Skip to main content

Quantum Reality - Jim Baggott ****

At one time it was popular amongst some physicists to be extremely critical of philosophy. For example, in their book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow aimed to answer a series of what have long been seen as philosophical (such as 'Why are we here?', 'What is the nature of reality?' and 'Did the universe need a creator?') by ignoring philosophy and taking a purely scientific viewpoint. Philosophy, those authors assured us, like religion, was now dead.

I'm afraid Hawking and Mlodinow failed to convince, which is why it's perfectly reasonable for Jim Baggott to come up with a book on a physics topic, what 'lies beneath' quantum theory, and, along the way, to spend a fair amount of the book introducing philosophical concepts put across by philosophers.

Quantum physics is arguably unique amongst the hard sciences in having a range of interpretations that run from 'We don't know what is happening and never will' (typified in the response 'Shut up and calculate') all the way through to detailed interpretations which do away with some of the problems we face in the traditional approach, at the cost of introducing a whole new series of problems, such as the extravagant requirement for the 'many worlds' interpretation that there are vast numbers of parallel universes.

Baggott is a master of taking complex concepts and making them surprisingly accessible. For much of what's difficult and confusing about quantum physics interpretations he succeeds in doing this admirably. For example, he gives the first explanation I've ever read of one of the more philosophical interpretations of quantum theory, quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, which I found in the slightest bit comprehensible. For me, the book was worth reading for that alone.

I also found that Baggott gave fascinating details on the philosophical side I was unaware of, from the philosophers of science like Karl Popper to the hardcore philosophers behind some of the concepts required to understand quantum interpretations, such as Immanuel Kant. Personally, I've never been hugely bothered about philosophy, but it is simply impossible to really dig into these interpretations without taking philosophy on board, so this was great.

What I thought was a little less accessible was the descriptions of quantum phenomena. These were illustrated with little pictograms which I found hard to follow, particularly as the print was so small I couldn't read the text. Sometimes, in the effort to avoid getting too technical - for example in describing what was meant by an operator and an expectation value - there was insufficient detail to get your head around the concept. And I did find a metaphor repeatedly used involving an island of metaphysical reality, the sea of representation, the ship of science and the land of empirical reality (with Scylla and Charybdis thrown in, which I can't really remember what they were intended to be) more confusing than helpful. But these are small details that didn't prevent the book being fascinating.

Throughout, Baggott is approachable and often has a wonderful turn of phrase (I loved, for example, the description of Paul Feyerabend as 'a Loki among philosophers of science'). In the end, a lot of the tension in the book is between realist interpretations ('There is something underneath that we could in principle uncover') and anti-realist ('It is impossible to ever discover a reality beneath - shut up and calculate'). As someone who feels more comfortable in the anti-realist camp, I couldn't agree with Baggott's assessment that realist interpretations are 'more palatable' - I think it's useful to read Philip Ball's Beyond Weird as well for a contrast - but I very much enjoyed getting a better background on the different possibilities.

Hardback:    
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

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 ...

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). ...

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 â€˜Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...