LIFE THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE

 LIFE THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE

What Can Science Add to This Debate?

INTRODUCTION

This paper discusses the possibility of life in the universe. It is not a discussion about UFOs or UAPs, whichever term you prefer. A UFO type of discussion would come under the topic of technically advanced life throughout the universe. There is the potential for an argument that accepting life throughout the universe infers that there is technically advanced life in the universe. But, for now, this is just a look at the question of life throughout the universe.

Recently, many papers and subsequent articles have talked about other civilizations or life in the universe. There was a recent paper regarding other civilizations, or life forms, living here on Earth with us: Aliens May Already Live on Earth, Harvard Researchers Say - Newsweek

Another paper talked about finding seven stars that have the expected physical characteristics associated with a Dyson Sphere;

Astronomers Are on the Hunt for Dyson Spheres | The Arizona Astrobiology Center

And then there is the June 25, 2021 U.S. Government report, "Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena 25 June 2021

There is also the Drake Equation: Are We Alone in the Universe? Revisiting the Drake Equation - NASA Science

And let us not forget one of the oldest modern science programs on other civilizations in our universe, SETI, Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, founded in 1984. SETI Institute

Besides the scientific community's interest in life throughout our universe, there is also the government's interest and the public's interest. Congress has held whistleblower hearings on UFOs/UAPs and possibly recovered alien bodies and alien artifacts. Multiple websites and TV shows are dedicated to documenting and searching for UFOs/UAPs. Many famous and professional people have reported UFO/UAP sightings and experiences.

Currently, modern science does not have any confirmed majority opinions about other life in our universe. However, the above list of recent research papers and established organizations clearly shows that modern science, scientists, the U.S. Government, and the public have a specific interest in other life in our universe.

DISCUSSION

Many in the current scientific and physics professions will say that the previously discussed papers, observations, and experiences are not hard scientific proof of UFOs/UAPs. Given the legitimacy of the authors or agencies of the listed items, what would be considered hard scientific proof? However, as was stated at the beginning of this paper, this is not a discussion or argument for the existence or reality of UFOs/UAPs. It is a "first-step" discussion about other life within our universe independent of its level of technological understanding. And this is a topic devoid of debate in the modern scientific community.

NOTE: A species capable of traveling the universe corresponds with a specific type of life, a "technically advanced" form of life. Nothing about our universe requires all life to develop into technically advanced life. The possibility of technical understanding exists, but it is not necessary for life to exist. Many forms of life lived on our planet for billions of years before our currently technology-driven species existed.

Before discussing life in the universe, we should establish a definition of life. This is not an easy task for the simple reason that we have no clear definition of what "life" is. Given that this discussion involves the whole universe and the universe is a vast place, let's establish a simple three-criteria definition for this paper;

1. Survival. An ability to recognize a hazard and move away from it. Or to have such huge numbers and durability, allowing for survival through a catastrophe. Survival also includes sustainability.

2. Procreation. A species must have the ability to grow, pass along its genetic code, and continue moving forward as time goes forward.

3. Communication. A life form must be able to, at the very least, communicate with its species. This communication could be as simple as a notification of when procreation is possible.

For this paper, these are the three simplest evolutionary traits necessary to establish a long-term species that can avoid extinction.

Before we can go forward, there is still one piece that still needs to be added. What about the physical characteristics of life? Where did the physical things, such as chemistry and energy necessary to create a form for life to exist, come from? The five basic nucleobases responsible for the DNA and RNA of life, as we understand it, have been found on meteors. And over 80 different amino acids have also been found in meteors. Only 22 of these amino acids are associated with life on Earth as we know it. 

This begs the question, Since we have found the basic materials for life on meteors in our solar system, isn't it logical to presume that the basic materials for building life as we see here on Earth are a standard part of the universe?

Another consideration is the types or kinds of life. That is, there are many varieties or species of life. Our planet is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old. The earliest indication of life in the fossil records is about 3.7 billion years ago. The life associated with these early fossils blossomed into the species or varieties of life we have today. How many species of life are on Earth today? There is no specific number. But the estimated number of unique and distinct species of life is in the billions. This current estimated number does not include the previous species of life that have become extinct. It also does not include species of life that have yet to be discovered or evolve.

In other words, the first species of life to emerge on our young planet, which had the three criteria for life established above, grew into the vast number of species of life that we have on Earth today. This includes one species evolving from a basic life form into a "technologically advanced" species: "modern" humans. And who knows what kind of "modern" humans will exist in the next ten years?

So, how does life on planet Earth relate to life throughout the universe? It all starts at the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang.

Modern cosmology asserts that our universe is both homogeneous and isotropic. Homogeneous means that the universe's makeup is uniform or consistent. It comprises the same basic things no matter where you go in the universe. If I were to go to one side of the universe and pick out a big scoop of the universe, it would contain the same things and have the same physical properties as a scoop of the universe from the other side of the universe.

The second condition of our universe, isotropic, means that no matter where you are in the universe and where or how you look, the universe will always look the same. In other words, no matter what point you might travel to in the universe, what you see in any direction will look like what you see when you look up at the night sky from here on Earth. Now, granted, there might be many moons or more than one sun visible to you at some other place in the universe, but the point is those suns and moons will be like what we see here on Earth.

As for homogeneity, suppose for a moment that we take a scoop of the universe out of our Milky Way galaxy, including our solar system and Earth. This scoop of the universe contains all the normal stuff we expect to find. However, it also includes simple, general life as we have defined it. To maintain the condition of homogeneity within the universe means any other scoop out of the universe will also have to contain life.

Regarding isotropic, let's say you travel to the Big Dipper Constellation. This location is seven stars ranging from 58 to 124 light-years away. To narrow things down, let's say that we travel to the middle of the Big Dipper, which is about 90 light-years from Earth. When we look back in the direction of Earth, we will not actually see life on Earth, but life does, in fact, exist on Earth. Since the universe is isotropic, if we look in another direction from our position in the Big Dipper, it will look the same as when we looked at Earth. Although we did not see life on earth, it was there, which means there should also be life in this other direction we are looking at. Furthermore, there should be life in any other direction or way that we are looking at from the big dipper. This will be true for any other place we may look from in the universe.

Homogeneous and isotropic means that no matter where you go in the universe, it will be made up of the same stuff, have the same physical properties, and look the same no matter how or where you look. In other words, all parts of the universe have to look and be like the part of the universe that contains Earth and its life.

The details of the Big Bang and the creation of our universe are fascinating in their own right. However, only the basic conclusions in this paper are necessary for this discussion. What we need to know from the current leading theory of the creation of our universe is that the Big Bang is the moment when our universe as we know it, see it, feel it, and understand it begins to form. From quarks to atoms to molecules to particles to stars and planets, they all exist because of the Big Bang. But, just before the instant of the Big Bang, during what is known as the inflationary period, our universe was nothing but pure energy. The Big Bang allowed all the energy in the inflationary period to form into our universe today.

A significant amount of complexity is associated with the processes involved in building our universe. From the instant of the Big Bang until now, the only essential function occurring within our universe has been building. From creating the materials to make the universe to the actual building of the universe as we see it. Other than galaxies, stars, and planets, there is nothing new or different anywhere in the universe, and the universe's future does not hold anything new or different from what we see now. The previously discussed conditions of homogeneity and isotropy clearly show and prohibit any change in our universe. From the Big Bang until the end, our universe is set in building only more of what we see and know of today.

So, where did the instructions for turning pure energy into the building materials of stars, planets, and everything else in the universe come from?

Since the instant of the Big Bang, the state of the universe has been directed toward building the universe as we know it. This means that the blueprints and instructions for all of our universe building had to be a part of the energy in the inflationary period that occurred until the instant of the Big Bang. In other words, how to build our universe from energy was part of the energy in the inflation period. What good is all of the energy from the inflationary period if there are no instructions, that are a part of the energy, for how to turn this inflationary energy into the building blocks of matter, and life as we know it.

For further information on the building of the matter that makes up everything we see and know of in the universe, see The First Second After the Big Bang a New Perspective for 2024; https://medium.com/@philofysks/the-first-second-after-the-big-bang-a-new-perspective-for-2024-3f540b0d765c

The energy of the inflationary period did not go only into building the matter necessary for our universe; it also went into creating the matter necessary for life in our universe. That is, the inflationary energy not only went into building the atoms that eventually became all of the galaxies, stars, and planets of our universe, but this inflationary energy also had instructions on how to make the atoms, which contain the instructions for allowing life to form in our universe. This would be the previously mentioned five basic nucleobases and over 80 amino acids that are part of all life in our universe. As stated in this paper, these basic nucleobases and amino acids that start life are on meteors. And meteors exist throughout the universe. In other words, the building blocks for life are just as much a part of the universe as the building blocks of matter.

A quick side note: Only 22 of the 80 amino acids known are necessary for life as we know them. This means that a huge number of amino acid combinations are available to form a vast diversity of life in the universe.

Current theories for the beginning of our universe also include a quantum physics aspect associated with the energy of the inflationary period. Nobel Prize-winning Physicist Murray Gell-Mann is credited with first putting the following quote in writing in one of his papers; "Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory." This quote from Gell-Mann was initially associated with particle physics, but over the years, this quote has been used when discussing quantum theory. Additionally, "what is not forbidden is compulsory" has become an axiom for modern physics. *The origins of this quote are unknown, and another version of this quote is associated with the legal profession. 

Concerning life in the universe, if nothing prevents the building blocks for life from being part of the energy in the first instance of the building of our universe, then life must be a part of our universe.

CONCLUSION

Life is extraordinary, and it is unique. Our universe is also exceptional and unique. Since we, as the human species, became aware of our existence, we have asked questions about life and where it came from. We have believed that life was confined to our own planet and our universe was simply one large empty expanse of space with some matter strewn about, void of any life but our own. However, over the past few years, our general view regarding life in the universe, technologically advanced life, has begun to change. Also fueling this change in the view of life in the universe is the discovery of over 7000 planets around other stars

Going back to the previous discussion of Homogeneity and Isotropy, these two concepts showed us that there had to be planets around other stars before the discovery of these other planets. Within the past few years, our advances in technology have reached a point where we can discover these other planets. However, based on our understanding of the universe's homogeneity and isotropy, we could have and should have, easily known that there were other planets around other stars. And we should also have known that some of these other planets will have life.

Our universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Technologically advanced life did not simply appear with the snap of the fingers at some point in time during the aging of our universe. Rather, like the universe itself, it had to be built up, constructed, and evolve from the basic building blocks of life within our universe. This is the part of our maturing universe that science still needs to look at, that life itself is part of our universe? As discussed, if we accept the homogeneous and isotropic argument along with the basic inflation and Big Bang concept previously discussed, then life is an essential element of our universe.

As Murray Gell-Mann stated, "Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory." The existence of our species of life and every other species here on our planet clearly shows that life in the universe is not forbidden. Furthermore, all life on our planet clearly indicates that life on a planet orbiting a star is allowed. When the other associated aspects of applicable physics are considered, the only possible conclusion is that our universe was designed for life to prosper.

THE FIRST SECOND AFTER THE BIG BANG; A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR 2024

 THE FIRST SECOND AFTER THE BIG BANG; A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR 2024

The first second after the Big Bang established our universe as we know it today.

According to the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology, the Plank Second is 5.391247 X10^-44 seconds long. Current physical understanding is that the Plank Second is the smallest unit of time with any meaning.

At 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, gravity broke away from the superforce to become an individual force. The implication is that the superforce had to be a part of the energy that started the big bang.

As an individual force, Newton's Law of Gravity describes gravity, and a part of this law is Newton's Gravitational Constant, which is a fundamental physical constant. The implication is that, like the superforce, the gravitational constant must also be part of the Big Bang energy.

At 10^-36 seconds, the strong force broke away from the superforce. Again, the implication is that the strong coupling constant, another fundamental physical constant, was part of the energy of the Big Bang.

At 10^-12 seconds, quarks formed.

According to the article Where Does the Higgs Boson Come From, 30 March 2023, Matthew Chalmers, Editor of the CERN Courier (https://home.cern/news/news/physics/where-does-higgs-boson-come#:~:text=This%20field%20is%20understood%20to,interact%20with%20this%20quantum%20molasses%2C)

The Higgs Field “came into existence during an epochal “electroweak” phase transition a fraction of a nanosecond after the Big Bang; whereas, previously, elementary particles such as the electron had moved at the speed of light, they were forever after forced to interact with this quantum molasses, which imbued them with the property of mass.”

A nanosecond is 10^-9 second. And there are 15 elementary particles in the Standard Model that have mass. Interactions with the Higgs Field set the mass of these particles. Once again, all mixing parameters and associated fundamental physical constants must already exist. This interaction again implies they, too, were part of the Big Bang Energy.

At 10^-6 seconds, protons and neutrons formed. Since protons and neutrons combine three quarks, which obtained mass at 10^-9 seconds, all mixing parameters and associated fundamental physical constants for combining quarks must already exist, implying that they were part of the energy of the Big Bang.

Well before the first second after the Big Bang has passed, the stage is set for the formation of the universe as we know it today. Specifically, all of the elemental matter particles of the standard model have formed, the four principle forces of our universe are in place, and so are all of the necessary fundamental physical constants of the universe. Our universe is set up to build matter as we see it today. Conversely, our universe's current status is inconsistent with the formation of antimatter. The fundamental constants necessary for building matter equally spread positive and negative charges among the elemental matter particles of the standard model. Thus, charge symmetry is conserved, and the Law of Conservation of Charge is not violated. And the production of antimatter is suppressed. 

The formation of antimatter in today's universe is still suppressed as the fundamental constants primarily only allow for the formation of matter. There are no free or large patches of only antimatter. Symmetry is not violated because, in limited high-energy occasions, some antimatter does form, but it is immediately annihilated when it interacts with ordinary matter. In other words, symmetry does exist because you can always make antimatter at any time. It is just that the basic model of our universe suppresses the natural making of antimatter. 

Based on the information just covered, there are two 2024 hypotheses:

First Hypothesis: The fundamental constants were part of the universe before the Big Bang.

Second Hypothesis: The fundamental constants only allowed our early universe to be comprised of positive matter and energy.

Therefore, there was no antimatter asymmetry in the first second of our universe.

Further reading,

https://medium.com/@philofysks/fundamental-constants-of-our-universe-solving-the-antimatter-asymmetry-just-after-the-big-bang-629c58b44baf

https://medium.com/@philofysks/where-is-the-positive-charge-in-our-universe-98db4d7fd412

Fundamental Constants of our Universe Solving the Antimatter Asymmetry Just After the Big Bang

 Fundamental Constants of our Universe Solving the Antimatter Asymmetry Just After the Big Bang

The Mathematical Numbers that are Part of Our Universe and Make it Work Account for the Fact that there is Only Matter and Little Antimatter in Our Universe.

INTRODUCTION

The most basic question posed by our species is: how did life occur? How did we, the intelligent human species, evolve to ask this question? The more fundamental question we must consider is how our universe evolved so that life can exist in the first place. The first expectation is that science and physics will provide insight into the answer to this basic question of how our universe evolved. However, in reality, we may never understand the steps for the evolution of our universe. The complexity of our universe, along with the secrets hidden in this complexity, only sometimes give answers that we are able to understand.

Many modern scientists and physicists believe that mathematics is the language of our universe. Almost all of the great discoveries of how our universe works have been explained or understood through mathematics. Since history has shown us the power of mathematics when it comes to understanding our universe, it is only natural to believe that mathematics will continue to play a leading role in the future understanding of our universe. Given the importance of mathematics in our universe, we have to conclude that all forms of mathematics were an integral part of the initial condition of our universe. That is, mathematics has been part of our universe ever since before the Big Bang. If science can understand the mathematics of the universe, it could better answer the questions we posed about life in our universe. 

However, there is a problem. It is not so much the mathematics that has to be understood; instead, it is the physical constants of the universe that are an integral part of the universe and its mathematics that need to be understood.

DISCUSSION

Symmetry is one of the most fundamental concepts of our universe. The general meaning of symmetry is that if there is something in our universe, then the opposite of this something also exists in our universe. For example, some things are hot, like the sun, and others are cold, like moons around planets. While moving forward, it is also possible to stop and then move backward. While moving, it is also possible to turn and move to the right or turn and move to the left. 

One of the most significant symmetry issues within our universe is the issue of positive matter and energy. Our entire universe is made up of positive matter and energy. The opposite of positive matter and energy is negative matter and energy within our universe. The electron and the positron are the most straightforward examples of positive and negative matter. The electron is the positive matter, and it is part of every single atom that makes up everything that we know of in our universe. The positron is the exact opposite of the electron; it's an anti-electron, and for the most part, it does not commonly exist in our universe. The positron is a real particle, just like the electron, and occasionally, it will pop into existence within our universe. The problem is that the electron has positive energy while the positron has negative energy. So when the electron and positron meet up, they annihilate each other, releasing an enormous amount of energy.

At the instant of the big bang start of our universe, the universe was nothing but energy. There were no electrons, positrons, quarks, or other matter. As the Big Bang progressed, all of the energy in the universe began to form into electrons, positrons, quarks, and other forms of matter. Symmetry demands that as the energy starts to create matter, the number of electrons and positrons that form should be exactly the same. In other words, there should be the same number of positrons as there are electrons. If this had happened, our universe would not exist because all of the electrons and positrons would have met up with each other, and they would all be annihilated. However, something broke the electron and positron symmetry, causing an asymmetry in our universe where more electrons than positrons were formed. It is unknown how this asymmetry occurred, but it did because our universe exists today. 

At the moment of the Big Bang, electrons and positrons were not the only matter particles created. Several other matter particles, as well as their antimatter particles, were also formed. Symmetry demands the equal formation of all other matter particles and their antimatter particles. But, just like the electron and positron, if any matter particle and its antimatter particle meet, they annihilate each other. However, once again, the symmetry of matter and antimatter particles was defeated, and the asymmetry of more matter particles than antimatter particles prevailed. And this gave us the positive matter and energy in our universe.

For our universe to exist as it does, something happened at the moment of the Big Bang that prevented antimatter from annihilating all matter. In other words, one of the most fundamental concepts of modern physics, symmetry, was broken. However, what if symmetry was not broken during the Big Bang? What if symmetry was not an issue at the moment of the Big Bang? What if, at the moment of the Big Bang, positive matter and energy were all that was allowed to form in our universe?

The physical processes that occur in our universe, like the formation of atoms and molecules and the corresponding formation of all matter within the universe, are understood through the language of mathematics. Like every language, mathematics has many parts. When it comes to understanding nature, one of the most important parts of mathematics is what is known as the fundamental physical mathematical constants. Specifically, these fundamental constants are part of the mathematics that explains almost everything we know and understand in our universe. Specifically, if these fundamental physical constants did not exist, or their actual values were slightly different from what they are now, then molecules, atoms, and matter as we know it would not exist.  

So, what is a fundamental physical constant, and how are they defined? The most straightforward answer to this question is that the fundamental physical constants must be measured. And these constants' measurement, or values, usually comes through experiments. The fundamental constants cannot be derived through mathematical processes or physical laws alone. They also cannot be decreed by a physical law. 

Consider the speed of light in a vacuum, 299,792,458 meters per second, or 186,000 miles per hour. These are two different numbers, but they measure the same thing. The only way to get these numbers for the speed of light is to measure how fast the light moves in the specific units of measure: miles per hour or meters per second. No known mathematical concepts can be used alone to determine how fast light moves. In other words, the speed of light is a fundamental constant.

What about the length of a second? Is that a constant? The answer is NO. We know that the second is the basic unit of time, but a human agreement defines the length of time. Specifically, the science community has agreed that one second will be the time it takes for 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation that occur when a cesium 133 atom transitions between two levels. 

In describing a fundamental physical constant, we must consider another term: a basic physical law. Basic physical laws are different from actual physical constants. The most common example of fundamental physical laws is Newton's Three Laws of Motion. These fundamental physical laws describe how things move here on Earth and throughout the universe. Newton also formalized a fundamental physical law for gravitation that explained how gravity works between two bodies of mass. Newton's basic laws all have mathematical equations associated with them, describing the actions being observed. In the case of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, contained within the mathematical formula is a specific number. This number is known as the Gravitational Constant, a fundamental physical constant. In other words, for the most part, fundamental physical constants are part of some basic physical laws. 

How many fundamental physical constants are there? So far, scientists have discovered fundamental constants in all branches of science, from physics to biology to chemistry and all other sciences. The current information suggests that there are at least 140 fundamental physical constants. As our knowledge base grows, scientists may discover additional fundamental constants. The National Institute of Standards and Technology maintains a list of fundamental constants: https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/all.pdf.

Are all 140 fundamental constants necessary to form our universe? The answer is yes. But were all of these fundamental constants necessary in the first second of the formation of our universe? In this case, the answer is no. So, how many fundamental constants were required at the beginning of our universe to get it started? This number can vary depending on who you ask or which reference paper you refer to. I will use the reference paper Ask Ethan: How Many Constants Define Our Universe, authored by Ethan Siegel, Ph.D., published in Starts With a Bang! This research paper lists 26 different fundamental physical constants to define our universe and bring it into existence as we know it. 

The 26 fundamental constants for the start of our universe generally work with the four principal forces of our universe: gravity, the strong force, the weak interaction, and electromagnetism. These four principle forces have been a part of the universe since the Big Bang. Specifically, the current hypothesis is that at the moment of the Big Bang, these four principal forces were all forged together as a single superforce. Within the first second after the Big Bang, the four principal forces started to break apart from the superforce as the universe expanded and cooled down. The first force to break off was gravity. Shortly after gravity, the strong force broke away. Shortly after, the strong force broke off, but within that first second after the Big Bang, the weak interaction split from the electromagnetic force, which divided into electricity and magnetism. The last thing to happen in this first second is the formation of the Higgs field. Lastly, about 10 to 12 seconds after the Big Bang, the elementary particles responsible for every piece of matter we see and know of in our universe start forming. The 26 fundamental constants and the four principal forces work together to create the matter we see and know of within our universe. 

So, where did all of these fundamental physical constants come from? The most straightforward answer to this question is that nobody knows; they were a part of the universe's formation, just like the four principal forces. In other words, they were just there. This is not much of an answer, but it is the best available. A secondary question is when did the constants become part of the universe. Again, there is no specific answer to this secondary question. However, in this case, there is other information available that we can use to provide an idea as to when these constants had to be a part of our universe. And that is the separation of the four fundamental forces.

As stated above, the fundamental constants work with the four principle forces to create all the matter that is a part of our universe. That is, fundamental constants help define the four principal forces. The most straightforward example of this is gravity. Back in 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his law of universal gravitation. As part of this published law, Newton had the equation for the gravitational force experienced between two bodies of matter. Part of this equation is the gravitational constant. Even though this constant is not part of the 26 constants in the above reference paper, it is nonetheless one of the basic fundamental constants of our universe. 

In the early timeline, the four principal forces became individual forces in our universe immediately after the Big Bang. But fundamental constants are part of the definition of these individual principle forces and are part of the formation of the matter of our universe. In other words, the fundamental constants had to be part of the universe when the principal forces became individual forces so that matter could ultimately form within that first second after the big bang. This means that since fundamental constants are part of the principal forces, the fundamental constants had to be a part of the universe before the principal forces formed in the first instant of the universe after the Big Bang.

The information above concludes that the fundamental constants were part of the universe before the Big Bang. 

It should be noted that currently there are no theories or hypotheses as to how or when the fundamental constants became a part of the universe.

Other conclusions regarding when the fundamental constants became a part of the universe are possible. However, the theory of a superforce and the timeline of when the fundamental forces separated from the superforce is just that, a theory. If there are changes to the superforce theory, or even if there are changes to the Big Bang theory, then when the fundamental constants become part of the universe, they will also face changes. Whereas if the fundamental constants were part of the universe before the Big Bang, then changes to current theories do not affect the fundamental constants and their part in forming matter in our universe.

Modern physics has shown that the basic building blocks of matter are quarks and electrons. More specifically, the up and down quarks (which comprise the proton and neutron) with the electron. The above-listed reference paper shows us that fundamental constants are associated with the mixing and combining quarks to form protons and neutrons. Another fundamental constant is elementary electrical charge, which, in simplest terms, is the electrical charge of an electron and proton. The proton charge results from the combined charges on the up and down quarks that make up the proton. The current theory is that the total charge of the universe is zero. That is, the total amount of positive charge on a proton is the same amount of negative charge on an electron. 

The current theory is that the up and down quarks combined to form protons and neutrons within the first second after the Big Bang. Therefore, the 26 fundamental constants listed in the reference paper above and other fundamental constants had to be in place within the first second after the Big Bang. Additionally, these constants all had to work together smoothly and consistently to form the basic building blocks of atoms and molecules of matter that make up our universe. In other words, for the fundamental constants of our universe to work together, they must be fine-tuned to their specific mathematical values to give us the universe we know. 

Given how the constants consistently and efficiently work with the basic matter particles of our universe to make our universe, the simplest solution is the conclusion stated above: the fundamental constants were part of the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang. The follow-up conclusion from the first is that the fundamental constants had to play a part in developing the basic particles they would be working with through the principle forces. That is, the fundamental constants dictated that only the positive matter and energy particles that give us our universe could form at the beginning of the universe. In other words, antimatter asymmetry was the direction of our universe at the beginning. Specifically, the positive matter and energy universe we live in was dictated by the fundamental constants that existed at the beginning of the Big Bang. Although negative energy and matter were able to form at later stages of our universe, they were not consistent with the fundamental constants responsible for the beginning of our universe.

Given the information covered above, a second conclusion is that the fundamental constants only allowed for the existence of positive matter and positive energy in the early universe. 

This conclusion tells us that our early universe had no antimatter asymmetry. The fundamental constants were a part of the universe before the Big Bang and were responsible for forming the positive energy and matter present in the earliest parts of our universe.

CONCLUSIONS

The fundamental physical constants are a basic mathematical necessity for the formation and evolution of our universe. Without these constants, the universe as we know it would not exist. 

The modern cosmological theory says that the basic particles responsible for making all the matter in our universe existed in the first second after the Big Bang. Currently, the cosmological theory also says that due to symmetry requirements, antimatter particles were also created in the first second after the Big Bang. The current theory further states that during the first second after the Big Bang, the matter and antimatter that were created combined, destroying the antimatter. However, modern theory says that there was slightly more matter than antimatter for an unknown reason. Therefore, matter survived, allowing our universe to survive in its current form.

Current theory does not solve the antimatter asymmetry problem. No matter the theory or hypothesis regarding the formation of antimatter in the first second, the fact that more matter than antimatter formed represents a matter to antimatter asymmetry. However, we know that antimatter can always be made in the later stages of our universe. This is where matter-antimatter symmetry is a part of our universe. Specifically, just because antimatter can exist in small quantities now doesn't mean it had to be here at the beginning of our universe. The fundamental constants allowed for the formation of matter and, in essence, suppressed but did not eliminate the formation of anti-matter. On a small-scale basis, fundamental constants don't interfere with creating a small amount of antimatter.

The information covered in this paper presents two hypotheses:

First Hypothesis: The fundamental constants were part of the universe before the Big Bang. 

Second Hypothesis: The fundamental constants only allowed our early universe to be comprised of positive matter and energy. 

It is important to note that neither one of these hypotheses changes or affects any current modern hypothesis or theory. Instead, they work with modern theories and hypotheses to provide a more complete view of our universe. 

Furthermore, based on the first hypothesis, any changes or updates to current cosmological theories for the Big Bang do not affect how matter and energy are formed in the earliest stages of our universe.

MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS, A UNIVERSE OF LARGE, NOT SMALL ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS, A UNIVERSE OF LARGE, NOT SMALL ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS

Introduction

We have learned so much about our universe and how our world operates through the science of physics. It only makes sense for us to rely on physics to provide hints and clues regarding where to look next. Or a direction to go in order to build upon what we already know and have learned. Our responsibility to the universe is to look hard at what we have learned. Asking questions to learn more and to understand better what we know is the first step to moving forward and moving outward into our universe.

In the year 1868, Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann's paper on 'N' dimensional space was published. Essentially, Riemann's paper mathematically showed that the geometry of our universe could have 'N' dimensions. Information regarding Planck length was not part of the physics known at this time. This infers that the conclusion in Riemann's 'N' dimensional space paper was for large overlapping dimensions. Large dimensions are significantly different from the seven dimensions of space down below the Planck length currently theorized in string theory. In other words, our universe does not have to be limited to the three dimensions in which we live. The universe could be any number of dimensions over and above three. 

SIDE NOTE: Regarding the term "'N' dimensional space," any positive whole number can replace the 'N'. We live in 3 dimensions of space (3D space), but the math says 10 dimensions, 75 dimensions, or 500 million dimensions of space are possible. Also mentioned above was Planck length; this is the smallest length possible in our 3D universe, and it is way smaller than the size of the atom. Riemann's paper is the basis of the 10, 11, or 25 dimensions associated with string theory. However, the extra dimensions in string theory are curled up and exist in the space of the Planck length. 

Theodor Kaluza, in 1921, theorized a unification of gravity with electricity and magnetism in five dimensions (four dimensions of space and one time). In his original theory, Kaluza looked at the extra dimension of space to be large, not small. After being given feedback on his original large dimension theory, Kaluza modified his theory and reduced the size of his extra dimension. He did not, however, reduce the size of his fourth dimension of space to below the Planck length. Kaluza's use of an extra dimension of space was primarily done as a mathematical tool to try and combine gravity with electricity and magnetism as a follow-up to Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism. Specifically, the presumption at the time was that the three forces, gravity, electricity, and magnetism, had to all be associated through one set of equations. The unification of forces via the extra dimension theorized by Kaluza ultimately had some problems, the biggest of which was no "evidence" of a large overlapping fourth dimension. Thus, Kaluza's theory fell out of favor. 

However, over 100 years later, the question now is what evidence would a fourth dimension present to those living in three dimensions? 

SIDE NOTE: There is information that in his original unification of electricity and magnetism, Maxwell used four dimensions of space and one of time. Did Kaluza follow Maxwell's initial use of five total dimensions? Additionally, work to extend Maxwell's equations into 'N' dimensional space has been published. 

Some additional questions for future consideration regarding ‘N’ dimensional space:

1. Why not keep dimensions large rather than going small, as in string theory?

2. What concept, mathematics, or physics prevents large, overlapping dimensions? 

3. Riemann’s original theory had ‘N’ dimensions of space, so why stop at four?

4. What in nature or physics requires unification beyond electricity and magnetism?

5. Why not expand our knowledge in theoretical physics into four-dimensional or higher spaces first and then see if the unification of forces is possible?

Discussion

Established mathematics and previous theories that looked at a universe with more than three dimensions of space show that a multi-dimensional universe is a familiar idea. String theory, the current unification theory, looks at a multi-dimensional universe. With string theory, the extra dimensions of space are confined to an unimaginably small space that is experimentally impossible to reach and verify. In other words, in general, a universe of multi-dimensional space is an accepted theory rather than a proven theory. So, why can't a multi-dimensional universe be composed of larger, overlapping dimensions rather than folded dimensions in the smallest known space? And does our current physics and knowledge provide foresight for a universe with large, overlapping multiple dimensions?

Large Overlapping Dimensions Overview

Presume that a one-dimensional space is embedded in a two-dimensional space. And the two-dimensional space is embedded in our three-dimensional space. This presumption is very straightforward, given that a two-dimensional space can be created by stacking one-dimensional spaces, and a three-dimensional space can be made by combining two-dimensional spaces. Additionally, two-dimensional spaces are used in mathematics and physics as a tool for extending concepts and theories into higher-dimensional space. Therefore, we can presume that our three-dimensional space is embedded in a four-dimensional space.

Gravity is a required physical characteristic of all mass in our three dimensions, and it envelopes all of space in our universe. Therefore, our three-dimensional gravity will also influence embedded two-dimensional space. Again, by extension, it is not unreasonable to presume that four-dimensional gravity will exist and have some influence on our three-dimensional space. With the presumption that our three dimensions of space are embedded in four-dimensional space, the expectation is that the force of four-dimensional gravity would look like what we call dark energy in our three-dimensional space. 

Standard Model

In the standard model, there are three generations of elementary quarks. From the first generation of the "up" and "down" quarks comes the proton and neutron that comprise the nucleus of every atom in our universe. The second generation of quarks is exactly like the first generation of quarks; only they are far more massive and energetic. The stability of our three-dimensional proton composed of the first-generation up and down quarks is well known. Why would we think that a second quark generation proton does not exist as the "charm" and "strange" quarks are nothing more than heavier versions of the "up" and "down" quarks? Currently, the second and third generation of quarks exists for very, very short periods of time in our three-dimensional universe with no specific purpose. The question of concern is why would nature provide us with a second and third generation of quarks that do nothing? 

The physics of our universe has shown us that nature is purposeful and that things happen for a reason. Keeping things consistent, why is there no second generation of protons and neutrons? The short answer for now in particle physics would be that these second-generation nucleons cannot exist in three dimensions as they are too heavy and, therefore, too energetic. However, the general expectation is a larger fourth dimension would allow for more energetic particles to exist. In other words, the second-generation nucleons could exist in a fourth dimension, which could mimic the dark matter we see here in our three-dimensional space. 

Due to energy constraints, only three generations of quarks have been discovered. However, there is no physics or concepts that prohibit more generations of quarks and associated particles. In other words, much like Riemann's 'N' dimensions of space, there could also be 'N' generations of elementary particles.  

Antimatter Asymmetry

One of the most significant questions associated with our universe and its physics is the lack of any antimatter in our universe. However, the existence of antimatter is accurate in that antimatter has been created through natural cosmological processes and experiments. The reality of the existence of antimatter, but the fact that none of it is significantly present in our universe, represents a huge issue concerning one of the basic principles of physics, symmetry. 

So far, antimatter, for the most part, is nowhere to be found in our universe, creating a colossal symmetry issue. Adding multiple, larger, overlapping dimensions allows for antimatter to exist outside of our 3D universe but still be a part of our overall universe. A fourth-dimensional antimatter existence would maintain the symmetry in the overall universe, a simple solution to what is currently a significant problem that has no other known potential solutions. 

Right-Handed Asymmetry

Antimatter asymmetry is not the only asymmetry within our universe. And our current physics has no solution, explanation, or ideas on how to handle the asymmetry. The second asymmetry, and arguably a more significant asymmetry, is "Right-Handed Asymmetry." This is a genuine issue within our universe and modern physics that is not discussed or considered. 

A quick discussion regarding right and left-handed particles is in order. This will be a very down-and-dirty discussion. One of the quantum characteristics of elementary particles is "spin." There is much more associated with spin, but for this paper, we will only worry about right-handed and left-handed spin, which describes the direction of a particle's spin.

Within our universe, Neutrinos are by far the most abundant particles. There are millions upon millions of Neutrinos passing through our bodies every second of every day. All of the observed Neutrinos in our universe have left-handed spin. A Neutrino with right-handed spin does not exist in our universe. In other words, there is a right-handed spin asymmetry in our universe with the most abundant elementary particle in our universe.

The next left-handed interaction is of great importance in chemistry and particle physics. This interaction involves the weak nuclear interaction, also known as beta decay. The weak nuclear interaction changes neutrons into protons, and vice-versa, changing protons into neutrons. Once again, maintaining a short description for this paper, the weak nuclear interaction and beta decay is when a neutron decays into a proton and an electron. The weak nuclear interaction also includes a proton becoming a neutron with the addition of an electron. This is where the particle physics part comes in; the decay processes for protons and the change process for neutrons involve the W (plus and minus) and Z Bosons. The issue here is W and Z Bosons are only left-handed, and they only interact with left-handed spin protons, neutrons, and elementary particles. As for right-handed protons and neutrons, there is no specific information regarding what occurs with these particles.

The proton and neutron are the basic building blocks of all matter in our universe. Yet there is a distinct asymmetry associated with these building blocks for which there is no answer or understanding. The asymmetry related to the universe's "building blocks" goes much deeper than the elementary particles that make up the universe as we know it. The right-handed asymmetry also involves another set of building blocks on Earth: amino acids, the basic building blocks of all life here on Earth. Amino acids also come in right-handed and left-hand molecules. Only the left-handed amino acid molecules are the building blocks for the proteins in all of the life that we know. 

To put all of this into perspective, all of the matter that we know of in the universe and all of the life that we know of here on Earth are all about left-handed interactions. In other words, as we know it, we live in a left-handed universe with no known reason or explanation for this. This lack of knowledge begs the question; does a right-handed antimatter universe exist in another dimension since it does not exist in our known universe? If it does, it would account for most of the missing symmetry in our known universe.

Large Overlapping Dimension Further Information

Information and evidence indicating the existence of large, overlapping dimensions within our current knowledge of physics and the universe goes beyond what was covered above. We know that our universe is expanding, which affects the vacuum energy density of space. Maintaining the same energy density in the vacuum of the universe's space requires an influx of energy into the universe's expanding space. Larger overlapping dimensions can account for and supply the vacuum energy necessary to maintain a constant energy density in expanding space. 

Thinking Outside of the Box

Regarding the expanding space of our universe, a fourth dimension could cause this expansion. Additionally, the question of "What is the space of our universe expanding into?" routinely arises. The answer may be as easy as our 3D space grows into the 4D space it is a part of.

One of the principal endeavors of physics today is the unification of quantum physics with relativity through a "Grand Unification Theory" and then discovering the "Theory of Everything." Adding large overlapping dimensions increases the overall platform available to work and move forward on unification. Specifically, increases in the amount of energy, gravity, and particles available in more dimensions provide more opportunities for achieving unification. The same thought holds for a Theory of Everything. Increasing the physical attributes of the universe available to work with can increase the chances of finding a Theory of Everything.

One additional aspect of multiple overlapping dimensions is independence. That is, our three-dimensional space can be independent of other dimensions, thus allowing us to have the physics concepts unique to our space. Similarly, a 4th overlapping dimension of space can have its unique physics and concepts, some of which may "leak" into our three dimensions of space. As we expand and learn more about additional dimensions of space, there will be new frontiers and energy levels for us to learn. This additional knowledge through extra dimensions can also help us understand what we do not entirely understand in our three-dimensional physics. 

Riemann's paper was proof for 'N' dimensions. Relating this to the standard model, nothing says there are only three generations of particles. It is not unreasonable to presume that there are more, possibly, 'N' generations of quarks and elementary particles corresponding with more dimensions of space. We cannot claim that because something has not been discovered, it does not exist. This is particularly true when established mathematics and previous theories have looked at multiple dimensions for solutions. Moreover, given that our current knowledge indicates there are more dimensions and potentially more generations of elementary particles, we need to look for these things until we can prove they do not exist. 

Conclusion

When was the last significant discovery in physics? If we think about quantum physics and relativity, both were discovered over 100 years ago. Additionally, the discovery of both quantum physics and relativity came about from physics concepts already in place. Relativity was based on Maxwell's work with electricity and magnetism, while quantum physics came from Planck's work with black-body radiation. A universe of multiple dimensions is the leading theory being worked on today through string theory. So, a multi-dimensional theory is something that has been introduced previously. The current string theory looks at dimensions compacted into a small area of space. If it is possible for extra dimensions to be small, then symmetry would suggest that our universe could also be composed of extra, large, overlapping dimensions. Furthermore, there is nothing in today's physics that forbids large, overlapping dimensions.

This paper looked at part of our current knowledge base for physics and picked out some of the most direct pieces of evidence and information that point to our universe having multiple large dimensions of space above our three dimensions of space. Furthermore, past and present theories and mathematical papers have looked at multiple dimensions of space as being a part of our overall universe. Additionally, multiple large, overlapping dimensions are the most direct and easiest way to account for the asymmetries in our current physics and understanding of our three-dimensional universe. There is also direct visual evidence for multiple large, overlapping dimensions; consider the Klein bottle and other objects we see in three dimensions that can only be "opened" up in four dimensions of space. 

There is a purpose to all things about the universe we live in. Therefore, the physics of the universe and everything we discover about the universe and in physics must have a purpose. If we do not have a physics purpose for everything discovered so far, then more must be discovered. Furthermore, a purpose to our universe and its physics also dictates that we do not have unanswered questions about anything we have found. If we have to rely on something unknown and not understood, we have a hole in our understanding of current physics and our universe. Today's physics provides hints and clues that point us in directions to look further. It is up to us to accept this challenge and move toward a greater understanding of our universe.