Skip to main content

Just because entanglement is 'spooky' doesn't make it mystical

If your write about evolution or cladistics, (applying a system/structure to species) like my friend Henry Gee your work inevitably get picked up by creationists and intelligent design merchants. In an attempt to prove that everything was created 6,000 years ago, and that dinosaurs were wiped out in Noah's flood or put there to fool us by a (presumably) malicious God, they take little snippets from the words that someone like Henry writes and use them as justification for something that can't in any way be deduced from those words.

I don't know if I'm pleased or saddened to have joined the 'misquoted' brigade, though in my case it's on the fascinating physics of quantum entanglement. This is the subject of one of my best selling books, The God Effect. Einstein first wrote about entanglement in 1935 in an attempt to disprove quantum theory (he failed), and called it 'spooky action at a distance.' It is quite remarkable. When two quantum particles are entangled, you can separate them to opposite sides of the universe and a change in one of them will instantly be reflected in the other. Although you can't, as first appears, use this to communicate faster than light, it does make also sorts of interesting things possible from quantum computers to quantum teleporation - a Star Trek transporter on the scale of an individual particle.

However, this is all good solid physics - no woo required. So I was rather bemused when it was pointed out to me that a website talking about 'healing the body with energy' and 'empaths' was using me as a reference. Here's what it says:

I have so so many physical sensations that I had desperately sought for solutions. Also have you heard about the long experiment by Brian Clegg that demonstrated the use of the law of entanglement with empathic and telepathic individuals? I will be bringing up those foot notes of his soon.

Wow. I look forward to reading about my experiments, because it's the first I've heard about them. What I do say in The God Effect is that Nobel Prize winning physicist Brian Josephson, on the text to accompany some stamps portraying the Nobel Prizes a while ago, said that if telepathy exists, then entanglement would probably be the mechanism behind it. When I spoke to Josephson about this, he admitted it was in part just to be provocative, though he has an open mind. But let's be clear about this. There is no good scientific evidence to date that telepathy does exist. If it did exist, then a likely mechanism would involve entanglement - but if that was the case, it wouldn't show that entanglement is somehow all mystical, it would show that telepathy is just another straightforward, physically explainable phenomenon.

The website that refers to my experiments says that We have synthesized quantum theory with Eastern philosophy in order to explain human life. But quantum theory has no more than a passing resemblance to Eastern philosophy - and doesn't need such philosophy to explain how things work. See my review of The Dancing Wu Li Masters - any linkage between Eastern philosophy and quantum physics is sad wishful thinking. Hands off, please.

Comments

  1. I have come to the conclusion that one can't do anything about the woo-merchants. If I had a pound for every time I have been quote-mined by creationists, I'd be able to retire to a modest bungalow with sea views in Cromer. In the end one can only sigh, think of it as an occupational hazard, and move on, ruefully reflecting that (a) any publicity is better than no publicity (b) it's fun to see how one's name attracts all sorts of urban myths. I have given up fighting creationists as a bad job and prefer to expend my diminishing energies more productively by writing more books.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "telepathy is just another straightforward, physically explainable phenomenon" and my response is, exactly! Not really such a big If from my perspective. I like Josephson's open mind position. Rather than making fun of other's ideas or experiences(a human characteristic I abhor) by calling them woo he simply states his position. Of late I have been pondering structures and the flow of information. In doing so I created a left-brain conceptual prison dominated by the predator/prey rules that control life here. There seemed no way out of this structure. The structure was so solid no air or light could get in. We seemed doomed as a species. Until I had a conversation with a friend and some chinks began to appear. I am breathing easier now and can see some light because as self-creating patterns of experience (I am talking at all scales) there is some hope that the rules might change. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The more perspectives I consider the clearer my own becomes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like a lot of people with a scientific background I'd love telepathy to exist - it is just proving very difficult to pin down.

    What I'm referring to as woo is the tendency to drag Eastern mystical thinking in, which just adds a cloak of confusion rather than casting any light on the subject.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...