8,000,400 different species in the universe?

[Murali_Mohan_das]

So, Muralidhar-ji, are you saying all my plans for material dominion and enjoyment are "doomed, dooooomed, dooooooomed"?

 

 

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 1.162

 

sad-vaḿśatas tava janiḥ puruṣottamasya

pāṇau sthitir muralike saralāsi jātyā

kasmāt tvayā sakhi guror viṣamā gṛhītā

gopāńganā-gaṇa-vimohana-mantra-dīkṣā

 

 

"'My dear friend the flute, it appears that you have been born of a very good family, for your residence is in the hands of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. By birth you are simple and are not at all crooked. Why then have you taken initiation into this dangerous mantra that enchants the assembled gopīs?'

 

[Murali_Mohan_das]

No need for explanation. As I already mentioned, if we accept that God is the all-in-all, then simply by His sweet will, the very "laws of nature" can be altered.

 

Why would the Lord mess around with half-baked illusions when, without a drop of sweat, a complete and full illusion can be manifested?

 

 

If the scientists don't know how far away the Moon is, in material terms, then how do you explain this:

EME (communications)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earth-Moon-Earth is a radio communication which relies on the propagation of radio waves from an earth based transmitter directed via reflection from the surface of the moon back to an earth based receiver.

History

The use of the moon as a passive communications satellite were proposed by Mr W. Bray of the British General Post Office in 1940. It was calculated that with the available microwave transmission powers and low noise receivers, it would be possible to beam microwave signals up from earth and reflect off the moon. It was thought that at least one voice channel would be possible. [1]

The "moon bounce" technique was developed by the United States Military in the years after World War II, with the first successful reception of echoes off the moon being carried out at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey on January 10, 1946 by John H. DeWitt as part of Project Diana. This was followed by more practical uses, including a teletype link between the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and United States Navy headquarters in Washington, DC. In the days before communications satellites, a link free of the vagaries of ionospheric propagation was revolutionary.

EME was also in use aboard the NSA listening ship Liberty when it was attacked by the Israel Defense Forces during the Six Day War.

Later, the technique was used by non-military commercial users, and the first amateur detection of signals from the moon took place in 1953.

FAQ

As the albedo of the moon is very low (around 12%), and the path loss over the 770,000 kilometre return distance is extreme (around 309 db).

· High power (100w+) and high gain antennas (35db+) must be used.

· In practice, this limits the use of this technique to the spectrum at VHF and above.

Current EME communicatons

Recent advances in digital signal processing have allowed EME contacts, admittedly with low data rate, to take place with powers in the order of 100 Watts and a single Yagi antenna.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Spiritual counterpart of this universe in the spiritual sky? What?

 

This is a reasonable assumption granted the statement that things in the material world are a hazy reflection of the sublime things in the realm of spirit.

[theist]

Well to say this world of illusory forms is a pervert reflection of the real forms in the spiritual world is one thing but to say there is a "spiritual counterpart of this universe in the spiritual sky" gives a completely different picture. Like is there a spiritual counterpart in the spiritual sky for every universe other universe. The past and future ones also. It gives a confusing picture. If guruvani means something different from pervert reflection then he needs to clarify. If not then he needs to change his terminology.

[theist]

 

Vaishnavas don't challenge the Vedic scriptures with scientific speculations.

 

When Vaisnavas present the vedic version of cosmology as science then they are open to being questioned. And on another level I chose to question everything and not be a blind believer. I reject the sheeple concept of living.

 

 

It's just not right for any devotee to challenge the Vedic texts and try to make them out to be full of bad information.

 

Well factually I am not a devotee. I am more like a fifth class jnani who has had Krsna consciousness placed before my mind by Srila Prabhupada's efforts to save me and draw me towards Krsna.

 

From my reading of Srila Prabhupada's books I can understand that all he is asking of me is to try and appreciate the presence of Krsna everywhere and in everything and because Krsna IS everywhere within everything His presence is a scientific fact and not a religious belief system.

 

The task is to corrct capture this essence of the ancient texts and and propagate that essence in a way that makes it attractive and acceptable to the modern mind.

 

Your one sun in the universe and all the stars are just planets inhabited by lessor fire god's will only block modern people from looking deeper and discovering the real essence of the Bhagavat which is Krsna Himself.

 

You see I have no problem seeing the stars as both suns and planets of fire gods. I see the sun in this solar system in that way both as described by modern science and as a populated system for inhabitation by those with fire bodies. But when speaking to someone who I know will have a hard time accepting that the sun is populated I don't bring it up. And that happens to be the vast majority of the current population of modern society.

 

And I should add that something in the old texts that is not correct should be taking for what it is...a mistake that doesn't effect the essential teaching.

 

In this regard we could look at the process of the embryo development described in the Bhagavatam. Is the fetus really packed in with stools and being bitten by worms or is there a protective sack separating the fetus from the other contents of the gut?

[Guruvani]

Well, kiddies, one thing we have to start to understand is that everthing in the universe is not made of gross matter like what is called earth.

 

The "bhumir" element is the grossest element, what makes up the gross forms of matter.

A soon as you get a little higher in the energy range of the Lord, these other elements start to replace "bhumir" as the primary consituent element.

 

After "bhumir" or earth is the watery element and then fire, air, ether, mind, ego and then intelligence.

 

There is other dimensions of this universe beyond the gross earthly element.

 

For example, the beings on the Moon have bodies made of "mano" or mental energy.

We can't see them with our eyes, but if we have the siddhi, then we could see them with our mind.

 

So, there are mountains, planets, beings etc. etc. that are made up of higher elements that are more subtle than the gross earthly element.

 

What Sukadeva Goswami describes about the universe contains many planets and beings that are not grossly formed, but are subtle forms beyond our seeing capacity.

 

So, just because we can't verify what is in the bhagavatam with our eyes and our telescopes, that does not mean that these things don't exist.

 

They just exist in higher dimensions than the gross element that we are so habituated to and so conditioned to think of a the most real things.

 

Just because things have a more gross composition, that does not mean they are superior to the subtle material energies.

In fact, these gross planets and gross forms of life are inferior to higher beings who have bodies of water, fire, air, ether, mind, ego or intelligence.

 

The highest beings on Satyaloka don't have gross bodies.

Their bodies are made of a solid form of intelligence that is every bit as real to them as is our gross bodies made of earth.

 

Here on Earth we have bodies of earth.

But, as soon as you start to get beyond Earth the bodies start to become made of the subtle elements.

 

So, what Sukadeva is describing can be very confusing to the conditioned mind who is prone to think that gross forms of earth are the only forms in the universe.

 

The demigods don't have gross bodies made of Earth.

There could be a demigod looking over your shoulders right now and you could never see him with you physical eyes unless he wanted you too.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

You need to understand that Sukadeva was explaining the universe/creation to Pariksit in a manner so that he could understand it as the "body of God". He did this because Pariksit asked him to. Then follows all those planetary descriptions, etc. One ought to realise that they conflict with modern science findings because they are not "modern science" in the first place. What is being described is the divinisation of the creation and how we can perceive God in it.

 

I like your first point, Gaurasundara Prabhu. In particular, the way this verse is phrased is rather elegant:

 

 

SB 5.20.38: Learned scholars who are free from mistakes, illusions and propensities to cheat have thus described the planetary systems and their particular symptoms, measurements and locations. With great deliberation, they have established the truth that the distance between Sumeru and the mountain known as Lokāloka is one fourth of the diameter of the universe — or, in other words, 125,000,000 yojanas [1 billion miles].

 

Notice how the speaker points out that the description he gives is that given by the saintly persons. However, as phrased, it implies that, while it is a valid representation of reality, it is not necessarily the *only* valid way in which reality might be represented.

 

However, to claim that the descriptions of the material universe from Bhagavatam and "modern science" are at odds is a specious claim based on limited vision. While the cosmology of the Bhagavatam is complete in it's scope and is truly "eternal science", it certainly omits many of the details (like, say, how food is converted to energy in the cell).

 

It's one of my mantras, no doubt, but science is a tool, not a religion in opposition of the Vedic religion.

 

Now, "materialism", the "religion" practiced by many scientists (while many other scientists nurture some faith in there hearts), certainly *is* at odds with Sanatan Dharma.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Whether subtle or gross, material is material. Spiritual is something different.

 

Any subtle material energy is fair game for science.

 

Electromagnetic energy is certainly subtle energy (in comparison to a rock).

 

Two hundred years ago, there was no radio, TV, etc.

 

Through "progress", humanity has gained some mastery over these subtle energies. How can we say that, the Lord permitting, science will not gain some proficiency at manipulating so many other subtle material energies?

 

If something is material, regardless of how subtle it is, reason dictates that it should be perceivable by material means.

 

Spiritual realms, of course, are beyond the purview of science.

 

 

Well, kiddies, one thing we have to start to understand is that everthing in the universe is not made of gross matter like what is called earth.

 

The "bhumir" element is the grossest element, what makes up the gross forms of matter.

A soon as you get a little higher in the energy range of the Lord, these other elements start to replace "bhumir" as the primary consituent element.

 

After "bhumir" or earth is the watery element and then fire, air, ether, mind, ego and then intelligence.

 

There is other dimensions of this universe beyond the gross earthly element.

 

For example, the beings on the Moon have bodies made of "mano" or mental energy.

We can't see them with our eyes, but if we have the siddhi, then we could see them with our mind.

 

So, there are mountains, planets, beings etc. etc. that are made up of higher elements that are more subtle than the gross earthly element.

 

What Sukadeva Goswami describes about the universe contains many planets and beings that are not grossly formed, but are subtle forms beyond our seeing capacity.

 

So, just because we can't verify what is in the bhagavatam with our eyes and our telescopes, that does not mean that these things don't exist.

 

They just exist in higher dimensions than the gross element that we are so habituated to and so conditioned to think of a the most real things.

 

Just because things have a more gross composition, that does not mean they are superior to the subtle material energies.

In fact, these gross planets and gross forms of life are inferior to higher beings who have bodies of water, fire, air, ether, mind, ego or intelligence.

 

The highest beings on Satyaloka don't have gross bodies.

Their bodies are made of a solid form of intelligence that is every bit as real to them as is our gross bodies made of earth.

 

Here on Earth we have bodies of earth.

But, as soon as you start to get beyond Earth the bodies start to become made of the subtle elements.

 

So, what Sukadeva is describing can be very confusing to the conditioned mind who is prone to think that gross forms of earth are the only forms in the universe.

 

The demigods don't have gross bodies made of Earth.

There could be a demigod looking over your shoulders right now and you could never see him with you physical eyes unless he wanted you too.

[muralidhar_das]

Einstein conceived the theory of relativity. On the basis of his work it was theorized that it would be possible to split atoms and cause a nuclear explosion. The theory was put to the test, and was Einstein's "speculation" proven true or false?

 

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was proof that Einstein's view of the cosmos was valid.

 

Einstein was not against spirituality. In this universe that Einstein described, Einstein felt there is room for genuine spirituality. In this physical universe, we are living on a small planet near a medium sized star. The moon we see is closer to the earth than the sun. Moreover, there are many suns in the universe. All the stars are suns. We all learned that at school, didn't we?

 

And if fundamentalist preachers try and tell high school students that the sun is closer to earth than the moon then most of them will laugh at what they are being told. The stupid ones may believe it is true. And then they may decide to join up....

[Guruvani]

 

Einstein conceived the theory of relativity. On the basis of his work it was theorized that it would be possible to split atoms and cause a nuclear explosion. The theory was put to the test, and was Einstein's "speculation" proven true or false?

 

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was proof that Einstein's view of the cosmos was valid.

 

Einstein was not against spirituality. In this universe that Einstein described, Einstein felt there is room for genuine spirituality. In this physical universe, we are living on a small planet near a medium sized star. The moon we see is closer to the earth than the sun. Moreover, there are many suns in the universe. All the stars are suns. We all learned that at school, didn't we?

 

And if fundamentalist preachers try and tell high school students that the sun is closer to earth than the moon then most of them will laugh at what they are being told. The stupid ones may believe it is true. And then they may decide to join up....

What are they teaching you guys in Australia?

Robert Oppenheimer was the principle scientist behind the development of the atomic bomb.

 

The first atomic bombs were made by the personnel of the Manhattan Project during the Second World War. There were thousands of people involved in that project in different capacities, most of whom did not even know what they were working on.

Robert Oppenheimer was one of the leaders of this project.

The idea of the atomic bomb came from an international physics community that really never wanted a working bomb to be created. Albert Einstein, to his credit, was never involved in the work to any great extent (he merely wrote a letter to President Roosevelt suggesting its possibility). He was profoundly non-violent and worked throughout his life for the peaceful application of scientific knowledge.

The process of fission was first recognized after the radio chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, working in Berlin, discovered the fission of uranium and thorium in medium heavy atomic nuclei, results that Hahn�s colleague, Lise Meitner, and her nephew Otto Frisch, this time in Sweden, calculated was the result of a previously unidentified process they called fission. The possibility that this process would create a self-sustaining chain reaction that would release enormous amounts of energy was confirmed experimentally by Frederic Joliot-Curie in Paris and Leo Szilard working with Fermi in New York. This was the first experimental confirmation of Einstein�s 1905 paper putting forward the equivalence between mass and energy. In September 1939, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, and the American John Wheeler, published the theory that gave understanding of uranium fission. Scientists remained unsure, however, whether a weapon would be viable, because of difficulties with creating the necessary form of uranium, uranium-235.

In the spring of 1940, Frisch and a German refugee, Rudolf Peierls, having fled to Britain, showed that approximately five kilograms of uranium-235 could produce the necessary fast reaction required for an atomic explosion.

In April 1940 Henry Tizard, who chaired the Committee on the Scientific Survey of Air Defence, formed a committee codenamed �Maud�, to examine the implications of the situation. Their report of July 1941, based largely on the work of Frisch and Peierls, argued that an atomic bomb was possible, and suggested the processes and plant necessary to make one. The committee also raised the fear that, as Germans had been at the cutting edge of atomic research, it was likely that German scientists working for the Nazis had reached similar conclusions.

A copy of the report went to America helping scientists who had been pushing for such a venture, such as Szilard and Ernest Lawrence, to convince government officials to invest in research. The consequence was the Manhattan Project, which led to the weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Oppenheimer et al were involved in this.

 

And, by the way, the stars are more like Moons than Suns.

They reflect the light of the Sun.

 

If all the stars were suns the universe would be like an oven and you would be a crispy critter.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

What are they teaching you guys in Australia?

Robert Oppenheimer was the principle scientist behind the development of the atomic bomb.

Without "E=MC^2", no one would have had a clue as to just how much energy is contained within the atom and would not have known to pursue atomic fission and fusion for energy or weaponry.

 

So, sure, Oppenheimer and Co. did the heavy lifting (I once attended a Computer Music class in Prentiss hall at 125th St and Broadway in NYC. Word was that building had played a major role in the Manhattan Project), but, without Einstein (or somebody like him doing the same work) the rest would not have happened.

 

 

If all the stars were suns the universe would be like an oven and you would be a crispy critter.

I can't think of a more appropriate response to this than a hearty belly laugh.

[muralidhar_das]

Timeline of the Manhattan Project

1939

 

A letter from Albert Einstein, authored by Leo Szilard, began the U.S. government's early efforts towards atomic weapons.

• August 2 — Albert Einstein signs a letter authored by physicist Leo Szilard addressed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, advising him to fund research into the possibility of using nuclear fission as a weapon in the event that Nazi Germany may also be conducting such research. He later regretted signing the letter.
  
• September 1 — Nazi Germany invades Poland, beginning World War II.
  
• October 11 — Economist Alexander Sachs meets with President Roosevelt and delivers the Einstein-Szilard letter. Roosevelt authorizes the creation of the Advisory Committee on Uranium.
  
• October 21 — First meeting of the Uranium Committee, headed by Lyman Briggs of the National Bureau of Standards. $6,000 is budgeted for neutron experiments.

[edit] 1940

• March — Otto Frisch and Rudolph Peierls author the Frisch-Peierls memorandum, calculating that an atomic bomb might need as little as 1 lb of enriched uranium to work.
  
• April 10 — MAUD Committee established by Henry Tizard to investigate feasibility of an atomic bomb
  
• July 1 — Responsibility for fission research is taken over by Vannevar Bush's National Defense Research Committee.
  
• December — Franz Simon reports to MAUD that uranium-235 can be separated using gaseous diffusion. Gives cost estimates and technical specifications. James Chadwick realizes "a nuclear bomb...is inevitable"

[edit] 1941

• February 26 — Conclusive discovery of plutonium by Glenn Seaborg and Arthur Wahl.
  
• March — MAUD Committee prepares interim report urging immediate action and sends it to USA. Lyman Briggs locks it in his safe and fails to tell Uranium Committee. [1]
  
• May 17 — A report by Arthur Compton and the National Academy of Sciences is issued which finds favorable the prospects of developing nuclear power production for military use. Vannevar Bush creates the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD)
  
• July 15 — The MAUD Committee issues final detailed technical report on design and costs to develop a bomb. Advance copy sent to Vannevar Bush who decides to wait for official version before taking any action
  
• August — Mark Oliphant travels to USA to urge development of a bomb rather than power production [2]
  
• October 3 — Official copy of MAUD Report reaches Bush
  
• October 9 — Bush takes MAUD Report to Roosevelt who approves project to confirm MAUD's findings
  
• December 6 — Vannevar Bush holds a meeting to organize an accelerated research project, still managed by Arthur Compton. Harold Urey is assigned to develop research into gaseous diffusion as a uranium enrichment method, while Ernest O. Lawrence is assigned to investigate electromagnetic separation methods.
  
• December 7 — The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. The United States issues a formal declaration of war against Japan the next day. Four days later, Nazi Germany declares war on the United States.
  
• December 18 — First meeting of the OSRD sponsored S-1 project, dedicated to developing fission weapons.

[edit] 1942

 

Gen. Leslie Groves and physicist Robert Oppenheimer became the military and scientific heads of the Manhattan Project.

• July-September — Physicist Robert Oppenheimer convenes a summer conference at the University of California, Berkeley to discuss the design of a fission bomb. Edward Teller brings up the possibility of a hydrogen bomb as a major point of discussion.
  
• August — Creation of the Manhattan Engineering District by the Army Corps of Engineers.
  
• September 13 — At a meeting of the S-1 Executive Committee, it is decided that a centralized laboratory should be established to study fast neutrons, code-named "Project Y".
  
• September 17 — Col. Leslie Groves is assigned command of the Manhattan Engineering District. Six days later he is appointed to Brigadier General.
  
• September 24 — After a visit to Tennessee, Groves purchases 52,000 acres of land in Tennessee for "Site X", which will become the Oak Ridge, Tennessee laboratory and production site.
  
• September 26 — The Manhattan Project is given permission to use the highest wartime priority rating by the War Production Board.
  
• October 15 — Groves appoints Robert Oppenheimer to coordinate the scientific research of the project at the "Site Y" laboratory.
  
• November 16 — Groves and Oppenheimer visit Los Alamos, New Mexico and designate it as the location for "Site Y".
  
• December 2 — Chicago Pile-1, the first nuclear reactor goes critical at the University of Chicago under the leadership and design of Enrico Fermi.

[edit] 1943

 

Massive calutrons at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, worked around the clock to enrich uranium for a bomb.

• February 18 — Construction begins for Y-12 at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, a massive electromagnetic separation plant for enriching uranium.
  
• April 5-14 — Introductory lectures began at Los Alamos, later are compiled into The Los Alamos Primer.
  
• April 20 — The University of California becomes the formal business manager of the Los Alamos laboratory.
  
• August 19 — Roosevelt and Winston Churchill sign Quebec Agreement. Team of British scientists join project as a result, including Klaus Fuchs
  
• October 4 — Construction begins for the first reactor at Hanford Site.

[edit] 1944

 

The two types of fission weapon designs pursued during the Manhattan Project.

• April 5 — At Los Alamos, Emilio Segrè receives the first sample of reactor-bred plutonium from Oak Ridge, and within ten days discovers that the spontaneous fission rate is too high for use in a gun-type fission weapon.
  
• May — Fermi at Los Alamos tests the world's third reactor, LOPO, the first aqueous homogeneous reactor, and the first fueled by enriched uranium.
  
• July 4 — Oppenheimer reveals Segrè's final measurements to the Los Alamos staff, and the development of the gun-type plutonium weapon "Thin Man" is abandoned. Designing a workable "implosion" design becomes top priority of the laboratory.
  
• July 20 — The Los Alamos organizational structure is completely changed to reflect the new priority of "implosion".
  
• September 2 — Peter N. Bragg, Jr. and Douglas P. Meigs, chemists on the projects, are killed, and Arnold Kramish almost killed, while attempting to clean a clog out of a uranium enrichment device as part of the pilot thermal diffusion plant at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Two soldiers, George LeFevre and John Tompkins, also receive extensive injuries. An explosion of liquid uranium hexafluoride, which burst nearby steam pipes, which combined with the uranium hexafluoride to shower the men with the highly corrosive hydrofluoric acid. [3]
  
• December — A new test reactor comes on line at Los Alamos, HYPO, using uranyl nitrate in an aqueous homogeneous reactor.

[edit] 1945

 

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the culmination of the wartime effort.

[Guruvani]

 

Without "E=MC^2", no one would have had a clue as to just how much energy is contained within the atom and would not have known to pursue atomic fission and fusion for energy or weaponry.

 

 

Well, not exactly.......

 

<table align="left" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td align="left">From E=mc² to the atomic bomb

 

</td> </tr> <tr><td height="5">

</td></tr> <tr> <td align="left"> <!--Bildleiste--> When Einstein's most famous formula E=mc² is mentioned, the atomic bomb is usually not far behind. Indeed there is a connection between the two, but it is subtle, and sadly, some popular science texts get it wrong: they will tell you that a nuclear explosion is "caused by the transformation of matter and energy" according to Einstein's formula, and that the gigantic conversion factor c² is responsible for the immense power of such weapons.

 

<!--Bildleiste--> <center><table border="0"><tbody><tr><td>

Ten seconds after the ignition of the first atomic bomb, New Mexico, July 16, 1945

[image: Los Alamos National Laboratory]

</td></tr></tbody></table></center> But first things first. Let's have a look at what Einstein really did say about the relation between mass and energy.

Equivalence or transformation?

 

For Einstein, mass (more precisely: relativistic mass; the property that determines how difficult it is to change a body's speed or its direction of motion) and energy are simply two different names for one and the same physical quantity. Whenever a system has an energy E, it automatically has the relativistic mass m=E/c²; whenever a system has the mass m, you need to assign it an energy E=mc². Once the mass is known, so is the energy, and vice versa. In that context, it makes no sense to talk about the "transformation of mass into energy" - where there's one, there's the other.

The context in which "transformation of mass into energy" does make sense is a bit different. It is intimately connected with the fact that there are different kinds of energy. Already in classical, pre-Einstein physics, the concept of "energy" comprises a plethora of sub-definitions for different sorts of energy, sub-definitions like those for the kinetic energy associated with any moving body, the energy of electromagnetic radiation, thermal energy or the binding energy that needs to be taken into account whenever there is a force holding together two objects to form a composite object. Yet all these different definitions can be viewed as facets of a single physical quantity, energy. The reason is the possibility of transformations between the different energy forms. For instance, you can increase a body's temperature (and thus its thermal energy) by letting it absorb electromagnetic radiation energy. In these transformations, the total sum of all the different kinds of energy - the total energy - is constant over time. Energy can be transformed from one variety into another, but it can neither vanish nor be created from nothing.

A new kind of energy

 

This conservation of energy holds not only in classical physics, but also in special relativity. However, in relativity, the definitions of the different species of energy are a bit different and, most importantly, there is a completely new type of energy: even if a particle is neither moving nor part of a bound system, it has an associated energy, simply because of its mass. This is called the particle's rest energy, and it is related to the particle's rest mass as

<center> rest energy = (rest mass)· c². </center> Compared with other types of energy, rest energy is very much concentrated. For example: If you use a television tube to accelerate an electron to 20,000 kilometers per second, the kinetic energy gained is still only about five hundred times smaller than the electron's rest energy. Also, this rest energy is about a hundred times larger than the radiation energy of a high-energy X-ray photon. This high concentration is important for processes where rest energy (or, equivalently, rest mass) is converted to more common forms of energy. For instance, when a particle and its antiparticle annihilate and vanish in a puff of electromagnetic radiation, comparatively little matter is transformed into rather a lot radiation.

Studying the masses of different types of atomic nuclei, you will find that in nuclear fission - the process that powers an ordinary atomic bomb -, some "nuclear rest energy" or "nuclear rest mass" is transformed into other forms of energy. For example, the rest mass of a nucleus of uranium-235 is slightly larger than the combined rest masses of the nuclear fragments into which it splits during nuclear fission. Here's where E=mc² comes into play: This mass difference corresponds to the energy set free during nuclear fission. So is it, after all, true that Einstein's formula explains the power of the nuclear bomb - and that the large conversion factor c² is responsible for the immense amounts of energy released?

Binding energies: nuclei vs. molecules

 

Not at all. Different process, same calculation: For chemical reactions, there are tiny mass differences as well. To pick an example: When hydrogen and oxygen explosively combine to make water, the sum of the rest masses of the initial hydrogen and oxygen atoms is just a little bit less than the sum of the rest masses of the resulting water molecules. The same is true for the chemical reactions involving spontaneous oxydation - in other words: burning. The same formula applies: The mass difference, multiplied by c², gives the energy set free during the chemical reaction. Same formula, same conversion factor - yet chemical reactions are much less violent than nuclear explosions. Which clearly shows that the difference must be due to something other than E=mc².

To see where the difference lies, one must take a closer look. Atomic nuclei aren't elementary and indivisible. They have component parts, namely protons and neutrons. In order to understand nuclear fission (or fusion), it is necessary to examine the bonds between these components. First of all, there are the nuclear forces binding protons and neutrons together. Then, there are further forces, for instance the electric force with which all the protons repel each other due to the fact they all carry the same electric charge. Associated with all of these forces are what is called binding energies - the energies you need to supply to pry apart an assemblage of protons and neutrons, or to overcome the electric repulsion between two protons. (More information about these binding energies and their role in nuclear fission and fusion can be found in the spotlight topic Is the whole the sum of its parts?)

Only with the systematics of these forces and binding energies well understood were physicists able to uncover the laws behind nuclear fission and fusion: The strength of the nuclear bond depends on the number of neutrons and protons involved. It varies in such a way that binding energy is released both in splitting up a heavy nucleus into smaller parts and in fusing light nuclei into heavier ones. This, as well as the chain reaction phenomenon, explains the immense power of nuclear bombs.

Einstein's formula plays second fiddle in that derivation - it's all about different kinds of energy. Sure, there are some radioactive decay processes following nuclear fission, and, if so inclined, one can view the decay of a neutron decaying into a slightly lighter proton as a transformation of rest energy into other energy forms. But these additional processes contribute a mere 10 per cent of the total energy set free in nuclear fission. The main contribution is due to binding energy being converted to other forms of energy - a consequence not of Einstein's formula, but of the fact that nuclear forces are comparatively strong, and that certain lighter nuclei are much more strongly bound than certain more massive nuclei.

Still, E=mc² had a supporting role in the story of nuclear fission research. Not as the mechanism behind nuclear power, but as a tool: Because energy and mass are equivalent, highly sensitive measurements of the masses of different atomic nuclei gave the researchers important clues about the strength of the nuclear bond. (More about this application of Einstein's formula can be found in the spotlight topic Is the whole the sum of its parts?)

In fact, Einstein's politics played a more decisive role in the story of the atomic bomb than his physics. Following a request by the physicist Leo Szilard, Einstein wrote a letter to president Roosevelt, explaining about the potential power of nuclear weapons and the possibility of Nazi Germany developing such weapons, and urging the president to take action. Einstein's letter played its part in setting into motion the political process that culminated in the Manhattan project - the development, construction and testing of the first nuclear bombs.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Oh, no!!! It's the attack of the Wikipedia quotes!!!! Can we go back to the Vedabase, now?

 

Did you actually read that whole article before you cut and pasted it in? I skimmed it, but the "clock says it's time to goooooooo now..."

 

 

Well, not exactly.......

 

<table align="left" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td align="left">From E=mc² to the atomic bomb

 

</td> </tr> <tr><td height="5">

</td></tr> <tr> <td align="left"> <!--Bildleiste--> When Einstein's most famous formula E=mc² is mentioned, the atomic bomb is usually not far behind. Indeed there is a connection between the two, but it is subtle, and sadly, some popular science texts get it wrong: they will tell you that a nuclear explosion is "caused by the transformation of matter and energy" according to Einstein's formula, and that the gigantic conversion factor c² is responsible for the immense power of such weapons.

 

<!--Bildleiste--> <center><table border="0"><tbody><tr><td>

Ten seconds after the ignition of the first atomic bomb, New Mexico, July 16, 1945

[image: Los Alamos National Laboratory]

</td></tr></tbody></table></center> But first things first. Let's have a look at what Einstein really did say about the relation between mass and energy.

Equivalence or transformation?

 

For Einstein, mass (more precisely: relativistic mass; the property that determines how difficult it is to change a body's speed or its direction of motion) and energy are simply two different names for one and the same physical quantity. Whenever a system has an energy E, it automatically has the relativistic mass m=E/c²; whenever a system has the mass m, you need to assign it an energy E=mc². Once the mass is known, so is the energy, and vice versa. In that context, it makes no sense to talk about the "transformation of mass into energy" - where there's one, there's the other.

The context in which "transformation of mass into energy" does make sense is a bit different. It is intimately connected with the fact that there are different kinds of energy. Already in classical, pre-Einstein physics, the concept of "energy" comprises a plethora of sub-definitions for different sorts of energy, sub-definitions like those for the kinetic energy associated with any moving body, the energy of electromagnetic radiation, thermal energy or the binding energy that needs to be taken into account whenever there is a force holding together two objects to form a composite object. Yet all these different definitions can be viewed as facets of a single physical quantity, energy. The reason is the possibility of transformations between the different energy forms. For instance, you can increase a body's temperature (and thus its thermal energy) by letting it absorb electromagnetic radiation energy. In these transformations, the total sum of all the different kinds of energy - the total energy - is constant over time. Energy can be transformed from one variety into another, but it can neither vanish nor be created from nothing.

A new kind of energy

 

This conservation of energy holds not only in classical physics, but also in special relativity. However, in relativity, the definitions of the different species of energy are a bit different and, most importantly, there is a completely new type of energy: even if a particle is neither moving nor part of a bound system, it has an associated energy, simply because of its mass. This is called the particle's rest energy, and it is related to the particle's rest mass as

<center> rest energy = (rest mass)· c². </center> Compared with other types of energy, rest energy is very much concentrated. For example: If you use a television tube to accelerate an electron to 20,000 kilometers per second, the kinetic energy gained is still only about five hundred times smaller than the electron's rest energy. Also, this rest energy is about a hundred times larger than the radiation energy of a high-energy X-ray photon. This high concentration is important for processes where rest energy (or, equivalently, rest mass) is converted to more common forms of energy. For instance, when a particle and its antiparticle annihilate and vanish in a puff of electromagnetic radiation, comparatively little matter is transformed into rather a lot radiation.

Studying the masses of different types of atomic nuclei, you will find that in nuclear fission - the process that powers an ordinary atomic bomb -, some "nuclear rest energy" or "nuclear rest mass" is transformed into other forms of energy. For example, the rest mass of a nucleus of uranium-235 is slightly larger than the combined rest masses of the nuclear fragments into which it splits during nuclear fission. Here's where E=mc² comes into play: This mass difference corresponds to the energy set free during nuclear fission. So is it, after all, true that Einstein's formula explains the power of the nuclear bomb - and that the large conversion factor c² is responsible for the immense amounts of energy released?

Binding energies: nuclei vs. molecules

 

Not at all. Different process, same calculation: For chemical reactions, there are tiny mass differences as well. To pick an example: When hydrogen and oxygen explosively combine to make water, the sum of the rest masses of the initial hydrogen and oxygen atoms is just a little bit less than the sum of the rest masses of the resulting water molecules. The same is true for the chemical reactions involving spontaneous oxydation - in other words: burning. The same formula applies: The mass difference, multiplied by c², gives the energy set free during the chemical reaction. Same formula, same conversion factor - yet chemical reactions are much less violent than nuclear explosions. Which clearly shows that the difference must be due to something other than E=mc².

To see where the difference lies, one must take a closer look. Atomic nuclei aren't elementary and indivisible. They have component parts, namely protons and neutrons. In order to understand nuclear fission (or fusion), it is necessary to examine the bonds between these components. First of all, there are the nuclear forces binding protons and neutrons together. Then, there are further forces, for instance the electric force with which all the protons repel each other due to the fact they all carry the same electric charge. Associated with all of these forces are what is called binding energies - the energies you need to supply to pry apart an assemblage of protons and neutrons, or to overcome the electric repulsion between two protons. (More information about these binding energies and their role in nuclear fission and fusion can be found in the spotlight topic Is the whole the sum of its parts?)

Only with the systematics of these forces and binding energies well understood were physicists able to uncover the laws behind nuclear fission and fusion: The strength of the nuclear bond depends on the number of neutrons and protons involved. It varies in such a way that binding energy is released both in splitting up a heavy nucleus into smaller parts and in fusing light nuclei into heavier ones. This, as well as the chain reaction phenomenon, explains the immense power of nuclear bombs.

Einstein's formula plays second fiddle in that derivation - it's all about different kinds of energy. Sure, there are some radioactive decay processes following nuclear fission, and, if so inclined, one can view the decay of a neutron decaying into a slightly lighter proton as a transformation of rest energy into other energy forms. But these additional processes contribute a mere 10 per cent of the total energy set free in nuclear fission. The main contribution is due to binding energy being converted to other forms of energy - a consequence not of Einstein's formula, but of the fact that nuclear forces are comparatively strong, and that certain lighter nuclei are much more strongly bound than certain more massive nuclei.

Still, E=mc² had a supporting role in the story of nuclear fission research. Not as the mechanism behind nuclear power, but as a tool: Because energy and mass are equivalent, highly sensitive measurements of the masses of different atomic nuclei gave the researchers important clues about the strength of the nuclear bond. (More about this application of Einstein's formula can be found in the spotlight topic Is the whole the sum of its parts?)

In fact, Einstein's politics played a more decisive role in the story of the atomic bomb than his physics. Following a request by the physicist Leo Szilard, Einstein wrote a letter to president Roosevelt, explaining about the potential power of nuclear weapons and the possibility of Nazi Germany developing such weapons, and urging the president to take action. Einstein's letter played its part in setting into motion the political process that culminated in the Manhattan project - the development, construction and testing of the first nuclear bombs.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Guruvani]

 

Can we go back to the Vedabase, now?

 

Sure, just as long as you understand that Einstein's E=mc²only accounted for<sup>

</sup> about 10% of the energy discovered in a nuclear fission reaction and that nuclear forces are comparatively strong, and that certain lighter nuclei are much more strongly bound than certain more massive nuclei.

 

It's tapping into the nuclear binding factors that create such a massive release of energy in a nuclear process, not the simple release of the energy of the mass alone.

 

Eintein's politics were more important in developing the nuclear bomb that was his physics.

[Beggar]

I thought Einstein's theory of relativity proved that time equals money. At least that's according to "The Far Side" by Gary Larson. Also didn't Rod Serling prove that there were 11 pure devotees in ISKCON immediately after Srila Prabhupada left the planet or did I see that during a Twilight Zone marathon on cable? Whose obsessed? What do you mean, paranoid? I'm not paranoid!

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Sure, just as long as you understand that Einstein's E=mc²only accounted for<sup>

</sup> about 10% of the energy discovered in a nuclear fission reaction and that nuclear forces are comparatively strong, and that certain lighter nuclei are much more strongly bound than certain more massive nuclei.

 

Thanks for making that clear, Prabhu. Considering that Muralidhar-ji mentioned Einstein in passing as an analogy, I believe, in this thread we've taken the fine art of nit-picking to new heights!!!

[Guest guest]

 

Well to say this world of illusory forms is a pervert reflection of the real forms in the spiritual world is one thing but to say there is a "spiritual counterpart of this universe in the spiritual sky" gives a completely different picture. Like is there a spiritual counterpart in the spiritual sky for every universe other universe. The past and future ones also. It gives a confusing picture. If guruvani means something different from pervert reflection then he needs to clarify. If not then he needs to change his terminology.

Maybe Guruvani is right after all. What he really means to say is that this universe fell from Goloka and is presently in a fallen condition. This universe was lucky enough to have the appearance of Krishna and Gauranga in it all at once, so if it simply sticks to chanting Hare-Krsna mantra it will regain it's original spiritual form and go back to the spiritual sky, only to find that it never fell down in the first place and was having a bad dream all along. There, this explanation should satisfy Guruvani and Vigraha.

[theist]

 

Maybe Guruvani is right after all. What he really means to say is that this universe fell from Goloka and is presently in a fallen condition. This universe was lucky enough to have the appearance of Krishna and Gauranga in it all at once, so if it simply sticks to chanting Hare-Krsna mantra it will regain it's original spiritual form and go back to the spiritual sky, only to find that it never fell down in the first place and was having a bad dream all along. There, this explanation should satisfy Guruvani and Vigraha.

 

Possibly but it doesn't satisfy me. We need to have a clearer understanding of what is meant by pervert reflection.

[Guruvani]

 

Maybe Guruvani is right after all. What he really means to say is that this universe fell from Goloka and is presently in a fallen condition. This universe was lucky enough to have the appearance of Krishna and Gauranga in it all at once, so if it simply sticks to chanting Hare-Krsna mantra it will regain it's original spiritual form and go back to the spiritual sky, only to find that it never fell down in the first place and was having a bad dream all along. There, this explanation should satisfy Guruvani and Vigraha.

 

I was joking about the universe having a spiritual counterpart in Vaikuntha.

 

But, what I am saying is that the knowledge that Sukadeva gave Maharaja Parikshit about the universe was not a mundane description, but was a transcendental version of the universe.

What Sukadeva told Maharaja Parikshit was not some simple mundane geography of the universe.

Sukadeva gave Maharaja Parikshit a transcendental description of the universe as it was envisioned by self-realized sages of Vedic times.

 

Here is a reference that might shed some light on the issue.

 

SB 5.16.3 purport:

 

"One should not give up anything connected with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, thinking it material or enjoyable for the material senses." Even the senses, when purified, are spiritual. When Mahārāja Parīkṣit was thinking of the universal form of the Lord, his mind was certainly situated on the transcendental platform. Therefore although he might not have had any reason to be concerned with detailed information of the universe, he was thinking of it in relationship with the Supreme Lord, and therefore such geographical knowledge was not material but transcendental. Elsewhere in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.5.20) Nārada Muni has said, idaḿ hi viśvaḿ bhagavān ivetaraḥ: the entire universe is also the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although it appears different from Him. Therefore although Parīkṣit Mahārāja had no need for geographical knowledge of this universe, that knowledge was also spiritual and transcendental because he was thinking of the entire universe as an expansion of the energy of the Lord.

 

Sukadeva himself says:

 

 

My dear King, there is no limit to the expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead's material energy. This material world is a transformation of the material qualities [sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa], yet no one could possibly explain it perfectly, even in a lifetime as long as that of Brahmā No one in the material world is perfect, and an imperfect person could not describe this material universe accurately, even after continued speculation. O King, I shall nevertheless try to explain to you the principal regions, such as Bhū-goloka [bhūloka], with their names, forms, measurements and various symptoms.

 

So, Sukadeva explained right up front that these descriptions certainly cannot be perfect.

What he did was teach Maharaja Parikshit how to think of the universe as an expansion of the energy of Krishna and try to convey to him something about how vast is this one universe amongst many millions of universes.

 

This description of the universal form of the Lord was not claimed to be exact scientific geopgraphy but a descrpition of how to meditate on the univseral form of the Lord from a spiritual perspective.

 

Sukadeva's universe is more usefull for us to think about than is the universe of the scientists, because Sukadeva's universe is meant for reminding us of Krishna and the scientists universe is meant for making us forget Krishna.

 

In that sense, the universe that Sukadeva described was actually transcendental not scientific.