Quantum by Manjit Kumar

Manjit Kumar’s book Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality is a difficult project triumphantly accomplished. In popular history of science, the aim is to mould the history and the science together without compromising too much on either. When the science in question is quantum mechanics, an author already has his work cut out trying to explain it to the general reader. Another challenge is that the history of the quantum is about a clash of personalities and philosophical viewpoints. Turning that into a readable story is no mean feat. But Kumar has succeeded on both fronts.

The debate at the heart of Quantum is how to interpret the strange physics of the sub-atomic world. On one side was Albert Einstein. Despite the difficulty many of us have with relativity, it is actually a well-behaved physical theory that does not require us to compromise on the basic concepts of objective reality or cause and effect. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, disposes of such foundations: it is a subjective realm where the observer appears to affect the result of experiments and where randomness is indelibly built in. Einstein could never accept this. He thought there were “hidden variables” behind quantum mechanics that would transmute it into a deterministic theory. “God does not play dice”, he said many times.

The other side of the argument was led by Niels Bohr, the greatest Dane since Tycho Brahe. Bohr developed the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum which embraced its strangest aspects. Bohr accepted that the motion of sub-atomic particles can only be predicted as probabilities and that the experimenter is part of the same system as the thing being observed. Einstein set Bohr a number of fiendish puzzles to show that quantum mechanics was inconsistent and so incomplete. But every time, Bohr solved the problem. Eventually, after Einstein’s death, the Irish physicist John Stewart Bell developed a way to experimentally test one of the quantum paradoxes called non-locality. But, to date, the theory appears to pass even this trial.

All this has left science with a massive hangover. It is not as widely appreciated as it should be that the two crowning achievements of modern physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, are completely incompatible. It is not just that they give different results. They inhabit different metaphysical universes. Scientists have tended to assume that quantum mechanics is the more fundamental theory and string theory is an attempt, unsuccessful so far, to combine it with relativity.

I have a suspicion that current crisis in physics is a function of abandoning the metaphysical framework of a deterministic and objective universe. String theory has returned to the failed ancient Greek model of pure rationalism where clever ideas can never be tested. In the meantime, anyone who wants to understand the background to the The Trouble with Physics chronicled by Lee Smolin can do no better than to read Manjit Kumar’s Quantum.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Cacator, cave malum !

The inscriptions on Roman gravestones give us an arresting insight into the psyche of the empire’s citizens. What words did they use to sum up their allotted time on this mortal coil? What information can we draw out concerning their hopes fears and aspirations?

Well – according to ‘A cabinet of Roman Curiosities : Strange tales and surprising facts form the World’s greatest empire’ by the classicist J. C McKeown - a common thread running through the dedications on the tombs is the fear of having the grave’s sanctity disturbed; or as one inscription rather more bluntly puts it:

‘Anyone who pisses or shits here, may the Gods above and the Gods below be angry with him’ (Corpus of Latin Inscriptions 6.13740)

In much the same vein another inscription reads:

‘Stranger, my bones beg you not to piss at my grave. If you want to be nicer, have a shit. This is the grave of Urtica (“Nettle”). Go away, shitter! It’s not safe to expose your arse here’ (Corpus of Latin Inscriptions, 4.8899)

McKeown also points out that the warning ‘cacator, cave malum’ (“Shitter, watch out!”) occurs several times among graves in Pompeii. Why did this concern exist among the Roman populace; perhaps the practice of grave desecration was common as an act of revenge against the deceased. Another inscription reads :

I’ll see to it in my will that no one does me wrong. For I’m going to have one of my freedmen guard my tomb, to prevent people from rushing to shit there (Trimalchio at Petronius Satyricon 71).

Nor was scatological vengeance confirmed to humanity. This particular chapter of J. C. McKeown’s book ends with divine justice administered against the heretic Arius for opposing the Trinitarian Christology:

The heretic Arius suffered a stomach upset and went into a public toilet in Alexandria. When he did not come back out, those who were with him went in to look for him and found him dead. The seat on which he died was never used again, in recognition of his having thus been punished there for his impiety (Sozomenus History of the Church 2.29–30).

The 'take home message' from this ? Beware dabbling too much into theology - lest you suffer the same fate as Elvis.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

What do atheists tell their children?

A couple of times in the last few weeks, my wife and I have been settling down to a DVD with the children tucked into bed, when our five-year-old daughter has come down in some distress. Thinking about her late great grandfathers (whom she has never met although she does know one surviving great grandmother), she had become very upset at the prospect of eternal death. I suspect all children have to face this at some point and as Christians, there are good and honest answers we can give to reassure her.

Discussing this after our daughter was peacefully asleep, my wife and I began to wonder what atheist parents do in these circumstances. As chance would have it, I got an email this week from someone who thought I was too hard on Richard Dawkins in my review of The God Delusion. In the review, I mentioned a friend who had had similar existential crises as a child and took them to her atheist father. He just admitted that we are ultimately all worm food. As you can imagine, this did little to assuage my friend’s fears and I doubt it would have made my daughter any happier either.

My correspondent said my friend’s father was a moron (although he is actually a university professor) and that, “Dawkins says life is about enjoying every moment and living life in a happy and fulfilling way. Isn't that good enough? Why does there need to be more?” Clearly this answer wouldn’t satisfy my daughter. If someone is afraid of death, it is rather pointless telling them just to enjoy life.

So, it seems to me that atheist parents can either tell their children, in the kindest way possible, that their fears are wholly justified and they just have to tough it out. Or they can lie. Neither prospect can be very appealing.

This is hardly an argument against atheism or even a criticism of it. Rather the reverse. We tend to think of modern atheism as philosophically and morally rather vapid, but sometimes it can be tough.
Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Linkagery

Keith Burgess-Jackson, an atheist, has recently linked to three interesting essays. The first is "Engaging Today’s Militant Atheist Arguments" by Ian Hutchinson; the second is "Believe It or Not" by David Bentley Hart; and the third is "David Brooks’s Theory of Human Nature" by Thomas Nagel. Burgess-Jackson's comments on the latter are here. Have at it.
Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

The Genesis of Science available now from Amazon.com

The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution is already available from Amazon a couple of weeks ahead of the official publication date.

This is the US edition of God's Philosophers, edited for American readers and with a few corrections.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Calling all Pinker fans

I'm one and as I've been explicit about it, this is now mutual knowledge.

The Royal Society of the Arts have a fun Pinker video. Ten minutes, well spent.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Is ancient philosophy ancient history?

Responding to an argument that ancient Greek philosophy is not long for this world, philosopher John Pepple has a slightly more upbeat take on the issue. Interesting and well worth the read.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Martin Gaskell v University of Kentucky

I have an article today on Comment is Free at the Guardian on the strange case of Martin Gaskell, a devout Christian, who was rejected for an astronomy post at the University of Kentucky. The reasons for his rejection appear to have been based on his religion and he won $125,000 in an out-of-court settlement as a result.

Many of new atheist persuasion seem to feel rather let down by the University settling the case. The comments on my piece give an indication of the diversity of opinion on this matter.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

News on the Serapeum

OK, it's not exactly hot off the press, but an article in the Journal of Roman Studies 94 (2004) 73 - 121, Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from Archaeological Evidence by Judith McKenzie et al, is certainly of interest to Alexandrian Library watchers.

As we know, the persistent story that Christians destroyed the Great Library of Alexandria comes from Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He mistakenly assumed that there was a library in the Serapeum when it was destroyed by a Christian mob in 391AD. There was once a library there, but it had disappeared before the mob arrived, so it is not mentioned in any of the various accounts of the destruction.

The earliest mention of the Serapeum library is a comment by Tertullian in 197AD (chapter 18 of his Apology) that the copies of the Septuagint can be found there. It is often assumed that this library had been founded by Ptolemy II in the third century BC but this is not explicitly stated in any source until after 1000AD. So, what light can the archaeology of the Serapeum shed on the question?

The first point to note is that two temples were built on the site. The first was constructed by Ptolemy III and is securely dated to his reign by dedicatory inscriptions. This burnt down in 181AD in what seems to have been an accidental fire. The new Roman foundation was much larger and was complete by 217AD. To me, it looks likely that the library dates from this period and was a new addition to the rebuilt and expanded temple. We know from later literary sources that it was not housed in the inner temple, but in the colonnades that surrounded it.

Under the temple, passages have been found that contain niches. It has been romantically suggested that these niches might once have been used to store scrolls from the library, most recently by Richard Miles in his, otherwise excellent, TV show Ancient Worlds. In fact, these niches appear to be part of a mausoleum, perhaps for mummified animals. In other locations, similar niches have been found to contain animal bones.

Of the destruction of the Serapeum in 391AD, archaeology confirms that it was only the temple within the precinct that was razed. The great colonnade remained standing for another 700 years before it was dismantled by Saladin to prove masonry to defend the city from crusaders. Thus, while the archaeology does not tell us what actually happened to the library, it does nothing to contradict the conclusion that it was not destroyed in 391AD as Edward Gibbon had supposed.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

History of Vaccines

A new (to me at least) website is The History of Vaccines (via Glenn Reynolds). They have an article on the history of anti-vaccination movements and I am delighted to say they do not repeat the canard that Pope Leo XII banned vaccines, something Humphrey thoroughly debunked. However, they do make the more plausible claim that "Some objectors, including the local clergy, believed that the [smallpox] vaccine was “unchristian” because it came from an animal", and they reference the following article in support:

Durbach N. "They might as well brand us: Working class resistance to compulsory vaccination in Victorian England." The Society for the Social History of Medicine. 2000; 13:45-62.

Now I'm in the final throes of my PhD and so don't have the time to follow-up on this reference. If anyone else does, I'd be fascinated to hear the evidence that Durbach offers. I should point out that I'm not particularly skeptical that this happened, since one can find "local clergy" who advocate just about any position. It seems odd, however, since 1) the New Testament specifically states that no animal is "unclean"; and 2) the smallpox vaccine came from cowpox, which in turn came from ... wait for it ... cows. Cows are considered "clean" animals in the Old Testament. So it's difficult to see how the smallpox vaccine could be considered "unchristian" or even "unjewish".

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum