Misplaced Pages

Quantum mysticism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:02, 19 August 2009 editLikebox (talk | contribs)6,376 edits →Observation in quantum mechanics: revert ignorant rewrite (please don't change this to be about the uncertainty principle. It isn't)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:17, 6 December 2024 edit undo216.164.48.111 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App section source 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Pseudoscience purporting to build on the principles of quantum mechanics}}
'''Quantum mysticism''' is the claim that the laws of ] incorporate ] ideas similar to those found in certain religious traditions or ] beliefs. It is descended from the ] – the seemingly special role which observers play in quantum mechanics. The related term '''quantum quackery''' has been used pejoratively by ] to discount claims that quantum theory might support mystical beliefs,<ref> Victor J. Stenger ''Skeptical Inquirer magazine'', January/February 1997</ref> while ''quantum mysticism'' has been used as a more neutral description of ideas that blend the ideas of ] and ].<ref> Robert Crease and Charles Mann, ''Philosophy of Science and the Occult'', SUNY Press, ISBN 0791402045</ref>
{{Distinguish|Quantum mind}}
{{New Age beliefs sidebar}}


'''Quantum mysticism''', sometimes referred to pejoratively as '''quantum quackery''' or '''quantum woo''',<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://physicsworld.com/a/the-wow-and-the-woo/|title=The wow and the woo|date=2018-06-12|access-date=2022-02-21|website=Physics World|last=Moriarty|first=Philip|author-link=Philip Moriarty|quote=If, like me, you were expecting ''Quantum Sense and Nonsense'' to be a take on quantum woo that echoes the style and approach of ''Fashionable Nonsense'', then you may be slightly disappointed with Bricmont’s new book.|archive-date=2022-02-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220221115700/https://physicsworld.com/a/the-wow-and-the-woo/|url-status=live}}</ref> is a set of ] beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate spirituality or ] worldviews to the ideas of ] and its ].<ref>Athearn, D. (1994). ''Scientific Nihilism: On the Loss and Recovery of Physical Explanation'' (S U N Y Series in Philosophy). Albany, New York: State University Of New York Press.</ref><ref name="Edis, T. 2005">{{cite book|author=Edis, T.|author-link=Taner Edis|year=2005 |title=Science and Nonbelief |location=New York | publisher=Greenwood Press }}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last=Stenger |first=Victor |author-link=Victor J. Stenger |title=Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe |publisher=] |year=2003 |pages=373 |isbn=978-1-59102-018-9 |url=http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141019071755/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found.html |archive-date=October 19, 2014 }}</ref><ref>Edis, T. (2002). ''The Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of Modern Science''. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.</ref><ref>Crease, R. P. (1993). ''The Play of Nature'' (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Technology). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.</ref><ref>Seager, W. (1999). ''Theories of Consciousness: An Introduction'' (Philosophical Issues in Science). New York: Routledge.</ref> Quantum mysticism is considered ] and ] by quantum mechanics experts.<ref name="Grim1982">{{cite book|last=Grim|first=Patrick|title=Philosophy of Science and the Occult|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5VewAkDw8h0C&pg=PA87|access-date=22 July 2014|year=1982|publisher=SUNY Press|isbn=9781438404981|page=87|archive-date=4 July 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230704195505/https://books.google.com/books?id=5VewAkDw8h0C&pg=PA87|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Collins2010">{{cite book|last=Collins|first=Tim|title=Behind the Lost Symbol|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L-oCD0fVspkC&pg=PT87|access-date=22 July 2014|date=2 March 2010|publisher=Penguin Group US|isbn=9781101197615|page=87|archive-date=4 July 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230704195506/https://books.google.com/books?id=L-oCD0fVspkC&pg=PT87|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0" /><ref name="Hammer2003" /><ref name="notforgotten" />
The laws of quantum physics allow by calculation the prediction of ]s, which can be tested in independently repeated ] to a very high precision. This is a property shared with all other physical theories, but not with mystical beliefs. However, ] asserts that ] with the aim of experiencing ] may be regarded an experimental science (as it was and is regarded by some ] sects).<ref> Wilber Ken ''A Brief History of Everything'', 1st ed. 1996, 2nd ed. 2001: ISBN 1-57062-740-1 </ref><ref> Wilber, Ken ''Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists'' (editor), 1984, rev. ed. 2001: ISBN 1-57062-768-1 </ref>


Before the 1970s the term was usually used in reference to the ], but was later more closely associated with the purportedly pseudoscientific views espoused by ] thinkers such as ] and other members of the ], who were influential in popularizing the modern form of quantum mysticism.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last1=Ascari |first1=Maurizio |title=From Spiritualism to Syncretism: Twentieth-Century Pseudo-Science and the Quest for Wholeness |journal=Interdisciplinary Science Reviews |date=1 March 2009 |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=9–21 |doi=10.1179/174327909X421425 |bibcode=2009ISRv...34....9A |s2cid=144655823 |issn=0308-0188}}</ref>
Parallels with mysticism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics, most notably ],<ref>By Michel Bitbol, Olivier Darrigol, ''Erwin Schrödinger'',Institut autrichien de Paris</ref> ],<ref>from "Quantum theory has led the physicists far away from the simple materialistic views that prevailed in the natural science of the nineteenth century" Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, (1962), 128</ref> ],<ref>"I confess, that very different from you, I do find sometimes scientific inspiration in mysticism … but this is counterbalanced by an immediate sense for mathematics." -- W. Pauli, from
</ref> ],<ref>{{cite journal| journal= Zygon Journal of Science and Religion|author=John Honner |title= Niels Bohr and the Mysticism of Nature|volume=17-3|pages=243–253|year= 2005}}</ref> and ]. Nevertheless, critics such as ] writer ] and author ], along with many scientists, have ] that quantum mysticism is a hijacking of quantum physics by ill-informed purveyors of ].<ref name='Egan_Eidolon'>{{cite journal|title=An Interview with Greg Egan|journal=Eidolon|date=1993-01|first=Jeremy G.|last=Byrne|coauthors=Jonathan Strahan|volume=11|issue=|pages=18–30|id= |url=http://eidolon.net/old_site/issue_11/11_egan.htm|accessdate=2008-03-09 }}</ref><ref name='Wertheim_LAW'>{{cite news | first=Margaret | last=Wertheim | coauthors= | title=Quantum Mysticism | date=2004-06-10 | publisher=LA Weekly, LP | url =http://www.laweekly.com/columns/quark-soup/quantum-mysticism/9195/ | work =LA Weekly | pages = | accessdate = 2008-03-09 | language = }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last = Park | first = Robert L. | authorlink = Robert L. Park | coauthors = | title = Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2000 | location = New York, New York | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 0-19-513515-6 | page = 39 }}</ref><ref name='Gell-Mann_Q&J'>{{cite book | last = Gell-Mann | first = Murray | authorlink = Murray Gell-Mann | coauthors = | title = The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and Complex | publisher = Macmillan | year = 1995 | location = | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 0805072535| page = 168 }}</ref><ref name='Bell_Speak'>{{cite book | last = Bell | first = J. S. | authorlink = John Stewart Bell | coauthors = | title = Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 1988 | location = | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 0521523389| page = 170 }}</ref>


== History == ==History==
Many early quantum physicists held some interest in traditionally ]. Physicists ] and ], two of the main pioneers of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, were interested in ], but are not known to have directly associated one with the other. In fact, both endorsed the ] of quantum mechanics.


] said that "] studies of Hindu mysticism never compelled him to pursue the same course as quantum metaphysicists such as ] or ]." Schrödinger biographer Walter J. Moore said that Schrödinger's two interests of quantum physics and Hindu mysticism were "strangely dissociated".<ref name="Hammer2003">{{cite book|first=Olav|last=Hammer|title=Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EZYsPQgBNioC&pg=PA279|date=1 September 2003|publisher=BRILL|isbn=90-04-13638-X|page=279|access-date=11 January 2020|archive-date=4 July 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230704195506/https://books.google.com/books?id=EZYsPQgBNioC&pg=PA279|url-status=live}}</ref>
In many mystical traditions, the conscious mind is seen as a separate entity, existing in a realm not described by physical law. Some people claim that this idea gains support from the description of the physical world provided by quantum mechanics.<ref> Wigner "Mind Body question": "The present writer has no other qualification to offer his views than has any other physicist and he believes that most of his colleagues would present similar opinions on the subject, if pressed"</ref>


In his 1961 paper "Remarks on the mind–body question", ] suggested that a conscious observer played a fundamental role in quantum mechanics,<ref name="notforgotten">{{cite news |author=Zyga, Lisa |date=8 June 2009 |title=Quantum Mysticism: Gone but Not Forgotten |work=Phys.org |url=http://phys.org/news163670588.html |url-status=live |access-date=19 November 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150430074250/http://phys.org/news163670588.html |archive-date=30 April 2015}}</ref><ref name="reading">{{cite book |author=Leane |first=Elizabeth |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uvnYaN8VnesC |title=Reading Popular Physics: Disciplinary Skirmishes and Textual Strategies |publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Limited |year=2007 |isbn=9780754658504 |access-date=2015-03-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230704195507/https://books.google.com/books?id=uvnYaN8VnesC |archive-date=2023-07-04 |url-status=live}}</ref>{{rp|93}} a concept which is part of the ]. While his paper served as inspiration for later mystical works by others,<ref name="notforgotten" /> Wigner's ideas were primarily philosophical and were not considered overtly pseudoscientific like the mysticism that followed.<ref name="freewheeling">{{cite journal |author=Schweber, Silvan |date=September 2011 |title=How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival |journal=Physics Today |volume=64 |issue=9 |pages=59–60 |bibcode=2011PhT....64i..59S |doi=10.1063/PT.3.1261}}</ref> By the late 1970s, Wigner had shifted his position and rejected the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics.<ref name="Esfeld">Michael Esfeld, (1999), {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201151438/http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMichael/1999/SHPMP99.pdf|date=2014-02-01}}, published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 30B, pp. 145–154, Elsevier Science Ltd.</ref> Harvard historian Juan Miguel Marin suggests that "consciousness introduced hypothetically at the birth of quantum physics, the term 'mystical' was also used by its founders, to argue in favor of and against such an introduction."<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Marin|first=Juan Miguel|date=2009-07-01|title='Mysticism' in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy |journal=European Journal of Physics|volume=30|issue=4|pages=807–822|doi=10.1088/0143-0807/30/4/014|bibcode=2009EJPh...30..807M|s2cid=122757714 |issn=0143-0807}}</ref>
The reason is that quantum mechanics requires ] before it describes the experience of an observer. While particles and fields are described by a ], the results of observations are described by classical information which tells you the result. The information about observations is not in the wavefunction, but is additional random data. The ] only gives the probability of getting different outcomes, and it only turns into a particular value when it is measured.<ref>This is an abbreviated paraphrase of the section entitled "The Language of Quantum Mechanics" in Wigner "Remarks on the Mind-Body Question"</ref>


Mysticism was argued against by ]. Einstein's theories have often been falsely believed to support mystical interpretations of quantum theory. Einstein said, with regard to quantum mysticism, "No physicist believes that. Otherwise he wouldn't be a physicist."<ref name=":4" /> He debates several arguments about the approval of mysticism, even suggesting ] and ] to be in support of and to hold a positive belief in mysticism which he believes to be false.
The nature of observation has often been a point of contention in quantum mechanics,<ref>Roger Balian, in :Cini Levy-Leblond eds. "Quantum Theory without reduction" states (p.89): "Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics, the measurement problem has been a subject of sometimes discontinued but nevertheless recurrent concern"</ref> because quantum mechanics describes the experiences of observers with different numbers than it uses to describe material objects. With the exception of ] and ], who believed that quantum mechanics was a statistical approximation to a deeper reality which is deterministic, most of the founders of quantum mechanics believed that this problem is purely philosophical. ] went further, and explicitly identified it as a quantum version of the ].<ref> Wigner, E. "Remarks on the Mind-Body Question", ''Symmetries and Reflections''</ref>


Niels Bohr denied quantum mysticism and had rejected the hypothesis that quantum theory requires a conscious observer as early as 1927,<ref name=":4" /> despite having been "sympathetic towards the hypothesis that understanding consciousness might require an extension of quantum theory to accommodate laws other than those of physics".<ref name=":4" />
=== Mind/body problem in Newtonian mechanics ===


==In New Age thought==
] has historically been associated with the assumption that the world could be observed consistently from any vantage point, a strong concept of ], ], and ]. These philosophies, in their most extreme form, lead to the belief that given the positions and velocities of all atoms at one instant of time, we could compute the fate of the universe for all future times.<ref name="wigner">{{Cite journal
In the early 1970s ] culture began to incorporate ideas from ], beginning with books by ], ] and others which suggested that purported ] phenomena could be explained by quantum mechanics.<ref name=reading/>{{rp|32}}
| doi = 10.1119/1.1973829
| volume = 35
| issue = 12
| pages = 1169-1170
| last = Wigner
| first = Eugene
| coauthors = Henry Margenau
| title = Symmetries and Reflections, Scientific Essays
| journal = American Journal of Physics
| accessdate = 2009-07-30
| date = 1967-12
| url = http://link.aip.org/link/?AJP/35/1169/1
}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book
| publisher = Prometheus Books
| isbn = 0879757469, 9780879757465
| last = Haeckel
| first = Ernst Heinrich Philip
| title = The Riddle of the Universe
| date = 1992
}}</ref> When various forms of these beliefs are applied to consciousness and the mind-body problem the result is ] ]s such as ].


In this decade, the ] emerged. This group of physicists embraced quantum mysticism, parapsychology, ], and various New Age and ] practices.<ref name=hippies>{{cite book |last=Kaiser |first=David |title=How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival |date=2011 |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |isbn=978-0393082302 }}</ref>
The development of quantum mechanics and ] both elevated and limited the role of the "observer" in philosophically significant ways. The ] relationship to the observer also placed theoretical limits on what could potentially be "known" about physical matter. The development of these theories lead to a critical reevaluation of the beliefs through which physics is contextualized and experimental results are interpreted. This reevaluation ultimately lead to the destabilization and ] of physic's dominant philosophical context. The role and importance of determinism differed greatly between the various ]. This diverse environment provided fertile ground for the development of mystical interpretations and mystical extensions to the material interpretation of quantum mechanics both by professional scientists and mystics.<ref name="wigner"/><ref>{{Cite book
| publisher = HarperOne
| isbn = 0060959681
| last = Zukav
| first = Gary
| title = Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics
| date = 2001-08-01
}}</ref>


Inspired in part by Wigner's exploration of the ],<ref name="notforgotten" /> ], a member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group,<ref name="hippies" /> wrote '']'' (1975),<ref>{{cite book |author=Capra, Fritjof |title=The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism |publisher=Shambhala Publications |year=1975 |location=Boston, Massachusetts |language=en-us}}</ref> which espoused New Age quantum physics; the book was popular among the non-scientific public.<ref name="reading" />{{rp|32}} In 1979, ],<ref name="wuli">{{cite book |title=The Dancing Wu Li Masters |url=https://archive.org/details/dancingwulimaste00gary_1 |url-access=registration |author=Zukav, Gary |publisher=William Morrow And Company, Inc. |date=1979 |location=New York}}</ref> a non-scientist and "the most successful of Capra's followers", published ''].''<ref name="reading" />{{rp|32}} The Fundamental Fysiks Group and Capra's book are said to be major influences for the rise of quantum mysticism as a pseudoscientific interpretation of quantum mechanics.<ref name="hippies"/>
=== Observation in quantum mechanics ===


== Modern usage and examples ==
Unlike classical mechanics, in quantum mechanics, there is no naive way of identifying the state of an observer,because a wavefunction description either does not describe observers, or it ends up putting them into superpositions of very different states, like ]. The quantum mechanical ] spreads outm describing an ever larger ] of different worlds. An observer observing a superposition can be described by a superposition of different observers seeing different things, but in actual experience, an observer never feels a superposition, but always feels that one of the outcomes has occurred with certainty. This apparent conflict between a wavefunction description and classical experience is called the problem of observation, and it was apparent to the early founders of quantum mechanics. Each one had a different opinion about the resolution:
In contrast to the mysticism of the early 20th century, today quantum mysticism typically refers to ] beliefs that combine ancient mysticism with the language of quantum mechanics.<ref name=stenger1997/> Called a ] and a "hijacking" of quantum physics, it draws upon "coincidental similarities of language rather than genuine connections" to quantum mechanics.<ref name=Collins2010/> Physicist ] coined the phrase "quantum flapdoodle" to refer to the misuse and misapplication of quantum physics to other topics.<ref name=gods>{{cite book |title=Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness |author=Stenger, Victor J. |publisher=Prometheus Books |date=2009 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1UwaiVz7ZlwC&pg=PA8 |page=8 |isbn=9781615920587 |access-date=2015-03-21 |archive-date=2023-07-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230704200011/https://books.google.com/books?id=1UwaiVz7ZlwC&pg=PA8 |url-status=live }}</ref>


