Skip to main content

Quantum Drama - Jim Baggott and John Heilbron ***

On a first glance of the cover you might think that Jim Baggott and John Heilbron were brilliant Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein impersonators. In fact Baggott is an excellent popular science writer and Heilbron was an esteemed historian of science, both specialising in quantum physics. There's another way the cover is misleading - you might think this was an in-depth exploration of Bohr and Einstein's relationship. The topics they argued about certainly come into it, but instead this is detailed look at how quantum theory developed.

I've read a lot of books on quantum physics, but I've never come across one that goes into such painstaking detail of every step along the way, introducing the work of a good number of physicists who rarely make it into the public eye. These range from John von Neumann - well known but usually sidelined as a quantum physicist - to the likes of Oskar Klein and Hans Kramers. Similarly, Baggott and Heilbron go into many (many) steps along the way that rarely get mentioned. And even when we're dealing with something mainstream like the uncertainty principle or Schrödinger's equation, the approach is very different from the one we usually see in a popular science title, because we are told what was thought at the time, rather than seeing the development through the prism of a modern understanding.

So far so good. But there are two problems with this book if it's seen as a title for a general audience. Firstly, there is hardly any engagement with the protagonists. Yes we get names - lots of names. But there is very little context or exploration of them as people. The focus is very much on their scientific (and philosophical) theorising. Of itself, this isn't too bad, but the other problem is that the writing is very dry. It's ironic that at one point the authors reference Lewis Carroll (oddly, in a book that is very precise, they totally mess up the title: instead of 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' it's referenced as 'Alice in wonderland'). Before coming across this, I was genuinely reminded by the writing style of the scene in Alice where there's an attempt by a mouse to get characters dry by reading a very dull (dry) history passage. Quantum Drama sometimes has a similar feel to that parody passage.

Apart from occasional inexplicable bursts into CAPITALS, this feels like an academic history book with obscure scientific details thrown in. If the warning Stephen Hawking was given that every equation halves the numbers of readers, I'd probably be the only one. Admittedly the only mathematical workings tend to be simple algebra, but there's an awful lot of equations in places. And the explanation of the science lacks any approachability. I did honestly wonder if the academic Heilbron wrote most of the book before his death and Baggott just finished it off.

I think it's a brilliant book for historians of science, or for physicists from undergraduate level to professors who want to find out more about how quantum theory got to where it is. For the general reader, though, this really doesn't work. 

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

  1. Brian, thanks for the warning / challenge. It will take me until the end of time, or at least until the end of this Summer, to absorb Brian Greene's existential take on our universe. Quantum Drama sounds like the codex Librium that I'll need to wind down.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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 ...