Qamar Riaz

Deputy Director Audit , Auditor General of Pakistan

This conversation is closed.

A perspective to imagine our Universe

Understanding universe is the question of my life.
I feel universe is linear ( take it literally).
Suppose, the first point is where big bang happened ( Trillions of trillions light years away) and second point is elementary particle (electron or Higgs Boson) of your brain. The distance between these two points is imaginable and definite it may appear very big number. The distance traveled between these two points is the age of universe.
On this linear line, Sub atomic particles comes first, atoms, molecules, structure, human. earth, sun, trillions of galaxies, and the point where big bang happened.

  • Aug 4 2013: I think you will find that time is a very poor yardstick. Also, the assumption that the universe began with the Big Bang is based on what? Suppose the entire universe is sucked into an enormous black hole. What happens to the Black hole when there is nothing left to suck into it? How do you know this isn't a cyclic process? Also, how many dimensions does your perspective have? Shouldn't your model of the universe have the same number of dimensions as the universe?
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: Sir Stuart, the question you raised are very interesting and difficult. I am trying to answer them in simple way so that you may find some appreciation of my perspective of universe. I am going to expand it main discussion.
  • Aug 4 2013: Hello Qamar.
    Fascinating subject. I know nothing so please forgive me.
    You said, "The distance traveled between these two points is the age of universe."
    Einstein said that he believed past, present and future all exist right now, at this exact moment
    and there is no such thing as time. I believe he is right.
    If he is, then there is no time, thus no age. This could mean these two points, or any point,
    anywhere within all of these points, are just other parts of the whole. One is not older or younger
    than another. Just a thought.
    Part of my own theory is as follows: I believe our lives are actually lived on or in a quantum level, not the level of physics.
    Snap your fingers. The "time" of our existence in comparison to all of "time" is faster than snapping your fingers and
    faster by a lot. A second and a light second cancel each other out. They are the same. Virtually no time at all.
    Our size, in relation to objects in the universe, or the universe itself, is so small, it is quark-like, string-like, or even smaller and could not be seen with the most powerful microscopes. We wouldn't even cast a shadow.
    That mimics a quantum level as I see it. We pop in and out of existence, or between states of matter and anti-matter exactly as do quanta which vibrate in this manner 3 trillion times a second.
    Even at this quantum level and at the physical level of physics,there are actions involving laws, mass and velocity that mimic each others level, and are also different.
    If something has enough mass, it can and does bend light. This is known as gravitational lensing.
    This is what I sometimes think is actually our universe, be it extremely tiny (quantum) or extremely large and vast (the world of physics).
    This gravitational lensing, thus creates an incredible and enormous mirror, regardless of whether the universe is large or small and what we think we see, perceive and even "measure" is actually looking into mirrors which mirror distances that don't actually exist. Reflections.
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: Well, it was quite thought provoking comment, thanks for sharing your theory which took us to quanta level of our existence and i got trapped in mirror paradox.
      I feel that Universe is such a big phenomenon that it can not be contained or explained with simple sets of laws. The laws are becoming complex as we are growing old (i am talking about universal age). The creation of this universe is an unimaginable event but it does not seize to exist. And i feel if something is unimaginable it is an easy prey of our wilder imagination. Your theory struck me with something and i am going to expand it. Keep in touch. sir
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: Dear Random Chance, last night when i was reading your thoughts i was struck with something. I felt that whole past is just like a single vibration of quanta.
      For example, with little string vibration i visualize my remotest memory of drinking water at a lake when i observed that water is a perfect mirror when clear and calm. So i may have lived for 25 years to witness it at a lake, but now this exists in a single quanta of matter residing inside my brain.
      So i felt that no matter it may have taken trillions(just to make it big age) of years to reach here, but now the whole past is just one vibration away. Thats amazing dimension. Lets work on this together, i would like to evolve it with you. Your theory sounds exotic. I mean we can work together to propose it in a scientific paper.
      • Aug 6 2013: Hi Qamar.
        As best as I can understand this, and I 'm not so sure I do or am smart enough to,
        it is all quanta, vibrating 3 trillion times a second.
        The physicist John Wheeler said many years ago that, "Time was invented so that everything wouldn't happen at once." When I read that I thought, "well, everything is happening at once, everywhere in the universe and there is enough room for it all to happen." The past still exists somehow. It also meant that all of what we call time is present at this very moment, past, present and future.
        My problem comes with the idea that time seems to flow backward, as that is the only way it can be measured. It can never go forward or into the future because every tiny increment of time, which is our memory of any sequence of events, is immediately, spontaneously and simultaneously annihilated, destroyed or dissolved the very moment it happens. It or they, are immediately part of the past, ended in the eternal now, or timeless now.
        If every thing is a part of everything, then there can be no time. I remember the first time I grasped how a computer worked. Watching sun light sparkle on water that was moved by a breeze and current. The light danced everywhere, moving constantly. Of course it was beautiful but I thought, "every tiny, tiny, tiny dot of light in what looked like one big dot, was a zero or a one, on and off at rapid speed and so too is everything else that is simply vibrating or bursting in and out of existence, or from anti-matter to matter.
        I also thought about sitting somewhere, desert, woods, anywhere at all really and just staring at some spot of empty space until something happened in that space. I was the sentient observer that gives something the context or appearance of being in existence. I see it and it exists.
        Don't know if I can do this sort of thing. I am not very educated, bright or smart enough but let's see what comes up. I can only check back to Ted at various times, being not always sure when I can.
        • thumb
          Aug 7 2013: Random Chance, i liked your nick since it strikes me with complete abstraction. Hope you have read my further comments in main discussion. An illustration of H and E.
          Dear, when you say quanta, i assume you talk about E. E is the elementary limit of existence. I hope when Atom was discovered in this linear relation, higgs boson was also there but unimaginable at that time. So when we talk about quanta, there may be a thing which is unimaginable since we dont know about it yet. Lets say E is the that elementary state of universe.
          In your comment you said i see it and it exists. I think you may review Galileo's Dilemma. He forwarded the idea of Heliocentrism, (Heliocentrism is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System) which was opposed by a whole scientific community who worship Geocenterism ( Everything revolves around us). There was a great illusion, people saw everyday that sun revolves around us and same is with moon who appeared revolving us. This is such a perfect illusion which is seamless, smooth and convincing for man till Galileo discovered a new thing which was not visible but can be proved with mathematics only at that time as no parallax model was there to support his claim. The question which arises here that whether Earth was revolving around sun from day 1 or it started revolving after Galileo gave this thought?
          Yes, it started existing only when we discovered it, because it was unimaginable, and unimaginable does not exist.
          No, the earth was the part of sun and it started revolving when it detached from its Star and it is revolving since its creation.
          this is a perfect dilemma. Both answers can be right in its own perspective. If you follow first, you are having an intrinsic belief of existence. The second answer takes you to start believing that Unimaginable does not seize to exist, only we dont know about it.
          Existence or Knowing?
  • Aug 8 2013: Qamar.
    You wrote:
    "So when we talk about quanta, there may be a thing which is unimaginable since we dont know about it yet."
    We're almost there.
    There being invisibleness. Nothing, absolutely nothing. Not Lawrence Krauss's nothing, where nothing has energy, meaning something, but nothing.
    It still is unimaginable, we still don't know it.
    It will still be unimaginable and we will still not know it.
    Because there will be nothing.
    When this state occurs or happens, there will be nothing to imagine, nothing to know, learn, show or prove.
    And it won't be because we know it all.
    We're almost there. Quanta are almost nothing. Finding smaller will eventually be nothing and we will be unable
    to go further.
  • thumb
    Aug 7 2013: Paint Box Model
    Well, the big bang model has one peculiarity that expansion to such big scale happened in early trillionth part of second due to exceptionally higher speeds at which space moved to such extent. Expansion itself a visible time bound event even if the time is just a fraction of second. The expansion which happened for once and is on move since then, and this expansion proves with mathematics and evidence is the essence of Big bang.
    My perspective appreciates a beginning, in between and existence. Beginning (H) may be period when sudden expansion happened and "In Between" is referred to the whole past when matter took billions of years to cool off and evolved into a conscious quanta(as you say) of your brain and right now is existence E. I dare to say, if not the drawback of any existing paradox, relationship between Beginning (Creation, H) and Existence(E) is linear and finite.
    Lets understand it from an example, suppose a paint box is hanging in the center of a room. The box is equidistant from 6 walls. You make this box explode and in less than a second all paint will be on the walls making a real mess around. Now this paint will start dripping down due to gravity and will make visible moving lines and it may take some time to get settled on lowest level. Paint will stabilize to create an abstract painting on the walls which may appear permanent and forever, but it will keep on changing its properties forever, may be this change will become more slow and may be so tiny to measure without affecting the overall contents of abstract painting on walls.
    Suppose you have recorded this event with very sophisticated device which captured i trillion frames of this event. And you start watching the whole event at a rate of 1 frame per second. You may see the explosion in starting frames when there will be altogether different behavior of paint and then a predictive behavior of paint. There is timeline of events in this Paint Box Model.
  • Aug 7 2013: Qamar,
    me again.
    This, in your question:
    "On this linear line, Sub atomic particles comes first, atoms, molecules, structure, human. earth, sun, trillions of galaxies, and the point where big bang happened."
    is describing an expansion, not a timeline, in my opinion.
    What'ya think?
    • thumb
      Aug 7 2013: Well, i hope you ll find the answer in my comment with title Paint Box Model. I hope this illustration will help you to understand what i am trying to say. Suppose there is mural on walls of my room. Which will appear a stable and constant feature of that room. How did it come on the walls? You may feel filled with lot of possible ways and until you investigate it you will be imagining all the time.
      Blank walls may be taken as Beginning (You dont know how they look), the painting process(you can guess but not sure) may be taken as in between and final painting(you can easily tell with your senses) may be considered as existence. Do you still feel that this example is not describing timeline?
      • Aug 8 2013: No I don't.
        But again, I am not very smart nor knowledgeable about this kind of topic.
        In fact, I am not knowledgeable about almost anything at all.
        But it still strikes me as an expansion and not a time line.
        If everything was in one tiny point and then suddenly expanded
        each part is not a different age or time.
        They are simply expanded into a different locale, a different place and are the minutia
        of the whole before it expanded.
        It all gives an illusion of time but time itself, as I understand it, can only flow backwards, not forwards and it can never move into the future. It always ends right now. This very moment.
        Now, the present is, isn't.
        There really is no time but for discussion, humans don't know how to discuss without using certain words and is proof to me that language is too old and must change and adjust and we are not doing that.
        How does one get another to truly contemplate or understand in a completely different and unfamiliar realm? This is not reality. "What!" If it isn't reality, then what is?"
        First, one must truly grasp the concept and take it inside so that it dwells in the psyche in the same manner as the old, familiar beliefs do that this is not reality.
        It isn't about supplying the, "well, what is reality? But first to truly grasp that this isn't.
        That is a huge leap, a gigantic step.
        I mean imagine, what if the world begin to walk around believing this isn't reality until it became a powerful belief and a truth would be revealed. By what?
        By the truth itself perhaps, or by the real reality, or a real reality. I don't know.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 6 2013: ,The creator designed a perfect science, we are just trying to understand it.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: I have conducted a simple experiment of passing light through a stream of water. It may appear to us with naked eyes that a continuous stream of falling water, but images were captured at almost light speed and only drops were observed with huge gaps. So at any instant,for observer the matter exists static at very high speeds.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: Let s talk about creation first.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 5 2013: LOL, it means Deepak you are not reading my comments. I am talking about creation of universe. If you can add something please, let it be a thought provoking.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: Universe is shrewd enough to keep us in great illusions. The light and gravity blocks us from viewing distant past due to its complex lensing illusion which is itself due to massively attractive darkness of Black holes. But one thing if not a drawback of any existing paradox needs appreciation of the fact that linear relation of H in between and E is definite.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: Suppose H is the point where first vibration ( you can say it Big Bang for consumption) happened and E is the elemental point of quanta which is vibrating right now in your brain. So in my model ( if someone has already such model I am unaware) these two points H-E are existing on a timeline. The distance between these two points is "in between" which you can say between “creation” and “existence”. Can we see "H" the point where this event happened? Further, can we make it to that point where first vibration initiated the process?
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: In this context there is a good reason to talk about big bang (our first event) while talking about creation. Big bang has its own reasons to exist. One of the misconceptions about standard theory of Big Bang is that we imagine about an explosion instead of expansion. Secondly people sometimes confuse that there was something before Big Bang, which becomes invalid. What was there before bang, we dont know ( unimaginable). Big Bang is just a metaphor for first event.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: When i am proposing a linear existence of two events, i am assuming the first event (Creation of Universe) may be Big Bang. What was before this event? I think that is unimaginable but it does not seize to exist. I draw my lines that we don’t know about it which was before the first event of this universe. Secondly, this universe has a beginning and an end. Third, the universe is not governed by simple set of laws. There are laws which we still don’t know.