Abishek's Blog

I hav moved to wordpress

2009-07-01T00:11:00.000-07:00

From now on I will blog at www.mobiuz.wordpress.com

God’s goof-up leaves Project-Nature incomplete

2009-06-27T12:49:00.001-07:00

Starting from my mom, dad and bro, till my friends (especially jam), and now my uncle (with whom I stay in Abu Dhabi), have fallen victim (or should I say participants) to my dinner-table discussions (which sometimes start well before dinner time… lol) on spirituality/ god etc.

Today, my uncle and I were watching a Tamil film, in the climax of which, the hero follows Gandhi-ism to accomplish his goal. Later on we started discussing why this Gandhi-approach doesn’t seem to work in today’s world. The discussion slowly changed track, and we moved on to discuss nature and how man was affecting its balance (as claimed by many, today).

Well, give this a thought. Is today’s man really disrupting nature’s balance? Look at it this way- Be it the consequence of greed or selfishness or lust or sloth or even technological advancement, man still remains to be a part of nature, and the materials he uses are still parts of nature. Thus to claim that man is causing an imbalance in nature is a misconception! Alternatively, if one believes that man disrupts nature’s balance, then it becomes obvious that, some part of his actions are not a part of god’s design, or in other words, god’s design is incomplete. This interpretation of incompleteness in god’s design can be extrapolated to say that Nature, which is understood as god’s creation by the theists, has no control over certain actions of its entities such as humans, and probably even other living beings.

On the contrary, if the theists still believe that God is omnipotent and that he has destined things to people, etc, then they should also accept development as technology as a part of god’s design, in coherence with their belief that God controls everything, and for that matter, even the creation of the nuclear bomb, or consumptions of the world’s oil resources, or even I writing this blog-post !!!

Hence if God does not have complete control over one's actions, what is the use of prayers apart from the satisfaction that you are not the only one fooling yourself ??!!??

Boss - Subordinate convo

2009-06-26T07:36:00.000-07:00

I had gone to visit someone at his workplace in Mussaffa-Abu Dhabi last week.

I heard a guy, probably some kinda manager, shouting at this subordinate " we know this printer is not working, and u are no expert in fixing it. u have almost emptied my printer cartridge by printing sooo many blank pages ! now leave before you completely empty it...." The chap (office boy) just stares in confusion, and then leaves !

I couldn react ! ;-D

Are you a Certified Asshole ? -

2009-06-10T05:40:00.000-07:00

If you have doubts about that or if are curious to know what this is about (like me), check out

http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/

Below is a snapshop of my score.

The Independence-Day-Discussion: FdA1-A2

2009-05-27T01:38:00.000-07:00

It was 14^th of August 2005, and I was in Research room-II, (Prof. Katte’s office) working on my first research publication. (K. Srinivasa Ramanujam, S. Abishek, and Subrahmanya S. Katte, JTHT, published by AIAA, vol 20, no. 3, 2006, pp. 604-607). I realized something which I couldn’t comprehend completely. The night passed and so did my efforts in clarifying this thing to myself, but only in vein. The next day was 15^th of August, Independence Day. I knew Prof Katte and Ramanujam would come to college for the flag hoisting ceremony, and so waited for them. Soon after the National anthem, I ran to Prof. and Jam, and requested them to come to Research Room to help me get this doubt of mine clarified.

PS: This was just one out of the many things that we discussed that day, (or should I say argued… lol, that day)

The Discussion and hence, Conclusion- F_dA1-A2

The view factor between a differential area dA1 and finite area A2 is given by [1]

(1)

Where, θ₁ and θ₂ are the angles that the dA1 and a differential element dA2 on A2 make with the line joining the differential elements.

Figure(1)

Here, only the orientation of the normal of the differential area dA1 is considered but the orientation of the dA1 on its plane is not taken into consideration at all in the Eqn. (1).

Ie.

Figure(2)

Our Conclusion: Changing the orientation of a planar differential area dA1on its plane does not change the differential view-factor F_dA1-A2

Corollary to the above conclusion: The shape of the planar differential element dA1 does not change the differential view-factor F_dA1-A2 as long as the other parameters such as the direction cosines of dA1 remain unaltered.

Surprisingly, this point was not found to be mentioned in even one of the papers out the exhaustive list of publications we went through. It was found that the authors have predominantly used Case (1) in figure (2) without any justification.

References:

[1] Sparrow, E. M., “A New and Simpler Formulation of Radiative Angle Factors,” Journal of Heat Transfer,Vol. 85, No. 2, 1963, pp. 81–88.

Is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle Flawed or was his Experiment ? Uncertain Uncertainty !!!

2009-01-27T04:22:00.000-08:00

INTRODUCTION

The Uncertainty Principle

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle states that

In other words, the momentum and the position of any quantum particle cannot be experimentally determined very accurately at the same instant of same time or space, i.e. the position can be determined accurately only by inducing an uncertainty in the velocity of the quantum particle and vice-versa.

Heisenberg’s Experiment

Experiment 1: Measurement of position

To determine the position to a very high degree of accuracy, the quantum particle is illuminated with a very high frequency wave, the wavelength of which is extremely small compared to the order of magnitude of the size of the particle; say a gamma wave of wavelength λ=10^-12m. Due to the extremely small wavelength, the momentum of the wave is so large that the particle is given an impulse and hence, any further measurement of the kinematics of the particle would be erroneous as the particle would no longer be moving in its original path.

Experiment 2: Measurement of velocity

To determine the velocity of the particle is illuminated by a very low frequency wave; say with a wavelength λ₁, and the uncertainty in the position of the first measurement is also of the same order as that of the wavelength of the wave. Now, another reading is taken after a sufficiently long time using the same low frequency wave, again with an uncertainty in the position same as that in the first reading.

Now, the velocity is calculated as follows

v = d/T ; v: velocity; d: distance; T: time between the readings

d = L + O(λ₁) ; L: exact distance between the position of the particle during the two readings

O(λ₁): Uncertainty in the distance of order of λ₁

thus, v = L/T + O(λ₁)/T

If a sufficiently large time interval between the readings is taken then the velocity is measured with very high precision, whereas the position has an uncertainty of the order O(λ₁)

MY ARGUEMENT

Heisenberg did not say that neither position nor the velocity (or alternatively, momentum) can be calculated with good accuracy, but said that if one is calculated with high precision the other parameter loses its precision, and mathematically represented the same.

Now, consider Experiment 2. The waves used to take the two readings are both low frequency waves. Instead of this if a high frequency wave (as that used in Experiment 1) is used to take the second reading, then the position in the second case is determined with high precision, and the velocity of course measured with a precision better that the best precision that Heisenberg could have got by using the same waves. However after the second reading the particle’s path might change, but that is not of any interest to the researcher, as, the primary interest is to determine the position and velocity with high precision thereby detecting a possible flaw in the Uncertainty principle.

Thus concluding this one can be sure that at the instant of time and space of the second reading one can eventually end up with

Try the simple arithmetic with numbers yourself.

Above us ?? ! ! ??

2008-12-17T12:57:00.001-08:00

I have always been wondering why people look above at the sky, when they refer to the Almighty or the heaven. Where must have all this started? Well, these days it has probably become habitual to look above when referring to god.

Hmmm... lemme guess... Is it because people in earlier days knew about higher spatial dimensions?

Now, one might think why I am bringing higher spatial dimensions into this discussion. Well, now consider a flat-lander ie. a person who lives in a world with only 2 spatial dimensions. He is unaware of the word ''above''. Now, if you insert your hand through his plane-world vertically, he would just see something weird, increasing and decreasing in size on his ''flat-land''. The reason is that he is unaware of the third dimension. If you had never interfered with his world, he would have never known about a third dimension or in other words - something weird suddenly appearing and disappearing and changing in size. To a flat-lander you (in the third dimension) might just be mistaken for god!

When refering to God, the concepts of omnipresense and god-growing in size etc is very common, at least in Hindu mythology. An example is Vamana Avtar, where lord Vishnu grows in size to conquer the earth, sky and a King.

Extending the earlier analogy to our world, my guess is that at some point of time, the beings in the fourth dimension interfered with our world, by just appearing and disappearing and changing in size like that in our epics, due to which we just look up at the skies above us hoping ( ! ) to look at the higher dimension, or the so called 4th-dimensioner or 5th-dimensioner etc who we have mistaken for a form of God !!!

Note: For more explanation on the flat-lander refer to http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

Though language ducks, content deserves appreciation - The Times of India

2008-11-18T20:53:00.000-08:00

In my earlier post, I had mentioned about the blunder that The Times of India had committed with the usage of 'Isro' for 'ISRO'. Though language takes some beating from them, the content definitely deserves appreciation, as, today the following (picture 1) was written with regard to the human trafficking case against P.R.Sivakumar, Managing Director (overseas), Saravana Bhavan Hotel.

picture 1

On page 3 of The Times of India (Chennai, November 19, 2008) the news reads as "However according to the police sources, since Sivakumar was close to several politicians, he was not arrested then".

I am totally baffled by this sentence. Firstly, what does "police sources" mean ?
Next, when the police is dealing with an international case, how can politicians' support interfere with the law and order? Well, Sivakumar can be bailed out by politicians, but how can he not be arrested at all because of his personal relationship (friendship) with politicians ? Shouldn’t necessary action be taken on the policemen and politicians involved with the misuse of power ?

The Times of India definitely deserves appreciation for making this bold statement.

ISRO or Isro?? Ignorance or something else ?

2008-11-16T10:34:00.000-08:00

On the 14th of November 2008, 2030 hours, the Indian tricolour (painted on all sides of the MIP (moon impact probe, attached to the top of the main lunar orbiter) landed on the moon.

Picture 1, shown below is a segment of the news printed on the first page of The Times of India (Chennai, Saturday, November 15, 2008)
As highlighted, 'ISRO' was printed as 'Isro' (with small 'sro'). Further, on page 10 (refer picture 2) of the same issue, 'ISRO' was again printed as 'Isro', this time not in the middle of a sentence, but the very headline !

Picture 1

Is this because of the ignorance of the editor(s) or is the lay-off showing its effect here as well.. lol
It looks like the editor(s) is/are very familiar with the usage of capitals for the 'US', 'USSR', etc, but not 'ISRO' which is the very subject of the whole content !

Picture 2

I have heard ISRO being pronounced as 'issro', on the contrary US is not pronounced as 'us' nor the USSR as 'usserr', and hence, i guess, the error.

What is funnier is that no apology was given for the BLUNDER committed, in any successive issues.

Send Your Name Around The Earth On NASA's Glory Mission

2008-09-27T18:34:00.000-07:00

For more information, please visit

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_08242_GLORY_Mission.html

World's Famous Atheists and Deists and their quotes

2008-08-04T20:24:00.000-07:00

What i mean by an Atheist is, A FREE THINKER !!

so here are a few...

Albert Einstein - NEEDS NO INTRODUCTION
"I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied it, but have expressed it very clearly. If something is in me which can be called Religion, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our SCIENCE can reveal it..."

Richard Feynman - American Physicist : for his work on quantum electrodynamics, Feynman was a joint recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965
" GOD was invented to explain mystery..."

Steven Weinberg - American Physicist : was awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, for combining electromagnetism and weak force into electroweak force
"Religion is an insult to human dignity, with or without it, you would have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things... But for good people to do bad things, that takes Religion..."

Thomas Edison - American Inventor
" I have never seen the slightest proof of the religious theories of heaven -hell, of future life of individuals, or of a personal God..."

Stephen Hawking - English Scientist
"So long as the Universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the Universe is completely self-contained having no boundary, no edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed, it would imply Be. What place, then, for a creator ?? "

Ernest Hemingway (1899 - 1961) - American Author
"All thinking men are Atheists..."

George Bernard Shah (1856 - 1950) - Irish Bron, English Playwright :
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one..."

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) - German Philologist and Philosopher
"Faith means, not wanting to know what is true..."

Emile Zola (2 April 1840 - 29 September 1942) : French Novelist, a major figure in the political liberalization of France
"Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last cuhrch falls on the last priest..."

Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) - American President
"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession..."

Napoleon Bonaparte - French Emperor
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet..."

This post is not intended to show anything personal !
well, it depends on one's nature.. just like in mathematics some are axioms and some are proofs ! there ends the matter ! :-)

I am NOT an Atheist, but I define my God a little differently... ;-)
read my first post on this blog, to learn more...

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is FLAWED !!!!

2008-07-31T20:15:00.000-07:00

.
.
.
Still shaping my explanations into an acceptable form...
Will post in a couple of days !
.
.
.

Is Brayton Cycle THE ideal Gas Turbine Cycle ???

2008-07-26T20:46:00.000-07:00

I STRONGLY DISAGREE BRAYTON CYCLE BEING MENTIONED AS "THE" IDEAL CYCLE FOR GAS TURBINE APPLICATIONS !!!!!

Content Removed temporarily
patent work in progress....

Higher Temporal Dimensions ( ? )

2008-07-18T05:32:00.000-07:00

Well, the last couple of days, I have been dwelling into and trying to understand the hottest and the most discussed research topic among the physicists-The Theory of Everything(TOE). The String Theory(ies), the M-Theory (M-Membrane), etc. are considered to be various milestones in the hunt for the TOE.
Well, until String theory we knew only the Newtonian dimensions, that are
Zeroth dimension: just a point
First dimension: line
Second dimension: plane
Third dimension: third axis namely x, y , z, allowing to measure depth as well.
Fourth dimension: TIME
Well, you can see that the first dimension is nothing something that allows a range of zeroth dimensions with one extra degree of freedom, and the second dimension is something that allows a range of first dimensions with an extra degree of freedom, and same for third dimension as well. The fourth or the temporal dimension is that which allows range of change in the observable spacial dimensions.

Now String theory suggests that there are 6 more dimensions which, in a similar fashion allows a range of the closest lower dimension. This introduces the concept of Parallel Universe. The higher dimensions increase in degrees of freedom there by introducing small changes among the parallel universe, to enormously large changes such as the Big-Bang happening in a completely different way, and laws of physics being completely different. The reason for only 11 dimensions is that, it is the limit of human imagination, where the Reality ceases to exist, such as I am standing at two places at the same time, I am drinking coffee, but it changes to tea after it touches my tongue, etc.
In this post I am trying to put forward my imagination about a higher temporal dimension. All this while we were talking about higher spacial dimensions, which are pretty obvious because we are able to see it and feel it. Now, Time is one dimensional in its own way, that is, there is only back and front, ie. past and future, well (ofcourse the present as well, but that doesn't change the one dimensionality of time!). But it has only one degree of freedom, that is forward in which we can move.
I DISAGREE !
Now consider a thread on which an ant is moving. For an observer outside or on the ant, the ant is moving only in one spacial dimension. Now if you twist the thread a little into a curve then, for an observer watching the ant, he is moving on 2 dimensions (within the same coordiante system-or same perspective), but for the ant, it is still one dimension. But when one shifts to a cylindrical coordinate system, even if you put an observer outside, the ant's motion is still one dimensional. So, to understand what I am trying to say in this post, one should be sure that he is seeing everything from the same perspective, or co-ordinate system (though this term is a misnomer in this context). Now when you hold two points ont he thread and twist it again(imagine the thread sagging), then the motion of the ant becomes 3 dimensional for an observer outside, but for the ant the motion is still one dimensional. Now when the motion of the ant is 2 dimensional, the ant is able to see its path either forward or backward as a chord can be drawn touching its current position and a past position or future position without touching the immediate past or present correspondingly. And when the motion is three dimensional, even in that case the ant can see its path.
In a similar way,if time is seen to be multidimensional, the the past and future can be seen or revisited, but cant be altered. This idea is in coherence with the concept of parallel universes or the multiverse. Now, if time is seen as 2 dimensional, then the number of degrees of freedom increase from 1 to 3 at every single instant of time viz. front, front from left position, front from right position, but back, again is inaccessible as it is similar to the ratchet and pawl mechanism. Every position in time has atleast 3 distinct degrees of freedom when observed from this perspective. This is again in accordance with the String theory as, this multidimensional temporal dimension proves that there are infinite number of parallel universes.
I gave a thought about higher order temporal dimensions but am not able to write down something concrete, so I leave it to our discussion here, to help me build on it.

My definition of GOD ( ? )

2008-06-28T20:01:00.000-07:00

This being my first blog, let me start with GOD !

In a nutshell, I define god as the universal unit for what is unknown,
ie. GOD = I DON'T KNOW.

Elucidation:

When one is holding a glass of water, and is feeling thirsty, he wouldn't look for unknown or otherwise known as supernatural (misnomer!) powers to help him drink the glass of water, on the contrary, if he has to buy a bottle of water he might depend a little on luck as there is always a possibility of the bottle of water not being available in the shop. This simple example shows that one has to depend on unknown factors, only if he is unaware of its existence.
V=IR was true even before Ohm proved the relationship and Nature was according to Newton's Laws of Motions even before Newton coined them ! But before these were published, it was believed that these things happened because of (pretty obviously) unknown factors. There is always a possibility that people believed that things fall down to the earth because GOD made it so. Well, I totally agree with this.

Now, try to the following questions
What is the exact distance between where you are and where I am ?
What is the age of the universe ?
What is the name of the person who painted the your school's wall ?

Well I am quite sure that your answers would be "I dont know". If u had noticed the first question's answer should have the dimensions of length, that of the second has the dimensions of time, etc., but still you said I don't know!

Now, coming back to the apple falling, as I already said, one would have given the same reply I don't know, if questioned why it happened, before Newton wrote down the Law of Gravitation.
Now stepping back a couple of billion years, ie. when life on earth began and NOTHING was known, it was all GOD's law. Now as discoveries in science progressed, the same existing physical phenomena were renamed as Ohm's law and Newton's Law, Fourier Law, and so on.

The following plot (not exact) is shown to explain that as more and more is known by the scientific society less and less is explained as GOD's laws.

The curve hits the time axis when the Theory ofEverything ( ? ) is ready. Until then, there will be may questions for which one might HAVE to say I don't know or otherwise GOD only knows. The asymptotic trend indirectly shows my slight pessimistic view towards the development of Theory of Everything (?)

But it is unfortunate that all people don't have the same amount of knowledge, as a result of which what is Physics for someone is God for someone else. This is just the extremely large number of degrees of freedom that nature destines for on the single system-THE HUMAN BEINGS !