An example of such use is New Age guru ]'s "quantum theory" that aging is caused by the mind, expounded in his books ''Quantum Healing'' (1989) and '']'' (1993).<ref name=gods/> In 1998, Chopra was awarded the parody ] in the physics category for "his unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html#ig1998 |title=The 1998 Ig Nobel Prize Winners |access-date=2007-06-21 |archive-date=2009-08-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090830181439/http://improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html#ig1998 |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2012, ] and Chopra proposed that the "quantum soul" could exist "apart from the body" and "in space-time geometry, outside the brain, distributed nonlocally".<ref name="Hameroff2012">{{cite book
], and with him ] and later ], believed that quantum mechanics was incomplete, that the wavefunction was only a statistical description of a deeper structure which was deterministic. Einstein saw quantum mechanics as analogous to ], and the wavefunction just a peculiar statistical device for observers who are ignorant of the values of the ] underneath. This point of view makes the extra information not at all mysterious--- the results of observations are simply revealing the values of the hidden variables. In 1964, ] realized that local hidden variables ] on the degree to which the results of distant experiments can be correlated, a limit which is violated in quantum mechanics. The experimental observation of violations of ] showed that the original ] of ] could not be correct.<ref>Amir D. Aczel, "entanglement" </ref> Non-local hidden variables are still a possibility, and ] was able to explicitly formulate a nonlocal theory which reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics. But nonlocal theories are very arbitrary, and the new variables in Bohm's theory are inaccessible to experiments. So most physicists do not accept hidden variable interpretations as compelling.<ref> Although recently, the ] of ] requires nonlocality for completely different reasons, which leads ] to propose that hidden variables should be revived. These hidden variables are different than Bohm's, since there would be too few of them to allow for ].</ref>
| last1 = Hameroff
| first1 = Stuart R.
| author-link1 = Stuart Hameroff
| last2 = Chopra
| first2 = Deepak
| author-link2 = Deepak Chopra
| chapter = The "quantum soul": a scientific hypothesis
| year = 2012
| editor-last1 = Moreira-Almeida
| editor-first1 = Alexander
| editor-last2 = Santos
| editor-first2 = Franklin Santana
| title = Exploring Frontiers of the Mind-Brain Relationship
| publisher = Springer
| location = New York
| pages = 79–93
| doi = 10.1007/978-1-4614-0647-1_5
| isbn = 978-1-4614-0647-1
| quote = When the blood stops flowing, energy and oxygen depleted and microtubules inactivated or destroyed (e.g., near death experience (NDE)/out-of-body experience (OBE), death), it is conceivable that the quantum information which constitutes consciousness could shift to deeper planes and continue to exist purely in space-time geometry, outside the brain, distributed nonlocally. Movement of consciousness to deeper planes could account for NDEs/OBEs, as well as, conceivably, a soul apart from the body.
}}</ref>


The 2004 film '']'' dealt with a range of New Age ideas in relation to physics. It was produced by the ], founded by ], a ] who said that her teachings were based on a discourse with a 35,000-year-old disembodied entity named ].<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.salon.com/2004/09/16/bleep_2/ |title="Bleep" of faith |author=Gorenfeld, John |date=16 September 2004 |journal=Salon |access-date=22 March 2015 |archive-date=2 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402153109/http://www.salon.com/2004/09/16/bleep_2/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Featuring Fundamental Fysiks Group member ],<ref name="hippies"/> the film misused some aspects of quantum mechanics—including the ] and the ]—as well as biology and medicine.<ref name="ABC">{{cite web |url=http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/06/30/2839498.htm |title=What the bleep are they on about? |first=Bernie |last=Hobbs |work=Australian Broadcasting Corporation |date=30 June 2005 |access-date=12 August 2014 |archive-date=3 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210303194419/http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/06/30/2839498.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Numerous critics dismissed the film for its use of ].<ref name="ACS">{{cite news |last=Wilson |first=Elizabeth |author-link=Elizabeth Wilson |title=What the Bleep Do We Know?! |publisher=] |date=2005-01-13 |url=http://pubs.acs.org/cen/reelscience/reviews/whatthe_bleep/ |access-date=2007-12-19 |archive-date=2007-12-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071221220110/http://pubs.acs.org/cen/reelscience/reviews/whatthe_bleep/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="TGU">{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/may/16/g2.science |title=Britain's best scientific brains give us their verdicts on a film about quantum physics |work=] |date=16 May 2005 |access-date=12 August 2014 |archive-date=22 August 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140822093430/http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/may/16/g2.science |url-status=live }}</ref>
] believed that quantum mechanics was a complete description of nature, but that it was simply a language ill suited to describing the world of everyday experience, and that in the human realm experiences were described by classical mechanics and by probability. This point of view, the ], was shared by ] and ] and became the standard view. It requires a demarcation line, a boundary, above which an object would cease to be quantum and would start to be classical. Bohr never specified this line precisely, since he believed that it was not a question of physics, but of pure philosophy. ], in his analysis of measurements, interpreted the demarcation line as the point where ] occurs, and he showed that within quantum mechanics, the point of collapse is largely arbitrary, past the first incoherent interaction with a complex enough object <ref> Von Neumann, J., "Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics"</ref>.

] reformulated ] using a conscious observer, ]. He concluded that the demarcation line which Bohr refused to specify was at the point of conscious experience. Wigner's position was that the wavefunction collapses because consciousness observes it, placing a non-scientific layer at the foundation of quantum mechanics, a non-scientific layer which could be interpreted as mystical, since it treats conscious observation as a separate ingredient.

=== Decoherence and modern interpretations ===

] proposed an entirely mechanistic interpretation of quantum mechanics that has come to be known as the ]. In Everett's description, the whole universe is an enormous wavefunction, describing a dizzying multiplying possibility of worlds. In this formalism, observers were to be treated as computers or as any other measuring device, their memories written out on magnetic tape <ref> More precisely: "It will suffice for his purposes that observers possess memories, i.e. parts of a relatively permanent nature whose states are in correspondence with the past experience of the observer", quoting Bohm/Hiley: What this means is that, as in a computer whose memories are contained in the state of a disc, some aspects of the physical state of the observer, presumably within his brain, serves as the basis of his memories" Bohm & Hiley p.297 </ref>. To understand their experiences, you would focus on the answer which these observers would give to questions asked by an external observer. Everett believed that this line of reasoning showed that any interpretational problems in quantum mechanics were entirely philosophical, because he could show that there was no conflict between deterministic evolution of the wavefunction with the subjective randomness experienced by the observers, when analyzed using the theory itself <ref> De Witt, B. and Graham, M. "The Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", Princeton University Press</ref>.

Since the physical description in Everett's picture is the deterministic wavefunction, the issue of interpretation is only relevant when analyzing the experience of an observer. The answer to the question "what does this observer see?" is only ambiguous to the extent that the specification of the observer is imprecise. An observer's state is a particular high dimensional projection of the wavefunction, but not all parts of the wavefunction describe a single observer – only those parts which describe a consistent past of memories. In Everett's picture, the interpretation is a clarification, it tells you which observer you are examining. But the description of the observer is now a major chunk of the description of the world--- it includes a lot of extra information not present in the original wavefunction.<ref>Quoting Bohm/Hiley: It is evident that in a series of measurements, the number of partial awarenesses must multiply indefinitely. There are correspondingly many possible branches consisting of such sequences of partial awarenesses" p.299</ref>

This extra information includes most observable parameters in our universe. For example, if the universe started out perfectly homogeneous and isotropic, the universal wavefunction would still be homogeneous and isotropic. But for any observer, the description would be irregular describing a different pattern of galaxies, stars and planets. The information which specifies the observer specifies the positions of all those stars, the distance to Jupiter, the location of the moon in its orbit, the contents of today's newspaper, etc. None of this is in the universal wavefunction, that object is only a quantum superposition of all possible worlds. Most of the nontrivial information is in the history of past random events.

Everett's approach has been elaborated into a field of study called ], which attempts to identify the way in which a classical world is embedded into quantum mechanics when the systems become large.<ref>Gell-Mann, M., "The Quark and the Jaguar", pp. 135-176</ref>

=== Mystical interpretations ===

The description of the observer in decoherence approaches, as in the Copenhagen approach, always involves extra information, the information which specifies the outcome of all the random events in the past. This information answers the question "which observer?" in many-worlds, and correspondingly answers the question "what outcomes of past measurements?" in Copenhagen.

The presence of large amounts of additional information has been interpreted as a possibly mystical component associated with consciousness, since it is data which is associated with the observer, not with the matter from which the observer is built. Since this includes most information about the universe, considering the quantum mechanical description to be complete leads to a very jarring reevaluation of the nature of the observer.<ref> E.J. Squires "An Attempt to Understand the Many-worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory", collected in M. Cini, J.M- Levy-Leblond eds. , ''Quantum Theory without Reduction", ,1990, pp. 151-161</ref>

==Consciousness causes collapse==
{{Main|Wigner's interpretation of quantum mechanics}}

"Consciousness causes collapse" is the name of an ] of ] according to which ] by a ] observer is the cause of ].

The involvement of Consciousness has been summarized as follows:
<blockquote>
The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform ]s on the brain causing wave function collapse.<ref></ref></blockquote>

This interpretation attributes the process of ] (directly, indirectly, or even partially) to consciousness itself. However, it is not explained by this theory which things have sufficient consciousness to collapse the wave function ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years
until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little
longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"<ref>Bell, J.S., 1981, ''Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists''. In C.J. Isham, R.
Penrose and D.W. Sciama (eds.), Quantum Gravity 2: A second Oxford Symposium.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, p.611.</ref>). Until the ] is solved, it is undefined what could or could not have consciousness. It could be that measuring devices might also turn out to be considered conscious by this definition.

Consciousness causes collapse can be seen as a proposed answer to the ] thought experiment by asserting that collapse occurs at the first "conscious" observer.

Wigner believed that consciousness is necessary for the collapse process. See ]. There are several possible ways to explain the Wigner's friend thought experiment, some of which do not require consciousness to be different from physical processes. See, ] and ].

Recent study of ] reduces the emphasis on the "macroscopic observer" originally introduced in the language of the ] of quantum theory for most systems. Quantum decoherence does not apply to ] such as the Schrödinger's cat experiment, or as proponents of CCC postulate, the human brain. Modern scientific discourse has evolved to try to quantify how quantum systems decohere due to their interactions with their surroundings. This provides a unified view which treats neighboring quantum systems, thermal baths and the measurement apparatus on the same footing. Although decoherence gives new insight on how quantum mechanics gives rise to the classical world in general, decoherence is not a philosophy and it does not claim to give a resolution to the philosophical aspects of the problem of measurement.

== Popularization ==

These ] aspects of quantum physics were popularized in the 1970s with ]'s '']'', in which he explores the parallels between quantum physics and principles in Eastern mystical teachings. This was taken up in the 1980s by ] pseudoscience, which extrapolated on the statements of ], claiming that "the conclusions of modern science are the very conclusions the ] reached ages ago"<ref name=vivek70>lecture on ''The Vedanta'' delivered at Lahore on 12 November 1897; 1970, vol. 3, pp. 398f.</ref>. It conflated concepts from ] like gravitation, electricity, magnetism and other forces with the mystical ] notion of ]<ref></ref><ref></ref>.

In 1990 ] wrote a book called ''Quantum Psychology'' which explains ]’s ] in terms of quantum mysticism. <ref> Wilson, Robert Anton - ''Quantum Psychology'' 1990 </ref>

The ] film '']'' made controversial use of ideas about quantum mechanics, among other sciences, in a ] context.

Theories of ] have given rise to concepts like '''quantum meditation''', positing a scientific basis for meditation practices not supported by mainstream science.<ref>S. V. Raman, "Advaita Bhagwad Gita: its relevance in quantum meditation", Dilip 28.4, 2002; </ref> Among these is '''quantum healing''', which claims that through quantum mechanical effects, the mind can heal the body. Quantum healing invokes ] and the ] to argue that the ] of a healer could impact the body of another person. There are several contemporary new-age practices in this category, including Matrix Energetics, Quantum-Touch, and Quantum Energetics.

==Rejections by physicists and mystics==

Several of the founders of quantum physics were interested in the link between quantum mechanics and mysticism, including ], ], ] and ]. They felt that quantum mechanics required a subtle reexamining of the role of conscious experience in the physical world.{{Citation needed|date=March 2009}}

Unlike them, the British physicist ] rejected the notion that mysticism and physics had anything more than a metaphorical relationship.<ref name="enlightment" /> Eddington explained the temptation and why he felt it should be avoided: "We should suspect an intention to reduce God to a system of differential equations. That fiasco at any rate must be avoided. However much the ramifications of physics may be extended by further scientific discovery, they cannot from their very nature the background in which they have their being."<ref name="eddington">Sir Arthur Eddington, ''The Nature of the Physical World'' (p 282) ISBN 1417907185</ref>

Responding to results of violations of ], results which cast doubt on hidden-variable interpretations, physicist ] explicitly rejected any link between the supernatural phenomenon often associated with mysticism and quantum mechanics, writing:

:''"Some recent advocates of Bell's work when confronted with ] have gone on to claim that telepathy is verified or the mystical notion that all parts of the universe are instantaneously interconnected is vindicated. Others assert that this implies communication faster than the speed of light. That is rubbish; the quantum theory and Bell's inequality imply nothing of this kind. Individuals who make such claims have substituted a wish-fulfilling fantasy for understanding. If we closely examine ] we will see a bit of sleight of hand by the God that plays dice which rules out actual nonlocal influences. Just as we think we have captured a really weird beast--like acausal influences--it slips out of our grasp. The slippery property of quantum reality is again manifested."''<ref name="pagels">Heinz Pagels, ''The Cosmic Code'' ISBN 0671248022</ref>

Likewise some mystics doubt that quantum physics and mysticism describe the same realm. Tom Huston, in a review on the quantum mystical film '']'' for '']'' wrote:

:''"Quantum physics deals with the abstract, symbolic analysis of the physical world—space, time, matter, and energy—even down to the subtlest level, the quantum vacuum. Mysticism deals with the direct apprehension of the transcendent Source of all those things. The former is a mathematical system involving intensive intellectual study, and the latter is a spiritual discipline involving the transcendence of the intellectual mind altogether. It's apparently only a very loose interpretation of physics, and a looser interpretation of mysticism, that allows for their surprising convergence—and opens the door to the even wilder idea that by drinking some of this quantum mystical brew, you'll be able to create your own reality.''<ref name="enlightment">Tom Huston, "", ''What is Enlightenment? Magazine'', Retrieved January 25, 2008</ref>

] rejects quantum mysticism as it is usually currently formulated, humorously calling it the ''415 syndrome'' (the ] of ]), because the quantum mystical idea that ] asserts that you can “create your own reality” seems to be common among ] people who live in the ]. <ref> Wilber, Ken ''Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World'', 2006, ISBN 1-59030-346-6 </ref>

==Parodies==

In 1998 ] was awarded the parody ] in physics for "his unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness."<ref></ref>. He received this 'honour' for such writing as: {{quote|Quantum healing is healing the bodymind from a quantum level. That means from a level which is not manifest at a sensory level. Our bodies ultimately are fields of information, intelligence and energy. Quantum healing involves a shift in the fields of energy information, so as to bring about a correction in an idea that has gone wrong. So quantum healing involves healing one mode of consciousness, mind, to bring about changes in another mode of consciousness, body.|2=}}

==="Quantum philosophy"===
In addition to mystical adaptations of quantum theory, ]/] thinkers have been criticised for pseudoscientific references to quantum mechanics. An example was in the ] of 1996, where ] published a tongue-in-cheek paper entitled ''Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity'' (which refers to ], an extension of quantum theory) in the postmodernist journal '']''. The editors' acceptance of the nonsensical article earned them the 1996 parody ]. Sokal, with ], went on to make a serious critique of the use of science by postmodern thinkers in their book '']''.


== See also == == See also ==
{{Div col}}

* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
{{Div col end}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


==Notes== ==Notes==
{{reflist|2}} {{reflist|1=30em|refs=
<ref name="stenger1997">{{cite magazine |first=Victor J. |last=Stenger |url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/ |magazine=Skeptical Inquirer |volume=21 |issue=1 |date=January 1997 |title=Quantum Quackery}}</ref>
}} <!-- end reflist -->


==Further reading== ==Further reading==

;Publications relating to quantum mysticism ;Publications relating to quantum mysticism
*{{cite book |last=Chopra |first=Deepak |author-link=Deepak Chopra |title=Quantum Healing: Exploring the Frontiers of Mind/Body Medicine |year=1989 |publisher=Bantam Books |isbn=978-0553053685}}
*], '']: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism'', Shamballa, 1975
*{{cite book |last=LeShan |first=Lawrence |author-link=Lawrence LeShan |title=The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist: Toward a General Theory of the Paranormal |year=1974 |publisher=Viking Press |isbn=978-0670465668}}
*] MD, various works including his theory of ]
*{{cite book |first=Michael |last=Talbot |author-link=Michael Talbot (author) |year=1981 |title=Mysticism And The New Physics |publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul |isbn=978-0710008312}}
*], ''The Self-Aware Universe''
*{{cite book |first=Michael |last=Talbot |year=1986 |title=Beyond The Quantum |publisher=Macmillan |isbn=978-0026162104}}
*], ''The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist: Toward a General Theory of the Paranormal'', 2003, Helios Press, ISBN 978-1581152739
*{{cite book |last=Talbot |first=Michael |year=1991 |title=The Holographic Universe |publisher=Grafton |isbn=978-0246136909}}
*], 1975, ''Space-Time and Beyond'', with ] and ], E. P. Dutton. ISBN 0-525-47399-8
*{{cite book |last=Toben |first=Bob |year=1975 |title=Space-Time and Beyond |others=In conversation with physicists ] and ] |publisher=E. P. Dutton |isbn=0-525-47399-8}}
*], ''The Holographic Universe'' ISBN 0-06-092258-3
*{{cite book |last=Walker |first=Evan Harris |author-link=Evan Harris Walker |year=2000 |title=The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life |publisher=Basic Books |isbn=0-7382-0436-6}}
*Michael Talbot, ''Mysticism And The New Physics'' ISBN 0-14-019328-6
*{{cite book |editor-last=Wilber |editor-first=Ken |editor-link=Ken Wilber |title=Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists |year=1984 |publisher=Shambhala |isbn=978-0394723389}}
*Michael Talbot, ''Beyond The Quantum'' ISBN 0-553-34480-3
*], ''The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life'' ISBN 0738204366
*], '']'', 1980, ISBN 0-553-26382-X


;Criticism of quantum mysticism ;Criticism of quantum mysticism
*Richard H. Jones, ''Science and Mysticism: A Comparative Study of Western Natural Science, Theravada Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta'' (Bucknell University Press, 1986), ISBN 0108387500931 (Paperback ed., 2008), criticism from both the scientific and mystical points of view * {{cite book |first=Richard H. |last=Jones |title=Piercing the veil: comparing science and mysticism as ways of knowing reality |publisher=Jackson Square Books |publication-place=New York |year=2010 |isbn=978-1-4392-6682-3 |oclc=651026196}} – criticism from both scientific and mystical point of view
* {{cite journal |first=Eric R. |last=Scerri |title=Eastern mysticism and the alleged parallels with physics |journal=American Journal of Physics |publisher=American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) |volume=57 |issue=8 |year=1989 |issn=0002-9505 |doi=10.1119/1.15921 |pages=687–692 |bibcode=1989AmJPh..57..687S |s2cid=121572969}}
* Michael Shermer, ''"Quantum Quackery"'', ], January 2005
*], ''The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology'', (Prometheus Books, 1995), ISBN 1-57392-022-3, an anti-mystical point-of-view * {{cite book |last=Stenger |first=Victor J. |author-link=Victor J. Stenger |title=The unconscious quantum: metaphysics in modern physics and cosmology |publisher=Prometheus Books |publication-place=Amherst, NY |year=1995 |isbn=978-1-57392-022-3 |oclc=32820493}} – an anti-mystical point-of-view
*], ''"'', ], Vol. 21. No. 1, January/February 1997, p. 37ff, criticism of the book "The Self-Aware Universe"


== External links == ==External links==
*{{Commonscat-inline}}
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


{{New Age Movement}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Quantum Mysticism}}
{{Pseudoscience}}
]
{{Quantum mechanics topics}}


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 12:17, 6 December 2024

Pseudoscience purporting to build on the principles of quantum mechanics Not to be confused with Quantum mind.
New Age beliefs
List of New Age topics
Concepts
Spiritual practices
Doctrines

Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred to pejoratively as quantum quackery or quantum woo, is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate spirituality or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations. Quantum mysticism is considered pseudoscience and quackery by quantum mechanics experts.

Before the 1970s the term was usually used in reference to the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, but was later more closely associated with the purportedly pseudoscientific views espoused by New Age thinkers such as Fritjof Capra and other members of the Fundamental Fysiks Group, who were influential in popularizing the modern form of quantum mysticism.

History

Many early quantum physicists held some interest in traditionally Eastern metaphysics. Physicists Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, two of the main pioneers of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, were interested in Eastern mysticism, but are not known to have directly associated one with the other. In fact, both endorsed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Olav Hammer said that "Schrödinger’s studies of Hindu mysticism never compelled him to pursue the same course as quantum metaphysicists such as David Bohm or Fritjof Capra." Schrödinger biographer Walter J. Moore said that Schrödinger's two interests of quantum physics and Hindu mysticism were "strangely dissociated".

In his 1961 paper "Remarks on the mind–body question", Eugene Wigner suggested that a conscious observer played a fundamental role in quantum mechanics, a concept which is part of the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation. While his paper served as inspiration for later mystical works by others, Wigner's ideas were primarily philosophical and were not considered overtly pseudoscientific like the mysticism that followed. By the late 1970s, Wigner had shifted his position and rejected the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. Harvard historian Juan Miguel Marin suggests that "consciousness introduced hypothetically at the birth of quantum physics, the term 'mystical' was also used by its founders, to argue in favor of and against such an introduction."

Mysticism was argued against by Albert Einstein. Einstein's theories have often been falsely believed to support mystical interpretations of quantum theory. Einstein said, with regard to quantum mysticism, "No physicist believes that. Otherwise he wouldn't be a physicist." He debates several arguments about the approval of mysticism, even suggesting Bohr and Pauli to be in support of and to hold a positive belief in mysticism which he believes to be false.

Niels Bohr denied quantum mysticism and had rejected the hypothesis that quantum theory requires a conscious observer as early as 1927, despite having been "sympathetic towards the hypothesis that understanding consciousness might require an extension of quantum theory to accommodate laws other than those of physics".

In New Age thought

In the early 1970s New Age culture began to incorporate ideas from quantum physics, beginning with books by Arthur Koestler, Lawrence LeShan and others which suggested that purported parapsychological phenomena could be explained by quantum mechanics.

In this decade, the Fundamental Fysiks Group emerged. This group of physicists embraced quantum mysticism, parapsychology, Transcendental Meditation, and various New Age and Eastern mystical practices.

Inspired in part by Wigner's exploration of the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, Fritjof Capra, a member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group, wrote The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism (1975), which espoused New Age quantum physics; the book was popular among the non-scientific public. In 1979, Gary Zukav, a non-scientist and "the most successful of Capra's followers", published The Dancing Wu Li Masters. The Fundamental Fysiks Group and Capra's book are said to be major influences for the rise of quantum mysticism as a pseudoscientific interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Modern usage and examples

In contrast to the mysticism of the early 20th century, today quantum mysticism typically refers to New Age beliefs that combine ancient mysticism with the language of quantum mechanics. Called a pseudoscience and a "hijacking" of quantum physics, it draws upon "coincidental similarities of language rather than genuine connections" to quantum mechanics. Physicist Murray Gell-Mann coined the phrase "quantum flapdoodle" to refer to the misuse and misapplication of quantum physics to other topics.

An example of such use is New Age guru Deepak Chopra's "quantum theory" that aging is caused by the mind, expounded in his books Quantum Healing (1989) and Ageless Body, Timeless Mind (1993). In 1998, Chopra was awarded the parody Ig Nobel Prize in the physics category for "his unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness". In 2012, Stuart Hameroff and Chopra proposed that the "quantum soul" could exist "apart from the body" and "in space-time geometry, outside the brain, distributed nonlocally".

