0

BooksFact.com is a popular Vedic blog (17K YouTube followed, 3K FB followers). In 2014, they published an article that claims that the Bhagavata_Purana was written 5100 years and contains a description of Gauge bosons (using a term they translate to "hexatom or photon".

Division of gross time is calculated as follows: Two atoms make one double atom, three double atoms make one Hexatom. This Hexatom is visible in the sun light which enters through the holes of a window screen. One can clearly see that the Hexatom goes up towards the sky.

Does these writings accurately describe photons around 5,000 years ago?

7
  • 1
    Deleted pseudo-answers. Deleted dismissals of notability based on opinions on the answer.
    – Oddthinking
    Aug 22 at 22:31
  • 3
    Reminder: Don't downvote just because you don't trust the source of the claim. That is begging the question.
    – Oddthinking
    Aug 23 at 2:11
  • 1
    @DavidHammen: There is a weird burden of proof shift inherent to this site. The burden is always with the answerer, rather than where it should be - with the claimant, If we have a Russell's Teapot question, it has to remain unanswered. Reading people's opinions on why this is wrong isn't why we are here.
    – Oddthinking
    Aug 23 at 3:43
  • 3
    I think the truth of this answer has to be premised not on whether a vague Nostradamus quatrain could be interpreted as correct, but whether it was interpreted that way. Did Hindi scholars use this knowledge to correctly predict anything/achieve anything?
    – Oddthinking
    Aug 23 at 3:47
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because while the claim is patently ludicrous, it cannot be invalidated by the rules of this site. Aug 23 at 13:43
19

I believe the answer is that it's undoubtedly non-factual. The linked text confuses the terms the manuscript tries to discuss. I am positive that the Bhagavata passage is a reiteration of a much older concept.

I will address the claims in the text mentioned by this question one by one.

  1. Bhagavata Purana is not 5100 years old. There is some dispute but it is generally understood that it was written between the 8th and 10th century AD, or as early as the 6th century at maximum.

  2. A photon is not made up of six particles; it's indivisible. It's definitely not made up of six atoms, as that would make it a molecule.

  3. Concerning this passage:

Translation : Division of gross time is calculated as follows: Two atoms make one double atom, three double atoms make one Hexatom. This Hexatom is visible in the sun light which enters through the holes of a window screen. One can clearly see that the Hexatom goes up towards the sky.

There is no such term in modern physics as a "hexatom", interpreting it liberally let's assume it's talking about a group of six atoms. I'm not sure if the original manuscript can be translated this way, so maybe the transcription itself is inaccurate.

I don't see anything that would suggest that this is a description of a photon. This text suggests a progression from a fundamental unit (aṇuḥ), which is invisible, up to "trasareṇuḥ" which is the smallest particle visible to the naked eye.

It mentions that the "hexatom" or "trasareṇuḥ" is visible in the sun light, so it's something separate from the light. This sounds like a description of a speck of dust floating in the air, being illuminated by the sunlight through a hole. Certainly if it was a quantum scale object it would not be visible to the naked eye.

According to the full text in context, trasareṇuḥ is simply a unit of measurement that appears in a progression of units in a system of belief similar to atomism. Atomism was proposed in the 5th century BC by the Greek philosopher Leucippus. Based on these facts, we can confidently conclude that this passage from Bhagavata is a reiteration of this idea. The idea that the world is made up of small indivisible particles invisible to the naked eye was around for hundreds of years by the time it was written.

7
  • Citations for what? Aug 23 at 0:09
  • 2
    "A photon is not made up of six particles"; "it's indivisible"; "There is no such term in modern physics as a "hexatom"" I am not happy that we are using your personal interpretation of the script, either. I would rather see expert interpretations.
    – Oddthinking
    Aug 23 at 2:03
  • 2
    Hard to prove that it's not a real term, by definition there will be no papers about it since it's a made up word Aug 23 at 8:36
  • 4
    @Oddthinking The problem with asking for references for everything is that it falls down if the things needing references are basic knowledge present in school textbooks. Molecules and photons and what they are should not require extensive primary literature references.
    – matt_black
    Aug 23 at 11:57
  • @matt_black: Yes, that's a fair criticism. We do have a "high school level knowledge" cop out clause.
    – Oddthinking
    Aug 23 at 12:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .