Gary Zukav’s timeless, humorous, New York Times bestselling masterpiece, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, is arguably the most widely acclaimed. The Dancing. Wu Li Masters. An Overview of the New Physics. Gary Zukav. A BANTAM NEW AGE BOOK. BANTAM BOOKS. NEW YORK • TORONTO • LONDON. The Dancing Wu Li Masters differs quite a bit from The Holographic Universe, but there is also a lot of . In short, Gary Zukav has written a very good book.
|Published (Last):||7 May 2012|
|PDF File Size:||1.77 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
“The Dancing Wu Li Masters”
It was maaters to do with “abolition of the aristocracy of particles”, which I must say Gaty didn’t completely get, but you can see how this might appeal. Some physicists even believe that, but the Wu Li Masters know that dzncing are only dancing with it. Scientists have to be willing not only to propose new ideas, but to reject them when they are shown to be untenable, and that will be shown by experimental results regardless of how the scientist feels about the idea. If such a thing as absolute nonmotion were hte, then a co-ordinate system attached to it would be the long-lost inertial frame of reference, the co-ordinate system in which the classical laws of mechanics are perfectly valid.
Zukav claims that most scientists lack imagination; yet Zukav’s idea of being imaginative is to view the world through a philosophy that is thousands of years old–whereas modern science’s idea of being imaginative is to come up with something that nobody has ever thought of before.
Quantum logic is just one more tool in the toolbox. The more we know about reality I should be clear though, this isn’t a book for scientists.
The Dancing Wu Li Masters – Wikipedia
I’m halfway through it now and it’s pointing towards a unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics aka quantum gravitation. Zukav’s last statement about the old physics, that it says “the external world is indifferent to us and to our needs”, helps us to see more clearly where Zukav is coming from. I’m someone who has held a fear of math and physics for years, but Zukav writes in a clear and thorough fashion, stopping himself every once a while to ensure that the reader is with him.
However, all these studies did labor under a conceptual block imposed by the particular coordinate system that Schwarzschild used to describe his solution to Einstein’s equation; what Finkelstein’s paper did was to introduce a new coordinate system dimly previsioned by Eddington that made it much easier to visualize the spacetime structure of the solution, lifting the conceptual block and enabling the flowering of black hole studies in the ‘s and ‘s. In short, scientists discover and technicians apply.
Return to Book Page.
Of course Zukav must gzry heard stories from the physicists he lists in his Acknowledgments about imaginative new ideas they had come up with, which were then soundly rejected by the rest of the physics community; but if he believes that those few physicists are really different from most others, that they somehow represent a small minority who actually come up with new ideas and have to struggle against closed-mindedness, he is very masterrs mistaken.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. He’s not a scientist so he’s free to vary these leaps of imaginative fancy, but I was constantly rolling my eyes whenever he started to wax philosophic about some new wrinkle in quantum mechanics. From that point on, regardless of how the real world actually operates, this rational mind, following its self-imposed rules, tries to superimpose on the real world its own version of what must be.
Frustrating because, something clicks, your mind abstractly grasps the idea, but when trying to convey these exciting new concepts to friends and loved ones, you feel grossly in Mind-blowing. If he did, he wouldn’t have said, after his discussion of Penrose-Terrell rotation which is tbe bad, but for a danclng and more current discussion with su details, see the Usenet Physics FAQ entry herethat “as yet, no analogous explanations have been found for the time dilation that accompanies moving clocks or the increase of mass that accompanies moving objects, but the effort, relatively speaking, is young”.
Throwing around vague terms, or terms that can have several significantly different meanings, without defining them precisely may be a common practice in certain types of philosophy, but it isn’t science.
And it would come as quite a surprise to all those “technician” danccing to be told that what they were doing was not part of the search for the true nature of reality.
However, Zukav carries this viewpoint much further:. Surely, the most dangerous rhetoric is that which sounds plausible.
As a teenager, I was so absorbed and completely fascinated by Neils Bohr’s postulates, Max Planck’s Theory that Physics was the air i breathed! His clarity zikav weaker as he starts to go into the weirder aspects of quantum mechanics though.
There are discussions of the parts of quantum mechanics that really are philosophically challenging–for example, Bell’s discoveries about nonlocality, which Zukav talks about towards the end of the book.
Certainly some physicists do skimp on such things–but as far as I can see from reading what many physicists have written for lay people about what they do, most of them do quite clearly distinguish the facts from their speculations. I began reading Brian Greene’s book but realized that Zukav and Hawking really must come first.
Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics (Perennial Classics)
In layman’s terms, the author compares Eastern beliefs, psychology, and quantums physics. Front cover of Bantam paperback edition.
At the time of first publication of this bookexperiments had been done the main one being the Clauser experiment which Zukav mentions that were consistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics, but still left some “loopholes” for theorists who were unwilling to accept the full implications. We make the rules, anyway. What was the point of the book? But until then we just don’t know–we can only speculate.