| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« The Brain as explained by John Cleese | Main | As Girls Become Women, Sports Pay Dividends »

February 16, 2010

Fundamental Forces and Chopping Wood

Hartosh Singh Bal interviews Professor T Padmanabhan about the work for which he was awarded the 2009 Infosys Prize for the Physical Sciences, in Open Magazine:

Q You combine your interest in science with pursuits that can loosely be termed ‘spiritual’. Are these not at odds? What do you make of the assault on religion by someone like Richard Dawkins?

ScreenHunter_01 Feb. 16 11.33 A Dawkins has erected a straw man and knocked it down. I have no respect for this. It is very easy to knock down a particular class of models for God and religion. Russell and others, for example, have already done this a long time ago and far more effectively.

My take is that my concept of fundamental reality does not require any support from science or vice-versa. The two things lie in different domains and represent different types of knowledge. One is by its nature introverted, an inner knowledge, and the other is extroverted. Together, they complement each other.

Q Where does this other knowledge come from?

A The idea of direct experience lies beyond Aristotelian logic. It is born out of a personal knowledge—say, through a meditative experience. It is not translatable into the normal grammar of ideas, but nothing in ordinary logic precludes its existence.

Q Once you step beyond Aristotelian logic, what keeps you interested in physics? Does it not then become just a game?

A There was an enlightened Zen master who was asked what he did before enlightenment, and he replied, “I used to fetch water and chop wood.” And asked what he does now after gaining enlightenment, he said he fetches water and chops wood. Nothing external changes. Doing physics is like chopping wood and fetching water!

More here.

Posted by Abbas Raza at 05:34 AM | Permalink

Comments

If the idea of direct experience lies beyond Aristotelian logic, might first order predicate calculus help? Just a thought.

Posted by: Vesuvium | Feb 16, 2010 11:56:52 AM

The religion angle is actually a distraction from his actual work and intuitions about Gravity, which are very interesting and logical. Worth a read.

Posted by: Carlos | Feb 16, 2010 12:12:19 PM

I see, Carlos. You refuse to take my bait anymore! Well, let's see if Dave or Billy bite... :-)

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Feb 16, 2010 12:19:58 PM

I realize many of you may lack my innate skills in grasping complex math, but here is a relevant "dialog" of his that goes into more detail that you might enjoy.

http://arxiv.org/ps/0910.0839

Posted by: Carlos | Feb 16, 2010 12:22:16 PM


Abbas,

Thanks for the article. Every time I read something like this, a tiny speck of understanding is added to my very small accumulation of knowledge in this area. Even that tiny speck is rewarding.

Gravity as an emergent force, not a fundamental force - That's a new idea, for me, with which to be fascinated.

"...a natural way of extending Einstein’s theory to higher dimensions..." - Now that would be really awesome.

My calculus is too old and too rusty to be of much help to me these days. I keep thinking I'll audit of couple of classes and try to recover some of my old spark of mathematics. I'd like to be able to appreciate a lot more from these kinds of articles.

I liked the Zen master story.

Posted by: Norman Costa | Feb 16, 2010 1:08:02 PM

Well, let's see if Dave or Billy bite...
He was too vague and brief in his description of his own "religious" belief. I could very well agree with him, who knows. About the physics, I don't know enough to comment on it.

Posted by: billy | Feb 16, 2010 2:03:36 PM

Oh, you guys are no fun anymore! Dave?

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Feb 16, 2010 2:32:24 PM

You refuse to take my bait anymore!

Not provocative enough? This week's headlines do it better:

Dawkins gets step closer to world dream

Dawkins fits in new world just blocks from old one

Birds failed to fill Dawkins' void
(would bats have been better?)

Posted by: Carlos | Feb 16, 2010 2:37:46 PM

His work on gravity is interesting, especially related to Smolin's work.

Religion?
Some good new, and some bad news:
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 16, 2010 7:40:03 PM

Hmm-
Let us try this:
Let's just go with the ugly

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 16, 2010 7:45:33 PM

You will never know----

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 16, 2010 7:46:43 PM

Isn't this very similar to which Erik Verlinde just came up with?


http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

Posted by: Pepito | Feb 16, 2010 9:20:25 PM

Well that's it for me.

See y'all after Lent.

Posted by: Carlos | Feb 16, 2010 11:17:48 PM

Carlos, you have given us up for Lent??? There can be no higher proof of affection and esteem, I hope people realize.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Feb 16, 2010 11:21:07 PM

Part of the confusion in talking about gravity is that one always begins with the classical gravitational inverse square force law. This law involves the product of two point masses and the universal gravitational constant.
This law works magnificently for the planetary system and other classical systems at relatively large distances. The fallacy is to assume this law works all the way down to a point. Obviously that cannot be true. This law is evidently the first term of an asymptotic expansion.
People have calculated, for example, the force law around extended bodies using Einstein's field equations. Of course these are classical results with no Planck's constant h appearing anywhere.
The other problem with gravitation is also the lack of experimental facts. So far as I know, no one has ever observed gravitational waves nor have they ever observed the speculated graviton a spin 2 boson if it exists. It is possible to assume such a particle exists and construct a relativistically invariant Born series expansion similar to what Feynman did for the electromagnetic interaction; Feynman also did this many years ago for gravity, but many problems were encountered due to the complex non linear vacuum field equations mentioned in this article. Problems of convergence of the series are intractable. Many questions arise regarding the very existence of solutions and their uniqueness.
Also confusing the issue is that in calculating the energy levels of say the hydrogen atom, one obtains the correct results to very high precision without including the gravitational force at all. This leads one to believe that force to be small compared to the electric force; and indeed it is if one compares it to the classical gravitational force using the classical gravitational constant. But this tells us nothing about what the gravitational force is at small distances deep inside an atom or further down inside a proton or electron for example. We have no idea what the gravitational field is in these regions and it is absolutely false and misleading to assume, as many do, that the gravitational force in such regions is small or negligible. In fact who really knows what is going on deep inside a simple electron? What is it made of? Gravitation must be involved somehow.
On the contrary, I believe the gravitational force to likely be the most fundamental force of nature. We just do not understand it at small distances and high energies and possibly never will. After all, just because physicists have been very lucky so far in explaining so much information in a relatively simple way, does not mean gravitation can be so understood too. Remember that Planck's constant h first appeared to explain the blackbody radiation data at short wavelengths. How it relates to gravity at small distances may never be known even if more experimental data become available. It is difficult to see if some genius will come along and make the connection without more data and possibly even with more data.
I believe the constant claim that gravity is the weakest force, will turn out, in the end, to be absolutely wrong; It is more likely the underlying force of nature. It would be nice if the connection to thermodynamics of the field equations by the author might lead to the connection to h.
Who knows? But the physicists have been extremely lucky so far at explaining nature with relatively simple theories and concepts. However, when it comes to gravity, the luck may have run out.
Always remember this: The current “explanations” for strongly interacting particles and the speculated quarks are very much ad hoc explanations. None of them exclude a potential theoretical explanation in terms of gravitation at some point in time in the future. In fact, the danger of such ad hoc explanations is that the very assumptions can divert directions down the wrong path for decades, even centuries. No one likes to work a lifetime and come up empty handed do they?

Posted by: Winfield J. Abbe | Feb 18, 2010 12:58:58 AM

“The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic.”

— Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British author, philosopher, "An Outline in Intellectual Rubbish," Unpopular Essays (1950)

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 18, 2010 2:49:20 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

Nominations Now Open

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Gordon on Jonathan Haidt Decodes the Tribal Psychology of Politics

fa on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

Elatia Harris on Smells (and the people who write about them)

rjm on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

Rohan Maitzen on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

ray Butlers on Tax Justice: The Next Great American Movement

Pepito on Becoming Condoleezza Rice

Jaya Aninda Chatterjee on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

Steve on Becoming Condoleezza Rice

ed rackley on That's not music – that's just noise!

Philosopher's Beard on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

DS on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

Michael Cunningham on Suicide as Scene and Spectacle: Notes on The Bridge and Aokigahara - Suicide Forest

Bilal Tanweer on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

Nithin on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

omar on Learning Urdu

Ankur on Learning Urdu

hairlessOrphan on That's not music – that's just noise!

Namit on Gish Jen to Judge 3rd Annual 3QD Arts & Literature Prize

hairlessOrphan on That's not music – that's just noise!

Ankur on Learning Urdu

Frank on Smells (and the people who write about them)

Nick Smyth on That's not music – that's just noise!

Jeff Strabone on Tax Justice: The Next Great American Movement

panopticonopolis on Tax Justice: The Next Great American Movement

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed