This
is an article examining the pseudoscientific justifications made in
order to justify the claim that women entering Sabarimala temple is
“unscientific” in a video shared by a cardiologist named Nisha
Pillai.1Mainly, in this article I focus on the
pseudophysics she makes up on the spot, misusing the jargon of real
physics. A highschooler’s understanding of the physical sciences is
enough to debunk these claims, hence we have to start at the very
basics of the issue. After the introduction to the topic, we can move
on to examine the veracity of the aforementioned arguments. This, I
hope, can also serve as an example of rampant misuse the jargon of
physics, and science in general.
But
before we get into the meat of the article, we have to address a
counterargument: that none of those words are used as jargon but was
metaphor. But think about a physicist claiming that a rocket has
cancer or something! We can’t use jargon with callous disregard for
the actual meaning, whilst reaping the benefit of appearance as a
science from the same. This is a strategy frequently used by
pseudosciences and we cannot just leave it be; even if used by a
cardiologist! Now, let’s move on to the basic physics that a doctor
with an M.D. somehow forgot about!
Force
is a fundamental concept in physics. The definition and description
of what it is can be understood from the first two laws of motion.
The
first law of motion is introduces the idea of inertia: the natural
state of a body is to remain in it’s current state of motion. If
it’s in rest, it stays in rest; and if it’s moving with a
constant velocity, it would continue to do so in a straight line.
Unless acted by an external force. So, we can see that force is what
changes the state of motion, either putting a resting body in motion
or slowing or speeding up an already moving body. But, we have a
natural tendency to question this law, since we can clearly see that
most things come to a stop after we put them in motion; that is
because most surfaces in which motion takes place, and even the air
itself, exerts a force called friction. So, we experience that
objects need to be put in motion and they come to rest. But if there
is no friction and other interruptions, things will move forever in a
straight line without slowing down; and we know that this is the case
in the vacuum of outer space.
So
in our normal day to day life, force is generally something that puts
things in motion and speeds the motion up or slows it down; and that
is what we generally call force anyhow. But from the second law, we
can understand the rate of change of velocity can be used to measure
how much force is being applied. We call this rate of change
acceleration. What is experience as weight is related to another
quantity called mass, which is what determines how much force is
required to produce a given amount of acceleration. (I’m actually
leaving the proper statement of the second law be for the time being,
since introducing that means a lot of math and more jargon; so
remember that this so far is not the final form of the second law of
motion) Which basically means that heavier objects are harder to move
– and we have arrived at a common sense conclusion through the most
convoluted route possible.
We
now have the definitions for force, velocity, acceleration and mass.
To understand the flaws in the aforementioned video, we also need
definitions and a basic understanding of energy, power and magnetic
field.
Work
in physics is an indication of force and displacement of an object
when a force is applied. For example, if we move a body in rest, what
force is applied and what displacement occurs is the work in the
instance. And it’s mathematically a product of the two. (That is,
if the motion is in a straight line, work = force x displacement) And
how much work is being done in a specific amount of time is called
power.
Energy
is, from a physical standpoint, the ability of a body to do work.
Which means, energy needs to be transferred from one body to another
in order to perform work. The fundamental types of energy are kinetic
energy, energy due to the motion of the object, and potential energy,
energy due to the position of the object. If you think the idea that
the position of the object changes energy is untrue, see dropping a
ball from the ground level and from atop a building. You can have the
very reasonable question, “Isn’t that just the height?” And
it’s kind of right. The potential energy here is due to gravity of
the Earth; and since it’s round, the only way to change your
position with respect to the source of the energy, and so see a
measurable change in the force, is to climb higher or tunnel lower.
Although, since Earth is not a perfect sphere, the potential energy
at the poles is measurably different compared to the equator. Which,
as you can see, is change in energy due to change in position. We
call this energy due gravity, appropriately, the gravitational
potential energy.
The
energy decreases as we move away from the Earth. (You might think
it’s the other way around from dropping the ball, but it’s
actually not if we bother to measure it) This potential energy
decreases as the object moves far away from it’s source, Earth. To
indicate this phenomena and to explain how forces like gravity manage
to move objects without touching them directly, physics uses a
concept called force fields. (And here we’re leaving high school
physics)
Let’s
begin to explain fields by describing how to experimentally identify
them. Take the gravitational force field for example, if we take an
object that weighs 1 kilograms, then weigh it as we climb the
altitude, we can see that the weight decreases. Since mass is
unchanging here, the change in force, that is weight, is visible. A
field is a collection of all these measurements, in a continuous
fashion. We consider the points of gravitational force around the
Earth together, to form the idea of a field. This continuum can be
used to explain what reaches out to an object in a distance to move
it, to exchange energy. And since this is measurable, physics
considers it a physical reality.
We
can use the field concept to explain the changes of any force, and
hence it is an extremely useful tool in physics. Magnetic field is
one such force field. And yes, now we talk magnets.
Magnetic
force is a force applied by a magnet, on magnetic materials. A
familiar magnetic material would be iron; but almost all the matter
we interact with has different types of magnetism, albeit weak. The
magnetism that would be strong enough to have an impact on our life
is called ferromagnetism, which is the magnetism of materials like
iron. So here, I’m talking in detail about ferromagnetism. But, the
method to find the other magnetisms are the same.
If
we identify a force at a point, we have seen it’s possible to
identify a field. So how do we measure magnetic force? We need to
discuss how magnetic force works. (In the case of gravity, bodies
with mass attract each other and that’s it) Only magnetic materials
behave this way. If a magnet is near such a material, they are
attracted to it. Magnets, on the other hand, has two poles. Like
poles repel and unlike poles attract each other. Using these
understanding of the magnetic force, we can identify the presence of
a magnetic field.
What
we do is, simply, to see if a magnet is being influenced, and see if
we can measure the force. So, see if the magnet is moving when there
is no field. (The video here discusses a detailed explanation of a
device that measures magnetic field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fluxgate_Magnetometers.ogv)
So,
we can see if there is a field given a magnet. But, everywhere on
Earth, we have a very weak field; this is why we can use a magnetic
needle inside a compass to find the direction. But looking at a
compass needle itself, we can see how weak it is; how even a small
disturbance can throw it off the correct orientation. The weak
magnetic field is, unlike some people would like to claim, unable to
influence the blood flow or make our sleeping position relevant at
all. The Earth’s magnetic field is too weak to influence our
bodies.
From
these fundamentals, let’s review the footage.
(I’ve
translated the original video, which is in Malayalam. If I fail at
the same, it’s my fault and I’m ready to correct it at reasonable
request. The jargon and she misused her English words are italicized,
and is a one to one correspondence)
1:07
- “Temples exist within a magnetic field.”
This
is isolation is a fine statement, after all the Earth has a magnetic
field. But, she uses this to distinguish Hindu temples from other
places of worship and that is just flat out wrong. If there is a
magnetic field, show it by measurement and not proclamation. By the
way, this is where the fact that we can measure any magnetic field in
the same way comes into play.
If
you can’t show it this way, even if there is some mysterious force
that has no evidence for it and is heretofore unknown to science, it
cannot be a magnetic field.
1:21
- “We place the idol at a field of high magnetic power
in an area.”
First
and foremost, the words power and field are used inappropriately. We
never use power to denote the strength of the magnetic field, because
that would be confusing and science has definitions for a reason.
Obviously, we use the term field strength here. But she doesn’t
know that. Do you think she is familiar with magnetometry (measuring
magnetic fields) given her misunderstanding such basic terminology? I
doubt it. This video is nothing but a rant, not presenting evidence
for science to consider.
1:46
- “We maintain the temple and the nearby area as an ethereal
environment by transferring the life force from the priest
who consecrates it to the deity and amplifying it.”
This
article begins from my rage in a doctor in the 21st century using
“life force” unironically. It is a 19th century concept long
discarded by science, and life doesn’t show any signs of being a
force as we defined. Life, in modern science, is process. But in an
earlier era, centuries ago, we thought life was something material
that we lost when we die. Are we to go back now?
Also,
she just slipped the claim that the idol and the environment becomes
ethereal in there. Using a foreign language to make it sound like
you’re saying something profound while you basically insisted that
material stuff we can interact with is immaterial, is sneaky to say
the least.
3:39
- “A phone needs a battery or an energy source.”
3:44
- “Like that, our body also has an energy body.”
Krebs
cycle anyone? Heard of the mitochondrion in our cells? How about
carbohydrates? Anyone who has studied basic cell biology would be
flabbergasted by a cardiologist feigning complete ignorance to the
process of respiration, and the minutiae we know about it. Just in
case, we use the carbohydrates we ingest to produce energy through
the process of respiration. We don’t need an “energy body”,
whatever that means.
If
such a body existed, why do people die when they starve for a while?
Why should we, all humans, eat? Why do we measure food in terms of
energy with the unit calorie? I invite you to make the one reasonable
conclusion here by yourself. Something somehow a cardiologist missed!
From
a pure high school physical sciences eye, we release the chemical
energy stored within the carbohydrates through chemical processes,
look up Krebs cycle, and use them to stay alive and energetic.
3:52
- “Modern medicine is a structural science.”
Toolkit
of the pseudoscientist #1: Misuse and/or make up jargon. Science
don’t, and scientists don’t, use anything like “structural
science” to denote modern medicine. And since it incorporates the
biological understanding of processes like the above mentioned
respiration, calling it a simple study of structure is just very
wrong anyway. I have no idea
why she lied; as a doctor she must know.
The
only way scientists ever use structural science is the rare occasion
of studying the inner structure of crystals. A totally unrelated
discipline.
6:33
- “Like this, every person we have has different levels
of energy, an energy
level we express prominently.”
We
use energy levels to denote the separation of energies into various
discrete levels in quantum mechanical systems, like atoms. To
use this jargon in the context of a human body is wrong since quantum
mechanical effects are absent in macro level like a human body; we
don’t have energy levels. If
she doesn’t mean that but just means that as a measurement of
energy, although the step by step introduction of chakras and the
like says otherwise, she used
the wrong jargon! She has no idea what she’s talking about and is
just throwing around jargon like she just don’t care.
6:55
- “Spirituality is
the process by which we process by which we raise the energy
in our lower level
to the next level,
step by step to grow us to a
universal awareness.”
It
was energy level a couple of seconds ago. Now, it’s energy in
levels. I just pointed this
out to show that her logic is, even internally, contradictory and
means nothing if you translate the bubo-jumbo it to human language.
Also, energy and levels and
stuff are still used wrong, duh!
The
rest of the claims boil down to her claiming that menstrual blood is
brought down by some mysterious force, (physicists, being uber
mystics, named it g-r-a-v-i-t-y) and
the upward force exerted by the temple (you know, the magnetic field
that doesn’t exist) screws everything up somehow. I
leave the reader to probe the integrity and credibility of the claim
on your own; hoping that you
are in fact equipped to do so.
She
goes out of her way not to explain the actual nature of the
mysterious forces, and also is successful in not producing even a
minuscule bit of evidence. How would this force interact with the
completely imaginary life force too is left unexplained; we all know
why, I hope.
Why
is this the standard we hold people to? This is a video seen by 400
thousand people in a single day, and is widely shared. Why is this
video proliferating in our literate, most of us graduate, cultural
memosphere? All it takes is
the ability to listen and have a fundamental grasp of high school
physics. Why aren’t most of up equipped to do that? Why can’t we
see thorough incoherent ramblings that doesn’t mean anything?
The,
rather depressing answer is: we don’t want to. We just want to hear
that we’re right and share the views that even barely resonate with
us. Do we want to be that way, gullible to the next sweet talker to
come by and agree with you? I’ll let you decide.
As
a physics student, I request but this. Leave physics alone…!
Energy, forces and magnetic fields are useful concepts that need
clarification to even the most trained among us, don’t muddy the
water further. Please don’t misinform the coming generation to
thinking that these words, full of meaning and ready to reveal the
majesty of the universe, are useless ramblings. Stop talking about
energy if you don’t know what is, don’t mix up action and
reaction exploding Newtonian physics in the process.
Scientists
have a lot to do. Please stop dragging jargon into meaningless
scenarios and make the next batch of scientists unable to handle the
reality of these concepts.
Please,
please, please. Leave physics alone…!
മലയാളം
പത്രങ്ങള് സയന്സിനെ
വളച്ചൊടിച്ചെ അടങ്ങൂ എന്ന
മട്ടില് റിപ്പോര്ട്ട്
ചെയ്യുന്നതില് നിന്നാണ് ഈബ്ലോഗ് തുടങ്ങുന്നത് തന്നെ.
ഇഹലോകത്തിന്റെ
തുടക്കത്തിലേക്കൊരു മടങ്ങിപ്പോകല്
പോലെ തോന്നുന്നു വീണ്ടും
മനോരമയെ തിരുത്താന്
മുന്നിട്ടിറങ്ങുമ്പോള്.
