Pushing beyond the limits of physics

The point can be made that modern cosmology not only contradicts the Vedic literature but also has its own internal contradictions. These contradictions are quite severe, and we briefly discuss some of them in Chapter 7. They indicate that some radical change will have to be made in modern theories to bring them into line with astronomical observations. It is perhaps reasonable to suggest that such a revision should also take into account the empirical evidence for higher-dimensional aspects of reality discussed in Chapter 5. Such a new theoretical system might well agree more closely with Vedic cosmology than the present system does.

Modern Astrophysics and the Vedic Perspective

Thus far we have tried to show how Vedic cosmology relates to the overall picture of the universe that modern man has built up on the basis of ordinary sense perception. We have mainly dealt with fairly elementary features of this picture that have been part of human knowledge for centuries. In recent years, however, a highly sophisticated and complex science of astrophysics has grown up, which deals with many celestial phenomena in great technical detail. Many people will be inclined to argue that Vedic cosmology is no match for this new science, in which astronomy has joined forces with physics. They will say that it describes nature on a level of precision and detail that was never approached in ancient times, and it has established many new concepts that were undreamt-of by earlier thinkers. These dynamic developments stand in sharp contrast to the static Vedic world view and show that its many unverifiable ideas have simply been a hindrance to progress.

One answer to this challenge is that to appreciate Vedic cosmology, one must understand its underlying purpose and the basic tenets on which it is based. These are quite different from the motives and assumptions lying behind modern science, and thus it is not surprising that they should lead to radically different scientific and cultural developments. We can evaluate the relative merit of the Vedic and modern approaches to nature only if we take these fundamental goals and assumptions into account.

The picture of Vedic cosmology that emerges from this study is based on the fundamental principle that reality can be understood only partially and imperfectly through the endeavors of our limited mundane minds and senses. Thus Vedic descriptions of the universe have stressed the existence of higher realms of being, both material and spiritual. Since these realms could not be understood in detail by persons on the human level of consciousness, they were described only in general, qualitative terms. For those who wished to know of these realms more directly, processes of yoga were given, which enable a person to gradually elevate his consciousness to higher levels. Thus human endeavor was channeled in the direction of purification of the self and the development of our inner potential, rather than toward the exploitation of the material environment using our gross sensory equipment.

Observable natural phenomena, such as the motions of the planets, were studied and mathematically analyzed in the ancient Vedic culture. However, the object of the analysis was not to give a final, comprehensive description of nature. Rather, its purpose was to provide simple and practical methods of dealing with these phenomena in day-to-day life. The motions of the planets were studied for the purpose of making astrological forecasts and arranging for the proper timing of religious festivals and ceremonies. Thus observational and mathematical astronomy was used to fulfill needs related to higher aspects of reality that cannot be directly observed and measured. Since there was no question of creating a final, mathematically perfect theory of astronomy, no efforts were made toward this end, and mathematical models were kept as simple as possible, given the practical needs for which they were intended.

According to the Vedic world view, the higher material and spiritual realms are by no means devoid of life. Rather, they are populated by a hierarchy of superhuman beings, and their original source is understood to be a supreme sentient being. Given this perspective, it is natural to think that knowledge about the most important aspects of reality can be obtained only by communicating with higher beings, and ultimately by coming in direct contact with the Supreme Lord. Thus the Vedic culture is dominated by the idea of receiving knowledge from a chain of authorities who are passing it down from a higher source. This applies not only to spiritual knowledge, but also to material arts, including mathematical astronomy.

In contrast, modern science is based on the idea that nature can be fully understood using our present minds and senses. Its fundamental premise is that all aspects of reality can be mathematically described, and that all phenomena can be observed either directly or through their effects on other phenomena. This leads naturally to the idea that it is possible to create a final, complete mathematical theory of nature. If we examine the history of modern physics and astronomy, we see that these fields of study have been dominated by the drive to pry loose all the secrets of nature quickly and to create such an ultimate theory.

We can therefore argue that many of the differences between Vedic and modern cosmology are due to this fundamental difference in approach. Vedic cosmology does not exhibit the same elaborate mathematical development as modern cosmology because the Vedic world view provided no motive for undertaking such a development. On the other hand, modern cosmology is strictly limited to a three- or four-dimensional continuum because modern man lacks the sensory faculties for observing higher-dimensional aspects of the universe, and because modern science places great emphasis on quickly arriving at a complete world model based on available observations.

Modern cosmology may seem superior to its Vedic counterpart if we stick to the assumption that reality is limited to what ordinary human beings can perceive, using either their unaided senses or mechanical instruments. However, if the Vedic idea of higher realms of existence is even approximately correct, then it becomes clear that the modern scientific approach has caused us to focus our attention uselessly on relatively unimportant aspects of the universe. From this point of view, the technical sophistication of modern astrophysics appears more as an impediment to the attainment of knowledge than as an example of great scientific progress.

To a person acquainted with modern scientific ideas, the obvious reply to this argument is that the complex technical methods of modern astrophysics have revealed many features of nature that contradict the Vedic literature, and thus the Vedic world view is no longer relevant. However, it is possible that a theoretical description of nature could be developed that equals or surpasses modern astronomical science in technical sophistication but is also consistent with Vedic cosmology. Such a theory might take the form of a radically new conceptual framework that incorporates our current theoretical system as an approximation having a limited range of applicability.

The point can be made that modern cosmology not only contradicts the Vedic literature but also has its own internal contradictions. These contradictions are quite severe, and we briefly discuss some of them in Chapter 7. They indicate that some radical change will have to be made in modern theories to bring them into line with astronomical observations. It is perhaps reasonable to suggest that such a revision should also take into account the empirical evidence for higher-dimensional aspects of reality discussed in Chapter 5. Such a new theoretical system might well agree more closely with Vedic cosmology than the present system does.

Radical extensions of our theoretical perspective have taken place repeatedly in the history of science. A striking example of this is provided by the revolution in the science of physics that occurred in the twenties and thirties of this century. At the end of the nineteenth century, physicists were almost universally convinced that classical physics provided a final and complete theory of nature. However, a few years later, classical physics was replaced by a new theory, called quantum mechanics, which is based on fundamentally different principles.

The most interesting feature of this development is that classical physics turns out to be compatible with quantum mechanics in the domain of observation in which it was originally applied. The differences between the two theories become significant only in the new atomic domain opened up by the quantum theory. Likewise, our proposed new cosmology would agree with existing theories in its predictions of gross sensory observations, but it would open an entirely new world of higher-dimensional travel.

The Principle of Relativity and Planetary Motion

To construct such a new cosmology, there are a number of important topics that must be considered. One of these is the idea of relativity of motion. The watershed in the development of modern astronomy was crossed when Copernicus replaced the ancient geocentric model of the universe with a heliocentric model. Although the relative merit of the two models was initially debatable, the development of Newton's laws of motion seemed to give overwhelming support for the heliocentric model. This can be argued as follows: If the stars and planets are rotating around the earth once per day, then they should be subjected to tremendous centrifugal forces that will have to be counterbalanced in some way. Isn't it more reasonable to suppose that the earth, which is much smaller and more compact than the universe as a whole, is rotating on its axis? Likewise, isn't it more reasonable to suppose that the small earth is orbiting around the massive sun than to suppose that the sun is orbiting around the earth? This objection can be partially answered by invoking the idea of relativity of motion. Consider two objects, A and B, that are approaching one another at a constant velocity. According to classical physics, there is no physical difference between saying that A is standing still and being approached by B and saying that B is standing still and being approached by A. Thus, as far as physics is concerned, no objection could be raised to either statement. In classical physics this relativity of motion is not thought to apply to rotation. Imagine an axis running from the center of A through the center of B. Suppose that A is rotating with respect to B on this axis. According to classical physics, rotary motion generates centrifugal force, and thus the actual rate of rotation of A and B can be determined by measuring this force. Thus if A exhibits a certain amount of centrifugal force and B does not, the conclusion of classical physics must be that A is rotating and B is not. However, the physicist Ernst Mach once made the following argument: Suppose that A and B are the only objects in the universe, and suppose that they are of equal mass. Then why should it be that A shows measurable evidence of rotation and not B? After all, if we say that A is rotating, then what is it rotating with respect to? If B is the only other object in the universe, then A could only be rotating with respect to B. But it could equally well be said that B is rotating with respect to A. Thus Mach concluded that neither A nor B would exhibit centrifugal force if they were the only objects in the universe. He proposed that centrifugal force is generated in one object due to the rotation relative to it of another, much larger object. Thus, Mach maintained that if A is rotating with respect to the rest of the universe, then one could equally well say that the universe was rotating with respect to A and thereby generating centrifugal forces in A. Mach's argument implies that there are no physical grounds for rejecting the statement that "A is standing still and the universe is rotating around it."

Here one might object that the rotation of the earth is directly indicated by the Foucault pendulum experiment and the evidence that the prevailing winds are affected by Coriolis forces. Also, the rotation of the earth around the sun is indicated by a number of minute but measurable effects, such as aberration of starlight and the parallax of some stars.

It turns out, however, that Mach's argument also disposes of these objections. For example, Mach would say that the rotation of the Foucault pendulum can be attributed to the rotation of the massive universe around the earth, just as well as to the rotation of the earth under the pendulum.

If this idea of relativity of motion is granted, one can then argue that the geocentric or heliocentric viewpoints stand on the same footing physically, and we can choose one or the other, depending on what is convenient. In the case of the astronomical siddhantas, we could argue that the geocentric viewpoint is simply the more practical of the two, since all computations must ultimately be expressed in geocentric terms. And if we intuitively prefer to think of large masses as stationary and small masses as moving, rather than the other way around, then we will prefer the heliocentric viewpoint.

When we turn to the cosmology of the Bhagavatam, the situation becomes more complex. It is stated that the pravaha wind carries the celestial bodies around the polestar once per day. This can be seen from the viewpoint of relativity of motion in the following way: The pravaha wind is due to a kind of tenuous atmosphere that exists in the region of antariksha, or outer space. If we regard the earth as turning on its axis, then the stars are at rest in this stationary atmosphere. In contrast, if we regard this atmosphere as rotating along with the stars, then the stars are being carried by it, but they are still at rest in it. This brings to mind the analogy of the clouds and the wind that Srila Prabhupada uses to illustrate the effects of maya: Just as the clouds seem to be at rest in the wind that carries them, so people carried by the influence of maya do not notice this influence.

The situation of Bhu-mandala can be analyzed as follows: As we pointed out in Chapter 3, if Bhu-mandala is located in the plane of the ecliptic, then Bhu-mandala must also rotate daily with the kala-chakra. The movement of the sun in Bhu-mandala consists of one leftward revolution around Mount Sumeru per year, and both Bhu-mandala, the sun, and the other planets are carried in one rightward rotation per day by the pravaha wind. Here, from the perspective of relative motion, one can regard the earth as rotating and the stars, pravaha atmosphere, and Bhu-mandala as stationary. The sun is then seen to rotate with respect to Bhu-mandala, being carried by its chariot. From the perspective that larger masses should be viewed as stationary, it is reasonable to regard the sun as moving and Bhu-mandala as stationary, since Bhu-mandala is much greater than the sun.

If we then take the covering shells of the universe into account and consider that the pravaha wind is blowing with respect to these fixed coverings, we obtain the following picture: It makes sense to suppose that the pravaha wind and the various celestial bodies are moving with respect to the universal coverings, since the coverings are more massive than the celestial bodies. Likewise, in this picture it also makes sense to suppose that the sun is moving with respect to Bhu-mandala. This, of course, is the picture of celestial motion given in the Bhagavatam.

As we mentioned in Chapter 3, the idea of relativity of motion is presented by Shukadeva Gosvami in his description of the motion of the sun. Maharaja Pariksit asked him,

My dear lord, you have already affirmed the truth that the supremely powerful sun-god travels around Dhruvaloka with both Dhruvaloka and Mount Sumeru on his right. Yet at the same time the sun-god faces the signs of the zodiac and keeps Sumeru and Dhruvaloka on his left. How can we reasonably accept that the sun-god proceeds with Sumeru and Dhruvaloka on both his left and right simultaneously? [Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.22.1]

Here the leftward and rightward movements are the yearly and daily revolutions of the sun about the earth. Shukadeva Gosvami replied to this question as follows:

When a potter's wheel is moving and small ants located on that big wheel are moving with it, one can see that their motion is different from that of the wheel because they appear sometimes on one part of the wheel and sometimes on another [SB 5.22.2].

Shukadeva Gosvami explains that in this analogy the potter's wheel corresponds to the kala-chakra, which carries the stars and signs of the zodiac with it. The ants correspond to the sun and other planets, which are moving leftward around the wheel while the wheel spins to the right. Thus the idea that motion can be seen differently from different relative perspectives is presented in the Bhagavatam.

We have discussed these points in some detail to show that Vedic cosmology should not be rejected on the basis of naive arguments regarding the relative motion of the earth, the sun, and the universe as a whole. To fully relate Vedic cosmology to the laws of motion of modern physics, it will be necessary to understand the bearing that structures such as Bhu-mandala and the coverings of the universe have on our understanding of the principle of relativity. Since these structures involve higher-dimensional travel and transformations of time such as that seen in the story of King Kakudmi and Revati, we do not think that this will be an easy task. But it may well be possible, and the resulting model will no doubt be even more surprising than the quantum theory was to the physicists of the early twentieth century.

We should also note that Einstein's theory of relativity is required in order to make sense of the heliocentric theory of the solar system. The history of this theory is that in the late 19th century, ether-drift experiments performed by physicists such as Michelson and Morley seemed to indicate that the earth is stationary relative to the ether. Since the ether was then conceived as a highly rigid medium, this seemed to indicate that the earth was stationary with respect to an absolute reference frame. Although many efforts were made to avoid this conclusion, this did not prove to be possible within the framework of classical physics.

The dilemma was resolved only with the introduction of Einstein's theory, which involved radical changes in physicists' concepts of space and time, and which has many strikingly counter-intuitive consequences. These include the famous twin paradox, in which a space traveler returns to earth from a year's journey at nearly the speed of light and discovers that many years have passed. It would take us too far afield to delve into these matters here, but we mention them as an indication that the issue of geocentric versus heliocentric cosmology is not as trivial as it might superficially seem to be.