Skip to main content

Quantum Space: Jim Baggott *****

There's no doubt that Jim Baggott is one of the best popular science writers currently active. He specialises in taking really difficult topics and giving a more in-depth look at them than most of his peers. The majority of the time he achieves with a fluid writing style that remains easily readable, though inevitably there are some aspects that are difficult for the readers to get their heads around - and this is certainly true of his latest title Quantum Space, which takes on loop quantum gravity.

As Baggott points out, you could easily think that string theory was the only game in town when it comes to the ultimate challenge in physics, finding a way to unify the currently incompatible general theory of relativity and quantum theory. Between them, these two behemoths of twentieth century physics underlie the vast bulk of physics very well - but they simply can't be put together. String theory (and its big brother M-theory, which as Baggott points out, is not actually a theory at all but simply a conjecture) has had much written about it. But the main alternative theory, loop quantum gravity has had far less coverage. As I mentioned in another review (and Baggott also picks this up), in one whole book on gravity, loop quantum gravity is only mentioning in an endnote. Yet in many ways, loop quantum gravity has a lot more going for it than string theory.

One major strand of Quantum Space is a biography of two key players in the field - Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli, both good writers for the general public in their own right, but neither has been able to come close to what Baggott does in trying to make the ideas of loop quantum gravity accessible at a deeper level than a summary, hand-waving description. It’s also the first complete and approachable account I’ve seen of how both approaches to a quantum theory of gravity were derived. The only downside of the way it's structured is that I think if you’re going to be comfortable with the level of detail Baggott gives, you probably don’t need the first 100 pages or so giving background on quantum theory and general relativity.

My only real concern apart from that unnecessary opening material, which makes the book a little too long for my tastes, is that there could have been more unpacking of how loop quantum gravity represents reality - the jump from the introduction of spin networks to anything resembling a theory that can be applied to a real world where things happen is overwhelming. I had to resort to the much valued advice of one of my supervisors at university who said 'Don't worry if it doesn't all make sense, just keep on with it and hopefully it will all come together.' It almost all did all come together, but I was left with a nagging doubt that I couldn't really grasp the foundation of the whole idea.

As well as coming out of reading this book with significantly more respect for Rovelli (whose popular science writing I find flowery and overrated), I feel that Baggott has done a huge favour for anyone who really wants to understand modern theoretical physics, giving a much better understanding of this fascinating attempt to deal with a central requirement to explain the workings of our universe. It's a triumph.
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

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book
Post a Comment
Read more

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T
Post a Comment
Read more

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more