Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Editorials

July 25th, 2009, 07:03 GMT · By

Quantum Gods by Victor J. Stenger - Book Review

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


The cover of Victor Stenger's new book, Quantum Gods
Enlarge picture
It was only last night that I finished reading Victor J. Stenger's new book, “Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness,” and, boy, I can tell you for sure that my understanding of quantum physics was a bit off before. In fact, it was not necessarily wrong, as it was featuring the correct information, but no explanation as to why things are the way they are at a level of miniaturization that seems almost incomprehensible. And that is exactly what this book does – it explains quantum physics, albeit from a point of view that negates the premise of a classic God, such as the one found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Overall, we are treated to a coherent and well-written physics theory, which is a part of the dwindling current made up of those scientists who also try to offer a philosophical explanation of their discoveries. It became obvious over recent years, and Stenger identifies this accurately, that most physics researchers now adopt a “shut up and calculate” attitude, which was not common, for example, among those who conducted their investigations in the first half of the 20th century or earlier.

The former Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii, currently an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, chose to place his findings and life's work in a different reference frame. As he himself admits in the new book, “Nothing I have said conflicts with existing physics. (...) All I have done is give an unconventional philosophical interpretation to otherwise well-established theory.”

A diagram summarizing the three-level interactions between elementary particles described in the Standard Model
Enlarge picture
Essentially, the entire book is a joy ride, if your goal is to make sense of the various types of pseudo-sciences that appeared in the world over the past few decades, since some physicists set on their quest for the unified theory of everything. Beautifully organized, Quantum Gods begins at “macro” level, with a number of studies showing the religious mix-up of the American people, and the “deviation” that the country exhibits from normal trends of religiosity. Then it takes us through some of the claims that have been made about quantum mechanics, as far as transcendental meditation (TM) goes.

In the following chapters, the author explains, with a great deal of references, the main views that those arguing the Universe and humanity are permeated by a single quantum field have on the matter. He cites some of the most famous physicists involved with finding a unified theory of everything (UTE), and lists their arguments. The rest of the book is naturally devoted to combating these arguments, and this is done in a very elegant and logic-driven manner.

It's not often that I come across books that explain such intricate matters as particle physics in a way that is both accessible to the average reader as well as explained with a logic that permeates each line. The conclusion that Stenger draws from his arguments seem like the obvious one and, when broken down, his critics' theories really have nothing on it. Additionally, many confusions that scientists make when thinking about quantum mechanics are also explained clearly.

Standard model of elementary particles: the 12 fundamental fermions and 4 fundamental bosons
Enlarge picture
For a good part of the book, the author treats us to a basic introduction in particle physics, showing a brief history of natural laws, and how they came to be discovered. The Standard Model, its components and its interactions, its quarks, leptons and bosons are also reviewed and explained thoroughly. This data makes up the basis of his arguments, in the last chapters of Quantum Gods, when he begins taking on theories elaborated by either UTE physicists or theologians.

Then, the debate turns philosophical. Stenger first and foremost underlines the differences between the theist and deist gods, which is very important if modern advancements in science are to leave any room for God to act. At the level of knowledge that scientists now have of the particles making up the world, and of the origins of the Universe, it becomes clear that finding a place for a supreme being to act becomes increasingly difficult, despite apologetics' best efforts.

Additionally, throughout the book, the author reveals that complex quantum calculations have led him to the conclusion that a deist god, as in a being that created the Universe but then plays no further role in it, answering our prayers, or actively changing chains of events, is improbable, but not impossible to exist.

However, if it does, it has nothing in common with the God in the three major religions, simply because it does not play an important role in the world. This god does not intervene, and the only action he did before turning “to better things” was allow for the Universe to appear. However, this would imply that randomness, chance and free will are basically human artifacts, constructs we've made to make ourselves feel better.

Theologians in Christianity, for example, have a tough time believing this, as it refutes the knowledge that we are central to God's plans, and also the fact that worship and prayer results in immediate help. “Science has no reason to introduce into its explanatory system an Enlightenment[-era] deist god,” Stenger writes.

Radio waves traveling between Earth and the Cassini spacecraft are affected by the Sun's gravitational field
Enlarge picture
Indeed, in most of the lines of argument he presents in Quantum Gods, the author demonstrates that either God does not exist because he never left detectable traces of his presence – which would be expected if he did intervene daily in our lives – or because, if God acts within the confines of natural law, then there is no need to introduce him into an explanatory system. This seems to make sense, I believe. If God, say, created natural laws, and the entire Universe is ruled by those laws and nothing else, then there is no room for him to interfere.

But even this small opening for the existence of God is closed in the final chapter, as Stenger explains an idea that has over recent years gained much support among physics scholars. He quotes philosopher David Armstrong: “There is only one true eccentric view. This is the view that, although there are regularities in the world, there are no laws of nature.” This statement, which at first glance seems to blow the ground from under the feet of exact science in general, is actually somewhat true.

As the author explains, it all makes sense if you look at Stephen Hawking and James Hartle's explanations of how the Universe appeared. Out of nothing (as in real, indeterministic chaos – a space that has no measurable properties), the initial particles that collided during the Big Bang and exploded our Universe into existence bore their way out through quantum tunneling, a process that is now used in creating such powerful instruments as scanning tunneling microscopes (STM). These instruments can, for example, photograph independent atoms.

Combined with the knowledge that, in nature, simple systems eventually develop into complex ones, the “nothing” theory proves that natural laws are in fact just human constructs, just like space and time, which are created in such a way that they respect the point-of-view invariance. This concept refers to the fact that physicists need to formulate their theories in a manner that is not necessarily related to the reference frame of the observer, or to a certain point in space and time. Newton's laws thus become embedded in Noether's theorem, which holds:

1. Space translation symmetry implies conservation of linear momentum
2. Space rotation symmetry implies conservation of angular momentum
3. Time translation symmetry implies conservation of energy.

How Greeks viewed the world and the celestial workings more than 2,000 years ago
Enlarge picture
As you can see, it's very easy to get trapped in complex explanations of seemingly simple things, but somehow Stenger manages to keep his “cool” throughout the book, and maintain a level of simplicity that essentially means people can understand what he's talking about with a minimum of effort. I would daresay that this book is a must read for those religious fanatics who hold science to be the sign of the Devil. Additionally, a lot of physicists could also benefit from it, as it clarifies a number of issues on which confusion still lingers.

In the end, I would like to say that reading this book was a real pleasure. It was not written as a fairy tale, but it was not filled with mathematical equations either. I can say that a lot more things make sense now that I went through it. And even if some theories will in the future prove Stenger wrong, I would have already gained a deeper understanding of the particle world. And that is why you should get to read it too, whenever you have the chance.

Book data:

Author: Victor J. Stenger
Title: Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness
Publisher: Prometheus Books
ISBN 978–1–59102–713–3

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

6,326 hits · 11 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Experts Characterize Quantum Turbulences and Quantum Memory

Quantum Mechanics Could Link Humans with the Universe

Quantum Memory Gets 1,000-Fold Boost

Large-Scale Quantum Networks Proof-of-Concept Created

First Solid-State Quantum Processor Created

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: happyguy on 26 Jul 2009, 12:06 UTC reply to this comment

Here is an interesting critical review of stenger, titled

"PSEUDOSCIENCE AND VICTOR STENGER’S QUANTUM GODS Mistaken, Misinformed And Misleading"

http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/SocietalEffects/Critics-Rebuttals/StengerRebuttal/index.cfm


Comment #2 by: Dr. Jean Tobin on 28 Jul 2009, 05:59 UTC reply to this comment

Stengers writing in “Quantum Gods” is polemical rather than conscientious; he doesn’t have enough respect for his intellecutal opponents to get their positions right; in some instances he appears to deliberately misrepresent their views; and, most important, his own reasoning is characterized by carelessness throughout the book.

One Example: Maharishi never even discussed the early Grand Unified Theory called “minimal SU(5)” and he certainly never associated the TM program with minimal SU(5). But Stenger is undeterred. It’s an association Stenger made up out of whole cloth. A reader who doesn’t know any better might get the impression that Maharishi’s ideas are tied to a discredited science. This is just the impression Stenger gave hapless New Scientist editor Amanda Gefter.

The British philosopher of physics Gordon McCabe himself not particulary receptive to quantum spirituality, remarks about “Quantum Gods” that “there seems little evidence that Stenger has a knowledge of philosophy or the philosophy of science. As a consequence, he commits the most obvious and egregious of errors (McCabe, 2009)

The real reason Stenger and like-minded debunkers consistently fail to address the tough arguments head-on is because those arguments, if forthrightly addressed, don’t yield to facile resolution. If he had done his homework and gotten his opponents’ positions right, he would have discovered that it is harder to dismiss quantum spirituality than he had imagined. Indeed, the more carefully-and yes, critically-one considers the revelent issues, the more one finds that quantum spirituality is founded on intelligent and plausible ideas, and are worthy of serious consideration.


Comment #3 by: Dr Jean Tobin on 28 Jul 2009, 06:17 UTC reply to this comment

Typos corrected on my previous submission:
Stenger’s writing in “Quantum Gods” is polemical rather than conscientious; he doesn’t have enough respect for his intellectual opponents to get their positions right; in some instances he appears to deliberately misrepresent their views; and, most important, his own reasoning is characterized by carelessness throughout the book.

One Example: Maharishi never even discussed the early Grand Unified Theory called “minimal SU(5)” and he certainly never associated the TM program with minimal SU(5). But Stenger is undeterred. It’s an association Stenger made up out of whole cloth. A reader who doesn’t know any better might get the impression that Maharishi’s ideas are tied to a discredited science. This is just the impression Stenger gave hapless New Scientist editor Amanda Gefter.

The British philosopher of physics Gordon McCabe himself not particularly receptive to quantum spirituality, remarks about “Quantum Gods” that “there seems little evidence that Stenger has a knowledge of philosophy or the philosophy of science. As a consequence, he commits the most obvious and egregious of errors (McCabe, 2009)

The real reason Stenger and like-minded debunkers consistently fail to address the tough arguments head-on is because those arguments, if forthrightly addressed, don’t yield to facile resolution. If he had done his homework and gotten his opponents’ positions right, he would have discovered that it is harder to dismiss quantum spirituality than he had imagined. Indeed, the more carefully-and yes, critically-one considers the relevant issues, the more one finds that quantum spirituality is founded on intelligent and plausible ideas, and are worthy of serious consideration.


Comment #4 by: jammyman on 28 Jul 2009, 13:12 UTC reply to this comment

What should we say about Quantum Gods? Would it be too severe to classify it as pseudoscience? Stenger categorizes himself as one of the “new atheists” but,
based on deeper analysis, “village atheist” might be more apt. The eminent
contemporary philosopher, Hilary Putnam, invented the term “village atheist” to depict a cynical writer who will seem sophisticated only to the unlearned and provincial. Moreover, Stenger’s writing is through and through "scientistic", meaning it invokes the authority of science to support arguments and conclusions which are not scientific at all. And isn’t this what Stenger and the other self-styled “debunkers” mean when they characterize an opponent’s writing as pseudoscientific?

There’s nothing wrong with vigorous debate; indeed that is an essential part of the
scientific method. But debating requires understanding and addressing the positions of one’s adversaries. Stenger and the other new atheists love to invoke the legacy of the heroes of science—Galileo for example—courageously speaking truth to power by confronting the religious authorities of their time. What they are overlooking is that, for some of today’s intellectual elites, materialism and atheism are the entrenched religious dogma of our time. Bashing quantum spirituality certainly requires no courage whatever!


Comment #5 by: Tudor Vieru on 31 Jul 2009, 10:37 UTC reply to this comment

@ jammyman and Dr Jean Tobin

I see that you are cataloging Stenger's work as pseudoscience. Rather than doing that, and keeping everything at the most general level possible, why not give some scientific arguments for your position? How can you prove quantum spirituality exists? Where precisely is Stenger wrong. As jammyman said, let's debate, not bash another writer's opinions.

Tudor Vieru

Comment #5.1 by: Dr. Jean Tobin on 11 Oct 2010, 05:34 GMT

Please read comment # 1 above and go to the recommended link. Then we can continue the discussion.


Comment #6 by: Casey on 05 Aug 2009, 06:29 UTC reply to this comment

I tried to find your credentials, Doctor Tobin...

Do you hold a PhD in philosophy or physics?

Please describe how your background is more knowledgeable than a professor of philosophy and an emeritus professor of physics that Stenger is?


Comment #7 by: QuantumCon on 18 Oct 2009, 18:50 UTC reply to this comment

Tobin has a "degree", most likely an honorary one from one of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's universities. In other words, it's not a real degree.

You'll see comments from him wherever the Maharishi's flakey pseudoscience is being refuted. They don't want to debate, they just want to insert doubts.

As someone with a background in physics and meditation, I can tell you the only people who take the Maharishi's follower's pet theories serious is them and some new agers. It's just a screen to sell their overpriced relaxation technique, which is actually selling mantras of Hindu goddesses. The science behind it is largely seen by legitimate scientists as biased BS. I wouldn't trust these people as far as I could throw them.


Comment #8 by: Taiaizi on 26 Mar 2010, 05:56 UTC reply to this comment

Over one hundred forty six theological basis' of truth, irrespective of a unified theory of everything. There exists no equivocal science of all physics, undoubtedly reason alone is incomplete information. Without faith regardless of the source of truth, have been searching for God ever since. To friends and family, a future that could never exist by all reason alone.


Comment #9 by: joseph logston on 21 Apr 2010, 04:14 UTC reply to this comment

there is no god or gods who created this god = man. did god create himself, no man created god, are cosmos always been here and it always will, that it


Comment #10 by: Bob Z on 29 Sep 2011, 05:14 UTC reply to this comment

This is an excellent review, I couldn't agree more with the reviewer's comments.

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM