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

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

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more