The Upcoming 2017 Solar Eclipse, Sweeping America on its Totality

The simple mechanics of total solar eclipse exposes deep-seated fundamentals of spacetime. Total solar eclipse occurs in an event of earth, moon, and sun alignment such that moon fully blocks out the sun, casting its shadow on earth on the zone of totality. What remains on sky is sun’s corona shimmering behind the bulbous moon: Includes a rendering imaginatively known as diamond ring. On August 21, 2017 we will transit such a mesmerizing and momentous (literally!) event, and the eclipse experts, chasers and broadcasters have their bits and takes on this. Here are some genuine picks  (1, 2) for those interested in details, and here is an interactive map of the upcoming totality. This year the ASP (Astronomical Society of the Pacific) is holding its annual meeting just for the purpose of convening the ideas and topics around the wonder of total solar eclipse, particularly toward preparing the upcoming 2017 one. Those interested in cosmic magnificence, and like to partake in grasping the nature of reality, would truly benefit from the event.

As profound as the cosmic phenomenon itself is, total solar eclipse has been pivotal in our understanding of the way universe shapes and continues, and a linchpin in rubber stamping a revolutionary theory to be a truly authentic reality. On the May 29 of 1919, an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician, Arthur Eddington, captured total solar eclipse on the island of Principe to validate Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. General relativity offered to blend gravity in the earlier picture of Einstein’s own special relativity, showing that gravity is the geometry of spacetime itself. The endeavor set out by Eddington and his team pinned the precise bending of light that occurs due to the presence of a massive body, in accordance with the principle of general relativity, thus fully endorsing Einstein’s Magnum Opus. Sun as a massive body too bends light that travel from distant stars, but we cannot verify such bending simply because sun’s intense glare blocks out the positions of distant stars. The shade of a total solar eclipse enables us to measure such deflections in the position of stars, as the sun observes its gravity.

postxi

The ramifications of general relativity are wide and far reaching, many we are still trying to fathom: From the origin of the universe to the existence of black holes (remember the fascinating Interstellar Gargantua), the phenomenon of wormhole, the prodigiously expanding universe to speculations of dark matter and dark energy to the recent detection of gravitational waves that employed state of the art technological sensitivity (10-16 cm in 4 km). General relativity has stood a century of experimental verifications, one recent with the validation of gravitational waves by LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory), and some tests are still brewing that involve extraordinary precisions to further endorse general relativity, like appraising the contortions due to the black hole at the center of our galaxy or seeing the free fall of different materials in space missions.

postxi_2

The theory has shown the way universe propels, but also made our lives efficient on a daily basis. General relativity is a part of GPS navigation that we employ every day. Two well crafted titles that shed light on this deeply enriching theory are 1) The Perfect Theory by Pedro Ferreira, and 2) Big Bang by Simon Singh.

The first real validation of general relativity was ticked by the 1919 total solar eclipse. I will be attending the ASP meeting, and in the context of total solar eclipse, I will be speaking on the fundamental architecture of spacetime that the general relativity imparted.

For those interested in cosmic mechanics, deeper universal structure, or just scientific outreach to a wider community, it will be a good venue to participate and connect.

See you soon,

Neeti.

Share this:

Einstein in Fiction

Starting with the elegance of mathematics, here is an article the followers of mathematics will like—the true patrons of ‪mathematics see its reality in the deep-seated concepts.

At the Book Expo America in Chicago this year, as I explored flamboyant publishing setups and flashy book banners, an interesting title The Other Einstein caught my attention, and I was pulled in. After noting that the title refers to Einstein’s wife Mitza Maric as the other Einstein, and that the story narrates of her own potentials in understanding the ways of spacetime that Albert Einstein set forth, I became somewhat curious. I decided to meet up with the author. Even though the book itself is a novel, for it touches spotless territory of spacetime that Einstein established, the story can be seen as rather bold. Anyway, there I was, inquisitive enough to get a copy.

OtherEinstein    PostIX

As I was handed a copy, I spoke briefly with the author on fictionalizing a landscape that is so firmly established and deeply revered, by scientists and laymen alike. The author had her takes on it for the extent of fictionalization, and I was curious enough to give it a try. Fiction isn’t my usual read. Barring a very few known titles, like by Paulo Coelho for instance, I haven’t read much in current fiction. As I said The Other Einstein drew me in, first to just get a copy at the BEA, and then to read it, for the obvious reason. Not only do I have a background in physics, I am an ardent proponent of physics and mathematics for exposing the reality we live in. And for these reasons I am deeply aware of Einstein’s contributions and his legacy, so much so that for me to see that his special relativity theory is referred as being conceived by someone else—even in fiction—seems almost sacrilegious. Having said that, the story is crafted well, and once I started it I was hooked to finish. If the aim was to formulate a page-turner, the title has it.

For us scientists it might have been nicer if the extent of fictionalization was in some way hinted. To the author’s acknowledgement, this fiction weaved some of the real historical bits—time, space etc. Author’s  efforts in assimilating Einstein’s theories, and the scientific structures on which they rest, as it’s penned in the fabric of storyline, is certainly appreciable.

But the aficionados of pure physics/mathematics, or the sincere advocates of Einstein’s efforts, aren’t probably its best readership target.

See you all soon,

Neeti.

Share this:

Nonfiction Science

Pleased to see a sizable enthusiasm for the title Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are We? I had set a giveaway at the Goodreads, and was charmed to see so many avid readers of nonfiction science entered, while many tagged the title as to-be-read. I with fervor packaged individual copies, included short notes, and mailed them off. So yes the 10 winners should be receiving their copies shortly. It’s on the way. A short recap, the title discusses an overarching scheme of how the universe and its parallel forms, exist and continue, and how we ourselves are part of the continuum that physical sciences reverberate.

IMG_0108

I am still getting familiar with the Goodreads, and it is nice to find abundant science titles covered there, including many currently prominent science author profiles marking the widespread landscape of readership from all genres. Science surely has caught on as a choice read in recent times. Not science fiction, but the real hard core nonfiction science. If we cover its depths, the real science is far more awe inspiring, even mystical. Go into the depths of quantum mechanics, and you will see what I am implying. This isn’t to say that the creativity of fiction science is redundant. Fiction lets mind wander wherever it wants to wander. Nonfiction on the other hand gives so many fresh perspectives, and insights. Do take a look at the Goodreads for nonfiction. You may start from the few books I just commented on.

Popularity of nonfiction science isn’t as across-the-board on other places. I recently attended the illustrious Book Expo America 2016—mostly because my title Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe was included for display at the Archway Publishing booth. Thousands of titles emblazoned the most prolific of booths—Simon and Schuster, Penguin, Random House, Harper Collins. A few nonfiction non-science titles caught my attention enough for me to mark them as to-be-read, and I have already read a couple of them, and they are engaging. But mostly, by nature and choice, I was inclined to scavenge for scientific tiles there. Thus the University booths, Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, Chicago, Basic Books (known for publishing popular science titles in physical science; I have some very good titles from them) and a few others were a definite targets to be explored bit by bit. And I did get a bunch of interesting reads, and some good math fun books, but mostly hard core science (even popular) was missing across the whole show. The ones included were either in youth section, or very toned down popular. We need to go a little way to build up the real science ardor. I was swept with a feeling that my title at the Archway Publishing was perhaps the only one that extended into the serious scenes of physics and mathematics. I would still call it popular science. At the Simon and Schuster – Archway Publishing authors reception on the day two of the event, a few authors did tell me that they are going to read it!

PostIX

See you all soon,

Neeti.

Share this:

Mini Takes on Titles I Recently Read

The Universe in the Rearview Mirror: How Hidden Symmetries Shape RealityThe Universe in the Rearview Mirror: How Hidden Symmetries Shape Reality by Dave Goldberg

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Liked the mathematical connotation, and the broad overview, not so much of toning down to meet extensive readership, but understandable for a popular genre.

Unknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of AlgebraUnknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of Algebra by John Derbyshire

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Methodically done. Crisply portrayed. Framed for general audience (must love mathematics though) yet doesn’t dampen down on analytical rigor.

When Breath Becomes AirWhen Breath Becomes Air by Paul Kalanithi

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Deeply heartening, and hauntingly gripping. Out of the two main sections–one on the personal experience with medicine, practice, and residency, and the later on his transition between life and death–the later stands out to be utterly original, and consummately engaging, for its strength, beauty, determination, and melody in the face of life that displayed its end.

For the messages in the first section, I happen to see a clearer dynamics via Atul Gawande’s titles, especially “Being Mortal.” The text although is delicately literary.

An Invisible Thread: The True Story of an 11-Year-Old Panhandler, a Busy Sales Executive, and an Unlikely Meeting with DestinyAn Invisible Thread: The True Story of an 11-Year-Old Panhandler, a Busy Sales Executive, and an Unlikely Meeting with Destiny by Laura Schroff

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Nice warm story. Well done narrative, but at times excess on religious overtone.

Also it’s good to know that 626 people so far requested the title: Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe: Who Are We?

Goodreads Book Giveaway

Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe by Neeti Sinha

Physical Laws of the Mathematical Universe

by Neeti Sinha

Giveaway ends May 24, 2016.

See the giveaway details
at Goodreads.

Enter Giveaway

Be back shortly,
Neeti.

Share this:

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.

IMG_0041_TwitterIMG_FacebookIMG_LinkedIn

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 nsinha@magnifieduniverse.com, or writemailac@yahoo.com.

Thanks!

See you all soon,

Neeti.

 

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: www.magnifieduniverse.com/aboutbook)

“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,

FigVI

              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.

Interstellar

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.

FigV

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…

Neeti.

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.

FigIV

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,

Neeti

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.

PostIII_Figure

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,

Neeti

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.

PostII_Figure

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,

Neeti.

Share this: