Skip to main content

Quantum Sense and Nonsense - Jean Bricmont ****

You wait years for a book on the interpretation of quantum physics, then two come along within a couple of months of each other. However, while both Quantum Sense and Nonsense and Philip Ball's Beyond Weird are aimed at a popular science audience (or popular sience as the back cover unfortunately categorises Jean Bricmont's book), they take a very line different. Without resorting to textbook levels of complexity, Quantum Sense and Nonsense goes into the quantum physics in considerably more depth, though at the cost of losing some readability.

 Although Bricmont explains various quantum bits and pieces, such as the wave function, along the way, his focus throughout is on three key issues that need to be dealt with in getting an understanding of what the theory's really doing. These are the role of the observer, whether or not there is determinism (as opposed to true randomness) and whether or not locality holds - the alternative being what Einstein referred to as 'spooky action at a distance.'

 This is also effectively a book in three acts. The first gives us background to what the problem with interpretation of quantum physics is, goes through the Copenhagen interpretation, and introduces the oddity of the two slit experiment. This is reasonably readable. There's then a centre section that fills in a lot of detail, which is harder going. Finally, there's the most approachable part in the last two chapters where Bricmont gives us a 'revised history' of quantum physics and considers its cultural impact.

 What was particularly refreshing about this book is that it's the first I've ever read for a popular audience that properly explains the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. It has to do this, as Bricmont is a relative rarity amongst physicists in being fully aware of it and supportive of it. He makes a convincing case that the interpretation was largely ignored because of Bohm's political views (he was effectively forced to leave the US for having communist leanings), and makes more sense than it is usually considered to. 

 There were a couple of examples where Bricmont seemed to verge on cherry picking to strengthen the pro-Bohm argument. He is very critical of those who try to combine quantum physics with Eastern mystical philosophy, yet plays down the fact that Bohm also did this (which was probably as much why his interpretation was ignored as his politics). More significantly, the book paints a picture of the Copenhagen interpretation in an early form where the role of the observer and measurement is very much about experiments, rather than interaction of quantum objects with the environment. If you are familiar with this aspect of quantum interpretation it seemed significant that the word 'decoherence' only appears once, and that was in a footnote.

 Although it's not always the most reader-friendly text (not helped by the author repeatedly referring to himself in the plural), I would recommend this title if you want to get a distinctly different picture of quantum physics and an understanding of why, even after 80-90 years, physicists may be happy with the results of the calculations, but still can't agree on what it all really means.

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

Who Invented the Computer? – Ian Watson

Ian Watson is the author of  The Universal Machine  and featured in a recent  Four Way Interview . Saturday June 23 2012 was the centenary of the birth of Alan Turing, the troubled genius who invented the modern computer. Why though do so few people recognize his name and his great achievements? In 1936 English mathematician Alan Turing, published a paper,  On Computable Numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem . This became the foundation of computing. In it Turing presented a theoretical machine that could solve any problem that could be described by instructions encoded on a paper tape. A Turing Machine could calculate square roots, whilst another might solve Sudoku puzzles. Turing demonstrated you could construct a single  Universal Machine  that could simulate any Turing Machine. One machine solving any problem for which a program could be written – sound familiar? He’d invented the computer. Then,  computers  were peop...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Star Book – Peter Grego ****

This attractive landscape format book combines an excellent introduction to the stars and basic astronomy with a set of star maps, plus in depth looks at some of the stars featured, with a  bonus section on the solar system. Amazon says it’s a hardback, but in fact it’s a paperback with a rather ingenious cover – you can’t tell from the photo, but the words ‘The Star Book’ are punched through as a series of holes that show the white paper of the next page beneath. Like many astronomy/space books, the cover lacks shelf appeal because it is mostly black, but at least there is some original thought here. Unlike many books in this format which tend to concentrate on the pictures, there is a good deal of excellent text by Peter Grego, so there was no feeling that you were only getting the star maps and star ‘biographies’, something these days much more suited to an iPad or smartphone app. Instead, the opening 30 or so pages give a very good introduction that would be valuable to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ignorance: How it drives science – Stuart Firestein *****

This is a delightful little book that really gets you thinking. I stress the ‘little’ part not as a negative, but as a good thing. There is nothing worse than fat, bloated popular science books where the author feels they have to get 120,000 words to be taken seriously. This is the sort of book that can be read in a couple of hours – but you will get so much more out of it than one of those tedious doorstops. The premise underlying the book is in once sense extremely simple, yet is fundamental to an understanding of what science is and what scientists do. And it is an understanding that is totally at odds with the typical way science is portrayed both in university lectures and popular science books. As Stuart Firestein points out, what is important is not the facts, but rather the area of ignorance. The interesting part and the fundamental heart of science is not about what we know, but about what we don’t know and where we want to look next. Take this lovely quote: ‘Working ...
Post a Comment
Read more