Thursday, March 27, 2008

Further comments of Dr. Chandra Mohan Nautiyal on "The Invisible Man"

I am afraid, I don't understand the difference between the 'ordinary' energy and 'special' energy. But then I don't know the real difference between a huge assemblage of atoms and a living form made up of those very atoms.

Soul is not supposed to be material. So it can't have mass. The difficulty is that science is not so advanced as to be able to answers all questions. We still don't know why matter should have gravitational property. If there are positive- negative charges, North- South poles, then why don't we have opposite gravity i.e. attractive and repulsive variants of gravity? Is quark the ultimate unit of matter? Can there be gravity without mass? Neutron may be electrically neutral over all but what about internal distribution? It has magnetic moment after all! Electrical and magnetic fields act at a distance and have electro magnetic waves. Are their gravitational waves? If not, how does one body detects another and attracts? Is and why is gravity inherent to mass?

Photon can behave as waves as well as particle (the famous wave- particle duality). Photon has zero (rest mass) i.e. when still, its mass is zero. It has no charge hence free from Coulumbic interaction. As particle, photons can be scattered. This means that it changes its direction (exchanges energy/ momentum) on collision.

I am not sure if djinn and soul are one and the same. Soul doesn't have a shape or figure, djinns do. For reflection, deflection, scattering, there has to be a field or matter to cause them. Can a djinn be having field without having mass? The position of mass may be different from position of the field. It's like this: a magnet on a table may have a magnetic field above the table.

For magnetic field we require a magnet, for electric field we need charge (e.g. electrons, which have mass), or for gravitational field, mass . We see an object if our eyes receive photons from that object. The photons may be generated in the object or scattered/ reflected by the object. Theoretically, energy source can lose energy as photons. For the amount of light shown in the photograph, the number of reflected photons has to be very high. This is surprising as each photon that impinges on the object, doesn't reflect back towards the camera. It can not have a field without mass (some would say the source of energy is elsewhere?). But how'd camera see in abundance what eyes are completely missing; the halide on the celluloid is not known to have any additional sensitivity!

To cut a long story short, in these days, post- production can explain such effects but also that science doesn't explain everything, as yet, that is. Will it ever? I don't know.

No comments: