Physics Discussion Thread

[Amber G.]

Sharing an article written from one of the student of CL Mehta .. (I had multiple posts about U of R's physicists - ECG Sudarhan, CL Mehta etc).. Prof CL Mehta taught at U of R and retired from IIT Delhi - having taught there about 30 years). (IMO Lot of Nobel Prize work for Glauber (credited to him) was mainly taken from Sudarshan and CL Mehta's work..

(Article from CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 127, NO. 2, 25 JULY 2024)

[Vayutuvan]

The FBI classified the paper and even the blackboard diagrams McKinzie used in his presentation. This incident highlighted the ease with which nuclear weapons could be developed using publicly available information and sparked debates about nuclear proliferation ityadi ..

There was another case at UChicago where two sophomore physics students actually built a working nuc. They were kicked out of the university. That is too much punishment IMHO.

[Amber G.]

The FBI classified the paper and even the blackboard diagrams McKinzie used in his presentation. This incident highlighted the ease with which nuclear weapons could be developed using publicly available information and sparked debates about nuclear proliferation ityadi ..

There was another case at UChicago where two sophomore physics students actually built a working nuc. They were kicked out of the university. That is too much punishment IMHO.

The incident mentioned at the University of Chicago (UChicago) in all probability is an urban legend or a myth. (Like most of such 'working nuke' events are bogus ) .There is no credible evidence to support the claim that two sophomore physics students built a working nuclear bomb at UChicago.
(AFAIK UChicago have no record of such an incident occurring... neither from
Nuclear regulatory bodies. (See note which I added later - NO Record of a nuclear bomb)

Comparison to the Princeton Incident:

The Princeton incident involving McKinzie's paper on making a fission bomb is a well-documented and widely known event. It sparked debates about nuclear proliferation and highlighted the ease of accessing publicly available information on nuclear weapons development.

The UChicago incident describing as a nuke device appears to be a myth (- a little exaggeration) ,

Added later : ( Was curious so checked U of Chicago sources - it seems that the story is based on an event that took place as part of the university's annual scavenger hunt. In 1999, students Fred Niell and Justin Kasper constructed a small-scale breeder reactor in a dorm room for the scavenger hunt, (successfully producing trace amounts of uranium and plutonium from thorium and radium sources. -- (nothing really big - such events I think can occur in any good university nuclear physics lab etc ) (see note) Their achievement became a part of campus lore. Again to be clear .. it was not as dangerous as building a full-scale reactor​ and far from "working nuke"!!!

KEY POINTS, IMO are: (Per their sources)


The project was done under the guidance of a faculty advisor.
The reactor was small-scale and not capable of producing a nuclear explosion.
The students followed proper safety protocols and did not pose a risk to themselves or others.
(I was able to read the whole episode in UChicago magazine - very interesting to read -- Among other adventures, .they did assembled a 1.2GW (that’s right, gigawatt) pulse power system. Thanks for the interesting read..)


(Per their magazine - there is no evidence to suggest that these students were expelled from the university for their project. The incident is celebrated as little impressive, albeit unconventional, scientific endeavor within the context of the scavenger hunt )

[Amber G.]

^^^ Thought I will share: Another quote from recent physics. org

Caulfield calls "Ancient Apocalypse" a great example of the "Galileo Gambit"—the logical fallacy that you must be right because everyone else thinks you're wrong.

"Actually, most of the time it means you're wrong," says Caulfield.

This is in reference to another such pseudo scientific post <here>

[Hriday]

Amber ji, do you have a blog or something like that?

If possible can you comment on the following questions? A summarised reply with just a few sentences will also be enough.

1. Is there a case for 'consciousness as the source' of everything in the universe theory that is compatible with science ?

2. What is your view on morality? Do they have any scientific basis?

The official narrative is that God/Consciousness as a source is unscientific. Also, a famous saying is; ' This is a science class, please put your morality outside the door '. This statement almost summarises the official narration. I meant the official narration is that the entire large body of religious/spiritual literature is unscientific. So what should I tell a kid about the fundamental questions of God and morality?

[Amber G.]

.. The official narrative is that God/Consciousness as a source is unscientific. Also, a famous saying is; ' This is a science class, please put your morality outside the door '. This statement almost summarises the official narration. ..

The notion of 'official narrative' is wrong .. Many fake scientists push this absurd assumption (to 'prove' their absurd 'theories' that 'official narration is their enemy) that academia is a monolithic institution pushing some master narrative that everyone on the inside agrees with. This notion is wrong. In reality we argue about everything.

I have not talked about this explicitly with students but among scientist I know there are diverse hypothesis subject to debate etc - NO SUCH THING as OFFICIAL narration. But FWIW my thoughts:

Morality is about the choices we make to treat others with kindness and respect. While science can help us understand why we behave in certain ways, it's up to each of us to decide what is right and wrong.

Some scientists think consciousness might play a role in shaping our understanding of the universe, but it's still a topic of debate.

Einstein's famous quote - not ruling out consciousness as a source:

I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain,

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory also hint at consciousness playing a role in shaping reality.

You may like to check out David Bohm book (Einstein and Tagore on the Nature of Reality) where he documents Albert Einstein visit to India and meeting Rabindranath Tagore,.with Einstein saying

The world is a unity, but it's a unity in diversity

Tagore asked Einstein if he believed in a personal God, to which Einstein replied, "

I do not believe in a personal God, but I believe in the God of Spinoza, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists."

Einstein on Tagore's poetry:,

I have never been able to appreciate the beauty of poetry, but your poems have shown me that it is possible to express profound thoughts in beautiful language.

Anyway there many physicist -including western ones - I know who have written about Hinduism and its relation to science for example. Just few examples - just from Western physicists -

Erwin Schrödinger - heavily influenced by Vedanta, once saying, "Most of my ideas and theories are heavily influenced by Vedanta."

Werner Heisenberg: influenced with his experience with Hindu dharma.

Robert Oppenheimer influenced by Bhagwat Gita, Mahabharata and Indian history.

Niels Bohr: Once said "I go into the Upanishads to ask questions."

Carl Sagan - (knew him) was very critical of religious dogma and superstition, but also recognized the importance of spirituality in human experience. He often talked to his students about science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, and that science can be a source of spiritual inspiration and awe. He argued that the sense of wonder and reverence that comes from contemplating the natural world is a form of spirituality that is compatible with scientific inquiry.
(He was also critical of the idea that science and religion are in constant conflict, and believed that they can complement each other in meaningful ways.often talked about )

[Hriday]

. ..

The notion of 'official narrative' is wrong .. Many fake scientists push this absurd assumption (to 'prove' their absurd 'theories' that 'official narration is their enemy) that academia is a monolithic institution pushing some master narrative that everyone on the inside agrees with. This notion is wrong. In reality we argue about everything.
...

Thanks Amber ji, very informative post.

In my short and quick skimming through the news, I think I often found that the majority of scientists are opposed to the introduction of intelligent creation concepts in educational institutions. They don't even want it as a possible hypothesis. That is why I asked the question.

Thanks again for the informative quotes by scientists and the book suggestion.

[bala]

The official narrative is that God/Consciousness as a source is unscientific.

Reply here ..

This is my personal opinion:

The West continues its pig-headed notion that they are super scientific, when Ancient India already studied such advanced topics. Chors like Newton took Vaisesika sutra verbatim and calculus from Bharat. Time dilation is quoted in Bhagatwatam and other texts. Relativity was known to the ancient Indians. The trouble is we Indians don't know our own history and furthermore with McCauley edu we abhor anything from the past, Sanskrit texts are a treasure house of pure knowledge which cannot be obtained anywhere else in the world.

Added Later..
I agree with Amber G on the following:

Instead, let's strive for a balanced understanding, recognizing the historical context and cultural exchange that have shaped human knowledge. By embracing our shared passion for knowledge, we can learn from both Indian philosophy and Western science.

[Amber G.]

<snip>
Thanks Amber ji, very informative post.

In my short and quick skimming through the news, I think I often found that the majority of scientists are opposed to the introduction of intelligent creation concepts in educational institutions. They don't even want it as a possible hypothesis. That is why I asked the question.

Thanks again for the informative quotes by scientists and the book suggestion.

You're welcome! I'm glad you found the post informative and helpful.

I also want to address your point about scientists opposing the introduction of intelligent creation concepts in educational institutions. As I said the notion that academia is a monolithic institution pushing a master narrative that everyone agrees with is far from the truth. In reality, academics freely debate and argue various perspectives, and there is no "official" stance that dictates what scientists should think or say. The idea that scientists are universally opposed to certain theories or hypotheses is often a spin perpetuated by journalists or the general public, rather than a reflection of the actual diversity of opinions within the scientific community. As I pointed out, this "Galileo Gambit" fallacy can lead to the misconception that being contrarian is a badge of honor, when in fact, it often means you're simply wrong.

Unfortunately, many fame-seeking individuals try to fool people (and many fall for it) by exploiting these misconceptions. True scientists, on the other hand, do not claim to have all the answers or know everything. Instead, they rely on scientific methods (experiments and logic) to verify their theories about phenomena that can be explained logically and mathematically..

[Amber G.]

Balaji - My request is to please move your post in this discussion to a more appropriate thread and remove it from the physics thread.
However, I would like to respond to one aspect of your post:

<snip>
The West continues its pig-headed notion that they are super scientific, when Ancient India already studied such advanced topics. Chors like Newton took Vaisesika sutra verbatim and calculus from Bharat. Time dilation is quoted in Bhagatwatam and other texts. Relativity was known to the ancient Indians. The trouble is we Indians don't know our own history and furthermore with McCauley edu we abhor anything from the past, Sanskrit texts are a treasure house of pure knowledge which cannot be obtained anywhere else in the world.

As a Physics Professor with advanced degrees from renowned universities in India and the USA, and a fluent understanding of Sanskrit (have read many math and astronomy text in original Sanskrit_, I appreciate the contributions of both Western science and Indian philosophy. While it's true that ancient Indian texts like the Vaisesika sutras and Bhagavatam contain sophisticated concepts, and the West has often overlooked Indian achievements in math and astronomy, let's approach this conversation with nuance.

As someone familiar with both worlds, I believe it's essential to acknowledge the contributions of Newton and other Western scientists without diminishing the achievements of ancient Indian scholars. Let's celebrate our rich heritage and knowledge traditions without perpetuating misinformation or fuelling superiority complexes.
Demonizing the West with ad hominem attacks, calling Newton a "thief," is unjustified and unproductive. (Actually I find it beyond pale). Instead, let's strive for a balanced understanding, recognizing the historical context and cultural exchange that have shaped human knowledge. By embracing our shared passion for knowledge, we can learn from both Indian philosophy and Western science.

[Vayutuvan]

@bala ji, I think this link is appropriate at this point in the discussion.

https://www.math.tifr.res.in/~dani/vmsm.pdf

Vedic Mathematics in Perspective
S.G. Dani
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005

“Vedic Mathematics”, or rather something that has assumed the name, is
spreading widely in the country, especially at schools and in educational circles.
It is acquiring proportions of a social phenomenon, and it is high time that its
consequences in education and its implications to the intellectual health of the
society be examined carefully. It is important to view the phenomenon in per-
spective, and address any unwelcome effects that could arise, especially from the
exaggerated propaganda being carried out.

In the overall context it would be appropriate to begin with the question, what
qualifies to be referred as “Vedic”? The Vedas are ancient Indian texts, generally
believed to be from the period 1200−500 BCE. They are a repository of knowledge
of those times. It may also be borne in mind that the Vedic civilisation was formed
of pastoral people, organised in village communities. Performance of yajnas, in
pursuit of material and spiritual goals, is one of the major cultural features that
distinguished the Vedic people.

In the strict sense “Vedic” should mean material that is found in the Vedas,
or something pertaining to them. Material that can be inferred, in a logically
satisfactory manner, to be involved in the Vedic civilisation can also be qualify
for the adjective “Vedic”, so long as its specific relation to the Vedas, or the Vedic
civilisation in a broader sense, is set out to clarify the usage of the term.

Even though “Veda” means knowledge, not all knowledge acquired by hu-
mans over the course of history, which includes say the discoveries and inventions
reported in contemporary journals, can be termed “Vedic”. The term “Vedic”
inalienably carries with it, in common social perception, a sense of being ancient
to an appropriate extent, and it should not be used without confirming to such
a norm. This needs to be borne in mind especially in the context of emerging
trends in cultural nationalism, some with rather fundamentalist tendencies.

There have been detailed studies of the (genuine) Vedic texts in various re-
spects, and in particular their mathematical contents have been the subject of
careful scrutiny by scholars from India as well as the west (see [4], [6], [8]). Deci-
mal representation of numbers, use of zero, geometry involved in the construction
of vedis and agnis involved in the performance of the yajnas, are some of the
highlights of the period, from a mathematical point of view. The Shulvasutras,...

More here www.math.tifr.res.in/~dani/

Achtung: Not an HTTPS website. But the PDFs are authentic as far as I know.

[bala]

वायु Vayu garu

The Vedas are ancient Indian texts, generally believed to be from the period 1200−500 BCE.

Statements like the above just means that the old AIT nonsense is peddled by Mathematicians, so you know whose allegiance Dani is all about. I don't find anything useful about the writeup other than some hot air being passed of as "scientific".

[Vayutuvan]

@bala gaaru
let us assume for the time being that the correct date is 3500 BCE. Even under those assumptions, what SG Dani is saying still stands, doesn't it? I request that you read through the paper to the end.

He makes several points that are entirely valid. No, he is not a follower of "western indologists" from Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, UPenn, or UChicago,

[bala]

वायु Vayu garu,

when you have system A (old Vedic system) and system B (McCauley EDU), there is attempt to map one against another. We all do it. Often wrong assumptions on A is made by B and vice versa. Bharat lost system A around 800 yrs ago due to the burn down of Nalanda. At that time there were no Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, UPenn, or UChicago, Columbia, Stanford, etc. Certainly India had a structured system in place with foreign students attending. Most of the texts were in Sanskrit but not in Vedas per se. To try and get Vedic mathematics from Vedas is dumb. SG Dani talks about some Mutt head and Vedas etc. You can't mix and match things. Sorry SG Dani is rather childish in his writings. The best way to approach topics like math is study any ancient sanskrit (if available on the topic). If not try to recreate its ethos and principles (which will be orthogonal to McCauley EDU). If not don't worry, be happy with what you have and continue to make a name for yourself in your chosen field of expertize.

There is a need for Indians to self study, contribute and revive things in their own capacity, since most of it is lost. Rajiv Malhotra has a project to take Tibetian books (they had made copies for themselves of the ones taught in Nalanda Univ) and re-create perhaps the lost knowledge. I saw some ref to Atharva Veda. Atharva Veda was taught to a few but the full teachings were not recorded in Atharva Veda.

One definition of Samadhi is to dive deep into a topic and study, ruminate, closely and intensely focus and so forth. What happens is the person becomes one with the topic, the mediator is not involved after some time, things flow naturally between topic and knower. You are in flow of things. This is where things happen new insights, new discoveries and so on. When the topic happens to be Brahman consciousness then you achieve Samadhi status.

So for many in India, they need to be in Samadhi with their chosen topic and start contributing to the corpus of new knowledge. Ramanujan claimed his close contact with Namakkal Devi provided him with new insights into unknown topics of math.

[Amber G.]

Folks - polite request - please take non-physics related topics to more appropriate threads!

Meanwhile: The 54th International Physics Olympiad (IPhO) will take place in the historic city of Isfahan, Iran, in 2024. This prestigious event brings together the world's brightest young minds in physics. Best wishes to the team from the India.The IPhO is a celebrated competition that fosters friendly competition, teamwork, and scientific excellence among high school students from over 80 countries. Since its inception in 1967, the Olympiad has grown in stature, attracting top talent and recognizing outstanding achievements in experimental and theoretical physics.

[Hriday]

To, Amber G. and others in the field of science. Can you share any forum, websites or links of reputed people who act as debunkers on the popular topics ?

I know BR Forum did one on Nilesh Oak's theory, but I am not sure about how much patience and time Amber G. and others will have.
One example is given here. I had asked a question to Amber G. in the last year in space forum but didn't get any reply. Link below.
viewtopic.php?p=2599256#p2599256

[Amber G.]

I had asked a question to Amber G. in the last year in space forum but didn't get any reply. Link below.
viewtopic.php?p=2599256#p2599256..

The question was:

Can you please comment on the following topic in the relevant threads if you have time ?


Swami SriYuktesvar's book, The Holy Science quotes oriental astronomy that our Sun had a dual star, as part of the dual star rotation we are now moving towards our galactic centre called Vishnu nabhi, the four Yugas are based on this movement, we fully reached Dwapara Yuga by the year 1900 , since then the massive worldwide explosion of knowledge, reduction in colonialism, slavery etc.

FWIW: my opinion/answer/perspective - (likely to be same as most scientists) .. and some comments:

In short: there is no scientific evidence to support the claims made by Swami SriYuktesvar in his book, The Holy Science. The idea of a dual star rotation and a galactic center called Vishnu nabhi is not supported by astronomical observations or research. Additionally, the concept of the four Yugas and their timing is not based on scientific fact, but rather on spiritual and cultural beliefs. While it is true that the world has seen significant advancements in knowledge and social progress since 1900, these developments are attributed to human innovation and effort, not astronomical events.

Current scientific thinking: Double stars, also known as binary star systems, consist of two stars orbiting each other. These systems form when two stars are gravitationally bound together, often emerging from the same molecular cloud. By observing distant stars, we can see into the past due to the finite speed of light, allowing us to study the formation and evolution of double star systems over time. Our sun is a as a solo star, is thought to have formed around 4.6 billion years ago in a molecular cloud, possibly as part of a star-forming cluster. While there is no evidence to suggest our sun has a dual star companion, some stars similar to our sun have been found to have binary companions, suggesting that binary systems are common in the universe.

I have read surya sidhanta - and way i understand (and teach to others) is:

According to the Surya Siddhanta,(and according to most of other Indian astronomy from mathematicians point of view) the four Yugas are:

Satya Yuga 1,728,000 years
Treta Yuga 1,296,000 years
Dvapara Yuga 864,000 years
Kali Yuga 432,000 years

The Kali Yuga is believed to have begun on February 18, 3102 BCE, and is considered the current age ( Ends on 428,899 CE ) . The Yugas, in my view are used in astronomical calculations as a convenient mathematical framework for calculating the positions of planets and observing celestial motion - rather than being purely historical or physical eras... (End of Mahabharat war is traditionally assigned as the start of Kali yuga)

[sudarshan]

Re - the sun being a dual star:

Why has nobody seen this other star? Let's try out a couple of hypotheses as to how it could happen, that the sun is actually a dual star, but how nobody has seen the companion.

1. The second star is hidden behind the sun, is smaller than the sun, and is revolving around the sun at exactly the same angular velocity as the earth, so that nobody on earth can actually see it.

Problems: Kepler's laws - specifically, the law that relates d^3 to t^2. Basically, for a given star, orbital periods (for bodies orbiting that star) are strictly determined by distance from the star. If the time period of two objects orbiting the same star is exactly the same, then their distances have to be exactly the same (neglecting effects from the gravity of other objects). This means that for a second sun behind our familiar sun, which is orbiting the familiar sun at exactly 365.2xxx days, it would have to be the same distance from the familiar sun as the earth, and on the opposite side of the familiar sun as the earth. (Orbits are actually elliptical, not strictly circular, but the general principle holds).

If this second sun were at a different distance from the sun as the earth, it would necessarily have to have a different orbital period, and would be periodically visible from earth.

A second sun in the earth's orbit can be easily inferred owing to its gravitational effects on other planets. There would be perturbations which would be very obvious. Recall that the presence of Neptune was inferred (back in 1846) by noting anomalies in the orbit of Uranus (whose orbit was observed from the time of its discovery in 1781), which indicated another planet farther out than Uranus.

2. The second star is not in earth's orbit, but very far from the solar system (it would have to be, otherwise it would be visible as a very bright planet). If so, this star would be visible in the night sky as another star. Is this actually a binary star then? It's gravitational influence on the sun would be very faint, unless it was massive. But then it would also gravitationally influence sun's "neighbors" such as Proxima Centauri. Is this still a "double" technically, or a star complex?

3. If we're talking of the galactic center, then there doesn't actually have to be a star there, because the sun (and other stars in the galaxy) already are known to revolve around this galactic center. The time period is like hundreds of millions of years. This effect was discovered after noting the "proper motion of stars," which is a faint but perceptible (to telescopic observations) phenomenon. It would be a stretch to refer to this as a "binary companion of the sun," since this galactic center would in fact (by that definition) be a "binary companion" to all the other stars in the galaxy also.

All claims need to be evaluated based on the weight of evidence.

[Amber G.]

^^^ Thanks.. That is generally we verify the validity..

Folks (Sudarsahan, Hriday , and others) - Talking about double stars -- continue reading if interested in serious Physics..

From what we have observed (using the latest telescopes etc..)

It is estimated that around 85% of stars exist in binary star systems or systems with three or more stars. Single stars account for around 15% of all stars, *but* only 44% of stars that are similar to the sun are found with a binary partner. ( The exact proportion hotly debated)

Though the sun is currently a single star, research published in 2020 suggests that it could. (not definitely) have once (millions of years ago) had a similar-size binary partner. (Evidence for this theory comes from the fact that it would have been easier for binary stars to capture the Oort cloud).

For example <this paper> suggests that the star HD 186302 is remarkably similar to the sun and could be our home star's stellar sibling or a "sun 2.0," (There are 2 or threethree other possible candidates )

Binary star systems can include a normal star and a stellar remnant, such as a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole, which forms when a star runs out of fuel and collapses under its own gravity. In ancient systems, two stellar remnants can even orbit each other, creating a unique and fascinating celestial arrangement.

Binary star systems vary in distance and orbital periods, with some having vast separations (wide binaries) and others being extremely close (close binaries). Close binaries can exchange material, with types including detached, semidetached, and contact binaries, which may even be merging. Binary systems can be categorized by their orbital distances and matter exchange, as well as by detection methods, including visual, spectroscopic, eclipsing, and astrometric binaries.

---
Next post I will put some back ground of well known binaries which Oakji and other people used in their books

[Hriday]

^^^
Thanks to Amber G. and sudarshan for their troubles to reply to me.

[Amber G.]

In some of the books about dating of Mahabharata etc (Eg Nilesh Oak's book discussed here many times) talks about:
Mizar or Vashistha (वासिष्ठ) and Alcor or Arundhati (अरुन्धती) . These are the famous stars - visible binary - in saptrishi mandal (Big Dipper) - Starts visible if you have good vision.

Last time I talked about Arundhati and Vasistha Problem with respect to Oak's book was here.

( For details where these stars one can wiki or similar source. (



Other famous binary stars are: (Check out wiki for details)
Sirius - Lubdhak(लुब्धक) or Kritttika (कृत्तिका) - brightest star visible (after out own sun
Antares: Jyeshtha (ज्येष्ठा) (Brightest star in the constellation Scorpius - Alpha Scorpii
Acrux: It is part of the nakshatra - Vishakha (विशाखा) (Visible from South part of India)

[Hriday]

^^^
Thanks Amber ji for the information.

@sudarshan ji, there is an error in the 3rd section of your reply. I didn't mean that the dual star could be in the galactic centre, but the relative motion of our solar system to the galactic centre.

There is a suggestion that the dual star could be a brown dwarf that will be hard to detect. Walter Cruttenden suggest that the annual meteor showers, certain timings of the moon etc show the possibility of a dual star. As I mentioned earlier, an ancient Indian text, Satapatha Brahmana also described a system that almost exactly matches SriYuktesvar's description of Sun's dual. This explanation is given in the book, The Yugas by Joseph Selbie and David Steinmetz.

To Amber G. and sudarshan; a few more questions.

1.
In a quick Google search, I found that our solar system is currently moving towards the centre of our galaxy and also up and down relative to the galactic plane.
If yes, what is the periodicity of these two motions?

SriYuktesvar wrote that; when the autumnal equinox comes to the first point of Aries (in 11500 B.C) our solar system is the nearest to the galactic centre. In 500 A.D., it was at the farthest from the galactic centre. Is this calculation correct ?

2.
In science, there is a hypothesis that unlike considered earlier, the galaxies or the universe itself could have originated out of a black hole. SriYuktesvar wrote that the galactic centre (black hole) is the Vishnu Nabhi where Brahma, the creator is residing. In Hinduism, Brahma is depicted as sitting on a lotus flower that emerges from Vishnu's navel.
Any comments on the theory of black holes as a source?

Off-topic - It was said that it is remarkable that even before the science world discovered the concept of a galaxy, SriYuktesvar or his source talked about the galaxy and our relative motion to its centre. He wrote the book in 1894 citing oriental astronomy. Only in the 1920s did science find that we are in a galaxy and the stars in it rotate around a centre.
His prediction of the knowledge explosion from the year 1900 was also successful.

[Amber G.]

^^^
Thanks Amber ji for the information.

To Amber G. and sudarshan; a few more questions.

1.
In a quick Google search, I found that our solar system is currently moving towards the centre of our galaxy and also up and down relative to the galactic plane.
If yes, what is the periodicity of these two motions?

SriYuktesvar wrote that; when the autumnal equinox comes to the first point of Aries (in 11500 B.C) our solar system is the nearest to the galactic centre. In 500 A.D., it was at the farthest from the galactic centre. Is this calculation correct ?

Any good source can give detailed information: (Eg: <this> or <this> .. In short:

The solar system orbits the center of the galaxy every 225-230 million years, moving at a speed of about 220 kilometers per second. Currently, the Sun is located 27,000 light-years from the center of the galaxy and about 55 light-years above the galactic plane. The Sun's path also includes a bobbing motion through the disk, with a period of about 60 million years.

Sri Yuketswar's book in short is a *complete* (IMO) collection of nonsence and total lack of understanding even the *most* basic science ( and I am being generous here )... Note that the motion along the orbit across galaxy is measured in "millions of years" ... with distances involving hundreds of billion times distance between earth and sun.. so small changes in last hundreds/thousands of years - and distance as the talking about position of " equinox comes" makes no sense..( as if one is saying that left ear of Ashoka was closer to the sun than his right year at the time of Kalinga war..)

The vernal ( or. autumnal) equinox moves westward along the ecliptic due to the precession of the Earth's axis, completing one full cycle every 26,000 years, which means it shifts about 1 degree every 72 years. This movement causes the position of the vernal equinox to change over time, resulting in a gradual shift of the astrological seasons relative to the actual seasons... the dates like 11500 BC or 500 AD are number taken out without any real understanding ...
(See any good book on astronomy or wiki search for "precession of the equinoxes)..

[Amber G.]

In science, there is a hypothesis that unlike considered earlier, the galaxies or the universe itself could have originated out of a black hole. SriYuktesvar wrote that the galactic centre (black hole) is the Vishnu Nabhi where Brahma, the creator is residing. In Hinduism, Brahma is depicted as sitting on a lotus flower that emerges from Vishnu's navel.
Any comments on the theory of black holes as a source?

In science, a hypothesis is not enough; experimental evidence and validation are crucial. While the idea that the universe could have originated from a black hole is an interesting hypothesis, it remains speculative until supported by empirical evidence. (Just making 'hypothesis' -- there are even more crazy ones - is NOT science.)

In contrast, the Big Bang theory is widely accepted due to robust evidence, including:

- Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB): The CMB is thought to be the residual heat from the initial explosion, detectable in the form of microwave radiation filling the universe.

- Abundance of Light Elements: According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was once so hot that it formed light elements, such as hydrogen, helium, and lithium, from protons and neutrons.

- Large-scale Structure of the Universe: The universe's vast galaxy clusters and superclusters are consistent with the idea that the universe started in a very hot, dense state and then expanded.

These lines of evidence provide strong support for the Big Bang theory, making it a well-established scientific concept.

The theory of black holes as a source of the universe, also known as the "Black Hole Origin" or "Holographic Universe" theory, is a speculative idea that suggests our universe could have emerged from a black hole. While it's an intriguing concept, it remains a topic of debate and at present not widely accepted.

[pravula]

Code: Select all

"In science, there is a hypothesis that unlike considered earlier, the galaxies or the universe itself could have originated out of a black hole."

Isn't the hypothesis that a origin could be white holes? The other side would be a black hole in another universe...

[Amber G.]

Off-topic - It was said that it is remarkable that even before the science world discovered the concept of a galaxy, SriYuktesvar or his source talked about the galaxy and our relative motion to its centre. He wrote the book in 1894 citing oriental astronomy. Only in the 1920s did science find that we are in a galaxy and the stars in it rotate around a centre.
His prediction of the knowledge explosion from the year 1900 was also successful.

The concept of galaxies has a rich history that spans across ancient civilizations. In India, the Rigveda and the Mahabharata mention the universe having multiple stars and galaxies. The ancient Greek philosopher Democritus proposed that the bright streak of light in the night sky was a distant collection of stars. Aristotle and Plato also discussed the idea of multiple star systems. Chinese astronomers like Gan De (350 BCE) recorded observations of the Andromeda Galaxy.

This is MUCH before So SriYuktesvar or his source talked about the galaxy..../sigh/

Many astronomers throughout history suspected that the Milky Way was a vast, starry system. For example, Thomas Wright and William Herschel in the (late 1700s) said that the Milky Way was a vast disk of stars.

