1

“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” – Lord Kelvin, 1900.

2

A BRIEF HISTORY OF EVERYTHING:

Quarks, Leptons and the Big Bang is a clear, readable and self â€“ contained introduction to chaos of physics and related areas of science. It bridges the gap and addresses the questions that are of interest to us all or at least to all of us reading this book and lead us to study science in the first place. The book concentrates on presenting the subject from the understanding perspective of physics and brings the reader right up to date with curious aspects of physics established over the last few centuries. Necessary background information on physics is included but advanced mathematics is avoided. The book assumes science a journey not a destination and the advance of knowledge is an infinite progression towards a goal that forever recedes. This book will be of interest to students, teachers and general science readers interested in fundamental ideas of physics.

Manjunath.R August 2015

3

Copyright ÂŠ 2015 by Manjunath.R All rights reserved

4

“Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little.” − Bertrand Russell

5

Quarks, Leptons and the Big Bang

“Here’s someone who can explain science to the layman.” − Portland Oregonian

MANJUNATH.R manjunath5496@gmail.com

6

“If I am given a rod of proper length and proper place to hook its one end, I can lift the earth with the help of a lever.” − ARCHIMEDES (287B.C − 212 B.C)

7

A

LAYMAN’S JOURNEY

TO THE FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE

8

Why Science is Not about Certainty?

9

10

â€œScience is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.â€?

11

The question is not ‘do we know everything?’ or it is ‘do we know enough?’ But how perfectly we know about things? For many people this might sound like a startling question. But scientific knowledge is often transitory: some (but not all) unquestionably fraught with misinterpretation. This is not a weakness but strength, for our better understanding of the events around us, and of our own existence. However, all that we can say how far we are from the truth, ‘the reciprocal of uncertainty.’ The very existence of certainty is a lot more baffled than it exists, even if we begin from a point of thinking it’s pretty damn baffled in the first point. Moreover, the very expression “certainly proven” is a contradiction in terms. There’s nothing that is certainly proven. The deep core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have misinterpretations. And the fact that we human beings — who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature — have been able to live with doubt and uncertainty. We think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be false.

12

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.” -

Richard Feynman

Note: To many people, mathematics presents a significant barrier to their understanding of science. Certainly, mathematics has been the language of physics for four hundred years and more, and it is difficult to make progress in understanding the physical world without it.

“Isn’t it sad to place your head into your grave without ever wondering why were you born?”

13

Cosmological Principle: The universe is the same everywhere. Homogeneous: The universe looks the same from every point. Isotropic: The universe looks the same in every direction.

But WHY?

14

15

“We know that matter can be created out of energy, and energy can be created out of matter. This doesn't resolve the dilemma because we must also know where the original energy came from." - Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas...”

The evolution of the Universe can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended: some few wisps, ashes and smoke. Standing on a cooled cinder, we just take the present motion of the matter, and run it back in time, it seems that they should all have been on top of each other, at some finite time in the past, between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. At this time, which is called the singularity, the density ρ would have been INFINITE. If density → infinite then volume V which is M/ ρ approaches zero. So if V approaches zero then mass M which is density times volume approaches zero. Hence the singularity cannot have mass in a zero volume, by definition of mass and volume. And yet Quantum Electro Dynamics and General Relativity both try to assign mass to singularity. However, no humans obviously were around at the time the universe began. And a good mathematician can prove anything with that amount of wiggle room, and findings are really determined by nothing except his desire. For all theoreticians know, dragons could have come flying out of the hot fire ball called singularity. What was before the Big Bang? Was the Big Bang created? If the Big Bang was not created, how was this Big Bang accomplished, and what can we learn about the agent and events of creation? Is it the product of chance or was been designed? What is it that blocked the pre-Big Bang view from us? Is Big Bang singularity an impenetrable wall and we cannot, in physics, go beyond it? To answer one question, another question arises. Erickcek‘s model suggests that new universes could be created spontaneously from empty space and time existed before the big

16

bang. But the world famed Big Bang theory abandons the existence of space and time before the big bang. Both the theories are consistent and based upon sophisticated experimental observations and theoretical studies. Truth must be prejudiced with honest scientific inquiry to illuminate the words of Genesis. And this is possible only if the modern scientific community would simply open its eyes to the truth.

Thus the last and most successful creation of theoretical physics, namely quantum mechanics (QM), differs fundamentally from both Newton's mechanics, and Maxwell's e-m field. For the quantities which figure in QM's laws make no claim to describe physical reality itself, but only probabilities of the occurrence of a physical reality that we have in view. (Albert Einstein, 1931) I cannot but confess that I attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation. I still believe in the possibility of a model of reality - that is to say, of a theory which represents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence. On the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must give up the idea of complete localization of the particle in a theoretical model. This seems to me the permanent upshot of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. (Albert Einstein, 1934)

Many physicists and scientists have discussed about mass annihilation at different times. Even a level one literate know that when an electron and a positron approach each other, they annihilate i.e., destroy each other. This process what a quantum physicists call the mass annihilation. During the process their masses are converted into energy in accordance with E = mc2. The energy thus released manifests as γ photons. A positron has the same mass as an electron but an opposite charge equal to +e. The energy released in the form of 2γ photons during the annihilation of a positron and an electron is therefore E = 2hυ = 2mec2 where me is the rest mass of the electron or positron. 2hυ = 2mec2 Since υ = c/λ. Therefore: λ = h/ mec

17

But h/ mec = λC the Compton wavelength of the electron. Therefore: λ = λC (i.e., λ of gamma photon will be = Compton λ of the electron). From this it follows that hc/ λ2 = hc/ λC2 hc/λ2 → force which moves the photon

hc/λC2 →

?

Note: In a photon- electron interaction, if the force which moves the photon is comparable to hc/λC2, photon displays quantum (granular/particle) behavior rather than like a wave.

But WHY?

E=mc2: Einstein's equation that gave birth to the atom bomb and heralded a new world of atomic physics E = Energy m = Mass c2 = Speed of light squared E= mc2 − even people with no background in physics have at least heard of this equation and are aware of its prodigious influence on the world we live in. And since c is constant (because the maximum distance a light can travel in one second is 3×108m), this equation tells us that mass

18

and energy are interconvertible and are two different forms of the same thing and are in fact equivalent. Suppose a mass m is converted into energy E, the resulting energy carries mass = m and moves at c. Hence, energy E is defined by E= mc2. As we know c2 (the speed of light multiplied by itself) is huge: 9 × 10 16 meters2 per second2. So if you convert a small amount of mass, you'll get a tremendous amount of energy. For example, if you convert 1kg of mass, you'll get energy of 9 × 1016 J. Suppose c would have been = 3×10 −8m/s, then For 1 kg of mass E= 9 × 10−16J i.e., 1 kg of mass would have yielded only 9 × 10−16 joules of energy. Hence, thousands and thousands of hydrogen atoms in the sun would have to burn up to release 4 × 10 26 joules of energy per second in the form of radiation. Therefore, sun would have ceased to black hole even before an ooze of organic molecules would react and built earliest cells and then advance to a wide variety of one - celled organisms, and evolve through a highly sophisticated form of life to primitive mammals. On the other hand, C is not just the constant namely the maximum distance a light can travel in one second but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified to form space-time. A consequence of this is that it is possible for mass and energy to be equivalent. And because of the mass and energy is equivalent, the energy which an object possess due to its motion − that is, its kinetic energy KE − will add to its mass. The added mass ∆m = KE /c2 and the added energy ∆E = KE In physics, we define the kinetic energy of an object to be equal to the work done by an external impulse to increase velocity of the object from zero to some value v. That is, KE = J × v Impulse applied to an object produces an equivalent change in its linear momentum. The impulse J may be expressed in a simpler form: J = ∆p = p2− p1 where p2 = final momentum of the object = mv and p1 = initial momentum of the object = 0 (assuming that the object was initially at rest). Impulse = mv KE = mv2 But according to law of variation of mass with velocity m = m0 / (1− v2/c2) ½, where m0 is the rest mass of the object. KE = m0 v2 / (1− v2/c2) ½

19

The added energy ∆E = m0 v2 / (1− v2/c2) ½ It is clear as v approaches c, added energy becomes infinite i.e., infinite energy should be required to accelerate the object to the speed of light. For this reason, any normal object is forever confined by relativity to move at speeds slower than the speed of light. On rearranging the law of variation of mass with velocity we get: m0 = m (1− v2/c2) ½ When v=c, m0 = 0 i.e., only photon, or other waves that have no intrinsic mass, can move at the speed of light. Now, being more advanced, we do not just consider conclusions like photons have no intrinsic mass. We constantly test them, trying to prove or disprove. So far, relativity has withstood every test. And try as we might, we can measure no mass for the photon. We can just put upper limits on what mass it can have. These upper limits are determined by the sensitivity of the experiment we are using to try to weigh the photon. The last number we can see that a photon, if it has any mass at all, must be less than 4 ×10 − 48 grams. For comparison, the electron has a mass of 9 × 10 − 28 grams. Moreover, if the mass of the photon is not considered to zero, then quantum mechanics would be in trouble. And it also an uphill task to conduct an experiment which proves the photon mass to be exactly zero. In relativistic mechanics, we define the total energy of a particle to be equal to the sum of its rest mass energy and kinetic energy. That is, Total energy = rest energy + kinetic energy mc2 = m0c2 + KE Solving KE = mv2 we get: m = m0/ (1− v2/c2) which in bad agreement with the Albert Einstein’s law of variation of mass with velocity. But according to which also when v → c, m→ ∞.i.e., an object travelling at the speed of light would have infinite mass and hence, no material particle can have a velocity equal to or greater than the speed of light in vacuum. Tachyons the putative class of hypothetical particles is believed to travel faster than the speed of light. However, the existence of tachyons is still in question. For non-relativistic case (v<< c) the relativistic expression for kinetic energy KE reduces to: KE = m0v2/2, where m0 is the rest mass of a non-relativistic particle moving with a velocity v << c. Suppose the particle is brought to rest, then (v = 0, KE = 0). Now the equation for rest mass i.e., m0 = 2KE/v2 becomes: m0 = 2KE/v2 = 2 (0) /0, which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. The rest mass cannot be undefined. Compton wavelength of the electron: The Compton wavelength of the electron can be calculated using the equation: λC = Δλ / (1– cosθ), where θ is the scattering angle and Δλ is the change in wavelength of the incident photon. It has been experimentally observed that for θ = 0 o there is no change in wavelength of the incident photon (i.e., Δλ = 0). Now under the condition θ = 0o: λC = 0 / (1 – cos0o) = 0/0 i.e., the Compton wavelength of the electron becomes undefined.

20

The backwards-moving electron when viewed with time moving forwards appears the same as an ordinary electron, except that it is attracted to normal electrons - we say it has a positive charge. For this reason it's called a positron. The positron is a sister particle to the electron, and is an example of an anti-particle. ..This phenomena is general. Every particle in Nature has an amplitude to move backwards in time, and therefore has an anti-particle. (Feynman, 1985) For many years after Newton, partial reflection by two surfaces was happily explained by a theory of waves,* but when experiments were made with very weak light hitting photomultipliers, the wave theory collapsed: as the light got dimmer and dimmer, the photomultipliers kept making full sized clicks - there were just fewer of them. Light behaves as particles. * This idea made use of the fact that waves can combine or cancel out, and the calculations based on this model matched the results of Newton's experiments, as well as those done for hundreds of years afterwards. But when experiments were developed that were sensitive enough to detect a single photon, the wave theory predicted that the clicks of a photomultiplier would get softer and softer, whereas they stayed at full strength - they just occurred less and less often. No reasonable model could explain this fact. This state of confusion was called the wave - particle duality of light. (Feynman, 1985)

Did you know that The Compton wavelength of a particle characterizes the length scale at which the wave property of a given particle starts to show up. In an interaction that is characterized by a length scale larger than the Compton wavelength, particle behaves classically (i.e., no observation of wave nature). For interactions that occur at a length scale comparable than the Compton wavelength, the wave nature of the particle begins to take over from classical physics.

21

Compton Scattering

Above figure illustrates the scattering of an incident photon of energy E = hυi moving to the right with a momentum pi = h/ λi and interacting with an electron at rest with momentum = 0 and energy equal to its rest energy, mec2. The symbols h, υ, and λ are the standard symbols used for Planck's constant, the photon's frequency, its wavelength, and m0 is the rest mass of the electron. In the interaction, the X- ray photon is scattered in the direction at an angle θ with respect to the photon’s incoming path with momentum pf = h/ λf and energy E = hυf. The electron is scattered in the direction at an angle θ with respect to the photon’s incoming path with momentum p= mEv and energy E = mEc2 where mE is the relativistic mass of the electron after the interaction. The phenomenon of Compton scattering may be analyzed as an elastic collision of a photon with a free electron using relativistic mechanics. Since the energy of the photons (661. 6 keV) is much greater than the binding energy of electrons (the most tightly bound electrons have a binding energy less than 1 keV), the electrons which scatter the photons may be considered free electrons. Because energy and momentum must be conserved in an elastic collision, we can obtain the formula for the wavelength of the scattered photon, λf as a function of scattering angle θ: λf = {(h/mec) × (1− cosθ) + λi} where λi is the wavelength of the incident photon and c is the speed of light in vacuum. The photon power, P = − (dE/dt), is given by the relation: P = − dE/dt = hυ2, where E = hυ. But υ = c/λ. Therefore: dλ= c × dt Integrating over dλ from λi (the wavelength of the incident photon) to λf (the wavelength of the scattered photon), and over dt from zero to t: (λf − λi) = c × t

22

It can be seen that that the wavelength of the scattered photon is unquestionably greater than that of the incident photon. The Kα line from molybdenum has a wavelength 0.0709 nm. The wavelength of this line in the scattered beam is found to be 0.0731nm. t = (λf − λi)/ c = 7.333 × 10 −21 s

(experiment).

Substituting (λf − λi) = c × t in the equation (λf − λi) = (h/mec) × (1− cosθ), we get: t = (h/mec2) × (1− cosθ) = (8.089 × 10 −21 s) × (1− cos90o) = 8.089 × 10 −21 s (theory), which is a very satisfactory agreement. In the case of θ =135o, (λf − λi) = (0.0749 − 0.0709) nm t = (λf − λi)/ c = 0.133 × 10 −19 s

(experiment)

and t = (h/mec2) × (1− cosθ) = (h/mec2) × (1− cos135o) = 0.138 × 10 −19 s (theory), which is also a very satisfactory agreement. However, the value of t has been found to vary with θ in agreement

23

with the theory, increasing from 7.333 × 10 −21 s (θ =90o) to 0.133 × 10 −19 s (θ =135o). Velocities of recoil of the scattering electrons have not been experimentally determined. This is probably because the electrons which recoil in the process of the scattering of X-rays have not been observed. However, velocity of recoil of the scattering electrons can be calculated using the

Law of Conservation of Energy. Law of Conservation of Momentum.

Case1: Calculating the velocity of recoil of the scattering electron (for θ = 90o) using the Law of Conservation of Energy From the law of conservation of energy, the energy of the incident X-ray, hυi, and the rest energy of the electron, mec2, before scattering is equal to the energy of the scattered X-ray, hυf, and the total energy of the electron, mEc2, after scattering hυi + mec2 = hυf + mEc2 which on rearranging: (hυi – hυf) = mEc2 − mec2 But according to law of variation of mass with velocity mEc2 = mec2 / (1− v2/c2) ½ Therefore: (hυi – hυf) = mec2 {1/ (1− v2/c2) ½ − 1} Solving hυi = hc/λi = 28.072 × 10−36 J, hυf = hc/λf = 27.226 × 10−36 J and mec2 = 81.9 × 10−15 J, we get: (28.072 − 27.226) × 10−36= 81.9 × 10−15 × {1/ (1− v2/c2) ½ − 1} (0.846 × 10−36 / 81.9 × 10−15) + 1 = 1/ (1− v2/c2) ½ [1.0329 × 10 −23 + 1] = 1/ (1− v2/c2) ½ Since: 1.0329 × 10 −23<<<< 1. Therefore: [1.0329 × 10 −23 + 1] ≈ 1 1 = 1/ (1− v2/c2) ½ From this it follows that v = 0, which is meaningless. Case2: Calculating the velocity of recoil of the scattering electron (for θ = 90o) using the Law of Conservation of Momentum Imagine, as in figure below,

24

that an X-ray photon of frequency υi is scattered by an electron of mass me. The momentum of the incident photon will be pi = h / λi, where h is the Planck’s constant, and that of the scattered photon is pf = h / λf at angle θ with the initial momentum. The principle of the conservation of momentum accordingly demands that the momentum of recoil of the scattering electron shall equal the vector difference between the momenta of these photons. The momentum of the electron, pE= mecv/ (c2 − v2) ½, is thus given by the relation me2 c2v2/ (c2 − v2) = pi2 + pf 2 − 2pi pf cosθ Solving pi 2 = (h / λi) 2 = 87.553 × 10 − 48 J2s2/m2, pf 2 = (h / λf) 2 = 82.355 × 10 − 48 J2s2/m2 and θ = 90o, we get: me2 c2v2/ (c2 − v2) = (pi2 + pf 2) = (87.553 + 82.355) × 10 − 48 me2 c2v2/ (c2 − v2) = 169.908 × 10 − 48 J2s2/m2 But me2c2 = 745.29×10 −46 J2. Therefore: v2/ (c2 − v2) = (169.908 × 10 −48 / 745.29×10 −46) = 2.279 × 10−3 v2 = 2.279 × 10−3c2 − 2.279 × 10−3v2 v2 (1 + 2.279 × 10−3) = 2.279 × 10−3c2 From this it follows that v = 0.04c Conclusion: The very expression “certainty” is a contradiction in terms. There is rarely such thing as 100% certainty – and everything less than this is uncertain. The very core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices and these prejudices are organized into equations. For many people this might be a startling claim. Uncertainty does not mean we know nothing, that evidence is unquestionably fraught with misinterpretation. We can say how far we are from the end state, ‘almost certain’ for instance. Our facts and knowledge of the science should always be taken with a skeptical grain salt. Uncertainty in science which in effect means that nothing is real in any absolute sort of way. However, calculating the velocity of recoil of the scattering electron using the Law of

25

Conservation of Energy should be avoided in order to prevent the occurrence of meaningless result. In physics, we find out that momentum is mass multiplied by velocity. Special relativity has something to say about momentum. In particular, special relativity gets its (1− v2/c2) ½ factor into the momentum mix like this: p = m0v / (1− v2/c2) ½. For non-relativistic case: v <<c. Therefore, we have p = m0 v Suppose the particle is brought to rest, then (v = 0, p = 0). Now the equation for rest mass i.e., m0 = p/v becomes: m0 = p/v = 0 /0, which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. The rest mass is well-defined.

Famed physicist and Nobel laureate Albert Einstein attributed particle nature to a photon i.e., he considered a photon as a particle of mass m = hυ/c2 and said that photoelectric effect is the result of an elastic collision between a photon of incident radiation and a free electron inside the photo metal. During the collision the electron absorbs the energy of the photon completely. A part of the absorbed energy hυ of the photon is used by the electron in doing work against the surface forces of the metal. This part of the energy (hυ1) represents the work function W of the photo metal. Other part (hυ2) of the absorbed energy hυ of the photon manifests as kinetic energy (KE) of the emitted electron. hυ = (hυ1) + (hυ2) hυ = (W) + (KE) Let us now consider: (hυ2) = KE. But hυ2 = p2c (p2 is the momentum and c is the speed of light in vacuum) and KE = pv/2 where p is the momentum and v is the velocity of ejected electron. Therefore: p2c = pv/2. If we assume that

26

p2 = p i.e., momentum p2 completely manifests as the momentum p of the ejected electron, then v = 2c Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum, which itself frame the central principle of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity. If the electron with rest mass = 9.1 × 10 –31 kg travels with the velocity v = 2c, then the fundamental rules of physics would have to be rewritten. However, v=2c is meaningless as the non-relativistic electron can only travel with velocity v<<C. Hence: p2 ≠ p. This means: only a part (p2A) of the momentum p2 manifests as the momentum p of the ejected electron. p2 = p2A + p2B

?

p2 = p +

Do black holes really exist? If they exist, why we haven't observed one hole yet? Can black holes be observed directly, and if so, how? If there are no black holes, what are these things we detect ripping gas off the surface of other stars?

Most people think of a black hole as a voracious whirlpool in space, sucking down everything around it. But that’s not really true! A black hole is a place where gravity has gotten so strong that even light cannot escape out of its influence. A photon generated at the center of the star makes its way to the surface. It may take up to several million years to get to the surface, and the gravitational potential energy of the photon at the surface of the star is given by: PE = − GMm/r, where G = 6.673 × 10 −11 Nm2/kg2 is Gravitational constant, m is the photon mass, M and r denote the mass and radius of the star. If the photon wants to detach from the star surface, it should obey the condition: Fg = FP or Fp > Fg, where Fg = GMm/r2 is the force of gravitation experienced by the photon and FP = mc2/λ is the force which moves the photon Fg = FP GMm/r2 = mc2/λ

27

From this it follows that r2 = GMλ/c2 If FP<Fg, then photon cannot detach from the star surface. And if the condition Fg = FP or Fp > Fg is obeyed and the photon detaches the star surface, its energy shifts from hυ to hυ0. The change in photon energy is given by the relation: (hυ − hυ0) = − GMm/r (hυ − hυ0) /hυ = − GM/rc2 If a star collapses to a black hole a photon will be red shifted to zero frequency i.e., hυ0 = 0. (hυ − 0) /hυ = − GM/rc2 r = − GM/c2 This means that a star must achieve a radius of − GM/c2 in order to form a black hole. And what the negative sign really means? The answer still remains a

? We don’t know what the negative

sign really means. We are only the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. The gravitational binding energy of a star is given by U = −3GM2/5r. Therefore, the equation (hυ − hυ0) /hυ = − GM/rc2 can be rewritten as: (hυ − hυ0) /hυ = 5U/3Mc2 If a star collapses to a black hole, (hυ − 0) /hυ = 5U/3Mc2 U = 0.6 Mc2 This means that the gravitational binding energy of a star must achieve energy of 0.6 Mc2 in order to form a black hole. For a star of one solar mass (i.e., M = 2 × 10 30 kg) to form a black hole, its gravitational binding energy must be equal to 10.8 × 10 46 joules – which is much higher than its entropic energy. The rate of loss of photon energy, P = − (dE/dt), is related to the photon frequency υ by: P = − dE/dt = hυ2, where E = hυ. But υ = c/λ. Therefore: dλ= c × dt Integrating over dλ from λ (the wavelength of the photon before detaching from the star surface) to λ0 (the wavelength of the detached photon), and over dt from zero to t: (λ0− λ) = c× t

28

From this it follows that (υ − υ0) /υυ0 = t h (υ − υ0) /hυυ0 = t Since (hυ − hυ0) /hυ = − GM/rc2. Therefore: t = − GM/rυ0c2 The time it takes for the photon to detach from the star surface is given by: t = − GMλ0 /rc3 From above equation it follows that as λ0 increases, numerical value of t increases. But, because of the negative sign the actual value of t decreases. That is, more the time the photon takes to detach the star surface the lesser is the wavelength of the detached photon. If a star collapses to a black hole, υ0 = 0 t = − GM/rυ0c2 → UNDEFINED.

There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory, but hawking radiation process enables energy and information to escape.

Does the Hawking radiation process continue

until the black hole dissipates completely away or does the radiation stop after a finite amount of time leaving black hole remnants is still in

?

Looking at the unusual nature of Hawking radiation; it may be natural to question if such radiation exists in nature or to suggest that it is merely a theoretical solution to the hidden world

29

of quantum gravity. The attempt to understand the Hawking radiation has had a profound impact upon the understanding of the black hole thermodynamics, leading to the description of what the black hole entropic energy is. Black hole entropic energy = Black hole temperature × Black hole entropy Es = T × SBH Es = ½ Mc2 This means that the entropic energy makes up half of the total energy of the black hole. For a black hole of one solar mass (M = 2 × 10 30 kg), we get an entropic energy of 9 × 10 46 joules – much higher than the thermal entropic energy of the sun. Given that power emitted in Hawking radiation is the rate of energy loss of the black hole: P = – c 2 (dM / dt) or P = 2 × (– dEs / dt) The more power a black hole radiates per second, the more entropic energy being lost in Hawking radiation. However, the total entropic energy of the black hole of one solar mass is about 9 × 10 46 joules of which only 4.502 × 10 –29 joules per second is lost in Hawking radiation. The image we often see of photons as a tiny bit of light circling a black hole in welldefined circular orbit of radius r = 3GM/c2 (where G = Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, c= speed of light in vacuum and M = mass of the black hole) is actually quite interesting. The angular velocity of the photon orbiting the black hole is given by: ω = c/r. For circular motion the angular velocity is the same as the angular frequency. Thus ω = c/r = 2πc/λ From this it follows that λ =2πr The De Broglie wavelength λ associated with the photon of mass m orbiting the black hole is given by: λ= h/mc. Therefore: r = ħ/mc, where ħ is the reduced Planck constant. The photon must satisfy the condition r = ħ/mc much like an electron moving in a circular orbit. Since this condition forces the photon to orbit the hole in a circular orbit. r = 3GM/c2 = ħ/mc or 3GM/c2 = ħ/mc Or 3mM = (Planck mass) 2 Because of this condition the photons orbiting the small black hole carry more mass than those orbiting the big black hole. For a black hole of one Planck mass (M = Planck mass), m = 1/3 × Planck mass Since the Hawking radiation is a Black Body radiation, the maximum energy an emitted Hawking radiation photon can possess is given by the equation: Lmax = 2.821 kBT (where kB = Boltzmann constant and T = black hole temperature).

30

L max = 2.821 kBT = 2.821 (ħc3 / 8πGM) which on rearranging: GM / c2 = 2.821 (ħc / 8πL max) Since 3GM/c2 = ħ/mc. Therefore: ħ/ 3mc= 2.821 (ħc / 8πL max) From this it follows that mc2 = 2.968L max or mc2>L max If a photon with energy mc2 orbiting the black hole can’t slip out of its influence, and so how can a Hawking radiation photon with maximum energy L max < mc2 is emitted from the event horizon of the Schwarzschild black hole? So it may be natural to question if Schwarzschild black hole loses energy in the form of Hawking radiation or to suggest that it is merely a theoretical solution to the hidden world of quantum gravity. In some literature the energy of an emitted Hawking radiation photon is given by the equation: L = kBT (where kB = Boltzmann constant and T = black hole temperature). L = kBT = (ħc3 / 8πGM) which on rearranging: GM / c2 = (ħc / 8πL max) Since 3GM/c2 = ħ/mc. Therefore: ħ/ 3mc= (ħc / 8πL max) From this it follows that mc2 = 8.37L or mc2>L Even if we assume L = kBT we get the result: mc2>L.

Since gravity weakens with distance, the earth pulls on your head with less force than it pulls on your feet, which are a meter or two closer to the earth’s center. The difference is so tiny we cannot feel it, but an astronaut near the surface of a black hole would be literally torn apart.

