A Quantum Diaries Survivor

About a month ago I received in my mail box a copy of a small, good-looking book, titled “God Does Play Dice With the Universe“. Author: Shan Gao, in his own words “an independent research scientist, or more accurately, a natural philosopher who aims at understanding the mysterious universe“. Shan is a reader of my site. He had previously contacted me to ask if I would be willing to review his new work.

Despite being a lazy reader and having no experience in reviewing books, I promised him I would: my curiosity won, as it usually does in such circumstances. So, as I unpacked the parcel that the British publisher Abramis had crafted for me, I had mixed feelings: the object I was unwrapping meant something new and potentially stimulating to write about - but it also meant work ahead.

The book turned out to consist in a bit over 100 pages neatly written in a pocket 9″x6″ size, cleanly printed
and illustrated, and featuring a starry background on the cover. Does God play dice with the universe ? I admit I started browsing the book with a definite bias - the way I had been contacted, the title of the book, and the very fact that somebody should select me as a reviewer made me lean toward the idea that the author was some sort of a crackpot.

Now, I have to say I have nothing against the “category” in itself. People who try to understand reality and build their own theories have my deep respect; that is, until they become arrogant and presumptuous. Shan had been kind and unassertive in his communication with me, so my bias was not putting me in a bad mood by itself.

However, after a first quick look, I was left wondering about the soundness of my pre-judgement. For one thing, the book contained no formulas at all. I mean none, not even a few. This did not quite fit the crackpot idea I had put together. Secondly, the descriptions of quantum phenomena I came across by random browsing appeared actually rather well put together, even if of course simplified and not rigorous, and I could detect no obvious flaw in their presentation. I have to warn the reader here: I am no theorist, and my studies of quantum mechanics date a century back; however, usually I can still smell a fallacious statement if I read one.

I decided I would really read the damn book. It took me a while despite its light weight, because my reading time is scarce these days, but today I finally got to the last page, and can present some considerations in a less handwaving form than I thought I would at the beginning.

“God Does Play Dice With the Universe” is a book which builds on a few general principles of quantum mechanics and their contrariness to common sense to propose a bold, even cunning explanation of motion at the microscopic level. One which, I must add, is not scientifically justified or proven in any way; but the author’s ultimate goal is philosophical rather than scientific. That, in essence, is the reason why one feels one can accept without question the multitude of unproven hypotheses, which are presented as unquestionable facts, in the discussion of random motion and the concept of a discrete fabric of space-time.

Shan Gao’s goal is to understand the universe in a philosophical way, and indeed the book describes several views of motion from past thinkers ranging from Zeno to Aristotle, from Al-Nazzam to Bergson (”Movement is composed of immobilities“) and Bertrand Russell (”Motion consists merely in the occupation of different places at different times“). And even if one feels nervous to be confronted with divine actions while reading about quantum-mechanical concepts, and the G word appears a bit too often in the text, in the end the author can be appreciated for having put together his own “theory” and a imaginative way of looking at space and time and the way objects move. Rather than trying to summarize his ideas, let me quote an extended passage:

In a word, even if no concrete cause exists, a change can still happen as long as the change is purely random. In order to further understand this conclusion, it is necessary to distinguish two kinds of causes. One is concrete causes that relate to time, and the other is universal causes that are irrelevant to time. The former is our familiar causes appearing in the principle of causality. Such a concrete cause will result in a lawful change at a concrete time. The latter is a new kind of causes, which are similar to Aristotle’s final causes. A universal cause can result in ceaseless random changes. As a consequence, both lawful changes and random changes have their causes.

So, the principle of causality and indeterminism can be unified in a generalized principle of causality. [...] To sum up, we find an appealing solution to the long-standing puzzle of indeterminism. The existence of uncaused events is actually logical. So it is comprehensible that God plays dice with the universe.

The last chapter of the book is one I did enjoy, despite -or maybe because of- the lack of physics or pseudo-physics arguments. Here, Shan Gao takes his ideas of motion and confronts them with the philosophical views of Aquinas, Newton, Aristotle, and the concept of a First Mover:

In Newton’s physical world, God has a new position [...]. A moving object needs no mover. So there is no need for Aquinas’ First Mover. However, Newton’s First Mover still exists. [...] No object has the ability to move itself. Then who moved the first moving object ? How did it start off if no object can move itself ? So, as Newton thought, the universe still needs some original thing that set it all in motion [...] Indeed, Newton warned against using his mechanics to view the universe as a mere machine [...]: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”

He concludes:

According to the new picture of random motion, objects can move by themselves. What is the
position of God in the new universe then? [...] So God seems to have no position in the spontaneous universe. If God did exist, He would need to do nothing. In the profound words of the great Chinese sage Lao Tzu, “Practice not-doing, and everything will fall into place“. This is the very Tao of the universe.

I liked this finish. After setting the stage with an almost mystical view of the universe, Shan Gao drops the curtain, and there is no God behind it. Or, if there is one, He is certainly not doing much for us.

Being lazy is a bad thing in itself, but being a lazy blogger is horrible: you feel guilty of leaving your site unattended. Therefore, since today I have nothing in the world to report about (well, except a book I was asked to review, a new algorithm taking care of track momentum calibration in CMS, and my godparenting of a paper to come out on squarks and gluinos - expect posts on those shortly), I will just paste here a comment I left at cosmic variance, where Sean boasts about his (really, really good) blog ranking fourth in a certain wishful ranking:

Okay, there seems to be a bug somewhere; we’re not really the fourth-largest blog on the Internets, by any plausible way of counting. Unless they are counting by awesomeness.

Tsk, tsk. Self-praise is not kosher. Here is what I answered to Sean in his comments section:

Hi Sean,

at the risk of sounding jealous, envious, and green with livor, I have to say I do not rate your blog as awesome. It does not supefy, it does not startle, it does not cause shots of adrenaline. It has many pluses, of course - otherwise it would not be where it is, in the list above or in other ranking systems around.

And you should be happy about that. A physics blog cannot, _cannot_, be a top ranking one. Beware. If you get there, you have mutated to something you might not have liked in the past. What are you, a guy with an opinion on everything ? A star writer ? Certainly both, but you first and foremost are a scientist, and if you forget your roots it gets dangerous.

Just my two pence… and congratulations.
Cheers,
T.

Alas, what I say above is what I really think: a science blog cannot get very high in any ranking system for the very reason that it deals with science. If it goes up, it means it has started dealing with something else. It is a drift that any science blogger has to counter with a rational approach: keep talking about science. I of course indulge in extemporaneous divagations into other topics, but let me mention my five top ranking posts below:

1. Lisa Randall: black holes out of reach of LHC
2. Glashow humilates Carlucci on Maiani’s appointment
3. I want to know about the multi-b excess too!
4. Physics made easy
5. The Higgs rumor spreads again

So, I do talk about other things, but I am quite happy if I am mostly read for the science. Maybe I did mutate myself - my blog was, at the start, in the spirit of Quantum Diaries: a report on the life of a scientist. Forget it. I will continue to report on my life, and I will continue to discuss politics, astronomy, chess, my hobbies - but blogging about science has much, much more meaning. No, I will never cheer up if my blog ranks as high as Cosmic Variance: of course I love it when I get lots of traffic, but only if I think I deserved it through the service I provided. I intend to keep the variance down.

Headlines around the world today announced the conversion to catholic creed of ex-muslim Magdi Allam, vice-director of the italian newspaper “Il Corriere della Sera”. Magdi lives in Italy under continuous watch and armed escort due to the several fatwas (death sentences) issued against him by religious leaders because of his articles, where he often expressed a deep criticism of islamic fundamentalism and of the violent nature of islam.

I believe his conversion to christianity -which is, in Magdi’s own words, “the arrival point of a gradual and deep interior meditation”- is indeed interesting and remarkable in a 56-years-old, cultured individual. I however think the real news is the fact that his conversion was so widely publicized, and the fact that the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist were given to Magdi in the spotlights of Easter’s vigil yesterday by none less than Pope Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger’s explicit act is a sort of challenge to islam. Because the catholic church has always tried to handle the conversion of muslims to christianity discreetly, in the knowledge of the risks involved and the wish to avoid a direct confrontation with islamic leaders. In his letter to Il Corriere Magdi explains:

“His Holiness launched an explicit and revolutionary message to a Church that so far has been even too cautious in the conversion of muslims, abstaining from proselitism in countries with an islamic majority and being silent on the reality of conversions in christian countries. For fear. The fear of being unable to protect the converts from their death penalty for apostasy and for fear of retaliation against christians living in islamic countries.”

I wonder whether this kind of putting out fire with gasoline is the right thing to do, in a world increasingly polarized by a clash between catholic and islamic countries. News of clerics stabbed to death in countries with a strong islamic presence, in the meantime, do not make it to the front page any more. If we agree that the West is to speak to the moderate ear of islamic countries in an attempt at damping conflicts, rather than sending bombers and army divisions to the Middle East, we cannot cheer to the choice of Ratzinger. Pope Wojtila would have avoided the provocation.

Do you remember Pegah Emambakhsh, the woman who sought asylum in Great Britain, and who risked to be deported to Iran last August ? Her asylum request has been turned down, and she is now facing a bigger threat of being sent back than last time, when her departure was prevented by a strong popular reaction.

The news on Pegah have been reported by the Independent, which had written yesterday about Mehdi Kazemi, a gay man now detained in the Netherlands and who risks the same fate after extradition to Great Britain- and a certain death in Iran, which does not tolerate sodomy: Iran already murdered the lover of Mehdi in 2006. 

A petition by more than 60 parliament members has been sent to prime minister Gordon Brown in support of Mehdi. In the meantime, gay activists note that there are tens of homosexuals in Great Britain who risk deportation to Iran.

From the article by the Independent:

In turning down Ms Emambakhsh and Mr Kazemi’s asylum applications, the Home Office has said that, provided Iranians are discreet about their homosexuality, they will not be persecuted. But Omar Kuddus, of Gay Asylum UK, demanded that Britain follow the example of the Netherlands and Germany in imposing a moratorium on all deportations involving gay and lesbian Iranians. He asked: “How many more young Iranians have to die before the British Government takes action?”

The chief executive of the Border and Immigration Agency, Lin Homer, said: “Our country guidance for such cases is published and is considered as amongst the best in the world. We have expert case workers who make decisions on such cases and there are further avenues through the courts. When and if a court decides that we should look at a case again we will do that.”

Well said mr Homer! If there are experts working on the case, we can all sleep tight. If we are eterosexuals. Great Britain will always do the right thing: its foreign policy with middle east countries is fair and balanced. Bombs to Iraq, gay refugees to Iran.

Nature has the story (by Geoff Brumfiel) about a “scientific” publication on creationism, which will publish peer-reviewed articles on the matter.

The publication, Answers Research Journal (ARJ), is free and online, for maximum damage. Its very name gives away that this is about giving answers, not posing questions: so scientists can jolly well ignore it, since a real research line is dead once answers are all there.

In any case, I find I agree with Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University, who is quoted in the Nature piece: he is reported arguing that “scientists must be careful when responding to the launch of ARJ . Taking too strong a stand against the journal will fuel creationists’ accusations of scientific ‘bias’ against religion[...]. Researchers should instead try to educate non-scientists about the scientific process.”

I wonder when we will finally get a peer-reviewed journal publishing a selection of those encyclicals passing some reasonable review process… Also worth reading would be a peer-reviewed scientific journal about parapsychology.

In a series of recent posts (Storm over rome, The aborted speech, Ratzinger divides, Maiani speaks)I discussed the decision of the rector of “La Sapienza”, a prestigious University in Rome, to invite pope Ratzinger for a Lectio Magistralis at the opening ceremony of the academic year, and the following events: the private letter of 67 physics professors to the rector criticizing the decision, the publication of the letter, the ensuing reaction by media, clerics, and students, and the final decision of the pope to decline the invitation “for opportunity reasons”.

The story does not end there, because some right-wing lacqueys of the clerics, always sensitive to the wind blowing from cardinals in Italy, have sensed that the events had created the occasion to exploit politically the wave of indignation in the country following a distorted reporting of the whole issue by the media. The designated victim: Luciano Maiani, a esteemed theoretical physicist, former director of CERN and INFN (the institute that pays my salary), a person with a stellar curriculum and undoubted experience and skills. The occasion: Maiani has been nominated to head the CNR, the most important research organization in Italy, and a confirmation of the appointment has to come from the Senate. The plan: use the fact that he was among the 67 who signed the letter criticizing the invitation of Ratzinger to subvert his confirmation.

I just read the transcription of the discussion which took place in the 7th commission of the italian Senate a week ago, when the due act of confirming Maiani was postponed and an interrogation of minister Mussi about the opportunity to hire Maiani as head of CNR was requested. You can find the italian version here, but I will give a few highlights. It shows something about the inner workings of italian politics and how the latter is influenced by the Church, albeit in a covert, indirect way.

On the proposal to appoint professor Maiani as President of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche

Senator Asciutti (Forza Italia) asks that minister Mussi be called in commission to confirm the appointment of professor Maiani [...] following the recent facts at the university La Sapienza in Rome. In reminding that the candidate is among the signers of the letter in which a small number of academics expressed their dissent to the presence of the Pope in occasion of the inauguration of the academic year, he holds that such position is incompatible with a balanced, laic behavior, the more so since at the top of CNR is needed a person representative of all opinions. [...]

Senator Pellegatta (Green party) judges as non receivable the request of senator Asciutti, since it is instrumental, demagogic, and arbitrary. She expresses dissent with the attempt to link the expression of the judgement of the parliament on the appointment, essentially based on an evaluation of titles, with opinions of the candidate freely expressed in other venues. She points out that accepting the request would mean to create a dangerous vulnus.

Senator Sterpa (Forza Italia) in consideration of the statements in the debate, declares to abandon the room as a sign of protest, judging unacceptable the accusations of intolerance.  

[...]

Senator Bianconi (Forza Italia) reminds that in the past the appointments in large public institutions have always taken place in a climate of ample agreement. [...] She invites minister Mussi to confirm in the Parliament a choice operated before the contested facts took place. In the meantime, she auspicates that the same professor Maiani clarifies his position, while holding that his declarations already given are by no means appeasing.

Senator Soliani (Democratic Party) acknowledges the convergence on deferring the decision on the appointment. She also notes  that a good part of the debate could have taken place in occasion of the appointment itself. She [...] proposes that the convocation of minister Mussi have as a subject the guarantees for the full exercise of freedom of opinion in universities and research institutes. [...]  

 I still think this is just an occasion used by the right to show off how much they care about pluralism and freedom of expression of… the pope, and that their objections to the appointment of Maiani will die out. Nevertheless, this skirmish also showed how difficult it is in Italy to obtain an agreement on appointments: even when the convergence is ample and the candidate is outstanding, ideology wants its share and may end up driving the decision.

Amara sent me an interview which I am glad to offer translated into English, for the sake of those who wish to follow the ongoing querelle. 

It appeared on the italian newspaper “L’Avvenire”. 

“It is true, they used us”. By Paolo VIANA

“«We all lost». Luciano Maiani shrugs his shoulders. He shows the pictures of ‘his’ Sapienza under siee and the titles of newspapers that brought back to chronicles of the seventies.
  «We all lost, I am not talking about the Pope, but about the academic world, the students, the politicians» comments the nominated president of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. A scientific high-profile, bipartisan nomination, the one of the former president -among other things- of CERN and of the national institute of nuclear physics (INFN), but since Maiani signed the letter of the 67, the one which defined as «incongruous» the choice of inviting the Pope to La Sapienza, the approval is stuck in the mud of the italian parliament. Today Maiani explains the reasons for which he considers the protest against Ratzinger a defeat.

Why did you sign that letter ?

Because it was an internal letter, a normal act of dialectics among academics: a group of professors expressed a dissent to the rector on the organization of the happening. One wanted to pass a message of autonomy of science which was totally distorted, becoming a message of arrogance and intolerance that obviously I do not share. We have been exploited.

Look, reading the text, your opposition to the presence of the Pope is even too clear.

A studious of communication, Mac Luhan, used to say that the means is the message. Well. Then let us ask ourselves why the letter of a group of professors to their rector gets published on Repubblica [an important national newspaper, TN] two months after it has been written, when the rector has already decided and we have acknowledged his decision. With that publication, two months after the fact, it has been transformed into a manifesto against the Pope, exactly to lead us to the barricades. I am quite saddened, we all lost: I am not talking about the Pope but about the scientists, the students, the academic authorities, the public opinion, the political world…

Excuse me, didn’t you expect that, given the situation ?

It could become the occasion of a discussion on the relationship faith-science, but it was a bagarre instead. I signed in the spirit of independence of science from religion, but within a dialogue, the one which, to make an example, I personally experienced with the meetings at the Università Lateranense between scientists and theologists,  organized by Piergiorgio Picozza and Sigfrido Boffi. That is the right environment to come out of this situation.

Are science and faith in Italy at war against each other ?

No, but a deep fracture has been created between scientists and non-scientists, between believers and non-believers, an extremely worrysome one. Italian society must discuss with different societies, like the islamic one, and we cannot afford such a dramatic fracture. The more so because, everywhere, physicists and scientists from different religions, atheists included, work side by side.

Do you believe it is possible a dialogue when the tension rises to such levels ?

I read the speech of the Pope: reason is the meeting point.  It must also be the starting point for a table gathering scientists and theologists, where to discuss of which relation should there be between science and faith in the modern world. The dialogue must start back from there and we have to fill in the crack. We need a sherpa work, conferences at various levels, to find a common ground, for instance around the role of reason, and establish a ‘confidence’ between scientists and men of the Church, based on the knowledge that nobody wants to overcome the other. Only then the relationship science-faith will give rise to something else than such fights on Galileo and Giordano Bruno, two human heritages that must not be used to oppose us to the Church.

Is the scientist or the nominated CNR president speaking ?

I teamed for decades with scientist of all opinions and I do not remember to have ever had a disagreement for faith or ideology reasons. This binomial pluralism-tolerance must hold the more so for who leads the CNR, a great multi-disciplinary, multi-confessional, multi-cultural  insitution. Every discrimination that privileged a part would be a very bad public service.”

I was amused, and happy, to read Jeff -a professor of Physics, a friend, a commenter here, and usually one in disagreement with me- feeling the wind that has been blowing in Italian affairs since I don’t know when: a wind of political appeasement with the Vatican. The same wind that many of us denounce when italian laws having to do with secular issues are shaped on the directives of the Vatican. Here is Jeff’s comment, which he left on the thread following the post about the failed speech of Ratzinger at La Sapienza: 

Well
I heard that Luciano Maiani was one of the 67 physicists that signed the letter against inviting the Pope. Luciano was recently nominated to become the head of the CNR, an italian national research entity, a wonderful choice. I admire him greatly.

It turns out that because of his signing the infamous letter he is risking not being confirmed to head the CNR. If this does turn out to be the case then Italy really is in deep shit! I think the 67 were wrong to start this (once the Pope was invited) but the worst thing that could happen is they they be punished for doing so! If the very VERY good Maiani does get sacked for his signing the letter then I AM CHANGING SIDES!

Mind you that I do NOT think hat someone of the Church picked up a phone and pressured for him to be sacked. It is more depressing than that. I think the idiots that make these decision are boneless morons that just play with the wind. The wind now goes that the Pope should have be respected and hence these morons, JUST TO SUCK UP, and puff up their medaless chests think it is best to sack Maiani. Simply disgusting

I fear I am profoundly fed up with Italy and italians (stufo)

Jeff

Jeff, take a ticket, there’s a long queue - we’ve been there since a while ago!

As for Maiani, it goes without saying that I totally agree. And mind you, the 67 who signed the letter were only those that could - the letter was private, and according to Andrea Frova (who signed it) the number of subscribers could have been ten times larger if they had waited for a while longer, since people joined in after the letter was sent. So full many a Maiani is there, although of course he is one of the most brilliant.

Among all the comments that have appeared on the thread of the previous post on the querelle over Ratzinger’s failed speech at the Rome University  “La Sapienza”, there are a few that deserve to be highlighted.

It is the case of the following, by DB. He is answering a previous comment about the speech that Ratzinger sent to the University.  

[...] By contrast I found the Pope’s speech easy to understand but quite confused and very tedious. If he had stripped out all the name-dropping and waffle he might have said:

“Universities were set up to initially to apply reason to help Christians further clarify the nature of truth as revealed in their scriptures. It was a purifying force that, in the early stages helped support monotheism while retaining and developing the riches of Greek philosophy.
Nowadays, universities spend their time on secular pursuits such as the natural sciences and humanities, and even philosophy is in danger of becoming completely separated from theology, pursuing reason for its own sake. All this has brought mankind great benefits but maybe that won’t last. Universities need to rediscover their roots and apply reason to understanding the spiritual nature of man.”

Unfortunately for Benedict, universities invested very heavily in theology in the past and ended up with the Scholastics, so they are likely to stick with what works. This is why his argument is rambling and confused, he explains how universities have achieved their modern success - by turning their backs on religion, and tells them that is probably a mistake!. Nice one, Benedict. [...]

I also note that nowhere did the Pope speak of the death penalty, as his Vatican spin-doctors had claimed, but, as predicted, attacked, in his usual smooth and slick style, the secular values at the heart of modern universities.

If I were you [...], I wouldn’t bother reading his speech again. Remember that you never need more than a quarter of your brain for religion, because it’s designed to short-circuit the reasoning part of your brain so you’ll be more docile and socially compliant. Think of it as a bunch of fairytales designed to placate those who psychologically can’t cope with personal extinction and to keep poor ignorant workers from asking why they are poor and ignorant. All the fancy stuff added by Benedict is just there to give an illusion of intellectual respectability.

We all have better things to do.

Indeed. So thank you, DB, for clarifying the pope’s babble for us.

Being a devout follower of the church of South Park, I know the ins and outs of Scientology pretty well. And I am aware of the fact that one of its leaders, Tom Cruise, is a person seriously in need of help. So the video clip I saw today, an excerpt of an interview where he speaks of what a scientologist can do to save the rest of us, did not overly impress me . However, I was indeed impressed by the man: looking at him in the eyes when he utters his claims allows one to realize that if we ever built a full-o-s*tometer, we’d have to consider him before setting the range, because on that one count Cruise can’t be surpassed.

Here is a transcript of a piece of his interview:

“I think it is a privilege to call oneself a scientologist, and it is something one has to earn, and…because a scientologist does. Because he or she has the ability to create new and better realities and improve conditions. I think scientology means looking at somebody you know and know absolutely that you can help him.

We are the authorities on getting people out of drugs. We’re the authorities of the mind. We are the authorities of improving conditions. Criminals: we can rehabilitate criminals. Way to happiness: we can bring peace and we can unite cultures. Traveling the world and meeting the people that I’ve met, now, talking with these leaders, in various fields… They want help, and they are depending on people who know, and who can be effective and do it. And that’s us.

It is the time now. Now, is the time! Ok ?”

He really sets the scale. I propose the Cruise as a unit of measurement for full-of-s*tness. It is something quite large, like a Farad or a Coulomb, if you know what I mean. Ordinary, lesser men and women, will be measured in micro-Cruises and nano-Cruises. It is quite convenient as a unit of measurement also because Tom Cruise is still young and its f.o.s. value is quite constant in time, so we will have a reference point for a long time.

(NB: the video was removed by YouTube, but it often reappears here and there… Search it for yourself if you’re in for a laugh!)