The 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!? dealt with a range of New Age ideas in relation to physics. It was produced by the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, founded by J.Z. Knight, a channeler who said that her teachings were based on a discourse with a 35,000-year-old disembodied entity named Ramtha. Featuring Fundamental Fysiks Group member Fred Alan Wolf, the film misused some aspects of quantum mechanics—including the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the observer effect—as well as biology and medicine. Numerous critics dismissed the film for its use of pseudoscience.

See also

Notes

  1. Moriarty, Philip (2018-06-12). "The wow and the woo". Physics World. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21. If, like me, you were expecting Quantum Sense and Nonsense to be a take on quantum woo that echoes the style and approach of Fashionable Nonsense, then you may be slightly disappointed with Bricmont's new book.
  2. Athearn, D. (1994). Scientific Nihilism: On the Loss and Recovery of Physical Explanation (S U N Y Series in Philosophy). Albany, New York: State University Of New York Press.
  3. Edis, T. (2005). Science and Nonbelief. New York: Greenwood Press.
  4. Stenger, Victor (2003), Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe, Prometheus Books, p. 373, ISBN 978-1-59102-018-9, archived from the original on October 19, 2014
  5. Edis, T. (2002). The Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of Modern Science. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.
  6. Crease, R. P. (1993). The Play of Nature (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Technology). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  7. Seager, W. (1999). Theories of Consciousness: An Introduction (Philosophical Issues in Science). New York: Routledge.
  8. Grim, Patrick (1982). Philosophy of Science and the Occult. SUNY Press. p. 87. ISBN 9781438404981. Archived from the original on 4 July 2023. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
  9. ^ Collins, Tim (2 March 2010). Behind the Lost Symbol. Penguin Group US. p. 87. ISBN 9781101197615. Archived from the original on 4 July 2023. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
  10. ^ Ascari, Maurizio (1 March 2009). "From Spiritualism to Syncretism: Twentieth-Century Pseudo-Science and the Quest for Wholeness". Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 34 (1): 9–21. Bibcode:2009ISRv...34....9A. doi:10.1179/174327909X421425. ISSN 0308-0188. S2CID 144655823.
  11. ^ Hammer, Olav (1 September 2003). Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age. BRILL. p. 279. ISBN 90-04-13638-X. Archived from the original on 4 July 2023. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  12. ^ Zyga, Lisa (8 June 2009). "Quantum Mysticism: Gone but Not Forgotten". Phys.org. Archived from the original on 30 April 2015. Retrieved 19 November 2012.
  13. ^ Leane, Elizabeth (2007). Reading Popular Physics: Disciplinary Skirmishes and Textual Strategies. Ashgate Publishing, Limited. ISBN 9780754658504. Archived from the original on 2023-07-04. Retrieved 2015-03-21.
  14. Schweber, Silvan (September 2011). "How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival". Physics Today. 64 (9): 59–60. Bibcode:2011PhT....64i..59S. doi:10.1063/PT.3.1261.
  15. Michael Esfeld, (1999), Essay Review: Wigner’s View of Physical Reality Archived 2014-02-01 at the Wayback Machine, published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 30B, pp. 145–154, Elsevier Science Ltd.
  16. ^ Marin, Juan Miguel (2009-07-01). "'Mysticism' in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy". European Journal of Physics. 30 (4): 807–822. Bibcode:2009EJPh...30..807M. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/30/4/014. ISSN 0143-0807. S2CID 122757714.
  17. ^ Kaiser, David (2011). How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0393082302.
  18. Capra, Fritjof (1975). The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Boston, Massachusetts: Shambhala Publications.
  19. Zukav, Gary (1979). The Dancing Wu Li Masters. New York: William Morrow And Company, Inc.
  20. Stenger, Victor J. (January 1997). "Quantum Quackery". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 21, no. 1.
  21. ^ Stenger, Victor J. (2009). Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness. Prometheus Books. p. 8. ISBN 9781615920587. Archived from the original on 2023-07-04. Retrieved 2015-03-21.
  22. "The 1998 Ig Nobel Prize Winners". Archived from the original on 2009-08-30. Retrieved 2007-06-21.
  23. Hameroff, Stuart R.; Chopra, Deepak (2012). "The "quantum soul": a scientific hypothesis". In Moreira-Almeida, Alexander; Santos, Franklin Santana (eds.). Exploring Frontiers of the Mind-Brain Relationship. New York: Springer. pp. 79–93. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0647-1_5. ISBN 978-1-4614-0647-1. When the blood stops flowing, energy and oxygen depleted and microtubules inactivated or destroyed (e.g., near death experience (NDE)/out-of-body experience (OBE), death), it is conceivable that the quantum information which constitutes consciousness could shift to deeper planes and continue to exist purely in space-time geometry, outside the brain, distributed nonlocally. Movement of consciousness to deeper planes could account for NDEs/OBEs, as well as, conceivably, a soul apart from the body.
  24. Gorenfeld, John (16 September 2004). ""Bleep" of faith". Salon. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
  25. Hobbs, Bernie (30 June 2005). "What the bleep are they on about?". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 3 March 2021. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
  26. Wilson, Elizabeth (2005-01-13). "What the Bleep Do We Know?!". American Chemical Society. Archived from the original on 2007-12-21. Retrieved 2007-12-19.
  27. "Britain's best scientific brains give us their verdicts on a film about quantum physics". The Guardian. 16 May 2005. Archived from the original on 22 August 2014. Retrieved 12 August 2014.

Further reading

Publications relating to quantum mysticism
Criticism of quantum mysticism

External links

New Age movement
Culture
Groups
Influences
Proponents
Themes
Pseudoscience
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Terminology
Topics
characterized as
pseudoscience
Medicine
Social science
Physics
Other
Promoters of
pseudoscience
Related topics
Resources
Quantum mechanics
Background
Fundamentals
Formulations
Equations
Interpretations
Experiments
Science
Technology
Extensions
Related
Categories: