Friday, February 24, 2006

Noise

Ever wondered what is that “dot-dash pattern” that you see on the television when ever there is no channel transmition?

Ever wonder what that unique sounds no radio are when you are not tuned to any particular radio station?

It is the gamma or cosmic waves causing that noise. It is said that there is always a static amount of noise in this universe which one can’t avoid and this noise/waves are coming from the end of universe. That is, since Big-Bang, this universe is expanding and it continues to expand, that corner most edge that pushes the vaccum (or what ever) to create space generates some electro-magnetic radiation which is relayed back to us and they are called cosmic waves.

Hmn.. Interesting… isn’t it….

Now, ever wonder, what might be lying there at the edge of universe? Something beyond the expanding universe??

If something is expanding, what is containing it?

As you put out your soapy head out of partially opened bathroom door and call out aloud “Towel please”, imagine putting your head out of the edge of universe and see what is there.

What do you see? (I don’t know the answer)

Hypothetically, if you travel in straight line, straight into the sky and keep on going, for a long, long time, do you know where you end up?

Yes, you will end up at the place where you started.

This is something like, starting from your home and traveling to east in an airplane, for one or two days, you know that you will end up at your home, arriving from west. This is the case with universe also.

All the above is not my idea, but collected arguments put forth by eminent scientists.

What do we gather from the above…

1) There is constant “theta” amount of noise and dust in the universe.
2) You come to the same place where you have started.

Using these two “scientific” reasonings, how should we go forward?

As we have accepted to live with the said amount of dust in our universe, we also need to accept the said amount of dust in our daily lives. If someone makes lots of noise and no practical output, we need to just ignore it.

Don’t you change the channel when you get noise screen on the T.V.?

Same way, just ignore or change the channel.

Some may say, change the T.V itself. Like changing a company, if you don’t like boss or changing the project if you don’t like the client. But, remember the two principles.

Even if you change the T.V. there is no gaurentee that noise will not be reduced, because of Point – 1 and you will be at the same situation again, because of Point – 2.

I don’t say, you live with it, but learn to ignore the noise and take only the pleasant channels for your viewing.

All the best, my dear coolies.

4 comments:

Naresh Kumar Ramamurthy said...

Cool anil…it was indeed a good one to read and we have to ignore the noise and watch the pleasant channels!!!!.

Arun said...

Looks like you are still stuck up with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle :)
And I'm sure four years of engineering academics also influence your correlation for cosmic science and our daily life. It's true that Einstein's relativity proportionately applies .. to you ..to me and everything.
So we better accept things as it is when there is no scope.
From your .. "learn to ignore the noise and take only the pleasant channels for your viewing. "
What if I have only one channel to view? What if there was no electricity to view the TV?
I'm sure you'd definitely have good logical answers for the above questions.
But in a broader sense(now don't ask the borders for term border:) .. there are certain legitimate things that we can't control and there are micro things which we can enforce.

Does this make any sense? Do keep up the good stuff :)

Jayan said...

Welcome to the blogosphere !!

vreddi said...

A couple of points, though.

1. Our commonsense notion of bigbang is false. Bigbang is not a physical event the way my typing here is. In the latter case, there are causal antecedents: having keyboard, some internet connection, my hands, etc. IN the former case, you can't even raise that question: that is, the question what caused Bigbang is illegitimate. The bigbang doesn't even qualify as a physical point of space-time to which 4 coordinates can be assigned; however, the past cosmic time is open and unbounded, although, remeber, its metrical duration is finite in the order of 10^15. Indian cosmologist Jayant Narlikar couldn't grasp this point, yet he wrote a couple of books, and dozens of articles on this: he took cudgels with a philosopher of science, Adolf Grunbaum, in the Philosophy of Science Journal ca. 1992. In his rebuttal to Narlikar, Grunbaum showed the arguments of Narlikar arguments that it is legitimate to ask questions such as what was before t =0, are fallacious on multiple grounds. This shows that being an astrophysicist doesn't guarantee that one is well-versed in asking legit questions, and so on.

2. There is another confusion surrounding expanding Universe. The concept 'expansion' here is at odds with our commonsense notion of expansion: like a iron rod expands when it is heated. In the commonsense parlance, space doesn't have causal efficacy: that is, space doesn't function as a causal antecedent. In Einsteinian conception, space has a causal power. What is happening is that the curvature of space is increasing. Of course, this affects time as well.

3. Regarding straight line. In Euclidean sense, two perpendicular lines to any straight line don't meet at all. This is not the case in non-Euclidean geometries: Lobachevsky, Reimann, etc.

The path of light ray is straight line. But the path is not straight in Euclidean sense; but straight in Einsteianin, or Reimannian, sense. Actually, the whole language of sense creates much junk. To get the point clear, it is a conceputal change the way mass in Einsteinian physics has replaced that in Newtonian physics. So, it is not a change in connotations(senses), but a theoretical change.

4. There are steady-state models, in which energy-density is conserved; this 'implies' creation of non-conservative matter. It is outdated, anyway: but the point is that steady-state models have nothing to with creation ex nihilo.