Posts from the ‘approach to understand Universe’ Category
July 2, 2012
FYI, Glossary for those who are interested: calibration: a scientific term for a standard way of doing something.
eg you can push your bicycle wheel really fast and have it rotate 200 times in a minute, define a minute to be 200 rotation of the same wheel at a pace when you spend a precalibrated amount of force and/or energy, define a minute to be 10 seconds and get a second = 20 rotations of this particluar wheel where every part is accurately designed to produce these wheels and run at a precalibrated energy/force so that the energy/force does not vary from one wheel system to another and is produced by watch company Seiko and you install this wheel on the top of your building. That would be a clock that reads seconds and minutes in a predefined way. A clock is not a time device its an energy device primarily. It calibrates energy input and reads time output. If energy goes wrong time will.
A clock is a device that knows how much energy is input and at what “time” rate. Time-rate can be arbitrary in nature but not in a clock. A clock is an anthropic time device. A clock is designed to know what energy is spent for a predefined uniform rate of spending that energy so that, that uniform rate is called time. But time in nature can be understood by studying all energy devices. To understand their uniformity [flatness] and design is called Physics. Every physical device is a clock. We just don’t know howto read them.
June 28, 2012
Difference between everything and anything. You would think when you add over all the “anything”s you get everything. or everything = integration(anything*dthing). Thats not true. So most people confuse a Theory of Everything with a Theory of Anything. So that will never happen, the latter. The theory of Everything in the sense of Anything will never happen. Physicists are not thinking that. Over-enthusiastic science propellers may be thinking like that. They may be thinking you pick out Anything and a Theory of Everything will explain it. No. Why then we call it a Theory of Everything? Because as far as we understand an Everything is a sum of all that we know, and thats still infinitely large. So this Theory of Everything will not be a mean theory but it will eg not explain God, because God may be Anything but He does not come in the purview of Scientists because we do not conceive of Him in any way, not that He is too material or too “matters” [Oh yeah He is a “doesn’t matter” field] but the religionists would like to tell you so. [He is beyond anyone’s imagination and so on, that could very easily fit M. Dash’s description but I would fear to call myself God because I know how people treat God as their reflection not an absolute powerful entity]
Eg it will also not explain why you did not cook today. There already might be an answer to it. And the question and answer format may not be physical in the sense of a very well defined scheme. MAy be you try to remember everything about it and make a story or blog but the fact remains in day to day affairs human beings forget and some reasons might be sticking from a 5 year or 15 year before and noone remembers or cares to remember it. But for a scientific theory that explains such everything it has to start as a limited perspective and well defined precision centric field of study. In-fact the difference between everything and everything as a sum of anything is that everything as I already said is limited. Anything is unlimited and dynamically changeable. We can not give for next 500th generation what will be valid. They will look at us with amusement on our sheer intelligence but they will have a better Theory Of Everything, their Everything’s limited description must have changed as well.
To be wistfully pleased at our ability to have the “final” answers is merely an Archimedes Eureka. Its nice to have it, not a final understanding.
April 20, 2012
A few days ago I wrote an article “The nature of our Universe” and while thinking about it a little more I promised that “I will write another few articles, pending in my online-cupboard”. Alas, my tomorrow has a unit of few days in other people’s time-note.
I thought I would write this one as I see that there might be a few things I may not be saying in that whole article to which I had added few more interesting nuggets the 2nd/3rd time I read it again.
In that article I remarked that conservation principles are not sacrosanct in all scales of our Universe. What is conserved in one scale need not be exactly conserved in another scale and there is no correspondence between scales a feat I called scale-confinement. I gave hand-weaving arguments of why. You do not enter the scale of a microbe and the atoms do not enter your scale. They of-course combine and you of-course degrade yourself biologically and go to your elements. “Iti Panch’twa pra’p’ti.” Sanskrut for “in the end we meet our elements”. In “Hindu” philosophical thinking there are 5 elements to which all matters and energy are to be classified. And these are “earth, water, fire, air and space”.
Now this is also a Greek philosophy !! The science of the earlier days where matter was classified in that way. As we are often told in texts written to give introduction to science.
Now philosophical thinkings are not scientific thinking. But they at times carry certain interests and useful catalogue for describing our knowledge. At-least they can inspire us to study and know more about stuff.
So the idea where we started this is that there is no scale-traversing. The atoms make you but they never come to your scale not even when they move a distance of 10 meters. They still do live in their scale all the instants.
I would also bring in here a little day-to-day hand weaving analogy. You talk about whats happening in another place because you are prejudiced about that place and you are laced with your knowledge about what ought to be happening in that place. You say my friend is having a conversation in that other room. But thats only if you have enough evidence for it. You have often materialized such an evidence. but if you were to continue to extend that phenomenological evidence to every other room that you can talk about it can often lead you to bizarre conclusions. I believe meta physical and phantom beliefs emerge from such needs. Emergent nonsense. If there is a room in a deep forest either a terrorist, or a pagan, a tantrik or a ghost must live in there. You must envision a need for its connection with what you see elsewhere in your mundane experience.
But scientific minds are not like that. They can tell you they believe what you believe in bust most likely to avoid your sweet-carcass. If there is a Universe there must a be God, because we create our institutions and facilities, wh built this whole amazing Universe. Thats a starting point of religion. It wants to cater to the needs of every head count. Thats where it starts from, where does it end? Science and Religion are often opposites in matters where there are no conclusive evidence to substantiate any claim. A claim can be based upon a need to have a claim, not upon a need to prove a claim.
Now religion gives you so much peace and science takes away such because its an immense deal of brain-work thats required to recover the lost threads, so I will stop on religion here as this does not motivate me to take up a religious point of view because I have a head ache doing a nature-searching. So religion goes for soul-searching and we go for nature-searching. Not nature hunting, so there is no ghost hunting either.
So a diversion was taken but I do not see any loss of interest, do I? We can not necessarily conclude what is there in a room deep inside forest. It is this point which can be used to explain you the nature of Universe and its creation. There is just nothing. Everything just came out of nothing. Then where did the room came from? Well if you like to iterate on your religious needs you say “there must be a creator of the room”, we see rooms and rooms are always created by persons and in the absence of anyone living there the person who created that room and is now dead must be living there as the landlord. Your landlord is a ghost, funny story but nature isn’t like that.
In nature there are no rooms. There is space. But space is a concept of place-holder [and time-holder as well, time like region anyone? oops space-like region. space-like region is one which is devoid of time]
So space is conceptualized as a space and time holder. But thats just because we see place and time as a day-to-day reality.
But there never was a need for us Physicists to define a space without space and time. It wasn’t given up. We just didn’t see it coming that fast. Yes, we can conceptualize space without it having to contain and place or time. Thats what happens when you associate the concept of space with that of scale. There are scales where there is space where there is no matter and no energy, nothing, no place, no time. Its a scale that existed before the Universe was created. Now the scale that existed after Big Bang contains in it place and time although the scale of such place and time are mind-lessly small. Then these small-scale grow into larger scales. But the matter and energy in those tiny scales still do not traverse into other scales if scale-confinement is sacrosanct. This is after Big-Bang. What happened before Big-Bang? There was a scale where there was no place and time, although space could still be conceptualized.
In that pre-Big-Bang scale there was no matter, no energy, no place and no time. It does not obey the principle of conservation necessarily. But there is a nicer way out of this puzzle.
What if these no-place-no-time-no-matter-no-energy scales are like empty bubbles. By violating the conservation principles for a short instant for example through the Heisenberg’s license there is a creation of matter and energy from these bubbles into the neighbouring scales, with or without any matter.
Then each of these no-place-no-time-no-matter-no-energy bubbles can have a small amount of matter-energy-place-time, Heisenberg license is revoked and conservation principles are sacrosanct again. So that small license is the key to understanding how a small desirable violation of the laws of nature known in our scales today we do not throw scientific thinking into a pool of unsavory gel.
If you are adventurous enough like me, you can even see that these bubbles are even conserved by employing their Heisenberg ID. The bubbles grow into more bubbles, the matter and energy, space and time and place they all grow. Until the scale of time and place has expanded so much that we see as much as we see now.
I think this was all I had to tell you reg. “The nature of our Universe” essay. Just one more point: these pre-Big-Bang bubles might still exist.
Thanks for reading.
April 6, 2012
3 addendum paragraphs have been added just now. In case you read it earlier, the addendum is interesting newer insights that I added, so just scroll down to find them. They are at the complete end.
The interest I have in writing this article is two-fold.
One is to make an attempt at writing what I understand based on a motivation of a casual discussion people who have no basis in scientific principles ensue and how they come up with totalistic remarks about how science is wrong. In other words how our beautiful theories and conceptual underpinnings vastly supported by our extensive experimental observations and knowledge are nothing but a wastage of time as per these people who do not understand the precinct of science nor are appreciative of how beautifully their moorings and outpourings can be brushed aside as mere baseless anti-sensationalism.
Two Since I have been thinking partly like a student of my own making trying to put various patterns and ideas on the same cotton-board what do I know since I started such a habit 15 or 17 years ago in college. What do I know?
I know pretty much nothing.
This I have realized often that as such I know nothing. This word nothings is vastly misused in a scientific situation by people who have no scientific basis. So my nothing is kind of like something which nonetheless makes me stand in objection to the outpourings of anti-sensationalism against science.
I have just one word of advise for those who are fierce science bashers. I would consider this advise also valuable to me not because I am any science non-believer but as I said I know pretty much nothing. So in my earnest efforts to know and make sense I may commit some kind of mistakes in trying to understand the implications of science. Science is not a social creation unlike language. Science is here to be with us to guide us into our future for a suitable intellectual standing for a frail human civilization which wastes much of its energy in self-gratification learning hardly much from past and willing hardly to take a notice of future. So it has become a raison d’être of science to make this as an ideal of science. Science has been with us since time immemorial by the vast deal of intellectual churning of the enlightened minds, Socrates or Archimedes or the unsung heroes of post Socrates period or the medieval nobelities who took it as a personal inspiration to support scientists to carry out their futuristic visionary efforts which are often orphaned without such generosity. Since science is so useful, intellectually necessary for the existential “needs” of human civilization as a whole and can be debated over its shortcomings and success with respect to its ideals its not out-of-place to hear criticism regarding its roles, as a scientist I find it utterly informed to place this advise in place though. Sans it I am going towards my goals of my involvements with science as I can do and I have been finding suitable to do.
If you are a compulsive science basher you have no place in any science discussion. Why? You think its a prejudice but its actually not. Its a simple logic. You already cast your vote against science no matter what no matter how long. Then why you need to vote it again? You should exercise your vote once. And there are no periodic elections held for science, no scientist is running for a campaign. Thats the beauty of science. Despite of its objective roles science creates a sensation in the minds of everyone even those who are compulsive science bashers. Although this time they do not have any more voting rights. Be judicious when you speak against science.
So here is what I understand about our Universe. This is not one comprehensive essay about giving you a perspective of what I know, that will hardly ever catch my attention in a comprehensive way. This is about countering a notion or two about ill-formed non-scientific outpourings.
Its often taken to be a unanimous scientific understanding and call it a theory you will not be wrong for another 500 years, that our Universe was created from a process called Big Bang.
When I say unanimous I did not mean to say that there has been no objection scientifically to such a theory. A Big Bang theory has been objected and made to stand the tests of many falsifications including a somewhat well-known falsification called a steady state theory where the latter itself could not stand the test of experiment. And in science what does not stand the test of experiment does not stand the test of time. In society its the opposite. You will be made to wait unreasonably and then you will chicken out. Then yours will be heralded as a victory of sorts as you stood the test of time. In science time is a parameter, its not an authority.
Big Bang theory as a theory of creation of Universe [and we would be as glad to say production of Universe and the creationists will be shocked for couple years and come of up with producer of the Universe: God, a father of all processes. Religion just need an excuse till its anti-scientific agendas finds a leeway] has stood the tests of many experiments. These observations as a process of science definitely have much in the form of questions which is a common syndrome of science. Science creates dilemmas and questions but not dogmas. So expect much questioning of Big Bang theory as a central understanding of all of Physics but you will not find a day when you can at-all prove it as a dogma.
What does Big-Bang theory suggest?
Big-Bang theory suggests that its a kind of explosion as opposed to an implosion, therefore. not-therefore a bomb like explosion of energy but therefore a slow or fast not-with-standing expansion or outward creation of matter and energy from a point-like existence.
Now this is where much of the anti-sensationalised outpourings of the unprepared minds takes place.
A point-like existence is a mathematical apparatus. But to be physical, that is, to be intuitive one can say there was almost nothing there. Now almost-nothing sounds again like a work-around to satisfy the unprepared mind. There will be very fundamental scientists who will tell you its not only almost-nothing but it can as well be absolutely nothing at that point of creation of our Universe. Our Universe was created out of absolutely nothing.
This is where the unprepared mind takes offense. He or she thinks that its preposterous and ridiculous and absolutely trash that scientists talk like this. Like they do not know what they are talking about.
A much more fundamentalist in science like me thinks its not only that, that its absolutely nothing but it could as well be that, its nothing and its absolutely preposterous to ask a question how could our Universe come out of nothing. This question itself does not make a sense. We see something and it must have come out of something. Or else it would violate the conservation principles.
Now thats a very preposterous connection of our intuition with a conceptual law or principle called conservation principle. This conservation principle, strictly speaking, in scientific terminology, is mathematically called a Noether’s Theorem. Just like absolutely or relatively nothing can be mathematically called a point, that is, one structure without any extension. And when mathematics has finished its job for a physical description you must fall upon physical intuition, physical principles, physical knowledge as gained through theoretical understanding and observational and experimental knowledge and descriptions that must make sense not necessarily to the unprepared mind but necessarily to one who is open to ideas about the nature of universe.
Since when it became a preoccupation of the unprepared minds to make statements regarding what scientific theory is ridiculous, especially when thats the most acceptable present day understanding. Its not like you make a neutralization, you are making an absolute trivialization of valid scientific understanding perhaps with a hidden benevolent inspiration to envisage a much more working theory of scientific nature to explain the actual nature of universe. But I am not impressed because your remarks should be much more elaborate and truly capable of debilitating the underpinnings of the successful theory. It took Einstein’s theory 30-45 years to be fully accepted as a sound theory and still he is debated for what could be inconsistent. There are inconsistencies yes, but there is no preposterous understanding. We all saw what happened to the OPERA anomaly concept in a matter of 6 months. It was proved to be not only refutable but an oversight in many different aspects. Theoretical as well experimental and judgemental oversights riddled-up the experiment. It had hardly come close to proving Einstein’s theory wrong but could not stand the tests of its own efficacy. Then only comes a question of what implication it poses. Science is elaborate through the workings of 100s of genius and 100s of years. Its the biggest human endeavour to date man-kind has ever known. [Its a driver of economy and corporate organizations as well, realize this or not, but its like a hidden dagger, it can protect you or can harm you if not played safe. Its a tool, a paper tool can kill you]
But my purpose of telling you the danger of remarking preposterously against valid scientific understandings was not just to warn you to stop you from doing that. It was more of a friendly nature. Here is what I intended to tell you why Universe can come out of nothing.
As I said [Or did I , I have just focussed in the last 25 minutes on constantly writing this article, and I haven’t gone back to check to see if I said this or not, better said again]
I have thought a very simple logic of the nature of Universe when I was in college. Like now back then I was freelancing a lot about science. But back then I had no serious experience with science as its done at the international level except I self-read the best books that can be prescribed. Somehow I liked it and never felt a need to change my thinking purely from the point of view of how it makes sense if we are to look at simple things in a simple way, perhaps not very simple, but how can we stop ourselves from thinking that we know it all. That helps.
If we can stop ourselves from thinking that Universe must have come out of something because we see something now and connect it to conservation principle we would make the first and a sound step to understand a scientific principle of why science can really tell you Universe can possibly create itself out of nothing.
Its connected at a deeper level to the question of “how we make sense” and how patterns are understood, how mind works and how we form knowledge, rather than another physical principle called conservation theorem. You can never use one solid physical principle to disprove another just like you can not say one person is beautiful because another is not. [Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, apart from that science is not based on the need to be socially correct let alone politically. There is no science club except that can be a good pastime]
So how is the creation of Universe connected to how our mind registers patterns and makes sense? Thats a good clue.
I have often said this idea of mine I formed 17 years ago in college to be a “theory of Universe”. Back in 2007 when there was a ghastly massacre at Virginia Tech, 33 people were killed by mad gunshots, I was standing in drill field in the night of the candle light ceremony for the commemoration of the dead/deceased. I was standing right on one edge close to Burrus Hall. One later middle-aged guy walked close to me and started making a conversation. It did not take me moment to realize he is a proselytizer. He was a nice friendly smooth talker. So that is the commercial sense of religion, find a nice friendly smooth talker and employ him to sell [and sale] your religion probably to strangers.
I recognized his purpose because as I said I had by then lived for 6 years already in the USA so hardly there was anything about the social implications of a situation of American type that I would not recognize. Although I never went to prison. Ahh, what you know? I brushed close.
This man started talking about God. So I thought I must start talking some sense. We sat close and talked for about 30 minutes. When he said God, I said I do not believe in God. This is what I believe in. I believe in science. I said I will give you a reason to see why our Universe is not created by God ipso-facto [not even perhaps, but that will take an advance intercourse, oops … thats an advance discourse]. I said what sense you make of a football? You see when you were a kid you started making sense of various things. You hit something and you hurt yourself then you realize there are objects lying all around you. You grow a little more, then you started making sense of distance and images. Because the first time that information was being registered it was being saved in your mind. Then later on when you see or observe or sense the same thing your mind tells you what it is that you are looking at. Based on a galore of ideas and impressions and their physical characteristics such as distance, rigidity, sphericity etc your mind tells you what you are looking at, a foot ball or a moon, and based on your sense perceptions you think football and moon are of the same size. But it only takes you the power of scientific logic to differentiate that moon and football are not of the same size. How do you do that? You kick the football. It rolls off. Then it gradually gets smaller in size. And you say ok with distance the football looks really smaller and smaller. If only you kick a huge huge huge object and it goes far far far away it looks like a moon. So which is bigger? The foot ball or the moon?
So if God is really that bigger we must kick him and when he rolls off and go far far far away you must still see a large God, where is God why do we not see Him, perhaps he does not exist, you see its a ipso-facto God does not exist logic but lets feed the kids a concept which they will be comfy with, perhaps God does not exist even if you think He might exist at a cosmic distance because He would show up like a speck. So the religionists must first of all come up with a scale and size determination of God. And we will publish it on PRL “God’s lateral dimensions found to be of a spiral white-dwarf filled dense Galaxy size”
So it would not make sense not only to talk about the bigger size based on a comparison in our head of a football [That is moon is not what it looks like its far bigger than a football] but so also it would NOT make sense to talk about nothingness based on a comparison in our head of a football. For whatever reason a football is not an authority on the validity of inferences about the nature of any scale and all we are blessed with is a football or something similar, a car or a watch or a book or an airplane. But like we can make sense of a football rolled off and seems much smaller now, therefore moon must be really really huge, we know that its situated far off, we can also make sense that since we can continue to collapse and collapse and collapse yet not reach a point and when we reached a point we have reached nothingness and it is at that scale that Universe created itself. It is in this sense we can discuss about the nature of Universe, not in a sense how conservation of energy and matter must mean Universe can not create itself out of nothing. No body has seen the Big Bang. And something is not an authority of nothing …
Its also closely related to the concept of scale in Physics. Physics is about processes and scales.
Process: the process of collapse which is conceptually the reversibility of a creation of Universe from a point of nothingness and therefore mathematically you must continue to collapse ad infinitum, and not be stopped at a point where there still is something out of which through vast explosion matter and energy procreate into more and more. And for another thing if a tiny little something is necessary to validate conservation then going by reverse concept you need far more matter to create present day Universe. Afterall present day Universe is vast and why must it create itself from something say the nuts of Chuck Norris being the size of an atom. For present day Universe to be this big supported by conservation principle would mean to have a Universe as big as about itself to create the former. Why then would one Universe just create into another while at the same time being created from a point. In other words why Pre-Universe being the same size collapsed to a point and conservation principles were not violated?
Scale: The present day Universe is vast in its scale of space and time. Now the principle or law or rule behind such a scale is that you cannot traverse the scales. And this is a metaphoric you representing a metaphoric person. So no intelligent creatures are capable of traversing the scale nor are the “intelligent” physical objects are capable of such a privilege. Nature’s laws as we observe at any scale does not promote such correspondence through different scales. Its the principles and scale-invariant objects that correspond. The effect correspond. But the tiny elements and the units do not. What I am saying here is your body constitutes of zillions of atoms. But nobody has “seen” an atom. But there are zillions which makes us visible. How can one non-visible element traverse to be one visible structure? Well its possible that invisible or qusi-visible structures combine into visible ones. But they retain their respective privileges and they do not gain any superprivilege. That means the atom still has to live like an atom. And the human being or any visible object has to remain a visible object. We do not traverse to the scale of an atom neither does the atom traverse to the scales of bigger objects. It is a natural law that scales are defined to be non-traversible. And effects correspond, that is, move up the ladder bound by physical characteristics. That means we can not traverse back to the scale of the big bang. Our scale is a billion years and a millions parsecs. [how many exact parsecs are we?] But the big-bang scale is a tiny tiny time interval and a tiny tiny space interval which is akin to nothing. That is the process of infinite collapse will continue to make the units of this big-bang time scale and space scale smaller till we can physically call this nothing. Its a point that goes on collapse. Therefore there is nothing there and then creates something in a matter of time-scale and a matter of space-scale. When that space and time scale continues to grow the matter, energy, processes, scales everything continue to grow. And it took a billion years perhaps and a billion parsecs perhaps to come up to present day Universe.
There is nothing preposterous about such a scientific theory. Scientific understandings are not warranted to satisfy each and every socially satisfying question that can be formulated or that can be come across. Just like the workings of an atom has got nothing absolutely to do with the workings of a tennis ball no matter how we model the atomic world in terms of classical sized objects for our conceptual understanding they are not the same and they are not the opposite. They are two different aspects of two different kinds. There is no correlation except that they both can be connected via understanding and correspondence. [correspondence: moving an effect from one scale to another]
And Big-Bang does not say Universe created from an atom or a really tiny object but it says that it created out from nothing. Because its a process not something to be imagined for the sake of a conclusion. Make your mind about it because its still open “scientifically” towards a Universe that collapses and then recreates from an expansion. Although that scenario has been backed off in favor of an Universe that just created from a point mathematically and from “nothing” physically.