Author Archives: drgsrinivas

I am a general surgeon turned truth seeker and philosopher. I realize that there exist many superstitions in what we study as ‘science’ and which come in the way of Truth. I urge people who call themselves as rationalists and skeptics not to blindly swear by the teachings of ‘science’ but rather continue to remain critical as one would with any other social/religious beliefs. Otherwise the term ‘rational’ would become synonymous with ‘religiousness’, and rationalists would become the religious followers of a religion which portrays itself as Science.

Just by reciting and blindly believing in what is taught as science or by using the latest technology/ gadgets, we can’t claim as being scientific. For us to claim as scientific, we need to correctly understand the Nature. The prevailing notion is that Science, especially physics, is a difficult subject to grasp. But the truth is that true science is never too difficult to understand even for the average minds. To understand Nature, what one requires is just a child’s mind. If students find some science as particularly difficult to comprehend, it is highly likely that they are studying some fake science or mythical stuff. And there is a genuine reason for the prevailing physics phobia amongst the science students. How can we expect children to correctly understand fake science? How can anyone see things that don’t exist unless one deludes or pretends?

Help resurrect true Science and help reestablish peace and harmony in society.

Dr Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla
Andhra Pradesh

Mass or Inertia? What does the Higgs give to particles?

We know that all material objects in this universe including the electrons and quarks possess mass. While this sounds very simple, this very fact bothered physicists for a long time. How do particles and other bodies get their mass? As scientists pondered over this question, Peter Higgs came up with his wonderful theory: He proposed that some fundamental stuff or field pervades this entire space and that as particles interact with this field they get their mass. Apparently without interacting with the Higgs field, particles can’t have mass. But this proposition sounds rather strange. Mass is a fundamental property of material objects. It is a measure of the amount of matter in them. So any object or particle that is made of matter will have mass. So, where is the need for objects to interact with something else to acquire their mass? Why do we need to bring in the Higgs stuff to explain the mass of fundamental particles? Well, a simple explanation and a slight modification of Higgs theory will clear the confusion.

In our every day life, we measure the mass of objects with the help of common balance. Also we can know the mass of objects indirectly by measuring their weight. But we can’t use these methods of estimating mass in the outer space where no gravity exists. There, we need to measure the inertia of objects to estimate their mass. We know that inertia is the resistance offered by objects when we try to move them. The more the mass of an object, the more will be its inertia and the more will be the force required to move it from rest. But inertia of an object or the resistance offered by an object not only depends upon its mass but also upon the medium or the environment in which it exists. For example, it requires more force to move objects in water than in air. That is, the more the density and viscosity of the medium, the more will be the resistance and the more will be the force required to move objects. And conversely, the less viscous and less dense the medium, the less will be the frictional resistance and the less will be the force required to move objects.

In other words, inertia of an object (or the resistance offered by an object when we try to move it) not only depends upon its mass but also upon the frictional resistance of the medium. The same expressed in mathematical terms:

I m x fr

I is the inertia
m is the mass of the object
fr is the frictional resistance offered by the medium (or environment)

From this, we can learn that for inertia to become manifest, there must be some medium or some resistance in the environment. If there was nothing in the space and no resistance in the environment, inertia would become nonexistent and we wouldn’t be able to know the mass of fundamental particles. Also, if there wasn’t this thing called inertia in Nature, every object, tiny and big, would get accelerated to infinite velocities even with slightest force which is obviously prohibited in Nature. This implies that absolute vacuum doesn’t exist in Nature, rather our entire space is permeated by some resistive fluid medium. And our scientists have given a name to that stuff filling the universe i.e. Higgs field. But unlike what the scientists believe, what the Higgs ‘field’ gives to particles is inertia and not their mass.

Actually people have known and believed in the existence of some subtle medium or some fundamental stuff pervading this entire universe since ages and which they have called with different names in different times and different contexts. For example in ancient Hindu scripts it was mentioned as ‘Akash’, one of the ‘pancha bhutas’ or five elements that made this universe. And in the pre-modern era, it was known by the name ‘Ether’. Modern day scientists describe that as Higgs field in one context and dark matter in another context without realizing that they both are just one thing. And on this blog, we have described the same as cosmic ocean of photons or ultra-photons. And despite the different names and descriptions given, they all are one and the same, and the same one thing will explain all the phenomena in Nature from inertia to gravity and the wave like behavior of particles in DSE.

People may argue that Michelson Morley experiment had disproved the existence of ether. But if that was true, Michelson experiment would also disprove Higgs field and dark matter. If at all the experiment disproved something, it was just our misconception of the ether and not actually the ether.

Coming back to our discussion on Higgs, the proposition of the existence of Higgs field puts the first law of Newton in jeopardy. The law states that 1) an object at rest continues to be at rest and 2) an object in uniform motion continues to be in the same uniform motion unless acted upon by external force. While the first part of this law still holds true, the Higgs theory clearly disproves the second half of it. Because of the frictional resistance of the space conferred by the Higgs medium, any object moving in space is ought to come to rest at some point in time. Or, in other words, with Higg’s field pervading our entire space, the scenario of a moving body with no external force acting upon it doesn’t simply exist and so Newton’s first law becomes irrelevant in this Universe. And the story doesn’t stop there. The existence of Higgs field calls for review of many other scientific theories.

Contrary to the prevailing belief, it neither requires costly experiments nor complicated maths to do science but rather commonsense. But unfortunately, commonsense has disappeared from modern science as it has become purely mathematical. While scientists have been successful in explaining the Nature in mathematical terms, they have been failing to translate that into rational physical models. It is questioning of the irrational beliefs which paved the way to science. But this questioning attitude, the very basic foundation of science, has disappeared from the discipline of science nowadays. As people confuse science for technology, they blindly believe in everything that gets taught as science, however irrational and weird that may be. People need to realize that science and technology are two different things and that technology can be built without a thorough understanding of the underlying physics. For example radio was invented when scientists knew little about electromagnetic waves. While a better understanding of Nature definitely helps build better technology, technology can’t be argued as a blanket proof of science. If people remain as critical and skeptical in science as they do in politics and religion, they will realize that many of our modern scientific theories need rewriting.

DSE with ‘Cameras’ near the Slits

Why would the interference pattern disappear when we ‘look’ at the Photons?

When scientists put some detectors near the slits and tried to observe through which slit each photon was actually going, apparently the wave pattern disappeared and particle pattern emerged. This lead to another mind blowing conclusion of QM: When photons are not observed, they behave like waves but when someone looks at them they behave like particles.

How can we explain that? i.e. why would the wave pattern disappear when we place ‘cameras’ near the slits and try to observe the photon’s path?

Basically the appearance of wave pattern or particle pattern in DSE is not an all or none phenomenon. Depending upon the set up of the experiment, we may get a purely particle pattern or a purely wave pattern or a combination particle and wave patterns. And neither the wave pattern is specific to waves nor the particle pattern is specific to particles. It all depends upon how we setup the experiment!

By doing some adjustments in the experimental setup, We can make water waves produce particle pattern and also make light waves produce particle pattern

How to make waves produce particle pattern?

Screen Shot 2020-02-28 at 6.40.33 AM

Decrease the distance between the source and the screen
2) Make the slits narrow and deep
3) Increase the distance between the slits
4) Bring the detector screen closer to the first screen
5) And last but most important, decrease the sensitivity of the detector so that it only senses and picks up the strong impacts and not the weak impacts

And if we do that, surely water waves will produce particle pattern and even light will produce particle pattern. i.e only two bands come up on the screen. Also increasing the intensity of light beam will also change the pattern that appears on the detector. i.e wave pattern gives way to ‘particle pattern’.

Observing the photons’ path by keeping some sort of detectors near the slits alters the slit configuration (i.e it narrows/ deepens the slit) and hence the appearance of particle pattern. We don’t have to resort to absurd and mythical notions like photons knowing and changing their behavior when someone observes, ‘collapse’ of wave function etc.

Now, How to make particles produce wave pattern?

Screen Shot 2020-02-28 at 6.41.14 AM

Do exactly the opposite
1) Increase the source to the screen distance
2) Make the slits wide and shallow
3) Make the slits closer to each other
4) Take the detector screen farther away from the first screen, may be to the infinite
and last and most important- Make the screen highly sensitive i.e. it must pick up even the most subtle impact.

if we do that, we can make even our water particles to produce wave pattern outside the water environment. Even bullets, foot balls etc would produce a wave pattern.

So how the detector screen feels something or what pattern the detector screen shows depends upon the set up of the experiment and its sensitivity. Quantum physicists are right here in a way, the same thing may appear as a wave or as a particle depending upon the circumstances and how we look at it.

So waves can be seen behaving as particles and particles behaving as waves.
And that begs the question: Are they both different at all? Are there really two things called waves and particles in Nature? Now we are getting closer to the Truth and able to smell the Non-dual Nature this Creation.

True, there is only one thing. At the most subtle level, that exists as waves and at the gross level, the same manifests as material objects or particles. We may see a ball here. But it is actually a wave in the ether ocean at a more fundamental level. While the gross material form of the ball exists at just one location, its subtle wave form exists all over the space.