Skip to main content

The Dancing Wu Li Masters – Gary Zukav **

Whoa, man, this whole physics trip is like, far out!

 Okay, that’s a bit over-simplified, but there is a certain amount of dated charm in Gary Zukav’s 1979 book on what was then “the new physics”. To be fair, it isn’t as it might appear to be an attempt to combine physics and Eastern philosophy. It is a book on physics, but presented in a way that is supposed to be amenable to the navel-gazing generation.

 One requirement here is absolutely no maths, and Zukav makes this premise from the start. This isn’t Hawking’s restriction on not having equations, but rather trying to describe things in English rather than mathematics. This is all very well, but it’s a pretty frightening challenge when dealing with quantum theory, were certain aspects have very little meaning outside the maths.

 In fact, given its age, Zukav does pretty well at explaining the basics, but for anyone with an aversion to New Age bunkum the style will occasionally irritate – as, for example, when he uses some blatant mistranslation to achieve his desired ends. He points out that Wu Li, the “Chinese” (his term) for physics means “patterns of organic energy”. This sounds great if you love woffly touchy-feely meaningless phrases, but when you come to think about it, it’s almost entirely senseless as organic is a purely human level concept and has no meaning at the level of practically all of physics. (Zukav tries to get round this by saying that organic means living and trying to show that physics applies to living things, but apart from the obvious “so what?”, he’s cheated by misinterpreting organic. Methane is organic, but it’s hardly living!)

 However, he also says that Li has several meanings, including “universal order” or “universal law”, and Wu can be matter or energy. Given that “the universal order of matter/energy” is actually not a bad description of physics without getting all mystical, it’s hard to avoid the fact that he is twisting things to meet his requirement. Zukav might quote Newton as saying “I frame no hypotheses” (actually he misquotes this as “make no hypotheses”, which is subtly different), but Zukav himself had a clear hypothesis from the start which he spends the rest of the book massaging physics into.

 Another example of this explicit hypothesis framing is the statement “the language of Eastern mystics and Western physicists are becoming very similar.” It’s just not true. As one quantum scientist put it “we don’t spend all our time talking about these sorts of things as [Zukav] suggests.” Science is still about developing models and finding facts to better understand the universe, usually (as Zukav himself) admits in maths – as far removed from Eastern mysticism as you can get. The fact that occasionally the oddities of quantum theory have led to some speculation about the interplay of mind and matter is neither here nor there (and when it has, the scientists have always come at “mind” from a scientific viewpoint, not “matter” from a mystical viewpoint).

 Rant over. There is a fair amount of good stuff in here, and Zukav really does manage to explain some aspects of physics quite well – but it’s very sad this book is still selling when there are much better explanations now available that don’t feel the need to resort to this sad packaging. You also should be warned that despite being read and commented on by many physicists, there are some bizarre mistakes. For example, he thinks the early “plum pudding” model of the atom is a plum (presumably not knowing what a plum pudding is).

Paperback:  
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more