Nothing That Matters

While the Standard Model goes overboard with quantum effects that prevail at less than Planck's length (10^-33 CM). Its almost a boiling cauldron with virtual particle and breaking of various conservations/symmetries. The String theory is rather mum about what is there besides strings at such scale of universe. How does it make or break the theories?

While its not so devastating for String Theory, since Strings are Planck-length sized and hence even if you do not look below that length, your theory works at Planck length - where the boiling cauldron effect of smaller lengths is not there.
But Standard Model - Hmm.... As German would have said "Ganz Schlim". Very Bad. The particle like neutrino, quarks and electrons as per this theory are point sized. That is they are singularity with no size at all. So you have to drill down to zero length to work the theory. It gets into problems. Its only by sleight of Renormalization that anomalies and infinities are kept away. Read my earlier post on Renormalizarion.
String or Standard, no theory can expect to be complete unless it can explain what is beyond their particles in the Vacuum. You cannot do just "Nothing" about "nothing". Nothing cannot be left alone.
Even String theory has to come about the vacuum states of universe.
In that sense both theories are inadequate. Standard Model by not being able to handle vacuum states till the point sized particles and String Theory by trying to avoid dealing with vacuum states at all.
This round goes Zero-Zero to Both. With score remaining 3-1/6 in favour of String Theory.

Read full post >>

Both String Theory and the Quantum Field Theories treat Time in a cavalier manner. It is taken as a given, evenly, continuosly flowing irreversibly.
Both do not explain the arrow of time. In fact the whole of Physics, except for perhaps indirectly Thermodynamic (2nd law: Entropy) can account for this arrow. String Theory does now talk of time being grainy.
But the treatment of time is inadequate in both the theories. An ideal theory should show that the theory is consistent only for forward moving time. It should show by its equations - whether time is continuous or grainy, not simply as an assumption.
Hence both theories score ZERO in this round. The score now is still (3-1)/5 in favour of String Theory.

Read full post >>

When in Euclidean Geometry we work with space we talk of three co-ordinates: x, y and z. Geometry is all built up from definition of a point, then leading to a straight line and then to an area and then to a volume. Thus whatever flavour of geometry (polar co-ordinates or Euclidean) is used, we have to use three numbers to define a position in space - and three co-ordinates. Since this very geometry is also used in Models of Space-Time in physics, we call space 3 dimensional. But does each co-ordinate of geometrical space qualifies as "DIMENSION" in the sense of String Theory. Do semantically and conceptually 3 dimensions of space stand on the same footing as other dimensional entities like 'Time' or other curled-up dimensions of String Theory? No! No! definitely NOT!!
The 3 dimensions used to describe space are an inadequacy of our mathematics. In vector representation of space there is no need for three dimensions. The three co-ordinates are isotropic, not a dimension in its own right.
Space should be seen as a single String Theory Dimension, just like Time or any other dimension.
So we should not talk of 10 dimensional String Models but only 8 dimensional ones!!!

Read full post >>

Quantum Field Theories (as epitomised by Standard Model), use 4-dimensional space-time, rather 3-D space and unidirectional Time. Number of dimensions in this theory are actually 'filled-in by pen' as the initial fact of universe. Ironically the 4-D space-time is an a-priory borrowed by Standard Model from Einstein's General Theory Of Gravity - a theory which Standard Model fails to encompass within its structure of other three Forces. Therefore space-time and its dimensions are external factors for such theories.

On the other hand the number of dimensions in string theory arise out of the formulation of string-theory itself. The 10 dimensions arise out of the fact that string theory mathematics show that its only with these many dimensions the theory would work. This is a more satisfying and complete situations as compared to assuming the dimensions a-priory as in Standard Model.
This round also therefore goes to String theory. The score-card thus far is 3-1 in favour of String Theory.
But I have a fundamental objection to space hogging 3 dimensions. I would therefore break from this String Theory vs Standard Model slug-fest and revert to this aspect in next post, with your indulgence please!!

Read full post >>

Classical Physics had the certainty like mother's womb since everything was based on directly observable parameters. In particle physics we are far out on a limb since its all model-based interpretations of indirectly observed parameters. Abandonment of physical moorings is so distinct that the two physics are in fact fundamentally different disciplines. Particle physics has to walk on crutches like quark (which are theoretically unobtainable singly). In this aspect its more akin to spirituality - which is based on presence of soul, spirit and GOD - which cannot be observed. Particle Physics is Spiritual Physics.
But I believe this is a passing phase. In ancient societies (like in India) simplified theories could explain lot of observed phenomenon very satisfactorily. A whole lot of system of medicine (Ayurveda) was based on theory that body is made-up of five basic elements (Earth, Air, Water, Fire & Vacuum/ether). Lots of diseases could be explained as imbalance in these five elements - and cures were prescribed on that basis. Even now Ayurveda system is successful in many ailments - where modern medicine has no known cure. But this theory of body elements is now definitely known to be in-exact if not wrong. For More on Ayurveda click this link
Most of particle physics experiments are ultimately based on measurements of voltages and currents (or photographic trails) in Hi-Energy Collider experiments.
Its like my GP using stethoscope on me when I complain of knee pain - he has got only that method of measurement - no method to directly observe the pain.
I hope that we will be able to find more direct methods - and the spiritual-like methods would be avoided.

Read full post >>

We live in a four dimensional space-time. Three are spatial dimensions and the fourth one is Time. Have you seen time go by. The three spatial dimensions are quite accessible to our physical senses. Although we are sure that Time does exist, but we cannot physically connect with it. Its the unseen dimension.
String theory propounds a universe consisting of 10 or 11 dimensions. Are other 6-7 dimensions also as ephemeral as time. Once we accept that in our 4-dimensional universe one dimension is already ephemeral - its not difficult to come to terms with an idea of higher-dimensional universe. The additional dimensions can be curled up or extended finitely/infinitely.
********************************************************************************
I have written about the enigma of time before. Suffice here to highlight that time as a dimension is substantially different from other three dimensions.
Time is always flowing - moving, but the spatial dimension are stationary. Time is only uni-directional, but other dimensions can freely be traversed in either direction.
Still time and spatial dimensions are considered to be an integral whole space-time. Its only we, who try to discern different dimensions to it. For example fixing three mutually perpendicular dimensional axis is just an arbitrary exercise. For space the three dimensions are not distinguishable from others - the three are integrated enough - that we cannot de-integrate or differentiate them. We can substitute one of the spatial dimensions by any one of the rest of two - without changing the equations etc. So should be time. It should not be differentiable from spatial dimensions - we should be able to substitute any spatial dimension for time and vice-versa. But that is not true.
What gives?

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.

Read full post >>

Four forces of nature - Strong force; Electromagnetic force; Weak force and gravitation, have varying strengths. Strong force is strongest and gravitation is the weakest (billion on billion times weaker than others). This extreme weakness of gravitation makes it difficult to comeup with a unifying theory of all four forces together - although the standard model does cover rest of the three. Scientists call this a "hierarchy problem". Dr.Lisa Randall, string theorist, Harvard professor and a very graceful 43 year old, developed a model of universe based on string theory(alongwith Dr. Raman Sundram), which explains why the gravitation is so weakly felt in our universe though in the beginning of universe all the four forces were indistinguishable from each other.
String theory (M-Theory) says that all particles and forces are nothing but a different vibrational states of thin stringlike structures which exist in 11 dimensions.
Universe consists of 3-dimensional membrane (jargon="brane") surrounded by a higher dimensions.
In their model called RS-1 and RS-2(published in 1999), they propounded that while all other forces are on the same "brane" as our universe, gravity resides on another "brane" separated from our universe by a five dimensional space with extra fifth dimension (time being the fourth). Gravitons (a loop of string), the particle associated with force of gravity is free to travel from gravity-brane to ours. However the space is warped in a negative way by the gravity-brane (anti De Sitter space), due to which though there is a large cluster of gravitons near gravity-brane only a small number are able to make it to our universe-brane. This explains why is the gravity so weak compared to other three forces which are resident on home-brane. Is it not familiar - Dogs bark louder near home-turf.
The extra 5th dimension of the 5-dimensional space separating us from gravity-brane is large enough but appears to be only 10^-31cm wide to us because it is warped in negative fashion. Otherwise Newton law of gravitation would have been inverse cube law instead inverse square it actually is.
This theory and other competing ones (Arkani-Dvali-Dimopoulos= ADD) would be put to test in CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva, when it fires up in 2007.
Dr. Randall recently published "Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions" to convey to the lay readers the excitement of her work on RS-1 and RS-2.
Happy Reading!! Fources

Read full post >>

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

Read full post >>

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?

Read full post >>

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!!

Read full post >>

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.

Read full post >>

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.

Read full post >>

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!

Read full 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!!

Read full 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!

Read full post >>

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

• Is there an Absolute Time somewhere or all time is relative?


• Is there an origin and end; or is it cyclic - eating its own tail?


• Is it local if its not Absolute; or is it universal if its not relative?


• Is it continuous or discrete?


• Is there an arrow of time?


• Can simultaneity be measured?


• Is there a quanta or particle associated with it?


• If its discrete - what is the least count of time?


• How is time related to space or distance?


• How is time related to matter?


• Gravity or Mass causes curvature of Space-time - does it affect time also?


• Mass gets converted to energy on destruction. If mass and time are related - what happens to time - when mass is destroyed?


• Can energy distort Time. Can any Field affect Time?


• If its relative then can 'cause and effect' get violated?


• What is the relation between 'Cause and Effect" and the above question on Time?

Read full post >>

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.

Read full post >>

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.

Read full post >>