by Gary Zukav
Gary Zukav
The Dancing Wu Li Masters
An Overview of the New Physics
This book is dedicated to you, who
are drawn to read it.
Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone.
—Albert Einstein1
Even for the physicist the description in plain language will be a criterion of the degree of understanding that has been reached.
—Werner Heisenberg2
If you cannot—in the long run—tell everyone what you have been doing, your doing has been worthless.
—Erwin Schrödinger3
Contents
Epigraph
Synoptic Table of Contents
Cast of Characters
Foreword by David Finkelstein
Introduction to the Perennial Classics Edition
Introduction
Wu Li?
Big Week at Big Sur
Einstein Doesn’t Like It
Patterns of Organic Energy
Living?
What Happens
My Way
The Role of “I”
Nonsense
Beginner’s Mind
Special Nonsense
General Nonsense
I Clutch My Ideas
The Particle Zoo
The Dance
Enlightenment
More Than Both
The End of Science
Notes
Bibliography
Searchable Terms
Stable Particle Table
Acknowledgments
About the Author
Praise
Copyright
About the Publisher
Synoptic Table of Contents
WU LI? (Introduction)
Big Week at Big Sur
Physics (3), Esalen (4), Chinese and English (5–6), Wu Li Masters (7), scientists and technicians (10), the sodium spectrum (11–12), Bohr’s model of the atom (14).
Einstein Doesn’t Like It
The new physics and the old physics (20), Newton’s physics (22), the Great Machine (24), do we create reality? (30), the myth of objectivity (32), subatomic “particles” (34), statistics (35), the kinetic theory of gases (36), probability (37), the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (40), pragmatism (41), split-brain analysis (42), summary of the new physics and the old physics (44).
PATTERNS OF ORGANIC ENERGY
(Quantum Mechanics)
Living?
Organic and inorganic (49), Max Planck (52), “discontinuous” (53), black-body radiation (54), Planck’s constant (56), Albert Einstein (57), Einstein’s theory of the photoelectric effect (58), waves, wavelengths, frequencies, and amplitudes (60), diffraction (63), Young’s double-slit experiment (66), the wave-particle duality (70), probability waves (72).
What Happens
The procedure of quantum mechanics (74), the region of preparation (75), the region of measurement (75), the observed system (76), the observing system (76), the Schrödinger wave equation (77), observables (77), particles as “correlations” (78), wave functions (80), probability functions (81), quantum jumps (83), the Theory of Measurement (87), the metaphysics of quantum mechanics (88), the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (92), Schrödinger’s cat (94), Doubting Thomas (97).
MY WAY (Quantum Mechanics)
The Role of “I”
The “in here—out there” illusion (102), complementarity (103), Compton scattering (103), Louis de Broglie (106), matter waves (107), Erwin Schrödinger (110), standing waves (110), the Pauli exclusion principle (114), the Schrödinger wave equation (again) (114), Max Born (117), probability waves (again) (117), the quantum model of the atom (119), Werner Heisenberg (121), the S Matrix (122), the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (123), the tables are turned (127).
NONSENSE (Relativity)
Beginner’s Mind
Nonsense (131), the beginner’s mind (132), the special theory of relativity (134), the Galilean relativity principle (138), inertial co-ordinate systems (138), Galilean transformations (140), the constancy of the speed of light (142), the ether (145), the Michelson-Morley experiment (145), FitzGerald contractions (148), Lorentz transformations (148).
Special Nonsense
The special theory of relativity (150), “proper” and “relative” length and time (155), Terrell’s rotation explanation of relativistic contraction (159), relativistic mass increase (162), simultaneity (162), the space-time continuum (167), the space-time interval (171), Hermann Minkowski (173), mass-energy (173), conservation laws (176).
General Nonsense
Gravity and acceleration (181), inside and outside the elevators (181), gravitational mass and inertial mass (186), the geography of the space-time continuum (188), Euclidean geometry (191), the revolving circles (193), non-Euclidean geometry (196), Einstein’s ultimate vision (200), Mercury’s perihelion (201), starlight deflection (203), gravitational redshift (204), Black Holes (205), the illusion of “force” (208), the illusion of “nonsense” (209).
I CLUTCH MY IDEAS (Particle Physics)
The Particle Zoo
The barriers to change (213), the hall of mirrors (215), the new world view (215), particle physics (216), bubble chambers (218), the dance of creation and annihilation (219), what made the tracks? (221), quantum field theory (222), the need to pretend (224), particle masses (226), massless particles (228), charge (229), spin (230), angular momentum (231), quantum numbers (234), anti-particles (235).
The Dance
Space-time diagrams (237), Feynman diagrams (239), the dance of creation and annihilation (again) (240), anti-particles (again) (242), the illusion of time (245), entropy (246), virtual photons (247), the electromagnetic force (251), Hideki Yukawa (252), the strong force (252), virtual mesons (254), self-interactions (254), gravity (260), the weak force (260), virtual photons (again) (261), vacuum diagrams (266), conservation laws (269), symmetries (271), quarks (272), the S Matrix (again) (272).
ENLIGHTENMENT
(Quantum Logic & Bell’s Theorem)
More Than Both
Physics and enlightenment (283), Bell’s theorem and quantum logic (285), John von Neumann (286), the description of a wave function (286), “Projections as Propositions” (288), David Finkelstein (290), symbols and experience (290), logos and mythos (290), the distributive law (292), polarization of light (293), the third polarizer paradox (297), superpositions (299), quantum logic (301), “proof” (301), transition tables (303), lattices (305), von Neumann’s disproof of the distributive law (302), quantum topology (311).
The End of Science
Enlightenment and unity (312), J. S. Bell (313), quantum connectedness (313), the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment (314), superluminal communication (319), the principle of local causes (320), Bell’s theorem (322), the Freedman-Clauser experiment (323), the Aspect experiment (327), contrafactual definiteness (332), superdeterminism (333), the Many Worlds Theory (again) (333), summary (335), the philosophy of quantum mechanics (338), David Bohm (339), unbroken wholeness (339), implicate order (340), the “new” thought instrument (341), eastern psychologies (342), the metaphor of physics (343), Kali (345), the Path without Form (347), the circle dance (348).
Cast of Characters
Thomas Young
1803 (double-slit experiment)
Albert Michelson, Edward Morley
1887 (Michelson-Morley experiment)
George Francis FitzGerald
1892 (FitzGerald contractions)
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz
1893 (Lorentz transformations)
Electron
&n
bsp; 1897 (discovered)
Max Planck
1900 (quantum hypothesis)
Albert Einstein
1905 (photon theory)
1905 (special theory of relativity)
Hermann Minkowski
1908 (space-time)
Nucleus
1911 (discovered)
Niels Bohr
1913 (specific-orbits model of the atom)
Albert Einstein
1915 (general theory of relativity)
Louis de Broglie
1924 (matter waves)
Niels Bohr, H. A. Kramers, John Slater
1924 (first concept of probability waves)
Wolfgang Pauli
1925 (exclusion principle)
Werner Heisenberg
1925 (matrix mechanics)
Erwin Schrödinger
1926 (Schrödinger wave equation)
1926 (equates matrix mechanics with wave mechanics)
1926 (visits Bohr in Copenhagen to attack the idea of quantum jumps—and gets the flu)
Max Born
1926 (probability interpretation of wave function)
Niels Bohr
1927 (complementarity)
Clinton Davisson, Lester Germer
1927 (Davisson-Germer experiment)
Werner Heisenberg
1927 (uncertainty principle)
Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
1927
Paul Dirac
1928 (anti-matter)
Neutron
1932 (discovered)
Positron
1932 (discovered)
John Von Neumann
1932 (quantum logic)
Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, Nathan Rosen
1935 (EPR paper)
Hideki Yukawa
1935 (predicts meson)
Meson
1947 (discovered)
Richard Feynman
1949 (Feynman diagrams)
Sixteen New Particles
1947–1954 (discovered)
Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
1957
David Finkelstein
1958 (one-way membrane hypothesis)
Quasars
1962 (discovered)
Quarks
1964 (hypothesized)
J. S. Bell
1964 (Bell’s theorem)
David Bohm
1970 (implicate order)
Henry Stapp
1971 (nonlocal connections re: Bell’s theorem)
Stuart Freedman, John Clauser
1972 (Freedman-Clauser experiment)
Twelve New Particles
1974–1977 (discovered)
Alain Aspect
1982 (Aspect experiment)
Foreword
When Gary Zukav announced his plans for this book, creating the outline with Al Huang and me watching at a dinner table at Esalen, 1976, I did not realize the magnitude of the job he took on with such joy. Watching the book grow has been instructive and rewarding, because Zukav has insisted on going through the whole evolution of the quantum relativistic physics of today, treating it as it is, an unfolding story. As a result this book is not only readable, but it also puts the reader in touch with all the various ways that physicists have worked out for talking about what is so hard to talk about. In short, Gary Zukav has written a very good book for laymen.
Zukav’s attitude to physics is rather close to mine, so I must be a layman too, and it is more stimulating to talk physics with him than with most professionals. He knows that physics is—among other things—an attempt to harmonize with a much greater entity than ourselves, requiring us to seek, formulate and eradicate first one and then another of our most cherished prejudices and oldest habits of thought, in a never-ending quest for the unattainable.
Zukav has graciously offered me this place to add my own emphases to his narrative. Since it has been three years since we met, I must sift my memory for a while.
Migrating whales come to mind first. I remember us standing on the Esalen cliffs and watching them cavort as they headed south. Next comes to mind beautiful Monarch butterflies, dotting the fields from the first day, and covering one magic tree as thick as leaves in a grand finale. Between the whales and the butterflies it was difficult for us to feel self-important and very easy for us to play.
The very difficulty of communicating with the physicists at Esalen helped me to realize how differently most physicists think about quantum mechanics than I do. Not that my way is new, it is one of two ways already pointed out in John Von Neumann’s 1932 book, The Mathematical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics:
Quantum mechanics deals with propositions defined by processes of preparation and observation involving subject and object and obeying a new logic; not with objective properties of the object alone.
Quantum mechanics deals with objective properties of the object alone, obeying the old logic, but they jump in a random way when an observation is made.
Most working physicists seem to see one of these ways (the second) and not the other. Perhaps personality can determine the direction of science. I think there are “thing” minds and “people” minds. Good parents, psychologists and writers have to be “people” people, while mechanics, engineers and physicists tend to be “thing” people. Physics has become too scary for such physicists because it is already so thingless. New evolutions, as profound as those of Einstein and Heisenberg, are waiting for a new generation of more daring and integrated thinkers.
While most physicists take for granted the quantum tools of their daily work, there is a vanguard already testing roads to the next physics, and a rearguard still conscientiously holding the road back to the old. Bell’s theorem is mainly important to the latter, and its prominence in the book does not mean it uncovers problems in present-day quantum physics. Rather Bell’s theorem drives toward a view that most physicists already assume: that quantum mechanics is something new and different.
Here it helps to distinguish between a complete theory, predicting everything, what Newtonians look for (it does not seem that Newton was a strict Newtonian, since he wanted God to reset the world clock now and then) and a maximal theory, predicting as much as possible, what quantum physicists look for. In spite of their controversy, Einstein and Bohr both agreed, in their different ways, that quantum mechanics is incomplete, and even that it is not yet maximal. What they really debated was whether or not an incomplete theory can be maximal. Throughout their famous controversy Einstein argued, “Alas, our theory is too poor for experience,” and Bohr replied, “No, no! Experience is too rich for our theory”; just as some existential philosophers despair at the indeterminacy of life and the existence of choices, and others feel élan vital.
One of the features of quantum mechanics that leads to such controversy is its concern with the nonexistent, the potential. There is some of this in all language, or words could only be used once, but quantum mechanics is more involved with probabilities than classical mechanics. Some people feel this discredits quantum theory, makes it less than maximal theory. So it is important to mention in defense of quantum theory that in spite of indeterminacy, quantum mechanics can be entirely expressed in yes-or-no terms about individual experiments, just like classical mechanics, and that probabilities can be derived as a law of large numbers and need not be postulated. I prefer to state the difference between classical and quantum theories not as presented in textbooks, but thus: Once sufficient data is given, classical mechanics gives yes-or-no answers for all further questions while quantum mechanics simply leaves unanswered some questions in the theory, to be answered by experience. I wish here also to note the regrettable tendency, in myself also, to feel that quantum mechanics must thereby deny physical existence to those answers that are found in experience only, not in the theory, such as the momentum of a localized electron. So involved are we in our symbol systems.
After a week of talking, the conference was still working on
the elements of quantum logic, and never did get far into the new quantum time concepts we wanted to try out, but it made it easier to move on to the next set of problems, which occupy me today. Quantum mechanics is characterized by its unanswered questions. Some logicians, Martin Davis for one, have suggested these may be related to the undecidable propositions dominating logic since Gödel. I used to know better. Nowadays I think they may be right, the common element being reflexivity and the impossibility for finite systems of total self-knowledge. The proper study of mankind is endless, it seems. I hope these ideas work out and Gary Zukav writes a book about them. He does it well.
DAVID FINKELSTEIN
New York
July 1978
Introduction to the Perennial Classics Edition
When I wrote The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics, I had never written a book and I had never studied physics. In fact, I didn’t like science and I had no mathematical aptitudes. Yet while I was writing The Dancing Wu Li Masters, I knew it would be published and that it would be very well received. I also knew that it would sell very well for many years after its publication. I did not need to have faith in these things. I knew them. I could see them. It was clear to me that all I needed to do to make them happen was to continue writing. In other words, to do was my part. I knew that without my part, none of what I saw would happen, and that with my part, it was already accomplished.
I was the key. Everything depended only upon my doing what I was already doing—writing about physics, studying physics, discussing physics, and writing about it again each day. That was no problem for me because I loved doing those things. I woke thinking about the ideas in The Dancing Wu Li Masters and I went to sleep thinking about them the same way that some people wake in the morning and go to sleep at night thinking about a Beloved. Every decision about what word or words to use, what ideas to include, and how to present a discussion was made with the reader in mind. “The reader,” no matter whom I pictured in that role, was always someone who was intelligent—perhaps more intelligent than I. He or she was keenly interested in all that I had to share, but had no background in science or mathematics.