Skip to main content

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 object: no matter how wide the swing of a pendulum, the time it takes to complete each arc remains exactly the same.' Unfortunately this doesn't apply however wide the swing - making science accessible is no excuse for inaccuracy.

The big problem was that as a reader I found the structure to be baffling, jumping around between historical context and complex modern physics concepts which are mentioned without then being explained in any way. I can only imagine someone without a science background coming away from it baffled. Physics professors often need help to avoid writing text that is hard to comprehend, but unfortunately Céline Broeckaert isn't a science writer and doesn't seem to realise this. This means there was no one to point out that a sentence like  ‘The relationship arises because the laws of physics are symmetrical (invariant) under Galilean transformations’ needs more unpacking than it gets in the book.

Another issue is that obvious questions a general reader might asked get overlooked. For instance we are told (for some reason) that a goldfish looking at the water in its bowl at the molecular level ‘would see ‘everything looks the same. Why? The positions of the water molecule are so random that they look identical no matter the angle from which you look.’ Except water molecules have a distinctive shape that does not look the same whatever angle you look at them from. I know what the authors were getting at - but this is terrible way to say it. 

This isn’t helped by the heavy-handed ‘quirkiness’ that sometimes makes it feel like the writing is aimed at children. Take, for instance, ‘One fine day Sir William Rowan Hamilton fell in love. But not just in love, oh no. He fell in love as only an astronomer could: to the moon and back.’ Yet within a page, the book is introducing eigenfrequencies. This is without really saying what they are or how they are used - not surprisingly since no concepts of quantum physics have been introduced at this point in the narrative.

The title is perhaps more literal than the authors intended - certainly no one will understand quantum physics after reading this book. I'm assuming the title is based on the great Richard Feynman's words in QED 'You think I’m going to explain [quantum physics] to you so you can understand it? No, you’re not going to be able to understand it. Why, then, am I going to bother you with all this? Why are you going to sit here all this time, when you won’t be able to understand what I am going to say? It is my task to persuade you not to turn away because you don’t understand it. You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. This is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.' Yet Feynman (who only gets a passing mention) made his science communication extremely accessible. This claims to be 'an accessible book on quantum physics.' It is not.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more