Comment

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on October 3, 2011 at 6:10pm

John,

 

Many thanks for participating to this discussion. We need such inputs to bring scientific facts , opinions and references to move forward in this quest.

As you mention, your understanding, together with Dr Mermin interpretation of quantum states can open a door for discussion on this thema.

The Ithaca Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Dr Mermin paper - What is Quantum Mechanics trying to tell us ?) seems to be in direct line with the Copenhagen interpretation, with a much more reductionist attitude (if I understand it properly) by reducing all physics to a world of correlations between events :

"According to the IIQM the only proper subjects for the physics of a system are its
correlations. The physical reality of a system is entirely contained in (a) the correlations
among its subsystems and (b) its correlations with other systems, viewed together with
itself as subsystems of a larger system. I shall refer to these as the internal and external
correlations of the system. A completely isolated system is one that has no external
correlations or external dynamical interactions"

 

Other interpretations like the Bohm-De Broglie are qualified as a "currently active deviant sub-culture" indicates how passionate this subject can be.

 

Now, what can it brings to our question relative to the relation between traditions and science ?

It may rings a bell because it could be a way to express the buddhist concept of Pratityasamutpada (dependent origination) where existence is but a set of interdependent links between states (dharmas).

The Abhidharma Kosha Bhashyam (Vasubandhu) is telling (Chapter III-178) :

 

"What difference is there between pratityasamutpada and these dharmas ? None, according to the Abhidharma".

 

Moderator Comment by John on October 3, 2011 at 10:42am

Jacques --

your viewpoint is pretty common. However...

"The Pauli Exclusion Principle is a fundamental law which govern the way matter organizes itself"

The "Law" is a bit of a myth. It is derivable from the fundamental symmetries of the wave functions. So, the "law" is derivable. Pauli created it before before it was really understood. Basically Bosons are symmetric and fermions are anti symmetric. That is how to tell which is which.

"But it has nothing to do with the dual (wave-particle) aspect of matter (all matter is subject to this phenomenon). This duality is more a matter of the way we observe particles (experiments apparatus)."

The duality is inherent in the wave functions as well, due to the eigenstates of the measurement operators. I have found that the best way to look at it is that the theory describes (exactly) the correlations between events only. It actually says nothing about "what" it is correlating (the what, or correlata that causes any correlations). I think Dr. N. David Mermin  has hit the best interpretation. That of course opens the door to interpretations in this thread/topic. Interpretation has no solution that satisfies everyone.  No two Physicists seem to agree on this (exactly). Wild speculations are too easy to create and to sell books.

In Mermin's interpretation, there is never any "collapse" of the wave function. Measurement becomes an observable event to correlate. Nothing more. The wave function contains all knowledge about the correlations. Knowledge is not a piece of matter or energy but falls into the reality of mathematics (a platonic belief in the existence of). From a thermodynamical viewpoint, information can be related to energy. But Information is treated as bits, not knowledge as in "Mind".

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on September 29, 2011 at 3:19pm

The Pauli Exclusion Principle is a fondamental law which govern the way matter organizes itself. There cannot be two or more electrons occupying the same "energy-state" inside an atom. Because energy-sates have a relationship with the topology of the atom (lower energy-sates are the closest from the nucleus), it explains the 'occupation of space' around the nucleus. But it has nothing to do with the dual (wave-particle) aspect of matter (all matter is subject to this phenomenon). This duality is more a matter of the way we observe particles (experiments apparatus).

 

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on September 29, 2011 at 12:44am

Thanks Morry, for a very accurate description of Pauli Exclusion Principle.

 

I was looking at the Sanskrit term Avakasha-Dana, which David and Bhagwan Das both define as the property of Akasha, to yield, to make space for other. In the description of Pauli Exclusion Principle at Wikipedia, it is stated that:

 

It causes atoms to take up the space they do, since electrons cannot all congregate in the lowest-energy state but must occupy higher energy states at a distance from lower-energy electrons, therefore matter made of atoms occupies space rather than being condensed. As such, the Pauli exclusion principle underpins many properties of everyday matter,.....

 

So, as the molecules interchange electrons between them in accordance with the above principle, they are making room for ecah other or yielding space to one another. This is what startled me. Of course, with one Sanskrit term, one cannot conclude that it describes Pauli Exclusion Principle, but since it relates to the property of Akasha, which is believed to be the root substance behind all manifested matter, it sure is worth investigating as would be the other properties of Akasha.    

Comment by morry secrest on September 28, 2011 at 11:12pm

To the comment by Capt. Anand Kumar:

I am reminded that the photon is known to be both a particle and a wave packet of energy.  Though it is both, it seems to not be possible to observe both of these states at the same time.  Further, the electron is known to be a particle, but under some experimental circumstances can be observed as behaving like a wave packet.  Also, it has been determined that a particular type of particle, one of the muons, changes from one type to another as it travels from the sun to the earth.

Each of these examples has the feature of a particle being of two types, simultaneously, but not available to observation both at the same time.  This is pretty close to the definition of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

I might say that each of these four examples is an observation, or rather a description, of something that we observe in the universe.  None of them is a real explanation.  Consider the story of the three blind men, wandering through the forest, who encounter an elephant.  By touch alone, one declares that this beast is like a tree (from feeling the leg); another affirms that the creature must be like a rope (from feeling the tail) and the third insists that it must be a huge snake (from touching the trunk).

 

Turning now to the comment by David Reigle:

The property of akasha, described as that of "giving room", is very interesting.  It introduces the concept of creating a thing (a bit of empty space) which did not exist before.  Our current idea of modern science is that no matter or energy can be created out of nothing.  Though not actually a proven impossibility, There have certainly been a large number of experiments done which were capable of showing such an event.  Much of our present concept of physical science depends on that assumption.

If we stop to think for a moment, however, that assumption has never addressed the concept of possibly creating a tiny bit of space, shouldering itself into existence between a handful of other bits of space.  Our current view of physics simply assumes that nothing of the sort should occur, and we happily avoid looking for any evidence that it might.

 

Perhaps a little closer to the concept of the Akasha, in its aspect of Ether, that is, a subtle form of matter, is another explanation by physicists.  This is the idea that there is a "virtual particle," that is, a particle such as a photon or an electron which pops into existence and then disappears again, so quickly that there is almost no impact on anything around it.  This sort of thing happens everywhere, all the time, at every point throughout the entire universe.  Its source is proposed to be a "sea of energy" that exists at some level beyond or below our ability to perceive it.  Now here we have a possible explanation for why a single particle can have two states,  but is available to our observation in only one or the other.  Here is one possible description:  The photon, as it speeds along, is skimming the surface of that ocean of energy, becoming one state as it moves through a wave-top, and the other state as it travels between the wave-tops.

Another possibility is the following:

The photon has in its complete description, two aspects.  One of them is always in this observable universe, available to our experimental apparatus; the other is in the etheric realm, invisible to us.  This might be the "sea of energy."  

Now imagine that the photon is rotating so that these two aspects trade places.  First the particle aspect is available to us, then the wave aspect, then the particle aspect again.  Perhaps the speed with which it alternates is related to the frequency of the radiation of the photon.  Perhaps the combination of the speed of alternation and other characteristics of the photon and the "sea of energy" result in the constant which we call the speed of light.

 

The characteristics of the "sea

Comment by David Reigle on September 25, 2011 at 1:16pm

The term avakasha-dana can be found in Vyasa's commentary on Patanjali's Yoga-sutras, chapter 4, verse 14, where it describes the property of akasha. The meaning is "giving" (daana) "room" (avakaasha), or "making space" for something. A hollow in the ground gives room or makes space for burrowing creatures to live in. This meaning of akasha became predominant in some schools of Buddhism, such as Theravada, Sautrantika, and Madhyamika. The meaning of akasha as the fifth element that we sometimes call ether predominates in most schools of Hinduism, and some schools of Buddhism, such as the Vaibhasika or Sarvastivada.

Vijnana-bhikshu in his commentary titled Yoga-varttika on Patanjali's Yoga-sutras elaborates on this, in chapter 3, verse 40 or 41 (depending on edition). You can read an English analysis of this from the standpoint of science in Brajendranath Seal's classic 1915 book, The Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus, pp. 27-28. He mentions avakasha-dana on p. 25, where he translates it as "penetrability." Ganganatha Jha translates it as "spaciousness."

For the idea of ether or aether, from ancient Greek mythology to modern science theories, I happened to notice a valuable website: http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/English/aether.php

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on September 24, 2011 at 12:04am

 

PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE:

We have seen earlier how this principle is applicable in creation of matter. Recently I came across a very curious statement by Bhagwan Das in his magnum opus Pranav Vada:

Section –III, Chapter XXVIII, Page 15 Footnote:

1 One of the names for vacuum is a k a s h a although the word properly means a certain kind of matter 0f a certain density, This is so, because, comparatively, the a k a s h a-matter of our system is as empty space, to the denser kinds.  Compare the statements in The Secret Doctnne re "Fohat making holes in space" and the views of Occult Chemistry  re " holes  or bubbles in koilon ". In  Samskrt philosophy, while one of the properties of a k a s h a is sound, another  is a v aka s h a-d a n a 'yielding place, making room' for others. '

 

I would request the Sanskrit scholars to kindly enlighten us on what could be his source for this meaning and a little more on the full menaing of avakasha-dana and whether there is any resemblene to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. A conclusion that it is a mere speculation is also welcome.

 

Thank You. 

Comment by APPAIAH BHAT S on July 22, 2011 at 7:54am

TRADITION HAS DEVELOPED ONE, FROM THE EVOLUTION OF MAN.

BY HIS BELIEF AND EXPERIENCE HE GOES ON RECORDED IT AND STARTS TO FOLLOW THOSE PRINCIPLE.THE PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE OF TRADITION IS TRUE TO THAT CIRCUMSTANCES AND IT IS GOES ON  CHANGES ACCORDING TO THE EVOLUTION THEORY OF MAN,  AND THE MANS LIVING POSITION WITH TIME AND PLACE. 

Comment by APPAIAH BHAT S on July 22, 2011 at 7:48am

SCIENCE IS NOT A NEW ONE.IT IS THE MOTHER ROOT OF THE EVOLUTION THEORY.WITHOUT MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE THERE IS NO EVOLUTION. OUR MIND HAS LIMITATION TO UNDERSTAND THIS CONCEPT AND START ARGUING LOGICALLY,AND FEELS TO BE KNOW EVERYTHING AND POSING OUR GREATNESS. EVERYTHING IS COMING OUT OF NOTHING. IF SOMETHING IS REMOVED OUT OF IT OR ADDED BACK TO IT, IT REMAINS SAME.THAT IS THE CONCEPT OF HIGHER ONE.

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on June 12, 2011 at 12:34pm

Morry,

 

Thank you for bringing  such an interesting and fascinating point : How the "ancient scientists" discovered, understood, and transmit these "deepest secrets of the universe", question which has, as you mentioned a direct link with the investigation of unexplained laws of nature and powers latent in man.

 

My two-cents worth answer : if we take apart what is under the "direct divine revelation", on which investigation may be "touchy", most of the human knowledge which is available to us today comes from human being who DEDICATED their whole life to this quest, and sometime came out with some glimpses of knowledge. When their personal history has been recorded, it gives us some clues about their methods. But it is clear (to me at least) that it is their complete engagement to their quest which brought some results, by developing some of the "hidden powers" in man. When you read the Fathers of the Desert (Philocalia), St Jean de la Croix, Thérèse d'Avila, Meister Eckhart, for the Christian tradition, and it is the same for most of the world's traditions, you enter is this "outer world" where magic mingled with reality. Of course, you need to be able to "read in-between the lines" and separate the facts from the legends.There has been and there are many books describing these lives and their accomplishments.

By the way, there is a slight difficulty highlighted by most of these Masters of the Past (and of today) : if you want to understand reality, you must get away from mundane activity, and relinquish the power of mental reasoning...

 

All the questions you brought are very sound questions, and I feel that, being such a large subject,  it may deserve a separate thread with a "champion" to lead it.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page