History of the Atom

[Nasor]

theory:
- a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

Exactly my point. These ancient philosophers weren't trying to explain any phenomena. Dalton was.

 

[devire]

all they've said is that things are made up of smaller things, which is kind of redundant.

they were not describing anything like an atom. an atom is a positively charged nucleus with one or more negatively charged particles orbiting it.

neither of them described anything like this.

also, their logic is flawed, even if the particles were infinitely small, that doesn't mean all objects would have to be made of infinite particles. the particles would just not be right next to each other, but spaced out.

 

[priyadarshi]

Ancient Indian Maths and Atomism were at par with modern in many respects

A lot of work has been dome recently, more by the Western White scholars than the Indian authors. Indian history of science is incredible--unbelievable. St Andrews University's (Scotland) web site give a good detail of ancient Indian mathematics and even proposes that Panini, who was a Sanskrit grammarian should be listed a a mathematician. Similarly, Lost Discoveries by Dick Teresi, The Universal History of Numbers by Georges Ifrah, Crest of the Peacock by G. G. Joseph etc have gone a long way in discovering that much of modern sciences was a result of direct flow of sciences from India to the West. Joseph has even claimed recently in London that Newton got his calculus and many other things from Indian sources. (At the moment this web site has not allowed me to place links. If any one of the older members are interested, they can place the links for the benifit of others. Regarding Calculus, Google advance search for "all words" Newton+Calculus+Joseph+India.

I have done some work and interested readers may go through my books or at least web article. As I am not able to place links at the moment due to new member status, please search : Exact Phrase: "India's Contributions to the West", "Zero is Not the Only Story" and my long web article, "The Story Of Knowledge". India's Contributions to the West is meant for general readers. My second book, ‘Zero is Not the Only story’ is intended for the scholars of science and answers with evidences and exact references, how there was an advanced state of mathematics and physics in ancient India. Available from alltimebooks and indianbooks on the web. Thye Story of Knowledge is a long article by me on several web sites, which contains the story of migration of knowledge from India to West. This was product of unfinished work and hence one or two factual mistakes have remained in the article which are ignorable.
Thanks.

 

[priyadarshi]

Exactly my point. These ancient philosophers weren't trying to explain any phenomena. Dalton was.

This allegation is not a fact has been well answered by Dick Teresi in his book Lost Discoveries, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2002. In fact Dalton's atomism was much much inferior to the Hindu atomism has been even attested by Teresi. reason is that Dalton considered atoms to be solid particles, whereas Indians considered them to be hollow, or like point fields, but never like corpuscles. Even today, we have in Sanskrit, a text book of physics available from sixth century BC, authored by sage Kanada. Its English translation is also available. It has been published by Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series, varanasi.

 

[priyadarshi]

Dalton's Atomism Versus indian one

Moreover matters of fact cannot be contradicted on the basis of what one feels. Feeling has no place in scientific discussion. Only study has any value in history of science.

 

[Nasor]

This allegation is not a fact has been well answered by Dick Teresi in his book Lost Discoveries, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2002.

I was referring to Greek philosophers when I said that they weren't actually trying to explain any specific set of observed phenomena when they came up with "atomistic" theories. I don't really know anything about Hindu atomism, but I would be very surprised if Hindu philosophers were doing anything more than spewing out “theories” without any evidence. In short, I suspect that they simply “got lucky” much like the Greeks. Were they trying to explain specific phenomena? If so, what were they, and how did their theory explain the phenomena? I would be curious to hear about it.

In fact Dalton's atomism was much much inferior to the Hindu atomism has been even attested by Teresi. reason is that Dalton considered atoms to be solid particles, whereas Indians considered them to be hollow, or like point fields, but never like corpuscles.

Then again, Dalton's theory explained the law of multiple proportions, AND predicted that different atomic elements had different fundamental masses, AND he figured out what many of the atoms' relative masses were, AND that they could combine in different ratios.

 

[priyadarshi]

"Were they trying to explain specific phenomena? If so, what were they, and how did their theory explain the phenomena? I would be curious to hear about it.”

The central concern of Vedic Hinduism was ‘existence’, and not God. The whole of Vedanta literature is obsessed with existence—both the existence of individual as well as that of universe. Existence and reality were synonymous and were expressed by the term ‘sat’. It was postulated by the ancient Hindus that there is one and only common ingredient of all that exists, and this was called ‘Brahman’. Totality of existence was called ‘Para-brahma’. Men who indulged in researching the existence including existing substances were called Brahmana’ and such women were called Brahma-vadini’ those days.(That is the earliest meaning of the word Brahmana). They postulated that if one knows one particle completely, one will be able to know the universe. The phenomenon they were trying to explain was how a single thing Brahman can express itself in so many different ways. They tried to explain time, light, energy etc. One crucial question haunted them always ,”how could the universe come out of nothingness?” Later the Samkhya (one of the six schools of philosophy which considered Vedas as evidence) gave the law of conservation of matter and energy at least a thousand years before Christ. This law came to be accepted by all the Indian schools including even the Buddhists.

Buddhist departure from the realistic (or Vedic) stand towards idealism occurred in phases. When Buddha was asked whether existence is real, he kept silent. Actually Buddha showed agnostic approach. But a few centuries later, his followers thought that ‘not speaking’ is another way of saying ‘no’. Hence they opined that Buddha meant existence is not real. Thereafter a separate school of philosophy emerged in India which weaved a net of ideas all denying existence, stating nothing is real. It explained that everything is a momentary existence, particles form and vanish, to be replaced by exactly similar particle in the next moment. I will not go into details but that network of logic is also very scientific.

In ancient India, God was not the thing of serious concern, matter was. Those who believed in existence (and hence subscribed to the Vedic thought) were called the ‘Astika’, and those who did not believe that existence is real were called the Nastika. (Asti means exists, nasti means does not exist). Buddhists and Jains were considered Nastika meaning they did not believe in existence (and therefore also did not accept Vedas as self-evident). With time the meanings of astika and nastika have changed and now in modern Indian languages, they stand as equivalent of theist and atheist respectively.

“but I would be very surprised if Hindu philosophers were doing anything more than spewing out “theories” without any evidence.”

Logic and experience (and also experiment as a means of experiencing) were considered sources of knowledge about existence/universe. Physics has never waited for evidence even in the contemporary times. Atom came before evidence came; positron came in physics at least three years before any evidence came. We know today about super-string and dark-matter without much evidence.

There is a difference between what a layman thinks of an evidence and what a physicist thinks. Layman would think that we physicists have seen electron etc. But that is not a fact. What a physicist has as evidence in favour of electron are sets of mathematical equations describing electron. In fact the physical entities are actually mathematical entities. A physicist gives a hypothesis which needs to be supported by mathematical proof to be accepted as valid. Mathematics used in physics is not arithmetic 1,2,3, mathematics. It is a jargon of symbols which are used to express abstracts. It is in fact an advanced and complex symbolic logic.

Even till the Newton’s laws of motion came, mathematics used to prove those laws were no more than simple logic. In Newton’s case, some observations were possible. But in the field of matter physics, observations are often impossible. How do you observe the inside of black-hole? The ancient Indian’s arrived at the universal truths with the help of logic, which was very advanced in India.

Indian physics did not limit itself to speculative and hypothetical things like big-bang, plasma-matter, atom, etc. Kanada’s book (6th Century BC) discusses mechanics, like potential energy, transformation of mechanical energy from one form into another, acceleration due to gravity etc; and I was supervised to find that he mentions that velocity is a vector quantity. He also mentions that change of state from solid to liquid or vice versa occurs because of change of heat content of the substance. We do not have many books on physics from ancient India. But we do have another wonderful book on physics from 6th century AD written by Prashatapada. I (in my book Zero is not the Only Story) as well as Teresi (in his book Lost Discoveries) have quoted from these ancient Indian texts with translations and exact references.

“Then again, Dalton's theory explained the law of multiple proportions, AND predicted that different atomic elements had different fundamental masses, AND he figured out what many of the atoms' relative masses were, AND that they could combine in different ratios.”

It is to be noted that that the Western physicists till 1780’s thought that there were only four elements and one element could change into another until Lavoisier contradicted it and gave birth to new chemistry. Ancient Indians on the other hand considered elements to be immutable until the end of this cosmic cycle when they all will lose differentiation and become the primordial substance again. It was Proust who gave law of constant proportions. Dalton added to it that the combination has to be in proportion of small numbers, like 2:3 (simple ratios). He must get credit for many things which he did for the first time. But we should not forget that in the 19th century India had already been under seven hundred years of alien and oppressive Islamic rule, while her own academic institutions and traditions had been thoroughly destroyed between ninth and twelfth centuries.

 

[priyadarshi]

they were not describing anything like an atom. an atom is a positively charged nucleus with one or more negatively charged particles orbiting it.

neither of them described anything like this.

If we ridicule at the scientists of the past stating that why they did not discover electron or positron or nutrino, the kids of 2050 will redicule at us, because whatever we consider as scientific facts will get modified or rejected with time. There are no final truths in science, but there are scientific methods and scientific ways of thinking. Conclusions or theories of the men of science need not be correct or true, what we should see is that they were applying scientific approach or not. Whether they used reason or used belief in arriving at a conclusion.

In this context, I will like to tell my personal experience. Recently I took out of shelf the textbooks of physics which I studied in the 1970's and were written in the 1960's. By today's standards, most of it can be said to useless. It contained chapter on magnetism which I could not find in contemporary textbooks. Calorie as a unit of heat has gone now. At my time specific heat of water was 1 and specific gravity of water was also 1. Erg was there. Mu and epsilon signs were not there in chapters of electrostatics and magnetism in our days. But still those books were wonderful those days and we boasted after reading them.

 

[priyadarshi]

I want to place a list of books/references for the benifit of those who want to study history of physics outside West. I have included here just a few from a very exaustive list.

1. Acharya, Umasvamin (circa 40 A.D.), Tattvarthadhigama Sutra, translation included in : The Sacred Books of the Jainas, Volume II, edited by Jaini, J. L.; published by Kumar Devendra Prasad, Arrah (Bihar, India), 1920.
2. Ahmad, Q.; India by Al-Biruni, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1999.
3. Al-Biruni’s Tahkikat-ul Hind: Translated by Sachau, Edward; titled “Alberuni’s India”, Indialog Publications Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, 2003.
4. Basham, A.L.; The Wonder that was India, Part I, Rupa & Co., Bombay, 1999.(Devotes just a few pages to ancient Indian science, but reliable and unbiased openion)
5. Bhagvad-Gita, Verse 2.16. Gives the first law of thermodynamics.
6. Bhaskaracharya II, Siddhanta-shiromani, Ganitadhyaya. A thorough textbook of astronomy and mathematics, includes some physics).
7. Bose, D.M., Sen, S.N., and Subbarayappa, B.V. (Eds.); A Concise History of Science in India, Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, 1971. [A comprehensive source book for history of Indian sciences.]
8. Brahma Sutra : Text, translation and comments according to Sri Sankara; Tr. by Swami Vireswarananda, Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta, 1982.(Philosophical discussions on existance, not truely scientific)
9. Chandogya Upanishad, translated by Swami Swahananda, Sri Ramakrishan Math, Madras, 1984 (Sixth Edition). (Only a few verses, dealing with origin of Universe).
10. Chatterjee, S.D. , ‘Physics and Mechanics in Ancient and Medieval India’ in the Cultural Heritage of India, Vol. VI., The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Kolkata, 1986.
11. Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad; History of Science and technology in Ancient India, Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, 1991. [Chapter on Atomic Hypothesis is well written.].
12. -------------------- (Ed.); Studies in the History of Science in India, Vol. I, Asha Jyoti, New Delhi, 1992.
13. Cole, K. C.; The Hole in the Universe : How Scientists Peered Over the edge of Emptiness and Found Everything, Harcourt Inc., New York, 2000. [An interesting account of ‘void’. A preliminary study for understanding Vedic physics and cosmology.]
14. Dasgupta, S.N.; Yoga Philosophy in Relation to other Systems of Indian Thought, Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi, 1930. (Just philosophical comparison of Indian philosophies)
15. Dvivedi, V. P.; Nyayavarttika of Uddyotakara, Varanasi, 1926. (Ancient Indian Textbook of Physics.)
16. Hunt, Frederick Vinton, Origins in Acoustics: The Science of Sound from Antiquity to the Age of Newton, Yale University Press, New Havens, 1978.
17. Jacobi, H.; Atomic Theory in Indian Thought, (First published in Encyclopaedia of Religion and ethics, ed. Hastings, J. and T.T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1908. Vol. Ii, pp. 199-202). Reprinted in ‘Studies in the History of Science in India’, Vol. I, Ed. Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad; Asha Jyoti, New Delhi, 1992.
18. Jain, N.L., ‘Chemical Theories of the Jains’, in Henry M. Leicester (Ed.), Chymia: Annual Studies in the History of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1966. 11:13. p. 14-16.
19. Jammer, Max, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, Dover Publications, New York, 1954. [The introduction of the book was written by Albert Einstein who disagrees in part with the contents of the book.]
20. Kanada, Vaisheshika Sutras. [A 5th-6th century B.C. textbook of physics. Quite interesting to modern senior students of science. I could get original Sanskrit with Hindi translation included with the Prashastapadabhashyam, translated by Dhundiraj Sastri, published by Chowkhanba Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi]
21. Kaviraj, Gopinath and Sastri, Dhundiraj; Prasastapada-bhasya, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1930.
22. Keith, A. B.; Indian Logic and Atomism, Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, New Delhi, 1977.
23. Majumdar, Scientific Spirit in Ancient India.
24. Mishra, Shankara; Bhashya on the Vaisheshika-Sutra. (Ancient Indian Textbook of Physics)
25. Mishra, Umesh; The Conception of Matter according to Nyaya-Vaisheshika, Allahabad, 1936.
26. --------------; Physical Theory of Sound and its Origin in Indian Thought, Allahabad University Studies, Allahabad.
27. Misra, Babuaji (Ed.); Siddhanta-sekhara of Sripati (2 Volumes), Calcutta University, 1932.
28. Nyaya Vartika, See Dvivedi, V. P., supra.
29. Potter, Karl, H. (Ed.); Padarthatattva-nirupana of Raghunatha Siromani, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1957. (Padarthatattava-nirupana is the ancient Indian word for matterial physics)
30. Prashastapada Bhashyam, Hindi Tr. by Dhundiraj Sashtri, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi, 2002. (An ancient Indian textbook of physics)
31. Ray, P.C.; ‘A History of Hindu Chemistry from the Earliest Times to the Middle of Sixteenth Century A.D.’, Williams and Norgate, London, 1902-09.
32. Ray, Priyadaranjan, Chemistry in Ancient and Medieval India, in The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol. VI, The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Kolkata, 1986.
33. Ray, P. and Sen S. N. (Ed.); The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol. VI, The Ramakrishna Institute of Culture, Kolkata, 2004 (reprint). [A comprehensive source book for history of science in India from Indus to modern periods.]
34. Sangita-darpana by Damodara
35. Seal, B.N.; The Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1958.
36. Sen, S.N.; ‘The Impetus Theory of the Vaisheshikas’, Indian Journal of History of Science, Vol. 1, 1966. p. 37.
37. Shabarabhashya
38. Shridhara’s Nyayakandali, Varanasi, 1963.
39. Stillman, The Story of Alchemy
40. Teresi, Dick, Lost Discoveries, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2002.
41. Vaisheshika Sutra of Kanada, published in Prashastapada Bhashyam, Hindi Tr. by Dhundiraj Sashtri, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi, 2002.
42. Vatsyayana-bhashya of the Vaisheshika-Darshana by Vatsyayana, fourth century A. D.
43. Vijnanabhikshu, Samkhya-pravachana-bhashya, I.62 and
44. Vijnanabhikshu, Yoga-vartika, III.40.
45. Vyasa, Yoga-Bhashya, II.19; IV.14.