The Pleasure of Being in a Wilderness

Sometimes when you lose your way, you find ‘yourself’. And this pursuit of self can drive you frenzy, and lone in their brimming universe. Wilderness and tranquility are synonymous sometimes. Man embarks upon quest of peace being exhausted of monotonous affair of this mundane life.

And:

Feeling pleasure of being in wilderness is not just a surprising caprice of man’s aura; it is where you are closer to yourself, to God. Grieved and ending up in wilderness in same fictitious but hackneyed manner is not a feeling. These feelings could be the vibes that a person holds while being lost in the weeds of narrative with eyes ajar, in a reverie.

Advertisements

Feral Heart

So silent is my heart that
Furore of mundane world is
Inaudible to me
I am an amalgam
Of contrasts and disputes
I am disputing with myself
Crumbling emotions hit me
Withering smiles decry me
Wavering intentions slag me off
I wish I were a caged bird when
Blistering with angst
I recollect, to return back
I find myself peeling from within
Out of the reason of mind
Of the rotten worldly knowledge
No way out then, no way out now
At least no idea of exit
Is what would have been there

Untold Throes

I used to write poems years back. I am posting few of them here, which I could find somewhere fortunately. Here is it one of them:

The scintillating agony,
That makes my self hark on the horizons, Of pessimistic skies;
The squally mind, again
deserts me for a moment,
Within which,
I was smugged, not listening to it
And, reined in to heart then.
While, being alone now.
I cry, I cry,
Mourning for not listening to it
The latest whiff of life, poured by heart is being wiped away with the tears
That life echoing within, swamped
The silent moment steals on it
the lastest sad stint,
The sputtering coughs, weeps!
The pathos is what is for ever now.
These moment-long stints,
With the dread of long gally nights,
Remain for ever in the mental murk
The time we’re happy, they lurk,
To remind us of this, while in skulk.

 

Bruise-prods

The poem I scribbled when bade goodbye to school. Here it is:

Herein lives a nostalgic,

lost in childhood, irking on his ageing!

The clock ticks,

I feel pain,

hour-glass moils, sand is risky,

clock is time or time clock?

Was skittish still frisky.

Was forgetful now nostalgic,

that’s how life treats you,

You been through this?

This journo is alone,

no one accompanies you,

like life after death,

alone, alone!

the silence in nook,

that sombre lamp in other,

and sonorous me,

remain bewildered,

I, listening to this silent clamour,

seeing this dark sun,

remember the school,

those winter days,

with leaves rustling when run by us,

those games,

those oblivious us,

those lucent souls,

they’d never turn up, Alas!

I aspire,

to go back,

to wend back,

the days I enjoyed least, lived most;

Past this moment,

adds to this feel,

I’m grown up now,

But inner me is still child,

lost in childhood,

still looking for those streets,

those books,

poking in ponds,

savoring those dishes,

prying those toys.

Those people, who died;

I miss ‘em all.

I miss that yarn that I spun to reach here!

Why do we fear it still doing it?

Why do we live, if are to die?

Why to smile, if cries are nigh?

Why rejoice, if pain is near?

Why age, if interne halts?

Man is feels or body?

I nudge to inner me, pain resounds!

Herein lives a nostalgic,

lost in childhood, irking on his ageing!

 

Ex nihilo!

 

Obviously it is possible. First things first: See, we know ‘pure energy’ never exists. It comes with fields and particles (like EM field). At most, Matter and energy can’t be called the same hence we do not call these photons as ‘matter’ (so we can’t call it energy either). Call them force (EM) carriers but you can’t say they are massive. They are just bosons and yes they will not go with Pauli’s exclusion principle (their integral spin).
Let’s exemplify it.

Remember those High School Feynman’s diagrams (Beware! He sometimes jokes with fellas)? Collide a photon with nucleus (they must interact; as boson (photon) does interact with fermion (matter in the nucleus)), you will get two leptons (you know: electron and positron), pair production was there.

*Did you believe in Hawking Radiation? Why did you then believe this pair production?*

Now photon is no matter but it created matter (fermionic electron and positron). It alludes to “From nothing to matter” enigma. Quantum Fluctuation comes in here. We still confide in it:

Take some quarks and some leptons (electrons etc.) you’ll get to know that you can make new atoms. Yes, new atoms; new matter; even surprisingly a new universe.

Was this perplexing? Is that ‘matter creation’ indigestible? Here lies the answer.

What I think is Quantum Fluctuation is somewhat more of a field theory claiming matter from nothing. You are right to think about the equivalence of matter and energy in case of their inter-convertibility but if you remember ‘Casimir effect’ you’d come to know what do they mean by ‘energy’ at the Planck’s scale. Our smallness and futility deride us. Our limitations. The distances in spacetime can’t be distinguished on this scale (or smaller ones, to be precise), welcome to Quantum World. Now quantum gravity cannot be demystified here. Haha, imagine you are Alice and Robert Gilmore can drive you anywhere.

*Ping: Black Hole entropy is ready to nosedive in*

Here using intuition: An electronic field shan’t exist in outer space because there are no electrons normally found there but still it is. It is pervasive. Every field is everywhere, everyone knows this. Also it is almost nothing because there are a lot of energy fields yet to be discerned, dark energy being one of them.

Déjà vu

This term comes from French. But it’s interpretations in psychology and Hinduism’s reincarnation do not appeal me.

Ahead of Relativity theory, Einstein simply asked himself (as if he were a noob)that if speed of light (hereafter ‘c’) can be added to speed of a moving object then can events be seen before they actually happen the in real world?

Carl Sagan also exemplified it like (exact quotation regretted):

‘If a carriage is following a track and a bicycle approaching it (from an opposite direction), the collision can be envisaged (or actually be seen by us) before this incident even hit our retinas. That is, the event gets speed for us because the light’s ray bringing this whole drama to us has now its speed comprising of these three speeds.’

But this was Einstein-guised-in-skeptical-and-childish scientist. He later got his answer as c can’t be added/subtracted to any speed.

Let’s say we don’t do this addition and consider (please!) the light ray approaching us from this event quicker that c, then it’s possible. But we know that doesn’t happen and so we discard this thing.

When we bring particle behaviour and quantum wave-function in discussion, the lead role is done by observer who’s studying it (I know that’s tacky but inevitable). As soon as he studies wave-function, it collapses and adopts a particle behaviour.

Wikipedia says: Collapse is one of two processes by which quantum systems evolve in time; the other is continuous evolution via the Schrödinger equation.

And there are a lot of chances that can collapse into single probability/chance depending on observer’s view. Never forget: Nature is stochastic, even Schrodinger’s Equation describes the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle. However, even if the wave function is known exactly, the result of a specific measurement on the wave function is uncertain.

So what do I feel about Déjà-vu?

The incidents we observe, see, peruse are never old memories, nor anything like this. I think the imminent event just gives us a glimpse of its some nearby probability that makes us feel familiar towards it on happening in actual. As we are the observer here hence we collapse their (objects’) wavefunctions in time only irrespective of space. Quantum Mechanics, in principle is to go with collapsing a single chance in spacetime out of all the infinite as an observer.

For instance, if a friend of yours is coming to your house today. Say 30 paths lead to your house from his. Now he’d be traversing simultaneously all 30 paths but on his arrival, you’d welcome him and get to know of one and only path. Here you collapsed one.

So it’s not events but observers who resolve which events do happen. The chances of his arrival are infinite. Like every nanosecond, someone is coming to you. But they are coming in time only. When you collapse or testify his advent, he is actually there in space and time. TBH, this is actually the idea behind wave-function thing.

Quantum Cheshire Cat

Apologetically, some basic level knowledge and know-how of Quantum Physics is required for reading this answer.

In classical theory, a particle is acted upon by a force force only if the force is acting at the point where it’s found to be applied, but this could not be the case in quantum theory (Aharonov-Bohm effect). This completely baffles one having classical understanding of natural interactions.

What Quantum Theory says is two particles that start in the same situation will later behave in a different way from one another. Nature is not deterministic – Future is independent of past. Einstein got vexed with this like ‘God doesn’t play with dice’. And I think this one is his most misquoted and misinterpreted metaphoric sentence. He is presented as religious man on its basis but it’s not like that. See Vasant Natarajan’s view.

Einstein was a staunch denier of QM but his description of photoelectric effect gave rise to development of QM. By the very same phrase, he was trying to show the offbeat-ness of QM. In quantum mechanics, particles don’t have well defined positions and speeds. Instead, they are represented by what is called a wave function. This is a number at each point of space. The size of the wave function gives the probability that the particle will be found in that position. So this game of probability (=dice) wasn’t liked much by Mr. Einstein. Let’s get to the point.

Physicists are the lovers of cats. The Schrodinger’s cat. Alike Schrodinger’s cat, physicists are faced with another cat now-a-days: ‘Quantum Cheshire Cat’. The name has been borrowed from “Alice’s adventures in wonderland” by Lewis Carroll (1865). In it, a small village, Cheshire, Alice comes from nowhere (let’s don’t delve into that for now). Name signifies, she saw a lot of wonders, a cat being one of them, a devious one. The cat can disappear anytime leaving behind a trail of smoke, very much similar to contrails or the humid exhaust of jets. This cat can appear and disappear on its own. Even if it’s gone, the smoky-grin stays there for a while and goes off pushing us in discomfiture. Alice was of the view:

“Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin, but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!”

The ‘Cheshire Cat’ phenomenon is just a concept. Even it can be observed in quantum entanglement, like sometimes an object behaves as Cheshire Cat. Remember, here object means the ‘particle’, because our research has still been up to the particles. The properties and the object go antithetical. Quantum Physics is strange, Cheshire Cat the stranger. Can you extract properties of some object. Can you mug an object of its colour? Yes, the particles can take their properties off just like this cat in question.

I opine you should be aware of Prof. Yakir Aharonov from Chapman University, California. This loner scientist or a theoretician likes to work on himself, rarely faces cameras. He discussed in 2013 that a photon can be separated from its polarization.

Okay. Polarization? It can be taken as a direction-telling property of a wave. Aharonov and his friends (paper-fellows) posit that this property can be separated from a photon. Recently in 2016, a professor named Tobias Denkmayr did the same experiment along with his friends. Neutrons can be separated from their spin or the momentum (angular) producing properties. Analyze this Denkmayr’s result. If we separate this spin—their magnetic moment can be separated—their only identity being chargeless.

According to Raul Corra’s paper in New Journal of Physics, the Cheshire effect previously studied by Aharonov is actually important in understanding quantum reality. The explanation by the Denkmayr party was their own and it can also be described in many other ways as we are dealing with Quantum Physics.

  • In short, according to this ‘Quantum Cheshire Cat’ concept: If a measuring device is placed in the path of particles, their properties start travelling separately [read 3-box Paradox]. And this is first time in Human History.

Further reading:

On Infinity

Ever heard of Aleph-nought or the Hilbert’s Hotel and your inquisition got the better of you? Then you probably would know about infinity. How can you enclose infinity? And can the infinity find the ‘finitude’ somewhere? Isn’t it against the glory of infinity? Because doing so jokes with “infinity”. Have we been defining infinity the wrong way? Why did Newton bring fluxions? Of course you know the Archimedes’ Method of exhaustion and Euclid too proves six of his propositions in his Elements utilizing it.

Some mathematical problems may be extremely enigmatic and therefore are without a solution up to now, but one day someone may come up with a brilliant solution (that will bring all to a common page). Fermat’s last theorem went unsolved for three and a half centuries, when instanced. Andrew Wiles was then able to solve it circa 1994. Also we have the ‘continuum hypothesis’, a problem which cannot be solved with available methods that we today have. Equivalently, the age-old ‘trisection’ problem i.e. can we trisect a given angle by using just a ruler and compass (like Euclid, in his Elements)? The Hellenic people were very mystified by how to make such a trisection, and not surprisingly, in the nineteenth century it was proved impossible—yes! Impossible it was with merely a ruler and compass (Galois Theory). Now halt at Zeno’s Paradox!

Zeno of Elea, said to have been son of Teleutagorus, precursor of Socrates and a disciple of Parmenides. Zeno’s work could not survive and according to Proclus, his one book that he wrote before visiting Athens was having forty paradoxes about continuum. According to some narratives, he is considered to be the defender of his mentor, Paramenides, who said some counter-intuitive and tedious things. And in doing so, he concocted (rather devised) some paradoxes that stirred never ending debate and tussle.

The paradoxes that Zeno gave regarding the motion are more startling. Aristotle’s take on four of Zeno’s arguments; The Dichotomy, The Achilles, The Arrow, and The Stadium in Physics is worthy. For the dichotomy, with which I am to deal with, Aristotle put it into words as:

“There is no motion because that which is moved must arrive at the middle of its course before it arrives at the end.”

In order the traverse a line segment it is necessary to reach its midpoint. To do this one must reach the quarter, to do this one must reach the quarter’s half (=1/8) point and so on ad infinitum. Therefore the motion can never begin. The argument here is not answered by the well-known infinite sum:

(1/2) + (1/4) + (1/8) +… = 1

Zeno’s argument based upon two principles i.e. Infinite Divisibility Principle and the Infinite Sum Principle. In reviewing it using our mathematical approach, it can be said that he gave riveting reasoning for the first, but does not even mention the second. Utilizing them, conclusion comes that ‘every magnitude is infinitely large’.

This argument is valid, but ‘shaky’ for the Infinite Sum Principle is false. Infinite Sum Principle can be fixed by restricting it to infinite sets with smallest elements. The amended principle is true, and so the resulting argument’s premises would both be true. But this amended argument is invalid. For the revised principle requires that there be smallest parts, and the Infinite Divisibility Principle does not guarantee that there are such parts – it allows the parts to get smaller and smaller, ad infinitum. We can make Zeno’s argument valid, but then one of its premises is false. Or we can make both of its premises true, but then it is invalid. Either way, Zeno’s argument is wobbly and shaky.

Take an example of a marathon runner. If he were to run an infinite distance in constant time for each sub-interval, in that sense and case there would have been enough infinite time. It further unfurls that if finite distance is infinitely divisible, why should not the time be infinitely divisible (and this is discerned nowhere in paradox).

Was Zeno talking of physical infinity or some metaphysical infinity?

What if you keep dividing your paper sheet into half and half and half so on? The page remains a page and will never convert into some infinite sheet! Why not the infinite series’ that converge are perfectly valid explanation? Is there any inconsistency involved in it? Some say you are considering convergent sums and the finitude, so no paradox here. Some would say Zeno proved the motion was impossible. Some would arrive with allegation, ‘he was unaware of ‘theory of limits.’’ But some still discuss it regarding it a paradox and a balmy topic because Aristotle did not debunk it wholly (rather called them ‘fallacies’).Pragmatically speaking in a physicist’s tone, if this division process goes on until order of a quantum scale or ‘Planck’s distance’, it would not be viable to go on more because of the un-cogency of classical geometry.

Broadening our horizons and continuing proliferation, let us delve into Physics!

Using the Tenseless Theory of Time (TTT), it may seem quite un-instinctual, which says something like future is pre-determined and the past has not really volatilized out of existence. Time flow is felt by us and our forefathers had also been of same fact. The motion is continuous and sequential changes in position as time “passes by”, roots of paradox in review. Our 3-tense-pronged theory of time dazzles. This is what Einstein said. This is what special relativity to me. If populace sees that Betelgeuse died in some supernova explosion “today”, for those extraterrestrials close to Betelgeuse, such catastrophic event is buried 640 years in the past (being 640 light-years away from Earth)—The relativity of simultaneity! Zeno probably denied the motion continuity because of being from such School of Thought where ‘one universe—no change, no motion’ was indoctrinated.

As the QFT (Quantum Field Theory) has its terminologies of ‘unitarity’ and ‘locality’. Both of them negate or go at odds with ‘existent or identity law’ (i.e. an existent is always what it is). The ‘locality’ suffers the same trouble as the Zeno’s Paradox, but existence says that limits (or bounds) are defined and so nothing impossible in journeying from a point to other even the distance has become the Planck’s length or of its order (by dividing it continuously, what Zeno does). In the like manner, ‘unitarity’ comes face to face with ‘existence concept’ (it can be explained in quantum probabilistic lexicon).

Feynman lover like me would opine: “The ‘paradox’ is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ought to be.” The solutions to paradoxes lie in evincing the fallacy in either the principal assumption or the intermediary conclusions/lemmas. That is why everyone comes with own solutions.

Utterly discombobulated by the Paradox, readers are suggested to give a read to the book, ‘The Universal Book of Mathematics: From Abracadabra to Zeno’s Paradoxes’ by David Darling. He has touched newly born Astro-biology as well as the Astronomy, General Science, spaceflight with special and lucid expositions of Quantum conundrum with its metaphysical and philosophical implications. But the main point is, till now, and after 2500 years, there is no agreement that those Paradoxes are resolved in mathematics. We should now prepare ourselves for these contretemps between the mathematicians and the physicists because they would always be squabbling over it and these paradoxes now could only be used in jokes or the allusions to foregoing philosophers. So no verdicts here please but establishing a rapport with these furors is endorsed.