Kamala Kanta Jena, Author at Institute of Philosophy of Nature

Drawbacks of Science in the Field of Astrophysics and Role of Quantum Computing

Kamala Kanta Jena — Sun, 25 Jan 2026 05:22:04 +0000

Abstract

Astrophysics is one of the greatest achievements of human thought, but it has several limitations. It depends mainly on indirect observations, distant cosmic events, and limited technology, which create uncertainty in our understanding. Many important ideas cannot yet be tested directly, making it hard to separate proven science from speculation. Astrophysical research is also expensive and requires large infrastructure, limiting access and progress. The immense size and complexity of the universe further challenge human ideas of certainty and meaning. These drawbacks show that astrophysical knowledge is temporary and incomplete, reminding us to remain humble about what science can truly explain. Quantum computing can overcome astrophysics’ limitations by enabling faster simulations, analyzing massive datasets, and modeling complex cosmic phenomena beyond classical computations.

Key Words: Astrophysics, Indirect observation, Technological limitations, Uncertainty, Theoretical models, Quantum computing, Cosmic scale.

Astrophysics is one of the most fascinating branches of science, dedicated to understanding the universe beyond Earth. It investigates the origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate of stars, galaxies, and other cosmic phenomena through advanced theories and modern technology. Standing at the frontier of human knowledge, astrophysics has revolutionized our understanding of black holes, cosmic evolution, and the large-scale structure of the universe using space telescopes, particle detectors, and powerful simulations. However, despite its remarkable achievements, the field faces significant limitations. It relies largely on indirect observations and complex models, and is constrained by high costs, technological dependence, and theoretical uncertainties. Examining these drawbacks helps clarify the boundaries of astrophysical knowledge and promotes a more balanced and realistic view of scientific progress [1, 2].

Indirect Observation

One of the major drawbacks of astrophysics is its heavy reliance on indirect observation. Unlike laboratory sciences, where experiments can be performed under controlled conditions, astrophysics does not allow direct experimentation on stars, galaxies, or black holes. These objects are located at vast distances and exist under extreme physical conditions that are impossible to recreate on Earth. As a result, astrophysicists must depend on information carried by electromagnetic signals such as visible light, radio waves, X-rays, gamma rays, and even gravitational waves emitted by distant cosmic sources. For instance, black holes cannot be observed directly because they emit no light; their existence is inferred from the motion of nearby stars or from intense X-rays produced by superheated matter spiraling into them. Such signals are often weak, altered by cosmic dust, or limited by the sensitivity of instruments. Consequently, astrophysical interpretations rely strongly on theoretical models and assumptions, which may be revised as new observations and technologies emerge [3, 4].

Inaccessibility of Astronomical Phenomena

One of the major limitations of astrophysics is that most astronomical phenomena are physically unreachable. Stars, galaxies, neutron stars, and black holes exist at enormous distances and under extreme conditions of temperature, density, and energy that humans cannot reproduce or directly explore. For example, a supernova explosion occurs millions of light-years away and releases more energy in seconds than the Sun will emit in its entire lifetime. Scientists cannot examine such an event directly; they can only study the light and particles that reach Earth long after the explosion. Similarly, the interior of a black hole cannot be observed because no information can escape beyond its event horizon. As a result, many astrophysical theories remain only partially tested, which include the explanation for dark matter, dark energy, or the conditions of the early universe. This inaccessibility leads to multiple competing models and ongoing scientific debate [2, 3, 5].

Infrastructure and Equipment Barrier

Astrophysics faces a major challenge due to technological constraints, as progress in the field depends heavily on advanced instruments and infrastructure. Discoveries rely on powerful telescopes, highly sensitive detectors, large data-processing systems, and complex space missions, all of which require significant time, expertise, and financial investment. Developing a single space observatory often takes several decades from initial planning to final deployment. For example, the James Webb Space Telescope required more than twenty years of development and billions of dollars before it began scientific operations. Any technical failure during launch or operation can result in the loss of years of effort and vast public funding. Because such technologies are extremely expensive, only a few scientifically advanced nations or international collaborations can afford them. This technological dependence slows the pace of discovery, limits global participation, and creates inequality in access to cutting-edge astrophysical research and observational facilities [6-9].

Budgetary Pressures

The economic burden of astrophysical research is a significant drawback, as many projects demand enormous financial resources. Large-scale initiatives, including space telescopes, particle observatories, and deep-space missions, often require billions of dollars in public funding. For instance, the James Webb Space Telescope cost over $10 billion from development to launch, making it one of the most expensive scientific instruments in history. While such projects advance human understanding of the universe, critics argue that this investment may seem disconnected from urgent societal needs like healthcare, education, or poverty reduction, particularly in developing countries. Allocating vast sums to explore distant galaxies or black holes can spark debates over ethical priorities and resource distribution. Governments and funding agencies must balance the pursuit of fundamental scientific knowledge with immediate social responsibilities. This economic challenge highlights the tension between humanity’s curiosity about the cosmos and the practical needs of people on Earth [7].

Conceptual and Philosophical Limitations

Astrophysics faces important conceptual and philosophical limitations that arise from the nature of the universe and the limits of human knowledge. Many astrophysical theories are mathematically elegant and logically consistent, yet they remain difficult or impossible to verify through direct observation. Ideas such as cosmic inflation, multiverses, dark energy, and string-inspired cosmologies push science to the edge of what can be tested. When experimental evidence is lacking, theory often fills the gap, increasing the risk of speculation. Unlike laboratory sciences, astrophysics cannot perform controlled experiments; it can only observe distant signals from the past. This makes knowledge uncertain and often provisional. The vastness of time and space challenges human understanding, prompting deep philosophical questions about existence, meaning, certainty, and the nature of truth in our universe. Thus, astrophysics frequently blurs the boundary between physics and philosophy, reminding us that scientific explanations are shaped not only by mathematics and technology but also by human limitations [10, 11].

Simulation-Driven Research Challenges

A major limitation of astrophysics is its heavy dependence on sophisticated computer simulations. Contemporary research often relies on numerical models to investigate phenomena such as galaxy formation, stellar evolution, and the universe’s large-scale structure. These simulations enable exploration of scenarios impossible to recreate in laboratories, yet they are highly sensitive to assumptions, initial conditions, and uncertain parameters. For instance, models of galaxy formation can yield vastly different results depending on how dark matter, gas dynamics, or star formation processes are represented. Even minor adjustments to input parameters can produce contrasting predictions, generating ambiguity rather than certainty. Consequently, while simulations are invaluable for guiding our understanding of cosmic processes, they cannot fully substitute observational evidence. This reliance underscores the tentative nature of theoretical astrophysics and the ongoing debates among competing models [12].

Communication Gap with Public

Astrophysics faces a notable communication gap with the public. Many discoveries in the field are highly abstract, mathematically complex, and conceptually challenging, making them difficult for non-specialists to fully understand. For example, concepts like black hole singularities or dark energy involve advanced physics and equations that are not easily conveyed in simple terms. This complexity can lead to misinterpretation or exaggeration in popular media, sometimes creating misconceptions about cosmic events. A case in point is the 2012 media coverage of the Large Hadron Collider, where some reports falsely suggested it could destroy the Earth, causing public alarm. Similarly, sensationalized accounts of asteroid impacts or black hole threats can distort the real scientific context. These challenges underscore the importance of clear, accurate science communication to bridge the gap between cutting-edge astrophysical research and public understanding [13].

Role of Quantum Computing

Quantum computing has the potential to significantly address several limitations and drawbacks of astrophysics by providing unprecedented computational power and new ways to model complex systems. Here’s how it can help:

Handling Complex Simulations: Many astrophysical phenomena—such as galaxy formation, stellar evolution, or black hole dynamics—require extremely large-scale simulations with countless interacting variables. Classical computers often struggle with these calculations due to exponential complexity. Quantum computers can process vast amounts of information simultaneously using qubits, allowing for faster and more accurate simulations of highly complex cosmic systems [14].
Reducing Uncertainty in Models: Astrophysical models rely on approximations and assumptions because of incomplete data. Quantum computing can efficiently explore many possible configurations at once, improving predictions for systems like dark matter distributions or the behavior of dense stellar objects [15].
Analyzing Big Data: Modern astrophysics produces enormous datasets from telescopes, satellites, and particle detectors. Quantum algorithms can accelerate the analysis of this data, identifying subtle patterns and correlations that might be missed by classical methods, which can refine theories and reduce ambiguity [16].
Optimizing Instrument Design: Designing advanced detectors, space telescopes, or particle observatories involves complex optimization problems. Quantum computing can explore optimal configurations more efficiently, enhancing sensitivity and reducing technological limitations [17].
Exploring Theoretical Physics: Certain aspects of astrophysics, such as quantum gravity, black hole thermodynamics, or early universe conditions, involve calculations that are practically impossible for classical computers. Quantum computing can simulate quantum-level interactions in extreme environments, providing insights that bridge theoretical speculation and observation [18].
Example: Simulating the interior of a neutron star or the quantum effects near a black hole is currently beyond classical computational reach due to extreme densities and relativistic conditions. Quantum computers could model these extreme environments more realistically, helping verify or refine existing astrophysical theories [19].

Thus, quantum computing offers a transformative tool for overcoming computational, theoretical, and technological barriers in astrophysics, potentially reducing uncertainty, enhancing simulations, and opening new avenues for discovery in regions of the universe previously inaccessible to study.

Conclusion

Astrophysics stands as one of the most remarkable achievements of modern science, offering profound insights into the origin, structure, and evolution of the universe. However, the field faces several significant limitations that shape its scope and progress. Observational constraints, such as the inability to directly manipulate distant stars or cosmic phenomena, restrict empirical verification. Technological dependency further challenges research, as advanced telescopes, detectors, and space missions require decades of development and substantial financial investment. The high economic costs of large-scale projects, combined with theoretical uncertainties in areas like dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic evolution, add additional layers of complexity. Recognizing these drawbacks does not diminish the importance of astrophysics; instead, it promotes a more balanced and critical understanding of what the field can achieve. By fostering intellectual humility, encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration, and ensuring responsible investment, astrophysics can continue to expand human knowledge while respecting the natural boundaries of the cosmos.

References

Longair, M. S. Galaxy Formation. Springer, 2008.
Peebles, P. J. E. Principles of Physical Cosmology. Princeton University Press, 1993.
Carroll, B. W., & Ostlie, D. A. An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Thorne, K. S. Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy. W. W. Norton & Company, 1994.
Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., & Wheeler, J. A. Gravitation. W. H. Freeman, 1973.
Gardner, J. P., et al. “The James Webb Space Telescope.” Space Science Reviews, 123, 485–606 (2006).
National Research Council (NRC). New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics. National Academies Press, 2010.
Harwit, M. Cosmic Discovery: The Search, Scope, and Heritage of Astronomy. MIT Press, 1981.
Merton, R. K. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science, 159, 56–63 (1968).
Ellis, G. F. R., Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology. In Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: Philosophy of Physics, Elsevier, 2007.
Smolin, L., The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Houghton Mifflin, 2006.
Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M., “Dark matter and cosmic structure.” Annalen der Physik, 524, 507–534 (2012).
Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M., “Science communication: A contemporary definition.” Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183–202 (2003).
Preskill, J., “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.” Quantum, 2, 79 (2018).
Georgescu, I. M., Ashhab, S., & Nori, F., “Quantum simulation.” Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 153–185 (2014).
Biamonte, J., et al., “Quantum machine learning.” Nature, 549, 195–202 (2017).
Dunjko, V., & Briegel, H. J., “Machine learning & artificial intelligence in the quantum domain.” Reports on Progress in Physics, 81, 074001 (2018).
Lloyd, S., “Universal Quantum Simulators.” Science, 273, 1073–1078 (1996).
Jordan, S. P., Lee, K. S. M., & Preskill, J., “Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories.” Science, 336, 1130–1133 (2012).

The post Drawbacks of Science in the Field of Astrophysics and Role of Quantum Computing appeared first on Institute of Philosophy of Nature.

Dark Side of Alien Search And Opinion of Bhagavad Gita

Kamala Kanta Jena — Sat, 25 Oct 2025 12:05:15 +0000

Abstract

The search for alien is not only a great scientific pursuit, but it is a grand adventure of our human civilization on the planet Earth. Still the research is blending curiosity with caution. In one hand, the search enthuses scientific and cultural progress, but on the other hand it carries risks that needs to be carefully managed. Although the search for extra-terrestrial life is considered exciting and futuristic, it also has a dark side. The present paper critically analyses the dilemma and, simultaneously, seeks the opinion of Bhagavad Gita.

Keywords: Solar system, Exoplanets, Search for aliens, Bhagavad Gita

Introduction

We inhabit the planet Earth. Our abode Earth is revolving around a bright Sun that we see in the sky. But, it seems as if the Sun revolves around the Earth. This is because, while living on such a vast planet, we are not able to sense the Earth’s motion. Seven other planets also revolve around the Sun. Our solar system consists of eight giant planets including the Earth, their satellites and many other bodies. The Sun is the head of our solar system. The vast universe has not only our solar system, but billions of solar systems. There is many a solar system beyond our solar system [1]. We are familiar with the life found in Earth. It is the mere case of life and intelligence we are familiar with in the whole universe. We expect similar life-existence on Mars, Europa (moon of Jupiter) or Enceladus (moon of Saturn) within our solar system [2, 3]. Further, there are many revolving bodies in the solar systems which exist outside our solar system. Our search includes looking for microbial life within our solar system and intelligent civilizations in distant solar systems as well.

The earth is found to be the only life bearing planet within the solar system. The cause of not having life on other planets of the Sun may be attributed to the unsuitable physical and chemical conditions for sustaining life. By now, we have come to know the planetary systems of a few sun type single stars. Astrophysicists also suggest that when a star is born, it is nearly always accompanied by a planetary system. There are stars similar to our Sun in the milky way galaxy and a vast number of galaxies in the visible universe. This shows the large probability of planets similar to Earth in the universe, hence life might exist in some of these planets. The nearest star to Earth, other than the Sun, is Proxima Centauri, situated about 4.24 light-years away. It is now impossible to physically examine the presence of life in planets of other stars of the universe. However, we have scope to extrapolate our experience skilfully to other parts of the universe with the knowledge of physics and chemistry to anticipate the existence of life beyond Earth. The radio waves are the only possible media of linkage with civilizations of other planets. In this regard the equation of Frank Drake speculates the number of civilizations we might communicate with. The equation makes use of many probability factors with rough approximation. While many of these factors have some scientific basis, the factor representing the fraction of life bearing planets out of life sustaining condition in planets varies from extremely rare (~ 0.000001) to very common (~ 1). In the absence of adequate knowledge on the evolution of life, the value of the probability factor could not be focused properly. The probability factor can further be more refined by making use of the traditional knowledge on evolution of life on earth [4].

Our scientific curiosity helps us comprehend possibilities of life afar Earth. Our technological advancement in the forms of radio telescopes, radio astronomy, space probes, deep-space missions and spectroscopy enables us to be in a position in order to detect possible signals, bio-signatures, or habitable planets. Now-a-days, the AI (artificial intelligence) tools improve our search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. Our logical progress helps us understand the origin and spread of life in the universe. This broadens our perspective about humanity’s place in the universe. We are eagerly waiting for the cultural or scientific exchange if intelligent life exists outside our planet [5]. But, we should think many times prior to deal with the aliens and exchange our scientific knowledge. Finding aliens in future may not be a big achievement, but cultural or scientific exchange with that intelligent life may be the worst experience ever met by the humans on Earth.

Discussion

The search for aliens afar our abode is no doubt inspiring. No signature of life beyond our planet has been detected yet. Detecting the life outside our planet, solar system, or beyond our solar system will prove the prominence of our scientific research. The discovery will fill out hearts with contentment and gladness. But, such discovery carries risks. The risk may be technological, political, psychological, financial, ethical and existential. It is because we do not know the integrity of those foreign civilizations. We are least concerned about the nature and temperament of the foreign creatures. They may raise any treat at any time against human civilization on Earth.

(a) Vast Universe: The universe is too vast to believe. Light travels about 3 lakh kilometres per second. The sunray takes 8 minutes 19 seconds to reach our planet. It takes about 17 hours to reach the heliopause (edge of the Sun’s influence against interstellar space) and 1.5 years to reach the outer boundary of Oort Cloud (gravitational boundary of the solar system). This is the farthest limit often considered the “last boundary” of the solar system. The hugeness of our solar system is evident from this information. When we consider our solar system, we take one star (our Sun) into account. Universe has at least 7×1022 stars. Light from one star takes years to reach its nearest star. It is not easy for a civilization to search another civilization in such a vast universe. Thus, if at all the aliens exist anywhere, they are not aware of our civilization in the vast universe. They are ignorant of the location we are found at. If we contact them and show the address of our planet to them, they may not be in a mood to accept our civilization. Therefore, revealing Earth’s location may expose us to danger.

(b) Disappointment and Uncertainty: Although space research, space missions and radio astronomy require vast resources, no confirmed discovery is guaranteed despite decades of search. Despite decades of effort, no confirmed signal of alien life has been found. Sometimes mysterious signals have been detected, but later they could not be confirmed. Even today we hope for alien life, but we are unable to confirm the shape and size of the aliens. The universe might mostly harbour only microbial or primitive life. Our spaceship and instruments can study a tiny fraction of the vast cosmos. We are not in a position to scan the whole universe. So, we miss almost all signals. All these considerations often leave our research scientists and the public feeling disheartened.

(c) Potential Risks: The search for aliens outside our planet and afar our solar system is always inspiring. But, the alien search carries risks. The risks may be technological, political, psychological, and existential. Well, we are happy that we detect aliens one day. But, we cannot predict their integrity and intentions. We cannot say that they will be friendly. We cannot expect them not to be indifferent and hostile. The unknown species are always uncertain and unpredictable. There is a possibility that the aliens will be advanced as compared to our technology. Contacting an advanced civilization of aliens could endanger humanity. Great philosopher scientist Stephen Hawking has warned in this context that such an encounter might resemble the arrival of Europeans in the Americas, which proved disastrous for the indigenous peoples. He emphasized that if aliens are vastly more advanced than us, they may treat humanity with indifference—or even exploit us—as we treat less intelligent species on Earth. Therefore, balancing curiosity with caution is essential instead of overwhelming.

(d) Unpredicted Consequences: Two ‘Voyager’ spacecrafts launched in 1977 carry messages for extra-terrestrial civilizations. Each Voyager has on board the Golden Record, a 12-inch gold-plated copper disk containing sounds, images, music, and greetings in 55 human languages. The record is intended as a time capsule and a message to any advanced civilization that might one day find the spacecraft. No civilization has received the signals yet. The information we sent in 1977 may reach alien civilizations thousands of years later. We and our future generations have to wait for the delivery of the signal. The consequences are unpredictable. Our language, our code and our voice may be annoying for them. They may treat our signal hostile and take revenge. Therefore, we must be alert for these types of unpredicted consequences.

(e) Opinion of Bhagavad Gita: The Bhagavad Gita does not directly mention aliens or extra-terrestrial life. It is because the Gita was composed in a time when the concept of searching for life on other planets was not in human thought. The Bhagavad Gita describes the existence of numerous planets and diverse life forms, implying a universal population beyond Earth, and does not contain any direct reference to “aliens” as we understand the term today. However, its philosophy can still be interpreted in the context of the search for aliens in modern science.

Several verses of the Bhagavad Gita illustrate that all living beings are eternal spiritual fragments of God and that the soul’s journey involves moving across different planetary systems — the system may be heavenly or hellish. Verse 9.20 states that those who worship God but desire material pleasures reach the heavenly planets, while 7.23 explains that worshippers of demigods attain the planets of those respective deities. Vast material universe has countless galaxies, each filled with numerous planets. The planets are inhabited by diverse living entities. Some living entities possess greater intelligence and opulence than those found on Earth.

In the context of uncontrollable curiosity of researchers for meeting aliens, the shloka 6.16-17 (Yoga of Self-Discipline) may be referred to. Shri Krishna tells Arjuna: “There is no possibility of becoming a yogi if one eats too much or too little, or sleeps excessively or insufficiently.” This teaching of avoiding extremes can be applied to curiosity. This encourages a balanced pursuit of knowledge that sustains intellectual growth. The Bhagavad Gita highlights curiosity as an essential tool for learning and spiritual growth. At the same time, it stresses the need for caution, warning that an unchecked mind can easily drift away from wisdom. Krishna warns about balance and moderation. Applied to alien search, it suggests that human curiosity should be guided by caution and self-control, not reckless ambition. In Karma Yoga 5.18, Krishna says a wise person sees with equal vision a scholar, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and an outcaste. Extending this principle, if intelligent aliens exist, they too should be respected as part of the divine creation, not exploited or feared without reason. Therefore, balancing curiosity with caution is essential [6]. So, the Bhagavad Gita with rules and regulations does not prohibit or discourage exploring other life forms, but it reminds our researchers to:

Recognize the vastness of creation.
Pursue knowledge with caution and balance.
Treat all beings as divine manifestations.
Remember that the highest truth lies in self-realization, not just external discovery.

Conclusion

The search for extra-terrestrial life seems to be a noble quest for knowledge, but the darker implications of the search should not be overlooked. We attempt to reach out into a kingdom whose intentions remain unpredictable. May be, we are exposing ourselves to powers far beyond our comprehension. History warns that the encounters between unequal civilizations on Earth often led to destruction. Confrontation with an advanced alien civilization could bring devastating consequences for humankind. Enormous expenditure and attention on alien detection could divert attention from urgent challenges like climate change, poverty, and global conflict on our planet.

There are psychological and social impacts as well. Discovery of aliens could create panic, fear, or religious and cultural conflicts. Even a false signal in the name of outer civilizations could cause widespread excitement followed by disappointment. Governments may hide information, leading to secrecy and mistrust. The discovery of intelligent life might deeply unsettle social, religious, and philosophical foundations, creating divisions and fear. We may seek knowledge but should not invite danger, destabilization, or disappointment. Curiosity is an essential driver of science, but it must be tempered with humility, and foresight. We should remember that some doors, once opened, can never be closed. Once we deal with outer civilizations, we may not be in a position to delink with them if needed in future. Eagerness to make contact with unknown civilizations carries significant risks. Therefore, balancing curiosity with caution is essential.

References

Jeffrey Kluger and Chris Wilson, Time Science, October 6, 2020.
Adam Mann, “Hunting for microbial life throughout the solar system”, PNAS, November 6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816535115.
Europa Clipper Team, “Europa: A World of Ice, With Potential for Life”, NASA Science, June 8, 2021.
Bishnu Charanarabinda Mohanty, “Life Elsewhere in the Universe”, Vol.3, No.3, Towards Unification of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy of Nature, 2025.
Leonard David, “Will we ever be able to communicate with aliens?”, SPACE.com, January 17, 2024.
Bhagavad Gita, Commentary by Swami Mukundananda, http://swamimukundananda.org/.

The post Dark Side of Alien Search And Opinion of Bhagavad Gita appeared first on Institute of Philosophy of Nature.

Planetary System in Indian Mythology

Kamala Kanta Jena — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 18:37:03 +0000

Abstract

There exist lots of differences between science and Indian mythology. But many theories of Indian mythology have been proved scientifically sound. It is because the basic knowledge behind establishing some mythological theories is too logical to be accepted by modern science. The knowledge and theorems described in our mythology should be extensively explored in order to modify if needed so that it will be easily accepted at the international level.

Key words: Planetary system, Modern science, Indian mythology, Nava Graha, Rahu, Ketu.

Introduction

Science and mythology are different in their methods of understanding nature and natural phenomena. Science believes in empirical evidence and experiments, whereas mythology makes use of symbolic and imaginative interpretations. However, both science and mythology share the common goal that is to explain the world. Both science and mythology can be seen as striving to understand and potentially control the world using different methods and approaches.

According to the definition laid by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), our planetary systems in modern science have eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. All of these eight planets revolve in their respective orbits around the Sun. But in traditional mythological culture, when people say planet, they mean ‘Navagraha’. The idols of ‘Navagraha’ are also worshipped in various Hindu temples or pavilions for public rituals. The ‘Navagraha’ referred to traditional culture are – Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Rahu and Ketu. In Sanskrit, the word ‘Nava‘ means ‘nine‘ and the word ‘Graha‘ means ‘to hold‘. Therefore, planets are deities and celestial bodies that affect our lives. Nine such deities and celestial bodies that affect our lives have been given names, which are called ‘Navagraha’. The present article discusses planetary systems in science and mythology in detail. Further, it has been mentioned that the Indian researchers should give efforts to explore the Indian knowledge system.

Illustration

As far as traditional mythological knowledge is considered, initially, only five planets were taken into consideration. In fact, the five planets which were visible to the naked eye were taken into account. Those five visible planets were – Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn. These planets can be seen even today with the naked eye at night. Later, two more very bright bodies that affect our lives were taken to the planetary system. Those two bodies were – the Sun and the Moon. So, the total number of planets became seven, namely – the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn. According to the names of these seven planets, there were seven days. That is: Sunday in the name of the Sun, Monday in the name of the Moon, Tuesday in the name of Mars, Wednesday in the name of Mercury, Thursday in the name of Jupiter, Friday in the name of Venus and Saturday in the name of Saturn. Accordingly, seven heavenly objects are worshipped on their respective days.

People were not satisfied with seven planets. They think of other two concepts which they thought affect their lives. After these seven planets, two more planets were taken into consideration. One is ‘Tamograha‘ or Rahu and the other is ‘Chayagraha‘ or Ketu. But the newly introduced planets are not visible to our eyes. In the eighth or ninth century, Rahu and Ketu were accepted as two planets. Rahu and Ketu are associated with the solar eclipse and the lunar eclipse respectively. In the Puranas, Rahu is the severed head of the demon Svarbhanu, who, disguised as a god, stole nectar and ate it to become immortal. When Svarbhanu was eating nectar in the guise of a god, Surya (Sun) and Chandra (Moon) informed Lord Vishnu about the theft of demon Svarbhanu. Lord Vishnu detached Svarbhanu’s head from his body with the Sudarshan Chakra. Svarbhanu was transformed into two entities after being severed by Vishnu’s chakra. But the tail remained alive because it had eaten nectar. In the Puranas, the head is called Rahu and the rest part (tail) is called Ketu. Both of them roam in the sky. They are angry with the Sun and the Moon. If found the opportunity, Rahu swallows the Sun and Ketu swallows the Moon. When the severed head Rahu swallows the Sun, the Sun disappears causing a solar eclipse. But Rahu is a severed head, which has no throat or stomach. Therefore, Rahu cannot swallow the Sun forever. The Sun enters Rahu’s mouth from one side and exits through the other side. The solar eclipse persists/continues as long as the Sun is hidden during the journey from entry to exit. Similarly, when the moon is consumed by the sun, a lunar eclipse occurs. In Hinduism, planetary science is an important part of Vedic astrology. It is strongly believed that by pronouncing or hearing the name of the nine planets, the ill effects expected on a person due to planetary movements are remedied. Bad thoughts are removed from the mind and positive vibes come into mind.

If we consider the matter of planets from the modern scientific perspective, there will be no harmony with Shastras and Puranas. According to science, we also had nine planets. They were – Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. But after knowing the real size of Pluto, it was removed on August 24, 2006 from the list of planets. Therefore, the number of planets in our solar system has been reduced to eight today. In Puranas, the Sun and the Moon are considered planets, but in modern science, the Sun is a star which has its own light and the Moon is a satellite revolving around the Sun. As many as eight planets revolve around the Sun. The Earth in Puranas is not considered a planet, but in science, the Earth is a planet, around which the satellite moon revolves. There are no physical bodies named Rahu and Ketu.

Between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, countless small bodies orbit the Sun. They are called the members of ‘Asteroid Belt’. Our solar system does not end there. After the orbit of the farthest planet Neptune, many small and large cold bodies orbit the Sun. That region is called the ‘Kuiper Belt’. Our ‘solar system’ consists of planets, satellites, asteroids, the Kuiper Belt and countless other bodies orbiting the Sun. Apart from the satellites of the solar system, other bodies are divided into three categories. They are – (a) planets, (b) dwarf planets and (c) minor planets. The real reason for Pluto’s delisting from the list of planets in 2006 is that the bodies considered planets in the ‘solar system’ are much larger than other bodies, they are almost spherical due their own gravity and their orbits are not intersected by the orbits of other celestial bodies. Even though Pluto is large, other celestial bodies intersect its orbit. Pluto does not clear the neighbourhood around its orbit. Therefore, according to the definition, Pluto cannot be called a ‘planet’. Now Pluto is called a ‘dwarf planet’. Including Pluto, there are 5 dwarf planets in our solar system. They are – Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris. Apart from the planets, satellites and dwarf planets, the other bodies are grouped in the ‘minor planet’ category.

Especially in relation to lunar eclipses and solar eclipses, the scientific explanation is completely different from the mythological explanation. Science says that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Moon revolves around the Earth. During the revolutions, on the day of full moon, the Earth comes between the Moon and the Sun. Similarly, on the day of the new moon, the Moon comes between the Earth and the Sun. If the Sun, the Earth and the Moon are situated exactly in a straight line, then a lunar eclipse occurs on the full moon night and a solar eclipse occurs on the new moon day. The Sun has its own light, but the Moon does not have light. We can see the Moon when the Sun’s rays fall on the Moon. On the day of a full moon, if the Earth is placed in a straight line between the Moon and the Sun, the shadow of Earth falls on the Moon. If the Sun’s rays do not fall on the surface of the Moon, we cannot see the Moon from Earth. This phenomenon is known as the lunar eclipse. However, it is said in the Puranas that a lunar eclipse occurs for the planet Ketu.

Similarly, on the new moon day, when the moon is placed in a straight line between the Earth and the Sun, the Sun is hidden behind the moon. So we cannot see the sun, which is called a solar eclipse. Thus, both the eclipses are simply the game of light and shadow. Therefore, there is no reason to be scared of the lunar eclipse and the solar eclipse. Scientists always suggest the public to watch with proper precaution and enjoy these astronomical phenomena without fear.

Conclusion

There are a lot of differences between science and mythology. But, both science and mythology attempt to make sense of phenomena that are not easily explained. Such phenomena include the origins of the universe, the nature of existence, the workings of nature and many more. Science and mythology play a crucial role in shaping cultural identities, values, and beliefs as well. Further, science and mythology reflect the evolution of human thought and our attempts to understand the world, with science building upon and refining earlier mythological explanations. Both science and mythology can be seen as striving to understand and potentially control the world, though their methods and approaches differ.

Modern scientific research is much more advanced in comparison to Indian mythology. But at the same time, modern science has accepted many of the theories described in the mythology as correct. Two such very popular examples are: (i) lunar eclipse and (ii) solar eclipse. Indian astrologers can accurately calculate the time of lunar eclipse and solar eclipse even today by dint of traditional knowledge. Thus, there are some basic theorems in mythology which help astrologers to calculate the timings of heavenly phenomena accurately. Scientists of our country should think more in this aspect. The Indian knowledge system and the theorems described in our mythology should be explored. The results found from such research will further refine the knowledge of our mythology, which will be easily accepted at the international level.

Reference

Solar System Exploration, https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/
Indian Knowledge System, https://iksindia.org/
Rahu, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahu
Ketu (mythology), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketu_(mythology)
Navagraha, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navagraha
Grahana, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grahana/

The post Planetary System in Indian Mythology appeared first on Institute of Philosophy of Nature.

Waiting for The Potential

Kamala Kanta Jena — Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:04:52 +0000

Abstract

Four forces are used for understanding the amazing universe. One force among them about which we are curious is the nuclear force of nature. Although it is the strongest force among all, we are unable to experience this force due to its short-range effectiveness. The present article discusses the possible reason behind the fact that there is no definite expression for such a strong interaction.

Keywords : Forces of nature, nuclear potential, Igo ambiguity, Unification of theories.

Introduction

When we see nature and the natural phenomena taking place, we ask many questions to ourselves. Why does Earth revolve round the Sun? How do the planets stay in orbits around the Sun? How does sunray travel to reach us? How does the Sun produce so much heat energy? Why do stars twinkle in the sky? Why are the plants green, but our blood is red? Why do nuclei form atoms and the atoms come together to give us matter? Why do pieces of magnet repel or attract each other? And many more. In toto, we are eager to know why the phenomena are the way they are. In particular, while finding the answers to the questions related to repulsion and attraction, we come across an important physical quantity called force. Interestingly, we have been working for centuries to describe the various forces that dictate interactions on the largest and smallest scales, from huge planets to invisible particles. The nature of interactions is almost the same everywhere, but their strength and properties differ. Based on the various factors the interactions are basically categorized into four types. Thus, there are four fundamental forces in nature. The four fundamental forces are:

(i) Gravitational force,

(ii) Electromagnetic force,

(iii) Strong nuclear force, and

(iv) Weak force.

At present, we deal with only these four fundamental forces to explain so many phenomena of nature, but we are unable to explain all the natural phenomena. Although these forces are responsible for shaping the universe we inhabit, they have limitations to analyse certain strange behaviors of nature. The gravitational force and the electromagnetic force are familiar forces, because such interactions are experienced by we all in our daily life. But, the other two forces are still not familiar to common people. Moreover, the strong nuclear force is still a mystery. As the nuclear force acts within a very small dimension of the nucleus, we deal with nuclear potential that represents the nuclear force. However, there is no definite formula for the nuclear potential unlike gravitational potential and electromagnetic potential.

Discussion

Although nuclear forces affect our daily lives, we are unable to feel them. It is because they work on distances smaller than atoms. Nuclear force that holds together the building blocks of atoms is the strongest interaction in nature, but it is short range. This force is essential to hold together the protons and neutrons in order to build nuclei. The force also acts within neutrons and protons which are built up when the strong force holds together the tiny quarks.

The making of nucleus with protons and neutrons as ingredients cannot be explained by electromagnetism and gravity. If we consider only the electromagnetic and gravitational forces, then the nucleus should fly off in different directions due to pre-dominant repulsion. The interaction taking place in the strong nuclear force is about 100 times stronger than electromagnetic interaction. If we compare it with gravity, then the strong force is about 1038 times stronger than the gravitational force. But the influence of nuclear force quickly dies for anything larger than the nucleus of a medium-sized atom. The nuclear force will be disappearing and other forces will be dominating outside the atoms. The interaction is simply amazing and uncommon. The charged protons having similar polarity even attract each other with nuclear forces inside a nucleus in order to build up the nucleus. Even the neutral neutrons attract each other with nuclear forces inside a nucleus. Thus, it is the nuclear force for which the existence of elements is possible and the formation of matter is achievable. Thus, it is the strongest nuclear force for which the present universe is due.

We are in a position to describe the cause behind the presence of nuclear force, but equally unable to find a definite expression for such a strong interaction. It is now a challenge for the researchers to know the true form of nuclear potential existing between all pairs of nucleons. If only one knew the strong-interaction between the nucleons, then perhaps a solution of the Schrodinger equation would provide a basic understanding of the properties of nuclei. The problem of deriving such a potential has been attacked by the foremost theoretical and experimental nuclear physicists. The job of defining such potential has become a phenomenological one, involving the acquisition of large amounts of data from various scattering experiments in different laboratories.

In order to define nuclear potential the optical model potential (OMP) is one of few established methods for analyzing experimental data obtained from nuclear interactions. The elastic scattering angular distributions are usually analyzed in the framework of OMP, which can be extended further to analyze many complicated nuclear phenomena. Parameters of the potential can be extracted by effective comparison of theoretical calculations with experimental values. Despite a large number of system-studies and huge data, the nuclear potential is not uniquely described till date. A little agreement is found among different analyses [1]. A number of OMPs fit theoretical calculations with experimental data and explain the results. Numerous different families of OMP parameters successfully describe the same experimental data, but the families have no satisfactory correlation among them. This leads to Igo ambiguity [2] as pointed out by George Igo. To settle down such ambiguity we may cite alpha-particle elastic scattering experiments in low and medium energy range. The experiments are very sensitive to the surface of the nuclear potential, but yield no information about the central part of the nuclear potential [1].

The root cause of the problem lies behind the dynamics of heavy-ion elastic scattering. We expect the features of the nuclear potential by the analysis of elastic studies. But strong absorption due the nuclear potential hides most of the features we wish to explore from easy investigation. There exists repulsion for projectile particles near the Coulomb barrier which is located at the surface of the nucleus. Once the projectile overcomes the Coulomb repulsion at the surface boundary, it can reach the highly attractive region inside the nucleus. Particles which enter the stronger parts of the nuclear potential are absorbed and never emerge. Therefore, we are unable to gather actual information about the nuclear potential. On the other hand, we obtain mostly those particles in elastic scattering experiments which are affected mainly by the strong Coulomb repulsion between a heavy ion and a nucleus. Only a very small fraction of the flux of elastically scattered particles carries information on the details of the nuclear potential. So this information bears on the potential only in a localized radial region. That’s why any derived potential which approximates the interaction in this region will give acceptable fits to elastic scattering data. As a result of which the nuclear potential is not uniquely described till date in spite of huge experimental data.

The problem of ambiguity may be solved by choosing correct parameters of the suggested nuclear potentials. The parameters can be accurately determined by the elastic scattering, if the OMP is considered within a sensitive region. Thus the sensitive radial regions of the potential have to be located which region will be suitable for the analysis of scattering data. The sensitive region of OMP can be investigated by using the notch-perturbation method [1] [3], a reliable and simple technique possessing evident advantages. This method was successfully applied for an elastic collision system 14N+56Fe [4] to investigate the radial sensitivity in which 14N is a tightly-bound projectile upon the target 56Fe.

Conclusion

The number of phenomena occurring in our nature cannot be counted. We and even our devices are unable to detect them all. We have observed or sensed a few. Various theories help us analyse and understand natural phenomena. As of today, we deal with a huge number of laws to understand a few natural phenomena. Therefore, the number may not be imaginable in order to understand or explain all the phenomena. This may create ambiguity in future. Therefore, our endeavor must be in line to understand the universe with unified laws.

Reference

J. G. Cramer and R. M. DeVries, Phys. Rev. C, 22: 91 (1980).
G. Igo, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1: 72 (1958).
F. Michel, J. Albinski, P. Belery et al., Phys. Rev. C, 28: 1904 (1983).
K. K. Jena, B. B. Sahu and S. K. Agarwalla, Proc. DAE Symp. on Nucl. Phys. 66 (2022).

The post Waiting for The Potential appeared first on Institute of Philosophy of Nature.