Immortal Nature

      Today we have an understanding of Nature in a way where certain things are regarded as laws of Nature. They are regarded as laws because the Nature’s behavior has never been found to violate them. The first among them is the law of conservation of energy. It states that energy (and here energy includes matter also) cannot be created or destroyed. However, it can be transformed from one to another of its many forms. In fact, this transformation goes on unceasingly in Nature and all natural phenomena are the result of this transformation. Therefore, firmly established scientific law of Nature is that in universe nothing can be created and nothing can be destroyed. The second such law is that in Nature every fundamental particle has its antiparticle. The antiparticle is completely opposite and reversed form, like a mirror image, of its particle. The three spatial dimensions, charge and direction of time of a particle are reversed, like a mirror image, in its antiparticle. It may be a little bit difficult for common man to understand this reversal but mathematical tools conveniently deal with this process. The third scientific law is that Mass, an integral property of particles, has gravity. Gravity is felt and detected by its signature tune, that is, by its force of attraction (of every other particle in the universe.

 The theory of relativity, the modern tool of understanding Nature, teaches us, apart from the peculiar character of Nature, that we should be less arrogant in taking positions – making assertions and denouncements. It also teaches us that we may one day find ‘truth’ that should be the outcome of some frame of reference other than that with which we are identified and based on which we judge things, that such truth should be unknown to us now and that it should be a truth equally valid.

  Baffling human mind is the entity that we call ‘matter’. We know the ‘matter’ and harness its properties to our advantage, and yet we   do not know what in essence it is. The more we know about it, it becomes apparent that less we know about it. Matter has many inherent properties like mass (in all its forms) and charge, spin, parity etc (at the subatomic level). It is not possible to describe mass, charge, spin or parity in terms that are independent of each other. We simply define one entity in terms of another entity. We define mass in terms of the force of weight; or, charge in terms of the force of attraction and repulsion etc. In our scientific age every layman uses these concepts in his daily life but not a single physicist in the world today knows what they really mean ‘deep down.’ That is the situation with quantum mechanics as of today. It makes extensive use of things like mass, charge and other ideas borrowed from classical physics. And it discovered some new things of its own that describe particles-spin and parity, for instance. But it can say no more about the origin of these features than it can about the origin of mass and charge.

  What is mass? To this question, we get two answers. First: mass is a measure of the quantity of matter in a body. It may be understood as the quantity of atomic nuclei (since they contain the bulk of the mass of atoms) in a given volume of substance. The second definition of mass is that mass is a measure of the inertia of a body or, in other words, a measure of the resistance the body offers to any change in its state. In the most elementary case, mass determines the resistance of a body to any alteration in its position in space.

  On the present view of things, particles experience actual transformations and also so-called virtual transformations that underlie their interactions. Thus mass acquires yet another aspect in determining the energy of the virtual quanta of fields. All this makes mass a very intricate concept. On the one hand, mass is some kind of characteristic of the particle as such; on the other, mass is a determining factor in all interactions of the particle. Undoubtedly, the other particle characteristics should be just as complicated. Today, all inner essence of entities of the micro world come up against this greatest of unconquered peaks of physics- the interaction of the two basic forms of matter, substance and the field. Particles of substance possess properties of the field and the field quanta have material properties. Which is the ‘most fundamental’, which is primary – substance or the field?

  Einstein spent many years working on a unified field theory that would incorporate all known types of fields and particles, but all his attempts failed. Physicists gradually came to the view that neither field nor substance is primary, that both in equal measure are the fundamental and primary aspects of matter as such.

  In search of the elemental primary unit of matter we have gone deep down it and found that at some level matter and field of energy merge into each other. They both become different facets of a single thing that appear differently under different conditions. When we consider that a particle is an excitation-quantum of the corresponding field, we find that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics get a new and harmonious mutual understanding. Because, here, from this point of view the very concepts ‘particle’ and ‘field’ merge into a unified ‘quantum field.’ Interactions of different quantum fields cause quantum particles to scatter, breed or transmute into other quantum particles.

  Scientists may find it necessary to account and explain each of the numerous subatomic particles of matter, or quanta of field discovered during their search. But to those who like to draw the logical conclusion out of this, it becomes plain that there is a presence of large pool of energy that manifests differently under different conditions. Einstein continued to work on the unified field theory till the end of his last days. In 1959, Heisenberg wrote a paper, ‘Remarks on Einstein’s outline of Unified Field Theory’, in which he analyzed the reasons for Einstein’s failure. He said that the essentially remarkable attempt, at first seemed to fail. At the very time when Einstein was working on the unified field problem new elementary particles were being discovered in endless succession, followed by new fields correlated with them. Owing to this there was no solid empirical ground for the implementation of Einstein’s programme, and his attempt failed to yield convincing results.

  Science (that is, methodical search by analytic mind) in its relentless pursuit of the ‘single primary unit’ of all things that exist, and which is now conceived by scientists as unified field, has always been faced with a dilemma. And this dilemma seems beyond resolution unless one brings into picture a factor that should be endowed with capricious will. To bring into picture such a factor is anathema to science as it puts a question mark on the legitimacy of monotonous and blind principle of deterministic cause and effect on which science is founded.

  Attempts have been persistently made by theoretical physicists to use the equation to compute the mass spectrum and other fundamental properties of elementary particles, which would yield a unified theory of excited states of a universal spinor field. However, there always remained the possibility of playing a role by a factor that seemed to be alien to the equation. This possibility arises from the fact that excited states can also be the result of interactions between fields. And if there is only one field its excited states are manifestations of its ‘self-action’, i.e., its interaction with itself. It is observed with striking insight:  “The ability to interact only with itself is an important property of the unified field, and the latter-day theoreticians did not invent it. It is the property that ancient natural philosophers had also ascribed to their primary matter, which is but natural for any primary matter by its very definition as the sole cause and essence of all things and phenomena in the world. The unified spinor field’s ‘self-action’ means that the differential equation describing it must be non-linear, as the wave function must enter it raised to some power.”

  Since ancient time philosophers, who used mind and its logic – the ultimate tools of humans – and yogis, who considered mind an obstacle in knowing the final truth and resorted to various means to quiet it, have both labored to understand the properties of elusive primary unit of all things that exist. Both have described the fruits of their labors in their own ways and with different contents. In this task in modem times scientists have got precedence over philosophers. One scientific observation states that the unified field theory must satisfy the following requirements: 1. The field operators in the equation must refer not to a specific particle but to matter as a whole; 2. Particles must correlate with the proper solutions of the field equation; 3. The equations must take interactions into account, i.e., they must be non-linear, the mass of particles must derive as a consequence of their interactions, and the concept of a ‘bare particle’, a particle in itself, cannot have meaning; 4. Particle production and decay are computed by selection deriving from the symmetry of the equations; 5. Provided the selection rules and invariance  requirements  are satisfied, the heuristic principle is the equation’s simplicity.

These requirements indicate that the unified field must be capable of self-excitation. This is essential for the primary matter to be capable of producing an elementary particle. And different particles will correspond to different excitation states, or, in other words, every particle corresponds to a certain degree of excitation. Then we can quantize the unified field and determine the smallest ‘portion’ of the primary matter, the ‘building block’ out of which everything is made: the elementon. One of the major difficulties that we, humans, face in our search of primary element is that we have no way to proceed in the matter but by starting from a point, a thing, which we already ‘know’. We take this thing as a reference point and beyond doubt, which cannot be questioned.

  But the creation is so harmoniously whole that there is no reference point wherefrom one can proceed and relatively find out the remaining of this whole. And, at the same time, every point in this whole would serve as a reference point to proceed. But, then, each point would turn into an independent island with its own validity and law. Then, one may proceed from the starting point and reach the destination, and equally he may proceed from the destination and reach the starting point. To put it in simple language, we take for granted , for example, that there are hours, minutes and seconds, the division of time, and proceed these concepts as reference point to go further and know the ultimate nature of time. We take for granted that matter (that is, atoms and atomic sub particles) does exist and treating this as reference point in our investigation we precede further to find the primary element. It is the human way to know. It is the mind’s way to understand.

  Suggestions have been made that it is neither space as a neutral background of physical processes nor time as such that are discrete, but the unified spatio-temporal world, which is composed of cells in which space and time loss their relativistic connection and become independent. Physicists build models out of the known familiar things to understand complex phenomena of Nature. Then, to proceed further, they make necessary corrections and adjustments in these models, which are required to explain the results obtained from experiments carried by them. Further, to make their understanding of these complex phenomena accurate and precise, physicists devise mathematical tools to express the complex relationship involved. In case the operation of these mathematical tools suggests the existence of an entity that is an outcome – a solution – of the mathematical problem, they expect to find the suggested newer elements in real Nature and carry out search for them. Once the newer elements suggested by the mathematical solutions agree with things in real Nature, physicists further adjust and modify their models and fine tune them accordingly. Thus goes on the process of uncovering the secrets of Nature.

This document is systematically sequential. Read NEXT here.

Join discussion:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: