Arya Samaj

Shyena · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:48 pm Post subject: Physics of Vaiseshika

Namaste,
While reading satyarth prakash I encountered this which is from vaiseshika sutras:

Shishya · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject:

Namaste Shyena,

Well, it would be, if those words in parenthesis - added by the translator - were correct. Wink

I've done some research on this before - not extensive, mind you - and found that the Vedic theory and the modern one are astonishingly similar in many points. The problem has to do with how we interpret terms such as 'anu' and 'paramanu'.

First, it should be clear that the translations given above (i.e. 'atom', molecule', etc.) are erroneous. An 'anu' is a particle, whereas a 'molecule' is a combination of 'atoms' (e.g. H20). Also, though tempting, we should not equate the terms 'vayu', 'agni', etc. as the physical elements 'air', 'fire', etc. This is clear for, as Swamiji notes, it is 3 Dvyanaks or 1 Trasarenu which, when doubled, makes up 'earth', i.e. physical matter. Therefore, for the time being, let us simply think of them as terms denoting particular combinations of paramanu.

In my research, I've come to the following tentative equation:

My point of reference has been the following equation, held by modern quantum theory:

1 Baryon = 1 Fermion = 3 QuarksIt is important to note that Electrons, Protons and Neutrons are all Baryons, a.k.a. Fermions. In other words, each Electron, Proton and Neutron is composed of 3 Quarks.

This would allow us to set up the following equation:

2 Trasarenu / 2 Baryon = 1 AtomOf course, the most basic atom in the universe is Hydrogen, made up of 1 Neutron (1 Baryon/Trasarenu = 3 Quark/Dvyanak) and 1 Electron (1 Baryon/Trasarenu = 3 Quark/Dvyanak). This would make the statement by Swamiji above intelligible, i.e. 1 Trasarenu 'doubled' constitutes the most rudimentary 'atom' of physical matter.

It is also interesting to note that experimental physics has thus far been able to identify three types of Quark combination:

(Mind you, these are all 'sub-atomic'.)

It is hypothesized that the 'Pentaquark' - discovered only recently - is the largest possible combination. If the Vedic Theory is correct, scientists should eventually discover a 'Quadroquark' composed of 4 Quarks/Dvyanaks. However, this would mean that the equation '2 Anu = 1 Dvyanak' may either be a mistranslation or in need or reinterpretation - for how I see it, there would need to be a 2 Quark equivalent (i.e. a Vedic 'Meson'). This could be the case, as Swamiji said 1 Dvyanak 'enters into the composition of vayu'. Perhaps, then, 'vayu' is a combination of 2 Dvyanak. Anyways, the point needs clarification.

I am therefore inclined to see 'anu' and 'paramanu' to represent elements that modern physics has not yet been able to detect. Or perhaps they will never be able to detect them with the methods of experimentation and measurement available to them today. Time will tell.
_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Shyena · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject:

Oh didn't know of the pentaquark. Yes I didn't try to give it the objective translation of 'fire', 'water', etc... I felt they might describe something else, but unable to find out the substitute for prthvi I let it be. Pentaquark is something I haven't heard of, thanks for that ^_^

Shishya · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject:

Namaste Shyena,

Yes, all of the sub-atomic particles mentioned above remain 'observable' for extremely short periods of time under experimental conditions. Baryons and Mesons, for example, 'decay' after about 10-24 seconds.

Though I don't think I have to remind you, it still needs to be mentioned that all of this is still very theoretical. Particle physics is very much in its early stages, and will take decades to actually establish anything close to what we could call 'accepted fact'. Anything beyond the 'standard model' of today is purely theoretical.

As for Vaisheshika, the deliberations undertaken there are for one purpose only - to help man understand nature to the degree necessary for attaining his goals in life. To go further would be to move beyond the pale of existential relevance - something modern science seems to have absolutley no sense of whatsoever. Wink

_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Shyena · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:44 am Post subject:

Namaste Shishya,

Shishya · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:28 am Post subject:

Namaste Shyena,

The same rules apply to the Darshanas as apply to all supplemental literature. I don't recall ever claiming that they are 'self-evident' or anything like that. If it gave off that impression, then it must have been due to a poor choice of words on my part.

Shyena · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am Post subject:

Namaste,
There should however be some base to this style of explanation. It definitely couldn't be guess-work now...
One thing I can suggest, is that by introspection and comparing parts of body to world, they came to such conclusions.

For example, purusha sukta says the eyes are the sun and mind is the moon. This helps us understand how soma is related to moon and knowledge. But what is interesting is that this suggests 'mind bears only the reflections of the eye'. Whether this came from analysis of mind or from universe, that is one part of the mystery, the other part of mystery being the root of this association.

Shishya · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

Namaste Shyena,

Shyena · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject:

Namaste Shishy,
Agreed there. Very few have researched upon vedic smriti. Research is largely done upon post tantrik scriptures or itihaasa instead. I'd like to see an enlightening commentary upon manu smriti which has littlest of verse eliminations. Looking into it myself, that'll be in vain.. I expected the all-knowing shishy to know about this Razz

Will try searching for it anyway.