Skip to main content

Through Two Doors at Once - Anil Ananthaswamy *****

It's sometimes hard to imagine that there's anything new to say about the basics of quantum physics, yet Anil Ananthaswamy manages this in a twofold manner (appropriately, given the title). Through Two Doors at Once does so by using the double slit experiment as a constant reference point throughout the book, and by bringing in a number of the more modern variants on the experiment which rarely feature in popular accounts of quantum theory.

Strictly, the book should probably be called 'Through Two Doors at Once and Spooky Action at a Distance plus Things That Have a Similar Effect', as it uses both the double slit experiment and the EPR entanglement thought experiment, plus modern experiments which don't, for example, involve slits but rather beam splitters that are their logical equivalent - but I have to admit, that would be a clumsy title.

Ananthaswamy gives us a good overview of the development of quantum physics - sometimes quite summary - but by making repeated use of the double slit, going all the way back to Thomas Young, but also looking at the quantum specifics, he both helps the reader get a better feel for just why quantum physics can seem strange and also what the different interpretations, from Copenhagen to Many Worlds, tell us about what we can and can't know of what's happening inside the experiment.

The part of the book covering interpretations is perhaps slightly less effective than the rest, because, in the end, unless you are an enthusiast for a particular interpretation, the diversity of ideas tends to obscure, rather than help get a better understanding. (We still have to come back to Feynman's crushing '[Y]ou think I’m going to explain it to you so you can understand it? No, you’re not going to be able to understand it... You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. This is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.')

The best part of this section is the explanation of the Bohm/deBroglie interpretation where there is both a wave and a particle, though there is one minor problem here, as we are told that making a strong measurement in the Bohm model leaves particles where you don't expect them to be - but are not told why the strong measurement of the particle causing a scintillation on a screen does leave them where we expect them to be.

For me, the only real improvement would have been to put a bit more character into the historical context: it's rather dry and summary. So, for example, we are not told about Einstein's dismissive 'Ist mir Wurst' remark about EPR's confusing use of two measurements. Another example: John Wheeler is described as coining the term 'black hole', rather than giving us the more interesting actual story. There's enough to get the point, but it could have been made more engaging.

Overall, though, Anathanswamy cleverly comes at quantum physics from a different direction, and as a result, adds to the picture we get from most popular titles. We really get into why the double slit plus entanglement are often described as the central mysteries of quantum theory, and though they can still send the brain spinning, there's the best description of many of the more recent experiments I've seen - useful as they can seem a little pointless without this kind of in-depth picture. An excellent addition to the 'Quantum physics for the rest of us' shelf.

Hardback:  

 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

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more

When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows: Steven Pinker *****

In the past I've found Steven Pinker's books hypnotic - I drift along enjoying the words and feeling I'm getting something deep from it without anything much sinking in. This one was different - it was sometimes a little harder to get your head around the underlying concept, descending as it tends to into infinite regression, but overall I did feel I'd gained a lot.  Pinker's focus here is 'common knowledge' which is when not only do we both/all know something, but we know that the other(s) know as well and the implications this has for human interactions. One entertaining thing to emerge from this is the ability to get into infinite loops of the 'I know that you know that I know that...' variety. Although we aren't mentally equipped to deal with more than a handful of iterations, we are told that a simple but limited interaction like a text exchange strictly needs the full infinite set to be definitive. For example, if you and a friend are tryin...
Post a Comment
Read more