Skip to main content

The One - Heinrich Päs ****

At first glance this book has all the hallmarks of an attempt to tie quantum woo into ancient philosophical and religious beliefs, where some vague resemblance between an ancient observation about, say, 'the oneness of everything' and some aspect of quantum physics is given as evidence of the great wisdom of the ancients. In practice, if you make vague enough statements they can be said to prefigure anything - and have no connection to modern science. Thankfully, though, that's not what much of Heinrich Päs's book is about.

What Päs sets out to show is that the reason that quantum physics can seem strange, if not downright weird, is that we are looking at things from the wrong direction. Quantum physics is hugely successful at practical stuff - predicting what will happen to enable successful design of, for example, electronics, but doesn't have a big picture: there is no satisfactory explanation of what's going on 'under the hood'. Päs suggests this is because we're looking at it the wrong way - it is impossible, he suggests, to truly understand what's really happening from the reductive viewpoint of particles and their interaction, we need start from a holistic view of the universe because everything interacts with everything else.

There's some excellent material in here, including a really good historical summary of the way that quantum physics has managed to be hugely successful while at the same time physicists have papered over the cracks of what is really happening - what's sometimes referred to as 'shut up and calculate'. There's no doubt that most of the science here is, while speculative, based on solid physics. (This is as opposed to the theology, for example, where Päs conjures up a totally fictional and rather hilarious battle between his ‘monism’ view of quantum mechanics and monotheistic religions, inevitably deploying Giordano Bruno.)

What's less sure, though, is whether or not this speculation is anything more than vaguely interesting. Päs suggests that the way to get to what's really happening is to start from the universe as a whole. This can be both technically true and practically useless. For example, you might argue the only way to fundamentally understand why you decided to have croissants for breakfast was to gather data on every single one of the 1027 atoms in your body. This may in principle be true, but in practice is totally useless as we both can't collect the data and can't do anything with it in a useful way. Similarly, we might get a better understanding of what is really happening when two quantum particles interact by studying the universe as a whole - but practically speaking it won't tell us anything.

It's also true that the book doesn't entirely avoid falling into the ancient wisdom trap. For example, we read 'as startling as it is, as long as fifty centuries ago the ancient Egyptians knew something very similar to entanglement'. That's on a par with Erich von Daniken in Chariots of the Gods saying that the book of Ezekiel in the Bible describes a spaceship. No - it's retrofitting a vague imagining from the past to a unlinked modern scientific idea and has no value.

As long as you can resist groaning at these references to ancient parallels, there's indubitably interesting content here, which is why I've given it four stars. However, despite the tag line calling this the 'future of physics', the monism concept at its heart is ascientific - it's highly unlikely it will ever be experimentally provable or have any meaningful impact on physical theory.  I am far more interested in popular science that describes theory that links to experiment and has practical value, but as an exploration of one of the less painful aspects of such speculation, this still makes for an interesting read.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

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...