The modern understanding of galaxies developed in the early 20th century through the work of astronomers like Hubble, Oort, and Chandrasekhar, who revealed their true scale, structure, and motion...

[Amber G.]

All claims need to be evaluated based on the weight of evidence.

FWIW:

Did not know too much about 'Holy Science' or Yukteswar ".. curiously read more about it . amazed by its inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and pseudoscientific claims. Just few of my thoughts:

Lack of empirical evidence: Sri Yukteswar's theories are not supported by empirical evidence or observational data, which is a fundamental requirement in science.

Misinterpretation of astronomical concepts: He misinterprets and misapplies astronomical concepts, even the most basic ones - such as the precession of the equinoxes,

Inconsistencies and contradictions: His theories are often inconsistent and contradictory, both within his own work and with established scientific knowledge.

No peer review and testing I can find, but he uses pseudoscientific language and jargon to make his claims sound more convincing and scientific.

[Vayutuvan]

Code: Select all

"In science, there is a hypothesis that unlike considered earlier, the galaxies or the universe itself could have originated out of a black hole."

Isn't the hypothesis that a origin could be white holes? The other side would be a black hole in another universe...

That is a theory by Fred Hoyle and (Hoyle's student) Hoyle's student Jayant Narlikar wrote about them in one of his popular books.

[Amber G.]

Isn't the hypothesis that a origin could be white holes? The other side would be a black hole in another universe...

Hoyle's student Jayant Narlikar wrote about them in one of his popular books.

FWIW: Now we are getting into much more pure 'theoretical' .. and quite speculative zone
Any way -- White holes are hypothetical regions in space where matter and energy emerge from a singularity, potentially connected to a black hole in another universe, as proposed by Jayant Narlikar in his writings.

(A white hole is the theoretical opposite of a black hole, where nothing can enter, but matter and energy can escape. ityadi..)
The existence of white holes is purely theoretical and no one observed or confirmed it .....

(Narlikar's work, along with other physicists, explores the possibility of white holes as a gateway to other universes or dimensions... challenges our understanding of space-time and the laws of physics, sparking interesting discussions in the fields of cosmology and theoretical physics and too much math for most of us to understand)

[Vayutuvan]

Isn’t all theoretical physics speculative until verified or refuted by experiments?

[Hriday]

Thanks Amber ji for the efforts to explain.

[sanman]

Here's a prescient quote from nearly 30 years ago by a well-known man of science:

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”

-Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

[bala]

Just wanted to put this topic into physics, but not sure since it is space related and about Voyager 1 and 2 of JPL The mission was a success and actually voyager is heading towards earth due to a discovery it made. When it wanted to go beyond Uranus it encountered an unusual block on communications which was totally unforeseen.

The Voyager journey was made possible by Dr. Gary Flandro at CalTech. He discovered a way to use planet alignment to sling shot voyager journey (more than 12 billion miles). His discovery of the important alignment facet was it would occur in 1977 and would not come again for another 176 years. Professor Crocco is mentioned in the above link, who was professor for Dr. Nambi Narayan at Princeton.

[Amber G.]

Here's a prescient quote from nearly 30 years ago by a well-known man of science:

Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark[/size][/b]

Carl Sagan is my favorite popular author (Have known/talked with him many times in science lectures over the years)

Somebody was asking for good sources - His books, Cosmos (TV series) are excellent sources.

Here is one quote - a powerful commentary on how people can become entrenched in their beliefs, even when faced with evidence to the contrary. Sagan's words serve as a warning about the dangers of confirmation bias, the importance of critical thinking, and the need to question authority... and not get banboozed by pseudoscience kind of posts etc..

Also fom the he Demon-Haunted World:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. So the old bamboozles tend to persist as new bamboozles arise, and the masses are herded from one to another, never realizing they are being herded at all...

- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

[Amber G.]

Just wanted to put this topic into physics, but not sure since it is space related and about Voyager 1 and 2 of JPL The mission was a success and actually voyager is heading towards earth due to a discovery it made. When it wanted to go beyond Uranus it encountered an unusual block on communications which was totally unforeseen.
<snip>

..

Balaji (or others) an excellent book about Voyager is Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager Interstellar Record .. (This along with some of his other books and TV series, scientific articles) I talks about science and 'record' which has greetings in many languages (including say 'Rajasthani').. photographs, music etc attached with Voyager space crafts.
(Carl Sagan was a major force - one of the leaders for this project in NASA).

..and actually voyager is heading towards earth due to a discovery it made. When it wanted to go beyond Uranus it encountered an unusual block on communications which was totally unforeseen.

The Voyager journey was made possible by Dr. Gary Flandro at CalTech. He discovered a way to use planet alignment to sling shot voyager journey (more than 12 billion miles). His discovery of the important alignment facet was it would occur in 1977 and would not come again for another 176 years. Professor Crocco is mentioned in the above link, who was professor for Dr. Nambi Narayan at Princeton.

Also - The Voyager 1 and 2 mission was indeed a groundbreaking success, but it's important to correct some inaccuracies in your post. Firstly, the spacecraft are not heading back towards Earth. Voyager 1 is currently about 14.2 billion miles away from Earth, and Voyager 2 is about 12.1 billion miles away, making them the most distant human-made objects in space.

There was no unforeseen block on communications when the spacecraft approached Uranus. The mission was designed to take advantage of a rare alignment of the outer planets. This alignment --realization that it would allow a spacecraft to visit Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune on a single trajectory.

While Professor Crocco's contribution to the field of astrodynamics is notable, it's not directly related to the Voyager mission. The concept of using gravity assists, also known as slingshots or flybys, was well understood since Newton's time. The Voyager mission built upon this fundamental principle to achieve its remarkable journey.

Dr. Nambi Narayanan, a student of Professor Crocco at Princeton, was actually the one who worked on the trajectory planning for the Voyager mission. Narayanan has credited Crocco's teachings and influence for his own work on the mission. So Although Professor Crocco didn't directly contribute to the Voyager mission, his teachings and legacy influenced Dr. Nambi Narayanan, a former student who worked on the mission's trajectory planning. ..

Let's give credit where it's due and appreciate the incredible achievement of the Voyager mission, which has greatly expanded our understanding of the outer Solar System and beyond!

[Amber G.]

^^^ Allow me to share this about Padm bhushan Nambi Nayrayan:

- Nambi Narayanan is a renowned Indian aerospace engineer who worked with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) .
- Narayanan worked on the trajectory planning for the Voyager mission during his time at NASA .
- He was a senior official at ISRO and briefly headed the cryogenics division .
-: Narayanan received I the Padma Bhushan, in 2019
- Narayanan worked at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) ( contributed to the Voyager mission's trajectory planning).
- ISRO espionage case: Narayanan was falsely accused in the ISRO espionage case in 1994, but was later cleared of all charges (See my posts in other dhagas)
.
- He faced challenges in his career due to the espionage case, but was eventually cleared of all charges. ( received the Padma Bhushan award in 2019 for his contributions to the field of aerospace engineering.)
- (From what i know his son-in-law Subbiah Arunan, an ISRO scientist (director of the Mars Orbiter Mission)

[bala]

Dr. Nambi Narayanan learned about instability and stability from Prof Crocco in rocket propulsion. In Movie Rocketry, this principle (inducing some instability to get overall stability) was used to fix the French rocket issues when ISRO team (that include Dr. Nambi Narayanan) was contracted. Later back in India, Dr. Nambi Narayanan recreated the Vikas engine (I think it was Viking by the French) for India, which is the backbone for heavy lift liquid fueled rockets for India. Vikas engine was tested initially by the French for a few crores, this was again arranged by Dr. Nambi Narayanan with the French. The French did not give any drawings to the Indians ISRO.

[bala]

Firstly, the spacecraft are not heading back towards Earth.

I saw a YT on Voyager not going beyond Uranus, but turned around (may not come to earth but there is reversal of direction). The reason cited was there is something blocking its communications further out in space.

We don't know what that Brahman has created in the cosmos!

[Amber G.]

Firstly, the spacecraft are not heading back towards Earth.

I saw a YT on Voyager not going beyond Uranus, but turned around (may not come to earth but there is reversal of direction). The reason cited was there is something blocking its communications further out in space.

We don't know what that Brahman has created in the cosmos!

I understand your curiosity, but as a physics professor, I always advise my students to be cautious when exploring information online. Not everything on YouTube, papers, or the internet is accurate. When it comes to scientific matters, it's essential to rely on credible sources and trust the principles of logic and scientific reasoning. Voyager 1 and 2 have not "reversed" direction, and their trajectories are well-documented and understood. Let's be mindful of the sources we trust and verify information through reliable channels.

And just because we don't know everything about the universe doesn't mean we should fill the gaps with speculation or misinformation - the unknown can be intriguing, but it shouldn't be an invitation to belief in the unverified or absurd


As they say in our shastras:

भावः प्रमाणाभावः न हि
(Absence is not a proof of absence.)_

"अज्ञानात् प्रमाणाभावः"
(Ignorance is not a proof."

(Similarly in words of Carl Sagan:

The unknown is not a reason to believe in the impossible.

(Also "Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we should make up a story about it.")
Or Stephen Hawkings:

The gaps in our knowledge are not necessarily evidence of something supernatural or paranormal.

[bala]

As they say in our shastras:
भावः प्रमाणाभावः न हि
(Absence is not a proof of absence.)_
"अज्ञानात् प्रमाणाभावः"
(Ignorance is not a proof."

On the topic of "Absence" , which clearly shows there is no such thing as a true "absence" in jagat. अज्ञानात् is anadhi (no parent) so cannot be used for proving or disproving anything. निस्तत्त्व रूपता माया स्वभावो

Or Stephen Hawkings:
The gaps in our knowledge are not necessarily evidence of something supernatural or paranormal.

Stephen Hawkings theories on Black holes are filled with so many conjectures that your above stmts can be applied to his writings.