Physics Without Foundations In Natural Phenomena

Summary: Till date Theoretical Physics has been built upon description of Fixed Stars by ancient astronomers. However in 1718 it was reported that Fixed Stars have proper motion. This naturally invalidates entire edifice of Theoretical Physics.

For the purpose of this discussion, Physics can be divided into two streams, one is Experimental Physics and the other is Theoretical Physics. Experimental Physics is concerned with facts and their interpretation whereas Theoretical Physics is concerned with rational basis of Experimental Physics and integration of Experimental Physics into one comprehensive theory. So, it not only attempts to find rationally, origin of mass and gravity but also has evolved the ill founded belief that Laws OF Physics are all sufficient to explain the entire natural phenomena. This is despite the fact that Physicists have never concerned themselves with Biological Phenomena and Consciousness, except fantasizing effect of time travel upon living matter.

In the domain of Theoretical Physics, Newton, Ernst Mach, Einstein and in present times Stephen Hawking are among the most dominant personalities, having set the ground for others to follow.

Newton needed to define absolute frame of reference in order to rationalize Newtonian Mechanics. He assumed that the so called Fixed Stars such as North Pole Star are the bodies at absolute rest in absolute space and so provide absolute frame of reference. He concluded that in other reference frames either at rest with respect to the fixed stars or in uniform translation relative to these stars, Newton's laws of motion were supposed to hold. In contrast, in frames accelerating with respect to the fixed stars, in particular frames rotating relative to the fixed stars, the laws of motion did not hold in their simplest form, but had to be supplemented by the addition of fictitious forces, for example, the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force.

 However, he failed to appreciate that this assumption is self-contradictory to his Law of Gravitation. Phenomenon of gravity forbids existence of any Fixed Star in any absolute space in any absolute frame of reference.  Moreover, Newton never explained the mechanism/ cause effect sequence that will force a rigid body on Earth to move along a straight line under the influence of distant Fixed Stars and in accordance with his Law of Inertia.

Ernst Mach (1838–1916) formulated Mach’s Principle which says “Local physical laws are determined by large scale structure of the universe”. But he was not comfortable with notion of Absolute Space and therefore he recommended removal of all mention of Absolute Space from Law of Inertia, and it would then be explained as follows: Every body maintains its velocity, both in magnitude and in direction, as relative to Fixed Stars as long as no forces act upon it.

Mach gave no reason for his principle. He never explained as to why local physical laws should be determined by large scale structure of the universe. In author’s opinion it is wild and weird and a blatant misinterpretation of observed facts. It is antithetical to hierarchical structure of nature wherein rules vary from one hierarchical level to another. 

Einstein (1905) under the influence of Mach’s Principle concluded: Since light rays are travelling in gravitational field, so they are bound to get deflected on account of their travel in accelerated frame of reference. But gravitational field is determined by curvature of space produced by presence of material bodies. This curvature of space determines Geodesic Lines or the paths of material bodies as well as light rays. This whole conception further leads to notion of time-space continuum or Four Dimensional Space.

So Einstein’s anticipation of gravitational deflection of light is rationally grounded in notion of Fixed Stars, absolute space and absolute frame of reference. There is no doubt that gravitational deflection of light is a proven fact but in author’s opinion this is a case of correct anticipation but for wrong reasons. Such are the wonders of Science.

There is nothing much needed to say about Stephen Hawking except that he has elaborated upon foundations of Physics as detailed above. In author’s opinion, his anticipation of gravitational collapse of Universe into Black Holes is not founded in reality.

Ancient astronomers referred to various stars as Fixed Stars, since they were unable to observe their motion in relation to a geographical locus. However in 1718 Edmund Halley announced his discovery that Fixed Stars are not fixed but have proper motion. The Fixed Star with largest known proper motion is Barnard’s star. Since Newton lived up to 1927, so he should have revised his notions in his life time but unfortunately the Newtonian Legacy continues till date even though in a slightly modified form, as detailed above.

From the above account, it can be readily seen that the notion of Fixed Stars upon which rests the entire edifice of Theoretical Physics in naturally invalid. Hence, Theoretical Physics as it stands today is without foundations in natural phenomena.

In my book “Encounter of Science With Philosophy – A Synthetic View” I have discussed the concept of rest in Physics (Chapter-11) and evolved the concept of Deemed Rest that does not rely upon notion of Fixed Star, absolute space and absolute frame reference; and to which Laws of Physics are naturally valid.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null. Several chapters of the book are devoted to physics.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://curatio.in

 Buy Now

Whether Or Not Prebiotic Soup Was Ever Needed/Existed For Origin of Life

Whether Or Not Prebiotic Soup Was Ever Needed/Existed For Origin of Life

Summary: For most of modern theories of Origin of Life, Prebiotic Soup is the starting point and much of the research is focused on this point. However till date not an iota of evidence has been detected in support of existence of Prebiotic Soup at any time in the history of Earth. It is concluded that Prebiotic Soup was neither needed nor existed for Origin of Life on Earth. 

Darwin suggested that life could have begun in a warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity present that a protein was formed ready to undergo still more complex changes. At the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

 This gave rise to Primordial Soup Theory which suggests that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids; the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species. This is supposed to happen at least 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago.

This involves kaleidoscopic or random permutation and combination of chemicals with eventual selection and accumulation of useful permutations and combinations of chemicals so as to eventually give rise to origin as well as evolution of life.

Alexander Oparin in 1924 suggested the idea of Prebiotic Soup and today this is the starting point for most of modern theories of Origin of Life. Around the same time J.B.S. Haldane suggested that Earth’s Prebiotic oceans are different from today’s oceans – would have formed a hot dilute soup in which organic compounds could have formed. The underlying hypothesis held by Oparin and Haldane was that conditions on the primeval Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Arguing along the same line it has been speculated that once upon a time there existed organic matter on Earth in sufficient concentration that its spontaneous, kaleidoscopic random interactions ultimately led to Origin of Life. The principal difficulty with this line of thinking is lack of specificity of organic chemical reactions. This is quite unlike chemistry of life i.e. Biochemistry.

 Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows

1.   The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.

2.   This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").

3.   These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).

4.   By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup.

While steps 1-3 have been basically observed experimentally, step 4 has been criticized as simplistic - a stage of "then magic happens".

However even existence of chemically reducing atmosphere of Early earth has been doubted by geochemists. To quote:

“But is the “prebiotic soup” theory a reasonable explanation for the emergence of life? Contemporary geoscientists tend to doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition used by Miller in 1953.” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5620/745.full

Even need for step 3 is doubtful since Biological systems show extraordinary capacity to operate under very-very low concentrations of essential chemicals coupled with ability to concentrate essential chemicals as per the requirements of particular Biological Systems.

Since 1924, much work has been done to gather evidence in support of Primordial Soup Theory but till date not an iota of evidence has been discovered supporting Prebiotic Soup hypothesis or existence of Prebiotic Soup.

What has generally been overlooked by scientific community till date is the fact that Biochemistry or Chemistry of life is unique and distinctive to living state. It is totally devoid of randomness. Rather, Biological Systems in order to keep existence can’t permit random chemical reactions. Some of the salient features of Biochemistry are:

(I)                Specificity, accuracy and precision of reactions — unlike organic chemistry in which a large number of side reactions invariably occur during any organic reaction leading to formation of side products, in biochemistry reactions are highly specific, precise and accurate without any side reactions and free from side products. This is essential to avoid chaos in animate matter.

(II)             In biochemistry, all reactions take place under conditions of existence of given organism or conditions of its internal milieu which are often quite different from conditions in which similar inorganic and organic reactions proceed. Rationally speaking biochemical reactions must have originated under the conditions in which relevant organisms are usually found. Because of vast variation in habitat of organisms, the same potentiality is realized through differently structured enzymes effective under different conditions. Therefore, for evolution of Biochemistry, environment has never been an absolute constraint.

(III)           Biochemistry is deterministic. Deterministic character of chemistry of life is well exhibited by its properties such as specificity of intermolecular interactions, chemo selectivity, homochirality, stereo- specificity of biological molecules. Even the subsequent course of events has been essentially deterministic with a strong propensity to stabilization, fixation, preservation and propagation of useful past and present innovations. Biochemistry may have its roots in stochastic inanimate interaction of matter and energy but stochastic organic chemical reactions can’t account for specificity of reactions seen in biochemistry. Unfolding or evolution of biochemistry requires a surprising lack of side reactions (Smith and Morowitz). How this extraordinary specificity of chemical reactions is achieved in the absence of genes giving rise to catalytic polymers with three dimensional substrate pockets is still a matter of conjecture and contemplation.

So the key questions which we must address ourselves keeping in view homochirality of biological molecules are:

(i)                Why homochirality is so essential that it is a deterministic trait in entire biosphere or operates as a matter of law. Does it imply some constraints of molecular intelligence?

(ii)              How this deterministic homochirality was obtained and sustained, may be from a stochastic beginning and in a stochastic world? The answer to this might be simulation and induction, directed by utility.

All the experimental evidence gathered so far to bridge the gap between inanimate matter and animate matter belong to the realm of stochastic chemistry and the reaction products are devoid of life like intelligent molecular activity. This statement is applicable to both, abiotic monomer synthesis as well as abiotic polymer synthesis.

Time line of origin of life shows that it must have taken at least 200 Ma after formation of earth crust and oceans for life to appear. Life might have begun in the form of fossilized Cyanobacteria in Stomatolites which are known to occur as early as 3.85 Ga. Any theory of origin of life should be able to explain time involved in its origin. Therefore various experiments demonstrating synthesis of monomers over a very short period of time fail to explain as to why the time involved in origin of life was of the ~ 200 Ma. Hence, by whatever mechanisms life originated, it must have been very slow and cumulative over a period of time. Therefore the vast amount of experimental evidence only lends credibility to our belief in abiogenesis and that one day it shall be possible to provide detailed explanation of origin of life from inanimate matter but the accumulated evidence is otherwise not sufficient to explain phenomenon of origin of life. Considering the enormous time involved, processes leading to origin of life must be time dependent, extremely lengthy, cumulative, complex and intricate which at the same time are relatively stable, capable of fixation, preservation and propagation so that advances made are cumulative ultimately leading to origin of life. The process of origin of life should have proceeded through accumulation of a series of small discrete steps giving semblance of gradualism and continuity. Easy switching between inanimate behavior and life like activity should have been widely rampant in very-very early stages of origin of life. Vast distribution of life on earth shows that constraints like U.V. Radiation, Toxic effects of atmospheric oxygen against origin of life are just scientific fictions, since a large number of forms that could exist have evolved only after successfully meeting those constraints. Hence, these constraints, even though may be valid are not absolute or non-negotiable. Origin of life must involve origin of ways and means to circumvent and negotiate these constraints or to tolerate these constraints.

Therefore, life like activity began on earth at any point of time in its history when earth was capable of supporting or inducing life like activity due to some unknown cause-effect sequences. All kinds of life like activity began independent of each other wherever a source of energy, little moisture and relevant chemical elements were available even if in very-very minute amounts. Considering ubiquity of life on earth, environmental conditions could not have been a major deterrent. Rather they influenced type of life and life like activity to which every other type of life and life like activity has a relationship of adaptation and adaptability or harmony. Therefore, all life forms originated in such a way that they were ab initio adapted to conditions of their existence. Time and place has played a more significant role in determining type of life like activity and type of life through yet unknown cause-effect sequences. This is in conformity with time dependent increase in complexity of life on earth as per fossil records and place dependent biodiversity. Even Darwin observed that biodiversity on Galapagos Islands varied according to some geographical rule.

Summarizing all above, for Origin of Life neither Prebiotic Soup was ever needed nor could have ever existed. This is in conformity with all the experimental evidence gathered till date.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null. Twenty-ninth chapter of the book deals with the subject matter of ‘Origin of Life’.

 http://www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/buynow.php

Visit clipbooard

T

  

Is It Possible To Scientifically Explain Star Fixations

Summary: Existence of Fixed Stars was well known to ancient astronomers. Physicists have built the entire edifice of laws of physics upon notion of Fixed Stars despite the fact that the notion suffered a setback in 1718 with discovery of proper motion of Fixed Stars. However to explain the phenomena on the basis of known laws of science is just not possible and so the phenomena continues to be as mysterious as ever.

Night sky looks the same, viewed from any location on Earth.

Stars form patterns known as Asterisms consisting of groups of two or more stars.  Member stars of an asterism bear constant spatial relationship to each other despite being physically unrelated.

Asterisms further constitute defined areas of celestial sphere known as Constellations.

North Pole star Polaris is always aligned to North Pole of Earth and is used to determine latitude and longitude of a place in Northern hemisphere. Likewise South Pole star - Polaris Australis bears a constant spatial relationship to South Pole of earth. North Pole star despite bearing a constant spatial relationship to North Pole does not occur at a specific point in space, it rather occupies the spatial locus defined by precession cycle of Earth’s axis which takes place in a span of 25,772 years. During the cycle actual pole star keeps changing. For example presently, Polaris is the North Pole star but in 3000 CE Gamma Cephei is expected to be North Pole star and in 5200CE Iota Cephei will assume the title.

Ancient astronomers referred to all these stars as Fixed Stars, since they were unable to observe their motion in relation to a geographical locus. However in 1718 Edmund Halley announced his discovery that Fixed Stars are not fixed but have proper motion. The Fixed Star with largest known proper motion is Barnard’s star. Besides Fixed Stars ancient astronomers also defined wandering stars which were seen to move and change their position in the manner of Sun and Moon. They change their position within a band of stars known as Zodiac.

Notion of Fixed Stars even though no longer valid has impacted physicists in a profound way.

In Newton's time the fixed stars were invoked as a reference frame supposedly at rest relative to absolute space. In other reference frames either at rest with respect to the fixed stars or in uniform translation relative to these stars, Newton's laws of motion were supposed to hold. In contrast, in frames accelerating with respect to the fixed stars, in particular frames rotating relative to the fixed stars, the laws of motion did not hold in their simplest form, but had to be supplemented by the addition of fictitious forces, for example, theCoriolis force and the centrifugal force.

 In formulating Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Einstein believed that inertial property of rigid bodies to move along straight lines in accordance with Newton’s first law of Mechanics was due to influence of fixed stars. This was also in accordance with Mach’s Principle which says “Local physical laws are determined by large scale structure of the universe”.

But all the above discussion raises the question of demonstrable connection between Fixed Stars and rigid bodies on earth forcing them to move along a straight line until and unless acted upon by an external force. Unfortunately, no such connection has been demonstrated so far.

Irony of the situation is that notion of fixed stars upon which rest the entire edifice of Newtonian Mechanics, Einstein’s theory of Relativity, Mach’s Principle etc. in itself was found to be incorrect as early as 1718 by Edmund Halley. So, laws of physics stand on a shaky foundation. Hence, there does not arise any question of laws of physics explaining star fixations.

It is quite amazing that two or more celestial bodies apparently having independent motion, having no demonstrable physical connection maintain relative position to each other. Not only this, even actual celestial bodies change from time to time while keeping relative positions all the time. Presently, there are no known scientific laws that can explain the phenomena. Rather, scientists have been misled by the phenomena.

Clearly nature is mysterious much beyond our imagination and presently it is not possible to explain all the known scientific facts on the basis of known natural laws.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null. Several chapters of the book are devoted to physics.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/buynow.php

Visit Clipboard

Why Do We Need a Family

Why Do We Need a Family?

Summary: We have seen the trend from extended families to nuclear families and now to family of individuals, enabled by independence gained by individuals through technological change and consequential cultural change during the past and the present century. However, despite all the changes, need for family has not diminished for various reasons.

Institution of family is probably the oldest institution created by humans. The only other institution in competition with institution of family is society. It is difficult to say which one preceded the other. Even it is difficult to say, what led to emergence of institution of family. Whether it was a prudent, pragmatic, intellectually determined decision of entire humanity to organize humans into groups designated as ‘family’ based on the principle of consanguinity or it has occurred  spontaneously due to human preference towards monogamy (demand for exclusivity in intimate physical relationship), relationships, parental care of young ones, care of the sick and elderly, cultural needs etc.

But one thing is certain that it is the oldest surviving human institution that continues to survive. Issues such as nuclear family versus joint family continue to raise heat and dust in human society. Concept of ‘family’ is deeply ingrained into our sense of humanity, ethics, morality and even law. Family is a legally protected and perpetuated institution in several of its facets. Rules of conduct within a family are quite different from rules of conduct outside the family.

But it is equally true that technological advances of the past and present century have enabled relatively independent living and as a consequence existence of institution of family is apparently threatened. Extended families have disintegrated into nuclear families the world over, children being reluctant to bear with and discharge their responsibilities towards their parents, in order to enjoy their individual freedom to the hilt.

Now, with technological advancement brought in particularly by World Wide Web, there is a talk about family of individuals i.e. if there are four persons in a family; that is father, mother and two children; then everybody is leading a totally independent life except the common roof and not even that. There is very little meeting ground left among members of a family.

Against the above background, the original question becomes all the more relevant as to why even in today’s world we need a family.

1.     Sentiments and relationships: We, humans, howsoever objective and rational we may become can’t do away with our sentiments and the need to have relationships. Reduction of human beings to conscious automaton or robots is just not possible.

No doubt, sentiments may be ephemeral in character but have a materialistic basis encoded in our genes and reflected as our innate behavior. That is the reason that parents can’t deliberately hurt their children even if they have done something wrong. People go miles and miles to please their spouse. Children demand love and affection to grow up. Elderly demand company of their children etc.

Relationships are a long term phenomenon and can’t be honored without commitment. This is because each and every relationship has its highs and lows primarily due to fleeting sentiments; and may be conflict of interests. Relationships can be sustained only if commitments are kept through such highs and lows. It often demands holistic approach rather than mechanistic, single minded objective and rational approach.

Somehow only within the institution of a family an arrangement can be provided for satisfaction of short term interests i.e. sentiments as well as long term interests i.e. relationships. Those, who opt otherwise, are often seen to run into difficulties.

2.     Learning Curve: Human learning curve is steep one and technological advances of the past and present century have made it steeper. Gone are the days when age determined wisdom and knowledge of individual, so younger ones naturally falling in line with their elders and taking care of them in return. In several aspects of today’s life, children are better informed than their parents. But members of a family act as ready reckoner for each other and ever ready to provide hands on training in case of need. The only difference between past and present on this ground is that today relationships have become more equitable. The contribution of institution of family towards learning curve is that it eases out or smoothes the learning curve. Without appropriate family support even the most brilliant of individual is liable to get reduced to merely a spoke in the wheel and earn the title of ‘Learned Fool’.

3.     Parental Care: It is amazing that no other species except Homosapiens requires such prolonged parental care in order to survive through Darwinian struggle for existence. But this mandates institution of family for humans. Further, children from broken families often have inappropriate personality development. Children need love and affection not only from both the parents but also from their grandparents for proper personality growth and development. It is highly undesirable to grow them up as monsters steeped in single minded, objective and rational pursuit of self-interest; lacking in comprehensive approach towards life and connected matters. Qualities of character such as compassion, empathy, respect and regard for others are more easily cultivated in a family than without.

4.     Care of the elderly and the sick: Because of advances in medical sciences, life expectancy has increased and diseases are not such dreaded natural phenomenon as they used to be. But somebody has to take care of individuals through their highs and lows. Nothing can beat the institution of family in providing ground level support through thick and thin that permeates human existence.

5.     Inheritance: We all want to live larger than life or we want to live beyond our natural death. So we all have a desire to forward our lifelong gains to the next generation. But the issues such as whom to transfer and how to transfer are best resolved within four corners of institution of family.

Undoubtedly, there can be many more reasons that mandate institution of family even today but for the sake of brevity present discussion is limited to the above.

Summarizing all above, despite all the technological advances of the past and the present century, human need for institution of family has not decreased. Rather, it has increased to ease out the learning curve through rapid technological advances and to provide care of the elderly and the sick.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing.  32^nd Chapter of the book is about Culture, Religion and Science.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/buynow.php

   Visit Clipboard for extracts from the book