A few days ago I wrote an article “The nature of our Universe” and while thinking about it a little more I promised that “I will write another few articles, pending in my online-cupboard”. Alas, my tomorrow has a unit of few days in other people’s time-note.

I thought I would write this one as I see that there might be a few things I may not be saying in that whole article to which I had added few more interesting nuggets the 2nd/3rd time I read it again.

In that article I  remarked that conservation principles are not sacrosanct in all scales of our Universe. What is conserved in one scale need not be exactly conserved in another scale and there is no correspondence between scales a feat I called scale-confinement. I gave hand-weaving arguments of why. You do not enter the scale of a microbe and the atoms do not enter your scale. They of-course combine and you of-course degrade yourself biologically and go to your elements. “Iti Panch’twa pra’p’ti.” Sanskrut for “in the end we meet our elements”. In “Hindu” philosophical thinking there are 5 elements to which all matters and energy are to be classified. And these are “earth, water, fire, air and space”.

Now this is also a Greek philosophy !! The science of the earlier days where matter was classified in that way.  As we are often told in texts written to give introduction to science.

You can jump the […] {its about language and culture and philosophy and myth}

[Edited: 17-09-2012; It seems Greek and Hindu/Indian 5-elements are a direct copy of the Chinese 5-elements which is the original and two fo the chinese elements are removed and replaced with the redundant sky and space. This is a so conspicuously a copying. Nobody in his right mind would think sky and space would be different elements.  Anyway such a copying might be unnecessary if you recognize that the Greek-Indian-Chinese system was the same long time ago, only in recent times influenced by aggressive nationalism of the west and India who want to detach themselves from their Chinese roots formulated such a track which includes: sanscrit as a root for Indo-Europian language, Indian civilization is one of the oldest civilizations in par with China and so on. This is actually geo-politics and not scholarship. Indo-Europian language forms simply derive from Chinese roots as is amply evidenced by most of my language analysis recently. Which explains a lot more than why only sancrit, Indo-Europianness, vowels and consonant and language mixing, spreading of culture and religion from China and so on. In all I am saying: even the concept of Budha and Bishnu was not separate in oldest times and gradually got mixed up, civilization spread from China in all directions, including Japan and India and other Asiatic countries and so also language and culture. Then they got locally self-mixed-up. Its not about China, India, Japan of present times but what they were in far ancient times. Our present texts are simply syncretion of what we do not understand and we are merely propagating myth.   Its not only about 5-elements even day-naming,calender etc were same in far ancient times then they gradually got self-mixed-up after isolation and in our recent attempt to recover them we are not yet successful or not trying and propagting myth.]

Now philosophical thinkings are not scientific thinking. But they at times carry certain interests and useful catalogue for describing our knowledge. At-least they can inspire us to study and know more about stuff.

So the idea where we started this is that there is no scale-traversing. The atoms make you but they never come to your scale not even when they move a distance of 10 meters. They still do live in their scale all the instants.

I would also bring in here a little day-to-day hand weaving analogy. You talk about whats happening in another place because you are prejudiced about that place and you are laced with your knowledge about what ought to be happening in that place. You say my friend is having a conversation in that other room. But thats only if you have enough evidence for it. You have often materialized such an evidence. but if you were to continue to extend that phenomenological evidence to every other room that you can talk about it can often lead you to bizarre conclusions. I believe meta physical and phantom beliefs emerge from such needs. Emergent nonsense. If there is a room in a deep forest either a terrorist, or a pagan, a tantrik or a ghost must live in there. You must envision a need for its connection with what you see elsewhere in your mundane experience.

But scientific minds are not like that. They can tell you they believe what you believe in bust most likely to avoid your sweet-carcass. If there is a Universe there must a be God, because we create our institutions and facilities, wh built this whole amazing Universe. Thats a starting point of religion. It wants to cater to the needs of every head count. Thats where it starts from, where does it end? Science and Religion are often opposites in matters where there are no conclusive evidence to substantiate any claim. A claim can be based upon a need to have a claim, not upon a need to prove a claim.

Now religion gives you so much peace and science takes away such because its an immense deal of brain-work thats required to recover the lost threads, so I will stop on religion here as this does not motivate me to take up a religious point of view because I have a head ache doing a nature-searching. So religion goes for soul-searching and we go for nature-searching. Not nature hunting, so there is no ghost hunting either.

So a diversion was taken but I do not see any loss of interest, do I? We can not necessarily conclude what is there in a room deep inside forest. It is this point which can be used to explain you the nature of Universe and its creation. There is just nothing. Everything just came out of nothing. Then where did the room came from? Well if you like to iterate on your religious needs you say “there must be a creator of the room”, we see rooms and rooms are always created by persons and in the absence of anyone living there the person who created that room and is now dead must be living there as the landlord. Your landlord is a ghost, funny story but nature isn’t like that.

In nature there are no rooms. There is space. But space is a concept of place-holder [and time-holder as well, time like region anyone? oops space-like region. space-like region is one which is devoid of time]

So space is conceptualized as a space and time holder. But thats just because we see place and time as a day-to-day reality.

But there never was a need for us Physicists to define a space without space and time. It wasn’t given up. We just didn’t see it coming that fast. Yes, we can conceptualize space without it having to contain and place or time. Thats what happens when you associate the concept of space with that of scale. There are scales where there is space where there is no matter and no energy, nothing, no place, no time. Its a scale that existed before the Universe was created. Now the scale that existed after Big Bang contains in it place and time although the scale of such place and time are mind-lessly small. Then these small-scale grow into larger scales. But the matter and energy in those tiny scales still do not traverse into other scales if scale-confinement is sacrosanct. This is after Big-Bang. What happened before Big-Bang? There was a scale where there was no place and time, although space could still be conceptualized.

In that pre-Big-Bang scale there was no matter, no energy, no place and no time. It does not obey the principle of conservation necessarily. But there is a nicer way out of this puzzle.

What if these no-place-no-time-no-matter-no-energy scales are like empty bubbles. By violating the conservation principles for a short instant for example through the Heisenberg’s license there is a creation of matter and energy from these bubbles into the neighbouring scales, with or without any matter.

Then each of these no-place-no-time-no-matter-no-energy  bubbles can have a small amount of matter-energy-place-time, Heisenberg license is revoked and conservation principles are sacrosanct again. So that small license is the key to understanding how a small desirable violation of the laws of nature known in our scales today we do not throw scientific thinking into a pool of unsavory gel.

If you are adventurous enough like me, you can even see that these bubbles are even conserved by employing their Heisenberg ID. The bubbles grow into more bubbles, the matter and energy, space and time and place they all grow. Until the scale of time and place has expanded so much that we see as much as we see now.

I think this was all I had to tell you reg. “The nature of our Universe” essay. Just one more point: these pre-Big-Bang bubles might still exist.

Thanks for reading.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s