Nothing That Matters

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 1/24^th 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.

• We are quite comfortable with the concept of matter having a atomic and subatomic structure - Should we not look at the possibility of space having a structure of its own.


• All sub-space particles are in touch with each other in a time-less distance-less continuuam. All these sub-space particles form a whole space. All space only a singularity in time-space continuum.


• 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.


• Questions beget answers.
  Answers beget Science.
  Science begets more questions.
  If you have some time for questions;
  Here are some questions about Time!


• This flow of the backcloth of Space around us - is the fundamental yardstick of time.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.


• All that is sure is - this present instance of blink - rest of time - past or future is a creation of our mental circuits.


• 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? ... Birth in reverse is another form of Death.


• 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.


• 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?


• 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.The swirl of the skirt is a construct of my brain - not a reality.


• See my Hypothesis also.

(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.

• cyberkit: very profound and thought provoking. Thanks Girish for your insight into the world.


• Shilpa Nair: Eureka..!!Finally, I know now that its not crazy to think of things that aint there..Skippety skip..Hoppity hop..n the worlds much more interesting...!!!


• Sagar Bhatnagar: I love the flow of thought. The analysis is easily understood and is cogent.... I like the color scheme- it makes it readable and is lot easy on the eyes.


• Anand Karat: WoW!! impressive site Sir!!


• Aðva Tatil ve Turizm Rehberi: Nice site, I have bookmarked your site yet and I will come back again ! You have a gratest site!


• Catalyst4Christ: Wanna find out the TRUTH? God bless.


• Tulsidas Sukhija: Gr8 to see your achievements and your interests.


• Alok Bhatnagar: ..I found your discussion of space and matter quite intriguing.


• Mike Driver: what makes the bell ring? ..no-thing.


• John Kanelous: ..both of us have dreamt about space and the creation of the universe. Aside from life itself, this is the ultimate mystery.


• Frank Rizzo: Sweet site! Keep up the awesome job!!


• R.K. Govindan: I am really impressed by your site!


• Rajandeep Kalair: This web rocks.


• Usman Bello: Clearly a lot of work went into your site and you should be very proud of your efforts. Very nicely done.


• Marlah Carey: Interesting information you have...


• Mark Watson: Congratulations on the new layout. Keep it up to date as a celebrity...


• Alex Mayers: ..but anyway, nice job.


• James Beckett: ..really good one, but I would stick more with updating and fresh data.


• Mark Rezyka: Your argument that we must interfere with particle's momentum when measuring the position or vice versa is patently wrong. We can oftenmeasure where a particle is by measuring where it is not. (I think Mark did catch me off the Mark - Girish)


• Anonymous: Yes Sir, you need to do nothing because nothing matters.