: Einstein proves x=ct=x’=xt’, which is possible only if time runs faster when length contracts; Einstein then goes on to prove that time runs slower when length contracts. We must select one of the two contradictory proposals of the special theory of relativity. Which of these two contradictory proposals is right?


Introduction


Einstein painstakingly establishes the compatibility of law of propagation of light with principle of relativity. A mere reading of the first line of the abstract is enough for any physicist to realize the contradictions in the two fundamental proposals of physics; but for us, it is more important to know, which of these two contradictory proposals is correct?

In this paper, which can turn the physics upside down, we will try to resolve this inherent contradiction but more importantly, we will try to establish the validity of Lorentz symmetry.


First, let us analyze the contradictory proposals of theory of relativity,


Discussions


As Einstein sets out to establish compatibility of the law of propagation of light with the principle of relativity, he asks,

“In other words: Can we conceive of a relation between place and time of the individual events relative to both reference bodies, such that every ray of light possesses the velocity of transmission c relative to the embankment and relative to the train?”

And provides the answer too,

“This question leads to a quite definite positive answer, and to a perfectly definite transformation law for the space-time magnitudes of an event when changing over from one body of reference to another.”

However, Einstein’s analysis leads to two contradictory answers; to resolve this theoretical problem, let us now conduct a thought experiment but before that let us briefly examine another important observation of Einstein.

“The concept does not exist for the physicist until he has the possibility of discovering whether or not it is fulfilled in an actual case.”

This is where idea of perceived reality (including the reality of the perceived motion) being on par with the quasi reality originates. Einstein suggests that there is no difference in the perceived motion and real motion.

If three different physicists conduct same experiment in three different inertial frames then they must get same result even though their frames of reference may not exactly be identical.

Let us start our experiment now…

We remove all the air from the setup in reference body a, which is in the state of rest and start a stopwatch that has a trigger that shoots a laser beam as soon as the stopwatch starts ticking and stops as soon as stopwatch stops ticking. We run the stop watch for one second and freeze the laser beam. We cut an iron to the exact size of the laser beam; this becomes our unit-measuring rod (m) of one meter and gives us the distance traveled by the light in one second.

Now, we repeat the same experiment in the reference body b that is moving at a velocity of 0.5c. As per theory of relativity, the clock runs slower for a body in motion, therefore, the laser beam gets extra time (1.15t) to travel and hence distance between two ends of laser beam increases to 1.15x when measured with the same measuring rod. However, we also know that the measuring rod m contracts to 0.86 meters at velocity v = 0.5c, therefore, our measurement shows that speed of the light has increased to 1.33 meters per second. As per theory of relativity, speed of the light is independent of the speed of the medium it is propagating in; therefore, we can assume that length of the laser beam remains same if the interval between the two ticks of clocks remains constant irrespective of the conditions clock is operating in.

We now move to the reference body c, which is moving at a velocity of 0.75c and repeat the same experiment. To our surprise, speed of light now measures 1.5 meters per second.

Based on the experiments conducted by him, our observer concludes that an increase in the velocity of the train causes light to move faster. Obviously, we cannot conclude that speed of light in vacuum is constant because speed in itself is not a directly measurable quantity and depends on the measure of distance (rod) and measure of time (clock). If these two measures do not have absolute values then speed of light cannot be absolute in any medium including in vacuum unless we can show that all measurements change proportionally and therefore, measured speed of light must remain constant in all frames of reference.

The fact that we have not conducted the experiments in the same inertial frames does not make any difference because assumption of the theory of relativity is that speed of light in vacuum is constant in all frames-of-reference provided the experiment is conducted in inertial frame-of-reference.

This basic premise of the theory of relativity is invalidated by its own proposals.

As we know, using the same Lorentz transformation, Einstein derives the space-time relationship and concludes, “We thus see that the velocity of transmission relative to the reference-body K' is also equal to c. The same result is obtained for rays of light advancing in any other direction whatsoever.”

Let us find out how Einstein establishes this relationship.

Einstein suggests that due to velocity v, time runs slower. In accordance with this proposal, our stopwatch takes longer to record one second, which means light gets extra time to travel. Einstein also suggests that length of our measuring rod contracts, therefore, one meter of light beam must actually measure more than one meter.

Obviously, there is no problem in our application of the proposal of Einstein. There is absolutely no problem in the derivation of the equations or the logic of Lorentz transformations either.

What is surprising is that Einstein himself has shown that the absolute value of the x and t in the equations x=ct and x’=ct’ is not same. We have to show that,

C = x/t and c = x’/t’ or x/t = x’/t’

Let us examine these equations,

X = ct can be equal to x’= ct’ only if x’ and t’ expand and contract in the same proportion, which once again confirms that length and time must contract proportionally.

Suppose x’=1.25x then, t’ must be equal to 1.25t or else

X = ct cannot be equal to x’= ct’.

Let us analyze the equations through which Einstein establishes this relationship.

If we assume that a light signal travels at a velocity of 3,00,000 km/sec then in reference body k (that is in a state of rest), laser beam travels 3,00,000 km in one second.

x=ct = 300000*1= 300000.

Now, we move to the reference body k’ that is moving at a velocity of 1,50,000 km/sec.

The light signal will cover a distance x’,
x’= (c-v)t/√1-v2/c2

At v= 1,50,000 km/sec, we get, x’= 150000/0.86 = 173205

Similarly, t’ = (1-v/c)t/√1-v2/c2

At v= 1,50,000 km/sec t’ = 0.5/0.86 =0.57,

By replacing the values of x’ and t’ in the equation c=x’/t’, we get, c=173200/0.577 = 300000

and in the equation, x’=ct’, we get

173000 = 300000*0.57=173000

Therefore, x = ct and x’ = ct’, however, we also find that x ≠ x’ and t ≠ t’and x = ct ≠ x’= ct’.

Therefore, the suggestion that measuring rod must exactly be same in reference frames k and k’ is not correct.

Einstein assumes,

“The principle of relativity teaches us that, as judged from K, the length of a unit measuring-rod which is at rest with reference to K' must be exactly the same as the length, as judged from K', of a unit measuring-rod which is at rest relative to K.”

One can see that when x = 300000, x’ = 173205 and when t = 1, t’ = 0.57.

However, Einstein here puts the phrase, ‘as judged from K’ in his observation, therefore, we must look at these results a bit differently. As per theory of relativity a length measuring 3 meters must contract to 1.73 meters at 0.5c. For a person actually in motion, the rod remains 3 meters, whereas another rod actually in a state of rest but appearing to be moving at 0.5c to the person in motion must appear contracted. Therefore, even if judged from K, the two rods cannot be same.

However, this is not what principle of relativity teaches us. Principle of relativity only teaches us that all laws of physics must be same in all frames-of-reference and this condition is satisfied if length and time contract proportionally.

Einstein has shows us that they do!!!

When length contracts, time runs faster and when length expands, time runs slower.

If we assume that an entity like light covers same distance in one second in all conditions without being affected by the speed of the medium it is propagating in then, according to the theory of relativity, the speed of light must remain constant in all conditions and not just in vacuum.

In this case, light has less time to travel as t’=0.57t but for us, t=1 second and even t’=1 second, therefore absolute interval between two ticks of the clock must reduce. This means light has less time to travel and we have to measure this unit through our measuring rod that also has contracted proportionally, therefore, measured speed of energy in all frames-of-reference, not just in vacuum must be same!

This establishes the equivalence of all frames-of-reference. The equivalence is not achieved by showing that the absolute length of the unit measuring rods remains same in both the frames-of-reference. Absoluteness is not achieved by showing that absolute values of the x and t do not change. A snapshot taken of the two rods will show a difference in the length of the rods and yet the results of all the measurements will be same.

Einstein’s interpretation does not leave any scope for relativity in the universe but this interpretation suggests that if we measure speed in one frame-of-reference and time in another frame-of-reference or even if we keep our clocks immune from any change in the conditions then we are bound to notice relativity of space and time. In simple words, if we do not measure all the quantities in the same frame-of-reference then we have to encounter relativity.

Let us confirm these observations through a simple thought experiment.

We connect two mirrors to two ends of a meter rod so that if rod contracts then the distance between the mirrors reduces and if rod expands then the distance between the two mirrors increases.

We now shoot a laser beam that bounces between the two mirrors and every time it hits one of the two mirrors, the clock ticks once. Let us assume that the interval between the two ticks is one second.

If rod contracts then the distance between the two mirrors reduces making the clock run faster as the time interval between the two ticks reduces.

This experiment confirms our conclusion that when the length of the rod contracts, the interval between two ticks reduces and therefore, the clock run faster.

Einstein presents another elaborate analysis to show that when length contracts, time dilates. How does Einstein reach this conclusion?

Let us examine following analysis,

“Let us now consider a seconds-clock which is permanently situated at the origin (x' = o) of K'. If t’ = o and if t’= I are two successive ticks of this clock. The first and fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation give for these two ticks: t = o and t = 1/√1-v2/c2.

As judged from K, the dock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but 1/√1-v2/c2. seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest.”

There is absolutely no issue with the mathematics but the logic leading to the mathematics is faulty. We can see the logical error in this argument without even questioning the highly unscientific definition of time given by Einstein.

An object spatially separated from the clock by any arbitrary distance apparently has an instantaneous effect on the rate of flow of time of the clock. Thus, as per theory of relativity, the object in motion and the clock are entangled entities experiencing spooky action at a distance.

How can motion of one body affect the physical properties of another body?

As per theory of relativity perceived motion cannot affect the flow of time of any entity that is spatially separated from it by an arbitrary distance and yet we have this contradictory proposal that perceived motion can causes an instantaneous change in the physical properties of another physical entity.

A sound theory must precede the mathematics but Einstein does not provide us causal explanation for Lorentz transformation. We do not know why and how motion makes the time run slower or faster for an entity and how does motion results in contraction of length?

Einstein just tells us that motion, whether it is real or perceived, causes a change in the physical properties of an entity but does not answer two related questions, ‘Why?’ and ‘How’.

Even as per proposals of theory of relativity, perceived motion cannot be equated with the real motion.

Even otherwise, it is difficult to understand what Einstein is proposing in the first three sentences of this quote and then connect it with the ticks?

t is supposed to be a tick, it is an event and therefore, t = 1/√1-v2/c2 does not make any sense at all as an event cannot have a value attached to it. t = 1/√1-v2/c2.

What we are actually looking at is the interval between light beam striking the first mirror and the light beam striking the second mirror. If this interval is x in reference body K then we must find the value of x in the reference body K’.
If we apply these arguments to our above clocks then the two events – light beam striking mirror A and light beam striking mirror B are represented in the above arguments of Einstein as : t = o and t = 1/√1-v2/c2. This does not make any sense at all because the event of light beam striking either of two mirrors cannot have a mathematical value. Two ticks are just two events and events cannot have mathematical values.

Einstein goes one step beyond and suggests that these two events can actually have ‘n’ number of mathematical values simultaneously provided there are ‘n’ number of observers moving at different velocities vis-à-vis the clock. This means that a clock must show different times to different observers. If different observers moving at different velocities watch the clock using a powerful telescope then each one of them see clock running at a speed that is different from the speed that other observer notice. Theory of relativity suggests that a clock can actually run at different speeds simultaneously.

This is exactly what the suggestion of failure of simultaneity also proposes. Even as per theory of relativity, the can be alive and dead simultaneously but we can even watch the cat and alive and dead simultaneously. In fact, we can watch the entire life of a cat from the moment she is born to the moment she is dead simultaneously. We just have to place a few thousand mirrors at different places. This is only a thought experiment but it shows the sort of illogical possibilities theory of relativity creates.

Theory of relativity opens the same possibilities, in fact, a lot more illogical possibilities than the quantum mechanics. All the proposals of quantum mechanics turn logical if it adds two words to its proposals, ‘for us’.

For us, it is not possible to know the physical state of a cat in the sealed box and therefore, for us, the cat is dead and alive simultaneously. However, our observational does not allow us to conclude that a cat can be in two different physical states simultaneously or something can be wave or the particle at the same time.

One can see special theory of relativity is self-contradictory and yet theory of relativity has enormous value for physics but definitely not in its present form. The biggest supporters of the theory of relativity are its biggest enemies because they just do not want to assess it and make changes in it. With few modifications, it can still be a very valuable theory for physics.

Conclusions


We have noted in this paper that special theory of relativity contains more than one contradictory proposal. If only Einstein had stopped at x=ct=x’=ct’, physics would have been a lot different and a lot logical than it is today.

This small correction has enormous implications but we cannot discuss the implications of these observations in one paper, therefore, readers are encouraged to visit my website www.norlabs.org for more information.

***************
This text will be linked.

0 Comments | Add a Comment | Permalink

Lack of a Comprehensive and Consistent Field Theory

The biggest problem with theoretical physics is that it does not have a comprehensive field theory. Space is the physical structure of the universe. Unless we understand the structure, we cannot explain the processes that go on in this structure. Several important questions concerning the space remain unanswered. We do not know anything about the fundamental constituents of space. We do not know whether universe is expanding or contracting. We do not have any consistency in defining the relationships between space, matter, motion, and time. We know information is conserved in the universe but have absolutely no idea about the mechanism that allows information to be conserved. We know that distribution of energy in the space is getting increasingly even but we have not identified the processes that lead to equal distribution of the energy. These are just a few issues that we need to resolve concerning field. I am not considering mass-riddle as a major problem because as we will see shortly, it is not a major problem at all.

Physics allows for emergence of objects but what about systems? System function as one unit and communication within the systems is instantaneous for example, any change in the position of the sun is instantly communicated to all the planets and therefore all planets move with the sun at the same velocity within the Milky-way galaxy. Any change in the position of a planet say Jupiter is instantaneously communicated to all other planets. At present, we treat a system as an object that may have independent existence then the object itself like in case of gravitational force, we assume that all stars of a galaxy must exert gravitational force on all other starts and indeed on all other entities in the universe but then we also assume that galaxy in itself exerts its own gravitational force.

Even general relativity, by its very concept, apparently does not explain and account for the existence of systems. A galaxy is a combination of stars that are gravitationally affected by each other but then everything is supposed to be gravitationally affected by everything else. Galaxy cannot have its own distorted space independent of the distorted space of the stars it is made up of.

Therefore, one of the major issues that we need to resolve is to explain the existence of systems rather than just objects.

Too many important issues concerning a field theory need to be resolved. Unless physics has one comprehensive field theory, it cannot explain either the structural or the functional aspects of the universe.

Let us first start at the macro level and find out whether space is expanding or contracting.

Expansion or contraction of a physical entity mean an increase or decrease in its volume. Volume and mass are not the physical entities per se; they are the properties of a physical entity. An increase or decrease in the volume of a physical entity must be explained through a corresponding increase or decrease in the quantum of physical entity. If the quantum of energy in the universe is neither increasing nor it is decreasing then mass and volume of the universe cannot change.

The density of the universe cannot be same across the space. Like we observe in case of temperature, density in different pockets of the universe can easily be identified through the CMBR anisotropies. Density and temperature are directly proportionate i.e. higher the density, higher will be the temperature and lower the density, lower will be the temperature. This observation can easily be explained through our observations in the black holes and voids. Black holes are the areas of highest density and have maximum temperature in the universe and voids are the areas of very low density and have temperature quite close to absolute zero. In fact, temperature is the function of density or the quantum of matter in a given space. CMBR anisotropies give us clear clues about the density of the matter in different pockets.

Universe must expand in the pockets where density is more than the mean density and must contract where density is less than the mean density of the universe. If first law of thermodynamics is valid then net volume of the universe must remain constant unless we find the zones of absolute vacuum, the zones in which energy does not exist in any form whatsoever. Since we have not discovered any pockets in the universe where absolute vacuum exists therefore we can be quite certain that volume of the universe is constant. Not surprisingly, we get evidences of both the expansion and contraction in the universe. Every physical quantity is conserved in the universe then how is it possible that only volume changes?

We must realize that complex problems can have simple solutions.

Everything physics in this universe is only a form of energy; energy is all that exists in this universe and mass and volume are inherent properties of energy. From where does the mass-riddle appears?

Standard model assumes that fundamental particles of the universe do not have mass. If a physical entity does not have mass then it cannot have volume and if it does not have mass and volume then it cannot have energy because mass and volume are inherent properties of energy. Does energy has particle nature?

Well, Planck suggests that energy is absorbed and emitted in little packets or quanta. These packets obviously must have particle nature as has been demonstrated by Einstein. Now, we need to find out what these packets are made of? Energy may be absorbed and emitted in energy quanta but in what form does energy exist? If anything has mass and volume then it must have particle nature but we will explore this issue shortly after we find out how matter emerges in the space.

Now, let us look at the most important relationships of all – the relationship between space and matter.

Einstein has resolved all the issues pertaining to this relationship in just a few sentences. Einstein suggests,

“Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton.”

“According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content (matter, objects) does not exist.”

“Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.”

As we all know, as per general relativity, all objects are mere spacetime structures. As per Einstein, matter is distorted space. Once this relationship is established, it is difficult to imagine how Einstein arrived at the idea of matter distorting space. With this basic setup, let us understand the process that creates this confusion.

The duality emerges from the last sentence of Einstein’s last quote wherein Einstein suggests that particle emerges as limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. It is quite apparent from Einstein’s observation that even in this observation, he is not suggesting that space and matter are two different entities but at the same time he creates a distinction between the two complementary parts of space – one with high density and another with low density. Space with higher density is perceived by us as matter and space with lower density is perceived by us as space.

The higher density zone has its own complementary zone of low density and this complete space becomes a system. Further density variations can exist within this space as well and therefore this space takes the form of objects at different coordinates. Every distorted space, whether it is just an atom or whether it is a supercluster of galaxies, has its own complementary distorted space. High density zones are perceived by us as objects and low density zone as space. Both in combination form a system.

However, this model creates a minor theoretical problem. For density variations to exist in the space, it must have two constituents. One constituent must have more volume and less mass than the particle. As suggested by Einstein, “Every element of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory.”

The two particles must have complementary properties and hence one of the most obvious and indisputable features of the universe is complementarity.

Now, we need to explain the relationship of space with time, motion, and we have to explain that allows information to be conserved.

One might wonder why I do not consider mysterious nature of dark matter and dark energy to be one of the biggest theoretical problems associated with the space. Unless a field theory allows for the existence of dark matter and dark energy, it can hardly be considered a serious field theory. Well, we will get our answers shortly.

I haven’t given any new proposal. I have just put all the undisputed facts concerning space at one place and numerous theoretical problems have resolved themselves. First law of thermodynamics in itself resolves all the structural issues concerning the structural aspects of the universe and second law of thermodynamics resolves almost and probably all the functional aspects of the universe. In our analysis, we just have to hold on to these laws all the time.

***************

0 Comments | Add a Comment | Permalink

I desperately tried to analyze big bang theory as a theory of physics that supposedly explains the process through which universe was created. The theory makes so many assumptions without explaining the scientific logic behind such assumptions that we have no choice but to treat it as a work of fiction. In fact, even a good work of fiction is supposed to have logical sequences and a good fiction writer takes great pains to logically explain the behavior of its characters. Even though big bang theory does not even qualify to be a good work of fiction yet it needs to be analyzed because many of us believe that it logically explains how the universe was created.

Let us examine the cosmological model as well as big bang theory.

Big bang theory suggests that universe is expanding with the space. The FLRW matric suggests that if we have all objects plotted on a grid then expansion has to be explained through the expansion of grids. The objects remain at same coordinates or same grids and the number of grids remain the same but the area covered by each gird increases and hence the distance between each grid increases too.

This proposal assumes that space and universe (matter) are two different entities but as mentioned earlier, anyone who understands a bit of general relativity knows that as per general relativity, objects are mere spacetime structures.

FLRW matric assumes that galaxy is an object but we know that galaxy is merely a combination of several stars with huge spaces between them and hence with the kind of expansion of the grids suggested by the matric, instead of galaxies moving away from each other, the stars within every galaxy should move away from each other. If expansion of space is uniform in all directions then such uniformity must be seen in all structures and not just universe in general. We do not see galaxies expanding in size, we see the distances between galaxies increasing. This means that the distance between the grids in increasing while grids themselves must not expand. What we observe is quite opposite to what FLRW matric suggests.

Mass and volume are not the physical entities themselves but are the properties of the physical entities. Therefore, mass and volume cannot increase unless there is a corresponding increase in the energy of the universe. Since there is no doubt about the validity of the first law of thermodynamics therefore it is obvious that volume of the universe can neither increase nor decrease.

We are not sure whether the density of the universe is 1, is more than one, or is less than one. Nothing in the universe, including the density is same at all points because distribution of matter is not equal across the space. Temperature of the universe varies at different points and so does density. There are placed where density of the space is higher than the average density of the universe and there are spaced where density is lower than the average density of the universe. Average density of the universe has to be one and universe must expand at the places where density is more than one and universe must contract at places where density of the universe is less than one. CMBR anisotropies gives good indication of these areas where density variations exist. Universe is moving towards the absolute zero and this temperature will be achieved when energy distribution across the universe will be equal and hence density will be same across the universe.

This analysis rules out the possibility of metric expansion of the universe.

Let us examine the suggestion that in the first few days universe was in perfect thermal equilibrium.

To know the magnitude of the ‘few’ and to know the meaning of the ‘day’ when there was neither the earth nor the sun, we have to make lots of assumptions. Considering that day means 24 hours of time as per our present day clock, we need to account for the expansion of time. Due to the lack of any definitive statement, we can not examine this proposal scientifically. A scientific theory must explain the number of days esp. when it can make predictions about the events in the first 10−37 seconds of the universe and makes more definitive statements about the events after 10−11 seconds.

If cooling down of the universe is being attributed to the expansion then universe cannot be in thermal equilibrium after a few days unless the matter was distributed equally in the universe and temperature of the universe was constant for a few days which means there was no expansion of the universe. Once again this proposal contradicts theory’s own proposal that universe is expanding constantly. If matter was distributed equally in the universe even after a few days then we cannot explain emergence of large scale structures.

Big bang theory suggests that baryons were formed at around 10−6 seconds as the temperature of the universe had reduced considerably and hence protons-antiprotons were not being created. Experimental evidence do not suggest that particle-antiparticle pairs are not formed below a critical temperature level. Moreover, we have to assume that at temperatures above the critical level, the pairs were constantly being created and were getting annihilated and therefore theory must predict a gradual increase in the protons and neutrons.

After a few minutes of expansion, temperature of the universe was just about a 1 billion Kelvins and density was about the density of the air!!!

This is an extraordinary suggestion.

Just try and explain the present day universe from this situation. The cooling down of the universe is because of expansion and therefore it shall not lead to the contraction and hence density of the matter must go down constantly. How do we explain emergence of large scale structures (LSS) from this situation esp. when the density was so low?

If we try and explain big bang nucleosynthesis then we do not leave any scope for emergence of LSS and if try and explain creation of LSS, nucleosynthesis cannot take place.

Big bang theory does try to explain creation of LSS by introducing slightly denser regions. This is against what we have been told so far. These slightly denser regions gravitationally attracted nearby matter to form gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and other structures observable today.

If general relativity is correct and if whatever big bang theory proposes is correct then creation of stars and galaxies has to be explained through different processes. Galaxy is not an object and stars are objects. Galaxy does not have its own mass; its mass is sum total of the mass of all the objects existing in it. We make the same mistake of treating systems as objects even while analyzing gravitational force. We cannot explain evolution of the systems and the objects though the same process.

Now let us examine the CMBR, the supposedly biggest evidence of the theory as it validated the prediction of the theory.

The prediction was that if universe was very hot after the big bang then, this heat must survive and the fact that CMBR exists validates this prediction. Expansion of the universe allows it to cool down.

We have already ruled out the possibility of the expansion of the universe and hence the theory must find something else to explain cooling down of the universe. The heat cannot escape the universe and hence we cannot have any logical explanation for cooling down of the universe.

Our present understanding is that CMBR is a relic of big bang and was created about 380,000 years after the big bang when photons decoupled from the matter about 13 billion light years back.

CMBR gives us information about the entire universe irrespective of the place we observe the CMBR from. To reduce the noise, we may select a specific location to map the CMBR but technically such a location is not different from any other location in the space.

If what we have traced are the photons that had decoupled from matter about 380,000 years after the big bang then we have to assume that each photon is present at every point of the universe and that too in a manner that all photons reach all the points and stay at all points exactly at the same time irrespective of the distance they are coming from. Even if we assume that a single photon can be present at all placed in the universe then we must get absolute information about all points and not the relative information that CMBR gives us.

Once again, we find that our interpretation of the information CMBR provides is not correct and that we tend to ignore more important points and concentrate on trivial issues. In one part of a theory we believe that information cannot be communicated instantly but in the other part we claim that we know the current state of the universe. We cannot make any statement about the current state of the universe unless we believe that information is communicated instantly.

The temperature of the universe is almost same at all points except at places where matter is present. The temperature of the CMBR at a point 13 billion light years away is same as the temperature of the CMBR outside the atmosphere of the earth. Now the photons supposedly originated from the point 13 billion years ago had the same temperature as the photons coming from one inch away. On the other hand, if we assume that photons cool as they travel across the universe then photons coming from 5 billion light years shall be hotter than the photons coming from 13 billion light years. If we assume that distance has nothing to do with the cooling down of the photons because photons cool with the passage of time then we have to assume that conditions across the universe are same but we know that this proposition is not true.

Since big bang theory, the theory that predicts the existence of the CMBR, firmly rests on the validity of the theory of relativity therefore the temperature we are receiving from the point of the universe 13 billion light years away has to be the temperature of the universe as it was 13 billion years back.

We can sense the photons at the place they are generated and at the time they are generated; similarly, all the sensors, mirrors, and telescopes can also sense the information instantly. (Please read my papers, ‘Human eye can instantaneously detect action at a distance’, Do we need to absorb photons to be able to see light?’, and ‘Total solar eclipse invalidates theory of relativity’ that provides ample evidence that information can be communicated instantly). Therefore CMBR does give us instant information about any point of the universe.

In any case, if big bang theory believes that CMBR gives us information about the past then also it is invalidated and if it believes that CMBR gives us instantaneous information then too it is invalidated because it is self-contradictory.

If heat released at the time of big bang has survived till date then the heat being released in the universe ever since the big bang also must survive in some form. How is it that heat released at only a specific moment has survived?

It is a poor attempt to connect imaginary ‘de-coupling of photons’ from matter with a prediction that has nothing to do with CMBR.

Even if we assume that we are uniquely placed at the center of the universe, our interpretation of the CMBR cannot be supported by our present theories including theory of relativity and even big bang theory because it agrees with the suggestion of the theory of relativity that we can only look back in time.

This being so, at the time of the big bang the temperature of the universe at a point 13 billion light years away should be what it is today. Therefore, the idea that photons released soon after the big bang is wrong. If theory of relativity is valid then CMBR map only shows that temperature of the universe has not changed with time.

If information does not travel instantly then we cannot make any statement about the current state of the universe.

What does the term ‘decoupling of the photons from matter’ mean and how is it connected with the heat of the big bang? What is it that is cooling down; the photons, the heat, or the matter that remains in the universe?

Once again, we find no explanation of the cause and the process that resulted in the decoupling of photons from matter.

I do not think that we need to even examine the proposals like ‘the time expanded for a while’ or the proposal regarding survival of just the right number of hadrons in the matter-antimatter collision because the theory does not give any scientific basis for such assumptions and does not quantify this imaginary proposals. ‘For a while’ can be as long as one can imagine so like poor fiction writers, theory leaves a lot to the imagination of the reader. It is like a murder mystery wherein murderer enters in the last scene and writer finds some unique way of connecting him with the murder.

Big bang theory is like a religious story that expects us to believe blindly in whatever is being stated. At least, religious stories are far more interesting.

Expansion of time has no meaning because Einstein has shown us that time flows at different rates at different coordinates. Unless we assume that time was flowing at a uniform rate throughout the early universe, going back in time will create a situation wherein some parts of the universe achieve a state of perfect order earlier than other parts and hence we will need more than one singularity but even then expansion of time cannot have any meaning because expansion and contraction of time is possible only if we have a standard reference time against which we can make comparisons and if time was flowing at the same rate across the universe then no experiment of physics can show whether time is expanding or contracting.

If expansion of time has some functional effect on the universe then we must know exact duration for which time expanded and must logically establish the relationship of time with the suggested affect.

If fundamental forces came into existence after the big bang then we must know the process that caused evolution of fundamental forces. It is difficult to imagine that fundamental forces could have emerged suddenly without causing major structural changes in the universe. Just imagine that there was no gravitational force in existence and then suddenly in one moment someone turns a switch on and gravitational force and theory of relativity come into existence in a universe where distances between entities might have been just a fraction of the distances today and yet universe does not collapse back into a singularity.

Big bang theory is suppose to keep any divine intervention out of the creation of the universe but then it requires divine intervention at so many different stages that in itself it proves the existence of God beyond any doubt.

There is no scientific basis behind proposals like ghost-like appearance of antimatter that quietly destroys almost all the matter in the universe but has some mercy and leaves 4% matter and then disappear again quietly never to return back. What an imaginative proposal this is. Science and esp. physics would be a much easier subject to study if we can have more such proposals to resolve theoretical problem we face.

The suggestion that 4% of the matter survived by chance shows that we have no idea of the processes involved and it is just a creatively imaginative suggestion based on our current knowledge that we are left with only 4% perceptible matter. If we find tomorrow that our estimates were wrong and we are left with only 1% matter then big bang theory still survives because it believes in chances and its proposals are unscientific.

I think a better proposal is that God suddenly felt that he must create a universe so that a few billion years later human being can worship him so he moved a magic wand and universe emerged like a ghost. How can theory of big bang question this assumption about God creating the universe? Its own proposal is as imaginative as the above proposal. The proposal that universe was created when God moved a magic wand is as imaginative as big bang theory but a hell of a lot less complicated than big bang theory. If we have to be imaginative then let us go for an imagination that can be grasped by everyone.

Let us have more sense and less imagination in science.

Let us examine the possibility of rolling back the time by analyzing a speech delivered by Mr. Stephan Hawking titled, ‘The Beginning of Time’.

Let us examine the proposal that laws of physics break down at singularity. Let us find out what we mean by a ‘Law of Physics’.

‘A fundamental law of physics is supposed to be a statement about a specific structural or functional aspect of the universe that does not change with the space, time, and observer.’

Even if a law is not a fundamental law; it must hold good in the conditions specified in the law.

Break down of a law of physics can only mean its invalidation. A law is an observation and not a physical entity that can disappear or breakdown. An observation can only be valid or invalid, it cannot disappear therefore the suggestion that laws of physics break down at singularity does not make much sense.

“A law of physics is the description of an observation that is supposed to be valid in specific set of conditions.”

If we assume that there were no deterministic laws in existence at big bang then we cannot explain how universe evolved from the big bang. If there was chaos at the time of the big bang then there cannot be any deterministic laws now esp. as nothing new has happened in the universe ever since big bang. The only qualitative change is that somehow antimatter emerged and destroyed all the matter and that universe is expanding ever since the big bang.

As per big bang theory, expansion of the universe has to be the only cause for every development that is taking place in universe but theory does not relate any of the developments with expansion.

Let us be clear about the fact that first law of thermodynamics is about energy and its properties. Big bang theory suggests that all of the energy of the universe was created which simply means that as per big bang theory, first law of thermodynamics is invalid and therefore it cannot be a fundamental law of nature.

First law of thermodynamics is based on our observation that energy cannot be created or destroyed and now we find a situation wherein energy was created and hence we can only conclude that first law of thermodynamics is not valid. If this is so, then we shall be able to create and destroy the energy.

If energy can be created then we must have the evidence of it in the observable universe unless some agency was granted special one-time powers to create all the energy.

Since, our observation about the conservation of energy is based on experimental data and our observation about creation of energy emerges out of our imaginative powers therefore we have to trust that first law of thermodynamics is valid. Scientifically, we can only say that we do not know how the universe came into existence but all the evidences suggest that energy cannot be created or destroyed and therefore universe has to be an eternal structure.

The idea that space and time were created does not emerge from any observations in nature but is the outcome of theory of relativity and therefore it creates a direct conflict between theory of relativity and first law of thermodynamics. Even after more than a hundred years, theory of relativity does not enjoy universal acceptance but more than that Einstein himself believes,

“What appears certain to me, however, is that, in the foundations of any consistent field theory the particle concept must not appear in addition to the field concept. The whole theory must be based solely on partial differential equations and their singularity-free solutions.”

We have suggestions that second law of thermodynamics suggest that universe is moving towards increasing disorder and hence there must have been a beginning or else universe will be in perfect disorder by now.

There is an inherent contradiction in this argument. If we believe in the validity of second law of thermodynamics and going by the second law of thermodynamics, if we roll back the time then, we are bound to get a state when universe was in perfect order and not a time when universe had a beginning because beginning means that there was neither order nor disorder. The suggestion that without a beginning universe would have been in perfect disorder by now does not make sense because we know that entropy of the universe is increasing and we are not in a static phase of the universe. The process is definitely on and has not been completed as yet and we know that the universe is heading towards perfect disorder when the energy will be distributed equally at all points of the universe. There is no logic to suggest that if universe did not have a beginning then we should have achieved a state of perfect disorder by now. We have more than ample evidence to suggest that universe has not achieved a state of perfect disorder but it is moving towards a state of perfect disorder.

Einstein has conclusively proved that time does not run at the same rate at coordinates of space and therefore rolling back of time does not guarantee anything except that a state of perfect order will be reached at different coordinates at different times. Therefore, we need more than one singularity and more than one big bang to explain the current state of the universe.

Big bang theory also does not explain whether a state of perfect disorder will mark the end of all the energy of the universe? It cannot be because second law of thermodynamics suggests that this stage is being achieved gradually and hence if a state of perfect disorder marks end of all the energy in the universe then we must experience loss of energy. In any case, no one has suggested that laws of physics will break down when universe achieves a state of perfect disorder and hence we have reasons to believe that first law of thermodynamics will be valid even in that state.

If state of perfect disorder does not mark loss of energy but will only lead to the contraction of the universe then what makes us believe that a state of perfect order means beginning of the universe or creation of all the energy in the universe?
I have already discussed the nature of light in my articles and quite comprehensively in my book, ‘Nature of Reality’ and this observation does not make much sense after we understand the true nature of light and that universe has cyclical existence.

No one suggests that the stars have been shining eternally; we know that stars are created and destroyed (change of form) quite regularly in the universe. Energy has no discernible properties and hence it may stay in a form that remains unperceivable to us (as is the case with dark matter and dark energy).

What philosophy considers as development is only a change of form in science. Change of form is a process that goes on continuously in the universe. Creation and annihilation, birth and death, development and deterioration, and order and disorder are not scientific terms. Nothing develops or deteriorates in nature; everything changes form and change of form is a continuous process.

Without understanding and discussing the concept of time and the concept of time dilation mean, we cannot suggest that time had a beginning.

If time had a beginning then it must have an end and big bang theory does not explain how the space and time came into existence (it merely states that space and time emerged from nowhere) nor does it bother to explain how space and time will disappear.

Big bang theory suggests that we cannot have any logical reason for the emergence of the stars in a static universe.

Without suggesting that the stars were lighted in one moment, I find this observation very interesting because we do not need any dynamical reason for emergence of the entire universe but want a dynamical reason for one of the events in the universe.

In fact, discovery of voids has conclusively invalidated big bang theory because appearance of such huge voids (one of the voids extends 3.5 billion light years) cannot be explained within the finite time we have as per big bang theory. The voids also suggest that gravity causes galaxies and clusters of galaxies coming closer over time resulting in creation of huge voids between them.

Therefore, the idea that since galaxies are running away from each other and hence they must have been close together at some point of time is at best inconclusive.

Now, let us examine the suggestion that all the matter was on top of itself and that density was infinite at singularity.

We feel that events before the big bang have no observational consequences so that we need not discuss them? A series of events that can give us possible clues about how energy can be created must have enormous observational consequences. Big bang theory just does not have any logical explanation for the creation of the universe therefore it has no choice but to resort to such suggestions.

Even though it may appear that big bang theory suggests that universe was created with big bang, almost all of its proposals indicate that it simply suggests that it does not know what happened before the big bang and therefore it suggests that time had a beginning. Our failure to see beyond a specific point does not allow us to conclude that nothing exists beyond that point.

All the dynamical laws of the universe, including the second law of thermodynamics require us to assume that universe is eternal structure. Order can emerge only from disorder or disorder can only emerge from order and order and disorder can only be a feature of an existent entity and not a non-existent entity.

The logic of no-boundary proposal is not very scientific either. We cannot use the analogy of earth having no edges or no boundaries from where one falls and goes on to suggest that universe can also have no-boundaries. The earth has definite boundaries and if it were not for the gravitational force we will indeed be thrown out from the earth. The fact that even when we travel all across the earth, we do not find any edges does not mean that no edges exist. All the time, we are living on the edges.

A scientist cannot escape the scientific scrutiny by making unexplainable, non-testable, hypothetical statements.

Big bang theory cannot be classified even as a good work of fiction.


****************

0 Comments | Add a Comment | Permalink

This article is the modified version of a lecture delivered by me on the philosophical and practical implications of the quantum mechanics.


Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands observe,

“We have implied that in our experimental arrangement (or even in the best possible one) it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen. We can only predict the odds! This would mean, if it were true, that physics has given up on the problem of trying to predict exactly what will happen in a definite circumstance. Yes! physics has given up. We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible - that the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward step, but no one has seen a way to avoid it... So at the present time we must limit ourselves to computing probabilities. We say "at the present time," but we suspect very strongly that it is something that will be with us forever - that it is impossible to beat that puzzle - that this is the way nature really is.”
This statement sums up the quantum mechanical view of the world. This world is about uncertainties, dualities, paradoxes, and probabilities.

Richard Feynman observes, “A philosopher once said, "It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results." Well they don't!”

If this is so then, how can science exist in the universe?

Fortunately, science is not about tossing up the coin in the air to make a decision; it is about making definitive statements.

There is no doubt about the validity of the observations of these great scientists; we do see the uncertainty in the behavior of the particles and not just in the behavior of the sub-atomic particles but even in case of atoms.

The atom of a radioactive element may survive for billions of years or it may disappear next moment; an atom in the atmosphere may combine with the atom of another element or it may just live a lonely life for years without forming a bond with any atom. In BE-condensate, we find that some atoms (of the same element) are hyper energetic and hence are hyper active. These hyper active atoms have to be virtually kicked out of the condensate to allow it to cool down to the temperatures close to the absolute zero temperature.

Since we are discussing behavioral aspects of the particles, let us bring in some philosophy to add some spice to our discussion.

Popular science-philosophy books ask, ‘Do particles have mind?’

Aha, what an interesting question! To answer this question, we must define mind but how do we define mind.

Mind is not a physical entity that can be defined through its physical or chemical properties. Like gravitational force, mind can only be defined through the effect it produces.

Mind can only be defined as a non-physical entity that generates varied behaviors and varied responses by the entity it belongs to.

There is no other way we can identify and define mind. When an entity produces predictable responses then we term the entity as ‘mechanical’. Our own instinctive reactions are supposed to be mechanical; we do not get enough time to apply our mind to certain situations in which message does not even have time to reach the brain and in such situations we react instinctively and mechanically and therefore our responses are predictable. Application of mind is supposed to produce non-mechanical behavior.

Going by this definition, we may say that particles do have mind.

Now, we move to the next question, ‘Do particles make conscious decisions?’ Do particles weigh the options available to them before they make a decision? Well, this question cannot be answered scientifically because we cannot even know what goes inside the mind of even a human being so how can we understand the mind of a particle?

Therefore, we must leave this question unanswered as we do not want to waste our time on something that cannot be explained scientifically.

There is another important question that quantum mechanics throws at us, ‘Are we a participator in an experiment? Does an observer affect the result of the experiment?’

Yes, an observer affects the result of the experiment because an act of observation is an interaction between the observed and the observer. However, in most cases the affect may be too small to have any significant practical implications on the result of the experiment. The point we miss is that an experiment does not end when a result of a procedure is obtained. An observation or a procedure becomes an experiment of science due to interpretation to establish cause and effect relationship. This is where we enter in an experiment and this is where subjectivity steps in, in the field of science.
Let us now return to the probabilities.

What is a probability?

A probability is an irrational, illogical guess; it has no scientific or rational basis. I toss up a coin 10 million times and every time I get tails but no one can say with any degree of certainty that next time I toss the coin, I will get tails only because every time I toss a coin there is 50% possibility of getting heads. Which probability do I consider while calling?

A doctor explains the dilemma of his patient beautifully, when asked about the chances of success of an operation; doctor replied that the probabilities are for doctors and not for patients. Doctor said that he might claim that he had conducted x number of operations and his success ratio was y% but for the patient there were no probabilities because patient either survives or he dies.

Well said doctor! Fortunately, at least doctors do not believe in probabilities or probably they do!

Now, let us bring in a physicist. A physicist will tell you that before one decides on the doctor who must perform the operation, one must check their past record as past record allows us to determine the probability of getting our person live and healthy. Yes sir, this is what we all do and leave everything else to the god but ask the physicist to guarantee the survival of the patient and the physicist probably will disappear faster than light.

Predicting behavior on the basis of probabilities is the job of the sociologists and not the scientists. A scientist stays away from predicting probabilities. A scientist does not like to toss the coin before he speaks; a scientist likes to make definitive statements.

Fortunately, universe is not so mechanical that we can make accurate predictions about the behavior of the physical entities and luckily, universe is not chaotic; lawlessness does not exist in the universe and hence we can have definite cause and effect relationships. Nature does not control the behavior of the individual particles but it ensures that the result of a particular behavior produces a specific reaction.

Science is not about predicting causes; science is about predicting effects.

There may be uncertainty with regard to the behavior of the particles but there is no uncertainty about the consequences of a particular behavior of a particle. Particles may behave arbitrarily, nature does not.

We may not know whether an oxygen atom may combine with the atom of x element or y element and therefore we cannot predict its behavior but we can say with certainty that if one oxygen atom combines with one carbon atom then carbon monoxide will be produced.

I will like to go back to first quote (Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands) and have a re-look at the following observation,

“We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible - that the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events.”

Sir, I beg to differ. We may not predict the behavior of a particle in any given circumstance but we can predict the consequences of the choice a particle makes, of the behavior a particle produces. This is all science can do and it must restrict itself to predicting the outcome, the effect and not the cause.

An organization cannot predict and control the behavior of its employees therefore it can only make rules that specify the result of every specific behavior of its employees. An organization may or may not follow the rules it has made for its employees and its management may behave arbitrarily but as mentioned earlier, there is no uncertainty in the behavior of the nature.

Nature does not have mind; it reacts, it does not respond. Religious leaders may tend to make us believe that God is very kind but let me assure you that God cannot afford to be kind as he has to maintain balance. More than anything else, god has to be Al-Adl (the just). Nature does answer prayers but only if we pray scientifically and to pray scientifically one must understand the physics of prayer. I will not discuss physics of prayer here but there are scientific reasons to believe that prayer with faith can move mountains. It does not matter which God you pray to, just pray scientifically, pray with all your might; pray with your body, soul, and mind working as one unit; pray with faith and even a stone will answer your prayers. I am yet to find a religion whose followers have not gone through the bad times in life and indeed haven’t had good times therefore do not worry about the powers of the entity you are praying to. We have had enough fights, enough wars because of wrong understanding of the religion. Let scientists step in and explain the scientific basis of our scriptures. Every scripture, irrespective of the religion it belongs to, has lot of science in it. Let us understand what we follow. Unfortunately, scientists are becoming more fanatic than the defenders of the various religions. They blindly believe what is told to them. One of my forums on the Nature Network is titled, ‘Beyond the obvious’; probably, I need to change its title because more often than naught, we miss the most obvious and the simplest aspect of a phenomenon.

It is not easy just to react nonchalantly and therefore it is not easy to be god. A judge is supposed to be a highly respected person in the society just because a judge reacts and does not respond. If I believe that I decide the fate of the people then it puts great responsibility on my shoulders. Only facts and nothing else must affect my decision because one can be unjust in one’s decisions but one cannot be logically unjust in one’s decisions. In any case, the moment I feel that I have the powers to decide the fate of the people then first thing I will do is to write happiness, health, and prosperity for all. Fortunately or unfortunately, no human being on the earth can decide the fate of any other individual.
In whatever capacity you work and in whatever organization you may work, always think about the set of the rules of your organization as the framework within which you can help people. I am not suggesting that you should go to any length to help anyone because it may require you to violate the rules. Always remember that one must not help anyone by harming one’s own interest.

Law takes away the discretionary powers and universe does operate on some fundamental laws.

Since, nature reacts and does not respond therefore we can have science in this universe. Even though we can confidently say that probability of snowfall in the Sahara desert is zero, we can trust nature to prove us wrong; therefore, science prefers to say that if such and such conditions exist then there cannot be any snowfall or better still that unless such and such conditions exist, there cannot be any snowfall.

Science shall not encroach upon the territories of sociology or else it will create problems for itself.

One cannot understand quantum mechanics because there is arbitrariness in the behavior of the particles; all one can learn from quantum mechanics is that we have our limitations; that we cannot tame nature or even light as some scientists tend to believe. Science must make its followers humble because it shows that nature is the master and therefore we must live a life-style in accordance with the laws of the nature rather than try and tame the nature. Nature knows damn well how to maintain the balance in the universe and in such a big universe, we are too small an entity to even dream of doing anything against the laws of the nature. If a law can be violated then it cannot be a law of nature. Einstein lamented that all the evidences that validate the theory of relativity will come to a naught even if one evidence goes against it. This is the true spirit of a scientist; of a person who knows what science is all about.

Quantum mechanics has made a lot of positive contribution but all its contributions have been achieved when we have concentrated on the effects and not the causes. Today, science has moved away from the nature. The very people who are supposed to keep science alive and kicking, are responsible for its systematic destruction. Our present system expects us to see the world through the glasses it provides even if the glasses distort our perception of reality. Physicists wrongly assume that validity and usefulness of a scientific theory is inversely proportionate to its comprehensibility and hence science esp. physics is getting further and further away from the masses. The apples still fall but they no longer shake our minds.

Sooner physics realizes that we needs to make some important corrections in our theories, the better it will be for all of us because we can no longer have a situation where science does not deliver anything significant. The problem no longer remains that no one dares to tell the king that he is naked; problem is that all of us are naked. Problem is that we have come so far on the wrong path that going back is not going to be easy but for how can we continue on a journey that is taking us away from our destination. In last more than 300 years we have achieved a lot; we have moved to the farthest corners of the solar system, we can peep into an atom and find almost an entire universe inside an atom, we have built supercomputers that work at mind-boggling speed, we have even developed clones but we must admit that we cannot explain even one percent of the matter and energy in the universe, we must realize that we still do not have cure for common cold, we must not forget that we can still beat the best of the supercomputer in a game of chess, we must remember that we have still not reached to every human being on the earth, we must accept that natural calamities still cause mass destruction, we must understand that not many people understand the language we speak.

We are pinning great hopes on the CERN experiment but I fail to understand how we can enter into such a costly venture when we are not sure what we are looking for. We hope that we will be able to detect Higgs boson and if we do not find it then no problems because we may find extra dimensions and strings and what not.

What if we are able to detect Higgs boson? Does it resolve the mass-riddle? Does it resolve any of our theoretical problems concerning standard model of particle physics? If it does then let us assume its existence and in fact, at present, we do assume that Higgs mechanism is the only solution to the mass-riddle and yet we have so many unanswered questions.

I am not against the experiment because I know that it will validate my prediction that decay processes in the experiment will be faster than we have noted so far and faster than predicted by us. I have explained the logic behind the prediction in my book, ‘Nature of Reality’ therefore I will not explain it here but this is too expensive an adventure to validate something that is not going to resolve any issues.

We must not forget that we are spending taxpayer’s money and we shall not forget that there are people who do not even get one time proper meals, that there are people who still die of curable diseases, and that there are children who have not even seen a school building.

I understand that the development cannot stop just because some of us have been left too far behind but at the same time, we cannot be irresponsibly frivolous; we cannot be blind to our social responsibilities.

The bottom line is that our actions determine our fate. We manifest the qualities that we decide to manifest. Nature gives us the freedom to control our behavior but that is all that we can control. Some of us, including myself, may tend to believe that god sometimes takes undue advantage of being the almighty god that he is but believe me, dice falls exactly at the place it must, exactly in the manner it must, and exactly at the time it must.

Thank you.

0 Comments | Add a Comment | Permalink

In my article, ‘Total solar eclipse invalidates theory of relativity’ I have stated that our eyes are sensors and not receptors. Till date, I have received over 72 emails on this article. Most readers are in agreement with my analysis and yet some readers are questioning my analysis purely on the ground that current understanding cannot be wrong. I am open to criticism provided criticism is based on some logical or theoretical issues or else one has no choice but to ignore such emails. There are some readers who have asked me to explain the statement, ‘Our eyes are sensors and not receptors’.

At present, we believe that our eyes have to absorb either the photons reflected off an object to see the object or our eyes have to absorb the photons emitted by a light source like a star to be able to see it.

The core of my analysis in the referred article is that we are not required to absorb the photons emitted by the sun to be able to see the sun.

There are numerous evidences that support this observation. All of us have seen a lightening more than once in our life and fortunately, we see the lightening without even being in the path of the lightening. We know the place lightening is generated, we know the path it follows, and we know the place it strikes. As I have mentioned, we can see the lightning without even being in the path the photons take.

Sitting in a dark room, we can see plenty of the light outside the room. If the lights are placed at a reasonable distance and are pointing away from our room then our room does not receive this light. However, we can still see plenty of photons outside the room. If we were required to absorb these photons to be able to see the light then these photons will have to enter the room before they can be absorbed by our eyes and if these photons enter our room then we shall have plenty of light just because we are observing the light outside the room. If these were to be true then we can very easily reduce our electricity bill considerably.

If we were required to absorb the photons to be able to see the light then we will never be able to detect the motion of a photon because a photon must cease to exist as soon as we see it. Obviously, we cannot see a photon at more than one place. Dark-adapted human eye can detect a single photon even when it is moving away from it.

These are some of the evidences that we observe in our routine life. I think, this adequately explains my observation in the article, ‘Total solar eclipse invalidates theory of relativity’. For a complete scientific analysis of the nature of light, you may like to read my article, ‘Everything we knew about light is wrong’. You can download the article from my website, www.norlabs.org.

Sunil Thakur
Sunil.thakur@norlabs.org
www.norlabs.org

***********

0 Comments | Add a Comment | Permalink