Customer Reviews

The Physics of Christianity

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

Tipler's ideas are again mind-blowing, as they were with the Physics of Immortality. Some issues I have with it, though:

1) His main flaw, is the amount of certainty he gives to his sentences. When you research what he's talking about, you see that the facts, as they are, are much more questionable than what he leads you to believe.

For example, he says that the Shroud of Turin is consistent with XX males. IF the Shroud of Turin is the real burial shroud of Christ, and IF it is consistent with XX males (the only reference on the internet to this fact comes from Tipler), then, maybe, it gives us evidence. But he doesn't use correct qualifiers. (Qualifiers are words like "perhaps".) He states them as flat fact, which casts doubts on his entire book. A good scientist will always qualifies his statements with words indicating the degree of confidence he has in them.

2) He tries to gain a patina of scientific-ness by using big, complicated words, and, perhaps intentionally, explaining things in a confusing fashion. I took a quarter of quantum physics, and have read some books on it since I graduated from college, so I have a moderate understanding in the field, but even when Tipler is explaining things I already know, I find myself becoming confused by his explanations. He really needs to take a class on how to put together better analogies.

3) He has a very cockeyed idea of what his reader needs to have defined for him. For example, after the following line, "More precisely, the uncertainty principle says that the product of the uncertainty in the position of a particle multiplied by the uncertainty in its momentum must always be greater than Planck's constant divided by 4pi." he could have chosen to define a lot of different things. Planck's constant, or where the 4pi came from (or why its even important), or what uncertainty means. Instead, of all things, he defines *momentum* (the product of mass and velocity)! He's either intentionally being obtuse, or he's really got an odd idea of who is going to be reading his books.

4) His illustrations suck. He uses illustrations for things that don't need illustrations (like full page ones showing how waves constructively and destructively interfere), but doesn't show diagrams for much more complicated things that he tries to describe using convoluted sentences.

5) Quantum Physics is the new magic. I've noticed from hanging out on philosophy forums online, that Quantum Physics is the new magic. There's a quantum theory of consciousness, quantum this, quantum that. Everything can be proven with Quantum Physics. So some places have a sort of Godwin's Law that you can't use Quantum Physics as proof of anything -- unless you yourself have a strong background in the subject. Of course, this doesn't quite apply, as Tipler is a mathematical physicist, but his writings certainly remind me of all the Quantum Physics-as-magic posts I've seen written online.

So why did I give it four stars? Because it *is* interesting, and if you can work through the above issues, it will make you think, whether you agree with him or not, and many of his points do seem to be right. I've long considered the singularity that started the big bang to be the First Cause which philosophers have long talked about, even in arguments predating Christianity.

-----

Update:
After reflecting on the book, I'm less happy with it now. Essentially, his argument is incoherent. His claims contradict themselves and each other. For example, he claims the following:
1) Multiple universes is true -- in fact, there are infinitely many universes, containing all randomly possible events.
2) A certain law of physics requires actions on the parts of intelligent life to hold true.
3) We have free will
4) The universe was designed to support life.

I've written a longer discussion on this, but suffice it to say that the four statements above are obviously in contradiction. If we have free will, then how can a law of physics require us to perform a certain act (destroying baryons in the universe)? Indeed, it implies we have to do it. But if the many worlds hypothesis is true, then in some universes we *don't* perform the action. But that means his interpretation of a law of physics is only true in some worlds, but not in others. But something which is logically true must be true in all universes (it's actually the definition of logical). Therefore, by definition, his interpretation is illogical. How can he say our universe was designed to hold life, when he claims with the many worlds hypothesis that there are an infinite number of universes, all randomly rolled? We just happened to end up in one suitable for holding life. It's the direct opposite of the strong anthropomorphic principle. How can he say we have free will, when we're really just randomly doing deterministic behaviors (which is determinism, not free will)? How can his interpretation of a law of physics even make sense when it requires intervention on the part of intelligent beings to hold true?

The list of contradictions in his arguments I put together is actually quite long. As a result, I think it's better as 3 stars than 4. It is still mind expanding to read, for atheists and theists alike.

By the time I was halfway through Frank Tipler's new book I scanned the table of contents and was disappointed to find there would be no explanation of the recently reported miraculous appearance of Mother Teresa's image on a cheese Danish in Nashville. That was unusual, given that Tipler goes out of his way to provide convoluted physics justifications for key Christian miracles, including the image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin, long debunked as a 14th-century forgery by many experts. Moreover, whenever conventional physics doesn't provide a sufficient explanation for the phenomenon of interest, Tipler re-invents it.

As a collection of half-truths and exaggerations, I was first tempted to describe Tipler's new book as nonsense, but I soon realized that that would be unfair to the concept of nonsense. These descriptions are far more dangerous than nonsense, because Tipler's reasonable descriptions of various aspects of modern physics, combined with his respectable research pedigree, give the distinct illusion that he is honestly describing what the laws of physics imply. He is not. This book provides an object lesson in the dangers of pushing science beyond its domain of validity, and using various scientific approximations as if they are completely valid in all contexts. Indeed, while he complains several times early on in the book that other physicists let their philosophical prejudices influence their conclusions, Tipler has clearly let his desires get the better of him. Based on my personal experience, I believe that Frank Tipler as an honorable man and I do not think that he intended to pervert reality to serve his goals, but nevertheless he has.

Allow me to give several cases in point: Tipler claims that the standard model is complete and exact. It isn't. He claims that we have a clear and consistent theory of quantum gravity. We don't. He claims that the universe must recollapse. It isn't. (The current evidence indicates that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.) He argues that we understand the nature of dark energy. We don't. He argues that we know the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe. We don't. I could go on, but the point is made.

When stretching the limits of knowledge beyond the pale doesn't suffice, Tipler resorts to some interesting a posteriori uses of probability. For example, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus was accomplished as the atoms in his body spontaneously decayed into neutrinos and antineutrinos, which then later reconverted into atoms again to reconstitute him. He invokes here the fact that within the standard model of particle physics the decay of protons and neutrons is possible, although he recognizes that the mean lifetime for such decay is some 50-100 orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe. Thus, the probability of such an occurrence is essentially zero. However, using a strange "Christian" version of the anthropic principle -- a subject he co-authored a book about with John Barrow -- he then claims that without Jesus's resurrection, our universe could not exist, and therefore when one convolves this requirement with the near zero (but not exactly zero) a priori probability, the net result is a near certainty.

I have racked my brains to come up with a more extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments in print by an intelligent, professional scientist, but I cannot. And, given some of the wild stuff that has appeared in the past decade, that is saying a lot. I believe the kindest thing that could happen to this book is that it languish untouched and unread. I urge potential readers, who may feel the need to seek out some empirical justification for their faith, to bestow a kindness on Professor Tipler and turn to another book with either better science or better theology.
Review by Lawrence Krauss

Many people on here have written fine reviews, covering more detail than I am willing. But there's one thing I'd like to point out. The bottom line is, I respect the guy for putting his controversial theories out there, probably fully aware that he was going to get crucified by scientists and non-scientist alike, but this book utterly fails in its goal. In attempting to reconcile Christianity and physics, in a way that describes all the miraculous phenomenon of Christian doctrine, Tipler ends up satisifying neither christians nor phyisicists. For example, in trying to explain the resurrection of Jesus, Tipler imagines some sort of de-materialization of Jesus' body into nuetrinos and then re-materialization back into His resurrection body. I mean, come on. Jesus' resurrection body was more than just physical. There was a supernatural spiritual reality to it that cannot be explained by the laws of physics, for it is not subject to such laws. And there's a whole lot more of this in the book. And to be honest, I found myself glossing over some areas that were so out there I felt that they weren't even worth the time reading. In the end, Tipler presents a far-fetched theory that neither christians nor physicists can accept.

I was so upset that I purchased and wasted my time reading this book that I won't spend any more time than necessary telling you not to bother with it. It's not clear at all what his point is, but it starts off with misstatements of truth: 1) That the standard model of quantum mechanics is complete and exact -- it's not at all, nor would any reputable scientist say it is. It is the closest we have at this time; 2) He says that we know what quantum gravity is -- actually, we've been searching for the solution to quantum gravity for fifty years now .. and it's still eluding us; 3) He says the universe will collapse -- hogwash! An amazing yet quite proven finding from 1998 is the discovery of "dark energy" that is actually making the universe expand at a faster and faster rate; And his errors go on and on. Given the amount of falsification throughout the book, there's just no point to wasting your time reading the book.

Tipler reminds the scientific community that experiment and observation are to be recognized despite the philosophical implications. The universe had a beginning. No matter how much that repulses the secular crowd, this is the case. Tipler argues that it is observable physics and the implications of which that appear to favor a God, that have turned physics into a fantasy world where the best minds like hawking have abandoned experiment for theories (such as string theory) that lack a single shred of observation or prediction.

I have to admit to being of two minds concerning this book. If it is taken as parody then the book is four star - not perfect, but certainly amusing. However, Dr. Tipler apparently wants his book to be taken seriously - hence the one star.

Where to begin? Well, let's start before the beginning, with the dedication "To god's chosen people, the Jews, who for the first time in 2000 years are advancing christianity." Leaving aside that Tipler contradicts this statement in his own book (page 111) one doesn't have to be Jewish to consider this offensive.

Or we could go to his chapter on miracles (Chapter 5). A miracle, according to Tipler, is an unusual occurrance that benefits religion. He provides a unseful example - useful in that it suggests the degree of rigor in Tipler's analysis. A photographer is persuaded to take pictures of Mother Teresa in dim light using a new Kodak film. The pictures come out well. A miracle - at least in Tipler's world. In the same chapter Tipler has time to attack Islam as hostile towards science and take a few shots at the Harry Potter books.

In other chapters we learn that the Star of Bethlehem was likely a supernova in the Andromeda galaxy, and he uniquely dates this event to March, 8 BC (or September, 7 BC, or perhaps some other nearby date). This may require an unusually short gestation period for jesus, but since jesus, according to Tipler, lacked the genes required to sin, this might be expected (!). Tipler also suggests jesus was a rare XX virgin birth (odds of about 100 billion to 1 against - assuming Tipler has calculated these correctly) and that the Shroud of Turin is in fact authentic, and may contain genetic information concerning god's son. And for the more scholarly readers, one can't help but notice Tipler's reliance on secondary sources where primary sources would be relevant. This may explain why so much of the books reads as a reinterpretation of previous explanations for christian miracles.

I personally found the book to be amusing. However, if I were I christian I suspect I would find the book offensive.

Finally, be sure not to be impressed by the fact that Dr. Tipler knows more physics than you do. He does - which makes the nonsense contained in this book more, not less, puzzling.

Enjoy.

Far too many of us who have claimed to be scientifically literate and scientifically honest have brought biased philosophical presumptions to our examinations of human life and thinking. Bending the results of experimentation around one or more philosophical biases is not unscientific so long as we maintain awareness we are doing so. We humans are constrained to live and think within the bounds of the drastically limited range of our senses -- even though we extend them somewhat through technological aids. And our brains, for most of us at least, are robust in preferences for adapting to what our senses tell us.

Tipler takes us to the very frontiers of our ontological limits, by way of examining not the average, mundane mind, but the very essence of the keenest of physicists, and the farthest limits to which experimentation has taken them; and, at the ontological and epistemic edge of that he invites us to ponder what lies beyond.

Quite obviously, the finest minds of man a century ago, two centuries ago, three... did not have benefit of experimental results which would come later. And if the historical momentum of that is any indication, the finest minds of man today, in their own finest hours, may be expected to fall short of knowing what experimental results will further inform science in years to come.

How easily one already arrived at an insupportable atheistic stance, and fallaciously assuming he/she is supported in that stance by empirical materialism, presents himself/herself as being a skeptic. Yet the taking of any stance -- including one of atheism -- which is unsupportable by any empirical result yet known -- manifests blatant violation of the very core of scientific objectivity.

As Tipler demonstrates, in a way that even a non-scientist of moderate entry-level familiarity with science can grasp, the brightest geniuses
in physics have found that experimental results lead to unavoidable conclusions -- such as the mathematical necessity of an other-worlds phenomenon -- which runs counter to the normal and usual human adaptation to the ontological and epistemic cage in which human life plays out.

Tipler explains exactly how physics can account for every so-called 'miracle' proffered by the historical accounts of Judeo-Christian records. If those historical records be somewhat hard to confirm precisely, then they do not, by virtue of that, differ from any other historical account. History, after all, does not change what has occurred; it only attempts imperfectly to trace it back.

Scientists who are honest with themselves and others cannot, and therefore do not, hold that any experimental result obviates the necessity of something beyond a singularity. And physicists run into singularities
all the time.

Yes, in this book, Tipler takes the non-scientist to the brink of human understanding of materiality, and to the utmost limits of genius of man's brightest and most scientifically honest and shows us that all these things point -- microscopically, macroscopically, and beyond our furthermost understanding of these to what not only is the possibility but, also, the necessity of God.

I do not do him justice in this humble attempt to say it. The reader who is a true skeptic -- rather than one wrapping denial in a cloak of scientific evidence -- will find this book embracing not fantasy nor magic or raw imagination but, on the contrary, the directions toward which all the empirical evidence, and all the greatest genius of mankind, are pointing.

Tippler certainly created an interesting book. He introduces the reader to the concepts of quantum mechanics, relativity, and the standard model to lay the foundation for his arguments to support Christianity.

He will take the reader through his views on the Virgin birth of Christ, the resurrection, life after death, miracles, the trinity, and other topics.

If you too have struggled with how science and religion can coexist, pick this one up and give it a try. I had lots of "what the *&!@ ?" moments while reading. Whether you believe Tippler is brilliant or mad, the book is entertaining nonetheless.

This works is a total waste of time.

Tipler seems to be intentionally muddling his explanations of physics theories making his basic physics chapters inexorable for a lay reader. He makes even simple concepts sound complex in order to make himself seem more erudite perhaps.

Later in the book, Tipler finds it necessary to moralize about the impact of atheism on philosophy and the evils of abortion among other topics. He is chronically off topic and chronically biased although he claims objectivity.

He also leaves his field of choice to make utterly absurd arguments about the evolution evil gene ignoring that no such gene or cluster has ever been found. Tipler should stick to physics for sure.

Tipler makes a lot of statements that are pure conjecture sound like fact and could mislead readers easily.

This gets two stars because the central points of the book focusing on the resurrection and the virgin birth are interesting and perhaps worth a quick glance through. These are the only portions where the author actually tries to use proper physics to prove a claim. He wastes a lot of time on topics that concern only catholics and thus muddles his christology. Moreover, he seems to label any idea that is not his as a heresy and this also weakens the book immensely.

This book is a mess and is not a pleasant read. Stick far away.

As an astronomer (solar physicist) for more than twenty five years, I also gave workshops and critical thinking courses, both for students and for teachers. Much of this was during the time when the first ever Astronomy syllabus (which I developed) was being implemented in the Eastern Caribbean under the aegis of the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) in 1978-79.

A good chunk of workshop time was always consumed by questions, usually in a defined "question period" - which nearly always ran over the designated time limit. Most of these questions concerned the validity of pseudo-science, most often astrology. Occasionally "Ufology".

In fact, the astrology, UFO tracts, books were usually the easiest to debunk. Over the several years I gave these workshops it was somewhat more difficult to rebut nonsense put out with sophisticated scientific window dressing - to conceal the pseudo-science underneath. The reason is that one had to presume some basic physics understanding in the first place. If this wasn't in evidence, one had to take the time to provide it. A tutorial if you will.

Claims made for "orgone energy", for example, or ca. 1982, "the Jupiter Effect" - made popular in a book by the same name written by John Gribbin. Later, even quantum physics became popularized (and to a large extent "pseudo-science-ized") as in 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' by Gary Zukav (though, true he was not a scientist).

Tipler's book, like his earlier 'Physics of Immortality', is disturbing because it is imbued with the patina of gravitas via detailed and complex physics and mathematics - partial derivatives and equations galore, even tensors. How is the educated reader to be prevented from falling into a veritable black hole of gibberish? Well, truth be told, most will not be so prevented. They will be so dazzled by the math - and Tipler's deft use of jargon ("Bekenstein Bound", "Omega Point") and call it a day.

"Gee whiz, it must be true that this guy can prove Christianity! I mean look at all this stuff! He couldn't dream this up out of nothing!"

Well actually, he could. And we already have seen the template for how elaborate BS can be parlayed into something that looks "credible". Physicist Allan Sokal demonstrated it more than a decade ago when he penned a social text paper - for a social text journal - using all the quantum mechanical mumbo-jumbo he could put together. Then, making it read like he had demonstrated some claim that might have issued straight from the mouth of the postmodernist guru Jacques Derrida. The paper was published in the Social Text journal and the hoax (later revealed by Sokal Himself) became known as the "Sokal Hoax".

Now, I am not saying that Tipler is perpetrating a "hoax" - so we are clear on that. For all I know, he may just as seriously believe and buy into every sentence and equation he writes, as Immanuel Velikovsky might have for his (1950) work, 'Worlds in Collision' - wherein he purported to show how many of the ancient bible accounts (e.g. Sun stoppage by Joshua) occurred because Venus (claimed to be expelled from Jupiter) passed "too near to Earth" - in a near collision- halting its rotation and forming the Jewish "manna" from heaven.

What I am saying is that one must examine Tipler's claims from outside his reference frame, and proceed from there. Because his claims, equations supporting them etc. are so detailed, it would take a book nearly the size of his own to refute each and every one. I am not about to do that, merely focus on the most egregious and central claims.

Perhaps the most important is his "Omega Point" which he ties to a singularity at the end of time (re-collapse of the universe) and "God". Leaving aside the questionable association of a mathematical singularity with a deity (which virtually no Christian I know would grok) let's focus on the claim itself.

Is it factual that the universe will re-collapse to a singularity? Let's examine this in some detail. Begin with the concepts of curvature and critical cosmic density. We assume radial symmetry for the metric tensor - for which we adopt a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (F-R-W) form

This omits all angular dependence and leaves a function of form R(t) which sets the scale and defines an `effective radius' of the universe.

We have:

ds^2 = dx^u g_uv dx^u = dt^2 - R^2(t) [ (dr^2/ 1 - kr^2) + r^2 d (S)^2]

where ds^2 is a geodesic interval (squared), and d(S)^2 is the solid angle differential and k = const.

Associate with this a fluid of average density rho(t) and internal pressure p(t)

The energy-momentum tensor becomes: T_o^0 = rho(t), T_I^I = -p(t)

with all other components zero.

After inserting these into the Einstein field equations:

(dR/dt /R)^2 = (8 pi)/ 3 (G_N rho) - k / R^2

The first term denotes the square of the rate of the space scale R, in relation to R. Meanwhile, k denotes the space-time curvature.

Using a particular F-R-W template, one can have:

k = +1 (positive curvature - spherical geometry)

k = -1 (negative curvature - hyperbolic or horse saddle type geometry)

k = 0 (flat or Euclidean universe)

Universes that re-collapse (decelerate), expand forever with zero limiting velocity (e.g. v uniform) or expand forever with positive limiting velocity (accelerate) are called in turn: 'closed' (can have curvature k = +1); 'critical' (k=0)or 'open' (can be k = -1), respectively

Now, to determine whether any F-R-W cosmological template leads to deceleration or not, we need to find the cosmic density parameter:

Omega = rho / rho_c

where the denominator refers to the critical density. Thus if:

rho > rho_c

(c = critical)

then the cosmic density is able to reverse the expansion (e.g. decelerate it) and conceivably usher in a new cycle. (New Big bang etc.) The observations that help determine how large rho is, come mainly from observing galaxy clusters in different directions in space and obtaining a density estimate from them.

Current data, e.g. from Boomerang and other satellite detectors (See e.g. 'Balloon Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background Strongly Favor a Flat Cosmos', p. 17, Physics Today, July 2000) shows that Omega~ 0.3 or that:

rho = 0.3 (rho_c)


I.e. that rho < rho_c so there is NO danger of the cosmos decelerating. If it doesn't decelerate, it means there will be NO end singularity. Out goes Tipler's whole scenario, "Omega Point", "God", "Virgin Birth" and all. Falling like so many abstract tenpins. Or perhaps, dominoes.

Precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), including data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), have recently provided further evidence for dark energy. The same is true of data from two extensive projects charting the large-scale distribution of galaxies - the Two-Degree Field (2DF) and Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).

Adding to this, Dark energy has been further corroborated from plots of Type Ia Supernovae data. (See, e.g. 'Supernovae, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe', by Saul Perlmutter, in Physics Today, April, 2003, p. 53.)

If you make a plot of absolute magnitude (vertical axis) against redshfit (z, for the galaxies they occur in ) then type Ia supernovae will be distributed in a particular way.

The axes for plotting 1a supernovae would appear (M(ABS) = absolute magnitude, Z = redshift):


M(ABS)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!---------------> Z
0


In the above graph, visualize a series of scattered points emanating from the origin up to the upper right. Also try to visualize an imaginary diagonal line going from the joined (M, Z) axes to the upper right. In terms of the real data, the type Ia points all fall to the LEFT of that line, or in what we call the 'accelerating universe' region. On the other side of the diagonal is the "decelerating region". An additional feature of the accelerating side is 'vacuum energy'.

The cosmological "equation of state" (think of something like the equation of state for an ideal gas, e.g. P = nkT) for this vacuum energy is:

w = (Pressure/ energy density) = -1

And here is where dark energy enters - not by choice- but by the data and observations being forced on us to accept it!

This is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity - which one could say approaches the status of a 'basic law of physics'. In this case, the existence of a negative pressure is consistent with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity" - since any negative pressure has associated with it gravity that repels rather than attracts.
Specifically the term (rho + 3 p) acts as a source of gravity in general relativity, (where rho = energy density).

If we set: 0 = (rho + 3p) then:

p = - rho /3

and if: p < (- rho /3) we have gravity that repels

Looking back to the earlier equation for w, one finds:

p = - rho (e.g. pressure = - energy density)

and - rho < (- p /3)

All this in tandem supports the prediction by many dark energy theorists that the cosmos will ultimately expand forever. There simply isn't any agency to counter the accelerating force of dark energy to prevent it. (As an addendum here: NO, contrary to Tipler's claims, we do not fully grok dark energy. We can put together a physical basis to account for it - as I showed above - but this is not the same as "understanding")

Tipler insists that Hawking "proved" this indefinite expansion cannot happen (at least indirectly), since otherwise black holes would evaporate, and information would be lost forever - violating "unitarity". However, more recent findings disclose this is a crock. Indeed, since 1997 the general consensus of physicists is that the so-called "Hawking paradox" has been solved, information can be preserved and Hawking radiation is not entirely "thermal" but receives quantum fixes or corrections. In any case, Tipler's invocation of "black hole evaporation" to nix indefinite cosmic expansion no longer holds up.

Like it or not, the evidence shows Tipler's Omega Point cannot come into being the way he perceives it and - if he wants to retain it at all- he will have to make it compatible with an indefinitely expanding (k= 0) universe, and final "heat death".

For an excellent insight into this, I recommend readers get hold of the BBC production `The Hawking Paradox'. It is interesting seeing how even the "cosmic master" himself has had to eat a bit of humble pie (though the story is he is working on a way to preserve his hypothesis. Most serious physicists, like Leonard Susskind, doubt this will occur)

Even if Hawking somehow does manage his new "proof" - given limited resources- it is unlikely he will find it any more accepted by a wider audience than Einstein's peculiar ideas on quantum theory were in his own era. More probably the only ones who will hang on to it will be an assorted group of oddball physicists - like Frank Tipler.

Now, since the cosmos will gradually die out as its heat sinks overwhelm sources, it follows that life cannot be co-temporal or co-existent with it, as Tipler wishes to believe. More than likely, all life will perish long before the final cold whimper of the cosmos. Hence, there will be NO "omniscience" at any final singularity (since there won't be any singularity to begin with) nor will there be any "omnipresence" by the end of time. In any case, the cavailier usage of such terms outside their normative religious context must cause one to look askance at Tipler's whole thesis.

Of course, with the abolition of the Omega Point, there is also the abolition of Tipler's version of omnipotence - and obviously, "life everlasting".

Moving on from this Omega Point fiction, let's take up Tipler's claim that there can be NO other interpretation of quantum mechanics than "Many worlds". In fact, the "many worlds" it but one of a number of interpretations.

The most dominant which still remains today, is the "Copenhagen interpretation", which is based on the conception of the quantum wave function (PSI) as a statistical artifact. This is entirely reasonable. Consider: you want to find the probability that some particle will be found in a region of length a.

The probability is given as an integral:

INT (-oo to + oo) PSI* (PSI) dx

where PSI = A sin (2pi x/ a) exp (-iEt/h-bar)

PSI* = A sin (2pi x/ a) exp (iEt/h-bar)

where h-bar = h/ 2pi, h = 6.62 x 10^-34 J-s (Planck constant)

Obviously, without doing the full integration, the complex functions for PSI and its complex conjugate (PSI*) cannot be identified with any real world entity. Hence (Max) Born's conclusion to treat the wave function as primarily statistical in nature is amply justified.

Regrettably, QM is not a descriptive field, i.e. amenable to straightforward English interpretation. It is primarily a mathematical theory. If one ventures outside the bounds of the mathematical descriptions to offer English interpretations, one risks nonsense. I believe it was Feynman, in a Preface to his 'Lectures in Physics', Vol. III, who remarked that once one tries to use purely English descriptions to button hole QM he or she will "disappear down a rabbit hole, never to appear again."

Evidently, from the text in his book, Tipler has not followed this advice, else he'd never have confused a quantum (total) wave function with the "Holy Spirit".

For readers who want a comprehensive and understandable book that provides the basis for the Copenhagen Interpretation, I recommend Heinz Pagels `The Cosmic Code' (Bantam, 1982) - which will dispel a lot of incorrect perceptions and assumptions that have accumulated over the past 25 years. In his book, Pagels endorses the best policy in quantum mechanics as simply being a `fair witness'. That means absolutely avoiding embellishment and exaggeration of the results, including projection of personal `fantasies'. If one insists on reading more into quantum measurement results than their statistical significance allows, self delusion ensues. If one insists on extending quantum mechanical concepts beyond their normative, justified contexts and domains, total gibberish manifests. Then, an intended scientific text mutates into a fantasy novel.

Another powerful alternative interpretation of QM is the 'Causal Stochastic Interpretation', made popular by physicist David Bohm and his co-worker Brian Hiley. In this interpretation, PSI is real, and deterministic to an extent. The best book to explicate its basis in more or less popular terms (see also my review of it) is Bohm's `Wholeness and the Implicate Order'. (1980) Bohm produced some groundbreaking papers on it, mainly to be found in the journal `Foundations of Physics' - but for those who can't access it, his book is the next best thing.

There was also a falsification test designed to validate the SIQM - called the "Gozzini experiment", but no completely satisfactory results were ever forthcoming. Hence, the SIQM remains an unvalidated contender. `Many worlds' likewise, but perhaps much less so because (all Tipler's claims to the contrary) no tests for falsification have been advanced as in the case of Bohm's SIQM. The Copenhagen interpretation remains firmly ensconced on the throne, since its mathematical recipes and prescriptions - while sterile in physical understanding- have been confirmed over and over. Until Tipler or someone else can manage to invalidate it empirically, this will remain, all his protestations that other alternatives must be "objectively false". (A strange choice of terminology in itself which, on reflection, seems to be most apropos to his own thesis)

The point is that Tipler's claim of "one true QM interpretation" is patent rubbish. This is nothing more than Tipler's personal opinion, based on his subjective biases in proving his Omega point, nothing more.

Other of Tipler's claims are downright laughable. For example, that the "Standard Model" is complete.

The so-called 'Standard Model' is generally defined as the symmetry:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1)

Spontaneous symmetry breaking would therefore resolve this combination into constituent parts, e.g.:

SU(3) associated with the 'color force' of quarks

SU(2) x U(1) associated with the electro-weak force.

One possible symmetry breaking (quark -boson format) is:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1) -> SU(3) + SU(2) x U(1)

which would occur at a particular ambient temperature (T_qb) for the universe at some epoch (E_qb) in the past.

In the foregoing, the synthesis of SU(2) and U(1) into the locally gauge invariant electro-weak theory requires a mechanism which confers mass to three vector bosons while leaving the photon massless. This 'mass-giving' mechanism is called the Higgs Field or Higgs mechanism, and it demands the existence of one or more massive, spin-0 bosons otherwise called Higgs bosons.

The problem is, of course, that the Higgs boson remains hypothetical. Because it is hypothetical only, the Standard Model cannot be said to be complete. Apart from this there are other deficiencies: i) the Standard model cannot predict the coupling constants (e, g, g_s etc.); ii) it doesn't predict the mixing of quark or the absence of mixing of lepton generations via the weak interaction; iii) the fermion masses are parameters that have to be experimentally determined; iv) the masses of the Z and W bosons though predicted depend on the Higgs mechanisms - but as I noted, no Higgs bosons have yet been found!

Tipler's claim that we have a self-consistent quantum gravity model also falls by the wayside. We have no such thing, but we do have a number of beautiful CONJECTURES about how such a model might work. For example, there is the delightful paper,`Universe Before Planck Time - A Quantum Gravity Model, (in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756.) by T. Padmanabhan.

Without going into all the complex mathematics entailed, Padmanabhan employed integrals related to the "action" (J) as a function of time. He proceeded by solving for the expansion factor S(t) using two separate energy equations, one of which (2.15 in his paper) bears a remarkable resemblance to the basic quantum wave potential equation. The potential energy term is remarkably similar to that for the quantum harmonic oscillator

As intriguing and compelling as his model is, and there are many others too- no one (even Padmanabhan) would call it remotely "consistent". Nevertheless, it is interesting and ironic that in the case of this paper, Padmanabhan shows how the cosmos can arise from a spontaneous fluctuation. Careful what you wish for, Dr. Tipler!

Closer to home, I would suggest Tipler contact one of my former professors, Dr. Carl Brans - the co-author of the "Brans Dicke" theory of gravitation. He will find him at Loyola, where I took his Mathematical Physics course in 1967. Dr. Brans can show him in detail just how far we are from any "consistent model" of quantum gravity - by showing some of his own recently published work!

Finally, Tipler's claim that we know why an unbalanced ratio of matter to anti-matter exists is specious on its face. If we knew "why" we'd be able to duplicate anti-matter MOLECULES at will in our labs. We can't. Not yet and not by a long shot. The truth is that we only have a "clue" as to why the imbalance exists, and it has to do with violation of CPT (charge-time- parity) symmetry. It seems that a minor violation of this symmetry has permitted slightly more matter particles to be produced than anti-matter since the Big Bang. We still don't know "why".

There are many other flaws with this book, especially in terms of its claims of proving consistency with assorted Christian doctrines (Virgin birth, miracles, resurrection etc.) but I believe the main points have been made. What we really have here is an elaborate, extended and sophisticated pseudo-scientific excursion in the guise of science. This is not the first time it has been done, but it is probably the first time it has been done in such exacting mathematical detail.

One thing all readers need to bear in mind, however, is the "GIGO" axiom: "Garbage in, garbage out". No matter if a book has a thousand and one elaborate equations, if they are all predicated on epistemological "garbage" then the end product will be "garbage" I can think of a hundred more profitable ways for interested readers to spend their time - and most of these entail going to the fiction section of your libraries.

I suggest if you want an enthralling book on "God" to get hold of the book by the same name by author James Byrne. At least you won't have to get to the core issue by meandering through hundreds of pages of irrelevant physics and (distracting)mathematical equations. Nor will you be misled into accepting that physics somehow validates Christianity, or that physics (or science in general) are compatible with it.

Physics is and remains a wholly NATURALISTIC enterprise and science, while Tipler is proposing a supernatural "science" in naturalistic garb. Or simply, a pseudo-science with religious overtones. We have more than enough in the realm of pseudo-science already, without adding another layer - differentiated merely by some mathematical sophistication to better promote it.

But don't be fooled. This is not a physics text, and it proves nothing more than that a physicist - if he isn't careful- can also succumb to fanciful ideation and wayward subjectivity.