Through the wrong end of the telescope

By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist. -Bringhurst

I've always wondered, and I wonder whether you've done that too, that how would the world look from the other end of the telescope? Having studied science, now i can answer that. Well, the solution is not at all difficult to find - but what matters is whether the question ever crossed your mind? Why do we look at things the way they are taught to us? Think the other way round. Don't think inside the box - or out of the box, just blow the lid off and open the box - so that there are no boundaries to the box : and 'in' and 'out' become undefined.
In physics, there's a law called the Newton's Law of Cooling. It determines how fast (and how slow) would things cool if kept in a cold environment. I had a little argument with my physics teacher at school who believed the same law cannot be applied to heating. "It's the Newton's Law of Cooling, not the Newtons Law of Heating, dear!". But, to me, it seemed quite natural that if there is a Newton's Law of Cooling, it must have a converse like Newton's Law of Heating. I could have been wrong though, for all converse-laws do not hold good, but it so turned out that I was right and Newton's Law of Cooling could actually be applied to heating. It's not that my teacher lacked any piece of knowledge in science which I possessed, nor was my idea a very brilliant one. He just lacked a natural ability to think contra, or to think lateral, which can make all the difference.

Once, there was a book binder, who thought contra and changed the world. But for him, you wouldn't be reading this blog today. Michael Faraday. He invented dynamo - the mechanism to generate electricity in an economical way. Electricity has been known to mankind since long - since many hundred years ago. It was used only for scientific experiments. They used to use cells (which looked much like our car batteries) to generate electricity. It was known that when an iron rod is placed near wires carrying electric current (in a particular configuration), the rod becomes a magnet. Electricity can generate magnetic properties. So far so good for scientific curiosity. This book-binder thought can we not just do the opposite? Can we not use a magnet to generate electricity. Seems like a simple thought now. But it changed the fundamentals then. He conceptualized dynamo. All electricity generators today work on Faraday's Laws. It didn't take PhD to generate electricity. It just took a little thought - a contra thought.

Energy is always conserved. So sacrosanct a rule that even a slight abeyance is unimaginable. But where does it come from? Scientists assume this law just because there hasn't been a violation yet. All the theories and principles of science are open to revision - even Newton's Laws were put into question. But if someone talks about the possibility of creating or destroying energy, he is looked upon with pity. He's considered as utterly ignorant. Compare this to religious fundamentalism - and you will discover a remarkable parallel. Something rooted so deep in mind that nobody can even imagine it can ever be violated. Although, we just have negative evidence to support it. Conservation of matter too was as rigid. And a clerk from a patent office gave it a shake. Remember?

I do not hypothesize that energy is not conserved, neither do I have a reasonable authority to do that. I am just pointing out the way ideas sit in our minds and slowly acquire a sacrosanct status which is so rigid that we never attempt to think beyond that. Never let that happen to your mind. "If this holds why can't that hold too?". "Is it always done this way? Okay, why not the other way?". "Nobody ever saw it happening any other way? Have they seen enough?"

Nobody has seen enough. This is the basic constraint with which we observe the nature. We keep on learning and changing our hypotheses. Richard Feyman had an interesting example to clarify this point. Suppose there is a person who does not know chess and he wants to learn chess. There is no rule book available. The only way he can learn is by watching two players playing a game of chess. What initial hypotheses will he make? "All pawns can move either one or two placed forward. No. No. I think pawns can move two places only on their first move. Yet, Come what may, no piece can ever jump over another piece. Surprise. Surprise. A Knight can jump over other pieces. Nobody stops it! Oh my god! A pawn can kill en route? Strange!"

Now when he thinks he knows enough, he makes a sacrosanct rule: "Come what may, a player can move only one piece in a move". Never been violated so far. Absolute. Rigid. Religious. Only until he observes castling. A King moves with a Castle! "Somebody explain me!" (cf. the Theory of Relativity - matter is not conserved as mass) Well, castling is a rare move which a player can make only once.

Still many sacrosanct rules remain to be shaken. Wait till he watches the unbelievable. Queening of a Pawn!

Rules of the world are similarly unknown and there are always alternate ways of doing things. Now, for the very next thing you plan to do, think if there is another way?