5 comments about Quantum Mechanics Demystified.

1. This is a good book for anyone trying to teach yourself quantum mechanics, and it is a good supplement to any quantum mechanics class. The author talked about hopefully making a 2nd book on this topic to add to this book (not a 2nd edition, but another book) because this one does lack some of the more complicated topics in quantum mechanics.



2. This book might be a decent supplement for more rigorous introductory texts such as Griffiths if it wasn't for the unbelievable number of careless errors and typos. Almost every page (no exaggeration) has at least one error. While most of the errors are self-evident and easily corrected, some do lead to confusion and frustration and all produce in the reader a general mistrust of the text. It is amazing that a reputable publisher like McGraw-Hill could have let a book this mistake-ridden go to print. Errors aside, the content is not self-contained and is not suitable for self-learning, as there is little explanation of the physical meaning of the math and almost no rigorous development of the theories. There are plenty of instances where concepts are used that have not yet been explained, such as the definition of the square of the absolute value of the wave function and the Hamiltonian operator. It
   might, however, serve as a supplement for other introductory texts, since it offers simple problems that help reinforce calculation techniques, which tend to be lacking in texts such as Griffiths which contain more meaningful but more difficult problems. Regardless of its merits, a revised, corrected edition is needed.



3. I went through this book twice and found it very helpful in getting a basic familiarity with elementary quantum mechanics. Its strong point is the detailed exposition of the calculations which enables even people without a lot of math background to master and understand the material. The main problem is innumerable typos, which paradoxically are a kind of learning experience because they force you to go through each calculation in detail to correct the mistakes. But really, it's a shame that so little effort was made at proofreading before the book was published. The reader deserves better.



4. This book is completely useless. It describes itself as basic enough for beginners yet complex enough for advanced students. I would consider myself somewhere in between this, but didn't find either of these claims to be valid.
   
   Equations are introduced with no context what-so-ever. I expected something that would be a gentle enough (re-)introduction to the subject. No, it's just straight in there with no explanation of anything. On the cover there is a nice cartoon of Schrodinger and his cat - which suggests the tone of book. Unfortunately, this is misleading (I know: books, covers, judging etc) - the cat never appears. Schrodingers equation appears - but I had to go elsewhere to find out its origins.
   
   I can't suggest an alternative - but stay away from this one.



5. Simply not a book for beginners or even those with some basic physics knowledge which is what this book claims. This is due to the lack of context with which most of the equations are introduced. A beginner wouldn't even get past the first page!

5 comments about Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying, Reincarnation and Immortality.

1. When death occurs in the family, our rational minds cry out to know more about life after death. Religions offer consolation that God is love and there is heaven beyond, but we wonder if there are any confirmations from studies of human minds which open doors to the after-life. Accordingly we have eagerly picked up books promising answers only to be quickly disappointed. Too many scientific words such as collective unconscious, determinism, morphogenetic fields, non-locality, etc., at best leave our minds only dimly grasping the author's intent. Reading into other cultures about dharma, maya, moksha, jivanmukta and vedanta, will cause us to send another promising book back to the library, or our lower book shelves, unread.
   Aware of this too often encountered problem, the author of Physics of the Soul, has included a thirteen page glossary explaining the meaning and purpose of the lesser known words he has used. To those attempting to become adequate in reading this and similar books, such a service is a godsend. Using Goswami's glossary, we can not only understand his Physics of the Soul, but also, find light from numerous books previously beyond our comprehension.
   Amit Goswami, along with other writers who have given many lectures and workshops, is aware of certain frequently asked questions. These he thoughtfully answers in chapter eleven. Here again, Physics of the Soul should draw, and hold, a much wider circle of readers than most books on similar esoteric concerns.



2. Mr Goswami appears to be on the right track with this research, however where the book falls down is that the sources he cites in support of his argument seem to be taken at such face value. I find this lack of 'scientific' methodology quite surprising since he has taught physics for 32 years. Certainly I agree with Mr Goswami that the standard 'proofs' are not available for this work, but even so, he needs to find a middle road, so that it doesn't just end up as just another 'new age' book. And that would be a shame! Somewhat different, but a good example would be 'Old Souls : Compelling Evidence from Children Who Remember Past Lives' by Thomas Shroder. In addition, chatty idea's sessions with his wife, limit one's ability to take his writing seriously. Finally, Mr Goswami should pick up the phone and call his publisher, who just-so-happens to publish 'Astral Dynamics: A New Approach to Out-of-Body Experiences' by Robert Bruce. Goswami will have many questions answered by reading this book. And, in the case of Bruce, I was willing to ignore any lack of scientific method, because from the moment you pick up the book, you KNOW that he knows what he is talking about. By comparison, Bruce's book is a groundbreaker.



3. Interesting book. Here Amit Goswami attempts to validate the paradigm of a soul that survives the body eternally based on quantum physics. In this "monistic idealism" he equates the soul with the quantum monad and the Jivaman of Sri Aurobindo and the Atman in Hindu Vedic philosophy. This book is another paradigm that supposedly contains the answers to the surviving soul or quantum monad, the subtle body which enters a nonlocality (a connection of potentialities connecting every point in space an time) and carries our tendencies and phobias with us to our next reincarnation. How the purpose of life is a play or battle of two forces, creativity and entropy
   
   Some of the book is on quantum mechanics, how matter gets bogged down in stubborn paradoxes and quantum measurement paradox, and so his science, as in Sri Aurobindo's, is the subtle, the supramental, mental and vital experiences, a science of consciousness and nonlocality where the quantum jumps take place in webs of interdependent connections.
   
   Thought is conveyed of the six bardos found in the Tibetan Book of the Dead and their relation to the human memory of information that dies with us at death and the quantum monad & quantum memory, which he believes carries the tendencies and habitual patterns in each reincarnation. This of course takes us to angels and higher beings of consciousness, death yoga, karma, maya Akashic memory, techniques of meditation, creative thought verses thought, potentiality and the range of choices of actuality.And the idea of the self is all - solipsism, the ideas of how our consciousness collapses the potentialities, turning it into the reality.
   
