Thursday, June 19, 2008

The Which?

Quark A stood on the quivering brink of time and looked around at quark B, whose eyes – well, no, call it consciousness – hovered over the distant horizon of squiggly shapes and colours.
“Is it time?” it asked, the question traveling on invisible matterless waves of the primal ether over to the other quark.
“For what?” Quark B whispered.
Quark A wiggled its eyebrows – very figuratively. The equivalent in the quark world was a series of short continuous waves that would look like an earthworm if someone chalked the waveform on a blackboard before physics class. Or a kitten playing with wool, of course.
“What?” Quark B said.

Good morning reader. This is a hypothesis. It is not real. It is as unreal as the supposition that it is morning – whereas, more likely than not, it is after sunset.

At the dawn of time…there was a light. It wasn’t a light really, more of a Light. And there was an inability to pronounce capital letters. And then there was a need to pronounce capital letters – well, a need to pronounce anything, so that the light could become a light, you know. The need became a Need and manifested itself in matter. And then the fun started. The Light and the matter sent giant waves of improbable instigation towards time and the fun began before the fun began – before there was anyone to say that it had begun – or notice that it had begun.
And chance after chance after chance after chance later, quark A stood on the quivering brink of time and asked quark B a question.
Quark B misread it, as I’m sure did all of us.

The question floated all over the primal ether and burnt into the quantum foam of the brink of time – to be etched there for all eternity – or even a moment, which is the same thing.

Or was it there from before – a question – not The question – the answer to which, as we all know by now, is 42 – but the Question. A hovering uncertainty that doesn’t come from anywhere and doesn’t really go any where but lies dormant and restless in the heart of matter across the multiverse.

An intransitive. Quark A sighed and shook it’s head. It looked at the brink of time – at the edge and beginning and end of history and prehistory and chronicles and timescales – and asked the funny little shapes and loops of colours it could see whether they were time. Time. And they didn’t answer. At least in Quark language.
And Quark B just took the question as another question and paid no further attention. And the question – as with all questions asked at the beginning of cosmic history and cataclysmic follow-ups – stayed there forever, to subconsciously plague all consciousness for all eternity, at least, all eternity before the end of all things. After that, we’re told, things… change.

But which question was it? What is the question buried in the hearts of all consciousness? Is it the eternal Question that asks Time whether it is, in fact, Time? Or is it the more mundane unromantic (even if Quark B didn’t call it that) question that asks the next consciousness whether it is time for the next thing lined up in everyday history to happen?

Which is more important? The transitive or the intransitive? The Light or just the light? The Question or just the question?

Put it this way – an earthworm…or just a kitten playing with wool?

I don’t think anyone except that environmentalist with grubby gloved hands and soil-smeared goggles will differ.

Primal ether did a few more cosmic rifts and catherine wheels and smiled. Quark B edged a little closer to quark A. It was a beautiful brink of time.

5 comments:

googly said...

I didnt understand a thing...
oh sorry!

I DIDNT EVEN READ IT!!!!

Somesh said...

it's all beside the mark..." answers are always hidden in the question mark that precedes, only to be perceived. and they varies with the perception. Never mind the question too much. quarks are quirky and cheery. so they sang, "Three quarks for Muster Mark!/Sure he hasn't got much of a bark/And sure any he has

Anonymous said...

hmmm... interesting and varied thoughts on things as subtle and delicate as time and all its baggage all rolled into one big not-so-round thingumujig of somethingness... grin..

Mind Mapping said...

I have a theory of negative time and positive time which I shall now explain except it isn't really negative and positive but that's the way we've been taught maths and they even made infinity negative and positive so Time will have to be subjected to the same categorisation.

Negative time is,was and will be a countdown existing before everything else came to exist.
It was the time of nothing.
And it had to be there because "nothing" cannot be defined without "something".
It is like every action has an equal and opposite reaction and therefore, nothing has to have a reaction in something and vice-versa.
Also, Newton's third law is not really required to state this because the the identity of nothing in itself requires the absence of a thing and when there was nothing, the conciousness of everything that was to be there or could be there was giving a reactionary reflex tug and so we had the universe.
There are therefore, an infinite number of things that exist and an infinite number of dimensions because everything can exist and that's how far the universe would stretch till you reach a point where the corresponding nothing force begins to surface and you reach nothing again and then the whole cycle continues.
Even parallel universes could exist only you'd then have to view them as part of a greater "Everything" which could then be called the Universe.

But see, in all this Time is becoming undisputable.
I sometimes think if it is possible for someone to prove Time wrong but that does not seem likely because most probably, Time is not a human concept.
If there was ever a God, Time would be it.

PS: I love the post.
It makes me want to read relativity in Resnick & Halladay :)

Rajasee Ray said...

time is your god, apurva.
and coincidence is mine :)

time. is a human concept. because time is our name for a sequence of events.
without their being a sequence none of those events have ever - or will ever - or had ever (?) existed. doesn't matter which.
so - if time exists - then time doesnt exist. because if time is a SEPARATE entity - quantity- dimension - or whatever - then a 'sequence' of events would be pointless - immaterial. 'sequences' wouldnt exist.
and if time doesn't - then and only then does time exist..
it's such a lovely paradox. there's no way of getting out of it - but i think the latter statement is truer than the first.Time doesn't really exist. So - time HAS to exist.

or maybe we're just giving two completely separate things the same name and confusing them, you know. as in Time, the elusive dimensional entity... and time, the systemic way of figuring out a sequence of events.

we might see them as the same thing - but if they're not - if they're not...ooooohh. what lovely possibilities that would bring :)

then there would be both a way of travelling between those infinite parallel universes and also a rational sequence of events within those separate parallel universes...

but then there would be DESTINY. each universe would have it's destiny locked down if both TimeS exist instead of both being one and the same. because if one can influence tie - then each universe among that infinite cannot change its own role for anothers. then it would mean a duplicate universe which would not work with the rest of it. that's scary...

aahhh. this could go on and on and on...