“All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.”

– Albert Einstein on science.

Abstract

This paper is a small review of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory program. Here, the presentation covers the initiation, his visualization, attributes and postulates of the program, his successful contributions of the special relativity theory unifying space and time, general theory of relativity and the relativistic field theory of gravitation resolving the conceptual contradictions between classical gravitation theory and the Maxwellian theory of the electromagnetic field. The paper also discusses Einstein’s attempts at various other concepts of five-dimension, affine connection, distant parallelism, co-vectors, and asymmetric theory, either proposed by other researchers, or generated by his own original ideas, till the last day of his life. 

Key Words: Unified Field Theory, Einstein’s attributes, Special relativity theory, General theory of relativity, Relativistic field theory of gravitation, Asymmetric theory, Five-dimensional approach, Affine connection.

Introduction

This paper starts from the conclusion of my last paper published in this journal on the subject of placement of the statue of Nataraja at CERN [Paramguru 2025, 232]. In order to start in a clear note, I cite that portion of the text here:

‘In conclusion, two issues can be put forth. The first one is that – “The conception of physical things and phenomena as transient manifestations of an underlying fundamental entity is not only a basic element of quantum field theory, but also a basic element of the Eastern world view” [Capra 1975, 211]. Scientists of high standing such as Einstein, as well as the Eastern mystics, are of the view that – this underlying entity is the only reality; all its phenomenal manifestations are transitory or illusory. The scientists are attempting to unify the various fields into a single fundamental field, called ‘unified field’ which would incorporate all physical phenomena…’ [242].

From the above statement, I developed interest in the specific part represented by the last line, and looked to the available literature on ‘unified field theory’. I could find a good number of interesting papers and books; and felt that, probably, since the unified field theory is also a domain of unification of sciences, my readers will also be interested in reading them, if I can provide in a suitable format. What can be a better format than as paper(s) in this particular journal? Hence, I decided to write a series of (very brief) review papers, for our journal, on ‘unified field theory’; and this is the first one, naturally scheduled to present how Albert Einstein (1879-1955), the German-born theoretical physicist, arguably the initiator of the idea of ‘unified field theory’, visualized this idea and pursued it during the last few decades of his life. Of course, this will be based on the available literature.

The beginning of the vision

Historically, the credit for publishing the first paper related to classical unified field theory goes to the Scottish physicist and mathematician, James Clerk Maxwell, for his paper “A Dynamic Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” [1865], where he showed that electricity and magnetism were not separate phenomena but rather different aspects of the same force, and, in the same paper, he provided the mathematical description of electromagnetic field through equations. However, Albert Einstein is credited to have coined the term ‘unified field theory’ for the first time [Sauer 2007]. Tilman Sauer (1963- ), a German theoretical physicist and historian of natural sciences with specific expertise on the history of the development of general relativity theory, besides many publications on the subject, have published specific papers related to Einstein’s unified field theory program [2007], Einstein’s Washington Manuscript on unified field theory [2020], and also a chapter in the book The Cambridge Companion to Einstein [2014]. He straightaway reports that “Einstein explicitly used the term ‘unified field theory’ in the title of a publication for the first time in 1925.” [2007, 1]. This paper, published in the journal of Prussian Academy, was in German language, and hence, the title mentions ‘Einheitliche Feldtheorie …’, the English translation of which is ‘Unified Field theory …’ [Einstein, 1925]. Sauer [2007] goes on to provide further details that Einstein, though used the term in the title for some ten more papers immediately after that first paper, had dealt with the subject already in about “half a dozen” publications before 1925 without using the term in the title. This is in print, on the other hand, Jeroen van Dongen has also told about Einstein’s first positive public utterance about the unification program in 1920 [2002, 186]. In any case, Sauer reports that Einstein wrote, in total, “more than forty technical papers on the subject” [2007, 1]. 

The basic concept of a unified field theory is to describe all fundamental forces and particles within a single framework that is a single type of field. In terms of modern physics, the forces, instead of being transmitted directly between interacting objects, are described and interpreted by intermediary entities called fields. Thus, there are various fields in physics, such as, vector fields (electromagnetic field), spinor fields (fermionic particles like electrons), and tensor fields (the metric tensor field that describes the shape of space-time and also gravitation in general relativity). Further, according to quantum field theory, particles are treated themselves as quanta of fields. Unified field theory attempts to organize these fields, namely four fundamental forces (strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetic interaction, and gravitational interaction), and matter (electrons, quarks, neutrinos etc.) including Higgs bosons, into a single mathematical structure. 

Against the basic objective of ‘unified field theory’ as depicted above, it is highly significant to identify the specific features; we may call it attributes of Einstein’s visualization of the same theory. Of course, the very first attribute of his vision must take into account his naming of such a theory with this very specific title which speaks volumes with width and depth. The second attribute of Einstein’s work on a unified field theory was what Sauer termed as “dimensions”, such as “conceptual, representational, biographical, and philosophical dimensions.” [2007, 1]. As usual, the first one refers to the problems and solutions within the knowledge of physics, the second one describes mathematical representations of physical phenomena, the third one from a historical perspective of various approaches made to work out the theory on a historical time frame, and the last one is the philosophical outlook of Einstein. In the words of Sauer “(T)he space spanned by these four dimensions constitutes Einstein’s unified field theory program.” [1]. When we come to identify the third attribute, Einstein’s philosophical outlook comes into picture, because it is very specific. It is true that the theories usually constitute some/many general laws which would explain various phenomena; however, Einstein being Einstein, his basic philosophical outlook is significantly different. When we would express, in general terms, our own understanding of the theories, and their explanations; Einstein would include ‘human reasoning’ within the understanding. Sauer terms “Einstein’s unification program was a program of reflection”, and Einstein’s motivation for such a program of reflection was in Sauer’s own words: “a conception of the task of human reasoning that would be adequate to a holistic understanding of a nature in which human beings live their lives.” [2]. This philosophical outlook of Einstein, as Sauer argues, holds well, not just for this work, but for the entire carrier’s work of Einstein. The fourth attribute, may also be taken as a corollary of this philosophical outlook, because Einstein always used to have strong confidence in all his programs, similarly, he had a strong “insistence” that such a unified field theory is very much “possible” and “desirable” for mankind and would bring in successful result [1]. The last and, also the fifth attribute is, for Einstein, “unification efforts had to start from a theory of the gravitational field and hence be general relativistic” [8]. Sauer has further linked “historical continuity” to this attribute, because, scientific developments have always followed this path in the time-frame of historical perspective; and according to him, it is that historical continuity that has “placed the endeavor of finding a unified field theory above the theory of gravitation implied by general relativity”, and “it was this conviction that separated Einstein from the majority of contemporaries” [26].

Einstein’s special relativity theory

As stated earlier, the journey of classical unified field theory started with the unification of electricity and magnetism within the dynamic theory framework of the electromagnetic field published by Maxwell during 1865. Hardly forty years hence, in 1905, Einstein brought out two ground-breaking theories in physics. The first one was his explanation of the photoelectric effect by using Planck’s constant h which paved the way for the development of quantum theory. Of course, for some reasons, Einstein was not much interested to use this concept for unification of field theory, nor we intend to follow on this, rather, our interest is his second theory of that time, namely, special theory of relativity. According to Peter Gabriel Bergmann (1915-2002), a German – American physicist and also an assistant to Einstein, most of physics around that time was dominated by Newtonian mechanics which quantitatively explained the working of the solar system [1979, 9]. As regards the absolute properties of space and time, Newton’s laws required states of uniform rectilinear motion usually satisfied by inertial frames of reference. However, the electromagnetic field formulated by Faraday, Maxwell and Lorentz involved a dynamic state where electromagnetic waves move at a velocity equal to the speed of light. These two situations contradict each other, and at this stage, the brilliance of Einstein solved the issue through his notion of special theory of relativity. The basic postulates of special relativity are [Bergmann 1979, 10; Felker 2005, 16-33; Sauer 2007, 3]: (i) the notion of space and time changed into a single entity space-time, later known as Minkowski’s four-dimensional space-time model; (ii) the concept of simultaneity in moving frames of reference was redefined; (iii) the constancy of the velocity of light (also constancy of the basic existences such as mass and charge including the laws of conservation), whatever may be the reference frame, was explained;  and (iv) this constancy of speed of light was used to provide a conceptual justification for Maxwell’s theory as well as Lorentz transformations. Through this theory, Einstein could unify not only space and time into space-time, but also, classical principle of relativity of mechanics and the laws of electrodynamics, two major fields of physics.

Einstein’s general relativity theory

While using Minkowski’s four-dimensional space-time concepts, unification of two major fields of physics could be obtained, however, a new contradiction was surfaced. Special relativity requires an inertial reference frame and the existence of an absolute and finite limit to the speed of any signal transmission; this later one was violated by Newtonian gravitation theory. Along with this conceptual conflict, another inherent difference, as discussed earlier between the Newtonian gravitational interaction with static inter-particle processes and Maxwellian electromagnetism dealing with dynamic waves, also persisted. A possible solution to resolve this conceptual contradiction needed a relativistic gravitational field, and Einstein once again brought out another of his brilliant discoveries that acceleration and gravitation are almost the same thing, and it must also be remembered that gravitation is not a force, though it appears so. With this analogy he could explain that the local gravitational acceleration for all bodies is uniform, and hence, the frames of reference are precluded by local means. Thus, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, also known as, theory of the gravitational field was born. In essence, his special relativity theory is expanded to a description of gravity; the gravitational interaction was conceptualized as a dynamic field; accelerating reference frames were incorporated; and the flat space-time of Minkowski was replaced with the curving geometry of Riemannian space-time [Bergmann 1979, 11; Sauer 2007, 4; Felker 2005, 34-35].  This theory came into effect during 1915 and is considered as the third ground-breaking theory of Einstein in theoretical physics. 

After Einstein’s general theory of relativity as discussed above, Bergmann’s statement: “The quest for unity had apparently reached its objective” [1979, 13], should indicate that Einstein’s unification program reached its successful end. “However, it is not so.” He further states that: “But there are several hairs in the ointment” [13], and Sauer also states that the most desirable cases of unified description “has never been achieved” [2007, 5]. Such statements indicate that there remains some ‘desirable cases’ to be satisfied in Einstein’s unified theory program. According to Sauer, although there was no compelling reason, Einstein himself felt that “the new understanding of gravitation demanded further unification with classical Maxwellian theory of the electromagnetic field” [4]. Also, there was apparently a need for the unification to predict new physical effects arising out of unification, and there was always a necessity to take care of the representation of matter within unification. Therefore, Sauer has given a list of possible postulates to be included within Einstein’s unified field theory program [2007]. Those are: (i) “a unified description that would both yield the known laws of gravitation and electromagnetism and would also predict new effects, arising from a combination of the fields inherent in the unified description, that would also be compatible with known empirical facts” [5], (ii) “to account for the existence of only a proton and an electron, —, i.e. proton mass and electron mass, and one elementary charge” [7], and (iii) “(t)he explanation of quantum mechanics within a unified field theory remained a programmatic desideratum in Einstein’s work” [8]. Einstein, though was involved in bringing out the quantum theory, was never in favor of this theory since it is not deterministic, but statistical mechanics. However, the last postulate was included because in presence of elementary material mass and charge, this may help in bringing continuous conceptualization of matter; and after all, Einstein did not ignore this possibility [7]. 

Einstein’s UFT pursuit beyond 1915: response to others’ approaches

After successful demonstration of general theory of relativity, Einstein continued to pursue his dream of UFT because that would address the above mentioned postulates; and further, many other physicists were also motivated to conduct research on UFT, and hence, as the pioneer, he would react to their results. That way, he continued in spite of his ill-health during 1928, and the events; such as Nazis’ rise to power, cruel persecution of Jews, 2nd World War, the holocaust, and use of 1st atom bombs; due to which he resigned from Prussian Academy, left Germany and lived in United States of America since late 1933; yet, he never stopped research, and maintained developing ever-new approaches for his dream UFT till his death [Bergmann 1979 and Sauer 2007]. Of course, his research engagements have also produced significant results in the area of general relativity, besides in UFT. This section intends to present some of his UFT endeavors during this period, mostly his reactions to other’s approaches.

The first reaction of Einstein was to the proposition of Hermann Weyl during 1918, which was generally concerned to Riemannian geometrization, specifically to parallel vector transport. Basically, his approach was to introduce a vector “length connection” to the Riemannian geometry structure keeping the four-dimensionality of space-time intact. Though Einstein was initially attracted towards the idea, very quickly he could find out the setbacks. He had specific objections to the existence of parallel transportable measuring lengths as a fundamental assumption of general relativity [Einstein 1921]. Then onwards he did not consider Weyl’s approach having any value for UFT. 

His second reaction was to Theodor Kaluza’s ‘five-dimensional theory’ proposed in 1919. Though, like his previous reaction to Weyl’s approach, he could quickly find set-backs in this theory also; yet, he has examined/re-examined this five-dimensional approach a number of times: first in 1919-23, then in 1927, 1931-32, and last in 1938-41. Sauer [2007], Sauer and Schuetz [2020], and van Dongen [2002] have given a detailed description of Einstein’s reactions to this theory. The reaction started when Kaluza sent him a manuscript where he introduced the fifth dimension to the Riemannian space-time manifold of general relativity. Einstein could locate several difficulties at different levels of the theory, and their initial correspondence ended in May 1919 [Sauer 2007, 13]. However, after some rethinking, Einstein invited Kaluza after around two years to resubmit his manuscript, and this time, not only he helped him publish the paper; but also, himself co-authored by Grommer published another paper investigating the problem of solutions to Kaluza’s theory. After another stint in 1927 on this approach with two publications, he visited again in 1931-32, by this time it has become Kaluza-Klein theory, when, after his experience with distant parallelism, he could visualize a possibility with the application of tetrad formalism here. In association with Walther Mayer, he constructed a five-dimensional vector space at each point of four-dimensional space-time and explored the functioning of the tetrad formalism. However, this approach also ran into difficulties due to problems in accounting for the structure of matter [19]. Then in 1938, Einstein and Bergmann published the penultimate paper on reconsideration of Kaluza-Klein’s five-dimensional approach [1938]; and three years later came up with the final paper [Einstein, Bargmann, and Bergmann 1941], where the authors have addressed all the problems including impossibility to describe particles by non-singular solutions [Sauer 2007, 21; van Dongen 2002, 193]. Even one of the authors of the last paper, Peter Bergmann, while describing their idea concludes: “Alas, the idea did not work out” [1979, 16].

Einstein reacted to a third approach towards UFT called affine connection proposed by Arthur Eddington, who started with a manifold equipped with a linear affine connection that allowed a Riemann curvature tensor and of a, supposedly anti-symmetric, Ricci tensor; then, he continued to treat the anti-symmetric and symmetric parts of the Ricci tensor, respectively, as the electromagnetic field tensor and usual metric tensor field. However, he did not provide field equations to determine the affine connections, which Einstein provided; yet, he experienced problems including the theory not accounting for the electron-proton mass symmetry [Sauer 2007, 14]. 

Einstein’s UFT pursuit beyond 1915: own approaches

Thus, all the above responses of Einstein to the external propositions ended in no fruitful result; and this section will present some of his original approaches. During 1923, Einstein published an original paper, interestingly searching for a possible solution for UFT in quantum theory. Though he was expecting to account for quantum phenomena by means of differential equations, he admitted that he was still unable to solve the quantum problem. However, according to Sauer [2007, 15], he was contemplating the quantum issue as early as 1920; later on, during the early 1930s, he came out to investigate UFT where the problem of quantum theory had the most direct involvement. This happened when he came across his old professional friend Paul Ehrenfest, who brought to him the investigations of a relativistic quantum theory by Wolfgang Pauli and Paul Dirac. Einstein jumped into the investigation, worked with his coauthor Mayer using ‘semi-vectors’ in place of ‘spinors’ used earlier and published four papers during 1932 – 1934. However, fruitful results still eluded them; quantum problems remained unsolved [19].

During 1928 Einstein fell sick and was ordered strict bed rest, while taking rest, his fertile brain cooked up some interesting research idea which, after some time, he published two notes in Prussian Academy on a mathematical structure which he called Riemannian geometry, maintaining the concept of distant parallelism, where, he investigated if a UFT can be formulated within this geometric framework. Soon, he learned that the mathematical concept of distant parallelism had already been developed by mathematicians Roland Weitzenboch and Elie Cartan; he acknowledged their mathematics, and hopefully went ahead formulating a UFT within this structure. However, finally, the distant parallelism approach ended in an attempt only [17-18].  

Accounting for matter in a UFT was posing a problem, hence, Einstein attempted to investigate this aspect in a note published during 1941 [Einstein 1941]; which was reinvestigated after two years in a joint paper with Pauli [Einstein and Pauli 1943]. Here, they could prove the non-existence of regular solutions to the vacuum field equations that would asymptotically behave like the Newtonian gravitational potential, whatever be the symmetry conditions of the field in finite field strength regions; also, this result was valid for both four- and five- dimensional theories. This means, under general conditions, a UFT on Riemann tensor would always involve singularities in particle-like solutions; and he should look for new approaches, which he did [Einstein 1943], and another with his coauthor Valentin Bargmann [Einstein and Bargmann 1943]. Here, the authors attempted at a new kind of a non-local relativistic theory of gravitation which they called ‘bi-vector approach’. Apparently, the ‘bi-vector approach’, judging by the published record, is Einstein’s penultimate distinct approach in the sequence of UFT approaches, also ran into difficulties to end in a failure [Sauer 2007, 21-22].

Now, we enter into Einstein’s last approach, rather, the approach where he devoted the last ten years of his life. Incidentally and interestingly, this approach was started by him in 1925, where he used the term ‘Unified Field Theory’ in the title of the paper for the first time. It was also based on a local Riemannian metric but an asymmetric one. In the first paper published in 1925 [Einstein 1925], he took both a metric tensor field and a linear affine connection, both assumed asymmetric, at the same time as fundamental variables. He defined the field equations, tried to associate the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, respectively, with the symmetric and anti-symmetric parts of the metric field, and attempted to recover the known cases. Though he could get satisfactory results with respect to the gravitational case, the results with Maxwell’s equations were not entirely satisfactory; he could not know how to move on from here [Sauer 2007, 15-16]. He, now, returned to investigate this problem in 1945 [Einstein 1945], and went ahead with the investigation publishing a series of papers between 1946 and 1955, most of them with himself as single author, only one with Straus, and another two with Kaufmann as his co-authors. In these papers, tentative field equations were tested for their mathematical properties, satisfactions of the criteria for a physical interpretation were checked, and as usual, his deep interests of compatibility were examined. Since the mathematics of a framework based on an asymmetric metric tensor is highly complex, he spent the rest of his life elaborating the asymmetric theory. His very last considerations in his final approach were presented by his last assistant, Bruria Kaufmann [Kaufmann 1956], at the 50th anniversary of the relativity theory in Bern in July 1955 a few weeks after Einstein’s death [Sauer 2007, 22-23]. Thus, the efforts and contributions of a genius ended here, to be taken up further by other researchers in future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, one point can be clearly stressed upon that details on an account of Einstein’s work on UFT would be beyond the scope of this paper. However, an honest attempt has been made to present, very briefly, the initiation of his UFT program, his attributes and postulates of the program, his successful journey through the special relativity and general relativity theories, and his genuine attempts at various approaches proposed by other researchers and also generated in his brilliant thought process, most importantly maintaining his high intellectual heritage till the last moment of his life. He is not with us since 1955, long seventy years have passed by, how his followers have followed up his ideas, will expectedly be the subject matter of next papers in this column. 

References

• Bergmann, Peter G. 1979. “The Quest for Unity: General Relativity and Unitary Field Theories.” Syracuse Scholar (1979-1991): Vol.1, Iss. 1, Article 4. Pages 8-18. https://surface.syr.edu/suscholar. 
• Capra, Fritjof. 1975. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Boulder: Shambhala.
• van Dongen, Jeroen. 2002. “Einstein and the Kaluza-Klein Particle.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (2002): 185-210.
• Einstein, Albert. 1921. “Ueber eine naheliegende Ergaenzung des Fundamentes derallgemeinen Relativitaetstheorie.” Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phys.-math. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte : 261-264. c.f. Sauer 2007.
• Einstein, Albert. 1925. “Einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elektrizitaet.” Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phys.-math. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte : 414-419. c.f. Sauer 2007.
• Einstein, Albert. 1941. “Demonstration of the Non-Existence of Gravitational Fields with A Non-Vanishing Total Mass Free of Singularities.” Tucuman Universidad Nacional, Revista A2, 11-15.
• Einstein, Albert. 1943. “Bivector Fields, II.” Annals of Mathematics 45, 15-23.
• Einstein, Albert. 1945. “Generalization of the Relativistic Theory of Gravitation.” Annals of Mathematics 46, 578-584.
• Einstein, Albert, and Bargmann, Valentin. 1943. “Bivector Fields, I.” Annals of Mathematics 45, 1-14.
• Einstein, Albert, Bargmann, Valentin, and Bergmann, Peter. 1941. “Five-Dimensional Representation of Gravitation and Electricity.” In: Theodore von Karman Anniversary Volume, Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.
• Einstein, Albert, and Bergmann, Peter. 1938. “Generalization of Kaluza’s Theory of Electricity.” Annals of Mathematics 39, 683-701.
• Einstein, Albert, and Pauli, Wolfgang. 1943. “Non-Existence of Regular Solutions of Relativistic Field Equations.” Annals of Mathematics 44, 131-137.
• Felker, Laurence G. October 2005. The Evans Equations of Unified Field Theory. https://www.upitec.org/documents/uft/Evans_Equations_Rev3.pdf.
• Janssen, Michel and Christoph Lehner. Eds. 2014. The Cambridge Companion to Einstein. Cambridge University Press.
• Kaufmann, Bruria. 1956. “Mathematical structure of the non-symmetric field theory.” In: Fuenfzig Jahre Relativitaetstheorie. Cinquantenaire de la Theorie de la Relativite.
• Jubilee of Relativity Theory. Mercier, A. and Kervaire, M. (eds), Basel: Birkhaeuser, 1956 (Helvetica Physica Acta Supplementum IV), 227-238. c.f. Sauer 2007.
• Maxwell. J. Clerk. 1865. “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field.” Phil. Trans.
• R. Soc. Lond. 155: 459-512. doi: 10.1098/rstl.1865.0008.    
• Paramguru, Raja Kishore. 2025. “Statue of Nataraja at CERN: The cosmic dance of subatomic particles.” Towards Unification of Sciences 2 (4): 232-243.
• Sauer, Tilman. (April 11) 2007. “Einstein’s Unified Field Theory Program.” Einstein Papers Project. California Institute of Technology 20-7, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3293/1/uft.pdf 
• Sauer, Tilman and Tobias Schuetz. (August 25) 2020. “Einstein’s Washington Manuscript on Unified Field Theory.” https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.10005

Abstract

This research presents a unified framework for the origin of energy, time, and geometry as emergent outcomes of an eternal scalar field, denoted the Prāna Field (℧). Unlike conventional theories that assume time and energy as initial conditions, ℧ is formulated on a domain without metric, coordinate system, or temporal background. Through intrinsic self-interaction, the field generates a sequence of distinct configurations whose increasing diversity defines a measure of configurational entropy. The ordered growth of this entropy constitutes the emergence of time and explains its irreversible direction. Structured fluctuations within ℧ give rise to observable energy, while their relational organization produces the effective geometry of spacetime. In this way, conservation laws and causal order follow directly from the invariance of the field itself, without invoking singularities or external starting points. The model provides a mathematically rigorous and physically consistent account of time and energy, while reflecting the ancient insight of Bhagavad Gītā 2.20, which describes an eternal principle enabling transformation without itself undergoing origin or destruction. This paper presents the foundational construction; future work will extend the framework toward quantitative predictions and cosmological validation.

Keywords: Energy, Entropy, Spacetime, Scalar field, Ancient Cosmology.

Introduction

The principle that energy can neither be created nor destroyed stands as one of the most fundamental statements in physics (Weinberg, 1995; Carroll, 2010; Wald, 1994). From classical thermodynamics to modern quantum field theory, this conservation law underpins nearly every framework used to describe the universe. Yet the origin of energy itself is rarely addressed. If energy is never created, then what allows it to exist? Conventional frameworks, from cosmology to quantum theory, generally start with energy already present. In the Big Bang model, for instance, an initial energy density is assumed, from which the universe expands and evolves (Kolb & Turner, 1990; Bousso, 2002; Padmanabhan, 2005). Similarly, quantum field theory presupposes vacuum energy and field excitations, without explaining the emergence of the vacuum itself. In each case, models describe how energy behaves or transforms, but not how it arises in the first place, leaving a fundamental explanatory gap (Penrose, 2010; Carroll, 2010). This theory addresses that gap by presenting a framework in which energy, time, and geometry emerge from a unified, eternal scalar field, termed the Prāna Field and denoted ℧. Unlike conventional fields defined on spacetime, ℧ exists in a pre-geometric, background-free domain, lacking coordinates, metric structure, or causal ordering. It is timeless and non-dimensional, independent of space, time, or any external reference frame. Within ℧ resides a form of Fundamental Cosmic Energy. This energy is not kinetic, localizable, or conventional in the usual sense; it is an intrinsic potential of the field, encoded in its structural invariance.

Despite its global invariance, ℧ is dynamically active. Its internal self-interaction is governed by a nonlinear, background-independent operator, which acts entirely within the field’s own structure (Padmanabhan, 2005; Misner et al., 1973). This operator generates a hierarchy of distinct internal configurations. As these configurations accumulate, entropy grows naturally, even in the absence of any external time or geometry. When entropy reaches sufficient complexity, local fluctuations arise. These fluctuations eventually stabilize into coherent excitations, which, once relational geometry emerges, can be interpreted as energy-bearing structures. In this sense, energy is not created from an external source; it arises as a direct consequence of the internal dynamics of ℧. Conservation of energy follows rigorously from the field’s invariance, rather than being postulated (Weinberg, 1995; Carroll, 2010).

The growth of entropy within ℧ also provides a mechanistic origin of time. The self-interaction operator is non-commutative, ensuring that successive internal configurations are strictly non-redundant. This property produces a monotonic sequence of internal states, establishing a natural and unidirectional arrow of time. Temporal ordering, therefore, emerges as an algebraic consequence of the field’s intrinsic structure, rather than from external assumptions or macroscopic thermodynamic considerations. Together, the internal dynamics of ℧ give rise to energy, time, and geometry in a single coherent framework, bridging the conceptual gap between a timeless substrate and the structured universe we observe.

Even a state traditionally conceived as “nothing” , a complete absence of matter, space, or time is in this model, not truly empty. It corresponds to the most symmetric, low-entropy configuration of ℧ (Bharadwaj et al., 2025). Including its mathematical consistency this theory is also based on the principle that even a state conventionally considered as ‘nothing’ an absence of space, time, or matter also have something that makes it nothing and that something possesses structure that underlies its very potential to give rise to energy and physical reality (Bharadwaj et al., 2025). The emergence of energy occurs only when self-interaction generates distinguishable configurations, creating local fluctuations that eventually form observable excitations. In this way, the framework reconciles the apparent void with the presence of energy and structure, offering a scientific account of how the universe arises from an eternal, internally dynamic field.

This model finds a formal analogy in ancient cosmological- Verse 2.20 of the Bhagavad Gita describes a principle that neither originates nor ceases, yet gives rise to all transformation (Sargeant, 2009). Within our framework, this principle is realized mathematically through ℧. The Prāna Field is eternal, unbounded, and invariant, yet its internal dynamics give rise to the emergence of energy, geometric relationships, and temporal order. The correspondence between the classical text and the field-theoretic model demonstrates that longstanding philosophical insights can be encoded rigorously in modern scientific language, without putting metaphysical assumptions.

The approach presented here is built entirely on physical reasoning and mathematical formalism. It does not require hypothetical agents, speculative initial conditions, or imposed boundary states. The Prāna Field is defined rigorously on a pre-geometric set lacking coordinates, metric, or topology. Its self-interaction operator is non-idempotent and non-commutative, ensuring monotonic entropy growth, emergence of internal fluctuations, and irreversibility. Energy arises as a variational consequence of these fluctuations once a metric structure emerges from entropic ordering. Conservation follows naturally from invariance. Time emerges from operator asymmetry, while geometry arises from statistical ordering within the field. Each aspect—energy, time, geometry and conservation are a direct, mathematically derivable consequence of the internal properties of ℧.

This framework addresses several persistent challenges in fundamental physics. First, it resolves the apparent paradox of energy existence: energy does not need to be created; it emerges from the internal differentiation of an eternal substrate. Second, it provides a structural basis for the arrow of time, which is traditionally imposed empirically. Third, it offers a mechanism for the emergence of spacetime geometry without presupposing a manifold or pre-existing vacuum. Finally, it unifies the origin of physical law in a single closed system, in which all essential features of the universe- energy, causality, geometry, and temporal ordering arise inevitably from the same underlying dynamics.

The sections that follow formalize these concepts. We present the mathematical definition of ℧, the structure of its self-interaction operator, and the derivation of entropy growth. We then demonstrate how energy and metric structure emerge from internal fluctuations and discuss the conditions under which the framework reproduces conservation laws and an irreversible arrow of time. The objective is not to propose a beginning of the universe, but to show that a field with suitable internal properties inevitably gives rise to the observed features of physical reality.

In summary, this work introduces a coherent, mathematically rigorous framework in which energy, time, and geometry emerge from an eternal scalar field. By grounding the existence of energy in internal entropy dynamics and operator algebra, the model provides a scientifically testable explanation for phenomena that have traditionally been postulated. The Prāna Field ℧ demonstrates that the apparent complexity of the universe can arise from a timeless, and internally dynamic substrate. It bridges the gap between fundamental physical principles and the existence of energy, offering a unified framework that is compatible with both classical and modern theories, while remaining fully grounded in mathematical and physical reasoning.

Methods

To understand how energy, time, and geometry can arise from a background-free eternal field without invoking creation, we construct a variationally defined framework based on the Prāna Field ℧. This section develops the mathematical structure in four interconnected steps: formulation of the field, entropy growth as a derived theorem, emergence of energy through stress–energy variation, and proof of temporal irreversibility.

To investigate how energy can exist without being created. This field does not reside within space or time; it exists independently of any geometric or causal structure. It is not a vacuum, nor a spacetime manifold (Weinberg, 1995). Rather, it is a completely background-free entity that does not change under any internal parameter. Its defining feature is that it has no origin and no temporal evolution, it simply exists, timelessly and invariantly. Despite this invariance, ℧ is not static in the conventional sense. It possesses the capacity for internal interaction. This interaction occurs within itself and does not require space or an external field. Through this self-interaction, ℧ gives rise to a set of internal configurations. These configurations are distinguishable states within its own structure, and their variety gives rise to internal entropy. As this entropy accumulates within ℧, regions of fluctuation begin to emerge.

These fluctuations represent differences within the field’s structure and can be thought of as precursors to energy. They are not yet particles or waves in space, but internal variations that develop as a result of entropic tension. As these fluctuations increase and stabilize, they eventually lead to the appearance of coherent excitations what we recognize as energy. This energy is not created from outside the system; it arises naturally from within the eternal structure of ℧ itself. At a certain threshold of internal complexity, these fluctuations begin to organize in ways that mirror geometric relationships. This process gives rise to spacetime not as a pre-existing background, but as an emergent ordering of entropic structure (Bharadwaj et al., 2025). Causality, locality, and the arrow of time all arise from the irreversible growth of entropy within ℧. Since ℧ never changes globally, the energy it produces remains conserved. This conservation is not imposed but emerges as a result of the field’s unchanging nature. In this way, the entire framework provides a coherent scientific explanation for how energy, geometry, and time can arise from a source that neither begins nor ends, without requiring any act of creation or destruction.

• Definition of the Eternal Scalar Field

We begin by defining a foundational domain, denoted M₀, which precedes all conventional physical structure. This domain is pre-geometric: it has no metric, no topological definition, and no dimensional or temporal coordinate system. Formally,

M₀={∄g_μν,∄_t, ∄_{spatial structure}}.                             1

Thus, M₀represents the most elementary substrate, prior to any manifold or vacuum description used in classical or quantum physics.

On this domain we introduce the Prāna Field, denoted by ℧, defined as a scalar mapping:

℧:M₀ →R.

Unlike conventional scalar fields that are embedded in spacetime, ℧ is not defined relative to any background geometry. It is a primitive construct, existing independently of dimensional coordinates or external causal reference frames. To characterize its invariance, we impose the eternality condition:

   d℧/dτ=0,  ∀τ∈R0.

where τ is introduced only as a formal index not as physical time. This condition ensures that ℧ is globally invariant: it does not evolve relative to any external ordering parameter, and it does not admit termination. The field is therefore eternal in the strict mathematical sense.

Although the field ℧ remains globally invariant, such invariance does not imply that it is featureless. The absence of external evolution only means that no background time or coordinate system governs its behaviour. Within this closed framework, the field retains the capacity for internal differentiation that does not depend on spacetime. This point is crucial: ℧ cannot be identified with a vacuum, since a vacuum presupposes a spacetime geometry, nor with a manifold, since no coordinate structure exists at this stage. Instead, ℧ represents a self-contained substrate that precedes both geometry and chronology.

By formulating the field in this way, we establish a precise starting condition for further development. The next step is to introduce an internal composition law that acts only within the domain of ℧. This operation generates successively distinct configurations, which may then be ordered and quantified. The progressive increase in distinguishable states permits the definition of entropy. From this entropy growth, one can derive the emergence of localized excitations corresponding to energy, followed by the appearance of geometric order. In this sense, the eternal scalar field provides a logically consistent foundation from which physical structures such as energy, spacetime, and causality arise, without assuming them as prior conditions.

2. Action Principle and Self-Interaction

The eternal scalar field ℧, though invariant under linear variation, is not structurally trivial. Its invariance means that it does not evolve with respect to any external parameter of time and is independent of background geometry. To formalize its dynamics, we introduce an action principle defined entirely on the pre-geometric set M0, which lacks metric, topology, or coordinates.

We define the action functional as

S℧= M0L ℧,S℧d0, 

where d0 denotes a formal measure on M0. Here S is the intrinsic operator representing the field’s self-interaction, defined as

S℧=℧℧,

With ⋆ a non-associative binary product acting solely within the internal structure of ℧.

The non-associativity ensures that successive applications generate distinct outcomes rather than collapsing to redundancy, thereby producing a hierarchy of configurations even in the absence of spacetime.

Applying the variational principle yields-

S=M0L℧℧+LS℧S℧d0.

Since the variation of the self-operator satisfies,

S℧=S℧,

with S denoting the adjoint action, the field equation becomes-

∂L∂℧-S∂LS℧=0.

This relation determines the admissible configurations of ℧. Unlike standard Euler–Lagrange equations defined on spacetime manifolds, this condition operates entirely in a background-free domain, consistent with the postulate of a pre-geometric origin.

The role of S is essential: it encodes an autonomous internal dynamics that does not depend on geometry or time. The solutions of this variational principle correspond to stable internal configurations of ℧. These configurations are not arbitrary but derivable from the action, and their multiplicity naturally expands the set of accessible states. This expansion establishes the statistical foundation for entropy growth, which in turn underlies the later emergence of fluctuations, energy, and geometry.

Thus, the action principle shows that the eternal field ℧ is not a passive invariant but a closed, self-consistent dynamical system governed by rigorous mathematical structure.

3. Entropy Theorem from Internal States

The eternal scalar field ℧ is governed entirely by its own internal dynamics, independent of space, time, or external geometry. Its behaviour is encoded in the action of an intrinsic operator, denoted S, which recursively generates new internal states. This recursive action defines the field’s structural evolution:

n+1=Sn,  0={℧},

where n denotes the set of distinct configurations after n iterations. The corresponding number of accessible microstates is

Ωintn= n.

Proposition: Monotonic Growth of Internal States

If the operator S is non-idempotent, i.e.,

S℧℧

then the sequence of microstates is strictly increasing:

intn+1>intn, ∀n.

Proof: Non-idempotency guarantees each iteration introduces at least one new configuration. Therefore, the sequence of sets is strictly increasing. ∎

Corollary: Entropy Increase

Entropy is defined from the microstate count as

Sn=kln int n,

with k a generalized Boltzmann constant appropriate for a pre-geometric system. Since intn+1>intn, it follows that

dSdn>0.

Thus, entropy increases monotonically with each iteration of the internal operator. This growth is a direct consequence of the non-idempotent algebra of S, and not the result of external temporal or thermodynamic assumptions.

“While we can know the things we encounter in our experiential interactions with the world’s realities as such, the realm of things in themselves are inherently unknown to us.”

-Emmanuel Kant- Critique of Pure Reason (1781)

“The Truth is what stands the test of experience.”

 -Albert Einstein

“Spiritual Truth is a truth of the spirit, not a truth of the intellect, nor a mathematical theorem or a logical formula”.

-Sri Aurobinda

Abstract

Throughout the history of our civilization one can notice that the inquisitive human mind has been struggling to compresence all within himself and outside as well asking very difficult questions about temporal and eternal, about truth and reality, about the source of the all existence, about the origin and the cause behind all occurrences. Man has been continuing his search even till today in every possible way with all different resources or capabilities available to the mind and intellect to find satisfactory answers to all those questions. This perennial pursuit has been addressed in the domain of spiritual traditions as well as in scientific terms. Our purpose here is to give a brief account of the nature of the truth and reality as arrived at in various discussions.

Key words: Spiritual truth, Scientific truth, Source of existence, Origin of occurrence, Layers of reality, Ultimate reality, Quantum field theory, Pure consciousness, Truth Absolute.

Introduction

We have so far been discussing how human curiosity to understand and realize the true nature of Reality and Truth as the essence behind the phenomenal world, has led to the ceaseless pursuits in all possible ways, ever since the human mind woke up to the wondrous world both internally within himself and externally outside. All religions and spiritual traditions in fact represent the human mind’s very first attempt to decipher the universe it awoke to. The contemplative minds of all the ancient religions claimed to have witnessed the cosmos within the inner self to realize and experience, in reverie or meditative state, the Absolute Truth and Reality, which or been verbalized and expressed in various ways. In such experiential realization, the normal subject-object boundaries manifest in waking consciousness are altered completely presenting a feeling. This experiential or inter relationship with the cosmos. This experiential reality of a higher order beyond the space and time refers to an absolute and unchanging, remaining the same for all time for all people as the very ground of existence. With this conviction the seers of Vedic traditions in Mandukya Upanishad had declared that;

“Truth alone wins, not untruth.

By truth is established the path

That leads to the Divine;

by which the seers, who have

fulfilled their desires to reach

the supreme abode of Truth.”

(Mandukya Upanishad III.1.6)

Truth and Reality defined in this absolute term can be called the spiritual Truth. This is an experiential realization of connectedness with a Reality beyond the immediate sense perceptions of objects in space and time. It gives rise to a holistic type of knowing manifesting cognitively, emotionally and motivationally. They call it by various names the all-pervading supreme Consciousness, the embodiment of all potentialities, the ground of existence, the supreme God Divine etc. We would come back to this aspect further in subsequent sections.

Plato also believed in some kind of Truth and Reality belonging to an abstract realm beyond space & time consisting of ideal forms of geometrical nature. Pythagoras believed the ultimate Truth lies in mathematical numbers and propositions based on mathematical logic. Plato believed further that the physical world of our sense perception is only an illusion being a shadow or projection of that abstract mathematical realm. Truth conceived in this manner may be termed as the mathematical truth which is also beyond space and time in the so-called Platonic world.

Such views as above on Truth and Reality are wide spread in many metaphysical systems. Nevertheless, these views are commonly and completely unacceptable in the current scientific world view. Thus, in the scientific quest to understand the cosmos and the very ground of existence; the emerging science after the seventeenth century in Europe implicitly incorporated the Euro-centric perspective of discarding the older Truth-seeking traditions as pre-scientific and thus invalid. Instead it viewed the world to be so obviously material in nature that any suggestion of an underlying Truth as an immaterial prime aspect of the very ground of existence must be rejected having no basis for Reality. Therefore, science ventured to explore the ultimate Truth within the material structure of the cosmos considering space, time, matter and energy to be the most fundamental ingredients with matter as the primal entity. Thus, according to such materialistic scientific paradigm; matter-energy and space-time reside at the foundation of Reality and all other immaterial qualities like mind or consciousness etc. emerged out of it. Therefore, science engaged itself in exploring the ultimate Truth in the form of the immutable laws of nature and the fundamental building blocks of matter applying a reductionist approach. The laws of nature are expressed in abstract mathematical formulations embracing the so-called mathematical Truths for the scientific descriptions of the ways of the world and the Reality explored in the process. These rational findings may be termed as the scientific Truth about which we may draw our critical attention again in the following section.

The Scientific Truth and the nature of Reality 

In modern parlance Truth is considered as that which corresponds to Reality. In that sense science; in search of Truth; engages itself in understanding the Reality to its fullest extent. We would highlight again how science has explored the various layers of physical reality in the wake of the revolution brought about by relativity and quantum physics. In fact, the physical reality of the material world is understood as having layered structures, though no neatly stacked layers. These layers may be considered as different levels of description as one proceeds from the gross to the finer and deeper levels unfolding the enchanting and dynamic nature of the physical reality.

The first layer of this reality, according to scientific views, is the observable universe of material objects and the natural phenomena all around us that we normally perceive through our senses. This is the only reality for a lay person in conformity with our common sense. This is also the reality that seems to exist outside of us, which led Descartes and his followers to believe that there is a distinct separateness or split between matter and mind or between the object and the observer. Classical Science dealt with the physical reality at this level adopting a mechanical world view. We are not outfitted with an X-ray vision to see what is inside this first level of reality appearing as solid, substantial, concrete material bodies. The next level of reality, which our ordinary senses are not equipped to perceive; required a great leap in our imagination as well as necessary tools as mechanical extensions of our senses, which include not only electron microscopes, particle-accelerators etc. but also intricate mathematical constructs and abstract models for visualization. The idea that everything is made of atoms and molecules goes all the way back to the 3rd century BCE with Kanada Kashyap of Vaishika Darshana and the Greek Philosopher Democritus. But what exactly is an atom made of; say the simplest hydrogen atom? As we know now this is simply a proton orbited by an electron. Similarly, other atoms are built with a central nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons surrounded by an appropriate number of orbiting electrons. Again, we know that protons and neutrons are made up of other elementary particles called quarks, while an electron is itself an elementary particle. More than 99.98% of the atom’s mass is due to the heavy nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons. The radius of an atom is about a few angstroms (1 Angstrom = 10-10m). Considering the relative size of the atom and its nucleus; and their corresponding volumes; it follows obviously to reveal that almost 99.99999…% of the atomic volume is empty space. Thus, solidity is not a result of an actual content of matter, but rather a property resulting from the interactions of electrons. What a trick that the reality at this level plays by projecting the illusion of solidity of objects! This tangible aspect of material objects providing the very sensation of the physical, is based astonishingly on nothingness.

All the matter that makes up our everyday world with complicated structures we recognize as stars, planets, with plants, birds, animals and human beings, is primarily composed of two kinds of fundamental particles Palled fundamental fermions and bosons. Quarks and electrons belong to this class of fermions which provide the material contents. The fundamental bosons include another class of particles which provide all types of bindings to these material contents necessary for various structure formations. These are the force-carrying particles called gauge bosons. Besides these fundamental fermions and bosons, science has discovered a zoo of subatomic particles and their mirror world of antiparticles revealing a far greater structure to reality at this level, which is not only quite astonishing but also very bizarre with all the quantum weirdness at its heart. The subatomic particles display contradictory dual behaviors as waves and particles depending on if and how they are observed. At this quantum level of reality any certainty is lost and measurement can only be expressed as probabilities. In other words, the location of such a particle is only probabilistic, so that it could be observed where in the universe however small the probability may be. As a result, it can appear at places ordinarily forbidden for it in a process called quantum tunneling. These quantum particles do not have any definite properties of their own including any definite location or motion at any instant of time before observation. They exist as potentialities only having certain tendencies to be revealed only if and how a measurement is made on them to observe. Thus, the sharp boundary between the object and the observer melts away at this quantum level of reality. It is all the more baffling to know that the marriage of such quantum entities allows them to stay connected in quantum entanglement and be both instantaneously influenced regardless of their spatial separation between them. This clearly violates the classical local realism revealing the non-local nature of the reality at this level. Such instantaneous communication between the two entangled quantum entities is in contradiction with special theory of relativity according to which there is an upper limit to how fast information can travel in the universe and that is the cosmic speed limit as the speed of light.

After coming across all these mind-boggling natures of the quantum entities considered as the constituents of matter at its deeper level; we may now ask what these constituent parts are which are not particles in the real sense of the term having no definite location and motion besides the other aspects. In fact, these constituent parts are in a constant state of flux and the propeller of this flux is energy. In other words, they are nothing but discrete packets of energy. If all things are made of this abstract immaterial substance known as energy; why do we see them as stable and unchanging? Why don’t the fundamental elementary particles simply diffuse or fall apart? Why all the elementary particles belonging to a particular species such as say electrons are all absolutely identical everywhere in the Universe, no matter when or where they are created. This is because they have a fixed confined energy; confined like a genie in a bottle. But here the bottles are not physical; they are known as fields which are real; though abstract. These fermions and bosons are identified as the discrete quantas of their respective fields. We have now entered the third layer of reality, where the matter fields of the fermions and the force fields of the bosons seem to be more primary than matter itself, since these fields behave as the breeding ground for the so-called elementary particles. Therefore, fields are some dynamic manifestation of a charged think of. We are of course quite familiar with the classical think of fields, whose influence is felt locally; like our earth’s field or the electrostatic field of a of gravity body and the magnetic field of a magnet. Considering these cases, one could easily be misled into thinking that field is something that arises from matter retaining the primacy of matter. But in fact, this is not true. The truth is far stranger. Even if one imagines a universe with no material objects leaving an absolute void, still then these un-manifested fields, known as quantum fields would be found to pervade all space and time. These fields are non-local in the sense that they are felt equally in all parts of the universe. Again, unlike our familiar classical fields, the magnitude of energy of a quantum field is not continuous but appears in discrete or quantized lumps, what we called elementary particles. Frank Wilczek, an exponent of quantum field theory and a Nobel laureate sums it up as: –

“In quantum field theory, the primary elements of reality are not individual particles, but underlying fields….”. These quantum fields do possess their usual quantum nature of not being locatable in any geometrical sense although they are everywhere. This is according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, so that a quantum field cannot have a definite value at any given instant, not even the value zero. As a result, the amplitude as a measure of its size must change all the time resulting in what are known as vacuum fluctuations. The effect of these fluctuations is revealed in several phenomena observed experimentally. Notable amongst all these phenomena is the Casimir Effect, which the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir predicted in 1948 in order to demonstrate the effect of vacuum fluctuations of quantum electromagnetic fields. According to this, a measurable force can be seen to act to push together two parallel metal plates even in vacuum. This was conclusively demonstrated in 1996 by Physicist Steven Lamoreaux establishing the existence of electromagnetic ghost force in vacuum and thus validating the notion that all fields at quantum level fluctuate. This provides the strongest evidence for the actuality of the un-manifested quantum fields in vacuum. The wild fluctuations of the un-manifested fields create a quantum frenzy at microscopic dimensions of space creating pairs of virtual particles of matter and antimatter by borrowing energy from space in accordance with the uncertainty principle. The larger the energy debt, the shorter is the time to pay back when these pairs of virtual particles annihilate each other. These virtual particles are like ocean sprays thrown up when turbulent ocean waves crash with each other or against the rocks only to fall back into the ocean from which it came. But only when sufficient energy surplus is made available by any source, stable particles can emerge from the quantum fields to have a real existence in the universe. Without this surplus energy there are only virtual particles. This energy is the zero-point energy of the quantum fields called vacuum energy, which becomes available by a process called spontaneous symmetry breaking. This unseen but ubiquitous quantum fields and their vacuum fluctuations together with the so-called spontaneous breaking of symmetry may seem utterly alien because of its abstractness and the very esoteric mathematics involved in the construction of the standard model of particle physics. The triumph of the standard model in explaining all the observed fundamental particles is a hall mark of twentieth century physics.

Thus, the un-manifested quantum fields interlace throughout the cosmos like multidimensional fabrics woven in such a way that each infinitesimal weave of the fabric contains, so to say, the whole cloth. Regardless of our puzzlements, the omnipresent quantum fields permeate the whole space, definitely as a further layer of the reality of this phantom world in which there is no such thing as empty space. Thus, science seems to have found the most crucial elements of existence in the quantum vacuum by comprehending this intrinsic fundamental reality of our cosmos in support of the concept of the ‘one source’ – the nothingness or sunyata of Buddhism or the ‘Brahman’ of the Vedantic tradition. The analysis of the structure of reality at the macroscopic as well as the microscopic level to find a solid foundation of reality has landed the philosophers of science to wonder whether there is something fundamentally flawed in the idea of a world built up of matter. P. Davies and J. Gribbin in their book ‘The Matter Myth;’ summarize about the current paradigm shift, we are witnessing with the following words:

“It is fitting that physics, the science that gave us materialism, should also signal the demise of materialism. During this century the new physics has blown apart the central tenets of materialist doctrine in a sequence of stunning developments. First came the theory of relativity, which demolished Newton’s assumption about space and time -assumptions that still hold sway in our everyday commonsense view of the world. The very arena in which the clock-work universe acted out its drama was now exposed as subject to shifting and warping. Then came the quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms was simply as scaled down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton’s deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles governed by the laws of chance rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of quantum theory, known as the quantum field theory, goes even beyond this, it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. In this theory, little distinction remains between material substance and apparent empty space which itself seethes with ephemeral quantum activity.”

Han-Peter Durr, a renowned physicist who was the successor of Heisenberg in 1978 as the director of the Max-Planck-Institute for physics in Munich also ended up with a mystical view of reality with a bold claim that “Matter does not exist! Therefore, I have worked fifty years on a notion that is inexistent. This was an extra ordinary experience: Learning that something, whose reality everyone is convinced of, in the end, does not exist.”

Adding further on this, the remark by P. Davies and N.H. Gregersen in their book ‘Information and the Nature of Reality: From physics to Metaphysics (2014), we quote here as: – “One has the sense that, at the end of the day, the speculation of the philosophers and the data from the scientists are pointing in the same surprising direction. At the root of tall physical reality is not primary matter.”

Thus, one comes to realize that the more science moves away from common sense to intellectually visualize and understand the real world using powerful mathematical abstractions, the harder it becomes to decide what constitutes a mere model and what is supposed to be a faithful description of reality. Science has been following the age-old conviction that mathematics represents the blueprint for reality and the deep truths about the workings of the world. And therefore, it ventures into the realms in the abstract world of mathematics in building theoretical models which interrelate with the workings of the physical world from the quantum weirdness comprising reality to the awe-inspiring vastness of the cosmic fabric in the form of the quantum frenzy of the void. This translation aspect of reality into abstract representations with a purpose to decode the deep truths ultimately leads to ever changing descriptions of scientific truths and realities in terms of physical concepts. Albert Einstein had once remarked – “Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, determined by the external world.”

Therefore, such physical concepts, although they are true in the sense of the predictions of the abstract theoretical models based on solid mathematical logic and the support of experimental evidence; they do not describe the true nature of Reality. The concepts describing the truth are model dependent corresponding to a particular level of description. As one proceeds to the deeper and deeper levels in the description, more and more abstract formulations of mathematical models come to the fore with newer concepts describing reality. Therefore, this intellectual enterprise of the human mind may be called scientific realism which is based on the foundation of mathematical truth. For a better assessment and appreciation of this scientific realism, it is worthwhile to understand the scope of mathematical truth encoding the physical reality which is deciphered as the scientific truth.

Conclusion

Thus, we placed here the arguments in favour of the spiritual truth as the Truth Absolute to represent the ultimate Reality as against the scientific truth. This has been described in the widest variety of wisdom traditions referring it variously as attribute-less potentiality-the ‘Brahman’ or as the cosmic consciousness – the ‘Purusha’. This pure consciousness is said to be experienced in an elevated state of awareness. The Yogasutras of Patanjali, for example, explains that at the state of perfection, one’s mind relaxes and settles down so completely within itself that it is no longer aware of any objects, sensations, thoughts, feelings and not even the subjective spatio-temporal manifold in which all our other experiences occur. The complete absence of any empirical content is the characteristic of this experience. When all of the phenomenal objects of one’s conscious awareness disappear and yet one remains awake; it is the consciousness alone by itself that is experienced. This experience is, of course, a very unusual one and is hardly ever found in the absence of the practice of meditative techniques to produce it. The veracity of such claims has been investigated to some extent by modern science to make it clear that the mystic experience talked about so often is associated with a very unusual physiology, where overall metabolic processes settle down to such an extent that even at times breathing almost stops entirely. A considerable body of research has come to be conducted on these meditative techniques including some on the physiological correlates during the experience in question. In the laboratory settings, at least, reports of the experience are often highly correlated not only with significant reduction of metabolic activity, but also with cases of complete cessation of respiration which is in conformity with the ancient texts. There are also other unusual physiological features such as changes in blood chemistry, very high inter-hemispheric EEG-Coherence etc. have been noticed. The significance of such research results shows that it is not a mere belief system that could itself produce the unique physiological state described above relating to the unique experience. It is even less reasonable to think that the different belief systems of Yoga, Vedanta, Taoism, Medieval Christianity etc. should all converge to produce the same unique physiological state leading to the experiential accounts of pure quality less awareness as the common underlying experiences.

Thus this ‘pure consciousness’-experience is extraordinarily abstract, having no concrete phenomenological objects like colors, sounds, tastes, smells, shapes or even thoughts in it at all. However, it does have some contents, namely, pure abstract bliss, joy, happiness or fulfillment unbounded in intensity and independent of all the things we ordinarily associate it with. Bhagabat-Gita puts it (verses 6.18. to 6.28) as;

“Having established the mind in the Self (i.e. pure consciousness), let him not think at all, for supreme happiness comes to the yogi whose mind is deep in peace. Thus, collecting himself the yogi…. with ease attains contact with … infinite joy, free from craving for any pleasure. Having gained (that) which he counts no other gain as higher.”

Having said all that; the question no doubt arises; ‘what is it like, if it is not like ‘anything’? Can science stretch its limits beyond quantum physics and its implications to come to terms with this abstract concept of ‘consciousness’ vouched as the spiritual truth and the Ultimate Reality? 

Reference

1. “Glatter felder, J. B.; -What is Reality? George and the Blue Moon, Random House, London (2016b).
2. Maudlin, T.; – The Metaphysics Within Physics, Oxford University Press (2007).
3. Bhaumik, M.; -Code Name God. Penguin Books, Random House India Pvt. Ltd. (2006)
4. Young, A. M.; – Mathematics, Physics and Reality. Robert Biggs Associates, Portland, Oregon (1990).
5. Barik, N., & Das, G.; – Mysticism and Science – An Indian Context. Notion Press, New Delhi (2022).

Abstract

Thermal activity is caused in a temperature differential. We use different relative temperature scales to measure the thermal state of matter. We make use different zero settings of different temperature scales basing upon different isothermal state corresponding to change of state of matter on the surface of the earth such as the melting point of water as zero degree Celsius and 0° F as the temperature at which a brine made of 50% salt and 50% ice melts. The melting temperature of water or the melting temperature of brine can vary in space and on other celestial bodies due to differences in atmospheric pressure. The Kelvin scale, a thermodynamic temperature scale, came into existence when William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) proposed an absolute temperature scale based on the Carnot-cycle. This scale, which starts at absolute zero (0 K, equivalent to -273.15°C), provides a more fundamental and scientifically useful way to measure temperature. In absolute (Kelvin) scale, temperature below 0 (K) is not feasible as it is the lowest temperature. The absolute temperature is not arbitrary but supported by the thermodynamic phenomenon. The extra-nuclear space structure of the sun goes on decreasing outwardly reaching a value close to -273^oC or 0 (K) at its boundary as revealed from the temperatures of planets. Any experiment carried out in the solar system is essentially within a confined system with a fixed boundary temperature of 0 (K). The Kelvin temperature becomes a parameter in thermodynamic laws. If the boundary temperature of the extra-nuclear space structure of another star is minus 100 K then the thermodynamic absolute temperature for the other star would be (K+100). Assuming the drop-in temperature of the extra-nuclear space structure of the galaxy has the similar trend as that of the sun, the boundary temperature of extra-nuclear space structure of stars located towards the boundary of the galaxy would be lower than that of the sun i.e. lower than 0 (K). Thus, the so-called absolute temperature is only another relative temperature. The paper discusses all aspects of so-called absolute temperature.

Key Words: Thermal activity, Absolute temperature, Relative temperature, Temperature differential, Zero Kelvin, Extra-nuclear space.

Discussion     

Temperature refers to thermal state of matter. We are able to know the thermal state of a body because the hot body emits photons at higher energy levels which is a function of the energy state of the body. The energy level of a photon is a function of photonic charge potential (non-electric charge potential) which in turn is a function of mass-space structure of the photon [1]. Photons are particles of matter in the micro-micro domain having mass in photonic mass units & charge in photonic charge units and they have rest existence in solid, liquid, gas and space as space matter particles [2]. Like the extra nuclear space structure of the celestial body in macro scale atomic particles in micro scale the light particles and field forming particles (photons) have extra nuclear space structure in micro-micro domain scale. If the mass-space ratio of a photon at rest is the same as that of the matter in its surrounding, then the charge state of the photon is zero. But the zero charge of a photon becomes charge active with different photonic charge potential relative to the charge state of the new local condition [3]. Thus, the mass-space structures of photons in local equilibrium (at rest) are different at different locations in the structure of the universe. In the new atomic model, the energy levels of photons (space matter particles) in the extra-nuclear space structure of atoms, decreases towards the boundary [4]. We also know the temperature of the extra-nuclear space structure of the sun decreases towards the boundary of the solar system which is revealed from the temperature profile of planets of the Sun. It is natural to think that a similar phenomenon occurs in the like manner, the temperature of the extra-nuclear space structure of a galaxy to go in decreasing order towards the boundary of the galactic system. The temperature gradient of the extra nuclear space structure of the galaxy can be visualized from the temperature of stars located at different distances from the nucleus. A star with it’s in the extra nuclear space structure and orbiting within the space fluid of the galaxy attains the surrounding temperature of the space fluid at the boundary of extra nuclear space structure of the star. For all thermodynamics processes within the solar system, the boundary temperature of the extra-nuclear space structure of the sun is an active parameter. We notice the temperature at the boundary of solar extra-nuclear space structure approaches zero K. Thus, it is no wonder if we find the temperature below zero K at the boundary of the galaxy.

The thermodynamic events, in an earthly environment, reveal that there is a definite correlation among pressure, volume and temperature. The temperature factor in the said correlation is neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit but refers to the temperature T=(t^oC+273) where the temperature (T) is the absolute temperature in Kelvin. We again find that the thermal energy radiation is directly proportional to T₄. We then established theoretically that the value of zero Kelvin as the absolute zero temperature of the universe. Obviously, no temperature below absolute zero is feasible. We have also seen how difficult it is to approach a temperature close to absolute zero.

All measurements are done relative to some reference standard. We make use different zero settings of temperature scales based on different isothermal states corresponding to change of state of matter on the surface of the earth such as the melting point of water as zero degree Celsius and 0° F as the temperature at which a brine made of 50% salt and 50% ice melts. We measure the pressure in terms of atmospheric pressure at the surface of the earth. We measure the dynamic parameter (time) of a system with reference to the rotational dynamics of the earth. All these relative measurements are earth based because these references are easily accessible to the inhabitants of the earth. Since any relative scale can be used to evaluate/characterize the property of a system for study of dynamics of systems, we have taken the best consistent reference values pertaining to the surface of the earth.

The motivation for any dynamics comes only from a differential property, such as differential pressure, differential temperature, differential electric potential etc. The differential property remains unchanged if the reference zeros are taken differently in two different relative scales. Thus, the differential temperature in the Kelvin scale is the same as that in the Celsius scale.

If all dynamics are concerned with some differential property why the same is not reflected in the thermodynamic laws of gas (Charles’ Law and Steffan-Boltzmann law). In fact, they are obeying the differential temperature and the same can be identified with proper analysis. Examining the extra-nuclear space structure of the sun, we notice both pressure and temperature are decreasing towards the boundary of the solar system. However, the temperature fluctuation does occur within the range of solar corona due to thermal celestial charge polarization in the Sun’s extra nuclear space structure (solar atmosphere) similar to that occurring in earth’s atmosphere in its closer range [5] [6]. We notice different celestial bodies are at different temperatures. Beyond the solar corona the temperature in the extra-nuclear space structure of the sun goes on decreasing outwardly with the lowest temperature prevailing at its boundary. The temperature of planets is an indication of the phenomenon of outwardly decreasing temperature of the extra-nuclear structure of the sun. Fig.1 shows the schematic temperature profile of the extra-nuclear space structure of the galaxy and the sun within it. In the new concept all centrally organized mass-space structures have space-density gradients, space content per unit volume [7]. Space being a physical entity, there is no difficulty in accepting variations in space content per unit volume [7] Further, space always contains space matter particles where the size and number density of space matter particles is function of space density [4]. Again, temperature is a function of mass-space structure. Thus, the lowest temperature in the solar system prevails only at the boundary of the extra-nuclear space structure of the sun. This boundary temperature is approaching zero Kelvin as seen from the decreasing temperatures of planets. There is no reason why the temperature profile of the extra-nuclear space structure of a galaxy would not follow the same trend. The stars are located at different distances from the nucleus of the galaxy and have different temperatures. In view of the above one can expect the temperature at the boundary of the extra-nuclear space structure of the Milky-way galaxy to have the lowest temperature. The sun is located at 2/3rd the radius of the Milky-way galaxy. The temperature at the boundary of the sun’s extra-nuclear space structure has the same value as that prevailing in the extra nuclear space structure of the galaxy at the sun’s location. If the temperature at the boundary of the sun’s extra-nuclear space structure is -273^oC (zero K), then the temperature of the boundary of the galaxy would be lower than zero Kelvin (–K). This suggests the Kelvin temperature does not refer to absolute temperature. Hence, the Kelvin temperature scale is relative like the Celsius and Fahrenheit scale but with lower value of reference zero.

Abstract

The sunspot number changes fairly uniformly following an eleven-year cycle. This fact has been simply recorded without any plausible answer. A new 85-year cycle has also been recorded by this author. Many short-range periodicities (154, 129, 104, 84, 78, and 51 days) are also noticed from the study of solar activities. The cause-oriented analysis is missing for the periodicity of the Sun. This article suggests that the external periodic forces derived from planetary conjunction and opposition are the primary cause of periodicity in the solar activities. The computed values of the periods of different planetary conjunction and opposition matches remarkably well with those of the observed sun’s periodic activities and hence testify the new hypothesis.

key words: Sunspot cycle, Sun’s periodicity, Eleven-year cycle of Sun, Periodic planetary motion, Planetary conjunction, Planetary opposition, External periodic forces, Motive forces.

Discussion 

The 11-year sunspot cycle is well-known and is popularly called the `11-year cycle’ of the sun. According to some scientists, different complex phenomena occurring in the Sun, set an eleven-year periodic motion of the dynamo operating within the Sun. The author, while examining the reported sunspot cycles, identified a new 85-year period [1]. Now, the above anticipated complex phenomena occurring in the Sun becomes more complicated as it has to set the dynamo for both 11- and 85-years periodic events. While trying to realize the complex phenomena, it is extremely difficult to perceive a kind of self-organized periodicity in the turbulent Sun.

In the year 1984, a periodicity of 154 days was found from the solar flare activities and this has been confirmed by many [2]. Further short-range periodicity of 51, 78, 104 and 129 days have been identified by Bai and Sturrock [2]. The above authors have drawn the attention to the fact that except for 81 days, the periods are close to multiples of 25.8 by factors 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Hence, they have suggested that the short-range periodicity is formed due to formation of sub-harmonics of a fundamental period. In this regard they have postulated a non-linear dynamical system with periodic forcing terms to visualize the sub-harmonics (i.e. the integral multiples of fundamental period) and suggested the use of following Duffing’s equation.

x+ x+ αx+x3=cos(ωt) …………(1)

Where, the numbers δ, α, β, γ and ω are constants.

Equation-1 exhibits periodic behaviour for certain values of δ, α and β. While examining the feasibility of application of the above equation for the internal dynamics of the Sun, it is required to perceive the periodic forcing terms from within the Sun. The Sun, as understood today, is a ball of hot plasma with continuous nuclear and chemical reactions in progress. Thus, to expect a kind of periodic forcing term of very regular nature with its cause lying within the dynamics of turbulent Sun, seems least probable. The periodic forcing terms required for generation of sub-harmonics cannot possibly be derived from the Sun without considering the solar system as a whole. The factors that control the values of the constants δ, α and β in equation-1 must find physical significance towards the motive forces if the equation is to be used for evaluation of sub-harmonics for the periodicity of the Sun.

According to this author, the periodicities in the Sun can only be caused by the periodic conjunction and opposition of planets due to the periodic nature of motion of the planets. Such periodic force interaction for gravitationally coupled Sun and the planets is most probable. Gravitational interaction is not as well understood as electromagnetic interaction. Therefore, the analysis of the exact nature of gravitational wave interaction leading to exact solar events may require some more time. Tidal bulging of sea water on the Earth at its nearest distance to the Moon and at diametrically opposite location is well known. If similar bulges are produced at the gaseous photosphere of the Sun due to the action of planets, it might then result in an adiabatic drop in temperature causing sunspot. However, many uncertainties exist in the gravitational problems. One such fact is that the soil temperature of the Earth dropped suddenly by 20^o C during the total solar eclipse [3]. With the present knowledge of gravitational interaction, one cannot possibly explain the sudden drop in temperature on the surface of the Earth. Once again, the ionosphere of the Earth undergoes an excursion for ±1 km in the equivalent height during the transit of the Moon [4]. Perhaps to understand such problems we need to understand gravity right from its cause and its linkage with other fundamental forces of nature. As on today the tidal effect on the Sun due to the planets are not considered because they produce a small gravitational pull on the photosphere of the Sun compared to the Sun’s own gravity. Now leaving some room for any peculiar gravitational interaction of planets and the Sun, which may be analyzed later for the cause of temperature drop in sunspot location, we may try to find out if the planetary conjunction and opposition has any bearing with the sunspot cycle. The introduction of non-electric charges and their exchange among celestial bodies, as suggested by this author, has a great scope for a new type of interaction [5]. At this stage without going into further detail, one can develop a correlation between the period of conjunction/opposition and the periods of solar activity to establish the mutual interaction linkage.

Before proceeding with the calculation of the periods of conjunction and opposition of planets, one might like to visualize the effect of conjunction and opposition. Lunar tide on the Earth exhibits two maxima: 1) during the conjunction of the Sun and the Moon (New Moon period) and 2) during the opposition of the Sun and the Moon (Full Moon period). A planet can as well cause tides in the photosphere like the Moon causing tides on the sea of the Earth. Since the effect of a single planet is less significant, we shall consider the combined effect of multiple planets. Imagine, the Sun has two planets P₁ and P₂ with sidereal periods of revolution as P₁ and P₂ respectively. The hypothetical planets P₁ and P₂ having different periods of revolution would form conjunction and opposition of the planets P₁ and P₂ periodically (Fig.1). Like the effect of the Sun and the Moon forming periodic tides on the liquid surface of the Earth, the planets P₁ and P₂ would cause tides and other associated solar activity maxima on the surface of the Sun by their conjunction and opposition in a periodic manner. Further new hypotheses of liquid sun have a direct tidal effect in sun like the water bodies in the earth.

Abstract

The earth is found to be the only life bearing planet within the solar system. The cause of not having life on other planets of the Sun may be attributed to the unsuitable physical and chemical conditions for sustaining life. By now, we have come to know the planetary systems of a few sun type single stars. Astrophysicists also suggest that when a star is born, it is nearly always accompanied by a planetary system. There are about 20 billion stars similar to our Sun in the milky way galaxy and a vast number of galaxies in the visible universe. This shows the large probability of planets similar to Earth in the universe, hence life might exist in some of these planets. The nearest star to Earth, other than the Sun, is Proxima Centauri, situated about 4.24 light-years away. Thus, it is impossible to physically examine the presence of life in planets of other stars of the universe. However, we have scope to extrapolate our experience skillfully to other parts of the universe with the knowledge of physics and chemistry to anticipate the existence of life beyond Earth. The radio waves are the only possible media of linkage with civilizations of other planets. In this regard Darke’s equation speculates the number of civilizations we might communicate with. The equation makes use of many probability factors with rough approximation. While many of these factors have some scientific basis, the factor representing the fraction of life bearing planets out of life sustaining condition in planets varies from extremely rare (say =0.000001) to very common (say=1). In the absence of adequate knowledge on the evolution of life, the value of the probability factor could not be focused properly. This author has attempted to suggest a more reasonable value of the probability factor by making use of the traditional knowledge on evolution of life on earth.

Key Words: Life in Universe, Material science, Spiritual Science,Traditional knowledge, Radio waves, Darke’s equation, Probability factor.

Introduction

The ever-curious mind has never forgotten to ask – are we alone in the entire universe? The idea of extra-terrestrial life has been seeded from very ancient times. The discovery of new continents by Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan showed that there are also other inhabited regions. Copernicus, an eminent astronomer, showed that the earth is similar to other celestial bodies and there is nothing special about it. Subsequently the concept of extra-terrestrial life became more acceptable. Towards the end of nineteenth century, Camille Flammarion postulated that planets are inhabited by men, and the harsher conditions are on the planet the poorer must sensibility be there, thus, the inhabitants of the mercury and the Venus be less intellectual than us while the mars being inhabited earlier to the earth due to its early formation and rapid cooling must be more advanced in every respect. This logic has become a history.

Today it has been possible to explore into the enormity of the universe using the large telescopes. We know the largeness of our solar system; however, the vastness of the solar system is lost when we try to place it in the map of the Milky Way galaxy and perhaps it cannot be shown in the map of the universe. The sun is an ordinary star in the population of 100 billion to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy [1] and there are about 100 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in the visible universe [1]. Who knows the invisible extent of the universe? Living on the earth, it is practically impossible to physically explore into the existence of life particularly when the journey to the nearest star takes about a generation time. And further we have the only experience of the earthly-life. Under such circumstances, one could possibly extrapolate our experience skilfully to other parts of the universe with the knowledge of physics and chemistry to know the existence of life beyond Earth.

Discussion

The sun is a middle-aged star of about 4.65 x 10⁹ years with a life expectancy of about 10¹⁰ years [2]. We know from theoretical physics, that the universe was created from a Big Bang about 13.787±0.02 billion years ago and it is now in the expanding state [3]. This infers, all celestial bodies in all parts of the universe having the same cosmic history, are made up of the same chemical elements and they obey the laws of physics and chemistry. Hence, the natural formation of complex organic compounds that led to the origin of the earth is common in the universe. The presence of some compounds (various organic molecules, volatiles, and even the building blocks of DNA) has been noticed in certain asteroids, comets, satellites (e.g. Titan, the satellite of the Saturn), interstellar clouds and in meteorites [4]. Samples collected from asteroid Bennu by NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission contain 14 of the 20 amino acids used to make proteins and all five nucleobases, the components of DNA and RNA [5]. To understand the natural formation of the complex organic compounds in the universe, the studies were focused on earth, the planet with which we are well conversant.

The formation of the earth is about 4.5 billion years [6]. It is obvious that the original atmosphere during formation of the earth must have been swept away by the violent solar wind and subsequently a fresh atmosphere would have formed by the gases evolved from the earth’s crust due to internal heating and the heat generated by the impact of numerous meteorites falling on the early earth [7]. Thus, the atmosphere generated in the early earth was mainly made up of hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, water vapor and carbon dioxide [8]. The presently available oxygen and ozone (a molecule with three atoms of oxygen) was not available in the atmosphere of the early earth. Subsequently, photosynthesis in plants manufactured the oxygen that we breathe today. It is thought that the intense ultraviolet radiation hitting the surface of the earth in the absence of ozone layer in the atmosphere and frequent occurrence of storms as well as volcanos led to the formation of complex molecules. After about a million years of the formation of the earth when the earth cooled down sufficiently the oceans of the earth were formed by condensation of the water vapor in the atmosphere. The complex organic molecules formed then were dissolved in the relatively fresh water of the early oceans. John Haldane and Alexander Oparin suggested during 1930 that life was born from this ‘Warm Dilute Soup’ [9].

Studies from fossils (ancient sedimentary rocks) reveal that microscopic unicellular organisms similar to bacteria appeared about a billion years after the formation of the earth [10]. Again, the multicellular organisms appeared after the lapse of about two billion years since formation of the earth. Thus, life started from the inert to unicellular organism followed by the multi cellular organisms [10]. The different species that are found today are caused due to evolution discussed in the `Theory of Evolution’ suggested by Charles Darwin.

Unlike the faith of some people, the scientists thought that life came up after successive development of preconditions and did not appear abruptly. The first phase was established when Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated through laboratory experiments that amino acids found in living organisms can be synthesized in a laboratory using the atmospheric mixture of early earth in the absence of oxygen [11]. By changing the experimental conditions, it was further possible to prepare twenty known biological amino-acids [11]. The second phase of development was achieved when only few atmospheric precursors such as formaldehyde or hydrogen cyanide acid are formed in the gas itself and the dissolution of this in water, more complex monomer molecules are formed [12]. In the third stage these monomers have been used in synthesizing polymers of biological interest. In the fourth stage the organic phase was separated from the aqueous phase. However, it is still not clear as to how life first came in the chemical evolution. The formation of first life is least understood by the chemistry of living matter. We also do not understand the physics and chemistry of homoeopathic drug-preparation and its working in human beings. The effect of celestial bodies on human beings is also beyond the scope of science. It is, as if, we have to explore into still finer domains of matter with a new physics and chemistry to understand the above phenomena. There are many elementary particles beyond the so-called fundamental particles. Again, the light particles and field forming particles are now claimed as particles of matter in the micro-micro domain [13]. These particles are also mass bearing particles below the detection level of modern science [14]. The role of these new particles has not been interpreted properly in the physics and chemistry of matter due to zero rest mass in atomic mass units. In reality any micro structure has a micro-micro structure similar to the microstructure of a macro structure. In fact, a macro body has co-existing three-domain-structures (macro structure, microstructure and micro-micro structure) [13]. Modern science unknowingly proxies the role of micro-micro-structure in the mathematical model of atomic structure by making many unnatural hypotheses thereby empowering the micro particles (electrons) to exhibit the property of micro particles (electron) and further representing the functional role of less known micro-micro structure [15]. Thus, requiring unnatural wave particle duality of the electrons in the mathematical atomic model. The scope of exploring the natural atomic structure comprising fundamental & elementary particles carrying fractional electric charge and micro-micro-particles with photonic charge cannot be ruled out [15]. If such ultra-fine atomic structure is a reality of nature in finer domain then, science ignoring the ultra-fine structure of atoms would face limitations in understanding the operational dynamics governing the birth of life, aging of living matter and death of life. The action of homoeopathic drugs on living beings and the effect of celestial bodies on the wellbeing of human beings cannot be understood without improving the mathematical atomic model. We need to understand the micro-micro domain structure of atoms coexisting within the extra-nuclear electronic structure for understanding the above less-known phenomena. This can be visualized from the limitations of Dalton’s atom (without the electronic structure) in explaining the functional behavior of matter. It is high time to explore into the finer structure (micro-micro structure) of atoms and molecules for understanding how life appears in living matter. The improved atomic structure would also have scope to develop harmony between materials science and spiritual science.

Advances in space science enabled our search for life in other celestial bodies of the solar system. The exploration to the moon made in 1969 confirmed that there is no atmosphere there and the night temperature is much lower than that of the day. Due to the lack of atmosphere and the magnetosphere in the moon, the solar wind directly hits the surface and makes the natural satellite unsuitable for any life. Samples collected from the surface of the moon did not reveal the presence of any organic compounds. The failure to find life on the moon made people think about the feasibility of life on planets having favorable conditions. The planets Mercury and Venus do not have favorable life bearing conditions and also it has no existence of water, thus, existence of life was denied there. Beyond the orbit of the earth and not far from the sun the physical conditions appear favourable for life. Thus, Mars appeared to be the most favourable target in search of extra-terrestrial life. The surface temperature of Mars varies about -153°C (243°F) at the poles to around 20°C (68°F) at the equator during the hottest part of the day. It is important to note that it has an atmosphere composed mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. In 1971 Mariner 9 probe orbited mars and collected a large number of photographs. It further gave evidence that large volcanoes are active even today. The photographs reveal the picture of vast river beds and their tributaries. This gives a feeling as though in the long past water was flowing freely on the surface of mars. This probably made NASA make two Viking missions to mars to understand how life started there. Viking 1 landed at Chryse Planitia while Viking 2 landed at Utopia Planitia on 20th July 1976 and 3rd September 1976 respectively. The space crafts were equipped well, even capable of detecting a germ of life. The photographs showed a beautiful landscape devoid of any form of life. Samples tested aboard by analytical instruments revealed that the soil is chemically active but biologically inert. This led to a conclusion that Mars may be devoid of life.

The search for life was then extended to Jupiter and Saturn. Jupiter and Saturn being away from the sun have low surface temperatures. The atmosphere of Jupiter contains mainly hydrogen and helium but it contains significant amounts of methane and ammonia. Some forms of life may be feasible at zones of favorable temperature. However, the forms of life may be like the jelly fish of the oceans of the earth.

After exploration of Voyager 1 and 2 more details of the titan became known. Titan has an atmospheric composition similar to that of the early earth and the atmospheric pressure is nearly the same as that of the earth. More importantly, hydrogen cyanide has been detected in the atmosphere of the titan [16]. Further, the colour of the satellite being reddish some anticipate its cause due to the presence of polymers prepared in nature from hydrogen cyanide [17]. Everything appears favourable except the surface temperature which is – 180^oC. Though water would freeze at such low temperatures, liquid methane might lead to some different kind of life. Thus, it has some scope to reveal the truth of transition of inert to living matter.

The planets and satellites located away from the sun have lower temperatures. The chemical reactions involving complex chemical compounds still continue to occur at low temperature due to the activation energies derived from the solar and cosmic radiation. The comets are widely travelled in the solar system and therefore it is thought under favourable conditions life might have formed in comets which then might have transferred to the earth. This thought has a coherence with the belief of the 19th century which states life formed elsewhere and propagated to the planetary systems from one to the other through micro organic spores. Though the chemistry of life bearing matter is understandable through formation of amino acids, the knowledge of the origin of life (i.e. the first appearance of life) is quite rudimentary and is not comprehensible through science. Perhaps the understanding of life and its consequences relating to birth and death requires interpretation of a different chemistry in finer domains than those dealt in conventional coordination chemistry. Understanding the life formation process is more important than looking for the favourable conditions to sustain life on a celestial body. There may be a very-very large number of earth-like life-sustaining bodies in the universe but life may not be there if these celestial bodies do not have the precondition for life forming.

Indirect Search for Life in the Universe

In view of obvious limitations, we may examine the feasibility of life elsewhere in the universe by assuming that life somehow appears in planet-like bodies having conditions similar to those of the earth. The first attempt was to search for life on other planets within the solar system. Failure in anticipation of life in a solar system other than our earth, made us make indirect searches elsewhere in the universe. The most favourable sites for the appearance of life are the planets in interstellar space. The basic elements of carbon chemistry are noticed in the interstellar medium [18]. Over 50 compounds including hydrogen cyanide have been detected in the interstellar dust [19]. The stars are known to have formed by gravitational collapse of the interstellar dust. However, some feel, the formation of stars does not destroy all organic compounds present in the interstellar dust. This is further coupled with the belief that the interstellar medium is the true origin of life in the universe. Thus, life must have developed in many planets of countless stars. The existence of planetary systems in other stars is being established through scientific exploration. More and more planetary systems in different stars are becoming known.

While trying to find the existence of life in the universe similar to the life on the earth, we need to search for planets having earthly conditions. Rational thinking tells us- to find planets with earthly conditions, one has to look for the sun like stars in the galaxy. The stars are grouped having similar brightness, temperature and mass. The sun is a G type average star, having independent existence i.e. without forming double or multiple star systems associating other stars. For independent stars such as the sun the radiation from the star is quite stable. On the other hand, the radiation from binary and multiple stars are of pulsating nature and they are unsuitable for supporting life on their planet. In view of this only the independent stars belonging to F, G and K groups (which are characteristically similar to the sun) have the scope of supporting life in their planetary systems. It is natural to think that all stars have planetary systems like the solar system. By now, we have come to know the planetary systems of a few stars. Astrophysicists also suggest that when a star is born it is nearly always accompanied by a planetary system [20]. The population of such stars in our galaxy is about 100 billion to 400 billion. If everything goes fine, there might exist many living planets like our earth. Barnard’s star has two planets with masses 1.1 and 0.8 times the mass of Jupiter. By now many stars like the sun are known to have a planetary system. It is impossible to observe the planets directly due to weak signals received from the planets, hence, it is a hopeless task to find life in these planets belonging to other stellar systems. The only way we can establish link is through radio signals if those civilizations are at least equal to that of ours if not more advanced than us. The subsequent discussions explore such a feasibility.

Drake’s equation

The study of the universe reveals that there is nothing special about the earth, the sun or the milky way galaxy, because the earth is an ordinary planet in the solar system; the sun is an ordinary star in the Milky way galaxy which is again an ordinary galaxy in the universe. Thus, all celestial bodies have an average stand and therefore the law of average also operates for the evolution of life. By this consideration the evolution of life on earth is an ordinary event in the universe. Obviously, there must have been many civilizations in our galaxy itself. Such a thinking made Drake in early 1960’s to develop an equation to roughly estimate the number (N) of advanced technological civilizations in our galaxy, which states:

N=R*×f_p×n_e×f_l×f_i×f_c×L

where,

N = number of civilizations we might communicate with

R* = average rate of star formation

f_p = fraction of stars that have planets

n_e = average number of planets that could support life per star with planets

f_l = fraction of those planets where life actually develops

f_i = fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves

f_c= fraction of civilizations that develop detectable technology

L = the length of time those civilizations release detectable signals

The basic assumption made in the Drake’s equation is that the civilizations evolved from and within the stellar systems and not by migration from one stellar system to another. In Darke’s equation, the value of factor f_l ranges between very rare (say f_l = 0.000001) to common (say f_l =1) giving the probable value of N. The range of f_l can be narrowed down by understanding the science behind evolution of life on Earth.

Search strategies

Under the above circumstances, how do we search and develop a link with presumably existing civilizations in the galaxy? The radio waves are the only possible media of linkage with other civilizations. If some astronomers in some other planetary system observe the solar system at television wave lengths, then the earth would appear more radiant than the sun. Following this logic, we would not have faced any difficulty in deducing that there are civilizations much older to us with intelligence equal to (if not more) in the galaxy by receiving extra-terrestrial radio signals. Here again, tracking such radio signals without knowing the exact wavelength of communication used by extra-terrestrial intelligence is not an easy job. Even if 1000 civilizations are at the moment communicating in our galaxy, finding the direction in which to point our aerial to hear any one of them is a difficult job [21].

Till today the radio search results are negative. In 1974 a message was sent by Arecibo radio telescope in the direction of the cluster M<sub13, anticipating that we might get some feed-back from any other intelligent civilization. Some astrophysicists are hopeful for a possible contact in future.

Traditional knowledge helps in predicting more accurate value of f_l in Drake’s Equation

One can make scientifically reasonable guess on values of probability factors R*, f_p, n_e, f_i, f_c, L. However, it is not easy to guess the value of f_l particularly when the phenomenon is beyond science. Thus, the preconditions required for sustaining life on a planet are not the same as the preconditions required for evolution of life. The formation of living matter is associated with electron exchange reaction which falls under the scope of materials science. On the other hand, evolution of life in living matter comes under the scope of spiritual science, the science dealing with consciousness. However, recent interpretation reveals, consciousness is linked to the interactions of micro-micro particles (light particles and field forming particles) [22]. Though micro-micro particles are considered massless particles in atomic mass units but they have definite mass in a domain down photonic mass unit, the new domain down mass unit [14]. Therefore, spiritual science is otherwise a new material science dealing with matters of micro-micro domain. Hence, the evolution of life in living matter is associated with photon exchange reactions. There is a natural exchange of photons among different celestial bodies. Any planet, say the earth, receives characteristic radiation from neighbouring celestial bodies depending on their state properties. Hence, a definite location on the surface of the earth receives a mixture composition of photons at different energy levels from background celestial bodies (background radiation). The earth also releases photons outwardly at different energy levels. These exchange radiation on the surface of the earth produce stress and strain on the surface matters as well as produce comforts and discomforts to living beings. The exchange radiation is a function of different parameters of celestial bodies and their angular orientation with respect to the surface of the earth. The exchange radiation causes only a low range of energy fluctuation that perhaps cannot evolve life. Hence, we may have to look for the higher degree of energy fluctuation to correlate with the evolution of life. Such a high degree of energy fluctuation through exchange of photons takes place on the surface of the earth during total solar eclipse and total lunar eclipse. Therefore, the effect of the eclipse may have a say on the evolution of life on Earth, however science is silent about it. On the other hand, the traditional knowledge on the effects of eclipse is encouraging. In traditional Indian (Vedic) knowledge, for example, Grahanas (eclipses) are considered times when cosmic energies shift drastically. Ancient Ayurvedic and Vedic texts sometimes suggest that new life forms, particularly subtle life forms (microbial or even energetic), are more active or born during eclipses because of the interplay between solar and lunar forces [23]. Therefore, one can expect the birth of life forms in living matter taking place through photon exchange reactions similar to the formation of living matter by electron exchange reaction.

Science is not comfortable in accepting traditional knowledge. This is not always true. It is interesting to note that about 40%-60% of pharmaceutical compositions and steroids have been successfully developed from traditional herbal-medicines [24]. Though the traditional medicines are less scientific but they are effective in their curative aspect. We also find the preparation of homeopathic drugs and their action on the human body is not understood in science but the drugs are effective in their action. In view of the above the traditional knowledge on evolution of life on earth may be taken into consideration particularly when science is silent on it.

In the early fifties of the 20th century Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted a series of experiments on a mixture of gases and liquids, based on the hypotheses of the composition of early Earth’s atmosphere. The liquid mixture was brought to the boil in a flask and the vapor was subjected to the action of a pulsed electric discharge. Miller was able to prepare some of the basic molecules of life including amino acids and enzymes. Though these molecules of life are important in speculating earthly life, it does not explain how life appears in the organic compound. We are yet to develop the science of life and death in organic structure. The basic understanding of life is beyond the scope of present physics and chemistry of matter. Study of life requires a unique combination of materials science and spiritual science. Often, we ignore traditional knowledge in scientific analysis. For example, the traditional knowledge on malfunctioning of the digestive system and growth of microorganisms in the controlled environment of the stomach during Solar eclipse and lunar eclipse is not considered to have any scientific significance. It may be stated here, that our understanding of atomic structure is from mathematical models hence the model might have deviated from reality [15]. Again, the atomic model has limitations in explaining the spectra of atoms other than the hydrogen atom. The spectra of all atoms are determined experimentally and the same is used for various scientific applications. It may so happen that the real atomic structure may have justification of the traditional knowledge. The traditional knowledge in many fronts has proved its stand. Traditional medicines have a long history of providing insights that lead towards the discovery of modern drugs, particularly for natural product-derived drugs. Approximately 60% of current medications are directly or indirectly derived from natural products, including plant-based drugs like Artemisinin (a potent antimalarial drug derived from the plant Artemisia annua, sweet wormwood) and Paclitaxel, also known as Taxol (a chemotherapy medication used to treat various cancers, including breast, ovarian, lung, and Kaposi’s sarcoma). In view of the above, traditional knowledge may have value in different fronts which might help in augmenting our understanding of the real atomic structure.  Traditionally it is known that bamboo cut in full Moon spoils faster, attracts more insects (like beetles, borers, termites) whereas bamboo cut in new Moon stay stronger, resist pests better which subsequently has been justified scientifically. Many parts of the plant collected during the eclipse period are also used as medicine. If the traditional knowledge has its worth then the scientific justification can only be provided by the learned main-stream scientists. It may not be correct to expect the scientific answer from the knowers of traditional knowledge.

The earth carrying lives is unique in the solar system. We also find, the apparent sizes of the sun and moon viewed from earth are nearly the same. This makes the feasibility of total solar eclipse and total lunar eclipse observed from earth. The size and distance of the sun from earth remain unchanged, if the size of the moon is larger in its normal position or with the prevailing size the moon is located near to earth then also the total solar eclipse forms but the total lunar eclipse is not feasible with the size of the earth remaining unchanged. On the other hand, the size of the moon and its distance from earth remaining unchanged if the size of the sun is larger or the sun-earth distance is less then total lunar eclipse would be feasible but not the total solar eclipse. Hence, the occurrence of total stellar eclipse and the total eclipse of its satellite for a planet becomes rare. Following the traditional knowledge life on a planet becomes feasible if there is total stellar eclipse and total eclipse of satellites. Hence, one can guess the probability of evolution of life on a planet requires two primary conditions, 1) the planet at least have one satellite, 2) the size of star, the size of satellite and their distances from the planet should be such that the apparent sizes of star and satellite are same when viewed from the planet. The second condition is highly stringent thereby the probability factor becomes very-very low which may be less than the expected lower range in Darke’s equation. In fact, life is extremely rare in the universe and the probability of communicating with Earth and with other civilizations is extremely low. However, there is nothing unique about our Earth and there is every scope of life elsewhere in the universe.

Conclusion

In trying to explore the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, it is necessary to understand how life appeared on Earth. Science explains how the living matter (the basic molecules supporting life including amino acids, and enzymes) are formed in harsh conditions of the early earth. However, science is unaware of how life appears in the living matter therefore considers it as beyond science. However, it is an active subject in spiritual science. Therefore, a complete harmony among material science and spiritual science can throw some light in understanding how life appears. This author considers the earth specific physical conditions including the total solar eclipse and total lunar eclipse as the preconditions for evolution of life on earth and the same physical conditions can be searched in the universe to ascertain the existence of earthly life on other celestial bodies.

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#:~:text=The%20Milky%20Way%20has%20several,just%20one%20of%20many%20galaxies.
2. https://science.nasa.gov/sun/facts/#:~:text=Scientists%20predict%20the%20Sun%20is,it%20becomes%20a%20white%20dwarf.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20a%20Japanese%20group%20reported%20that,genetic%20code%20of%20all%20life%20on%20Earth.
5. https://eos.org/articles/lifes-building-blocks-found-in-bennu-samples#:~:text=Regolith%20samples%20from%20asteroid%20Bennu,a%2029%20January%20media%20call.
6. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/facts/#:~:text=Formation,mantle%2C%20and%20a%20solid%20crust.
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis#:~:text=Collisions%20between%20ejecta%20escaping%20Earth’s,anomalies%20of%20the%20Earth’s%20mantle.
8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2944365/#:~:text=Although%20the%20focus%20of%20their,Urey%20synthesis%20of%20organic%20compounds.
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup#:~:text=Primordial%20soup%2C%20also%20known%20as,monomers%2C%20such%20as%20amino%20acids.
10. https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/how-did-multicellular-life-evolve/#:~:text=The%20first%20known%20single%2Dcelled,about%20600%20million%20years%20ago.
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment#:~:text=The%20Miller%E2%80%93Urey%20experiment%2C%20or,the%20production%20of%20amino%20acids.
12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987117301305#:~:text=A%20reducing%20atmosphere%20rich%20in%20hydrogen%20(H2),1983a%2C%20Zahnle%2C%201986%2C%20Stribling%20and%20Miller%2C%201987).&text=Extraterrestrial%20input%20could%20have%20provided%20additional%20ammonia%20onto%20the%20primitive%20Earth.
13. https://philosophyofnature.org.in/different-domains-of-nature.
14. https://philosophyofnature.org.in/towards-a-new-comprehensive-universal-science.
15. https://philosophyofnature.org.in/modelling-atomic-system.
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide#:~:text=November%2029%2C%202012)-,On%20Titan,4%20%E2%86%92%20HCN%20+%20CH3.
17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003206339500023X#:~:text=Abstract.%20Hydrogen%20cyanide%20polymers%E2%80%94heterogeneous%20solids%20ranging%20in,largely%20of%20such%20polymers.%20It%20seems%20likely.
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium.
19. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0602277103#:~:text=In%20the%20circumstellar%20envelope%20of,originally%20formed%20in%20circumstellar%20shells.
20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis#:~:text=These%20clouds%20are%20gravitationally%20unstable,natural%20result%20of%20star%20formation.
21. https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/11h1fhz/the_fermi_paradox/?rdt=37262.
22. https://alleninstitute.org/news/quantum-mechanics-and-the-puzzle-of-human-consciousness/#:~:text=Roger%20Penrose%2C%20a%20Nobel%20Prize,microtubules%2C%20might%20weave%20these%20moments.
23. https://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/29523#:~:text=Welcome%20to%20NIScPR%20Online%20Periodicals%20Repository.%20Abstract:,the%20Solar%20eclipse%20in%20a%20mythical%20language.
24. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/traditional-medicine-has-a-long-history-of-contributing-to-conventional-medicine-and-continues-to-hold-promise.