Thursday, August 25, 2016

Deceiving Science versus Reproducibility: Should anything other than reproducibility take back seat?

The impact is not necessary a science. A scientific method usually starts with making an observation, asking questions, then forming a hypothesis to answers the question, make a prediction based on the hypothesis, do an experiment to TEST the prediction and then analyze the results to check whether the hypothesis is correct or incorrect, and finally reporting the result.
Image from OpenStax Biology

Reporting the result is usually done through publication.

So what is reproducibility? Being able to replicate the thing. This allows predicting the future, or what will happen for a given state or condition.

Humans or many other organisms relies on reproducibility to decide things. If things wouldn't be reproducible, we wouldn't know anything. We wouldn’t know how to reach the office, if the location of the office is not reproducible, we wouldn’t make delicious food, if the recipe of the food wouldn’t be reproducible to give similar taste. We wouldn't be asking questions like why, what, where, when if things wouldn't be reproducible. Even the scientific method that is described here would be wrong if it's not reproducible.

Humans or many life forms are always curious to know because knowing helps them to make correct decision or decision that is required for their survival, e.g. in the case of a bird, why it is able to recognize its food, why don't it take undigestible food such as sand and pebbles? It's because a bird has learned how to recognize its food because it's reproducible. If things wouldn't be reproducible, everything would be random from which we can get no knowledge.

But being curious to know (future in advance) can also make you in the trap of deception. Deceptions that are not reproducible. This is the reason, why many still believe in techniques like astrology which are not reproducible, media still promote it in new channels. It could make an impact, but is it a science.

In the case of publication, the number of citations decides its impact. It's like things that are more popular or well-liked is correct. If popularity decides it correctness is it even a scientific method. From history, we can learn that most popular theories of past have been denounced today and new/better theories have been constantly made to replace old ones.

Reproducibility should be the first preference, taking everything a back seat.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Entropy: Arrow of Time

But is entropy (disorderliness) of the universe increasing?

Book Conceptual Physics by Paul G. Hewitt defines second law of thermodynamics as
"Heat of itself never flows from a cold object to a hot object"

What is temperature?
Temperature is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance.
What is heat?
The energy transferred from one object to another because of a temperature difference between them is called heat.

So, in theory, heat will travel from hot object to cold object till the average translational kinetic energy of both the object becomes same.

Now, look at the complete universe. If second law of thermodynamics would have been the only rule for changing the average translational kinetic energy, then the universe would be in equilibrium i.e.  if you take any object in the universe, it would have the same average translational kinetic energy. Here I assume that universe is not expanding.
If universe would be expanding, then it would still be in equilibrium, but the temperature may go on decreasing with time.

As you can see, we can falsify both the statements by looking at our present knowledge of the universe.

Before we can go further, we have to understand that what gets transferred from hot object to cold object.
If you place a bucket of water in sunlight, the temperature of water increases. Similarly in the night, when there is no sunlight, again temperature of water decreases. So it is the electromagnetic light that changes the average translational kinetic energy of an object.

So, it nothing but the amount of electromagnetic light at a particular place determines, what will be the average translational kinetic energy of an object.

An object with more average translational kinetic energy will radiate more energetic electromagnetic radiation.

But why do, the universe is not at equilibrium?
It's because of rotation and revolutions of the object and also because the amount of electromagnetic radiation at any particular time or state of the universe is not constant.

Due to rotation and revolutions of the object, shadow (or hindrance) is formed in the way of electromagnetic radiations, so at a given place with the change in time, the temperature changes. An analogy can be our earth and sun.

The amount of electromagnetic radiation at any particular time or state of the universe is not constant because there is always an interconversion of electromagnetic radiation to dormant low energetic mass. (Einstein Equation (E=MC^2)

If you take entropy as the arrow of time ( the time I mean change of state of all the particles of the universe), then the definition of the entropy of disorderliness becomes fuzzy or wrong.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Do we live in an erroneous reality?


How do we see/feel? We see or feel by duplication.

Particles with similar arrangement will be seen or felt as same. Whereas particle with different arrangement will be seen or felt different.

But we don't see everything e.g. air which is still made up particles. It's because our eyes which itself made up of particles receive the photons or particles and brain which is again made up particles has developed a mechanism to only see photon particles of the visible spectrum (i.e seeing only a particular type of arrangement). Leaving that arrangement we cannot see anything.

But how can brain made up of particles only see photon particles arrangement? It is because of the arrangement of particles in our brain i.e receptors. As we all know a particular arrangement only fits with another particular arrangement just like lock and key. But it can be erroneous to some extent, same as we can make duplicate keys which are not exactly the same (i.e. remains within the error range).

Is free choice related to the degree of error we make? Can we change our reality?

I think yes because we are free to choose the amount of error. We/particles are free to choose both 8 and 9 in the above diagram even though they are not same. So you can say it either 8 or 9, that depends on you, and choosing is random.
Even force between the quantized particle depends upon its number (number of the quantized particle).   For example force between sun and earth depend upon its sizes. So the force (as it's not quantized) can never be perfect.


Whatever we measure is change (that is one is not same as other, one taken as a reference to compare other), and we can make the error to say that both are same, even though they are not, if it is in a range of making an error (±).


Monday, February 8, 2016

Is universe deterministic? What do you think?

Is universe deterministic?

Condition 1:

Imagine, a number of particles are finite in the universe, also, take the number of arrangement as finite.
Now imagine sides represent all the possible arrangement of a dice. Now start throwing the dice. As the number of possible arrangement  is huge, the probability of predicting the next arrangement is almost zero.
As you can see in the real world also, we cannot go from one state to another just randomly.

Condition 2:
Imagine, a number of particles are infinite, so the number of arrangement will also be infinite. Also assume that all arrangements are equally likely to occur. Thus, probability of predicting the next arrangement is zero as  a number of arrangement is infinite. So the result is same as condition 1

As we can see, we can disapprove the first two conditions by looking at our real world.

Condition 3:
Now imagine a number of particles are finite, also the number of arrangements are finite. But all arrangements are not equally likely to occur.
It requires little imagination
At each state, it can be only at one position (x), and got to another position (y). The probability of going from one position to another is 1.
Now image all the particles, I am taking three particles for simplicity.
Now look at state A and state B.


We may here argue that why Y position is towards right (i.e the position of Y is determined), it can be on left, top etc. that is it can be somewhat random.
Before saying it as random, we have to ask, what determines the particle going from X to Y.
The answer should be obviously other particles. So going from X to Y is deterministic, as a result, the complete universe can be deterministic.

Condition 4:
The number of particles is finite, but the number of arrangements is infinite. But all arrangements are not equally likely to occur.

The result is similar to condition 3, but the consequence will be time will run till infinite, not circular or repetitive like condition 3. This is also compatible with the real world, as space is just one (particles are many), so, number or arrangements will be infinite.

Condition 5:
The number of particles is infinite, so the number of arrangements is infinite. But all arrangements are not equally likely to occur.
The result may be same as condition 4.

If universe would be unpredictable, then we would never make predictions. We could not ask a question such as how, why, etc because it's not predictable.
Our universe can only be as it is because it is deterministic
or semi-deterministic (if there is a minute  ± error in the motion from going one state to another).
(e.g. instead of going point position for X to Y accurately, Y position is spread with femtometer radius of sphere, and particle can stay anywhere within Y)
So, the message is in order to bring a change, it should be a collective effort for lots of particles, that is lots of particles has to make desired error (or free choice that is limited to e.g. a femtometer), to have desired future we want. 

You have to make the initial conditions right and also continue the right conditions (which is easy) to have desired results. Evolution has done most of its job to bring initial condition right, we only need to continue the right conditions.

P.S. 
Particle I mean quantum fluctuations that occupy some space.