In the next few pages I place some cards on the table, and thereafter put forth my understanding of the subject of Relativity, and how the idea of a `Cosmic mind` is made use of to take care of some paradoxes which ensue as a consequence of Einstein`s Relativity Principle.
To begin with, consider Galilean relativity which is best described in the following para, which is by Galileo himself:
“Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin below decks on some large ship, and have with you some flies, butterflies, and other small flying animals. Hang up a bottle that empties drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. Have the ship proceed with any speed you like, as long as the motion is uniform and not fluctuating this way and that. The droplets will fall into the vessel beneath without dropping toward the stern, although while the drops are in the air the ship runs many spans. The butterfly and flies will continue their flights indifferently toward every side, nor will it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the stern, as if tired out from keeping up from the course of the ship“.
Now consider the butterfly and that space (say one cubic metre) within which the butterfly is moving all the time, let’s call this space as `B`.
In 5 minutes B has moved 2 kms (Considering that there is no such thing as a background screen which remains fixed as time evolves, and assuming further that the ship is moving at 24 km per hour) in the direction in which the ship is moving.
In addition, considering the rotation of the Earth, B along with the ship would have moved about 140 kms away along the circumference of a sphere of about 7 Km radius.
In addition, considering the motion of the Earth about the sun, B along with the ship and along with the Earth would have moved another 15000 kms away.
In addition, considering the motion of the Sun about the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy, B along with the ship. along with the Earth, along with the Sun and the entire solar system move a further `x` kms away… and so on … not forgetting the motion of Milky Way towards the Andromeda Galaxy…. And finally the galaxies moving in line with the expansion of the universe.
So it turns out that the butterfly along with space `B` has in 5 minutes moved several millions of miles away. In short the concept of an absolute space has to be abandoned even if we adopt the Galilean Relativity Principle.
Likewise, when considering special relativity … the limiting speed as the speed of light and the constancy of the speed of light, the concept of an absolute time has to be abandoned. Why we don`t do it is simply because we cannot easily contemplate the impact of the phenomenally large magnitude of the speed of light in comparison with the speeds encountered normally.
If Galileo’s logic works only when we shut ourselves up in the cabin with the knowledge that the ship is moving with a uniform motion, and does not work when we are at the deck.. we must ask the question what is the change in our understanding and what kind of logic works when we are on the deck, and not just on the deck, but also when our ARENA of observation is `SPACE-TIME` itself. While there is no doubt whatsoever that Galileo was a great genius and that the Galilean Relativity Principle was the foundational Principle on which our understanding of the subject of `Relativity` rests, the question may be asked : ` Would Galileo ( as well as Newton), not in principle have gained great benefit from the `Modern Physics understanding based on the `space-time` perspective as it is understood today, which understanding is the sum total of the combined Genius of Maxwell, Minkowski, Poincaire, Lorentz, to mention just a few… and above all Einstein who has encapsulated the entire knowledge on the subject in his Special and General Relativity.
In short, in Modern Physics we need to view the history of the universe physically as it happened, and still happening, in a `four-dimensional space-time`, rather than in a three dimensional space evolving with time
The idea of `Space-time` is not Einstein`s idea. This idea is attributed to the Scientist Hermann Minkowski who actually specialized in geometry. In a famous lecture Minkowski asserted:
“Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of unity between the two will preserve an independent reality“.
And in the words of Richard Feynman:
“Relativity is not some airy-fairy philosophy, nor is space-time mere mathematical formalism. It is the foundational ingredient of the very universe in which we live.“
So, as I said earlier, I must place all the cards on the table … It doesn`t matter who I am or where I get the information from … whether from Books or from Google or my own thoughts. The idea is to provide all the information and let the reader judge for himself what can be the truth which has the greatest chance of being accepted by the great intelligent minds on the planet Earth. Let’s first get at the truth and then see what we can do to deal with the casualty violation Paradoxes that ensue, if any.
First, I provide here an extract from Roger Penrose`s introduction to Feynman`s book `Six Not So Easy pieces`:
“`The great scientists Galileo and Newton centuries before Einstein, had already pointed out that in the dynamical theories that they themselves were developing, the physics as perceived by an observer in uniform motion would be identical with that perceived by an observer at rest. The key problem with this had arisen only later, with James Clark Maxwell`s discovery, as published in 1865, of the equations that govern the electric and magnetic field, and which also control the propagation of light. The implication seemed to be that the relativity principle of Galileo and Newton could no longer hold true; for the speed of light must, by Maxwell`s equations, have a definite speed of propagation. Accordingly, an observer at rest is distinguished from those in motion by the fact that only to an observer at rest does the light speed appear to be the same in all directions.
The relativity principle of Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein differs from that of Galilio and Newton, but the implication is the same ..viz that the physics as perceived by an observer in uniform motion is indeed identical as that perceived by an observer at rest. Yet in the new Relativity, Maxwell`s equations are consistent with the principle and the speed of light has a fixed value in every direction, no matter in what direction or with what speed the observer might be moving. How is this magic achieved so that these apparently hopelessly incompatible requirements are reconciled?
In order to be consistent with the relativity principle, whereby physics `looks the same` to an observer in uniform motion as to an observer at rest, there must be a `symmetry transformation` which translates one observer`s measured quantities into those of the other. It is a symmetry because the physical laws appear the same to each observer, and `symmetry` after all asserts that something has the same appearance from two distinct points of view. As Physics develops, there are mathematical formalisms that develop with it, and which are needed in order to express the new physical laws. When the mathematical tools are skilfully tuned to their appropriate tasks, they can make the physics seem much simpler otherwise. The ideas of vector calculus are a case in point. Physical laws have a symmetry under ordinary rotations in space. Feynman brings home the power of the vector notation and the underlying ideas for expressing such laws.
Relativity theory, however tells us that `time` should also be brought under the compass of these symmetry transformations, so a four-dimensional vector calculus is needed. This calculus is also introduced to us here by Feynman, as it provides the way of understanding how not only time and space must be considered as different aspects of the same four dimensional structure, but the same is true of energy and momentum in the relativistic scheme.“`
To explain further how the Galilean transformation is incorrect for light :
“Consider a car going at 100000 miles per second, and the light going at 186000 miles per second, then apparently the light going past the car should be 86000 miles per second. In any case by measuring the speed of light going past the car (If the Galilean transformation is correct for light) one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the Earth. The experiments gave no velocity at all“ … Feynman.
Which means the light actually goes past the car at 186000 miles per second and the Galilean transformation is incorrect for light.
Clearly something is the matter with the equations of physics, and some Transformation is required, by providing appropriate substitutions in Maxwell`s equation, so that there form is unchanged while at the same time, the results obtained are matching fully with the observations made. The Scientist H A Lorentz provided precisely such a transformation.
Einstein, following a suggestion originally made by Poincare, then proposed that all the physical laws should be of such a kind that they remain unchanged under a Lorentz transformation. Applying the same criteria to Newton`s equations, they need to be rewritten in such a way that the above conditions are satisfied. As it turned out, all that was required was to substitute the mass `m` with the expression `mo/(1 – v^2/c^2)^0.5`, where the “rest mass“ mo represents the mass of the body that is not moving, and c is the speed of light.
For solving problems …that is all there is to the theory of relativity…We just need to change Newton`s laws by applying a correction factor to the mass `m`
(For further reading refer to the thought experiment relating to Pat Boone`s song Bernardine as described in the manuscript of my talk on `The Travelling Cosmic Mind`
Extract (of Roger Penrose`s introduction to Feynman`s book) continued:
“`When Einstein became accustomed to the idea of space-time, he took it completely into his way of thinking. It became an essential part of his extension of special relativity – the relativity theory I have been referring to above that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein introduced- to what is known as general relativity. In Einstein`s general relativity, the space-time becomes curved and it is able to incorporate the phenomena of gravity into the curvature. “`
As transpires – as per the flow of information over the last few centuries in accordance with the concept that it is the `Information in the field` that is responsible for all that happens in the universe – there is no way that Einstein would not have come out with his theories of Special and General Relativity, and further there is no way that the latter theory would not have led to the concept of `Black holes`.
Let us now discuss the various apparently `casualty violation paradoxes` that ensue consequent on Einstein`s theories, and which need to be resolved with some additional understanding of the subject.
If a subject is understood in all respects, there is no such thing as a `Casualty Violation Paradox`. The `Cause` itself needs to be understood properly before deciding if the corresponding `Effect` is a paradox or not.
Consider the famous `Twin Paradox`: Paul flies away at very high speed. Peter who is left on the ground sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul`s clocks appear to go slower from Peter`s point of view. Paul lights a cigar taking the normal time to do so and noticing nothing unusual, but Peter sees him lighting the cigar and taking too much time to do so, much more than the normal. If Paul travels around and about for some time and comes back, he will be younger than Peter. For example, if Paul left Peter at a particular instant of time `t` and travelled at 0.8 times the speed of light for about ten hours before returning back to meet Peter on the ground, he finds himself to be younger by four hours. Now the particular `instant of time` `t1` when the two meet again might be ten hours after `t` in the eyes of Peter, but Paul actually took only six hours to reach `t1` from `t.
Now I ask the question: Was that a Paradox? Was casualty violated?
No, It wasn`t.
We call something as a paradox only if we find that a physical law is violated. But in this case the physical law has NOT been violated. Its just that we have a better understanding of the physical law, the law to which a Lorentz transformation has been applied, to make it in conformity with what actually happens in the world. In short, the transformed Physical Law has not been violated at all.
The question may be asked. Can we not say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly?
I think not ..The one who has travelled and felt the acceleration is the one who would be the younger of two.
Two different geometries are involved. For movement in space Euclidian Geometry is fine, but for movement in time we need a Lorentz geometry.
As per the Euclidian Geometry (for movement in Space). the two sides AB and BC of a triangle add up to be greater than AC or at least equal to it in case of collinearity.
For the one who has travelled in a space ship, we consider that he moves along the sides AB and BC. We further assume that at B, it’s a smooth curve towards C and not a sharp and abrupt change … as that would be Fatal for him/her … this won`t change the calculation much.
However, when we consider the movement in time we need to incorporate the Lorentz transformation in case of the traveller, and accordingly use the Lorentz geometry for this purpose. And in case of Lorentz Geometry the two sides of the triangle AB and BC when added up turn out to be less than AC or at the most equal to AC when A,B,C, are all on the World line of an inertial particle ie the straight `inertial` path representing the maximizing of the measured time between two fixed end events.
When two observers meet at some point and shake hands, then the event corresponding to the shaking of the hands at the point corresponding to the junction between the two hands, if it happens at a certain time `T`, we can very well say that time `T` is a fixed instant of time ( albeit in someone`s imagination). But the interval of time between the Big Bang and time `T` is not the same for the two observers or for their constituent parts … the trillions of atoms and molecules. This interval of time is different for each and every one of these constituent parts and depends on their travel schedules and the speeds at which they were travelling in their journeys through the cosmos via Supernovas etc, and of course on the number of times Lorentz transformations were applied to them.
In my view… by now … as per the current status of knowledge on the planet … the acceptance of the fact that time is not an absolute concept, as well as space not being an absolute concept should not be considered to be something revolutionary.
In real life we do not experience such situations. Even if we travel at 20000 miles per hour, impact of Lorentz transformation will not be greater than one part in about 3 billion. But the correctness of the formula has been confirmed by the observations of many kinds of particles, moving at speeds ranging upto practically very close to the speed of light. However, because the effect is ordinarily so small, it seems remarkable that it was discovered theoretically before it was discovered experimentally.
Next consider the apparent paradoxes that happen in connection with Black – holes.
Nobel Laureate Subramanyan Chandrasekhar considers Black holes as perfect macroscopic objects. He wrote :
“The black holes of nature are the most perfect macroscopic objects there are in the universe: the only elements in their construction are our concepts of space and time. And since the general theory of relativity provides onle a single unique family of solutions for their descriptions, they are the simplest objects as well“
But there is nothing simple about what happens inside or around Black holes within the so called `Event horizon`.. the surface area around the black hole from which nothing can escape .. not even light.. not even information.
It was Einstein`s theory of General relativity which resulted in the concept of a black hole as something possessing an enormous gravitational pull so powerful that whatever entered within the event horizon was forever trapped and completely captured .. not to mention `crushed` with no chance of escaping.
Most black holes are products of Supernovas. In the final moments of a dying massive star (several times as massive as our sun), there is a fight between Entropy and Gravity. If Entropy wins, all the matter in the exploding star gets out and nothing remains inside. If it’s a close fight such as a short head victory for Entropy a portion (somewhat major) escapes out and a portion remains which is called a neutron star. And if Gravity wins, the star becomes a black hole.
When Quantum Mechanics was understood (sometime in the mid 20th century), people started thinking that the `information` – ie. The material sucked into the black hole – had to be conserved, and that it should be possible to retrieve the same at a later date.. but perhaps in a different form altogether.
Then in 1970 the Scientist Stephen Hawking proposed that black holes were losing mass and would eventually evaporate and in doing so take all traces of what fell into them. Thus the information would not be conserved. It would be vanished.
What ultimately happens to the information is unclear and this aspect is known as `The information paradox`.
There are a whole lot of other paradoxical situations that arise consequent to the fact that light cannot escape from the black hole, such as what does a person trapped inside a black hole ( assuming he is somehow alive though in pieces) see when he looks outside : Does he see the future unfolding itself all of a sudden ? ( I wish he calls me up and tells me who is going to win the 2017 Kentucky Derby).
How can that be ?… What does he actually see ? …. This is so difficult to believe that sometimes I think Black Holes can`t exist.
Indeed they do exist … they have been observed for decades .. observed by deduction of course as the invisible members of curious double stars, where the visible member`s movement around the invisible one provided enough information to prove that the invisible one was much more massive than a white dwarf or a neutron star, and was thus a black hole. There is one in the centre of our own galaxy ..the Milky way… a really massive one, perhaps millions of time as massive as our sun. This is borne out of the fact that all the stars with all their family members (the planets), are orbiting them. In fact all the galaxies must have a massive black hole at their centres.
Then there are the exotic and immensely unbelievable paradoxes involving the interconnectedness of universes via things known as `wormholes`.
This is too much.
But even some top level scientists believe that a certain `Space-time` (derived from some interesting mathematical features) can be thought of as representing a time-evolution of two different universes that become connected by a `wormhole`, which subsequently `pinches off` in a singularity.
As I said earlier … This is too much for me!
Now …how do we explain and take care of these paradoxes?
Simple … We apply the same principle as we did while discussing the `Twin Paradox` earlier on … viz that there is no such thing as a paradox, if the physics concerning the cause is perfectly well understood, and the effect happens in accordance with expectations.
The trouble is, we do not yet understand the physics relating to what happens in and around black holes perfectly well. There appears to be a problem in understanding what happens in extreme situations encountered in black holes – a sort of a mismatch in the outcome when we apply Einsteins General Relativity ..with that when we apply Quantum Mechanics. Both these theories appear to break down at these extreme points and it becomes necessary to look towards a new theory of `Quantum Gravity`. In short .. in the physics of `Quantum Graviy` we need to look for an appropriate change ( a sort of transformation) to these two theories such that the outcome is similar in both.
Till date there is no such consensus on a perfect understanding of what this quantum gravity is. But whenever it happens I guess each and every paradox will cease to exist.
Whether `wormholes` are possible or not will also be known at that stage.
At this stage I barge in with my idea of `The Travelling Cosmic Mind` .. via the `Intelligent Field` .. and try to figure out how it deals with all these paradoxes. Here I have to point out … as I did many times before .. that the total amount of intelligence in the intelligent field is a measure of the `Information in the Field` as accumulated over trillions of years, and countless Eons of the Universe.
As discussed earlier (Speculation … of course …as this is an uncharted territory) the Cosmic mind takes full responsibility for two extremely important roles.
1. It takes care of all the mathemetics and provides all the mathematical constants to the laws of nature in a way that will someday result in creating probabilities of lives and consciousnesses to emerge at various places in the universe, and theoretical Physicists to arrive and then understand the universe.
2. It travels throughout the cosmos to all the locations where adequate biochemistries are available, and provides itself with consciousness’s to do all the needful. He is all in all. You and I are just inanimate matter .. robotic bodies made up of atoms and molecules.. it covers itself with. We just do what it tells us to do … such as type on the laptop.
Will discuss the third role shortly.
The Cosmic Mind has already fed the information at the time of the Big Bang ( just prior to it) in the computer and the Cosmic Mathematician has already provided all the required mathematical constants and ordered the Cosmic Physicist to proceed with the construction of the new Eon of the universe in accordance with these orders.
And that information included information about `Quantum Gravity` which the Cosmic Mind understood, but the physicists on the planet Earth have not understood so far. Here I have to say that his ( CM`s) own understanding of the subject at that time, was a measure of the total `Information in the field` as accumulated during trillions of years and countless Eons of The Universe that existed prior to that time.
I think it has worked … never mind what happens in Black holes and to objects flying near the speed of light.
Now I come to the third role of the Cosmic Mind.
Some time back I gave a talk at the Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore on the topic “The Travelling Cosmic Mind“. During my talk I opined that for the universe to make Sense, we remain forever conscious, for which the only requirement is that we remain forever in the Stelliferrous Era where stars are shining and life and consciousness is flourishing, and the only way this can happen is … if we consider our `mind` to be integral with a cosmic mind that can travel backwards and forwards in time to remain forever in these liveable eras. The mind does not travel into the everlasting Degenerate and Dark eras of deep future for the simple reason that it cannot find consciousness over there.
In the same way it can be said that even while remaining all the time in the Stelliferrous Era, the mind does not venture to go to these black hole type of locations where it can not obtain consciousness of any kind, nor does it put itself into conscious containers like human bodies .. and travel at near the speed of light and put these human bodies into all kinds of torture.
This then is the third role of `The Travelling Cosmic Mind`