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

[D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ]

I want to show how incompatible and absurd some of the claims that are made
by our people.

First of all Kanada was not the only man who proposed atoms in the ancient
world.
Greek philosopher Lucretius also proposed atomic nature of matter in his
book "Of the Nature of Things".

According to Vaiseshika aNu the atom(supposed to be the smallest part of
matter and indivisible) combines
with another aNu to form DvyaNuka(diatom). Three Dvyanukas combine to form
a TrasareNu. Vaiseshikas thought
that these TrasareNus are the ones that are seen as shining entities
floating in a sun beam.

The approximate size of these aerosol particles are about say 10 microns or
0.00001 m.

The modern science talks about atoms whose size is 0.0000000001 m.

That means in a trasareNu there will be about 100000 atoms of modern
science.
In addition atoms modern science can be further devided.

Thus there is absolutely no correspondance between the atoms of modern
science and aNus of Kanada or Lucretius.

regards,
Sarma.

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 4:41 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:46 PM, D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > I want to humbly inform the list members that I have taught PG students
> of
> > Physics in a University for 13 years and I taught
> > Quantum Mechanics also. So your quotations do not in any way affect my
> > simple question.
> >
> > Why these people with all their anushThana and swadhyaya of vedas who
> claim
> > Vedic origin of modern science
> >
>
> Dear Sri Sarma,
>
> The scientist's account found in the cited book does not *claim* what you
> state above. On the other hand it only says that the method of the
> evolution of scientific theory has some striking similarities with the way
> the Indian philosophical thought has.
>
> // 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.//
>
> regards
> vs
>
>
> > themselves could not do what westerners did?
> >
> > regards,
> > Sarma.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>