TIME TRAVEL AND “IT”

In a recent experiment Australian scientists made time travel possible. They sent a “photon” back to past. This experiment is very recent and created much curiosity throughout the world as it was published in world’s premier scientific journal; Nature.

The experiment is compatible to Einstein’s concept of a wormhole. According to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity space and time are interconnected and can be called a space-time curve. A skew in this curvature can cause a hole through which one can go back to the past .And General Theory of Relativity has been proved beyond doubt.

But here comes the very pragmatic and simple argument called grandfather question against the notion of possibility of going back to the past. The argument says if it is possible for you to go in to the past you will be able to stop your grandparents to meet (like killing your grandfather!), thereby stopping your birth itself. So logically it is impossible to go in to the past.

Then how do we come to terms with these two conflicting scenarios which are both true!

Let me tell you that a photon although is a particle is actually the smallest “packet of energy”. As everyone knows mass and energy are interchangeable and from the famous equation of special theory of relativity of Einstein, E= mc,² where E stands for energy and m stands for mass and c stands for the speed of light (which is a constant). The mass of a photon is equal to zero at rest is actually also a wave.

Photons and also other extremely small particles are dealt in quantum mechanics where things act in a very queer fashion, to say the least. The shape, size and momentum etc. are not very determinable as we are used to in daily life. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says that we cannot measure the position and momentum of a quantum particle simultaneously with precision. In the very complex and strange world of quantum mechanics whatever knowledge we gain from daily life of physical world begins to falter.

In almost similar fashion Einstein’s theory of relativity makes us lose our usual way in the macro world of gigantic dimensions like the intergalactic space, mammoth black holes and speeds nearing that of light. With greater speed time becomes slower than when at usual speed we encounter. Black holes are enigmatic objects which do not emit light yet are at core of the galaxies creating sources of vast energies.

Also problematically Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics do not go well with each other fundamentally. Only very recently scientists have been able to come to a little bit of rapprochement between the two but not at all totally. Sending photons to “past” through worm holes is one such effort towards the rapprochement.

So it is possible to go back to the past yet it is impossible!

Where does this leave us then? The conclusion is that, the more we delve deeper and deeper in to something and know more we begin to know that we know nothing. There is something unknowable which will elude our grasp however we or the scientists may try now or in any time in future. New questions and new mysteries will always engulf us (like the case of dark matter and dark energy that scientists are grappling to solve these days).

There is something in Upanishads which says Brahman is not describable.

“IT” is the only knowledge yet ever unknown.

THE DRESS CODE

As I was watching a BBC program I came across a piece of news that American school girls were unhappy with their dress code. They have started a movement through social media like twitter to wear dress in school as they wanted to. In US school uniforms are not in vogue but girls are prohibited to wear skirts too short or backless or cleavage showing dresses. They are punished if the dress code is breached, like they are sent back to their homes or wear a long shirt on top of their dress in the school. These girls are objecting saying what they wear is their matter. They are objecting to the proposition that what they wear may “disturb” some boys. They are saying that boys have the responsibility to have control over their emotions and instincts. Some girls showed themselves in the TV show wearing shorts and cleavage revealing clothes and said that these are not allowed in the school and if they wear it they will be punished. More so if the girl is amply endowed in chest and hip.

In 1930s when England’s first women’s cricket team visited Australia the regulation dress was a skirt which had to be not more than four inches from the heel. These days some women play tennis wearing skirts which are “babies of skirts” as my wife described them. And nobody seems to bother.

So what should be the dress code or should there be a dress code at all. The question is serious as it is a fundamental question which even ignites wars in places like Afghanistan and other Muslim dominated countries. There the proper dress code does not even allow women to reveal their faces. Many women are unhappy that this should be such and the social unrest among women and who support them have caused wars between more liberal and conservative sections of people. But the problem among women of Afghanistan and US school girls is not of fundamental difference but of degree. The main problem is whether women should wear whatever they like regardless of what men or even other women think that these may cause problem and help to kindle uncontrollable passions among men. The argument for the women is that it is not there matter that men are troubled by such and who misbehave in response to any kind of dress is their problem. In Islamic states the burden of societal responsibility in these matters are put squarely on the shoulders of women so much so that women are called evil. In other societies the response varies in degrees. In India (my city Kolkata) 20 years back heads would have turned if a woman wore tight jeans. Even now it is considered obscene (even by women) in most parts of India if a woman wears mini skirt in a city street. I think women are to a great degree justified in the argument of their right to choose whatever dress they want but is there a limit to it? Suppose some women come out in streets wearing nothing at all or wearing bikinis? Where should we stand then? Not every male or female are same and their degree of excitement and their control on that excitement is not same. Even within a single person degree of excitement changes at different times. I have found out that in some days when I am too busy with my occupations and problems that even an attractive naked woman would not have my attention whereas at other times a hint of cleavage would spur animal instincts in my mind. Not everyone is Sri Ramakrishna who could control his instincts to the degree such that even when an amply endowed young woman sat on his lap stark naked his mind did not budge from God! And the question does not encompass women only. I, in a moment of madness, posted a picture of mine eating my lunch with my upper half of the body without any clothing in Orkut profile and a woman told me that it was horrible because it showed my thick chest hair. She also said there is a place for everything. If I wore this dress in a beach nobody would have objected to but in a public place it was objectionable. I also read a report that in middle east people found it objectionable that south Indian men wore lungis in such a way that it was folded up to their knees. They found it obscene and some laws were created to ban it.

So clearly not every dress is acceptable everywhere. But what is the boundary line and who would set it? As I have said earlier it varies to extreme degrees between cultures and places and time. I would imagine the amazement and pique of a person from Europe from middle ages if he happens to see dresses worn by modern day men and women even in Asia.

I do not think whatever I wish I dress argument is justified. Apart from personal security the opinion of others matter when it is in public and when others are involved. You simply cannot ignore the emotions and opinion of others if you are to mix with them publicly, in any matter whatsoever.

So the right balance has to come out in context of a particular place, time and culture. You can go nude in some of the beaches but you have to be covered up to head if you are in Afghanistan or in Europe in times of inquisition. Also if I go out in a dhoti or with a pajama punjabi in streets of Los Angeles or Zurich there will be a few eyebrows raised.

So coming to the point I started with what should be the solution for the American school girls. To my mind the best solution is a school uniform although that might not be to the taste of a quite a lot of Americans. A school uniform with taking opinion of all concerned will stop punishments and grievances. It should be democratic for all concerned like the country itself.

IS TRUTH SUBJECTIVE

As everyone can understand, there is this puny you and unimaginably enormous cosmos around you. Whether you live or die matters little to this infinite universe. What difference it makes to galaxies thousands of light years away and the beings that may be there whether you are there or not. So one can say that universe is objective, your existence inside it matters little.

However from another angle this universe ceases to be once you are not there. The universe is there as long as there is perception of it within you. When the perception dies the universe ceases to exist. The sight, sound, smell and the perception itself that the universe is there is no more. Hence universe is subjective. With you the universe is born and with you universe dies.

Similarly whether one is doing right and wrong is both objective and subjective. Let us take the case of a most heinous crime, murder. Objectively any murder or killing is wrong and a crime. Nazis killed millions during Second World War particularly during Jewish holocaust (about 11million were killed). To the outer world it is a crime and murder. But to the Nazis it was rightful thing to do, a revenge for all the miseries heaped on them by the Jews throughout the ages. When the allied forces conquered Germany they killed 5.5 million Germans which are not perceived as murder but rightful killing.

What al Qaeda is doing today, killing innocent people is right to them because they believe they are doing it for the right cause whereas to the many of the rest of the world it is most heinous crime. If you kill somebody because he kills your husband may be right to you but not to the relatives of the killed person.

In our day to day life there is always an opposing point of view. What is right to you is completely wrong for someone else. Just like India and Pakistan both feel Kashmir is part of them. Since each has an own world view and a universe of his own, which as I said is subjective the truths are also subjective. So it is true for an atheist that there is no god as it is true for a believer that there is god. In a subjective universe both is true and there are many truths as opinions.