole’ made from sound, and when he kicked it into gear, he witnessed particles steal energy from its fringes.

Reporting his experiment in a paper posted to the physics pre-press website, arXiv.org, Steinhauer says he cooled helium to just above absolute zero, then churned it up so fast, it formed a ‘barrier’ through which sound should not be able to pass.

“Steinhauer said he had found signs that phonons, the very small packets of energy that make up sound waves, were leaking out of his sonic black hole just as Hawking’s equations predict they should,” Moody reports.

To be clear, the results of this experiment have not yet been peer-reviewed – that’s the point of putting everything up for the public to see on arXiv.org. They’re now being mulled over by physicists around the world, and they’re already proving controversial, but worthy of further investigation.

“The experiments are beautiful,” physicist Silke Weinfurtner from the University of Nottingham in the UK, who is running his own Earth-based experiments to try and detect Hawking radiation, told The Telegraph. “Jeff has done an amazing job, but some of the claims he makes are open to debate. This is worth discussing.”

Meanwhile, a paper published in Physical Review Letters last month has found another way to strengthen the case for Hawking radiation. Physicists Chris Adami and Kamil Bradler from the University of Ottawa describe a new technique that allows them to follow a black hole’s life over time.

That’s exciting stuff, because it means that whatever information or matter that passes over the event horizon doesn’t ‘disappear’ but is slowly leaking back out during the later stages of the black hole’s evaporation.

“To perform this calculation, we had to guess how a black hole interacts with the Hawking radiation field that surrounds it,” Adami said in a press release. “This is because there currently is no theory of quantum gravity that could suggest such an interaction. However, it appears we made a well-educated guess because our model is equivalent to Hawking’s theory in the limit of fixed, unchanging black holes.”

Both results will now need to be confirmed, but they suggest that we’re inching closer to figuring out a solution for how we can confirm or disprove the existence of Hawking radiation, and that’s good news for its namesake.

As Moody points out, Peter Higgs, who predicted the existence of the Higgs boson, had to wait 49 years for his Nobel prize, we’ll have to wait and see if Hawking ends up with his own.

Is Anything Truly Random or Is There an Underlying Order to Everything?


Is Anything Truly Random or Is There an Underlying Order to Everything?

The Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) wrote in “Ethics I”: “Nothing in Nature is random. … A thing appears random only through the incompleteness of our knowledge.”

In modern physics, certain quantum processes are deemed fundamentally random.

“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”

Put simply, things are considered fundamentally fuzzy or indeterminate in quantum theory. A particle may behave as a wave; Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that we have a limited ability to know more than one physical property of a particle (such as position and momentum) at the same time; radioactive decay is unpredictable, it results from a particle quantum tunneling into or out of the nucleus.

As far as physicists can tell, quantum mechanics includes true randomness. But Spinoza may still be right.

Uncertain Footing of Quantum Theory’s Uncertainties

Dobyns admitted that it is possible even quantum randomness is not truly random. If that is so, quantum theory would have to be majorly reworked.

Physicists expect such a reworking. Quantum theory has major gaps and scientists are seeking a new major theory to replace or complement it.

Science is torn between classical physics and quantum physics. Each holds true in certain circumstances, but neither can explain how everything works.

“Current quantum theory can and will be replaced if a better theory (one that explains more) can be devised, and a theory that can make accurate predictions of events that are random according to the current version of QM [quantum mechanics] would be a great candidate,” Dobyns said.

If quantum theory is replaced by a so-called “Theory of Everything,” the idea of randomness may also disappear. No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed, so for now we must assume they are truly random.

Random Number Generators

Machines called random number generators (RNGs) use the quantum processes to generate encryption keys for banks. They are also used as tools for various scientific experiments.

 Machines called random number generators (RNGs) use the quantum processes to generate encryption keys for banks.

RNGs have particularly been used in psi (the unknown “psychic” factor that cannot be explained by known physical and biological mechanisms) experiments; for example, researchers have used them to test whether a person could exercise psychokinesis by causing the machine to produce a pattern instead of randomness.

Dobyns designed and implemented data processing strategies for the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) lab at Princeton University, where RNGs were often used in psi experiments.

Dean Radin, chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, has also used RNG generators to conduct psi experiments. He explained how the randomness of RNGs is tested statistically.

RNGs produce random bits. They’re often described as electronic coin-flippers; they randomly produce either a 1 or a zero.

To test the RNG, researchers run tens of millions of bits produced by the RNG through statistical tests (one such suite of statistical tests is called Die Hard, developed by mathematician George Marsaglia at Florida State University). They test the distribution of bits in many ways, using variables that mathematicians have determined should indicate if the RNG is behaving randomly.

“If it passes all of the tests, then you say, ‘As best as we can tell, this is behaving like a true random system,’” Radin said. “But it’s quite true that you actually never know. Because it could be that after you’ve tested the 10 million random bits that the next 10 million might all come out the same, or some silly thing like that.”

“You assume that the sample of the tested bits is a fair representative of the whole population of bits and accurately reflects how the RNG works,” he said.

Some RNGs use computer algorithms instead of the “noise” created by quantum processes. These are sufficient for certain uses, but the resulting sequences are deterministic, and some uses require truly unpredictable, non-deterministic sequences.

If you go to an online poker site, for example, and you know the algorithm and seed, you can write a program that will predict the cards that are going to be dealt

— Steve Ward, professor, MIT

Some RNGs also use thermal or atmospheric noise instead of defined patterns. But these may still be biased, for example, toward higher or even (as opposed to odd) numbers. RNGs using quantum processes are considered the most random.

In addition to banking encryption and psi tests, MIT Computer Science and Engineering Professor Steve Ward, pointed out another use for true randomness in a post on the MIT website: “If you go to an online poker site, for example, and you know the algorithm and seed, you can write a program that will predict the cards that are going to be dealt.”

Radin said the encryption keys produced by true RNGs are the best we can do at present, as confirmed by the mathematics used to test them. Quantum mechanics appears to provide us with true randomness, for now at least.

SETI Investigates Unusual Radio Signal From Space


Follows close on mysterious discovery regarding fast radio bursts

In Beyond Science, Epoch Times explores research and accounts related to phenomena and theories that challenge our current knowledge. We delve into ideas that stimulate the imagination and open up new possibilities. Share your thoughts with us on these sometimes controversial topics in the comments section below.

The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) institute announced Monday that it considers a radio signal detected by Russian astronomers a potential sign of intelligent inhabitants in a star system 94 light-years away.

“There are many other plausible explanations for this claimed transmission—including terrestrial interference. Without a confirmation of this signal, we can only say that it’s ‘interesting,’” wrote Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer for SETI, in a technical analysis.

Nonetheless, Shostak considered the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial origin. Analyzing the strength of the signal, he said it would have to have been sent by a civilization capable of generating at least a trillion watts in one shot. That’s comparable to the total energy consumption of humankind.

The signal seems to be coming from the star system HD 164595, which centers on a star of comparable size and brightness to our sun. It is known to have a Neptune-sized planet, though its tight orbit makes it unlikely to host life. But, Shostak noted, more habitable planets may yet be found in HD 164595.

The signal seems to be coming from the star system HD 164595, which centers on a star of comparable size and brightness to our sun.

The signal was picked up by the RATAN-600 radio telescope in Zelenchukskaya, at the northern foot of the Caucasus Mountains. SETI will continue to monitor the star system with its Allen Telescope Array to see if there is any repeat of the signal.

It lasted longer than so-called “fast radio bursts” (FRBs), which last mere milliseconds. A total of 17 FRBs have been detected in the past eight years, though their origin also remains unknown.

A study published in the journal Nature in March by an international team of scientists revealed that FRBs are more mysterious than previously thought.

Previously, the bursts had been detected as single, non-repeating events coming from outside our galaxy. This led to the hypothesis that they originate in cataclysmic events, such as the collision of neutron stars, which would send shock-waves through space.

The researchers found, however, that 10 additional bursts followed FRB 121102 from the same location. The study states: “This unambiguously identifies FRB 121102 as repeating and demonstrates that its source survives the energetic events that cause the bursts.”

The study speculates that the source may be a young neutron star, but Shami Chatterjee, a Cornell University senior researcher who contributed to the study,said in a news release: “It seems we’ve broken this enigmatic phenomenon wide open.”

Previously Unknown Asteroid Just Whizzed Past Earth at Close Range


NASA has been tasked with finding giant asteroids that pose a potential threat to Earth, but the smaller, less destructive ones aren’t always on their radar.

Such was the case with 2016 QA2, which came within 50,000 miles of our planet on Sunday. In astronomical terms, that’s quite close. The moon is an average of about 239,000 miles away from our planet.

According to Seeker, the asteroid was discovered about a day before it passed.

It is, at minimum, about 80 feet wide, a bit larger than the one that caused damage and injuries in Russia roughly 3-and-a-half years ago.

Had it entered Earth’s atmosphere, the fallout would not have been dinosaur-extinction level, but may have caused some troubles in the immediate area.

Notably, NASA is in the process of engaging equipment that will allow for the detection of such small and close space objects.

SpaceX Scouring Data for Clues to Launch Pad Explosion


Thursday’s accident occurred during a prelaunch test, eight minutes before the engines on SpaceX’s Falcon rocket were supposed to briefly fire. The rocket was being fueled when a huge fireball erupted.

On Friday, SpaceX said it has begun reviewing 3,000 channels of computer and video data, covering a time period of just 35 to 55 milliseconds. The trouble appears to have originated somewhere near the liquid oxygen tank in the upper stage.

SpaceX said it’s unclear how badly the pad was damaged at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. But the company pointed out that it has two other pads, one at neighboring Kennedy Space Center that was formerly used to launch NASA’s shuttles, and another in California. SpaceX said these two pads can support the company’s upcoming launches, until the damaged complex can be fixed.

The Kennedy pad should be ready to handle Falcon launches as early as November, according to SpaceX. That’s the site where the company plans to launch NASA astronauts to the International Space Station in another year or so, a schedule now in jeopardy. Upgrades at the SpaceX pad at California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base are close to completion.

Both locations will be able to accommodate Falcon 9 rockets, like the one lost Thursday, and the newer, bigger Falcon Heavy rockets. The company said it has about 70 launches lined up, worth more than $10 billion. NASA is a major customer, relying on SpaceX to send supplies to the space station and return science experiments. The space agency also is looking for SpaceX and Boeing to begin crew transport from Cape Canaveral, in order to reduce its reliance on Russian rockets.

“Our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, as well as to take all the necessary steps to ensure the highest possible levels of safety for future crewed missions,” SpaceX said in a statement.

SpaceX expressed deep regret for the loss of the communications satellite that was on board the rocket. Facebook had intended to use the Israeli-made satellite to expand internet service in Africa; liftoff was supposed to be Saturday.

No one was injured in the accident.

A Mystery Rotating Island ‘The Eye’ Spotted in Argentina


There is an unusual floating island in Argentina that a group of scientists and filmmakers are hoping to explore further with the help of a Kickstarter campaign.

In a video on the project’s fundraising page, producer/director Sergio Neuspiller explains that his team discovered the island while location scouting for a sci-fi horror film. He describes the area they are calling The Eye as “a circle of land surrounded by a thin channel of water with an external diameter of 130 yards.”

They began to suspect that it may not be a natural formation based on the seemingly perfect shape of its inner and outer circles as well as images of the central area shifting over time.

After one failed expedition, some of them eventually reached the island and discovered unusually clear water, firm terrain, and a floating land mass.  The trip raised more questions, and they are hoping to raise $50,000 on Kickstarter to explore the island with a team of scientists and high-tech devices. The campaign is scheduled to run until October 10th.

To see “The Eye,” on google maps, plug in the coordinates 34°15’07.8″S 58°49’47.4″W.

Shocking Satellite Images Show Aral Sea Has Almost Disappeared


NASA’s Terra satellite has documented the changes in Aral Sea over the years and images show the water body being a fraction of the size in early 2000s compared to what it was in 1960s.

NASA said: “In the 1960s, the Soviet Union undertook a major water diversion project on the arid plains of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. The region’s two major rivers…were used to transform the desert into farms for cotton and other crops. Before the project, the Syr Darya and the Amu Darya rivers flowed down from the mountains…and finally pooled together in the lowest part of the basin. The lake they made, the Aral Sea, was once the fourth largest in the world.”

Drought and irrigation caused the sea to shrink over the years.

NASA then added: “As the Aral Sea has dried up, fisheries and the communities that depended on them collapsed. The increasingly salty water became polluted with fertilizer and pesticides. The blowing dust from the exposed lakebed, contaminated with agricultural chemicals, became a public health hazard.”

NASA Observatory Catches Rare Double Eclipse From Space


Here on Earth, we are lucky if can catch one eclipse, let alone a double eclipse. But a NASA observatory was recently able to witness such a phenomenon from space.

NASA notes, “Early in the morning of Sept. 1, 2016, NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO, caught both Earth and the moon crossing in front of the sun. SDO keeps a constant eye on the sun, but during SDO’s semiannual eclipse seasons, Earth briefly blocks SDO’s line of sight each day – a consequence of SDO’s geosynchronous orbit. On Sept. 1, Earth completely eclipsed the sun from SDO’s perspective just as the moon began its journey across the face of the sun. The end of the Earth eclipse happened just in time for SDO to catch the final stages of the lunar transit.”

While Earth and the moon appear dark, the way their edges appear are quite distinct. NASA explains, “Earth’s is fuzzy, while the moon’s is sharp and distinct. This is because Earth’s atmosphere absorbs some of the sun’s light, creating an ill-defined edge. On the other hand, the moon has no atmosphere, producing a crisp horizon. ”

When Coincidences Signal It’s ‘Meant to Be’—But It’s Not


Those pesky false promise coincidences

For many people coincidences are all good: if you wait long enough, you can probably find a positive outcome. Here we look at coincidences that from the beginning seem to promise a great outcome but then yield nothing.

Alan Colmes had applied for a job. On a flight, he discovered that he was seated next to the boss of the person with whom he’d been talking about the job. What a coincidence?! They had a good talk, and Colmes thought it meant that he would get the job.

He didn’t.

Romance probably breeds the most “false promise” coincidences, especially for individuals who over-rely on coincidences as metaphysical signposts pointing to the “path” they should take. The excitement of a new romantic interest can be greatly boosted by surprising coincidences that seem to signal a profound bond—presumed signs that a relationship is “meant to be.”

In his book, “When the Impossible Happens,” psychiatrist Stanislav Grof wrote of a romance fueled by coincidences that burned brightly but faded quickly. Two of his friends had suggested he meet Joan Halifax, a friend of theirs, and someone with whom they felt he had much in common. After several months, Grof decided to give her a call. He was going to present a paper at an American Psychiatry Association (APA) meeting in Dallas and figured he could swing by Miami (where she lived) to visit her on his way back home to New York.

As it turns out, she was also going to the APA meeting—and they had both, coincidentally, booked rooms in the same hotel. Without having communicated about where they could meet, Grof coincidentally met her at the first conference event he attended. They had never seen each other, and no one introduced them at the event, but when they saw each other across the room, they somehow recognized each other.

A series of other coincidences pulled the relationship speedily toward marriage. Even at the wedding, a repeated theme of rainbows seemed to bestow blessings and good auspices for the union.

But the morning after the wedding, Grof had a coincidence hangover.

But the morning after the wedding, Grof had a coincidence hangover: “As soon as I opened my eyes,” he wrote, “I sensed that something was terribly wrong. All the thrill and ecstatic feelings of the preceding day were gone; I felt sober and somber. The wave of excitement we had experienced the last few days suddenly felt illusory and deceptive. And what was worse, marrying Joan suddenly seemed like a serious error.”

It wasn’t long before they divorced.

He concluded, “I learned not to trust unconditionally the seductive power of such experiences. … It is essential to refrain from acting out while we are under their spell and not to make any important decisions until we have again both feet on the ground.”

Lynn Corrigan posted about her own false-promise coincidence series on Facebook: “I know someone with whom I share so many coincidences all the way back to childhood. The way we met as adults was also full of coincidences and long shots. Yet I need this person out of my life now. I wish we never met. So I’m wondering why the heck he was put in my path.”

A man named Sahmat told me that he read a book by a woman with whom he realized he had a lot in common: “I was most struck by the appearance of three synchronicities in our backgrounds,” he said. “We both grew up in Quaker families outside of Philadelphia, both were trained as biologists, and both eventually went to seminary and got an advanced degree in religious studies. I thought, ‘This is pretty unusual; we may be the only two Quaker biologist seminarians on the planet.’”

This is pretty unusual; we may be the only two Quaker biologist seminarians on the planet.

— Sahmat, coincidence experiencer

On the way to meet her, he saw many references to the number 37, one of his favorite numbers. These numerical sightings confirmed for him that he was on the right path.

And then he met up with this woman and found that they were not at all suited to each other.

The experience made him reflect on recent failures in attempts to make new connections with people. He realized he should instead revive older connections, specifically with his friend Larry.

The timing of the reconnection was perfect: it turned out that Larry had been working on a project that required Sahmat’s help. “So on the surface, my experience with the woman … turned out to be a ‘false promise synchronicity,’ but because I sought deeper guidance, it turned out not to be a false promise at all, but rather a necessary step to the real next connection I needed to make.”

Quoting Bob Dylan, he said, “There’s no success like failure.”

 There’s no success like failure.
— Bob Dylan
The paradox presented by coincidences is described by cognitive scientists Thomas Griffiths of Brown University and Joshua Tenenbaum of MIT in their 2007 paper “From Mere Coincidences to Meaningful Discoveries,” published in the journal Cognition: “[Coincidences] seem to be involved in both our most grievous errors of reasoning, and our greatest causal discoveries.”

Griffiths and Tenenbaum were primarily looking at the role of coincidence in scientific discovery. But some of their discussion may also be applied to the discovery of romantic love or personal opportunity through coincidence. “Coincidences,” they wrote, “are events that provide support for a hypothesis, but not enough support to convince us to accept that hypothesis.”

Let’s say the hypothesis is that a relationship, or even a marriage, will work out very well. The point is that a person should not wholeheartedly believe that hypothesis based on the coincidences alone.

The other extreme would be to ignore all coincidences out of fear that they are misleading. But as these researchers point out, some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made through coincidence (and likely some of the greatest romantic discoveries, too!).

The chances were good that Sahmat would connect well with a fellow Quaker biologist seminarian because they shared key interests. Just because it didn’t work out doesn’t mean he should ignore all such coincidences in the future. And he used his false promise coincidence as a stepping-stone to a more secure relationship.

There’s a whole field of study dedicated to hope—including false hope.

 There’s a whole field of study dedicated to hope—including false hope.
 Some researchers in this field worry that people who have false hopes, often based on illusions, will suffer psychological blows when they fail. Yet other researchers, such as Charles R. Snyder at the University of Kansas, think that a high-hope approach to life, even if it includes some minor illusions, leads to greater success and even psychological resiliency.

Running into each other unexpectedly in an out-of-the-way place, having family members with the same names, seeing rainbows at your wedding—all such coincidences may contribute to that feeling of magic when two people fall in love. But can they live with each other on a daily basis and share life together in a meaningful way? That’s a consideration beyond coincidence.

What Is Time – and Why Does It Move Forward?


Imagine time running backwards. People would grow younger instead of older and, after a long life of gradual rejuvenation – unlearning everything they know – they would end as a twinkle in their parents’ eyes. That’s time as represented in a novel by science fiction writer Philip K Dick but, surprisingly, time’s direction is also an issue that cosmologists are grappling with.

While we take for granted that time has a given direction, physicists don’t: most natural laws are “time reversible” which means they would work just as well if time was defined as running backwards. So why does time always move forward? And will it always do so?

Does Time Have a Beginning?

Any universal concept of time must ultimately be based on the evolution of the cosmos itself. When you look up at the universe you’re seeing events that happened in the past – it takes light time to reach us. In fact, even the simplest observation can help us understand cosmological time: for example the fact that the night sky is dark. If the universe had an infinite past and was infinite in extent, the night sky would be completely bright – filled with the light from an infinite number of stars in a cosmos that had always existed.

For a long time scientists, including Albert Einstein, thought that the universe was static and infinite. Observations have since shown that it is in fact expanding, and at an accelerating rate. This means that it must have originated from a more compact state that we call the Big Bang, implying that time does have a beginning. In fact, if we look for light that is old enough we can even see the relic radiation from Big Bang – the cosmic microwave background. Realising this was a first step in determining the age of the universe.

But there is a snag, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, shows that time is … relative: the faster you move relative to me, the slower time will pass for you relative to my perception of time. So in our universe of expanding galaxies, spinning stars and swirling planets, experiences of time vary: everything’s past, present and future is relative.

So is there a universal time that we could all agree on?

The universe’s timeline. (Design Alex Mittelmann, Coldcreation/wikimedia, CC BY-SA)

It turns out that because the universe is on average the same everywhere, and on average looks the same in every direction, there does exist a “cosmic time”. To measure it, all we have to do is measure the properties of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmologists have used this to determine the age of the universe; its cosmic age. It turns out that the universe is 13.799 billion years old.

Time’s Arrow

So we know time most likely started during the Big Bang. But there is one nagging question that remains: what exactly is time?

To unpack this question, we have to look at the basic properties of space and time. In the dimension of space, you can move forwards and backwards; commuters experience this everyday. But time is different, it has a direction, you always move forward, never in reverse. So why is the dimension of time irreversible? This is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.

To explain why time itself is irreversible, we need to find processes in nature that are also irreversible. One of the few such concepts in physics (and life!) is that things tend to become less “tidy” as time passes. We describe this using a physical property called entropy that encodes how ordered something is.

Imagine a box of gas in which all the particles were initially placed in one corner (an ordered state). Over time they would naturally seek to fill the entire box (a disordered state) – and to put the particles back into an ordered state would require energy. This is irreversible. It’s like cracking an egg to make an omelette – once it spreads out and fills the frying pan, it will never go back to being egg-shaped. It’s the same with the universe: as it evolves, the overall entropy increases.

Unfortunately that’s not going to clean up itself.

It turns out entropy is a pretty good way to explain time’s arrow. And while it may seem like the universe is becoming more ordered rather than less – going from a wild sea of relatively uniformly spread out hot gas in its early stages to stars, planets, humans and articles about time – it’s nevertheless possible that it is increasing in disorder. That’s because the gravity associated with large masses may be pulling matter into seemingly ordered states – with the increase in disorder that we think must have taken place being somehow hidden away in the gravitational fields. So disorder could be increasing even though we don’t see it.

But given nature’s tendency to prefer disorder, why did the universe start off in such an ordered state in the first place? This is still considered a mystery. Some researchers argue that the Big Bang may not even have been the beginning, there may in fact be “parallel universes” where time runs in different directions.

Will Time End?

Time had a beginning but whether it will have an end depends on the nature of the dark energy that is causing it to expand at an accelerating rate. The rate of this expansion may eventually tear the universe apart, forcing it to end in a Big Rip; alternatively dark energy may decay, reversing the Big Bang and ending the Universe in a Big Crunch; or the Universe may simply expand forever.

But would any of these future scenarios end time? Well, according to the strange rules of quantum mechanics, tiny random particles can momentarily pop out of a vacuum – something seen constantly in particle physics experiments. Some have argued that dark energy could cause such “quantum fluctuations” giving rise to a new Big Bang, ending our time line and starting a new one. While this is extremely speculative and highly unlikely, what we do know is that only when we understand dark energy will we know the fate of the universe.