What's new

Heisenberg's theory of uncertainty based on Vedas, Rajnath Singh says

If you can present any credible arguments supporting this statement from our honorable home minister, I am all ears


The first verse of Isha Upanishad.

And the physicists even today are coming to accept that the Universe is ultimately nothing but a consciousness. Yes, they are still hesitant to give the due credit to the Vedas (for them it's a religion like their own), but with each step they take they only end up repeating what's been written in the Vedas.
 
.
We could get into all the interpretations of Quantum Theory Tom’s Top 10 interpretations of quantum mechanics | Science News but the fact is it will serve no purpose to this discussion. For those who're unaware scientists yet have no clue as to what Quantum Theory really is. It is spooky and there are many interpretations as to what the observations could mean.
Since you wish to know where Vedanta and Science are trying to converge I want to know what your worldview is. Are you a materialist like Dawkins/Sam Harris or is there some other model that you subscribe to?

You know what, these guys cannot even understand an argument or grasp the subject matter of it. The other day this guy was comparing placebo effects with a metaphor. Right now he is trying to bamboozle the argument by bringing in studies about the whos, hows, and whereofs they proceeded to decipher the phenomenon of quantum theory and so on.

The significance of fact that matter changes behavior depending on the intention of the observer and the mere presence of an observer just eludes him. How consonant it is with the hypothesis of an illusionary universe is beyond his IQ and EQ.
 
Last edited:
.
The first verse of Isha Upanishad.

And the physicists even today are coming to accept that the Universe is ultimately nothing but a consciousness. Yes, they are still hesitant to give the due credit to the Vedas (for them it's a religion like their own), but with each step they take they only end up repeating what's been written in the Vedas.

Where did any physicists agreed to that universe is nothing but consciousness? If these are physicists, then there has to be any literary review based on it.
 
.
If you really want to dig into quantum theory, look into Physics books, not a blog post or a article.

The article is written by me. It outlines the debate between the materialists and the Vedantins (Monistic Idealists) briefly. Digging into Quantum Theory isn't really required right now.

As for a materialistic, or a subscriber of holographic universe model, i will support whatever evidence is strong, as for now, the string theorists have nothing to show for themselves. While the particle physicists are breaking new grounds almost everyday. So i'm inclined towards materialistic universe.

What is your take on consciousness and its origins?

If you quote my post, kindly quote me directly, rather than just copy and quote. In that way i can get notification of a quote. It's 2 am now, i'll be off.

Sure. I'll be off too soon. We can continue the discussion over days.

Where did any physicists agreed to that universe is nothing but consciousness? If these are physicists, then there has to be any literary review based on it.

There are many top scientists who believe that consciousness and not matter is the fundamental basis of the universe. I've listed a few prominent ones in the piece that i shared with you.

The significance of fact that matter changes behavior depending on the intention of the observer and the mere presence of an observer just alludes him. How consonant it is with the hypothesis of an illusionary universe is beyond his IQ and EQ.

Ah, finally another Hindu who knows his stuff. Meeting one after a very long time. Namaste brother :D
 
Last edited:
.
There definitely are some very eerie similarities. I was going to talk about them esp. Schrodingers cat, and a few others, but I found an essay about the same.


Development of Quantum Mechanics

Introduction

Working essentially independently, in the mid-1920's Heisenberg and Schrödinger both created a full form of Quantum Mechanics. How these two extraordinary events occurred has been extensively studied; a favorite reference is Max Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics (McGraw-Hill 1966).

Here we briefly outline some of the key features of these developments. Some of the material is well-known, but other parts of what follows are not. The level is consistent with an upper-year liberal arts course in modern physics without mathematics that is given at the University of Toronto.

Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics
Heisenberg's starting point was the Bohr model of the atom. This model had been extended by Sommerfeld, and by the Summer of 1925 many physicists had learned through trial and error how to navigate through some of the morass of atomic physics. This circumstance, however, is far short from having a good theory of atomic physics.

Heisenberg attempted to build such a theory, and immediately ran into difficulties. He was attempting to make an analogy between the orbit of an electron about a nucleus and the familiar problem of a simple pendulum. However, he ended up in a "morass of complicated mathematical equations, with no way out." (Physics and Beyond, pg. 60.)

Then Heisenberg remembered a principle of Einstein's: that the theory decides what can be observed. Heisenberg applied this idea to his attempts to build an atomic theory by throwing out any attempt to describe the orbits of the electrons directly. Instead he restricted the variables in the theory to the observables, which in this case are the wavelengths and the intensities of the lines in the atomic spectra. As he commented, "I thought it more fitting to restrict myself to these, treating them, as it were, as representatives of the electron orbits." (op. cit. pg. 63.) And from this principle he built his complete form of Quantum Mechanics.

In a later conversation, Einstein admitted that he had used a similar principle in developing the theories of relativity, but in this case thought that Heisenberg had gone much too far. (ibid.)

In any case, since the observables, the wavelengths of the line spectra, are discontinuous the theory that Heisenberg built is similarly discontinuous. This formulation of Quantum Mechanics is often called Matrix Mechanics; we shall see that this distinguishes it from Schrödinger's theory.

Heisenberg first published his Matrix Mechanics in 1926 in the journal Zeitschrift der Physick.

Schrödingers's Wave Mechanics
In 1905 Einstein proposed that light, in addition to its well known nature as a wave of electric and magnetic fields, can be thought of as a particle, which now we call the photon. In 1923 Louis de Broglie proposed that particle-like objects, such as electrons, could also be thought of as some sort of wave. At this time de Broglie was a graduate student, and his proposal was part of his PhD thesis. His supervising committee didn't know what to make of this outlandish proposal and asked Schrödinger, who pronounced that the idea was "rubbish!" The committee went to Einstein, who essentially said that they should give the kid his PhD, since "there might be something to it." So that is how de Broglie got his PhD, and in 1926 Davisson and Germer actually saw electrons demonstrating an interference pattern.

In 1926 Schrödinger published a series of papers giving a full form of Quantum Mechanics; in this formulation the central idea is de Broglie's hypothesis. This formulation, then, is called Wave Mechanics. When earlier we stated that we could "explain" the ad hoc Bohr model by realising that the 'allowed orbits' of that model correspond to standing waves of electrons, we were describing how Wave Mechanics describes the theory of an atom.

It is interesting to note that the first of these papers appeared simultaneously to Heisenberg's first publication. Schrödinger's paper was in the journal Annelen der Physick, a competitor to the Zeitschrift journal that had published Heisenberg's work.

It is obvious that Schrödinger changed his mind about a wave aspect to electrons between 1923 and 1926. There is some controversy about how Schrödinger actually arrived at Wave Mechanics, but in the Fall of 1925, presumably as he was building his theory, he wrote an essay, Seek for the Road, which may provide some clues. (Reference: My View of the World, (Cambridge, 1964).

You may recall the Schrödinger's Cat paradox, which was first published in its "scientific form" in 1935 in Zeitschrift der Physick. However in his 1925 essay he recounts an ancient Sankhya Hindu paradox that, jazzed up with some technology, became the cat paradox. In that original form the paradox was cast in the form of two people, one looking at a garden, the other in a dark room. The modern equivalent would be one person looking in the box to see if the cat is alive or dead, while a second person waits out in the hall. As we discussed, in this modern form the state "collapses" for the first person while it does not collapse for the second person.

In 1925 Schrõdinger resolved that paradox the way the Vedantists did: he asserted that all consciousness is one. As he wrote:

"But it is quite easy to express the solution in words, thus: the plurality [of viewpoints] that we perceive is only "an appearance; it is not real. Vedantic philosophy, in which this is a fundamental dogma, has sought to clarify it by a number of analogies, one of the most attractive being the many-faceted crystal which, while showing hundreds of little pictures of what is in reality a single existent object, does not really multiply the object."

Here is another fragment of that essay:

"... you may suddenly come to see, in a flash, the profound rightness of the basic conviction of Vedanta: ... knowledge, feeling and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings."

Do you think that Schrödinger had such a flash of insight? Is this the sort of insight which in the Eastern traditions is sometimes called enlightenment?

Finally, Schrödinger himself makes an interesting analogy between Vedantic philosophy and modern physics:

"If finally we look back at that idea of Mach [that `the universe is not twice given'], we shall realize that it comes as near to the orthodox dogma of the Upanishads as it could possibly do without stating it expressis verbis. The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing."


Comparing the Two Forms of Quantum Mechanics
Despite their radically different worldview, shortly after their publication it was shown that Matrix Mechanics and Wave Mechanics are mathematically identical. In fact, Schrödinger was one of the people who did the proof.

Despite their formal equivalence, there seems to be more than just logic involved in the interpretation of the mathematics. For example, Heisenberg wrote:

"The more I ponder the physical part of Schrðdinger's theory, the more disgusting it appears to me."

while Schrödinger wrote:

"If one has to stick to this damned quantum jumping, then I regret ever having been involved in this thing."

In the 5th century of the current era, there was a bitter argument in India between the Sankhya Hindus and the Buddhists about the nature of Universal Flux. Debates were held which lasted for days, and would attract huge crowds. According to the Buddhists:

The phenomena consist of an infinity of discrete moments following one another almost without intervals.... There is no matter at all, flashes of energy follow one another and produce the illusion of stabilized phenomena. The universe is a staccato movement.

while according to the Hindus:

The phenomena are nothing but waves or fluctuations standing out upon the background of an eternal, all-pervading undifferentiated Matter with which they are identical. The universe represents a legato movement.

Reference: F. Theodor Stcherbatsky, Buddhist Logic, Vol I, pg 83.

Even allowing for the possibility that Schrödinger's Wave Mechanics may have been influenced by Hindu philosophy, the parallels between the Buddhist-Hindu argument and the Heisenberg-Schrödinger aesthetic clash are striking.


Author
This document was written in March 2000 by David M. Harrison, Department of Physics, University of Toronto, mailto:harrison@physics.utoronto.ca.. This is version 1.6, date (m/d/y) 04/30/04.

Atleast wrt to Schrodinger, his interest in vedanta and such was well known, and probably served as an inspiration.

This is profound.
 
. . .
Just look at the Bengalis and their cousins and you know India hating as a constituency exists.
Dear don't attack someone ethnicity whatever they are ... We should hold respect even when we have quite opposite views... Lets have the discussion in healthy way.....
For other members
I am seeing sarcasm by many Indians about the knowledge we have/had in the form of Vedas ...
Our vedas knowledge was not in the form of today scientific model to evaluate nor our random sages or saints who did their research in different fields have anything to do with modern science but their contribution cant be ridicule at least the way its going on here.... All these contributions sages/saints made was through their mediating techniques in different ways especially in astronomy...
Yoga/mediation is an example of that which west recognized late in 70-80s. Don't we know how western companies patenting the indian knowledge of benefits of turmeric n tulsi ?
Nor I claim Vedas has all scientific knowledge to run this world but matter is that do we have a dedicated facility which can unearth the Vedic achievements ? I wished we must have dedicated university for this...
 
.
Nor I claim Vedas has all scientific knowledge to run this world but matter is that do we have a dedicated facility which can unearth the Vedic achievements ? I wished we must have dedicated university for this...

The Vedas don't hold empirical knowledge. It is non-empirical and subjective in nature. In the mid 90s it was discovered that the solid empirical universe (matter) is only about 4% of the universe and the rest is dark energy and dark matter. Science still has no clue as to what this dark energy or matter could be and believe that it is non-emperical.
 
Last edited:
.
let me know when you know for sure what Quantum physics and its theories are.
Or when you discover intelligent life outside planet earth.
The world ceases to exist once you close your eyes, and it manifests once you open your eyes.
Agastya Maharishi After thousands of years of praying to god to extend his life to study knowledge, finally god asked him how much knowledge did you learn in all these years.
In reply he picked up a handful of dirt and said "This much" When there were many mountains left to learn.
That handful of dirt was vedas.
Yggdrasil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You don't make any sense to me mate.. I asked you a direct question. It seems you don't want to respond to that, instead just type some gibberish.
 
.
Where did any physicists agreed to that universe is nothing but consciousness? If these are physicists, then there has to be any literary review based on it.

Fritjof Kapra has said it. I think Cantor said it too (he wasn't a physicist though). I remember reading similar statements coming from quite a few of them. Will pass 'em on to you if you want.

In the latest of the series, there's this populist called Krauss or something. He's also a physicist (he claims so). He too said it recently in one of his lectures. But he does immediately counter it by saying it sounds religious but it has nothing to do with religion. Will pass you a youtube link to that lecture when I stumble upon it again.
 
.
You don't make any sense to me mate.. I asked you a direct question. It seems you don't want to respond to that, instead just type some gibberish.

He is saying that without consciousness the material universe wouldn't exist. What is your take?

Fritjof Kapra has said it. I think Cantor said it too (he wasn't a physicist though). I remember reading similar statements coming from quite a few of them. Will pass 'em on to you if you want.

Fritjof Capra was merely drawing parallels between Quantum Theory and Eastern philosophy. Today's scientists (many of them) have a lot more conviction than him in Hindu/Buddhist philosophy. Signing out for today.
 
.
You don't make any sense to me mate.. I asked you a direct question. It seems you don't want to respond to that, instead just type some gibberish.

He said exactly what Quantum theory says. Without the observer (you) the world ceases to exist. If there is no observer, there is no world.
 
.
He said exactly what Quantum theory says. Without the observer (you) the world ceases to exist. If there is no observer, there is no world.

Just being a bit precise - the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum theory says this.

Namaste to you too. Can we make it sister?

I thought only the boys were here. What you doing in a defence forum sister? :D
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom