Ramanisblog

Tag: Quantum theory

  • Manojava Is Tachyon Particle Faster Than Light Mundaka Upanishad

    We have a popular sloka of Anjaneya thus,

    Tachyon .Image.gif
    Tachyon. Because a tachyon would always move faster than light, it would not be possible to see it approaching. After a tachyon has passed nearby, we would be able to see two images of it, appearing and departing in opposite directions. The black line is the shock wave of Cherenkov radiation, shown only in one moment of time. This double image effect is most prominent for an observer located directly in the path of a superluminal object (in this example a sphere, shown in grey). The right hand bluish shape is the image formed by the blue-doppler shifted light arriving at the observer—who is located at the apex of the black Cherenkov lines—from the sphere as it approaches. The left-hand reddish image is formed from red-shifted light that leaves the sphere after it passes the observer. Because the object arrives before the light, the observer sees nothing until the sphere starts to pass the observer, after which the image-as-seen-by-the-observer splits into two—one of the arriving sphere (to the right) and one of the departing sphere (to the left) “Tachyon04s” by TxAlien at en.wikipedia – Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by User:Sumanch.. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tachyon04s.gif#/media/File:Tachyon04s.gif

    मनोजवं मारुततुल्यवेगं
    जितेन्द्रियं बुद्धिमतां वरिष्ठ ।
    वातात्मजं वानरयूथमुख्यं
    श्रीरामदूतं शरणं प्रपद्ये ।
    Mano-Javam Maaruta-Tulya-Vegam
    Jite[a-I]ndriyam Buddhi-Mataam Varissttha |
    Vaata-Atmajam Vaanara-Yuutha-Mukhyam
    Shriiraama-Duutam Sharannam Prapadye |

    Meaning:
    (I take Refuge in Sri Hanuman)
    1: Who is Swift as Mind and Fast as Wind,
    2: Who is the Master of the Senses and Honoured for His Excellent Intelligence, Learning and Wisdom,
    3: Who is Son of the Wind God and Chief among the Monkeys,
    4: To that Messenger of Sri Rama, I take Refuge.

    Hanuman.jpg
    Hanuman meditating

    Sanskrit Dictionary gives the following meaning.

    मनोजव manojava adj. swift as thought
    मनोजव manojava m. speed or swiftness of thought

    Vedas have determined the Speed of Light accurately.

    Please read my post on this.

    Such being the case the reference to ‘Speed more than Mind’ is intriguing.

    Reason is that Vedic people have studied Gravity and have treatise on this.

    I searched and found the following answer.

     

    Seven flickering tongues of the fire(light/energy).
    Those are Kaali (black one), Karaali (terrific one), Manojava (swift as the mind), Sulohita (the deep red), Sudhumravarna (the smoke-coloured), Sphulligini (sparkling) and the Viswa-Rupi or the Viswaruchi (having all forms).
    Whoever performs his Karmas (Agnihotra etc.), when these flames are shining and in proper time, then these oblations lead him through the rays of the sun to where the one lord of the Deva dwells.

    ‘
    Chapter II  Mundaka Upanishad.

    1. This is That, the Truth of things: works which the sages beheld in the Mantras [=The inspired verses of the Veda] were in the Treta [=The second of the four ages] manifoldly extended. Works do ye perform religiously with one passion for the Truth; this is your road to the heaven of good deeds.

    2. When the fire of the sacrifice is kindled and the flame sways and quivers, then between the double pourings of butter cast therein with faith thy offerings.

    3. For he whose altar-fires are empty of the new-moon offering and the full-moon offering and the offering of the rains and the offering of the first fruits, or unfed, or fed without right ritual, or without guests or without the dues to the Vishwa-Devas, destroys his hope of all the seven worlds.

    4. Kali, the black, Karali, the terrible, Manojava, thought-swift, Sulohita, blood-red, Sudhumravarna, smoke-hued, Sphulingini, scattering sparks, Vishwaruchi, the all-beautiful, these are the seven swaying tongues of the fire.

    5. He who in these when they are blazing bright performs the rites, in their due season, him his fires of sacrifice take and they lead him, these rays of the sun, there where the Overlord of the Gods is the Inhabitant on high.

    6. “Come with us”, “Come with us”, they cry to him, these luminous fires of sacrifice and they bear him by the rays of the sun speaking to him pleasant words of sweetness, doing him homage, “This is your holy world of Brahman and the heaven of your righteousness.”

    The properties described for Manojava are same as for Tachyon, which travels faster than light and its speed is equal to that of human mind.
    In modern science, Tachyon, (pron.: /ˈtæki.ɒn/) (term in use since 1967) is a hypothetical faster-than-light particle.
    In the 1967 paper that coined the term, Gerald Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with negative squared mass.”

    Gravity does affect the time.

    That is the reason why satellites are adjusted

    The difference on a GPS satellite can be quite significant and hence the clocks on these satellites are constantly readjusted.

    A black hole has enormous gravitational pull, strong enough to even hold the light in it, and nothing can escape a black hole.  Escape velocity from the weak earth’s gravity is about 7 miles per second.  Light travels at about 186282 miles per second.  Even this velocity is not enough to get light out of the gravitational pull of a black hole.  The only thing we know that is capable of travelling faster than light, is a quantum particle called Tachyon.  Even this has been described in the Mandukya Upanishad as Manojava.  The characteristics of both objects and particles are uncannily similar. Varahamihira described what could only be a gravitational force when he said, that there must be a force that keeps object stuck on the surface of the earth.

    Tachyon.

    A tachyon /ˈtæki.ɒn/ or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always moves faster than light. The word comes from theGreek: ταχύ or tachy /ˈtɑːxi/, meaning “swift, quick, fast, rapid”, and was coined in 1967 by Gerald Feinberg.[1] The complementary particle types are called luxon (always moving at the speed of light) and bradyon (always moving slower than light), which both exist. The possibility of particles moving faster than light was first proposed by Bilaniuk, Deshpande, and George Sudarshan in 1962, although the term they used for it was “meta-particle.

    Citation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

    http://intyoga.online.fr/mundaka.htm

     

     

    Related articles

  • Einstein Wrong? NO.

    These apparent contradictions are due to the assumption Light is the fastest particle known to us.

    This assumption need not be correct.

    I remember having read somewhere Einstein having said that if a particle were to travel faster than Light it no longer remains Matter.

    An interesting observation.

    The observable Universe/Light is possible when the Observer and the Observed remain in the same plane.

    If the velocity of the Observed is greater than the Observer He can not observe it, but can only deduce it.

    In that case it does not stand to verification by strict scientific standards.

    It moves then to the Realm of Philosophy, the Mother of Sciences.

    The present concept can be better understood if one were to accept the Cyclic Theory of Time,which allows for particles to exist at different planes,different velocities.

     Findings of Quantum Theory supports this Concept..

    Please read my blog, Time-non linear theory.

    Another point.

    What we perceive is conditioned by Perception.

    The Concept of Perception is still not very clear.

    Hence what we perceive is  limited by Space and Time.

    None can form a thought with out reference to Space and Time.

    And we are yet to define Space and Time correctly.!

    So our knowledge is limited..

    Any Theory we have of anything is of Utilititarian value only.

    Our perception of the Universe does not change  the Universe and the frequent reversal of our theories of Physical Laws do not affect the Universe in the least .

    Please read my blog on Perception.

    However all Theories are correct from their Perspective, including Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Finite Theory..

    If a finding released Thursday by scientists in Geneva proves to be true, the world’s most famous equation – Albert Einstein‘sE=MC2 – could be moot, undoing our current understanding of the physical world.

    Einstein revealed that equation in his special theory of relativityreleased in 1905. It asserted that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and helped shape our understanding of the physical world.

    The scientists in Geneva fired a beam of neutrinos – elementary particles which don’t hold an electrical charge and pass through ordinary matter with virtually no interaction – from CERN‘S particle accelerator to a lab in Italy about 730 kilometers away.

    The speed of light is 299,792.458 kilometers per second. The Geneva scientists found their sub-atomic particles traveled to Italy 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light – or 300,006 kilometers per second.

    That appears to break the limit set by Einstein.

    http://blogs.voanews.com/science-world/2011/09/23/was-einstein-wrong/

    Related.

    Theoretical Basis for Special Relativity

    Einstein’s theory of special relativity results from two statements — the two basic postulates of special relativity:

    1. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
    2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.

    Given these two statements, Einstein showed how definitions of momentum and energy must be refined and how quantities such as length and time must change from one observer to another in order to get consistent results for physical quantities such as particle half-life.  To decide whether his postulates are a correct theory of nature, physicists test whether the predictions of Einstein’s theory match observations. Indeed many such tests have been made — and the answers Einstein gave are right every time!

    The Speed of Light is the same for all observers.

    The first postulate — the speed of light will be seen to be the same relative to any observer, independent of the motion of the observer — is the crucial idea that led Einstein to formulate his theory. It means we can define a quantity c, the speed of light, which is a fundamental constant of nature.

    Note that this is quite different from the motion of ordinary, massive objects. If I am driving down the freeway at 50 miles per hour relative to the road, a car traveling in the same direction at 55 mph has a speed of only 5 mph relative to me, while a car coming in the opposite direction at 55 mph approaches me at a rate of 105 mph. Their speed relative to me depends on my motion as well as on theirs.

    Physics is the same for all inertial observers.

    This second postulate is really a basic though unspoken assumption in all of science — the idea that we can formulate rules of nature which do not depend on our particular observing situation. This does not mean that things behave in the same way on the earth and in space, e.g. an observer at the surface of the earth is affected by the earth’s gravity, but it does mean that the effect of a force on an object is the same independent of what causes the force and also of where the object is or what its speed is.

    Einstein developed a theory of motion that could consistently contain both the same speed of light for any observer and the familiar addition of velocities described above for slow-moving objects. This is called the special theory of relativity, since it deals with the relativemotions of objects.

    http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

  • Fascinating World Of Quantum.

     

    ENLARGE A computer simulation shows how quantum vortices might look in a turbulent material.

     

     

    Grab a mug and slosh the morning coffee around and around and a spinning vortex appears. The swirling rings, with their eddies and choppy waves, obey the laws of classical turbulence, which engineers and applied physicists routinely invoke to study how air flows over an airplane wing or how blood flows through tiny vessels.

    Shake up a cup of quantum fluid instead and you still get vortices, but nothing like the tornado in your morning brew.

    Quantum vortices can look like tiny rings that shatter into even more minuscule rings and then shrink away altogether. Connected one moment, in the next they appear to flex into curved lines — as if snipped with scissors. Sometimes these lines tangle like a ball of cat hair on a rug. And they can cross over each other into a letter X, swap ends and then shoot away with the gusto of a rubber band flinging from the finger of a mischievous third-grader.

     

    By sprinkling ice particles made of hydrogen (white) into supercooled helium (black), researchers have been able to watch quantum vortices meet up and then fly away from each other in real time (four movie stills shown).

    http://sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/70232/title/Quantum_Whirls

     

     

  • Most Scientific Theories false?

    http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTJtQRgXCg_vb4UEa9LAOEuK8V5LAuawrJDdamXUt3hY8gtL5ZPIQ
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. –Mark Twain

    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
    – Phillip K. Dick

    Substance is that which exists in itself and which does not need the conception of any thing else in order to be conceived-Spinoza.

    This is not restricted to psychiatry alone.It permeates other fields as well(pl.read my blog on Autism drug,a fraud filed under Health).

    Experiments are conducted repeatedly under similar conditions and not identical ones for we do not know exactly what these conditions are.For instance ,when we form water, we combine 2 atoms of Hydrogen with 1 atom of Oxygen with a catalyst in similar proportions and we await the result, water.We do not know the exact properties which induces them to combine the way they do;we assume that the property to combine in a particular way shall remain permanent.

    This brings us to the fundamental axiom (which is not to be questioned(?)),that Nature will behave uniformly,Law of Universality of Nature.

    This we believe(?) to be true as this can never be proven as we have not explored all the options available to us to confirm this axiom.

    With Quantum Mechanics and Time study, we are just about touching the periphery of some other Laws of Nature.

    We do not know what lies ahead.

    Science is at best pragmatic ,not Absolute.

    Nature reveals what it wants to in its own time ,in its own way.

    Story:

    On September 18, 2007, a few dozen neuroscientists, psychiatrists, and drug-company executives gathered in a hotel conference room in Brussels to hear some startling news. It had to do with a class of drugs known as atypical or second-generation antipsychotics, which came on the market in the early nineties. The drugs, sold under brand names such as Abilify, Seroquel, and Zyprexa, had been tested on schizophrenics in several large clinical trials, all of which had demonstrated a dramatic decrease in the subjects’ psychiatric symptoms. As a result, second-generation antipsychotics had become one of the fastest-growing and most profitable pharmaceutical classes. By 2001, Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa was generating more revenue than Prozac. It remains the company’s top-selling drug………

    But the data presented at the Brussels meeting made it clear that something strange was happening: the therapeutic power of the drugs appeared to be steadily waning. A recent study showed an effect that was less than half of that documented in the first trials, in the early nineteen-nineties. Many researchers began to argue that the expensive pharmaceuticals weren’t any better than first-generation antipsychotics, which have been in use since the fifties. “In fact, sometimes they now look even worse,” John Davis, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told me.

    But the data presented at the Brussels meeting made it clear that something strange was happening: the therapeutic power of the drugs appeared to be steadily waning. A recent study showed an effect that was less than half of that documented in the first trials, in the early nineteen-nineties. Many researchers began to argue that the expensive pharmaceuticals weren’t any better than first-generation antipsychotics, which have been in use since the fifties. “In fact, sometimes they now look even worse,” John Davis, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told me……

    Before the effectiveness of a drug can be confirmed, it must be tested and tested again. Different scientists in different labs need to repeat the protocols and publish their results. The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. Replicability is how the community enforces itself. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that can influence the results they get. The premise of replicability is that the scientific community can correct for these flaws.

    But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine, the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychotics but also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants: Davis has a forthcoming analysis demonstrating that the efficacy of antidepressants has gone down as much as threefold in recent decades………..

    Before the effectiveness of a drug can be confirmed, it must be tested and tested again. Different scientists in different labs need to repeat the protocols and publish their results. The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. Replicability is how the community enforces itself. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that can influence the results they get. The premise of replicability is that the scientific community can correct for these flaws.

    But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine, the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychotics but also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants: Davis has a forthcoming analysis demonstrating that the efficacy of antidepressants has gone down as much as threefold in recent decades.

    For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe? Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneer of the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to “put nature to the question.” But it appears that nature often gives us different answers.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz1AjOZ33DO

  • Theory of Relativity visualized.

    Please visit the linked site.
    Also read my blog on this’Time-non-linear Theory’

    http://www.spacetimetravel.org/Story:
    Relativity visualized
    The theory of relativity holds a certain fascination for many people. At the same time it is often regarded as very abstract and difficult to understand.

    Part of the difficulties in understanding relativity are due to the fact that relativistic effects contradict everyday experience. Motion, for example, is a familiar process and everybody “knows from experience” that it entails neither time dilation nor length contraction. A flight with half the speed of light could correct this misjudgement but is not on offer.

    A possible alternative are simulations. Images, films and virtual reality let us in a sense experience relativistic flights, gravitational collapse, compact objects and other extreme conditions