Archive for October, 2011

On the Channel 4 Dispatches programme about violence and hate-preaching in some UK mosques

October 31, 2011

Bismillah. This programme was aired in February, but the Daily Mail has been citing it again regularly this month.

The violence and hate-preaching exposed in some UK mosques was, of course, deplorable. But the programme also targeted Deobandism, just as similar programmes had previously targeted Salafism/Wahhabism.

It was good that Mufti Barkatullah and Rashad Ali pointed out that the extremist views and behaviour were not mainstream Deobandism at all.

The programme failed to mention that the mosque where the worst violence was filmed, appeared to be Barelwi-Sufi, judging by the “Prophet’s birthday” celebratory items on view. Exploring this would help undermine the superficial and unhelpful “Sufism=good, Salafism/Deobandism=bad” discourse that has become popular since 9/11.

As Prof. Philip Lewis observes in his book “Young, British and Muslim” (2008), UK Deobandism has a progressive as well as a regressive wing. It is hoped that the two strands have a fruitful debate, such that the net effect is a positive future for Islam and for Britain. A similar situation surely holds for UK Salafism-Wahhabism and Barelwism-Sufism as well as for UK Shi’ism, and in fact for UK religious and anti-religions in general!


The Seven Heavens, The Ring, The Desert, Genesis, Quran and Hadith: How The Universe Really Works

October 28, 2011

Bismillah.  Received yesterday from Dr. Sabbir Rahman.  Edited slightly.

Assalamu `alaikum,

Please find attached a (slightly tongue in cheek) article I have  submitted to
sci.physics.relativity newsgroup. I hope you find it  interesting, particularly
the comments regarding the “seven heavens”.




My distinguished Physics chums,

It is time that you were told a little secret: This is how the universe *really*
works – so listen very carefully!

As some of you will know, Thanu Padmanabhan has recently shown that the
Einstein field equations are a direct consequence of the thermodynamic
equations of state for a spacetime with microstructure, and that this  holds
irrespective of the specific nature of the microstructure degrees  of freedom.
This is an extraordinarily powerful and important result.

Hagen Kleinert has also independently proposed a very specific model for  the
microstructure of spacetime as a “floppy” world crystal with  defects, where the
defect interactions also give rise to the Einstein  field equations. This is a
specific case of Padmanabhan’s general result  and one that also happens to be
very appealing. If this picture is  correct, then the floppy geometry of the
world crystal can be identified  with the metric of spacetime.

Let us suppose initially  that there is a single spacetime sheet  containing
many defects randomly distributed throughout. Now the  defects, which act as
tiny elements of curvature (i.e. small elements of  mass), will interact with
each other (without loss of generality, let  us assume initially that the
defects are mutually attractive, i.e have  positive mass**), and inhomogeneities
in the defect density will become  magnified, resulting eventually in localised
regions of high curvature  which will eventually evolve to become rotating (i.e
Kerr) black holes  with a ring singularity* that rotates at the speed of light.
[*Note that  once the singularity has formed, it becomes topologically separated
from the rest of the universe, and these rotating black holes are  therefore
stable, neither increasing or decreasing in mass, except  possibly via
interaction with other black holes]

[**I will explain below  the reason for there being an excess of matter over
antimatter a bit  later on when I discuss ultra-large scale structure].

Now, as explained by Hawking & Ellis in “The Large Scale Structure  of
Spacetime”, Kerr black holes are actually double-sheeted objects –  any lump of
matter (or in this case, defect) “falling” through the  centre of the annular
singularity will emerge in another spacetime sheet  which is time- and
mass-reversed relative to the original sheet. What  this means is that while
these “primordial” black holes will have net  positive mass due to the mass
associated with the ring singularity, the  fact that vast quantities of matter
elements will be falling through the  ring with positive mass and emerging on
the other side in the second  spacetime sheet with an apparently negative mass*
means that these mini  black holes will also have a strong gravitational dipole.

[*This is  because positive mass/curvature particles/defects travelling
backwards  in time on the second sheet interact like negative mass/curvature
antiparticles/antidefects travelling forwards in time from the  perspective of
particles/defects on the first sheet]

The other important consequence of the formation of these Kerr black  holes is
that the initial assumption that there is only a single  spacetime sheet was
wrong. In fact spacetime must have been  double-sheeted all along, and if it
helps, you can think of these as two  parallel sheets (actually superimposed in
reality) with the primordial  black holes being little wormholes connecting the
two sheets. Now with  the formation of more and more black holes there will be a
multitude of  negative mass defects spewing out onto the second sheet – these
themselves will be distributed fairly randomly throughout that sheet and  will
naturally form negative mass black holes in exactly the same way –  this time
negative mass defects will fall through these black holes and  re-emerge as
positive mass defects on the first sheet. Obviously, the  regions where the
negative mass black holes are formed will be  physically separated from the
regions of positive mass concentration due  to their mutual repulsion.

[*Note that there are topological  constraints which require that positive and
negative mass black holes be  formed in pairs. Note also that Trayling & Baylis
have shown that  the standard model gauge group emerges naturally from an
8-dimensional  spacetime]

Thus, with time, many such primordial black holes will form – some with
positive mass, and others with negative mass – but all with strong
gravitational dipoles. Furthermore, as explained by Arcos & Pereira  and others,
these rotating black holes are spinorial, and the fact that  they fill spacetime
strongly suggest that they are none other than  neutrinos and antineutrinos. So,
the vacuum of our universe is,  according to this picture, a strongly
gravitationally polarisable fluid  of neutrinos and antineutrinos – and as
explained by Luc Blanchet, this  polarisability is sufficient to explain the
modified Newtonian dynamics  observed in the anomalous rotation of the spiral
arms of galaxies.

Anyway let us continue with our little tale at the microscopic level …

Just as the positive mass defects will naturally tend to clump together  in
spatially separated regions from the negative mass defects, so will  the
positive mass neutrinos tend to clump together in regions spatially  separated
from the negative mass neutrinos. And just as the defect  concentration
eventually became  high enough to form black holes, so too  will eventually the
neutrino and antineutrino concentrations become  high enough to form even more
massive rotating black holes. Once again,  once the ring singularities at the
centre of these higher mass rotating  black holes have formed, they are quite
stable. It turns out in this  case that the flow of neutrinos and antineutrinos
towards the  singularities makes these latter black holes look like charges. Due
to  an unfortunate (but forgivable) choice of sign convention for charge, it
turns out that the neutrinos gravitationally collapse to form electrons  with
negative charge (it would probably have been better to associate  matter with
positive charge), and antineutrinos to collapse to form  positrons with negative
charge. Note however that  neutrinos(antineutrinos) falling through the ring
singularity at the  centre of the electron(positron) from the first sheet
re-emerge as  antineutrinos(neutrinos) in the second sheet. Because of
antineutrinos(neutrinos) falling through the electrons'(positrons’) ring
singularity from the second sheet*, electrons(positrons) can appear to  either
be absorbing or ejecting neutrinos(antineutrinos). As shown by  Rahman (that’s
me!) it turns out that the apparent charge of the  electron/positron depends
only on whether the particles have positive or  negative mass (i.e. whether they
are matter or antimatter) and not on  whether they are being absorbed or

Now Rahman (that’s me!) has also shown that ripples in the spacetime
neutrino/antineutrino fluid look just like (i.e they *are*)  electromagnetic
waves. Also, because electrons are continuosly spewing  out positive mass
particles (i.e. neutrinos), they will repel other  electrons through simple
momentum transfer, and with the usual inverse  square law decay with distance.
Similarly, they will attract positrons  because if you throw a particle with
positive momentum at an object with  negative mass, it will acquire a negative
velocity and be attracted  towards you. Needless to say, all of the standard
laws and equations of  electrodynamics follow naturally from this picture. In
fact, the picture  is particularly nice – when a source electron(positron)
throws out a  neutrino(antineutrino) and it falls through the ring singularity
of the  target electron or neutrino, it travels backwards in time (i.e. looks
like an antineutrino(neutrino) going forwards in time) and returns to  the
source electron(positron). So the interaction of charged particles  looks like
the ejection of a neutrino-antineutrino pair from the source  charge followed by
the absorption of the pair of particles by the target  charge. Because of the
strong gravitational dipole associated with the  neutrino and antineutrino
(which in fact drowns out their opposing  mass), they will actually align
themselves accordingly, and dance a  helical dance around each other as they
travel from source to target.  Thus, photons turn out to be standing waves in
time of twisted  neutrino-antineutrinos pairs (actually a single neutrino going
round a  closed-timelike curve), with their polarisation determined and
frequency  determined by their helical dance.

[A number of researchers (including Arcos & Pereira mentioned above)  have
already attempted to model the electron as charged, rotating,  Kerr-Newman black
holes, assuming that charge is an independent,  intrinsic property of the
electron, noting in particular that these  solutions have the correct
gyromagnetic ratio for an electron. However  this view is incorrect in light of
the above analysis – in fact the  motion of the infalling/ejected neutrinos and
antineutrinos is  sufficient to explain the apparent charge, which is emergent
rather than  intrinsic, and the uncharged fast Kerr solution, rather than the
Kerr-Newman solution, is sufficient to describe them].

The matter-antimatter symmetric universe I describe above is essentially  the
same as the one recently proposed by Gabriel Chardin & Aurelien  Benoit-Levy.

Let us now digress briefly onto the subject of the origins of quantum theory.

The abundance of Kerr black holes and the accompanying closed timelike  curves
(which are exploited heavily by charged particles interacting  with each other
via exchange of neutrinos) also explains why the world  happens to be quantum
mechanical. Particles passing through the ring  singularity are effectively
taking part in a time-reversing scattering  process, and can therefore travel
both into the past and the future.  Because the universe is filled with such
black holes, every particle in  the universe is essentially aware of every other
particle both in its  past and future (and indeed spacelike separated), and this
explains why  the quantum mechanical wavefunction seems somehow to be
“omniscient” of  sorts. The ability of each particles to communicate with
entirety of the  rest of the universe does not however give rise to any
inconsistencies.  The apparent consistencies are merely due to the fact that we,
as  humans, are constrained to live within the universe and can only observe  it
according to our own forward-pointing arrow of time.

To understand this, consider a toy model universe consisting of a very  large
close loop of wool which is tossed into the air, and then lands on  the floor in
a large tangled mess. A direction of time is then  assigned, and one-dimensional
slices across the woolly configuration  will correspond to spatial time slices.
Even in this example we can  observe a “big bang” of sorts (actually with no
particles) with multiple  spontaneous particle pair creations (and
annihilations), with an  expanding universe, all followed by a big crunch at the
end of time. One  can easily add interactions (and even free will to observers
travelling  along the positive time direction along the wool) without
drastically  changing the underlying picture. The point is, the space of all
possible  universes corresponds to the space of all possible final
configurations  of the tangled woolly mess on the floor. Only one set of events
(i.e  one universe) actually occurs out of the space of all possible events

As observers passing along our own worldlines (i.e. our own piece of  wool) in
the forward time direction, we are able to extract rules from  our past
experience of how our universe seems to work, and this allows  us to build up a
probabilistic view as to what might happen in the  future. Of course, as the
chap who threw the string up in the air in the  first place already knows, the
future is already set in stone (or  carpet) as it were, and so what actually is
measured is already known to  him, if not to us. Our past acts as a constraint –
even though  particles we know that particles can apparently move backwards and
forwards in time (just as the piece of wool rotates all over the place  and
backwards and forwards in time), they cannot change the past that  has already
been observed by us (or indeed the future that is known only  to the Great
Thrower of the Woolly String). Basically, the Novikov  self-consistency
conditions apply, mainly because that everything that  will happen, has in
reality already happened according to any observer  that transcends spacetime.

It should now be clear that quantum theory is a direct consequence of  classical
gravity and *not* the other way around – and in particular the  world is quantum
mechanical because of the closed timelike curves that  arise from the existence
of Kerr black holes which give rise to time  reversing scattering processes.
Rather amusingly, everyone who is busily  engaged in trying to find a quantum
theory of gravity, and yes, that  includes you(!), has gotten it all the wrong
way around! (Oh dear, how  terribly embarrassing!)

By the way, our description of quantum electrodynamics is effectively  the sames
as the action-at-a-distance picture of Hoyle & Narlikar,  based upon the
absorber theory of Wheeler and Feynman, and the response  of the universe needs
to be taken in to account. The exchange of  neutrinos and antineutrinos
backwards and forwards in time are just the  advanced and retarded waves of John
Cramer’s “transactional”  interpretation of quantum mechanics (which, as a
corollary is the  correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, so I would
suggest that you  simply drop the Copenhagen or “many worlds” interpretations as
they are  incorrect, and with the benefit of hindsight, a little embarrassing).

This ends our little digression into the origins and interpretation of quantum

The above picture of the electron with its spinning ring singularity  (indeed
spinning at the speed of light) is strongly supported by David  Hestenes’
inspired analysis of the Dirac equation in the language of  geometrical algebra.
However, he came across an additional troublesome  rotational parameter for
which he could not find an interpretation. The  reason for this extra term can
be understood when one realises that not  all the neutrinos travelling through
the ring singularity escape –  rather many of them are trapped around the
electron’s ring singularity  in a bounded closed orbit. In fact, because of the
spinorial Kerr  structure, each neutrino has to wrap around the electron twice
(once  rotation with its clock going forwards, and one rotation with its clock
going backwards) before returning to its original state with no net time  having
elapsed for it! It is this winding of these bounded neutrinos  about the
electron’s ring singularity that gives rise to the additional  angular term in
Hestenes’ analysis, and what he assumes is the helical  motion of the electron
itself, is actually the helical motion of the  bounded neutrinos helplessly
wrapped around them.

But this is not the end of Hestenes’ genius, as he was able to go one  huge step
further, and extend the same analysis of the Dirac equation to  derive
electroweak theory (see his paper entitled “Gauge Gravity and  Electroweak

But quarks are still conspicuously missing from the above picture. How  can our
picture of the universe be complete without the quarks? Well,  once again the
neutrinos come to the rescue. The electrons are just  ground state black holes
where neutrinos wrap around the Kerr  singularity just twice in two rotations.
Unlike electrons that live  happily in a double-sheeted spacetime, quarks
naturally live in a  triple-sheeted spacetime (each sheet corresponding to one
of the three  quark “colours” red, green and blue) and as such cannot exist in
an  isolated state but only in colour singlets as quark-antiquark pairs or
quark triplets.

At the next excited state, the neutrinos would have to wrap around the
singularity in such a way that it falls through the ring every  two-thirds of a
revolution (i.e. every 240 degrees), so that it has to  perform four revolutions
before returning to its original state. This  excited state corresponds to the
up quark and it is this 120 degree  defect angle that gives the up quark its
apparent 2/3 charge. Similarly,  the down quark corresponds to a state in which
the neutrino wraps  around the ring singularity once every 120 degrees (it has
to perform  two rotations before returning to its initial state), and the 240
degree  defect angle gives rise to the apparent 1/3 charge of the down quark.
There is energy associated with the winding of the neutrinos around the
singularities, and the fact that the neutrinos have to wrap around the
singularity twice as quickly in the down quark as in the up quark is why  the
down quark has around twice the mass of the up quark. [The  existence of such
excited “clover leaf” type orbits around Kerr black  holes has already been
hinted at in the recent paper by Grossman, Levin  and Perez-Giz]. I expect that
there is a connection between this picture  of the fundamental particles and the
braid picture of Bilson-Thompson  et al. and this is certainly worth
investigating. On the other hand, I  still do not know for sure where the three
fermion families come from  and this remains an open problem.

** Now, coming back to the (ultra)large-scale structure of spacetime, I  wanted
to explain why there appears to be more matter than antimatter in  the universe.
It needs to be understood that there was no Big Bang. Not  even a small one.
This may also turn out to be a great source of  embarrassment for those who have
dedicated a large chunk of their life  towards trying to understanding what
happened in the first few moments  after it took place (which it didn’t). The
whole Big Bang idea was a  stupid one right from the start.

Anyway, this is what really happened. The universe was this vast ocean  (i.e. a
spacetime filled with defects giving rise to primordial  neutrinos etc etc) –
actually it was two oceans – a double-sheeted ocean  of you like. In fact, let
me put it like this:

1. In the beginning, God created the heaven (first spacetime sheet) and the
earth (second sheet)

2. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the  face of
the deep (there were initially no defects in the microscopic

structure). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters  (defects
and anti-defects are introduced, and the resulting fluid is

set in motion).
3. And God said, Let there be Light (matter): and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the
darkness (matter-antimatter repulsion)

5. And God called light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the  evening
and the morning were the first day. (an excellent day’s work!)

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament (ring singularity) in the  midst of
the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.  (neutrino formation)

7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under  the
firmanent, from the waters which were above the firmament: and it  was so (the
singularity separates each heaven from the one below – see  below)

8. And God called the firmament [a] Heaven. And the evening and the morning were
the second day. (another great day’s work!)

9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together  unto one
place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (formation  of electrons and
other elementary particles)

10. And God called the dry land Earth: and the gathering together of the  waters
called He Seas: and God saw that it was good. (and the rest, of  course, is

Now while this is something of a curiosity, the real point I want to  make is
that when those first primordial rotating black holes were  formed, the matter
in each ring singularity (and there was a lot of it!)  became trapped and
topologically disconnected from the rest of the  universe – indeed it became an
independent separated closed  “sub-universe” (if you like) in its own right,
with the geometry of the  Kerr ring singularity (described nicely by Arcos &
Pereira). Now,  what is considered matter and what is considered antimatter is
of course  a matter purely of convention (no pun intended), but anyway, let’s
just  say that this was a positive mass (i.e. matter) black hole – then most  of
the stuff which became trapped in the singularity will naturally  consistent of
matter (i.e. defects, rather than anti-defects), and so  the sub-universe will
naturally consist of an excess of matter over  antimatter. Of course this
universe will also contain defects, as well  as neutrinos etc, and these will
also form rotating black holes, which  themselves will have sub-universes
trapped in their own little  sub-universes – and in this way, a hierarchy of
universes will be  formed, one inside another. In fact, we are told in the
Qur’an that  there is a hierarchy of seven such “heavens” (see also for example ):

“Blessed is He in Whose Hand is the dominion; and He is able to do all  things.
Who has created death and life that He may test you which of you  is best in
deed. And He is the Almighty, the Oft-Forgiving; Who has  created the seven
heavens one above another; you can see no fault in the  creation of the Most
Gracious.” [Qur’an 67:1-3]

“It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth;  Moreover His
design comprehended the heavens, for He gave order and  perfection to the seven
firmaments; and of all things He hath perfect  knowledge.” [Qur’an, 2:29]

“So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned  to each
heaven its duty and command. And He adorned the lower heaven  with lights, and
(provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him)  the Exalted in Might,
Full of Knowledge.” [Qur’an, 41:12]

The ring structure of each sub-universe is also indicated explicitly in  the
hadith literature. Indeed in his sayings and traditions, the Prophet  Muhammad
(pbuh) described the size of the heavens; the first heaven, as  compared to the
second, is similar to a small _ring_ in the desert, and  he continued this
narrative until he described the sixth heaven as being  the size of a ring in
the desert compared to the seventh heaven. Also,  the Prophet (pbuh) said, “The
seven heavens are in relation to the  Kursiyy [Footstool or Minor Throne] like a
ring thrown into a waterless desert. And the superiority  of the `Arsh [(Major)
Throne] over the Kursiyy is like the superiority of the desert over  that ring.”


One of the main things to look out for in the near future are the  results of
the AEGIS experiment – does antimatter have have negative  gravitational mass as
predicted above?

Um … I hope I haven’t missed out anything here that I wanted to say.

Best wishes,


On the date of Eid al-Adha 1423 / 2011

October 27, 2011

Bismillah. Saudi has announced today that tomorrow (Friday 28th October) is 1st Dhul Hijjah, so Eid al-Adha will be on Sunday 6th November 2011, God-willing.

This fits the astronomical data, if one accepts a “global” approach to crescent-sighting since it was visible in S. Africa tonight. Any Saudi claims of naked-eye crescent-sighting tonight are highly-dubious, as usual, although telescopic sightings were possible (see

May the Month of Pilgrimage be a blessed one for all!