Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
January 17, 2018

CATEGORY: The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008) [back]
TOPIC: Mysteries of the Universe- a perspective by Narendra Nath [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Narendra Nath wrote on Sep. 24, 2008 @ 11:59 GMT
Essay Abstract

There are several unknowns like the nature of primordial matter, dark and visible matter. Besides, one has no idea what existed prior to the Big bang if there was one. How the Unified Potential field manifested into its four components, gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear cum electromagnetic ones. Have their relative strengths remained as ever from the start, etc. As cosmological data is neither precise nor certain about the period covered since the birth of the Universe, it is not certain whether the physical constants have varied and by what degree? One can comprehend and speculate about the possibilities keeping the observations as guidelines. Such an attempt will be presented

Author Bio

He has served as Professor of Physics at Kurukshetra University from 1970-93. Earlier, he was Assoc. Professor at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. He has held several visiting assignments at UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment, harwell, US NSF Sr. Foreign Scientist awardee at Brigham Young University, Post- doc at Louisiana State University and did doctoral research at Bartol Research Foundation of the Franklin Instt. after completing his educational career at University of Delhi, India.

Download Essay PDF File




Narendra Nath wrote on Sep. 30, 2008 @ 03:45 GMT
An article titled ' Science Interface with Spirituality ' is attached as a prelude to the essay submitted already entitled ' Mysteries of the Universe -a perspective '. It relates to the experiences personally noted by the author as he conducted his R & D studies during active service as also the period of retirement. Reviews by other participants/contributors as well as referees of the FQXI movement are most welcome!

attachments: SCIENCE_INTERFACE_WITH_SPIRITUALITY_REVISED_II.doc




Anonymous wrote on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 05:20 GMT
Additional Attachment of a mss ' Inconstancy of the physical Constants.........' may prove helpful for the discussions

attachments: INCONSTANCY_OF_THE_PHYSICAL_CONSTANTS_AND_1_12.doc

report post as inappropriate


Clinton "Kyle" Miller wrote on Oct. 8, 2008 @ 14:12 GMT
Narendra,

I really like the closing comments of your "Science Interface with Spirituality" piece. In the final discussion of my own essay, I made some similar "child-like" comments. I would love to hear what you think!

CKM




Narendra wrote on Oct. 9, 2008 @ 10:31 GMT
Dear Clinton,

Just as we get conditioned with age, we loose the child-like wonder as also the smile of true innocence. You apparently had no comments on my Essay as well as the Attachment' Inconstancy of the physical Constants....'.You liked the other Attached MSS to just comment on the brief ending with poem-like prose i happen to compose too. After going through your essay, i see why you have chosen to ignore the 'Physics ' as your article emphasizes the importance of ' this moment ' that one actually lives. The rest is past or the unknown future we think about, worry or feel anxious about. Thus, you are the true believer in life as it is. Let me share something rather personal with you now. The motivation to write the MSS ' Science Interface with Spirituality' came to me after i had undergone a week's course on Yoga run by an Institution called 'The Art of Living ' founded by a living saint called Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. The two ideas that i later patented following my voluntary visits to two concerned industries also followed more or less simultaneously. The two scientific mss on ' Mysteries of the Universe- a perspective' and ' Inconstancy of the physical constants....' followed later, as i experienced the effect of my personal 'awakening' in my profession as a teacher cum researcher in Physics at the University. During my active service i was restricted to R & D in Nuclear Physics and associated. experimental techniques. The awakening period lies well into my retirement from service, as i am presently in 76th year of my life.What a pleasure it is to share this information with you at 20 yrs. of age!!




Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 10, 2008 @ 13:11 GMT
two typographic mistakes are noted in my essay as posted:

1.page 3, line 5 from bottom: delete 'instability ' at the end.

2. page 5,line 2 from top:' cognize' should read as ' cognizer'

Awaiting comments from public as well as other authors of the essay competition!




matthew kolasinski wrote on Oct. 19, 2008 @ 19:08 GMT
Dear Mr. Nath,

re:

-------------------

Current fashion

favors the Big Bang with the cosmologists, as it explains better the

limited experimental data available so far. Its weakness lies mainly

in its inability to understand what may have pre-existed!

-------------------

ya. there's some problems there. the notion of a 'big bang' first arose...

view entire post





Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 20, 2008 @ 11:24 GMT
Dear Matt,

i appreciate your comments. There is no reference cited for the initial repulsive gravity following the Bigbang. i just quoted the analogy of repulsive strong nuclear force at very short distances. Please remember, nature guides nus but we don't guide It. You have to explain things as these appear to happen in nature. The creator ' consciousness' can not be judged by our personal rules and regulations!

The dark matter postulated by me is on the basis of the observation that we are unable to interact or receive any response from it. It can't be excited by signals that we send. Thus, it can't be Baryonic in nature as our visible world is. Thus, its non-baryonic nature needs to be understood. For that purpose, i postulated primordial matter to consist of very heavy neutral quarks, unforseen thus far!Then, these were considered to be very fast decaying to lighter quarks under the original unified field that was bvery very strong. At some stage of this process, that field became weaker not to enable such fast decays to be sustained and those quarks froze as dark matter. The remaining ones decayed to lighter quarks which started to invlove fractional charge states with the advent of Unified field's components of e.m field,strong & weak nuclear and the the new gravitational attractive field. The latter is in contrast with the very very strong repulsive gravitational field that was used to explain only the initial evolutionary expansion of the Universe soon after Bigbang.

You are right we may take the originating Unified field to be a kind of intelligent potential field that existed even prior to the Bigbang! Nature is mysterious for we humans to have come on the scene well after its 13 billion years of Universe 's existence.

More later!




NN wrote on Oct. 20, 2008 @ 14:52 GMT
Both Matt and Dr. Pitkanen may look at the posting by me on Dr. Pikanen's essay just now. Hopefully, it may provide a healthier outlook on ' consciousness ', in order to use it effectively in searching for truth through science.




Matti PItkänen wrote on Oct. 23, 2008 @ 07:55 GMT
Dear Narenda,

one of the big cosmological problems you mention is "What existed before Big Bang?".

If we mean with time geometric time, as a fourth space-time cooordinate, the question becomes obsolete. We do not ask what was before or after the surface of the table but what is below or above it. Big Bang is just the boundary of space-time. The 3-D light-like boundary of future lightcone of Minkowski space is a good illustration for Big Bang since future lightcone can be regarded as expanding cosmology with vanishing mass density with lightcone proper time hyperboloids (Lobatchevski spaces) identified as cosmic time= constant surfaces.

With respect to experienced time "before" makes sense but not when we are not talking about subjective experiences but space-time geometry.

The identification of experienced and subjective time is what leads to the question what was before Big Bang plus many other problems related to time and usually ignored in recent day theoretical physics. The reason is probably that this problem is really difficult and there is no hope of producing highly technical papers full of formulae. Rather, the basic challenge is to first articulate the deep ignorance and after than possibly end up saying something about consciousness!



With Best Regards,

Matti Pitkänen

So, I think that understanding consciousness can beging only when we realize that these two times are not one and same thing.

With Best Regards,

Matti Pitkänen




Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 23, 2008 @ 13:29 GMT
i just happen to post my comments on your essay posts. i personally give greater importance in formulating the precepts and then the concepts to understand and explain a process. The tools of maths/geometry or whatever we use to formulate the theory will always reflect the short comings left behind in the conceptual part of our explanation. Thus, our contemplation, intuition play a very significant role. The rest is a just an exercise in calculation. That is what Einstein remarks in the personal observations on his profound 1905 discoveries. His own thinking did not provide him the basic idea, it came from outside his own thought processes. He then gives importance to his capacity to realise promptly the significance and importance of that idea and then apply the mathematic tools he was conversant with to work out the solution!




Matti Pitkänen wrote on Oct. 24, 2008 @ 09:19 GMT
I agree with your view. The worst that can happen to a new idea is that it is mathematized too early. Simply because a really novel idea requires new conceptualization possibly leading to a new mathematics when the time is ripe.

Super string models are an excellent example of what can happen. The physical shortcomings are completely obvious to the beginner but those who have worked with it their professional life are blind for these shortcomings or are not even interested since the work with the mathematics involved is very rewarding in itself.

TGD would have suffered same fate if I had just started to produce publishable papers three decades ago. My luck was that I was too lazy!;-) And also well aware that the existing recipes did not work. Many of the mathematical concepts needed in TGD are considerable generalizations of existing ones. Several genuinely new notions are needed: infinite-dimensional geometry, generalization of the notion of number, and even the notion of space-time point.

What is consolating that all these theories, which all very probably catch only some aspects of reality, produce mathematical notions which can be used by the next generation.



Matti




Nath wrote on Oct. 24, 2008 @ 13:02 GMT
To the various postings & all the authors,

i have to say something general about ' nature of Time '. Terresterial and intercontinental time may be different in scale. Also, the time scale may differ hugely between the manifested consciouness (physical universe) and pure or cosmic consciousness. Time is linear or non-linear can produce 'unknown' consequences. Indian mythology refers to different Universes having very different time scales. Also, it talks about the body and the spirit having such anamolies. Then , there is the sense of time duration that one may encounter during meditation stage compared to the other three known stages of wakeful, dream and deep sleep! if i may vouch from my personal exdperience i have observed such a behaviour on more than one occasion during 'meditation' session. Also, it is common to observe our sense of timings during a pleasant , normal and unpleasant gatherings!




Anonymous wrote on Nov. 4, 2008 @ 05:19 GMT
May be the oncepts like protons, neutrons etc. etc. are all created by the big bang ,if there ever was one.

Why do we want to dig on the past? Why not use all the information & knowledge ,and try o simulate the immediate future.

GKM

report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 4, 2008 @ 08:02 GMT
GKM, thanks for the straight comment aout looking at the times in the future, instead of digging the past. At the human level, it is certainly the desired objective to live 100% in the present and that way ensure an anxiety free future. However, the field of Cosmology that my essay intnded to cover, naturally demands understanding of the past. Past experiences also provide us with guidelines to live a better tomorrow,as well as ensure that our Universe also maintains its natural tendencies experienced thus far.

A little correction, the essay started with postulation of very heavy neutral quarks and came down to the level of charged quarks as currently known from Particle Physics as building blocks of n, p nuclei, atoms and molecules....




Toru Ohira wrote on Nov. 6, 2008 @ 01:18 GMT
Dear Narendra:

Thank you for posting on my essay. I am posting here issues relating to

consciousness in your essay. We agree that time is not as structured in

human consciousness: i.e., past, current and future is not clearly cut out.

How about in cosmic consciousness you mention in your paper? And

through the interaction between the two, how do they affect the notion

of time in ourselves or vice versa?

Sincerely,

Toru




Narendra wrote on Nov. 6, 2008 @ 03:23 GMT
What a wonderful rejoinder from you on the nature of ' cosmic consciousness'. We already agree that we still need to go some distance on human consciousness. Cosmic one has given rise to our manifestation itself. What can one say about the most superior level of consciousness, except to imagine to be ever present, timeless, powerful beyond measure. Science has followed a certain level humanity that we have been able to achieve thus far. One can hope to experience it through self-observation, as i attempted to narrate in my essay through the experiences i had using the techniques of meditation and yoga. I have already mentioned in one of my postings that meditation is the forth state of consciousness, following the ones associated with waking, dreaming and deep sleep stages. i continue to have such experiences and the same may get reflected in my postings on the essays of ten other authors. Such experiences come through moments of silence, emptiness of the mind and a feeling of extreme humility in the context of the hugeness of the Universe!




Doug wrote on Nov. 6, 2008 @ 13:57 GMT
Hi Narendra,

You wrote in my forum:

“i await your response to my posting of Oct.,31 as also an earlier post on your draft essay on a pre-existing FQXI site. The later demanded suggestions to finalize the essay draft. Both cover more or less the same material.”

I’m sorry Narendra, but I truly am at a loss as to how to respond to your posting of Oct 31st, and I don’t understand what you mean by “a pre-existing FQXI site.” Where do I find such a site to read the post that you are referring to?

I face a very definite challenge of deducing the consequences of a fundamental postulate. I know that the task requires more than I can deliver without the help of a power greater than my own, but, in my case, it requires an appeal to the God of Israel for enlightenment and guidance, something that is a private matter of contemplation and discernment of the promptings of the Holy Ghost, the prospect for the success of which is intimately connected with matters of worship and devotion.

In my mind, the discussion of these things, as part of a recommended methodology for scientific research, seems to be inappropriate in a public, scientific, discussion.

Regards,

Doug




Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 6, 2008 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear Doug,

My post material got lost before submission! So, i have to re-establish the response flow again.it is unfortunate that you have misunderstood me as i never ever talked of God/Holy Ghost or any religion and associated beliefs individuals may have. This essay competition has come out in the spirit that our current scientific journals don't publish free discussions on the Foundational Questions, specially if it is going to invoke what are not currently accepted as parameters of sciences. If you look at this competition, nearly every essay worth a mention has invoked ' consciousness' which is definitely a non-physical entity. What is consciousness is seriously being discussed and a few have even attempted to model it as per science methodology known to us presently. In fact, i feel it is too early to model it as our concepts based on percepts need to rise to a higher level before attempting Mathematical/geometric or stochastic simulations. Somehow, i happen to have personally experienced the effects of meditation and Yoga practices ( nothing to do with religious practices at all). The human mind that controls even the body capabilities and not just the human brain but the body as a whole with its infinite living cells, gets affected in a positive manner! This is science we need to comprehend better and evolve for our own good. It is not just confined to medical aspects but also our capabilities and potentialities in any profession!

Experiments , experiences, intuition and inspiration are all utilized by us in furthering science or any other professional activity.

Kindly i request you humbly to open up your horizon and accept all such discussions on ' consciousness' currently in progress in several postings on the essays in this wonderfully organized competition. i am at your service to respond to any specific queries/ clarifications you may desire. In fact, i myself have had somewhat similar feelings you expressed during early part of my professional career as Professor of Physics. But personal, self-critical observations/experiences compelled me to broaden my outlook and in turn i benefited professionally too! NN




Narendra wrote on Nov. 9, 2008 @ 15:25 GMT
Just noted that at the end of your response to my last but one post, you indicate that you are bound by 'science methodology'. i wonder who claims to be the guardian of it. I believe it is a constantly developing methodology and takes care of the Expanding paradigms for science itself to grow. Eventually, several things in the present science did not meet wide acceptance initially but Time took care of the same.

This may be considered as a continuation of my Nov., 06 post on your essay!




F. Le Rouge wrote on Nov. 10, 2008 @ 15:46 GMT
I must add after this remark of Narendra Nath on 'method as a retreat' that this is very curious reaction from Scientists who are based on theories of other Scientists who constantly refer to God or mystic numbers such as J. Kepler or I. Newton. D. Bundy is even based on the same mystic number four that Kepler used!

For sure it is coming from Algebra that gives the illusion of neutral scientific language cutted from mysticism or metaphysics.




Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 11, 2008 @ 01:25 GMT
The comment of F. Le Rouge appears to indicate as if there is clear cut separation between science & mysticism. To me all mysticism/mysteries lead to scientific endevours. May i request Le Rouge to kindly comment on several conjectures that have been made in my essay about the nature of primordial matter, dark matter, etc. These are not confirmed at all by experiments done yet or likely in the immediate future. Logic can proceed based on available information from cosmological expts. that are hard to conduct with reasonable precision. Other parameters questioned in my essay are the constancy of speed of light and the strengths of the four force-fields we talk about in Physics.

To conclude, let us keep our philosophical freedom to the extent possible lest we curtail ourselves from missing some mystical links that may provide the answer to the relative truths we seek in science. Doug Bundy's essay is within scientific domain as per my critical assessment. But assessment of others may differ and yet we all are friends/comrades in our scientific enquiries. The wider the vision the better is the scope for unravelling the mystery!




Philip Gibbs wrote on Nov. 11, 2008 @ 10:14 GMT
Dear NN

I have read through your essay and thank you for an interesting contribution. The essay starts with a summary of some of the important questions in physics and cosmology and is followed by a short section outlining some ideas from particle physics to explain dark matter. You end with a page about how our knowledge of the universe may come to us through contact with a cosmic...

view entire post





Narendra wrote on Nov. 11, 2008 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Philip,

May i say how delighted i am to see your detailed comments of great value. Please bear with my mistakes, being a 100% experimentalist in this essay competition dominated by pure theoreticians. i personally don' wish to emphasize this distinction, as Physics is both.

Mistake about the three other quarks,s, c and t is regretted as i just looked up some wrong notes. However, these three don't constitute our baryonic matter. The non-baryonic nature of dark matter induced my imaginative thinking to present the ideas i have stated. i agree that these need concrete shape where i believe in the necessity of a theoretician for collaboration. My problem lies in my retirement from University service 15 yrs back and no interaction with active faculty locally, most of them not interested in what i am doing!

About the LCA at geneva and the scope of Microwave Anisotropy studies using a satellite telescope installed on the other side of moon, i am hoping for more useful information coming from the latter rather than the former.The reason lies in the first billion years of turmoil the initial universe experienced for which no Physics has yet been developed.My innovative ideas can then be checked through expts. checking on distant matter that was present in the first billion year of the Universe.

The other point you may not have an adequate background concern the techniques of Yoga/meditation that were developed over 3 centuries back by an Indian saint known as PATANJALI. These techniques have now been revived for modern living. My two MSS attached as postings immediately

after the posting my essay will provide some background in this regard. These are ' Science Interface with Spirituality' and ' Inconstancy of the Physical Constants and Strengths of the force-fields'. Full text are there on this very site in my first 2/3 postings, supplement to the main essay text.

As a practicing scientist, i also don't mix 'consciousness' with physical science. What i know through personal experience is the capability of these ancient technique lies in quietening the mind.from distracting anxieties/tensions of life. The latter controls all our thought processes and the brain activities. Thus, a sort of personality change comes into play widening the mind with enhanced clarity and all-encompassing nature. That provides a good hunting ground for innovative thinking. Then, one needs to establish such ideas in the scientific methodology. The latter also is to be considered as open to expanding paradigms and not closed to what existing knowledge restrictions!

.




Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 13, 2008 @ 11:23 GMT
Dear Philip,

in my response i missed a few shortcomings that you were nice to point out. For example, my essay does not have any specific mention about 'The Nature of Time'. You are very right. Implicitly, it exists through the inconstancy of physical constants and the the strength of the force-fields! Surely the impact may enhance if i add some aspects on it explicitly.

Two aspects of present physics, the fourth dimension involving time occurs as x4= ict and the other concerns E=hf, f, the frequency of vibration. In the first, time like space coordinates has a linkage with the velocity of light, treated as constant, as also the ultimate limit of velocity for any matter in the universe. The query arises if c is not a constant. In fact small variations towards higher side have already been observed in cosmology for light coming from objects 12 billion years away. In my essay, i indicate that that in the first billion year of existence, the Universe was expected to be in a very volatile state and velocity may well be much higher than the value of c accepted today. The other query relates to energy/frequency relation through 'h'. The latter is considered a quanta of energy, but what about its being a quanta of time too!(time is inverse of frequency).

Next, we can question the linearity of time too and any non-linearity may well take care of the variation in the value of c as observed. Another interesting point emerges from the possibility of higher dimensionality than 4 and the existence of several universes. What will the be scales of time in different universes/ higher dimensionality of a given universe?

Motion is the primary character of the universe and there are the well known linear, rotational, vibrational (including s.h.m.)and spinning motions. All these motions need to have the corresponding force-fields. Motion is tied to change in space coordinates with time and the energy of motion is implicit. Then, time/energy conjugation in measurement with inherent uncertainty complicates the

space/time concept. Is time merely a fourth dimension of space or is it independent of it as well as the velocity of light ( as per x4= ict relation)?

Your enlightening comments as well those of other authors/ commentators are most welcome on this post!




Narendra wrote on Nov. 20, 2008 @ 13:42 GMT
I still await the comments of the public as well as other authors in this competition on my last post made just a week back! I hope the Organizers will take note of my postings here and on other essays, in the context that my essay does not discuss TIME explicitly. i have tried to fill that gap by discussing TIME explicitly through the postings.

Time as a physical concept of science is not vague. However, there is a vast vagueness when one brings in the role of awareness/consciousness into the working of the human mind in totality. Then all the possibilities open up and time loses the uniqueness it has in Physics. Science Interface with Humanity/Spirituality(not religion) appears to be an area that can help enrich the Methodology of Science, in order to further the cause of SCIENCE to much higher levels!




Venerando wrote on Nov. 21, 2008 @ 22:53 GMT
Hello Narendra. Even though I do not share the idea of a cosmic Consciusness that governs the matter and the energy of the universe, also I think that there seems to be a kind of “soul” in any event, composed by the information coming from such actions or the same matter and energy. And I think that it is a topic that must be discussed in an exchange of ideas as the one provided by this contest.

Nevertheless, I perceive the subject in the reverse order; that is to say, they are matter and energy and their interaction what build the information (or spirit or soul). Even more, there does no seem to be that entity (information, spirit, cosmic consciousness) in the universe that exists without a supporting media, such as matter and/or energy. And we know about this because many venerable and wise men, both ancient and young, not only meditated, deeply and transcendentally on it, but in addition they demonstrated it (most of the affirmations), so much with experimental proofs as mathematically.

My bests wishes.

Venerando.




narendra wrote on Nov. 23, 2008 @ 15:58 GMT
Venerando, thanks for the post.What you or i think are open to modification during our 'short' life on this earth, an insignificant part of the universe. In my essay, i have attempted to discuss this problem under some 'holistic considerations'. Human awareness is confined to an individual and it has levels of consciousness during the wakeful, dream and deep sleep stages. In the fourth state of...

view entire post





Brian Beverly wrote on Nov. 30, 2008 @ 09:11 GMT
Physics is defined as the study of matter and energy. I prefer your definition that the universe is described by conservation and change. It shows the difference between textbook knowledge and physics wisdom gained only through experience.

My senior year I took nuclear and particle physics from Uriel Nauenberg, it should have been called the standard model 101. We covered the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces. The course started with the Schrodinger equation which became the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations. Then the class started to get difficult, it seemed like we were studying Lagrangians for months. I was amazed when all of them came together to give the complete electro-weak Lagrangian. My freshman year he told my class we were only studying 4% of the universe. In his standard model course I think he was preparing us for the remaining 96% of physics. You are the second wise physicist I've met who emphasizes the power of the standard model to the younger generation.

Thinking that the fundamental constants may not be so constant makes me wonder if they may be a series that converges but is initially "wild". It would also be amazing if inflation could be tied to a repulsive strong nuclear force. I won't comment on your idea of consciousness because I believe that is a large component of your spirituality. I think your spirituality is what gives your discipline and dedication so I won't touch it. However, I think there is an additional distraction that is relevant to science. It is the fear of death. A scientist will not be able to pursue the truth unless they let wrong ideas die.




Narendra wrote on Nov. 30, 2008 @ 10:26 GMT
Dear Brainy Brian,

i appreciate your 'fresh' comments.The idea is wrong or right is not an easy preposition in Sciences. History is full of ideas rejected earlier got revived later with fresh force. Ascientist survives if he is open to freshness and developes no biasis o/c what his teachers have taught or authorities tell him about. A student and his teacher are basically at the same footing in our quest for new knowledge!

Inflation of the Uiverse in the first minutest fraction of second is truly mysterious and i just speculated about it. It may be due to 'negative' gravity functioning at that stage ,as unified field had not yet broken into any of its four components, as per the logic behind Creation. We can't deal with why of Creation and only can talk about 'how' of what got created in Nature!

Hope you get to read this post before postings close on dec., 01. best of luck for the success of your beautiful essay!




Venerando wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 13:40 GMT
Dear Narendra, please excuse my late response.

I know what you are talking about. It is reflected in the wikipedia pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Consciousness . It is one of the approaches we can take, for example, in the fact of some ideas and discoveries that arises at same time in far away places, from not interconnected people. Someone believing in a universal awareness could think that it was due because a multiple manifestation of that “smart energy”.

But there are also other justifications. For example, you can read the Kuhnian paradigm shifts theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift ) explaining why these scientific revolutions arises.

The key, I think, is in that no awareness or intelligence or information seems to exist independently from matter and energy. These three concepts seems to be strongly dependent one from each other.

Regards,

Venerando.




Narendra wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 13:48 GMT
Thanks, Venerando, as the postings close i wish you all the best for the success of your excellent essay. Life goes on and our discussions will hopefully lead to more meaningful discussions in the future!




Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 14:00 GMT
Dear Narendra,

About your question:

“What may happen if the 'c' is not a constant'. The realtion x4 = ict then assumes special significance. Similarly, E = mc^2 faces questions re. the concept of Energy. In my essay, i have discussed the early universe and the consequence of marked shift of the value of 'c' to be on higher side for the light coming from source 12 billion years away! How would your attempt take care of such possibilities?”

My opinion, which is a new-born idea, and not arises from deeper research of this interesting question, is the following.

I will assume that ‘c’ depends on the position and time, c=c(x, t). In this case, I would rescale the time, at each point of space, so that ‘c’ becomes constant. We can do this, because we have the freedom to reparametrize the time. If we can’t reparametrize it locally, then we would encounter photons with different speeds, according to their ages and places of origin.

If you want, you can use this freedom of changing ‘c’ to create a theory which adds parameters, like gauge theories do. My guess is it that it will add nothing new to the actual general relativity, it is only a change of coordinates, and the proper time of a line of universe will still be given by the length in the semiriemannian manifold.

I believe that, if ‘c’ depends on time and space, we can make it constant by proper reparametrizations, and that the present observations don’t offer us basis for believing otherwise. But who knows, maybe it worth trying this way.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

“Flowing with a Frozen River”,

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322




Narendra wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Cristi,

i am so happy to see your response and i will like to believe you when you say that reparametrizations will solve the points indicated. If one does it with time, what will be the consequences on the nature of space, will it not get accordingly distorted! May be distortion in space may well account for creation of fresh matter. On similar grounds, distortion in time may create extra energy, over and above that came with the creation of the Universe.

What are your ideas on what existed prior to the creation of the Universe? The non-physical ' consciousness' is being projected as such. The Unified field we talk of may well have existed as a potential field with immense energy and intelligence to unfold the evolution design of the Universe!! Your mind is far more fresh than mine being over 75 yrs. old!




Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 3, 2008 @ 21:52 GMT
Dear Prof. Narendra,

Because of my overloaded schedule of today, I was able only now to check your discussion thread, so I apologize. I definitely agree with you, that the spacetime will get distorted by the reparametrization.

“May be distortion in space may well account for creation of fresh matter.”

I believe that, depending on the pattern of the distortion, it may be associated with creation of matter. I don’t know precisely how the speed of light varies, and if it is only time dependant, or vary as well in space. If I presume that it varies with time only, this may account both for creation of energy and for a change in the expansion rate. Perhaps, based on the variation of c with time, we can get a toy cosmological model.

I believe that this reparametrization may work for ‘c’, but if we want to do the same for other “variable constants”, we have to check for each one of them the possibility.

“What are your ideas on what existed prior to the creation of the Universe? The non-physical ' consciousness' is being projected as such.“

If the Universe was created by a non-physical consciousness (NPC), then such an entity transcends the spacetime. We may view the place for this being before the Universe, after it, and outside it in the same “time”. And even inside, if we see NPC like an artist living in his own painting. I see the physical world consisting in a geometric spacetime, with the physical law shaping it, and the appropriate initial/final/boundary conditions for life and intelligence. The term “initial condition” is misleading, because an initial condition can be equivalent with a final condition, or even a condition distributed in different places and instants. Maybe it is our mind that provides the (delayed) initial conditions, like in an anthropic principle, with or without using the idea of multiverse.

“The Unified field we talk of may well have existed as a potential field with immense energy and intelligence to unfold the evolution design of the Universe!!”

Maybe the initial burst of energy and the final purpose (the intelligence) are two complementary poles, Shakti and Shiva. In the same time, viewing from “outside” the spacetime, there is no duality. There is no difference between initial and final conditions.

When we will grow up, we may be able to read the fingerprints of a NPC in the initial/final conditions. Maybe we will find no fingerprints. Maybe we will never know.



“Your mind is far more fresh than mine being over 75 yrs. old!”

Thank you for your appreciation, and I wish you a long and happy life. From our short discussions, which I enjoy so much, I can say that your mind is much younger than the age you mentioned!

Cristi Stoica

“Flowing with a Frozen River”,

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322




Narendra wrote on Dec. 4, 2008 @ 01:00 GMT
Cristi,

Truly enjoyed your using the words Shiva- Shakti and expressing thoughts of apparent duality being unity in reality. To me, this is the essence of our discussion. At the physical level, duality appears to exist. But at the level of consciousness the same turns into unity.

As per Indian scriptures, Shiva is the 'nirakar swarup' potent but non-kinetic energy, while the corresponding Shakti or Devi Swarup (Divine shape)is the corresponding kinetic or dynamic energy. Although the sex distinction is not applicable to the All-powerful, the distinction made in Shiva-Shakti is analogous to 'male -female' aspect.

Your encouraging remarks are valuable for me, thanks!




Brian Beverly wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 02:18 GMT
Narendra,

I enjoyed your essay, wisdom and encouraging comments. Sadly, I will not be able to reciprocate a restricted vote. My apologies, I voted already and gave my votes to essays I felt were so far ignored but unique. Your email address did not make it into your last post on my forum. My email address is:

derangedphysicsnerd@gmail.com

I am also very interested in nuclear physics. Future generations must ensure that fusion only occurs in city tokamaks and never in tomahawk missiles above them.




Dear Brian wrote on Dec. 10, 2008 @ 12:20 GMT
You have done correct thing to support the unique and ignored essays. I being in late 70's also thought of encouraging unique essays by youngsters like you , who have their whole professional career ahead of them. It is a bit strange that your ID is also designed after the title of your essay! Yes, my career started with experimental Nuclear Physics, studying reactions mainly through study of de-excitation gamma rays. Did some studies with pulsed beams. Later, i shifted my interest to surface physics, characterization and modifications using Ion Beams from accelerators. We have an Inter University facility in New Delhi which has one purchased and two home built ion accelerators. On retirement, i switched to the area of industrial consultancy in technology that helped me with some Patents. Also, i devoted some efforts towards interfacing Science with Spirituality, meaning Humanity at large. These are reflected in my essay posted and also two other MSS attached as first postings on my essay site itself. It will be a pleasure for me to interact with youngsters like you, as per your own desire! I certainly am fully with you that technology in future should be 100% used towards relieving the problems humanity faces today. We all need to work towards universal peace, brotherhood and respect for all societies that got developed over the globe!




Robert Sadykov wrote on Dec. 11, 2008 @ 00:08 GMT
Dear Narendra Nath,

The change in some physical constants, if it really occurs, can remain not detected by the local observer. This is evident on an example of change in the speed of light in an essay The Theory of Time, Space and Gravitation. The reason of this consists in strong connection of physical constants with other physical quantities including the time.

Regards,

Robert Sadykov




Narendra nath wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 11:47 GMT
Dear Robert,

The measuremnent of 'c' has been made from e.m. signals coming from distant objects about 12 billion years away. the velocity was measured after storing the signals in large telescope arrays in Australia. It came out to be higher than the accepted value beyond the error range. Thus the measurement appears genuine. But if time scaling is changing too over the years, then you are right that itbis just because of the dependence on time that the value of'c' has come to be higher!

f you kindly see my essay, there are two posts appended soon after the essay was put on the website in Sept., 08. It contans two other preceeding MSS's that i happen tompen down, one 'Science Interface with Spirituality' and the other ' Inconstancy of the Physical Constants and Strengths of the Force/fields'.

IT is quite possible that the Physics of the early Universe may not be what we we have developed for our universe over the past few hundred years.




Robert Sadykov wrote on Dec. 15, 2008 @ 02:11 GMT
Dear Narendra Nath,

Two approaches to definition of the nature of time in essay The Theory of Time, Space and Gravitation is realized. 1) Definition of connection of time with space, motion, inertia, gravitation, momentum and energy. 2) Definition of all physical factors having influence on the time flow speed. After generalization of all received results the full portrait of physical time is created. Besides, many interesting strokes are added to portraits of space, energy, inertia and gravitation.

Regards,

Robert Sadykov




Narendra Nath wrote on Dec. 16, 2008 @ 14:28 GMT
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!




Narendra Nath wrote on Dec. 20, 2008 @ 13:23 GMT
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.




Narendra Nath wrote on Dec. 23, 2008 @ 09:33 GMT
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.




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 28, 2008 @ 00:42 GMT
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 Blumschein

attachments: 9_Microsoft_Word__How_do_negative_and_imaginary.pdf, 10_Microsoft_Word__How_do_part_2.pdf




Narendra Nath wrote on Dec. 28, 2008 @ 04:32 GMT
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.




Author wrote on Dec. 28, 2008 @ 05:50 GMT
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".




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 29, 2008 @ 00:37 GMT
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




Narendra wrote on Dec. 30, 2008 @ 04:30 GMT
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.




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 30, 2008 @ 13:23 GMT
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.




Narendra Nath wrote on Dec. 30, 2008 @ 16:21 GMT
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.




Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 30, 2008 @ 20:31 GMT
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




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 30, 2008 @ 21:02 GMT
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




Narendra wrote on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 03:56 GMT
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.




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 04:13 GMT
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




Narendra wrote on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 08:17 GMT
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.




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 13:13 GMT
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.




Narendra wrote on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 15:22 GMT
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




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 31, 2008 @ 19:28 GMT
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




Narendra wrote on Jan. 1, 2009 @ 12:41 GMT
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 !




Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 2, 2009 @ 06:42 GMT
Dear winner,

First of all I would like to congratulate you for certainly getting the largest number of votes in this contest.

Having read your essay, I feel you deserved it for convincingly arguing in favor of changing "constants". Obviously your voters were no fans of the common quasi-religious belief in constant constants. Why? Maybe, they were not ready to abandon other, deeper rooted beliefs and idolized theories. Should we deny the arrow of time or even time itself just because of difficulties with anyway questionable but gospel-like theories? I met in this contest even a fan of precognition who denied the distinction between past and future. Fans always ascribe fanatism to the other ones. A competitor used to repeatedly copy his verbose statements as to ignore decisive questions. Others refused to reply at all. I hope that the dealing with compelling factual arguments will continue.

Maybe, you did not know something i referred to:

In Lessing's Ringparabel three sons (religions) are claiming to have got the ring of convincing truth from their father who passed away. Neither of them was able to demonstrate it by being accepted from the other ones.

Hermann Weyl wrote in Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik Preface to 2nd edition 1932, VII:

"... is discussed in connection with the symmetry properties of the quantum laws with respect to the interchange of ... past and future... At present no acceptable solution is in sight.

Eckard Blumschein




Narendra Nath wrote on Jan. 4, 2009 @ 15:18 GMT
Votes or no votes, need not affaect our natural selves. I want to encourage U to continue your way to ascertain the truth. Only thing that may still help us all is to be self-critical and discriminatory while analysing the information that becomes available to us. That way we may have greater self-assurance to go ahead!




Anonymous wrote on Jan. 5, 2009 @ 20:53 GMT
If I remember correctly, this essay received ZERO restricted votes before the number of restricted votes was hidden from public view. And since it's very easy to cast public votes repeatedly for oneself (a flaw in the fqxi voting system), the number of public votes received means exactly... NOTHING!

report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Jan. 6, 2009 @ 05:44 GMT
Dear Anonymous, yes you are correct that this essay received just 1 (single) restricted votes when the same was hidden w.e.f. 24 Dec., 2008. The multiple public votes possibility is within the domain of the Organizers to ascertain, as the undersigned has not resorted to such an unethical practice from his side. What ever prevails meets my objective of a healthy participationin this nice website essay contest.




Jim George Snowdon wrote on Jan. 6, 2009 @ 14:38 GMT
Dear Narendra,

Thank you for your post. I do a lot of standing and staring. My interest is wildlife photography. The camera around my neck helps to remind me of what I`m doing.

I enjoyed the parts of your writings that I understood, and the parts I didn`t!

Narendra, I prefer to think, when you are standing and staring, that you are drawing water from your own well. I think we are all brighter than we imagine ourselves, and our meditative states allow us to listen to our own higher thought.

But then, if we were swimming in "the sea of love and bliss", while you were enjoying yourself Narendra, I`d be looking down in the depths, for sharks.




F. Le Rouge wrote on Jan. 6, 2009 @ 16:29 GMT
- The problem is, Narendra Nath, that you want to enrich a Method with Spirituality but the base of this particular Method, born in Europe around 1650, is to split Spirituality from Science (Ballistic that was Statics). You are catched in the same paradox than C. Rovelli although he seems to put the Cognition or the Spirituality on one side contrarily to you. Last comment of Rovelli on his forum proves that Space is useless in his mind 'at the fundamental level' (!): it is difficult to make more 'spiritual' in a way.

Free dialogue is a good idea, but I am not sure, Narendra, that free dialogue is as common as Algebraic Geometry is. Not sure at all.




Narendra Nath wrote on Jan. 8, 2009 @ 12:52 GMT
Dear Le Rouge,

i have been a professional physicist all through my active career. Retirement forced me to rethink what i have been doing during the service with the Universities/research institutions. Also, i happen to come in touch with Yoga practices at that time, although i was doing meditation practice for around half hour daily for a long time. These actions have nothing to do with religion. Basically, i experienced such actions ( non-actions) to help make one's mind quiet. That indirectly affects one's personality and capability to do things differently, sort of enhancing selflessness over selfishness. It is not that one should claim but rather it should reflect in one's actions. That is all there is to it. Spirituality is a word i use more in the sense of what can be said best about 'humanity', again not in the sense of conventional religions. It is a kind of secular synthesis.Words are difficult to choose in what i wish to convey in response to your above post, hopefully i have responded to satisfy what was desired of me!




Narendra wrote on Jan. 8, 2009 @ 13:09 GMT
Dear Jim Snowden,

Thanks for the above post, so late in the contest. i enjoyed your nice hobby with Camera.I use to be keen too but lately i have more or less stopped taking pictures. The reality is more alive for me now than it use to be earlier as i get more time to reflect and work pressure and performance level no longer bother me. About the 'sharks'in the water underneath, yes, i am afraid as any one else will be. But then, these are all part of the reality of nature. Death came close to me already 3-4 times and what i eventually found that ' what will happen will happen, what one can do is to prevent any untoward event and leave the rest to the Creator of everything in the universe, unknown or known!




Naredra nath wrote on Jan. 13, 2009 @ 17:21 GMT
Await Le Rouge's response to my post Jan., 08. We all are first human beings and only then we can claim to be scientists or other professionals. Practice of Science should not come in the way of becoming a human being useful for the society around. If it means sacrificing Physics, it should be done. There are lots of problems today that humanity face just because of the technolgy science helped us to develop. It may even threaten the survival of civilized society. Science can not be above or beyond Humanity. That is what i mean by Sprituality!




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.