It is a sensible question: What does it feel like to be a bat? Although we can never really know the answer (because we can never be bats), we know that there is an answer. It feels like something to be a bat. 好, at least we think it does. We think bats have 意识 and conscious feelings. 另一方面, it is not a sensible question to ask what it feels like to be brick or a table. It doesn’t feel like anything to be an inanimate object.
Starting from his miraculous year of 1905, Einstein has dominated physics with his astonishing insights on space and time, and on mass and gravity. 真, there have been other physicists who, with their own brilliance, have shaped and moved modern physics in directions that even Einstein couldn’t have foreseen; and I don’t mean to trivialize neither their intellectual achievements nor our giant leaps in physics and technology. But all of modern physics, even the bizarre reality of quantum mechanics, which Einstein himself couldn’t quite come to terms with, is built on his insights. It is on his shoulders that those who came after him stood for over a century now.
One of the brighter ones among those who came after Einstein cautioned us to guard against our blind faith in the infallibility of old masters. Taking my cue from that insight, í, 一, think that Einstein’s century is behind us now. 我知道, coming from a non-practicing physicist, who sold his soul to the finance industry, this declaration sounds crazy. Delusional even. But I do have my reasons to see Einstein’s ideas go.
Let’s start with this picture of a dot flying along a straight line (on the ceiling, so to speak). You are standing at the centre of the line in the bottom (on the floor, 就是说). If the dot was moving faster than light, how would you see it? 好, you wouldn’t see anything at all until the first ray of light from the dot reaches you. As the animation shows, the first ray will reach you when the dot is somewhere almost directly above you. The next rays you would see actually come from two different points in the line of flight of the dot — one before the first point, and one after. 因此，, the way you would see it is, incredible as it may seem to you at first, as one dot appearing out of nowhere and then splitting and moving rather symmetrically away from that point. (It is just that the dot is flying so fast that by the time you get to see it, it is already gone past you, and the rays from both behind and ahead reach you at the same instant in time.Hope that statement makes it clearer, rather than more confusing.).
Why did I start with this animation of how the illusion of a symmetric object can happen? 好, we see a lot of active symmetric structures in the universe. 例如, look at this picture of Cygnus A. There is a “core” from which seem to emanate “features” that float away to the “lobes.” Doesn’t it look remarkably similar to what we would see based on the animation above? There are other examples in which some feature points or knots seem to move away from the core where they first appear at. We could come up with a clever model based on superluminality and how it would create illusionary symmetric objects in the heavens. We could, but nobody would believe us — because of Einstein. I know this — I tried to get my old physicist friends to consider this model. The response is always some variant of this, “Interesting, but it cannot work. It violates Lorentz invariance, 不会吧?” LV being physics talk for Einstein’s insistence that nothing should go faster than light. Now that neutrinos can violate LV, why not me?
当然, if it was only a qualitative agreement between symmetric shapes and superluminal celestial objects, my physics friends are right in ignoring me. There is much more. The lobes in Cygnus A, 例如, emit radiation in the radio frequency range. 事实上, the sky as seen from a radio telescope looks materially different from what we see from an optical telescope. I could show that the spectral evolution of the radiation from this superluminal object fitted nicely with AGNs and another class of astrophysical phenomena, hitherto considered unrelated, called gamma ray bursts. 事实上, I managed to publish this model a while ago under the title, “为无线电源和伽玛射线暴管腔围油栏?“.
你看, I need superluminality. Einstein being wrong is a pre-requisite of my being right. So it is the most respected scientist ever vs. yours faithfully, a blogger of the unreal kind. You do the math. 🙂
Such long odds, 然而，, have never discouraged me, and I always rush in where the wiser angels fear to tread. So let me point out a couple of inconsistencies in SR. The derivation of the theory starts off by pointing out the effects of light travel time in time measurements. And later on in the theory, the distortions due to light travel time effects become part of the properties of space and time. (事实上, light travel time effects will make it impossible to have a superluminal dot on a ceiling, as in my animation above — not even a virtual one, where you take a laser pointer and turn it fast enough that the laser dot on the ceiling would move faster than light. It won’t.) 但, as the theory is understood and practiced now, the light travel time effects are to be applied on top of the space and time distortions (which were due to the light travel time effects to begin with)! Physicists turn a blind eye to this glaring inconstancy because SR “作品” — as I made very clear in my previous post in this series.
Another philosophical problem with the theory is that it is not testable. 我知道, I alluded to a large body of proof in its favor, but fundamentally, the special theory of relativity makes predictions about a uniformly moving frame of reference in the absence of gravity. There is no such thing. Even if there was, in order to verify the predictions (that a moving clock runs slower as in the twin paradox, 例如), you have to have acceleration somewhere in the verification process. Two clocks will have to come back to the same point to compare time. The moment you do that, at least one of the clocks has accelerated, and the proponents of the theory would say, “Ah, there is no problem here, the symmetry between the clocks is broken because of the acceleration.” People have argued back and forth about such thought experiments for an entire century, so I don’t want to get into it. I just want to point out that theory by itself is untestable, which should also mean that it is unprovable. Now that there is direct experimental evidence against the theory, may be people will take a closer look at these inconsistencies and decide that it is time to say bye-bye to Einstein.
Nothing would satisfy my anarchical mind more than to see the Special Theory of Relativity (SR) come tumbling down. 事实上, I believe that there are compelling reasons to consider SR inaccurate, if not actually wrong, although the physics community would have none of that. I will list my misgivings vis-a-vis SR and present my case against it as the last post in this series, but in this one, I would like to explore why it is so difficult to toss SR out the window.
The special theory of relativity is an extremely well-tested theory. Despite my personal reservations about it, the body of proof for the validity of SR is really enormous and the theory has stood the test of time — at least so far. But it is the integration of SR into the rest of modern physics that makes it all but impossible to write it off as a failed theory. In experimental high energy physics, 例如, we compute the rest mass of a particle as its identifying statistical signature. The way it works is this: in order to discover a heavy particle, you first detect its daughter particles (decay products, 就是说), measure their energies and momenta, add them up (如 “4-vectors”), and compute the invariant mass of the system as the modulus of the aggregate energy-momentum vector. In accordance with SR, the invariant mass is the rest mass of the parent particle. You do this for many thousands of times and make a distribution (á “histogram”) and detect any statistically significant excess at any mass. Such an excess is the signature of the parent particle at that mass.
Almost every one of the particles in the particle data book that we know and love is detected using some variant of this method. So the whole Standard Model of particle physics is built on SR. 事实上, almost all of modern physics (physics of the 20th century) is built on it. On the theory side, in the thirties, Dirac derived a framework to describe electrons. It combined SR and quantum mechanics in an elegant framework and predicted the existence of positrons, which bore out later on. Although considered incomplete because of its lack of sound physical backdrop, 此 “second quantization” and its subsequent experimental verification can be rightly seen as evidence for the rightness of SR.
Feynman took it further and completed the quantum electrodynamics (QED), which has been the most rigorously tested theory ever. To digress a bit, Feynman was once being shown around at CERN, and the guide (probably a prominent physicist himself) was explaining the experiments, their objectives etc. Then the guide suddenly remembered who he was talking to; 毕竟, most of the CERN experiments were based on Feynman’s QED. Embarrassed, 他说：, “当然, Dr. Feynman, you know all this. These are all to verify your predictions.” Feynman quipped, “为什么, you don’t trust me?!” To get back to my point and reiterate it, the whole edifice of the standard model of particle physics is built on top of SR. Its success alone is enough to make it impossible for modern physics to discard SR.
所以, if you take away SR, you don’t have the Standard Model and QED, and you don’t know how accelerator experiments and nuclear bombs work. The fact that they do is proof enough for the validity of SR, because the alternative (that we managed to build all these things without really knowing how they work) is just too weird. It’s not just the exotic (nuclear weaponry and CERN experiments), but the mundane that should convince us. Fluorescent lighting, laser pointers, LED, 电脑, mobile phones, GPS navigators, iPads — in short, all of modern technology is, in some way, a confirmation of SR.
So the OPERA result on observed superluminalily has to be wrong. But I would like it to be right. And I will explain why in my next post. Why everything we accept as a verification of SR could be a case of mass delusion — almost literally. 敬请关注!
由于我的文章开始出现在不同的杂志和报纸， 常规列, 我想收集他们在一个地方 — 随着互联网的一种选集, 因为它是. 这是我的博客是如何诞生. 继续写博客的动机来自于如何我的第一本书的记忆, 虚幻宇宙, 初具规模出来的散记，我开始写在废旧书. 我认为，跨任何人的脑海里时常被人遗忘和丢失，除非它们都写下来的想法. 博客是一个方便的平台把他们失望. 和, 因为博客是相当公开, 你采取一些照顾和精力来表达自己好.
我会继续写博客, 大约在一个星期一个职位左右的速度. 我没有对博客本身有什么大计划, 但我确实有一些其他的互联网的想法，可能春天从我的博客.
哲学通常被视为一个非常高的概念, 知识产权主题. 你认为它可以在整个世界的影响更大?
这是一个问题，困扰了我一段时间. 我写 上一个帖子, 它可以回答这个问题，尽我的能力. 重复自己有点, 哲学只是什么知识的追求，我们尽情享受的说明. 这只是我们不经常这么认为. 例如, 如果你正在做物理, 你认为你是很远从哲学中删除. 那你把物理学理论的哲学自旋主要是一种事后的想法, 据信. 但有些情况下，你其实可以 应用 理念，以解决物理问题, 并提出了新的理论. 这的确是我的书的主题, 虚幻宇宙. 它要求的问题, 如果某个对象飞过比光速更快, 会是什么模样? 随着最近的发现，即 固体物质确实比光更快, 我觉得自己平反，并期待着在物理学的进一步发展.
在今天的世界, 恐怕理念是超级无关. 因此，它可能很难让我们的青少年对哲学感兴趣. 我觉得我们可以希望通过指出任何的是，我们做的和互连的智力方面背后，以提高其相关性. 这会让他们选择主修它? 在这个世界上被过度驱动, 它可能是不够. 然后再, 它是世界上清晰度常被误认为是成就. 也许，哲学能够帮助你更好地表达, 听起来真的很酷，打动了女孩，你已经经过 — 说句不好听.
更为严重的是, 虽然, 我所说的关于哲学的不相关性可以说一下, 说, 物理学以及, 尽管它给你的电脑和iPad. 例如, 当哥白尼提出了这样的观念：地球围绕着太阳，而不是倒过来, 深刻的，虽然这个启示是, 以什么方式是改变我们的日常生活? 你真的需要知道这条信息给你的生活? 这种深刻的事实和理论这无关困扰科学家，如理查德·费曼.
我通过物理开始了我的道路走向哲学. 我认为哲学本身是其他任何东西，你不能真正开始使用它太超然. 你必须找到自己的方式向它无论你的工作包括, 然后从那里展开. 至少, 这就是我是如何做到的, 而这种方式使得它非常真实. 当你问自己这样一个问题 什么是空间 (这样就可以了解它的意思是说，太空合同, 例如), 你得到的答案是非常相关的. 他们不是一些哲学乱码. 我想类似的路径相关性在各个领域存在. 例如参见如何 Pirsig 带出了质量的概念在他的工作, 不再是一个抽象的定义, 但作为一个全消耗 (并最终危险) 痴迷.
In my view, 哲学是围绕人类努力的多个孤岛包装. 它可以帮助你看到各种看似不相关的领域的联系, such as 认知神经科学与狭义相对论. 什么实际的用途是这方面的知识, 我不能告诉你. 然后再, 什么实际用途是生活本身?
我们知道，我们的宇宙是一个有点不真实. 星星，我们在夜空中看到, 例如, 是不是真的有. 他们可能已移动，甚至通过我们能看到他们的死亡时间. 这需要时间的光从遥远的恒星和星系旅行找到我们. 我们知道这种延迟. 我们现在看到的太阳已经被我们看到它的时候8分钟老, 这是不是一个大问题. 如果我们想知道什么是太阳现在继续, 所有我们需要做的就是等待八分钟. 不过, 我们确实有 “正确” 在我们的感知的延迟，由于光线的有限速度，才可以相信我们所看到的.
现在, 这种效应引发了一个有趣的问题 — 是什么 “实” 我们所看到的东西? 如果 眼见为实, 我们所看到的东西，应该是真实的东西. 然后再, 我们知道光出行时间效应. 因此，我们应该纠正一下，我们相信它之前看到. 那么是什么呢 “看” 意思? 当我们说我们看到的东西, 什么我们真正的意思?
眼看涉及光, 显然. 它是有限 (尽管非常高) 光的影响和速度歪曲我们看待事物的方式, 像看到像星星对象的延迟. 令人惊讶 (而很少强调) 是，当涉及到 看到移动的物体, 我们不能后台计算看不到太阳，我们采取了拖延的方式相同. 如果我们看到一个天体运动以罢课高速, 我们无法弄清楚它是如何快速和方向 “真” 移动未做进一步的假设，. 处理这种困难的一种方法是归于我们感知的扭曲物理学竞技场的基本性质 — 空间和时间. 另一个途径是接受我们的感知和底层之间的断线 “现实” 并处理它以某种方式.
我们看到的是什么了没有不知道的许多思想哲学流派之间的这种脱节. 现象学, 例如, 认为，空间和时间是不客观的现实. 他们只是我们的感知中. 所有这一切发生在时间和空间的现象仅仅是捆绑了我们的看法. 换句话说, 空间和时间是从知觉所产生的认知结构. 因此，, 所有我们所归诸于空间和时间的物理特性只适用于以惊人的现实 (当我们感觉到它的现实). 本体的现实 (持有我们的感知的物理原因), 相比之下, 仍超出了我们的认知范围.
一, 几乎是偶然, 很难重新定义为光的空间和时间属性的有限速度的影响是，我们明白任何影响被迅速转移到光幻想的境界. 例如, 在看到太阳的八分钟的延迟, 因为我们可以很容易地理解和使用简单的算术，从我们的看法是撇清, 被认为是单纯的错觉. 然而, 在我们的观念中快速移动的物体扭曲, 尽管源自同一源被认为是空间和时间的属性，因为它们是更复杂. 在一些点, 我们必须达成协议的事实，当谈到看到宇宙, 有没有这样的事，作为一个错觉, 这也许正是歌德指出，当他说, “错觉是光的真理。”
的区别 (或缺乏) 光学幻觉和真实之间，在哲学最古老的话题之一. 毕竟, 它是关于知识与现实之间的区别. 知识被认为是我们认为对的东西，, 在现实中, 是 “其实并非如此。” 换句话说, 知识是一种体现, 或外部的东西精神的形象. 在这张照片, 外部的现实经历成为我们的知识的过程, 其中包括感知, 认知活动, 并实行纯粹理性. 这是图片物理学已经接受. 虽然承认了我们的看法可能是不完美的, 物理学假设，我们可以打通越来越精细的实验密切的外部现实, 和, 更重要的是, 通过更好的理论化. 相对论的特殊和一般的理论是这一观点的现实在那里简单的物理原理，采用纯理性的强大机器的逻辑必然的结论，不懈地追求绚丽的应用实例.
但还有另一种, 知识和现实竞争的观点已经存在了很长一段时间. 这是关于感知的现实，我们的感官输入的内部认知表示看法. 在此视图中, 知识和感知的现实是内部认知结构, 虽然我们都来把它们作为单独的. 什么是外部并不现实，因为我们认为它, 但一个不可知的实体后面感觉输入的物理原因引起. 在这所学校的思想, 我们有两种建立我们的现实, 经常重叠, 步骤. 所述第一步骤包括感测方法的, 而第二个是，认知和逻辑推理. 我们可以把这个观点的现实和知识的科学, 但为了做到, 大家纷纷猜测绝对现实的本质, 不可知的，因为它是.
上述这两种不同的哲学立场的影响是巨大的. 由于现代物理学已经接受了时间和空间的非现象学观点, 它发现自己不符合哲学的一个分支，. 哲学和物理学之间的鸿沟已经发展到这种程度，诺贝尔得奖物理学家, 史蒂芬温伯格, 想知道 (在他的书 “终极理论之梦”) 为什么从哲学到物理学的贡献一直这么小得惊人. 这也提示哲学家做出类似声明, “无论是“本体的现实导致惊人的现实’ 还是“本体的现实是独立于我们的感知它’ 还是“我们感觉到现实的本体,’ 问题仍然是本体现实的概念，是一个完全冗余的概念，科学的分析。”
从认知神经科学的角度, 我们看到的一切, 感, 感受和思考，是我们大脑中的神经元相互联系和微小的电信号在他们的结果. 这种观点一定是正确的. 还有什么? 我们所有的思念与牵挂, 知识和信仰, 自我与现实, 生死 — 一切都在一个仅仅纹状体神经元半公斤糊糊, 我们称我们的大脑的灰色物质. 有没有别的. 无!
事实上, 这种观点实际上在神经科学的现象主义的确切回音, 它认为一切都感觉或心理构造的包. 空间和时间也认知结构在我们的大脑, 和其他事物一样. 他们是精神的图片我们的大脑编造出来的，我们的感官接收感觉输入. 从我们的感官知觉产生，我们的认知过程制造, 时空连续体是物理学的舞台. 我们所有的感官, 眼前是目前占主导地位. 感官输入映入眼帘的是光. 在由大脑创造出来的光落在我们的视网膜空间 (或在哈勃望远镜的光传感器), 这是一个惊喜，没有什么能比光速?
这个哲学立场是我的书的基础, 虚幻宇宙, 它探讨了共同的线索结合物理学和哲学. 这样的哲学沉思通常会得到来自美国物理学家一个坏名声. 物理学家, 哲学是一个完全不同的领域, 知识的另一种筒仓, 它拥有无以他们的努力相关性. 我们需要改变这个信念，欣赏不同的知识孤岛之间的重叠. 正是在这种重叠，我们可以期望找到在人类思想的重大突破.
扭曲光线和现实的故事是，我们似乎已经知道这一切很长一段时间. 古典哲学流派似乎已经沿着线非常相似，爱因斯坦的思想推理. 光在创造我们的现实，还是宇宙中的角色是西方宗教思想的心脏. 宇宙缺乏光线的不只是您已经关掉了灯的世界. 这的确是一个宇宙缺乏自身, 一个不存在的宇宙. 正是在这种背景下，我们必须明白的声明背后的智慧 “该地是, 和无效的” 直到神使光线是, 说 “要有光。”
可兰经也说, “真主是天地之光,” 这是反映在古印度的著作之一: “从黑暗走向光明带领我, 从虚幻到真实带领我。” 光从虚幻的虚空把我们的角色 (虚无) 以现实确实理解了很长, 很久. 难道古代的圣人和先知知道的事情，我们现在才开始发现我们所有的知识应该进步?
我知道我可能会急于在天使不敢涉足, 对于重新诠释经文是一个危险的游戏. 这种外来的解释很少欢迎在神学界. 不过，我投靠的是，我要找同意灵性哲学的形而上学的观点, 而不削弱其神秘和神学的价值.
在现象论和本体的，显着的区别之间的相似之处 婆罗门玛雅 区别 不二 难以忽视. 现实上，从精神的剧目自然这个经过时间考验的智慧正在重塑现代神经科学, 它把现实，由大脑产生一种认知表征. 大脑使用感觉输入, 内存, 意识, 甚至语言成分在炮制我们的现实感. 这种观点的现实, 然而，, 是物理的东西是没有来的条款. 但是在某种程度上，它的舞台 (空间和时间) 是现实的一部分, 物理学是不能幸免的哲学.
由于我们的知识的界限推向越走越, 我们开始发现人类努力的不同分支之间迄今没有料到，常常令人惊讶的互连. 在最后的分析, 怎么能对我们知识的不同领域是相互独立的，当我们所有的知识存在于我们的大脑? 知识是我们的经验认知表征. 但随后, 这样的现实; 这是我们的感官投入认知表征. 这是一个谬论认为知识是一个外部的现实我们的内部表示, 因此，与此不同的. 知识和现实是内部认知结构, 虽然我们都来把它们作为单独的.
大家都看得见，摸得着的空间, 但什么是真的? 空间是这些基本的东西，一个哲学家可以考虑一类One “直觉。” 当哲学家看什么, 他们得到了一点技术. 是空间关系, 如, 在对象之间的关系来定义? 一个关系的实体是像你的家人 — 你有你的父母, 兄弟姐妹, 配偶, 孩子们等. 形成你认为你的家人. 但是，你的家庭本身就不是一个物理实体, 但是关系只有一个集合. 空间是否也类似的东西? 或者是更喜欢在这里驻留的对象，做自己的事情物理容器?
您可以考虑两个只是一个又一个的哲学hairsplittings之间的区别, 但它确实是不. 什么空间, 甚至什么样的实体空间, 拥有物理学产生巨大影响. 例如, 如果它是关系型的性质, 然后在不存在物质的, 没有空间. 很像在没有任何家庭成员, 你有没有家人. 另一方面, 如果它是一个容器状实体, 如果你拿走一切物质存在的空间，甚至, 等待出现的一些事.
所以呢, 你问? 好, 让我们的半桶水和周围旋转它. 一旦捕获内的水, 其表面会形成抛物线形状 — 你知道, 离心力, 重力, 表面张力和所有. 现在, 停止斗, 和自旋整个宇宙围绕它而不是. 我知道, 它是更困难. 但是想象一下，你在做什么. 请问水面抛物线? 我认为这将是, 因为没有铲斗转动或整个宇宙围绕它旋转多大区别.
现在, 让我们想象一下，我们清空宇宙. 没有什么，但这个半满桶. 现在，它打转. 恰好水面什么? 如果空间关系, 在不存在的宇宙, 有铲斗之外没有空间，就没有办法知道它正在旋转. 水表面应平整. (事实上, 它应该是球形, 但忽略了第二。) 如果空间是容器状, 旋转桶应导致抛物面.
当然, 我们没有办法知道哪一种方式将是，因为我们没有办法排空宇宙和旋转桶的. 但是，这并不妨碍我们猜测的空间和建筑理论的性质基于它. 牛顿的空间容器状, 而在他们的心脏, 爱因斯坦的理论有空间关系的概念.
所以, 你看, 理念确实很重要.
新加坡国立报纸, 海峡时报, 称赞中使用的可读性和谈话风格 虚幻宇宙 并建议它给任何人谁想要了解生活, 宇宙和一切.
调用 虚幻宇宙 一个良好的阅读, 温迪说：, “它写得很好, 很清楚地遵循了非专业。”
描述 虚幻宇宙 如 “这样的洞察力和智慧的书,” 伯比说：, “一本书外行思维, 本可读, 耐人寻味的工作提供了我们的现实定义一个新的视角。”
M. Š. Chandramouli
M. Š. Chandramouli graduated from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras in 1966 and subsequently did his MBA from the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. After an executive career in India and Europe covering some 28 years he founded Surya International in Belgium through which he now offers business development and industrial marketing services.
Here is what he says about 虚幻宇宙:
“The book has a very pleasing layout, with the right size of font and line spacing and correct content density. Great effort for a self-published book!”
“The impact of the book is kaleidoscopic. The patterns in one reader’s mind (mine, 就是说) shifted and re-arranged themselves with a ‘rustling noise’ more than once.””The author’s writing style is remarkably equidistant from the turgid prose of Indians writing on philosophy or religion and the we-know-it-all style of Western authors on the philosophy of science.”
“There is a sort of cosmic, background ‘Eureka!’ that seems to suffuse the entire book. Its central thesis about the difference between perceived reality and absolute reality is an idea waiting to bloom in a million minds.”
“The test on the ‘Emotionality of Faith,’ Page 171, was remarkably prescient; it worked for me!”
“I am not sure that the first part, which is essentially descriptive and philosophical, sits comfortably with the second part with its tightly-argued physics; if and when the author is on his way to winning the argument, he may want to look at three different categories of readers – the lay but intelligent ones who need a degree of ‘translation,’ the non-physicist specialist, and the physicist philosophers. Market segmentation is the key to success.”
“I think this book needs to be read widely. I am making a small attempt at plugging it by copying this to my close friends.”
“Manoj views science as just one element in the picture of life. Science does not define life. But life colors how we understand science. He challenges all readers to rethink their believe systems, to question what they thought was real, to ask “why”? He asks us to take off our “rose colored glasses” and unlock new ways of experiencing and understanding life. This thought provoking work should be required reading to anyone embarking on a new scientific journey.”
“Manoj’s treatment of time is very thought provoking. While each of our other senses – sight, 声音, smell, taste and touch – are multi-dimensional, time appears to be single dimensional. Understanding the interplay of time with our other senses is a very interesting puzzle. It also opens to door to the existence possibilities of other phenomena beyond our know sensory range.”
“Manoj’s conveys a deep understanding of the interaction of our physics, human belief systems, perceptions, experiences, and even our languages, on how we approach scientific discovery. His work will challenge you to rethink what you think you know is true.”
“Manoj offers a unique perspective on science, 感悟, and reality. The realization that science does not lead to perception, but perception leads to science, is key to understanding that all scientific “facts” are open for re-exploration. This book is extremely thought provoking and challenges each reader the question their own beliefs.”
“Manoj approaches physics from a holistic perspective. Physics does not occur in isolation, but is defined in terms of our experiences – both scientific and spiritual. As you explore his book you’ll challenge your own beliefs and expand your horizons.”
Blogs and Found Online
From the Blog Through The Looking Glass
“This book is considerably different from other books in its approach to philosophy and physics. It contains numerous practical examples on the profound implications of our philosophical viewpoint on physics, specifically astrophysics and particle physics. Each demonstration comes with a mathematical appendix, which includes a more rigorous derivation and further explanation. The book even reins in diverse branches of philosophy (e.g. thinking from both the East and the West, and both the classical period and modern contemporary philosophy). And it is gratifying to know that all the mathematics and physics used in the book are very understandable, and thankfully not graduate level. That helps to make it much easier to appreciate the book.”
From the Hub Pages
Calling itself “An Honest Review of 虚幻宇宙,” this review looks like the one used in 海峡时报.
I got a few reviews from my readers through email and online forums. I have compiled them as anonymous reviews in the next page of this post.
Click on the link below to visit the second page.
阅读后 论文Ashtekar 量子重力和思考它, 我意识到我的麻烦与宇宙大爆炸理论是. 它更多的是对较细节的基本假设. 我以为我会在这里总结一下我的想法, 以上为我自己的利益比任何其他人的.
经典理论 (包括SR和QM) 治疗空间连续虚无; 因此，长期时空连续. 在此视图中, 存在于连续的空间物体和彼此在连续时间进行交互.
虽然时空连续统这一概念是直观的吸引力, 这是, 充其量, 残缺. 考虑, 例如, 一个旋转体的空. 它预期会遇到的离心力. 现在想象一下，身体是静止的，整个空间旋转周围. 它会不会遇到任何离心力?
GR介绍了一个范式转变通过编码重力进入时空从而在本质上动态, 而不是空洞虚无. 因此，, 质量得到沉浸在太空 (和时间), 空间变得代名词宇宙, 和纺纱身体问题变得很容易回答. 是的, 它会经历离心力，如果它是旋转它周围的宇宙，因为它是等效于人体的纺丝. 和, 别, 它不会, 如果它是在刚刚空的空间. 但 “空” 不存在. 在没有质量, 没有时空几何.
所以, 自然, 在大爆炸之前 (如果有一个), 不可能有任何空间, 也确实可以有任何 “之前。” 注意, 然而，, 该Ashtekar文件并没有明确说明为什么必须有一个大爆炸. 它得到最接近的是，BB的必要性产生于重力的空间 - 时间中的GR的编码. 尽管引力的这种编码，从而使时空动态, GR仍然把时空的连续平稳 — 一大败笔, 根据Ashtekar, 这QG整顿.
现在, 如果我们承认，宇宙开始了一次大爆炸 (并从一个小区域), 我们必须考虑量子效应. 时空必须是量化的唯一正确的方式做这将是通过量子引力. 通过QG, 我们希望避免GR的大爆炸奇点, 以同样的方式QM解决了氢原子的无界基态能量问题.
我上面描述的就是我所理解的背后现代宇宙学的物理参数. 剩下的就是数学的大厦建立在这个物质之上 (或甚哲学) 基金会. 如果你对哲学基础没有强烈的意见 (或者如果你的意见与它保持一致), 你能接受BB没有困难. 不幸, 我有不同的看法.
这些职位可能听起来像无用的哲学沉思, 但我确实有一些具体的 (在我看来，, 重要) 结果, 下面列出.
还有更多的工作需要在这方面做的. 但对于未来几年, 从我的职业生涯定量我的新书合同和压力, 我没有足够的时间来研究遗传资源和宇宙学与应有的严肃性. 我希望要回他们一次传播自己太薄通行证的当前阶段.
This unpublished article is a sequel to my earlier paper (also posted here as “为无线电源和伽玛射线暴管腔围油栏?“). This blog version contains the abstract, introduction and conclusions. The full version of the article is available as a PDF file.
Light travel time effects (LTT) are an optical manifestation of the finite speed of light. They can also be considered perceptual constraints to the cognitive picture of space and time. Based on this interpretation of LTT effects, we recently presented a new hypothetical model for the temporal and spatial variation of the spectrum of Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) and radio sources. In this article, we take the analysis further and show that LTT effects can provide a good framework to describe such cosmological features as the redshift observation of an expanding universe, and the cosmic microwave background radiation. The unification of these seemingly distinct phenomena at vastly different length and time scales, along with its conceptual simplicity, can be regarded as indicators of the curious usefulness of this framework, if not its validity.
The finite speed of light plays an important part in how we perceive distance and speed. This fact should hardly come as a surprise because we do know that things are not as we see them. The sun that we see, 例如, is already eight minutes old by the time we see it. This delay is trivial; 如果我们想知道现在是怎么回事太阳, 所有我们需要做的就是等待八分钟. We, nonetheless, have to “正确” for this distortion in our perception due to the finite speed of light before we can trust what we see.
令人惊讶 (而很少强调) 是当涉及到敏感的议案, 我们不能后台计算看不到太阳，我们采取了拖延的方式相同. 如果我们看到一个天体运动以罢课高速, 我们无法弄清楚它是如何快速和方向 “真” 移动未做进一步的假设，. One way of handling this difficulty is to ascribe the distortions in our perception of motion to the fundamental properties of the arena of physics — 空间和时间. 另一个途径是接受我们的感知和底层之间的断线 “现实” 并处理它以某种方式.
Exploring the second option, we assume an underlying reality that gives rise to our perceived picture. We further model this underlying reality as obeying classical mechanics, and work out our perceived picture through the apparatus of perception. 换句话说, we do not attribute the manifestations of the finite speed of light to the properties of the underlying reality. 相反，, we work out our perceived picture that this model predicts and verify whether the properties we do observe can originate from this perceptual constraint.
空间, the objects in it, and their motion are, 大体上, the product of optical perception. One tends to take it for granted that perception arises from reality as one perceives it. In this article, we take the position that what we perceive is an incomplete or distorted picture of an underlying reality. Further, we are trying out classical mechanics for the the underlying reality (for which we use terms like absolute, noumenal or physical reality) that does cause our perception to see if it fits with our perceived picture (which we may refer to as sensed or phenomenal reality).
Note that we are not implying that the manifestations of perception are mere delusions. They are not; they are indeed part of our sensed reality because reality is an end result of perception. This insight may be behind Goethe’s famous statement, “错觉是光的真理。”
We applied this line of thinking to a physics problem recently. We looked at the spectral evolution of a GRB and found it to be remarkably similar to that in a sonic boom. Using this fact, we presented a model for GRB as our perception of a “luminal” boom, with the understanding that it is our perceived picture of reality that obeys Lorentz invariance and our model for the underlying reality (causing the perceived picture) may violate relativistic physics. The striking agreement between the model and the observed features, 然而，, extended beyond GRBs to symmetric radio sources, which can also be regarded as perceptual effects of hypothetical luminal booms.
In this article, we look at other implications of the model. We start with the similarities between the light travel time (LTT) effects and the coordinate transformation in Special Relativity (SR). These similarities are hardly surprising because SR is derived partly based on LTT effects. We then propose an interpretation of SR as a formalization of LTT effects and study a few observed cosmological phenomena in the light of this interpretation.
Similarities between Light Travel Time Effects and SR
Special relativity seeks a linear coordinate transformation between coordinate systems in motion with respect to each other. We can trace the origin of linearity to a hidden assumption on the nature of space and time built into SR, as stated by Einstein: “In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.” Because of this assumption of linearity, the original derivation of the transformation equations ignores the asymmetry between approaching and receding objects. Both approaching and receding objects can be described by two coordinate systems that are always receding from each other. 例如, if a system is moving with respect to another system along the positive X axis of , then an object at rest in at a positive is receding while another object at a negative is approaching an observer at the origin of .
The coordinate transformation in Einstein’s original paper is derived, in part, a manifestation of the light travel time (LTT) effects and the consequence of imposing the constancy of light speed in all inertial frames. This is most obvious in the first thought experiment, where observers moving with a rod find their clocks not synchronized due to the difference in light travel times along the length of the rod. 然而, in the current interpretation of SR, the coordinate transformation is considered a basic property of space and time.
One difficulty that arises from this interpretation of SR is that the definition of the relative velocity between the two inertial frames becomes ambiguous. If it is the velocity of the moving frame as measured by the observer, then the observed superluminal motion in radio jets starting from the core region becomes a violation of SR. If it is a velocity that we have to deduce by considering LT effects, then we have to employ the extra ad-hoc assumption that superluminality is forbidden. These difficulties suggest that it may be better to disentangle the light travel time effects from the rest of SR.
In this section, we will consider space and time as a part of the cognitive model created by the brain, and argue that special relativity applies to the cognitive model. The absolute reality (of which the SR-like space-time is our perception) does not have to obey the restrictions of SR. 特别是, objects are not restricted to subluminal speeds, but they may appear to us as though they are restricted to subluminal speeds in our perception of space and time. If we disentangle LTT effects from the rest of SR, we can understand a wide array of phenomena, as we shall see in this article.
Unlike SR, considerations based on LTT effects result in intrinsically different set of transformation laws for objects approaching an observer and those receding from him. More generally, the transformation depends on the angle between the velocity of the object and the observer’s line of sight. Since the transformation equations based on LTT effects treat approaching and receding objects asymmetrically, they provide a natural solution to the twin paradox, 例如.
Because space and time are a part of a reality created out of light inputs to our eyes, some of their properties are manifestations of LTT effects, especially on our perception of motion. The absolute, physical reality presumably generating the light inputs does not have to obey the properties we ascribe to our perceived space and time.
We showed that LTT effects are qualitatively identical to those of SR, noting that SR only considers frames of reference receding from each other. This similarity is not surprising because the coordinate transformation in SR is derived based partly on LTT effects, and partly on the assumption that light travels at the same speed with respect to all inertial frames. In treating it as a manifestation of LTT, we did not address the primary motivation of SR, which is a covariant formulation of Maxwell’s equations. It may be possible to disentangle the covariance of electrodynamics from the coordinate transformation, although it is not attempted in this article.
Unlike SR, LTT effects are asymmetric. This asymmetry provides a resolution to the twin paradox and an interpretation of the assumed causality violations associated with superluminality. 此外, the perception of superluminality is modulated by LTT effects, and explains ray bursts and symmetric jets. As we showed in the article, perception of superluminal motion also holds an explanation for cosmological phenomena like the expansion of the universe and cosmic microwave background radiation. LTT effects should be considered as a fundamental constraint in our perception, and consequently in physics, rather than as a convenient explanation for isolated phenomena.
Given that our perception is filtered through LTT effects, we have to deconvolute them from our perceived reality in order to understand the nature of the absolute, physical reality. This deconvolution, 然而，, results in multiple solutions. 因此，, 绝对, physical reality is beyond our grasp, and any assumed properties of the absolute reality can only be validated through how well the resultant perceived reality agrees with our observations. In this article, we assumed that the underlying reality obeys our intuitively obvious classical mechanics and asked the question how such a reality would be perceived when filtered through light travel time effects. We demonstrated that this particular treatment could explain certain astrophysical and cosmological phenomena that we observe.
The coordinate transformation in SR can be viewed as a redefinition of space and time (或, more generally, 现实) in order to accommodate the distortions in our perception of motion due to light travel time effects. One may be tempted to argue that SR applies to the “实” 空间和时间, not our perception. This line of argument begs the question, what is real? Reality is only a cognitive model created in our brain starting from our sensory inputs, visual inputs being the most significant. Space itself is a part of this cognitive model. The properties of space are a mapping of the constraints of our perception.
The choice of accepting our perception as a true image of reality and redefining space and time as described in special relativity indeed amounts to a philosophical choice. The alternative presented in the article is inspired by the view in modern neuroscience that reality is a cognitive model in the brain based on our sensory inputs. Adopting this alternative reduces us to guessing the nature of the absolute reality and comparing its predicted projection to our real perception. It may simplify and elucidate some theories in physics and explain some puzzling phenomena in our universe. 然而, this option is yet another philosophical stance against the unknowable absolute reality.
This blog version contains the abstract, introduction and conclusions. The full version of the article is available as a PDF file.
Journal Reference: IJMP-D全. 16, 别. 6 (2007) PP. 983–1000.
The softening of the GRB afterglow bears remarkable similarities to the frequency evolution in a sonic boom. At the front end of the sonic boom cone, the frequency is infinite, much like a Gamma Ray Burst (GRB). Inside the cone, the frequency rapidly decreases to infrasonic ranges and the sound source appears at two places at the same time, mimicking the double-lobed radio sources. Although a “luminal” boom violates the Lorentz invariance and is therefore forbidden, it is tempting to work out the details and compare them with existing data. This temptation is further enhanced by the observed superluminality in the celestial objects associated with radio sources and some GRBs. In this article, we calculate the temporal and spatial variation of observed frequencies from a hypothetical luminal boom and show remarkable similarity between our calculations and current observations.
A sonic boom is created when an object emitting sound passes through the medium faster than the speed of sound in that medium. As the object traverses the medium, the sound it emits creates a conical wavefront, 如图 1. The sound frequency at this wavefront is infinite because of the Doppler shift. The frequency behind the conical wavefront drops dramatically and soon reaches the infrasonic range. This frequency evolution is remarkably similar to afterglow evolution of a gamma ray burst (GRB).
Gamma Ray Bursts are very brief, but intense flashes of rays in the sky, lasting from a few milliseconds to several minutes, and are currently believed to emanate from cataclysmic stellar collapses. The short flashes (the prompt emissions) are followed by an afterglow of progressively softer energies. 因此，, the initial rays are promptly replaced by X-rays, light and even radio frequency waves. This softening of the spectrum has been known for quite some time, and was first described using a hypernova (fireball) model. In this model, a relativistically expanding fireball produces the emission, and the spectrum softens as the fireball cools down. The model calculates the energy released in the region as — ergs in a few seconds. This energy output is similar to about 1000 times the total energy released by the sun over its entire lifetime.
More recently, an inverse decay of the peak energy with varying time constant has been used to empirically fit the observed time evolution of the peak energy using a collapsar model. According to this model, GRBs are produced when the energy of highly relativistic flows in stellar collapses are dissipated, with the resulting radiation jets angled properly with respect to our line of sight. The collapsar model estimates a lower energy output because the energy release is not isotropic, but concentrated along the jets. 然而, the rate of the collapsar events has to be corrected for the fraction of the solid angle within which the radiation jets can appear as GRBs. GRBs are observed roughly at the rate of once a day. 因此，, the expected rate of the cataclysmic events powering the GRBs is of the order of — per day. Because of this inverse relationship between the rate and the estimated energy output, the total energy released per observed GRB remains the same.
If we think of a GRB as an effect similar to the sonic boom in supersonic motion, the assumed cataclysmic energy requirement becomes superfluous. Another feature of our perception of supersonic object is that we hear the sound source at two different location as the same time, 如图 2. This curious effect takes place because the sound waves emitted at two different points in the trajectory of the supersonic object reach the observer at the same instant in time. The end result of this effect is the perception of a symmetrically receding pair of sound sources, 哪, in the luminal world, is a good description of symmetric radio sources (Double Radio source Associated with Galactic Nucleus or DRAGN).
Radio Sources are typically symmetric and seem associated with galactic cores, currently considered manifestations of space-time singularities or neutron stars. Different classes of such objects associated with Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) were found in the last fifty years. 图 3 shows the radio galaxy Cygnus A, an example of such a radio source and one of the brightest radio objects. Many of its features are common to most extragalactic radio sources: the symmetric double lobes, an indication of a core, 喉喂食叶和热点的出现. 一些研究人员报告了更详细的运动学特性, 如热点的叶适当运动.
对称射电源 (银河系或河外星系) 和暴可能似乎是完全不同的现象. 然而, 其核心表现出类似的时间演化中的峰值能量, 但很大的不同时间常数. 伽玛射线暴的光谱迅速从进化 区域的光，甚至射频余辉, similar to the spectral evolution of the hotspots of a radio source as they move from the core to the lobes. Other similarities have begun to attract attention in the recent years.
This article explores the similarities between a hypothetical “luminal” boom and these two astrophysical phenomena, although such a luminal boom is forbidden by the Lorentz invariance. Treating GRB as a manifestation of a hypothetical luminal boom results in a model that unifies these two phenomena and makes detailed predictions of their kinematics.
In this article, we looked at the spatio-temporal evolution of a supersonic object (both in its position and the sound frequency we hear). We showed that it closely resembles GRBs and DRAGNs if we were to extend the calculations to light, although a luminal boom would necessitate superluminal motion and is therefore forbidden.
This difficulty notwithstanding, we presented a unified model for Gamma Ray Bursts and jet like radio sources based on bulk superluminal motion. We showed that a single superluminal object flying across our field of vision would appear to us as the symmetric separation of two objects from a fixed core. Using this fact as the model for symmetric jets and GRBs, we explained their kinematic features quantitatively. 特别是, we showed that the angle of separation of the hotspots was parabolic in time, and the redshifts of the two hotspots were almost identical to each other. Even the fact that the spectra of the hotspots are in the radio frequency region is explained by assuming hyperluminal motion and the consequent redshift of the black body radiation of a typical star. The time evolution of the black body radiation of a superluminal object is completely consistent with the softening of the spectra observed in GRBs and radio sources. 此外, our model explains why there is significant blue shift at the core regions of radio sources, why radio sources seem to be associated with optical galaxies and why GRBs appear at random points with no advance indication of their impending appearance.
Although it does not address the energetics issues (the origin of superluminality), our model presents an intriguing option based on how we would perceive hypothetical superluminal motion. We presented a set of predictions and compared them to existing data from DRAGNs and GRBs. The features such as the blueness of the core, symmetry of the lobes, the transient and X-Ray bursts, the measured evolution of the spectra along the jet all find natural and simple explanations in this model as perceptual effects. Encouraged by this initial success, we may accept our model based on luminal boom as a working model for these astrophysical phenomena.
It has to be emphasized that perceptual effects can masquerade as apparent violations of traditional physics. An example of such an effect is the apparent superluminal motion, which was explained and anticipated within the context of the special theory of relativity even before it was actually observed. Although the observation of superluminal motion was the starting point behind the work presented in this article, it is by no means an indication of the validity of our model. The similarity between a sonic boom and a hypothetical luminal boom in spatio-temporal and spectral evolution is presented here as a curious, albeit probably unsound, foundation for our model.
One can, 然而，, argue that the special theory of relativity (SR) does not deal with superluminality and, 因此, superluminal motion and luminal booms are not inconsistent with SR. As evidenced by the opening statements of Einstein’s original paper, the primary motivation for SR is a covariant formulation of Maxwell’s equations, which requires a coordinate transformation derived based partly on light travel time (LTT) effects, and partly on the assumption that light travels at the same speed with respect to all inertial frames. Despite this dependence on LTT, the LTT effects are currently assumed to apply on a space-time that obeys SR. SR is a redefinition of space and time (或, more generally, 现实) in order to accommodate its two basic postulates. It may be that there is a deeper structure to space-time, of which SR is only our perception, filtered through the LTT effects. By treating them as an optical illusion to be applied on a space-time that obeys SR, we may be double counting them. We may avoid the double counting by disentangling the covariance of Maxwell’s equations from the coordinate transformations part of SR. Treating the LTT effects separately (without attributing their consequences to the basic nature of space and time), we can accommodate superluminality and obtain elegant explanations of the astrophysical phenomena described in this article. Our unified explanation for GRBs and symmetric radio sources, 因此, has implications as far reaching as our basic understanding of the nature of space and time.