FAQs

Q: What is the outline of the evolution of the idea of the fabric of space?

It all began as I was learning to derive Maxwell’s equations at the time of my post-graduate studies in physics. The mathematics was fine but how could ‘nothingness’ physically support and sustain the production of a magnetic vector as a counterpart of an electrical one at a distance from the latter and allow this action to follow on through the generation of another magnetic vector at a distance from the electrical one? A medium of some sort, I felt convinced, was necessary. But the concept of Aether suggested by those who had thought similarly before had been abandoned on the basis of solid experimental proof. Why not think of a ‘different kind of’ medium, I wondered. But different which way? It obviously had to be entirely new, nothing like any physical material; it should at the same time be the mother of the material world.

Years went by without a viable idea, the nagging question remaining till the day I happened to be amidst a crowd watching the river in our village in spate presenting a picture of the small temple in the middle of it almost submerged and taking a large variety of objects floating on it fast to the sea. There were gigantic whirlpools in the flow, moving in all directions as if on their free will and swallowing everything that got near. These whirlpools were part of the flow, made of water itself, moving freely in the same water, dying and disappearing in it too.

This reminded me of the picture of the spiral nebula I just have had a chance to observe through the 18-inch Bhavanagar Telescope at Kodaikanal Observatory where I had found my first job. It suddenly occured to me that a three-dimensional picture of the whirlpool can represent a particle of matter, stabilized by its spiralling activity. The whirlpool is formed by water, it exists in water, moves around water and ultimately dissolves in water. Same way a particle of matter forms in the medium, out of the medium, exists as part of the medium, moves in the medium and dissolves in the medium.

This was a major revelation but all diverse manifestations in nature such as the forces, the different kinds of matter, the structures, a phenomenon like life, energy, radiation and so on had to be consistently explained and the established and well tested laws of physics had to be incorporated.

It was a long and painstaking journey uphill; it took many a year and diverse thought experiments that brought in solutions like drifting bodies being brought into a point of gravitational attraction.

By 1988 the conviction that I was right finally settled in. That year I presented the idea before the staff and students of the Department of Physics of the Cochin University of Science and Technology. A monograph was prepared, printed and sent to the top ranking people working in areas of gravitation and unification. (Click here to read the monograph). A popular science version was published in book form entitles Stuff and Style of the Universe in 2002.

Recently my son Dr K R Gopal came to help and researched a lot. It made a big difference. The original ideas were further refined and updated which resulted in the present article.


Q: You mentioned in an article published in the Mathrubhumi newspaper sometime back that this physics paper is related to Vedantic ideas. Is this model of the universe enunciated in ancient Indian philosophy?

No, it is not, not in this form, for sure. I happened to come across the terms Avyakta and Akshara and their import in the Gita long after I had visualized the universal and perennial substratum. Ancient Indian philosophy, loosely called 'Vedanta', discusses three levels of reality to the universe - 1. The Kshara - the physical universe, 2. The Akshara - the metaphysical reality that hosts the kshara, and 3. The Iswara - commonly called 'God', for whom the many religions have attempted to provide various attributes in the past. But apart from presenting the three levels of reality, the old Vedantic texts do not venture to explain how the material world comes into being from Akshara. The thought experiments in my paper was designed and performed first hand.

Earlier a book titled 'The Secret Behind the Universe' was published in July 2016 which researched both Physics and ancient Indian Philosophy. A condensed version of its physics part was published in the Prespacetime journal, and the parallel research on ancient Philosophy was incorporated in my still later published Modern Reading of the Bhagavad Gita.


Q: So your works have religious significance too?

No, certainly not. First of all, ancient Indian philosophy is not to be confused with any religion. "Isavasyam idam sarvam" - God resides here everywhere - promptly overrules any difference based on religion, caste or race. Furthermore - "Samam sarveshu bhuteshu thishtantham Parameswaram" - The One God resides equally in all beings - can be understood and assimilated only if one can visualize God in a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian - equally! So where is religion in this?

My efforts have that aim in view too - we have to learn to visualize God above sectarian religions. I firmly believe the time of religions are over. Search and realization of God is an individual effort and should be through rational means; not through superstition.

Also, my belief in God is strictly my subjective view and based on entirely non-transferable experiences. The physics paper is a purely objective work and does not contain allusions about God. Physics cannot provide experimental evidence of God and there is no scope for it in future.


Q: What, if any, proves this theory right?

It provides credible explanations for a whole lot of phenomena that so far remained puzzling. Gravitation, radiation, EM wave propagation, birth and evolution of matter, genesis of the forces and their basic relationship, what enables the planets to gyrate and orbit at the same rate for millions of years and so on. Bring any paradox in physics into its light and you will be able to find your own solution to it. Of course, some of these solutions were outlined even in my first monograph as early as in 1988, which was about space-matter unity and background space being amenable to volume compression and expansion.

Many revolutionary findings had been made recently which corroborates with the model. For instance, Miles Pagett of Glasgow University experimentally confirmed that the velocity of light need not be a constant. Gravitational waves were first photographed through interferometry from the collision of two black holes observed on September 14, 2015.


Q: Do your findings negate any existing theory?

No, it doesn't. On the other hand it provides lucid physical explanation for a wide range of them. For instance, the Laws of Motion, inertia, the quantum behavior of matter, dark energy, dark matter, virtual particles and so on are put on better logical pedestals.

However, it reveals a serious limitation that affects all physical theorization in existence today. It stems from the fact that all these laws are derived on the assumption of the existence of invariants. But, strictly speaking, no constants are possible at any time or point in the universe because the vigour of the substratum of Avyakta constantly changes as a part of the pulsation of the universe as a whole and also in tune with ‘local’ spiraling of it if any.

These laws will hold only as long as the vigour of Avyakta remains the same. Of course one can assume it to be a constant which it almost is over short periods of time and across brief time intervals just as a miniscule part of the circumference of a circle can be considered a straight line. Unfortunately, the whole of the circumference of any circle cannot be considered straight. One cannot extrapolate form ‘now and here’ to ‘all time and everywhere’. Therefore, theories in vogue today are at best no more than ‘special cases’.


Q: Doesn’t the model necessitate modifications to the Big-bang Theory as well?

Yes, it does. It is shown that the universe is not the result of any accidental explosion of super-condensed matter already in existence. The universe forms through various processes in the spiral expansion of the Avyakta fabric. Matter, energy, forces and time continuously happen out of Avyakta, exist and dissolve in it.


Q: How far does this concept fundamentally differ from classical physics?

Matter plays the leading role in classical physics. (Nothing else ‘matters’!) However, matter amounts to just a miniscule part of the volume of the universe. The rest is all space which, till recently was supposed to be empty and inactive. Only recently has it been suggested that space may treated as a quantum field. But its role has not been fully envisioned. Physics has been in trouble as Avyakta is not brought centre-stage and recognized as the decisive performer.


Q: Does this suggest a shift in the focus of physics?

Yes. We have been trying our best to unify the physical forces for almost a century, but without success. This model suggests a way out by showing all different kinds of forces to represent no more than different gradients in vigour transition of Avyakta fabric.


Q: How does the new model view Stephen Hawking’s stand that God need not have anything to do with the creation or the running of the universe?

It is not clear what he meant by the word God. He supports the Big-bang Theory according to which universe came into being as the result of an out-of-the-way explosion. But who triggered it? Some suicidal bomber?

The new model portrays a universe cyclically made and unmade in the process of a fundamental force. One may name it God but it cannot have any religious significance; neither can it be appeased or personalized.


Q: How has the world reacted to the new concept?

Internationally, there has only been approval, though the idea being a paradigm shift may take time to sink in. There are many corroborative areas which provide scope for a lot of further research too.

In Kerala, however, there has been a few discordant notes from some fanatics who are unable to think beyond religion, and also some who uphold extreme anti-God views - some extremists among Communist groups. Some conservatives among physicists too have failed to understand or accept it.


Q: Isn’t it strange that conservatism prevails even in the field of science?

Why, it need not surprise anyone. When changes are called for in what one has imbibed after a lot of effort and spending the best part of one’s life one gets naturally upset, of course only if one lacks the true spirit of science.


Q: What are the philosophical implications of the idea?

 Happiness, lasting and sustainable, is at hand if a paradigm shift in emotional stance is achieved as a result of logical conviction heralding a Brave New World.


END