Customer Reviews

The Non-Local Universe: The New Physics and Matters of the Mind

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Non-locality and quantum entanglement are neither delicate nor rare events. Quantum non-locality is not rare and does not disappear. The Universe operates according to the principles of complementarity at all scales - Kafatos and Nadeau established the particulars of this verity with extraordinary adroitness in their watershed book "The Conscious Universe." The concept of non-locality as an implicate attribute of the material world is borne out by three pieces of impeccably documented science which are only now becoming generally known. Nicolas Gisin and his colleagues at CERN proved that Bell's predictions regarding non-locality were precisely correct. The positron-electron pairs they separated with a Potassium Niobate crystal and shunted through 15 kilometers of fiber optic cable, automatically re-oriented spin and polarity instantaneously to maintain net-spin values of zero when one of the particle-pair was accelerated through an electromagnetic field, to seven decimal points, in repeated trials. The effective rate at which the information transfer occurred between the particles is calculated to be at least 10 to the nine times faster than the speed of light. Second, Vladimir Poponin has demonstrated in his work with the DNA Phantom Effect that every molecule of DNA exerts a non-local field effect on the material locale surrounding it, which persists for up to 30 days after the DNA molecule source has been removed. The importance of Poponin's work is that it proves unequivocally that among living organisms, non-locality operates simultaneously with chemo-synaptic neuronal processes at all scales and in all living things. Finally, Donald Eigler's work at IBM's Almaden Lab's proves that non-local holographic field effects operate in all things as an intrinsic attribute of matter at atomic and sub-atomic scales, regardless of whether the materials are organic or not. In "The Non-Local Universe," Kafatos has simply opened the lid to this Pandora's box by providing an epistemological model which is carefully thought out, clearly articulated and reasonably constructed. His model is absolutely right on the mark and deserves to be read by anyone who is willing to look at this aggregation of unimpeachable evidence with clear scientific detachment.

Even though I found Nadeau and Kafatos' The Non-Local Universe" a challenge to absorb, I couldn't put it down. In this book, the authors do much more than just rehash some much pondered over points about the implications of the Gisin and Aspect experiments that verified Bell's Theorem. For those of you who haven't checked out what's happening in modern physics in the last 50 years or so, "The mathematical statement derived by Bell in his theorem is known as Bell's inequality, and it is predicated on two major assumptions in local realistic theories-locality and realism." (p. 69) Aspect and then Gisin figured out a way to measure paired subatomic particles which refuted the locality assumption. Although Nadeau and Kafatos never make this exact point, one way to understand the refutation of localism is that in their wave structure, subatomic particles are extended infinitely throughout space and time (highly improbable, but nevertheless finitely probable). Hence in this sense, every particle/wave overlaps every other particle/wave and therefore, "We are all connected."

Nadeau and Kafatos are at great (sometimes, too great) pains to show how slowly and laboriously many physicists have given up the assumption that mathematical models of external reality can have a one-to-one correspondence with that reality. They even imagine Einstein still living and contemplating the Aspect experiments, agreeing that he was wrong and Bohr was right. They spend a comparable amount of effort in painting a non-picture of our non-local universe, as their book title might imply. The reason I say "non-picture" is the fact that a central point of theirs is that we can not adequately visualize a more than three-dimensional universe. While the "non-picture" that they paint is at times fuzzy and not well worked out, a mere blueprint for further investigations, they propose that it is free of metaphysical assumptions (including the one-to-one correspondence theory).

In other chapters in their expansive book of modest size (240 pp.), they trace literature that rejects the narrow Darwinian interpretation of evolution and replaces it with an ecological view of the earth's biota as a self-regulating organinism (Ch. 6), trace the evolution of humans as symbol-using creatures and the emergence of self-consciousness, not as isolated in a separate mental realm, but rather as "[deriving] its existence from embedded relations to [the larger whole of biological life]. (Ch. 7,.p. 144) and offer a critique of classical economic theories, showing how building an economic theory using the emerging ecological paradigm can account for and ameliorate overproduction based on a solely competitive model. (Ch. 10)

One of the threads of insight woven through each of these chapters is what Nadeau and Kafatos call the "logic of complementarity." They are building on Bohr's conception of the complementarity of wave and particle. One of the implications of Quantum Theory is that a complete view of subatomic structure must rely on its being viewed as both wave-like and particle-like. When subatomic structure is not being observed it is wave-like, when it is being observed, it is particle-like. We also see in Einstein's general theory of relativity the complementary nature of time and space. They suggest "that the logic of complementarity could be the logic of nature and that the use of this logic as a heuristic could serve to better explain the character of other profound oppositions in the natural process." (p. 103)

In various places in their book, they also trace the history of Western philosophical and scientific thought leading up to, through, and beyond Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and they trace the development of the Postmodernist movement as a reaction to the Classical Realist metaphysics implicit in much of earlier math and physics. In doing so, they are really trying to solve a communication problem for academics in C. P. Snow's two camps: "Another of our large ambitions here is to demonstrate that our new understanding of the relationship between parts and wholes in physical reality can serve as the basis for a renewed dialog between the two cultures of humanist-social scientists and scientists-engineers." (p. 13)

In tracing the Postmodernist literature from roots in Nietsche and Husserl to more contemporary writers like Lacan and Foucault, they identify three major assumptions of Postmodernist metatheory and assert that "the resulting view of human consciousness is an extension of Cartesian dualism and not in accord with our current scientific world view." (p. 165) Nadeau and Kafatos in no way intend to denigrate the work of the postmodernists, which they say "has, in general, made us a more humane society and served as a source of liberation for large numbers of individuals." (p. 164) Their point is rather that "since the postmodern view of the relationship between mind and world is one of the primary sources of our contemporary dispair and angst, the prospect that it could be displaced by an alternate and much more positive view is certainly worth considering."

Toward the end of the book, they sketch Capra's "ecological world view," which is distinguishable in terms of five related shifts of emphasis, and "which is entirely consistent with the understanding of physical reality revealed in modern physics." (p. 213) Here is a sketch of the core of this idea: 1) properties of parts must be understood as dynamics of the whole, 2) every structure manifests a fundamentally dynamic web of relationships, 3) human observers and their processes of knowledge must be embedded in knowledge descriptions, 4) phenomena exist as mutually consistent relationships; knowledge is an interconnected network of relationships founded on self-consistency and agreement with fact, and 5) the whole constituting webs of relationships cannot be represented by our necessarily approximate descriptions.

I can tell you this much about "The Non-Local Universe." Even though I had a passing acquaintance with the writings of visionary physicists, before I read this book, I felt like a body trapped in a time sequence. Now I have a different view of myself, connected to other beings and to the Universe, past, present and future....

If Albert Einstein had lived long enough to witness the results of experiments carried out in the decades of the 80's and 90's he would have to concede that quantum theory is a self-consistent theory, and physical reality is nonlocal. These experiments validated John Stewart Bell's nonlocality theorem, which confirmed that the physical universe is holistic, and Indeterminate: a fact that many physicist call the most profound discovery of science. This is the premise of a thoroughly enlightening book by Nadeau and Kafatos, who by virtue of concise and clear writing entice anyone willing to take the time and effort on a journey into the new world of nonlocality. Einstein himself, a contributor to quantum theory was not willing to give up on the idea of deterministic principles, and in his most famous thought experiment called EPR (devised with the help of two colleagues) he made his most brilliant attempt to save classical causal reality. Bell's theorem, however, put an end to a deterministic universe by demonstrating that realism--a reality existing independent of observation--could not exist at the deepest levels of reality. Cartesian dualism fails as a scientific paradigm in a nonlocal universe for the following reasons. First, physical laws and theories have no independent existence and are subjective human constructs. Second, an objective reality, by defintion, suggests a consciousness separate and distinct from the rest of reality. This is invalid in a holistic universe. And, finally, science can claim knowledge of physical reality only when the predictions of a physcial theory are validated by experiment. In a nonlocal universe the indivisible whole cannot be measured or observed--they are complimentary. Complimentarity demonstrates that the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. This is evident in physical reality as well as in biology. Attempts to understand life as a whole can never be completely realized using the reductionist approach. The relationshiip between part and whole in biology mirrors nonlocality in physics. The authors make the philosophical argument that sicne consiousness is an emergent process of the brain, and the brain it turn, is an emergent procss of the undivided whole, it is not unreasonable to believe that the universe is conscious.

I am not a scientist. I have never read clearer explanations than in this book about the Michelson-Morley experiements, or the Double-Slit experiment, or Bohr's atom, or finally, the concept of non-locality. If you are a fan of Michio Kaku, or John Gribbin, or Brian Greene, et. al., and if you are patient and work hard, you will love this book. But the authors, unlike Gribbin and Greene, do unfortunatly use the proverbial turgid prose. They never use a one-syllable word when a four syllable word will do. They would be an English teacher's nightmare. I could easily see them describing a "cow" as a "lactating bovine mammal." In the end, though, their ability to teach is so strong, their exposition (if not their prose) is so clear, I highly recommend this book.

This book is far superior to such popularizations as "The Tao of Physics." It is clearly written, is not tendentious, and modest in its proposals. What is really refreshing is their sticking so closely to a really realistic epistemology. Their essay into the way a complementary approach illumines other areas of science as well is again careful, modest and convincing. For one who IS a metaphysician it is refreshing to see they do NOT make moves in that direction but stay within the limits of their own discipline.

If you are not careful this wonderful book will Bohr you to death with CI, but The Non-Local Universe explains very well, the well traveled paths of new science. Thank goodness for the Undivided Universe and thinkers like David Bohm, B.J. Hiley as well Jack Sarfatti exploiting the potentials of nonlocality. These new frontier thinkers have scouted a universe that will allow Nadeau and Kafatos to expand on the very fine work recorded in this book. The matters of spirit are in this book and the authors bravely respect the connectivity of this massless domain to the manifestations of participative science, religion and mind. In this book you cannot miss the concept, time came before creation and the emergence unfolding in this whole undivided process was guided by a wonderful observer. The good news is this book is very informative, accurate and expandable. When the insights of Bohm are fully unfolded in the next addition we will have discovered the potential of the wheel once more. This is a must read!

Enticing and most suggestive work connecting the recent 1997 empirical confirmation of nonlocality suggested by Bell's theorem, and the realm of both biology and postmodernism. The author's begin by suggesting the classical problem of Cartesian dualism is to be resolved by this new view of mind in relation to physics. While there is certainly a gateway to a new perspective on this tragic division, it is not clear how the broader confusions of ethics and values can enter either the classical or postclassical views of physical systems, yet the basic insight seems fruitful indeed on the way to a new synthesis. The book weighs in with Bohr's Copenhagen perspective resolving the long debate with Einstein. The book then proceeds to a provocative consideration of the limitations of current Darwinian theory, still enmeshed in the classical paradigm, concluding with a hope this new unification will help to heal the two cultures divide. I am always left to wonder quizzically at renewed hopes of finally bridging the Cartesian divide, for the problem is in part one of false terminology, and the lack of self-perception, more than self-division. The great Indian 'metaphysics' of Samkhya never had this problem because instead of two entities, it had three, all material. The division of mind and matter is a confusion of terms, and thus not open to solution by physics, a most debatable point itself, to be sure. None of this really negates the very fruitful connection now shown between mind and physical reality demonstrated in the new physics. Excellent book, one way or the other. May be read Kant also. Cf. also, Quantum Reality, Nick Herbert The Ghost in the Adam, P.C.W. Davies Appearance and Reality, Peter Kosso Quantum Dialogue, Martha Besser

Absolutely brilliant. One of the best written and most enthralling books on physics, history, and the philosophy of science. A must read.

Unfortunately this book propagates the same misinformation as many other bad science books such as "The Tao of Physics." These books make a big deal about the nonlocality of quantum physics and about quantum entanglement and the experiments that have proved quantum entanglement. All of this is true. Unfortunately they mislead through omission. Nonlocality and quantum entanglement are very delicate and very rare events. A physicist doing an experiment has to work very hard to keep a quantum entangled system separate from the rest of the universe. Once the system interacts with the rest of the universe, the quantum entanglement vanishes. This is a well-known fact that all first year physics grad students learn. (I should know, I'm a physics professor.) So the whole conceit of the book is wrong. While quantum nonlocality does occur, it is actually very rare and disappears quickly--this is experimentally verified as well--and so the notion of a totally connected universe is a lie and a cheat.

Einstein said that "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". In "The Non-Local Universe", Robert Nadeau and Menos Kafatos reverse this dicta. They basically argue that it's quite comprehensible that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible.

Once upon a time, as their tale goes, Newtonian and Cartesian thinkers imagined a world acting within a set of unchanging parameters extending infinitely across time and space, being perceived through a consciousness existing in an absolutely different realm. Einstein eventually tossed aside the universal measuring sticks, but still allowed local reference points from which phenomenon was objectively "relative". So long as you accepted that your reality was bounded by the speed of light, you still had something to hold on to. But then came those pesky, unpredictable quantum behaviors dragged up from the micro world, and even local relativity started losing its grip. Just as that was happening, ironically, the neuroscientists started proving that much of our seemingly absolute conscious awareness is grounded in this increasingly wiggly realm of particles and forces.

The final nails in the epistemological coffin, according to Nadeau and Kafatos, were recently driven by a series of experiments confirming the non-local nature of quantum relationships (i.e., through infinitely fast reactions). Even though we in the macro-world cannot exploit these relationships to convey information faster than the Einsteinian light-speed limit, they do imply that every particle of matter and energy in the universe (including dark matter and energy) interact instantaneously in the fashion of a universal web. As such, there are no real yardsticks or reference points. There's nothing unchanging from which to measure and describe anything else. Everything observed is unique, with little relevance to what might have been observed just a micro-second before or what will be seen a micro-second later.

Well, that's quite a bold conclusion. Few other scientists or philosophers seem ready to go this far regarding the epistemic and ontological implications of quantum non-locality. But this book is plainly not New Age quackery (although it could ultimately be described as a more grounded form of "What the Bleep Do We Know?"). Being intellectually honest, Nadeau and Kafatos warn you when they cross the border from accepted scientific paradigms to metaphysical speculation. They admit that their attempt to apply the lessons of quantum non-locality to biology, economics, ecology and mental dynamics is "heuristic" in nature. They fully respect the ways and presumptions of science, but want to elevate the reader above the trees in search of the forest. In attempting to doing so, they point out that some of the stuff coming from the quantum physics labs might ultimately contradict and eventually undermine those presumptions. Yikes, then what?

This is big thinking, and I give the authors much credit for going out on a limb. Unfortunately, the huge sweep of this book ultimately dilutes it; it is too small, too weakly organized, and too blandly written to effectively convey all of this to the interested lay person. The basic explanations of quantum physics and non-locality are not the clearest I've seen (Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality" does a better job). The authors do somewhat better in discussing evolution and DNA. But in attempting to tie-in chaos theory and emergence concepts, as well as post-Cartesian philosophical and neuro-psychological thinking regarding the realm of mental life, they eventually bog down. (Their brief attempt to reconcile post-modern deconstructionism a 'la Derrida is truly a quest for the bridge too far). If you are like me, i.e. not a polymath with an IQ of over 200, it gets difficult after a while to keep connecting the dots.

But you still want to! The authors raise a lot of questions that may never have otherwise occurred to you. As such, this book might be seen as a cross between Fritjof Capra's "Tao of Physics" and E. O. Wilson's "Consilience" (both mentioned by Nadeau and Kafatos). To their credit, the authors resist both Wilson's scientific triumphalism and Capra's claimed victory of the mystical East. But especially with regard to "matters of the mind", they leave you at an epistemological wall. Their lovely questions may never be fully answered. Through the Copenhagen Interpretation, Heisenberg uncertainty and non-locality (the Holy Trinity of an age of indeterminacy), science may have finally caught a glimpse of its limits. This could be compared to what happened to mathematics a century earlier when it lost its struggle to ground itself in universal logic, as Russell, Godel and others floundered in the swamps of self-referential paradox. (This book offers a surprisingly good explanation of Russell's "set of sets" problem, even though it leaves you short regarding the "quantum of action" and other foundational quantum concepts).

Sure, we can smile and say that all reality, including our own consciousness, has something akin to a wave-particle nature, and get on with our lives. Nadeau and Kafatos end the book on a note of social idealism, claiming that such enlightenment will teach us all to be more tolerant and far-sighted and kind with eachother. If you can't go any further with science, there's still plenty to do back in the world of human society. Admittedly, that's a noble and worthwhile thought. (As theologian Martin Buber says, the world is not comprehensible but it is embraceable.) And yet, one still wonders if there is some way out; e.g. will the umpteen dimensions of superstring theory or some other new concept open a trap door leading to another level of natural understanding? The hunger to bite the apple of ultimate physical knowledge will not be so easily sated.