About Me

My photo
I look at life with detachment and distance, like a window shopper. Not only I study the window but also my own reflections in it.

Crying Hoarse In Blog Wilderness

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 0 comments

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.

Read full post >>

Being Fundamental Is No Fun

Saturday, September 24, 2005 0 comments

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.

Read full post >>

Up and Down; Charm and Strange; Truth and Beauty

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 2 comments

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:-))

Read full post >>

The More It Changes, The More It Stays Unchanged

Sunday, September 18, 2005 0 comments

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.

Read full post >>

Thousand Greetings

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 1 comments

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 >>

Some Time With Feynman

Thursday, September 08, 2005 1 comments

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.

Read full post >>

Strong Possibilities

Thursday, September 01, 2005 0 comments

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.
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.

Read full post >>