   I enjoyed the suggestion of three Tibetan practices of one: the death prayer or the Hindu bhakti yoga of devotion to a deity. This is usually done with a private and personal mantra. Two: living a life of service and sacrifice, the attitude that is, is one of service and applied positive meaning. "Instead of looking at pain and suffering and recoiling from the, we embrace pain and suffering to relieve not any pain but the pain of humanity." p. 194. In this, we mentally visualize ourselves containing all consciousness - solipsism, and the power to heal and extend love to all beings. We sacrifice ourselves in this mental capacity and breathing techniques. And Three: Jnana yoga of effortless contemplation, that of concentrating without concentrating or focusing without concentrating, the paradox of concentrative energy while relaxing your mind and this allows you to enter beyond the discursive thought processes to the silent consciousness of the observer self..
   
   I particularly enjoyed a 4 page thought on Involution and Evolution. While in evolution we expand and raise ourselves to the whole, in involution we contract and lower to separate fragmentation in grosser levels, forgetting itself, and decreasing freedom. It is a play of consciousness where there really is no separation but rather consciousness forgets itself for the sake of play, it pretends to forget.
   
   The last chapter of the book gives a good summary on nine interpretations of the soul and its survival and journey.



4. As a student of Dr. Goswami, i very much enjoyed his thoughts and the models that he proposes. While so many in hte west have been taught since childhood that we have a 'soul', we're never given much of a context within which to hold that concept. Dr. Goswami provides some interesting models, based on The Upanishads, that i am still thinking about and applying months after first reading this book. If you are a student of consciousness, metaphysics, or just curious about the possibilities, Physics of the Soul is a must read.



5. Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying, Reincarnation and Immortality by Amit Goswami was for me a look at the possibility that life continues on. I am a believer in God, so what was I worried about? Because not much is said about our state of existence in the scriptures, except for resurrection, then heaven. But where is heaven, our personality? Our soul. If there is no such thing as communicating with the deceased, then why do we as Christian profess the "communion with Saints"? I got a clear picture of some of these things in Mr. Goswami's book. By the way you will want to read all of his books!

5 comments about The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics.

1. Barbour's thesis is that time is an illusion, and doesn't really exist. According to Barbour, the universe is a timeless thing existing in configuration space; it doesn't "move through time," but rather exists as an infinitely dimensioned manifold (my word, not his, and I may not have accurately captured his meaning) in configuration space, where each point on the manifold represents the universe in a unique configuration.
   
   Many of the key concepts in this timeless universe were developed by earlier scientists, particularly Mach. Indeed, one of the benefits of reading this book is the many historical highlights and anecdotes provided by the author. Even if you don't subscribe to his timeless universe hypothesis, the books background material in Newtonian dynamics, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics makes it worth reading.
   
   The first part of the book lays out general concepts, including the notion of configuration space. I particularly liked Barbour's method of using three points (a "universe" with just three points) as a metaphor for the timeless universe he imagines. In this simplified three-point universe one can define a history as just a path through configuration space - thus eliminating the need for a time variable (at least as far as describing a history is concerned, anyway).
   
   One of the traps in both reading and writing this book is that the concept of time is so permanently ingrained into our minds that it seems impossible to discuss the issue without recourse to phraseology pregnant with the very thing (time) that Barbour says doesn't exist. His wording is literally dripping with time-impregnated words as he describes a timeless world. He understands, even apologizes for the problem - but it persists and was a source of distraction and confusion for me throughout the book.
   
   I think the author does a better job of showing how to eliminate time (or at least think in terms of a timeless universe) within the context of Newtonian dynamics, than in a relativistic and quantum universe. The explanations from an Newtonian point of view are pretty straight forward, but as he progresses through special and general relativity, and on to quantum dynamics, the picture - and figures - become more sparse and (it seems) more dependent on speculation.
   
   At an intuitive and philosophical level I find myself largely in agreement with Barbour. There's something weird about time. It doesn't quite fit. I've often caught myself toying with the notion that it's an illusion. On the other hand, we can measure it, and all our measurements seem to be consistent. It's hard to see how we can measure a second so precisely if it's just an illusion.
   
   On another level I'm almost inclined to think the whole thing is based on semantics. After all, if someone told me that pain is an illusion - that it's really just electrical impulses transmitted to my brain - I'd reply that that's an explanation of what pain is, not an argument that it doesn't exist. Similarly, the universe may exist in timeless configuration space, but my consciousness certainly doesn't. Maybe what we mistook for the universe (and us) moving through time is really just us - our consciousness - moving through configuration space. We mistake our travel through configuration space as movement through time the same way someone floating down a river might mistakenly think the trees are moving past them, and they are just standing still. In fact, I wonder if that might be a characteristic of consciousness - something that moves through configuration space - and perhaps the "laws" of the universe look the way they do because our consciousness is constrained, by virtue of its existence, to travel through configuration space along histories (paths in configuration space) that have certain characteristics (increasing entropy, for example).
   
   That's just speculation, of course, but that's what a lot of Barbour's book is, too; a lot of speculation. Not that that's particularly bad, it's just that, in the end, there's nothing really testable here to evaluate.



2. This book, which is flawed & a bit messy, is a fascinating mind-game about what happens if we nix Time or rather Time directionality. We get time-stop-photography wave-function "manifolds", eigenstates, machine-thought, reductio ad absurdum. Humans see at 70 frames/second, so, no chance of us handling light-speed + quantum, unless we get implants.
   I like Barbour's Platonia analogy of "quantum stasis" (P.305). Also his Zen-like Gaussian "becoming-ness". Time is a self-referential human artifice (Leibnitz). To explain Barbour's dogmatic idea of illusion, he posits that the stasis-Platonia is 'fixed' like the 3D turntable of Manhattan in Lauryn Hill's 'Everything is everything". Except the turntable is quantum-flux static. There can be no real Alpha point or Omega point, so one assumes the Big Bang was an illusion. Quantum particles do not obey distance or time & are 5th dimensional. In reality, all 'snapshots' are synchronous. Hence, we and all things that ever were, are alive and dead at the same time in the ETERNAL NOW. Just with "Platonian" separations.
   Heisenberg's dE * dt > h means time is subordinated to energy flow. How we "see" a movie (film strip) is because of the film strip's movement (energy) creating a forward sequence. Time-v-energy is determined by E = mc2 so that the 'now' of different objects is different. One needs a grasp of Mach's principles here.
   If absolute time is DEAD, it means revising all previous metaphysics.
   Also "time travel" becomes a whole different prospect, & curious questions then arise. I don't think Barbour has anything like the total picture, but he's dipping into a Pandora's Box of quantum weirdness. An open mind is categorically required for this stuff.



3. I find many of the reviews useful and well considered but there are a number where it is obvious that the reviewer either didn't read the book or didn't understand it.
   
   Today there are two major schools of physics; quantum theory and relativity. In quantum mechanics space and time must exist on their own. One example is the neutrino. In the standard model (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model) there are the electron, muon and tau neutrinos. For years physicists have tried to study the sun by the neutrinos it emits but there were way fewer than predicted. Last year that problem finally got resolved by the discovery that neutrinos act much more like waves than expected. They change from electron to muon to tau depending on the phase of the wave instead of staying electron as theory predicted. To do this space and time must exist separate from the neutrinos.
   
   In General Relativity time and space dimensions only exist as metrics--that is to the extent that they measure relationships between things; be the things sub atomic particles or galaxies. They have no independent existence.
   
   This dichotomy is why when physicists try to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity they come with silliness like particles traveling backward in time from the edge of the universe. (This to try to reconcile Stephen Hawking's application of quantum mechanics to black holes and finding that they radiate mass to eliminate spin and to decrease their mass.)
   
   The author takes on the one real remaining problem with time and that is time asymmetry. IMHO the explanation he gives is a valid one although conceptually difficult and not again IMHO complete. I could wish that Feynman had addressed the topic as he had a excellent talent for getting complex concepts across. But he refused to have his views on time attributed to him or have them published. Considering the beating Fred Hoyle took over "Symmetric Electrodynamics in Arrow of time Cosmology" he was probably right.
   
   Overall this is an interesting book and a good read although hard going conceptually. Luckily the math is simple trig.



4. I would like to know in person Julian Barbour. His narrative is very good, and he definetively motivates the interested reader. However, my impression is that he took good care of the first chapters of "The end of time", whereas the last part of the book dedicated to quantum gravity and DeWitt equation was written quite fast and without care.
   The beginner get confused. And if you are a physicist, or engineer with some knowledge of modern physics, you cannot grasp the essence. It is too qualitative.
   It would be interesting if any of these guys that claim to understand relativity and field theory target a book to a regular exact science professional.
   Nevertheless, I recommend the book to the reader interested in physics; it is motivating.



5. I am always looking for a physics book that will enable me to evolve my perception of reality. This is not one of those books. Mr. Barbour makes an unconvincing attempt to convince the reader that a priori concepts such as causality and time are just an illusion. In the preface he states that he knows that most of the readers will not be able to finish the book, but if you read it to the end then all will be made clear. After suffering through the first 5 chapters, I skipped to the end and was convinced that he is wrong, and that time and causality are not an illusion.

5 comments about Quantum Mechanics in Simple Matrix Form.

1. This is more of a philosophical or logical (axiomatic) approach to QM from minimal principles. It's not too practical but is enlightening.



2. This is very good as far as it goes but large chunks of important quantum theory have been deliberately omitted thus devaluing the book's ultimate usefulness. It is not up to the standard I expected from the author's book on Linear Operators



3. I bought this book hoping it would simplfy Quantum Mechanics; it starts out simple with some good stories; but I learned one thing from Griffiths book at least philosophically, you can't get around the math. I like the style of the book but it gets shady around Chapter 10 about 1/2 way through the book, and he loses his focus. In order to do Quantum Physics, one must gradually learn vectors, Calculus and its assorted tricks, and to think outside the box abstractly; and you can't simplify that!



4. I have quite a few books on Quantum Mechanics. This book does what the others do not. The first half is about simple math. Understanding that QP - PQ = ih/2pi is the matrix form of an equation and the QP - PQ is not zero because the matrices do not commute is critical. This is basic stuff that a lot of books just skip. The second half uses the math to explain some of the features of Quantum Mechanics. For me I needed the detailed first half even though the math was not too hard. Now I can read my other books with a new understanding and finally I am starting to understand Quantum Mechanics.



5. A preview of this book has motivated me to take a Linear Algebra class at a local college. The author has tried hard to make the subject approachable by readers without a strong math background, however, I want to feel comfortable with the material and not be just hanging on lightly.

3 comments about Quantum Mechanics for Scientists and Engineers (Classroom Resource Materials).

1. I have used this reference before it was even made into a book for a course taught by the author. Both the authors written and spoken words are incredibly clear and easy to follow. The examples and homework questions help to better understand the material being taught and relate directly to the books contents. I highly recommend this as a reference for students as well as a course book since it would be excellent source around which a Professor may design a course.



2. Although I haven't reviewed this published version of the text, I have read his course reader that this text is based on (and a few others) for an applied QM course at Stanford. Unlike too many graduate courses where course notes are so poorly written and organized that the student finds themselves spending an inordinate amount of time deciphering them, Dr. Miller essentially writes a detailed (yet fairly concise) textbook for just about every class that he teaches. More importantly he is able to convey complex concepts very clearly. Based on my experience reading his course readers, I highly recommend any textbook he writes.



3. Reminiscent of Feynman's Lectures on Physics, the author's clear, conversational writing style makes quantum mechanics tangible (and interesting!) to a wide range of readers.

5 comments about Quantum Computation and Quantum Information.

1. This is absolutely the standard introductory text to quantum information and quantum computation. Nielsen and Chuang certainly covered all the basis, and tried to give a self contained book including many reviews of related topics in the appendices. The main complain about the book is that some times it is sloppy, making hard to grasp the concepts. In some parts of the book there are even grammatical errors. My advice, get it, read it, but be very careful.



2. This is an excellent book about a topic which becomes more important
   with each passing month. It is written at a graduate level, such that
   you really need to have had a college-level quantum mechanics course,
   or equivalent. Most of the book uses bracket notation.



3. My first acquaintance with this book came from a copy which I ordered through interlibrary loan after seeing favorable comments on the internet. The loan period was only two weeks, so I wasn't able to study this 600-page book in detail. But I learned quite a bit just by skimming it. After I saw that it was a book that would repay study, I purchased it.
   
   The first chapter of 58 pages nicely introduces many of the important ideas, leaving the more difficult details to later chapters. For example, I learned about quantum teleportation, which I had never understood from popular accounts.
   
   I read it from cover to cover and was able to follow almost all of it in detail. Since I read it as someone learning this material for the first time, I'll review it from a student's perspective. A much longer review discussing technical issues is available on my web site.
   
   Chapter 2 gives a nice summary of basic quantum mechanics. It includes an introduction to necessary concepts from abstract linear algebra, including important specific applications (e.g., the Schmidt decomposition) which are not likely to be covered even in advanced linear algebra courses.
   
   The third chapter gives an introduction to computer science concepts.
   This gives a conceptual framework within which to present the ideas of quantum computation. More material is included here than is necessary to understand the rest of the book. Readers may find it efficient to skim this chapter initially and return for more detail when necessary.
   
   The next three chapters present the essentials of quantum circuits, the quantum Fourier transform, and quantum search algorithms. Here there is perhaps room for a little improvement. I thought that important details were sometimes omitted from the exposition, and I occasionally had to go to the original literature to understand the ideas.
   
   Also, there is a bad misuse of the "Big-O" notation throughout these
   chapters, startling in a book so generally carefully written. Sophisticated readers will take this in stride, but it might demoralize beginners. For details, see the longer review on my web site.
   
   The mathematics of quantum computation is easy compared to the problems of physically realizing it. Chapter 7 gives an extensive discussion of these problems and various proposals for overcoming them. This concludes the "quantum computation" section of the book, which is a little more than half of the 600-odd pages.
   
   The rest deals with quantum information theory. This is presented in less detail than the quantum computation chapters, and demands more from the reader. A summary of classical information theory is included, with sketches of proofs of important results. I found this very helpful in refreshing my memory of Khinchin's book on information theory, which I read decades ago.
   
   Some of the more complicated proofs are only sketched. I didn't get as much from the quantum information section of the book as from the quantum computation section. I think it gives a useful overview of the field, but if I wanted to learn quantum information in detail, I would look for a book dedicated to this topic, perhaps reading Nielsen/Chuang first as an introduction.
   
   The book concludes with a 12-page introduction to quantum cryptography.
   I couldn't follow this section in detail. Perhaps it could be followed with enough work, but I wasn't motivated. I imagine that a proper treatment of cryptography would require many more than 12 pages. Again, if I wanted to learn this material, I would seek an expository text dedicated to it.
   
   In summary, this is an exceptionally fine text which can be read on many levels. The 58-page overview of quantum computation should be comprehensible to anyone familiar with the basic ideas of quantum mechanics. The rest of the book may possibly be readable with great effort by well-prepared undergraduates, but I think a graduate-level
   background in quantum mechanics and linear algebra would be more realistic prerequisites, and also more efficient. These prerequites will have to be mastered anyway for anyone who wants to work in a field dependent on quantum theory. Those who lack the prerequisites may still be able to get a feel for the problems of quantum computation and information from the book, even if the details seem too difficult.
   
   Although this is a serious book suitable for obtaining a professional knowledge of its subjects, it is unusually carefully written in an expository style. There are many exercises interspersed with the exposition, but no solutions are provided. Most of them should be solvable on sight by anyone following the presentation, so they provide
   a useful check on one's understanding of the material. (I am a professional mathematician; students may find the exercises less easy.)
   
   Each chapter ends with "History and further reading'' sections, often extensive. I found these very helpful.



4. I've recently purchased this book, and have only read the first 50 or so pages. However, it is clear thus far that the authors have invested alot of time in making such a complex topic as clear as possible, with simple examples to express fundamental concepts. I'm looking forward to reading the rest.



5. As a grad. student in the field, I would recommend this book to every new beginning student. It helped me understand the basics if quantum information, particularly physical notions that I had previously wondered about.

5 comments about Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures.

1. Feynman yet again gives great insight into the laws of physics, this time exploring the reasons for existence of anti-particles, starting from the dirac equation etc.. Plus some really outstanding photographs, that fella Weinberg will be chuffed to have his name mentioned on the book cover!



2. As usual, the best physics books are short and to the point, as is this one. The two Dirac lectures may serve as a perfectly good mini physics course all by themselves. I always enjoy a Feynman lecture, and this is no exception. He cuts to the chase without sacrificing the plot. But, I must say, in this case the Wienberg lecture is the better of the two. Weinberg's style has a particular grace & beauty about it that gently exposes the aesthetic meaning of the search for a picture of nature.



3. This short book, Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics, offers two lectures: Richard Feynman's The Reason for Antiparticles and Steven Weinberg's Toward the Final Laws of Physics. These two talks comprise the 1986 Dirac Memorial lectures at Cambridge University. Both presentations are cogently structured and make fascinating reading.
   
   The talks were directed at an advanced audience, one that was familiar with quantum mechanics. Unlike many popular presentations by Feynman and Weinberg, these lectures are not suitable for the general layman.
   
   However, these lectures are accessible to a persistent (perhaps, stubborn) layman with a calculus background and a deep interest in particle physics. I am not a physicist, but I did take my share of physics, chemistry, and math courses several decades ago. I encountered Schrodinger's equation in more than one class, but not relativistic quantum mechanics. However, having recently read Bruce Schumm's wonderful review of particle physics (titled Deep Down Things), I was sufficiently motivated to work my way through both Dirac memorial lectures.
   
   Richard Feynman's lecture, The Reason for Antiparticles, is decidedly the more difficult. Feynman first demonstrates that quantum mechanics and relativity together require the existence of antiparticles, and then shows that they also establish the spin-statistics connection. Within a few pages advanced mathematical expressions appear and then persistently stay in the foreground for nearly the entire talk.
   
   Although understanding Feynman's mathematics is critical for a full and deep appreciation of his exposition, with careful, repeated readings the stubborn layman will have sudden moments of enlightenment and can come away with a deeper understanding of antiparticles and spin statistics. For readers engaged in some self-tutorial readings, it may prove helpful to return occasionally to this classic Feynman lecture to qualitatively measure progress. I have no doubt that, on a deeper level, Feynman's lecture will similarly challenge and enlighten physics majors as well.
   
   Steven Weinberg discusses his speculations on the shape of a final underlying theory of particle physics. Initially, his talk is deceptively easy as few mathematical expressions are used. However, about midway a Lagrangian density equation appears, ratcheting the difficulty several notches, as Weinberg considers a theoretical framework based on quantum mechanics and a few symmetry principles, that is also mathematically consistent with the Lagrangian dynamical principle. After discussion of some limitations of the Standard Model, Weinberg concludes his talk with a somewhat mathematical introduction to string theory.



4. From Richard Feynman, with love. Need more to be said? Read it, and read it again. This one can be read all over again once in a while and does not get boring.



5. When I readThe Feynman Lectures on Physics including Feynman's Tips on Physics: The Definitive and Extended Edition, I was hoping to understand the reasoning behind the exclusion principle, and was disappointed to find that RPF felt that this was too complex for undergraduates, so he asked them to take it on faith for the moment.
   
   Here he is talking to a more advanced audience, and explains it - he was right, it's tough. I'm still struggling to understand it, but I have confidence that this is a good book to help.
   
   [Added nearly a year later] Having reread the book several times, I finally understand Feynman's lecture! As is often the case, once I understand the principle, I see relationships to various other things I had not fully understood before.
   
   I should also comment on Weinberg's lecture: he's talking about more speculative areas than Feynman, which is perhaps one reason I found him less enlightening than Feynman, but in a rather vague way I follow what he's saying. Certainly these are fascinating ideas, but they don't sing to me like Feynman's lecture.

5 comments about The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life.

1. I was given this book by a friend several years ago, along with another book on quantum physics. This book stood out because of the approach Walker took to presenting his material. I had many insights into quantum physics as it relates to my own life while reading this book (three times so far), but the gem of the book in my opinion is contained in the appendix. I come back to Walker's insights into consciousness as presented in the last part of the book, and in the appendix many times to refresh my understanding of how quantum physics applies to my daily experience in life. This is particularly interesting when looking at how events affect my consciousness, and has given me insight into how to apply quantum physics in my daily life. Outstanding book to read, but if you have only a passing interest in quantum physics, you may want to prepare yourself to take more of an interest in the subject, as this book will be much more rewarding if you do.



2. The Nature of Consciousness and the Meaning of Life
   Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
   December 20, 2005
   Copyright(c) Michael J. Vandeman, 2005
   
   "Consciousness is not to be found among physical objects", E. H. Walker, p.147
   
   I think that there must be very few books that live up to the promise implicit in their title. It is very tempting to exaggerate, in order to get people to buy the book. (By contrast, Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, one of my favorite books, does discuss leaves of grass, but also a lot more!) As far as I can tell, Evan Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness: Quantum Minds and the Meaning of Life discusses neither the physics of consciousness, quantum minds, nor the meaning of life.
   
   Woven throughout the book is a very charming and entertaining thread devoted to describing Walker's relationship with his high school sweetheart, Merilyn Ann Zehnder, and her tragic death from leukemia. I enjoyed this glimpse into the author's life, but I don't see how it contributed to fulfilling the book's promise. I suppose it gave some "human interest" to a book that otherwise could be too taxing on the brain, or served as a dramatic device -- interrupting the physics thread and creating suspense.
   
   For me, by far the greatest value of the book was the fascinating and very detailed recounting of the history of physics -- especially the description of particle physics and quantum mechanics. It's comforting to know that quantum mechanics and relativity are an accurate reflection of the world -- all of it! It's also fascinating to watch humanity (who, according to Reg Morrison (The Spirit in the Gene), are genetically predisposed to spirituality or religion) be forced to relinquish one myth after another to the persuasive power of science. Walker's writing is lucid and generally easy to understand -- quite a feat, considering the difficulty of the subject matter and the fact that its essence can be expressed only in mathematical form! For me the book brought together numerous disparate bits of physics that I hadn't fully grasped or integrated. For that, I am very grateful.
   
   Walker then takes a giant leap and asserts, without citing any evidence, that consciousness is different from anything ever studied or described by physics -- it's "special". He seems to assume that this is so obvious that it doesn't need proof, but, on the contrary, not only does it require evidence, but it is actually false, which derails the rest of his arguments. Remember, he has just finished describing the fact that current physical theories describe the entire universe (at least since it was 10-43 seconds old), from subatomic particles to galaxies, with enormous precision! So it is illogical to suddenly claim that there is something -- consciousness -- which is not described by those equations! (And yet, he later contradicts himself by equating consciousness with a quantum mechanical "tunneling" of electrons.) That consciousness is "special" is an assumption. If it falls, then the rest of the book -- and probably all other writing and thinking about consciousness -- also falls.
   
   Here are some of Walker's statements in support of this assumption: "Science is incomplete and must be greatly expanded if it is to meet the challenge of this data." (p.159) "If we approach what is in those equations [of physics] exclusively in terms of those ideas physicists have put there, we will see that there are some things that are missing and that cannot be derived from the things that have gone into those equations. The equations have positions and intervals, quantities and forms, and they describe responses. But feelings are not there, nor is pain, C#, or the colors we see in the budding red rose. 'Motives' are there, but emotions are not. Conscious being is not in these equations. [That is an assumption! In other words, he is begging the question, not answering it.] If consciousness is to play its role in physics, it must be included in its own right, on its own terms. [That's funny -- ethics, philosophy, art, music appreciation, and government are also not in those equations, but no one has ever suggested that we need to expand physics in order to explain them!]. ... It will be necessary to introduce something new into physics on its own terms. This is how it has always been in physics when we have wished to understand something totally new. This is how we must do things now." (p.176) "Consciousness is something that exists in its own right and has its own identity. It is distinct from all other objects, processes, energies, and realities that physics or science as a whole reveals." (p.178) "Consciousness is nonphysical. ... It is real and nonphysical." (p.182) "The classical machine cannot have consciousness, and it cannot have any identity of its own." (p.253)
   
   Walker then describes his theory of the functioning of the synapse, and argues that consciousness is the quantum mechanical "tunneling" of electrons across the synapse: "There, in those minute switches, at the miniscule intersynaptic cleft -- that is where the quantitative link between mind and brain is to be found." (p.194)
   
   He then goes on to make the absurd assertion that nothing exists until it is observed by a conscious observer! "Only our observation of the object [a die thrown onto a craps table] leads it to take on one out of all its possible orientations and come to rest with one of its six faces up." (p.270) "We have seen matter and space as the natural consequence of nothing more than the fact that conscious observers exist." (p.331) In order to understand this assertion, we need to think about quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Heisenberg showed that when one tries to measure either the location or momentum of an object, the act of measuring itself disturbs the object, so that one can determine either characteristic to arbitrary precision, but not both. This is not simply a defect in our equipment! This is the fundamental nature of matter! For example, if we shoot an electron at a phosphorescent target, until it hits the target and creates a flash of light, it has no position, but exists only as an infinite set of possible locations and momenta, with varying degrees of probability.
   
   But it is not the observer that determines where and how the die will land! It is the table and the forces of gravity and electromagnetism! The observer enters the picture only after the die has settled into its final resting position. This is Walker's means of injecting (human, or at least animal) consciousness (and, ultimately, meaning and God) into physics. It fails. (However, I wish that Walker had spent more time on this matter, since it is the crux of his argument. I had trouble following the part that centered on Bell's Theorem, where supposedly quantum mechanics triumphs, and belief in concrete reality has a stake driven through its heart. This section (Chapter 8) was intriguing, but very difficult to understand.)
   
   In mathematics there is a tool called "reductio ad absurdum". One makes an assumption, and then argues logically from that assumption to arrive at a conclusion that is "absurd" (obviously false). That proves that the assumption upon which the argument was based must be false (for example, one can assume that a number exists which is zero divided by zero; from this one can "prove" that 1 = 2). Thus, in the present case, the assumption that consciousness exists as something "special", not describable by physics, is false: it leads to absurd conclusions.
   
   The other serious error that Walker makes is that he identifies consciousness with wakefulness. The state of being awake, which, according to my physiology text, is controlled by the brain's reticular activating system, is only one meaning of "conscious" ("having mental faculties undulled by sleep, faintness, or stupor: awake" (Webster, p.238)). The more important use of the word is being conscious of something: "aware of and responding to one's surroundings" (Compact Oxford English Dictionary). Wakefulness is a necessary (except possibly for dreams), but not a sufficient, condition for being aware of something. Although I am awake, I am rarely aware (conscious) of the traffic outside my house, nor even the temperature of my own skin. I am very good at focusing on one thing, and ignoring everything else. (No wonder we men are so often accused of being "insensitive"!)
   
   A third serious error is that Walker identifies consciousness with something that takes place in a very specific location: the nerve synapse. This would imply that organisms without nerves cannot be conscious. However, Donald Griffin (Animal Thinking) has argued convincingly that thinking (complex decision-making) goes back as far as single-celled organisms, which are aware of chemicals in their environment and respond appropriately -- approaching or avoiding them based on whether they represent food, mate, or threat. Green plants detect (are aware of) sunlight and turn their leaves so as to maximize the energy they receive. Humans are genetically 98.6% identical with chimpanzees, so it is unlikely that so important a characteristic as consciousness could be present in humans but not in chimps. But we also share a large percentage of our genome with all animals, and in fact with all living things! Since consciousness (awareness of things and events outside the organism) is so integral to all life, it most likely is not simply a matter or nerve synapses, and probably is an essential feature of all living things: "All living beings, not just animals but plants and microorganisms, perceive. ... Mind and body, perceiving and living, are equally self-referring, self-reflexive processes already present in the earliest bacteria". (Margulis & Sagan, p.32) "Life ... is awareness and responsiveness; it is consciousness and even self-consciousness." (ibid., p.177) "Mobile microbes make selections -- they choose." (ibid., p.179) "The gulf between us and other organic beings is a matter of degree, not of kind." (ibid., p.182) "Thinking and being are the same thing." (ibid., p.188)
   
   So how can we determine what consciousness is? Obviously, the laws of physics that apply within living organisms are identical to the laws that hold outside them. Walker admits that the laws of physics apply to the entire known universe. ("Life is less mechanistic than we have been taught to believe [we obey probabilistic quantum mechanics, rather than the deterministic Newtonian physics]; yet, since it disobeys no chemical or physical law, it is not vitalistic [i.e., there is nothing "magic" or "special" about life]." (Margulis & Sagan, p.178)) But this implies that there is nothing "special" about life -- nor about consciousness! And it implies that anything that can happen inside a living organism can also happen outside living things (if a distinction between living things and nonliving things even makes sense) -- including consciousness! The splitting of H2O into hydrogen and oxygen takes place in green plants, but it can also happen outside them. Every event that can happen within a living organism can potentially (given the right conditions) also happen outside them. In fact, if we assume that life and consciousness are "special", then (by reductio ad absurdum) it follows that they don't exist! No wonder they are so hard to define and describe! It is hard to define something that doesn't exist (such as, for example, God). ...
   
   So what is consciousness? Simply the registering of an effect. A scale is conscious of weight. It is not conscious of (able to measure) anything else. If it could be arranged so as to weigh itself (I don't know if that is physically possible), then it would be self-conscious (in that one dimension). We are also capable of being conscious of weight. I can feel pressure on my skin from a weight resting on top of it, and I can also hold the weight in my hand and feel the strain on my arm muscles. These are just two possible ways of being conscious of weight, neither of which is the same method used by the scale. I am also conscious of light, which the scale is not. But I am not conscious of ultraviolet radiation, although a bee and a UV meter are. A robot is conscious, but not of enough things to survive on its own -- not enough to survive in this rough-and-tumble world. Humans are visually conscious of the movement of distant objects, but we are nowhere as perceptive as birds. Of course, being conscious of more dimensions doesn't make one superior, except in the narrow sense of those dimensions. Bacteria are undoubtedly superior in their consciousness of chemical nuances. In any case, there are obviously many ways to be conscious, not just one, just as there are many different ways to store information. Consciousness is not a fundamental constituent of reality -- nor anything new or unitary.
   
   To show how life and non-life (whatever they are, if they even exist!) shade into each other, look at a couple of examples. Frogs in Canada freeze solid every winter and thaw out again in the spring. While frozen, they are neither alive (they don't meet any of Margulis and Sagan's criteria, since they are doing absolutely nothing) nor dead (death is, by definition, final). Okay, maybe you believe that the frozen frogs are alive, and doing something, although you don't know what. The frogs don't contain much extra energy, so if they were doing anything, all their stored energy would get used up, and they would have none left to allow them to awaken in the spring. If that example doesn't convince you, then look at the seeds stored in the pyramids for 3,000 years. Dead, or alive? Since they were able to germinate upon being given water, they couldn't have been dead, according to Margulis and Sagan and every other biologist. But they can't have been alive either, because if they were doing anything during those 3,000 years, all of their tiny store of energy would have long since been exhausted. Viruses and prions are two more examples of life shading into non-life; viruses are not considered alive, but they perform some of the same functions as living things, such as reproduction. In other words, it is not possible to detect the difference between life and non-life: i.e., there is no real difference! Life is an indefinable state of matter, kind of like (but even less definable than) the liquid- vs. solid state of water.
   
   Thus, the real mystery is not consciousness; the real mystery is how humans can miss what is "hidden" in plain sight -- right in front of our noses! Obviously, we can't know directly whether any other organism is conscious. We can only infer that from its behavior. That goes for our own friends and family, pre-verbal or dumb (unable to talk) humans, animals, plants, bacteria, etc. Bacteria and protists (e.g. protozoa) act as if they are conscious. Or perhaps I should say that we sometimes act like them -- turning our faces toward the sun, sniffing out attractive smells from the kitchen, reacting instinctively to environmental hazards. Try this experiment: turn on the television, but turn off the sound. You will be amazed at the things you become conscious of (the mole on an actor's nose, the blond hair and brown eyebrows, the funny way people move, etc.), that you had been forced to ignore due to trying to follow (be conscious of) the (verbal) story. Meditation is another experiment in consciousness. Try meditating on the self-conscious scale. ... It's no wonder that no one has discovered what consciousness is. If consciousness is a white horse (or nothing special at all), but you insist that it is a green dragon, you can look all you want, but you will never find it. ...
   
   Two more things remain to be discussed: will, and the meaning of life. On page 333 Walker admits: "But for all this terror, there is one thing that is worse: the thought that all the suffering and all the pleasure of life have no meaning." I don't see how the meaning of my life, or any life, depends on the existence or importance of consciousness. While life has no single, canonical meaning (else we would long ago have discovered what it is!), each person's life has -- to them -- the meaning that he or she chooses to give it. (Of course, we get some ideas from others, past or present.) The same goes for morality and ethics: what is moral is what we think (based partially on input from others) is moral. Science and physics have little to do with any of this, except to keep us honest. Science can only tell us what is, never if it should be. Therefore it cannot be blamed for any alleged decline in morality. I suspect that "immorality" is like a recessive gene -- impossible to eliminate. We also can't depend on evolution to "improve" humankind. Evolution is like justice: blind. It only ensures the survival of those who survive -- not necessarily those with any given characteristic (including alleged "fitness", whatever that is).
   
   Then what about free will? (Walker simply refers to "will", and sidesteps this question.) The fall of Newton's deterministic physics, and the triumph of "probabilistic" quantum mechanics, implies that our behavior is neither predetermined nor predictable. (That's nice! It would be pretty boring, otherwise!) The "butterfly effect" rules. But this also doesn't imply that our behavior is under our own control. And since it is apparently decided at a molecular (hence quantum) level, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents us from ever knowing causation for certain. In other words, we probably don't have free will, but we have no way of ever knowing for sure, and we feel that we have free will, so ... who cares? (Well, the criminal justice system may care, thinking that people should only be held responsible for what they deliberately do. But it's impossible to know for sure, and ... nature (evolution) doesn't care.)
   In spite of centuries of thought and research into human-, animal, and plant behavior we still don't know why people commit murder -- or much else. Can you resist eating that cookie? If humans were rational, no one would smoke, right? I know that I am irrational, because no matter how often I see people behave irrationally, I still continue trying to treat them as if they were rational, by reasoning with them!
   
   This paper would be incomplete without discussing the purpose of life -- something Walker skipped, even though he is obviously interested in it. The purpose of life is to have fun! I mean, what else could it be?! (Of course, that excludes hurting wildlife or other people, even if you happen to think that that's fun.) And I certainly had fun reading this book, and thinking about it. ...
   
   (...)



3. Evan Harris Walker has written an entirely different book than you may have expected from reading the title. Certainly, the book discusses all of what is included in the title, but with a trifle more sophistication than I had expected. Readers who are not already familiar with thinking about Quantum Theory and philosophy of mind will probably find the book a rough ride. While Walker takes pains to explain the concepts, his are not certainly not the clearest available.
   
   What is unnerving to me about this book is the lack of respect paid to the unwitting non-specialist reader. Walker argues for a specific interpretation of quantum theory, an interpretation from which the rest of his argument laregly hangs, but fails to duly note the capriciousness of his philosophical choices. The fact is that his interpretation is based on an intuition, one that he tries to force down the reader's throat via an emotional and tragic tale from his past. He uses the story, which is weaved throughout the narrative, to cultivate the appropriate emotional response from his reader so that his interpretations and philosophical presuppositions look inevitable. He is quite masterful actually, but the uninitiated reader will probably not be able to see through the rhetoric.
   
   Walker's intuitions are certainly well argued for in this book and, if they match your own, you will probably find this book to be a powerful confirmation for what you already believed. However, please be aware that Walker's interpretations and opinions are not necessary conclusions from science and are not the only consistent approaches to interpretation. This book is, then, an exploration in the justification of a faith via various lines of evidence from science, philosophy and experience. Recommended to the experienced reader.



4. Physics and consciousness are hot topics in the quantum community and this book goes on to correlate between the outside reality (physical) and the inside reality (spiritual) It gives you a new way of looking at reality and to understand that different planes of realities exist. This is an excellent book.
   
   Regards,
   Enigma Valdez



5. Walker's "Physics of Consciousness" is about the best I've read on the subject. The nature of consciousness is explored and quantified. The effect of consciousness on the material universe is put forward. Walker takes different interpretations of quantum physics paradoxes and selects those that can fit consciousness into the equations and enlighten us.

5 comments about PSIence: How New Discoveries in Quantum Physics and New Science May Explain the Existence of Paranormal Phenomena.

1. Jones offers a fascinating look into how recent quantum physics discoveries may create a framework for looking at "paranormal" events.
   
   Humorous at times, the book wades through some pretty dense territory in explaining advanced physics to the layperson, and then boldly attempts to connect the dots across some pretty tough territory: Ghosts, UFO's, the Bermuda Triangle, etc.
   
   Mostly, she succeeds in totally intriguing the reader, but doesn't always tie the loose ends together neatly. However, that result can be entirely forgiven, since science and the paranormal don't lend themselves to so simple a solution. Overall, a great read!



2. If you are looking for a basic introduction to a wide variety of paranormal subjects, this book could possibly be for you. However the authors style of writing, attempts at plucky pop humor, and obvious liberal political slant detract from what little informational value the book has to offer.



3. I just got done with PSIence by Marie Jones and it was a good read. It's all about how quantum physics and some new discoveries in it may explain the paranormal.
   
   The book is divided into three parts the first is a quick summery of about half-dozen or so major paranormal topics, the second part is an easy to understand crash course in the theories of quantum physics, and the third puts the two together. I highly recommend this book to any one interested in the paranormal or quantum physics



4. I found "PSience" to be a quick read, and somewhat interesting. However, I was disappointed to discover that the author was truly targetting a novice audience. The first half of the book covered topics and information which I had personally learned years ago during my own lay-person research. I had hoped for greater, newer, data than what was presented.
   
   Also, I took personal offense to the author's misspelling of the famed medium's name: "John Edward". She twice made reference to him, but used the name of the former NC Senator "John EdwardS" I am very familiar with the work and career of John Edward, and if I were he...I'd be demanding a reprint with a correction.



5. The eleventh dimension fascinates me,and parallel universes intrigue me. All were well-explained in this book.
   Because it has methodology and guided by a scientific inquisition, the book came out as a reliable investigative approach.
   It should be helpful to all those who are interested in the paranormal.

3 comments about God Is Not Dead: What Quantum Physics Tells Us about Our Origins and How We Should Live.

1. It is exciting to see this new science being developed. Goswami does a beautiful job at breaking down the concepts of quantum physics and delivering it simply. To see a new science developing that is ready to acknowledge and examine 'consciousness' is thrilling. My hat goes off to Amit Goswami in being one of the first scientists to start exploring this new frontier. Great book.



2. Goswami vividly demonstrates his ability to make quantum physics understandable. His book relates philosophy and religion to quantum theory. I am a passionate supporter of those who attempt to heal the rift between science and spirituality.



3. Amit Goswami, for many years professor of physics at the University of oregon, but today perhaps best known for his contributions to the provocative and profound "What The Bleep"-movie. The movie 'sceptics' loved to hate.
   
   In his previous books Goswami has tackled problems about the universe we live in, life after death/reincarnation and the Eastern concept of enlightenment, all viewed from his special outlook: combining quantum physics and spirituality in a non-dualistic vision.
   
   Here he again tackles the hot subject of intelligent design, presenting af view that's challenging both for creationists and neo-Darwinists (Dawkins & Co.). Showing that there's ample reason to admit, that we live in a Universe that's somehow 'created' by a higher intelligence. And showing convincingly, that subscribing to the sound view of 'Intelligent Design' has nothing whatsoever to do with (fundamentalist) Christianity.
   
   This territory he has covered before, but here he takes it a step futher, dealing with the loaded concept of a Creator/God. And trying to anchor his views in a practical morality, always a difficult matter to deal with.
   
   As always with Goswami the book is well-written, entertaining and thought-provoking. Another cry of insight and vision in the often all to barren modern day intellectual climate! Should appeal to readers interested in a new scientific paradigm. And in writers like B. Allan Wallace, Deepak Chopra, Stan Grof, Fred Alan Wolf. And anyone open minded enough to challenge his/hers prejudices about how the world around us (and in us) functions.
   
   As with his previous book this one feels more engaging and challenging than deeply convincing.