Friday, March 31, 2017


A friend challenged my opinion about relativity by quoting time dilation. Here is my response to him.

I am not superstitious, but I apply my mind to whatever I read before accepting or rejecting them. You have resorted to a circular logic here: since relativity is true, time dilation as really happening for the high energy muons and then you claim time dilation proves relativity!

But before I explain what you have read and believed, let me tell you something about time dilation itself. The so-called experimental proof by atomic clocks have failed to prove time dilation. Hence a fake report was circulated by forging figures to “prove” time dilation. The readings are still available in the Naval Archives and you can verify for yourself that the initial reports of the readings were changed in the final report. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

The so-called time dilation in GPS systems are not at all based on time dilation of SR. It is due to refraction. Light is known to slow down or speed up depending upon the density of the medium through which it travels. The atmosphere has different layers with varying density. Thus, light slows down while coming through such layers. Thus, it does not prove time dilation.

High energy muons or Cosmic ray muons are produced at about 16000 meters above the ground as cosmic radiation from outer space collides with the atoms of the Earth’s atmosphere. Apparently scientists have observed that significant numbers of these cosmic ray muons (which are produced in the upper crust of the Earth’s atmosphere) survive to reach to the ground level. In other words a significant proportion of cosmic muons are able to travel a distance of 16000 meters in their life span. But scientists from their experiments on laboratory muons, found that muons live for only about 2 microseconds and travel at a speed of 0.9c. So according to them, a muon can only travel about 600 meters in its life time.  Then how could the cosmic ray muons, produced in the upper crust of the earth’s atmosphere, are able to travel a distance of 16000 meters and reach the ground? The only possible explanation for this scenario according to the superstitious is time dilation and length contraction.

But here Scientists have only noted the life span and speed of low energy muons produced in particle accelerators. How can the same be considered true for the high energy cosmic ray muons? For example, imagine that we have seen a boy traveling a distance of 100 meters in 10 seconds. We calculate his speed as 10 meters/sec. Now if we see his twin brother traveling 200 meters in 10 seconds, we would not say that the second boy has experienced time dilation or space contraction. Rather we would simply say that the second boy has run faster than the first boy. Or else we have to suspect that our measurement of time was not correct in one or the both scenarios. And same must be the case with the muons.

The probability that a muon decays in some small time interval dt is λdt, where λ is a constant “decay rate”. The "lifetime" τ of a muon is the reciprocal of λ, τ = 1/λ. This simple exponential relation is typical of radioactive decay. You do not have a single clump of muons whose surviving number can be easily measure. Instead, you detect muon decays from muons that enter your detector at essentially random times - typically one at a time. Their decay time distribution has a simple exponential form. Decay time distribution D(t) means that the time-dependent probability that a muon decays in the time interval between t and t + dt is given by D(t)dt. Because the muon decay time is exponentially distributed, it does not matter that the muons whose decays we detect are not born in the detector but somewhere above us in the atmosphere. An exponential function always “looks the same” in the sense that whether you examine it at early times or late times, its e-folding time is the same.

Muons are stopped in a large block of scintillator, where they subsequently decay into an electron/positron and two neutrinos. A short light pulse is produced by the stopping muon which is detected and amplified by a photomultiplier tube. When the muon decays a second pulse is produced by the emitted electron or positron. The signals from the photo multiplier are fed into an electronic circuit which determines the time delay between the two pulses.

Under certain conditions (gravity, energy state, environment etc.) why not a muon travel faster or live longer before it decays into the smaller particles. We know that electrons can travel at different velocities. Then why do scientists insist that all muons travel at the same speed, and introduce absurd notions like time dilation/ space contraction when they see cosmic muons traveling a much longer distance than the laboratory muons in their lifetime? Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic ray muons? And if they did, why have not we seen the laboratory muons travel the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?

Thursday, March 30, 2017



A friend wanted to know: what black holes are made of? If they form from the collapse of a huge star which runs out of hydrogene and helium, and after it explodes in supernova explosion, then the rest of gasses is away. It collapses into heavy elements stored nucleus. What happens with matter under extreme conditions we cannot create on earth to watch closely? However, very high pressures and very high and low temperatures are generated.

Let us keep certain observations in mind.
1) The black holes are known to have intense magnetic fields. It is known that when heated above 176° Fahrenheit (80° celsius), magnets will quickly lose their magnetic properties. The magnet will become permanently demagnetized if exposed to these temperatures for a certain length of time or heated at a significantly higher temperature (Curie temperature). Modern magnet materials do lose a very small fraction of their magnetism over time. For Samarium Cobalt materials, for example, this has been shown to be less that 1% over a period of ten years. Thus, to have the intense magnetic field, the interor of black holes cannot be hot. However, the modern notion is that it must be tremendously hot - millions of degrees Kelvin - which is self-contradictory.

2) The event horizon of a black hole is said to be a one-way filter in the black hole: anything can enter it, but nothing can leave it. The concept of event horizon itself is wrong.

If a light pulse expanding in two dimensions and time will sketch concentric circles and not as you have shown, which is a three dimensional structure. If we add the third dimension, then it will sketch concentric spheres of increased radius and not a time cone. This has misguided science for a long time and needs correction. We see when light from a radiating body reaches our eyes. It has no colors. Light itself is not visible unless it meets our eye to show its source. We see only the source and not the light proper. We see color only when a reflected light meets our eyes. All radiation move in curved path, i.e., waves within a fixed band. But once it is received in an apparatus including the eye, it behaves as a straight line. In both cases, it does not behave like a cone.

3) But that notion is now changing. Black holes do not have such "event horizons" according to Hawking, conformed by NASA. In that case, the event horizon would, in theory, become smaller than the apparent horizon. Hawking's new suggestion is that the apparent horizon is the real boundary. The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light cannot escape to infinity. This was suggested earlier by Abhas Mitra, but his solution - Magnetically Eternally Collapsing Object (MECO) - is again wrong. If it is magnetic, it cannot be hot and nothing can collapse eternally.

4) Black holes are detected indirectly by the intense x-rays detected by them. When material falls into a black hole from a companion star, it gets heated to millions of degrees Kelvin and accelerated. The superheated materials emit X-rays, which can be detected by X-ray telescopes. But the difference in origin of x-rays and gamma rays is that, x-rays are emitted by the negatively charged outer electron cells of atoms, whereas gamma rays are emitted by the positively charged nucleus. There is no reason to believe that in a black hole, it happens otherwise. The nature of negative charge is to confine positive charge. Thus, there must be a positive charge in the core of the black hole, which should not be hot. The only possibility is it has to be antimatter.

5) A black hole is said to be a very simple object: it has only three properties: mass, spin and electrical charge. Because of the way in which black holes form, their electrical charge is said to be probably zero. But then charge neutral objects do not emit x-rays. If the radiation coming from the positively charge core, it should be gamma rays and not x-rays.

6) An object with immense mass (hence gravitational pull) like a galaxy or black hole between the Earth and a distant object could bend the light from the distant object into a focus – gravitational lensing. If a visible star or disk of gas has a "wobbling" motion or spinning and there is not a visible reason for this motion and the invisible reason has an effect that appears to be caused by an object with a mass greater than three solar masses (too big to be a neutron star), then it is possible that a black hole is causing the motion. Scientists then estimate the mass of the black hole by looking at its effect on the visible object. For example, at the center of the Milky Way, we see an empty spot where all of the stars are circling around as if they were orbiting a really dense mass. That is where the black hole is.

7) Black holes have spin. But since it is constituted of antimatter core, it cannot have normal spin, but internal spin, which would make entry into a black hole a winding path.

Interestingly, our ancients have described some such object, which has a winding path to the core, which is lighted but not hot, and any matter coming into contact with it gets annihilated. They describe the object by various names like Shilocchaya (meaning compact object), Guha (meaning visibility from within), whose center was described as negatively charged and called Swayamprabha (meaning self illuminated).

If we compare this description and the fact that the centers of galaxies have black holes, we come to an interesting conclusion. Think of a charge neutral object coming near a positively charged object. Part of the charge neutral object facing the positively charged object suddenly develops a negative charge and the other end positive charge, so that the negative charge, which generally confines the positive charge, is now itself confined between positive charges. This in turn leads to reaction involving release of high energy and further realignment restoring balance.

Such a thing happens inside atoms continuously involving protons and neutrons. The extra energy released appears as W bosons with a mass of 80.385 +/- 0.015 GeV/c^2, even though the masses of protons and neutrons are of the order of 938.28 MeV/c^2 and 939.57 MeV/c^2 respectively.

Conclusion: Black holes are macro equivalents of neutrons.

Saturday, March 04, 2017


We are appalled by your great wisdom. Being a Professor devoted to spreading education and eradicating ignorance, we beg you to be gracious enough to consider us as a student and kindly explain and educate us the basic foundations of “Orch OR” and the meaning of space-time and its fabric. Since you have published the paper with a renowned Physicist, your insight into the subject must be great and it will be a novel experience of learning physics from a Professor of Psychology, who is an authority of physics also. Let us discuss “Orch OR” in the first half, after which we will discuss physics.

In your paper “Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model of Consciousness”, you begin with “Potential features of quantum computation could explain enigmatic aspects of consciousness. The Penrose-Hameroff model (orchestrated objective reduction: ‘Orch OR’) suggests that quantum superposition and a form of quantum computation occur in microtubules - cylindrical protein lattices of the cell cytoskeleton within the brain’s neurons. Microtubules couple to and regulate neural-level synaptic functions, and they may be ideal quantum computers because of dynamical lattice structure, quantum-level subunit states and intermittent isolation from environmental interactions”.

Only the scaling up or down of digitized particles or the result of measurement of their interactions can be computed. If “Potential features of quantum computation could explain enigmatic aspects of consciousness”, then do you mean consciousness can be digitized? There is no proof in support of this view. Though our sense organs are digitized, they are individually meaningless - without mixing, there cannot be awareness of any object. Let us take the example of a rose. Eyes see only a reflected light that gives the perception of color. When both eyes see the colour from different angles, our sense of touch gives the contracting features to indicate various depths, which are amalgamated as form. The nose gives the fragrance. Our sense of taste (which can be meaningful only after it is transformed to a fluid state) gives the sense of glow (with liquid content and not dryness). Finally, our recalling of a past experience where we heard people calling a similar object as rose gives us the perception of rose. Without the mix of all digitized inputs, there will be no perception or awareness, which is called consciousness. Thus, who or what represents the “mixer” in your model?

When you talk about the “enigmatic aspects of consciousness”, how can you measure or compute it? Enigma is mysterious or difficult to understand. If it is mysterious, it is not known. If it is difficult to understand, you cannot be sure that what you assume is correct. Then how can you compute something unknown or something about which you are not sure? Further, what are the other aspects of consciousness? Giving a partial explanation about something is not enough. You must list out all aspects to avoid ambiguity and misinterpretation.

We have explained in later paragraphs that except the state measured at a time ‘t’, all other unknown states are combined and are called the superposition of states. Then how can you compute the unknown states or “quantum superposition and a form of quantum computation (that) occur in microtubules”? Penrose’s Quantum gravity formulations are not widely accepted in the scientific community and till date there is no definite proof of gravity being quantized – gravitons have never been discovered. Thus, the whole thing including his theory, is reduced to speculation. Can speculation be science?

When you say: “Microtubules couple to and regulate neural-level synaptic functions, and they may be ideal quantum computers because of dynamical lattice structure, quantum-level subunit states and intermittent isolation from environmental interactions”, you appear to relate microtubules to consciousness. But in a dead body, the microtubules do not function. Then how could you deduce theories of consciousness from something, which by itself is not conscious?

All operations involve energy. The moment the vital energy leaves the body; all organs including the microtubules, DNA/RNA, neurons, genes, etc. become non-functional. Thus, the vital energy would appear to be responsible for consciousness. But energy is mechanical. Thus, it cannot explain consciousness. How do you explain this paradox?

When you talk about “orchestrated objective reduction”, you clarify, it as “implementing multiple computations simultaneously, in parallel, according to quantum linear superposition”. You admit that “The main obstacle to realization of quantum computation is the problem of interfacing to the system (input, output) while also protecting the quantum state from environmental decoherence. If this problem can be overcome, then present day classical computers may evolve into quantum computers”. We have described the “workings of the human mind” in terms of contemporary information technology as follows:

Stuart Hameroff says: “feelings drive evolution, not survival of genes”. In one of the papers we edited, we had written as follows: There is a proverb: “Prayojanamanuddishya Na Mandopi Pravartate”. The meaning is that no one does anything without necessity. What is this necessity? A necessity (प्रयोजन) is that which propels everyone and everything to initiate an effort (येनप्रयुक्तः प्रवर्त्तते). Before someone does anything, he/she feels a deficiency somewhere which needs to be addressed. If he/she has the knowledge (ज्ञानम्) of any mechanism to address the deficiency, he/she feels the need (इच्छा) for that thing to be done (यमर्थमभीप्सन् जिहासन् वा कर्म्मारभते). Then only he/she puts that knowledge to execute the needed action (कृति). This principle applies to everyone for every action using every technology (सर्वे प्राणिनः सर्वाणि कर्म्माणि   सर्वाश्चविद्या व्याप्ताः). Thus, mind and intelligence, which propel towards action due to freewill, are important in conscious efforts.

We have already explained in detail that mind is not a computer, though there are similarities and consciousness is different from mind and intelligence. Even for Jeeva, it is the Observer for the “feelings like happiness, pains, desire, attachment, repulsion, etc”. Thus, it has “knowledge” of all these, which propels it into action by releasing or applying necessary energy (mechanism of observation), which is confined in the body (observed), which is the base for such experiences. The sensory agencies including the objects or processes through which they function, such as DNA, microtubules, etc., are the instrumentalities used in the mechanism of observation. Modern scientists focus only on these instrumentalities ignoring the Observer. The Jeeva is characterized by its response to desire, repulsion, effort due to freewill (not mechanical motion, which is a sign of inertness), feelings of happiness, pain, and knowledge or awareness (इच्छा-द्वेष-प्रयत्न-सुख-दुःख-ज्ञानान्यात्मनो लिङ्गम्). None of the agencies discussed by Hameroff and others including DNA, microtubules, etc., can explain these. They do not have a clear idea about “mind”, “feeings”, etc., about which we discussed in in detail in our papers for the earlier conferences.

We frequently compare mind with RAM, brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind goes to sleep if overworked. Intelligence is like CPU, which does the processing of all sensory inputs. Just like CPU cannot execute a program that is “not on the disc” and has not been loaded in the RAM, intelligence cannot act without mind. If memory speed is less than FSB, it takes too long to fetch an instruction or an operand. Similarly, mind shows dullness or brightness based on its species specific speed. Just like the CPU and RAM differ in processing capabilities (arithmetic dexterity) and storage capacity respectively even after the computer breaks down; different species show different levels of behaviour. These are input, memory, processing and output related and not perception related (as “I know” or happiness, pain, desire etc).

Vital energy that starts breathing, which continues perpetually is like the power supply (electricity provided by a battery). The first breath is like the BIOS Chip, which boosts the computer and searches and loads the OS to RAM from ROM that cannot be modified, which is equivalent to memory content of the new born (such as to cry to draw attention of others when it is uncomfortable or to suckle the nipple when it is brought near its mouth when hungry and many such first time behaviour, which has not been experienced by it since birth). First breathing is like first boosting of the computer. Like Consciousness, OS is same for all computers, but BIOS varies from computer to computer. Similarly, consciousness in all living beings exhibits itself through DNA coding, which is species specific. It is a program semi permanently stored into one of the main chips. The OS creates virtual memory in HDD by creating a page-file when the system runs out of RAM. Similarly, we recollect more recollections correlated with greater connectivity among different regions of brain. Sometimes “over-clocking” boosts up OS speed. Similarly, suddenly we have bright ideas. 

More RAM directly increases the amount of applications run simultaneously, faster loading time, faster boot up, and overall greater boost through all aspects. Greater brain size and surface area (creases) does the same for living beings. The better the CPU, more information can be processed at a time. Similarly, better intelligence can take faster decisions. The better the HDD, the faster the information can be passed on to the processor. The bigger the HDD, more information can be stored. The bigger the brain surface area, the faster and better operations could be performed. The CPU processes information in computers using logic gates. Intelligence does the same thing through sensory agencies. CPU directs RAM to do what is important. RAM can provide inputs, but cannot directly take decisions. Intelligence takes decisions based on inputs provided by mind only. When switched off, RAM becomes empty. CMOS battery keeps the CMOS alive the chip even when the computer is turned off. Similarly, intelligence remains active even in deep sleep. This way, macroscopic phenomena are connected to the brain’s known neural activity. But when you write in your paper “macroscopic quantum phenomena”, we are at a loss. If it is macroscopic, it cannot be quantum. If both are the same, both these terms are superfluous.

There are differences between brain’s software and computer software. A computer can simultaneously test for more than one condition or execute multiple commands. But the brain cannot do so. They follow sequence of logical efforts first and knowledge of such efforts later. Computers run on standard/special programs, which are soft, i.e., flexible to be instantly reprogrammed. These are put to the hardware to become operational. Similarly, the body matter including the bacteria, neurons, DNA, microtubules, etc, are hardwares that operationalize the life’s software. But who writes the program? Only conscious beings can initiate action based on freewill. It is different from motion, which is a mechanical reaction. Thus, we have to admit a super consciousness outside all mechanical devices including robots. Since human mind is like computer, it cannot write its own program.

Self-reproduction is a mechanical process. There is no self-reproduction in consciousness (the object or mechanism of perception may change, but one perception cannot be differentiated from another), though linked information retrieval may give other notions, such as replication. We request you to kindly educate us on this issue.

You propose: “microtubules within the brain’s neurons are viewed as self-organizing quantum computers”. Self-organization is a process where some form of overall order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between smaller component parts of an initially disordered system. The process of self-organization can be spontaneous, and it is not necessarily controlled by any auxiliary agent outside of the system. This would make the neuron’s function without any auxiliary agent outside of the system. Then how do you explain the dead neurons and how do you differentiate between the two types of neurons? Without clarifying the basis of your theory, the deductions or details become meaningless tryst with fiction.

As we understand from our little knowledge of physics, space and time arise out of our perception of sequence and interval. When the sequence of objects and their interval are involved, we call the interval space. When events are involved, we call their interval time. Measurement is a process of comparison between similar. For measuring space and time, we take easily intelligible and fairly repetitive distances and events to devise a unit. For example, a day or a year is a fairly repetitive and easily intelligible event. We take these as time units and sub-divide it to get the second or multiply it with the speed of time to get light year. We design clocks to synchronize the ticks with the subdivision called second. Similarly, we design scales of unit interval between objects and take it as the unit for measurement of distance. The interval between any two objects is compared – scaled up or down – with this unit. The result depicting the interval is called space through alternative symbolism since space itself has no identifying characteristics and cannot be measured in the absence of objects. The sequential arrangements of objects are depicted through coordinates. For example, the actual distance between two objects or points may not always reflect their distance (geodesics). For this purposes various coordinate systems such as Cartesian and polar coordinates are used.

Dimension is not the same as direction. It describes the interface between the internal structural space and external relational space with other objects that remains invariant under mutual transformation. The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Hence there is an uncertainty inherent in it. Since the interface is not constant in fluids, there can be no fixed result of measurement of their dimension – hence it cannot remain invariant under mutual transformation. For this reason, volume is considered for fluids, which remain constant under mutual transformation. However, since time does not fulfil any of these criteria, it cannot have dimension or volume.

Einstein defined space as what we measure by measuring rods and time as what we measure by the ticks of a clock. Since he did not define “what we measure”, we are confused about his meaning. We also have difficulty in understanding measurement in a moving from using a scale in the fixed frame, but we are not seeking clarification about it now. We beg you to kindly teach us proper physics by clarifying the position, such as “what we measure” for space and time and “how time is considered a fourth dimension”. Also we are confused about the extra dimensions, which remain undetected even after a century, but which every scientist swears by. To us, it appears like the “flower of the sky” – something only heard of but never seen. Since all scientists including Penrose use it, we must be ignorant about it. Hence we beg you to kindly educate us.

The wave-function was popularized by Schrödinger. He noted that it may happen in radioactive decay that “the emerging particle is described ... as a spherical wave ... that impinges continuously on a surrounding luminescent screen over its full expanse. The screen however does not show a more or less constant uniform surface glow, but rather lights up at one instant at one spot ....”. He observed that one can easily arrange, for example by including a cat in the system, “quite ridiculous cases” with the ψ-function of the entire system having in it the living and the dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. Thus it is because of the “measurement problem” of macroscopic superposition that Schrödinger found it difficult to regard the wave function as “representing reality”. But then what does reality represent? With evident disapproval, Schrödinger describes how the reigning doctrine rescues itself by having recourse to epistemology. We are told that no distinction is to be made between the state of a natural object and what we know about it, or perhaps better, what we can know about it. Actually – it is said - there is intrinsically only awareness, observation, measurement. But what is the proof for the validity of this statement? We request you to kindly educate on this.

One of the assumptions of quantum mechanics is that any state of a physical system and its time evolution is represented by the wave-function, obtained by the solution of time-dependent Schrödinger equation. Secondly, it is assumed that any physical state is represented by a vector in Hilbert space being spanned on one set of Hamiltonian eigenfunctions and all states are bound together with the help of superposition principle. However, if applied to a physical system, these two assumptions exhibit mutual contradiction. It is said that any superposition of two solutions of Schrödinger equation is also a solution of the same equation. However, this statement can have physical meaning only if the two solutions correspond to the same initial conditions.

By superposing solutions belonging to different initial conditions, we obtain solutions corresponding to fully different initial conditions, which imply that significantly different physical states have been combined in a manner that is not allowed. The linear differential equations that hold for general mathematical superposition principles have nothing to do with physical reality, as actual physical states and their evolution is uniquely defined by corresponding initial conditions. These initial conditions characterize individual solutions of Schrödinger equation. They correspond to different properties of a physical system, some of which are conserved during the entire evolution.

The physical superposition principle has been deduced from the linearity of Schrödinger differential equation without any justification. This arbitrary assumption has been introduced into physics without any proof. The solutions belonging to diametrically different initial conditions have been arbitrarily superposed. Such statements like: “quantum mechanics including superposition rules have been experimentally verified” is absolutely wrong. All tests hitherto have concerned only consequences following from the Schrödinger equation. We request you to kindly educate on this.

Similarly, the Schrödinger equation in so-called one dimension (it is a second order equation as it contains a term x2, which is in two dimensions and mathematically implies area) is converted to three dimensional by addition of two similar factors for y and z axis. Three dimensions mathematically imply volume. Addition of three (two dimensional) areas does not generate (three dimensional) volume and x2+y2+z2  (x.y.z). We request you to kindly educate on this.

You have described feelings by giving examples of “Epicurean delight, ‘dopaminergic reward’, Freud’s ‘pleasure principle’, spiritual bliss, and altruism (it feels better to give than to receive)”. These are details like the different dishes served in a banquet (Epicurean delight). But the question is what is the basic principle? Why do we need the different dishes or the banquet itself? While discussing “feelings”, these become important. We need food for survival, which is a physical and biological necessity as a mechanical function. From our experience with different dishes, we have developed certain tastes for certain combinations of edible ingredients that not only fulfil our need for food, but also are harmonious to our maintenance of the body (good health). While there are various alternatives leading to the same goal, we select only a few, because, we “feel” comfortable (memory of past experience with it was harmonious to our taste – not Dopaminergic reward, which is a manipulated reaction). Some neurotransmitters modulate the activity of specific brain nucleus (such as nuclei accumbens, putamen, ventral tegmental area - VTA, among others) and synchronizes the activity of these nuclei to establish the neurobiological mechanism to set the hedonic element of learning. Experimental evidence highlights the activity of different brain nuclei modulating the mechanisms whereby dopamine biases memory towards events that are of motivational significance. Such biased memory cannot be used to formulate a theory.

Thus, “feeling” is related to memory of objects encountered in the past. If that was harmonious with our composition (did not release free radicals), we feel comfortable. Otherwise we “feel” uncomfortable or pain. This is in conformity with Freud’s principle that the mind seeks pleasure and avoids pain - the child learns that the environment does not always permit immediate gratification. His “maturity” is based on memory. Yet, in his book Beyond the Pleasure Principle, published in 1921, Freud considered the possibility of “the operation of tendencies beyond the pleasure principle, that is, of tendencies more primitive than it and independent of it”. Through an examination of the role of ‘repetition compulsion’ in potentially over-riding the pleasure principle, Freud ultimately developed his opposition between Eros, the life instinct, and Thanatos, the death drive. Thus, the basic feelings are reduced only to ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ (bhoga), with food, selter, sex, etc being subsidiary instrumentalities (upabhoga – secondary bhoga). Thus, it is not universal (avidyaa). If we can have knowledge (vidyaa) about the nature of objects we use, we could chose only what is good for us leaving out the rest. Then, there cannot be any “feeling”, but only knowledge of the Nature. It has nothing to do with survival - genetic or otherwise. This is why “scientific approaches to brain function can’t account for feelings or consciousness (‘qualia’, the ‘hard problem’)”.

Regarding Dopaminergic reward, one must be careful. In a recent study: “On the Nature and Nurture of Intelligence and Specific Cognitive Abilities: The More Heritable, the More Culture Dependent” published in Psychological Science, (DOI: 10.1177/0956797613493292), researchers investigated how heritability coefficients vary across specific cognitive abilities both theoretically and empirically. They assessed the “Cultural load” of various cognitive abilities by taking the average percentage of test items that were adjusted when the test was adapted for use in 13 different countries. The finding suggests that:

1.      In adult samples, culture-loaded subtests tend to demonstrate greater heritability coefficients than do culture-reduced subtests; and
2.      In samples of both adults and children, a subtest’s proportion of variance shared with general intelligence is a function of its cultural load.

The above finding implies that, the extent to which a test of cognitive ability correlates with Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is the extent to which it reflects societal demands and not cognitive demands. “IQ” here refers to the general intelligence factor: technically defined as the first factor derived from a factor analysis of a diverse battery of cognitive tests, representing a diverse sample of the general population, explaining the largest source of variance in the dataset. Further, in adults, higher heritability of the cognitive test reflects more test-dependence on cultureThe effects were medium-to-large and statistically significant. Highly culturally loaded tests such as Vocabulary, Spelling, and Information had relatively high heritability coefficients and were also highly related to IQ. This counter-intuitive finding is inconsistent with the traditional investment theory and aggravated the nature-nurture debate of intelligence.

The question: “why did the most culturally-loaded tests have the highest heritability coefficients” – returns many puzzles. The society is a homogeneous learning environment – school systems are all the same; everyone in a class has the same educational experiences; yet the cognitive ability varies. If the traditional investment theory is correct and crystallized intelligence (such as vocabulary, general knowledge) is more cognitively demanding than solving the most complex abstract reasoning tests, then tests such as vocabulary would have to depend more on IQ than fluid intelligence. But why tests such as vocabulary would have a higher cognitive demand than tests that are less culturally-loaded but more cognitively complex (such as tests of abstract reasoning)? Also, this theory doesn't provide an explanation for why the heritability of IQ increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood. One way out is to abandon some long held assumptions in the West. These findings are best understood in terms of genotype-environment covariance, in which cognitive abilities and knowledge dynamically feed off each other. Those with a proclivity to engage in cognitive complexity will tend to seek out intellectually demanding environments. As they develop higher levels of cognitive ability, they will also tend to achieve relatively higher levels of knowledge. More knowledge will make it more likely that they will eventually end up in more cognitively demanding environments, which will facilitate the development of an even wider range of knowledge and skills.

Societal demands influence the development and interaction of multiple cognitive abilities and knowledge, thus causing positive correlations among each other, and giving rise to the general intelligence factor. These findings do not mean that differences in intelligence are entirely determined by culture. The structure of cognitive abilities is strongly influenced by genes also. What these findings do suggest is that there is a much greater role of culture, education, and experience in the development of intelligence than mainstream Western theories of intelligence have assumed. Behavioural genetics researchers - who parse out genetic and environmental sources of variation – have often operated on the assumption that genotype and environment are independent and do not co-vary. These findings suggest they very much do co-vary.

Attempts were made to link perception and intelligence - for instance, do intelligent people see more detail in a scene? Now scientists at the University of Rochester and at Vanderbilt University have demonstrated that high IQ may be best predicted by combining what we perceive and what we cannot. In two studies in the journal Current Biology, researchers discovered that performance on this test was more correlated with IQ than any other sensory-intelligence link ever explored - but the high-IQ participants were not simply scoring better overall. Individuals with high IQ indeed detected movement accurately within the smallest frame - a finding that suggests that the ability to rapidly process information contributes to intelligence. More intriguing was the fact that subjects who had higher IQ, struggled more than other subjects to detect motion in the largest frame. The authors suggest that the findings underscore how intelligence requires that we think fast but focus selectively, ignoring distractions. Earlier, analysts of the US Army data claiming black-white difference invented a “Spearman’s hypothesis” to show that “the magnitude of the black-white differences on tests of cognitive ability are directly proportional to the test’s correlation with IQ”. In “Psychology, Public Policy, and Law” 2005, Vol. 11, DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235, the authors made the case that this proves that black-white differences must be genetic in origin. But the recent findings discussed above suggest just the opposite: The bigger the difference in cognitive ability between blacks and whites, the more the difference is determined by cultural influencesMore study on the role of genotype-environment covariance in the development of cognitive ability needs to be done.

There is a saying in our country: “when speaking about a subject on which you are not an expert, you should be brief and not use it out of context”. Unfortunately, now-a-days, people are drawing limited quotes from other fields and used high-sounding words to show of how much they know about everything. Your example of Penrose is one such instance. This is called the age of science. But currently physics is at cross-roads. There are a large number of different approaches to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics (QM). Each approach is a modification of the theory that introduces some new aspect with new equations which need to be interpreted. Thus there are many interpretations of QM. Every theory has its own model of reality. There is no unanimity regarding what constitutes reality. Quantum Mechanics is not compatible with Relativity. General Relativity does not work beyond solar system. The “Information Paradox” shows that either Quantum theory is wrong or Relativity is wrong. Both cannot be correct simultaneously. Most of the ‘established theories’ have been questioned as the latest observations find mind boggling anomalies in theoretical prediction and actual measurement. In hierarchy problem of dark energy, the theory and observation differ by a mind boggling factors ranging from 1057 to 10120. Yet, this theory got Nobel Prize. Similarly fantasies like extra-dimensions have not been proved even after more than a century. In short, there is a severe crisis in physics, though no one is publicly admitting it, as they fear that international funding will dry up. We will discuss the fallacies of Penrose separately.

There is a saying in Vedanta "Yat pinde tat Brahmaande", which implies, the microcosm and the macrocosm replicate each other. Thus, it is no wonder that there will be many such instances. You admit that QM and GR do not commute. Many scientists including Penrose have tried to harmonize both. Penrose's pet theme about quantum gravity does not stand the test of proof because there is no proof that gravity can be quantized - graviton, its predicted carrier particle, has not been discovered. Thus, it is fiction. For the last three years, the Information paradox has proved that either QM is correct or GR is correct. Both cannot simultaneously correct. We have shown that GR cannot be correct. You can ask Dr. Lee Smolin about our paper. Regarding the gravity wave, there are many questions. It has not been independently verified by other teams. Hence it could be a misleading inference or chance.

We may point out that more than 3 years ego CERN/LHC announced the discovery about the Higg's boson - the so-called god-damned particle refereed to the God particle. We was among the first to question it during September 2012. Even today, you can verify from the web page of CERN that the discovered particle IS NOT HIGGS BOSON BUT HIGG LIKE. Similarly, even though it was claimed that it provides mass to everything, it is totally wrong. It provides mass through weak interaction, which is about 0.5% of the total mass.  Of course not being a physicist, you will not understand these. 
In case you do not agree with our views, we challenge you to PROVE not brand us wrong.
Even Einstein did not claim that GR is about consciousness. The world over accepts GR as the theory of gravitation which replaced Newtonian theory. Thus, do you mean gravitation is consciousness? Ha. Ha. Good joke.
What is gravitising consciousness? Coining new words like Orch OR to impress people? Sorry, we are not impressed. 
We are not bothered by the claims on GW. We have a different interpretation for it which fake scientists like you will never understand. 
Instead of claiming that Orch OR will explain consciousness, please specifically reply to our queries, which challenges the basics of your fiction touted as a theory. Otherwise kindly change your position and please do not waste the time of others. Members of this group are too intelligent to see through your gimmick.

For “Penrose’s suggestion that gravity affects collapse of the wave-function which gives rise to consciousness” to be acceptable, he or you must give proof and not issue diktat. Till date QM believed that observation by an intelligent agent collapses wave function. Suddenly you issue your command like “God said let there be light and there was light”. Do you claim yourself to be God? Otherwise prove “how gravity affects collapse of the wave-function” and how it "gives rise to consciousness"? For people like you and Penrose, the prestigious scientific magazine Nature had to publish a paper warning scientists to defend the integrity of physics. You can read the full paper at Nature 516, 321–323 (18 December 2014) doi:10.1038/516321a.

To give examples of falsification of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate and measurement in a moving frame, the following videos clearly show that the frequency measured by the moving observer shifts (Doppler effect) because the speed of the light pulses relative to him shifts: “Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still”. “Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still”. Einstein’s relativity can only be saved by assuming that the motion of the observer miraculously changes the wavelength of the incoming light (or the distance between subsequent pulses), as in the following picture:

Ironically, the muon lifetime experiment, correct or not, tests an invalid prediction of Einstein’s relativity. It follows from Einstein’s 1905 two postulates that time dilation is symmetrical - either observer sees the other’s clock running slow. Yet Einstein found it profitable to inform the world that, although time dilation is symmetrical, it is still asymmetrical - the stationary clock runs faster than the travelling one: ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905:
(a) “The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest”, or
(b) “By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of the rod”

The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
·      If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
·      If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Einstein goes on to say: “From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." This is tantamount to saying that, although elephants are unable to fly, they can still do so by just flapping their ears. Yet the breathtaking impliciations of Einstein's invalid conclusion (time travel into the future etc) enchanted the world: John Barrow FRS, professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: “Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious”. Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein’s relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein’s Brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out”.


Everything in the universe is interconnected and interdependent (इयं पृथिवी सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्यै पृथिव्यैसर्वाणि भूतानि मधु….etc). Thus, knowledge of anything cannot be in isolation, but must be with relation to everything else – differentiated from all others in the form ‘x’ not ‘y’ (मधु - मन्यन्ते विशेषेण जानन्ति जना यस्मिन्). This leads to the complementarity principle (युतसिद्धः). This complementarity is not that of Bohr, but of the nature of a container (वयोनाध) and its conjugate contained (वय) making everything observable (वयुन– वीयते प्राप्यते विषया अनेन). The contained (वय) is called matter particle (वस्तु) and the container (वयोनाध) is called the field (क्षेत्रम्). The field can provide the matter position and momentum, facilitate gradual decomposition, or partial decomposition like beta decay (क्षि निवासगत्यौ, क्षये, हिंसायाम्). Thus, it is the field that regulates the behaviour of the matter present in it. Though this concept appears close to the space-time curvature of Einstein, it is conceptually different from that.

Based on the mechanism of perception, objects can be divided into two categories: 1). perceived directly (भावप्रत्यय) or 2) inferred indirectly based on direct observation of something else (उपायप्रत्यय). The second category can also be of two types: a) quantum or radiating energy related (देवाः  दिवति भाषति इति) or b) beyond quantum (प्रकृतिलयाः). Information or knowledge is the result of measurement, which is a comparison between similars, one of which is treated as the unit. Thus, based on whether the matter particle is perceived directly (भावप्रत्यय) or inferred indirectly (उपायप्रत्यय), the field (क्षेत्रम्) can be of two types (स्थूल-सूक्ष्म विभागेन द्विधा क्षेत्रमवस्थितम्). Where the objects appear as a conglomerate of elementary particles and forces, the container field is called corpulent field (स्थूल) because these particles (कार्यषोडशकम्) can be perceived directly. Where the objects appear in isolation, the container field is called the sensitive field (सूक्ष्म सूच्यते इति सूच् पैशुन्ये पिशुनः परष्परभेदशीलः), because these cannot be perceived directly, but requires some other similar intermediate sensing agency that does only one function at a time (like intelligence, etc - बुद्ध्यादिमात्रजम्, whose function is to reveal the unrevealed) for their perception. This second category of field is responsible for consciousness.

All perceptible objects contain all the five fundamental forces of Nature: strong nuclear force (अन्तर्याम), weak force excluding beta decay (वहिर्याम), electromagnetic force (उपयाम), beta decay (यातयाम) and gravitational force (उद्याम) in a three-fold structure: nucleus, intra-nucleic field and electron orbits or आत्माप्राणपशु (यानि पञ्चधा त्रीणि त्रीणि तेभ्यो न ज्यायः परमन्यदस्ति). These are responsible for the five senses: smell, taste, form, touch, sound (गन्ध, रस, रूप, स्पर्श, शव्द) respectively. The exact mechanism of functioning of these sense organs will prove it. For example, we can smell only when something is brought very close to our nose in a powder or gaseous form. We can taste only when the object becomes fluid in our mouth. Etc. Since mind acts with all senses, it also has these properties. Hence it is only the carrier and cannot reflect consciousness.

Number is a property of all directly perceptible objects (having all five fundamental forces of Nature), which differentiates between similar (संख्या सर्वस्य भेदिका). Thus, while numbers are perceived by intelligence, the opposite is not true. This also explains why numbers are related to individual aspects. For example; when we count the different colors (रूपम् - number of red objects) in a lot; we do not count the shapes (स्पर्शः - round or cubic objects among that lot). But this does not explain the Observer. We will explain It separately.


There are a large number of different approaches or formulations to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics. There is the Heisenberg’s Matrix Formulation, Schrödinger’s Wave-function Formulation, Feynman’s Path Integral Formulation, Second Quantization Formulation, Wigner’s Phase Space Formulation, Density Matrix Formulation, Schwinger’s Variational Formulation, de Broglie-Bohm’s Pilot Wave Formulation, Hamilton-Jacobi Formulation etc. There are several Quantum Mechanical pictures based on placement of time-dependence. There is the Schrödinger Picture: time-dependent Wave-functions, the Heisenberg Picture: time-dependent operators and the Interaction Picture: time-dependence split. The different approaches are in fact, modifications of the theory. Each one introduces some prominent new theoretical aspect with new equations, which needs to be interpreted or explained. Thus, there are many different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, which are very difficult to characterize. Prominent among them are; the Realistic Interpretation: wave-function describes reality, the Positivistic Interpretation: wave-function contains only the information about reality, the famous Copenhagen Interpretation: which is the orthodox Interpretation. Then there is Bohm’s Causal Interpretation, Everett’s Many World’s Interpretation, Mermin’s Ithaca Interpretation, Brukner-Zeilinger interpretation, etc. Thus, QM is not one coherent theory.

The principle of mass-energy equivalence, which is treated as the corner-stone principle of all nuclear interactions, binding energies of atoms and nucleons, etc., enters physics only as a corollary of the transformation equations between frames of references in relative motion. Quantum Mechanics (QM) cannot justify this equivalence principle on its own, even though it is the theory concerned about the energy exchanges and interactions of fundamental particles. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the extension of QM (dealing with particles) over to fields. In spite of the reported advancements in QFT, there is very little back up experimental proof to validate many of its postulates including Higgs mechanism, bare mass/charge, infinite charge etc. It seems almost impossible to think of QFT without thinking of particles which are accelerated and scattered in colliders. But interestingly, the particle interpretation has the best arguments against QFT. Till recently, the Big Bang hypothesis held the center stage in cosmology. Now Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) with its postulates of the “Big Bounce” is taking over. Yet there are two distinctly divergent streams of thought on this subject also. The confusion surrounding interpretation of quantum physics is further compounded by the modern proponents, who often search historical documents of discarded theories and come up with new meanings or discard earlier theories to back up their own theories. For example, the cosmological constant, first proposed and subsequently rejected as the greatest blunder of his life by Einstein; has made a come back in cosmology. Bohr’s complementarity principle, originally central to his vision of quantum particles, has been reduced to a corollary and is often identified with the frameworks in Consistent Histories.


Einstein introduced a “postulate”, which he defined as “the purport of which will hereafter be called the ‘Principle of Relativity’”. He went on to add “Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by ‘time’. We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments ofsimultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, ‘That train arrives here at 7 o’clock’, I mean something like this: ‘The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events’.” He went on further to say: “It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of ‘time’ by substituting ‘the position of the small hand of my watch’ for ‘time’. And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or - what comes to the same thing - to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch”.

From the above, it is clear that he introduced a “postulate”, which defined time as “time series of events occurring at different places”, and he evaluated (measured) “the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch”. Measurement requires a real and absolute unit – otherwise there cannot be any result of measurement. Thus, the watch must be real and absolute measure of time. The watch is a mechanical device, which has to real and subject to mechanical errors. Can such a unit be absolute?

He goes on to add: “If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an ‘A time’ and a ‘B time’. We have not defined a common ‘time’ for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ‘time’ required by light to travel from A to B equals the ‘time’ it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the ‘A time’ tA from A towards B, let it at the ‘B time’ tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ‘A time’ t’A. In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: tB - tA = t’A - tB)”.

If we go by his postulate that the speed of light is constant, then tA should be equal to t’A if the distance between A and B is fixed. If the distance between A and B is variable, then they will be different. If the variance is random, the two cannot be correlated as each time we will have a set of different readings. If the variance follows a fixed patten, then the two times can be correlated and they would not be relative. Hence ths definition is not free from contradictions as Einstein assumes.

Einstein further says: “We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:
  1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
  2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other”.

What the above statement means is: if both the watches at A and B synchronize with the watch at C, then the watches at A and B synchronize. Thus, the watch at C is treated as a fixed reference frame. Then how can the watches at A and B be relative? If they give reading free of mechanical error and if the readings are different like seconds and nano-seconds, then the readings are not relative, but the units are different. If there is some mechanical error in one of these watches which shows a different reading, will time become different? Einstein actually uses a privileged frame of reference to define synchronization and then denies the existence of any privileged frame of reference. How do you explain this?

Further he adds: “The ‘time’ of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.
In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity:
2AB / t’A - tA = c  to be a universal constant - the velocity of light in empty space”.

We have shown above that if the velocity of light in empty space is constant, then either t’A = tA or distance between A and B is variable, in which case they could not be related simply. If there is a pattern in this variance, we could come to t’A = tA after applying suitable corrections. If there is no pattern, then t’Acould not be related to tA. In otherwords, if 2AB = 2 x AB, then t’A - tA = 0 and c is infinite. If 2AB = AB + BA, where AB BA, then either c = 0 or indeterminate, according to whether there is a pattern or not. How do you explain this contradiction?

Assuming time is relative to motion of the observer, how could we measure it in another frame of reference that is accelerating with reference to us? Einstein says: “We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:
(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.
(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated ‘the length of the rod’.

The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
·   If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
·   If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Here also we are reminded of an anecdote relating to a famous scientist, who once directed two of his students to precisely measure the wave-length of sodium light. Both students returned with different results – one resembling the normally accepted value and the other a different value. Upon enquiry, the other student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the accepted value, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, for precision measurement he applied length contraction to the scale treating the star Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. The scientist told him to treat the scale and the object to be measured as moving with the same velocity and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of sodium light is infinite. To a surprised scientist, they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of sodium light!

Some scientists we have come across try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of motion. They claim that if we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of motion, then there will be no length contraction. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding the rod in a transverse direction. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference because the length contraction, if real, will be in the same proportion for both.

The fallacy in the above description is that if one treats “as if all three were at rest”, one cannot measure velocity or momentum, as the object will be relatively as rest, which means zero relative velocity. Either Einstein missed this point or he was clever enough to camouflage this, when, in his 1905 paper, he said: “Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocityv be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks”. But is this the velocity of k as measured from k, or is it the velocity as measured from K? This question is extremely crucial. K and k each have their own clocks and measuring rods, which are not treated as equivalent by Mr. Einstein. Therefore, according to his theory, the velocity will be measured by each differently. In fact, they will measure the velocity of k differently. But Mr. Einstein does not assign the velocity specifically to either system. Everyone missed it and all are misled. His spinning disk example in GR also falls for the same reason.

SPACE, TIME, DIMENSION: Both space and time arise from our sense of sequence (priority-posterity) and interval. When this perception is related to objects, the interval between them is called space. When it is related to changes in objects, i.e., events, the interval is called time. We use an easily intelligible and fairly repetitive interval and subdivide it to get the unit. For space, we use hand or foot measure or some other standardized interval and for time, we use the day or the year and then subdivide these to get feet, meter and second, etc. As you can see, the interval is empty - without a physical existence in the absence of objects and events. It is imagined through alternative symbolism. Thus, space and time are really the measurement of intervals, which keeps changing irrespective of our perception or measurement. Hence both these are fundamental in perceptual sense. Now we will justify your statement.

Physicists without exception talk about extra dimensions: 10, 11, 26 or 'n'th dimensions. Dimension is the interface between the internal structural space and external relational space of objects. Since we perceive form through electromagnetic interaction, where the electric field and the magnetic field move perpendicular to each other and both move perpendicular to their direction of motion, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. In solids, where the 'form' is fixed, these dimensions are invariant under mutual transformation. You can change length to breadth or height without disturbing the form. Since time does not fulfil this criteria, it is not a dimension, though every objects exists in time only. There is nothing like extra dimensions, which could not be discovered even after more than a century. Yet, almost all physical theories are based on extra dimensions.