Animals have different sensory capabilities compared to us humans. Cats, उदाहरण के लिए, can hear up to 60kHz, while the highest note we have ever heard was about 20kHz. जाहिर है, we could hear that high a note only in our childhood. इतना, if we are trying to pull a fast one on a cat with the best hifi multi-channel, Dolby-whatever recording of a mouse, we will fail pathetically. It won’t be fooled because it lives in a different sensory world, while sharing the same physical world as ours. There is a humongous difference between the sensory and physical worlds.
Tell us a little about why you started your blog, and what keeps you motivated about it.
As my writings started appearing in different magazines and newspapers as regular columns, I wanted to collect them in one place — as an anthology of the internet kind, यों कहिये. That’s how my blog was born. The motivation to continue blogging comes from the memory of how my first book, अवास्तविक यूनिवर्स, took shape out of the random notes I started writing on scrap books. I believe the ideas that cross anybody’s mind often get forgotten and lost unless they are written down. A blog is a convenient platform to put them down. और, since the blog is rather public, you take some care and effort to express yourself well.
Do you have any plans for the blog in the future?
I will keep blogging, roughly at the rate of one post a week or so. I don’t have any big plans for the blog per se, but I do have some other Internet ideas that may spring from my blog.
Philosophy is usually seen as a very high concept, intellectual subject. Do you think that it can have a greater impact in the world at large?
This is a question that troubled me for a while. And I wrote a post on it, which may answer it to the best of my ability. To repeat myself a bit, philosophy is merely a description of whatever intellectual pursuits that we indulge in. It is just that we don’t often see it that way. उदाहरण के लिए, if you are doing physics, you think that you are quite far removed from philosophy. The philosophical spins that you put on a theory in physics is mostly an afterthought, it is believed. But there are instances where you can actually apply philosophy to solve problems in physics, and come up with new theories. This indeed is the theme of my book, अवास्तविक यूनिवर्स. It asks the question, if some object flew by faster than the speed of light, what would it look like? With the recent discovery that solid matter does travel faster than light, I feel vindicated and look forward to further developments in physics.
Do you think many college students are attracted to philosophy? What would make them choose to major in it?
आज की दुनिया में, I am afraid philosophy is supremely irrelevant. So it may be difficult to get our youngsters interested in philosophy. I feel that one can hope to improve its relevance by pointing out the interconnections between whatever it is that we do and the intellectual aspects behind it. Would that make them choose to major in it? In a world driven by excesses, it may not be enough. तो फिर, it is world where articulation is often mistaken for accomplishments. Perhaps philosophy can help you articulate better, sound really cool and impress that girl you have been after — to put it crudely.
More seriously, हालांकि, what I said about the irrelevance of philosophy can be said about, कहना, physics as well, despite the fact that it gives you computers and iPads. उदाहरण के लिए, when Copernicus came up with the notion that the earth is revolving around the sun rather than the other way round, profound though this revelation was, in what way did it change our daily life? Do you really have to know this piece of information to live your life? This irrelevance of such profound facts and theories bothered scientists like Richard Feynman.
What kind of advice or recommendations would you give to someone who is interested in philosophy, and who would like to start learning more about it?
I started my path toward philosophy via physics. I think philosophy by itself is too detached from anything else that you cannot really start with it. You have to find your way toward it from whatever your work entails, and then expand from there. कम से कम, that’s how I did it, and that way made it very real. When you ask yourself a question like what is space (so that you can understand what it means to say that space contracts, उदाहरण के लिए), the answers you get are very relevant. They are not some philosophical gibberish. I think similar paths to relevance exist in all fields. See for example how Pirsig brought out the notion of quality in his work, not as an abstract definition, but as an all-consuming (and eventually dangerous) obsession.
मेरे विचार में, philosophy is a wrapper around multiple silos of human endeavor. It helps you see the links among seemingly unrelated fields, such as cognitive neuroscience and special relativity. Of what practical use is this knowledge, I cannot tell you. तो फिर, of what practical use is life itself?
क्या इसकी गति अंतरिक्ष और समय और हमारी सच्चाई के बुनियादी ढांचे में लगाना चाहिए कि प्रकाश के बारे में इतना खास है? This is the question that has nagged many scientists ever since Albert Einstein published On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies about 100 years ago.
In order to understand the specialness of light in our space and time, we need to study how we perceive the world around us and how reality is created in our brains. We perceive our world using our senses. The sensory signals that our senses collect are then relayed to our brains. मस्तिष्क एक संज्ञानात्मक मॉडल बनाता है, संवेदी आदानों का प्रतिनिधित्व, और वास्तविकता के रूप में हमारे होश में जागरूकता के लिए प्रस्तुत. Our visual reality consists of space much like our auditory world is made up of sounds.
Just as sounds are a perceptual experience rather than a fundamental property of the physical reality, अंतरिक्ष भी एक अनुभव है, या दृश्य आदानों की एक संज्ञानात्मक प्रतिनिधित्व, की नहीं एक मूलभूत पहलू “the world” our senses are trying to sense.
अंतरिक्ष और समय एक साथ भौतिकी वास्तविकता के आधार मानता है क्या फार्म. The only way we can understand the limitations in our reality is by studying the limitations in our senses themselves.
एक बुनियादी स्तर पर, कैसे हमारी इंद्रियों से काम करना? दृष्टि की हमारी समझ में प्रकाश का उपयोग कर संचालित, और दृष्टि में शामिल मौलिक बातचीत विद्युत चुम्बकीय में गिर जाता है (में) श्रेणी क्योंकि प्रकाश (या फोटोन) ईएम बातचीत के मध्यस्थ है. The exclusivity of EM interaction is not limited to our the long range sense of sight; all the short range senses (स्पर्श, स्वाद, गंध और सुनवाई) ईएम प्रकृति में भी कर रहे हैं. अंतरिक्ष के बारे में हमारी धारणा की सीमाओं को समझना, हम हमारे सभी इंद्रियों के ईएम प्रकृति को उजागर नहीं की जरूरत है. स्पेस है, द्वारा और बड़े, हमारी दृष्टि भावना का परिणाम. लेकिन यह हम नहीं संवेदन होता है कि मन में रखने के लिए सार्थक है, और वास्तव में कोई वास्तविकता, ईएम बातचीत के अभाव में.
हमारी इंद्रियों की तरह, हमारे होश में हमारे सभी तकनीकी एक्सटेंशन (ऐसे रेडियो दूरबीनों के रूप में, इलेक्ट्रॉन माइक्रोस्कोप, redshift measurements and even gravitational lensing) हमारे ब्रह्मांड को मापने के लिए विशेष रूप से ईएम बातचीत का उपयोग. इस प्रकार, हम हम आधुनिक उपकरणों का उपयोग भी जब हमारी धारणा का बुनियादी बाधाओं से बच नहीं सकते. हबल दूरबीन हमारे नग्न आँखों से एक अरब प्रकाश वर्ष दूर देख सकते हैं, लेकिन क्या यह देखता है अभी भी हमारी आंखों क्या देखते हैं की तुलना में एक अरब साल पुराना है. Our perceived reality, प्रत्यक्ष संवेदी आदानों पर बनाया जाए या तकनीकी रूप से बढ़ाया, is a subset of electromagnetic particles and interactions only. It is a projection of EM particles and interactions into our sensory and cognitive space, a possibly imperfect projection.
This statement about the exclusivity of EM interactions in our perceived reality is often met with a bit of skepticism, mainly due to a misconception that we can sense gravity directly. इस भ्रम से हमारे शरीर के गुरुत्वाकर्षण के अधीन हैं क्योंकि उठता. एक ठीक भेद के बीच है “के अधीन किया जा रहा है” और “समझ में सक्षम किया जा रहा है” गुरुत्वाकर्षण बल.
This difference is illustrated by a simple thought experiment: Imagine a human subject placed in front of an object made entirely of cosmological dark matter. There is no other visible matter anywhere the subject can see it. Given that the dark matter exerts gravitational force on the subject, will he be able to sense its presence? He will be pulled toward it, but how will he know that he is being pulled or that he is moving? He can possibly design some mechanical contraption to detect the gravity of the dark matter object. But then he will be sensing the effect of gravity on some matter using EM interactions. उदाहरण के लिए, he may be able to see his unexplained acceleration (effect of gravity on his body, which is EM matter) with respect to reference objects such as stars. But the sensing part here (seeing the stars) involves EM interactions.
It is impossible to design any mechanical contraption to detect gravity that is devoid of EM matter. The gravity sensing in our ears again measures the effect of gravity on EM matter. ईएम बातचीत के अभाव में, यह गुरुत्वाकर्षण भावना के लिए असंभव है, या उस बात के लिए कुछ और.
Electromagnetic interactions are responsible for our sensory inputs. Sensory perception leads to our brain’s representation that we call reality. Any limitation in this chain leads to a corresponding limitation in our sense of reality. One limitation in the chain from senses to reality is the finite speed of photon, हमारी इंद्रियों का गेज बोसॉन जो है. भावना साधन प्रभाव और के सीमित गति गति के बारे में हमारी धारणा को विकृत, अंतरिक्ष और समय. इन विकृतियों हमारी सच्चाई के ही एक भाग के रूप में माना जाता है क्योंकि, विरूपण की जड़ हमारी सच्चाई की एक मौलिक संपत्ति बन जाता है. This is how the speed of light becomes such an important constant in our space time. The sanctity of light is respected only in our perceived reality.
If we trust the imperfect perception and try to describe what we sense at cosmological scales, we end up with views of the world such as the big bang theory in modern cosmology and the general and special theories of relativity. These theories are not wrong, and the purpose of this book is not to prove them wrong, just to point out that they are descriptions of a perceived reality. They do not describe the physical causes behind the sensory inputs. The physical causes belong to an absolute reality beyond our senses.
The distinction between the absolute reality and our perception of it can be further developed and applied to certain specific astrophysical और cosmological phenomena. When it comes to the physics that happens well beyond our sensory ranges, हम वास्तव में खाते में भूमिका लेने के लिए है कि उन्हें देखने में हमारी धारणा और अनुभूति खेलने. The universe as we see it is only a cognitive model created out of the photons falling on our retina or on the photo sensors of the Hubble telescope. क्योंकि जानकारी वाहक के सीमित गति की (अर्थात् फोटॉनों), हमारी धारणा अमेरिकी अंतरिक्ष और समय विशेष सापेक्षता का पालन करना है कि प्रभाव देने के लिए इस तरह के रूप में विकृत है. वे करते हैं, लेकिन स्थान और समय निरपेक्ष वास्तविकता नहीं कर रहे हैं. They are only a part of the unreal universe that is our perception of an unknowable reality.
[This again is an edited excerpt from my book, अवास्तविक यूनिवर्स.]