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

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