Romancing with nothing.

There are many theories regarding the origin and growth of universe. It is till today as much mystery as the origin and growth of man.

Mostly accepted theory regarding the origin of the universe is the "Big bang Theory". Though Arno penzias and Robert Wilson got the nobel prize for physics in 1978 for the discovery of the radiation from the big bang which by the time of reaching the earth had converted into microwaves, neither penzias nor Wilson altogether understood the significance of the waves they discovered until they read about it in the New york times. (Source:" lonely hearts of the cosmos" by dennis overbye).

There are and will be many controversies about the Big bang and the debates are likely to continue till the next big bang. One powerful argument which comes from Bill bryson and others is that Big bang is what they call "False vacuum" or "Scalar field". It means a quality or a virtue that introduced a measure of instability into the nothingness that was. Bill Bryson argues that its impossible to get something from nothing, he goes on to say that "But the fact that once there was nothing and now there is a universe is evident proof that you can have something from nothing".

This forms a very powerful school of thought in modern cosmology. Accepted that we have here something to see. But the axioms of science does not permit this argument. In science, the fundamental premise is that "nothing can come out of nothing". If nothing can come out of nothing how it is possible that something(universe) has come out of nothing. Linear mathematicians will quickly say that nothing is not equal to something so something can still come out nothing. In other words void cannot come out of void but something other than void can come out of void.

The fundamental virtue if i can call so here is "Nothing". This is a strange romance with an eternal virtue. People have been saying that at sometime somewhere something has come out of nothing. At the moment we have to agree because we have no choice.

Now let us look at it slightly differently. What is nothing? Oxford English dictionary defines "Nothing" as nought or "which is free from anything". So the definition is a simple linear function of human capacity to see. We know very well that Human eyesight like his intellect is too short sighted and heavily limited. Established laws of physics tell us that what we call red is everything but red. Only red is not absorbed in something which looks red. So if you are reading this blog and telling to yourself that this crackpot has written some crap in black bold letters, you have got it all correct but for the colour of the text which is everything but black. (In other words, any object which looks black is absorbing all colours but black. So in reality the object is not black. I may be opening another Pandora's box here with definition of colours).

The idea that i am trying to push here that, we know too little about 'nothing'. What we are saying nothing may be something that is beyond human understanding and perception. Even at a very basic level, nothing is a part of something. Space if we call nothing is also something (space).

So "Nothing" may be analogous to colour. There may be many many things in that "nothing" out of which "something"(universe) has come from. There may be enormous volumes of singularities and too much matter is nothing. But the fact remains that human intellect so far has not been able to decipher anything out of nothing.

Intellect beyond "so called" humans

I have been always wondering if man is the most rational animal in this creation. More i wonder about it , more i am convinced that he is not. Well, i will substantiate this in my next or subsequent blogs.In this blog i will just be sharing some of my thoughts and a piece of historical information that i recently read.

It is now beyond doubt that human existence is found, so far only on the third rock from the sun. Though scientists and even few theologians agree that there is a possibility of life (Human or otherwise) in other rocks in other Galaxies, no proof of the same has been given so far.

But my belief is that it certainly is possible that life, human or otherwise can exist at zillions of places other than the Earth. Absence of life at other places in space (not necessarily time) is simply in contradiction to limited human intellect. Its inconceivable that there cannot be life in other rocks or liquids in the infinite (so assumed) space.

I do believe very strongly in this theory. As i am just another speck in this gigantic creation, my feeling vis-a-vis this theory is similar to the feeling that "the pasture on the other side is greener". Simply put, there is a very high, very very high probability that the life existing in other liquids or solids (or even gases) in other places in space are much much more intelligent , smart and rational than we are as i have understood intelligence and rationality.

Scientists and philosophers are divided on this topic. Even today many scholars are not prepared to accept the presence of life anywhere apart from earth. They are in their own right to deny it or accept it.

My curiosity in this lead me to search the origins of thinking. By design or default i don't agree to the few popular statements such as "Searching origins are futile". It may or may not be. But human curiosity is never prepared to accept the futility of finding the origins.

Thankfully i got some detail on this. We all know that the origin of Haleocentric theory was from the revolutionary findings of Nicolaus Copernicus. His findings were first revealed in his book "On the revolutions of Heavenly spheres"(De revolutionibus orbium Coelestium). This book was completed in 1530AD and published in 1543 AD.

His theory was beyond that cultural and scientific age. It was vehemently attacked by Protestant theologians who held that the premise of a haleocentric universe to be unbibilical.

Of course, his findings were true and formed the shoulder from which Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein could stand on. But when the book was first published, it had a major lacunae. It was so destined. The lacunae gave a major intellectual fillip for other avowed scientists.

Copernicus in his theory had done nothing to resolve the major problem facing any system in which the earth rotated on its own axis (and revolved around the sun), namely , how it is the terrestrial bodies stay with rotating earth. This was a baffling problem to Copernicus and also his followers (though not many at that time)

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)

The answer was proposed by Giordano Bruno, an Italian scientist and avowed Copernican who suggested that space might have no boundaries and that solar system might be one of many such systems in the universe(creation) . Bruno expanded on Copernican thinking. In his writings and his lectures, the Italian scientist held that there were infinite worlds in the universe with intelligent life, some perhaps with beings superior to humans.

As it is now, even then Bruno's audacity brought to the attention of the Inquisition, which tried and condemned him for his hetrodox beliefs. He was burned at the stake in 1600.

As far as i know, this was the genesis of the thinking about the intellect beyond the known world. Copernicus apart from getting the credit for laying the foundations of modern astronomy must also be credited for the fillip his theory gave to other scientists who could use their intellect to predict intellect beyond them.

However, our understanding of the intellect beyond our intellect has remained beyond our understanding from 1600.

Does time and tide wait for none ?

"Time and Tide wait for none" is an oft-repeated adage. I am not quite sure whether it is an adage or a proverb. To avoid an unwarranted controversy, let us call it a proverbial adage. We know very little about this adage, except that we repeat it like a parrot, of course,with some difference and the difference really matters in real life.

We know neither time nor tide very well to give such generalizations. Time as we know is only by its measurement, that is by the clock we hang in our homes. That time waits for the replacement of battery or winding of the spring when its potential energy drops. But deeper understanding of time still remains a challenge for the science community. Time by the clock has no relation to Time which goes with Tide.

The proverbial adage gives a feeling that time and tide are independent and does not wait for either and neither waits for any other. can that be true?

Can tide be independent of time? It can only be independent of time shown in the clock(tide will happen even if there is no cell in the clock). But tide cannot happen without time which is independent relatively to tide. Tide cannot be independent of time and has to wait for the latter, be it a low tide or a high tide.

Moving on, time is a very difficult concept to crack. However we do know that tide is dependent on the gravity of the moon and earth. What is interesting here is the relation between time and gravity.

Time can be thought as analogous to motion of earth. Like time, motion of earth is unidirectional,continuous and eternal. In fact one can argue that time is only a measurement of motion (At this point, i believe so). The units of both merge at some level (higher or lower?)

So tide cannot happen without time and time without motion. which is first is a futile argument for now. Assuming that motion is a "relatively" independent variable, rest of the parameters depend on it. Now moving from relativity to relative independence, what is this motion all about and what causes this motion. Its the gravity of the sun, moon, other planets and probably other galaxies. But so far as the tide is concerned, it is also caused by gravity of the moon. But that in turn is dependent on the relative position of the earth with respect to moon. So tide is dependent on earth i.e. motion i.e. time and that is dependent on sun,earth,other planets, other stars, our galaxy and probably other galaxies.

It is however an altogether different question whether it was moon or earth first? water or motion first? gravity or motion first? These are as simple as asking whether it was egg or chicken first?

Relation between matter and motion?

Why do people grow old? Why is graying of hair or weakening of muscles attributed to age? What is this age? Why do people become weak at old age. Below, i put a theory to relate motion to time and time to matter.
I am 26 years old now and am healthy and all the organs are perfectly alright. Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee is today 86 years old and suffering from multiple problems. If both of us were born healthy, why is that Mr Vajpayee is suffering today. Age is a straight forward answer.

But what the hell is this age? Is age time? Is time linear motion? Is it rotation? Is it revolution? Look at this, the earth has gone round the sun 86 times since Ataljee's birth and 26 times since my birth. So there has been more motion of earth since his birth. Can this motion be attributed to age? Is weakening of body organs, graying of hair attributed to age which in turn is attributed to motion (Not necessarily motion of earth).


So matter (graying of hair or weakening of heart) is dependent on motion (motion of earth). If they are related, it must be is some relation. How about their dimensions? are they equal on both sides.?At the outset No, since the LHS is angular motion and the right handside????(change in colour of hair, weakening of lungs etc). What happens when we die?? matter disappears(or does it?) and motion continues.


Moving ahead, What is responsible for motion? Let us treat motion as an independent variable (or is it?). Surely there are other bodies keeping the earth in its position and responsible for its motion. May be gravitational force of sun, other planets,.What is responsible for other planets to be in their respective position? May be Other planets and sun. What is responsible for the solar system to be in its position and its motion, the galaxy. What is responsible for the galaxy to be in its position and motion? influences of other galaxies.


At the instant of birth (or conception), there are a fixed set of coordinates (time and space)(Does time and space merge somewhere?). These coordinates are unique to every birth (highly debatable and questionable). So the instant we are born , there is a set of planetary and galaxial influences on us (Influence in terms of force, magnitude of which is dependent on space(location)).To substantiate, the planetary or galaxial influences on every point of the earth is not uniform. (think of g, earth's own gravity is not uniform). So at any instant of birth, there is a set of influences which are unique. Every change in location(space) brings with it a change in influence, the magnitude of change is a function of original influence or force. So the change in matter is not only dependent on motion but also space dependent in turn on motion.


As an example, two people born at the same instant of time only 1 M apart or 1 mm apart may grow world apart in attitude, intelligence and physiology.Because distances magnify with space and time so does forces of influence.