Gary Zukav’s timeless, humorous, New York Times bestselling masterpiece, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, is arguably the most widely acclaimed. The Dancing. Wu Li Masters. An Overview of the New Physics. Gary Zukav. A BANTAM NEW AGE BOOK. BANTAM BOOKS. NEW YORK • TORONTO • LONDON. The most exciting intellectual adventure I’ve been on since reading Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.”—.
|Published (Last):||16 February 2013|
|PDF File Size:||12.75 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.78 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
A rather interesting book, but not a real easy read. In the interest of the required hyperbole book review demands: The “basis” of the Hilbert space is more or less analogous to the coordinate axes in ordinary three-dimensional space; we know from ordinary vector analysis that we can describe the same three-dimensional space using different coordinate axes that are rotated or translated relative to each other, without changing any physical predictions the individual coordinates we assign to events will be different, but the actual physical content of our theories will not change.
No idea can capture “truth” in the sense of that-which-is.
Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics (Perennial Classics)
They follow rules of their own. I had read this book in the 80s when I was a high school student -it was compulsory reading- and returned to it 30 years later, after it was written 40 years ago, and it concerns mostly about science discussed around years ago.
Not the whole of it Thermodynamics and Electromagnetism never interested mebut especially loved Mechanics.
He talks about S-matrix theory, which was known to have failed a number of tests by the ‘s, as though it were still viable, and the main reference work zukac cites on particle physics dates from Great introduction to physics for someone who has no idea how it oi to everyday life.
In such a fast-changing field, using information that much out of date, without any disclaimers, is certainly misleading, particularly when it gives a highly inaccurate view of the state of knowledge.
The Dancing Wu Li Masters
Perhaps someday a clever person will figure out a way to make the different philosophies make different testable predictions as John Bell, whom Zukav discusses in the book, figured out how to make the different views of Einstein and Bohr on “local realism” in quantum mechanics make different testable predictionsand then we can do the xukav and see.
I read Zukav’s book in the early 80s, and I wasn’t that impressed, though I had no idea that it was this zulav at odds with mainstream physics. I was in college at the time, and I borrowed a copy of Zukav’s book to see if Hofstadter’s zukkav seemed accurate. In any case, his discussion is certainly very much out of date as to progress in the field. He even writes in the introduction that he’s amazed and so pleased with how funny the book is, that it is, in fact, funnier than he is in real life.
His discussions of general relativity also aren’t as robust as Zukav or Hawking’s. A technician is a highly trained person whose job is to apply known dncing and principles.
The true difference between the scientist and the liberal artist is not that most scientists lack imagination; it is that, while both have imagination, the scientist’s imagination is constrained by the need to conform to the results of real experiments; the artist’s imagination is constrained only by the need to zuoav to the internal logic of his work of art.
These are the people who become interested in the liberal arts. I particularly liked the chapters related to Einstein’s theories of relativity.
The Dancing Wu Li Masters – Wikipedia
That’s quite a feat. So the fact maters collapsed wave functions can look “special” is really only an artifact of the particular basis we choose to look at them in.
Even the “technicians” of science have to have imagination–it can take just as much, if not more, to work out the implications of a new theory as it does to discover one. It is hard to express dancinb philosophy in a few simple sentences, but Zukav doesn’t do a bad job of summing up his view of it, along with his view of its major competitor, early in the book:. Finkelstein’s paper was indeed important in the field, but it could hardly be said to have been the first to “theorize” about black holes that name, incidentally, was coined by Wheeler in the late ‘s.
It is possible that the nasters he talked to were not as scrupulous as they should have been at distinguishing the established part of the new physics–the experimental results and the basic theory that explains them–from their particular philosophical views on why the basic theory works as well as it does.
Everyone understood sukav clearly that the non-inertial nature of the Earth as a reference frame was due to its rotation and its gravity, and those effects could be, and were, corrected for in order to verify Newton’s laws of motion.
As for physics becoming a branch of psychology, or psychology becoming a branch of physics, a simple look at the kinds of research going on in the two fields would make it plain that they are not likely to become unified any time soon.
“The Dancing Wu Li Masters”
I kept reading hungrily, savouring every single word, if there were equations, my joy would have have known no bounds! But don’t rewrite the history of physics to back up your case, it doesn’t work. But that was twenty years ago, so why am I writing about it now? Also hard to get into with a needy two-year-old, but I know life will only get increasingly busy day by day. Now coming to the very essence of both the theories – Quantum and Relativity, and their proponents, and their agreements ant their discords – everything is more fantastic than fiction.
It is true that there were still contrarians among physicists concerning these theories inand some of them are listed in Zukav’s Acknowledgments, so his sentiments about epicycles may come from talking to them; but here again, he is presenting, not the basic physics, but his own personal philosophy about the physics–or perhaps his personal opinion about how the consensus ought to have worked out.
The immediate vicinity of a freely falling body, such as a spacecraft in transit between, say, the Earth masterss the Moon, is such a local inertial frame, because locally–within the spaceship–the principle of inertia holds: May 05, Meghan rated it really liked daancing Shelves: This is an amazing book and amazing so, because it revitalized the science training within me!
What we perceive determines what we believe. I can even think of a few friends I can gift this book to! Mar 20, Robert rated it liked it. Science might finally grow up enough to explain to lay people what only mystics and yogis could experience – we might mazters evolve the language and the concepts to explain and understand the structure of the universe without experiencing it – we might know nirvana without feeling it.