Comment

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on March 18, 2011 at 1:28am

 

One of the roadblocks encountered while comparing the Atomism of Traditions and the Atomism of modern science is that they appear to be incomparable. The Atoms of traditions are describng something different than the Atoms of moderns science.

 

Further, modern science appears to now have recahed the level of quarks after dividing Particles and having discovered wave particle duality. A number of such comparisons were made when science had only recahed the levels of Particles (like Electrons, Protons and Neutrons which were then considered indivisible and the fundamnetal building blocks of the universe). Also, the quark theory will not be complete until the God-particle - Higgs Boson is found. 

 

So, should one attempt to compare the building process of the universe based on each of the "Atomic Theories"?

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on March 16, 2011 at 10:56pm

WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY

  

Mr. Ananda Wood traces the wave particle duality to Katha Upanisahd in his small book, "Questioninig Back In". He writes:

 

Modern physics tells us that material things, like rocks and trees, are not quite the separate pieces of matter that they seem to be. When such gross objects are inspected more closely, it turns out that they are made of a more subtle and fluid energy. Each object is made of molecules and atoms, and in turn the atoms are made of sub-atomic particles which aren’t quite particles. Instead, the sub-atomic ‘particles’ are quantum elements in dynamic patterns of vibrating and radiating energy. Thus, material objects are made up of complex energy patterns which are not really separate. These patterns, which we see as separate gross objects, are essentially interconnected, by the subtle vibrations and radiations of energy fluctuations that make up the patterns and the interaction between them.

 

Traditional conceptions have been saying something very similar, for thousands of years. In India, the concept of a particle has long been described by the Sanskrit word ‘anu’, which also means ‘minute’ or ‘subtle’. This word ‘anu’ comes from the root ‘an’, which means to ‘resonate with sound’ or to ‘breathe’. And it is closely related to the word ‘prana’, which means both ‘breath’ and ‘energy’. Together, the two concepts of ‘anu’ and ‘prana’ imply a subtly vibrating and propagating energy (‘prana’) associated with a minute and subtle kind of particle (‘anu’). The Katha Upanishad (6.2) says quite explicitly that the entire universe is made of moving energy, whose fluctuations take the form of changing things.

 

The universe of changing things –

whatever may be issued forth –

it is all made of living energy,

which moves and oscillates and shines.

 

This is clearly similar to modern physics, but with one crucial difference...



Here, not only the unity (oneness) of waves and particles is esatblished but also the principle of when the wave would appear as particle is given as "fluctuations." Perhaps Kashmir Shaivism describes these "Fluctuations" as "Spanda" or "Divine Creative Pulsation" as the author Jaideva SIngh names his work. So, it would appear that Stanzas of Dzyan III.2, refers to the infusion of "Prana" or "Fluctuations of Vibration" for the creation to begin. 

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on March 14, 2011 at 5:06pm

On this approach, we need to be specially careful about any preconceived idea. On one side, we have wisdom traditions (and there are so many) putting forward "thruths", and on the other side, we have the results of mental activities '(scientific theories) which are build on our limited capabilities to measure and to elaborate models from theses measures. To build a bridge between the two is definitively an immense challenge. But if we want to start build the foundations, we need to recognize the grounds we want to explore. Lets start from a "simple" subject like "atomism" as proposed by Captain Anand and Roopa, and let's see how we can bring both what modern science has to say and what wisdom traditions put forward, then parallels may be established. Atomism or particles science can be of some interest, in parallel to the researches on the Dzyan Stances.

Comment by dks on March 13, 2011 at 3:17pm

"We probably want to explore : the Standard Model for particles, the Big Bang theory and the latest cosmology theories, the Quantum Field theory,..."

The exercise is particularly appetising, even self-congratulatory, to scientifically inclined theosophists. Mystics and quantum physicists are similar. No debate however, can claim closure/conviction, purely on grounds of supportive speculative theories. We may keep in mind that to the modest non-delusional, truth is an irreducible complexity.

Empirical evidence is the sine qua non of hard truth. Apart from 'feeling' so, Newtonian physics is real! Nuclear physics and relativity are also real, because they can be measured, even if they donot make sense. The building blocks of evidence, particularly relativity, helped Hawkings theorise his black holes in his brief history of time. While it would have pleased Einstein's scientific temper greatly that his beloved belief in the steady state universe was somewhat belied by later scientists, what remains beyond comprehension, is how It all began!

It is in the realm of subatomics, that the jump in scientific theory is literally 'quantum'. All this jargon of half -spin sub atomics etc are attempts to explain the inexplicable - no different from mystical ruminations. Scientists, including Einstein himself (EPR experiment) tried to demonstrate, unconvincingly I may add, why it was so! The total exhaustion in quantum theorising posits its lack of definiteness quaintly, in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle!

For the thoughtful, I could suggest a parallel line of study in obsevations of reality in the holographic construct of particles evidenced by laser technology, the implicate and explicate as physicist (and Jiddu admirer) Bohm proved, the inexplicable Central Tendency exhibited in large numbers, the Golden Mean in the construct of everything, Entropy etc.

Comment by Heidi Ann Maycroft on March 12, 2011 at 7:37am

Perhaps some experience the mystery of black holes; personal instead of scholarly.

 

Seems that information might be priceless since it is real and not speculated.

 

Just a thought [warm smile]

Comment by David Reigle on March 11, 2011 at 10:00pm

Very interesting about the black hole war between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking, in relation to what HPB says. Thanks, Capt. Anand, for the information about this.

 

On the question of why does fohat trace spiral lines, raised by Joe, there is a lot about spiral motion in A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, by Alice Bailey. Perhaps some of our Bailey students could bring in something from this.

Comment by Nicholas Weeks on March 11, 2011 at 2:01pm

Joe, If the purpose is just general discussion of old and new science, then no quotes from either camp are needed.  But I thought it would be more valuable to the Theosophical Movement to actually confirm or deny the congruence or not, of Theosophy & modern science

Comment by Nicholas Weeks on March 11, 2011 at 11:02am

Having only skimmed part of this thread I may have missed something.  The "something" I was looking for, were actual quotes from Blavatsky or the Mahatmas on scientific subjects.  Then the responses from those here schooled in modern science saying there is agreement between today's science & Theosophy - Yes or No.

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on March 9, 2011 at 3:12am

 

BLACK HOLES:

 

Just what Jacqes Manich wrote, indeed scientists believe a black hole to be in the centre of many galaxies. How HPB knew this remains a mystery. Following from NASA:

 

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/10apr03.html 

 

Supermassive black holes (SMBHs) exist at the very center of many galaxies, including our own Milky Way Galaxy. SMBHs usually weigh in on the order of millions or billions of times that of our Sun. How such monsters have developed isn't completely clear but astronomers now believe SMBHs and their host galaxies probably "co-evolved" together over time.

 

And, eminent Physicist Roger Penrose in his 1991 book, "The Emperor's New Mind", Penguin Edition, Page 334 writes:

 

Much larger black holes are expected to reside at galactic centres. Our own Milky Way ga!axy may well contain a black hole of about a million solar masses, and the radius of the hole would then be a few million kilometres.

 

And a very scientific war took place between the two very eminent Physicists, Leonard Susskind and  Stephen Hawking, popularly known as "The Black Hole War". There is a book with the same title by Leonard Susskind. He proved Stephen Hawking wrong and established that the information is not lost even inside a black hole. Hawking conceded in 2006. HPB would again be right about the LIPIKAS.

 

Also, "FOHAT traces spiral lines (S.D. Volume 1  Stanza V.4)" certainly appears to be referring to the spiral shape of galaxies.  

 

How all of this can be related and put in proper perspective?

Comment by Michael A. Williams on March 9, 2011 at 12:47am

Glad you enjoyed the two links, David. I just sent a message via Twitter to Dr. Chopra, asking him if and when he'll be posting video highlights of the symposium. He should, for he did last year. I'll bring any new updates on it to the attention of this blog. Since Dr. Hammeroff was at the conference, I assume there will be some of him.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page