The universe is something we take for granted. Here it is. Here we are. Job done?

No. There is another idea, which may sound a little far-fetched, and is still widely debated among the scientific community.

That idea is the multiverse.

The multiverse is the premise that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes.

These other universes sit side by side with ours, in higher dimensions than our senses are capable of perceiving.

Each different universe carries its own different version of reality. Its own different laws of science.

​Every possible combination of what is possible (and that includes the impossible in our universe) exists in the multiverse.

Mind blown? Let's look at a Lego example.

In our universe, we have Ironman and Batman. In another universe, we could have Ironbat...or Batiron?!

Here's another example.

In our universe, we have Flash and he can travel at almost 800mph.

In another universe, then the speed of light may not be finite and Flash could travel infinitely fast. But then he probably wouldn't exist.

​So, life may not exist in a universe where the speed of light is infinite. Or it may.

The possibilities for life in the multiverse are as infinite as the universes it contains.

​​At a recent talk from Professor Brian Cox, he suggested that the infinite number of universes could explain our own existence.

If there are an infinite number of universes, then every single possible combination of scientific laws exists.

We are just one universe where the laws of science mean that our specific form of life can exist.

So, we have to exist in the multiverse concept because we are one perturbation of an infinite number of possibilities, and universes.

No. The main criticism of the multiverse theory is that it can not be experimentally proven. Some argue that this means the multiverse theory is some sort of "no man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any."

That said, a cold spot in space was recently discovered that could have been created by two universes colliding. It's missing 10,000 galaxies and has baffled the scientific community.

Are we one of an infinite number of universes? We may never know.
​
But we should always ask.

As James Bullock, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine, told Astronomy: “There’s going to always be this fuzzy frontier on the edge of knowledge where things are not locked down. And that doesn’t mean those pursuits aren’t worthy. That’s where the crux of the issue lies: we want to be honest about the things we understand and don’t understand.”

Here's a great video and write up from the BBC on the foundations of the multiverse from a quantum mechanics point of view. And Space.com covers 5 reasons we may live in a multiverse in this excellent post.

So, do we live in a multiverse? Here's a great video summarising the concept with some of our universe's superstar scientists:

​And I love this snapshot on the consequences of the multiverse from Max Tegmark's studies:

Hello. I’m the freelance writer who gets tech. I have two degrees in Physics and, during my studies, I became increasingly frustrated with the complicated language used to describe some outstanding scientific principles. Language should aid our understanding — in science, it often feels like a barrier.
​
So, I want to simplify these science sayings and this blog series “Sunday Science” gives a quick, no-nonsense definition of the complex-sounding scientific terms you often hear, but may not completely understand. 

If there’s a scientific term or topic you’d like me to tackle in my next post, fire an email to [email protected] or leave a comment below. If you want to sign up to our weekly newsletter, click here.

Main image from http://nftu.net/multiverse-theory-vladimir-moss/.

Entropy is a word that gets thrown around a lot - but what does it mean? Let's clear up a few misconceptions. Entropy is NOT disorder. It does NOT measure randomness. These are good metaphors - but ultimately misleading as both terms are subjective and not a true measure of entropy.

Entropy helps to explain why physical processes go in one direction, but not the other. For example, why your ice cream melts on a sunny day instead of getting colder.

To help get your head around this concept, we need to talk about energy and probability. And crack open the Lego.

Energy moves around in discrete packages called "quanta". Here's Ironman with four "quanta" of energy.

And here's a Lego representation of two solids. Each solid has four atoms (the red blocks) and four atomic bonds (the connecting white blocks). Energy is stored in these white atomic bonds.

There are many different ways that the four quanta of energy could be stored in the two solids. 

The most probable energy configuration is that the solids have two quanta of energy each. ​

Back to the Lego solids. Statistically, we are more likely to have two quanta of energy in each solid. It's the most likely configuration. So, this configuration has the highest entropy.
​
Entropy is a direct measure of each energy configuration's probability.

In our example, low entropy means the energy is concentrated in one solid. High entropy means the energy is spread out across the two solids.

​Because energy is statistically more likely to disperse. The energy configuration with two quanta of energy in each solid is most likely.

So, systems move from low to high entropy because dispersed systems of energy are more likely.

In the Lego example, you could argue that there is still a small chance that a system could move from high to low entropy. All the quanta of energy could move from being equally divided between two solids, to all four quanta existing in one solid.

If we scale up to ice cream on a sunny day, that means that your ice cream could, theoretically, get colder once it's been served.

Energy from the cold ice cream could move to the warmer air surrounding your ice cream.

And your ice cream gets colder.

But this never happens. This is because your ice cream has more than eight atoms, eight atomic bonds and four quanta of energy floating around than the simplified example I gave.

Think about it.

​Let's go back to the dice. There are 36 possible outcomes when you roll two dice. There are 216 possible outcomes when you roll three dice. With six dice, there are 46,656 combinations. And so on.

When we move up to scales where we have billions upon billions of atoms, bonds and energy quanta, then the chance of a cold object getting colder is so tiny that it never happens.

​It would be like throwing only ones with billions of dice.

So, your ice cream melts because this state has more dispersed energy than the original fresh-from-the-freezer ice cream.

A shift from low to high entropy (and a melted ice cream) is statistically more likely.

I'd really recommend this TEDEd talk on entropy, which prompted my Lego example. Entropy is also linked to the laws of thermodynamics, as this series of lectures from the Khan Academy explains. Its video on entropy goes into some great detail too:

Did the universe start with a Big Bang?

No. This is one of the most misleading scientific terms out there. It wasn't Big (at the start) and it wasn't a Bang.

But the Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation for how our universe began.

Under Big Bang Theory, the universe began around 14 billion years ago. At that time, the entire universe was squashed inside a single point called a singularity. This singularity was infinitely small and infinitely dense.

​Then the singularity inflated. It inflated with such incredible speed that the universe went from existing as a singularity to creating particles such as protons and neutrons in just one second. 

Over the next 14 billion years this singularity expanded to form the universe as we see it today.

Explaining this expansion is tricky. It's like the galaxies are currants in a lump of dough. When you bake the dough, the currants move further apart as the dough (space) expands.

Let's look at a Lego example. Ironman is baking Batman a birthday cake with yellow currants and black dough. This expansion would look a little something like this:

As a side note, Ironman sucks at baking.

We don't. But there are several key pieces of evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.

First, there's something called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. This is the afterglow of the expansion of the early universe where microwaves are coming from every direction in space. The Big Bang Theory is the only theory to explain its presence.

Second, the further away a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. Everything is moving away from everything else. If we went back in time everything would eventually be squashed together into one incredibly dense point - or a singularity. This is one of the key concepts of the Big Bang Theory.

Also, the more distant a galaxy is, the longer its light takes to reach us (because the speed of light is finite). When we look at these distant (seemingly younger) galaxies, they look very different from closer (seemingly older) galaxies. This suggests the universe is evolving - which does not match one of the leading contenders to Big Bang Theory (Steady State Theory). But this evolution of galaxies does match the Big Bang Theory.

Finally, the observed proportions of elements such as hydrogen, helium and lithium in the universe match the predictions of the Big Bang Theory.

​So, there we go. The Big Bang is less of a cosmic explosion, and more of an "Everywhere Stretch". But I suppose that's not as catchy a name, is it?

Professor Stephen Hawking's 1996 lecture "The Beginning of Time" describes the Big Bang in more detail, as does this article from CERN and here's another more summary of the Big Bang from Space.com. If you're interested in the Big Bang alternatives out there, click here.

Finally, here's a video explaining the basis of the Big Bang:

​Hello. I’m the freelance writer who gets tech. I have two degrees in Physics and, during my studies, I became increasingly frustrated with the complicated language used to describe some outstanding scientific principles. Language should aid our understanding — in science, it often feels like a barrier.
​
So, I want to simplify these science sayings and this blog series “Sunday Science” gives a quick, no-nonsense definition of the complex-sounding scientific terms you often hear, but may not completely understand. 

If there’s a scientific term or topic you’d like me to tackle in my next post, fire an email to [email protected] or leave a comment below. If you want to sign up to our weekly newsletter, click here.

Freelancing is a famine or feast existence and, recently, I've been feasting so much I felt like fitting a gastric band on my business.

Deadlines came in daily waves and all-nighters were starting to feel like the norm instead of a one-off occurrence. It's not a sustainable existence, and I'm grateful for the influx of work - but I'm equally grateful to kick back and go back to working the usual 9-5, not 5-9.

There's a problem with the famine period of freelancing though. I find it really difficult to stay motivated.

Suddenly, I find 101 things to do around the house. I start raiding the fridge with alarming frequency - and then going to the gym to work off the 14 Crunchie bars I've consumed in one hour*.

But I still have work to do. I just can't seem to get my bum into gear to do it. It's been a difficult and chocolate-heavy week - so I wanted to share a few productivity tips I've stumbled on during quiet times:

The Pomodoro technique is a regular on many productivity posts - but it really has worked for me so I had to give it a mention. The idea is that you work on one task for 25 minutes straight, take a five-minute break and then repeat that cycle four times, before taking a longer break.

This method doesn't work for me when I'm writing a long feature article and need to immerse myself in a topic - but it's a Godsend when I have lots of little jobs to do. And taking regular breaks really does boost your productivity - here's the scientific proof.

Not too busy? Now is the time to sort out your website, write a backlog of blog posts, clean your desk and clear the decks.

I write a weekly Sunday Science blog series that (you guessed it) comes out every Sunday. So, I'm using this period of downtime to write as many posts as I can before I'm busy again. I've set myself a target of writing one post per day and put more topic suggestions up on my editorial calendar.

If you have similar tasks on the horizon, your future self will thank you if you break the back of them now.

I'm not one for navel-gazing - but I'm currently completing a self-assessment on my business. I know it sounds a bit mad, but I hope it will help me to identify what's going well and where I need to make more improvements.

​This post from Rosalind Davies gives some great advice on completing a freelance performance review. If you're more of a small business - then check out these business assessment analysis tools.

A couple of months ago, I fitted a standing desk in my office. I originally wanted to improve my health, but I've only just started to realise how it has helped my productivity. I find it easier to retain focus and get back to my desk after a break, for example.
​
You don't have to fork out for an expensive desk either - I constructed my own desk using a few boxes and some spare IKEA shelves. It's not a long term solution, but it's a good way to trial a standing desk to see if it works for you.

If you're not convinced by a standing desk - here are another 15 office design tricks to boost your productivity.

I use Toggl to track my time. It's a great tool to analyse my working week, including the clients and projects that are taking the most amount of time.

​During peak times, I can work up to 60 hours a week. So, does it really matter if I only work 30 hours this week and take some time off? No. ​In fact, taking a break could be a very good idea if you want to avoid the dreaded burnout.

Taking of which, I'm going to take the afternoon off now to do a spot of gardening. And tidy my desk.

Please feel free to share your tips for retaining focus during your downtime in the comments below!

​​* Slight exaggeration. It was 12 Crunchie bars.

What is the Internet of Things (IoT)? Well, the clue is in the name: the Internet of Things.

The IoT describes things that are connected to the internet. These things could be a FitBit, your toaster, a piece of medical equipment or a machine you find in a factory. Because these objects are connected to the internet, they can talk to each other.

Connecting so many things means some pretty smart things can happen.

Convenience. The biggest benefit of the IoT is that it automates your everyday tasks.

Let's look at a Lego example to understand the value of the IoT in your day-to-day life.

Ironman is hungry. But Ironman doesn't need to go to the fridge to see what he can eat. He owns a smart fridge* - one that's fitted with lots of gadgetry so he can do lots of cool stuff.

This one of the fundamental concepts of the IoT. For a device to be connected to the internet, it needs (at the very least) a sensor to collect data and a way to pass that data on.

Back to the Ironman example - his fridge has a camera that's linked to his phone so he can view the contents without moving. His fridge is also fitted with an LCD TV screen so he can use his phone to transfer and display information on the screen. 

The fridge is fitted with pressure sensors so it knows when Ironman's out of milk or other goods and automatically adds it to his online shopping list.

If the temperature of the fridge rises because, for example, the door has been left open, Ironman gets an alert on his phone.

The list goes on. And that's just for a fridge.

​* IoT devices seem to add the word "smart" to a lot of products.

It's not just a fridge that you could connect to the internet. You could connect almost everything in your home to create a smart home. You could drive a smart car home that automatically notifies your nearest and dearest if you're stuck in traffic - or turns on the heating when you're 10 minutes from home.

Or you could connect an entire city to help better manage the physical infrastructure and engage the population to optimise the environment.

When things gather a lot of data and talk to each other then we can better understand how they work - and work together.

In other words, the IoT helps us work and live a little bit smarter.

​The smart fridge is closer than you think - check out The Family Hub from Samsung. And here's a handy list of all the Top 75 IoT devices.

If you want to find out more about how the IoT connects all these different devices - this article explains the four different connectivity models available. And here's a handy video from IBM video explaining how the IoT works:

Every particle of matter has an antimatter equivalent*.

An antimatter particle has an opposite charge and spin ​to its "normal" matter equivalent.

But the mass of a "normal" matter particle is the same as its antimatter equivalent.

So, an electron (which is normal matter) has an antimatter partner called a positron. Both have the same mass.

An electron has a negative electrical charge. A positron has a positive electrical charge.

​An electron has an up spin. A positron has a down spin.

In the most basic terms, the spin of a particle describes how that particle is rotating (a property called angular momentum) and the tiny magnetic field of that particle (called a magnetic moment).

When we deal with the science of tiny particles (aka quantum mechanics) then spin has an intrinsic value. It can either be a 1 or a -1. Or a 1/2 or a -1/2, for example.

​Spin is a difficult concept to understand - so I've also included a video explaining spin at the end of this post.

They annihilate each other. Let's look at a quick Lego example with an electron (Superman) and a positron (Superman's doppelganger - Bizarro).

When the pair meets, they annihilate each other. They completely disappear to satisfy a number of conservation laws.

​All that's left behind is some energy in the form of a couple of high-energy light particles called photons.

Good question - and one that's baffled scientists for some time. When the universe began equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been produced - which means that nothing but energy should have been left behind as the matter and antimatter would have annihilated one another.

It turns out that there was one extra matter particle for every one billion matter-antimatter particle pairs. This is known as the matter/antimatter asymmetry. 

No. Maybe. Not sure.

Higgs bosons (particles that give other particles mass) could be their own antiparticles. And neutrinos (particles that barely interact with the rest of the matter in the universe) can switch between their matter and antimatter states.

It's a hot topic in science at the moment - and if we could find out more about antimatter Higgs bosons and neutrinos then we could solve the matter/antimatter asymmetry problem

Did you know that bananas emit positrons? And that antimatter is a potential candidate for cancer therapy? I love this post from Symmetry covering 10 things you might not know about antimatter. And here's another great piece from New Scientist covering the five greatest mysteries of antimatter.

Dan Brown's book Angels and Demons also introduced the idea of an antimatter bomb. Just let me reassure you this is not at all likely. This would involve making 1 gram of antimatter, and containing it. Which would require approximately 25 million billion kilowatt-hours of energy and cost over a million billion dollars. 

If you're more interested in science fiction than fact, this post discusses how antimatter is used in Star Trek, including the matter-antimatter annihilation propulsion system that allows faster-than-light space travel. And here's a great infographic to explain why harnessing the energy from matter-antimatter annihilation is so difficult: 

Finally, here's a video to help you understand the notion of spin a little more: