Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There is an assertion here that the Ancient Indians had a theory of a model of the atom. (In the Ancient Greek sense of Atomos rather than the Bohr model).

This document also makes this claim.

My question is - how developed were the Ancient Indian theories of the atom? What are the similarities and differences between Kalapas and 'Greek atoms' or the contemporary (Bohr) model?

share|improve this question
2  
    
While Kalapas are quite interesting indeed, just reading the wiki page pointed by @LennartRegebro should be enough to answer this question... –  Lohoris Dec 12 '13 at 12:19
    
I've edited the question to try to make it more neutral and historically-comparative –and thus less subject to Skeptic Responses. Feel free to make more concise / less wordy. –  New Alexandria Dec 12 '13 at 14:36
    
The first link seems like a biased opinion. Claiming 100000 year old heritage to Ramayana is political jingoism- not history. There is enough history and evidence to place the epics in context and timeline. Request you edit out dubious links. –  Rajib Dec 12 '13 at 18:53

1 Answer 1

up vote 9 down vote accepted

No

Kalapas are defined as the smallest units of physical matter If we stop at wikipedia, then Hinduism, modern physics and the ancient greeks have a theory of the atom. But a definition does not really equate to a theory.

Kalapas are material units very much smaller than atoms, which die out immediately after they come into being. Each kalapa is a mass formed of the eight basic constituents of matter, the solid, liquid, calorific and oscillatory, together with color, smell, taste, and nutriment. Essentials of Buddhism

Note the two fundamental characteristics of Kalapas - (1) they are transitory/ephemeral and (2) they have 8 types which are useful for meditation, but not for physics.

Meditation on kalapas seems sound and instructive; reasoning based on kalapas seems to be a misuse. The Buddha was trying to free people from reality; not to advance technology.

As a thought experiment, imagine that I define the smallest unit of matter as the foo. Have I created an atomic theory similar to that of the ancient Greeks? No - I've just relabled something. It isn't a theory until I offer testable predictions about the interaction of foo particles.

@Rajib says it clearly and succinctly:

The Indian theories are philosophical and metaphysical, not scientific. While they do describe the infinite and the infinitesimal, the descriptions are not meant to be quantifiable. Being descriptive, they cannot be the bases of scientific inquiry.

That is a better answer than mine.

share|improve this answer
3  
The Indian theories are philosophical and metaphysical, not scientific. While they do describe the infinite and the infinitesimal, the descriptions are not meant to be quantifiable. Being descriptive, they cannot be the bases of scientific inquiry. –  Rajib Dec 12 '13 at 13:34
    
I think this answer both provides edifying historical material, and espouses ad hoc opinions that are inappropriate color to cultural knowledge for which the author may well lack meaningful involvement. –  New Alexandria Dec 12 '13 at 14:27
    
@NewAlexandria - please feed free to edit it out; I'm sympathetic to teh comment, but I don't have enough information to edit out the "inappropriate" section. It has been a couple of years since I studied Buddhism. –  Mark C. Wallace Dec 12 '13 at 14:29

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.