[Advaita-l] Quantum Physics came from Vedas: Schrödinger and Einstein read Veda's

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sat Mar 4 00:54:26 EST 2017

Shrigurubhyo namaH

When a Vedanta Jnani who is also a Scientist specializing in Quantum
Mechanics makes a statement on the close relationship that can be seen
between Advaita and Science, one sees no need for a greater authority on
the topic.  Reproduced here is what He wrote in that monumental book on
Vedanta published by the Sringeri Sharada Peetham.

//The notes from the book “Shri Dakshinamurthy Stotram (part 1, page
651-653)”, written by Brahma Shri Subbaramaiya, who was a Professor and
also an associate of  Nobel Laureate Prof. C.V. Raman, should be a pramāṇa
for us in this matter. I am sure you are aware of it as well, but we should
note that He has not used too many equations in explaining it. It is fully
packed. Many sentences over there need pages of explanation as they have
been tightly packed in 3 pages, the many aspects of modern science in a
perfect way.//

-An opinion by a research scientist working in a European country.

This is the reproduced portion from that Book:


Even in Physics which plays a predominant role in the present day science,
developments are reminiscent of those of the steps leading to the Vedanta.
The particle theory resembling the paramāṇuvāda and the subsequent field
theory, resembling the pariṇāmavāda have given place in the quantum theory
to a formulation resembling the vivartavāda.  According to the quantum
theory, matter cannot be asserted to be in the form of particles or local
variations of the nature of a wave group in an extensive field.  These are,
at best, two different ways of talking about or picturing physical reality
in parlance, in terms of what is familiar; and at best they are crude
pictures of the nature of representation.  The language is purely
metaphorical in character.  Any attempt at picturing, for example, an
electron, really as a tiny speck, is not possible because the formulae show
that if it has no dimension it would have to be of infinite energy; and if
dimension is attributed, it should have burst long ago by mutual repulsion
of its parts.  This shows that ‘size’ in the usual sense cannot be
attributed to an electron; similarly for the other so-called fundamental
particles which are so only in name, a concept, introduced as a convenient
way of talking, since in the mathematical parlance relating to them,
integral numbers play the role.  The usual notions of space, time and
causation do not work in the realm of the so-called fundamental particle
physics; they are to be employed only because contact has to be established
with the things of the world in everyday-parlance, in the experiments, for
example.  The uncertainty principle which is now recognized to be
all-important has far-reaching consequences.  The notion of position
precludes altogether the notion of motion; similarly in respect of energy
and time and also in respect of other such pairs.  Again, what is observed
in experiment cannot be asserted to be the ‘property’ of the entity that is
regarded as observed, because of the unavoidable interaction of the
observer that is the apparatus etc., with the observed.  What may be
regarded as seen is of the nature of a reaction to a stimulus, thus
bringing in the notion of the so-called biological significance of the
dynamical variables like position, momentum etc., of the phenomena that are
spontaneous like radio-activity etc., and the synthesis in the laboratory
of certain viruses etc., apparently abolishes the border line between life
and non-life and makes the science of life all-important in the science of
physics.  Again, the relativistic formulations which have brought space and
time into intimate relation, showing that their separation is untenable,
that matter is merely curvature of the so-called space-time manifold and
that matter and energy are not different entities, show that all physical
phenomena must be traced to a single entity, say, energy, unmanifest or
manifest.  The notion of different observers with their own measures in
regard to the shapes and sizes of objects that are observed, and with their
own fragmentization of the space-time manifold into ‘space’ and ‘time’,
lends itself to the view that the universe observed by each is of his own
making.  If the physical accompaniments such as the senses, apparatus etc.,
are included in the notion of the observer, then, since they interact with
the observed, the so-called observer would correspond to the *pramātṛ* or
the *kartṛ*, while, if the ‘de-personalisation’ as is now-a-days envisaged,
is effected by stripping of these, the observer would then correspond to
the Witness – *Sākṣī* of Vedanta.  These theories have forced the view that
the universe can, at best, if at all, be ‘described’ succinctly, and never
‘accounted for’.  There is thus the admission of Avidyā of the investigator
and anirvachanīyatā of the universe, as in Vedanta.  That the universe has
been referred to by them (the scientists) as mysterious, recalls to the
mind the Māyā of Vedanta.

Om Tat Sat

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:55 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>

> http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-
> vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list