Many Readers have urged me to update the site more frequently. Being creative work requiring lot of reading and research -- its difficult to update as regularly as I would like to. Hope I would be able to do that after I retire from my job!Anyway here is updated
Read full post >>Lets go back to my post about "Voyager Shortchange", in the light of my post below, on Dr Lisa Randall's theory of negatively warped 5-dimensional space around us. The two have much in common. We had seen that Voyager Spacecraft is approx. 8,000 miles too close to us, than it should have been according to calculation as per latest theories of gravitation. Among the various hunches, one was about modification of Newtonian inverse square law of gravitation.
Now Dr Randall postulates that we are surrounded by a five dimensional space, which would have given us an inverse cube law of gravitation, but for the propounded negative warping of this dimension, so that we perceive it as only 10-31cm wide. (De ja vu - I Have been proposing that space also comes in quanta - you can't have space less than a minimum size - which I had rough guessed as 10-31cm.)
If we were in a full fledged 5-dimensional space, law of gravitation would have been inverse cube law. But because of warping of the 5th dimension, the gravitation inverse square law would have very close fit, over short distances. But over astronomical distances, the miniscule effect of curled up 5th dimension would make gravity a wee bit weaker than inverse square law.
We may recall that Voyager craft derived its speed from gravitational sling-shot trajectory around large outer planets like Jupiter and Saturn. Therefore this slight weakness of gravity would explain the voyager shortchange over large planetary distances.
This is easily verifiable by precise measurement of gravity, in laboratory or of astronomical bodies.
Voila! that will also be a verification of RS-1 and Rs-2 theories.
Analysis of past Telemetry data of Voyager I and II show that they are about 8000 miles short of their calculated positions. What gives? Who is shortchanging Voyager Scientists? Scientists say that there are many possibilities:
1. There is a theory that in far out spaces, speed of light has a miniscule acceleration. Therefore the Voyager is in fact at correct position as per calculations, but the radio signals are covering that distance at a faster than uniform speed of light would warrant.
2. Newton's laws of gravity, duly modified for relativity, still require further modification.
3. Something else like action of dark matter in intervening space or curvature in space-time.
Gotcha! What gives, is that we loose our certainty of knowing the laws of physics. There is lot to be still learnt when scale of distance and time is too large or too small.
Oh! I have a better exlanation: Please read my following post Square The Cube
Big Bang is the accepted theory of cosmological origin of our universe. How could a very small singularity in space time generate a whole universe? Why is there only matter without much anti-matter in our universe? One explanation is that the Big-Bang singularity created two different universes - one of matter (that we are part of) and another matching one of anti-matter. Thus a pair-production out of energy of photons/bosons would have taken place.
Discounting that such a anti-matter universe has not been detected (nor seriously sought out), from where did so much energy come for whole mass of two universe to be created. How could such huge energy be concentrated in a small area? Theoretically, what is the maximum energy density possible?
Big-Bang is good theory and has excellent fit with the observations, but the big question is who bankrolled the energy of this big-bang?
Just because energy and mass are equivalent as per Einstein's famous formula E = mc2, it does not mean that a transformation of a Hippopotamus (or one monkey and a chimpanzee) into an elephant is possible. The mechanism of transformation (biological, chemical and physical) must also be scientifically correct. It should not violate other laws of Physics including the law of entropy. I think, because of the famed equation, scientists are lulled into mute acceptance of the bizarre phenomenon of pair-production and pair-annihilation.
Pair production is emergence of say an electron and positron out of the energy of a photon. Pair annihilation is reverse of this. This is true of any particle anti-particle pair.
For these phenomenon to be explained the mechanism of transformation has also to be understood.
What about the laws of physics being followed, including the law of increasing entropy (second law of Thermodynamics). Pair-production immensely decreases entropy - thus violating this law.
Moreover as argued in my earlier posts, only those particles that have an internal structure can transform into one another. Or else the two particles on either side of transformation must actually be same with only difference in charge-flavour. We cant have a fundamental particle just disappearing and have another entirely unrelated fundamental particle(s) in its place - even if conservation of mass/energy is not violated.
In pair-production or annihilation, either the electrons (and positron) must be having same constituent entities as the photon. Or photon and electron must be same particle but with different charge-flavours.
Such particle transformations is a very serious blind-spot in present standard-model. What do you think, please leave a comment?
Why do I spend time and energy in writing this blog? I have high regards for the Scientists working in this field. I have no illusions about my lack of knowledge of mathematics required to develop an alternative theory of Matter and Space - which I passionately advocate. Many times what I write may not be rigorously scientific - I am only an amateur. So why am I crying myself hoarse, in this blog wilderness to a limited audience? The reason is my confidence, that the lacunae, that I am pointing in present theory of structure of matter and space, have gone un-addressed. The blog description sums up the hope!
But if I can stimulate thinking in more capable people, I would have fulfilled my objective in spending this time and energy on this blog.
Writing the blog is also a method to organize my own thoughts on the subject and expose my hypothesis to bright sunlight. It's also an exercise in introspection.
One fine day, when my introspection is complete, I would like to publish all this in a book, so as to reach a wider audience.
As a child, my son, used to be an Astronaut in morning, a Scientist at noon and a Bus-conductor at night. Film actors can also have fun playing a poor man in morning shift and a billionaire in the night shift. But fundamental particles (Quarks, Leptons and Force-carrier Bosons) can have no such fun.
Its clear that non-fundamental particles with inner structure of fundamental particles, can decay into other non-fundamental particles just by rearrangement of inner structure of fundamental particles.
But how can fundamental particle decay into another, unless they have inner structure - i.e. it is not a fundamental particle.
A Muon (a fundamental lepton) has been observed to decay into a mu-neutrino + an electron and a positron - all three fundamental leptons of different families.
Scientists have a tortuous explanation. They say that initially muon decays only to mu-neutrino and a ghost-transient W-minus boson. This eases the dilemma halfway, since mu-neutrino and muon are associated particles of same family of Lepton. W-boson is only a force-carrying particle which finally decays into electron and positron.
I think this only begs the question.
To me this muon decay is an indication that muon is not a fundamental particle, but has a structure of more fundamental particles, which gets rearranged/ broken-up to emerge as three different particles.
May I draw your attention to my post of 18th Sep "The More it Changes...", which gives detailed reason why fundamental particles cannot undergo transformations/decay.
This is no nursery jingle, but names of six types of Quarks. These quarks (that make up neutron and proton in nucleus) are grouped into three families (or flavours)- a pair in each family. Each pair is usually seen with each other only. Besides quark, other fundamental particles are Leptons, also six, also seen in pairs (as Electron with its associated neutrino), also grouped into three families. Why is nature so exuberant in displaying a wild zoo of fundamental particles? To confuse us!!
The families can be tabulated as follows:-
----------Lepton Pairs------------ ------Quark Pairs-----------------
1. Electron and its Neutrino(e) : 'Up' Quark and 'Down' Quark
2. Muon and its Neutrino(mu) : 'Charm' Quark and 'Strange' Quark
3. Tau and its Neutrino(tau): 'Truth' Quark and 'beauty' Quark
Truth and Beauty are also known as Top and Bottom by less romantic Scientists.
The first of each pair quarks (Up, Charm and Truth) have a charge of +2/3 (of an electron's charge) and the others have a charge of -1/3.
First of each pair of Leptons (Electron, Muon and Tau) have charge -1, but all the neutrinos have no charge and (maybe) no mass either.
You may notice, the artistic liberties taken by scientists in naming the three pairs of Quark - and step motherly treatment for neutrinos - not even an independent name for the three neutrinos - left to be known by its paired particle - electron/muon/tau. The names of quarks are just that - names which do not reflect any property.
Even one family i.e. first one of Electron, its neutrino, up&Down Quark; is good enough to explain all normal material (except particles found in Cosmic Rays, which are generated by exotic process). Why other two family of Leptons and quark exist, is a mystery not yet solved. The Leptons of other two families are unstable and undergo transformations into first family in short time.
Do these two remaining families combine to make up space - thus remaining hidden from "normal material". If that be so, these particles would get blasted out of "nothing" by exotic particle level encounters - and are thus seen in many Particle accelerator events. Q.E.D.
yea! To me all looks to be Nothing:-))
When can we call a disappearance of something and appearance of a new thing in its place - a Change/Transmutation and when can it be just a coincidental occurrence of two unconnected events. For example can a disappearance of a neutron and in its place appearance of a proton + an electron and an anti-neutrino; be called a change? Can appearance of neutrino just out of "nothing"(Space) be called a change? My disappearance from a chair and my Wife's appearance there, in my place, are definitely two unconnected events, despite magicians well-known tricks of tranforming a rabbit into a pigeon. No magician even as a sleight of hand has attempted converting a husband into a wife.
In a chemical change, the atoms of various Chemical elements on left hand and right hand side of the chemical equation, remain same (are conserved), they only realign and form new molecules.
New entities in a change/transformation must retain certain parts of old entity. There must be an element of continuity for a process to qualify to be called a change. The more it changes, the more it remains the same. To put it scientifically - there must be some type of "Conservation" for a process to be called a change/transmutation.
In fact science is about only those changes where conservation is observed - rest isn't science.
In chemical change its conservation of those atoms of elements on both sides of equation. In lay-man's terms, in transmutation of neutron, the quarks(that make-up both neutron and proton) and leptons(electron and neutrino) are conserved, so is mass/energy. Scientist use a more rigorous approach to call it conservation of quantum numbers that they assign to properties of these fundamental particles.
But what about just sudden appearance of a neutrino in empty space out of "nothing". There appears to be no conservation here. Perhaps our knowledge of that level of particle structure is incomplete. May be the sub-space entities out of which space is structured (as I propose in this blog), are conserved, in transmutation of space into a neutrino.
This blog has crossed the 1000 unique hits milestone. Thanks! Thanks! A thousand thanks to all those who visited this blog, despite my irregular posts on this quaint topic. Keep coming please. Take Care!!!
Read full post >>This is the title of a book written by Leonard Mlodinow - a Caltech Scientist. He reminisces about the time he spent discussing Physics with Richard Feynman. Many of us have known about the genius of Feynman. Many like me have been weaned on "Feynman Lectures on Physics" But what was the man like?
While we show excessive interest in private lives of other celebrities, we think that bosses, teachers and scientists etc are just automatons having no private life. It is however more educative to see under what private deprivations, the Scientists achieved their Nobles.
Feynman knowingly married a TB afflicted girl who died young, leaving him devastated. He suffered from Cancer of intestines in last decade of his life. This book slowly sketches out the man and his philosophy. It was simply that - "One should do what interests one - rest (Success, recognition, rewards, conventions) be damned. Its the intensity and single focus with which one follows one's interest - that gives pleasure". His pleasures were in understanding laws of nature. He knew that he is going to die soon. But considered that, that would be a great moment to learn about the process of death.
He had a running rivalry with another Caltech Professor - Murray Gell-Mann, who gave quarks its name. The book gives a warm and delightful narration of this constructive rivalry.
If you can sustain first two chapters - rest are really interesting for Science lovers.
By discovering the electron and Nucleus structure of matter, science progressed by leaps and bounds. We discovered electronics and all the dependent technologies. We also got Nuclear power and Nuclear Weapons. What should we expect from discovering the structure of Nucleons - Proton and neutron? Till now there has been no Technological spin-offs. This is mainly because our understanding of structure of Nucleons is yet not complete.
What are the possibilities from the Fundamental Forces in the Standard Model.
Strong Force - Associated with Quarks within the Nucleons
Weak Force - Associated with decay of nuclear Particles
Electromagnetic Force - associated with photons
Gravitational Force - Associated with Mass Property of Matter.
Each one of these four fundamental forces should be able to give us a source of energy - as electromotive force gives us.
I believe that understanding of Strong Force should give us a large source of energy - which can free us from the tyranny of Petroleum as a source of energy.
Amen!!!
PS: I forgot to mention that Strong Force is the only force out of four fundamental forces, that increases with distance and is perhaps negligible at short distances. That is why quarks indicate independent behaviour when close together inside nucleus, but indistinguishable when these are apart.
For a hardcore believer in scientific method coping with spiritual concepts of any religion (especially of Hinduism)can be a big confusion. On one hand as a man of science, I would like to only believe what can be physically tested in carefully designed experiments. On the other hand being a non-functional Hindu, I have imbibed "World is an Illusion" concepts which are deeply ingrained in my Psyche. At the first look the two may look to be irreconcilable.
But look closely, Science is now dealing with entities which can never be perceived by Humans directly - quark etc. We propound existence of such entities by interpreting perceivable results of experiments. If we drill down such interpretations, we come to some guesstimate presumptions. This makes some theories - a house of Cards. This can come crashing down if this guesstimate is proved wrong at a later date.
In religion also we start from some guesstimate about there being a soul, a GOD and derive perceivable conclusions from that. The process is perhaps reverse of Science - where we start from perceivable things and explore un-perceivable entities based on that.
One has to be ruthlessly discerning and discard most of peripheral ritualistic things in Religion. That's why I call myself a non-functional Hindu. I follow only the core Hindu concepts and retain my suspicious inquisitiveness for the rest - till I am convinced rationally.
I do the same for the science. I retain a healthy suspicion for conjectural theories like string theory or even Quark Model.
Keeping ones head above turbulence of Science and Religion and remain sane isn't easy. But can be done.
PS: Where was I for last two months - no post during this period. I beg pardon of visitors of this site, but I am a bit caught up in Life's turbulence, and may not be that regular as before. Bye till next post and thanks again for visiting.
What are the facts that a theory of structure of space (e.g. my hypothesis) will have to satisfy? In addition, what are the verifyable new predictions that could be expected from it?
Facts to be satisfied: -
Dontwalkquicklystop.
To make sense of the above non-sense, do nothing, but insert spaces between the words. Now read it:
Dont walk quickly stop.
Its still hard to make unambiguous sense, but spaces between the words, help us to make sense of written language. Same is the role of pauses between the spoken words. Without these spaces, language is not possible.
Punctuation further help us in understanding the language. Spaces by themselves are not sufficient. In fact shifting spaces and punctuation, within a series of characters, can change the whole meaning of the sentence.
Don't walk, quickly stop.
Don't walk quickly, stop.
Punctuation is something between a character and a space. Punctuation is not pronounceable like characters - in that sense its more like spaces. In spoken language sound inflexion and stresses on certain syllables, serve the purpose of punctuation.
In the same manner, space between the nucleus and the electron and between the atoms, defines the material world. If space between the words, is like the space between the nuclei, electrons are the punctuation. Space alone isn't sufficient, electrons are also necessary. Electrons are entities which are neither matter nor space. Unlike other particles having mass, electrons are dimention-less, point entities. In that sense, its just a knot in space.
Nothings and knots make Things!!
Reading above named book, by Brian Cathcart, about "How a small group of Cambridge scientists won the race to split the atom" (Viking 2004), made me realize that reading a well written popular science book could be a very moving experience?
At the climax of the book I felt the same lump in the throat that I normally feel after seeing a Hindi Film of mushy romance.
The size of nucleus in an atom is like a "Fly in a cavernous cathedral". Please also see my earlier post about "Atom is full of Empty".
The book relates the dynamically evolving race to split the atom (transmutation is the correct term), using particle accelerators based on Hi-Voltages of the order of a million volts.
The heroes are Cockcroft and Ernst Walton. Ernest Rutherford, the Director of the Cavendish Lab comes across as a clucking hen, laying eggs of ideas to be incubated by others.
The book describes the history of nuclear physics as it unfolded mainly at Cavendish Lab, from Plum-Pudding model onwards. It opens with a "Just a boy" Ernest Marsden discovering the rebounding alpha particles off a gold leaf, indicating a hard nucleus instead of Plum Pudding.
It highlights the crisis at the lab where Rutherford had failed to produce anything spectacular for two decades.
Numerous scientists in the continent, England, USA and Russia, people the story like a Tolstoy Novel. The science of nucleus progresses like a ping-pong game between these players, in small steps, each one leading to another.
Max Born's Quantum Mechanics, Pauli's Exclusion Principle, Heisenberg Uncertainty, Schroedinger's equations, Bohr's planetary model impregnate each other iteratively. The thing that set the cat among the pigeons was George Gamow's application of shroedinger's equations, to Nucleus, showing alpha particle's chances of invading a nucleus.
It then traces the work of Cockcroft and Walton that was inspired by Gamow's work. The story has twists and turns, over three years that they took to build a particle accelerator. In retrospect they missed the chance of making the discovery two years earlier and went for a two yearlong wild goose chase.
The race hots up when it is seen that Lawrence with his cyclotron in USA, Merle Tuve with Tesla Transformer and later with Vaan Der Graaf apparatus (also in USA) and a team in Berlin were also working on developing particle accelerators and were poised to pip Cavendish team at the tape.
In parallel the personal lives and romances go on in soft focus. As an aside James Chadwick at the lab discovers neutron, from the same set of results that Joliot Curie in France published. This is a shot in arm of Rutherford ending his two decades of dry run.
Finally the Cavendish team is able to fire protons at lithium and correctly interpret the resulting dots on the scintillation screen as breakup of lithium nucleus onto two helium nuclei, leaving other teams way behind. They get Noble Prize for it after 20 years.
Ah! Ah! I enjoyed it and could not put it down till the end.
I hope I have not spoiled your appetite to read this book.
The equations Scientists write to describe the sub-atomic particles is in too dense a mathematics, even beyond a BS majoring in Mathematics. These equations in raw, strictly theoretical form, give infinite or non-sensical results or are unsolvable - capable of no result. Like too smart an Accountant fudging his books till clean looking figures are achieved, Scientists coax an answer out of these equations through largely empirical mathematical operations called renormalization.
For example the first theory that started the chain of Particle Physics, was Electro-Dynamics propounded by Dirac. While the equation was supposed to describe mechanics of electrons, one of the results showed the world to be filled with negative energy positrons.
One of the justification for re-normalization is that the measured parameters of sub-atomic particles are the net observable values and intrinsic values are much different.
For example a proton has some positive charge. But its always surrounded by a haze of space entities of opposite polarization. The observable charge of proton is its much larger intrinsic value, minus the masking effect of negatively polarized haze surrounding it. A wealthy Tycoon surrounded by bevy of expensive bunnies - so that Tycoon's measured wealth is much less than what he actually has.
For equations in particle physics, to give correct results, from only the observable parameters, like observable charge of a proton - some juggling mathematical operation is done to eliminate the effect of space-time continuum. Renormalization is nothing but this jugglery.
If we understand space, we can perhaps write a more straight forward equation for sub-atomic mechanics without need of renormalization.
The surface of our Planet is predominantly covered with water. Only a minor portion is earth. We wrongly call this planet Earth. It should have been called water. Our Universe is similarly predominantly full of "Empty" Space. Should we not review our view of an Atom?
Even the portion of Planet covered by Earth, has lots of water - water bodies on the surface and underground.
Lets look at the scale of an Hydrogen Atom. If nucleus is taken to be the size of a football, lying at the center of the football field, the electron orbit would be at the periphery of this field. The whole of football-field would be full of space. Even if you look inside the nucleus, consisting of a proton - which in turn is made up of quarks - there would be lots of space inside it as well.
that's why, its said that "The Atom is full of Empty". Who said it? I don't readily recall.
Space so much fills up the atom, that make up the world, then the nomenclature of 'material world' is as flawed as calling our planet "Earth".
Are we right in considering the major component of Atom, as just an empty void?
There is too much evidence at hand, to consider the space, as an entity in its own right, as much as elementary particles, which are the building blocks of matter.
What happens between the two instances of time quanta? Jaspal's comment on my last post is interesting.
I had hinted in earlier posts, at the dilemma of measurement of length and Time. When we measure something, we interfere with its state, and change it, by the very process of measurement. This is more true of quanta-sized measurements. We can measure the position of a photon, by shooting electrons (or even photons), at it and measuring the ricocheting electron. We measure photon's position but alter its momentum by giving it a mighty push. This trade-off between uncertainty of measurement of position vis-a-vis momentum, is written as a equation and is called Heisenberg uncertainty Principle. This means that we can never know exact position and momentum of a particle.
A Ghost could be anywhere if you aren't looking.
When you are not looking for the position of the Photon, it could as well be, anywhere in the world. As a result, no particle or quanta is a hard particle with sharp boundaries. There is an uncertain smudging of its boundaries. Like an object under light has a deep shadow (called Umbra) and a larger softer penumbra. This also leads to the wave/Particle duality of light. Light, looks like a wave phenomenon, untill you make it a point, to look for the position of the photon - when it seems to be like a particle.
In fact such soft penumbra like boundaries, of two particles may overlap, without creating a collision ( Pauli Exclusion principle is also involved - but lets forget that for the moment).
This is what happens between two instances of time quanta. They actually overlap. There is infact no timeless gap between the two instances of time quanta.
We saw that the movements we see in the cinema, is actually a construct of our mind - while the film only contains static pictures. Is perception of passing time and its arrow, also a construct of our brain?
We have discussed that time could not be a continuous flowing stream, but occurs in smallest bits (quanta) - which could be as small, as either 10-43, or 10-32 seconds. Two occurrences of time quanta are not linked together.
Its perhaps our mind, which fills in the gaps and makes us feel that time runs continuously. Its this linking of two instances, of time quanta, by our brain - that makes us feel the arrow of time.
Therefore the smoothly flowing perception of time and its arrow, is a construct of our mind, it does not exist in reality.
Reality is like, my face that I see, among the scattered shards of broken mirror. What I see, is a collage of pieces of face, but I can still construct in my brain, an image of my face, passable enough for a shave.
Its our correlation with diurnal cycle of day and night, which gives us sanity of coordinating our perception of time, with that of others. We even have an inbuilt, body clock based on this cycle. This body clock becomes disfunctional, in absence of sun's rays. In a dark dungeon, body clock will loose its function, and our sense of time elapsed would be different from those outside.
Experiments show, that animals like dogs, do not have a sense of elapse of time. Is this faculty peculiar to Humans?
What happens in-between two quantas of time?
When I get excited by Marilyn Monroe's swirling skirt on the cinema screen, my brain is pulling a really fast on me. I am fooled into believing the movements - while actually what is shown to me, is a sequence of still-photographs.
What is on the Cinema Film is a series of frozen-time snaps (taken 1/24th of a second apart) not any smooth motion. Each snap actually records a scene, only during the period, the camera shutter was open (say 1/250 th of a second)- still-photo isn't absolutely still. It takes 1/12 to 1/16 th of a second, for the brains visual circuits, to wipe clean from its memory, image of the previous frame. So anything which is shown within this period gets surperimposed on the last image.
The cinema film shows 24 frames in a second. Even this superposition would leave a confusing collage of still-frames - not a perception of a movement. The circuits of brain step in and trick us into believing, that what we are seeing, is a movement - by generating the missing visual information, between the two frames.
The swirl of the skirt is a construct of my brain - not a reality.The brain can also be fooled in its own game.
One funny effect of this 24 frames a second projection, is seen when you see an old cinema film, which used to be shot at 16 frames a second, before WW II. When a film of Mahatma Gandhi, during his 'Dandi March' is shown (now projected at 24 frames/second), the frail old Mahatma is seen as running too fast with jerky motions, in a rather unseemly hurry. In reality, he was walking poderously slow at that time.
If you run the film backwards, you would actually see the action backwards. It really happened once in my college days. In an open air projection of 'Chengiz Khan' - we saw the Heroin giving birth to a child, then getting pregnant and then getting raped in the last scene!!!
Now what has this got to do with discussion on Time and 'arrow of Time'?I would write about it next.
If posts are the tons of milk - exerpts from these are like few pounds of cheese culled from that milk. These reflect the essence of what I am submitting for your consideration.
Answers beget Science.
Science begets more questions.
If you have some time for questions;
Here are some questions about Time!
(Updated on 6th Nov'2005)
Sometimes, when I am too busy, I donot feel like adding new posts to my blogs - which needs lot of hard work. At such times, words of encouragement from the visitors are like favourable wind for the Kite -- Keeps me flying.
Judging simultaineity of two spatially separated events is depended on exchange of information between the two events. This exchange can happen not faster than speed of light. Hence the two events can be judged for simultaineity only if they are at such time and space - where the two can communicate with each other. In jargon of Relativity the two events must be within the World-cone of a photon. It is like saying that icecream can be found only inside of icecream cone.
On a graph of distance on x-axis(horizontal) and Time on t-axis(vertical), when we draw two lines (one on left and the other on rightof t-axis) representing the movement of a photons from the originating event - these will be called the world-lines - the slope representing the speed of light. These two world-lines would enclose a triangle between them. In a two dimentional-distance this triangle would become a cone . This is called the world-cone(green in diagram above) of the photon. This world-cone represents those distances and times where the information from the original event can reach. Outside of this cone the events cannot have information about each other and hence cannot be judged for simultaineity. Thus simultaineity can be judged only by events within the world cone.
In a three dimentional world - the world-cone will be a similar cone in Four dimentions - sorry more difficult to be imagined physically.
An example would clarify this. Suppose a supernova at a distance of 20 light-years away from us - bursts today, while I write this. (In cosmology, Distances are measured in terms of distance light would travel in a year - light-years). So my writing and the supernova burst are simultanious to our common-sense. But this simultaineity cannot be physically judged, because I am outside the world-cone of the photons emanating from the burst. I am at same time but the place is outside the cone. I am on the x-axis itself 20 light-years distance from the event. There is no way for me to know of this supernova burst today.
Me, twenty years later in time, sitting in the same chair, at the age of 75 - would come within the world cone and would see the event as simultaneous then.
Thus simultaineity in relativity is different from common-sense perception of simultaineity.
As I hinted earlier, the lining up and simultaineity require, some a-priory estimation of distance or time (that it is zero between the lined up things). So there is some approximation in these measurements - How much?
Don't leave my world-cone, till the next post!
No! No! This was just an Advertisement for 'King Size' cigarettes, when these were introduced in '60s. But how do you measure the extra length (that extra pleasure)of king-size, over standard?
By comparison - put one end lined up and then measure the extra length by again lining up the zero of a scale. Or measure both separately by lining up one end with zero of scale.
This lining up is the crux of all measurements - whether its length or time. In time this lining up amounts to determining initial and final simultaneity.
This is one of the dilemmas of all scientific measurements. Simultaneity itself requires some indirect time interval assessment. Measurement of cigarettes also fudges this lining up - either by eye estimation or standing them on a flat surface - both of which require judgement of lengths itself. That's called begging the question in Science?
Ultimately upfront or hidden - we use our mental judgments - vision, ear or touch for this lining-up.
On a Quantum level at the smallest end, and Cosmological level at the other extreme, this lining up and simultaneity create immense problems - since our mental faculties fail on both these levels.
C U till next post!!
Laws of Physics are time reversible. A series of snapshots of a Mass starting from rest pushed by a force - can as well be seen in reverse as a moving mass being brought to rest by an opposing force. Would then any law be violated if a dead man rises from his grave, becomes younger by the day and ends up back in womb? I think the person would have as humdrum a life - as us mortals. Birth in reverse is another form of Death.
This property of Time-reversibilty of Laws is called Time-Invariance or T-invariance in short. The example of mass above is a bit too simplistic - but not very much off. But Thermodynamics does have a arrow of time embedded in its second law - that entropy (another name for disorder)would increase with time. Thus dead man rising from grave would violate law of increasing entropy.
At sub-atomic level even if this law of thermodynamics gets violated, it does not violate any law of physics - only in reality this normally doesn't happen. This is called Weak-T-Invariance.
T-Invariance-Violation is reported to have been observed in decay of a particle called Neutral Kaons. But I don't agree with this. I would tell you why in my next post!
Questions beget answers.
Answers beget Science.
Science begets more questions.
If you have some time for questions;
Here are some questions about Time!
The most taken-for-granted of but most elusive of concept is "Time". All that is sure is this present instance of blink - rest of time - past or future is a creation of our mental circuits.
Read Further on ...Buddhism teaches us to savour the present instant intensely - with total mindfulness - because that alone is reality - rest is Maya (virtual reality). Its surprising that 3-D Space can be physically seen, but linearity of Arrow of Time relies on Memory. For a persons who has lost Memory - there is only "Now" without any arrow of Time.
Hey! Hey! The same is true for a person who has lost his eyesight - he cannot see 3-D space. He can experience the spot he is in - rest is a mental construct stored in Memory.
So both Time and Space are totally local - a 4-D Time-space is a conceptual construct.
I have lot of questions about Time. Please see next post.
Why Physics is in such doldrums that breakthroughs are now so few and far in-between? Why are its theories of frontiers of Physics so outlandish - as to get compared with mumbo-jumbo - 'Tao of Physics' ; 'Dance of Shiva' etc? Why has it come to such a pass? Has this to be so? Is there something fundamentally wrong?
Look at Tribal Philosophies. They start from false premises and are able to explain simple phenomenon quite effectively to begin with. But explanations become quainter and less plausible as it goes to slightly more complicated things. It becomes 'Voodoo' and only a handful in society claim to understand it. Is Physics in similar situation?
----------------------
Physics builds its magnificent edifice of theories over the foundation of a premise that reality could be described by using 3 primary units of Length; Mass and Time - like three basic colours in Painting : Red; Blue and Green. All other units and theories are derived from these.
As we go along the mathematics becomes harder and harder. At the frontiers of Physics - Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics for instance need mathematics which is beyond well educated intelligensia. People now look to Frontiers of Physics - as commom man used to look at Voodoo or "Palm Reading" - without the spirit of enquiry.
There would no more be naked Archimedes springing out of bath-tub crying "Eureka".
I believe that the fundamental units (Length, Mass and Time) on which the whole edifice of Science stands - may be only derived units after all - that's why the Mathematics and Physics become so quaint as we get near its frontiers.
Time, as I brought out earlier gets derived from velocity of the fabric of Space moving around us. Could it be that Velocity and Energy are the real Fundamental Units!!!
Anyway attempting to rewrite whole physics in terms of velocity and energy could an interesting exercise in itself.
Good Luck to those who may like to try.
Matter is an aberration in the universe dominated by space. The Nuclei amidts Space, behave like a drop of water on a greasy hot skillet. There is constant churning and turmoil at the boundary of space and nuclei. The electron orbits around the Nuclei is not part of the atom but is a result of violent interaction between Space and Matter. Electron could be more of a space entity than matter. It has mass and charge but size wise it is but a point. Its perhaps just a knot in the fabric of space and a device to insulate matter from space or vice-a-versa.
Read full post >>To locate one's position and for measuring speed - ancient mariners depended on the position of stars. Position or velocity cannot be measured in a featureless backdrop. In fact it requires three features (ship, earth and the pole star) for positioning and to measure velocity.
Then how do we say that Sub-space particle are moving around us at the speed of light.
I think it is the grainy sub-space structure which enables measurement of velocity. So the space or distance is a grainy thing. There must a minimum distance, below which distance cannot be measured or conceived.
Since the velocity of sub-space structure gives rise to perception of time - time itself should be grainy, because distance is grainy. There must be a minimum time interval, less than that cannot be measured or contemplated.
So, the time is grainy.
It moves in jerks.
My rough calculations put this least count of time to be of the order of 10-32 seconds(10 raised to power minus 32 seconds).
Time is a big enigma. The yardstick we measure it with are Clocks or movement of earth around the sun - or now even by radioactive decay of some isotopes. But all these are such gross a phenomenon that these cannot be the basis for such a fundamental metric as Time. These are at best derived yardsticks. The real yardstick of time should be more fundamental and perhaps embedded in the very Space-Time continuum or in a thing even finer than that.
A bigger nut to crack is the direction of the arrow of time. Time flows only forward - most of other phenomena in nature are symmetric about directions. This breaking of symmetry must have an explanation.
Please recall my post "My Hypothesis in Nut-shell". We the material beings stand in a sea of space (made up of sub-space particles) moving around us at the speed of light.
This flow of the backcloth of Space around us - is the fundamental yardstick of time. All other yardsticks of time - mechanical movements of clocks or earth and the decay of radioactive isoptopes are measured against this flow of "Nothing".
This flow also explains - why Time flows only in one direction.
AND THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE SPEED OF LIGHT BEING A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANT AND THE MAXIMUM SPEED ACHIEVABLE.
Next questions are : -
>Is time grainy or continuous?
>Does time flow in jerks?
>Is their a smallest least count of time?
Happy contemplation. Please do leave a comment here and in my Guest-book puhleeze.
This post was unrelated to present blog.
It has been moved to my other blog.
Nature is miserly and parsimonious. It creates or comes across a structure/construct. Then it applies it's same old structures/constructs to solve new challenges of creation again and again. It never discards anything that worked once.
Lets take the genes. On 23 human chromosome, we carry millions of genes. It is seen that many of these genes are copies from early form of life like - single cell creatures or early fish-forms. Our genes is only a patchwork quilt made up of many borrowed pieces from many other species. Chimpanzee is not the only father of man.
In physics also such rehashing of old models happens. The initial structure of atom was uncanily like model planetary system. Since atomic structure would have come first - nature must have copied an approximation of atomic model for creating a planetary system.
That's why I raised the internet of souls concept to highlight its similarity with sub-space structure.
This post was unrelated to present blog. It has been moved to my other blog:
Thoughts And Trivia
This post was unrelated to present blog. It has been moved to my other blog:
Thoughts And Trivia
(Updated on 6th Nov'2005)
1. Space has a structure and is made up of massless sub-space entities moving at a speed of light.
2. There is no time or distance for such entities due to time and length dilation (as per Theory of Relativity) at such speeds.
3. Therefore Universe without any massive sub-space entity is just a lengthless and timeless singularity.
4. Action at a distance or violation of "cause-and-effect" linearity happens at this level due to absence of length and time.
5. When massless sub-space entities acquire mass by some process (Higg's Mechanism - exchange of speed for mass), the time and length sigularity is broken and the space explodes into a normal universe with perceivable distance and time.
6. Thus we the people with mass are sorrounded by space that is moving around us at speed of light.
7. Speed of Light as a fundamental constant and directional arrow of time flow is due to this movement of backcloth of space.
8. Distance and time are grainy and quantised.
If we just try to look at the world from the point of view of a photon - lot of things like action at a distance etc become logical.
I donot know why scientist donot do that.
A photon (imagine you are piggyback on a photon) - is moving at a speed of light. As per Relativity there would be dilation of time and space as the speed of a object increases - this reaches infinite dilation at the speed of light - at which photon is travelling. This dilation is dilation of the measuring stick. Photon's measuring stick (a metre ruler) becomes infinitly dilated (long) - so even the whole universe to it looks like a water drop as per this measuring stick. Dilation of measuring stick leads to the whole world shrinking to a point as far as the photon is considered. Therefore two photons actually may be touching each other but for us humans thay appear to be distance apart since we donot suffer the space- dilation. What to us is action at a distance is only a action at handshaking distance for two photons.In fact same dilation in time can obliterate cause and effect sequencing for photonic phenomenon.
You were with Girishoton, the photon, when our millions of light year sized universe shrunk to just a waterdrop size for him as a result of time dilation and dimensional shrinking at the speed of light.
To him it was just a drop of water. Imagine a bacteria in a drop of water. To us thats just a small drop - but to the bacteria its a complete universe. There are millions of bacteria's brothers - homo-bacterium should we say - in this drop. A small dust particle in the drop is a big mountain for them. The whole drop would appear to be a light-years sized thing for them. May be they have a complete social structure (- presided over by a President of their universe). May be they have their own theories of origin and future of their world. For us humans, this could be a sobering analogy - We and our Theories of Everything - My Foot or TOE. Think it over.
Imagine if I were a photon!
A plain and simple photon of energy (or visible light).
Call me Girishoton.
Traveling at the speed of light. This is the speed reserved for mass less particles like me not even for neutrinos who do have a smattering of mass.
What does the world looks like to me as Girishoton. Sorry I would have to take you to Relativity for that. At speed of light, time dilation that occurs for all moving particle has become infinite time has come to stand still. Even during a nanosecond of my time your world would have passed millions of years. My colleague photons that were present at the time of the big bang are only less than a second old while the world has taken billions of years to come to this stage.
More weird is what has happened to Space. Due to same dilation effect on moving particles lengths and dimensions have shrunk infinitely for me. I have developed the cosmic fish eye view. The whole universe has shrunk to a size of a point to me. I can be anywhere in this universe with slightest of shuffle. Couple this with time-stillness - I can be at any two different places at almost the same point of time from my point of view. Action at a distance simultaneously being at a number of different places is as natural to me as for a couch potato TV addict to be at the same place for a number of different times.
To me all photons all matter particles compacted into my water-drop world are all linked and form on breathing heaving single whole.
Welcome to my strange world full of nothing no-space not even an iota of time.
Will you come along with me for my next journey.
We are quite comfortable with the concept of matter having a atomic and subatomic structure - with particle physics - "as this science is called" - leading us into seemingly weird (to common sense) concepts.Ultimately all matter is constituted by "QUARKS" -which are the fundamental building blocks known to date - which like chimera cannot exist independently but only when they come together to form atomic particles.Should we not look at the possibility of space having a structure of its own.
Perhaps if we do discover it - lot of strangeness from material particle physics would get explained in more comprehensible theories.This is because material structure drama is played out in back drop of space - which if it has a structure not known to us - causes "browninan motion" like behaviour in material subatomic particles. Present particle physics ties itself into knots explaining such behavior.In fact one of the explanation of quantum mechanics is "Hidden Variables".
I am deeply interested in physics - particle physics and quantum Mechanics as an amature theoretician. I like to theorize on the enigma of this field. I believe that space - that absence of things - or nothing - deserves more research. I believe its "nothing" that really matters. Could it be that space has a structure of its own - made up of massless - neutrino like particles. Could there be a new source of energy locked up in this structure of space. Can we use this energy. Does space transform into matter through "Higgs Mechanism". Are virtual Particles thrown up by space structure transformations. Wild ?? Dreamy??? Hmmm. Someday we will know. Well on a more metaphysical note - in real life also - does nothing really matters.
Read full post >>
Listed At BlogCatalog
