The Inter-Connection

I am back. This time it was a longer intermission, after many weeks of steady continuity. That regularity mostly had to do with my being urged on by the efficient Jaymie Shook of the Bohlsen group to write more routinely than I have been. The main reason behind that is to spread the word around on what the subject of my recently released book is about, and I hope I have done a somewhat convincing job.

On my march to spread the word, I also dared to take up something I have managed to cower from thus far—the social media. The thought that a social media presence is a must in order to fetch interest, and target right audience gave me willies. I am zealous about the subject, its scientific order, and mathematical views, love talking about it to an audience, in person, or over e-communication with the people I am acquainted with, and I am passionate to hear their views, what fascinates them most, and ideas. Shooting out tweets, and hurling jottings and condensed utterances on Facebook in a fully open landscape boundlessly seeped with all different opinions, interests, and intentions is something entirely different. And it gave me jitters! I guess such a reaction would be more common in people who have worked all their lives in structured environments of an academic setup, where you cave in comfortably within a premise, relatively sequestered from majority of the outside scenarios. It feels far less risky.

The notion of scientific outreach in an academic institution is itself a very modern, and indeed fruitful, thinking, and many able researchers have caught up with that very well, and take pleasure in popularizing science. Some launch their intellectual views right in the public arena, bypassing the slippage that would be encountered if gone to a specific collegiate field mostly for the interdisciplinarity of their viewpoints.

For the most part I too liked to be tucked in covers, within a well laid out premise. But our scientific quest has come to a point where moving forward necessarily involves large chunks of interdisciplinary views, and takes. And we all are acknowledging that the things are opening up within science, as well as outside of it. The comfort zone on its own is expanding, as we find ourselves plunging into it.

So there it was, I set up a twitter account and started tweeting, opened a Facebook page, and went buzzing, connected with Goodreads, and put up giveaways, and tried to be at LinkedIn more often. The exposure has been better than anticipated. And it is satisfying to see how many original thinkers, and established academics take time and effort to be there in a common open ground, constantly twitting, pitching and improvising. That most of the genuine organizations are in a constant update of their face, voice, and initiative. Their tone isn’t always as weighty, and the cadence at times exceedingly popularizing. And at times I have myself felt that they have gone a bit too far. But I think at a common level that incites to be curious and creative, and importantly there is a conduit to connect to them, and discover new and fascinating places that would have lay hidden without the cause of social media.


I connected to a few, and discovered many new. It is productive, informative, and in a strange way real. We discuss and follow numeric, abstract, real and mysterious ways to mathematics (and mathematicians!), the articulations of space-time, including about the recent discovery of gravitational waves, and the interconnected black holes, keep abreast of up-to-date scientific findings in all flavors, once in a while take in the humor part (which is mostly indispensable), philosophy (not the wacky type but the resolving kind that is essential) and indeed some of the current affair outside of science, and personal flavors.

Shedding hesitation is a tough work, but I guess it is worth pursuing one’s and parallel interests in the growing web of virtual space-time.

I am sure many of you already are trekking the cyber social landscape. You can join me there, on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, GoodReads.

Also, don’t miss out on having a chance of grabbing a gift copy of my book. Find the “giveaway” in the widget area below. If you win one, I would very much welcome your response, thoughts, curiosities, and even a review. Thank you!

Let me know if you have any questions at, or


See you all soon,



Share this:

The Title and its Storyline

Continued from the preceding post…

Foremost, we can’t keep from commemorating the 2016 Abel prize awarded to Andrew Wiles of Oxford University, for proving that the Fermat’s Last Theorem is indeed true (in the year 1995). Congratulations to Andrew Wiles, and Pierre de Fermat! Fermat did claim (in the 17th century) to have surmounted proving his own elegant equation by noting “I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.” The methodology Andrew Wiles employed is too advanced for the time of Fermat. Inspired at the age of ten, Andrew Wiles decoded the mystery of Fermat’s Last Theorem in the year 1995, a truly uphill task that was interspersed with a humiliating pitfall that ultimately lead to the glory and catharsis, as his humbled tears rolled out upon meeting the wish.

Whether or not did he have the proof (we will never know), Fermat would have cheered the breakthrough, and recognition.

