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

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

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...