deltaflow: home
blog » 6 vedic atoms = 1 photon

6 vedic atoms = 1 photon

"The division of gross time is calculated as follows: two atoms make one double atom, and three double atoms make one hexatom. This hexatom is visible in the sunshine which enters through the holes of a window screen. One can clearly see that the hexatom goes up towards the sky." (SB3.11.05)

Scientists currently believe that the photon (also known as light) is the transmitter particle (gauge boson) for electromagnetic force. Photons supposedly have no mass and no electric charge. It is said that Einstein was the first person to theorize that these particles should exist (except he wasn't the first - not by a long shot!).

Photon (obviously) travel at the speed of light. They can be redirected by gravity (not because gravity attracts the photon like e.g. a magnet attracts iron, but because gravity bends the very space through which the photon flies).

Photons are strange because they behave both as waves and as particles at the same time (as demonstrated in the famous double-slit experiment).

Besides photons, which we "see" every day, there are supposedly a few other gauge bosons, or carrier particles for fundamental forces of nature. Specifically, there supposed to exist W and Z bosons (which supposedly cause the weak atomic interaction), gluons (which supposedly cause the strong atomic interaction) and the (totally speculative) gravitons (which supposedly cause gravity - although no one has ever detected a graviton).

Physicists are hard at work trying to figure out how these particles fit together in a grand unification theory. They believe that if they figure this out they will understand everything there is to know about the elegant universe with no need for primitive gods, deities and other "unscientific" stuff like that.

And here we have the Srimad Bhagavatam stating quite plainly and clearly, thousands of years before the advert of modern physics (or more precisely: the sage Maitreya speaking to Vidura sometime around the year 3102 B.C.), that the photon is actually made up of 6 (specifically 3 groups of 2) atomic particles. These Vedic Atoms (parama-anuh) are the true fundamental particles of nature. In different combinations these particles presumably also make up the other gauga bosons.

So, there we have the much vaunted unification theory.

Why do theoretical physicists not take notice?

Update: (disclaimer) My statements above are called into question by some good counter arguments in the comments to this post. This is not to say that the article is incorrect, but I nevertheless advise anyone reading this to read the comments and make up their own mind based upon what they think are the most reasonable assumptions.

Post your comment


  • vivek thakur 12/03/2008 7:57pm (9 years ago)

    veds are perfect books each n every word written in them was a result of a long process fo logical discussions and experimentation some scripts were lost or purposely removed from the sacred books thats y generally people do not get what was accutally written there or told there

  • shishyans 02/12/2007 5:42pm (9 years ago)

    It's actually simple to quantify the "anu" atom. The key is to relate the time and the space: you are all talking about the space (what is the size of some particle), while trasa renus are used to define time intervals, it is the Brahma Vidya time unit system. Here is the connection of the two:

    The Sun's apparent movement around the Earth is 360 degrees a day. We don't need to go into sidereal/tropical considerations, as they are of infinitesimal contribution here, the difference is about 1.45%, so that's our margin of error here, but we will also encounter other problems and will have to increase error margins. Here it is:

    When we project the movement of the Sun onto an imagined sphere where we can *see* the trasa renu (let's assume it is 1 meter away from our eyes), here is the size of the trasa renu:

    One revolution a day around a circle covers a path of 3.141 meters (for r=1m, we have that s= r^2 * PI = 3.1415 m, where s is the distance covered, as we can see it). This 3.141 m corresponds to one day. Parasara (in Vishnu Purana) defines a muhurta to be 1/30 days. And we know that 1 muhurta = 2 danda, 1 danda = 15 laghu, 1 laghu = 15 kastha, 1 kastha = 5 kshana, 1 kshana = 3 nimesha, 1 nimesha = 3 lava, 1 lava = 3 vedha, 1 vedha = 100 truti, 1 truti = 3 trasa renu, 1 trasa renu = 3 paramanu, paramanu = 2 anu.

    So, 1 muhurta = 48 minutes = 2880s. The Sun covers 10.47 cm (Sun's path projected onto our sphere surface) in one muhurta. 1 muhurta = 2*15*15*5*3*3*3*100*3 trasa renus = 18.225.000 trasa renus. Thus, the size of the trasa renu particle is 18.225.000 times less than 10.47cm and it evaluates to 5.7e-9 meters, or 5.7 nanometers.
    Larger atoms are about 0.3 nm radius spheres, so the radius of the trasa renu is at least 19 atoms. R=19 => r=9.5. The volume of the trasa renu, a molecule or a particle we are talking about (if it is a sphere, which is likely) is in that case V=4/3 r^3 * PI = 3590 atoms.

    Since we do not have information if this is a sphere, nor do we know that such large atoms are the ones that they saw (atoms sizes vary from 0.03 nm to 0.3nm), we can estimate the trasa renu size anywhere from 3590 largest atoms to 3590000 smallest ones, or maybe 30 times less if the trasa renu is a stick instead of a sphere. So our bounds now roughly amount to the interval of [1100 - 3.6 million] atoms.

    Also, if the projection sphere (the distance at which trasa renu is visible) is not 1m, but less, say 10 cm at least, then we can divide this further by 10. (When we divide the radius by 10, the volume is divided by 10^3, i.e. by 1000.)

    Thus, the estimated size of trasa renu size becomes anywhere from 11 atoms to 3.6 million atoms. Thus, trasa renu can be some flying particle reflecting the light, and it can not represent a photon.

    However, it is interesting that 1 anu = 1/6 trasa renu, which is less than 2 "large atoms" by our calculation, and it is indeed VERY close to the atom size as we know it today. So, Shrimad Bhagavatam is a very powerful philosophy, there is no doubt of that. And, I am ready to belive that any problems we may have understanding the vedic literature are only due to our limitations.

  • Dr. Frank-Peter Seidenberg 13/07/2007 6:59am (10 years ago)

    6 Vedic atoms=1 photon: an excellent antithesis Candidasa, (July 12), it enumerates many of the rational which I was going to submit, so there is no need for me to repeat. Suffice it to say, that after only three years of intensive reading of the Vedic scriptures, I believe that my consciousness has evolved. One might call it an "alternative" consciousness as to this material existence which we in the West have grown up with. Skeptics may call it brain-washing, but as Devamrita Swami was quoted as saying, "brain-washed is better than brain-dead".

  • candidas das 12/07/2007 8:50pm (10 years ago)

    First of all, thank you "doesNotCompute" and "Carana Renu" for stimulating this interesting discussion. Hopefully we'll all learn something from it. I certainly have.

    Language (especially Sanskrit) is inherently ambiguous. The same word can have multiple meanings. Take the English word "row", for example. It could means to move a boat using oars, having a noisy argument, or a line of people. The meaning is ambiguous. We have to interpret based on the context and what we know about the authors' intent. If we accept what the Vedic literature says about itself at face value and take into account the interpretation passed down unaltered in its intent through many generations (and I'm talking about the Veda, not all so-called religious text that may or may not be genuine), then we can reach a pretty good conclusion of what the meaning of what is being said. However, even then there will always be some doubt over what exactly a particular word or verse is trying to express.

    In the context of this chapter of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, two sages (5000 years ago!) are discussing the creation of the universe in intricate detail, in particular the measurement of time as it relates to the movement of an atomic particle. The speaker states that this "atomic" particle can be transformed into different states but the underlying "energy" always remains intact. If all form were to be destroyed only these "atoms" would remain. Time can be measure by the speed at which these "atoms" be combined.

    Now, call me a religious fanatic if you like, but that sounds like pretty advanced knowledge for a time when, for all history teaches us, these people should have been just about trying to figure out how to make bronze tools (instead of using stone). So, I think it is not at all hideously bending and reinterpreting the facts to suppose that the hex-atom they are talking about is in fact a photon.

    Now, I could, of course, in this particular instance, be wrong, and maybe they are just talking about common household dust. But at least I don't dismiss it out of hand just because it carries the stigma of being so-called "religious". How is it vain to ask that people pay attention to something from which scientists could learn a thing or two (not to replace science, but to help advance it!)

    As for proving the divine origins of the texts by deceit. Where has anyone attempted to do that?

    First of all, you can't prove anything. Science certainly even being to prove that the big bang created the universe from nothing, for example. Even mathematics basis all its proofs on a set of axioms that can't be proven, but must be accepted on faith.

    If an idea goes against an established scientific theory it is very often ignored or even repressed (ask any scientist and they'll tell you it is true; I've experienced it myself). The lofty ideal of a precise mathematical model that is being refined to perfection is non-sense. In reality, paradigm shifts happen when a someone courageously embraces a new idea and unfazed by the legions of nay-sayers who fights against it for many years (how long did it take until people accepted that the Earth is round? Why are you so adamant that the Vedic literature is non-sense without having actually studied it?)

    The best way to make intelligent arguments and decisions about the validity of the Vedic literature is to read and apply it. It even suggests this in the text: no blind faith! You accept hypothetically that the Vedic knowledge is genuine, apply its teachings and observe the result. From that you can gain a more and more acceptance of the validity of your original theory (or dismiss it, as the case may be). It is perfect knowledge, because it can be scientifically verified by internal realization through a process of experimentation; see: <a href="" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">BG 9.2</a>

  • doesNotCompute 10/07/2007 10:43pm (10 years ago)

    Of course scientific theory is constantly adjusted to fit with changing facts, that is what science is - mathematical modelling of facts.
    Different ideas are considered when the mathematical model fails to any longer adequately fit the facts.

    Contrast this with religious texts where the "model" is defined up front, then must be bent and reinterpreted hideously to fit the facts in some vain (and always utterly unsuccessful) attempt to prove it's of divine nature.

    One of these is approaches is forward looking and flexible.

  • candidas das 10/07/2007 5:52pm (10 years ago)

    Oh, and this kind of reinterpretation, as you call it, never happens in science (as traditionally known)? Scientific theory is constantly adjusted to fit with changing "facts".

    I'm NOT saying the Bhagavatam should take over, and all scientific research must stop. I am saying that science could do well to stop being so isolationistic and at least CONSIDER ideas different from the established paradigms.

  • doesNotCompute 10/07/2007 5:30pm (10 years ago)

    "From what I can find ??oeTrasa?? does indeed translate as ??oeMoving?? or ??oeVibrating?? and ??oeRenu?? is translated as ??oeDust?? (although, of course, depending on the context the word could have a different meaning). But taking this meaning we have ??oemoving dust?? as the stuff that is visible in the sunshine. Dust is however mostly made up of dead skin cells and other quite large particles of matter. A cell contains many millions of atoms (as they are known in western science). Certainly any fluff of dust large enough to see will be pretty big. Even dividing that into 6 will still result in a pretty large object. Hardly something that anyone would call an indivisible atom."

    Only in discussing holy texts do you get the argument "X cannot mean X because if it did the text would not make sense". So it is with this example, "Dust cannot mean dust because if it meant dust, dust is not made of 6 singular atoms, and thus it makes no sense".

    Yep, it does not make sense. It's a religious text, from some guy who thought he was divinely inspired, or whom others thought was divinely inspired - but was not.

    You are forced to reinterpret words to fit known science and yet you think it should be acting as some GUIDE to science ? Utterly contradictory.

    This is not a scientific argument, a scientific argument is a debate about which mathematical model better describes reality and provides better insight into reality. This is a discussion about how badly one can mistranslate a word to fit known science in order to proclaim the innate superiority and divinity of said text.

  • candidas das 09/07/2007 9:06pm (10 years ago)

    Good counter arguments. Now, I must say, I'm not sure.

    Here one more argument from the other side:

    Bhagavatam does speak of mystic perfections such as anima- and laghima-siddhi, to become smaller than the smallest and lighter than the lightest. Prabhupada comments how someone with the anima perfection can becomes small enough to pass through any obstacle (much like radio waves do) and someone with the laghima perfection can ride sun rays upwards into the sun (the sun's photons being the lightest known particle). [<a href="" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">SB11.15.4-5</a>]

    Since these perfections allow a person to transform himself into such minute sizes, then why shouldn't Maitraya know of these and base his conception of the atom upon this scale?

  • Carana Renu dasi 09/07/2007 6:13pm (10 years ago)

    Here is a quote from Srila Prabhupada on going beyond the atom:

    "But now the scientists they are studying the paramanu, atom, also. They are finding still subtle elements. They say "proton and electron," like that, still finer. In this way you cannot go ultimately to the finest material being. And even if you go, still, there is no solution. You will find something else within it working."

    &gt;&gt;&gt; Ref. VedaBase =&gt; Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.26.45 -- Bombay, January 20, 1975

    My thought on this is that the paramanu could be the smallest material size in the particular Vedic system described by Maitreya in the Bhagavatam, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there exists nothing smaller.

  • Carana Renu dasi 09/07/2007 5:23pm (10 years ago)

    OK, so you can stick to your story, but you are not convincing me. Here is how Srila Prabhupada translates trasarenu elsewhere, in the Chaitanya Charitamrita:

    gavaksera randhre yena trasarenu cale
    purusera loma-kupe brahmandera jale
    gavaksera -- of windows of a room; randhre -- within the holes; yena -- like; trasarenu -- six atoms together; cale -- moves; purusera -- of the Lord; loma-kupe -- in the holes of the hair; brahmandera -- of universes; jale -- a network.
    Just as atomic particles of dust pass through the openings of a window, so the networks of universes pass through the pores of the skin of the purusa.

    &gt;&gt;&gt; Ref. VedaBase =&gt; Adi 5.70

    The param-anu is invisible, but when six of them combine together to form a trasarenu, this bigger particle is visible in the sunrays coming through the window. I have not seen any mention of microscopes in the Bhagavatam, so invisible here could just mean invisible to the naked eye. The smallest particle visible to the naked eye is about 50 microns.

    I don't think that makes the Bhagavatam primitive, just different to modern science. Why should modern science be our bench-mark?

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments