Pseudophysics

A few weeks ago, I discussed one issue with "physics cranks," as referenced on a podcast by renowned astrophysicist and science communicator Sean Carroll. His main objection was that many of the people who believe they're revolutionizing the fundamental theories of physics do not really understand the existing theories, so they can't really quantify how their theories would resolve the problems which existing theories can solve.

The only one of them I've ever heard of is Fred Alan Wolf, who is well known for his work in trying to relate human consciousness to quantum theory. He is also quoted in both the video and book "The Secret" and here's what I said about this on my website (http://physics.about.com/od/scienceandreligionbooks/p/secretphysicserrors.htm):"Two physicists, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf and Dr. John Hagelin, are directly quoted in the book. While both are respected and accomplished in various circles, their stances on these issues of physics and consciousness are definitely not mainstream. The attempt within The Secret to make these controversial views appear to be a consensus of quantum physicists is misleading."What will very likely happen in the ALICE AND THE QUANTUM CAT book is that there will be a lot of very real science. In fact, probably about 90% of the science will be perfectly valid and correct. The other 10% will contain assumptions or conclusions that are at odds with the mainstream physics community and have no direct experimental support. The problem is that the authors will make no real effort to make it clear that this 10% is any different from the other 90% ... they'll make it sound like physicists are completely confident about everything they're saying.http://znfl.blogspot.com/2006/12/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.html

However, there is another problem that is nearly as pervasive. This comes from people who have legitimate physics credentials and do (or, at least, should) understand the complexities surrounding a scientific concept, but when they communicate these concepts they do not make these complexities clear.

I was reminded of this when a friend recently approached me about a book she'd come across, which claimed to discuss the way quantum physics affects our lives. There was a list of physicists who were involved in the book and she wanted to know if it was trustworthy. The only name I recognized was Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, who is well known for his work in trying to relate human consciousness to quantum physics. He is one of the physicists who is quoted in both the book and film of The Secret. Here is a quote from my article "Physics Errors in The Secret":

Two physicists, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf and Dr. John Hagelin, are directly quoted in the book. While both are respected and accomplished in various circles, their stances on these issues of physics and consciousness are definitely not mainstream. The attempt within The Secret to make these controversial views appear to be a consensus of quantum physicists is misleading.

I actually have a great deal of sympathy for those who investigate the foundations of quantum physics and even the role of the observer ... when it's handled carefully, as it was in the fantastic book The Quantum Enigma. This was a legitimate discussion of the issues and complexities involved in observers in quantum physics, such as the role of measurement in the quantum double slit experiment. They didn't take a bit of uncertainty and try to use it to justify things well outside the realm of what they were discussion.

And that, ultimately, is one of the major problems when quantum physics gets referenced in many books aimed at a popular audience, especially those that seem inclined to imply some sort of mystical result from quantum physics. Here is the response I provided to my friend about her book question, and I think this tends to apply broadly to these sorts of physics books:

What will very likely happen in this book is that there will be a lot of very real science. In fact, probably about 90% of the science will be perfectly valid and correct. The other 10% will contain assumptions or conclusions that are at odds with the mainstream physics community and have no direct experimental support. The problem is that the authors will make no real effort to make it clear that this 10% is any different from the other 90% ... they'll make it sound like physicists are completely confident about everything they're saying.

There are a lot of curious properties of quantum physics, such as the ways to resolve quantum entanglement issues, such as those that show up in the EPR paradox. And some very respected physicist (most notably Roger Penrose) have ventured speculations in this area. The problem is how carefully these speculations are framed and the degree to which they make their uncertainty clear.

A scientist who is truly trying to examine the possibility of these things will make it absolutely clear that they are speculating.?A true scientist will qualify their speculative claims, quantifying their uncertainty as much as possible. This is, to a large degree, the very essence of scientific inquiry.

Those who make it sound like such speculations are completely resolved questions aren't interested in furthering knowledge. They're trying to sell you something, not practice real science.

This sort of reminds me of a quote from mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russel:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

View the original article here