Quantum Mechanics Beginnings

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1932

Werner Heisenberg

Award Ceremony Speech

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies  and Gentlemen.

This year’s Nobel Prizes for Physics are dedicated to the new  atomic physics. The prizes, which the Academy of Sciences has at  its disposal, have namely been awarded to those men, Heisenberg,  Schrödinger, and Dirac, who have created and developed the  basic ideas of modern atomic physics.

It was Planck who, in 1900,  first expressed the thought that light had atomic properties, and  the theory put forward by Planck was later more exhaustively  developed by Einstein. The  conviction, arrived at by different paths, was that matter could  not create or absorb light, other than in quantities of energy  which represented the multiple of a specific unit of energy. This  unit of energy received the name of light quantum or photon. The  magnitude of the photon is different for different colours of  light, but if the quantity of energy of a photon is divided by  the frequency of oscillation of the ray of light, the same number  is always obtained, the so-called Planck’s constant h.  This constant is thus of a universal nature and forms one of the  foundation stones for modern atomic physics.

Since light too was thus divided into atoms it appeared that all  phenomena could be explained as interactions between atoms of  various kinds. Mass was also attributed to the atom of light, and  the effects which were observed when light rays were incident  upon matter could be explained with the help of the law for the  impact of bodies.

Not many years passed before the found connection between the  photon and the light ray led to an analogous connection between  the motion of matter and the propagation of waves being sought  for.

For a long time it had been known that the customary description  of the propagation of light in the form of rays of light, which  are diffracted and reflected on transmission from one medium to  another, was only an approximation to the true circumstances,  which only held good so long as the wavelength of the light was  infinitesimally small compared with the dimensions of the body  through which the light passed, and of the instruments with which  it was observed. In reality light is propagated in the form of  waves which spread out in all directions according to the laws  for the propagation of waves.

…

[Click on the link above to read the whole speech]

.

November 11, 2011 – 7:46 AM Categories: Science | Comments (9)

What is Unknowable?

With the use of the Vedic process “neti, neti” I have finally arrived at the following understanding. This is also referred to as BRAHMAN in Vedic terminology.

(1) I shall use the word UNKNOWABLE for the moment in an attempt to describe my understanding at this level. It doesn’t really matter what word I use because word is not the “thing.”

(2) The problem here is that there is NOTHING to describe. As far as our knowingness is concerned we can only know the considerations that appear spontaneously and randomly… from where… that is impossible to know.

(3) We can never know what lies beyond these considerations. We may certainly CONSIDER what lies beyond; but then, we would only know the consideration we make.

(4) Thus, we can only know the considerations and not what is beyond them. As we try to dig past considerations, we simply find more considerations.

(5) Actually, as we dig deeper in our attempt to describe what is beyond, we may simply uncover and describe our own hidden considerations.

(6) Thus, this unknowable beyond is nothing more than a carrot, that may help us uncover the considerations that, maybe, lie hidden deep in our consciousness. This is more than wonderful.

Furthermore:

(7) When we think of beingness we think of the being (soul). That being is not the core of beingness. The core of beingness is unknowable.   

(8 ) Whether the being dissolves into the unknowable is neither here nor there. Beyond considerations there is no time. So, whether one is “Unknowable” for a billion years or for just a blink of an eye. It is the same thing.

(9) We will never know if we had ever dissolved into the unknowable or not. All we would ever know at the highest level is being a “soul” in its simplest form.

(10) As far as we are concerned, the idea of the unknowable is simply there to help us uncover the deepest of our considerations.

And beyond this:

(11) A being (soul) can be constrained only by its own considerations. Total freedom would mean not be constrained by one’s own considerations.

(12) Only those considerations would constrain a being that are being generated and held fixedly in place because of ignorance.

(13) A being may enjoy life fully; participate in any and all adventures, while also being aware of all considerations one is generating even at the deepest level.

(14) That would be Nirvana… that would be the unknowable beyond… that would be attaining Brahmanhood; for this doesn’t mean forsaking of life and adventure.

(15) Nirvana, or total freedom, simply means absence of hidden considerations even at the deepest level. It means total command over oneself. The concept of Brahman, as built into the process “neti, neti,” helps one move in that direction.

(16) Nirvana would simply mean the ability to generate a consideration, hold on to that consideration, and then destroy that consideration.

(17) Nirvana does not mean forsaking this universe. Nirvana simply means total control over one’s considerations. One can attain Nirvana while being in this universe. In fact one’s enjoyment of this universe would be infinitely greater after attaining nirvana.

(18) Buddha lived to a grand age of 80, quite rare for his time, after attaining nirvana.

.

November 10, 2011 – 7:54 AM Categories: KHTK, Postulates | Comments (19)

Research into Unknowable

Little question
October 17, 2014
The concept of Unknowable is better expressed as the non-awareness part of the “awareness – non-awareness” dichotomy. Please see Universe and Awareness.

.

This space shall contain comments that pertain to research into unknowable:

From Maria (Ref. Knowable and Unknowable):

I understand what you are describing here.  It aligned extremely well with my past experience but it does not align with my own experience very accurately these days.  Probably the language, which becomes very clumsy.

There is a level beyond knowing that we can and do “experience.”  I cannot say “I”  experience it to even halfway accurately describe this.  It does not have any manifestation associated with it and “I” becomes a meaningless word.  What follows is the best description I can presently offer:

Knowing, perceiving, experiencing in this reality (in which I am typing) as me is never anything more than a perception of the past and with a successive series of present moments. They are successive ONLY in interchange and they are not particularly precise.  Even the future in this reality is already past.  It is already past because it was already created as what will be.  So there is really only now and then in this reality.

Simultaneously and always there is a true now.  It is NOT in the time stream.  It is the source of the time stream.  It is not past, present or “future.”  And this is where me goes beyond the limited being me.

While it is true that this state is not knowable in any “concrete” way, including concept, thought, mental images, physical forms, emotion, perception (bodily or otherwise) it is also true that it is a some kind of wellspring or source of these things. I don’t “know about” it.  “I” don’t “know” it.  I am and I am more than I am no fixed state and the words fail miserably.

I am sorry I cannot be more clear about this.  I assure you this is real, more real than any manifestation of anything and I love it beyond all things.  In my “self” it is a state of complete ease that often reflects into emotion as unbelievable joy, and from there into the body as lightness and brightness and sheer exuberance.

It is unknowable in the terms of this world, in terms of things, yes.  But it is real beyond all limited reality.

Vinaire’s comment:

“Unknowable” is just an enticing placeholder that dares one to challenge it. It postulates that there always will be something that is not known no matter how deep you may dive into it…. somewhat like an infinte series. It is quite an exciting concept for me.

.

The “unknowable” is postulated simply to warn, “DO NOT REST AFTER DISCOVERING A STABLE DATUM. THERE IS NO LAST WORD.”

.

November 3, 2011 – 6:36 AM Categories: KHTK, Postulates | Comments (112)

Debate, Discussion, Condescension & Sin

In a debate, the participants are playing a game with each other. Each participant is trying to make oneself right and the other person wrong. Very seldom inroads are made into knowledge through debate. A debate is ego driven, and usually ends up in conflicts.

In a discussion, the game is very different. Here the participants are teaming up together against ignorance. Inroads are often made into knowledge through discussion.

The game of knowledge is played better through discussion. It is successful as long as attention is kept to the subject and not diverted on to any participant. This is how science progresses.

The moment allegations are introduced that are critical of any participant in the game of knowledge… the progress, as far as knowledge is concerned, comes to a stop. Ad hominem is a special case of this.

.

BEING CONDESCENDING

con·de·scend·ing
showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority: They resented the older neighbors’ condescending cordiality.

con·de·scend
to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity.
Origin: 1300–50; Middle English condescenden < Late Latin condēscendere (see con-, descend); replacing Middle English condescendre < Middle French [Intensive of descend, to come down]

pa·tron·iz·ing
displaying or indicative of an offensively condescending manner: a patronizing greeting, accompanied by a gentle pat on the pack.

pa·tron·ize
to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward: a professor who patronizes his students.

pa·tron
Roman History. the protector of a dependent or client, often the former master of a freedman still retaining certain rights over him.
Origin: 1250–1300; Middle English < Medieval Latin, Latin patrōnus legal protector, advocate (Medieval Latin: lord, master), derivative of pater father.

Can the confident behavior of another be taken as offensively condescending?

Can “offensively concescending” be part of the filter that one is looking through, while having nothing to do with the characteristics of what is being looking at?

.

SIN

Sin is basically an action which one knows to be wrong. It is wrong because

(1) One has been told that it is wrong.
(2) One feels that one would be rejected by others when found out.

One restrains oneself from committing the sin. Attention remains on sinful actions and their consequences. One commits the sin when one can no longer restrain oneself. There is a conflict simply because a true understanding of why some action is a sin is not present.

When one is self-determined, one naturally understands the wrongness of an action. It is an action that goes against one’s self-determinism. One would never commit such an action.

But when one is not allowed to be self-determined, and one’s thinking is determined by others, then that natural understanding of wrongness is missing. There is a constant unease at the back of one’s mind. Guilt is simply a magnified intensity of that unease.

The feeling of uneasiness and guilt evaporates when one takes a self-determined look at the conflict surrounding one’s actions. As one starts to spot inconsistencies, the understanding starts to improve, and the feeling of guilt lessens. One then knows what self-determined actions truly are, and what sin really is.

.

Glossary

Debate
In a debate, each participant is trying to make oneself right and the other person wrong. Very seldom inroads are made into knowledge through debate. A debate is ego driven, and usually ends up in conflicts.

Discussion
A discussion is very different from a debate. Here the participants are teaming up together against ignorance. Inroads are often made into knowledge through discussion.

Sin
Sin is basically an action which one knows to be wrong. It is an action that goes against one’s self-determinism. One would never commit such an action. But when one is not allowed to be self-determined, and one’s thinking is determined by others, then that natural understanding of wrongness is missing. It is replaced by a feeling of unease at the back of one’s mind. The feeling of uneasiness evaporates when one takes a self-determined look at the conflict surrounding one’s actions.

.

November 1, 2011 – 9:25 PM Categories: KHTK | Comments (51)

The Fundamental Desire

There was nothing to know or unknow

When there came that stirring

And the question arose

How come there is nothing to know or unknow?

.

Thus came about speculation

And the observer of that speculation.

And so the self was formed

Infused with the desire to know itself.

.

Out of this grew the universe,

The galaxies, stars and planets.

And to understand all that

Life itself came about.

.

But underlying these myriads of manifestations

Was always that ancient desire to know

A desire that didn’t want to know

That it was actually creating

.

All that it wanted to know…

.

October 27, 2011 – 9:21 PM Categories: KHTK | Post a comment