Here is my take on it:

Well, I am more excited than many, first because of the Oxford University backdrop in the recognition, but mostly because it involves the elegance and depth of Fermat’s Last theorem, and seeing it to be accurate.

I delight in the simplicity of its statement (the equation), yet the far reaching and deep insights it casts. I include the insightful cadence of this equation in my book.

The excerpt from the book, following which is the award link:

Excerpt, Pg. 56: Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are We? (about the book:

“Fermat’s Last Theorem: An Enigma, or Not

For its blunt accuracy and transparency, even though we didn’t have a valid proof at the time it was stated, Fermat’s last theorem became a cliché mathematical citation, appearing regularly in didactic and popular genres alike.5,6 The statement is elegantly simple, but the meaning conveyed is both sharp and profound. Drafted by a French mathematician, Pierre de Fermat, in the year 1637, it states,


              where n is the exponent of 3and up. The phrasing tells us that the sum of two exponentiations cannot give rise to an exponentiated entirety for the powers of three and up. For example, 32 plus 42 structures into 52, but 33 plus 43, in accordance with Fermat’s theorem, does not evolve into an entirety of x33-D-fold. Fermat’s equation applies for any numerical grade—in fact, tellingly, for any digital combination—as long as the power is 3 or higher.”

The award; The recognition

Cheers everyone!

Back to the storyline, and the central points of discussions:

Universe Needing to Inflate

The abrupt inflation of universe in our cosmic history, its interrelatedness with the detection of gravitational waves, and seeing the necessity and order of the event of inflation itself

            “As enigmatic as it may sound, the scenario of expeditious growth does have healthy outlooks to support of the way we envisage the universe based on scientific judgments.”

In the Name of Science

The question of how do we amass interest and enthusiasm in science, its concepts and methodology. Then move further to have us all interested in seeking the true order of reality.


Do not miss out, if you like edutainment, especially with small dosages of science. You might pick up serious bits without having to try!

Grothendieck’s Deep Visions

The gravity of mathematics, and its followers: Alexander Grothendieck as an ardent devotee of anything deep and mysterious in mathematics

Continued in the next…

Share this:

Magnified Universe: Cosmic Landscape in Quantum Décor

Title and its Storyline

Why Magnified Universe?

The fabric of universe at a common level is conjectured as the structure that is directly perceived through the eye. But every scientist, and rational thinker, knows that there is more to it—more texture; more details; more interconnectivity, and thus better logical significance behind the palpable. (Just saw a philosophical take on that.) The universe we perceive as colossal and infinite might be just that—a perception.

In the boundaryless of quantum we not only see a comprehensive picture, but it is in the quantum description that we find rationality and an inter-connective significance in all that bubbles and evolves.

The infinitesimal of quantum and enormity of cosmos are the snapshots of reality based on how we decide to comprehend the nature of reality. Quantum and cosmic are both key elements, but they aren’t two different things. The fundamental forces, and their manifestations, are size irrespective. In discerning cosmic plane as enormous and vast we must account the spatial relativity set-up by our visual sense. We might be magnifying the universe. Thus the title: Magnified Universe.

Why Cosmic Landscape in Quantum Décor?

In the all-inclusive reality, quantum plane and cosmic arena aren’t two different things. Quantum principles play unhindered in the cosmic plane. Thus, the subtitle: Cosmic landscape in quantum décor.

Why the Banner?

Importantly though, I also want to say something on the banner of this blog: A human figure inserted in a convoluted rendering, with a cosmic deep field backdrop. Indeed, I quite like the image (I myself compiled it), and I think you would agree that it fits nicely with the theme of the subject, that is to comprehend an all-encompassing reality in the window of empirical observations and methodic concepts, and savor the mathematical and tangible beauty along the way. This has been a baseline banner in all my activities, in the virtual world (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) or on the temporal plane (public speeches, discussions). The main reason I wanted to bring this up, however, is the show of the convoluted rendering in the banner (encompassing the human figure). I appreciatively acknowledge A. Hanson of Indiana University, the creator of this elegant graphic, for letting me use it.


In the mathematical world this rendering is known as Calabi-Yau manifold. And the reason I relish this mathematical object is because it can be seen as a testimony to the union between mathematics and physics, or the truth of mathematical physics. At a physical level, this mathematical object shows how the dimensions are sewn together in a continuum. There are endless resources on how Calabi-Yau manifold came to be, first in the landscape of pure mathematics, and then infiltrating the boundaries of physics in the scene where the picture of reality takes form.

Mathematical object

Calabi-Yau manifold Credit: A. Hanson


The Gist

Over months, I have pulled up many different colors of witnessing the order of reality. Ways are endless really. And our personal attitudes do really count in the way we like to journey, or even see. Here, we have been taking routes of physical sciences, and we will continue to do so. To keep the focus of our sight and vision, it will help to leaf through the pitches I circulated, and breathe in the central argument behind each.

Here we go:

The Nature of Reality

Why this? And a little of Why me?

The Whole of it in One Single Sweep

Starting out on a journey toward seeing a full-length picture, in the methodic voice of physical sciences

Are We Able to Picture it?

Issue of blending fundamental principles with emergence of consciousness, and the question that ensues: The nature of self

The Mathematical Truth

The perfect glue in constructing an overarching picture of reality, and the underlying idea of mathematical truth

Continued in the next post…


Share this:

Magnified Universe: Cosmic Landscape in Quantum Décor

The theme accentuated: continued…

In discussing over the underlying gist of the blog Magnified Universe: Cosmic Landscape in Quantum Décor we skimmed through the overall idea of how the three components are indispensable if we are to envision the truest order of reality. Those components are:

1] Cosmic observations

2] Quantum observations

3] The nature of self

Cosmic observations impart a limited range, authentic nonetheless, picture. We only see what we can see. Quantum level reading broadcast a comprehensive picture: including every bit, and factual scenarios that we do not directly perceive. It is in quantum mechanical rendering that all the elements of reality can be seen to play. All-encompassing architecture—that subsumes infinitesimal bits of atomic and subatomic particles, even strings for the believers of string theory (I support the idea totally!), molecular, macromolecular and complex biological structures, cosmic arena, the entire of the universe, and also its parallel universes—at the foundational level boils down to the sweep of matter and the forces by which matter exists.

In a nutshell there only are two constituents to dovetail in seeing one flawless scheme—matter and the forces through which matter exists. Amazingly simple task, but exceedingly hard to surmount! Simply because the ultimate picture must pick up all of the methodic observations in one fell swoop, and explain the rationality behind contradictions, such as prodigiously expanding universe in the tethering field of gravity, or the existence of antimatter.

However, there does prevail just one more vital element, executing in the overarching game of reality, admittance of which not only completes our picture of reality, it irons out perplexities of the empirical descriptions as well. That element is the ultimate nature of self. Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are We? not only pins down the ultimate nature of self, but extends to show its play in the all-encompassing scheme, and sharpens scientific picture along the way.

Now a deep-seated aid at our hand in all of this! Behind the discrete show of the universe, there seeps a profound glue. A glue that interlocks disparate pieces into one compact description. We have seen it over and over, and many of us have guessed it correctly. It is the glue of mathematics. Why it comes to be that way? Simply put, mathematics is an algorithmic language that lets us read reality. Deeply engrossed in the formulas of mathematics, we forget as to what a mathematical formula actually is: the formulation of reality, or the structure of reality. Mathematics, which though at the surface is a tool to codify the interplay of discrete entities, at the most basic level is the structure of reality itself, the reverberations of which we haven’t fully figured out. Same as we haven’t all the way figured out how the universe structures and continues.

The discrepancies lurk; Inquiries linger; Bewilderment creeps.

However, the numerical language carries the highest of potentials to expose the truly real all-inclusive picture of reality, simply because mathematics crystallizes only by play of all the components. Simple to intricate examples are covered in the new title.

And it is in the deep subtleties of mathematics that we can not only pin down quantum dynamics and cosmic display, but also tease out the truest identity of self.


In keeping with the blogging courtesy and your continual interest, I would need to take a pause here, and expand on this further in the subsequent posts.

Until then please also take a peek at one of my earlier posts to get a general idea that seeps underneath the parallelism between mathematics and the physical world.

See you soon,


Share this:

Magnified Universe: Cosmic Landscape in Quantum Décor

Magnified Universe: Cosmic Landscape in Quantum Décor

The theme accentuated

The underlying gist of the blog Magnified Universe: Cosmic Landscape in Quantum Décor is to envision the truest order of reality, or the uttermost flow of reality to be precise—simply because “flow” allows for continual change. Envisioning of the truest order of reality is the biggest of all questions! It is akin to piecing every single bit there is into a crisp comprehensible picture. That would be an insurmountable task. In a hilarious cartoon by S. Harris—in fact so many of his sketches are truly humorous, very popular among physicists and mathematicians, and often appear in Stephen Hawking’s popular science books—a scientist claims to have arrived at a unified theory simply by putting a box around a set of equations that described reality.

Dovetailing every piece into a whole amounts to subsuming every shred there is. From infinitesimal bits of atomic and subatomic particles, even strings (that string theory claims to be of Planck length, 10-35 meters, in size), to molecular and macromolecular structures to day-to-day objects to planets, and their satellites, to stars to solar systems to galaxies, and their clusters, to the entire of the universe (about the diameter of 93 billion light years), not to mention the parallel universes that we discern to be existing based on quantum mechanical understanding.

Oh yes, the indispensable of consciousness, awareness, and our subliminal paraphernalia as well!

Did I leave out anything? Caution me!

Accounting for all of these is a truly herculean task. We do need to shove all of it in a box, and wrap it up!

Then as I discussed in my last two posts, the perplexities that we pick up as we surf the landscape of scientific endeavors: On the beginning of time; emergence of consciousness; existence of multiverse; accelerating universe; recently, the dark matter; dark energy, and interconnectedly, the understanding of gravitational force; the dwell of antimatter. We have to account for all of this as well, meaning how they play out, or the reasoning behind their play. They are all real facts: They do need to either take role or resolve themselves out.

The unification implies just that: Seeing a harmonious picture in which all elements of reality take role, and discrepancies resolve. But even before we embark on such a journey, we need to imbue ourselves with two paramount characteristics of reality:

1] The universe is unified: Matter exists through fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism.

2] The universe is uniform: Forces through which matter exists are uniform. Matter exists by same rules, anywhere.


After this assimilation, we can pretty much see that we as a scientist would want to see resolve any fact tossed at us into the above overarching picture of reality. Empirical observations, their disagreements, their quandaries, how we fit and continue, the mental bearings, and at a subtle level even the methodic concepts that we come to rely on, should all swimmingly be the part of the grand scheme.

If we leave scientific facts behind, the picture isn’t just fuzzy and disconcerting, it can be delusional. On the other hand, if we leave out the other elements of reality—the nature of self for instance—the scientific picture, wouldn’t be fully readable, and its perplexities wouldn’t resolve. Plainly because all the elements play in the construction of the full-length picture, again more precisely, flow. To see any kind of picture, scientific or otherwise, all pieces should be accounted for.

And those pieces are:

1] Cosmic observations

2] Quantum observations

3] The nature of self

I will continue with the theme of this blog in the next post, and also bring up the idea behind title itself—Magnified Universe: Cosmic Landscape in Quantum Décor.

Till then feel free to pitch in your views.

See you soon,


Next post

Share this:

Proving it or Making Sense, Part II

Scientific Argumentation and Universal Logic in understanding the Universe

Part II

We were talking about how the alignment of “proving it” and “making sense” goes haywire with descriptions of deeper orders of reality, at times so much so that only the scientist in us happens to stomach them, and part of us still crave for an overarching clearer picture—causing an ever greater rift between the scientific endeavors and seeing the all-encompassing picture of reality, where we also reside. The reality is one, scientifically or otherwise. Science in no way takes us to a hazy confounding zone, but to see a true order we have to look at the scientific data with a broader, overarching perspective.

It’s just that with prodigious scientific advancements intricate details seep in, and “making sense” starts to fall outside the boundaries of scientific endeavor: because now it involves “us” seeing it differently. Like the tangled issue of the beginning of time that I brought up in the last post. No matter what rationality, the beginning of the universe via black hole, or the time having no beginning or end, as we are now learning, glaring quandaries nudge us for clarity—like what banged in the big-bang, or what’s the true nature of this timeless space-time.

As quirky as it gets, the beginning of time, whether through black hole or big bang (the linked article in the previous post argues for black hole as an alternative scenario of big bang), in the end could only be as mysterious as a colorblind entity chewing over the beauty of a rainbow. In seeing the reality, the time having a beginning seems a graver scenario than the case of an overarching continuum that flows eternally—simply because the earlier case incites further perplexities. The obvious one is how the time itself emerges out of nowhere. Some other blatant questions.

Arriving at the reality might take boxing of all the inputs and thinking outside the box. I would again have to pass on saying more on this here for the sake of space and post, and for the sake of you reading the book Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are We? instead.

In the earlier post I brought up the other mystifying subject that is infiltrating the bounds of scientific understanding—the emergence of consciousness in the continuum of space-time. An indispensible description, if we are to see a full meaning in the picture that has sprung from centuries of research and contemplation. Here again though we are struck with the oddity of joining a clear empirical deduction, from cosmological and quantum physics, to an order that appears to be abstractly—the nature of consciousness. We are puzzled over sewing part-science part I-don’t-know-what together.


I was looking forward to a recently held debate on the topic of Death contested between two teams of scientists, one arguing for the existence of life beyond death, and the other against. I happened not to watch the debate, but after finding out that the team against the idea won, I out of curiosity glanced bits of the video. You can watch it in Sean Carroll’s blog under the post Afterlife Aftermath. The neuroscientist who was trying to make his argument—upholding the existence of life beyond death—based on personal experience and neurological understanding belonged to the loser team [no pun intended]. The forlorn look of the neuroscientist was pitiful [not taking sides]. His struggle might have to do with our lack of scientific vocabulary to illustrate the subtleties of defining consciousness or our experiences, which could, in the end, provide a full picture of reality. The reality that science proves and we feel confounded about.

But in the end, in understanding the uttermost reality, the question of us or consciousness undeniably leads to the query of the truest nature of self. Read on Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are we?

Ultimately “making-sense” becomes foundational after certain threshold of “proving” is attained, for us to move forward, on scientific ground or otherwise. And basically it is “making sense,” at a common level, that not only authenticates but also translates the empirical doctrines.

All reasoning welcome,


Share this:

Proving it or Making Sense, Part 1

Scientific Argumentation and Universal Logic in understanding the Universe

In the spirit of garnering enthusiasm for the just published book Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are We?, today we will try to sniff a little on what actually lies in the details of such an overarching theme of this title. I had written the following post a short while ago, but perhaps it just waited in the hard drive to be utilized today. The post is exceedingly fitting to our purpose today, which is to gain an overall sense of what this title truly imparts. And to meet that purpose, when relevant, I edit/extend the original post to accommodate the elements of this title. Here we go.

Proving it and making sense. Ideally, doing the first would inherently execute the other. Like Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Mass-energy conforms to the force of gravity. Sharp, brilliant, beautiful, fitting, and so much makes sense. Even though we do not directly see it, those who plunge to cogitate of it, visualize it perfectly well, and be thrilled with it—scientist, non-scientist, alike. But such is not the case with many other doctrines that stem to explain the reality of the universe. Even though these advanced theories are built upon rigorous foundations, and have stood firm against the test of decades of trials and verifications, when we sight at the universe directly face-to-face “making sense” part goes awry. “Making sense” falls apart from “proving it.”

The big topics that bring in the foundational details of the universe remain though clearly apparent on scientific footing, a little, sometimes a lot, obscure in reference to the way universe appears to us. Some such subjects are the beat of antimatter, the prodigious expansion of universe, the undulations of quantum world, and the deployment of symmetry in all aspects of nature. In the Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are We? we will acknowledge that many of the discrepancies between cosmic and quantum planes simply lurk because of our resistance in seeing an all-encompassing picture, a flow that subsumes all the elements of reality. Cosmic and quantum aren’t two different planes, just two ways of seeing the very same reality. They are in a perfect overlap, just that quantum covers more details—in fact all the details.

For now, let’s soak in a little in the two currently trending eerie topics—for which scientists and philosophers don’t like to mix.

One is the beginning of the universe: See how the experimental findings are formulated to expose a scheme at The black hole at the beginning of the universe, in which the universe crystallized from a black hole, and where the 3-dimensionality that we encounter is a holographic illusion, projected from a hidden 4-dimensional plane. Bizarre, but no way sham. This is in fact the most accurate description that we get from mathematically weaving the empirical observations into a single portraiture. Now it is becoming so advanced that “making sense,” in reference to the universe we are aware of, is getting out of hand. And I indeed am tempted to expand more on this, but we have to keep to the post size.

For a start though, what we sense directly, like planets, stars, the entire of cosmic plane, stems from what we can sense—we have a limited perceptibility, for example, we directly sense only the small window of the full electromagnetic spectrum—the visible 400 – 700 nanometers. There are hidden aspects that our sensory receptors simply do not allow to perceive. A few well founded examples are particle and wave being the two aspects of the very same thing, mass coexisting with energy, movement and time, and the universe is unified. They are all genuine aspects of reality, deeper and detailer than what we directly sense.


The other side of the story, but along the same line is what we perceive of ourselves as? That might be a little skewed too. Both sides of the story are equally important, in order to decipher the truest texture, or to reconcile “proving it” and “making sense.” Indeed, I can already sense so many questions popped up in your mind, but if I begin to discuss all here, I would need 346 pages, and the book Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are We? will become redundant. Please feed your curiosity, and let your enthusiasm take you in a panorama where “proving it” and “making sense” become two sides of the very same coin.

The other mystifying subject that is infiltrating the bounds of scientific understanding is the reasoning of “consciousness,” or the emergence of consciousness in the continuum of space-time. But before I wear you out, I will stop here, and continue with this eerie topic in the following post.

See you all soon,


Share this:

On the TEDx talk

Now a little on the TEDxSLU talk. Indeed, the descriptions of cosmology and quantum mechanics, and how we fit and continue there was the overarching theme, but covered in a light tone to meet the TED style. Enclosed is the first slide. Interestingly, from the responses I got from the smart audience, I felt that the purity and elegance of mathematics is seemingly a bigger catch in seeing the truest reality, than the relatively jumbled descriptions of physics. Can you believe it? I surely can!

Both are indeed crucial though.

TEDxSLU_Slide1Further on toward understanding how we fit and continue by the descriptions of cosmology and quantum mechanics, in relation to the title Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are we? I will try to dish out related ideas in small chunks at the facebook page that I have just created (the publisher recommended!). Please stop by, and let me know your thoughts.

See you soon,



Share this:

Our Magnified Universe





The awe inspiring topic of Our Magnified Universe- “Wondrous Universe: Our Truth in the Window of Science” was covered in TEDxSLU (of St. Louis University), along with other inspirational and delightful speeches and performances. We all steeped ourselves in enthusiasm and thrill as we navigated through the day bustling with activities, and ideas. A lot of credit goes to the organizers, mostly from St Louis University, for charting out such a well planned event. Take a peek at their initiative and the TEDxSLU event. Subjects as diverse as leadership, genetics, human relations, and pure scientific voices made up the fabric of the program. Interspersed were vibrating shows like salsa dance.

Coming to the subject of this blog, my talk overall gave a broad perspective of the book title Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are we? i. e., How can we come up with a scheme where all scientific descriptions, cosmic or quantum, make sense, and we see ourselves to be a part of the grand continuum. Following this initiation, was the introduction of the fascinating mathematics—how mathematics acts as a glue in seeing a truly real picture. I will try to post more on this event shortly.

See you soon,


Share this:

Quantum Cosmic Uniformity

Quantum and cosmic aren’t two different landscapes of reality. Just two different ways to look at the very same (I expand this is detail in Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe). The constant bubbly jitters of quantum arena permeate all-across physicality—including the immensity of colossal cosmos. What we see is subject to what we can see via our sensory receptors. But our scientific curiosity and expedition allow us to peer into an architecture that doesn’t just tell us how the full-length reality comes to be but also how it is uniform. Indeed, even a modest progress in our methodic understanding takes decades of concept building resting on experimental observations, empirical discernments, and painstaking ratiocinations.

Einstein’s relativity was a pivotal advent in truly seeing how all the components of the universe unify and continue. But even with such clear understanding, some specifics still blurred the image. The topmost perplexity—as most of us know—is seeing the consistency between cosmic and quantum fields. And this would be a truly herculean task, especially if one is banking on authentication every step of the way. But we have made progress. Though in small steps, significant nonetheless. From times when one half-heartedly settled with quantum mechanics and astrophysics being two mutually exclusive specific subjects, we are emerging to recognize the sameness between the two—on experimental footing. This is no small deed, because hatching an experiment itself isn’t as big of a deal as envisioning the full-length dynamics, which is where experiments, theories, and concepts merge. Take a peek.

See you all,


Share this: