Quantum theory and why scientists still dont put consciousness/God into the equation

[subbudu1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Introduction

This thread is not against or pro God. It is a discussion on quantum theory and the challenges that pertain to it. I will discuss the questions on relation to God as we walk the talk.

It is my desire to put this subject across. There are a few atleast who want to know about quantum theory from the start . That is my attempt here . I may be inaccurate in places. Feel free to correct these ideas where you find inappropriate based on actual citations.


Let me start with a Story.

My two friends they visited a railway station standing on the platform. A train was passing by the station. The passengers in the train were amused as they observed the people in the platform moving in the backward direction from them. My first friend was amused by the passengers dissappearing from view- " Are these people floating away from me he wondered". Suddenly he found something strange. He looked around, the people he observed in the train were around him and stationary. Yet his other friend was outside moving away from him. He realized he was in the train. How did I come here?What happened to my friend. What is he thinking of me. - he thought.
This sounds like an age old story of relative motion there is a difference though. From a passive observer my friend became an active participant along with the rest of passengers. Yet he did not know this change coming through. How did he come into the train. Was he drugged and brought in? Was it that he unconsiously got into the train without realizing it. Was his mind playing tricks. What was the friend left behind in the station thinking? This story you see serves to explain more than relative motion.

I will come back to this story when I discuss more on quantum theory. Remember that I would be choosing to use it as an illustration on quantum theory.

Quantum theory was beginning to take shape even during the times of Max Planck. However the word Quantum Mechanics was coined by Neils Bohr. The word quantum is derived from the latin word quantum meaning how much.In physics it is defined as the smallest quantity of a physical property, such as energy,that a system can possess according to quantum theory.

Neils Bohr believed that atoms could exist only in certain states. An electron in an atom can move from one orbit to another causing a change in the state of the atom. This is accompanied by release of or absorption of energy. Thus each orbit gets associated with an Energy level. This many of us know since high school. We need to understand here that only certain orbits with certain distance from the center exist. In other words the energy states in an atom are only certain values. You cannot have an orbit at an arbitrary distance from the center of the atom. One could therefore say that energy for the atom is quantized. There were a few things in this model which was not right. This theory was later corrected to what we currently understand today as quantum mechanics. To understand the situation we need to travel back in time to Europe, to the city of Copenhagen. In this place assisting Bohr, was yet another person, who was to become famous on his own right- Heisenberg. This is what Heisenberg had to say

All of my meagre efforts go toward killing off and suitably replacing the concept of the orbital path which one cannot observe.

( Ref 1 )
We must understand that this is not as absurd as it sounds. Can we see the orbits of an atom? Is there a microscope that can do that? Think about it!

Heisenberg developed what is well known today as matrix mechanics. It depended on the theory of observables.

In discussing this idea of observables I found it good to relate a conversation between Einstein and Heisenberg.


From Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, Arnold J. Pomerans, trans. (New York: Harper, 1971), p. 63. (Ref 2)

Heisenberg: "We cannot observe electron orbits inside the atom...Now, since a good theory must be based on directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more fitting to restrict myself to these, treating them, as it were, as representatives of the electron orbits."

"But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"

"Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in some surprise...

"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same....In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe."

We see in this conversation the difference in approach. What Heisenberg is doing is developing his theory from observable quantities. If we follow the opposite approach , in order to explain a phenomena we can postulate the existence of a certain particle. But does that particle exist. This has to be experimented by putting the experiment to test. One cannot say this will lead to wrong conclusions. It is just a difference in approach.

However if we follow Heisenberg's approach to explain matters where we suspect god's powers, we must avoid discussion on God. Because God is not an observable. The alternate approach is to believe that God exists and then put the theory to test. Both are valid approaches in my opinion. What matters is if the theory when put to test explain away all contradictions , all inconsistencies and give only one possible answer. It seems to me like some people in this forum like Sravna are fascinated by this latter approach. Nothing wrong per say as long as a theory puts to rest any speculation.

Anyway we must bear in mind the crucial difference in development of theories before defining things like observer, event etc. These definitions could vary according to the theory.

The below quote should explain Heisenberg's approach.
Ref 3

As a first step, Heisenberg had to identify the relevant observables. In atomic
physics, observational data related to atomic transitions arising from interactions
of the atoms with light quanta. Heisenberg therefore argued that these transitionrelated
quantities are the basic relevant objects. A detailed investigation on
these lines led him to propose the first coherent mathematical structure for the
quantum theory of atoms, in 1925. Together with Max Born and Pascual Jordan,
who recognized that these quantities obeyed rules prescribed by matrix algebra,
Heisenberg developed the essentials of matrix mechanics later that year.

We see here a problem already beginning which will prove that newer theories have to emerge. What is that? Heisenberg is constructing his theory based on observable properties of matter like Amplitude, energy etc. Observables are related to human experience. Let us please note this down. This means that what cannot be observed by humans at a point of time, is going to create a problem because our theory cannot be complete. This is not only my view, it will be later taken up by Bohm.Infact coming to think of it,Vedantins will have a problem with this. How can we assume that Jivatma have a complete cognizance and powers of observation. What happened to the invisible worlds , invisible layers of bodies etc etc. All these will be ignored as we proceed on the lines of Heisenberg until the Jivatma becomes a Paramatma. Which means that the correct theory of Universe will never emerge in front of the Jivatma if he follows the line of Heisenberg.

Continued later....



Ref 1. Quantum Mechanics, 1925-1927: The Quantum Mechanic
Ref 2.Quantum Mechanics, 1925-1927: Heisenberg Recalls a Discussion with Enstein on Observables
Ref 3 http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~labs/dynamical/pedagogy/slbala/heisenberg.pdf

 

[Nara]

Dear subbudu sir, gripping read, nicely done, will eagerly wait for the next installment...

Cheers!

 

[subbudu1]

In the previous discussion we discussed about Neils Bohr conception of atom. We can see from the discussion that Heisenberg had an observation based approach. We need to look at the flaws in the model of Neils Bohr. Here let me add that Neils Bohr and Heisenberg were not competitors but were collaborators. Neils Bohr seemed to have been very elated that his junior won the Noble Prize when he did. More on their friendship later..

Who was Neils Bohr. I thought it best to reproduce this bit about him, as it is from the Nobel prize website.
(Ref 4 )

Niels Henrik David Bohr was born in Copenhagen on October 7, 1885, as the son of Christian Bohr, Professor of Physiology at Copenhagen University, and his wife Ellen, née Adler. Niels, together with his younger brother Harald (the future Professor in Mathematics), grew up in an atmosphere most favourable to the development of his genius - his father was an eminent physiologist and was largely responsible for awakening his interest in physics while still at school, his mother came from a family distinguished in the field of education.

In the spring of 1912 he was at work in Professor Rutherford's laboratory in Manchester, where just in those years such an intensive scientific life and activity prevailed as a consequence of that investigator's fundamental inquiries into the radioactive phenomena. Having there carried out a theoretical piece of work on the absorption of alpha rays which was published in the Philosophical Magazine, 1913, he passed on to a study of the structure of atoms on the basis of Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus.

I am going to quote from his work soon- The good news is that this work is still accessible online for free.

Neils Bohr was a prize for the danish people. He was treated as a very important person and a great gift to the country and his influence was prominent. From his personal life we can see that he had a great strength in character , particularly the guts to oppose the Nazis when they invaded Denmark. He played a significant role in giving shelter to many Jews.
There was something that which I think is interesting. Bohr was a Jew. ( Ref 5 ) Actually his mother was a jew as per BBC program which I will provide a link as I discuss more on the friendship between Bohr and Heisenberg. I am yet to find details on his father's origin. But in any case , in Jewism faith is inherited through one's mother.

I will give a quick overview on the idea used by Bohr from his own work.From the original publication of Neils Bohr

On the Constitution of atom and molecules, Neils Bohr, Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, Volume 26, July 1913

The inadequacy of the classical electrodynamics in accounting for the properties
of atoms from an atom-model as Rutherford's, will appear very clearly if we
consider a simple system consisting of a positively charged nucleus of very small
dimensions and an electron describing closed orbits around it. For simplicity, let
us assume that the mass of the electron is negligibly small in comparison with
that of the nucleus, and further, that the velocity of the electron is small
compared with that of light

Let us at first assume that there is no energy radiation. In this case the electron
will describe stationary elliptical orbits. The frequency of revolution w and the
major-axis of the orbit 2a will depend on the amount of energy w which must be
transferred to the system in order to remove the electron to an infinitely great
distance apart from the nucleus. Denoting the charge of the electron and of the
nucleus by -e and E respectively and the mass of the electron by m we thus get
Further, it can easily be shown that the mean value of the kinetic energy of the
electron taken for a whole revolution is equal to W. We see that if the value of W is
not given there will be no values of w and a characteristic for the system in
question

Let us now, however, take the effect of the energy radiation into account,
calculated in the ordinary way from the acceleration of the electron. In this case
the electron will no longer describe stationary orbits. W will continuously increase, and the
electron will approach the nucleus describing orbits of smaller and smaller
dimensions, and with greater and greater frequency ; the electron on the average
gaining in kinetic energy at the same time as the whole system loses energy. This
process will go on until the dimensions of the orbit are of the same order of
magnitude as the dimensions of the electron or those of the nucleus. A simple
calculation shows that the energy radiated out during the process considered will
be enormously great compared with that radiated out by ordinary molecular
processes

It is obvious that the behaviour of such a system will be very different from that of
an atomic system occurring in nature. In the first place, the actual atoms in their
permanent state seem to have absolutely fixed dimensions and frequencies.
Further, if we consider any molecular process, the result seems always to be that
after a certain amount of energy characteristic for the systems in question is
radiated out, the systems will again settle down in a stable state of equilibrium, in
which the distances apart of the particles are of the same order of magnitude as
before the process

What Bohr is explaining is about the theory of radiation when an atom is excited.As per Bohr,Simply reactions in nature dont cause any major radiation unless the atom is excited. This is important as this is where Science will take a turn to use Atomic Energy for different purposes including building a Bomb.

To continue,

Now the essential point in Planck's theory of radiation is that the energy radiation
from an atomic system does not take place in the continuous way assumed in the
ordinary electrodynamics, but that it, on the contrary, takes place in distinctly
separated emissions, the amount of energy radiated out from an atomic vibrator of
frequency n in a single emission being equal to thn, where t is an entire number,
and h is a universal constant*.

This is where the idea of discrete bursts of energy from the atom comes in.

The discountinuos bursts of energy can easily be identified as separate lines during Spectral Analysis. For a distinct set of orbits to exist the spectral lines should be sufficiently apart.
But while it was found to be true for hydrogen this was not true for other atoms. This is where Bohr's orbital theory gets knocked out.

Ref 4- Niels Bohr - Biography
Ref 5- http://faculty.citadel.edu/dunlop/bohr.pdf

Ref 6 - On the Constitution of atom and molecules, Neils Bohr, Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, Volume 26, July 1913 http://www.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Bohr_1913.pdf ( Can also ve located via Google Scholar)

To be Continued ..

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Dear Mr.Subbudu,

In my humble opinion, it would have been better if you have started from
classical physics and moved from there to QM, because not all people will
understand QM straightaway. It would have been like J.D. Bernal's
monumental work. Thanks.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Mr.Subbudu,

In my humble opinion, it would have been better if you have started from
classical physics and moved from there to QM, because not all people will
understand QM straightaway. It would have been like J.D. Bernal's
monumental work. Thanks.

Thank you for your advice my intention was not to make it too exhaustive like encyclopedic books and yet present the subject. I will summarize the subject detailed so far with some introduction to classical physics. Let me know if the subject matter presented is difficult to understand otherwise. Objections noted and thanks.

 

[subbudu1]

In my earlier discussions I had spoken about atomic theory of Bohr. As per the suggestion of some, I thought before going deeper I can revisit the old concepts.

Let us understand the backdrop. I dont know what extent the rishis knew about god and nature of the world. But let me transport myself into the body of an ordinary man ( who may not have seen the world as per the vision of rishis ) , living by the seashore far away in time to a few thousand years ago in a place in India.

......

I look across in the distance at the sea . I look upwards. What a wonderful sight the star studded evening with the moon ruling the sky as a king among the stars. The evening horizon presents a wonderful view by the seashore as you can see the sky merge with the sea. Having lived near the sea, I know the great mass of water. The puranas say that the world came from Vishnu who resides in the distant ocean of his realm. He must be far far away from sight far beyond the tip of the ocean I can see. When the whole universe ends the waters of Vishnu flood the entire Universe rising up deep into the sky from the distant ocean, moving forward into the land and then there is nothing but water. What a beautiful universe. Look at the stars. They are none but the divine beings , Look at their lusture! What a wonder to see them navigate across the sky and surround my earth. Earth must be indeed special as all these stars give a special place to it. Below the ground are strange creatures and strange lands.


............

This in a nutshell might have been the vision of a villager by the sea.

In hinduism there was an ellaborate conception of atma and viewed as a non material thing. Its identical word Atom in far away Europe had a different meaning altogether. In Greek tomos mean cut, A-tomus thus became something which could not be cut. The idea of atom as an inherent part and small unseeable part of matter was put forward by Leucippus and Democritus.

I find their concept remarkably insightful for their time , it amazes to see a concept of what would later become developed into brownian motion.

…look closely, whenever rays are let in and pour the sun's light through the dark places in houses … you will see many particles there stirred by unseen blows change their course and turn back, driven backwards on their path, now this way, now that, in every direction everywhere. You may know that this shifting movement comes to them all from the atoms*. For first the atoms of things move of themselves; then those bodies which are formed of a tiny union, and are, as it were, nearest to the powers of the atoms, are smitten and stirred by their unseen blows, and they, in their turn, rouse up bodies a little larger. And so the movement passes upwards from the atoms, and little by little comes forth to our senses, so that those bodies move too, which we can descry in the sun's light; yet it is not clearly seen by what blows they do it.

( Ref 7 )

There were a lot of precursors and developments necessary for people to start understanding the atom.

A few important ones are listed here
1. Theories of Motion and force - Gradual development to Relativity
2. The ideas of planetary orbits
3. The study of energy and light
4. The measurement of spectrum

I will discuss these ideas in the light of what is today regarded as Classical physics before probing deeper into the atomic world.

I will try to present some interesting and uncommonly known facts as we proceed along the way

Ref 7 : http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/atoms.html

I would first like to discuss the background to the modern ideas, to be continued...

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Sir,

Thanks for the response. Let us move from matter at the macro level to the
atom and then to sub-atomic level before going on to eastern philosophy.
People , I am sure, will understand what the physicists have been doing.

 

[subbudu1]

Sir,

Thanks for the response. Let us move from matter at the macro level to the
atom and then to sub-atomic level before going on to eastern philosophy.
People , I am sure, will understand what the physicists have been doing.

Thank you for your views, I will try to discuss from the background and scientific concepts essential to understand before getting into Quantum physics. I will mix the philosophical discussions on god and eastern ideas, as I proceed with discussion and summarize the philosophy towards the end. Idea is to not make it a dry scientific discussion without relating it with religion based ideas. I would also add history based on what I know. Thank you

 

[subbudu1]

The world of European thinking

Progress in Science is a collaborative effort of all humans. However we must bow down our heads in front of the early westerners for their approach in building a systematic approach to Science. I know that Indians were very much ahead in mathematics, Science, Medicine, philosophy and all that. But we lacked a systematic approach with regard to the Sciences though our contribution to religious thinking has been immense.

There is a reason. Traveling back in time, we note that by and large the Greeks were focused on uncovering the mystery of nature. To many God was never necessary to explain the world. Take the case of the founders of atomic theory in Greece they believed that mind, and soul were all made of atoms. There is nothing good or bad about these things. It was their trait and paid them dividends. After all such movements are part of questioning established views in life. This pays dividend in the form of new results being uncovered.

When we discuss Newton's laws of motion , we need to realize that even this had a background.

Let me start with Epicurus,Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the like. We need to understand that they played a significant role in the kind of reasoning used later in Science.

Traveling back in time to far away Europe to Greece.
So how was the climate like? Mild winters and long, hot and dry summers. They were a mountainous country and a seafaring nation.( Ref 8 ) The clothing consisted of a tunic and a cloak.(Ref 9)
A seafaring society like the greeks were bound to be inquisitive . Remember that the country would have been visited by many foreigners and strange tales of the world might be spread. We can be reasonably certain that they had even heard of India - a mysterious land . There were greeks who traveled all the way to India like the famous Megasthanes. Some of the things narrated by him about India was so very unbelievable that he was termed as a liar. I have read his accounts, and they seem to have a fair degree of truth with of course superstitious legends spread across. India at that time, still remained a contrast to greek society. It might have been unusual for Megasthanes who records the division of the same race into many castes who never married each other. There is a good view emerging that slavery did not seem present in India . That would not seem surprising because the greeks excelled in utilizing slaves in their day to day life. So there must have been a contrast.

The Greeks record that Indians seldom spread abroad. One is hence not surprised when we note that the Greeks were much more open to new ideas and investigating them as they might have had contacts with many different races. It is in this backdrop that the greek thinking emerged. Today are we not fascinated by Greek thinking? It is I have read ,that there was an Indian king so very impressed by the Greek thinking and their philosophy, that he wanted them to be sent across to India for his own entertainment. But the greek messenger rejected without mincing words that their philosophers were free birds and would never submit before anyone. It is this attitude of the greek philosophers that took the world from that stage of little knowledge to a world of great inventions and discoveries. Since the last account is something I have read 2 decades back or earlier I cannot present a quote. One may view it as a romantic tale about the past if one likes!

Having said this, one should not assume that the Greeks were not influenced by India. But I feel that the Greeks were not only influenced by India but also by the Persians, Egyptians and other remarkable people of that time. There is in my view,nothing to condemn if one takes good ideas from other cultures. Hinduism and Buddhism most certainly exerted some influence on the Greeks.

In Greece we had two contrasting societies or kingdoms. The Hellens and Spartans. The Hellens were a thinking and free socieity when it came to men. The women however remained confined to their homes. The Spartan society allowed freedom to women but the men spent their life in warfare. The women of Sparta were supposed to be athletic , well built and extroverts.

In this background the greek philosophers came into being.

Let us discuss Socrates, a great influence for his time. Socrates was to play a great role in tthe development of philosophy not only during his time, but to influence the development of Scientific thinking in the modern period.

(Ref 10)

Socrates was usually to be found in the marketplace and other public areas, conversing with a variety of different people—young and old, male and female, slave and free, rich and poor—that is, with virtually anyone he could persuade to join with him in his question-and-answer mode of probing serious matters. Socrates' lifework consisted in the examination of people's lives, his own and others', because “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being,” as he says at his trial (Plato, Apology 38a). Socrates pursued this task single-mindedly, questioning people about what matters most, e.g., courage, love, reverence, moderation, and the state of their souls generally. He did this regardless of whether his respondents wanted to be questioned or resisted him; and Athenian youths imitated Socrates' questioning style, much to the annoyance of some of their parents. He had a reputation for irony, though what that means exactly is controversial; at a minimum, Socrates' irony consisted in his saying that he knew nothing of importance and wanted to listen to others, yet keeping the upper hand in every discussion. One further aspect of Socrates' much-touted strangeness should be mentioned: his dogged failure to align himself politically with oligarchs or democrats; rather, he had friends and enemies among both, and he supported and opposed actions of both

(Ref 11)

His dialectic method, or method of investigating problems through dialogue discussions, came to be known as the Socratic method. It involved:
1. SOCRATIC IRONY. Socrates pretended that he knew no answers. His assumed ignorance or willingness to learn from others was the background for adroit questioning to reveal the t truth or expose the error of the answers he received.

2. DEFINITION. The initial question usually required the definition of the concept.

3. ANALYSIS. Subsequent questions elicited an analysis of the definition in all its implications.

4. GENERALIZATIONS. After examining all of the particular applications and consequences of the concept, Socrates reasoned, or persuaded his students to reason, from the particular to the general, or by the process of induction, to reach a general conclusion.

Ref 8 : Ancient Greek Weather - History for Kids!
Ref 9 : Ancient Greek Dress | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Ref 10 : Socrates (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Ref 11 :SOCRATES

 

[subbudu1]

The world of European thinking - 2

As we discuss about Greece, let us not leave out Egypt. Because someone will come here all the way of Greece and be permanantly embedded in the mind of everyone who left school.

The wonders of Egypt is very well known. Egyptians were great experts in architecture, cosmology, medicine and in other departments of ancient technology. But Egyptian civilization was beyond its prime. It was time for new civilizations to provide a direction even as the Egyptians continued to live in pride.

Centre to Egyptian life, were their priests. The priests were supposed to be mystics and well learned in the sacred texts. As opposed to the practices in India, they read out from books instead of reciting out from memory. They followed many rules including rules with regard to food and clothing. Beans for instance was forbidden.They were also supposed to shave themselves completely. It was no easy joke to become a priest, even though occassionaly knowledge could be passed from father to son. They had to take a vow and live by a strict ethical code. It might have reminded us our temples and the vision of Tirupati popularized by TV, as the priests at the break of dawn awakened the god with hymns. The most senior priest first opened the door of sanctuary during the dawn. The gods image was cleaned and dressed up. There was breakfast for the god prepared in the temple kitchen. Animal meat was prepared for the god quite often but no blood was spilt. One can go on, but we can see the similarities with Indian temple even today.
Egyptian and greek life influenced each other.
( Ref 12 )

Far away in Ionia, was born a philosopher called Pythagoras. He was born at a time when India was undergoing revolution in religious ideas. It was around 569 BC. He had a good education and learned in poetry. Pythagoras was influenced by two other philosophers during his early life Thales and Anaximander. They provoked his interest in mathematics and astronomy. It is that he visited Egypt during worn torn conditions in his land. He seem to have been largely influenced by the Egyptians to the extent of adopting the priestly rules in his life and in the society he was to start. His society followed rules of secrecy and strict membership,
He held the following beliefs.
(1) that at its deepest level, reality is mathematical in nature,
(2) that philosophy can be used for spiritual purification,
(3) that the soul can rise to union with the divine,
(4) that certain symbols have a mystical significance, and
(5) that all brothers of the order should observe strict loyalty and secrecy.


As we all know many of the principles of modern geometry owe their origin to the philosophy of Pythagoras. The most famous of it all was the Pythagoras theorem. It needs no mention that many ancient cultures knew this property but it was pythogoras who proved it. This methodology of proving concepts in Geometry is still evident even today.

Heath [7] gives a list of theorems attributed to Pythagoras, or rather more generally to the Pythagoreans.

(i) The sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles. Also the Pythagoreans knew the generalisation which states that a polygon with n sides has sum of interior angles 2n - 4 right angles and sum of exterior angles equal to four right angles.
(ii) The theorem of Pythagoras - for a right angled triangle the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. We should note here that to Pythagoras the square on the hypotenuse would certainly not be thought of as a number multiplied by itself, but rather as a geometrical square constructed on the side. To say that the sum of two squares is equal to a third square meant that the two squares could be cut up and reassembled to form a square identical to the third square.
(iii) Constructing figures of a given area and geometrical algebra. For example they solved equations such as a (a - x) = x[SUP]2[/SUP] by geometrical means.
(iv) The discovery of irrationals. This is certainly attributed to the Pythagoreans but it does seem unlikely to have been due to Pythagoras himself. This went against Pythagoras's philosophy the all things are numbers, since by a number he meant the ratio of two whole numbers. However, because of his belief that all things are numbers it would be a natural task to try to prove that the hypotenuse of an isosceles right angled triangle had a length corresponding to a number.
(v) The five regular solids. It is thought that Pythagoras himself knew how to construct the first three but it is unlikely that he would have known how to construct the other two.
(vi) In astronomy Pythagoras taught that the Earth was a sphere at the centre of the Universe. He also recognised that the orbit of the Moon was inclined to the equator of the Earth and he was one of the first to realise that Venus as an evening star was the same planet as Venus as a morning star.

​

One can underestimate in no small measure this significant contribution and the role this was to play in the development of Science, technology and even the construction of equipments for the study of matter.

In addition to his beliefs about numbers, geometry and astronomy described above, he held :-

... the following philosophical and ethical teachings: ... the dependence of the dynamics of world structure on the interaction of contraries, or pairs of opposites; the viewing of the soul as a self-moving number experiencing a form of metempsychosis, or successive reincarnation in different species until its eventual purification (particularly through the intellectual life of the ethically rigorous Pythagoreans); and the understanding ...that all existing objects were fundamentally composed of form and not of material substance. Further Pythagorean doctrine ... identified the brain as the locus of the soul; and prescribed certain secret cultic practices.

​

( Ref 13 )

Ref 12 : Egypt: Priests in Ancient Egypt, A Feature Tour Egypt Story
Ref 13 : Pythagoras biography

To be continued...

 

[subbudu1]

Plato - In the tradition of Socrates when the Pheloponnesian war broke out in Greece, a war which would destroy the amazing Athenian culture and forever put an end to the great ancient times of the Greeks. How he must have been affected when his mentor Socrates was punished and put to death , for spreading atheism and revolutionay ideas of religion and corrupting the youth.

Plato was a philosopher who has learned in many varied subjects. It may be appreciated by the women that he was among the first feminists. Ref 14

Plato was the first feminist. Only, he was concerned not with women's rights, as modern feminists are, but with their usefulness (Republic 451b-457b.). Like a modern planner, he felt it was a waste of woman-power to seclude women in their homes, when they could be performing useful tasks in the factory or the office. Women should be used, just as men were, for the benefit of the community. There were no fundamental differences between the sexes which unfitted women from useful toil. Admittedly, women were on average less strong and generally less good than men, but that was only a generalisation, which did not hold in every case. Some women were just as good, indeed better, than some men

This trend is likely to continue as many of the reformers and the philosophers and revolutionary scientists supported women and their freedom.

It may also cheer up the Indians to know about his idea of the soul. It emerges from his philosophy that he believed that the soul lived after the death of the body. The following sentence which he makes is going to be cheered up by people here in the TB forum. I can almost hear as some get up and applaud him. He says "Knowledge is not given by the senses but acquired thought them as reason organizes and makes sense out of that which is perceived ( Zusne, p. 6)." Ref 15

Do we know why Christianity never said anything against Plato ? It seems that Plato influenced the early development of Christianity Ref 15

It is interesting to note that Plato's philosophy had such an outreach that none other than Heisenberg involved in development of the famous Matrix Mechanics, a theory within the subject area of Quantum mechanics, was influenced by him. Says he

My mind was formed by studying philosophy, Plato and that sort of thing.

One morning the young Werner Heisenberg discovered reading Plato's Timaeus a description of the world with regular polyhedra. Heisenberg could not understand why Plato being so rational started to use speculative ideas. But finally he was fascinated by the idea that it could be possible to describe the Universe mathematically. He could not understand why Plato used the Polyhedra as the basic units in his model, but Heisenberg considered that in order to understand the world it is necessary to understand the Physics of the atoms.

Plato tried to describe the universe using mathematical models starting from the four elements earth, water, fire and air.

In this context he used the dodecahedron to represent the complete Universe. It is remarkable that for the first time in Human History we have somebody attempting to capture the universe as a mathematical model.

He also understood the transformation of state from water to liquid and vapour in his own way , trying to look at the four elements as a transformation or state of the same thing.

Much later in the future Kepler a great scientist who explained the law of planetary motion was to be influenced by Plato.
One can refer to Plato's model from the site listed in Ref 16.


Ref 14 : Plato's Philosophy of Sex
Ref 15 : Human Intelligence: Plato
Ref 16 : Plato's Model of the Universe and the Dodecahedron

 

[nachi naga]

....Because God is not an observable. ....

if you can observe your-self,then god is observable.what you think is one view what others think of you is second view and what your self is actuall IS is the third view.a three dimensional viewed god.nice to learn quantum mechanics which is a part study from gods encyclopedia.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Dear Mr.Subbudu,

The idea of this seperate thread is to take the readers from classical to
modern physics , pure and simple , avoiding mathematical proofs as far
as possible so that the subject is easily grasped by many in this forum.
When you come to the final summing up, you can mix the philosophical
concept , which you consider relevant to the subject . The reader must
know how far physics have travelled and how far can it go .

In this context, para beginning with " it may also cheer up the Indians
..............(Zusne page 6 )" in yesterday's post no.11 is redundant and
the discussion will again take you to something else. This is how the
continuity and logic of the subject - matter gets disturbed.

 

[happyhindu]

Quantum theory and why scientists still dont put consciousness/God into the equation?????

Well, i think it is because God is still an unknown entity or unknown quantity at this moment or point in time; and so God as an unknown factor cannot either be equated for or be equated against.

 

[subbudu1]

if you can observe your-self,then god is observable.what you think is one view what others think of you is second view and what your self is actuall IS is the third view.a three dimensional viewed god.nice to learn quantum mechanics which is a part study from gods encyclopedia.

Thank you for the response . If God is observable as you say, it still needs to be proven if that part of God which can be observed can be separated from the nature of ordinary materials. If you say as per hinduism, that there is a part of god that cannot be observed, and which is not capable of mingling with nature, then that part cannot ever come into Quantum theory.
I would come to your statements when I explain these arguments but in any case,Quantum theory deals with only observable aspects of world and therefore its position on god, can never really explain god, because there is much to God, which supposedly cannot be seen.
That is the problem here and I will explain in detail when I come there. Thanks again!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Subbudu,

I could trace this thread only now. How wonderful! It will be an irreparable loss to this forum if you decide to discontinue from here. Anyway, my best wishes are with you always.

 

[kunjuppu]

quantum mechanics, max planck... all put me off and so did the title of this thread.

just got into it, lovved every line of it.

 

[subbudu1]

Thank you all for the encouragement. I will post here first and elaborate the content in my blog with other details such as links to research papers and other stuff which I am free to post in my blog. That way I can reach out to people here as well as people who choose not to log in here. This also allows me to treat research sections more in detail for the more serious reader. I will continue. Thanks all for the encouragement.

One request if you find any post interesting enough to stimulate a discussion , please do so. However it will be good if we follow the line of the posts. For instance a person might want to discuss an advanced theory when something else is being discussed and this breaks the continuity of the threads. Please provide full hearted suggestions either here or in PM.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Dear Mr.Subbudu,

Knowledge is power.

Please give me the reference of your blog.

 

[Harini]

I dont know what extent the rishis knew about god and nature of the world. But let me transport myself into the body of an ordinary man (

ஆணல்லன் பெண்ணல்லன் அல்லாது அலியுமல்லன்
காணலுமாகான் உளனல்லன் இல்லையல்லன்
பேணுங்கால் பேணும் உருவாகும் அல்லனுமாம
கோணை பெரிதுடைத்து எம் பெம்மானைக் கூறுதலே.

My understanding

Not a matter; Not a energy; Not even the duality
Not the observation; Not the present nor the non present;
Perceived as whatever you imagine; Also may not be the one you perceived ....

 

[Nara]

ஆணல்லன் பெண்ணல்லன் அல்லாது அலியுமல்லன்
காணலுமாகான் உளனல்லன் இல்லையல்லன்
பேணுங்கால் பேணும் உருவாகும் அல்லனுமாம
கோணை பெரிதுடைத்து எம் பெம்மானைக் கூறுதலே.

My understanding

Not a matter; Not a energy; Not even the duality
Not the observation; Not the present nor the non present;
Perceived as whatever you imagine; Also may not be the one you perceived ....

This does not have anything to do with QM, does it? What is the relevance?

Anyway, this is Thiruvay Mozhi verse 2.5.10. The meaning is more straight forward than the one suggested.

The first line is simply what it states, it emphasizes the uniqueness of Azhvar's lord (எம் பெம்மான்) from everything else.

காணலுமாகான் -- he is beyond the comprehension of the sense organs

உளனல்லன் -- for those who do not seek him

இல்லையல்லன் -- for those who do seek him

பேணுங்கால் பேணும் உருவாகும் -- at the time a devotee requests he will take avatara as requested

அல்லனுமாம் -- he will become scarce to people like Sishupalan (and to adiyEn as well)

The last line says the Azhvar is feeling immensely proud (கோணை பெரிதுடைத்து) when talking about this lord of his.

What I have presented is from the SV commentaries, not just my own simple minded, childlike translation.

Cheers!

 

[Harini]

பேணுங்கால் பேணும் உருவாகும்

it emphasizes the uniqueness of Azhvar's lord (எம் பெம்மான்) from everything else.
காணலுமாகான் -- he is beyond the comprehension of the sense organs
உளனல்லன் -- for those who do not seek him
இல்லையல்லன் -- for those who do seek him
பேணுங்கால் பேணும் உருவாகும் -- at the time a devotee requests he will take avatara as requested
அல்லனுமாம் -- he will become scarce to people like Sishupalan (and to adiyEn as well)
The last line says the Azhvar is feeling immensely proud (கோணை பெரிதுடைத்து) when talking about this lord of his.
What I have presented is from the SV commentaries, not just my own simple minded, childlike translation.

Cheers!

"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same....In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe." பேணுங்கால் பேணும் உருவாகும் analyzed with influence from DaVinci Code may be the right thing to get God of our tradition in to QM. Why should Nammazhvar should say ஆணல்லன் பெண்ணல்லன் அல்லாது அலியுமல்லன் ?

 

[subbudu1]

"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same....In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe." பேணுங்கால் பேணும் உருவாகும் analyzed with influence from DaVinci Code may be the right thing to get God of our tradition in to QM. Why should Nammazhvar should say ஆணல்லன் பெண்ணல்லன் அல்லாது அலியுமல்லன் ?

I am finding it still difficult to understand your POV.
If I go by your translation - "Not the observation; Not the present nor the non present;" Then it violates the fundamental postulates of QM as advanced by Heisenberg that observation has to be basis for knowing truth. Is this what you mean?

 

[Harini]

I am finding it still difficult to understand your POV.
If I go by your translation - "Not the observation; Not the present nor the non present;" Then it violates the fundamental postulates of QM as advanced by Heisenberg that observation has to be basis for knowing truth. Is this what you mean?

It just says that the Observation may be the truth for you but may not be for Einstein! I understood this as the gist of QM from your posting only... but honestly I have not put enough time on understanding things comprehensively.

 

[subbudu1]

It just says that the Observation may be the truth for you but may not be for Einstein! I understood this as the gist of QM from your posting only... but honestly I have not put enough time on understanding things comprehensively.

Regardless of what the SV scriptures actually say that is an interesting perspective. Let me explain that if this relative observation is true then we cannot build a verifiable theory at all. Because your theory would be based on your observables. Einstein's theory would be based on Einstein's observables and so on. So if what you say is indeed correct as per SV,, then assuming these writing are true, we have to look beyond Heisenberg's approach. Heisenberg wanted to construct a theory based on observables and a theory is meaningful only when another person find these observables meaningful to him as well.
Nice finding, let me listen to Nara's view on your interpretation of SV text and why he thinks what you have interpreted is not an intended meaning.