An experiment is a question which science poses to Nature, and a measurement is the recording of Nature’s answer. MAX PLANCK, 1858 TO 1947

31

As photon travel near the event horizon of a black hole they can still escape being pulled in by gravity of a black hole by traveling at a vertical direction known as exit cone. A photon on the boundary of this cone will not completely escape the gravity of the black hole. Instead it orbits the black hole. For a photon of mass m orbiting the black hole, the necessary centripetal force mc2/r is provided by the force of gravitation between the black hole and the photon GMm/r2. mc2/r = GMm/r2 Where M = mass of the black hole and r = radius of the photon orbit, m = mass of the photon orbiting the black hole and G is the gravitational constant. From this it follows that c2 = GM/r Or r = GM/c2 which is quite different from the expression cited in the existing literature (r =3GM/c2). However, r = Rg/2 (since GM/c2 = Rg /2, Rg = radius of the black hole) The photon orbit always exists in the space surrounding an extremely compact object such as a black hole. Hence r should be > Rg. In the case r = Rg/2, r < Rg Hence r = GM/c2 is an invalid result. Therefore, it is clear that the condition mv2/r = GMm/r2 not always holds well. The expression cited in the existing literature is

32

r =3GM/c2 which can also be rewritten as: mc2/r = 3GMm/r2 which means: the centripetal force mc2/r is thrice the force of gravitation between the black hole and the photon GMm/r2.

where Fg = force of gravitation experienced by the Hawking radiation photon at the surface of the black hole and Fp = force which moves the Hawking radiation photon. Since Fg = GMm/ Rg2 and Fp = mc2 / λ (where G = Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, c= speed of light in vacuum and M = mass of the black hole, m and λ = mass and wavelength of the Hawking radiation photon, Rg = 2GM/c2 (the radius of the black hole). Fg / Fp = c2 λ/4GM Since L = mc2 = hc/λ = 2.821 kBT (where kB = Boltzmann constant and T = black hole temperature). Therefore: hc/λ = 2.821 kBT = 2.821 (ħc3 / 8πGM) λ= 16π2GM/2.821c2 Solving for λ we get: Fg / Fp = 16π2/ 4 × 2.821= 13.98 Fg = 13.98 Fp or Fg > Fp

33

Therefore, it is hard to claim the emission of Hawking radiation photon from the Schwarzschild black hole. However, Hawking radiation has not been observed after over two decades of searching. Despite its strong theoretical foundation, the existence of this radiation is still in question. If Schwarzschild black hole does not emit any radiation, then it will continue to grow by absorbing surrounding matter and radiation. The total energy Mc2 of the black hole goes on increasing with time. Because U is ∝ to Mc2 the gravitational binding energy also increases with the total energy of the black hole. And if we regard the nature of gravitational force so developed is similar to inter-molecular force. The gravitational force is attractive up to some extent [i.e., it is attractive until the distance between the constituents of the black hole is greater than or equal to the optimum distance (x Aº)] and when distance between the constituents of the black hole becomes < than x Aº it turns to a strong repulsive force. As the gravitational binding energy of the black hole increases, the distance between the constituents of the black hole decreases. As long as the distance between the constituents of the black hole is optimum, there is no considerable repulsion between the constituents. When the distance between the constituents of the black hole is further decreased (due to increase in gravitational binding energy) i.e. the distance between the constituents of the black hole becomes < than x Aº and then at this stage, the singularity of the black hole may explode with unimaginable force, propelling the compressed matter into space. This matter then may condense into the stars, planets, and satellites that make up solar systems like our own. But perhaps not very scientific since no observational evidence available but still a nice mind exercise. However, if this is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3,000 years. We will have found the grand design. Is the density of the Black Hole 0.1253c6/ πG3M2 or 0.00585c6/ πG3M2? The density of the black hole is given by the expression: ρ= 3M/ 4πRg3, where M is the mass and Rg is the radius of the black hole. Since Rg = 2GM/c2. Therefore: ρ= 3c6/ 24πG3M2 = 0.1253c6/ πG3M2 According to Stefan –Boltzmann-Schwarzschild –Hawking black hole radiation power law: P = є × σ × T4 × (4π Rg2) P = 1 × (π2 kB4 /60ħ3c2) × (ħc3/8πGM) 4 × (16πG2M2/c4) P = ħc6/ 15360πG2M2 Mario Rabinowitz discovered the simplest possible representation for Hawking radiation power in terms of black hole density ρ: P = Gρħ/90 P = ħc6/ 15360πG2M2 = Gρħ/90 From this it follows that

34

ρ= 90c6/ 15360πG3M2 = 0.00585c6/ πG3M2 Isn’t it enough to glorify that a mathematical equation is successful without having to believe that there are much falsities at the heart of it too?

Mc2 = 2 T × SBH If M→ 0, then SBH which is ∝ to M2→ 0 T = Mc2 / 2SBH = 0/0 But according to the equation T = (ħc3 / 8πGMkB) When M → 0 T = (ħc3 / 8πGMkB) = ħc3 / 0 2 different results for T. On comparing both the results (T = 0/0 and T = ħc3 / 0): ħc3 → 0. Science is built on the rules of uncertainty. Each time we learn something new and surprising,

35

the astonishment comes with the realization that we were wrong before. The entropy of the black hole is given by the equation: SBH = c3 kB A / 4ħG, where c = speed of light in vacuum, kB = Boltzmann constant, ħ = Planck’s constant, G = gravitational constant and A = area of the event horizon. Since A = 4πRg2 = 4π (2GM/c2) 2. Therefore: SBH = 4πkB GM2 / ħc Differentiating the above equation we get: dSBH = (8πkB GM / ħc) dM dSBH = (8πkB GM / ħc3) dMc2 But T = ħc3/8πkB GM. Therefore: T × dSBH = dMc2 The rate of increase of black hole energy due to the absorption of energy from the surroundings is given by the equation: R1 = dMc2 /dt = T × (dSBH /dt) Suppose black hole absorbs no energy from the surroundings, then R1 = 0 (dSBH /dt) which is the rate of increase of black hole entropy = 0 T = {R1 / (dSBH /dt)} = 0/0 i.e., in order to maintain a well-defined temperature black hole must absorb energy from the surroundings. As we know that: Total energy of the black hole is = the twice its entropic energy Mc2 = 2 T × SBH Differentiating the above equation we get: dMc2 = 2 (T × dSBH + dT × dSBH) Since T × dSBH = dMc2. Therefore: dMc2 = 2 (dT × SBH) + 2dMc2 − dMc2 = 2 (SBH × dT) The rate of decrease of black hole energy due to the emission of energy in the form of Hawking radiation is given by the equation:

36

R2 = − dMc2 /dt = 2SBH × (dT /dt) Suppose black hole emits no radiation, then R2 = 0 (dT /dt) which is the rate of increase of black hole temperature = 0 SBH = {R2 / 2 (dT /dt)} = 0/0 i.e., in order to maintain a well-defined entropy black hole must emit energy in the form of Hawking radiation. Taking natural logarithm of the equation SBH = 4πkB GM2 / ħc we get: lnSBH = ln (4πkB G / ħc) + 2lnM Differentiating the above equation we get: dlnSBH = 2dlnM Since M ∝ 1/ T. Therefore: dlnSBH = − 2dlnT dSBH/SBH = −2 (dT/T) On rearranging we get: T × dSBH = −2 (dT × SBH) T × (dSBH /dt) = −2 SBH × (dT /dt) which can also be rewritten as: R1 = − R 2 From above equation it clear that R1 is = R2. But, because of the negative sign the actual value of R1 is = 1/ R2.

Is the Temperature of the black hole constant? The rate of loss of energy of a black hole in the form of Hawking radiation is given by the equation: P = − dMc2/dt = ħc6/ 15360πG2M2 Since the black hole temperature T = (ħc3 / 8πGMkB). Therefore: dT/dt = (kB3Gπ2/30ħc5) T4 Representing (kB3Gπ2/30ħc5) by the letter b: dT/dt = bT4

37

On rearranging: dT T −4 = b × dt On Integration we get: − 1/ 3 T3 = bt + constant T = T1 (initial temperature of the black hole) when t= 0 − 1/ 3 T13 = b (0) + constant − 1/ 3 T13 = constant Solving for constant we get: 1/ 3 T3 − 1/ 3 T13 = bt 1/ 3 T3 = bt + 1/ 3 T13 T = T2 when t = tev /2 (where tev = evaporation time of the black hole), 1/ 3 T23 = btev /2 + 1/ 3 T13 For a black hole of one solar mass (M = 2 × 1030kg): P = ħc6/ 15360πG2M2 = 8.9025 × 10 – 29 J/s tev= Mc2 / 3P = 6.7396 × 10 74 s T1 = ħc3/ 8πGMkB = 6.156 × 10 – 8 K b = 1.629 × 10 – 65 K– 3 s– 1 1/ 3 T23 = (1.629 × 10 – 65 × 3.369 × 10 74) + 1/3 × (6.156 × 10 – 8) 3 1/ 3 T23 = 5.4894× 10 9 + 1.4288× 10 21 1/ 3 T23 = 1.4288× 10 21 From this it follows that T2 = 6.156 × 10 – 8 K From the above calculation it is clear that T1 = T2 i.e., temperature of the black hole when t = 0 is equal to the temperature of the black hole when t= tev/2. This means: T remains constant throughout the evaporation process.

38

If T remains constant throughout the evaporation process, then dT→ 0 If dT→ 0, then dMc2 = 2 (T × dSBH + dT × dSBH) becomes: dMc2 = 2TdSBH Since dMc2 = T dSBH. Therefore: 1=2, which is never justified. This means: Science may aim to implore absolute reality, it may claim, as adherents of certain religion do, to have attained it. But its history — by far the most instinctive goal to confine all irregularities, in a postulate, in terms of scientific laws — teaches that the most it can hope for is a consecutive improvement in its approach, learning from its falsity. Note: If T → constant, then from the equation T = ħc3/ 8πGMkB

M must be constant. But how can M remain constant? Assuming the black hole of mass M would emit Hawking radiation at the same rate P through its evaporation time, expression for evaporation time of the black hole can be written as tev = Mc2/P On the other hand, assuming the black hole would not emit Hawking radiation at the same rate through its evaporation time, expression for evaporation time of the black hole can be written as tev = Mc2/3P In general, tev = k (Mc2/P) If k =1, then the black hole would emit Hawking radiation at the same rate through its evaporation time. If k =1/3, then the black hole would not emit Hawking radiation at the same rate through its evaporation time. What the factor k imply?

Material particles behave as waves with a wavelength given by the De Broglie wavelength (Planck’s constant/momentum): λ = h /p. Hence, a relativistic electron of mass 'm' moving with velocity 'v' is associated with a group of waves whose wavelength 'λ' is given by: λ= h/mv. The formula of the relativistic mass: m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½. Substituting m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ in λ= h/mv we get: λ= (h / mec) × {(c2 − v2) ½ / v}. Since (h / mec) = λC = 2.43 × 10–12 m. Therefore: λ

39

= λC × {(c2 − v2) ½ / v}. If v = c, then λ = 0. The product between the particle velocity (v) and the phase velocity (vP) equals the square of the square of the speed of light in vacuum (c2): v × vP = c2 The formula of the phase velocity: vP = υ × λ, where υ is the frequency of the wave associated with the electron. Substituting vP = υ × λ in v × vP = c2 we get: v × (υ × λ) = c2 If v = C, then λ = c/ υ Conclusion: 2 different results for λ when v = c. 1. λ = 0 2. λ = c / υ As we know that: For a relativistic electron, v × vP = c2 where v is the electron velocity, vP is the phase velocity and c is the speed of light in vacuum. (mv) × vP = mc2, where m is the relativistic mass of the electron. The momentum of the electron is mv = p Substituting mv = p in mv × vP = mc2 we get: mc2 = p × vP. But, according to law of variation of mass with velocity m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ 2 2 2 ½ Therefore: mec / (1 − v /c ) = p × vP. If v = 0, then p = 0. Now under the condition (v = 0, p = 0): meC2 / (1 − 02/c2) ½ = 0 × vP From this it follows that mec2 = 0, which is meaningless. There can be no bigger limitation than this. The rest energy of the electron cannot be zero. In truth, science can never establish "truth" or "fact" in the sense that scientific equations can be made that is formally beyond question. However, the above arguments confirm the Richard Feynman’s statement: “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.” Suppose that the two masses are m1 and m2, and they are separated by a distance r. The power given off by this system in the in the form of emitted gravitational waves is: P = − dE/dt = 32 G4 (m1 × m2) 2 (m1 + m2) / 5c5 r5, where −dE is the smallest decrease in the energy of the system with respect to time dt. Gravitational waves rob the energy of the system. As the energy of the system reduces, the distance between the masses decreases, and they rotate more rapidly. The rate of decrease of distance r between the masses versus time is given by: − dr/dt = 64G3 (m1 × m2) (m1 + m2) / 5 c5 r3, where −dr is the smallest decrease in distance between the orbiting masses with respect to time dt. Dividing − dE/dt by − dr/dt, we get: 2 × (−dE/dt) = (Gm1m2 / r2) × (− dr/dt). Since Gm1m2 / r2 = Fg (the force of gravitation between the orbiting masses). Therefore: 2 (−dE/dt) = Fg × (− dr/dt). Suppose no gravitational radiation is emitted by the system, then

40

(−dE/dt) = 0 and (−dr/dt) = 0 Fg = 2 × {(−dE/dt) / (−dr/dt)} = 2 × (0/0) i.e., the force of gravitation between the orbiting masses becomes UNDEFINED. Does it mean that the two masses orbiting each other should lose their energy in the form of gravitational radiation in order to maintain a well-defined force of gravitation between them? However, we have discovered a lot about our Universe by asking questions and then looking for answers.

The life time of the orbit is given by the equation: t life = 5c5r4 /256 G3 (m1 × m2) (m1 + m2). Now comparing the above equation with the equation − dr/dt = 64G3 (m1 × m2) (m1 + m2) / 5 c5 r3 we get: − dr/dt = r /4t life Representing the rate of orbital decay (− dr/dt) by the symbol R1 we get: R1= r /4t life However, the distance between the orbiting masses not only decrease due to the emission of gravitational radiation but also increase at the same time due to the Hubble expansion of the space. The rate of increase of distance between the orbiting masses due to the expansion of the space is given by the equation: R2= dr/dt = H × r, where H is the Hubble parameter. On dividing R1 by R2 we get: R1 / R2 = 1 / 4Ht life Since H = 1/ tage (where tage = age of the universe). Therefore:

41

R1 / R2 = tage / 4t life For a system like the Sun and Earth, r is about 1.5 × 1011m and m1 and m2 are about 2 × 1030 and 6 × 1024 kg respectively. In this case, t life is about 3.44 × 1030 s. R1 / R2 = tage / 4 × (3.44 × 1030 s) Since tage ≈ 4.347 × 10 17s. Therefore: R1 / R2 = 3.159 × 10 − 14 Which means: R2 > R1 i.e., the rate of increase of distance between the orbiting masses due to the Hubble expansion of space is far greater than the rate of decrease of distance between the orbiting masses due to the emission of gravitational radiation.

If tage = 4t life, then R1 = R2 For a system like the Sun and Earth, tlife = 3.44 × 1030 s. tage = 4t life = 1.376 × 10 31s i.e., when the age of the universe approaches 1.376 × 10 31s the rate of decrease of distance between the earth and the sun due to the emission of gravitational radiation is exactly equal to the rate of increase of distance between the earth and the sun due to the Hubble expansion of space (R1 = R2). However, even before tage approaches 1.376 × 10 31s

42

the earth will be swallowed by the sun in the red giant stage of its life in a few billion years’ time. As we know that: 2P = 2 (−dE/dt) = Fg × (− dr/dt) Since: − dr/dt = r /4t life. Therefore: P = Fg r /8t life. The gravitational potential energy of the earth is given by the equation: EP = − G (m1 × m2) / r = − Fg × r. P + EP /8t life = 0 If the earth-sun system does not emit any gravitational radiation, then P=0 EP /8t life = 0 EP = 0 × 8t life = 0 i.e., the gravitational potential energy of the earth lapse to zero.

“Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles. Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.” ― Gordon L. Kane

43

44

Equations of motion The three kinematic equations that describe an object's motion are: d = ut + ½ at2 v2 = u2 + 2ad v = u + at There are a variety of symbols used in the above equations. Each symbol has its own specific meaning. The symbol d stands for the displacement of the object. The symbol t stands for the time for which the object moved. The symbol a stands for the acceleration of the object. And the symbol v stands for the final velocity of the object, u stands for the initial velocity of the object. Assuming the initial velocity of the object is zero (u = 0): d = ½ at 2 v2 =2ad v = at Since velocity is equal to displacement divided by time (i.e., v =d/t): a = 2d /t2 a =d / 2t2 a = d / t2 Conclusion: 3 different results for a. The human mind is use to the concept of certainty. We mortals cannot conceive of “certainty.” However, just because we poor humans cannot conceive of certainty does not mean that it does not exist.

Newton’s second law of motion

If a force F acts on a body of mass m at rest and produces acceleration a in it, then the force is = ma. The particle remains at rest (a =0) when no external force (F=0) acts on it. Under this condition the mass of the body becomes UNDEFINED. m= F/a = 0/0 Note: F= ma was not discovered by Newton, it was discovered by Leibnitz. Why wrong information is given in all 252 countries of the world?

45

“Science

is

uncertain.

Theories

are

subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel amongst themselves. This is disillusioning for those untrained in the scientific method, who thus turn to

the

rigid

certainty

of

the

Bible

instead. There is something comfortable about

a

deviation

view and

that that

allows spares

for

no

you

the

painful necessity of having to think.” — Isaac Asimov

What would have happened if the value of gravitational constant was far higher than its actual value? F = GMm/r2 Each star in the universe would have been attracted toward every other star by a force far greater than its present value, so it seemed the stars would have got very near each other, the attractive forces between them would have become stronger and dominate over the repulsive forces so that the stars would have fell together at some point to form a sphere of roughly infinite density. 2. U = −3GM2/5r The gravitational binding energy of a star would have been far greater than its present value, so it seemed the matter inside the star would have been very much compressed and far hotter than it is. And the distance between the constituents of the star would have been decreased beyond the optimum distance (maximum distance below which the gravitational force is no longer attractive it turns to a repulsive force) then all the stars would have exploded spraying the manufactured elements into space. No sun would have existed to support life on the earth. 3. ρC = 3H2/8πG The critical density of the universe would have been far smaller than its present value (i.e., the density of matter required to make the space flat would have been very small). 4. Planck mass (ħc/G) ½ would have been far smaller than its present value and Planck time (ħG/c5) ½ and Planck length (ħG/c3) ½ would have been far larger than its present value. 1.

Newton’s third law of motion Newton’s third law of motion as stated in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica

46

“To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.”

Let us consider a boy is standing in front of wooden wall, holding a rubber ball and cloth ball of same mass in the hands. Let the wall is at the distance of 5m from the boy. Case 1: Let the boy kicks the rubber ball at the wall with some force F. Action: Boy kicks the rubber ball at the wall from distance of 5m. Reaction: The ball strikes the wall, and comes back to the boy i.e. travelling 5m.Now action and reaction is equal and opposite. Case 2: Let the same boy kicks the cloth ball at the wall with same force F. Action: Boy kicks the cloth ball at the wall from distance of 5m. Reaction: The ball strikes the wall, and comes back to the boy i.e. travelling 2.5m. Now action and reaction are not equal and opposite. In this case Newton’s third law of motion is completely violated.

47

The dissociation of a protein – ligand complex (PL) can be described by a simple equilibrium reaction: PL ↔P + L the corresponding equilibrium relationship is defined K [PL] = [P] [L] (K = dissociation constant). In this equation [P] = [P] T – [PL] and [L] = [L] T – [PL] where [P] T and [L] T are the initial total concentrations of the protein and ligand, respectively. At very high ligand concentrations all the protein will be in the form of PL such that [P] = 0 If [P] = 0, then K=0 Since the binding constant KB = 1/ K. Therefore: KB = 1/0 i.e., the binding constant becomes UNDEFINED. Note: K is a measure of how tightly a ligand binds to the protein: The higher the K value the ligand does not bind well to the protein.

Case 1: Using the equilibrium relationship K [PL] = [L] [P] and substituting, [L] T – [PL] for [L] [P] T – [PL] for [P] Gives: K [PL] = {[L] T – [PL]} {[P] T – [PL]} K = [L] T [P] T – [PL] [L] T – [PL] [P] T + [PL] 2 Dividing throughout by [PL] gives: K = {[L] T [P] T / [PL]} – [L] T – [P] T + [PL] But [P] T = [PL] + [P] and therefore: K = {[L] T [P] T / [PL]} – [L] T – [P] K = [L] T ({[P] T / [PL]} –1) – [P] From this it follows that K + [P] = [L] T [P] / [PL] which on rearranging: [PL] = [L] T [P] / K + [P] This defines a rectangular hyperbola with several important regional properties: 1. Saturation: when [P] >> K, [PL] asymptotically approaches [L] T.

48

2. Half-saturation: when [P] = K, [PL] = [L] T/2 - in other word, the dissociation constant is equal to the (free) protein concentration needed to ensure that 50% of the ligand will be bounded. 3. Linearity: when [P] << K, [PL] is ~ proportional to [P] with slope = [L] T/ K. Case 2: Using the equilibrium relationship K [PL] = [L] [P] and substituting, [P] T – [P] for [PL], [L] T – [PL] for [L] and [P] T – [PL] for [P] Gives: K {[P] T – [P]} = {[L] T – [PL]} {[P] T – [PL]} K [P] T – K [P] = [L] T [P] T – [PL] [L] T – [PL] [P] T + [PL] 2 which on rearranging: K [P] T – [L] T [P] T + [PL] [P] T = – [PL] [L] T + [PL] 2 + K [P] [P]T {K – [L] T + [PL]} = [PL] {– [L] T + [PL]} + K [P] Further, if we substitute [L] T = [PL] + [L]. Then we get [P]T {K – [PL] – [L] + [PL]} = [PL] {–[PL] – [L] + [PL]} + K [P] [P]T {K – [L]} = – [PL] [L] + K [P] which is the same as: [P]T {K – [L]} = K [P] – [PL] [L] K – [L] = K {[P]/ [P] T} – {[PL]/ [P] T} [L] Labeling [P] / [P] T as FFP (fraction of free protein) and [PL] / [P] T as FBP (fraction of bound protein) then above expression turn into K – [L] = K FFP – FBP [L] 1. If FFP = FBP=1, then the LHS = RHS, and the above Equation is true. 2. If FFP = FBP≠1, then the LHS ≠ RHS, and the above Equation is invalid. Let us now check the validity of the condition “FFP = FBP =1”. As per the protein conservation law, [P] T = [PL] + [P] From this it follows that 1= FBP + FFP If we assume FBP = FFP =1, we get: 1=2 The condition FFP = FBP =1 is invalid, since 1 doesn't = 2. In fact, the only way it can happen that K – [L] = K – [L] is if both FFP = FBP =1. Since FFP = FBP ≠ 1, Equation K – [L] = K FFP – FBP [L] does not therefore hold well. Conclusion: 1. Using the equilibrium relationship K [PL] = [L] [P] and substituting [L] T – [PL] for [L], [P] T – [PL] for [P] and simplifying we get the right result. [PL] = [L] T [P] / K + [P] 2. Using the equilibrium relationship K [PL] = [L] [P] and substituting [P] T – [P] for [PL], [L] T – [PL] for [L], [P] T – [PL] for [P] and simplifying we get the wrong result K – [L] = K FFP – FBP [L]

49

“Substitution for ‘[PL]’ along with the substitutions for ‘[L]’ and ‘[P]’ should be avoided in order to prevent the occurrence of wrong result.” Considering the protein ligand binding reaction: P + L ↔PL the change in free energy is given by the equation ΔG = ΔG0 + RT ln Q where R is the gas constant (8.314 J / K / mol), T is the temperature in Kelvin scale, ln represents a logarithm to the base e, ΔG0 is the Gibbs free energy change when all the reactants and products are in their standard state and Q is the reaction quotient or reaction function at any given time (Q = [PL] / [P] [L]). We may resort to thermodynamics and write for ΔG 0: ΔG0 = − RT ln Keq where Keq is the equilibrium constant for the reaction. If Keq is greater than 1, ln Keq is positive, ΔG0 is negative; so the forward reaction is favored. If Keq is less than 1, ln Keq is negative, ΔG0 is positive; so the backward reaction is favored. It can be shown that ΔG = − RT ln Keq + RT ln Q The dependence of the reaction rate on the concentrations of reacting substances is given by the Law of Mass Action. This law states that the rate of a chemical reaction is directly proportional to the product of the molar concentrations of the reactants at any constant temperature at any given time. Applying the law of mass action to the forward reaction: v1 = k1 [P] [L] where k1 is the rate constant of the forward reaction. Applying the law of mass action to the backward reaction: v2 = k2 [PL] where k2 is the rate constant of the backward reaction. Further, the ratio of v1 / v2 yields: v1 / v2 = (k1/ k2) Q. But equilibrium constant is the ratio of the rate constant of the forward reaction to the rate constant of the backward reaction. And consequently: v 1 / v2 = Keq / Q. On taking natural logarithms of above equation we get: ln (v1 / v2) = ln Keq – ln Q. On multiplying by –RT on both sides, we obtain: –RT ln (v1 / v2) = – RT ln Keq + RT ln Q Comparing Equations ΔG = − RT ln Keq + RT ln Q and –RT ln (v1 / v2) = – RT ln Keq + RT ln Q, the Gibbs free energy change is seen to be: ΔG = −RT ln (v1 / v2) or ΔG = RT ln (v2 / v1). At equilibrium: v1 = v2 ΔG = 0 RT becomes UNDEFINED RT = ΔG / ln (v2 / v1) = 0 / 0 Note: ln (v1 / v2) = −ΔG / RT From this it follows that ln v1 = −ΔG*1 / RT + constant ln v2 = −ΔG*2 / RT + constant

50

This splitting involves the assumption that reaction in the forward reaction depends only on the change ΔG*1in Gibbs energy in going from the initial state to some intermediate state represented by the symbol *; similarly for the backward reaction there is a change ΔG* 2 in Gibbs energy in going from the product state to the intermediate state. For any reaction, we can therefore write ln v = −ΔG* / RT + constant Now under the quasi-equilibrium assumption (the Gibbs free energy of activation ΔG* is = 0): v = v* (v* = rate of all over reaction when the rate of activation is approximately = rate of deactivation) ln v* = 0 + constant Or constant = ln v* Solving for constant we get: v = v* e −ΔG* / RT What would have happened if the Boltzmann’s constant was a variable? 1. The entropy per photon (S = 3.6 kB) would have not remained constant. 2. The universal gas constant (R= kB NA) would have been a variable. And kinetic theory of gases would have been much different if the universal gas constant would have been a variable. (Here NA is called the Avogadro number and is constant because 1 mole of any substance contains only 6.023 × 10 23 particles).

The inherent goal of unification is to show that all of these forces are, in fact, manifestations of a single force. We can't perceive this unity at the low energies of our everyday lives, or even in our most powerful accelerators at CERN. But close to the Big Bang temperatures, at inconceivably high energies…

If the forces unify, the proton can be unstable, and eventually decay …

Note: Sun emits 2×1038 neutrinos per second but only 30 neutrinos are interacting in a person per year.

51

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” − Max Planck E= hυ − because h is constant, energy and frequency of the photon are equivalent and are different forms of the same thing. And because h is very small, the frequency of the photon is always greater than its energy. And some say the only thing that quantum mechanics has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct. Since the Planck's constant is very small, quantum mechanics is for little things. Suppose h would have been = 6.625×10 34 Js, then the wavelength of photon would have been very large. Since the area of the photon is proportional to the square of its wavelength, photon area would have been sufficiently large to consider the photon to be macroscopic. And quantum mechanical effects would have been noticeable for macroscopic objects. For example, the De Broglie wavelength of a 100 kg man walking at 1 m/s would have been = h/mv = 6.625×10 −34 Js / (100kg) (1m/s) = 6.625 × 10 −36 m (very small to be noticeable).

52

Is nuclear density =2.3 × 10 17 kg/m3?

In most physics literature it is shown that mN ≈ mP (where mN = mass of the neutron and mP = mass of the proton). Since mN ≈ mP. Therefore: M = (ZmP + N mN) = AmP Nuclear density, ρN = M/V = AmP / (4/3) π R03 A = 3mP / 4π R03 Substituting mP = 1.6726 × 10 −27kg and R0 = 1.2 × 10−15m ρN = 2.3 × 10 17 kg/m3

53

This simple calculation reveals that if mN was not ≈ mP, then all the nuclei of all elements would have possessed different density. So, it is argued, mN ≈ mP must have been fine-tuned for the nuclear density to be independent of the number of nucleons (i.e., mass number) in the nucleus. But in fact mN = 1.00143 mP Because mN > mP the neutron decays into a proton, electron & antineutrino. And if mN was ≈ mP, then neutron would have been quite stable like proton. But it is not because mN = 1.00143 mP. mN = 1.6750 × 10−27kg, mp = 1.6726 × 10−27kg mN / mP = 1.00143 Considering mN = 1.00143 mP, the nuclear density is given by: ρN = 3mP (Z + 1.00143N) / 4πR03A Nuclei

Number of protons (Z)

Number of neutrons (N) 0 1 2 4 6 8 10

Atomic mass number A = (Z + N) 1 2 4 8 12 16 20

1 1H

20 10 Ne

1 1 2 4 6 8 10

2.3 × 10 17 kg/m3 2.300164 × 10 17 kg/m3 2.300164 × 10 17 kg/m3 2.300164 × 10 17 kg/m3 2.300164 × 10 17 kg/m3 2.300164 × 10 17 kg/m3 2.300164 × 10 17 kg/m3

56 26Fe

26

30

56

2.30176 × 10 17 kg/m3

238

92

146

238

2.30201 × 10 17 kg/m3

3

2

1

3

2.30109 × 10 17 kg/m3

2 1H 4 2He 8 4Be 12 6C 16 8O

92U

2He

Nuclear density

From above table it is clear that the nucleus of a hydrogen atom has an enormous density of the order of 10 17 kg/m3 (about 10 14 times greater than that of water). Further, it is observed that for all nuclei which possess N = Z the nuclear density have nearly the same value (i.e., ρ N = 2.300164 × 10 17 kg/m3). And for all nuclei which possess N ≠ Z the nuclear density have nearly

54

the different value (such as 2.30176 × 10 kg/m3).

17

kg/m3, 2.30201 × 10

17

kg/m3 and 2.30109 × 10

17

ρN = 3mP (Z + 1.00143 N) / 4π R03 A A = (3mP / 4π R03ρN) Z + (3.00429mP / 4π R03ρN) N Since A = (Z + N): (Z + N) = (3mP / 4π R03ρN) Z + (3.00429mP / 4π R03ρN) N Any equation is valid only if LHS = RHS. Hence the above equation is valid (i.e., Z + N = Z +N) only if ρN attains 2 values ρN = 3mP / 4π R03 and ρN = 3.00429mP / 4π R03 at the same time. But how ρN can attain 2 values at the same time? It’s highly impossible.

55

We're all familiar with the Doppler Effect, right? Waves of any sort -- sound waves, light waves, water waves -- emitted at some frequency by a moving object are perceived at a different frequency by a stationary observer. When source and observer are stationary, observer sees waves of frequency υ. But if the source moves towards the stationary observer, then the perceived frequency is higher than the emitted frequency. If we accept the postulates of Albert Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, we can derive an equation for Doppler Effect for light for any velocity whatever as: υ observed = υ emitted × {(1 + v cosθ/c) / (1 − v2/c2) ½}, where v is the velocity of source moving towards the stationary observer. If the source moves at angle θ = 0o towards the stationary observer, υ observed = υ emitted × {(1 + v/c) / (1 − v2/c2) ½} If v = c, then υ observed → 0/0. Again we got indeterminate form. The mass m of the moving source is related to its rest mass m0 by the equation: m = m0 / (1− v2/c2) ½ Since (1− v2/c2) ½ = (υ emitted / υ observed) × (1 + v/c). Therefore: m = {υ observed m0 / υ emitted (1 + v/c)} If v = c (some light emitting heavenly bodies may travel at the speed of light), then m = {υ observed m0 /2 υ emitted} For a source moving at angle θ =0o away from the stationary observer, the relativistic Doppler Effect equation is given by: υ observed = υ emitted × {(1 − v/c) / (1 + v/c)}½ Since (1 − v/c) ½ = m0 / m (1+ v/c) ½. Therefore: m = {υ emitted m0 / υ observed (1 + v/c)}. Currently relativistic variation of mass does not permit any moving source to travel with speed v = c. m = m0 / (1− v2/c2) ½ If v=c, then the mass of the moving source becomes UNDEFINED. However, according to the equations, m = {υ observed m0 / υ emitted (1 + v/c)} and m = {υ emitted m0 / υ observed (1 + v/c)}; the mass of the moving source neither becomes UNDEFINED nor imaginary even if its velocity is equal or more than c. In expanding space, recession velocity keeps increasing with distance. Beyond a certain distance, known as the Hubble distance, it exceeds the velocity greater than the speed of light in vacuum. However, this is not a violation of relativity, because recession velocity is caused not by motion through space but by the expansion of space. If a quantity of heat Q is added to a system of mass m, then the added heat will go to raise the temperature of the system

56

by ΔT = Q/mC where C is a constant called the specific heat capacity. ΔT = Q/mC which on rearranging: m = (1/ C) × (Q/ΔT). Suppose no heat is added to the system (Q = 0), then ΔT = 0 m = (1/ C) × (0/0). i.e., the mass of a system becomes UNDEFINED. According to Faraday's law, the amount of a substance deposited on an electrode in an electrolytic cell is directly proportional to the quantity of electricity that passes through the cell. Faraday's law can be summarized by: n = q / zF, where n is the number of moles of the substance deposited on an electrode in an electrolytic cell, q is the quantity of electricity that passes through the cell, F = 96485 C/ mol is the Faraday constant and z is the valency number of ions of the substance (electrons transferred per ion). Suppose no electricity passes through the cell (q = 0), the amount of the substance deposited on an electrode in an electrolytic cell is 0 (i.e., n= 0). Now under the condition (q = 0, n = 0) zF = q / n = 0 / 0 The quantity of electric charge flowing through the filament of an incandescent bulb is given by: q = current × time or q = I × t. If N is the number of electrons passing through the filament in the same time then q = Ne Ne = I × t, where e is the electron charge = – 1.602 × 10 –19coulombs. e = {I / (N/t)}, where (N / t) = rate of flow of electrons. Suppose no electrons flow through the filament of an incandescent bulb, then I = 0 and (N/t) = 0 e→ 0/0 i.e., the electron charge becomes UNDEFINED. For the reversible electrode reaction: Cu2+ (aq) + 2e– ↔ Cu (s), whereCu2+is the oxidized state and Cu is the reduced state. The change in Gibbs free energy (ΔG) is given by: ΔG = − nFE, where n is the number of moles of electrons involved in the reaction, F is the Faraday constant (96,500 C/mol) and E is the electrode potential. The number of moles of electrons involved in the reaction is 2, therefore n=2. ΔG = − 2FE At equilibrium ΔG = 0, E = 0 Now under the condition (ΔG = 0, E = 0) the equation for F becomes: F = −1 × (ΔG / 2E) = – 1 × (0/0), which is not justified as the value of F is well-defined (i.e., the value of F is 96,500 C/mol). When a charged electron accelerates, it radiates away energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. For velocities that are small relative to the speed of light, the total power radiated is given by the Larmor formula: P = (e2 / 6πε0c3) a2 where e is the charge and a is the acceleration of the electron, ε0 is the absolute permittivity of free space; c is the speed of light in vacuum. If a = 0, then P = 0. Now under this condition the charge of the electron turns out to be:

57

e = (6πε0c3) ½ × (P / a) ½ = (6πε0c3) ½ × (0/0) ½. A free neutron of energy EN = mNc2 has a life time (the time the free neutron exists before decaying into a proton, electron & antineutrino) of Δt0 seconds when measured at rest. If it moves relativistically with velocity v, then it will have a life time of Δt seconds and energy E = mc 2. From relativity we know that mc2= mNc2 / (1 − v2/c2) ½ Δt = Δt0 / (1 − v2/c2) ½ Comparing the above equations we get: Δt /Δt0 = mc2/ mNc2 Which means: Δt0 ∝ mNc2 and Δt ∝ mc2 (i.e., life time of the free neutron is directly proportional to its energy). However, we know that higher the energy of the transient particle like neutron or meson, higher is its instability. Higher is its instability, lesser is its life time (i.e., life time of the free neutron is inversely proportional to its energy). So it may be natural to question how can the life time of the free neutron is directly proportional to its energy. Assuming Δt0 ∝ 1/ mNc2 and Δt ∝ 1/ mc2 we get: ∆t /∆t0 = mNc2 / mc2. Since mc2= mNc2 / (1 − v2/c2) ½. Therefore: ∆t /∆t0 = (1 − v2/c2) ½ or ∆t = ∆t0 (1 − v2/c2) ½ Now under the condition (v=c): ∆t = 0, which means: a free neutron moving with velocity v=c instantaneously decay into its constituent particles (a proton, electron & antineutrino). Hence the observation of free neutrons moving with velocity v=c is beyond our reach. Until now. However, if v=c ∆t0 which is ∆t / (1 − v2/c2) ½ becomes UNDEFINED. There can be no bigger limitation than this. ∆t0 is well-defined. Unfortunately, Dr Science is currently unable to provide a response to many of our queries including the exact life time of the neutron. We think our questions might have hurt its brain. If N0 is the number of atoms at time t = 0 and N the number of radioactive atoms at time t then N is related to N0 by: N = N0 e − λt where λ is the decay constant. ln (N / N0) = − λt which is the same as: ln (N0 / N) = λt Number of atoms lapse to 0 at some time tn. Now under the condition (N = 0 at time t = tn): λ = (1/ tn) × ln (N0 / 0). Λ becomes UNDEFINED. The rate constant k for a first order reaction is given by: k = (2.303/t) × log {a / (a − x)} where a is the initial concentration of the reactant, (a− x) is the concentration of the reactant at time t and x is the

58

concentration of the reactant decomposed. Now under the condition (x = a at time t = T): k = (2.303/T) × log {a / 0}. K becomes INDETERMINATE. However, the condition (x = a) is not achieved until now. In the paper which is widely known as the special theory of relativity, Albert Einstein put forth an equation of Lorentz –Fitzgerald length contraction ℓ0 = ℓ / (1− v2/c2) ½ where ℓ is the length of the rod measured by an observer in a frame moving with velocity v, and ℓ0 is the length of the rod in the rest frame. Suppose the observer moves with the speed of light i.e. v = c then ℓ0 becomes UNDEFINED. If N number of photons of entropy 3.6NkB (where kB is known as Boltzmann’s constant and is given by kB = 1.4 × 10 – 23 J/K) is added to a black hole of mass M, then the added photons increases the entropy of the black hole by an amount of ΔS = 3.6NkB. Suppose no photons is added to the black hole (i.e., N = 0), then ΔS = 0. Now under the condition (N = 0, ΔS = 0) the Boltzmann constant becomes UNDEFINED. kB =ΔS /3.6N = 0/ 0

59

?

Existence of Worm Holes is still

The Unruh temperature, derived by William Unruh in 1976, is the effective temperature experienced by a uniformly accelerating observer in a vacuum field. It is given by: TU = (ħa/2πckB), where a is the acceleration of the observer, kB is the Boltzmann constant, ħ is the reduced Planck constant, and c is the speed of light in vacuum. Suppose the acceleration of the observer is zero (a = 0), then TU = 0 Now under the condition (a = 0, TU = 0): (ħ/2πckB) = TU / a = 0/0. It appears our description of events, particularly in mathematical form, leave much to be desired. A particular aspect is, as shown above, the many times physical events have expressions that lead to indeterminate. Basically, all scientific expressions are scientific statements that predict, explain, and perhaps describe the nature. Despite having received some great deal, discrepancies frequently lead to doubt and discomfort. The deepest misunderstanding about science is the idea that science is about certainty. Science is not about certainty. Science is about gathering data and interpreting that data in ways that are often insufficient, limited, and changeable. For many evolutionary drumbeaters and media pundits this might be a startling claim.

Note: The entire electromagnetic spectrum — from radio waves to gamma rays, most of the light in the universe — resembles nothing but transverse waves of energy E = hc/λ, which in turn are vibrating Maxwell force fields differing only in their wavelength λ = h/p .

“Things are as they are because they were as they were.” − THOMAS GOLD

60

If string theory is correct, then every particle is a string. And different masses of the particles are due to the different modes of vibration of the string.

If Higgs theory is correct, then a new field called the Higgs field which is analogous to the familiar electromagnetic field but with new kinds of properties permits all over the space. And different masses of the particles are due to the different strengths of interaction of the particle with the Higgs field (more the strength of interaction of the particle with the Higgs field, more the mass of the particle). If both the theories are right, then the different masses of the particles

61

are due to (the different modes of vibration of the string plus the different strengths of interaction of the string with the Higgs field).

Which explanation is right?

Higgs theory runs rampant in the popular media claiming that String Theory Is Not The Only Game In Town. However, by the end of the decade, we will have our first glimpse of the new physics, whatever it well may be

STRING or HIGGS The new physics will raise new questions and point to even more discoveries at the TeV scale and opens the door beyond the Standard Model.

Note: The universe is expanding because the energy of expansion which is (which is ∝MH2R2 is greater than the gravitational binding energy of the universe (which is ∝ ‒ GM2/R). M = mass and R = radius of the universe. H = Hubble constant and G = Gravitational constant.

62

The coulombic repulsive force between two protons inside the nucleus is 1036 times the gravitational force between them. The nuclear attractive force between two neutrons is 1038 times the gravitational force between them. Very likely, we are missing something important. Why is gravity so weak? May because of hidden extra dimensions?

63

Richard Feynman [Nobel Prize, 1965] showed that the empty space-time was simply the lowest

energy state of the universe. It was neither empty nor uninteresting, and its energy was not necessarily zero. And because E = mc2, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs of mass m ∝ to 1/ tlife (tlife stood for life time of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs) were continually being created out of energy E of the 4 dimensional fabric of space-time consistent with the uncertainty principle, and then, they appeared together at some time, moved apart, then came together and annihilated each other giving energy back to the space-time without violating the law of energy conservation. Spontaneous births and deaths of virtual particles so called quantum fluctuations occurring everywhere, all the time − was the conclusion that mass and energy were interconvertible; they were two different forms of the same thing. The energy required to make the virtual particleantiparticle pair real is = energy required to tear the pair apart + energy required to boost the separated virtual particle-antiparticles into real particles (i.e., to bring them from virtual state to the materialize state). And since the particles liberated from the Big Bang were moving more and more randomly in all directions at ultra-relativistic speeds (i.e., v ≈ c), they may have collided with the virtual particle – antiparticle pairs in the space. And the collision may have provided enough energy to make the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs materialize in real space. And these materialized particle-antiparticles may have combined to produce more photons. However, nobody knows anything for sure. For all physicists know, nothing was like it is now. Humans obviously weren’t around at the time the universe set out.

If kBTP = mec2, then TP = mec2/kB = 5.934 × 10 TP = 5.934 × 10

9

9

K

K imply the threshold temperature below

which the electron is effectively removed from that universe. If hυ = mec2, then υ = mec2/h = 12.36 × 1019 s−1 υ = mec2/h = 12.36 × 1019 s−1 imply

?

Not even wrong: when perfection fails, uncertainty wins 6×0=0

64

2×0=0 6×0=2×0 6 / 2 = 0/0 i.e., 6 / 2 → UNDEFINED. According to Albert Einstein’s law of variation of mass with velocity m0 = m (1− v2/c2) ½, where m0 is the rest mass and m is the relativistic mass of the particle. From this it follows that m2c2 − m2v2 = m02c2 Differentiating this, we get mv dv + v2dm = c2dm dm (c2 − v2) = mv dv Since c2dm = dp × v. Therefore: dp (c2 − v2) = mc2 dv (dp/dt) = mc2 / (c2 − v2) (dv/dt), where (dp/dt) = F (force) and (dv/dt) = a (acceleration). F = mac2 / (c2 − v2) For non-relativistic case (v<<c): F = m0 a Since c2 / (c2 − v2) = m2/m02. Therefore: F = m3a / m02 m= m0 2/3 (F/a) 1/3 Suppose no force acts on the particle (F = 0), then a = 0. Now under this condition: m= m0 2/3 (F/a) 1/3 = m0 2/3 (0/0) 1/3 i.e., m becomes UNDEFINED. There can be no bigger limitation than this. m = m0 under the condition a=0 (i.e., v = 0).

65

The De Broglie wavelength of a non-relativistic electron of mass m0 moving with velocity v<<c is given by: λ = h/m0v. It is clear as v → 0, λ becomes UNDEFINED. Is the Life time of the sun 2.63 × 10 18 s or 3.98 × 1020 s? Case1: We can summarize the nuclear reaction occurring inside the sun, irrespective of pp or CNO cycle, as follows: 4 protons → 1 helium nucleus + 2 positrons + E, where E is the energy released in the form of radiation. Approximately it is 25 MeV ≈ 40 × 10 − 13J. Let’s calculate age of the sun according to nuclear considerations. Inside the sun, we have N Protons (say), which can be calculated as follows N Protons = M / mP = 2 × 1030 / 1.672 × 10 −27 = 1.196 × 10 57, where M = mass of the sun and mP = mass of the proton. Hence, the number of fusion reactions inside the sun is N Reactions = 1.196 × 10 57 / 4 = 2.99 × 10 56 So, star has the capacity of releasing 0.196 × 10 56 × 40 × 10 − 13 = 1.19 × 10 45 J The rate of loss of energy of the sun in the form of radiation i.e., power radiated by the sun, P = 4.52 × 10 26 J/s, the sun has the capacity to shine for t = 1.19 × 10 45 /4.52 × 10 26 = 2.63 × 10 18 s. Case2: Let us consider, N Protons = M / mP M = N Protons × mP Differentiating this with respect to time, we get (dM/dt) = mP × (dN Protons /dt) This can also be written as: − (dMc2/dt) = mPc2 × − (dN Protons /dt)

66

Since − (dMc2/dt) = P = 4.52 × 10 26 J/s and mPc2 = 15.04 × 10 − 11 J. Therefore: − (dN Protons /dt) = (4.52 × 10 26 / 15.04 × 10 − 11) = 3.005 × 10 36 protons per second 0.196 × 10 36 protons are utilized per second to release energy in the radiation. 0.196 × 10 36 protons → 1s 1.196 × 10 57 protons → t s t = 1.196 × 10 57/3.005 × 10 36 = 3.98 × 1020 s. 1.196 × 10 57 protons are utilized per 3.980× 1020 seconds to release energy in the radiation. Therefore, the sun has the capacity to shine for 3.98 × 1020 s.

The Origin of the Matter WE’VE DISCOVERED a lot about our Universe; however, we still stand at a critical cross road of knowledge where the choice is between spirituality and science to accomplish the hidden truth behind the early evolution of the universe. In order to throw light on a multitude of questions: Where did we and the universe come from? Where are we and the universe going? What makes us and the universe exists? Why we born? Why we die? Whether or not the universe had a beginning? If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began? What happened before the beginning? We must either build a sound, balanced, effective and extreme imaginative knowledge beyond our limit. Many theories were put forth by the scientists to look into the early evolution of the universe but none of them turned up so far. And if, like me, you have wondered looking at the star, and tried to make sense of what makes it shine the way it is. Did it shine forever or was there a limit beyond which it cannot or may not shine? And, where did the matter that created it all come from? Did the matter have a beginning in time? Or had the

67

matter existed forever and didn’t have a beginning? In other words, what cause made the matter exist? And, what made that cause exist? Some would claim the answer to this question is that matter could have popped into existence 13.9 billion years ago as a result of just the physical laws and constants being there. This might sound like physicists are pulling your leg, just to see how long it will be before somebody is willing to say that almost an anxious searching in the dark, with their intense longing, their alterations of confidence and exhaustion and the final emergence into the light – Because there is a law such as gravity, the matter can and will create itself out of nothing. But how can matter come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter. But there is a simple answer. Matter, of course, is what a makes up a hot star, a sun, a planet – anything you think of that occupies space. And if you divide the matter

what do you get? Tiny masses… Well, because each tiny mass locks up tremendous amount of positive energy. And according to new model what’s called the exchange theory of gravity, there is a continuous exchange of a massless graviton between one mass and the other. This result in an exchange force called gravity and keeps them bound together. Well if you add up the sum total positive energy of masses to the sum total negative energy of gravity what you get? Zero, the net energy of the matter is zero. Because the net energy of the matter is zero, the matter can and will create itself from literally nothing. A thought of nothing must have somehow turned into something is interesting, and significant, and worth writing a note about, and it’s one of the possibilities. However, if this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the question to the ultimate answer is shouldn’t we see at least some spontaneous creation of matter in our observable universe every now and then? No one has ever observed a matter popping into existence. This means that any “meta” or “hyper” laws of physics that would allow (even in postulate) a matter to pop into existence are completely outside our experience. The eminent laws of physics, as we know them, simply are not applicable here. Invoking the laws of physics doesn’t quite do the trick. And the laws of physics are simply the human-invented ingredients of models that we introduce to describe observations. They are all fictitious, as far as we find a reference frame in which they are observed. The question of matter genesis is clear, and deceptively simple. It is as old as the question of what was going on before the Big Bang. Usually, we tell the story of the matter by starting at the Big Bang and then talking about what happened after. The answer has always seemed well beyond the reach of science. Until now. Over the decades, there have been several attempts to explain the origin of matter, all of them proven wrong. One was the so-called Steady State theory. The idea was that, as the galaxies moved apart from each other; new galaxies would form in the spaces in between, from matter that was spontaneously being created. The matter density of the universe would continue

68

to exist, forever, in more or less the same state as it is today. In a sense disagreement was a credit to the model, every attempt was made to set up the connection between theoretical predictions and experimental results but the Steady State theory was disproved even with limited observational evidence. The theory therefore was abandoned and the idea of spontaneous creation of matter was doomed to fade away into mere shadows. As crazy as it might seem, the matter may have come out of nothing! The meaning of nothing is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all. After all, no one was around when the matter began, so who can say what really happened? The best that we can do is work out the most vain imaginative and foolish theories, backed up by numerous lines of scientific observations of the universe. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, or so the saying goes, cats are alive and dead at the same time. But some of the most incredible mysteries of the quantum realm get far less attention than Schrödinger’s famous cat. Due to the fuzziness of quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, one can think of the vacuum fluctuations as virtual matter –antimatter pairs that appear together at some time, move apart, then come together and annihilate one another and revert back to energy. Spontaneous births and deaths of so called virtual matter –antimatter pairs occurring everywhere, all the time – is the evidence that mass and energy are interconvertible; they are two forms of the same thing. If one argue that matter was a result of such a fluctuation. So then the next question is what cause provided enough energy to make the virtual matter –antimatter pairs materialize in real space. And if we assume some unknown cause has teared the pair apart and boosted the separated virtual matter –antimatter into the materialized state. The question then is what created that cause. In other words, what factor created that cause? And what created that factor. Or perhaps, the cause, or the factor that created it, existed forever, and didn’t need to be created. The argument leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves us short of the ultimate answer. Unfortunately, Dr. Science cannot answer these questions. So, the problem remains. However, quantum origin and separation of the matter still delights theoretical physicists but boggles the mind of mere mortals, is the subject of my thought; have the quantum laws found a genuinely convincing way to explain matter existence apart from divine intervention? If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the ultimate Cause of the Matter. Over the decades, we’re trying to understand how the matter began and we’re also trying to understand all the other things that go along with it. This is very much the beginning of the story and that story could go in, but I think there could be surprises that no one has even thought of. Something eternal can neither be created nor destroyed. The first law of thermodynamics asserts that matter can neither be created nor destroyed; it can be converted from one form to another. The overwhelming experience of experimental science confirms this first law to be a fact. But if the matter prevails in the boundary of understanding in that it neither started nor it ends: it would simply be. What place then for an evidence exposing that we live in a finite expanding universe which has not existed forever, and that all matter was once squeezed into an infinitesimally small volume, which erupted in a cataclysmic explosion which has become known as the Big Bang. However, what we believe about the origin of the matter is not

69

only sketchy, but uncertain and based purely on human perception. There is no reliable and genuine evidence to testify about how the matter began and what may have existed before the beginning of the matter. The laws of physics tell us that the matter had a beginning, but they don’t answer how it had begun. Mystery is running the universe in a hidden hole and corner, but one day it may wind up the clock work with might and main. The physical science can explain the things after big bang but fails to explain the things before big bang. We know that matter can be created out of energy, and energy can be created out of matter. This doesn't resolve the dilemma because we must also know where the original energy came from.

Gravity

The physicist has been spending a month, as he or she does each year, sequestered with colleagues, such as fellow theoretical physicists, to discuss many great mysteries of the cosmos. But despite its simple approximation as a force, and its beautifully subtle description as a property of space-time, we’ve come to realize over the past century that we still don’t know what gravity actually is. It has been a closed book ever since the grand evolution of human understanding and all physicists hang this book up on their wall and distress about it. Unhesitatingly you would yearn to know where this book comes from: is it related to metaphysical science or perhaps to the greatest blast puzzles of physics? Nobody knows. It’s one of the 10,000 bits puzzling of cosmic science: a book that comes to us with no understanding by the human mind. You might say the laws of physics designed that book, and we don’t know how

70

they designed that book. The elevated design of this book, an extract of which appears in the cosmic art gallery, sets out to the belief that it must have designed as it could not have created out of chaos. In some sense, the origin of the cosmic problem today remains what it was in the time of Newton – one of the greatest challenges of 21st Century science. Yet, we have made a bold but brilliant move. In less than a hundred years, we have found a new way to wonder what gravity is. The usual approach of science of constructing a set of rules and equations cannot answer the question of why if you could turn off gravity, space and time would also vanish. In short, we don’t have an answer; we now have a whisper of the grandeur of the problem. We don’t know exactly how it is intimately related to space and time. It’s a mystery that we’re going to chip at from quantum theory. However, when we try to apply quantum theory to gravity, things become more complicated and confusing. Time Mankind’s deepest desire for scientific intervention introduced a new idea that of time. Most of the underlying assumptions of physics are concerned with time. Time may sound like a genre of fiction, but it is a well-defined genuine concept. Some argue that time is not yet discovered by us to be objective features of the mundane world: even without considering time an intrinsic feature of the mundane world, we can see that things in the physical world change, seasons change, people adapt to that drastic changes. The fact that the physical change is an objective feature of the physical world, and time is independent of under whatever circumstances we have named it. Others think time as we comprehend it does not endure beyond the bounds of our physical world. Beyond it, maybe one could run forward in time or just turn around and go back. This could probably mean that one could fall rapidly through their former selves. In a bewildering world, the question of whether the time never begin and has always been ticking, or whether it had a beginning at the big bang, is really a concern for physicists: either science could account for such an inquiry. If we find the answer to it, it would be the ultimate triumph of human justification for our continuing quest. And, our goal of a complete description of the universe we live in is selfjustified. The understanding we have today is that time is not an illusion like what age-old philosophers had thought, but rather it is well defined mathematical function of an inevitable methodical framework for systematizing our experiences. If one believed that the time had a beginning, the obvious question was how it had started? The problem of whether or not the time had a beginning was a great concern to the German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He considered the entire human knowledge and came to the conclusion that time is not explored by humans to be objective features of the mundane world domain, but is a part of an inevitable systematic framework for coordinating our experiences. How and when did the time begin? No other scientific question is more fundamental or provokes such spirited debate among physicists. Since the early part of the 1900s, one explanation of the origin and fate of the universe, the Big Bang theory, has dominated the discussion. Although singularity theorems predicted that the time, the space, and the matter or energy itself had a beginning, they didn’t convey how they had a beginning. It would clearly be nice for singularity theorems if they had a beginning, but how can

71

we distinguish whether they had a beginning? Inasmuch as the time had a beginning at the Big Bang it would deepen implication for the role of divine creator in the grand design of creation. But if it persists in the bounds of reason in that it has neither beginning nor end. What role could ineffable creator have in creation? Life could start and new life forms could emerge on their own randomly sustaining themselves by reproducing in the environment fitted for the functional roles they perform. Personally, we’re sure that the time began with a hot Big Bang. But will it go on ticking forever? If not, when it will wind up its clockwork of ticking? We’re much less sure about that. However, we are just a willful gene centered breed of talking monkeys on a minor planet of a very average galaxy. But we have found a new way to question ourselves and we have learned to do them. That makes us something very special. Moreover, everything we think we understand about the universe would need to be reassessed. Every high school graduate knows cosmology, the very way we think of things, would be forever altered. The distance to the stars and galaxies and the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) would be thrown in doubt. Even the expanding universe theory, the Big Bang theory, and black holes would have to be reexamined. The Big Bang theory of universe assumes the present form of the universe originated from the hot fire ball called singularity and it assumes time did not exist before the Big Bang. But Erickcek deduced on the basis of NASA’s, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) that the existence of time and empty space is possible before the Big Bang. And if we assume the existence of time before the Big Bang, the following possibility may have occurred: The singularity would have existed for a time of t seconds (which was ∝ 1 / E, where E was the energy of the singularity) after its creation and before it exploded. Further, if we assume the singularity was the free lunch (i.e., it took no net matter and energy to create a singularity), then E was = 0 (i.e., the total energy of the singularity was zero). And if E was 0, then t (which was ∝ 1 / E) would have been infinite. So it may be natural to doubt under the assumption (the existence of time before the Big Bang) whether the singularity came out of nothing or it took net matter and energy to create a point what physicists call a singularity. And if the singularity would have instantaneously exploded after its creation (i.e., the time t the singularity existed after its creation and before it exploded was = 0). And if t (which was ∝ 1 / E, where E was the energy of the singularity) was = 0, then it is hard to claim that the energy of the singularity was zero (i.e., singularity was created spontaneously from empty space). Because ∆t = ∆t0 / (1− v2/c2) ½, can you travel back in time and kill your grandfather before he conceive your father? If not, why the universe avoids the paradox? Time Travel − Science Fiction? Taking the laws of physics and punching them in the stomach and throwing them down the stairs – it’s possible for you to break the universal speed limit. It is mind boggling to think about it – you’re actually travelling backwards in time. What if you went back in time and prevented big bang from happening? You would prevent yourself from ever having been born! But then if you

72

hadn’t been born, you could not have gone back in time to prevent big bang from happening. The concept of time travel may sound something impressive to many people, but somewhat it seems to be incredible. However, travelling through time may not be the far-fetched science fiction theory. At the same time, can we open a portal to the past or find a shortcut to the future and master the time itself is still in question. “Actually, everything that can be known has a Number; for it is impossible to grasp anything with the mind or to recognize it without this.”− PHILOLAUS, C. 470 – C. 385 BC.

What is GRAVITY? Newtonian view: Force tells mass how to accelerate. Accelerated mass tells what gravity is. Einsteinian view: Mass tells space how to curve. Curved space tells what gravity is. Note: Motion and gravity makes the clock tick slower.

Is our universe a by-product of an accident? We asked how stars are powered and found the answer in the transformations of atomic nuclei. But there are still simple questions that we can ask. And one is: Is our universe merely the byproduct of a grand accident? If the universe were merely the by-product of an accident, then our universe could have been a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. But everything we see in the universe obeys rules which are governed by a set of equations, without exception. This does not mean that the universe obey rules because it exists in a plan which is created and shaped by a divine intelligence. Maybe the universe is a lucky draw of a grand accident hence it obeys rules without exception. At this moment it seems as though Dr. Science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the physicist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. Moreover, much is still in the speculative stage, and we must admit that there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin. No evidence. No scientific observation. Just speculation.

Do constants vary?

73

The rest masses of proton and neutron are regarded as fundamental physical constants in existing physics and it is believed that they are invariant. Rest mass of proton plus neutron = [mP + mN] = 1.007825 + 1.008665 = 2.01649 u. But inside the deuteron nucleus, it is experimentally confirmed that Rest mass of proton plus neutron = [mP + mN] = 2.01410 u i.e., Rest mass of proton plus neutron [mP + mN] inside the nucleus has decreased from 2.01649 u to 2.01410 u. The rest masses of neutrons and protons are fundamental constants only if they remain same universally (inside and outside the nucleus). Failure to meet universal equality proves that the rest masses of neutrons and protons are Variant.

From the Big Bang to the Black Holes including basic facts such as particle masses and force strengths, the entire universe works because the laws of physics make things happen. But if Meta or hyper laws of physics were whatever produced the universe then what produced those laws. Or perhaps, the laws, or the cause that created them, existed forever, and didn't need to be created. Dr. Science gives us a clue, but thereâ€™s no definitive answer. So let's just leave it at the hypothetical laws of physics. The question, then, is why are there laws of physics? And we could say, well, that required a biblical creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that took us from the laws of physics to the notions of time and space. Well, if the laws of physics popped into existence 13.8 billion years ago with divine help whatsoever, like we say, why aren't we seeing a at least one evidence of an ineffable creator in our observable universe every now and then? The origin of the Meta or hyper laws of physics remains a mystery for now. However, recent breakthroughs in physics, made possible in part by fantastic revolutionary understanding of the true nature of the mathematical quantities and theories of physics, may suggest an answer that may seem as obvious to us as the earth orbiting the sun â€“ or perhaps as ridiculous as earth is a perfect sphere. We don't know whatever the answer may be because the Meta or hyper laws of

74

physics are completely beyond our experience, and beyond our imagination, or our mathematics. Only time (whatever that may be) will tell.

The electron temperature T is related to its kinetic energy KE by the equation KE = 3/2 kBT From this it follows that ∆KE = 3/2 kB ∆T Suppose ∆T → 0, then ∆KE = 0 kB= 2∆KE /3∆T = 0/0 i.e., kB becomes UNDEFINED.

75

Observations of galaxies indicate that the universe is expanding: the distance D between almost any pair of galaxies is increasing at a rate V = HD. BUT WHY is still?

76

The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are sometimes not worth acknowledging. Here’s an example of what I mean. Considering a bimolecular reaction, reactant A + reactant B ↔ Activated complex → Products, we can derive an expression for rate constant: kr = k (kBT/h) e −∆H*/RT e ∆S*/R, where k is the transmission coefficient (i.e., the fraction of activated complex crossing forward to yield the products), kB and h are the Boltzmann’s constant and Planck’s constant respectively, T is the temperature in kelvin, R is the universal gas constant (its value is 8.314 J/K/mol), ∆H* and ∆S* are the standard enthalpy and standard entropy of activation. For a reaction in solution, energy of activation (Ea) is = standard enthalpy of activation (∆H*). kr = k (kBT/h) e −Ea / RT e ∆S*/R kr and Ea can be experimentally determined. Presently we have no experimental method to evaluate the value of ∆S*. So in order to determine the value of ∆S* we assume k =1. k =1 implies no activated complex reverts back to the reactants and this invalidates the quasiequilibrium assumption. If k is not taken as unity, then it is impossible to evaluate the value of ∆S*. Basically, all scientific equations are mathematical statements that predict, explain, and perhaps describe the basic features of reality. Despite having received some great deal, discrepancies frequently lead to doubt and discomfort. What is it breathes fire into the discussion? And, our discussion is nothing less than questioning why human understanding is slow in its progress that it can’t step in once from artificial to superficial thinking? If we find the answer to that, it would be the last victory of human justification for our continuing quest. Considering a bimolecular reaction, reactant A + reactant B ↔ Activated complex → Products, we can derive an expression for rate constant: kr = k2 K*, where k2 is the rate constant for product formation and K* is the equilibrium constant for the formation of activated complex.

77

Taking natural logarithm of the equation kr = k2 K*we get: lnkr = lnk2 + lnK* Differentiating the above equation we get: dlnkr = dlnk2 + dlnK* which is the same as: dlnkr /dT = dlnk2/dT + dlnK*/dT Since dlnkr /dT = Ea/ RT2 and dln K*/dT = ∆H*/ RT2 (where Ea = energy of activation and ∆H* = standard enthalpy of activation). Therefore: Ea/ RT2 = dlnk2/dT + ∆H*/ RT2 For reactions in solution, Ea = ∆H* Hence, dlnk2/dT = 0 Since k2 = (k kBT/h) where k is the transmission coefficient (i.e., the fraction of activated complex crossing forward to yield the products), kB and h are the Boltzmann’s constant and Planck’s constant respectively, T is the temperature in kelvin. Therefore: dlnk /dT + dlnT/dT = 0 From this it follows that dlnk = − dlnT Integrating over dlnk from k1 to k2, and over dlnT from T1 to T2: ln (k1 / k2) = ln (T2 / T1) From this it is clear that (k1 / k2) = (T2 / T1) k1∝ 1/ T1 and k2 ∝ 1/ T2 In general, k ∝ 1/ T which means: higher the temperature, lower the value of transmission coefficient. Lower the value of transmission coefficient, the concentration

78

of activated complex crossing forward to yield the products will be less. Lesser the concentration of activated complex crossing forward to yield the products, slower is the rate of reaction. Conclusion: with the increase in temperature, the rate of reaction decreases. Experimental observation: The rate of reaction always increases with temperature. But in the case of enzyme catalyzed reactions, the rate increases with temperature up to certain level (corresponding to optimum temperature) after which the rate decreases with the increase in temperature. Note: The Planck mass MP = (ħc/G) ½ ≈ 2.17 × 10 −8 kg is the fundamental unit of mass constructed solely out of the three fundamental constants, ħ = h /2π, G and c. But why the elementary particles possess mass very much < than the Planck mass. What prevents particles from getting mass on the order of Planck mass? The answers are still a?

The Bohr model for an electron transition in hydrogen between quantized energy levels with different quantum numbers n yields a photon by emission with quantum energy:

79

A downward transition involves emission of a photon of energy: E photon = hυ = E2 − E1 But E1 = − (2π2me e4 / n12h2) and E2 = − (2π2me e4 / n22h2) Therefore: hυ = (2π2me e4 / h2) [1/n12 − 1/n22] Suppose hυ = 0, then 0 = (2π2me e4 / h2) [1/n12 − 1/n22] From this it follows that n1= n2 Now under the condition (hυ = 0, n1= n2): (2π2me e4 / h2) = hυ / [1/n12 − 1/n22] = 0/0 i.e., (2π2me e4 / h2) becomes UNDEFINED. How big of a force does electron placed in an electric field feel? Well, the electric field is E newtons per coulomb and electron have a charge of e = – 1.602 × 10 – 19 coulombs, so you get the following F=e×E That is, electron feels a force of eE Newton. Because F = qE, if E = 0 then an electron would feel no force (F = 0). Now under this condition the electron charge becomes: e = F/E = 0/0. The average kinetic energy of gas atoms is … <KE> = 3/2 × kBT where kB is known as Boltzmann’s constant and is given by kB = 1.4 × 10 Temperature T = 0, <KE> = 0. Now under this condition:

− 23

J/K. At

kB= 2<KE> / 3T = 2 (0) / 0 → 0/0 It is reiterated that under the condition (T = 0, <KE> = 0), the Boltzmann’s constant becomes UNDEFINED. However, T cannot be 0. T = 0 violates the third law of thermodynamics. Ultra-relativistic particle The kinetic energy KE of a particle is given by the equation: KE = (p2c2 + m02c4) ½ − m0c2, where p is the momentum and m0c2 is the rest energy of the particle. It is generally assumed that for an ultra-relativistic particle:

80

pc >> m0c2 Therefore: KE ≈ pc For a ultra-relativistic particle moving with a velocity v = 0.999c m = m0/ (1− v2/c2) ½ = 22.36m0 KE = mc2 ‒ m0c2 = 22.36m0c2 − m0c2 = 21.36m0c2 pc = (mv) c = 22.33m0c2 From the above calculation it is clear that It will be not very difficult to doubt that KE can be approximated to pc.

c = 1 / (ε0 μ0) ½ where c = 3× 108 m/s is the speed of light in vacuum, ε0 = 8.854 × 10 − 12 F/m is the absolute permittivity of free space and μ0 = 4π × 10 − 7 H/m is the absolute permeability of free space. If any one of the constants (ε0 or μ0) were zero, then c would have been UNDEFINED. And if any one of the constants (ε0 or μ0) was a variable, then c would not have remained a constant.

Note: The unification of so called weak nuclear forces with the Maxwell equations is what known as the Electro weak theory. And the electro weak theory and QCD together constitutes the so called Standard Model of particle physics, which describes everything except gravity.

The calculation of m using the equation: m = m0 / (1 − v2/c2) ½ From the experimental data of the Compton Effect we know that

81

Case1: for the scattering angle θ = 135o and the wavelength of the incident photon 0.0709nm, the wavelength of the scattered photon was found to be 0.0749nm. The energy of the incident photon Ei = hc/λi = (6.625 × 10 280.324 × 10 − 17 J.

− 34

× 3 × 108) / 0.0709× 10

− 9

=

The energy of the incident photon Ef = hc/λf = (6.625 × 10 265.353 × 10 − 17 J.

− 34

× 3 × 108) / 0.0749× 10

− 9

=

From the law of conservation of energy, Ei + mec2 = Ef + mc2 mc2 − mec2 = (Ei − Ef) = 14.971 × 10 − 17 J. Which on rearranging we get: mc2 = mec2 + 14.971 × 10 − 17 J. mc2 = (9.1 × 10 − 31 × 9 × 1016) J + 14.971 × 10 − 17 J = 82.049 × 10−15 J m = 82.049 × 10−15 / c2 = 9.1165 × 10 − 31kg From the law of conservation of momentum, p2 = pi2 + pf 2 − 2pi pf cosθ pi = h /λi = 6.625 × 10 −34 / 0.0709× 10 − 9 = 93.441 × 10 − 25 Js/m pi = h /λf = 6.625 × 10 − 34 / 0.0749× 10 −9 = 88.451 × 10 − 25 Js/m θ = 135o p2 = 28243.06 × 10 − 50 J 2s 2/m2 p = 168.0567 × 10 − 25 Js /m As we know that: Momentum of the electron p = mv v= p/m = 168.0567 × 10 − 25 / 9.1165 × 10 − 31 = 18.434× 106 m/s Calculation of the value of m using the equation m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ If v = 18.434× 106 m/s, then m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ = 9.1172 × 10 − 31kg Result:

82

The value of m calculated using the conservation laws = 9.1165 × 10 − 31kg The value of m calculated using the equation m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ = 9.1172 × 10 − 31kg Difference = 7 × 10 − 4 Case2: for the scattering angle θ = 90o and the wavelength of the incident photon 0.0709nm, the wavelength of the scattered photon was found to be 0.0731nm. The energy of the incident photon Ei = hc/λi = (6.625 × 10 280.324 × 10 − 17 J. The energy of the incident photon Ef = hc/λf = (6.625 × 10 271.887 × 10 − 17 J.

− 34

− 34

× 3 × 108) / 0.0709× 10−9 =

× 3 × 108) / 0.0731× 10

From the law of conservation of energy, Ei + mec2 = Ef + mc2 mc2 − mec2 = (Ei − Ef) = 8.437 × 10 − 17 J. Which on rearranging we get: mc2 = mec2 + 8.437 × 10 − 17 J mc2 = (9.1 × 10 − 31 × 9 × 1016) J + 8.437 × 10 − 17J = 81.984 × 10−15 J m = 81.984 × 10−15 / c2 = 9.10933 × 10 − 31kg From the law of conservation of momentum, p2 = pi2 + pf 2 − 2pi pf cosθ pi = h /λi = 6.625 × 10 − 34 / 0.0709 × 10 − 9 = 93.441 × 10 − 25 Js/m pf = h /λf = 6.625 × 10 − 34 / 0.0731 × 10 − 9 = 90.629 × 10 − 25 Js/m θ = 90o p2 = 16944.83 × 10 − 50 J 2s 2/m2 p = 130.172 × 10 −25 Js /m As we know that: Momentum of the electron p = mv v= p/m = 130.172 × 10 − 25 / 9.10933 × 10 − 31 = 14.2899 × 106 m/s

83

− 9

=

Calculation of the value of m using the equation m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ If v = 14.2899× 106 m/s, then m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ = 9.11033 × 10 − 31kg Result: The value of m calculated using the conservation laws = 9.10933 × 10 − 31kg The value of m calculated using the equation m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ = 9.11033 × 10 − 31kg Difference = 1 × 10 − 3 Case3: for the scattering angle θ = 45o and the wavelength of the incident photon 0.0709nm, the wavelength of the scattered photon was found to be 0.0715nm. The energy of the incident photon Ei = hc/λi = (6.625 × 10 280.324 × 10 − 17 J.

− 34

× 3 × 108) / 0.0709× 10

− 9

=

The energy of the incident photon Ef = hc/λf = (6.625 × 10 277.972 × 10 − 17 J.

− 34

× 3 × 108) / 0.0715× 10

− 9

=

From the law of conservation of energy, Ei + mec2 = Ef + mc2 mc2 ‒ mec2 = (Ei − Ef) = 2.352 × 10 − 17 J. Which on rearranging we get: mc2 = mec2 + 2.352 × 10 −17 J. mc2 = (9.1 × 10 − 31 × 9 × 1016) J + 2.352 × 10 −17 J = 81.923 × 10−15 J m = 81.923 × 10−15 / c2 = 9.10255 × 10 − 31kg From the law of conservation of momentum, p2 = pi2 + pf 2 − 2pi pf cosθ pi = h /λi = 6.625 × 10 − 34 / 0.0709 × 10 − 9 = 93.441 × 10 − 25 Js/m pf = h /λf = 6.625 × 10 − 34 / 0.0715 × 10 − 9 = 92.657× 10 − 25 Js/m θ = 45o p2 = 5072.386 × 10 − 50 J 2s 2/m2 p = 71.220 × 10 − 25 Js /m

84

As we know that: Momentum of the electron p = mv v= p/m = 71.220× 10 − 25 / 9.10255 × 10−31 = 7.824 × 106 m/s Calculation of the value of m using the equation m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ If v = 7.824 × 106 m/s, then m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ = 9.10034 × 10 − 31 kg Result: The value of m calculated using the conservation laws = 9.10255 × 10 − 31kg The value of m calculated using the equation m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½ = 9.10034 × 10 − 31kg Difference = 2.21 × 10 −3 θ

The value of m calculated using the conservation laws

The value of m calculated using the equation:

difference

m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½

135o

9.1165 × 10 − 31kg

9.1172 × 10 − 31kg

7 × 10 − 4

90o

9.10933 × 10 − 31kg

9.11033 × 10 − 31kg

1 × 10−3

45o

9.10255 × 10 − 31kg

9.10034 × 10 −31kg

2.21 × 10 − 3

Result: The value of m calculated using the conservation laws is not exactly equal to the value of m calculated using the equation m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½. However, the difference between the value of m calculated using the conservation laws and the value of m calculated using the equation m = me/ (1 − v2/c2) ½ is very small. And from the above table it is clear that for θ =135o and θ =90o, the value of m calculated using the conservation laws is less than the value of m calculated using the equation m = me / (1 −v2/c2) ½. However, for θ = 45o the value of m calculated using the conservation laws is greater than the value of m calculated using the equation m = me / (1 − v2/c2) ½. But WHY? The question lingers, unanswered until now.

85

The conductance C is related to the resistance R by the equation: C = 1/R. Suppose R = 0, then conductance becomes UNDEFINED. Energy = Mass × c2 Where c is not just the constant but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are married to form space-time. In the presence of unified space and time, mass and energy are equivalent and interchangeable. But WHY? The question lingers, unanswered. Until now. The equation m = m0 / (1 − v2/c2) we get:

½

is the same as: mvdv + v2dm = c2dm which on rearranging dm/dv = mv / (c2 − v2)

For non-relativistic case (v<<c): dm/dv = mv /c2 Assuming that mass of non-relativistic particle varies with velocity we rearrange the above equation to dm/m = dv v /c2 and integrating over m from m0 (the rest mass of the particle) to m (the mass of the moving particle) and over v from zero to v we get: ln (m/m0) = v2/2c2 From this it follows that m = m0 exp (v2/2c2) Case 1: m = m0 / (1 − v2/c2) ½ For v = 30km/s = 3 × 10 4 m/s m = 1.000000005m0 Case2: m = m0 exp (v2/2c2) For v = 30km/s = 3 × 10 4 m/s m = 1.000000005m0

86

Conclusion: for velocity v = 30km/s, both the equations give values of mass as m = 1.000000005m0. Therefore, the equation m = m0 exp (v2/2c2) holds good for particles traveling with velocity v â‰¤ 3 Ă— 10 4m/s.

The 100-inch Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory

87

How can you determine the actual force, in newtons, on a charged electron moving at right angles to the magnetic field? That force is proportional to both the magnitude of the charge ‘e’ and the magnitude of the magnetic field B. It’s also proportional to the charge’s velocity v. Putting all this together gives you the equation for the magnitude of the force on a moving electron: F = Bev. Now under the condition (B = 0, F = 0) the equation for the magnitude of the charge becomes: e = F/Bv = 0/0→ UNDEFINED, Power equals force times velocity: Power = force × velocity or P = F × v. Assuming that the force F acts on a mass m at rest and produces acceleration a in it: P = m × a × v. If v = 0, then a which is v / t = 0 and P which is F × v is 0. Now under the condition (v = 0) the equation for mass becomes: m = P/av = 0/0→UNDEFINED, which is meaningless. Mass is always well-defined. In the nuclear reaction mass of reactants is always greater than mass of products. The mass difference is converted to energy, according to the equation which is as famous as the man who wrote it. For a nuclear reaction: p +Li7→ α + α + 17.2 MeV Mass of reactants: p= 1.0072764 amu Li7 = 7.01600455 amu Total mass of reactants = 7.01600455 amu + 1.0072764 amu = 8.02328095 amu Mass of products: α= 4.0015061amu Total mass of products = α + α = 2α= 8.0030122 amu

88

As from above data it is clear that Total mass of reactants is greater than Total mass of products. The mass difference (8.02328095 amu − 8.0030122 amu = 0.02026875 amu) is converted to energy 18.87 MeV, according to the equation E= mc2. However, the observed energy is 17.2 MeV. Expected energy = 18.87 MeV (i.e., 0.02026875 amu × c2) Experimentally observed energy = 17.2 MeV Expected energy is ≠ observed energy Energy difference = (18.87 − 17.2) MeV = 1.67 MeV Where the energy 1.67 MeV is gone? If you yearn to convey that no energy has gone anywhere, then there must be a fatal flaw in the equation E= mc2. If this proves to be true, then the entire rules of atomic physics would have to be rewritten. However, understanding the nature allows us to make sense of the world that we live in, but the attempt to understand it and the underlying nature of all things is not an easy task.

The density of solute ρ is related to its concentration C by the equation: ρ = M × C, where M is a constant for a given solute and it is termed the molecular mass. Now under the condition (C = 0): ρ=0 M = ρ /C = 0/0 i.e., the molecular mass of the solute becomes UNDEFINED. If energy E is added to a system of mass M, then the added energy causes a small change ∆M in the mass of the system. The added energy E is related to ∆M by the equation: E = ∆Mc2, where c is the speed of light in vacuum. Suppose no energy adds to the system (E= 0), then ∆M = 0 c2= E / ∆M = 0/0, which is MEANINGLESS.

89

Avogadro constant The number of moles n is related to the number of molecules N by the Avogadro constant L: n = N/L Differentiating this equation we get: dn = dN/L where dn = small change in number of moles and dN = small change in number of molecules. If dn = 0, then dN = 0 L = dn / dN = 0/0 i.e., L becomes UNDEFINED. Wave-particle duality

90

Considering the particle nature of the electron the force which moves the electron in a circular orbit around the nucleus is given by the equation: F = mv2/r, where m = mass of the electron, v = orbital velocity of the electron and r = radius of the circular orbit. Considering the wave nature of the electron the force which moves the electron in a circular orbit around the nucleus is given by the equation: F = hυ/λ, where h = Planck’s constant, υ and λ are the wavelength and frequency of the electron. Considering the wave-particle duality of the electron: mv2/r = hυ/λ Since: mv = p and h / λ = p (where p = momentum of the electron). Therefore: v/r = υ But v/r = ω (the angular velocity of the electron). Therefore: ω=υ In the case of circular motion, the angular velocity of the electron is same as its angular frequency. Hence ω≠υ mv2/r ≠ hυ/λ Since the angular frequency of the electron is: ω = 2πυ. Therefore: mv2/r must be equal to 2π hυ/λ

(a2 – b2) = (a+ b) (a−b) (a2 – b2) / (a − b) = (a+ b) If a= b=1, then 0/0 = 2, which is illogical and meaningless. “Our quest for knowledge would have been much simpler if all the mathematical indeterminates like 0/0, 1/0, etc. would have been welldefined.”

91

DECODING THE UNIVERSE SINCE 1905

Quarks

Leptons

up

(u)

+2⁄3e

down

(d)

−1/3e

strange

(s)

−1/3e

charm

(c)

+2⁄3e

bottom

(b)

−1/3e

top

(t)

+2⁄3e

2.3+0.7 −0.5 MeV/c2 4.8+0.5 −0.3 MeV/c2 95+5 −5 MeV/c2 1.29+0.05 −0.11 GeV/c2 4.65+0.03 −0.03 GeV/c2

1/2

electron

(e−)

−1 e

0.510998928(11) MeV/c2

1/2

1/2

(νe)

0e

Small but non-zero

1/2

1/2

electronneutrino muon

(μ−)

−1 e

105.6583715(35) MeV/c2

1/2

1/2

muon-neutrino

(νμ)

0e

Small but non-zero

1/2

1/2

tau

(τ−)

−1 e

1776.82±0.16 MeV/c2

1/2

173.34 ± 0.27 ± 0.71 GeV/c2

1/2

tau-neutrino

(ντ )

0e

Small but non-zero

1/2

Are there elementary particles that have not yet been observed, and, if so, which ones are they and what are their properties?

92

Doppler Effect For a source moving at angle θ =0o away from the stationary observer, the relativistic Doppler Effect equation is given by: υ observed = υ emitted × {(1 − v/c) / (1 + v/c)} ½ Since the force which moves the photon is given by: F = hυ/λ = hυ2/ c, where h is the Planck’s constant, υ and λ are the frequency and wavelength of the photon. Therefore: F observed = F emitted × {(1 − v/c) 2 / (1 − v2/c2)} If v = c (some quasars or other heavenly bodies may attain the velocity v = c), then F 0/0.

observed

=

The equation F observed = F source × {(1 − v/c) 2 / (1 − v2/c2)} can also be written as: F observed = F emitted × {(1 − v/c) / (1 + v/c)} If v = c, then F observed = 0. Conclusion: The same equation (in unsolved and solved forms) under similar conditions (v → c) gives different results i.e. (F observed →0/0 and F observed → 0), which is never justified. Material, such as gas, dust and other stellar debris that approach the black hole prevent themselves from falling into it by forming a flattened band of spinning matter around the event horizon called the accretion disk. And since the spinning matter accelerates to tremendous speeds (v ≈ c) by the huge gravity of the black hole the heat and powerful X-rays and gamma rays are released into the universe.

93

“Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as you please.” − MARK TWAIN

For a source moving at angle θ = 0o towards the stationary observer, the relativistic Doppler Effect equation is given by: υ observed = υ emitted × {(1 + v/c) / (1 − v/c)}½ From this it follows that (υ observed / υ emitted ) − 1 = {(1 + v/c) / (1 − v/c)} ½ − 1 (υ observed − υ emitted) / υ emitted = {(1 + v/c) / (1 − v/c)} ½ − 1 Since redshift z = (υ emitted − υ observed) / υ emitted. Therefore: −z = {(1 + v/c) / (1 − v/c)} ½ − 1 (1− z) = {(1 + v/c) / (1 − v/c)} ½ On squaring we get: (1− z) 2 = (1 + v/c) / (1 − v/c) (1− z) 2 (1 − v/c) = (1 + v/c) (1− z) 2 − v/c (1− z) 2 = 1 + v/c On rearranging:

94

(1− z) 2 – 1 = v/c {(1− z) 2 + 1} If v = c, then (1− z) 2 – 1 = (1− z) 2 + 1 i.e., LHS ≠ RHS, which is never justified.

“Science is a game — but a game with reality, a game with sharpened knives … If a man cuts a picture carefully into 1000 pieces, you solve the puzzle when you reassemble the pieces into a picture; in the success or failure, both your intelligences compete. In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game — but they are not completely known, half of them are left for you to discover or to deduce. The experiment is the tempered blade which you wield with success against the spirits of darkness — or which defeats you shamefully. The uncertainty is how many of the rules God himself has permanently ordained, and how many apparently are caused by your own mental inertia, while the solution generally becomes possible only through freedom from its limitations.” — Erwin Schrödinger.

95

For a relativistic particle: v × vP = c2 or mv × vP = mc2 From this it follows that mc2= hυ A small change in mass m is followed by a small change in its wave frequency i.e., dmc2 = hdυ If dm = 0, then dυ = 0 h /c2 = dm/dυ = 0/0 i.e., h /c2 → UNDEFINED.

The gigantic instrument constructed by Raymond Davis Jr. and Masatoshi Koshiba to detect neutrinos from the Sun and confirm the prediction that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion.

96

97

“In a scientific sense, earthquakes are unpredictable. But that does not mean that you can’t predict things about them.” —PETER SAMMONDS

Ever since the beginning of human civilization, we have not been in a state of satisfaction to watch things as incoherent and unexplainable. While we have been thinking whether the universe began at the big bang singularity and would come to an end either at the big crunch singularity, we have converted at least a thousand joules of energy in the form of thoughts. This has decreased the disorder of the human brain by about few million units. Thus, in a sense, the evolution of human civilization in understanding the universe has established a small corner of the order in a human brain. However, the burning questions still remain unresolved, which set the human race to keep away from such issues. Many early native postulates have fallen or are falling aside -- and there now alternative substitutes. In short, while we do not have an answer, we now have a whisper of the grandeur of the problem. With our limited brains and tiny knowledge, we cannot hope to have a complete picture of unlimited speculating about the gigantic universe we live in. For lack of other theories, we forcibly adore the theories like the big bang, which posits that in the beginning of evolution all the observable galaxies and every speck of energy in the universe was jammed into a very tiny mathematically indefinable entity called singularity. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. It seems to be a good postulate that the anticipation of a mathematically indefinable entity by a scientific theory implies that the theory has ruled out. It would mean that the usual approach of science of building a scientific model could anticipate that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not prognosticate how it had a beginning. Between 1920s and 1940s there were several

98

attempts, most notably by the British physicist Sir Fred Hoyle and his co-workers, to avoid the cosmic singularity in terms of an elegant model that supported the idea that the universe didn’t have a beginning and it continues to exist eternally as it is today. This idea was initially given priority, but a mountain of inconsistencies with it began to appear in the mid 1960’s when observational discoveries apparently supported the evidence contrary to it. The final blow to it came with the observational discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, which was the “the final nail in the coffin of the big bang theory.” With many bizarre twists and turns, super strings blinked into existence. The best choice we have at the moment is the super strings, but there’s no direct evidence that it is the correct description of what the universe is. Are there only 4 dimensions or could there be more: (x, y, z, t) + w, v,…? Can we experimentally observe evidence of higher dimensions? What are their shapes and sizes? Are they classical or quantum? Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent outcome of chaos by the mere laws of nature? “(x, y, z, t) + w, v,…? Science fiction?” − Jonathan Feng We humans look around and only see four (three spatial dimensions and one time dimension) − where are the other dimensions? Are they rolled the other dimensions up? Up until recently, we have found no evidence for signatures of extra dimensions. No evidence does not mean that extra dimensions do not exist. However, being aware that we live in more dimensions than we see is a great prediction of theoretical physics and also something quite profound. For N spatial dimensions: The gravitational force between two massive bodies is: FG = Gm1m2/r N−1 where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two bodies and r is the distance between them. The electrostatic force between two charges is: FE = q1q2/ 4πε0r N−1 where ε0 is the absolute permittivity of free space, q1 and q2 are the charges and r is the distance between them. What do we notice about both of these forces? Both of these forces are proportional to 1/ r N−1. So in a 4 dimensional universe (3 spatial dimensions + one time dimension) forces are proportional to 1/ r 2; in the 10 dimensional universe (9 spatial dimensions + one time dimension) they're proportional to 1/r8. “Gravity is diluted with extra dimensions.” Not surprisingly, at present no experiment is smart enough to solve the problem of whether or not the universe exists in 10 dimensions or more (i.e., to prove or disprove both of these forces are proportional to 1/ r8 or proportional to > 1/ r8). However, yet mathematically we can imagine

99

many spatial dimensions but the fact that that might be realized in nature is a profound thing. So far, we presume that the universe exists in extra dimensions because the mathematics of superstrings requires the presence of ten distinct dimensions in our universe or because a standard four dimensional theory is too small to jam all the forces into one mathematical framework. But what we know about the spatial dimensions we live in is limited by our own abilities to think through many approaches, many of the most satisfying are scientific. Among many that we can develop, the most well-known, believed theory at the present is the standard four dimensional theory. However, development and change of the theory always occurs as many questions still remain about our universe we live in. Although the proponents of string theory predict absolutely everything is built out of strings, it could not provide us with an answer of what the string is made up of? And one model of potential multiple universes called the M Theory predicts that our universe is not only one giant hologram. Great many holograms were created simply because of spontaneous creation. Our universe was one among a vast ensemble of holograms created with particular values of the physical constants right for stars and galaxies and planetary systems to form and for intelligent beings to develop and ask questions, Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics? Are such laws the products of chance or have they been designed? How do the laws and constants of physics relate to the support and development of life forms? Is there any knowable existence beyond the apparently observed dimensions of our existence? However, M theory sounds so bizarre and unrealistic that there is no experiment that can credit its validity. Nature has not been quick to pay us any hints so far. That's the fact of it; grouped together everything we know about the world and ourselves and it will still be nothing more than a tiny dip in the vast cosmic ocean. And as more space comes into existence, more of the dark energy would appear. Unfortunately, no one knows what exactly it is. Is it a pure cosmological constant or is it a sign of extra dimensions? What is the cause of the dark energy? Why does it exist at all? Why is it so different from the other energies? Why is the composition of dark energy so large (of about 73% of our universe)? String theory gives us a clue, but thereâ€™s no definitive answer. Well, all know is that it is an invisible energy what made the universe bang and if we held it in our hand; we couldnâ€™t take hold of it. In fact, it would go right through our fingers, go right through the rock beneath our feet and go all the way to moon. It would reverse direction and come back from moon all the way here to earth and go back and forth. How near are we to understand the dark energy? The question lingers, answer complicates and challenges everyone who yearns to resolve. And once we understand the dark energy, can we understand the birth and the death of the universe is also an ? And staying in a weird world that is evolving even more disordered and that there is nothing we have to do about it. No matter how advanced our conditions would be right for the generation of thoughts to predict things more or less, even if not in a simplest way, it can never squash the impending threat of the second law of thermodynamics nor it can prepare the way for the ultimate triumph of justification, and the redemption of the cosmos from the power of darkness

100

and heart of the mystery. Despite being a mystery skeptic, the Unified Field Theory presents an infinite problem. This is embarrassing. Because we now realize before we can work for the theory of everything, we have to work for the ultimate laws of nature. At the present, weâ€™re clueless as to what the ultimate laws of nature really are. Are there new laws, beyond the apparently observed dimensions of our universe? Do all the fundamental laws of nature unify? At what scale? Ultimately, however, it is likely that answers to these questions in the form of unified field theory may be found over the next few years or by the end of the century we shall know can there really be a unified theory of everything? Or are we just chasing a mirage? However, if we do discover a unified field theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few people. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of the questions of how and when did the universe begin? Was the universe created? Has this universe been here forever or did it have a beginning at the Big Bang? If the universe was not created, how did it get here? If the Big Bang is the reason there is something rather than nothing, and then before the Big Bang there was NOTHING and then suddenly we got A HUGE AMOUNT OF ENERGY where did it come from? What powered the Big Bang? What is the fate of the Universe? Is the universe heading towards a Big Freeze, a Big Rip, a Big Crunch, or a Big Bounce? Or is it part of an infinitely recurring cyclic model? Is inflation a law of Nature? Why the universe started off very hot and cooled as it expanded? Is the Standard Big Bang Model right? Or is it the satisfactory explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance? Is our universe finite or infinite in size and content? What lies beyond the existing space and time? What was before the event of creation? Why is the universe so uniform on a large scale? Why does it look the same at all points of space and in all directions? In particular, why is the temperature of the cosmic microwave back-ground radiation so nearly the same when we look in different directions? Why are the galaxies distributed in clumps and filaments? When were the first stars formed, and what were they like? Why most of the matter in the Universe is dark? Is anthropic principle a natural coincidence? If we find the answers to them, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we would know whether the laws of physics started off the universe in such an incomprehensible way or not.

Up until recently, we do not know about what is the exact mechanism by which an implosion of a dying star becomes a supernova explosion. All that we know is that: When a large star runs out

101

of nuclear fuel, the gravitational contraction continues increasing the density of matter. And since the internal pressure is ∝ to the density of matter, therefore the internal pressure will continually increase with the density of matter. And at a certain point of contraction, internal pressure will be very much greater than gravitational binding pressure (which is ∝ to GM2/r4) and will be sufficiently high enough to cause the star of mass M and radius r to explode at a rate = total energy released × time. The total energy released (will nearly be the order of 10 42J) which is = (Total energy of the star – its Gravitational binding energy).

“All that science could say is that: The universe is as it is now. But it could not explain why it was, as it was, just after the Big Bang.” ‒ STEPHEN HAWKING Every attempt is made to set up the connection between theoretical predictions and experimental results but some of the experimental results throw cold water on the theoretical predictions. Back in 1700s, people thought the stars of our galaxy structured the universe, that the galaxy was nearly static, and that the universe was essentially unexpanding with neither a beginning nor an end to time. A situation marked by difficulty with the idea of a static and unchanging universe, was that according to the Newtonian theory of gravitation, each star in the universe supposed to be pulled towards every other star with a force that was weaker the less massive the stars and farther they were to each other. It was this force caused all the stars fall together at some point. So how could they remain static? Wouldn’t they all collapse in on themselves? A balance of the predominant attractive effect of the stars in the universe was required to keep them at a constant distance from each other. Einstein was aware of this problem. He introduced a term so-called cosmological constant in order to hold a static universe in which gravity is a predominant

102

attractive force. This had an effect of a repulsive force, which could balance the predominant attractive force. In this way it was possible to allow a static cosmic solution. Enter Edwin Hubble. In 1920s he argued that nearly all the galaxies were moving away from us with recessional velocities that were roughly dependent on their distance from us. He reinforced his argument with the formulation of his well-known Hubble’s law. The observational discovery of the stretching of the space carrying galaxies with it completely shattered the previous image of a static and unchanging cosmos. We story telling animals often claim that we know so much more about the universe. But we must beware of overconfidence. We have had false dawns before. At the beginning of this century, for example, it was thought that earth was a perfect sphere, but latter experimental observation of variation of value of g over the surface of earth confirmed that earth is not a perfect sphere. Today there is almost universal agreement that space itself is stretching, carrying galaxies with it, though it continues to stretch forever is still in question. However, personally, we’re sure that the accelerated expansion began with a hot Big Bang. But will it expand forever or there is a limit beyond which gravity pulls everything in or the expansion and contraction are evenly balanced? We’re less sure about that because events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If a photon is completely absorbed by the electron at rest, then the energy mc2 of the absorbed photon manifests as the Kinetic energy KE of the electron and the momentum mc of the absorbed photon manifests as the momentum p of the electron. Therefore, the equation KE = ∆p × v where ∆p = p2 – p1, p2 = final momentum of the electron = p and p 1 = initial momentum of the electron = 0 (since the electron was initially at rest). Becomes: mc2 = mc × v From this it follows that v=c The idea which states that nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light is a cornerstone of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which itself forms the fundamental precept of modern physics. If the electron recoils with a velocity v=c, then the basic laws of physics have to be rewritten.

The picture of standard model of the Forces of Nature Force

Strength 6 × 10

− 39

Range

Force particle

Infinite

Graviton

This was the weakest of

Mass = 0

the four; it acted on

Spin = 2

everything in the universe

103

Gravity

as an attraction. 1/137

Infinite

Photon

This was much stronger

Mass = 0

than gravity; it acted

Spin = 1

only on particles with an electric charge, being

Electromagnetism

repulsive between charges of the same sign and attractive between charges of the opposite sign. 10

− 6

10

– 18

m Weak nuclear force

Weak gauge

This caused radioactivity

boson

and played a vital role in

Mass > 80

the formation of the

GeV

elements in stars.

Spin =1

1

10

– 15

m

Gluon

This force held together

Mass <

the protons and neutrons

0.0002

eV/c2

Spin = 1

inside the nucleus of an atom. And it was this same force that held

Strong nuclear force

together the quarks to form protons and neutrons.

is in good agreement with all the observational evidence that we have today. Nevertheless, it leaves a number of important questions unanswered: Why are the strengths of the fundamental forces (electromagnetism, weak and strong forces, and gravity) are as they are? Why do the force particles have the precise masses they do? Do these forces really become unified at sufficiently high energy? If so how? Are there unobserved fundamental forces that explain other unsolved problems in physics? “To suppose that the eye… could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” − Charles Darwin

104

The theory of evolution lined up pictures of apes and humans and claimed that humans evolved from apes. This spilled out onto the corridors of the academy and absolutely rocked Victorian England to the extent that people just barely raised their voice contradicting the biblical account of creation in the lecture hall rips of the architrave. And despite more than a century of digging straight down and passing through the fossil layers, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse and provides us with no evidence that show evolutionary transition development of one species into another species. However, we are convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which itâ€™s been believed with blind faith, which may turn to be one of the great fairy tales for adults in the history books of the future. The velocity (v) - distance (d) relationship for galaxies is beautifully explained by the Hubbleâ€™s law. However controversy still remains on the validity of this law. Andromeda, for example, for which the Hubble relation does not apply. And

105

quantum theory predicts that entire space is not continuous and infinite but rather quantized and measured in units of quantity called Planck length (about 10 −33cm) i.e., the entire space is divided into cells of volume LP3, the smallest definable volume (i.e., the Planck volume) and of area LP2, the smallest definable area (i.e., the Planck area) and time in units of quantity called Planck time (about 10 −43s). And each cell possess energy equal to the Planck energy “(ħc5/G) ½.’’ And energy density of each cell is = mPc2 / LP3 (where mP stood for Planck mass and LP for the Planck length). However, at the present there is no conclusive evidence in favor of quantization of space and time and moreover nobody knows why no spatial or time interval shorter than the Planck values exists? For length: LP = (ħ G/c3) ½ ∼1.6 × 10 −33 cm. For time: tP = (ħ G/c5) ½ ∼5 × 10 −44 sec. On the other hand, there is no evidence against it. But in order to unify general relativity with the quantum physics that describe fundamental particles and forces, it is necessary to quantize space and perhaps time as well. And for a universe to be created out of nothing, the positive energy of motion should exactly cancel out the negative energy of gravitational attraction i.e., the net energy of the universe should be = zero. And if that’s the case, the spatial curvature of the universe, Ωk, should be = 0.0000 (i.e., perfect flatness). But the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite has established the spatial curvature of the universe, Ωk, to be between − 0.0174 and +0.0051. Then, how can it cost nothing to create a universe, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? On the other hand, there is a claim that the sum of the energy of matter and of the gravitational energy is equal to zero and hence there is a possibility of a universe appearing from nothing. However, energy of matter + gravitational energy is = zero is only a claim based on Big Bang implications. No human being can possibly know the precise energy content of the entire universe. In order to verify the claim that the total energy content of the universe is exactly zero, one would have to account for all the forms of energy of matter in the universe, add them together with gravitational energy, and then verify that the sum really is exactly zero. But the attempt to verify that the sum really is exactly zero is not an easy task. We need precision experiments to know for sure From the Energy- Momentum relationship we know that m2c4 = m02c4 + p2c2 Since p = mv. Therefore: m2c4 = m02c4 + (mv) 2c2 If v=c, then m2c4 = m02c4 + m2c4

106

The above equation holds well in case of v=c only if LHS is = RHS. LHS is = RHS only if m 0 = 0. m0 = 0 corresponds to zero rest mass particle. Hence, according to the above equation only zero rest mass particles can travel at the speed of light. On the other hand, m2c4 = m02c4 + (mv) 2c2 can be rewritten as: m2/ m02 = 1 + (m2v2/ m02c2) m2/ m02 − (m2v2/ m02c2) = 1 As we know that: if v = c, then m0 = 0. Now under this condition, m2/0 − (m2/0) = 1 (m2 − m2) /0 = 1 0/0 = 1, which is meaningless and never justified. The electrostatic and gravitational forces according to Coulomb’s and Newton’s laws are both inverse square forces, so if one takes the ratio of the forces, the distances cancel. For the electron and proton, the ratio of the forces is given by the equation: FE / FG = e2 / 4πε0GmP me Here e is the charge = 1.602 × 10 – 19C, G is the gravitational constant = 6.674 × 10 – 11 Nm2/kg2, ε0 is the absolute permittivity of free space = 8.8× 10 – 12 F/m, mP is the mass of the proton = 1.672× 10 –27kg and me is the mass of the electron = 9.1 × 10 –31kg. Plugging the values we get: FE / FG = 10 39 This means: FE > FG. So, it is argued, if the gravitational force between the proton and electron were not much smaller than the electrostatic force between them, then the hydrogen atom would have collapsed to neutron long before there was a chance for stars to form and life to evolve. FE > FG must have been numerically fine - tuned for the existence of life. Taking FE / FG = 10 39 as an example in most physics literature we will find that gravity is the weakest of all forces, many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism. But this does not make sense any way and it is not true always and in all cases. Note that the ratio FE / FG is not a universal constant; it’s a number that depends on the particles we use in the calculation. For example: For two particles each of Planck mass (M Planck = (ħc /G) ½) and Planck charge (Q Planck = (4πε0ħc) ½) the ratio of the forces is 1 i.e., FE / FG = 1. Moreover, when the relativistic variation of electron mass with velocity is taken into account then FE / FG = e2 / {4πε0GmP me / (1 − v2/c2) ½}. Hence the ratio FE / FG becomes velocity dependent.

107

What would have happened if the value of proton mass was far less than its actual value? As we know that, inside the sun, we have N Protons (say), which can be calculated by the equation: N Protons = M / mP, where M = mass of the sun and mP = mass of the proton. If mP was still smaller than 1.672 × 10 −27 kg, then N Protons would have been larger than 1.196 × 10 57. Hence, the stellar life time of the sun would have been slightly higher than its actual value.

Does our universe exist inside a black hole of another universe?

The question lingers, unanswered until now. Even though our universe lies inside a black hole of another universe, we cannot prove or disprove this conjecture any way. Meaning that the event horizon of a black hole is boundary at which nothing inside can escape and then how might one can cross its event boundary and testify whether or not our universe exist inside a black hole of another universe. Thus we cannot answer the central question in cosmology: Does our universe exist inside a black hole of another universe? However, the fact that we are simply an advanced breed of humanoids surviving on a fragile planet, have been turning unproved belief into unswerving existence through the power of perception and making bold attack on the deepest mysteries of nature makes us feel something very special. “For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria.” —RICHARD DAWKINS

It is cosmology’s most fundamental question: How did the universe begin? : Alexander Vilenkin

108

A view of CERN showing the LEP (Large electron positron collider) ring

Note: Because m = m0 / (1− v2/c2) ½ a particle with imaginary mass can travel faster than the speed of light. This particle is termed the tachyon. However, Do tachyons exist and if they exist, how can they be detected is still a

?

When a photon passes the sun tangentially, the gravitational field of the sun deflects the photon by an angle θ = tan‒1 (Fg /FP) where Fg = force of the gravitational field of the sun and FP = force which moves the photon. Even if FP ≥ Fg, θ will not be = 0 i.e., deflection occurs.

109

Aliens

Sending the Beatles song across the Universe and pointing the telescopes in Deep Space Network towards the North Star, Polaris, we seek to find intellectual beings like us outside the sheer number of planets, our solar system, and our own Milky Way galaxy. How awe hunting for them across the empty stretches of the universe would be to acquire a bit of confirmation that either we're alone in this universe or we are not. However, we are not the only life-form in the universe, is reasonable to expect, but Where’s the evidence?

The Burden of evidence is On the Believer. “Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” − Carl Sagan

Absorbance Absorbance = − log (Transmittance) Absorbance = − 2.303 × ln (Transmittance) If Transmittance = 1 (i.e., no incident light is absorbed), then Absorbance = 0. Now under this condition: Absorbance / ln (Transmittance) = − 2.303 take the form 0/ln1 = − 2.303 0/0 = − 2.303, which is never justified. On the other hand, Absorbance = ε × L× C

110

Where: ε = molar absorption coefficient, L = Length of the solution and C = concentration of the absorbing species in the solution. If C = 0, then ε=0 Absorbance = 0 L = 0/0 i.e., the Length of the solution becomes UNDEFINED.

Stopping potential The stopping potential VS required to stop the photoelectron with kinetic energy KE emitted from a metal surface is calculated using the equation: KE = e × VS If KE = 0, then VS required to stop the photoelectron = 0. Now under this condition: e = KE / VS = 0/0 i.e., charge on the electron becomes UNDEFINED. Work = Force × displacement × cosφ W = F × S × cosφ, where φ is angle between force and displacement. For an electron moving in a circular orbit, F = mv2/r and S = rθ W = mv2 × θ × cosφ For one complete revolution

111

θ = 2π W = 2π mv2cosφ For an electron moving in a circular orbit, force and displacement are perpendicular to each other (i.e., φ = 90o). Now under the condition (φ = 90o): W=0 m = W / 2πv2cosφ = 0 / (2πv2 × 0) m= 0/0 i.e., mass becomes UNDEFINED.

“If I saw further than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants.” ‒ Isaac Newton

What is our physical place in the universe?

112

E= mgh The energy required to lift an object of mass m up to a height of h meter is mgh i.e., E = mgh (where g stands for acceleration due to gravity). If h = 0, then the energy required to lift an object of mass m will be zero (i.e., E = 0). Now under the condition (h=0): m = E/gh = 0/0 i.e., m → UNDEFINED, which is meaningless since mass is always non-zero. Q = dMc2 If a heat energy Q is added to a system of mass M then this added energy causes a small change in mass of the system. The added energy is related to dM by the equation: Q = dMc2 If no heat energy is added to the system (i.e., Q =0), then dM = 0 c2 = Q / dM = 0/0 i.e., c2 becomes UNDEFINED. The vacuum energy density is constant and given by: ρvacuum = Λc2/8πG, where Λ is the energy associated with empty space or dark energy, c is the speed of light in vacuum and G is the universal gravitational constant.

113

ρvacuum = ΛFP/8πc2 (where FP is the Planck Force =1.21027 × 10 44 N) Since FP/8πc2 is constant, ρvacuum and Λ are in fact equivalent and interchangeable. And since FP > 8πc2, therefore Λ < ρvacuum which means: a very large amount of dark energy attributes to a fairly small vacuum energy density. Moreover, since c is not just the PHYSICAL constant but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as space-time, does the equation ρvacuum / Λ= FP/8πc2 mean that as a consequence of dominance of Planck Force over the unification of space and time a very large amount of dark energy attributes to a fairly small vacuum energy density? c2/8πG = 5.36 × 10

What does the value 5.36 × 10

25

25

kg/m

kg per meter imply?

Dr. Science remains silent on this profound question. And the latest theory of subatomic particles (the quantum theory) gives an estimated value of Λ that is about 120 orders of magnitude larger than the measured value — claiming our best theory cannot calculate the value of the largest source of energy in the entire universe. Dr Science advances over the wreckage of its theories by continually putting its ideas to experimental test; no matter how beautiful its idea might be, it must be discarded if it is at odds with experiment. And there are still simple questions that we can ask. And they are: What the dark energy is up to? What it is about? Why this energy fills the empty space? How accurate are the physical laws, which control it? Unfortunately, all we know is that it’s a mysterious form of energy that permeates all of space and that’s what’s blowing the galaxies farther and farther apart and that’s what made universe bang. The human perception is enormous; it’s extensive and unlimited, and outrageous. And sometimes, very hard, impossible things just strike and we call them thoughts. In most of the organisms the conditions would not be right for the generation of thoughts to predict things more or less, even if not in a simplest way, only in the few complex organisms like us spontaneous thoughts would generate and what is it that breathes fire into a set of rules and equations. And these rules and equations are considered as inherent ingredients of reality. However, if one looks in a commonsense realistic point of view they are simply the human-made ingredients introduced to describe the objective features of reality. In most physics textbooks we will read that the strength of the electromagnetic force is measured by the dimensionless parameter α = e2 / 4πε0ħc, called the fine structure constant, which was taught to be constant became variant when the standard model of elementary particles and forces revealed that α actually varies with energy. This means that the scientific data is fallible, changeable, and influenced by scientific understanding is refreshing. The equation kBT = ħc3/ 8πGM can also be written as T / TP = mP / 8π M (where mP and TP stands for Planck mass and Planck temperature). If T equals TP, then M equals mP / 8π which mean: even if the temperature of the black hole approaches Planck temperature, the black hole cannot attain a mass = mP. The factor 1/8π prevents the black hole from attaining a mass = mP. We do not know what the factor 1/8π really

114

means and why this factor prevents the black hole from attaining a mass = m P because the usual approach of Dr. Science of constructing a set of rules and equations cannot answer the question of what and why but how. T / TP = mP / 8π M If M equals me (i.e., me = mass of the electron), then T becomes > than TP. If T becomes > than TP, then current physical theory breaks down because we lack a theory of quantum gravity. However, it is only theoretically possible that black holes with mass M = me could be created in high energy collisions. No black holes with mass M = me have ever been observed, however indeed, they would be extremely difficult to spot - and they are the large emitters of radiation and they shrink and dissipate faster even before they are observed. It would have been clearly be nice for quantum theory if the value of vacuum energy density were in the order of 1096 kg/m3, but the measured value were in the order of 10−27 kg/m3. Thus, the best candidate we have at the moment, the quantum theory, brought about its downfall by predicting the value of ρvacuum that is about 120 orders of magnitude larger than the measured value. Dr. Science has a lot of exposure with darkness and disbelief and a state of not having an immediate conclusion, and this vulnerability is of great significance, I think. When it doesn’t comprehend the mind of nature, it is in the middle of darkness. When it has an intuitive guess as to what the outcome is; it is unsealed. And when it is fairly damn sure of what the final result is going to be, it is still in some uncertainty. And uncertainty being too complex to come about randomly is evidence for human continuing quest for justification. In classical mechanics, we define the kinetic energy of the particle to be equal to force × displacement i.e., KE = F × S KE = ma × S Case1: v = u + at Assuming the particle was initially at rest (i.e., u =0) v = at Case2: v2 = u2 + 2aS Assuming the particle was initially at rest (i.e., u =0) v2 = 2aS If we substitute v = at, we get the result KE = mv2 and if we substitute v2 = 2aS, we get the result KE = mv2/2 Two different results for KE, which means: The term ‘uncertainty’ is unquestionably fraught with misinterpretation. When we prefer the phrase: how confident a theory is? The reciprocal of uncertainty. Einsteinian relativity replaced the Newtonian gravitational force with paths along geodesics in curved space-time. However, the replaced Newtonian gravitational force is still sufficient to get us to the moon and back in spite of not being an accurate model of the way gravity works. . As we know that tanθ = sinθ / cosθ and by rearranging we get: cosθ = sinθ / tanθ When θ = 0o cos0o= sin0o/ tan0o

115

1= 0/0, which is never justified. The factor c4/8πG appears

throughout the equations of general relativity. But we do not know what’s the role c4/8πG play in the equations of general relativity. All that we know c4/8πG = Planck force / 8π. The refractive index n is given by the equation: n = c/v = sini/sinr which on rearranging: c = v × (sini/sinr). For normal incidence (i = r = 0o): c → UNDEFINED. The strength of the gravitational force is measured by the dimensionless parameter αG, which in standard international units is Gm2 /ħc (where m is the mass of the proton or the electron). And the ratio αG / α is = m2qP2 /mP2e2 (where qP is the Planck charge). And since qP is = 11.67 e: αG / α is =136.25 m2/mP2. And from the above equation it is clear that α is > than αG (i.e., the strength of electromagnetic force is > than the strength of gravitational force) because m is < than mP. The question then is not why gravity is so weak or m is < than mP but why qP is = 11.67 e. Entropy is defined as S = kB ln {number of states} which, for N particles of the same type, will be S = kB ln {(no of one-particle states) N} S = kBN ln {a not-too-big number} S = kB N This means: the more particles, the more disorder. If no particles (i.e., N = 0), then no disorder (i.e., S = 0). Now under this condition: kB= S / N = 0/0. The rest energy of a particle is related to its rest mass by the equation: E0 = m0c2. For a zero rest mass particle, such as a photon, m0 = 0 E0 = 0 2 c which is E0 / m0→ UNDEFINED. The gravitational radius of the black hole is given by the equation: RS = 2GM/c2 If M → 0, then RS → 0 G/c2 = RS /2M = 0/0 i.e., G/c2 becomes UNDEFINED. Science has ever been rendered obsolete by facts and observations. And it advances over the wreckage of its fundamental laws which are expressed in terms of beautiful mathematical equations by continually putting them to experimental test; no matter how beautiful they might be, they must be discarded if they are at odds with experiment. Like any other human activity, science has fatal flaws and does not always flow smoothly, but no one can seriously doubt the progress it has made in helping us understand the world and in helping to underpin technology.

116

What would have happened if space was 2 dimensional? If space was 2 dimensional then force of gravitation between two bodies would have been = to GMm/r (i.e., Fg would have been = âˆ’ PE). And the force of gravitation between two bodies would have been far greater than its present value. And since the force of gravitation between two bodies would have been far greater than its present value, the rate of emission of gravitational radiation would have been sufficiently high enough to cause the earth to spiral onto the Sun even before the sun become a black hole and swallow the earth. While if space was 1 dimensional then force of gravitation between two bodies would have been = GMm (i.e., the force of gravitation between two bodies would have been independent of the distance between them). And if spacial dimensions would have been > than 3, the force of gravitation between two bodies would have been decreased more rapidly with distance than it does in three dimensions. (In three dimensions, the gravitational force drops to 1/4 if one doubles the distance. In four dimensions it would drops to 1/5, in five dimensions to 1/6, and so on.) The significance of this is that the orbits of planets, like the earth, around the sun would have been unstable to allow for the development of complicated beings like us. *Why the electron moves around the nucleus? If it does not move around the nucleus, it cannot generate centrifugal force. If it does not generate centrifugal force, it will be pulled into the nucleus. The electron revolves around the nucleus because it wants to survive itself from being pulled into the nucleus due to the electrostatic force attraction of the nucleus. Similarly in order to survive itself from being pulled into the sun earth moves around the sun and in order to survive itself from being pulled into the earth moon moves around the earth.

117

*Why the earth spins? If does not spin, it cannot generate magnetic field. If it does not generate magnetic field, it cannot protect itself from the incoming charged particles of the solar wind and cosmic rays. The earth spins because it wants to survive itself from the incoming harmful solar flares and asteroids. *Why the neutron combines with proton to form nucleus? If it does not combine with proton, then it will remain unbound. If it remains unbound, it will decay into its constituent particles. The neutron combines with proton because it wants to survive itself from the decay. *Why the earth holds the atmosphere? If it does not hold the atmosphere, then it cannot protect itself from the harmful radiation of the sun and it cannot keep itself from being warm and it cannot burn up the incoming meteoroids. The earth holds the atmosphere because it wants to survive itself from the incoming meteoroids and from being freeze or fried. *Why the green plants bear chlorophyll pigments? If they do not, they cannot get energy from the sun. The green plants bear chlorophyll pigments because they want to carry out the process of photosynthesis to manufacture their own food and survive. *Why the universe expands? If it does not, then gravity will collapse it into a hot fire ball called singularity. The universe expands because it wants to survive from the big crunch. *Why a flying Bat emit ultrasonic waves? If it does not, then it cannot catch its prey. *Why the star emits radiation? If it does not, then it cannot balance the inward gravitational pull. The star emits radiation because it wants to survive itself from the gravitational collapse. *Why the cells are linked to each other?

118

If they do not, then they won't be able to survive long. *Why the objects scatter light? The objects scatter light because they want to survive themselves from invisibility. *Why the black hole absorbs mass? If it does not, then it will eventually disappear more rapidly due to the process of Hawking radiation. The black hole absorbs mass because it wants to survive long.

*Why the electron is elemental? The electron is elemental because it wants to survive itself from decay. *Why the camel bear hump? If it does not, then it cannot store fat. If it does not store fat, then it cannot last for several months without food. The camel bear hump because it wants to survive successfully in desert conditions. *Why the green plants bear stomata? If they do not, then they cannot breathe through their leaves and they cannot exchange gases necessary for cellular processes such as photosynthesis. The green plants bear stomata because they want to survive themselves from suffocation.

*Why Do Cactus bear painful Spines? If it does not, then it cannot protect itself from the attack of javelina, tortoises and pack rats. The cactus bears painful spines because it wants to survive itself from the animals and people. *Why do deer have long legs and narrow hooves? If it does not, it cannot be swift runner and good jumper. The deer have long legs and narrow hooves because it wants to survive itself from the attack of humans, wolves, mountain lions, bears, jaguars, and coyotes. *Why the empty space produces virtual particles?

119

The empty space produces virtual particles because it wants to survive itself from its instability. *Why do Polar bear possess thick layer of fur? The Polar bear possess thick layer of fur because it wants to survive itself from the cold, snowy inhospitable climate. If observers observe anything so on, they will observe that the basic instinct of every design is survival. And every design is selfish to the core to survive.

Who or what gave this survival instinct? Is it a product of accident or merely an act of an ineffable creator? Does the universe have a purpose? If we find answers to these questions, then we can settle a sure-fire source of publicity â€œthe God vs science debate.â€? Until then, everything remains an unsolvable mystery and continues to be a crowd-pleaser.

If it is not, then what completes the particle physics?

120

Note: What goes up need not come downâ€”if it is shot upward faster than the escape velocity.

BEYOND EINSTEIN AND NEWTON: Why are there atoms, molecules, solar systems, and galaxies? What powered them into existence? How accurate are the physical laws and equations, which control them? The answers have always seemed well beyond the reach of Dr. Science. Until Now But the questions are still the picture in the mind of many scientists today.

121

“Gravity is the force that rules the Universe. To understand its workings, to the finest degree, is to understand the very nature of our celestial home.” —M. Bartusiak in Einstein's Unfinished Symphony

122

123

The 100 Most Influential Scientists of All Time

“Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas.” ‒ Marie Curie 1

the Newtonian Revolution

Sir Isaac Newton (b. Dec. 25, 1642 [Jan. 4, 1643, New Style],Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, Eng.—d. March 20 [March 31], 1727, London) 2

Twentieth-Century Science

Albert Einstein (b. March 14, 1879, Ulm, Wurttemberg, Ger. — d. April 18, 1955,Princeton, N.J., U.S.)

124

3

the Atom

Neils Bohr (b. Oct. 7, 1885, Copenhagen, Den.—d. Nov. 18, 1962, Copenhagen) 4

Evolution

Charles Darwin (b. Feb. 12, 1809, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, Eng.—d. April 19, 1882, Downe, Kent) 5

the Germ Theory of Disease

Louis Pasteur (b. Dec. 27, 1822, Dole, France—d. Sept. 28, 1895, Saint-Cloud, near Paris)

125

6

Psychology of the Unconscious

Sigmund Freud (b.May 6, 1856, Freiberg, Moravia, Austrian Empire [now Přibor, Czech Republic] — d. Sept. 23, 1939, London, Eng.) 7

the New Science

Galileo Galilei (b. Feb. 15, 1564, Pisa [Italy]—d. Jan. 8, 1642, Arcetri, near Florence) 8 the Revolution in Chemistry

Antoine-Lau rent Lavoisier (b. Aug. 26, 1743, Paris, France—d. May 8, 1794, Paris)

126

9

Motion of the Planets

Johannes Kepler (b. Dec. 27, 1571, Weil der Stadt, Wurttemberg [Ger.]— d. Nov. 15,1630, Regensburg)

10 the Heliocentric Universe

Nicolaus Copernicus (b. Feb. 19, 1473, Toruń, Pol.—d. May 24, 1543, Frauenburg, East Prussia [now Frombork, Pol.]) 11

the Classical Field Theory

Michael Faraday (b. Sept. 22, 1791, Newington, Surrey, Eng.—d. Aug. 25, 1867, Hampton Court) 12 the Electromagnetic Field

127

James Clerk Maxwell (b. June 13, 1831, Edinburgh, Scot.—d. Nov. 5, 1879, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, Eng.) 13 the Founding of Modern Physiology

Claude Bernard (b. July 12, 1813, Saint-Julien—d. February. 10, 1878, Paris) 14 Modern Anthropology

Franz Boas (b. July 9, 1858, Minden, Westphalia, Germany —d. December 21, 1942, New York, U.S) 15

Quantum Theory

Werner Heisenberg (b. 5 December, 1901, Würzburg, Bavaria, German Empire—d. 1 February 1976, Munich, Bavaria, West Germany)

128

Twentieth-Century Chemistry

16

Linus Pauling (b. Feb. 28, 1901, Portland, Ore., U.S.—d. Aug. 19, 1994, Big Sur, Calif.) 17 Wave Mechanics

Erwin Schrodinger (b. Aug. 12, 1887, Vienna, Austria—d. Jan. 4, 1961, Vienna) 18

John James Audubon electric motor and dynamo (b. April 26, 1785, Les Cayes, Saint-Domingue, West Indies [now in Haiti]—d. Jan. 27, 1851, New York, N.Y., U.S.)

19 the Structure of the Atom

Ernest Rutherford (b. Aug. 30, 1871, Spring Grove, N.Z.—d. Oct. 19, 1937, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, Eng.)

129

20 Quantum Electrodynamics

Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac (b. Aug. 8, 1902, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England —d. Oct. 20, 1984, Tallahassee, Florida, USA) 21

the New Anatomy

Andreas Vesalius (b. Dec. 1514, Brussels [now in Belgium]—d. June 1564, island of Zacynthus, Republic of Venice [now in Greece]) 22

the New Astronomy

Tycho Brahe (b. Dec. 14, 1546, Knudstrup, Scania, Denmark—d. Oct. 24, 1601, Prague)

130

23

l'Histoire Naturelle

Comte de Buffon (b. September 07, 1707, Montbard, Burgundy, France— d. April 16, 1788, Paris, France) 24

Thermodynamics

Ludwig Boltzmann (b. February 20, 1844, Vienna, Austrian Empire (presentday Austria)—d. September 5, 1906, Tybein near Trieste, Austria-Hungary [present-day Duino, Italy]) 25

the Quanta

Max Planck (b. April 23, 1858, Kiel, Schleswig [Germany]—d. Oct. 4, 1947, Göttingen, W. Ger.) 26 Radioactivity

Marie Curie (b. Nov. 7, 1867, Warsaw, Poland, Russian Empire—d. July 4, 1934, near Sallanches, France)

131

27

Sidereal astronomy

Sir William Herschel (b. Nov. 15, 1738, Hanover, Ger.—d. Aug. 25, 1822, Slough, Buckinghamshire, Eng.) 28

Modern Geology

Charles Lyell (b. Nov. 14, 1797, Kinnordy, Forfarshire, Scot.—d. Feb. 22, 1875, London, Eng.) 29 Black hole, nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system

Pierre Simon de Laplace (b. March 23, 1749, Beaumount-en-Auge, Normandy, France—d.March 5, 1827, Paris) 30 Extragalactic astronomy

Edwin Powell Hubble (b. Nov. 20, 1889, Marshfield, Mo., U.S.—d. Sept. 28, 1953, San Marino, Calif.)

132

31 the Discovery of the Electron

Joseph J. Thomson (b. December 18, 1856, Cheetham Hill, Manchester, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom—d. August 30, 1940, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England, UK) 32

Quantum Mechanics

Max Born (b. December 11, 1882, Breslau, German Empire—d. January 5, 1970, Göttingen, West Germany) 33

Molecular Biology

Francis Harry Compton Crick (b. June 8, 1916, Northampton, Northamptonshire, Eng.—d. July 28, 2004, San Diego, Calif., U.S.) 34

Statistical mechanics

133

Enrico Fermi (b. Sept. 29, 1901, Rome, Italy—d. Nov. 28, 1954, Chicago, Ill., U.S.) 35 Eighteenth-Century Mathematics

Leonard Euler (b. April 15, 1707, Basel, Switzerland—d. September 18, 1783, Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire) 36 Nineteenth-Century Chemistry

Justus Liebig (b. May 12, 1803, Darmstadt, Grand Duchy of Hesse—d. April 18, 1873, Munich, German Empire) 37 Modern Astronomy

Arthur Stanley Eddington (b. December 28, 1882, Kendal, Westmorland, England —d. November 22, 1944, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England) 38

Circulation of the Blood

William Harvey (b. April 1, 1578, Folkestone, Kent, Eng.—d. June 3, 1657, London)

134

39

Microscopic Anatomy

40

the Wave Theory of Light

41

Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss (b. April 30, 1777, Brunswick, Duchy of BrunswickWolfenbüttel, Holy Roman Empire —d. February 23, 1855, Göttingen, Kingdom of Hanover)

Number theory, algebra, statistics, analysis, differential geometry, geodesy, geophysics, mechanics, electrostatics, astronomy, matrix theory, and optics.

42 Eighteenth-Century Medicine

Albrecht von Haller (b. October 16, 1708, Bern, Swiss Confederacy—d.

135

December 12, 1777, Bern, Swiss Confederacy) 43 Theory of chemical structure, tetravalence of carbon, structure of benzene.

Friedrich August Kekule von Stradonitz (b. September 7, 1829, Darmstadt, Grand Duchy of Hesseâ€”d. July 13, 1896, Bonn, German Empire) 44 Bacteriology

Robert Koch (b. Dec. 11, 1843, Clausthal, Hannover [now ClausthalZellerfeld, Ger.]â€”d. May 27, 1910, Baden-Baden, Ger.) 45 Gell-Mann and Low theorem, Elementary particles, quarks, Gell-Mann matrices

Murray Gell-Mann (b. September 15, 1929, Manhattan, New York City, United States) 46

Organic Chemistry

136

Hermann Emil Louis Fischer (b. October 09, 1852, Euskirchen, Rhine Province—d. July 15, 1919, Berlin, Germany) 47 the Periodic Table of Elements

Dmitri Mendeleev (b. Jan. 27 [Feb. 8, New Style], 1834, Tobolsk, Siberia, Russian Empire—d. Jan. 20 [Feb. 2], 1907, St. Petersburg, Russia) 48 Electroweak theory, Georgi–Glashow model

Sheldon Glashow (b. December 5, 1932, New York City, New York, USA) 49 the Structure of DNA

James Dewey Watson (b. April 6, 1928, Chicago, Illinois, U.S)

50 Superconductivity, BCS theory

137

John Bardeen (b. May 23, 1908, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S —d. Jan. 30, 1991, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S) 51 the Modern Computer

John von Neumann (b. December 28, 1903, Budapest, Austria-Hungary—d. February 8, 1957, Walter Reed General Hospital Washington, D.C.) 52 Quantum Electrodynamics

Richard P. Feynman (b. May 11, 1918, New York, N.Y., U.S.—d. Feb. 15, 1988, Los Angeles, Calif.) 53 Continental Drift

Alfred Lothar Wegener (b. Nov. 1, 1880, Berlin, Ger.—d. Nov. 1930, Greenland) 54

Quantum Cosmology

138

Stephen W. Hawking (b. Jan. 8, 1942, Oxford, Oxfordshire, Eng.) 55 the Simple Microscope

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (b. Oct. 24, 1632, Delft, Neth.—d. Aug. 26, 1723, Delft) 56 X-ray Crystallography

Max von Laue (b. Oct. 09, 1879, Pfaffendorf, Kingdom of Prussia, German Empire—d. April 24, 1960, West Berlin) 57

Gustav Kirchhoff

Kirchhoff's circuit laws, Kirchhoff's laws of spectroscopy, Kirchhoff's law of thermochemistry, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation.

(b. March 12, 1824, Königsberg, Kingdom of Prussia [present-day Russia]—d. October 17, 1887, Berlin, Prussia, German Empire [present-day Germany]) 58 the Energy of the Sun

139

Hans Bethe (b. July 2, 1906, Strassburg, Ger. [now Strasbourg, France]—d.March 6, 2005, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.) 59

the Foundations of Mathematics

Euclid (b. Mid-4th century BC— d.Mid-3rd century BC) 60

the Laws of Inheritance

Gregor Mendel (b. July 22, 1822, Heinzendorf, Austria [now Hynčice, Czech Rep.]—d. Jan. 6, 1884, Brünn, Austria-Hungary [now Brno, Czech Rep.]) 61 Superconductivity, Onnes-effect, Virial Equation of State

Heike Kamerlingh Onnes (b. September 21, 1853, Groningen, Netherlands—d. February 21, 1926, Leiden, Netherlands)

140

62

the Chromosomal Theory of Heredity

Thomas Hunt Morgan (b. September 25, 1866, Lexington, Kentucky —d. December 04, 1945, Pasadena, California) 63

the Rise of German Science

Hermann von Helmholtz (b. August 31, 1821, Potsdam, Kingdom of Prussia—d. September 08, 1894, Charlottenburg, German Empire) 64

Chemotherapy

Paul Ehrlich (b. March 14, 1854, Strehlen, Lower Silesia, German Kingdom of Prussia—d. August 20, 1915, Bad Homburg, Hesse, Germany) 65 Evolutionary Theory

Ernst Walter Mayr (b. July 05, 1904, Kempten, Germany—d. February 03, 2005, Bedford, Massachusetts, United States)

141

66 the Modern Synthesis

Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky (b. January 25, 1900, Nemyriv, Russian Empire —d. December 18, 1975, San Jacinto, California, United States) 67

the Bacteriophage

Max Delbruck (b. September 04, 1906, Berlin, German Empire —d. March 9, 1981, Pasadena, California, United States) 68 Neurophysiology

Charles Scott Sherrington (b. November 27, 1857, Islington, Middlesex, England— d. March 04, 1952, Eastbourne, Sussex, England) 69 the Foundations of Biology

Jean Baptiste Lamarck (b. August 01, 1744, Bazentin, Picardy, France—d. December 18, 1829, Paris, France)

142

70 Modern Physiology

William Bayliss (b. May 2, 1860, Wednesbury, Staffordshire, England—d. August 27, 1924, London, England) 71 the Theory of the Atom

John Dalton (b. Sept. 5 or 6, 1766, Eaglesfield, Cumberland, Eng.—d. July 27,1844, Manchester) 72

the Genetic Code

Frederick Sanger (b. August 13, 1918, Rendcomb, Gloucestershire, England —d. November 19, 2013, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England) 73 Wave/Particle Duality

Louis Victor de Broglie (b. August 15, 1892, Dieppe, France —d. March 19, 1987, Louveciennes, France)

143

74 the Binomial Nomenclature

Carl Linnaeus (b. May 23, 1707, Råshult, Stenbrohult parish (now within Älmhult Municipality), Sweden —d. January 10, 1778, Hammarby (estate), Danmark parish (outside Uppsala), Sweden) 75 the Atomic Era

J. Robert Oppenheimer (b. April 22, 1904, New York, N.Y., U.S.—d. Feb. 18, 1967, Princeton, N.J.) 76 Penicillin

Sir Alexander Fleming (b. Aug. 6, 1881, Lochfield Farm, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scot.—d. March 11, 1955, London, Eng.) 77 Vaccination

Jonas Edward Salk (b. October 28, 1914, New York —d. June 23, 1995, La Jolla, California, United States)

144

78 Boyle’s law

Robert Boyle (b. Jan. 25, 1627, Lismore Castle, County Waterford, Ire.—d. Dec. 31, 1691, London, Eng.) 79

Francis Galton

Eugenics

(b. Feb. 16, 1822, near Sparkbrook, Birmingham, Warwickshire, Eng.—d. Jan. 17, 1911, Grayshott House, Haslemere, Surrey) 80 Discovery of oxygen

Joseph Priestley (b. March 13, 1733, Birstall Fieldhead, near Leeds, Yorkshire [now West Yorkshire], Eng.—d. Feb. 6, 1804, Northumberland, Pa., U.S.) 81 Medicine

Hippocrates (b. c. 460 BCE, island of Cos, Greece—d. c. 375 BCE, Larissa, Thessaly) 82

Pythagorean theorem

Pythagoras (b. c. 570 BC, Samos—d. c. 495 BC, Metapontum)

145

83 Electricity

Benjamin Franklin (b. January 17, 1706, Boston, Massachusetts Bay, British America—d. April 17, 1790, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S) 84

Mechanics and Cosmology

Leonardo da Vinci (b. April 15, 1452, Anchiano, near Vinci, Republic of Florence [now in Italy]—d. May 2, 1519, Cloux [now Clos-Luce], France) 85 Greco-Roman science

Ptolemy (b. c. 100 CE—d. c. 170) 86

Joseph-Louis Gay-Lussac (b. Dec. 6, 1778, Saint-Léonard-de-Noblat, France—d. May 9, 1850, Paris)

Behavior of gases

87 the Beginning of Science

Archimedes (b. 384 BCE, Stagira, Chalcidice, Greece—d. 322 BCE, Chalcis, Euboea)

146

88 Stellar nucleosynthesis

Sir Fred Hoyle (b. June 24, 1915, Bingley, Yorkshire [now West Yorkshire], Eng.—d. Aug. 20, 2001, Bournemouth, Dorset) 89 Green revolution

Norman Ernest Borlaug (b. March 25, 1914, Cresco, Iowa, U.S.) 90

Amedeo Avogadro (b. Aug. 9, 1776, Turin, in the Kingdom of Sardinia and Piedmont— d. July 9, 1856, Turin, Italy)

Molecular Hypothesis of Combining Gases

91

Luis W. Alvarez (b. June 13, 1911, San Francisco, Calif., U.S.—d. Sept. 1, 1988, Berkeley, Calif.)

discovery of many resonance particles (subatomic particles having extremely short lifetimes and occurring only in highenergy nuclear collisions)

92 Big Bang Hypothesis

George Gamow (b. March 4, 1904, Odessa, Russian Empire [now in Ukraine]—d. Aug. 19, 1968, Boulder, Colo., U.S.)

147

93 Human Genome Project

Francis Collins (b. April 14, 1950, Staunton, Va., U.S) 94 Establishment of the speed of light as a fundamental Constant.

Albert Abraham Michelson (b. Dec. 19, 1852, Strelno, Prussia [now Strzelno, Pol.]— d. May 9, 1931, Pasadena, Calif., U.S.) 95

Environmental pollution and the natural history of the sea.

Rachel Carson (b. May 27, 1907, Springdale, Pa., U.S.—d. April 14, 1964, Silver Spring, Md.) 96 antiseptic medicine

Joseph Lister (b. April 5, 1827, Upton, Essex, Eng.—d. Feb. 10, 1912, Walmer, Kent)

148

97 Natural science

Louis Agassiz (b. May 28, 1807, Motier, Switz.—d. Dec. 14, 1873, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.) 98

Electrodynamics

André-Marie Ampère (b. Jan. 22, 1775, Lyon, France—d. June 10, 1836, Marseille) 99 Der grossen Wundartzney (“Great Surgery Book”)

Paracelsus (b. Nov. 11 or Dec. 17, 1493, Einsiedeln, Switz.—d. Sept. 24, 1541, Salzburg, Archbishopric of Salzburg [now in Austria]) 100 Sociobiology

Edward O. Wilson (b. June 10, 1929, Birmingham, Ala., U.S.)

149

The Drake Equation

N = R*· fp · ne · fl · fi · fc · L

R* = the rate at which stars are born in the galaxy, fp = the fraction of these stars that have planets, ne = the number of planets for each star that have the conditions for life, fl = the fraction of planets that actually develop life, fi = the fraction that develop intelligent life, fc = the fraction that are willing and able to communicate, and L = the expected lifetime of a civilization.

150

Nobel Prizes in physics

Year

Name of winner

Citation

1901

Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen

Discovery of x-rays

1902

Hendrick Antoon Lorentz

Effect of magnetic fields on light emitted from atoms

Pieter Zeeman 1903

Antoine Henri Becquerel Pierre Curie Marie Sklodowska-Curie

Discovery of radioactivity

1904

Lord John William Strutt Rayleigh

Discovery of argon and measurements of densities of gases

1905

Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard

Work on cathode rays

1906

Sir Joseph John Thomson

Conduction of electricity by gases

151

1907

Albert Abraham Michelson

1908

Gabriel Lippmann

Optical precision instruments and experiments carried out with them For his method of producing colors photographically using interference

1909

Carl Ferdinand Braun Guglielmo Marconi

Development of wireless telegraphy

1910

Johannes Diderik van der Waals

Equations of state for gases and liquids

1911

Wilhelm Wien

Laws governing the radiation of heat

1912

Nils Gustaf Dalen

Invention of automatic regulators for lighthouse and buoy lamps

1913

Heike Kamerlingh Onnes

Properties of matter at low temperatures leading to the discovery of liquid helium

1914

Max von Laue

1915

William Henry Bragg William Lawrence Bragg

Discovery of X-ray diffraction by crystals Analysis of crystal structure using X-rays

1916

1917

Charles Glover Barkla

1918

Max Planck

1919

Johannes Stark

1920

Charles-Edouard Guillaume

1921

Albert Einstein

1922

Niels Bohr

1923

Robert Andrew Millikan

Prize money allocated to the special fund of this prize section Discovery of characteristic Xrays from elements Discovery of energy quanta Discovery of Doppler effect in canal rays and the splitting of spectral lines in magnetic fields Precision measurements in physics by his discovery of anomalies in nickel steel alloys Explanation of photoelectric effect Structure of atoms and radiation from them Measurement of charge on electron and work on

152

photoelectric effect 1924

Karl Manne Georg Siegbahn

X-ray spectroscopy

1925

James Franck Gustav Hertz

Experimental investigation of energy levels within atoms

1926

Jean Baptiste Perrin

Work on discontinuous nature of matter especially discovery of sedimentation equilibrium

1927

Arthur Holly Compton Charles Thompson Rees Wilson

Discovery of Compton effect Invention of the cloud chamber

1928

Owen Willans Richardson

Work on thermionic phenomena

1929

Prince Louis-Victor de Broglie

1930

Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman

Discovery of the wave nature of electrons Work on scattering of light Prize money allocated to the special fund of this prize section

1931

1932

Werner Heisenberg

1934

1935

James Chadwick

1936

Carl David Anderson

Creation of quantum mechanics Prize money allocated to the special fund of this prize section Discovery of the neutron Discovery of the positron Discovery of cosmic rays

Victor Franz Hess 1937

Clinton Joseph Davisson George Paget Thompson

Discovery of electron diffraction by crystals

1938

Enrico Fermi

Discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons (fission)

1939

Ernest Orlando Lawrence

Invention of cyclotron

1940 1942

Prize money allocated to the special fund of this prize section

153

1943

Otto Stern

Discovery of the magnetic moment of the proton

1944

Isidor Isaac Rabi

Resonance recording of magnetic properties of nuclei

1945

Wolfgang Pauli

Discovery of the exclusion principle

1946

Percy Williams Bridgman

Invention of apparatus to produce extremely high pressures and discoveries made with it

1947

Sir Edward Victor Appleton

Investigation of the physics of the upper atmosphere

1948

Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett

Development of Wilson cloud chamber and discoveries made with it

1949

Hideki Yukawa

Prediction of mesons

1950

Cecil Frank Powell

Photographic method for recording particle tracks and discoveries made with it

1951

Sir John Douglas Cockcroft Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton

Transforming atomic nuclei with artificially accelerated atomic particles

1952

Felix Bloch Edward Mills Purcell

Development of new methods for nuclear magnetic precision measurements and discoveries made with this technique

1953

Frits Zernike

Invention of the phase contrast microscope

1954

Max Born

Fundamental research in quantum mechanics

Walter Bothe The coincidence method and discoveries made with it 1955

Willis Eugene Lamb

Discoveries concerning the fine structure of the hydrogen spectrum

Polykarp Kusch Precision measurement of the magnetic moment of the

154

electron Discovery of transistor effect

1956

John Bardeen Walter Houser Brattain William Shockley

1957

Tsung Dao Lee Chen Ning Yang

Prediction of parity non-conservation

1958

Pavel Aleksejevic Cerenkov Il’ja Michajlovic Frank Igor’ Evan’evic Tamm

Discovery and interpretation of Cerenkov effect

1959

Owen Chamberlain Emilio Gino Segre

Discovery of the antiproton

1960

Donald Arthur Glaser

Invention of the bubble chamber

1961

Robert Hofstader Rudolf Ludwig Mossbauer

1962

Lev Davidovic Landau

Studies in the electron scattering of atomic nuclei Research into the resonant absorption of γ -rays Theory of liquid helium

1963

Maria Goeppert-Mayer J Hans Jensen Eugene P Wigner

Discovery of nuclear shell structure Theory of atomic nucleus

1964

Charles H Townes Nikolai G Basov Alexander M Prochrov

Quantum electronics and masers/lasers

1965

Richard Feynman Julian Schwinger Sin-itiroTomonaga

Development of quantum electrodynamics

1966

Alfred Kastler

Discovery of optical methods for studying Hertzian resonance in atoms

1967

Hans Albrecht Bethe

Contributions to the theory of energy production in stars

1968

Luis W Alvarez

Discovery of resonance particles and development of bubble chamber techniques

1969

Murray Gell-Mann

Discoveries concerning the classification of elementary particles

155

1970

Hannes Alfven Louis Neel

Discoveries in magnetohydrodynamics Discoveries in antiferromagnetism and ferrimagnetism Invention of holography

1971

Dennis Gabor

1972

John Bardeen Leon N Cooper J Robert Schrieffer

Jointly developed theory of superconductivity

1973

Leo Esaki Ivar Giaever Brian D Josephson

Discovery of tunnelling in semiconductors Discovery of tunnelling in superconductors Theory of super-current tunnelling

1974

Antony Hewish Sir Martin Ryle

Discovery of pulsars Pioneering work in radioastronomy

1975

Aage Bohr Ben Mottelson James Rainwater

Discovery of the connection between collective motion and particle motion in atomic nuclei

1976

Burton Richter Samuel Chao Chung Ting

Independent discovery of J/Ďˆ particle

1977

Philip Warren Anderson Nevill Francis Mott John Hasbrouck Van Vleck

Theory of magnetic and disordered systems

1978

Arno Penzias Robert Woodrow Wilson

Discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation

1979

Sheldon Lee Glashow Abdus Salam Steven Weinberg

Unification of electromagnetic and weak forces

1980

James Cronin Val Fitch

Discovery of Ko CP violation

1981

Nicolaas Bloembergen Arthur L Schalow Kai M Siegbahn

Contributions to the development of laser spectroscopy Contribution to the development of high resolution electron

156

spectroscopy 1982

Kenneth G Wilson

Theory of critical phenomena in phase transitions

1983

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar William Fowler

1984

Carlo Rubbia Simon van der Meer

Theoretical studies in the structure and evolution of stars Theoretical and experimental studies of nucleosynthesis of elements inside stars Discovery of Wand Z particles

1985

Klaus von Klitzing

Discovery of quantum Hall effect

1986

Ernst Ruska Gerd Binning Heinrich Rohrer

Design of electron microscope Design of the scanning tunnelling microscope

1987

Georg Bednorz K A Muller

Discovery of high temperature superconductivity

1988

Leon M Lederman Melvin Schwartz Jack Steinberger

Neutrino beam method and demonstration of two kinds of neutrino

1989

Normal Ramsey Hans Dehmelt Wolfgang Paul

Separated field method of studying atomic transitions Development of ion traps

1990

Jerome Friedman Henry Kendall Richard Taylor

Pioneer research into deep inelastic scattering

1991

Pierre-Gilles de Gennes

Mathematics of molecular behavior in liquids near to solidification

1992

Georges Charpak

Invention of multiwire proportional chamber

1993

Russell Hulse Joseph Taylor

Discovery of a binary pulsar and research into general relativity based on this

1994

Bertram Brockhouse Clifford Shull

Development of neutron spectroscopy Development of neutron diffraction techniques

157

1995

Martin Perl Frederick Reines

Discovery of tau-lepton Discovery of electron-neutrino

1996

David M Lee Douglas D Osheroff Robert C Richardson

Discovery of superfluid helium-3

1997

Steven Chu Claude Cohen-Tannoudji William D Phillips

Development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light

1998

Robert B Laughlin Horst L Stormer Daniel C Tsui

Discovery of a new form of quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations

1999

Gerardus â€™t Hooft Martinus J G Veltman

Showing that gauge theories (especially that of electroweak force) are renormalizable

2000

Zhores I Alferov Herbert Kroemer Jack S Kilby

The development of a new type of semiconductor material that is useful in optoelectronics His part in the development of the integrated circuit

2001

Eric A Cornell Wolfgang Ketterle Carl E Wieman

For getting bosonic atoms to form a coherent assembly (like a laser beam is an assembly of photons) and studying the properties of these Boseâ€“ Einstein condensates

2002

Raymond Davis Jr. Masatoshi Koshiba

For pioneering contributions to astrophysics, in particular for the detection of cosmic neutrinos

2003

Alexei A. Abrikosov Vitaly L. Ginzburg Anthony J. Leggett

For pioneering contributions to the theory of superconductors and super fluids

2004

David J. Gross H. David Politzer Frank Wilczek

For the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction

2005

Roy J. Glauber John L. Hall

For his contribution to the quantum theory of optical

158

Theodor W. H채nsch

coherence For their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique

2006

John C. Mather George F. Smoot

For their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation

2007

Albert Fert Peter Gr체nberg

For the discovery of Giant Magnetoresistance

2008

Yoichiro Nambu Makoto Kobayashi Toshihide Maskawa

For the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics For the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature

2009

Charles Kuen Kao Willard S. Boyle George E. Smith

For groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication For the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit - the CCD sensor

2010

Andre Geim Konstantin Novoselov

For groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene

2011

Saul Perlmutter Brian P. Schmidt Adam G. Riess

For the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae

2012

Serge Haroche David J. Wineland

For ground-breaking experimental methods that enable measuring and manipulation of individual quantum systems

159

2013

François Englert Peter W. Higgs

For the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider

2014

Isamu Akasaki Hiroshi Amano Shuji Nakamura

For the invention of efficient blue light-emitting diodes which has enabled bright and energy-saving white light sources

2015

The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics has not been awarded yet. It will be announced on Tuesday 6 October, 11:45 a.m. CET at the earliest.

The Top 10 Most Influential Books that shaped Our Thinking "A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding." − Sir Isaac Newton 1. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by Sir Isaac Newton (1687)

160

"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection." âˆ’ Charles Darwin 2. The Origin of Species (1859) and The Voyage of the Beagle (1845) by Charles Darwin

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. âˆ’ Albert Einstein 3. Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein (1916)

161

"But I must confess I am jealous of the term atom; for though it is very easy to talk of atoms, it is very difficult to form a clear idea of their nature, especially when compounded bodies are under consideration." âˆ’ Michael Faraday 4. Experimental Research in Electricity by Michael Faraday (1855)

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go." âˆ’ Galileo Galilei 5. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems by Galileo Galilei (1632)

162

"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." âˆ’ Nicolaus Copernicus 6. De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres) by Nicolaus Copernicus (1543)

"There is no great genius without a mixture of madness." âˆ’ Aristotle 7. Physica (Physics) by Aristotle (circa 330 B.C.)

163

"I am not accustomed to saying anything with certainty after only one or two observations." âˆ’ Andreas Vesalius 8. De Humani Corporis Fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human Body) by Andreas Vesalius (1543)

"If and when all the laws governing physical phenomena are finally discovered, and all the empirical constants occurring in these laws are finally expressed through the four independent basic constants, we will be able to say that physical science has reached its end, that no excitement is left in further explorations, and that all that remains to a physicist is either tedious

164

work on minor details or the self-educational study and adoration of the magnificence of the completed system. At that stage physical science will enter from the epoch of Columbus and Magellan into the epoch of the National Geographic Magazine!" — George Gamow 9. One Two Three . . . Infinity by George Gamow (1947)

"Our goal should be to understand our differences." − James D. Watson 10. The Double Helix by James D. Watson (1968)

“We are storytelling animals, and cannot bear to acknowledge the ordinariness of our daily lives.” − STEPHEN JAY GOULD

165

The Hall of Shame: how bad science can cause real harm in real life. We humans, who began as a mineral and then emerged into plant life and into the animal state and then to being aggressive mortal beings fought a survival struggle in caveman days, to get more food, territory or partner with whom to reproduce, now are glued to the TV set, marveling at the adventures of science and their dazzling array of futuristic technology from teleportation to telekinesis: rocket ships, fax machines, supercomputers, a worldwide communications network, gas-powered automobiles and high-speed elevated trains. The science has opened up an entirely new world for us. And our lives have become easier and more comfortable. With the help of science we have estimated about 8,000 chemotherapeutic exogenous non-nutritive chemical substances which when taken in the solid form by the mouth enter the digestive tract and there they are transformed into a solution and passed on to the liver where they are chemically altered and finally released into the blood stream. And through blood they reach the site of action and binds reversibly to the target cell surface receptors to produce their pharmacological effect. And after their pharmacological effect they slowly detaches from the receptor. And then they are sent to the liver. And there they are transformed into a more water soluble compound called metabolite and released from the body through urine, sweat, saliva, and excretory products. However, the long term use of chemotherapeutic drugs for diseases like cancer, diabetes leads to side effects. And the side effects â€” including nausea, loss of hair, loss of strength, permanent organ damage to the heart, lung, liver, kidneys, or reproductive system etc. â€” are so severe that some patients rather die of disease than subjecting themselves to this torture.

And smallpox was a leading cause of death in 18th-century, and the inexorable spread of the disease reliably recorded the death rate of some hundred thousand people. And the death toll surpassed 5000 people a day. Yet Edward Jenner, an English physician, noticed something special occurring in his small village. People who were exposed to cowpox did not get smallpox when they were exposed to the disease. Concluding that cowpox could save people from smallpox, Edward purposely infected a young boy who lived in his village first with cowpox,

166

then with smallpox. Fortunately, Edwardâ€™s hypothesis worked well. He had successfully demonstrated the worldâ€™s first vaccine and eradicated the disease. And vaccines which once saved humanity from the smallpox (which was a leading cause of death in 18th-century England), now have associated with the outbreaks of diseases like pertussis (whooping cough) which have begun showing up in the United States in the past forty years. TOP 5 DRUGS WITH REPORTED SIDE EFFECTS (withdrawn from market in September 2004) Drug

Used for

Side effect

Byetta

Type 2 diabetes

Increase of blood glucose level

Humira

Rheumatoid arthritis

Injection site pain

Chantix

Smoking cessation

Nausea

Tysabri

Multiple sclerosis

Fatigue

Vioxx*

Arthritis

Heart attack

167

In 1930s , a research chemist at the firm of Geigy in Basel, with the help of science introduced the first modern insecticide (DDT) and it won him the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for its credit of saving thousands of human lives in World War II by killing typhus-carrying lice and malaria-carrying mosquitoes, dramatically reducing Malaria and Yellow Fever around the world. But in the late 1960s DDT which was a world saver was no longer in public favor ‒ it was blamed moderately hazardous and carcinogenic. And most applications of DDT were banned in the U.S. and many other countries. However, DDT is still legally manufactured in the U.S., but only sold to foreign countries. At a time when Napoleon was almost disturbing whole of Europe due to his aggressive policies and designs and most of the world was at war‒ the science gave birth to the many inventions which took place in the field of textile industry and due to invention of steam engine and development of means of transportation and communication. Though it gave birth in England, yet its inventions spread all over the world in a reasonably period. And rapid industrialization was a consequence of new inventions and demand for expansion of large industrial cities led to the large scale exploitation of agricultural land. And socio-economic growth was peaking, as industries were booming, and agricultural lands were decreasing, as the world enjoyed the fruits of the rapid industrialization. As a result of this, the world’s population was growing at an exponential rate and the world’s food supply was not in the pace of the population’s increase. And this resulted in widespread famine in many parts of the world, such as England, and as starvation was rampant. In that time line, science suppressed that situation by producing more NH3 through the Haber Bosch Process (more ammonia, more fertilizers. more fertilizers, more food production). But at the same time, science which solved the world’s hunger problems also led to the production of megatons of TNT (trinitrotoluene) and other explosives which were dropped on all the cities leading to the death of some hundred million people. Rapid industrialization which once raised the economic and living standard of the people has now become a major global issue. The full impact of an industrial fuel economy has led to the global warming (i.e., the increase of Earth's average surface temperature due to effect of too much carbon dioxide emissions from industrial centers which acts as a blanket, trap heat and warm the planet). And as a result, Greenland’s ice shelves have started to shrink permanently, disrupting the world’s weather by altering the flow of ocean and air currents around the planet. And violent swings in the climate have started to appear in the form of floods, droughts, snow storms and hurricanes.

168

169

And industries are the main sources of sulfur dioxide emission and automobiles for nitrogen oxides. And the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur combine with the moisture in the atmosphere to form acids. And these acids reach the Earth as rain, snow, or fog and react with minerals in the soil and release deadly toxins and affect a variety of plants and animals on the earth. And these acids damage buildings, historic monuments, and statues, especially those made of rocks, such as limestone and marble, that contain large amounts of calcium carbonate. For example, acid rain has reacted with the marble (calcium carbonate) of Taj Mahal causing immense damage to this wonderful structure.

And science once introduced refrigerators for prolonging storage of food but now refrigerators are the active sources of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) which interact with the UV light during which chlorine is separated. And this chlorine in turn destroys a significant amount of the ozone in the high atmosphere admitting an intense dose of harmful ultraviolet radiation. And the increased ultraviolet flux produces the related health effects of skin cancer, cataracts, and immune suppression and produces a permanent change in the nucleotide sequence and lead to changes in the molecules the cell produce, which modify and ultimately affect the process of

170

photosynthesis and destroy green plants. And the massive extinction of green plants may lead to famine and immense death of all living species including man.

Note: Ozone up high in the stratosphere protects the Earth, while ozone in the layer near Earthâ€™s surfaceâ€”the troposphereâ€” is an air pollutant that is a key ingredient of urban smog.

Fertilizers which once provided a sufficient amount of the essential nitrates to plants to synthesize chlorophyll and increase crop growth to feed the growing population and satisfy the demand for food, has now blamed for causing hypertrophication i.e., fertilizers left unused in soil are carried away by rain water into lakes and rivers, and then to coastal estuaries and bays. And the overload of fertilizers induces explosive growth of algal blooms, which prevents light from getting into the water and thereby preventing the aquatic plants from photosynthesizing, a process which provides oxygen in the water to animals that need it, like fish and crabs. So, in addition to the lack of oxygen from photosynthesis, when algal blooms die they decompose and they are acted upon by microorganisms. And this decomposition process consumes oxygen, which reduces the concentration of dissolved oxygen. And the depleted oxygen levels in turn lead to fish kills and a range of other effects promoting the loss of species biodiversity.

171

The eutrophication of the Lake Taihu, Wuxi in China is evident from the bright green water, caused by a dense bloom of algae.

At the dawn of the early century, the entire world was thoroughly wedded to fossil fuels in the form of oil, natural gas, and coal to satisfy the demand for energy. And as a result, fossil fuels were becoming increasingly rare and were slowly dooming to extinction. In that period, science introduced nuclear fission reaction as an alternate to the worldâ€™s energy supply and therefore prevented the world economy from coming to a grinding halt. But at the same time science introduced nuclear fission reaction to produce thousands of nuclear weapons, which were dropped on all the cities in World War II amounted to some two million tons, two megatons, of TNT, which flattened heavily reinforced buildings many kilometers away, the firestorm, the gamma rays and the thermal neutrons, which effectively fried the people. A school girl who survived the nuclear attack on Hiroshima, the event that ended the Second World War, wrote this first-hand account: â€œThrough a darkness like the bottom of hell, I could hear the voices of the other students calling for their mothers. And at the base of the bridge, inside a big cistern that had been dug out there, was a mother weeping, holding above her head a naked baby that was burned red all over its body. And another mother was crying and sobbing as she gave her burned breast to her baby. In the cistern the students stood with only their heads above the water, and their two hands, which they clasped as they imploringly cried and screamed, calling for their parents. But every single person who passed was wounded, all of them, and there was no one, there was no one to turn to for help. And the singed hair on the heads of the people was frizzled and whitish and covered with dust. They did not appear to be human, not creatures of this world.â€?

a) In July of 1952, seven years after the atomic bombing, 252 remains were dug out from five places in Saka township of Aki country, which is situated 8 or 9 kilometers from the hypocenter. b) The Burned Corpse of a Boy.

172

c) A Boy who received thermal burns on more than one-third of his whole body. d) A precious photograph of Victims who Escaped Hell on Earth taken only three hours or so after the explosion. e) A Building Brought To Knees By The Blast.

Ninety-one percent of world adults and 60 percent of teens own this device that has revolutionized the most indispensable accessories of professional and social life. Science once introduced this device for wireless communication but now they are pointed to as a possible cause of everything from infertility to cancer to other health issues. And in a study conducted at the University of London, researchers sampled 390 cell phones to measure for levels of pathogenic bacteria. The results of the study showed that 92 percent of the cell phones sampled had heavily colonized by high quantities of various types of disease-prone bacteria with high resistances to commonly used antibiotics (around 25,000 bacteria per square inch) and the results concluded that their ability to transmit diseases of which the mobile phones are no exception. The fluoridation of water at optimal levels has been shown to be highly beneficial to the development of tooth enamel and prevention of dental cavities since the late 1800s. And studies showed that children who drink water fluoridated at optimal levels can experience 20 to 40 per cent less tooth decay. But now fluoridation of water has termed to cause lower IQ, memory loss, cancer, kidney stones & kidney failures.

Did you know that ď‚ˇ

The large scale exploitation of forests for industrialization and residential purposes has not only led to the loss of biodiversity but has led the diseases like AIDS to transmit from forests to cities.

ď‚ˇ

Ocean acidification, a product of fossil fuel burning, is dissolving calcifying plankton at the base of the food chain.

173

Science once introduced irradiation to prevent food poisoning by destroying molds, bacteria and yeast and control microbial infestation. But now it has been blamed to cause the loss of nutrients, for example vitamin E levels can be reduced by 25% after irradiation and vitamin C by 5-10% and damage food by breaking up molecules and creating free radicals. And these free radicals combine with existing chemicals (like preservatives) in the food to produce deadly toxins. This has caused some food manufacturers to limit or avoid the process and bills have even been introduced to ban irradiated foods in public cafeterias or to require irradiated food to carry sensational warning labels. And the rapid advancement of science combined with human aggression and aim for global supremacy has led even the smaller nations to weaponize anthrax spores and other viruses for maximum death and destruction. And thus the entire planet is gripped with fear that one day a terrorist group may pay to gain access to weaponized H5N1 flu and other viruses. And the rapid development of nuclear technology has led to the banking up of nuclear waste at every single nuclear site. And as a result, every nation is suffering from a massive case of nuclear constipation. And the enormous automation, capacity of artificial intelligence and their ability to interact like humans has caused the humans to be replaced by artificial intelligence. But now artificial intelligence is taking off on its own, and re-designing itself at an ever increasing rate. And this has turned out to be the biggest existential threat to human survival (i.e., one day artificial intelligence may plan for a war against humanity). Highly toxic gases, poisons, defoliants, and every technological state are planning for it to disable or destroy people or their domestic animals, to damage their crops, and/or to deteriorate their supplies, threaten every citizen, not just of a nation, but of the world.

Although Nature needs thousands or millions of years to create a new species, man needs only a few dozen years to destroy one. â€’ VICTOR SCH EFFER, 1 90 6 TO 2011

174

Why the Quarks feel the strong force, leptons do not? If the leptons would have felt the strong force, then they would have combined to form different particles. The entire picture of Particle Physics would have been quite different. Did you know that Long-duration gamma ray bursts are associated with the deaths of massive stars in a specific kind of explosion called a supernova.

175

176

The English scientist and mathematician Isaac Newton is seen here creating a shaft of light. Hulton Archive/Getty Images

177

Why do the Fundamental Constants Planck's constant: Speed of light: Mass of electron: Mass of proton: Mass of neutron: Electron charge (magnitude): Fine structure constant: Bohr radius: Bohr energies: Classical electron radius: QED coupling constant: Weak coupling constants: Weak mixing angle: Strong coupling constant:

h = 6.625 × 10 −34 Js c = 3×108 m/s me = 9.1 × 10 −31 kg mp = 1.672 × 10 −27 kg mN = 1.675 × 10 −27 kg e = 1.602 × 10 −19C α = e2/ ħc = 1/137.036 a = ħ / me e2 = 5.29 × 10 −11m En = ‒ me e4/2ħn2 = −13.6/n2 eV re = e2/mec2 = 2.81 × 10 −15m ge = e (4π/ħc)½ = 0.302822 gw= ge /sinθw = 0.6295; gz= gw /cosθw = 0.7180 θw = 28.76o G = 1.214

have the precise values they do? We need precision experiments to know for sure

When we place two long parallel uncharged plates close to each other, virtual particles outside the plates exerts more pressure than the virtual particles inside the plates, and hence the plates are attracted to each other, which we call the “Casimir effect.”

178

â€œEuclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptionsâ€?: Eric Temple Bell

The full sky map made by the COBE satellite DMR instrument, showing evidence for the wrinkles in time.

Note: Temperature > than Planck temperature cannot exist only for the reason that the quantum mechanics breaks down at temperature > than 1033K.

179

Did you know that the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMBR, in 1965 secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the universe…

Ground-breaking physicist Albert Einstein (pictured in his office at the University of Berlin in 1920) said Georges Lemaitre’s theory was “The most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

180

“The area formula for the entropy — or number of internal states — of a black hole suggests that information about what falls into a black hole may be stored like that on a record, and played back as the black hole evaporates.” − S.W. Hawking

r = 2GM/c2 (condition for a star to become a black hole) From this it follows that Mc2 = 2GM2/r Since GM2/r = −5U/3 (where U = gravitational binding energy of a star): Mc2 = − 3.33U i.e., stars of rest mass energy = 3.33 times its negative gravitational binding energy further collapse to produce dark stars. And these dark stars are sufficiently massive and compact and possess a strong gravitational field that prevent even light from escaping out its influence: any light emitted from the surface of the star will be dragged back by the star’s gravitational attraction before it could get very far. Such stars become black voids in space and are what we now call black holes.

The different frequencies of light appear as different colors.

181

The ultimate fate of the universe is determined by whether the Omega (立0) density parameter is less than, equal to or greater than 1.

182

Interference when 2 similar waves are added, the resultant wave is bigger (constructive interference) and when 2 dissimilar waves are added, they cancel each other out (destructive interference). In life, everything is relative - except Einstein´s theory: Leonid S. Sukhorukov

1953 – Watson and Crick’s 3D Model of DNA

Experimental evidence supporting the Watson and Crick model was published in a series of five articles in the same issue of Nature. Of these, Franklin and Gosling's paper was the first publication of their own X-ray diffraction data and original analysis method that partially supported the Watson and Crick model; this issue also contained an article on DNA structure by Maurice Wilkins and two of his colleagues, whose analysis supported their double-helix molecular model of DNA. In 1962, after Franklin's death, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins jointly received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

183

The Collider Detector at Fermi lab where the top quark was discovered.

184

Did you know that the objects of different masses are accelerated towards the earth at the same rate, but with different forces

Gravitational lensing The big galaxy cluster at the center of the image acts like the lens of a telescope. Any light from a distant object would converge as it passes around the galaxy. When we gaze at the distant galaxy, we see a ring like pattern called Einstein ring, an optical illusion caused by general relativity.

185

Newton rings is a phenomenon in which an interference pattern is created by the reflection of light between two surfaces â€” a spherical surface and an adjacent flat surface. It is named after Isaac Newton, who first studied them in 1717.

A rotating neutron star - tiny, burnt out star, generating regular pulses of radio waves.

Gerard Kuiper

Kuiper belt â€’ a region of the Solar System extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun (consists mainly of small bodies or remnants from the Solar System's formation).

186

The physicist Leo Szilard once announced to his friend Hans Bethe that he was thinking of keeping a diary: "I don't intend to publish. I am merely going to record the facts for the information of God." "Don't you think God knows the facts?" Bethe asked. "Yes," said Szilard. "He knows the facts, but He does not know this version of the facts." âˆ’Hans Christian von Baeyer, Taming the Atom

Albert Michelson (the first American to receive the Nobel Prize for physics) who disproved the existence of Aether

Gamma-rays detected by Fermi's LAT show that the remnant of Tycho's supernova shines in the highest-energy form of light. This composite picture of the shattered star includes gamma rays.

187

The gamma ray sky as seen by Fermi LAT is shown in galactic coordinates. The bright horizontal line is the diffuse emission from cosmic rays interacting with the gas and dust in the galactic plane.

Note: If the two quarks would have occupied precisely the same point with the same properties, they would not have stayed in the same position for long. And quarks would have not formed separate, well-defined protons and neutrons. And nor would these, together with electrons have formed separate, well-defined atoms. And the world would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size.

188

189

Einstein, Schrรถdinger, Planck, Bohr, Curie, Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli, Langmuir, Lorentz and others at the Solvay Conference of 1927.

190

Telescope used by Galileo to look at Jupiter, 1609

Fermi Large Area Telescope

Galileoâ€™s drawing of the Moon

Did you know that captured material from a comet possessed lysine, an amino acid, in the sample, suggesting that the evolution of life on Earth had only begun after a jump-start from spaceâ€Ś

191

Niels Bohr with Albert Einstein at Paul Ehrenfest's home in Leiden (December 1925)

A Short History of the Universe in 6000 words or Less

“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” ― C.S. Lewis

Reciting an African creation myth and rapidly moving on to big questions such as, if the big bang was perfectly symmetrical, and then we should expect equal amounts of matter and antimatter to be formed. So why do we exist? Is that the original big bang was not perfectly symmetrical at all? I was thrown into an inquisition.

192

Playing the bongo drums at a strip joint down the roads, the spirit of mystery was hovering over the seed of curiosity blowing the weird mind. Taking the present expansion of the universe, and running it backwards in time, it seems that it should have been filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, at some moment, between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. At this time, the universe was very rapidly expanding at a rate proportional to its volume and cooling at a rate proportional to its expansion. And during which the volume of the universe was proportional to e3Ht i.e., Hubble parameter H was constant. And after 10 −37 seconds of exponential expansion, the rate of expansion of the universe was no longer proportional to its volume since H was longer constant but was = 1/ age of the universe. At that time, the entire universe was filled with high energetic quarks and leptons and these quarks and leptons were moving around in space, and, unless disturbed, moved forward indefinitely and got more disordered and chaotic with time. And this observation was elevated to the status of a law, the so called Second law of thermodynamics (i.e., the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, was always increasing with time: ds/dt was > 0). And they were moving around so fast that they escaped any attraction toward each other due to nuclear or electromagnetic forces. However, they possessed so much energy that whenever they collided, particle – antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. And the uncertainty in the position of the particle times the uncertainty in its velocity times the mass of the particle was never smaller than a certain quantity, which was known as Planck’s constant. Similarly, ∆E × ∆t was ≤ ħ/2. Hence the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle was a fundamental, inescapable property of the universe. And since the universe was cooling with its expansion the temperature which was simply a measure of the average energy – or speed – of the quarks and leptons was decreasing with time. At lower temperature, these particles had less energy and when these particles collided, particleantiparticle pairs were produced less quickly – and annihilation was faster than production. At some point an unknown reaction led to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons — of the order of one part in 30 million. And so a mass annihilation immediately followed leaving just one in 1010 of the original quarks and leptons, and none of their antiparticles. And there was light. And the temperature dropped to that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, there was a continuous exchange of gluons between the quarks and this resulted in a force that pulled the quarks to form baryons (protons plus neutrons) as well as other particles. And the proton was composed of two up quarks and one down quark and the neutron was composed of two down quarks and one up quark. And other particles contained other quarks (strange, charmed, bottom, and top), but these all had a much greater mass and decayed very rapidly into protons and neutrons. And the charge on the up quark was = + 2/3 e and the charge on the down quark was = – 1/3 e. And the other quarks possessed charges of + 2/3 e or – 1/3 e. And the charges of the quarks added up in the combination that composed the proton but cancelled out in the combination that composed the neutron i.e., Proton charge was = 2/3 e + 2/3 e – 1/3 e = e

193

Neutron charge was = 2/3 e – 1/3 e – 1/3 e = 0

And the quarks were much smaller than the wavelength of visible light and so they did not possessed any color in the normal sense. And the force that confined the mass of the proton or the neutron to its radius was = its rest mass energy divided by its radius i.e., For the proton of radius ≈ 1.112 × 10 −15m F was = mPc2/r = 13.52 × 10 26 N And the forces that binded the quarks together to form a proton or a neutron were so strong that it was proved very difficult if not impossible to obtain an isolated quark. As we tried to pull them

194

out of the proton or neutron it got more and more difficult. Even stranger was the suggestion that the harder and harder if we could drag a quark out of a proton the strong force got bigger and bigger – rather like the force in a spring as it was stretched causing the quark to snap back immediately to its original position.

The Compact Muon Solenoid detector at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN

And the proton and neutron masses were so similar; they differed only by the replacement of an up quark with a down quark. And among the leptons the electron was a stable object and muon (that had mass 207 times larger than electron) and the tauon (that had mass 3,490 times the mass of the electron) were allowed to decay into other particles. And associated to each charged lepton, there were three distinct kinds of neutrinos: •

the electron neutrino (νe)

•

the muon neutrino (νμ)

•

the tauon neutrino (νε)

And each quark possessed baryon number = 1/3: the total baryon number of the proton or the neutron was the sum of the baryon numbers of the quarks from which it was composed. And the property of confinement prevented one from observing an isolated quark. However, now it has been revealed that experiments with large particle accelerators indicate that at high energies the strong force becomes much weaker, and one can observe an isolated quark. And the electrons and neutrinos contained no quarks; they were themselves truly fundamental particles. And since there were no electrically charged particles lighter than an electron and a proton, the electrons and protons were prevented from decaying into lighter particles – such as photons and less massive neutrinos (with very little mass, no electric charge, and no radius — and, adding insult to injury, no strong force acted on it). And a free neutron being heavier than the proton was not prevented from decaying into a proton (plus an electron and an antineutrino).

195

n → p + e− + ϋ And a few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion (one thousand million; 109) kelvin and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the universe's deuterium and helium nuclei of radius R = R0 A 1/3 (R0 stood for constant and A for the mass number) in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. And most of the protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei. And the mass of the nucleus was less than the total mass of its constituent particles. The difference was = ∆m and ∆m was = EB /c2 where EB was the total energy required to break the nucleus completely into its constituent particles. For example, mass of the deuteron nucleus was = 2.014102u and that of its constituent particles was = 2.01649u. ∆m was = 0.002238u and EB was = 2.24 MeV where 2.24 MeV was the total energy required to break the deuteron nucleus completely into its constituent particles (a proton and a neutron). And as the universe further cooled, there was a continuous exchange of virtual photons between the nuclei and the electrons. And the exchange was good enough to produce — what else? — A force (proportional to a quantity called their charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them). And that force pulled the electrons towards the nuclei to form neutral atoms. And these atoms reflected, absorbed, and scattered light and the resulted light was red shifted by the expansion of the universe towards the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. And there was cosmic microwave background radiation. And inside the nucleus of an atom, a proton was never permanently a proton and also a neutron was never permanently a neutron. They kept on changing into each other. A neutron emitted a π − meson and became proton and a proton absorbed a π − meson and became a neutron. That is, the exchange force resulted due to the absorption and emission of π − mesons kept the protons and neutrons bound in the nucleus. And the time in which the absorption and emission of π − mesons took place was so small that π − mesons were not detected. n→ p + π − p + π−→ n

196

And it just so happened that the nuclear proton pulled one of the orbital electron of the atom. And as a result, nuclear proton became a neutron p + e− → n + υ And because m = m0/ [1 – v2/c2] ½ the energy which an atom had due to its motion added to its rest mass "m0" and as an atom approached the speed of light, its mass raised ever more quickly, it acquired infinite mass and since an infinite mass cannot be accelerated any faster by any force, the issue of infinite mass remained an intractable problem. For this reason all the atoms were forever confined by relativity to move at speeds slower than the speed of light. Only radiation that had no intrinsic mass moved at the speed of light. And over a long period of time, the slightly denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed atoms attracted nearby atoms and thus grew even denser, forming giant clouds of hydrogen and helium gas, which at some point became gravitationally unstable, underwent fragmentation and some of these fragments collapsed under their own gravity. As these contracted, the temperature of the gas increased until it became hot enough to start nuclear reactions. And a consequence of this was that the stars were born to shine for a lifetime of Mc2/L (M stood for mass, L for luminosity and c for the speed of light). And the nuclear reactions transformed hydrogen to helium to carbon with the release of an enormous amount of energy in the form of radiation and heat. And the process continued converting the carbon to oxygen to silicon to iron. And the nuclear reaction ceased at iron. And the star experienced several chemical changes in its innermost core and these changes required huge amount of energy which was supplied by the severe gravitational contraction. And as a

197

result the central region of the star collapsed to form a neutron star. And the outer region of the star got blown off in a tremendous explosion called a supernova, which outshone all the other stars in the galaxy, approaching the luminosity of a whole galaxy, spraying the manufactured elements into space. And these elements provided some of the raw material for the generation of cloud of rotating gas which went to form the sun and a small amount of the heavier elements collected together to form the asteroids, stars, comets, galaxies and the bodies that now orbit the sun as planets like the Earth. And the squares of the periods of the planets (the times for them to complete one orbit) were proportional to the cubes of their average distance from the Sun. And a consequence of this was that the inner planets moved rapidly in their orbits. Venus, Earth and Mars moved progressively less rapidly about the Sun. And the outer planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, moved stately and slow. And like raisins in expanding dough, stars and galaxies that were further apart increased their separation more than nearer objects. And the apparent speed at which objects were moving away from each other was a measure of the rate at which the universe was expanding. And as a result, the light emitted from distant galaxies and stars was shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. And the neutron stars of radius r = 2GM/c2 collapsed to black holes. Classically, the gravitational field of these black holes was so strong that they prevented even light from escaping out of their influence. However, the quantum mechanical effects allowed the pair of virtual particles to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. And the force of gravitation of the black hole tore the pair apart. One member of a virtualparticle pair with negative energy fell into the black hole while its twin with positive energy escaped to infinity, where it appeared as radiation. And the negative energy particle falling in caused the black hole to lose mass and to evaporate slowly, with its horizon shrinking in size. And because P = Kev / M2 the smaller the black hole, higher was its rate of evaporation. And when two black holes collided, they merged, and the area of the final black hole was greater than the sum of the areas of the original holes. And the area was like the entropy of a black hole and summed up in the simple formula: where S was the entropy and A was the area of the horizon. And this expression contained the four fundamental constants of nature: c, the speed of light; G, Newton’s constant

of

gravitation;

kB,

Boltzmann constant; and ħ, reduced Planck’s constant. S = (c3kB/4ħG) A

198

And the information swallowed by a black hole was forever hidden from the outside universe, and was never revealed until the black hole evaporated and completely disappeared (i.e., All one could say of the gravitational monster what the poet Dante said of the entrance to Hell: “All hope abandon, ye who enter here.” Anything or anyone who falls through the black hole will soon reach the region of infinite density and the end of time). And surface gravity was the same at all points on the event horizon of a black hole, just as the temperature was the same everywhere in a body at thermal equilibrium.

A virtual-particle pair has a wave function that predicts that both particles will have opposite spins. But if one particle falls into the black hole, it is impossible to predict with certainty the spin of the remaining particle. − S. W. Hawking

And because dM = (k/8π) dA+ ΩdJ + ΦdQ (where M stood for mass, k for surface gravity, A for area of the event Horizon, J for angular momentum, Ω for angular velocity, Q for charge and Φ for the electrostatic potential) the size and shape of the black hole depended only on its mass, charge and rate of rotation, and not on the nature of the star that had collapsed to form it. And a rotating neutron star emitted regular pulses of radio waves, giving itself the appearance of a rotating lighthouse beacon. And the two neutron stars that were orbiting each other continually emitted gravitational waves (which carried energy at the speed of light and are now considered as fossils from the very instant of creation . . . . since no other signal have survived from that era). And the gravitational force of attraction between the sun and every planet was due to the exchange of a particle of spin 2 called the graviton between the particles that made up these two bodies. And this

199

exchange made the planets orbit the sun with a velocity = √GM/r (where G stood for gravitational constant, M for solar mass and r for the distance between the sun and the planet). And since the graviton had no mass of its own, the gravitational force of attraction between the sun and every planet was long range. And the randomly moving asteroids and comets collided with the planets. And as a result of collision the fragments were formed out of the planets and these fragments possessed velocity < √2GM/R (G stood for gravitational constant, v for velocity of the fragment, and R for the distance between the centers of the masses M and m of the bodies which form the gravitation) and hence they started to revolve around the mother planets just as the planets orbiting the sun. And for some mystical reasons, that the planet “Earth” produced volcanoes and the volcanoes emitted water vapor, carbon dioxide and other gases. And there was an atmosphere. This early atmosphere contained no oxygen, but a lot of other gases and among them some were poisonous, such as hydrogen sulfide (the gas that gives rotten eggs their smell). And the sunlight dissociated water vapor at a rate that was proportional to its intensity. And there was oxygen. And Carbon dioxide in excess heated the earth and balance was needed. So carbon dioxide dissolved to form carbonic acid and carbonic acid on rocks produced limestone and subducted limestone fed volcanoes that released more carbon dioxide. And there was high temperature and high temperature meant more evaporation and dissolved more carbon dioxide. And as the carbon dioxide turned into limestone, the temperature began to fall. And a consequence of this was that most of the water vapor condensed and formed the oceans. And the low temperature meant less evaporation and carbon dioxide began to build up in the atmosphere. And the cycle went on for billions of years. And after the few billion years, volcanoes ceased to exist. And the molten earth cooled, forming a hardened, outer crust. And the earth's atmosphere consisted of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, plus other miscellaneous gases (hydrogen sulfide, methane, water vapor, and ammonia). And then a continuous electric current through the atmosphere simulated lightning storms. And some of the gases came to be arranged in the form of more complex organic molecules such as simple amino acids (when, when linked together, formed proteins) and carbohydrates (which were very simple sugars). And the water vapor in the atmosphere probably caused millions of seconds of torrential rains, during which the organic molecules reached the earth. And it took two and a half billion years for an ooze of organic molecules to react and built earliest cells and then advance to a wide variety of one - celled organisms, and another billion years to evolve through a highly sophisticated form of life to primitive mammals. But then evolution seemed to have speeded up. It only took about a hundred million years to develop from the early mammals to Homosapiens from the accumulation of random mutations of their DNA – Linking the two chains in the DNA, were pairs of nucleic acids (purines + pyrimidines). There were four types of nucleic acid, adenine “A”, cytosine “C”, guanine “G”, and thiamine “T.” An adenine (purine) on one chain was always matched with a thiamine (pyrimidine) on the other chain, and a guanine (purine)

200

with a cytosine (pyrimidine). Thus DNA exhibited all the properties of genetic material, such as replication, mutation and recombination. Hence, it was the molecule of life. And with the invention of sex, two organisms exchanged whole paragraphs, pages and books of their DNA helix, producing new varieties for the sieve of natural selection. And the natural selection was a choice of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones. And the variation within a species occurred randomly, and that the survival or extinction of each organism depended upon its ability to adapt to the environment. And organisms that found sex uninteresting quickly became extinct. And something called curiosity ensued which triggered the breath of perception. And our caveman ancestors became conscious of their existence. And they learned to talk and they learned to listen. And speech allowed the communication of ideas, enabling them to work together to build the giant telescopes to scan the vast heavens for residue sparks and ashes of a cataclysmic explosion which they called the “Big Bang.’’

The structure of the universe evolved from the Big Bang, as represented by WMAP's "baby picture", through the clumping and ignition of matter.

The Universe's “baby picture” WMAP's map of the temperature of the microwave background radiation shows tiny variations (of few micro degrees) in the 3K background. Hot spots show as red, cold spots as dark blue.

And every living organism was endowed with two elements “genes” − a set of instructions that tell them how to sustain and multiply themselves and “metabolism” − a mechanism to carry out

201

the instructions. And every new variation was imperfect and perpetual struggle was the rule. And all the organic beings raised and developed through the process of natural selection of small, inherited variations that increased the individual's ability to compete, survive and multiply. And each of the cellular machineries contained about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information much like a miniature computer and each required a continuous supply of junk food, water, and molecular oxygen, all of which were distributed through tortuous vessels and poured into every bag of bones by the heart, whose arteries owned elastic walls which converted the millions of pulsation into a steady continuous stream, and from there a giant swarm of arteries and veins carried the blood to every part of the mortal physique and, collected chemically processed grits from the intestinal glands and distributed each vital nutrient correctly and, in addition, waste carbon dioxide was pushed out and diatomic oxygen was drawn in through the lungs and distributed just where it was needed. And virus used RNA as its genetic material and with the exception of the RNA viruses; all organisms stored their permanent information in DNA, using RNA only as a temporary messenger for information. And all the cells in a contiguous living system such as an amphibian or insect were divided into the soma (the cells that ultimately die) and the germ cells (the cells that are perpetuated by reproduction). And all cell division in multicellular organisms (including vertebrates, reptiles, Craniates or suckling pigs) occurred by mitosis except for the special division called meiosis that generated the gametes for reproduction. And the lack of a protective ozone layer resulted in high exposure to UV light and radiation. So some oxygen molecules absorbed energy from the sunâ€™s harmful ultraviolet rays and splitted into single oxygen atoms, and the single oxygen atoms (O) combined with the O2 molecules to form ozone (O3). And the ozone was literally good enough to sop up ultraviolet radiation forming a thin shield high up in the sky. And the individual cells of living organisms needed energy for survival too. And the biological oxidation of organic molecules resulted in the formation of utilizable energy molecules (adenosine tri-phosphate) in all living cells. And the biological oxidation of organic molecules that took place in the presence of oxygen was aerobic and was observed in most of the higher plants and animals. And the biological oxidation of organic molecules that took place in the absence of oxygen was anaerobic and was observed in microbes. And every living cell of cyanobacteria, and eventually higher plants (including flowering angiosperms, orchids, conifers and other cone bearing gymnosperms, ferns, club mosses, hornworts, mosses and the multicellular eukaryotes of the kingdom Plantae) possessed tiny molecular factories, called chloroplasts, which were in charge of a dye sensitized photochemical redox process - the conversion of sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates and oxygen. And thus O2 was supplied to the atmosphere. And every eukaryotic cell in a drop of blood of an animal contained a different sort of molecular factory, the mitochondrion, which combined respiratory substrates with oxygen to extract useful energy in the form of ATP molecules. And every living organism was a machine to preserve their immortal coils called genes: a monkey a machine to preserve genes up trees, a fish a machine to preserve genes in the water and a small worm to preserve genes in German beer mats. And most forms of life, chimps and dogs and crocodiles and bats and cockroaches and humans and worms and

202

dandelions included, carried the amazing complexity of the information within each cell of their body, that a live reading of that code at a rate of one letter per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night. And the wave and particle properties of light were the complementary views of the same physical entity and that was the wave-particle duality of light. And the equation λ = h/mc displayed this duality; mc was the momentum of the “particle” photon, and λ was the wavelength of the associated “wave.” And the Sun and other stars all emitted approximately a black body radiation filling up the universe giving a concrete evidence for the Stefan Boltzmann law i.e., power radiated per unit area was proportional to the fourth power of their temperature and the proportionality constant was Stefan’s constant. And since energy divided by c2 was mass, a little mass went an extremely long way in producing large energy.

“Gravity pulls everything in, but a force called dark energy tries to push it all back together again. And the ultimate fate of the universe relies on which force will win the desire to succeed” − S.W. Hawking

And solids, liquids, and gases framed up the three familiar states of matter, but plasma (a gas of ionized atoms) formed the fourth state of matter. And the laws of physics in an accelerating frame remained equivalent to the laws in a gravitational field. And each galaxy was composed of

203

gas and dust and stars. And every star was a sun to someone. And within a galaxy, there were galactic giants and planets and a proliferation of intelligent beings and space faring civilizations. And the speed of light was a gate, a value or a barrier between innumerable galaxies. And because dE was = − p × dV the total energy E of matter was decreasing with increase in volume V of the expanding universe and the universe was filled with positive pressure p. And the total energy of matter and of gravity (related to the shape and the volume of the universe) was conserved, but this conservation was somewhat unusual: The sum of the energy of matter and of the gravitational energy was equal to zero. And a spinning black hole collapsed into a spinning ring. And anyone cursed enough to hit the ring would cease; but someone falling into the ring would not be killed, but would actually wind up on the other side of the ring, he or she would pass through the Einstein-Rosen Bridge and wind up in a completely different universe. And the speed of light was the limiting velocity in the universe, unaffected by the movement of its source and independent of all observers. And the accelerated massive bodies gave off gravitational waves just as bound electrons in an atom emitted electromagnetic radiation. And electrons bounded to an atom escaped, even if they lacked the requisite energy, through a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling. And everything in the universe, including light and elementary particles, was thought of as a wave, with a wavelength that depended on its momentum. And a relatively flat sheet of dust and gas surrounded a newborn star, a black hole, or any massive object growing in size by attracting material. And this formed the accretion disk. And as the dust and gas in the disk moved closer and closer to the black hole or any massive object, the dust and gas heated up and began to emit X-rays. And these X- rays were emitted at an arbitrary rate, but only in certain packets called quanta. And each quantum possessed a certain amount of energy that was greater the higher the frequency of the waves, and when passed through the atoms in space and a new beam emerged at an angle theta giving rise to “Compton effect.”

204

And space consisted of 3 dimensions (say length, breadth, and height) and was filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles that appeared together at some time, moved apart, then came together and annihilated each other. And the mass density of these pairs curved space and this curved space combined with one dimensional time to form what was called the 4 dimensional geometry of space-time. And the distribution of matter and energy in the universe further warped and distorted space-time, so that it was no more flat. And because space-time was curved the path of the objects appeared bent as if affected by a gravitational field. And all living things in the known universe reproduced the genetic information, coded in their sequences of nucleic acids and passed it on to their offspring. And the atom consisted of misty electron cloud waves of wavelength Îť = h/mv (m stood for m0/ [1 â€“ v2/c2] 1/2 and v for the velocity) endlessly circling the tiny dot nucleus. And in this picture, only orbits with circumferences corresponding to a whole number of electron wavelengths survived without destructive interference.

Matter bends the fabric of space and time. The distortion of the space-time affects the path of light.

The warp and twist of space-time near the earth. The Moon follows this warp of space-time as it orbits Earth.

205

Space: the potential habitable worlds around ten thousand billion billion stars; ours is just one. Time: a cosmic history of nearly 14 billion years; life took less than ½ billion years to start here.

“If they not be inhabited, what a waste of space.” : Thomas Carlyle, Scottish Essayist (1795-1881)

A rotating neutron star circled by the remnants of planets and solar material, drifts through the vacuum of space.

And the telltale light emitted by atoms was governed by the masses of their constituent particles, notably their electrons. And the laws of physics remained unchanged under the combination of operations known as C, P, and T (C meant changing particles for antiparticles. P meant taking the mirror image so left and right was swapped for each other. And T meant reversing the direction of motion of all particles — in effect, running the motion backward). And the Planck’s constant was incredibly small (6 × 10 –34 — a decimal point followed by 33 zeros and a 6 — of a joulesecond) and it turned out to be one of the most fundamental numbers in physics, ranking alongside the speed of light c. And the 4 numbers described the characteristics of electrons and their orbitals i.e., Principal quantum number: a number that described the average distance of the orbital from the nucleus and the energy of the electron in an atom. Angular momentum quantum number: a number that described the shape of the orbital. Magnetic quantum number: a number that described how the various orbitals are oriented in space.

206

Spin quantum number: a number that described the direction the electron is spinning in a magnetic field â€” either clockwise or counterclockwise. And the water possessed some interesting properties such as the ability to hold an unusually large amount of heat energy. And the entropy S of an ideal gas was related to the quantity W, which was the number of microstates corresponding to a given microstate i.e.,

S = kB lnW

Note: Gamma ray bursts may happen when a neutron star falls into another neutron star or black hole. The resulting explosion sends out particles and radiation all over the spectrum.

Note: Neither of these extremes would have allowed for the existence of stars and life: A slightly stronger weak force, all the neutrons in the early universe would have decayed, leaving about 100 percent hydrogen, with no deuterium for later use in the synthesizing elements in stars. A slightly weaker weak force, few neutrons would have decayed, leaving about 100 percent helium, with no hydrogen to fuel the fusion processes in stars.

207

And all the known particles in the universe belonged to one of two groups, Fermions or bosons. Fermions were particles with integer spin Â˝ and they made up ordinary matter. Bosons were particles with integer spin 0, 1, 2 and they acted as the force carriers between fermions.

This picture of a universe that started off very hot and cooled as it evolved is in agreement with all the observational evidence that we have today. Nevertheless, it leaves an important question unanswered whether the laws of physics had any choice in the creation of the world. And this is a fundamental question. And compared to this question, all other questions seemed trivial. Yes, it would have had many choices if it had wanted to set the value of the speed of light much smaller than its actual value and the values of electron mass, proton mass, and constants determining the magnitudes of electromagnetic interaction, strong interaction, and weak interaction much larger than their actual values. However, in order to have sun-like stars in the universe which can sustain life; it seemed that it had only limited choices.

208

“What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean.” : Isaac Newton

209

REFERENCES 1. Physics I For Dummies Paperback- June 17, 2011 by Steven Holzner. 2. Physics II For Dummies Paperback- July 13, 2010 by Steven Holzner. 3. Chemistry For Dummies Paperback- May 31, 2011 by John T. Moore 4. Basic Physics by Nair. 5. Beyond Newton and Archimedes by Ajay Sharma. 6. Einstein, Newton and Archimedes GENERALIZED (detailed interviews) by Ajay Sharma. 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gravitational wave. 8. Fundamentals of electrochemistry by Morris Sylvin. 9. Teaching the photon gas in introductory physics by HS Leffa. 10. Protein-Ligand Binding by MK Gilson. 11. Hand Book of Space Astronomy and Astrophysics by Martin V. Zombeck. 12. Astrophysical concepts by Martin Harwit. 13. Ma H. The Nature of Time and Space. Nat Sci 2003; 1(1):1-11. 14. What is the Strength of Gravity? Victor Stenger (Excerpted from The Fallacy of Fine Tuning, 2011). 15. Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam, 1988). 16. Defending The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning by Victor J. Stenger. 17. Victor J. Stenger, The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2006). 18. Sharma, A Physics Essays Volume 26, 2013. 19. Cockcraft J D, and Walton, E.T.S Nature 129 649 (30 April 1932). 20. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf. 21. Newton, Isaac Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, London, 1727, translated by Andrew Motte from the Latin. 22. A.L.Erickcek, M Kamionkowski and Sean Carroll, Phys. Rev D 78 123520 2008. 23. Sharma, A. Concepts of Physics (2006). 24. Fadner, W. L. Am. J. Phys. Vol. 56 No. 2, February 1988. 25. Einstein, A. Annalen der Physik (1904 & 1907).

210

26. Arthur Beiser, Concepts of Modern Physics, 4th edition (McGraw-Hill International Edition, New York, 1987). 27. MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE BIG BANG by Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis. 28. BEYOND EINSTEIN: from the Big Bang to Black Holes (prepared by The Structure and Evolution of the Universe Roadmap Team). 29. Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory Explained (Infographic) By Karl Tate. 30. The Origin of the Universe by S.W. Hawking. 31. The Beginning of Time by S.W. Hawking. 32. A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss. 33. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. 34. The Origin and Creation of the Universe: A Reply to Adolf Grunbaum by WILLIAM LANE CRAIG. 35. Weisskopf, Victor [1989]: 'The Origin of the Universe' New York Review of Books. 36. The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. 37. M. Planck, The Theory of Radiation, Dover (1959) (translated from 1906). 38. Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays by S.W. Hawking. 39. David Griffiths, Introduction to elementary particles, Wiley, 1987. ISBN 0471-60386-4. 40. David Griffiths, Introduction to electrodynamics, Prentice Hall, 1999. ISBN 0-13805326-X. 41. Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1964. ISBN 0-201-02117-X. 42. D.A. Edwards, M.J. Syphers, An introduction to the physics of high energy accelerators, Wiley, 1993. ISBN 0-471-55163-5. 43. The Universe: the ultimate free lunch by Victor J Stenger (1989). 44. A Case Against the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos by Victor J. Stenger. 45. A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of X-rays by Light Elements by Arthur. H Compton (1923). 46. ABOUT THE DETERMINATION OF THE PHOTON POWER by Dr Sergej Reissig (2003), EFBR (Research & Development Office Reissig).

211

47. The Compton Effect-- Compton Scattering and Gamma Ray Spectroscopy by Dr. James E. Parks (2015). 48. Derive the mass to velocity relation by William J. Harrison (the general science journal). 49. BLACK HOLE MATH by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 50. The Gravitational Radius of a Black Hole by Ph.M. Kanarev. 51. The Gravitational Red-Shift by R.F.Evans and J.Dunning-Davies. 52. Matter, Energy, Space and Time: Particle Physics in the 21st Century by Jonathan Bagger (2003). 53. The 100 most influential scientists of all time edited by Kara Rogers. 54. Quarks, Leptons and the Big Bang by Jonathan Allday. 55. String Theory FOR Dummies by Andrew Zimmerman Jones with Daniel Robbins. 56. Einstein, String Theory, and the Future by Jonathan Feng. 57. Cosmos by Carl Sagan. 58. The Theory of Everything by S.W. Hawking. 59. A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. 60. The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. 61. The Grandfather Paradox: What Happens If You Travel Back In Time To Kill Your Grandpa? Written by Motherboard. 62. The human health effects of DDT ... by MP Longnecker (1997). 63. Side Effects of Drugs Annual: A worldwide yearly survey of new data and ... edited by Jeffrey K. Aronson. 64. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Siegfried Fred Singer, Dennis T. Avery (2007). 65. Acid Rain by Louise Petheram (2002). 66. Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, Correctives; Proceedings of a Symposium edited by National Academy of Sciences (U.S.). 67. What's wrong with food irradiation? (https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Irrad/irradfact.php). 68. Ammonia: principles and industrial practice by Max Appl (1999). 69. An Edible History of Humanity by Tom Standage (2012). 70. Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein (1916).

212

71. Neutrinos: Ghosts of the Universe by Don Lincoln. 72. The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Volume I, II and III) by Richard Feynman. 73. The Evolution of the Universe edited by David L. Alles. 74. The Universe: Size, Shape, and Fate by Tom Murphy (2006). 75. Paul J. Steinhardt & Neil Turok (2007). Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang. New York: Doubleday. 76. Carroll, Sean (2010). From Eternity to Here. New York: Dutton. 77. Astronomy for beginners by Jeff Becan. 78. PARALLEL

WORLDS:

A

JOURNEY

THROUGH

CREATION,

HIGHER

DIMENSIONS, AND THE FUTURE OF THE COSMOS by Michio Kaku. 79. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, 2nd ed., Basic Books, 1988. 80. Hugh Ross, Creation and the Cosmos, NavPress, 1998. 81. A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson (2003). 82. The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen W. Hawking (2001). 83. On the Radius of the Neutron, Proton, Electron and the Atomic Nucleus by Sha YinYue. 84. What Energy Drives the Universe? âˆ’ Andrei Linde. 85. Endless Universe by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok. 86. Greene, Brian. Elegant Universe. New York: Vintage, 2000. 87. Davies, Paul. The Last Three Minutes. New York: Basic Books, 1994. 88. Lederman, Leon M., and David N. Schramm. From Quarks to the Cosmos. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1989. 89. Singh, Simon. Big Bang. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. 90. Greene, Brian. Fabric of the Cosmos. New York: Vintage, 2005. 91. FUNDAMENTAL UNSOLVED PROBLEMS IN PHYSICS AND ASTROPHYSICS by Paul S. Wesson. 92. Griffiths, D. 1987. Introduction to Elementary Particles. Harper and Row, New York. 93. What is the Strength of Gravity? Victor Stenger Excerpted from The Fallacy of Fine Tuning (2011). 94. PHYSICS OF THE IMPOSSIBLE by Michio Kaku. 95. E I N S T E I N ' S COSMOS by Michio Kaku. 96. A Tour of the Universe by Jack Singal.

213

97. The Gravitational Universe by Prof. Dr. Karsten Danzmann; Horgan, John. The End of Science. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1996. 98. The Origin of the Universe and the Arrow of Time by Sean Carroll; Weinberg, Steve. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for Fundamental Laws of Nature. New York: Pantheon Books, 1992. 99. Adams, Douglas. The Hitchhikerâ€™s Guide to the Galaxy. New York: Pocket Books, 1979; Tyson, Neil de Grasse. The Sky Is Not the Limit. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

An image of quantum fluctuations blown up to the size of the universe

214

Outstanding Questions in Physics When did the first black holes form in pre-galactic halos and what is their initial mass and spin? What is the mechanism of black hole formation in galactic nuclei, and how do black holes evolve over cosmic time due to accretion and mergers? What is the role of black hole mergers in galaxy formation? Does gravity travel at the speed of light? Does the graviton have mass? How does gravitational information propagate: Are there more than two transverse modes of propagation? What is the structure of space-time just outside astrophysical black holes? Do their space times have horizons? What happens in a black hole?

Many others!

215

Questions are guaranteed in Science; Answers arenâ€™t

216

Thank you for reading this book. I hope that you enjoyed it, that you learned from it, and that you recommend it to friends, relatives, coworkers, bartenders, bus drivers, flight attendants, random passers-by, and pretty much anyone else you happen to meet.

217