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

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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