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
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |