Skip to main content

Totally Random - Tanya Bub and Jeffrey Bub **

It's difficult to decide just where the problems start with Totally Random. It's an attempt to communicate the oddities of quantum entanglement using a comic book format. There has already been an attempt to do this for quantum theory in general - Mysteries of the Quantum Universe, which managed to both have a bit of a storyline and get in a fair amount of quantum physics. Unfortunately the format also got in the way - so much space was taken up by the pictures that the words simply didn't manage to get the message across. Doubly unfortunately, this is also true of Totally Random, with the added negatives that it has no discernible storyline and it's rarely even visually interesting.

 The attempt to explain entanglement suffers hugely because Tanya and Jeffrey Bub decided to use a set of analogies for quantum entanglement ('quoins', a kind of magic toaster device that entangles them, various strange devices to undertake other quantum operations) that don't so much help understand what's going on, as totally obscure what's supposed to be put across. It's a bit like trying to explain the rules of football using a box of kittens. It's far clearer if you get rid of the kittens and just explain the rules.

 Visually, the cartoon style varies considerably. There are quite a few pages that contain nothing more than a shaded background with a series of frames each having a line of text in it. It's just a dialogue where each character's words sit in a different frame - the comic format adds nothing to what is, often, a series of mutual insults, providing particularly 'you had to have been there' humour. My favourite parts of the visuals by a long way are the odd pages introducing a section where actual papers, such as the EPR paper are portrayed in realistic form. Those do look rather cool.

 Most of the key characters of the quantum story turn up in cartoon format. We meet Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli, Bohm, Einstein - plus one or two more tangential individuals such as Everett. There are a lot of 'insider jokes' in these sections, where, for example, Einstein produces in conversation many of his better lines on quantum theory from his letters to Max Born. Unfortunately, unless you know the topic already, these in-jokes will mean very little and produce strangely stilted dialogue.

 I think that summarises the real issue with Totally Random. It's very much an in-joke for insiders. It doesn't explain entanglement: to the general reader, it obscures it with a pile of baggage that you have to have been there to understand. And even then it can be hard work. I'm fairly confident in my understanding of entanglement - I have a physics degree and I've read lots about it - but there were pages here I struggled to follow.

 Sadly, the main feeling while reading Totally Random was tedium. With other graphic novel/comic presentations of non-fiction I've read, it has all been over far too quickly. Here I was thinking 'When will it end?' I was not inspired, but, rather, bored (or to sink to the level of the humour here, Bohred). It's a clever notion, but unfortunately the authors seem to be entirely the wrong people to make it work successfully.

Paperback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

 
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more