5 comments about QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton Science Library).

1. When I was a senior in high school, I asked my physics teacher why light bent when it entered a lens. He responded with an analogy about soldiers marching on a field and entering a marsh. The first soldiers entering the marsh would slow down and "bend" the column until all the soldiers were in the marsh.
   
   The analogy made no sense to me because we were talking about light, not soldiers. He responded that light travels in waves and if I viewed the soldiers as a wave front, I could understand his analogy. I left the conversation feeling very stupid for not "getting it." and thinking the analogy had so many holes in it. For example, it didn't explain why the lens was a marsh as far as light goes.
   
   It wasn't until I read QED that I realized I didn't get the soldier analogy because my teacher was wrong - light doesn't travel in waves, it travels in discrete little packets called photons.
   
   In QED, Feynman opens his first chapter by saying a couple of things. First he tells you that the theory he's going to describe to you has been experimentally verified out to 10 decimal places so it's probably right. He then gives you a quick review of what matter is and then tells you "light comes in particles. Not waves, particles." No wavicles, just little bits of light. He tells you that photons go from place to place, an electron goes from place to place and the electron will sometimes either absorb or emit a photon. From that basis, the rest of the book shows how that model explains why light bends when it enters a lens, why mirrors reflect, why oil slicks show different colors, why peacock feathers iridesce along a with host of other phenomena. He also explains why light has wave-like properties despite the fact that light comes in packets.
   
   The first reviewer is right - there are questions left unanswered but that doesn't diminish the book. The framework Feynman develops in four chapters gives you a clear mental image of what's going on. Bohr and Pauli disliked Feynman's approach because it violated the Copenhagen approach of eschewing all models. In their view, only mathematics would suffice to understand quantum mechanics. I for one, am very glad Feynman ignored them, developed his approach and eventually gave the 4 lectures that are the basis of the book.
   
   If you think light travels in waves, read this book. It's truly wonderful. If you're as dumb as I am, you'll have to read it multiple times but it's definitely worth it.



2. Caveat - Be sure to read Professor Zee's introduction as well as Feynman's introduction before you read the rest of the book. More about this at the end of this review.
   
   In my opinion this is one of the best of Feynman's introductory physics books. He does close to the impossible by explaining the rudimentary ideas of Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) in a manner that is reasonably accessible to those with some physics background. He explains Feynman diagrams and shows why light is partially reflected from a glass, how it is transmitted through the glass, how it interacts with the electrons in the glass and many more things. This is done via his arrows and the rules for their rotation, addition and multiplication.
   
   One reviewer has criticized this book because Feynman does not actually show how to determine the length of the arrows (the square of which is the probability of the action being considered occurring) and the how you determine their proper rotation. True, but as is stated in Feynman's introduction, this was never the intention of the book. If you want to learn how to create the arrows used in a Feynman diagram and use them to solve even the most rudimentary problem, you have to major in physics as an undergraduate, do well enough to get into a theoretical physics graduate program and then stick with the program until the second year, when you will take elementary QED. You will then have to take even more classes before you can solve harder problems. Clearly, it is not possible to do all this in a 150-page book aimed at a general audience. He does, however, give the reader a clear indication of what these calculations are like, even if you are not actually given enough information to perform one on your own. Feynman is fair enough not to hide the difficulties involved in actually computing things. He briefly discusses the process of renormalization (that he admits is not mathematically legitimate), which is required to get answers that agreed with experimental data and the difficulties in determining the coupling constants that are also required. In the end, he admits that there is no mathematically rigorous support for QED. Its virtue lies in the fact that it provides the correct answers, even if the approach to getting them involve a bit of hocus-pocus (again his words).
   
   The last 20 pages of the book show how the approaches used in QED, as strange as they are, were used to create an analogous approach for determining what goes on in the nucleus of an atom. This short section shows complexity of nuclear physics and the role that QED has played in trying to unify a baffling plethora of experimental data. Unfortunately, this last section is largely out of date and is hopelessly complicated. Fortunately, it is only 20 pages long.
   
   As mentioned in the beginning of this review, you should read Zee's introduction as well as Feynman's, before you get into the rest of the book. Zee puts QED into proper perspective. Along with wave and matrix mechanics, the Dirac-Feynman path integral method that is described in this book is another approach to quantum mechanics. Zee also points out that while it is a very powerful approach for many problems, it is unworkable for others that are easily solved by wave or matrix mechanics. Feynman's introduction is very important because he emphatically states that photons and electrons are particles and that the idea of their also being waves stems from the idea that many features of their behavior could be explained by assuming that they were waves. He shows that you can explain these effects using QED, without having to assume that they are waves. This eliminates the many paradoxes that are created when one assumes that photons and electrons exhibit dual, wave/particle behavior. QED is not, however, without its own complications. Some of this behavior depends upon the frequency of the photon or electron. Frequency is generally thought of as a wave property, but it can also be thought of a just a parameter that defined the energy of the photon or electron. This is a fundamental idea separating QED from wave based quantum theories. Feynman does not try to speculate why photons and electrons obey the rules of QED because he does not know why, nor does anyone else and we probably are incapable of knowing why. He is completely satisfied that his calculations agree with experimental data to a degree that is unsurpassed by any other theoretical physics calculation.
   
   I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in getting an idea of what QED is all about and to those who seek a deeper understanding of physical phenomena. You will learn how QED explains many things, some of which from the basis for the paradoxes discussed at length in books such as "In search of Schrodinger's cat". Reading this book is a good antidote for the head spinning paradoxes described in that book. Feynman believes that they stem from using a poor analogy (that of waves) to explain the behavior of particles. As far as the deeper questions of why photons and electrons obey the ruled of QED, he does not care, so long as he can get the right answer. This may therefore not be the book for you if you are interested in this deepest WHY, but it definitely is if you want to know more about Feynman's powerful approach to quantum mechanics.



3. Feynman QED lectures show how physics concepts need to be introducing to any people who are scared about science. Feynman was a great scientist and a better pedagogue. It is simple to read and simpler to understand. We need more Feynman's at schools.
   Next book that I am going to read Feynman's Physics Lectures.



4. It takes some slogging, but this is pretty good. If you don't have a lot of physics background, you'll need patience, but your patience will be rewarded.



5. I have given this book to several very talented HS students. It can be understood even without higher math.

5 comments about Quantum Field Theory Demystified.

1. I've found this book to be by far the most accessible QFT book for undergraduates like me. It is also, by the way, an ideal book to complement Griffiths: his book covers the phenomenology, while this book covers the theory.
   
   My biggest problem with this book is the fact that he only briefly mentioned renormalization in an example on page 133, but a more thorough discussion of renormalization can be found in Griffiths, which you should also get if you're interested in going into particle physics.
   
   In response to a more critical review, this certainly isn't a complete treatment of the subject, nor was it ever meant to be. It serves as a starting point for those who want to learn QFT, but find most QFT books inaccessible. Any physics student who wants to go into particle physics will have to re-learn this material in a graduate QFT class anyway, and it certainly doesn't hurt to have some prior exposure to it.
   
   The author makes it clear in the preface that this book is meant to help people who find this subject impossible, not to satisfy geniuses. For this struggling physics student, this book has certainly served it's purpose, which is why I give it five stars.



2. I find it humorous to read some of the criticisms made of this book. It's clear that the people that have criticised it harshly were expecting a completely different book, perhaps McMahon's recommended next-step book "QFT in a Nutshell" by A. Zee. David McMahon, in my view, didn't set out to rewrite Zee's classic, so it's ridiculous to criticise him for not doing so.
   
   In my view, McMahon set out to write a book to bridge the wide gap between QM and QFT. Many undergraduates come out of a QM course eager to learn QFT, but fall flat on their faces when confronted with some of the more inpenetrable graduate-level texts. Zee has done a good job of bridging some of that gap, but even Zee is a formidable read for someone who has just come out of a QM course. This is where I think McMahon has done a terrific job.
   
   QFT Demystified is wonderful for those people that know QM and have attempted to read Zee but were still having trouble. "Demystified" will not explain everything in detail, but will paint the landscape with a broad brush so that you don't get mired in the detail. It will not explain every step presented, but if you can persevere and simply assume some of the results to be true, you'll find that in your next text (probably Zee) it will get derived in detail.
   
   My main problem with the book (indeed, with all the Demystified books) is the rushed feel they have to them - it doesn't appear that enough time has been spent editing them, and the book is filled with typos that can be confusing to the beginner. This is unfortunate, since it is this sort of beginner that the book is targeted at in the first place.
   
   In short - if you're a novice keen to start with QFT, and find even the beginner's books heavy going, you can't go wrong with McMahon. If you can overlook the typos, this book fills a niche that desperately needed to be filled.



3. In reading other books by McMahon, he introduces topics like Schwarzchild radius and Schrodinger's equations and shows the mathematics along the way. Now, it might be that I wasn't ready for this book; however, with that said, McMahon should have reflected back and thought about a more appealing approach with the context of the book in line with a typical dummies book which means that no prerequisites are necessary including his other books and all steps are shown in a clear and slow presentation. Quantum Field DeMystified fails to make the subject easy for a novice who might choose this book off of a bookshelf, therefore, failing to be a DeMystifyed book. The only bright spot is McMahons style which is a fun atmospheric style that produces some abstract thinking like all his other books.



4. I ordered this book after I went through the first seven chapters of David Griffiths' "Introduction to Elementary Particles" and decided I wanted something that concentrated a little more on the theoretical side. Of course I didn't expect this book to be more than a peek into the mysteries of QFT, and the author is careful in the Preface to outline its limitations ("By design, this book is not thorough or complete....after completing this book, you will find that studying other quantum field theory books will be easier.") I hope he's right! I'm going to try tackling Zee next.
   
   Anyway, I think the book is OK given the obvious challenges of trying to present QFT in an understandable way to a novice. I certainly didn't get everything, but I did manage to understand most of the material and get most of the problems in the Quizzes. But I wonder if I would have found it intelligible if I had not already read Griffiths as well as Schutz's "A First Course in General Relativity", which gave me some familiarity with special relativity, the metric, the Einstein summation convention, the covariant derivative, etc. This would seem to be considerably more than than a background in "basic special relativity" which the author lists in the Preface as one of the prerequisites for understanding his book. In some sections it was only by cross-referencing Griffiths that I was able to be sure I understood the material, and to correct errors in the text.
   
   There are unfortunately plenty of errors, not as many as in "Quantum Mechanics Demystified" but still enough to give the strong impression that the author is either not putting much effort into proofreading, or delegating the task to less-than-fully-qualified individuals. McGraw-Hill should really do its readers/customers a favor and set up an erratum website. The author refers to one in his own website but it is not set up. The majority of the errors are minor arithmetical ones, but even these can often cause considerable confusion while the reader struggles to be sure it's not himself who is in the wrong. (Or are they a deliberate, diabolical strategy to force the reader to actually go through all the calculations?) But some are substantive and seriously interfere with comprehension. There's also an annoying tendency to be sloppy with the notation (or is the author trying to get the reader used to "sloppy physicist's notation"?) and to misplace superscripts and subscripts.
   
   For learning the Feynman rules, Griffiths Chapter 7 is much clearer. But after cracking my skull fruitlessly for hours on Griffiths problem 7.24, I was delighted to find it worked (albeit erroneously, see below) on pages 179-83, so I was able to find where I had gone wrong (just one wrong minus sign in the momenta, durn it!) The exposition of spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Higgs mechanism, and electroweak theory are nice for a beginner (now I'll do Griffiths Chapter 10 and 11).
   
   The following are a list of the most significant errors I've found that I'm relatively certain of (whenever possible by cross-referencing with Griffiths).
   
   pages 16-17: charges of strange and charmed quark switched
   
   page 32-34: in example 2.3, what happened to finding the Hamiltonian?
   
   page 37: the equation representing conservation of energy at the bottom of the page is wrong: it should read d(mu)T(superscript mu)(subscript 0) equals 0.
   
   page 43: equation just before section on Gauge Transformations should have "J(superscript nu)", not "J(superscript mu)".
   
   page 87: second equation is described as "using the notation of Chap. 1" when in fact the notation for unit vector "e carat" was not introduced in Chap. 1 and makes its first unexplained appearance here.
   
   page 103: first equation (p-m)(p+m) should read (pslash-m)(pslash+m) and third equation (p-m)u(p)=(p-m)(p+m)u(0) p should also be pslash.
   
   page 104 helicity operator is sigma vector dot p carat, not sigma vector dot p vector (I think).
   
   page 118 statement the "we..demote position and momentum from their lofty status as operators" would appear to contradict statement on bottom of page 4 that "momentum continues to play a role as an operator".
   
   page 150: Figure 7.7 has errors in labelling of incoming and outgoing particle lines.
   
   page 157: first 4 equations should have delta(q-p3-p4), not delta(q-p3+p4).
   
   page 159: last equation should omit (2pi)^4 delta(p1-p2-p3-p4) term.
   
   page 161: Figure 7.17 is for Question 2, not Question 1.
   
   page 169:last 3 equations denominator should be sqrt(2p0)(2pi)^3/2 (see page 135).
   
   page 177: in third and following equations, the second gamma matrix should be gamma(superscript nu), not gamma(superscript mu). Also, there should be another delta function term for the other vertex: (2pi)^4 delta(q+p2-p4), and an integration factor d4q/(2pi)^4. In general, Chapter 8 would greatly benefit from a clear, simple listing of the Feynman rules as Griffiths does in Chapter 7 section 5 of his book.
   
   page 179: according to Griffiths, sqrt(E+m) IS the normalization factor.
   
   page 183: second set of equations is for the RIGHT term of Equation 8.19, and should end up equalling 2p(i-1), not 2p(1-i), because g11=g22=-1. This gives M=-2g(subscript e)^2 which is the correct answer according to Griffiths (page 253 problem 7.24). But regardless, this is not the correct approach to solving the equation. It does not use the Einstein summation convention for the gamma matrices. See next note.
   
   page 185: this equation for absolute value of M squared is wrong and would have rendered the whole section incomprehensible if I didn't have Griffiths to refer to. The equation should read g(subscript e)^4/4q^4[Tr(pslash3+m)(gamma(superscript mu))(pslash1+m)(gamma(superscript nu))]x[Tr(pslash4+m)(gamma (subscript mu))(pslash2+m)(gamma(subscript nu))].
   
   page 202: first equation leaves out term -1/4(phi1^4+phi2^4) on left side and -3/2m2chi2 on right side, which would make correct final form
   -m^2chi^2. Then we get "a field chi with mass m and a field PSI (not chi) that is massless".
   
   page 212: first equation: delete "1/2". Second equation is gamma (subscript 5)^2, not ^5.
   
   page 216: first equation, unclear where last term (i Lbar gamma (superscript mu) d(subscript mu)L" comes from. Also first term should be preceded with i.
   
   page 217: second sentence missing a word: "preserve _____ of the action..."
   
   page 220: according to calculations on page 212, term 10.30 should equal zero!
   
   page 226: first line: where does the term (Dsubscriptmu phi)dagger (Dsubscriptmu phi) come from? In any event this should be (Dsubscript mu phi)dagger (Dsuperscriptmu phi).
   
   page 237: integrand in second equation should be exp[-ax^2/2+bx].
   
   Other suggestions to improve comprehension:
   
   page 78: a statement that A(superscript mu) is the wavefunction of the photon would be useful here rather than waiting until page 166.
   
   page 86: statement made that "In Chap. 4 we saw that this was due to ... " Show me where this is discussed in Chap. 4!
   
   page 141: discussion of the interaction picture is garbled. Which picture is in the middle? And why?
   
   page 151: it should be made explicitly clear that signs of momentum are opposite signs of direction for external antiparticle lines.
   
   page 154: some explication of equation 7.18 would be nice: I found it in Griffiths.
   
   page 155: some note that k is equivalent to q would be demystifying.
   
   page 174: are we supposed to just accept equations 2 and 3 as given, or be able to derive them ourselves?
   
   page 202: would help to put the term "vector bosons" in the Index and/or reference definition on page 76.
   
   Too bad the answers to the quiz and final exam questions aren't worked out for the reader's benefit.
   
   All in all though, it's a nice start!



5. I have not finished reading this book because the Kindle version makes the equations an unreadable mess! Don't buy the Kindle book unless they can get their scanners working on symbols, operators, etc. What good is it otherwise. I got my money back. As far as the content is concerned it is just right for a self-learner who wants to crack this nut. It is the appetizer before the main meal. One should not be over critical when any attempt to make this subject understandable should be applauded. I'll stick to the print version for now.

5 comments about Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics.

1. He says that QM without the math is pure wonderment at the Universe. Fascinating book. I read every book I can find on QM, now, because I first read this book. I am listening to it on CD right now. I see a lot of criticism of this kind of popularization of difficult technical material. To those people, I say, do a better job. SInce you haven't done that better job to date, I am reading this book, and enjoying every minute of it. Reading this book is an exercise in fascination. If school was taught the way this book is written, there would be no absenteeism.



2. One of my favorites along with The Tao of Physics. If you like discussions bringing Western physics and Taoism together you should enjoy this.



3. I have not recieved my order. The book "Dancing Wu Li Masters" has not arrived. I would like to get it soon.
   
   Thank You
   Ed Chevalley



4. I tried to read this book, as I have really enjoyed all other books by Gary Zukav. This was the exception. I just couldn't get through the entire book, so maybe I missed the point or message of the book. It was not easy reading.



5. Nutshell review - a fun introduction and overview of the mysteries and quirks of the world of quantum physics. A good read written in a easy to understand style for us laymen.

5 comments about The Self-Aware Universe.

1. Goswami merges science and spirituality like no other. You don't need to possess a scientific mind to follow most of his argument. The universe is indeed self-aware and Goswami proves that fact, merging east and west in way that makes perfect sense.



2. This is a wonderful and timely book. It gives a fresh view of science, religion, mind, body, consciousness and the universe, stimulates thinking and makes one really understand that s/he can make a difference!!



3. Very interesting book, a little bit into speculation and religion.
   The scientific part was well explained.
   The view about the universe changed for me.
   I would recommend this book to any one who is interested in quantum mechanics and filosofy...
   
   Your's
   
   Dr. MJ v Dijk PhD



4. We are all one consciousness experiencing our reality seperately. Each of us learning and contributing to this universal mind.
   I found this book to be very fascinating. Maggie & Amit Gaswami take you on a journey through physics to explain our existance in the universe. Implicitly detailing what science is really telling us about life and living systems, exactly how we are connected and what we can do with this new-found knowledge. I highly recommend this book!



5. Good Metaphysical understanding of life - that it consists of "The one consciousness". And that, all there is anywhere is this one consciousness. That all life interacts instantaneously and non-locally through a mechanism of life and living, difficult to comprehend when understood through the distorting lens of scientific thought and object orientated materialistic living. It underlines that matter is for the most part redundant or better considered as a reflex of thought and arises totally out of conditioning and sedimentations, termed quantum collapse - or "The classical self".
   
   On the otherhand, the past does not need to exist, to the Quantum Self, that is not beholden to the Samskaras of conditioned and congealed thought, to space or time but has access to all that is and all that happens as it happens and which underscores all our creativity and Quantum evolutionary capabilities. Also, good synopsis of the current state of physics and the current belief systems prevailing in the world at present from (i) Behaviorism to (ii) Materialism to (iii)Monistic Idealism , along with their limitations.
   
   Does not go that step further in understanding the metaphysical derivatives of Aspect's experiment, and in realizing that everything communicates instantaneously, only because space does not really fundamentally exist at all - and with it Time - which is just another aspect of the same illusion based on Minkowsky's elucidations! And so - there is no out-there - out there! The realization that everything and ever being is just subjective essence needs to be fully assimilated. A major affront to Science. Hui Neng's understanding that "From the beginning, not a thing is"! would be a further development! along with realizing that the entire seeming objective and object-orientated functionality of the universe is just a reflex of unpurified thought - also ACIM's Statement that "Objects leave not their Source" would help usher in the new metaphysics and the transcendental understanding and awareness needed to propitiate quantum leaps in mankind and the one joined and universal consciousness.
   
   The last section of the book, that deals with yoga and ethics is at best third rate. Reiterates OSHO, Krishnamurti and the basics of yoga! focuses on Eka Rupa and attaining the Eka Grata state in meditation as well as those of Samadhi with objects. Very fundamental but does not capitilize or deliver on the clever, well developed scientific statements that are their precursor earlier in the book.

5 comments about Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship.

1. In this slim well written volume Polkinghorne gives us a succinct comparison of the rational processes of inquiry required in both quantum physics and Chistian theology. As he says in his preface if you're looking for a book on quantum physics he has written a different work treating that subject specifically. He has also written elsewhere about his Christian faith and theology. This book's real value lies in its encouragement towards further reading.
   
   Polkinghorne reaffirms his commitment to "critical realism" largely derived from Michael Polanyi. He then takes us on a fascinating journey of the intellectual history of quantum physics and theology. He draws a series of parallels in the two disciplines. Starting with a discussion of how science uses experience and understanding in the process of discovery he explains how the relationship between theory and experiment played a part in Einstein's development of the theory of relativity. That is paralleled by a discussion of how Christology is shaped by the historical record of Christ found in the Gospels. That supports his adoption of "bottom up" theology. This format is followed throughout the book - first discussing an aspect of the history of science and quantum physics followed with a history of some aspect of theology. Overall, this makes for some fascinating reading, if at times a little confusing as to exactly how these different histories are paralleled.
   
   Some of the scientific subjects covered are: the development of relativity, quarks, atomic structure, waves and particles, quantum indeterminacy and quantum field theory. The theological subjects include Christology, the historical Jesus, the incarnation, the doctrine of two natures, doctrine of the Trinity, miracles and eschatology. Polkinghorne finishes up with a discussion of some human aspects of intellectual inquiry such as the role of genius, insight, imagination, thought experiments and how the choice of words influences conceptual formulation.
   
   Polkinghorne's aim is to get scientists to appreciate the rational inquiry demanded of theological reflection and perhaps to do some reading in theology. Likewise, he encourages theologians to appreciate the intellectual rigor of scientific inquiry and to study science to see what that might add to their own theological formulations. I think this book succeeds in stimulating the reader in those directions.



2. The book is easy to read even though the complexity of the theme it works. Polkinhorne explores the connections between science and religion, making his point clear and easy to understand.



3. John Polkinhorne concedes that the existance of extra (space/time) dimensions is, as yet, unproven; what happens to our conciousness is also unproven in theology. He, nevertheless, offers sound logic that there must be a dynamic to perform transistion from this existance to the future. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed it occurs that "super string" or no, some such dimensions are more than probable.
   
   Joseph Taylor



4. This is an excellent resource illustrating how science and Christianity are NOT mutually exlusive. Polkinghorne is a physicist and a "hard science" person as opposed to Diarmuid O'Murchu (Quantum Theology) who is a "soft science" person.
   
   Polkinghorne draws solid and substantiated paralells in the methods used by science and Christianity in their search for truth. This is much needed in our present culture where the constructed DUALISTIC split between science and religion prevails; that is, our culture tends to choose sides, EITHER science OR religion. Polkinghorne aptly illustrates that one can be both a scientist and a Priest as he is, or believe in science and religion.
   
   The only complaint I have is that at times Polkinhorne's tone is a bit uppity bordering on condescending. What I refer to here is illustrated in the preface when he explains why he did not title his book "Quantum Theology." He slams it as "quantum hype" and says it is really just indulgence in "paradox." I moved easily past this dig, which I perceived to be against O'Murchu, Social Psychologist and author of QUANTUM THEOLOGY, because Polkinghorne is a "hard scientist."
   
   That Polkinghorne is a "hard scientist" makes his work very methodical easy to follow, and the Christianity Science parallels unmistakable, even for the novice. That Polkinghorne is a priest probably lends to his openess to postmodern thought, that he is a physicist keeps him from "throwing the baby (scientific method) out with the bath water (some of the deification of science ineherent in much of modernity/enlightenment). I have never read a more clear and easy to follow book. This book is well worth the read and hopefully can lead to an even wider opening for the meeting of science and religion.



5. John Polkinghorne has written a book that will surprise and challenge many of its readers. In a neatly written and cogently argued case, he shows that there are many more similarities than one might have suspected between the goals and methods of the quantum physicist and those of the Christian theologian. He writes as an expert in both disciplines and his text is free of wild overstatement and contrived polemic. This is a book that charms and inspires and conveys a sense of authentic wonder at the astonishing creation of which we are a part.

5 comments about Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide.

1. Focuses mainly on quantum effects and applications. A relatively small book, it's a pretty easy read, though it does get somewhat technical at times. Simplified math is typically put in as optional sidebars. It is written in a fairly straight forward way. I felt it tended to "jump around" a bit, on occasion mentioning an unexplained term or fact, which might or might not be expounded on later, though this was rather minor. It has one chapter on underlying reality interpretations.



2. Like many of my intelligent-seeming purchases, this is for a friend. I did find myself thumbing through this book, however, and found that the layout seems quite straightforward. While I doubt that this book's spine will ever be excercized beyond it's paperback capacity, I have taken the proverbial horse to the science-flavored water.



3. I like how it breaks things down into subcategories, it's kind of like an overview of physics. If you want to know what quantum physics covers and not get into too much detail about the subject this is the book for you. In this sense it is a beginner's guide. It doesn't break things down into simpler ways of understanding but covers very basic ideas of quantum physics.



4. I read a review in which the reviewer said he reads 5 books a year and that makes him an authority. That made me chuckle. I think Einstein himself said, he was no Einstein.
   
   I've read about 3 dozen books on physics and math in the last 2 years and this one is another one I am happy to add to my list. Alastair Rae has the gift of not talking down to the reader. What I particularly like are the summaries and notes at the end of each chapter; it just seems to tie everything together. The book has mathematical boxes throughout, which can be skipped by the reader and still manage to get the over-all message. I would however recommend trying the math. If you are a little vague on math, try reading 'Basic Technical Mathematics with Calculus' by Allyn J. Washington and 'Precalculus Demystified' by Rhonda Huetenmueller.
   I did and it gave me a good mathematical background. I would as well, recommend studying classical physics too.
   
   All in all, Rae offers a good introduction to quatum for those who are new to the field, as well as a refresher for anyone with experience.



5. I really appreciate how the book is written in simplistic terms that most will be able to understand. It has truly explained the reasons for certain reactions in my world. It's easy to understand and remember.

5 comments about Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything.

1. finally, a coherent study of the bridge between the concept of the 'a-field' and the current developments in physics which may support these theories. simple enough to make sense to a non-scientist, but certainly detailed and thorough enough to satisfy an intelligent inquisitor. another excellent work from ervin laszlo.



2. A superb book on holistic philosophy. The article by Dr Peter Teiman, "holism and gestaldt"discusses the more philosophical aspects, yet this book looks at holism from the philosophical as well as physics and psychological perspectives.
   Dr Peter Teiman
   Switzerland



3. Through an artfully constructed blend of science and common sense, Ervin Laszlo has given us a convincing reason to believe in the existence of what he calls the Akashic Field, or A-Field. This parallels what I called Universal Intelligence in 'My Owner's Manual' (2005, Voltaire Press), but the difference is much more than semantics! Laszlo's explanation is far superior to my own feeble attempt at proof.
   
   A must-read for anyone who has ever asked "What is the meaning of life?"



4. The FCC has officially announced plans to regulate public transmissions over the Akashic field.
   
   Also mentioned was the possibility of relaxing their restriction of time-invariance, officially imposed upon physical laws by Western powers since the time of Galileo. Checks for repeatability of experimental results may cease as early as this July, although officials emphasized that talks are just beginning and a final date has not been set.
   
   Sounds like your morning commute might get a lot more interesting!



5. This book is another illustrative example of how complex, philosophic and unrealizable to direct experience a theory-of-everything (TOE) can become once you wander too far down the wrong rabbit hole. A real theory-of-everything should be so simple and run so close to your being and everyday experience that a three year child could easily understand and relate to it, it should not be something requiring multiple Phds' to decode and still find yourself having many difficulties visualizing and connecting the dots to. There are much simpler TOEs around. One simply states - "God-IS" while another says "I Am That" and you can even join these together, if you want. But the ego needs its fix of complexity, inventiveness, and ingenuity and avoids naked simplicity, which does not meets its needs for specialness.
   
   Ervin's TOE links the Vedic notion of the Akashic Field to physical space through the notion of the quantum vacuum. He sees this vacuum, as a subtle energy sea and as a very active plenum rather than an inert space and background to the world of matter. And he uses his linkage in his attempt to marry science with mystical insights and religion, mind with matter, consciousness with perception.
   
   He indicates that information is encoded through the modulation of quantum state fluctuations in the energy sea of the quantum vacuum. The encoding mechanism itself, he sees as holographic in nature and arise out of the coherent interference patterns setup and created by the interpenetration (entanglement) of the waves represented by the wave functions of individual quanta. While, the reading mechanism of the stored information back into consciousness, he sees as relying on resonance and phase conjugation which can occur between the quantum-ly superimposed wavefunctions (quantum entanglement) setup by the chemicals in our brain and that of the quantum vacuum of the world around us.
   
   His theory therefore borrows heavily on Bohm's idea of an implicate order and on the notion of a higher dimensional existence, in which the holographic fields representing all possible quantum states and therefore encodings can be stored. Bohm relied on the concept of "hidden variables" to connect this higher dimensional theoretical existence to the manifest existence that we experience. The big difference of course, is that Bohm's higher dimensional existence was not a higher order physical dimensional existence but only higher order dimensionally in terms of our understanding. It suggests a higher order evolution in our mental and psychic development than a higher order objective dimensional existence and is closer therefore to the understandings of Ouspensky and Kant. He saw the limited context imposed by the belief in 3-D space and time and the apparent separation between things as insufficient in itself to adequately explain many phenomena in the world appearing around us and saw that our real hope was only in transcending this limited context.
   
   This newer context, which he called the implicate order he felt would help connect and explain all known/unknown phenomena in a higher and `truer' modality. He realized that most of the phenomena are not real in themselves but are artifacts imposed by our mind's limited context. Just as a sphere cutting two dimensional space would be experienced as growing circles and therefore "alive" when viewed in 2-D space would appear as being fundamentally static in a 3-D one. Bohm elucidated this idea in his example of the simultaneous video recordings of two views of a fish piped to two different TV screens. And he used this as an alternative explanation of Alain Aspect's findings on the non-local connection and 'faster-than-light' signaling between quantumly entangled particles.
   
   In Bohm's view this apparent instantaneous communication between the two fish on two screens can be entirely understood if we drop the notions of two fish, the `faster than light' signaling as well as the belief in the space appearing to separate them as real. He indicated that all of this is also easily explainable, in an alternative explanation once we are prepared to transcend the many contextual limitations imposed by our current belief system. His explanation of these non-local phenomena is that all we are seeing is just two views of the same fish and we use our minds to project these different views through space, which has no true existence in itself. This then makes the fish appear to be separate as two different entities, yet somehow synchronised and communicating non-locally.
   
   And so, the two fish are not instantaneously communicating with each other through space, because there is only one fish and no space. Therefore Bohm's theory is that we are only ever seeing (with quantum entanglement and non-local connections) different views of same undifferentiated oneness of ultimate reality that we then projected to different locations in space and time and then take to be separate entities in themselves. So we are really projecting our biased beliefs in time, space and the separation as a fundamental mold which behaves as false context that then embeds and limits our experiencing of phenomena. Within this limiting context, there can be no direct experience of reality as it is and therefore of the noumenal existence. And so like the teachings of "A Course in Miracles", only Oneness IS, the belief in separation is a faulty construct developed through limitations in our mental evolution and our many attempts to partition reality on our own terms.
   
   And so Bohm's understandings correlate closely to Plato's analogy in "the cave". In this analogy the prisoners, tied together in the confines of the cave since birth see the meaningless shadows arising on the cave wall as representing all that there is to experience and fail to recognize, that these shadows but represent weak reflections of the real world as experienced through the distorted lens imposed by the limited scope and context through which they are experienced. In the same way Ervin hints that what we experience into our manifest world of experience instant-by-instant but one holographic encoding of all possible holographic encodings and it is this encoding that gets stored to the eternal record of the Akashic Field. He briefly describes some of the common elements to the various string theories that also support this belief and to explain that the quantum-ly collapsed state of our individual experience operating within a fundamental multi-dimensional existence beyond our own scope and experience.
   
   The key mistakes, that I feel Ervin makes are that he takes the world of matter and space, to be real in-and-of itself. In fact, he sees matter as arising out of and to be interchangeable with space. He therefore believes in an external world and espouses the belief in Evolutionary Panpsychism that "there is no categorical divide between mind and matter... conscious matter at a lower level of organisation (the neurons in the brain) generates conscious matter at a higher level of organisation (the brain as a whole). He therefore ties the Akashic field (A-Field) to physical existence and the existing notions of the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field and the Higgs field.
   
   But, I am confident that his belief that there is not categorical divide beween mind and matter is where he makes the compromise that will never work. They arise out of his attempt to reconcile his direct experience of his own consciousness with his concurrent belief in an external world of matter. And so if I hold a cup of tea in my hand. The epiphenomenalists will attempt to convince me that this cup can create me along with all the refinements in my consciousness, while the mystics and enlightened, say otherwise that we create the cup out of our consciousness. Ervin adds to this the third view that my consciousness and the cup co-create each other. But reason would say that one must be cause and the other the effect, and this effect is entirely dependant on its cause. The epiphenomenalists belief that our consciousness is tied to matter and cannot exist apart from it contradicts however the findings of transpersonal psychology, OBEs, NDEs, ADCs etc. The panpsychism view it ultimately the view that both consciousness and matter can exist without a real cause since each is a cause and effect of each other. The mystical and religious view is that all is consciousness, it does not deny matter as part of the experience of our consciousness but insists that it has no existence in-and-of itself, independent of this consciousness.
   
   This is the understanding that there is no world (excepting the Absolute) apart from our conscious experience of it. Our consciousness and its subtle involutions creates the world of our experience and all its apparent evolutions. This understanding takes the world appearing outside back inside us. And so isthe understanding also matter is not and cannot ever become conscious, rather that consciousness appears in the form of matter if we limit the context enough through our conscious ideas. And so consciousness like any good river flows downstream to lower and lower levels based on more and more restrictive and limiting contexts into which we put it. In one limiting context, it may appear as a dog, in a lower one as a cell and in a lower one still as a rock. It is the same one-consciousness seen in the mind's eye through the different transparencies established by each context. Remove our belief in any particular context and consciousness will no longer appear in that form.
   
   This was the teaching of the original and real Akashic field as espoused by Vedic thought. That it is all recorded and available because it is recorded not only at the level of our conscious development, but at the cellular level, at the organic levels and at higher levels of consciousness more subtle than our own. One last point on this, just because we experience something, does not mean that it is true. We have truer and falser experiences all the time but all perceptions have some error in it, being born out of error and the fall from the undifferentiated reality. And so people experiences their dreams as real but find them to be false and lacking substance on awaking, those with schizophrenia and on drugs experience worlds that do not exist apart from their own mind and their own belief in them and we all share in some individual and collective hallucinations that we then take to be true amd self-evident because we experience them and they are validated by others from the apparent outside.
   
   And so, just because one experiences the world of space, matter and an external world does not mean that it is true, just part of your experience. In time, this experience will be seen to be an unreal or a very limiting modality of living as we undergo even more refined quantum evolutions in our consciousness. After all, consciousness at the organism or cellular level have no conscious experience of us because it downstream from us on the consciousness level. It can only deem, its own limited experience as valid to itself. This is not surprising, because we do the exact same thing, believing in the reality of matter and in an external world when in reality all these are just part of our own experiential level, given our level of conscious evolution. Consciousness itself will eventually disappear, because it can only exist in duality. Once restored to awareness of Oneness, duality is seen to be a faulty construct and so without purpose simply disappears.
   
   Some of the other sections of this book attempt to join the findings of cosmology, quantum physics, transpersonal psychology, remote viewing, many lives, as well as some of the findings in modern biology such as morphogenetic fields within the context of the non-local intelligence of the A-Field. I have no problem with this just with his placement of the A-field itself and his attempts to mix-up true cause-and-effect relationships. If he had placed the Akashic field and record within the universal consciousness, and this existing as an imperfect formulation of fundamental spaceless essence of the One-mind, all would be fine.
   
   In the book, he talks of Pierre S. Laplace's comments to emperor Napolean, namely that God was a hypothesis for which there is no longer any need. Do not mistake this for a random innocuous quote from an otherwise unbiased and impartial observer, for we all scavenge the world of our perception, in search for all that is like us and which appears to strengthen out thought system and to consolidate our own beliefs about ourselves. And this particular TOE is Ervin's own belief about himself and his attempts to offer it to you for your belief.
   
   A Course in Miracles discusses our attempts to dismiss God in this way and have creation under our own terms and beliefs, in its section called "The Authority Problem".In indicates that this world of duality, of many apparent separate things represent nothing more than our attempts to usurp the power of God and have reality on our own terms rather than how it is. We create this artifice of our experience as a cover to hide ourselves from God. But it is all mindless and without meaning and represents only our attempts to add meaning to the meaningless. They are just attempts of escapism and the fundamental Truth that we cannot and did not create ourselves, for our creation is beyond our own error. And so God remains present but yet out of our awareness because of the many mindless and meaningless artifices we have attempted to interpose between Truth and our experience of Truth.
   
   Ervin's background is as a system's theorist. These are the folk that go madly hopping about like magpies looking for the shiney trinkets of apparent value from many diverse fields and then attempting to join them into a convergent thought system and systems theory that meets with the umbrella of their own beliefs and biases. Sometimes, they make useful connections but most often they attempt to make a Cleopatra from many different body parts that they have collected over the years.
   
   These are not the inner explorers or those real thinkers that build from below ground level often from first principles that need to be invented and to establish a new framework or context that does not yet exist. Einstein and Bohm fall into this latter category. If phenomena cannot be explained by the existing theory, then maybe an entire new theory and context is needed instead. They do not try to have the theory meet with the biases of common sense and personal experience knowing both can be invalid.

5 comments about The Quantum World: Quantum Physics for Everyone.

1. Emit one photon at a certain point, then detect it at another point. In between, that one photon has traveled EVERY POSSIBLE PATHWAY between the two points. The location where you detect it is determined by probability, not certainty.
   
   This book blew my mind, as I had left physics behind over a decade prior. It was very accessible, but disjointed. I suppose it is difficult to compose a flowing narrative about a subject that no one truly understands. Credit Ford for helping us learn, even if we have to keep flipping back and forth to remind ourselves what leptons and bosons and fermions are.



2. This is a good and readable introduction to Quantum Mechanics with a good collection of questions at the end that will be handy for educators (an answer manual is available to them). The quantum world is so far away from our daily experience that it should not surprise us that the concepts we use in classical physics such as defined trajectories, particles, waves, exact position, etc. get blurred in the quantum world. However, there are fascinating experiments, the best known is the double slit experiment, that show us the weirdness of the quantum, epitomized in the famous Wheeler's question: "How come the quantum?".
   
   The quantum world is fundamentally probabilistic. For example, you do not who whether a specific atom of a radioactive substance will disintegrate in the next second, the only thing you can know is the probability that it will decay.
   
   The book also traces the history of the main discoveries in particle physics and has a good number of photos of the main characters.
   
   To conclude: anybody not familiar with QM and who wants to acquire a minimum scientific culture about one of the two main revolutions in physics of the XXth century (and the one that has had the widest impact in our modern economy) needs to read this book.
   
   I particularly enjoyed the explanation of alpha and beta radioactivity and the discussion on CP violation, "the reason we are here", according to Nobel Prize winner Val Fitch. On the other hand, I missed some clarifications that will confuse the lay reader: why neutrinos are not their own antiparticles or how come there are 8 gluons if there are nine pairs of colour/anticolour. On the other hand, the important Uncertainty Principle is only discussed on page 213, whereas it is mentioned several times before in the book.



3. I found this book to be very interesting. The only minor drawback is the intense focus on the many kinds of sub-atomic particles (Hadrons, Fermions, Leptons, Pions, W particles, etc.), but I really liked the way the information was presented. A good book for the non-scientist. Makes the completely complicated quantum theory quasi-understandable, if not fathomable. I think it was Neils Bohr you said that something like "anybody who claims to understand quantum mechanics really doesn't", as it is weird science based on probabilities. Not many equations in the book; a few in the footnotes.



4. Three themes are intertwined throughout this book:
   
   1. Historical and biographical data on the men who, over about 50 years, discovered and described the weird world of quantum phenomenon and particle physics. The use of common sense had to be suspended during these investigations.
   
   2. Accurate and intimidating descriptions of the particles and their interactions. I think it was Richard Feynman who said something like, "If I want to know the particulars about one of these particles, I know where to look it up."
   
   3. Running commentary on how the quantum world works.
   
   Of the three, the first is well-done and interesting, the second is relentless but necessary (for the career physicist), and the third is simply brilliant. It explains in clear language why the quantum world is so unlike the common sense world we thought we lived in. Difficult concepts come alive - such as wave/particle duality, the exclusion principle, the uncertainly principle, symmetry, and entanglement, or as Einstein called it, "spooky action at a distance." Unless you live like a Mennonite or are on a boy scout campout, quantum physics technologies effect the way you live your daily life - the internet even grew out of early efforts of physicists to keep each other more immediately informed about advances in particle physics. For non-physics majors, consider reading on despite lack of total understanding or you might bog down in details. As the point of view changes, concepts are restated and you'll get another try at it. This stuff is weird!
   
   This is a great book that I highly recommend for any physicist who wants to brush up on particle physics and quantum phenomena, any undergrad or grad student in physics, or any other scientist types who are persistent enough to really want a handle on this fascinating but difficult subject.



5. I have found this book very easy to read and understand. It is great for people who want to know things regarding physics without a 'gob' of formulas to be confused with.

5 comments about The Universe in a Nutshell.

1. Dr. Hawking begins every chapter in this book with an intriguing question such as "Is time travel possible?" Instead of providing a response and proceeding to explain, prove or disprove his assertions, he delves into the detail of the theoretical physics aspect of time travel, and then somewhere in the middle of the chapter the following appears: "It seems, therefore, that quantum theory allows time travel on a microscopic scale." Hooray! It's fine and dandy that microscopic particles can travel through time. Please tell us about spaceships, humans, aliens, ANYTHING larger than a microscopic particle traveling to the past or the future. Here's what Hawking divulges two sentences later: "Can the probability in the sum over histories be peaked around spacetimes with macroscopic time loops?" This sentence alone mentions three complicated concepts covered in other chapters, albeit not in sufficient detail. And therein lies my biggest criticism of this book:
   
   The uninitiated reader can easily lose her comprehension because of the layout and depth or lack thereof of material suited more to readers who have a physics background.
   
   As was the case with his previous bestselling book , Mr. Hawking provides neither the technical detail to satisfy the knowledgeable, nor the simplified information for the lay person.
   
   Nevertheless, Dr. Hawking deserves recognition for using his celebrity status in the world of theoretical physics combined with his remarkable effort to simplify and bring to the masses difficult concepts that only a handful of people in the world can fully grasp, especially given his dire physical condition afflicted by his decades old fight with Lou Gehrig's.



2. This book is more of a companion to, rather than a sequel to Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". It covers much of the same ground, but is illustrated, whereas the original version of "Time" is not. (There is also an illustrated version of "A Brief History of Time" that is far better than the original non-illustrated version.). I think that the first two chapters of "Nutshell" give a better overview of relativity theory and quantum mechanics than the corresponding chapters in "Time". These chapters and the illustrations are reason enough to read this book. The other chapters stand-alone and represent areas that Hawking has worked on or thought about since he wrote "Time". Some are a bit out there, especially the one on time travel, but are none the less very interesting and entertaining, even if they are very hard to follow (at least I found them so). A better alternative to this book is to get, if you can find it, Hawking's illustrated A Brief History of Time and Universe in a Nutshell, which is published in a single volume. It is available in hard and soft cover, but appears to be hard to find, even though it was published in 2007. (I have seen copies in the bargain sections at Borders and Barnes and Noble.)



3. On the cover of Stephen Hawking's The Universe in a Nutshell you can find, surprise, a picture of the universe in a nutshell. This cover illustration is typical of both the sense of humor Hawking employs and the helpful illustrations found in his work. Hawking's book is written for the average person who is interested in the science that has today's most educated and intelligent minds talking. Theoretical physics from M-theory to duality are all examined and explained in terms that the average reader with basic scientific understanding can comprehend and apply. Throughout his writing, however, Hawking intersperses his own, unique, geeky science humor and also diagrams and pictures coordinating with his discussion to keep the reader interested and engaged. Through his ability to mix illustrations with humorous and yet highly informative and accessible reading, Hawking has created the most successful volume of its kind in years and educated millions of average readers on the most complex science to date.
   
   Highly Informative yet Accessible
   
   To begin the book Hawking first introduces Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity. He begins with Einstein because his ideas have had perhaps the strongest influence on the science that Hawking discusses. In explaining Einstein's theory of relativity, Hawking does not use mathematical equations or field-specific terms. Instead he uses everyday language with examples and analogies that almost anyone can relate to. For instance,, in explaining how time is relative to each individual in the universe rather than being the same for everyone everywhere, Hawking presents the experiment that was done in which two extremely accurate clocks were flown in opposite directions around the world, one to the East and one to the West. When the planes returned, the clocks read slightly different times. The result of this experiment supported Einstein's theory and its use is an effective way to teach an average reader about Einstein's theory of relativity. This accomplishment, teaching a reader the basics of Einstein's theory of relativity, is brought into context by a quote found in another of Hawking's books, A Brief History of Time. In the early 1920's, a journalist told Sir Arthur Eddington, a British astronomer, that he had heard there only three people in the world who understood general relativity. Eddington supposedly paused for a moment and replied, "I am trying to think who the third person is" (Hawking 108).
   
   Engaging through Humor and Illustration
   
   While presenting a barrage of information that would be difficult indeed to wade through on its own, Hawking throws his reader flotation devices in the form of illustrations and comic relief that make the seemingly overwhelming amount of information much more manageable. When discussing a complicated experiment designed by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley to measure the speed of light, Hawking provides two diagrams of the experiment that make it much easier to comprehend (Hawking 6). Because of the diagrams, the reader can better understand how the light was split into two beams which were made to travel at right angles to each other, and how by observing the behavior of the light in the experiment one can support the general theory of relativity. Because Hawking includes helpful diagrams such as these, his readers become less mired in the bog of information and are more capable of sifting through it. Hawking's use of humor is another device that makes reading his book easier. On page nine, after discussing the aforementioned clocks on airplanes which are flown in opposite directions, Hawking writes "This might suggest that if one wanted to live longer, one should keep flying to the east... However, the tiny fraction of a second one would gain would be more than canceled by eating airline meal.s." If an author can make a reader laugh as this comment made me, then the reader will be encouraged to keep reading. By engaging the reader through humor, Hawking keeps the reader interested despite the amount of difficulty the reader may have in understanding wormholes or string theory.
   
   Stephen Hawking's book The Universe in a Nutshell has taught me more about physics than any textbook that I have ever used. Because of Hawking's work I have a greater understanding not only of the phenomena that occur around me but of the theoretical physics that are being discussed right now among the leading minds in the fields of astronomy and physics. While there is a vast amount of information covered in his book, because of Hawking's accessible style I was able to comprehend many more of the concepts he discusses than I would be able to on my own. His use of diagrams and humor kept me engaged and helped me to keep on reading right to the end, even when there were concepts that I had trouble grasping. For the average reader interested in learning more about the events that occur around them and what is going on in the universe that has the brightest scientists in the world talking, The Universe in a Nutshell is an extremely helpful tool.



4. A Startrek to Eternity
   After having read, and thoroughly enjoyed, Stephen Hawking's previous book (A Brief History of Time) I was a little disappointed in this one. Not that it isn't entertaining or that Professor Hawking isn't presenting it as well as he did in 'History,' it's just that the subject material is so much more difficult to comprehend that I'm sure the casual reader (such as myself) would have trouble getting through it. The theories presented are so 'off the wall' and are such a long way from being verified that it appears to be nothing more than wild guesses - but I suppose that's the world of a theoretical physicist.



5. 
   If I had to sum up Stephen Hawking's The Universe In A Nutshell in one word, it would be brilliant. In this masterpiece Hawking somehow takes the most, in my opinion, complicated and confusing science topics and breaks them down into a reader-friendly showcase of knowledge and love of science. Upon first opening the book and skimming the topics and detailed illustrations I almost didn't even bother to start the adventure into Hawking's world, however upon reading the first few pages I quickly learned that such topics could be understood by even the most severely scientifically challenged. Granted comprehension of such daunting topics does not come instantaneously, but if slowly taken in you can easily come to understand the science of every bit of matter around you and begin to see the world through Hawking's eyes.
   Normally I am the last one to pick up a non-fiction book such as this one for a pleasure reading book, but on my friends persistence I bought it. After reading the first couple of pages I could not stop reading. I would read a couple of pages, give myself time to wrap my mind around what I had just read, and then immediately dive back into the book. Hawking immediately pulls you in with his obvious delight in the universe and the science around us. He somehow makes the book fun to read. The fact that Hawking makes such advanced science subjects and ideas comprehendible without watering down the material makes you want to learn more about the world around you and the possibilities of the future.
   Without a doubt, this book would not be as digestible as it is without the magnificent illustrations. Detailed pictures and diagrams help the reader to visualize the topics which Hawking explains with excellent clarity. The diagrams alone are enough to explain the ideas and theories Hawking conveys in this amazing book. I myself am a very visual learner so the illustrations were very helpful to my understanding of the topics.
   In conclusion, Hawking takes seemingly impossible subjects such as quantum mechanics, time travel, and the actual shape of time and is somehow able to explain it in a fashion that can be understood by almost any reader. Hawking introduces ideas and theories completely alien to the average person in his book, so digest the book slowly. With a little effort, anyone can comprehend the world they live in through the eyes of the brilliant Stephen Hawking.

5 comments about Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness.

1. I agree with other reviewers about the merits of this book. It's worth stressing that the book's focus is not on how quantum mechanics works; rather, it is on the implications of quantum mechanics. Generally, if a scientific theory uses math, you must understand the math to understand the theory. With quantum mechanics, however, even if you understand the math, you will still find quantum mechanics baffling. Richard Feynman, perhaps the greatest physicist since Einstein, said with only a touch of hyperbole: "I don't understand it [quantum mechanics]. Nobody does." The good news here is that you don't have to understand the math to get to a clear idea of why people who do understand the math can be befuddled by the implications. So this book pretty much dispenses with mathematics. You can't explain Bell's theorem without some mathematical thinking, but nothing beyond arithmetic is required, not even algebra or geometry. Nonetheless, some parts of the book will have to be read slowly, probably several times. If you don't already understand how waves can interfere with each other, this book's explanation probably won't help you. But you can take the interference on faith and move on. The authors do an excellent job of showing that quantum mechanics yields results that defy common sense. And as their subtitle promises, they hammer at the point that quantum mechanics seems to demand a conscious observer, which creates a major problem for traditional views of how science is supposed to proceed. In fact, it creates a major problem for the common-sense view that material objects exist independently of our observing them. Various interpretations and modifications of the theory try to dodge the need for a conscious observer, with limited success. I've read a number of popular books on quantum mechanics and this one does the best job overall of exploring the implications. (If you're looking for a book that uses some serious math [specifically, linear algebra] without requiring an extensive math background, try Albert, Quantum Mechanics and Experience.)



2. Quantum Enigma exposes the skeleton in theoretical physics' closet. The authors do not force any conclusions but leave that to the reader. The book will help you understand what quantum theory and its interpretations say, and inspires further questioning and contemplation.
   
   After a historical tour of the fundamentals of theoretical physics, the authors present the story of how quantum theory was forced onto physics. Mainstream scientists felt that having consciousness create physical reality was absurd and that somehow the theory wasn't complete. But the predictions of quantum theory have never been shown wrong.
   
   The authors make very clear that the quantum enigma, their term for having quantum theory based ultimately on consciousness, is physics' skeleton in the closet in the sense that mainstream physics does not embrace it, almost as if it were an embarrassment. The reason being that from the point of view of quantum theory, physical reality does not exist and that what we see is created by the observer. It seems as if physics has abolished the physical world all together. What an embarrassment indeed!
   
   However the scientific value of this theory is unquestionable. There is mention of technologies that rely on quantum mechanics, supposedly one-third of our economy. Pragmatism aside, the main conclusion I can reach is that quantum physics can serve as the basis for a paradigm-shift about how we view the world and ourselves as a part of it. For quantum physics suggests that we have the ability to choose how we want our world to be, and that separateness is an illusion-- everything is connected through quantum entanglement. We must force physics to pull the skeleton out of the closet and expose the enigma.
   
   During the course of reading, the reader will wonder about the main premise: "is it true consciousness creates physical reality by collapsing the wavefunction?" or "do we need to worry about big things like rocks, cats, people being in a state of superposition or does it only apply to tiny things like atoms?" You cannot blame the book for leaving out answers to these vital questions because in truth nobody knows. This book will at least give you the information you need to even know what these questions mean and why they are so hard for science to answer.
   
   In summary, this was a captivating read which could act as a starting point for further philosophical inquiry into consciousness, reality and what science is capable of saying about the universe at this time.



3. Implications of two different results regarding an experiment in quantum physics is pretty disconcerting when first discovered in the physics community, but when you understand that the reason there is a difference in experimental results is due to a conscious observation, it can really mess with your mind! This great book tries to sum up all the ideas/ theories out there to try and makes sense of all this.
   
   Although they explain the basics of the expleriments, I would have liked a more in depth step by step of the experiment that shows two different results, the wave for no observation and the determined point with observation. It could be that it just isn't in the physics 101 lab reproducibility but requires more extensive equipment to show.



4. This book is by far one of the most concise and simplest elucidations of various quantum phenomena... treating Copenhagen interpretation, the famous EPR paradox, Bell's theorem & inequality and more. Since I am not a physicist or physics major, I found their approach welcoming and I cannot critique the physics of the book, but I do have some major qualms with Quantum Enigma.
   
   My prime objection to this book is that the authors implicitly believe in the reality & truth of free will throughout the text. I was a student in Bruce Rosenblum's class at UC Santa Cruz so I was able to ask questions to one of the authors of the book. The issue of free will was one that Rosenblum was not a fan of discussing, often dismissing the nearly uniform proclamation of the natural sciences that free will (i.e. our conscious control of choices) is an illusion.
   
   This is may not seem like a profound objection to a book about physics, but Rosenblum & Kuttner insist themselves on the importance of free will to their book: "the existence of a quantum enigma depends crucially on free will." (p.168) If this is true, one would expect a substantial discussion of this concept yet the authors devote less than 2 pages to it. In these 2 pages, the authors admit, "Though it is hard to fit free will into a scientific worldview, we cannot ourselves, with any seriousness, doubt it. J.A. Hobson's comment seems apt to us: `Those of us with common sense are amazed at the resistance put up by psychologists, physiologists, and philosophers to the obvious reality of free will.'"
   
   This quotation is essentially saying that Rosenblum and Kuttner cannot accept the notion that free will is an illusion because of "common sense." Physicists of all people should know that our so-called "common sense" and our intuitions are often skewed and sometimes totally incorrect. Quantum mechanics is a perfect example of this - as is Copernicus' discovery that we live in a heliocentric system - yet this notion of not trusting our "common sense" seems to not occur to Rosenblum and Kuttner in relation to free will. Often in the Quantum Enigma course (Physics 75), Bruce Rosenblum would simply say, "I know I have free will" - a statement that should make any philosopher, physicist, or biologist cringe - and presumably anyone who values empirical data over subjective "intuitions." Why should we trust our intuitions and "common sense" over the empirical data in this one case of our apparent free will?
   
   The quotation above also belies a major problem with Quantum Enigma, where physics supposedly meets consciousness. The views of those fields named in the quotation above - psychologists, physiologists, and philosophers - are notably absent from Rosenblum and Kuttner's book. In Quantum Enigma where "physics meets consciousness," David Chalmers' book from the 80s is invoked often; they also mention Libet's studies from the 1980s. The problem with this is that an immense amount of research has been done since the 1980s in the blossoming field of neuroscience, which relate directly to our notions of intention, free will, consciousness, and self-representations. None of these findings are even mentioned even in passing in Quantum Enigma.
   
   Patricia Churchland, a philosopher and neuroscientist, states in her book Brain-Wise, "So far, there is no evidence at all that some neuronal events happen without any cause... Importantly, even were uncaused neuronal events to be discovered, it is a further, substantial matter to show that precisely those events constitute choice." From a biological perspective, there appears to be no room for free will. Rosenblum and Kuttner even admit as much when they begin the quotation above with the phrase, "Though it is hard to fit free will into a scientific worldview..." If free will is hard to fit into a scientific worldview, and "the existence of a quantum enigma depends crucially on free will," would it not seem practical to devote a little more than two pages to the discussion of free will? Wouldn't it be necessary to understand the views of biologists, psychologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers on these issues of consciousness and free will to have a full, accurate, scientific picture of the situation?
   
   Certainly physics can expect to "encounter" consciousness because physics intends to find a holistic explanation of the universe, and consciousness is obviously part of the universe physics intends to explain. In our search to understand both quantum mechanics and consciousness, we must be honest and open to all sides of the story. Unfortunately, Rosenblum and Kuttner leave out the arguments from biology, psychology, neurology, and some physicists when discussing the quantum enigma where "physics encounters consciousness." This is an overwhelming handicap, especially because of the authors' supposedly "common sense" presupposition that humans have free will. I admit that there is certainly a quantum enigma that presents itself in what we know as the "measurement problem," and Rosenblum and Kuttner should be congratulated to attempt to bring this to light to combat pseudoscience. But to understand the Quantum Enigma, we cannot start with presupposed truths, especially including the notion that we have free will.
   
   With this in mind, I give the book 3 stars for its extraordinary conciseness with which it explains the phenomena of physics but the lack of biology, philosophy, neuroscience, etc. severely handicaps their interpretations and conclusions.



5. This book on interpreting the quantum facts is one of the best I've read. It is one of the best, I think, in its understandability of the enigma one is faced with in trying to go beyond the Copenhagen interpretation.
   This book presents the measurement problem of quantum physics and explains why conscious observation must have some role in influencing reality, if you choose to go beyond CI. The way the authors explain Bell's Theorem and how it became a testable theory that answered the EPR challenge to quantum theory is succinct and comprehensible to the layman, for which it was writen.