Mysteries of the Universe- a perspective by Narendra Nath

Sorry, i am unable to comprehend your last post. It does not appear to contradict or agree or say something different with respect to my posting! Soory, it is my poor understanding of what you desire to say in response, a anguage problem perhaps!

The post marked ' Dear Brian wrote' Dec.,10, 2008@12:20 GMT is likely to be misunderstood. It is not posted by Brian but actaully by me. i just happen to type 'Dear Brian' instead of writing my name. I regret this foul up.

To one and all who may visit this site!!

To say something fresh in the post, i find it intersting that there is a talk about the Block Universe and Block Universe Expanding. The latter is evolving just to cover what many others say time is progressing. After alol space and time are concepts generated by the human mind and the same can be replaced in a reasonable alternate approach. Concepts usually can't be probed through an experiment. These are created by us to explain the observed data.I for one will treat such different approaches as mere mathematical games that theoreticians may enjoy playing in the name of creating new scientific approach. Let us play in science like our well known scientists like Bohr, Einstein and Dirac provided through their personal examples. 'No beating about the bush' should happen as the number of scientists multiplies. A broad prospective of Physics should be in the forefront all the time whenever an innovative approach is evolved to test any phenomenon. The concept evolved should hold for the entirety of Physics. For the present, i will like to conclude that the concepts of both space and time have passed the test of times and no viable alternative has yet come up to replace both these!May be i am wrong if some one care to educate me, i shall feel obliged.

With the start of the last week for the postings to discuss and vote in this competition, may i just conclude the interesting discussions we have had with the starting lines of a famous British Poet's composition, as below:-

WHAT IS THIS LIFE IF FULL OF CARE,

WE HAVE NO TIME TO STAND & STARE.

CAN LIFE STAND STILL OR IT MUST MOVE ALL THE TIME,

WE NEED NOT GET TIRED AS IT IS FOR LIFE TO WORRY ABOUT,

WE ALSO NEED NOT WORRY AS OTHERS ARE ALREADY ANXIOUS ABOUT US.

LET US LIVE FOR THE THIS MOMENT AS IT IS THE MOST PRECIOUS THING WE POSSESS.

THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO LIVE, AS NEITHER BIRTH NOR DEATH IS IN OUR CONTROL.

IF AT ALL ANY WISH WE NEED TO MAKE, IT SHOULD BE TO STRENGTHEN UNIVERSAL LOVE, PEACE AND BROTHERHOOD ALL AROUND.

Dear Narendra Nath,

Admittedly I did not read your essay until I got aware how many voters you managed to impress despite or perhaps because of telling us mere speculations that will not hurt anybody. I felt a little bit reminded of Harry Potter when I read the words mystery and universe.

While I cannot see any significance for the idea of a single Big Bang or many ones and maybe even white holes, I would appreciate checking my suspicion that a considerable part of quantum theory might simply be flawed.

My essay "Let's benefit from special mathematics for elapsed time" is perhaps better understandable if you will look into

my IEEE paper "Adaptation of Spectral Analysis to Reality"

http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/M283.html

and the attached part 1 and part 2.

Eckard BlumscheinAttachment #1: 9_Microsoft_Word__How_do_negative_and_imaginary.pdfAttachment #2: 10_Microsoft_Word__How_do_part_2.pdf

Dear Eckard,

i am happy to receive your response and shall certainly view your essay. i have never worked in the field of Cosmology nor i have ever attempted theoretical/mathematical physice. By my professional background i am labelled as low energy nuclear physicist( Experimental ). The essay i wrote is a work of inspiration after casual reading of some papers in Nature Journal on Cosmology and concerned topics. That explains my limitations and i am happy that i attempted something speculative. The same is clear from the Title itself where i have added the words ' perspectives'. i am sure you may allow to speculate and perceive! i am going to go through your essay now, thanks for your post again.

i have just posted on the essay by Eckard Blumschein. Many things exist in Indian ancient literature about numbers and the philosophy behind the concept of 'Time' called "Kaale." in old sanskrit language. Lots of such literature has been reliably translated by the famous German ' Max Mueller. Any one interested may go through such literature and also see English translational of 'GITA ' and " Panatanjali Yogasashtra".

Dear Narendra Nath,

Maybe, our abstract notion of time actually originates from India. My intention is to make physicists aware that the basic measure is not time but elapsed time alias age.

Both are time spans. They do, however, relate to different points of reference.

In this respect I am claiming to have found what Einstein and v. Weizsaecker were looking for in vain.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

You may well be right but i have limited study of our ancient literature. However, traditions do help me to indicate that TIME is a direct result of Creation itself. Everything that gets created, it also must die or get destroyed. Only That remains permanently that is not created or born. That is why God as Creator is treated in India,as omnipotent, indestructable and all pervaiding. That is where i feel that pure consciousness is what this entity is. It has to be vobration free and so physically can not be observed. That is why God can only be experienced by the self, but is beyond proof otherwise. The discovery or postulation of the number 0 is associated with Indian civilization as it may well be associated with the non-physical vibration free consciousness itself. The number 1, automatically is a manifestation of physical universe. All other numbers follow from 0 and 1 by some manipulation.

Dear Narendra,

Regrettably you refused to take issue concerning the concrete question of mine you promised in my thread 369.

Your many voters show: Belief still wins against common sense. Even Einstein called himself a believing physicist.

I grew up among different beliefs. Therefore I share the conclusion that at best one out of many mutually excluding beliefs can be correct.

I disagree when you are claiming that physics needs God as Creator. Obviously, any subject has a beginning and an end. However, nothing comes from nothing. Why should we believe in and end of (ordinary) time? What dies just this moment is the uncertainty of what we might have expected. In this sense, (elapsed) time ends.

A Soviet-related joke: The greatest inventor ever was Popov who invented virtually anything including Faraday's law, Ohm's resistor, Wheatstone bridge, etc. There was just one greater inventor: Pipov, who invented Popov.

I apologize for being nearly blasphemic and at a time not bold enough as to be immediately understood.

What about 0 and 1, I wonder if you consider 0 a natural number. Ancient mathematicians considered 2 the first number after the fundamental unity 1. The 0 is somewhat tricky because it cannot be reached by continued division 1/x for growing x. Zero is formally the reciprocal of the actual infinity.

We are calling 1 the neutral element of multiplication and division but 0 the neutral element of addition.

Multiplication and division are related to addition and subtraction via exponential or logarithmic mapping, respectively. The range from minus infinity to plus infinity can be mapped to zero to infinity and vice versa. Also one can link the range from 0 to 1 to the range from 0 to infinity and vice versa.

Regards,

Eckard

The arrow of time ideally corresponds to the arrow of counting from 0 without any end.

Dear Eckard,

i will like you to maintain your position and reasoning.The truth pervails, even if you and i have different positions on issues due to whatever justified reasons. Many a times persons differ merely o/c play of words and their meanings. Your scaling argument meets my own thinking also about the numbers. My vote counts surprises me too. It may well be as i am long retired professor and my former students , junior colleagues are spread over different area of this country as well as abroad. I think all humans are made of both reason and feelings, the ratio varies to make us a different individual. i like to enjoy this variety of nature as it is a fact of humanity. Please don't mind if we have different perception about things, as i respect yours. About the post, i will check, it may have happened inadvertently on your essay site 369.

I am slightly perplexed as I did not post on your essay site. I am putting this post on both mine and your area. I looked at your essay some time back, particularly since you appear to be grabbing up public votes like a champion fisherman. I'd have to look again at your essay, but as I recall I did not understand it very well, and it appears you are using different intellectual modalities from what I am familiar with.

My essay discusses one aspect of a general problem. The AdS spacetime is a mathematical representation for a spacetime with conformal structure. Maldacena illustrated that for N large in SU(4) that the AdS is dual to conformal fields. The scaling comes about with the "energy" of the geodesics that arc through the spacetime. These may start and end at the conformal boundary of the AdS, or with an event horizon of a BTZ black hole. How this energy scales is determined by the tessellation of the geometry, which provides a basis (or quivers) of quaternion valued fields. These fields exist in a general E_8 type of grassmannian framining, which in the 120-cell tessellation of the AdS are the roots for the E_8. That is one nice thing about E_8, the root space for the group defines the group. In a more formal setting this involves a functor which converts the geometric picture into an algebraic one.

I did not discuss the physical cosmology we actually live in. That would have taken more space, yet the basic structure in the AdS version carries over to the deSitter spacetime. The AdS has features which make it more convenient to work in.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Dear Narendra,

While you might be a much nicer person and highly respected, I guess, your voters appreciate your belief. At least they tolerate you making it central to your point of view.

Maybe, your voters are also unhappy with the overly formal style of mathematical physics. Nonetheless they appreciate mainstream vocabulary like the birth of universe.

My critical point of view is quite uncommon and even at odds with Einstein's utterances of belief if they hindered him to understand reality.

Let me comment on the story of Adam and Eve at 369. Those who possibly could feel offended should not read this comment of mine.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

actions bring reactions and sometimes it may be wise to introduce 'silence'. it helps contemplation and digestion of infomation. Knowledge to be stored has to be a small part of the informations we all receive. Let us be happy with whatever we have and wish others to have what they desire. Bets of luck in your research and pastimes.

Dear Narendra,

From your perspective, it was certainly wise for Galileo Galilei to be silent. Isn't curious and critical thinking more than just contemplation and praise of god? I see it a hard and sometimes dangerous work to destroy bad illusions.

Good luck for you and religious physics in the centuries to come.

Eckard Blumschein

Let us not reflect issues on one another. As far as i know Physics has nothing to do with religion but one can do science in a 'religious' spirit. After all, spirit is what keeps us alive, otherwise this body is just a dead matter.

Unfortunately even modern physics suffers from religious beliefs. In order to find possible mistakes I recommend to use search function of computers and look for expressions like "I believe". What I consider serious mistakes for instance by Heisenberg, by Schroedinger, and by von Neumann were uttered as beliefs. When Einstein rejected indeterminism with the words: God does not play dice, this was the only reasonable belief:

There is no room for mysteries in physics. Why should we not mature enough as to admit that some questions are pointless at least so far. We should rather try and clarify possible reasons for paradoxes. Isn't performing physics with a religious spirit similar to playing piano mainly with the smoothing feet lever?

What makes the experimental approach quite different from the belief in "deep" truth? I prefer asking nature. While the LHC intends to confirm the new quasi religion of standard model, I would interpret a failure in finding the Higgs boson as a possible hint that my suspicion is not unfounded. I do not lean my reasoning on the bible, not even on the opposite of what religion claims. Accordingly, neither the creation of universe nor the end of the world plays any role in my reasoning. If someone can show me a fossil of future life I will be surprised. To me there are reality including past time and extedendable models of it including the common notion of time.

Yes, there is no room for mysteries in Physics but Physics is led by the mysteries that defy understanding at present. Thus, the man'dreams, curiousities and yearning for understanding the secrets of nature, leads to all the developments in any discipline of science.

Best of luck to you, Eckard

Well, I agree that confession of something unexplained is very important. Unfortunately Weyl's confession in 1931 was ignored. Even worse, physicists interpreted several unresolved problems away. We do not need religious fanatism in physics. However, mistakes deserve to be revealed.

Eckard

Dear Eckard, i like to leave you with your last words, agreeing that hysics has no place for relious fanatism. Did you find it anywhere in this essay contest? Happy New Year !