You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Apr 2003

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00065 Apr 2003

 
Apr 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear nappinnai_nc:
Forgive me for the belated reply. As you said, we
can certainly continue our "fight" outside the forum
:) (no offense intended).

Due to the time factor, I am going to skip commenting
most of the post. I'll concentrate on the part of your
reply regarding physics. You are speaking my language
there.

>All those 
> countries have taken a back seat now. One simple
> reason that 
> physicsts(physics is "the" fundamental subject as
> far "matter" is 
> ocncerned)are appreciating our religion a lot is
> enough to tell how 
> profound our religion is.
> 

I beg to disagree. Please give relevant details when
you say that physicists are appreciating our religion.
I've read Bohr, Heisenberg, Hawkins, Penrose, Weinberg
( all physicists ) and Darwin, Dawkins and countless
other evolutionary biologists ( Physics & Biology are
my current favorite pure sciences. I started my
fascination with chemistry though - I have to admit
I've read books on chemistry only through Mir
publication ). I can cite time and again that they all
favor atheism. Einstein believed in God, but not in
our everyday sense. He called the "underlying symmetry
in nature" as God.

( the message was truncated. so I'll try to quote what
you said and offer my comments ).
1. Your comment of "scientists" trying to find
"solutions" to "universe".

I think the question is still out there. To be
specific, science should still find the answer of
these questions.

1. Origin of universe - Why there is something instead
of nothing. Once we "know" that universe exists,
physics can tell us how things started rolling from
big bang. Read a beautiful book by nobel laureate
Steven Weinberg called "The first 3 minutes".


2. Einsten, constance of speed of light, tachyons.
Tachyons is science fiction. It's presence is not
required by standard model.


3. Absence of quarks.
You are wrong! :) Yes, for 30 gruelling years, labs
did not confirm the presence of quarks. But by 1994,
all the 6 quarks are detected and Fermilab reported
them :) If you are still referring to out dated
quantum mechanics books, you should update your
personal library :)

4. World as objective reality.
Sure! Einstein believed in this. I'll reserve my
comments for quantum mechanics.

5. Quantum mechanics ( There is a saying - you are
preaching to the converted :) )

Einstein disliked inherent randomness of reality as
supposed by quantum mechanics - True.
Schrodinger was unhappy that his wave mechanics is
used or abused ( famous schrodinger cat mental
experimet) - True
Dirac did not disavow quantum mechanics. ( Infact he
is my role model. He is a staunch atheist. )

6. Neils Bohr, Copenhagen interpretation.
Your comments are quite wrong. Bohr pointed out that
it is meaningless to ask questions like - "What is the
position and momentum of an electron before I make a
measurement". He proposed that "position" and
"momentum" form complimentary pieces of a puzzle and
knowledge of one excludes the knowledge of other.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
It is a stretch of imagination to extend copenhagan
interpretation to mean that Bohr denies reality
altogether. 

7. Crazy idea of Bohr, vindication of Einstein.
Quantum mechanics does not disprove Einstein's theory!
Infact, Einstein was trying to show that quantum
mechanics was incomplete and propsed a thought
experiment to "disprove" quantum mechanics. ( A juicy
anecdote - Einstein would propose lot of thought
experiments that purportedly disproves QM. By
afternoon Bohr would point out the flaws in Einstein's
argument :) )
Also, Einstein's thought experiment was carried out
in reality ( in late '70s I think ). Refer
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Bell's inequality and
Aspect Experiment. To keep things short, QM emerged
triumphant and not Einstein :)


8. Well, I wouldn't call Bohr brainwashed physicists.
He merely pointed out, it is futile to engage in wild
speculations and philosophies if you cannot prove by
experiment. I think he follwed occam's razor
principle.
Also note that "reality denial" is only one
interpretation of QM. You have not one not two but
infinite realities in "Many worlds interpretation"
proposed by Everett. :)

9. To sum up, the verdict is, it is Einstein's
relativity that should be modified to accommodate QM
and not vice versa ( I am simply quoting nobel
laureates in physics ). There is a branch of
theoretical physics called superstring theory - If you
apply rigid constraints on a vibrating string, you
would see Einstein's relativity emerging from the
solution ( They didn't deliberately do it. Physcisits
were actually surprised when they saw this. This alone
tells me that supersting theory is worth taking
seriously ).

10. My conclusion, let us leave physics alone. We are
not going to find sanction of Vishisthadvaita
siddhantam in Quantum physics or Relativity or as a
matter of fact, superstring theory.

KK

[Moderator- Adiyen's humble request for the SriVaishnavas to limit the 
discussion mainly on the Sampradayam matters, though we can say this is also in 
the same line,its in a round about way and such looping to diff topics 
(Physiscs in this case) to be avoided in future, Thanks for understanding..]

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list